A little help with concealed weapons...

A little thread necromancy going on here.

I switch on and off between guns, depending on the mood, environment, etc.
My primary carry is a full size Smith M&P40. I've had two stoppages from factory loads, both were cheap practice loads and had solid primer strikes. I've probably put about more than 1100 factory loads through it, so do the math. My reloads can be iffy at times, but it's my quality control, not the gun.

My second carry piece is a Smith SW990L, the compact, rounded off, Smith version of the P99. The size conceals better during the summer, which is why I bought it.

Every person who makes the decision to carry will end up with a box full of holsters eventually. There's one for every occasion, and personal tastes towards gun, fit, draw, and concealment will change.

The mindset of carry is also important. If you're not comfortable in your carry, it'll show, and you could be outed. Most people take "The Wal-mart walk", a trip to a 24/7 Walmart late at night to simply walk around and get comfortable with carrying. Avoiding fiddling with your clothes, leaning to the side, or other things takes time and practice.
When carrying, I never bend over at the waist, only at the knees, because my grip on the M&P can print.

An interesting thing happened yesterday. A man stepped up to the counter to get a fishing license. As he approached, I noticed he was wearing a sweatshirt ad jeans, and had pulled his pants up a little as he came up the aisle. I'm guilty of that move when I'm carrying, so it caught my attention. When he reached for his wallet for his ID, I caught sight of black leather just behind his hip on his right side when his shirt rode up a little. It's probably only the second time I've ID'd someone as carrying for certain.
I watched him out of curiosity as he looked around and waited for his license, and he tended to protect that side. I was tempted to ask him what kind he was carrying, but refrained. It's none of my business.

Most people would not have picked the guy out, so this represents something that carriers have in their favor. Most people won't think a bulge on the belt is a gun, preferring to consider it a phone or anything else. Had the guy been carrying inside-the-waistband, I would not have been able to spot him at all.

OP, when you come of age, try out as many guns as you can and take the one that feels the best, not that has the most hype. Don't leave any out just because they have one feature and not another, because a some features you can do without.

Colonel Marksman wrote:A shop owner in a gas station had 3 young men stand up his store, one of them was armed with a .45ACP 1911. The shop owner moved to the register, pulled out his gun, and before he could shoot, all three of them starting running for their lives. The owner shot 9 times, hitting two of the men in various places, and they never shot back. They just ran.

Noobs. You don't carry a gun, much less brandish it, if you're not prepared to use it.

Nachtsider wrote:

Colonel Marksman wrote:A shop owner in a gas station had 3 young men stand up his store, one of them was armed with a .45ACP 1911. The shop owner moved to the register, pulled out his gun, and before he could shoot, all three of them starting running for their lives. The owner shot 9 times, hitting two of the men in various places, and they never shot back. They just ran.

Noobs. You don't carry a gun, much less brandish it, if you're not prepared to use it.

That's the thing with criminals. Unless they're professional hitmen with a reward to kill you, a trained assassin sent by a government, or a mob boss leader, they are noobs. Criminals don't take guns to use them, they take them to intimidate people and hold up the law if necessary. They don't plan for innocent civilians pulling a gun on them. Police officers get shot at over 250% more times than innocent civilians with guns.

If I plan on breaking into a home, I'm going to do it with the confidence that I can overpower anyone in the home. I might take a knife, or go with a gun (that tends to be more intimidating). I rob my first house with a woman and her two children. They cower, do as I ask, I take things and with so much power over them, rape the woman. That success carries on to the next house. This one has a man and his teenage son, and I know that he personally doesn't believe in guns. The man tried to call 9-1-1, but I cut the phone line. Their household items are mine. The next house has an alarm system, so I cut power and the phone line. There is a dog that attacks me, but I shoot it. Now I move quickly in the empty home to take some things and get out.

The next house, I am more cautious about intelligence. This home has a father, a mother, and a young girl. All seem to be a happy family. They don't have an alarm system. One night, I saw the mother and father leave. This is going to be a piece of cake. I remember the first house with a woman and her two children. I can even kidnap the girl if I wanted. I cut the phone line, kick the back door open. She flees upstairs. I go up there, she must be scared, and...

WTF? She's got a f***ing shotgun! I'm running the hell outta here... *BANG*... now I'm bleeding all over the floor and fixing to die...


And that is why Texas has a lower crime rate than California or New York. That's also why Israel has an extremely low crime rate. Soldiers go on leave (home) with their combat gear. Almost every single neighbor is no more than 3 meters from an automatic assault rifle, and maybe even grenades. I don't know about you, but as a criminal, that is not the best neighborhood to be robbing.

Don't gundamentalists claim "An armed society is a polite society"?

Don't gundamentalists claim "An armed society is a polite society"?

Absolutely true. You don't pick a fight or get angry with someone who's armed. Those who actually know the law, and know the capability and effects of a gun, typically prefer to walk away from a confrontation than escalate it. Who cut who off in traffic or who said what about whose mother is really not worth bullets flying and people dying.

There are always the odd ones out though. A few people get a carry permit, or even just buy a gun, and think they're bad-ass. Alcohol and/or drugs are a common denominator in a large percentage of "rage" or "domestic" shootings. These people are the exception rather than the rule.

I carry a gun as often as I can. I don't want to shoot anyone with it (except maybe zombies). But I also am not going to put the security of my life and those around me in the hands of someone who is threatening it and/or committing a criminal act. Doing that makes you a dumb-ass living in their own flowery world. The real world is dangerous, and made more so by those who exploit weakness for personal gain.
If someone has decided to put my safety at risk in order to commit a crime, it's only fair that their life be at risk while committing it, right?

Noobs. You don't carry a gun, much less brandish it, if you're not prepared to use it.

Absolutely. A lot of people have trouble making that leap of logic. "I just want to scare them" is the tagline of someone who has not thought it through. Usually a "What if they come at you after that. Will you shoot then? When is the last line crossed?" will steer them into the right train of thought.

As a defensive carrier, you draw your gun when there is every liklihood you will have to fire. Many encounters have been avoided simply by uncovering it in the holster. While considered brandishing, and even threatening in some of the less civilized locales (Kalifornia, for instance), often the knowledge that you actually are armed can divert the bad guy intentions away from you. You must still be ready to go all the way, because some nuts just want to die.

On the high-cap/single stack debate, I read of a couple getting jumped and beaten near-death by eight or more assailants at once. In a situation like that, you'd better believe I'd be shooting and glad I have more than eight rounds, regardless of how many it took to get the survivors to flee.

You're right on both counts, Mav. Most people have never been put into a situation where it is "Us or Them," and even then, being bullied does not count. One has to be in a "Life or Death" and those are only happen during a crime as either victim or as one who would step in to stop a crime in progress (officer of the law, good samaritian, etc.).

Kiskaloo wrote:Don't gundamentalists claim "An armed society is a polite society"?

... I love Texas!

but won't it lead to cowboy country all over again?

but won't it lead to cowboy country all over again?

The tales of the old west make it out to be wilder than it actually was. It was the same type of romanticism that surrounded the WWI pilots in the early years. The truth was little like what actually happened.

The last great war (WWI) was a time when the old rules of war were still being held on to, but quickly went to hell. To believe that there was once a upon a time a guy can take a date to a far away hill to watch the battle in the valley while they munched on bread and krumpets and drank wine, and would be left alone to witness history!

Many WWI Pilots had honor, but all this was before April 1917, then all hell broke lose. With the death of the Red Baron, there was no more honor or dignity, just fight until one could fly away and the other spiralled down in smoke and fire. Mind you, these guys were flying planes that were made from wood, canvas and welded pipe... You did not have much protection, nor were you allowed to have a parachute like the ballon guys had!

In the Old West, I say it was far more likely for one desperado to sneak up on another and blast him in the face with a shotgun than face him down in a quick-draw contest on Main Street at high noon.

The only rule in war is that there are no real rules.

which proves that gundamentalists don't really have a point

West Nile wrote:which proves that gundamentalists don't really have a point

Well West Nile, if you're a desperado, how much would you want to risk blasting a man in the face, you don't know is equally well armed, with citizens standing around who could also be armed?

Gundamentalists (like myself) know that the criminals will always get their hands on the guns, regardless of the laws. Might as well arm the innocent citizens to get an even greater match for the gun-wielding criminals.


Anyway, back in the Old West, criminals had a tendency to shoot on each other and simply used their guns for intimidation purposes. Do you know about how the Dalton Gang died? Dalton was determined to rob very peaceful Coffeyville, Kansas, determined to rob two banks at once in broad daylight, something not even Jesse James ever considered. But upon walking out, the entire town fired on them, most receiving 10+ gunshot wounds. They took pistols to a rifle/shotgun fight. Emmet Dalton miraculously survived (with 23 gunshot wounds). The Town Marshal died, but 3 townspeople shot (survived).

If there was a strict gun control in the areas of the Wild West, things would be worse... far worse. In those days, people would shoot back and kill you, nothing like today. Criminals are safer today...

Unless they're inside a home in Texas. Then the Texan is given the right to kill the intruder, no questions asked.

true, but this is only practical if we are to believe that criminals are idiots. yes a couple would be killed at 1st but afterwards, criminals would learn to wear body armor then carry larger caliber guns... and soon it would be an arms race between the common citizen and the criminals, and where criminals can spend more on weapons since anyway this is their profession, the citizens are at a lost

There's a flaw in your logic there, West. neither criminals nor common citizens have unlimited resources. I mean, hell, I'd LOVE to get my hands on a XM107 sniper rifle, but do I have the money for it? No. Your average criminal on the street would love to get his hands on a Glock .45, but he's more likely to have a Hi-Point 9mm. Criminal syndicates aren't like they were in the 1940s.
That being said, I'm actually for gun control. Any citizen should be able to own a gun if they can prove they're capable of using it responsibly.

...we have too many armed idiots who need some harsh training. If you wanna own a gun, the minimum requirement should be to go through US Army Basic Rifle Marksmanship and Reflexive Fire training. Might be funny to watch some civilians floundering through those with a Drill Sergeant boot on their head.

LoC978 wrote:There's a flaw in your logic there, West. neither criminals nor common citizens have unlimited resources. I mean, hell, I'd LOVE to get my hands on a XM107 sniper rifle, but do I have the money for it? No. Your average criminal on the street would love to get his hands on a Glock .45, but he's more likely to have a Hi-Point 9mm. Criminal syndicates aren't like they were in the 1940s.
That being said, I'm actually for gun control. Any citizen should be able to own a gun if they can prove they're capable of using it responsibly.

...we have too many armed idiots who need some harsh training. If you wanna own a gun, the minimum requirement should be to go through US Army Basic Rifle Marksmanship and Reflexive Fire training. Might be funny to watch some civilians floundering through those with a Drill Sergeant boot on their head.

well that sounds alot better than just shouting "AK 47s for everyone!" as much as panzer would want that

body armor then carry larger caliber guns

The caliber of a gun has only a limited effect on it's lethality. A 45 really isn't any more lethal than a 9mm, in fact might be less so. Shot placement is always key.
And body armor is expensive. There is also the failure-to-stop drill for just such a situation.

we have too many armed idiots who need some harsh training. If you wanna own a gun, the minimum requirement should be to go through US Army Basic Rifle Marksmanship and Reflexive Fire training.

This would fall under infringement the same as if you had to pay $50,000 to be allowed to own a gun. Shall not be infringed is about as clear as it gets. Any law the government passes to make getting a gun more difficult is technically infringement. Now, I myself have some confliction regarding background checks. They are technically infringement, but as a seller, I had several instances where I was appreciative that there was a system in place.

I am all for people getting themselves some safety and marksmanship lessons, but a government requirement to do so changes it from a right to a privelage.

Regardless of whether training is required or not, the ultimate responsibility for how the weapon is used falls on the individual, not the gun, not the government, not the manufacturers, not the sales people. The law backs this philosophy. Even as an owner, with every right to shoot to save your life, you are responsible for every bullet you fire. Those who understand this are those who get themselves some training on their own initiative and without government pushing them to do it.

As for NFA items, I see no reason we need more against it. I would say that we need a little less. The cost of a select-fire gun is prohibitive to about 85% of the populace. You not only have the cost of the weapon, which can be considerable because there is no open registry to allow more guns to be put on it, but the $200 tax stamp and the paperwork, plus the wait time. Even if they opened the registry and allowed for imports, the cost would likely remain high because the flow would be stifled by the limited number of NFA licensed dealers.

The most popular NFA items are suppressors. Even these are expensive, the less expensive being 22cal for between $200-$400, plus the tax stamp on top of that. A 9mm or 40cal will run you about a thousand. This is beyond what the average owner would be willing to pay.

maverick375 wrote:

we have too many armed idiots who need some harsh training. If you wanna own a gun, the minimum requirement should be to go through US Army Basic Rifle Marksmanship and Reflexive Fire training.

This would fall under infringement the same as if you had to pay $50,000 to be allowed to own a gun. Shall not be infringed is about as clear as it gets.

I could go off on a tangent here, but... I'll just say this:
As I grow older, I see the constitution (Bill 'O Rights included) less as a source of inspired law and more as an antiquated document designed for a much more sparsely populated country.

that being said... I pretty well agree with the rest of your post, Maverick.

West Nile wrote:... criminals would learn to wear body armor then carry larger caliber guns...

In NYC, the Larry Davis Laws prohibits civilians from owning body amour, and a large sentence if caught wearing one if in a comission of a crime.

ElfenMagix wrote:

West Nile wrote:... criminals would learn to wear body armor then carry larger caliber guns...

In NYC, the Larry Davis Laws prohibits civilians from owning body amour, and a large sentence if caught wearing one if in a comission of a crime.

Well doesn't wearing body armor already mean you don't plan to get caught?

West Nile wrote:

ElfenMagix wrote:

West Nile wrote:... criminals would learn to wear body armor then carry larger caliber guns...

In NYC, the Larry Davis Laws prohibits civilians from owning body amour, and a large sentence if caught wearing one if in a comission of a crime.

Well doesn't wearing body armor already mean you don't plan to get caught?

You have a point there, but the law is to show the stand of the state on this issue, which in this case means simply: YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE BODY ARMOUR

Anyway this law can be used in the event someone really is caught committing a crime in a flak jacket. Probably would happen if he's shot in the leg or worse, hit on the head with a baton from the back

Ok first off dont get obsesed with power, you wont need it. Get a Ruger MK2 .22LR caliber handgun and train with it untill you can move up in calibers (but still use the MK2 becuase its ammunition cost is very low) and always shoot for sport not for braging rights.

This is one of the few intelligent things said here in a lonng time!

ElfenMagix wrote:This is one of the few intelligent things said here in a lonng time!

Uhm are you talking about me?

Well doesn't wearing body armor already mean you don't plan to get caught?

Maybe if you're a criminal. What if you live in a bad neighborhood and simply want to be able to walk home from the subway without being killed in a drive-by? Should you be prohibited from protecting yourself via this means simply because an occasional criminal decides to use a vest to assist in their madness?

Again, I can see the point of such a law from the police point of view, but the facts remain the same: There IS a blackmarket, Criminals CAN get their hands on almost anything, and the only people actually being affected by such vest and gun prohibitions are the LAW-ABIDING public, who by definition are not the ones you need worry about.

Hence why crime rates are higher in cities that have such gun prohibitions. A law abiding individual, armed in their home and maybe on the street, is a deterrent to crime, because many places now have laws that support a self-defense use of lethal force. Most criminals don't want to risk death for a few bucks and a cell phone, and will think twice. The few who still go on with their actions are the ones that, I would argue, deserve to die. If not for their stupidity, than for their callous disregard for the life of others.