Not this again.

[cedartop]

I know we have talked about this numerous times, but I really enjoyed Todd's take on this.

pistol-training.com » Blog Archive » Enough Gun

 

[Hemingway]

Good, sane explanation.

One of the problems I see with the guys that carry the smaller guns (like kel-tec, j-frame, tiny walthers, etc) is that they also tend to be the guys that train the least with the weapon they carry. And the way they carry it. On the range, they look like a SWAT cop with their large frame guns, belt dump pouch, 8 mags, etc.

Then, they put all that away in the trunk and throw their Kel-tec .32 in their back pocket before driving off.

If you train with your wheelgun, drawing from your pocket and reloading from a speed strip out of your other pocket, I'd be a lot less likely to be critical of your carry choice. In other words, training is still the most critical component, regardless of carry choice.

 

[PX4me]

Makes sense to me. No mouse gun here.

 

[GNRPowdeR]

I admit, when I "can't" carry a real gun, I carry a mouse gun. I don't train with it nearly as often as I should, but I think I've only carried it as my primary twice in the last year.

 

[g00n24]

I agree 100!! Even if a mouse gun or j-frame will work in 95% of the self defense encounters we could find ourselves in there is always the chance of finding ourselves in a situation where an ultra-compact gun would be inadequate...take an active shooter situation for example, or a gang of attackers. Those types of attacks are becoming much more common nowadays.

There are times I am forced to carry only my Kahr cm-9 w/ an extra mag, but as soon as I leave that environment I have my g23 waiting for me in my car, ready to be strapped on.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

From the article:

But practically speaking it’s ridiculously easy to conceal. I’ve spent plenty of days in non-permissive environments wearing a Glock 26 in a SmartCarry holster. Maybe the SmartCarry isn’t as simple as dropping a gun into a pocket but I get twice as many bullets… bullets that are more effective… in a gun that is easier to shoot. Gosh, Bob, I need to think about this one, too…

So, is a Glock in your underwear really better than a revolver in your pocket? Which can you fish out with a combat grip quickest? Which can you get that ever important first shot off with first?

Look, I get it. You want to be ready if you find yourself in the middle of the LA bank robbery. You want to be ready if you are confronted with an active shooter. But, are you compromising on your ability to react to THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO to be ready for THE LEAST LIKELY SCENARIO? If all else is equal, which it never is, carry the bigger gun. Sometimes there are compromises that have nothing to do with "lazy" though, like not wanting to route around in your banana hammock for a firearm.

How I decide what to carry is really simple. What can I get out of the holster the fastest and put 3 shots into the center of the chest of a man sized target at 7 yards that is in a caliber I believe in. That's it. If I have to fish a pistol out of my drawers when confronted by the most likely scenario, a one on one encounter within 7 yards, does that make sense just because I now have more bullets for the least likely scenario?

I have 5 shots at the ready and can have my hand on my revolver without you even being aware of it. You have 15 shots but take 1.5 seconds longer to get it out. Who really has the advantage?

 

[possum_128]

From the article:



So, is a Glock in your underwear really better than a revolver in your pocket? Which can you fish out with a combat grip quickest? Which can you get that ever important first shot off with first?

Look, I get it. You want to be ready if you find yourself in the middle of the LA bank robbery. You want to be ready if you are confronted with an active shooter. But, are you compromising on your ability to react to THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO to be ready for THE LEAST LIKELY SCENARIO? If all else is equal, which it never is, carry the bigger gun. Sometimes there are compromises that have nothing to do with "lazy" though, like not wanting to route around in your banana hammock for a firearm.

How I decide what to carry is really simple. What can I get out of the holster the fastest and put 3 shots into the center of the chest of a man sized target at 7 yards that is in a caliber I believe in. That's it. If I have to fish a pistol out of my drawers when confronted by the most likely scenario, a one on one encounter within 7 yards, does that make sense just because I now have more bullets for the least likely scenario?

I have 5 shots at the ready and can have my hand on my revolver without you even being aware of it. You have 15 shots but take 1.5 seconds longer to get it out. Who really has the advantage?

I agree. One in the hand is better than two in the bush per say.

 

[Hoosier8]

From the article:



So, is a Glock in your underwear really better than a revolver in your pocket? Which can you fish out with a combat grip quickest? Which can you get that ever important first shot off with first?

Look, I get it. You want to be ready if you find yourself in the middle of the LA bank robbery. You want to be ready if you are confronted with an active shooter. But, are you compromising on your ability to react to THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO to be ready for THE LEAST LIKELY SCENARIO? If all else is equal, which it never is, carry the bigger gun. Sometimes there are compromises that have nothing to do with "lazy" though, like not wanting to route around in your banana hammock for a firearm.

How I decide what to carry is really simple. What can I get out of the holster the fastest and put 3 shots into the center of the chest of a man sized target at 7 yards that is in a caliber I believe in. That's it. If I have to fish a pistol out of my drawers when confronted by the most likely scenario, a one on one encounter within 7 yards, does that make sense just because I now have more bullets for the least likely scenario?

I have 5 shots at the ready and can have my hand on my revolver without you even being aware of it. You have 15 shots but take 1.5 seconds longer to get it out. Who really has the advantage?

Hmmm, a Glock in a SmartCarry. Tense situation, you fish around for your Glock and have a negligent discharge. Start singing soprano. I would prefer a longer trigger pull or a safety if I am going to be pointing it at my jewels.

 

[MikeDVB]

Hmmm, a Glock in a SmartCarry. Tense situation, you fish around for your Glock and have a negligent discharge. Start singing soprano. I would prefer a longer trigger pull or a safety if I am going to be pointing it at my jewels.

I would prefer to avoid pointing it at my jewels...

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I agree. One in the hand is better than two in the bush per say.

Wow. I think we all need to really take a minute and appreciate the awesomeness of this comment.

 

[possum_128]

Tis was nothing at all, thank you, thank you and thank you.

 

[9mmfan]

Say what you want, but a loaded G 26 weighs more than a 642. I wear scrubs during the week and when I want stop in somewhere after work, I can slip the 642 (in an Uncle aMikes) inside my scrubs pants and they won't fall down. I dare say a Glock, no manner the size, would pull those puppies right down !

I am experimenting with a shoulder holster now and will see how that works. During the warm months I'll have to see how my local gas station deals with that odd look.

 

[ModernGunner]

IMO, this is the same as the, now worn out and tired, 1911 (there's only ONE, the rest are clones) / Glock / Sig / Semi-auto / Revolver debate.

Is a .380 too small, is a .50AE too big, etc., etc., etc.?

Reading articles like that makes me wonder, has this author ever been IN a gun fight? Do they even understand what a lethal force encounter IS? 'Cause it sure ain't about .45 vs. .380 or 1911 vs. Mdl. 686.

The REAL issue is mindset. Can YOU (whomever you are) hit what you're shooting at with efficiency WHEN under a direct attack aimed specifically at YOU, whether that's another gun, knife, multiple assailants, terrorist with a scimitar, or a kangaroo with an 'attitude'?

We ALL know that the whole 'one shot & drop 'em' is a myth with virtually anything you can shoulder, save projectile explosives that would blow apart the body: grenade launcher, bazooka, rpg, stinger, etc.

We OFTEN see guys on many different forums posting comments to the effect that "anything less than a .45 ACP is insufficient but a .44 mag or bigger is too much".

Bleh...

It's NOT about caliber or magazine capacity, and no true expert has or will claim that it is. NOR is it about how fast you can draw, or how many shots you can get off in 2 seconds, or whatever. And no true expert has or will claim that it is.

It's about being able to act, NOT out of anger, nor being 'emotional'. BOTH of those COULD guarantee the defender a long stint in the cross-bar hotel for acting inappropriately.

Can the person, the justified defender, act properly and decisively if (god forbid) they have such a lethal encounter? Can they keep their wits about them and put offensive rounds on target of a legitimate threat accurately enough in a tense situation WITHOUT endangering innocent bystanders?

If they CAN, their chances of prevailing without negative consequence are virtually guaranteed, regardless of the caliber / manufacturer / magazine capacity / or what they had for breakfast.

If NOT, bad guy(s) win, you die.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Mind set and tools are different arguments. Of course you need the proper mindset, and of course you should have quality and realistic training.

That doesn't mean that caliber, capacity, ease of access, etc. are irrelevant or outside a reasonable discussion.

I'm no stranger to violence, either as a participant or as a spectator. My thoughts on selection of a carry gun are here:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._self_defense/273631-carry_gun_selection.html

Again, separate discussion from "mind set". SEALs don't carry .22 derringers because their mindset is so awesome it will make the hardware more effective. Just like a mechanic's knowledge isn't of nearly as much use without his tools, mind set is greatly augmented with an appropriate weapon, and vice versa.

 

[g00n24]

Mind set and tools are different arguments. Of course you need the proper mindset, and of course you should have quality and realistic training.

That doesn't mean that caliber, capacity, ease of access, etc. are irrelevant or outside a reasonable discussion.

I'm no stranger to violence, either as a participant or as a spectator. My thoughts on selection of a carry gun are here:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._self_defense/273631-carry_gun_selection.html

Again, separate discussion from "mind set". SEALs don't carry .22 derringers because their mindset is so awesome it will make the hardware more effective. Just like a mechanic's knowledge isn't of nearly as much use without his tools, mind set is greatly augmented with an appropriate weapon, and vice versa.

^^ This...Having the best defensive mindset one could possess and finding yourself in a fight with a .25 raven that jams every other shot most likely won't end well for you.
Along with the mindset you must have a firearm with the capacity capable of stopping the threat and a caliber that will reach vital organs should the threat continue after presenting the firearm. Of course, this will depend on what the threat is (gang of bad guys vs. 1 bad guy...)
And having great mindset while taking careful aim and waiting 3 seconds between shots isn't going to get you very far either...being able to shoot fast and accurate AND get out of the holster quickly are all important in a life/death situation...I doubt any trainer who knows anything will tell you different.
If it were true that speed and efficiency weren't important what the hell would the point of training be? Hell if it were all about mindset then couldn't we all just read a book and think ourselves out of every self defense situation...since skills and tools don't matter and all....