Chuck Taylor is a liar (or he's an idiot)

[Rule10b5]

Chuck Taylor, for those of you who are unfamiliar with him, is one of the more prominent gun writers, trainers, combat veterans, (former) world class IPSC shooters, and general all-around badass of the firearms world. He's the founder of the American Small Arms Academy, and has trained as many people as Jeff Cooper or Clint Smith.

He's really, really respected is what I'm getting at.

I followed his writings, read up on his techniques, and really admired him. Simply because of his unimpeachable credentials, and respect within the firearms community, I looked the other way in the face of his near-slavish devotion to the 100 year old Hatcher theory (and its derivative theories) of stopping power, his near-legendary disdain for (and gratuitous bashing of) 9mm/.38/.357 (or even a .45 fired out of anything but a Gov't size 1911), and his "JHP will never expand at 850 fps or below" silliness.

I just figured that everyone has their quirks; he's been in over a half-dozen gunfights, and he's had outstanding success with 230 gr. hardball out of a full-size 1911, so who am I to blame him for being a huge fan of the round and platform? Hell, I like it, too, so I figured I'd focus on his technique writings, and ignore his stopping power nonsense.

Anyway, today I came to the conclusion that I was wrong. The guy's either a liar, or he's so lost touch with reality that he no longer cares -- and I'm not going to rely on a thing he says about anything.

Why?

His article in the June, 2008 issue of Combat Handguns, in which he discusses good loads for compact 9mm carry guns, and the impact of shortened barrels on velocity, mainly.

He states:

-
"The "Tactical" XD-9 has a 5-inch barrel, while the barrel of the "standard" model measures 4 inches. However, the barrel of the "sub-compact" version is only 3 inches, thus reducing muzzle velocity by a full 40 percent." (emphasis added).
-

Yes, kids, you read that right. According to Chuck, there is a direct and exact straight line correlation between velocity loss and relative length of barrel. Simply take the percentage decrease in length, and multiply that by the speed of the bullet. No logic, no testing, just "trust me."

At first I thought it was a misprint, or a simple mistake. But no. Chuck continues:

-
"Let's say that a given 9mm load produces 1400 fps from the 5-inch "Tactical" model, which is more than enough to expect significant JHP expansion. From the 4-inch barrel "standard" model, we can expect a substantial reduction to about 1120 fps...However, with this same load, the 3-inch sub-compact only generates about 840 fps."
-

Yes, he is saying that it goes from 1400 to 840 simply by chopping 2 inches from the barrel. Utter, and absolute, complete falsehood. Flies in the face of every velocity test I've ever seen, the work of every factory loader, the statements of every expert I've ever read, and every chrono test I've ever personally done.

Hell, I've watched the same lot of Remington JHP 115 gr. (+p+) chronographed out of a Glock 17 (4.5") and 26 (3.5"). The 17 launched them at about 1275, the 26 at 1200 or so.

Chuck has access to chronographs, and certainly knows how to use them. And there is a host of data that proves him wrong. And it is absolutely indisputable as a matter of fact that each inch of barrel loss will typically cause a loss of 50-75 fps of velocity with standard powder out of a handgun. But Chuck knowingly represents that each inch cuts 280 FPS!!

So why would he do it?

I have no idea. Like I said, he's either disingenuous enough that he's lying to make anything but .45 ACP out of a full sized 1911 look bad, or he's lost his mind.

Whatever he was thinking, but if an expert is this demonstrably wrong, I wouldn't trust him if he said the sky was blue without checking for myself.

And I don't think I'm going to waste my money on Combat Handguns anymore (I can get gun porn elsewhere) -- the editors should never have endorsed this claptrap. This offal is how bullshit gun shop counter rumors get started: And esteemed expert pulls something out of his ass, smears it on paper, and people believe and repeat it.

[NineseveN]

Lol, pwned.

[Rule10b5]

Lol, pwned.

Yeah, on both sides of the issue. Him for being so obviously wrong that even I notice it, and me for buying this guy's work for over a decade.

[ShakeyDad]

WOW ! Appears Mr Taylor has slipped comfortably into dementia. So, Rule, does this make you want to re-read all of his other writings again, to check for more inaccuracies ? Or is this the first of his misrepresentations ?

[NineseveN]

Yeah, on both sides of the issue. Him for being so obviously wrong that even I notice it, and me for buying this guy's work for over a decade.

I don't know about that second part. Cut yourself some slack, not everyone knows everything at any given time.

[XUSNORDY]

If hes wrong...so are the editors, technical advisors, publishers, etc......

[Rule10b5]

WOW ! Appears Mr Taylor has slipped comfortably into dementia. So, Rule, does this make you want to re-read all of his other writings again, to check for more inaccuracies ? Or is this the first of his misrepresentations ?

I'm embarrassed to admit that I pretty much wore out his books and articles (by reading them so many times) and then gave most to friends who were just starting out shooting and carrying so that they'd have a good foundation. Hell, I gave my copy of the Book of Combat Handgunnery (4th Ed.) to my mom.

I'm not going to re-read his stuff, I think.

I'm wondering whether there's any point in emailing the publisher.

[headcase]

Sucks to see someone you had faith in let you down

[TonyF]

And I don't think I'm going to waste my money on Combat Handguns anymore (I can get gun porn elsewhere)

Your first mistake was purchasing CH. Your second mistake was reading CH.

Gun rags are comic books for adult males. You'd be better off lining your bird cage with them rather than reading them.

[wewo]

I
I'm wondering whether there's any point in emailing the publisher.

How about a letter to the editor?