to answer your question esldude yes, it is a combination of his practice and probably his inate skill. of course everyone skill level and the drive to hone that skill will be different. if your trying to get everyone up to a certain standard then it is obvious all your time spent with one gun will prove better than trying to train people with multiple weapons. i take this question on a more advanced level( i dont consider myself an expert). like someone who shoots freq about 3000-5000 rounds and is trying to hone his skill above the average shooter. say they only shoot 4-5 times a year . maybe 100-200 rounds. I am sorry i dont own winchester it would help my pocket book alot. as mentioned before you can make certain conditions for each that would sway the way one thinks but in a big over all picture. perfect practice makes perfect so divide up your time. at some point you will reach your maximum proficiency with out additional training. point of diminishing returns. so if you put that additional time in another weapon. why would you say you cannot be well versed in multiple guns? thats my question to you.
Stick With "One Handgun"
- Thread starter IanS
- Start date
I agree with you in theory but I have other obligations. As firearms instructor and resident "expert" (their words - definitely not mine!) for my agency - I need to be familiar with firearm characteristics and behaviors for all our officers weapons as well as any weapons they may consider. I frequently get cornered with questions about recoil, reliability, accessory cost, and weapon reputation. I can better serve a greater number of our officers by familiarization with several different weapon systems than by specializing in one system. I admit my own skills have probably suffered some as a result of this practice but (hopefully) not enough to matter.
Coffee
Coffee
Well, I've actually owned or practiced with dozens of different handguns.
I recently took an advanced class at my local shop, had no semi-auto to use, because at the time I was only carrying and using .357s.
I borrowed one of their Glock 17s and shot just as well or better than others who were using guns they carried all the time.
Our shop threw a party for the AWB ban sunset, and they jokingly warned me about hitting their tracks when I decided to rent the .50 cal Desert Eagle, which I had never fired. I had never fired that high a caliber either. I kept the target as a souvenir as my shots were right in the breadbasket zone.
This shooting is usually only at 15 feet, because I only practice at the 12-15 ft range for self defense reasons. So I can pick up different guns and shoot well with them.
I have kept an EAA Witness Compact 9 for deep concealment, but 99% of the time I carry my full size .45 with me.
I also have a 6 inch S&W Model 19 .357 because I had to keep one of my wheel guns.
I've just begun thinking lately I should stick with a certain type to get more familiar with them, and to also run enough rounds through them to break them in and know their limitations, rather than spreading it across different weapons and not having a lot of rounds through them.
And, when I think about it, I am unlikely to be in a situation where I will need to access a firearm with which I am completely unfamiliar. Both my girlfriend and I carry, and I'm familiar with the firearms she has, and she is with mine. Unless there's Armageddon or Civil War or something, I don't see a situation where I will need to be familiar with any weapons other than the ones I am using.
I recently took an advanced class at my local shop, had no semi-auto to use, because at the time I was only carrying and using .357s.
I borrowed one of their Glock 17s and shot just as well or better than others who were using guns they carried all the time.
Our shop threw a party for the AWB ban sunset, and they jokingly warned me about hitting their tracks when I decided to rent the .50 cal Desert Eagle, which I had never fired. I had never fired that high a caliber either. I kept the target as a souvenir as my shots were right in the breadbasket zone.
This shooting is usually only at 15 feet, because I only practice at the 12-15 ft range for self defense reasons. So I can pick up different guns and shoot well with them.
I have kept an EAA Witness Compact 9 for deep concealment, but 99% of the time I carry my full size .45 with me.
I also have a 6 inch S&W Model 19 .357 because I had to keep one of my wheel guns.
I've just begun thinking lately I should stick with a certain type to get more familiar with them, and to also run enough rounds through them to break them in and know their limitations, rather than spreading it across different weapons and not having a lot of rounds through them.
And, when I think about it, I am unlikely to be in a situation where I will need to access a firearm with which I am completely unfamiliar. Both my girlfriend and I carry, and I'm familiar with the firearms she has, and she is with mine. Unless there's Armageddon or Civil War or something, I don't see a situation where I will need to be familiar with any weapons other than the ones I am using.
The main point I was trying to get across is that, for the average shooter, if you want to become the best shooter you can be, you are better off choosing one platform and sticking with it. This goes beyond just being familiar with that gun. It also gets into logistics and finance. If you only own one gun, you have more money to spend on that one gun: you only have to buy one type of ammo instead of dividing your money into a dozen different calibers: unless you have unlimited money, this means you can buy more ammo for that one gun and practice more with that one gun. You can afford to buy really good accessories since you are only buying them for one gun. Etc. If you own six different handguns you want to stock ammo for all of them. Most of us buy defensive ammo and practice ammo. You want a holster and magazine pouches for all those guns, you want a supply of magazines etc. If you only have one gun, all your resources are dedicated to that one gun.
Another key point is the concept of being a shooter rather than a collector. If all you are interested in is becoming the best shooter you can be, you only need one gun, or maybe several guns that are all pretty much alike. There is nothing wrong with collecting, but for most of us, this takes something away from being the best possible shooter.
I have nothing against owning and shooting a lot of different guns. However I believe that I should confine my "serious" shooting to one basic gun. By serious shooting I mean serious training or compeitition. I do a lot of shooting, but it is not all what I would consider serious training. I take out .22 pistols and shoot at junk, shoot at bullseye targets etc. But I am not doing presentations from the holster with concealment and all that: for that, I use my one defensive handgun. I have taken classes at Gunsite and Frontsight. For those classes I use my one defensive handgun. When I dry fire at home and do holster presentations at home I use my one defensive handgun. The other ones are fun guns. I don't do malfunction clearence drills with them (unless of course they malfunction). I don't do speed reloads with them etc.
Simply put, I think a lot of people are more concerned and interested in the gun itself rather than how well they can shoot it.
One issue that gets me into trouble in some of these discusssions is that I don't own or shoot handguns strictly for defensive purposes. So, my shooting/training isn't strictly geared toward that purpose. I like the idea that I can sometimes hit a target at 50 yards and the fact that this isn't a realistic self defense senario doesn't bother me in the least.
Another key point is the concept of being a shooter rather than a collector. If all you are interested in is becoming the best shooter you can be, you only need one gun, or maybe several guns that are all pretty much alike. There is nothing wrong with collecting, but for most of us, this takes something away from being the best possible shooter.
I have nothing against owning and shooting a lot of different guns. However I believe that I should confine my "serious" shooting to one basic gun. By serious shooting I mean serious training or compeitition. I do a lot of shooting, but it is not all what I would consider serious training. I take out .22 pistols and shoot at junk, shoot at bullseye targets etc. But I am not doing presentations from the holster with concealment and all that: for that, I use my one defensive handgun. I have taken classes at Gunsite and Frontsight. For those classes I use my one defensive handgun. When I dry fire at home and do holster presentations at home I use my one defensive handgun. The other ones are fun guns. I don't do malfunction clearence drills with them (unless of course they malfunction). I don't do speed reloads with them etc.
Simply put, I think a lot of people are more concerned and interested in the gun itself rather than how well they can shoot it.
One issue that gets me into trouble in some of these discusssions is that I don't own or shoot handguns strictly for defensive purposes. So, my shooting/training isn't strictly geared toward that purpose. I like the idea that I can sometimes hit a target at 50 yards and the fact that this isn't a realistic self defense senario doesn't bother me in the least.
points well clarified and with this information and restrictions of time and money, I would agree that one gun would be better utilized and its potential better realized. i would suggest the person get to shoot a moderate range of pistols first in order to select the best possible gun. in a round about way some people here have bestowed my point quite well. they started off with larger collections then ended up with the best pistol or pistols for them. thats kind of my point just from a different view. others mention how well they shoot other guns even tho they dont own them or shoot them well. kinda of like crosstraining for athelets. I too shoot mostly for enjoyment with some defensive training at times but i never found myself fumbling with my guns but then again this isnt real life action under fire. i would like to think that my years of training and shooting would give me some advantage. I still would like to remind everyone at some point you will be as skilled as you are going to become so now what do you do with the extra time? for me , i start my training on the next project pistol ,rifle, shotgun, knife, staff, sword, H2H ect. just my opinion. good topic and discussion.
