Why do instructors bash gun brands?

Cause they're ignorant. Or dishonest. One or the other, because they can't possibly be mistaken (just ask them).


But everyone is entitled to his opinion, aren't they. Sorry if I sound too harsh.
That's not really harsh. It sounds about right to me. But some of the ignorant ones probably really mean well. They've probably done some thinking to get to their opinions - they just don't realize that maybe the other guy has, too. Even on this forum, I have heard many opinions, often stated as fact, regarding the ultimate and often universal suitability of one gun or another, with complete disregard, usually from ignorance or self-centeredness, of the issue of hand size. Recoil sensitivity is sometimes another important factor in weapon selection that is ignored by a person to whom it is not an issue.

These are all mistakes, but they do not always involve ill will or personality defects. They may sometimes be the result of a lack of imagination (like imagining that the next guy might be a little different, or that he has thought about his choice, also).

Pass the popcorn, please.
 
Why do instructors bash gun brands?...

Because they can? They want to? They don't know any better? They've been encouraged to do so at one point, and it 'stuck'?? It profits them in some manner? They like playing to a crowd? They feel their position can (and should) help them spread a personal bias?

Why do some teachers and professors promote certain things over other things? Probably the same reasons.

People are people.

Has science identified an 'objective' gene in our DNA? Do some people lack it? Maybe bias is genetic? :eek: :p

Dunno.
 
WAIT!!! WAIT!!!

Let me say a word for the instructors.

If I am teaching a class of candidates for a CHL, now called an LTC in Texas, I am probably teaching some very inexperienced and some marginally experienced shooters - MOST OF THE TIME. The CHL/LTC class is NOT an advanced gun handling class. It is designed to teach the participants the laws of deadly force, the proper behaviors to exhibit during confrontations, how to best conceal a gun, etc. On rare occasion I'll get a serious shooter who knows the difference between a revolver and a pistol, and the difference between double action and single action. I think most of the serious shooters already have their LTCs - but maybe I'll run into some more down the road.

So, many times, these folks will have a host of gun questions with respect to what to carry. I'm ALWAYS going to tell them to avoid 1911-style pistols - unless they plan to get some advanced training in their use they need to stick to traditional double action guns.

If that's why an instructor advocates against the 1911 or the Hi-Power I agree with him or her completely.

I don't happen to be a 1911 fan - I once was - but I do love my Hi-Power. So I don't advocate against such guns when the shooter involved knows what he or she is doing. For everyone else, well, now you know.
 
"unless they plan to get some advanced training"

Soldiers use them. It ain't rocket surgery. (No offense to soldiers.) The U.S. military bought 3,000,000 of them, and you all are telling us they are complicated?

Seriously? Have you ever seen how the military trains soldiers to use weapons. It doesn't take much but it is TRAINING. Then, at some point, they actually qualify with them. Okay, not today's Soldiers, as a rule, due to the M92, but, still, the SOCOMs, etc., who carry them TRAIN.

Ask yourself how many Millenials have qualified with a 1911 or even a M92. How many women (no offense to the ladies but this ain't their kind of gun)?

How many of these folks are enamored of the 21st century versions of all things polymer? How many gun owners who are not as serious as some of us are enamored of all things polymer and striker fired or TDA? Or pocket guns?

If someone wants training in the use and carrying of a 1911 great - I can do that (although I personally think they're too big for concealed carry but folks do it and tell me I'm wrong - it's a YMMV thing - except for some of the compact models - but then we're back to my acquired distaste for cocked and locked carry).

But in a CHL class when they're bringing in Glocks and XDMs and LCHs and M10s and M642s and so forth? I am NOT going to ever suggest to these folks that they get 1911s.

And I'll probably disparage them a little to ensure that my class is not so inclined.

Sorry; that's how it is.

Not counting the CAS, IDPA, IPSC, and 3Gun people. But they train!
 
Last edited:
There are some excellent responses here. Once again, I am impressed with the quality of the members here.

I have selected some quotes from previous posts that I'd like to address:
...a 1911 is likely not the best choice for their first personal defense gun, he is just doing his job. Because for a beginner it isn't.
No, I don't agree at all. I will explain more in a bit...

Because they don't want to see people using inappropriate or poor equipment?
Absolutely, but this is different than bashing a brand. I recently had a student bring a Llama .380AUTO to class. She had never fired a gun before. I did a quick function check of the gun and it worked. However, after about 5 shots at the range, it quit working. Close inspection showed that it had a lot of rust under the grips and in the action. If the gun had been in better physical condition I would have told her to keep it. Because it was going to cost more than the value of the gun to fix, I told her to get rid of it. But, with proper instruction, she had no issue operating the gun and even shot better than many other students I've seen. Absolutely no reason to bash that brand or style of gun.

Because they commonly get asked why they do or don't carry a particular firearm or piece of gear?
Good point, but while I will be glad to tell someone why I carry what I do, I won't attack or belittle their choice.

As an instructor do you agree that there are better brands and worse brands?
Instructor or not, there will always be brands that are better than others. I do have a good comparison though. I own both a Rock Island Armory M1911-A1 Tactical and an Ed Brown Special forces:
1911-A1.jpg

SFLeftsmall_zps2c050255.jpg

I think most will agree that this is about as broad a spectrum as you can expect in handguns. Both guns have a little over 2K rounds through them. Both have functioned flawlessly. Further, I have seen many of the RIAs at the range and in classes. So, I have a good idea of how reliable the gun is; it's reasonably reliable. Therefore, I disagree with the idea that a 1911 "needs" over $1K worth of work just to operate correctly. Some may, but most seem to work just fine.

So, based on my experience, I'm not going to tell a person not to carry the RIA. Is it inferior to the Ed Brown? Of course, in every way. That doesn't mean it's useless. Now, in a test of longevity I would expect the Ed Brown to out last the RIA simply due to quality of build.

Essentially, I will not stop giving students input on guns and support gear. My motivation is to best serve that students needs and make them successful.
I would expect nothing less. It is indeed our job to help students find the right equipment for them. The right tool might be a 1911 or an M&P or a Glock. The point is, we don't know until we work with a particular student. I will not bash a 1911 because it has an external safety. Neither will I bash a Glock because it does not. Each has its own strong points.

A really good instructor will be able to evaluate a student's ability. Then they can lead them toward the right equipment. For example: I don't care for AIWB carry. That doesn't mean I will tell a student he's dumb for doing that. I will point out the potential hazards of such actions and let them make their own decisions. If they choose to take that risk, it's up to them.

The majority of people who buy a gun, including those who get CHLs do not "train".
Sad to say, but this is the absolute truth. In CA we have to renew our carry license every two years. I'll bet that 80% don't fire their gun except at the mandatory renewal class.

So, with that in mind, what makes the most sense for a person with minimal training... those with just enough to qualify for their CHL? I would say a Glock, or similar striker fired pistol.
As I said to Absalom, I don't agree with this thought process. I do see your point, but it works both ways. The fact that they are so easy to fire can make them very dangerous if muzzle control is not enforced rigorously.

If one of my students forgot to take the safety off at every new string of fire, or if they forgot to put it back on every time they were done shooting, I might recommend a different gun. I recently had this happen. A friend was looking for a gun. I let him shoot some of mine. Sure enough, he forgot the safety about 20% of the time. After watching him shoot a bunch we went to the gun store. He really liked the Sig, but based on my experience with him and guns with several controls on them, I guided him toward a Glock 19. He is very happy with the decision and shoots the gun well.

In my experience, Glocks have the most shooter induced malfunctions. Springfield XDs have been the most difficult to control for new shooters. 1911s are the most expensive. The Shield is the most difficult to rack or lock open. H&Ks are the most complicated. Sig Sauer the least lefty friendly. M&Ps are the most lefty friendly, easiest to handle, inexpensive and very reliable. Consequently they used to be my first recommendation. Alas, not available in CA anymore. :mad:
 
Somebody has to graduate last in the class and IMHO, the worst student probably shouldn't be carrying a 1911 or any handgun in condition 1.
 
