# What do you carry?



## DeadAim (Jun 16, 2011)

I am about to purchase a conceal carry weapon and I was thinking I like the way a 9mm shoots. But alot of people think 40 S&W or 45 ACP? SO What do you CARRY? and WHY? Thanks!


----------



## 8Eric6 (May 9, 2010)

if i could conceal carry in my state i would carry a kel-tec pf-9 because, it's 12.7 oz and it still offers 7+1 rounds of a full size cartridge (9mm) plus it's cheap to buy like less than 300 dollarinos.


----------



## ozzy (Apr 16, 2011)

I carry .40 s&w for hydrostatic shock reasons.


----------



## Wheeler (Feb 10, 2011)

I carry any of these, depending on the weather, my clothing, where I'm at or where I'm going, etc and I usually carry one or more deep concealment firearms as well.

American Classic II in .45 
Kimber Custom Classic .45 
CZ-82 9mm Mak, CZ-75B .40, CZ-2075 RAMI .40 
Bersa Thunder .380 

Enjoy

Oh Yeah, ozzy, I just about spewed beer all over my keyboard when I saw your avatar.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

PX4 subcompact = 14 rounds or PX4 compact = 16 rounds, both in 9mm. Both great shooters, minimal recoil, accurate, ammo price, and easy to conceal for me. I'm in the camp that 9 is just fine if used with premium hollowpoints, hardball, well thats another story.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

Either a Beretta 92FS or a Beretta 92FS compact - both are 9mm.

In fact, I consolidated all of my handguns to 9mm. I got rid of my 45s - and I never cared for 40 cal, personally.

Honestly, the performance difference between all 3 really is less than you think. Plus, I can afford to shoot more often with 9mm, and I shoot better with the round at more distances.


----------



## Geezer Squid (Apr 4, 2011)

Glock 30SF: I carry this because of the excellent shooting characteristics of the G30SF. I find the "felt recoil" to be very pleasing and not sharp. The G30 is one of the most accurate (IMHO) of the Glocks. I also love the "flatness" of the Glock pistols (by flatness I mean that nothing sticks out on the sides to poke you). Carried AIWB, it is very non-intrusive.


----------



## crinko (May 26, 2008)

In the winter I switch between my Glock 29 10MM or my Smith&Wesson M&P .45 cal, and in the summer its either my Ruger LC9 9MM or my Glock 33 .357 SIG


----------



## recoilguy (Apr 30, 2009)

I carry 2 guns depending on the season, both are 9mm. I carry a Kahr CW9 in the summer months and a CZ 75 compact in the cold months. 

Always carry never tell. 

I choose to shoot 9mm because I own a lot of them and I shoot one in USPSA so I reload many thousands of rounds each year. Hence I have plenty of practice ammo. I do not load my SD ammo but I do my practice ammo. 9mm has good power and is plentiful. All the guns listed, except one, are a good choice in my limited opinion, but in fairness some people like cheap weapons.


----------



## SMann (Dec 11, 2008)

Gun- Gen 3 Glock19. Why- Cuz it's a Gen 3 Glock 19.:smt023


----------



## HK Dan (Dec 22, 2010)

ozzy said:


> I carry .40 s&w for hydrostatic shock reasons.


Ummmmm...Bubba? You don't get any hydrostatic shock until you start topping 2000FPS, and then it's dicey. It's actually determined by the speed the bullet can make the tissue move rather than the speed of the bullet. If you're carrying .40 because you DON'T want hydrostatic shock, you're golden. Otherwise you need a .308.


----------



## draak (May 28, 2011)

In warm weather when I dress lighter, It's a Beretta cheeta 380, because it is easier to hide. In cold weather, when I dress heavier, It's a Springfield compact 45.


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

DeadAim said:


> I am about to purchase a conceal carry weapon and I was thinking I like the way a 9mm shoots. But alot of people think 40 S&W or 45 ACP? SO What do you CARRY? and WHY? Thanks!


I carry a couple of different things, I first started out with .40s but didn't really care for the way they shot. I admit I was hung up on "stopping power" when I started out but over the last few years of reading different reports from various LE agencies etc. regarding terminal ballistics I've come to realize that there isn't any real difference between the major service calibers (9mm, .40, .357 SIg, .45ACP etc.) in terminal effect when using premium jacketed hollow points. Projectile wise you're looking at 1mm difference in diameter between a 9 and a .40, and then another millimeter between a .40 and a .45. So that's only 2mm difference between a 9mm and a .45.

