Carry philosophy / perspective agree or disagree with me.

Not necessarily. It is an ad absurdium poll, in the sense that few choose to carry a .22 as their only gun. Disagreeing with the question does not automatically put one in the camp of "I only carry guns whose calbers start with '4' ", it mostly just points out that most rational gun owners will carry something a bit larger than a .22 given a choice. When I carried them, I didn't have a choice, except the .22 (or 2 shot .22 Mag) or not carry. When I got a larger handgun, ( 2 1/2" Python) I carried it.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Imagine how dull life would be if we all carried G19's?

 

No, nope and no way. Been active all my life but now old, arthritic and asthmatic. All the more reason to be adequately armed.

 

Then my friend a NAA .22 would not be your choose anyway, probably could not properly manipulate it. But do you look like a weathered old gentleman who looks like he knows how to take care of himself. Are you alert, when you slow down in life you notice more, see more. Would you be able to tell if something was amiss at that local store? Would you even go to said store at a late hour because of your limitations? It’s all part of the big picture. Like I said carry the biggest gun you can be effective with, however, one size does not fit all!

 

I look like an aging hippie (my avatar was taken during a rare period when my hair was short) and I remain as inconspicuous as possible.

Details matter

To the chagrin of my wife

I have to be in dire need of something to venture out in late hours, period.

We are all different. I've always carried at least a compact size pistol with an extra large capacity magazine. Back problems eventually limited me to pocket carry (9mm minimun). After my spine fusion I was able to again carry my compacts, but alas, that was short lived. I stuff my pocket with the largest sub-compact 9mm that fits and easily clears when drawing.

I am definitely showing signs of aging, but far from disabled. Sorry if I misled.

 

Then my friend you get it! Its good that you have figured out a way to carry the biggest gun you can. Now to take this full circle. If you were having a bad back day and the only thing was comfortable or made sense was that NAA. You have fulfilled the first rule, have a gun! Be well! V/R Bill

 

I don't have any real experience to add to this but several years ago I worked at a residential crisis intervention center for kids.

My consistent experience with the parents was that driving 90 miles to visit their children or meet with the treatment team was considered a road trip.

One staff member who did home visits reported to the families were amazed that he drove the 90 miles from our little town in the mountains to the city and they were even more surprised that he intended to drive back the same day.

There is a clinical term for what he was talking about but I don't remember it. The concept was that most people stay in their comfort zone and in their world.

 

Its not about that he chose the 22. - could be a different caliber and it wouldn't matter.
Its about perspective.

Turn this on myself to try and present it another way.
I usually carry a Glock 17 (99% of the time).
When I push mow the yard or jog, wearing gym shorts, I carry a PM9 (1% of the time).
One could say according to the OP sometimes I would prefer to defend myself with a PM9 - And I would say touché.

 

There's a difference between preferred and suiting mission parameters (whatever those are). These things almost never line up. I'd prefer to carry a rifle around because I'm better with one than a pistol. However, that's impractical and illegal where I live so I carry a pistol.

In this guy's mind it's likely the same. He'd prefer something else but mission dictates (in his mind) his 22.

 

I disagree since I can't assume why "someone" chose a .22 mini over the other two choices. I would guess he chose the mini .22 for convenience and their perceived lower threat level of "a quick trip to the store."

 

In my area thieves and car jackers target "pretty good" and more often "really good neighborhoods" BECAUSE the people that live there leave their cars unlocked with keys inside thinking it won't happen to them. Your choice of "fair weather" carry is your business. I live in a "pretty good area" and I know there's a higher threat level if I have to drive through the inner city at 3AM. I choose to carry no matter where I go. Odds are you never will regret your choice but I know I won't regret mine.

 

I simply do not carry or employ a 22RF outside of paper target shooting. My EDC is a S&W Shield 9X19mm and on rare occasions a S&W M640 38Spl. Those that employ a 22RF that's their choice.

 

I see you reading the answer into your question that you wish to see.

I also see the phrasing being subtly manipulated to better suit your own beliefs.

"Prefer to defend"?

How about rather than asking which they may 'prefer' to use to defend themselves, they ask themselves if they are able to use any (or all) of the possible choices to 'fight' to defend themselves? That puts more of the emphasis on the individual and their ability to effectively use their choice, whatever it may be. The gear choice is still an important one, but maybe not in ways initially considered.

If we're talking personal perspectives ... I tend to look at the diminutive .22LR/MAG revolvers as being more of a last resort, "Onion Field" type of 'hideout' CCW weapon.

Bottom line? Unless someone is having to deal with an employer's policy or a local regulation (CCW license restriction, etc), I tend to prefer to leave such decisions up to the individual who may have to live with the consequences of their choice. That means I don't try to impose my perspectives and beliefs on them. Their choice, their responsibility. Not my business.

 

It’s a calculated risk, to be sure. I’ve lived in some marginal areas where I carried no less than a .380 to take out my garbage. I’ve also lived in some small rural towns where realistically there would and will never be a need to carry at all for “social” purposes.

 

Chuck Hawks put things into one chart. Don't quite know where he got his .22 LR info, but there it is.

https://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm

 

This discussion turned almost entirely into a what's better for self defense discussion. Unless I missed something the original question as presented simply asked if the fact that a person happened to choose the NAA 22 in a particular instance does that automatically make it their preference.

Unless you can read their mind how does this automatically make a choice at a particular time a preference? Maybe they just flipped a coin. Maybe they just grabbed whatever was nearby when they were walking out the door. Maybe they were, rightly or wrongly, comfortable with any of those guns.

I don't see how you can conclude an instantaneous choice is a preference. I often choose to carry something that isn't necessarily my number one preference.

The original question did not ask which was the best defensive weapon but that is what most people addressed.

 

Right several people are incorrectly addressing the weapon.

I'll leave caliber completely out.
Somebody has big gun and little gun.
They shoot big gun better.
They could carry big gun for that trip to the store if they wanted to (a choice).
Maybe they don't want to wear a belt which big gun requires (a choice).
Maybe they don't feel like wearing the holster big gun requires (a choice).
For whatever reason they choose to carry little gun, and by doing so if they have to defend themself it will be with little gun.
Defacto preferred because they chose it when they could have carried something different; they just might not think of it that way.

 

De facto preferred? Just because they chose it over something else? You're assuming they preferred it because they chose it over another option for a specific task?

A simple, common definition of 'preferring' something means to like it better than something else. Choosing something for a specific role or task doesn't require that someone like it best. Not even for that task.


It's not unusual for someone to choose something for a specific task for reason(s) other than thinking it's best. Especially when size, weight and other attributes may mitigate someone's choice of equipment in a specific set of circumstances.

And especially when it involves concealment of handguns being employed in the role of dedicated defensive weapons. If that weren't the case, only large, full-size handguns would exist. There's a reason that increasingly more compact handguns have been designed and chosen over larger existing models over time.

Now, does that preclude the possibility of some particular choice becoming an example of diminishing returns at some point, and especically in some application? Not at all.

 

Also, considering the stated wording of the thread title, meaning using the term 'carry philosophy', I see it as somewhat broad and deliberately used in a way that can lend itself to mean whatever someone may wish it to mean.

Personally, I look at a 'carry philosophy' to be something as simple as having decided that lawfully carrying a concealed weapon in some circumstances and situations fits someone's personal needs. If someone wishes to be more specific, that's their prerogative, but that doesn't mean it becomes axiomatic for any/everyone else.

In my time serving as a firearms instructor the significant majority of the people were cops and retired cops, but there were several years when I was also occasionally involved in teaching classes of private citizens (interested in obtaining/renewing CCW licenses). The reasoning for 0n-duty cops to carry was obvious, of course. Ditto to some extent for off-duty cops. Retirees and private citizens? Their business. If they chose to explain their reasons to me, I tried to avoid getting distracted with discussing their reasons.

Now, when multiple handguns might be involved, carried by someone, and if they asked me which one I thought might better suit their needs? I usually tried to put their attention back on how they'd felt while running some course-of-fire using it, and pointed out their relative scores. Sometimes I might comment how it had appeared to me, observing them, if they were handling, manipulating and controlling their shots better with one handgun compared to another one. But it was still their choice, made for their reasons, and I tried not to read anything into their thinking.

 

Some people use euphemisms instead of just saying it like it is. (Not saying you, but this is the spot to address it).
I'm not willing to put on a belt to go to the store. If that is so, it would be the truth.
I'm not willing to wear a holster on belt. If that is so, it would be the truth.

Task, risk assessment, anticipated threat, just may be said in place of (as a euphemism for) I'm not willing to.

Example: I can't = I can't carry at work its prohibited - That is a truth, correct use of can't.
Example: I won't = I won't wear a holster on belt to go to the store - That is a truth, correct use of won't.
Example: I can't = I can't carry a Glock/Shield/365 to the store because the task doesn't require it. Incorrect use of can't and task is a way of not saying I won't.

The "task" when carrying is in case you have to defend yourself, same task wherever.
Its the same wherever because we want ASAP incapacitation potential wherever.
Intentionally choosing the 22 in the OP is by action saying that one thinks 22 sufficient for stopping threats, it doesn't matter where.
If 22 is sufficient for stopping threats at the store in a good area then it should be equally sufficient in a bad area, or where threat assessment is higher.

 

I had NAA Mini Revolvers. They were fun to play with. They also served as a third carry gun. I did not shoot them well consistently. I would not use it as a only carry. If I were to carry a 22 for an only carry it would have to have at least 10 rounds and be a tack driver. At this point I don’t own a 22 except a old rifle I got for $20. My minimum is a pair of J - Frame 38s. Since mid January I’ve replaced one of the 38s with a Springfield XDm 9mm. Not everyone could carry all I carry but I’ve done this for a lot of years and it’s second nature at this point. Every thing concealed every day with T-Shirt and Cargo Shorts. 2 handguns, reloads for each, knife, pepper spray, multi tool, flashlight, plus all the normal stuff like a phone etc. you can see bulges on my belt but you never see guns. Lots of people carry phones and things on their belt.

 

Not necessarily. Again I'm not advising caring a 22. But that assessment is always a thing. My duty gun is a Glock 17 with a light, red dot, and 4 mags. By your measure that is wholy sufficient for everything. But for me it isn't. Because when we are chasing a car that just did a drive by and the suspect bails out and runs off into a wash, I'm grabbing my Colt. The threat assessment there is far higher than the "someone egged my car overnight" call. A rifle is my preferred weapon for searching for known bad guys and gunfights. But the vast majority of time I'm not carrying it because my day to day tasks don't require it.

 

A Glock 17 is easily concealed under a loose untucked shirt, a Colt AR is not.

 

A little conflation can go a long way, though.

Is it one of those "we prefer truth over facts" things?

If someone chooses not to put on a belt to go to the store, does that mean they 'prefer' not to wear a belt? Or that not wearing a belt is better than wearing one? Maybe it's just a situational thing for the moment. Maybe they just don't feel like changing out of sweat pants to pants with belt loops?

Ditto deciding not to put a holster on their belt (if they're even wearing a belt). Does it mean they prefer not wearing a holster, or believe it's always 'better'?

When handguns are a compromise in the first place, choosing when to carry whatever size & caliber handgun is just another aspect of the original compromise premise. If someone wants to claim that they're the ultimate arbiter of what's right and proper? Well, who gets to decide that?

Situational context and the circumstances people anticipate encountering on any particular day are going to matter to the people making such decisions for themselves. Trying to make everyone conform to the same ideals someone arbitrarily decides is 'proper' is like thinking it's appropriate to make everyone have the same beliefs, for all things, all the time, etc.

People can be judgmental ... and yet think they're being reasonable and using common sense. That yellow brick road has ended up putting folks out in the weeds, now and again.

Might as well think it's a good use of one's time to argue how to pronounce tomato and potato.

People have made 'less than optimal choices' as long as people have been around. People who have made the (seemingly) right choices have occasionally also found that they may come up short even when making that same choices that have been 'right' for them at other times. Life can be funny that way.

In the meantime, if someone chooses a handgun, regardless of caliber and carry method ... what's the chance they may actually be able to use it safely, accurately and effectively under even the worst of conditions? Will they even see it coming? How long will they be stuck in the "freeze" part of the freeze, flight, or fight response? Will they even be able to successfully negotiate the Observe part of the OODA Loop when something bad happens?

Getting too sidetracked with trying to determine what's adequate 'gear' - let alone presuming to think it ought to apply to everyone - may not prove to be a great thing.

What would think of being denied entry to a particular training class you wished to attend, but the instructor/staff decided that only people carrying .45ACP pistols were sufficiently armed or serious about their choice in caliber, and nobody carrying 9/.357SIG were allowed to attend? Probably disgruntled? Disagree? Question what

Opinions are like armpits. Everyone usually has a couple of them, and they can begin to smell when things get warmed up.

Basically, I would have to say I probably disagree with your original opinion stated in your OP. However, it's certainly your prerogative to have a personal bias about such things. Different strokes, after all.

 

1. My example, the degree at which either is conceals is moot. Both are carried openly.

2. Rifles and PDWs are getting small enough to carry concealed. A 300Blk or an APC9k can and are carried concealed regularly by guys needing to, and they are far more effective at gunfighting than a Glock 17. So why aren't you dressing around it for your daily activities?

 

"A Glock 17 is easily concealed under a loose untucked shirt, a Colt AR is not."

So, choosing the smaller gun that is less effective and you do not shoot as well, simply for convenience, is reasonable to you?[