Train with more guns or one gun more time?

[PaladinX13]

Which is better?

EDIT: Further Clarity, this is what you actually THINK is BEST, not just what you do. I understand that many people compromise between training and enjoying their collections because a defensive situation is not an imminent concern. Think in these terms: If I were planning someone's defensive training curriculum for a specific role, would I put two guns of different types into the same role? And, if so, what benefit am I expecting?

To be crystal clear:
Multi-Platform means Different Guns for the SAME ROLE
Examples...
Carry vs. Home defense are different roles. You train in both but are focused.
Summer carry vs. Winter Carry are different roles.
Home defense vs. SHTF are different roles.
Kel-Tec P32 vs Seecamp are the SAME roles thus multi-platform.
Glock vs 1911 as a carry piece is the same role thus multi-platform.
Indecision between shotgun, rifle, or handgun for home defense is multi-platform.

Spending time training on multiple platforms
OR
Spending time completely mastering one platform


I do not mean to the extreme or exclusion of one or the other (so, although you master one, you know how all your other guns operate; or, even if you shoot a lot of guns, you favor one in particular), but as a practical matter, do you split your training time amongst your platforms or focus on one platform?

I ask this, because when "vs" threads pop up such as "Glock or 1911", "AR or AK", "870 or 1100", etc... there is the inevitable "Both!" response. Which is a solution to the collector's or shooter's question, but not a "tactical" answer. It seems to me, unless you philosophically believe it's good to split your mastery evenly between multiple platforms, the "Both!" answer is a betrayal of strategy.

That said, if you do believe it's better (not just acceptable) to cross-train on multiple platforms, please explain your reasoning.

 

[NateUSMC]

I voted multiple platforms.

My reasoning? Simple - if you own multiple types of weapons (as most of us do), you NEED to be proficient in all of them.

 

[Waywatcher]

Get good with one gun; changing triggers, sights and grips makes learning harder than it has to be.

 

[hso]

What do you carry or what will you go to when a violent threat comes up?

That's what you should focus your training on. If you carry a single type of handgun, 1911 or Glock or CZ or etc, then that's what you will be using when you are forced to protect your life and that should be the focus of your training. If you carry a full size and a compact of the same gun, Gvt and Commander, that is still the same type, but if you carry 2 different types of handguns, Gvt 1911 and P3AT, then you would want to spread your training out in proportion to anticipated use. If you own 4 types of handguns and spread your training out between all of them then when the time came to use one under stress you may find yourself short of skill.

 

[B.D. Turner]

Beware of the man that uses one gun.

 

[PaladinX13]

My reasoning? Simple - if you own multiple types of weapons (as most of us do), you NEED to be proficient in all of them.

Why? When trouble arises, you're not going to be putting a Glock in one hand and a 1911 in the other are you? Or have your carbine in your hands, some pistols down your pants, a shotgun on your back, and a rifle hanging from your other shoulder?

Aside from carry concerns, you're basically only going to go to one gun if/when the time comes, so doesn't it make sense to excel in its use?

Maybe another way to put it is, how proficient is proficient? If you feel only a certain degree of mastery is necessary, maybe you can move on to other guns, but it still strikes me as a "Why?" Even if you're proficient in multiple arms, aren't you only going to pick/use one primarily? It seems the last thing you want to be doing when someone's downstairs is to try and decide which flavor-of-the-month you should use to dispatch them with....

If "proficient" to you simply means understanding the manual arms, how to fire, field-strip, maintain, and aim that arm, then I agree, but I wouldn't call that the same as splitting your training time evenly between both an AR and an AK, for example.

 

[EricTheBarbarian]

beware if the man that owns more than one gun. he probably knows how to use all of them

 

[Scorpiusdeus]

I say limit training to the firearms you will use to defend your life.

If at home I keep My Sig P239 at the ready and maybe a shotgun, I'd say train with both equally and together.

For me I practice more often with My P239 and my P226. The P228 and SP101 only come out when I'm just having fun and I dont spend as much time with those two.

When I have another 870 in the house, I will train with the 870 and the P239 mostly.

 

[DontBurnMyFlag]

I forget the saying. But I believe it was something along the lines of

Dont fear the man who practices 10,000 kicks.
Fear the man who practices 1 kick 10,000 times.


However, I still train with a variety of weapons. Need to be proficient in all of my firearms. You never know which one will crap out or run outta ammo at an inoppurtune time.

 

[MrDig]

Here is how I would do it, Start with one and add on as you go. Limiting yourself to one gun is like only eating nut goodies when there are lots of other good candy bars out there.

 

[Jeff White]

Train with the platform you intend to use in a fight. Cross training only fits in when there is a likelyhood you may actually need to employ a different weapon in a fight, i.e. a soldier with a battlefield pick up.

I have three weapons that I would be using in a fight, my duty weapon, a Kimber Warrior (I carry a full size 1911, Colt Series 70, off duty to keep the training the same for both), my duty rifle, Colt R6920 LE Carbine and my BUG a SW Model 36.

I own over 50 more different weapons, but I only train with those three. If I were still an Army Infantryman, I would probably devote some training time to the AK series. Since I'm retired from the Army now, the chances of me having to pick up an AK and fight with it are pretty remote.

Few of us, have the resources or time to devote to mastering several weapons. In my opinion a person should spend what lmited time and money he has for training on the platform he intends to use.

Jeff

 

[Correia]

I see it all the time. You get the guys that I call Gear Whores (meant with love) who never stick with one carry gun for more than a month. Or they're the competitor that is shooting a different gun every match. Or swapping parts DURING the match.

I shoot lots of different guns, but I mostly work with 3 main ones.

Now as an instructor, I've had to get really proficient with a bunch of different weapons. All sorts of different guns end up in a class, and often I need to be able to shoot them better than the student does. (teacher, my sights are off... bang bang bang... nope, it's just you)

That said, I think that sometimes it is really valuable to switch it up for training purposes. Say that you've hit a plateau, and you're not getting any better. Shoot/carry/train with a different type of gun for a couple of months. This will often force you to refocus on the fundamentals, and when you go back to your favorite, you will be that much better off.

 

[Richmond]

my practice approach

In the last year or two has been to pick one long gun and one handgun for each practice session. By one, I mean one platform, i.e. I may take 2 1911s or 2 Smith revolvers, etc. I try to focus my practice and get to the range more often, for shorter sessions.

This is a change - for years I loaded the truck with a huge arsenal for every trip to the range, for often very lengthy sessions.

Makes it easier to get to the range more often, and much of the time my sessions are short - 20 rounds of center-fire long gun or shotgun, 100 rounds with handgun, on set exercises.

 

[NMshooter]

I always "trained up" before I would start relying on a different pistol back before I settled on the Glock and 1911.

Since I decided the Glock was what I was going to rely on I shoot it most, the 1911 sees little use (and is not kept ready for defense).

Same with rifles, I shoot the AR more than everything else, though I shoot others from time to time.

I do try to shoot anything I might use in self defense enough to maintain a basic level of competency.

As far as handguns vs. long guns, I usually shoot handguns more frequently as I regard handgun proficiency more perishable.

 

[geronimotwo]

i shoot .22 rifle more than anything. certainly not my goto gun, just fun to shoot.

 

[mpmarty]

Mainly one gun

I shoot pistols at my home range, a Witness 10mm, a SA XD45 and my Taurus PT145. The Taurus is my carry gun and it gets a mandatory 50 rounds a week to be sure I can handle it when I need to. The other two pistols are shot for fun and at longer ranges up to 100 yards, the Taurus, being short of barrel is used mainly at 25 to 50 yards. Once a month or more, I go to the rifle range in town and shoot my long guns at 200 yards. Shotguns I shoot at home with a hand trap tossing clays.

 

[NateUSMC]

Why? When trouble arises, you're not going to be putting a Glock in one hand and a 1911 in the other are you? Or have your carbine in your hands, some pistols down your pants, a shotgun on your back, and a rifle hanging from your other shoulder?

Aside from carry concerns, you're basically only going to go to one gun if/when the time comes, so doesn't it make sense to excel in its use?

Maybe another way to put it is, how proficient is proficient? If you feel only a certain degree of mastery is necessary, maybe you can move on to other guns, but it still strikes me as a "Why?" Even if you're proficient in multiple arms, aren't you only going to pick/use one primarily? It seems the last thing you want to be doing when someone's downstairs is to try and decide which flavor-of-the-month you should use to dispatch them with....

If "proficient" to you simply means understanding the manual arms, how to fire, field-strip, maintain, and aim that arm, then I agree, but I wouldn't call that the same as splitting your training time evenly between both an AR and an AK, for example.

