considering new CC platform

[Polar Express]

Considering choosing a new platform for concealed carry

Hi all, I’m re-evaluating my CC piece. I actually had a much longer note typed up, with a full back-story, but decided to shave it down…

I’ve been carrying a 1911 as my ‘somewhat concealed’ carry for 20 yrs. now.. and I’ve decided I’d like something a bit easier to carry, while still being effective. Something that is reliable, comfortable to shoot (practice purposes) and easy to carry. Sure, an ultra-compact would be easiest to conceal and to carry, but I have a strong opinion that I want to put lots and lots of rounds down range to become very familiar with this new platform and gun, since I could potentially rely on my mastery of it for personal safety. This means, it needs to be large enough to comfortably train with. To me, that means a ‘carry’ or mid-size auto-loader.

The issues of reliability can be debated, and virtually every brand has their believers. I’m not trying to debate which is MOST reliable, but rather consider the ones that are “in the discussion”. (I actually believe that topic will never be settled because exact data reliability comparisons are difficult to make, as circumstances and variables affect the results.)
I’m a bit ashamed to admit, that until this process, I never took the time to learn the functional differences between a” hammer-fire” and a “striker-fire” design. I just always griped at crummy triggers, well…it is high-time I took off my blinders, did some learning, and opened my eyes to the results.
Plan: Go to a local store, with a wide variety of ‘carry’ size models on the shelf, and compare.

1. 1st cut: narrow the field of options by function and feel in my hand. (this step is free)
2. 2nd cut: go shoot the ones left in the mix. (this costs range/ammo/rental fees, but high level of info gathered for minimal cost)
3. 3rd cut: compare/contrast remaining details: purchase cost, ease of CC, magazine cost, caliber and holster options. (free, but more details to compare)

I started with products from reputable manufactures. So far, this has included (in no particular order): Gen 4 Glock 19, Walther PPQ, HK VP9, XD –Mod 2, FNS-40, CZ 75, Sig P320, M&P, Springfield XD, Sig P229, and a few others I didn’t bother to write down. They were out of stock on the M&P offering.
During my initial ‘meet and greet’ of the various products: The VP9 felt best in my hand, followed by the Sigs, PPQ and G4 Glock. After the G4, there was a significant drop off, so I decided that as my cutoff. Going off memory, the M&P also feels quite nice to my hand. The biggest thing against the G4G, is the shape at the bottom rear of the trigger guard, but that can be relieved easily. At this point, I removed the CZs, Springfields, FNS, and G 1-3 Glocks.**

The jury’s still out on the mag release design that HK uses. Seems odd, but strangely, it seemed somewhat intuitive.

The 229 had the best trigger in SA, (hammer back) but of the striker guns, the Walther was the clear winner. The factory G4 was the bottom of that bunch, but…. After learning more about some of the aftermarket trigger mods, I can’t wait to try them out (I have some friends who have them installed).

Since magazines are important to any auto-loading firearm, and having a number of them is virtually required to do any kind of practice and training, it’s worth considering each platform’s mag situation. The next class I want to take requires a minimum of 4. Doing a quick internet search for the various mag costs and availability, the Glock stands alone atop, with everyone else tied at #2. Most MSRPs are in the $40 range, while I’ve seen the Magpul versions for Glocks at $20. IMO, anything Magpul deserves the benefit of the doubt as a well-made, reliable product. The initial cost of the firearm itself is of some concern, but it’s not paramount. That will be a 1-time purchase, whereas any consumables will be repeat purchases.

Add’l up-front costs: The Glock triggers aren’t super good, (owned 2) but they seem to be consistent from one gun to the next (in stock form). Ghost offers a variety of products in the $30-$50 range, and it’s DIY. (and that’s only one brand) With the M&P products, you may get a pretty good trigger, or you could get a crummy one. A quick google search, and Burwell Gunsmithing seems highly regarded to solve the M&P trigger issue, but you can add $65+shipping (and a wait list) on top of the cost of a brand new gun.

**Just because I removed a gun for consideration, doesn’t mean I think less of the product. It just means I didn’t care for certain details. The CZ seems like a very well made product, I just didn’t care for the feel of the slide design. I like some of the features of the XD stuff, but don’t like the feel of the grip in my hand.

