Looking for the right carry gun

[CBC2009]

i have been looking for carry gun for a while now, i do have a taurus 709 slim on order but i still dont know much about it.

Does anyone know anything about it or something similar with a manual safety.

Edited January 13, 2009 by CBC2009

[ZenDog]

Welcome to TGO.

I don't like safeties on my carry weapons myself because I do not trust myself to flawlessly remember to perform a fine motor skill like taking off the safety under life threatening conditions where my life depends on time.

Draw-point-bang. That's all I want in a carry gun. Lately that means a Glock 26 or a S&W 642.

But, ymmv. If it reliable and you can shoot it well under pressure, carry on.

[Guest bkelm18]

Check out some of the S&W 3rd gen autos. They come highly rated from people who use them.

[Steelharp]

Check out the new Ruger SR9. Flat, slim, 17 + 1 rds 9mm, thumb safety that isn't a necessity, but it's there if you want it, extremely low bore axis for a push instead of a flip... best carry gun I've ever owned.

[Guest bkelm18]

Check out the new Ruger SR9. Flat, slim, 17 + 1 rds 9mm, thumb safety that isn't a necessity, but it's there if you want it, extremely low bore axis for a push instead of a flip... best carry gun I've ever owned.

You SR9 people.... I need to go fondle one of these since everybody loves theirs so much and see what the hype is about.

[Guest Astra900]

Hard to beat a good revolver.

[Steelharp]

One fondle will do it. It feels like a sleek single stack 1911... but it's a double stack 9mm. A little trigger tune, and it feels like a smooth SA, as well.

[Garufa]

Welcom to the Thunderdome!.

Never heard of the PT709 'till now! But from what I've found it looks pretty nice!

Edited January 14, 2009 by Garufa

[Guest CK1]

+1 on the SR9... i've owned a lot of different guns, but none have been as easy to carry and conceal, even easier than a glock 26 (the SR9 is very slim, slimmer than just about anything out there, especially w/ 17+1 capacity, and for CCW slimness matters more than overall size or barrel length IMHO...).

actually, i'm on my second SR9, and i kind of got a lemon the second time around (the gun was shooting about 6"-8" left at 10 yards), my first one was flawless through 3500+ rounds.

ruger sent me a shipping label last monday, and the gun will be back tomarrow from service w/ a new slide hopefully all better... a little over a week back and forth, now that's customer service!

feel/ergos wise, the only other gun out there that compares is the M&P9, but the SR9 feels a hair better in my hands, and the M&p's w/ thumb safety's won't be shipping 'till 2-4 weeks after the shot show (i prefer the belt + suspenders approach to guns tucked in my waistband).

if that's too big, and you're not into the "pocket guns" like a Kel-Tec P11/PF9 or LCP, i'd recommend the Walther PPS... i'm saving for one now (more like smoothing it over w/ my wife... expensive little gun) for a summer carry piece.

Edited January 14, 2009 by CK1

[Buzz]

i have been looking for carry gun for a while now, i do have a taurus 709 slim on order but i still dont know much about it.

Does anyone know anything about it or something similar with a manual safety.

I happen to like a manual safety also. 3rd gen S&W autos are tough to beat for that. I don't have to carry it with the safety on, but I like that I can flip the safety on when I take the gun off at home. Drop the mag, and don't have to unload the chamber.

[CBC2009]

Thanks guys, i will check them out, the Ruger SR9 looks good.

[Guest Micromancer]

The correct answer is a Glock G19 in an MTAC holster.

[Steelharp]

The correct answer is a Glock G19 in an MTAC holster.

That was my choice... till the SR9. So much more ergonomically friendly...

[Guest gcrookston]

Guess I'm old school. My carry is a S&W 340PD or a S&W Mod.49...

[Guest Micromancer]

That was my choice... till the SR9. So much more ergonomically friendly...

I am accustomed to a much harsher environment than this board when it comes to what brands are for what purpose. So if I seem abrasive, I apologize in advance.

To be honest, a carry piece doesn't have a "looks good" or "feels good" requirement. It has a "every time I need to put a bullet in something, it does" requirement.

The SR9 is a new platform, and as such I would not be able to use it for a carry piece. I really don't understand the sentiment around here for the SR9. I am NOT saying it's not a good gun. I'm not even saying it's not a good carry weapon. What I am saying is *I* can't trust a new platform to provide the reliability and confidence a proven weapon can.

