Train with more guns or one gun more time?

[Thin Black Line]

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.

+1.

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.

This is due to cost, time, and not being necessary for most MOS's.

 

[Snarlingiron]

Beware of the man that uses one gun.

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

My take: Beware the man that uses only one type of gun, he almost certainly knows how to use all of them.

 

[crebralfix]

Focusing upon on particular platform can be a good thing. It reduces the gear and "stuff". For example, if you choose to focus on revolvers, why not stay with N-frames (or Ks or Ls, whatever works)? Your holster will work with all your guns. Other folks do the Glock thing: 17, 19, and 26, for example. One set of 17 magazines means you have covered all three. Since each gun comes with two magazines, you're set.

On the other hand, if you're new, learn handgun shooting until you are proficient (not just adequate for some state mandated standard). Shoot anything you can get your hands on. Once you can shoot tight groups with slow fire, move on to rapid fire. Learn double taps, emergency drills, and Wilson drills (4-6 to the body, several to the head). Advance into moving and shooting.

Once you know all that, learn to gunfight. Then pickup knife fighting and some combatives. The main idea here is to LEARN TO FIGHT, not to SHOOT.

I disagree with the notion that you can "max out your proficiency". Technically, this is probably true. However, there is a HUGE difference between the person who shoots a few thousand rounds a year and the guys that shoot 50,000 or more rounds a year. I believe that it takes a certain round count, combined with good coaching, to push past each level.


***

Financial realities being what they are, I can understand the "one gun man". If that's all he can afford, I always recommend MORE practice over another gun (besides a spare...always have a spare of the same make and model).

 

[Caimlas]

Here's what I say:

Competence with firearms - marksmanship - isn't intrinsically linked to a specific firearm, and it isn't hindered by the use of a single firearm. It's not hindered by many firearms, either.

But unlike a single firearm's use, using multiple firearms while improving your marksmanship can and will hinder your ability to familiarize with the basic principles of marksmanship for them to become second nature.

You've got to familiarize with a specific firearm's sites, recoil, trigger, stock fit, balance, and any number of other things as they pertain to your inherrent shooting ability every time you shoot. If you've got to do familiarization with each firearm's 'feel' each time you pick one up before you start instinctively hitting where you aim, you're switching too often.

Now, obviously this less the case with a person who practices a substantial amount - thousands of rounds a week or what have you. There is (imo) a fairly linear curve of skill to practice time, regardless of platform, plateuing in skill after a certain amount of time/rounds.

For me, this means that I routinely practice with no more than 3 firearms (rifles), and focus my efforts on only one until muscle memory, over time, knows that firearm as an extension to my body. I grew up shooting a Remington 121 almost every summer, putting thousands of rounds through it (in addition to a Crossman bb/pellet gun). To this day, those firearms are still ingrained: I can pull them up to my shoulder - despite my change in size - and instinctively get a perfect sight picture in a snap. The same thing goes for knives (swiss army knife) I've carried with my daily since I was 7: the memory of how to use them hasn't gone away because I've been insistent in ingraining the memory of its use, and not being fickle.

To use an analogy: imagine someone who is trying to learn how to effectively fight with a sword. He'll start off with a trainer, so he doesnt harm himself, then graduate to a single sword. He doesn't immediately graduate to using multiple swords from the trainer, as he's liable to greiveously injure himself. And once he's familiar with that weapon, he's not going to jump into using several different swords, one after the other, to the same skill and proficiency as his first 'real' sword: he's again liable to injure himself, or at least not be able to handle them with the same skill. He's got to train that skill up.

So, basically: if you want to use a weapon platform for something, you need to train with it enough to permanently ingrain it in your memory. That doesn't mean disreguard other weapons, it just means familiarize with a given weapon before moving on to something else; don't bring a dozen guns to the range, bring three or four, and bring the same 3 or 4 week after week until it becomes an extension. If you don't like the firearm well enough to become that familiar with it, get rid of it and replace it with something that can be used to proper utility.

And then, of course, you've got to perpetually maintain your skills, as if you don't you will lose them. The maintanance isn't as much as the initial acquisition, but it still must be done.

 

[PaladinX13]

This is due to cost, time, and not being necessary for most MOS's.

I don't think this argument holds water since one of the primary pro-multi-platform arguments are that you can "max out" (more or less) a firearm and any additional training in it is "wasted" (thus you should switch guns).

In the military, the firearm plays a larger role in the occupation's life than the vast majority of people... so if even they can't find the money, time, or need to "max out" platforms and move on to/train on other guns, then who does? Of course, this is even assuming the "max out" theory is true, which I don't believe it is....

