TrueTexan
Member
As been said, "A CCW should be comforting, not comfortable". Although my P220 and my 686 3 inch aren't that bad to carry.
What's Your PRIMARY Selection Criteria For A CCW - Comfort OR Proficiency?
- Thread starter coalman
- Start date
- Status
I subscribe to the concept that if it isn't at least relatively easy to carry, I'll leave it at home more often than not. That's not to say I am not proficient with it though. I just think it is easier to get proficient with a new gun than change entire wardrobe and dress around a gun I was already good with.
Besides, excuse to buy new gun!
"Honey, I already had a pocket gun and a single-stack, but I needed a sub-compact to fill the role in between the single stack and my full-size."
Besides, excuse to buy new gun!
"Honey, I already had a pocket gun and a single-stack, but I needed a sub-compact to fill the role in between the single stack and my full-size."
I disagree that most people would fully prioritize either choice.
A tiny single-shot .22sr would be far more 'comfortable' to carry than just about any other handgun.
Myself, and I would gather many of us, are most proficient with a rifle or shotgun. Especially when talking about longer range engagement. Yet very few people try to carry either concealed.
It inherently is a compromise.
A tiny single-shot .22sr would be far more 'comfortable' to carry than just about any other handgun.
Myself, and I would gather many of us, are most proficient with a rifle or shotgun. Especially when talking about longer range engagement. Yet very few people try to carry either concealed.
It inherently is a compromise.
ohioshooter
Member
I carry either a full sized 1911 or a g19...I'm proficient with both and I have holsters for both that are comfortable depending on how I wear them. G19 with maximum cant in my lower back or my full size 1911 straight up and down in my lower back..a separate holster on my side depending on what I'm wearing..the key is to wear it long enough and practice drawing in all positions you wear them and it won't feel so uncomfortable
1911 guy
Member
I follow the advice I give to everyone who asks my opinion. Carry the largest gun in the largest caliber you can shoot and carry. This will vary by size, hands and mode of dress. For me, it's a 5" 1911. Some people carry .44 revolvers (more juice) some people cannot get away with anything larger than a small .380 (less juice). I've said it often and repeat it here because it's appropriate. I've never met anyone who walked away from a gunfight wishing they'd had a small firearm or less ammunition.
Ignition Override
Member
For those considering their first 'carry' gun for someday in the future, isn't the ability to conceal -often without buying new clothing- the primary factor?
To me this would mostly imply comfort. This might be the reason why three friends all carry the Polish P-64 (Makarov 9x18 rd.), mostly in their pockets.
A fourth guy who is a coworker carries a .380 in his pocket some of the time. Another, who lives in the FL panhandle only carries Kahr .380s.
Comfort must be a major factor, especially in humid, mostly warm weather.
To me this would mostly imply comfort. This might be the reason why three friends all carry the Polish P-64 (Makarov 9x18 rd.), mostly in their pockets.
A fourth guy who is a coworker carries a .380 in his pocket some of the time. Another, who lives in the FL panhandle only carries Kahr .380s.
Comfort must be a major factor, especially in humid, mostly warm weather.
Last edited:
Kcinnick
Member
Daily Carry is an M&P pro
Smaller gun carry is a 3914
When it comes to shooting minute of man within 25 yards, it doesn't matter which one I have. If I need to make head shots at 30 yards because the stage designer is a dick, I want the pro.
Smaller gun carry is a 3914
When it comes to shooting minute of man within 25 yards, it doesn't matter which one I have. If I need to make head shots at 30 yards because the stage designer is a dick, I want the pro.
gbw
Member
1. Reliability. If it doesn't work it's useless.
2. Comfort - small & light. If it isn't comfortable I probably won't have it on when needed.
3. Inexpensive - I don't want to have to worry about dinging it up. It's not for show.
4. Power.
Training, practice, proficiency, knowledge of law should all be required and are a given before carrying anything.
For me a Kel-Tec PF9.
2. Comfort - small & light. If it isn't comfortable I probably won't have it on when needed.
3. Inexpensive - I don't want to have to worry about dinging it up. It's not for show.
4. Power.
Training, practice, proficiency, knowledge of law should all be required and are a given before carrying anything.
For me a Kel-Tec PF9.
12131
Member
I think that was implied, and simply answered what the OP asked.
Thanks for the input and votes
Thanks for the input. I've tried to reply to most comments. Certainly a comment trend in missing the "more" vs. "less" concept, as well as the belief that two things can be "primary" (= first and most important). And, the folks that really think they can really get (or truly have) the best of both in that tiny gun they shoot as well as a full size in speed/action shooting or that full size that carries as comfortably as that tiny gun in all day carry. Interesting stuff.
I did not want to take the time to put all comments in "quotes". Original comment below with my comment following the "***".
==========================================================
What about a larger gun that is comfortable to carry?
*** What larger gun is MORE comfortable to carry than a smaller gun of similar make/brand? This inquiry is not about uncomfortable (or non-proficient); this inquiry is about "more" vs. "less" in both categories.
Why not both? If your most proficient firearm is a Smith and Wesson 500, chances are you aren't going to be carrying it. But if your most proficient gun is a NAA .22LR mini, it would be a better backup.
*** For most that don't visit internet gun forums you don't get the best of both. And, this is not about a "backup" gun or a bug gun caliber.
I guess I'm in denial because I'm sure not inexperienced. At 7 yards I'm just as good with my G27 as my G22. At more then SD distances my G22 is more accurate.
*** Assumption made a >7yd shot won't be needed, which is totally fine as long as you know it's an assumption. And, I doubt you are "as good" with your G27 vs. G22 in action/speed shooting running full power ammo. "Action" shooting includes rapid fire on multiple targets requiring target transition, often lacks opportunity to reset grip each shot, involves presentation from holster often without opportunity to fine tune grip each shot, involves weak hand and strong hand only rapid fire shooting, involves movement, involves reloads, etc. So, IMO, try IDPA or UPSA to check that "as good" belief out. Top games don't use the Glock 26 or Glock 27 (even with Glock 17/22 mags) for good reason I'm sure.
I have to ask the question as to why I can't be as proficient with a smaller more comfortable gun as a larger less comfortable gun.... Am I missing something here?
*** I've observed very few individuals in real life as proficient as the internet masses. Comparing a 4.25" 1911 vs. a 4" 1911 is not really the spirit of this inquiry though. Nor is a cross-caliber comparison. It's more about a 5" 1911 vs. a 3" 1911, or a Glock 17 vs. a Glock 26, or a Sig P229 vs. a Kahr PM9, or a Glock 19 vs. LCP, etc. I'm more proficient in speed/action shooting with the smaller CZ 75B Compact vs. a Glock 17. If I'd only fired those two guns I'd say I'm more proficient with smaller guns. But, I'm more proficient with the full size CZ 75 SP01 than the CZ75B Compact. So, it's a gun platform (trigger, grip, etc.) thing not a smaller vs. larger thing. And, the larger but slimmer, contoured full grip CZ 75B Compact and a slimmer 4" 1911 CCO are more comfortable for me to carry IWB with a good gun belt and good winged (CBST) holster than the smaller but fatter, blocky two-finger grip Glock 26, while the even slimmer full grip Kahr P9 is more comfortable than both regardless of rig, and the even smaller two-finger Kahr PM9 more comfortable still. Again, this inquiry is more about the comparisons noted above. And, I think it depends on what you've had first-hand experience with. So, experience (not directed negatively at anyone in this thread) really does play a part in better knowing what one is talking about sometimes.
I disagree with the O.P.'s assumption that a comfortable carry gun is less proficient for the user.
*** You said "comfortable". I said, and keep saying over and over, "more comfortable" vs. "less comfortable", not "uncomfortable".
... it IS possible to have your cake and eat it to.
