quote:

Your opinion would be different if you worked at a place with a no weapons policy, like most people do.

Granted now that I work at a gun shop, carrying is something of a given with little in the way of limits. But in my previous professional life I've worked at firms where weapons of any kind were verboten, yet I still chose to discreetly carry a G19 (and later a G23) anyways. My personal safety (and the safety of those immediately around my desk who have mostly become friends) takes precedence, period. If it had cost me my job then so be it. But that never happened, though I did have to consciously work at it. Admittedly it wasn't always easy and at one company I was pretty sure that one manager figured out that I was regularly 'packing', but I too was fairly certain that he also was always carrying as well. Nothing was ever said and when I left that company it was on good terms, with even an open offer to come back in the future should I change my mind.

I suppose if a suitable lightweight single stack had been available at the time I could've been enticed to go in a different direction instead of choosing a G19 back in 1989-90. Had I been willing I suppose I could've gone for a P7, M39 (ASP), P5 Compact or something else of that size, but "large capacity" in a relatively compact and light handgun was too compelling and intoxicating, at a time when such thinking and actual variety of product wasn't particularly widespread or common. Ironically as I look back on the era, I tend to think of the G19 as the late 1980s personification of today's P365. Certainly it's not as small or as light, but its firepower was only matched or exceeded by guns that were much larger, heavier or both. Sound familiar? Kind of what the P365 does when compared to chubbier and chunkier offerings like the VP9SK or the G26.

The comments in the thread about shootability and personal performance also dictates my preference for a larger firearm. I can shoot a G43 pretty well...when I'm going relatively slow and easy. Pick up the pace and its recoil quickly begins overriding over my ability to shoot for effective results. I don't see that as being a good thing when 6+1 is all that the gun holds. Setting one's self up to being more likely to miss...that's not exactly what I want. I too don't wish on a prolonged gun battle, but when is having more firepower at your disposal really considered "too much" or a detriment, other than by gun-fearing libtards and others of their ilk? I'm good with the 13+1 that my G23 has all without having to do a reload, or the need to carry an extra mag (though on rare occasion in-town I will do so anyways).

I also have long believed that carry 'comfort' itself is seriously overrated, especially when taken to the extreme by those obsessed with finding that gun with the "perfect fit" for as many occasions and circumstances possible. For me, my psychological 'comfort' overrides any considerations of the physical side, firstly in weighing personal performance and also in the amount of available firepower. Having a gun seem and feel as if it 'disappears' on me is not what I consider proper 'comfort'. I may be in a group of one but I LIKE that my G23 reminds me that it's there at the ready. But I should add that I've worn a compact Glock for so many years that it's sort of become a natural piece of me. But as such, to what end should I need a change?

I get it that each person has their own tolerance point when it comes to physical comfort levels, and that this includes all the gear and accoutrements that come with daily life, including the choice of firearm. But there's a side of me that doesn't get why carrying a G19-size firearm is so bloody hard when I've been able to do it for nearly three decades of nearly always daily, 10-to-15-hour wear. Perhaps for someone who's smaller it would be a near impossible challenge. But for someone near my 5'-8" height, 180 lb frame, and those proportionally larger, it often puzzles me. Many a customer do come in and claim that 'it's impossible'. Of course I'm more than happen to oblige their whims (since I AM in the retail gun biz, after all), but it's still a source of puzzlement and even amusement.

As for carry around the house: I do most days continue to wear my G23 until it's time to prep for bed. If I feel like hitting the lounger after a long day then I'll take the Glock out of its IWB holster and set it in the old cigar box on the stand next to the chair (I've got no younglings to fret over). In that scenario a thin gun would make no difference; I'd still unholster it to keep beside me, just so nothing untoward happens if I nod off. I'm also at ease with my EDC being my homestead defender as well. I'm not as tolerant of the notion of my G43 or PPS M2 doing the same role when size is no longer a limiting issue.

So to your opening premise, these are the points as to why I don't understand care for this crusade of thin, limiting handguns. Everyone else's mileage may (and usually does) vary.

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I do not understand the appeal of thin guns. With one caveat. If you are pocket carrying because it is your only option. The newer XDS sized Glocks really have no appeal to me. I don't want to piss people that choose small guns off, but it is the honest answer to the question asked.

Your opinion would be different if you worked at a place with a no weapons policy, like most people do.

No my opinion doesn't change. Because my opinion is driven by actually shooting the gun, and not vogue carry concerns to make excuses for this or that gun.

Please provide the date, time, lighting conditions, number of suspects, number of rounds fired of your NEXT gunfight. Until you can do that, this idea of statistical gunfighting is just pairing one set of statistics to suit a belief.

There are times I ankle carry a j frame .357. In the winter I’ll have an extra 5 rounds in a moonclip in my coat pocket, but in summer I don’t have any extra rounds. It would most certainly suck if I had to confront a group of attackers or an active shooter with those 5 or ten rounds out of a jframe.

Yesterday I carried my G45 all day just in light of this thread. I carry appendix, so with an untucked button down on casual Friday it conceals with ease. It certainly wasn’t as comfortable as the G43 I carried the previous day, but if I was forced in a situation of mutktiple attackers or an active shooter, I’d feel a lot better with my 35 rounds of 9mm.

But still the premise of my thread is that some folks say a thin 43 carries no different than a fat 26. That’s what I can’t get my head around. If someone says the thicker gun is worth it for capacity and shootability, so be it, that’s a personal choice that I fully understand.

I understand what jljones and some others are saying. Unquestionably a bigger gun, with more capacity, maybe a weapon mounted light, etc. shoots better. If I was forced into an engagement with multiple folks, better trained folks, etc. then I would definitely rather have my duty Glock 19 than my backup Glock 43. Having said that, I'll add the psychological survival element to the package. I carry a gun everywhere I go. I carry on an airplane, I carry on the street, I carry to the mall or the grocery store and I even carry a gun a bunch of places that even other police officers are not allowed to carry a gun. After a while it gets old and frankly exhausting to always be "ready to go." Sometimes I want to be, NEED to be, a regular Joe. That's means I want to dress with jeans and a tucked in shirt without carrying in some Rube Goldberg carry mechanism that either has some complicated method of accessing the firearm, or is uncomfortable. I don't want to wear 5.11 pants or some outfit that makes me look like I've got even more extra pounds around the waist. I already look like a cop, stand like a cop, and generally act like a cop, sometimes I don't want to dress like one too.

So in deference to my psychological survival and need to be occasionally "turned off" I gladly carry a lesser firearm. I realize that I am taking some additional risk by carrying a platform with less capacity and less "fightability" but I'm still able to hit quickly and engage multiple targets with my Glock 43. I probably wouldn't want to have to deal with more than 2 or 3 targets with my gun and reload, but I'm willing to take that risk. I rarely change my clothes after I come home from work during the week so that means I normally carry my Glock 19 during the week. However it's nice to be able to carry my 43 on the weekends, even if doing so makes me a little more at risk. I think the benefit of being able to carry something comfortable, while dressing comfortable outweighs the cost. The benefit to guns like the 43x and 48, at least in my opinion are that they are unquestionably more shootable than a 43, but are definitely more comfortable to carry, at least to some people, than their double stack counterparts. They give some people more options and if the 48 was added to the list of personally allowed weapons that I could carry, I would definitely add it to my list. I would definitely still want the 43 but it would be nice to have a thinner, easier to carry grip than my 19 for other times where I could comfortably conceal the larger overall size but didn't want the added "tumor on my side" feeling that I get with carrying double stack guns with certain outfits.

This has been a good thread with some excellent points. I would like to add that while the discussion and comparison between “thin guns” and Double stack guns” and their shoot ability; I think we need to acknowledge that most thin guns are also small guns. I don’t think mist people would argue agenst a 1911 being a suitable fighting gun. So to be a true comparison, I think one must look at comparable sized guns. I would love to see a truly accomplished shooter like Mr. Jones shoot a G19 and a G48 side by side at speed to see exactly what if any handicap truest exists.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BB61:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jljones:

It's about grip contact and weight, really. When the P320 came out, it was easy to experiment with the different grip module sizes. A set of standardized drills at 10 yards out to 25 yards. What we found was "average" size hands did better with the large grip modules instead of the small or medium. This was because a full thumbs forward grip gave you more surface area to leverage the pistol. Up till this point, even with me, conventional logic had been smaller is better. You look at a lot of the competition P320s out there, and some of the top dogs are running large modules that are even more built up in width.

With the slim line pistol, you just don't have the surface area to leverage. The lighter weight makes it even more problematic and compounds the recoil/driving equation.

Thanks. Not surprisingly, my favorite CCW gun, the HK P7 PSP, is not much smaller than a Glock 19 G3 when I looked things up (Focusing only on grip surface area). And, the P7 is the gun I shoot the best. Hmmmm. Things to consider.

I voted "only when I leave the house". Has been a G26-27 for years because I haven't won a G43 yet.
(LCP and G42 are for very rare times I pocket carry because I HATE pocket carry)

Inside the house there are MUCH better options on hand than a handgun -> the *real* stopper loaded with buckshot.

a ton of the 'discourse' on the internet can be summed up in two variations:

'STOP LIKING what I don't like !!!"

-and-

another variation is a guy asks for feedback and gets animated / chagrined / butthurt when people don't tell him what he wanted to hear. (in other words - his mind was already made up...)

will likely always be that way - human nature being what it is.


-----------------------------------------------

I started carrying in Florida when concealed meant concealed and you could be arrested for brandishing if any part of your gun was visible. I got a good deal on a Kahr P9, it fits my hand perfectly, is light and accurate. I got an IWB holster and been carrying it daily since. I've tried carrying "full sized" and double stacks. I found out they were either heavy, difficult to conceal, or both. But they are easier to shoot. Which is why I use them in competition. I understand there are tradeoffs, and I am at ease with my decision. Others have made the opposite decision and are ok with it. They just don't understand my decision and think that I, and others like me, are wrong.

I bet the G48 is going to be a shooter. I would like to see side by side with a G26 which one is better in a 10 round config. About 5% of the time I ave to actually use a tuckable holster. The g26, p2000sk, was a big bulge and my wife says I look deformed. The G43 with Taran +2 is unnoticeable tucked. I can’t wait.

What I don’t understand is why people act pissed when Glock puts out something different. They act like they are going to discontinue the older stand byes. I have a G19 and love it. Not gonna get rid of it. I have a G43 that I like, not gonna get rid of it. I’ll also have a G48 and love it also. I’m getting one sight unseen with full confidence.

I'm a bigger dude 5'8 and 240 lb with a powerlifter/bodybuilder build. I haven't carried a double stack gun in many many years. I used to carry my P228 in a versa max2 or comp tac holster and while it was very comfortable for me I always felt like I had a brick on my hip. Being built like a tree stump you would think I wouldn't mind carrying a double stack gun. Well I don't enjoy it, I only prefer single stack guns now. It's more comfortable for me and single stacks really huge your body IMO. Along with just moving around easier during the day. Sometimes I forget my gun is even on my hip sometimes, some of you know what I mean....
I do 40-50 mile bike rides and tap my hip at times because it feels like my gun isn't on my hip anymore, I'm BS you either. Single stacks just disappear and they aren't heavy or cumbersome.
I started with the following single stacks

1. Kahr PM9
2. PPS M2
3. Current carry piece-->PPS M1 in .40

If I was ever going to revert back to a double stack it would be my CZ P-01, awesome little shooter in my hands but I don't want to carry it.

quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar:

But still the premise of my thread is that some folks say a thin 43 carries no different than a fat 26. That’s what I can’t get my head around. If someone says the thicker gun is worth it for capacity and shootability, so be it, that’s a personal choice that I fully understand.

For some the difference is just that minimal. Carrying at 3-4 for me it wasn’t that big of a difference at all. AIWB it certainly was, massive difference to me. A lot of variables involved. Body type, weight, how they are carrying each, how many hours a day, etc. It’s a mixed bag. What never gets the importance or spot light is body type and what kind of shape you are in. Then there is just flat out personal preference. I’ve talked to people, some on here, where the difference between the 26 and 19 isn’t anything to them so they carry a 19. For me it was always a bigger difference between those 2. Looks like you’ve got the same deal going on with some, where the 43 and 26 difference isn’t shit to them. This is just the same exact thing with the smaller Glocks. I know if I was still using Glocks the 43 would be history in favor of this 10rd version. With a reload that’s 21 instead of what 13? And just like the 43 there will be +1 or +2 baseplates on the market in no time. I don’t think pistols are moving as fast as they did under the Democrat so Glock is just nailing down every niche they can to keep pushing them out of the factory. Wasn’t long ago where the 26 was the smallest 9mm they offered. Now the 43 and the 43X.

I carry every day, all day. I'm definitely NOT "husky," as I've got a 33" waist (trying to get back to the 32" I was a year ago), and I'm 5'10" tall.

I have no use for a gun that has a grip the length of G19, but is single stack.

I have no use for a gun that has a grip the length of a G26, and is single stack.

I carry a G19 at "3 o'clock" (not "3:30" or "4"), and have no issues concealing the gun. Same for the G27 I used to carry.

The 0.27" difference in thickness between the double stacks v. the single stacks doesn't make any noticeable difference in the ability to carry/conceal those guns.

Obviously opinions vary, but that's mine, based on carrying concealed all day, every day, for a long time, from a guy who is NOT "husky."

I EDC a Glock 19. Have four of them currently. But I am waiting to see, handle, and shoot the 48, why?

The grip circumference.

For me the Glock 19, Gen 4 with the smallest grip option works well - but if it was smaller, it would be nicer. I really want to check out one of the 48s and see how it SHOOTS - compared to the 19. If it is as controllable for multiple shoots on target at speed - it might be time to change guns.

If not, I think a grip reduction on a couple of my 19s might be in the works. One of my clients just got back a Robar grip reduction Glock 19 and showed it to me - I liked it.

Time will tell. Oh, the capacity of 15 or 10 really doesn't matter to me, I've carried single stacks before with 6-7-8 round mags, so 10 is a "hi-cap" as far as I am concerned.

Having options is nice.

I like thin, full sized guns. I carry a P-220 DAK most of the time now, for some weird reason it conceals very well, while my P-228 or 229s grip prints...