DA/SA transition too difficult? says who?

[Aknazer]

Have used and carried both SA and DB/SA autos and trained hundreds in the use of DB/SA autos I personally don't see what the problem of useing a DB/SA auto. Or the need for SA only. With proper training and paractice there really isn't any differance with getting frist round or 2nd round or more hits.

Its all about the training and learning to use what you carry. If one doesn't train properly or enough one is going to have trouble with any thing you carry.

It dosen't take long when teaching to find out who in the class cares about what they are doing and the ones who do not care. The ones who don't care are the ones who well have a hard time no matter what type of firearm they are given.

I guess you don't understand the state of the military currently. Sure with proper training the issue is solved, but the military rarely gives "proper training" unless you are one of the few who somehow manage to "qualify" for it, something most military members don't. Not that people shouldn't take their training into their own hands, but that isn't something that the military really helps most people with.

This training issue was also part of the reason for switching a bunch of guns from full auto to 3rd burst (or so I hear). A lot easier to simply mechanically limit the fire than to actually train the people how to handle full auto. And even now they only just added in 3rd burst training (and you get a whopping 9 rounds to practice with).

So really, the military needs to work on supplying proper training for people in the military.

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

I guess you don't understand the state of the military currently. Sure with proper training the issue is solved, but the military rarely gives "proper training" unless you are one of the few who somehow manage to "qualify" for it, something most military members don't. Not that people shouldn't take their training into their own hands, but that isn't something that the military really helps most people with.

This training issue was also part of the reason for switching a bunch of guns from full auto to 3rd burst (or so I hear). A lot easier to simply mechanically limit the fire than to actually train the people how to handle full auto. And even now they only just added in 3rd burst training (and you get a whopping 9 rounds to practice with).

So really, the military needs to work on supplying proper training for people in the military.

Thats why the military only allowed the 1911 to be carried with out a round in the chamber most of the time.

It doesn't matter if its the military,LEOs or the normall average gun owner. Most gun owners do not train near enough with there firearms.

Most people who have to carry a firearm no matter what type only shoot it, when they are forced to.

What I found with LEOs that even with some exmilitary combat vets LEOs only shoot when they are told to. Thats about 90 percent of them another 7 percent of them do some training and shooting on their own.

The other 3 percent are what I call hard core gun people who train and shoot and train and shoot a lot on their own.

If a person wants to be a good shot they can't wait for the brass or someone else to tell when and where and how to do it. They have to have the drive to spent the time and money to do it themselves.

No matter what firearm you give the frist 90 percent they are not going to be very good shots. The other 7 percent it might or might not make a differants depanding on the shooter but most can learn to use the fire arm given to them.

The last 3 percent are going to shoot well with anything you give them. Because if it isn't something they are use to they well shoot it untill they master it.

I think we are on the same page. My main point is for the good shooters it doesn't matter what type of firearm they use.

For the rest one needs to give them the one that is the safest and least likely to cause problems for them.