I shot IPSC competition in the 1980s. We used techniques developed from those used in the 1970s, which were based on techniques used in the 1960s and so on. I’ve shot only a couple of matches since then, so I haven’t really kept up with developments, and suddenly it’s decades later. Meh, I’m old. No worries, what I know works well enough, I told myself. I don’t need to learn this new stuff.

Sure, Uh-huh. Thing is, it’s not always about need.

I was at the range with my newly-minted speed gun and tried a few things. Then I tried a few different things and that produced some interesting results. Doing double taps at seven yards it was apparent I could keep things in the A-zone on a target. That’s what the game requires so good enough, right?

OK, it bugs me. It’s sloppy and feels un-controlled. I decided to do some rapid-fire. Just to make sure we’re all on the same page here a double-tap is when you aim, then fire twice very fast. The second shot is not aimed. When I am speaking of rapid fire in this context I mean firing as fast as I can get a decent sight picture. This means two, maybe three shots a second. It’s a little slower, but the results were a lot better.

Time for an experiment. Two targets side by side, two shots each. Double-taps were BoomBoom-pause-BoomBoom. OK, that was pretty quick. Now rapid Fire, which went Boom Boom Boom Boom. Rapid-fire was actually noticeably faster. No, I wasn’t running a shot timer, but it was obvious.

I’m not sure why. A mental issue? A training issue? Lack of practice? Don’t know, but Rapid Fire was not just faster, it was seriously more precise. I backed some targets out to ten yards, where I can’t consistently keep double-taps in the A-zone and tried rapid fire over and over. Interesting. I was not shooting any slower than I had at five yards.

OK, so double-taps are not The Way. I’m maybe the last person on the planet to know this. yes, there will be some stages and targets where the split-seconds saved justify them, but as a rule? Rapid Fire.

I also noticed my front sight is too wide. I’m slower getting a sight picture because I have to insure it’s centered; it’s wide enough that this isn’t obvious. Time to narrow down the front sight a bit.

I also tried a different grip and stance. I learned a modified version of the Weaver Stance. If you’re too young you can Google it. These days a ‘thumbs-forward-isosceles’ seems to be the hot ticket. using my old grip my right thumb rides the safety and the other is clamped on top of it

I tried to grip the gun in a more modern fashion-

This genuinely felt better doing rapid-fire, so now I am going to over-write my old training and decades of habit to use the new grip. Yay. I have found the the axis of the slide release makes a nice, natural place for my thumb and does not prevent it from working, so I am going to go with that.

So, to be hopelessly cliché, it’s time for the old dog to learn some new tricks. Yippee. Hope you all stay safe and take care.

Michael Tinker Pearce, 20 January 2022.

I posted a Youtube video about this gun, but I’m still learning and thought some close-ups might be a useful supplement to the video. So, here they are-

Big enough to use for duty, not too big for EDC. Slide lock is small but useable, safety is positive and easy to use, but too small to ride with my thumb as I’d prefer.

The safety is ambidextrous, the slide lock is not. The magazine release is brilliant; push it in from either side and the magazine drops clear. I love this.

The slide lock is smallish and it can be used to release the slide, but you’d be better off sling-shotting it.

Here’s the weirdly prominent loaded chamber indicator. It’s not in the way or anything and It’s useful, it just seems excessive.

Elevation-adjustable rear sight. That’s a pretty nice bonus on an economical service-type gun.

Punching out the pin at the bottom of the grip-frame allows you to reverse the backstrap is you prefer a more rounded profile.

So there you have it- just a little more detail to supplement the video.

ADDENDA:

Interesting. I called Ruger and they gave me instructions for sending the gun in. They also gave me some history on the gun- it was in in 2018 and rebuilt because it was basically worn out! The barrel was not replaced.

Who sent it in? Champion Arms, the indoor range where I am a member. It appears this may have been a range-rental gun. Given the price I paid I’d have still bought it knowing that, but it would have been nice to know. As expected Ruger customer service was super-nice and professional. They suspect a barrel replacement is in order.

Stay safe and take care.

Michael Tinker Pearce, 19 January 2022

First off, you need to understand something. This is not an attempt to demean either of these gentlemen or diminish their contributions. Props and all due respect to Mr.Marshal and Mr. Ellifritz. Both did pioneering work and deserve to be lauded for that. But as time moves on, new perspectives are applied we continue to move forward.

In 1988 Evan Marshal published ‘Handgun Stopping Power: the Definitive Study,’ an examination of handgun stopping power based on the results of actual shootings rather than theories or simulated testing. While this was a major stride n the right direction it was obsessively focused on one-shot stops. Instead of asking, ‘what worked in real-life shootings?’ it asked, ‘Among shootings where a single shot ended the fight, what worked best and most often?’ Given that fights ending with a single shot represented a minority of shootings this was less helpful than it appeared at first glance.

Ten years ago Greg Ellifritz published the results of asking more relevant questions in his article ‘An Alternative Look at Handgun Stopping Power.’ Those questions were ‘In real life shootings how often were handguns of a given caliber effective regardless of the number of shots fired?’ and the equally important, ‘How often did handguns of a given caliber fail to stop an attacker, regardless of the number of shots fired?” This study found that there was little practical difference between calibers between .380 ACP and service caliber or even magnum caliber pistols in stopping an assailant.

This study produced a much more relevant set of data, given that most shootings with handguns involve multiple shots. It’s a praiseworthy effort, but it doesn’t go quite far enough to be universally applicable, because private individuals self-defense shootings and police and military shootings are often fundamentally different and require a different question, which is ‘How often do civilian shootings end with the flight or surrender of the assailant compared to Police and Military shootings?’

My impression is that flight or surrender is significantly more likely in civilian shootings than police and military shootings, and that police and military shootings are more likely to require a ‘hard’ or ‘mechanical’ stop where the assailant stops because they are physically incapable of continuing. Mr. Ellifritz does address this to a degree in the discussion, but a lot of people look at the tables without reading all of the way through so I felt it necessary to reinforce and expand upon this point.

If my impression is correct not distinguishing between police and civilian shootings might tend to skew the results in favor of calibers like .22 LR, .25 ACP, .32 and .380 ACP and .38 Special, which are used almost exclusively by civilians these days. The shootings they are involved in are less likely to require a hard stop. Shoot most criminals in the course of a robbery or assault and they are likely to flee or surrender, which exaggerates the effectiveness of these calibers. Service calibers used in the weapons of LEOs and soldiers have a greater need to produce a hard stop and therefore have a higher burden of required effectiveness. It appears that ‘adequate stopping power’ in a handgun is at least in part situational. As usual gunfights are more complicated than a simple set of statistics can express.

We often say there’s a screw for every nut, but there is definitely not a single nut for every screw. As an individual, whether you are Mr./Mrs./Ms. Citizen, a law enforcement officer or military, you need to realistically assess the threats you will face and balance their likelihood against practical considerations. As an average citizen you are, on average, likely to be OK with any gun you can carry routinely, train with regularly and shoot well. As on-duty Police or military you will probably find you want more capability; more power, more shots, better penetration etc.

Regardless of who your are telling you it’s a good idea to rely on the largest, most powerful handgun practical for your life, skill and circumstances is not bad advice… and while you are at it use proven, modern defensive ammunition.

Stay Safe and take care.

Michael Tinker Pearce, 19 January 2021

Don’t forget to check out the new Tinker Talks Guns Youtube channel! It’s early days, but I’m adding more content all the time. If you like what you see please consider clicking the link above and supporting me on Patreon.