Bigger perspective on CCW gun

[Zaydok Allen]

Personally I see every handgun as a defensive tool, in regards to concealed carry, unless you are a murder of some kind or a contract killer. Then having a small short range weapon makes sense since you are likely trying not to draw attention to yourself.

So for my purposes, the distinction between a defensive handgun and a combat handgun is a distinction without a difference, since I'm not military or police.

I think it's just a matter of assessing what potential threats you could be exposed to, determining the importance of concealment for your particular circumstances, and then choosing an appropriate tool for the job that makes you feel "adequately armed".

If I know I'm going into combat or a firefight, I'm not going to choose a handgun at all, except as a backup weapon.

Use and intent determine what label we put on a thing. So when the media calls an AR15 used in a mass shooting an "assault rifle" they are correct, since it was used to assault someone. However to most of us, an AR15 is a defensive weapon or a piece of sporting equipment.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

What can and does separate them is something else - do you go looking to engage in shooting with another human being, or is it carried to respond to someone who may have selected you to be a victim.

The first circumstances are all about hunting down and engaging another party. The second that you are responding to being hunted down. The first is combat, the second is self defense. .

My experience is that when the lead flies, it doesn't matter if he came looking for you, or you came looking for him. You need a weapon that will do the job. My standards are:

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 went BANG!, can you hit with it?

3. Power. Given that it went BANG! and you got a hit, did that end the fight?

4. Concealability. If you're carrying concealed, you need a gun that is adapted to that. For example, my M1911 and my Colt New Service are close in the first three factors, but the M1911 with its thin and flat profile is much more concealable.

5. Capacity and/or reloadability. My experience is that you should expect a 90% degradation of performance in actual combat. That means that no matter how good you are on the range, you have to expect to get only a small percentage of hits in combat. You need to be able to keep shooting until you get a hit that ends the fight.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

While I think I get Tirod's intent, I have to say that I disagree with a lot that's been posted.

My main goal for dealing with attackers is looking like a guy that is more trouble than he is worth.
Next is getting the heck outta Dodge.
Last on the list is fighting.

If I must fight, then I will do what I can to deploy the best tool in my tool box, which happens to be a handgun.

As far a my choice of handgun, I am with Vern on this one.
I choose a medium sized pistol so I get the shootability and power that I (personally) would like to have.
The medium size makes it slightly easier to conceal and lighter, but I still have to 'dress for the gun'.

 

[JohnBiltz]

A tire iron is a tool used to change tires, if someone is coming at you with one its an offensive weapon. Tools and guns don't choose, its all about how its being used.

 

[X-Rap]

Sorry but it just seems like over thinking a fairly basic concept.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

Some of the early trainers I worked with preached to "dress around the gun." Even in the east Texas heat, dressing around something of the size of a P229 is not to hard for a grown man. Even some ladies I know do it pretty well. 20 years of training and practice with the same gun also bring a level of skill that will likely prevail more times than not. But the fact is, as a large, healthy man, most of us in rural east Texas are more likely to use our handguns as predators than as prey: deer, varmints, hogs, etc. Offense or defense, it's the same tool.

Over the decades, I've taken care to avoid gunfights, since "you win every gun fight you avoid." I check crime maps before deciding whether to go to many events, and I religiously avoid certain neighborhoods and even whole cities. Odds are I will be old and frail before I'm likely to be in a deadly force encounter. Many younger men in my family and ladies take a different approach. Young and invincible, they are often drawn to the city and neighborhoods and bars that I take care to avoid. Parents and elder family members impart what wisdom and shooting skills we can, but youth and life circumstances dictate many will make some of the same mistakes we did regarding risk exposure.

The first rule of a gunfight remains, "Bring a gun." But just as the prof above was well served with his self-defense training without one, I trust that the family members I've helped trained will do OK if ever caught without one due to legal prohibitions (not 21 yet, college campus, etc.)

When I first began carrying, I was much younger and did not anticipate that more powerful calibers would become painful to shoot in a P229 sized handgun. Odds are by the time I am 70, I'll need to step up in size (P226 or 92FS) and down in caliber (9mm) to maintain the proficiency I like. By that time, I may even be frail enough to look like possible prey again, or the inner city insanity may leak out to the safer rural areas where I prefer to dwell.

 

[C-grunt]

I dont carry a bigger gun because I feel more macho. I carry a bigger gun because I like to win my gunfights.

 

[jmf552]

I have worked in the safety industry and I see carrying as risk management. In the case of self-defense, risk prevention is not achievable. I could liken it to fire extinguishers. I have them (as well as fire detectors) throughout my house, but they are for putting out small fires, not a full conflagration. I'm not prepared to be a professional firefighter. It makes no sense for me to have professional firefighting equipment, even though I was trained with that in the Navy.

The same with carry guns. No gun you could carry would protect your from every possible threat. LEOs are in a different situation, because they have a duty to move toward the danger and stay in the fight. If non-LEOs want to prepare for "combat" that is their right and they have my support, but that is not my choice. The documented reality for non-LEOs is:

• Most people will never get in a life or death situation for which a gun is the best solution. (although it's good to be prepared for one!)
• Most people who do get in a life or death situation that a gun could solve will resolve the situation just by brandishing.
• Most people who do get in a that a gun could solve, but brandishing doesn't work, resolve it with one shot, regardless of the number of attackers. Mostly groups of attackers scatter when the gunfire starts. One study of over 240 non-LEO shootings found not one instance of co-conspirators coming to a main attacker's aid once a defensive shot was fired.
• Most people who do not resolve the situation with one shot, resolve it in an average of three at a range of less than three yards.
• The main thing in a gunfight is to have a gun and be able to use it.They key in most non-LEO situations seems to be speed and shot placement, not capacity.

So the situation to my mind is you can't prepare for everything, but a fairly minimal solution can prepare you for most things. I EDC a .38 +P snubby in my pocket and another in the car that I can quickly switch to be a second carry. I'm 100% confident they will take care of 90+% of situations I could get into, that they are as close to 100% reliable as guns can be and that I can hit with them under pressure at 90+% of the ranges I might have to shoot at. If I ever feel under-gunned, I will add my 1911 to mix with two extra mags, but I will also be asking myself: Should I really be going where I feel I might need my 1911?

I also believe shooting is not my first defense. There is situational awareness, being in Condition Yellow most of the time,* being ready to find good cover and/or run, pepper spray, a knife and 25 years of H2H training. I will shoot if I have to, but I will avoid it if I can.

* At least to the extent that I don't have to go through the "What's happening, this can't be happening, it is happening, what should I do" thought chain of Condition White.

 

[grouselips1]

Do you think some gun owners choose to carry the larger combat oriented guns because they see them as more "manly" than the smaller ones? It seems the posted prose describing the two different categories certainly lends support to that.

On the one hand - it's combat, the opposition of armed men valiantly trying to overcome the other, vs mouse gun, meant to aid someone in scurrying away from conflict, as all cowards do. Are we seeing some paint each category in the colors they perceive instead of analyzing the intent and purposes behind them?

I don't disagree their may be more mouse gun carriers out there than government marked surplus models but I have been younger once and in those days machismo was part of the mindset. It took training and experience to learn me better.

I don't think macho has come into anyones meaning or response here. Let's look at a few things. And before I get on my little soap box, I welcome all of you, especially tirod, to jump on in. Your initial post is not really clear and I haven't seen a direct address to part of it. I have heard a few flirt with the term hunting in this post and use it to mean hunting humans. I for one am offended by that. That my friends is called "premeditation". Another made a comment about 21 ft or 21 yds. For the legally challenged, lets clarify that. 21 ft is a defensive shooting, 21 yds is murder, as you would have a horrible time defending yourself in court in that you were not in the path of a direct threat to your life or a position to retreat. There may be scenario that defies that logic, but it would be extremely rare, kind of like a winning powerball ticket.

Combat is both a verb and a noun. If you doubt that, please look it up. As such, any shooting could be termed combat, whether defensive or offensive. CCW however denotes the style of carry, concealed and I think we can all agree on that and not the actual act of shooting or fighting. What is generally understood and accepted regarding CCW is that one does this for defense of self, loved ones or innocents. I don't know a single person whoever indicated they were going to carry concealed to hunt down and engage a human, do you?

Most defensive shootings statistically happen within 7 ft. Most violent crime street crime, involves multiple attackers. Most criminals are smart and will do what is necessary to tip the odds in their favor. When I attended my first law enforcement administration class, the instructors first statement was that "crime pays and it pays very well. We only catch about 3% of the perpetrators ". That statement in itself should tell you that a criminal will use whatever is necessary to prevail in his illegal endeavors.

