Onward Allusion
New member
Slimness is not overrated, BUT IMO the Kahr, Kel-Tec, or Ruger don't even come close to the 6906. If you're already CC'ing a 6906 and are able to do so w/o issue, why change to a lower capacity lesser gun!???
is slimness in a concealed carry firearm overrated?
- Thread starter anonimoose
- Start date
Slimness is not overrated, BUT IMO the Kahr, Kel-Tec, or Ruger don't even come close to the 6906. If you're already CC'ing a 6906 and are able to do so w/o issue, why change to a lower capacity lesser gun!???
Yes. So is weight.
Sorry, but most of the people buying these tiny things don't realize that it takes a great deal of practice to shoot them well and ensure reliability. They will have failures to the gun, which they seem to accept as normal. They can't keep a decent group, which they explain away by saying "most encounters occur within *** feet, so accuracy isn't important."
Carrying a gun will require one to make some changes to the way they live. The current fad for these really small pistols makes me think they're marketed towards people who aren't willing to do that. While I can understand the appeal of a small, light gun, I'm worried about making compromises on this front.
YMMV, but a gun that chokes when limp-wristed, or that's only reliable with certain loads isn't one to which I'll trust my life.
I think the small autos have been marketed to the same market segment that did, and still does buy, the snubbie revolvers. No purchasers I am aware of went in with the delusional notion that they were buying into an easy shooting experience with either a snub or a pocket auto in a duty caliber.
Many of the same arguments being made here against a thinner single stack 9mm pistol markedly mirror those made against the Airweight J-Frame and the Ruger LCR. (It's too light, it's harder to hit with accurately because the sights are worse and closer together and there's not enough to hang onto, it's more difficult to reload without a full length ejector, why downgrade yourself a round just for more concealment? Why limit yourself to mere .38 Special?)
I agree that anyone who carries a difficult to shoot sidearm as some sort of magic wand is a fool of the most base kind. Nevertheless, a lot of these "pocket guns" are bought by people who know exactly what they are getting into and take the plunge anyways, primarily so that they can look more "normal" no matter where and when they decide to carry.
I got sick of having to have a covering garment all of the time. Between a PF-9 and a 442, I don't have to have one anymore should I choose. That said, practice is more unpleasant for these two pieces, a tradeoff I was more than willing to make for the purpose I put the little guns to.
Many of the same arguments being made here against a thinner single stack 9mm pistol markedly mirror those made against the Airweight J-Frame and the Ruger LCR. (It's too light, it's harder to hit with accurately because the sights are worse and closer together and there's not enough to hang onto, it's more difficult to reload without a full length ejector, why downgrade yourself a round just for more concealment? Why limit yourself to mere .38 Special?)
I agree that anyone who carries a difficult to shoot sidearm as some sort of magic wand is a fool of the most base kind. Nevertheless, a lot of these "pocket guns" are bought by people who know exactly what they are getting into and take the plunge anyways, primarily so that they can look more "normal" no matter where and when they decide to carry.
I got sick of having to have a covering garment all of the time. Between a PF-9 and a 442, I don't have to have one anymore should I choose. That said, practice is more unpleasant for these two pieces, a tradeoff I was more than willing to make for the purpose I put the little guns to.
Tactical Jackalope
New member
I'm screwed then...Cause all I carry is full sized. 
LockedBreech
New member
I don't think it's overrated. I shouldn't have started concealed carry with the LCP. It spoiled me. I tried carrying my PX4 fullsize IWB and, while an amazing pistol, it's a chunker and doesn't carry IWB at ALL. I certainly see why slimness is so prized.
That's a very subjective question! It depends on the size of the person in question, in my opinion, and if they feel comfortable with the handgun on them, and if they can conceal it well enough without worrying about printing. I'm 6'1, 195 lbs and of average build, if that helps you make sense of what I'm about to write!
The P30 is 1.37" thick with the levers, and for comparison the M&P 40 is 1.2" thick. That 0.2" doesn't bother me in the slightest, and I have yet to be "caught" carrying concealed; no one has noticed, yet (fingers crossed). The P30 is technically a "midsize" handgun, as the height is about the same as most full size handguns, coming in just a hair shorter than my M&P 40. The length, however, is just above 0.6" shorter than the M&P 40, which makes a world of difference to me.
So, I guess the answer to your question is no! Width doesn't make a big difference in my case.
The P30 is 1.37" thick with the levers, and for comparison the M&P 40 is 1.2" thick. That 0.2" doesn't bother me in the slightest, and I have yet to be "caught" carrying concealed; no one has noticed, yet (fingers crossed
). The P30 is technically a "midsize" handgun, as the height is about the same as most full size handguns, coming in just a hair shorter than my M&P 40. The length, however, is just above 0.6" shorter than the M&P 40, which makes a world of difference to me. So, I guess the answer to your question is no! Width doesn't make a big difference in my case.
LockedBreech
New member
HK Jake, you can conceal a fullsize M&P40? I'm 6'5", 260 and I can't pull that off! What am I doing wrong?!
LockedBreech
New member
I'm still impressed by the P30. I need to learn some carry technique.
P30's a beautiful firearm, by the way.
P30's a beautiful firearm, by the way.
Thank you!
The PX4 Storm isn't a bad looking weapon either if I say so myself! The right holster can make a world of difference. I carry it in a Crossbreed SuperTuck, which is a bit pricey, but it is the only IWB holster I own! (My OWB holster is a Blackhawk! Serpa CQC, which doesn't conceal worth a ****, haha)!
I carry at either 4 or 5 o'clock in the SuperTuck depending on how I'm dressed, and I much prefer carrying at 4 as the draw is much quicker. I do a pretty strong cant which makes a huge difference in concealing the pistol; the strong cant solves the main issue which, for me, is height, as anything sticking off your body at an obtuse angle is a bit odd and noticeable, ya know!
Hope that helps.
I generally agree here with the comments about how if you can conceal a larger gun well enough, then you should use the largest gun. That of course means service size pistols, there being even larger handguns. So slimness may be overrated but concealing the weapon is not. Unless you're a policeman, for most people concealing the handgun is most important. Also, unless you're a policeman, you will most likely only use the gun at a very close distance, probably no further than, say, across the room. Never across the street. That means you don't need to worry so much about goup size a 15 yards, much less 25 yards. You still have to worry about accessiblity, though, because probably whatever happens up close is going to start up close. This is all about the primary weapon. A second or back-up weapon calls for different theories of concealment and employment.
And finally, there's is probably an exception to everything I've just written.
And finally, there's is probably an exception to everything I've just written.
Carry
Yes slimness is over rated. In fact EVERYTHING is over rated in concealed carry. I've owned many smaller pistols, short barrels, etc.etc. The short comings exceeded the advantages in my opinion. I have had no problem concealing a full size 1911, or Glock, or anything for that matter. I much prefer a larger pistol for concealed carry.
Yes slimness is over rated. In fact EVERYTHING is over rated in concealed carry. I've owned many smaller pistols, short barrels, etc.etc. The short comings exceeded the advantages in my opinion. I have had no problem concealing a full size 1911, or Glock, or anything for that matter. I much prefer a larger pistol for concealed carry.
stand watie
New member
Bluetrain; ALL,
Bluetrain, you are 100% CORRECT about how close the typical "shootout" is!
fwiw, the AVERAGE range of a "gunfight" (including "police involved shootings"), according to the latest USMS figures that i have available, where ANYONE "stopped a round is about 80 INCHES!
(obviously, i am NOT talking about situations where the participants "blazed away at" each other & hit NOBODY!)
for that reason, i do NOT worry about WHAT caliber to carry for CCW, but rather how QUICKLY the weapon can be presented & that a "double-tap" can be fired ACCURATELY.
(for several years after i retired, i carried a 9x18MM Makarov with perfect comfort in its ability to stop an aggressor at "self-defense range"
. - my daughter now carries "daddy's little gun" & i bought a 9MM Sig.)
just my opinion as an old but NOT bold LEO.
yours, sw
Bluetrain, you are 100% CORRECT about how close the typical "shootout" is!
fwiw, the AVERAGE range of a "gunfight" (including "police involved shootings"), according to the latest USMS figures that i have available, where ANYONE "stopped a round is about 80 INCHES!
(obviously, i am NOT talking about situations where the participants "blazed away at" each other & hit NOBODY!)
for that reason, i do NOT worry about WHAT caliber to carry for CCW, but rather how QUICKLY the weapon can be presented & that a "double-tap" can be fired ACCURATELY.
(for several years after i retired, i carried a 9x18MM Makarov with perfect comfort in its ability to stop an aggressor at "self-defense range"
. - my daughter now carries "daddy's little gun" & i bought a 9MM Sig.)
just my opinion as an old but NOT bold LEO.
yours, sw
Last edited:
stand watie
New member
Bluetrain; all,
TO Bluetrain: thought you might find this "of some interest". ======> a local City Marshal tells me that he was in a "northeastern state" at a LE seminar last year & found out that FOUR police officers got into a "shooting incident" with TWO "badguys", a few days before the seminar.
(fyi, we "wild Texicans" call "offenders" something else than "badguys", that i won't use here! = CHUCKLE!)
during the "police involved shooting" investigation a total of over 100 rounds were fired by all "the participants" from a minimum distance of 11 feet & a maximum of 68 feet. - NOBODY was "hit"!
pardon me for saying this, as an OF, but today (rather than in my active service days, when i was a range officer/instructor/SA) FEW of today's LEO can actually HIT what they are shooting at; instead they rely on "volume of fire". = this is called: "the spray & pray syndrome"!
TO ALL: perhaps it is past time to ditch the high-capacity semi-auto pistols for most LEO & return to issuing REVOLVERS in .38SPL/.357MAG & training LEO to (from my "rookie guide"): "fire one, well-aimed single-action round into the target's center mass, preferably from a kneeling supported & covered position."
(in those far gone days, a LEO could carry a semi-auto only AFTER they demonstrated to the satisfaction of the chief/sheriff/constable/senior supervisor that they could COMPETENTLY handle something more complicated than a revolver.)
when i was on the faculty of the ETRPA, we had LITTLE trouble "qualifying" 80+% of rookies, with their assigned Colt/S&W revolver in the first week of "range time" & NOBODY (at least that i can recall) failed to actually/legitimately qualify with their weapon by graduation day. - in all too many cases today, MANY rookies/officers routinely "qualify" with "the M-1 pencil".
just my opinion as an old but NOT bold officer.
yours, sw
TO Bluetrain: thought you might find this "of some interest". ======> a local City Marshal tells me that he was in a "northeastern state" at a LE seminar last year & found out that FOUR police officers got into a "shooting incident" with TWO "badguys", a few days before the seminar.
(fyi, we "wild Texicans" call "offenders" something else than "badguys", that i won't use here! = CHUCKLE!)
during the "police involved shooting" investigation a total of over 100 rounds were fired by all "the participants" from a minimum distance of 11 feet & a maximum of 68 feet. - NOBODY was "hit"!
pardon me for saying this, as an OF, but today (rather than in my active service days, when i was a range officer/instructor/SA) FEW of today's LEO can actually HIT what they are shooting at; instead they rely on "volume of fire". = this is called: "the spray & pray syndrome"!
TO ALL: perhaps it is past time to ditch the high-capacity semi-auto pistols for most LEO & return to issuing REVOLVERS in .38SPL/.357MAG & training LEO to (from my "rookie guide"): "fire one, well-aimed single-action round into the target's center mass, preferably from a kneeling supported & covered position."
(in those far gone days, a LEO could carry a semi-auto only AFTER they demonstrated to the satisfaction of the chief/sheriff/constable/senior supervisor that they could COMPETENTLY handle something more complicated than a revolver.)
when i was on the faculty of the ETRPA, we had LITTLE trouble "qualifying" 80+% of rookies, with their assigned Colt/S&W revolver in the first week of "range time" & NOBODY (at least that i can recall) failed to actually/legitimately qualify with their weapon by graduation day. - in all too many cases today, MANY rookies/officers routinely "qualify" with "the M-1 pencil".
just my opinion as an old but NOT bold officer.
yours, sw
Last edited:
At one time, or so I am led to believe, some agencies actually had a kind of pro pay for high scores at the range. That was in the days of revolvers. No doubt that led to a sort of gaming of the system, with bull barreled K-frames being used for score, then back to normal revolvers after a month when the heavy barrel became too heavy. At the time a K-38 was not so unusual as a police service revolver.
There was even a time when shooting single action was considered progressive, because it would presumably be more accurate than shooting double action. If you look at an older K-38 (Well, I guess they're all old now), you will see a wide hammer and wide trigger, the better for cocking and the better for trigger control. There were even single action only K-38s but I rather doubt any were used by policemen. At any rate, I don't understand the theory that shooting a revolver single action is something that can be used against you in court but supposedly it is. The NYPD only used DA only revolvers when they last used them. But legal issues with cocking a revolver may have had nothing to do with that at all.
It is hard to go against trends but firepower is only one of the reasons automatics have become more common. But do you suppose any single-column 9mm automatics are still in use by any police department around the country?
There was even a time when shooting single action was considered progressive, because it would presumably be more accurate than shooting double action. If you look at an older K-38 (Well, I guess they're all old now), you will see a wide hammer and wide trigger, the better for cocking and the better for trigger control. There were even single action only K-38s but I rather doubt any were used by policemen. At any rate, I don't understand the theory that shooting a revolver single action is something that can be used against you in court but supposedly it is. The NYPD only used DA only revolvers when they last used them. But legal issues with cocking a revolver may have had nothing to do with that at all.
It is hard to go against trends but firepower is only one of the reasons automatics have become more common. But do you suppose any single-column 9mm automatics are still in use by any police department around the country?
As the market seems to gravitate toward smaller and smaller guns I seem to be gravitating away from them and towards the full size offerings. For instance, for me the minimum barrel length for a handgun is 4”. I don’t consider any handgun that doesn’t meet this minimum requirement. The PPS and SR9c came close but...
For me, while there is a difference between carrying an M&P9 and a 442, that difference doesn’t seem to be that big of an inconvenience. Especially in relation to what is gained with the larger firearm. With a good holster (and belt if you are carrying OWB) I really don’t think that the larger handguns are all that intrusive. I wear a full size handgun on my waist 10-14 hours a day without issue. I do think that the width of a handgun is the most crucial factor when we are talking about mass. Barrel length is nothing and IMHO is not a factor. Grip area is the hardest to conceal (but still can be done easily with minimal effort and discomfort). Weight is a non-factor if worn properly. Width though, IMHO, gives the firearm it’s “feel” when carrying. The width IMHO goes a long way toward how much you “perceive” the weapon to be.
I used to “specialize” my handguns. I had a carry gun and a range gun and a SHTF gun, safe-queens, etc. The more and more I thought about it the more and more I thought that was ridiculous. Near any scenario where I would need my weapon and need to be proficient with it involved it being on my person. I wanted to train with one gun and carry one gun so as to better allow myself to become proficient with that gun. I simply do not feel that a sub-compact handgun can adequately fulfill all of those rolls.
When I go to the range now I grab some ammo and head out. The only other thing I need is already with me (my M&P9). My other guns really don’t see much action at all. I might still collect guns because I admire them, but I will always have the “1 gun” that is always with me.
For me, while there is a difference between carrying an M&P9 and a 442, that difference doesn’t seem to be that big of an inconvenience. Especially in relation to what is gained with the larger firearm. With a good holster (and belt if you are carrying OWB) I really don’t think that the larger handguns are all that intrusive. I wear a full size handgun on my waist 10-14 hours a day without issue. I do think that the width of a handgun is the most crucial factor when we are talking about mass. Barrel length is nothing and IMHO is not a factor. Grip area is the hardest to conceal (but still can be done easily with minimal effort and discomfort). Weight is a non-factor if worn properly. Width though, IMHO, gives the firearm it’s “feel” when carrying. The width IMHO goes a long way toward how much you “perceive” the weapon to be.
I used to “specialize” my handguns. I had a carry gun and a range gun and a SHTF gun, safe-queens, etc. The more and more I thought about it the more and more I thought that was ridiculous. Near any scenario where I would need my weapon and need to be proficient with it involved it being on my person. I wanted to train with one gun and carry one gun so as to better allow myself to become proficient with that gun. I simply do not feel that a sub-compact handgun can adequately fulfill all of those rolls.
When I go to the range now I grab some ammo and head out. The only other thing I need is already with me (my M&P9). My other guns really don’t see much action at all. I might still collect guns because I admire them, but I will always have the “1 gun” that is always with me.
IMightBeWrong
New member
Not overrated at all. Slimmer pistols are more comfortable to carry in most cases. That said, I almost always carry a Glock 26 nowadays and I like the 10 rd capacity, but different weapons carry differently for different people.