It’s always interesting to see what sparks the most heated discussion. Yesterday’s Rotation post was not something I expected to generate nearly as many comments as it did. Rather than respond to them piecemeal in the Comments section, it seemed deserving of a follow-up post.
As I mentioned in the original article, there’s nothing wrong with using different guns for a practical reason. Whether it’s because your work clothes (or work environment or work policy) limit you during the day to a mouse gun or because you are trying a new holster or any other myriad reason, there is at least a reason. It’s the people who cannot articulate beyond “cuz I wanna!” or “depending on my mood” that I’m talking about.
Because I know him and know he won’t take it personally, let’s take VolGrad‘s response as an example. Vol is a very competent shooter who puts a lot of time, money, and effort into training every year both on his own and with some of the biggest names in the industry. He stated that he sometimes switches between identically set up Glock models 19 and 17:
Dismissing someone who changes pistols on a whim doesn’t factor in all the pertinent variables. Have they trained extensively with each? Has each been proven? Can he switch effortlessly between the two without measurable loss of handling skill or accuracy. You get my point.
For the sake of discussion, let’s assume the “switch effortlessly without loss of skill” is true. This still leaves me with the question, why? What point is there in going to the expense of setting up and testing multiple nearly identical guns just so you can change on a whim? People do not make serious decisions about the gear they’re going to carry for potential life or death struggle on a whim. If you said you shot the G17 better or preferred having a few more rounds onboard but sometimes need the greater concealment of the G19, that would be fine. That would be a reason and not a whim. But if things devolve to “it’s Tuesday so it must be the G19” then no, I cannot see that as serious.
Having a dependable similar pistol available as a backup in the event your normal carry pistol breaks or gets stolen I can understand. But my backup pistol gets shot rarely and carried never… because it’s my backup and I don’t subject it to conditions where it might get worn, broken, or stolen. Screwing up my backup means I don’t have a backup anymore.
For the folks who say they want to be proficient with a wide range of different pistols: good on you. But being proficient doesn’t mean you need to carry a different gun every day. Even if the actions are similar, they’re not identical and neither is the rest of the pistol. Going from a .40-cal P229 DAK to a Beretta 92D is “similar” in concept only. Recoil characteristics are substantially different. The trigger mechanism is much different in terms of weight and distance of travel. The slide release levers are in much different places. Even if you further compound the problem by racking the slide instead of the faster and more reliable method of using the slide release, the location of the SIG lever requires a different grip to ensure the slide locks back on an empty chamber. So either you’re compromising your grip on every other pistol or you have convinced yourself that you train so much that under stress you’ll instinctively know which gun you’ve pulled out and grip it in the most idealized way. Good luck with that.
Some readers commented that they’re equally good with a crazy assortment of pistols. In my experience (and to steal a line from someone else), most folks who make that claim are just equally bad with a crazy assortment of pistols. Don’t tell us you shoot them all the same, tell us how well you shoot them. What kind of results are you getting on common objective pistol standards like the F.A.S.T., Hackathorn Standards, or the Humbler?
I can pick up a gun I’m familiar with but haven’t shot seriously in years — let’s say a Beretta or SIG — and do OK with it. It’s probably safe to say that I could outshoot the folks at the local club match or most of the people I’m likely to see at the range. But the point isn’t whether I’m adequate with that gun. The point is that I am considerably better with the gun I devote my time and effort to. “Adequate” is a very difficult term to define for handgun skill because the fact of the matter is that you won’t know what the situation requires — and thus what will be adequate — until after the fact. But I always know that considerably better beats worse.
Some folks have mentioned people like Mas Ayoob. I happen to know Mas. Even Mas will tell you there are guns he shoots better than others. But sometimes he carries something different because he’s writing an article about it or testing some new accessory, etc. That’s a reason. He doesn’t do it just for giggles. Furthermore, you’re talking about a guy who has spent his entire adult life immersed in firearms training as a profession. And still, even among other instructors, Mas is well known as an anomaly for his ability to maintain such high proficiency with such a wide variety of guns. If you think you’re the same way, well, knock yourself out.
