[B!ngo]

I suspect that many of the participants in THR consider a firearm to be a very critical tool in home- and/or self-defense. Whether just inside the house, or carrying a weapon daily, most comments about shot placement, well-honed familiarity and frequent practice are in the context of using a gun as a defensive tool.
But many threads point to firearms, and particularly firearms collecting as a hobby. Where small or large collections of dissimilar firearms, often carried by the batch to the range, provide a great deal of satisfaction to the owner/shooter/collector.
I understand both of these perspectives, but wonder about whether they are in conflict. That is, it would seem that if you honed your skill at the range with just one handgun design, one rifle/carbine design and/or one shotgun design, you'd be a faster, more accurate shooter, and one that could take care of emergency procedures with the weapon more efficiently.
I was wondering how people feel about this apparent tradeoff. Is it in fact a tradeoff, or can many experienced shooters move from one weapon to the other, whether recently practiced or not, with no loss in effectiveness?
Thx,
B

[HOOfan_1]

Special Operations troops train with all kinds of weapons because they don't know what they will end up with. Of course the government is footing their ammo bill and that is their full time job, but they seem pretty proficient.

Sure if you familiarize yourself with 1 weapon, you will be better than jumping around, but some people are better at adapting to situations than others. In the end if you are not someone who thinks they will have extremely bad tunnel vision in a stressful situation, then practice is practice and practice is good with any weapon.

I think Mario Andretti could probably school most of us in any car he climbs into.

If you are the type of person who must rely on routine in stressful situations and you can't multitask to save your life...you might be better practicing 99% of the time with your main weapon.

[k4swb]

Every gun I have ever bought was purchased for fun.

I have never acquired any firearm for personal or home defense. All have been for just shooting and a couple for hunting.

I do not have any idea what I will do if I ever need to use a gun offensively. My goal has always been for me to shoot the best I can while having fun and hope I will stay calm when needed and let things take care of themselves.

I have never trained for combat and do not plan to in the future.

Training for combat would be absolutely no fun to me.

I don't care if others do and I applaud anyone getting into the shooting sports for any reason but when it comes to SD/combat shooting, I'll just sit and watch.

[browningguy]

I really don't see a trade off, I practice with many different types of rifles and pistols and just don't see a problem.

[happygeek]

I bought the same pistol that's used at work partly so the training would carry over, partly because of familiarity, and partly because I don't shoot much centerfire off-duty so it's good to have a pistol I'm already trained on.

I'd say 95% + of my off-duty shooting is 22LR, but my evil black semi-auto 22LR mimics the issue rifle at work so again training carries over.

I collect centerfires, but I don't attempt to gain or maintain some high standard of proficiency with them, with the exception of that one pistol. Realistically though, how many of the people from the NRA's Armed Citizen column went to Gunsite or a carbine course? How many of them trained even monthly? I'd guess almost none of them.

[BSA1]

The basics of fine shooting are the same regardless of firearm.

[rcmodel]

or can many experienced shooters move from one weapon to the other, whether recently practiced or not, with no loss in effectiveness?Yes, they can.

Shooting skill is kind of like riding a bicycle.

Once you have the basics down, it doesn't matter what kind of bicycle you jump on.

In shooting, once you have the basics of front sight, breathing & trigger control down, it doesn't matter much what kind of gun you are shooting.

In the service I shot .22 pistols, 38 revolvers, .45 ACP 1911's, and several kinds of match rifles all in the same week.

The finest fine edge may have taken a while to get back with each gun, but the worst day was still better then a lot of shooters days.

While I am not nearly as good now as I was back then, I still don't feel handicapped at all by changing from a revolver, to an auto pistol, to a shotgun, to a rifle.
I can still hold my own with a lot of younger guys I betcha.

rc

[RetiredUSNChief]

Personally, I don't see where there is necessarily a trade off.

If one owns firearms for the primary purpose of personal protection, his focus is on proficient use of any such weapon for that purpose...including carrying concealed and holster training on the range.

If one owns firearms for the primary purpose of collecting/hobby shooting, then his focus is necessarily on that. He may do little, if any, actual shooting if his interest is solely in collecting. Or he may do extensive target shooting or hunting, in which he will again focus on gaining proficiency in using the weapon for that purpose.

And some own firearms for both purposes.

The skills of one lend themselves directly to the skills required for the other. There are many benefits to doing both...and few, if any, detractions.

I target shoot with a variety of weapons in my small collection. But I only use a few for concealed carry. Those I will put in some extra time training to maintain a minimum proficiency in additional characteristics that I do not for weapons I would not carry for personal defense.

For example, I don't practice drawing a rifle from a holster under a jacket because I don't carry a full sized rifle in a holster under a jacket.

And the training/skills inherent in each (hobby versus defense) are complimentary, in my opinion.

Consider, for example, eating utensils...butter knife, fork, salad fork, steak knife, spoon, soup spoon. Each has a different or similar function and use. But when the time comes to eat, we don't have problems with mistakenly attempting to use a fork or knife to eat soup...and using a regular spoon instead of a soup spoon is perfectly functional for the need.

The same principle applies to owning a variety of guns for a variety of purposes. We collect and train on them for the purposes we intend to use them for. And the principles behind all that training is similar enough not to conflict.

My opinion. I'm willing to debate this with anybody.

:):)

[B!ngo]

Every gun I have ever bought was purchased for fun.

I have never acquired any firearm for personal or home defense. All have been for just shooting and a couple for hunting.

I do not have any idea what I will do if I ever need to use a gun offensively. My goal has always been for me to shoot the best I can while having fun and hope I will stay calm when needed and let things take care of themselves.

I have never trained for combat and do not plan to in the future.

Training for combat would be absolutely no fun to me.

I don't care if others do and I applaud anyone getting into the shooting sports for any reason but when it comes to SD/combat shooting, I'll just sit and watch.
I was going to add a caveat that stated something like, 'this question only applies if you are both an SD'er and a collector/hunter/hobbyist' but I didn't. But you know what I mean...
B

[Teachu2]

Not a conflict. The skills transfer. I shot S&W revolvers and Colt 1911s for three decades, and didn't want to try a Glock. My views changed, and I found that I didn't shoot Glocks as well as 1911s - until I changed my hold on them. Now - about a thousand rounds later, I can shoot a G34, a G30, and a G21 well enough to put up the top three scores in last Sunday's GSSF Indoor event locally.

Skills transfer. Adaptations to particular weapons have to be made, but the core skills remain.

Jay Leno has a huge collection of cars, including steamers, and can drive them all.

[GunnerShotz]

Consider, for example, eating utensils...butter knife, fork, salad fork, steak knife, spoon, soup spoon. Each has a different or similar function and use. But when the time comes to eat, we don't have problems with mistakenly attempting to use a fork or knife to eat soup...and using a regular spoon instead of a soup spoon is perfectly functional for the need.

The same principle applies to owning a variety of guns for a variety of purposes. We collect and train on them for the purposes we intend to use them for. And the principles behind all that training is similar enough not to conflict.

My opinion. I'm willing to debate this with anybody.

:):)

No argument here :)

I figure as long as there's no confusing the fundamentals of any given tool for it's task, and the purpose for it is clearly understood, then there's no conflict.

[LeonCarr]

My firearms are tools. Tools for hunting, self-defense, and challenging the psyche through proficiency in shooting.

YMMV, but I personally think it is just plain foolish to have firearms in your home and not know how to use them. Your firearms related hobby should include being proficient with them. Shooting from time to time with a group of folks so the group can experience different types of firearms is a good thing, for the fellowship and also the familiarization.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

[beatledog7]

Skills transfer.

I would imagine a Formula One driver can also parallel park.

[enjine]

Every gun I have ever bought was purchased for fun.

I have never acquired any firearm for personal or home defense. All have been for just shooting and a couple for hunting.

I do not have any idea what I will do if I ever need to use a gun offensively. My goal has always been for me to shoot the best I can while having fun and hope I will stay calm when needed and let things take care of themselves.

I have never trained for combat and do not plan to in the future.

Training for combat would be absolutely no fun to me.

