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.