| From: | Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Minimum strength requirements for firearms |
| Date: | Tue, 24 Aug 1999 00:56:03 +0100 |
<Tarek_Okail@**********.com> writes
>Paul--
>>FWIW she was a damn good shot with .22 and .38 Special, not bad with
>>my .45ACP, found .357 energetic but manageable and didn't like 9mm at
>>all.
>
> You've made my point for me rather nicely, actually. <g> Look
>at the fact that she found 9mm unpleasant yet easily handled the .357.
>IIRC, there's more energy behind a .357 round than a 9mm.
And the 9mm was in an automatic, where the recoiling slide should have
softened the recoil some, too. Go figure.
(FWIW I always found 9mm 'sharp' compared to .45ACP)
> I once owned a Desert Eagle in .50 AE. It actually didn't kick
>that hard (due to the 50 oz. weight of the gun), but I sold it after
>I realized that I didn't like shooting it all that much. The grip was
>just too darn big for my hands.
That's an issue, too. I have a friend who simply couldn't cope with a Glock
21, because his hands are too small to fit the grip. He's about the same
size as me, except where I have hands like shovels Glenn's are more
delicately proportioned.
Now, me, I found some pistols hard to shoot because they were too
_small_ for my hand (a S&W 686 with factory grips was a prime example:
my shooting club had one of those, and one 686 with aftermarket Hogue
neoprene grips that suited me perfectly)
>My favorite
>firearm right now is the CZ-75 in 9mm NATO. It fits my hand perfectly.
I've yet to run into anyone who really disliked the CZ75 :) Found it merely
acceptable, liked it, loved it, but nobody seems to be unable to use it.
>>>hold onto a snub-nose .44 Magnum while shooting, I see no reason why
>>>anyone else in moderatly good health wouldn't be able to do the same.
>>Can they hit anything when they fire it?
>
> I could, and in Shadowrun terms I'd put my strength down as a
>"1" or maybe a "2" at best.
Methinks you sell yourself short. I easily qualify as Strength 4 in
Shadowrun, if only because I've hauled sixty-pound loads around for a fun
weekend's soldiering. I'm not "strong" in terms of arm-wrestling, don't
work out, I just got used to walking, tabbing and occasionally fighting in
web gear, rifle and rucksack.
>Granted, I've never tried rapid-fire with
>the .357, the .44 Mag., or the .50 AE, but I'm of the "Aim *then* fire"
>school of shooting <g>, and I was still able to get off a round every
>second or two with the big handguns.
I could get an aimed shot a second off with any semi-auto firearm you
gave me on the range. Exercises, either with blanks or live-fire, were
somewhat different... at range your ROF drops sharply, up close it's
_incredible_ how fast you can pull a trigger during CQB.
> Shadowrun has it right, in my opinion. High strength helps to
>offset recoil modifiers, but you don't need a high strength in order to
>shoot a firearm. You might need a good strength stat in order to carry
>some of them for long periods of time, though.
I've seen someone (slightly) scarred for life by a .454 Casull. A competent
but inexperienced shooter, who was hellish good with .22 and .38. First
shot they fired, they thought such a big heavy revolver would soak up the
recoil... and they got the hammer spur planted in their forehead and
needed two stitches to close the wound. Still a nice puckered mark six
months later.
No second shot, either :)
I think it's easy for experienced shooters to underrate how intimidating
the more powerful handguns can be to novices. With proper training and
practice they're downright enjoyable (I had a .44 slot on my FAC and I
intended to fill it with either a Desert Eagle or a S&W 29). But how many
people have that much experience and practice?
--
Paul J. Adam