No matter if it's a 9mm, .40, or .45ACP it's going to take more than one shot to stop a single attacker, think 3-5 per bad guy, if one or two does the job, call it a good day and move on.

The 9mm offers the most capacity in platforms of the same size and generally offers the least felt recoil and allows for faster follow up shots. Ammunition is also cheaper so one can practice more or have some $$$ left over for holsters, magazines, mag carriers etc.

Most of my carry guns now are in one of three calibers, .380 when I'm most worried about concealment. 9mm or .45 the rest of the time. Now I know what you're thinking, I was just promoting the 9mm???? Well when I first started shooting I found that _*I *_preferred the 1911 platform to other makes/models of pistol and the 1911 tends to run best in .45ACP, .38Super or 10mm, the last two being slightly exotic and not all that common so .45ACP it was. I've since stockpiled tons of brass and other reloading components for .45ACP and it's what I still shoot best with, although currently I'm carrying my .45ACP in a HK45 instead of a 1911.

One thing I do like about .45ACP is that some tests and first hand accounts from some cops hold it over the others when it comes to penetrating windshields etc. and it doesn't glance of bone like some 9mm rounds.

To make a long story short, don't get too hung up on caliber, select a mid-size platform in a service caliber that you can reach the controls on and manipulate well, shoot a couple hundred rounds and start building your proficiency (note I said _start_, this is the beginning, not the end) and go from there.

Try and find a place that rents guns and try as many as you can, but even then be diligent in your testing as what may work well for you one day may not be the norm. Don't get too hung up on "how the gun feels" in your hand, you're new and don't know what "feeling good in the hand" is for you yet. What a gun feels like a the counter can be totally different than how it feels when firing a couple hundred rounds. Even if you really like "X" gun but shoot another one better, with practice you can get just as good with any other platform so don't get too hung up on short term performance with a new gun or while testing guns.

As for hydrostatic shock...I don't put too much faith in it. Somewhere around the lines of 85% of people shot survive their wounds, those 15% that don't usually have taken 3-5+ hits and trying to pin point what shot did 'em in is somewhat of a moot point. Bottom line is that if hydrostatic shock could be counted on we'd probably see a higher percentage rate of fatalities from handgun wounds. Even in long guns it's nothing that can be counted on to do the deed.

Any way, that's my take on it.

If you want to see some data on ballistics testing held by LE agencies and ammunition companies, check out ATK Would Ballistics, there's lots of PDFs and some videos as well.

If you want to read up on "failure to neutralize" regarding the .45, .40 and 9mm, check out these three excerpts.



> Officer Down: A Warrior's Sacrifice*Resistance to Gunfire *
> Mettinger absorbed nine rounds from Borders' .45-*six of which hit him in the torso and two more of which literally severed his right foot-without any significant effect on his fighting ability. *This would have been remarkable even if Officer Borders had been firing marginally effective rounds, but he was using .45 caliber Gold Dot ammunition, which is considered by many to be the best man-stopper on the market.​
> Officer Down: The Peter Soulis IncidentThe Aftermath
> Remarkably,* Palmer had taken 22 hits from Soulis' .40-caliber Glock, 17 of which had hit center mass. Despite the fact that the weapon had been loaded with Ranger SXTs considered by many to be one of the best man-stoppers available Palmer lived for more than four minutes after the last shot was fired*. His autopsy revealed nothing more than a small amount of alcohol in his bloodstream. Although Soulis could not have known it, Palmer was wanted for murder in a neighboring state.​
> ...


----------



## hotmerc (Mar 20, 2011)

S&w 3913ls 9mm.


----------



## MitchellB (Aug 14, 2010)

Which is better 9mm, .40s&w or.45acp? You’ll get at least 4 different opinions on that question and maybe more. It is all a compromise. To me the best is the biggest/fastest caliber you can shoot accurately and small enough for you carry every day and holds the most cartridges. No one pistol will do it all, but the main thing is to have one you can shoot accurately and carry every day. A well placed hit with a .22LR is better than a miss with .500s&w. You can’t shoot back if your gun is at home in the nightstand because it was too large or heavy to carry today. I don’t believe the majority of people will ever fire their gun in self-defense, and if they do, likely it will only be a couple of rounds, but it is comforting to know you have reloads, extra magazine, a HC magazine or a back-up gun. Best advise is to shoot all three and see which one you like best, or buy all 3 and rotate. 
My first CCW was a .38 special snub nose revolver; then I got a .44 special snub nose; then a HC 9mm, then a single stack 9mm pocket gun and lastly a few weeks ago a .45acp. A .40s&w would easily get the job done too, I just did not wish get a different caliber than what I already had on hand. The one I carry most often today is my Kel-Tec PF9, because it is the smaller than anything else I own and I believe big enough to stop a threat with a few well placed hits.


----------



## OldCurlyWolf (Oct 28, 2010)

10mm and a .40 S&W

I prefer the 10mm cartridge.


----------



## dondavis3 (Aug 2, 2009)

It depends on where I'm going and whether it's hot or cold what I carry .

But it's usually my

Sig P239 in 9mm










Or my Ruger LC9 in 9mm










I like both guns, but I'm much more accurate with the Sig P239

:smt1099


----------



## quigley (Jun 19, 2011)

The wheel was one of the greatest inventions in history - next was the wheel-gun. 
I carry either a S&W airweight or a S&W 60 w/ a 3" barrel. My preferred round is the good old "FBI" lead HPSWC 158 (which you can buy in bulk from GA. Arms. Why not a semi - ? No special reason - most of them - with some breaking in are excellent. But having grown up with Paladin, Cheyenne, etc. a wheel-gun just feels good to me - I used to carry a Beretta 45 lc 3" SA with birds-head grips but it was hard to conceal and folks were really intimidated if it peeked out at them.:finga::finga::finga:


----------



## ozzy (Apr 16, 2011)

Ummmmm...Bubba? You don't get any hydrostatic shock until you start topping 2000FPS, and then it's dicey. It's actually determined by the speed the bullet can make the tissue move rather than the speed of the bullet. If you're carrying .40 because you DON'T want hydrostatic shock, you're golden. Otherwise you need a .308.


You might want to research a bit before you make a statement. Now do you want to retract now or after I provide solid proof. P.S. 308 is a rifle caliber aka 7.62 :watching:


----------



## ozzy (Apr 16, 2011)

Here's a little bit more library if you can read.

Hydrostatic shock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## sig225 (Aug 30, 2010)

*Carry what you shoot best*

S&W 642 or M&P 9c. And , as always ..... shot placement ..... :smt023


----------



## 8Eric6 (May 9, 2010)

VAMarine said:


> I carry a couple of different things, I first started out with .40s but didn't really care for the way they shot. I admit I was hung up on "stopping power" when I started out but over the last few years of reading different reports from various LE agencies etc. regarding terminal ballistics I've come to realize that there isn't any real difference between the major service calibers (9mm, .40, .357 SIg, .45ACP etc.) in terminal effect when using premium jacketed hollow points. Projectile wise you're looking at 1mm difference in diameter between a 9 and a .40, and then another millimeter between a .40 and a .45. So that's only 2mm difference between a 9mm and a .45.
> 
> No matter if it's a 9mm, .40, or .45ACP it's going to take more than one shot to stop a single attacker, think 3-5 per bad guy, if one or two does the job, call it a good day and move on.
> 
> ...


man only had time to read the first story before work but, geez that story was CRAZY


----------



## Prin_C (Jun 20, 2011)

I actually carry a Glock 25. As was stated above, shot placement is key. For me the Glock 25 is perfect for concealed carry.


----------



## jb62901 (May 21, 2011)

In the pocket. http://oi51.tinypic.com/ju762q.jpg

In the car. http://oi52.tinypic.com/1zebcyo.jpg


----------



## 4head (Jun 19, 2011)

I switch between Taurus 24/7 pro 40S&W and cz 82 depending on what I want to wear...both IWB..holster..


----------



## ozzy (Apr 16, 2011)

My .40 with Hornady CD rounds show over 500 FPE at muzzle, good enough for me. That's a lot more than .44 .45 .38. 38+P. If you don't believe it argue with the mfg. I'll believe the mfg. over a :numbchuck:


----------



## JeffWard (Aug 24, 2007)

Ozzy,

The first flaw with your argument is your source... Wikipedia...

Please Google Search DocGKR, FBI Terminal Ballistics Testing, and about a dozen other sources than one BS topic on Wikipedia.

The concept of "Hydrostatic Shock" has been completely debunked, especially in regard to handgun ammo.

Thanks


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

I think VAMarine is on it, excerpt from the FBI:

"With a handgun, no wounding mechanism can be relied on to produce incapacitation 100% of the time within the short span of most gunfights. Selecting a good self-defense load is only a small part of surviving a gunfight. You have to hit an attacker to hurt him, and you need a good plan for surviving until your hits take effect. Get good training, practice regularly, learn to use cover, and pray that you will never have a lethal force encounter armed only with a handgun."


----------



## bps3040 (Jan 6, 2008)

I mainly carry a Kahr PM9 in a minituck. Comfy. Occasionally I carry a 642 in my pocket.


----------



## JohnnyFlake (Jan 30, 2008)

For many years, I carried a 9mm Kel-Tec P-11, mainly because it's very easy to conceal and it goes bang every time I pulled the trigger. What I was a little uncomfortable with is that it's hard to shoot accurately. Finally, I make a big decision, at least for me, and moved to a .380 Sig P238 which is 6 plus 1. My reasons for doing so is that it is basically a single action gun, which is carried cocked and locked. I love that method of carry and as a result I can virtually hit head, neck and center chest shots at will. Keeping in mind that shot placement is the real key to stopping anyone. 

With the Buffalo Bore +P 100gr Flat Nose Solid Cast Load and their +P 90gr HP Load, alternated in my clips, I have complete confidence in my .380 Sig P238.


----------



## srommes (Apr 11, 2011)

Currently have a Sig P238 strapped to my ankle. With an untucked shirt in summer months I have a Kahr CM9 in a Don Hume IWB Holster and in winter months it's a XD9 subcompact in a Comp Tac Minataur IWB holster.


----------



## cougartex (Jan 2, 2010)

I carry either a Beretta Cougar 8000L or a 92FS Compact.


----------



## ozzy (Apr 16, 2011)

Didn't the FBI go with the .40? :mrgreen:


----------



## ozzy (Apr 16, 2011)

Didn't the SS go with a .357 Mag a necked downed 40. :mrgreen: In believe the SS uses a .40 in a 60 grain bullet, highly potent. :mrgreen:


----------



## ozzy (Apr 16, 2011)

Ozzy,

The first flaw with your argument is your source... Wikipedia...

Please Google Search DocGKR, FBI Terminal Ballistics Testing, and about a dozen other sources than one BS topic on Wikipedia.

The concept of "Hydrostatic Shock" has been completely debunked, especially in regard to handgun ammo.

Thanks

Read post #36 and argue with the MFG. Now you say its debunked, now show some documentation that backs your statement up. If you shoot a lot of handgun ammo you well................


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

ozzy said:


> Read post #36 and argue with the MFG. Now you say its debunked, now show some documentation that backs your statement up. If you shoot a lot of handgun ammo you well................


No one is claiming that the specs of the Hornady round are not what Hornady says they are. What we've been saying is that "Hydrostatic shock", while it may exist does not cause enough damage on a regular basis to even be considered when choosing a handgun caliber for self defense. While I wouldn't say that the phenomenon never occurs, I would say that it does not occur in a majority of most shootings. Again, it is said that roughly 85% of people survive gun shot wounds, if hydrostatic shock was as prevalent as it's proponents make it out to be, the survival rate of persons shot would drop. In a previous post I listed three incidents where persons took a multitude of hits that were not immediately incapacitated, one guy took 16 hits of .40 to the torso before succumbing to his injuries. Where was the hydrostatic shock?

As for documentation, how about the FBI's Hangun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness by the FBI Academy's Firearms Training Unit?

FBI Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness - FirearmsTactical.com



> Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. *The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable* and "knock down" power is a myth
> 
> The numbers of cases cited are statistically meaningless, and the underlying assumptions upon which *the collection of information and its interpretation are based are themselves based on myths such as knock- down power, energy transfer, hydrostatic shock, or the temporary cavity methodology of flawed work* such as RII.


Or how about the following submitted by a gentleman with 22 years of Naval service performing combat trauma and wound ballistic research.

Basic Wound Ballistic Terminal Performance Facts - M4Carbine.net Forums

Or this post:


DocGKR said:


> Please, not this garbage again. The Wiki reference appears to be filled with the grossly distorted pseudo-science espoused by Michael Courtney. We have dealt with his diatribes in several other threads (_for example: M4Carbine.net Forums and Scientific Evidence for "Hydrostatic Shock" - M4Carbine.net Forums_). Before anyone is duped by Courtney's bait, I strongly urge folks to take the time to read the articles Wiki/Courtney references; you will find they do not support these claims. For that matter, the clinical evidence and outcomes of thousands of patients treated for GSW's and hits to body armor in recent combat clearly highlight the irrelevance of Courtney's whining, as do the numerous patients treated for domestic GSW's in this Nation. Judge for yourself, are these theories and experimental findings clinically relevant, do they match what is seen in actual GSW's, will they alter outcomes or treatment, etc... The mainstream world of terminal ballistics (IWBA, FBI, JSWB-IPT, NSWC Crane, USMC, USSOCOM, etc&#8230 has largely abandoned the pressure wave theory of incapacitation because it does not match the real world experiences of the numerous individuals who have been shot, nor does it coincide with the clinical findings of patients hit by projectiles.
> 
> Claims regarding the ability of a bullet to remotely stress and shock the central nervous system have been thoroughly discredited. Fackler's de-bunking of the "Shock Wave Myth" (Fackler ML: _"Literature Review and Comments"_, *Wound Ballistics Review*, 1(1):38-41; Winter, 1991.) is mandatory reading for anyone prior to making comments on this topic. For additional insights, please review the section entitled "Neurogenic Shock" in a book review we did for AFTE that has been placed on line at: Book Review: Handgun Stopping Power - The Definitive Study. I've seen a lot of people have been shot in the face, zygoma, maxilla, and mandible with both handgun, rifle, and shotgun projectiles and lived--even when hit very close range with no intervening obstacles. Likewise there are a lot of veterans who were shot in the torso with 6.5x50mm, 7.62x39mm, 7.62x51mm, 7.62x54mm, .30-06, .303, 7.7x58mm, 7.92x57mm projectiles. Interestingly, NONE of these folks that I have ever seen or heard of demonstrated any signs or symptoms of remote CNS injuries and there are no clinical MRI's I am aware of that depict remote brain injuries from pressure waves resulting from a shots to either the chest or face.
> 
> Bkb000 has done a good job describing the effects of temporary cavitation. The term "hydrostatic shock", is probably not the best choice in verbiage in describing what occurs when projectiles are penetrating through tissue. Recall that hydostatic shock is analogous to temporary cavitation, but in a fluid medium; it is simply the brief temporary displacement of fluid by the passage of a projectile; Dr. Fackler has published that the velocity of this movement is less than one-tenth that of the projectile, with the peak displacement occurring four to five milliseconds after the passage of the projectile and exerting a pressure of no more than four to six atm. Note that "Hydrostatic Shock" is not a mechanism of projectile wounding and may be a misnomer when used to describe the typical effects of a projectile traversing tissue. You might instead consider using temporary stretch and permanent crush cavity, as these are more descriptions accurate in most cases... Duncan MacPherson, the man who quite literally wrote the book (MacPherson D: *"Bullet Penetration-Modeling the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma"*. Ballistic Publications; El Segundo, 1994); on the physics of projectile wounds has written the following in response to another thread making unfounded assertions regarding hydrostatic shock:


Now, there are also some postings from Ayoob regarding the .357 Sig in which case a single shot resulted in a fatality:


> I testified in court this morning on a fatal shooting case in which .357 SIG 125 grain Speer Gold Dot caused massive damage and delivered an instant one-shot stop. Terminology aside, the concept works.


It's a little vague, but I'll buy it. But he's not going on about a center mass hit resulting in a brain hemorrhage that some proponents claim. Will a fast moving projectile of decent size do some serious wound tract damage? Sure, but that's not really the same thing.

I plan on taking a couple more classes over the next couple of years, including a MAG20 course with Ayoob and a Tactical Anatomy class with Dr. Jim Williams and I will be sure to ask lots and lots of questions on this topic.

Until then I'm going to stick with what works, putting large holes in organs until the threat is over.

Is the .40 a nice well rounded and proven cartridge? Yes, but it's no magic death ray either, few handgun calibers are.


----------



## recoilguy (Apr 30, 2009)

That appears to be excellent documentation.

It's ok to be wrong its kind of embbarrassing when you wont admit it.

RCG


----------



## bartledoo (Jun 26, 2011)

I carry a S&W .38 Special.


----------



## buddy (Jan 7, 2011)

Colt 1911A1 in a Landshark Leather custom IWB holster, condition 1. 2 extra mags w/Black Talon ammo. I do agree it is harder to conceal than a compact but I have adjusted my lifestyle and wardrobe to accomidate carrying this setup. I put it on in the morning and take it of and stuff it in a bedside holster at nite. I would not suggest my methods are suitable for anyonelse but it works for me. I'm comfortable with it and try to shoot a couple hundred rnds. a week. Drawing and hitting your target on the first shot every time is top priority for me. Let's all be prepared for that moment that we pray never happens.


----------

