TexasCHLforum.com

Feed&Guns wrote: You said, "It takes "training" to keep from shooting yourself or others. The safest gun ever made is no more or less safe than the person holding it. It takes a certain skill set that does not come naturally, but is imparted by "training."

The CHL class is not a training class but rather a simple test of, if you can even call it that, marksmanship. Since you say "it takes training" to be safe, and the CHL class is not firearms training, it's logical that you must believe the CHL classes should be harder.

Only to the extent that you put words in my mouth that I neither said nor implied. Now maybe I missed it, but I think the OP posted a title for this thread: "Carrying a 5" 1911 is hard" for a reason. That reason had nothing much to do with CHL class content.

Feed&Guns wrote:Otherwise, it would imply that you endorse licensing a bunch of "unsafe" people to carry concealed.

There you go again. Those are your words. not mine.

Feed&Guns wrote:I don't have to know you or your theories to know what a logical conclusion is...

No, but you do need to know me before you get very successful at putting words in my mouth.

Feed&Guns wrote:...unless you're a typical liberal and therefore live in a world without logic. I assume most people on the CHL forum don't fit that description. I might be wrong.

Now you think I'm a "typical liberal". You see, that is the wonderful thing about the Internet. Anyone can just haul off and insult people they've never met and say things that would never go quite as smoothly face to face as they do when they hide behind a keyboard. You're right as rain about one thing: you might be wrong about several things.

Feed&Guns wrote:I agree that most people don't have the fundamentals down and that training helps improve safety, and even that it's not *entirely* intuitive.

Finally, we agree.

Feed&Guns wrote:I'm sure that Miami cop that shot himself in the leg in that school wished he had "a little more training".

Now you're saying training is a good thing? I thought you said all people need is instinct to be handling firearms.

Feed&Guns wrote:But to say that they're not at all intuitive is equally absurd. We were talking about relatively intuitive guns for new shooters who will either not train at all or train infrequently.

No, you were talking about that. I said there is no such thing as an intuitive gun that will prevent someone from shooting themselves or others.

Feed&Guns wrote:Given that they won't train, which gun is best for their situation. Pretty sure everyone else reading this understood that point.

I wonder how you arrive at that conclusion since a lot more people read this than responded.

Feed&Guns wrote:But if I lost you with that simple logic in the first paragraph, then the other paragraphs surely were too complex.

The word is not "complex", but "convoluted". I'm not going to be snarky about this. If you think this reply is, I assure you, such was not my intent. I'm going to chalk it up to the reality that a lot of times a great many people have a lot of trouble typing out what they are thinking and making it come out right, me included.

Feed&Guns wrote: So you think CHL tests should be much harder I assume.

I'm glad you don't want to "quibble" since we see things the same. Especially since this is a CHL forum, you'll appreciate the difference between your theories and reality. You are right in every respect, but it's the same logic as the people saying "the world would be a safe place without guns". Ya, that's true. But it's uttered by the people who want to start by taking guns away from law abiding citizens leaving the criminals with guns. So it's a false argument.

Sorry bud. You lost me with the first sentence followed by the first paragraph. You have no idea who I am or what my theories or realities are. I'm out.

Feed&Guns wrote: I like the idea of a wild west, everyone carrying a "man's gun". But in reality I'd rather them carry something they can shoot instinctively rather than something they have to train with...assuming most people won't train.

You're new, so I'm not going to quibble too much with some things you've said...except this one.

Owning, handling, and shooting a gun is not in any way, shape, or form an "instinctive" exercise. There are two huge liabilities with that reasoning.

1) There is no firearm ever made that allows "instinctive" safe use and handling. It takes "training" to keep from shooting yourself or others. The safest gun ever made is no more or less safe than the person holding it. It takes a certain skill set that does not come naturally, but is imparted by "training."

2) You are responsible for every discharge of your weapon. You're held to account for each bullet. "Instinctive" won't cut it IF the implication is that there are people who can just pick up a particular make of gun one time in their lives and do it right. As if the gun does all the work for you. We both know that isn't true.

