# Firing Dual 9mm Pistols



## alucard (Mar 4, 2007)

I've never tried this but, I would like to know what the best 9mm semi-auto handguns would be to use and does anyone have any techniques for a dual handgun style?


----------



## jwkimber45 (May 6, 2006)

Surely you jest.....


:watching: :watching:


----------



## Charlie (May 13, 2006)

Three at a time would offer even more firepower! :smt023 :watching:


----------



## jblaze725 (Mar 19, 2007)

I'm new to this, but I would imagine that the extra firepower you would gain with 2 guns wouldn't be worth the lost accuracy. Plus with 2 guns reloads would be a problem.


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

alucard said:


> I've never tried this but, I would like to know what the best 9mm semi-auto handguns would be to use and does anyone have any techniques for a dual handgun style?


Never saw a need for two-guns-at-once. Accuracy would be problematical, and reloading would be...challenging, to say the least.

Just get one good gun, and a decent-capacity magazine, and practice.










Some folks use a 33-shot mag, but I think that's just crazy.

31 is fine. :mrgreen:


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

This guy seems to have the technique down to a science...

:smt071


----------



## Todd (Jul 3, 2006)

jwkimber45 said:


> Surely you jest.....
> 
> :watching: :watching:


Gotta agree.

Frankly, your thread topics and questions are starting to sound off my BS alarm. Dual guns, maximum lengths and caliber of CCW guns, bayonets for hunting. What gives? You sound like a teenager who's seen one too many Matrix films.


----------



## jblaze725 (Mar 19, 2007)

The 2 guns might work. After youre done shooting off all those rounds and missing you have 2 guns you can throw at the target instead of one. I couldnt resist.


----------



## rfawcs (Feb 11, 2006)

Ever see the movie "Boondock Saints"? One of the shooters had a "gun apron"; it was an apron with two vertical rows of pockets for pistols. He pulled out the top two pistols, one in each hand, and started blasting. When they were empty, he tossed those and grabbed the next two, and so on. It was pretty cool to watch.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

I've seen some people achieve a sort of mediocre accuracy level by firing identical pistols alternately (Glock 17s and Beretta 92s), as a goofy stunt. Many years ago, someone wrote an article about it in the "Peterson's Handguns" rag, using (IIRC) matched Ruger Security Six revolvers. 

However, you can shoot MUCH faster and more accurately with two hands on one pistol. I've never wasted time trying "bidextrous" shooting. It's just for show, and has no real-world application.


----------



## Revolver (Aug 26, 2006)

It's just for fun. It has no real use. You've just got to make sure the two pistols are identical. It really throws you off otherwise.


----------



## PenguinRunway (Apr 3, 2007)

Well, if you're going for the "wow that's cool" thing... you might as well go with two baretta 92s. That's the cliche badass cop gun. Max Payne uses those also!

If you just want to see if you can do it, I'd say go with low recoil 9mm with a real good grip.

or, if you're a real badass, why not use a couple Desert Eagles?


----------



## Revolver (Aug 26, 2006)

PenguinRunway said:


> or, if you're a real badass, why not use a couple Desert Eagles?


Because they'd likely jam firing them like that.


----------



## PenguinRunway (Apr 3, 2007)

Revolver said:


> Because they'd likely jam firing them like that.


Twas a joke.


----------



## Alaskan_Viking (Jun 13, 2006)

Mike Barham at Galco said:


> I've seen some people achieve a sort of mediocre accuracy level by firing identical pistols alternately (Glock 17s and Beretta 92s), as a goofy stunt. Many years ago, someone wrote an article about it in the "Peterson's Handguns" rag, using (IIRC) matched Ruger Security Six revolvers.
> 
> However, you can shoot MUCH faster and more accurately with two hands on one pistol. I've never wasted time trying "bidextrous" shooting. It's just for show, and has no real-world application.


I am so fricking sick and tired of duel wielding In TV, movies and especially in video games! you have no idea how frustrating it is to get your badass Warrior up to like level30, and then decide you want a more offensive melee weapon. well ok, go with two handed Long sword, or my personal favorite a Viking Bearded long axe! oh what? its 10X better to duel wield with a fricking ninja sword in each hand?! WTF?! :smt076

Thing I liked best about _The 300_, was that the Spartans would use one weapon at a time, the only duel wielding people were the Persians and they got slaughtered by the phalanx!:watching:

Sorry about the rant, but its a pet peev 'O min!


----------



## Alaskan_Viking (Jun 13, 2006)

Todd said:


> Gotta agree.
> 
> Frankly, your thread topics and questions are starting to sound off my BS alarm. Dual guns, maximum lengths and caliber of CCW guns, bayonets for hunting. What gives? You sound like a teenager who's seen one too many Matrix films.


The guy has Alucard for his name and avatar, what did you expect?

For those who do not know: Alucard is the hero from a Japanese anime cartoon show, my little brother watches.

He is a Vampire who hunts other vampires. I saw part of the show once, apparently, he uses a gaint M1911 pattern pistol chambered for .454 Casull, which I think is actually kinda kawl..


----------



## Bob Wright (May 10, 2006)

*Two gun Pete.......*

Old rhyme from my childhood:

"Two Gun Pete
Shot him in the seat."

I did try shooting two guns at once, only to find that it was distracting. I could fire faster using one gun, unless I just threw slugs everywhere.

Leave two-gun shooting to the stunt men.

Bob Wright


----------



## DRAEGER (Apr 7, 2007)

I regularly practice shooting two Taurus PT92's. It is alot of fun and takes serious practice to shoot lefty when your righthanded, let alone being able to hit anything accurately. And yes, I have on occasion done the rapid fire thing with guns-a-blazing in each hand just for the thrill of it  One thing you will notice is that your strong hand shoots faster and if you try to shoot fast you end up firing both guns at the sametime, instead of alternating each one (take lots of practice).

I would suggest practice alot shooting left handed first, then once you are use to the feel of the firearm you could try the dual shoot. Long ago when I shoot competition, there was a course we shoot with a duty gun and back-up at the sametime. I also shoot my PT145 lefty with my 24/7 45cal in the right hand, good practice.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

DRAEGER said:


> Long ago when I shoot competition, there was a course we shoot with a duty gun and back-up at the sametime. I also shoot my PT145 lefty with my 24/7 45cal in the right hand, good practice.


I'm trying to imagine a real-world context where simultaneously firing a duty gun and a backup would be useful. If you can shoot faster and more accurately with the duty gun, and it is still loaded and functional, why wouldn't you just fight with that? If it malfunctions (or runs dry if a revolver), draw the BUG and finish the fight.

Veering off topic a bit, I see little use for the "New York Reload" when using an auto as the primary gun. The auto can typically be reloaded about as fast as a backup can be drawn, and the duty gun offers more accuracy and controllability. The NY Reload made some sense in the revolver's heyday, but very, very few people carry a duty revolver and a BUG anymore.


----------



## DRAEGER (Apr 7, 2007)

Long before we had IPSC and IDPA shooting, we shoot more the traditional "Hogans Alley" style competitions and the shooting of a duty weapons with the BUG was based on a real shoot out that took place in the 70's-80's (forget the exact date) where an undercover LEO defended himself and protected his wounded partner, by using both weapons against over whelming odds. The officer survived and took out multiple attackers because of his quick thinking. 

In the early days of American Pistol Institute, we did some of this style training too. Learning to shoot "well" with your weak hand is just simply a smart idea for LEO, Military or civilians... Shooting 2 firearms at once in each hand is fun


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

DRAEGER said:


> Long before we had IPSC and IDPA shooting, we shoot more the traditional "Hogans Alley" style competitions and the shooting of a duty weapons with the BUG was based on a real shoot out that took place in the 70's-80's (forget the exact date) where an undercover LEO defended himself and protected his wounded partner, by using both weapons against over whelming odds. The officer survived and took out multiple attackers because of his quick thinking.
> 
> In the early days of American Pistol Institute, we did some of this style training too. Learning to shoot "well" with your weak hand is just simply a smart idea for LEO, Military or civilians... Shooting 2 firearms at once in each hand is fun


Huh. I'd be very interested to read the full story about this police shooting. I've read/heard of many instances where an LEO drew a backup to continue/finish the fight, but never one where he fired two guns simultaneously. I'd be very grateful if you can provide any references.

I don't know squat about the early days at API, but everything I know about Gunsite shows that for many years they've emphasized shooting one pistol (usually a 1911) from the Weaver Stance.

Back in the World, I practice shooting weak-handed with regularity. It is indeed an important skill. I just never though wasting ammo in dual-handed shooting was fun. Out here, of course, my main weapon is an M4 and my backup is an M9!


----------



## DRAEGER (Apr 7, 2007)

I wish I had the exact story details, when it was and where (its been a long time ago). I was attending Colorado School of Trades at the time. What I do remember is that Jeff Cooper read the story to me and it was one of those common knowledge things that at the time, everyone knew about it.

It has a very practical use, when needing to cover multiple entry points and also allows more rounds to be fired down range, provoking your attacker to duck for cover or risk being a stopping point for your incoming rounds. 

Something being practical, simply depends on the needs at the time... :smt023

Imagine having two doorways to cover, multiple attackers charging through each at the sametime. You can't shoot one gun at each door at the sametime, which door do you pick first? (Pull your second weapon and protect your downed partner... while you pray for back-up to arrive)


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

DRAEGER said:


> I wish I had the exact story details, when it was and where (its been a long time ago). I was attending Colorado School of Trades at the time. What I do remember is that Jeff Cooper read the story to me and it was one of those common knowledge things that at the time, everyone knew about it.
> 
> It has a very practical use, when needing to cover multiple entry points and also allows more rounds to be fired down range, provoking your attacker to duck for cover or risk being a stopping point for your incoming rounds.
> 
> ...


Interesting. I've read all of Jeff Cooper's books, and don't recall him ever mentioning simultaneous two gun work or the firefight you're referencing. Maybe I missed something.

As for covering two doors, why wouldn't you just hold in the low ready between them, and engage targets as they appear? You can't shoot in two directions simultaneously and expect to hit anything. Also violates Rule Four.

And suppressive fire with a pistol in a civilian context? Are you being serious?


----------



## DRAEGER (Apr 7, 2007)

I wasn't referring to anything I read about or had been written by Jeff, I was reflecting on personal conversations I had with him over the years.

And yes I was very serious about tactics regardless of civilian or other wise. I assume you've had some good firearms training in the military too, so it appears we have both been trained, just to different levels of ability. I would not suggest people run around with a pistol in each hand (guns-a-blazing) like in the movies, thats just plain stupid and I am sure we can all agree on that. But depending on the situation, wouldn't you use anything you had to improve your odds?

To quote Ken Hackathorn: "You've got to be a frik'n idiot, not to use all assets at your disposal to win a gunfight"

Not wanting this to turn into some long debate, just get annoyed by closed minded people... :smt023


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Actually, the firearms training I've gotten in the military has been very low-speed compared to the training I've taken on the civilian side with Chuck Taylor, Mas Ayoob, Front Sight and others. No one I've trained under has ever so much as discussed simultaneous two gun shooting seriously, though I never trained under Col. Cooper. This is the first I have ever heard about Col. Cooper advocating such a thing, after reading all his work and viewing all his videos. Anyway, I guess I must have a lot of close-minded company, eh?

Obviously I wouldn't tell anyone not to use everything at their disposal to win a fight. However, I seriously question whether blazing away with two guns at once will help win a fight. If I (and the vast majority of people) can shoot faster and more accurately firing one gun at a time, how will shooting two guns contribute to survival? Or are you saying you can place more accurate hits on target faster with a gun in each hand? I'd be VERY interested to know your split times with two guns versus one, or your score in, say, a Bill Drill done both ways. Trying to be open-minded here.

I fully understand drawing a BUG after the main gun has run dry or malfunctioned, but that's not what we're talking about here, right?


----------



## DRAEGER (Apr 7, 2007)

As much as I hate to keep commenting on this subject, I will one more time...

