Does your "go to war" carry differ from your EDC? Why??

[Old Bill Dibble]

Only if it were significantly less expensive.

Otherwise, both are reliable semi-autos that serve the need (slinging 9mm pills).

Well no.

The M&P is lighter, smaller and has an adjustable back strap, all making it more ergonomic than the brick like M9. It makes it easier for females with smaller hands to shoot more accurately. Also makes it easier to carry reducing solider load out weight.

The M&P also has a rail for mounting a light or other accessory, is easier to work on and is more weather resistant.

But it is cheaper anyway. I don't know what a mi-spec bid edition would look like but as is, I routinely see them for under $400 with three magazines. The M9 is about $600.


The M9 was a fine pistol in it's day. That day was the 80s. When reliable polymers came out they immediately starting showing age for police and military work.

 

[peggysue]

I have a lot of nurf guns to go to war with!!! Some are full auto too. Have a mean bubble pistols that shoots full auto too. Bring it on.

 

[Brit]

Tunnel Rat.

Understood. I have two G19s myself, both set up identically. I beat up on one at the range and during training and the other one is what gets carried and used by the bed (it has ~1000 rds through it and gets shot for function testing every so often).

Exactly my setup, plus a spare G17 mag.

 

[chuckscap]

My daily (almost) carry is a Springfield Pro. I don't see any reason to change. My oldest son favors an M&P 9mm (due to his experience in the Rangers and of course he's waiting to inherit my Springfield Pro lol). My youngest son likes his G36. Then of course there are our rifles, too many to list

 

[Fishbed77]

Well no.

The M&P is lighter, smaller and has an adjustable back strap, all making it more ergonomic than the brick like M9. It makes it easier for females with smaller hands to shoot more accurately. Also makes it easier to carry reducing solider load out weight.

The M&P also has a rail for mounting a light or other accessory, is easier to work on and is more weather resistant.

But it is cheaper anyway. I don't know what a mi-spec bid edition would look like but as is, I routinely see them for under $400 with three magazines. The M9 is about $600.


The M9 was a fine pistol in it's day. That day was the 80s. When reliable polymers came out they immediately starting showing age for police and military work.

You said "The M&P would be worlds ahead of the M9. " To me that implies it would be significantly better in its assigned role.

It is not.

It carries and fires a similar number of 9mm rounds with practically identical performance and reliability when used in the same role of last-ditch defensive weapon.

Everything you mention are incremental improvements at best (and some are potentially detrimental or of no consequence, such as adjustable backstraps, which would only add more parts and complexity to the supply pipeline, or a light rail for pistols that are issued without weaponlights), and don't justify replacement of a system that is practically inconsequential to modern warfare unless there are significant cost savings to be realized.

Also, the civilian consumer market prices you mention have no bearing whatsoever on government contract pricing, nor do they take into consideration the replacement of existing holsters, accessories, parts, training, armory support, and other logistical concerns already established with the M9 program.

.

 

[Rangerrich99]

Okay, I'll play. My usual EDC is a S&W Shield in 9mm. I carry it as opposed to something else because it's 100% reliable (at least through 700 rds), reasonably 'combat' accurate, fits my hand pretty well, and is easily concealed. I especially like its slim profile, which seems to really reduce printing. If it has any drawback at all, it's capacity. At only 8 rds, I usually opt to carry a spare mag.

I don't live or work in risky areas, so I've felt that the Shield was enough gun for my daily needs.

On the other hand, if I knew I was going to be in a gunfight tomorrow with an unknown number of assailants, while going about my daily business, I'd probably walk out the door with my Sig P229. Besides it's larger capacity, better sights, better trigger and larger bullets, I can shoot the thing faster and more accurately than my Shield. Or any of my other semis, for that matter, with the exception of my 1911. And again there's that issue of capacity.

So if I understand the OP's question correctly, why wouldn't I just carry a little larger gun with better sights, trigger, and more capacity? Well, I guess for me size matters. I'm a medium-sized person living in a desert. For over half the year it's over a hundred degrees, and for a couple months of that it's over a hundred AFTER midnight. Consequently, you wear the lightest and least amount of clothes you can get away with, depending on circumstances. So concealing a full-size gun for my frame is just very difficult. Which is why I carry a Shield.

 

[Aikibiker]

Also, the civilian consumer market prices you mention have no bearing whatsoever on government contract pricing, nor do they take into consideration the replacement of existing holsters, accessories, parts, training, armory support, and other logistical concerns already established with the M9 program.

Per unit price on the M9A1 is in the neighborhood of $640. That is close to the per unit price my company paid for our M92FS pistols in Kuwait. Our M4's (with fixed carry handles) were around $950, but I can't remember the exact numbers. The M249's were very pricey.

That price seems like an easy mark to beat for Glock or S&W since their LEO pricing including support services and parts are already well below that price point. Not sure about Ruger.

Having run an arms room I understand your comments about the interchangeable backstraps. I have a feeling the Glock will have an edge there since the smallest backstrap is is simply no backstrap at all, while on the M&P it is an actual piece added o the frame of the pistol. At least if Joe loses the backstraps for his Glock the pistol would still be functional. Either way it sounds like a pain in the rear and I foresee arms rooms with ammo cans full of backstraps that have to be accounted for at least once a month.

 

[CDW4ME]

I don't live or work in risky areas

Its convenient that criminals, psychos, ect... are immobile.

 

[Sharkbite]

To the OP's question.

I view the EDC concealed pistol like a fire extinguisher. Convenient to have at hand for emergencies, but not what you want if you know the house is going to burst into flames.

For that you need a fire TRUCK.

So, your EDC is a compromise between concealability/comfort and fight stopping ability.

If you KNOW there is going to be trouble (and cant avoid it)...dont rely on ANY handgun. Take the firetruck (rifle)

 

[Old Bill Dibble]

Everything you mention are incremental improvements at best (and some are potentially detrimental or of no consequence, such as adjustable backstraps, which would only add more parts and complexity to the supply pipeline, or a light rail for pistols that are issued without weaponlights),

Pistols are issued without weapons lights today because they are impractical without a rail. Kind of like when the military didn't have rails on their rifles. Now that they have rails on their rifles practically everyone has a light. This is much better for a lot of reasons.

Backstraps are nice because people have different sized hands. Females especially with small hands tend to take an unfair beating due to their difficulty in qualifying with a gun that is too large for their hands. I don't see how it would add anything significant to the complexity of the supply line. It is simply another part that won't need to be ordered much. Make it class IX and it won't even have to be counted monthly.

Everything you mention are incremental improvements at best

Right. However a bunch of incremental improvements often add up to a large overall improvement.

and don't justify replacement of a system that is practically inconsequential to modern warfare unless there are significant cost savings to be realized.

Well that is your opinion and a valid one. For the less than the cost of one F35 we could replace every pistol in the US military inventory and still have a lot of money left over. I think one more F35 is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

 

[IMightBeWrong]

My carry pistol is chosen based on how I will be dressed. If I want to wear clothes that fit correctly rather than baggy, super-casual stuff, I'll wear something small like my new PPS M2. If I want to wear loose fitting stuff, I'll carry my P226. War has nothing to do with it. I would sooner retreat that's fight a large group of large assailants on my own.

 

[chaim]

Most people seemed to answer the question based upon a literal reading of the OP's "go to war," which is, of course, reasonable. However, since he started talking about EDC, I'm going to answer along the lines of those who are assuming that by "go to war" he means 'if you knew that today is the day you'll actually need it'.

I live in MD so I don't have an EDC (I'm a teacher so I can't even EDC a knife and pepper spray without risking becoming a felon if caught). However, when out of state (in most states) I can carry based on my UT non-resident permit. When I carry I have several guns I might carry, but 90% of the time it is either my SIG P290RS or my .45ACP SIG P250 Compact. In a typical self defense situation (one or two attackers) I'd feel pretty comfortable with both. The P290 is much more accurate than such a small gun has a right to be, and the P250 Compact is almost a full-sized gun. The 6+1 or 8+1 rounds of 9mm (depending if I go flush or extended mag) in the P290 should be adequate for a typical 1-2 attacker situation (even with "combat" and not range accuracy) and the 9+1 rounds of .45ACP in my P250 is enough for me to be fully confident in my gun in most typical self-defense situations.

That said, if I knew for sure today was the day, I would probably not carry my typical. I'd carry something small and easily concealable if I was home in MD (it would need to be very concealable since it would be illegal and I wouldn't want to be arrested before the situation even happened, but if I knew an attack was coming today and I couldn't avoid it by staying home, I'd rather have something than nothing). If I was carrying out of state and knew in advance today is the day, I'd probably be comfortable with the P250, but I'd rather have a little more capacity in case it wasn't a typical 1-2 attacker situation (which is why I'm in the market for a 10-15 round .40S&W, with the ability to reload with full size/capacity mags, in a similar sized gun).


Disclaimer:
Now, there have been a few 'don't you think you need more capacity' threads lately (maybe more than usual, maybe I'm just noticing them more since I have lately changed my own thinking to be along those lines), and my reading, and thus answer, for this one is along those lines. While I have decided for myself too that I'd rather have more rounds, I don't think that is necessarily the right answer for everyone and we all need to make our own decisions. It is better to have a gun than no gun. If a bigger and heavier gun means you won't always carry (or worse, often won't), then by all means smaller is better for you. In most cases, we will never need our gun, and if we do, in most cases 5-6 shot capacity will be more than enough (this is why I sometimes feel comfortable carrying a 6 shot revolver in .45LC or .357mag). While some of us have decided (at least most of the time in my case) that more capacity is better, we all need to decide our own limits. A bigger gun is larger and heavier. It may be more capable, but it may not be the best choice for everyone at all times. So, please don't read into anything that I say that I in any way think anyone else should change their choices and make the same decision that I do.

 

[SauerGrapes]

I took your meaning as needing the weapon that day. Would I change guns? Maybe. Especially if it was my J-frame which I usually carry when I walk the dog. My edc carry would not leave me in a lurch. {sig239 or s&w3904}

4 or 5 armed morons, I'm probably dead no matter what.

 

[Will Beararms]

The Glock 17/22 platform without a back strap sleeve is amazingly concealable under a polo shirt. I am shocked at how well my Generation 4 Glock 22 conceals.

 

[Rangerrich99]

Quote:
I don't live or work in risky areas

Its convenient that criminals, psychos, ect... are immobile.

Well, I never thought of it that way, but you're right, it is very convenient that criminals/psychos/bad guys are immobile.

And here all this time I thought the multiple levels of security just to get to the front door at work or into my neighborhood had something to do with it. Good catch.

 

[Fishbed77]

Pistols are issued without weapons lights today because they are impractical without a rail. Kind of like when the military didn't have rails on their rifles. Now that they have rails on their rifles practically everyone has a light. This is much better for a lot of reasons.

M9s are issued without weaponlights because, for the vast majority of users, they are last-ditch defensive (as opposed to offensive) weapons for which weaponlights are unnecessary and just constitute additional weight, bulk, and complexity. For those units who have a need for pistol weaponlights (i.e. are likely to be using pistols in an offensive role), plenty of options exist in the inventory, including the M9A1 adopted by the USMC.

Backstraps are nice because people have different sized hands. Females especially with small hands tend to take an unfair beating due to their difficulty in qualifying with a gun that is too large for their hands. I don't see how it would add anything significant to the complexity of the supply line. It is simply another part that won't need to be ordered much. Make it class IX and it won't even have to be counted monthly.

They may be "nice" but do not constitute replacement of an entire weapons system for all the reasons previously mentioned.

And you're right - they probably won't be ordered much, because when soldiers inevitably lose or break them, they won't be replaced, and you'll end up with a confusing mishmash of differently configured pistols.

Right. However a bunch of incremental improvements often add up to a large overall improvement.

No. Incremental means incremental. And as previously mentioned, most of these incremental improvements are of questionable value to a standard military service pistol.

Well that is your opinion and a valid one. For the less than the cost of one F35 we could replace every pistol in the US military inventory and still have a lot of money left over. I think one more F35 is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

This isn't an opinion. One F-35 may be seemingly inconsequential. A fleet of them is not. And, unlike handguns, air power has a tremendously consequential effect on the outcome of modern conflicts, and is critical to the capability of the US military to conduct its mission.

Besides, many of the aircraft the F-35 will be replacing have been in service much longer than the M9 pistol.

You can argue until you are blue in the face that the "the M&P would be worlds ahead of the M9," but it simply is not true unless purchasing them could be proven to save a considerable amount of money over the M9 and its established infrastructure.

.

 

[Pilot]

I prefer carry vs. home defense gun comparisons, as I don't plan on attending a war. For carry it is usually a CZ-75D PCR which can also double as an HD and range gun. However, I typically use a full size CZ-75 pre B, or 75B for home defense backed up by an M1 Carbine and Colt LE6920/M4.

 

[scoobysnacker]

To the OP- yes, there are different circumstances.

I live in south Louisiana. During regular times, if I were to CCW, it would be something small; for example something like a surplus Polish P64. Small, compact pistol holding 6 rds of an acceptable (for me) caliber, 9x18 makarov. It's operated reliably, it is small enough to slip inside a pocket if need be, in fact it's my smallest centerfire pistol.
I'm just into collecting and shooting for fun, and during such times, I've never felt I HAD to CCW. The closest I do is carry inside my vehicle, and that would tend to be a CZ-82; again a 9x18 Mak pistol, a bit larger but still fairly small, 12 rd magazine. It's there in the event I have to stop in parts of town I normally would avoid; car problems, etc. Because of the layout of the city, I do have to cross some rough areas to travel from my house to most destinations, so it is an unavoidable possibility. One I've never had to defend myself in, thankfully.

We currently are still a disaster area after the floods, and I also remember how things were whenever hurricanes hit.
In the Post-Katrina time period, people were angry and not particularly law-abiding across all segments of society (to say it in a polite way). People would flip you off and curse you, just because you drove past them in the street. Generators that were running on houses would walk off, if they weren't chained to the house securely. Many folks had lost everything, and/or had their treasures lying out in the open to try to salvage.
During such times as this, I do sometimes feel the need to carry, and it is open. Fullsize CZ 75, Beretta 92 or similar, in a good retention belt holster, and sometimes 12 gauge pump with an 18 inch barrel close at hand. An AR wouldn't be out of place, instead of the shotgun. Not for going to the store, but for reminding the wandering 2 legged stray dogs that my property isn't easy pickings.
The firearm I choose in this case is larger (as I said, fullsized), will carry a full 18+ rds of 9mm JHP that I've confirmed it feeds well, is clearly visible and recognizable (and hopefully a deterrent to random stragglers who are looking for easy targets), and I have already determined I can shoot accurately, quickly, and with no problems. Regarding the weight, it's no heavier than any number of other tool I may have on a belt at this time.

This still isn't "going to war", but it's a big step above normalcy... and it unfortunately does happen at times.

 

[michael t]

If they start using us sixty year old gents to 'go to war'

You young ones go to war . Us real senior citizens will stay home and guard the ladies

 

[tipoc]

From "We the people" ;

I have held off on making further replies here because only a few here understood that the phrase "going to war" was an expression only. Others simply jumped on the bandwagon that this was a literal statement. As I stated - Combat, in any setting, is as ugly as it's unpredictable.

Make no mistake - an armed encounter IS close quarters combat. The term applies. Also, it's a term we must grow comfortable with as legal concealed carriers. Being underprepared to defeat an armed threat is not an option. We would potentially be doing more harm than good. The flip side to this is arming ourselves to the point that might easily be seen as unreasonable. Also, not an option.. We are not vigilantes and cannot be perceived this way.

However, returning to the central point, it pays to consider that 'bad guys (often) have backup'. This means that the threat that is immediately confronting you is greater and more dynamic than you might envision. When threatened by one or more armed assailants, you are already at a significant disadvantage. To counter such a threat, our EDC and possible backup MUST be up to be up to the task. My argument here is that we might factor this kind of information in when deciding on our EDC gear - Spring, Summer, Winter and Fall...

Well I was thinking the there was a lot of melodrama and hyperbole in the above post, 2 or 3 times I stood and saluted, and so I waited for the recommendation that I carry 2 or 3 pieces, a couple of tactical knives, a kubotan, a neck knife, a Surefire strobeing flashlight and all that in one pocket.

But when the op got to his choices he was pretty good, he said...

...For my money, a Glock 19 or Glock 23 (or similar Weapon) would suffice at least three seasons out of the year. Preferred backup is a G43 in a pocket holster. I also have carried an old S&W Airweight as a back up - Never as primary. Back up is optional but not a terrible idea. Sometimes, you might be able to reach only for your smaller backup - depending on how and where you carry - when the chips are down.

Not too far from practical.

Risk assessment, it's an important skill. Takes some time to acquire it. The internet is not a good instructor of it.

tipoc