Can you shoot them all good?

I am a 5 gun master in IDPA but often carry guns that are less than ideal for speed and accuracy.

Actually handguns as a category are often less than ideal, they are just convenient.

Can I?

For the two (and sometimes a third) guns that I carry most often, my level of competence and confidence that I can do a good enough job with them to not assume room-temperature after an incident is satisfactory. While I'd love to be a "perfect shot" with the guns that I carry (I know that that'll never be the case, mainly due to aging eyes), I do know that the training I've received over the course of my career will carry me through most anything I can expect to encounter so long as I remain current with the occasional 'refresher' course.

The premise of the question is wrong. It shouldn't be, "can you shoot them all good," but can you shoot them all good enough?

Then, of course, we need to define a skill level that reflects that.

Very good point! Of course, good enough for what? To survive? To win something? To be happy with yourself? To harvest an animal?

Sam1911 said:

Very good point! Of course, good enough for what? To survive? To win something? To be happy with yourself? To harvest an animal?

Click to expand...

You can be very, very good, but still won't win the match, depending who else shows up.

Harvesting an animal is, really, fairly easy 90% of the time.

Some people are happy with their sub-mediocre ability, because they really don't care.

My take was "good enough to survive."

You may also not be good enough to survive even if you're the best gunman ever -- as you said, "depending on who else shows up!" (Or how many, or under what conditions, or depending on your situational awareness, etc.)

Mastery of firearms is no guarantee of survival of any violent encounter. Of course.

Sam1911 said:

You may also not be good enough to survive even if you're the best gunman ever -- as you said, "depending on who else shows up!" (Or how many, or under what conditions, or depending on your situational awareness, etc.)

Mastery of firearms is no guarantee of survival of any violent encounter. Of course.

Click to expand...

Taking this view, why bother?

Can you shoot them all good?


As was pointed out, what is the meaning of "good"?

Compared to the majority of people I see at the ranges I visit, I maybe ought to feel I'm doing well, but I'm not even close to what I'd like to be able to do. My goal right now is to put 20 bullets into a one inch diameter circle at 15 yards from any of my handguns. Much of the time, I can now do it with a three inch target. Some people say that's "good" or even "excellent". I don't see it that way, and my ability to do even that fades away after 50 or so rounds, as my body gets tired. I wish I was 19 or 29, not 69. Oh well.

I read every bit of advice from the "masters" I could find, and then re-read much of it. I decided to force myself to follow every bit of it. I had a pair of eyeglasses made up, with a prescription for the distance from my eyeball to the front sight. Now the front sight is always crisp and clear, and the target is always a blur - with no effort on my part to get my eyes to do that.

I go to the range, and put 3 bullets into a revolver, so if I ever try to flinch or something, it will immediately be obvious. That idea seems to be working.

I'm shooting 38 specials in a gun designed for 357 magnum. I can't see any point in shooting anything more powerful until I'm "good enough" with the lighter rounds.

All the guidebooks say practice, practice, practice, and while I can't get to the range that often, I can certainly do a lot of dry firing.


I guess I have two goals right now - the first is to get to where the groupings are ALWAYS inside of that 3" target, better than rarely (a year ago) to often (currently). I keep looking for ways to improve, but I figure 99% of what's needed is for ME to learn how to do better, not from any changes I might make to the guns or ammo.

Why bother? Why bother with anything? To improve your odds? To reduce the likelihood of harm to others should you need to fire? Assuredly not because there's some physically applicable standard of when you're "good enough" to survive a gunfight.

It's all odds and stakes and doing the little bit we can humanly do to shift them in our favor.

I do not carry a single action auto. I've had 1911s in the past, didn't care much for 'em. I love revolvers and all my autos follow a pattern, they fire DA first shot with a long, smooth trigger like a good DA revolver. Since I will NOT give up carrying revolvers, this keeps things simple for me, not so different manual of arms.

I've won revolver matches and I've won matches with my autoloader. I figure I can get better, but I shoot 'em all pretty well. I practice a lot more now, my range is behind my house and I don't have to punch a time clock anymore, but I'm old and not getting younger.

It's inevitable: someone will say "no matter how good you are, it may not matter...."

So why practice? Why even carry a gun?

Because it gives you a chance, probably a very good chance the better you are.

Being extremely good with a tuned 1911 but carrying a 5-shot snub you're barely mediocre with may not be the best way to go.

This is an area where I try very hard not to over think it. I would fall under that "good enough to survive" category. I don't compete and don't even keep my targets for analysis etc. To me, if I can draw and put 3 rounds into center mass sized target at 30 feet or so, I will carry that gun. the rest of the time, I shoot for fun.

For some people, I think the precision type accuracy is their thing. I think that is awesome and I enjoy watching some of these guys shoot... for me, I don't aspire to that.

You should be proficient with every firearm you own! NO Exceptions!

Sam1911 said:

does developing the somewhat conflicting skills needed for different platforms detract from that ultimate

Click to expand...

Not trying to take anything out of context. But with the shear number of different firearm configurations, "conflicting skills" could be a accurate description or a pretty good stretch.
Going from a 1911 to a Beretta M9 the safety works backward would be a conflict IMHO but going from a XD to a Glock would be very minor.
I'd also say that many skills can be ingrained into muscle memory provided they are not directly conflicting. I've shot a lot of single action revolvers in my life and it doesn't seem to matter how long I go without shooting them or ho much I shoot auto loaders, handeling and loading a SAA is always automated to me.

all357mag said:

You should be proficient with every firearm you own! NO Exceptions!

Click to expand...

Again, we need to define "proficient"

If a guy can put 8 shots into one inch in ten minutes at 25 yds, with a 1911, but doesn't know the different functions of the mag release, slide stop or thumb safety.....would you call him proficient?

If a guy can put 8 shots into one inch in ten minutes at 25 yds, with a 1911, but doesn't know the different functions of the mag release, slide stop or thumb safety.....would you call him proficient?

Click to expand...

Good point!

A lot of electrons are spent each year posting about tight groups and how accurate is this handgun or that handgun. But does that serve the primary purpose of a sidearm? Mechanical accuracy, and marksmanship fundamentals are important parts of proficient handgunning, of course, but who's more proficient? The fellow who can put 10 shots in 1" at 15 yds in 8 minutes, or the one who can't do that, but can put six shots in six inches at 7 yards in 2 seconds, from the draw and concealment?

Which one is the more skilled? Which one is more likely to be able to use his weapon effectively?

Then, just to put a fine point on it, what happens when the "6 shots in 2 seconds" guy puts away his 1911 when he leaves the range and drops a KelTec in his pocket for daily carry?

sam1911 said:

Then, just to put a fine point on it, what happens when the "6 shots in 2 seconds" guy puts away his 1911 when he leaves the range and drops a KelTec in his pocket for daily carry?

Click to expand...

Based on what I've seen at the range and at classes, he's better prepared than about 99% of the other CCW carriers out there, and definitely better prepared than 100% of the people with empty pockets.

Hmm.... " But does that serve the primary purpose of a sidearm?"


If you try to define the primary purpose of a sidearm, there is no one answer, other than "to fire bullets". Substitute "camera" for "sidearm", and the answer then would be "to take pictures".


For some of you, I'm guessing it's to carry with you for protection. For others, it's to carry with you to a range to punch holes in paper.


I think this discussion is comparing the ownership and use of a single firearm, where the owner is likely to know a good bit about that particular firearm, with a person who owns many firearms - in which case the person is likely to know more about "shooting" in general. It's the same with cameras, where one person is thinking mostly about one camera, while someone who owns many cameras spends more of his time thinking about the photograph he's creating.

For a person who spends all his time working with fine precision firearms that rarely malfunction, should he find himself in a situation where he needs to protect himself, is he going to instantly know what to do if the gun jams?

You should be proficient with every firearm you own! NO Exceptions!

Click to expand...

Oh please....Why in the world would I need to be proficient with every firearm I own?
At last count, I own 56 firearms, 6 muzzle-loaders, and 27 air guns.... I carry ONE of those. The same pistol every day.
I also keep several of the same style pistol as alternates (hammer-fired DAO semi-autos) and maintain proficiency with that type.
Sure, I do have experience with the rest of them...so in the ever-popular zombie-apocalypse-battlefield-pickup-scenario I'm good.
Interestingly enough, I have needed my carry gun twice....in both times its 'proficient presentation' was sufficient.

The rest of them? Most of my guns were bought for recreation. You remember recreation, right? FUN!
.

Being proficient as in competent, I feel that I would be with all firearms I own and I haven't even shot some of them.

Some are better than others for different tasks. If I have to shoot a 30 round stage at a pistol match, I would be fastest with one of my open pistols.

If I am fishing I prefer a 45 colt derringer loaded with #12 shot.

Two extreams in the firearm world yet well suited for the job I chose them for.

If a guy can put 8 shots into one inch in ten minutes at 25 yds, with a 1911, but doesn't know the different functions of the mag release, slide stop or thumb safety.....would you call him proficient?

Click to expand...

I would find it hard to believe that somebody who's shot a 1911 enough to shoot 1" groups at 25 yards, wouldn't have at least stumbled across the mag release.

mavracer said:

I would find it hard to believe that somebody who's shot a 1911 enough to shoot 1" groups at 25 yards, wouldn't have at least stumbled across the mag release.

Click to expand...

You'd think.

But I've run into more than one self proclaimed expert that didn't know the different functions.

BCRider said:

when I switched from semi to revolver for my IDPA practice and competition that I felt downright "glacial" at first. But with practice and more practice at ALL the skills related to drawing, shooting and reloading I got down to where my usual overall placement is now about half way down the overall times. And as the only revolver shooter that means I'm beating half the semi guys....

It took a pretty good amount of focus on using that one gun and gear setup for much of the past year and a half.

Click to expand...

On average, IDPA shooters who focus on a revolver for 18 months, will not beat shooters who focus on a semi for 18 months. But hey, it's ok to jump in the kiddie pool once in a while.

But I've run into more than one self proclaimed expert that didn't know the different functions.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about somebody that just claims they can, I've seen a lot of claims not backed up myself, I'm talking about somebody who actually has the ability to shoot 1" at 25 yards.