At the moment, in an effort to keep comparisons accurate, I'm sticking with all 9mm guns. While I've always been a fan of .45acp, a good friend with reloading and forensic experience has encouraged me to take a careful look at the numbers put up by modern 9mm. I understand that some of the guns mentioned don't come in .45acp, so I'll factor that in during step 3. One super nice feature of 9mm, is the cost for practice and training.

I'm not trying to say this is the only way, or even the best way to go about this, but.. so far, it's my plan. I'd love to hear any suggestions, and I'll post more as I go through the next steps. But I'm not in a hurry.

PE

 

[Spats McGee]

You sound like you might hate Buyer's Remorse as much as I do. I'd rather spend months researching things than hating something I spent my hard-earned $$$ on.

With that said, I must confess to having only limited experience with your list:

So far, this has included (in no particular order): Gen 4 Glock 19, Walther PPQ, HK VP9, XD –Mod 2, FNS-40, CZ 75, Sig P320, M&P, Springfield XD, Sig P229, and a few others

To be more specific:

• I own a Gen 4 G19. I've had it just over 3 years, coming up on 2k rounds.
• I've shot an XD (or maybe it was an XDm?) in 9mm, as well as an XDs in .45, but I understand that you're only looking at 9mm.
• I've shot a CZ 75 Compact. I shot 28 rounds (two magazines).
• I cannot speak to any of the others you've listed.

It's been a couple of years since I shot the full-sized XD. I liked it, but I didn't love it.

I shot the CZ 75 Compact about 3 weeks ago, and it was AWESOME. It felt fantastic in my hand and shot like a danged laser. It immediately went on The Wanted List.

My Gen 4 G19 . . . I hated Glocks for decades. I hated how they felt in my hand. I couldn't get used to the idea that they're plastic. I hate the fanboy attitude that seems to go with them. I borrowed a Gen 3 (I think) from a buddy a few years back and wound up buying a Gen 4, which feels much better in my hand than any other Glock I have held. I bought it, thinking that if I well and truly hated it, I'd never have trouble selling it. I still think I could sell it with no problem. I don't hate it, though. Quite to the contrary, I love my G19. She's my EDC about 95% of the time.

It's a really hard-to-beat combination of features and price. She carries 15+1 rounds, weighs less than 24 ounces unloaded, and eats anything I feed her. In just shy of 2K rounds, I've had one broken spring (~1500 rounds ago), and only a handful (5-6?) of malfunctions. Aftermarket support is ridiculous. If someone makes a widget, they make a widget for a Glock. She puts holes where I point her and is probably capable of better accuracy than I am. Are there more accurate guns? I'm sure there are, but I'm not sure I'm capable of making that additional accuracy account for much. I'm also not sure how much more accuracy I really need in a defensive pistol.

 

[Polar Express]

My Gen 4 G19 . . . I hated Glocks for decades. I hated how they felt in my hand. I couldn't get used to the idea that they're plastic. I hate the fanboy attitude that seems to go with them. I borrowed a Gen 3 (I think) from a buddy a few years back and wound up buying a Gen 4, which feels much better in my hand than any other Glock I have held. I bought it, thinking that if I well and truly hated it, I'd never have trouble selling it. I still think I could sell it with no problem. I don't hate it, though. Quite to the contrary, I love my G19. She's my EDC about 95% of the time.

It's a really hard-to-beat combination of features and price. She carries 15+1 rounds, weighs less than 24 ounces unloaded, and eats anything I feed her. In just shy of 2K rounds, I've had one broken spring (~1500 rounds ago), and only a handful (5-6?) of malfunctions. Aftermarket support is ridiculous. If someone makes a widget, they make a widget for a Glock. She puts holes where I point her and is probably capable of better accuracy than I am. Are there more accurate guns? I'm sure there are, but I'm not sure I'm capable of making that additional accuracy account for much. I'm also not sure how much more accuracy I really need in a defensive pistol.

