A "rotation" of carry guns?

[C0untZer0]

I originally wrote this in another thread and I didn't want to hijack that thread so I re-wrote it here:

I think guns like cars, have for different people varying degrees of emotional or psychological involvement
 
I’ve heard people say that a gun is just a tool – that’s it.  But it’s not that way for all people.  I am not at all emotionally attached to my microwave oven, clothes dryer or cordless drill.  They are all just tools – supposedly like my guns and my car.
 
Cars are a good example – at their base level they are a transportation device and people shouldn’t be any more attached to them than the owner of a trucking company is attached to any of the trucks in his fleet or the owner of a limo service is attached to any particular vehicle in his or her fleet.
 
But people are attached to their cars and their decision to purchase their car had an emotional and ego component.
 
I think it’s the same way for a lot of gun owners.
 
I can see why you’d have a large collection of range guns,  - They fun!  I own a TEC-9M.  It’s fun to shoot at the range.  It’s a curious weapon to have and people at the range like to look at it.  But until zombiepocalypse happens, it has zero utility value.   It really has almost zero practical for me.  From a practical standpoint, I can’t see why someone would rotate through a bunch of carry guns.  Any training time you put in on one pistol takes away training time with another pistol.  I think the general consensus is, find a gun for carry, train with it and stick with it.  I think having a bunch of guns for carry is less about “tuning” your carry for any particular situation and more about just satisfying the itch to handle different guns.  It’s not practical, it’s just either emotionally satisfying or it’s gratifying for the ego.

[C0untZer0]

I was asked what I thought constituted "a bunch" of carry guns.

I would say - more than one pistol if the there is a significant different in MOA or weapon behavior between one pistol and another.

My thinking is this.

If you switch off between little Glock /  med Glock - it's probably not significant.

If you switch between carrying a Kahr one week and an R9 the next, it probably is sigificant.

Going from the SA XD Compact to the sub-compact, maybe not significant, but  a rotation of - Kimber Solo / Ruger LC9 / Kahr PM9 / SIG P290 /Rohrbaugh R9 - probably does present significant differences in grip, draw, MOA and the way the pistols shoot.

[Richard S]

I originally wrote this in another thread and I didn't want to hijack that thread so I re-wrote it here:

I think guns like cars, have for different people varying degrees of emotional or psychological involvement
 
I’ve heard people say that a gun is just a tool – that’s it.  But it’s not that way for all people.  I am not at all emotionally attached to my microwave oven, clothes dryer or cordless drill.  They are all just tools – supposedly like my guns and my car.
 
Cars are a good example – at their base level they are a transportation device and people shouldn’t be any more attached to them than the owner of a trucking company is attached to any of the trucks in his fleet or the owner of a limo service is attached to any particular vehicle in his or her fleet.
 
But people are attached to their cars and their decision to purchase their car had an emotional and ego component.
 
I think it’s the same way for a lot of gun owners.
 
* * *

All very true!

I still grieve over having sold my first car, a 1954 Triumph TR2 that I purchased while in college, drove from coast to coast, and sold prior to shipping out on overseas assignment in 1963. Now those emotional and ego components have been transferred to a 1993 Dodge Stealth that I am in the process of restoring after having driven it over 200,000 miles.

With guns, it is the same. I have many, but there are four that I treasure -- including my R9. While they might be called "tools," I treat them with a degree of care I would never consider giving to the tools in my garage. I suppose I might paraphrase George Orwell by saying, "All tools are equal, but some tools are more equal than others."

[TpaBayFlyFisher]

I can only speak for myself.  I would prefer to carry a .45 but my work dress prevents that [at least till the R45 arrives].  So, when I dress up, I carry a pup.  On casual days it is a Sig 220 compact.........

[Reinz]

I have to disagree with you C0unt and agree with TampaBay.

My mode of carry depends upon how I dress.  I always want the most power possible with me at all times, but dress may be a limiting factor.
Thank goodness guns come in all sizes.
Also somewhat fortunate, I am no longer in the corporate world, so most of the time my dress is only limited by weather, so now my carry gun choices have narrowed.

I also disagree with you in that it depends upon the person.  I say that because I am a Shooter.  That is principally what I do, I shoot.  I can adapt to pretty much any gun, any grip. I am just comfortable with just about any handgun with the exception of the old style S&W DA Autos.  I just could not adapt to them no matter how hard I tried.  I do not mean to sound arrogant or cocky, it's just a fact.

Having said that, would I rotate carrying between the dozens of pistols in my safe?  No
Would I feel confident  carrying the past few carry pistols before I upgraded to my R9's, which are with me 98% of the time?
 Without a doubt!

[Reinz]

If you switch between carrying a Kahr one week and an R9 the next, it probably is sigificant.

C0unt - this statement is why I posted the post above.  I do not agree with this statement as a Serious Shooter.

I reckon everyone on this board considers themselves a Shooter.  However there are different levels.  I am not saying I am at the top by no means at  all.  

However, some guys shoot one box of 25 or 50 rounds a month, quarter or 6 months, to year.  Some 1k a year.
Before I owned my own business I was shooting at 25-30 k per year, now I am lucky to do 10k yr.

My point is your statement about the difference between a kahr and an R9 being significant.  To me, since I shoot more than the average bear, it's all about sight picture and trigger control.  So what  if it is a Kahr or an R9?  You do the same mechanics.  No big deal - at least for me.
Now for a guy who is starting out , or with little experience, yeah.
As long as the shooter does the fundamentals it just doesn't matter, after all it really boils down to the comfort factor.
You buy the gun you are the most comfortable with, just like your car.

[Aglifter]

That may be true for you, and others like you, it isn't for me.  When I shot more casually, I could rotate through, and it didn't seem that bad - aside from Sigs, I kept trying, but couldn't get the hang of them.  

Once I started shooting open pretty frequently, it got hard to switch.  Just going from my carry gun (essentially a custom version of an STI eagle), to my open gun (SVI), feels odd, and it takes a few hundred rounds before the different triggers, etc stop bothering me.  Now that I've done it more, I can switch between the open gun, my main carry gun, and my beater single-stack, but it still takes a stage or two before I'm comfortable.

I gave up my much beloved P7, because I couldn't transition to it well.

I find switching grip angles quite difficult.  I shot production w. a G17 before I went to open, and it took me quite awhile to get the angle of my wrist correct.  

[Reinz]

I see your points Aglifter, especially in a competition setting.
And going from a Race Gun to a production is quite a change.

Other guys I have shot with needed some time to adjust when making gun changes as well.

Let me ask you, as far as the Sig problems, was it an accuracy thing with you?  I mean Did they just not seem to group tight enough for you?
I ask, because the Sigs I own, with the exception of my 226 X-5 which is a single action , will not hold a candle to the STI's.

[Aglifter]

In my hands, the Sigs couldn't group - even the one Bruce Gray worked over.  And, according to Gray, due to design differences, no Sig can be as accurate as a 1911 design.  

The Sig trigger is just too funky for me - even after being tuned.  Both CZ, and a tuned Taurus PT-92 have much better DA/SA triggers, IMO.  

There are some days when I can be abnormally accurate w. a 2011...  I'm slow, and can't plan a stage, or follow a plan, to save my soul, but it's spooky how accurate I can get w. them...

My, now headed to the graveyard, due to terminal, recurring, and inscrutable jamming, IDPA/Carry gun was the most accurate one I'd ever shot - every shot felt like it had gone EXACTLY where I had aimed the gun.  

[Reinz]

You just can't beat a well tuned 1911!  

[Richard S]

You just can't beat a well tuned 1911!  

Ah, Reinz, forgive me but I'm at Critter Creek for a long weekend, the sun has passed the yardarm, and the Devil just made me do this. And so, a well tuned 1911:

[Aglifter]

Yeah, as I learned that I passed the TX bar yesterday, I'm considering a brace of custom Commanders...  

[Richard S]

Yeah, as I learned that I passed the TX bar yesterday, I'm considering a brace of custom Commanders...  

As one who took and passed the Virginia Bar in the fall of 1962, who celebrated with a bottle of the finest whiskey I could then afford the night I received the telegram notifying me that I had passed, and who reported for OCS a few weeks later, I offer you my congratulations! You deserve that brace of custom Commanders. Go for them, counselor.

[kjtrains]

Yeah, as I learned that I passed the TX bar yesterday, I'm considering a brace of custom Commanders...  

Aglifter.  Congrats on passing the TX bar; get that brace of custom Commanders.  YES!

[yankee2500]

Aglifter, Congrats from me as well.  Commanders sound good.
 Now turn around and go back to that TX Bar you passed and celebrate. OH thats a different kind of Bar.