 

[kmrcstintn]

multi-platform training...

I own 3 revolvers, all for different primary purposes, but any of them can be called on for home defense at anytime;

S&W 642...primary CCW; backup home defense
Ruger SP101...primary multipurpose...home defense, car defense, woods carry, hiking, scouting
Ruger GP-100...primary hunting gun; backup home defense

even though the SP-101 is my designated HD handgun, the other 2 can substitute when I need to clean it or if it ever needs repair or other gunsmithing

same principle goes for a shotgun that is kept for multipurpose...

Remington 870 w/ 2 different barrels and very multipurpose...
20" barrel w/ interchangable chokes & Hi-Viz sights: slug gun with improved cylinder choke; change to a modified choke and remove rear sight and I have a defensive shotgun that I have patterned with a selected #4 buckshot load;
26" barrel with interchangable chokes & double bead sights...this one needs to be patterned in case this is the barrel that I have mounted when I am out hunting and stay overnight at the cabin at the hunting camp (ie: pattern the same buckshot load and see which choke does the best in the longer barrel; pattern slugs using improved cylinder choke and determine how much 'Kentucky' windage I need to place center mass shots when used in a defensive manner)

BTW: I understand that the original poster may have meant between different types of platforms (revolver vs single action semiauto vs double action semiauto), but having multiple double action revolvers would also require multi-platform training since each gun handles differently and the trigger characteristics are different for each one...

 

[browningguy]

I prefer to completely master multiple platforms. Seems an obvious advantage to me.

 

[PaladinX13]

kmrcstintn, you'd fall under focused... unless you're home defense is split between your handgun and shotgun... do you know which one you're going to when something goes bump in the night? And, if not, what benefit do you get from your shotgun training during a defensive situation, if your preference is the handgun... or vice versa?

As for the "backup home defense", all guns are that, more or less... and it's good you've a hierarchy planned out... but that's my textbook example of "backdoor justification". Put another way, your [home] defensive plan came about based on your guns, not vice versa. There's nothing wrong with that for the most of us. But is it the best practical way for defense? (not simply a compromise between the guns we want- like a hunting revolver- and how we train for defense) If you were planning someone's defensive curriculum would that be the right approach? It seems like anyone who's job involves firearms takes the focused approach (focus on a specific gun per role).

browningguy, I'd prefer it too, except I don't think it's a practical reality unless your threshhold for "mastery" is relatively low. I'm still wondering what this "obvious" advantage is though. When the balloon goes up, how did training in an alternative platform benefit your use of the one in your hand at the time?

Put it this way, would you recommend a police department cycle their standard issue sidearm on a weekly or even daily basis? And, if so, what benefit are you expecting them to gain from that exercise? I'm not talking about an occasional switch up like Correia's very good plateau-busting advice. I'm talking about a switch up that mirrors the divided training of a multi-platform believer.

 

[kmrcstintn]

response to paladin...

backdoor justification or not...I train to be comfortable with any or all firearms that I own to be used as a defensive weapon; I do not teach; I am not an expert; I was answering a poll question...nothing more and nothing less;

would I expect a police officer to use a different type of firearm each week???
NO!!! not my place...

thank you for response since I wasn't focused on those individuals who 'use' firearms as 'tools' in their selected careers; this does put a different spin on the poll and I can see your concerns about my thinking; either way, there is no absolute RIGHT or WRONG to your poll; I fall into a large GRAY AREA as do many other firearms owners

 

[NateUSMC]

Paladin - you asked for people's opinions and you got them - please stop the crusade.

Yet ANOTHER example:

An 11-year old kid can get to the point where he sinks 10 of 10 in a pie plate at 100 yards with a rifle. Every time. As long as he can continue hitting 10/10 (his personal goal, much like for carry purposes, maintaining a 4" or less group at 10 yards would be PRACTICAL and SUFFICIENT) every time he shoots, he ought to break out the shotgun and practice with that.

Eventually, he'll be able to hit 10/10 with the rifle and 10/10 clays with the shotgun. Every time.

Then he can move on to a pistol. Eventually, he'll be able to hit...

If you don't get it by now, I'm afraid you won't get it period. Have fun with your identical guns - I'll be busy getting better with ALL of mine.

 

[Thin Black Line]

In the military, the firearm plays a larger role in the occupation's life than the vast majority of people... so if even they can't find the money, time, or need to "max out" platforms and move on to/train on other guns, then who does? Of course, this is even assuming the "max out" theory is true, which I don't believe it is....

It plays a larger role, but by itself doesn't justify training on other systems.
We (as in the majority of those of us in the military) simply don't train on a
lot of different small arms --domestic or foreign. Like I said earlier, it's a time
and money factor. There is also a certain amount of MOS philosophy that
would say there isn't a need or justification for it either. The SF NCO can
justify it, but the commo guy can't. However, even if it would seem a good
idea for someone to learn foreign weapons systems, it is not deemed a
priorty in the whole time and money thing by the very people who count
the beans and probably don't even carry an M9, let alone be deployed in a
combat zone. It has nothing to do with a concept of maxing out. That's
reality.

Case in point: I had a friend who years back was stationed in a foreign
country. I don't know his MOS, but one of his jobs was to fix tracks that
had been disabled in combat --while still on the battlefield and under fire.
You might think that not only knowing more US weapons, but many foreign
weapons could be handy. He was signed up and ready to go for his foreign
small arms familiarization course, but was sent off to watch overheads for
personal sensitivity instead. Also, was he qualified on the whole list of
US weapons he might encounter in the field --including a 50 or 240 which
he might actually find on top of a US armored vehicle in the field? NO. One
would think it would make sense for him to be qualified on more than the
M16. But, that was it for him. Ever heard of Audie Murphy? Might be
good for the guy who fixes the disabled tanks in combat to be able to
use the mounted belt-fed if he was under fire, huh?

The Army will give you a powerpoint about sobriety in an alcohol-free combat
zone, before they have you qualify on all our own weapons, let alone sit you
down with an AK and a full mag. Very few people even have a chance to
"max out" on their only issue weapon. Trigger time at the range even for
people going outside the wire nowadays is somewhere between short and
non-existant due to time and money.

 

[Geno]

Why own multiple, if not to practice with multiple?

If I were to limit myself to carrying only a Glock 19C, and practing only with a Glock 19C inorder to "nearly perfect" my abilities with said pistol, then why even own an assortment of other firearms, such as G17, 1911, XDs, P35, etc?

For me, part of the fun is firing a variety of firearms and developing excellent skill with all. JMO.

Doc2005

 

[ZeSpectre]

I have a definite bias towards the two primary SD weapons I own. I also work very hard to equalize practice between both hands (both supported and unsupported).

I also feel it's important to have at least a certain level of knowledge and ability with all of the various types of firearms because you never know what you might come up against or suddenly find near-to-hand in an emergency.

Now I'm slowly getting good with my CZ-52 just because it's so much darn FUN!

 

[justashooter]

"wax on, wax off".

i read all of you writing that you train in profiency drills, and shoot courses, etc, and am sad. this does teach autonomic nervous response, and does dis-inhibit the parasympathetic system, but it does not prepare the mindset.

before you carry a gun in self defense, you should think clearly about what you may be forced to do with it. when you are settled in your heart, you should shoot for the love of the sport. everything else will follow. any gun will be a part of you.

 

[Thin Black Line]

but it does not prepare the mindset

I read Hagakure and took to heart the advice about not engaging in fights
with common ruffians --everything else I learned in Iraq....and New Orleans.

 

[PaladinX13]

I fall into a large GRAY AREA as do many other firearms owners

No doubt, this is why I preface my poll by saying what is best not what we do. I personally own and shoot a wide variety of guns, including ones with in the same role, but I don't try and fool myself in saying that's the optimal way of training. It's simply a compromise between getting some training while enjoying my collection.

Paladin - you asked for people's opinions and you got them - please stop the crusade.

I asked for their opinion for what's practically best for training but am instead getting answers to something else based on poor reasoning. "Master all you own." Sounds nice, but then the logical question is, "Why own more [for the same role]?" And I've yet to receive a satisfactory or logical response to what benefit is expected from training in two (or more) guns meant to fill the same role.

An 11-year old kid can get to the point where he sinks 10 of 10 in a pie plate at 100 yards with a rifle. Every time. As long as he can continue hitting 10/10 (his personal goal, much like for carry purposes, maintaining a 4" or less group at 10 yards would be PRACTICAL and SUFFICIENT) every time he shoots, he ought to break out the shotgun and practice with that.

Eventually, he'll be able to hit 10/10 with the rifle and 10/10 clays with the shotgun.

Thank you for PROVING that you're answering a DIFFERENT question in soooo many ways, let us count them:
1. That's a looooow threshhold for "mastery"! There is so much more to defense! Which is the topic of the question. I am not asking how well can you shoot but how well you can defend. Especially in terms of speed and accuracy under stress, one can always get better otherwise competitive shooting wouldn't exist.
2. Rifle vs. Shotgun are different roles most of the time in most people's eyes. You even suggest as much by comparing static plates to flying clays.
4. "Ought" to what end? Let's say you think they're to the same end... fine. You still can't use BOTH at the SAME time against an attacker... you have to PICK ONE, at which point, the skills in the other platform only have a limited level of carry-over to your current one.