Your title makes no sense. It is not a bigger perspective on CCW. It denotes something a bit darker. Care to explain yourself?

 

[Zaydok Allen]

The documented reality for non-LEOs is:

• Most people will never get in a life or death situation for which a gun is the best solution. (although it's good to be prepared for one!)
• Most people who do get in a life or death situation that a gun could solve will resolve the situation just by brandishing.
• Most people who do get in a that a gun could solve, but brandishing doesn't work, resolve it with one shot, regardless of the number of attackers. Mostly groups of attackers scatter when the gunfire starts. One study of over 240 non-LEO shootings found not one instance of co-conspirators coming to a main attacker's aid once a defensive shot was fired.
• Most people who do not resolve the situation with one shot, resolve it in an average of three at a range of less than three yards.
• The main thing in a gunfight is to have a gun and be able to use it.They key in most non-LEO situations seems to be speed and shot placement, not capacity.

I believe you are correct about many of these assertions, but since these things are documented, can you please provide links to that documentation? Some of us like to read that stuff.

I am not a math whiz, but stats interest me, since they can be interpreted in a lot of ways.

 

[Ed Ames]

I have heard a few flirt with the term hunting in this post and use it to mean hunting humans. I for one am offended by that. That my friends is called "premeditation".

Are you referring to this line of reasoning, from the original post: "...you are responding to being hunted down."? I think that was the source of the hunter/hunted discussion.

I don't know if you are offended on the hunter's behalf, or don't like being considered prey, but it seems fairly innocuous in any case.

Put it in a different context that makes the same point: Cougars are big strong hunters. To avoid being cougar food, one option is to match strength against strength and be another big strong hunter...I doubt many bears are eaten by cougars and vice versa. It isn't the only option. Porcupines can avoid being cougar food by being more trouble than they are worth.

The message I took from the post was that trying to match force against force would lead people down a path towards carrying absurd guns (a .458 socom was mentioned) and it was therefore maybe not an ideal way to think about the problem. Instead we should be more like the porcupine...not the strongest, not the fiercest, but difficult to prey upon without getting hurt and therefore less likely to be prey.

Another made a comment about 21 ft or 21 yds. For the legally challenged, lets clarify that. 21 ft is a defensive shooting, 21 yds is murder, as you would have a horrible time defending yourself in court in that you were not in the path of a direct threat to your life or a position to retreat. There may be scenario that defies that logic, but it would be extremely rare, kind of like a winning powerball ticket.

That "21 yard" comment was in reply to someone arbitrarily saying that a G17 is somehow an "offensive weapon", while an LCP is not (because the poster thought they were hard to shoot accurately at long range). Now you say that a specific distance makes you a murderer.

Maybe both of you are simply wrong? I think people were trying to find nice ways of saying that to the "G17 = offensive" guy. Circumstances are always unique, distance is only relevant in context, the model or perceived accuracy of a weapon doesn't somehow make it "offensive" or "defensive".

Now, to be fair, I completely agree that finding yourself in a situation like Jeanne Assam (defensive shooting with a handgun at 20 yards) is actually far less likely than winning the lottery, but that doesn't mean it is appropriate to make blanket declarations that "X is murder", no matter how much "for the legally challenged" bluster you add.

 

[X-Rap]

Spot on again Ed.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

The documented reality for non-LEOs is:

• Most people will never get in a life or death situation for which a gun is the best solution. (although it's good to be prepared for one!)

• 
  
  A steady stream of studies shows 30-40% of women are sexually assaulted at some time in their lives. While this may not be a "life or death" situation it is a substantial risk of great bodily harm which justifies the use of deadly force in most jurisdictions.
  
  A few years back I looked up the hospital admissions for the county I lived in. There were many more admissions for dog attacks than human attacks with the deadly force was threatened. The threshold for use of a gun is much lower when attacked by an animal. Police are also more likely in most places to use their handguns to thwart dog attacks than against a human.
  
  

  [*]Most people who do get in a life or death situation that a gun could solve will resolve the situation just by brandishing.

  
  Most human predators understand brandishing. It is less effective against threatening dogs and rabid raccoons and the like.
  
