Why is a $3K 1911 better than a $389 Glock 19?

[Jack]

Yes, no, maybe. I have yet to witness the phenomena of people ditching G19s for FN 5.7s in order to gain another 10 or so "sucky" rounds.

It is hard to argue against the advantage of capacity overall. However, as illustrated, the asset of capacity becomes less of an asset when the associated drawbacks come into play. 17+1 is an obvious advantage... unless/until the weapon is too clunky to carry, or only carries in a package the user is not as safe, confident, or competent. Another point is that people can use capacity as a crutch. I recall studies years back showing a marked decrease in police accuracy and a marked increase in rounds fired. I will leave correlation/causation up to the reader, but a significant distinction was an officer who had to make all 6 count with his revolver versus the officer who had more than twice that in his auto.

Holster and belt selection have a lot more to do with ease of carry than anything else. A glock 19, IMO, is a great size for carry. There are people on this forum who carry full sized pistols with flashlights and optics without an issue.

On the point of safety, if you aren't safe with 1 gun, you aren't safe with any gun. The basic rules of safety are a requirement for any type of firearm. A safety is irrelevant to watchin your muzzle, keeping your finger out of the trigger guard, and knowing what you are pointing your firearm at. Relying on a safety to be safe is laughable. You should be the reason a firearm in your possession is safe.

I would also say that a much more likely cause of an officer's dropping hit percentage is the combination of decreasing training budgets and lowering qualification standards.

 

[Jack]

I see your point. And I would say military and LEO are more likely to need a gun, and more likely to use a gun against multiple targets. We can split hairs all day long. I am comfortable with what I carry, I like it, and actually do some reload practice. Carry and shoot the caliber and gun of your choice.

Don't be hating on us 1911 folks.

Criminals regularly work together. Google videos of people being assaulted. Lots of 2-3 on 1.

 

[buttanic]

Criminals regularly work together. Google videos of people being assaulted. Lots of 2-3 on 1.

And if the assaulted one pulls a gun and starts shooting, even if he misses, what is the chance of the two or three continuing the assault vs running like hell.

 

[MOTOR51]

Holster and belt selection have a lot more to do with ease of carry than anything else. A glock 19, IMO, is a great size for carry. There are people on this forum who carry full sized pistols with flashlights and optics without an issue.

On the point of safety, if you aren't safe with 1 gun, you aren't safe with any gun. The basic rules of safety are a requirement for any type of firearm. A safety is irrelevant to watchin your muzzle, keeping your finger out of the trigger guard, and knowing what you are pointing your firearm at. Relying on a safety to be safe is laughable. You should be the reason a firearm in your possession is safe.

I would also say that a much more likely cause of an officer's dropping hit percentage is the combination of decreasing training budgets and lowering qualification standards.

What do you know about LE budgets and how are they lowering qualification standards?

 

[Jack]

What do you know about LE budgets and how are they lowering qualification standards?

Why do you ask? Am I wrong?

 

[US Infidel]

A gunman is raising a handgun toward officers during a robbery. The officers are generally required to instruct the armed robber to drop the weapon.

B.S.!!!! Raise a gun at me on or off duty, I will shoot you many many times. By raising a gun at me, you have instructed me to kill you as quickly as I can.

 

[pulpsmack]

On the point of safety, if you aren't safe with 1 gun, you aren't safe with any gun. The basic rules of safety are a requirement for any type of firearm. A safety is irrelevant to watchin your muzzle, keeping your finger out of the trigger guard, and knowing what you are pointing your firearm at. Relying on a safety to be safe is laughable. You should be the reason a firearm in your possession is safe.

Your rangemaster description "may" be irrelevant to real world dynamics. Who is to say you have 20 yards and a 2 second window to draw and assume a weaver stance? A BG could be on top of you, grappling, or even grasping at your firearm before it has cleared your beltline. That "you" are in control of your safety is a fallacy that would otherwise negate the need to carry in the first place and defy all logic and policy behind LEO pistol retention training and equipment.

 

[Jack]

Your rangemaster description "may" be irrelevant to real world dynamics. Who is to say you have 20 yards and a 2 second window to draw and assume a weaver stance? A BG could be on top of you, grappling, or even grasping at your firearm before it has cleared your beltline. That "you" are in control of your safety is a fallacy that would otherwise negate the need to carry in the first place and defy all logic and policy behind LEO pistol retention training and equipment.

Two things, first, nobody uses the weave stance anymore. Secondly, you shouldn't be drawing your gun if you can't control it. That is how people get shot with their own gun. If you can't get it past your beltline without someone grabbing it, you shouldn't have gone for it.

Is your requirement for a safety based on a concern of getting into an entangled gunfight?

 

[323MAR]

Are you a LEO? If so, then you might need more training. If you are not a LEO please do not try to explain LE work.

Yes, but I have not worked the street for years. Are you saying that your department does not use any form of "Escalation of Force" policy?
My explanation of why citizens have more privilege than LE in a deadly force situation is general. You may elaborate and give your own example.

 

[MOTOR51]

Yes, but I have not worked the street for years. Are you saying that your department does not use any form of "Escalation of Force" policy?
My explanation of why citizens have more privilege than LE in a deadly force situation is general. You may elaborate and give your own example.

It was already explained a few posts up(post #646)

 

[olivs260]

If I've got somebody on top of me trying to end my life, a manual safety is the last thing I want to have to deal with...

 

[MOTOR51]

Yes. I will speak about my department because that is what I know about. Every year our training gets better and we haven't dropped any qualification standards.

 

[madwabbit]

A gunman is raising a handgun toward officers during a robbery. The officers are generally required to instruct the armed robber to drop the weapon. Deadly force is authorized if the robber refuses to comply. A CCW holder does not have to give any warning or instructions to drop the weapon. The citizen may use deadly force immediately if there is a reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm.

wait, what???? lol! It's going to take a text wall to do this justice. Let me grab my coffee.

B.S.!!!! Raise a gun at me on or off duty, I will shoot you many many times. By raising a gun at me, you have instructed me to kill you as quickly as I can.

Oh, apparently it won't take a text wall. Well done sir.

 

[323MAR]

B.S.!!!! Raise a gun at me on or off duty, I will shoot you many many times. By raising a gun at me, you have instructed me to kill you as quickly as I can.

Yes, that is what happens most of the time. Be prepared to explain in detail how you complied with department policy during the investigation. Once again, citizens do not have to justify their actions within the policies of a department. Citizens only have to show that they have not broken the law.

 

[Jack]

Yes. I will speak about my department because that is what I know about. Every year our training gets better and we haven't dropped any qualification standards.

Thought about it and I'm not going to bother arguing with you about it. Here is a link to a lot of your peers saying exactly what I've said here. Go argue with all of them.

http://www.bayoushooter.com/forums/showthread.php?93279-revolver-for-POST-instructor

 

[MOTOR51]

Yes, that is what happens most of the time. Be prepared to explain in detail how you complied with department policy during the investigation. Once again, citizens do not have to justify their actions within the policies of a department. Citizens only have to show that they have not broken the law.

Please refer to my previous post. You should really stop talking about LE work.

 

[madwabbit]

A gunman is raising a handgun toward officers during a robbery. The officers are generally required to instruct the armed robber to drop the weapon. Deadly force is authorized if the robber refuses to comply. A CCW holder does not have to give any warning or instructions to drop the weapon. The citizen may use deadly force immediately if there is a reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm.

You've been watching too much TV. I just don't have the time this morning to tackle this post and tie it to a train track - thats what it deserves.

I'll leave it at this: your example would be an excellent introduction to "How to get Shot- For Dummies"

 

[MOTOR51]

So JBP55 is wrong about the requirements for post certification getting easier? In this thread, for example, he said the 50 yard portion was removed some years ago. That didn't happen?

lol, don't throw JB into this. I would be willing to bet that hit ratio has less to do with the 50yrd line and more to do with semi auto pistols. There have been no lowering of standards in many many years and actually they added more movement to the POST course. Granted the POST is an easy course it has not been lowered. We can argue about what someone else has said or what you have read

 

[323MAR]

You've been watching too much TV. I just don't have the time this morning to tackle this post and tie it to a train track - thats what it deserves.

I'll leave it at this: your example would be an excellent introduction to "How to get Shot- For Dummies"

OK, perhaps my example was a bad one on "Escalation of Force."
Simple yes or no question: Does your department have an "Escalation of Force" policy?

 

[Jack]

lol, don't throw JB into this. I would be willing to bet that hit ratio has less to do with the 50yrd line and more to do with semi auto pistols. There have been no lowering of standards in many many years and actually they added more movement to the POST course. Granted the POST is an easy course it has not been lowered. We can argue about what someone else has said or what you have read

I'm not throwing JBP into anything, I'm referencing someone who knows a lot more about this topic than I do and I'd wager more than anyone else still here. Remeber, pulp is comparing revolvers, which I'm almost certain were before your time. I'm saying that because changes may not have been made since you've been in law enforcement, but they certainly have been made since the time of the revolver. How long has it been since the majority of LEOs have been issues revolvers? 20 years?