Performance vs. Preference

[Dagga Boy]

For me,

Don't pick hardware to fix a problem that occurs before or after the gunfight at the expense of gunfight performance. Gunfight performance is a race against a clock where the clock is controlled by fate, the bad guy, etc. What happens before and after the gunfight is controlled by you. i.e. you can make sure to train/allow for it.

Choose what you shoot well, practice to shoot it better. Get to your genetic potential in those things that happen before, during and after the gunfight with the idea to not survive but to excel in all areas.

Sorry, having been around the study of gunfighting game from about every aspect from participant, trainer, investigator, and historical study, every aspect is controlled by you, especially during. There was a time in life when I would have thought pure technical ability and technical performance would rule the day.....not from what I have seen. There are a ton of attributes to dealing with use of lethal level force performance that is not remotely the same as technical performance. If there wasn't, we would see a whole lot of open class custom pistols in cop holsters. I just had a very in depth discussion on one of the most successful living gunfighters of our time recently, and his take was very much in line with what I have seen.

[OnionsAndDragons]

What's the mission?

If I'm shooting a competition, I'll pick the weapon I will have the biggest upside with. The one that on a good day I am more likely to put up PR/PBs.

If it's for a fight, I want the weapon I have the least downside with. The one I'm most familiar with; That I think the least about when employing it; that I can index with my eyes closed. I want the gun I'd pick for the shittiest, most Muphy-fied day of my life.

[Sero Sed Serio]

For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that dollar amount is irrelevant and that you're equally invested in 2 platforms. Let's also assume that concealment ability, weight and capacity are the same.

How many of you carry/shoot a platform based on preference(whether it is aesthetic appeal, 'Murica!, metal v plastic, caliber, other/etc.), but shoot a different platform better in regards to speed and accuracy?

If all things are equal, and the only reason(s) for a preference are not related to function or performance, then go with the gun you shoot better. In fact, I would rather carry a gun I DON'T have an emotional connection with, and have pretty much retired one particularly sentimental gun from carry BECAUSE I like it so much--I don't want it to get banged up doing my day-to-day activities, I don't want to see it lost to a crime lab if I ever have to use it, I don't want to have to see it clatter to the ground if I'm ever in a situation where I have my gun out and law enforcement arrives, etc., etc...it's better to do this with your soulless $400 GSSF/blue label Glock than it is with the 1911 that your Grandfather carried on Iwo Jima.

I am a bit different on this. I judge "performance" much different than most. For pure technical shooting performance....it's a factor. How about your performance in not shooting? Operating controls in your environment? Ability to use it in conjunction with a hand held white light? Margin of error performance for screwing up and being human? Long term reliability? Performance at remaining concealed in NPE environments. How do the controls work for you both pre and Post shooting? How is your handling performance for administrative duties like loading, unloading, and loaded chamber verification. How about the magazine performance and all that goes into that....so....yea, I like the best performing gun for me, but I have a far more diverse set of criteria for exactly what that is versus a timer and a few drills.

Things get harder when the preference for one platform is based on shooting ability, but another platform has what I'll call administrative advantages. For pure shooting, I prefer my 9mm SIG P229s (or for that matter my 9mm P226, but I struggle to conceal the P229s as it is), but I think the HK P2000 is a better weapon for me to carry--I shoot it almost as well as the SIGs, but it conceals better (particularly AIWB, where I can conceal the HK but just cover the SIG), has a proven subcompact companion that shares mags and is currently in production, it is more impervious to the environment, and I prefer the placement of the HKs controls).

If I knew I was going to a gunfight with a pistol (and didn't have the option to leave, or bring an AR, or a tank, or the entire P-F Community, or whatever...), I would choose the SIG. But with all of the other factors that go into carrying a gun into and concealing it from society day in and day out, while still performing whatever mundane life tasks I have to do while patiently waiting for the opportunity to mow down ISIS in the Food Court or fight off the zombie hoards, the administrative benefits of the HK outweigh its slight disadvantage in pure shooting ability.

(I do want to thank both the OP and Dagga Boy for a timely thread and for helping me work through this and pretty much finalize the conclusion I was coming to anyway--I have been struggling between the two platforms recently, particularly since I can conceal the P2000 AIWB, while only being able to cover the SIG, and have thus contemplated a switch back to IWB to be able to stick with the SIGs, despite the fact that, for me, AIWB is superior in every way except for concealment. However, being able to think and talk through the process, I realize that the HK's advantages far outweigh its disadvantages, and that I need to carry and focus on that platform over the SIG).

[JustOneGun]

Sorry, having been around the study of gunfighting game from about every aspect from participant, trainer, investigator, and historical study, every aspect is controlled by you, especially during. There was a time in life when I would have thought pure technical ability and technical performance would rule the day.....not from what I have seen. There are a ton of attributes to dealing with use of lethal level force performance that is not remotely the same as technical performance. If there wasn't, we would see a whole lot of open class custom pistols in cop holsters. I just had a very in depth discussion on one of the most successful living gunfighters of our time recently, and his take was very much in line with what I have seen.

Now you're just being offensive. Sorry but as usual we disagree. Which of course is fine. But giving your resume and saying you've consulted the worlds greatest gunfighter really doesn't help. My resume is very similar to yours. I've been around a very similar list to yours. I've been in lethal force encounters and am here to type about it. So what, that doesn't prove squat. That's just warrior speak.

Obviously, you didn't read my last line, "Choose what you shoot well, practice to shoot it better. Get to your genetic potential in those things that happen before, during and after the gunfight with the idea to not survive but to excel in all areas.".

It's not that a person doesn't need to take the before and after into account. But they do need to think about how they do it. Some ways are better than others. If you think you can control everything before, during and after a gunfight then we have nothing to talk about because that's just not reality. Not taking into account the things that you can't control sometimes leads a person to have a higher opinion of their ability and their art. People like to talk about how they are great gunfighters and have the mojo to back it up. Sadly, we can use warrior speak and get all macho or we can use our brains and understand what is actually happening in a gunfight. Make no mistake about it, I'm not a fan of, "Good enough". That will work right up until the student gets killed.

People with guns and in gunfights die everyday. It does not take a high speed camera during a gunfight to know that some of them shot too slow, inaccurate or both and lost. In some gunfights .001 counts. That fact has nothing to do with the need to get better at what happens before or after the fight. But if there is a pistol that allows for a superior performance in the gunfight and I can train properly/safely to use that pistol in the before, during and after, why would I want to tell a student to use a pistol they are sub-par at? Ultimately I would know then that I just told that student to use something that could result in them losing a fight. Of course I could be confident that because we don't run around with high speed cameras on, no one will come back and call me on it. We can just pick something else that he did wrong before the fight and say that's why he died.

My experience with thousands of people and more importantly with the progress of the same 1100 year after year shows that a person like the OP should pick the pistol they shoot the best. Often there is something going on with the other selection that inhibits progress. What that means is that they often will reach a plateau far below that of the other pistol. That means at best the person picking the gun they don't shoot as well will lag behind in their progress. At worst they might never reach a superior level of ability that they would have with the other pistol.

[blues]

If there's something that we can all be thankful for and which history has demonstrated for us over and over again throughout the centuries it is that:

1. You don't have to be the best marksman.
2. You don't have to possess superhuman strength.
3. You don't have to own a black belt in Brazilian jiu-jitsu or be able to fell an opponent with a single blow.
4. You don't have to be the smartest or cleverest guy in the room.
5. You don't have to purchase the latest and greatest gun or gear.

What you do need, imho, is the spirit, mentality and willingness to face up to a threat with whatever physical and mental skills and abilities you possess and can muster under adverse conditions. Many of our greatest heroes and legends have been average men and women who have risen to the occasion when fate tapped them on the shoulder. And yes, many have also fallen.

Does it pay to train in order to enhance one's mental, physical and specific skills that may be called upon? Absolutely. But even if we can't shoot, fight or demonstrate exceptional prowess in any particular arena, we are not out of the fight. Will and determination go a long way toward determining the ultimate victor.

Pistol-Forum has an amazing group of talented people and I am humbled by the abilities and experience of many of them in various arenas. But even if some of us will never rise to their level, don't lose faith in yourselves and fight with all you have available to you.

Sorry for the rant but I think it's important to remember these points and I hope you'll take it in the spirit offered. I'll get off my soapbox now.

[Dagga Boy]

Now you're just being offensive. Sorry but as usual we disagree. Which of course is fine. But giving your resume and saying you've consulted the worlds greatest gunfighter really doesn't help. My resume is very similar to yours. I've been around a very similar list to yours. I've been in lethal force encounters and am here to type about it. So what, that doesn't prove squat. That's just warrior speak.

Obviously, you didn't read my last line, "Choose what you shoot well, practice to shoot it better. Get to your genetic potential in those things that happen before, during and after the gunfight with the idea to not survive but to excel in all areas.".

It's not that a person doesn't need to take the before and after into account. But they do need to think about how they do it. Some ways are better than others. If you think you can control everything before, during and after a gunfight then we have nothing to talk about because that's just not reality. Not taking into account the things that you can't control sometimes leads a person to have a higher opinion of their ability and their art. People like to talk about how they are great gunfighters and have the mojo to back it up. Sadly, we can use warrior speak and get all macho or we can use our brains and understand what is actually happening in a gunfight. Make no mistake about it, I'm not a fan of, "Good enough". That will work right up until the student gets killed.

People with guns and in gunfights die everyday. It does not take a high speed camera during a gunfight to know that some of them shot too slow, inaccurate or both and lost. In some gunfights .001 counts. That fact has nothing to do with the need to get better at what happens before or after the fight. But if there is a pistol that allows for a superior performance in the gunfight and I can train properly/safely to use that pistol in the before, during and after, why would I want to tell a student to use a pistol they are sub-par at? Ultimately I would know then that I just told that student to use something that could result in them losing a fight. Of course I could be confident that because we don't run around with high speed cameras on, no one will come back and call me on it. We can just pick something else that he did wrong before the fight and say that's why he died.

My experience with thousands of people and more importantly with the progress of the same 1100 year after year shows that a person like the OP should pick the pistol they shoot the best. Often there is something going on with the other selection that inhibits progress. What that means is that they often will reach a plateau far below that of the other pistol. That means at best the person picking the gun they don't shoot as well will lag behind in their progress. At worst they might never reach a superior level of ability that they would have with the other pistol.

I think we are talking a bit past each other and you read into something totally different than my point. I actually agee with much of your posts. My point is we get awfully hung up on drill performance. Often those drills have little bearing on what happens in a force encounter. So judging performance needs to encompass a lot of things. How many issues have we seen with failure to de cock guns post fight? How many issues with people who end up with fingers in triggers and having a really easy to shoot gun becomes a liability. I have seen all sorts of screw ups with folks that ended up being far more costly and catastrophic than a perceived gain in some other area of shooting. What you took as bragging was intended as the folks I have spent a ton of time with have found little concern with slight performance increases if it is not balanced. These things are purely tools. And to quote a dear friend..."Mission drives the gear train". Maybe if the discussion was more about the best performing gun for a clearly defined role, then we might be on the exact same page with zero animosity.
Everyday, I shove a gun down the front of my pants that is not a gun I perform the best with. I give up performance in drills for a forgiving trigger, a hammer, and a short butt that I cannot get all my fingers on because it is what I prefer for the role of a deep concealment AIWB gun. I shoot my VP9 better than my P2000SK. For some roles I prefer the better performing gun. The problem is it is not what I prefer for many applications. I think this comes down to a balance and a better use of terms. I will agree that you should not carry guns you suck with because you just like it, or Ninja Team 12 carries them. I would simply say that performance is far more complex than a score on a specific drill.

Point of agreement, training hard for performance gains and sustainability. I spent my entire last range day shooting my P2000SK and M&P340 from their daily carry holsters, from full concealment, and all the exact drills we normally shoot. It was harder, and the scores worse than what I do with my guns I shoot better like the VP9 and HK 45. I am simply willing to accept worse scores, but trying to make them better and done realistically.

[11B10]

I think we are talking a bit past each other and you read into something totally different than my point. I actually agee with much of your posts. My point is we get awfully hung up on drill performance. Often those drills have little bearing on what happens in a force encounter. So judging performance needs to encompass a lot of things. How many issues have we seen with failure to de cock guns post fight? How many issues with people who end up with fingers in triggers and having a really easy to shoot gun becomes a liability. I have seen all sorts of screw ups with folks that ended up being far more costly and catastrophic than a perceived gain in some other area of shooting. What you took as bragging was intended as the folks I have spent a ton of time with have found little concern with slight performance increases if it is not balanced. These things are purely tools. And to quote a dear friend..."Mission drives the gear train". Maybe if the discussion was more about the best performing gun for a clearly defined role, then we might be on the exact same page with zero animosity.
Everyday, I shove a gun down the front of my pants that is not a gun I perform the best with. I give up performance in drills for a forgiving trigger, a hammer, and a short butt that I cannot get all my fingers on because it is what I prefer for the role of a deep concealment AIWB gun. I shoot my VP9 better than my P2000SK. For some roles I prefer the better performing gun. The problem is it is not what I prefer for many applications. I think this comes down to a balance and a better use of terms. I will agree that you should not carry guns you suck with because you just like it, or Ninja Team 12 carries them. I would simply say that performance is far more complex than a score on a specific drill.

