- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Okay, I’ve passed into the the relm of age where I guess I may be a borderline Curmudgeon, but there’s something I’ve noticed on the range over the last few years.
I don’t know if alot of the young men I’m seeing out there have never had a father or uncle, or boy scout leader, who taught them to shoot, but the level of marksmenship I’m seeing, or the lack of, is a little scary. It seems like many of the young guys going out and getting a handgun are being guided by the worthless junk spewed out by the gun magazines. First time handgun buyers with 1911’s, .357 mags, the almighty Glock.
Whatever happed to getting a nice accurite .22 and learning to shoot really well before gettng the tactical handcannon?
Just the other day, I was at the range, and there were two young 20 something guys with the Beretta .40 caliber version of the service arm, and niether was doing too well. In fact, at the 25 yard backstop where their targets were, was maybe the safest place downrange. Both had just bought the guns and picked them up, niether had ever had or shot a handgun before. There were only the three of us out there, and after a bit I noticed they were looking over in my direction and muttering among themselves. Soon, when I called for a range clear to put up more trargets, they asked me if I could give them a few pointers on shooting.
It took only a moment to see they had very little if any shooting experiance. An airgun when they were kids that they shot in the wood lot next to where they lived. I started them at the begining, with the holy trinity of sight picture, breath control, and trigger squeeze. They already had formed some bad habits, and when they shot thier own gun, I could see one of them had a bad flinch.
I told them to set thier guns aside, and I gave them each a block of instruction on my Smith and Wesson K22 revolver. In a short time, I had them doing better, and they both remarked on how accurite the .22 was, and how much more enjoyable it was. When they went back to using the .40 caliber auto’s, they did okay for the first magazine, but went downhill rapidly. I asked them why they had bought the guns they did, and they said it was recomended by the guy at the gunshop.
The guy at the gunshop.
The guy at the gunshop has the same end goal of the so called gun magazines; to make money. The gunshop by selling the most expensive gun he can that needs the more expensive ammo, the gun magazines by selling advertiing to manufacuters who want to push the sales of expensive guns and ammo. The service to the shooter is the last thing they care about.
When I was a kid, one leaned to shoot on a .22. Things like the holy trinity were pounded into ones head by dad, or an uncle, or the scoutmaster of the troop you belonged to. In my case, all of the above. When that kid got older, he graduated to a bigger gun, if he needed it. Deer hunting, or whatever. If he wanted to defend his home, he got a .38 revolver and practiced with it. Back in those days the .38 revolver was the main handgun. It seemed to work well, and killed alot of criminals in spite of what the modern gun magazines and keyboard comando’s say how its old and obsolite.
Today, young adults with larger amounts of disposable income than thier fathers ever had, now go out and buy a first gun suitable for a GI storming an enemy position. Never mind shooting skills polished by a few years of a junior rifle league or such. Now I see young guys on the range who really are very poor shots in general. they are using the wonder gun of the month as preached by the gun rags.
I see where both SIG and CZ had versions of thier service pistols in .22 caliber, with the option of buying a centerfire conversion at a decent price. That seems like a much better way to go than starting out with a center fire and becoming a medicre shot at best.
What ever happended to getting a .22 first and becoming a good shot first, though?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.