2 is 1, 1 is none.

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rocinante

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Messages
1,306
Location
Alpharetta GA
Anybody else buy into that old saw? Lately I have been doubling up on stuff. My best 'rationale' is I have two sons and I want each to have some of the same thing.
 
I don't really double up, but I do try to keep the numbers ever for that very reason. If one of them gets a Model 28 and one gets a 27...well too bad. They'll just have to suffer.
 
My wife and I are going to the same thing along with an extra. There may be more in the safe for fun, but for defensive use we'll both have the same thing in the night stand and in a long rifle for disaster/looting/EOWAWKI/whatever in the safe.
 
Not really. I have gobs of ammo and accessories for my guns and numerous of the same style, like 1911s, but I don't go and buy a backup just for the old 2 is 1 argument.
I only have doubles when I come across another at a great price or in better condition than the one I have, in which case the original probably gets sold. And that is really speaking about older, collector pieces.

I certainly don't buy doubles for tactical reasons, though I know some who do. If something breaks, well, I have enough guns and practice enough that I'll get something different out until I get it fixed. If it breaks in competition it doesn't matter that much since I'm not a serious contender for any prizes. And if it breaks in the middle of a gunfight then I guess my time is up.

I'd rather buy something different rather than stocking up on the same guns I already bought once. There is too many things that I want but don't have yet.
 
I guess I do. I mean, I keep what amounts to a backup set of my EDC stuff in my jacket. Two flashlights, (at least) two knives, two multitools, etc.
 
In your case, I can see why you might choose to do this. Plus there is the fact that if you all are out shooting, there are guns for everyone. So, maybe 3 or 4 is 1 in your case. To me, that would be far more useful than planning for death. I prefer to plan for life.
 
I understand it, and some worry wart, OCD part of my brain does buy into it and likes having things in pairs. I think, for most of life, a more practical wording of the old saw should be: 2 is 1, but 1 is better than none.
 
He's buying duplicates so he can give his children equal guns when he dies or chooses to gift them.
 
He's buying duplicates so he can give his children equal guns when he dies or chooses to gift them.
Click to expand...

I got that part , I'm just wondering about the saying cause I've seen it before. As for duplicates I understand. My two sons are still young but I still need to buy duplicates or there is heck to pay.
 
I'm just wondering about the saying cause I've seen it before.
Click to expand...

If you have 2 guns, or 2 mags, or 2 knives, or 2 cars, and one breaks you still have one functioning thing-a-ma-jig left; if you only have one and it goes down you are left with none.
 
rocinante
2 is 1, 1 is none.
Anybody else buy into that old saw? Lately I have been doubling up on stuff. My best 'rational' is I have two sons and I want each to have some of the same thing.
Click to expand...

Not just doubling up. My Kryptonite is S&W 59 Series (1st thru 3rd including value-line) & Sigmas (go figure). You would think they were bunnies in the safe...
 
Yeah, it's an old "carry a back-up gun" phrase. That is the
common usage.

In regards to the OP, I see the thought behind it BUT the main reason IMHO that inherited guns (or anything really) mean so much to people is because of the memories they invoke of the past. If you simply buy two of everything because you want things 50/50, it seems to kind of lessen the sentiment. It's more like you're just splitting up money opposed to a fond memory. Just my .02 about it.
 
A lot of catchy sayings out there...that are worthless.

If you really believe that #1 is unreliable then you should not be carrying it.

I'm sure Clint believes that you must carry two, and I'm sure that he preaches this in his courses, and makes money doing so.

The NY reload is the fastest. But for civilians I don't believe it is necessary. Look at the small odds of ever needing your defensive weapon, the odds are small if you pull it that you need to fire it(most of the time the site of one is enough to send the BG running), if you do pull the trigger what are the odds that it jams or doesn't fire AND a tap-rack won't clear it(carry a reliable tested firearm). Most SD shootings are over in <3 rounds also, stats show that as well.

It's all just too little of a chance that you'd ever need it...at least in the circles that I travel. But if you feel better carrying 2, that's your choice. But if you're operating on the premise that you really believe #1 will jam(and can't be fixed by tap-rack), then you should not be carrying an un-reliable weapon and you should have the same belief about #2 I would think.
 
Last edited:
i carry a secondary gun cause life comes at ua from every which way. so to be be able to respond accordingly i carry something for each side of me.
 
Not me. I don't have the money to just have extra guns and parts laying around. It'd be nice and all, just completely impractical for me at the moment.

And honestly, even if I had the money to do so, I think I'd rather spend the money on different guns, and just stock a selection of replacement parts for each, rather than multiples of each one.
 
If you really believe that #1 is unreliable then you should not be carrying it.
Click to expand...
A gun is only reliable until it fails and any gun can fail at any time. Clint's preaching about stacking the odds in your favor and I wonder how exactly that makes him money??? I don't carry two but I do so with the knowledge that if my one and only gun fails, I'm left with a pocket knife if the fight is unfinished.
 
I have always had backup guns but they were not always identical. My S&W Model 15 was the backup to my Model 19 that I carried on duty. I still have backups for almost all of my guns that might be used for "social" purposes.

Since I have 2 daughters I have also been acquiring duplicates of some of the others so that they'' each get a good start in the shooting world.
 
I've heard Clint on this topic, and I don't get the sense that the main concern is an unreliable No. 1 gun. The issue has more to do with what position you'll find yourself in. For example, if you're on the ground (esp with an attacker on top) getting to a WB piece may be difficult, but if you have a backup on the ankle it's right there in front of you. I also don't think he's "making money" on this idea. He doesn't push the latest and greatest firearms, quite the contrary.

Also, don't think for a second that DROPPING a firearm isn't a risk. In the insanity of the moment that's happened before, esp. if you're getting physically assaulted or shot at. I know one case where a fellow confronting a charging sow THREW a perfectly good shotgun at the bear. Weird stuff happens.
 
Last edited:
Cosmoline said:
The issue has more to do with what position you'll find yourself in. For example, if you're on the ground (esp with an attacker on top) getting to a WB piece may be difficult, but if you have a backup on the ankle it's right there in front of you. I also don't think he's "making money" on this idea.
Click to expand...

Sure he is...he's charging money to teach all of those fancy firing positions, drawing from the back-up ankle holster on the ground, out of the pocket descretely, under deress while wrestling, left handed using your backup since your primary is disabled, etc. You nearly said as much in your post.

He is a trainer. It would not be in his best interest to preach one on the hip is more than you'll ever need.
 
Clint's approach is to teach a wide array of methods for everything from loading to drawing. He's not a guy who teaches one method and one carry position, as some might. To me that adds value to the training. I'm not sure how teaching *fewer* options would be better. NY reloads aside, not everyone carries on the waistband or can in their day-to-day lives.
 
Agreed.

I did a search to find some of his comments on the subject:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_2_54/ai_n21175823/

"Often I am questioned about the concept of a backup gun. Fundamentally this weapon is put into play, when the primary defense tool has failed to do its job from a ballistic point or view or is broke or has run out of ammunition or maybe even because access to the primary weapon is impaired or impossible due lo injury or physical contact with a threat"
 
Has anybody ever picked up a flashlight in their house or vehicle to find it is dead? Have you ever left your knife laying on fender or bumper or perhaps laying on the ground after you have dressed out a deer? That is what the 2 is 1, 1 is none means to me. I also take it to guns in that I try to keep a second one fairly close, that might mean back in the bedroom or in the truck. I also include an extra mag or reload. Basically the preparedness mindset is healthy if for no other reason than thinking ahead and processing the inevitable shortages and breakdowns that seem to happen with regularity in life.
 
So many people get into an asinine level of preparedness for something they are far less likely to experience than say, a car accident.

Do you wear two seatbelts? What if that first one breaks? Do you ever clean your seatbelt? Have you tested it regularly? Have you practiced rapidly exiting your vehicle through say, the opposite side window in case of a car fire after a wreck has disabled your door?

Probably not, yet so many people look a a guy teaching a weak hand draw with their backup gun and think "Oh yeah, I totally see that happening, you can never be too prepared."

I understand that for some people, it is their job to be prepared this way (I'm a Recon Marine, so it is certainly part of mine), but I think too much emphasis to put on cutting out that .00001% chance of gun failure in firing 3 rounds when you're more than prepared enough with any gun at all on a day-to-day basis living a normal American life.

Besides, if you get hit in the back of the head with a wrench, it doesn't matter how many guns you have or fancy draws you know.
 
I cannot believe everyone is arguing about this.

What is the harm in having extra? Do you just buy enough for one meal to stock in your pantry? Do you put exactly the amount of gasoline needed in your car to go to work for one day?

No. Because if you do, you're probably an idiot.

Course, you wouldn't buy two of the same car to have on in reserve NORMALLY. I know some guys who have parts cars, and that's cool. But they didn't buy the car so they could switch it out when it runs out of gas.

I don't own two of the same pistol. But I own at least two magazines for it. I do usually buy what I'm going to shoot at the range plus a box to stuff away.

It's a good rule of thumb to have extra.

And on the side note of trainers milking money, before you point at Clint Smith you should take a good hard look at companies like Magpul. Every three months or so they make some chintzy plastic part, use it in front of a camera, and everyone buys it. Doesn't matter if it works or not.

Some of their ideas have been good, such as Pmags. But swappable trigger guards? Really? That new angled grip thing drives me nuts... if you like to grab your AR that way, grab the tac light I have a suspicious feeling you have on it already. And lego camo colored handguards?

And the MOE... seriously, why not get some A1 handguards?

Oh man I gotta stop. When I think of the hordes that are busily buying up everything Costa wears I start getting high blood pressure. Sorry for going off topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top