I don't care if others do and I applaud anyone getting into the shooting sports for any reason but when it comes to SD/combat shooting, I'll just sit and watch.


Interesting and refreshing post.
I didn't think many others on the various gun sites felt the same way, and this is pretty much exactly my view as well.

[David E]

Yes, skills transfer.....but only if you have them to start with.

If you only shoot "for fun," then you have damn few skills that'll instantly transfer over into a rapidly unfolding combat/defensive situation.

To think otherwise is foolish.

[taraquian]

Other than the already mentioned skills transfer, I train with my carry weapon during every trip to the range. That way even though I use many different firearms my ' natural' movements are with that weapon, its all the OTHER guns that require me to use motions I am less familiar with

[B!ngo]

I would imagine a Formula One driver can also parallel park.
Yes, I would imagine that most can as well. But comparing the typical shooter to the gun equivalent of Seb Vetel would hardly be playing fair. And even young Seb may not be able to parallel park as well as some other motor sport athlete that does it numerous times per day (likely a hypothetical). Separately, just as most anyone can parallel park, most anyone can shoot a gun. The point of my question was determining whether shooting many weapons dilutes your ability to shoot your best with a single weapon (of your choice). I don't think many people would disagree that, for the moment you need a weapon for SD/HD, and for however much you'd trained, you'd want to know that you trained your best.
Seems like a better comparison is with golf - a very high skill hand-eye coordination sport. Playing every day with three or four different brands of clubs, different angles, different grips, etc. is not something a pro does. They lock in the fewest number of variables that they reasonably can and then train from there.
But I do accept that there are many on this thread who are likely much better shooters than I and who claim otherwise and I have no reason to disbelieve them other than it's non-intuitive. I own a few handguns but in general, they are variants of the same model for the reason I posed the question. I look and lust at other handguns but am always concerned that it would be dilutive to my already weak skills.
Perhaps not.
B

[mavracer]

As long as the sights are on top and the trigger is on the bottom I'll probably be OK.

[David E]

As long as the sights are on top and the trigger is on the bottom I'll probably be OK.

If slow-fire recreational shooting is all you're comparing, you're correct.

[1911 guy]

I have some firearms that are strictly for hobbies like hunting or target shooting. I also have a few that are for defense. I think the biggest difference is how seriously I take the practice and how often I practice. I stop shooting for fun when it becomes "unfun". I stop serious practice when the bad habit is broken, the good habit is ingrained or the principle behind the drill is mastered.

[GRIZ22]

Miyamoto said in the 17th century "a warrior should not have a favorite weapon".

This is why special ops troops train with just about everything out there. If you don't have your M4 you'll be just as comfortable with an AK, H&K, FN or whatever is at hand.

For the rest of us you just have to decide how much of a warrior you want to be.

[Davek1977]

I'd rather be averagely proficient with many styles than an expert with one. I like the fact I can pick up a rifle or handgun of nearly any make or model and be able to operate it safely.

[Sam1911]

We have had a number of very similar threads on this question. Here's a good one: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=648113

In it, I responded:

I DO practice with, compete with, and carry several different styles of handgun. (1911, xDM, 629, CZ75 (SA or DA/SA), and others on occasion.)

I tend to concentrate on one platform at a time. When I switch between them I expect to need 1,000 rounds or so (maybe a couple months) of weekly practice to get back on top of my game with them. I can pick up any of them, any day, and make a shot -- but to really RUN a gun well, to be in top form with it, I need to concentrate on that one and re-establish the habits that make me do what needs done with that gun seamlessly, every time, without conscious effort.

If you want to get the most out of your training dollar, pick one gun, put the others in the safe, and dedicate yourself to becoming ONE with that weapon for a period of time (like, maybe one full year).

That's not the "gun nut" perspective -- which wants to play with all the cool, pretty, fun, interesting, and different guns -- but more the shooting mastery view.

(I also firmly believe that we're trending toward a common best type of pistol -- one basic form that does the very best job for the very largest number of skilled shooters with the highest return on the practice & training investment. But which one is a debate for another time.)


Now, that's all defensive and/or competition stuff (for me, very similar). I also will shoot hunting rifles, shotguns at clay birds, .22s with the kids, etc. etc. I don't feel that detracts from the focus of my primary concentration.

To reiterate my main point: I can pick up any of them, any day, and make a shot -- but to really RUN a gun well, to be in top form with it, I need to concentrate on that one and re-establish the habits that make me do what needs done with that gun seamlessly, every time, without conscious effort.

[mavracer]

If slow-fire recreational shooting is all you're comparing, you're correct.
By all means since your a self proclaimed expert in my abilities what guns can I not shoot OK with rapid fire at SD ranges?

[holdencm9]

I'd rather be averagely proficient with many styles than an expert with one. I like the fact I can pick up a rifle or handgun of nearly any make or model and be able to operate it safely.

Agreed!

Would I be better if I ONLY ever practiced with my SD/HD weapon platforms, of course. But only marginally, and then if I don't have them available to me, I am SOL. It is part hobby, part "tool for self-defense" to me. I like shooting a variety of platforms, it is fun. I like owning them and learning how they function and looking at the different designs. If shooting a mosin or plinking with a .22 makes makes me less proficient with my AR, so be it. I think it is still beneficial practice, just not AS beneficial as if I were to practice only with the AR.

[mljdeckard]

I don't see a conflict as long as people know the difference. I am fine if a guy just wants to have a gun for the fun of it, that's his choice. I am ....less fine with it if he believes that is all he needs to do to be ready to defend himself.

[k4swb]

I was going to add a caveat that stated something like, 'this question only applies if you are both an SD'er and a collector/hunter/hobbyist' but I didn't. But you know what I mean...
B

Not really, but that's just fine.

[threoh8]

There is value in cross-training.
If you've hit a plateau in one discipline, break up your training with something different. Then come back.
I've found that using a different firearm, or even switching to a different form of shooting, forces me to concentrate on the basics of position. That carries over when I go back to my main interest.
On a smaller scale, I try to keep some variety in my shooting at each session. Whenever I take my defensive handguns out, some of the shooting will be classic standing one-handed bullseye, just to remind my brain and muscles what it's like. A rifle session might include three-position slow and rapid, and a brief benchrest session.

[beatledog7]

For me it's about balance. I have to be reasonably proficient with the variety of platforms I own and shoot, but there are some I will never own and probably never shoot (at least not more than once or twice). I will never become proficient with them. I will be able to load and fire them safely, but that's not what I consider proficiency.

I know that if I focus too heavily on any one firearm, my proficiency with the others degrades. Whether that's from screwed up muscle memory, de-calibrated sight picture, or some other intangibles I can't say.

It's also important to note that practice, whether with one platform or with many, can never guarantee success. Generically speaking:

Properly practicing with my hunting rifles enhances my ability to make a clean, humane kill, but it will never get me closer to a buck or make him present an open broadside.

Properly practicing with my shotguns improves my trap and skeet scores, but unless I'm in the right place at the right time, it can't put a turkey in my truck or add to my waterfowl tally.

Properly practicing with my range handguns shrinks my groups and might make others at the range think I'm better than I am, but it won't necessarily make me a competition winner.

Proper study and practice of defensive tactics with my carry handguns can increase my chances of stopping an assailant in the unlikely event that shooting becomes my only option, but it won't produce the wisdom required for a proper mindset, and it can't stop anyone from attacking me.

[Manny]

Well I'm just an average joe shooter, no formal training besides a little coaching at CMP events and friendly help from other shooters. I really like firearms for the fun and to scratch my curiosity itch. I do however believe the most important reason for having them could ultimately be for defensive use.

As I don't shoot or train anywhere near as much as I wish I did I figure my best option for being proficient if I do need a firearm for serious social use is to focus my efforts on learning a certain type as good as possible. My defensive handguns are DA Ruger revolvers or Glock semi-auto pistols. My rifle is an AR and I have an FN SLP shotgun. Those are the guns I spend the bulk of my available shooting time working to shoot efficiently and effectively. My ideal goal is to have duplicates of the above guns.

