Ye Olde Firearm Curiosities: The First Fast Handgun Reload

Today's YOFC is a device that I have been interested in for quite some time. To my knowledge the following device is the first, patented at least, device to aid in the rapid, simultaneous, reloading of a revolver cylinder. Created by William De Courcy Prideaux of Great Britain in the early 1890s the device was patented in the UK in 1893 and the U.S. the following year (U.S. patent #516,942).

The "Prideaux Device" as it has become known, was originally designed to aid in the rapid reloading of the ubiquitous Webley and Scott revolvers. To that purpose it did in fact serve, Prideaux devices are known to have existed (and indeed some still survive) for all calibers of Webley and Scott revolvers, from the .22 training revolvers, to the .455 British revolvers. The devices were commonly purchased by Royal British officers before and during WWI. I have not been able to discern if anyone besides Prideaux manufactured the devices, most of them are marked only with the Royal emblem of Her Majesty. After the end of WWI it would seem that the Prideaux device fell out of favor as there are not any that I have seen marked, issued, or claimed to be from WWII. Certainly a rapid reloading device like the Prideaux would have been used during WWII, had it been available in a sufficient quantity and/or still in manufacture.

What makes the Prideaux device so interesting is actually the date of its invention. Speed loaders are generally viewed to be a 20th century construct. With the common Safariland COMP series of HKS series of speed loaders (the two widely accepted standards), being developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Indeed, most of the United States, where law enforcement carried swing out cylinder revolvers until the 1980s, did not adopt the common use of speed loaders until the mid 1970s. But in fact the Prideaux pre-dates the common adoption period by more than 80 years. In fact Prideaux and Borchardt applied for patents in the same year at nearly the same time. So, the first successful speed loader was created at roughly the same time as the first successful box magazine. To me this is quite interesting, because revolvers are generally viewed as archaic with a longer period of development than pistols, but the reality is both systems were being developed and refined simultaneously to one another.

Regardless of whether you find the simultaneous development interesting or not, the Prideaux device is still an interesting piece of history. It pre-dates all common speed loaders and was essentially the first of its kind. It was, at least in part, a commercial success, and was used successfully during at least one World War. The Prideaux device is a piece of firearm history, sometimes forgotten in the pages of the book, but certainly worth noting.

Cartridge End of a surviving Prideaux Device

Top End of the same surviving Prideaux Device

Prideaux Patent Image 1

Prideaux Patent Image 2

Patent PDF available here.

-Rob

A rant on carbine/rifle use for defense

Tam had this video posted over at her place:



This is listed as a the "right" way to run a carbine. I admit there are many things right about this video, the handling of the guns, the reloads, the methods used, etc. I do have some problems with the video and the primary ones occur at 31-35 seconds into the video. Go watch it, I'll wait...

Did you see it? No? Watch it again...

Still not?

How about not advancing on the damn target while shooting it?! You are shooting at a target that you feel is a threat to your safety. WHY IN ALL THAT IS SANE, ARE YOU ADVANCING TOWARDS THAT DANGER?! Repeat after me, "If I use my gun to save my life, I will NOT ADVANCE ON THE THREAT. I WILL walk away from the threat.*"

~Deep Breath~

Okay, I just wanted to get that out of my system. I have a real problem with gun games and ~some~ "instructors" out there, who advocate moving TOWARDS a target. You should under nearly every circumstance move AWAY from the target. The only times you would move towards a target are to A) Escape (because you can't escape going backwards) B) Reach your family/loved ones (hence the reason you are shooting) C) To reach better cover D) No, that's really it for good reasons to advance. Do NOT advance on a target, do NOT confirm you've shot the threat or killed them, do NOT run to the target and kick their weapon away. STOP the threat, get a safe distance away, keeping the threat covered and call the police.

Also, another really serious point of contention here, if you are using a RIFLE to defend yourself, you have the LUXURY of engaging a target from a longer range. Use that to your advantage, get AWAY from the threat and engage him from farther away, if you must. The idea here would be that you can successfully fight from farther away with a rifle, that's one of the reasons we use them.

In the quality professional training I have had, we never advanced on a target, unless we had to. Why would we have to? We would run a training scenario, maybe you absolutely had to go into the house to save your wife and kids. A tough scenario, but one where advancing would be the wise decision. If, however you find yourself shooting a course of fire where you are told to advance on a threat and the reason is not given, stop and ask yourself and the instructor WHY you would do this. If they or you can't articulate a reason to advance on a target, then stop. Either practice getting away or pack up your gear and leave the tutelage of that instructor.

Remember folks, in defensive scenarios common to private citizens, you need to get AWAY from the threat, not advance towards it. Not only does it give you a better advantage for survival, but it gives you a better chance of surviving the inevitable legal after math.

*There are some legitimate reasons to advance on the target as discussed above, most are bad training or methods though. I've seen a number of videos displaying this type of nonsensical movement, don't repeat the mistakes of others.

Be safe, practice, seek quality instruction.

-Rob

Ye Olde Firearm Curiosities: The Haight Fist Gun of WWII

Part of my love affair with firearms is a love affair of unique and curious firearms created for a dedicated purpose either real or contrived. These guns often have unique histories and more often than not represent commercial failure. Sometimes without these guns we wouldn't have had the inclination to design improved new weapons which led to genuine firearm innovations.

Today, is the first of what I hope will become a new series, Ye Olde Firearm Curiosities. To start off this segment I present to you a firearm that is... sort of a pistol. As described in the patent (#2,432,448) it is a "Hand Firing Mechanism" or a "fist gun". The primary purpose is, "[A] firearm which is adapted to be used when in actual contact with an adversary..." The gun's patent application date is Feb. 29, 1944, by Stanley M. Haight, United States Navy.

The weapon, shown below, was a plunger activated weapon, most appropriately described as a "hand gun" attached to the back of a leather glove. Described by Mr.[sic] Haight, to be worn when other arms are not being carried by a soldier who may be distracted with another duty or asleep. The idea was that the gun would be worn loaded and that when a fist was made and an opponent was successfully punched, it would activate the weapon and fire the cartridge. According to the book, Firearms Curiosa by Lewis Winant, the Haight Fist Gun was chambered for the .38 S&W cartridge (that would be the shorter, older, cartridge from which the .38 S&W Special is derived). Note, within the original Patent Application, Mr.[sic] Haight states the weapon was to be chambered for a shot shell. By all accounts I have been able to find, no such weapon was ever produced and that all versions of the Haight Fist Gun were chambered for a centerfire pistol cartridge.

The cartridge, for those unfamiliar with it, is typically found loaded with a 150-grain lead round nose bullet, driven at an anemic 750 FPS from a 4" barrel. In the Haight Fist Gun, it would develop considerably less velocity give that there is no discernible barrel length. Of course, given the intention of the weapon, to serve as a contact only weapon, the cartridge might have provided acceptable performance.

Image of the Fist Gun, from Firearms Curiosa Page 224.

Patent Image Illustrating the Weapons Mounting Mechanism and Proposed Method of Function.

Patent Image Illustrating the Plunger Mechanism of the weapon.

Full Patent PDF can be found here.

To my knowledge, the weapon was never used during conflict, nor mass produced. The patent was originally applied for in 1944, the issue date was in 1947. I'm willing to conjecture that the weapon did not excel in terms of performance due to the weak cartridge for which it was chambered, the lack of accuracy, and the lack range, made the weapon a very specialized tool. The uses of such a weapon, being so limited, would not fit into a military state of mind, where simplicity and multi-functional use is the name of the game. Finally, the weapon would not have met with much success with the OSS/Commando type units (for whom it might also have been a marketable item), because it simply would not have been quiet enough for close in dispatch. The close up kill would have been absolutely necessary to use the weapon effectively. I can't help but think that a person might be better served a good knife, black jack, or a pair of brass knuckles over a fist gun. Particularly if one were faced with multiple opponents.

None of this however, makes the Haight Fist Gun any less interesting and it is an appropriate introduction to the Ye Olde Firearm Curiosity segment.

-Rob

Making the Double Action Trigger Work for you

When I first started shooting as a kid, I voraciously devoured all of the written literature on the topic I could find. I read dozens of books, many of which I still own or have bought subsequent copies of after borrowing them from the library, and even still I read dozens upon dozens of magazine articles. It seemed to me that the monthly publications of the magazine writing elite were the best way to stay on top of all the new "techniques" and I was all about technique. I learned a lot about shooting from those magazines. Then I started to actually shoot...

What I immediately learned was that I knew less than nothing about shooting, but also that learning to shoot wasn't all that difficult. The first and most important lesson I learned is that learning to shoot takes time and practice. I wanted to become, overnight, with parental supervision of course, the greatest shot in all the world. The harsh realities began to set in when I realized I was never to be that, at least not without hundreds of thousands of hours of practice and I just didn't have that time, what with the homework and all (heck I STILL don't...stupid Graduate degree).

When I first arrived at the shooting range I immediately I was wanton to do, started yanked the trigger to the moon and back as quickly as possible to simulate the movies and televisions shows I held so dear. Once these sloppy techniques were applied to the range with bullets and targets I found that I was unable to hit anything resembling the center of the target. With a firm desire to hit the target, I heeded my father's advice, "Slow down son, those bullets don't pay for themselves." So, for the next few weeks I practiced (with appropriate supervision and following the Four Rules) slowing down with dry fire practice. I learned that the trigger felt different at different points in the trigger stroke and I learned that the double action stroke that felt best also allowed my hand to point the pistol more naturally. When we returned to the range, I was rewarded with more center hits than ever before.

And so, after that exhaustingly long personal history lesson, let me offer you a few tips and pointers for effective double action shooting:

First, ignore the magazines and books for a while. Focus on learning the weight and length of the trigger pull. Once you have felt the weight and length of the pull, you will better be able to learn it. Next, focusing on being smooth with the trigger is critical. The advice I was given by my father was some he learned in the military. I started with a quarter on the end of my barrel and stroked the double action trigger, until when the action broke the quarter did not fall. Then I moved down in denomination to the nickel and then dime. After you have mastered being smooth stroking the trigger back, you must focus on being smooth returning the trigger forward on the reset. Learning your weapons reset is critical, once you can smoothly navigate a rearward trigger stroke followed by a forward trigger reset, without moving a dime even a fraction of an inch, you have mastered the revolver trigger. You can practice these drills in dry fire (obviously putting a coin on the end of your revolver firing live ammunition is ill advised), and you should practice them a lot. On a good day, I can achieve the desired effect of no dime movement 4 out of 5 times, on a great day I can get 9 out of 10 pulls to come out effectively.

Once you've gotten the smooth stroke and reset down you can focus on advanced techniques, like staging the trigger or running the gun quickly. On the staging vs. straight stroke debate, I have no dog in the fight. I spent some time focusing on learning both skills. For those who don't know, "staging" the trigger is where the double action stroke is pulled all the way back to just before the breaking point, the stroke is then paused while the shooter makes a final sight alignment and then the stroke is finished and the shot fired. It is believed to be "more accurate" than the "straight stroke" method which involves stroking the trigger smoothly in one motion. These days, I use both methods, intuitively when I am shooting without thinking about my shooting too much (I.E. quick defensive style shooting), I use a straight stroke method, which is arguably better because it doesn't involve a reflective pause in the middle. But when I think about o focus heavily on the front sight and accuracy, I do tend to "stage" the gun. I have found that staging is slightly more accurate for me, but not so much that I focus on it. I will say the biggest negative about staging is the tendency of the shooter to then yank or push the trigger down on that final bit of stroke, as many are trying to effectively "time" a shot, it doesn't work folks, don't bother.

Finally, I want to comment on terminology of "stroke" versus "press" or "squeeze". I call the action of activating a double action trigger by a "stroke" instead of a press or squeeze for a simple reason. A stroke is a long, smooth, motion that requires more finesse than a press or squeeze. The double action trigger requires more finesse, it is a longer action, that requires you to be very smooth in the action to produce the desired results. As such, "stroking the trigger" is the most appropriate turn of phrase for working a double action trigger.

