done with semi-auto carry

Mister X said:
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.
Click to expand...
Interesting, but too generic. What does proficient mean to you?

If you don't like the chances Miculek, Burch, and Janich would have in a real life encounter, who do you think would do better? How do you think you'd do in a deadly force encounter and why?
 
Why the emphasis on quick draw?

Beating a dead horse, AGAIN, but you and others continually promote 'quick draw' as a key component of armed citizen carry.

My personal history suggests that is of little importance. I have 'used' a gun on myriad occasions in (then) off duty and now armed citizen status. Moreover, though I 'used' a gun in many, many duty situations, 'quick draw' was a non-issue.

My point? Observation and awareness is far, far more important than 'quick draw.' To be more specific, my gun was never, ever 'late.' EVER. No, never shot anybody; happy I did not.

Be safe.


fredj338 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
I'll take this opportunity to say how much I feel super safe with my Derringer. Two shots of big slow bullet. No mega magazine needed. Less moving parts.
 
LOL! I've told the story several times here, but until recently, I was an "all steel revolver" kind of guy. No alloy frames, no hammerless. I just picked up my second Tupperware pistol, a Glock 43x. For me, a firearm is first and foremost a tool. Polymer semi autos have stood the test of time and held up well. Bottom line for me: "it's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it". Same thing can be said of ammo. My Glock conceals and carries almost as easily as a 642 and can be purchased just as cheaply. With Shield Arm's new 15 round magazine, I have plenty of ammo capacity, spare magazine not withstanding.
 
This^^^^^^ doesn't mean that I am done with revolvers just yet. Revolvers have their place. If my hand doesn't heal from surgery like I had hoped, I may be forced to go back to a revolver.
 
You should always carry what your comfortable with !! And that should be decided on where you live and the crime rate in the areas you frequent !!

My self with gang shootings each year killing 25 or more people .. with some innocent bystanders .. home break-ins done by multiple Perp's ,,

I would be hesitant carrying a weapon with only 6 shots in the area I live ....
 
My OP was actually more about mind-set then CC weapon choice, which will always and rightfully remain a personal decision.
Why our society increasingly CC's is essentially a common sense reaction for us that do to how drastically our society has changed.
The same tensions that led to fistfights in our youth have been increasingly replaced with gunfights, even moderate common sense has become as MIA as honesty behind a politicians word, political polarization has reached an alarming level of genuine anger and even hatred. A dangerous mix with 400 million guns on tap in the country.
So for those of us who believe in being reasonably prudent, makes sense to counter a society of escalating personal threats with escalating counter measures, and that = what you feel comfortable carrying as a counter to those threats.
The real issue, however, isn't what weapons we choose to CC for protection.
It's that our country has reached this point of violence, where pulling a gun seems to be an ever increasingly choice for even minor grievances.
Hell, maybe I need to trade in my J-Frame for a Bradly fighting Vehicle, so I can safely shuttle my grandkids from home to school and back.
 
OP, it's not just the anger and lack of civility in society, the prevalence of drugs and mental illness increase the chance that a reasonable person may face the threat of violence, no matter how diligent he is in trying to avoid it and that potential perps may be harder to put down due to drugs or psychosis. In addition, depending upon one's environment, one may be more likely to face multiple threats. I want to be as reasonably prepared as possible. I have seen 642s priced as low as $250 on sale, but generally speaking, I can get a higher capacity, reliable auto for the same price as what a 642 usually sells for. As stated, there is an aftermarket 15 round magazine for the Glock 43X now available without changing the length of the magazine. It's comforting to know that I can pack 15+1 rounds in a compact platform and not have to tote a spare magazine. If I were out hunting or hiking the woods, I would be comfortable carrying a Ruger Blackhawk or S&W K/L frame .357 for personal defense. While traveling with my family, it's an auto all the way. For self/family defense, you might say "I am done with revolver carry".
 
Last edited:
Ziggy2525 said:
Interesting, but too generic. What does proficient mean to you?

If you don't like the chances Miculek, Burch, and Janich would have in a real life encounter, who do you think would do better? How do you think you'd do in a deadly force encounter and why?
Click to expand...

There are a lot of different possible circumstances to consider and just because you might be well prepared for one set of circumstances, doesn't mean you're adequately equipped to deal with another. I think a guy like Jerry Miculek would likely do fantastic in a ranged gunfight, but that kind of encounter is so unlikely that his brand of proficiency doesn't really amount to much in a civilian self-defense context.

