Benstoeger.com Benstoegerproshop.com for gear PSTG.US for in person classes and digital coaching Ben Stoeger books on Amazon: www.amazon.com... Podcast from pstg: traininggroupl...
I think starting with a shittier gun really makes you focus on the fundamentals to hit good shots, so I’d argue that you should start a new shooter with something not super fancy
I imagine like most hobbies (driving, mtn biking, painting, etc), the less advantages you learn to use the better you’ll build fundamentals. Learning to race in a stick shift Mazda Miata will make a faster driver than an automatic mustang. Can’t just make up the skill with horsepower and auto shifting.
For people trying to compete or reach mastery, its less than ideal long term, but for the average joe, they need all the help they can get because 100 rounds every 3 months is not going to do much of anything, so the engineers that made the gun have to pick up that slack.
@@Kinetic_worx with the difference that a Miata is easy to drive and a formula is really hard to drive. A 2011 is easy to shoot so it's easy to find the things you do wrong, whereas a Glock is really hard to shoot in comparison so your mistakes disappear in the noise and many beginners will feel that shooting is not for them because they can't seem to find out what they are doing wrong. Don't misunderstand me, you can become a very good shooter with a Glock but I'll argue it requires more work than with an easier gun
Been saying this for years. Working at a gun range I saw a pattern. Brand new shooters picked things up way quicker if they were using a heavy pistol with a nice trigger like upgraded CZs, 9mm 1911s and 2011s. Shooters starting out with something like a Shield were having a bad time
New shooters who get good instruction perhaps. I go to an indoor range quite frequently. And, well there are pock marks on the floor, the walls, holes in the shooting stall shelf. And, I know that the simpler the manual of arms is for a handgun the faster a new shooter builds confidence. Point and click! SA 1911 guns have too much going on. They are not for new shooters just starting out.
It’s all POV. For a new shooter, it’s not just a safety. It’s a mechanical tool that could instantly ice any living being nearby if they hit them in the head. It’s also the four rules of gun safety, fresh in their minds. It’s the loud noises, the loudest noises they’ve heard in their life until now. It’s the concussions from other firearms (if they’re indoors). It’s the sensation of holding a firearm for the first time, trying to pick up what muscles they need to use to get on target. It’s the anticipation of recoil. It’s not that they are incapable of using a safety, but it slows the learning process. How do we train our draws, for instance? We start doing hundreds of reps for one part, slowly building up the consistent draw.
Truth be told those new shooters who are buying those guns are usually well researched and more willing to research and put the work in to become good shooters.
Nils won the nationals with a Canik, not because it's the best gun, but because he was the best competitor. He could do it. I didn't, even with a heavier and more expensive gun. But i would've sucked even worse with a Canik or even funnier a Hi-Point, no chance to turn shit into gold.
I went from a glock 19 to a staccato c2 because I would miss the A zone of a target at 15 yards and had a fat group. I would change my grip, trigger press, sights even and nothing would fix it. I got so frustrated I decided to try a totally new platform. I went with the staccato because everyone raved at how "good" of a gun it is, and I noticed a significant improvement.
Man, so there’s an argument you’re better off with a $2,000 gun and $500 in ammo then a $1000 gun with $1500 worth of ammo. My just as good heart is broken.
That's not what he's saying. Light triggers, red dots, and heavy frames mask poor fundamentals. If you can steady a double action revolver pull of 12 lbs, a 5 lbs striker trigger will feel like cheating. Master the fundamentals first on an average pistol. It will make you a much better shooter in the long run.
You're completely right. I'm a fairly inexperienced pistol shooter, but I own an AccuShadow 2. It makes my iffy trigger pull irrelevant. I rarely actually practice with that gun, because I feel like I'm not learning anything.
Started with a Canik METE SFT. Learned all the fundamentals and proper techniques with that pistol. Picked up a Shadow 2, shot way better, and started competing with it. Started meeting new friends in the shooting world and can keyhole anything from a 43x to Staccatos. It came down to training everyday with that Canik and ended up with built skill to shoot anything.
I totally agree with this. I suck at shooting and I just moved up from a Glock 34 to a CZ Shadow 2 and I’m doing better. Of course I’m 60 years old and I’ve only been doing this a few years. I think age is also a factor. I am seeing an improvement by watching your videos, so thanks for putting them out there!
I totally agree. I’m just a B shooter, because I compete as a hobby. I don’t train much. I just like shooting with my buddies. Moving from D to C was a gun change. Moving from C to B came with an optic. I love my 2011s, and freely admit that I’m buying skill, not building it. That’s always been fine with me, but it’s cool to hear you say it.
I'd say that you're buying 'better performance', not 'skill'. Just like a better performing car will be faster on the track at the hands of the SAME driver.
I have tested a lot of different designs of mine, some of which people think are gimmicks. On every single product, the less training the subject has, the more the product improves the results. The better the shooter, the less the device helps. Completely agree with the message in this video, although I do think that easier to use tools allow for more margin of error, giving more repeatability/consistency. This has also been shown in my testing. What truly matters is proper practice.
I’d tend to agree. I was actually doing some informal training yesterday with a local LEO cause he was struggling with his duty issue Glock 22. So I handed him my P320 Max and he shot a pretty good group. Basically his fundamentals couldn’t manage the .40 Glock. When I took my daughter out shooting for the first time we used my competition 1911. She was doing quite well after a brief grip and stance lesson. I doubt she would have done as well immediately with a poly duty gun.
i think i agree with you. I'm a novice and my marksmanship with a czechmate is much better than i can do with even a shadow 2. as i get better though... the gains are diminishing. please repost the caped Halloween shoot with the office chair scoot and roll.... i love that vid! can't find it.
We host and run our own matches and teach classes here. I would agree that a high performance easy to shoot pistol does help newer shooters a little bit. Better triggers allow for less disturbance of the gun when pressing, better grip texture allows for a more secure grip even when hand placement could be better, weight, tuning, and balance assist them in recovering sights more efficiently. Will it be a drastic difference, no, but they will have a slight improvement, typically yes.
Same is true in the adventure bike/ Enduro world. I had a BMW1200GSA and someone with a Kawasaki klr was an amazing rider I couldn't keep up with them.
I ve never made a better grouping in my life than when I shot a cz p75 s range gun . Its was the first time touching the gun and just shot about 25 rounds, so there was no warming up or get used with the gun. I believe that its impossible being just a coincidence
It seems like this is true across many disciplines. The real experts are obsessed with the fundamentals even after achieving a high level of skill. And the people who don't understand that yet, or who don't want to put the work in are obsessed with buying gear that gives them a perceived benefit. And when the gear doesn't do all that they hoped, they fixate on another piece of gear or novelty technique.
I’m curious to see if after 6 months to 1 yr you still like the XC. I sold mine as a result of realizing I was gravitating back to Glocks or a P / C2 to make sure I wasn’t loosing any ability to perform with a platform I would ACTUALLY carry (playful jab at guys who say they carry an XC). Pistol fundamentals are perishable, and the necessary fundamentals to be competent with a Glock are different than those of the XC. The next realization was that my performance with a more practical platform was relative to the XC. Perceived rate of proficiency.
As a c class shooter I totally agree with this. I picked up a prodigy as a trade for my old limited cz tso. I immediately shot it very well compared to my 92 xperf. Yeah I know that’s not a popular gun here. So I’m selling the prodigy since I’m not ready to invest in a new competition set up. By the way my 92 x performance is right around 25,000 with 1 non ammo related stoppage. The extractor was gummed up real bad. Cleaned and 2000 trouble free rounds.
For me train and compete for something you can actually use and carry. Competition helps you to be more effective and proficient of the gun you intend to carry for self defense
Lol I have been shooting and dry firing my competition gun more than ever this year and one range day I went back to my duty gun and I instantly noticed that my comp gun was hiding bad techniques and fundamentals. I couldn't believe how bad I was on a stock duty trigger. Compared with my comp gun. Slow, not as accurate and slower draw for sure.
I have heard some BS in my life. But, if a shooter does not have the basic skill set to shoot with purpose. Then there is no gun that can correct where the gun is aimed. Shooting is pretty simple. But some people try to make it so hard! They come up with oh you need these grips, or you need 3 # trigger. Sorry those are all crutches. Either you can shoot or you can't. It is like learning to read the wind. Does not happen over night! We live in a McDonalds world. Honing a person's shooting skills takes a good foundation reinforced with practice done with purpose. I am sure that Ben here could clean house with Glock 34 fresh from Smyrna, GA just fine. But at his skill set he can drive a Taran Tactical a bit better. But, that did not happen over night.
The better you get, a GREAT shooters margin in split times, reloads, etc, is less affected BUT, for GREAT shooters, that's really what's separating the top competitors. For a new shooter of course its going to pick up the slack on poor fundamentals. But there is a reason open guns are what they are. In contrast if I gave a GM shooter a pistol with a 35lb trigger pull, he's probably not gonna have a good time.
Main advantage of better guns for worse shooters who want to improve is mental. Buying technical gains with CZs and 2011s is less important than being able to say "my gun supports the highest level of performance so every fuck-up is on me". That allows to set growth and performance goals as high as possible and press on. Taking such attitude with more challenging guns might be harder for many, even though technically even Glock can support just about any level of proficiency.
@cw7631 0 seconds ago I would agree that a gun that has a natural point of aim and a lighter trigger tend to assist a shooter that may not be as seasoned as someone shooting a different platform. I felt going from a Glock to a Canik Rival was hitting easy mode because the gun was a better fit for me and it felt easier to achieve what I had to work for with the Glock. Same with the CZs I have. Thanks! Keep up the interesting videos.
I’ve only shot Glock forever. But I want 2011s or double stack 1911s because they are cool as hell. And they are American as it gets. Has nothing to do with performance. Lol I agree with you statements though
With rifles we quantify mechanical accuracy and terminal ballistics to set or define standards, why is it with pistols we dont see it that way? I hear you refrence the gen 5 glock as pretty good, what is pretty good for you? For me a 1 to 2 inch group at 25 is pretty good considering that i want to shoot out to 100y that 4 to 8 moa i think i can make a case that the more mechanically accurate the gun and ammo the more room for error i have
I assume (possibly incorrectly) most of your audience are ipsc/uspsa shooters. Thus, when you do post numbers about performance gains between the platforms I'd LOVE to hear that in terms of classifier times. The individual skills are obviously important. However, knowing your best performance on a standardized exercise more like a real stage (ie classifier we all know and understand) would be super interesting to know. My assumption is it will highlight gun doesn't really matter much, but interesting if that pans out for someone of your skill level
The takeaway from this video for me is this. Better gun yield better results for me who can only shoot around 1-3 thousand rounds a year tops, whereas not much better yield compared to people who train all the time or competitive shooters shooting schedule.
If it makes it easier to do things generally, why wouldn't it also make it easier to push the limits of an advanced shooter's ability? Or why wouldn't it make it easier to more consistently perform a shooter's top end of their abilities? Is it because as a high level shooter you end up reaching the limits of the gun for the purposes of competition? Presumably a good open gun would perform better than the XC, so maybe at that level you need a better gun to push your limits(?)
As a mediocre at best shooter (couple range trips a year) who recently went from a S&W Shield plus to a Springfield Prodigy my performance maaaasively increased in my first range day. I shot faster and more accurately immediately.
I'm an intermediate shooter at best. I've been shooting stock Glocks for the past several years and I've used them to really concentrate on fundamentals and I've gotten pretty decent with them. On a recent range trip I took my Glocks and a newly acquired Walther PDP w/ Holsoun 509t to the range and noticed the first shots with the PDP were tighter than the Glocks were. The PDP was the only gun I had with a dot, so I attribute those tighter groups to the dot, not the difference in triggers. But, the Glocks were faster for me, due to that lower bore axis. I think if I were a novice, i would have needed that nice PDP trigger to be decent. But even as someone who's just average I can notice there isnt a whole lot of practical difference between different poly striker guns. The point being, Ben is absolutely right on this. A "better" gun will make a mediocre or novice shoot "better". I still don't think chasing the perfect gun is the best path, because there is no perfect gun for anyone. Learning to adapt to anything you pick up and apply fundamentals is the key to great marksmanship.
Love the discussion but just want to make sure I understand this correctly...So a better gun (XC) can help a bad shooter shoot better but you can take a lesser gun (Glock) and do the same thing and there's little to no difference because you've mastered the fundamentals? Then you say the XC is easier to shoot than a Glock because of the FCG design,. In my simple mind, by definition that makes even you a better shooter with the XC because it's perceived easier for you to perform the task (the ease of shooting small groups) regardless if it was significant(better times) or not. Your shooting against some of the best shooters in the world, so I would think you'd want your gun and your confidence in said gun to be the best it can for your use case. In the military we say, you want every tactical advantage you can have, so in this scenario a easier gun to shoot will assist when your not doing your best. I would love to see what you can do with the XC after you train with it more to see what those times look like.
2011s with big grips that let people get a solid grip on the gun will make them feel like they're a better shooter. Is the gun that much better? No, it's just easier to get your hands on. If glock made a frame with a big round grip, no one would jerk it to staccato
As someone who has muscled through from being novice to intermediate with pretty much exclusively Glocks, I don't think it makes much difference if we're comparing all the other poly striker guns on the market, they're all pretty close to each other to not make much of a difference. I think it speaks to less of brand and more of training with what you carry, even if that means a micro. A 43x isn't the easiest to shoot, but going from that to 19 will make the 19 feel like a breeze. Granted, this training is aimed more at practicality than training for sport.
