pretty darn fast

[jackdog]

nice video of some quick shooting, best is at the end

[SUNTZU]

The missing link!

[strickj]

:confused:

[canynracer]

nice video of some quick shooting, best is at the end
WOW...That WAS fast!!! I didnt even SEE it!! :D

[NELSON]

OUCH! Thread failure!

[Boomhower]

Nice!!!!

[jackdog]

Color me Stupid. :blush: :blush:

http://www.pact.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36&Itemid=53

sorry

[deerslayer]

That guy was good. Using my leather thumb-break holster (my CCW holster), I can draw and fire one shot from concealment (vest) from the retention position (one-handed, gun out of holster and simply rotated 90 degrees downrange) at a target within arm's reach in about .6-.7 seconds. In 1.07 seconds, he drew from a holster concealed under an untucked shirt (harder/ slower to execute), got a two-handed grip, and shot the guy 10 yards away. I can accomplish what he did with an OWB holster and no concealment in 1.07, but throw on a vest and it adds another .15-.2 seconds. Ripping an untucked shirt before drawing? I'm not sure how much time that would add to my first shot, but it would be a lot. That guy was a pro indeed.

[deerslayer]

Correction--his first shot was .85--all the more phenomenal.

:eek:

[Cruel Hand Luke]

Now factor out the reaction time to an outside stimulus (buzzer or whatever) and you will cut .25 or so off of those times............

Try this. Place a coin on the back of your hand and hold your hand and forearm parallel to the ground. Then go for your gun. That is more a measure of your draw to shot speed, not your reaction time, and THEN draw to shot speed.

Depending on your height, if you can draw and fire before the coin hits the ground that is about .15 to .10 of a second for a draw and shot. (objects fall 33.3ft/sec so 1/10 the height = 1/10th the time.) Now do it from concealment. How much slower was that? Interesting thing to play with......

[db99wj]

Now factor out the reaction time to an outside stimulus (buzzer or whatever) and you will cut .25 or so off of those times............

Try this. Place a coin on the back of your hand and hold your hand and forearm parallel to the ground. Then go for your gun. That is more a measure of your draw to shot speed, not your reaction time, and THEN draw to shot speed.

Depending on your height, if you can draw and fire before the coin hits the ground that is about .15 to .10 of a second for a draw and shot. (objects fall 33.3ft/sec so 1/10 the height = 1/10th the time.) Now do it from concealment. How much slower was that? Interesting thing to play with......

Nice practice tip. Will be practicing that one.

[deerslayer]

Now factor out the reaction time to an outside stimulus (buzzer or whatever) and you will cut .25 or so off of those times............

Try this. Place a coin on the back of your hand and hold your hand and forearm parallel to the ground. Then go for your gun. That is more a measure of your draw to shot speed, not your reaction time, and THEN draw to shot speed.

Depending on your height, if you can draw and fire before the coin hits the ground that is about .15 to .10 of a second for a draw and shot. (objects fall 33.3ft/sec so 1/10 the height = 1/10th the time.) Now do it from concealment. How much slower was that? Interesting thing to play with......

Draw and fire in .15? I don't think I can do that.

[Cannon Fodder]

Depending on your height,

I guess short people are screwed then. :lol: Draw and fire, but how accurate will you be?

[db99wj]

I guess short people are screwed then. :lol: Draw and fire, but how accurate will you be?

O crap, didn't think about that, I'm 5'9":rolleyes: Will need more practice:D

[Cannon Fodder]

O crap, didn't think about that, I'm 5'9":rolleyes: Will need more practice:D

Well I'm 5'6", 5.5'/32 ft/s = 0.172s hmm damn. :lol:

[jackdog]

I think a key point in the video that was mentioned was the reaction time. I believe they used 1.5 seconds. as an average. Point being that action is always quicker than reaction.

[Cruel Hand Luke]

Actually what they were saying is a world class shooter has a reaction time to the buzzer of about .15 of a second. So that is how far they moved the "beep" ahead of him starting his draw stroke. The "average guy" reaction time is more like .25 to .35 (or more) . So reaction time and draw is definitely different than just straight up draw speed.

Someone asked what kind of accuracy you can get. Usually COM hits on targets at 2-3 yards away. Now, I can't do it that fast with a 2 handed eye level shot. I'm drawing and shooting from "retention" or "point shooting" if you must call it that. But I'm also doing it from concealment just like in the video but from under an untucked polo shirt. I'll try to post video of me doing it. I have a snippet of that in a video presentation I'm doing at the Rangemaster Tactical Conference at the end of this month in Memphis.

[flyfishtn]

Thanks for sharing. That guys is FAST!

[BigJ45]

If you want to know your actual draw time without reaction time and have access to a timer start with the gun loaded and ready to fire pointed down range and have someone push the button and you fire. Then you have your reaction time to an audible signal then just subtract that from your draw time.

[bang-flash]

ok not from concealment, but still kinda fast

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ5Pts9dUdA

[jackdog]

I think my finger would fall off

[SUNTZU]

Holy crap

[jackdog]

was that first gun rigged for auto???
I can not believe any one can move a finger that quick. Even if it was not full auto I bet it is one light trigger.

[Papabear]

was that first gun rigged for auto???
I can not believe any one can move a finger that quick. Even if it was not full auto I bet it is one light trigger.

If you are talking about Jerry Miculek video then its fairly light. His comp guns run about 2.5 to 3 pounds for trigger pull.

[jackdog]

that makes more sense, but darn he is quick

[deerslayer]

Whatever the case, I hope people don't start using this video to argue that revolvers are just as good or better than semi-autos. If you're Jerry Miculek, this is true; if you're one of the other five or six billion earthlings, you won't be able to do this with a revolver.

[Cruel Hand Luke]

I don't mean to kick anyone's pet goldfish here, but it is not 1917 any more and most autos made by QUALITY manufacturers are as reliable as any revolver and MORE robust.

Revolvers are still 19th century technology. It is a fairly complex "watch" like mechanism that dirt and unburnt powder can bind the mechanism. They can and do go out of time and have to have the cylinder retimed. I know, I've had it happen. I've also had one bind up to the point it had to have a wooden mallet beat the cylinder open. These were not rusty old 1903 Smiths, these were a 1990s manufactured 642 (bound up cylinder) and a 1990s vintage SW625. My Glocks, Sig 226, Wilson 1911, Colt 1911 (made in 1921), nor any other auto I have ever owned has ever had any kind of catastrophic failure like this. So much for more reliable.....

The "reliability issue" with revolvers comes from the early years of the 20th century when there were a bunch of new european autos (and some early american designs) becoming available and the american market was heavily entrenched with the revolver. Most of these autos were of questionable reliability especially if black powder loads -which they were not designed around-were used. The revolver however would still fire if you could pull the trigger. So the buying public came to view the revolver as more reliable.

But oddly enough EVERY major army in the world would dump their wheel guns for autos by the mid 1920s. If these autos were "unreliable" does anyone really think they would have switched? For military combat where the guns are likely to get filthy and maybe be used as clubs (which can easily damage a revolver) revolvers were dumped 90 years ago! The reason we went to war in 1917 with a .45acp revolver is because Colt couldn't make enough 1911s FAST ENOUGH to arm everyone with and they already had tooling in place to make the revolver and so did Smith and Wesson. It was a matter of expedience NOT a matter of reliability!

So after WWII when they began looking to improve ammo for autos -sp and hp- some things would feed well and some would not. But due to its design, a revolver could even shoot the flat full Wadcutter shaped stuff. Autos still were designed around FMJ round nose stuff and early soft and hollow point stuff did not feed as well as the FMJ did. So again we get the notion that the revolver is more "reliable" but it is not a apples to apples comparison. If I ask a 5'2 guy to dunk a basketball on a 10 foot goal in a dunk contest against a 6'10 guy is that a fair comparison of ability? Of course not. One is more well built to do that particular activity and the other is not.

If I put unleaded gas in a diesel engine and try to drive cross country does the breakdown of the vehicle mean it is an unreliable vehicle? No. It means we fed it something it was not DESIGNED to use.So it is NOT that the autos were less reliable, they were less reliable with ammo that at the time was never intended to be used in those autos by their designers!

So no, revolvers are not more reliable. They are a 19th century technology that in the hands of a competent revolver shooter CAN be very effective (for the first 6 shots) but they are not as robust as autos, they do not have the capacity of any decent sized auto, they are harder to shoot (neither you nor I are Jerry Miculek and I don't care WHO you are a 4lb Single action trigger is easier to get good hits with than a 10-12lb DA trigger) and they are MUCH slower to reload.

Before anyone brands me a revolver hater , consider this. I won 7 consecutive Cowboy Action shooting yearly club championships between 2 clubs in SE Tn (TN Mountain Marauders in Chattanooga and Ocoee Rangers in Cleveland) in 5 years- 5 consecutive with one club and 2 consecutive with another at the same time. So I know a little about how to sling a wheel gun. And I CARRY a SW342 as my auxiliary (or "backup" if you must call it that) pocket gun ...BUT I also carry a Glock 34 in an IWB holster as my REAL gun. The SW is not carried because of any perceived reliability issue. It is carried simply because due to its size and shape it is not as obvious in my front pocket as a Glock 26 is and due to its shape I can draw it from my jeans faster than I can draw my G26. It is the derringer of the 21st century. But when I am wearing looser fitting cargo shorts I often go with the small auto.......The J frame fits a niche...but that niche is not "reliability".

[jackdog]

Well, I carry the G23 most of the time, but I still think revolvers have a place in the carry market. Yes most semi's are reliable, some more than others. But a revolver is only a trigger pull away from the next round if you have a dud. In a defense situation that could easily save your life.

[deerslayer]

I still like revolvers and am actually considering a SW 442 for a CCW. I just get tired of people referring to the Miculek video when they claim a revolver can be emptied and reloaded more quickly than an auto. Yes, it technically can, but who (except that guy) can actually do it?

[Grout]

Broken strikers in Glocks are considered "catastrophic" .:lol:

[bteague2]

In the first video at the end when they show it in super slow motion is the last shot a squib round? There wasn't muzzle blast like the first two and you can see a round or something almost fall out the end? (maybe I'm wrong and it was the case being ejected?)