# Thick Or Thin??? CCW



## Ruger71 (Jan 15, 2007)

I am in process of getting my license and currently have a 38 snubby. I shot both a Glock and a 1911 and was suprisingly accurate with both. Way better than with my snubby. I am thinking about trading it for a semi auto. I have handled several and am thinking I want to go IWB. I am 5'6" and 175 lbs. with a 36" waist. I really want the larger capicity of the double stack mags. Is it feasable for me to efectively carry something like this?


----------



## soldierofchrist (Jul 11, 2010)

Sure, the important thing for CCW is that you adjust your wardrobe to what you want to carry, A full size Glock or 1911 can be concealed easily enough using a IWB holster, my personal favorite is the Milt Sparks Summer Special II for a 1911, the Glock is just a bit wider but I don't feel it would make that much of a difference.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

I'll bet that if you practice with your snubbie, you'll shoot as well with it as you will with any other pistol. Therefore, whether or not you shoot well with the gun is not a determinate as to whether or not you should buy a new, different one.
A full-on double-action revolver trigger can be a handicap to quick, accurate shooting. A Glock "safe action" trigger would be less of an impediment than that of a DA revolver. A properly set up 1911 trigger would be the least impediment of all, and the mass of a full-size 1911 will do wonders to absorb perceived recoil.
However, with every benefit there are associated liabilities. The Glock grip does not fit all hands well, as I understand it, and that might well impede your search for effective accuracy and quickness. The 1911 relies completely upon the safety mechanism built into your head, between your ears, because it is all too easy to click its mechanical safety lever to "off," and thus to fire a shot before you really intend to.
On the other hand, your revolver neither has a safety lever to manipulate, nor does it need one. Its long and difficult DA trigger pull is safety enough, and it is "blood simple" to learn to use and shoot it: merely point it carefully and press its trigger.
In all cases, you will need to practice extensively with your chosen protective weapon, to overcome its particular set of difficulties, and to learn to shoot it accurately, quickly, and effectively.
You already have a snubbie. Why not learn to use it well?


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

Ruger71 said:


> I am in process of getting my license and currently have a 38 snubby. I shot both a Glock and a 1911 and was suprisingly accurate with both. Way better than with my snubby. I am thinking about trading it for a semi auto. I have handled several and am thinking I want to go IWB. I am 5'6" and 175 lbs. with a 36" waist. I really want the larger capicity of the double stack mags. Is it feasable for me to efectively carry something like this?


Yes, it's feasible. The only advantages a .38 snubbie has over a "baby Glock" (G26, G27, or G33) is lighter weight, and a simpler manual-of-arms (instructions for use). The baby Glocks are about the same size as a S&W J-frame 5-shot snubby (see photo below), are a whole lot easier to shoot well (especially rapidly), hold twice as much ammunition, are MUCH easier and quicker to reload, and can use the magazines from the larger Glock models in the same caliber for reloads (you can use a 17-shot Glock 17 mag, or a 15-shot Glock 19 mag to reload your G26; all are 9mm caliber, and the longer mags will fit and function in the shorter guns). The Glocks are heavier, but not unmanageably so, and given their double ammo capacity of the snubby and ease of shooting, most folks think the weight increase is a fair trade-off.










I'd go so far as to say that as long as the user intends to carry in a holster (not drop it in a pocket), there is no reason to choose a small frame revolver over a baby Glock.


----------



## Ruger71 (Jan 15, 2007)

The reason I am considering changing are because of ammo capicity and accuracy. I won't argue with you that practice makes perfect, but if it takes me "X" amount of ammo and time to shrink my group from my Colt from 12" to 3", it would stand to reason that if I put the same amount of ammo through a gun that I already could shoot a 3" group with (first time ever firing a semi-auto) then I would shrink my groups from 3" to even better. I don't know what is considered good with a handgun from the standard 7 yards required for a CCW, but it is alot better than I thought I would do. 

Anyway, that is my reason for considering something different.


----------



## mactex (Jan 23, 2007)

As noted above, comparing a semi-auto to a revolver reveals that they are not all that different in size, especially to many of the compact and subcompact semi-autos. I have several carry guns including a G32, G29 (very wide for an auto), and an SR9c. All of them use double stack magazines. The SR9c is the thinest of the group. I usually carry the G32 and it is fairly easy to hide. The G29 is the most difficult to hide, but a little thought on my wardrobe goes a long way toward ensuring it will not be seen easily. If you want a semi-auto, I say go for it!


----------



## Handgun World (Oct 28, 2009)

Holster and belt selection is the most critical factor in my opinion. I find myself carrying my Glock 19 more than anything else now, because it conceals very well in either of my Comp Tac M Tac holsters. I can carry a larger gun and conceal it well. I also use a Wilderness Tactical belt that holds the pistol up close to the body. The Milt Sparks Summer Specials are also good holsters.

The capacity of guns like Glocks, XD's, M&P's, Beretta's etc. make them very appealing compared to a revolver. Today's holsters, belts and wardrobe adjustments make it easier than it used to be to carry a decent sized gun.

Just some thoughts.


----------



## recoilguy (Apr 30, 2009)

Ruger71 said:


> The reason I am considering changing are because of ammo capicity and accuracy. I won't argue with you that practice makes perfect, but if it takes me "X" amount of ammo and time to shrink my group from my Colt from 12" to 3", it would stand to reason that if I put the same amount of ammo through a gun that I already could shoot a 3" group with (first time ever firing a semi-auto) then I would shrink my groups from 3" to even better. I don't know what is considered good with a handgun from the standard 7 yards required for a CCW, but it is alot better than I thought I would do.
> 
> Anyway, that is my reason for considering something different.


Very sound reasoning and very sound thinking. There are many good shooting smaller CCW guns to pick from. I carry a Kahr CW9 90% of the time and a few days I carry the G26 or a CZ Rami 2075. All are very good very accurate weapons. Good luck with your choice and be safe when you carry.

RCG


----------