"I still would like to remind everyone at some point you will be as skilled as you are going to become so now what do you do with the extra time? "
Well, I don't believe that you are likely to reach a point where you won't get any better. For most of us, we can always increase our accuracy or speed. If you can't out shoot Ed McGivern, Jerry Micelik (sp?), or Rob Latham, then you need more practice.
I read a lot of posts on the internet where someone has read that the average self defense shooting occurs at some given range (7 yards ?) and so that is where they practice. So, if they decide someday that they are as good as they are ever going to get at that range then why not try to achieve that same level of skill at 15 yards and then 25 yards ? Why not expand the limits you have placed upon yourself. You not only can always shoot faster and with more accuracy, but you can always move farther back. You can also add more targets (multiple threats). You can also shoot from different positions, under different lighting conditions, in different weather, in different terrain, stong hand/weak hand, .................................. You will never master it all: there is always some aspect of your shooting that needs work, even if you shoot every day.
Well, I don't believe that you are likely to reach a point where you won't get any better. For most of us, we can always increase our accuracy or speed. If you can't out shoot Ed McGivern, Jerry Micelik (sp?), or Rob Latham, then you need more practice.
I read a lot of posts on the internet where someone has read that the average self defense shooting occurs at some given range (7 yards ?) and so that is where they practice. So, if they decide someday that they are as good as they are ever going to get at that range then why not try to achieve that same level of skill at 15 yards and then 25 yards ? Why not expand the limits you have placed upon yourself. You not only can always shoot faster and with more accuracy, but you can always move farther back. You can also add more targets (multiple threats). You can also shoot from different positions, under different lighting conditions, in different weather, in different terrain, stong hand/weak hand, .................................. You will never master it all: there is always some aspect of your shooting that needs work, even if you shoot every day.
now your talking like me. rather than expand to alot of other distances, i would rather expand to other pistols. now you see where its just a matter of personal preference but is would still say, if you can master you gun at a few ranges then you can spend time to master other things. you pic.
I disagree with the idea you can always get better. if thats the case why is everyone an olympic athelete. I have tried for many years but never master my sport further than the state level. ( when I was younger of course). why cant I lift more weight, why cant I run faster. laws of physics we are each individuals with talents and faults. sorry but that idea with practice everyone can out shoot the greats is just Faulty. someone one day will out shoot them but alot of people will fail.
I disagree with the idea you can always get better. if thats the case why is everyone an olympic athelete. I have tried for many years but never master my sport further than the state level. ( when I was younger of course). why cant I lift more weight, why cant I run faster. laws of physics we are each individuals with talents and faults. sorry but that idea with practice everyone can out shoot the greats is just Faulty. someone one day will out shoot them but alot of people will fail.
Guess one could get as complicated as talking about behavioural training. Positive reinforcement and such. When certain cues occur, some behaviour has been reinforced to occur more than other behaviours. Even if you train lots with many weapons, becoming an expert with them, when the real deal goes down, one set of those behaviours will have been made most likely to happen. And under stress only the strongest cues get noticed.
So even if expert with several weapons, if you are heavily stressed (I suppose other training might make you not so stressed when an average Joe will be) you will fall back to some most basic most likely behaviour. And if you have trained with only or by far mostly one weapon type, you know what weapon you will instinctively most likely attempt to use. With even expertise in several weapons you likely are increasing the chances to make a mistake by doing something causing an unexpected result. I simply don't see according to the known facts of human behaviour and training it could be different.
So even if expert with several weapons, if you are heavily stressed (I suppose other training might make you not so stressed when an average Joe will be) you will fall back to some most basic most likely behaviour. And if you have trained with only or by far mostly one weapon type, you know what weapon you will instinctively most likely attempt to use. With even expertise in several weapons you likely are increasing the chances to make a mistake by doing something causing an unexpected result. I simply don't see according to the known facts of human behaviour and training it could be different.
now your talking my language. since we shoot all semiauto the same way your right you will know how to cycle the weapon and place a sight picture reguardless of the stressors. it seems to me you are placing alot of constraints on what will happen. when you gun cycles open at the last round and you train with any semi auto you will instinctively push the mag release and try and replace the next mag then hit the slide release. now , with your own belief you are stating that someone who only shot semiauto , found themself with a revolver and when they cycle out they will try and fumble looking for a mag release. this may be very likely. now if someone has shot alot of both weapons. they will more likely reach for the cyclinder latch and shell extractor rather than reach for a spare mag. i hope you can see this is why i dont worry when i shoot multiple guns. or try this on. say your a cyclist and train regularly. one day your walking along and boom. " danger "do you thing the cyclist will try and pedal a bike or will he run. obviously he will run away. again. i can see a point if your only in CQC and your limited to time ,money and need someone to be able to function with their weapon to a bare minimum your single gun theory is great. but if your really training for daily defense you will need more depth to your training to help cope with every possible variable. this will not make you less effective. like typing. yes if you type the same word over and over again you will be able to type that word very fast and error free. but if you learn to type thousands of words why would this make you not able to type the same word just as fast . your fingers know other letters exsist but these arent the ones you want. infact the more you type the better you can type any word.
BusGunner007
New member
Despite my usual wisecracker comments and sometimes wildeyed ideas, I wanted to respond to this serious Topic in a serious way.
Great forethought went into my personal collection in regard to "operational familiarity".
It became clear to me early on in my interest that if things worked the same way across the board, I'd probably be better off.
Some of that was gleaned from reading gun magazines, and some was hands on learning before I purchased a firearm.
In short, I decided to go for the 'ON/OFF' type of safety. In particular, I equated it with a light switch, of all things.
For instance, with the Beretta pistols which I favor, I decided the UP/ON/FIRE and DOWN/OFF/SAFE was what I wanted. In fact, I just got rid of two smaller caliber Berettas with safeties that worked opposite of that, in favor of a larger/matching caliber concealable Beretta that has a safety that matches my larger models.
When I chose rifles, I favored the Remington 700's because of their design and features, one of which was the ON/OFF type of safety.
In autoloaders and shotguns, I chose the button safety at the rear of the triggerguard that was ON/OFF, LEFT/RIGHT because it was the same from gun to gun.
With the exception of 2 or 3 guns, I've managed to keep that consistency of operation going throughout my collection, and I've encouraged others that are starting to collect guns for themselves to adopt a similar strategy.
I realize some folks are immune to this need, particularly instructors that need to be familiar with various types of firearms platforms, but for most 'Good Citizens', keeping a familiar operational characteristic can be beneficial, and to a certain degree, 'safer'.
Great forethought went into my personal collection in regard to "operational familiarity".
It became clear to me early on in my interest that if things worked the same way across the board, I'd probably be better off.
Some of that was gleaned from reading gun magazines, and some was hands on learning before I purchased a firearm.
In short, I decided to go for the 'ON/OFF' type of safety. In particular, I equated it with a light switch, of all things.
For instance, with the Beretta pistols which I favor, I decided the UP/ON/FIRE and DOWN/OFF/SAFE was what I wanted. In fact, I just got rid of two smaller caliber Berettas with safeties that worked opposite of that, in favor of a larger/matching caliber concealable Beretta that has a safety that matches my larger models.
When I chose rifles, I favored the Remington 700's because of their design and features, one of which was the ON/OFF type of safety.
In autoloaders and shotguns, I chose the button safety at the rear of the triggerguard that was ON/OFF, LEFT/RIGHT because it was the same from gun to gun.
With the exception of 2 or 3 guns, I've managed to keep that consistency of operation going throughout my collection, and I've encouraged others that are starting to collect guns for themselves to adopt a similar strategy.
I realize some folks are immune to this need, particularly instructors that need to be familiar with various types of firearms platforms, but for most 'Good Citizens', keeping a familiar operational characteristic can be beneficial, and to a certain degree, 'safer'.
Gee remember me speaking of behaviour and cues. Well the cues of walking along and pedaling along are far enough apart you aren't going to confuse them. Likewise the cues of a revolver or rifle differ enough from a semi-auto pistol they aren't going to be confused.
But try two similar semi-auto pistols and then you may have the cues very similar while just wrong enough to confound you. Reaching for the mag release or slide release is a good example. Sure, very close to the same. However, should it be an inch up, down or away, just not quite in the right place. You may suddenly be looking down, if you can manage that faced with deadly threat, to release the mag or slide.
If you need to use two handguns, a revolver and a semi-auto make more sense than two similar yet different revolvers or two semi-autos.
And as for the typing example, it only illustrates my point. With much typing, you will repeat thousands of times, even the many thousands of words. Until you do, indeed especially when starting to type, you can reliably do a few words or letter combinations, and many are very slow, halting and difficult. If your point is that with enough training you can learn everything. I agree if your time resources are unlimited. Most of us, aren't professionals who can do nothing, but shoot even if we are enthusiasts or very serious.
But try two similar semi-auto pistols and then you may have the cues very similar while just wrong enough to confound you. Reaching for the mag release or slide release is a good example. Sure, very close to the same. However, should it be an inch up, down or away, just not quite in the right place. You may suddenly be looking down, if you can manage that faced with deadly threat, to release the mag or slide.
If you need to use two handguns, a revolver and a semi-auto make more sense than two similar yet different revolvers or two semi-autos.
And as for the typing example, it only illustrates my point. With much typing, you will repeat thousands of times, even the many thousands of words. Until you do, indeed especially when starting to type, you can reliably do a few words or letter combinations, and many are very slow, halting and difficult. If your point is that with enough training you can learn everything. I agree if your time resources are unlimited. Most of us, aren't professionals who can do nothing, but shoot even if we are enthusiasts or very serious.
I'm with 444 on this one.
I have a lot of guns, mainly because I couldn't pass up most of the deals but I do concentrate primarily on one pistol and one rifle. Since I learned that, I've become a much better shooter. The others are guns I shoot or let my kids shoot while the barrels cool on my favorites.
I have another Buddy on SWAT who clearly says...Until you draw and fire that pistol "2,000" times, you're no good with it. Basically, using any tool to the point of profficiency requires almost constant use. Now add a sense of EMERGENCY to the scenario, Heart pounding at about 150, Breathing hard as the body compensates for the need for oxygen due to the extreme stress, ears ringing. tunnel vision. Where's the Bad Guy, what's behind him, where am I, ???
Think back to when you were a kid holding a pencil and trying to write. Didn't it take a while???
I have a lot of guns, mainly because I couldn't pass up most of the deals but I do concentrate primarily on one pistol and one rifle. Since I learned that, I've become a much better shooter. The others are guns I shoot or let my kids shoot while the barrels cool on my favorites.
I have another Buddy on SWAT who clearly says...Until you draw and fire that pistol "2,000" times, you're no good with it. Basically, using any tool to the point of profficiency requires almost constant use. Now add a sense of EMERGENCY to the scenario, Heart pounding at about 150, Breathing hard as the body compensates for the need for oxygen due to the extreme stress, ears ringing. tunnel vision. Where's the Bad Guy, what's behind him, where am I, ???
Think back to when you were a kid holding a pencil and trying to write. Didn't it take a while???
SIGLOCKAUR
New member
Your probably right from a defensive weapon's point of view. Their are only a couple of things I would say. Many of us just love to shoot. I appreciate the unique aspects of many different kinds of guns and own many. And yes it does sometimes take a few rounds of ammo to get used to say my Glock after shooting my Sigs for awhile. On the other hand though one gun usually does not fit all situations. In the hot summer it is nearly impossible for me to carry say my CZ-75 or Beretta 96G.
So I switch to my MK-40, Sig P-239,or Sig P-245 as primary and go to my KT P-3AT as back-up. In the winter with with all the clothes I wear why not take advantage of it and wear a full sized gun with all it's advantages? I might wear my Sig 220, or CZ-75 backed up by my S&W 642. And their is something to be said about being familiar with and able to shoot many different styles of gun. But for someone who is not a "gun nut" your idea is sound. With a few rounds I can easily convert from one style to another. Remenber some people can fly jets and prop jobs. Except for aerodynamic basic principles very different animals. But each has its place. And we have an amazing ability as human being to adapt. If you believe in evolution it is the key to our survival as a species.
So I switch to my MK-40, Sig P-239,or Sig P-245 as primary and go to my KT P-3AT as back-up. In the winter with with all the clothes I wear why not take advantage of it and wear a full sized gun with all it's advantages? I might wear my Sig 220, or CZ-75 backed up by my S&W 642. And their is something to be said about being familiar with and able to shoot many different styles of gun. But for someone who is not a "gun nut" your idea is sound. With a few rounds I can easily convert from one style to another. Remenber some people can fly jets and prop jobs. Except for aerodynamic basic principles very different animals. But each has its place. And we have an amazing ability as human being to adapt. If you believe in evolution it is the key to our survival as a species.
If self defense is the ONLY reason you own/shoot handguns... there may be some benefit to owning only one style.
For me, handguns are used for hunting, recreation, competition, and self defense. Now, I can imagine someone hunting fox sqirrel with a Sig P-220, but I can't imagine they'd be really successful.
Likewise, no doubt you could use the Beretta NEOS for defense, but concealed carry might be a bit revealing.
For me, handguns are used for hunting, recreation, competition, and self defense. Now, I can imagine someone hunting fox sqirrel with a Sig P-220, but I can't imagine they'd be really successful.
Likewise, no doubt you could use the Beretta NEOS for defense, but concealed carry might be a bit revealing.
I just completed a police firearms instructor course recently and this was a subject we discussed. The majority of students felt including the instructor, that as long as we were going to be teaching we should try and stick with one system. For most of us that would be the Glock. Full size for duty/uniformed patrol use, baby Glocks in like caliber for off duty/CC.
For those of us being gun folk, that's a little difficult since I like all shooting disciplines and own a variety of handguns.
I figure that if I'm out playing with the BHP or 1911, I should at least give the Glock equal time and maybe even practice weapon presentations and dry fire from duty gear at home more often to maintain the level of proficiency.
For those of us being gun folk, that's a little difficult since I like all shooting disciplines and own a variety of handguns.
I figure that if I'm out playing with the BHP or 1911, I should at least give the Glock equal time and maybe even practice weapon presentations and dry fire from duty gear at home more often to maintain the level of proficiency.
444, I'll report back in a few years then, as I am about to try this approach. My chosen platform is the 1911 .45ACP or a S&W N-frame (really, really tough decision that I think will come down to whichever one tugs me the strongest when I go in to lay down my cash). I'll be 21 in a month, thus the reason for this. I've handled Glocks, 1911, Walthers, SIGs, Berettas and numerous others, and for my hands and skill level the 1911 is the winner.
Case in point: My father has a 1911. I hadn't fired it in a few months (maybe the better part of a year even). This morning we went shooting and I picked up the 1911 right off. It felt like an extension of my hand, much more natural than the Glock 17 that is "mine". By the time we finished I had literally chewed the center of a 50-foot bullseye out alternating from 7-15 yards. (Well, okay, I put two or three cylinders through his .45ACP 625 Mountain Gun too.) There was no question about where the controls were; I just picked the thing up and shot.
Oh, gunrunner: Sig (230?): decocker under my thumb, heel magazine catch, safety behind the decocker on the rear of the grip, sling-shot to reload.
Walther P-99: decocker on slide, down-stroke paddle with middle finger on the outside of the trigger guard, slam the magazine home with enough vigor and the slide will drop on its own, decock or shoot as needed.
Glock: Squeeze trigger until empty, hit mag release with authority and hold until mag clears, slam home fresh mag, punch slide stop hard with thumb, return to business.
(I have fired club competitions with the Walther and Glock and was faster with the Glock. I even won once, when the IPSC/IDPA/USPSA contigent stayed home.)