Life lesson.
Most important lessons learned from carrying?
- Thread starter BabaBlueJay
- Start date
Life lesson.
OP
I feel my path will be very similar and I always appreciate your input here. I also prefer using one handgun which is why my handgun choice has been the hardest to get exactly right to that goldilocks gun. I hope I can find a gun like you found in the Glock 26 where it's a perfect match for my needs. In my short experience as a gun owner I've tried 6 different handguns and had a problem with each of them for some reason or other. I think my goldilocks gun is my model 36 but sometimes I let the doubts get to me even though it's been my best of the 6 by far overall.
1. Taurus 856 was my first gun and tore my hands up. It was miserable to shoot as an airweight 38.
2. S&W 686-1 absolute joy to shoot and my 2nd favorite on this list, but it was a boat anchor
that I rarely carried.3. Taurus 856 (Carbon Steel) I thought maybe the extra weight would fix the air weight snap and since I had a custom holster for the first one I foolishly talked myself into this one. Wasn't as bad but was still something I knew I wouldn't practice enough with.
4. SIG P365 absolute joy to shoot and nice capacity for size, but failed to lock back twice (may have had an earlier one) and this freaked me out. I may have thumbed the release with my big hands but it still bothered me.
5. Ruger Security 6 was the worst gun I owned. I was too eager to get back to a revolver and bought this without much thought. I didn't like the trigger, the grips or the release because I was used to Smiths.
6. Model 36 is the best I've had. Only issue I have is it can't shoot +P and has a hammer. These aren't dealbreakers by any stretch but I do wonder if there is a better fit for me in a hammerless airweight or going to a P365 (post lock-back fix) or Glock 43X/26.
It's funny because I've been far less picky with my long guns. Hand guns are just tough to find that perfect fit. Even with Model 36 as great as it shoots it's easy to look at another gun where the grass is greener. I think
it's the Model 36 for me, and just work around hammer (which I have learned to) and lack of +P.
Last edited:
Oldsalt66
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2014
- Messages
- 869
- Reaction score
- 1,396
Your assailant or assailants will likely be armed as well.
Carry the gun that you'd want to find in your hand in the unfortunate event you need to use it to defend your life against determined and well armed assailants, rather than the tiniest little pistol you can find and easily conceal.
Carry the gun that you'd want to find in your hand in the unfortunate event you need to use it to defend your life against determined and well armed assailants, rather than the tiniest little pistol you can find and easily conceal.
This, not rotating your EDC, was a concept that was driven home in my 1968 police academy training and it's something I try to follow. My EDC for years was a J Frame, most recently a 340PD in a pocket holster. I'm limited to pocket carry b/c of back & hip problems (need a cane to walk). Strapping on a holster, or IWB, causes pain in minutes. The bottom line is the older I got the smaller/lighter the EDC became. My current EDC is the LCP Max, mostly for its increased ammo capacity plus my ability to make accurate hits @ combat distances.
What part of your post have I misread or misunderstood?
I consider learning about all aspects of self-defense a ongoing process. Other people are reading this forum so please point out and correct whatever bad and misleading information I have posted.
I feel my path will be very similar and I always appreciate your input here. I also prefer using one handgun which is why my handgun choice has been the hardest to get exactly right to that goldilocks gun. I hope I can find a gun like you found in the Glock 26 where it's a perfect match for my needs. In my short experience as a gun owner I've tried 6 different handguns and had a problem with each of them for some reason or other. I think my goldilocks gun is my model 36 but sometimes I let the doubts get to me even though it's been my best of the 6 by far overall.
1. Taurus 856 was my first gun and tore my hands up. It was miserable to shoot as an airweight 38.
2. S&W 686-1 absolute joy to shoot and my 2nd favorite on this list, but it was a boat anchor
3. Taurus 856 (Carbon Steel) I thought maybe the extra weight would fix the air weight snap and since I had a custom holster for the first one I foolishly talked myself into this one. Wasn't as bad but was still something I knew I wouldn't practice enough with.
4. SIG P365 absolute joy to shoot and nice capacity for size, but failed to lock back twice (may have had an earlier one) and this freaked me out. I may have thumbed the release with my big hands but it still bothered me.
5. Ruger Security 6 was the worst gun I owned. I was too eager to get back to a revolver and bought this without much thought. I didn't like the trigger, the grips or the release because I was used to Smiths.
