The BEST Carry Handgun and Condition.....

[DS99]

I am almost certain that if my 86 year old osteoporosic mom shot that gun, she would break bones. Fear built out of ignorance can be trained out, Fear built out of knowledge of the laws of physics can not be ruled out

Give her a K frame with 148 DEWC's in it, and she will do fine. but a J frame in .357 would put her in the hospital.

Very fine points and I'm certainly not suggesting a compact, ultralight .357 as a carry gun for anybody. I don't particularly even like the caliber myself...loads are too hot and, as you pointed out, tend to just zip through (kind of like 5.56 green tip, but without the velocity requirement to make hammer pairs effective purely from the force of two consecutive shock waves). That's my own personal preference though....

The following paragraph is NOT directed as a critique of you or any other individual instructor...it's commentary of a pattern I've seen consistently for years in other places.

From an instructor standpoint, what I see virtually every time that I'm in a gun store, or watch a "gun shop" shooting lesson, is an instructor who tells an individual with absolutely no experience and who is usually touching a handgun for the first time to "pick what feels good to you". How can that person possibly know what feels good to them? They have no viable frame of reference on which to base an opinion. From a sales/marketing perspective I get it. From an instructor perspective I think it's a huge mistake. Guiding a student in weapon selection based on their specific needs and requirements is a good thing. (IE Not selling a .357 J Frame Ultra-Light Aluminum Frame with ++P Loads to an 86 year old with bone strength problems) However, what I see a lot is instructors or sales people "letting" or helping a student/customer to guide themselves into selecting a weapon that is unreliable, poorly performing and/or poorly suited to their needs because it "feels better" in the gunshop or because they can shoot tighter groups with it in their first 100 ever rounds fired with very little training. I'm not making a plug for any specific weapon, I do think that a self-defense gun should be selected for specific reasons related to its reliability and capability though, not based solely around the comfort level of somebody who is uncomfortable with handguns to begin with.

"Best" is really an inappropriate word anyway in my opinion (despite my post title...sorry). Ultimately the differences between a Sig, Glock, Smith or Beretta etc. are pretty much just semantics...it all comes down to training. After learning the ins and outs of a particular weapon and developing true competency with it, people usually then feel comfortable with that weapon. At least that's been my experience to date.

Dusty

http://www.sealedmindset.com

[Squib Joe]

Guiding a student in weapon selection based on their specific needs and requirements is a good thing.

Yes, but you can only go so far, in my experience, when somebody has made up their mind what they want. It is their money after all. Tell them the pros and cons, maybe get them to the range to try out the firearm before buying, but after that you really have to let them get what they want. They're the ones spending the money.

Will the purchase be (in my opinion) the "best choice"? Not always. But look at all of the Hummers and Land Rovers that never leave the pavement. The consumer will very often place want over need.

[DS99]

Guiding a student in weapon selection based on their specific needs and requirements is a good thing.

Yes, but you can only go so far, in my experience, when somebody has made up their mind what they want. It is their money after all. Tell them the pros and cons, maybe get them to the range to try out the firearm before buying, but after that you really have to let them get what they want. They're the ones spending the money.

Will the purchase be (in my opinion) the "best choice"? Not always. But look at all of the Hummers and Land Rovers that never leave the pavement. The consumer will very often place want over need.

Of course, it's their money. Don't mis-understand me...I'm all about people buying guns of all shapes and sizes...

Often though I've seen people who genuinely ask for advice because they recognize that they don't know anything...and are led down a path that ultimately leaves them with equipment that is very poorly suited both to them and to their need because the advice that they get is to pick what "makes them feel good" or "feels right" when they don't have any frame of reference to make that decision.

It's a tool for a purpose...not an I Tunes playlist....(OK, sarcasm complete)

Dusty

http://www.sealedmindset.com

[rtk]

Dusty,

What is your "go to gun" for carry?

RTK

[Rem700]

Most people here carry for simple defensive purposes. What would recommend as a DAILY carry weapon/equipment in case the SHTF and you find yourself in the middle of a Rambo style gun battle in the mall? If your goal is to get to cover or run out of the building, the argument could be made that a revolver would serve that purpose.

I'm simply saying that, given the fact that this is a possibility, I personally see it as a very limiting option to pick something that doesn't allow you to engage at distance effectively. Admittedly my perspective is a touch different...but I always view it as a mistake to make a decision that limits your tactical options BEFORE the fight starts, particularly when there are options available that don't give the same limitations.

The standard weapons I recommend are either the Glock 17 or 22 specifically. I recommend against people getting a weapon smaller than the 19/23 because smaller than that becomes very difficult to handle/present under stress for most folks and because the cability to engage effectively at any kind of distance starts becoming a problem due to the shorter sight radius, particularly under stress.

There are plenty of other good weapons besides a Glock...that's just in response to your question.

Dusty

Well which is it the tool or competent training? In one post you say it doesnt matter what the platform and its all bout the training and the next you say its the tool. If your training is competent shouldnt you be able to train past the tool.

[Erik_Pakieser]

I teach students to look for the following characteristics, in order of importance:

Reliability - it has to work. Stopping power, accuracy, and ammo capacity are unimportant if the gun does not shoot.

Shootability - it needs to fit your hand, naturally point, and you need to be able to operate and shoot it well. Considerations include trigger pull, grips, sights, recoil and muzzle blast.

Carryability - you need to be able to carry it comfortably.

