Am I missing any options here for new ccw?

[adamBomb]

I currently carry a MP Bodyguard 380 via my pocket. I am looking to get a larger capacity gun to CCW IWB. My current options are the:

P365, Shield, Shield EZ - 9mm with safety

Any other options? My conditions are that is must have an external safety, have at least 8 rounds (more = better) and be no bigger than the shield ez, which I think is my max for IWB. I checked out all 3 of these in the store yesterday. I like the p365 but I am reading about quite a few quality issues. I like the shield/shield ez price but capacity/size of 365 seems better. The shield ez is really interesting to me. I can rent all 3 and plan to do so when I get some time this weekend but really curious if I should be considering something else too.

[Forte S+W]

The Ruger EC9s comes to mind.

It's slim, lightweight, has an external safety, holds 8 rounds, can be had for around $200 in new condition, and is backed by some of the finest customer service in the industry.

[ammo.crafter]

Look at the Walther PK380.

My daughter carries a Walther PPK/s.

If you can find an early manufactured AMT Backup, that is very small and holds 6+1.

[Cyanide971]

Might be slightly larger than what you stated, but the Ruger SR9C might be something to look at as well. Slim profile, external thumb safety, and 10+1 capacity.

[rodfac]

My P365, with a February 2019 build date, has been flawless for over 1200 rounds now. It handles as well as a duty sized sidearm and is nearly as accurate. I like the trigger, which, for a striker type ignition system, is quite good...much better than my wife's G23 with a similar round count for instance.

I carry it daily, in an OWB and have since I put the first 200 rounds through it. It's feed everything from 90 gr JHP's to 124 gr boutique SD rounds. I personally shoot a lot of LSWC cast bullets in practice, and these feed as well as the FMJ's.

Accuracy with 115 and 124 gr American Eagle 9mm rounds is right down at an inch at 10 yds, slow fire, from an unsupported Weaver Stance. That's as good as my eyes and holding can do, nowadays. JHP's are very nearly as good. The gun is superb in my opinion. And the teething problems that Sig had initially have been solved. Also, Sig in my dealings with them, has superb customer service...

Here's a pic of a typical slow fire, 10 yd group.

For a small, compact gun with a 10+1 capacity, I doubt you can do better. Best Regards, Rod

Best Regards, Rod

[NobodyJones]

Love my XDs. Although mine is a .45 with only 6 rounds. The 9mm carries more.

[jmhyer]

SA Hellcat might be worth a look.

NEVERMIND... Unlike many other SA pistols, it doesn't appear that the Hellcat has any form of external/manual safety.

[labnoti]

I know your question was specifically about handguns that have manual safeties, and if respondents ignored that they could list a nearly innumerable number of guns that don't meet that criteria. I will spare you the inevitable, "you should consider xyz instead."

However, I do want to address what I presume is a valid concern for why a gun should have a manual safety -- and also not with an argument that suggests you should reconsider Glock,

Instead, consider that the purpose of the manual safety and the reason why one would be desirable is to help avoid unintentional discharges. Again, I'm not going to try to convince you that you don't need one to avoid unintentional discharges, or that it's just a "training issue." Those arguments practically amount to the advice, "don't worry about it!" I think unintentional discharges are something that we should worry about. That's why manual safeties on some guns concern me.

There are two types of unintentional discharges. Those that happen when we're simply gun-handling in everyday life -- holstering, unholstering, practicing, training, cleaning etc. And those that happen when we're in a crisis situation and have drawn a gun for personal protection, self-defense, or some other legitimate use of lethal force. It is in these situations that the manual safety will be purposefully off because it should not be interfering with our ability to fire should we need to fire. The problem is it is also no longer helping us avoid an unintentional discharge.

The answer we often hear to concerns about unintentional discharges is "training." I don't want to doubt the value of training in preventing unintentional discharges, but unfortunately, it has not proven to stop all of them even among very highly trained people. Now we could ask a couple of questions. The first would be, is it more probable for an unintentional discharge to happen in everyday life, or in a crisis situation? Everyday life certainly happens a lot more frequently for most people than lethal-force encounters. Many people don't really expect a lethal force encounter to actually happen. It might make sense to them to be more prepared for everyday life. The second question is: What is easier to prevent with training, negligent discharges during routine tasks, or unintentional discharges under the stress of crisis scenarios? For example, under which set of circumstances are we more likely to obey the directive to keep our finger off the trigger?

