Hock Hochheim's Combat Talk Forum

General Category => Gun Fighting => Topic started by: seanross on February 07, 2006, 07:37:17 PM

Title: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: seanross on February 07, 2006, 07:37:17 PM
I have been contemplating the purchase of a Glock 30 with a clipdraw for concealed carry.  I like the idea of no holster.  My concern is one of safety.  If I put a cocked and locked Glock (wow! poetic ;) ) on a clip with the muzzle pointing at my butt cheeks, what is the likelihood that the trigger safety will foul on some clothing or something and I will inadvertently become a half ass?  Even worse, If I decide on appendix carry, what is the chance the Glock's only safety - the trigger- will catch on something and I become a eunuch?
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: threegun on February 08, 2006, 03:02:33 PM
Seanross, I have carried inside the waist (without a clip just pressed between my pants and fat) for over 5 years now and have had no problems. Once in you are safe. I would suggest a modest amount of caution be used in putting it in just to make sure. I haven't even come close to snagging on anything. Once you start the worry will subside....mine did.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: Professor on February 08, 2006, 08:38:52 PM
I have been contemplating the purchase of a Glock 30 with a clipdraw for concealed carry.  I like the idea of no holster.  My concern is one of safety.  If I put a cocked and locked Glock (wow! poetic ;) ) on a clip with the muzzle pointing at my butt cheeks, what is the likelihood that the trigger safety will foul on some clothing or something and I will inadvertently become a half ass?  Even worse, If I decide on appendix carry, what is the chance the Glock's only safety - the trigger- will catch on something and I become a eunuch?




Darwin has you on the watch list.   

Don't do this....get a proper holster that covers the trigger.   ::)
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: Crazyguywithasword on February 09, 2006, 07:04:33 PM
A friend of mine is a detective in montgomery county, MD and had the fortunate duty of responding to a guy who had pull a glock out of his "thunderwear" and having it go off upon drawing.....ridding him of his friendly parts.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: threegun on February 10, 2006, 05:47:10 AM
Try ON AN EMPTY CHAMBER to pull the trigger on the pistol while it is in your waist. I find it almost impossible to do with jeans on and difficult with most clothing.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: Professor on February 10, 2006, 07:32:39 AM
Try ON AN EMPTY CHAMBER to pull the trigger on the pistol while it is in your waist. I find it almost impossible to do with jeans on and difficult with most clothing.

The problem is not accidently engaging the trigger through your clothes....The problem is with indexing the trigger when you pull it out.

   Holsters have been around a LONG time for a reason -- but then again, the gene pool is self-skimming.


Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: threegun on February 10, 2006, 07:52:22 AM
Professor,

Quote
The problem is not accidently engaging the trigger through your clothes....The problem is with indexing the trigger when you pull it out.

Anyone with less than 100 percent trigger finger control souldn't own a Glock to begin with. Never had an AD in more than a decade of Glockin. I've carried, practiced, and competed with them with no problems. Gotta have trigger disciplin though.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: cgonzales on February 10, 2006, 08:22:34 AM
its not if but when
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: Professor on February 10, 2006, 09:06:37 AM
Professor,

Quote
The problem is not accidently engaging the trigger through your clothes....The problem is with indexing the trigger when you pull it out.

Anyone with less than 100 percent trigger finger control souldn't own a Glock to begin with. Never had an AD in more than a decade of Glockin. I've carried, practiced, and competed with them with no problems. Gotta have trigger disciplin though.

I personally don't like Glocks for a lot of reasons, but they have their place..  I prefer a 1991 -- much better triggers and a manual safety.   

I own and use a Glock.   They are as safe as a revolver.   


--- just to reiterate.....use a holster that covers the trigger.   


YMMV.

 


Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: threegun on February 10, 2006, 06:24:55 PM
Prof, Used to carry 1911's, combat commanders, ect. Once I found the Glock, it was all over. Now I stay with the same system and will not carry another handgun except as a backup. Nothing out there can do what the Glock can. Fastest second shot, 100percent reliability, low bore axis, toughest finish, more accuracy than I can extract and a consistent trigger from first to last shot.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: seanross on February 10, 2006, 07:24:35 PM
Thanks for the lively debate over the fate of my 'nads should I choose to carry holsterless.  The www.clipdraw.com people make a little plastic insert that goes behind the trigger of a Glock.  I think I will check that out.

What I am looking for is a small frame .45 which I can put both a laser sight and a light and that can be clipped.  1911 commanders do 2 of the three, but you can't put a light on them.  Glock 30 does all three, but has a problem with trigger safety.

Anyone know of any other options.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: threegun on February 11, 2006, 05:50:44 AM
If you don't pull the trigger you don't have a problem with the 30. Its your jewels use the appropriate caution. I practice trigger finger discipline don't you. If the answer is yes, the the 30 is your gun.

Dude it takes 5.5 pounds of pull to pop a round off, if you are that incompetant with a handgun you ought not carry for the publics sake. I'm not knocking or attacking you, just making a point. One the plus side, it will outperform everything else out there.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: Professor on February 11, 2006, 06:56:43 AM

 Nothing out there can do what the Glock can. Fastest second shot, 100percent reliability, low bore axis, toughest finish, more accuracy than I can extract and a consistent trigger from first to last shot.


You're nuts.   ::)   

This is a bold overly general declaration for tupperware with a bad trigger.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: threegun on February 11, 2006, 08:09:13 AM
Thats the beauty of it. The trigger is horrible compared to the 1911 yet it shoots better than you can even with the bad trigger.  There are guns that are close but none as as good in every aspect. We can just take bore axis. The glock sit lower in hand than any other gun. This alone gives the Glock a decided advantage in reduced muzzel rise since the lower bore axis causes recoil to push rearward as aposed to flipping upward. That means faster more accurate second shots (given the same ability). Now combine this with the faster resetting trigger meaning less milliseconds spent traveling foward with you finger to reset the trigger. Plus recoil that is absorbed by the polymere grip. Once you master the trigger (get used to it is more like it) you will be faster with the Glock than any other gun of like caliber.

I am slightly retarded but not nuts.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: arnold on February 13, 2006, 01:25:04 PM
Professor, I like the glorified Tupperware comment. As for tall of the opinions on the glock on the parts of one of our writers, yes I agree that the Glock can do many things well, but as the do all, end all handgun? I don't think so. I have had the opportunity over the past 30 years to to be able to handle almost all of the new and old handguns that have come out to the general public. And what do I consistently carry, the same old 45 commander that i have had for more than 20 years. It has NEVER failed, not once, not ever, not jammed, zippo. Why, because I maintain my weapons. As for the recoil, low axis and everything else, along with the comment of faster followup, I just don't and haven't seen it. How can you shoot faster with a trigger you don't like in the first place, or that has been described as bad? Why do all elite US fighting units choose a 1911 style 45 if they can? The reason is cause it works. Not saying the Glock doesn't, but this is their choice for a reason. Yes and I use a holster all of the time, even though am getting old and fat.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: Nick Hughes on February 13, 2006, 03:29:08 PM
I'm waiting to see the new Springfield in .45 that holds 13+1...I may give up my Glock for that one.

N
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: threegun on February 15, 2006, 05:28:49 AM
Ninor, I garauntee you that you will come back to the Glock. I have shot the Kimber polymere gold match and it shoots great. It just kicks harder, rises more, and is heavier than my Glock. I decided after much toying to stay with ugly (Glock).

Arnold, Fat is great for holding a gun without a holster in you waist believe me I know LOL. Now back to the Glock vs (all the other less adequate guns). The trigger on my 23 is a mere 3.5lbs all the time. It isn't super crisp like the 1911's can be but it is okay. I can shoot my Glock at combat distances 0-10 yards with no difference in group size between the two guns (glock vs 1911). The only accuracy advantage enjoyed by the 1911 is from 10 yards plus however it is very slight and will not change the outcome of any shooting. So if my tactical tuppaware shoots faster with the same accuracy, kicks and weights less, and is almost as accurate why not brag. I will shoot with anybody on this board with any handgun including raceguns in any combat styled tournament with my Glock and garauntee that no one will embarrass me, even if they are better skilled. The Glock and I are that good together.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: Nick Hughes on February 15, 2006, 08:30:11 AM
Arnold,

The fat comment that three gun mentions brings up a great point.

I'm always very dubious about the big fat gun toting, cigar smoking, beer swilling slob who subscribes to gun mags and touts self defense and survival to anyone who'll listen.

If they were really concerned about survival they'd begin with being in superb physical condition, and dropping the smokes.  They seem to conveniently forget that strokes and heart attacks kill way more people than gun battles with bad guys. :)

N
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: threegun on February 15, 2006, 07:28:54 PM
Ninor, I ain't that fat dude. Plus I don't smoke or drink (much). Not to mention that survival mode is not needed yet and my fridge is full lol. I do have hundreds of gun magazines from years past but haven't subscribed in years.

Don't forget in survival mode the fat guy dies last when the food runs out ;D.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: Nick Hughes on February 15, 2006, 09:47:34 PM
3gun, that wasn't aimed at you at all amigo...you mentioned the bit about fat and it reminded me of those clowns.  I run into them here at the gun show all the time...450 pounds with a cheek full of 'baccy' and a keg in the car worried about a speed draw holster in case they get in a shoot out.  They'd be funny if they weren't so sad.

Re guaranteeing I'll go back to the Glock...mate there are no guarantees in life except death and taxes.  The Springfield has only been released at the Shot show the other day so until I shoot it, there's no guarantee either way. 

Let's assume for a minute it was better than the Glock (you must have had another favorite before Gaston invented his super pistol :)) why would I switch back? You can't seriously tell me that there could never be a gun better than a Glock.

N
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: threegun on February 16, 2006, 05:56:00 AM
Ninor,

 
Quote
You can't seriously tell me that there could never be a gun better than a Glock.