A bobble when shooting at the range can be aggravating & embarassing, in real life it could be fatal. By keeping my manual of arms simple & consistent I believe I have the best chance if I ever need to use them.

[David E]

By all means since your (sp) a self proclaimed expert in my abilities(,) what guns can I not shoot OK with rapid fire at SD ranges?

There's no call for the snippy attitude, as I made no comment specifically directed at you.

While I'd welcome the opportunity to critique your shooting skills in person, that was not my point.

I said originally that skills can only transfer if the skills exist in the first place. Someone who only practices with a 14" barreled TC Encore in .22 rimfire will have trouble shooting a 1911 in .45 accurately at speed. Slowfire, tho, he'd do much better, at least for the first 2-3 shots before flinching asserts itself.

Forget about drawing and reloading at all at speed, as those skills don't exist in this hypothetical shooter

[45_auto]

As long as the sights are on top and the trigger is on the bottom I'll probably be OK.

By all means since your a self proclaimed expert in my abilities what guns can I not shoot OK with rapid fire at SD ranges?

As long as your definition of "OK" means just getting a shot off, regardless of how long it takes you or where it hits, then I'm sure you're "OK" with any of them.

You'll find in the real world that someone who's trained enough on a Glock to be unconciously competent will not perform as well (by which I mean shoot equal scores on something like an IPSC match or the IDPA qualifier) with a 1911 until they get used to the safety and trigger differences. Same thing applies to a 1911 vs a Beretta M9, etc.

Most aggravating gun I ever shot was a Taurus 92 with a 3 position thumb-drop safety (automatically dropped the hammer if you pressed it down past the "off safe" position) in the same place as a 1911 safety. I shoot Glocks and 1911's about equally, my thumb does the same thing (automatically tries to ride the safety down) whether I'm drawing and shooting a 1911 or a Glock. With the Taurus, the pressure from my thumb on the safety dropped the hammer every shot, making it double action every time. Someone who's muscle memory didn't include downward pressure on the thumb safety would be much more effective than me using it in a SD situation.

Since the OP was asking about emergency procedures, what's "OK" on the range might not be considered "OK" by someone in a self defense situation.

[mavracer]

There's no call for the snippy attitude, as I made no comment specifically directed at you.
Are you refering to me now or is "you" somebody else?
I said originally that skills can only transfer if the skills exist in the first place.
If the skills don't exist, then they couldn't be affected by change anyway, so your point is, well, pointless.
If the skills existed even to a lesser extent, then the extent change was evident could be discussed.
and I seriously doubt your hypothetical shooters draw speed or rate of fire would be negatively affected by taking the T/C out of his holster and replacing it with a 1911.

[David E]

Mavracer, I will not engage your foolishness further.

Back to the OP: recreational skills will transfer easily between platforms. But folks who only engage in recreational shooting will have trouble instantly transforming those abilities into efficient combat/defensive skills.

People who only practice parallel parking will struggle in big city traffic if they've never done it before.

[Ankeny]

I can pick up any of them, any day, and make a shot -- but to really RUN a gun well, to be in top form with it, I need to concentrate on that one and re-establish the habits that make me do what needs done with that gun seamlessly, every time, without conscious effort.
Same here.

[jmr40]

Not really by design, but after 40 years of gun trading I don't feel I shoot any particular brand or type much better than any other. I've owned most all of them. Now I do have my favorites, but if I were issued almost anything, and given about 100 rounds to practice with I'd feel quite comfortable with any quality, reliable firearm. I'm always amused at those that say they cannot get used to a Glock grip angle. Not that a Glock is for everyone, but the grip angle argument is pretty lame. Anyone who tries can master one. It still may not be your favorite, but anyone who wants to can master the gun.

When choosing guns for hunting or recreational shooting I firmly believe in using whatever you enjoy shooting. Hunting and plinking is for fun, use what you like even if it is not the most efficient tool for the job. I tend to gravitate towards both ends of the spectrum. Most of my hunting guns are what I consider the best available, but I also use some older, less effective guns just because I enjoy them. Not much in between.

When it comes to personal protection, either from human or animal predators, I don't believe in using something just for nostalgia. I want the best I can get my hands on. I love my 1911's and my S&W revolvers and shoot them a lot at the range, but if my life is in danger I'll reach for a more modern pistol design every time.

[MrDig]

I'm competent, I'm not proficient. I am not going to out shoot Team Smith and Wesson but I can hit a target consistently enough to get what ever job I'm doing done.
Drawing and using cover? that is a different matter I need more practice.
I can hunt, I can hit what I am at I have yet to train under a SD / HD simulation. I have just been chucking lead at targets.

[David E]

MrDig, you sound proficient to me.

To my way of thinking, "competent" means you're safe. "Proficient" means you're not only safe, but have achieved a level of skill that can be described as "good."

Which is better than most typical gunowners.

[mavracer]

DavidE,
So that I have this straight, I know you are a very proficient shooter and are capable I'm sure of mastering any platform. I have not sure what guns you have shot or what you are shooting now so bear with me.
If you had/have become proficient with Glocks and 1911s, but were/are currently shooting sigs exclusively and haven't/hadn't picked up a 1911 or a Glock for months. You don't think you could pick up a 1911 or a Glock right now and probably defend yourself?

[happygeek]

I'm confused too, are we talking about average run of the mill SD like what you see in the NRA's Armed Citizen or are we talking about competition shooting like IDPA, IPSC, 3 Gun, etc.?

I haven't seen too many competition shooters in The Armed Citizen, which is encouraging since I'd hate to think you have to be a IPSC master to successfully defend yourself.

[David E]

I haven't seen too many competition shooters in The Armed Citizen, which is encouraging since I'd hate to think you have to be a IPSC master to successfully defend yourself.

The most important thing is being willing, but that's fodder for another thread.

I agree the OP was a bit muddled about what he was after.

[David E]

DavidE,
So that I have this straight, I know you are a very proficient shooter and are capable I'm sure of mastering any platform.
If you had/have become proficient with Glocks and 1911s, but were/are currently shooting sigs exclusively and haven't/hadn't picked up a 1911 or a Glock for months. You don't think you could pick up a 1911 or a Glock right now and probably defend yourself?

I appreciate your new tone, thank you.

I am not a good example, as I have achieved a certain skill level with various hand gun platforms. I handle them all nearly every day. But I don't consider myself to be merely a recreational/casual shooter, either.

My example of someone only shooting a .22 rimfire Encore was to illustrate that just because he might be an accomplished shot with that gun/caliber slowfire, that skill-set, such as it is, wouldn't "transfer over" to, say, a Model 19 S&W loaded with full house magnums as far as firing it quickly and accurately double action. Slowfire, sure, especially shooting it single action.

Slowfire, if the basics are properly executed, then good hits are easily possible, regardless of platform or caliber. It's when we introduce speed that things get truly tested.

Re-reading the OP, I will add that certain guns require specific protocols to be safe and/or efficient with them. If you shot 50 rds thru your 1911 or 5906 20 years ago, and have only shot your Glock since, you could find yourself in serious trouble in a gunfight if you don't have your Glock in hand.

[Sam1911]

I don't know if I see the original poster as having muddled his question, so much as having asked a question which is inherently difficult to answer precisely.

We have members here who have claimed to limit themselves to one platform of handgun and one of rifle (maybe one of shotgun, too) because they feel that they want to dedicate every moment of training and practice to increasing the chances that -- if they ever MUST use that weapon to prevent a death -- they will use is perfectly and without conflicting wiring in their head/hands possibly causing a hesitation, malfunction, or inaccuracy. They want to be ONE with that gun, and feel that anything else they would concentrate on would be a distraction and a diversion of that mastery.

We also have many, many, MANY shooters who just plain love guns and shooting and simply want to be 'good-nuff-ok' with just about any gun they pick up -- and who earnestly believe that as long as there is A gun on hand when they find themselves needing to shoot or die they'll likely be able to rise to the moment and use it well enough.

(Like the 'lucky winners' gallery posted in the American Rifleman's Armed Citizen column every month, half of whom seem to have defended their families successfully against an MS-13 gang chapter armed only with a rusted-shut Crecent single-shot .410 shotgun left loaded since Prohibition, and which they somehow had time to retreive from the bottom of an abandoned well.)

Both types will answer the given question in highly certain terms, based on what they prefer to believe.

[qwert65]

If you have the basics down, you should be ok. Obviously the more practice, the better. I do believe however that what is 100x more important is being exposed to situations where you have to think and act quickly under pressure.
For example, in veterinary school you learn to give injections on a nice calm horse. This does not prepare you very well for reality where you have a 1000lb animal plunging up and down, throwing his feet. Not the easiest thing to find the jugular, make the stick and get away safely. Most vets learn to do it but in my personal observations the ones who learn quickest are not the ones who have given the most shots, but the ones who have handled more stress(ex military, used to racehorses vs pleasure, paramedic, etc)

I honestly believe that nothing prepares you for SD more then fighting and there is no way to train for that(somethings help if course) Fear is Fear it's physiologic processes are medical fact.
In summary, In my opinion is that someone who deals with danger day after day, with minimal training will behave better than even the best shooter whos day to day life is more mundane. It goes without saying that training is very important. But I would offer that say 5 hours a week shooting for COM hits as fast as possible, paired with a history of handling several life or death situations is better then 40hrs a week of tactical classes, and never having to face the fear.

[mavracer]

I am not a good example, as I have achieved a certain skill level with various hand gun platforms. I handle them all nearly every day. But I don't consider myself to be merely a recreational/casual shooter, either.
I think you might be exactly what the OP is asking about. A person who has achieve a level of proficiency with several different platforms to be able to pick any one up in a SD situation and use it with "little" ( as I wouldn't say "no") drop off in effectiveness.
Slowfire, if the basics are properly executed, then good hits are easily possible, regardless of platform or caliber. It's when we introduce speed that things get truly tested.
Yes, but I remember Brian Enos saying something along the line of a great action shooter still uses the same fundementals they just apply them faster.
I may not have achieved the proficiency level at action shooting that you have, but I do compete with several different platforms in IDPA and SASS and I don't believe the minor difference in my proficiency with any given firearm that will be the difference maker. As you said my willingness, determination and my ability to remain level headed will be the deciding factor.

[David E]

Yes, but I remember Brian Enos saying something along the line of a great action shooter still uses the same fundementals they just apply them faster.

True, but most people don't know how.

As you said my willingness, determination and my ability to remain level headed will be the deciding factor.

Agreed.

[Ankeny]

Is it in fact a tradeoff, or can many experienced shooters move from one weapon to the other, whether recently practiced or not, with no loss in effectiveness?
Upon further reflection, I guess that depends on how one defines "loss of effectiveness". As a competition shooter, I wouldn't shoot a Glock all season then pick up a Sig and head off to the Production Nationals. On the flip side, I have no qualms about not practicing with my carry gun for weeks at a time.

[788Ham]

k4swb,

Sounds like you've gotten your ringside seats already! Turning your sword into plowshares!!

[blarby]

I think it partially depends on what you consider "proficient"

Most hobbiest / collectors are usually capable of using the weapons they own...but many collectors own an astonishing amount of pieces, so true continual mastery may be difficult with the exception of a few of them.

Most solely self-defense or combat oriented users will limit themselves to a particular set of platforms because in their eyes, maximum proficiency with a few tools is more likely to pay off than a large collection of tools.

What each one of these individuals considers "proficient" is undoubtedly very far from the others prospective.

The "professional" prospective, for lack of a better term-, would not consider anything less than full combat capability... CQB, 25, 50, 200, and longer Marksman rating sustained fire depending on the weapon platform- while executing tactical movements and magazine dumps while communicating with fellow shooters to neutralize multiple threats.

The hobbiest/ collector might consider proficiency the ability to clean and service each piece, and fire it at its intended target multiple times to successful effect. 2-4" groups for pistols beyond 15 yards, 20-23 runs on clays, and 1" groups on hunting rifles with limited magazine capacity. These figures are just an example.

Granted, we all want to be better shooters...but a combination of natural and learned ability, practice ( time and money availability), and weapon capability will limit the hobbiest over the "professional"

There is a little bit of the eternal argument here, thats for sure.


I will say however, that even the collectors with the broadest collections will have one or two items that they both value- and can use- much better than the others. Often times, this pairing results because of the collectors varied interests and pursuit of that perfect piece or pieces that suit them "just so".

Those would be the pieces of ultimate reliability and function to those individuals...and would be kept at the bedside, at the ready on the hunting rack, or squirreled away with packs of ammo for something we all hope never comes.

We all have those :D We use them well, and we use them often...which came first can be the chicken and egg argument.

So I would say to your question- No.

Having and using a variety of firearms does not necessarily limit your ability to use those pieces that you use best in your collection, however large that collection may be, in the event that you need them for your own survival. This statement is predicated on the belief that you will regularly use the pieces you deem most important to you as the tools you need them to be.

[k4swb]

k4swb,
Sounds like you've gotten your ringside seats already! Turning your sword into plowshares!!

Nah, still got my swords and guns. I shoot on average twice a week but to me it is a leisurely pastime. Now days I do most of my shooting from a chair. I have no business running and ducking while shooting but occasionally I like to watch others do that.

[Rustle in the bushes]

darn good thread this, something Ive thought about myself. If I could I would have 1 long shotgun, 1 short barrel for that. As well, a .22 training rifle similiar to a centerfire rifle that would help develop those skills. I have 2 milsurp rifles that I am now selling because Ive become much more interested in honing the guns/skills that I have rather than shooting a bunch of stuff at the range.

[Jason_W]

I'm interested not so much in being a proficient shooter, but an efficient shooter.

[mavracer]

I think it partially depends on what you consider "proficient"........................................
What each one of these individuals considers "proficient" is undoubtedly very far from the others prospective.
I think you would need to say "proficient enough" as I think both groups would recognize two different levels of proficiency.

Another thought on switching platforms. Some platforms lend themselves to a much easier transfer of skills. As an example Glock is an easy platform to transfer to (this might have somthin to do with their popularity) a guy who competes with a 1911 could easily maintain proficiency with a Glock carry gun. I also find switching between a Kahr and a Snub revolver easy and seemless.

[Lex Luthier]

Proficiency is a goal. After bit of training and practice, your awareness of the big picture improves, you become not just comfortable, but confident.

Expertise is the reward of taking the time to improve knowledge and technique, and hopefully teaching others.

[David E]

There seem to be a lot of words being used to describe the same thing... or not the same thing. Let's see if we can clarify:

Proficient

- adjective
1.
well-advanced or competent in any art, science, or subject; skilled: a proficient swimmer.
- noun
2.
an expert.

Of course, this definition means little when it's comparative. I'd bet most folks on THR shoot better than most other gunowners, but most other gunowners don't shoot their guns much, if at all. This skews the perception on both sides.

[Sam1911]

Might as well define all the different levels one could attain. Something like:

1) Competence
2) Proficiency
3) Expertise
4) Mastery

Probably few of us here are struggling to achieve competency. (Well...maybe if someone hands you a Hakim...)

Many of us believe that proficiency with "guns" will be that magical "good 'nuff" if we ever need it.

Others feel that expertise, or even mastery is not just a laudible goal, but may be necessary to meet the challenge if and when it comes.

[Jason_W]

Some of us can't afford the time and money required for mastery. Shooting is not an inexpensive activity.

The best that is in reach for some of us is familiarity.

[Sam1911]

Some of us can't afford the time and money required for mastery. Shooting is not an inexpensive activity.

The best that is in reach for some of us is familiarity.

Ceartainly so, I cannot myself. At least not this year.

But that then leads to the next most obvious question -- if you know you cannot concentrate enough time and resources to master even one weapon, how then do you focus the time and resources you DO have?

[Jason_W]

But that then leads to the next most obvious question -- if you know you cannot concentrate enough time and resources to master even one weapon, how then do you focus the time and resources you DO have?