@@sawoszao then you answered your own question. Get the best gun you can afford that you love the trigger and ergos of. I'd recommend a Glock only if you planned on carrying it, liked it more than others, or needed to for off duty use. Other than that, get what you want if it's for sport
Switching to a 2011, on the thumb safety I'm getting different stories, it has to be out in front of u before u switch it off others say as soon as its out of the holster....I just don't want to get a DQ....any advice would be awesome...
Absolutely, I wanna be safe ....I'd been doing my dry fire training and developed my grip by grabbing the safety as my hand grabs the gun...but ya ill change it up and start training to kick it off when the gun is down range ...thank u
Reminds me of the time there were 3 alpha douches near me at the pistol range, they were all mostly missing, but one guy was able to consistently hit A zone steel at around 15 yards, then said "well worth the $2500". My $600 m&p with irons has no problem hitting the a zone at 50 yards when I use proper sight alignment, sight picture, grip and trigger manipulation. Get a decent gun at least, but focus on fundies
Totally agree with you. I had trouble shooting 25 yards in the alpha zone accurately; it's a day and night difference after putting on radian afterburner and ramjet.
This is straight up the reason for the Glock grip angle. Most new shooters suck and limp wrist the gun, which the Glock is notoriously intolerant of, so the grip angle is exageratted to deal with this "issue" and as the shooter gets better the grip angle goes from mitigating limp wristing to forcing the shooter to tension the wrists and drive the gun like someone more seasoned. This all comes at the downside of the gun pointing and presenting really weird, but if you are new to pistols, you won't even realize.
Ben I disagree with your opinion on the topic "Good guns help bad shooters." The reason is the benefit these guns provide the novice/bad shooter is so marginal, they will not realize any meaningful benefit. I base this on my own experience in several different sports and hobbies: power lifting/strength training, riding motorcycles on and off road, playing guitar, and of course as a competitive shooter. I made the common mistake thinking if I bought this PRS guitar, this 28 mm bar, this BMW R1200RT, or get a trigger job, or get different sights, or buy a different gun altogether, I would elevate my performance. What I noticed is without quality training and consistent quality practice, all this new gear did was made me better at being a bad shooter, guitar player, motorcycle rider, etc. At your level where hundredths or thousandths of a point can determine whether get you get a really good paycheck or you go home empty handed, the gear matters. The money you spend for the added performance gain can be justified, but for novice/bad shooters this is a waste of money. This post is long so I will cut it here. Thank you for reading this, and I appreciate your videos a lot.
The difference between a Glock and a sig or a Glock and a stacatto isn't going to be noticeable for a novice sure. But put them with the guns I started with and there's going to be a huge difference. A PPK in 380, a sig mosquito and a Makarov. Unreasonably Heavy triggers, crap sights and regular FTE and FTF and unpleasant recoil are all massively detrimental to learning good fundamentals. It's why you don't start a shooter with a scandium 357 snub or a 416 rigby. There's levels to it and if it's reliable, it's sized right for access to the controls for them, the sights are easy to use, it feeds reliably and the trigger is in the 4 to 6lb range what specific pistol it is won't matter for teaching fundamentals. There are things that make it easier for new shooters, a dot for example, watching new shooters with an RDS versus irons, it's more intuitive and they pick up the basics faster. Where it gets tricky is things which compensate for poor technique. When I went from a 2011 to a 1911 having shot an Airsoft pistol for years with an external magwell I found my reloads were sloppy and I had to do a lot of work to nail them every time with the 1911.
@@jediknight1294 You make some fair points. But I have seen time after time a new shooter show up with their brand new Glock and within 5 minutes they are being told, "you won't be able to win with that gun. You need a trigger job. You need to change sights. You have a shitty optic. You need a SRO or you might as well not bother." When what is needed is to be told they need to go to Ben's training (for example), do dry fire and practice those things you learned in training. And practice on a consistent basis. That will improve their performance by far and it will not cost them $4K to do it.
New shooter will not be able to perceive the advantages of a good gun, but the advantages are still there to benefit them with result down range. It is easier to teach new shooter the fundamentals when they don't have to fight with a long and creepy trigger or the heavy recoil that will knock away their focus. It is the same reason why we slap training wheel on bike so the kid don't have to worry about bracing for balance, falling etc. and just focus on the core skills of cycling which help them grasp the idea faster. I think we confuse the idea of new shooters reaping the benefit of a great firearm compare to us trying to move the needle forward by paying for performance. One is using good gear to enhance learning of the fundamentals. The other is trying to outrun the fundamental by using good gear.
