Do you see value in standardizing your firearms?
This is a discussion on Do you see value in standardizing your firearms? within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Do you guys see value in standardizing on a single brand or style for your handguns?
I can understand the reasoning but for me guns ...
View Poll Results: Do you see a value in standardizing on a single brand of handgun?
- 65. You may not vote on this poll
November 13th, 2011 10:37 PM
I can understand the reasoning but for me guns are a pleasure and a hobby in addition to being simple tools for self defense. I like a variety.
Do you guys see value in standardizing on a single brand or style for your handguns?
Be reasonable. See things my way.
November 13th, 2011 10:42 PM
Me too, I like to try and use all kinds of guns. (presuming of course that I can afford it). It is nothing but good to be at least familiar with all kinds and types of firearms, not to mention fun.
Originally Posted by tubadude
With that said, I do like to keep my defensive (home and person) guns the same to ensure maximum muscle memory and training reliability. Don't want to think (consciously or sub-consciously) about which gun it is I happen to have before I need to use it. Find a gun you like, learn it, live it, know it perfectly, you will be glad you did if you life ever depends on it.
November 13th, 2011 11:34 PM
I see value in it for many reasons, but I haven't implemented said practice personally. I like variety too much and I enjoy shooting various brands, types, sizes, and calibers. I certanily can't fault anyone who chooses to do so and can 100% understand their rationale.
Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.
November 13th, 2011 11:37 PM
I see no advantage to it at all.
I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."
November 13th, 2011 11:46 PM
Yes.... but I only have guns with no safeties.
G22 .40 S&W and G23 .40 S&W Sig Sauer:
P938 9mm Smith and Wesson:
Model 437 .38 Spl, Model 65 357 Mag, and Sigma SW9VE 9mm
November 13th, 2011 11:59 PM
Yes and no. I carry glocks either my 36 or 21. They work for me and I train the most with them. The 21 also pulls nightstand duty at home. I am the most proficient with their manual of arms and trust them to work. So for SD purpose I would say it's not a bad idea to standardize. As a gun collector, I would say no. In addition to my glocks I have a few other pistols, revolvers, 22LR pistols, and am hoping santa leaves a 1911 under the tree for me this year. I enjoy shooting each one of them for various reasons. I don't carry some of them because they have a safety and I have not trained enough with them to have it be a reflex under stress to take the safety off. Each of my guns fills a role in one form or another in my collection, be it- EDC, range toy, family heirloom, or cheap fun (22s). I dont think its a bad idea to standardize on a carry set up, but i would never just own one type/caliber of gun. I like them all!
November 14th, 2011 12:16 AM
Standardization with respect to firearms is generally a major liability instead of an asset - kinda like having an all-purpose tool box full of nothing but screwdrivers from the same manufacturer.
While some loyalists cherish the erroneous thought, no manufacturer makes the best of everything; and while one may make a number of items that are top-notch, they all produce many other models that are easily bettered by another like-model from a different manufacturer. So you buy the same brand of everything, and a few years down the road they go belly-up or get bought out by a larger corporation who discontinues all of their previous products - now what? Religiously sticking with only one particular brand (manufacturer) usually means you're cheating yourself out of getting the very best of each particular size, type and caliber of firearm you're wanting.
Standardizing any particular caliber might be cheaper for quantity-buying of ammunition; but, if everything collapses someday, getting exotic ammo will be virtually impossible, and there may be only one or two of the more common calibers of ammunition available at any given time or place. So everything you have is 9mm and there's only a chance to pick up some .45ACP in a world gone in the toilet - now what? Keeping a variety of the more common caliber firearms will usually assure that you can find ammo for at least one of them if times get tough.
Standarzing the same kind of weapon (e.g. all pistols, rifles, or shotguns) sounds pretty foolish because there's too many different possible applications where one is far superior over the other. Likewise, standardization of manufacturer, caliber, or type of firearm is also terribly foolhardy. As others have already mentioned, a well-rounded shooter should be familiar with (and be able to proficiently use) a SA or revolver on multiple platforms.
November 14th, 2011 12:33 AM
I think there can be some advantages from an economical perspective. If you only use one handgun caliber, for example, you can stream-line your ammo stock piling. If you're only buying 9mm, for example, you're going to have the money to buy that much more given that you aren't using that money for other calibers.
Even if you forego the standardization of ammo, I can also see some advantages if you go with a single manufacturer like Glock. If you have nothing but Glocks, with maybe an exception of the SF models, you only need three holsters. If you own, for example, all of the Glock models and you have a gun belt and three holsters, you can carry any gun in your arsenal with minimum accessories. I know it doesn't sound like a huge deal but some quality holsters can get a bit on the pricey side and if you had to buy several, it can start to run into some money.
As others have already said, alot of Glock parts will interchange with other models as well as magazines from some models will interchange with other models.
There are pros to standardization and if that is a part of your system then I'm not going to knock you for it. At the same time, however, if its not a part of your system, I'm not going to knock for that either.
We all have to do with what works best for our particular applications and scenarios.
God bless to you and yours,
November 14th, 2011 12:39 AM
Nope, I don't see any value in standardizing. I'm not a military service or a police force and don't have to be so restricted. I like choices and enjoy firearms as a hobby. I also don't believe in the notion that one requires standardization in order to be speedily effective with a firearm. Concerning oneself with standardization smacks of dithering in my view.
Charter Member of the DC .41 LC Society "Get heeled! No really"
No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.
Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893
November 14th, 2011 12:47 AM
No. Until they come up with that one gun for every scenario then absolutely not.
If you cannot train and learn with more than one weapons system then fine stick with what you know and standardize but trying to make one gun/type fit all your needs is an uphill battle.
"A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013
November 14th, 2011 01:33 AM
Both my carry guns are Glock. But one is .40 and the other .357 sig.
Sent from my PB99400 using Tapatalk
November 14th, 2011 02:01 AM
I voted Yes about standardization, because I can see the advantages. BUT I don't standardize! I can't help alternating my carry gun between a 1911 and an XDm, because I enjoy shooting them both, and I have confidence in both. So one has an active safety that must be accounted for, and the other has a passive safety (just pull the trigger). When I'm wearing the 1911, I have this little worry in the back of my mind that I might forget to push the safety off. So far in my practice sessions I've never had a problem, so maybe I'm just worrying too much.
"None who have always been free can understand
the terrible fascinating power of the hope of freedom
to those who are not free."
November 14th, 2011 02:09 AM
Yes, very much so.
I carry and shoot 9mm Glocks, and when I become a LEO, I will carry and shoot my duty weapon(s) and its variants.
Move. Shoot. Survive.
― The "Unofficial" Suarez International Doctrine
The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress and grows brave by reflection.
― Thomas Paine
November 14th, 2011 02:28 AM
I've tried to keep the number of different calibers to a minimum just to make ammo storage simpler, but other than that, I buy what interests me at the time.
While I can see some value to just going with one brand or one operating platform, I don't do it myself.
"The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come." ~ Confucius
November 14th, 2011 05:00 AM
Having a standard set of carry guns would have some benefits, but as it's been said already; nothing wrong with being familiar with other makes and models.. IMO, standardizing the calibers makes more sense than the weaponry.
"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." Thomas Jefferson
Search tags for this page
best guns for standardizing ammunition
how to standarize your firearms
standardizing my guns
standardizing on pistol platform ccw hd
standardizing your arms
standarizing pistol type
stick shift or automatic for shtf vehicle
stick shift vs auto in shtf
Click on a term to search for related topics.