Spats,
This really sums up what I suspect the ending is going to be. I'm fortunate to have a source for NIB G products at LE pricing, so unless someone else truly blows them out of the water, I suspect I'll be going that route. It's a defensive pistol, so you need 'combat accuracy', (not to belittle accuracy, just to clarify) not 'competition accuracy'.
To me, the Glock line seems a lot like Apple and the iphone. If anyone makes a cell product, they make if for the iphone. But, the iphone has its limits, and while the OS is rather robust, it's not as flexible.
I'm not SOLD on the 9mm... just trying my best to compare apples to apples. One thing that DOES work in Glocks favor, is the variety of calibers. A G4 G20 would be a darn nice woods gun on a thigh rig. You'd never feel the weight, an it'll pack a punch if a critter decides you look tasty. Same feel, same everything you train on....

thanks for the input.. and yes.. I hate wasting money too :banghead:
PE

 

[stchman]

I know a CCW gun is an important choice and obviously a personal one. This will result in MANY opinions.

Myself, I would rather have a smaller gun for CCW and trigger feel is not very important for a gun like that. IMO a CCW gun is NOT meant to be a range toy.

I carry an LCP, people complain that the trigger on an LCP is too stiff, but that is by design. A crisp light trigger is not the best thing for a CCW gun, but this is MY opinion. I prefer very simple guns for CCW (no safety, no magazine disconnect, smooth sides) as in a stressful situation, your dexterity might not be what it should.

There are all the people that say "380 ain't good enough", and they "feel better about 9mm or 40S&W", when in actuality their "feelings" are irrelevant to how well a caliber will do its job.

My personal recommendations for CCW guns are:

380
Ruger LCP
M&P Bodyguard (no safety)

9mm
Walther PPS
Ruger LC9s Pro
Glock 43

These are MY choices, other people may have different choices.

 

[Spats McGee]

PE,
I have to admit that when I did my research, Blue Label pricing was sort of that one last thing that put the G19 "over the top." If I'd hated it, I absolutely could have sold it for what I paid or better. I've heard it called the "Honda Civic of guns." It's not fancy. It's not flashy. It's not even pretty! But it does what it's made to do, and it does it every time.

You have a bunch of guns on your list that have very solid reputations. There are several on there that would have served my purposes just fine, and would likely serve yours just fine as well. Heck, there are some on there that I might have liked even better than the G19, had I bought one of them. That said, I'm keeping Gretchen.

 

[v35]

You can't go wrong with a CZ, especially if you're partial to an all metal design. The compact models are ideal for carry. Their factory trigger, out of the box, are by far the best of any, and a fact I have only grown to appreciate over time. If you have been accustomed to your 1911 you may find the CZ line more than acceptable for your needs.

If you are not opposed to "plastic" the S&W Shield is very concealable. The trigger, while nowhere close to the quality of CZ has been much improved over their initial M&P models which were merely adequate IMO.

I also carry an HK. Their implementation of a magazine release is perfectly OK, maybe even preferable to conventional designs, you won't have any trouble getting used to it. HK just tends to be overpriced, and I guess you could say the same for Sig.

Never shot or even held any Glock but they obviously have their adherents. "Honda Civic of guns" - I like that

If you have to choose just one, try to get a CZ at a good price. That's not as easy as it once was. Following that choice would be the Shield. If carry-ability and concelability is more important to you than trigger quality or its "enjoyable to shoot" quality, then the Shield would be preferable.

 

[jjones45]

Well I've literally owned and shot all the guns on your list and will give my personal opinion on my favorites. I also carry midsize guns, as I like my carry guns to be enjoyable at the range as well and with my body type and how I dress I have no problem concealing even a full size gun if I wanted. I'm not a slob, just have all the curves in the right places lol. Right now I'm carrying a p320 9c and love it. It has a great trigger and reset and is easy to shoot accurately. Plus with options of changing the grip to fde/carry/subcompact or changing the caliber without an ffl is a plus. The down side is this and the p229 is going to be thicker than a 1911. I was slow to the p320 club but glad that I am now a member as these really are excellent striker fired guns. The xd's are good shooters as well but there is something about them that doesn't make me love it, and as a result I sold mine. The m&p might be the best value on your list, however I sold mine because of the so so stock trigger and the palm swells on the backstraps just didn't feel right to me. The Walther ppq is probably my favorite striker fired gun and is heavy in the ccw rotation as I only put that away to try the p320c out for a while. I've yet to find a gun that beats the Walther ppq in more than 50% of all categories which says a lot. Next in line would be a Cz p01 with the thin aluminum Cz custom grips. I think the p01 is the best all around 9mm hammer fired gun and is the only one available with nato serial numbers on it which I think is cool. I shoot CZ's more accurately than any other pistol and can't say enough good about them. You should try some different grips on the Cz and your opinion may change. The vp9 is good but in my opinion takes 3rd place behind the ppq and p320, while being larger than both with the same magazine capacity. The Fns is also another excellent option but again doesn't beat out the ppq and p320 in my opinion. So my list would be ppq, Cz 75 p01, sig p320 in that order.

 

[Tallball]

"I prefer very simple guns for CCW (no safety, no magazine disconnect, smooth sides) as in a stressful situation, your dexterity might not be what it should."


Me too. Draw, aim, shoot. KISS.

 

[browningguy]

Personally I went with a Walther PPS for my everyday carry. The ease of carrying is just so much better than a double stack gun. I still shoot an Xdm 5.25 and a Sig X6 for competition, occasionally I'll carry my 1911, CZ75 or BHP, but that's mostly just when I'm going to a fancy dress barbecue.

 

[Water-Man]

Sig P320Compact for me.

I've owned/tried the rest and IMO the Sig is the best, all things considered. It's available in 9,357,40 and 45. The trigger is good to go out of the box, along with the accuracy. The modularity puts it over the top.

 

[jenrob]

My EDC is an M&P 9c. Changed the grip and really like it. I've put a few thousand rounds thru it and the trigger is great. I never was a big Glock fan, but after my wife got one as a duty sidearm and I shot it more. My thoughts started to change. I carried a compact 1911 for a few years and really liked it. I have shot the p229 and it just wasn't right for me. I have got to the point that my M&P it's my go to for carry amd fun at the range. Other than rimfire the only thing I like as much would be a glock 42. It's a 380 but shoots like a 22 mag. I don't have and haven't shot any CZ pistol but my daughter won a 455 and I really like it. Have have looked at their Dan Wesson side the ECO comes in a 9mm and sure looks nice, but at 3 times the price of the others.

 

[MIL-DOT]

Since the OP seems to have (at least semi-) disqualifying issues with many of the contenders listed, my thoughts are that he might go with a more carry-freindly version of the 1911 he's carried for years, like a lightweight, alloy-framed, commander or officer-sized 1911, chambered in 9mm ? There are obvious advantages to sticking with the already well-known platform, in a SD pistol.

 

[Polar Express]

jjones45, Thank you very much for that feedback on those guns!

IMO a CCW gun is NOT meant to be a range toy.

Stchman, you mentioned some terrific points, and I considered and wrestled with them as I was forming my own opinions about my CCW. Thank you!

You can't go wrong with a CZ

v35, I haven't shot a CZ yet, any model. And based on the generally positive opinions many here have written on CZs, I have no doubt that the quality I observed during the 'meet and greet' step in my process is well-founded. However, I just didn't like how it felt to my hands. At least as a CC piece, the CZ options are not the direction I'll be heading.

I realize that there are many different opinions and approaches on the topic of CC. (I do want to keep this on-topic, as I can see that some may feel this thread could be better suited in the 'strategies, tactics and training' section) However, I will share a little bit of my personal views, and how they developed. Not trying to convince anyone of anything, just share my perspective, and how I got there.

Part of how I came to my current views on CCWs, include this: I have never had to draw or fire a weapon under duress. However, my profession does take me into harms way, and puts me in life-threatening situations and conditions, somewhat frequently. We train, and train, and train, so that when those situations present themselves, we are able to function both physically, and mentally, as well as use our tools and equipment effectively. One example: during our academy, we were run to exhaustion, and then they would stick 2 at a time in a small room, so full of smoke, it's pushing out under the door seal, and you'd be licking the floor in search of the 'best air available'. During this time, they force you to think; they ask questions, have you tie knots, identify tools or various connectors. This happened multiple times throughout our academy. This kind experience has no doubt affected my outlook. Often times, the lives and safety of others hang on the level of proficiency and effectiveness that we deliver. To me, proficiency is something that WE control by committing ourselves to training and practice; whereas effectiveness brings our tools & equipment into the equation, both in the type & condition, but also our ability to use them. Often times, our equipment (in my line of work) is overkill, and that is not by accident because, sometimes, you have to use a tool in a manner not that it was intended for (I take a tractor-trailer and drive it like a race car through city traffic). My profession is also urgent, so I keep my equipment in a 'ready-state', and easy to access. I was blessed to be raised in a family of firearms, and firearm safety. This led me to the 1911 platform, the gun I am most familiar with. And while some would choose (no judgment here) a small, pocket-carry piece, I elected to carry the huge 1911, because of my familiarity. But it also put more limits on when/where I could carry, and I don't like that. Since I'm changing platforms, I am looking for something I can become intimately familiar with, so that its operation becomes 'first-nature'.​

Is my perspective perfect? nope. Is it any better than someone else's? Maybe, but who am I to judge? Getting back to the focus of this thread... I do think that if someone was selecting a 'combat sidearm' (all theory here, I wish I served, but I did not, and I am eternally grateful to those who did) that the criteria would be very different. I would think a full-size pistol, as you're not trying to conceal it. But, this thread was, and is about a CC tool.

Again, thanks to everyone for offering ideas, perspectives, and suggestions! Not only do I want to chronicle the process, but also make sure I have been thorough.

PE

 

[Polar Express]

Since the OP seems to have (at least semi-) disqualifying issues with many of the contenders listed, my thoughts are that he might go with a more carry-freindly version of the 1911 he's carried for years, like a lightweight, alloy-framed, commander or officer-sized 1911, chambered in 9mm ? There are obvious advantages to sticking with the already well-known platform, in a SD pistol.

MIL-DOT:

Thanks! I thought very long and hard about that exact direction. I actually purchased a Kimber Ultra Carry 2 for that reason. It's a nice gun. Problem is the hammer and beaver-tail make appendix carry much less comfortable. Slipping my buddies appendix carry rig (he uses a G19) on to try the feel, it's just a world of difference. That, and the idea that in a SD situation, it appears that most of the training is going the other direction where there is NOT an external safety to release before aim and fire. And with my body shape, that's the best place for me to hide it.

I'm not trying to shoot-down others ideas, I'm grateful. I've tried a number of different approaches, and I've narrowed some things down. I just haven't found a conclusion quite yet. Getting closer though!

PE

 

[ATLDave]

OP, sounds like you've got quite a lot of time invested in the Browning-format controls and "manual of arms." There's nothing wrong with making a conscious decision to switch, but one approach would be to first exhaust/disqualify/eliminate everything available with that configuration before branching out.

 

[DIY-Pete]

PE
I know you took the FNS off the list so I won't really try to change your mind but I have one as my CCW and I like it so much that I bought another. I carry the standard 9 not the compact and have almost 5K rounds through it this year. I have had exactly one FTE and one stove pipe that was my fault (limp wrist).

It is an easy and fun shooting gun. It is accurate enough that I used it in my bulls-eye league last winter.

Pete

 

[jjones45]

This pistol is very similar in manual of arms to the 1911 minus the grip safety and beavertail. The hk45c has a safety/decocker. Can carry cocked and locked or da with safety on or off. Just something else to think about

 

[Cheesemaker]

I have been impressed with HK's P30 SK. I have put several hundred rounds through it, mostly FMJ some JHP - eat them all with no issues. Easy to shoot too.

It is not my first HK so the mag release was not new to me.
The grip sides and back strap are replaceable - comes with small med and large so you can mix and match for your hand.
Mine came with 3 magazines and is DA/SA with decocker and a safety. Safety was not a selling point for me.
I have not looked for holsters yet. YMMV.

And, they are quite a bit cheaper than the "mainstream" HKs.

 

[Polar Express]

jjones45, and Cheesemaker,

Thanks for the tips. The store I went to, did not have a HK45c for me to try out. It does sound like it's worth a solid look. How is the trigger on the SA operation? Are they consistent?

Years ago, my first wife picked an M&P, and that trigger was ok. But the inconsistency is pretty well documented. In todays manufacturing and machining industry, I have a hard time understanding why a trigger feel would vary so much from unit to unit, unless the QC (at some point) is just not there.

**edit here: after visiting the HK website, I didn't realize the platform variety offered, and need to do some more looking at their products... more than just the VP
...and, that thread about the new Sig Legion... looks like the Sig guys really, really love it.

PE

 

[ATLDave]

If you're used to a 1911, the safety/decocker combo on an H&K may or may not appeal to you... because the decock function (IIRC) is found at the bottom of the safety's travel. So, up is safe, middle is fire, and all the way down is decock. If you ride the safety, then, depending on your grip, it's possible you might decock while shooting.

It didn't make any d@mn sense to me. Why wouldn't you make decock something you get to by pushing up through the safe position? I don't get it.

 

[dmoserwy]

I prefer very simple guns for CCW (no safety, no magazine disconnect, smooth sides) as in a stressful situation, your dexterity might not be what it should.

I don't understand not wanting a safety. To me that is what causes Glock leg. I chose a Ruger LC9s with a safety because of it's light trigger so my wife can fire it also.

 

[entropy]

Of the guns you listed; G19.

My suggestion, based on the background you posted: Better holsters for your 1911 and not using appendix carry for the 1911. If you still have that Ultra Carry 2, that in a Summer Special-type holster should conceal just fine.

 

[Chuck R.]

I normally look at this sort of question objectively as possible, sort of in order:

1. What size am I looking for: Service, compact, sub-compact, single stack?

2. The next question is always what trigger/action do I want? hammer fired, SA, DA/SA, DAO, striker SA, striker DA???

3. Then I go to Frame material, polymer, steel, aluminum?

4. Caliber is pretty much a wash as long as it's 38 SPL or above. I reload for most common pistol calibers. 98% of the time I go with 9mm for CCW due to capacity and my ability to get solid hits faster with a 9mm.

For my preferred carry, I go with a compact, DAO or Striker, in polymer.

Right now for me that's an HK P2000, in .40 with a V1 LEM Trigger wearing Trijicon HDs.

IMHO the LEM is about perfection is a defensive trigger, due to the longish take-up and the consistent break,. The safety of a DA/SA without the "transition" between trigger pulls. Good description here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3Go3bgtoj8

Good write up here:

http://pistol-training.com/archives/8549

I like the L.E.M. Here is why. It is a consistent trigger. It has all of the take up of the DA, without the weight and effort. The trigger goes back to the same long take up location when the finger comes off the trigger. Essentially, it is like de-cocking without having to use a de-cocker, just a simple removal of the finger from the trigger to its register location. Lots of take up and both tactile feel that the trigger finger is on the trigger, and a visual input from the hammer. That same visual and tactile input is also there during the reset and every other movement of the trigger-you can always see the hammer moving with the trigger.

The HK P2000 V1 is about the size of a Glock 19, with the added "warm fuzzy" of a hammer, without the need to decock.

Chuck

 

[Tirod]

A different take.

Start with the requirements a CCW gun needs to meet to successfully accomplish the task. Then let the requirements drive the selection process, not emotion or style.

Because you could get buyers remorse anyway, regardless, as it's likely and is triggered by the purchase. ANY purchase. Flitting from one gun to another because "I might have decided wrong." never allows any time for intensive training, use, or developing long term practice to just get used to it.

If it was a issue gun there wouldn't be buyer's remorse, there would be an incentive to get a handle on it because there is no other choice. And 25 million prior servicemen and women did that with the M16 and M9. Like them or not, proficiency of use was required.

The criteria are more like 1) adequate caliber 2) sized to conceal 3) a good trigger 4) slide hold open 5) decent sights. Just the same as a full size duty gun, the cartridge has to meet the individuals threshold of power projection. We can debate what bullet does that, but we agree there's a minimum any one of us will accept. State it in numbers and that immediately limits the effective number of guns to consider.

Sized to conceal is next. Pick a minimum and maximum size AND WEIGHT. What most of us have discovered is that polymer does the most efficient job in getting weight down. The next level is aluminum alloy frames, and after that, steel. If there's a debate about which to carry - specify the target weight and stick with it. That eliminates the outliers which have fanboys on every forum, but your pants aren't sliding down which is more important.

A good trigger is important, regardless. First, you do need to practice with it. If you can't shoot a box of fifty with the gun and only rely on it to be there with more gunhandling time putting it in or out of the way you carry, you aren't going to be proficient. Bumbling around on the draw, not being consistent with sight presentation under stress, and being unfamiliar with where the trigger breaks isn't a good thing. Some will tell you it's ok because you won't ever use it anyway, I don't see that as gaining proficiency with it or any confidence in your use of it. The result will be needed the extra mag anyway to work down to actually aiming and shooting it the way you should have with the first three shots. A good trigger means it isn't an extremely high pull weight - guns in this category have been measured over twelve pounds pull - and is short enough your hand doesn't have to acquire a different hold to finish off the break nearly to the frame. Why choose a overly long and high poundage trigger when there are better? Range time becomes more productive and you gain in accurate shot placement sooner in your learning curve.

Slide hold open? Yes. Two reasons - first, for faster reloads. No hold open means you rack the slide every time you reload, which is a negative. No duty gun or combat rifle designed for personal defense rates highly if you have to jam a magazine against a closed bolt carrier or slide, then retract it against the spring pressure of the stack of rounds to get it back into action. Whether you prefer to drop the slide release or slingshot it, sliding a mag into an open mag well unimpeded will be done with less chance of malfunction and you get into action faster when you need it. Secondly, a slide hold open mitigates a high recoil spring pressure. CCW guns aren't noted for gnarly serrations all over the slide, large surfaces to grip, and certainly not for handling recoil with a high mass slide. Compact has it's disadvantage and it's a smaller slide that often requires higher spring pressures to control. Since that is possible, why make the loading effort even more problematic by deliberately choosing a difficult to load gun just to save a few dollars on the absence of a slide release? It's false economy and a sign of the low dollar gun.

Good sights should be a no brainer - if its got poor ones shooting it is going to take longer to get used to and involves dealing with another negative that slows acquiring proficiency and skill. It keeps being said that a CCW gun doesn't need to be a good range gun but the opposite is the reality - if it's not a good range gun it then demonstrates it's a poor defense gun every time you take it out to use it. It doesn't take much to spoil your appreciation shooting it side by side with other larger pistols, and when better guns with similar features were available for a few dollars more the mind doesn't just let it slide off. It's the people repeating "you don't need a good range gun" over and over who are trying to convince themselves. Take with a grain of salt - they aren't convinced either. They keep mentioning it.

Working thru the list of requirements leaves just a few guns on the table that fit. Whether they are social improvements and increase self esteem is another matter of little worth. How they work shooting bullets at a lethal threat is what counts, and deliberately choosing a gun that has a stiff long trigger, forces a slide rack reload, has poor sights, and it's no fun at the range to shoot seems to be working against common sense.

But the Ruger LCP crowd doesn't see it that way. Yet. I do and I'm glad I got a Kahr CW380. If and when I need it I won't have a gun I know is working against me.

 

[Polar Express]

thanks for the new posts! I appreciate the different perspectives, and I like how it's showing me different ways that folks approach the same issue.

dmoserwy:
While I can certainly appreciate the potential damage when one shoots one's self... In my opinion: that's caused when you have your finger on the trigger and it shouldn't be. But.. like so many things, that can be debated.

entropy:
I certainly appreciate your opinion. I've tried various holsters and positions. I'm somewhat lean, move around a lot, and wear light clothing often, even in winter, so Im pretty sure Appendix carry is the smartest place for me to conceal effectively. If I had to pick this moment, I think I'd go G4, G19. But, I'm trying to do my due-diligence. There are some guns others have suggested I take a look at, that I haven't had an opportunity to do so yet.

ChuckR:
Thank you for that suggestion! That HK2000 is on that list of guns I haven't tried out yet, but seems very worthy of a careful look. While my list of criteria I am evaluating doesn't match your order perfectly, I have a similar list in my mind, and jotting down that is helping me form as un-emotional decision as can be made.

Tirod:
thank you. My criteria list and order is more like what you suggested. Like you listed in your post, I am in the camp that believes that training, and your comments about practice seem to be spot-on with my views. The one thing I put in there, is after sized to conceal, is does it fit my hand to comfortable shoot/train- A LOT.

Thanks folks, please, keep them coming, I learn with each post!

PE