Essentially, if YOU feel comfortable trusting your life (and the lives of those around you) to something that may or may not function when you need it to then by all means do so. But I would feel irresponsible if I recommended someone else do it when I wasn't in danger if it fails.

OP: Please investigate your purchase before deciding. Impulse buying a carry piece is reckless and potentially does more harm than good. The point of concealed carry is safety. Why compromise the one thing you are after in the first place?

[Steelharp]

Excellent point, well taken. I'm sure when the first Colt SA Army's hit, there was the, "No way, I'm sticking with my cap and ball, thank you. I know it works" crowd.

Every gun is new, at first. My SR9 hasn't hiccuped yet. But even the most trustworthy "old friend" can cough at the wrong time. They're machines; it happens.

[Guest Micromancer]

Excellent point, well taken. I'm sure when the first Colt SA Army's hit, there was the, "No way, I'm sticking with my cap and ball, thank you. I know it works" crowd.

Every gun is new, at first. My SR9 hasn't hiccuped yet. But even the most trustworthy "old friend" can cough at the wrong time. They're machines; it happens.

There is no margin for error when the end result is your death. Glocks don't fail. Sure they BREAK. But they don't fail. I have heard of two catastrophic part breakages (one was guide rod, one was firing pin) and in both of those cases, the gun still fired.

It's this type of known quantity that I prefer to rely on rather than "Eh, the Mark II was pretty good so they probably know what they were doing." The fact of the matter is modern Ruger semi autos have a reputation of unreliability which is fueled by both incompetent gun owners and flawed design. The company is plagued with recalls recently.

I know people that have owned Ford Pintos that never exploded. But why would a person even recommend that car to anyone knowing that it has a greater potential for firey death than nearly anything else available at the time? Especially when something infinitely safer is available for the same price used?

I'm edging very close towards being a jerk here, and it really isn't intentional. I'm just somewhat passionate about people taking care of themselves and those around them. If you choose to be armed for defense, do not give your adversaries any kind of advantage.

[Guest CK1]

There is no margin for error when the end result is your death. Glocks don't fail. Sure they BREAK. But they don't fail. I have heard of two catastrophic part breakages (one was guide rod, one was firing pin) and in both of those cases, the gun still fired.

It's this type of known quantity that I prefer to rely on rather than "Eh, the Mark II was pretty good so they probably know what they were doing." The fact of the matter is modern Ruger semi autos have a reputation of unreliability which is fueled by both incompetent gun owners and flawed design. The company is plagued with recalls recently.

I know people that have owned Ford Pintos that never exploded. But why would a person even recommend that car to anyone knowing that it has a greater potential for firey death than nearly anything else available at the time? Especially when something infinitely safer is available for the same price used?

I'm edging very close towards being a jerk here, and it really isn't intentional. I'm just somewhat passionate about people taking care of themselves and those around them. If you choose to be armed for defense, do not give your adversaries any kind of advantage.

good design is good design, period. internally the SR9 (and incidentally, the M&P and XD) are almost the same.

oh yeah,"perfection" can't be improved? tell that to all the M&P, XD and SR9 owners out in the world who've sold off their glocks...

it doesn't have to be a glock to go bang every time... and it doesn't have to be fat, have a long trigger reach, feel like a 2x4, require skateboard tape or a bike tire on the grip to be held solidly, altered forever (and possibly ruined) to have a manual safety, and have stayed the same and not evolved since 1985.

although i grew up w/ a stick, the kid's trick mustang down the street doesn't even have a chance against my clutchless nissan... ahh evolution.

[Guest Micromancer]

good design is good design, period. internally the SR9 (and incidentally, the M&P and XD) are almost the same.

oh yeah,"perfection" can't be improved? tell that to all the M&P, XD and SR9 owners out in the world who've sold off their glocks...

it doesn't have to be a glock to go bang every time... and it doesn't have to be fat, have a long trigger reach, feel like a 2x4, require skateboard tape or a bike tire on the grip to be held solidly, altered forever (and possibly ruined) to have a manual safety, and have stayed the same and not evolved since 1985.

although i grew up w/ a stick, the kid's trick mustang down the street doesn't even have a chance against my clutchless nissan... ahh evolution.

All of the innovation you are speaking of in those three models/brands are ergonomic. All of the function of those models is patently less reliable than Glocks. Suffice to say we aren't going to get anywhere with any of this: my priorities are not for comfort or looks. I want two rounds centermass every time. None of the models you mentioned can offer that.

Range toy, novelty piece sure sign me up. But a gun whose sole purpose is to remove threats must perform, and statistically the competition just doesn't cut it.

I'm going to shut up about this now I think. I've made my point and I can appreciate that not everyone agrees with me. You are entitled to your opinion and I will respect that.

One last thing: I do agree with you that adding a manual safety does ruin a Glock. Adding any kind of modification the gun wasn't designed for adds all kinds of additional points of failure and decreases reliability.

Edit: You know what? I was wrong. I just realized YOU were the one that posted the thread about their SR9 needing to be shipped back for a new slide because the sight mounts were drilled by a drunken epleptic. By all means PLEASE carry your SR9 so that when you need it we won't have to read any more from you about this gun.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Micromancer

[Steelharp]

All of the function of those models is patently less reliable than Glocks.

And how did we come to THAT sweeping conclusion?? Don't misunderstand, I have Glocks and love 'em. There are guns just as reliable, though.

[Guest Micromancer]

And how did we come to THAT sweeping conclusion?? Don't misunderstand, I have Glocks and love 'em. There are guns just as reliable, though.

M&P safety issue? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeVdei0gwCM

Here's one of many reports on the XD:

August 2nd - Fired XD2 (including PG Match barrel) for first time. Every third or fourth round, the gun would not go fully into battery (slide sticking back about 1cm). Once in this position, the slide was nearly locked in place. I had to grab the top of the slide with my left hand, then slam my right hand into the back of the pistol grip to get the slide to cycle and eject the round in the chamber. After ejection, the round showed no visible damage or defects.

• Rounds that failed to load repeated the failure when I tried loading them again.
  
  
• Initially, I suspected the rounds, but these are the same that have worked flawlessly in XD1.
  
  
• While at the range, I removed the PG Match Barrel and tried chamber-checking the rounds by dropping into the barrel's chamber. All seemed to drop in smoothly and fully (including the ones that failed to load properly in the complete gun

How about some hometown lovin' for the SR9?

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15761

Yes, you can find similar issues with the Glock. The problem is they are exponentially less frequent, which reduces the likelyhood of it happening to you.

[Steelharp]

All these models are new. How long has the Glock been in production? 1985? As I said before, every gun was new at one time. What were the Glock issues at the beginning? Give a new gun a 20+ run of production, and it should fare better then, too.

Folks say the SR9 is internally a Glock. It should be fine for you, then, if that's the case?

[Guest CK1]

M&P safety issue? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeVdei0gwCM

Here's one of many reports on the XD:

How about some hometown lovin' for the SR9? http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15761

Yes, you can find similar issues with the Glock. The problem is they are exponentially less frequent, which reduces the likelyhood of it happening to you.

[/indent]

dude, i think you should move out of your close-minded world. since i know this will fall on deaf ears, this is the last i'll say on the matter:

i owned a G17 for 10 years, and a G19, G20, and G26 for many many years... thousands of rounds through each of them and thousands through the new guys, and guess what, an SR9 or an M&P are both every bit JUST AS RELIABLE AS A GLOCK! the superiority you speak of is a myth, the guns mechanisms are ALMOST IDENTICAL, but if it makes you feel better, then good for you. the glock has more history, that's all.

P.S. yeaH, that SR9 example you put forth is one of my guns, you see my second SR9 was obviously kind of a lemon... all ruger did was pick up shipping both ways, hand fit and test shoot a new slide, reimburse me for any aftermarket work, and had it back to me in a little over a week! 300 flawless rounds through it this morning, dead accurate, they made it right. if i had purchased a lemon glock (yes, they exist) i'd most likely be screwed and have to take a loss on trading it, perfection doesn't apply to glock's customer service.

based on what i've read, something tells me you've never even shot an M&P or SR9... you probably should, back to back against your glock. field strip them and compare them, look at how they all work... then maybe you'd get it...

never fails, if there is a gun forum chat and glock comes up there is always some joker who thinks "glocks rule, all others suck", and believes no gun ever needs a safety because they're so skilled they'd never have an accident... are you one of those guys who ccw's even in the shower (and has a special tactical towel holster for just such scenerios...)? sure you are.

Edited January 16, 2009 by CK1

[Guest Micromancer]

All these models are new. How long has the Glock been in production? 1985? As I said before, every gun was new at one time. What were the Glock issues at the beginning? Give a new gun a 20+ run of production, and it should fare better then, too.

Folks say the SR9 is internally a Glock. It should be fine for you, then, if that's the case?

At the time of Glocks formal rollout, revolvers were still the order of the day. Once the platform had proven itself, it became the industry standard in personal defense because the benefits it brought to the table outweighed the drawbacks. It did not replace revolvers overnight. Not even over the course of a year. It takes time for a platform to prove itself. Being a Glock internally is not good enough because if you are giving me the same thing I already have, then switching does nothing but waste money. To be superior for personal defense it would have to address areas that are lacking in the Glock while still providing the same benefits. It can not do this at this time.

dude, i think you should move out of your close-minded world. since i know this will fall on deaf ears, this is the last i'll say on the matter:

I am open minded and listening. The problem is the suggestion you have is unacceptable when considering lives are at stake.

i owned a G17 for 10 years, and a G19, G20, and G26 for many many years... thousands of rounds through each of them and thousands through the new guys, and guess what, an SR9 or an M&P are both every bit JUST AS RELIABLE AS A GLOCK! the superiority you speak of is a myth, the guns mechanisms are ALMOST IDENTICAL, but if it makes you feel better, then good for you. the glock has more history, that's all.

P.S. yeaH, that SR9 example you put forth is one of my guns, you see my second SR9 was obviously kind of a lemon... all ruger did was pick up shipping both ways, hand fit and test shoot a new slide, reimburse me for any aftermarket work, and had it back to me in a little over a week! 300 flawless rounds through it this morning, dead accurate, they made it right. if i had purchased a lemon glock (yes, they exist) i'd most likely be screwed and have to take a loss on trading it, perfection doesn't apply to glock's customer service.

A broken gun can be repaired. A broken gun that gets you killed makes your need for customer service = zero. Because you are dead. If you willfully choose to rely on something that mathmatically has a significantly greater chance of failure, you are:

Not taking the protection of your life seriously.

Allowing your adversaries an easier probability of overcoming you.

Endangering the lives of those around you needlessly due to the possibility of failure when they need you most.

Personal defense is not something to accept "good enough" as an attribute of your carry weapon. If I were Mr. Miagi, I'd put it this way, "You either choose to protect yourself and your loved ones yes, or you choose to protect yourself and your loved ones no. Protect yourself and your loved ones maybe .... *squish* ... Just like grape."

based on what i've read, something tells me you've never even shot an M&P or SR9... you probably should, back to back against your glock. field strip them and compare them, look at how they all work... then maybe you'd get it...

If I build a Glock from my own die cast metal and plastic it becomes functionally identical. When those parts fail it's not because the design is flawed, it's because the materials used were inferior. Coming to the table with a functionally identical gun that fails more often than the one you are replacing does not a replacement make.

I would certainly love the chance to fire both of the models you mentioned, I bet they are a lot of fun. Personal defense is not a time for fun. It's a time for neutralizing the threat against you.

never fails, if there is a gun forum chat and glock comes up there is always some joker who thinks "glocks rule, all others suck",

This is only partially correct. Glocks rule. Other guns are good too. But why settle for less?

and believes no gun ever needs a safety because they're so skilled they'd never have an accident...

There is no such thing as an accidental discharge. Negligence causes 100% of all ADs, making them all NDs. Safeties reduce reaction time, add parts which cause failure, and encourage negligence. Practice the four rules at all times with all weapons, use a weapon designed for use without an external safety, and you can not possibly have an "AD".

are you one of those guys who ccw's even in the shower (and has a special tactical towel holster for just such scenerios...)? sure you are.

They make a holster for towels? And to think I been doing it all wrong :/

[Guest bkelm18]

Jeez, another Glockie vs. The Others thread. Who cares? Shoot what you feel comfortable and get over it. Glock ain't the best, neither is anything else out there. They are machines and machines can and do fail. Yes Glocks fail too there guy. I guess you don't consider one blowing up in your hand a failure, but I digress. Shoot what you like and carry on smartly.