A Case for the Full-Size 9mm Handgun

[Ranger431]

I am a believer in carrying the largest gun you can conceal, that you are proficient with.  In general, this means more bullets, better accuracy and easier weapons manipulation. When possible, I carry a full size gun.  If not, than my Glock 19.  I like having the 31 rounds. Sometimes, all I can carry is a lightweight .38 spl, or a Shield 9mm. While not my ideal choice, it beats a pointy stick. Which in turn beats nothing.  But I only carry those when I have to.

Good advice here. I also carry as much as I can. Most of the time it ends up being my Sig 228, which is a great mid point between full size and compact. If I'm wearing light clothes or want to stay light I'll usually carry a Kahr CW-9. Don't really have anything smaller, but wouldn't mind a PM-9 if I could find one cheap.

[dcloudy777]

If I was limited (God forbid) to only one "class" of handgun, it would be the full-size 9mm, without a doubt.  If I spent much time in the woods or somewhere big critters live, I might go with .44Mag/Spl wheelguns, but as I'm almost exclusively interested in defense against 2-legged varmints, the service-size 9mm is the king.

[K191145]

I only have 3 handguns that I carry, a 9x18 Makarov, a Glock 21, and a 5 shot SP101 in .357 mag. I carry the SP101 more often than any other loaded with 140gr. .357's and I don't feel underarmed with it. I know very well there is a controllability issue with a .357 snubby, i've tried fast followup shots at the range at 25 yards which is a long distance for a handgun and i'm not that good at keeping all rounds on target but i'm betting that most self defense situations are closer, alot closer. The G21 has 13 rounds of 230gr. .45's but it's a big bulky handgun and I guess i've been brainwashed about .45 and .357 but I still feel the Makarov is underpowered, I know there is the shot placement thingy. You can't be 100% sure what kind of situation you may get in but I feel the odds are it will be close and fast and a good chance that physical contact will be made. I feel that while it may not be the perfect handgun, it's a damn good handgun to have on your side if you are using one hand to hold back badguy perp and have to draw and fire while scared and stressed. No light trigger pull on a snubby so you wont shoot your leg while drawing, no grip safety if you don't get that perfect grip, aiming is no issue and you have the extra punch from a 2"barrel in .357. If i'm fighting someone I want something to pull and shoot. Even if i'm not in direct physical contact like in my house, i'm not going to be futher that 15 feet and I can keep my rounds in a torso size target at that distance. I do carry my G21 from time to time in the winter, if it was as compact as my SP101 I would carry it all the time.

[Vistar]

Need to weigh in here. Excuse the pun. I agree that it's often impossible to carry a full size gun without drawing attention, not to mention the extra poundage that can make trousers pile up around the heels. So, I went through the pros and cons and then selected a SIG 250sc as my EDC. I can shoot that almost as accurately as my full frame P226. The 250sc is a sweet gun, but it's not thin and it's not lightweight and it doesn't quite fit in pants pockets, so I went shopping on TGO and picked up a Nano. As a pocket pistol, Nano's pretty accurate out to about 30 yds and it carries easily. In a pocket holster, it fits snugly in a front pocket and draws quickly. One big problem, unlike the 250sc, the Nano doesn't always go bang. While the 250sc shoots anything and everything and never misfires or FTE, the Nano is picky and the selection of what makes it go bang is narrow. It hates cheap ammo and 115 gr bullets. It seems to be okay with self-defense loads, but I can't shoot as many rounds as I'd like in range training without breaking the bank. Bottom line, I don't feel confident with the Nano. If you see a bulge on my hip, it's me and the 250sc because I feel confident with it.

[RobertNashville]

"Next time you go to the range, do all your usual shooting and drills with the little gun. Shoot at point-blank range and all the way out to 50 yards or more. Shoot from the ground, shoot weak-handed, shoot one-handed, and see how difficult it really is. If you still want to fall in with the ranks of the gun shop warriors and keyboard commandos who always rattle off the old “all you need is a 2-inch J-frame ‘cause all fights happen at close range” mantra, go right ahead. However, if you are willing to look at things objectively and really think it through, you’ll see it’s better to have the bigger gun with you."

