The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: General Handgun Forum

View Poll Results: Which one of the three handguns would you pick for concealed carry?
S&W .357 Model 627 V-Comp 8 9.76%
Sig 9mm P226-Combat TB 62 75.61%
FNH .45 FNX-45 Tactical 12 14.63%
Voters: 82. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 10, 2014, 10:31 PM   #26
AK103K
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Location: PA -- In the shadow of the Shade
Posts: 7,913
I guess Im one of the lucky ones, as my everyday attire is pretty casual, Carhartts/Dickies, tee shirts with an untucked oxford shirts in the summer, fleece or sweatshirt in the winter.

I suppose having two sets of trousers is a personal choice. I prefer to wear my normal size, and while initially snug when you put the holster in, they quickly stretch to a perfect point, where they hold the gun and holster more securely, with no shifting around. They also look like they fit. The waist isnt the only thing "bigger" when you start going up in waist sizes. Bigger clothes look out of place and look like they dont fit.

I personally think anyone can do pretty much anything, if they "want" to do it. This really is all about "want" more than it is "cant". Im not big, nor do I wear over sized clothes, all my shirts, trousers, jackets, etc, are my normal size, and I dont dress out of line for my job or lifestyle, even as it might have changed over the years. Ive never had any troubles doing it. Then again, I want to do it. Im sure if I can do it, anyone else could, if they "wanted" to. "Trouble" I suppose, is something else that falls under perception.

All Im getting at here is, the OP seems to want to carry a full sized gun, for whatever his reasons are, and thats cool, if thats what he wants. He seems to have the "want" part figured out, so why tell him he "cant", because you choose to follow that line of thinking?

This "cant" thing seems to be something that intertwines its way through many of the threads anymore. It seems more of the various "problems" this or that gun has, is because someone "cant" deal with something about it they havent worked out. The trigger is bad, the grip angle is wrong, its to big, its to small, etc, etc. Henry Ford was right.
__________________
“The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he is on.”
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Zeitgeist - The Movie
AK103K is offline  
Old April 10, 2014, 11:33 PM   #27
DannyB1954
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2013
Location: Pahrump Nv USA
Posts: 403
I would also like to see a none of the above as a choice.

My edc is a Ruger SR9C, but it also has been a Glock 27, a Ruger SP101, and a S$W 38 bodyguard.
DannyB1954 is offline  
Old April 11, 2014, 05:47 AM   #28
treg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 26, 2006
Posts: 1,020
Of the three pistols presented I'd go with the 627. (minus the comp)

It would be the most accurate of the bunch and able to shoot a wide variety of ammo types and bullet shapes. I like the adjustable sights so the bullet goes where you aim.

For me the grip of a gun is the biggest obstacle to concealing. With the Smith there is a huge array of options to maximize both concealability and shootability.
__________________
"Courage is being scared to death and saddling up anyway." - John Wayne

.44 Special: For those who get it, no explanation is necessary. For those who don't, no explanation is possible.
treg is offline  
Old April 11, 2014, 08:38 AM   #29
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,757
Quote:
I guess its a matter of perception, and experience. To me, things like Colt GM's and 4" S&W revolvers, are just normal sized pistols,
Those are normal, duty sized guns. At 40+oz. loaded, fine in a standard duty holster on a 2" wide duty belt ..... with a 1 1/4" CCW belt, they are HEAVY. I toted a 5" steel framed 1911 for a year, because it was my only realistic option ...... While the GM is narrow enough to ride IWB fairly well (and even then, the grip is so long as to print badly if you bend over at all) .... I have never been able to get any wheelgun to ride IWB very well at all.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old April 11, 2014, 09:07 AM   #30
AK103K
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Location: PA -- In the shadow of the Shade
Posts: 7,913
I carried GM's and Commanders IWB on a 1.75" belt, (as well as a double reload OWB), for about 25 years. I also carried either a PPK or P230, or a J frame as a BUG, at the same time. I didnt find them heavy or a problem.

Ive carried High Powers, SIG P220's, P226's and P229's, as well as Glocks 17's and 31's in the same manner. These days, a 26 replaces the other "smaller" guns, in the BU role.

If you wear the gun in a proper holster, in that nook under your rib cage at 4:30 or so, the gun just disappears under anything hanging over it, even a light oxford shirt or a tee shirt for that matter.

As far as printing goes, pretty much "everything" prints, if you dont dress right and dont follow a few basic carrying rules as far as movement goes.

The times Ive IWB carried a K or N frame revolver, I used a "pancake" type OWB holster with "pull the dot" loop straps attached to the outer edges of the holster, so the cylinder was just above the belt line. They are much more comfortable carrying that way. I did that out of need when I was doing it, as we didnt have much choice back then. Holster choices then were nothing like they are now. Even now, with fewer people carrying revolvers, especially full size guns, there isnt much demand on the holster makers to pursue it.

Auto holsters are a totally different story. If you cant find a good holster to hide pretty much anything these days, you didnt look very hard.
__________________
“The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he is on.”
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Zeitgeist - The Movie
AK103K is offline  
Old April 11, 2014, 09:21 AM   #31
mavracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,949
Quote:
Since many seem to think the above listed guns are to big to carry, Im curious as to why.
What's the advantage of carrying a gun with a threaded barrel if I have no intentions on threading anything to it?
Same ? with a rail.
And a FN45 is an overly large gun.
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Quote:
originally posted my Mike Irwin
My handguns are are for one purpose only, though...
The starter gun on the "Fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."
mavracer is offline  
Old April 11, 2014, 10:25 AM   #32
AK103K
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Location: PA -- In the shadow of the Shade
Posts: 7,913
Whos to say he doesnt have something to attach to it? And really, why should it matter, if its what he wants to carry?

Many handguns come with a rail these days, whether you like it or not. Im not really big on them on some guns, but they are handy, and you never know when you might find need for one.

These both come off, and the gun goes in my holster, with the threaded barrel, with no trouble at all. With the light and suppressor off the gun, its only slightly longer than my other 17's, and really no bother. It fits all my holsters without issue, and it doesnt poke me when I carry it.

A ruler pocket on a pair of Carhartts holds the suppressor like it was made for it.

__________________
“The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he is on.”
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Zeitgeist - The Movie
AK103K is offline  
Old April 11, 2014, 11:50 AM   #33
mavracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,949
Quote:
Whos to say he doesnt have something to attach to it? And really, why should it matter, if its what he wants to carry?
You asked for opinions from people who thought those were too big.
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Quote:
originally posted my Mike Irwin
My handguns are are for one purpose only, though...
The starter gun on the "Fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."
mavracer is offline  
Old April 11, 2014, 12:05 PM   #34
Waspinator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2013
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 390
If ya gonna carry big, might as well carry in style.. that is why I picked the S&W 627 from your list

But, I agree with a poster above.. I would opt for the non V-Comp model. The V-Comp's compensator is not needed on a carry piece and the "tuning" can be acheived for a lot less then the V-Comp's premium dicatates.

One of these...
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/w...layErrorView_Y

Or, if you wanted something smaller for the carry aspect... one of these..
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/w...layErrorView_Y

You know you want the Revolver.. you know deep down you do ....
Waspinator is offline  
Old April 11, 2014, 12:08 PM   #35
AK103K
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Location: PA -- In the shadow of the Shade
Posts: 7,913
Quote:
You asked for opinions from people who thought those were too big.
You really didnt answer the question either.

The threaded barrel and rail really add nothing to the overall size of the gun, and again, if they are to be utilized, then they are deemed as needed, wouldnt you say?

I dont remember anyone saying they werent going to be used, and just for looks either.

All you said about the FN was its "overly large". Why? Have you ever carried one concealed? How about the P226 or the S&W?
__________________
“The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he is on.”
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Zeitgeist - The Movie
AK103K is offline  
Old April 11, 2014, 01:21 PM   #36
WESHOOT2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 1999
Location: home on the range; Vermont (Caspian country)
Posts: 14,213
I wear guns

So I own numerous belts and pants of various sizing, based on my wish/desire/want to wear some of the bigger guns I own.
I own numerous covering garments of various sizing and style for the same reason.
I own numerous fanny packs of various sizing to accomodate the different sizes of guns I own.

