View Full Version : Does your gun "collection" make sense?
Preface: I have been a gun owner for less than two years. Since I don't have any friends that own guns, I have to look to the internet for advice/information I may be seeking. While this question may seem stupid, bear with me.
Over the past 22 months, I have bought six guns; four pistols and two rifles. At this time, when I sit back and look at my "collection", it doesn't make sense. That is to say, my "collection" as a whole seems random; the collective isn't easily defined. While any gun can be used in a offensive or defensive manner, it seems as if my choices in firearms work against one another; different manufactures, ergonomics, differences in actions, etc.
As a civilian, my firearms needs are different than those of military and law enforcement personnel. Having many different guns, its proving to be difficult getting enough trigger time on any one platform to become proficient with it. As I think about future purchases I would like to make, the likelihood of this problem increasing is high. I understand the practicality of standardizing on one platform but again, that is proving to be difficult. Since I don't know anyone with guns, I have to rely solely on the feel of the gun in hand and reports from users on this forum and others like it. I feel this in part has led to semi-erratic purchases which I feel don't work together to fit one common need, defense.
My "needs" as a civilian:
*this is a snapshot in time as I plan to add firearms to replace some in their current role.
Home defense: Pistol; Sig Sauer
Concealed Carry: Pistol; Springfield, Smith and Wesson
Main Firearms for SHTF (hate using that term): AR, Sig Sauer
While I didn't list the models of said firearms, trust when I say they are "different".
Here are the questions I have for the members here:
1. List your "needs" as you see them. (home defense, concealed carry, etc.)
2. What firearms fill those roles?
3. What thought process if any do you employ before adding a firearm to your "need" column.
Instead of creating another thread with this question:
I am trying to minimize the calibers I have to stock so most of my pistols are 9mm. I also plan some .45 cal. pistols but I haven't gotten there yet.
4. Assuming you don't hate any caliber, how do you decide which caliber to purchase for each gun? (seems like a stupid question but I don't feel like typing out an entire new thread to explain fully, ha)
Perhaps I am over thinking this entire gun purchasing ordeal but I want to get it right the first time.
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks in advance and again, bear with me.
Business_Casual
12-03-09, 12:33
My advice is to stop spending money on "collections" and start spending money on training. Since you are fairly new to shooting, money spent with TigerSwan would be the best investment you will ever make.
Based on the fact that you have different pistols for home defense and CCW, though; you probably won't listen.
M_P
Thanks for being a dick. And no, I don't disagree with you.
If you want to "collect" guns... more power to ya.
If you want to become proficient with "a" gun, Modern Pirate is spot on. Training wins the day.
Now, that being said, I do have some guns that are part of my "collection" fetish. I have everything from .25auto to .45auto and LC. Why? Some were passed down to me, so they stay in the collection, never to be sold. Some were for Cowboy action shooting (a game basically) and it's a blast, even the wife got involved. Some were impulse buys when I had more money than I knew what to do with at the time. Some were purchases of a nostalgic nature... I love WWII weapons. Some were just a damn good deal that I thought I might flip someday for a profit and found out I like 'em.
When it comes to the guns I train and shoot with for fun and for the unlikely event I might need to defend myself... I have two nearly identical pistols in case one breaks down. I have three AR15's with different barrel lengths for whatever fits my fancy. The professional training aspect is new to me as I've only been to a few classes and plan on attending more. It's simply amazing what you can wring out of yourself skill-wise, when you open up and learn a bit.
I have a couple different pistols that I like to stay fairly proficient with, an HK USP, a Single action 45LC, a Kahr K40, but most of my time and effort go into the pistol that I carry daily. It comes out of the holster and right onto the nightstand when I go to bed, so there's no need for a different pistol. No need for a different manual of arms simply because it's on the nightstand. That's what MP is getting at, why have two different pistols? If it's because you leave one at home on the nightstand or under a pillow, you should be slapped for leaving a gun unsecured. If it's because you want to have more than one gun, then you need to re-evaluate where you live if it's that dangerous that you'd need to go all Jon Woo (not recommended :p ) on a hoard of bad guys.
The same logic applies to caliber selection. Reducing to one caliber saves on cost and logistics. Reducing to one type of pistol does the same. If it ever comes to a situation where you need to use it, you'll need all the simplicity and familiarity possible to stay alive, even if you train like the dickens.
My advice is to stop spending money on "collections" and start spending money on training. Since you are fairly new to shooting, money spent with TigerSwan would be the best investment you will ever make.
Based on the fact that you have different pistols for home defense and CCW, though; you probably won't listen.
M_P
This guy's right on. I realized that I don't need 20+ guns (I'm 25)....what I do need are the basics: reliable pistol, rifle, shotgun...and tons of training and ammo.
So I'm in the process of offing some stuff...and going to be spending more $$ on training and practice. Yes, I'm a good shot standing still...but that's not really the point, is it?
Thanks for the replies.
The importance of training isn't lost on me as I too plan on taking some classes.
Also, I don't mean collecting literally (hence ""). I am strictly speaking defensive arms vs. range guns or those passed down (guns which fit your defensive needs; collection of defensive arms).
Based on the fact that you have different pistols for home defense and CCW, though; you probably won't listen.
M_P
While I understand the main point you are making, many people can have different handguns for HD and CCW.
In my case FL can be a hard state to actually conceal in given the usual climate. And I'd prefer not to use the same small frame, low capacity handguns I sometimes CCW with for HD.
For HD I want a full size high capacity handgun (assuming I'm using a handgun and not a SMG or carbine which I prefer for HD). So for a HD handgun we are usually talking about something like a P226 Tac for the 15+1 capacity and light rail. But really this isn't much of an issue because my HD gun is usually a SMG or carbine and my CCW is usually a handgun.
Now "sometimes" I do CCW that same P226 Tac for all the reasons it is a HD handgun choice. But sometimes carrying a full size P226 is not an option. So from my "collection" I can choose things like my HK P7, G19, P228, SP101, Kel Tec P11 or Charter Undercover depending upon which one best fits my needs.
Other factors also come into play. Is it hurricane season where you are now guarding property from looters with days of no power on rainy nights? When that happens I usually don't want my SIG P226 on my hip because they grow rust better than some other choices. In that instance I will usually have a HK USP, FN USG or a Glock 17. I will be on my property so open carry isn't a problem and I can use a full size handgun to augment my carbine or SMG.
Based on the fact that you have different pistols for home defense and CCW, though; you probably won't listen.
M_P
This wasnt worth saying. There are far too many variables between the two situations that would easily cause for different platforms or calibers. Would you rather place your loved one next to a man sized target at 10 yards with me shooting a 2 inch .38 special or a Glock 17?
I know of very few people that have the time and skill to become truly proficient with multiple platforms and types. Owning things, any things not just guns, just to own them holds zero interest for me.
Glocks and ARs. All I need. The Glocks do everything any other handgun will do as long as I maintain my skill set, and come in various sizes and caliber with almost no discernible change in the manual of arm. and the same thing for the AR. Every single thing I need or want to do with a firearm I can do with either a Glock or an AR in some flavor.
I deviated slightly and added a S&W 625 for front pocket carry, but I probably would be better off with a G26 for those same situations. Still not 100% set on keeping the 625.
The point here is that if you can intelligently lay out your needs, properly research your options, and make informed decisions as to what you purchase, it's entirely possible to meet a LOT of needs with very few firearms, or at the very least with very few platforms.
On the training topic...
A typical 3-day training class is $500+/- in tuition. That's a handgun. Ammo, travel, lodging, and incidentals might be another $500 depending on circumstances. That's another handgun. Or together that's one rifle (or the sum total of the cost of all the shit people bolt to a rifle with zero knowledge on how to use even the base gun, let alone the bolt-ons). I know people that have probably the cost of 10, 20, or even 100 training classes sitting in their safe yet they have never taken so much as a single hour of formal training with anyone other than their CCW instructor (which in Florida is a joke). Not surprisingly they can't hit the broad side of a barn, and are lucky to hit the ground dropping a bullet if you ask them to do it on the move.
rifleman2000
12-03-09, 14:24
This wasnt worth saying. There are far too many variables between the two situations that would easily cause for different platforms or calibers. Would you rather place your loved one next to a man sized target at 10 yards with me shooting a 2 inch .38 special or a Glock 17?
To Phixion:
Ignore the snobbery on this website. It is a place of good information, sometimes people think to highly of their own opinion, in my opinion.
Your gun collection is what it is. I have a good collection of guns, the only criteria being "is it useful OR interesting?" That and "can I afford it?"
Other than that, who cares? If you like a gun, get it!
Thanks for being a dick.
Ha!
Anyway, I understand what you're asking. I like to keep a minimum of calibers if possible. But I also keep a minimum of gun makes/models for parts commonality. I have 11 Glocks, all in 9mm, in the various sizes that Glock offers. That way I can pick a size to carry depending on the situation. I also have a backup for classes in case of mechanical problems, or God forbid, I'm involved in a shooting and my carry gun is taken for evidence. The class backup is the same idea behind my ARs, I have 2 set up exactly the same, and my others are set up similar, with the exception of a lower end Aimpoint, or lacking a rail. But I use the same sling setup on all of them.
I briefly deviated from this recently when I picked up a S&W M&P9 in a trade. While I liked it alot, I'm pretty heavily invested in Glock, with 60-70+ mags plus having holsters for them. So I traded it for another Glock.
Outside of my Glocks and ARs, I have a P22, because everyone should have a .22 pistol, a M14, because everyone should have a .308 battle rifle, a Rem 870, because everyone should have a shotgun, and my first .22 rifle that belonged to my dad.
My only 2 deviations from my system are a Springfield 1911 because it was a good deal and I wanted a decent 1911 again, and a Thompson M1 tommygun, because I figured I was already stocking .45 because of the 1911. Other than that I have no clue why I bought the damn thing. Its heavy, with a long length of pull that I don't like and its not very useful. Its still cool though.
My system lets me keep my ammo stock streamlined: .22LR, 9mm, .45ACP, 5.56, .308, and 12gauge.
You seem to realize that mix & match doesn't add to your proficiency, which is correct. Having defense guns with different controls, action types and handling characteristics can be effective, but it's a high level skill for a seasoned operator.
If you want to become prficient quickly, settle on one platform and stick with it. You can carry an M&P compact 9mm all day fairly easy and still have a full size in 9 or .40 for home defense. When the weather turns cold (if it does in your area), you can up-carry the full size once the seasonal clothing will conceal it better. When you get ready for a .45, well they make one just like the rest. I've used the M&P for illustrative purposes, but most of the other reputable brands have the same options.
The same goes for rifles. You can get an AK in 5.45X45, .223, 7.62X39, and even 7.62X51 and 12, 20 and .410 guage shotgun. You can get an AR in .22LR, 9mm, .40, .45, .223 and a whole slew of other rifle calibers including some real heavies. You can get them with anything from 5" (SBR & SBS NFA rules apply) to 24" barrels. So the modularity and versatility is nearly limitless while maintaining the same operating characteristics and manual of arms.
The only thing this aproach doesn't address is the basic drive for diversity among our toys. If you can live with that, you'll find yourself more comfortable and proficient with your "collection".
rifleman2000
12-03-09, 14:34
I know of very few people that have the time and skill to become truly proficient with multiple platforms and types.
Glocks and ARs. All I need. The Glocks do everything any other handgun will do as long as I maintain my skill set, and come in various sizes and caliber with almost no discernible change in the manual of arm. and the same thing for the AR. Every single thing I need or want to do with a firearm I can do with either a Glock or an AR in some flavor.
I deviated slightly and added a S&W 625 for front pocket carry, but I probably would be better off with a G26 for those same situations. Still not 100% set on keeping the 625.
The point here is that if you can intelligently lay out your needs, properly research your options, and make informed decisions as to what you purchase, it's entirely possible to meet a LOT of needs with very few firearms, or at the very least with very few platforms.
On the training topic...
A typical 3-day training class is $500+/- in tuition. That's a handgun. Ammo, travel, lodging, and incidentals might be another $500 depending on circumstances. That's another handgun. Or together that's one rifle (or the sum total of the cost of all the shit people bolt to a rifle with zero knowledge on how to use even the base gun, let alone the bolt-ons). I know people that have probably the cost of 10, 20, or even 100 training classes sitting in their safe yet they have never taken so much as a single hour of formal training with anyone other than their CCW instructor (which in Florida is a joke). Not surprisingly they can't hit the broad side of a barn, and are lucky to hit the ground dropping a bullet if you ask them to do it on the move.
On the topic of "training" I would submit that most of today's civilian accessible training is nothing more than a variety of intense gun handling training.
Gun handling is, in my opinion (based on experience) less than 10 percent of the skills you need to survive.
Bottom line is I would take a basic training private over a civilian 3 gun champion in a fight, if I was choosing a team. The Soldier will come with the intangibles that are so critical to success in combat; discipline for example.
The civilian training isn't bad. But it does not equate expertise at employing a weapon in combat by any means. I am sure people here will disagree because the train to shoot on the move, from various positions, yada yada yada. This is not tactics training, it is weapon handling training. Tactics involves the skills to plan, prepare, and execute (be in a position to employ your weapon advantageously). I will re-iterate. Those skills are a minor subset of skills needed for success in combat. Another case in point. Ranger School, recognized as one of (if not THE) best school for preparing a Soldier for combat has absolutely no live-fire training. It is all planning, tactics, and practicing execution.
Weapon handling training is good.
The guys are right in that its amazing how much there is to learn to shoot well, and with even a day or two of the quality training the "evolutionary leap" can be huge.
I also have the motley crew of guns and every now again when I pull out the S&W Kit Gun 22 revolver (its fit is very different and it is very unforgiving of poor technique) but it teaches me something that I can apply to my autos, i.e. my trigger technique has gotten sloppy using short trigger pull autos:eek: And I'm forced to go back to fundamentals.
Right now with your experience it would be best to have a "pair" of Go To Guns for HD & CCW. (Sig is a solid choice)
You can't work on things you don't know and after a good school you will come home excited and maybe even a little overwhelmed with all the new things you can work on;)
I often lament that my collection has no "direction". I have small collections of vastly different firearms, from quality CF hunting rifles, accurate .22 centerfires, down to AK's, AR's, and a mess of .22 rifles. The pistol side is even more scattered; classic old S&W and Colt revolvers, a few SAA's to a suppressed HK Tactical, a pair of well done Browning HP's a few 1911's and my James Bond PPK Walther. I buy what interests me or the guns I need for varmint or big game hunting.
Though I do have somewhat of a collection of 1960-1980's S&W revolvers.
I would suggest Instruction on safety and competant gun handling as a bare minimum. Once you see where your interests lie go from there. I know fellow shooters who have shot the old NRA bullseye pistol courses for fifty years now. And others who bounce around to every and any shooting discipline from Cowboy Action to Practical Pistol, Highpowered rifle, to shooting Sharps buffalo rifles in competition.
I think safety first is #1. Then competant gun handling, and hitting all the basics.
FN in MT
Replying using my Blackberry so quoting is difficult but..
I think part of my dilemma is the fact that I don't have access to ANY weapons aside from the ones I own. That fact makes standardizing on one platform much more difficult because my first hand experience is limited to my initial impression at the gun store; trial and error.
I don't look forward to the prospect of using any weapon in a defensive manner and I can't even imagine how difficult it will be to use it effectively, but I understand the need to make things as simple as possible by knowing my defensive weapons inside and out.
No matter how much training I get, having different platforms for different defensive roles won't be as effective as having one platform for said roles. I want to minimize and simplify my defensive tools, I just haven't been able to .. yet.
My collection makes sense, NOW
whaen I was in your shoes it didnt. I went through handguns early on nearly one a month.
Trying to fix a software problem with hardware.
It was fun, I learned alot, and I know a lot about many different platforms.
It wasnt until I sold a gun (GASP!) , admitted I didnt know, and got some training that I began to tie it all up and get it together.
Sure, I have a few "toys" around. SD isnt my only interest. I have a dedicated CMP AR as well. Not like Im gonna try to clear my house with a 20" HBAR :eek:
youll get there
your asking the right questions, looking at things honestly, and getting some good feedback from those that have experiance.
Dont buy another gun until you take a basic pistol class for your CCW from a reputable trainer.
on a side note, and Im not sure what the reactuion here will be, but my advice is to ditch the Sig. DA/SA guns have a much steeper learning curve then a SAO or "safe action" gun. I see guys in their fisrt class with them alot, and other then the guys who have to carry them for duty I dont see many at all later on.
A gun collection is exactly what it is....a collection. I have several guns (30+). I wish I had more, and I will. What you will learn is that you will purchase something and either not like how it shoots or get bored of it. In this case, you should trade it for something better. You may also have guns that are given to you by family members. Although these guns may not fit your style of shooting or may be a hunting rifle and you don't hunt, there is more sentimental value and those guns will stay in your collection. I am not saying that I disagree with the guys that are telling you to get a good gun and train the hell out of it and that is all you ever need. What I am saying is that if you own several different types of guns, be proficient with the ones you use on a daily basis. For example... My duty gun is a Glock 22, my off duty carry gun is a Glock 23 and I replaced my Glock 27 for a Kahr Arms K40 because it is thinner, more accurate and fits in my back up body armor holster more comfortably. These are the guns that I care about being proficient with. I have one tier 1 AR that I train with and I am in the process of building a back up AR that is identical to the one I own now for training purposes. I have a Remington 870 Police that I also train with if I am sent to a class that requires the use of a shotgun (not many anymore). So what I am saying is that out of the several guns that I own, 5 of them I practice with exclusively and "worry" about shooting them proficiently. All of these guns mentioned are used (carried) on a daily basis and everything else I own I consider an investment or a novelty. I shoot many other weapons quite well, like my H&K P7 and Glock 19 but I don't care how well, these will not be used to save my life. I have several M&Ps that I shoot pretty well and I carry the 45 open carry when I work part time at a gun shop. Carrying the M&P may contradict what I said about my "everyday guns" but I can not carry my duty weapon while working at the gun shop so I carry the biggest gun with the biggest bullet I can while at the shop. All the other ARs that I have or am in the process of building are for fun. What I am saying in so many words is knock yourself out collecting guns but choose one (or a short list of like guns because sometimes the gun has to fit your daily attire) that fits you and train the hell out of it. All the rest of them are a novelty and enjoy them too.
Given what you have in your colletion so far, my next purchase (borrowing your shoes) would be a shotgun of a well known and common variety, something that could be used for home defense, swap out a barrel and hunt some bird, swap in a slug barrel and get some deer. Modularity is great.
I am not disagreeing with those who are saying "a track day is the best bang for the buck in auto or motorcycle performance" it is true, as true in guns as it is in sports vehicles. Training is the best performance enhancer out there.
I would say your collection looks a little weak on Fudd potential. The shotgun would open "sporting uses" up to you & then maybe a good bolt action in a deer caliber. If you want to make your deer rifle feel sexy, you can call it a sniper rifle . . . those are the only "deficiencies" I see in your collection as it stands.
Shawn,
What are You a GLOCK Salesman?? DA/SA learning curve...Oh come on.:D
(The following statement was issued with a SMILE as well as a FRIENDLY tone)
Taught a few hundred recruits how to master that steep DA/SA learning curve over the years and somehow we always seemed to get it done. We were issued SIG 229's.
I agree that for many people a SA or Safe Action IS easier to master. But I don't agree that one should simply throw out entire systems as they are a bit tougher to master. Again...not tryiing to be rude....simply have a contrary opinion.
Phixion....Your in a sad situation without gun loving friends. Surely does make picking up the sport tougher. Do you belong to a Range or Gun club? Know any LEO's who are shooters?
Residing in the gun loving West, with 32 years of LE behind me, a dozen gun collecting buddies and a range in my back yard....I'm coming from a totally different place than you are.
FN in MT
Belmont31R
12-03-09, 15:47
On the topic of "training" I would submit that most of today's civilian accessible training is nothing more than a variety of intense gun handling training.
Gun handling is, in my opinion (based on experience) less than 10 percent of the skills you need to survive.
Bottom line is I would take a basic training private over a civilian 3 gun champion in a fight, if I was choosing a team. The Soldier will come with the intangibles that are so critical to success in combat; discipline for example.
The civilian training isn't bad. But it does not equate expertise at employing a weapon in combat by any means. I am sure people here will disagree because the train to shoot on the move, from various positions, yada yada yada. This is not tactics training, it is weapon handling training. Tactics involves the skills to plan, prepare, and execute (be in a position to employ your weapon advantageously). I will re-iterate. Those skills are a minor subset of skills needed for success in combat. Another case in point. Ranger School, recognized as one of (if not THE) best school for preparing a Soldier for combat has absolutely no live-fire training. It is all planning, tactics, and practicing execution.
Weapon handling training is good.
This is something that needs to be pointed out much more often than it does.
A civilian also isn't a full time soldier. They have other jobs, other obligations. And they are not anywhere near as likely to wind up in a fight (let alone combat) and they are certainly not going to get to dictate or choose the fight, which almost entirely negates any sort of need for months-long combat tactics training.
Sims, Airsoft, and other scenario-based training is available and I would argue is perfectly viable and perhaps far more applicable than military combat tactics training.
Lots of combat vets, especially the very young ones for some reason, seem to like to poopoo civilian level commercial training with whatever disparaging commentary they can come up with, but frankly I think that very little "combat arms" training is applicable once you're out of the uniform and/or CONUS, and it's why I tend to seek out instructors with LE backgrounds over those with only a military background.
My collection doesn't make sense, it was acquired over many years time and for many different reasons.
That being said, what I do with my guns follows a logical pattern. The manual of arms for my main guns must be the same. Thus, my carry, competition and training guns are all Glocks, M+Ps and Kahrs. My SIGs, 1911s, BHP and revolvers stay in the safe unless I'm just plinking.
My long guns are the same way, I compete and train with my ARs at least monthly, sometimes more, while my shotguns and hunting rifles may get shot 3 or 4 times a year.
I have guns in 22, 38SP, 357, 9mm, 40, 45, 44Mag, 45LC, 7.62x39, 7.62x51, 7mmMag and 12 gauge . I haven't reloaded anything other than 9mm and 223 in over a year.
My whole point is to advise you to consolidate and train with guns that have the same manual of arms and caliber. That way the reps that you build with a Glock will work for an M+P or with a Kahr.
Training with a 1911, then a SIG, then a revolver doesn't tend to compliment each other.
Gringop
decodeddiesel
12-03-09, 16:26
As far as the whole collection thing goes, I agree, less is more and without proper training it is all virtually worthless.
A civilian also isn't a full time soldier. They have other jobs, other obligations. And they are not anywhere near as likely to wind up in a fight (let alone combat) and they are certainly not going to get to dictate or choose the fight, which almost entirely negates any sort of need for months-long combat tactics training.
I agree with you on some of these points.
Sims, Airsoft, and other scenario-based training is available and I would argue is perfectly viable and perhaps far more applicable than military combat tactics training.
Speaking as someone who went through a lot of various types of training, and has been on a real no-shit 2 way range more than once I will agree that beyond basic fundamental training, force on force teaches you the most about how you will react and what you tend to do under fire. It is some of the most useful training one can receive.
I will say this though, unless you have very competent observer controllers and moderators to such activities I would say they quickly become nearly worthless. Are a bunch of guys playing paintball or airsoft in the woods "training"? Of course not.
A large portion of the training I did in the Army was force on force training using MILES and Sim-unition. Most of this was all done in controlled environments where we had professional observer/controllers working the "battles" and even had the whole scenarios video taped from multiple angles with semi-hidden cameras for an extensive AAR. This training was invaluable in showing me what myself and my squad could and could not do.
Lots of combat vets, especially the very young ones for some reason, seem to like to poopoo civilian level commercial training with whatever disparaging commentary they can come up with, but frankly I think that very little "combat arms" training is applicable once you're out of the uniform and/or CONUS, and it's why I tend to seek out instructors with LE backgrounds over those with only a military background.
I know this isn't what you want to hear, but being shot at for real is a telling experience.
I'm not going to get into an argument with you over this Rob, but I think you're wrong here. Mindset is perhaps the most important piece of the puzzle. Anyone who has been in a gunfight or sustained firefight will tell you this. The ability to stay focused under periods of extreme stress are what keep you alive in one of these situations. This ability can not be instilled or honed in a weekend long course. There are reasons why you have drill instructors screaming at you for piddly shit while smoking the crap out of you. There are reasons why the military subjects "combat arms" people to extreme physical, emotional, and mental stress in training.
Now, am I saying civilian instruction is worthless? Absolutely not. On many levels it is far superior to the training I received in the military. The shear weapons manipulation training alone is greater than what I received in the Army.
350_eight08
12-03-09, 17:24
Fear the man who owns just one gun, for he knows how to shoot it best... don't know where that came from but it stuck. :p
Fear the man who owns just one gun, for he knows how to shoot it best... don't know where that came from but it stuck. :p
I've heard it many times. However the reality is it usually means they don't shoot them, train, and have very little interest in firearms in general. There can be exceptions, but they will br rare indeed.
rifleman2000
12-03-09, 17:49
A civilian also isn't a full time soldier.
But many like to criticize Soldiers' training or compare their shooting training to military skills.
They have other jobs, other obligations. And they are not anywhere near as likely to wind up in a fight (let alone combat) and they are certainly not going to get to dictate or choose the fight, which almost entirely negates any sort of need for months-long combat tactics training.
I think it is safe to say that many on this board, rightly, would like to have the ability to survive a combat situation, hence training with carbines with load bearing equipment. SHTF? Everyone's favorite fantasy!
Sims, Airsoft, and other scenario-based training is available and I would argue is perfectly viable and perhaps far more applicable than military combat tactics training.
I would argue that, no, they are not.
Lots of combat vets, especially the very young ones for some reason, seem to like to poopoo civilian level commercial training with whatever disparaging commentary they can come up with, but frankly I think that very little "combat arms" training is applicable once you're out of the uniform and/or CONUS, and it's why I tend to seek out instructors with LE backgrounds over those with only a military background.
Background is irrelevant if you are looking for gun handling. But I think most military guys, myself included, don't put a lot of stock in the myriads of training classes that teach stances, different methods of holding the forearm, etc etc etc because when bullets come flying at you there are about a 100 more things that you need to know, than just how to shoot well.
That's just the way it is.
I know this isn't what you want to hear, but being shot at for real is a telling experience.
Absolutely no doubt about it. But that said, is not being shot at the equivalent of a boxer who has only sparred but not actually fought yet?
If this boxer wins his first fight, maybe decisively and as a direct result of his training, how could we ever say? Will more fights improve his skills, sure. But still, the ability is there an has been cultivated successfully.
I think most here would do fine, shot at or not prior (just as you did your first time, I would assume). There is a common, voluntary mindset and many seem to put a lot of time into their training. I know that surely doesn't mean everyone could hack it, but don't count too many out.
I don't really see my guns as one "collection". More like 3 separate collections, each with a distinct purpose:
1. Defensive guns - These are carried, stored loaded and accessible, and are the ones I use in training. For me these are 9mm Glocks, and AR's. This group has the smallest number of guns in it, but most of my trigger time is spent with them. These guns "make sense" to me.
2. Hunting guns - shotguns and a Remington 700. These guns "make sense" to me too, for their intended purpose.
3. Guns I own because I like them - these spend most of their time in the safe, and are fired infrequently. Most of my guns fall in this category, but they account for very little of my shooting time. I own these because of my interest in firearms, and because they're just kind of cool. These guns don't "make sense", other than I like them all and most are platforms that have some sort of military historical significance (1911's, AK's, FAL's, M1A, etc). Most of these guns could certainly fill a defensive role, but they don't for me.
The only thing these groups have in common as far as I'm concerned is that they are all firearms. The "because I like them" guns have more in common with a coin or stamp collection than they do with the defensive guns. And there's nothing wrong with that. If we only owned what we "need", we wouldn't really have very much, would we?
Not sure if this makes sense to anyone else, but it's my approach.
Your money, Your collection. Whose to say anything about what you buy? (Except maybe your significant other but that's besides the point) :D. As far as my stuff is concerned. It boils into 2 categories..Defense and Fun (Class III). I try to keep all my handguns in .45, All my rifles in .223 and .308
I agree with what decodeddeisel said. Mindset is crucial. And he's right, there's no way to understand that stuff by thinking about it. It's visceral, and it teaches you a lot. Until then train to as close as that as you can get without being stupid and dangerous.
