To Tell The Truth

Sarge said:
Spats McGee said:
Guns that function well, and do so over many years, become "old school." Guns that do not function well, go out of production and become "outdated." As long as the design is proven, and the individual firearm is in good shape, it ought to be OK as a carry piece.
Click to expand...
I'll only add one thing to that. The individual specimen needs to be proven as well. There is hardly a more proven design than the 1911, but everybody and his drunk uncle are making them and plenty of individual specimen aren't fit to take to a butterfly uprising. You have got to prove the gun because trusting to 'design' puts you at the mercy of marketers.
Click to expand...
You are, of course, correct. A carry gun needs to be put through its paces, regardless of age, design or manufacturer. When I wrote about an the individual firearm being in good shape, well, some manufacturers are obviously better than others.

Not to mention the possibility of kitchen table "custom" work . . . well, if some local fiend has rebuilt the pistol with his own three hands, I wouldn't consider that to be "in good shape." Sorry that that wasn't more clear.
 
With all the latest, greatest we see, what is really substantially different? Plastics have made them lighter and smaller but they still work the same. The greatest stride, IMO, is the ammo. We have many options now we didn't have 20 years ago when considering performance. The guns, themselves, have not changed a whole lot. Remember, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
 
a couple factors

New shooters who decide to carry:

Chances are he/she doesn't know as much about a particular design's venerable history/lore and hasn't gone pawn shop/gun show hunting for a good deal on an "older" firearm. And if he/she is new to firearms I'd say buying used might be too risky without an idea about the mechanics of particular parts to look out for. So who can you trust if you don't know lots of shooting folks? - What the manufacturers tell you, and they're telling you the latest model is the best in concealed carry. So they go for it. I've noticed that when newbies ask about what to carry, thankfully most of the folks focus the advice on designs/length/weights and a bit less on brand names.

When NOT to trust an "old" firearm - for me "old" doesn't automatically mean a better choice (even if tolerances are tighter). Neither does new. I wouldn't choose an oldie to be my carry gun if
1) I wasn't the one who matured it for a significant period of time (unproven, as Spats and Sarge mentioned above). Certain parts may be coming to the end of their life span on my watch.
2) If the design was discontinued and parts no longer available/cost effective to replace. That means it hasn't had any recent spring replacements. And the next breakage means I'd have to switch my carry gun anyway. So why wait and have a period of time where I'm relatively untrained in my carry gun?

Well now, that last one sounds like another excuse to buy a "newer" gun! :D

Now, if my grandfather had a favorite carry gun or something that was handed down to me I'd probably ditch those guidelines and carry it on a day like his birthday or a family reunion.
 
No, you don't necessarily need the latest and greatest to survive. You do need two things:

A RELIABLE gun - it doesn't need to cost thousands of dollars or be the newest technology, but it DOES need to go bang every time you pull the trigger.

Proficiency with said relaible gun - you could have the newest gun on the market that will do everything short of print money and fold your laundry, but if you aren't proficient with it, it's all for naught.
 
Lots of folks seem to think that if your defensive piece isn't a Glock or a Sig, you're wasting you're time. I carry a Ruger P-90, about as far from "trendy" as you can get. BUT, it's ultra-reliable, quite tough, very accurate...and cost less than either of the aforementioned European pistols. If "old school" works reliably and accurately for you, I say go for it.
 
Considering how many people still carry carry snubnose revolvers (642's for example in my case) buying the newest sexiest handgun doesn't seem necessary. As long as it still works, almost any handgun is still a perfectly viable form of self-defense. Most of the handguns out there are based on pretty old designs - the newer ones don't always provide much extra - they are "new" in the sense that a manufacturer needs to get something on the market to generate sales. I would bet there are still plenty of functioning Glocks out there and GEN 4 versions are more to get people back in the store to buy a new one. Our throw away society includes the world of handguns.

The things that are new are the guns meant for concealled carry - lots of new guns trying to get the biggest bullet into the smallest gun. I don't think there were too many 9mm pocket guns 20 years ago - now everyone is making them.
 
I have carried both a Pheonix arms HP22 .22LR and a HK P7M8 9mm for different situations, both are not full size, and I felt comfortable with both. That said, I generally carry a heavily modded HK USP chambered in 10mm, and am working on converting a S/S Sig P220 to a 10mm for carry. I also carry a 1911.

It's a matter of confidence, skills and situational awareness more than anything else in my mind. For years I carried a glock 23, Ruger SP101 or S&W 686. All of them were comfortable for me to carry, and they were not carried because they were full sized, but because I was comfortable with them.

On my blog (listed in my signature) I have several articles on these weapons and their carry capacities. Feel free to take a look, but these guys are all excellent contributors to the discussion, I haven't heard one comment I completely disagree with yet on this thread.
 
I'm old school too...65 yo...when I carry, usually it's a J-frame Smith, if going in to town...it's convenient, and my itinerary 99% of the time does not take me to the bad areas of our nearby city. The caliber's sufficient (.38 Special +p), the gun has worked every time for me for over 25 years now, and I'm thoroughly familiar with it. As COunt said, and I agree, I clean it every time it's been used, and keep it oiled. Nothing made by man is 100% reliable, but that old Smith close enough that I'm willing to go out with it as my sole weapon.

Here on the farm, I carry every day, for the sheer fun of shooting. My choices vary with my mood, and a walk with the dogs, is seldom without gun fire of one sort or another. Stumps, thistle tops, dirt clods, tree knots...they've all fallen to one of my 'well-placed-shots'.

The key is not to misinterpret what's a good choice for one purpose, that's unsuitable for the other....as in most things in life.

Best Regards, Rod
 
Not that I make a habit of it, but I've carried my WW2 Ithaca 1911 from time to time. I've shot it a fair amount over the past 30 or so years. I trust it to work, and I can hit with it.
Only problem I have is that I have to be careful which mags to use. Some of them won't reliably feed HPs, others feed anything. But when I carry it, I generally carry FMJ.
Range-only mags are marked.

I think I only own 2 firearms that were made in the last decade.


And I own Page Three!
 
Tom, I carried a '45 Ithaca for about ten years, six of them as a Sgt. for a Sheriff's Dept. Mine was a doll and not finicky at all, even though it had a Nat'l Match barrel and bushing. Rails had been swedged, disconnector port had been dimpled and it show all the signs of being an old hard-fit AMTU build. Shot like it, too.

On mags... best 7 rounders I've ever used were the blue Metalforms with the welded baseplate and round follower. I have used some Chip McCormick 8 round Powermags with a recent Rock Island, and they been great. I have no qualms about using them, with any ammo, on the days when I still carry a 1911.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top