 

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm-columns/case-full-size-9mm-handgun/

I agree with the conclusion here.  Certainly, in the case of firearms; bigger really is better. Biggest handgun, biggest caliber...etc...etc. But lets face it, a handgun is still just a handgun and in the overall scheme of things, is not the best tool for stopping a bad guy (or several bad guys) meaning that if we all could carry a modern fighting rifle without getting investigated by police every five minutes (and arrested in many states) that rifle would be our first choice to carry!

 

I carry full-sized 45acp and/or compact 45 and/or a Ruger .38 LCR or sometimes just a Kimber Pepperblaster - it changes because the situation often dictates what and how I can carry something for self defense.

[hipower]

Well said, Robert. Being fluid is the key here. Carry what you feel is best for you and your situation.

 

Sometimes a small, concealable weapon is best. Other times a full size weapon is called for.

 

But being aware of the limitations of dress and situation, we have to choose what is essentially a compromise for most of us.

 

If we could accurately predict what would be needed on a given day...carry would be a breeze. And no person would ever be underarmed.

 

But the real world doesn't seem to want to work with us on that. So we pick and choose; and work with what we have. 

[kwe45919]

I can shoot way better with my G26, than I can with a G19 or a G17. Bigger IS NOT BETTER for everyone. I am just as accurate "at the range" with all three but I am not as accurate with the G19/17 when it comes down to defensive drills and exercises. I end up tossing/dropping the larger guns or getting them caught on something when drawing them from the holster or concealment. The G26 with a 2rnd mag extension feels balanced the best for me out of all three and even with a short sight radius a 50yrd shot is easily possible with it. I can conceal the G19 pretty easy though the G17 usually prints pretty bad. I'm 6ft and 175lbs and seem to be happy in the summer or winter carrying my G26 with absolutely knowing that it is the best pistol for me to carry in most all defensive situations in public. I have never rolled with the idea that bigger is better at all weather its caliber or gun size....it's always what fits, feels and shoots the best for you.

Edited March 16, 2014 by kwe45919

[K191145]

No problem getting long range accurate hits with a compact, even a snubby.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIwVK_FxGZk Edited March 17, 2014 by K191145

[Caster]

If a guy wants to hurt me and there's 50 yards between us AND I now about it, I'm betting I can get away or to cover. Possibly even into my vehicle......bump bump, tire squealing......'911 what's your emergency? .... Yeah this crazy bastard just......'

[JAB]

If no other factors were of concern then carrying with the idea of being able to make 50 yard SD shots might be worth considering.  However, other factors are an issue and there are reasons, IMO, why the likelihood of taking such a long shot with a handgun is very low, low enough that I would consider the whole thing little more than a mental exercise and certainly not a factor in choosing a gun to carry in a public setting.  I'm not talking about just concealment and comfort, either.  To me, in most 'in public' settings, taking a 50 yard shot on an assailant - or a 25 yard shot in many cases - would be irresponsible regardless of what handgun I am carrying, be it my J-frame or my Ruger P95.  After all, I am not preparing to be on a battlefield, considering raiding a domestic terrorist compound or charged with kicking in the door of a warehouse turned meth lab where every person in the range of fire is an enemy combatant.  Instead, I am probably going to be in a populated area where there are more innocent bystanders in that 50 yard range than there are assailants.  To my way of thinking, the further out the shot the more likely I would strike an innocent bystander instead of the assailant.  I am responsible for every bullet that leaves my gun and so I could not, in good conscience, take such a shot in, say, a Walmart parking lot or (as someone above suggested) a crowded movie theater.  There would simply be too much chance of such an action going quickly from 'self defense' to 'manslaughter' or even 'second degree murder.'  Sure, there are other reasons (as mentioned in the article) why a full-sized gun or at least something larger/heavier than a pocket pistol might be better in some cases.  I carry my aforementioned P95 sometimes because there are times when I go places where the extra ammo capacity and greater stability are a comfort not because I think I might need to exchange fire with an assailant from he distance of half a football field.