  

  [*]Most people who do get in a that a gun could solve, but brandishing doesn't work, resolve it with one shot, regardless of the number of attackers. Mostly groups of attackers scatter when the gunfire starts. One study of over 240 non-LEO shootings found not one instance of co-conspirators coming to a main attacker's aid once a defensive shot was fired.

  
  Threatening dogs and rabid raccoons tend to scatter also. But my experience is that the ones you don't take care of in the first encounter will likely be back.
  
  

  [*]Most people who do not resolve the situation with one shot, resolve it in an average of three at a range of less than three yards.

  
  This is true in most cases of self-defense. Ranges tend to be longer when resolving "situations" in defense of others.
  
  

  [*]The main thing in a gunfight is to have a gun and be able to use it.They key in most non-LEO situations seems to be speed and shot placement, not capacity.

  
  Sure, but who is preparing for "most" encounters? My experience is that Murphy was an optimist. It's not hard to have speed, shot placement, and capacity.
  

So the situation to my mind is you can't prepare for everything, but a fairly minimal solution can prepare you for most things. I EDC a .38 +P snubby in my pocket and another in the car that I can quickly switch to be a second carry. I'm 100% confident they will take care of 90+% of situations I could get into, that they are as close to 100% reliable as guns can be and that I can hit with them under pressure at 90+% of the ranges I might have to shoot at. If I ever feel under-gunned, I will add my 1911 to mix with two extra mags, but I will also be asking myself: Should I really be going where I feel I might need my 1911?

Good on you. Having provided concealed carry courses to a number of shooters, my experience is that shooters who were willing to practice enough to be proficient with the smaller guns like the +P snubbies were the exception rather than the rule. The path to proficiency was usually faster with quality, service sized pistols in 9mm and such.

I also believe shooting is not my first defense. There is situational awareness, being in Condition Yellow most of the time,* being ready to find good cover and/or run, pepper spray, a knife and 25 years of H2H training. I will shoot if I have to, but I will avoid it if I can.

* At least to the extent that I don't have to go through the "What's happening, this can't be happening, it is happening, what should I do" thought chain of Condition White.

Agreed. But escape and evasion is much easier for a young, healthy man by himself than someone who is beginning to face the ravages of age and infirmity or has young children in tow.

 

[JohnBiltz]

Are you referring to this line of reasoning, from the original post: "...you are responding to being hunted down."? I think that was the source of the hunter/hunted discussion.

I don't know if you are offended on the hunter's behalf, or don't like being considered prey, but it seems fairly innocuous in any case.

Put it in a different context that makes the same point: Cougars are big strong hunters. To avoid being cougar food, one option is to match strength against strength and be another big strong hunter...I doubt many bears are eaten by cougars and vice versa. It isn't the only option. Porcupines can avoid being cougar food by being more trouble than they are worth.

The message I took from the post was that trying to match force against force would lead people down a path towards carrying absurd guns (a .458 socom was mentioned) and it was therefore maybe not an ideal way to think about the problem. Instead we should be more like the porcupine...not the strongest, not the fiercest, but difficult to prey upon without getting hurt and therefore less likely to be prey.



That "21 yard" comment was in reply to someone arbitrarily saying that a G17 is somehow an "offensive weapon", while an LCP is not (because the poster thought they were hard to shoot accurately at long range). Now you say that a specific distance makes you a murderer.

Maybe both of you are simply wrong? I think people were trying to find nice ways of saying that to the "G17 = offensive" guy. Circumstances are always unique, distance is only relevant in context, the model or perceived accuracy of a weapon doesn't somehow make it "offensive" or "defensive".

Now, to be fair, I completely agree that finding yourself in a situation like Jeanne Assam (defensive shooting with a handgun at 20 yards) is actually far less likely than winning the lottery, but that doesn't mean it is appropriate to make blanket declarations that "X is murder", no matter how much "for the legally challenged" bluster you add.

Not that rare. Tom Givens, a nationally known trainer has had 62 former students involved in gun fights. I believe 3 of them were in excess of 15 yards. The longest shot was out of an upstairs window by a woman shooting an attacker off her husband who was already down on the ground in her front yard. You are not always shooting just to defend yourself. Of the 62 students, sixty survived their gunfight, 2 did not bring a gun and died. So of sixty samples, pretty small sample to be true, one of twenty was long range shooting or 5%.

There are shockingly few statistics about self defense shootings. The three shots and 3 yards in 3 seconds seems like the most popular theory but there are no real facts supporting it. Not saying its wrong, just saying there are no real statistics supporting it because there is no one gathering reports and producing statistics.

 

[Ed Ames]

Not that rare. Tom Givens, a nationally known trainer has had 62 former students involved in gun fights. I believe 3 of them were in excess of 15 yards.

Interesting, and it shows how hard it is to be right when making blanket statements on this sort of subject. I've heard of a handful of cases generally involving the (rare) armed responses to mass/public shootings (which are themselves vanishingly rare), and extrapolated from there, but of course that would underestimate the number of long range legitimate defensive shootings if 5% of all defensive shootings are at over 15 yards. I suspect that there is some selection bias going on (people who take a class like that are more skilled and therefore would have the confidence to do things most people wouldn't or couldn't do) but I could not prove that.

 

[WYO]

This post is not addressed to anyone in particular.

When one is in a movie theater minding his own business and a guy with crazy eyes and orange hair shows up dressed in some kind of faux tactical gear and a gas mask and starts slinging gas irritants and shooting with an AR15 and covering the exits, is shooting at him at 25+ yards really going on the offense? When a man and a woman start shooting AR15s at the attendees of a winter holiday party, is aggressively firing at them instead of chancing a run for the exits “hunting people?” How about a mall shooter? If one is going to carry a gun, why limit one’s self to a gun that only works against some “statistical average” threats and distances one may encounter? Isn’t doing so conceding that one likely will fail if the incident in question is outside the statistical norm? The technology is to the point where a person can carry a real gun with real sights in a service caliber that is only slightly bigger than a J frame revolver and weighs less than the standard steel J frame weighed about 20 years ago.

 

[Sunray]

CCW is not and never will be, 'combat'. CCW is not "Being the hunter" either. Nor will you being getting into 'gun fights'(If Johnny Jihadist came strolling in with an AK, having only a pistol won't help get your daughter out of harm's way.). It's highly unlikely you have any kind of training(Martial arts included) to do any of that. A CCW course certainly is not that kind of training.
It's about self-defence and nothing more.
"...easy for me to get "the most hits, fastest."..." This is the only criteria that matters.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

CCW is not and never will be, 'combat'. CCW is not "Being the hunter" either. Nor will you being getting into 'gun fights'(If Johnny Jihadist came strolling in with an AK, having only a pistol won't help get your daughter out of harm's way.). It's highly unlikely you have any kind of training(Martial arts included) to do any of that. A CCW course certainly is not that kind of training.
It's about self-defence and nothing more.
"...easy for me to get "the most hits, fastest."..." This is the only criteria that matters.

I am reminded about what John Thomason said about the Banana Wars of the '20s and '30s -- "They were not declared wars, but a man could be killed as dead as if he were in the Argonne Forest."

And a man or woman can be killed by a criminal just as dead as if he or she were on Iwo Jima. When people are shooting at you, you are in combat, no two ways about it.

 

[paulsj]

An average person will never find themselves in situation where shots are exchanged. That is especially true if they live in small towns or out of way places. It makes no sense to for most people to carry large capacity metal or metal/plastic "bricks".

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

An average person will never find themselves in situation where shots are exchanged. That is especially true if they live in small towns or out of way places. It makes no sense to for most people to carry large capacity metal or metal/plastic "bricks".

I disagree.

If average people will never find themselves in a situation where shots are exchanged, why not carry a plastic airsoft gun? Its lightweight. Looks real.

answer: because bullets might be required. How many? what distance? how much time do I have?

Who knows?

Carry what you are thinking gives you the most advantage that you can carry. And to each their own.

We don't carry because of what we think will happen.
We carry for the unthinkable, the unexpected, and outside the average day in the life.

 

[shafter]

If my life is on the line I want the most effective gun I can manage and I'm willing to make reasonable concessions to have it with me on a daily basis. For me a Glock 23/19 is a pretty reasonable choice. Big enough to conceal and big enough to actually fight with.

 

[paulsj]

I disagree.

If average people will never find themselves in a situation where shots are exchanged, why not carry a plastic airsoft gun? Its lightweight. Looks real.


answer: because bullets might be required. How many? what distance? how much time do I have?

Who knows?

Carry what you are thinking gives you the most advantage that you can carry. And to each their own.

We don't carry because of what we think will happen.
We carry for the unthinkable, the unexpected, and outside the average day in the life.

No need to carry something totally useless like toy gun.

I would pick small alloy framed .38spl or subcompact pistol .380 or 9mm Luger.

 

[shafter]

An average person will never find themselves in situation where shots are exchanged. That is especially true if they live in small towns or out of way places. It makes no sense to for most people to carry large capacity metal or metal/plastic "bricks".

Small town doesn't mean small danger. While the odds of an encounter are in your favor if your number comes up you're fight might be just as violent as in any large city.

 

[scaatylobo]

While we do choose a CCW gun based on some interesting personal choices, one thing does need to be sorted out first. I came to this thinking about what the definition of a "combat" handgun would be and it boiled down to if you're pressing the trigger - it's combat to you.

They are all combat handguns from that perspective. Type of action has little to do with it.

What can and does separate them is something else - do you go looking to engage in shooting with another human being, or is it carried to respond to someone who may have selected you to be a victim.

The first circumstances are all about hunting down and engaging another party. The second that you are responding to being hunted down. The first is combat, the second is self defense.

But in discussions about "Which gun should I carry?" we see models from both. There are a lot of CCW who carry combat oriented firearms. On the other hand, I don't see combat oriented organizations who issue self defense guns so much - how many .32 snubbies are still issue? I make that point because it's not as easy to see for some. Reversing the perspective might make it clearer.

So, if we aren't issuing Combat Master .32 Colts in coyote cerakote, why choose a double stack double action with barrel over 4"? I see it happening a lot - plenty of full sized 1911 fans carry. But are those really handguns for self defense against a predator?

Not arguing any gun is better than no gun. The point is that if you are hunting predators, you pick enough gun plus an ample amount extra because you don't accept the odds working against you on a two way range.

On the other side, do you need to lug around 19 rounds and attempt to conceal a Commander sized gun when most of the time we read it takes less than three shots - if any - to resolve a confrontation in self defense.

What I see is that the very conservative trend in self defense is to accept and use every little edge to increase the odds against an aggressor. OK - the accelerated trend will then take us to carrying an AR Pistol in .458 Socom with binary trigger. But somewhere along the line, common sense does intrude and we are far from doing that.

No, a self defense firearm can be much less and still considered sufficient.

Let's look at the contrasting conditions:

Being the hunter, you may encounter multiple targets and want to exploit the bounty of your fortune. Being hunted, you have one predator and flight may be your better response.

Hunter, you prefer to engage at longer distances. Hunted, you might find distance to be too close. Barrel lengths are involved here, as is concealability.

Hunter, you prefer accurate and precise sighting, hunted, up close and personal means almost point blank engagements at contact distances.

With those and other comparisons we could come up with, it should become clear, a duty gun is more oriented to combat, for a hunter, and a self defense gun is meant for the hunted, who is not running to the sound of gunfire, but maneuvering in a retrograde manner. Often with family in tow. Not many use their wife and kids as cover in a shootout.

The question "What guns should I carry for CCW?" should now be somewhat clearer for those who are considering it. At one extreme we have military and duty grade full sized double stack double action firearms suitable for a 20 year fleet service life, with annual qualifications, monthly practice, and daily carry exposed in holsters. On the other hand we have single stack guns, possible single action, which may be shot a few times a year for familiarization but not always as a primary range gun, which have less barrel length, are overall much smaller, might be carried deep concealed, and some which may never see sunlight for months at a time.

One type of firearm and it's use are not necessarily the best for the other job.

THE way I choose what I 'need' to carry is I envision my " worst case scenario ".

Then I prepare for that and pray that NOTHING at all happens.

I would truly hate to face that scenario,and remember that I chose to go "light" that day.

If I meet my maker,I pray he tells me that I tried with all my might to stay alive,and if I fail = so be it.

That means I am NOT allowing myself a cute ,easy to carry pocket / mouse gun.

Unless that is my BUG .

 

[paulsj]

THE way I choose what I 'need' to carry is I envision my " worst case scenario ".

Then I prepare for that and pray that NOTHING at all happens.

I would say .22 rimfire w/ adjustible sights and 4" to 8" barrel would be best way to go. What I man is after total system collapse you would be able to get rabbits, starlings, pigeons......to make tasty stew.