For me, I concentrate on long guns since it doesn't take as much regular practice to stay competent with a rifle or shotgun as it does for a handgun (at least for me).

I know I'm a good enough shot to hit a deer under most hunting conditions in my area.

As far as home defense, that's a matter of knowing the layout of my dwelling enough to get the drop on an intruder and making sure to the best of my ability that I'm not caught off guard.

There is also a certain amount of acceptance that I'm not a trained warrior type and there is a limit to the kinds of situations I can deal with. I may be able to deal with Methhead MaGee trying to break into my house, but if a crack team of highly trained assassins wanted me dead, I'd likely be screwed. Luckily, I'm a supremely unimportant individual so it's more likely I'll win the lottery than it is that I'll earn the ire of a professional hit squad.

[45_auto]

I see very few shooters (both on the range and at matches) who are even "consciously competent" (stage 3). It's a real pleasure to watch someone who's reached stage 4. The vast majority, even those who have been shooting many years, are somewhere within stages 1 and 2. Most don't have the stimulus to learn to move past stage 1. These are the ones who don't believe that they need any classes or instruction. They know that there's nothing to shooting a gun as long as the sights are on top and the trigger is on the bottom! The funny thing is that these people will usually classify themselves as at least stage 3 when it comes to shooting and self defense.

The Four Stages of Learning provides a model for learning. It suggests that individuals are initially unaware of how little they know, or unconscious of their incompetence. As they recognise their incompetence, they consciously acquire a skill, then consciously use that skill. Eventually, the skill can be done without consciously being thought through, and the individual is said to have unconscious competence.

The four stages

1) Unconscious incompetence

The individual does not understand or know how to do something and does not necessarily recognize the deficit. They may deny the usefulness of the skill. The individual must recognise their own incompetence, and the value of the new skill, before moving on to the next stage. The length of time an individual spends in this stage depends on the strength of the stimulus to learn.

2) Conscious incompetence

Though the individual does not understand or know how to do something, he or she does recognize the deficit, as well as the value of a new skill in addressing the deficit. The making of mistakes can be integral to the learning process at this stage.

3) Conscious competence

The individual understands or knows how to do something. However, demonstrating the skill or knowledge requires concentration. It may be broken down into steps, and there is heavy conscious involvement in executing the new skill.

4) Unconscious competence

The individual has had so much practice with a skill that it has become "second nature" and can be performed easily. As a result, the skill can be performed while executing another task. The individual may be able to teach it to others, depending upon how and when it was learned.

[mavracer]

What decision on what skill level one feels they're required to possess is an individule one, It's also one that one must live or die with. You pays your dollar and you roll the dice.
However re-read the OP no where does he ask what skill level is good enough or anything of the kind. He specificly ask's about switching between guns and maintaining effectiveness.
While I certainly see David's point about a guy who has shot targets with a T/C moving to a Smith 19, but switching to a Colt Python, GP100 or a Dan Wesson will likely have the same effect. If he has to look for the cylinder latch what difference would it make.
I wonder how bad it would mess Jerry Miculek up to reload a Python or Dan Wesson?
percentage wise who would be more affected?

[blarby]

I would believe that most THR folks are somewhere between 3 and 4 for most of their collection.

There is however a LARGE gap between 3 and 4.

We need a better grading scale......

[Jason_W]

Most don't have the stimulus to learn to move past stage 1.

Or time or money.

I would love to be able to enlist the services of a professional instructor and fire hundreds of practice rounds every week but the bottom line is that I have to make-do with the time and resources that are available to me.

Right now, just going to the range and back costs me a good $30.

[David E]

However re-read the OP no where does he ask what skill level is good enough or anything of the kind. He specificly ask's about switching between guns and maintaining effectiveness.

Ironically, the lesser skilled shooters will show the least difference between platforms. IE; they suck with everything.

Conversely, the highly skilled will notice a decrease, but they well may be the only person who can detect the difference.

[David E]

Or time or money.

I would love to be able to enlist the services of a professional instructor and fire hundreds of practice rounds every week but the bottom line is that I have to make-do with the time and resources that are available to me.

Right now, just going to the range and back costs me a good $30.

Two words:

1) dryfire

2) rimfire

You can make significant progress properly practicing five minute sessions of dryfire techniques 1-3 times a week.

[Sam1911]

I would believe that most THR folks are somewhere between 3 and 4 for most of their collection.


With the greatest humility and meaning no disrespect to anyone, I do not.

I see a LOT of shooters. Many of the shooters I see are regular competitors who spend more time with firearms than any sort of "average" shooter, participating in pursuits that rate their performances up against their fellows and which strongly encourages exertion and deliberate pursuit of improvement. I still would not say that most of THEM are somewhere between 3 and 4. A few will be solidly 3. A VERY few will be in the 4 category. (Which I am not claiming to be, myself, by a serious margin.)


To get a sense of what I mean by "Mastery:" When I was pretty new to practical pistol shooting, I watched a fellow who later became a regular acquaintance of mine win a regional "Sanctioned" IDPA match. He beat over 100 other shooters, overall. Not only did he have the fastest corrected time, in a match requiring about 120 shots, he was down THREE POINTS. Total.

I've shot matches with Jerry Miculek, Dave Sevigny, and other phenomenal masters who's names are a little less well known, and seeing in person what is possible casts the rest of the spectrum (including your own performance, believe me!) in a whole new, stark light.

I'd say the definitions maybe are something like this:

1) Competence -- safe with the gun and knows how to make it work.
2) Proficient -- Accurate with the gun. Able, with concentration, to perform most shooting drills and tests adequately.
3) Expert -- Knows how to RUN the gun. Unconsciously competent. Can execute a drill, course of fire, or apply a shooting solution without having to put mental and physical effort into the mechanics of what the gun is doing, leaving the mind and conscious effort free for strategy and decision-making.
4) Master -- ONE with the gun. Seeing and hitting are one and the same. The gun is an appendage of the body and the bullet is an extension of the will.

[Jason_W]

There seems to be an implication by many shooters - and perhaps it's unintentional - that if you don't train like a special ops agent and eat, breath, and sleep tactical shooting that you may as well sell all your guns and take up knitting.

I'm not all that old (31) and I remember growing up in rural Vermont that your worth as shooter was determined by how many deadfall apples you could burst with a .22 at 25 yards or how many red squirrels you could keep out of the eves.

Sometimes I wonder how many would-be recreational shooters are intimidated away from giving the whole thing a try by the presence of the vocal, hardcore tactical crowd.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against those who train their butts off in anticipation of the collapse of civilization, but is that really the only valid form of shooting?

[HOOfan_1]

I would believe that most THR folks are somewhere between 3 and 4 for most of their collection.

There is however a LARGE gap between 3 and 4.

We need a better grading scale......

Absolutely....level 4 is what you see on these "how it's made shows" with factory workers doing repetative tasks, which if most of us tried to do at their speed, we would at best ruin the product and at worst maim or kill ourselves.

If someone can pull the trigger and put bullets on target...they are at level 3.

There is a big gap between putting bullets on target and being able to do everything unconciously.

Edit: Sam1911's competency chart is much better..except I think there is a level below 1...someone who barely knows which end the bullet comes from.

[Sam1911]

There seems to be an implication by many shooters - and perhaps it's unintentional - that if you don't train like a special ops agent and eat, breath, and sleep tactical shooting that you may as well sell all your guns and take up knitting.


:D That may be so. I don't know if that relates directly to the question here though. If the question is to define proficiency (and other general "levels" of ability) and to determine if spreading your time and effort between several platforms helps or hurts that, compared to concentrating your efforts on one platform, then I guess I don't see how intimidating new recreational shooters enters into that question.

It would be something like unethical, or at least deluded, to say that we shouldn't attempt to achieve mastery, or discuss the persuit of excellence, because doing so might intimidate the uninitiated. The discussions and prowess of the expert (or master!) in any field is going to be a bit intimidating to the novice just entering that field. It is up to the novice to decide whether to step out on the path to mastery or to abandon the attempt because s/he can't measure up yet.