 

As for the 'shooting 300 to 500 rounds is a test of endurance' issue with the small guns, I guess that is true.  However, once again, how likely is it that I am going to have to fire 300 to 500 rounds in an SD situation.  I wouldn't even have that many rounds on me in a SD situation, anyhow, so I call that another non-issue.  Speaking to the 'never shoot them' issue, maybe I am weird but I tend to shoot my pocket pistols more than my full-sized guns.  That is because I realize that 1. I am more likely to be carrying one of the smaller guns and 2. I realize that smaller guns require more practice in order to be confident with them.

 

Now, if I am in a more rural setting without bystanders around then I might be more tempted to take the long shot.  Fortunately, in such a setting I would also be a lot more likely to be carrying a full-sized handgun than a pocket pistol.  Heck, depending on where I am (in the woods at home, for instance) there is a good chance I'd be carrying a long gun of some type.

 

There is another reason I believe the '50 yard handgun self defense shot' to be all but a non-issue.  In the article, the author goes so far as to admit that most self defense shootings DO occur up close and personal.  From which one can extrapolate that even the author realizes 25 or 50 yard SD shots, while 'it could happen', are an aberration.  Now, consider that the vast majority of us will never be involved in a self defense shooting in the first place - we generally carry more 'just in case' than because we really will.  To my way of thinking, then, that makes dying because I can't make a 50 yard shot with my J-frame only slightly more likely than being gnawed to death by militant beavers - it is possible but not a very practical thing to worry about.  In fact, due to the factors I mentioned in the first paragraph, I would say that I consider the mindset in which one would plan to take such a shot with any handgun in a public setting to be downright irresponsible the vast majority of the time.

Edited March 17, 2014 by JAB

[Guest Lester Weevils]

It seems that sight radius affects my accuracy at any distance, even short range. 6" .357 better than 4" .357. Long barrel ruger .22 better than 4" or 5" .22. All the 5" barrel 9mm pistols about the same accuracy, and all of them better than the shorter 9mm pistolas. The 9mm cougar, blind folded, dunno if I could tell the diff shooting the cougar vs a beretta 92, they feel and operate so similar, but the shorter cougar is noticeably less accurate.

 

Not that my accuracy is so good with any gun, but it seems greatly dependent on sight radius. Plenty of people can shoot one ragged hole with 3.5" barrels at 7 yards, so it seems doubtful that the shortness of the barrel, rather than shorter sight radius, contributes to my issues.

[quickbiscuit]

Plenty of logic in that article but I'm not sure why he focuses on 9mm. His thoughts apply universally to any full-size handgun. 9mm, .40, 10mm, .45 Auto...

[Guest turnandshoot4]

I'll just leave this here.

 

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08/14/citizen-shooter-saves-officer-with-amazing-shooting/

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ioCWVehtg

[jgradyc]

I agree with the article... sort of.  I'd love to have a full size 18-round 9mm on my person 24/7. Actually, I'd prefer to have a full size hi-cap 9mm plus a collapsible AR that would fit discretely in the small of my back.  ...and a shotgun.

 

But realistically, I'm going to carry what I'm willing to carry.  If I worked as a weapons instructor AND I was a big guy AND I wore tactical pants 365 days a year, that would be one thing... but I don't and I'm not.

 

I have several carry handguns. When I go out, I grab the biggest one that fits what I'm wearing at the time. I don't always have as much firepower as I would like. Then again, I usually do have a gun on me, even when I'm wearing shorts and a t-shirt. 

[RobertNashville]

If no other factors were of concern then carrying with the idea of being able to make 50 yard SD shots might be worth considering.  However, other factors are an issue and there are reasons, IMO, why the likelihood of taking such a long shot with a handgun is very low, low enough that I would consider the whole thing little more than a mental exercise and certainly not a factor in choosing a gun to carry in a public setting....

Frankly, one of the first duties of a armed citizen is to avoid an armed conflict and if my "targets" are 50 or 80 or 100yards away then why the hell would I be sticking around and engaging in a gun fight at those distances with a pistol???

 

If you can get out then you GET OUT...if you can't retreat...if you are really stuck and have no choice then you do what you have to do with what you have but I would say that most of the talk about self defense shooting at longer distances is really not much more than a academic discussion; not a very likely real life scenario.

[TMF]

Frankly, one of the first duties of a armed citizen is to avoid an armed conflict and if my "targets" are 50 or 80 or 100yards away then why the hell would I be sticking around and engaging in a gun fight at those distances with a pistol???

 

If you can get out then you GET OUT...if you can't retreat...if you are really stuck and have no choice then you do what you have to do with what you have but I would say that most of the talk about self defense shooting at longer distances is really not much more than a academic discussion; not a very likely real life scenario.

 

Not to mention that full sized pistol or not, most folks aren't putting down effective fire with ANY pistol at 50 meters.  Kind of silly to say that everyone should carry a weapon capable of such range when I'm betting there are a very, very small percentage of shooters that could consistently hit a man sized target at that distance, let alone when someone is shooting back at you.  Let me say that it won't matter to the average shooter if they have a sooper dooper competition pistol with a thousand yard range.  Folks can say otherwise, but that doesn't make it so. 

 

Just like most folks can't pick up a .5 MOA rifle and shoot .5 MOA groups.

[Guest Bolt_Overide]

A snubby, or a small 380 is of course better than nothing but your pecker in your hand. But, I look at such weapons as an "only if I must" type of thing. 99% of the time I carry a full sized weapon, the last time I carried my J frame was a run to the store when I didnt want to put on more than the shorts and not very loose tshirt i was already wearing.

[frankmako]

give me a break.  50 yards gun fights with a pistol.  you are just asking for problems if you get into a gun fight at 50 yards.  if the bad guy is 50 yards away from me i have other ways to correct the problem, i.e. drive off, run away, find cover, close ground, call 911 while running away.  most people can not hit a target at 50 yards with a pistol.  even when they can take all the time that they need.  now put into play that the bad guy at the 50 yard mark is shooting back at you.  your pistol skills will go to crap when someone is shooting back no matter what the distance is. people see to many tv/movies gun fights where they shoot each other at extreme long ranges with pistols.  

[JAB]

Frankly, one of the first duties of a armed citizen is to avoid an armed conflict and if my "targets" are 50 or 80 or 100yards away then why the hell would I be sticking around and engaging in a gun fight at those distances with a pistol???

 

If you can get out then you GET OUT...if you can't retreat...if you are really stuck and have no choice then you do what you have to do with what you have but I would say that most of the talk about self defense shooting at longer distances is really not much more than a academic discussion; not a very likely real life scenario.

 

Of course in TN there is no legal duty to retreat.  I understand what you meant, though, and I agree - especially the last part of the last sentence.  There may be no legal duty to retreat but in a public setting I think it is the common sense thing to do.  In my own home I would feel differently but in a public setting getting away and calling 911 (as in Caster's previous example) sounds a lot better to me than dealing with the legal aftermath of shooting someone, no matter how justified.  I'll deal with that aftermath if I have to in order to save my life or the life of someone about whom I care but better to avoid the whole shebang if I can.

 

Further, while some might not think this the 'upstanding' attitude, I do not carry a gun to protect society at large.  I carry a gun to protect myself and a core group of family/friends.  If I am in a crowded building with members of that core group and some maniac starts shooting, my 'job' and main concern is getting them (and me) out alive.  If the shooter is ten feet away then, yeah, my best bet is probably to try and take the shot.  If, however, he is on the other side of the restaurant/store/movie theater and my group is close to an exit then I am not going to risk shooting more innocent bystanders in the crossfire and draw the shooter's attention to my group by opening up from 25 yards or so away.  As you say, if I/we can retreat then that is what I/we will do.

Edited March 18, 2014 by JAB

[K191145]

Frankly, one of the first duties of a armed citizen is to avoid an armed conflict and if my "targets" are 50 or 80 or 100yards away then why the hell would I be sticking around and engaging in a gun fight at those distances with a pistol???
 
If you can get out then you GET OUT...if you can't retreat...if you are really stuck and have no choice then you do what you have to do with what you have but I would say that most of the talk about self defense shooting at longer distances is really not much more than a academic discussion; not a very likely real life scenario.

One secerio which is very rare may be the "active shooter" scenerio in which you may engage someone at a distance. They probably will have a superior weapon but I believe that personally it would be pure hell on my conscience if that occured and I had some ability to stop them and retreated to save my skin. Of course I haven't been in that situation so I can't say exactly what I would do, only what I hope I would do. I'm sure many here have thought about that scenerio.
Anyway, I have argued about my snubby revolver and I believe it's sufficient for most self defense scenerio's but I mainly carry it for convienence/compactness, I have seriously been thinking, when it becomes affordable to me of one of two handguns I want, a Remington R1 1911, or a Ruger GP100 in .357 with a 4" barrel. Probably going to be the R1 simply because when I had my Kimber I could shoot better with it than any other handgun I ever had, even could make some 100 yard hits on a man size target. I traded it in on the G21 because the Kimber wasn't as reliable as I liked but I can definatly shoot a 1911 better than a G21 anyday.

[tnhawk]

I prefer to carry a 1911 but size, weight and clothing usually result in my XDS or LCP being my choice.

[daddyo]

My own experience has been that a quality carry system, including a belt and a holster, makes all the difference in the world. I don't understand why some folks spend serious money on a self defense weapon and then skimp on the other stuff.

 

I truly have no problem at all carrying a full-size handgun and concealing it so that no one knows, but then I have made some minor modifications to the way I dress, which also helps a great deal.

 

It's all contingent on what you're willing and not willing to do.

Edited March 21, 2014 by daddyo

[K191145]

I prefer to carry a 1911 but size, weight and clothing usually result in my XDS or LCP being my choice.

 

I really hated trading my Kimber 1911 but reliablity is my #1 priority in a carry gun, I like my G21 but it's a big handgun, after carrying it for a while it made a full size 1911 seem almost compact, at least in width. I would like to go back to a 1911 if i'm comfortable it's reliable. Out of all the handguns i've had and shot, that Kimber 1911 just felt the best in my hand, could put the front sight on target faster than any other and it was a tack driver, more accurate than me. I shot it alot when .45acp was alot cheaper and I could draw and have the safety off and on target pretty fast I thought but I also shot that gun more than any handgun i've ever had. I like my .357 revolvers also but when I do make the choice hopefully soon I think it will be another 1911. I've seen some good reviews on the Remington R1, reliable and accurate, also it still looks like a good ol basic GI 1911 with a few moderen improvments, sights, ejection port and magizine well, not over done on the custom features.

[TMF]

My own experience has been that a quality carry system, including a belt and a holster, makes all the difference in the world. I don't understand why some folks spend serious money on a self defense weapon and then skimp on the other stuff.

 

I truly have no problem at all carrying a full-size handgun and concealing it so that no one knows, but then I have made some minor modifications to the way I dress, which also helps a great deal.

 

It's all contingent on what you're willing and not willing to do.

 

Yep.  I'm no longer willing to carry a 1911 IWB.  Makes my jeans too tight and need to poop.  Not willing to go up another size because it will just encourage me to be fat.

[RobertNashville]

One secerio which is very rare may be the "active shooter" scenerio in which you may engage someone at a distance. They probably will have a superior weapon but I believe that personally it would be pure hell on my conscience if that occured and I had some ability to stop them and retreated to save my skin. Of course I haven't been in that situation so I can't say exactly what I would do, only what I hope I would do. I'm sure many here have thought about that scenerio.
Anyway, I have argued about my snubby revolver and I believe it's sufficient for most self defense scenerio's but I mainly carry it for convienence/compactness, I have seriously been thinking, when it becomes affordable to me of one of two handguns I want, a Remington R1 1911, or a Ruger GP100 in .357 with a 4" barrel. Probably going to be the R1 simply because when I had my Kimber I could shoot better with it than any other handgun I ever had, even could make some 100 yard hits on a man size target. I traded it in on the G21 because the Kimber wasn't as reliable as I liked but I can definatly shoot a 1911 better than a G21 anyday.

Yes, I can see an active shooter situation being a possible exception - ultimately, when faced with a situation we each have to decide what we can do and what is "best" to do but as was mentioned above; my first duty is to myself and loved ones...the friends then other innocent people.

 

As i like to say when asked why I carry..."because I may need to save someone's life...it my be my life or it may even be your life".