OWB “Duty/retention” Holster for p365XL w Romeo Zero

[Clark Jackson]

For people who spend the vast majority of their work time carrying concealed in plainclothes, I think there is an argument for dedicating completely to one compact pistol, and using it even when carrying overtly. I've used small Glocks for this, especially since they can be fed by larger capacity magazines. Many people have noticed that their performance with a G26 is on par with larger models, for example. Consider also that Gadfly's agency provides long guns, which are often carried as primary weapons when wearing guns and armor overtly.

What I really don't get, and what you may be referencing, is carrying a tiny gun like a G43 or J-frame as a duty gun.

I appreciate the carry one type of firearm for everything (within reason). However, applied as justification for the over armed professional carry of a micro pistol I respectfully disagree. As to the type of pistols I’m referencing, I consider any P365 series gun to be inappropriate as a primary weapon for overt carry by an armed professional. I'm not talking about a concealed carry, an undercover carry, a close target reconnaissance carry or any other a non- or semi-permissive environment carry. I consider the P365 series of pistols to be in the same family as the G43/48 family although this comment will make many bristle and yes, I understand there are differences, but there's no one I've met (again, outliers are a thing) who is so small - and can still adequately serve in the armed professions - who cannot competently wield at least a Glock 19 or equivalent pistol.

I've been told on P-F repeatedly, and with great passion, the P365 series is like nothing Glock currently has on the market. This is usually written in the context of providing evidence as to why ABC flavor of P365 pistol should be everyone's solution to all carry needs. Therefore, based on popular opinion of P-F expertise concerning the SIG P365 series, I have to reject the "performance comparison" of the G26 with larger Glock models regardless of the potential validity of the statement were it made in a different discussion.

It’s just our local AOR. Not nationwide.

Our SAC let the FIs put the squash on trigger finger holsters in our AOR. We convinced him via the FLETC study, and the timing of issuing new guns, which would require most folks to purchase new holsters anyway. There was a little resistance, but not much. A couple ASACs being the biggest whiners. It falls under the catch all “unsafe activities at the range”, which is a policy, even if there is no specific serpa prohibition in policy.

Our current holster issue that just came up is folks stuffing their 365s into full size holster during qual. As in not wanting to swap holsters from qualing with full size glocks or p320s. We have been pushing this for a while, and finally have management support to say if you don’t wear a holster specifically made for the gun, you can’t qual with that gun.

With the upcoming swap to RDS guns, lots of folks about to have to buy new holsters yet again.

Not willing to swap holsters? Instructors and RSOs could not stop them?

YIKES!

Laziness is addictive and can be dangerous, but coupled with apathy it is legitimately deadly. It is disheartening to hear instructors, RSOs, or even other shooters are prohibited from stopping safety violations without the explicit approval of management. What does the negligent discharge and injury rate look like in your AOR?

You mentioned the RDS guns and new holsters. It sounds like your organization is conducting a forced move from iron sights to RDS: how is this being received? I’m curious how the current iron sight shooters are taking it because the RDS can be frustrating at first. I see push-back from those who are competent (or believe so) with iron sights and are unwilling to invest (there's that lazy thing again) to learn something new.

You humble opinion is just that. And is not taking into account my female co workers who are 5’2” and have small hands. I have a few who want to just run the 365xl as a primary. And by policy they can. My goal is to find them something with retention that they can safely use.

And your assertion that the 365 series is somehow lacking? We have hundreds is not thousands in use in our agency. They run. You can ring IDPA size steel at 100yrds all day long with one. I can say I have seen only one crap out on us. Is it small? Yes. Can I run a larger gun a little better? Yes. But I am 5’10. I will be running a Glock or 320 in the duty rig… and grab a rifle. For the smaller statures agents, if they can run a smaller gun more comfortably, then let them. 12+1 is not a huge load out, but it is still respectable.

Not everyone in the agency is a door kicker.

You are correct, my opinion is just an opinion but it is an informed one. None-the-less, still just an opinion. That said, based on the OP, I was under the impression opinions were solicited. I hope I did not misinterpret.

If opinions were solicited, as I believe they were, my opinion of a service/fighting pistol is germane to holster selection. Therefore, I felt it worth sharing this educated opinion while fully understanding the inherent P-F backlash to any criticism of SIG particularly if said criticism involves the P365 series.

Yes, in the context of this thread and discussion, the 365 is lacking. I am not commenting on the design’s ability to function (i.e., the cycle of operation). I am commenting on the design’s suitability for the overt armed professional. The P365 is not a service/fighting pistol. It is a concealment pistol. It is a back-up pistol. It is a personal defense pistol. There is a difference between something carried to immediately defend oneself vs something used to seek out and engage deadly threats. The P365 series are personal protection pistols that fill a role, but not the overt armed professional one.

Concerning smaller stature individuals, I have a female friend who is 4’11 and her hands are so small she would sometimes miss the trigger safety on her Glock 26.4. She picked up a P320 and did great. Based on this and the ever present “comfort” justification, I respectfully reject the notion that the P365 series is on par with the P320 series or comparable sized pistols. I believe my position is reinforced by your comments regarding ease of shooting larger pistols well and the superior ammunition capacity as compared to the P365 series. Both valid points and I concur.

Rifles. I believe you and @Le Français made mention of rifles. I have some experience with rifles and their practical application in deadly force situations. I can confidently say this: if the rifle does not work (for whatever reason) or cannot be used (for whatever reason), no rational person wants the next available weapon to be less than optimal. The end.

Your last line is interesting to me. “Not everyone is a door kicker.” I know what this means, but I do not fully understand how it ties into this discussion. I provided opinions based on some important assumptions: those carrying P365 pistols were overt, armed professionals whose duties and responsibilities require them to interact with the public as enforcers of criminal law who are clearly identified as such including the obvious tools of the trade (body camera, pistol, magazines, radio, pepper spray, baton, body armor, "POLICE" markings, handcuffs/restraints, etc.). If you please, clarify the "not everyone is a door kicker" statement because if the P365s are just for intelligence personnel, crime scene technicians, public relations folks, etc. it may change my entire opinion.

[JCN]

@Clark Jackson this isn’t meant to be a dig, but mainly a “help me understand how you know what you know” thing.

Can you share with me as a relative newcomer to PF what your military / duty / LEO experience is?

I like to learn but it helps to understand the context of where someone’s informed opinion is coming from.

[runcible]

... The free market, I believe, provides mostly accurate assessments of equipment performance which subsequently informs purchasing decisions. ... For the P365 series of pistols, the free market shows us there are almost no options for reliable retention holsters for the mission profile of an overt armed professional. This lack of free market support highlights the obvious: the carry method is not appropriate for the P365 series of pistols regardless of how much technology is on it or how large a magazine is stuffed into it.

IMHO, the mindset which accepts any micro pistol (or variant) as appropriate for overt armed professional use is irresponsible and indicates the level of ignorance/arrogance concerning the realities of armed combat. As with many armed professional organizations, I expect there are those who demonstrate a willful indifference to reality for the sake of personal comfort (aka laziness).

In my experience, the ignorant, arrogant, and/or lazy are those least-likely to re-enter the kill zone. Hard. Pass.

Recommendations:
1) Attempt to professionally educate those who may believe the P365/XL are appropriate for an overt armed professional mission; these people may simply not know any better and just need an experienced voice of reason.

2) Avoid those in your organization whose ignorance, arrogance, and/or laziness allow them to ignore the realities of their chosen profession.

3) Encourage your agency to provide officers a robust and suitable weapon platform, associated equipment, and training commensurate to their duties and responsibilities.

I appreciate the carry one type of firearm for everything (within reason). However, applied as justification for the over armed professional carry of a micro pistol I respectfully disagree. As to the type of pistols I’m referencing, I consider any P365 series gun to be inappropriate as a primary weapon for overt carry by an armed professional. I'm not talking about a concealed carry, an undercover carry, a close target reconnaissance carry or any other a non- or semi-permissive environment carry. I consider the P365 series of pistols to be in the same family as the G43/48 family although this comment will make many bristle and yes, I understand there are differences, but there's no one I've met (again, outliers are a thing) who is so small - and can still adequately serve in the armed professions - who cannot competently wield at least a Glock 19 or equivalent pistol.

I've been told on P-F repeatedly, and with great passion, the P365 series is like nothing Glock currently has on the market. This is usually written in the context of providing evidence as to why ABC flavor of P365 pistol should be everyone's solution to all carry needs. Therefore, based on popular opinion of P-F expertise concerning the SIG P365 series, I have to reject the "performance comparison" of the G26 with larger Glock models regardless of the potential validity of the statement were it made in a different discussion.

...

Laziness is addictive and can be dangerous, but coupled with apathy it is legitimately deadly. It is disheartening to hear instructors, RSOs, or even other shooters are prohibited from stopping safety violations without the explicit approval of management. What does the negligent discharge and injury rate look like in your AOR?

You mentioned the RDS guns and new holsters. It sounds like your organization is conducting a forced move from iron sights to RDS: how is this being received? I’m curious how the current iron sight shooters are taking it because the RDS can be frustrating at first. I see push-back from those who are competent (or believe so) with iron sights and are unwilling to invest (there's that lazy thing again) to learn something new.

You are correct, my opinion is just an opinion but it is an informed one. None-the-less, still just an opinion. That said, based on the OP, I was under the impression opinions were solicited. I hope I did not misinterpret.

If opinions were solicited, as I believe they were, my opinion of a service/fighting pistol is germane to holster selection. Therefore, I felt it worth sharing this educated opinion while fully understanding the inherent P-F backlash to any criticism of SIG particularly if said criticism involves the P365 series.

Yes, in the context of this thread and discussion, the 365 is lacking. I am not commenting on the design’s ability to function (i.e., the cycle of operation). I am commenting on the design’s suitability for the overt armed professional. The P365 is not a service/fighting pistol. It is a concealment pistol. It is a back-up pistol. It is a personal defense pistol. There is a difference between something carried to immediately defend oneself vs something used to seek out and engage deadly threats. The P365 series are personal protection pistols that fill a role, but not the overt armed professional one.

Concerning smaller stature individuals, I have a female friend who is 4’11 and her hands are so small she would sometimes miss the trigger safety on her Glock 26.4. She picked up a P320 and did great. Based on this and the ever present “comfort” justification, I respectfully reject the notion that the P365 series is on par with the P320 series or comparable sized pistols. I believe my position is reinforced by your comments regarding ease of shooting larger pistols well and the superior ammunition capacity as compared to the P365 series. Both valid points and I concur.

Rifles. I believe you and @Le Français made mention of rifles. I have some experience with rifles and their practical application in deadly force situations. I can confidently say this: if the rifle does not work (for whatever reason) or cannot be used (for whatever reason), no rational person wants the next available weapon to be less than optimal. The end.

Your last line is interesting to me. “Not everyone is a door kicker.” I know what this means, but I do not fully understand how it ties into this discussion. I provided opinions based on some important assumptions: those carrying P365 pistols were overt, armed professionals whose duties and responsibilities require them to interact with the public as enforcers of criminal law who are clearly identified as such including the obvious tools of the trade (body camera, pistol, magazines, radio, pepper spray, baton, body armor, "POLICE" markings, handcuffs/restraints, etc.). If you please, clarify the "not everyone is a door kicker" statement because if the P365s are just for intelligence personnel, crime scene technicians, public relations folks, etc. it may change my entire opinion.

Clark,

I think that I understand the points that you're making, but I'd offer that I think there's a broader context that might lend one to arrive at a different conclusion.

Purely shooting- or combat-oriented valuations are why the default work gun where several of us are at is a specific permutation of the P320 X-Carry, as opposed to something more X-Compact or G19-like in profile. This in turn nudges more people to run smaller guns when able, because the X-Carry just isn't optimal nor overly suitable for un-overt work - it's a stretch even for the low-vis profile. That said, I'm familiar with the body of study and conclusions that underpined the MHS\G45 configurations, and I don't disagree; but I do think that there are competing factors to determine external geometry.

At my old old workplace, M9s were the available GPF option with their 15rd capacity; and that was acceptable. The SOF G19s also had a 15rd capacity, and that wasn't of-concern. At my more recent old workplace, running P229s with 12rd capacity or P239s with 7rd capacity was a largely untested concern, but never seemed to overly-evidence a lackadaiscal attitude; but I'll return to this subject shortly. The P365XLs, either running 12rd or 15rd magazines, overlaps with both of those options for capacity. If the P365XL is deficient on account of capacity, are the M9 and G19 also deficient? I appreciate that you wrote, "regardless of how much technology is on it or how large a magazine is stuffed into it," so I'm really trying to drill down on what your apprehension is other than the general idea of implied intentions.

If it is a matter of pure performance; whether that be in such realms as precision, accuracy, rapidity of delivery, and manipulations; then I'd be glad to read why you don't find that an acceptable reason for a user's selection of the P365XL if it outperforms competing options.

I do not find your hand-wave reference of a vaguely described female friend to further this conversation: certainly, it addressed at best the question of whether she could be great or not great with a P320, but offered no performance comparison as relates to the P320 and P365 FOWs and her specific reality.

I just can't get behind mindset as a martial art or an uncompromising attitude for all-combat at all-times to the exclusion of contextual propriety.

Further, and what I suspect is subtly causing friction for many, is that you are explicitly framing someone else's conversation and offering a curiously specific and not wholly applicable framework for how this is all supposed to be discussed. For example, from where originates, "body camera, pistol, magazines, radio, pepper spray, baton, body armor, "POLICE" markings, handcuffs/restraints, etc?" From where arrives, "overt, armed professionals whose duties and responsibilities require them to interact with the public as enforcers of criminal law who are clearly identified as such including the obvious tools of the trade?" Are you offering that the P365XL would be more suitable or less unsuitable if the user wore "SHERIFF" placards, or did not carry pepper spray? What if they enforced administrative law?

Put more succinctly: from what context and experience do you become the arbiter of this concern?

In closing, and bearing with my recent remarks on TLR-7s: the P365XL may or may not have more virtuous shooting characteristics than a P320C variant, but it has a greater ability and rapidity to shifting modalities than the X-Carry option does, by far. There is a logistical burden and requirement for managing multiple guns at any one time and\or with any one car; and not everyone is provided for in that manner.

[runcible]

Here's the Reader's Digest version, Clark:

"What are the performance, capacity, discriminatory, and geometric characteristics of a pistol acceptable for overt LE work, based on your experience; and why?"

[Le Français]

while fully understanding the inherent P-F backlash to any criticism of SIG particularly if said criticism involves the P365 series.

Where have you noticed an inherent P-F backlash to any criticism of SIG? I’m not invested in brand loyalty, and maybe my antipathy for the P320 colors my perception, but I’ve noticed if anything a tendency for PF to be anti-SIG.

[Le Français]

@Clark Jackson, I think you are a little too quick on the trigger with spirited accusations of laziness and apathy. Perhaps you should take a step back and realize that the picture you have in your mind and to which you direct your criticism may not fit the facts.

Consider, hypothetically, a small-framed and small-handed agent who works almost exclusively in plainclothes in a context where true concealment is required and the cop concealment/gun tumor look is not acceptable. Consider that this agent is restricted by policy to SIG P320s, P365s, or 9mm double-stack Glocks. Consider that for some hand/body sizes, the P365XL may actually be the best performing of those options across such categories as manipulations, shootability, and concealment. Even if, for such an agent, another of those pistols (say, a G17) would shoot better all else being equal, consider that all else is not equal, and that swapping between guns with different grip angles and triggers, etc., itself often brings a performance penalty.

[Clark Jackson]

@Clark Jackson this isn’t meant to be a dig, but mainly a “help me understand how you know what you know” thing.

Can you share with me as a relative newcomer to PF what your military / duty / LEO experience is?

I like to learn but it helps to understand the context of where someone’s informed opinion is coming from.

Respectfully, I am not interested in providing my resume because I believe it is unproductive. As I have said many times before, the information people provide is either good or it is not and their resume is largely irrelevant. Resumes too often lead to bias which results in misinformed opinions. At P-F you can see examples of people deferring to less-qualified members because those members are big names or big personalities while simultaneously and without hesitation challenging others who I know are much more experienced/trained. This observation has led me to prefer a more pure discussion of topics (sans resumes) and keep critical thinking at a premium while minimizing personal bias.

@runcible
Thank you for taking the time to write such a thorough reply. I’ll attempt to answer your questions and address your comments as efficiently as possible.

Clark,

I think that I understand the points that you're making, but I'd offer that I think there's a broader context that might lend one to arrive at a different conclusion.

Purely shooting- or combat-oriented valuations are why the default work gun where several of us are at is a specific permutation of the P320 X-Carry, as opposed to something more X-Compact or G19-like in profile. This in turn nudges more people to run smaller guns when able, because the X-Carry just isn't optimal nor overly suitable for un-overt work - it's a stretch even for the low-vis profile.

I agree. I was addressing, very specifically, overt armed professionals (e.g., uniformed law enforcement, uniformed military police, uniformed military, uniformed armed security guards, etc.) and was specifically not addressing the need for concealment weapons because there are times when the optimal pistol must be sacrificed in the name of concealability because the mission can (and often will) dictate the equipment.

At my old old workplace, M9s were the available GPF option with their 15rd capacity; and that was acceptable. The SOF G19s also had a 15rd capacity, and that wasn't of-concern. At my more recent old workplace, running P229s with 12rd capacity or P239s with 7rd capacity was a largely untested concern, but never seemed to overly-evidence a lackadaiscal attitude; but I'll return to this subject shortly.

The metrics for proficiency have a significant impact on the concerns of end-users, instructors, and leaders. If the metric for proficiency is a typical organizational qualification course of fire, the challenge to choose (let alone mandate and enforce) the use of the most efficient pistol may be insurmountable. It is almost impossible to convince end-users to choose and leaders to enforce use of a pistol if the argument can easily be boiled down to “comfort” and “just as good as” discussions. These are often the arguments presented within institutions where the only metric of proficiency is an administrative qualification course of fire. Qualification courses of fire mask component skill deficiencies. When those deficiencies are laid bare, through realistic metrics, the equipment decision becomes much clearer and the focus shifts from comfort to mission profile.

In my experience, laziness or lackadaisical culture is most often present in organizations long on tools but short on knowledge and leadership. Not a commentary on your former place of employment but on everyone’s former and/or current place of employment. It’s not hard to see when you look for it and that should be considered when forming opinions as to future equipment and training selections.

If it is a matter of pure performance; whether that be in such realms as precision, accuracy, rapidity of delivery, and manipulations; then I'd be glad to read why you don't find that an acceptable reason for a user's selection of the P365XL if it outperforms competing options.

Great point and I do not disagree with where you are coming from, let me elaborate.

My mindset: perform as advertised and do it on demand. I do not care how you get it done, just get it done. Therefore, if you are the outlier who performs better with a P365 than you do a P320, then get after it with that P365.

Logic dictates we carry the weapon with which we consistently perform the best, with the least amount of effort, and without regard to changing environs (cold, wet, hot, dry, light, dark, tired, hungry, injured, stressed, with/without gloves, etc.).

Again, I must stress this performance must be done through realistic metrics that emphasize component skills and cannot be based on a single drill or administrative qualification course of fire which is designed as a mirror fog/sobriety test more than an actual evaluation of a shooter’s proficiency. If you are the outlier, I would fully support carrying the smallest weapon in lieu of the larger one. That said, my experience and data does not support the aforementioned. Therefore, I must conclude the debate point is less about supporting actual outliers and more about protecting positions of personal preference and/or bias. Unfortunately, I cannot share the information I have and even if I could, I am not sure I would. I think it is incumbent upon all of us to determine if what people say is valid or invalid and to do so heuristically where/when possible. Otherwise, it is too easy to dismiss divergent view points in favor of theoretical and/or anecdotal "evidence" simply because it supports our position.

I do not find your hand-wave reference of a vaguely described female friend to further this conversation: certainly, it addressed at best the question of whether she could be great or not great with a P320, but offered no performance comparison as relates to the P320 and P365 FOWs and her specific reality.

I just can't get behind mindset as a martial art or an uncompromising attitude for all-combat at all-times to the exclusion of contextual propriety.

I’m sorry you feel it is a hand-wave reference. That does does not alter the fact that possession of specific experience with the type of person (small statured) cited as a supporting argument for use of a suboptimal pistol within a specific carry configuration and mission profile is relevant to the discussion at hand. I have a very close friend who fits the description of what anyone would reasonably call a small statured person. I mentored this person through a portion of her firearms proficiency journey and learned some things along the way. I doubt many have the same experience which prompted me to share this personally obtained knowledge for consideration especially because it is direct counterpoint to a popular debate point concerning small pistols.

I do not have an uncompromising attitude for all-combat at all-times to the exclusion of context. I have repeatedly and exhaustively stated my opinion within a very specific context while providing caveats for mission profiles and personnel outliers. I do not know how to be more explicit.

Further, and what I suspect is subtly causing friction for many, is that you are explicitly framing someone else's conversation and offering a curiously specific and not wholly applicable framework for how this is all supposed to be discussed. For example, from where originates, "body camera, pistol, magazines, radio, pepper spray, baton, body armor, "POLICE" markings, handcuffs/restraints, etc?" From where arrives, "overt, armed professionals whose duties and responsibilities require them to interact with the public as enforcers of criminal law who are clearly identified as such including the obvious tools of the trade?" Are you offering that the P365XL would be more suitable or less unsuitable if the user wore "SHERIFF" placards, or did not carry pepper spray? What if they enforced administrative law?

Put more succinctly: from what context and experience do you become the arbiter of this concern?

I do not understand who the someone else is or what conversation they had which I am framing for this discussion. I have re-read that portion a few times and I simply do not know what that means.

As for the rest of the quote, I was attempting to spell out what I consider an “overtly armed professional” because there seems to be an inexplicable inability to clearly delineate overt from covert carry in this thread. That distinction is skewing the discussion as it pertains to a specific pistol and supporting equipment for a specific mission.

I enjoyed most of your post @runcible. Your last three emotionally charged lines regarding a sheriff placard, pepper spray, and administrative law are a little too biting and baited for my taste. I prefer to avoid a post-for-post debate of that style. As such, you'll forgive me for not addressing those points.

Here's the Reader's Digest version, Clark:

"What are the performance, capacity, discriminatory, and geometric characteristics of a pistol acceptable for overt LE work, based on your experience; and why?"

Please see my earlier comments to @JCN post regarding resumes.

@Clark Jackson, I think you are a little too quick on the trigger with spirited accusations of laziness and apathy. Perhaps you should take a step back and realize that the picture you have in your mind and to which you direct your criticism may not fit the facts.

Consider, hypothetically, a small-framed and small-handed agent who works almost exclusively in plainclothes in a context where true concealment is required and the cop concealment/gun tumor look is not acceptable. Consider that this agent is restricted by policy to SIG P320s, P365s, or 9mm double-stack Glocks. Consider that for some hand/body sizes, the P365XL may actually be the best performing of those options across such categories as manipulations, shootability, and concealment. Even if, for such an agent, another of those pistols (say, a G17) would shoot better all else being equal, consider that all else is not equal, and that swapping between guns with different grip angles and triggers, etc., itself often brings a performance penalty.

Le Français, thank you for taking the time to reply. I could have taken a step back and changed my outlook at the beginning of this thread, but that would have immediately derailed the thread. The OP specifically sought information for a reliable retention holster for overt – not concealment – carry.

I will take a moment to touch on the points you made because I respect the time you took to make those points and agree with some of them. Considering the hypothetical organizational restrictions above:

- I agree working almost exclusively in plain clothes requires the ability to reasonably conceal the weapon. I will point out this is often a problem exacerbated by the individual’s unwillingness to alter their clothing, belt, holster, etc. and instead rely upon what they would wear without a gun, organizationally issued equipment, and/or the least expensive gear options on the market (I believe @Gadfly quote was "cheap bastards"). This is not always the case, but I’m willing to bet it’s the most common scenario.

- “Consider that for some hand/body sizes, the P365XL may actually be the best performing of those options across such categories as manipulations, shootability, and concealment.” If, hypothetically, the individual shooter could prove the smaller pistol was the “best performing in manipulations and shootability" through on-demand demonstration of proficiency in component skills, and not through an organizational administrative qualification course of fire, they should carry that weapon. Unfortunately, I doubt these instances are anything close to common.

This puts us back where we started: people will discount their performance shortfalls with ego-soothing arguments centered on the "benefits" of comfort and concealability. Again, not trying to get into the merits of comfort and concealment within certain contexts because the OP was not about that and therefore my responses were tailored appropriately to active retention holsters and overt carry.

- I agree swapping platforms from one manufacturer to another (e.g., SIG & Glock) is inadvisable. I wholeheartedly agree changing platforms incurs a performance penalty. This performance penalty is amplified with the introduction of an RDS.

On the note of laziness and apathy: I always give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are not lazy or apathetic. That said, my experiences with the armed professions have shown me most people make gear selections based on ignorance/misinformation or laziness/apathy. I truly feel sorry for the ignorant/misinformed because they are victims of those resources they've relied upon for education and often they are lied to by the organizations they trust most.

Regardless, when the uninitiated are questioned about their equipment choices they are confronted with three courses of action: 1) admit their ignorance / misinformed decision making process; 2) admit their laziness/apathy; 3) emotionally defend their position with theoretical arguments.

In all of those instances I am happy to provide additional information in an altruistic attempt to help the person because I was once that person and in some areas may still be that person.

Hopefully this discussion is an example of my attempts to help and share knowledge, and not as taken a debate match to be "won."

[kwb377]

Hopefully this discussion is an example of my attempts to help and share knowledge, and not as taken a debate match to be "won."

After reading (some) of that novel, the first word that came to mind was "bloviate".

[JCN]

@Clark Jackson

So you want me to believe that you have an informed opinion because “trust me I have an informed opinion?”



I’ll probably listen to the agency armorers instead.

I’ve found your opinions on shooting skills and drills questionable and incompletely vetted so without any context I’m going to lump your equipment opinions into a similar boat.

Regarding “lazy” P365XL shooters, it wouldn’t be difficult for a competent shooter to make Turbo pin runs with one.

So what does that say if you can’t hit those performance benchmarks despite 100k rounds and taking GW class three times with a superior Glock?

[Clark Jackson]

After reading (some) of that novel, the first word that came to mind was "bloviate".

And that's the problem with the forum. I'll keep this response shorter than a novel.

When people are having a discussion and someone is asked by multiple people to expand on their thoughts and then do so, it is poor form to critique the response with an ad hominem attack.