I would never say that. I will say that the 1911 system cannot be better than GG's little black wonder. The 1911 closest to the abilities of the Glock to date was that polymer Kimber I tried. While it held as much ammo, muzzle rise was more severe and it was heavier. The difference in accuracy was not enough to overide the other difficiencies. You will shoot you springfield well but after the newness wares off and reality settles in the Glock will rise again.

The future could produce an adequate competetor. Like the single action army, and 1911 dominated in their times....the Glock is the best combat pistol .........right now. When you run back to it be a big boy and tell us about it. I promise I won't rub it in. ;)
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: Professor on February 16, 2006, 09:22:03 AM
3gun, that wasn't aimed at you at all amigo...you mentioned the bit about fat and it reminded me of those clowns.  I run into them here at the gun show all the time...450 pounds with a cheek full of 'baccy' and a keg in the car worried about a speed draw holster in case they get in a shoot out.  They'd be funny if they weren't so sad.

N

Yes,  as they compete in IDPA events....


   "Let's watch fat fly"

(thanks for the line Arnold)


By the way,   Arnold only has a fat head -- don't let him fool you.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: threegun on February 16, 2006, 09:51:16 AM
Hey at my last threegun match it was required to slide thru a large black tube lying on the floor before grabbing your pistol to engage several steel targets. A fella with a huge beer style belly was on deck so I waited for his turn watching thinking to myself how he was getting out once stuck LOL. I was amazed as he shot (no pun intended) thru that tube faster than most half his size. He body did move like a waterbed. Fat boy shot well also.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: arnold on February 25, 2006, 10:54:19 AM
professor,
I think the term is "thick headed" which comes with being highly opinionated!
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: Hock on February 25, 2006, 11:10:22 AM
Heeey "Arnold!"

I need your new "ratdog" email. can you email me?

Hock
Title: Differing apparatus for removing body parts
Post by: seanross on February 25, 2006, 06:53:42 PM
Thank you all for your comments.  The debate over holsters and flab was truly .... :-\ .

The point is somewhat mute as I just put 1/2 down on a Paraordnance Lite Hawg.  I will probably go with an in-the-pants holster but may go with the clipdraw.  Haven't decided.  Also got one of the Insight X2 laser lites.

I decided to go with the Lite Hawg due to:

1) grip as well as mechanical safety
2) compact .45 with 10+1
3) something about the aesthetics of the exagerated beaver tail and the compact look just inspired me
4) The name is about as stupid a name for a gun as I can think of.  The parent model is the "Warthog", a version with night sites is called the "Night Hawg" and the one with picatinny rails is the "Lite Hawg".  If I ever have to use the thing and defend myself, the lawyers will just not be able to paint me as a violent maniac with a gun called a "Hawg".  A hick label might work, but not on me.

Only real drawback is the price.  $900.  I could have purchased two Glocks or two XD45's for that price, but I just didn't like any of the other railed small .45's as well.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: threegun on February 27, 2006, 02:10:03 PM
Lasers are garbage. In the time it takes your brain to register the red dots position then send the signal to your finger to fire, you could have fired two accurate shots using your sights. That combined with the laser giving away your position to your adversary make it (do do) if you know what I mean. Aesthetics should never be a serious consideration. How it points/feels in your hand, reliability,accuracy, safety, ect are the truely important considerations. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. My ugly on the outside Glock is the most beautiful, precious combat handgun I have ever had the honor of shooting. I understand, as I hold my Glock, that I have the very best fighting handugn in my hand. They won't win any beauty contests but they will give me the very best chance of surviving a gunfight. That is beatiful to me.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: Nick Hughes on February 27, 2006, 09:52:46 PM
Good God, I actually agree with 3 guns ;D  Lasers are bollocks.  The only reason I can see for them is psychological intimidation when used by a SWAT team and the bad guy looks down and sees them dancing all over his body and gives up.

N
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: seanross on February 27, 2006, 10:11:15 PM
As a relatively new shooter, I do not have years invested in learning to use the sights.  The problem I see with shooting from the sights is that your focus is on the front sight of your pistol, not the guy who may be shooting at you.  The X2 has laser and light come on simultaneously with the same switch, so you aren't giving anything away that a light wouldn't.  A 5mW red dot laser isn't visible outside in normal daylight anyway - this is only for indoor shooting or low light conditions.  I can't see how it can hurt.  It seems like a laser is an ideal way to point shoot with greater accuracy.

No way to find out but to try it for myself.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: Nick Hughes on February 27, 2006, 10:44:35 PM
If your sight is on the guy then it's the same as if your laser is on the guy.  I.e. if you then jerk the trigger at that point, flinch or he moves for example you'll miss.  It doesn't take any more time to learn how to line up the sights than it does to learn to use the laser.

What will you do if you go to use the laser and it doesn't function?  Oops.  What if you're outside in bright sunlight?  Got to use the sites again anyway, only now you're trying to learn how in the middle of a shoot out.

People put all their faith in technology and then when it fails (which it will, guaranteed) they're buggered.

