[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by paliknight

Agreed. her thumb is placed incorrectly. The easiest thing for her to do is probably just look up videos of proper handgun grip and practice with an empty weapon.

Yep.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD

No worries didn't look at that image at all. Had to go back and see them after your comment

[paliknight]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

Question for the general group. What self defense ammo would you recommend for a 9mm hand gun? I did some research and settled on Speer Gold Dot Lawman +P 124 grain hollow points. But everywhere I look where they're at a decent price has had them out of stock for months.

If you get +P ammo, you need to make sure the weapon is designed for it. These rounds will destroy the internals of regular 9mms much quicker than regular 9mm rounds. If its 45 then youre fine.

Originally Posted by zx10guy

Yeah. In grand scheme of things, I shouldn't worry about price. But I don't want to just throw money away if I can get the ammo for cheaper. We have 9mm FMJ rounds now. And I guess if I really want to get nasty, the 9mm will hopefully give me an opportunity to get to my AR if needed. But I haven't purchased the hollow points yet. But I'm going to soon.
As an aside, I've been kicking around the idea of getting shotgun. Don't have to be accurate just close at least that's what I believe. Those more seasoned on Bimmerpost may say otherwise.

FMJs are horrible for self defense, especially when there are others in the vicinity since they fully penetrate. Hollow Point is the best way to go for self defense. ARs are only good for elf defense if they are SBRs. A full length AR is a pain in the dick to clear corners with.

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Quick question - especially to Moddie and Tonka who seem to have carried the longest (or at least the most vocal about it )

Of however many years you've carried for, has there ever (honestly) been a situation (or more than once) where you honestly thought you might have to use your firearm? Does it happen often?

It is just a foreign concept to me - it's not to say that criminals respect the gun laws up here, they don't, but at the same time, I've honestly never wished to have a gun on me because I felt I might need it. Trying to wrap my head around it.

Admittedly, I have wished I could carry when I walk in the forest, but that is just for animal control should it ever happen. I've never seen a bear, only one wolf / coyote (honestly couldn't tell which - either a huge coyote or a thin, but appropriately tall wolf), but it would give me a feeling of security. Is that the mindset though that you have when you move out in society? Because it seems....sad? Almost a "why choose to live in such a society - why not move somewhere safer"?

Don't mean that to be offensive - it is simply a foreign concept and I'm trying to understand the rationale.

Ive been in only 1 situation where I wished I had not forgotten my weapon at home. The guy turned to have been wanted for multiple armed robberies. Long story short, had I been carrying, I would have probably ended up shooting him.

For hiking, a 9mm will not do much good. Heck, even a .45acp wont against bears and larger animals unless you are skilled enough to get a headshot off on a moving target in a high stress situation, which most people are not. Your first course of action would be to avoid any confrontation.

[paliknight]

Originally Posted by PINeely

Not sure if I'm the only person here who shoots weaver or not. Feels way more natural to me but I'm also cross-dominant so that may have something to do with it.

Sara- find what works for you and stick with it. Doesn't matter how "correct" your stance is if you can't hit what you're aiming at in that position. The more you practice you'll find it.

Weaver is best IMO in combat situations since it makes you a slightly smaller target to hit. And any advantage is a good advantage when you need it. You dont really want to stand in a way that makes it easier for them to acquire your ass as a target. Weaver also gives you more mobility and flexibility to run into cover or whatever need be.

[1MOREMOD]

Not if wearing armor want to square up so it can do its job

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by paliknight

Weaver is best IMO in combat situations since it makes you a slightly smaller target to hit. And any advantage is a good advantage when you need it. You dont really want to stand in a way that makes it easier for them to acquire your ass as a target. Weaver also gives you more mobility and flexibility to run into cover or whatever need be.

That's pretty much why the weaver stance was developed and taught for years. But with the proliferation of body armor most agencies are teaching isosceles. Most people are aiming at the largest target presented. Standing 3/4 or full frontal presents center mass as the same target. Taking a bullet center mass in a vest is much preferred to the unprotected side of the body.

I personally change stance with situation. The more static i am when shooting, the more weaver i am. The more i move and shoot, the more isosceles i am. It's not an either or for me, it's a transition between them. Most of the time it's a blend of the two that i'm most comfortable with. My upper body is mostly isosceles while my lower body is somewhat weaver. I feel a little more stable with somewhat offset footing. If shooting for accuracy at distance, it's full on weaver, somewhat exaggerated at that.

[paliknight]

Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD

Not if wearing armor want to square up so it can do its job

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

That's pretty much why the weaver stance was developed and taught for years. But with the proliferation of body armor most agencies are teaching isosceles. Most people are aiming at the largest target presented. Standing 3/4 or full frontal presents center mass as the same target. Taking a bullet center mass in a vest is much preferred to the unprotected side of the body.