You never know when you might get caught with your pants down, and your never-miss trusty ol' "thugstopper" isn't available, or perhaps is in for repair or otherwise broken.

Sure, "fear the man who practices 1 kick 10,000 times" all you want, but see what happens if he breaks his leg.

You are committing yourself to failure by putting all your eggs in one basket if you don't bother to familiarize and become proficient with at least a variety of the firearms you have at your disposal.

Besides, eventually you will reach a point where there is NOTHING more you can do to become more proficient in a certain firearm. Sure, you keep practicing, so you don't lose skill (marksmanship needs to be maintained), but after a while, you've done all YOU can do to get the absolute most out of that weapon. Depending on the person, this takes various amounts of time and ends up with various amounts of skill (i.e. someone is a "natural" and becomes an "expert" in under a year, whereas someone has trouble learning the basics of marksmanship and is still struggling two years down the road).

Anything else is wasting time which would be better spent becoming proficient with another firearm.

Am I saying that spending a LOT of time on one particular firearm is a bad thing? No.

Spending all that time on one singular weapon when you have others you NEED to be proficient with? Yes.

Another example: Offhand shooting. You spend all your time becoming a "master" with your right hand (a single platform), but you can't break wind with your left. You had a skiing accident and your right arm is in a cast and you can't grip a pistol. A bad guy just broke through your kitchen window. Boo hoo - guess you wished you had practiced just a little bit more with your offhand now, don't you?

 

[1911 guy]

Since I'm usually armed with a handgun,

A 1911 in particular, I do all of my handgun training with one. That's also because I don't own any other type of handgun (well, one revolver that resides at Dad's place). If your gunhandling and manual of arms isn't reflexive, you will run into problems courtesy of Mr. Murphy.

Similarly, all my serious shotguning is done with a pump.

The break here is with rifles. I split my time between an AR and a bolt .308.

There are some guns I shoot just for fun and profit, but those are the ones I take seriously.

 

[DogBonz]

Multiple platforms

Because of your definition, I chose multiple platforms because I probably spent 40% rifle and 58% pistol. 2% shotgun (I’ll go skeet or trap shooting once every great while).

But… With in the rifle and pistol categories, I spend most of my time on one gun. Like 80% AR15 and 20% other.

The same with pistols. 80% USP45 20% others.

 

[PaladinX13]

You never know when you might get caught with your pants down, and your never-miss trusty ol' "thugstopper" isn't available, or perhaps is in for repair or otherwise broken.

I'd say for most people this is moving from prepared to paranoia. As a practical matter, the likelihood of you needing your arm in a defensive situation is very low... for it to be otherwise unavailable on top of that is getting far below lightning-strike probabilities.

Sure, "fear the man who practices 1 kick 10,000 times" all you want, but see what happens if he breaks his leg.

You practice for what is practical. If he lives a proper lifestyle, trains up and maintains his leg, he will likely go through his entire life without ever breaking his leg, much less having to use his mastered kick.

You are committing yourself to failure by putting all your eggs in one basket if you don't bother to familiarize and become proficient with at least a variety of the firearms you have at your disposal.

You're talking two different arguments. As I said, you can be familiar with any and all your arms, but as far as mastery, you can only realistically do that with so many guns. Rather, to me, it seems like you're committing yourself to failure by being a "jack of all, master of none". Let's look at the circumstances you've deposited...

Your primary arm is unavailable, you have to shoot with your off-hand, your leg is broken... I mean, puh-leez! Should we throw in blind-fighting/shooting (what if your attacker sprays you in the eyes?!) or hanging upside down (maybe you screwed up mountain climbing and now a bear's after you!) or underwater (you wrestled with your assassin of the 3rd story balcony into the hotel pool!)... sure you can spend SOME time thinking about, even "training" for these situations, but is that really the best use of your time and the best approach? I kind of doubt it.

Besides, eventually you will reach a point where there is NOTHING more you can do to become more proficient in a certain firearm.

This is debatable, but as a practical matter, it's questionable how many of us reach this point with even one firearm, much less several guns. Put another way, most of your doomsday scenarios- aside from unavailability- can be practiced with ONE gun.

If you have nothing but time in the world to train, then sure, like the Spetsnaz you can pick up obscure skills like leaping over barbed wire via trampoline to throw hatchets at short range targets while upsidedown... but I'd say for the vast majority of people (possibly all of us) that's a worthless talent!

