From: reb@amc.com (Bob Brunjes)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: First Gun Suggestions?
Date: 12 Sep 92 13:53:28 GMT
Organization: Applied Microsystems, Redmond, WA

In article <1992Sep10.080539.9926@ke4zv.uucp> ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) writes:
#In article <1992Sep9.144334.703@nntp.hut.fi> r36110m@kaira.hut.fi (Mika Matti Jalava) writes:
##In article <1992Sep8.134139.29729@ke4zv.uucp> ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) writes:
###a .45 semi-auto. The .22 pistol is a specialist's weapon with limited
###appeal to the average shooter except for it's cheap ammo. 
##
##A specialist's weapon? Is everybody only interested in self defence
##when talking about handguns?
#
#Mika, the .22 is a wonderful paper puncher's weapon. There's nothing
#better. But, for a *first* gun for a shooter in the US who may someday
#migrate to a heavier weapon, it can allow you to develop some seriously
#bad habits that will be difficult to overcome in the future. That's
#why I don't like to start out beginning handgunners on a .22 pistol.
#A heavy .38 or .45ACP is a much better way to learn the basics of handling 
#a handgun. You'll develop better grip, better trigger control, better
#recoil response, and most of all an appreciation for the destructive 
#possibilities of a handgun with one of these than you will starting
#with a .22 that you can casually limp wrist into the 10 ring.
#
#I have a High Standard Supermatic Citation that I use when stalking
#the wily X ring, but I wouldn't want to start out a handgunner on
#that pistol with it's featherlight trigger, adjustable weights, and
#muzzle brake. And I certainly wouldn't start them out on a toy plinker
#like the Ruger, I have one of those too. Instead, I'd put a Smith
#Mod 19 or 25 in their hands, or a Colt .45, all with moderate target
#loads to start. That gets them used to the weight, recoil, and noise
#of a big gun right away, before they can develop bad habits. They
#don't argue about wearing hearing protection at all times. They learn
#to hold on tight with straight wrists when they fire. They learn to
#deal with recoil. These things are harder to teach with a .22 that
#weighs little, recoils not at all, and *seems* quiet.
#
#Later, when they have the basics down cold, is the right time to
#bring out the serious paper punching tools so they can work on
#their breathing and refine their sight picture. After that, bring
#out the toy to stalk the wily tin can for a little recreation.

Gary, with all due respect, this appears to go against everything I
think I know about handgun shooting.  I have been shooting and teaching
handgun for more than 30 years, so this is not _completely_ unfounded
opinion, but I'll stand still for come constructive correction.

Sure, I _do_ start new shooters with a .22 auto, for a couple of 
reasons.  One, it's easier to teach the very soft grip you must have
to get all the accuracy out of your gun, and this especially includes 
big-bores.  Two, it's easier to erase the flinch response when the
pupil is shooting a .22.  I guess, in view of what you've said, both
those items will put you over the top, but let me defend them.

One: the harder you grab a handgun, the more it wiggles and waves,
and the more likely you are to put the shot out in the weeds.  With
a .22 auto, I teach (and shoot) that the only forces your hand puts
on the gun are in 4 places.  These are supporting the gun against gravity
with the flipoff finger under the trigger guard and the web of the thumb
under the rear of the receiver, the thumb on the rest or top of grip,
and the tip of the trigger finger on the trigger.  The rest of the fingers
should just sort of rest around the grip.  If you try to "control" the gun
more, you'll control it less.

This principle is every bit as important shooting my Super Blackhawk, for
which my target load is 9.0 grains of Unique behind a 250-grain cast SWC.
Admittedly this is a weeny load, but it's still more than a 9mm or .45
ACP could ever produce.  In addition the "loose" principal gives the best
groups with my 250-grain gascheck H-110 1600 fps load, and that _ain't_
no weeny load.  Okay, I _do_ hang on to my .44 Bulldog a bit, but it's
not really a target gun.  (I've convinced several disbelievers that the
Super Blackhawk _is_ a target gun.)

By the way, while I've heard people, usually non- or mostly-non-shooters,
talk about having to "hang on for dear life or that dirty sumbitch will
jump out of your hands and whack you in the head", I've never actually
seen such behavior, let alone felt it.

Two: when a handgun recoils past a certain threshold (different for each
shooter) it's a bitch to lose a flinch, once acquired.  When the hammer
drops on an empty chamber, no matter how punishing the round would have
been, I want to see the muzzle rock-steady.  Anything less is sloppy
shooting and poor accuracy.  When I see a pupil (or God forbid, me)
flinch on an empty chamber, it's back to the .22 to lose the flinch.
I've heard other shooters voice this opinion, too.

As an aside, the .22 autos I use are both Rugers, one a 6" field-sight
Standard Auto, and the other a 5" bull-barrel target model.  One is
unabashedly a plinker, while the other I shoot more seriously.
Interestingly, both seem to group about the same, but I can adjust
sights on the target model.  I realize that guns like the Smith 41 and
some Hi-Standards are higher-quality guns, but that doesn't seem to cheer 
up the owners when the Rugers out-shoot them.  Now admittedly, this is
not the formal match circuit anymore, but at the range of a gun club
with a lot of serious shooters.  

I guess they're holding too tight and flinching.  

Seriously, if I'm wrong here I'd like to know how I went wrong; it 
concerns me how two experienced shooters could have such diametrically 
opposed views, and if I can shoot better, I'd sure as hell like to know 
how. 
#


Bob Brunjes		Applied Microsystems Corp
			Redmond, WA
			reb@amc.com