Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
Defensive Revolver Fundamentals
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="gerhard1" data-source="post: 3142422" data-attributes="member: 5391"><p>For me, Grant Cunningham's book <strong><em>Defensive Revolver Fundamentals </em></strong>was a mixed bag. Before I go further with this, intellectual honesty--a trait that I find sadly lacking in some--demands that I make one correction to something I said somewhere else and that was that Cunningham does not seem to believe in unsighted fire. He does, but doesn't put a lot of stress on it, and he says that whenever possible we should use our sights. That is a sensible approach, because we won't always have time to get a good sight picture.</p><p></p><p>Cunningham stresses using the body's natural reactions in a fight and his (and I presume Pincus' as well) approach seems to take advantage of and use these reactions.</p><p></p><p>On accuracy, Cunningham tells us the difference between accuracy and precision when engaging in a fight, Using the example of an 8" circle in the COM he defines accuracy as a hit anywhere in that circle. OTOH, precision (a 3" or smaller circle or a much tighter group) is not needed as it is a matter of degree. I tend to agree with him on this. Accuracy is not graduated; it either is or isn't. You hit the 8" circle or you don't.</p><p></p><p>I agree wih this.</p><p></p><p>What I don't agree with is his almost worshiping at the altar of efficiency. One statement in the book is that our main goal is to be efficient. I take issue with this. Granted we should streamline the process as much as we can but this is simply a means of arriving at the real goal which is to stop the threat.</p><p></p><p>Cunningham stresses training with a partner. This partner does not have to a be a shooter but is simply a means of adding a degree of randomness, chance or unpredictability to our practice. I did this many years ago in Seattle by making six circles on a large board and I would draw and shoot at the circle whose number he called out. Cunningham says, and it stands to reason, that since real-life 'events' are almost never predictable, our training should not be either. He goes on to give other examples of good practice. Something else that I go along with is his views on what we train for and that is the most likely event.</p><p></p><p>In short, Cunningham's book is excellent even though I don't agree with everything in it and it presents the revolver as a still-viable choice for self-defense today. Much to my surprise, I found that Rob Pincus agrees with this.</p><p></p><p>It is a book that is very worthwhile and I am glad to have it in my library.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="gerhard1, post: 3142422, member: 5391"] For me, Grant Cunningham's book [B][I]Defensive Revolver Fundamentals [/I][/B]was a mixed bag. Before I go further with this, intellectual honesty--a trait that I find sadly lacking in some--demands that I make one correction to something I said somewhere else and that was that Cunningham does not seem to believe in unsighted fire. He does, but doesn't put a lot of stress on it, and he says that whenever possible we should use our sights. That is a sensible approach, because we won't always have time to get a good sight picture. Cunningham stresses using the body's natural reactions in a fight and his (and I presume Pincus' as well) approach seems to take advantage of and use these reactions. On accuracy, Cunningham tells us the difference between accuracy and precision when engaging in a fight, Using the example of an 8" circle in the COM he defines accuracy as a hit anywhere in that circle. OTOH, precision (a 3" or smaller circle or a much tighter group) is not needed as it is a matter of degree. I tend to agree with him on this. Accuracy is not graduated; it either is or isn't. You hit the 8" circle or you don't. I agree wih this. What I don't agree with is his almost worshiping at the altar of efficiency. One statement in the book is that our main goal is to be efficient. I take issue with this. Granted we should streamline the process as much as we can but this is simply a means of arriving at the real goal which is to stop the threat. Cunningham stresses training with a partner. This partner does not have to a be a shooter but is simply a means of adding a degree of randomness, chance or unpredictability to our practice. I did this many years ago in Seattle by making six circles on a large board and I would draw and shoot at the circle whose number he called out. Cunningham says, and it stands to reason, that since real-life 'events' are almost never predictable, our training should not be either. He goes on to give other examples of good practice. Something else that I go along with is his views on what we train for and that is the most likely event. In short, Cunningham's book is excellent even though I don't agree with everything in it and it presents the revolver as a still-viable choice for self-defense today. Much to my surprise, I found that Rob Pincus agrees with this. It is a book that is very worthwhile and I am glad to have it in my library. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
Defensive Revolver Fundamentals
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom