done with semi-auto carry
- Thread starter LCC
- Start date
I've ccw'd a Glock 19 for years and I'm a big believer in really "getting to know" your ccw. Carry it, shoot it, handle it (safely) regularly...don't alternate what you carry every week, day, etc as you should know your "platform" like second nature.
To echo others, use what you are comfortable carrying and what you can shoot proficiently. Tons of folks carry something lightweight and tiny and haven't put more than a box or two of ammo thru it.
To echo others, use what you are comfortable carrying and what you can shoot proficiently. Tons of folks carry something lightweight and tiny and haven't put more than a box or two of ammo thru it.
Can you give us reasons....
What is the advantage of the 642 that made you switch?
What is the advantage of the 642 that made you switch?
Bumpus13
Member
Backlighting
Member
I've recently switched my CC from a Airweight snubby to a 9mm compact semi-auto. Why? I now only want to own a plinker and a firearm for CC and home defense. The snubby was more difficult to shoot well, is limited to 5 rounds and the rounds are 2x the cost of the 9mm. The 9mm compact semi I now have fills the bill.
Last edited:
Then you should probably carry two pistols....a service pistol for the possible although unlikely ranged gunfights and an enclosed hammer snub for the more probable reactive close-quarter scenarios. A lot of folks do just that.
Boriqua
Member
I recently made the same decision and sold all of my semi autos but one.
I liked the glock 19 gen 5 and a host of other semi autos for shooting very much but so much more led me to pickup the 3" 686 as my primary carry. My backup if it is out for service or something else is a 3" gp100.
They both seem perfect for my needs and expectations.
Spent most of my Semi Auto carry carrying 1911 style guns so with the 686+ I didnt give up much onboard rounds.
The only semi I kept was a Springfield XDM 10mm. Its my out in the wilderness gun.
why i switched
for me, no other weapon carries more comfortably or safer in the pocket, no other weapon is simpler to use.
And I am by no means claiming a J-frame as the 'be-all'..just works for this 70 year old senior living the quiet life next to a lake.
Personal threat assessment = personal carry choice = all good
for me, no other weapon carries more comfortably or safer in the pocket, no other weapon is simpler to use.
And I am by no means claiming a J-frame as the 'be-all'..just works for this 70 year old senior living the quiet life next to a lake.
Personal threat assessment = personal carry choice = all good
Kframerbluvr
Member
When off duty, more often than not, a 442-2 resides in my Wranglers pocket along with two speed strips loaded with four rounds each. This is sometimes supplemented with a Gen 2 Glock 19 carried IWB with an extra mag since I am still active LE.
When and if I ever retire, my revolvers will most likely be my LEOSA travel guns since my son lives in Baltimore and MD does not honor a regular VA CWP. No ridiculous magazine restrictions to deal with. They are easier to hide and my goal will be to break contact safely versus offensively engaging with armed felons. The 442 is my carry when visiting him there.
When and if I ever retire, my revolvers will most likely be my LEOSA travel guns since my son lives in Baltimore and MD does not honor a regular VA CWP. No ridiculous magazine restrictions to deal with. They are easier to hide and my goal will be to break contact safely versus offensively engaging with armed felons. The 442 is my carry when visiting him there.
Last edited:
Two thoughts on this.
First, most people are not proficient with the handgun they carry.
I've personally seen a lot of people who carry an airweight snub nose .38 or in some cases a J Magnum frame .357 Magnum, yet I've yet to see one of them who practices enough with them to become truly proficient. For those people, the only benefit they really get from a snub nose revolver is the deterrent effect if they draw it and the noise it makes then why fire it. Hit percentages are extremely low - lower than 1 in 5 or 1-6 if the range is more than a couple yards.
For those folks, I'll argue a high capacity 9mm semi-auto is a better choice as it's heavier, recoils more comfortably and thus may get shot more frequently and result in both better marksmanship under stress and more rounds - chances - to hit an assailant.
9mm Luger is also dirt cheap as ammo goes and the odds are that a shooter will shoot proportionately more with $9 per box 9mm Luger than he or she will with $18 per box $38 Special or $25 per box .357 Magnum.
Second, I remember reading about that shoot on PoliceOne.com about 5-6 years ago. As I recall he fired 33 times and had 4 rounds left in his gun. However, the key thing I remember the officer stating was "Hey, I have to slow down and aim better" right before he put three rounds in the assailant's head and ended the incident. The other thing I recall is a number of rounds hit houses in the neighborhood.
We all devolve to our lowest level of fully mastered training under extreme stress, and for most LEOs and armed citizens that level isn't very high at all. For most officers and armed citizens that equate to pointing the handgun in the general direction of the assailant and pulling the trigger a lot. Most officers don't even reference the front sight during a gun fight and that's been taken as evidence that learning to reference the sights is useless, rather than being seen for what it is - proof that LEO firearms training is woefully inadequate. Very few officers ever become proficient enough that referencing the front front sight and ensuring it is on target becomes second nature and thus happens under extreme stress.
----
The only good news is that most self defense shoots involve very few rounds fired at very short ranges. The FBI determined based on 12 years of agent involved shoots that 75% involved 3 rounds or less fired at 3 yards or less. If you push that out to 5 rounds or less and 5 yards or less and look at LEO involved shoots in general, the percentage rises to about 95%. And that's for LEOs who go into scary places looking for bad guys.
For an armed citizen using giiod SA to stay out of dangerous places 5 or 6 rounds will be plenty - if you practice under realistic conditions and practice enough to become proficient and maintain that proficiency. Otherwise it doesn't really matter what you carry.
Last edited:
Chief Wiggums
Member
Confidence....
What ever makes you feel confident and secure is your best choice.
Confidence is achieved by repetition.
It really is pretty simple.
What ever makes you feel confident and secure is your best choice.
Confidence is achieved by repetition.
It really is pretty simple.
Chief Wiggums
Member
Allow me to finish that statement.......
For those folks I'll argue that they shouldnt be carrying a firearm until they are proficient..
I am not going to hijack this thread and take it into a 2A discussion, but within our rights we have responsibilities.....
Agreed. And I'd include about 90% of active LEOs.
The problem is defining proficiency. One guys opinion can differ radically from the next.
fredj338
Member
No, proper training & practice, a good semiauto will do fine.
BTW, proficiency is measurable, it's just a matter of how proficient should one be. To me, the minimum is can you get your gun out of the holster or drawer & deliver accurate fire in a short period of time, say 3 sec. It aint target practice we are talking about. Most people carrying a gun can not get the gun out & get 3rds on target in 3 sec, especially if you now ask them to move. They may get the gun out & get a round on target in 3sec & that is probably as good as most will ever be able to do without quite a bit of trigger time.
Proficiency can be measured in some aspects of concealed carry, but not so well in others. Is Jerry Miculek proficient? At competitve shooting no doubt, but maybe not so much if having to dig that snub out of his pocket if a couple of guys jump him on the street. Is Cecil Burch proficient in integrated skills and H2H ability? He's definitely articulate and a good teacher of what he teaches, but I honestly wouldn't give him very good odds in most street-fights. Is Michael Janich proficient with a gun and blade? While another good instructor with a keen understanding and ability to translate concepts, I wouldn't like his chances in many self-defense scenarios.
Training doesn't always result into acquiring a high level of ability. You can get instruction and practice all you want at the best baskeball camps and under elite coaches, but that doesn't mean you'll actually achieve similiar skills as a pro-player or even get all that good. Fighting with a gun is really no different, but many seem to think proper training and practice can somehow can magically transform any individual.
Proficiency in relation to public safety is a concern, but most gun guys think only of stray bullets. What about situational awareness and weapon retention skills, so we don't inadvertently arm bad guys. Or integrated H2H skills to access the gun in close-quarter scenarios. Functional standalone H2H skills make sense so you have options besides only resorting to the gun. What about common sense, general cognition, mental acuity and intelligence levels as I do seem to come across a lot of stories about people forgetting their guns in bathrooms stalls as well as guns going off after being carried in a pocket with no holster. When is someone too old to carry a gun responsibly? I actually worry more about these things than individuals actual shooting skills.
There's no consensus on what it means to be proficient, there's simply too many variables to consider to clearly define it and why legislating proficiency standards is a difficult and often misguided task.
Training doesn't always result into acquiring a high level of ability. You can get instruction and practice all you want at the best baskeball camps and under elite coaches, but that doesn't mean you'll actually achieve similiar skills as a pro-player or even get all that good. Fighting with a gun is really no different, but many seem to think proper training and practice can somehow can magically transform any individual.
Proficiency in relation to public safety is a concern, but most gun guys think only of stray bullets. What about situational awareness and weapon retention skills, so we don't inadvertently arm bad guys. Or integrated H2H skills to access the gun in close-quarter scenarios. Functional standalone H2H skills make sense so you have options besides only resorting to the gun. What about common sense, general cognition, mental acuity and intelligence levels as I do seem to come across a lot of stories about people forgetting their guns in bathrooms stalls as well as guns going off after being carried in a pocket with no holster. When is someone too old to carry a gun responsibly? I actually worry more about these things than individuals actual shooting skills.
There's no consensus on what it means to be proficient, there's simply too many variables to consider to clearly define it and why legislating proficiency standards is a difficult and often misguided task.
Sistema1927
US Veteran
The problem with any handgun, semi or revolver, is that it is enough, until it isn't.
We carry handguns because they are easy to carry, but all of them are a compromise.
We carry handguns because they are easy to carry, but all of them are a compromise.
Are you saying a long gun would be better?
In the vast majorit(pretty much all) of civilian self-defense encounters occuring outside of the home, a rifle or a shotgun would be next worthless.
I don't see proficiency mentioned in the 2A. 
And, of course, a snub on the ankle for seated and seat-belted draw.
Similar threads
- Locked
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
My favorite story from my cop days. Two naked little people and a parrot- Latest: Legendarylawman
-
-
For Sale G&G HAWK KNIVES **LATEST SHORTCUT**- Latest: buffalo4star
-
-
-
-
-
