Carrying a Small Gun for SD

[larry_minn]

My "warm weather, don't want to bring real gun" is a S&W sigma .380. I realize its a limited life handgun. (was told 5k rds is expected life span) No spare mag. With sights, trigger, me its a 38' gun. Those that can shoot 100 yards... Well its not me. (not and hit a 1' sq target on first 4 shots)

I am not as happy with .380 after St Cloud shooting got up couple times. After being shot. (with I think a 9mm)
As its getting cooler I would normally use it less anyway.
May look into one of new single stack 9mm.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Keep in mimd that the shooter was using a Ruger 10/22 rifle and killed all 5 victims with no survivors.

Even a lowly .32 automatic would have been more gun than that pea shooter...

 

[BLB68]

A .22 rifle is more likely to put its rounds on target than a .32 pocket pistol. The rifle shooter would still have the advantage. The bump up in caliber is insignificant. A .22 LR from a rifle has plenty of penetration, and wound channel sizes aren't going to be noticeably different.

 

[benEzra]

There is a difference between saying "small guns are suboptimal compared to larger guns", and "small guns are worse than bare hands". The former is a good point, the latter is ridiculous.

A well-made .32 ACP may not be as capable as a midsize 9mm, but it is a *lot* more capable at 10-25 yards than your bare hands are. And if someone were barricaded in a room with an active shooter in the building, I think it would be much better to have a .32 in hand than a fire extinguisher, pocketknife, or nothing at all.

 

[FAS1]

I'll take having my P3AT with me than not. While my preference for CCW is my G26, the .380 is always in my pocket and better than nothing. It's no target gun, but at a defensive distance, I'm quite sure I can hit my target center mass and can stop the threat.

 

[Tirod]

Choosing which smaller gun starts with what cartridge. There are some who explain why the .32 is a better cartridge than .380 - which is a good starting point for selection. Even so, the .22 properly placed can do the job. It's the less than optimal hit where we prefer larger bullets with more power - just the same as deer hunting - to stop.

A gun is just a tool to extend our physical reach and multiply force in order to apply violence where it's justified.

What features you may need are the next decisions. Size of the gun is less important - what you need is a trigger you can operate comfortably, which then decides what kind of safety, or not. Next is whether the gun holds open the slide on the last shot. It's important because most of us won't be counting them carefully, our minds will be engaged in other higher priority decisions like shoot, move, communicate. We need to know if the gun is empty, rather than be informed when it doesn't discharge. If you needed that last shot it's better to know it and reload for it than rely on it and be horribly misinformed. That issue leads to whether you carry an additional magazine.

After all that, the sights come into play, and I put them that far down because once you are being shot out accuracy is already going to be affected by a lot of things. Case in point many PD's use larger guns with excellent sights but the hit ratio for cops isn't all that. What counts is if you continually practice to maintain skills - and if you do, then a gun with less than optimal sights will prompt getting used to them, or upgraded.

People make an argument about cost of a firearm but for the most part if you are shooting it regularly in practice then the "you get what you pay for" factor starts slipping in and the value engineered guns will be discovered and replaced. For the cost of two of them you could have been using a better quality gun in carry and practice at the range which would still be reliable - and trusted. It beats wondering whether a replacement will have the same failure point in the not so distant future, along with having to break it in again at the expense of the extra ammo. If you are still practicing it's no more money, for those who purchase and drop in a pocket, tho, it's another - 500 rounds? Up to another $100 in expense proofing a gun to be reliable. You could just spend the money toward the better gun and save yourself the expense of having to do it again with a cheap one because of it's short service life.

I'm likely one of the more frugal gun buyers but it has begun to sink in.

And because of that I would recommend considering a used firearm - which opens up models no longer made due to the passing of fashion in firearms in the last twenty years. If you buy new you get to pay that one time premium for merchandise that comes with being the first to operate it outside the vendors store. It's costly, whether a firearm, motor vehicle, or other. But a well cared for used gun - or even a police trade in - can get you one that has 1) duty grade options, like slide hold opens, night sights, etc. and 2) has been shot enough you just need to check for proper spring tension. At most you buy a kit and reassemble for optimal use.

In the process you can select a firearm you like, is proven, and which is reliable. Junk doesn't make the grade when you are choosing from the select and limited choices of LEO models issued by departments.

If weight alone for pocket carry is the ultimate goal, then it does include models you may not have looked at - don't lightly dismiss them until you have actually handled them and pulled the trigger. How the whole package goes together is what you will be working with, and what looks optimal on paper may be less so in your hand. Take the comparison between a Remington R380 and Kahr CW380 on trigger pull - in my hands, the R has a longer trigger pull and I find that last fraction of an inch just before it breaks and then contacts the frame to be an issue. The Kahr was not only shorter but smoother - to me. You can't go by my experience, tho, it's not a situation where word of mouth will fit your hand or how you pull a trigger. Go find out for yourself and see - you will be relying on it.

