Conceled carry advice

[Flyingfool]

Seems to me consistency is of paramount importance.

If you have a shield with a safety, I believe you must either train with the safety on and muscle memory that you must always turn off the safety to fire and ALWAYS pit the safety back on when holstering.

OR

Buy a model or disable the safety and practice the care needed to safety operate the weapon in this case.

I think the worst thing to do is have the safety on in the holster and not in other cases. If you decide from day to day whether the safety is on or off, you might not remember which condition you have the safety in.

If you think you have it on and it is not, your technique to draw may result in AD. Or you will fumble for the safety to try to disengage it, and it was never engaged. Causing delay, delay that could cost you or a loved one their life.

I do. Ot know how it could happen, but Murphy's law seems to always seem to work. In which case you put the safety on, but somehow it flips off during your daily carry. Now you are trained to always disengage the safety. It it already is disengaged and again you fumble or it messes with your memory.

I don't care what other people choose, but I don't want a safety on a carry gun. If a person chooses the alternative I have no problem with that. It's just not my choice.

I was debating between the shield and the Sig 938. I just could not get past relying on a switch that every holster I saw was constantly exposed. And the fact that I HAD to manipulate that same switch I was afraid would go off at the wrong time, and. It go off when I wanted it. I know people love the 1911 style gun and safety. But I'm just not one of them! I doubt that I ever will be. And besides, I shoot a double action revolver way better than any 1911 I've ever shot.

 

[CBStuard]

I have no interest in a safety but I don't like the stock trigger for a carry gun for me. So I got an Apex Duty/carry trigger spring for my 9c. Then I did some DIY polishing and opened up the loop a bit. See here
http://smith-wessonforum.com/smith-wesson-m-p-pistols/493679-my-9c-trigger-work.html

 

[85V65Sabre]

I know this thread was started some ago but just thought I would chime in with my 2 cents worth for future members.

When I first got my carry permit I was uncomfortable carrying with one in chamber, in time that has changed. I now carry with one in the chamber & safety on and practice flipping the safety off when drawing.

This week I purchased a M&P BG380 with NO safety I chose it because the BG380 safety works the opposite of all my other carry pistols. I plan on carrying in in a wallet holster in the summer months when warring shorts.



Today is all we have, live it to the fullest!

 

[Bonephish]

I was debating between the shield and the Sig 938. I just could not get past relying on a switch that every holster I saw was constantly exposed. And the fact that I HAD to manipulate that same switch I was afraid would go off at the wrong time, and. It go off when I wanted it. I know people love the 1911 style gun and safety. But I'm just not one of them! I doubt that I ever will be. And besides, I shoot a double action revolver way better than any 1911 I've ever shot.

I mostly carry my Sig 938 and am most comfortable with SAO pistols. My IWB holster covers the controls...

I don't believe a 12# D/A trigger is safer than a 4# S/A trigger with manual safety. But to each his own poison.

 

[Steved13]

If you carried a revolver it would not have a safety.

Would you carry a revolver cocked and ready for a single action shot?

 

[Muss Muggins]

Would you carry a revolver cocked and ready for a single action shot?

Only true comparison is a 1911 or a DA/SA with the hammer back and safety off. A striker fired pistol without a safety is nowhere near the same thing as a revolver with the hammer back.

 

[Steved13]

Only true comparison is a 1911 or a DA/SA with the hammer back and safety off. A striker fired pistol without a safety is nowhere near the same thing as a revolver with the hammer back.

You've made my point for me, thank you sir.

The post I quoted was comparing a revolver to a striker fired pistol, which isn't a fair comparison.

One could argue that a striker fired pistol, is much closer to a revolver with the hammer back than a revolver with the hammer forward. But I agree neither is a truly fair comparison.

 

[Mister X]

Not all striker-fired pistols are the same. When a round is chambered in a Glock, the striker will be held at approximately a half-cock position. The M&P and XD by contrast are pretty close to being fully cocked. There have even been a few striker-fired pistols that are true DAO where the striker will completely be at rest until the trigger is pulled essentially like a DAO revolver and have comparably long, heavy trigger pulls. Even with those that hold the striker at a nearly fully cocked position, the trigger pull is in no way comparable to a revolver cocked to single action.