Have fun with your identical guns - I'll be busy getting better with ALL of mine.

Again, proving you don't understand the question. It's NOT ABOUT FUN. It's about what's better for purely defense.

If I keep a shotgun at the front of the house, a rifle at the back of the house and a handgun upstairs, can be because (with overlap, of course):

- Tactical: If it's because my backyard is a wide open area ideal for rifles, my front is a textbook "fatal funnel" perfect for the shotgun, and the handgun is the only thing that will comfortably nest next to my bed, that's ROLE BASED or focused training.
- Compromise: If it's because I want to own a shotgun, rifle, and handgun but any of the three will do equally well, that's MULTI-PLATFORM, excusing my division of training so I can have a more diverse collection, otherwise I'd pick one platform and put it in three places around the house (to have the same redundancy and accessibility).

I think you've yet to establish that:
a) One can max out.
b) That there's a benefit to alternating between a 1911 and Glock every day for carry.

Thin Black Line, I get what you're saying. What I'm saying is that I think it's the rare individual that can beat even the inefficient military at time, money, and need. In your example, both you and I think he certainly at least had the need for familiarization (I don't know about mastery, but certainly familiarization). The military already had the program setup (money). But the guy lacked the time... and, as it happened, the need (although it would have been nice, turned out he didn't need it). How much less are civilians going to weigh their need against their resources of time & money, then?

I think even the broad category of defense/offense can get broken up into more and more specific roles demanding a broader mastery of guns for those with the time, money, and need to train, but this would almost entirely be a military or para-military type occupation... but even they tend to focus. For the rest of us, if defense is our ONLY concern (something unlikely amongst shooters/collectors/sportsmen who's guns play many non-defensive roles) I can't see an unfocused approach as beneficial.

 

[MJZZZ]

I own multiple platform guns, and I carry different guns in different situations. 90% of my current training is with the Ultra Kimber. It was purchased as my primary CCW because my 6" Colt revolver is a monster to hide. Then I bought the .380 Colt to car carry in a shoulder rig when traveling. Next up was a 5" 1911 RIA to carry around while out on my farm/ranch, it gets the other 10% of training. The only two guns that I still want to try are a snubby .357 and a CZ 9mm pistol. So I ordered a CZ with a .22 adaptor, and it should ship today. If after 1000 rounds of 9mm and 1000 rounds of .22, and it proves itself to be reliable and accurate. It might get a 50% share of the training and the Kimber get the other 50%. If the price of .45 ammo keeps going up and up, it might get more. The one constant I will always keep on every semi-auto I own is the manual safety. So my thought is on threat level when at the ready position, the safety comes off as I bring the gun on target. Mike Z

 

[PaladinX13]

This is the comparison:
A man with 9 hours a week to train (exceedingly generous, if you ask me) and unlimited funds decides to either:

Buy 3 identical Glocks and trains primarily in them
or
Buy a Glock, 1911, and a S&W 625 and spends 3 hours a week training on each.

For those whole believe the latter is better, what DEFENSIVE ("tactical") benefit does the second approach have over the first in an actual defensive situation?

 

[NateUSMC]

I'm not going to even bother responding to your above "rebuttal," since you obviously don't comprehend what I'm getting at, so typing anything more would be a waste of my time.

As far as your latest attempt, it's off the mark. You want to know, IF SOMEONE HAS MULTIPLE PLATFORMS, which is the best way to train. Not if someone bought three identical firearms!

But, just in the interest of fair play, I'll bite. As far as the "I'll buy three Glocks instead of three different guns" thing, it's OBVIOUS the second is better!!! The fundamentals of marksmanship carry over to ALL firearms - you shoot one gun, you've shot them all. However, you still need to be able to masterfully use each one, and that involves spending TIME with EACH one, and learning their nuances. There is only SO FAR you can go with each weapon. NO MORE. As I've mentioned NUMEROUS times before, maintenance practice is well and good, to keep your skill up, but once you've got it, you've got it.

If you want to be hedged down to a particular platform, so be it - but if you have multiple platforms, you'd be best off mastering each of them in turn.

At the request of my blood pressure, this will be my last post in this thread.

 

[Vitamin G]

Personally, I think its best to train with multiple platforms. I shoot tons of different guns, and I'm pretty okay with the idea that I can hit a target reliably with just about anything you toss to me, because by using such a variety of differing firearms, i've learned that the important thing is sight alignment, breathing, squeeze, and so on. Sure, others might be better at "natural point shooting", since they are better acclimated to the degree, thickness, and angle of an annoying hump, or exactly where it might point. Me, i'll stick with being able to shoot almost any gun pretty well.

 

[PaladinX13]

As far as your latest attempt, it's off the mark. You want to know, IF SOMEONE HAS MULTIPLE PLATFORMS, which is the best way to train. Not if someone bought three identical firearms!

I'm not sure if you're qualified to say what I want to know, since you've misinterpreted the question through and through, even up to this point.

Let me be clear. I do not expect a summer carry pistol to replace a long range rifle. So whether you have both and train in both is irrelevant to this question. However, when deciding between two or more summer carry pistols, what benefit is there to training in the other guns?

But, just in the interest of fair play, I'll bite. As far as the "I'll buy three Glocks instead of three different guns" thing, it's OBVIOUS the second is better!!! The fundamentals of marksmanship carry over to ALL firearms - you shoot one gun, you've shot them all.

See, you still don't get it. I'm not talking about "marksmanship". Gee whiz, you can hit a pie plate 10 out of 10, amazing! How relevant is that to a defensive shooting? It's only a small piece of the pie one that you conveniently neglect because your caught up in something that has NOTHING to do with DEFENSE.

However, you still need to be able to masterfully use each one, and that involves spending TIME with EACH one, and learning their nuances.

WHY do you NEED to? This is RIDICULOUS. You say that the second choice is "OBVIOUSLY better" when the first thing it does is SPLIT your training time. The only reason you "need" to is because you have them. This is a backdoor justification to owning multiple guns, NOT an argument for defensive efficacy.

There is only SO FAR you can go with each weapon. NO MORE. As I've mentioned NUMEROUS times before, maintenance practice is well and good, to keep your skill up, but once you've got it, you've got it.

Even if maxing out is true, you've still failed to explain how proficiency in ANOTHER weapon helps you when in a situation while your primary is in hand.

Guy 1 - Has 50,000 rounds through his Glock and spent 500 hours training on it.
Guy 2 - Has 10,000 rounds through his Glock and spent 100 hours training on it- the other 400 hours were spent on other, significantly different platforms (1911, CZ w/ decocker, 625, etc)

They draw down on each other while they both are holding Glocks and only Glocks. And Guy 2 is supposed to be better on DEFENSE than Guy 1? At best, you can give some sort of philosophical argument that it's better to have knowledge of more platforms, but how does that translate into higher speed, greater accuracy, and reliability for Guy 2? It doesn't.

The ONLY argument you had was that Guy 2 could fall back on his 1911, 625, etc... but that's completely negated by Guy 1 having identical backups for his primary.

You're still falling short on how attempting to master multiple guns in the same class translates in to superior defensive skill than focusing on one. Manual of arms isn't an argument because that can be easily picked up without splitting your training time evenly between disparate systems.

 

[Thin Black Line]

When I was thinking about multiple platforms, it was something like pistol,
revolver, shotgun, bolt action, carbine, battle rifle. You get really proficient
with each of those types, even if it is only one make from each category,
and you're far ahead of most.

 

[Jeff White]

Vitamin G said;

Personally, I think its best to train with multiple platforms. I shoot tons of different guns, and I'm pretty okay with the idea that I can hit a target reliably with just about anything you toss to me, because by using such a variety of differing firearms, i've learned that the important thing is sight alignment, breathing, squeeze, and so on. Sure, others might be better at "natural point shooting", since they are better acclimated to the degree, thickness, and angle of an annoying hump, or exactly where it might point. Me, i'll stick with being able to shoot almost any gun pretty well.

There seems to be some misunderstanding about what is meant by training. Since this is the Strategies and Tactics forum, I am looking at training as training to fight, not to shoot.

There is a world of difference in training to fight and training to shoot. The combat triad consists of mindset, marksmanship and manipulation. Of the three legs, marksmanship is the easiest skill to gain. But in a fight marksmanship is the least important to winning.

Let me expound a little before you say what . Of course you must be able to hit your target. And since your skill will likely be greatly reduced under stress, you must be proficient in order to hit your opponent. But unless you are in possession of the proper mindset so that you can get ahead of your opponent, and you are able to bring your weapon into action swiftly and smoothly all those medals you won at Camp Perry will mean nothing.

No one I know has the time or money to train on a lot of different types of weapons and be proficient enough to fight with all of them.

Jeff

 

[sm]

Train with what you fight with.
I believe in redundancy of same platform(s)

 

[shamrock404]

I use the same gun for home and carry. I also shoot the same ammunition that I carry in my weapon for defense at the range. I do not mix ammunition. That way I know how the weapon responds with the same ammunition all the time.