It's a personal choice. I agree a lot of people spend a lot of money on "brand name" guns, but that's their choice. Usually after an effective test (I recommend 250 rounds) they will usually make the right decision.

[DS99]

Dusty,

What is your "go to gun" for carry?

RTK

I personally have carried a Glock 17 for the last six years both professionally and for civilian carry.

[DS99]

Well which is it the tool or competent training? In one post you say it doesnt matter what the platform and its all bout the training and the next you say its the tool. If your training is competent shouldnt you be able to train past the tool.

Training is more important than the tool and limitations with specific tools can be compensated for with training. For example, it is more difficult to draw and fire a stock DA/SA gun quickly with surgical accuracy than it is a Glock or SA gun like a 1911. (IE 7 yard shots on an index card in 1.2 sec from a holster.) It's not impossible, it's just more difficult and requires more training and practice.

That being said, no amount of training is going to make a .25 ACP have good terminal ballistics, or make a snub-nosed .38 special an effective weapon for engaging multiple moving targets at 25 yards or more, or put more than five rounds in a 5 shot revolver.

Somebody can be the best, most highly trained shooter in the world with a snubbie, but if that moment that they need their weapon, it is to engage a threat at 50 yards...they are at a significant disadvantage because of their equipment. That same person with a Glock 17, 1911, Beretta 92, Sig 226 etc. has a much better chance of being able to engage successfully.

This is an extreme example of course, it is just to illustrate the point. I don't hold that one type of weapon is necessarily better than the other (ie Sig vs Glock or 9mm vs .40 vs. 45) but certainly different weapons and calibers have different capabilities and limitations. If your gunfight requires capabilities that your equipment just doesn't have, then that's a problem that's unrelated to training.

Since we have a choice of equipment, it only makes sense to do a good, thorough analysis of the possible threats and environments that we could face and then make an informed decision about what to carry and why based upon the capabilities and limitations of the equipment options available to us.

Dusty

http://www.sealedmindset.com

[justaguy]

A lot of good information in this thread.

[1911fan]

I will supply this analogy from the world of contracting.

A crappy carpenter with the worlds best tools is still a crappy carpenter. He may get something done, but it won't be pretty.

A craftsman subjected to using crappy tools will find a work around.

[Paul]

Dusty,

What is your "go to gun" for carry?

RTK

I personally have carried a Glock 17 for the last six years both professionally and for civilian carry.

If you want to carry a full size Glock because of the potential unknown threat, why limit yourself to a 9mm?

[justaguy]

Dusty,

What is your "go to gun" for carry?

RTK

I personally have carried a Glock 17 for the last six years both professionally and for civilian carry.

If you want to carry a full size Glock because of the potential unknown threat, why limit yourself to a 9mm?

[ComradeBurg]

I'm one of those people who believe the best carry gun is the one you have on you. As for choosing the gun to have on you it depends on a few things.

First and foremost you need something you're going to be willing to carry. Size and caliber are meaningless if the gun is sitting in your dress drawer when you need it. Even the least reliable gun in the world is more useful in a self-defense situation than a gun sitting miles away from your (at the very least they can work as a club).

From there is where I start worrying about the other important things, reliability, concealability, and my ability to handle the firearm. Normally I carry my Glock 30SF because it's small enough that I'm willing to carry it, it conceals, it's reliable, and I can shoot it. Of course if you're not wanting to deal with possible jams a revolver may be the gun for you. Maybe you don't like shooting .45, then a 9mm may be more your type.

[Erik_Pakieser]

I'm one of those people who believe the best carry gun is the one you have on you.

Rule #1 of a gunfight: Bring a gun.

If you want to carry a full size Glock because of the potential unknown threat, why limit yourself to a 9mm?

I too, carry a full sized handgun (in fact, some might argue my handgun is oversized: it's an M&P 9L) in 9mm.

I shoot the 9mm better than other calibers, because it recoils less. I also have the added benefit of having more rounds at my disposal (a recent change for me, from 1995 until 2009 I carried a 9mm single-stack).

From the time I started shooting until around 1995 I believed - very strongly - that the 9mm was an underpowered caliber. My carry guns were all .45 autos. After another instructor pointed out to me I could shoot the 9mm more accurately than the .40 and .45, I did some serious examination of my dislike for the 9mm and realized it was based mainly on macho ********.

The 9mm has been in service for over 100 years. It's in use by police agencies around the world, and nearly every military force in the world. With modern good-quality ammunition, its stopping power is on par with the .357 magnum. Until something better comes along, I'll stick with the 9mm.

[1911fan]

The 9mm has been in service for over 100 years. It's in use by police agencies around the world, and nearly every military force in the world. With modern good-quality ammunition, its stopping power is on par with the .357 magnum. Until something better comes along, I'll stick with the 9mm.

I can't disagree on your comments about which you shoot better with, but there is a huge difference between GI rounds and modern SD rounds, and just because it was used for a long time somewhere does not make it better. The only 9mm round I have ever heard that worked as well as .357 in real world action was the old ISP +P++ load with a 115 JHP running along at 1340 FPS. Thats an effective 9mm round. However, shooting that in a lightweight poly gun, you end up with sharper recoil and no substantial gain over the .45 acp.

Bigger holes make people leak faster. If you can manage the recoil of full house +P++ rounds, ok, then they work, but a plain old 230 grain at 830 fps 45 bullet will do the same, and be easier to shoot.