What matters more? Training or The Gun?

[thevigilante]

As some one who carries a SAA (Cimarron model p) as a edc. (Mostly when I’m in the highway to go to another town or state.)and I do train with my gun. I dry fire, practice going around the corners, reloading it at a good time while trying to be my fastest time. All the 9 yards. (Note I am currently getting into CBAS and I’m already in CBFD.) so when ever I heard discussions on not just SAA being a bad gun to use, or just revolvers in general. It’s always the same thing. Higher mag capacity, shoots faster etc etc. Not one of these conversations I’ve seen talk about training. Yes I love to go shooting at the range as well, and while it does help you get use to the gun. shooting at paper targets while standing still, isn’t much training. Especially when someone is moving, very close or is behind you.

So does the gun matter? Or does the training matter?

Ps. My phone keeps auto correcting, so if anything I said sounds a bit off. My phone is correcting me.

 

[guzzi]

Training and competition will likely cause you to improve on the gun used.

 

[shoebox1.1]

While I highly respect the choice to carry a SA gun for edc I think under duress for me personally I’d be concerned about goofs on my part. DA could be more point and shoot at close distance one handed

 

[entropy]

I'm sure Thell Reed was well suited with his SAA were he accosted. I personally would prefer something a bit more modern, say 1900 or newer.

 

[.308 Norma]

Ps. My phone keeps auto correcting, so if anything I said sounds a bit off. My phone is correcting me.

What about if everything you said sounds a "bit off?"
Just kidding around, thevigilante - don't take me seriously. What I actually believe is that training (and practice) is probably just as important as the type (and caliber) of gun that a person carries. Besides, I too am a single-action revolver fan - even though that's not what I carry in town. But I wouldn't feel completely unprotected if a SA revolver was what I carried for self-protection from 2-legged animals. Heck, a SA revolver of some flavor actually was, and still is what I often carry for self-protection from 2 and 4 legged animals in the wild.
BTW, not only am I a single-action revolver fan from way back, I'm also a firm believer in, "you do you, I'll do me."

 

[adcoch1]

For single assailant or animal trouble you only need a few rounds, so if that is the most likely situation you'll face, you are probably covered fine with a saa and good training.
But if a reload is involved due to a multiple assailants, like a run away attempted carjacking, that's when the higher capacity in the gun really shines. And that situation would benefit from training more than increased capacity in the firearm.

Now, I don't expect to get carjacked, and I don't look like a target in my general everyday life, so my bias steers towards a revolver being enough, and I carry one sometimes, even a single action. But if starting from scratch, it would be an auto all the way due to the ease of training. I shoot revolvers 10 to 1 over autos so i'm hardwired to revolver functioning, but any revolver sucks to reload compared to a mag swap.

To answer the question concisely, training is everything.

 

[Walkalong]

Without training, tools are useless.

 

[Rodfac]

Without training, tools are useless.

ABSOLUTELY...WELL SAID. Rod

 

[.38 Special]

If I was better with an SAA, I'd be fine carrying it. In fact, I have often considered adding one to my permit. I am stopped by the fact that it would take considerable effort to get to the level of competence I would want, so the D.A. revolvers - and the occasional Glock - continue to occupy my defensive-use holsters.

The short version is that of course training is more important than the gun. The longer version is that the high-cap boys have a point when they note that nobody is winning IPSC matches with single action revolvers. The question then becomes "How many gunfights end up looking like IPSC matches" and that one won't be settled on this thread.

 

[bearcreek]

So does the gun matter? Or does the training matter?

Depends what is meant by "training". "Training", in the civilian firearms context, is an extraordinarily broad category, covering everything from simply turning money into noise on the back 40 to multi day, physically and mentally demanding tactics classes. That said, generally speaking, both matter. A higher capacity, faster to operate gun is not a direct substitute for a lack of training. At the same time, training is not a direct substitute for a higher capacity, faster to operate gun.

 

[JohnKSa]

So does the gun matter? Or does the training matter?

Yes.

Assuming you've made some reasonable attempt to match the type of pistol to the use for which it is intended and picked a handgun that works for you, then training is going to be the major factor.

If you are working with a mismatch of pistol to the application you need it for, or dealing with a pistol that isn't a good fit for you, you may find it difficult, or even impossible to overcome the mismatch issues with training.

For example, let's say you are looking at using a handgun for one of the practical pistol competitions. I don't care how much you train with a single action type revolver, even the newbies using magazine fed pistols are going to beat you bloody on your reloads. You will find it essentially impossible to be competitive on stages that require reloads. If you go with a double action type revolver with a swingout cylinder, then with a ton of training, you may be able to reload almost as fast as a fairly proficient amateur with a magazine fed pistol. You may be able to be competitive, but you're going to be working a lot harder than the folks with magazine fed pistols, both during the match and in training. If you pick a tiny mag-fed pistol with low capacity, it's going to be a lot harder to shoot and reload it--again, with a lot of training, you may be able to be competitive, but you've started in a hole that you will have to work your way out of using a lot of training as the shovel.

Or, let's say you are shooting something like silhouette where reload times are a non-issue, then as long as you pick a handgun with the requisite accuracy, training will make the difference. But if you pick a handgun that is too inaccurate for the game, you aren't going to be able to overcome that problem with training.

So the major factor is training. Except when the choice of handgun matters more and then the major factor is handgun choice.

Or you could say it a couple of other ways:

Training is very, very important, but it can't work miracles.

Optimal performance requires both training and making good equipment choices.

 

[Kleanbore]

(Mostly when I’m in the highway to go to another town or state.)and I do train with my gun. I dry fire, practice going around the corners, reloading it at a good time

Actually, that is practice.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

Without training, tools are useless.

This. Or, largely this, anyway.

That said, a shovel is better tool for digging holes than a spoon.

And an excavator is better than a shovel.

Then understand that an excavator might be too big for the job at hand...


Point is, the better the tool for the job, the more productive you can be.

 

[bearcreek]

Without training, tools are useless.

Yes and no. Plenty of folks are able to use tools with no training at all. Someone who has never used a hammer before will find that, given a nail to pound, they're able to accomplish the task better with the right tool, even without training. Likewise with a handgun. Without the right tool, training is still useful, but cannot be used to it's full potential.

 

[Rexster]

There is training to use best tactics and strategies, and, there is the training to use the weapon(s) well. The former can be very important, even for those who do not have a favored weapon available, or, any actual firearm at all, when the real-world critical incident happens. The tactics and strategy training is the most important, in my opinion.

Then, there is the weapon, itself, and the training to use the weapon well. As I see it, these are co-equal.

Ultimately, there is the wisdom of training that combines all of the above.

On the matter of choosing a single-action revolving pistol, versus a more modern weapon system, well, a modern weapon can offer more options to the user, while requiring less manipulation. In the typical face-to-face armed robbery, I see no disadvantage in being armed with a single-action revolving pistol, if the defender is comfortable AND skilled using the ol’ sixgun for quick and accurate hits. Five or six is enough, until it isn’t. If that five or six are not enough, well, ten to seventeen may fall short, too.

Two times in my life, I have found SAA-pattern single action sixguns to be desirable for defensive purposes. The first time was a couple of decades ago, or so, when I had so sleep with “carpal tunnel” splints on BOTH of my wrists, while sleeping. I found that the one weapon which worked well, if I had to shoot, while wearing the splints, was a USFA Single Action, that became my bedside companion. I carried my SIG P229 while on duty, when I was not wearing the splints. I probably carried a pair of Ruger SP101 snub-guns, during personal time. If not, it was a P229. The next time I found SAA-pattern sixguns to be viable for defensive use, started last year, and continues to the present. Arthritis moving into the second knuckles of BOTH of my index fingers effectively ended 40+ years of long-stroke double-action trigger pulling, with medium-frame* revolvers. This also ended training with most types of DA autos. Well, if I have to cock a hammer, anyway, to shoot a revolver in single-action mode, it is more expedient to use a single-action sixgun, with a hammer that is situated and shaped to facilitate thumb-cocking. A different problem can affect my ability to use my right hand to run an auto-pistol's slide, when shooting lefty, and to provide a firm-enough support to the frame while shooting righty. My days of using auto-loaders being potentially limited, it is a best practice for me to train with my SA sixguns.

Tom Givens, founder of Rangemaster, and a member of this forum, has made a diligent effort to follow-up on the shooting incidents that have involved his students. If I recall correctly, he arrived at a comfortable minimum ammo capacity, by studying how many rounds his students needed to successfully prevail. I would rather not put words into anyone’s mouth, or guess, and be wrong, but I am reasonably certain that the number was not fifteen or seventeen. I remember being comfortable with two five-shot revolvers, based upon what he wrote.

*At least for the present time, I am still able to shoot SP101 and J-Frame revolvers in DA mode, due to the differing dimensions resulting in differing finger positions, which means less stress concentrated on the second knuckle of each trigger finger.

 

[jmr40]

Gun 1st. Lots of untrained people have successfully used a gun to defend themselves. Training and practice give you confidence.

 

[adcoch1]

The short version is that of course training is more important than the gun. The longer version is that the high-cap boys have a point when they note that nobody is winning IPSC matches with single action revolvers. The question then becomes "How many gunfights end up looking like IPSC matches" and that one won't be settled on this thread.

The answer to that question for a civilian is "none".
We aren't John Wick. IPSC matches are good metrics for us to study about how to use guns and the training for one can definitely promote real world proficiency, but no civilian defensive situation is going to start with you queued up with your high capacity race gun in a drop leg holster. That is unless the bad guys are REALLY unlucky...

 

[Kleanbore]

Here's one way to look at it.

Take your firearm to a defensive shooting class. If you find that it is not suitable for the standard drills, the issue is not one of training.

 

[.38 Special]

Here's one way to look at it.

Take your firearm to a defensive shooting class. If you find that it is not suitable for the standard drills, the issue is not one of training.

First you have to define the "standard drills". I have been put through quite a few which bore no resemblance to reality.

 

[Kleanbore]

First you have to define the "standard drills".

Things like the Bill Drill, El Presidente, Mozambique...

I have been put through quite a few which bore no resemblance to reality.

What do you mean by that?

 

[.38 Special]

What do you mean by that?

Stages with twenty, thirty, forty rounds, and multiple magazine changes. Amusing, but totally out of place for realistic defensive training - especially when used as a justification to exclude revolvers.

The "El Prez", by the way, is an interesting one. I am fairly sure that Cooper meant it as a general test of skill with a 1911, rather than as a "pass/fail" equipment evaluation. Nevertheless, it can be done spectacularly well with a moon clipped revolver, significantly less well with a speed loaded revolver, and pretty much not at all with an SA revolver. For folks who imagine themselves in a fight with three semi-bulletproof adversaries, that is definitive. For the rest of us...

 

[JohnKSa]

Standard drills are common shooting exercises designed to test shooter proficiency. Drills are usually shot with a timer. Not all drills require reloading (e.g. Bill Drill, Mozambique) , but it's not uncommon for them to include a reload (e.g. El Presidente) since reloading is generally considered to be part of a well-rounded handgunner's skill set. It's common for drills to start in the holster so that the draw is incorporated into the time.

The idea of drills isn't to justify or exclude anything, the idea is to test the proficiency of a handgunner over the entire set of defensive handgun skills. A person can look at the results and see where they need to spend more time training.

By the way, some people spend a lot of time practicing the drills. IMO, that's sort of missing the point. The drills are tests, not really training. You want to do your training so that it improves your skill set--which will, in turn, improve your performance on the drills. The goal isn't to get good at the tests (the drills), it's to get better overall--which will result in better "test" scores.

 

[entropy]

Yes and no. Plenty of folks are able to use tools with no training at all. Someone who has never used a hammer before will find that, given a nail to pound, they're able to accomplish the task better with the right tool, even without training. Likewise with a handgun. Without the right tool, training is still useful, but cannot be used to it's full potential.

With the correct training, everything is a tool.
Mindset, Skillet, Toolset. In that ooda. (The misspelling is deliberate.) The further you advance along that path, the easier the use of each tool becomes (and becomes a force multiplier) but conversely, just knowing a shovel or a pencil can be used as a weapon is highly advantageous.

 

[Buzznrose]

When considering what gun to carry or training efforts for potential defensive use against people, I’ve started to think about it as a competition where these two assumptions are the most important considerations:

1. The best possible outcome is me with me and mine still breathing and unharmed, and the worse outcome is the opposite results. I’m choosing my tools for my full advantage.

2. The more efficiently, effectively, and reliably I can deploy and operate my tool(s) to maximum performance, the higher my chances of success.

The opponents timing, skillset and size/numbers are not of your choosing, so the best a defensive player can do is react and counter the threat to the best of their ability, which is why mindset and situational awareness are so much more important than the rest.

 

[JohnKSa]

With the correct training, everything is a tool.

Absolutely. But there's no denying that some tools are better than others for certain tasks. Try to use a shovel or pencil to stop two assailants armed with firearms and shooting at you from 15 yards away and this will become immediately apparent.