“Duty” is a defense weapon, designed to be used in an offensive manner.

Reloads/round count, etc matter more than ease of carry, and reliability with irregular motions.

(A gun locked in a duty holster has a different life than one in a pocket holster, tucked under a shirt, etc)

“Carry” is about reliability in unusual conditions, and concealability.

Accuracy is probably a very vital part of it, but the primary concern is how reliable it can withstand being pocket carry, tucked under a shirt, etc.

Second is how well it conceals/how easy it is to draw.

The 1903 pocket auto vs the 1911 is probably the easiest way to see the difference, as they were, I think, designed by the same man.

Mag button releases vs paddle/heel is another example.

I don’t think duty connotes “offensive”. I think “offensive” use of firearms are pretty limited outside of military action especially pistols.

I simply connote duty pistol with one that has gone through one or more large agency’s testing to vet it for their environment of use. Yes duty pistols can be larger but lots of Glock 19s are used on duty. Lots of 3 inch smiths have been used on duty.

Now when we get into truly small pistols P365/Glock 26/J Frame. Those are likely vetted by agencies over the years but they cross a size threshold where they are harder to shoot and generally thought of as backup in nature or designed more specifically for deep cover duty.

I would think both would need to be equally reliable, accurate, and effective. I think the overwhelming difference is size, and related to that, capacity.

Exposed in a duty holster, a LEO can carry a bigger gun carrying more ammo. If it has to be concealed, especially under suboptimal clothing, the gun has to be somewhat to significantly smaller. That's the overwhelming difference.

It is 2023. You haven’t had to sacrifice accuracy or reliability in any gun for quite a long time.

I’m not even sure I understand your musings. What exactly is “reliability with irregular motions”? If I whip the gun out counter clockwise? Shoot it in a zero G environment? A modern gun doesn’t care about any of that. It is either reliable or it isn’t. Big, small, duty, carry, doesn’t matter.

Accuracy same thing. We complain about S&W’s that hold 4-5 inch groups at 25 yards. They should and now do do better. That being said it’s a comical subject in that most shooters can’t hold better than that anyway. Every gun out there with few exceptions outshoots it’s owners ability to hold tight groups.

If they made a Ransom rest for 365’s, Hellcats, 43’s, whatever, their mechanical accuracy would be very good.

It’s semantics but I also think duty and carry are largely synonymous. I think you are going for duty/carry and concealed carry. It’s just semantics though and I understand your intent.

Fundamental difference? Size. That’s really it. That is the big elephant in the room. After that you can say no sharp edges, high cap for size, good sights vs the shitty sights small guns have been known for, and other stuff that you can add. But at the end if the day the fundamental difference is size.

It’s not accuracy or reliability at all. If they don’t have both of those I’m not even sure why they would be on anyones potential list.

For me it’s easy. Using your terms, duty = P30 and carry = 365. (I rotate carry but they all are small firstly then that other stuff in varying degrees). They both are more accurate than I can hold though. They both also have never had a malfunction. Honestly I haven’t had a non rimfire malfunction in a long time. Cases and cases long time. I tend to shoot reliable guns (92’s, HK’s, Glocks, CZ’s) but still. I give a new gun a few boxes of grace but that’s it. Not sure the last gun that even needed it.

I haven’t heard of calling a handgun offensive since the Mk23. To me going offensive is a decision point that would make me think in terms of the Marine platoon meme. Have a big rifle, bring friends with big rifles, call in air support. If you end up using it offensively then it’s the result of happenstance (no other option) or poor planning.

Like I said before though, I’m as tactical as a hydration bladder so I will probably learn something in this thread.

Edited. I don’t understand why you think button vs paddle is a splitting point in this discussion. Seems more like a manufacturer issue. HK and Walther and then everybody else. Even they are succumbing to market desires though and adding mag button options. (I’m a paddle guy all day)

"Duty" pistols are "offensive" tools? Handguns carried by LEOs are carried for DEFENSIVE purposes, whether openly in uniform or concealed under plainclothes. As to their size, number of rounds provided or carried as spare/reloads; these are tools of convenience that accompany cops who are responsible for doing a lot of other things than getting into gunfights. If the situation gets seriously dangerous, the "go to" tool will be a semi-automatic rifle or perhaps a shotgun.

As to differences between LEOs carrying defensive handguns and non-LEOs: It's a "difference without a distinction." While laws may differ as to when these people have the authority to lawfully use deadly force, the tools are basically the same and so is the purpose. On duty or off-duty, citizen or cop, the handgun is carried to deal with a generally unanticipated threat to cause unlawful great bodily injury or death. We (except in cases of uniformed officers) usually keep these tools concealed because it's necessary for general public approval and it provides the carrier a tactical advantage over those intent on committing felonious criminal activity.

I’m not sure I quite get what you are getting at. If you look at the Glock line of pistols, you have the same design that is small enough to carry in a pocket (G43) or large enough to shoot large game with (G40).

The conventional notion of what a “duty” pistol is has really been redefined in the last half dozen years. The longer barrel “duty” firearms (G17/G22/G34/G35) were often chosen due to the perceived and often true belief that the longer sight radius is an advantage. IE- tactical teams were big on the G34 to milk the extra advantage.

With the normalization of the MRDS, a lot of tactical teams (plus Tier 1 military teams) have downgraded to a Glock 19 or Glock 45. The 45 seems to be very popular with federal teams. Why? The performance of the 19 is negligible to what you get from a 17 when you add the MRDS.

If people decide to carry a LCP or a Glock 41, I don’t think there’s much difference in “duty” or “carry” in 2023.

As others have already pointed out, both "Duty" and "Carry" handguns are defensive tools.

If the OP's point is that the differences in carry techniques between an LE-type Duty weapon and concealed carry allow for a larger, more robust weapon in a duty holster because it doesn't have to meet the same concealability constraints as a CCW piece, I agree with that...although as jljones pointed out, the dot is changing that as it negates the issue of sight radius.

Not sure if this is exactly what the OP is getting at or not, but the biggest difference I see between a "Duty" and a "Carry" gun is that "Duty" gun is typically issued by an agency. This brings into play a number of factors:

- Cost. When you're buying hundreds of guns, a few dollars apiece is a big deal.
- Logistics. You have to maintain all those guns, so parts/holsters/support has to be readily available and affordable. And you need commonality to be efficient.
- Training. You are handing these things to a bunch of cops, many of whom don't care about guns. They're going to shoot a qual once or twice a year and otherwise not do anything with it until the next mandatory range day. As such, it has to be easily shootable, easy to maintain, and durable for those who won't even make the effort to take it apart and lube it. Obviously, there are exceptions to this, but you have to work from the lowest common denominator.
- Cop-proofing. Cops will break anything. They'll mess with sights and wreck their zeroes, launch springs, lose parts, and generally create havoc. The gun needs to have as few user-configurable parts as possible so they can't do that. These days with interchangeable backstraps and grip modules there are some things we can do to fit the gun to the shooter without compromising everything else, but as a general rule once the gun is set up we don't want them changing things.

There are probably a few other elements that I'm missing, but those are the ones that immediately came to mind.

A "Carry" gun, on the other hand, is an individual choice. The user is typically at least somewhat of an enthusiast (enough to go out and spend his personal money on a gun, anyway). He only has to purchase one gun, and can pick the tool that best fits his needs and style, and he's more than likely going to maintain it because he's got money in it. He can customize it to his needs and desires, and in some cases he may even put in enough training time to actually be able to leverage the benefits of those customizations.

I'd personally be alright using a customized 1911 with an adjustable trigger and adjustable sights as my personal "carry" gun. I know how it works, how to set it up, and how to maintain it. If something goes wrong, I'm the user so I'll be immediately aware and can correct the problem. However, issuing such a thing as a "duty" gun to an entire department would be a huge mistake, especially considering the other options available on the market today.

Duty is the wrong term, but I cannot think of another term for a tool, openly carried. Economics and training ease, and probably holster options, are probably the major factors in what most police forces select.

Lots of duty guns have sharper edges - which may make it easier to rack while impaired, grip, etc - but may also interfere with drawing from concealment. (1911 vs 1903 seems to be the clearest example of that)

By “irregular motions” I meant pulling from appendix carry/pocket carry, being tucked under a shirt and getting pushed on, etc. (I used to bump the mag release on my Glocks, all the time, if I carried them IWB.)

As far as offensive vs defensive - I realize they are both defensive weapons, but if needed, a room can be cleared with a G17 etc.

No ideal, but done all the time.

Clearing a room with a J frame seems like something only done if absolutely imperative.

And, the advent of G19s etc and OWB carry may have made that a bit moot.

There’s nothing about offensive or defensive, or reliability. Maybe in the days of revolvers and the start of semi-autos.

Duty is about capacity and ease of handling (full sized grip) are the priorities.

Carry is about concealment being the paramount concern. Capacity and grip size take a back seat.

I do think some people go too far worrying about concealment, but that’s their decision.