Carrying "less" in a "good" area. Nope, no thanks.

[peacefulgary]

I've noticed over the years that young and inexperienced guys mostly carry full sized handguns.
And older and more experienced guys mostly carry compact or sub-compact handguns.
As always, there are exceptions (especially 1911 fans), but from my observations the above is true about 95% of the time.

[TunnelRat]

I don’t know that just because someone is young that they are inexperienced, and just because someone is old that they are experienced. That’s been true for me. YMMV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CDW4ME]

Originally Posted by peacefulgary

I can understand a caliber preference: Some folks think that anything less than the 9mm Para simply will not stop a determined attacker.
I understand that line of thought.

What I don't understand is the notion than one needs to carry nothing less than a 15+1 round Glock 19 (probably with an extra magazine) everywhere they go, for self defense.
A Glock 43 9mm Para with 6+1 rounds is probably more than enough.
And it's lighter weight (which equals more comfortable to carry) and easier to conceal than the Glock 19.
Heck, even a 5 shot 9mm snub-nosed revolver is probably more than enough.

I can't see any self defense situation where you're going to need to shoot 16 rounds.

But it's a free nation (mostly), and it's your right to carry as much weight and bulk as you like.
But I think think it shows a real lack of experience and wisdom.

I'm definitely in the 9mm minimum camp.

I have a Glock 43 - it is okay, not my idea of a primary, more suited to my weak hand front pocket as a 2nd option to a larger pistol that is IWB.

Glock 19/23 grip is cramped for my hand.
Glock 22/35/41 grip accommodates my hand nicely.

Of the concealable pistols I own the Glock 19, 22 and 35 are the easiest for me to shoot quick and accurate; I also have 1911's that I shoot well, but the edge goes to the Glocks.

Having a pistol that fits your hand and you shoot it quick & accurate are all desirable qualities, for me anyway.

About my lack of experience & wisdom, when I was a cop for awhile a couple decades ago I carried two spare mags, mandated by department.

Now, I carry one spare mag. A spare mag is important if the pistol jams, malfunction drill. I suppose I'm pretty dumb to want to be able clear a malfunction and insert new magazine.

Capacity? I've carried a 1911 before quite a bit.
7 + 1 of 45 acp with my Tripp/Cobra mag - by your comments that is "more than enough".

My Glock 19 / 22 /35 hold 15 rounds. Will I increase my "wisdom" by only carrying 10 rounds in the magazine. I think not.

[peacefulgary]

I suppose I'm pretty dumb to want to be able clear a malfunction and insert new magazine.

I never called you dumb.
And as I said before...it's a free nation (mostly) and it's your right to carry as much weight and bulk as you like.
Heck, carry a Glock 19 on your strong side (with an extra magazine of course, for those malfunctions), and at the same time, carry a Glock 43 in your weak hand front pocket (again, with a spare magazine, for those malfunctions) if that helps you sleep at night.
But, eventually, you'll come around to the truth.
I predict that in ten years time, you will change your mind about what is acceptable for self defense carry.

[CDW4ME]

Originally Posted by peacefulgary

I never called you dumb.
And as I said before...it's a free nation (mostly) and it's your right to carry as much weight and bulk as you like.
Heck, carry a Glock 19 on your strong side (with an extra magazine of course, for those malfunctions), and at the same time, carry a Glock 43 in your weak hand front pocket (again, with a spare magazine, for those malfunctions) if that helps you sleep at night.
But, eventually, you'll come around to the truth.
I predict that in ten years time, you will change your mind about what is acceptable for self defense carry.

No, you didn't say dumb, just a lack of experience / wisdom.
I'm thinking the same thing and it aint about me.

In the OP I said I'm retired and can dress as I choose.
I've had legal concealed carry since 1992.
For years, on workdays, the best I could do was a pocket 380.
best one can do =/= best one is willing to do
After I retired I was able to carry how (what) I would have preferred to carry all along, at least a Glock 19.
In over 3 years I've not carried less than a Glock 19: walking the dogs 1 - 2 miles everyday, moving houses, trips to the store, pick up pizza, hiking, whatever.

And (review) why is that?
Because if I had to defend myself, I'd prefer to have at least a Glock 19 in hand.

There is nowhere I'd rather defend my life a snub, pocket 380, or Glock 43 rather than a Glock 19 (23/22/35/41) and I happily carry accordingly.

I know, some are satisfied carrying something minimal (when they don't have to) because they do not want (or are unwilling) to dress for concealment.
Ex: They think a untucked shirt looks "sloppy".
^Thats not me.^

What advantage does a Glock 43 have over a Glock 19? Ease of concealment, thats it.
For me, a Glock 19 is easy to conceal, so the 43 has zero advantage.
Glock 19 has all other advantages (ease of shooting quick & accurate, grip, capacity).

So, the "eventually I'll come around to the truth" (yours) and "change my mind about what is acceptable" (yours).

[FireForged]

I have no idea if any armed conflict I suddenly find myself thrust into will adhere to the statistical norms or not. I carry what I am willing to carry. I could carry just about anything but I am simply not inclined to carry "more", do not feel compelled to carry more, do not want to carry more and I am not willing to carry more.

I am not a soldier, policeman or public sentinel. I am not being dropped off in a known HOT LZ or designated WARZONE. I am just a guy going to the store or to the gas station for fuel. I accept that I can have the occasion to run head long into danger and with that in mind, I do carry a handgun.

In the summer I carry 7 rounds and a reload. In the winter I carry 13 and a reload. On some rare occasions fostered by complete nostalgia, I may carry 5 plus a reload. It is my opinion based on life experience, training and available stats, that what I carry will very likely answer the criminal threat that I may encounter. In an effort not to confuse anyone.. very likely ( in my mind) simply means more likely than not in the overwhelming majority of circumstances. To be fair, it might not

In common language, a bad part of town is NOT determined by where a badguy happens to be. A bad part of town is that region, area or location that has a historically high level of crime by comparison to similar zones nearby and also one that is widely known by the local inhabitants to be a dangerous area.

Crime can happen just about anywhere but lets not pretend that we do not know what "a bad part of town" means. I avoid the bad parts of town

Tornados can occur just about anywhere but we all know that there are tornado alleys. In those areas, people commonly partake of greater precautions than people outside of tornado alley. Its not hard to understand and it is certainly not uncommon or absurd to heighten your defensive capabilities in area's where crime, violence and danger are more common. Its probably smart to be quite honest.

I will not criticize someone who varies their self defense system based on where they are and what they are doing. There can be very logical aspects to such practices. Varying levels of precautions based on thoughtful risk assessments are something that is very common across many fields of study, including strategic warfare planning. I am not sure if this thread is intended to criticize such a practice but if it is, it may fall of deaf ears without SUBSTANTIAL qualification that is seemingly lacking in this discussion.

As far as myself, I carry based on convenience and climate. I carry a little more when its easy to carry a little more. No matter what I carry it easily doubles, triples or quadruples what is statistically considered to be the average need. If people want to carry a 10mm with 60 rounds of ammo, that's fine but it doesnt necessarily make them more virtuous or wise.

[TBM900]

Originally Posted by peacefulgary

I've noticed over the years that young and inexperienced guys mostly carry full sized handguns.
And older and more experienced guys mostly carry compact or sub-compact handguns.
As always, there are exceptions (especially 1911 fans), but from my observations the above is true about 95% of the time.

Because with age usually comes wisdom and experience
Unfortunately not always (some simply never learn) but more often than not
Your sentiment also usually translates to those who actually hunt versus those who don't

Ive found that those who push caliber/capacity are usually very insecure in their abilities
Which is most always weeded out when they are put under pressure
Ive found that to be true >99% of the time

Its easy to talk big on-line or in a gun shop
But I couldn't even guess how many Ive seen quickly crumble once the heat is turned up
On the plus side Ive won an awful lot of bets over the decades by leaning on braggarts... is that wrong of me?

[TunnelRat]

In my own carrying “evolution” I’ve run the gamut of carry options. The first firearm I ever carried was a 4” Model 19. After ten years I now most often alternate between a 12 shot and a 15 shot 9mm with a spare magazine.

The notion that only people that can’t shoot care about capacity has been pushed since semiautomatics and detachable magazines came into existence.

Capacity and skill aren’t mutually exclusive. We can argue that passed a certain capacity we’re talking about very unlikely threats, and I agree that we’re entering into the tails of the bell curve (not to mention the rarity of needing a firearm for defense in the first post place).

I would add that just hitting a target isn’t a guarantee of incapacitation, or at least not immediate incapacitation. This is an example where capacity did matter, in addition to skill. https://www.policeone.com/officer-sh...BbLYpnqqHxwMq/. I understand that this is a police officer as opposed to a concealed carry holder and that he was on duty at the time. My point in posting the story is this is one adversary who took multiple rounds and continued to fight.

Besides the actual effect of the bullets is the need to hit the target. I haven’t shot at people with live ammunition but I have done force on force where I watched myself and others have trouble making shots at distances we’d normally boast about. And this was when we knew we weren’t fighting for our lives. I’ve also talked with a number of people who have been shot at and it doesn’t seem like this phenomenon is that uncommon.

It’s interesting to me that this conversation doesn’t seem possible without one side denigrating the other. If you carry too little you’re obviously not serious about self defense. If you carry too much you’re inexperienced and a poor shot. Both sides say people should carry what they find comfortable, but generally not without making one of the above comments before ending their post. I don’t understand why it becomes so dogmatic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FireForged]

It’s interesting to me that this conversation doesn’t seem possible without one side denigrating the other. If you carry too little you’re obviously not serious about self defense. If you carry too much you’re inexperienced and a poor shot. Both sides say people should carry what they find comfortable, but generally not without making one of the above comments before ending their post. I don’t understand why it becomes so dogmatic.

well said


I do not know anyone here and I will not speculate about any individual motives which may exist in this thread but I will say that much of the dogma found in these sort of threads are often a result of validation seeking.

What I find interesting is that people seem far more concerned with elements which are more likely a peripheral issue. The overwhelming majority of citizen gun fights are very few rounds fired at rather close quarters. Rather than being concerned with efforts to realize the danger early, the mental fortitude and fighting prowess needed to address extreme threats.. people are more worried about how big their gun is and how many dozens of rounds they carry. If I were being dropped in a warzone, I would feel different. Imperatives as well as level of danger would be substantially different and likewise my opinion regarding weapons and ammo would be different. However, that is not what we are talking about.

I rarely ever mention what gun I carry or what ammo I use. Its just not that important, its just a tool. 5 shots or 25 shots is not really that much of a concern to me. I dont think that one singular disparity is likely going to be why my surviving a violent encounter actually hinged upon. What I think really matters is my training, knowledge, experience, mental toughness and general awareness.

Capacity and Caliber matter, don't get me wrong. I don't want to have to defend myself with a single shot 32cal derringer. As far as it being a GLOCK 19 + reload vs a 5 shot model 60 + reload. I don't give a darn about that, I promise.

The thing about me is I am not concerned with whether or not my methodology is hailed as relevant, proper or impressive. I do what I do for my own good reasons but I will share it here for the purpose of it potentially helping someone who is just coming on board.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by TBM900

Because with age usually comes wisdom and experience
Unfortunately not always (some simply never learn) but more often than not
Your sentiment also usually translates to those who actually hunt versus those who don't

Ive found that those who push caliber/capacity are usually very insecure in their abilities
Which is most always weeded out when they are put under pressure

I'm a "1911 guy," so maybe the above doesn't apply to me. And I don't "push" capacity, but I am also not (IMHO) insecure in my abilities. I prefer to think that I am realistic.

For a very many years I carried a single stack, Officers ACP 1911 with only the 6+1 magazine in the gun. I had accepted the notion "pushed" my many Internet experts that if seven shots aren't enough to stop an assailant, you don't need more ammo, you need an army.

But reality has a way of intruding on one's consciousness. Today, at least in my part of the country, marauding youths rarely seem to travel solo -- they travel in packs, like wolves or hyenas. And while I don't question my shooting ability (I've never won an IDPA event, even at the club level, but I also generally don't come in last), I do understand that a real world self-defense situation will be orders of magnitude more stressful than an IDPA competition. Police officers are required to re-qualify annually or semi-annually, yet look at the statistics on their accuracy under stress. I believe the statistic I've read for the NYPD is a miserable 19 percent of shots fired actually hit the intended target, That's one shot out of five.

So what if there are three assailants? I have seven shots. That's two shots per bad guy, with one in reserve for the worst of the three threats. Is it realistic to believe that if I only have two shots at each of three dynamic targets, I'll score hits with all of them? Is it even realistic to believe that I'll score hits with even half of them?

Is it realistic to expect that there will only be three assailants?

Consequently, a few years ago I began carrying a spare magazine. I still carry the Officers ACP. In .45 ACP ("because they don't make it in .50").

[CDW4ME]

Originally Posted by TBM900

Your sentiment also usually translates to those who actually hunt versus those who don't

Ive found that those who push caliber/capacity are usually very insecure in their abilities

Irrelevant to this thread, but I've bowkilled a couple dozen deer, several turkeys and one deer with a Delta Elite 10mm, not counting deer past 20 yards shot with rifle or muzzleloader.

This thread is not about capacity or caliber, its about consistency (logic).

If one is content to bet their life on a snub or Glock 43 in SmallTownWherever, then they should be equally content with it in Nashville, Atlanta, Jacksonville, (examples) day or night.

I know: CDW4ME "You're wrong, the anticipated threat is not the same, whatever, whatever," ... I know.

God forbid I start a thread that encourages carrying what one would prefer in hand anywhere, everywhere. Oh well, I tried.

[CDW4ME]

As far as carrying, a Glock 22 is as easy to conceal as a 1911, for me.
Glock 22 with Ed Brown Special Forces (which I've carried a lot)





Glock 23 (19) is even smaller:

[Double K]

I have both a 19 and a commander size 1911, the 1911 doesn't print under a T-shirt like a glock does. It's the width of the slide that makes a glock show under thin clothing.

[CDW4ME]

Originally Posted by Double K

I have both a 19 and a commander size 1911, the 1911 doesn't print under a T-shirt like a glock does. It's the width of the slide that makes a glock show under thin clothing.

I've got lightweight Commanders in 9mm and 45 acp in addition to full size steel 1911's in 45 acp and 10mm.

If carrying AIWB the shorter slide of the Commander is advantageous; strong side IWB the longer slide of full size pistol is not a detriment for me.

I typically wear shirts that are loose fit with a stripe, print, or pattern to break any slight bulge. I agree with you, under a solid color polo 1911 be slightly less likely to print than Glock 22.

I like 1911's and have gone from carrying Glocks to 1911's back to Glocks back to 1911's a few times.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
If I said I carried a 1911 everywhere I'd be labeled differently by some in this thread.

Here is that system, its not my perception / point of view:
"I carry a 1911 + two spare mags everywhere, two spare mags helps balance the weight on belt, I like the safety and steel". = Luddite, boomer
"I carry a Glock 19 + spare mag everywhere, spare mag mostly in case of malfunction, I like the trigger, grip, capacity". = Lack of experience/wisdom
"I carry a Glock 43 everywhere, 7 rounds is more than enough". = Truth, wisdom, acceptable. LOL

[peacefulgary]

It seems like I struck a nerve with some folks here. LOL!

As I said before...carry as much weight and bulk as you like.

[CDW4ME]

[Henry400]

Originally Posted by peacefulgary

Why stop at a Glock 19?
Why not a Glock 17?
You get increased mag capacity for a modestly larger pistol.

Precisely why I have carried a Glock 45. Round capacity of the 17, slide and barrel of the 19.

[Henry400]

Originally Posted by Double K

I have both a 19 and a commander size 1911, the 1911 doesn't print under a T-shirt like a glock does. It's the width of the slide that makes a glock show under thin clothing.

I carry OWB in a pancake holster. For ME, I've found that carrying either the Glock 45 or a commander size 1911 in a holster with a 30 degree cant aids GREATLY in concealabiliby. I have no issues concealing the Glock.

However, like CDW4ME, I'm retired and can wear what I want, when I want.

[Henry400]

Originally Posted by CDW4ME

My carry philosophy is:
Of the concealable pistols I own, carry one I would prefer in hand if I had to defend myself.
There is nowhere I would prefer to defend my life a 38 snub/LCP rather than a Glock 19/23 and I carry accordingly.

Caveat: I'm not limited by work attire, retired.

I am in general agreement with your principle. I carry the gun I would prefer to have in hand if I have to defend myself. I am also retired, and for the most part, am not limited by dress as to what I carry. In some circumstances, (church) I dress around my carry, but don't typically choose what I carry around what I wear.

My choice is a Commander - sized 1911 (Dan Wesson Vigil Commander) in .45 acp (8 round magazines) and 2 spares. If I need to go into the city, I might be inclined to pocket carry a P365 as a BUG (weak hand side) in addition to the 1911. But I'll not go with less gun than the Vigil.

Why I choose the Vigil over my G45 is a story for a different day.

[CDW4ME]

Originally Posted by Henry400

My choice is a Commander - sized 1911 (Dan Wesson Vigil Commander) in .45 acp (8 round magazines) and 2 spares. If I need to go into the city, I might be inclined to pocket carry a P365 as a BUG (weak hand side) in addition to the 1911. But I'll not go with less gun than the Vigil.

Very similar.
When I carried a 1911 I had two spare mags on opposite side to help balance weight. I like 1911's and could go back to carrying one in the future.

Walking the dog(s) I'm likely not going to carry a 2nd option pistol in weak hand front pocket; Glock IWB as usual for sure.

Trip to the store, parking lots, 2nd option in weak hand pocket? Yea.

A few years ago, I was in a parking lot and saw a "shady" looking guy walking directly toward me as I loaded groceries in my vehicle. I assume I'm about to be asked for money (whatever) and start shaking my head "no" despite me shaking my head "no" he keeps coming. I say loudly "NO, NO" while shaking my head. Guy turns and walks off to a van parked a few lanes over that has other people waiting in it. In a situation like that, I can't put my hand on the pistol I've got IWB which puts me at a disadvantage if someone asking (for money) ever turned into demanding. I'd did not have a 2nd option pistol in pocket that day; but, the option to put my hand on a pistol without revealing I'm carrying endeared its self to me.

Kahr PM9 in my weak hand front pocket affords me the option of putting my hand on pistol without revealing I'm carrying; nice option to have if approached by someone "shady" in a parking lot, at a gas pump ect...

[FireForged]

Its not really psychic abilities which suggest that some particular places or a particular time of day or night might be more dangerous than others.. its just plain ole common sense. The reason why stats and particularly crime stats are memorialized and studied is so that risk assessments can be made and adequate mitigating resources assigned.

Sure, crime can occur anywhere and it fairly naïve to suggest that crime cannot or will not occur in any particular place. That said, if you sent me down to the river at 10:30 at night, I aint going without a gun and 2 armed friends. There are simply dangerous conditions which exist historically (at the river) that do not readily exist at the deli next to the golf-pro shop. So lets stop pretending that a competent person cannot reasonably predict where [greater] or [lesser] danger is likely to exist in his or her environment. Lets not pretend that added precautions are not prudent when relative risk is considered to be heightened. It is a mindset which is routinely applied to a great many things in life and for good reason. Life experience is a powerful thing if we simply listen to it. Sometimes listening is much better than pointing fingers, making quips or scoffing.

Lets face it.. risk has levels.

If you are changing your gun out 3 times a day due to an ever changing defcon level then yeah, I think there is probably some overthinking going on. That is not what is being said in this thread as far as I can tell.

[peacefulgary]

I assume I'm about to be asked for money (whatever) and start shaking my head "no" despite me shaking my head "no" he keeps coming. I say loudly "NO, NO" while shaking my head. Guy turns and walks off to a van parked a few lanes over that has other people waiting in it. In a situation like that, I can't put my hand on the pistol I've got IWB which puts me at a disadvantage if someone asking (for money) ever turned into demanding.

I don't know what state you live in, but why couldn't you have put your hand on the grip of your holstered weapon?
If some shady dude is walking my way, I'll reach under my cover garment and grip my handgun, but keeping it holstered as to not "brandish".

I'd did not have a 2nd option pistol in pocket that day; but, the option to put my hand on a pistol without revealing I'm carrying endeared its self to me.

If a shady guy is headed my way, I actually WANT him to know that I'm carrying.
Most criminals are cowards. They prey upon the weak and the unarmed.
If they know or even suspect that you are armed they most likely will seek out easier prey.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by peacefulgary

I don't know what state you live in, but why couldn't you have put your hand on the grip of your holstered weapon?
If some shady dude is walking my way, I'll reach under my cover garment and grip my handgun, but keeping it holstered as to not "brandish".


If a shady guy is headed my way, I actually WANT him to know that I'm carrying.
Most criminals are cowards. They prey upon the weak and the unarmed.
If they know or even suspect that you are armed they most likely will seek out easier prey.

In my world there are shady people. I’m not putting my hand on my concealed firearm every time one happens to walk in my direction.

I’ll add that a quick Google search showed that in a number of localities you don’t need to actually draw a firearm to be charged with brandishing. Just gripping the pistol can count as brandishing.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/res...s/brandishing/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[peacefulgary]

Charged and convicted are two entirely different things.
Anyone can be charged with any crime.

Show me an instance where a shady dude approached someone, and that someone simply placed his hand under his shirt (and on the grip of his handgun, which is still not visible as it's still under the shirt) and says "no", and then that shady guy calls the cops and makes a complaint of brandishing, and the guy with the handgun gets arrested and charged AND convicted of "brandishing".

No way, no how.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by peacefulgary

Charged and convicted are two entirely different things.
Anyone can be charged with any crime.

Show me an instance where a shady dude approached someone, and that someone simply placed his hand under his shirt (and on the grip of his handgun, which is still not visible as it's still under the shirt) and says "no", and then that shady guy calls the cops and makes a complaint of brandishing, and the guy with the handgun gets arrested and charged AND convicted of "brandishing".

No way, no how.

So you’re willing to be charged with a crime and deal with any potential fallout, why? Because a “shady dude” walked in your direction? You don’t think that might have any impact on your concealed carry permit (assuming the state you live in requires such a permit)? And what happens if you are the exception that disproves the rule and your assumption that you won’t get charged falls through? Now you have the costs in time and money of going to court and dealing with a charge.

I’m sorry, but a person who feels the need to reach for a gun just because a person walks in their direction is more concerning to me than the shady dude in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk