We all have a closet full of holsters that did not work out. Makes me wonder how much money the holster industry makes off of that?
Ever notice that holster companies don't offer refunds so you can try it and see if you like it, and then get your money back instead of throwing it in a box if it doesn't work for you?
Anyway, I started with a Glock 19 many many years ago. Since then I have tried to find the perfect gun, and tried to find the perfect caliber, and the perfect holster etc. I have tried them all, going round and round, every carry method, every caliber, every gun in every brand. And...years later and thousands of dollars spent, and hundreds of hours figuring out ballistics charts and studies, it seems that I am basically back where I started.
After all of that, I am pretty much finding that my favorite and most trusted guns are my Glock 19 and a Glock 30. I still end up carrying my old style, beat up, reliable Glock 19 most of the time even though I like the Glock 30 a little better. The Glock 19 (the very first gun I ever bought) just works for me, and it always has.
Did anyone else pretty much get it right the first time and wonder why they have spent so much money, thought and time to persuing the perfect gun and caliber etc?
Don't you feel like you would have been so much better off if you had just stuck with your first choice of gun and caliber, and just spent more money on ammo and training and practice?
Do you wonder if the gun rags throw all this dust in the air about "caliber effectiveness", and that companies come out with all these "new" designs that really don't do anything more than what we already had (For example, is modern .40 defensive load really significantly more effective than the modern 9mm defensive load?....enough to go buy a whole new gun and ammo choice and everything if you are already happy with your 9mm?).
I mean, hey, I bought it all hook line and sinker...I have my share of .40's, 10mm's and I even have a couple guns in .357 Sig with multiple cases of ammo for it all so I can practice. I have tried it all, wanting bigger, better and faster...but in the end I really think I wasted my time and money. I really just like my .45 when I can have a big gun around, and I really think the modern 9mm is as good as anything else in a compact gun, and after all of this, I am perfectly happy and secure with my trusty Glock 19. I am not saying that maybe these newer rounds are not maybe a little teeny bit better bullet for bullet (with some drawbacks like less capacity and harder recoil and more expensive ammo etc), but in the whole scheme of things, I really don't think the difference is worth buying a whole new gun over. Am I really any better off with the Glock 20 in 10mm that I just bought, when my Glock 21 in .45 was serving me just fine? Is the difference really that dramatic? Same with the .40 and .357 Sig...are they really worth going and buying a new gun and everything in the hope that they will make a stop when my skills don't place the bullet in the right area (because the gun rags tell me that the .40 is a "big bore fightstopper" and the "9mm is anemic" even though they are really no different when you look closely)? Do these rounds really do anything that the 9mm could not do already? These are questions I am asking myself, and frankly, I think I have wasted a lot of time, money and thought on all of this. What I had in the first place was working just fine.
Maybe instead of buying all these guns in the new "wonder calibers", I should have just stuck with my 9mm and my .45 and spent that money and time on improving myself with those.
I feel like I have wasted a lot of time and energy looking for "Excaliber", when I should have just stuck with what worked and spent that time and money improving myself instead of my gun.
Oh yeah, and one of my favorite holsters is pretty much the first one I bought out of a bargain bin (a used Galco belt slide with FBI cant).
[This message has been edited by Red Bull (edited August 26, 2000).]
Ever notice that holster companies don't offer refunds so you can try it and see if you like it, and then get your money back instead of throwing it in a box if it doesn't work for you?
Anyway, I started with a Glock 19 many many years ago. Since then I have tried to find the perfect gun, and tried to find the perfect caliber, and the perfect holster etc. I have tried them all, going round and round, every carry method, every caliber, every gun in every brand. And...years later and thousands of dollars spent, and hundreds of hours figuring out ballistics charts and studies, it seems that I am basically back where I started.
After all of that, I am pretty much finding that my favorite and most trusted guns are my Glock 19 and a Glock 30. I still end up carrying my old style, beat up, reliable Glock 19 most of the time even though I like the Glock 30 a little better. The Glock 19 (the very first gun I ever bought) just works for me, and it always has.
Did anyone else pretty much get it right the first time and wonder why they have spent so much money, thought and time to persuing the perfect gun and caliber etc?
Don't you feel like you would have been so much better off if you had just stuck with your first choice of gun and caliber, and just spent more money on ammo and training and practice?
Do you wonder if the gun rags throw all this dust in the air about "caliber effectiveness", and that companies come out with all these "new" designs that really don't do anything more than what we already had (For example, is modern .40 defensive load really significantly more effective than the modern 9mm defensive load?....enough to go buy a whole new gun and ammo choice and everything if you are already happy with your 9mm?).
I mean, hey, I bought it all hook line and sinker...I have my share of .40's, 10mm's and I even have a couple guns in .357 Sig with multiple cases of ammo for it all so I can practice. I have tried it all, wanting bigger, better and faster...but in the end I really think I wasted my time and money. I really just like my .45 when I can have a big gun around, and I really think the modern 9mm is as good as anything else in a compact gun, and after all of this, I am perfectly happy and secure with my trusty Glock 19. I am not saying that maybe these newer rounds are not maybe a little teeny bit better bullet for bullet (with some drawbacks like less capacity and harder recoil and more expensive ammo etc), but in the whole scheme of things, I really don't think the difference is worth buying a whole new gun over. Am I really any better off with the Glock 20 in 10mm that I just bought, when my Glock 21 in .45 was serving me just fine? Is the difference really that dramatic? Same with the .40 and .357 Sig...are they really worth going and buying a new gun and everything in the hope that they will make a stop when my skills don't place the bullet in the right area (because the gun rags tell me that the .40 is a "big bore fightstopper" and the "9mm is anemic" even though they are really no different when you look closely)? Do these rounds really do anything that the 9mm could not do already? These are questions I am asking myself, and frankly, I think I have wasted a lot of time, money and thought on all of this. What I had in the first place was working just fine.
Maybe instead of buying all these guns in the new "wonder calibers", I should have just stuck with my 9mm and my .45 and spent that money and time on improving myself with those.
I feel like I have wasted a lot of time and energy looking for "Excaliber", when I should have just stuck with what worked and spent that time and money improving myself instead of my gun.
Oh yeah, and one of my favorite holsters is pretty much the first one I bought out of a bargain bin (a used Galco belt slide with FBI cant).
[This message has been edited by Red Bull (edited August 26, 2000).]