quote:

Originally posted by Flash-LB:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by Walther Dude:
What is a deal-breaker on a carry gun?

That's an easy one. Unreliable.

Yep, or inaccurate.

All of this ^^^

It's a "Carry" gun, not a "goin' to the range" gun!
You're carrying it for a reason, and heaven forbid that reason comes up.
If it does, you NEED that gun to do a few things:
Go BANG
Put lead on target multiple times.

It's not like the movies where one bullet does the trick, the vast majority of the time, it's multiple rounds on target.

Rail, lights, micro red dots, lasers, garage door opener, nail clippers... Yeah, they're nice to have, but not 100% nessesacary.
I have a light on my duty gun, and thinking about one for my off duty. The nightstand gun has one on it, so does the shotgun and AR that I'd use in a messed up situation.
I'm also thinking about a red dot for my off duty, but I'm wondering if it's going to be too bulky. For ME- in order of importance-
Reliability
Rounds
Size

The good thing about today's gun market, the majority of the top manufacturers (S&W, H&K, Sig, Walther, Glock, Kimber...) are all pretty accurate out of the box.


My off duty gun is a G-43X. It was the G-19, but all my extra magazines were for the G-17.
10 rounds of 9mm is nice in the 43x, BUT WAIT! THERES MORE!!!! Shield Arms makes a ***reliable*** 15 round magazine? Well count me in! I dropped down in size, but am able to keep the same amount of rounds as a G-19.

But I'm in a position where I can go out and buy another gun if this one isn't working out the way I want it to. Others may not be in that position, they may have only one or two guns they can reasonably afford.

Then there's what fits YOUR hand and what can YOU reasonably conceal?
YOU may have a catchers mit for a hand, coming in at 6'7" and a cheeseburger away from 325lbs. You can effectively use and conceal anything south of a Desert Eagle and an H&K Mk23. Or you may be 5'3" and 135lbs with the metabolism of a hummingbird on crack.... A large or medium sized handgun is going to stick out in you like a sore thumb, and your hand size might not be able to hold a 1911 and use effectively.

Or you might be somewhere in between...

For me, a safety. I do carry guns with a safety. But The first time you draw in a drill or training and try to fire with the safety on, you'll see why they can be a problem when half seconds count.

For me;
Reliable
NO safety
NO SA, prefer DA/SA
Full size frame, long site radius. NO need for optics or lights
I must be proficient running the gun, accuracy, dealing with malfunctions, drawing the gun from holster.
I carry a CZ Shadow 9mm,19 rounds,and a extra mag always in case of an ammo related malfunction.

For me, reliability first. Next would be carry-ability. If it is too thick or too heavy, you will not carry it as often as you should or would like to.

The P365XL does everything well, but stings my hand somewhat. I will still carry it, but would not use it in a training class where I go through 300+ rounds in a day.

For me:
-Reliability
-If it has the name TAURUS on it
-Too big or bulky
-Isn't 9/40/45
-Too heavy of a trigger
-If I can't shoot well with it
-If it hurts the shooter (hammer bite, slide bite)
-If I can't manage recoil
-Must not have a manual safety. Except my GSR1911, I've had it since 2004 and it's ingrained in my muscle memory. If it's a slide mounted safety, like a S&W Model 39 or a Beretta, then that's a deal breaker for me.

Tony.

Not familiar with the 210s but 'only' 8 rounds or no rail would not be a problem for me. As for the mention of the safety... as with any SAO pistol the safety is designed so that it is big enough to flip down with your thumb at position 4.

I concur with reliability but Let’s not over look ergonomics. A firearm that can’t be grasped quickly & easily under duress with controls that are intuitively manageable..

That Glock has a reputation for reliability is mostly unquestioned, but the reality is that it's just that, a reputation. 1911's have a reputation and yet the reality is reliability isn't one of their better points. With Glocks it's a constant repetition yet they have their issues and Glock catalogues parts to correct their mistakes with unreliable models and even generations.

We do agree that reliability is important, to get that it needs to be easy to maintain. A difficult to clean weapon won't be - and it will get less attention, which directly affects reliability. Case in point, a .38 Snub in an ankle holster - an LEO reached for it in a stress situation and it would not fire. It was filled up with lambs wool. It was not maintained. A lot of revolvers are considered too reliable to fail yet that reputation may actually be detrimental if they aren't maintained at all. The M16 got that bad rap - it was far easier to maintain compared to the M1 or M14, but it certainly wasn't 'No Cleaning Needed' which got inserted into the initial fielding. There is a counterintuitive result to claiming something is reliable, and it leads to abusive neglect.

Strangely missing from this list is how safe the gun is to use. If it leads to a high incidence of negligent discharges then its neither reliable nor welcome, yet we do know of certain makes and models that have issues. Like, the Colt Single Action Army with the hammer down on a loaded cylinder. It led to loading only five for carry. Other autos and pistols the same, which led to revolvers losing the primer pin directly made into the hammer and using a separate one in the breech. Autos with strikers got tilting firing pins or blocks to prevent ND's. DA guns got a 6+ pound trigger and a long pull to prevent discharges too. And Glock REQUIRES a hard sided holster that covers the trigger area completely. Nope, you don't throw one into a gym bag and give it no mind.

This is why the first striker fired guns had thumb safeties, before the 1911 was even on the market. We all choose what we believe to be a safe weapon - first. Over reliable. One that isnt' fails the test right off, if its prone to firing too easily, its "UNreliable." I can think of some that have that reputation over the course of time, and it's why a lot of us avoid them now. Unsafe is unreliable. That is a statement on how easy it is to discharge one, after two centuries of engineering to overcome the lack of a reliable discharge, we now are swinging the pendulum the opposite, trying to make them harder to discharge.

Since handling the gun is the #1 condition that causes ND's, then an ugly unpopular gun is safer. Nobody wants to be seen with it or show it off. We're doing it wrong. [taps forehead thinking]

Is it reliable and do you shoot it well? If no, it's a deal breaker.

Tirod & MWC, I appreciate your thoughtful responses. I think what both of you said is largely forgotten in a discussion of brands and features.

Reliability is so fundamental it’s somewhat like saying that the gun must use fixed cartridges (i.e., not cap and ball) and is chambered for ammunition that’s actually available in one way or another rather than being something that hasn’t been manufactured in the past century. Reliability is fortunately pretty much a given with modern guns these days, but of course not always, and there are the occasional bizarre tales of people putting up with unreliable guns: “Yeah, it works great as long as I don’t limp-wrist it.”

Another aspect of reliability that is usually overlooked is how does it work in “Oh, shit!” situations? One of the things that two agents discovered during the 1986 Miami incident was how difficult to impossible it was to reload a revolver with a wounded hand, and especially with blood and bone fragments clogging up the mechanisms.

Long ago when I was a firm revolver fan I argued with a friend who preferred the 1911 about their respective reliabilities. He admitted that at the time autoloading pistols were subject to more stoppages, but he then pointed out that pistol failures were usually easily corrected, whereas when a revolver had a problem it was more likely to require significant time and effort to fix. That observation has stuck with me for 40+ years because it’s absolutely true. I was reminded of it just a week or so ago with my S&W model 17 at the range.

Beyond the obvious reliability requirement, there are several important factors for me, all of which must be met in no particular order:

“Shootability.” I.e., can I get it into action quickly and confidently and shoot it fast and accurately. That’s a reason why I rely on guns that operate similarly. The P365 has taken over the “most concealable” role from my old J frame S&W revolvers partially for that reason.

Concealability. That varies with the situation and things like the weather, but it must be met under the particular circumstances. And what works while admiring myself in the full length mirror may become unacceptably uncomfortable or inconvenient with even short time carry.

Adequate ballistic effectiveness. Even though any gun and ammunition is better than no gun, only the stunningly ignorant believe there are no variations in how likely it is that different loads will accomplish their self-defense role if necessary. They can’t be too powerful which rules out “real” 357 Magnum loads in a scandium J frame, but one of the reasons I was happy to relegate such revolvers to the safe is that the +P 38 Special ammunition I’m familiar with does not perform as well as even standard pressure 9mm from a short barrel.

And now that Tirod has reminded us, safe carry and handling is important as well. That was one of the things I really liked about the DAK P229 I carried for a very long time and I sometimes wish the P320 was as forgiving of gun handling errors. That’s one of those compromises that are always part of self-defense choices, but how I carry the P320 makes it less of a concern. On the other hand, I wouldn’t carry a P365 as I do without its manual safety as a backup to the other things I do to avoid problems.

An interesting question and one that’s valuable to consider when making our choices.

On top of what others have said, any carry pistol of mine must have POA/POI.

No combat sight picture, no 6 o'clock hold, nope. POA/POI for carry guns.

Snake, being an LSU fan, imagine my surprise when I realized you could write. Your points are spot on and not something I would have thought about. Maybe I should enroll in a shooting school in Ala. and further my education.

1. Reliability
2. Accuracy
3. Lack of holster selection

quote:

Originally posted by Walther Dude:
Snake, being an LSU fan, imagine my surprise when I realized you could write. Your points are spot on and not something I would have thought about. Maybe I should enroll in a shooting school in Ala. and further my education.

that is a comment that was made towards me on another forum about 7 years ago..."if you are going to carry a gun then you should get as much training as you can afford (or more) and keep that training up."

One for me that others don't seem to have a problem with is SA only semi-automatics without a manual safety.

Reliability...first and foremost. It's gotta work right out of the box; this is a design issue and one that the manuf. should/must have addressed this simple fact during testing.

When Sig came out with the P365, I read the reviews, here and elsewhere, sorted through the BS from trolls, and waited almost a year for the Beta testing to finish up. I bought one, have had zero issues with it...& consider it the best, by far, in a crowded field of very compact carry pieces. Mine feeds virtually anything...FMJ, JHP, home cast LSWC's, even an empty brass case on the last round. It's outstanding. Accuracy is hard to believe...see the pic below (posted here before).

So...Reliability...size/ergonomics that fits my hands, holsters and carry regimen, sights for day/night encounters,...accuracy for 15 yd combat shooting...that's what matters to me...YMMv, Rod

10 yards is kind of a joke. I normally shoot my CCW pieces at 27yds at the range to get a feel for their accuracy. I have a lot of subcompacts that feed everything and shoot well. Even my P938.. it out shoots one of my Legions. Reliability is first of course, with accuracy being a close second. Manual of arms is a third. I want to be able to operate the gun easily. But I normally carry two guns and a knife so if one gun goes down I at least have another.

I believe Jerry Jones has had some good posts on reliability in the past. Yes, it's important, but it's also an impossible standard, because the only reliable round is the last one that you fired, that you know worked. Past performance is no guarantee, and that next round, the firing pin may break off (had it happen).

Some firearms are clearly unreliable. Reliably unreliable. Bad choice for carry. Any firearm I carry can malfunction, and it's unreasonable to not plan for that to happen. A regular part of every training session and dry fire session should be malfunction drills.

In my job, I am required to undergo frequent training, and frequent checking and inspection (testing). We really don't train for normal operations: it's assumed we can do our job. All we do when we train, is do malfunctions and emergencies. Period. A lot. Says something...that's where the money gets earned, and in context here of a carry firearm, that's where you save your life.

I couldn't care less about a rail, because while I carry a flashlight, it's not on the firearm. I use the flashlight constantly. I don't draw the firearm outside of training, the range, or dry fire, that much.

I like a carry firearm without a manual safety lever. Personal choice (I have a soft spot for single action firearms, too, so I don't mind riding the safety on a 1911, carried a Beretta for a few years and while not a big fan of double action/single action firearms, the use of the safety/decocker/thingamabob isn't a dealbreaker.

The real deal breaker is one that's not suited to the mission: that being carry that day. What I carry may depend on what I"m wearing, where I'm going, how I intend to carry, etc. Sometimes, I do off-body carry. Sometimes ankle. Sometimes inside the waistband. Most often pocket carry. Not uncommonly, pocket and something else: P365 in the pocket, G32 in the waistband. Not every firearm is suited to the occasion, just as not every method of carry is suited, just as not every firearm is suited to every method of carry...so what suits the occasion determines what's appropriate and what's not.

I don't mind carrying a single stack firearm. Capacity gives a warm and fuzzy...weight can be a concern, space, etc. Single stack, thinner firearms are more comfortable in the waistband, easier to conceal, lay flatter against the body. I loved inside-the-waistband carry with the P239. I'd like to have extra rounds. It may be that when the shooting starts, I get one chance, and there may not be an opportunity to reload: nice to have more rounds in the firearm, than digging the off my belt, pocket, etc. On the other hand, extra magazines are not just about lots of extra bullets...they're about clearing a malfunction, topping off while moving or during a lull, or whatever. Extra rounds make me feel happier, as do bigger and faster bullets...even though they may not matter...I feel better with .357 Sig vs. 9mm, but most often carry 9mm. I get less rounds with .40, but the visceral, non-sensical (maybe emotional) perception that a 9mm case drops into a .40 always makes me feel just a bit better with .40...and .40 drops into .45. Childish, but it is what it is. Most often it's 9mm.

I don't care about the cost of the firearm. I really like my EDCx9, and yes it's three grand, but the damn thing is a tack driver, ergonomic, thus far keeps ticking like a timex, is easy to shoot, has an excellent trigger, and conceals well. That said, the P365 goes with me regardless of whatever else I'm carrying. Big price difference. I don't care. I learned long ago that quality tools are bought once, cheap tools often many times, but cheap tools break when you need them most, and the cost can be one's life when it comes to a defensive firearm. It's not about cost, but unquestionably, indisputably, without argument, about quality. It better hold up, it better shoot, and it better be something I'm going to train with until it's blindfold-familiar in all respects.

It's got to be able to hold up to dry fire. It's got to be safe to carry in whatever mode I choose. I don't carry single action handguns in my pocket, but I do carry the P365...without a manual safety. I've determined it's safe to do so. It's got to be something for which I can get parts readily, including magazines, springs, sights, etc. It's got to have holster availability.

Any of these things might be "deal-breakers," but the conditions are specific to what, when, how, why, etc. The streets of Fallujah (or inner city Detroit) might not cry out for a 5-shot snub-nose revolver on the ankle with no speed loaders. Not appropriate to the moment. I've carried that snubbie to the movies or a concert many times in a pocket or on an ankle (but with reloads). I don't really think in terms of a "deal-breaker, but more what's appropriate to the occasion.

Don’t be a dick. If you can cloverleaf or something similar a small carry gun at 10 yards it is more than up to the task regarding accuracy. Somebody could come in and tell you your 27 yard test is a joke. If it can’t group at 50 yards like a Baer guarantee you and your gun are laughable.

I think you missed your calling, the can you make a headshot in a hostage situation thread. SMDH.