Replies

It might even be that you gave your women students more particularized attention than you gave to the men. The patronizing soul will often do this subconciously. I have seen women newbies at a firing range surrounded by men only too anxious to give them particularized instruction and quick praise--particularly if the woman is attractive. Admittedly, my evidence is anecdotal, but it comports with what I know about barstool blowhardism.

And in any event, the combat firefight enviroment is a special environment quite unlike a sedate shooting-range-with-benchrests environment. Before any claim about women naturally being better marksmen would hold water on this thread, you would have to account and control for the special environment of combat firefights. Critical factors and controls include type of weapon and deployment, e.g., holding an M16 and laying down covering fire from the prone position is one thing, lugging a 24 pound M240G medium machinegun in a sprint across 500 yards of open field and firing effectively once you get there is quite another.

Sure sounds to me like you have something againt women! Nobody said that they could carry as much or handle heavy weapons as well as a man, but let me tell you I would rather be up against a man in a gun fight than a woman protecting either herself or someone in her family. I would also hate to see what a woman could do as a sniper.

A woman will almost always buy a gun that fits her which gives her an advantage, a man on the otherhand will try and buy the biggest he can hold, it's an ego thing, if it wern't we wouldn't have .50 cal pistols..

My better half (dansangel) almost always beats me at the range, Freedom Poster has already attested to that. There are many more men that are good shots simply because there are many more men with guns.Given an equal amount of men and women with the same training I will bet on the women..

As far as a woman protecting herself I think at a minimum they should carry pepper spray or one step further a pistol, an agresser that is 20 feet or closer to a woman is too close, hand to hand with a man should be out of the question. As far as I am concerned it's too close for me too..

comports with what I know about barstool blowhardism.

Little harsh, don't you think? I don't know wether all women are potentially better shots than all men, but the (approximately 12) women I have taught were more willing to take instruction than the (approximately 25) men I have taught.

They seem to have more trouble using the strength they have to manipulate the slide- i.e. it's not so much they're too weak, as they aren't familiar with using their body mechanics to maximum advantage. But they did seem to get the idea of a "trigger press" as opposed to a "jerk" more quickly than the men did.

Sure, small sample, didn't keep records, anecdotal evidence. But should I claim to have no opinion on the matter at all, absent a statistically valid sample, rigorous records, etc.?

In your overweening folly, you actually manage to raise one solitary valid point: pistol combat shooting is NOT the same thing as pistol target shooting. Since the phrase "better shot" is usually interpreted as meaning "more accurate on a range than another such shooter" -and was used as such in my post- it is clear by inference that I was speaking solely of sedate, controlled targetry.
Case in point: The Dutch girl who performed in such an astonishing manner did indeed pull off consistent 2.5" groups with a .45 M1911A1 at a range of 8 meters on her first afternoon, as compared to my usual 4.5" group with the same weapon at the same distance after using that particular model for some 23 years. A major difference between the two performances was this: it would take her one full minute to take seven shots, whereas in the same time frame I would go through four full clips. I tend to shoot rapid two-shot groups intending only to nail the breadbox, not trying to hit a particular chamber of the heart. I sincerely doubt that the Dutch girl will EVER be able to match that level of rate-of-fire x accuracy. On the other hand, the very best group I have thus far managed with that model pistol at that range firing very carefully aimed single shots is 3.5 inches. She is thus a better shot than I am.
One error in diction I did make in the post to which you took such rude exception is the following: When I said ".
I would say that almost 100% of the time, women are better natural shots than men..." I did not make sufficiently clear that I meant "straight out of the box, comparing the performance of females to males on their first pistol targetry session." Though, come to think on it, the words "better natural shots" pretty much implied this.

The rest of your posts, and the attitude displayed therein, is pure toilet stew. You assume, and presume, far too much.