In closing, I will say this: Carrying a gun is not about personal enjoyment, it is about personal safety. If your weapon selection is based on something other than objective factors like concealability, reliability, and shootability then you’re doing it wrong.
Train hard & stay safe! ToddG
Amen!
I concede, now lets get back to the old DAO vs TDA we used to argue about. 🙂
I thought you were kidding when you said you were getting ready to throw me under the bus. LOL.
I have a bunch of thoughts I will write up and post on P-F.com later. They are sort of related to this topic but go on enough of a tangent I won’t junk up this discussion with them.
In closing, I’m shooting a 1911 in CDP at this weekend’s IDPA match rather than my usual GLOCK 17 in SSP. Why? Cuz I wanna. *sticks tongue out*
I used to have a bunch of different guns myself. Woke up one day and seriously wondered why I owned a HK VP70Z. Seriously, WTF was I thinking?
Anyway, all of my serious handguns are now Glock 9mms of various sizes and S&W J frame .38s.
These cover every carry need I have outside of hunting. If I lived in a places where really big animal might eat me then I’d have to add at least one large bore N frame, but other than that I don’t see a need.
Back-up primary guns (as opposed to BUGs); You’ll need one at some point, best to have it already in place. Even if your primary was blessed by angels to never choke or break, the minute you use it in self defense it’s going in a locker somewhere, and maybe for a very long time.
I have a couple that sit on the shelf and only go to the range to qual once per year. I have shot them enough to prove reliability, so sitting and waiting is the mission for them.
This sort of thing seemed like a good idea to me after being on our shooting review board for several years.
Also, I had an LEO friend jumped and robbed at close range as part of a business robbery, she was disarmed and almost killed. After everything was done that night and she was going to go home I asked and found out that her stolen gun was the only one she had. I sent her home with one of my extra guns for the night until she could get things sorted out on getting issued a new piece.
I never want to be involved in something serious and then stuck sitting at home with a ball bat.
But there are sooo many guns … toys … fun! I GOTTA SHOOT THEM ALL!
In all seriousness, there seems to be the “carry to protect my life” group and the “carry because I like guns” crowd. “Look what I have” crowd will get you killed.
Those serious about protecting themselves and loved ones will regularly practice with their carry gun. And won’t change often.
What’s the saying … “beware the man with only one gun. He knows how to use it!”
Thanks, again, Todd for a frank and honest evaluation.
Is it that time of the month?
I wish I had that much time to practice more.
I love it when people are “smacked in the face” with a dose of reality only to get all bent out of shape when the “shoe actually fits.” Excellent topic, Todd.
Should have said double-dose.
Well said! Much better.
“If your weapon selection is based on something other than objective factors like concealability, reliability, and shootability then you’re doing it wrong.”
That is my new favorite quote ever.
Hokay here goes, I’ve been debating this with my good friend this morning, who happens to agree with Todd, whereas I happen to agree more with Volgrad.
To be clear, from the outset, do I agree that practicing with only carry gun A as opposed to practicing with carry guns A and B will make me a better shooter with carry gun A (in the first instance) as opposed to either carry guns A or B (in the second instance)? Sure, I think that is obvious/reasonable. Do I think that the second model is necessarily “retarded”? No.
IMO (and I am just a noob here), I think that the important thing is that one has extensively practiced with a gun, and through doing so, developed good muscle memory for the core operations with that gun. I think that in some instances (e.g., drawing from a similar holster type with two different guns) will yield an improvement for both guns — you’ll get overgarments out of the way faster, hand movement to the gun will improve, etc. On the other hand, there are certainly instances where the muscle memory might conflict (e.g., slide release location, disengaging a safety if you’ve got one).