Of course, in the big picture, we've done just fine over the centuries picking up an issue weapon and going to war with their one size fits all triggers. You can get used to them, and maybe we make more of them than we should. Since we do have a choice in personal weapons, tho, it builds a rapport with that gun that allows us be more confident in using it. And we should extend that with regular shooting practice, which gets us to the last feature, recoil when you fire it. Firearms in the same cartridge can have completely different recoil impressions which can be remarkably unpleasant - or entirely fun. Heed the feedback about those which are harsh or knuckle bangers and when you try them out, you will find out for yourself. Some guns are so light with such harsh unlocking characteristics a practice session can be miserable, where the next reduces the peak impulse and stretches it out over a slighty longer split second the shooter wonders if someone slipped in a low power load. It goes to building a handling reaction, and harsh firing gun can build up a reaction to not pull the trigger or expect an unpleasant experience. You don't need flinching to be part of your package trying to defend your life.

How many pick their best choice in gun the first time? Well, it takes experience, life changes us, and we find our decisions can be remade. Gun stores, auctions, and gun shows are full of guns with few rounds down the barrel. Don't let the first blush of attraction decide things.

 

[Polar Express]

Tirod,

Very well written, and I agree. Thank you for your post!

PE

 

[Rexster]

Any gun is enough, until it isn't. That applies to the 5-shot snub-gun, as well as a 30-shot sub-gun. Even an FN-FAL will not be "enough," some of the time. The training issue applies across all weapons.

A 5-shot snub-gun is going to be "enough" for most situations encounted in civilian self-defense, if the defender is prepared to do his part. A service/duty-type handgun allows the defender an increased number of options. A service handgun with a double-column magazine allows the defender still more options. A rifle, especially with a magnifying optic, allows still more options. As the presumed defender, I must decide what is important.

As my aging eyes become a larger factor, two things become important: Natural pointability, in my hands, and good sights. A properly-set-up S&W J-Snub, or SP101, offers me that. Some service/duty pistols do not point well, and/or have sights that are largely useless. In the case of the SP101, the factory grip is just about perfect for my hand, and the stock front sight a quite decent one, so the only remaining improvement might be a Trijicon front sight. A bit more barrel length makes things better, still; my 3-1/8" SP101, fitted with a spurless hammer, may be my perfect/sweet-spot compact, ambidextrous, defensive handgun, that I can truly hide under my clothing, on my slender frame, without having to "dress around the gun."

I would rather have two SP101 snub-guns than just one. More ammo is a relatively minor reason. Accesssibility is more important. (With revolvers, I do not have a naturally "weak" hand*.) From 2002 to 2006, my usual off-the-clock carry ensemble was a pair of SP101 snubbies, and a stout blade, in a big city, in the southern USA, not known for being "safe." This was when my on-the-clock duty pistols were a G22, and then a P229R.

I should note that I have nothing against J-Snubs, or the people who prefer them. In my hands, however, a J-Snub's frame concentrates recoil on the base joint of my thumb, unless I use over-sized grips that cover that part of the frame. Over-sized grips make a J-Snub into a much larger overall package, and the SP101 grip is perfection in my hands, anyway, so a J-Snub is simply not a best choice for me.

Having said all of that, I have tended to dress around double-column-magazine auto pistols, most days, since 2006. With retirement now not far over the horizon, however, and age already affecting some of my physical capabilities**, a weapon allowing me to "take the battle to the enemy" is becoming less important than having a weapon to "scrape an enemy off of me." 2017 may well be the year I return to revolvers for most of my handgunning.

*I write lefty, and throw rightie. Many handguns are close to neutral.

**Minor nerve damage, in one hand, complicates running a slide, and some other aspects of manipulating autos.

 

[.455_Hunter]

A true "man of arms" should be able to put effective fire on a target regardless of platform.

Beretta 950, S&W Model 36, 1911, Sig 226, Ruger Vaquero- It does not really matter if the user has the correct skills and mentality.

I also do not agree that just because some buffoon (who just left mom's basement this morning and bought an AR-15) is shooting up the mall with a rifle, that he automatically has superior firepower and tactical advantage over a trained pistol shooter.

 

[herrwalther]

If you want to be prepared for every possible active shooter scenario, you need to carry an AR with a couple of mags. Red dot at least.

But for most of us, carrying something that big is pretty impossible to conceal. Unless you have a Christopher Lambert magic trench coat handy. So you make sacrifices to size, capacity etc. The give and take of every gun situation. As of right now, I carry a full size or duty size handgun. Roughly the size of a Glock 22. And a spare magazine when out of the house. That setup can feel pretty excessive when making short trips out of the house. Make your gun choices fill a need role in your life.

As far as the TTAG article is concerned, whoever their writers are over there must like poking bears with sticks to see what would happen. A gun, any gun, is better than having a knife or no gun at all. I don't care if someone carries a NAA mini with .22LR in it. They have a gun to protect themselves. Not my choice for a firearm but they HAVE ONE. And if someone has a Desert Eagle .50 or S&W 500 with 10 reloads, I am going to be asking what kind of belt they are using for that arsenal.

 

[scaatylobo]

Having been in a circumstance where I was NOT armed properly for the possible confrontation with 4 ARMED MEN.That was only the first time,there were others.

I am of the FIRM belief that if there is a need to be armed [ and a threat is that need,and you do NOT know when that will happen ] then you need all the gun that YOU feel is enough to stop the threat,or at the very least escape with your loved one's in tow.

Glock 23 is my choice,and as voiced by another VERY wise poster here = I am thinking about the Glock 19 to replace the G-23 for many reasons.

Firepower prior to the reloads I carry [ at all times ] ,and the fact that the new 9's are very able to stop as well as I am able to aim .

AND do not forget the MUCH faster follow up shot.

I am sure y'all will as you please,as will I.

But you did ask !!.

 

[hdwhit]

My "mouse gun", an RG-25 (a zamak masterpiece), is probably the one gun I have the most experience with in so-called "stressful situations". It points naturally and across an average size room a "center-of-mass" hit is a virtual certainty for me.

 

[GRIZ22]

One needs to arm themselves to deal with the potential threat. That includes the likelihood of that threat occurring. Level V body armor, an AR, and a high capacity 9mm is about the most someone can do. However it's not what is needed for most encounters.

Most SD encounters fit the Jeff Cooper definition of "the range is close, the target is large, and you'll have plenty of time". If you look at the one shot stops (from a variety of sources) most handgun calibers from 380 up are pretty much equal. When you shoot twice or more incapacitating of the assailant makes the 22, 25, and 32s work pretty good.

What the charts don't reveal is the number of incapacitations that are the result of not wanting to be shot again. Not that they were physically incapacitated they stopped because they didn't want to get shot again.

An assailant with a knife or even multiple unarmed assailants are much more common than the organized terrorist attack or the nut job running through a theater or mall. For those cases where there are multiple armed assailants or a long range shot is required a full size service pistol in a healthy caliber make sense.

But that's not the norm.

If you're attacked by multiple assailants with physical force or with any weapon short of a firearm if you shoot one guess what? It's not fun and easy anymore.

Carrying a small gun is not the best for all options but it will work most of the time. Remember to shoot more than once.

 

[Old Dog]

The smallest handgun I carry (as an "only" gun) is my SIG P-938. I feel quite confident in my abilities to make shots out to, let's say, quite a ways. I actually feel pretty confident in my wife's P-238 (which I do consider a "mouse gun") as well.
Less confident in capacity, which is why I typically carry a full-size pistol.

I did give up on carrying J-frames as an only gun as years of practice did not see me acquiring the skill level I desired; I could be quite accurate with the platform, but I dislike the recoil, the sights and capacity.

For me, I don't use products based on others' opinions, but simply what works best for me. Perhaps I'm fortunate living in the PNW, where we have to wear a fair amount of clothing year-round, but even when living in Arizona, I had no problem dressing around a full-size handgun.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

'A well-made .32 ACP may not be as capable as a midsize 9mm, but it is a *lot* more capable at 10-25 yards than your bare hands are. And if someone were barricaded in a room with an active shooter in the building, I think it would be much better to have a .32 in hand than a fire extinguisher, pocketknife, or nothing at all.'

Aha! You've seen that Homeland Security video, too -- the one on what you do in case of an active shooter.

It's sobering that our government thinks we're dumb enough to bring a fire extinguisher to a gunfight.

 

[luffy100]

i carry an FN 5.7. its lovely. best carry gun ever. you should check it out

 

[browningguy]

My view of the TTAG article is it's just a bunch of hogwash, provocative and badly off point. If I know I'm going in harms way I'm going to carry my Benelli M2 or an AR, but I'm not usually going to do that. As a civilian I normally choose not to go where the trouble is.

My usual everyday carry these days is a Walther PPS in 9mm, reasonably small, reasonably accurate, and easy to shoot but only 8 rounds. Sometimes I have to go into the big city to pick up wood for my woodworking hobby, but two of the best suppliers in town are located in fairly seedy parts, so then I carry an XDm with 20 rounds of 9mm. But quite often out in the suburbs I will just stick one of the .380's in my pocket and go about my business, sometimes it's even the KT P32, and I feel fine with one of those compared to going naked.