I own and wear guns sized from my 22LR NAA Mini to my 7.5" 357 Magnum Redhawk.
Concealed.
__________________
.
"all my ammo is mostly retired factory ammo"

Last edited by WESHOOT2; April 11, 2014 at 01:21 PM. Reason: oh yes I do
WESHOOT2 is offline  
Old April 11, 2014, 01:34 PM   #37
mavracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,949
Quote:
You really didnt answer the question either.
If you don't see any difference or understand why somebody would want to carry a smaller/lighter gun why don't you carry a G17 for backup instead of a G26?
Quote:
The threaded barrel and rail really add nothing to the overall size of the gun
Nothing? a threaded barrel railed P226/P220 won't fit in my holster for my P220.

Quote:
I dont remember anyone saying they werent going to be used, and just for looks either.
If the Op wants to use them he should, I wouldn't and don't have any desire for them on my CCW, and apparently by the # of posts I'm not alone.
Quote:
All you said about the FN was its "overly large". Why?
It just is it's thick through the slide, the grip is large and now they discontinued the flat mag base.
Quote:
Have you ever carried one concealed?
No I had a plain barreled one though and it's a big gun.
Quote:
How about the P226 or the S&W?
I've carried a P220 and it's about the limit of comfort for me, same with a revolver a K frame cylinder is about my limit for comfort. And either one is plenty comforting before you say it.
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Quote:
originally posted my Mike Irwin
My handguns are are for one purpose only, though...
The starter gun on the "Fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."
mavracer is offline  
Old April 11, 2014, 02:33 PM   #38
AK103K
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Location: PA -- In the shadow of the Shade
Posts: 7,913
Quote:
If you don't see any difference or understand why somebody would want to carry a smaller/lighter gun why don't you carry a G17 for backup instead of a G26?
Why would I carry the 17 in the 26's place? Im already carrying both. Youre the one saying just the one is a problem.

The 26 fills the back up role, and very nicely, the 17 fills the main gun role very nicely. I have no trouble what so ever carrying both, most all the time, so whats the problem? Oh, wait, its not my problem.

I fully understand that some people dont "want" to carry a full size gun, I get that. That isnt really an issue here though, is it? The OP asked about three specific, "full" sized guns. If he wanted smaller, I would think he'd have asked.

I dont care what you choose to carry, Im not telling you what to carry, carry whatever you feel works best for you, just dont try and tell us, that others cant carry what you choose not to, because you think its to big. Thats all Im saying.

Quote:
Nothing? a threaded barrel railed P226/P220 won't fit in my holster for my P220.
It would with a P220 holster made to fit the newer "R" series SIG's, which most all of the newer models are. I know that because I used to buy all my SIG holsters with that in mind, simply because I had a number of both type guns, and the older models all fit in the newer model holsters. Just fine too.

To say it wont work because you dont have the right holster, doenst make it wrong. Just that you have the wrong holster.

Quote:
If the Op wants to use them he should, I wouldn't and don't have any desire for them on my CCW, and apparently by the # of posts I'm not alone.
I agree, if he wants to, he should. Who cares if youre alone here or not, it has nothing to do with what he asked, nor does it help him with his question.

Quote:
And either one is plenty comforting before you say it.
Wasnt going to. You did though.
__________________
“The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he is on.”
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Zeitgeist - The Movie
AK103K is offline  
Old April 11, 2014, 02:48 PM   #39
mavracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,949
Quote:
The 26 fills the back up role, and very nicely, the 17 fills the main gun role very nicely. I have no trouble what so ever carrying both, most all the time, so whats the problem? Oh, wait, its not my problem.
Why not carry 2 17s?
Quote:
I dont care what you choose to carry, Im not telling you what to carry, carry whatever you feel works best for you, just dont try and tell us, that others cant carry what you choose not to, because you think its to big. Thats all Im saying.
I'm not the one telling people their choices are wrong, I'm simply trying to answer your question. Now of course I'm sorry I even tried.
For the record I voted in the poll
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Quote:
originally posted my Mike Irwin
My handguns are are for one purpose only, though...
The starter gun on the "Fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."
mavracer is offline  
Old April 11, 2014, 03:03 PM   #40
AK103K
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Location: PA -- In the shadow of the Shade
Posts: 7,913
Quote:
Why not carry 2 17s?
Obviously you dont understand the purpose of the "little" guns.

Quote:
For the record I voted in the poll
So did I.
__________________
“The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he is on.”
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Zeitgeist - The Movie
AK103K is offline  
Old April 11, 2014, 03:12 PM   #41
gyvel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 5,229
None of them. They're all "clunks" as far as CCW is concerned (at least my definition of CCW).

