Seecamp theories

[orionengnr]

BlueTrain--

That's a basic problem with a democracy, in that the majority is supposed to rule. Naturally, there's a lot of people who think that just because they didn't vote for someone that won, the whole idea stinks. Rather like how we will soon have a new speaker of the house who apparently thinks he is now the president of the United States. Anyway, all other political systems pretty much work the same way, too. The only difference is in who gets to vote. Just think, in a democracy you can vote to have a man put to death.

Since you are the OP, and you are the one who said this, I won't feel too guilty of thread drift.

I can only guess you missed out on Social Studies and American History classes, or the state that (supposedly) educated you failed miserably.

WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY.

No matter how frequently this is stated in the press, or by ill-informed or intellectually dishonest politicians, it is still (as of today) not the case.

A Democracy is one thin step from anarchy/mob rule, and our Founding Fathers were wise enough to realize this.

That is why they gave us a Republic. Please go back and read the definition of each, and understand the difference between the two, because it is significant.

Yes, in a true democracy, 50% of the voting public, plus one voter could enact anything. That is pretty close to organized anarchy, and while we are ever moving in that direction, we aren't there yet, and it is certainly not what the Constitution provides for.

 

[rduckwor]

I think "point shooting" is poor idea, as it violates Rule 3 (Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.") You are responsible for every shot you take- pointing in the general direction and letting fly is ..... unwise, IMO. YMMV.

I disagree when considering short range shots (say under 10-15 feet). Typically 21-30 feet is consider "defensive bubble" and that distance can be closed pretty damn fast.

If your arse is hanging out under 15 feet from the bad guy, you better learn to point shoot very quickly. Its a useful skill but it does not replace your sights for more distant shots.

Your may need both techniques and should train for both.

 

[FALshootist]

"we do not live in a democracy". So true, our "republic" was established specifically to prevent a "tryany of the majority"

 

[jimbob86]

Quote:
I think "point shooting" is poor idea, as it violates Rule 3 (Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.") You are responsible for every shot you take- pointing in the general direction and letting fly is ..... unwise, IMO. YMMV.

I disagree when considering short range shots (say under 10-15 feet). Typically 21-30 feet is consider "defensive bubble" and that distance can be closed pretty damn fast.

If your arse is hanging out under 15 feet from the bad guy, you better learn to point shoot very quickly. Its a useful skill but it does not replace your sights for more distant shots.

Your may need both techniques and should train for both.

....... I'll stick with the 4 Rules, myself. Consider them guidelines if you must, but at your own risk....... as I said, YMMV.

 

[KyJim]

Point shooting is fine and the vast majority of defensive shootings are close range, but what about those which are not? I prefer to have sights. Better to have them and not need them than to need them and not have them.

 

[zombieslayer]

Was looking at some used guns today and found a lightly used Seecamp 32 for $380. I'm going back after Christmas and picking it up, if its still there. Such a slick little pistol, and good workmanship.

 

[Stringfellow]

I like what I am hearing from Seecamp. From the standpoint of pride of ownership, I like to know I am buying an accurate pistol. But accuracy seems to be subject to the 80/20 rule for self-defense--i.e., some rudimentary accuracy is likely good enough for the most statistically likely scenarios. It may be great that your pistol can do 2" groups at 50 yards, but I suspect it will get harder and harder to argue self defense at greater that 10 yards.

 

[BlueTrain]

Leaving democracy issues aside, let me here add a couple of points that may be instructive regarding the subject.

First, go around your house, outside, too, and measure distances. They look different from what they do at an indoor range. For example, the distance from my walk-out basement door to the path into the woods is twenty-five yards, almost to the foot, which is the longest indoor range I've ever been on. But some of you may have more property than I do. In any event, I have no idea what really constitutes close range for most people but twenty-five yards isn't all that far. I used to practice mostly at longer ranges because there seemed to be no point in practicing at shorter distances.

Another point is that some pistols are either difficult to shoot well or they're simply inaccurate. I've had some of both. They were still fun to shoot but they were hard to hit with. One was a .22 Beretta, the other a Webley. Unfortunately, most people wouldn't care to do that much experimenting with a pistol before concluding they couldn't hit a barn door with it, only they weren't quite that bad. But they were both a long way from being new. So the advice that you should buy the best quality gun you can afford makes sense if you think you're really going to have to depend on it. Don't skimp on the ammuntion, either.

Another issue I already mentiobned is that you might be an individual who doesn't care to have a half-dozen pistols for all purposes but feel like you can get buy with one or two (I have four). And likely, you rightly expect to maybe start shooting now and then beyond, say 50 feet. So your solution is going to have sights, probably adjustable. Suit yourself. It's a free country.

 

[michael t]

Here this info from NYPD study

SHOOTING DISTANCES

From Sept 1854 to Dec 1979, 254 Officers died from wounds received in an armed encounter. The shooting distance in 90% of those cases was less than 15 feet.

Contact to 3 feet ... 34%

3 feet to 6 feet ...... 47%

6 feet to 15 feet ..... 9%

The shooting distances where Officers survived, remained almost the same during the SOP years (1970-1979), and for a random sampling of cases going back as far as 1929. 4,000 cases were reviewed. The shooting distance in 75% of those cases was less than 20 feet.

Contact to 10 feet ... 51%

10 feet to 20 feet .... 24%

Looks real close up to me.


http://www.pointshooting.com/1asop9.htm

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I was wondering how many people go along with his concept of personal defense, which is that (for civilians) encounters will be very close and that point shooting is best. He even goes so far as to claim that most police encounters are pretty much the same, at least in large cities.

Civilian encounters will be at very close range unless they are not. Five rounds will be enough, unless they are not.

No doubt a lot of defensive shootings are at contact distances. In most cases, it may be hard to rob, rape, beat, stab, or club somebody from distances beyond contact. However, you can go on Youtube or search Google and find quite a few self defense shootings that are not at contact distances.

Some cop shootings are very close, but a lot are not. The recent Florida school board shooting by a security officer (retired cop) was probably at more than 30 feet.

The NYPD statistics noted and others that turn up from time to time are nice, but do nothing to tell me what the circumstances will be for my gunfight, if and when I am involved in one in the future. I would not want to limit myself to a pistol that I could not shoot well at beyond contact or very short distances.

I thought Ken Hackathorn had a pretty good grip on this concept of self defense shooting and shooting skills. He had a 90/10 rule. 90% of your defensive pistol shooting should be at 10 yards or less and the other 10% at distances greater than 10 yards and he suggested folks be proficient out to 50 with their handguns.

 

[BlueTrain]

While it may be that most self-defense situations take place up close, I also mentioned earlier that when I was still shooting, I did most of my practicing at 25 yards, which was the longest distance at the indoor range. There didn't seem to be much point to practicing at shorter ranges. But I still think point shooting is effective at 25 yards. Not if your target is one of those little images of rabbits printed on the target or one of the little yellow bullseyes but for an 18x24 inch rectangle, it is good enough if you're in a real hurry. That doesn't mean you can't use the sights if you have the opportunity.

I don't use the expression point shooting to necessarily mean hip shooting, a rather old-fashioned term, in case you were wondering. But I also don't have any real small guns, like Seecamp manufactures, either. While most other small guns still have sights, I think you'd be at a disadvantage at 25 yards with a little gun like that, sights or no sights.

Under most circumstances I can't imagine a 50 yard gunfight with me in it. Perhaps I lack imagination. But since I've never even fired a handgun at that distance, I definately lack experience. How much do you practice at 50 yards? Or did you mean 50 feet? Maybe it's something I should think about since I don't have a rifle anymore.

 

[IMTHDUKE]

Just sold this for two reasons:

Here is one...

It hurts your hand to the point that you don't even want to check it for function. You sure don't want to actually shoot it on a regular basis.
Two: It is so ammo specific(hydr shocks) that you get FTE with those. It for me was too much trouble to fool with.

I went back to what I carried before...believe it or not...it's not a pain to fire.
It eats almost any 9mm
Best little pocket gun in town.

 

[dgludwig]

Civilian encounters will be at very close range unless they are not. Five rounds will be enough, unless they are not.

Excellent point-to which I would add that there's no downside to preparing and training for the admittedly few but entirely possible "unless they are not" scenarios.

 

[mrt949]

ZOMBIESLAYER that is a good price for a used SEECAMP 32.I agree with IMTDUKE the 380 hurts that's why I have the 32. Doesn't BITE AS BAD & ammo is easier to find.

 

[PSP]

A used LWS may be found for around a low of $350, and up to full MSRP of $425. I see one occationally under $400, but they don't last long. Gunbroker, or another similar site, should have a bunch of them offered for sale at any one time. The $380 is a good price all right.

 

[shooter1911]

I have owned my LWS32 for many years, and I agree with others that the Seecamp 380 was not an option for me either. I sold mine due to the pain and I never really thought the .380 was much more effective than the .32 coming out of that short barrel. The funny thing is I almost never carry my
Seecamp anymore as I carry a 340PD for a pocket gun, but if I am in a business suit or dress slacks, which is rare these days, I would carry my LWS32.

 

[DT Guy]

Google "can you shoot well enough" to see examples of why SD shootings might easily exceed the average gunfight distance.

And for the record, there's video of Cooper ringing a 8" plate from 25 yards, going through a mag without a miss, from the hip. He could point shoot, he just recognized the limitations of it.

Larry

 

[msb45]

To answer the question about a full size version of this gun you need to go back to Paris Theodore and the ASP from Armament Systems and Procedures. It was a modified and chopped SS&W Mdl 39 8 shot 9MM with a "guttersnipe" sight channel. The Quell shooting system involved a straight arm hold looking down the gutter to hit up and down a line covering the spine. Gun was dehorned, had clear grips to see your round count, and a finger hold trigger guard.

Supposedly built for some alphabet agency it became a cool gun. It became fodder in some James Bond novels making it even cooler.

 

[DAdams]

Small .380s

Not that long ago there weren't many pocket anythings. Seecamp made a .32 and .380 and although not inexpensive they were worth every dime. Most discussions revolved around Seecamp, North American, Rohrbaugh and pocket revolvers. Many of the aforementioned though were/are bricks.

If you wanted a semiauto and something to carry when you didn't need a pistol, Seecamps were the way to go. Now there are many choices, SIG, Ruger, Kahr, KelTec to name a few.

I grappled with pocket carry and came to this conclusion and this was about the best of the best three or four years ago.

My favorite carrys today then still remain:

Seecamp .380
S&W M&P 340 with CT grips The most versatile of all three.
Kahr PM 9

I haven't felt compelled to get anything for three years in the pocket genre.
Yes, these are all under 7 yard carrys and up close work tools.

Regarding Seecamp ammunition. I have a supply of Winchester Silver Tips and although the Speer Gold Dot is not recommended I have put 14 rounds of it through mine and since this is not a high throughput pistol I wouldn't hesitate to carry a magazine of the same if I ran out of WST or Federal.

Feeling I have those pocket carry bases covered I have moved on to larger revolvers and semi-autos.

 

[orionengnr]

I never really thought the .380 was much more effective than the .32 coming out of that short barrel.

...until I shot them back-to-back out of similar pistols (P32 vice P3AT). Cork popgun vs firecracker going off in your hand.
Understanding Newton's Third Law as I do, I vowed at that point to never trust my life to an anemic .32. And that P32 was gone shortly thereafter. As was the P3AT, but due to reliability issues.

Honestly, my LCP lives in the safe as I view the .380 as marginal. Even my beloved PM9 only sees the light of day a few times per year. But that is a subject for another day...