Quote of the day—John Hoschen

After 20 years of active duty military experience and nearly 30 years involved with professional civilian handgun training I have observed that:

1) Handguns are at best of tertiary interest to the Army.

2) The criteria used to select a handgun for the military includes several factors of very limited value to the civilian self-defense practitioner and fails to address several other factors which are critical to that user.

3) Only a VERY small minority of all military members EVER fire a handgun.

4) The training provided to the majority of military members who do fire a handgun is extremely rudimentary. (InSights General Defensive Handgun course is far more in depth and the material in our Intermediate Defensive Handgun course is not found in the military training system other than a few special operations schools.)

Based on the above observations it is my opinion that:

What handgun the Army has chosen for standard issue should have exactly zero impact on what handgun a civilian should consider for self defense use.

John Hoschen
March 3, 2017
Via the InSights Training Center email list regarding the Sig P320
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]


15 thoughts on “Quote of the day—John Hoschen

  1. I agree completely. The military P320 will have a slide lock safety on it, so it not the same as the civilian model. I bought one of the first P320s, Gen 1. I like it more than my Glocks, but you may not. I like having the exact trigger with 40, 357 Sig and 9. I also own all the exchangeable components. (I think)

    Now as a Coast Guard Veteran, we had only 1 week of boot camp training, 60 guys, on 45s and M-16s. I got more training at Boarding Officer training (Shoot house and wad shoot don’t shoot scenarios at video screens. It was not near enough. That being said I carried that 45 every day.

  2. 100%

    The Army issue pistol should have as much impact on your PDW purchase as the Army DFAC menu has on your steakhouse selection process.

    • When I was a kid, I thought the army always had the best stuff–especially camping gear etc. As I got older, I realized that wasn’t necessarily the case–you can get lightweight, rugged clothing and equipment that is much more comfortable and easier to use (and packs down smaller) from any number of places catering to the private market.

      The only thing Vietnam and Desert Storm leftovers have going for them is price–if you can find what you are looking for in the local surplus store, which is rare. Maybe my teenage self, who had more time and less money, was correct–but only as far as that point.

  3. I love Sig, but with the rationale of the author and comment on cost, maybe they should have done the Beretta update deal for not a lot of cash.

  4. Agree about the current situation and the utility of a handgun in a battlefield situation. But in an age of terrorism and just random violence, anyone walking around in a uniform becomes a target. So to reverse the argument, the military selection of a handgun should reflect civilian parameters. No idea whether the SiG meets this as I have no experience with it. And yeah the military will need more and better training with the weapon system. I am sure anyone reading this blog can come up with many examples of useless training that could be eliminated to make room.

  5. Pingback: SayUncle » On the Sig P320

  6. I totally agree, military use of the gun is irrelevant.

    The Sig 320 is a nice gun and should be considered if you are shopping polymer striker guns like Glock and M&P. Don’t forget to look at what CZ has to offer in polymer too.

  7. I honestly don’t understand the point to his message. If the P320 was a bad gun for self-defense, this would make sense. But if someone bought a gun that is probably the best striker-fired handgun out there (out of the box, at least) for bad reasons, that’s hardly much of an issue.

  8. “What handgun the Army has chosen for standard issue should have exactly zero impact on what handgun a civilian should consider for self defense use.”

    – but it does –

  9. There are a lot of reasons to go with the same gun the military buys. The aftermarket optional equipment for AR-15s is all the example you need to see why.

    • All of that aftermarket gear is there in spite of the military adopting the M-16 (not the AR-15.)

      Where are all the aftermarket accessories for the M60 and M2?


  10. It’s not zero reasons!

    Nostalgia and “I want one” are perfectly valid reasons for buying any gun!

    Where did this constant barrage of need and cold functionality come from?

Comments are closed.