Minimal Versus Optimal

[cedartop]

Where does the thought that a concealed defensive weapon should be small, no optic, no light, and will only be fired using point shooting in three rounds, in three seconds, at three yards come from? It seems people let convenience and comfort dictate, thus making their carry firearm a magic talisman to ward off evil. This mindset makes anything they carry a modern day Derringer- Not overly useful other than a small niche which is out classed and out performed by most other modern options with functional sights and relevant training. read more

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Small: Because concealment.
No optic: Dealer's choice. Pros and cons abound. Not a requirement.
No light: Because if it's too dark for me to see it's too dark for him to see and target me. If you want one, fine, but definitely not a requirement.
Point shoot: A possibility, especially if entangled, but prepare for either.
Training: Yes, please.
Tueller: often misunderstood. The distance was completely arbitrary, just a drill/demonstration and not an indication of safe/unsafe distnaces.

I'm carrying a 43X pretty much all the time now. Not big, not little. No optic until the department approves them, but I have one with an optic ready to go. No light. I've also got a 45 set up with optic and light if I want a bigger option. If I was still a real cop, I'd stick with the 45. For what I do now on and off duty, the 43X is just fine.

 

[MCgrease08]

Small: Because concealment.
No optic: Dealer's choice. Pros and cons abound. Not a requirement.
No light: Because if it's too dark for me to see it's too dark for him to see and target me. If you want one, fine, but definitely not a requirement.
Point shoot: A possibility, especially if entangled, but prepare for either.
Training: Yes, please.
Tueller: often misunderstood. The distance was completely arbitrary, just a drill/demonstration and not an indication of safe/unsafe distnaces.

I'm carrying a 43X pretty much all the time now. Not big, not little. No optic until the department approves them, but I have one with an optic ready to go. No light. I've also got a 45 set up with optic and light if I want a bigger option. If I was still a real cop, I'd stick with the 45. For what I do now on and off duty, the 43X is just fine.

The 43x with RMRcc or Holosun 407c? and TLR-7 is a nifty little package. Throw in the Shield mags for 15+1 and I would not feel under gunned at all.

I don't personally have that set-up, but I know a fellow member that does. He's more than capable with it.

 

[cedartop]

Small: Because concealment.
No optic: Dealer's choice. Pros and cons abound. Not a requirement.
No light: Because if it's too dark for me to see it's too dark for him to see and target me. If you want one, fine, but definitely not a requirement.
Point shoot: A possibility, especially if entangled, but prepare for either.
Training: Yes, please.
Tueller: often misunderstood. The distance was completely arbitrary, just a drill/demonstration and not an indication of safe/unsafe distnaces.

I'm carrying a 43X pretty much all the time now. Not big, not little. No optic until the department approves them, but I have one with an optic ready to go. No light. I've also got a 45 set up with optic and light if I want a bigger option. If I was still a real cop, I'd stick with the 45. For what I do now on and off duty, the 43X is just fine.

I can agree with most of that. For me, light on everything at home, not on my carry gun. I am not against them, but I follow your train of thought. If I really need a light I always have a task light, and a "tactical" handheld in my pockets.

 

[eldirector]

Not sure of the 3/3/3, but the rest describe something that is easily concealable without needing to "dress around" the gun.

Aren't most defensive gun uses decided in 3 shots or less (heavily weighted towards zero), at close/contact distances?

Not saying one should not be prepared for the outliers. But, needing to use it at ALL is already an outlier. Guessing the "industry" is simply catering to the majority.

If one was serious about defense, one would carry a rifle. Handguns are a compromise to begin with.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Aren't most defensive gun uses decided in 3 shots or less (heavily weighted towards zero), at close/contact distances?

For random encounters, yes. For targeted encounters, still yes, but much less so. Threat assessment isn't the same for everyone, of course.

 

[cedartop]

Not sure of the 3/3/3, but the rest describe something that is easily concealable without needing to "dress around" the gun.

Aren't most defensive gun uses decided in 3 shots or less (heavily weighted towards zero), at close/contact distances?

Not saying one should not be prepared for the outliers. But, needing to use it at ALL is already an outlier. Guessing the "industry" is simply catering to the majority.

If one was serious about defense, one would carry a rifle. Handguns are a compromise to begin with.

It doesn't matter to me anymore what people do. I do however wish they would not lie to themselves just to justify carrying what is comfortable whether they can shoot it or not. That rule of 3's started with Police encounters, they have to get close to people to arrest them. Here is some good infomaration on the subject of gunfight distance if you are interested.

What do FBI statistics really say about Gunfight distances?

The true distance of typical gunfights

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It doesn't matter to me anymore what people do. I do however wish they would not lie to themselves just to justify carrying what is comfortable whether they can shoot it or not. That rule of 3's started with Police encounters, they have to get close to people to arrest them. Here is some good infomaration on the subject of gunfight distance if you are interested.

What do FBI statistics really say about Gunfight distances?

The true distance of typical gunfights

Bad guys have to get close to you as well. They don't rob or rape you from across the parking lot. The exception is murder from ambush, which is very very rare as a random crime.

Both of those sources seem to validate the close range shooting being the norm, though my personally kept stats that broke down random vs targeted would put them even closer.

 

[jsharmon7]

It doesn't matter to me anymore what people do. I do however wish they would not lie to themselves just to justify carrying what is comfortable whether they can shoot it or not. That rule of 3's started with Police encounters, they have to get close to people to arrest them. Here is some good infomaration on the subject of gunfight distance if you are interested.

What do FBI statistics really say about Gunfight distances?

The true distance of typical gunfights

Why not carry an AR15 all the time, then? Much more effective, easier to shoot, and better capacity. You can add lights, sights, scopes, etc.

Everyone who drives faster than me is a lunatic, and everyone who drives slower is a moron.

 

[Twangbanger]

3-5 yards is the "wheelhouse" for target-focus shooting. Not "point shooting;" you're still using the sights, you're just not hard-focusing on them. So if you're looking for a reason not to have an optic, and believe 3-5 yards is a mode distance for encounters, that would seem to support not having it. For many people, using a dot up close actually slows them down a bit as they first learn to use it - versus how fast they'd shoot with sights at that distance - because of index issues and locating the dot.

Just clearing the holster, shoving the gun toward a daylight target at 3-5 yards and unloading? Probably favors sights, for the person with normal eyesight.

Longer distance and/or darkness, I would think it tips the balance back towards the dot.

The one link that mentions robbery and sexual assault as being cases where an attacker often attempts to frighten a victim into compliance before closing distance, was interesting. I don't have data or experience to say one way or the other, just found it to be a different and interesting piece of information from what I've heard. If true, it would seem to suggest that attackers want to determine whether or not they have a compliant victim before getting _themselves_ in danger-distance, and are actually using the paralyzing effect of fear to their advantage in combining distance-closure and victim-selection into one tactic to improve their odds of success. Interesting. Probably will challenge some folks' ideas of these crimes as always being contact-ambush, so it would be interesting to hear where that's coming from.

 

[MCgrease08]

Personally, I want to be prepared for as much of a worst case scenario as possible. Although it's super rare, I think an active shooter(s) with a long gun in a large public space like a mall, movie theater or church is at the peak of that "worst case" mountain.

If there's an active killer threat and I'm forced to engage, I want to to at least have a decent chance of making hits beyond 3, 5, 10 yards. I want every advantage I can get. And that's a compact to full sized pistol with a red dot and WML. If I can engage threats at distance, I figure I'm also covered for something closer in.

 

[manifest destiny]

Each situation can be unique but I've always wondered at what distance a prosecutor might decide it's too far to still claim self defense.