TexasCHLforum.com

The vast majority of self defense shootings are going to be very close range. If you can hit a close range target with a .22 you can hit it with a .40.

My lovely wife is a good example for why the change is needed...

She is 4 ft. 10. and has severe rheumatoid arthritis in her hands (among other places). She is only 58 years young. Her small fingers are pointing in every direction but the right one. She cannot physically pull a heavy double action trigger, even with both hands. She has had one complete elbow replacement, knee replacement and foot reconstruction. Chambering a round in the chamber on a semi-auto other than a .22 is a no go. The recoil from anything greater than a .22 injures her wrist and finger joints to the point she cannot even hold a pistol after a couple of rounds in .32 or greater.

She cannot physically pass a CHP proficiency test with anything but a .22.

She deserves the same right to self protection as a non handicapped person, imho....

Could she shoot a revolver single action?

This whole discussion illustrates why the government should not be specifying equipment choices. The "proficiency" requirement really doesn't have anything to do with "proficiency," it's just a sop to be able to say "Hey, we test their shooting." pffft. Just another hurdle to hop to be able to legally defend yourself. If we can't get rid of the government licensing anytime soon, we should at least lop off a useless range session. To the extent that licensing is valid at all, it is just to ID the good guys.

Note: I think everyone should seriously study their needs, buy good equipment, train, and become proficient. But having the state specify this just turns into a hash.

Although I don't think .22LR is an adequate self-defense round, plenty of people have been killed by it. I trust CHL applicants and holders to choose the equipment that is best for them.

RonW956 wrote:Me personally I feel it would be very wise to pass the test, practice & carry the exact pistol and/or caliber you plan on carrying. My concern is newbies passing their proficiency with a .22 target pistol then going out & buying a .40 and carrying it without much practice.

Scenario 1) Someone shoots the CHL course of fire with a .22 and carries a .40, but then never practices.
Scenario 2) Someone shoots the CHL course of fire with a .40 and carries the same .40, but then never practices.

I would contend there is no practical difference between the two. One 50-round course of fire is going to do jack squat for "training".

CleverNickname wrote: One 50-round course of fire is going to do jack squat for "training".

The proficiency test is not intended to be training.

sjfcontrol wrote:

CleverNickname wrote: One 50-round course of fire is going to do jack squat for "training".

The proficiency test is not intended to be training.

I realize that. But a lot of people think that it is.

CleverNickname wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

CleverNickname wrote: One 50-round course of fire is going to do jack squat for "training".

The proficiency test is not intended to be training.

I realize that. But a lot of people think that it is.

And a lot of people are wrong.

Anyone know the rationale used in how the legislature determined the caliber requirements for the CHL proficiency test? I searched the Texas archives and found, and listened to, the SB 60 conference committee meeting for the original statute in 1995, and the side by side listing showed it was a house amendment that added the 9m and .38 caliber requirements. But when they got to that part of the bill and the house substitution, they skipped past that section with no discussion other than it was a consensus. then in 1999 (76(R) session), the amendments in SB 1368 included the change replacing the 9m/.38 to .32 or above. SB 1368 was placed on the "local and consent" calendars in both houses and zoomed to passage.

I would like know what the actual legislative rationale was that 'someone' (DPS?) used, and why a caliber spec is needed at all since 'handgun' is pretty much defined. If someone knows, please share. Thanks.

When the SB 179 bill was being laid out and public testimony was taken, all the discussion focused on the reason for making the .22 caliber handgun the minimum for a CHL proficiency test was that it could better accommodate users who have a problem with larger calibers because of hand injury, arthritis, etc. One witness said the elderly or arthritic users have trouble 'racking' the gun, which might imply that a better handgun choice for them could be a revolver and not a semi-auto. I've never handled a semi-auto .22 so I don't know how the slide tension compares to a larger caliber gun.

I think there are some ancillary issues that should be considered that weren't discussed. Such as if the user chooses a .22 semi-auto, they must be able to load a magazine multiple times during the 50-shot tests, and dealing with magazine spring tension may be a problem for them. Also, based on my experience, the recoil from the semi-auto seems to be less than a revolver. If the user chooses a .22 revolver, it will be easier to load the rounds, but they may encounter a longer, stiffer trigger pull, depending on which model they have, and possibly greater recoil than the sa.

K5GU wrote:Anyone know the rationale used in how the legislature determined the caliber requirements for the CHL proficiency test? I searched the Texas archives and found, and listened to, the SB 60 conference committee meeting for the original statute in 1995, and the side by side listing showed it was a house amendment that added the 9m and .38 caliber requirements. But when they got to that part of the bill and the house substitution, they skipped past that section with no discussion other than it was a consensus. then in 1999 (76(R) session), the amendments in SB 1368 included the change replacing the 9m/.38 to .32 or above. SB 1368 was placed on the "local and consent" calendars in both houses and zoomed to passage.

I would like know what the actual legislative rationale was that 'someone' (DPS?) used, and why a caliber spec is needed at all since 'handgun' is pretty much defined. If someone knows, please share. Thanks.

Given all the small items in the original law, I imagine a LOT of things were added in an attempt to overcome the objections of people who were looking for excuses to not vote for it. The attitude toward concealed carry has changed a lot since then. The legislature seems to be removing many of those small restrictions from the law every session.

MechAg94 wrote:

K5GU wrote:Anyone know the rationale used in how the legislature determined the caliber requirements for the CHL proficiency test? I searched the Texas archives and found, and listened to, the SB 60 conference committee meeting for the original statute in 1995, and the side by side listing showed it was a house amendment that added the 9m and .38 caliber requirements. But when they got to that part of the bill and the house substitution, they skipped past that section with no discussion other than it was a consensus. then in 1999 (76(R) session), the amendments in SB 1368 included the change replacing the 9m/.38 to .32 or above. SB 1368 was placed on the "local and consent" calendars in both houses and zoomed to passage.

I would like know what the actual legislative rationale was that 'someone' (DPS?) used, and why a caliber spec is needed at all since 'handgun' is pretty much defined. If someone knows, please share. Thanks.

Given all the small items in the original law, I imagine a LOT of things were added in an attempt to overcome the objections of people who were looking for excuses to not vote for it. The attitude toward concealed carry has changed a lot since then. The legislature seems to be removing many of those small restrictions from the law every session.

I agree. I also have also noticed that when watching/listening to the committee discussions they avoid references to the DPS and their influence on the bill writing. Not sure why except maybe because they're separate branches of government?

No data or other information - I am just guessing.

I always assumed that the caliber should be one that is "normally" used for concealed carry.

This is similar to the [old] requirement of having to qualify with a semi-automatic handgun if you wanted the SA designation on your CHL.

My wife has no issues with guns other than the loud noise they make. Because of this, she doesn't like to shoot anything other than my .22lr Sig Mosquito (which she enjoys). She's shot a .380, 9mm, .40, but she always just hands it back and says that's enough. The whole stopping power discussion is pretty pointless if you're carrying nothing. I would rather have my wife armed with a .22lr than nothing.