The whole idea of CCW (to me, anyway) is discreet carry with little or no evidence that you are doing so, and as little weight as possible. YMMV

If I were to carry any one of OP's 3 choices it woud be open carry.

My choice of concealed carry for the last 40+ years has been an FN/Browning 1910 .380.
gyvel is offline  
Old April 11, 2014, 03:41 PM   #42
fastbolt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2002
Location: northern CA for a little while longer
Posts: 1,482
Quote:
Which one of the three handguns would you pick for concealed carry?
Mind if I ask why?

You actually own, or plan to own, any of those specific 3 pistols? Plan to lawfully carry it concealed?

Or are you just looking for really cool-looking "tactical" pistols and wonder what everyone else thinks about them?

If your poll had include a None-of-the-Above option, that's how I'd have voted. More on what I did "pick" in a moment ...

I've carried all manner/size of concealed handguns over the course of having carried one with a badge for more than 30 years. At one time or another I've concealed revolvers with 5 1/2", 6 1/2" & 7 1/2" inch barrels, so it's not like I haven't spent some time figuring out how to adjust manner of dress to accommodate doing so.

However, since I don't have to do so anymore, the largest handgun I'll typically carry nowadays ... if I feel my activities merit it ... is one of my 5" 1911's, 4.5" M&P 45 or P90DC or my 4.1" SW9940. My 5 1/2" Redhawk and 6 1/2" 629 Classic only see range use anymore. I usually prefer retirement handguns with 3 1/2" or shorter barrels. Sometimes a 3.75" 4513TSW.

I have ZERO interest in any pistol with a threaded muzzle. My life doesn't include any possible provision for needing to lawfully suppress my retirement handguns.

Okay ... I was conflicted about choosing between the 627 and the SIG.

I like revolvers, even as a longtime 1911 shooter ... and even though having carried a TDA issued weapon for more than 20 years ... and even though having been a firearms instructor and armorer for a number of different guns. The idea of a lightweight 8-shot .357 Magnum revolver is appealing to me. Not as a CCW weapon, but I'd not mind carrying one if I had to return to active duty and carry a uniform belt gun.

On the other hand, I have an affinity for 9mm, as well, and the SIG is a reasonably reliable and durable service-type pistol. Sufficient lubrication and attention to various periodic spring replacement aren't difficult things to handle, especially if being supported by an armorer. Having been through the SIG pistol armorer class for their Classic pistols, the TDA version of the standard SIG ... even gussied up in the listed model ... would seem an acceptable choice (sans the threaded barrel).

I opted for SIG for the purpose of your poll ... but if I were going to actually spend my own money on one or the other, it would be the 627, hands down. I have enough 9's to meet any of my retirement CCW needs, and adding another .357 Magnum revolver to my collection would be more interesting.

Why not the FN? While I've no doubt they did ma lot of testing during R&D when they were creating it for the canceled military pistol program back in '05, I've yet to hear much about any extended LE/Gov testing of the gun ... yet. I'd prefer to see how well it does in the hands of a wide range of LE test shooters before I spent my own money on one. I've long since lost any desire to be a Beta Tester again.

Also, that model does have the raised sights which would annoy me, and then there's the holster issue for the raised sight clearance compared to the standard FN model.

So, what was your purpose in creating this poll and thread topic?
__________________
Retired LE - firearms instructor & armorer
fastbolt is offline  
Old April 11, 2014, 10:56 PM   #43
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastbolt
So, what was your purpose in creating this poll and thread topic?
Well, soon I will get an FNX-45 Tactical for home defense. Besides wanting some input on the FNX-45 for concealed carry, I was looking at some other handguns as well and also wanted some input on their use for concealed carry. I like full size but also want my second handgun to certainly be able to pull concealed carry duties. I could probably conceal the FNX-45 but I may want something slightly smaller to give me more options. Besides the 9mm SIG 226, I was looking at the 10mm G20 Glock. Any opinions?
ATN082268 is offline  
Old April 11, 2014, 11:03 PM   #44
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,282
Quote:
Obviously you don't understand the purpose of the "little" guns.
The purpose of small guns is that they can be carried more easily than large guns.

