Bigger perspective on CCW gun

[Corpral_Agarn]

No need to carry something totally useless like toy gun.

Right. So the average person's experience isn't enough to dictate carry choices.

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

That is your choice.
Should your choice (based on your assessment and experience) dictate what makes sense to someone else?
What if I think it makes sense to carry a full size service pistol? Are you wrong now?
No.

I challenge the idea that averages and norms have relevancy for people who carry guns daily for defensive purposes.
If you are strictly playing odds and chances, carrying a gun for self defense doesn't make sense. I mean come on! what are the chances!

Its not the chances, its the stakes.

 

[mbok1947]

In a decade in and around law enforcement I knew a significant number of police officers who had been forced to discharge their firearms, and was present on several such occasions, two of which resulted in the death of suspects. The "typical" scenario was really not different from the "typical" one we see and hear about for civilian CCW holders or those responding to business or residential robberies/intrusions . . . threat presents suddenly at close range, shots fired are usually less than 5, etc.

I agree that firearms/caliber/capacity choices are very personal, but the bottom like from my experience is that there is no distinction between defensive/offensive use. From the moment you buy a firearm through the time you strap it on in whatever way you choose up to the instant someone says "gimme your purse/wallet/car" you are in a defensive, essentially passive mode. At that instant you become the hunter if you wish to survive, assuming the conditions exist to do so. And you'd better display maximum aggression if you want to increase your odds of survival.

Big, little, medium, high capacity, etc. -- all dictated by personal choice and needs, but in the end all immaterial. The decision that counts is whether or not to take those steps in the direction of self defense open to all citizens, or to just take your chances on becoming a victim.

 

[PabloJ]

I used to carry a J frame 38 a lot. Great little gun and was very easy to carry. I dont anymore though.

One day I was at the mall with my daughter and she was playing in the indoor play area. I was reading about a mass shooting/terrorist attack that had happened that day. I can't remember which one though. Anyways I started looking around at the mall and realized that if that happened where I was all I had was a J frame 38. And if Johnny Jihadist came strolling in hollering about the Aloha Snackbar I dont want to be in a gunfight with a J frame 38.

After that I started carrying my Glocks again. Either a 27 when I need more concealment or my 17 when Im not too worried about printing. I also carry a spar mag.

If you encounter someone shouting God is Great they will probably be carrying AKM which means it will make no difference for you and J-frame .38 is heck of a lot more convenient to carry.

 

[X-Rap]

For years I carried a 380 in my pocket because work dictated I wear a tool belt and summer climate made me dress light.
I also became a fan of paddle holsters for my larger gun. I've since moved on to work in a mostly non permissive environment so depending where I am able to park I may be without access to a gun at all.
When I have a gun I don't view myself as hunter or victim but as someone who has lived long enough to evaluate my options and make rationale decisions.
I will tell you that this process has pretty much narrowed my serious choices down to the 380 and a compact double stack 9mm of polymer and steel.
Far from my only options I am convinced I will be more than most would want to tangle with and reject the premise that I'm doing any more than exercising my God given right.

 

[CDW4ME]

I have concealed a Glock 30SF or 19/23/32 size pistol (at minimum) for the last few years, including 100+ heat index.
I live, work, and vacation in "good" areas - doesn't matter - bad things happen in "good" areas, "bad" people are mobile.

 

[entropy]

If you encounter someone shouting God is Great they will probably be carrying AKM which means it will make no difference for you and J-frame .38 is heck of a lot more convenient to carry.

If you're implying others could not defend themselves against an AKM with a J-frame, so why not just carry the J-frame because it's lighter, you just might be wrong. The most important weapon is the mind. Some of us are trained to use it in order to overcome such disadvantage.

 

[C-grunt]

If you encounter someone shouting God is Great they will probably be carrying AKM which means it will make no difference for you and J-frame .38 is heck of a lot more convenient to carry.

Nah. I know guys that have won gunfights against people armed with rifles and they had a pistol. Ive seen it first hand. If I go up against a dude with a rifle Im already at a big disadvantage and Im not wanting to hinder myself more by using a handgun that has low ammo capacity and is hard to effectively use at range.

As far as shots over 21 yards being murder.... I can make a 21 yard shot inside my house.