[45_auto]

I see a LOT of shooters. Many of the shooters I see are regular competitors who spend more time with firearms than any sort of "average" shooter, participating in pursuits that rate their performances up against their fellows and which strongly encourages exertion and deliberate pursuit of improvement. I still would not say that most of THEM are somewhere between 3 and 4. A few will be solidly 3. A VERY few will be in the 4 category. (Which I am not claiming to be, myself, by a serious margin.)

100% agreement here!

[David E]

There seems to be an implication by many shooters - and perhaps it's unintentional - that if you don't train like a special ops agent and eat, breath, and sleep tactical shooting that you may as well sell all your guns and take up knitting.


But implied by whom?

I've found that "adequate" shots dismiss those that have mastered their gun by saying "if someone bought ME 1000's of rds a week, _I_ would be that good, too!"

This absolves themselves of pursuing a higher skill level, which could be reached with proper instruction and 100 rds, but they never find that out.

Looking at USPSA classifications, (D, C, B, A, Master, Grand Master) I'd say that "C" class shooters are better shots than the average gunowner. This level is not difficult to reach, but it does require some effort.

[Jason_W]

I've found that "adequate" shots dismiss those that have mastered their gun by saying "if someone bought ME 1000's of rds a week, _I_ would be that good, too!"


Could be some like that. There probably more who don't particularly care and are happy to do their own thing. Probably a vast majority of shooters are at the range to make sure they're still good enough with their deer rifles to do what they need to do when the season starts.

I shoot when I can because I enjoy it. Nothing more or less.

I'm good enough with a long gun to take care of business in the woods within common hunting distances. I'm also good enough to bust up a line of water jugs at 25 yards with a shotgun full of slugs. Doing such things make me happy.

Now, I really have nothing against the competition shooter or the guy who practices several times a week. At least not until they cop a superior or dismissive attitude that is derisive of my approach to the activity.

[blarby]

I'd say the definitions maybe are something like this:

1) Competence -- safe with the gun and knows how to make it work.
2) Proficient -- Accurate with the gun. Able, with concentration, to perform most shooting drills and tests adequately.
3) Expert -- Knows how to RUN the gun. Unconsciously competent. Can execute a drill, course of fire, or apply a shooting solution without having to put mental and physical effort into the mechanics of what the gun is doing, leaving the mind and conscious effort free for strategy and decision-making.
4) Master -- ONE with the gun. Seeing and hitting are one and the same. The gun is an appendage of the body and the bullet is an extension of the will.

I like this very much.

Would could also add a " 0 " if we chose to.

Good stuff, Sam.

As I addressed, there was a LARGE gap between #3 and #4 on the previous scale...this helps eliminate some of that.

I guess most of the stuff I run personally would be in the #2 spot.

The only thing I reasonably believe I'm in a #3 spot in is a pump-action shotgun platform...mine personally being a mossy 500.

I really like your rating system........ unless anyone has some serious doubts, I think that tiering should be a sticky ! We could tweak in some actual quantifiable tests for each tier, if we so sought !

[Sniper66]

The basis for good shooting is hand-to-eye coordination. If you can shoot pool, a shotgun, archery, ping pong, tennis, or pistols, they all have something in common. So I would argue that shooting a variety of guns improves your efficiency with all of them, especially if you love it, shoot a lot, and work at it. My recent experience: I have a tremor I was born with, so I gravitated to shotguns and wing shooting. Never figured I could shoot a pistol because whenever I picked one up, my hands shake too much and the harder I try the worse it gets. But. it seemed to me, that if you shoot instinctively, as I learned to do with a shotgun, that you could do the same thing with a pistol. So, I burned up 100s of rounds at the range with my GSG 1911 and my Browning Buckmark. With both eyes open, I raise my gun with my right hand, grasping my wrist with my left, extending my arms and fire at the target...all in one smooth movement. I have repeated this movement 100s of times. I go to the range and shoot 100-150 rounds as often as I can. I shoot at a paper plate that is about 10-11 inches. My goal is to be consistent and hit the plate. I focus on the center, but the goal is not to make 1" groups...as good as that would be. Rather, the goal is comfort and consistency. I'm training my brain. The other day I was there and a lizard appeared on the dirt backstop behind the target. I walked out with my pistol by my side and repeated my movement 4-5 times as the lizard, 3" long and about the size of a pencil, scurried around looking for a place to hide. Did I hit him? No, but was very close each time and most importantly, I didn't think, I just repeated what has become almost automatic. I am going again today...gotta go buy some ammo for my hobby:)

[David E]

Probably a vast majority of shooters are at the range to make sure they're still good enough with their deer rifles to do what they need to do when the season starts.


Or shoot once a year at the cousins farm. This would be the "average gunowner" referenced previously.

[Infidel4life11]

I shoot all the time every chance I get. I jump at the chance to fire anything and use new tactics. I don't believe there is a trade off, once basics are down they transfer from weapon to weapon. Last week I ran a carbine course with my gunsite scout, troops and cops couldn't believe it. If you shoot for fun it's fun, if you play for keeps be good at it. Not every shooter shoots an enemy or wants to. Not every shot is about the 10 ring. I'm just as happy training warriors as I am testing my "Minute Of beer Can" with my nephew.

[beatledog7]

I mostly like Sam's breakdown. For me, it's a little different:

Level 1 is when you can load and shoot the gun without causing any harm to person or property.
Level 2 is when your POA and POI are usually as close as most shooters and closer than many.

These two are relatively easy to achieve on your own for just about anyone who decides to do so and acts on that decision.

Level 3 is when you really know what you're doing with the gun and can employ it effectively and appropriately to handle various scenarios, hitting your target far more often than most shooters; i.e., you get it right.
Level 4 is when you can achieve Level 3 in your sleep or under intense stress; i.e., you can't get it wrong.

These two require a higher level of dedication, good coaching, and lots of practice. Level 4, to me, is the one that most shooters will find that they cannot maintain with more than one or two guns at a time.

What Sam called Level 4, I would term Level 5. It's where, even with diligent practice, most shooters will never be able to go, just like most opera-trained singers will never headline at the Met and most people who play quarterback will never start in the NFL.

[CraigC]

That is, it would seem that if you honed your skill at the range with just one handgun design, one rifle/carbine design and/or one shotgun design, you'd be a faster, more accurate shooter, and one that could take care of emergency procedures with the weapon more efficiently.
Correct.

I have little to add that has not already been covered in the excellent posts by David E and Sam1911. These men obviously know what they are about and most importantly, how to share what they can. Good job! One would be wise to take their posts to heart.

Until you have focused on building skill with one particular firearm, you have no idea what you are capable of. For some, just having fun at the range and being competent is "good enough". For others, we take our shooting seriously and strive to be as good as we can be. You simply cannot accomplish this if you take half a dozen or more guns to the range once a month and shoot them all a little. Some reach a point at which they're satisfied with their skill level. For others, there is always room for improvement.

Which is not to say that we do not shoot for fun. I wouldn't do it at all if it wasn't fun.

[Ankeny]

Ironically, the lesser skilled shooters will show the least difference between platforms. IE; they suck with everything.

Conversely, the highly skilled will notice a decrease, but they well may be the only person who can detect the difference. I agree.

Looking at USPSA classifications, (D, C, B, A, Master, Grand Master) I'd say that "C" class shooters are better shots than the average gunowner. This level is not difficult to reach, but it does require some effort. Another accurate observation. I have also noticed a lot of non-competition based shooters define "mastery" as a performance level that would fall somewhere around "B" class. For that matter, a solid "B" class shooter has arrived...

[Nushif]

You'll find in the real world that someone who's trained enough on a Glock to be unconciously competent will not perform as well

I find it hard operating anything while unconscious. 8)

On a more serious note though, there is this tendency to say that "If you aren't as trained as me, you're not trained."

So obviously the more someone has trained the higher their standard of "proficiency." Why? Because the skills they've learned through whatever training, experience or whatnot is something they *now* consider essential. How many of you consider at least some physical training to be non-optional? How many of you consider some mechanical training to be non-optional? How many of you consider some computer training non-optional?

