I will admit that I am one of the worst when it comes to making a concerted effort to practice with just one hand. However, recent injuries from over-training mixed with a strong desire to continue my advancement of skill with a pistol have led me to training with at least one hand. I found it to be quite rewarding. Let me break down how this can do wonders for you in practice and on the range.
I will agree that firearms are indeed tools, and typically it is good to have a variety of tools in your toolbox. However, a firearm is not a $5 wrench that you can just toss in a little chest or bucket in case you need it down the road. Firearms require training, practice, commitment, care, etc. Not to mention that each firearm is hundreds of dollars, not including the amount of rounds needed to not only verify a lack of manufacturer defects but also to gain proficiency with the platform. These "tools" are money pits if you get too far down the rabbit hole on the "WHAT IF" game, which effectively turns them from being tools, into being financial burdens.
Striker drag is an issue that became a popular critique of the Sig P365. However, this is not the first pistol I have seen that gives striker drag on the primers. For instance, the M&P Shield has always done that for me, and I never really saw it as an issue because it wasn't really a topic that came up until the Sig P365 came out.
I know we have all heard the discussions about pistols and how one is better than the other. You may have even heard old gramps talk about his trusty old .45 that saved America from a million commies. But one discussion that can get as heated as the caliber debate is what pistol is the best one to bring into combat. What would be the best combat pistol?
When you look at these two pistols, it seems that there would be a massive difference between the Sig P229 and the Tristar C100. However, there are a good amount of things that these pistols have in common. In this article, I am going to dig into some of these differences based off my experiences with both. I have a similar amount of rounds through both, so I think it is a relatively fair comparison.
Beretta is a trusted name in the firearms community. Whether people like it or not, Beretta has a proven track record for developing strong, reliable, and innovative weapons that stand the test of time. Even today, the 92 series of pistols are still regarded as one of the strongest and best pistols on the market. But how does the old design of the 96A1 stack up to the new design of the PX4 Storm? Both of these pistols have seen use in a Law Enforcement capacity, and they are both in .40 caliber. So which one is best, and which one is the best one for the .40 caliber cartridge?
Since the Beretta M9 was adopted by the US military, there have been doubts and questions about the reliability and validity of the Beretta 92 series design as being a true combat pistol. After about 3 decades of service in the military, it has been replaced with a polymer framed pistol, the Sig P230. Since the development of the 92 series pistols, polymer pistols started to hit the civilian and law enforcement in force. Eventually, people started to see alloy and metal framed pistols like the Beretta 92 series to be outdated compared to the lighter and less complicated polymer framed pistols. But is this claim really valid? Well, let me give my impressions on this design and share what I know as far as the claims and how they match up to my experiences with this design.
I have become pretty interested in .40 caliber lately. The ballistics are great, the recoil can be a challenge, and the round wears guns down. For most people, this is a list of reasons they don't like the .40 caliber. Personally, I like a challenge in terms of shooting, and I like to wear my guns a bit. So, for the rest of you folks out there, why would you have any interest in the Beretta 96A1? Well, hopefully I can spill some of my knowledge and experience and let you decide.
Shooting is one of the hardest skills to pick up and perfect due to the physical, mechanical, and technological variables. Your fitness, your mental state, your firearm(barrel length and construction), and your ammunition will all have an effect on your performance. Not to mention that the climate and environment will all play a role as well. There are alot of things that go into shooting, but the hardest thing for people to get right is being able to exercise great discipline and learn to control their mind and body in order to shoot consistently well. For almost all shooters, this is a lifelong struggle no matter how much better they get. A good shooter always strives to be better than they were yesterday rather than just trying to be better than the person next to them.
Fighting in a low light setting is one of the most demanding things you can do, let alone with a firearm. It requires alot of things to be done right and for you to be very proficient. This means that you must practice and constantly challenge yourself. If there is anything I have learned in my time of fighting in low light and training in low light, it is that there is no one thing that is universally applicable. Darkness will complicate everything and adding in having to use and be mindful of other gear, in addition to your gun, adds to the complexity. There are a few basic things that are necessary and vital to effectively fighting at night, and I want to go over them briefly.
Do It Rite
Alaska-Based Youtube Vlogger, Retired Marine, gun enthusiast, and passionate firearm and gear evaluator.