Being knowledgable or a good instructor is very different from being proficient, but they seem to often get intertwined. Guys like Mike Janich, Cecil Burch, Rob Pincus and Craig Douglas are smart, articulate men who are very good at teaching what they teach(even if you disagree with parts of it), but that doesn't translate into them necessarily being able to apply everything they teach at a high level. Cus D'Amato was a knowledgable boxing trainer, but he would never be able to match up with Mike Tyson in the ring at any point in his life. I don't think many clearly understand that distinction based on the comments I read.

You don't have to be proficient at any aspect of self-defense to successfully defend yourself given the right circumstances since people(even children) with absolutely no training successfully defend themselves with firearms all the time. If you give someone adequate time and distance, the gun itself really does do most of the work. Aside from the fact that most people don't carry or keep a firearm readily accessible, the problem that arises is when adequate time and distance aren't there and you need to utilize integrated skills...or the solution to problem isn't a gun at all.
 
Whitwabit said:
...that should be decided on where you live and the crime rate in the areas you frequent !!
Click to expand...
I don't think crime rate is a big factor. Crime happens everywhere. When it's you being attacked, the crime rate is 100%. It's only that situation you need to survive.

I hear you about multiple attackers, but how much of an issue is that really? The chances of being victimized are already low. Being attacked by multiple, determined attackers is really small. So small, I've never heard of it. Once the gun comes out, they scatter like cockroaches. Of course we should never count on that.
 
Mister X said:
....
the problem that arises is when adequate time and distance aren't there and you need to utilize integrated skills...
Click to expand...
I think this a big issue for us middle aged guys (60's, 70's, 80's :)).

For those of us that don't have a lifetime of martial arts practice, even if we have some "integrated skills," it's unlikely we'd prevail against an athletic 20 year old in an entangled encounter. You just don't see many 70 year olds fighting 20 year olds in MMA matches. Our heart is there, and I'm sure we'll get some good licks in, but physically prevailing in an entangled wrestling match against a teenage or twenty'ish attacker isn't likely.

You advocate a lot for carrying snubbies based on your experience with FoF scenarios. I'm assuming that's based on your ability to successfully wrestle your way to your gun. For us older guys that may not be realistic. We have to catch it sooner so we can have adequate time and distance. At those longer distances, having a gun matters, but semi vs revolver may not.
 
Last edited:
My subcompact semis just decided to start malfunctioning after hundreds of trouble free rounds, so until I diagnose the issues my 640 is back in service.
 
Revolvers these days are not a sure thing. The last two NIB revolvers I purchased had failures within the first 30 rounds at the range. I've documented them here on the forums. The S&W was a simple 'fix' (open cylinder, close it, issue resolved). The Ruger was a show stopper that required a rubber mallet.

On the other hand: The last two 1911's I purchased were what I would consider to be reliable and carry worthy. Colt Gold Cup trophey: 200 rounds flawless out of the box. Dan Wesson Specialist commander: aside from a weak old Wilson magazine issue, and my own stupidity in 'adjusting' the extractor, it went 200 rounds without failure. It's a good one.

Every single Beretta 92 I owned never ever jammed.

Your mileage may vary. In my own experience, revolvers are *not* a sure thing.
 
I generally carry either my model 60 which I have carried since before the Commandant made lance corporal. I have used it to good effect. Sometimes I now carry an M&P Shield (9mm). ('cordin' to my mood.) The Lord hasn't given me the opportunity to use it, but the caliber is sufficient if He does. Other times, in shorts and t-shirt, I carry a Ruger LCP in a pocket holster. I don't carry spare ammo or mags. I haven't been in a protracted fire fight since Vietnam and I don't live in an area where bears or angry beavers present a threat.

That said, if my surroundings change, my armament would likely change, too.

Of course, in a tux, it's hard to beat a Walther PPK.
 
regulated?

ladder13 said:
Actually it's been debated and continues to be debated exactly what well regulated means.

However, we're off topic.
Click to expand...

I always took it to mean properly equipped and trained. Also consisting of all able bodied men between 16 and 45. I may be wrong on the ages
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marcus von W.
  • Locked
60+ YEAR COLLECTION OF FIREARM PARTS, ACCESSORIES, MILITARIA, & ARTIFACTS
Replies
11
Views
3K
Marcus von W.
Marcus von W.
I
Pocket Dump
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
hsguy
H
F
DID THE SINGLE STACK 9MM KILL THE CARRY REVOLVER?
8 9 10
Replies
192
Views
17K
TheHobbyist
TheHobbyist
sigp220.45
I started carrying this antique mousegun
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
7K
SPEEDGUNNER
SPEEDGUNNER
RoyOdhner
Concealed Carry Worldview (YMMV)
Replies
18
Views
3K
Wise_A
W

Latest posts

Back
Top