Thoughts on considering a different platform

[GJM]

For literally three decades, I have been interested in new handgun platforms, and thought I would share some of my experience with this.

1) Switching platforms almost never results in measurable performance gains, and may even result in performance loss if you get too distracted with the process. While there is the apocryphal example of the shooter that struggles with brand X, switches to brand Y and becomes awesome, I have yet to meet that person. What does happen, and may confuse people, is certain guns do certain things better than other guns. One gun may be more accurate, another easier to draw, another easier to reload, another easier to transition with, and it is easy to latch onto "that thing" the new gun does better, and proclaim the whole new gun awesome. However, over a wide range of shooting tasks, the pros and cons almost inevitably equalize.

So why do I mess around with different platforms, as illustrated with the time I have spent with the P10-C, VP9SK and APX in the last month or so? The answer is I just love shooting different guns, and during the Alaska months I am not competing, it really floats my boat to get some new pistol, ring it out, and see how well I can shoot it against standard tests. I have also convinced myself that being able to shoot a bunch of things is valuable, and that process makes me ultimately a better shooter. Can I prove it -- nope, and I don't think I would change anyways.

Now, an exception would be if your current gun is inaccurate, unreliable, or unsafe, as that would be a good reason to change to something else.

2) Should the new platform conform to you or should you conform to the new platform? I see many people try a different platform, and proclaim the reason they do not like it, is because "it doesn't feel like my Glock (or whatever)," my thumb interferes with the slide stop, or another similar reason.

Robbie Leatham taught me that good shooters learn to conform to the gun instead of expecting every gun to conform to you. This came up when I mentioned pinning the grip safety on a 1911, and he explained that was a technique defect. He explained me how to get my grip first, reliably activating the grip safety, and how there was plenty of time after that to disengage the thumb safety. He went on to say that he is expected to shoot everything stock and at a high level. Bill Rogers told me the same thing, and will demo at the Rogers School with any platform his students bring that week.

Conversely, if you are unwilling to change how you hold your thumbs, press the trigger, or manipulate the mag release or slide stop, you are not a good candidate for shooting different platforms. If you can't shoot a Glock without a grip reduction, for example, maybe stick with something you can shoot without trying to make it into a different platform.

3) early adopters get the arrows. Over the years, I learned this from aviation, don't fly the first 50 serial numbers of a new fixed wing aircraft, or the first 100 serial numbers of a new helicopter. In handguns, manufacturers are by necessity balancing testing of a new model with getting it to market. With a gen 1 of anything, you are an unpaid tester for the manufacturer. The 320 situation now, being a perfect example. I was glad to see Omaha Outdoors test the Glock as drop safe, but with 10 million pistols out there, over three decades or so, we can be assured that some bubba has tried everything possible with the Glock and if there were problems, they would have bubbled up. That said, look at the M Glock, and you can see even new generations of something old, bring risk with them. Now, I am not suggesting that you wait thirty years before declaring a design stable, but if you want to carry something today like the Beretta APX, CZ P10-C, or FN 509, I would ask you what is it about these particular platforms that is so superior, that you want to be a beta tester for a potentially life saving piece of equipment.

In summary, switch not because it will make you into the shooter you currently are not. Switch because you love the process, or you currently have something that is "broken."

[Clusterfrack]

Timely thread. I'm in the process of --at least temporarily--switching platforms from p320 for USPSA Production. A new CZ Shadow 2 should arrive in a day or two (thanks for the encouragement Cheby).

[BCL]

Timely thread. I'm in the process of --at least temporarily--switching platforms from p320 for USPSA Production. A new CZ Shadow 2 should arrive in a day or two (thanks for the encouragement Cheby).

At least the CZ comes with a GM card.

GJM,

I've noticed the same thing over the years as I switch between platforms much more often than I should. Agree that each have their pros and cons; for me it's about finding the platform with the most pros and the least cons. I also have realized that for the most part, it doesn't really matter which gun you shoot (unless it's a hammer-fired HK for gaming).

I would probably be a much better shooter if I just stuck with one platform, but I'm a little too ADD for that.

[11B10]

For literally three decades, I have been interested in new handgun platforms, and thought I would share some of my experience with this.

1) Switching platforms almost never results in measurable performance gains, and may even result in performance loss if you get too distracted with the process. While there is the apocryphal example of the shooter that struggles with brand X, switches to brand Y and becomes awesome, I have yet to meet that person. What does happen, and may confuse people, is certain guns do certain things better than other guns. One gun may be more accurate, another easier to draw, another easier to reload, another easier to transition with, and it is easy to latch onto "that thing" the new gun does better, and proclaim the whole new gun awesome. However, over a wide range of shooting tasks, the pros and cons almost inevitably equalize.

So why do I mess around with different platforms, as illustrated with the time I have spent with the P10-C, VP9SK and APX in the last month or so? The answer is I just love shooting different guns, and during the Alaska months I am not competing, it really floats my boat to get some new pistol, ring it out, and see how well I can shoot it against standard tests. I have also convinced myself that being able to shoot a bunch of things is valuable, and that process makes me ultimately a better shooter. Can I prove it -- nope, and I don't think I would change anyways.

Now, an exception would be if your current gun is inaccurate, unreliable, or unsafe, as that would be a good reason to change to something else.

2) Should the new platform conform to you or should you conform to the new platform? I see many people try a different platform, and proclaim the reason they do not like it, is because "it doesn't feel like my Glock (or whatever)," my thumb interferes with the slide stop, or another similar reason.

Robbie Leatham taught me that good shooters learn to conform to the gun instead of expecting every gun to conform to you. This came up when I mentioned pinning the grip safety on a 1911, and he explained that was a technique defect. He explained me how to get my grip first, reliably activating the grip safety, and how there was plenty of time after that to disengage the thumb safety. He went on to say that he is expected to shoot everything stock and at a high level. Bill Rogers told me the same thing, and will demo at the Rogers School with any platform his students bring that week.

Conversely, if you are unwilling to change how you hold your thumbs, press the trigger, or manipulate the mag release or slide stop, you are not a good candidate for shooting different platforms. If you can't shoot a Glock without a grip reduction, for example, maybe stick with something you can shoot without trying to make it into a different platform.

3) early adopters get the arrows. Over the years, I learned this from aviation, don't fly the first 50 serial numbers of a new fixed wing aircraft, or the first 100 serial numbers of a new helicopter. In handguns, manufacturers are by necessity balancing testing of a new model with getting it to market. With a gen 1 of anything, you are an unpaid tester for the manufacturer. The 320 situation now, being a perfect example. I was glad to see Omaha Outdoors test the Glock as drop safe, but with 10 million pistols out there, over three decades or so, we can be assured that some bubba has tried everything possible with the Glock and if there were problems, they would have bubbled up. That said, look at the M Glock, and you can see even new generations of something old, bring risk with them. Now, I am not suggesting that you wait thirty years before declaring a design stable, but if you want to carry something today like the Beretta APX, CZ P10-C, or FN 509, I would ask you what is it about these particular platforms that is so superior, that you want to be a beta tester for a potentially life saving piece of equipment.

In summary, switch not because it will make you into the shooter you currently are not. Switch because you love the process, or you currently have something that is "broken."

G - another "hey, that's me" post. Thanks. I'm living proof of a guy's age being absolutely no indicator of maturity as I keep changing hardware instead of working on my software with the platform in hand. Since I've returned to the gun world five years ago, I've managed to go through four platforms, settling on the H&K P30SK some six months ago. IMHO, it's the best handgun I've ever shot, certainly owned. So, why do I want to change? Because after a true epiphany at the range recently, where my reasons to go from .45 to 9mm were proven completely wrong, I want to switch back to .45. Therein lies the rub - every switch is very logical, all my reasoning is good - to me. And, it's not like I'm spending tons of money because I keep violating rule #1: never sell a gun to buy a gun. I've been doing just that. This time I've convinced myself that a .45 is better, albeit only by a fraction, than 9mm.

[Doc_Glock]

Great post!

[Bucky]

At least the CZ comes with a GM card.

My Shadow 2 did not come with one! I'm calling CZ right now!

Too bad my Shadow 2 is collecting dust now. Having too much fun with the STI.

I've noticed the same thing over the years as I switch between platforms much more often than I should. Agree that each have their pros and cons; for me it's about finding the platform with the most pros and the least cons. I also have realized that for the most part, it doesn't really matter which gun you shoot (unless it's a hammer-fired HK for gaming).

