Ballistical Correctness

YouTube is a silly place, at least when you are there looking at the channels about guns and shooting. Oh, there are some good ones here and there, but a lot of it is pompous bloviation. A case in point: A chap practically raving about how bad the Weaver stance is and why you should not use it, but use instead the competition-proven isosceles. His demonstration is a Weaver stance so bad that it amounts to a parody of the real thing. Well, if that were really what the Weaver is, I certainly would not recommend it either.

The Weaver stance, provided that it is correctly executed, is a good one for recoil control. You appreciate it more with pistols that kick hard. (I do not think any of the common self-defense rounds, when fired in full sized pistols, kick hard.) It also improves trigger control when pressing through the long heavy cycle of a double action trigger. Moreover, the Weaver's body geometry comes naturally to riflemen, so that they have less to learn or remember when operating pistols.

Clicking along to another channel, I find a fellow heaping scorn, practically sneering, at anyone who would ever load an auto pistol with a magazine of ammo without placing a round in the chamber. His presentation fairly drips with condescension. But managing a pistol that way, racking it to make ready, has worked out satisfactorily in many cases. It is not my preferred method but it sometimes makes sense. Blanket condemnation of the practice is not borne out by the facts. I see it as no different from keeping a shotgun in "cruiser ready"; if the one is ever justified, so is the other.

A situation in which it clearly is wise to carry a pistol without a round in the chamber is when you lack a proper holster, one that positively shields the trigger from unintentional operation. I have experimented with the string holster, an old OSS dodge that gives outstanding concealment. But the trigger is left unprotected, and so it certainly makes good sense to carry with the chamber clear, and so I did.

The trouble with YouTube might be something very simple. Perhaps people these days are not taught in school the art of presenting balanced, reasoned, polite statements of their views. Calumny is the new proof, contempt is the new argument, and snarkiness substitutes for wit and cogency. Sad times, and YouTube reflects the times.