[adamBomb]

And the teething problems that Sig had initially have been solved. Also, Sig in my dealings with them, has superb customer service...

That's good to hear. The 365 felt great in my hands and has the capacity and round I want. I need to try it out to see how I can do at 25yds.

[CDR_Glock]

Originally Posted by adamBomb

That's good to hear. The 365 felt great in my hands and has the capacity and round I want. I need to try it out to see how I can do at 25yds.

I can Easily hit the mark at that distance with this gun.

Then again, this is what I carry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[OhioGuy]

Springfield XD-S is a very reliable performer. Depends whether you consider the grip safety to be sufficient for you. I never had any problems engaging mine on a draw. Among all that you've listed, I would also vote for the P365 with safety. It's the smallest of the three and has the highest capacity, so it would make for a good OWB option.

[adamBomb]

I would also vote for the P365 with safety

This is what I am leaning towards.

[bjw741]

You might also consider the Taurus G2c. Roughly the same size as the Shield but with 12+1 capacity and has an external safety. Inexpensive, accurate and reliable. Mine has never had a FTF.

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by bjw741

You might also consider the Taurus G2c. Roughly the same size as the Shield but with 12+1 capacity and has an external safety. Inexpensive, accurate and reliable. Mine has never had a FTF.

Everything he mentioned above was 1" wide or slimmer. G2C is a good option, but if that size of gun is on the menu, then a lot of other subcompact double stacks could be considered too. One that I though was good but never seemed to sell very well was the Ruger American series. Can be had with thumb safety and 12+1 in the compact. Any 10+1 or 12+1 double stack has the option of taking bigger magazines which can be helpful at the range.

Of course, the P365 can also take 12 and 15 round mags.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

Everything he mentioned above was 1" wide or slimmer. G2C is a good option, but if that size of gun is on the menu, then a lot of other subcompact double stacks could be considered too. One that I though was good but never seemed to sell very well was the Ruger American series. Can be had with thumb safety and 12+1 in the compact. Any 10+1 or 12+1 double stack has the option of taking bigger magazines which can be helpful at the range.

Of course, the P365 can also take 12 and 15 round mags.

I'd personally get the M&P subcompact, either 1.0 or 2.0, before I got the Ruger American. The American feels uncomfortable in my hand.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Cosmodragoon]

I'd agree that it's worth questioning the requirement of a manual safety. It may seem dramatic to say that manual safeties get people killed but they can and sometimes do cause hang-ups in real-world defensive encounters. It's often argued that if you train enough, you won't miss the safety. That might hedge against forgetting in the shock of the moment. However, real-world encounters may also include compromised positions, entangled struggles, injuries before the draw, or slippery hands due to anything from the fat content of an interrupted meal to blood spilled at the beginning of the encounter.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Cosmodragoon

I'd agree that it's worth questioning the requirement of a manual safety. It may seem dramatic to say that manual safeties get people killed but they can and sometimes do cause hang-ups in real-world defensive encounters. It's often argued that if you train enough, you won't miss the safety. That might hedge against forgetting in the shock of the moment. However, real-world encounters may also include compromised positions, entangled struggles, injuries before the draw, or slippery hands due to anything from the fat content of an interrupted meal to blood spilled at the beginning of the encounter.

Well, gee, glad somebody said it. BUT wonder if this will turn into a 'external safety or not' discussion.
BUT the way I see it, carrying a lot of strikers(like my Glocks), with one in the chamber, is like carrying a revolver with 'one in the chamber', with the hammer forward. Those don't have external safeties.
My Glock is chambered but the 'hammer' isn't 'back(only slightly compressed), ala a revolver with the hammer forward. BUT, thread drift...PLUS I use good holsters and I'm not in any kind of huge hurry to reholster..In fact, a few need to be taken OFF my belt to reholster..NOT possible to get clothes, anything, in the way of the trigger..