 

[walkin' trails]

I don't intend to sound condescending, but, I agree with RPG's recommendation to know the manual of arms of your chosen CCW pistol. Other than some relatively brief time carrying a 1911 (Army) and a fair amount of time carrying a Beretta Model 21, my experience carrying semi auto pistols with manual safeties is pretty limited. On the other hand, I've been carrying pistols and revolvers with no manual safeties for pushing 30 years, and have never had any accidents or negligence discharges carrying them with a round in the chamber. I've heard of a few, but some of those explanations were suspect, and others were because no holster was used, or an improper (cheap or worn out) holster was being used. It boils down to training in a safe and efficient manner.

I don't know what level of training you've had, but I would recommend you, or anyone periodically pursue training opportunities that build skills all the way up from basic gun handling to CCW-curriculum tactical shooting. In my local area, a weekend class taught by some decent local instructors runs up to about $200. Some of the local instructors in my area have trained with the big names over the years, and probably in yours too. It also doesn't hurt to read some of the publications from Mossad Ayoob, Grant Cunningham, etc.

Regardless of what pistol with or without manual safeties you choose, remember to train enough to be familiar with the weapon.

 

[kramden]

I would have no problem with that style of gun, but I'd make sure I had a proper holster for it. Again it's what you train with that's most important.

YEP!!!! Very true.

 

[Rastoff]

Only true comparison is a 1911 or a DA/SA with the hammer back and safety off. A striker fired pistol without a safety is nowhere near the same thing as a revolver with the hammer back.

Not really. All the striker fired pistols with one in the chamber are exactly the same as a 1911 with one in the chamber, the hammer cocked and the thumb safety off.

 

[Mister X]

I'm failing to see how something like a Walther P99DAO or a CZ100 is remotely similar to a 1911 in Condition 0.

 

[Rastoff]

OK, I'm not intimately familiar with either of those guns. If you'll take a moment and explain how the safeties in them function, I'll tell you how they're like the 1911 which I'm quite familiar with.

Do they work similar to the M&P or Glock?

 

[Muss Muggins]

Not really. All the striker fired pistols with one in the chamber are exactly the same as a 1911 with one in the chamber, the hammer cocked and the thumb safety off.

So is a revolver with the hammer down. The difference is trigger pull weight and trigger travel distance. The 1911 wins the low weight and short travel distance contest. Every modern striker fired pistol is closer to a revolver with the hammer down.

Here's a quote from another thread on this forum about a Shield wherein the firing pin is 99.99999% cocked when a round is chambered. I got that figure from a post of yours, which I can quote if necessary:

600 rounds and no problems. Love the pistol. Eats everything I put in it. Not a single issue. Trigger, not so much. After 600 rounds I had the pull measured and it came in at 9 to 10 pounds. . . .

Never mind. To save time, I found it, and went ahead and edited my contention above . . .

This is incorrect. The striker on an M&P is fully cocked once you rack the slide. It may move another .00001" as you pull the trigger, but if the sear were to simply fall on its own, which it won't, the striker would have enough force to fire the round (assuming the striker block miraculously moved out of the way, which it wouldn't).

There ain't a 1911 or any other single action trigger out there at 9 to 10 pounds . . .

 

[Rastoff]

I'm failing to see how something like a Walther P99DAO or a CZ100 is remotely similar to a 1911 in Condition 0.

Disregard my previous post. I did my own research and yes, they are the same as a 1911 in condition 0. Here's why:

Both the 1911 and every striker fired pistol I know of have a safety that requires the trigger to be held back in order for the gun to fire. On a striker fired pistol this is called the striker block. On the 1911 you have the half cock position. If the hammer falls, without the trigger being held back, the half cock will stop the hammer before it hits the firing pin.

So is a revolver with the hammer down.

No, a decocked revolver is more like a 1911 in condition 2. The biggest exception is if the revolver has a transfer bar. All the modern Rugers use a transfer bar. If the revolver has one, it is then like a 1911 in condition 0 because the gun cannot be fired unless the trigger is held to the rear.

If the revolver does not have a transfer bar, then it is like a 1911 in condition 2. A whack to the back of the hammer could fire the gun. It's not easy and would take some force, but it can happen.

Some S&W revolvers have a floating firing pin attached to the hammer. I'm not as familiar with them. I'm not sure if they require the trigger to be held back in order to fire or not.

 

[Mister X]

With the P99DAO and CZ100, The internal striker is at rest with no pre-load and returns to it's de-cocked state after firing. The trigger pull is long and heavy comparable to a DAO revolvers. If someone is fine with carrying a revolver without a manual safety, I don't see why they would feel the need for one on these pistols. I would never recommend anyone carry a M1911 in condition 0.

 

[andyo5]

I felt like that until just recently. But the direction that this led me in was not productive.
I first tried, M1911s, then aluminum M 1911s. But at my age, even a 32 ounce gun plus a full load of ammo was impractical for me to carry either IWB or OWB, and was pushing the limit even in a fanny pack.
The I discovered the Glock G30S. It weighs 30 ounces total, loaded with 10 rounds of 45 ACP. Compare this to an aluminum framed 4" 1911 at 30 to 32 ounces empty. And shootability is excellent.
The Glock has to be treated as a revolver. It has a 7 lb. trigger. Carry it as a revolver and just keep your finger off the trigger unless you plan to fire.
I wish they supplied a thumb safety, but they don't.
I'm not trying to steer you to a Glock, but just to reconsider whether a thumb safety is mandatory.

 

[Steved13]

So is a revolver with the hammer down. The difference is trigger pull weight and trigger travel distance. The 1911 wins the low weight and short travel distance contest. Every modern striker fired pistol is closer to a revolver with the hammer down.

Here's a quote from another thread on this forum about a Shield wherein the firing pin is 99% cocked when a round is chambered. I got that figure from a post of yours, which I can quote if necessary:

You can make the argument that the striker and the revolver are similar, as long as we are only speaking of trigger travel. But after that your argument falls apart, as is evidenced by your words in the quote above..."the firing pin is 99% cocked" which very similar to a cocked revolver, which is why I challenged ghe person that compared carrying a revolver to a striker in the first place...which is where you challenged me.

I think we all are aware the travle is long on a double action and a striker, and the pull heavy on the entire length of the revolver, and light the break on the striker and cocked revolver. Really not sure where there is any disagreement, unless you want to focus on one portion of the process and think I am only focused on the other portion...in which case yes we are both right. We also agree a revolver shouldn't be compared to a striker in the first place, as they are apples and oranges.

 

[Rastoff]

Muss,
You edited your post while I was typing my last response.

The trigger pull weight and length is irrelevant to this discussion. While holstered, the trigger is inaccessible. The concern is that the hammer or striker will be released by itself. In that case, both types are just as safe because the hammer or striker is blocked unless the trigger is held back.

If we're talking about using a holster that doesn't cover the trigger, don't you think holster design is more important discussion?

I would never recommend anyone carry a M1911 in condition 0.

Neither would I. But the thumb safety just makes it safer. It blocks the sear and hammer movement.

None of that changes my previous statement.

 

[Muss Muggins]

You can make the argument that the striker and the revolver are similar, as long as we are only speaking of trigger travel. But after that your argument falls apart, as is evidenced by your words in the quote above..."the firing pin is 99% cocked" which very similar to a cocked revolver, which is why I challenged ghe person that compared carrying a revolver to a striker in the first place...which is where you challenged me.

I think we all are aware the travle is long on a double action and a striker, and the pull heavy on the entire length of the revolver, and light the break on the striker and cocked revolver. Really not sure where there is any disagreement, unless you want to focus on one portion of the process and think I am only focused on the other portion...in which case yes we are both right. We also agree a revolver shouldn't be compared to a striker in the first place, as they are apples and oranges.

My post clearly discusses weight and travel.