The problem is a lot of people take such things personally. Many serious self-defense instructors are coming from a perspective of systemically and objectively finding the most effective methods and weapons to accomplish the job of protecting life and that's how it should be. There should be no concern over a guns appearance or hurting someone's feeling because they made a poor uninformed decision. For me, a gun is a tool plain and simple, I'm not emotionally invested in my choice and will switch if I deem something other than what I'm currently using is better. All guns and firearm manufacturers are not created equal. You are simply not as well armed with a used Saturday night special that you bought at the pawn shop as you would be with a Glock or S&W revolver. If there is a bias, there should be demonstrable facts and experience to justify that bias.
 
I mostly teach the nuances of our state's gun laws and the NRA PPIH/PPOH classes, but when I teach new shooters I always bring our G17 and M&P9 (and sometimes other brands/models) and tell students to try both and whatever fits your hand and you shoot best is the better choice for that person.

I carried a 1911 every day for a few years and it is still my favorite gun, with the M&P 9 being a close second.

I advise people to try a number of different guns and make a decision that is best for them. I find those that get "religious" about their choice annoying.
 
]Absolutely, but this is different than bashing a brand....

Good point, but while I will be glad to tell someone why I carry what I do, I won't attack or belittle their choice.
I didn't take Mr. Shaw's video as a "bash" at all. He was speaking about the 1911 generally, so it couldn't have been a bash of a brand.


Since no one else has said it I guess I have to: Between this thread and the other you seem unreasonably bent out of shape about his personal opinion regarding the 1911.
 
Ask Vikers, Hackthorne, Pannone, McNamara what they think .

I already quoted Vickers. Here's Hackathorn.
Like Vickers, similar conclusion.

I grew up with the 1911, I carry one most of the time, and I have never felt under-armed with one. My 1911 pistols work and I know how to maintain them and keep them in top form. For the 'non-gun guy', it is a bad choice; they're much better off with a Glock or S&W M&P.


Ken Hackathorn has served as a US Army Special Forces Small Arms Instructor, Gunsite Instructor, and NRA Police Firearms Instructor. He is currently an FBI Certified Firearms Instructor, Certified Deputy Sheriff with Washington County SO, Ohio, and a SRT member and Special Response Team trainer. Ken has trained US Military Special Operations forces, Marine FAST and SOTG units and is a contract small arms trainer to FBI SWAT and HRT.

Ken has provided training to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and been active in small arms training for the past 25 years. He has written firearms related material for Guns & Ammo, Combat Handguns, Soldier Of Fortune, and currently American Handgunner and contributed to at least six other gun/shooting journals. Ken was also a founding member of IPSC and IDPA.

Gunfighter Moment - Ken Hackathorn - Soldier Systems Daily
 
Last edited:
The only gun that I've seen absolutely refuse to run in a class is a Hi-Point. Various shooters tried to get it to work, with various ammo. I don't mind mentioning that if asked. I don't volunteer it if not asked. I also will point out that it was the only Hi-Point that I've seen outside of a gunshop.
 
Last edited:
When I went thru my NRA instructor training. It was impressed on me that the instructor Did Not recommend a type or brand of firearm, or ammo. Which I never do when I'm instructing a NRA class / CCL class. I do show and discuss different types of firearm actions and types of ammo ,, per the course requirements.

When I worked part time at the LGS,, I would show and/ or sell whatever the customer thought was the latest & greatest. Not what I thought was the latest and greatest.

IF the customer asked my opinion, I would tell them what I really thought. Because they asked. And I didn't get paid enough to lie. :D

There are many fine firearms out there. Just because I don't have one or care for one doesn't mean it's not a good firearm. :eek:

( but having a good 1911, a good S&W revolver, or a Glock near sure doesn't hurt my feelings ,,:D :D )
 
Last edited:
I already quoted Vickers. Here's Hackathorn.
Like Vickers, similar conclusion.

I grew up with the 1911, I carry one most of the time, and I have never felt under-armed with one. My 1911 pistols work and I know how to maintain them and keep them in top form. For the 'non-gun guy', it is a bad choice; they're much better off with a Glock or S&W M&P.


Ken Hackathorn has served as a US Army Special Forces Small Arms Instructor, Gunsite Instructor, and NRA Police Firearms Instructor. He is currently an FBI Certified Firearms Instructor, Certified Deputy Sheriff with Washington County SO, Ohio, and a SRT member and Special Response Team trainer. Ken has trained US Military Special Operations forces, Marine FAST and SOTG units and is a contract small arms trainer to FBI SWAT and HRT.

Ken has provided training to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and been active in small arms training for the past 25 years. He has written firearms related material for Guns & Ammo, Combat Handguns, Soldier Of Fortune, and currently American Handgunner and contributed to at least six other gun/shooting journals. Ken was also a founding member of IPSC and IDPA.

Gunfighter Moment - Ken Hackathorn - Soldier Systems Daily

Right! That was my point. A lot of instructors do know what they are talking about but people get offended and bent out of shape when their choice isn't what the instructor thinks is good. That's the kind of instructor I want. One who will tell me exactly why it's a bad choice FOR ME. Explain it to me and what my options are. Sometimes the gun it's self is a bad choice. Most of the time you take a course with what you carry. Imagine taking a course with a Hungarian P63 or a Polish P64. Other times the gun is higher maintenance and if you arnt ready for it or don't want to mess with it then it may not be for you.

I wouldn't take it as an insult if the instructor told me that because I have no emotional attachment to the gun. I carry and train with a Glock 19. It's what I carry almost always. I'd like to carry a HK USP 9c or the P2000 in 9mm. But I can't find the one I want and they are a little thicker and sacrifice a few rounds despite the fact that they are the same size as my G19. If something better comes along that proves itself I'll gladly switch
 
It's human nature to defend someone's beliefs and choices. That being said, there are some handguns that are more difficult to shoot; maybe not very accurate or not very reliable. Anyone owning one of these, is likely to find out, if they shoot them much at all (most folks don't) the limitations and either seek to correct the shortcomings or move on to something else. I really don't believe in the term expert. There is always some area that is unfamiliar to anyone who is engaged in the shooting sports. Just about any handgun one can think of has probably been used in self-defense (some more successfully than others). The 1911 has had a long history of being used successfully in combat.
 
This leads to the thought, why do these guys feel the need to do this? Sure, he says it's only his opinion and it's only what he would do, but the underlying truth is that he want's everyone to think that way or why make the video?

I'm an instructor. I teach NRA classes as well as self-defense classes. I've seen a plethora of guns. It really doesn't matter the brand or type, I've seen them all fail. I've seen their owners shoot poorly and fantastically.

Well... ya know how some instructors are. They go to the Net and feel compelled to tell others that they are instructors and then launch into their observations, opinions and conclusions. ;):D
 
Last edited:
Ok, there ARE brands that I would recomend to avoid because of widespread issue of quality and reliability, and not necessarily Taraus . (Rossi revolvers , I'm looking at you.)

As far as Types of handguns , what ever of preference that someone shoots well, and is reliable in their specific example.

If they have to ask, I don't recomend a 1911 ( or C&L single action generally) .
 
I was privileged to have range officered Ken Hackathorn 3 or 4 times at shooting matches. An excellent shot and a very fine gentleman. One time he even showed up with something other than a 1911. If I remember right it may have been a S&W M&P.

Probably everybody that shot IPSC in the 80's & 90's know and is very comfortable with a good 1911.
30 some years ago if you were to tell me I'd be shooting a plastic 9mm.. I would have swore you were nuts..

But I have some wonder 9's ,, I use them ,, they are dependable ,, and lighter weight. But I will always have a soft spot for my 1911's.. And surely don't feel under gunned with one..
 

Attachments

  • DSCF0007.jpg
    DSCF0007.jpg
    133.6 KB · Views: 31
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top