Regarding probabilities, you can look at it from another perspective which is that since a defensive situation is highly unlikely, why NOT just enjoy all your guns equally? You invest as much into mastery of any one arm as you are anticipating the threat of a defensive need, and so most people "shoot" not "train"... but this isn't a question of what most people do but what's practically best.

 

[Exmasonite]

I'm sorta on the fence on this...

Being a busy, full time grad student, my range time (and budget) has been restricted to ~ once a month... 3-400 rounds. Wintertime, that's the indoor range for handgun only.
I have an XD .40 service, XD 9 SC, and Bersa .380.
Each trip, i do 2-250 rds in the XD 9 SC (primary CCW). I alternate b/w the bersa and xd .40 for the other 150-200 rds.

In the summer, i try to get to the range every 2 weeks with one of those trips sending 60-90 rds of .223 out of the AR downrange plus pistol work.

so, i FOCUS on the XD platform, specifically the subcompact but i think enough of it is applicable to both. in the winter, i get almost no rifle time in.

I picked single platform b/c that is the bulk of my practice.

 

[GRIZ22]

I said multiple. You need to be proficient with the guns you would normally use to defend yourself. This is how you develop all the muscle memory you need to fully develop your skills. For example my first choice for a rifle would be an AR. I have used one since 1968 in the military and LE. I've used in "anti-social" situations. I do everything with the rifle second nature. I have other rifles which may be appropriate for certain situations but I would pick the AR. I'm not saying I'm the best markman in the world with it (although I should be with the number of rounds I've put through them) but it's the rifle I can instinctively operate.

 

[NateUSMC]

I'd say for most people this is moving from prepared to paranoia. As a practical matter, the likelihood of you needing your arm in a defensive situation is very low... for it to be otherwise unavailable on top of that is getting far below lightning-strike probabilities.

Then why carry at all? After all, you said it yourself, it's a practical matter. Why subject yourself to carrying around a somewhat heavy piece all hours of the day? It can't happen to you... right? Back to my point, stranger things have happened. What's preparation to some is paranoia to others, and rarely are the "paranoid" people caught unawares or unprepared.

You practice for what is practical. If he lives a proper lifestyle, trains up and maintains his leg, he will likely go through his entire life without ever breaking his leg, much less having to use his mastered kick.

Likely? Perhaps. Definitely? Absolutely not. An errant vehicle collision, falling down the stairs, slipping on some ice... the possibilities are out there, and they are endless. Same thing applies to firearms - an extractor breaks, a recoil spring is snapped, an unfortunate squib round takes out your barrel - any number of things. Too bad you became a "master" with your DAO and forgot to take the safety off your 1911 when the time came.

You're talking two different arguments. As I said, you can be familiar with any and all your arms, but as far as mastery, you can only realistically do that with so many guns. Rather, to me, it seems like you're committing yourself to failure by being a "jack of all, master of none". Let's look at the circumstances you've deposited...

First, how am I talking two different arguments? Second, I have to disagree with only being able to be "familiar" with multiple firearms and a "jack of all, master of none." I am supremely confident in my abilities to shoot ALL of my firearms, in a variety of conditions, both natural and perhaps man-made. That is my duty as a gun owner. Does this mean I'm sub-par with one particular weapon that I otherwise could be 100% with? Sure. But I don't need to be able to shoot clays at 100 yards with a pistol if my target will most likely be within 10 yards. If you can get to the point where you can shoot respectable groups at an appropriate chosen distance, from a cold barrel with a chosen weapon, and without missing once, you've accomplished what you've set out to do. Move on. Practice and learn your other firearms.

Your primary arm is unavailable, you have to shoot with your off-hand, your leg is broken... I mean, puh-leez! Should we throw in blind-fighting/shooting (what if your attacker sprays you in the eyes?!) or hanging upside down (maybe you screwed up mountain climbing and now a bear's after you!) or underwater (you wrestled with your assassin of the 3rd story balcony into the hotel pool!)... sure you can spend SOME time thinking about, even "training" for these situations, but is that really the best use of your time and the best approach? I kind of doubt it.

What IF your attacker sprays you in the eyes? That's highly more probable than hanging upside down during a bear attack, but I think you're starting to become a little bit facetious and over the top in an extreme attempt to prove some kind of a point. As a matter of practical consideration, what WOULD you do if someone sprayed you? It's happened before: http://www.crimblawg.com/deadly_weapon/index.html

You don't expect to die soon, I hope, but I assume you have life insurance. Not paranoid - just prudent.

This is debatable, but as a practical matter, it's questionable how many of us reach this point with even one firearm, much less several guns. Put another way, most of your doomsday scenarios- aside from unavailability- can be practiced with ONE gun.

Not once have I mentioned a "doomsday" scenario. I've mentioned things that happen EVERY DAY to ordinary people like YOU and ME. Just because it hasn't happened to you yet doesn't mean it won't in your lifetime. Can all scenarios be practiced with one gun? Yeah. But once you've reached that point described above, your best bet would be to put more training into your other weapons while maintaining your skill with the ones you've already become accustomed to.

If you have nothing but time in the world to train, then sure, like the Spetsnaz you can pick up obscure skills like leaping over barbed wire via trampoline to throw hatchets at short range targets while upsidedown... but I'd say for the vast majority of people (possibly all of us) that's a worthless talent!

Now you're just being blatantly flippant and petty. Precise, perhaps unorthodox military strategies, techniques and methods do not in any way, shape, or form correlate to practical civilian defense methods. However, standard things do (i.e. being able to use the weapons you have available, and being proficient with them, and becoming familiarized with things you may very well meet on the street [e.g. pepper spray, knives, tasers, etc.]).

Regarding probabilities, you can look at it from another perspective which is that since a defensive situation is highly unlikely, why NOT just enjoy all your guns equally? You invest as much into mastery of any one arm as you are anticipating the threat of a defensive need, and so most people "shoot" not "train"... but this isn't a question of what most people do but what's practically best.

Perhaps it's my military background, but I train. Training is fun. I train with all my weapons. I am extremely proficient with all my weapons. That is something I am proud of, and something I consider to be my duty as a gun owner. For collectors, sure - have it sit on a shelf and give it a good shooting once a year so you can say it still works. If you're a weekend casual shooter, you shouldn't be having this conversation. If you own guns for self defense or carry, I'm actually surprised that you think the way you do.

Spend a bit more time on your carry weapon, sure - but not at the expense of not being able to effectively present your other guns as well if the need arises.

Either way - why are you taking this so personally? You asked for people's opinions, not to try to prove your own (at least I thought).

 

[mavracer]

multiple platforms

i voted multiple you should be proficent wilt all firearms you own( loading safetys and such) but it all comes down to sight picture and trigger control.a few years ago i was shooting all ipsc and bowling pins all w/handguns durring this time when i hadn't picked up a shotgun in months went sporting clays shooting with dad had a great day 81 of 100. like i said sight picture trigger control

 

[PaladinX13]

Then why carry at all? After all, you said it yourself, it's a practical matter. Why subject yourself to carrying around a somewhat heavy piece all hours of the day? It can't happen to you... right? Back to my point, stranger things have happened.

Is it practical to train for the strangest of things is my issue. We'd all certainly be more protected if we drove around in tanks, wore Class III body armor, and openly carried SAWs but that's far from practical. Regardless...

The core premise of your multi-platform belief is failure or unavailability, neither of which is reasonably answered by going cross-platform.

- Your weapon fails when you most need it (and somehow you're going to have time to go to another weapon and use that)
- Your weapon is unavailable (being repaired or otherwise indisposed)

If these issues are really clear and present dangers in your mind, going cross-platform still is senseless. If you are really concerned your primary is going to fail or go missing, your backup should be an identical gun of the same type NOT another type. Then all your concerns would vanish and you'd still have complete dedication and mastery over your platform.

How EXACTLY do you imagine the need for mastery of multiple platforms playing out in your head?

But once you've reached that point described above, your best bet would be to put more training into your other weapons while maintaining your skill with the ones you've already become accustomed to.

This is a critical point. How are you actually better off?

Spend a bit more time on your carry weapon, sure - but not at the expense of not being able to effectively present your other guns as well if the need arises.

Again, my point, why would the need arise, at least in such a way that demands you learn another gun?

Either way - why are you taking this so personally? You asked for people's opinions, not to try to prove your own (at least I thought).

I'm having difficulty accepting that people honestly feel this is the best way to train, as opposed to using it as a backdoor justification to enjoying a large and diverse collection. It may be the "best" way to compromise between optimal self-defense AND enjoying a collection, but is it honestly the best way to train for defense? If it were, then you'd think our armed forces would spend more trigger time on enemy weapon systems.