Just throwing this out there for discussion. Do you think it better in times like these where ammo is harder to come by, to have multiple pistols in same caliber as opposed to 1 or 2 in several different calibers? And after you have 2 or 3 pistols do you really need more? I do believe in the 2 is 1 and 1 is none theory. Thanks Mac
I think it depends on a lot of factors. What follows is all keeping “2 is 1” in mind....
If you have one use case for a gun...in other words, one thing you are going to be doing, be it target shooting, concealed carry, or whatever, then two identical guns makes a lot of sense. Same make, model, caliber. You are paying more money than just buying one gun, but you get redundancy for your money.
If you have two use cases that are similar, e.g. home defense and low difficulty concealed carry, then you have a more complicated choice. You can choose to use the same (or very similar) type of gun for both cases (e.g. a G19 is fine for either role, and a G19 and a G17 have enough overlap that either can be used for either role), so there are two strategies make sense: two slightly different guns, or two identical guns that can work for either role. Either way, choosing one cartridge for both makes sense. Ideally, there would be magazine compatibility too. Cost is probably about the same as the previous scenario but now you get redundancy and expanded capability.
When you get into dissimilar use cases, things look very different. For example if you need to cover home defense and deep concealment, it’s a real challenge to find true deep concealment guns in anything above .380, and 9mm is a good floor for home defense. So now you have a choice: four guns in two cartridges, or two guns in two cartridges with the understanding that a failure of either will leave you compromising your other use case. The choice becomes a matter of money, so you need to start asking yourself, “how much does maximizing the capability per dollar matter to me?”
The more kinds of dissimilar use cases you have, the more guns and potentially calibers you need. Add that if you like having guns, it’s pretty easy to justify having another 30 or so that are redundant but aren’t for redundancy. At this point the whole, “maximum reliability for minimum dollars,” thing is out the window anyway so your goal becomes maximizing capability, supply flexibility, and other values.
The last time I was in a store that sold ammo, their entire stock consisted of rat shot in various forms, rimfire, and .380. If I had needed ammo, I would have been happy to have a .380 pistol at that moment. But it could has easily have been .40, or .32H&R mag, or whatever else. If you want the greatest chance of being able to buy ammo, having guns that can fire a range of cartridges has an advantage.
What does all of that boil down to?
If you have only one or two similar use cases, and your goal is maximizing reliability and effectiveness per dollar, standardizing on one caliber and two guns that can both cover your uses is going to be your most bang for the buck.
If you have a range of dissimilar use cases, deliberately choosing different but overlapping guns in different calibers will give you the same or better redundancy, a greater range of uses, and better supply options, but the cost per unit of redundancy will be higher.
That higher cost may or may not matter to you. The only wrong answer at this point is to have a mismatch between your choices and actual needs. If your actual needs are for a danger predator defense gun, a deep concealment gun, a low difficulty concealment gun, a new shooter training gun, a small game hunting gun, and a home defense gun, but you buy a pair of midsize polymer 9mms because that’s the max redundancy per dollar sweet spot, you’ve done yourself a disservice.