It doesn't make sense to argue that there's no difference between carrying full-sized guns and small guns when you, yourself, carry a small gun. If there were no difference between carrying a full-sized gun and a small gun, you would not be carrying a small gun. If there is truly no downside to the extra size and weight, there is no reason NOT to take advantage of the extra sight radius, better ergonomics and higher capacity.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old April 11, 2014, 11:20 PM   #45
fastbolt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2002
Location: northern CA for a little while longer
Posts: 1,482
Quote:
Besides the 9mm SIG 226, I was looking at the 10mm G20 Glock. Any opinions?
My opinions have changed & evolved over the years I've carried concealed handguns. At one time or another throughout the years I've carried .22, .25, .380, 9mm, .38 Spl, .357 Mag, .40 S&W, .41 Mag, .44 Spl, .44 Mag, .45 ACP & .45 Colt.

I generally try to avoid shilling calibers, and often even particular makes/models. If pressed by one of our folks looking for a new off-duty weapon, or a private citizen looking for a CCW, I usually try to get an understanding of his/her experience, training, skillset, comfort in carrying, anticipated needs, etc ... and then let them try out a number of different guns I own, guns kept in training or guns belonging to other instructors. Their choice has to suit them, not mirror something I may be using at the time.

I've seen my fair share of folks choose larger guns in size & caliber than they were actually able to consistently shoot well, and I've seen them go the opposite direction, going too little for them to safely, comfortably & confidently handle them when pressed to perform demanding drills.

Everyone's got to find their happy medium of the moment, and then be prepared to later on decide they might want to change, or at least refine, their decision.

I don't look for muzzle energy and "Magnumizing" my dedicated defensive weapons anymore, myself.

Perhaps investing some of your gun money in some local defensive handgun training might be helpful in narrowing down and refining your choice. Regardless of what you decide to choose, it's still just a handgun at the end of the day. It's still just a piece of equipment.

YOU are going to be the dominant factor in using it safely, comfortably, accurately and effectively.

Nowadays, most of the time when some earnest and enthusiastic younger shooter starts to foment some argument about make/model, caliber, ammunition selection, holster, capacity, etc ... I find it easier to simply take them down to the firing line and have them run some new-to-them, fast-paced and demanding drills, often involving more than one threat target, involving movement and threat/non-threat identification.

Quite often when the hits, proper handling & manipulation and accurate "threat identification" (shoot/no-shoot) is less than what they'd expected of themselves, I try to steer them to getting back to basics and mastering their skills ... not rely on some glitzy and gee-whiz pistol-of-the-month to offset their lack of attention to their handgunning skillset foundation.

Pick whatever you like, in whatever nice color you may like ... and get down to focusing on the arguably really critical part of it all ... YOU, and your knowledge & skillset.

Guns come and go, you know.

Best of luck to you.
__________________
Retired LE - firearms instructor & armorer
fastbolt is offline  
Old April 12, 2014, 02:27 AM   #46
chris in va
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 26, 2004
Location: Louisville KY
Posts: 12,513
I'd say whichever you would be most proficient with. If that means a full size, so be it.

Quote:
YOU are going to be the dominant factor in using it safely, comfortably, accurately and effectively.
Exactly.
chris in va is offline  
Old April 13, 2014, 08:34 AM   #47
SFsc616171
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2011
Location: "In the swamps of Montana" with the gators
Posts: 84
re: Which one of the three handguns would you pick for concealed carry?

Neither.

Either a Colt DS; SandW J-frame or K-frame snub; Taurus 85/850/851/856, all in .38 Special.
SFsc616171 is offline  
Old April 13, 2014, 09:25 AM   #48
pete2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 798
None of the above, I have a 642 and an LC9, mostly carry the 642, it's a little lighter and a little easier to conceal. If I could carry a big gun it would be a light weight Commander.
pete2 is offline  
Old April 15, 2014, 05:04 PM   #49
nc-oldfart
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 2, 2014
Posts: 156
Pick three handguns that weight 15oz less in weight, Then your incthe concealed area of CC. Those are all to big unless your the size of shaguille o'neil
nc-oldfart is offline  
Old April 15, 2014, 08:44 PM   #50
trigger643
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2011
Posts: 203
afraid I have to echo some of the others ... I'd not care to carry any of the three choices.

Here's what I'm most comfortable with as my daily carry.

trigger643 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15428 seconds with 8 queries