I personally change stance with situation. The more static i am when shooting, the more weaver i am. The more i move and shoot, the more isosceles i am. It's not an either or for me, it's a transition between them. Most of the time it's a blend of the two that i'm most comfortable with. My upper body is mostly isosceles while my lower body is somewhat weaver. I feel a little more stable with somewhat offset footing. If shooting for accuracy at distance, it's full on weaver, somewhat exaggerated at that.

Oh I meant when conceal carrying out in public. Not in actual tactical situations for SWAT, LE and Military. I was referring to the discussion involving sara cause i assumed she wouldnt be wearing body armor to the bar

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by paliknight

Oh I meant when conceal carrying out in public. Not in actual tactical situations for SWAT, LE and Military. I was referring to the discussion involving sara cause i assumed she wouldnt be wearing body armor to the bar

You never know with her. She might go all in!

[paliknight]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

You never know with her. She might go all in!

based on her recent posts regarding her encounters with harassment I wouldn't be surprised if she goes out full tactical. LBV and everything

[Lucky John]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

It is very hard to tell in the videos, but it almost looked to me at one point that you were anticipating the recoil and snapping it downward a little. Are you?

Not anticipating the recoil is probably the hardest thing to learn IMO, and I struggle with it every time I shoot even though I know I need to correct it. My best groupings / shots are when I just gently keep squeezing till the break point because I'm not anticipating it. If I were ever in a situation though where I was under fire and I actually had a firearm (99.99% unlikely both of those events would coincide in Canada), I wouldn't have that luxury of time though, so I try to practice with a few quick shots as well.

Still, your grouping with the Glock is significantly better than the HK from a lowly Canuck viewpoint and presuming all shots fired were represented on the paper, more than enough to deal with any threat if you were going for center mass. You have to go with what is comfortable for you.

In her case it isn't anticipating the recoil. It is called jerking the trigger. She is pulling hard once she has the sights aligned. This accounts for two thirds of her rounds being low and right on the glock target, especially if she is right handed. I don't see any videos but it is an easy fix. Just like you have detailed she needs to work on sight alignment and trigger control.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

I think it was a test to see who wasn't looking at her ass. lol

Logic .

[Sara]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

Your grip in this picture is incorrect. You are lucky you didn't injure your off hand thumb shooting like that.



I can get on board with this sentiment when you're doing something that you've done from child hood like shooting, tennis, golf, baseball, etc... The problem is, those people who are proficient at their sport without "correct" grip, stance, swing, etc... all have the basic fundamentals correct. If you're going to pick up golf as an adult and expect to be proficient in a short amount of time, you need to start off with the basic fundamentals that the experts agree upon. Same goes for tennis, baseball and shooting.

I'm not going to argue with an expert marksman who was taught less than sound shooting techniques by his father starting at age 7. But knowing what we know now, with as many professionals making a living by training people on how to shoot, a sound base of fundamental mechanics is the fastest way for a new shooter to become proficient with a weapon.

The picture above is a perfect example. That grip may feel great to her but using it on a gun with a lower sitting slide could result significant damage to her hand.

Not trying to be right or prove anyone wrong, just makes sense to start with good fundamentals if you're going to learn something new.

I fixed it here. Both thumbs on the same side.

[Sara]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

You never know with her. She might go all in!

You know, I actually look up bulldt proof vests for women. I saw a nice one but to buy it I have to be a law enforcement officer. I was like well dang lol.

[Sara]

This is why I'm packing. People are always shooting each other here

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by Axius

How many yards/feet did they start you at?

Zooming in on one of the pictures Sara posted, the panel shows 2.5 yards.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

Zooming in on one of the pictures Sara posted, the panel shows 2.5 yards.

Seems legit with as much as the target was moving from muzzle blast and is the right distance to train at for self defense.

[1MOREMOD]

Seems short, lot of ranges don't even allow you to a shoot under 5 yards

[zx10guy]

I agree. It did seem sort of short based on the perceived distance of the targets in the pictures. But zooming in on the panel the 2 5 was clear. But I agree with Tonka about the amount of target flapping backs up the short distance. At the range I'm a member of, 2.5 yards is allowed. I see this typically when the range instructor is teaching a first time shooter.

[Sara]

Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD

Seems short, lot of ranges don't even allow you to a shoot under 5 yards

I don't think it was 2 yards. I hit the button the sends the target away automatically and it places it on its own. It seemed farther away than just two yards

[1MOREMOD]

Yeah it would be pretty obvious if it was. You could lean forward and get halfway there

[zx10guy]

Here's the zoom on the panel.

[Sara]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

Here's the zoom on the panel.

Wow you're right. I stand corrected