Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


Here are a variety of guns I have carried in various ways



G26 with a +2 OEM baseplate - my favorite spring/fall carry pistol



J frame with Altamont wood boot grips





Same J frame with checkered combat grips by Altamont



G17 RTF with TLR1 - I have carried this before. Usually my IDPA/gun game pistol.







A well loved Glock 19. Easily most carried pistol.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


If I carry a spare mag it's with a comp-tac OWB mag holder. I found IWB mag pouches are just too uncomfortable and if I am carrying IWB it's probably too hot for anything but a pistol anyway. I often carry an AIWB pistol with the OWB mag pouch under a light jacket - conceals better, 1000x more comfortable than more poo poo IWB.

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


QuarkMartial posted:

Snubbies rule. Going to buy one in the spring. I'll have an LCP, snub, and a Glock 17 for CCW, then I can narrow from there.

Spent the week driving and carrying my G17 OWB in a Don Hume holster. I don't like how much it prints under shirts that are anything other than super loose. No one's said anything, though, so whatever. It's also way more comfortable than my MTAC. I'm actually a little amazed at it. I'm a big guy, crammed into a Sentra, and the gun isn't digging into me at all (even afer 5-7 hours).

OWB will always be more comfortable than IWB, especially with a big honkin pistol like that

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


Fog Tripper posted:


Worst trigger I've shot? Glock hands down.



Whenever somebody says this I immediately discount their ability and experience as a shooter.

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


vigorous sodomy posted:

Glock bias has nothing to do with it does it.

No. I think Glock triggers are thoroughly mediocre, but they are eminently shootable. If you can shoot a handgun well, you'll be able to pick up a Glock and shoot it well inside of a few magazines. Same goes for any other modern handgun, with the possible exception of modern S&W J frames. My god those triggers are awful, and actively prevent me from shooting well.

Also not sure if anyone is keeping score but every time I recommend a Glock I also recommend an M&P, too.

DeesGrandpa posted:

Nah, it's just that if a glock of all things has the worst trigger you've felt you've been REALLY lucky with your gunhaving.

Also, this.

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


snotball007 posted:

Glocks in general are a utilitarian gun. Trigger, sights, and pre-Gen 4 ergonomics are the baseline for what is considered acceptable by most for the basics. It's not bad, but it's not good.

You really can't compare a revolver to a striker fired pistol when it comes to triggers. Completely different mechanics at play.

Yea I agree w/ all of this.

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


Loucks posted:

Makes me almost wish I still had a stock PA-63 to make them shoot. That DA trigger felt like dragging a 50lb cannonball through a sandpit.

Exactly.

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


Sixgun Strumpet posted:



Remember, this isn't a duty weapon, this is insurance. In my judgement what matters is having enough cartridge to stop someone, in a gun that I can shoot accurately, that no-one knows I have (jframes conceal like no other by the way), and most importantly that I will actually carry.

While I agree with this generally speaking, it's important to remove romantic considerations from the equation when picking a firearm for self defense. I agree that for many people a Glock 19 is to big to carry all the time (I manage it about 50-75% of the year) but having tried the J frame I can say pretty confidently that I wish I had saved the money and bought a Shield. The J frame disappears for sure, but I shoot it like crap and the recoil is very unpleasant. Shot a shield the other day and loved it - safe to say that I will probably move the Airweight and replace it with a shield once I am back into gun-buying territory financially speaking.

Pubic Lair posted:

I'm not recommending drug use, my point was they have handwarmers attached to the bladder so the samples are the right temp.

To get back on track, I have a glock 19 and a remora holster I bought about 5 years ago when IL was supposedly getting concealed carry. As of Jan 1 we finally got it and I'd like to get my license. What other IWB holsters should I be looking for in the meantime. Gun is a gen 3.

Comp-tac MTAC is a good one that is often recommended.

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


Butch Cassidy posted:

Sure, J-frames are decidedly a regular shooter's gun but if someone takes the time to use one well, hosed if I care that they leave a Glock at home.

Because most people don't actually take the time to learn to shoot one well. Or, for that matter, take into consideration other factors like the visibility of the sights (i.e. not visible without aftermarket tritium replacements or CT laser grips), how reliable the gun actually is with their chosen carry ammo (cough 1911s cough), whether or not they will actually carry the gun with any frequency (ie. the Beretta), etc.

Juice is a good example of the point you are trying to make. He really likes 1911s. Not for any reason other than that they are just 1911s. However, he spends a lot of money to buy high quality 1911s that function well and seeks training so that he can use his 1911s proficiently. He recognizes the strengths and weaknesses of the gun he has decided to carry and has put in effort to ensure he is proficient in their use. So he is an example of somebody who does and should carry a pistol just because he likes it.

However if someone wanders into TFR looking for a gun that they want to use for protection, or maybe just to shoot, or both, or whatever, and we push him/her towards a Hi Power or a snub nose K frame then they are basically at the mercy of our lovely advice. Sure, maybe they end up loving that Hi Power/K frame so much they send it off to cylinder and slide for improved sights and trigger work, and end up putting 15k rounds through it over the next 2 years in a mixture of recreational, competitive, and instructor-led shooting. That'd be great.

However, that's not likely. For that reason I recommend people buy & carry boring rear end guns. They're inexpensive, reliable, and maximize advantages while minimizing disadvantages in the context of both recreational shooting and personal protection. A new shooter is going to like shooting pretty much any gun - let's be honest. Buying your first (and second, and third) handgun is a thrill. Doesn't matter if it's a Glock or a 1911 or a Borchardt, you're going to like it because it's your first and maybe only gun. For this reason, I try to stress objective criteria when selecting a gun for carry so new shooters don't do something foolish.

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


californiasushi posted:

imo the low capacity/speed of reloading is a bigger liability than the trigger and that's the main reason i would consider moving to a glock 26 or the single stack 9 glock whenever it comes out

They make a shield w/o manual safety. I plan on buying one in the spring/early summer.

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


vigorous sodomy posted:


The shop I bought my shield from told me the safetyless shields were on order for 6 months and weren't coming in any time soon. I opted to just pick up the one with the safety because it's just as easy to not use it!

Buds has em in stock.

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


Senior Funkenstien posted:

Alright so I'm considering a few carry guns. Whats the opinions on the SW bodyguard, SCCY CPX-2, and Ruger LC9S?


right arm posted:

none of the above

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


Senior Funkenstien posted:

I can get all of those for around the same price range. Thats why I'm asking. I am leaning towards the ruger because of hickock45's videos on it.

The Shield and Glock 42 are only ~400 bucks. That's only ~50-80 dollars more than the guns you list.

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


Butch Cassidy posted:

The LC9 is a fine/accurate/rugged/reliable if entirely unexiting and given a stupid safety.

The LC9S has a better trigger, same stupid safety, has no street record, and requires a mag be inserted and trigger pressed to field-strip. I would pass on it, but also take it over the other two.

I'm pretty sure neither of those guns has a "street record."

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


Butch Cassidy posted:

Bullshit. You know what I meant.

The LC9 has seen enough classes, high round count units, and was widely sold while receiving pretty well no negative press beyond


has it? I honestly am not sure that it has or has not. I've never heard of an LC9 that has had >2k rounds through it. Certainly not >10k.

If you have evidence for this assertion I would be curious to see you produce it.

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


XxLiveWirexX posted:

I know this is a few posts up, is the thunderwear/smartcarry the recommended appendix carry method? Does anyone have any experience with the comp-tac two o'clock holster? I want to try this with a PPS.

1. No. Smartcarry/thunderwear is an all-fabric holster that I would only use a. if absolutely no other way of carrying was advisable and b. with a tiny, light-weight pistol like an LCP.
2. I have heard not-great things about the Comp-Tac 2 o'clock. For AIWB I recommend the following options:

a. Dale Fricke Archangel
b. the JM Custom Kydex AIWB holster
c. Perhaps especially for smaller guns like your PPS, I really like the the Garrett Industries Silent Thunder Slim

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


snotball007 posted:

I disagree with that assessment. Holsters, sure. But you really shouldn't have to replace sights unless they are either pure hot garbage (Glock U dot) or you really just want something different. I was tempted to cheap out on my used G19 and throw on some standard night sights, but my personal preference for i dots changed that.

What I'm saying is that if you can't become decent with "okay" sights, then you probably need to reevaluate your skills. Shouldn't have to replace sights because they fall out, that's Kel-Tec quality and not S&W quality.

How hard is it to screw up three dots anyway?

IMO having at least a tritium front sight post is non-negotiable on a carry pistol. Additionally, I would include in that base price increase at least two other spare magazines dedicated to carry ONLY and 100 rounds of a well vetted JHP of choice. Shoot one 50 round box using the dedicated carry mags, carry the other.

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


Sixgun Strumpet posted:

I remain wholly unconvinced that night sights are necessary.

If you can't see well enough to see your sights, how can you be sure of your target?

That aside, I'm not convinced a carry gun needs sights at all. If you can't hit center mass just by sighting along the top off your gun you may be in need of more practice.

I will say a lot of this opinion has been formed shooting old guns with all but useless archaic sights, and still being accurate enough with them for self defense work.

I love a great set off iron sights, but I can't say as my accuracy would drop much if you removed the sights completely. Would be interesting too test if I were touch enough to destroy a j frame.

This is a lot of really bad advice, sixgun.

1. Yes, you can absolutely be able to see a target and not your sights - especially in mixed lighting conditions. Take a look at this photo for an easy example, and read the post on why night sights linked here :



quote:

Pretty straight forward, yes? I shot it with my phone sitting on my couch in the living room. Literally, without moving my butt one inch while reading the aforementioned thread I was able to look up and see a very typical lighting condition which seems to be completely ignored by most people in the debate about night sights.

Is there enough light downrange to identify my target properly? Yes.

Is there enough light on the gun to line up my sights properly? No.

Is there enough light downrange to line up my sights properly? No.

2. Can you hit a moving target without sights? Under stress? Do you have practice doing this in force on force scenarios? Can you do this without throwing a round into a bystander? I will remind you every bullet you fire in a public place has a lawyer attached to it. I think it is irresponsible of you to make the case that you don't need to use the sights without qualifying this with the caveat that you're basically assuming everything works out in your favor and you are defending yourself against a 350l diabetic in a rascal scooter. Not 2-3 people approaching you rapidly in the dark with weapons.

snotball007 posted:

Historically, dedicated carry guns have had little to no sight picture (J frames, Walther PPK's, Seecamps, etc.).


How many undercover LEOs carry seecamps or PPKs? Why do J frame crimson trace grips sell so well?

snotball007 posted:

Does Kommienzuspadt's standard of putting shots on an index card at 15 yards a necessity with a carry gun? No, but great for a modern carry gun which pulls double duty on the range.


To clarify, the index card at varying distances has nothing to do with concealed carry beyond its utility as a measure of marksmanship ability - it's just an easy standard that anyone can use without a shot timer or IDPA targets.

snotball007 posted:


Basically, what I'm saying, is that I'm not sorry for saying that S&W is terrible for making such cheap sights on a pistol that is supposed to be "Military and Police".

Ever notice that all of the police surplus .40 S&W M&Ps come with 3-dot tritium night sights? Ever wonder why that is? Hint - that's how they left the factory...

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


Exit Strategy posted:

Part of me would really like to put night sights on my carry gun.

The rest of me understands that I can't spare the cash right now, having just moved. Additionally, I carry with a light on my gun in one of the Old Faithful homebuild kits. When drawing, the light defaults to coming on - Holstering turns it off. If I have the few seconds to do so, I can draw it with the light off by slightly adjusting my arm before drawing.

Intentionally drawing with the light off, though, smacks of premeditation in my brain. If it's dark and I need the gun, I can illuminate whatever potential threat I need to see in order to determine if it needs lit up.

You should put night sights on your gun. You can always compromise and get a single-lamp tritium front sight with flat black rears, which is what I have. I want to get 3-dot or 2-dot night sights but I can't justify splashing out the ~300 bucks to upgrade all of my glocks right now.

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


PRESIDENT GOKU posted:

I like how lovely advice is the same as 'advice I don't agree with.'

no, it's "advice given by people without qualifications or without qualified, cited, subject matter expert sources."

here, I'll make up a piece of carry advice - everyone should carry a .22, because the bullets bounce around when they hit bones. That's why the mob uses them to assassinate people. Also, 9mm doesn't have stopping power - if it doesnt start with .4, you shouldn't carry it. See? I have good advice too!

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


Butch Cassidy posted:

Or cited sources.

Kommienzuspadt posted:

This is a lot of really bad advice, sixgun.

1. Yes, you can absolutely be able to see a target and not your sights - especially in mixed lighting conditions. Take a look at this photo for an easy example, and read the post on why night sights linked here :

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


Butch Cassidy posted:

No citation

:razzbert: should be an emoticon.

Do you not see hyperlinks or something? Todd Louis Green.

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


Butch Cassidy posted:

Does the mag. look like Mec-Gar could do up a 17 round flush-fit or are we going to be stuck with 15 round mags in a G17 size grip?

That is for me one of the biggest disappointments of the VP9...especially given that any VP9c would hold even fewer rounds...

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


OWLS! posted:

After over two years of lugging around a well-worn Colt pocket hammerless in .32acp in my pocket, I bought myself a 9mm Shield, one partially because my collection was severely lacking in plastic-fantastic department, but mostly, I wanted to see if 100+ years of progress could convince me to replace my classy-as-gently caress pocket-carry piece.

Verdict on the Shield - is nice gun, but the Colt remains in my pocket.

If I didn't have the Colt, would this be my carry gun of choice? Probably. It's slim, the trigger is nice, it feels good in my hand. You can shoot lightly-loaded ammo more comfortably than other plastic 9s in its class.
Anybody who says that 9mm out of a Shield is pleasant, has only shot soft range ammo through the thing. It's not pleasant. It's punchy, it's controllable, there isn't much muzzle rize, and I like it better than a shitton of Glocks I've shot, but it's not pleasant by any stretch of the imagination.

End result? I want a CZ Rami now.

I think you are making a mistake in assessing the importance of your subjective experience in shooting the Shield versus the objective weaknesses of a century-old handgun chambered .32 ACP. That is my opinion.

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


OWLS! posted:

In my opinion, you're a terrible poster who chooses to engage in caliber wankery, glock fetishism, and are one of the reasons we don't get more new posters in these threads.

In my opinion, you mad

snotball007 posted:

Cited reference: Springfield XD pistols. Used to be cool, but now considered some abomination to carry.


I'd carry an XD waaaay before I carry a 100 year old hammerless pocket gun in .32 acp with springs that were manufactured when fuckin woodrow wilson was president

Fang posted:

would be better off with that .22 than carrying a 9mm which made him flinch every time he pulled the trigger.

No, i'd rather that this person either a) learn to shoot and be comfortable with guns to the point they don't flinch terribly while shooting 9mm or b) not carry a gun.

Kommienzuspadt fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Oct 27, 2014

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


OWLS! posted:

Let's take this a logical step further: nobody should carry, except for LEOs because they undergo the only right training with their firearms...

Some LEOs actually get a fairly minimal amount of training with their handguns. I would personally ask someone who is carrying a lethal weapon to get as much as they can abide.

You're carrying a loaded firearm around in public. Don't you think that means you have some vague responsibility to become proficient in its use? There are 15 year old girls who can shoot .40 caliber pistols well better than I can. You know the difference between them and me, or them and you? They practice a lot because they want to win and they are invested in their ability to shoot a pistol well.

If you carry a loaded firearm for self defense you do in fact have an obligation at the very least to your self, if not the other people who may be around when you decided to whip out your little antediluvian pocket blaster. Forget about how stupid that gun is for a minute. If you pull the trigger on that thing and it goes into a neighboring house, what do you think you are going to feel about training now? What if you can't even use the pistol to effect (which, I will remind you, is to incapacitate a motivated attacker(s) intent on doing you grievous bodily harm) because you bought a gun with non-visible sights in an inferior cartridge that is far more stochastically prone to malfunction than any modern equivalent?

The reason I get frustrated with people like you is because carrying an antiquated ghetto blaster tells me that you don't actually take the whole "self defense" part of concealed carry very seriously - and especially once you start heaping scorn on the very idea of practicing to be good with it. If you enjoy shooting that colt hammerless at the range, then god bless you. I couldn't be more happy for you. hell, I bet I'd like shooting it too.. Once you start toting that thing around, I would like to see at least a bare minimum of commitment to being proficient in its use because you are carrying a goddamn loaded handgun in public

What if a police officer carried a hi point that he only shot once a year? Would you feel safer knowing that somewhere out there, Officer Friendly has a loaded firearm of questionable quality for the job at hand that he doesn't even care to be proficient with? A gun he will ostensibly be ready to use in the gravest extreme to protect human life?

If you're not comfortable with 9mm, I suggest you practice to the point that you are. It is not at all an unreasonable caliber. Lots of shooters of small stature can shoot 9mms proficiently - my guess is that your technique is what is lacking. Seek quality firearms instruction, as this will likely help quite a bit. If you still don't like 9mm, buy a .380 like a Glock 42 or some other soft-shooting pistol that still has modern amenities like sights you can see and springs made sometime after the sinking of the Titanic. Shoot that gun until you are very confident in your ability to do so well, because you are carrying a gun that you might one day actually use.

Is it likely that you'll use it? No. Definitely not. but the whole reason you have made the decision to carry is because you've decided that it's enough of a concern that you want to be ready for that unlikely but grave possibility that your life or that of another innocent's might be ended by an aggressor. If that isn't something you take seriously, then why do you bother to carry at all? Buy a can of pepper spray, everyone will be a lot safer for it.

Kommienzuspadt fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Oct 27, 2014

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


Butch Cassidy posted:

Do you guys need reminding he packs a CZ 75B and uses the Colt as his can't-have-a-gun pocket rocket at which point only caliber separates it from an LCP in function*.

*Assuming maintenance.

The guns are less of an issue than the idea that it doesn't matter what he carries or how good he is with it.

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


Butch Cassidy posted:

It's almost like he originally stated that he bought the Shield as a pocket gun, had slower follow-up shots with it and more trouble holding target and would Hereford continue using the Colt for now. And that his Shield would be a fine belt gun.

Uh, did he say that? Because I am actually pretty sure he did not.

besides, I was in fact quoting this post

OWLS! posted:

Let's take this a logical step further: nobody should carry, except for LEOs because they undergo the only right training with their firearms...

because it seems to imply that people who carry do not have any obligation to train with their firearms in a way that is exposed to outside critique and and defined in performance by the standards of others. I argue that they do, whether or not it is required by law.

OWLS! posted:

Holy poo poo, I'm banging on about how this exactly does matter, and that people should be more aware of it, rather than using caliber numbers as a panacea for everything, whereas you... No gently caress it


See above

Also, your gun is still retarded

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


Greengarden posted:


Yeah. Apparently, the concealed carry thread is the 9mm-in-an-approved-gun-or-you're-an-idiot thread.

thiis is because quite honestly I have little to no faith in the common sense or shooting ability of the vast majority of people who end up in this thread. I have very rarely been given reason to feel wrong about my assumption.

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


Butch Cassidy posted:

And you very often come across as an arrogant and boorish rear end in a top hat rather than someone who would genuinely like to offer advice. Stamp your feet and feel indignant all you want, just don't believe for a second it is helpful to put someone down as the first response to a post you disagree with.

I don't think that many people that come in this thread genuinely want to receive advice, so I think your perception of my attitude makes little difference either way. When it is acceptable for people to discuss not using the sights on their pistol - an idea that is advocated by 0% of well-qualified firearms instructors and/or other SMEs - then I don't feel any particular obligation to mince words.

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


Yuns posted:

The JM Custom AIWB holsters are my absolute favorite holsters for concealment of full sized firearms. I find them comfortable when positioned correctly and they just make firearms disappear. I wish I could order them for every pistol I have. Also speaking of inappropriate carry guns, my OWB holsters for my 6" barrel Sig Arms P210 and 4" Korth Sport revolver are on their way from Austria.

My current favorite holsters are:

Appendix Carry:
JM Custom AIWB with no extra tuck and split kydex loops
5 Shot Leather SME


What other appendix holsters have you tried? I am curious as I have some beefs with my Archangel and have idly considered upgrading for a while.

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


Yuns posted:

In addition to the JM Custom Appendix and 5 Shot SME, I have also tried a Bianchi 6D ATB, an Uncle Mikes, and a Raven Concealment Phantom (not ACR) in appendix carry. What are you issues with the Archangel?

The Archangel rides just a little too high, so sometimes the grip "rolls" outwards from my body. it doesn't do a great job keeping flat unless I carry towards the 2 o'clock position, where I find the barrel then jabs into my thigh.

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


PRESIDENT GOKU posted:

Tell me about blowing 10mm Glocks.

Well, it's quite simple. First, you anger a butthurt goon with a lazy sense of humor

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


Darth Freddy posted:

I know there was a list of defensive ammo posted but I can't find it. With a snub nose like the S&W should I be using full power 357 mag loads or out of that short of a barrel is it not going to make much of a difference and to stick to 38/+38?

definitely stick to .38 +P as its more controllable and .357 offers no improvement in performance as noted above.

I recommend the speer gold dot +P 135gr

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


Darth Freddy posted:

Thanks guys, I kind of figured that the way it would turn out. Time to order more ammo and a pocket holster!

Hornady Critical Defense has actually also tested fairly well. Standard pressure, 110gr FTX.

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


Butch Cassidy posted:

I still like Buffalo Bore's standard pressure 158 grain LSWC-HC in a snub. It isn't particularly impressive and the load type sucks against barriers, but I grew up with crotchety old fucks who stood by the steel J-frames and FBI loads they had been packing through the eighties in leather pancakes. Also, it was the best I could actually get my hands on when I toted my 36.

I think those things probably work just fine. I wanna get some for myself eventually.

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


Dr Ozziemandius posted:

Is there any reason why nobody ever brings up the CZ RAMI pistol in here? Are they just turds or something? Cause a little bitty CZ 75 seems like a pretty cool thing to me.


Basticle posted:

They get brought up in various threads from time to time but I think the #1 reason most people dont carry them is finding a holster would be a pain in the dick.

also, generally speaking, CZ pistols can be finicky relative to more popular service pistols, and are definitely a much bigger pain to work on if you want to improve/replace components of the trigger. If you really want a subcompact CZ for carry, that'd be the one to get, but I'd start with more popular subcompact options first (Glock 26/27, S&W M&P9/40c, etc). That said there's nothing inherently wrong with the RAMI as long as you put effort into making it the way you want and are confident in your ability to shoot/maintain the pistol.

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


Butch Cassidy posted:

Heavier bullets might help. I bet the sights are regulated for 147 grain. 124 grain may hit to POA as well in peppier loads.

IIRC CZs are sighted in for 124gr +P.


ToreA55 posted:

Oh, hey, boys :bigtran:



I've noticed a lot of conversations on here about .38 spl/.357 that's designed around short barrels to get good performance out of them. Is this also a consideration for 9 mm?


For 9mm this is less of a consideration as barrels on snub revolvers are much shorter than 9mm autos. That said, BC is right in that 147gr is a better in shorter barrels as they typically lose less velocity out of shorter barrels. Here is a quote that I found helpful:

quote:

When we redesigned the Ranger T Series of ammunition we widened the velocity window under which the round would expand to allow for the slower velocities that shorter than standard barrels produce. What this means is that if you own a standard or sub compact pistol the round should have adequate expansion. In 9mm I would recommend the 147 grain bullet as it loses a lower velocity percentage than the faster lighter bullet in shorter than normal barrels. This is because the bullet has more dwell time in the bore and has a greater opportunity to burn the powder before the bullet exits the bore. Powder that is burned outside the bore does nothing for velocity. The lighter faster bullets generally have more powder to burn and since the lighter faster bullets have less time in the bore they are not efficient burners of powder in the shorter barrels.

We increased the velocity window under which the round would expand by increasing the size of the hollowpoint, tweaking the jacket thickness and the depth of the cuts on the inside of the jacket petal segments.

Sincerely,

Paul Nowak
Senior Technical Specialist
Winchester Law Enforcement Ammunition

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


Butch Cassidy posted:

I'd believe a 124 grain regulation. And I wouldn't lose any sleep stoking some 124 grain HST/Gold Dot/Ranger-T if they did prove to hit more to POA than 147.

Yeah realistically as long as its a good bullet loaded by a good company, it won't matter too much. Velocity only starts to get really tricky when you're talking snubby revolver barrels.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Kommienzuspadt
Apr 28, 2004

U like it


PRESIDENT GOKU posted:

I can take it off if I want, but why would I not want extra ammo?

I carry a spare mag when I carry OWB during the wintertime (because, why not?) but with AIWB (or any IWB) i think the extra waistband real estate taken up by that spare mag is not worth it for me.

Crunkjuice posted:

Also, isn't one of the main arguments "If you're in a situation where you need more than x amount of ammo you've hosed up pretty hard in the first place"? I guess if you are in that situation you would want more ammo, but things like non violent conflict resolution and straight up running are probably more useful traits than spare magazines.

It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever need a gun, and even less likely they will need 30 rounds of 9mm, but frankly when you're talking about mitigating about the vanishing odds of using lethal force in self defense vs. daily comfort, it is and always will be a question of personal thresholds.

personally, I will always try to carry a reload if the gun I am carrying holds <10 rounds in the magazine. If it holds >10rounds, then I don't bother unless carrying OWB.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply