Duel wielding

ScuDScuD Regular
edited September 2010 in Man Cave
Is there a proper technique?

2drc4ue.jpg
it may appear to the untrained eye, that Teal'c here is dual wielding. This is untrue, he is quad wielding, hes is holding 2 guns, with his guns.


Is there a real life situation that you would consider duel wielding firearms? explain. and what firearms would you duel wield?

if not, Then why?

i have only ever shot small caliber handguns, and never 2 at the same time. its something we see a lot of in video games and movies. it looks cool, but we all know looks don't always kill. or incapacitate.

Comments

  • MayberryMayberry Regular
    edited September 2010
    For looks.
  • MantikoreMantikore Regular
    edited September 2010
    perhaps for concealment purposes?:confused:
  • ScuDScuD Regular
    edited September 2010
    Mantikore wrote: »
    perhaps for concealment purposes?:confused:

    what im wondering specifically is; are there any situations that you might consider dual wielding firearms for benefit?out numbered? out gunned?

    and is there an actual school-able reliable method for dual wielding firearms?

    and what is good to dual wield, something with good controllability. what might that be?
  • acid_dropacid_drop Regular
    edited September 2010
    ScuD wrote: »
    what im wondering specifically is; are there any situations that you might consider dual wielding firearms for benefit?out numbered? out gunned?

    and is there an actual school-able reliable method for dual wielding firearms?

    and what is good to dual wield, something with good controllability. what might that be?

    No.

    No.

    It's only in the movies. Otherwise it's pretty much useless. You can't reliably aim in that fashion. Thus you won't hit your target. And almost any machinegun is going to go wildly off target due to recoil without both hands on the weapon.
  • Swamp JunkySwamp Junky Acolyte
    edited September 2010
    Also, reloading would get pretty tricky.
  • MayberryMayberry Regular
    edited September 2010
    Angelina Jolie/Lara Croft did reloading pretty well in Tomb Raider.
  • LavaRedLavaRed New Arrival
    edited September 2010
    Dual Wielding is useless.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited September 2010
    Dont bother with it. It just looks cool. Otherwise it's a fail method of shooting. I cant think of a situation where I'd try that.
  • acid_dropacid_drop Regular
    edited September 2010
    Dont bother with it. It just looks cool. Otherwise it's a fail method of shooting. I cant think of a situation where I'd try that.

    Agreed. The easiest person to assault in combat, is someone who doesn't know what they are doing. "Dual wielding" being a prime example. With two hands on a weapon it wouldn't be shit to knock that SOB dead, while he is fooling around like an idiot.

    Believe it or not, Rifles and machine guns are made for two handed operation for a reason.

    You have no sight picture, or line of sight without using the said weapon in it's intended manner. Spray and pray doesn't work in life, this isn't counter strike. One or two well aimed shots trump unaimed BS every day of the week.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited September 2010
    acid_drop wrote: »
    Agreed. The easiest person to assault in combat, is someone who doesn't know what they are doing. "Dual wielding" being a prime example. With two hands on a weapon it wouldn't be shit to knock that SOB dead, while he is fooling around like an idiot.

    Believe it or not, Rifles and machine guns are made for two handed operation for a reason.

    You have no sight picture, or line of sight without using the said weapon in it's intended manner. Spray and pray doesn't work in life, this isn't counter strike. One or two well aimed shots trump unaimed BS every day of the week.

    It's why I'd consider a fucking Amish guy with an old bolt action rifle far more deadly than some gangbanger using spray and pray tactics with an AK.
  • MegalodonMegalodon Regular
    edited September 2010
    isn't it dual?
  • EbolaEbola Acolyte
    edited September 2010
    Megalodon wrote: »
    isn't it dual?

    yes
  • Sandy RavageSandy Ravage Acolyte
    edited September 2010
    acid_drop wrote: »
    Believe it or not, Rifles and machine guns are made for two handed operation for a reason.

    You have no sight picture, or line of sight without using the said weapon in it's intended manner. Spray and pray doesn't work in life, this isn't counter strike. One or two well aimed shots trump unaimed BS every day of the week.

    QFMFT.

    Alot of people don't understand how hard it is to shoot different distances with different weapons. For example, an AR-15 (generic term) WHILE using the rail sights seems simple enough, right? Well at 300 yards or so the smallest error will throw shots well off target. Whether its breathing, trigger pull, etc... Now i'm talking about a shoulder fired, aimed, assault rifle here.

    Anyway... what I'm saying is that i'll *duel* you anyday. Your hip-fired FN P90s from the pic against one shot from my trusty .40 cal pistol.
  • jarkofjarkof Regular
    edited September 2010
    All for show. I can not come up with any benefit for duel wielding a weapon unless you are going on a suicide mission and your job is to be a distraction. In which case it would be perfect because as soon as somebody sees you comin out with two guns in each hand they will laugh and avert there guns at you.
  • Brock SamsonBrock Samson Regular
    edited September 2010
    Id rather be jacking myself off with my offhand, than dualwielding. It would probably be more productive.
  • ScuDScuD Regular
    edited September 2010
    what if you are really strong...like teal'c. and use semi automatic small caliber weapons.
  • acid_dropacid_drop Regular
    edited September 2010
    ScuD wrote: »
    what if you are really strong...like teal'c. and use semi automatic small caliber weapons.

    Strength doesn't matter. I could run around with two M249 SAW's for a little bit, doesn't mean you're going to hit your target. You have to realize, that bullets are pretty small projectiles. If you can't aim and concentrate fire on the target, you're doing no good. If you aren't using your sights be them Iron or optics, you are doing it wrong.
  • ScuDScuD Regular
    edited September 2010
    acid_drop wrote: »
    Strength doesn't matter. I could run around with two M249 SAW's for a little bit, doesn't mean you're going to hit your target. You have to realize, that bullets are pretty small projectiles. If you can't aim and concentrate fire on the target, you're doing no good. If you aren't using your sights be them Iron or optics, you are doing it wrong.

    okay... :(
  • Brock SamsonBrock Samson Regular
    edited September 2010
    Maybe with a laser, but it would still be retatded and impracticle.
  • GumboGumbo Regular
    edited September 2010
    Double yer gun, double yer fun.

    When you hold two guns at the same time, you realize very quickly that you can only aim down the sights on one of them, and that you've only got one hand on the primary gun. This is problematic for most shooters, and especially so with automatic weapons. You try keeping track of two bouncy hands, it ain't easy.

    People used to carry two pistols into battle, back when you could only fit one bullet in each. And occasionally when they only had six. These days, the practice is all but forgotten. There are still "cowboy shooters" doing pistol business, and theoretically speaking, if you can get good at snap shooting, you might be able to practice the same with two guns. I ain't really ever seen it though.
  • GumboGumbo Regular
    edited September 2010
    acid_drop wrote: »
    If you aren't using your sights be them Iron or optics, you are doing it wrong.

    I always found it pretty tough to utilize cover properly while I was concentrating on perfecting my weaver stance. And besides, not every round fired is a shot meant for somebody's head. Gunfire itself is as much a tactic as a weapon.
  • Professor ElmProfessor Elm Regular
    edited September 2010
    For covering fire it is good as you can suppress without having to reload fast.

    Other than that, you look like a beast if you are accurate with both at once :P
  • acid_dropacid_drop Regular
    edited September 2010
    Gumbo wrote: »
    And besides, not every round fired is a shot meant for somebody's head. Gunfire itself is as much a tactic as a weapon.

    No, but accurate fire is essential if you want to eliminate a target. And unless you have a squad, supressing fire doesn't do much aside from giving you time to GTFO. Other wise it's pretty useless.
  • 5.56 SS1095.56 SS109 Regular
    edited September 2010
    Gumbo wrote: »
    And besides, not every round fired is a shot meant for somebody's head. Gunfire itself is as much a tactic as a weapon.

    That "tactic" has no place outside the military.

    In the armed civilian and law enforcement world, every bullet you fire has a lawyer attached to it. So suppressive fire is not even something to consider.

    Plus, how much "suppressing" can you do with 30-50 rounds of handgun ammo?

    None.

    Leave suppressive fire to the guys with the SAW.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited September 2010
    Gumbo wrote: »
    I always found it pretty tough to utilize cover properly while I was concentrating on perfecting my weaver stance. And besides, not every round fired is a shot meant for somebody's head. Gunfire itself is as much a tactic as a weapon.

    Like the two posters above said this tactic has no use in civilian or law use. You would only use this if you had an automatic weapon and I'm talking like a machine gun type even a full auto AK will run out of ammo in about 3 or 4 seconds if the trigger is held. If your trying to kill or defend yourself dont ever waste a bullet on suppression. Make each and every shot count. A trained man with a bolt action rifle is more deadly than spray and pray any day.
  • 5.56 SS1095.56 SS109 Regular
    edited September 2010
    Protip: It is no longer 1978, ditch the Weaver stance.
  • GumboGumbo Regular
    edited September 2010
    Yeah, you guys are right. I'm thinking about a different type of combat, and one people rarely engage in using pistols.

    I don't know, I'm really comfortable with weaver, what do you prefer?
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited September 2010
    Gumbo wrote: »
    Yeah, you guys are right. I'm thinking about a different type of combat, and one people rarely engage in using pistols.

    I don't know, I'm really comfortable with weaver, what do you prefer?

    I have no idea what he has against the weaver stance Im curious about this too. As far as I know it's the most effective way.:confused:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Modern_Technique_of_the_Pistol

    Anyway this might help you out some.
  • stresstres Regular
    edited September 2010
    like somebody mentioned, the only reason you would ever need to suppress fire would be in a group/team situation, so I'm sure you can rationalize a situation where dual wielding would be appropriate. However, in normal circumstances I would presume the tactical use of a rifle and with good shot grouping would trump unsighted shots fired..

    The little I do know about firearms is that it's fine if your sights are off, it's fine to miss, provided your grouping is tight, you are firing straight, just correct your sighting to compensate. This will take a millisecond to recalculate in a situation where you are using the rifle's sights. To be guessing the shot placement, by the 3rd round the recoil would of thrown you off to the point of just squeezing the trigger and hoping your aggressor is neutralized before your empty. Dual wielding isn't something I would do and I don't think it's too intimidating either.

    THIS is fucking intimidating - your on the other side of this, the kids taking you out. I can't say the same for the pic OP posted:
    1774d1178485066-best-among-war-movies-post-334134-1160635715.jpg
  • 5.56 SS1095.56 SS109 Regular
    edited September 2010
    My issue with the Weaver stance is that it "locks" you into position and really prevents you from easily going mobile while shooting.

    Plus, under stress, it isn't as fast or as easy/natural to acquire than the modern Isosceles.
  • stresstres Regular
    edited September 2010
    5.56 SS109 wrote: »
    My issue with the Weaver stance is that it "locks" you into position and really prevents you from easily going mobile while shooting.

    Plus, under stress, it isn't as fast or as easy/natural to acquire than the modern Isosceles.

    ^^ this is very true. I especially agree with the second point, I find it takes too much time to correct the stance where by a substitute seemed more appropriate. I've noticed that the weaver stance is really prominent in certain fields of sporting shooting where mobility isn't factored, whereas more practical/speed based divisions are a little different, is this true? - I'm trying to string the term to my memory with google images; possibly thinking about the wrong stance.. :confused:
  • edited September 2010
    If you learned to be able to shoot without the sights I guess it'd be plausible to do it effectively with pistols. You'd have to have a lot of practice, though.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited September 2010
    5.56 SS109 wrote: »
    My issue with the Weaver stance is that it "locks" you into position and really prevents you from easily going mobile while shooting.

    Plus, under stress, it isn't as fast or as easy/natural to acquire than the modern Isosceles.

    This is true. I never really thought of that before. Most likely because Ive never been under fire.
  • Sandy RavageSandy Ravage Acolyte
    edited September 2010
    Really? I've used a modified Weaver since the first time i've fired a pistol, both in military and law enforcement. I've ran many practical weapons courses (running, diving, taking cover, etc) using my mod weaver and have never had a single problem with mobility. In fact, I think it alot easier. Much like a field interview stance you can shift weight to one leg to pivot on and swing an easy 180 degrees to avoid anything.

    However, like I said, I've always used a mod Weaver though. I can't stand an Isoceles stance what-so-ever! I feel completely immobile, open, and well, just silly.
    With the standard Weaver I feel off balance and placing to much weight on my leg.

    P.S. I'm also an Expert Marksman :cool:
  • acid_dropacid_drop Regular
    edited September 2010
    Really? I've used a modified Weaver since the first time i've fired a pistol, both in military and law enforcement. I've ran many practical weapons courses (running, diving, taking cover, etc) using my mod weaver and have never had a single problem with mobility. In fact, I think it alot easier. Much like a field interview stance you can shift weight to one leg to pivot on and swing an easy 180 degrees to avoid anything.

    However, like I said, I've always used a mod Weaver though. I can't stand an Isoceles stance what-so-ever! I feel completely immobile, open, and well, just silly.
    With the standard Weaver I feel off balance and placing to much weight on my leg.

    P.S. I'm also an Expert Marksman :cool:

    I don't like standing face and chest at a target either, It felt horrible. I always stood in something of a weaver stance while directing lead down the line.

    I was always told that there is a hole in my armor below my shoulder and I could die.... Yeah well, in the isosceles it's much harder to sustain automatic fire. And I'm much more comfortable shooting in a weaver.

    If that guy would have hit me in that hole in my armor, he must have been a serious bad ass, he would have had to miss my rifle, my right arm, go through a 4 inch space at a straight on. The chance was there I guess, but in a more comfortable position I am able to engage and eliminate. I just couldn't get good with a face on stance.
  • Sandy RavageSandy Ravage Acolyte
    edited September 2010
    acid_drop wrote: »
    I don't like standing face and chest at a target either, It felt horrible. I always stood in something of a weaver stance while directing lead down the line.

    I was always told that there is a hole in my armor below my shoulder and I could die.... Yeah well, in the isosceles it's much harder to sustain automatic fire. And I'm much more comfortable shooting in a weaver.

    If that guy would have hit me in that hole in my armor, he must have been a serious bad ass, he would have had to miss my rifle, my right arm, go through a 4 inch space at a straight on. The chance was there I guess, but in a more comfortable position I am able to engage and eliminate. I just couldn't get good with a face on stance.

    Precisely... Of course, they say things like that about your armor to make you think and do certain things. Thing is, the learners never think about getting shot in the face.
    [Edit] The way I wrote that sounded wrong. It is wise to know about the gap below your arm pit, but as you said, the odds of someone hitting it are very rare {see below}. The way I see it, someone could come up with 50 ways how Isoceles is better then Weaver if they wanted to.... I just stepped up at the range and found my comfortable position and have used it since (much to the chagrin of my range masters).

    Also, through repetition of dry fire, live fire, night fire, etc.. until it's drilled into your brain and muscle memory you stand a 99% of out firing a criminal, mook, jihader, etc. Most are trained (or self-learned) to fire from the hip then aim, which with recoil, is near impossible. So, they may fire an entire mag without placing a shot whereas a trained marksman will place 2/3 shots in center mass.
  • 5.56 SS1095.56 SS109 Regular
    edited September 2010
    I'm just going from my experience of shooting on my own and teaching friends who have never shot a gun before how to shoot.

    It just seems that, overall, it is way more natural for people to use an "Isosceles-type" stance.

    I think "Isosceles" might actually be the wrong way to describe the technique I am referring to. I have heard the term "Neutral stance" and it seems to fit better as there is really no tension going on like there is with a Weaver-like stance.

    Now, I'm not saying any of you are wrong, I'm just saying that a squared-up stance tends to allow people to get on target quicker and deliver shots faster. I base this off of two things.

    1. Look at IDPA or IPSC shooting, then look at all the top guys and the stance they use. It's definitely not Weaver, so that is proof enough that, generally, a squared up stance is "better".

    2. Look at any firearms instructor and look at the stances they teach and use themselves. It's not Weaver.

    Now, again, personal experience matters way more than anecdotes. So Weaver may indeed work better for some of you guys. That's fine, whatever allows you to get hits is the right way to do it.

    I'll admit, if I am shooting a pistol at 50 yards, I'll use the Weaver stance and I'll close one eye. But if I'm shooting "bad guy" size targets at closer ranges, it's an Isosceles-style stance and both eyes open.

    I also prefer the Isosceles-style stance because the way I shoot a pistol is the exact same way I shoot a rifle, so it eliminates the need to change my body position when going from pistol to rifle.

    But, like I said, those are just my experiences.
Sign In or Register to comment.