One area where my friend and I disagreed was with respect to how much practicing with gun B hurts you with respect to gun A — my suspicion was that drilling with gun B will still help reinforce a variety of drawing,handling, and accuracy fundamentals, whereas his was that the difference in platform will necessary reduce your performance with respect to gun A. I honestly don’t know — perhaps his approach is true for someone like Todd who has drilled the fundamentals for millions of rounds, and mine is correct for more novice shooters like myself who just need continuous drilling of the fundamentals, perhaps I’m wrong altogether, I’ll leave that one for the experts.
I’ll acknowledge that that’s somewhat orthogonal, because somewhere someone is yelling at the screen “BUT YOU’LL STILL BE BETTER WITH GUN A IF YOU JUST PRACTICE WITH ONLY THAT ONE”. And this brings me to where I really disagree with Todd — the use of the words “adequate” and “considerably better”. Right now, if I went and put several thousand rounds of serious practice through my 1911 (as opposed to my M&P carry gun), I think I would be “adequate” for my own purposes. On the other hand, if I put several thousand additional rounds through my M&P, would I be “considerably better” with it than I would be with my 1911 had I practiced with it? I suspect not.
Like I said, I absolutely buy your argument that focusing in one area will make you better in that area as opposed to if you divided your attention, but I also wonder to what extent you’re getting into minutiae by demanding such focus. I’m sure that there are a lot of aspects that go into a defensive encounter, and I’m sure that every one is different. The odds that I get into any kind of defense encounter are slim, the odds that I need to unholster my pistol are slimmer, the odds that I need to perform a mag change I suspect are drastically slimmer yet, the odds that I need to correct a double feed in such an encounter are… well you get the point. Does that mean I shouldn’t practice for those? Absolutely not. However, do I think that I can afford to lose a little bit of skill, especially on the more in-depth areas of weapon manipulation purely for enjoyment’s sake? Yes.
Lastly, on what I see as a somewhat related note, I’d ask you if you have ever taken your eyes off of the road to say, change a song on your media player of choice or change radio station, etc. If you did so, you sacrificed your capability to remain at 100% operating condition in a possibly life-or-death situation (one that is far more likely to occur that a pistol defensive encounter), and you did so for a purely aesthetic reason.
TLDR — Be serious, but not quite so serious 😛
LET THE FLAMING COMMENCE
To be clear …. I’m not necessarily disagreeing with Todd’s original post. I do think focusing on one “thing” yields better results than spreading oneself thin on multiple “things”. I hope it was clear I was avoiding the word “platform” … but that’s from whole ‘nother BLOG so I digress.
Right, sorry if I gave the impression that you disagreed with Todd (I certainly don’t either), I only disagree with the characterization of the alternative as “retarded”.
I wholeheartedly agree with Todd on this when it comes to what one carries. To me it is a simple matter of practical expediency.
The skills developed training with my carry gun should not be diluted by my love for shooting different guns. That is the hobby/fun side of being a gun enthusiast – the carry side, where I devote the majority of my time and money, is serious business.
I started out wanting at least one of every gun I saw but found out quick what kind of learning curve each weapon would have if one pursued a reasonable level of mastery. It just isn’t practical… I’d hazard than even the great Mr. Ayoob has to freshen his skills (for a few minutes, at least!) each time he transitions.
I still appreciate weapons I would not carry, of course. Some have personal/historical significance or just a certain “cool” factor… but they are collectibles to me, not something I’d ever want to have to seriously use.
People do not believe that there is a real chance they would need to use their pistols in self-defense. Take anybody who “rotates” and tell him/her that there is a 50% chance they’ll be in a firefight tomorrow – I bet you they will quickly “unrotate”and bring their best pistol, together with AR and body armor. However, statistics as it is, the individual chances of civilian sending lead down are low, and this leads to rotations, carrying unshootable guns, carrying with empty chamber. It even leads to a mentality of just carrying a gun, without training or skill, as being already “ahead of a curve”. It is all a part of false “risk assessment” that flies right out of the window as soon as risks become real.