Be safe,

-Rob

Meditations on Platform

When it comes to your defensive shooting platforms, I'm a big fan of getting out there and shooting a bunch and picking what feels right for you. I do not think that any single platform dominates, performs better, or is perfect. When you decide on a platform, my suggest is to use it, train with it, and if you get bored with it, switch to something else. That's right, change your platform, and you SHOULD change your platform. Why? A couple of reasons:

1) You may discover that another platform works better for you in the end. Your instincts and work are not necessarily intuitive to the system you have initially chosen. You have two options, try something else or train hard with your platform and hope the issue never comes up. In my opinion, you are better served using your training hours not to correct non-intuitive movements, but to practice shooting the gun.

2) When we get bored with a platform or vehicle of shooting, we don't practice enough, we don't shoot, train, or work as hard. Why would we? It's boring. Then it's time to change your platform and shake things up a bit. Does it mean you've mastered that gun? Maybe, maybe not, probably not, but you aren't going to master it if you don't care about shooting it.

Keep in mind the platform that works for one does not always work for another. For instance, I do not rely on an AR platform as a primary defensive weapon. Why not? Well a variety of reasons, I never can seem to get the gun to feel right, even with 50 bajillion adjustable accessories. I don't like the AR platform bolt release, in fact, I HATE the bolt release, my instinct is to run a charging handle by hand to release a bolt. I don't like malfunction clearing drills on the AR platform, they feel awkward and completely counter-intuitive to me. Finally, I don't have preference in the 5.56/.223 chambering the guns normally come it. That's a lot of reasons and yes, I could train nearly all of them away, if I spent hundreds or thousands of hours clearing malfunctions, releasing bolts, and adjusting the gun to fit. OR I could just pick up a gun that feels right, works the way I expect and fires a round I prefer, like a plain old standby M1 Carbine.

Some may argue that one platform is better than another, I'll just continue to point out that not everyone is made equal. A person who feels well armed with 15 rounds of .30 Carbine and can run the gun is just as deadly as a person with 30 rounds of .223 and who can run the guns. The point here is not that one platform works better or worse, it's that shooting skills apply across all weapons platforms and we should simply choose the guns of our preference.

-Rob

Top Shot

I've been seeing some blogger chatter on History's Top Shot, so I thought I'd give it a shot. Two thumbs down, I think it sucks. The shooting challenges are good, but I can't get over the constant bickering, the fighting, the Big Brother-esque house. No thanks, can we get an hour or people shooting at stuff with interesting challenges? That would be good fun.

In fact, maybe we should just make up a competitive league where you compete in a variety of challenges. Something like IPSC meets IDPA meets 3-Gun meets CAS meets good old fashioned Kentucky Rifle challenge. I'd do that, walk from station to station, one station has me blasting clay birds with a scatter gun, the next has me going after the Lone Star wheel from CAS, another is a High Power rifle shot at 500 yards through open sights on an '03 Springfield, finish the day off with 100 yard silhouette shot on a turkey silhouette with a replica Kentucky rifle. The winner is the one who hits the bullseye the most times.

That'd be a better competition and more fun to watch to boot. I'll pass on Top Shot, too much in the drama queen department, not enough guns and shooting.

-Rob

More Meditations on Rule 1

Tam made a post earlier on the useful(less)ness of loaded chamber indicators. She pointed out that the LCI is one of the most useless features of a firearm, right up there with a magazine safety (I agree with this, which is why the one in my carry gun is going away). This gave me pause and a wonder.

This weekend at KR Training, Karl Rehn, the proprietor, pointed out that the LCI on the Springfield XD was a nice feature, because you can check to see if the gun is loaded while in the holster or drawer at night. This gave me a great pause, not enough to interrupt him, but it did cause me to pause. Now, don't get me wrong, I think Karl has a point, to an extent, a tactile feel for a round in the chamber is a nice indicator and I believe he meant it in the following way. He meant that you can check for the little tab, if it's up, you can reasonable assume that you do not need to chamber a round to make the gun function. However, he did then point out that a press check is a prudent thing to do, to confirm that status.