I switch up platforms a bunch as well. Heck I have 5 different brands of guns set up for Production division, one of which is in fact a hammer fired HK. I find the gun does make a difference. I have an XD tactical with a super sweet trigger job. I found it an effort to wrestle the high bore axis with my weakfish arthritic hands, so it collects dust.

[JHC]

Timely thread. I'm in the process of --at least temporarily--switching platforms from p320 for USPSA Production. A new CZ Shadow 2 should arrive in a day or two (thanks for the encouragement Cheby).

Nice upgrade man! Nice.

[octagon]

Good points made here and reasoning behind them by GJM. I always fell into the don't change platforms to fix skill/practice/software problem. I also believed that when I found the Glock in the late 80s not much that came along would be anything better just different. In the last almost 30 years I have only used what was issued to me because I had to and shortly after getting hired we switched to Glocks. Every gun I have purchased and used or carried that wasn't during this short initial time was a Glock or as close as I could find to a Glock when they didn't offer what I needed for deep concealment/NPE or small and light back up so I bought Kahr PM9 and PM380 before Glock 42 and 43 came out. As close as I could find to Glocks. My point is that I didn't change and didn't consider it even when shooting plenty of other peoples guns as I am always interested in new things especially when someone else spends the money and takes the risks.

I recently picked up a CZ P10C and then a couple weeks later a Beretta APX. These were bought for fun and because of the significant positive buzz both guns had recieved. I'm glad I did and have been happier than I ever expected to be with the guns and my shooting of them. While speed of draw,splits and reloads have improved much on the same drills I have used with Glocks a lot more the group sizes have been a little better and nowhere did any performance area get worse. They are also both nicer for me to shoot due to size/shape grip,trigger and control reach. Now I wonder if I missed something better than Glocks before the new P10 and APX came along because I was a one gun kind of person. I don't believe and wouldn't promote that the gun (these, Glocks or any others) will make me better by themselves but they aren't hurting my performance and are much nicer to use. In fact I just picked up a second P10 C from a member here.

All that said I still haven't fully switched from daily carry of my Glock 23 but it looks like it is coming.....soon

[Duces Tecum]

Because after a true epiphany at the range recently, where my reasons to go from .45 to 9mm were proven completely wrong, I want to switch back to .45.

I'd very much like to read the details of your epiphany. Anyway, we need another thread on the 9mm vs .45.

[GJM]

Good points made here and reasoning behind them by GJM. I always fell into the don't change platforms to fix skill/practice/software problem. I also believed that when I found the Glock in the late 80s not much that came along would be anything better just different. In the last almost 30 years I have only used what was issued to me because I had to and shortly after getting hired we switched to Glocks. Every gun I have purchased and used or carried that wasn't during this short initial time was a Glock or as close as I could find to a Glock when they didn't offer what I needed for deep concealment/NPE or small and light back up so I bought Kahr PM9 and PM380 before Glock 42 and 43 came out. As close as I could find to Glocks. My point is that I didn't change and didn't consider it even when shooting plenty of other peoples guns as I am always interested in new things especially when someone else spends the money and takes the risks.

I recently picked up a CZ P10C and then a couple weeks later a Beretta APX. These were bought for fun and because of the significant positive buzz both guns had recieved. I'm glad I did and have been happier than I ever expected to be with the guns and my shooting of them. While speed of draw,splits and reloads have improved much on the same drills I have used with Glocks a lot more the group sizes have been a little better and nowhere did any performance area get worse. They are also both nicer for me to shoot due to size/shape grip,trigger and control reach. Now I wonder if I missed something better than Glocks before the new P10 and APX came along because I was a one gun kind of person. I don't believe and wouldn't promote that the gun (these, Glocks or any others) will make me better by themselves but they aren't hurting my performance and are much nicer to use. In fact I just picked up a second P10 C from a member here.

All that said I still haven't fully switched from daily carry of my Glock 23 but it looks like it is coming.....soon

It is also possible you have shot the Glock so long, you shoot it at mostly at a subconscious level. Then, when you shot the new stuff, you became more conscious of the process, and as a result shot them better. Around PF, that is known as new gun syndrome, or what Brian Enos called "trick of the day." To know whether this is about being new, or really a long term better platform for you, you might have to evaluate over a number of practice sessions. Of course, that is when the analysis paralysis starts, and you spend a lot of time evaluating instead of practicing. My own risk management approach would say that it would be fine to game or mess around with one of those, but they are not proven sufficiently to carry.