Which one of the three handguns would you pick for concealed carry?

Which one of the three handguns would you pick for concealed carry?

  • S&W .357 Model 627 V-Comp

    Votes: 8 9.8%
  • Sig 9mm P226-Combat TB

    Votes: 62 75.6%
  • FNH .45 FNX-45 Tactical

    Votes: 12 14.6%

  • Total voters
    82
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
None of them. They're all "clunks" as far as CCW is concerned (at least my definition of CCW).

The whole idea of CCW (to me, anyway) is discreet carry with little or no evidence that you are doing so, and as little weight as possible. YMMV

If I were to carry any one of OP's 3 choices it woud be open carry.

My choice of concealed carry for the last 40+ years has been an FN/Browning 1910 .380.
 
Which one of the three handguns would you pick for concealed carry?

Mind if I ask why?

You actually own, or plan to own, any of those specific 3 pistols? Plan to lawfully carry it concealed?

Or are you just looking for really cool-looking "tactical" pistols and wonder what everyone else thinks about them?

If your poll had include a None-of-the-Above option, that's how I'd have voted. More on what I did "pick" in a moment ...

I've carried all manner/size of concealed handguns over the course of having carried one with a badge for more than 30 years. At one time or another I've concealed revolvers with 5 1/2", 6 1/2" & 7 1/2" inch barrels, so it's not like I haven't spent some time figuring out how to adjust manner of dress to accommodate doing so.

However, since I don't have to do so anymore, the largest handgun I'll typically carry nowadays ... if I feel my activities merit it ... is one of my 5" 1911's, 4.5" M&P 45 or P90DC or my 4.1" SW9940. My 5 1/2" Redhawk and 6 1/2" 629 Classic only see range use anymore. I usually prefer retirement handguns with 3 1/2" or shorter barrels. Sometimes a 3.75" 4513TSW.

I have ZERO interest in any pistol with a threaded muzzle. My life doesn't include any possible provision for needing to lawfully suppress my retirement handguns.

Okay ... I was conflicted about choosing between the 627 and the SIG.

I like revolvers, even as a longtime 1911 shooter ... and even though having carried a TDA issued weapon for more than 20 years ... and even though having been a firearms instructor and armorer for a number of different guns. The idea of a lightweight 8-shot .357 Magnum revolver is appealing to me. Not as a CCW weapon, but I'd not mind carrying one if I had to return to active duty and carry a uniform belt gun.

On the other hand, I have an affinity for 9mm, as well, and the SIG is a reasonably reliable and durable service-type pistol. Sufficient lubrication and attention to various periodic spring replacement aren't difficult things to handle, especially if being supported by an armorer. Having been through the SIG pistol armorer class for their Classic pistols, the TDA version of the standard SIG ... even gussied up in the listed model ... would seem an acceptable choice (sans the threaded barrel).

I opted for SIG for the purpose of your poll ... but if I were going to actually spend my own money on one or the other, it would be the 627, hands down. I have enough 9's to meet any of my retirement CCW needs, and adding another .357 Magnum revolver to my collection would be more interesting.

Why not the FN? While I've no doubt they did ma lot of testing during R&D when they were creating it for the canceled military pistol program back in '05, I've yet to hear much about any extended LE/Gov testing of the gun ... yet. I'd prefer to see how well it does in the hands of a wide range of LE test shooters before I spent my own money on one. I've long since lost any desire to be a Beta Tester again.

Also, that model does have the raised sights which would annoy me, and then there's the holster issue for the raised sight clearance compared to the standard FN model.

So, what was your purpose in creating this poll and thread topic?
 
fastbolt said:
So, what was your purpose in creating this poll and thread topic?

Well, soon I will get an FNX-45 Tactical for home defense. Besides wanting some input on the FNX-45 for concealed carry, I was looking at some other handguns as well and also wanted some input on their use for concealed carry. I like full size but also want my second handgun to certainly be able to pull concealed carry duties. I could probably conceal the FNX-45 but I may want something slightly smaller to give me more options. Besides the 9mm SIG 226, I was looking at the 10mm G20 Glock. Any opinions?
 
Obviously you don't understand the purpose of the "little" guns.
The purpose of small guns is that they can be carried more easily than large guns.

It doesn't make sense to argue that there's no difference between carrying full-sized guns and small guns when you, yourself, carry a small gun. If there were no difference between carrying a full-sized gun and a small gun, you would not be carrying a small gun. If there is truly no downside to the extra size and weight, there is no reason NOT to take advantage of the extra sight radius, better ergonomics and higher capacity.
 
Besides the 9mm SIG 226, I was looking at the 10mm G20 Glock. Any opinions?

My opinions have changed & evolved over the years I've carried concealed handguns. At one time or another throughout the years I've carried .22, .25, .380, 9mm, .38 Spl, .357 Mag, .40 S&W, .41 Mag, .44 Spl, .44 Mag, .45 ACP & .45 Colt.

I generally try to avoid shilling calibers, and often even particular makes/models. If pressed by one of our folks looking for a new off-duty weapon, or a private citizen looking for a CCW, I usually try to get an understanding of his/her experience, training, skillset, comfort in carrying, anticipated needs, etc ... and then let them try out a number of different guns I own, guns kept in training or guns belonging to other instructors. Their choice has to suit them, not mirror something I may be using at the time. ;)

I've seen my fair share of folks choose larger guns in size & caliber than they were actually able to consistently shoot well, and I've seen them go the opposite direction, going too little for them to safely, comfortably & confidently handle them when pressed to perform demanding drills.

Everyone's got to find their happy medium of the moment, and then be prepared to later on decide they might want to change, or at least refine, their decision.

I don't look for muzzle energy and "Magnumizing" my dedicated defensive weapons anymore, myself.

Perhaps investing some of your gun money in some local defensive handgun training might be helpful in narrowing down and refining your choice. Regardless of what you decide to choose, it's still just a handgun at the end of the day. It's still just a piece of equipment.

YOU are going to be the dominant factor in using it safely, comfortably, accurately and effectively.

Nowadays, most of the time when some earnest and enthusiastic younger shooter starts to foment some argument about make/model, caliber, ammunition selection, holster, capacity, etc ... I find it easier to simply take them down to the firing line and have them run some new-to-them, fast-paced and demanding drills, often involving more than one threat target, involving movement and threat/non-threat identification.

Quite often when the hits, proper handling & manipulation and accurate "threat identification" (shoot/no-shoot) is less than what they'd expected of themselves, I try to steer them to getting back to basics and mastering their skills ... not rely on some glitzy and gee-whiz pistol-of-the-month to offset their lack of attention to their handgunning skillset foundation.

Pick whatever you like, in whatever nice color you may like ... and get down to focusing on the arguably really critical part of it all ... YOU, and your knowledge & skillset.

Guns come and go, you know. ;)

Best of luck to you. ;)
 
I'd say whichever you would be most proficient with. If that means a full size, so be it.

YOU are going to be the dominant factor in using it safely, comfortably, accurately and effectively.

Exactly.
 
None of the above, I have a 642 and an LC9, mostly carry the 642, it's a little lighter and a little easier to conceal. If I could carry a big gun it would be a light weight Commander.
 
Pick three handguns that weight 15oz less in weight, Then your incthe concealed area of CC. Those are all to big unless your the size of shaguille o'neil
 
afraid I have to echo some of the others ... I'd not care to carry any of the three choices.

Here's what I'm most comfortable with as my daily carry.

 
Of those three I'd pick the Sig. I'd personally rather have a .45 but that FNX is a smidge too big for me to carry (and I regularly carry full sized guns).
 
I voted for the Sig ... I lust after the Smith ... but I wouldn't buy any of them for carry. For carry, I want a relatively light, small gun that I shoot well and can be carried either in a belt holster or in a pocket. I'll stick to my PM9, thank you very much ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top