Friend Tamara is a dedicated shooter and firearms blogger, with an admirable collection of arms, both common and unusual. In her The Arms Room blog, she has written about many exotic and exemplary firearms. Not all of them are everyone's cuppa tea, but she has a way of making them all interesting.
One thing I particularly admire about Tams is that she has very few pure safe queen guns. Practically every one of them is a shooter, even if it's inconvenient to feed some of them.
In her regular View From the Porch blog, she recently wrote about her personal stash of ammunition -- what she likes to have on hand to feed her guns, or guns she's likely to come across. She listed some 51 separate cartridges she likes to keep on hand. Fascinating. I suggest you give it a read.
I went down her list and noted where our interests coincide, and where they wildly diverge. Elder Son and I have done some experimenting with many of the more common cartridges, and a few of the lesser used ones. I wandered into my messy reloading room/workshop and got to thinking about the ammo I hand oad, and am ABLE to load. I may not need some of these, but if called upon, I could put together ammo for all these guns. I note that I only load for some 20 of the cartridges Tam lists. They're the ones above the dashed line. I can load an additional 20 cartridges besides.
In fairness, I must acknowledge that it's easy to "double dip" some of these items. For example, Tams lists .38 ACP, which she could shoot in my Super .38 Colt. Also .223 and 5.56x45mm AND the .308 and 7.62x51mm pairs are interchangeable for casual use. My claim that I can load .454 Casull may be reaching, as it is only a matter of readjusting .45 Colt dies. But, is this any less valid than claiming .38 Special/.357 mag and .44 Special/.44 mag as four separate cartridges?
My List:
.45ACP
.44 Magnum
.44 Special
.44-40
.41 Magnum
.357 Magnum
.38 Special
9x19mm
.25ACP
.32ACP
.380ACP
.455 Webley Auto
.38ACP
.303 Brit
7.62x51 NATO
300 Whisper
.30'06
.45-70
5.56x45
.243 Winchester
- - - - - - - - - - -
.38 S&W
.38 Super
.357 Sig
.40 S&W
10 mm auto
.455 revolver
.45 Colt
.45 S&W
.45 Auto Rim
.454 Casull
.222 Remington
.223 Remington
.257 Roberts
.270 Win
.30 US Carbine
.30-30 Win
.308 Win
.300 WinMag
.35 Whelen
.375 H&H
On the other hand, while I could shoot my standard .257 and .30'06 ammo in rifles chambered for the Ackley Improved versions, I don't count these separately.
And I can't believe I have rifles for 7.5 mm Swiss, 7.62x39 mm, .38-40 WCF, and .338 WinMag, but can't handload these.
I freely admit that I'm a hobbyist. There's no way I "need" to handload near all those cartridges. Even as much as I like to shoot, I could get along very well with only a dozen die sets. But, hey, I already have the gear on hand, and it doesn't eat anything while not in use. Yeah, there's a fair bit of money invested in those items, and the presses and related stuff. The spending was spread out over decades, and I don't recall missing but a few meals in all that time. Have you priced a set of good golf clubs or some scuba gear lately?
Hey, this is kinda fun, once I get to going. Maybe I should blog a little more often . . . .
Showing posts with label Tamara. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tamara. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Killer Contests?
In her always-entertaining blog, View From The Porch, my esteemed friend Tamara wrote a piece on 10NOV (Happy Birthday, USMC!) which she titled, Ninja combat powers, activate! The premise is that a recent publication, Guns & Ammo Book of Personal Defense, included
" . . . a piece by Chuck Taylor on how competition shooting will get you killed. Heck, even thinking about attending an IPSC event could get you grazed, and shooting an NRA Bullseye match is guaranteed to cause a mugging.. . . . the article was long on telling you that Chuck was a former world-class IPSC shooter, IPSC sucks, and... well, that was pretty much the long and the short of it, . . . ."
Tam’s article is well worth the reading, and I understand just what she’s saying, perhaps somewhat better than most of her readers. In 1980, I spent a week at Jeff Cooper's original Gunsite, largely under Chuck Taylor’s instruction. It is interesting that at that time, he was already a veteran IPSC shooter, but had nothing bad to say about that particular discipline. In fact, after my class, I stayed over an extra day to participlate in a large, local IPSC match, run by - - Guess who? Chuck put on an excellent and challenging match, during which I used to good advantage much of what HE had taught during the previous week. No, I didn't win, nor even place really high, but I was happy. At the end, I told Chuck that my decent performance was largely due to what I'd just learned from him and Jeff. He seemed quite gratified by my comments.
The International Practical Shooting Confederation was set up to provide a framework within which the PRACTICAL usage of firearms by individuals, and the Modern Technique of the Pistol embodying the principals Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas (Accuracy, Power, Speed) could be fostered and advanced. Founded in 1976, IPSC at first worked on the premise that, in a match setting, a shooting scenario would be posed, and it was up to the individual shooter to “solve the problem” within broad rules, mostly concerned with safety. In this manner would the state of the art progress.
Now, (why even bother to state it?) no match stage, no matter how well thought-out, can hope to exactly simulate all the stresses and variables of a true armed confrontation. But you should compare the IDEA of a match or stage so structured with a regular bullseye shooting match, or even the well conceived but totally obsolete Practical Pistol Course (PPC,) originated by the FBI. About all those two types of shooting have in common with IPSC, or the later IDPA, shooting are that they involve the use of handguns. When the shooter is required to exercise judgment in choice of targets, using strategy, tactics, and cover, while being scored for speed, noticible levels of stress are experienced. In matches which require the use of “street worthy” arms and holsters, frequently hidden by cover garments, a certain level of realism is truly present. A smooth, rapid draw, initiated by an external signal, combined with accurate hits, often on multiple targets, oft times needing to reload “on the clock,” is necessary to make a good showing in such a match. Who’s to say that these would NOT be good talents to possess if confronted by a deadly situation on a parking lot or in a dark hallway?
Whatever pressures are or are not present in this type of “game playing,” how could it fail to be more valuable practice and training than what we see on the range day after day? The shooter strolls up to the firing line (choosing a distance at which he feels comfortable) and loads up his pistol, often without even using a holster. Shooter takes his time, aims carefully, and fires off a magazine at a target. Shooter congratulates himself if he fires as many as TWO SHOTS A SECOND! We watch as the shooter repeats this same thing, over and over, until -- usually-- a box of ammo is expended. And you can see the same thing when the shooter is a police officer. The difference may be that the practicing cop USUALLY wears his duty rig on the firing line. Knowing that he is not being timed, the office seldom makes any attempt at a rapid draw. Periodic qualifications are about the only time that most officers make any attempt toward speed, and standards are seldom very high.
Speaking of periodic qualifications on the police range - - - I’ve been chided by more than one rangemaster, “You’re allowed 20 seconds on this string, JP. Why don’t you take your time and shoot a tighter group?” Well, there’s no good purpose to backtalk the guy in charge, especially in front of rookies. But I’ve been tempted to observe that while HE might give me a full third-of-a-minute, sumdood coming out of the Seven-11 with fifty-six stolen bucks and a Jennings .22 might not be so generous.
As I say, Tam’s article is good reading. Re-checking it while preparing this little effort, I note that some of her commentators also have some interesting and relevant observations. There is pretty wide agreement that, with proper mind set, participation in shooting matches is NOT necessarily an invitation to disaster on the street. Chuck Taylor has an impressive background in shooting, but I fear he may currently be sending a misleading message, just for the sake of controversy.
" . . . a piece by Chuck Taylor on how competition shooting will get you killed. Heck, even thinking about attending an IPSC event could get you grazed, and shooting an NRA Bullseye match is guaranteed to cause a mugging.. . . . the article was long on telling you that Chuck was a former world-class IPSC shooter, IPSC sucks, and... well, that was pretty much the long and the short of it, . . . ."
Tam’s article is well worth the reading, and I understand just what she’s saying, perhaps somewhat better than most of her readers. In 1980, I spent a week at Jeff Cooper's original Gunsite, largely under Chuck Taylor’s instruction. It is interesting that at that time, he was already a veteran IPSC shooter, but had nothing bad to say about that particular discipline. In fact, after my class, I stayed over an extra day to participlate in a large, local IPSC match, run by - - Guess who? Chuck put on an excellent and challenging match, during which I used to good advantage much of what HE had taught during the previous week. No, I didn't win, nor even place really high, but I was happy. At the end, I told Chuck that my decent performance was largely due to what I'd just learned from him and Jeff. He seemed quite gratified by my comments.
The International Practical Shooting Confederation was set up to provide a framework within which the PRACTICAL usage of firearms by individuals, and the Modern Technique of the Pistol embodying the principals Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas (Accuracy, Power, Speed) could be fostered and advanced. Founded in 1976, IPSC at first worked on the premise that, in a match setting, a shooting scenario would be posed, and it was up to the individual shooter to “solve the problem” within broad rules, mostly concerned with safety. In this manner would the state of the art progress.
Now, (why even bother to state it?) no match stage, no matter how well thought-out, can hope to exactly simulate all the stresses and variables of a true armed confrontation. But you should compare the IDEA of a match or stage so structured with a regular bullseye shooting match, or even the well conceived but totally obsolete Practical Pistol Course (PPC,) originated by the FBI. About all those two types of shooting have in common with IPSC, or the later IDPA, shooting are that they involve the use of handguns. When the shooter is required to exercise judgment in choice of targets, using strategy, tactics, and cover, while being scored for speed, noticible levels of stress are experienced. In matches which require the use of “street worthy” arms and holsters, frequently hidden by cover garments, a certain level of realism is truly present. A smooth, rapid draw, initiated by an external signal, combined with accurate hits, often on multiple targets, oft times needing to reload “on the clock,” is necessary to make a good showing in such a match. Who’s to say that these would NOT be good talents to possess if confronted by a deadly situation on a parking lot or in a dark hallway?
Whatever pressures are or are not present in this type of “game playing,” how could it fail to be more valuable practice and training than what we see on the range day after day? The shooter strolls up to the firing line (choosing a distance at which he feels comfortable) and loads up his pistol, often without even using a holster. Shooter takes his time, aims carefully, and fires off a magazine at a target. Shooter congratulates himself if he fires as many as TWO SHOTS A SECOND! We watch as the shooter repeats this same thing, over and over, until -- usually-- a box of ammo is expended. And you can see the same thing when the shooter is a police officer. The difference may be that the practicing cop USUALLY wears his duty rig on the firing line. Knowing that he is not being timed, the office seldom makes any attempt at a rapid draw. Periodic qualifications are about the only time that most officers make any attempt toward speed, and standards are seldom very high.
Speaking of periodic qualifications on the police range - - - I’ve been chided by more than one rangemaster, “You’re allowed 20 seconds on this string, JP. Why don’t you take your time and shoot a tighter group?” Well, there’s no good purpose to backtalk the guy in charge, especially in front of rookies. But I’ve been tempted to observe that while HE might give me a full third-of-a-minute, sumdood coming out of the Seven-11 with fifty-six stolen bucks and a Jennings .22 might not be so generous.
As I say, Tam’s article is good reading. Re-checking it while preparing this little effort, I note that some of her commentators also have some interesting and relevant observations. There is pretty wide agreement that, with proper mind set, participation in shooting matches is NOT necessarily an invitation to disaster on the street. Chuck Taylor has an impressive background in shooting, but I fear he may currently be sending a misleading message, just for the sake of controversy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
