Carrying "less" in a "good" area. Nope, no thanks.
- Thread starter CDW4ME
- Start date
Here is my risk assessment:
I assess that if I have to defend myself I want at least a Glock 19 in hand.
I've not carried less than a Glock 19 in over 3 years, including summers.
This thread is about my personal preference.
I carry what I would prefer in hand if I had to defend myself, location not factored. Nothing less than a Glock 19 meets that criteria.
Opposite view from mine:
Anticipated threat, statistics, 3/3 something, psychic ability, Magic 8 Ball.
On a quick trip to the store, I'll bet my life on a pocket 380 in case somebody(s) try to kill me.
If I have to go to "indian country" then I bet my life on a 9mm + spare mag (whatever) in case somebody(s) try to kill me.
Between my philosophy versus the opposite, I'd rather err with my "overkill".
I'm not bashing anybody. If you prefer to risk your life on a NAA 22 or nothing, oh well, doesn't impact me.
Here is my risk assessment:
I assess that if I have to defend myself I want at least a Glock 19 in hand.
I've not carried less than a Glock 19 in over 3 years, including summers.
This thread is about my personal preference.
I carry what I would prefer in hand if I had to defend myself, location not factored. Nothing less than a Glock 19 meets that criteria.
Opposite view from mine:
Anticipated threat, statistics, 3/3 something, psychic ability, Magic 8 Ball.
On a quick trip to the store, I'll bet my life on a pocket 380 in case somebody(s) try to kill me.
If I have to go to "indian country" then I bet my life on a 9mm + spare mag (whatever) in case somebody(s) try to kill me.
Between my philosophy versus the opposite, I'd rather err with my "overkill".
I'm not bashing anybody. If you prefer to risk your life on a NAA 22 or nothing, oh well, doesn't impact me.
If this thread is just you telling people what you are comfortable with and to heck with anyone else, then why even make it a thread?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Some people reading the thread may ponder my position and strive to do it themself.
Perhaps they would like to conceal a 1911 / Glock (whatever) and my pics give them ideas on how they can do it.
^Those two reasons is why make it a thread^
Some click this thread and have no intention of carrying what they would carry in an area perceived as greater risk everywhere.
If one is content to bet their life on a 32 acp (or nothing) in one place but want a 9mm in a different place, thats on them. I tried.
Try to convince me to carry a pocket 380 / 38 snub instead of a Glock 19/23/22/35 - complete waste of time, it aint happening.
I don’t necessarily see it as other people trying to convince you. I see at as them explaining their rationale. To me that’s a completely legitimate use of a forum system. It’s about discussion, not talking at people. The latter is for a blog.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do you disagree with the philosophy I shared?
Do you carry a "lesser" gun in an area you perceive as "good" but carry something "more" when the anticipated threat is higher?
I think I get the gist of the opposing view:
A threat in a "good" area is anticipated to require "less" ex: a 32 acp to stop ASAP.
A threat in a "bad" area is anticipated to require at least a 9mm (example) to stop ASAP.
Conveniently the criminals, psychos, "bad" (hard to incapacitate) people are not anticipated to visit the "good" area, especially during daylight.
No its not a blog.
Feel free to explain how I would be better off betting my life on a snub 38 / pocket 32/380 rather than a Glock 19/23/22/35/41.
Carrying "less" in a "good" area. Nope, no thanks.
I don’t disagree with the philosophy. That hasn’t been my point in my last two comments. I don’t think anyone here has tried to convince you that you’ll be better off with a smaller pistol in a smaller caliber, at least that’s not at all my goal. All I see are people explaining their own logic. That’s not them trying to “convert” you.
Someone out there is carrying a Glock 34 and a backup pistol and an AR pistol in a backpack while wearing level IIIA armor. At some level we all make compromises, including yourself. Where we make that compromise is the difference. I get where you’ve chosen to make yours and in reality it’s basically the same as mine. I think it makes sense to share that decision and use it to spur conversation.
However, I don’t know that mocking people with memes if they disagree with you is actually conversation, and that is why I made the forum vs. blog comment. It’s totally your right to do all of this. Is this my definition of reinforcing tactics and training in others? No. If anything my guess is it makes others less inclined to listen and in turn makes me think this isn’t so much about getting others to “strive”, as you put it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don’t disagree with the philosophy. That hasn’t been my point in my last two comments. I don’t think anyone here has tried to convince you that you’ll be better off with a smaller pistol in a smaller caliber, at least that’s not at all my goal. All I see are people explaining their own logic. That’s not them trying to “convert” you.
Someone out there is carrying a Glock 34 and a backup pistol and an AR pistol in a backpack while wearing level IIIA armor. At some level we all make compromises, including yourself. Where we make that compromise is the difference. I get where you’ve chosen to make yours and in reality it’s basically the same as mine. I think it makes sense to share that decision and use it to spur conversation.
However, I don’t know that mocking people with memes if they disagree with you is actually conversation, and that is why I made the forum vs. blog comment. It’s totally your right to do all of this. Is this my definition of reinforcing tactics and training in others? No. If anything my guess is it makes others less inclined to listen and in turn makes me think this isn’t so much about getting others to “strive”, as you put it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
peacefulgary
New member
I can understand a caliber preference: Some folks think that anything less than the 9mm Para simply will not stop a determined attacker.
I understand that line of thought.
What I don't understand is the notion than one needs to carry nothing less than a 15+1 round Glock 19 (probably with an extra magazine) everywhere they go, for self defense.
A Glock 43 9mm Para with 6+1 rounds is probably more than enough.
And it's lighter weight (which equals more comfortable to carry) and easier to conceal than the Glock 19.
Heck, even a 5 shot 9mm snub-nosed revolver is probably more than enough.
I can't see any self defense situation where you're going to need to shoot 16 rounds.
But it's a free nation (mostly), and it's your right to carry as much weight and bulk as you like.
But I think think it shows a real lack of experience and wisdom.
I understand that line of thought.
What I don't understand is the notion than one needs to carry nothing less than a 15+1 round Glock 19 (probably with an extra magazine) everywhere they go, for self defense.
A Glock 43 9mm Para with 6+1 rounds is probably more than enough.
And it's lighter weight (which equals more comfortable to carry) and easier to conceal than the Glock 19.
Heck, even a 5 shot 9mm snub-nosed revolver is probably more than enough.
I can't see any self defense situation where you're going to need to shoot 16 rounds.
But it's a free nation (mostly), and it's your right to carry as much weight and bulk as you like.
But I think think it shows a real lack of experience and wisdom.
This is a bridge too far for me. I know a number of people that choose to carry a larger pistol. For them they don’t find it impacts their ability to carry concealed and they like the extra capability. Fair enough. I don’t see how that’s a lack of experience and wisdom, especially as a number of those people do have fairly extensive experience.
Just like I won’t brow beat someone for carrying less than I do, I’m not going to judge them for carrying more.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
peacefulgary
New member
I've noticed over the years that young and inexperienced guys mostly carry full sized handguns.
And older and more experienced guys mostly carry compact or sub-compact handguns.
As always, there are exceptions (especially 1911 fans), but from my observations the above is true about 95% of the time.
And older and more experienced guys mostly carry compact or sub-compact handguns.
As always, there are exceptions (especially 1911 fans), but from my observations the above is true about 95% of the time.
Carrying "less" in a "good" area. Nope, no thanks.
I don’t know that just because someone is young that they are inexperienced, and just because someone is old that they are experienced. That’s been true for me. YMMV.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don’t know that just because someone is young that they are inexperienced, and just because someone is old that they are experienced. That’s been true for me. YMMV.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
I'm definitely in the 9mm minimum camp.
I have a Glock 43 - it is okay, not my idea of a primary, more suited to my weak hand front pocket as a 2nd option to a larger pistol that is IWB.
Glock 19/23 grip is cramped for my hand.
Glock 22/35/41 grip accommodates my hand nicely.
Of the concealable pistols I own the Glock 19, 22 and 35 are the easiest for me to shoot quick and accurate; I also have 1911's that I shoot well, but the edge goes to the Glocks.
Having a pistol that fits your hand and you shoot it quick & accurate are all desirable qualities, for me anyway.
About my lack of experience & wisdom, when I was a cop for awhile a couple decades ago I carried two spare mags, mandated by department.
Now, I carry one spare mag. A spare mag is important if the pistol jams, malfunction drill. I suppose I'm pretty dumb to want to be able clear a malfunction and insert new magazine.
Capacity? I've carried a 1911 before quite a bit.
7 + 1 of 45 acp with my Tripp/Cobra mag - by your comments that is "more than enough".
My Glock 19 / 22 /35 hold 15 rounds. Will I increase my "wisdom" by only carrying 10 rounds in the magazine.
I think not. peacefulgary
New member
I never called you dumb.
And as I said before...it's a free nation (mostly) and it's your right to carry as much weight and bulk as you like.
Heck, carry a Glock 19 on your strong side (with an extra magazine of course, for those malfunctions), and at the same time, carry a Glock 43 in your weak hand front pocket (again, with a spare magazine, for those malfunctions) if that helps you sleep at night.
But, eventually, you'll come around to the truth.
I predict that in ten years time, you will change your mind about what is acceptable for self defense carry.
No, you didn't say dumb, just a lack of experience / wisdom.
I'm thinking the same thing and it aint about me.
In the OP I said I'm retired and can dress as I choose.
I've had legal concealed carry since 1992.
For years, on workdays, the best I could do was a pocket 380.
best one can do =/= best one is willing to do
After I retired I was able to carry how (what) I would have preferred to carry all along, at least a Glock 19.
In over 3 years I've not carried less than a Glock 19: walking the dogs 1 - 2 miles everyday, moving houses, trips to the store, pick up pizza, hiking, whatever.
And (review) why is that?
Because if I had to defend myself, I'd prefer to have at least a Glock 19 in hand.
There is nowhere I'd rather defend my life a snub, pocket 380, or Glock 43 rather than a Glock 19 (23/22/35/41) and I happily carry accordingly.
I know, some are satisfied carrying something minimal (when they don't have to) because they do not want (or are unwilling) to dress for concealment.
Ex: They think a untucked shirt looks "sloppy".
^Thats not me.^
What advantage does a Glock 43 have over a Glock 19? Ease of concealment, thats it.
For me, a Glock 19 is easy to conceal, so the 43 has zero advantage.
Glock 19 has all other advantages (ease of shooting quick & accurate, grip, capacity).
So, the "eventually I'll come around to the truth" (yours) and "change my mind about what is acceptable" (yours).
FireForged
New member
I have no idea if any armed conflict I suddenly find myself thrust into will adhere to the statistical norms or not. I carry what I am willing to carry. I could carry just about anything but I am simply not inclined to carry "more", do not feel compelled to carry more, do not want to carry more and I am not willing to carry more.
I am not a soldier, policeman or public sentinel. I am not being dropped off in a known HOT LZ or designated WARZONE. I am just a guy going to the store or to the gas station for fuel. I accept that I can have the occasion to run head long into danger and with that in mind, I do carry a handgun.
In the summer I carry 7 rounds and a reload. In the winter I carry 13 and a reload. On some rare occasions fostered by complete nostalgia, I may carry 5 plus a reload. It is my opinion based on life experience, training and available stats, that what I carry will very likely answer the criminal threat that I may encounter. In an effort not to confuse anyone.. very likely ( in my mind) simply means more likely than not in the overwhelming majority of circumstances. To be fair, it might not
In common language, a bad part of town is NOT determined by where a badguy happens to be. A bad part of town is that region, area or location that has a historically high level of crime by comparison to similar zones nearby and also one that is widely known by the local inhabitants to be a dangerous area.
Crime can happen just about anywhere but lets not pretend that we do not know what "a bad part of town" means. I avoid the bad parts of town
Tornados can occur just about anywhere but we all know that there are tornado alleys. In those areas, people commonly partake of greater precautions than people outside of tornado alley. Its not hard to understand and it is certainly not uncommon or absurd to heighten your defensive capabilities in area's where crime, violence and danger are more common. Its probably smart to be quite honest.
I will not criticize someone who varies their self defense system based on where they are and what they are doing. There can be very logical aspects to such practices. Varying levels of precautions based on thoughtful risk assessments are something that is very common across many fields of study, including strategic warfare planning. I am not sure if this thread is intended to criticize such a practice but if it is, it may fall of deaf ears without SUBSTANTIAL qualification that is seemingly lacking in this discussion.
As far as myself, I carry based on convenience and climate. I carry a little more when its easy to carry a little more. No matter what I carry it easily doubles, triples or quadruples what is statistically considered to be the average need. If people want to carry a 10mm with 60 rounds of ammo, that's fine but it doesnt necessarily make them more virtuous or wise.
I am not a soldier, policeman or public sentinel. I am not being dropped off in a known HOT LZ or designated WARZONE. I am just a guy going to the store or to the gas station for fuel. I accept that I can have the occasion to run head long into danger and with that in mind, I do carry a handgun.
In the summer I carry 7 rounds and a reload. In the winter I carry 13 and a reload. On some rare occasions fostered by complete nostalgia, I may carry 5 plus a reload. It is my opinion based on life experience, training and available stats, that what I carry will very likely answer the criminal threat that I may encounter. In an effort not to confuse anyone.. very likely ( in my mind) simply means more likely than not in the overwhelming majority of circumstances. To be fair, it might not
In common language, a bad part of town is NOT determined by where a badguy happens to be. A bad part of town is that region, area or location that has a historically high level of crime by comparison to similar zones nearby and also one that is widely known by the local inhabitants to be a dangerous area.
Crime can happen just about anywhere but lets not pretend that we do not know what "a bad part of town" means. I avoid the bad parts of town
Tornados can occur just about anywhere but we all know that there are tornado alleys. In those areas, people commonly partake of greater precautions than people outside of tornado alley. Its not hard to understand and it is certainly not uncommon or absurd to heighten your defensive capabilities in area's where crime, violence and danger are more common. Its probably smart to be quite honest.
I will not criticize someone who varies their self defense system based on where they are and what they are doing. There can be very logical aspects to such practices. Varying levels of precautions based on thoughtful risk assessments are something that is very common across many fields of study, including strategic warfare planning. I am not sure if this thread is intended to criticize such a practice but if it is, it may fall of deaf ears without SUBSTANTIAL qualification that is seemingly lacking in this discussion.
As far as myself, I carry based on convenience and climate. I carry a little more when its easy to carry a little more. No matter what I carry it easily doubles, triples or quadruples what is statistically considered to be the average need. If people want to carry a 10mm with 60 rounds of ammo, that's fine but it doesnt necessarily make them more virtuous or wise.
Last edited:
Because with age usually comes wisdom and experience
Unfortunately not always (some simply never learn) but more often than not
Your sentiment also usually translates to those who actually hunt versus those who don't
Ive found that those who push caliber/capacity are usually very insecure in their abilities
Which is most always weeded out when they are put under pressure
Ive found that to be true >99% of the time
Its easy to talk big on-line or in a gun shop
But I couldn't even guess how many Ive seen quickly crumble once the heat is turned up
On the plus side Ive won an awful lot of bets over the decades by leaning on braggarts... is that wrong of me?
In my own carrying “evolution” I’ve run the gamut of carry options. The first firearm I ever carried was a 4” Model 19. After ten years I now most often alternate between a 12 shot and a 15 shot 9mm with a spare magazine.
The notion that only people that can’t shoot care about capacity has been pushed since semiautomatics and detachable magazines came into existence.
Capacity and skill aren’t mutually exclusive. We can argue that passed a certain capacity we’re talking about very unlikely threats, and I agree that we’re entering into the tails of the bell curve (not to mention the rarity of needing a firearm for defense in the first post place).
I would add that just hitting a target isn’t a guarantee of incapacitation, or at least not immediate incapacitation. This is an example where capacity did matter, in addition to skill. https://www.policeone.com/officer-s...5-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job-clGBbLYpnqqHxwMq/. I understand that this is a police officer as opposed to a concealed carry holder and that he was on duty at the time. My point in posting the story is this is one adversary who took multiple rounds and continued to fight.
Besides the actual effect of the bullets is the need to hit the target. I haven’t shot at people with live ammunition but I have done force on force where I watched myself and others have trouble making shots at distances we’d normally boast about. And this was when we knew we weren’t fighting for our lives. I’ve also talked with a number of people who have been shot at and it doesn’t seem like this phenomenon is that uncommon.
It’s interesting to me that this conversation doesn’t seem possible without one side denigrating the other. If you carry too little you’re obviously not serious about self defense. If you carry too much you’re inexperienced and a poor shot. Both sides say people should carry what they find comfortable, but generally not without making one of the above comments before ending their post. I don’t understand why it becomes so dogmatic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The notion that only people that can’t shoot care about capacity has been pushed since semiautomatics and detachable magazines came into existence.
Capacity and skill aren’t mutually exclusive. We can argue that passed a certain capacity we’re talking about very unlikely threats, and I agree that we’re entering into the tails of the bell curve (not to mention the rarity of needing a firearm for defense in the first post place).
I would add that just hitting a target isn’t a guarantee of incapacitation, or at least not immediate incapacitation. This is an example where capacity did matter, in addition to skill. https://www.policeone.com/officer-s...5-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job-clGBbLYpnqqHxwMq/. I understand that this is a police officer as opposed to a concealed carry holder and that he was on duty at the time. My point in posting the story is this is one adversary who took multiple rounds and continued to fight.
Besides the actual effect of the bullets is the need to hit the target. I haven’t shot at people with live ammunition but I have done force on force where I watched myself and others have trouble making shots at distances we’d normally boast about. And this was when we knew we weren’t fighting for our lives. I’ve also talked with a number of people who have been shot at and it doesn’t seem like this phenomenon is that uncommon.
It’s interesting to me that this conversation doesn’t seem possible without one side denigrating the other. If you carry too little you’re obviously not serious about self defense. If you carry too much you’re inexperienced and a poor shot. Both sides say people should carry what they find comfortable, but generally not without making one of the above comments before ending their post. I don’t understand why it becomes so dogmatic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
FireForged
New member
well said
I do not know anyone here and I will not speculate about any individual motives which may exist in this thread but I will say that much of the dogma found in these sort of threads are often a result of validation seeking.
What I find interesting is that people seem far more concerned with elements which are more likely a peripheral issue. The overwhelming majority of citizen gun fights are very few rounds fired at rather close quarters. Rather than being concerned with efforts to realize the danger early, the mental fortitude and fighting prowess needed to address extreme threats.. people are more worried about how big their gun is and how many dozens of rounds they carry. If I were being dropped in a warzone, I would feel different. Imperatives as well as level of danger would be substantially different and likewise my opinion regarding weapons and ammo would be different. However, that is not what we are talking about.
I rarely ever mention what gun I carry or what ammo I use. Its just not that important, its just a tool. 5 shots or 25 shots is not really that much of a concern to me. I dont think that one singular disparity is likely going to be why my surviving a violent encounter actually hinged upon. What I think really matters is my training, knowledge, experience, mental toughness and general awareness.
Capacity and Caliber matter, don't get me wrong. I don't want to have to defend myself with a single shot 32cal derringer. As far as it being a GLOCK 19 + reload vs a 5 shot model 60 + reload. I don't give a darn about that, I promise.
The thing about me is I am not concerned with whether or not my methodology is hailed as relevant, proper or impressive. I do what I do for my own good reasons but I will share it here for the purpose of it potentially helping someone who is just coming on board.
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I'm a "1911 guy," so maybe the above doesn't apply to me. And I don't "push" capacity, but I am also not (IMHO) insecure in my abilities. I prefer to think that I am realistic.TBM900 said:
For a very many years I carried a single stack, Officers ACP 1911 with only the 6+1 magazine in the gun. I had accepted the notion "pushed" my many Internet experts that if seven shots aren't enough to stop an assailant, you don't need more ammo, you need an army.
But reality has a way of intruding on one's consciousness. Today, at least in my part of the country, marauding youths rarely seem to travel solo -- they travel in packs, like wolves or hyenas. And while I don't question my shooting ability (I've never won an IDPA event, even at the club level, but I also generally don't come in last), I do understand that a real world self-defense situation will be orders of magnitude more stressful than an IDPA competition. Police officers are required to re-qualify annually or semi-annually, yet look at the statistics on their accuracy under stress. I believe the statistic I've read for the NYPD is a miserable 19 percent of shots fired actually hit the intended target, That's one shot out of five.
So what if there are three assailants? I have seven shots. That's two shots per bad guy, with one in reserve for the worst of the three threats. Is it realistic to believe that if I only have two shots at each of three dynamic targets, I'll score hits with all of them? Is it even realistic to believe that I'll score hits with even half of them?
Is it realistic to expect that there will only be three assailants?
Consequently, a few years ago I began carrying a spare magazine. I still carry the Officers ACP. In .45 ACP ("because they don't make it in .50").