I always accepted the ideas that the fast majority of defensive shootings would be up close and wouldn’t require a lot of firepower. It was also common to hear that small guns are easier to carry, therefore you’d carry more often. So, I carried a J-Frame or a Glock 36.
A few incidents have made me change my beliefs. I’m in my 15th year as an LEO and have seen more than a few shootings. Common themes were: Shot placement over caliber, and don’t stop shooting til the bad guy stops. My agency does a lot of failure-to-stop training at the range and with sims.
This has been emphasized even more after a deputy was killed in a gunfight with a guy who was wearing body armor. The bad guy took 4 hits to CoM that would have been fatal had he not been wearing armor. In that instance, the first head shot won. With the proliferation of affordable surplus body armor, this type of thing is a new reality.
Another good example is the church goer who took out that guy with a head shot from a decent distance. He saved lives that day. Active shooter training I’ve participated in emphasizes the benefit of being able to engage quickly and at farther distances.
Due to stuff like this, I’m carrying larger guns with higher capacity that are more accurate. I’ve found that if shooting with irons, I am most accurate with a hammer-fired pistol such as a Sig P226 or 1911 when distances exceed 20 yards. I can’t seem to get that kind of consistency out of a striker fired gun unless I use a red dot. I’m really seeing the benefit of red dot sights on pistols. Especially if it allows me to carry a lighter gun.
Have any of you transitioned to bigger guns for similar reasons? I can see how most concealed carriers wouldn’t be concerned with engaging someone at a longer distance because their responsibility is to get out and live for the sake of their families.
What do you guys think?