Training doesn't imply going to combat shooting classes every week. Training is getting proper instruction in the safe handling of a firearm and basic instruction in using it correctly. Very few guns have ever been made that do not lend themselves to safe and effective handling and use with a little training. "Instinct" may be used anywhere except when handling something that will end your life with a seemingly insignificant mistake. Assuming most people won't train, engage in proper instruction, is a fatal mistake, and no one who understands that should ever recommend such an individual own a gun.

AndyC wrote: They're also reliable, accurate, shoot a big bullet and have excellent ergonomics - I accept the fact that they carry less ammo than modern designs but I'm fine with the trade-off. I agree with you, though; they likely wouldn't suit sissies who whine about weight, the casual user who just won't learn how they work or folks who miss a lot

"And the Lord God spoke to John Moses Browning from a burning bush on the mountain and said, Go forth. And lo Moses did so and delivered the captives from the slavery of ugly pistols."

It is a tool for your belt. Why restrict the tools available to save your life?

I can give you one very solid tactical reason I carry a 1911 at times. IF I am ever confronted with a rifle or even shotgun wielding threat, I need to be able to direct precision fire at ranges well beyond 25 yards.

I shot 1911's in NRA competition routinely at 50 yards. I could place 5 rounds in a group that measured less than 2 inches - offhand. I know of no other handgun that can deliver that level of accuracy without major modifications that disqualify it for daily carry. In fact, I practiced for matches by offhand shooting at 100 yards. I could maintain 5-6 inch groups at that range. That is AK47 level accuracy. The secret is the 1911 is a single action weapon. The trigger is markedly superior to the vast majority of handguns available for defense.

Do I only carry a 1911? Of course not. Is the 1911 the best handgun for every task? Of course not. But given that EVERY weapon is a compromise, the 1911 does some things better than any other weapon. For that reason alone, it should be considered.

Two things I have learned in 6 decades of shooting: choose a good round loading an adequate bullet, and place your shots properly. The 1911 achieves both of these critical objectives.

kells81 wrote:I ordered a Cross Breed Holster and belt. Should get a chance to carry somewhere this week to try it out. I didn't realize the difference in a Gun belt and a belt until the gun belt I ordered arrived. That is a heckuva chunk of leather.

Very nice looking belts at a fair price. Good choice.

The Annoyed Man wrote: I have three of those...... for a M&P45 Full Sized, a H&K USPc .40, and a Glock 19. It's a good holster. My ONLY complaint is that I would have preferred a reinforced mouth. The holster carries very well and is comfortable. But it requires some care reholstering because of the tendency of the mouth to flatten out a little bit without the gun in it. Otherwise, it really is a good holster.

I'm thinking I might either find a saddle shop or give it a whirl adding a roll top. Shouldn't be too hard.

They are very reasonably priced on Amazon - $46 for mine.

On the "I just seem to want one side, I really want one of these:

http://www.epsaddlery.com/pc-97-12-5-pa ... lster.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They made the General's holsters for him. A real piece of history. Course then I'd need a real BBQ 1911!

JF...thanks for the help. I realized after looking at this photo that the little piece of leather on the topside, across the slide, is not present on mine. Mine looks outwardly like the first one TAM posted. The photo looks like a Commander size rig though. Mine is full size.

Since no one mentioned it to the OP, concealment is harder as it relates to grip size more than barrel length. The cant angle lessens the "footprint" of both.

I just returned from dinner and I wore the Kimber Custom TLE/RL II in this holster using the forward cant belt position. Covered it with a long, dark colored T-shirt.

http://www.desantisholster.com/SPEED-SCABBARD" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Sorry, I can't seem to get the image to copy. )

I had a full round and now my chamber is no longer empty.

oohrah wrote:I don't carry my gov model, because it's too dangerous cocked and locked, with a round in the chamber. And what would be the point if it was not.

Exactly. It is dangerous. ANY weapon with a round in the chamber is dangerous. But a great many people have been carrying 1911's cocked and locked safely for a lot of years. Texas Rangers, Sheriffs and Deputies, LAPD SWAT, military units, on and on the list goes.

On the other hand, carrying anything with NO round in the chamber is a lot more dangerous.

The secret, as TAM pointed out, is a quality holster and proper gun belt.