credit: quota.com
“Amateurs discuss tactics; professionals discuss logistics,” goes the old military aphorism. What is actually meant is “neophytes” rather than “amateurs.” Neophytes are beginners or the inexperienced. An amateur is someone that does it because they love it. I am, for the most part, an amateur firearm instructor because I do not make my living from that pursuit, but in terms of training and experience, might be considered a professional by most. Language nitpicking aside, the point of the aphorism is one wins wars by ensuring war fighters not only arrive at the right places at the right times, but have all of the equipment, ordinance and support they need to fight and win. In the latter stages of WWII Germany lost—in part–because it could not provide fuel for its tanks and ammunition and support for its troops. Logistics matter.
So it is for the gun owner. We tend to be an enthusiastic lot. Many spend a great deal of time and money seeking the “perfect” combination of guns, ammunition, sights and other goodies. Some change handguns like most change underwear, carrying a variety of different handguns on a regular basis.
Another venerable aphorism is one should not fear the man that has multiple guns; they should fear the man with one. That man will be very familiar, and theoretically, very competent with his single gun, even if it is not the most recently tacticool goodie on the market.
I tend to be a proponent of that school of thought. While I own as many guns as I need, but not as many as I’d like, I am not by any means a hobbyist or collector. I don’t purchase guns simply to have at least one example of every possible category or caliber, and often feel a little uneasy having guns laying about I haven’t fired in months or years. On one hand, guns are nothing more than tools, and while one may not use a given tool—particularly a specialized tool—for months or years at a time, when that tool is necessary, it’s invaluable, and nothing else will do nearly as well, or at all. On the other, as long as other tools will do the job reasonably well, I can’t justify buying a very specific, expensive tool merely to have it around to achieve momentary perfection on the rare occasions it may be useful.
Springfield Armory Model 1911 “Ranger Officer” .45 ACP pistol
I used to be a fan of the 1911, and still am, though I don’t currently own one. I carried a modified version of that venerable design for years, until the first Glock 19 was available. I carried that gun, pretty much exclusively, until the first Glock 26 was available and carried that exclusively for more than a decade. More recently, I purchased a Glock 43—my article on that weapon is here—and am now carrying that exclusively.
Why carry a single gun, and not others? One might even argue that because all Glock triggers are alike, and because the ergonomics are similar between one model and the next, there shouldn’t be a problem, but there is.
G43
Even the Glock 26 and 43 are sufficiently different in dimensions, different muscle memory is required. It is only with repeated, correct practice that a given handgun will be properly brought to bear on the target, particularly in a stressful situation. After carrying the G43, switching back to the G26 forces me to change my grip and the position of my first finger on the trigger. The combination of ergonomic changes translates to reduced accuracy and speed. After a relatively short amount of practice, I can, once again, use the G26 with efficiency, but if I need that handgun for a bit of short-range social intercourse, I won’t have the time and leisure for that kind of practice. Trying to switch back and forth between any Glock and a 1911, or any double-action semiautomatic pistol would be even more daunting, and might even provoke negligent discharges. Better to stick with the gun one knows.
What about ammunition? This is where logistics really matter. Militaries try, to the greatest degree possible, to standardize munitions. A wide variety of different calibers greatly increase the cost and complexity of supply lines. The problem is not nearly as serious for individuals, but ammunition is expensive. While it is certainly fun to have a variety of guns, and to shoot a variety of types of ammo, it can be prohibitively costly. What is better: being able to shoot a smaller number of rounds through a variety of guns, or a great many rounds through a single gun? Which is most likely to contribute to the proficiency that can save lives?
During the days when I carried a 1911, .45ACP ammunition was widely regarded as the most effective self-defense ammunition available. It is still, anecdotally, and in some studies, at the top of the pile, and has benefited from recent progress in bullet and propellant design. However, this is also true for other handgun ammunition, particularly the ubiquitous 9mm. For most shooters, cost is a significant factor. Circa February 2018, one can find a case—1000 rounds—of 9mm practice ammunition, FMJ round nose or “ball” for as little as $192.00. The same amount of .45 ACP ball goes for $285.00, which is a significant difference.
What’s that? I’m saying people should only buy one gun and one kind of ammo? Not quite. One of the best things about being capable with firearms is trying different guns, ammo and accessories, just for fun, and to find what works best. There is nothing wrong with that, and those who own guns over time will inevitably end up trading one gun for another, and will likely have a box of holsters, magazine carriers, etc. in the back of a closet, misfit toys once or seldom used and abandoned for something better, more efficient or more comfortable. The problem is, this may be expensive, and can tend not to develop true proficiency.
I would suggest only that it’s smart to find a single handgun that fits, not only ergonomically, but in terms of simplifying one’s logistics. The average shooter will be able to afford a great deal more ammunition—and shoot more often–if they use only four calibers than ten.
That doesn’t mean one should not have other guns—far from it. It does mean real proficiency is best developed by firing a single gun as often—and correctly–as possible. Using the same ammunition, holster, and other accessories also contributes greatly to the kind of skill that makes the difference when it counts most.
Another word for muscle memory is conditioned response. That is only obtained from practice. Some years ago, and I don’t remember where, I read something interesting on the topic. When police departments first started transitioning from revolvers to at that time the “wonder nines” it would take a minimum of at least three thousand draws from a holster to develop the required skill. As you have written some handguns fit better than others. For me the 1911 just fits, a 92F is a close second. The Glock 21 is the only Glock that I can shoot well with. The others are just too small for my hands. Whenever I work with people my advice has always been, find what fits and practice. When you think you’ve practice enough, go practice some more. Then go practice some more.
Dear Andrew:
And then practice the practice.
I like to collect guns, often just to have them.
I used to shoot IPSC often enough to prove that I had no talent for pistol competition. However; it was a great excuse to get some practice in. I always shot a 1911 style for competitions, but I am far to cowardly to actually carry a cocked and locked 1911 on a daily basis.
The only pistol that I will carry is one of the Smith and Wesson Third generation pistols with both a manual safety and a magazine disconnect safety. These features saved me from being shot in the genitals by an idiot cop who became overly alarmed by an encounter with an armed citizen soon after Sandy Hook and the Clackamas Town Center shooting.. In the process of disarming me, this Clackamas County Deputy who carries a Sig Sauer became so perplexed by the sight of the “decocking lever in the down position” that he repeatedly pulled the trigger to see what would happen. Although I remained composed, I had decided that cop or not, if he touched the safety lever on my pistol I was going to give him a ride under a passing truck.
I will never, ever carry a Glock or any other of the DOA pistols that lack a manual safety to protect against such abject stupidity.
Funny, my experience with service 1911’s soured me on them for a long time, my first carry was a .357 SA Ruger with an empty under the hammer,
When the Glock 36 was introduced it became my carry for over a decade until I was introduced to a “tuned” 1911 and now it’s either my Kimber UC or full sized, I suppose I could use the Glock as a BUG but I’d rather not find myself in a situation where I needed it!
When I worked an armed contract security job in 2016 the company used Glocks. I have never personally liked Glocks and it is definitely a personal preference thing. Even though it was a risk (if I’d had to use it I would have lost it) I carried my 20+ year old Italian beauty Beretta 92FS. I’ve put a few thousand rounds through her and never had an issue that wasn’t my fault. I use the same Hornady Critical Defense you do Mike.
Agree completely. I am a firearms enthuses collector and do have several pistols and revolvers. And I’ve had all most all of them about that same length of time and fired all of them from time to time. But the 92FS just felt better in my hand. And the decocker was preferred too. I can handle the recoil from 124gr practice ball and 115gr JHP’s no problem and bring the target back into sight fast. I trained with both hands and double hands. And the emphasis on training cannot be overstated. Practice often. Practice smart. Know the law if you carry.
Keep your powder dry and your faith in God.
Dear zaarin7:
What you said.