Trainers and gun choice

[Psychedelic Bang]

I'd might bet that the small pocket guns get carried the most.

Absolutely...

A: of all my friends that carry I only know three that carry 100% of the time.

B: I myself am working up to 100% of the time, but still have times I'm unarmed

C: Two of my friends who carry have and carry the Ruger LCP. One has a Glock 26. When I carry --> an Airweight 442

Small guns get carried in, "conceal states." If my state was open carry -- Smith Wesson M&P 9 in a heartbeat would be my carry gun

 

[ms6852]

For the most part, yes. Going from a 5" to a 4.25" barrel doesn't take much doing. Going to a 3" barrel requires a different approach to the recoil-spring, plunger, and so on. I've never really come across an Officer 1911 I could recommend for carry based on reliability issues.

Agree, once you go to a 3" barrel most manufacturers that sells their compact 1911's their guns have issues because of the physics and internal changes that occur. Now I am not basing this on pure scientific data or researched data, just on pure lip service of friends, family and shooters at the range range that have taken the plunge on purchasing a compact 1911. On the other hand I own 2 1911 Springfields, one a full size and the other a champion with the 4" barrel and both function as they should.

 

[FireForged]

My gun works, I carry it daily and the ammo is reliable. If it breaks, I have an extra that is exactly like the first. Other than the grips, its bone stock... my ammo is selection consist of Federal 9bp 115 which most considered outdated. I don't follow trends and the path I walk is paved with stone of my own making.

I am not really a glock person but I am not surprised that a majority of instructors carry them. Glock seems to do everything pretty darn well.

 

[TDL]

In a training environment, Glocks are great, but when they get used, it seems like ND's happen in ways that are never covered or experienced much in training.

If this seems like trolling, just delete my post.

It is my opinion that there is some value in showing your students that you carry a thumb safety gun like the: 320, M&P, XD or 1911. The value is that a trained shooter with a thumb safety is just as fast, but that a gun grabber is likely unready for the safety.

I think you make a good point. ND risk is going to vary a lot on training and experience, but also usage type.
I think the police data tend to show that the increases they see in striker/no safety guns, and they do see more, is mostly in older officers who had been using guns with safeties who were transitioned to guns without safeties, and less so, if at all, from younger officers starting right out with glocks.

That said there are also really variable types of usage. If you are putting on your holster and holstering your gun in the comfort and privacy of your home, and reversing the process in your home say 365 times a year you can afford to take your time. if you live in unfriendly jurisdiction, and this includes areas where you have to remove your handgun and lock it say in your car one a day, involving manipulation in a car, or securing it in your backpack or briefcase unloaded before getting on mass transit that is an additional set of hundred of manipulations, and ones perhaps made more complex due to need for being discreet -- and for need to unload and load chamber as well. In that case a safety may reduce risk of ND. Not to mention there are places where an ND would be worse both due to density increasing risk of hurting someone, and also in being detected and in legal ramifications even if no one is hurt.

It is pretty clear that good practice and many/most people's needs make an external safety unnecessary and perhaps more harmful than helpful. But for some other people considerations may argue in favor of an external safety even on a striker.

Just as for some of us holster type and holster positon considerations might be dominated by draw speed and comfort factors, and for others it might rationally dominated by printing/showing, retention and reholstering ease considerations.

 

[seeker_two]

Well, there is “reliable enough to carry” and there is “reliable enough to train with regularly.” I don’t doubt there are pistols that are reliable enough to carry but when you are shooting 2700 rounds in a three day course or 5000 rounds in a five day, and then doing that four or five times a year, they are more maintenance intensive. I love Hi-Powers. They are works of art. Glocks have no attraction to me. It is like owning a hammer. But I carry a Glock; because I can afford to train with it and keep running on my shooting schedule and I don’t have the skills or money to do that with a Hi-Power.

^^^This

I train with my Glock 17, but I occasionally carry it. I carry my LC9, but I occasionally train with it. I know my Glock will shoot 1000 rounds without an issue. I know my LC9 will shoot all three mags I carry without an issue.

Pick the right tool for the job....

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[OhioGuy]

It's an interesting statistic and probably is good guidance for anyone else, even if only seen as "Carry a 9mm Glock or M&P with some emergency medical supplies, and you can't go wrong." I'd certainly agree with the statement. Generalizing to "carry something that's got long-term reliability, and train regularly with it" is just as good. The one guy carrying the Beretta is no worse off than the 5000 carrying Glocks so long as he's trained with his Beretta, and they've trained with their Glocks.

Would you rather be punched by Schwarzenegger or Ferrigno? You're screwed either way as long as he's been training

However, Berettas are sexier and it's been scientifically proven, in lab by guys wearing goggles. That case is closed!

I did once hear a rather...strained...argument that would basically look at this data to say "Yes, those sorts of guns are great for people who train all the time, like these instructors who won't make careless errors, but normal people who can only get to the range a few times a year should carry a double action .357 mag revolver."

I think his point was that revolvers are usually the most reliable things on the planet, you'll probably only get off a shot or two at close range, so make it count, if only 1/5 of your shots will land anyway, better it be a .357 mag than a 9mm. etc and so forth.

Interestingly, the guy who made that argument carried a Glock AND a snub-nose .357. Oh, and medical supplies.

 

[shurshot]

I would prefer to carry my Winchester 94 .30-30, but it doesn't fit well in my pant leg. Trade offs in life, always trade offs!

 

[Psychedelic Bang]

It's an interesting statistic and probably is good guidance for anyone else, even if only seen as "Carry a 9mm Glock or M&P with some emergency medical supplies, and you can't go wrong." I'd certainly agree with the statement. Generalizing to "carry something that's got long-term reliability, and train regularly with it" is just as good. The one guy carrying the Beretta is no worse off than the 5000 carrying Glocks so long as he's trained with his Beretta, and they've trained with their Glocks.

Would you rather be punched by Schwarzenegger or Ferrigno? You're screwed either way as long as he's been training

However, Berettas are sexier and it's been scientifically proven, in lab by guys wearing goggles. That case is closed!

I did once hear a rather...strained...argument that would basically look at this data to say "Yes, those sorts of guns are great for people who train all the time, like these instructors who won't make careless errors, but normal people who can only get to the range a few times a year should carry a double action .357 mag revolver."

I think his point was that revolvers are usually the most reliable things on the planet, you'll probably only get off a shot or two at close range, so make it count, if only 1/5 of your shots will land anyway, better it be a .357 mag than a 9mm. etc and so forth.

Interestingly, the guy who made that argument carried a Glock AND a snub-nose .357. Oh, and medical supplies.

What I know about revolvers and self defense now, that I didn't years ago - maybe moon clips, or speedloader has to be available for your gun

And also... 357 out of one of these light spaceage revolvers... like ouch.

Even 38 special.. by the time I'm at round 100 out of my lightweight revolver.. I'm done, I'm on my way home

In that respect.. for people who do train, can train, have time and money to train, or just generally know what they are doing (vets, cops, etc) a semi auto really makes sense



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

 

[Lohman446]

For highly trained and highly skilled individuals there is little doubt in my mind that carrying reasonably high capacity firearms with multiple reloads makes a good deal of sense. While obviously more training and more skill is going to help even with, forgive the use of the term, "lesser" equipment it is going to be more likely that those individuals will reach the limit of their equipment before they reach the limit of their skill.

 

[zincwarrior]

oh I'll backpedal enough to say I'm not trying to debate whats reality or prove anything. I agree the statistic you shared is a fact from an event and its also my opinion that 9mm is the most common caliber for carry, and I'm suggesting that from my own observation.... that and it just makes sense its cheaper and just as effective as anything.

I'm a little skeptical that Glock is still the dominate gun in public use, lots of quality polymer striker fired guns to choose from these days that are just as reliable and I'm skeptical that a 1911 is not reliable enough for carry.

gun stores are not stocking them if they aren't selling them, and it just doesn't seem to make sense to me to buy a compact 1911 as a safe queen, its just my observation that they are still popular enough. I'm also still curious if high end instructors are sponsored by Glock and how that would influence their selection for such an event and their response at such an event for what they personally carry.

I would proffer instructors are right up there with competitive shooters in tinkering with their firearms. Glock (and to a lesser extent M&P) is the AR -15 build to suit of the pistol world. Other firearms, much less so. These numbers presented in the OP are very similar to competition preferences (at least per the USPSA and IDPA mags) for 9mms.

I am a bit surprised about the lack of 1911s. Good 1911s at a reasonable price can be had, and there remains a strong market for active safety pistols. It may be a generational shift there.

 

[kraigwy]

I'm a revolver guy, guess its the way I started out in the 70s when thats what people used. All we could use at the time on my department. I carry a Smith J frame and I do carry 100% of the time, (exception is in federal building).

I shoot a lot and cost is a factor. Another reason I like revolvers. They arnt picky on ammo. Casting bullets I can shoot 38s cheaper then I can 22s.

I've tried drifting to semis, I found my Ruger LC9pro is quite reliable using cast bullets and shoots quite well. But its hard for me to make the break from revolvers. Old habits die hard, esp since that habit worked for nearly 45 years.

I dont, and dont suggest anyone else choose a handgun based on what other trainers use. People are different and should choose what fits and works for them.