If I am honest I am much more accurate, and faster, with my Sig X6 in it's competition holster, that's a given. But I just can't carry 4 pounds of pistol around all day, and I believe it's better to have a mouse gun than a stick.

 

[Ironicaintit]

After reading the article....
I think the key for how the author meant the article to be taken lies in reason #4.

Not that I agree with his conclusions, but still...

Some people who carry a concealed firearm really don't practice enough! Itty bitty pistols really are more difficult to wield effectively, and the calibers they come in really are less effective in taking the piss and vinegar out of an assailant.

Combine the lack of power, with the less than ideal grip, sights that leave a lot to be desired, with an inexperienced user.... And then add the bravado that "packing heat" may carry with it....
And you have a potential situation where somebody totally gets in over their head, and then becomes a victim of their own vigilance.
I'm totally just reading in to it, that it's a recommendation to "go big", instead of being insufficiently armed, instead of it being anti-gun in pro-gun clothing.

I'm pretty good with my P238, and do carry it sometimes when a higher degree of discretion is called for. But I sure feel a lot better when the hi-power is there instead!

Like I said; I don't agree with his conclusion, but I can sympathize with what he's driving at.

 

[Barry the Bear]

I oft carry a Taurus 85 in .38 spl with a berretta Jetfire in .25 acp as a backup, It works out fine for me and I can put both on target fast and both are fist size accurate in my hand to about 10 yards.

 

[Deaf Smith]

You fight with what you brought. Can't go back and get that big 'un.

But I warn you. Once the fur flies, no one ever wished for a smaller gun nor for less ammo.

Carry what you wish but don't come a-crying if it ain't enough.

Deaf

 

[justice06rr]

The Burlington, WA mall shooting a couple days ago took place about five mins from the college I'm attending. I carry a Glock 19 most days, but obviously not at school. At any rate, the shooting at the mall kinda re-ignited my interest in picking up an alternative, smaller pistol for CC at times the G19 is less desirable for one reason or another. I'm leaning primarily toward the Ruger LCP.

Came across this TTAG article on "small" guns just now and it seemed kinda insane to me. Literally, having no gun at all is better than having a small gun? Because (1) you'll probably miss anyway, (2) you'll just piss off the bad guy resulting in the escalation of violence, and (3) you'll overlook a better option than using the gun.

I'm pretty darn sure this wasn't intended to be satire, but with reasons like those, surely I'm wrong. (You're just going to piss him off? Really??) Or do people really feel that way? What do you think about carrying a mouse gun or small gun in certain situations?

I stopped reading TTAG a while ago because they have too much ads on their site and most of their articles are not accurate and seem immature to me. I would not take that advice seriously about carrying a small gun vs no gun at all.

The LCP is a great little pistol for ccw if the G19 is too big. I have a G19 as well and have never cc'd it due to size. I use my LCP and it fits perfect in a pocket.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

"You fight with what you brought. Can't go back and get that big 'un.

But I warn you. Once the fur flies, no one ever wished for a smaller gun nor for less ammo.

Carry what you wish but don't come a-crying if it ain't enough.

Deaf"

Or as I put it, most disasters happen because someone PLANNED to have a disaster. If you find yourself in a gun fight with a mouse gun and no reload, it's because you PLANNED to have a mouse gun and no reload.

 

[Old Dog]

One thing I know for certain: Out of everyone I know who's ever used a firearm for a serious purpose in a real-world situation (this is a sample size of more'n a few people) -- and this includes citizen self-defense, military and law enforcement -- exactly NONE currently carry a small handgun for self-defense.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Well, the military went to a smaller gun -- the M9 in 9X19. But of course the decision was not made by men who ever used a handgun in combat.

 

[Chuck R.]

Well, the military went to a smaller gun -- the M9 in 9X19. But of course the decision was not made by men who ever used a handgun in combat.

Not really, the military went to a smaller caliber, not a smaller gun. The M9 is just about the same size as the 1911 it replaced. If memory serves, the M9 is actually slightly longer.

Back on the original topic, I prefer a mid-sized pistol as I shoot them better. It just so happens that the majority of mid-sized guns are double stacks so I end up carrying 13-16 rds depending on the gun. I suppose I could download the mag since statics show I won't need the extra ammo, but since the weight isn't killing me I might as well keep it topped off.

Does anybody set any minimum standards as to what they'll carry besides caliber? Something quantifiable, like "If I can't get X score on an "El Presidente" with Pistol Y" I'm not carrying it? Seems to me a few timed drills would be an eye opener when it comes to the capability's of some of the smaller pistols.

In my case the smallest I'll go is my Walther PPS-9, but my EDC 90% of the time is an HK P2000 in 357SIG.

Chuck