Duty/Full Size guns vs carry guns

[DustyGmt]

Yes, because one prints, is uncomfortable for me to carry AIWB, but the other does not and can be carried more conveniently.

It's the same manual of arms, there's nothing to it really.

Not sure what you're getting at, because that's a training issue and not a platform issue. My Shield punches above it's weight in the accuracy department but needs less trigger. My G17 is also lights out but needs more trigger finger. So it's a muscle memory issue more than anything else, making it again a training problem and not a platform problem.

You're overthinking it. You shoot and carry what carries well and shoots the best in your hands, not what you think is right or "should" be done (it shouldn't and is bad advise if it doesn't shoot well or is carried the best in their hands).

My EDC is a G43X. Not too big to carry appendix, doesn't print, shoots well, carries well, and is carried all day without any discomfort. A G17 or even a G19/G45/G48 cannot, at least in appendix for me at least. And I carry for me, and not what someone else wishes because they'd be wrong in their assessment of things. They can think that they are right and I am wrong but that's the narcissist talking using fallacies for their false argument.

My winter carry is a G17, OWB and not appendix but easier than appendix in the winter due to the amount of layers being worn. Outside of winter, back to appendix which is the majority of the year for me and a tactical advantage. I'd rather have that than a full or a compact at the strong side concealed and slower to draw that's also hard to draw with sitting down, YMMV.

Good topic but still an overthought topic. I'd be more concerned with people not training as they would fight than the sizes being carried or not carried.

You're reply is interesting, I'm getting the strong impression that you think it's "the narcissist" in me that is trying to dictate to you and others what they carry, if thats the case there are errors in your assessment, if not then my apologies but it was a question not a mandate, perhaps it didn't land.

Like I said, maybe I wasn't clear enough and didn't know how to articulate the question well enough, but basically how much of any benefit is there to staying with one manufacturer duty/compact/sub-compact from a training and shooting standpoint and as always, it's a gun forum and participation is optional, people ask questions and those who think it's not a worthwhile topic, well......

And we are agreed that training and shooting fundamentals is paramount over whatever gun type you choose.

 

[jar]

You're reply is interesting, I'm getting the strong impression that you think it's "the narcissist" in me that is trying to dictate to you and others what they carry, if thats the case there are errors in your assessment, if not then my apologies but it was a question not a mandate, perhaps it didn't land.

Like I said, maybe I wasn't clear enough and didn't know how to articulate the question well enough, but basically how much of any benefit is there to staying with one manufacturer duty/compact/sub-compact from a training and shooting standpoint and as always, it's a gun forum and participation is optional, people ask questions and those who think it's not a worthwhile topic, well......

And we are agreed that training and shooting fundamentals is paramount over whatever gun type you choose.

Even if you stick to a single platform from a single manufacturer there is often somewhat subtle yet significant differences.

Consider Smith & Wesson's semi-automatics. While in terms of ergonomics very little has changed the transition from DA/SA and hammer fired DAO to striker fired eliminated the possibility of re-strike capability. The transition from the push forward to fire safety to either no manual safety or a swipe down manual safety is perhaps the biggest extra training required change.

Beyond those two change very little has changed. The polymer frames are just slightly lighter than the alloy framed Wonder Nines of the 1980s but sizes, distance to the trigger, grip angles and pointablity remain the same. S&W basically offers the same line up of single stack and double stack frames as what they were marketing almost a half century ago.

As mentioned above, the biggest training required difference has been the transition from push forward for fire to swipe down to fire safety. Honestly though I have found no difficulty adapting to both systems and most likely that is because I was also using both of those systems for quite a few decades.

Shield 9mm 2.0 sitting on top of my 469 from 1985. The top of the slide and backstraps were aligned. Notice grip size, angle, distance to trigger and even trigger shape.

 

[DustyGmt]

Even if you stick to a single platform from a single manufacturer there is often somewhat subtle yet significant differences.

Agreed. I like my 43 because I'm very comfortable and familiar with glock triggers, but unlike my compact and full size glocks, my thumb was touching the slide stop and I had to adjust my grip differently from the way I stack my thumbs on other larger glocks. It didn't really cause me any hassle and I think I only inadvertently actuated the slide stop once, but I still didn't like it and it's the only glock I have that doesn't have an extended slide stop, for that reason.

But if I go from shooting a Glock 17 striker fired to a HK USP compact hammer fired, I shoot it horribly. It's an awful trigger (to me).

I definitely wasn't implying all should adhere to my thought pattern on the subject, more of a general inquiry to see how many people also found the logic in sticking with one type or brand, etc....whatever.

 

[golden]

My duty gun is a GLOCK 19, but off duty, I never carry it. I use a 9m.m. SIG 365 most of the time. If I want more concealment, I go with a GLOCK 42 in 380ACP or a BERETTA Tomcat 3032 in .32ACP.. I am less concerned with firepower than my gun printing and attracting attention. I know it is a firepower versus concealment trade off, but it is the best compromise I have come up with.

Jim