Thinking about a compact double stack

[chaim]

Unfortunately, I live in a state where it is difficult to obtain a carry permit (impossible unless you are a prosecutor, judge, business owner who carries large amounts of cash, or very politically connected). So, I can only carry when in a state that will honor my UT non-resident permit (and soon NH non-resident permit so I can carry in PA again). Thus I was a slow learner.

For a long while, since I was a part-time carrier I always felt quite conspicuous when carrying a gun. I'd almost always carry something small, like a J-frame or my SIG P290RS, unless I was wearing multiple layers of winter clothing.

Well, about a year ago I decided to carry my midsized .45ACP SIG P250 Compact on a short vacation in VA. With the way I dress (long pants/jeans, button down shirts or polos) I found that I can conceal my midsized guns just as well as my little P290RS. It conceals pretty well under a tucked polo or button down, and completely disappears under an untucked polo. It is fairly thick, you do see a bit of a lump under the tucked polo (or button down if you wear tight shirts, I don't), but you will be the only one who will know it is a gun. Heck, most people don't really look that closely at what others are wearing so most won't even notice the bulge. Go with a slightly narrower gun (like my CZ P01 with thinner than stock grips or a Glock) and it will be even tougher for someone to notice.

Not a big Glock fan, but I keep coming back to the G26 as a yardstick for comparing size and weight.

I keep coming back and looking at the Glocks for a carry gun for the same reason. They always seem to be just a tad smaller in all (or most) dimensions, a tad lighter, and often carry one or two more rounds in the mag than the competition in the same class/size. Right now, I'm thinking about either a G26 for when my SIG P250 Compact or CZ P01 are too big, or a G23 for a .40S&W option comparable to (but a tad smaller than) my P250C or P01.

[chaim]

Oh, as for why I went larger...

First, if you can, why not? A larger gun is a more capable gun. Higher capacity (if needed), but also, it will be heavier. Heavier means easier recoil recovery and thus faster follow up shots. It also means you will likely spend more time per practice session with the gun than a small light gun that is uncomfortable to shoot, thus you'll probably be more accurate with it. The longer sight radius means, all else being equal, you will likely be more accurate, and because of the weight, you probably have practiced with it more than you would have with a lighter and smaller gun.

Why do I care about higher capacity? Well, first, the police on average only hit about 1/3 of the time. Despite what many people like to think, the average cop practices (and more importantly, actually trains) more than the average gun owner. Also, in my experience, cops are more likely to be gun enthusiasts than the average person. Though, the average CCW holder is more likely to be an enthusiast than the average person as well, but no one will convince me that most cops train less than most CCW holders. Now, cops do sometimes have to take distance shots and CCW holders rarely to never will. So, I'm willing to grant that our accuracy under pressure will, on average, be similar to that of trained police. If we hit about 1/3 of the time, 2/3 of our shots will be misses (so, typically, 3 shots means 1 hit). Also, on average, according to the FBI it takes 2-3 hits to stop an attacker (when it actually gets to having to actually shoot that is, most of the time just presenting a gun will end the threat). So, 1/3 of your hits will hit and it will take 2-3 hits to stop one attacker, thus one attacker that you actually have to shoot may easily take 6-9 rounds to stop just that one attacker. On the low end of that estimate (to stop one attacker), that is already taking the entire capacity of the typical small CCW pistol, and on the high end it has already exceeded it. Though, for the sake of argument, lets be generous and say many of us here will hit 1/2 of the time...2-3 hits to stop, that means 4-6 rounds to stop one attacker (again, at 6 rounds you are at the capacity of many small CCW pistols, and at best you have 1 or 2 rounds remaining). Even if multiple attackers are rare, I'd like to have a chance against 2-3 attackers if possible, so I want no less than 10 rounds in my defensive gun (I'd prefer 12-15), and I'm starting to carry reloads which I didn't use to do (I was more likely to carry a 2nd gun).

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by chaim

Despite what many people like to think, the average cop practices (and more importantly, actually trains) more than the average gun owner.

Is this true and where would one get the data for such a conclusion? I don't know what the average gun owner and police officer are regarding shooting ability.

[ShootistPRS]

It might b true where he lives but my experience is that the only time cops get any practice is just before and during their annual qualifications.
I used to be an associate member at the police range where I lived. I practiced daily and I could always tel when the guy next to me was a cop. First, they always had a box of range wadcutters and they could not keep their rounds in an 8 inch bull at 25 yards. rounds would go into the ceiling, the posts, the bench and the berm in front of the targets. Most cops don't like to shoot their guns. They don't shoot well even at stationary targets. There are exceptions to this, of course, but as a general population they don't shoot well.

[TunnelRat]

Despite what many people like to think, the average cop practices (and more importantly, actually trains) more than the average gun owner. Also, in my experience, cops are more likely to be gun enthusiasts than the average person. Though, the average CCW holder is more likely to be an enthusiast than the average person as well, but no one will convince me that most cops train less than most CCW holders.

I've said this on a number of threads, but heck I'll say it again. I've done somewhere around 14 training courses now with various "themes". In all of those courses there have been active, retired, and still in the academy law enforcement officers. My honest experience is that the average cop may shoot more than the average gun owner (if we're including those that buy a firearm, put it in the closet, and never touch it again because at least the officers have to qualify yearly) but the idea that they're more enthusiastic hasn't been true. Without exception every active officer had to use personal time to take those course and while they received those courses at a discount they paid for them out of their own pocket (unless the course was bought out by their department, but that's not typical for local departments in my experience, more so for statewide departments). For a lot of them once they got out of the academy the actual training, not just range practice, really becomes very infrequent and if they want more they have to go outside of work (this is something they often criticize as most want more training, but it's not in the budget). There are of course exceptions and those are generally the guys on SWAT and other response teams that are essentially the go to gun guys for their departments or agency branches. And just like there are people that will never "train" with their firearms, there are officers that never go above the department minimum.

In that time I've seen some excellent shots. I've also seen some not so excellent shots, though I'd say the average officer is still decent. What I have noticed is a lack of muzzle awareness and trigger finger discipline at times that has typically been better with the other civilians. Now you can argue that those civilians are the exception as they're in these courses too, but they're typically of all walks of life, various ages, and also of varying experience. Frankly for a number of officers carrying a firearm is a part of the job but many will retire having never discharged their sidearms. That's going to vary widely by your locale. The point is it's possible for an officer to not put firearms experience at the top of his/her priority list when they can spend a lot of their days acting more as social workers than hired guns.

My point would be sweeping generalizations don't work, nor is it easy to define an "average" gun owner or law enforcement officer. From my experience there are civilians as dedicated or more so than some police officers. Like everything, it depends on a lot of factors.

[chaim]

We all know that the average cop doesn't spend enough time behind his or her gun at the range. We also know (if we're being honest) that the average gun owner doesn't either. We also know (if we're being honest) that time behind the gun isn't everything.

Who here has taken even one advanced firearms tactical course? Either at Frontsight, SIGArms Academy, S&W Academy, or with one of the numerous local schools and trainers out there? One with realistic simulations (video, force on force) as well as range time with at least some dynamic (moving) targets and simulated stress? I know it has been quite a few years since I have. Around here, every cop has had some of that training (and if I'm not mistaken they have some every year). They may do most of the "shooting" with lasers or simunition rounds, but that is actually better training than target shooting at a bench. By the way, if you have been to those classes, you are far from the average shooter (let alone the average gun owner who rarely practices).

Just because they only have to shoot 50 rounds a year in qualification on their service pistol (and in MD, they have to do it for any pistol they carry, on or off duty), and they may be occasionally retrained when their department changes guns, and for some officers that is all they shoot (other than occasional live fire exercises), it certainly doesn't mean that is all most officers shoot. Also, even for those that this is all they shoot, at least they have had the initial training which is more involved than most "civilian" classes (here in MD it must be at least 35 hours of firearms training), and they have the periodic "tactical" training as well. That tactical training is at least as important as target practice behind a bench to be prepared for a real world defensive shooting.

So, it is definitely true that most officers need more practice with their guns. It is also true that most of us do too. However, they have more tactical training than most of us can hope to afford that makes most of them more prepared than most of us to be accurate in a defensive shooting.

[sigarms228]

About 12 years back my work brought me into contact with a lot of police officers. My experience is that for 90 percent of them their pistol is just a tool to them like their flashlight or squad car and they only shoot when required for qualification which was once or twice a year. Most of them had never touched a handgun other than their department issued Glock.

[chaim]

OK, I got caught in it to, but we are getting sidetracked here...

Anyway, my point that started all this is that in a high stress, adrenaline dump, loss of fine motor skills, life-and-death situation (a defensive shoot) it isn't like shooting behind a bench. The best of us will find we are not very accurate.

Lets assume that the average TFL member is not the average gun owner or average CCWer. Lets assume most of us have had quality, intensive training on the self defense use of a handgun (not just a safety, marksmanship, or CCW class). Lets assume most of us have had it recently enough for it to be helpful. We'll probably hit about half the time if we are lucky/very good. On average we will need 2-3 hits to stop an attacker. Are you really comfortable with a gun that only has enough rounds to stop one to one and a half attackers (4-6 rounds to stop one attacker)? I'll still take a gun with at least 10 rounds (and preferably a reload) in case my attacker has friends nearby.

[TunnelRat]

Who here has taken even one advanced firearms tactical course? Either at Frontsight, SIGArms Academy, S&W Academy, or with one of the numerous local schools and trainers out there? One with realistic simulations (video, force on force) as well as range time with at least some dynamic (moving) targets and simulated stress? I know it has been quite a few years since I have. Around here, every cop has had some of that training (and if I'm not mistaken they have some every year). They may do most of the "shooting" with lasers or simunition rounds, but that is actually better training than target shooting at a bench. By the way, if you have been to those classes, you are far from the average shooter (let alone the average gun owner who rarely practices).

Beyond the academy I know plenty of officers that haven't done extensive additional training, certainly not on a year by year basis. If the officers around you are that's awesome and more power to them, but it certainly isn't the norm for where I live (New England). This isn't just me talking from the last few years of taking courses at SIG Academy and interacting with officers from a number of states. You could ask the instructors there as well and I can think of a half dozen off hand that would back me up on that statement. Just like there is the gun owner that doesn't shoot much, there is also the same stereotype for police officers. There are dedicated people in both groups. I'm aware that the circle I'm in (this isn't me bragging, this is just me conceding a fact) makes it so my view is somewhat skewed. But I know a number of civilians taking way more courses than your average police officer, and I also know there are courses that SIG won't even offer to me as a civilian.

it certainly doesn't mean that is all most officers shoot.

Right, and just because the average civilian shooter might not shoot much, it doesn't mean that's all most civilians shoot either. That's my point in all this. Defining an "average" isn't easy and you can't count or discount either group really.

However, they have more tactical training than most of us can hope to afford that makes most of them more prepared than most of us to be accurate in a defensive shooting.

I've done a lot of training, though I have no delusions of grandeur. I've also shot and passed the police marksmanship handgun requirements with ease (and watched a group of 10 civilians take it and most passed as well). Despite all that, I don't know that I'm "prepared", which is why I will keep going back until age stops me.

When I have done force on force with UTM ammunition, my experience was while it's nice to have fundamentals the best help was more force on force training. Timers, matches, etc., don't replicate the potentially brain debilitating fight/flight instinct of the "primitive" brain, at least not for me personally (and that was just FoF, where at some level I knew this wasn't real). At the same time most of the officers I talked to didn't get much, and in some cases any, of that type of training at the academy. There wasn't time to go through those type of decision making under stress exercises, at least not to a great extent (a fact that generally baffles most people I tell that too). The problem here is, like you're stating, it's a lot easier to practice fundamentals than do your own FoF. I've seen guys stay in the fight, and I've seen people shut down. Previous experience wasn't always the indicator of what would happen (surprisingly so in some cases).

I can concede that police can/should have easier access to some excellent training than civilians. But not all of them do and of those that do not all of them will really go into it whole heartedly. I just caution using the "average" police officer as benchmark.

I'll still take a gun with at least 10 rounds (and preferably a reload) in case my attacker has friends nearby.

Absolutely. For that matter carry a reload too. To me one of the biggest advantages of the subcompact pistol is the ability to use fullsize mags for your backup. That gives you the ability to carry in two magazines what would take many single stack mags.

[TailGator]

I've been carrying a G26 IWB for several years, and I'm really not looking around any more. I have a pocket pistol for times when IWB doesn't work, but the G26 is easy to carry any time you have an opportunity for a cover garment at all, and it shoots very well for me.

[doofus47]

I love my P99AS compact.

Hope you find your baby.

[chaim]

Absolutely. For that matter carry a reload too. To me one of the biggest advantages of the subcompact pistol is the ability to use fullsize mags for your backup. That gives you the ability to carry in two magazines what would take many single stack mags.

I'm currently leaning towards a G23 (if I go Glock). Something that keeps me thinking about a G27 or 26 (like the OP) is this big advantage of the traditional subcompacts (v. the single stack micro-9s), as well as one advantage they have over what I'm considering. You can carry a G26 or G27 and have it disappear almost as well as the micro-9s under most clothing while carrying more rounds than the micro-9, yet you can also carry a G19/23 sized reload, or even a full-sized reload, and have the rounds of the larger gun in that reload. Heck, with a sleeve/mag adapter you can carry the gun with the larger mag when the way you are dressed allows it (and have the capacity of the compact or even full size), and you still have the smaller option when dress necessitates it. Actually, with these advantages of the smaller double stack pistols, the only reason I'm considering the compacts (G23, CZ P07) is the improved sight radius, and improved control due to the heavier weight.

[K_Mac]

The Ruger SR9c is my choice in a compact. I think having 10+1 available with a quick reload is a good thing. Good luck in your​ search.

For what it's worth a 17 round mag comes with the Ruger, so you can carry a higher capacity reload if you choose. I find a 10 round carries easier.

[Auto5]

Lots of good ideas. Hadn't even thought of the HK or Walther, but now I'm considering either. Now its off to the range for the next phase of research.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Auto5

. . . . Now its off to the range for the next phase of research.

That is, at least arguably, the most important phase. Please keep us posted.

[BigMikey76]

My Taurus PT111 G2 has been my daily carry for the past 2 years, or so. It hits the sweet spot for me between too small and not small enough; I can just get a full grip with my XL meathooks, and it carries nicely without printing. 12+1 is a decent capacity, and mine has been completely reliable. The only thing that I have ever disliked about it is that there is no version without a manual safety.
The price is also a great benefit.

[Pukindog12]

FNS 9c
Bersa Thunder 9UC Pro

Both serve me well.

[tallball]

I like rifles. I like shotguns. I like handguns. If someone wants to buy one, great, more power to them. However, just because someone sees some news stories about something doesn't mean it is "on the rise" or statistically significant. Just sayin.

[Auto5]

@tallball: OP here, in the Chicago area, and,sadly, it is on the rise here.

[rodfac]

Great suggestions in the above...Here's our take on CC's of that size, and some of the considerations in carrying them.

As far as accuracy is concerned, when compared to groups of controlled pairs I've shot with my wife's Smith 637 with ~2" bbl., the add'l length of our Sig M11 and G23 doubles the effective range for similar groups. I.E.: I get ~2-3" gps with the Smith snubbie at 7-10 yds with a modified Weaver stance, and just about double that with our compacts. With the Smith Bodyguard 380 that we carry on occasion, the effective range for those same groups is 3-5 yds, again, shooting 'controlled pairs'.

When a compact size is doable for us, my wife's G23 fills the bill for her and I like my Sig M11-A1 (P229). I weighed the M11 last night and got 29.6 oz. with an empty mag and the G23 comes in at 23.8 oz., just enough to be noticed on the belt, and that's without a loaded magazine. The magazine add's another 9 oz.!

Too, either of these pistols and spare mags plus holsters and carriers for each adds as additional 4" to my hip width, (1-3/4" for a single mag carrier & just over 2" for a leather OWB; both close fitting). Carrying that extra mag makes OWB or for that matter IWB carry, just that more difficult. The 4" extra body width was a bit of a surprise when I measured it this am.

That said, either of us successfully carries either gun (tho my wife has never carried an extra mag unless attending a training course (Front Sight in NV)). Loose clothing works well but the bulk on the hips is evident (general printing) if you look closely.

Just some thoughts on the subject, YMMV, BTW, if you commit to carrying a compact, the Glock 23 or 19 is a hellofa choice if you do some work on the trigger, get tritium night sights, and you're happy with the grip size. Rod

[ripnbst]

I elected to go with the M&P 9c and I haven't regretted the decision. I have Apex DCAEK in mine and I love it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Onward Allusion]

Wasn't a Glock fan myself until I started shooting and then carrying one. Can't go wrong with a G26 or G27.

[jreXD9]

#21 above said to get a Glock 26 and noted the 12 round capacity with the extended mag. Alas the CZ RAMI holds 14+1 with an extended mag and, to many folks surprise, is nearly identical to the 26 in size. I've had both. The Rami is the only pistol that will never be sold or traded by me. All other pistols have been subject to getting moved, even the CZ PCR D.