As some of you know, I tend to concentrate on 4 basic platforms throughout the year: Glock, Beretta, 1911, and revolver. My modus operendi has been to somewhat exclusively focus on a given platform for several months at a time, to build up proficiency and muscle memory. In the past year, I've had several "ah ha" moments, which are probably "duh" revelations for most, but I'd genuinely appreciate comments and feedback.
First, out of all the platforms, I clearly shoot my Glocks the best. The match results over time and over varying match venues are pretty indisputable and undeniable; no matter how much I may like other guns that I have, I clearly perform best with my Glocks-and the performance differences are significant, not marginal. Out of the Glocks that I have, (G17, G19, G21, and G34) I've had the best consistant results with my G19 and G17 (in fairness to the G21 and G34, I have the most hammer- and dry-fire times on the G17 and G19).
Second, I shoot my revolvers (Ruger GP100 and Security Six) competantly, but not brilliantly. Last year I devoted 2 months to them, and was pleased with the results, relatively speaking, but I simply don't see myself dedicating more than 2 months per year, if that, on my revolvers. I enjoy and appreciate them, but they're of relatively minor significance in my operational arena.
Third, despite dedicating myself to my Beretta 92D from March through August, while I again enjoy and appreciate the gun, and have tweaked it to where it's set up exactly to my liking, my performance is somewhat middling with it. I feel competant in using it, and it will remain a constant nightstand gun (if I need to pass it to my wife, the simple controls and the DA-only trigger are ideal, along with the magazine capacity if needed), but will probably for the most part constrain it to that duty in the forseeable future.
Fourth, and here's the biggie: I shoot my 1911s poorly-especially in comparison to my Glocks. A recent IDPA Classifier that I went through last weekend really brought that home. My 1911s (primarily a Nighthawk Talon II and a SIGARMS GSR XO) are quality guns, and are both set up exactly to my specifications, and have been thoroughly set-up and gone through by expert gunsmiths, so the problems I have is inherent to me, not the guns per se. While I'm hardly a threat to David Sevigny, in the past year I've done well (and with significantly more ease/less drama) with my Glocks by comparison.
So-What's the point here? I realize that I have limited time and resources to dedicate to my shooting at best, most likely 2 live fire sessions per month; usually one IDPA match and one range practice/drills session), probably consisting of a total monthly live ammunition expenditure of 200-300 rounds, and daily (five times a week) of dry-fire practice at home for 20 minutes to a half-hour per session, where I concentrate on fundamentals and drills, along with some scenario recreations. My quandary it that while I genuinely like and appreciate my 1911s, I'm at a bit of a cross-point: Should I devote significant time, resources and energy towards becoming more proficient on them, or should I face reality and relegate them simply to occasional-use, essentially relegating them to hobby gun status?
Philosophically, much as I admire the 1911 platform, I firmly believe that it's been for most purposes eclipsed by modern polymer-frame guns (in my specific case, Glock), especially when it comes to user friendliness, overall operational effectiveness, after-market support, maintenance, reliability and durability. Somewhat reluctantly, I probably need to look at things objectively and maturely, and pretty much retire my 1911s, and more single-mindedly simply concentrate on my Glocks (with occasional deviations, of course-just to keep things spiced up...). Probably not surprisingly, this approach is something that my coach has been steering me towards for some time...
I'd appreciate hearing others thoughts and experiences in relation to my rambling.
Best, Jon