N
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: threegun on February 28, 2006, 10:45:14 AM
Seanross, Just remember Murphy's law. What can go wrong will and @ the worst possible time. Learn to use your pistol with its factory sights. In the same amount of time and practice needed to shoot the laser sighted handgun proficiently, you can learn to use the sights. Like Ninor said, leave nothing to chance. Put every possible advantage in your corner. I promise you that it is not possible to use the laser as fast as you can use your sights. There is a saying in the gun world "train as you fight". Train like you want to fight. If you want to be slower, ineffective in daylight, reliant on a battery, ect then by all means get the laser. I prefer to practice using my sights which are always availible, including total darkness (nitesites), faster, not prone to failure of unit or battery, ect. The extra money you save can be better spent in ammo. Train as you fight because you will fight as you train. No training will mean that you will most likely freeze when a jam or mag change or anything unusual comes up. Take the advice from someone who has already done all the bad, improper, and downright stupid things there is to do in my gun learning past. Save the money, I wish I had!
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: Virgil on February 28, 2006, 02:51:10 PM
Slow down, guys - Sean didn't say he was going to rely solely on his nifty laser for all his sighting needs, just expressed a desire to add another tool to his box, as it were.  I've never used a laser, and it would be interesting to do so.  For me, it's not worth the money for what I see as a very incidental benefit. But then, I'm gun shopping on grad student wages . . . we'll see what my wish list looks like in a few months. ;)
Sean also didn't say that aesthetics were a serious consideration, either, only that he happened to like the look of the gun. This seems not unlike Threegun, who is clearly proud of how ugly his Glock is! 
 I look forward to hearing how he likes it and how it works for him
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: threegun on February 28, 2006, 03:11:08 PM
Virgil, The reason I stress the ugly in my Glock is to push the point that beauty shouldn't be considered when choosing a fighting pistol. My pride comes not from the Glocks looks but rather its capabilities. I am also proud that I was able to overlook aesthetics, to choose arguable the best fighting handgun on the planet. Sean is capable of making his own decision on the laser issue and it won't change my life one bit. I was just giving some advise. Advise I wish that I had been given before gaining enough knowledge to understand just how much a waste the laser was. I could have saved alot of money and gotten better at shooting had I never purchased one.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: seanross on February 28, 2006, 05:52:56 PM
I agree that no one can entirely rely on a laser site.  They cannot usually be seen outdoors during the daytime.  For those kinds of gun battles, you must rely on the iron sights, unless the new green laser sights actually live up to manufacturers claims.  Greenbeam is coming out with an integrated green laser + light this summer and I would love to try some longer distance night shooting with my USP .45 and my shotgun.

On to night, low light and indoor gun fights. 

1) If it is totally dark, you must use a light to identify your assailant.  That means either a separate flashlight or a weapon mounted light.  A red laser dot in the middle of a flashlight beam certainly can't hurt anything.

2) Guns, holsters, lights, lasers are all "technology".  Guns malfunction, holsters bind up, lights fail and lasers fail.  If the bad guy comes at night and your surefire bulb chooses that moment to burn out, you will have to improvise just like you will if your laser chooses that moment to burn up.

3) With iron sights, I must bring the gun to eye level to accurately fire.  With a laser site, I have many firing positions.  I can fire from a canted close contact position or a two hand center of the chest.  I can put the top of my right hand on the floor, tilt my wrist up and fire, I can brace my arm on my knee etc.  With a laser site I can fire just as accurately as with iron sights but from many more positions.

4) I don't see a laser sight as a replacement for iron sights, but an augmentation.

5) Here is one for you.  I was training with Steve Krystek a couple years ago and I was supposed to flop on my belly and put a couple rounds into a man size steel target at about ~60 yards.  At that range, the front site entirely covered the target.  I couldn't even see it, so I fired until I heard a "plink".  Given that it was nearly night when we did that, I wonder if I wouldn't have had an easier time with a laser sight.  I will try it and let you know how it works.

6) Just this year, we were doing similar target practice with a shotgun firing slugs at ~100yds.  I tell you ghost ring sights weren't all that great.  I managed to hit the target, but it wasn't a pristine sniper moment.  I would love to try out a green laser site at those ranges in low light and see if it works any better.  I will likely get one this year along with the appropriate adaptors that will let me put it on either my mossberg or my usp.

7) We don't clear rooms with our weapon extended and the sights aligned because we set ourselves up for getting disarmed.  A close contact position or center of chest position is more common.  With a laser sight, I don't need to move my pistol at all to fire.  I can fire accurately from the same position I clear a room from.  Sounds more efficient to me.  If the thing craps out, I can always shoot from the sights.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: threegun on March 01, 2006, 12:18:54 PM
Sean,

 
Quote
With iron sights, I must bring the gun to eye level to accurately fire.

Not true. With a small amount of practice excellent center mass hits can easily be achieved by instinctive or point shooting.

Quote
If it is totally dark, you must use a light to identify your assailant.

To identify them yes, to engage them no. With simple nite sites targets can be engaged with only enough ambiant light to know where the badguy is. The good part is the first indication of your presence to the badguy will be muzzle flash followed by pain........advantage goodguy.


Quote
Here is one for you.  I was training with Steve Krystek a couple years ago and I was supposed to flop on my belly and put a couple rounds into a man size steel target at about ~60 yards.  At that range, the front site entirely covered the target.  I couldn't even see it, so I fired until I heard a "plink".  Given that it was nearly night when we did that, I wonder if I wouldn't have had an easier time with a laser sight.  I will try it and let you know how it works.

The bore axis and laser axis of a laser mounted under the gun differ by a couple of inches. This means that you will have to raise the lasers point of aim to hit at the closer ranges associated with CQB. The problem is that once sighted in for say 10 yards the laser will continue climbing along the new axis and be extremely high at 60 yards. This means that you will shoot very low @ 60 yards, probably to low to even hit a man at that range.

BTW My Glock35 and I are capable of 50yards groups of about 4-5inches using a sandbag to rest the gun on.

Quote
I don't see a laser sight as a replacement for iron sights, but an augmentation.

Wise, just remember that time spent on getting proficient with the laser is time that could be spend learning to use what most professionals do, the iron sights. The laser is nothing more than a curio or toy. It will not help you. You might think that it helps you but it won't.

It will get you some "gee thats cool" comments from the range commando's though.

Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: seanross on March 01, 2006, 12:37:46 PM
Sean,

 
Quote
With iron sights, I must bring the gun to eye level to accurately fire.

Not true. With a small amount of practice excellent center mass hits can easily be achieved by instinctive or point shooting.


SR>>And with a laser sight I will be even more accurate still.

Quote
If it is totally dark, you must use a light to identify your assailant.

To identify them yes, to engage them no. With simple nite sites targets can be engaged with only enough ambiant light to know where the badguy is. The good part is the first indication of your presence to the badguy will be muzzle flash followed by pain........advantage goodguy.

SR>> Given that I am a civilian and that the most likely indoor gunfight for me will be vs. an intruder and given that I have an irresponsible teenager in my home who might let anyone in the house, I must positively identify the intruder.  I will not fire at an unidentified dark mass in my home.  Come to think about it, I will not fire at any unidentified dark mass that is not obviously engaged in hostile action toward me. 
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: arnold on March 01, 2006, 12:56:11 PM
Hock
it is
ratdog@centurytel.net
in the words of Johnny Cash, " Bill or George, anything but Glock! I still hate that gun!"
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: threegun on March 01, 2006, 02:20:44 PM
Sean,

Quote
SR>>And with a laser sight I will be even more accurate still.

Yes?Possibly? however you will be slower and reliant on another piece of hardware further lowering your chances of survival. Remember the person who scores the first center mass hit USUALLY wins the gunfight.

Quote
SR>> Given that I am a civilian and that the most likely indoor gunfight for me will be vs. an intruder and given that I have an irresponsible teenager in my home who might let anyone in the house, I must positively identify the intruder.  I will not fire at an unidentified dark mass in my home.  Come to think about it, I will not fire at any unidentified dark mass that is not obviously engaged in hostile action toward me.

Very responsible of you. If I am place in the situation of a dark mass in my home, rather than light it up, I will (from cover) verbally challenge the "dark mass". Understand that behind that light source lies my opponent. Whether it be laser light , flashlight, or even muzzel flash, you are compromised once you  show your position. Your odds of survival go down with every advantage you give the badguy.

The use of a light source is sometimes needed. I will never use a light/handgun combo because of the handguns lack of effectiveness and the difficulty in getting center mass hits on a deadly adversary. I will use a light on my shotgun and rifle but only if I am forced to go one the offensive.

If I was a badguy willing to kill and someone flashed a light on me, I would shoot at the light source while trying to flee. I just don't want to give the badguy that lucky shot.
Title: Shooting at unidentified targets
Post by: seanross on March 01, 2006, 10:30:16 PM
Threegun>>To identify them yes, to engage them no. With simple nite sites targets can be engaged with only enough ambiant light to know where the badguy is. The good part is the first indication of your presence to the badguy will be muzzle flash followed by pain........advantage goodguy.

SR>>The more I think about this, the more I am surprised at both how wrong I think it is and how mildly I replied.  Such an attitude as expressed above is a potent argument IN FAVOR of gun control.  Suffice it to say that I lack polite words to express just how wrong I think it is to ever fire at an unidentified target.

Obviously, one does not turn the light on and walk down the hall.  Proper tactics in the use of lights is certainly applicable.  If done properly, you give very little chance to the bad guy to get the drop on you, no more than you give by speaking and thus giving away your position.  But never, never, never, fire at an unidentified target.  Period.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: threegun on March 02, 2006, 05:39:19 AM
Sean, For starters I would never fire at an unidentified target (hence the verbal challenge). Remember the badguy needs to see were he is going so total darkness is not going to come into play often if ever. Total darkness is very rare, especially in my home. Lets get on the same page here. I was referring to an armed intruder of my home. I am not obligated to verbally challenge an armed intruder of my home and I will not give them any warning. If they are in my home and armed, they aren't there to play tiddly winks.

You have mentally justified getting and using the laser and thats cool. Whatever float your boat. I'm just telling you that it is a waste. You will be handicapping yourself. Go shoot an action pistol match with and without your precious laser, you will get rid of it the next day. The reason you will get rid of it is because it slows you down tremendously. Once you understand that time equals safety and faster is safer, it will become obvious that the laser makes you less safe.

Your light has more practicallity in certain situations. It is not for me on the handgun though. If I was a police officer and needed to arrest people and such then yes. I am just a civilian and my pistol is my last resort. When it gets pulled justification for using deadly force has been met and the gun can be used. Don't need a light to use it.

It is good to see that you think about using good tactics. As hard as you push the laser, I was beginning to think that you were one of them range commando's.
Title: How do you know if he's armed and its dark?
Post by: seanross on March 02, 2006, 06:53:26 PM
Threegun>>I was referring to an armed intruder of my home. I am not obligated to verbally challenge an armed intruder of my home and I will not give them any warning. If they are in my home and armed, they aren't there to play tiddly winks.

SR>>Without a light, you don't know if the "intruder" is an armed bad guy, your daughters boyfriend she snuck into the house or an unarmed punk kid on his first burglary.  If I can avoid shooting someone, believe me I will.  With a light on the gun, you can see his face and hands.  Then you know if, in fact, he is an armed intruder. 

I would also like to point out that if you verbally challenge a man-shaped blob in your home and the response isn't "Hi Dad, its me", you still don't know if the man-shaped blob is armed.  I think the response is different with an armed vs unarmed intruder.  Armed intruders get shot--dead. Unarmed intruders are ordered onto the floor, handcuffed with zip ties and get to go to jail.  They only get shot if they get real stupid and try to take my gun away or attack me.  My daughters boyfriend gets tossed out of my house and maybe yelled at, neither shot nor handcuffed.

Whether its is a Surefire you hold in your non-shooting hand or a light mounted on the weapon, you need a light in low light environments.  If the light has a laser dot in the center, so much the better.

BTW, I will also put night sights on the gun.  No point in turning on the light if you don't have to - say in medium light scenarios.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: threegun on March 04, 2006, 02:21:18 AM
Quote
Your light has more practicallity in certain situations.

If you live in total darkness, then we agree. I live with enough light always on to see. If I am forced to go searching dark areas, I take my shotgun/light combo.

Quote
You have mentally justified getting and using the laser and thats cool. Whatever float your boat. I'm just telling you that it is a waste. You will be handicapping yourself. Go shoot an action pistol match with and without your precious laser, you will get rid of it the next day. The reason you will get rid of it is because it slows you down tremendously. Once you understand that time equals safety and faster is safer, it will become obvious that the laser makes you less safe.

This is 100 percent true. You will see eventually. When you figure it out, post it so I can say, I told you so.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: TwoGun on March 14, 2006, 09:21:20 PM
The newer lasers work, most of the time.  What does the model you are considering cost?  Let's just say $300.  I'd much rather see you spend the money on ammo and practice with it than spend it on the gadget.  I like lasers as a training tool, and they do have a certain amount of appeal in certain situations.  But as new shooter, please put your time into learning how to shoot well. 

The debate between the Glock lovers and the 1911 lovers wil rage for another few decades.  It really boils down to personal choice.  I can shoot either but much prefer the 1911 myself but I don't have any qualms about Glocks, if you can shoot them well.  I shoot them okay but shoot 1911's better simply by virtue of many more thousands of round of practice in compitition.  But then we have a guy that shoots stock Glocks and stays right on the heels of the guys shooitng 1911 based race guns.  I do belive that 1911 is easier to learn to shoot well, but the same attributes that allow that also demand that you are extremely familair with the manual of arms for the 1911.   Its simply a matter of taste.

Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: arnold on March 15, 2006, 06:39:02 AM
and the taste of tupperware bothers me wether it's in my gun, or in the container that holds my spaghetti sauce. Goes to the fat girl on the waterbed line. This will give you something to think about.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: threegun on March 16, 2006, 05:48:22 AM
A statement worthy of second print.
Quote
But then we have a guy that shoots stock Glocks and stays right on the heels of the guys shooitng 1911 based race guns.

All with no jamming and twice the ammo and half the weight. Can life get any better?
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: TwoGun on March 17, 2006, 04:28:55 PM
Sure, additional weight to help reduce recoil, no jamming and FAR better triggers.  And no warning from the manufactuer to only shoot jacketed bullets as it can't tolerate lead alloys.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: threegun on March 17, 2006, 05:27:53 PM
If you have ever fired a Glock then you know that the felt recoil for any given caliber is lighter that any other gun out there especially the 1911. Has to do with bore axis. The #1 gun that I have seen jam at the range is you guessed it the 1911.

Can't argue about the triggers however. Despite the trigger handicap and going up against full race guns they still stay on their heels.Speaks volumes about just how good the Glock pistol really is.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: arnold on March 18, 2006, 06:18:21 AM
staying on someone's heels in a gun fight is second place, which I remember in a gun fight means you lost, which means you're dead. As I tell anybody that asks me about purchasing a weapon, pick the one that feels right in your hand, that you can afford, that you can shoot well with, that you like. No matter how good the gun, if you don't like it, you won't shoot as well as something that feels right in your hand.
All in all, the Glock is an excellent weapon, but I can get the Para Ordinance in 45 auto 1911 style in a 12 plus 1 configuration. As for jacketed bullets only, I have shot numerous types of rounds from my commander, as I in the past used to do a great deal of hand loading for local police in my old home state. I tried all of these different loads in my gun so I knew what the cycling function was. Any truly radical bullet configuration will not fire well in any gun, jam, stove pipe, etc, wether it be a glock or my truly beautiful old Colt Commander. And I will still keep my left over sauce in tupperware.
Many thanks professor, save some coffee for me. See ya soon
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: threegun on March 18, 2006, 07:09:23 AM
Arnold, I haven't found a hollowpoint that my Glock wouldn't cycle. Sure you can't shoot lead, but who shoots lead for self defense anymore? As for your second place comment. We are comparing apples to oranges or a 1911 racegun to a Glock self defense pistol. Put a stock 1911 against a stock Glock both of comperable cost and then lets see who is in second place. The point was that the stock Glock could even compete against the racegun.

Its funny how every company is offering a glock copy now. Why settle for a copy?
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: TwoGun on March 18, 2006, 03:24:34 PM
I have fired numerous Glocks and if they are in the same caliber have never noticed that the recoiled less due to the frame or any other reason.  As far as shooting lead, well you may be able to afford to shoot a lot of jacket ammo but I can't.  Since I shoot between 3,000 and 3,500 rounds between May and Sept in practice and events that is a very importatn factor to me.  And no matter what else we may have different opinions on, I think we will both agree that shot placement is everything in a fight and that to be able to hit what you want to on demand requires practice. 

I don't have any realy qualms about Glocks.  I can shoot them well enough, but not as well as any of my Para's.  My P-16 limited is a great gun for compitition or as a full sized fighting pistol.  As a personal aside, I think its looks is FAR superior to any piece of tupperware.

Personal opinion.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: threegun on March 19, 2006, 06:04:58 AM
Twogun,
Glocks aren't pretty, thats for sure. They just work and work well. To expierience the reduced recoil and muzzel rise you must fire the guns side by side with the same ammo in each. I have shot side by side the glock17&19 against Beretta92,browning hipower,S&W's,Sig226,Ruger85-89&95 and other I can't remember. I have shot the Glock-21 against Kimber,Colt,Springfield, and yes Para's 1911. Also S&W's large framed auto, Ruger,Sig220,H&Kusp, were compared side by side against the Glock-21. Remember I work for and FFL dealer and get to order whatever I want for cost plus we get tons of used guns that I sign out to test.

In my vast side by side comparison the Glock hasn't been the most accurate or the best trigger. I was very accurate however. It's trigger is fine with a little practice. It definately recoils in such a manner that it feels less and the muzzel rises less. Overall it has proven over many years to me to be the very best combat handgun I can wield. It's total package is unriveled. For you it is the 1911 and thats fine too.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: Professor on March 19, 2006, 07:47:33 AM


Is the horse dead yet?

             There are a lot of good attributes of the Glock and 1911.   This can go on forever.....

(http://www.sdplastics.com/dedhorse.gif)
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: threegun on March 20, 2006, 08:35:39 AM
He's dead if he was shot by the Glock ;) LOL.

 GLOCKThe finest combat handgun in the world. BAR NONE  HORSE IS DEAD[/b]
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: TwoGun on March 20, 2006, 12:13:28 PM
Ha!  He will raise his ugly head again!  Just wait and see.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: seanross on March 20, 2006, 12:48:13 PM
This has been very entertaining.  I remind you all that I originally started this threat regarding safety in concealed carry.  I became very concerned about the advisability of carrying a Glock in concealed carry due to the lack of a mechanical safety.  This is not to say that a Glock is not a fine weapon.  Were I security or law enforcement and carried a weapon on my hip, I think a Glock would be high up there on my list of choices. I did start this search looking at a Glock 30. For stuffing in my waistband, it gives me the willies.  I settled on the modified 1911 due to the manual safety and the grip safety.  I am comfortable carrying a 1911 action "cocked and locked" in the close vicinity of my privates stuffed in a waistband or a coat pocket.  I am not similarly comfortable with a Glock.

One issue that I think both of you gentlemen are overlooking is the purpose of a civilian concealed carry vice a law enforcement or competitive shooter.  LE pursues and must engage the bad guy.  A competitive shooter goes for extreme accuracy.  Both of them approach the shift after sleep and can prepare tactically and mentally for what they face.  Civilian concealed carry is just to keep myself and mine safe.  Very close ranges.  No chance to plan tactically - weird and unpredictable lighting.  I may be tired or impaired.  Shoot and run away.  I am not obligated to pursue.  Accuracy is not as important as safety and accessibility are.

I finally picked up my Paraordnance LiteHawg last weekend and seriously modified a clipdraw for it. (in spite of the manufacturers assurance that it was impossible to modify a 1911 clipdraw for a double stack magazine)  When the budget has recovered, I will also get night sites for it - another thing I decided to do because of input from you all.  I will then have what my original goal was - to have a concealable, small frame .45 adequate for low light and dark conditions and which I could carry with or without a holster.  I plan to get a small fanny pack for it.  I also found a holster manufacturer which will make custom concealex holsters for anything you like, so I plan to get a holster that will accomodate the LiteHawg+ x2 lite/laser - so I can use it for formal training or as a pocket holster.  BTW, the x2 lite/laser is very easy to operate with either hand.  As with any system, it will take practice to learn to use it effectively and not have the presence of a gun mounted light interfere with shooting or get me confused at a critical moment.

As far as aesthetics go, check out the warthawg page on the paraordnance site and tell me if the litehawg with the mounted x2 lite isn't a wicked looking piece of hardware. 8)

Now comes the fun part -- to train with this system.  I will have to wait until the weekend.  Sigh.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: TwoGun on March 20, 2006, 04:02:16 PM
As a fan of the Para I'm sure you'll like the rig you have chosen. I carried a little Kel-Tek P-11 with a clip draw for a while but finally sold it.  The little gun was a joy to carry. Although I'm an averaged sized person I have largish hands and the little gun tended to bite me when I shot it. 

I just got a deal on a Springfield Micro 1911 and hope to pick it up this week.  Its a single stack .45 in OD green with night sights and black grips and black controls.  I may have gone another route if I had not run across the deal on this one.  But I think I will be pleased with it.  What's more it just looks a bit different with the finish.

As much as I like my Para P-13 it is just too difficult for me to conceal in summer clothing.  If I were a bigger person it probably wouldnt be an issue.  Maybe conceal is not the right word.  I should be say carry comfortably in summer clothing.  This is especially true when driving long distances.  Other wise it would be my one and only carry gun.

Good luck and give us a report after you've had a chance to try it out.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: threegun on March 21, 2006, 08:27:05 AM
Congratulations on your new gun. It sounds like a nice piece. Sounds like a good choice. You do know that I can't leave this post without a little jab LOL.....The Glock is best left to the more seasoned shooter capable of trigger discipline anyway :-*
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: Professor on March 21, 2006, 09:08:00 AM
Congratulations on your new gun. It sounds like a nice piece. Sounds like a good choice. You do know that I can't leave this post without a little jab LOL.....The Glock is best left to the more seasoned shooter capable of trigger discipline anyway :-*

(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b376/drjeffallen/glock.jpg)
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: Professor on March 21, 2006, 09:42:33 AM
Just to make nice:


(http://i1.tinypic.com/rtnnyc.jpg)
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: threegun on March 21, 2006, 11:33:05 AM
The left side is beautiful and quite good. The right side is ugly tactical tuppaware junk everyone should switch to the 1911. Flood the market with Glocks so I can get a better deal on my 9th one LOL.

Guns I own glock & 1911
                   8         0

Have owned colt,kimber,Norinco,springfield,para sold them all because they couldn't do what the Glock can do overall and for much cheaper. The Glock is the nirvana of combat handguns IMHO :o
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: TwoGun on March 21, 2006, 09:29:11 PM
Hey Professor, I have a Springfield Micro in OD green on order. It looks just like the one in the picture so I assume it is the same one.  How do you like it?
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: arnold on March 22, 2006, 06:39:34 AM
Ohhh nirvana! Oh rose colored glasses, oh tupperware blinder helmet, oh where is my coffee. I was just thinking, maybe Glock could out with a line of umbrellas, then some of our able on-line counterparts would be able to defend themselves against the incidents that don't happen in jolly old England. We could talk about handle shape, how fast it deployed into the open position, and numerous other juicy tidbits.
I'll admit I actually had a glock at one time, but i just did not like the way it felt, hated the trigger, so I sold it and went back to my trusty old commander. But if I was in jolly old England, I wouldn't even have this choice.
Professor, let's get together on a line of combat umbrellas. Or a line of exploding berets for France. Just so many ideas.
Buffalo Nickels was right!
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: threegun on March 26, 2006, 05:11:43 AM
I once owned a commander and sold it for the Glock. Hey your commander isn't a colt series 70 is it? Satin nickel finish? That would be too funny.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: arnold on March 26, 2006, 02:16:02 PM
it is a series 70 but in colt roya blue, walnut grips
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: arnold on April 14, 2006, 04:04:01 PM
three gun
maybe you have my glock? looks funny, crappy trigger, looks like molded tupperware rolled in dirt, but i would like to have the commander you had
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: threegun on May 17, 2006, 04:50:52 AM
Arnold, That commander would make a great carrygun.......between jams LOL.
Title: Re: Removing my butt cheek with a Glock
Post by: arnold on May 18, 2006, 04:47:01 AM
But mine has never jammed. Peanut butter and jellied maybe, but never jammed.
Download