Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Texas Concealed Handgun (CHL)' started by avvidclif, Apr 15, 2018.
He said "proven reliable".
The Ruger EC9s fits the bill. Some will carry the Kimber because they would not be seen, even in handcuffs with any pedestrian gun. And as the pompous slugs on the S&W forum actually posted The SD9VE does not cost enough to save your life.
I own an EC9s but still prefer my S&W snubby. Even though I would be heartbroken to see it returned abused. If it did it's job I'd get over it.
I bought into this line of thinking when I lived in Colorado, from 2014 - 2016.
I carried a Taurus pt-111G2 that cost me all of $30 and two Anderson lowers I had. Like it or not, that little gun had a lot of fantastic reviews and a couple of 10k tests on it that convinced me Taurus turned the corner.
I generally put 50 - 100 rounds down range per week and shot IDPA once or twice per month.
Then, I had a fail to feed somewhere around the 2200 round mark. Chalked it up to a bad magazine and pulled that mag from circulation.
Then, I had another fail to feed, around the 2500 round mark. Then a fail to go into battery, the more fail to feeds.
I lost my confidence in the gun. Sure, it’ll go bang at least once, but after that who knows?
Swapped to a police trade P229.
If budget is what’s driving the decision on your carry gun, find a good quality used/police trade.
I carry an FN 509 or a SW 457 for this very reason.
I carry a full size M&P 40. As long as I eventually get it back, that's fine... I'd rather trust my life to a weapon thats tried and true rather than a budget gun... just my $0.02
Back when CHL became a reality an instructor told me this very thing.
If involved in a shooting, your weapon is gone. Possibly forever.
He cautioned not to use something heirloom or very expensive to replace.
Made sense then. Still does.
We all must decide what we are willing to lose in a life and death situation.
The firearm is actually going to be one of the cheapest pieces of the puzzle in a self defense situation.
I will not carry a super cheap gun for fear of losing it as I need to trust it and it has to work.
Glocks fit the bill perfectly in my opinion. You will be hard pressed to find a better gun at an equal or lower price point.
I think instead of "cheap" the term used should be "replaceable."
But as mentioned, the cost of replacement will be one of the least of your worries after a self-defense situation that results in a shooting.
Also consider that the probability of being involved in such a situation is extremely rare, so while the advice to not carry a family heirloom or a unique piece of history is sound, recommending a cheap firearms (even if it is reliable) may not be the best advice. A lot of other factors such as accuracy, ease of use, etc. are greater priorities in considering a self-defense weapon. I have cheaper, reliable handguns (such as a Taurus PT111 G2) that fit that bill, but I won't leave my Springfields at home because they cost more! If facing such a scenario, I want a weapon that I am accustomed to shooting, and shooting well!
I never understood this.
It's like telling someone to drive a hoopty because they might wreck a nice car
I have shooters, competition, heirlooms, non-shooters (NIB), and general purpose fun guns, mostly 22's.
Maybe I should have used the term inexpensive instead of cheap in the original post. Inexpensive is determined by the depth of your pocketbook. If someone were to confiscate my unfired "Dirty Harry Special" I would be more than pissed.