I'm talking to a guy who put out a theory that goes something like this:
Practice shooting with the "worst" firearm you own. The theory being that if you can shoot the "worst" firearm you own well, then you should be able to shoot a "better/nicer" firearm "better" (tighter groups) because you can already shoot the "bad" firearm proficiently.

Perhaps another way of saying it is that if you aim small and miss small with a "cheap/inexpensive/bad" firearm then you will miss smaller with a "good/quality" firearm.

Everything I seem to recall reading tends to lean towards mastering your preferred firarm.

Is there anything to this guy's theory?

Thanks in advance for your commentery.

Best,

Jake

My question would be to explain how you can establish a level of consistency in order to evaluate improvement, with a firearm incapable of any level of consistency?

If the fiream is going to spray bullets around the target regardless of how good your trigger control, sight alignment, or point of aim is, how do you know if you're good or not?

Seems silly... Practice with what you shoot best and learn to excel. Use a gun more accurate than you are and then try and outshoot it.

I going to try that next time at the range, "If I bought worse guns my target would look better."

Practice with the gun you intend to use. I found as my gun collection grew from three to more than three my shooting proficiency went down. The guns feel different, the safeties are in different places. The sights are set up different. If you expect to use a firearm for self defence you have the responsibility to you and others to know that firearm like the back of your hand.

Sounds dumb, I say train primarily with what you carry or use for HD.

Ah, No! Practice with what you carry. But, if you carry your worst firearm.......ymmv

I agree with the above. An inaccurate gun is a bad idea. How can you evaluate your shooting if the gun is only capable of mediocre performance. Barrels that scatter shots all over the place will never give you quantifiable results. A very accurate gun will allow you to measure your results, figure out your skill level, and track your improvement. Don’t listen to this foo’.

Stupid is what stupid does

Mark Twain said "Knowledge without experience is just information."

His theory is just that - theory.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Brooks:
Practice with the gun you intend to use. I found as my gun collection grew from three to more than three my shooting proficiency went down. The guns feel different, the safeties are in different places. The sights are set up different. If you expect to use a firearm for self defence you have the responsibility to you and others to know that firearm like the back of your hand.

Yep. I practice with several... but I certainly have my favorites. I don't always carry what I shoot the best, but I do practice with the ones I carry.

quote:

Originally posted by greco:
I agree with the above. An inaccurate gun is a bad idea. How can you evaluate your shooting if the gun is only capable of mediocre performance. Barrels that scatter shots all over the place will never give you quantifiable results. A very accurate gun will allow you to measure your results, figure out your skill level, and track your improvement. Don’t listen to this foo’.

I am not advocating a position one way or the other on this theory, but I would like to propose that the OP and his advisor was not necessarily suggesting an inaccurate or malfunctioning gun to practice with just a gun not as "tuned" as your most expensive or favorite gun might be. For example heavier trigger, maybe longer reset, maybe a little grittier, maybe a four inch barrel instead of the 5.25 inch Pro model. The point being if you are able to learn the techniques to overcome and control a "off the shelf" trigger you may be able to finesse a "match trigger" even better.

This same theory could be asked about any sport. I wonder if practicing with a beginner set of golf clubs would make you a better golfer when you used the expensive custom fitted and balanced pro set.

Again I don't know the answer, I just wanted to clarify the question a little bit.

I've heard other posters talk about guns with, say, long and heavy DA pulls dramatically improving their DA skills.

There's other posters who talk about the country club mentality about buying skill.

A sniper and instructor that I talked to, and modeled my training plan after, was of a different opinion.

A true master can work his craft with any tools he's given. Most of us aren't true masters.

If you buy quality tools, you have removed the tool from the equation. What is left is only the user's skill at manipulating those tools to achieve the desired end state.

So I buy quality gear that I test and trust, that works for me ergonomically and is built for the job at hand. And then I practice with it until I have the skill to take advantage of the tool's mechanical performance.

Have any musician "train" with a poor instrument, and then give them a "good" instrument, and they will still play poorly, because that is what they trained to produce.

I am a professional musician, mechanic, photographer artisan and a few other things.

Lifelong experience had proven this to me.

Seems an oft repeating thing with someone coming along with a harebrained idea that seems plausible in the example, but fails miserably in the execution.

quote:

Is there anything to this guy's theory?

Quite simply; no.

Several factors point to him being wrong. For example, muscle memory. Training with the pistol you carry will build muscle memory. If you have built enough muscle memory with the controls with you preferred defensive arm, you have a better chance of recalling that information under stress.

What Mr. Gray has to say about trigger control is also pertinent to this conversation. Trigger control being a deciding factor of accuracy means that you should practice the gun you're going to shoot when trying for accuracy; regardless of where that is (defense, sport, competition, etc.) Because your control of the break will be much more defined with the trigger you've practiced with.

My example is an extreme case, but illustrates the point. My "worst" gun is an old Rohm single action revolver. My "best" gun is my Wilson tuned Beretta 92. In my situation, what could the worst possibly teach me about shooting the best?

In fact, the only scenario where I can imagine this theory might be applicable is if you add another tenant, like multiples of the same gun. For example, if you own a Glock 19 that you carry, and another Glock 19 that you keep on your bedside, and yet another Glock 19 that you keep in the safe - I can see the theory working out. Shooting the worst one might make you more accurate with the others, but even then it's no guarantee.

And, aside from that singular scenario, I'm afraid this person might be full of crap.

Practice by throwing rocks, then a gun will seem incredibly simple and effective by comparison.

I used to shoot service rifle in NRA high power computation. Changing anything before a meet was a recipe for disaster. Loads, rifle, mags, spotting scope, positions, eye protection, clothing, every thing that can be controlled is the same every time. The match will throw more than enough variables at you. I saw one guy blow a leg match when he had a allergic reaction to a new sun screen foam. Anouther guy showed up with new hearing protection and he couldn't get cheek contact on the rifle unless he broke seal on the ear muff. A match is a lousy place to find out something interesting about your gun. In my experience, the most massaged, modified and prepped guns, the best ones so to speak, can be full of surprises.. I hate supprises. Once I saw a guy suffer supprise after supprise with a high dollar 1911 from one of the well known makers turn into a glock guy in about a hour.

There is a lot of room for "what is a best gun"
Most accurate mechanically?
Most accurate from your hand(s)?
Most comfortable and fitting to you?

I did not leg out with my worst gun.

quote:

Originally posted by imadat:
I'm talking to a guy who put out a theory that goes something like this:
Practice shooting with the "worst" firearm you own. The theory being that if you can shoot the "worst" firearm you own well, then you should be able to shoot a "better/nicer" firearm "better" (tighter groups) because you can already shoot the "bad" firearm proficiently.

Perhaps another way of saying it is that if you aim small and miss small with a "cheap/inexpensive/bad" firearm then you will miss smaller with a "good/quality" firearm.

Everything I seem to recall reading tends to lean towards mastering your preferred firarm.

Is there anything to this guy's theory?

Thanks in advance for your commentery.

Best,

Jake

You know me, I'm a mild sort of guy, more than ready and willing ti listen to anybody in the expectation of learning something new. However, I've been a competitor for over fifty-five years, and an instructor for almost the same amount of time, military and civilian, and have the hardware to prove it.

That theory, Sir, is BS.

tac

An accurate gun with poor trigger quality could be used to perfect hold and follow through since a poor trigger magnifies those errors. Mostly the theory is all wet.