Still going, huh?
I just got back from a road trip out-of-state for several days. This time around my choice of LEOSA weapons was a CS45 (3.25" .45 ACP subcompact that uses 6-rd mags); one of my 642-1's and my NAA BW 2", with the .22MAG cylinder installed (as an "Onion Field" type weapon). For some recent previous trips I've taken as my "big gun" my 4013TSW, which is a 3.5" compact .40 that uses 9-rd mags, or one of my G26's. The smaller guns carried as options (for varying situations) are usually either a J-frame and/or a LCP.
Considering my last handful of
issued pistols (since just before my retirement in '09, to up until at the end of last year, when I resigned my reserve position) were a compact 7+1 .45, a compact 8+1 9mm and then a standard size .40 15+1, I'm not exactly "wedded" to the idea of always, or exclusively, having to carry a "hi-cap" pistol everywhere on my own time (or when I was still actively on-duty, for that matter).
Yes, I'm familiar with a respectable number of on & off-duty shootings that occurred either at my own agency or one of the many other local ones, and have some small familiarity with info received during training of even more shootings ... so it's not like I'm making such decisions regarding my own off-duty (and now retirement) CCW choices just based upon the nightly news or reading articles in gun magazines.
If I didn't mention it in my last post, I've known a number of folks who have experience in both firearms training (including as instructors), and familiarity with shooting incidents, and it's not at all unusual for them to decide that an off-duty weapon which holds 7-9 rounds is sufficient for them for their anticipated off-duty "needs". Still some guys who feel comfortably prepared enough carrying 5-shot snubs, too (although the 6-7 shot subcompact 9's are really working to edge out the formerly ubiquitous 5-shot revolvers among newer cops and shooters).
I still know some older, experienced guys who think their 5-shot snubs are still
sufficient enough to be carried against the off chance they may require being prepared to defend themselves against 1 or 2 armed attackers, though.
Sure, there's nothing "wrong" with opting for hi-cap choices and/or carrying larger handguns (including opting for choices among the larger defensive calibers).
However, if someone is trying to compensate for a concern of being lesser skilled and experienced, so they think a bigger magazine capacity or bigger caliber is going to offset their lesser skills and abilities? Perhaps some attention to some further skills development, overall abilities and some more familiarity with shooting their "choice" of equipment might be in order. Maybe.
As a firearms instructor I've had ample opportunity to hear and see lots and lots of personal choices by folks when it comes to off-duty weapons, as well as a fair number of guys & gals who had CCW licenses and attended some training where I was an instructor. It's always well and good for folks to enjoy explaining and "justifying" their choices for concealed handguns, whether it be for off-duty of CCW usage, and there's never any particular shortage of opinions and reasoning offered.
However, for training and practice purposes it always comes down to being able to demonstrate using those choices safely, effectively, accurately and controllably, out on the firing line.
The ability to put timely and sufficiently numbered holes (depending on the scenario involved) in the intended "threat" targets doesn't equivocate. Misses of the intended threat target, and holes in "non-shoot" (judgment) targets, are
shooter problems.
For some folks, having hi-cap mags seems to mean the opportunity for might what might charitably be described as "hi-cap misses".
Equipment can be
cool. No doubt. It sells equipment (and advertising in gun magazines, blogs, etc).
A skilled and experienced
user is arguably cooler.