5 shot revolver training... double tap...double tap... single tap ???

[Erik]

I carry and favor j-frame as bugs; subsequently I train to use them. Even when I didn't, I trained to use them; they are a very common carry and BUG option.

It is probably no surprisegiven that fact tha I disagree with the notion that somehow a j-frame is not worth carrying, or that someone carrying one is not as serious as the next carrier.

I concur with the posters advocating avoiding "packaged solutons" for given problems, such as X number of rounds per assailant in a set pattern. A viable training excercise, coupled with others, so long as it is thought of as nothing more? Sure.

[longcoldwinter]

I picked a 38 snubby as my carry gun because I consider it the best comprise between power, concealability, safety and ease of use.

Some people seem to forget your CCW does not make you a cop, you dont have to chase down a BG, all you need to do is end the encounter. The most commonly cited stats are 2-3 shots with a encounter length of 2-3 seconds. The average person will never draw their CCW, and the chances of finding yourself in a situaition where you need 10+ rounds of .40 cal even smaller.

Call it a cost benifit anlaysis but the additional effort and discomfort involved in carring a high cap auto vs a j frame 38 when balanced against the need for such a gun, I dont have any problems carry "only" a 5 shot 38 subby.

Course if I found my self living in inner city detroit I might have a different outlook

[FerFAL]

Longcoldwinter wrote:

I picked a 38 snubby as my carry gun because I consider it the best comprise between power, concealability, safety and ease of use.

You know you just used the word “compromise” in a life or death matter, don’t you?

Some people seem to forget your CCW does not make you a cop, you dont have to chase down a BG, all you need to do is end the encounter.

You are right, you don’t have partner, you don’t have a shotgun or rifle in the patrol vehicle ( good idea to have one in your car, BTW)
You cant call for backup, all of which are even more reason to carry all the firepower and advantage that fits into a handgun.

The average person will never draw their CCW, and the chances of finding yourself in a situaition where you need 10+ rounds of .40 cal even smaller.

According to the NRA, 90% of the time you don’t even need to fire, the mere presence of the gun is enough to sent attackers away.
I believe that statistic to be a pretty accurate one, according to personal experience.
Does that mean you wont carry, or that you wont carry it loaded ( think of how it would completely eliminate AD probabilities!) combine that with the already small percentage of getting attacked at all, and you are already heading to an anti gun logic where you realize that according to %, you really don’t even need a gun, or you just need an empty gun just to scare bad guys.

Those of use that choose to carry do so understanding that ( at least for you guys in USA) needing a weapon is a remote enough possibility, but you still carry. Why then choose to prepare for an unlikely event yet hope that that unlikely incident will fall within the favorable statistic of only 2 or 3 rounds being fired?

FerFAL

[David Armstrong]

He makes the case that it has been shown that if you spend enough time on the first two to expend 2 or more rounds, . . . the 3rd guy will nail you before you get to him.

I think it was Walt Rauch who showed that it didn't matter what you did, the 3rd guy would nail you before you got to him.

[David Armstrong]

Yes it does, at least for part of the equation ( you having enough ammo to fight back).

We will agree to disagree. If 5 guys are attacking you, whether you have 5 rounds in the gun or 15 won't matter much to your survival. Your survival will be based on your tactics and their abilities along with a big dose of luck.

The good doc fought back with his Glock, and even though he didn’t win, he killed 3 and injured a 4th before going down.

So all those rounds didn't make any difference.

I’ve never heard of anything like that getting pulled with a revolver.

Maybe you should look more? There are numerous instances of the revolver armed individual triumphing over large numbers. But again, it rarely is the result of the number of rounds in the gun.

Skill is very important, but superior firepower does even the odds a lot. There’s no use in trying to deny that.

Welll, actually, one can deny that, quite easily.

How many elite military and law enforcement forces carry revolvers these days?
Like it or not, that says a lot.

Only if you consider the role of them the same as the CCW holder, particularly when given the fact that many of those "elite" units choose a low-capacity auto over a high capacity.

[FerFAL]

David Armstrong wrote:
We will agree to disagree. If 5 guys are attacking you, whether you have 5 rounds in the gun or 15 won't matter much to your survival. Your survival will be based on your tactics and their abilities along with a big dose of luck.

Of course, luck ( a lot of it) and skill, no doubt there, but why cant you accept that the tool you choose, it's capacity and traits, may influence the outcome if the situation calls for more than just 5 or 6 shots?

So all those rounds didn't make any difference.

No, but he did come close to making it, closer than if he had a 5 shot snubby.
As mentioned before, some are more lucky and make it.
I know of a politician, guy named Rico, that made it through in a similar situation. He was lucky, had the skill, and he also had the right tool ( Beretta 92).

Maybe you should look more? There are numerous instances of the revolver armed individual triumphing over large numbers. But again, it rarely is the result of the number of rounds in the gun.

I'm pretty interested in this so I do look enough.In most of these situations, where a single person faces many attackers, most of the time the ones that make it fire more than just 6 rounds and use a high capacity auto.

Only if you consider the role of them the same as the CCW holder, particularly when given the fact that many of those "elite" units choose a low-capacity auto over a high capacity.

Yes, 1911s have a rather low capacity.
But you seem to forget that those "elite" units carry a carbine or rifle as a primary.
The handgun is just backup in case the primary goes down.
As a civilian, you dont walk around the street carrying a rifle do you?
That's why it' s even more importnat for you as a civilian to carry a high capacity auto.

FerFAL

[MLeake]

Seems to me that one of the first things they teach in Shoot-Don't Shoot scenarios is make proper use of concealment and cover. IE, while engaging, don't forget to try to move behind objects, or bad guys.

Going back to the MA angle, in randori training, you learn to try to move so that members of the attacking group are placed between you and some of the other attackers. NEVER place yourself where they all have a shot at you, or you will get hit.

This is true vs fists, feet, shinai, bokken and tanto. I'd suggest that it is also true vs firearms.

Limit their sightlines, and try to increase the odds they shoot each other.

Better yet, avoid areas where a group attack is feasible.

[David Armstrong]

"No man in combat has ever wished for a lesser powered weapon nor for less ammo."

I think the counterpoint to that is that no man who has been shot ever complained that the person shooting him didn't use enough power or should have shot him more times. It is always a compromise between the various factors.

[David Armstrong]

You know you just used the word “compromise” in a life or death matter, don’t you?

You know that all life is a compromise, and the selection of a CCW is always going to be a compromise within the compromise.

Does that mean you wont carry, or that you wont carry it loaded

Not carrying at all is very different from not carrying more than "X" rounds.

Why then choose to prepare for an unlikely event yet hope that that unlikely incident will fall within the favorable statistic of only 2 or 3 rounds being fired?

Again, you have to always compromise. The question becomes one of what point you compromise at. What about the unllikely incident where you will need a .44 Magnum instead of a 9mm? Or the unlikely incident where you will need 20 rounds instead of 17?

[David Armstrong]

Of course, luck ( a lot of it) and skill, no doubt there, but why cant you accept that the tool you choose, it's capacity and traits, may influence the outcome if the situation calls for more than just 5 or 6 shots?

Of course I accept it, just as I accept the situation may call for a shotgun, or a major caliber, or any of a dozen other factors. But one needs to decide just how many and how rare a situation one wishes to prepare for.

No, but he did come close to making it, closer than if he had a 5 shot snubby.

You make an assumption that is not supported by the facts. Maybe he would have shot a little better with the snubby. Maybe hhis tactics would have changed. Lots of maybe. What we do know is that having all those bullets didn't make any difference, so using that to support your argument seems a little questionable.

I'm pretty interested in this so I do look enough.

Apparently not, as there are numerous instances available that show just that.

Yes, 1911s have a rather low capacity.

That is a matter of opinion. They might have less capacity than a 16 shot, but less does not equal low.

But you seem to forget that those "elite" units carry a carbine or rifle as a primary.

But you seem to forget that YOU are theone that brought up those "elite" units and what they carried to prove your point claiming that "Like it or not, that says a lot." So now that it now longer proves your point we should not consider it?? Strange.

[FerFAL]

Well, it proves that none of the carry revolvers
And those that carry 1911 carry rifles.

FerFAL

[David Armstrong]

Those that carry high-volume 9mms carry rifles too, so I fail to see the point, particularly given that we are discussing the CCW issue, not military and LE fights.

[longcoldwinter]

Is there some far fetched situation, where having a high cap auto could help you, sure is it ever going to happen to a normal person, no.

Just remember your not rambo, you dont have super human powers to dodge bullets and if you find yourself attacked by a large group of armed men hell bent on killing you, the number of bullets in your gun aint going to matter. If you can't flee using cover your going to wind up dead.

So I'll carry my 5 shot revolver and be comforted with the knowledge that I have enough firepower to see my through any self defence situation I am likely to find my self in.

[FerFAL]

First, military and law enforcement personal all around the world carry autos. When you go to shooting classes, almost everyone (about 9 out of 10, and I’m being generous) has autos.
I’m guessing that you concur with me up to here.
The reason for this is that you do have more capacity, autos are easier for most newbies, and they’ve become reliable enough, that any person that shoots and practices as he should can clear the unlikely dud round or most common FTF in less than a second.
These are basically the reasons why all agencies and military, almost everyone that works in security uses autos.
You say that those that carry high-volume 9mms carry rifles too.
Well, it’s a pretty good idea. To bad they are stuck with FMJ.

My point was that certain units carry 45 ACP because they are great autos, it’s a proven design, you still have 50 % more capacity than a 6 shot revolver, and they also have a rifle so capacity isn’t that important.

Point is, as a civilian all you have on you is your handgun, so you should have the best handgun has to offer.
A snubby isn’t something you’d pick as your only gun if you knew you were going to a fight, you just carry it because it’s convenient.

Does that mean that revolvers are no good? Please, I never said that.

I’m just saying that it’s not the best tool you could conceal in an IWB holster, and if you choose to go that way you should at least be honest with yourself about it.

David Armstrong wrote:
Of course I accept it, just as I accept the situation may call for a shotgun, or a major caliber, or any of a dozen other factors. But one needs to decide just how many and how rare a situation one wishes to prepare for.

Well done! “Major caliber” I forgot that one.
Of course, the handgun should offer all the power you can show proficiency with, that you can still control well enough for fast follow up shots.
That’s why I chose the Glock 31. Simple to use, as powerful as a 124 gr 357 magnum out of a 4 inch barrel 15+1 round, accurate and reliable as no other caliber due to the bottle neck case.
Shotgun? That’s nice but we are talking about handguns here, something you can realistically carry at all times. But you can leave the shotgun or rifle in the car though, sure is a good idea.

You make an assumption that is not supported by the facts. Maybe he would have shot a little better with the snubby. Maybe hhis tactics would have changed. Lots of maybe. What we do know is that having all those bullets didn't make any difference, so using that to support your argument seems a little questionable.

I don’t think so. You have to be a pretty lucky guy to put down 5 guys with a 5 shot 38, specially a 38. Now with 15 rounds of 9mm +P, or better yet, 40S&W or 357 SIG, you have ammo and power to spare, given that you get to use it.
How about 6 guys? My friend, your chances fall to 0% given that you are now 1 round short even if you are the luckiest bstrd in the planet…
With more ammo? Maybe you pull it , maybe not, but at least your chances aren’t 0%.

Apparently not, as there are numerous instances available that show just that.

Show just what? People killing 6 guys with a 5 shot revolver? You must throw that little Airlight pretty hard …
Hi longcoldwinter
It’s not Rambo stuff.
I understand that my country can be a bit more violent than yours and these things are more common, with kidnappers and more organized crimes, home robberies involving many attackers.
But just as I was trying to explain to Dave, normal people do get to succeed against them sometimes, and in most of them high capacity autos are used.
If you live in a quiet safe place, where there’s no history of violent crimes involving many attackers, than maybe your snubby is fine for what you may end up facing realistically, but that doesn’t make it the best handgun, especially not for situations where a bit more firepower is needed, such as the ones that are common knowledge around here.

FerFAL

[Deaf Smith]

I think the counterpoint to that is that no man who has been shot ever complained that the person shooting him didn't use enough power or should have shot him more times. It is always a compromise between the various factors

They didn't have to complain david. Plenty of them just keep fighting after being shot. And that is why one keeps a-shooten. And the 5 shooter don't go so far.

[seeker_two]

Also helps if your carry snubby is an all-steel version (i.e. SP-101)....you can use the empty gun as a blunt instrument in hand-to-had if needed...

[Magnum Wheel Man]

one of the lines from my 1st post in this thread...

I live & work in a pretty safe area, & likely will never need to deal with actually having to shoot 3-4 bad guys anyway, so I currently don't carry a reload, because of the safe "type" area I live & work in...

this thread continues to get dragged ( kicking & screaming ) into the toilet with those who continue to say that my 5 shot revolver is not enough, yet still add comments like this...

If you live in a quiet safe place, where there’s no history of violent crimes involving many attackers, than maybe your snubby is fine for what you may end up facing realistically

yes, I'm the O.P of this thread, & yes I do live in work in a more rural, quiet setting... in fact, before I started carrying, I envisioned keeping a loaded revolver in the truck, more for dispatching 4 legged vermin on the farm, than carrying the light weight revolvers I have been carryng on my belt lately...

as I mentioned, I have the 2 "hi cap" autos that I am more likely to strap on if going into the downtown metro area, ( where realistically the threat warrents something with more capacity ) but for my day to day, I feel plenty safe with 5 shots of 200 grain 44 out of a weapon that I'm capable of shooting 3-4" groups at common self defense distances...

as for the reality of surviving a gang of 4-5 guys all armed guns of any kind, & with the sole intent of killing you... I think keeping your head, & thinking outside the box, being in good shape, & having a whole lotta luck on your side is way way more important than having a high capacity handgun... I will admit, that if I ever knowingly had to face 5 armed bad guys, ( in the 1st place, I'd avoid that like the plauge ), 2nd, I'm going to run as fast as I can... but I guess if I'm going to have to fight it out, I guess I hope I'm carrying my 10mm...

but since I carry my 5 shot 44... like 95% of the time.... I need to train the most with that weapon, & have a viable training plan for engaging multiple targets... with my 5 shot revolver...

[FerFAL]

On the same post you also said "I got to thinking about switching around my training with my revolvers this spring / summer, concerning engaging multiple bad guys..."
If that kind of threat is not a probelm, then a revolver should be enough, but you said yourself that you trained for several bad guys.
Even if the place is safe, Id still carry the auto, but that's just me.
Question, wouldn't your 10mm be enough for putting down animals?
That way you only carry one gun, one sistem, makes things easier.

FerFAL

[Magnum Wheel Man]

I honestly can't tell you how much easier the Airlite 44 is to strap on all day, than the full sized steel high capacity 10mm... the weight difference is incredible...

as I've said before ( maybe not on this thread ), when I planned on buying a 10mm, I fully intended to buy the Glock, but I found the grip fit for me to be awefull... the CZ cloned Witness fits like a glove, but it is a very heavy gun.. especially when loaded to capacity...

the loaded airlite 44 is almost the same weight as a spare loaded magazine for the 10mm... If I were carrying in a shoulder rig, I might find the weight of either auto to not matter as much, but for my dressing style, I carry almost exclusively OWB, & that is were the light weights shine... for me, it's not the bulk of the gun, as much as the weight, that I find anoying...

I still keep the loaded stainless 4" 357 magnum in the truck for varments around the farm, but have decided to start carrying on my person, if it's not too inconvient, & the airlite is very easy to carry... I guess from a tactical position, I do have a loaded 4" 357 Magnum & 3 speedloaders as a back up, if I'm anywhere around my truck, should I have a multiple BG situation...

That way you only carry one gun, one sistem, makes things easier.

agree that would be easier, but right now, if I were going to limit it to one gun, that would be the 5 shot 44... but I like to be able to switch up between 3-4 different guns, each better suited for different types of conditions... & while I hope to have the compact 9mm or the full sized 10mm strapped on, if I really had to engage multiple bad guys, I still feel I need to train for that situation with the gun I carry most often, as well...

[Whirlwind06]

This is one of concealed carry sacred cows. Similar to the 9mm vs the .45 or glock vs the 1911 debates that rage across the boards.

The 3 shots 3 second statistic that gets thrown out on these threads. Isn't that like a 20 year old statistic? Like and FBI study from the 1980s?

Back in the summer of 2006 I had a epiphany of sorts. I was in the inner city of Cleveland Ohio at my Moms house. Helping her around the house doing some yard work. I had just gotten my CHL just a month or 2 before and I was carrying my trusty .38. I was in the front yard trimming bushes and there was a 5 or 6 young men siting on the porch on the house next to me.

I started thinking about what would happen if these fellas came at me. I have 5 shots and a reload. I could retreat into the house and have at a least a defensible position. I would still be in bad shape with my 5 shots. Granted if 6 guys came at me, no matter what I was carrying short of a 12 gauge would not be enough gun. But it really got me thinking about it and I ended up carrying first a 1911 then a hi-cap 9mm. Which is what I carry now.

I have kind stuck to this belief. I carry a Kel-Tec P11 now. 12 shots of 9mm in about the size a j-frame. A couple weeks ago I used my P11 in a IDPA style shoot, know what? under the stress of a timer and a bit of completion I missed a few times. That was with 12 shots and static non-moving targets. I guess I'm not one of those highly trained door kickers that can shoot somebodies eye out from 50 yards with my P11. The more shots I have the better chance I have of success. If that holds true in a game, why not in real life?

I would like to get a J-frame at some point but I see it as a BUG either that or I would carry two J-frames.

I'll para-phrase a comment made by somebody another board, "carry what you want and keep whistling in the dark hoping that the wolves won't attack. And your 5 shots will be enough, if they do."

[Lurper]

There's nothing wrong with your J frame as a primary. It isn't perfect, but it is sufficient. My biggest worry would be if it were a .38 not a .357, not the 5 shots. I can't speak about what happens in other countries, but in the US I can tell you what is likely to happen.
First of all, the vast majority of the time no shots are fired (by a factor of something like 10,000). Most of the time in multiple assailant encounters, when the victim opens fire, the assailants run - the urge of self preservation overides the uge to kill. Quite often, the assailants don't want to kill you (if they did, they would just walk up and cap you) let alone expect resistance. Hitting your target is critical, usually the person who hits their target first comes out of the fight the best.

I'll echo what some of the other more qualified posters have said:
Don't practice a certain number of rounds or pattern. Shoot until the threat is removed. If faced with multiple assailants, my choice would be to shoot the one nearest me if he was armed once then move to the next. Unless you fall into a very very small group, 5 shots will be enough.

[David Armstrong]

A snubby isn’t something you’d pick as your only gun if you knew you were going to a fight, you just carry it because it’s convenient.

If I knew I was going to a fight I'd go somewhere else if possible. If not, I wouldn't pick any handgun as my first choice, I'd want a rifle or a shotgun.

First, military and law enforcement personal all around the world carry autos.

And we are not talking about military or LE here, so I fail to see what tha has to do with anything. Until recently, most LE carried reolvers and would not use autos. Nothing has changed in the last 20 or 30 years to make the revolver less effective.

I’m just saying that it’s not the best tool you could conceal in an IWB holster, and if you choose to go that way you should at least be honest with yourself about it.

To me all this nonsense about caliber, volumes of fire and so on are just that, nonsense, in the context of the CCW world.

I don’t think so. You have to be a pretty lucky guy to put down 5 guys with a 5 shot 38, specially a 38.

I do think so. When the odds against you are 5 to 1, survival is not predicated on caliber or number of rounds available.

Show just what? People killing 6 guys with a 5 shot revolver?

I think you are going to be pretty hard pressed to find instances of anybody killing 6 armed assailants, no matter haow many rounds they had. There are many instances of revolver-armed parties defeating multiple opponents. The point is that the win is rarely the function of the number of rounds in the gun.

They didn't have to complain david. Plenty of them just keep fighting after being shot. And that is why one keeps a-shooten. And the 5 shooter don't go so far.

Right. So the whole cliche business that you seem so fond of is fairly irrelevant to anything factual. And the 5-shooter goes far enough for most.

[FerFAL]

David Armstrong wrote:
If I knew I was going to a fight I'd go somewhere else if possible. If not, I wouldn't pick any handgun as my first choice, I'd want a rifle or a shotgun.

Just handguns, no shotguns or rifles, no tanks or SEAL buddies, no going other place either.

If you had no other choice but to go out that door and into a gunfight. Which handgun ( again, handgun, shotguns can’t be carried all day concealed) you can only use a handgun and there’s no avoiding the fight, which one would you choose?

Nothing has changed in the last 20 or 30 years to make the revolver less effective.

Well, something has changed. You now have reliable weapons with excellent stopping power that have 3 times more capacity.

To me all this nonsense about caliber, volumes of fire and so on are just that, nonsense, in the context of the CCW world.

?? Not much to reply to that.
Carry a 22LR derringer?
It’s light weight and conceals like no other.

Found this for you David.
"The only problem was I run out of bullets," Picket said.
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dw....bfc57dff.html
Read and learn from other's mistakes.

FerFAL

[David Armstrong]

If you had no other choice but to go out that door and into a gunfight. Which handgun ( again, handgun, shotguns can’t be carried all day concealed) you can only use a handgun and there’s no avoiding the fight, which one would you choose?

When one attempts to set up a situation to prove a specific point, it is easy to do so. However, getting something realistic is a bit harder to do. If I've got a choice, there is no need for concealement. Also, if I have to go out a door into a fight the gun I've got with me is the least of my worries. But given your comepletely artificial and contrived setup---It Doesn't Matter. I'm as comfortable (or uncomfortable) with a 5 shot snub, a 6 shot K-frame .357, an 8 shot 1911, a 9-shot Sig, an 18 shot Glock, or anything comparable. When I kicked doors for a living I chose to do it with an S&W Model 65 as my handgun. Maybe that is the difference between us--you want to worry about something that will never happen and make your choice based on the most unlikely events. I, along with many others, choose to respond based on more realistic situations.

Well, something has changed. You now have reliable weapons with excellent stopping power that have 3 times more capacity.

But that in no way changes the fact that the revolver will do the job just fine, as it has for a long time. You seem to think that capacity somehow makes you a better fighter or will change a bad situation to a good one. It doesn't.

Carry a 22LR derringer?

That will take care of most CCW needs. It's not my choice, as there are .22 autos that conceal just as well, but I've carried a High Standard .22 derringer in the past and didn't feel particularly worried.

Read and learn from other's mistakes.

A nice story with little value for your position, as it appears he solved the problem with 1 shot, and then they ran away. Looks like a 5-shot snub would have worked out fine for this incident. I can give you one where a .22 derringer was used to stop the BG. Will you learn from that???

[FerFAL]

David Armstrong worte:
When one attempts to set up a situation to prove a specific point, it is easy to do so. However, getting something realistic is a bit harder to do.

You try to deny something that is just too obvious.
There’s nothing unrealistic about the situation I’m talking.
What’s unrealistic is to think that you’ll always have a choice NOT to end up shooting.
What I’m saying is just what happens when you end up defending yourself with whatever you happen to be carrying.

1) It happens, and wishing otherwise will change nothing.
2) We already suppose that you are shooting/fighting because there’s no other option left. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be doing it.
3) If you happen to be a careful person and pack a CCW, that weapon is all you have. Nothing more, nothing less.
Wishing for shotguns, rifles, or laser guided missiles changes nothing. You just have what’s inside your holster.

What part of that do you find it to be an “attempts to set up a situation to prove a specific point”, what part of it is “unrealistic”?

If I've got a choice, there is no need for concealment.

You don’t, in most ½ way civilized places of the world, civilians walking around cities and towns don’t carry openly, not all the time.

you want to worry about something that will never happen and make your choice based on the most unlikely events.

Exactly what will never happen?

Kidnappings? People getting attacked by several criminals working together? David: IT HAPPENS EVERY SINGLE DAY.

I, along with many others, choose to respond based on more realistic situations.

Maybe you don’t share my situation, but that doesn’t make mine any less real, now does it?

You seem to think that capacity somehow makes you a better fighter or will change a bad situation to a good one. It doesn't.

No I don’t. It gives you more ammo already loaded in the gun, almost 3 times more in many cases.
Sometimes that’s just what you need, sometimes it doesn’t change a thing.
Personally I’d rather have it and not need it, than needing I and not….well, not having it.

A nice story with little value for your position, as it appears he solved the problem with 1 shot, and then they ran away. Looks like a 5-shot snub would have worked out fine for this incident. I can give you one where a .22 derringer was used to stop the BG. Will you learn from that???

That some bad guys run at the sight of anything that looks like a gun while others keep firing at you even when wounded?
No, I already new that.
Hear carefully to what the old man says in the video clip, he says he’ll have something else to deal with the rats if the come back after him.
Maybe next time there wont be bad guys left to go to trial, or to go on bothering honest people.

That will take care of most CCW needs.

According to your door kicking experience a 22 LR derringer will take care of most CCW needs???
This is getting more bizarre, post after post.

FerFAL