So I keep reading the if there were no striker fired guns thread and all that comes to mind is, if you are a student of the gun in general terms, have decent fundamentals and have a fighting mindset then who cares what pieces of tech is in your hand?

Now I myself am probably dead short of having the claymore take out my assailant but do you think somebody like the average SAS/SBS/Delta/SEAL etc. etc. is horribly defanged with a DA/SA or a 5 shot JFrame. How about a trainer like JJones here on our very forums?

Point is learn to shoot fundamentally, don’t pigeon hole yourself to a single action or platform and have the mindset and skill that you can run a tricked out Taran Tactical or a rusted out Taurus revolver.

Always remember YOU are the weapon whatever is in your hand is just a tool.

I have always tried to learn and be proficient with damn near any arm, except the Beretta Tomcat I can’t shoot those for shit but I digress, the point is I may not be a gunfighter but I can pick up and be at least passable form everything from a SAA to a beltfed ..... Tomcat not withstanding.

We live in a Glock/Striker fired world but there are a TON of other guns out there. Branch out a little.

Contrary to the currently popular belief you should only shoot one action type to maintain proficiency and “ muscle memory “ ( muscles don’t have memory the brain does) I generally use multiple different platforms for different roles and matche sand my performance doesn’t change much ( middle of the pack so to speak with everything.
In the last 2 weeks I have used 3 completely different rifles and 3 pistols and I never lose a step changing guns either. I frequently shoot steel challenge with a 2” J frame. I get some odd looks when I use that one, but consistently get all 5 targets hit with no fuss.
Last mot h I used a K frame for icore, a Glock a 1911 and several .22 pistols

Very solid advice. I have never limited myself to one type of “action” . I do have my preference but i don’t limit myself to just shooting that. I’m not a bullseye shooter with any of them but am proficient enough with all of them that should a situation arise where I’m forced into something I normally don’t carry I can run it. I think in today’s climate, it’s more important than ever to be able run multiple platforms.

Well said.

I like to practice with several firearms, even if they aren't what I'd carry.

Chris, man, you could have saved yourself a lot of typing by telling folks, "Just read my sig line".

Good point... I think the only problem I would have with a strange new to me pistol would be if it had one of those flippy things on the back side that needs to have the red dot exposed to be able to pull the trigger and I think I could probably manage to work around it if need be.

Totally agree. IMO, it's all about fundamentals.

Weird stuff I've done just to prove a point (and have some fun):

1) Ruger S.A. Single Six .22WMR. Shooting while advancing diagonally on three targets. Everybody else was using standard full-size defensive handguns. My times and hits were just as good.

2) Seecamp .32 ACP. Shooting poppers (knockdown targets) at seven yards. Beat two guys using 1911's. Very tiny hit area to make them go down.

3) Ruger SP101 3".357 Mag. Used to shoot it a lot at our weekly defensive shoots. From the holster, I could keep up with the big boys using 1911's.

A good test of your fundamentals is using a gun you haven't shot lately, like six or 12 months. In fast draw-fire drills, the first several presentations should have at least respectable groups. I found this to be a very good self-test.

I've oft repeated the line that: "In a gunfight,if you tossed me a police surplus M10 4" with FBI loads, I'd be perfectly content." Mindset and tactics are more important than the tool (within reason).

I agree... mostly.

Mindset and fundamentals are the vast majority of it, no question.

But there are undoubtedly certain aspects of the particular tool that can provide incremental improvements.

As in, I could fight at 80% effectiveness with any gun you hand me if I have to, but in a life-or-death situation, given the choice, I'd rather have XYZ tool that will allow me to fight at 100% effectiveness in order to help ensure that I prevail.

It's the man more than the tool, but the tool can make a (slight) difference.

Type of sights, felt recoil, trigger pull, capacity, ammo design, etc. can all make a difference in a defensive shooting, even if it's not as dramatic of a difference as having proper mindset/training/fundamentals.

Handgun technology has progressed over the past several decades, and it has provided enough incremental improvements that nearly all shooters - especially the ones with a high likelihood of actually getting into a gunfight - are no longer using (for example) 6 shot revolvers with long 15 pound DA triggers, semi-wadcutter ammo, and nub sights, even if they could potentially make do with that in a defensive situation if they had to.

So a strict black/white statement of "the tool doesn't matter" isn't quite accurate, because it does. It just doesn't matter as much as some people may think, especially compared to mindset/training/fundamentals, and it's not a substitute for those.

