Best Concealed Carry Weapons.

[keyser28146]

Finishing up my CCW requirements tomorrow, so I was curious if anyone also had them and if so what sidearm they carry.

My instructor is extremely thorough on statistics for single strike threat stops data, so I have pretty much decided a Five-seveN may be a great handgun to shoot with, but isn't ideal for threat management due to the lack of stopping power and EXTREME penetration and possibility of secondary injuries. I'll stick with the .40 cal or possibly 9mm or 10mm weapons.

He did pass around a Glock 26 which was pretty damn sweet, and I requested him to bring a 27 so I could try the .40 cal version. I'm hoping he brings a Glock 22 and a Sig P226 Navy and a small .38 tomorrow. The 226/G22 would be more for home defense with a tac-torch on the bottom rail to blind an intruder as well as guarantee hits, but without the torch could work as a carry weapon.

Anyway, just curious if anyone else was a carrier or had any experience with a good weapon to carry...

[racestar85]

I don't personally carry a gun but a couple guys I work with were talking about "the judge" as there weapon of choice, the way they were explaining it sounded like a badass gun.

Also be sure to know which states recognize your concealed weapon license I know they are not valid in some states, not sure which they are but just something to know if u do some traveling

[Deslock]

I have mixed feelings about this.

I don't like guns. Never have, never will, even after all my years in the military.
I don't even own one. But I do think, as a constituionalist, that you have the right to own ANY firearm you see fit, even if that's a tank, if you can afford it.

As long as you buy a firearm legally, you have the right by our own constitution to own it. I don't think the government has the right to tell you which weapons are "approved" and which ones aren't.

I've had people tell me that you don't need a fully automatic machine gun. Well, as I've said before, Bambi the deer isn't going to try to break into my home, kill my family, and steal my shit. The Constituion wasn't written so we could defend ourselves against woodward animals, and weapons aren't just for hunting game.

The laws were written at the time that any American citizen could protect themselves from illegal search and seizure from GOVERNMENT forces.
That you, as a law abiding citizen, had the right to protect yourself, and your home, from criminals, and illegal government issues..

There is no doubt in my mind that if our founding fathers saw the ATF as they are now, would be horrified. There is no way we would've won our war for independence, if our civillian soldiers didn't have the same comparable firepower at the time, to fight them off.

As we saw in Yugoslavia at the end of WW2, rocks don't work well against tanks.

Disarm the populace, and you have them right where you want them.

Hence why our founding fathers said "You have the right, to bear and keep arms".

Not just hunting rifles and pistols.

They didn't specify, for a very exact reason.

You can't fight off troops with automatic weapons, with "hunting" guns.

They knew what they were talking about.

Des.

[keyser28146]

Well, a CCW permit requires a LOT of thinking, since there are a LOT of places you can't take a weapon and a lot of things you have to consider when carrying.

For example, any alcohol in your system while carrying will get you in deep shit... same with failing to tell an officer you are carrying, and you can't do stuff like stop off at the library on the way home.

But if anyone has some other weapon suggestions...

[jmhc74]

@ Deslock...could the Founding Fathers envision the mass destruction 21st century weapons can inflict on the general population at the hands of a single deranged person when drafting the Constition. I see where you coming from and I have family that hunt and I enjoy our freedoms and such but the ability to own a tank...an assualt rife is just unecessary. Seriously, WTF is the point of having it. Just to have it???? Where do we draw the lines between what is truely necessary and unecessary. If you say, I can buy a tank. Then can I get that fully loaded with live rounds and freaking 50 cal on top. Or what about, I want to buy a mortar...or how about an RPG....grenades would be cool.

Seriously tanks??? Did you ever see that vid of the deranged lunitic that got a hold of a tank and went on a rampage thru the streets. Would you want more of that.....yeh there are many sensible people that own firearms and are law abiding citizens and follow the law and the whole nine yards (for example my father in law). But there are some really fucked up people in this world and they can obtain shit like this and cause some serious damage to the populace. Would then be walking around with AKs and RPGs in our car to then defend ourselves if our lives get threatened by a deranged lunatic. I can't see what good can come of that. It would absolute anarchy. Is this the wild wild west.

I'm not saying you can't own a firearm...I'm just saying what is truely necessary.

I know that many of you guys are very passionate about stuff like this and I truely don't want to raise people's blood pressures...sorry if you take what I said the wrong way. This is what I feel and that is my opinion.

[keyser28146]

I honestly think the founding fathers' intent was to prevent the government from ever being able to be tyrannical. Assault weapons? Yes. The Musket was the 18th century assault rifle.

In the wider context, I'm not real sure about our current armed forces situation (in terms of even the Constitution allowing a standing army), but the world has changed quite a bit. I think the PRINCIPLE is what is most important, and I have no problem with having to GET an assault weapon permit but frankly, modern hunting rifles are more lethal than US/Nato assault rifles. The survival rate of getting hit with a .223 bullet from an M16/M4/Most NATO weapons is so high that if you ARE going to get shot, it's better to take an M16 round than it is to take a .45 round.

All weapons are dangerous... look at fort hood. That was a Five-seveN handgun. He fired 20 rounds, reloaded and was firing again in the center of a room of cubicles before anyone realized it was a handgun. If he were to do that with a 9MM or 40 cal glock/226 the death toll would have probably been MUCH higher, but probably less total injuries. With an M16/M4/MP5 there would have most likely been MANY more casualties but probably the same amount of deaths, and if it were an AK-47/M14/G3 you'd be looking at probably 3 times the number of dead.

But what does it matter what tool was used? The weapon is the least important factor, the skill is somewhat more important, but the mental attitude is the most important issue.

The area where the shooting happened (just like Va Tech, Columbine, etc etc etc etc) was a "no carry zone", meaning people who are trained and practice and follow the laws regarding carrying weapons are banned from carrying them there. What sense does that make?

We see over and over that sick people go to these areas and start killing sprees... and what happens? The fact is that 85% of people shot with a handgun survive. But these guys don't in with .22 handguns and accidentally hitting someone they weren't aiming for. They go in to kill as many people as possible and shoot them several times each. So we want "tougher laws", more "no carry laws", more "restrictions on ownership". It's absurd.

Im the "wild west", lots of people carried guns. People were polite. The crime rates were extremely low. Shootings were such big news that a single shooting or shootout was enough to propel the names of everyone involved to instant celebrity/legend status. Now no one carries and you have to kill 6 people to even make the front page in a local paper.

[jmhc74]

@ Keyser...so your solution is for every sane person that wants to carry a weapon to carry it anywhere they want to go...so then, who determines who is sane and not sane. For those that are not sane, where they always sane and just turned insane or just insane from the beginning. So if someone passes the test to carry/purchase a loaded firearm/assualt rife/grenade luancher/tank/c4 and decides to say fuck you society go to the local store and just unleash. What is the result....lots of dead people...most likely that person (vengence!!!!!!!) who committed the act is dead but to what point. What point...defense. A whole shit load of people just died and for what...so you and me, the law abiding citizen can carry a loaded weapon that can shoot over a hundred bullets in a matter of seconds.

Why is it that we live in a progressive society where out of all the industrialized countries we have one of the most liberal gun laws yet we have the most crime (gun crime) and the prisons are just overflowing...now there are other determining factors but the principal is there. I look at it being just insane and just unecessary....

I am not a bleeding heart liberal or some John Lennon give peace a chance person, it's just when you take a step back and look at the mess is one thing perpetuating the other. Maybe it is....maybe it isn't.....but either way it's FUBAR.

[jmhc74]

Regarding concealed gun laws...then what about the office shooting that happened last week in Orlando. So do you propose that qualified individuals be allowed to carry guns at work. What about the shooting at a LA Fitness outside of Pittsburgh. Do you propose that we should be able to carry a weapon on our hips as we run on the treadmills. These are the scenrios that take place where inoccent people die at the hand of insane people.

I don't see how the ability to carry a concealed weapon would have prevented these incidents. You obviously trust yourself with that weapon...I hope so because when or if you are in that position to use it you better be darn sure that you are doing the right thing because you can't take back that bullet...no matter what the consquences/outcome is!!!

BUT the bigger question is do you trust the person to your right and to your left with the responsiblity of making that split second decision. Allowing qualified people to carry concelead weapons in more places or extending the law just doesn't effect you...it effects everyone. Are you confident in the fact that they were properly trained. Are you confident that they are competent with the firearm. Are you confident that the didn't forget (lets say) to put on their glasses in the morning. These people are complete strangers...are you willing to stake you and your families life on it. Guns are serious...DEAD serious. To many variables can come into play and is it worth it to save an innocent life at the expense of an innocent life.

[cmj75]

Im the "wild west", lots of people carried guns. People were polite. The crime rates were extremely low. Shootings were such big news that a single shooting or shootout was enough to propel the names of everyone involved to instant celebrity/legend status. Now no one carries and you have to kill 6 people to even make the front page in a local paper.

That is an ahistorical argument that can't be used and your historical info is an assumption. If you want modern "wild west" examples that are a better comparison you must use certain urban areas in the U.S., and foreign countries such as Afghanistan. And those examples have a whole host of socio-economic, ethnic, and cultural complexities. If you used them though I think you would find those "societies" to be more "unsafe" then "safe".

I love getting into arguments with you keyser..it is fun. Don't think Jim and I agree on everything cause we are bros so....

1. I personally think the idea of more citizens carrying concelead weapons is just insane. I think from a sociological and psychological perspective it is crazy and unless someone shows me stats to counter, based upon how social interactions work and human psycholgocial forces, the greater incidence of CCW in modern society will only make society more unsafe. Even for the individual possessing the concealed weapon. I have about as much faith that a class on CCW will make people more responsible as I do DMV classes make safer drivers. IMPO the only person who should carry a firearm in our country is police officers. I don't think you can also base arguments on cases like Ft. Hood, VT, and/or columbine since those are abnormal situations.

2. I know this may raise the hackles of many who might read but as it relates to the constitutional side of this argument..... Like all controversies related to the constitution both sides (irrespective of political position) misuse it as a basis to prove their point. How they misuse it is their failure to understand the historical context of the Constitution. This especially relates to the "content" of the constitution. While I would consider myself a "constitutionalist" regarding the systems and processes established within, and basic tenets espoused, when it comes to what was meant by the right to bear arms or any other part of the constitution it has a very historical connotation to it and must be understood that way. Our founding fathers would absolutely roll over in their graves not by what they would see today but by how we see them and the constitution.

[keyser28146]

I'm all about people who can qualify carrying.

I am not about people with violent histories, mental problems, etc carrying.

Start a new thread and stop hijacking mine, this thread is about best handguns to get, not about whether or not people should carry or have the right to.

[keyser28146]

@Race

I haven't had a chance to look into "The Judge" yet.

@Mike/Jim
I opened a new topic for you guys called "should concealed carry exist". This topic is for best handguns for carrying, not should it be. You wouldn't go into a movie review thread and start posting "gaw-leee people should read more!"

[jmhc74]

Yeh sorry about that Keyser...btw, the DE seems to be a good choice or that's the case on Socom.

[keyser28146]

Oh it's a good choice... if you are going to wear a parka and pair of overalls everywhere you go.

It's be like trying to conceal your PS3 on you. No. It's an action movie gun. No one is using that dumb shit for anything other than a range toy.

They are cheap though. You can get a gold-plated one for "the gangster look" for like $500. In comparison, a P226 Navy will run about $600 while a Five-seveN will start at around $800.

[Brocman]

Glocks are always a good idea to have as a CCW, specifically because they do not require the same amount of care and cleaning as other guns like a berreta for example. They can be left in sand, water, etc (not that your going to leave one like that) as opposed to a gun like a berreta that would jam up easily if not cared for right.

But for strictly home defense I would want a 12 gauge pump action shotgun. Those are great because not only does it pack a punch but when you pump it, it makes that sound that any nearby thieves would recognize and make them think twice.

[Deslock]

As I said before, even with my extensive military background, I don't care for guns. I prefer edged weapons myself.

I may be old fashioned, but I don't like the Glocks. I like the good old .45. I can shoot the wings off a fly with that gun. My Mother has a carry and conceal, and she went out with me, and I picked out an excellent handgun for her. This cannon will blow a hole the size of a grapefruit thru someone. She used to have a .25. I just laughed and told her, "well, that might piss someone off, but if you want stopping power, this will get the job done."

Give me an old 1914 .45 anyday. Easy to use, easy to service, and easy to clean.

I got my first sharpshooter medal with that pistol, and it's a damn fine weapon in the hands of someone that knows how to use it. It's kinda like the AK 47 over the M16. You can drag it through swampy water, mud, and still pull it out and kill what you point it at.