I see we have in deed done a bit of training under some of the same people, I assume you have noticed how some of there styles are simular but yet are still different?

Now, I never said or implied that Jeff or anyone else advocated using to guns at one time. Not terribly thrilled with people making things up about what I said or did not say...

I also never said anything about firing both guns simultaneously in a bad situation, having a firearm in each hand does not mean pulling the trigger on them both at the same time in two separate directions. (other then some range play)

Suppressive fire or cover fire is simply throwing rounds in the direction of your attacker to make them duck or run, so that you can either pursue or retreat. Regardless of what firearm you are using. (granted in a public/urban area, with non-coms, not one of the best ideas, although the military basically teaches it).

I did say that we (other early competition shooters & trainers) did experiment with the use of a second or BUG in mock practice and that the idea came from a real event that saved several peoples lives because of it.

Far to many people have enough trouble using one gun effectively, so testing two is kind of a motto point other the for some fun at the range.

As for it wasting ammo, guess that depends on if you can hit anything and your opinion of what "wasting" ammo is. Depending on weather, I generally shoot several times a week for relaxation, so any ammo spent is not a waste to me and I truly love the sport and all firearms.

I mention closed minded people as a general term, because they are people that refuse to accept alternate possibilities that conflict with what they have read or been told. Think of all the things in life that have changed because someone tried something new...

*And now, for the sake of friendship... can we put this behind us and accept that it is possible, but not practical?*

*And lastly, wouldn't this be much more enjoyable if we could iron out our different opinions over beer and pizza*


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Since I have neither pizza nor beer here in The Rockpile, this will have to do! But don't take my questioning personally. Just trying to learn as much as I can, but always questioning, especially when someone makes claims that seem odd. Forgive me if I misunderstood your posts but:



> Suppressive fire or cover fire is simply throwing rounds in the direction of your attacker to make them duck or run, so that you can either pursue or retreat.





> when needing to cover multiple entry points and also allows more rounds to be fired down range, provoking your attacker to duck for cover


That sounds EXACTLY like suppressive fire. You're just trying to make him duck, not hit him. By the way, I do know what suppressive fire is. I've been doing this for a while, both on the military and civilian sides. Your second quote implies this is a good reason for shooting with two guns in your hypothetical two-door scenario.



> there was a course we shoot with a duty gun and back-up at the sametime





> In the early days of American Pistol Institute, we did some of this style training too.


So maybe you can see where I was confused. In the early days of API, as I understand it, beyond a small cadre of instructors Col. Cooper basically WAS API. So when you say you trained this way at API, you are certainly implying that Col. Cooper at least tacitly approved of it. Possibly there was experimentation, but as you know, that's not the same as actual training.

As I have mentioned several times, drawing a BUG after the main gun runs dry is not the same as two-gunning it.



> it appears we have both been trained, just to different levels of ability


Not really sure how not to take that as a backhanded insult. But let's be honest, you don't know jack about my abilities, nor I yours. Anybody can pretend to be a gunslinger on the internet.

From your most recent post:


> I was very serious about tactics regardless of civilian or other wise.


I think this is in response to my questioning the validity of suppressive fire as a civilian tactic. So you do or do not think suppressive fire is a good idea outside the military context?

You didn't answer my question about split times or accuracy, one gun versus two on two targets (like the two-door scenario), which would give a pretty objective answer about the technique under discussion. You should be a good candidate for this, since you say you've trained in the technique. Someone who has practiced it should be able to turn in better results than a duffer. So bust out the timer and the cardboards!

Nor did you answer the question about simply using low ready between two doors, if you are expecting attacks from both doors, rather than aiming one gun at each entry point. I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, but the internet is already chock full of bad advice for newcomers, and there's no need to add to what Pat Rogers calls "The Disinformation Cowpath."

I'm certainly willing to let this go, unless you're willing to put your money where your mouth is with a shot timer and some IPSC/IDPA targets. No offense intended - there's just so much unproven and theoretical crap on the internet, and newcomers often believe it, setting back their shooting progress by years.


----------

