Looking for a carry weapon.

[Panoply]

Hello.

For several years I have carried a S&W 642 (hammerless .38 revolver, 5 shot). At 7 yards I am able to hit a standard piece of writing paper (11" x 8?) with all shots. In a real confrontation (may God forbid it never happen) I do not trust that I will be able to do so, and I've been told by reliable sources most shooting (80%) occur <20 feet. So, I am looking at semi-autos to provide me with more rounds.
I'd like something reasonably comfortable and DISCREET to carry that has an excellent reputation for reliability (one of the reasons i like revolvers). The weapons I am looking at now are: the 3.8" 9mm Springfield XDm, the .40 of same, the Glock 26 Gen 4 (9mm), the CZ 75 Compact 9mm (i have a special affection for CZ as I own several superior rifles of theirs), and the Ruger LC9.
If there are others you'd like to call my attention to, do so. Otherwise I'd much appreciate y'alls opinions on this and their suitability for my needs. Those needs are again: Reliability (go boom 100% of the time) & concealability.

Thanks!
Jeremy

Off topic, what's yall's opinion on the FN Five-seveN?

[JV_]

I do not trust that I will be able to do so, and I've been told by reliable sources most shooting (80%) occur <20 feet. So, I am looking at semi-autos to provide me with more rounds.

I don't think keeping it on a piece of paper, 8x5x11, at 7 yards indicates a mastery of the fundamentals. Until the fundamentals are solid, you shouldn't be considering a gun change. Ideally, I'd like to see you consistently hit an index card, at 7 yards. And when you can do that, speed up!

Search for a training class, rather than a gun that has a larger capacity.

[Kyle Reese]

Off topic, what's yall's opinion on the FN Five-seveN?

Overhyped and overpriced for what you get.

You could buy a nice P30 for what a Five Seven costs, and not be saddled with a sidearm that fires a semi oddball cartridge and has relatively poor terminal ballistics on target.

[Up1911Fan]

I don't think keeping it on a piece of paper, 8x5x11, at 7 yards indicates a mastery of the fundamentals. Until the fundamentals are solid, you shouldn't be considering a gun change. Ideally, I'd like to see you consistently hit an index card, at 7 yards. And when you can do that, speed up!

Search for a training class, rather than a gun that has a larger capacity.

This.

[Haraise]

I don't think keeping it on a piece of paper, 8x5x11, at 7 yards indicates a mastery of the fundamentals. Until the fundamentals are solid, you shouldn't be considering a gun change. Ideally, I'd like to see you consistently hit an index card, at 7 yards. And when you can do that, speed up!

Search for a training class, rather than a gun that has a larger capacity.

I don't see why he shouldn't at least get the gun he wants to be good at, to learn with. That seems a bit off. Sure, don't focus on equipment, but it makes sense dollar for dollar to train to be good at what you want rather than what you're getting rid of. Yes, fundamentals transfer around to an extent, but on a limited budget, it still seems sensible to me.

The M&P9 and HK P30 would be great guns to switch to.

Also: No FiveSeven. Just no.

[JV_]

I don't see why he shouldn't at least get the gun he wants to be good at, to learn with. That seems a bit off. He wasn't confident to put rounds on target with his gun, and his proficiency was a piece of letter paper at 21'. The answer to that problem is not more bullets, it's more accuracy and precision.

[Al T.]

Well, the Airweight J frame is (IMHO) one of, if not the hardest handguns to master. My switch to the S&W Shield (recommend to Panoply) was due to it being both a true pocket carry 9mm and it being much easier to shoot.

[CCT125US]

Until a shooter has refined the fundamentals, they don't know what to look for in a gun, to be honest. Not saying that is the case, but until someone can shoot to the guns ability, there is room for improvement. Chasing the next best thing is not the answer.

[jon volk]

Combined with a good holster, a full size or larger compact gun (think g19 or bigger) can be carried very discreetly. These are typically easier to shoot and don't sacrifice capacity.

I would agree with the previous statements on fundamentals. If you can become more proficient with the j frame, any autoloader will be very easy to shoot.

[Haraise]

He wasn't confident to put rounds on target with his gun, and his proficiency was a piece of letter paper at 21'. The answer to that problem is not more bullets, it's more accuracy and precision.

Didn't say that was the issue.


Well, the Airweight J frame is (IMHO) one of, if not the hardest handguns to master. My switch to the S&W Shield (recommend to Panoply) was due to it being both a true pocket carry 9mm and it being much easier to shoot.

This is the issue. Talk about jumping into the deep end. The recommendation of a Glock 17/19 or an M&P9 is a place to start from, not a place to end.


Until a shooter has refined the fundamentals, they don't know what to look for in a gun, to be honest. Not saying that is the case, but until someone can shoot to the guns ability, there is room for improvement. Chasing the next best thing is not the answer.

I have no idea how you'd define a cheap, plastic, very popular gun as 'the next best thing.' It's just 'the basic thing' right now. He's trying to learn on a platform that is actively difficult.

If someone is learning how to drive a car and they are stuck at not driving very well, it's best to change that car from a manual transmission burnout machine sports car and try something a bit more newbie friendly.

[JV_]

Didn't say that was the issue..


At 7 yards I am able to hit a standard piece of writing paper (11" x 8?) with all shots. In a real confrontation (may God forbid it never happen) I do not trust that I will be able to do so, and I've been told by reliable sources most shooting (80%) occur <20 feet. So, I am looking at semi-autos to provide me with more rounds.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

If I had a 1963 Jaguar XKE with 80,000 miles on it and wanted to get better at driving and announced my intention to get a Miata because it had better fuel mileage, that wouldn't detract from the fact that the Miata would also be a much easier car to learn to drive quickly. Fuel economy doesn't necessarily make for better driving skill, but an easier car is an easier car. Rather than saying "just learn to drive your jaguar, because skill is the thing that makes a driver" I think it's more useful to say "you need to improve your skills and a simpler car WILL make that easier...but do not forget that the main problem you are having is with your skillset, and once you get in the easier car, make sure that you improve your driving."



This is a skill problem, but good equipment selection can still make your life easier. I'd look at the usual suspects: M&P9, G19, P30. I find Glocks easier to shoot than just about anything, personally.

[Haraise]

...quoted information....

Yeah. Still not me saying it.

[CCT125US]

I have no idea how you'd define a cheap, plastic, very popular gun as 'the next best thing.' It's just 'the basic thing' right now. He's trying to learn on a platform that is actively difficult.

I hope we can agree that the OP's 642 has been in production longer than any of the plastic fantastics. Many a shooter has succesfully learned the fundamentals on a revolver. Not once did I suggest that the 642 was the easiest gun to shoot, but sometimes it's the hard that makes people better. Also some have limited budgets, and a new bandaid gun is just a costly temporary covering for the real issue. That issue being proper fundamentals. I might be so bold as to suggest a set of CTC lasergrips be added to the OP's 642 followed by lots of dryfire. Down the road it would make a great back up gun.

[David Armstrong]

For several years I have carried a S&W 642 (hammerless .38 revolver, 5 shot). At 7 yards I am able to hit a standard piece of writing paper (11" x 8?) with all shots. In a real confrontation (may God forbid it never happen) I do not trust that I will be able to do so,
I've got to go with JV here. The problem is not your shooting or your equipment, it is your confidence. You are apparently quite capable of keeping all your hits in the breadbox, as they say, with the current gun . So why are you worried that under real circumstances you will not be able to do so? If you are worried about not being able to do so with your current firearm, what is it about a different gun that would make you any better? Having more rounds to miss with is still missing.

[Tamara]

Well, the Airweight J frame is (IMHO) one of, if not the hardest handguns to master.

This.

I'd hate to try to teach a novice how to shoot with a gun that has a buck-wretched, long, heavy trigger pull; minuscule stainless sights that wash out in any kind of lighting; a grip too small for most adult male hands to control effectively; brutal recoil relative to the power of the cartridge being fired; and a sight radius more normally associated with the little plastic guns used to equip GI Joe dolls.

If you handed me a clean sheet of paper and asked me to design a firearm to frustrate and discourage new shooters, I'd have a hard time coming up with something more suited to the task than a stainless Airweight J-frame .38 with stock grips and trigger. (Except maybe one of those riboflavin-framed .357 J-frames...)

[Kevin B.]

You are apparently quite capable of keeping all your hits in the breadbox, as they say, with the current gun . So why are you worried that under real circumstances you will not be able to do so?

I would say there is a significant amount of evidence that supports the idea that flat-range performance tends to degrade substantially in a gunfight.

I would not disagree that a greater emphasis on developing the fundamentals is needed nor would I disagree with the idea that there are probably better platforms to learn on than the J-frame. However, given where his fundamentals are now, I would not fault him for moving to a pistol that affords more opportunities to get a hit (or hits) and is substantially easier to reload should the need for one arise.

ETA: My recommendation to the OP would be to go with the Glock 26 if you decide to go with a different gun.

[Haraise]

I hope we can agree that the OP's 642 has been in production longer than any of the plastic fantastics.

Completely irrelevant. I don't call gasoline engines 'the new big thing' because steam is older. I don't call steam engines 'the new big thing' because horses are older. Walking, etc.

'Plastic fantastic' is the default gun of this era. It is the standard by which all else is measured.

As far as the rest, Tamara really has it on point here.


This.

I'd hate to try to teach a novice how to shoot with a gun that has a buck-wretched, long, heavy trigger pull; minuscule stainless sights that wash out in any kind of lighting; a grip too small for most adult male hands to control effectively; brutal recoil relative to the power of the cartridge being fired; and a sight radius more normally associated with the little plastic guns used to equip GI Joe dolls.

If you handed me a clean sheet of paper and asked me to design a firearm to frustrate and discourage new shooters, I'd have a hard time coming up with something more suited to the task than a stainless Airweight J-frame .38 with stock grips and trigger.

[Tamara]

Off topic, what's yall's opinion on the FN Five-seveN?

I wouldn't line my cat's litterbox with ground-up Five-seveNs.

[JV_]

Yeah. Still not me saying it.
I'm pretty sure we could talk past each other all day.

[ST911]

Learning fundamentals on a less forgiving system has a longer and steeper learning curve than a more user friendly gun. A mid-sized 9mm is a user-friendly compromise solution offering shootability and concealability. The work If the OP's performance is 8.5"x11" accuracy at ~20 feet, it will likely be 1/3 - 1/2 that with a more agreeable system. Once more core fundamentals are established, OP can work his way back into a 642.

[Haraise]

I'm pretty sure we could talk past each other all day.

I have no intention of talking past you, simply that I don't want words from another attributed to myself. I'll take responsibility for my own words or advice.

Regardless, do you not agree he would have an easier time of learning to shoot/be confident with a pistol that's now the standard? M&P/Glock/P30/so on? Do you not agree he'd be better off with more shots in a carry gun, as a general rule? I'm saying 'this is better for learning with,' it seems you're hearing 'a new gun will solve all your skill issues.' I'm really, honestly not.

[JV_]

Regardless, do you not agree he would have an easier time of learning to shoot/be confident with a pistol that's now the standard?It might be easier for him to shoot another gun, and it might not solve his problem of putting rounds on target, in a SD scenario. If someone came up to me, a brand new shooter, and said they wanted to buy a handgun - my default answer isn't going to be a semi-auto.


Do you not agree he'd be better off with more shots in a carry gun, as a general rule? In general, more bullets is better. But, if he's not confident that he can hit his intended target, we may not be solving his problem. More bullets in the gun isn't the solution to an accuracy/precision issue.

I've spent a lot of time and money switching guns over the years. If I hunkered down and shot my first handgun, a 92 Elite, in to the ground, and really learned how to run it efficiently - I could have gotten to my current skill level with a lot fewer rounds/effort and have a lot more money. In general, I think people are better off spending less money on new guns, and more money on ammo and good training.

FWIW: I frequently leave the Glock at home and carry my 442.

[Haraise]

It might be easier for him to shoot another gun, and it might not solve his problem of putting rounds on target, in a SD scenario. If someone came up to me, a brand new shooter, and said they wanted to buy a handgun - my default answer isn't going to be a semi-auto.

In general, more bullets is better. But, if he's not confident that he can hit his intended target, we may not be solving his problem. More bullets in the gun isn't the solution to an accuracy/precision issue.

I've spent a lot of time and money switching guns over the years. If I hunkered down and shot my first handgun, a 92 Elite, in to the ground, and really learned how to run it efficiently - I could have gotten to my current skill level with a lot fewer rounds/effort and have a lot more money. In general, I think people are better off spending less money on new guns, and more money on ammo and good training.

FWIW: I frequently leave the Glock at home and carry my 442.

As I just stated above, and restated, and even pleaded to be understood in my last post, /I am not advocating new hardware to solve a skill issue./

I really don't know how to state that more clearly, I'm sorry. I know it's not solving his problem. I never said it would. I said multiple times now that's /precisely/ what I'm /not/ saying.

And no semi auto as a first handgun? I'd never, ever recommend what he's using over any service grade pistol to a new shooter. Ever. As Tamara said, I could not imagine a gun more inclined to make shooting hard, not fun and difficult to learn than what he's using. Why would you recommend that?

[tanner]

I have had a couple of novice shooters tell me that they were going to buy a .38 and get their CPL.

A range session where I let them shoot both a .38 and a Glock 19 usually changes their mind after one cylinder through the revolver.

The OP sounds like a relative novice looking for a more effective carry piece. I think the best advice would be to switch to the Glock/M&P/H&K/Sig of their choice...

Now if their stated goal was to train to be the best possible shooter they can be over the course of several thousands of rounds and many years then I can see telling them to hunker down with what they have. Doesn't sound like that is the case to me.

[JV_]

Why would you recommend that?

Because I don't think a semi-auto does everything well, especially when not everyone is a shooter.

[CCT125US]

Regardless, do you not agree he would have an easier time of learning to shoot/be confident with a pistol that's now the standard? M&P/Glock/P30/so on? Do you not agree he'd be better off with more shots in a carry gun, as a general rule? I'm saying 'this is better for learning with,' it seems you're hearing 'a new gun will solve all your skill issues.' I'm really, honestly not.

If a shooter is starting from ground zero, barring any physical restrictions or other factors, I would NOT suggest a 642. However the OP HAS a firearm that is more than sufficient for SD. The current skill level as stated shows room for improvement. Durring this current state of gun buying frenzy, the suggested "upgrade" may not even be available. I know several students who always search for the perfect gun at the expense of actual time shooting and getting better. If price and availability is not an issue buy a set of P30s or Glocks or M&Ps and rock on. Positive reinforcement is certainly key to shooting well. But a sheet of paper (93.5 sq inches) at 7yds is not a tight standard. And from an instructors standpoint tells me that fundamentals need worked on the current gun. Say the switch is made to a G26, and the standard goes from 93.5 sq inches to 60 sq inches. What then? Fundamentals still need worked and the shooter is out $500. Shooter then sees someone else shooting 30 sq inches and thinks a new gun is the answer. It is a vicious cycle. I really do understand both sides of the issue here, I am simply stating that easier is not always better on the wallet and actual measured improvement.

And remember, everyone wins on the internet ;)

[scottcocoabeach]

Personally I think learning to shoot with a lightweight revolver is about as much fun as learning to drive nails with a rock instead of a hammer. Sure it will work but it will be painful in the process. It boggles my mind why small 38's are so often recommend for new shooters, especially women. In my view it's a great way to discourage someone from enjoying shooting.

For anyone that I am introducing to shooting / concealed carry I always start them out with a 9mm semi-auto. If they are particularly frightened of shooting then a .22 handgun. The recoil will be tolerable with a 9mm, the sight picture will be better with a compact gun than the short revolver and their enjoyment and proficiency will progress more quickly than if I put a .38 snub nose in their hand.

To the OP's question. You are used to carrying a small and concealable handgun. To get something similar in an autoloader you may want to consider something like a Kahr PM9/MK9 or S&W Shield (hard to find right now). These are single stack and much slimmer than most of the other guns mentioned. That being said many of us find we can easily carry and conceal something a little larger such as a Glock 19, M&P, XD, or H&K.

My personal favorite and one mentioned by many others is the HK P30. The ergonomics are outstanding and the gun is reliable and accurate. It costs a little more than some of the other choices but if you can afford it I would make the stretch over the other choices and go for it.

You asked about the Glock 26. Since it is a double stack handgun the thickness is the same as most of the choices one size up. This makes it not much easier to conceal, hence the suggestion to just go up to the Glock 19 or similar sized gun. Personally I am not a fan of the ergonomics of the Glock but my wife shoots a Glock 19 and really likes it, so a lot of it is up to personal preference.

A quality carry holster will also be important. My favorite is the Milt Sparks Versa Max II. There can be a long wait on getting these but I would look for a similar design if you need something more quickly.

Good luck on your search.

[Haraise]

Personally I think learning to shoot with a lightweight revolver is about as much fun as learning to drive nails with a rock instead of a hammer. Sure it will work but it will be painful in the process. It boggles my mind why small 38's are so often recommend for new shooters, especially women. In my view it's a great way to discourage someone from enjoying shooting.

This. A million times this.

I started out with a full size 9mm pistol, and I am ever glad I did. I've shot a .38 since then, put it down after five shots. Talk about as much fun as driving nails with a rock.

A .22 converted single action small grip hand gun is where I wish I started learning, in all fairness. A converted 1911 with slim grips would be perfect.

[Joe in PNG]

I love, love, love my Model 36. It has to be one of the best pocket pistols I've ever owned...
But, it is a pain to shoot, and moreso before I removed the old "splinter" grips.
Personally, I'm fond of the M&P compact, but YMMV.

[Tamara]

If I hunkered down and shot my first handgun, a 92 Elite, in to the ground, and really learned how to run it efficiently - I could have gotten to my current skill level with a lot fewer rounds/effort and have a lot more money.

If he had a 92 Elite... or, heck, even a Smith Model 10, I'd tell him to just hunker down and shoot it.

If he had a derringer or an NAA Mini instead of the 642, would you still advise him to stick with it and not try and buy skill out of the gun store showcase? At what point would you draw the line and say "You know, maybe you'd see better results with a more manageable heater?" :confused:

[JV_]

If he had a derringer or an NAA Mini instead of the 642, would you still advise him to stick with it and not try and buy skill out of the gun store showcase? At what point would you draw the line and say "You know, maybe you'd see better results with a more manageable heater?" :confused:

He's not carrying an NAA, he has a 5 shot .38 that many people around here use as a carry gun. Is it a gun that I would go and shoot 500 rounds through, in one range session, no. But it's a poplar gun for SD.

Lots of people in this thread are trying to solve problems that the OP hasn't stated. At a minimum, there's a fundamentals issue. Let's fix that first. If he isn't focusing on the front sight, he'll have the same issue after he spends $700 on a new gun and carry setup. He hasn't complained of .38 special ammo prices, recoil, sights, or anything else. We don't even know what grips he has on the gun. We haven't even seen him shoot. He's not confident he can put rounds on target. I want to help him fix his primary problem, and some professional training might solve his problems for a lot cheaper and be just what he needs.

If he comes back and says, I've gotten a lot better - and I'm now drilling an index card consistently at a reasonable pace. Now I want to step beyond this and move up. Then I might suggest something else. Until then, I'm not going to make up problems just to convince him that a semi-auto is better for him - when all we have is 1 internet post's worth of data.

[JAD]

Jeremy,

It kind of depends on your budget. If you only have say $1k to spend on shooting over the next year (just to pick a number) then you will have to be choosy, and as JV has written you'd be better off getting good instruction than spending the same money on a new gun. Depending on your location the members of this forum can guide you to good instruction, and a two-three day class (like say Gunsite 150) and practice / class ammo is going to eat up much of your budget. If you can spend a little bit more, you might do the class, and then also trade the j frame for a more 'universal' pistol. J frames are cool and most shooters I know have one, but they're not the best thing for primary carry and they're not a ton of fun to take a class with (though it's certainly possible). The consensus of the forum is that the Gen 4 Glock 19 is the most easily recommended pistol which is big enough to shoot well and carry with confidence, but small enough to carry easily with a good holster. You can probably trade your j frame for a G19 without spending a lot more cash. There are other guns -- the P30, a steel 5" 1911 like the ruger sr1911, probably the M&P family -- that are also good choices if the 19 does not appeal for some reason, but the 19 will probably do.

If budget isn't a problem, keep the j frame (they are useful to most people I know for one thing or another) and also buy a service auto and take the class. But fundamentally, no matter which of these things you do, get some instruction. It's so fun it's addictive for most, you'll feel a lot more confident and therefore have more fun when you shoot, and you will be much better equipped to carry the gun responsibly.

Good instruction is expensive and often involves travel and a wait. It's worth it! As one of my shooting mentors said when I was moaning about $900 for Gunsite (a long time ago), "borrow money! Buy ammo! Get in the g*ddamn truck!"

[Tamara]

He's not carrying an NAA, he has a 5 shot .38 that many people around here use as a carry gun. Is it a gun that I would go and shoot 500 rounds through, in one range session, no. But it's a poplar gun for SD.

I've nothing against J-frames; if I did, I wouldn't carry one myself.

I wasn't being facetious or snarky in my post, honest, but seriously asking you at what point you think the learning curve to shooting proficiency is so steep on a gun as to make it worthwhile to do one's learning on a different platform. My original comment stems from the fact that I personally know way too many shooters whose confidence was wrecked by the well-intentioned gift purchase of a Centennial, a gun that's like a perfect storm of hard-to-shoot features.

Maybe a NAA Mini was a bad example. At the risk of getting meta here, the little .380s (Bodyguard/LCP/P3AT) are popular choices as BUGs and distressingly frequent choices as a first (and often only) pistol. I said upthread that I couldn't think of a pistol less likely to foster confidence in one's marksmanship than a stainless DAO J, but I retract that; a stainless slide P3AT would be worse. If the OP had one of these, would your advice remain the same?

I'm not trying to win an argument; I'm trying to better understand your position and maybe learn something myself.

[BLR]

Please disregard the previous post. Should have read more thoroughly!

Jeremy - of the choices listed, I'd get the G26. Though a Colt Commander is a wonderfully easy to conceal pistol.... just sayin'

The 5.7 is an interesting round. Like everything else, it really comes down to what bullet you are shooting at what target. The 22Mag analogies are a tad simplified, but can be quite accurate depending on the circumstances.

[JV_]

but seriously asking you at what point you think the learning curve to shooting proficiency is so steep on a gun as to make it worthwhile to do one's learning on a different platform.I don't know, but a J-Frame doesn't cross that threshold for me.


My original comment stems from the fact that I personally know way too many shooters whose confidence was wrecked by the well-intentioned gift purchase of a Centennial, a gun that's like a perfect storm of hard-to-shoot features.That's valid, but we have no idea if any of those issues are impacting the the OP. If we solved his fundamentals issue, which might be something as simple as front sight focus, will he be perfectly content with his revolver? Maybe so. And we just saved him a lot of money!

I know a lady that desperately wants a gun for SD. Other than a range sessions that she will get with her CCW class, she's probably not going to practice. She's going to toss it in to the Coach purse, without a holster, and carry it everywhere. I think a Glock is the worst possible gun for her. I don't think semi-autos are the default SD answer, especially when we know nothing more than the what the OP has posted. That's why, in my first reply, I suggested he get some formal training. Hopefully, a clueful instructor can get a lot more data than we have to work with and come up with a complete solution. If he's actually struggling with the gun more than his fundamentals, that can be easily sorted out.

[TCinVA]

One thing you can do with a j frame is make it easier to shoot: put a set of larger Pachmeyer grips on it. The small grips typically used on j frames are tough for even skilled shooters to use well. A good set of laser grips from Crimson Trace would also be a good investment.

The J frame is harder to master than most handguns...but if you put in the effort you'd be amazed how well you can learn to use one.

If the J frame was originally selected because its a handgun that fits into your daily life, don't be in a hurry to ditch it.

[BN]

FWIW: I frequently leave the Glock at home and carry my 442.

FWIW: I frequently leave my 442 at home and carry my Glock. ;)

I'm a pretty fair shot with a revolver, but I would suggest the OP gets a service size 9mm and learn how to shoot better. At 7 yards, a J-Frame should be able to shoot close to one hole groups.

J-Frames are just hard to shoot well.

[WDW]

I love my J frame. There are some times when you just can't carry a full size gun. The Airweight fills that need perfectly. With frequent live & dry fire training it is a very viable, practical choice as a ccw. Trigger control & front sight focus are 2 things that solve many supposed hardware issues. I think with training, practice, & an understanding of the J frames limitations, it can work just fine.

[cclaxton]

Panoply, I agree with the recommended training. As an analogy, just because you buy dental tools does not make you a dentist.

But if you would prefer to use a semi-auto, then train with a semi-auto. (I personally prefer how a 9mm semi-auto handles over a small .38 special. )

You asked this question:
I'd like something reasonably comfortable and DISCREET to carry that has an excellent reputation for reliability (one of the reasons i like revolvers). The weapons I am looking at now are: the 3.8" 9mm Springfield XDm, the .40 of same, the Glock 26 Gen 4 (9mm), the CZ 75 Compact 9mm (i have a special affection for CZ as I own several superior rifles of theirs), and the Ruger LC9. If there are others you'd like to call my attention to, do so.

- 3.8: 9mm XDm: 3.5 stars out of 5, 6.75" size and 28oz weight, excellent reliability, 3.5 out of 5 concealability, good trigger, high cap mags, excellent sight selection, good grip;
- Glock 26 Gen 4 in 9mm: 4.5 stars, 6.3" size and 20 oz weight are excellent, good reliability, 5 of 5 concealabilty, good trigger, 10 round mags, probably want to change standard sights, good grip;
- Cz 75 compact: 3.5 stars, 7.2" size and 32oz weight, 100% reliability, 3 of 5 concealability, great SA trigger, high cap mags, fair standard sights, excellent grip (I am Cz fan);
- Ruger LC9: 4 stars, 6" size and 17oz weight, fair reliability, 5 of 5 concealability, fair trigger, 7+1 rounds, poor sights (laser options popular), fair grip;

I carry a Kimber Ultra CDP II in 9mm, and I love it: Single stack reduces width, 10 rnd mags available, excellent handling, excellent trigger/reset, excellent tritium sights, good reliability. 4.5 stars: 6.8" size and 25oz weight, 4 of 5 concealability. I own and used to carry a Kahr PM-9 and I love to carry that gun....I just can't shoot it very fast and be accurate...yet.

Others you should consider:
- Kahr PM9/CM9/CW9 9mm: 4.5 stars, 5.4" size, 16oz weight, good reliability (only use new ammo), 5 of 5 concealability, great revolver-like trigger, 7+1 rounds, good sights, good grip (there are many who can shoot this great and love it...others who just can't get the hang of it...they are small grips, and hand size/grip are a big factor here.)
- Kimber Solo: 4 stars, 5.5" size and 17oz weight, good reliability (must use 124/147gr only), 5 of 5 concealability, great trigger, good sights, good grip;
- Cz 2075 RAMI in Alloy with manual safety: 4 stars, 6.5" size, 25oz weight, excellent reliability, 4 of 5 concealability (holsters hard to find, but available), great SA trigger, 10/14 mags, good sights, excellent grip;
- Springfield XD subcompact 3" in 9mm: 4.5 stars, 6.25" size, 26/27oz weight, good reliability, 4.5 of 5 concealability, better trigger than XDm (great for polymer), 13/16 round mags, good sights (others available), good grip;
- Sig P938: 4.5 stars, 6" size and 16oz weight, uncertain reliability (new gun), 5 of 5 concealability, excellent SA only trigger), 6+1 rounds, great grip;
- Sig P224: 4 stars, 6.7" size and 25oz weight, uncertain reliability (new gun), 4 of 5 concealability, DA/SA or DAK trigger, 11+1 rounds, great grip;
- Beretta Nano 9mm: 5.6" size and 18oz weight, good reliability, 5 of 5 concealability, good DA trigger, 6+1 rounds, fair sights, great grip;
- S&W M&P Shield: 6.1" and 19oz weight, good reliability, 5 of 5 concealability, good DA trigger, 8+1 rounds, fair sights, good grip;
- S&W M&P 9c: 6.7" size and 22oz weight, good reliability, 4.5 of 5 concealability, good DA trigger, 12 round mag, fair sights, good grip, manual safety option,

I am a big 9mm supporter because ammo is(was) relatively cheap and available, recoil is generally better, and it's all about shot placement anyway. Shooting 9mm allows you to shoot more training rounds. So I didn't list any other calibers here. There are some very nice concelable .380 guns as well, but the ammo costs more.

The Cz's are great guns, but fatter and heavier than these new more concealable guns. You will notice I didn't rank any gun at 5 stars because I haven't seen the perfect handgun yet.

But of this list I recommend taking a closer look at the following:
- Springfield XD subcompact 9mm,
- Kahr PM-9 with manual safety;
- Sig P224;
- Sig P938 (SA-manual safety);
- S&W M&P 9c with manual safety;
- Kimber Ultra CDP-II (SA-manual safety);
- Glock 26.

I am also a big supporter of manual safeties, and that is shown here. It is important to know what kind of trigger action you are going to learn and train with: SA-only 1911 style, DA/SA, DA-Only striker fired.

I have made my choice, but if I had the money to just pick up a couple of these, I would choose the S&W M&P 9c and the Sig P938.
If I were you, I would try out the Kahr if you have never shot one....if you adapt to the grip, it is a fantastic carry gun.

CC

[David Armstrong]

I would say there is a significant amount of evidence that supports the idea that flat-range performance tends to degrade substantially in a gunfight.
Agreed, but I think it safe to say that degradation is not firearm dependent. Apparently he isn't having trouble with the gun he has, he has trouble having confidence in his abilities. Not sure why changing guns will change that nearly as much as getting some professional training would. Again, it seems JV and I are thinking along the same lines: "But, if he's not confident that he can hit his intended target, we may not be solving his problem. More bullets in the gun isn't the solution to an accuracy/precision issue." While the 642 may not be the best gun to learn on, apparently he has already jumped that hurdle to some extent, as he is already getting 100% hits on his designated target. He doesn't say he wants to shoot smaller groups, he is worried that his current skill may not translate into actual fighting. That doesn't indicate buy a new gun to me, that indicates learn confidence with your current gun. If he had a G26 and was keeping all rounds on a sheet of paper at 7 yards, but was worried he couldn't do that in a fight, would anyone be advocating "Go buy a G19" as the first response?

[Haraise]

Agreed, but I think it safe to say that degradation is not firearm dependent. Apparently he isn't having trouble with the gun he has, he has trouble having confidence in his abilities. Not sure why changing guns will change that nearly as much as getting some professional training would. Again, it seems JV and I are thinking along the same lines: "But, if he's not confident that he can hit his intended target, we may not be solving his problem. More bullets in the gun isn't the solution to an accuracy/precision issue." While the 642 may not be the best gun to learn on, apparently he has already jumped that hurdle to some extent, as he is already getting 100% hits on his designated target. He doesn't say he wants to shoot smaller groups, he is worried that his current skill may not translate into actual fighting. That doesn't indicate buy a new gun to me, that indicates learn confidence with your current gun. If he had a G26 and was keeping all rounds on a sheet of paper at 7 yards, but was worried he couldn't do that in a fight, would anyone be advocating "Go buy a G19" as the first response?

The difference between the G26 and G19 is nothing compared to what he's using to a G19. It's not a valid comparison.

And yes, I still wouldn't recommend a G26 to someone to learn on. Again, again, again, again, the point is what's best to help learn and grow confidence, not to solve the issue.

[JV_]

Again, it seems JV and I are thinking along the same linesIndeed.

[BaiHu]

Since Panopoly has been dodging the fire fight of this thread, I'd like to throw some Solomon like water on this fire :D

Everyone here is right, IMO, but only Panopoly can decide what he wants to do. We can all guide you, but only you know what you're really capable of affording time and dollar wise.

Here are my thoughts in order of learning, not just learning how to shoot a gun:

1. Reputable training system/instructor. NRA is a good simple start if you're a new shooter or get a local instructor that comes highly recommended by people you trust. Maybe even someone on this forum knows someone in your area. Don't have your buddy train you unless he can shoot your gun better than you by spades and can show/tell/teach you why. Maybe this is over simplifying, but you get my drift.

2. Building confidence through correct practice and setting goals. If you can't get a tight group at 7 yds, cut the distance in half and still start with the blank sheet of 8x11 paper until you can get a consistently tight group. If you have no confidence nor enjoyment, then you'll never want to practice, let alone practice correctly. Bad habits get ingrained just as well as good ones do with constant incorrect practice. You need to come off the range feeling like you've improved, even microscopically like keeping a solid front sight focus or not flinching today. If it takes you one hour and 20 rounds so that you can put 5 shots on a 3x5" card at 3 yds, then that might be the cat's meow. Small goals met consistently will give you the confidence and sense of accomplishment to keep practicing; this, like all skills, is perishable.

3. Understanding what you want. I don't know how you ended up with this gun, but given that you're stuck in the middle of this s*%t storm, where buying is not only prohibitive right now, I'd call it plain stupid to buy anything but a class right now. Once you get some confidence with your gun, which Tam and others have pointed out is a tough gun, you'll have obtained knowledge and gained a sense of pride in your skills, so that when you do try another gun, you'll have enough confidence and good grasp on fundamentals to critique your potential purchase accurately.

4. Getting what you want. You can always get into trouble with a ton of money or a few generous friends who offer you 'a taste' of their 'new gun', but without fundamentals, you'll just be using the back up camera, but never really knowing how to parallel park. Once you do figure out what you want, come back here and you'll find plenty of write ups on guns, holsters, ammo, upgrades, etc so that you waste less time and money than the rest of us.

I personally got lucky. I bought when things were cheap (bought semi-auto although I learned on a Hi-Standard 22 and Colt Python, so I got lucky...again), I learned some fundamentals, changed my gun early (P30) when I learned about this site and gobbled up every morsel I could find here. Then, I took 6 classes over 3 years and that's when fun lurched into obsession. My classes: NRA Basic Pistol, PPIH (personal protection in home), Urban Pistol 1 & 2 (local group of off-duty police that got me into my first drawing from holster class-I live in NJ), Urban Pistol Low light/No light (same group), ECQC with SouthNarc and AFHF with TLG.

As I said before, I think all of this advice is good, but only you can decide how much weight you put on your frustration and confidence level versus how much time have you honestly put into improving your abilities with this gun. Whichever way you choose, I say dry fire the heck out of whatever is in your hands: http://pistol-training.com/drills/wall-drill

[Tamara]

If he had a G26 and was keeping all rounds on a sheet of paper at 7 yards, but was worried he couldn't do that in a fight, would anyone be advocating "Go buy a G19" as the first response?

No, but a G19 is not terribly appreciably easier to shoot than a 26, so that's kind of an apples and oranges comparison.

A DAO J-frame and a compact- or service-size auto or a medium-frame revolver are not just in different ballparks, but one of them actually uses the DH rule.

In this instance, it's not the capacity of an auto I'm referencing, it's that the shooter says he doesn't trust his ability to be able to hit his target under pressure, and there's nothing better for demolishing a novice's trust in his abilities than a firearm that is actively hostile to being shot with a degree of accuracy.

But, yeah, regardless of whether he decides to continue fighting his 642 or get something a bit easier to shoot, like a po-po trade-in DAO 64, I'll second TCinVA's suggestion of a bigger set of stocks, preferably LaserGrips. And use some high-viz contrasting color to do something about the miserable glare magnet of a stainless front sight on the stainless J. And dry fire. Lots and lots and lots of dry fire.

(I'll say that night after night of dry-firing a J-frame while holding the laser dot on target did more for my handgun shooting ability than any other single thing I've done with a firearm.)

[Panoply]

I appreciate ALL of you and all of your comments.

JV: My fundamentals are fine. I was given my first rifle (BB gun) at age 7. My First .22 age 13. My first pistol my father bought the year I was born and presented it to me early (dunno when) and formally gave it to me upon graduating high school. It was a Ruger Security Six and I still have it (of course) My 21st birthday, that day, I bought a Springfield 1911. I have a membership to a range and fire thousands of rounds each year (admittedly mostly rifle). I do admit to being far from an expert and have an ENORMOUS amount to learn, but your immediate pigeonholing of me into someone totally inexperienced with firearms was offensive. Firing my 642 at 7 yards and landing them all on a sheet if paper is, in mine and several more competent shooters at the range, if not fantastic shooting, is good shooting. My first letter wasn't explicit, so I'll be so here (i thought it implied that i would be firing in a life and death situation, that being the purpose of a carry weapon to me). I fired at the 7 yard silohuette rapidly; not so rapidly that I simply squuezed the trigger as fast as I could, but fire, return to a 'rough and ready' sight picture, and fire again. I was not firing then waiting a couple seconds to get back on again. I am sure many of you could do better, but not enormously better! The S&W has a 4.57cm barrell, expecting great accuracy is a waste of time - it is not a weapon designed for it. To be able to consistently put all 5 rounds (federal reduced recoil 110g hydra shok) rapidly into a target at 7 yards is pretty damned good. JV, go try it yourself. Firing as fast as you can. You may be able to hit an index card, I make no assumptions of your level of skill, but you WILL appreciate how difficult it is.

Al T: Yes, I'm hearing great things about the Shield. It 'feels good' in my hand and as my father is talking like he may buy one I may soon get a chance to fire it. It's definitely risen into the top 3.

Haraisa: Thanks.


So now I'm looking at the S&W Shield, The XDm's I mentioned and still the CZ (i have no CZ pistols, tho i do have and adore a 550 .308 w/ the full stock and 712 12guage and so am 'brand loyal'). That brand loyalty also is what gives the XDm's an edge over comparable Glocks.

What else might y'all recommend?


On the Five seveN, I've found that very few people are ambivalent - they either love it or hate it. I, though, AM ambivalent. I think it's a fine pistol, but the ammunition is expensive!
What do y'all know of this? It's news to me! No idea of it's reputation. Anyone here fired it? This: http://fmkfirearms.com/Products/9c1pistol.html

FIRST ADDITION

OK. I had no idea there were four more pages until I posted my reply. Y'alls concern for me not understanding shooting fundamentals is, I suppose, with foundation. So, I'll better explain what type of shooter I am.

First, when I said I did not know if I could put my 5 into that sheet of paper at 7 yards IN A REAL FIREFIGHT I meant exactly that. I, personally, have never had a target firing back at me or anyone else. So, it seems to me, that there must be doubt in my mind if I could land enough shots (much less all 5) on a moving, firing human being -while dealing with him, terrified for myself or any of my loved ones nearby, any other people nearby who may or may not be potential aggressors and th cacophony of screams, gunshots, running people, moving cars - to put him down. Even IF he were so kind as to remain at 7 yards for me my aim would without doubt be affected. If you believe yours would not be, super. I'll continue to assume mine will be and you can continue as if life were a game of Halo.

Second, I know the fundamentals. My execution of them is FAR from perfect. I practice, as most of you no doubt do, to try to get better. I learned some bad habits as a kid and I just work with those instead of trying to relearn (these mostly involve stance).

Third and last, I am N.O.T. presenting myself as anything but what I am - an amateur. I have only been seriously shooting for less than 2 years. Before that I might have gone to the range half a dozen times A YEAR. I am better with a rifle that with a pistol. I much prefer revolvers but, as you know, begin to doubt their efficacy as a carry weapon.

DOCTORPOGO: Your advice jumped out as you used my name. It was also excellent advice knowing what you knew of me. While there is no doubt I would gain ENORMOUSLY from a first rate class, that's jusy not something I'm interested in right now. I've no desire to compete and running and jumping and kicking in doors aren't for me either. I'm just a hobbyist. I LOVE shooting holes in paper. I will of course keep my 642 but I don' think I'll get a Glock. While it is definitely a fantastic gun and would otherwise be on the shortlist, I have 2 Springfields and so am brand loyal and will likely (if i go that route) go for an XDm. Thank you, though.

Thanks again. I hope I don't sound arrogant. Some responses offended me, that's all.

SECOND ADDITION

This thing has taken a life of it's own! This is NOT the pistol I learned on! My learning, to begin with, was self-teaching with BB and pellet pistols. Then my father taught me on a Ruger Security Six .357 (we, of course, ran .38 when practicing). When I was old enough, I suppose I carried on with what my father had taught me. At First using that Ruger and then my 1911. The pistol I bought next was a Ruger 22/45. I am unsure of the order after that. So I learned from goofing off myself, mainly from my father and last by friendly guys at the range. Since I joined the range club (my birthday this year) they've passed on several good bits of info. They are mostly long gun guys. lol They keep out the 'zombie hunters' one of the more printable words they use for young men with AR etc type weapons and attitude. I do have an S&W M&P 15OR and many of them do as well, AK etc etc. It's the ATTITUDE. You know what I mean.

[JV_]

but your immediate pigeonholing of me into someone totally inexperienced with firearms was offensive.I didn't pigeonhole you as totally inexperienced.


JV: My fundamentals are fine.

OK. Good luck with your purchase.

[Panoply]

Sorry JV. Perhaps I misinterpreted it. I kept reading posts that just assumed I was some guy who'd just picked up a gun on a whim and now wanted to upgrade. I worked at a gun store a couple years in college and know the type. Being thought of being like that got me steamed. That's all.

[Tamara]

What do y'all know of this? It's news to me! No idea of it's reputation. Anyone here fired it? This: http://fmkfirearms.com/Products/9c1pistol.html

Looks like yet another iteration of the design that started out as the Republic Arms Patriot back in '99 or '00. Do not want.

[Haraise]

I appreciate ALL of you and all of your comments.

JV: My fundamentals are fine. I was given my first rifle (BB gun) at age 7. My First .22 age 13. My first pistol my father bought the year I was born and presented it to me early (dunno when) and formally gave it to me upon graduating high school. It was a Ruger Security Six and I still have it (of course) My 21st birthday, that day, I bought a Springfield 1911. I have a membership to a range and fire thousands of rounds each year (admittedly mostly rifle). I do admit to being far from an expert and have an ENORMOUS amount to learn, but your immediate pigeonholing of me into someone totally inexperienced with firearms was offensive. Firing my 642 at 7 yards and landing them all on a sheet if paper is, in mine and several more competent shooters at the range, if not fantastic shooting, is good shooting. My first letter wasn't explicit, so I'll be so here (i thought it implied that i would be firing in a life and death situation, that being the purpose of a carry weapon to me). I fired at the 7 yard silohuette rapidly; not so rapidly that I simply squuezed the trigger as fast as I could, but fire, return to a 'rough and ready' sight picture, and fire again. I was not firing then waiting a couple seconds to get back on again. I am sure many of you could do better, but not enormously better! The S&W has a 4.57cm barrell, expecting great accuracy is a waste of time - it is not a weapon designed for it. To be able to consistently put all 5 rounds (federal reduced recoil 110g hydra shok) rapidly into a target at 7 yards is pretty damned good. JV, go try it yourself. Firing as fast as you can. You may be able to hit an index card, I make no assumptions of your level of skill, but you WILL appreciate how difficult it is.

Al T: Yes, I'm hearing great things about the Shield. It 'feels good' in my hand and as my father is talking like he may buy one I may soon get a chance to fire it. It's definitely risen into the top 3.

Haraisa: Thanks.


So now I'm looking at the S&W Shield, The XDm's I mentioned and still the CZ (i have no CZ pistols, tho i do have and adore a 550 .308 w/ the full stock and 712 12guage and so am 'brand loyal'). That brand loyalty also is what gives the XDm's an edge over comparable Glocks.

What else might y'all recommend?


On the Five seveN, I've found that very few people are ambivalent - they either love it or hate it. I, though, AM ambivalent. I think it's a fine pistol, but the ammunition is expensive!
What do y'all know of this? It's news to me! No idea of it's reputation. Anyone here fired it? This: http://fmkfirearms.com/Products/9c1pistol.html

FIRST ADDITION

OK. I had no idea there were four more pages until I posted my reply. Y'alls concern for me not understanding shooting fundamentals is, I suppose, with foundation. So, I'll better explain what type of shooter I am.

First, when I said I did not know if I could put my 5 into that sheet of paper at 7 yards IN A REAL FIREFIGHT I meant exactly that. I, personally, have never had a target firing back at me or anyone else. So, it seems to me, that there must be doubt in my mind if I could land enough shots (much less all 5) on a moving, firing human being -while dealing with him, terrified for myself or any of my loved ones nearby, any other people nearby who may or may not be potential aggressors and th cacophony of screams, gunshots, running people, moving cars - to put him down. Even IF he were so kind as to remain at 7 yards for me my aim would without doubt be affected. If you believe yours would not be, super. I'll continue to assume mine will be and you can continue as if life were a game of Halo.

Second, I know the fundamentals. My execution of them is FAR from perfect. I practice, as most of you no doubt do, to try to get better. I learned some bad habits as a kid and I just work with those instead of trying to relearn (these mostly involve stance).

Third and last, I am N.O.T. presenting myself as anything but what I am - an amateur. I have only been seriously shooting for less than 2 years. Before that I might have gone to the range half a dozen times A YEAR. I am better with a rifle that with a pistol. I much prefer revolvers but, as you know, begin to doubt their efficacy as a carry weapon.

DOCTORPOGO: Your advice jumped out as you used my name. It was also excellent advice knowing what you knew of me. While there is no doubt I would gain ENORMOUSLY from a first rate class, that's jusy not something I'm interested in right now. I've no desire to compete and running and jumping and kicking in doors aren't for me either. I'm just a hobbyist. I LOVE shooting holes in paper. I will of course keep my 642 but I don' think I'll get a Glock. While it is definitely a fantastic gun and would otherwise be on the shortlist, I have 2 Springfields and so am brand loyal and will likely (if i go that route) go for an XDm. Thank you, though.

Thanks again. I hope I don't sound arrogant. Some responses offended me, that's all.

SECOND ADDITION

This thing has taken a life of it's own! This is NOT the pistol I learned on! My learning, to begin with, was self-teaching with BB and pellet pistols. Then my father taught me on a Ruger Security Six .357 (we, of course, ran .38 when practicing). When I was old enough, I suppose I carried on with what my father had taught me. At First using that Ruger and then my 1911. The pistol I bought next was a Ruger 22/45. I am unsure of the order after that. So I learned from goofing off myself, mainly from my father and last by friendly guys at the range. Since I joined the range club (my birthday this year) they've passed on several good bits of info. They are mostly long gun guys. lol They keep out the 'zombie hunters' one of the more printable words they use for young men with AR etc type weapons and attitude. I do have an S&W M&P 15OR and many of them do as well, AK etc etc. It's the ATTITUDE. You know what I mean.

You might want to check a bit of that attitude at the door, to be frank. A lot of the people here can do pretty amazing things with guns, from what I've seen... saying you're an amateur and still comparing yourself to people who could be experts is not a good way to get started out.

The length of a barrel shouldn't have much to do with accuracy, just velocity.

The people who dislike the FiveSeven have seen the ballistics of the round in question. DocGKR is... pretty much the name in ballistics. Look up his tests. I'll grant he hasn't done any tests on the newest generation of 5.7mm, and some P90 guys cry foul at that (I really really really like that gun and really want 5.7mm to be awesome... but I haven't seen any proof of it).

And really, you know you're being influenced by brand loyalty and still are going ahead with it? That doesn't make an ounce of sense. If you don't like the Glock for ergonomics, an M&P or P30 is a great way to go. The XDM is probably a fine gun too, and the CZ (I converted my CZ75 to single action only, DA/SA is a step in the wrong direction).

Just don't get too caught up in what you're shooting, or being defensive about how you shoot to learn to get better, you know?

As far as that handgun... wow. I thought it was a toy at first. Now it just looks like a weird hi-point.

[Tamara]

DA/SA is a step in the wrong direction.

You're new here (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4212-General-Thoughts-on-DA-SA-Pistols), aren't you? ;)

[CCT125US]

You're new here (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4212-General-Thoughts-on-DA-SA-Pistols), aren't you? ;)

Awesome. I heard from sumdood on the internet that those DA/SA guns really suck............. as he pats his V3 :cool:

[Al T.]

Panoply, don't take this personally, but.


I am sure many of you could do better, but not enormously better! The S&W has a 4.57cm barrell, expecting great accuracy is a waste of time - it is not a weapon designed for it. To be able to consistently put all 5 rounds (federal reduced recoil 110g hydra shok) rapidly into a target at 7 yards is pretty damned good. JV, go try it yourself. Firing as fast as you can. You may be able to hit an index card......

A sheet of notebook paper is abysmal. A five inch circle (DVD disk) would be about right and in five seconds. It takes a bit of instruction and practice to do it, but it's quite doable. :) Recently, a buddy of mine and I did a walk back drill on a 12 inch x 12 inch steel target. We both had S&W Airweights. I got beat at the 40 yard line and he continued to the 55 yard line. Darn those young eyes. :D

While your choice of a primary carry is clearly sub-optimal for you (and many others) at this stage of your shooting career, JV called this exactly right. You need to get a formal class from a good instructor. I got into the formal training game late, but I'd much, much rather have a 340 Smith and a good class than a uber-tricked out 1911 and little training. I've been down both paths, so learn from an old guy's mistakes. :)

[Haraise]

You're new here (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4212-General-Thoughts-on-DA-SA-Pistols), aren't you? ;)

I'm still going to stick with the average amateur shoots worse given a DA/SA than one trigger pull.

I wouldn't put Todd in that group, mind. :P

[cclaxton]

the hand guns that I recommended with thumb safeties use a frame mounted thumb safety. I do not care for the slide mounted safeties. Training with a gun that uses a manual thumb safety has made me 100 percent proficient at drawing and immediately disabling the safety I never have to think about it.

The additional safety factor provides a level of Safety that Glocks and other Strker fired handguns do not. Holstering is much safer and gun-grabbing requires the gun-grabber to figure out the safety...enough time for me to defend against the grab.
CC

[LittleLebowski]

Holstering is much safer

I like my Gadget.

[MGW]

I like my Gadget.

Bragger :)

[David Armstrong]

The difference between the G26 and G19 is nothing compared to what he's using to a G19. It's not a valid comparison.

And yes, I still wouldn't recommend a G26 to someone to learn on.
But he is not looking for a gun to learn on. He is achieving 100 % success with his defined goal. He has apparently learned already. Now the issue is his confidence in being able to take what he has learned and applying it.

[David Armstrong]

From Tam:
In this instance, it's not the capacity of an auto I'm referencing, it's that the shooter says he doesn't trust his ability to be able to hit his target under pressure, and there's nothing better for demolishing a novice's trust in his abilities than a firearm that is actively hostile to being shot with a degree of accuracy.
I think some are making lots of assumptions, such as the guy is untrained, he does not shoot accurately, etc. I don't see that, I see a shooter that has established a certain level of skill and is worrying about applying that skill in a real fight. Whether we agree with that level of skill or not is certainly debatable, although I think minute of felon is quite adequate for self defense work.

ETA: Read the OPs second post, and it appears I was on the right track. We don't have a poor shooter with an inadequate training firearm, we have an experiecned shooter usign a fairly normal SD weapon that is uncomfortable about moving from range experience to an actual gunfirght. Not sure how changing guns changes that feeling.

[David Armstrong]

I appreciate ALL of you and all of your comments.

Panoply: I see you are in Baton Rouge. I'm here in Lake Charles. I don't train SWAT teams and teach/do the high-speed-low-drag stuff any more due to some physical problems, but if you want to come over to LC one day I'll give you a 1-day hands-on "fighting with a gun" kind of class. Maybe that will help you up your confidence level and give you a better idea about what you want/need for a self defense gun.

[Haraise]

But he is not looking for a gun to learn on. He is achieving 100 % success with his defined goal. He has apparently learned already. Now the issue is his confidence in being able to take what he has learned and applying it.

The discussion /at that time/ was about guns to learn on.

Now it's discussion about the feeling of security with someone who says he can shoot well.

And if a gun with more bullets makes a person feel more safe... he's right!

Here's a post on some math to why capacity matters: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5129793&postcount=1

Probabilities and binomial calculations and most of the thread is a good read: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=494257&highlight=how+many+rounds

"From a practical standpoint, the probabilities involved suggest that someone armed with a typical small carry pistol (11 rounds or less) and achieving a hit rate of about 30% per shot has better than even odds of failing to neutralize 2 opponents before their gun is emptied. Under the same conditions, someone armed with a true pocket pistol (7 rounds or less) is likely to fail to neutralize 2 assailants about 90% of the time or more.

Even with only a single assailant, a pocket pistol will run dry somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the time before a 30% hit rate achieves 2 hits."

And some statistics pulled out:

"• # of shootings with only one bad guy – 16 (25.4%)
• # of shootings with 2 bad guys – 34 (54%)
• # of shootings with 3 bad guys – 12 (19%)
• # of shootings with 4 or more bad guys – 1 (1.6%)"

There's a lot of assumptions here, but all the ones made are clearly said as to why, such as the 30% hit ratio. Modeling and math works on assumptions, and that's how we sometimes have to get our best data to act on. The original poster's feelings of five shots not being enough are valid if he needs to /stop/ instead of just discourage the average amount of assailants. Fortunately, discouragement seems to be enough most of the time (as another quoted statistic is the average of 4.7 shots fired by a CCW owner in that state, in that year).

Anyway, it's a good read, the OP has valid concerns, and no, it's not the bible, but it's a good model for considering how much capacity you /should/ statistically feel safe with, instead of planning around the gunfight in your mind.

[JBP55]

Panoply: I see you are in Baton Rouge. I'm here in Lake Charles. I don't train SWAT teams and teach/do the high-speed-low-drag stuff any more due to some physical problems, but if you want to come over to LC one day I'll give you a 1-day hands-on "fighting with a gun" kind of class. Maybe that will help you up your confidence level and give you a better idea about what you want/need for a self defense gun.


If he is in Baton rouge he is not far from VATA Group in Covington, La.

[MDS]

Panoply: I see you are in Baton Rouge. I'm here in Lake Charles. I don't train SWAT teams and teach/do the high-speed-low-drag stuff any more due to some physical problems, but if you want to come over to LC one day I'll give you a 1-day hands-on "fighting with a gun" kind of class. Maybe that will help you up your confidence level and give you a better idea about what you want/need for a self defense gun.

Panoply,

I'm no expert, but my advice to you is to take Mr. Armstrong up on his offer! If you really don't want to, though, could I maybe borrow your screen name and take him up on your behalf? Can't get enough good training... ;)

[David Armstrong]

The discussion /at that time/ was about guns to learn on.
Now it's discussion about the feeling of security with someone who says he can shoot well.
Actually, the OP was not about guns to learn on, it was about feeling confident with his current carry gun. Some others tried to change the discussion to what to learn on, I jsut tried to stay within the parameters of the OP.

There's a lot of assumptions here,
Yep, a LOT of assumptions. I tend to avoid assumptions when we have actual data to work with, and the data available does tend to contradict the overall assumption ("Basically one can expect to succeed 3 times in 100 attempts"). As someone else pointed out further in the thread, "I have seen zero evidence that the actual, documented experiences of CHL holders (or SD experiences in general) bears out this thesis. In fact, quite the opposite."
If someone can provide some actual data to show more CCW events are successfully solved based on >10 rounds capacity as opposed to <10 rounds, I've not seen it, and certainly historically we see a fairly high rate of success for <10 round events.

I do agree, a 2" 5-shot snub is not the best SD handgun out there. Fortunately, the need to have the best to solve the problem is pretty darned rare.

[Haraise]

Actually, the OP was not about guns to learn on, it was about feeling confident with his current carry gun. Some others tried to change the discussion to what to learn on, I jsut tried to stay within the parameters of the OP.

Yep, a LOT of assumptions. I tend to avoid assumptions when we have actual data to work with, and the data available does tend to contradict the overall assumption ("Basically one can expect to succeed 3 times in 100 attempts"). As someone else pointed out further in the thread, "I have seen zero evidence that the actual, documented experiences of CHL holders (or SD experiences in general) bears out this thesis. In fact, quite the opposite."
If someone can provide some actual data to show more CCW events are successfully solved based on >10 rounds capacity as opposed to <10 rounds, I've not seen it, and certainly historically we see a fairly high rate of success for <10 round events.

I do agree, a 2" 5-shot snub is not the best SD handgun out there. Fortunately, the need to have the best to solve the problem is pretty darned rare.

I never talked about what you were talking about. You quoted /me./ I was saying what /I/ was discussing. Not you. So... it's nice that's what you were on about, but we were talking about your quoting of me.

You might want to look at where those assumptions came from. Actual data was used, your point is moot if you read the links.

A five shot just barely gets over 50% of the cases in the data I linked you to. Rare as those cases might be or not, I would rather have the capability of handling an additional 30-40% of situations by carrying a slightly higher capacity gun. A Glock 26 or 1911 are more than enough for the vast majority of situations, per that data. It doesn't cost him much to get some cheap higher capacity gun, and if it makes him feel more (completely justifiably) secure, the it's entirely worth it.

[David Armstrong]

I never talked about what you were talking about. You quoted /me./ I was saying what /I/ was discussing. Not you. So... it's nice that's what you were on about, but we were talking about your quoting of me.
Yes, I quoted you and tried to put your quote into the context of the actual thread, instead of the invalid/incorrect conclusions some were taking it. Sorry if that bothers you.

You might want to look at where those assumptions came from. Actual data was used, your point is moot if you read the links.
Nonsense. John himself later says that the assumptions were just that, and not based on actual numbers. For example, the basic assumption is that 2 rounds will always stop the BG and 1 round will never stop the BG. No actual data reflects those assumptions. The assumption was that all BGs in a multiple person attack will press the attack and not be deterred. Again, no actual data reflects that. We could go on, but I'll let John speak for himself: "There's really no way to take the results and turn them into some way of predicting how well someone will do in a gunfight the real world. That's because success for the purpose of the calculations is defined as making a certain number of hits and we all know that it takes more than simply making a certain predefined number of hits to insure success in a real-world gunfight."
He also says:
"The calculations do not take caliber into account at all. They only assume the following:
1. Only a certain number of shots available.
2. A hit rate probability.
3. Success = 2 or more hits per opponent.
4. The defender uses his rounds to maximum effect (e.g. doesn't shoot all of his rounds at the first opponent if he hit him with he first two.)
5. The defender is able to shoot all his rounds in the encounter.

The calculations results provide insight into how hard it is to make multiple hits on multiple opponents given a certain number of shots and a given hit rate probability. Period."


A five shot just barely gets over 50% of the cases in the data I linked you to. Rare as those cases might be or not, I would rather have the capability of handling an additional 30-40% of situations by carrying a slightly higher capacity gun. That's nice, but not sure what it has to do with the thread, which is basically if changing guns will get a better hit rate on a BG in an actual situation. Given that he has a 100% success rate within his chosen parameters I'm not sure changing guns will improve that. A hardware solution does not always address a software problem.

[SteveK]

FWIW: I frequently leave my 442 at home and carry my Glock. ;)

I'm a pretty fair shot with a revolver, but I would suggest the OP gets a service size 9mm and learn how to shoot better. At 7 yards, a J-Frame should be able to shoot close to one hole groups.

J-Frames are just hard to shoot well.

Listen to this man for he knows of what he speaks.:cool:

[Haraise]

Yes, I quoted you and tried to put your quote into the context of the actual thread, instead of the invalid/incorrect conclusions some were taking it. Sorry if that bothers you.

Nonsense. John himself later says that the assumptions were just that, and not based on actual numbers. For example, the basic assumption is that 2 rounds will always stop the BG and 1 round will never stop the BG. No actual data reflects those assumptions. The assumption was that all BGs in a multiple person attack will press the attack and not be deterred. Again, no actual data reflects that. We could go on, but I'll let John speak for himself: "There's really no way to take the results and turn them into some way of predicting how well someone will do in a gunfight the real world. That's because success for the purpose of the calculations is defined as making a certain number of hits and we all know that it takes more than simply making a certain predefined number of hits to insure success in a real-world gunfight."
He also says:
"The calculations do not take caliber into account at all. They only assume the following:
1. Only a certain number of shots available.
2. A hit rate probability.
3. Success = 2 or more hits per opponent.
4. The defender uses his rounds to maximum effect (e.g. doesn't shoot all of his rounds at the first opponent if he hit him with he first two.)
5. The defender is able to shoot all his rounds in the encounter.

The calculations results provide insight into how hard it is to make multiple hits on multiple opponents given a certain number of shots and a given hit rate probability. Period."

That's nice, but not sure what it has to do with the thread, which is basically if changing guns will get a better hit rate on a BG in an actual situation. Given that he has a 100% success rate within his chosen parameters I'm not sure changing guns will improve that. A hardware solution does not always address a software problem.

It's becoming more clear that you're not at all understanding what this is about.

So, I'll break it down.

The actual thread includes all responses, not just the ones you like.

Hit rate of 100% is lunacy to assume. That simply does not happen under those situations. The hit rate of 30% is a well founded number, and based on a fair bit of data. Assumptions do not mean 'we just made this all up.' Assumptions are how you do math in the real world, in many situations. You get the best data you can, then you act on it. Disregarding less than perfect information means you go nowhere.

The assumption was each bad guy gets two hits, and how to do it. Given how often people run when injured, how people tend to react when shot, and the simple fact that there is no possible calculation that can possibly involve all the variables of shooting, means you need to again, find the best data and act on it. Two hits per guy, an average attacker amount of just under two per encounter where a gun is used.

So again:

Hit rate will not be 100% in a life or death scenario. We have police/FBI data that puts it around thirty percent when averaged.

People are, per that data, usually attacked by ~2 attackers in dim light.

In such a situation, if you want to put two holes in each badguy, you have almost no chance to do that with five shots. If you have eleven shots (like a Glock 26) your odds just increased by an exponent or more.

The average shots per encounter was 4.7. Five shots means that the other half of the situations... you're not covered.

In the end, you /are/ safer with more bullets, all else equal, and the OP has /good/ reason to feel that he was underguned with just five shots.

[David Armstrong]

It's becoming more clear that you're not at all understanding what this is about.
So, I'll break it down.
Thanks for the thought, but believe me, my understanding is quite clear. The problem is that you are wanting my understanding and comments to fit into a particularly narrow focus that you want to use, rather than utilize them within the parameters of the OP's discussion. The breakdown is very simple. The OP posed a problem. Some folks thought that problem was due to him being a novice/untrained shooter and went for a hardware solution. Some of us did not jump to that incorrect conclusion and pointed out that we felt it was a software problem that might or might not be handled by a change in the hardware, but would still leave a software issue that needed to be addressed. That is what this is about. As for Johns post the assumptions used were simply a mental exercise in math that have no bearing on reality, as John himself pointed out: "There's really no way to take the results and turn them into some way of predicting how well someone will do in a gunfight the real world." He started the thread by saying, "A thread on another forum got me thinking about the probability of making a certain number of hits within a certain number of shots given a fixed probability of hitting the target with any given shot." That is all it was, and is. If he would have selected a different set of numbers (assumptions) he would have had very different results.

[Al T.]

LC one day I'll give you a 1-day hands-on "fighting with a gun" kind of class.

David, that is outstanding. If you weren't 12 hours away from me via automobile, I'd beg to attend. :D

[David Armstrong]

David, that is outstanding. If you weren't 12 hours away from me via automobile, I'd beg to attend. :D
No need to beg. Heck, who knows. Maybe one of these days you'll be travelling I-10 and it'll pop into your mind that "Hey, this is a good way to take a break from driving". I enjoyed doing training and like to think I was fairly good at it, but it just hurts too much to do a big class or do it regularly these days. But I still enjoy sharing what I've learned on a less formal basis.

A bit off topic, but heck, folks, AFAIK everyone here seems to be someone I'd enjoy spending time with. So if you are going to be close to SW Louisiana consider that there is a standing invitation for forum members to stop, rest, and visit if nothing else. Heck, I've got more bedrooms that are unoccupied than occupied at this point in my life, might as well share!:)