What's important to you???
I've been seriously considering concealed carry for quite awhile.
So in that light I turn to my fellow bullies for advice.
What is most important to you in selecting a hangun for concealed carry;
1. Ease of operation
I have debated this topic endlessly with a friend who is a police officer and he thinks, shot placement being critical, that a person can't beat a Glock 19.
His argument being that so long as you have one in the chamber, all you have to do is point/shoot.
While I agree with him, I feel like adreneline would be a huge factor and that a person would want a caliber that would do a great deal of damage even if the shot placement wasn't in a critical area. I.E the venerable .45 ACP.
SO having said all that, what is important to you?
I currently carry my Glock 17 during Spring, Summer, and Fall. I carry my Glock 21sf during most of the winter. I have carried the Glock 26 and Glock 19 at different times along with a Kahr CW9 & PM9 and my Taurus 24/7 PT Pro 9mm. My most important considerations were ease of concealment, stopping power of available ammunition, rounds in magazine. I have always been a pretty big believer that with proper basics and constant training that my ability to put rounds on target was not affected by the size of the gun(though I do love my full size).
1. Ease of concealment-I am a pretty good sized guy and I have little difficulty concealing most of the guns I have carried. With the exceptionof the G21sf. I only carry it OWB and in the Winter, I wear a sweatshirt always.
2. Stopping power of available ammo-with new balistics data, 9mm, 40S&W, 45acp, the gap between them is quickly closing down(yes, I know it will never be closed).
3.Rounds in the mag-a huge reason why I have moved away from the Kahr and G26. I know it only takes one well placed shot, but it seems the thugs are moving in a bit larger groups. Andwith adrenalin flowing, I could throw a shot or two. That mixed with the BG possibly wearing a balistic vest and using something, I want my extra rounds.
There you have it. It may seem silly or imperfect to some(or most), but those are my things.
I want to point out first and foremost that handgun cartridges suck anus regardless of caliber. Whether you choose a 9mm, .45, or anything in that area means dick all to me. What matters is what your officer friend told you: Being able to hit your target. I prefer the 9mm because I have more chances to hit my target and because I know that no matter how much I train, there's always a chance that a situation will suck so badly that all that practice will amount to jack squat.
The main factors for me are: Comfort, Ergonomics, Recoil Characteristics, and Capacity. My opinions are my own, though, so take them for what they're worth.
I hear you, but for some reason I can't get my head out of my ass about the .45 acp.
Originally Posted by zaohu
It makes sense to me that the more lead you have to sling down range, the better off you are - but then that don't mean **** either unless you hit your target in a vital area.
I.E center mass.
I have been seriously debating the Glock 17 or some variant of the 1911.
Springfield Armory XD compact 45. Done. Next?
I like the XD a lot, reasonable capacity, reasonably accurate, functions flawlessly and at least has a nod toward safety features. Mine has only jammed once and that was a function of the ammunition, not the firearm. (The bullet casing crumpled as it was being forced into the chamber.)
Originally Posted by Vorpal
That's just silly, unless you use nothing but hardball all the time.
Originally Posted by zaohu
Modern hollow points do plenty of damage and are easily fatal in larger calibers when used at pistol range. In fact, in those larger calibers they're often more damaging and more likely to cause shock than some rifle bullets fired from the same range, even if the rifle is using hollow points as well. The reason for this is speed. If the bullet is still moving fast enough it'll go right through the body without time to expand significantly and transmit its energy to the target.
Those are reasonable things to look for, though. Still, you can get .45s in large capacity compacts and I love me my big slow rounds. (Except when I buy them.)
Originally Posted by zaohu
By no means am I saying that pistol cartridges aren't effective, but to compare them to rifle rounds is way off. Compare a .45 ACP in any hollow point load you want and you'll still come nowhere close to the energy you'll deliver with a full metal jacketed .223 even if it runs straight through it's target. The difference in power due to the velocity is just plain big. I may be overstating things to say handgun cartridges totally suck big ones, but in my opinion it's the best way to convey that no matter what handgun you choose, it's still just a compromise for size and comfort compared to a long arm.
For the most part, I agree. A long arm is better than a pistol in most situations, but in close quarters where a long arm is a hindrance or extreme close range pistols are preferable. I don't disagree that rifles have WAY more power than a pistol, but I'd guess that at ranges less than 30 feet most of that power is simply wasted.
It should be noted that I'm basing this off things I've been told by other soldiers during my time in service and their problems with military ball ammo. It's by no means scientific.
If body armor enters the equation, then it's rifle all the way. Period.
Last edited by wetware; 7/26/2011 10:23pm at .
Tell you what, I'm going hunting a couple times later this year. I'm not above wasting a couple pounds of deer to find an answer to this.
Sounds good to me, let me know what you find. My info mostly comes from reading up on ballistics online, in magazines, etc. That's how I came to my own conclusion. If there's a way to prove pistol rounds are more effective than I thought then that's nothing but good news.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO