I’ve read through the thread on the other board (editor: CALGUNS.NET). Some observations.
A few posters focused on the number of guns “owned” rather than “practice with” or something similar. The criticism is trivial, however, because the original article was about guns taken to the range, or in other words, practiced with. Even though “owned” ended up in the other forum’s thread title, it should have been obvious what the true question was.
Many of the posters missed fundamental points when they replied to the question or were guilty of faulty logic.
My reactions to the comments in no particular order.
1. Claim: Not all shooters are equally skilled, and a shooter who is highly skilled with one gun may be more proficient with a second, unfamiliar gun than someone who practices with the second gun all the time.
This is another trivial observation. The SIMP principle relates to development of an individual’s personal proficiency, not to someone else’s proficiency. Mr. A may practice the piano once a month and be better than Mr. B who practices daily; that has no bearing on whether B benefits by practicing every day.
2. Claim: Shooting fundamentals are the same and practice with one gun provides the skills necessary to shoot all guns well.
This is so strange it’s difficult to take it seriously or even know how to respond. In short, though, it’s true there are similarities among guns. Most, for example, have triggers that function in basically the same way. But although both my AR-15s and my Winchester model 52 target rifle have single action triggers, for example, the skills I developed with the .22 target rifle have little relevance to what’s needed for close range, rapid fire with an AR. There’s much more to the latter than a slow, deliberate trigger press while holding a heavy rifle steady on a tiny target. In combat-style pistol shooting, there’s much more to proficiency than sight alignment and trigger control. In addition, the sight usage and trigger control that’s necessary in combat-style shooting is usually very different than that used by precision bull’s-eye shooters.
3. Claim: It may be necessary to experiment with different firearms to determine which one works best for the individual shooter for a particular application.
That wasn’t what the SIMP article was referring to. The claim is true, but it demonstrates a misunderstanding of the point.
4. Claim: Different guns are necessary for different purposes.
Again this is obviously true, but the truism has no bearing on the original point of the SIMP article. Virtually all courses of instruction that cover diverse subjects are broken up into complete blocks to help ensure mastery of one before moving on to something different. I present a day-long orientation course for new department hires on the operation of the SIG P220 pistol and shotgun, but I don’t teach an hour on the pistol, an hour on the shotgun, and then back to another hour on the pistol.
JohnO
I’m glad to see that someone understood the point. I own many guns. I like to think that I shoot them all well. However, I don’t bring them all to the range each day.
Simon
Here, Here
I thought certain things are so intuitively correct that anyone can grasp them. After reading the discussion on the other forum I am once again disabused of that naive assumption.
I have been practicing with two guns. My carry pistol is a H&K P 30 and my IDPA gun is a P226 Elite. I practice more with the IDPA gun. Would you recommend I use the same gun for both applications?
Tom — I can’t speak for JohnO but my answer is a qualified “yes.” The biggest issues for me are the location of the decocker lever (frame mounted on the SIG, rear of the slide on the H&K) and the trigger reset. Because your Elite has the “SRT” short reset mechanism, the trigger reset will be much shorter compared to the gun you’re carrying every day. I know from personal experience as well as the reports of other serious shooters that under stress, you are a lot more likely to short stroke the H&K if you’ve been training your finger for that short Elite/SRT reset.
I’m not much of a competitor, but I have tried to analyze my own gun handling habits and skills. I’m amazed, therefore, when I read about people who routinely carry or otherwise depend upon several fundamentally different handguns for defensive purposes. There was a time when I was convinced I was skilled and practiced enough that as soon as I touched a handgun, I would automatically recognize whether it was an HK P7, a 1911, a revolver, or one of my favorite SIG pistols. Once my hand “knew” what the gun was, I assumed, it would also perform the proper maneuvers to make it function properly.
After I started putting myself under a little pressure with more realistic handgun training some years ago, however, I discovered I was wrong.
Rapid fire, malfunctions, reloading, and doing more than one thing at once (moving, taking cover, etc.) all caused me to make major errors when I wasn’t completely familiar with the gun I was using. These days I shoot DAK SIGs almost exclusively and even switching to an old style double action only trigger often causes me to short stroke follow up shots and throws off my rhythm. Going to traditional double action/single action, and especially with a short reset trigger, makes it even worse. If I expect to be able to deliver fast, accurate fire, I limit the changes I make to the extent possible.
There are two primary objections to my experience and opinions on all this:
First, I freely admit that I practice very little with other handgun styles, especially in combat-style shooting. Could the shooter who uses two or even more different guns extensively make an instant transition back and forth with no loss of competence? I’m frankly skeptical and believe that the shooter who is good with two types of handguns could be much better if he limited himself to just one. I don’t know for certain, though, and am willing to be convinced by the proper evidence.
Second, there’s the argument that a properly-equipped law enforcement officer is routinely forced to switch among two or three different types of firearms depending upon the situation: handgun, shotgun, and rifle. If the average LEO with mediocre training can cope with a Glock one moment and an AR the next, why not a Glock and 1911?
One, what we’re forced to do isn’t necessarily what we’d like to do if we had a choice.
Two, and more important (I believe), long guns are seldom employed and deployed the same way as handguns often. We don’t deal with a close-range, violent attack by snatching a Remington 870 from a hip holster and firing a dozen rounds as fast as possible. There is usually enough time to become accustomed to the fact that a long gun is being handled prior to using it. Also, a Glock and a 1911 are physically much more similar than a Glock and an AR-15 rifle and there’s the potential for confusion and mistakes.
In short, however, I believe that if I’m ever in a gunfight for my life I’ll have more than enough to worry about without adding different mechanical systems to the mix. ToddG has discussed “‘The Training Issue’ Fallacy” in a short, but very incisive article on this forum. It may be possible to use two very different types of handguns for defensive purposes if we train and practice enough with both, but why would we do that?
In early aviation history certain airplanes were known as “widow-makers” because their flight characteristics were unforgiving of errors: make a mistake and die. Lots of training with them minimized the deaths they caused, but it didn’t eliminate the deaths because their unforgiving nature never went away. The solution to the widow-makers wasn’t more training, it was better designed aircraft that were more forgiving of mistakes or lapses of attention. What pilot—no matter how experienced and skilled—would willingly climb into a dangerous craft when one that would perform just as well (if not better) was sitting next to it?
I’ll learn to shoot both an AR-15 rifle and a SIG handgun as well as I can despite their different operating systems because I must. But I don’t have any reason to flop back and forth between a SIG DAK P229 and an HK P7 PSP. Even though the latter pistol is a neat gun that’s fun to shoot, I’m not about to depend upon it for defense if I don’t have to.
I had kind of come to that conclusion already. The H&K had a few things that I did not like about it. The take down was cumbersome, the de-cocker was in a different place than what I was used to as was the magazine release. I’m on my way to buy an M&P 9 which is about the same size as the H&K and I can use it for both IDPA and everyday carry. I have an M&P 9c and shoot it reasonable well so I’ll put a few thousand rounds through the M&P full size and see what happens. I thank you for the advice and good suggestions. I totally agree that training, carrying and competing with one gun makes a lot of sense.