*** No, it's not. A 3" 1911 is more comfortable to carry than a 5" 1911.
Less, yes. But the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. I am just a shade of a degree less proficient with an M&P9c than I am with the full sized M&P9.
*** And, "less" is the point. I find the carry comfort of a G26 "a shade" better than the Glock 19. Run speed/action shooting and the shade disappears and the full grip Glock 19 a clear winner. In slow-fire bullseye target shooting I have "a shade", too.
I'm quite proficient with my compact guns, because they get shot the most. ... I've tested this at bowling pin matches and various timed shooting drills - the difference between a compact gun and the equivalent full size isn't much.
*** Again, "more" vs. "less", not "good" vs. "poor". And, inquiry noted equal trigger time. Clearly, you are likely to be more proficient with a gun you shoot a great deal vs. one you hardly shoot.
How about a small gun that you shoot well. ... It doesn't mean small must be inaccurate. My Glock 26 I can hit bullseyes at 75 feet. I don't shoot any further than that with any handgun, so you need a new category.
*** Not talking "bullseye" shooting here. I just don't know how else to better explain "action/speed" shooting and that it's not about "good" vs. "poor" it's about "more" vs. "less".
My G26 is comfortable and I shoot just as good (sometimes better) than I do with my G17
*** "Sometimes", but I suspect not often. And, of course you mean in speed/action shooting vs. slow-fire bullseye target shooting?
I disagree with the premise of the thread. This doesn't need to be an and/or.
*** My experience and observation of shooters disagrees with that statement when it comes to the speed/action shooting more akin to a defensive application. And, again, inquiry is about "more" vs. "less" not "good" vs. "poor".
Neither option is remotely accurate in the poll for me. ... Right now, I'm comfortably wearing both a full size M&P .40, and a 4 3/4" .45 Blackhawk, and I'm proficient with both.
*** Broken record alert here: "More" vs. "less" not "good" vs. "poor" regarding proficiency in SPEED/ACTION shooting and comfort in carry.
Like most things in life it is about balance.
*** Agreed.
To be honest the gun i carry most on weekdays is my Ruger LC9. That is because i can't carry at work and the LC9 is incredibly easy to slip into my front pocket as soon as i get in the car. My third option is my Ruger LCP. It is only for when clothes make it impractical to carry anything bigger, which is very rare. I also have bigger pistols but they are all too big to carry comfortably without a jacket. The Glock 22 and SW MP 40 duty size are doable with an untucked shirt but not ideal.
*** I find "easy" and "comfortably" the keywords here. Both great reasons to select a CCW based on a person's priorities. FYI to all: There's not judgement in this inquiry. We pick what we pick for the reasons we pick it. And, there are tradeoffs. I will contest with those in denial (IMO) who truly think they have the best of both though.
That's not to say I am not proficient with it though.
*** Again, this inquiry is not about being non-proficient, it's about "more" vs. "less" proficient. I keep repeating that hoping it will be(come) clear to some/most reading this.
I disagree that most people would fully prioritize either choice. ... Myself, and I would gather many of us, are most proficient with a rifle or shotgun. Especially when talking about longer range engagement. Yet very few people try to carry either concealed. ... It inherently is a compromise.
***I very much agree on the first and last sentence. Bringing up the rifle and shotgun in a CCW discussion a bit of a red herring though.
I've never met anyone who walked away from a gunfight wishing they'd had a small firearm or less ammunition.
*** I have an idea many will unknowingly walk into one that way though carrying that tiny more comfortable gun. Again, you'll know after whether you had enough gun.
1. Reliability. If it doesn't work it's useless....
*** Captain Obvious arrives to state the obvious... and a given in original post outline.
I think that [reliability] was implied...
*** Yes, it was. And, stated, too.
Thanks for the input. I've tried to reply to most comments. Certainly a comment trend in missing the "more" vs. "less" concept, as well as the belief that two things can be "primary" (= first and most important). And, the folks that really think they can really get (or truly have) the best of both in that tiny gun they shoot as well as a full size in speed/action shooting or that full size that carries as comfortably as that tiny gun in all day carry. Interesting stuff.
I did not want to take the time to put all comments in "quotes". Original comment below with my comment following the "***".
==========================================================
What about a larger gun that is comfortable to carry?
*** What larger gun is MORE comfortable to carry than a smaller gun of similar make/brand? This inquiry is not about uncomfortable (or non-proficient); this inquiry is about "more" vs. "less" in both categories.
Why not both? If your most proficient firearm is a Smith and Wesson 500, chances are you aren't going to be carrying it. But if your most proficient gun is a NAA .22LR mini, it would be a better backup.
*** For most that don't visit internet gun forums you don't get the best of both. And, this is not about a "backup" gun or a bug gun caliber.
I guess I'm in denial because I'm sure not inexperienced. At 7 yards I'm just as good with my G27 as my G22. At more then SD distances my G22 is more accurate.
*** Assumption made a >7yd shot won't be needed, which is totally fine as long as you know it's an assumption. And, I doubt you are "as good" with your G27 vs. G22 in action/speed shooting running full power ammo. "Action" shooting includes rapid fire on multiple targets requiring target transition, often lacks opportunity to reset grip each shot, involves presentation from holster often without opportunity to fine tune grip each shot, involves weak hand and strong hand only rapid fire shooting, involves movement, involves reloads, etc. So, IMO, try IDPA or UPSA to check that "as good" belief out. Top games don't use the Glock 26 or Glock 27 (even with Glock 17/22 mags) for good reason I'm sure.
I have to ask the question as to why I can't be as proficient with a smaller more comfortable gun as a larger less comfortable gun.... Am I missing something here?
*** I've observed very few individuals in real life as proficient as the internet masses. Comparing a 4.25" 1911 vs. a 4" 1911 is not really the spirit of this inquiry though. Nor is a cross-caliber comparison. It's more about a 5" 1911 vs. a 3" 1911, or a Glock 17 vs. a Glock 26, or a Sig P229 vs. a Kahr PM9, or a Glock 19 vs. LCP, etc. I'm more proficient in speed/action shooting with the smaller CZ 75B Compact vs. a Glock 17. If I'd only fired those two guns I'd say I'm more proficient with smaller guns. But, I'm more proficient with the full size CZ 75 SP01 than the CZ75B Compact. So, it's a gun platform (trigger, grip, etc.) thing not a smaller vs. larger thing. And, the larger but slimmer, contoured full grip CZ 75B Compact and a slimmer 4" 1911 CCO are more comfortable for me to carry IWB with a good gun belt and good winged (CBST) holster than the smaller but fatter, blocky two-finger grip Glock 26, while the even slimmer full grip Kahr P9 is more comfortable than both regardless of rig, and the even smaller two-finger Kahr PM9 more comfortable still. Again, this inquiry is more about the comparisons noted above. And, I think it depends on what you've had first-hand experience with. So, experience (not directed negatively at anyone in this thread) really does play a part in better knowing what one is talking about sometimes.
I disagree with the O.P.'s assumption that a comfortable carry gun is less proficient for the user.
*** You said "comfortable". I said, and keep saying over and over, "more comfortable" vs. "less comfortable", not "uncomfortable".
... it IS possible to have your cake and eat it to.
*** No, it's not. A 3" 1911 is more comfortable to carry than a 5" 1911.
Less, yes. But the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. I am just a shade of a degree less proficient with an M&P9c than I am with the full sized M&P9.
*** And, "less" is the point. I find the carry comfort of a G26 "a shade" better than the Glock 19. Run speed/action shooting and the shade disappears and the full grip Glock 19 a clear winner. In slow-fire bullseye target shooting I have "a shade", too.
I'm quite proficient with my compact guns, because they get shot the most. ... I've tested this at bowling pin matches and various timed shooting drills - the difference between a compact gun and the equivalent full size isn't much.
*** Again, "more" vs. "less", not "good" vs. "poor". And, inquiry noted equal trigger time. Clearly, you are likely to be more proficient with a gun you shoot a great deal vs. one you hardly shoot.
How about a small gun that you shoot well. ... It doesn't mean small must be inaccurate. My Glock 26 I can hit bullseyes at 75 feet. I don't shoot any further than that with any handgun, so you need a new category.
*** Not talking "bullseye" shooting here. I just don't know how else to better explain "action/speed" shooting and that it's not about "good" vs. "poor" it's about "more" vs. "less".
My G26 is comfortable and I shoot just as good (sometimes better) than I do with my G17
*** "Sometimes", but I suspect not often. And, of course you mean in speed/action shooting vs. slow-fire bullseye target shooting?
I disagree with the premise of the thread. This doesn't need to be an and/or.
*** My experience and observation of shooters disagrees with that statement when it comes to the speed/action shooting more akin to a defensive application. And, again, inquiry is about "more" vs. "less" not "good" vs. "poor".
Neither option is remotely accurate in the poll for me. ... Right now, I'm comfortably wearing both a full size M&P .40, and a 4 3/4" .45 Blackhawk, and I'm proficient with both.
*** Broken record alert here: "More" vs. "less" not "good" vs. "poor" regarding proficiency in SPEED/ACTION shooting and comfort in carry.
Like most things in life it is about balance.
*** Agreed.
To be honest the gun i carry most on weekdays is my Ruger LC9. That is because i can't carry at work and the LC9 is incredibly easy to slip into my front pocket as soon as i get in the car. My third option is my Ruger LCP. It is only for when clothes make it impractical to carry anything bigger, which is very rare. I also have bigger pistols but they are all too big to carry comfortably without a jacket. The Glock 22 and SW MP 40 duty size are doable with an untucked shirt but not ideal.
*** I find "easy" and "comfortably" the keywords here. Both great reasons to select a CCW based on a person's priorities. FYI to all: There's not judgement in this inquiry. We pick what we pick for the reasons we pick it. And, there are tradeoffs. I will contest with those in denial (IMO) who truly think they have the best of both though.
That's not to say I am not proficient with it though.
*** Again, this inquiry is not about being non-proficient, it's about "more" vs. "less" proficient. I keep repeating that hoping it will be(come) clear to some/most reading this.
I disagree that most people would fully prioritize either choice. ... Myself, and I would gather many of us, are most proficient with a rifle or shotgun. Especially when talking about longer range engagement. Yet very few people try to carry either concealed. ... It inherently is a compromise.
***I very much agree on the first and last sentence. Bringing up the rifle and shotgun in a CCW discussion a bit of a red herring though.
I've never met anyone who walked away from a gunfight wishing they'd had a small firearm or less ammunition.
*** I have an idea many will unknowingly walk into one that way though carrying that tiny more comfortable gun. Again, you'll know after whether you had enough gun.
1. Reliability. If it doesn't work it's useless....
*** Captain Obvious arrives to state the obvious... and a given in original post outline.
I think that [reliability] was implied...
*** Yes, it was. And, stated, too.
Last edited:
allaroundhunter
Member
I go for proficiency, but if I get that with a smaller gun then I'm all for it!
shooter_from_show-me
Member
Proficiency!
I carry a CZ 75B stainless in 9mm with a Crossbreed super tuck with absolutely no problem at all. I am 6' 1" @ 240lbs
I carry a CZ 75B stainless in 9mm with a Crossbreed super tuck with absolutely no problem at all. I am 6' 1" @ 240lbs
as do I. my method of choosing a carry gun is to find the smallest gun that i am equally proficient with as compared to my competition pistol (glock 22). for me that is the ruger sr40c. smaller than a full size but just enough grip length to get a full grip. and i am every bit as accurate with the ruger as i am with the glock. the only thing i am giving up is capacity.
Vern Humphrey
Member
My criteria are, in order:
1. Reliability. It's got to go <BANG!> every time you pull the trigger. If it doesn't, it's just a funny-looking club.
2. Shootability. Given that it goes <BANG!>, can I get hits rapidly and reliably with it?
3. Power. It went <BANG!> and I got a hit. Is it powerful enough to do the job?
4. Concealability.
The gun that best fits all four is the M1911 -- my current carry piece for the last 15 years or so is a Kimber Custom Classic.
1. Reliability. It's got to go <BANG!> every time you pull the trigger. If it doesn't, it's just a funny-looking club.
2. Shootability. Given that it goes <BANG!>, can I get hits rapidly and reliably with it?
3. Power. It went <BANG!> and I got a hit. Is it powerful enough to do the job?
4. Concealability.
The gun that best fits all four is the M1911 -- my current carry piece for the last 15 years or so is a Kimber Custom Classic.
allaroundhunter
Member
Hard to argue with that
My new carry is a 1911 in .38 Super that my grandfather gave me prior to his passing. I began to carry it because of its significance to me, but since shooting it some I am realizing its potential as well.
Last edited:
r1derbike
Member
Comfort!
Comfort. I will never be as proficient with my 3.3 inch barreled XD-S as a larger, full-frame weapon with a longer barrel. It's just physics. Considering the fact that most BG scenarios are nearly on top of you, it is my choice to carry the smaller weapon.
I'm not here to argue the merits of one over the other ad nauseum. That's my choice, and I'm stickin' with it!
Comfort. I will never be as proficient with my 3.3 inch barreled XD-S as a larger, full-frame weapon with a longer barrel. It's just physics. Considering the fact that most BG scenarios are nearly on top of you, it is my choice to carry the smaller weapon.
I'm not here to argue the merits of one over the other ad nauseum. That's my choice, and I'm stickin' with it!
Vern Humphrey
Member
I envy you -- I wish my grandfather had left me such a gun.
"Equally" means the same, identical, no difference. So, why do you game with your Glock 22 if they are truly equal in action/speed shooting running full power ammo? Why don't top gamers use and win with two-finger grip guns, or even with "just enough grip length to get a full grip" smaller guns?
Seriously people, can we possibly think at least a little bit beyond the "it has to be reliable" token reply? Especially when that's a given, and also both stated and implied in the original inquiry.
Reasoned reply that acknowledges trade-offs. I see this reply, conceptually, as choosing the small/smaller more comfortable CCW that will address 80% of imagined/probable scenarios, or 85%, or 90%, or whatever the percentage is below 100%, then acknowledging those scenarios not addressed due to small/smaller gun size as an acceptable tradeoff. Of course this does not account for scenarios not imagined, or scenarios considered improbable that may yet still occur. Definitely trade-offs once we choose to leave the bunker.
Last edited:
spm
Member
And there's the rub. If it isn't comfortable, it tends to be left at home and it does no one any good there. My take is find a gun gun you can shoot reasonable well that is comfortable and practice, practice, practice until you are proficient with it. And yes, I also practice point shooting as well as sight picture.
wlewisiii
Member
A smaller gun that I am very proficient with.
scaatylobo
Member
1*
Since I only have 1 *,then I choose to carry all the gun I pray I never need.
Just my not so humble opinion.
I did carry as LEO for 26 years as well as on an armored car for another 3 years prior.
I got used to wearing at least 20 pounds of gear [ gun belt,vest,BUG ].
Since I only have 1 *,then I choose to carry all the gun I pray I never need.
Just my not so humble opinion.
I did carry as LEO for 26 years as well as on an armored car for another 3 years prior.
I got used to wearing at least 20 pounds of gear [ gun belt,vest,BUG ].
The_Armed_Therapist
Member
I carry my proficiency piece 80% of the time. The other 20%, I go with comfort. I voted for proficiency because I only go with comfort if I'm going to be somewhere for which deeper concealment is required. I'd rather utilize a combination of withstanding discomfort, avoiding those situations, and very rarely risking going unarmed than I would a small firearm that I'm only proficient with to 15 feet (and statistically less reliable).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked