TGO David

This is the first time I've seen or heard of a broken clip. I've used CTACs for over 8 years now w/o any problem. I prefer the clip design shown above. It's their "Standard" clip. The other clips don't work very well, IMO. www.comp-tac.com for direct ordering from the manufacturer. www.gunnersalley.com only carries a small section of what Comp-Tac makes.

We've been looking at the idea of incorporating as a non-profit, however there are restrictions on what certain non-profit groups can do in terms of legislative activity. TGO's goal is to educate, inform and motivate people to get involved. I do not think that we will become an active lobbying group corporately (again, restrictions) but rather leave that to organizations like the TFA, NRA, GOA, etc. We will encourage our members to join and financially partner with those organizations. So, as for "TGO money" being put into something like that... I'm not sure there would be a way for us to do it without incurring the wrath of the IRS at a later point.

Nevermind... I edited the post for you and fixed it.

Congratulations!!!

Yes, had one with my XD45C. GREAT holster. Not as comfortable for long-term wear like the CTAC, but it had it's place and did the job very well.

Unfortunately, I don't see any pictures?

Yes, Gunners Alley is a great place to deal with. I've bought a lot from them over the past few years. Looks like I need to be careful when I remove my CTAC from now on. I really need to order an Infidel for my M&P Compact so that I can just use that for quick trips to and from work instead of putting so much temporary use on the CTAC. Especially now that I've seen this happen.

Wow... first time I've seen that happen. Good to hear that they are taking care of you!

This is friggin RIDICULOUS. It may not have been the smartest thing the kid could have done given the current political climate in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, but give me a damn break!!! I've read accounts of other kids being kicked out of school because they made a gun-like symbol with their index finger and thumb... because they drew a gun on a piece of paper... etc. RIDICULOUS!!!! It's a return to McCarthysim.

http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/2847/chinese-community-rallies-behind-student-removed-from-clements-over-pc-game-map by Bob Dunn, Apr 30, 2007, 11 57 am Members of the area Chinese community have rallied behind a Clements High School senior who was removed from the campus and sent to M.R. Wood Alternative Education Center after parents complained he’d created a computer game map of Clements. About 70 people attended the Fort Bend Independent School District’s April 23 meeting to show support for the Clements senior and his mother, Jean Lin, who spoke to FBISD Board trustees in a closed session. While an agenda document does not specify details, the board is holding a special meeting tonight to address the boy’s actions and the discipline that was meted out as a result, sources close to the matter say. The boy’s name was not identified last week, and the district has declined to discuss his case. Richard Chen, president of the Fort Bend Chinese-American Voters League and a acquaintance of the boy’s family, said he is a talented student who enjoys computer games and learned how to create maps (also sometimes known as “mods”), which provide new environments in which games may be played. The map the boy designed mimicked Clements High School. And, sources said, it was uploaded either to the boy’s home computer or to a computer server where he and his friends could access and play on it. Two parents apparently learned from their children about the existence of the game, and complained to FBISD administrators, who investigated. “They arrested him,” Chen said of FBISD police, “and also went to the house to search.” The Lin family consented to the search, and a hammer was found in the boy’s room, which he used to fix his bed, because it wasn’t in good shape, Chen said. He indicated police seized the hammer as a potential weapon. “They decided he was a terroristic threat,” said one source close to the district’s investigation. Sources said that although no charges were filed against the boy, he was removed from Clements, sent to the district’s alternate education school and won’t be allowed to participate in graduation ceremonies with classmates. “All he did was create a map and put it on a web site to allow students to play,” Chen said. “The mother thinks this is too harsh.” FBISD officials declined to comment on the matter Monday. “Our challenge is, people in the community have freedom of speech and can say what they want, but we have laws” covering privacy issues, especially involving minors, that the district has to respect, said spokeswoman Nancy Porter. Speakers at the FBISD Board’s April 23 meeting alluded to the Clements senior’s punishment, and drew a connection to the April 16 shootings at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, in which a Korean student shot and killed 32 people. The Asian community “faces new pressures” as a result of the shootings, William Sun told board members. “We urge the school and community not to label our Asian students as terrorists.” “We should teach our children not to judge others harshly” and not to target people as being a threat because of their race, said Peter Woo, adding that the school district should lead the way in such efforts. But Chen said Monday he and other community members don’t consider FBISD’s actions in the case to be racially motivated, and don’t think they blew the incident out of proportion. “They all think the principal has to do something – but how much? We do understand with the Virginia Tech incident…something has to be done,” Chen said. “Someone just made a mistake, and we think the principal should understand that.”

