Concealed carry thoughts

[Grayfox]

Oh boy, here we go again.

Ok then, my 2 cents.
The gun must be reliable and able to hit what you aim at.
Everything else is just personal opinion. And we all know about opinions.

 

[RobertJ.]

Situational awareness trumps just about everything when it comes to staying safe.

This, and what Jeff Cooper called "mindset", which could be interpreted as determination, are more important than any of the rest, in my humble opinion.

The third would be, being intimately familiar with whatever you choose to carry.

I'd rather face a punk with a .45 than a determined man with a .25!

Again, just my .02 worth!

 

[AimHigher]

Except a handgun has beaten a rifle and/or shotgun (long guns collectively). It may not be optimal, but you use what ya got.

OK, but why is that important? How does someone knowing or not knowing affect your ability to stop the threat if you have to go to guns? If 'usable' is your criteria, then the gun is going to be harder to conceal.

Not trying to beat you up but you're presupposing a lot of false facts and you aren't making a logical argument.

My question remains: If concealment isn't required by law , why on earth would I prioritize it higher when choosing a carry gun?

So as not to draw undue attention to yourself? Not alarm people around you? To maintain a level of discretion? To not risk someone taking your firearm away from you by robbery? Out of sight, out of mind of the an armedcriminal.

 

[jimmyj]

Concealed Carry

It's a known fact that handguns are an inferior means in a gun fight.
That being known, caliber and capacity is important. I don't think that a duty size weapon is critical to the concealed carry civilian.
Concealabity is the most important factor. Shootabilty is next.
Barrel length is not really a factor unless you're talking 6"+.
Slide width and grip length determine a guns conceal ability.
The grip length is most important for concealability.
Barrel length really doesn't matter much.
Consider whether capacity or caliber is your determining factor.
I like caliber, so I have chosen .45, but that's me. YMMV, but barrel length should not be a factor. You can hide a long barrel down your pant leg with the right holster.

I still have not found a comfortable method to CCW my six inch Model 19

 

[Old cop]

You have to be profecient w/your EDC and that means regular range time and that gets expensive, but what price do you place on life? Carry a gun that you can handle, research your carry load and go to the range as often as possible. Shooting is a parishable skill.

 

[amcline82]

Just like a few others have said reliability is first and for most. Then for me it's compacity, accuracy and then concelabilty.

Friends don't let friends buy Taurus.

 

[walkin' trails]

I can agree with much of the original reply, except for this portion. Personally, in a "typical" self defense scenario, the determined criminal that the police may face is most likely the criminal that is viewing the average citizen as exploitable prey. In today's world, we don't know whether the vermin we may encounter in an armed encounter will be a junkie robbing someone so they can get a fix, a bored youth looking for something to do, a rapist, or a Jihadi sympathizer..

Along the same lines, I read a recent article somewhere online breaking down the statistics of LEOs killed by criminals. It discussed the murders' levels of "training" or familiarity with handguns, distances involved, carry methods, shooting techniques, etc. Don't remember if it was in that article or another where it said that the average number of firearms training hours received by an officer killed in the line of duty was 14 a year. An armed criminal is as much of a threat to a law abiding citizen going armed as they are to police officers. The tactics they've used to murder officers are the same that they have employed on their victims.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mainsail]

So as not to draw undue attention to yourself? Not alarm people around you? To maintain a level of discretion? To not risk someone taking your firearm away from you by robbery? Out of sight, out of mind of the an armedcriminal.

That doesn't answer the question though; why would I prioritize total concealment higher than reliability or shoot-ability (hate that word)?

I can't have everything; I cannot carry a rifle or shotgun, I will not carry a .44 magnum, so I have to make compromises- agree?

So if I consider the handguns in my collection I have to choose one that I consider to be the best compromise of one that is (in approx. order)
- a gun that has proven itself reliable
- a gun that has the ergonomics that contribute to my ability to shoot accurately
- a caliber that is effective at performing the task
- comfortable to carry
- a gun that I can draw from a holster well and with repeatability
- has a capacity with which I am comfortable
- is concealable

How you rack-&-stack those priorities is a personal decision. I'm asking why the OP placed concealable as number one.

After a decade of carrying openly and poorly concealing, I have never encountered a single person that was 'alarmed'. Of the people that I know or read about, their actual experience is the same. So why would I want another person's alarm to be such a strong factor that I would compromise the higher priorities?

'Level of discretion' has no bearing on my decision because 'discretion' doesn't help my cause in a mugging; in fact one time it prevented a (an admittedly minor) mugging from happening to me.

Risk of having it taken? Same. It's too rare an occurrence at this time to allow it much sway. That can change of course, and if that were to become a concern on any given outing I can simply adjust my concealment. It may still be poorly concealed but as mentioned by me and others; few are that observant.

Out of sight out of mind? Hey, I watched a guy obviously intent on knocking me down for fun or robbery change his mind when he finally noticed a full sized 1911 on my right side (he approached from the left). That incident makes several points; they ain't looking, deterrence actually does work sometimes, and out of sight would have proven detrimental. You see, I could not have drawn a gun on a guy walking away from me after punching me to the ground and taking my wallet. The only real option would have been to follow him until he got tired of me and came in for the re-attack- not a situation I would ever endorse!

So the question remains: If concealment isn't required, why on earth would I prioritize it higher when choosing a carry gun?

 

[iPac]

That doesn't answer the question though; why would I prioritize total concealment higher than reliability or shoot-ability (hate that word)?

I can't have everything; I cannot carry a rifle or shotgun, I will not carry a .44 magnum, so I have to make compromises- agree?

So if I consider the handguns in my collection I have to choose one that I consider to be the best compromise of one that is (in approx. order)
- a gun that has proven itself reliable
- a gun that has the ergonomics that contribute to my ability to shoot accurately
- a caliber that is effective at performing the task
- comfortable to carry
- a gun that I can draw from a holster well and with repeatability
- has a capacity with which I am comfortable
- is concealable

How you rack-&-stack those priorities is a personal decision. I'm asking why the OP placed concealable as number one.

After a decade of carrying openly and poorly concealing, I have never encountered a single person that was 'alarmed'. Of the people that I know or read about, their actual experience is the same. So why would I want another person's alarm to be such a strong factor that I would compromise the higher priorities?

'Level of discretion' has no bearing on my decision because 'discretion' doesn't help my cause in a mugging; in fact one time it prevented a (an admittedly minor) mugging from happening to me.

Risk of having it taken? Same. It's too rare an occurrence at this time to allow it much sway. That can change of course, and if that were to become a concern on any given outing I can simply adjust my concealment. It may still be poorly concealed but as mentioned by me and others; few are that observant.

Out of sight out of mind? Hey, I watched a guy obviously intent on knocking me down for fun or robbery change his mind when he finally noticed a full sized 1911 on my right side (he approached from the left). That incident makes several points; they ain't looking, deterrence actually does work sometimes, and out of sight would have proven detrimental. You see, I could not have drawn a gun on a guy walking away from me after punching me to the ground and taking my wallet. The only real option would have been to follow him until he got tired of me and came in for the re-attack- not a situation I would ever endorse!

So the question remains: If concealment isn't required, why on earth would I prioritize it higher when choosing a carry gun?

I understand your viewpoints. Everyone has their own "way" when it comes to carrying. However, I think people get too caught up in trivial things while avoiding the really important criteria.

It seems to all be about what caliber, what barrel size, what weight, conceal or open, etc. I often wonder how many people will actually be ready to safely defend themselves if the need arises.

After doing some research and watching live videos of defense situations, I realized the need to be fast and accurate. Meaning if you really want to be prepared for defense, then you need to train for combat. If you can't draw and shoot/hit first, then nothing else matters.

This realization led me to make many changes to how I carry. If you carry a revolver, then SA is out of the question. Better train with DA only. Carry position matters and you can't beat OWB on your hip for quickest acquisition. Forget the use of sights, learn how to shoot by pointing.

I now practice combat shooting, or point shooting, using techniques derived from instructional works created by Applegate, Fairnbairns,and Sykes. No use of sights, just draw, position, and fire. Practice, practice, practice!!!

My 2.5" Python has a highly tuned action with a 7# DA pull. Changed my carry from IWB concealed to OWB open. Changed the original thin service stocks for Karl Nill combat stocks which allow great pointing and control. I no longer shoot SA or with sights. I practice DA only point shooting.

Target shooting at the range will not cut it for defense. So I recommend anyone who carries begin training for real combat, and if your gun/carry style doesn't allow you to be fast and accurate, find something else. Casual range shooting practice will not help you in a defense situation no matter what gun you have.

 

[Walkingwolf]

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. This is not the Matrix ya know.

People with little to no firearms training have been successfully defending themselves for a couple centuries with firearms, and no professional training. Not knocking training, just knocking this idea that spending a thousand dollars for a weekend with a ninja is going to save lives.

What does save lives is good thinking skills under pressure, and situational awareness. But few people want to talk about those skills because they do not make them a lot of money.

My advice, stop watching make believe, either in movies, TV, or the tactikewl crowd. Research real life events, and learn. Learn how to keep calm, and think under pressure, any type of pressure. Learn to know what is going on around you, put down the damn cell phone. You see these are the actual skills that will save your life, not caliber size, or manner of carry. Training helps, but it is not a save all, it in some cases can lead to poor decisions. Not every felon follows the Ninja script for crime.

 

[BAM-BAM]

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

 

[Walkingwolf]

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.

 

[Arik]

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

 

[Arik]

Except a handgun has beaten a rifle and/or shotgun (long guns collectively). It may not be optimal, but you use what ya got.

OK, but why is that important? How does someone knowing or not knowing affect your ability to stop the threat if you have to go to guns? If 'usable' is your criteria, then the gun is going to be harder to conceal.

Not trying to beat you up but you're presupposing a lot of false facts and you aren't making a logical argument.

My question remains: If concealment isn't required by law , why on earth would I prioritize it higher when choosing a carry gun?

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

 

[Arik]

That doesn't answer the question though; why would I prioritize total concealment higher than reliability or shoot-ability (hate that word)?

I can't have everything; I cannot carry a rifle or shotgun, I will not carry a .44 magnum, so I have to make compromises- agree?

So if I consider the handguns in my collection I have to choose one that I consider to be the best compromise of one that is (in approx. order)
- a gun that has proven itself reliable
- a gun that has the ergonomics that contribute to my ability to shoot accurately
- a caliber that is effective at performing the task
- comfortable to carry
- a gun that I can draw from a holster well and with repeatability
- has a capacity with which I am comfortable
- is concealable

How you rack-&-stack those priorities is a personal decision. I'm asking why the OP placed concealable as number one.

After a decade of carrying openly and poorly concealing, I have never encountered a single person that was 'alarmed'. Of the people that I know or read about, their actual experience is the same. So why would I want another person's alarm to be such a strong factor that I would compromise the higher priorities?

'Level of discretion' has no bearing on my decision because 'discretion' doesn't help my cause in a mugging; in fact one time it prevented a (an admittedly minor) mugging from happening to me.

Risk of having it taken? Same. It's too rare an occurrence at this time to allow it much sway. That can change of course, and if that were to become a concern on any given outing I can simply adjust my concealment. It may still be poorly concealed but as mentioned by me and others; few are that observant.

Out of sight out of mind? Hey, I watched a guy obviously intent on knocking me down for fun or robbery change his mind when he finally noticed a full sized 1911 on my right side (he approached from the left). That incident makes several points; they ain't looking, deterrence actually does work sometimes, and out of sight would have proven detrimental. You see, I could not have drawn a gun on a guy walking away from me after punching me to the ground and taking my wallet. The only real option would have been to follow him until he got tired of me and came in for the re-attack- not a situation I would ever endorse!

So the question remains: If concealment isn't required, why on earth would I prioritize it higher when choosing a carry gun?

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

 

[BAM-BAM]

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.

 

[Arik]

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

 

[Walkingwolf]

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

Citations please?

 

[Arik]

For which

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[Mainsail]

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.

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.