The observer stuff is really good too. Really good commercial schools also have lawyers. I've trained one place with a shoot house, after which a retired marine vet turned criminal prosecutor comes in and tells you whether or not your going to jail and why. So they taught good handling, tactics, but also what happens after. Really good stuff.
I'd also say that besides collections being just stuff to own, get FIT. Our ability to deal with stress is better when we're fit. That's been pretty well proven both in the motor function side but also in the brainiac psyco-babble side.
As for me I have 5 guns, but only 2 types of guns. I know and can work on both platforms (certified). I train hard with them (generally about 120-160 hours per year). Sig P-series, and M4-pattern. I just wanted one platform for long and short, know it, train it. I've had lots of formal training with Glocks, HK's, 1911's and some others, and other long gun patterns, but as a civilian I just need good gear and good training. For me all that other stuff just meant more guns to clean, more holsters, mags, parts, and all other sorts of stuff. I'm just lazy I guess, but slimming down was good for me. I trained others so I can use them if I have too, but it's not that much of a requirement anymore.
Phixion....Your in a sad situation without gun loving friends. Surely does make picking up the sport tougher. Do you belong to a Range or Gun club? Know any LEO's who are shooters?
Unfortunately, no. I've asked employees of local gun stores where to/they shoot and the usual response is deflection, "yeah, well...". The one place where I was shooting at got closed down for an undisclosed amount of time so I haven't been able to shoot in months.
RogerinTPA
12-03-09, 19:53
M&Ps and ARs for me, but I do have a couple of shotguns and an AK variant, that I need to train on as well, which I plan to do in the future.
I started to standardize my handgun collection after getting my first M&P(45). After a few hundred rounds, I traded my G23 (1st Gen) & PX4 Storm (.40), for a M&P9c, M&P40 and M&P9 FS. I could shoot the others well, but wanted to standardize with the same platform, in different calibers, to retain the same muscle memory, when training and with my own practice.
Concealment: It's really not that difficult down here in FL. When not at work, I don't have any problems concealing a M&P9c (With CT laser grip, and 12+1 or 17+1 if I use the FS mag) with an MTAC IWB holster, with most shirts untucked, to include T-Shirts. With an untucked polo or dress shirt, I can go with the FS M&P9 or 40 for most dinner occasions.
Soldier's Outlook on Civi Weapons Training: I think Rob has a point to a degree about some Vets attitude towards "additional" training on platforms we thought we mastered in the Military. I've seen a few and I was one of them. I had a sense of arrogance in the fact that a civilian could teach me anything combat related. I actually balked at taking instruction from civilian who I felt, wasn't qualified enough. After a few pistol and carbine classes with former D-boys, and former SF types, I can honestly say how inadequately prepared I was as a former 11B, especially at weapons manipulations, Tac realoads, and tap rack bang VS SPORTS. Although I have not had a strictly Civilian Instructor who wasn't a former HS/LD type, I do plan on taking them in the future, especially pistol and a refresher carbine, just to get a more rounded training exposure and experience. Not all Vets harbor that sentiment, but it is out there, and I'm a convert.
My handguns are all high cap and multifunctional, but different calibers. I don't fell "undergunned" with any of them, but my night stand/HD gun is the M&P45. There's nothing wrong with collecting various firearms for a personal collection. BUT...I believe in a practical collection, with similar platforms and to be an expert on everyone of them if the need arises, so training is paramount.
I know of very few people that have the time and skill to become truly proficient with multiple platforms and types. Owning things, any things not just guns, just to own them holds zero interest for me.
I would wager that I could throw you some obscure preban military rifle that you've never held, owned or fired with sights that may not be zeroed exactly to you along with a equally unfamiliar handgun and sick 3 goblins on you and you'd probably still come out ok.
This is because you understand the nature of how most firearms function and are a practiced shooter. Now granted if you were going to take on a group of rogue Spetsnaz trained mercenaries you'd probably fare better with your personal AR and Glock but that is an extreme scenario, and you're probably screwed no matter what.
I don't claim any high degree of proficiency, but I can competently shoot a wide variety of firearms and given the many years of occasional practice I still manage to put most of them in the black regardless of which shooting iron I have in my hand.
I may not do it as fast as you, nor as tight, but I believe I do it well enough to consider myself a reasonable shooter. Now I could be better if I had the time and money to train more frequently, but as you noted being a civilian shooter has it's limits.
Jay Cunningham
12-03-09, 23:21
Here are the questions I have for the members here:
1. List your "needs" as you see them. (home defense, concealed carry, etc.)
My needs are home defense and concealed carry.
2. What firearms fill those roles?
Glock 19 with SF x300. I can deploy a carbine or shotgun very quickly if need be.
3. What thought process if any do you employ before adding a firearm to your "need" column.
Do I need this? Is this a novelty or gimmick?
4. Assuming you don't hate any caliber, how do you decide which caliber to purchase for each gun? (seems like a stupid question but I don't feel like typing out an entire new thread to explain fully, ha)
Is it readily available, effective against humans, and relatively inexpensive?
.....
The odds of anyone being involved in a shooting are very small. It's good to be prepared anyway.
Don't make it so complicated. You want a gun, get it. Train if you can.
Enjoy your collection.
Semper Fidelis,
Tipy
I have a collection. I also have firearms that I rely on. One does not disallow the other, nor does it diminish the other to any measurable degree.
gordon freeman
12-04-09, 04:37
My way....
1. CZ P01 pistol. 9mm, 3.9 inch barrel, SA/DA, decocker, rail and night sights. Custom trigger/action gun smithed.
It's good for HD configured with a light, CT laser grips and a 15 round mag. 9mm is widely avaliable as inexpensive 115gr practice rounds or high lethality HST rounds. It's compact enough for a CCW and big enough for open carry. It points well, shoots well, and works for me in 3 gun fun. Smiths and parts are uncommon, so I keep old parts and learned to make basic repairs. CZ's aren't expensive and in the price range of Glocks.
2. M4 carbine. I use a BCM, 16 inch, mid-length, with a holosight and light for HD. For 3-gun, I add a magnifier to the holosight.
3. AR-15 rifle. My A4 clone is used for gun club matches and varmints. The 5.56mm and .223 calibers are the most common rifle rounds available and they come in high lethality versions as well as practice rounds. The problem is that BRD is expensive and ammo isn't cheap like AK ammo.
4. SAFN-49 rifle. I use this for JC Garand matches at my gun club. The 8mm ammo was cheap and plentiful. It also fills a C&R interest.
5. FN SLP Shotgun. For HD, I use an 18 inch barrel, holosight and railed forend with light. For 3 gun and 'yotes, I change to 22 inch barrel. For clays and fowl, I use a 26 inch barrel. Ammo wise, I use 2.75 inch shells, in number 1 buck for HD.
6. Ruger 10/22. My boyhood gun.
I'm by no means a 3 gun champ, but rather a happy participant. I'm always out gunned at matches by rebuilt Garand's and Trijicon scopes or ACOG's. I'm no trophy hunter, varmints are my game. I'm no COP or Soldier either, but I sure can defend myself. There's a great sense of freedom and pride I get from my gun collection.
I will say this though, unless you have very competent observer controllers and moderators to such activities I would say they quickly become nearly worthless. Are a bunch of guys playing paintball or airsoft in the woods "training"? Of course not.
Agree completely. Being able to disect the events in an immediate AAR with competent instructors is critical.
I'm not going to get into an argument with you over this Rob, but I think you're wrong here. Mindset is perhaps the most important piece of the puzzle. Anyone who has been in a gunfight or sustained firefight will tell you this. The ability to stay focused under periods of extreme stress are what keep you alive in one of these situations. This ability can not be instilled or honed in a weekend long course. There are reasons why you have drill instructors screaming at you for piddly shit while smoking the crap out of you. There are reasons why the military subjects "combat arms" people to extreme physical, emotional, and mental stress in training.
I don't see where anything I said contradicts anything you said, or vice-versa. I will say that "sustained firefight" is rather unlikely to end well for me or anyone else in my situation where my backup is a 100 lbs woman, a 60 lbs kid, and a 20 lbs dog and I have no artillery, air support, resupply, etc. I better end the situation quick, fast, and in a hurry because if there is a "sustained firefight" I'm good and well ****ed no matter how much training, commercial or military, I do or do not have.
That's just the way it is.
No, that's just the way you see things, colored by your own experience. Pat Rogers commonly says "we are all victims of our own frame of reference", and that goes both ways. I'm curious as to what commercial training you've had and with who. (I'm also curious about your age to see if you fit my stereotype, but I won't ask that ;) )
Your experience as a soldier, your exposure to training and combat, all color your perception of things just as much as my lack of experience in those environments color mine.
I have a very good friend that was a soldier and a PMC, who was wounded doing those things and will never go back. Yet he still frames all of his training based on that experience and that environment. He always trains with his plate carrier and drop-leg, makes gear selection based off of his old "mission", etc. I constantly argue with him about this because none of that is going to do him any good at the movie theater at 10 PM with his girlfriend and her kid with his G23 in an IWB.
Of course he has the mindset, and of course his experiences strengthened that mindset, but his current training is not in line with his current mission.
Is commercial training ever going to instill the same emotional/mental lessons/toughness as military combat? Of course not. But short of telling the person to rush out and get in a gun fight, how would you suggest that the 40 year old accountant get that kind of "training"?
In talking with current, and former, military that I've trained with at Pat Rogers, Randy Cain, Bill Jeans, Louis Awerbuck, etc. classes and with those that have trained in other commercial environments, they all learned something they didn't know about the use of the firearm and that the military didn't teach them. I am quite sure that the opposite is true as well.
Fundamentals like sight alignment, trigger control, stance, draw stroke, etc. can't be under-played and are all that the civilian shooter has available to them. If your point is that "you're just learning how to shoot, the military taught me how to kill", then of course I would concede that you're right. but we all have to make use of he resources available to us.
which, back to the OP, is commercial training. Standardize on a platform so that you can be consistent, sell off everything else, and use the funds on mags, ammo, and training to learn to run whatcha brung.
I would wager that I could throw you some obscure preban military rifle that you've never held, owned or fired with sights that may not be zeroed exactly to you along with a equally unfamiliar handgun and sick 3 goblins on you and you'd probably still come out ok.
This is because you understand the nature of how most firearms function and are a practiced shooter. Now granted if you were going to take on a group of rogue Spetsnaz trained mercenaries you'd probably fare better with your personal AR and Glock but that is an extreme scenario, and you're probably screwed no matter what.
I don't claim any high degree of proficiency, but I can competently shoot a wide variety of firearms and given the many years of occasional practice I still manage to put most of them in the black regardless of which shooting iron I have in my hand.
I may not do it as fast as you, nor as tight, but I believe I do it well enough to consider myself a reasonable shooter. Now I could be better if I had the time and money to train more frequently, but as you noted being a civilian shooter has it's limits.
So you acknowledge that standardizing on one platform will yield the best results in terms of the shooter's ability, but still advocate messing around with all sorts of different firearms for....what benefit exactly?
I think there is value in learning the basics of operating various platforms (safety, magazine release, loading and unloading, trigger feel) but I don't have to buy all of those guns to do that. Handle them at a gunshop or a gunshow and ask someone you see at the range to shoot their gun and you've accomplished the same task. Beyond that the fundamentals are all the same.
But I can't think of any PRACTICAL benefit of owning and shooting a whole bunch of different guns. Which isn't to say taht people shouldn't be allowed to buy whatever they want, or do whatever they want, but as others have said in this thread they should try to keep it clear in their collection and in their mind which guns are the serious use guns and which are the fun guns.
I want to make it clear that I'm not disparaging Soldiers or their training. Having no first-hand experience with that training I can only comment on how that training translates to what I see on the range in current and former military shooters that rely only on the training they received in the military. Obviously there is far more to combat than marksmanship and gun handling ability.
I also base my statements on comments made by, and discussions had with, current and former military shooters that seek out commercial training outside of the military and their feedback re: same.
I'd also very much like to hear suggestions as to how someone past military age or otherwise precluded from joining would or should go about getting the "mindset" training we're missing in commercial training, specifically mindset training that would be applicable to a non-military application like dealing with muggings, home invasions, and other civilian-level violent encounters.
QuickStrike
12-04-09, 07:32
To be honest, I've recently viewed ALL of my shooting practice as just practicing some very simple/basic techniques.
I've thought about posting a thread to ask how to learn tactics, but already had the feeling that the military's probably the only way of really learning this stuff. I know there are classes that teaches some stuff, maybe like Yeager's place but..
rifleman2000
12-04-09, 07:56
I want to make it clear that I'm not disparaging Soldiers or their training. Having no first-hand experience with that training I can only comment on how that training translates to what I see on the range in current and former military shooters that rely only on the training they received in the military. Obviously there is far more to combat than marksmanship and gun handling ability.
I also base my statements on comments made by, and discussions had with, current and former military shooters that seek out commercial training outside of the military and their feedback re: same.
I'd also very much like to hear suggestions as to how someone past military age or otherwise precluded from joining would or should go about getting the "mindset" training we're missing in commercial training, specifically mindset training that would be applicable to a non-military application like dealing with muggings, home invasions, and other civilian-level violent encounters.
Let me make a big assertion here: Combat experience is only a valid experience to base your assessment of training on if you received adequate COMBAT TRAINING. A soft-skill Soldier or civilian that is engaged in "combat" does not necessarily have a leg up on anyone in that arena aside from having better stories.
I agree with your other assessments here. Most of my disagreements come from the idea that all their money should be devoted to "training, training, training!" and of course the sneering a Soldiers who "don't know how to do anything but zero their weapon" or something of that nature.
Obviously, good and realistic training is never a bad thing. But unfortunately for civilians, training is all one tracked. Sure, people can learn to shoot real well, but how do you then apply those skills? What other skills are needed to employ shooting skills correctly? When and where should those shooting skills come into play? Those are things that range time cannot train.
Situational training is a good tool. I mentioned that I did not agree with paintball or sim for training; let me qualify that. It can be a tool for training, but it is not a requirement by any means. But situational training has to be supervised by experienced and proficient instructors that can cut the BS and make the situation as realistic and stressful as possible. Pre-Iraq 2003 almost all of my training was dry-run battle drills, blank fire at best. It was good training that paintball and simunitions would not have enhanced at all.
Picture this, being of course a worst case scenario (that people do plan to be ready for).
Three M4C members and one ARFCOMMER ;) are working together as group in the wake of a Katrina like storm. Of course their initial, and ongoing problem, will be determining who is in charge unless someone really steps up. They realize that one of their wives is stuck across town at her place of work with no way to safely get home. A rescue mission is launched. The four traipse across town, but lo and behold someone opens a window and opens fire with an SKS, forcing them to take cover. What do they do now?
a. They storm the house. Problems will occur with the approach. They make take casualties moving in as a group without covering fire. Also, if they split, and use two for covering fire and two to clear the house, they will have risks related to controlling supporting fire (avoiding friendly fire and maintaining awareness of where the others are), risk going into the house with only 2 guys (2 on 1 is still bad odds and if the house has more than one armed personnel this is suicide) etc. Very quickly the FOUR of them realize that four is not a lot, and they are probably not trained to execute this particular mission.
b. Attempt to overwhelm the house with fire, shooting through the walls and attempting to kill the shooter. This might work, at risk of starting larger fight and wasting ammunition. Remember, 4 vs 1 is ok odds at this point, but if only 1-3 more bad guys show up our team is at serious risk of taking effective fire and being pinned!
c. Bypass the house, wasting time, possibly getting lost, but probably the best option.
d. Here is another consideration; a military unit would execute the mission on hand, but none of these four is really willing to put his life on the line. I can imagine the difficulty assigning the more dangerous roles of the mission. After all what is the point of rescuing person A's wife if person A is dead, or rescuing person A's wife if person B is dead and person B's wife is waiting at home?!
This is just a quick scenario off of the top of my head, but I think illustrates a few good points. Shooting skills play very little into the choices these guys have to make.
Skills, attributes, and knowledge a competent fighter should have (off the top of my head):
-Land navigation, dead reckoning with compass.
-Terrain analysis, map reading.
-Basic battle drills.
-Understanding of combat power/firepower; as those four guys learned they had very little of either. For a scenario like the one above, I would want at least nine people, but only if they have a level of training and discipline, i.e. will work as a team and take orders.
-First aid.
-Weapon handling/employment.
-Leadership and communication techniques.
-Priorities of work and security procedures.
-Formal planning skills and procedures.
-Camouflage, cover, and concealment.
-Constructing camouflage, cover, and concealment.
-Physically fit. Moving at full speed with all your gear on while hopped up on adrenalin will drain you fast!!!
Feel free to chime in, but my basic point is that there is a reason why combat training sucks and is so difficult. It has to be. I just worry that some people have an unrealistic view of what it takes to fight and win.
You've created a situation that I think caters to your point though. I frankly find the scenario to almost completely outlandish, and more to the point pretty far down the hierarchy of needs. You've created what, IMHO, is a cockamamie situation where regular guys are pressed into military-like situations. So far out of the realm of reality, and so far down on the list of possible violent encounters for the average civilian, that I think it can be virtually outright ignored while other more pressing concerns like basic health and fitness and preparing for muggings and home invasions are dealt with.
Starting fresh with a new civilian shooter that is precluded from joining the military or getting military training, and in order needs to be:
1) Basic marksmanship training
2) More advanced marksmanship training
3) Gun Handling training
Fortunately most quality 3-day intro classes from the likes of Randy Cain can accommodate all of this rather well in a single class.
I absolutely agree that being physically fit and otherwise in good health, having good situational awareness, and survival mindset, etc. are all necessary traits and supersede the gun handling and shooting. (see my controversial threads on health and fitness as priorities as they relate to shooting skills training).
rifleman2000
12-04-09, 08:13
You've created a situation that I think caters to your point though. I frankly find the scenario to almost completely outlandish, and more to the point pretty far down the hierarchy of needs. You've created what, IMHO, is a cockamamie situation where regular guys are pressed into military-like situations. So far out of the realm of reality, and so far down on the list of possible violent encounters for the average civilian, that I think it can be virtually outright ignored while other more pressing concerns like basic health and fitness and preparing for muggings and home invasions are dealt with.
Guys training with load bearing gear and rifles are not training for the situations you describe. And lots of guys here do it.
You talk out of both sides of your mouth. Otherwise why would civilian training be compared to military training at all?
I am pretty sure a lot of guys want to be prepared for just the situation described, when the "SHTF".
I think some people get mad when I burst their COD4/zombie fantasy with them lone gunning like Rambo.
Guys training with load bearing gear and rifles are not training for the situations you describe. And lots of guys here do it.
You talk out of both sides of your mouth. Otherwise why would civilian training be compared to military training at all?
Umm, because you started making the comparison?
I am pretty sure a lot of guys want to be prepared for just the situation described, when the "SHTF".
No, again I think you read things into situations based on your own experiences (and I'm starting to think "lack thereof" as well). I'm still curious as to your experience with commercial training (and I think I'd like to know that age thing too ;) )
I wear a chest rig in training. I employ it in a way that it has nothing whatsoever to do with how I train other than giving me the ability to carry ammo and other supplies to the line.
If other guys are preparing for their delusional paranoid Red Dawn/The Road/Mad Max fantasies that's their deal, but I'm not advocating training for that, I think it's out of the realm of what new shooters like the OP should be worried about, and I think that basic gunhandling skills play much more of a role in civilian self-defense training than you give credit for.
I think some people get mad when I burst their COD4/zombie fantasy with them lone gunning like Rambo.
In reading through this thread, and other posts of yours, I frankly think this is the only reason you're here at all.
On the topic of "training" I would submit that most of today's civilian accessible training is nothing more than a variety of intense gun handling training.
Gun handling is, in my opinion (based on experience) less than 10 percent of the skills you need to survive.
Bottom line is I would take a basic training private over a civilian 3 gun champion in a fight, if I was choosing a team. The Soldier will come with the intangibles that are so critical to success in combat; discipline for example.
The civilian training isn't bad. But it does not equate expertise at employing a weapon in combat by any means. I am sure people here will disagree because the train to shoot on the move, from various positions, yada yada yada. This is not tactics training, it is weapon handling training. Tactics involves the skills to plan, prepare, and execute (be in a position to employ your weapon advantageously). I will re-iterate. Those skills are a minor subset of skills needed for success in combat. Another case in point. Ranger School, recognized as one of (if not THE) best school for preparing a Soldier for combat has absolutely no live-fire training. It is all planning, tactics, and practicing execution.
Weapon handling training is good.
I am guessing that you have never taken any high end civy classes?
Yes, you can seek out classes that will teach how to win at "gun games."
Winning a gunfight means that you can ACTUALLY hit your target. Instructors like Vickers and Hackathorn teach how to properly shoot and hit what you are aiming at. Once you have got that down, they start removing the time in which you can do it.
Is learning how to hit your target on the move, behind cover, in low light classified as "gun handling?" I don't think so.
Tactics. Yes they are taught. Just depends in what class you are in. No need to teach someone "tactics" if they cannot hit their target. ;)
As a Civy, we are generally not looking to ambush someone. Understanding your homes layout and its weak points is important though. Having an exit strategy for the building or area you are in is also a good idea. Being situationally aware is most likely the single best "tactic" one could have as a CCW holder.
Two stories for you. At a Vickers/Hackathorn Low Light/CQB fighting course, Vickers made the comment that we (lowly Civy's) were receiving FAR better training than the majority of all the Military (less tier 1 groups).
I was at a Pat Rogers carbine class at Quantico. It was full of Marines, LE and Civy's. The top shooter in the class was a civilian. The second best shooter in the class was a civilian.
Most of the Military guys I come across in "Civy" training classes are generally at the bottom of the pile in shooting ability (right next to Cops). I know why this is, but where the rubber meets the road (rounds on target) Civy shooters are generally the best.
Something to consider before you make the comments that you have.
C4
I would wager that I could throw you some obscure preban military rifle that you've never held, owned or fired with sights that may not be zeroed exactly to you along with a equally unfamiliar handgun and sick 3 goblins on you and you'd probably still come out ok.
This is because you understand the nature of how most firearms function and are a practiced shooter. Now granted if you were going to take on a group of rogue Spetsnaz trained mercenaries you'd probably fare better with your personal AR and Glock but that is an extreme scenario, and you're probably screwed no matter what.
I don't claim any high degree of proficiency, but I can competently shoot a wide variety of firearms and given the many years of occasional practice I still manage to put most of them in the black regardless of which shooting iron I have in my hand.
I may not do it as fast as you, nor as tight, but I believe I do it well enough to consider myself a reasonable shooter. Now I could be better if I had the time and money to train more frequently, but as you noted being a civilian shooter has it's limits.
I think it is important that Civy's be familiar with all kinds of weapons. The reason is that you never know what you will have to fight with when the time comes.
We would all like to believe that we will have our CCW weapon that we have trained endlessly with or our beloved "AR." The truth I think is that we will be at someone else’s house and have to use what they have available or be somewhere that did not allow us to carry our CC pistol and have to use what we find (battlefield pickup).
I am not really a fan of the AK or Shotgun. Over the last couple years, I have gone to classes that focus on these two weapons. Why? So I could learn what I don't know about them. Am I an expert on either of these? Nope. Can I clear malfunctions, load and fire the weapons (accurately)? Yes I can.
In a recent Hackathorn advanced pistol class, Ken ran us through the shoot house. We had to download our pistol and had no extra ammo. As you worked your way through the house you found a Makarov, Colt Snubby .38 and another pistol. Your primary weapon had run out of ammo and you needed to fight with what you found.
This was a VERY realistic and difficult situation for many and all found it beneficial.
C4
rifleman2000
12-04-09, 09:23
Umm, because you started making the comparison?
In reading through this thread, and other posts of yours, I frankly think this is the only reason you're here at all.
I can't compete with your tacticoolness.
To be honest, I've recently viewed ALL of my shooting practice as just practicing some very simple/basic techniques.
I've thought about posting a thread to ask how to learn tactics, but already had the feeling that the military's probably the only way of really learning this stuff. I know there are classes that teaches some stuff, maybe like Yeager's place but..
I would not go to Yeager's to learn tactics.
First thing to do is get some high level pistol/carbine training. Master what is learned.
Then take some low light/night fighting courses.
Then take some CQB fighting courses (that allow you to clear a building alone and with another person).
Then combine the two (low light and CQB).
As a Civy, you are most likely going to to get into a fight in one of these situations:
1. Home invasion
2. Car Jacking
3. Armed robbery
Seek out instructors that can teach you how to defend yourself in situations like the above 3.
C4
Business_Casual
12-04-09, 09:28
Guys training with load bearing gear and rifles are not training for the situations you describe. And lots of guys here do it.
I disagree - when are you going to encounter tires on a football field? Never. But you use them to train for agility during practice.
Same concept - the drill isn't the end state, but merely way to simulate it.
M_P
decodeddiesel
12-04-09, 10:32
I have a very good friend that was a soldier and a PMC, who was wounded doing those things and will never go back. Yet he still frames all of his training based on that experience and that environment. He always trains with his plate carrier and drop-leg, makes gear selection based off of his old "mission", etc. I constantly argue with him about this because none of that is going to do him any good at the movie theater at 10 PM with his girlfriend and her kid with his G23 in an IWB.
Of course he has the mindset, and of course his experiences strengthened that mindset, but his current training is not in line with his current mission.
I think in this situation the heightened awareness of being a combat veteran would help, but other than that you're right. Training with your pistol in a drop rig isn't going to help when you've got it tucked into your waist band.
Standardize on a platform so that you can be consistent, sell off everything else, and use the funds on mags, ammo, and training to learn to run whatcha brung.
This has been a difficult lesson for me to learn, but if you seek to become as proficient as possible it is sage. Personally after a lot of trial and error I have settled on:
M&P pistols: M&P9C with thumb safety and Warren Night Sights for summer time carry in a Comp-Tac MTAC or CCC Looper, M&P45 with thumb safety and Warren Night Sights for winter time carry and for carry while hiking in areas of Colorado with a large mountain lion and black bear populations. I have a RCS phantom so I can carry with a white light attached, and the same MTAC depending on circumstances.
LMT AR rifles: Primary is a 10.5" registered SBR, Aimpoint Optic, Surefire Light, 7" rail. Secondary is a 14.5" with perm attached flash hider, Aimpoint optic, Surefire flashlight. This one is 14.5" with a perm hider so I can take it with to non-SBR states.
This is about it for my "serious" guns. I have other weapons, including:
Ruger 10/22 for low cost plinking and introducing new shooters
Browning Buckmark for low cost plinking, and pistol training, as well as introducing new shooters
GSG-5 which is purely a toy, and has been less than reliable for me...I am probably going to sell it
Saiga AK-101 in 5.56 which I converted myself. This one is was a project gun which I really enjoyed building. I'll never sell it, but I'll also never really consider it a "serious rifle". It has been very reliable and it accurate, but all in all it's more of a toy than anything. I have shot if enough to realize that I personally will never be as proficient in the basic weapons manipulations with an AK as I will an AR. I guess if I ever took a LAV AK course it would be perfect for such an occasion.
I would like to purchase a shotgun eventually. This is primarily with the intent of shooting skeet/trap, but also as a gun to bring camping for protection from 4 legged and 2 legged critters with 00 buckshot and slugs.
decodeddiesel
12-04-09, 10:38
I'd also very much like to hear suggestions as to how someone past military age or otherwise precluded from joining would or should go about getting the "mindset" training we're missing in commercial training, specifically mindset training that would be applicable to a non-military application like dealing with muggings, home invasions, and other civilian-level violent encounters.
Fight Club :D
Thomas M-4
12-04-09, 13:14
My thoughts on the OP original post. My first collection of firearms were a hodgepodge of everything .303 British,.308,30 carbine,rem7mm mag,7.62x39,.223,38spl,9mm,22lr,12ga &.410. I liked shooting them all but it became aggravating going to 4-5 different stores trying to find the best prices for ammo and if they had any instock.
Has another poster posted having 2 separate collection's is what I am going for now 1st primary HD would have 2 or more rifles in same calibers and 2 or more pistols in same calibers and preferable a CCW in the same caliber but I am open to change on that. My reasoning is the HD collection I need to be proficient with it which requires alot of shooting and ammo that I can by in bulk or reload at a good cost.
The 2nd would be a catch all of firearms that I like to shoot WWI-II surplus and hunting rifles.
So you acknowledge that standardizing on one platform will yield the best results in terms of the shooter's ability, but still advocate messing around with all sorts of different firearms for....what benefit exactly?
Well the main reason I do it is obviously an interest in firearms in general. And one could argue that familiarity with a broad range of weapon platforms means one will usually be able to function with whatever he may find at hand. But the only real point that I was trying to make is a guy with 12 or even 120 different guns isn't necessarily at a significant disadvantage. Even with my collection I have my "regular shooters." I guess the only point I was trying to make is you either are a competent shooter or you are not, and how many guns you own really doesn't make a huge difference.
I think there is value in learning the basics of operating various platforms (safety, magazine release, loading and unloading, trigger feel) but I don't have to buy all of those guns to do that. Handle them at a gunshop or a gunshow and ask someone you see at the range to shoot their gun and you've accomplished the same task. Beyond that the fundamentals are all the same.
And again I agree. My only point was I could probably throw you one of those guns you don't have an innate familiarity with and I bet you could still competently shoot them because you are at the end of the day a competent shooter.
But I can't think of any PRACTICAL benefit of owning and shooting a whole bunch of different guns. Which isn't to say taht people shouldn't be allowed to buy whatever they want, or do whatever they want, but as others have said in this thread they should try to keep it clear in their collection and in their mind which guns are the serious use guns and which are the fun guns.
Well one could say the guy who never shoots handguns or shotguns and only shoots bolt action rifles will be more proficient than a guy who shoots those plus semi auto rifles, and to a certain degree they would be correct. What I'm saying is I don't believe it makes a dramatic difference. I also don't believe a guy who shoots AKs, FALs and ARs is at a significant disadvantage to a guy who only shoots ARs if they both are regular shooters.
Again, I could hand you a SIG 550 and I bet you would still score in the top 5 at the next carbine match despite the fact that I'm pretty sure you've never shot one. And it wouldn't be because of Swiss engineering, it would be because of the shooter.
FlyAndFight
12-04-09, 16:02
I have a collection. I also have firearms that I rely on. One does not disallow the other, nor does it diminish the other to any measurable degree.
Your money, Your collection. Whose to say anything about what you buy? (Except maybe your significant other but that's besides the point) :D. As far as my stuff is concerned. It boils into 2 categories..Defense and Fun (Class III)...
I agree with the above posts.
If you can afford it, get whatever the heck you want. Proper training and proficiency with certain firearms (self defense / CCW) are a must, I agree, but I also have some firearms that are simply a "blast" to shoot (pardon the pun.)
joshua79109
12-04-09, 16:29
Preface: I have been a gun owner for less than two years. Since I don't have any friends that own guns, I have to look to the internet for advice/information I may be seeking. While this question may seem stupid, bear with me.
Over the past 22 months, I have bought six guns; four pistols and two rifles. At this time, when I sit back and look at my "collection", it doesn't make sense. That is to say, my "collection" as a whole seems random; the collective isn't easily defined. While any gun can be used in a offensive or defensive manner, it seems as if my choices in firearms work against one another; different manufactures, ergonomics, differences in actions, etc.
As a civilian, my firearms needs are different than those of military and law enforcement personnel. Having many different guns, its proving to be difficult getting enough trigger time on any one platform to become proficient with it. As I think about future purchases I would like to make, the likelihood of this problem increasing is high. I understand the practicality of standardizing on one platform but again, that is proving to be difficult. Since I don't know anyone with guns, I have to rely solely on the feel of the gun in hand and reports from users on this forum and others like it. I feel this in part has led to semi-erratic purchases which I feel don't work together to fit one common need, defense.
My "needs" as a civilian:
*this is a snapshot in time as I plan to add firearms to replace some in their current role.
Home defense: Pistol; Sig Sauer
Concealed Carry: Pistol; Springfield, Smith and Wesson
Main Firearms for SHTF (hate using that term): AR, Sig Sauer
While I didn't list the models of said firearms, trust when I say they are "different".
Here are the questions I have for the members here:
1. List your "needs" as you see them. (home defense, concealed carry, etc.)
2. What firearms fill those roles?
3. What thought process if any do you employ before adding a firearm to your "need" column.
Instead of creating another thread with this question:
I am trying to minimize the calibers I have to stock so most of my pistols are 9mm. I also plan some .45 cal. pistols but I haven't gotten there yet.
4. Assuming you don't hate any caliber, how do you decide which caliber to purchase for each gun? (seems like a stupid question but I don't feel like typing out an entire new thread to explain fully, ha)
Perhaps I am over thinking this entire gun purchasing ordeal but I want to get it right the first time.
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks in advance and again, bear with me.
As far as your collection - good for you. We all start somewhere and most of us end up in a different place than we start.
I train for many different scenarios - just because I want to. I split up my training according to what I feel is the most likely scenarios I might find myself in.
As far as calibers are concerned..... that's very personal and there are so many different theories out there. I like to keep weapons that use military ammo for multiple reasons.
I have a few old shotguns and a 10-22 that were given to me by older family members. They don't see much use, but they are important to me. Nothing wrong with keeping some other guns around. Train properly with the ones you rely on.
To the shtf scenario... by shtf I'm speaking along the lines of a large weather event, multiple terrorist attacks at once, etc.... The only suggestion I have is to try to study up on how things were during the riots in California or the flooding in Louisiana - etc... There is a lot to learn from this history.
Good luck - and keep thinking - make sure you are getting good training with the weapons of your choice.
Bottom line is I would take a basic training private over a civilian 3 gun champion in a fight, if I was choosing a team. The Soldier will come with the intangibles that are so critical to success in combat; discipline for example.
The civilian training isn't bad. But it does not equate expertise at employing a weapon in combat by any means. I am sure people here will disagree because the train to shoot on the move, from various positions, yada yada yada. This is not tactics training, it is weapon handling training. Tactics involves the skills to plan, prepare, and execute (be in a position to employ your weapon advantageously). I will re-iterate. Those skills are a minor subset of skills needed for success in combat. Another case in point. Ranger School, recognized as one of (if not THE) best school for preparing a Soldier for combat has absolutely no live-fire training. It is all planning, tactics, and practicing execution.
Speaking as a former USMC infantryman, a basic training private knows very, very little. I might lean more towards someone who can shoot, move, and communicate if I had to pick a partner to get shot at with.
Bottom line is I would take a basic training private over a civilian 3 gun champion in a fight, if I was choosing a team. The Soldier will come with the intangibles that are so critical to success in combat; discipline for example.
When I was first getting into guns and dedicated all of my training to "tactics" classes, I felt the same way. The more time I've spent around average line cops and soldiers as well as serious competitive shooters, the less I feel there's a simple choice to make. Individuals are individuals.
The assumption that only people who've "been there" will win a fight is logically implausible. How does one win his first fight, then?
There are some absolute goofballs in action shooting sports. Some of the worst are the ones who think they're ready to take on the zombie hordes single-handedly. No argument from me there. But a dude who can operate his weapon at an extremely high level without conscious attention has a huge advantage over someone who has only basic level training.
Trying to draw conclusions about people purely based on a hobby is probably not the smartest idea.
exiledtoIA
12-04-09, 20:16
I don't really see my guns as one "collection". More like 3 separate collections, each with a distinct purpose:
1. Defensive guns - These are carried, stored loaded and accessible, and are the ones I use in training. For me these are 9mm Glocks, and AR's. This group has the smallest number of guns in it, but most of my trigger time is spent with them. These guns "make sense" to me.
2. Hunting guns - shotguns and a Remington 700. These guns "make sense" to me too, for their intended purpose.
3. Guns I own because I like them - these spend most of their time in the safe, and are fired infrequently. Most of my guns fall in this category, but they account for very little of my shooting time. I own these because of my interest in firearms, and because they're just kind of cool. These guns don't "make sense", other than I like them all and most are platforms that have some sort of military historical significance (1911's, AK's, FAL's, M1A, etc). Most of these guns could certainly fill a defensive role, but they don't for me.
The only thing these groups have in common as far as I'm concerned is that they are all firearms. The "because I like them" guns have more in common with a coin or stamp collection than they do with the defensive guns. And there's nothing wrong with that. If we only owned what we "need", we wouldn't really have very much, would we?
Not sure if this makes sense to anyone else, but it's my approach.
Argus, I'll add one more class to your's if I may
4. The "What in the name of God was I thinking of" class.
I would be willing to bet each and every one of us has or had something in
this group.
The two examples I hang onto as reminders are:
COP357 - a 4 barreled torture device in 357 Magnum.
AMT Longslide 45ACP.
I keep both of these around to remind myself that hardware ( even good hardware ) and neither of these qualifies as good, can't overcome shooter
screwup's ( or deficiencies ).
Bottom line is I would take a basic training private over a civilian 3 gun champion in a fight, if I was choosing a team. The Soldier will come with the intangibles that are so critical to success in combat; discipline for example.
Not to disrespect anyone in the military, be they a recent boot camp grad or combat vet with lots of experience, but I can't believe no one posted the link to this thread:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=38540. The poster in this thread is a Marine combat Vet who was seriously wounded and parlyzed. He concluded that certain things covered in Jeff Gonzales of Trident Concepts' class were not covered or not covered adequately in his Marine training--things that might have prevented him from being in the situation he was.
This isn't to try to suggest that train with so and so and you will be better than a combat vet, but rather to highlight the level of training available to civilians and to point out that tragically, not all military training is where it should be.
As for gun collections, a few questions to ask are do you have your bases covered with regard to suitable guns for carry & home defense, etc?
How much training have you had?
--Do you have guns that you don't really serve a useful purpose that you might be able to sell and use the money for training or regular practice.
You can carry this too far. I remember a thread where there was someone who had two nice Nighthawk 1911s--including one 10-8 Model--that he wanted to sell and replace with a pair of Glocks abecause he did not have money for regular practice and would not for the short term. It turned out that he liked those guns and in all liklihood would have deeply regretted his decision in 6 months or so when he did have the money.
I think it becomes an issue if you are deficient in training or a well rounded arsenal. I know someone who has something like 3 lower grade ARs and no optic who I think would be better off selling the lot of them and buying one decent M4 type made by a top tier manufacturer and equipping it with an Aimpoint.
Conversely, I have a friend who is funding a decent AR but will not likely be able to buy an Aimpoint for at least 6 months. Does that mean he should sell his AK immediately to buy an Aimpoint for his AR?
I think a lot of us have guns that we bought a while ago and have not fired in a while. Just because you have a lot of different guns doesn't mean we regularly shoot all of them on a rotating basis, Having an M1 Garand that I have not shot in at least 3 years, or an FN FAL that I have not shot in longer has no effect on my practice with ARs.
I can't see myself grabbing my Remington 870 or Benelli M1 Super90 over an AR. Does that mean that I should sell both of them?
Speaking of selling guns, I recently found myself missing and wanting to shoot the HK45 that I sold about a year and a half ago. I sold it to fund an M&P45 with a Bowie Trigger job after I found that I shot better with a friend's M&P with a Bowie trigger job.
A more interesting question to ask is if all of your guns got stolen or destroyed in a fire, how many would you replace?
I think most of us have accumulated guns that we might not necessarily buy again if we loft them that we don't feel like selling.
Some people are gun collectors.
Some people buy guns for training and use.
And some people are a mixture of both.
QuickStrike
12-05-09, 04:39
...
I have taken a class a while back and will hopefully take many more, but still feel that there is a huge limit on what civies can learn. Who'd you recommend to learn tactics from?
I have taken a class a while back and will hopefully take many more, but still feel that there is a huge limit on what civies can learn. Who'd you recommend to learn tactics from?
I think you can learn tactics from many reputable instructors. I believe something that needs to be stated is the tactical needs of an infantryman are rarely the same sets of skills needed for a citizen. There obviously is a lot of carry over but I don't think it's realistic or necessary for the homeowner defending his castle to require training for close air support, squad size element maneuvers, sat com radio, and on and on. Are you going to need to fire and maneuver to assault a position? Also defense of a static position will generally leave you in an advantageous position. As others have pointed out your weapons handling skills are paramount, only being superseded by your mindset and situational awareness. Room clearing, basic 2 person movement, low light, and a few other skills will get you through most encounters you are likely to become engaged in.
I'll also chime in that most basic recruits are not trained to any level of proficiency. Over the years I've spent a lot of hours of military ranges(all branches) and am rarely impressed by the weapons skills or tactics being used. Before deployment the CQB training we received was right out of the current manuals, and right out of the early 1990's SWAT tactics. Because so many police and military members don't take this stuff seriously is why I really enjoy taking classes with non LEO types. They tend to be locked on and motivated to learn as much as possible whereas a lot of cops are only there because they have to be.
I think you can learn tactics from many reputable instructors. I believe something that needs to be stated is the tactical needs of an infantryman are rarely the same sets of skills needed for a citizen. There obviously is a lot of carry over but I don't think it's realistic or necessary for the homeowner defending his castle to require training for close air support, squad size element maneuvers, sat com radio, and on and on. Are you going to need to fire and maneuver to assault a position? Also defense of a static position will generally leave you in an advantageous position. As others have pointed out your weapons handling skills are paramount, only being superseded by your mindset and situational awareness. Room clearing, basic 2 person movement, low light, and a few other skills will get you through most encounters you are likely to become engaged in.
I'll also chime in that most basic recruits are not trained to any level of proficiency. Over the years I've spent a lot of hours of military ranges(all branches) and am rarely impressed by the weapons skills or tactics being used. Before deployment the CQB training we received was right out of the current manuals, and right out of the early 1990's SWAT tactics. Because so many police and military members don't take this stuff seriously is why I really enjoy taking classes with non LEO types. They tend to be locked on and motivated to learn as much as possible whereas a lot of cops are only there because they have to be.
Here in western PA F.I.R.E. Institute offers tactics classes that are geared precicely to the CCW issue. I have taken Tactics I and participated in II. The focus in these is not how to shoot, but when to shoot.
http://www.fireinstitute.org/
which progresses from simulators in I to live role playing in II with video and review of scenerios after on tape. There is good amount of focus on working as a team with your significant other and the complexities that arise. It is encouraged to bring your SO with, and they can participate in a limited fashion. They may not shoot live guns unless they have prerequisit training.
I highly recomend them.
To the OP - your in NOVA - check out http://m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=133
Lots of us dwell up here...
Gun collections - training - excellent thread that can take you in multiple directions, fast. I feel lucky/blessed being able to persue all the avenues, all the hobbies within the hobby. This really is subjective and depends on what you want to achieve, what you do and pure random chance coming your way. I appreciate the poster who stated he really has 3 collections - and that is where I see myself. I have my training/SHTF/Know inside and out collection, my carry/defense, my exotic(WWII guns, odd or inherited items) There are overlaps in these collections I must say. Glock 19 for instance in my training/SHTF and carry groups.
For training, there are the ARs I do train with - attend classes with - all goes back to growing up with an M16A1 in the Army. Training serves multiple purposes that are hard to measue, but much mentioned in earlier posts. In training with Tier 1 instructors led me to some hard realizations as my conversion to Glocks - realize they are a tool - just not sexy to me at all, just a good tool - that was hard.
There are the "minimalists" out there by either caliber or sheer number/consolidation of firearms - this is an individual choice for their reasons. They are just not the group who either has the means or wants to collect - again for either a focused proficiency or what they deem able to carry to the hills.
I would have to say gun collecting is a hobby, makes as most sense as it means to you. I would argue sport shooting, reloading or even being a training junky can be considered a hobby. It is what you want to make of it.
Do collections make sense - In restrospect yes - at the time, well only you can figure that one out.
I believe Argus nailed it. Firearms fall into three main categories with room for overlapping between the categories.
1. Defense. Have at least one carbine and one semiautomatic pistol with plenty of ammo and magazines for each. Know how to use them.
Under this category, the citizen's preferences can vary widely, but I'd choose an AR15 and 1911, both Colts. For 9mm a Glock 17 or 19 or a Sig 226 or 228 would be the ticket. Actually a prepared kind of guy would have something that could fire any of the common cartridges, just in case a short supply dictates going to another caliber.
2. Hunting. Some folks don't hunt, but I live in a rural area out of town, so it makes sense to have firearms that are capable of harvesting deer sized animals. A good bolt action is a fine tool. I like pre-64 Winchester 70s along with the post 64 brethern because the action is more rigid than its competition and the design characteristics are great. Again, common cartridges should be chosen such as .308 Win., .30-06 Springfield, 270 Win. .243 Win. etc.
A subcategory under hunting could be shotguns. Everybody needs a good Remington 870 in 12 gauge, and an additional 18 or 20 inch barrel for it. For me, shotguns are the tool for getting rid of feral cats and skunks.
Another subcategory would be varmint hunting. These involve long range shooting with heavy barrels, high powered optics, etc. .223 Rem and .308 Win are my picks.
Another subcategory would be rimfires. Everybody needs a good .22 rimfire and plenty of ammo. I like Remington Nylon 66s and Anschutz heavy barrelled bolt actions. The 66s are for fun, and the Anschutz for accuracy.
3. Enjoyment or simply owning desirable firearms is another category. Satisfaction can be derived from using, cleaning, handling some piece that has special interest. It makes men happy and is an important consideration in lives. Buy something that holds interest for YOU! Some folks like WWII weapons. I happen to like the Winchester Model 71 in .348 Win. I don't use it much, but it gives me great satisfaction when I do.
So the choices for a collection don't have to please anybody except you, but there are quite a few reasons to own a lot of examples. Enjoy them.
Owning any type of a firearm brings about different responsibility levels based on that persons needs, desires and situations. Safe firearm training is a must period, end of story, no debate! The level of continution training is up to that person. Quite a few people panic buy guns because of a situation developing(area that one lives in is having more and more crime) or that a situation has occurred (victim of a crime). These folks will sometimes seek out advanced training but like any skillset if perfect practice does not occur the skill, no matter what it is, will diminsh! Quite a few times I have been asked if I am interested in buying a "slightly used" gun or do I know someone who is. These are good folks who, after a period of time ,realize they will not use there firearm in any way( the plinking mystique has faded, and they can't see themselves shooting a bad guy!) and no longer want the firearm or responsibility of it. I commend them as they are not posers IMO, they know and accept there limititations and are smart enough to know when to fold. Others mature slowly in terms of firearms training but at least they try by taking quality training. No matter what your colloection consists of, standardize on your HD gun and train with it. If its a long gun, keep it simple and train hard with it. See how you work with it and see how it works! A quick example , a few folks I know purchased various makes of shotguns and after a few years of owning the shotguns along with a few trips to a local range decided to take a formal shotgun course...well after day 2 of the class, two guys decided that after the class they were going to try an AR for HD. Nothing wrong with that , the shotgun just did not suit them well. Same thing with your CCW/HD pistol. Going with a pistol product line/family like S&W M&P series, Glock, Sig, Colt, Kimber and Beretta that have the same manual of arms, same calibers and same mags can help a ton if your going to use a different size handgun for CCW and HD! Good, solid formal training from a reputable instructor is priceless in what you learn about yourself and your firearm. :cool:
I have taken a class a while back and will hopefully take many more, but still feel that there is a huge limit on what civies can learn. Who'd you recommend to learn tactics from?
Get into advanced classes with Hackathorn and Vickers (their low light and CQB stuff).
C4
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.