anyone here only own one pistol and don't want more?

[jwperry]

However one model makes sense to me. Having three identical set up (insert whatever gun here) makes a ton of sense. One to carry, one to practice/compete with, and one in the safe for when one of the first two poops the bed. In full disclosure, it makes sense but I don't quite do it. I carry a P226 almost all the time, but do make exceptions on vacations out of state or when dressed for exercise. Even then I stay "in the family" with a P229 or P245, though.

This would be ideal IMO; one family of guns. Manual of arms is the same, commonality in magazines, tools, some small parts and holsters. Some families do this better (GLOCK) than others. But you'd be able to fill multiple roles with not much variation in your inventory.

I've come to realize that I'm entrenched with Sigs and I need to let go of my other guns; but I introduce a fair amount of people to shooting(lately it has been a lot of my friends' wives & some coworkers) so having a small variety is useful for that. It also gives them options as a lot of people don't bargain shop like I do and won't go and buy a $1k new Sig...but would buy a $500 new Glock or M&P.

[dwcopple]

Do you mean one physical gun or one model of gun?

One physical, two at most. I currently own 16 different handguns. Most are 9mm. One is a pocket .380. Two are .22lr plinkers, two are Makarov's, one .38 revolver, one .45 1911. 7 double stack 9mm's. I recently have felt compelled to reduce them all down to 1 or two and focus solely on perfecting my ability with both.

[breakingtime91]

I am pretty much stuck at one family of guns because funding and time. I am relatively young, 26, and that correlates with a young family, lower income than others who have been in the job market longer, and other priorities that limit time and money. For that reason, I am looking at sticking to just glock pistols. I have limited time as is and I mostly spend it with my family when I have the spare time, so shooting gets a back seat. Maybe a few years down the road I will be able to branch out and experiment with DA/SA but for now it doesn't look like it.

So this is what my plan is:
glock 17 with x300 in pistol safe
training glock 19
carry glock 19
glock 43 for npe (currently role is filled with a shield with manual safety), after the gadget for it releases.

[BehindBlueI's]

One physical, two at most. I currently own 16 different handguns. Most are 9mm. One is a pocket .380. Two are .22lr plinkers, two are Makarov's, one .38 revolver, one .45 1911. 7 double stack 9mm's. I recently have felt compelled to reduce them all down to 1 or two and focus solely on perfecting my ability with both.

I get what you're going for and think you are on the right track. That said, I would recommend you have at least two. What if your one gun breaks? You use it and it's now evidence? That leaves you with no gun.

So here's what I'd consider:
1) It's ok to own things just to own them. You can concentrate on your carry gun but still own fun guns. Can you afford training and ammo without liquidating your other guns (if you enjoy owning them)
2) Having a .22 plinker is seldom a bad thing. You can work on fundamentals and get a lot of practice in cheaply and with little wear and tear on your hands.
3) Do you ever carry a backup? Do you ever need to arm someone else? (ie, spouse)

I still own my 1911. I've shot it once in 11 years, and did so as an experiment on magazines that had been left loaded for a decade. Owning it doesn't take away from my ability to manipulate and use my Sigs. Trying to practice on both would, though.

[Malamute]

anyone here only own one pistol and don't want more?

No.

One physical, two at most. I currently own 16 different handguns. Most are 9mm. One is a pocket .380. Two are .22lr plinkers, two are Makarov's, one .38 revolver, one .45 1911. 7 double stack 9mm's. I recently have felt compelled to reduce them all down to 1 or two and focus solely on perfecting my ability with both.

I think I may see the problem. If you are primarily a shooter because you think you should have a defensive gun, and arent interested in them for other reasons, like history, or pure enjoyment of the type or model, then having a number of repeat items that cover the same ground may not seem that interesting.

There was a thread here a couple years ago that was interesting. https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....on-of-the-Gun&


It may be a worthwhile exercise to put the extras in a safe deposit box for a year or two and see if you miss them, or want to trade them for something else shootable. Once sold, they are gone, and another example of the same gun may not be quite the same if you later decide you want some of them back again.

[Malamute]

Oops.

[dwcopple]

I get what you're going for and think you are on the right track. That said, I would recommend you have at least two. What if your one gun breaks? You use it and it's now evidence? That leaves you with no gun.

I have the ability to go buy another gun

So here's what I'd consider:
1) It's ok to own things just to own them. You can concentrate on your carry gun but still own fun guns. Can you afford training and ammo without liquidating your other guns (if you enjoy owning them)
2) Having a .22 plinker is seldom a bad thing. You can work on fundamentals and get a lot of practice in cheaply and with little wear and tear on your hands.
3) Do you ever carry a backup? Do you ever need to arm someone else? (ie, spouse)

1. I get that, but I just feel by jumping around from gun to gun all the time, it keeps me from being "ultra-proficient" with one particular model
2. I agree, that is why one is a PPQ .22. It is identical in dimensions to a real PPQ which a lot of the .22's are undersized instead
3. Nope. I am married, and my wife has shot with me on occasion ( I actually bought the PPQ22 for her) but I am not confident she would be able to act appropriately in the heat of the moment

[spinmove_]

This would be ideal IMO; one family of guns. Manual of arms is the same, commonality in magazines, tools, some small parts and holsters. Some families do this better (GLOCK) than others. But you'd be able to fill multiple roles with not much variation in your inventory.

I've come to realize that I'm entrenched with Sigs and I need to let go of my other guns; but I introduce a fair amount of people to shooting(lately it has been a lot of my friends' wives & some coworkers) so having a small variety is useful for that. It also gives them options as a lot of people don't bargain shop like I do and won't go and buy a $1k new Sig...but would buy a $500 new Glock or M&P.

Having variety is good, it's the spice of life. Focusing on one "platform" is ultimately what you want to do though.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[Gio]

In my opinion it depends where you find enjoyment as an enthusiast.

I personally get the most enjoyment from pushing the edge with performance and competing at a high level. As such, new gear and guns just don't interest me like they did at one point. Instead, I'm trying to shave time off of various drills while maintaining or improving accuracy and minimizing mistakes. Most of my hobby money ends up going into bullet components and match fees, so I think my gun safe would look pretty bare bones compared to most posters here .

[Clusterfrack]

Ditto for what Gio just said. New guns are usually an expensive time consuming pain in the ass.

But--total hypocrite here--I did have fun with my new bear defense cannon (SBH .44).