First, the TSA doesn't security screen ANY of it's employees and will hire felons. Along with that is the need for a vehicle at my destination so - I don't fly.
When they let me fly with an M16 the same as on deployment then I'll consider it.
Reading up on transportation of firearms I see where frequent flyers typically lock the firearm inside the case to slow down having it stolen by the inspectors. Goes to the TSA does NOT screen employees . . . and guns ARE stolen.
Since I will CCW all the way there then using the firearms I normally do and having them on me is what will happen. As far as travel thru non reciprocal states then it's the same as flying with an M16 - if I can't then I don't go thru that state.
This means at my stage of life I will likely never visit CA again. Too bad for them, they don't need my tourism supporting their anti gun stance. Same for NY, NJ, etc.
It does very much go to this: if you don't have an issue with visiting a non reciprocal state or one that bans you from carrying, and that's ok with you, then you accept that you don't need the firearm in the first place.
You either draw a line in the sand or you are willing to compromise. Compromise means not carrying. Not carrying means accepting the risk. Accepting the risk means giving up your 2A right and supporting the anti gun sentiment in that state.
If you can do that why bother owning a gun?
If you do think you need the gun, why give it up? It's supposed to be ON YOU, not locked up in the cargo hold.
So, I don't fly and I don't go where my guns aren't liked. So far I'm not missing out on much, it's their loss. They need to change their attitude, not me.
I see no reason why I need to compromise - if LEO's, Agents, and the TSA can carry onboard loaded cocked and locked, then a 22 year veteran former MP can too. Or I'm not flying.
There are 55 million adults who own firearms and as long as the current system denies us our rights then it will continue to be an imposition. But - if 55 million gun owners make a different decision, then I have NO doubt it would be a significant and noticeable statement. It's unfortunate that those who impose this don't have to fly with no guns and can ignore the issue.
Privilege and being special snowflakes causes that.
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/law-enforcement
Only one in one hundred have served in the Armed Forces, I don't see where adding one more armed person on a flight of one hundred would make a serious situation in light of the others who already are.
For the most part it's security theatre and I'm not the only one who refuses to cooperate with it. I will travel armed carrying or I won't travel at all.
What gun is best for traveling? The gun you normally carry. If you think it might be lost, then it's not the best gun you should have on you. Using it will guarantee it will be taken away from you anyway. Don't carry guns with special emotional attachment because of that.