Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ORF Quals today

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ace
    started a topic ORF Quals today

    ORF Quals today

    Got home a little while ago from doing the annual ORF qualification. Got a harsh reminder of how shooting skill diminishes without practice. Sadly, I haven't kept up on my practice like I probably should, and it showed. Still kept the holes in the part that counts, except for a small number of 'partner shots' ( those shots that are outside the line--not a miss, but when you shoot the bad guy's partner behind him). Did better with the revawver than the semi-auto, but I could live on the difference. So, at this point, I'm almost in the mood to sell off the semi's, and revert to revawvers--almost; that will pass.
    Now to figure more practice rounds into the budget, and time to use them in the schedule. AND more dry-fire and trigger-control sessions. Ace2
    Last edited by Ace; 04-13-2019, 21:02.

  • mjkeat
    replied
    Originally posted by ricco View Post
    Actually 40 S&W is dying, in terms of SELF DEFENSE it does nothing better than 9mm and requires more effort

    As for cold coffee, cold or hot, I love the stuff
    .40 S&W was dead years ago.

    Coffee, I never really got into it until just recently when I finally pulled the trigger on some higher end stuff. Delicious. We drank it on the weekends and occasionally throughout the week on those hard to get the gears grinding type of mornings but it was more of utilitarian thing, definitely not a thing we did for pleasure.

    Leave a comment:


  • ricco
    replied
    Actually 40 S&W is dying, in terms of SELF DEFENSE it does nothing better than 9mm and requires more effort

    As for cold coffee, cold or hot, I love the stuff

    Leave a comment:


  • Ace
    replied
    That was probably for the best--carrying the wheelies, that is. Those goofy plastic guns are just a fad, and won't be around long, like that .40S&W caliber, plastic holsters, cold coffee, and other silly ideas. Ace2

    Leave a comment:


  • gerhard1
    replied
    Originally posted by Ace View Post
    When I was working, we had to qualify with each weapon we would be carrying; some of us looked like we were preparing for a revolution, the number of guns we showed up with. As ORF's, we only have to do the type we'll be carrying, semi-auto and/or revawver. No requirement to shoot each one we might carry. So one semi, one revawver, and we can carry any number of guns.

    TOM story along this line: BITD, there was one Sergeant I liked to give a hard time, and along with being a road supervisor (mine several times, off and on), he was also in charge of the firearms training and range master. He always rolled his eyes when I showed up, because it wasn't unusual for me to have something like six or seven to qualify with. One day, happened to be qual day, I happened to make a trade for a 7.5" .44 Redhawk with a scope mounted on it. Just to pick on Sarge, I showed up with that one in the case. The look on his face was worth it. Told him I didn't really need to shoot it, he told me I brought it, I'm gonna shoot it. So I did--found out that at three yards, with full-bore 240gr JHP's, you can leave some impressive powder burns on the target.
    When I retired, I found out he still had that gun on the list of ones I was authorized to carry. He had a sense of humor, too. Ace2
    Thank you, esteemed sir. That was pretty much the same way for me when I was a PI. As a private detective, the only restriction on what I carried was what I qualified with. I could only carry what was on my firearms license, but I could put what ever handgun I wanted on the license. I always put my Glock on it, my S&W 625 and my Model 65. I usually carried one of my S&W wheelguns, rarely the Glock.

    Leave a comment:


  • mjkeat
    replied
    Originally posted by Goodtime Charlie View Post

    Public relations? How? I don't get it.
    The general public still believes there's a strong correlation b/w a qual score and the officers ability to safely and successfully defend themselves on duty.

    There are a couple positive aspects of mandatory quals. One of those benefits is familiarity with their gear and subsequent comfort. All that stuff isn't physically comfortable and some people aren't psychologically comfortable either. Shooting guns can be intimidating for some. Not everyone has the exposure to such things like we do.

    How many times have you heard or heard of someone saying, only cops should have guns because they have the training? Generally speaking, I have met, know and have shot with some officers who are members here as well who this doesn't apply but, we know officers are not very well trained when is comes to use of a handgun during a critical incident especially a sudden assault. Though they are somewhat responsible for their own safety it ultimately is the fault of management. I wish I had the finances to send every single one too obtain the level of training they deserve.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ace
    replied
    When I was working, we had to qualify with each weapon we would be carrying; some of us looked like we were preparing for a revolution, the number of guns we showed up with. As ORF's, we only have to do the type we'll be carrying, semi-auto and/or revawver. No requirement to shoot each one we might carry. So one semi, one revawver, and we can carry any number of guns.

    TOM story along this line: BITD, there was one Sergeant I liked to give a hard time, and along with being a road supervisor (mine several times, off and on), he was also in charge of the firearms training and range master. He always rolled his eyes when I showed up, because it wasn't unusual for me to have something like six or seven to qualify with. One day, happened to be qual day, I happened to make a trade for a 7.5" .44 Redhawk with a scope mounted on it. Just to pick on Sarge, I showed up with that one in the case. The look on his face was worth it. Told him I didn't really need to shoot it, he told me I brought it, I'm gonna shoot it. So I did--found out that at three yards, with full-bore 240gr JHP's, you can leave some impressive powder burns on the target.
    When I retired, I found out he still had that gun on the list of ones I was authorized to carry. He had a sense of humor, too. Ace2

    Leave a comment:


  • gerhard1
    replied
    A question for the esteemed ace, if I could.

    When you qualify, can you only carry the gun that you qualified with, or what ever you want?

    Leave a comment:


  • Goodtime Charlie
    replied
    Originally posted by GMC70 View Post
    Quals are public relations. Little more.
    Public relations? How? I don't get it.

    Leave a comment:


  • mjkeat
    replied
    Originally posted by Not so big Tom View Post
    Most efficient for who? I’ve a kid half my age training me at work that does not get a left handed guy with twice his years twisting bolts has a different way.
    Within the same or similar context, CCW for us, and barring significant handicap or injury there is no "for who." How does you body and mind work that's significantly different than how mine works?

    I'm less concerned about "my way" as my focus is on the best way.

    There's a flaw in thinking "time in service" "time doing something" necessarily means mastery or better/best. How long has DPMS been making AR15s? A long damn time but they're still junk in comparison to BCM who is a relative new kid on the block.
    Last edited by mjkeat; 04-17-2019, 01:58.

    Leave a comment:


  • Not so big Tom
    replied
    Most efficient for who? Iíve a kid half my age training me at work that does not get a left handed guy with twice his years twisting bolts has a different way.
    Last edited by Not so big Tom; 04-17-2019, 01:31.

    Leave a comment:


  • mjkeat
    replied
    Originally posted by Not so big Tom View Post
    You did not answer why another path is wrong.
    Who said any certain path is necessarily wrong? Like I've mentioned many times before; good, better, most efficient. Also, as I've recommended quite a few times in the past, do a YouTube Effective vs. Efficient. We've discussed it here on a couple occasions as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Not so big Tom
    replied
    You did not answer why another path is wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • mjkeat
    replied
    Originally posted by Not so big Tom View Post
    There are many paths to the goal line. Why is any one that scores wrong?
    Great question. As we've discussed before there is good, better, and most efficient. If I'm choosing gear, techniques, and methods which we have 100% control of as a civilian why not choose the most efficient of those?

    Participating in fight focused type training helps us to understand the importance of such things. The proverbial cream rises to the top when things are really put to the test.

    If our training lacks context there's really no way to pass judgment. Working, effective, etc. isn't as reliable. Something may have worked but that doesn't mean it'll work again or that it was the best way. Efficiently completing the task at hand means you did so in less and with less effort and energy. In the context of self defense it means the BG had less time to hurt you and you chose a methodology and techniques that were easier or more intuitive. Quick explanation.

    I should add, if you're paying someone to educate you shouldn't they be teaching you the most efficient techniques rather than stuff that just works? If I'm paying I want what works the best.

    We also need to remember, over the broadest range of likely circumstances.
    Last edited by mjkeat; 04-16-2019, 23:55.

    Leave a comment:


  • Not so big Tom
    replied
    There are many paths to the goal line. Why is any one that scores wrong?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X