6. Model 36 is the best I've had. Only issue I have is it can't shoot +P and has a hammer. These aren't dealbreakers by any stretch but I do wonder if there is a better fit for me in a hammerless airweight or going to a P365 (post lock-back fix) or Glock 43X.
It's funny because I've been far less picky with my long guns. Hand guns are just tough to find that perfect fit. Even with Model 36 as great as it shoots it's easy to look at another gun where the grass is greener. I think
I appreciate your kind comments. Thank you.
One of the things I consistently emphasize in my posts is that I am expressing my opinions. So while the Glock 26 may be ideal for me, it may not be for others. So I keep saying YMMV.
As an example of preferences, one of the revolvers I have carried, and still own, is a stainless 2 3/4" bbl Ruger Security Six. My two PPC revolvers (primary and never used back up) are built up on Ruger Six series revolvers.
During the time our department issued S&W 66s, the 2 1/2" bbl version was available for plain clothes and command carry. I was issued both the 4" and 2 1/2" iterations which I varied in carrying depending on specific responsibilities. This was during the 70s and 80s, so choices were fewer then and revolvers were still the department sidearm. I really liked that 2 1/2" 66. I decided that it was the ideal configuration if one wanted to carry a .357 revolver concealed. The only problem was that our department had countless problems with the 66s, not alleviated until I got my patrol division into the 4" 686 for uniform wear.
Liking that 2 1/2" K frame size, but not wanting to take on the 66 issues with a personally owned revolver, I bought the 2 3/4" Ruger. Despite my PPC revolvers being Ruger based, I had never fired a stock one. The first time out with this one, with a nylon Hogue Monogrip on it, I was smitten. At 25 yards, our then longest qualification distance, I shot it just as well as my department 686. This differs from your reaction. That is where the YMMV comes in. This is choice, not right vs wrong.
You comment on your 686 being a 'boat anchor' is well taken, especially given the current choices available. The 2 1/2" K and 2 3/4 Ruger Six are close enough in weight and bulk to also get anchorage descriptions.
Further (much) on in this evolution I ended up with an S&W 6906 by way of a model 467, a compact 9mm using a double stack magazine. Similar power to when I carried dept issue Treasury 38 loads in my revolvers, higher capacity (12 in the magazine), lighter weight, more compact, flatter configuration. That double stack grip frame fit my hand better than any handgun frame/grip I have ever used. Despite my already shooting Distinguished Expert (the highest we had) on the department qualification and combat courses of fire, I shot this short barrel, compact, light weight semi-auto pistol even better than my issue 686, and more quickly.
The evolution continued though. Well after I retired Glock introduced their models 26 and 27. My last mandatory carry issue pistol before retirement was a full size Glock. So I was familiar with Glock. When the 26/27 came along I went from the Smith 6906 to the Glock 26 because the 26 was slightly more compact, lighter in weight, similar capacity (10 vs 12) and had the double stack grip.
So, in somewhat compacted form, that is how I ended up where I am today.
I still have the 2 3/4" Ruger and the Smith 6906, having learned long ago not to get rid of really good (to me, again YMMV) guns. I don't carry either, but I do take them out for recreational shooting because both are so enjoyable to shoot.
So, if you are still searching, still not satisfied, keep at it. Goldilocks is out there somewhere. One thing to note, if your possible ideal EDC may be a revolver, bear in mind that grips can make or break your preference for a revolver. I have mentioned my preference for the Hogue Monogrip, but again, that is just me. In the Hogue department, I prefer the nylon Monogrip. I don't like the subjective feeling of rubber compressibility. I think the stippled surface of the nylon Monogrip is the ideal tractive surface.
So when assessing revolvers, be very attentive to the relationship between your hand and your grasp on the revolver.
My apologies to any who may find this to be too long-winded.
Old teaching habits die hard.
Last edited:
OP
@retcapt
I held a Glock 26 and really liked it at LGS today I have large hands too and it fit better than a thin 43. While I'm a revolver guy at heart I'm going to do some research and may try it as the ergonomics work for me. I will keep my Chief and at worst could trade the Glock if it does not pan out.
I held a Glock 26 and really liked it at LGS today I have large hands too and it fit better than a thin 43. While I'm a revolver guy at heart I'm going to do some research and may try it as the ergonomics work for me. I will keep my Chief and at worst could trade the Glock if it does not pan out.
Last edited:
As I've said twice I said you're going to have to explain yourself to the police At Some Point.
Your response was that when the police arrive all you should tell them is that you want to talk to your lawyer before you make any statement.
I don't disagree with that statement.
But if you're claiming self-defense At Some Point you're going to have to justify your actions. What does all your formal education and experience suggest would happen to a defendant that claimed self-defense and then pled the fifth?
How many cases have you been called as an expert witness in? How many best selling books about self-defense have you written? When will we be seeing your videos on the Wilson Combat channel?
Last edited:
Rpg
Member
Dress around your gun and holster/belt: don't try to fit them where they don't fit.
Good leather is expensive but worth it. A holster/belt that costs less than $400 isn't a bargain.
Practice your presentation wearing the clothes you wear while carrying.
Don't fool with your gun unless you're in the process of presenting it. Leave it alone unless you're going to use it in the next few seconds.
Your gun isn't a magic wand that will make people obey you. Don't imagine that waiving it around will do anything but make the situation worse. Don't use your gun as a threat.
Good leather is expensive but worth it. A holster/belt that costs less than $400 isn't a bargain.
Practice your presentation wearing the clothes you wear while carrying.
Don't fool with your gun unless you're in the process of presenting it. Leave it alone unless you're going to use it in the next few seconds.
Your gun isn't a magic wand that will make people obey you. Don't imagine that waiving it around will do anything but make the situation worse. Don't use your gun as a threat.
Sorry, no help on air weight J frames. I had a model 60 once with Rogers (later Safariland) grips on it. The grips were a great improvement over the stock grips, but it was still not pleasant to shoot, just carry. Another reason I have avoided the air weight frames is that I want to be able to practice with what I carry, and everything I have read is that air weight J frames are not happy with a lot of rounds fired.
I would agree with your reservations on the 686, even a snub. I consider the L frames to be S&W's perfect medium frame design. I really do like mine, although it is the opposite of compact.
But ever since carrying a S&W 467, then the 6906, culminating in the Glock 26, I have long since drank the compact semi-auto kook aid. Note, again, this is just me. I have no quarrel with those who prefer small, lightweight revolvers.
Another reason for my preference is that the jurisdiction where I worked had and has a major gang problem. In the event of a deadly force confrontation, there was a likelihood of multiple assailants, so I wanted sufficient ammunition. I am now 400 miles from that environment, but old habits, as I have said, die hard.
The Glock 26 can be shot as much as the larger models, unlimited from what I have read, so the round restriction does not apply. Another advantage of compact semi-autos, at least 9mm, is that they are not painful or punishing to shoot as small revolvers tend to be. My wife loves shooting her 26. She is small, albeit one tough lady, and she is extremely competent with it. I enjoy watching her shoot it because she exudes confidence. It is an ideal match.
If your compact handgun experience thus far has been small revolvers, you may find a good compact semi-auto to be a revelation.
Test drives are critical.
I can probably help here. He/She is hoping to rely on the mythical right to remain silent. Which was all well and good in the days before multiple surveillance videos and multiple bystanders who choose to get their phones out instead of intervene. At some point, you're going to have to explain yourself, much to that other poster's chagrin . . .
OP
I really enjoyed the SIG P365, I just was never comfortable with a striker I could not see and a light trigger (6 lbs I believe) with no safety. I have a toddler and dog who jump on me, often where I carry which made me nervous without a safety. I could have ordered the safety grip module I suppose but opted to return to what I was comfortable with in a heavy double action revolver trigger.
The SIG P365 was significantly lighter on recoil and had vastly superior sights to my Model 36, my issues were based in the light trigger making me nervous and the failure to lock back on last rounds (I have heard this has been fixed since). I also worried about a stovepipe at the worst possible moment, even if I never experienced one shooting it. I just never fully trusted the SIG P365 even if it was the easiest shooting gun I ever owned. I have never shot a Glock and they have a used Glock 26 for 450$ at my LGS, they usually trade for decently fair prices if you do not love it, which I consider 100$ rental fee basically. I may just get the 26 they have and keep my model 36, worst case I don't like it and trade it back for 350$ after a few months, best case I have a replacement for my Model 36 with more capacity and better sights/a primary and keep Model 36 as a back up or for New York Reload. I will definitely consider at least trying a Glock, as I am honestly curious how they shoot.
Justifying a claim of self-defense can be done through a lawyer. Very good law professors and a career in law-enforcement taught me the importance of having a good defense attorney. The law gives a person the RIGHT for legal counsel before and during questioning by the Police.
Perhaps more importantly you do NOT have to talk to the Police. In fact the Police are REQUIRED to tell you have the RIGHT to remain silent. What they don't tell you is exercising your RIGHT to remain silent CANNOT be used you against you in a Court of Law.
Both the RIGHT to have a attorney and exercising your RIGHT not to talk to the Police is so important by the Courts that they are required to tell you of them. It is called the Miranda Warning.
As Muss Muggins points out in todays society there may well be other evidence that will establish self-defense. Cameras are in common use, eye witnesses, fingerprints, DNA, evidence collected at the crime scene such as weapons, empty shell cases, location of wounds, location of body (if fatality), etc., etc. You will likely be unaware of all of this evidence and the significance it will play to support your claim or perhaps more importantly how it may be used by a zealous D.A. to prove your actions were avoidable and excessive.
Making statements to the Police while still under the shock and suffering from possible injuries or from PTSD is unwise. You may not remember your exact words to the Police but they dang sure will and will likely have them recorded.
I have read many of Ayoob's magazine articles and I have read and have a copy of his book "In The Greatest Extreme". In fact he has wrote the exact same comments I made about what to say to the Police and then talking to a lawyer.
Immaterial.
It is your choice if you want to ignore your RIGHTS to have a attorney and to remain silent to establish your claim of self-defense and knowledge of the complexity of criminal law based on a few paragraphs you read in a magazine or in a book or on Youtube.
Me? I am "lawyering up".
Last edited:
From my LE experience, we could not compel someone to "explain" themselves to us. Note: Case law may have evolved since I have been retired, but I think this is still the gist of it.
Under certain circumstances, LE can compel someone to identify themselves. One example would be where a suspect in a misdemeanor crime is detained. The crime was not committed in LE presence. There is no one available that can or will make a private person arrest. The only means to subsequently arrest the suspect via warrant is to have the suspect's identification. That would be a circumstance that would allow LE to compel the suspect to identify his/her self.
But that is for identification purposes only, no narrative. No coercive fishing expeditions.
That silence, other than identification, cannot be used against the suspect in court, with one significant exception. If LE makes an accusation that a suspect committed the crime(s) in question, and the suspect stands mute, but a "reasonable person" under the same circumstances would deny the accusation, then the silence is admissible because it is contrary to what an innocent reasonable person would do. That is a very narrow exception which the courts closely scrutinize. And it is a denial only, not an explanation.
In an investigation, once both requisite elements to trigger Miranda are present, we would read the admonition directly off the form. If the suspect invoked those rights, that ended any questioning.
Any deviation from these standards would produce inadmissible evidence under the exclusionary rule. That would then extend to any further evidence developed following the initial legal violation. That is the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
Without getting too long-winded, because this is a complex subject, there can still be exceptions to these rules. One of the most critical, and it does not restrict itself to just questioning, is the emergency exception rule.
In the original 'Dirty Harry' film our protagonist compels the suspect, Scorpio, to tell him where he had buried his kidnapping victim alive. The victim's life is at stake. SFPD arrives too late; the victim has suffocated. In the film, both the DA and a UC law professor castigate Insp Callahan for the egregious violation of Scorpio's rights, stating all the evidence is inadmissible. Great theater, but wrong. This was a classic example of the emergency exception rule.
Since exceptions are intentionally narrowly defined, I can't agree with any generalization that at some point inevitably someone will have to explain themselves to LE.
These were the ground rules. We were expected to comply with them. That is how our system of justice is supposed to function.
I have always been of the mind that LE not only has to comply with the rule of law, but also to respect it, even if in disagreement.
The Lady of Justice wears a blindfold. She has only her scales of justice to weigh the evidence.
We don't want our fingers on those scales.
This was what I taught in my LE classes. I would being in my brass Lady of Justice to illustrate what I was stating. This was too important to ever forget.
Under certain circumstances, LE can compel someone to identify themselves. One example would be where a suspect in a misdemeanor crime is detained. The crime was not committed in LE presence. There is no one available that can or will make a private person arrest. The only means to subsequently arrest the suspect via warrant is to have the suspect's identification. That would be a circumstance that would allow LE to compel the suspect to identify his/her self.
But that is for identification purposes only, no narrative. No coercive fishing expeditions.
That silence, other than identification, cannot be used against the suspect in court, with one significant exception. If LE makes an accusation that a suspect committed the crime(s) in question, and the suspect stands mute, but a "reasonable person" under the same circumstances would deny the accusation, then the silence is admissible because it is contrary to what an innocent reasonable person would do. That is a very narrow exception which the courts closely scrutinize. And it is a denial only, not an explanation.
In an investigation, once both requisite elements to trigger Miranda are present, we would read the admonition directly off the form. If the suspect invoked those rights, that ended any questioning.
Any deviation from these standards would produce inadmissible evidence under the exclusionary rule. That would then extend to any further evidence developed following the initial legal violation. That is the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
Without getting too long-winded, because this is a complex subject, there can still be exceptions to these rules. One of the most critical, and it does not restrict itself to just questioning, is the emergency exception rule.
In the original 'Dirty Harry' film our protagonist compels the suspect, Scorpio, to tell him where he had buried his kidnapping victim alive. The victim's life is at stake. SFPD arrives too late; the victim has suffocated. In the film, both the DA and a UC law professor castigate Insp Callahan for the egregious violation of Scorpio's rights, stating all the evidence is inadmissible. Great theater, but wrong. This was a classic example of the emergency exception rule.
Since exceptions are intentionally narrowly defined, I can't agree with any generalization that at some point inevitably someone will have to explain themselves to LE.
These were the ground rules. We were expected to comply with them. That is how our system of justice is supposed to function.
I have always been of the mind that LE not only has to comply with the rule of law, but also to respect it, even if in disagreement.
The Lady of Justice wears a blindfold. She has only her scales of justice to weigh the evidence.
We don't want our fingers on those scales.
This was what I taught in my LE classes. I would being in my brass Lady of Justice to illustrate what I was stating. This was too important to ever forget.
Last edited:
You completely misunderstood my statement. I don't quote or comment on the other statements in your post because I didn't address them in my OP. That video evidence I commented on will either help or hurt your case. I never said it would establish self defense. It may or may not establish what actually happened at the scene. You can choose to not comment on it, but if it don't help your case to the point of dismissal before trial, you're gonna have to explain yourself. Again, the self defense stand your ground shootings that I am intimately acquainted with have required the shooter to explain him/herself at some point . . .
Only if you are in a "custodial interrogation" and not free to leave at any time . . .
When questioned I shall quote James J. Duane, professor at Regent
Law School in Virginia Beach and the
National Trial Advocacy College at the
University of Virginia School of Law,
and was a visiting professor at William &
Mary Law School in the fall of 2009. He
is a member of the panel of Academic
Contributors to Black's Law Dictionary
and the coauthor of Weissenberger's
Federal Evidence
"On the advice of my lawyer, I respectfully
decline to answer on the basis of the Fifth
Amendment, which, according to the
United States Supreme Court, protects
everyone, even innocent people, from the need
to answer questions if the truth might be
used to help create the misleading impression
that they were somehow involved in a
crime that they did not commit."
All the evidence gathered by the police is required to be handed over to the defense, once a good lawyer has all the known facts in hand then answers can be provided to the prosecution though him.
Law School in Virginia Beach and the
National Trial Advocacy College at the
University of Virginia School of Law,
and was a visiting professor at William &
Mary Law School in the fall of 2009. He
is a member of the panel of Academic
Contributors to Black's Law Dictionary
and the coauthor of Weissenberger's
Federal Evidence
"On the advice of my lawyer, I respectfully
decline to answer on the basis of the Fifth
Amendment, which, according to the
United States Supreme Court, protects
everyone, even innocent people, from the need
to answer questions if the truth might be
used to help create the misleading impression
that they were somehow involved in a
crime that they did not commit."
All the evidence gathered by the police is required to be handed over to the defense, once a good lawyer has all the known facts in hand then answers can be provided to the prosecution though him.
Never argue with an idiot, bystanders may not be able to tell who's who.
I'm done arguing this point. But I would like to remind everybody that's read this far tht my original point that you should carry your gun everywhere it's legal for you to carry it.
I'm done arguing this point. But I would like to remind everybody that's read this far tht my original point that you should carry your gun everywhere it's legal for you to carry it.
Last edited:
Skeptic 9c
Member
Similar threads
