More on single action speed shooting

[David E]

Interestingly, I took a guy to the range that I'd call a casual, average shooter.

I handed him my M-66 loaded with .38's and had him run two cylinders at a sheet of paper at 5yds one handed. He missed one or two on the first run, got them all the second.

I put up two sheets and told him I'd be shooting too, so let's see who finished first. I was using the same Ruger .357 Blackhawk as before.

I was pretty sure I'd beat him time-wise and if not, then I'd have all my hits whereas he would not.

The first run, he missed his first shot, I didn't, so I stopped right there. So we did it again.

THIS time, he was very focused and shot faster than ever and edged me out by about 1/2 second. Ah, but I had all my hits!........as did he.

At first, I was disappointed he beat me, but then I saw the bigger picture: a virtually unskilled shooter who basically had 4 cylinders of DA shooting practice edged out a semi-skilled SA shooter. Maybe another SA shooter would've won that run, but with some serious practice, or maybe only 100 rds, the DA shooter would win again. And every time thereafter.

One main point in the other thread was that the SA falls way short of the DA when fired at speed one handed.

Two handed, it's s wash for the first 5-6 shots. But you don't always get to use two hands.

 

[CraigC]

If you want to prove how fast a SA is vs a DA, then pick any standardized course of fire (CASS, IDPA, FBI, POST Police, whatever), specify a minimum loading level, and have a bunch of people run the course with each type of action.

.....a virtually unskilled shooter who basically had 4 cylinders of DA shooting practice edged out a semi-skilled SA shooter.

Completely irrelevant. The whole argument started when 'some' suggested that THEY were better with single actions than double actions and that FOR THEM, the single action was a valid choice for self defense. Not how an unskilled SA shooter compares to a skilled or unskilled DA shooter. Not how the best of DA shooters compares to gunwriters or any of those other silly comparisons. Not how I compare to David E. Those are all tangents.

It has always been accepted that given the same level of practice with each action type, the DA is going to be faster one-handed. That has never been in question. So the above mentioned comparisons, while interesting, are irrelevant. The question was always whether or not a skilled SA shooter was well-enough armed with an SA versus a platform he was much less skilled with like a DA or automatic.

What ensued was a lot of generalities and 'some' folks who don't know telling those who do what is what. Well, if you want to know about competitive DA shooting, asking a skilled competitive DA shooter. If you want to know about SA shooting, you should probably ask someone else. One should not presume to know better than the other. Jerry Miculek vs Bob Munden.

Your condescension is becoming comical.

It's not condescension. I'm just pointing out a hole in your experience that you are all too willing to pretend doesnt' exist. The difference between us is that I freely admit to being somewhat DA challenged and almost completely ignorant of competitive shooting sports. Whereas you believe your DA experience makes you an authority on SA shooting. You believe your competition experience with .38's and .45ACP's makes you an authority on big bores like .454's, .475's and .500's. Neither is true but that doesn't keep you from making generalities and casting aspersions on those who obviously have more experience in those areas. It's not condescension, it's fact. Hopefully all who are reading this can tell the difference between those who speak from experience and those who speak from uninformed opinion.

 

[buck460XVR]

I see this as a commercial for F.A. and their .454 revolver.....nuttin' more, nuttin' less. Major difference I saw with Towsley is that he used his strong hand to cock the hammer as opposed to his support hand like the others shooters do. This is generally faster, but for the inexperienced, can take the gun off target, especially for folks without large hands. I also wonder how many takes Towsley really had before they had the one they ended up with.


Were they fast? Relatively, in my experience. No. I don't shoot a SA .454, I shoot a DA .460. Since it's a hunting gun I generally shoot it SA. I also use my strong hand to cock the hammer in SA, but I generally am not doing it as Bear Defense. 5 yards @ a stationary target from a ready position? A charging bear will not give you 3 seconds from 5 yards. Starting the timer @ the first shot IMO, after taking a relaxed and concerted effort at aiming, means you are talking 4 shots and disregarding the accuracy of the first round.

Could most folks with average experience with big bore revolvers be able to duplicate what we saw in the video if they were allowed practice time and video editing? I sure hope so. As for the shooters, I was amazed at the amount of closed eyes before the trigger was pulled.

What this video did very well was to shoot how a hard it is to control a heavy recoiling round in a fairly light for caliber platform, even for those experienced, wearing padded shooting gloves and practiced with them. One reason legitimate .454 ammo in the Ruger frames are not shot a lot at the range. Just too damn brutal to be fun. I think is also shows that if one is serious about bear defense with big bore revolvers, that DA revolvers should be the preferred choice.

 

[CraigC]

Major difference I saw with Towsley is that he used his strong hand to cock the hammer as opposed to his support hand like the others shooters do.

They all used the weak thumb to cock the hammer. Towsley is left handed.

I think is also shows that if one is serious about bear defense with big bore revolvers, that DA revolvers should be the preferred choice.

I don't agree with that at all. If anything, Towsley showed that the skilled SA shooter gives up nothing to a DA. With the added bonus that SA's are typically more comfortable to shoot and easier to build skill with.

 

[Sam1911]

Ok, good then! Sounds like we're all in agreement, or about as close as we're ever going to get.

As someone pointed out to me recently, we've had four (maybe more) threads recently all trying to distill the real truth of the question at hand, and all arguing largely the same points with variations of the same evidences presented as proving one set of assumptions or the other.

Four is enough to either reach consensus or to illustrate to all observers that no more compelling proofs are forthcoming and the opinions held at present will continue to be held by those that hold them.

In light of the diminishing likelihood that any more illustrative evidences will be unearthed, let's set the matter to rest as fully and substantively explored. The remaining -- certainly minor, I'm sure -- points of trifling disagreement can be chalked up to the age old courtesy of "agreeing to disagree."

Many thanks to all who participated in this series of threads. I'm sure everyone learned a few things along the way.