From the Tennessee Firearms Association... As most of you know, House Bill 132, sponsored by Representative Mike Bell (R-23), would allow aperson with a handgun carry permit to possess a firearm in all public hunting areas, refuges, wildlife management areas, and national forests managed by the state; House Bill 2184, sponsored by Representative Frank Nicely (R-17), would allow any resident, who has a valid handgun carry permit, to possess his or her handgun while within the boundaries of any state park. While you may have read in the papers or on TV that Rob Briley has proposed an amendment allowing you to carry in government and public buildings civic centers and playgrounds, there is NO amendment for HB2184. It appears this is a ploy by Briley to fool you into thinking he is in favor of Niceley's bill so you won't bother to support the bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nicely also said the commissioner of parks is adamantly opposed to his bill. <script><!-- D(["mb","Speaking of ploys TWRA (the guys who don't \nthink your carry permit is worth a dime on \u003cstrong\>their property)\u003c/strong\> have \nprompted a "fiscal note" to Bell's bill that the state would lose $11,000 in \nfines were the bill to pass.* This seems a bit odd that allowing carry \npermit holders to carry in public hunting areas would have \u003cstrong\>any\u003c/strong\> \nimpact, since TWRA can't come up with a single case of a permit holder being \narrested for poaching or violating game laws.* TWRA say "they don't make a \ndistinction between poachers and permit holders"--\u003cstrong\>Maybe they \nshould.\u003c/strong\>\u003cspan\>\u003cfont color\u003d\"#0000ff\"\>*\u003cstrong\>\u003cfont color\u003d\"#000000\"\>*\u003c/font\>\u003c/strong\>\u003c/font\>\u003c/span\>\u003c/font\>\u003c/font\>\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Arial\"\>\u003cfont size\u003d\"2\"\>\u003cspan\>\u003cfont color\u003d\"#0000ff\"\>\u003cstrong\>\u003cfont color\u003d\"#ff0000\"\>*(This is not correct and only \n"Assumed" by the TWRA.* Actually it is*documented by the state Dept. \nof Safety on violations of Handgun permit holders by State Law. * I pulled \nthis file*last year and it showed ZERO cases of poaching against Handgun \nPermit Holders.* So the Above fiscal impact should be ZERO.* * \nDavid)\u003c/font\>\u003c/strong\>*\u003c/font\>\u003c/span\>\u003c/font\>\u003c/font\>\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Arial\" size\u003d\"2\"\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Arial\" size\u003d\"2\"\>\u003c/font\>\u003c/font\>*\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cstrong\>I spoke with both Bell and Nicely today and both their bills are \nbeing rolled a week forward\u003c/strong\> because one*member of the judiciary \nwho favors both bills will not be there tomorrow.* They both tell me that \nthey have 6 of the 10 judiciary members in*favor of the two bills.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Arial\" size\u003d\"2\"\>\u003c/font\>*\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Arial\" size\u003d\"2\"\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Times New Roman\" size\u003d\"3\"\>\u003cstrong\>Both \nsuggested that it would help*get these two bills passed if people would \nphone in and thank the two freshman*Democrats are voting for the \nbills.\u003c/strong\>**That means we have a few extra days to make those \nphone calls, but it also means that Rob Briley and Janis Sontany, \nranking*Democrats on the House Judiciary will have*the same amount of \ntime to try and browbeat Bass and Fincher into changing their \nvote.",1] ); //--></script>Speaking of ploys TWRA (the guys who don't think your carry permit is worth a dime on their property) have prompted a "fiscal note" to Bell's bill that the state would lose $11,000 in fines were the bill to pass. This seems a bit odd that allowing carry permit holders to carry in public hunting areas would have any impact, since TWRA can't come up with a single case of a permit holder being arrested for poaching or violating game laws. TWRA say "they don't make a distinction between poachers and permit holders"--Maybe they should. (This is not correct and only "Assumed" by the TWRA. Actually it is documented by the state Dept. of Safety on violations of Handgun permit holders by State Law. I pulled this file last year and it showed ZERO cases of poaching against Handgun Permit Holders. So the Above fiscal impact should be ZERO. David) I spoke with both Bell and Nicely today and both their bills are being rolled a week forward because one member of the judiciary who favors both bills will not be there tomorrow. They both tell me that they have 6 of the 10 judiciary members in favor of the two bills. Both suggested that it would help get these two bills passed if people would phone in and thank the two freshman Democrats are voting for the bills. That means we have a few extra days to make those phone calls, but it also means that Rob Briley and Janis Sontany, ranking Democrats on the House Judiciary will have the same amount of time to try and browbeat Bass and Fincher into changing their vote.<script><!-- D(["mb","\u003c/font\>\u003c/font\>\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Arial\" size\u003d\"2\"\>\u003c/font\>*\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Arial\" size\u003d\"2\"\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Times New Roman\" size\u003d\"3\"\>You can use the \ntoll free*number for the General Assembly, \u003cstrong\>\u003cfont color\u003d\"#ff0000\"\>1-800-449-8366.**\u003c/font\>\u003cfont color\u003d\"#000000\"\>Henry \nFincher's Ext is 11875*and Eddie Bass's is \n11864.\u003c/font\>\u003c/strong\>\u003c/font\>\u003c/font\>\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Arial\" size\u003d\"2\"\>\u003cstrong\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Times New Roman\" size\u003d\"3\"\>This is \nour chance to may a difference.\u003c/font\>\u003c/strong\>\u003c/font\>\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Arial\" size\u003d\"2\"\>\u003cstrong\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Times New Roman\" size\u003d\"3\"\>\u003c/font\>\u003c/strong\>\u003c/font\>*\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Arial\" size\u003d\"2\"\>\u003cstrong\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Times New Roman\" size\u003d\"3\"\>This is \nyour chance to make a difference.\u003c/font\>\u003c/strong\>\u003c/font\>\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>\u003cbr\>\u003c/div\>\u003c/div\>\n",0] ); D(["ce"]); //--></script> You can use the toll free number for the General Assembly, 1-800-449-8366. Henry Fincher's Ext is 11875 and Eddie Bass's is 11864. This is our chance to may a difference. This is your chance to make a difference.

Look at the dismal support the TFA gets in it's own backyard. I think that most people expect someone else to fight for their rights.

GOOD reloads can be better than factory loads. It all depends on who did the loading, how meticulous they were, and whether they did everything right. The most common reason that reloads get a bad name is when someone goofs and uses too much powder or sets the projectile back too far into the case, resulting in a higher case pressure than the case was designed for, and the load catastrophically fails in the breach. In a gun with a fully supported chamber, the damage is minimal or not even an issue. In a gun with a partially supported chamber (think Glock .40SW pistols) the damage is usually fatal to the gun itself and might injure the operator as well. As for the other part of your question, I use Winchester White Box ammo mostly for my target shooting. BUT I am going to get into reloading sooner or later as it's the most cost efficient way for me to continue shooting .45acp and .223 Remington as often as I would like to shoot them.

Really? I started a thread about this on a forum not devoted to gun ownership and sadly the majority seem to suggest that they would comply rather than resist.

Are you shooting Wolf through your AR? I've always heard that their steel casings are hard on the extractor and their primer lacquer gums up the bolt carrier group.

Nothing shocks me any more. If any of you think that there aren't people in this country who would like to enact exactly this type of draconian anti-gun policy, you're wrong. Dead wrong.

We're swamped with guns, but if we want to get rid of them, there is a way to do it Sunday, April 29, 2007 http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07119/781629-374.stm By Dan Simpson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette The tragedy at Virginia Tech, with a mentally disturbed person gunning down 32 of America's finest -- intelligent working people with futures ahead of them -- puts once again into focus for Americans the phenomenon of an armed society. Dan Simpson, a retired U.S. ambassador, is a Post-Gazette associate editor (dsimpson@post-gazette.com). The likely underestimate of how many guns are wandering around America runs at 240 million in a population of about 300 million. What was clear at Virginia Tech is that at least two of those guns were in the wrong hands. When people talk about doing something about guns in America, one of the points that comes to the fore is, "How could America disarm even if it wanted to? There are so many guns out there." Today I want to address the question of "how" -- if we decided to. Since I have little or no power to influence the "if" part of the issue, I will stick with "how." Before anyone starts to hyperventilate about me as a crazed liberal zealot wanting to take the gun from his cold, dead hands, let me say what my experience is of guns. As a child I played cowboys and Indians with cap guns. I had a Daisy Red Ryder B-B gun. My father had in his bedside table drawer an old pistol which I examined surreptitiously from time to time. When assigned to the American embassy in Beirut during the war in Lebanon, I sometimes carried a .357 Magnum, which I could fire accurately. I also learned there to handle and fire a variety of weapons, including Uzis and rocket-propelled grenade launchers. I don't have any problem with hunting, although blowing away animals with high-powered weapons seems a pointless, no-contest affair to me. I suppose I would enjoy the fellowship of friends who are hunters. Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty. Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal, heavily guarded, from which they would be able to withdraw them each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license. The weapons would be required to be redeposited at the end of the season on pain of arrest. When hunters submitted their request for their weapons, federal, state and local checks would be made to establish that they had not been convicted of a violent crime since the last time they withdrew their weapons. In the process, arsenal staff would take at least a quick look at each hunter to try to affirm that he was not obviously unhinged. It would have to be the case that the term "hunting weapon" did not include anti-tank ordnance, assault weapons, rocket-propelled grenade launchers or other weapons of war. All antique or interesting nonhunting weapons would be required to be delivered to a local or regional museum, also to be under strict 24-hour-a-day guard. There they would be on display, if the owner desired, as part of an interesting exhibit of antique American weapons, as family heirlooms from proud wars past or as part of collections. Gun dealers could continue their work, selling hunting and antique firearms. Dealers would be required to maintain very tight inventories. Any gun sold would be delivered immediately by the dealer to the nearest arsenal or the museum, not to the buyer. The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling and empty building. Thoroughness would be at the level of the sort of search that is carried out in Crime Scene Investigations. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm. Clearly, since such sweeps could not take place all across a city, county, state or the country at the same time, guns would move. But fairly quickly there would begin to be gun-swept, gun-free areas where there should be no firearms. If there were, those carrying them would be subject to quick confiscation and prosecution. On the streets it would be a question of stopping and searching anyone, even Grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for "carrying." The "gun lobby" would no doubt try to head off in the courts such new laws and the actions to implement them. They might succeed in doing so, although the new approach would undoubtedly prompt new, vigorous debate on the subject. The Virginia Tech affair has already stimulated renewed discussion of the issue, although members of Congress so far seem to be staying under their desks on the subject. Some jurisdictions would undoubtedly take the opportunity of the chronic slowness of the courts to begin implementing the new approach in any case. America's long land and sea borders present another kind of problem. It is easy to imagine mega-gun dealerships installing themselves in Mexico and perhaps in more remote parts of the Canadian border area to funnel guns into the United States. That would constitute a problem for American immigration authorities and the U.S. Coast Guard, but not an insurmountable one over time. There also could conceivably be a rash of score-settling during hunting season as people drew out their weapons, ostensibly to shoot squirrels and deer, and began eliminating their perceived two-footed enemies. Given the general nature of hunting weapons and the fact that such killings are frequently time-sensitive, that seems a lesser sort of issue. In any case, that is my idea of how it could be done. The desire to do so on the part of the American people is another question altogether, but one clearly raised again by the Blacksburg tragedy.

Cabelas isn't that overpriced.

It makes sense. It seems that they like to position themselves in markets where Bass Pro Shops have a store to compete head on with them.

When you start posting from a lawn chair with a margarita in your hand, I'm doing a drive-by.

Man, every time someone bumps this thread I come back here, view the pictures and just awe at how freaking good a 1911 looks dressed completely in black. again to a sexy, all American handgun!

I think it's kind of weird that you want my portrait on you, but if that makes you happy. Just kidding. One of the guys here at work is pretty good at Disney-esque cartoon art and SFB wants a dinosaur drawn. I'll ask him to take a swing at it today when I see him.

Nice to have you among us.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=79 Americans for Gun Safety Spreads Lies In Its Desperate Quest For Political Credibility No claim is too outrageous for the anti-gun lobbyists masquerading under the name "Americans for Gun Safety" (AGS). Unfortunately, much of the media is willing to play along with AGS`s deceptions, depicting the group as a "moderate voice," a "third way" in the gun-policy debate. For the record, AGS has nothing to do with gun safety. It is an organization whose sole founder, a former board member of Handgun Control, Inc., has a highly focused and barely hidden agenda: licensing all American gun owners and registering every firearm they own. AGS is staffed by the architects of the anti-gun schemes of Bill Clinton and Sen. Charles Schumer. Its president is Jonathan Cowan, who served at the right hand of the self-appointed anti-gun Czar of the Clinton cabinet--HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, whose agenda for fighting crime revolved around threatening nonsensical lawsuits against gun makers. Cowan is assisted by Clinton White House political aide Matt Bennett, and by Jim Kessler, the former gun-control advisor to Senator Charles Schumer. These credentials may explain the insistence of AGS in perpetrating clear falsehoods. The previous Administration championed the tactic of "tell a lie often enough, and soon it becomes the truth." AGS is clearly hoping that the same tactic will prevail in its assault on gun shows. In its latest gun show attack, AGS alleges in ads that: "As Governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Ridge signed legislation requiring background checks for handgun and assault weapons sales at gun shows." The facts say otherwise. Gov. Ridge signed "The Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act of 1995" (also known as Act 17), which simply specified that after the state`s instant check system became operational, all persons purchasing any firearm from a licensed dealer would be subject to an instant records check wherever the purchase was made. The requirements for transferring handguns between individuals in Pennsylvania were set in 1934, and Act 17 made no changes in the requirements for transferring handguns at gun shows. What Gov. Ridge signed--and AGS shamelessly praises--is much closer to the NRA-supported Dingell provision than anything in the AGS-supported McCain Lieberman-Schumer bill. Act 17 did: 1) define gun shows in a manner that specifically recognized and respected their unique and temporary nature; 2) recognize the superiority and effectiveness of an instant record check system and eliminate the state`s 60-year-old waiting period on handgun purchases; and 3) eliminate the need for a firearm dealer to obtain a separate license in each county where he might wish to conduct business at a gun show. When AGS claimed that Act 17 "requir[ed] background checks for handguns and assault weapons sales at gun shows," NRA responded that the law actually continued a longstanding exemption for rifle and shotgun sales by private citizens and noted the term "assault weapon" does not occur in Pennsylvania state law. Trying to salvage some credibility, AGS contended that it was "careful" not to make claims about rifles and shotguns and that it was really talking only about "assault weapons" that are "defined by federal law" and that have "barrel lengths that fit the coverage of Act 17, of which there are many." Anyone with a passing familiarity with federal firearm law will immediately see the nonsensical and mutually exclusive nature of this claim. "Assault weapons" as defined by federal law most certainly do include rifles and shotguns. However, under Act 17 the background check requirement only applies to "firearms" as defined in Pennsylvania`s Uniform Firearms Act--a very limited definition that only includes handguns with barrels less than 15", rifles with barrels less than 16", shotguns with barrels less than 18" and all guns that are less than 26" long overall. This definition of short-barreled shotguns and rifles mirrors the federal National Firearms Act of 1934 that severely restricts the transfer of such firearms and others such as machine guns. Such firearms are not available for over-the-counter purchase at any gun show or retailer anywhere in America. Far from including "many" of the federally banned "assault weapons," this definition would not include a single one of the standard production pre-1994 rifles or shotguns specifically defined as "assault weapons" in federal law. AGS`s ignorance or intentional misrepresentation of this key Pennsylvania definition of "firearm" makes its claim utterly worthless. Nonetheless, AGS continues to employ this obvious deception in its ads. In its desperation to abolish gun shows, AGS also continues attempts to fabricate a gun show "loophole." The truth, of course, is that existing firearms laws apply at gun shows the same as any other place guns are sold. Since 1938, persons engaged in the business of selling firearms have been required to obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Engaging in the business of selling firearms--at a gun show or anywhere else--without an FFL is a federal felony. AGS also claims "convicted felons have known about this loophole for years." The truth is that multiple federal government studies prove that gun shows play virtually no role in criminal gun acquisition. Last year`s Bureau of Justice Statistics report "Firearms Use by Offenders"--the largest such study ever conducted--found less than one percent of U.S. "crime guns" were obtained at gun shows. This report is entirely consistent with previous federal studies. AGS wants to inject "terrorism" into the firearm policy debate at any cost, and it is willing to employ serial lies to forge a link between "terrorist" cases and gun shows. AGS continues to cite the case of an "IRA terrorist" even though the jury that convicted the man for firearm violations acquitted him of the specific charge that he was an IRA terrorist. That AGS continues its bald-face lie in the face of public record speaks volumes. Additionally, the record is clear that the guns in question were bought at gun shows by "straw" purchasers (individuals with "clean" records who are willing to violate federal law and illegally purchase firearms on behalf of criminals prohibited from doing so)--and absolutely nothing in the legislation AGS deceitfully promotes would have prevented those illegal acts. <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td class="copy"> AGS also continues deceptively to manipulate a case in which the FBI suspected a man of attending Detroit-area gun shows to acquire guns for shipment to the Hezbollah. After the FBI placed the man under surveillance, he was arrested, prosecuted and convicted in federal court--enforcing existing firearms laws worked. AGS`s ad deceitfully fails to note that the suspect, Ali Boumelhem, was a convicted felon and as such was prohibited from buying guns anywhere--including gun shows. To suggest he slipped through a "gun show loophole" is simply a lie. The best evidence available strongly suggests that the two shotguns Boumelhem was convicted for possessing were bought by a "straw purchaser." Again, nothing in the McCain-Lieberman-Schumer legislation AGS promotes would have prevented the illegal acts. AGS`s previous misrepresentations of the facts in this case are telling. In an e-mail to Members of Congress, AGS`s Jim Kessler states, "an FBI informant previously has seen Boumelhem in Beirut unloading shipments of weapons and explosives." The Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, which AGS cites as its source, is much more specific, saying the FBI informant "had seen Boumelhem in Beirut unloading shipments of automatic weapons, explosives, grenades and rocket launchers." Clearly, "automatic weapons, explosives, grenades and rocket launchers" was changed to "weapons and explosives." Why? Because AGS knows full well that none of those items can be bought or sold at any gun show. The intent was to mislead Congress. AGS`s continued pattern of deception was also seen recently in an AGS Foundation-released report, "Broken Records," claiming to document the need to mandate an indefinite waiting period for gun sales. State authorities, such as Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Paul J. Evanko, have blasted the report as inaccurate. AGSF "should be given a failing grade for its shoddy research," Evanko said. "The fact is that the group did not contact State Police for information, which we would have been happy to supply." In the end, AGS has proven only that its staff doesn`t know guns, gun laws or even the proposals that they tout. The group has no members, no gun safety programs and no credibility. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="copy">Posted: 3/20/2002 12:00:00 AM</td></tr></tbody></table>

Found this on PoliceOne and thought it was worth reposting here. It has some good insight on how to train to develop practical shooting tactics not just for law enforcement officers but for anyone who carries a gun for self defense, IMO. Training Survival: Building shooting muscle By Ralph Mroz Since you carry a gun for self-defense or to save the life of another, then you are concerned with combative firearms skills rather than shooting merely for the experience of shooting. To reach this goal, you engage in training, mostly in the form of practice on a range. How close you get to your goal will depend on the effectiveness of your training. Let’s use weight lifting and body building as an analogy. If you want to get bigger and stronger, we know that you have to concentrate on working the large muscle groups of the legs, back, chest and shoulders. You do this by training mostly with the foundational exercises for these muscles: squats, dead lifts, bench presses, presses, rows, pull-downs and so on. There’s a total of maybe a dozen core exercises on which you spend most of your time. Yet there are hundreds of lifts you could do, and most of these work the smaller muscles. They are useful, but if your goal is size and strength, you use them sparingly, since you have only a limited amount of time and energy. Mostly these ancillary exercises are used to refine your shape and to add variety in your core routine to avoid boredom. But if you go into any gym, you’ll see people spending their precious training time on these secondary exercises. Either they don’t know any better, or they think they have invented a "better" way, or they read in a magazine somewhere that so-and-so does this exercise, or they’re bored with the core exercises. Now, go to any range and watch people there. You’ll see a great deal of shooting for tiny groups, with eyes focused on the sights of the pistol — regardless of the range. You’ll see people shooting at ten to thirty yards, rather than at zero to seven yards. You’ll see people standing still as they shoot. And so on. Now, it is certainly a better marksman and better shooter who can shoot tiny groups, particularly at long ranges. But in the light of our goals, these kinds of skills are secondary. They are far less likely to be needed for our job than other, more foundational, skills. How do we know this? Here’s three sources. The first is the consistent statistics from law enforcement shootings in which officers were killed. These FBI-compiled numbers have been pretty much the same for many years: 50% of LEOs killed are killed at five feet or less, and 75% killed are killed at ten feet or less. The second source is the Police Marksman Association survey done in 1992 showing the average police gunfight was won at about 20 feet seven yards (but note that this conclusion was from a pretty small sample.) Finally, there is the data from NYPD’s SOP-9 that indicates that from 1994-2000, 69% of their shootings (of all types) were at two yards or less, and 88% were at seven yards of less. These numbers are pretty consistent form year to year. So what do these statistics mean in terms of training? That the bench press and squats of firearms survival training are the techniques to handle threats at seven yards and in. We detail the techniques relevant to these distances below, but first, a caveat. We do most emphatically not mean to say that training at long handgun distances (15 to 50 yards) is not useful or even not important. Police officers certainly have to engage in long-range shooting on the job. We are just noting that these long-range skills are less likely to have to be used than close-range skills — that’s just the facts — and thus we suggest that they constitute your ancillary — not core — training. Longer range skills and super-tight marksmanship skills are the equivalent of weight exercises to develop the smaller muscle groups. They are less likely to be used, but they can 1) be useful in and of themselves, 2) they help to keep the training interesting, and 3) they round you out. Contact distance to 2-3 yards At this distance, if you do not already have your gun out, and you are facing a deadly force attack, you simply will not have time to draw your weapon. The physics of the situation dictate that you will have to at least initially deal with this attack with empty hands techniques. This reality, of course, means that the "equalizing" factor of the firearm — one of its chief advantages — is negated. It also means that life is unfair, as the small, the weak, the injured and the older are at a disadvantage to their undoubtedly younger, more fit attacker. Life is, in fact, not fair. Sorry. Your only choice here, if you want to honestly deal with your most likely self-defense scenario, is to pick up some vicious empty hand techniques. These, of course, work better if you are in shape, whatever your age. Such techniques are called "combatives" these days, as opposed to "martial arts". The integration of combatives with the use of the firearm generally goes by the term "extreme close quarters shooting", and the leading edge material in this area today comes from a man known as "SouthNarc", for the apparent reason. His DVD on the subject, "Fighting Handgun Volume I" is available from Shivworks, www.shivworks.com, and is highly recommended. 3 yards to 7 yards At this distance, if you are trying to hit an exposed person, the proven method of Applegate-style target focused shooting (as opposed to many other methods of "point shooting") is the most likely technique to be useful. This is for the simple reason that under a lot of stress (some combination of startle and fear), you are hard-wired to look at the threat, not anything less important from an evolutionary viewpoint, like your sights. (Of course, if you aren’t much startled, or not in much fear, you may well be able to focus on your sights.) Here the gun is held very firmly, the gun raised to intersect the eye/target line, and the trigger pulled. The technique works both one-handed and two-handed, and most people find that that the tighter they hold the gun, the better results they get (relaxed, "firm but not too tight" holds work well, by contrast, for precision and non-stressful shooting.) Since most shooters have been trained to look for their front sight, practicing target-focused shooting takes some mental concentration. Interestingly, when I am having a not-good day on the range with semi-sighted fire at these distances, if I force myself to target-focus, I can often improve results. If you are in a law enforcement or military unit, Lou Chiodo of Gunfighters Ltd (www.gunfightersltd.com) is a great source for instruction in this method of shooting. 7-10 yards and out At these distances, traditional sighted shooting is appropriate. And we strongly recommend that you practice it, and not only because longer range shooting may be necessary. When we cite the distances above, we are assuming that you need to hit a man-sized attacker. Hits anywhere on the torso are acceptable, with most instructors insisting on hits within a roughly 8½ x 11 inch area (the size of a standard piece of paper) as the goal. If you have only a part of your attacker available as a target, then the precision demanded of you increases, and thus the effective distance increases. A half a man target area available at 5 yards is about the same difficulty as a whole man at 10 yards, and so on.