Sharp as a Marble - Stick. Hornet’s nest

<< I may draw pretty pictures from time to time | Home | You know who’s awesome? >>

Stick. Hornet’s nest

Guns. Lots of Guns.

Very little assembly required.

The congregation of the Church of John Moses Browning will not be pleased.

posted @ 12/28/2010 9:19:05 AM

Incoming Links

Reactions About The Suckiness or Non-Suckiness of the 1911 | Yankee Gun Nuts on 12/30/2010 5:36:04 PM

Comments

Speakertweaker says:

on 12/28/2010 9:52:28 AM

From the linked post:

I am not surprised that the 1911 is out of place in today’s world, and you shouldn’t be surprised either. What other 100-year old design is still in daily use?

I have to assume that the question there is very specific; as in, no military applications or any ammunition itself. That's a pretty open-ended question when discussing what is arguably the crown-jewel of the nearly 30 gun patents of JMB.

Robb Allen says:

on 12/28/2010 9:58:59 AM

I'm not passing judgment one way or another. I'm simply pointing to an argument and watching the feathers fly.

Personally, I like the 1911 platform but wouldn't carry it for SD because I like other options better. I wouldn't attempt to dissuade anyone from carrying it though.

To each his own.

Joel says:

on 12/28/2010 10:28:05 AM

I do get a kick out of all the "Greatest EVAR/It Sucks" dichotomy. I carry a 1911 daily, and the only complaint I can see to firmly disagree with in the post is "impossible to conceal," which is simply not true. In fact, after being away from shooting for several years, one of the surprises I had to deal with in researching more recent handgun designs was how chunky the pistols had gotten while I was gone. By comparison with some of them, Ol' Slabsides is positively svelte. But that doesn't mean it hasn't been superseded by better and more reliable designs, because it has. Everything else is just sentiment. Mine goes bang reliably, so I carry it. But I had to get it smithed out of the box, which is absurd, and I carry spare parts in my range bag because the extractor breaks from time to time, which is also absurd. Face facts, traditionalists: The newer designs really are superior.

But it's fun to see how the old arguments still have legs. Next up, .45 vs 9mm! Be there!

Sure, it's a dinosaur. If I were starting out now, I'd probably carry a Glock. But Browning's Baby fits my hand, because I'm a dinosaur too!

RobertM says:

on 12/28/2010 10:41:59 AM

Meh. The 1911 doesn't work for him. Good that he's realized that. Too bad he has not realized the simple truth that what works for him, or doesn't, will not be true of everyone else.

Larry Corriea wrote that same post...about HKs. I'm sure there is one about Glocks out there somewhere.

aeronathan says:

on 12/28/2010 11:02:20 AM

"What other 100-year old design is still in daily use?"

Ma Deuce still gets daily exercise eliminating the enemies of the US. Other than that I can't think of any....

Gunnutmegger says:

on 12/28/2010 11:20:20 AM

LOL. The 1911's problem is that there is no such thing. There are hundreds of variations on the design: ramped barrels, external extractors, beavertails, flared ports, etc. What is a "real" 1911?

And, then there's the problem of dozens of brands of 1911s available for sale, some put together by competent people, most not. And there's many tiers of guns from each manufacturer.

The consumer is faced with a confusing assortment of features, brands and models to choose from. And many of them won't function without being worked on. Why waste time & money on that hassle when there are reliable .45s of other designs available?

.45 vs. 9mm is a matter of physics, so I wouldn't try to make that case. What is "enough gun" would be a different argument though. (I think 9mm is enough, but I don't mind overkill either)

Aero, the M2 is prone to jamming when subjected to lateral G-forces, like when it was used as the armament for propeller-driven fighters. It is also hard to change the barrel (which needs to be done to keep a machinegun working during long battles). The army is in the process of deploying a fix for the barrel-change issue now. But they also have several contracts out to find a replacement for the M2. Which isn't surprising since the design is so old.

This debate has been more fun than a rollercoaster!

www.yankeegunnuts.com

markofafreeman says:

on 12/28/2010 11:53:01 AM

Tsk tsk. And of all times to put out a post like this, you choose to do this as it's 100 year anniversary approaches. Heretic. May you burn in inside the chamber of a Glock.

;-)

All fun aside, I must take issue with this statement from your comment above:

The consumer is faced with a confusing assortment of features, brands and models to choose from.

So...you're saying all these choices are a bad thing? I understand and won't argue with the follow-up statements, but, seriously. Since when are options to suite the shooter a bad thing?

Gunnutmegger says:

on 12/28/2010 12:57:44 PM

That's the best part. I get accused of being a Glockhead, when in fact I prefer a wheelgun. I own some Glocks, however.

In theory, more choice is always good. In practice, it can be worse for the consumer.

I am a firm believer in the KISS principle. Think of all the new 1911s on the market. How many models will be reliable right out of the box, with any ammo the consumer loads them with?

The specific numbers aren't needed; the answer is "not enough of them". And even 1911 fans know that (more about that coming soon on my blog, with #s to back it up!).

The consumer is ill-served by purchasing an unreliable product that needs extra parts or gunsmithing to make it work. Somehow, just by accident or coincidence I'm sure, it costs double or triple the price of a Glock/M&P/XD/SiG/Ruger to get a reliable 1911 for self-defense.

More hassles, more money, less reliability...Sure, I like to support the local business and the little guy, but flushing money down the 1911 toilet does not compute to this Yankee.

markofafreeman says:

on 12/28/2010 1:03:23 PM

Well, the Glock comment was in the just-for-antagonistic-fun part of my post.

However, wheel guns?! Now your talkin'! I was just saying to knitebane that there's something about carrying a revolver. Point and click interface, man. Couldn't be simpler. No jams...and when it does jam, you'll need a gunsmith to unjam it. ;-)

markofafreeman says:

on 12/28/2010 1:07:34 PM

And for clarification (realizing it could be taken a couple of ways), I wasn't dissing wheel guns. Quite the opposite, as matter of fact.

Exurbankevin says:

on 12/28/2010 1:18:18 PM

Point and click interface, man. Couldn't be simpler.

It'd be interesting to see what would happen if a 1st-rate industrial design studio took on re-designing the defensive handgun, and what affect that may have on firearms training.

What happens in ANY beginning firearms class? 2 hours of "Here's how your gun works and how you should use it". Would iPods be popular if they took two hours of classroom time to learn? What about a cell phone (arguably as important to self-protection as a firearm)?

What product (ANY product) has the same design and interface as it did 100 years ago? Are we to believe, then, that JMB got it right for all time, forever and ever, Amen with the 1911?

I don't think so.

Robb Allen says:

on 12/28/2010 1:27:38 PM

Ah, now this argument I shall jump into readily.

I disagree about the iPod / cellphone being easy to use. You know how to use it because you've already spent years learning how to use phones. And I would bet that most people can't get the most of out their phones because they don't realize there are 100s of settings they can tweak to make it work even better for them.

As for the gun, well it's pretty simple. You have a tube, sealed at one end, and the other end has to point in the direction you wish the projectile to go. Generally, your target is within your field of view, forward of you. I cannot imagine anything more natural than pointing at your target, something babies can instinctively do (Note - I am NOT saying you should give babies firearms. It's a waste of ammo and teething marks can ruin the firearm's finish).

However, you have opened up a really good question. I may make a post about it.

Exurbankevin says:

on 12/28/2010 1:39:56 PM

I disagree about the iPod / cellphone being easy to use. You know how to use it because you've already spent years learning how to use phones.

True for a phone, not true for the iPod. Prior to the iPod, the paradigm for the MP3 player was the portable CD player or Walkman. It took someone like Jonathan Ives to look at things and design an MP3 player to be an MP3 player and not just a digital Walkman (see also Richard Dyson with vacuum cleaners).

Is that the case with pistols? Don't know, no one are really tried to look at a defensive firearm with truly fresh eyes in quite a while, probably since Glocks were introduced, and that was pulled off by someone outside of the industry: Everyone else was too close to the problem to see that there might be a problem in the first place, because "hey, it works for me!" was the order of the day.

Exurbankevin says:

on 12/28/2010 1:44:40 PM

Memo to self: Type, proofread, post in that order. There are times when I doubt that English is really my first language...

RWC says:

on 12/28/2010 2:01:11 PM

Robb must have got a Kitchenaid mixer for Christmas to stir up this sh*t :-P

that/this should be a fun thread

Exurbankevin says:

on 12/28/2010 2:02:55 PM

And two more things while the OCD portion of my brain is resting on this matter... :)

1. Phones have changed a lot in the past 100 years. If you transplanted someone from 1911 to today and told them to place a call, they probably couldn't even find the phone, and when they did, they'd pick it up and say "Operator, get me Pennsylvania 6-5000" or similar. Heck, my 85 year old mother in law still can't get used to "Talk" and "End" buttons. Now, hand a person who used a 1911 in 1991 and hand them a 1911 of today. Apart from the materials it's made from, it'd work just the same.

2. What effect would a gun designed from the ground up for novices have on training? How much time could be spent on teaching awareness and cover and after-action conduct rather than teaching "This is the bang switch and here's how you use it" ?

Don't know. We haven't had a gun like that for a long time, and the last time we did, it sucked big-time.

1911Man says:

on 12/28/2010 2:08:38 PM

Moniker notwithstanding, I only own one 1911, a Kimber UltraCDP that I bought in 1998 or so. It has 20k+ rounds through it, the barrel is starting to show some wear, and the frame hole where the slide pivot mounts is staaaarting to oval a tiny bit. It never doesn't go bang. I've never had a single magazine fail to work, although I admit I threw away whatever came with the gun and only use Wilson Combat mags. I've only ever found ONE bullet that wouldn't feed super reliably - a hand-loaded Speer or Sierra SWC - which I keep in the rotation for malf drills. Everything else runs like milk and honey. I've never broken an extractor. It needs new night sights, as the old ones have lost most of their radioactive goodness. The gun is far, far easier to conceal than any of my Glocks or Sigs, other than my front pocket P238 (which one might argue sorta counts as a 1911, I suppose).

If I'm a "victim of marketing hype", then all those zillions of 1911 companies should fire their marketing departments, because only ONE company made $900 off me 12 years ago.

I don't shoot IPSC or IPDA or IPalot. Boring and contrived.

The only gunsmithing my 1911 has ever had was when I installed a Crimson Trace grip I won, and one time I deradiused an external piece (with a Dremel!!) that was giving my thumb bone a hot spot.

Two single-stack mags ride in my back pocket behind my wallet all day.

I took Col. Cooper's final 250C class at Gunsite. I found him to be insightful, analytical, and intellectual. He was pretty clear and up-front about his very modest amount of real-world defensive handgunning - a modest amount at best - and I never got the idea he was pretending to be nor have done something more. If number of men shot were a valid measure of anything, we'd all be taking classes from random inner city gang bangers whose most complex thought on any given day is how they can "get paid".

I fail to see that there is any valid point made in the referenced post. Nothing in it is offensive, but neither is anything particularly useful or insightful. It appears simply to be an emotion-driven set of ideas. Emotions are fine, but I rarely use 'em to pick my sidearms.

That is all.

mariner says:

on 12/28/2010 5:35:14 PM

Exurban Kevin,

It'd be interesting to see what would happen if a 1st-rate industrial design studio took on re-designing the defensive handgun, and what affect that may have on firearms training.

We've already seen what would happen. It's called "GLOCK".

Gunnutmegger says:

on 12/28/2010 8:19:11 PM

1911man, I am glad that you managed to find a working 1911.

If number of men shot were a valid measure of anything

When you teach a class on gunfighting, it seems only reasonable to have some experience in using guns in dangerous situations. Cooper never established any bona fides for that, did he?

It's like getting marital advice from a Catholic priest (who cannot marry and are supposed to remain celibate, in case a reader is not aware of it).

I fail to see that there is any valid point made in the referenced post. Nothing in it is offensive, but neither is anything particularly useful or insightful. It appears simply to be an emotion-driven set of ideas. Emotions are fine, but I rarely use 'em to pick my sidearms.

Emotions have nothing to do with the matter. If my words help one shooter avoid the money pit that is the 1911, I am content with that.

Tam says:

on 12/29/2010 8:44:59 AM

It's like getting marital advice from a Catholic priest...

Or gunfighting advice from Mas Ayoob?

Who have you taken classes from, if you don't mind my asking? I mean, while we're on the topic of bona fides...

Gunnutmegger says:

on 12/29/2010 10:11:50 AM

LOL

Or gunfighting advice from Mas Ayoob?

How many felony stops did Jeff Cooper execute? How many suspects did he arrest at gunpoint? There was no external risk involved in Jeff Cooper's experience with guns beyond the chance of an accident.

Anyone who has actually had to draw a gun and point it at another person knows that elaborate training evaporates when the adrenaline hits your bloodstream. But that's only my direct personal experience talking. Perhaps you have heard something different from some guy at some class?

And, while you and some others have conveniently "forgotten", I also mentioned Jim Cirillo as an authority. Golly, I wonder why you haven't been pissing in his cornflakes? Is it because his qualifications do not fit your narrative?

http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0873648773/ref=s9_asin_title_1/105-6640403-9507640?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=1WZQ0JFYC9YRKCHY2P9A&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=288448401&pf_rd_i=507846

Who have you taken classes from, if you don't mind my asking? I mean, while we're on the topic of bona fides...

So now you want to have a metaphorical dick-measuring contest, to see whose teacher can beat up the other person's teacher?

As the target consumer for this type of training, my bona fides are as relevant as yours (more complete answer farther down).

If someone wants to pay through the nose to be lectured by a REMF, that is their perogative. I think the saying goes "a fool and his money are soon parted". Which gun blog was it that posted all of those videos of "accredited" firearm trainers displaying unsafe techniques? Any idiot can take a class and proclaim themselves to be an instructor.

Personally I prefer to get solid, proven information and practice it regularly while introducing variables. Like the book I linked above. Or works by Applegate and Fairbairn. People with relevant experience.

To address your question: I have never paid money for a gun class. Why should I take a class? I already have the basics; I was taught marksmanship by combat veterans who qualified as Expert or better with their duty weapons, and the lessons stayed learned. I hit what I aim at.

And the combat techniques from the sources I cited above are more valid than anything I can learn from some range rat. Have you ever heard the expression "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach"?

While I would love to be able to drop everything at a moment's notice and flit around the world throwing money at shooting instructors and comparing certificates, I have a career and family obligations to take care of first.

When I see a class near me, taught by someone who has documented relevant experience, and I have time in my schedule, sure, I'll fork over some cash. Until then, I guess I'll just stick with the stuff that has worked for people that know. Maybe I am just a cheapskate yankee who's a stickler for getting my money's worth, or it might be a gender thing.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/05/when-women-take-classes-in-tennis-wine.html

weambulance says:

on 12/29/2010 11:58:34 AM

Having been in combat only means that you've been in combat. Having been in a gunfight just means you got shot at. Surviving a two way range doesn't mean some sooper secrit knowledge got implanted in your head, dude. Or if it does, I'm still waiting for mine to show up.

I know dozens of people who have seen much more combat than Jeff Cooper ever did. How many of them are more knowledgeable than he was on the subject of civilian handgun training? I'm going to say... none.

What you've offered as your training base is pretty unimpressive to me. It's pretty easy to qualify expert, and the "combat techniques" your vet buddies were taught could be great or could be completely worthless. Mostly, military training is mediocre by the standards of good civilian trainers, and doesn't translate well to civilian situations.

Kevin says:

on 12/29/2010 11:59:41 AM

So let met get this straight. You've never actually taken a class from ANYONE and feel that you are somehow mystically able to criticize classes that you have never taken that are taught by people that you have never met because they can't teach you anything you don't already know?

Gunnutmegger says:

on 12/29/2010 1:10:31 PM

Wow, you guys really don't like change, do you?

Having been in combat only means that you've been in combat. Having been in a gunfight just means you got shot at. Surviving a two way range doesn't mean some sooper secrit knowledge got implanted in your head, dude.

And spending all of your time on a range with measured distances, timed courses of fire with scheduled reloads and fancy little jam-clearance drills puts the "sooper secrit knowledge" in people's heads?

When I want to know what techniques will keep me alive in a gunfight, I will listen to people who have been in situations with real risk, not range rats with a sash full of merit badges.

I know dozens of people who have seen much more combat than Jeff Cooper ever did.

Technically, that sample pool would be every person who has ever been in combat or a gunfight.

How many of them are more knowledgeable than he was on the subject of civilian handgun training? I'm going to say... none.

So, to use your logic, if I have not flown on the Space Shuttle, the Space Shuttle cannot exist? It's not my fault you don't know anyone qualified to teach gunfighting techniques. Maybe you can look up the people I mentioned previously and learn something useful for the real world.

I have never doubted that Cooper was great at teaching people how to shoot well at a range. But how many gunfights happen there?

What you've offered as your training base is pretty unimpressive to me. It's pretty easy to qualify expert, and the "combat techniques" your vet buddies were taught could be great or could be completely worthless.

You are misquoting me. I said marksmanship, not "combat techniques". And I did not say "vet buddies", either.

If you want to know what combat techniques I am endorsing, look at the names I furnished previously. You might consider googling them to see if they meet your standards for competence.

You've never actually taken a class from ANYONE

Things that Gunnutmegger has never done:
1) taken a class on how to be good at gun games
2) paid for sex
3) bought a bridge

and feel that you are somehow mystically able to criticize classes that you have never taken that are taught by people that you have never met because they can't teach you anything you don't already know?

You weren't on the debate team in school, apparently.

Maybe you are the kind of person who will believe anything he is told if the person telling you claims to be a teacher. There are a lot of people like that in the world. Most never learn to look beyond the claim of authority and find out exactly what makes the teacher qualified to teach.

I am not going to tell you that you need to stop parroting other people's mistaken claims and find out what the facts are. It's up to you to decide to do that, and stop being a sheep.

weambulance says:

on 12/29/2010 2:13:19 PM

Awesome, my whole reply just vanished.

I'm not writing it again. Suffice to say that I do have real world experience, didn't learn all of my techniques from books as you seem to have, and I agree with a lot of what Cooper said.

What someone says has a lot more importance than where the ideas came from.

By the way, drawing deliberately idiotic conclusions from what I wrote isn't clever, nor is twisting my words. Also, calling everyone who disagrees with you sheep just makes you sound like a prick.

Gunnutmegger says:

on 12/29/2010 4:40:00 PM

What someone says has a lot more importance than where the ideas came from.

An interesting but flawed statement.

I am still a little surprised at how upset people get about the essence of my question about Jeff Cooper: How can a person teach something relevant about a subject they have no experience with?

If some people get butthurt over having their tin god's immortality questioned, so be it.

Unix-Jedi says:

on 1/3/2011 9:23:16 AM

How can a person teach something relevant about a subject they have no experience with?

The same way someone can write up anything they want, make erroneous factual claims, worse conclusions, and get totally assholish when called on it, engaging in ad hominem, failing to address the actual questions asked (and then claiming to hold the high ground of "logic")?

Comments have been closed on this topic.