That's the one. The weaver stance is the most useful because of several things. Mainly it positions your body in a way that works with physics.

It looks simple but there is actually a lot going on. Your feet are set about shoulder length apart with the foot on your shooting hand in the back and the foot on your weak hand up front similar to a boxer's stance. This centers your weight and makes sure you have a stable shooting stance.

Your primary hand holds the gun and your arm is straight. The secondary hand wraps around your fingers ahead of the pistol's grip and pulls inward toward your body slightly. This helps to tame the upward recoil when you actually fire. Look at it like this: If you hold one hand out in front of you in a fist and someone slaps the bottom your hand moves upward. So your off hand is helping to hold your shooting hand stable while the firearm's recoil pushes upwards and tries to pivot your wrist upward.

Finally, you lean slightly forward. Keeping your weight ahead of you keeps your upper body from moving backward when firing. Because of the way physics exerts force when you hold something that is essentially detonating a contained explosion away from you your body will try to bend rearward. If you lean forward your core absorbs that force by placing it in the center of your already stable position.

During my career, I put a lot of pistol rounds downrange - mostly .45 and 9mm. I agree with Kiln's assessment.

The .45 was the 'standard issue' USMC pistol during the first half or so of my career. It had a notable kick and fabulous stopping power. At about the mid point in my career, the .45 was replaced by the 9mm Beretta. It carried more rounds and had a fairly gentle recoil but lacked the stopping power of the .45.

Most of us that had the opportunity to use both preferred the .45 for its stopping power. We viewed a pistol as a 'last resort bad guys charging into your face' weapon. For that purpose, we wanted something that would not just kill but physically knock a charging opponent back. And the .45 was good for that.

So it depends what you want. Nothing wrong with the 9mm though. Here's more info on it: http://www.marines.com/operating-forces/eq...retta-m9-pistol

A 45 is bigger than me, I just wanted to know about the 9mm. I owned one that I gave to my son. He and his wife have bought sets of matching pistols of their own now, and I was considering asking for it back for protection.

I never shot that one, but did shoot my old 25mm revolver. That one had no kick, but threw to the left really badly. Add that to my terrible (aka Maxical) aiming and you have a bunch of scared neighbors,

What about the ammunition? I'd expect a heavier low-velocity round to produce a different recoil from a lighter but higher-velocity one. So the propellant/slug ratio in a given round would change things.

Sniper rounds are heavy AND high-velocity for accuracy, but we're not at that end of the spectrum here.

What about the ammunition? I'd expect a heavier low-velocity round to produce a different recoil from a lighter but higher-velocity one. So the propellant/slug ratio in a given round would change things.

Sniper rounds are heavy AND high-velocity for accuracy, but we're not at that end of the spectrum here.

One thing to note is that not all guns feel the same just because of caliber. Smaller/lighter firearms generally are less comfortable to fire than larger/heavier ones because lighter objects move more easily and have more felt recoil because of this.

A large .45 may be more comfortable than a micro 9mm for instance. In my opinion most lightweightcompacts are very punishing to shoot. Steel frame firearms of the same action type will typically absorb recoil better than a polymer pistol of the same design.

Mirocu- I think you'll like it when you get it. It'll be lots of inexpensive fun.

Absolutely right. Generally the faster and heavier a bullet is the worse the recoil will be. A lighter, more aerodynamic bullet may be able to achieve the same speeds with less recoil because it takes less powder to push it out of the barrel at the desired velocity. A large bullet is harder to push at a higher velocity and requires a heavier powder load.

As for rifle rounds though, a .308 rifle bullet (a typical law enforcement sniper round) is actually relatively light and aerodynamic, running about the same size and weight as 9mm. It is also a .30 caliber bullet similar to 9mm in diameter, although the dimensions from front to back are different. Longer barrels suited to optimize velocity (unburned powder is sometimes wasted from a short barrel) are also chosen to keep velocity up.

Basically though what makes a rifle faster is more powder, a longer casing to store that powder, and a substantially longer barrel. The bullets are mostly kept light so that they can travel further without dropping.

Now with older guns the focus was on fast AND large but generally the range wasn't as good.

On the bullets, what is better for stopping power if say you are a smallish female alone in the house; and some big burly men break in? What bullets would make sure they couldn't just get mad and take the gun from you and use it on you? We used to keep 15 hollow points in the Ruger, but is this the best thing to use for the scenario above?

In the house, soft ones that won't smash up the place if you miss.

More than likely. Depends on the type/brand. There are some proven designs and there are gimmicks. You've just got to research whateveryou go with to make sure it gets decent penetration and expansion. There are tons of posts online and videos to help select ammo.

Whatever the round, don´t forget about shot placement. A .22 can be just as lethal as any caliber if you know where to aim. Of course, in a stressful situation it may not be so easy. But I still wouldn´t want to be shot with a .22

So yesterday I finally got around to test my Remington 1858 New Model Army. A genuine black powder revolver from the American civil war. These old handguns are the only ones I can get and I don´t even need a license since it´s not considered a gun after 150 years. To put that in perspective; an exact replica made in modern times and that functions exactly as an original, and I mean to a T, requires a license.


Yeah. Explain that satisfactory and I´ll mow your lawn forever


Anyway, fired twelve rounds with an additional round using a little bit more powder. Hard to hit what I aim at even at close distances and the smell wasn´t as pleasant as I´d hoped. But it was still fun and I really like the history behind it, something a replica cannot hope to match. Since it was an original it was very expensive but I don´t regret buying it. I only wish it could talk so I could learn all the things it has been through before reaching my hands.


1858 Remington cap and ball (Hickok45)

And ... he said your gun had ... nipples?

They can chainfire if you´re not careful. That is, as Hickok explained, when you fire a round and the explosion reaches the gunpowder in other chambers and set them off too, sending the bullets out on the side of the gun. However, if you just take precautions and focus on what you´re doing it´s unlikely it´ll happen.



It also deals with balls and lube. And you have to [censored] the hammer before firing or put it on half-[censored] when reloading the chambers.


Edit: Bloody Mary! I can´t even describe the procedure!!