TexasCHLforum.com

Does anyone actually know (not just guessing) what the rationale was for having the two categories of CHL License for non-semiauto vs all types?

pfgrone wrote:Does anyone actually know (not just guessing) what the rationale was for having the two categories of CHL License for non-semiauto vs all types?

Exactly what you imagine. Them there automatics is a bunch harder to shoot than a wheel-gun.

[quote="txinvestigator"][quote="pfgrone"]Does anyone actually know (not just guessing) what the rationale was for having the two categories of CHL License for non-semiauto vs all types?[/quote]

Exactly what you imagine. Them there automatics is a bunch harder to shoot than a wheel-gun.[/quote]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep.
They could have said "Bottom Feeder" and "Non Bottom Feeder".

And if they called it "BRT" and "Non BRT", half the folks wouldn't
know what they meant.

txinvestigator wrote:

pfgrone wrote:Does anyone actually know (not just guessing) what the rationale was for having the two categories of CHL License for non-semiauto vs all types?

Exactly what you imagine. Them there automatics is a bunch harder to shoot than a wheel-gun.

This is strange to me, because I can shoot a semiauto much better, and more accurately than I can a revolver. Goes to show you how much I love DA trigger pulls eh?

nitrogen wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

pfgrone wrote:Does anyone actually know (not just guessing) what the rationale was for having the two categories of CHL License for non-semiauto vs all types?

Exactly what you imagine. Them there automatics is a bunch harder to shoot than a wheel-gun.

This is strange to me, because I can shoot a semiauto much better, and more accurately than I can a revolver. Goes to show you how much I love DA trigger pulls eh?

Ditto,

But I do carry a revolver sometimes, (I mean bottom feed )

I can shoot a revolver "single action" pretty well, but double action.....hmmmm, it wouldn't hurt me to practice some.

I do a lot of dry-firing with my revolver. It helps me keep my hand steady while pulling the trigger, and has been an excellent method to keep me from anticipating recoil.

I really wasn't trolling for a revolver vs semiauto thread. That's been overdone already. Now, once again, does anyone REALLY know why the two categories exist on the CHL? I know it's hard to resist but I also had to delete some really clever (IMHO) comments about revolvers/semiautos before I posted my original question.

My wife and I took our CHL class at the same time and, since I was a wheelgun person at the time, I had to wait for her to finish her shoot so I could borrow her 9mm semiauto.

I would suspect it was included because semi-autos are "more complex in operation" than revolvers, and therefore "require more training." They don't want someone out there wielding a firearm they haven't demonstrated proficiency with.

That being said, I think it's dumb. A DAO revolver is a heck of a lot more difficult to shoot accurately than a Colt .45 1911, and if it's a .357 (example: S&W 640), it'll kick a lot more as well.

It was probably put in there to assuage the fears of those not familiar with guns or carry. Hopefully, that silly restriction will be phased out soon.

pfgrone wrote:I really wasn't trolling for a revolver vs semiauto thread. That's been overdone already. Now, once again, does anyone REALLY know why the two categories exist on the CHL? I know it's hard to resist but I also had to delete some really clever (IMHO) comments about revolvers/semiautos before I posted my original question.

My wife and I took our CHL class at the same time and, since I was a wheelgun person at the time, I had to wait for her to finish her shoot so I could borrow her 9mm semiauto.

My answer just unsatisfactory to you, or do you not believe me?

Thane wrote:I would suspect it was included because semi-autos are "more complex in operation" than revolvers, and therefore "require more training." They don't want someone out there wielding a firearm they haven't demonstrated proficiency with.

That being said, I think it's dumb. A DAO revolver is a heck of a lot more difficult to shoot accurately than a Colt .45 1911, and if it's a .357 (example: S&W 640), it'll kick a lot more as well.

It was probably put in there to assuage the fears of those not familiar with guns or carry. Hopefully, that silly restriction will be phased out soon.

It may be true that a revolver is harder to shoot well in double action mode than many semi-autos. But the whole business of being able to rack the slide as needed - NOT trivial for the elderly and some females - and being able to safely load and unload a semi-auto is more difficult than loading or unloading a revolver.

If you can't safely unload a gun when you pick it up, either because you don't know how or because you physically are not able to do it, you are not safe with that gun.

Many semi-autos also have safetys, decockers, etc. that have to be understood in order to be able to use the gun effectively for self defense. I've seen newbies fill a magazine, stuff it into the gun, and assume that they are ready to rock, not realizing that they need to rack the slide to get a round into the chamber.

Note that there are all sorts of ways to assure that the knowledge and ability is in place than by administering the shooting test. The path TX takes is just one among many.

The system is effectively dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. These days, if someone has had no actual contact with guns, most of what they know is what they see on TV. And most of that is a cow pile.

How many times do you see someone on TV holding someone else at gunpoint with a 1911 style pistol WITH THE HAMMER DOWN? And if they should happen to pull the trigger, it goes off!

And trust me, it's not Para LDA's that they are using.

I'll bet there are 100 million or so people in this country who think that turning around rapidly with a gun and pointing it somehow makes it go, "Ka-chunk".

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

I'm going to respectfully disagree.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: It may be true that a revolver is harder to shoot well in double action mode than many semi-autos. But the whole business of being able to rack the slide as needed - NOT trivial for the elderly and some females - and being able to safely load and unload a semi-auto is more difficult than loading or unloading a revolver.

If you can't safely unload a gun when you pick it up, either because you don't know how or because you physically are not able to do it, you are not safe with that gun.

smaller caliber automatics .22 rr .25 aren't a big deal to rack. I personally never unload my carry gun unless I'm cleaning it or at the range. As someone mentions in their sig here. Unloaded guns are dangerous. The safest gun is the one that is being carried properly holstered and concealed. If someone is having problems unloading there is a good chance they have someone they trust to help them unload. I find that most revolvers require more strength to fire than most automatics. Most autoloaders have easier hammers to cock.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: Many semi-autos also have safetys, decockers, etc. that have to be understood in order to be able to use the gun effectively for self defense. I've seen newbies fill a magazine, stuff it into the gun, and assume that they are ready to rock, not realizing that they need to rack the slide to get a round into the chamber.

I know my CHL instructor is one of the best, and that it wouldn't take him long to figure it out, but I doubt if he knew off hand the safety features of my autoloader. As far as I know we we are not tested on familiarity of our handguns. Most CHL instructors offer a loan of a semi auto. and the student usually needs a quick demo and explaination of the features .. We are not graded on our familiarity of our handguns.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
Note that there are all sorts of ways to assure that the knowledge and ability is in place than by administering the shooting test. The path TX takes is just one among many.

The system is effectively dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. These days, if someone has had no actual contact with guns, most of what they know is what they see on TV. And most of that is a cow pile.

As it should be the 2nd ammendment doesn't suggest a a training level.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
How many times do you see someone on TV holding someone else at gunpoint with a 1911 style pistol WITH THE HAMMER DOWN? And if they should happen to pull the trigger, it goes off!

And trust me, it's not Para LDA's that they are using.

I'll bet there are 100 million or so people in this country who think that turning around rapidly with a gun and pointing it somehow makes it go, "Ka-chunk".

I see a lot of folks lately questioning the skills of and training of CHL holders. I am confused why this is so. It wasn't long ago that most folks here held CHL holders in high regard. I still do, All the CHLers that I have ever met. are responsible adults, All the one that I've ever met take training seriously, and go to the range several times a year. there are very few incidents ever reported, and we have excellent coverage on this news group. Maybe its just that the people in this part of Texas are just more intelligent, but I sorta doubt it. Has there been a new surge of stupid CHLers that I'm not aware of?

Liberty wrote: I see a lot of folks lately questioning the skills of and training of CHL holders. I am confused why this is so. It wasn't long ago that most folks here held CHL holders in high regard. I still do, All the CHLers that I have ever met. are responsible adults, All the one that I've ever met take training seriously, and go to the range several times a year. there are very few incidents ever reported, and we have excellent coverage on this news group. Maybe its just that the people in this part of Texas are just more intelligent, but I sorta doubt it. Has there been a new surge of stupid CHLers that I'm not aware of?

You tell me.

Two weeks ago I took my refresher course for my renewal. My group was at the range prepping for our shooting test. The instructor went through the routine and explained what we would be doing. He also went through some basic range protocol and range safety procedures. Stuff like, "Always point the muzzle in a safe direction." The usual stuff. He explained that we should each lock the slides back on semi-autos or open the cylinders on revolvers in preparation for going up to the line.

So people started handling their guns to get this done. I was a little antsy, as no one seemed to be watching things very closely. People were just in a random group going into their range bags/boxes and opening their guns. Mostly, people kept the muzzles of their guns safely pointed at the ground. This one guy with a semiauto was obviously having a problem with the slide. Then he looked up at me and said, "Hey, how do you lock the slide back on this thing?" I'm more or less right next to him at this point. As he is talking, still trying to figure out how to lock the slide, he tilts the gun into a more horizontal position where it's pointing at me!!!!!

I said, "Whoa! Point that thing DOWN please!" At the same time, I reached out and pushed the muzzle down and away from me.

It was some kind of double action SA. I took hold of it and, still pointing it downwards, showed him how to engage the slide lock while holding the slide back.

So out of a group of 20 or so people, I found one guy who didn't understand muzzle control and who didn't know how to operate his SA pistol.

There are 267,000 CHL's in TX. I agree with you that accidents are few and far between. But please forgive me if I find it a little surprising.

Now all that said, I agree with a lot of the other points you made. But PLEASE, try to see that there is more than one side to this.

txinvestigator wrote:My answer just unsatisfactory to you, or do you not believe me?

Well, TXI, do I believe "Them there automatics is a bunch harder to shoot than a wheel-gun" No, I don't believe they are a bunch harder to shoot - just different. Plusses and minuses on both sides.

I guess I was hoping someone on this distinguished forum might have been involved with setting the requirements for CHL and could say, "The reason we decided on two CHL categories was ...."

267,000 CHLs? Man that seems awful low. I'm suprised the number is that low.

pfgrone wrote:I guess I was hoping someone on this distinguished forum might have been involved with setting the requirements for CHL and could say, "The reason we decided on two CHL categories was ...."

There are people who were "present at the creation," but they are busy. Perhaps they will respond in time.

- Jim