Let's face it, a professional elevator operator wouldn't consider mere button pushers like us even remotely competent because we can't fix key aspects of the elevator that fall under operator maintenance, like checking and repairing cabling. But then again ... not everyone is a professional elevator operator. And somehow we still manage making it to the 10th floor, while jugging a coffee, worrying about that TPS report, our kids, whether we turned off the oven and remembering where we parked our car.

[JohnBT]

"professional elevator operator"

I was thinking professional driver versus an experienced everyday driver with some basic training in skids, evasion, etc., but I like your example better.


I really like this statement...

"If you aren't as trained as me, you're not trained."


John

[mavracer]

And somehow we still manage making it to the 10th floor, while jugging a coffee, worrying about that TPS report, our kids, whether we turned off the oven and remembering where we parked our car.
This brings up a very real conundrum some of us have. I would love to train more, to be more proficient and be able to better protect my family. However if I go shooting much more than I do now, my wife would divorce me leaving no family to protect.

[Snag]

I was wondering how people feel about this apparent tradeoff. Is it in fact a tradeoff, or can many experienced shooters move from one weapon to the other, whether recently practiced or not, with no loss in effectiveness?

I don't think it's a tradeoff. If your a good shooter then your a good shooter. Of course there's a loss of familiarity when one moves to an new weapon but the underlying skill of the individual is still there.

[David E]

Instead of "training" more, perhaps you should consider "testing" yourself more. IE; shoot some matches, either USPSA or IDPA. Shortcomings will be revealed to you, either in skill or equipment, so you can address them next practice session.

[CraigC]

One thing you can do, whether your range time is limited or not, is to simply focus on one gun for six months to a year. Resist the urge to take a bunch of guns to the range. Just one. Or perhaps one platform, a centerfire and a rimfire version of the same gun is a good practice. Focus your range time on getting better, rather than just mindlessly shooting for fun.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of things you can do to improve your skill that can't be done at most public ranges. Like drawing from leather and point-shooting.


I don't think it's a tradeoff.
It's absolutely a trade-off. Mastery can only be achieved on a specific firearm or platform. One cannot spend a lifetime mastering the double action revolver or 1911, pick up a Glock for the first time and immediately shoot at the same level. Doesn't work like that, no matter the context.

[Snag]

One cannot spend a lifetime mastering the double action revolver or 1911, pick up a Glock for the first time and immediately shoot at the same level.

I totally agree. Like I said of course there's a loss of familiarity but wouldn't you say that someone who has mastered a 1911 could pick up a Glock and be much closer to mastering it that someone who hasn't mastered anything at all?

[mavracer]

Instead of "training" more, perhaps you should consider "testing" yourself more. IE; shoot some matches, either USPSA or IDPA. Shortcomings will be revealed to you, either in skill or equipment, so you can address them next practice session.
So your answer is to shoot more competition and less in practice?

One thing you can do, whether your range time is limited or not, ... Focus your range time on getting better, rather than just mindlessly shooting for fun.
Who is saying that they are not trying to get better with limited time?
BTW does this mean your getting rid of all your SAs since training for SD obviously would take a president over the mindless fun provided by them?

[David E]

It depends on how you define the parameters.

Could a master of the 1911 pick up a Glock and instantly outperform the hobbyist on a given course of fire? Yes.

Could he execute the drills as well as with his 1911? No, but he may well be the only one who could tell the difference.

I've not shot a 1911 for a few months, but I'm extremely confident I could pick one up and perform to a Master level with the first magazine. But then, I have 30+ years invested in the 1911 platform.

[Sam1911]

So your answer is to shoot more competition and less in practice?

That's not a bad idea. Some of the best competitors I know really shoot primarily in competition at this point. Their competition schedules are pretty full, of course, and they do spend a lot of time in dry-fire, but they say that they get a lot more out of shooting under pressure than they do trying to work up that intensity on their own time.

[David E]

So your answer is to shoot more competition and less in practice?

No, my suggestion was to test yourself more. If time or opportunity is limited, then consider shooting a match instead if practicing on your own. If you practice once a week now, consider shooting a match the first week, then practicing for the next 3 weeks. You would improve and learn a lot of things you never would otherwise. Your shooting schedule might morph into shooting matches for 3 weeks and practicing for one, which isn't a bad thing.

BTW does this mean your (sp) getting rid of all your SAs since training for SD obviously would take a president (sp) over the mindless fun provided by them?

I never said that and you know it. :rolleyes:

[Jason_W]

Or shoot once a year at the cousins farm. This would be the "average gunowner" referenced previously.

And what's wrong with that?

[Sam1911]

Or shoot once a year at the cousins farm. This would be the "average gunowner" referenced previously.
And what's wrong with that?

Nothing, if that's what makes you happy.

But the question we're discussing in this thread is about developing proficiency, expertise, and/or mastery so plinking once a year on a cousin's farm has absolutely ZERO to do with that. Even basic levels of "competence" would be extremely difficult to obtain that way.

If we want to discuss fun ways to wile away a few lazy hours once in a blue moon, that's great -- and I have lots of ideas -- but that's a different thread.

[DAP90]

So your answer is to shoot more competition and less in practice?

This is my first year ever for shooting in a competition and I’d have to say I’ve progressed more in the last 15 weeks of competition than I ever would have just practicing by myself.

Now I’m around others who know what they are doing and I can watch, listen and interact with them. I’ve learned, am learning, to handle the pressure. My confidence grew as I did better throughout those 15 weeks. This translated to even better results and more confidence. Even when I did poorly it just pushed me to concentrate more, work harder, etc. Ego has its uses I guess.

I can’t even say my technique is that much better (it probably is) but for sure I’m more mentally in the game than ever before.

I can’t afford to do both competition and regular practice at the same time, and the costs are roughly the same week to week for both, so I might as well just do the competition.

Now, instead of looking to just go shooting I’m thinking to myself what other kinds of competitions can I do with the guns that I already have?

[Sam1911]

This is my first year ever for shooting in a competition and I’d have to say I’ve progressed more in the last 15 weeks of competition than I ever would have just practicing by myself.


Congratulations! It's incredible, isn't it?

And it points out the big disconnect between mindsets of shooters with different kinds of experiences. A few shooters tend to say, "I know how to shoot and I'm happy with the skills I have or that I can teach myself on my own." And, "those training and competition guys just think that no one can shoot who doesn't have their training or competition experience. No one's ever good enough, so why bother?"

A few other shooters will say, "When I started competing (or training, either one) I found out how much I didn't ever realize I didn't know, and discovered how much better I have the potential to be."

One is the view of the contented, or the defeatist, depending on how you look at it. Perfection is impossible, so why worry about "better" or "improvement?"

The other is the view of the eternal student who realizes that learning is a life-long journey that the farther you go along the path, the farther the path stretches ahead of you.

[mavracer]

That's not a bad idea. Some of the best competitors I know really shoot primarily in competition at this point. Their competition schedules are pretty full, of course, and they do spend a lot of time in dry-fire, but they say that they get a lot more out of shooting under pressure than they do trying to work up that intensity on their own time.
Of course along with the OP question. Now what kind of competition? Do you shoot IDPA only until you reach expert. This would leave rifles and shotguns out in the wind. Or would it be better to shoot a wide variety of shooting sports to be a well rounded shooter?
In IDPA my local club will allow you to shoot two different classes. who is better off the one who shoots every week with the same setup or somebody who rotates and shoots all 5 classes every month?

[JohnBT]

What does the published research say about how dedicated competitors fare in real life shoot-outs, robberies, etc.? I haven't looked yet and don't even know if there is any research to show cause and effect between the two.

John

[David E]

Of course along with the OP question. Now what kind of competition? Do you shoot IDPA only until you reach expert. This would leave rifles and shotguns out in the wind. Or would it be better to shoot a wide variety of shooting sports to be a well rounded shooter?

Some people keep putting up obstacles (some would call them excuses) in their way to keep from trying something new, so they can stay with what's already familiar. There is no need to totally disregard long guns while one pursues handgun skill. Of course, there's always 3-gun competition.

In IDPA my local club will allow you to shoot two different classes. who is better off the one who shoots every week with the same setup or somebody who rotates and shoots all 5 classes every month?

It depends what level they started at and/or what their goal is. Some guns are eligible for different divisions, so you can shoot the exact same gun twice.

If you keep one gun for home defense, but carry another, then one should consider shooting both.

[mavracer]

It depends what level they started at and/or what their goal is.
At what level will it make a difference if as you say. a poor shooter will be a poor shooter no matter what is in his hand and a grand master will awe the crowd with anything you put in their hand. I'm pretty sure I'm in the middle someplace and I wouldn't feel especially handicapped with any of my service guns.
I still believe the goal according to the OP would be, for a hobby shooter and collector who wants to be reasonably proficient with everything in his collection for SD even if he hadn't practiced with some of them reciently.

[Sam1911]

I still believe the goal according to the OP would be, for a hobby shooter and collector who wants to be reasonably proficient with everything in his collection for SD even if he hadn't practiced with some of them reciently.

But that was only one of the two models he gave for comparison. And his question was not restricted to one or the other:

I understand both of these perspectives, but wonder about whether they are in conflict. That is, it would seem that if you honed your skill at the range with just one handgun design, one rifle/carbine design and/or one shotgun design, you'd be a faster, more accurate shooter, and one that could take care of emergency procedures with the weapon more efficiently.


The clear and rather undisputable answer is YES. Those two goals are in conflict. It is to each shooter to decide how significant the drawbacks of either are, and whether they are willing to give up the benefits of one for the benefits of the other. And if so, to what degree?

[mavracer]

But that was only one of the two models he gave for comparison. And his question was not restricted to one or the other:
Well yes, but I figured it would really difficult-near impossible to shoot another platform if you only take one design to the range. So I figured it'd be wise to focus on the other.

[David E]

At what level will it make a difference if as you say. a poor shooter will be a poor shooter no matter what is in his hand, while the Grandmaster......

Remember, every Grandmaster was once a poor shooter!

A poor shooter who wants to improve his pistol skills quickly would best do that by sticking to one gun, not divide his shooting time between 2 dozen different ones.

[mavracer]

A poor shooter who wants to improve his pistol skills quickly would best do that by sticking to one gun, not divide his shooting time between 2 dozen different ones.
Still doesn't answer the question, at what point is it OK with you for me to pick up a second platform?

[David E]

at what point is it OK for me to pick up a second platform?

You're really asking: what skill level should be reached before changing platforms?

To which I'd ask again, what is your goal?

Is it to become as highly skilled as you can with a given platform, or is it to reach a skill level that's "adequate" before moving on?

Since I presume you shoot IDPA from your posts, I'd say make "Master" on demand on their Classifier for the former goal, and make "Sharpshooter" for the latter goal.

[mavracer]

Since I presume you shoot IDPA from your posts, I'd say make "Master" on demand on their Classifier for the former goal, and make "Sharpshooter" for the latter goal.
So you feel that sharpshooter is required to just be adequate, so we need to be sharpshooter before we are capable of using a gun for SD and can start carrying?

[Sam1911]

So you feel that sharpshooter is required to just be adequate, so we need to be sharpshooter before we are capable of using a gun for SD and can start carrying?


You're sounding awfully defensive. YOU asked his opinion. :scrutiny:

Do you need to be classified a sharpshooter in IDPA before you are capable of defending yourself? I don't know. I can't tell under what circumstances you will need to defend yourself. None of us can. Our skills -- and even the presence of the gun -- may be way 'overkill' for the timid, uncommitted miscreant who threatens us. Or, we may be set upon on the way home from being handed a "Division Champion" trophy and be unable to prevail against the threat that arises that day, though our skills are in peak form.

All we can try to be is the very best we can.

Only YOU can decide if you need to obtain a certain ranking, or if you need to obsess about training with one specific weapon, or if you need to practice at all! And when you've decided, you may still be wrong.

Do what you can. Do what you believe you can live with.

I'd say setting some goal before changing platforms is perfectly reasonable, though no guarantee of any future success. Picking a low-level classification like "Sharpshooter" is a reasonable level of competence (maybe even proficiency) and if you feel the need to spread out a little at that point, you're still likely far enough down the learning curve that the general skills you're developing will indeed help you across multiple platforms.

[David E]

So you feel that sharpshooter is required to just be adequate,

Why do you ask a question when you know you don't want an answer?

so we need to be sharpshooter before we are capable of using a gun for SD and can start carrying?

Then challenge things I never said?

Mav, you have my permission to set the bar as high, or as low, as you wish. :rolleyes:

[mavracer]

You're sounding awfully defensive. YOU asked his opinion.
According to somebody I've never met and who's never seen me shoot I'm not good enough to get defensive.:uhoh::uhoh:
For the record I just don't like the condescending tone. ;)

Mav, you have my permission to set the bar as high, or as low, as you wish.
That's the problem, I really didn't think I needed your permission.

[Sam1911]

That's the problem, I really didn't think I needed your permission.

And obviously, neither did HE! But, again, you're the one asking what he thinks you should do.

If you don't care what he thinks, don't ask.

If you're looking for insights from someone who might have more experience and understanding than you, that's great, but don't be bitter about the answers he gives.

As far as a condescending tone goes, there is a lot of difficulty in making an honest assessment and not hurting the feelings of anyone who might end up on the "wrong" side of that judgment.

Can you defend yourself? Very probably yes. Possibly, no, not well enough. The same might be said of any of us. Practice the best you can, as often as you can, and seek advice when you're able (if you can stand to receive it).

When can you carry? Legally, probably as soon as you have a permit and a gun. Practically? As soon as you know enough to be safe with that gun under all conditions and will not be a danger to others.

[gym]

If it has a bullet that comes out the front end I feel confident after 50 years of shooting that I can somehow figure out how to hit the target with any handgun I am likelly to incur. Unless it's on a battleship. It ain't rocket science, although I worked at a defense contractor, anyone here who is a profficient shooter/hobbiest can figure out how to shoot any gun that you are likelly to run into.

[David E]

For the record I just don't like the condescending tone. ;)

No condescension meant. I tend not to sugar-coat, tho, which seems to grate some folks.

That's the problem, I really didn't think I needed your permission.

Why the uncertainty? Clearly you do NOT need my permission for anything. But you specifically asked for it in Post #102: Still doesn't answer the question, at what point is it OK with you for me to pick up a second platform?

If you ever make it to Oklahoma, let's go shoot together. I'm sure we'd both have fun and even enjoy each others company.

[mavracer]

Why the uncertainty? Clearly you do NOT need my permission for anything. But you specifically asked for it in Post #102:
No uncertainty. Just still trying to figure out what I said wrong in my first post.
Where I basicly said I was comfortable with anything where the sights were on top and the trigger was on bottom. And you felt the need to correct me.
For the record I've only shot the qualifier a couple times and it's been a while when I did I scored expert in ESP and CDP. I still shoot a club match every month or two but I usually ignore some of the rules, like I make mag changes like I would in the real world, which tends to rack up the procedurals.
I've also come to the realization after 25 years in a factory I'm reaching an age where maybe I should start to just maintain my abilities as long as I can.

[CraigC]

Who is saying that they are not trying to get better with limited time?
BTW does this mean your getting rid of all your SAs since training for SD obviously would take a president over the mindless fun provided by them?
Why are you getting so defensive??? You have people here trying to help you understand what you have to do to get better and this is how you react? Contrary to what you seem to think, we're not trying to impose superiority. We're trying to help you.

No, I'm not getting rid of my SA's and no, SD training does not take precedence over anything else. And no again, I don't consider shooting SA's to be mindless fun. Quite the contrary, it was single action shooting that I was referring to but I did not mention that because the chosen platform is really irrelevant.

[mavracer]

Contrary to what you seem to think, we're not trying to impose superiority. We're trying to help you.
That's a good one. I understand I'm not the best shot in the world, but how do you intend to help me when you have no idea of my capabilities? Are you not assuming superior knowledge?

[Sam1911]

Oh good grief. Let's just stop.