Carry gun, competition gun -- same or different

[Nephrology]

I've gone both ways on this, and have wound up somewhere in the middle.

Early on, when I was drinking all the training/defense/SHTFantasy/ccw koolaid I firmly believed that one should be competing with their exact carry gun, in their exact carry holster, with their exact carry clothes, every single time. I also thought I should creep around stages like a ninja, never take a walkthrough, cry about the gamers winning, claim because:tactical when I lost, etc.

I slowly moved on to drop all the tactical ninja sneaking around and tried to game the stages with my carry gear. Match placements increased dramatically.

Then I moved on further and bought a dedicated gamer gun in the form of a CZ. I bought dedicated gamer support gear, holsters, etc. there is no doubt whatsoever that y performance at matches improved. A lot. I think this is the A-answer for someone that shoots a lot. The CZ, for me, is a no good for carry so my Glocks remain my carry guns in the form of a 19 and a 26 (and soon to add a 42 and 43). When shooting a lot, I saw no problem going back and forth, and just u derstood that I shoot the Glocks a little slower and a little less accurately.

Then I stopped shooting as much.

So now I'm on to a Glock 34 instead of the CZ for no other reason than cost and having money tied up. I can use one mag ouch type, one bunch of spare mags, the carry guns will fit in the gamer holster if I want it to, the gamer gun will fit in the carry holsters if I buy them with open bottoms, etc. saves me having an extra $2k tied up in sole-use gamer gear when I only shoot a couple of matches a year. Gamer gear is also multi-purpose for IDPA, UPSPSA, or 2/3-gun (if I ever get into it again).

For the guy just starting out, my suggestion is to use carry gun/gear/concealment (on,y use concealment in IDPA where required) and not to ninja-around but to go out and try like hell to win. I don't really believe in competition-generated "training scars" or "competition will get you killed on the street" anymore since (a) you're not very likely to ever use your gun on the street and (b) I've never been able to find any documented examples of a competition shooter getting killed on the street solely because of competition "training scars". But there is this
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattves...lator-n2031884

This is more or less my mindset and why I have stuck with Glocks. I am a thoroughly competent pistol shooter, but very far from being an expert. I also generally am pretty ambivalent about how well I do at matches as long as it is not worse than my last. Mostly interested in getting the rounds downrange and using them as an opportunity to improve my pistol skillset.

[SLG]

I think Avery's point is that at some stage along the learning curve to becoming world class in the pistol shooting world, one is going to need to 'see faster' than your average joe has learned to. He believes that the process of getting there is more easily achieved with using modern accoutrements first (lighter weight, shorter throw triggers, optics, lasers, compensators) and then bringing irons, heavier stock triggers, etc… back into the fold later. Easy first, then progressively harder/more difficult, just like the rest of the learning/education world.

I personally learned trigger control on revolvers, but given Ron's experience and success coaching shooters at that level (not to mention those accomplishments of his own) I can't discount his perspective.


While I realize, he is no average joe, even on the elite world stage, Max seems to be having success making his first formal foray into Production division. It was a treat getting to watch he and Ben go back and forth duking it out on Friday.


t

I have no issue with Mr. Avery or Max, and don't want this to sound like anything but a technical discussion. Mr. Avery may very well be correct, but my only point is that it really is just a theory at this point, and a theory that goes against the overwhelming proof of the sport.

I've spent some very pleasant days on the range with Max, both one on one and in competition. He is a great guy to shoot with and a good teacher. As far as Max "going back and forth" with Stoeger, I'm not sure that's really accurate. I may be remembering things incorrectly (if so, please correct me), but I think Max shot 96% of Stoeger. A 4% difference is pretty significant, but there's a lot more to it than that. Max had something like a couple of misses, a few D's and 30 or 40 C's. As I said, I don't remember the exact numbers now. Stoeger had 16 C's. Period. That is incredible, and really puts him in a different class than the rest.

[taadski]

I have no issue with Mr. Avery or Max, and don't want this to sound like anything but a technical discussion. Mr. Avery may very well be correct, but my only point is that it really is just a theory at this point, and a theory that goes against the overwhelming proof of the sport.

I haven't taken it as anything but a technical discussion, Simon. Apologies if it has come off as anything different on my end. I feel a little weird doing the "he said" thing too, but Ron and I have discussed it ad nauseam face to face and I'm alright with paraphrasing a bit. As such, I know he doesn't consider it theory. I'm still interested in knowing what we're considering "overwhelming proof of the sport" though, as I'm not privy to it and it apparently has direct bearing on the subject at hand.

I've spent some very pleasant days on the range with Max, both one on one and in competition. He is a great guy to shoot with and a good teacher. As far as Max "going back and forth" with Stoeger, I'm not sure that's really accurate. I may be remembering things incorrectly (if so, please correct me), but I think Max shot 96% of Stoeger. A 4% difference is pretty significant, but there's a lot more to it than that. Max had something like a couple of misses, a few D's and 30 or 40 C's. As I said, I don't remember the exact numbers now. Stoeger had 16 C's. Period. That is incredible, and really puts him in a different class than the rest.

I don't want to take anything away from Ben. He shot like a superhero. A level of performance for the ages and as you noted, netted an unheard of 98% of the points. He outright won 5 stages. Max won 2 but beat Ben in 4. The final net point difference between the two after 13 stages of shooting was less than 60 points (58.754). I'm gonna stick with the "going back and forth" comment. In particular when you consider that on stage 13 (Window Shots), Max had a horrendous botch that, in one stage alone, cost him 56.93 points. Had that not happened (or had he chosen the "safe bet" stage plan a lot of other top shooters did) they'd have been dueling within a single percent of one another.

And that's all from an Open shooter in one of his first forays into Production.



t

[SLG]

I'll certainly not argue the match anymore, and as I said, the numbers were from memory.

Back to the theory. It is theory because Mr. Avery, though an accomplished shooter, has not been winning at a national level year after year, division after division. And the guys who have been, didn't get there the way Mr. Avery is suggesting as the best way. They mostly got there "the hard way". It just takes a small amount of digging on your part.

I'm happy to go into more detail in person, but I'm afraid I'm out of internet:-) Really though, it's no secret or anything. Who are the guys who have won the most over the years? In the most divisions? What did they start out shooting?

[JHC]

I have no issue with Mr. Avery or Max, and don't want this to sound like anything but a technical discussion. Mr. Avery may very well be correct, but my only point is that it really is just a theory at this point, and a theory that goes against the overwhelming proof of the sport.

I've spent some very pleasant days on the range with Max, both one on one and in competition. He is a great guy to shoot with and a good teacher. As far as Max "going back and forth" with Stoeger, I'm not sure that's really accurate. I may be remembering things incorrectly (if so, please correct me), but I think Max shot 96% of Stoeger. A 4% difference is pretty significant, but there's a lot more to it than that. Max had something like a couple of misses, a few D's and 30 or 40 C's. As I said, I don't remember the exact numbers now. Stoeger had 16 C's. Period. That is incredible, and really puts him in a different class than the rest.

A couple days ago Ben posted on his FB page it looked like he was getting a Sig 320 and that set keyboards clicking but have no idea where he was going with that. I never figured him for a gun accumulator for it's own sake.

[SLG]

Apologies if it has come off as anything different on my end.

Not at all, just that since we are discussing actual people who are not us, I thought it bore mentioning.

[kcevans]

Same, its either a PX4 9mm Compact of occasionally a G19

[45dotACP]

Honestly, at some point in your shooting career ..... you can pick up anything and shoot it well. I have pretty much the same sights on everything (Dawsons) so my sight pictures all look the same. I think for a newer shooter who doesn't have a lot of experience shooting under stress, it's a good idea to go with the same gun as it maximizes your training time. I see guys bring a new gun to the range every week and they suck with all of them. Get REALLY good with one, dedicate a year (I usually pick a competition season), and ring it out with a few thousand rounds. It will benefit you a lot more than that $300 trigger job.

Dude. Yes.

[GJM]

This advice was offered in another thread:

If you carry a Glock on duty, then I strongly suggest that you also carry a Glock off duty for the benefit of identical manual of arms, grip angle, and general muscle memory. It may not seem like a big deal at the gun range, but when the stress kicks in the manual of arms that you are most practiced with will kick in and hopefully you are using the right pistol.

I think this makes a lot of sense for an on duty vs off duty gun. I also think this makes a lot of sense for someone newer to shooting, or someone experienced that does't get to shoot much.

In my situation, where I both carry a pistol for defense, shoot USPSA, and shoot a lot, I have come full circle and like my game gun being different from my carry gun. Consider all the things that Darryl points out that are bad about competition -- finger going earlier to the trigger, crossing no shoot targets, shooting very fast compared to your ability to process, and a number of other things conducive to scoring well in a match but not a defensive shooting.

When I draw my carry gun, I want it to be a different mindset than competing. That may mean a larger, harder recoiling caliber, a heavier trigger, more careful shooting, and a platform biased towards reliability over shoot ability. Towards that end, I routinely finish my "game practice" by shooting the same arrays with my carry gun and ammo as I had been shooting with my game rig. No surprise - I am slower with my carry gun and gear. I do make it a point of investing the time to get as close as possible to guaranteed hits. As a result, when I grab my game gun my brain says go fast with hit factor the objective, and with my carry gun my brain says shoot where you can guarantee hits.