Spare pistol mag: Bullets to the front? Or to the rear?

[Rob377]

LOL

Nope, doors are on.

SHAME ON YOU.

 

[esrice]

Don't wait for him! Go try it!

I'm at work!!

 

[lovemachine]

SHAME ON YOU.

LOL I wanted to. But I had to make deliveries today. Wouldn't be good if paperwork and parts were flying outta the Jeep on 465 and I65

 

[ATM]

I'm at work!!

What sort of employer would frown on their employees practicing tac reloads in the parking lot?

 

[Roadie]

I'm at work!!

You are?

Oh wait, I thought you said you were WORKING, never mind...

 

[esrice]

Ouch. lol

 

[Roadie]

Ouch. lol

What?

 

[HICKMAN]

Drawing a magazine from "bullets rearward" does allow one to keep their elbow closer to the body. Drawing from "bullets forward" requires a bit more chicken-winging.

it doesn't "require it", it's just faster to chicken wing. I can drive my elbow straight back along my side and draw just the same as I would bullets back, I just don't have to rotate my wrist to grab the mag.

 

[rvb]

Show me how fast you are drawing from your IWB with your shirt pulled over your gun and mag holder , then do a tactical reload like esrice was talking about

What does that add to the discussion? Just another variable that has nothing to do with which method is going to be faster and more consistent. Then well start debating what conceals better, what's faster to get to the gear (T vs open button down shirt, etc)

The ONLY advantage my rig gave is they held the mags away from the body a bit, so it's easier to get my thumb between the mag and my side. Otherwise it was a box stock G19, which I'm carrying now.

I don't really think the main argument in "bullets forward" vs. "bullets rearward" is one of speed.

Sure it is. If the goal is to show a reload that can be done consistently in 15 seconds, then you can have it duct taped into your butt crack and the "method" will then be just as valid as the others. What other metric are you going to use to show which method allows you to get the gun back in the fight quickest, everytime?

-rvb

 

[Hop]

At a recent ACT class the instructors showed us how using your index finger pointing up along the front of the mag helps guide it into the mag well. Bullets facing rearward would make this mag grip technique nearly impossible.

I use the bullet forward style pouches BUT when learning to grip the mags this way it causes my hand to wrap more around the front side of the mag. I got BIT between my mag base plate and grip. It ripped a good sized chunk of skin off my palm during the drill. Blood started gushing. It's just now healed smooth.

I'm pretty sure I'll switch back to my old method of just grabbing the base plate.

 

[esrice]

What other metric are you going to use to show which method allows you to get the gun back in the fight quickest, everytime?

I'm not saying that speed isn't an important metric. I'm saying that I don't think its valid when comparing these two techniques, as I believe their speeds to be very similar.

When comparing them for myself, I didn't notice a big difference in speed one way or the other. The guys in the above videos are super fast, but none of them tried doing the same thing with the "bullets rearward" technique. If they did I think their times would've been similar (once they got somewhat comfortable with the different motion).

Rob377 can you make another video of you using bullets rearward?

Bullets facing rearward would make this mag grip technique nearly impossible.

The way its been described to me by "bullets rearward" guys, they still index off the nose of the top round, but they do it from the side as opposed to from the front.

 

[David Rose]

Esrice, I think you are not understanding what the "super fast " people are saying. I am arguing that there is a reason why I can find hundreds if not thousands of videos of people reloading bullets forward at high speed and thus far zero bullets rearward. I have tried the other technique and I find that it does not work well at high speed. There seems to be a belief that people who make the choice to use the bullets forward method are biased or mindlessly choosing it. If the rearward facing method worked better I would be the first to switch.

When you talk about comparing the two techniques, do you have a timer, are you pushing your self or just going through the motions? At the 2-3 second pace the difference is not apparent. That may be why so many people see them as equal. Under 1.5 seconds the ergonomic differences are obvious.
I can not make you a video of a bullets rearward reload at the same speed because I can't do it. If I did it would be luck not something I can pull off with any consistency.

 

[Rob377]

I'm not sure why you would think they're equally as fast and consistent when virtually no one who actually does these things on a timer opts to use bullets backward (and especially not the beer can version of bullets backward) The timer doesn't lie nor does it indulge delusions of tacticool grandeur.


If I were to do bullets backward, it wouldn't be a fair comparison because I don't practice that technique and wouldn't be as good.

The fair thing to do would be for someone that is a bullet backward advocate to finally make with their videos as a comparison. They've, in theory, practiced it more and would be better able to show how well it can or can't work. They've typed up a good game about how smooth and efficient it is, but no one seems to want to demonstrate it.

I think the lack of them, some 3 weeks into this, is probably telling in and of itself.

 

[esrice]

At the 2-3 second pace the difference is not apparent. That may be why so many people see them as equal. Under 1.5 seconds the ergonomic differences are obvious.

So far this is probably the best explanation I've heard that makes sense. I could see that.

If I were to do bullets backward, it wouldn't be a fair comparison because I don't practice that technique and wouldn't be as good.

Sure I get that. But at least it would be a comparison to start from.

If, after a few practice runs, you were able to reload from "bullets rearward" in the same time, or just a few fractions of a second slower, that would at least tell us something.

Or maybe there would be a bigger gap, and we'd again be left to wondering if it were due to your lack of familiarity with the technique, or the the technique itself.

I dunno.

The fair thing to do would be for someone that is a bullet backward advocate to finally make with their videos as a comparison.

But then you're left comparing two different shooters with two different skill levels. That could skew things. As we've seen from the 2 or 3 "bullets forward" videos already, times are going to be inherently different.

Again, I'm a "bullets forward" guy and have been happy with the technique. I'm just curious if "bullets rearward" is WRONG, or just DIFFERENT.

 

[Rob377]

...
Sure it is. If the goal is to show a reload that can be done consistently in 15 seconds, then you can have it duct taped into your butt crack and the "method" will then be just as valid as the others. What other metric are you going to use to show which method allows you to get the gun back in the fight quickest, everytime?

-rvb

...

When you talk about comparing the two techniques, do you have a timer, are you pushing your self or just going through the motions? At the 2-3 second pace the difference is not apparent. That may be why so many people see them as equal. Under 1.5 seconds the ergonomic differences are obvious.
...

This part is key. by way of analogy, if you're just puttering down the highway at 55mph, it doesn't really matter whether you have the technique of Michael Schumacher or bozo the clown. They'll both work "well enough." Pick up the pace, and becomes obvious which technique is better/faster.

Maybe working "well enough" is fine for some folks. Nothing wrong with that. It isn't for me though.

 

[esrice]

Maybe working "well enough" is fine for some folks. Nothing wrong with that. It isn't for me though.

I can see that. And given our respective backgrounds and perspectives, it certainly makes sense that you would first key in on the speed aspect, and me on the manipulation.

I appreciate the discussion this topic has generated. When me and my coworker were discussing this, neither of us realized how many folks picked the opposite technique.

 

[Rob377]

I can see that. And given our respective backgrounds and perspectives, it certainly makes sense that you would first key in on the speed aspect, and me on the manipulation.

I appreciate the discussion this topic has generated. When me and my coworker were discussing this, neither of us realized how many folks picked the opposite technique.

Well, the backgrounds and perspectives thing...I first learned to reload a pistol at speed at NSGA Northwest in USMC 8152 school. So my "background and perspective" isn't entirely that of a "gamer" as you might think.

 

[esrice]

Well, the backgrounds and perspectives thing...I first learned to reload a pistol at speed at NSGA Northwest in USMC 8152 school. So my "background and perspective" isn't entirely that of a "gamer" as you might think.

It was not my intent to imply that your perspective was one that was entirely "gamer". Just that, as someone who currently competes, it makes sense that speed would be a very important aspect for you to consider when looking at various techniques.

In comparison, I was first looking at how this technique affected efficient manipulations, disregarding the importance of speed.

I appreciate your perspective, as its given me more to consider and learn from.

 

[David Rose]

I've always wondered why efficiency and speed seem to be mutually exclusive to some. To me efficiency is the foundation on which speed needs to be built.

 

[Rob377]

It was not my intent to imply that your perspective was one that was entirely "gamer". Just that, as someone who currently competes, it makes sense that speed would be a very important aspect for you to consider when looking at various techniques.

In comparison, I was first looking at how this technique affected efficient manipulations, disregarding the importance of speed.

I appreciate your perspective, as its given me more to consider and learn from.

Speed AND consistency. A flubbed reload usually means losing.

The either-or, speed or consistency/reliability false dichotomy is just that - false.

If you're willing to put in the practice, you can have both. And by practice I mean a few times a week dry fire, and live fire as often as possible NOT a once-a-year (if that) overpriced tactical fantasy camp.