 

[jmf552]

BergerFan222: You're perspective is your choice and I support that...for you. It is an attempt to coming closer to eliminating risk from situations involving lethal force by taking what is documented as being what has actually happened the overwhelming majority of cases and applying the challenge, "But this could happen also." And you're right, all those things could happen. But as I said, my approach to everything is about "likely risk management." Paraphrasing gunsmith, trainer and writer Grant Cunningham, "A platoon of N. Korean paratroopers could drop onto your front lawn. But it's not very likely, so it doesn't make sense to spend much time preparing for it."

With your perspective, I would think you should also wear a Level 4 vest at all times, because you could be the target of a sniper or an AK-wielding terrorist. You should be wearing elbow-length, bite proof gloves (there is such a thing) for all those animals you are worried about, because some of them may be on you before you can draw. Maybe a full bear suit would be a good idea. You should also run a serpentine pattern through parking lots. Of course I am being half-facetious, but those things would help in some situations that could happen.

As to the rape thing, the vast majority of those rapes you cite are by people the victims know. This means the rapists can get into contact range before the victim knows the rape is happening. Guns are less likely to be available or used in those situations. Guns are useful for the less common "stranger rapes" but I will argue that a snubby is the best gun for a contact situation like that.

As to the animal thing, if you are somewhere where there are packs of animals, I get it. Personally, I have never seen a raccoon or wild predatory animal where I live. There is a vicious Yorkie-poo on my block, but if a swift kick or pepper spray can't take care of him, I think 5 rounds of .38 +P will do it.

I think it's interesting that about 2/3 of the people in this country don't even own guns. Only about 0.5% nationwide have CC permits. A lot of those don't know how to use them and don't have any H2H skills to help them get to the gun if they are ambushed. I have seen an estimate that I actually think is on the high side, that less than 20% of the permit holders actually carry on their person most of time.

Yet, as someone who EDCs, has good SA, is a great shot and has H2H skills, I get taken to task by people who have a "hi-cap narrative" that they can't see past.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

BergerFan222: You're perspective is your choice and I support that...for you. It is an attempt to coming closer to eliminating risk from situations involving lethal force by taking what is documented as being what has actually happened the overwhelming majority of cases and applying the challenge, "But this could happen also." And you're right, all those things could happen.

You are wrong to assume I am reasoning only from what could happen rather than what actually HAS happened in incidents I have personally researched and that are more than theoretical possibilities in personal risk assessments.

As a farmer and cyclist, I have encountered more than my fair share of armed trespassers, threatening canines, and potentially rabid raccoons. I've killed far too many to get them all tested. I've used force at a distance against a large dog threatening my children. I've faced snakes and gators and two legged predators. If a snake is threatening you, your child, or an expensive animal and you are not loaded with snake shot, you want 15 in the magazine.

My rural lifestyle tends to put me more in contact with animal threats than with humans, but the meth head situation is raising the level of rural contact with scumbags. And having authority over rural hunting land always carries the risk of encounters with multiple armed intruders who may or may not be inclined to simply leave peacefully.

In Texas, the coons and hogs usually come in groups. When targets of opportunity appear, I try and take care of as many as possible in the encounter.

 

[X-Rap]

It's one thing to try and convince others that our way or belief is the right way but what usually happens here at some point is the belittling and offensive insults directed at those who have an opposing view.
The longer the thread the sillier it gets.

 

[Kleanbore]

.... I don't see combat oriented organizations who issue self defense guns so much - how many .32 snubbies are still issue?

Most service-caliber handguns are self defense guns. Very few people carry .32 snubbies today, and that has to do with effectiveness.

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.

Who would responsibly rely on the idea of "most of the time"?

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.

Where did that idea come from?

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.

I'm not sure I would charcterize seeking the edge for self defense as "conservative.

 

[jmf552]

You are wrong to assume I am reasoning only from what could happen rather than what actually HAS happened in incidents I have personally researched and that are more than theoretical possibilities in personal risk assessments.

As a farmer and cyclist, I have encountered more than my fair share of armed trespassers, threatening canines, and potentially rabid raccoons. I've killed far too many to get them all tested. I've used force at a distance against a large dog threatening my children. I've faced snakes and gators and two legged predators. If a snake is threatening you, your child, or an expensive animal and you are not loaded with snake shot, you want 15 in the magazine.

My rural lifestyle tends to put me more in contact with animal threats than with humans, but the meth head situation is raising the level of rural contact with scumbags. And having authority over rural hunting land always carries the risk of encounters with multiple armed intruders who may or may not be inclined to simply leave peacefully.

In Texas, the coons and hogs usually come in groups. When targets of opportunity appear, I try and take care of as many as possible in the encounter.

Ok, so you carry for where you live and what your experience has been and I carry for where I live and what my experience has been. I have been shooting handguns for over 50 years, shot competitively and I have been carrying regularly for 10 years. I didn't get to age 64 without a scratch by not being prepared for MY environment. So I hope we are in complete agreement.

 

[JohnBiltz]

BergerFan222: You're perspective is your choice and I support that...for you. It is an attempt to coming closer to eliminating risk from situations involving lethal force by taking what is documented as being what has actually happened the overwhelming majority of cases and applying the challenge, "But this could happen also." And you're right, all those things could happen. But as I said, my approach to everything is about "likely risk management." Paraphrasing gunsmith, trainer and writer Grant Cunningham, "A platoon of N. Korean paratroopers could drop onto your front lawn. But it's not very likely, so it doesn't make sense to spend much time preparing for it."

With your perspective, I would think you should also wear a Level 4 vest at all times, because you could be the target of a sniper or an AK-wielding terrorist. You should be wearing elbow-length, bite proof gloves (there is such a thing) for all those animals you are worried about, because some of them may be on you before you can draw. Maybe a full bear suit would be a good idea. You should also run a serpentine pattern through parking lots. Of course I am being half-facetious, but those things would help in some situations that could happen.

As to the rape thing, the vast majority of those rapes you cite are by people the victims know. This means the rapists can get into contact range before the victim knows the rape is happening. Guns are less likely to be available or used in those situations. Guns are useful for the less common "stranger rapes" but I will argue that a snubby is the best gun for a contact situation like that.

As to the animal thing, if you are somewhere where there are packs of animals, I get it. Personally, I have never seen a raccoon or wild predatory animal where I live. There is a vicious Yorkie-poo on my block, but if a swift kick or pepper spray can't take care of him, I think 5 rounds of .38 +P will do it.

I think it's interesting that about 2/3 of the people in this country don't even own guns. Only about 0.5% nationwide have CC permits. A lot of those don't know how to use them and don't have any H2H skills to help them get to the gun if they are ambushed. I have seen an estimate that I actually think is on the high side, that less than 20% of the permit holders actually carry on their person most of time.

Yet, as someone who EDCs, has good SA, is a great shot and has H2H skills, I get taken to task by people who have a "hi-cap narrative" that they can't see past.

I got a CCW originally as a "just in case" type of thing. If I felt I had a reason to start carrying then it would be bad to have to wait several weeks for paper work with a threat that is now hanging over me. A few weeks later a life long felon who spent most of his adult life in jail got out and moved in next door with his elderly mom and started an ongoing criminal operation. I suddenly had tweekers walking by my home asking each other if they had the bolt cutters and I started carrying. So I understand their point of view.

 

[Rexster]

I respectfully disagree with much in the original post. First of all, I am NOT going to assume I will only have to defend myself against one attacker, or that three rounds will suffice to finish any confrontation. Multiple attackers is quite normal in my area, and multiple rounds may be required to stop one attacker.

Second, I see little difference in the handgun I would want to use for combat/hunting, and what I would want to use for self-defense, because there are times that defending myself may involving hunting my attacker(s). Defending others may well involve longer-range shots than simply repelling a close-range robbery, and, yes, private citizens may well defend others. Family members may be some distance from me at a park, inside a store, etc., so defending my family may involve "hunting down and engaging another party."

Yes, I may well carry a somewhat smaller handgun during personal time than what I carry in my duty rig, but that is due to the realities of concealing weapons on my relatively slim frame. A G17 can be a bit much for me to conceal under a shirt, but a G19 fills my hand just as well, as I can get all of my skinny fingers on the grip. An SP101 also allows me to get all of my fingers on the grip. These are my usual minimum handguns; I rarely carry anything smaller, and I almost never carry just the one SP101 by itself.

 

[strambo]

Flawed premise in the OP on two issues IMHO. #1, nobody carries a "combat" handgun (as in-chooses a handgun for combat). They carry an M4, MK18 CQB-R, M249, M16A4, M240 etc. Sometimes they carry a sidearm as well. If they are in a role that typically doesn't engage in combat (support or officer) they carry a sidearm only for last-ditch self protection.

#2, there is no difference in threat level on an individual basis from a human trying to kill you in "combat" vs. a criminal trying to kill you. The combat environment makes capacity a consideration way more than for civilian defense, I'll concede that, but not for caliber/effectiveness.

People carry small guns not because they feel they are optimized for reactive self protection, but because they don't want to put up with the discomfort of a larger gun.

So, for CCW we can make capacity less of an issue, but the ideal handgun (has to be a handgun since we can't CCW an M4), still would allow for the best grip, sights and fastest split times in a caliber that will reliably penetrate and expand optimally. In the real-world that typically means a mid-size 9mm-.45 ACP, single or double stack. Pocket .380s and snub .38s are giving stuff up (capacity and shootability) for extra concealment and comfort.

I carry a P226 most of the time. Has nothing to do with "combat" or manly-hood or capacity. I shoot full size service pistols extremely well! I also carry a Kahr K9 on occasion, it still meets the criteria I laid out of full grip, good recoil control, full size sights and enough capacity for the expected civilian threat profile, especially at 7+1 and a spare 8rd mag.

 

[Kleanbore]

I have been shooting handguns for over 50 years, shot competitively and I have been carrying regularly for 10 years. I didn't get to age 64 without a scratch by not being prepared for MY environment.

That does not necessarily follow. It may just be that that very remote risk has not yet materialized, and of course it is possible that it never will. That does not speak to your preparedness.

 

[Old Dog]

Love the folks who justify their carrying small-caliber and limited capacity handguns based on "statistics." Do they keep the most petite-sized fire extinguishers in their homes based on the statistics that indicate most household fires are easily extinguished stove-top fires and believe in the minute percentages of homes that actually burn to the ground?

I don't choose a concealed carry handgun based on statistics. I carry based on what I think could be the worst-case scenario I might encounter.

And for those who can't grasp that even a full-size 1911 or a double-stack SIG P-series can be easily concealed, I suggest it might be time to stop worrying about being on the cutting-edge of current fashion. Even during my periods of maintaining some "tactical girth" I never worried about concealing pistols such as the SIG P-226 during summertime in Arizona. Sometimes I think those who obsess about concealment really over-think the concept.

 

[Chuck R.]

Love the folks who justify their carrying small-caliber and limited capacity handguns based on "statistics." Do they keep the most petite-sized fire extinguishers in their homes based on the statistics that indicate most household fires are easily extinguished stove-top fires and believe in the minute percentages of homes that actually burn to the ground?

I don't choose a concealed carry handgun based on statistics. I carry based on what I think could be the worst-case scenario I might encounter.

And for those who can't grasp that even a full-size 1911 or a double-stack SIG P-series can be easily concealed, I suggest it might be time to stop worrying about being on the cutting-edge of current fashion. Even during my periods of maintaining some "tactical girth" I never worried about concealing pistols such as the SIG P-226 during summertime in Arizona. Sometimes I think those who obsess about concealment really over-think the concept.

I choose based on the bolded, and take it an additional step by adding "what I can shoot well".

I'm lucky in having my own range, so I get to run a a lot of timed drills with different pistols. Before I decide to carry anything I'll take the time and ammo and run it through it's paces using some drills. I've found time and time again, that I hit more accurately and faster with a full sized pistol, this is especially true as the distance increases. It doesn't matter if a "problem" can be solved with 1-3 rounds based on statistics, my personal abilities allow me to utilize hose 1-3 rounds faster and more accurately out of a larger pistol. As a compromise I carry a compact (was a 1911 CCO, now an HK P2000) which I can shoot "almost as well". It just so happens that my preference in size also lends itself to increased capacity.

I know I'll use the pistol in a defensive capacity, not losing sleep over what others might think.

Chuck

 

[Ed Ames]

Sometimes I think those who obsess about concealment really over-think the concept.

Maybe.

I spent many years living in California where concealed carry was relatively rare and still regularly spotted poorly concealed guns in public. The 1911 muzzle peeking out from under a leather jacket on some guy eating lunch isn't going to be noticed by most people, and the few that do probably assume, "If that guy is so slapdash about concealing, he's not worried about getting spotted so has a licence or is a police officer."

Those people clearly weren't overthinking the concept, and it was fine. I can do the same thing today. I can wander around with a 6" barrel 1911 in in OWB holster without any concern about it being spotted. Not because it is impossible that someone might notice, but because it doesn't matter if anyone notices. And yes, if someone in that situation is limiting themselves to an NAA mini or whatever because they are worried about being spotted, that is overthinking the problem.

But what about the times when there can be real consequences to being spotted? What about the people who must go into an office every day and be surrounded by people who might see a visible belt clip as an opportunity to use company policy to knock out a competitor for the job they want? No, it won't mean jail or anything "serious", but I personally know someone who lost a six-figure salary because a co-worker recognized the clips of their IWB holster and reported them to HR. Are those people overthinking the concept when they say that normal concealment isn't good enough for their situation?

 

[jmf552]

That does not necessarily follow. It may just be that that very remote risk has not yet materialized, and of course it is possible that it never will. That does not speak to your preparedness.

So my read of that is you are implying that because I don't carry a full size hi-cap I'm on the same level of unpreparedness as someone who does not EDC at all, does not know how to use a gun, has poor SA and does not have significant H2H training. I don't see how you can support that opinion.

 

[strambo]

So my read of that is you are implying that because I don't carry a full size hi-cap I'm on the same level of unpreparedness as someone who does not EDC at all, does not know how to use a gun, has poor SA and does not have significant H2H training. I don't see how you can support that opinion.

He isn't saying you aren't prepared. He is saying that just because you made it to age 64, it doesn't prove you are prepared. The 2 things (what type of gun you carry and how long you've lived) are not causal. You could encounter a situation you are not prepared for tomorrow...or never (we all could). To point out the 2 aren't automatically linked doesn't imply the opposite, it just means they aren't automatically linked.

I can believe the totality of your experience, judgment, situational awareness, EDC, and environment have had a great contribution to your still being here. But the gun size? No, we can't know that one way or the other.

I went to Baghdad in 2005, so since I made it back without a scratch, I must have been prepared for that environment.

(Hint, nope, but either way the two statements aren't causal. Tier 1 operators as prepared as anyone on the planet, can and do, get killed and the most unprepared can survive.)

 

[huntsman]

For me small is easier to carry than big but when I carry big then I want 10+ in capacity and light in weight.

What I need; guns I'm accurate with, confident in and most important, on my person as much as possible. These are my needs, wants and goals.

My carry patterns are still evolving to the point where I may drop the little gun all together but a 7 year habit is tough to break.

 

[azrn]

just carry the best gun you can. It beats a sharp stick.

 

[jmf552]

He isn't saying you aren't prepared. He is saying that just because you made it to age 64, it doesn't prove you are prepared. The 2 things (what type of gun you carry and how long you've lived) are not causal. You could encounter a situation you are not prepared for tomorrow...or never (we all could). To point out the 2 aren't automatically linked doesn't imply the opposite, it just means they aren't automatically linked.

I can believe the totality of your experience, judgment, situational awareness, EDC, and environment have had a great contribution to your still being here. But the gun size? No, we can't know that one way or the other.

I went to Baghdad in 2005, so since I made it back without a scratch, I must have been prepared for that environment.

(Hint, nope, but either way the two statements aren't causal. Tier 1 operators as prepared as anyone on the planet, can and do, get killed and the most unprepared can survive.)

Well, that's a logical, Mr. Spock kind of analysis, with one problem: I didn't say that's what he said. I stated that's what I thought he was implying. It's one thing to read. It's another to read between the lines. If that is my take on his statement, it logically cannot be wrong, because it is indeed my take on his statement.

Besides, why not let him answer my question on his own?

 

[strambo]

Well, that's a logical, Dr. Spock kind of analysis, with one problem: I didn't say that's what he said. I stated that's what I thought he was implying. It's one thing to read. It's another to read between the lines. If that is my take on his statement, it logically cannot be wrong, because it is indeed my take on his statement.

Besides, why not let him answer my question on his own?

He can if he wants.

"Reading between the lines" that he is implying you aren't prepared is the same logical error in reverse, so if that is what he meant, he's wrong. Neither is correct based on the facts in evidence.