Dry Firing

One of the things I cover in my CHL class is how to dry-fire safely. I present some rules for dry firing that arose from an unfortunate incident involving a DPS officer, and show how each of those rules is designed to prevent a similar negligent discharge.

Why would we want to practice dry-firing? There are some excellent reasons for practicing with an empty handgun, but at least one drawback (covered below).

The first reason that occurs to just about everyone is that dry-firing is cheaper than live firing. That was true even before the availability and price of ammo got ridiculous a little over a year ago. But that might not be the most important reason.

Note that dry-firing a center-fire pistol manufactured in the last 100 years or so should not damage it. However, if you are the least bit concerned about that aspect of dry-firing, you can get a dummy round (the ones sold at the local gun stores are the SnapCap brand) with a semi-hard plastic insert in the place of the primer. They cost a couple of dollars each, and are sold in packs of 6. Although pricey, they can be re-used indefinitely. If you have a rim-fire gun (typically a .22), you MUST use a dummy round to prevent damage to the firing pin.

Dry-fire practice gives you the opportunity to go through some things that you just can’t reasonably do with a loaded handgun. Indeed, practicing a draw from concealment will get you kicked out of most shooting ranges. With an empty handgun, you can (relatively) safely practice things like jumping sideways or rolling on the carpet while drawing from concealment — skills that might someday come in very handy.

Dry-fire is also very good for marksmanship training. This may be counterintuitive, since the main difference is that in dry-firing, the gun doesn’t make a loud noise and try to jump out of your hand, so it isn’t ‘realistic’. The problem is that even though you should always perform the squeeze sequence so that the trigger-break is a surprise, the fact that you know that the gun is going to recoil makes it very difficult to avoid anticipating it. Dry-firing leads to a different type of “muscle memory”, where you honestly are not considering the recoil, but the follow-through. That “muscle memory” will carry over to live-fire practice (and to actual defense use), and your marksmanship will be better on that account.

You can get some of the benefit of that no-recoil “muscle memory” by getting a .22 conversion kit if there is one available for your particular handgun, and use that for at least part of your live-fire practice. While it still makes a noise, it isn’t nearly as loud, and the recoil is so slight you might not even notice it.

A potentially major drawback of dry-firing is that you don’t get quite the same trigger pull sequence as you get with live fire. For instance, with a Glock, you have to manually rack the slide every time before you get to the normal trigger pull, because the Glock is single-action-only. On a D/SA pistol, the first round can be fired double-action (the trigger-pull cocks the gun) and subsequent rounds are then fired single-action, because the recoil of the live round does the work of cocking. When dry-firing a D/SA, every trigger pull is double-action, which is typically several times the force required for single-action. I have actually experienced a case (during a DPS range test) where this slight difference in “muscle memory” caused me to drop a point on the 2nd round. After that, I knew what the problem was, and corrected it — but in a real firefight, that might be a disaster.

Still, I recommend a combination of live fire and dry fire practice. As mentioned above, a .22 conversion kit can be useful for practicing your live-fire marksmanship at a cost substantially lower than using centerfire ammo.

SmartCarry review, revisited

I got my SmartCarry holster back in July (See my initial review). At the time it was my favorite holster, the only one that I could find for my Bersa UC9 that was convenient enough for daily use. Well, I’ve been wearing it on a more-or-less daily basis since that time, and here’s my follow-up.

Here’s a snapshot of the SmartCarry with my Bersa UC9 and a spare magazine in it. The decocker/safety, which has been a source of concern with this holster, is visible at the top (see note below).

The seam cover is starting to show some wear, as is the bottom of the pouch. It appears to be good for another 6-9 months, although I will be watching carefully. I may try to re-do the seam cover with kevlar tape.

Here’s a closeup of the wear near the bottom of the pouch. This is after (mostly) daily use for about 7 months. The seams are still in good condition, although the seam covering has worn away at the bottom.

The only problem that I have had with the SmartCarry so far is that I have noticed that the decocker/safety on the UC9 sometimes is disengaged in the holster. I think that is due to moving the holster to the left when I visit the men’s room, probably because the lever rubs against the inside of my trousers. I have started checking the safety after each visit to the urinal. The elastic is stretching out a bit, which is to be expected. The velcro is still just as good as new. I’ve lost a bit of weight since I got this rig, so I may be ordering a smaller version when the wear on this one gets to the point that I no longer trust it.

The SmartCarry is currently my 2nd favorite holster (I have decided that I prefer a paddle holster, but I have not found one for the UC9). If I get another one, I will not get the one with the document pouch (“Security Model”). I used the document pouch a couple of times, but I did not find it to be very convenient (YMMV), and not really worth the extra money. I have a separate travel wallet that I can wear on a lanyard underneath a shirt that works better for me.

Important change in Texas CHL Law, section 411.171

Section 411.171 of the Texas Concealed Handgun Laws was amended in the 2009 session of the legislature, which brought up a question from a potential student with a sealed juvenile record. You can view the marked-up copy of the statutes posted on the DPS website, but it is not searchable, because it is basically a photocopy converted to PDF. You can’t even copy and paste from the document.

The change is in 411.171(4)(C), on the 8th page of the PDF document (numbered page 3 in the text), which now reads “['Convicted' does not include any adjudication of guilt] otherwise vacated, set aside, annulled, invalidated, voided, or sealed under any state or federal law.” Up until last September, a “sealed” conviction was not really “sealed” to the DPS.

The provision in 411.172(14), which was 411.172(13) in the previous revision, still states that a juvenile (“delinquent conduct”) felony-grade offense disqualifies a CHL applicant for 10 years. This seemed to me to be contradictory. This change in the law was not covered in the CHL Instructor renewal course that I attended in August of last year, so I sent an email to the DPS Legal section to inquire about this seeming contradiction. The answer I got from them is that if the juvenile conviction has been officially sealed, it does not count as a conviction under the new change of the law, so the change in 411.171 overrides 411.172(14). Since juvenile records are normally sealed, it appears to me that means 411.172(14) no longer has any real effect.

According to the DPS Legal section, if you have a juvenile conviction of any type, you still have to report the arrest on your application, but if it was sealed, you can submit a certified copy of the order that sealed the conviction, and it will not be considered as a conviction.