Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Handgun Discussion
Had to Use My Gun
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="gerhard1" data-source="post: 1542084" data-attributes="member: 5391"><p>Usually, if a person is very, very good at something, they don't feel the need to try and tear others down. And if someone does think that they must try and belittle others, it usually indicates that they are not very good at the activity in question.</p><p>I am sure that some of us know a few martial artists, black belts in such things as karate and Tae kwon do (sp?). You rarely hear them brag on their skill, and they don't go about telling others that they suck either. They dont thump their chests and tell the world 'Look at me and see what a badass I am', especially they don't brag about how they have never lost a fight. Because almost everyone loses fights (or misses a shot) and contrary to assertions made by the one gentleman in this thread, it doesn't mean that if a person doesn't do well in one particular instance, (me vs. the skunk) that they are, by definiton, poor marksmen.</p><p>My experience with braggarts is that they are usually very small-minded people who are better at shooting off their mouths, or in this case their keyboards, than they are their guns.</p><p>Now, I'd like to address the issue of bullseye shooting and its' relevance to my situation, in particular whether or not I should be carrying due to my alleged poor marksmanship.</p><p>Prior to the 1950's, almost all US police departments used the standard bullseye course for qualification. Their scores were sometimes very impressive. But a lot of the same officers who did so well on the bullseye course, when they were in actual combat, did not do well at all. The departments finally figured out that while bulllseye target shooting might be a good skill for an officer to have, its' relevance to the reality of combat was limited. When this hit home, they changed their qualification course to PPC and other shooting disciplines, and the results were much better for the officers on the streets. Jeff Cooper has said that combat shooters, while they might be less accurate than bullseye shooters, typically strike a much heavier blow and they strike it much much quicker. In other words, it makes no real difference to the outcome of the fight if you are aiming for the X-ring, but instead hit the ten-ring. Your adversary will be just as dead. This is not to say that precision accuracy is of no benefit, but it is not the be-all and end-all that some seem to think.</p><p>The question needs to be addressed: which person stands a better chance in a fight: one who takes thirty seconds and puts the bullet very precisely in the center of the X-ring at 25 yards or the person who can place the shot in the 8-ring but takes only one to two seconds to do so at five to seven yards? To me at least, the answer is obvious.</p><p>I am not knocking bullseye target shooting. But as the late Chic Gaylord has said "Target shooting has the same relationship to combat shootng that judo has to ballet."</p><p>In short, comparing bullseye and practical (combat) shooting are about like comparing apples and oranges. They are not the same: one demads great speed and moderate accuracy and the the other reqires precision accuracy but has much more generous time limits. </p><p>Using this gentleman's logic then, 95% of law enforcement should put their guns away 'before they hurt somebody'. </p><p>Like I say, apples and oranges.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="gerhard1, post: 1542084, member: 5391"] Usually, if a person is very, very good at something, they don't feel the need to try and tear others down. And if someone does think that they must try and belittle others, it usually indicates that they are not very good at the activity in question. I am sure that some of us know a few martial artists, black belts in such things as karate and Tae kwon do (sp?). You rarely hear them brag on their skill, and they don't go about telling others that they suck either. They dont thump their chests and tell the world 'Look at me and see what a badass I am', especially they don't brag about how they have never lost a fight. Because almost everyone loses fights (or misses a shot) and contrary to assertions made by the one gentleman in this thread, it doesn't mean that if a person doesn't do well in one particular instance, (me vs. the skunk) that they are, by definiton, poor marksmen. My experience with braggarts is that they are usually very small-minded people who are better at shooting off their mouths, or in this case their keyboards, than they are their guns. Now, I'd like to address the issue of bullseye shooting and its' relevance to my situation, in particular whether or not I should be carrying due to my alleged poor marksmanship. Prior to the 1950's, almost all US police departments used the standard bullseye course for qualification. Their scores were sometimes very impressive. But a lot of the same officers who did so well on the bullseye course, when they were in actual combat, did not do well at all. The departments finally figured out that while bulllseye target shooting might be a good skill for an officer to have, its' relevance to the reality of combat was limited. When this hit home, they changed their qualification course to PPC and other shooting disciplines, and the results were much better for the officers on the streets. Jeff Cooper has said that combat shooters, while they might be less accurate than bullseye shooters, typically strike a much heavier blow and they strike it much much quicker. In other words, it makes no real difference to the outcome of the fight if you are aiming for the X-ring, but instead hit the ten-ring. Your adversary will be just as dead. This is not to say that precision accuracy is of no benefit, but it is not the be-all and end-all that some seem to think. The question needs to be addressed: which person stands a better chance in a fight: one who takes thirty seconds and puts the bullet very precisely in the center of the X-ring at 25 yards or the person who can place the shot in the 8-ring but takes only one to two seconds to do so at five to seven yards? To me at least, the answer is obvious. I am not knocking bullseye target shooting. But as the late Chic Gaylord has said "Target shooting has the same relationship to combat shootng that judo has to ballet." In short, comparing bullseye and practical (combat) shooting are about like comparing apples and oranges. They are not the same: one demads great speed and moderate accuracy and the the other reqires precision accuracy but has much more generous time limits. Using this gentleman's logic then, 95% of law enforcement should put their guns away 'before they hurt somebody'. Like I say, apples and oranges. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Handgun Discussion
Had to Use My Gun
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom