Need some trainign advice

[WDW]

Am I doing myself a disservice by training with a P226 9mm (because it's cheaper) and carrying a P220. I know the whole caliber war debate is stupid, but I can't help but feel that a .45 center mass is going to make a bigger hole than a 9mm center mass. I am not starting a caliber war, just stating my personal preference.

The manual of arms is the same, both guns are DA/SA, and the only real difference would be in reloads as one is a double stack and the other is a single stack.

The other difference is in recoil and maintaining a proper sight picture/alignment after each shot, this is the main thing that concerns me.

Trigger pulls are similar, might even be the same, as both guns have short reach and SRT triggers.

The main thing is, I just love that single stack grip and the big .45 hole

Does anybody else do this? Should I just stick with one or the other?

[gringop]

What does your timer say? To me, it seems only your recoil impulse is different.

Gringop

[Occam's Razor]

Your call on caliber. As long as the manual of arms is the same, what's the diff?

[Al T.]

When my work gun was a .40 Glock, my shooting gun was a 9mm Glock. That you are training at all puts you ahead of the crowd.

I would shoot the 220 enough to be comfortable with the differences.

[ToddG]

The honest answer is that it depends on your general skill level.

Someone who sucks out loud is going to suck at an equal loudness whether it's with his 9mm practice gun or his .45 carry gun. Someone who has achieved nirvana and become One with a particular pistol is going to have noticeable (to him) performance loss when switching to another caliber.

Having said that, I wouldn't carry one caliber and practice with another. In the case of the 9mm/.45 pairing, you've got a few different things going on. First, the grip shape is different so where your hands meet controls (especially where your finger contacts the trigger and where your hands do/don't interfere with the slide release lever on a SIG) can differ. You might run the practice gun well only to find out that under stress your grip is just a little off and prevents you from doing something you want with the carry gun. Second, the 9mm is going to let you get away with a much more relaxed grip than the .45 requires. So when you try to shoot at your 9mm speed under stress with the .45, you may not be able to control the gun well enough to get good hits. Third, you're doing all of your reload practice with a tapered magazine while your carry gun has a much different shape. If your reload technique isn't perfect that can bite you in the ass.

It really boils down to this: do you think you'll be better under the stress of a life-threatening confrontation so you'll be able to handle a less familiar and harsher recoiling gun, or do you think perhaps you'll be below your best-case performance to begin with?

[ranburr]

Both pistols work the same. I would say that it is better to be able to afford more 9mm trigger time. Shoot your .45 enough to stay proficient.

[LittleLebowski]

Makes zero sense to me. Sell one, train more with the other. Otherwise, you are training with a different recoil impulse, velocity, and weight and carrying another? Not to mention the costs of maintaining two sets of ammo and magazines.

[JV_]

Sell one, train more with the other.

I agree.

[JConn]

Same thing could apply here that applies to training with a 22 although to a lesser extent. If you apply those same rules to training with your 9mm it should be a useful training tool. Of course you could just carry the 226.

[Odin Bravo One]

It's no secret that I am a firm believer in training with the tools you can reasonably expect to have available when your fight is for all the marbles. When I carried a .45 for daily use, I trained with it extensively, and nearly exclusively for pistol work. Same thing when I switched to a 226.

That said, there are the numerous factors that make sub-caliber training attractive. But at the same time, we need to keep those things in perspective. I can shoot a .22LR much more for substantially less than centerfire. But as Todd mentioned, there are some pretty important differences in shooting 9mm vs. .45, or .22LR vs. just about anything. We can get away with a lot of mistakes and a certain amount of laziness when shooting smaller calibers, and we tend to convince ourselves that we are training the same, just at a cheaper price point.

There are things we do when shooting the smaller calibers have training value, but they shouldn't necessarily be equated with actual training for combat. Any repetitions of live fire that contain sight slightment, sight picture, trigger press, presentations, and even some manipulations will always be better than none. But other critical aspects of offensive/defensive shooting such as recoil management, target transition with the heavier recoil, and rapid target engagement cannot be accurately replicated with sub-caliber training. Technique is important for sure, but training like you like you intend to fight, with both TTP's and equipment is more important than simply going out and pressing the trigger at reduced cost.