Point of agreement, training hard for performance gains and sustainability. I spent my entire last range day shooting my P2000SK and M&P340 from their daily carry holsters, from full concealment, and all the exact drills we normally shoot. It was harder, and the scores worse than what I do with my guns I shoot better like the VP9 and HK 45. I am simply willing to accept worse scores, but trying to make them better and done realistically.

Sorry if this is a drift, but I have to know. Sir, recently you had a revelation regarding the P30SK. Would THAT be the "gun that you shove down your pants every day?"

[psalms144.1]

As usual, my one line response was wholly inadequate. Reading the interplay between JustOneGun and DB is, as always, enlightening in the extreme. I guess what I glossed over is "what is performance?"

-For me, I'm more accurate with my VP9, and reloads are faster. BUT, I find the VP9's trigger to be almost TOO light, and the pistol doesn't "lock" into my hands like the G19 - so my shot-to-shot performance is slower. If I'm shooting the Humbler, I'd want my VP9 in my hands - for most other drills, not so much
-For me, the P2000's trigger is more forgiving of woobie-checks, and it's more accurate in slow fire accuracy drills, and it reloads faster than the G19. But, even with light LEM, shot-to-shot times are dramatically slower (trigger and "flippiness")
-For me, the G19's trigger is easy enough to "run" quickly, but "deliberate" enough (e.g. enough spongy take up and a defined "wall" at the break) that I know I can back off if I have to. Reloads are slower due to having to break my master grip, but within a couple fractions of a second of the HKs. Dead nuts accuracy drills are harder with the Glock due to the trigger, but I can still hold 3/4 out of five at the 25 yard line on a 3x5 card, so it's close enough for my needs. Glock magazines aren't works of art like HK magazines, but they're dirt cheap, basically disposable, so I don't need to keep any in rotation all that long. If they look too dinged up, or give any kind of issue with reliability, I toss it away and get a new one for $20. Plus, I can put my preferred sights on GLOCKs, I can get the holster I like the best for GLOCK, etc. etc.

Again, I'm as far away from a GLOCK fanboi as it's possible to be. I CONSTANTLY try to find the "Glock Killer" because I don't want to carry the GLOCK for a number of personal reasons. That's why I read with joy every review of the "newest, bestest" pistol out there. But, until I find something size-efficiency comparable, that offers the same combination of accuracy and shootability, I'll stick with what has been working for me for decades now.

[Dagga Boy]

Sorry if this is a drift, but I have to know. Sir, recently you had a revelation regarding the P30SK. Would THAT be the "gun that you shove down your pants every day?"

I really want it to be! I have had issues getting the sights to hit where I want and got there with the P2000Sk. The Trijicon HD's that sit back on the P30SK make it a total no go right now. I have tried my Grayguns P2000, but the butt simply prints too much. I went from not carin much about printing a little or carrying the giant fanny pack to Israeli agent in Tehran level of concealment.....which means that the preference in carry is going to outweigh the performance. Which....is another interesting point. My P30SK is better for me on pure close range speed drills because the med trigger return spring kicks the trigger back harder, but the P2000SK is better for things like the variations of the Test and Vickers 300 where a lighter trigger is a plus......so, what has better performance? Many with RDS guns face the same issue. Faster with irons close, better for precision at distance.....what is better performance?

[11B10]

I really want it to be! I have had issues getting the sights to hit where I want and got there with the P2000Sk. The Trijicon HD's that sit back on the P30SK make it a total no go right now. I have tried my Grayguns P2000, but the butt simply prints too much. I went from not carin much about printing a little or carrying the giant fanny pack to Israeli agent in Tehran level of concealment.....which means that the preference in carry is going to outweigh the performance. Which....is another interesting point. My P30SK is better for me on pure close range speed drills because the med trigger return spring kicks the trigger back harder, but the P2000SK is better for things like the variations of the Test and Vickers 300 where a lighter trigger is a plus......so, what has better performance? Many with RDS guns face the same issue. Faster with irons close, better for precision at distance.....what is better performance?

First, thanks for the feedback, DB. I'm trying, REAL HARD, to pick a new EDC and concealment is THE most important thing. I don't have the luxury of trying different guns - this next one just might be THE one. I absolutely love the P30SK, but I keep seeing those ads for G19's by TALO for $530.00. Concealment - FOCUS!