For me, the part that had me staring into space and thinking, was the thought that my gun might be unloaded. Anyone who has read this blog more than once (or just once), would realize that by now, there is only really ONE rule for gun safety that must be followed at all times. If THE rule is followed, then we can remember to not break the other rules and act accordingly. We all know what the rule is, THE *%@#%!$^% GUN IS ALWAYS @$^%@*^%*^ LOADED. So for me, Karl pointing out that an LCI can be used to verify a round in the chamber seems ludicrous, OF COURSE there is a round in the chamber, I put it there and have been in control of the gun ever since. And that's why I agree that an LCI is a useless feature on the gun, it's always loaded, we don't need no stinkin' indicators to tell us that.

Now, I must admit, I do press check the semi-autos and open the revolver cylinders twice a day on the guns I carry. Why? This is to confirm that while the gun was in the safe, the little ammunition fairies didn't come and remove the Gold Dots from my chambers. Then, I verify again, when I get home, to make sure that the elves making pocket lint didn't remove my Gold Dots, either. So far, I've never found an unloaded gun, I'd like to keep it that way.

It may seem counter intuitive, but if we all remember, all the time, just mantra it to yourself in your sleep. All loaded, all the time. All loaded, all the time. Mix that together with other good mantras. All loaded, all the time, front sight, squeeze, front sight, all the time. This way you've got it down...

-Rob

Footwork, footwork, footwork...

This semester, I decided to take Beginner's Fencing: Introduction to the Foil, as part of my never ending attempt to complete my desired renaissance man persona. That just meaning that over the years I've made a conscious effort to learn a valuable skill every 3 to 6 months. Some skills, I continually work with, others get filed away and come out when needed, yes they are a bit rusty, but there are only so many hours in a day.

So, I thought maybe it was time to try my hand at something a bit more physical. I won't lie, most of my skills are academic, some or hands on, but none, besides shooting, and a bit of martial arts, are physical or fighting. Fencing is exactly those things, fighting, physical, and academic. Footwork, many think fencing is a focus of bladework, but it's not, it's a focus on footwork and good footwork at that. It is a three to one ratio of footwork to bladework for success. The very first thing you learn is your on-guard position, which after 45 minutes of standing in has your begging for mercy. Then there is advance and retreat, and these two are the things I really want to focus on. The extension of the weapon arm makes an attack, but without being able to advance or retreat on a target, we are nothing.

Advance is made by picking up your forward, dominant, leg, kicking it out and down, then stepping forward with the back foot. If this sounds dramatic, it isn't, you should be able to do a proper fencing advance without making a sound. Also, the step you take is SHORT, and this is the key, you can take lots of small steps without losing your balance easier than you can take big steps back. You follow a similar method with retreat, where the back, non-dominant, foot leads and the front foot follows. Again, completely silent and with some practice taking steps the length of your own foot, you'll discover you back up 40 feet of fencing platform in less than 3 seconds.

The retreat is very useful, I feel, in a shooting situation that might require you to back away from the target and it is, I feel the number one reason to use Weaver over, Isosceles, stance, because your feet are splayed and your body slightly bladed, in Weaver, your ability to use short, backwards steps while facing forward is greater. As a test, I retreated from contact distance with a training partner, in my house, down my hallway which is a measured 21 feet, exactly. We engaged and I retreated, using fast, short, fencing style retreats, while he continued to come forward. Before you ask, yes, he did manage to stay virtually on top of me during that time, but, he was unable to knock me backwards, or, land what I felt was a fatal blow, in that time.

Two reasons for this, first, it turned out that I moved faster than I thought I would, backing down 21 feet in less than a second, but also, it turns out once he was at arms length, I could keep him there. His advances were fast powerful, but unbalanced motions, that were easily redirected. After several goes, his attacks were predictable and we knew the test was over, when after taking four retreats, I made an attempt to disengage that had my training buddy on his ass (basically he kept coming and I bounced him off a wall and knocked him down, by redirecting his motions, don't try this at home folks!).

So, that's one of my cases for the purpose of footwork, footwork applies to shooting, especially, competitive shooting, as much as it does in other sports. The short step retreat found in fencing could and probably should, find its way into your repertoire of skills to have when training for engaging a target that we might encounter on the street.

-Rob