A New Purchase Mindset.

[GardoneVT]

To understand my point, we must first discuss some personal history. I grew up in suburban Chicago Illinois, so guns for me were a theoretical consideration. That ended when I joined the Air Force at the age of 20, and ever since then I've been making up for "lost time" as it were.

That is, until this year. I did something different ; I actually started consistently shooting the guns I bought. And I noticed some troubling indicators. I owned a lot of nice , cool hardware-but I couldn't afford to shoot half of the guns, being .45 ACP pistols. The other ones felt nice when dry firing, but actually "running" them revealed ergonomic problems which were hampering my performance. Essentially, I realized that I was a collector who only pretended to shoot.

Since then I've traded some hardware , ditched the deadweight, and "standardized" to the 92FS platform-that's my ideal pistol of choice, and have progressed training wise to the point where I could shoot it accurately blind if I had to. I'm evaluating my next purchase, and in considering my options i'm at the point of not even WANTING another gun if its not a 92FS.

Why? Because training is more important then hardware.

Is this a better mindset, or am I being too exclusionary? Note that I'm not stating the Beretta is the best handgun ever, but for my needs and ergos its MY ideal choice.

[JAD]

It's hard to imagine a compelling reason for branching out, unless the size of the 92 prevents you from carrying it all the time for some reason.

[DGI]

It's hard to imagine a compelling reason for branching out, unless the size of the 92 prevents you from carrying it all the time for some reason.

I agree... Beware of the man with "one" gun indeed.

If you did want variety, Im sure if you stuck with a DA/SA platform, you should be ok going back and fourth between a new pistol and your 92s.

Sigs have that wacky decocker and alternate slide lock location... HK has the mag release on the trigger guard... Things to consider when branching out, if you decide to do so.

[Nephrology]

I've standardized on 9mm Glocks and am slowly moving into .38/.357 S&W revolvers.

It's definitely helped me fiscally and logistically. I also now have 2 sets of full sized pistols and 2 sets of smaller concealed carry options. I am quite happy to have standardized on these firearms.

There's no harm in moving into other guns eventually but owning, shooting and maintaining 2 different redundant platforms (i.e. Glocks and M&Ps, SIG P22xs and Berettas, etc) really doesn't do much for me. I probably wouldn't even be interested in Smiths if it wasnt for the total invisibility of the J frame on my waistline.

As others have noted, the only reason to branch out is if the 92 series is not able to fulfill a specific and necessary role for you. Personally I would have a hard time carrying a 92 24/7. If you can pull it off - rock on.

[Sal Picante]

Getting into competition, the costs are enormous, still, the cost of training and ammo dwarf the cost of the initial handgun purchase.

Just some perspective.

[ToddG]

The first three years of my shooting life, I owned nine guns from seven different manufacturers. Then I discovered professional firearms training, sold most of my pistols, and spent all that money on classes & ammo.

I will forever live in awe of guys like Ken Hackathorn and Rob Haught who have gun collections that number well into triple digits and can randomly pick up any one of them and shoot it at an incredible level. Me, I struggle to handle just one a year.

[GardoneVT]

I agree... Beware of the man with "one" gun indeed.

If you did want variety, Im sure if you stuck with a DA/SA platform, you should be ok going back and fourth between a new pistol and your 92s.

Sigs have that wacky decocker and alternate slide lock location... HK has the mag release on the trigger guard... Things to consider when branching out, if you decide to do so.

I've owned a Sig P226 during my "oates sowing" phrase with pistols.A nice gun,except unlike my 92FS I couldn't hide it worth a darn,and I mixed up the decocker and slide lock lever during reloads.Since I'm primarily used to running a pistol by using the slide lock,this posed a problem.

[GJM]

The first three years of my shooting life, I owned nine guns from seven different manufacturers. Then I discovered professional firearms training, sold most of my pistols, and spent all that money on classes & ammo.

I will forever live in awe of guys like Ken Hackathorn and Rob Haught who have gun collections that number well into triple digits and can randomly pick up any one of them and shoot it at an incredible level. Me, I struggle to handle just one a year.

I think it is a pretty interesting topic as to whether the perceived difficulty in transitioning between different platforms is actual or psychological. Bill Rogers tells me he can shoot his school test with a Glock, Sig, Beretta and M&P on consecutive runs, and score 120+ with each pistol. A few months ago, when he shot 125/125 with a Glock 17, the very next time he shot the test was with a Beretta, and scored 121, and had a stoppage on test 4 during the reload, that cost him 3 easy points.

The last year or two, I have almost exclusively shot one platform at a time, and it is easy to convince yourself that is preferable and you wouldn't do nearly as well with something else without a substantial transition. I am just not sure that it is true.

[Suvorov]

This has been discussed quite a bit here and on M4.

I definitely understand where you are coming from and have seen some parallels in my shooting as well.

It seems that in the world of an innerwebs, there is somewhat of an animosity between "shooters" and "collectors" which really makes no sense to me. Nothing wrong with either as long as one a) can afford it and b) understands that one does not necessarily make him the other and c) have a clear understanding on what you are trying to accomplish. Having a man room full of awesome guns does not make you Rainbow Six and the quixotic search for the prefect gun is almost always trumped by the willingness to spend time with and learn to shoot well the imperfect gun.

I consider myself to be both. I like guns, I like and appreciate them from an aesthetic point of view, a historical point of view, and a mechanical point of view. As a result, I have over the past 20 years amassed a reasonably large collection of firearms ranging from an 1883 Berdan II rifle that was brought over by a family friend that fought for the Whites during the Russian Civil War, to a piston driven AR that is supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread, from Dirty Harry's 44 Magnum to a Sig Mosquito in 22. I enjoy them and from time to time will shoot them so as to appreciate them for what they are. Some have a specific purpose for training or self defense, some have the purpose of being a tangible piece of history or a memory of loved one who has passed on. I tend to be sentimental and have always been a collector. Some here have said that a large collection of firearms is "odd" but it is a hobby of mine. It is no more expensive that collecting cars or owning an airplane and they tend to hold value and other than presenting a pain in the ass to move when I finally decide to escape the granola curtain, they don't ask for bread and water. The folks that advocate 1 or 2 guns only are most likely minimalist by nature and in other aspects of their life. Larry Vickers is reported to have a wonderful collection of firearms and few would say he was not a shooter.

That said, there are guns for playing and their are guns for serious work. The guns for serious work are the ones that I shoot 90%+ of the time. I have made the switch between platforms for the sake of variety (Beretta to Sig for example), but when I do that, I stick with that platform for at least a year or two before moving on. The argument between whether shooting different guns and types of actions can actually improve your shooting or whether you should stay faithful to a particular platform will go on for longer than the debate between 45 and 9mm. Shooting is to me a martial art and a hobby for enjoyment and I try to find the right balance that works for me.

[GardoneVT]

I think it is a pretty interesting topic as to whether the perceived difficulty in transitioning between different platforms is actual or psychological. Bill Rogers tells me he can shoot his school test with a Glock, Sig, Beretta and M&P on consecutive runs, and score 120+ with each pistol. A few months ago, when he shot 125/125 with a Glock 17, the very next time he shot the test was with a Beretta, and scored 121, and had a stoppage on test 4 during the reload, that cost him 3 easy points.

The last year or two, I have almost exclusively shot one platform at a time, and it is easy to convince yourself that is preferable and you wouldn't do nearly as well with something else without a substantial transition. I am just not sure that it is true.

I think we have three different dynamics at work when evaluating this topic.

First,all of us have different limitations on our practice time and ammunition.Many ex military special ops shooters like LAV and sponsored pros have another party picking up the tab for their ammo bill.While there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with that ,it means they're able to gain extensive shooting experience the rest of us cannot hope to economically match.While special ops guys don't nominally publicise their training regimen,I do know the SFOD-D guys at one training phase shoot 8 hours a day for WEEKS at a time.If you have the skill set to do live fire training with enough accuracy to use live people as "no shoots" and pass the shoot house with flying colors,its safe to say you'll be able to shoot any pistol made on the planet with exemplary form.

That brings me to the second dynamic;for those of us who have to pay our own way,the minute differences matter more then for the super pro shooters.At my current budget level I can shoot ,at a maximum,300 rounds per month of 9mm.LAV probably shot more then that in one hour back in his Army days.That means I literally can't afford to let the firearms ergos get in the way of maximizing my limited training opportunities.By taking the hardware out of play,I can focus on the "software" that much more effectively.

The third factor at hand is the collector versus shooter aspect.Because we all have different budgetary abilities and responsibilities,the line between "collecting" and "shooting" differs for each individual.If I owned 100 different pistols, there's no way in Hades I'll even come close to being a proficient shooter with any of them.300 rounds of 9mm only goes so far.Again,that's my logistical limitation.LAV has the money and time to shoot all of his guns equally well.So would a guy who could afford to burn 1000 rounds of .45 ACP per week .I'm not that guy,unfortunately.

So I commit to one gun,which is the 92FS-and yes I can ably conceal it.That's my path and insist that only I follow it.Your journey to ballistic enlightenment may be on a different path.