As some of you know, what I do for work sometimes makes it or breaks it in somebody’s survival. Today, as I type this, there is about 5% chance that situation like this is going to happen. I have many equipment options available, but trust me – there is no rotation here, none. My staff knows what I use and what I don’t, and God help them if they give me wrong tools. In fact, God help them if they don’t warn me we’re short on my preferred equipment well ahead of the time.
As risks become real, so does the behavior.
Leaving the range… just shot a legit 3.91 clean FAST. With the gun I’ve shot exclusively since springtime…..
@Todd …. showoff. lol.
This is a great discussion and I’m not qualified to chime in via a gun specifically, b/c I live in the communist state of NJ and I can’t carry.
That being said, I do teach martial arts for a living and I have come across many an armchair warrior who ‘knows’ or has ‘seen’ in another style, movie, video clip, etc that this ‘move’ is killer.
Typically, it is fancy and/or requires too many manipulations (read: multiple ways to fail on your way to attempting success) to be effective on a wide range of people quickly and effectively. Keep it simple, stupid.
I have one reply and I think it is apt here:
“The only killer move you have is the one you can pull off 100% of the time under any circumstance. Anything less will get you hurt, killed or someone else hurt/killed.”
That’s my 2 cents
PS: YVK’s final paragraph is spot on.
I fully agree with the intent and sentiments of ToddG’s initial and follow-on posts. Most people are far better served with exclusively carrying one type of primary handgun.
Amen to what Todd said in both posts. And YVK’s analogy is perfect, I am stealing it as a teaching point.
As for myself, I acquire guns at what my wife considers in alarming rate. I like a lot of different kinds of guns and can’t resist a good deal. But, my M&P that replaced my 1911 as a carry gun goes to the range at least once a week (been doing twice a week lately). It is my serious gun and get used and practiced with as such. The other guns are toys. When I go with family or friends to shoot recreationally (once every month or two), then the toys come out and we have fun. Lot’s of guns here, but no rotation. My carry gear only gets changed if there is a good reason or need and I keep training and play time seperate.
I’ll chime in on the side of “Pick one (type of) gun and stick with it.”
Recently I had to get a gun fixed. While it was in the shop, I took another gun to the range. Switching between those two guns (both 22LR pistols) was disconcerting – I was constantly looking at the wrong part of the gun to eject the magazine, and this is the first gun I ever bought (lord, has it been 20 years?), so there is no lack of experience with it – but no RECENT experience.
This was under range conditions – no particular hurry, no stress. Just out enjoying the weather.
So this single anecdote could support both points of view – if I shot both types regularly, I would find the transition easier, but sticking to one gun frees up that much attention for other things, like trigger control and sight picture and range safety.
I have pretty much convinced myself to stay with one TYPE of gun for self-defense, so that the manual-of-arms is identical, and I am not looking at the gun (instead of scanning for threats) in a panic situation.
I agree with Todd. Carry guns and fun guns are two separate categories, just like training and plinking are separate categories or shooting activities. They may carry over (my Garand is a fun gun but I could defend myself with it in a pinch, and I sometimes plink with my carry gun) but should be kept separate.
Holy sh*t a 3.91!?
“As risks become real, so does the behavior.”
Love it.
And ToddG… a 3.91? Apparently you need to stir the hornets nest more often.
I think YVK nailed it with his comment about the mindset of most people who carry: they (correctly) believe that there is very little chance that they will actually need to use their gun on any given day. Therefore other factors weigh more heavily in their decision making–factors other than how effective they are with a particular gun such as coolness, comfort, or simply variety.
Take Todd’s proclamation that “If your weapon selection is based on something other than objective factors like concealability, reliability, and shootability then you’re doing it wrong.” and swap in any other noun for “weapon” (and the corresponding attributes representing effectiveness) and see how it makes you feel.
E.g., “If your car selection is based on something other than objective factors like reliability, crashworthiness, and performance then you’re doing it wrong.”
Now decide whether you use a car more for work or for fun. If you’re cab driver, your car selection will probably be very objective and you’ll value reliability much more highly than style. If you’re talking about your weekend car, you’ll do the reverse.
I think most people who talk about rotating guns are (allegorically) weekend car enthusiasts whereas Todd is interested in working with and training (and therefore directing his comments to) cab drivers.
Tom-
I’m a Soldier. Currently sitting at Bagram Air Field, starting my 5th deployment (3rd to this suck country). I state this only to preface the following observation, as a note that I have sufficient personal experience to state:
Every single time I have been shot at, I could not get aimed fire downrange fast enough to suit myself. 0.0000001 seconds faster would have been much better. Any time whatsoever.
So, you probably don’t do what I do, and I accept the general irrelevance of my experiences to your life. Really, I do. Your statements of compounding odds are likely true.
I only want to point out that if *you* ever do need to use *your* gun, I am willing to bet that you will also find that 0.0000001 seconds to be infinitely valuable, and worth just about whatever you have to do to get it. You will not, I feel, be standing in the aftermath thinking, “Well, shit. I guess good enough really is good enough. That wasn’t close at all, and I find that I actually wish I’d trained a little less seriously, and cut that life or death encounter a bit closer to the mark. Coulda kept up with _Dexter_ a bit better, or perhaps learned to play the banjo.”
I found that any improvement I could get was an improvement I appreciated. Although, I do enjoy both _Dexter_ and bluegrass. So, you know, priorities.
Aaron — Awesome post right up until the banjo part.
Seriously, good post and thank you for your service!
Aaron,
Thank you for your service and indeed, good post. Indeed, at this particular moment I have not chosen to “split my training” and if I were in your position, I wouldn’t even remotely consider it. I’m just trying to point out that civilians make tradeoffs between safety and comfort all of the time in several areas of life, and that I don’t see why the area of pistol training should somehow be “more special” than other tradeoffs. Were I to do so and be in such an encounter, I’m sure I would regret having split my training, just like I’d regret rear-ending someone on the highway while I change an mp3 — but I still change mp3’s 🙂 — I don’t think it makes me stupid, just human. Here’s hoping I never have to have that post-gun-usage reflection, regardless of what path I take 🙂
And come on Todd, what’s wrong with the Banjo?
Not sure who said it first but I heard it from Kathy Jackson : it’s not about the odds, it’s about the stakes. Yes the chances of most of us having to defend our lives or loved ones are remote, but the price of failure is high, and permanent.
Todd, I really enjoyed this and the previous post. After 7 years of running matches and 5 of running drills, I can tell you that the same thing applies to carbines as well. The guys that win at the matches, and continue to grow at the drills, are shooting the same gun month in month out. When they bring the gun up from low-ready it snaps into place and the dot is lined up with their eye and the target automatically. When they reload the fresh magazine goes straight into the magwell and they drop the bolt. On the other hand, the guys that bring a different carbine every month (and simultaneously tell me they can’t afford to go to a class!) never, ever, seem to get better or improve. This is probably, however, equal parts mindset and hardware.
I can also contrast this with my own experience rotating guns, optics and parts through for T&E or for articles, and I never get as good as I could be. This is a lesson I am taking with me as I attempt to re-build my pistol skills and why I only shoot my Glock 19 at classes and matches, and only carry my Glock 26 when I need that little extra bit of concealment. I’m just too damn stupid, and have too little time to devote to training, to spread my potential proficiency across multiple platforms.
After enjoying a host of extremely high-quality firearms in my shooting career, when I look at quantifiable, empirical results, for me, the answer is very clear-cut: Standardize-if not on one gun, at least on one platform for continuous and improved performance.