Very solid advice.
My father made sure my brother & I were proficient in all forms of "arms". Rifles, shotgunning, pistols & archery.
Shooting fundamentals are the same across each platform. If you have the fundamentals, you can shoot anything well. don't limit yourself.
Take Bruce Lee's advice to the martial arts, "Be like water".

It's not the piano--it's the piano player.

I would submit you are correct. I used to carry a J frame about 90% of the time, so I got pretty good with it. I could hit the 25 yard Bianchi plates pretty regularly, but I had to really concentrate. It's much easier with anything full sized.

I don’t disagree with what Rogue said. Obviously tech and features will aid in / add capability.

That said I’ve seen a fair few folks who can only adequately run a single firearm type well or can only shoot with a laser or dot etc

Things like dots / lasers etc. can absolutely be force multipliers and can make a lesser shooter better, but take those away and they lose more then the tech multiplier but also the crutch they were using it as.

I’m not advocating everybody should train up and run a Taurus Judge . Just saying if you were FORCED into that judge, and trust me I’d go kicking and screaming, they should be able to be able to work with it.

So, here's the true question (and it possibly splitting hairs)-

Is it that a skilled shooter can shoot anything to a high level, or is it that it really doesn't matter what the gun is?

I say it might be splitting hairs but I think the answer is significant. Today, I was teaching down here in Sunny, warm south Florida. I introduced a skill based drill called DBAP. The drill is a skill test that examines a lot of aspects of fundamental marksmanship. DBAP has you shoot controlled pairs out as far as you can. You start out at seven yards and you fire fast pairs until you almost throw the second shot off the plate. My splits were about .17-.20. Fire a pair. Step back. Fire a pair. Step back. You stop when you throw a shot off the plate. I made it to 28 yards. With a students gun I had never shot. Granted, it was a 226. I have been teaching all week with a Glock 17.

Could I have pulled off 28 yards with a Glock? Maybe. Probably. But while I have the skill, I have the confidence with the 226. Can I shoot master level with most handguns? Yes, but it is undeniable that I can shoot some pistols better than others.

A solid base of fundamentals opens your options. But, at a certain level, the gear matters to attain small percentages of performance.

i agree very much with your premise

i consider myself an 'okay' shooter... but decently proficient across the spectrum -- to include handguns, rifles, shotguns and had a decent amount of FA experience from Army Infantry

in retrospect one of the things that i think really helped my overall firearms proficiency was growing up we used to shoot sessions of 100s of rounds of 20 and 12ga informal skeet shooting. just banging away in an open field in rural NC with a portable clay target thrower -- learning how to quickly shoulder the gun, aim at a moving target and even doubles, handle the recoil etc at a young age was very helpful. shot after shot after shot... getting used to hundred+ of rounds of 12ga in a session

a lot of the proficiency i have now is probably related to the hours i spent doing that

and of course as 'gun guys' we love getting in the weeds on this stuff

but honestly -- with decent training / mindset / situational awareness a stock Glock 19 w/ a couple mags of quality JHP will likely be all the gun we need 99.99% of the time (referring to civilian SD / HD scenarios)


-------------------------------

Any port in a storm. Believe Mossad was using suppressed 22 pistols quite effectively.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
So, here's the true question (and it possibly splitting hairs)-

Is it that a skilled shooter can shoot anything to a high level, or is it that it really doesn't matter what the gun is?

I say it might be splitting hairs but I think the answer is significant. Today, I was teaching down here in Sunny, warm south Florida. I introduced a skill based drill called DBAP. The drill is a skill test that examines a lot of aspects of fundamental marksmanship. DBAP has you shoot controlled pairs out as far as you can. You start out at seven yards and you fire fast pairs until you almost throw the second shot off the plate. My splits were about .17-.20. Fire a pair. Step back. Fire a pair. Step back. You stop when you throw a shot off the plate. I made it to 28 yards. With a students gun I had never shot. Granted, it was a 226. I have been teaching all week with a Glock 17.

Could I have pulled off 28 yards with a Glock? Maybe. Probably. But while I have the skill, I have the confidence with the 226. Can I shoot master level with most handguns? Yes, but it is undeniable that I can shoot some pistols better than others.

A solid base of fundamentals opens your options. But, at a certain level, the gear matters to attain small percentages of performance.

I think this is dead on. Rafael Nadal could certainly pick up a wooden 1970’s vintage racquet and whip a club-level player. But he doesn’t choose that old tech when competing at the French Open. In all sports, the elite athletes have the fundamentals to very effectively use old tech. But they are very particular about their equipment when competing at the elite level.

quote:

But they are very particular about their equipment when competing at the elite level.

For the record as far as my shooting skills go.....I’m not near elite level in Call Of Duty much less the real thing. So a something like a Tactical Sport Orange.......is probably wasted on me anyway. I mean the pointy flashy end faces the target, I got that down.

Note that Nadal does much better on clay than hardcourt. So the "tech", if the court could be considered as such, does matter.

quote:

Originally posted by FHHM213:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
So, here's the true question (and it possibly splitting hairs)-

Is it that a skilled shooter can shoot anything to a high level, or is it that it really doesn't matter what the gun is?

I say it might be splitting hairs but I think the answer is significant. Today, I was teaching down here in Sunny, warm south Florida. I introduced a skill based drill called DBAP. The drill is a skill test that examines a lot of aspects of fundamental marksmanship. DBAP has you shoot controlled pairs out as far as you can. You start out at seven yards and you fire fast pairs until you almost throw the second shot off the plate. My splits were about .17-.20. Fire a pair. Step back. Fire a pair. Step back. You stop when you throw a shot off the plate. I made it to 28 yards. With a students gun I had never shot. Granted, it was a 226. I have been teaching all week with a Glock 17.

Could I have pulled off 28 yards with a Glock? Maybe. Probably. But while I have the skill, I have the confidence with the 226. Can I shoot master level with most handguns? Yes, but it is undeniable that I can shoot some pistols better than others.

A solid base of fundamentals opens your options. But, at a certain level, the gear matters to attain small percentages of performance.

I think this is dead on. Rafael Nadal could certainly pick up a wooden 1970’s vintage racquet and whip a club-level player. But he doesn’t choose that old tech when competing at the French Open. In all sports, the elite athletes have the fundamentals to very effectively use old tech. But they are very particular about their equipment when competing at the elite level.

Sorry, I don't buy this.

Let's say you just got back from a multiday training class were you put a few thousand rounds through a Glock. You've now wired your brain for a shortish 5-ish lb trigger pull. But the first day back you strap on you P229. That day you get mugged and have to draw and fire with no mental preparation. What are the chances you'll screw up that first round DA shot? I'd think pretty good. Now maybe you can recover and get the SA follow ups on target. But you've now spotted the bad guy an opportunity.

Pick a system and stick with it.

quote:

Originally posted by captain127:
Contrary to the currently popular belief you should only shoot one action type to maintain proficiency and “ muscle memory “ ( muscles don’t have memory the brain does) I generally use multiple different platforms for different roles and matche sand my performance doesn’t change much ( middle of the pack so to speak with everything.
In the last 2 weeks I have used 3 completely different rifles and 3 pistols and I never lose a step changing guns either. I frequently shoot steel challenge with a 2” J frame. I get some odd looks when I use that one, but consistently get all 5 targets hit with no fuss.
Last mot h I used a K frame for icore, a Glock a 1911 and several .22 pistols

I agree with the premise. I'm no master class shooter, but I do ok. I own and shoot a wide variety of firearms, and while there are some that I prefer over others, I can make just about any gun do what I need it to do.

As far as carry goes, I don't have a "rotation" per-se, but I do have a variety of guns that I carry for different purposes. I have P320s for work, a P245 off-duty, a J-frame for deep concealment/running and jogging, and an SP-101 for the woods. While these are pretty different platforms, the manual of arms to get them into action is the same...point downrange and pull the trigger.

The one thing I can't abide on a carry gun is a manual safety. I own and like my Beretta 92, 1911s (LOVE me a nice 1911), and several others that are equipped with manual safeties....but I've also experienced failing to disengage it on the range, and I imagine that under pressure in a defensive situation, that would be even more likely. As such, I don't carry them. Could I train around this? Probably. Could I defend myself effectively with a 92FS or a 1911 if required? Absolutely. But I just don't see intentionally adding that extra step when there are so many good options out there that don't.

So no, the tool doesn't really matter. In a pinch, hand me any gun and I can achieve the desired result. But given the ability to prepare, I have my preferences. I can do it faster, more precisely, and feel a greater degree of confidence with some tools than others. And certain tools provide greater advantages in specific environments and circumstances. At least that's the excuse that I tell my wife to justify the overflowing gun safe in our bedroom .