Out

[adamBomb]

I'd agree that it's worth questioning the requirement of a manual safety.

This is moving the thread off topic.

I require it. I know the advantages and disadvantages. I like them on any guns that I carry. Coming up with scenarios won't change my mind - I can just as easily come up with a gun grab scenario where a safety saves your life. I carry what I am comfortable with and what I have trained with.

[labnoti]

My point was not to argue for or against the manual safety, but to point out the fact that some handguns among those with manual safeties are more prone to unintentional discharges. The solution to this is not to avoid manual safeties, but to avoid those guns. This is relevant to selection made exclusively among handguns with manual safeties.

Again, the problem with some guns that have manual safeties is they are prone to unintentional discharges once the manual safety is off. If a gun is designed with a manual safety so that it can also feature a short, crisp, light single-action trigger or a striker-fired trigger with no resistance to take-up and a very light wall, those guns will not be forgiving at all when you put your finger on the trigger under stress but don't actually intend to fire. Research has shown that even highly-trained people who have been repeatedly instructed and trained and practiced not to put their finger on the trigger will do so under stress, even without being conscious of it. It is relatively easy to learn through training and practice to properly operate any kind of action safely during daily routines when there is no stress. In a crisis scenario, will the light trigger that helped us with trigger control during practice help us or make things exceedingly difficult for us in the worst way?

Just because guns are popular for concealed carry, whether it is a Glock, P365, Shield, EZ, P2/938, and their users are not having ND's all over the place doesn't mean they're the best choice in a crisis scenario. All those people carrying them are accomplishing (most of them anyway) is keeping them from firing during routine everyday tasks. Take a closer look at what happens under extreme stress.

[davidsog]

P365.

Mine is without the external safety. Personal preference but every duty pistol I ever carried in the US Army it was a requirement to carry safety off, round in the chamber....

Even in 1/75th we carried that way. Muzzle awareness and keep your bugger hook off the bang switch until you are pointed at something you want to destroy.

[labnoti]

The "keep your finger off the trigger" doctrine was well-entrenched before 2000, but in a study of 267 shootings by the FBI, ATF, DEA, and US Marshals Service between 2000 and 2003, more than 5% were determined to be unintentional discharges during enforcement operations. If we narrow it down to the portion of shootings that were during enforcement operations, unintentional discharges accounted for 13%. Of the total number of shootings, 33% were unintentional discharges during non-enforcement activities like training, cleaning, and routine everyday tasks. This data was provided by the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General.

Total number of shooting incidents: 267
Total number of shootings at suspects during enforcement: 105
Total number of unintentional discharges during enforcement: 14
Total number of unintentional discharges during non-enforcement activities: 88

Why wasn't the "finger off the trigger" mantra working all those times?

The IG's report only gives the data accounting for the cause of the discharges. While the number of unintentional discharges during non-enforcement activities is high, consider how much more time is included in non-enforcement activities. Those 88 discharges occurred over the course of more than 100 million man-hours. The 14 discharges during enforcement activities occurred over the much, much smaller fraction of time that guns are drawn on suspects.

The rate of unintentional discharges during enforcement to non-enforcement activities is 16%. Do we really think FBI, ATF, DEA agents and US Marshals spend fully 16% of their life in enforcement activities (essentially guns-out on suspects)?

It would seem that during these highly stressful activities, the probability of an unintentional discharge goes way, way up. A manual safety alone is not likely to prevent this because it will be switched off. It seems that something in addition to the manual safety and in addition to "finger off the trigger" training is needed to reduce the incidence of unintentional discharges in lethal-force incidents.

[davidsog]

Why wasn't the "finger off the trigger" mantra working all those times?

It has worked fantastic for SOCOM. That being said, the tolerance for a negligent discharge was zero.

If your weapon EVER went off without being pointed at something you wanted to destroy, you just packed your bags and went to find another job.

Probably some of them went to these agencies.

t would seem that during these highly stressful activities, the probability of an unintentional discharge goes way, way up. A manual safety alone is not likely to prevent this because it will be switched off. It seems that something in addition to the manual safety and in addition to "finger off the trigger" training is needed to reduce the incidence of unintentional discharges in lethal-force incidents.

Manual safety is unnecessary and can even be detrimental. Not sure of your personnel requirements but as I said....

The top tier shooting outfits have a proven methodology that works very well for combat AND for safety. In the 26 years I served in SOCOM I can count on one hand the number of negligent discharges noted.

I personally witnessed only ONE during that time. The individual negligently discharged his secondary into a practice berm. His muzzle awareness and culture of safety dry firing in a safe direction into a backstop prevented his negligent discharge from causing any harm.

He found a job in the 82nd the next day. Good guy but he knew the game and tolerance for it.

[davidsog]

It seems that something in addition to the manual safety and in addition to "finger off the trigger" training is needed to reduce the incidence of unintentional discharges in lethal-force incidents.

Absolutely right given the low standards most LEO organization require from their officers for firearms training. Just a fact and not a dig or attack on LEO's.

I would hope the average CCW is better versed with his weapon.

I would direct you to this thread.

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=604185

Much of this is training mentality. It is why we never did blank fires in 1/75th like the regular army. Instead of properly training for the correct mentality and working to develop the correct habits...the regular army adopted a "dry fire, blank fire" live fire" mantra.

Because of that, RA units would often become more dangerous to themselves in combat than the enemy. That is why they took the 7th ID's bullets from them on D-Day +7 in the Invasion of Panama.

If you train such it looks like a dangerous weapon, acts like a dangerous weapon, but is perfectly safe do not be surprised when the dangerous weapon proves dangerous.

[OhioGuy]

This secondary discussion about trigger discipline raises a point I think deserves more attention. I've always read that most negligent discharges have occurred when someone is reholstering their weapon, and something (finger, or clothing) gets into the trigger guard, hence the "Glock Leg" moniker for police ND's. Although it's not a Glock thing, it's a "light trigger without any safety, that got caught where it shouldn't and was very easy to fire."

Passive options provide an extra measure against these. One prime example is a hammer-fired gun, with the hammer down. Ride the hammer with your thumb, and it's very difficult for the trigger to move even if pressed. Glocks have long had aftermarket parts available ("The Gadget") that perform this same function for the striker. Grip safeties are often hated, but they also offer something similar. Keep your hand off the safety when manipulating or holstering the weapon, and the trigger is immobilized. XD line is a good example.

All of the most popular guns have light, crisp triggers with fully (or pretty much fully) cocked strikers, and absolutely no passive way to guard against that trigger being inadvertently pressed. The P365 doesn't even have a trigger blade safety. Even Springfield has moved away from its own legacy of grip safeties with the Hellcat.

I personally dislike manual thumb safeties. I also like the passive measures. And so I carry a DA/SA gun, or a Walther PPS M2, which at least has an exposed striker on the back that will jab my thumb if anything began to go wrong.

Were I to carry anything else, for instance a P365, I would treat the holster as the full-time passive safety and would not holster the weapon while being worn.

I've had many hours of training and shoot regularly, and practice my draws and all that at least weekly, for years. Never had a problem. But I still don't want to ever Glock myself in the leg, or Sig myself in the nuts. Just my 2 cents!

[davidsog]

Were I to carry anything else, for instance a P365, I would treat the holster as the full-time passive safety and would not holster the weapon while being worn.

Excellent points.

I personally am very very slow to re-holster now matter what as you are absolutely correct about it being a great opportunity for a negligent discharge.

If you are re-holstering it is because the threat level is reduced to the point to allow re-holstering. There is no reason to rush to an accident nor is there any reason to give up watching the direction of your most likely threat. Take it slow and practice, practice, practice.

IWB it is actually quicker and safer to simply transfer the weapon to your support side hand, remove the holster from your waist with your strong side, re-holster, and reinsert the holstered weapon to carry position.

If you are doing the correct drills, one can shoot quickly and accurately from support side single handed.