And yes, I’ll continue to enjoy other guns and other platforms. And yes, there are clear and cogent circumstances that at times direct my employment of a given gun/platform. But the reality for me that I’ve derived over the years is that I clearly shoot best with my Glocks-and that’s the platform that I’ll be using for primary carry, training, and competing functions.
Todd’s, DocGKR’s and others’ comments are well taken and to the point on this-as well as being based on both their personal and professionally observed results over time.
Best, Jon Stein
Simplistically, the argument makes sense, but the hard part of this is determining whether one person’s good reason is that or just folly.
As referenced above, there may be environmental reasons to carry a different caliber or type handgun — like your ability to conceal or the presence of bears!
Assuming you run your chosen carry pistol at a high level, I think experimentation can be good, and is how you and or the technology progresses. I have been shooting M&P pistols almost exclusively for the last six months, and starting shooting a G17 to evaluate an RDS (because the M&P slide isn’t done). I am shooting the RMR Glock better than my M&P, after just three range sessions, and that wouldn’t have happened if I was unwilling to experiment. As you demonstrated with your sub 4 FASTest, the Glock 17 is working great for you, and if you stayed with just a P30 or HK 45, you may not have seen that sub 4 FASTest or the Gadget.
Yet, as good as you are shooting the 17, you were just discussing bringing your P30 to Rogers, showing how strong the appeal of other platforms can be.
Great discussion. I’ll throw in another kink. Do you always carry in the same location / type holster? I’ve got friend that sometimes carry OWB, sometimes pocket carry, sometimes IWB, sometimes ankle holster, etc.
I’m concerned that under stress, they won’t have time to wonder, “where am I carrying it today?”
As police officer, I always carry a backup gun in my off side front pocket. When I’m off duty, my backup gun stays in the same pocket so I don’t have to think about where it is.
What does the group think about this subject?
David–After years of carrying in multiple different locations, a decade or so ago I standardized all my primary handgun carry in the 1-3 o’clock region, be it AIWB, IWB, OWB, duty, or tactical holsters. Since doing so, I significantly reduced the operator induced errors experienced when needing to quickly access for my pistol…
GJM–I have often been required to “experiment” with different firearms, such as the RDS trial we began 2 years ago, the transition from 1911’s to M&P45’s this past year, etc… None the less, I try to keep my primary carry gun and back-up the same as much as possible, for as long as possible. For me that previously meant carrying and training primarily with a 1911 and J-frame for over 20 years; for the past two years I am focusing on the G19/17 and M&P as the older handguns are retired.
Not to sound all snarky, guys, but go back and read the original post. You only have to read the first sentence. Pay particular attention to the part in bold: just to enjoy the variety.
If you’re carrying for a reason other than that, it does not apply to you. Switching guns every year? How in the heck can I criticize that? Only someone who’s new to this site would think otherwise.
On the other hand, there are a lot of people who come up with all sorts of justifications to hide their true intent, which is just to enjoy the variety. If you carry a Colt Pocket Auto every third Wednesday of the month “because some day I may find one on the ground while being attacked by muggers,” you fall into that feeble minded category discussed previously.
Awesome conversation. I can’t help but chime in. After watching some of our so called “gun guys” come to the range and mess up with their newest “off duty” gun that makes them look so good. I had to ask, why carry something different than the Glock you train with all the time. Their answer “I shoot so much better with my 1911, it’s a better gun than my Glock. Okay, your groups went from 2 1/2 inch to 2 3/4 inch, but you took longer to get the first shot off, you totally forgot to manipulate the safety off nose diving your muzzle, you got so frazzled by the time you remembered to take off the safety you fired two wild shots to make the time, you forgot to put the saftey on when holster, Yeah, mixing gun types around is recipe for disaster. Only someone who lives, eats, breaths and practices with multiple weapons all the time may get away with it, but I’m betting when the s**t hits the fan… they will revert back to what they do most of the time, with the weapon they shoot most. I’ve been there when a guy forgot to get the safety off, almost got me killed.