[QUOTE=Walkingwolf;139622256]I keep hearing this fast draw thing, how many times have there been an actual fast draw duel in the middle of the street? If a person has the drop on you, they have the drop on you, no matter how fast it is not going to stop that bullet.

What does save lives is good thinking skills under pressure, and situational awareness.

"Fast draw" isn't the open credits of Gunsmoke ...... but I can assure you it's also not me trying to get a j-frame out of the front pocket of my Wrangler's while some guy's coming at me with a blade........ I might fail the "21 yd" rule!!

Situational awareness..... is key; but good quality equipment never hurt......not just the gun but also the belt, holster, ammo

If you get in those situations on a regular basis you have greater problem. As far as others, it is really up to them how they carry, what they carry. The draw does not need to be 'fast' it needs to safe, and deliberate. Timing is more important than fast draw, and that takes thinking skills, good common sense, and situational awareness. Sprinkle in a will to survive.

ETA I have to laugh at the 21foot rule, a good knife fighter will get within reach before ever indicating they have a knife. The strike will come so fast that the damage is done before the person realizes. It is only amateurs, and those that watch tv that talk about attacking, or give any indication. If a person signals an attack in 21 ft they are amateurs.

Every successful knife attack I investigated happened within arms reach. My first one was a 17 year old girl stabbed 17 times by her boyfriend. He fell on the knife after he was done, found the body in the next yard.

OTH I had no training in yanking a trunk open that had been closed, NONE. But I was able to know to pull on the trunk of a car in WD Big Pine Key parking lot when a mother closed the trunk on her child's hand. No training at all, I just knew I had to get that kid's hand out of the trunk. Maybe if I was trained I would have called for a lock smith instead.

Again the basics SA, thinking under pressure, distance, and training that is realistic.

Barrel length does matter to some extent. Most SD ammo is made to reliably expend out of duty size guns. So that 4 - 5 inch barrels.

Grips matter to shootability. Little tiny guns are nice but I can't grip them. There's not enough surface area and the guns move around in my hand. The only way to grip them properly I'd have to put my trigger finger all the way through.

I'm about 200lbs and 6ft. I can easily conceal a G19, which is what I carry all year long.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

No. Someone could have used it successfully against someone else who has a rifle but a rifle will ALWAYS have more energy, better penetration and more accurate at distance. None of that beats a handgun.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Doesn't mean I want it shown. I don't know about where you live but places here where you open carry simply means you just get shot. Plain and simple. No asking for wallet, no threats, just shot and not always in the front. Then there's the whole thing of people freaking out and calling cops.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

IIRC Arik, one can't open carry in Philadelphia County.

Going to Walkingwolf's point we as civilian concealed carriers....... always face the "issue" of ....... action, beats reaction.

95% or more of the time I carry a medium size auto in a Milt Sparks Summer Special behind my right hip.......... same style, same place wither I',m CC shooting IDPA or USPSA (with a cover garment) since 1986/7. Probably done ...... at or over...... 100,000 draws over the past 30 years.

Yes it's legal to open carry in PA. Philly tried/tries to be different but in the end it's state law. The problem becomes when one doesn't have a concealed carry permit and gets in a car. A gun on a person in a car is considered concealed

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Citations please?

For which

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

I think you're confused. The OP stated, "A handgun beats a knife but not a long gun or shotgun." Energy or penetration are nowhere in his statement. I do not agree with his statement, and there is empirical evidence to support it. Handguns have beaten long guns, or more correctly: shooters with handguns have defeated opposing shooters equipped with long guns.

I would be extremely surprised if anyone on this board was unaware that a rifle round has more energy and penetration than a handgun round. The obvious does not need stating.

For any of it, do you have something to back up your post other than opinion?

You're falling into the trap of believing that carry choices are binary; either openly carried or completely concealed. If you were in a place where open carry "simply means you just get shot" then you would not want to carry openly in that place. I would venture to say that if you were going to a place where people will shoot you if they know you have a handgun, then maybe it isn't a place you want to go at all.

In any event, I can carry concealed to a restaurant, take off my coat and carry openly. I can do both.

This is pure speculation. I have years of actual experience carrying a 1911 daily in Tacoma WA, and there were zero freak-outs. Hundreds, of not a thousand or more people saw my 1911, on the street, in restaurants like Applebees, in the mall, etc., and not a single freak-out. The other people I know personally or on the OC forum report the same- nobody freaking out.

EDIT to add: So they call the cops? I have had people (that didn't freak out) call the cops. In the early days the cops would come and since they couldn't detain me for lawful behavior, I could simply walk away without discussing it. Later, the dispatchers started telling the callers that there was no law being broken and the police would not be responding.

So again, why is the OP claiming that concealment is the first priority?

To bring this back on track; this isn't a thread about open carry. The OP made several claims and some of us are trying to bring the thought-process he used out. One of those claims was that "Concealabity is the most important factor". That's the topic I'm addressing.

I believe the point others are trying to get across is most people don't really care. I don't, and I have seen people print very clearly, but I only notice is because I look. There is no evidence that the public at large pays attention. Even when people OC.

If the OP believes that completely concealed is highest priority then that is OK, no problem, personal choice, and all. But if he is looking for validation, or to determine the carry of others he is playing the game of futility.

I know I am cherry picking but does anyone want to argue that a Marlin 100 single shot .22lr with a 16 inch barrel (rifle) is a superior weapon to a TC Contender single shot .45-70 with a 14" barrel (pistol). There are eithet no or very few absolutes in this world.

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

Concealing is certainly a major concern in CONCEALED carry. Is it for DEFENSIVE carry? Depends on where you live.

Maybe it is my body shape, or my lack of incredibly baggy clothes, but I can rarely conceal a 92. My 686 comes closer, but my J-frame does better and my LCP better still. If I have my NAA 22, then like the knife fighter mentioned earlier, I don't plan on anyone knowing I have it until I pull the trigger at near contact range.

I don't understand all the Internet lectures on how I MUST carry X size gun with Y amount of ammo in Z sized caliber or larger.

Avoid big cities, bars, gun-free zones and do most of your business during daylight hours. You are now safer with a 22 than you would be with 150 rounds of 9mm with double guns while ignoring those rules. There is a reason why it has been 40+ years since I last pulled a gun for self-defense.

But if you can conceal 6 full sized service guns on you and you WANT to do so...have at it. Enjoy yourself. Good on you. Use it legally and intelligently and I'll just be happy for you.

Man gets his gun stolen at gunpoint
Open-Carrying Guy Has His Brand-New Pistol Stolen at Gunpoint

Another
Man steals gun from man in line at Phoenix McDonalds

Open Carrier Robbed of His Gun In Virginia

CONCEALED MEANS CONCEALED: CC’er Robbed Of Gun In Walmart Bathroom In Opportunistic Theft – Concealed Nation


As far as people freaking out and calling cops....you can find that all over YouTube. Plenty of people recording their encounters with Law Enforcement when stopped because someone called in "person with a gun"
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Yes some shooters with handguns have defeated those with rifles. All that means is the guy with the rifle couldn't shoot. But a rifle still beats a handgun each and every time. The user on the other hand.....

"Energy and penetration" doesn't need to be in his​ statement. It's implied. I've heard this statement a million times. It's implied that a rifle has better penetration, energy, .....etc.. because what else would you be comparing? The finish? The weight? Which is sexier?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

I've been in brush so thick you couldn't swing a long gun around .. pistol was the gun of choice ..

Place - Alaska .. Animal - Black Bear - Bear was found dead in the middle of a thicket we had to cut a path out with machete's to get the bear out .. bush was about 8-10 feet high and barely able to go through it .. you could not swing our long guns from side to side so were armed with pistols .. was a very tense 2 hours before we found him ..

He was killed with one shot but ran almost 150 yards after being hit before collapsing .. Friend had the head mounted and the feet made into ash trays .. I have one of them somewhere in a box ....

Even if all of them were true there are MORE incidents of CC either being victims of crime. PLUS there are many incidents, though low percentage, committing crimes. Such as road rage the most common.

Then there is the study of criminals that are more afraid of armed citizens than cops. Also the majority have stated that they avoid citizens with guns. But if a person conceals very good, they just look unarmed.

57% of criminals fear armed citizens more than cops

But what it boils down to is if you don't want to OC then don't do it. But don't come up with some made up BS that just makes you look like one of those haters. So unless it is illegal people will OC without incident in over 99.9% of cases. AND there is nothing you can do about it.

Added if you see a OCer please resist the urge to freak out. That will not work out so well with the law.

https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2015/0...ealed-carrier/

You are making my point. Yes, there are some stories of poorly concealed or openly carried guns getting taken (although the first one is NOT an open carrier). You're still thinking in binary terms- open carry or poorly concealing may not be best in all environments, but I am not limited to any one method.

There are significantly more stories of concealed carriers having their guns taken, or being shot before they ever had a chance to draw, or fumbling the draw and getting shot. Are you going to stop carrying concealed because others have failed?

You have so far (and somewhat dishonestly) avoided answering the question; is "concealabity is the most important factor"?

If so, please elaborate. The OP has abandoned his thread, which is a shame because I enjoy a good discussion.

Incidents with both OC, and CC are very rare. More people CC so there is more CC incidents. I have OC'd all my adult life, either as a LEO, or a citizen. I have not seen the problems that people seem to have nightmares about. Sometimes stuff happens, and sometimes stuff happens because people do stupid things.

I usually do not get into why I carry, mostly because it is a private decision. But I feel OC is right for me, I don't need to put down CC to feel validated.

I try to encourage responsible people who can to carry. I don't care which way they carry. The fact that I OC hopefully I normalize carry so more people do. Being pushy about carry, or the type of carry is not going to further the second amendment.

I looked back in here and I'm surprised at the hornet nest I seem to have stirred.
Keeping my concealed weapon concealed is a big factor with me. I was only referring to me and not implying all others should be concerned or care.
My statement of handgun vs. rifle vs. shotgun is simply a power comparison and I'm sure there are exceptions due to circumstances.
These were personal observations of mine that I was sharing and not instructions or lessons for anyone else.
Y'all do it however you want.

Some one else writing here said number 1 was reliability . Assuming you buy a quality gun and shoot it enough to be comfortable with it reliability should not be an issue. First thing you need in my opinion is a gun! A howitzer is no good at home if you are out on the street. I live in Florida, in Columbia shorts and a pollo shirt. Concealment is an issue. I carry a keltek P3AT. Not because I think it is a power house but because I can comfortably conceal it. Open carry is not an option yet in florida. People say the 380 is marginal for self defense. President Reagan almost died from a 22 rim fire in the lungs. No pistol and most rifles will not knock you down unless you hit the head , spine or pelvis. My little 380 is not a powerhouse but I have never had anyone say , oh all you have is a 380,well then go ahead and shoot me! No one wants to leak. The point of this long winded rant is first carry a gun and then if bad stuff happens make the best of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, I would suggest that reliability comes first, usability comes second, and...well, at that point it's all meandering nonsense and semantics and such. Arguing over the specific order is silly--it has to do all three, and once that's accomplished, it's all a matter of personal preference and compromise.

But concealment matters, because it's a form of retention and is tactically useful. Forewarned is, after all, forearmed.

Here are a couple pictures from Graig Douglas' blog that are illustrative of the problem (just not OC's particular role in it).



Our Good Guy is dealing with a Bad Guy to his front. He makes a "fencing" gesture with his off-hand, and gets his strong hand on the gun. This is nominally not a bad idea, because it's a lot easier to retain control of the gun when it's in the holster, and the defender may not wish to escalate to drawing quite yet.

Then Bad Guy #2 approaches from the rear, and grabs Good Guy's gun arm.



Good Guy is now in hot water. Bad Guy #2 has control of his arm--no way he can overpower a two-handed grip with a single arm. He can have his hand on his gun all he wants--he is at this moment, unarmed. The fight's over, he's lost.

Now, that doesn't mean open carry is invalidated as a choice, but it's not normally my choice. It just wouldn't work around here, even if it were legal.

Who was arguing over specific order?

Just.....wow. Looking at those two photos the good guy was carrying concealed and nonetheless his carry choice didn't matter one whit in that situation. This demonstrates a situational awareness breakdown, not a carry method problem.

Here's the thing; I have these discussions on forums and in person. The bad thing about having a discussion on a forum is that when someone gets uncomfortable they simply vanish or pretend they missed your question(s), which is exactly what the OP did here.

In person however I can usually get the other person to confront their discomfort and drill down to the real answer or answers, and why they're so uncomfortable (cognitive dissonance).

The majority of the time when asked why Joe dislikes open carry or feels total concealment is of utmost importance, and we've dispensed with the silly fantasies, there are two primary reasons. One has to do with Joe's embarrassment or shame (for lack of a better word) at having anyone know they carry a gun. Joe feels that if someone were to find out he carries a gun, that someone might view Joe as weak or paranoid. The other has to do with ignorance; what the law actually says and requires vs what they were told by someone likewise ignorant.

These are the same people that started out saying exactly what quite a few in here are saying; that poor concealment (or in the extreme, open carry) is dangerous, will get you shot, is "tactically inferior", etc. In person, when pushed to be honest with themselves they might admit that either they thought their gun had to (by law) be totally undetectable or felt some level of shame. To get there requires honest discussion, something that's easy to avoid on a forum.

This is why I start out mentioning that the law does not (in almost all places) require total concealment. Concealed means merely 'obscured from view' and not invisible. Every so often I get into a discussion of the law and Terry stops and so on.

Once we clear that hurdle I move on to pressing the person to consider why they believe concealment is so important, especially considering how unobservant most people are; more so with a robber who has an adrenalin rush going on and not thinking at 100%. No sooner do we start down that path but the "concealed is 'tactically' better" crowd come in with nonsensical and unsupported arguments. They'll cite one or two sketchy stories about someone getting their gun taken and declare open carry is deficient, like Wile Coyote giving up on his scheme because of a minor and correctable flaw. It's illogical because concealed carry people ALSO get their guns taken (as seen here), yet they don't give up concealed carry.

It just seems kind of dishonest to say that the pea-shooter you carry in order to obtain your chosen level of concealment is 'tactically superior' to a P229 (or G19 or M&P) that someone could sorta see if they looked long enough at the lump on a shirt.

This is why you will never see an open carry thread last long on any forum. As soon as people start getting uncomfortable because their argument holds no water, they either start making personal attacks, just vanish or pretend they don't see the post, post pictures of popcorn popping, or some other distraction to keep from having (or allowing) an honest discussion. (Although on some forums the mod or other authority will not allow an honest discussion due to their own ignorance or discomfort)

The bottom line is, however, that I really do not care how you carry! Carry in whatever way makes you most comfortable, and if that means a pea-shooter in your pocket then do that. If you don't want to tell me why total concealment is SO vital, then at least tell yourself....honestly.

How often has there been a fast draw duel in the middle of the street?

I don't know, but one winter evening while working patrol in Southern Illinois, I stopped a speeder. He got out of his car as I was getting out of mine, and he stood by the front fender (with driver door closed). I figured he had something in the car he didn't want me to see (or smell, this was in the 70's). I told him why I stopped him and asked to see his driver's license. When he brushed his coat back to reach for his wallet I saw the revolver holstered on his hip. My heart either stopped beating or sped up to 1000 beats per minute, I'm not sure, my blood pressure went through the roof and I went for my .45! I had the .45 up and safety off before his hands had made it as high as his shoulder and before he could finish yelling "don't shoot!" Turned out he was a security guard on his way home from work who had stopped at a local gas station to talk to the female attendant and forgot he was still carrying. I believed him after looking at his security ID from his billfold and the attendant's panties from his front seat.
Adreniline! A wonderful thing.

Where is this video available, it really looks staged. Funny how this has turned into a OC bashing thread. Let me repeat, I don't care about your choice, and it is legal here, and it works very very well.

My state is among only 5 not allowing open carry.
California, Illinois, New York and South Carolina do not.
The District of Columbia does not allow it, either.

So it was not actually a shootout? I am guessing you two didn't square off and slowly approach each other while western background music played.

I have seen a few police videos, usually the threat exits the vehicle with gun in hand, and the officer is caught by surprise.

A high level of situational awareness is a better deterrent than any choice of caliber or carry.

A gun in hand will always beat one on the belt. Presentation of a weapon should be a magic trick like producing a bouquet of flowers out of thin air.

Distraction and diversion can be elements of a weapon's presentation that are far more effective than a fast draw against an armed opponent.

Carrying concealed is the first and most important element of maintaining surprise. Open carry advertises the fact that you are armed and makes you a target.

Getting the "drop" on an attacker is the best way to prevail in an armed encounter. Of course when confronted with an opponent who has a gun or knife in hand already puts you behind the curve and must change your response.

Drawing a weapon against an aimed gun will likely get you shot before you can clear your holster no matter how fast your draw is. I prefer to keep any weapon I might have known only to me.

In the above scenario I would create the illusion of a scared and compliant victim giving up my cash (carried in a money clip in right front pocket) and then my wallet which I will fumble and drop or even toss it to my attacker as a diversion.

This may or may not give me the opportunity to draw and fire my weapon. I'll gladly give up my money and even my wallet to avoid a gunfight. Today however, even with total compliance, the robber may choose to shoot you, especially if he knows you are armed.

Situational awareness plays the largest role in first off, avoiding the confrontation, and secondarily, prevailing and surviving the encounter. I'm going to want to have my gun in hand if possible, still concealed by body position or clothing when trouble comes.

Failing that, I'm going to want to create the opportunity to draw and fire by taking the opponent off guard by deception or distraction.

Last resort is returning fire if shot and hoping my training and marksmanship will prevail while shots are exchanged. This is obviously the worst case scenario but one you have to mentally prepare for.

Mindset and determination to survive is secondarily only to situational awareness in an armed confrontation that cannot be avoided. Size and speed of the bullets you carry comes way down the list of things that may keep you alive on the mean streets of the State you live in.

digiroc

Bird in hand ... A high level of situational awareness is a better deterrent than any choice of caliber or carry.

A gun in hand will always beat one on the belt. Presentation of a weapon should be a magic trick like producing a bouquet of flowers out of thin air.

Distraction and diversion can be elements of a weapon's presentation that are far more effective than a fast draw against an armed opponent.


One time when faced with a BG with a gun while a LEO, I shook and begged and waved my arms and grabbed my uniform cap and threw it in his face. While he was ducking I drew and fired. I'm here, he ain't.

A day shooting with Bill Jordan and 10 years of practice made a lot of difference in my case.

__________________
Eccentric old coot

I agree with most of what you say here. You make some very good points.

But on the fast draw part: fast draw can matter, and it could mean the difference between winning or losing the gunfight. Watch how fast this bank guard had to clear leather and start shooting. He almost didn't get the gun out in time, but luckily he did and he prevailed with good tactics and good use of concealment/ cover.

That there is some wild stuff. Good thinking, and glad you prevailed in that terrifying ordeal.

Intense video!

According the theory the guard should have been shot immediately as the robber entered and looked for people carrying openly, instead he puts a round in the ceiling and the openly carrying guard draws and shoots before the robber can get his gun around.

Either the robber did it wrong, the whole thing was staged, or the theory needs work.

That was not fast draw, if you can see it, it is not fast. His draw was deliberate, IMO possibly even slow. Want to see fast draw watch some Bob Munden videos.

The robber got off the first shot, had he been as good as Bob Munden the guard would have been pushing up daisies. The guard prevailed because he used cover, and he could shoot. Getting the first hit determines the winner in a gunfight, not drawing the fastest.

Not only could Bob shoot fast he could hit what he aimed at. Really cool to watch, but unless you want to shoot thousands of rounds a day it is still unlikely that we will be a Bob Munden. And even he says fast draw gunfights are a Hollywood myth.

It's clear you missed entirely the original point of my post.

Then please elaborate. What I got from your post is you put up a video claiming that the guard prevailed because of fast draw. I contend he prevailed because the bad guy was a lousy shot. Shot placement wins gunfights, and who gets them first. So the guy with a gun in hand can hit is mark would be the winner over a drawing on a drawn gun.

Training has changed a lot since I was a LEO, barricade training was a big portion of range time. We were taught to seek cover first if there was cover. Not fast draw in the open, and it usually works because the bad guy can't shoot worth a lick. I lost a deputy friend because a tow truck driver put a gun to his head, and shot him. No fast draw would have saved him, his trust of the TT driver was misplaced.

As mentioned diversion can be used, and has been used. Or the bad guys gets distracted, and does not see the draw, this has happened. When we had a big person who acted unwilling to be arrested sometimes throwing a clipboard, lit cigarette, or whatever we could in the face would give us time to get them on the ground. Never had to do it with someone with a gun though, and had only one shooting, and my gun was already drawn, and aimed. Which is something most of us can't do as civilians.

You post an argument saying that fast draw is not necessary and for only hollywood.

I respond by showing a video wherein a good guy *needed to get his gun out, and very quickly*. A 'fast draw' scenario.

You respond by saying, 'That's not a fast draw. Look how fast Bob Mundan can do it!'

See the problem with your response? You committed what's called a version of the 'No true Scotsman' logical fallacy. I mean no disrespect. We probably agree quite a bit here.

Who got off the first shot in that video? If that shot had connected with the guard's vitals who would have won the gunfight?

Pretty simple, putting a bullet into the threat first wins fights. In this case if the robber was a good shot the guard would probably be dead. Fast draw would not have saved him. Went back, and watched it again, actually the robber got off TWO shots before the guard. One he intentionally shot in the ceiling, he had not even noticed the guard yet, one into the wall by the guard who was still behind cover. In conclusion the robber was another dumb criminal. He apparently did not know there was armed guard, he did not take the time to look for him. This gave the guard time to respond.

Fast draw did not win him this fight, a very dumb criminal lost the fight when he had the advantage.

You're still doing this?

Okay. I'll play one more time, then I'm out.

I agree with you on many points. Yes, the one putting bullets into the threat first is ussually the one who wins. The guard put the bullets into the threat first, *and in order to do so, he needed to draw that pistols fast; it was a fast draw scenario*.

If the bad guy had been a good shot, yes, he would have won. And if the bad guy was a woman he would have had a different name. The fact stands, the guard put the bullets in the threat first, and he had to do it very quickly. Fast draw was needed here, and he did it succesfully.

Posting about Bob Munden, or saying 'that was a slow draw', is just committing the no true scotsman logical fallacy.

Sorry but it was a slow draw into comparison, anybody could have drawn as fast as he could. He won the fight because the bad guy was stupid. Had he walked into that bank, pointed the gun at the guards head instead, and could shoot, the guard would be dead.

The guard got his gun out as quick as he possibly could, the crook gave him an opportunity to put bullets where they count. This theory that a person can outdraw a drawn gun that is in the hands of someone who knows how to use it is insane. Even Bob can't outdraw a bullet.

I take it back, I do know somebody who stopped the shooter with fast draw. I believe his name was Tex Gruber, the problem he was competing with himself, and lost. I have heard of more people shooting themselves playing fast draw than it ever winning a gunfight.

Nobody, actually.

Read the things I wrote again. I actually specifically mentioned that it was an illustration of how concealment functioned as a form of retention--or rather, how a lack of concealment can be a liability.

I'd also point out--and I'll happily confess to knowing this only because this is my current study focus--that the Good Guy's problem isn't situational awareness. He's identified a threat and is addressing it. Douglas' position is that if you take your eyes off the guy you already see to look around, you're then in a position of having to react to whatever he decides to do when you look back to him.

Douglas suggests side-stepping into your peripheral view, rather than standing still or backing up, both of which expose you to the sort of grab depicted here.

As you point out in your post, the Good Guy in the scenario has given up the retention benefit concealment offers in order to communicate his message more effectively, so to speak. Which would be fine, except that he's unaware of that fact. Which is something I'd never really thought much about.

It's available as a series of stills accompanying an article--"Managing Unknown Contacts". And yes--it's part of a demonstration on this whole bit about dealing with a person that hasn't yet presented himself as an overt threat.

The other thing is...

The reason we can't have nice open carry discussions is because zealots on both sides become defensive and take it personally.

Open carry buys you a lot of nice things. It's comfortable. You can generally carry a larger handgun than you normally would if you chose to conceal. And it's usually faster than concealed carry.

But like every other decision regarding defensive handguns, it's a compromise. Just as I give away the benefits open carry could afford me (it's not legal here by a long shot), there are some pluses concealment offers.

The funny part is that I do practice a little open carry from time to time--right on the range! My reasoning is that when I'm downrange, I've left a handgun or two (or three, or four...) on the bench behind me, where anyone could trespass onto the facility. I'd hate to get back to the bench to find some ne'er-do-well pawing over my guns and be unarmed. So I pack something around with me, and don't dawdle admiring (or ruing) my targets.

I'd say there's a tactical "trade". Concealed is usually a bit slower, and open trades away that "concealment is a form of retention" bit.

Oh, and locally, we have this bizarre "cannot be detected by the average person"-type statute. So if you have your pistol pressed into an IWB under a skin-tight muscle-T, you're gonna have a bad time. But a little bump's not a big deal.

Another fun bit. We're limited to ten rounds. So even if I chose to pack around a 19 or a 17, I'd still be stuck with just the 10 rounds the 26 affords me. If I lived elsewhere and could carry more, the 19 (or another pistol) would be more attractive.

So maybe I could get a double-stack .40 or .45 if I didn't have to conceal, but I'm quite happy with the 9. It's effective and I can shoot it well.

In all matters discussing the inadequacy of my cartridge selection, I defer to a single suggestion: "Stand downrange and ask me again." So far, no takers.

Pretty much my suggestion. And I'm not a big fan of the pocket-sized guns. Too much of a trade in reliability and usability, even if you thought .380 was sufficient or got a 9.

It's a little funny, actually. There are well-known instructor/writers out there who will howl about how awful a compromise the 26 is, because they cannot conceive of a place where 10 is the limit.

A fine example of situational awareness, knowing you are at the point of a gun and needing to do something to turn the tables into your favor.

It started with deception, portraying yourself as paralyzed with fear, begging for your life. Then the distraction of throwing your hat at the assailant who reflexively ducked, giving you just the opening you needed to draw and fire your weapon.

For me it's a bit easier, nearing 70 I can appear as a feeble old man willing to capitulate by offering my money clip from my front pocket, while also preparing to draw my AISW weapon if that distraction provides the opportunity.

If it does not, then I go for my wallet in my back pocket while shaking in "fear" but also preparing to draw my backup gun to end the threat as I either fumble and drop my wallet, or toss it to him giving me a chance to put the draw and fire that I've practiced for decades into practical use.

Congratulations on the successful "Hat Trick" (de-rigor unabashed Hockey reference in honor of the Pittsburgh Penguins back to back Stanley Cup wins).

digiroc

I'd be sure to compliment you on your exquisite taste sir! I have carried Vaqueros that way before to a shooting match and someone asked me where I was headed. I naturally replied, "To a gunfight." The look on his face was priceless.
Another time I had a fellow ask me if the Vaquero jammed behind my belt was a real gun. I'll never forget it. There were two guys in a Ferrari with Florida tags at a gas station and it was the passenger that asked. I looked up, smiled and said, "No sir, it's a cap gun...and on Wednesdays we dress up and play cowboys and Indians."
When I carry my Delta Elite, it doesn't draw much attention at all from the masses and it has ridiculous red triangles on the grips. IWB is all but invisible.

__________________
This≠DodgeCity&You≠BillHickok

That's alright. He missed my point completely too, when he "assumed" I was talking about was wild west fast draw.

In reality, I was speaking about trained techniques of drawing and putting rounds on target quickly and accurately. Something people should really learn how to do if they want the upper hand in ANY situation.

Videos just like yours are the reason why I started training with combat shooting, or point shooting. Nothing about that is "fast draw", and if the work by Applegate, Sykes, and Fairbairns was referenced, it would be clear I'm not talking about fast drawing.

I was merely suggesting that gun carriers should practice/train for actual combat. Not saying you can't defend yourself without any training. However, when you have today's world when people will burst in weapons drawn, I would rather have the ability to draw and fire before my lights are out.

Anyone else can do what they want. Their life isn't mine.