Carry "Lesser" Gun Due to Potential LE Confiscation...

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PT-92

New member
I read and hear more people of late saying that they carry a gun that is not perhaps their most capable piece but a Less Expensive firearm instead...Of course, the argument here is why would one carry their higher-end HK, SIG, Ruger, S&W, Colt etc. as their primary CCW (even though they feel it would be a better choice "in a perfect world" when needed in a life or death situation) when there exists a possibility said gun could potentially be confiscated by LE for evidence while the shooting is being investigated.

Just curious as to whether or not this is perhaps more "mainstream" than I realize...?

Of course, one of the caveats here is the "subjective" nature of the word "expensive" but that is maybe a topic for another time...Me, I carry a Glock 26 (I do not consider it "expensive" relatively speaking) but do so solely due to its merits. I own more than a handful of handguns but not one >$1K--maybe my thought process might change if I felt the gun I was most competent with and provided the best chance for survival were say a $1200 HK45 but I honestly do not think so...

--Happy New Year
 
Of the men I know who have had to use their guns in a self defense shooting, none were "confiscated for evidence."

No charges were filed at the time of the shooting and immediate investigation. And the gun involved was admittedly used, so no proof of use was necessary. They were disarmed during the investigation, but their gun was returned when they were released.

These were in Tennessee. States vary.

Bob Wright
 
Deciding to carry a gun you might not shoot as well or might not work as well for defensive carry considerations because of some possible confiscation that might occur AFTER a shooting is very poor reasoning.

You carry what works best for carry and defending your life. If it is in inexpensive Ruger or a high end 1911 does not matter if it is what is best for you. If you carry something with which you are less proficient and that results in you being dead or facing crippling hospital expenses as a result, does the temporary confiscation issue sound like a reasonable consideration anymore?

I carry a WC CQB most of the time and have for about 12 years. 1911s in general are what I shoot best. When I need to be more concealed and go with a smaller gun, it is a Springfield EMP, but it is still a 1911.
 
Felt like I split the difference with my PT145. Good CC and console piece and shoots very well. 11, 185 Golden Sabres is nice.
 
Common sense. I would carry this:

PPK222_zps8c97efc9.jpg


I would not carry this:

IMG_1612.jpg


This, yes:

ColtGovt2.jpg


This, no:

rm2s.jpg


If it has sentimental value or collector, why carry it?

But I wouldn't think twice about carrying a $1000 gun. If it saves your life, who cares what it cost, it's a tool.
 
All the more reason to carry a Glock. If you have to give it up, you can go out and find one that looks just like it to replace it. The fact that they are accurate, reliable, and durable is just icing on the cake. The toughest part of a Glock is choosing your caliber. :)
 
All the more reason to carry a Glock. If you have to give it up, you can go out and find one that looks just like it to replace it. The fact that they are accurate, reliable, and durable is just icing on the cake. The toughest part of a Glock is choosing your caliber.
Click to expand...

But mine is a beautiful OD green snowflake. :p
 
Whether I'm carrying my XDm .45 or my XD-S .45, I don't even think about it. Neither is special or modified beyond a set of night sights, either can easily be replaced by another one just like it.

I wouldn't carry anything highly customized or collectable, but that doesn't reduce the effectiveness of what I am carrying, both have proven to be accurate and reliable for me and they are what I train with, and very close to what I compete with (XDm 9mm full size) so all of my "muscle memory" is built into them as well.
 
Are we talking about guns or fashion accessories?

No matter how pretty or expensive, the gun serves a purpose. That is to stop a threat I can't address in any other fashion. If the weapon that does that reliably happens to be an expensive one, so be it.

Things can be replaced.
 
I carry a handgun as a weapon for self defense. I also own handguns and appreciate them as examples of fine craftsmanship. Do I own some handguns that would leave me very upset if they spent a year or three in police custody and I ultimately got back a rusty, scratched, heavily abused chunk of metal when I had been carrying a fairly pristine example of the gun makers' art? You betcha.

Consequently, although I carry handguns that are the same make and type as my "good" guns, the ones I carry were bought used, the finish is less pristine than on the "good" guns, and the monteray and sentimental value are both far less. In short, I don't carry guns in which I have any emotional investment.

But the guns I carry work the same as the "good" guns and are reliable. If anything, the cheaper "carry" guns are MORE reliable, because I rely on them to protect my life, and because I shoot them more often than I shoot the safe queens.
 
This is like leaving the door unlocked so the bad guy doesn't break it on the way in.
I understand that you don't want to get something you really like taken away, being dead would be a bummer too. Use what works best for you, price is not the main concern.
 
If forced into a self defense situation, the potential loss and cost of my pistol is going to be the least of my concerns.
 
I'd happily trade the permanent loss of a $5,000+ 1911 for my life. I will always choose the weapon in my stable that I can use the best and carry the best in a particular situation. Price is not a consideration.

Honestly, I think it's a non-issue created mostly by too much internet chatter.
 
Great Topic! I have a co-worker that regularly carries a handgun that is, let's just say, less than reliable. His logic is that IF he ever has to use a firearm to defend himself, he doesn't want to have his Glock 23 confiscated :eek: I remind him on a regular basis, that with the gun he chooses to carry, he may not live to enjoy it anyway.
 
Me, I carry a Glock 26 (I do not consider it "expensive" relatively speaking) but do so solely due to its merits.
Click to expand...

I carry a SIG RCS or a SIG P229 due solely to their merits and feel the same way - I don't consider either to be expensive.
 
I usually carry a Kahr K9 that I've put a lot of work into, cerakoting the frame and many hours polishing the slide towards mirror. Soon to have an elite trigger put in. I like carrying the gun that I've put work into and love looking at when I put it away every day, and if I ever have to shoot it in defense and it happens to be confiscated then it will have led a full life of admiration and final duty.

Just about anything you can carry can be replaced with the same, even if its expensive. I would think if it goes all the way towards confiscation, and then a trial, you'd eventually be able to reclaim it after the red tape when you win a defense case. If you lose, you won't need to replace it anytime soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top