Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns What you REALLY need from a personal protection handgun

I would only criticize your personal choice in the sense that it requires a good bit of regular live-fire practice to be able to handle it effectively right out of the holster, due to the recoil of this lightweight and hard hitting choice. I don't practice enough for that to be the case for myself, but I assume you do. It's jut too expensive and time consuming for me to do so, and that's likely the case as well for many others.

That said, there's always a trade off. For example, I like your list, and it leads me to the full weight (i.e., all-steel) Commander or Government Model. For me, dramatically less live-fire practice is needed to be able to draw and fire it, cold, with a high degree of effectiveness. Its drawback is, of course, greater carry weight, but the only time I find that a problem is during prolonged vigorous activity, such as hard-pushing endurance training.

I was in fact carrying a full weight Government Model IWB until I was invited on an elk hunt (in the mountains of northern Idaho) six or seven weeks ago. Then I started hard-pushing outdoor endurance training, and quickly realized I'd have to switch to something else, at least till after the hunt, since it began to not only become noticeable on my hip, but downright painful, so I switched to another of my high ranking choices for daily concealed carry, my Kahr P-9, which shares many of the characteristics of the lightweight Commander that you like so much, except for being more compact, less powerful, lighter, and of a different action type (one I like nearly as well as a single action auto). It's light weight doesn't much interfere with effective, right out of the holster, shooting, either, since it's a much lighter recoiling round.

Allow me to fix.
You can always count on some smarty-pants to jump in and take something to an extreme.

But I can agree with your assessment given common combat cartridges. A hit with a 9mm is far more important than a miss with a .45.

Absolutely, this is MY choice. I don't expect for a minute that it's the right choice for anyone else. I don't subscribe to the one gun for all theory. That is a must in a military for logistical reasons. Many LE agencies will cite the same, but I strongly disagree with that. A handgun as a primary defensive tool is a very personal thing. What works for one may be completely inadequate for another. Given MY personal threat assessment, and MY personal situation, I consider my choice to be a very good one. Not perfect, but very good. I also recognize that there are AT LEAST two dozen other pistols that would serve me quite well. And I would hate to see someone rush out and buy a LW Commander because that's what Kevin carries; that's just nonsense. Just like I wont go out and by X pistol because XX high-speed, low-drag commando ninja's use it; equally nonsensical.

I should have more carefully worded my statement, as what I intended to say doesn't disagree with what you say above.

Well said. I rarely think of it in these terms, but that's the easiest way to explain it.

and Kevin, you ARE a high-speed, low-drag commando ninja.. So tell me what to buy!

I mistakenly took for granted those who know me know I advocate 9MM as the "smallest" I use for self defense.
I should have stated that as part of my first post.

I firmly believe, after much research and evidence gathering, that modern bullet designs and loadings make the service calibers (9MM, .40SW, .45ACP, .45GAP) pretty close in their terminal performance. Since I like to see good results on target which are obtained through a pistol which is shootable, the 9MM gets a strong thumbs up from me. And my wife can work them as well.

More like low-speed, draggin-ass You're funny.

I find it interesting that just about everyone now considers a high-capacity autoloader to be, if not an absolute requirement for personal defense, at least the ideal to strive for. You hear it from the police brass too, when they whine about how they "need" MP5s or full-auto M4s in every patrol car because they are "outgunned" by AK-wielding gangsters.
In my opinion, a hi-cap pistol has one purpose: car defense. If I am practicing evasive driving while shooting to disable the car of an attacker bent on stopping me, I want lots of rounds in a gun I can handle and maneuver with one hand. Barring that unlikely scenario, I want an utterly reliable sidearm with substantial (for a defensive handgun) stopping power. To me that means a full- or midsized (L or N frame size) double action revolver in .357, .41 or .44 Magnum, .45 Colt, or .44 Special+P. .45 Auto or 10mm in full moon clips works, too. And if possible, I don't like to be too many steps away from some kind of longarm.

Here's my thinking: assuming you can shoot, if you get in a defensive situation where 5 or 6 rounds doesn't resolve the problem, you are not going to live though the encounter. Of course, if you can't shoot and neither can your adversary, you may indeed fire 17 or more rounds and live to tell about it, but then you will probably be "telling about it" in both criminal and civil court, because those bullets don't just vaporize when they don't hit your intended target.
Allow me to explain that in more detail. If a guy attacks me with a 17-shot 9mm and he gets one into my center of mass, I probably will not be able to fire very many rounds of my own in response, at least not effectively. And my lack of effectiveness would probably give him a perfect opportunity to put a few more into me, no matter how many rounds I have at my disposal. On the other hand, if I get one round of .357 Magnum into his center of mass, he likewise won't be able to utilize the 17 rounds he has available. So with one assailant, the situation should be resolved one way or the other in less than 5 rounds if one or both combatants can shoot and uses an effective round.
If there are two assailants, the same situation applies except that one of them will probably run away when he sees his buddy go down, anyway. If not, with a 5 or 6 shot revolver you still have a couple rounds to serve the second assailant, too.
Now, as you envision multiple assailants attacking you so that you really need 12 or more rounds, keep in mind that they will all be attacking you at once, almost certainly from a distance of less than 10 yards. Can you get 12 or more rounds on target before any of them can shoot, stab, slash or hit you in the head with a baseball bat? Who are you; Superman?

By the same token, consider a cop armed with a Winchester .30/30 lever action, facing a thug with an AK. If he fires one round and hits center mass, will it matter to that cop that he has 29 more rounds? If the cop gets a round of .30/30 into the thug's center mass, will the thug be able to use his remaining 29 rounds?

Of course, if I ever get in a situation where I am barricaded against multiple armed adversaries, I want my AR-15. A high capacity pistol is not a suitable replacement.

In ANY defensive situation one may find themselves limited to firing with one hand as the other hand could be quite busy.
And either hand (dominant or weak) might be called upon to do the work.
Using something one can control with a single hand is wise. Practicing both the strong and weak side is even wiser.

There was a man I once knew who both had a need to carry and experience in killing men up close and personally, as an ex-special forces type during the Viet Nam war.

His choice for civilian carry: the smallest .22lr auto he could find. Carried it in the hip pocket of his jeans. No holster.

I asked him why. He said; "It makes neat little holes."

That's what he wanted. Neat little holes. And he knew where to put them. And he knew how to do it. He'd BT/DT, and had perfect confidence in his ability.

There was no way I was going to tell him he didn't know what he was talking about.

This has got to be the single most discombobulated thing I have ever read.

I knew this thread would be interesting...I thought it would be more interesting.

What I find interesting is the viewpoints of different people in how they view the "threat" that they are arming against. Your viewpoint of the "threat" often will dictate your choices.

I also find it funny how people sort of paint themselves into a corner. Because of A, I HAVE to choose B and that's the only way to go.

My self defense handgun is a D/A stainless S&W 640 5-shot .357 mag:

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/..._757798_757797_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

Reasons:

Reliability/dependability.
Simple manual of arms/no safety.
Substantial stopping power w/ vast ammo choice.
Compact size/reasonable weight. Fits in pocket.
EZ maintenance.

....which is why anecdotal references are almost totally irrelevant in tactical/defensive discussions. BT/DT discussions degrade quickly to a "3 blind men describing the elephant" argument.

The .30-30 vs AK47 example mentioned earlier brings up Raisuli's theory that gangs are highly trained and super equiped which I think most thinking people discount to some degree. It also feeds into his argument about using the sights---a sighted shot with a .30-30 trumps a spray and pray AK burst everytime outside of arms length distances.

Back in the early IPSC days, Ken Hackathorn set up the old "Flying M" course and ran a handgun shooter against a shooter with a fully automatic weapon. The distances with the Flying M don't exceed 12 yards IIRC. The handgunner ALWAYS won. I didn't believe him so we set up the same course. Ran against an M-16 and a Thompson. Again, the handgun always won. Perhaps it's hypocritical to reference anecdotal experience when I just discounted it above, however, it does beg the question: is high capacity allowing for "spray and pray" worth considering?

Hi Kevin.

You are an excellent writer, so I know that the product of your research will be excellent.

The primary criterion of self-defense handgun selection is survival. Therefore, any such weapon must accord its user the best opportunity for surviving. The difficult criteria is anticipating circumstances of being forced to rely upon a weapon for survival.


Buena Suerte,

R

EXCELLENT revolver...

I had the 7th 640 to come off the assembly line and carried it exclusively for two years before a collector friend of mine offered me an obscene amount of money for a single digit serial number S&W. I had some likes and dislikes. The gun is truly excellent in every way; typical of S&W. But after a lot of use, including competing in IPSC with full power magnum loads, I abandoned the .357 magnum round altogether for defense. This was a hard thing for me to do because my first handgun was a .357 and I have a strong bond to that round. The cartridge has outstanding performance in a 4� or greater length barrel. But that performance comes at the expense of massive muzzle blast/noise/flash; so much so, that I consider it a liability. One shot and everyone (including you) nearby is deaf and blind. With a snubbie the situation gets worse as already significant recoil is now greatly accentuated, muzzle blast, noise, & flash is now horrendous; but you take a big hit to your velocity. When I did this article (http://shootersjournal.net/snub-nose-roundup-a-look-at-today%E2%80%99s-small-frame-snub-nosed-revolvers/ ) I did a significant amount of chronographing different loads and found that the normally 1450fps .357 load from a 4� barrel is reduced to an average of 1140fps out of a 2� barrel; that�s a significant drop in velocity. And that significant drop in velocity comes at a significant increase in noise, recoil, and muzzle flash.

Now on the positive side, I sincerely believe that the noise and muzzle flash play a role in the performance of the .357. Since most who are shot and go down after being hit have gone down for something other than physiological, I can�t help but wonder how much that huge bang and blinding flash plays on the psychological & psychosomatic side of the �stopping power� equation. Still, I just think the .357 carries too much baggage. If it were me, I�d drop Speer Short Barrel .38 +P�s in that 640 and feel better armed�but this is just me.

gmoats,

You gotta be cautious when using extremism when trying to prove a point. It's always better to cite actual examples of what you purport another wrote.

Gangsters do train. How extensively they train is not always certain. It's common for some gangs such as those moving drugs to recruit ex-soldiers. Others might train to the extent of planning and practicing robberies. What you have to figure out is the likelihood of facing a well-trained Black Panther or outlaw biker or lesser trained killers. It's up to you to decide. However, I know what's right for me. And since I've had experience with gangsters, I know to avoid 'em.

Never forget that there's only one sure way to survive a gunfight: don't get in one. If you can't avoid, then know that you're in one because someone wants to kill you. And I just don't like the idea of another wanting me to be a coroner's case number.

Were I you, gmoats, I'd know of gang activity in my area. Hence, if there are no gangs where you live & you're not going to venture where there are, then you're good to go. But that is not the case where I live.


Take care,

R

The Speer GD 124 +P from a G26 gives that while doubling what's available on board. That fact helped influence my own decisionmaking a few years ago.

Now there�s the bottom line; well said. (and thank you for the comment sir, I�m delighted you find my writing useful)

When I got into the executive protection business and went to school for that profession, we received a lot of education in differing sorts of threats. From a chance encounter, to the classic obsessive stalker, to the hardcore terrorist; all had to be considered when doing executive protection.

But security of any sort is a compromise in nature. The truly �secure� thing to do is be armed to the teeth inside a bank vault; but that�s not very practical is it?

So we spent the largest amount of our time learning how to do a threat assessment and prepare for what�s likely. No, you�ll never know what you�re really going to face, and chances are, when it�s all over, if you had to do it again, there�s much you would change. But you do your homework and you make reasonable, real world assumptions, and then design your security strategy around those assumptions; and pray to God you get more right than you got wrong.

There are those who feel they NEED a high capacity arm and a couple spare magazines. There are those who feel they need more than one gun. There are those who want a long arm close by. Unless someone gives me some sort of intimate look inside their world; who am I to criticize their choices? There may be times that I may question or even criticize someone�s thought process; most times it�s because someone will speak in absolutes�it HAS to be this way, only an idiot would do it different, or so and so says this is the way it has to be.

Self defense & security are an inexact science. You�ll find that the TRUE experts tend to stay away from absolutes. This is because they have the experience to know that for every absolute someone will lay out, they can always think of a few reasons why it�s just not so.

A firearm is but one part of our security measures and most often it�s the least important element. Always remember the 4 pillars of security:

Deter
Detect
Delay
Respond

A firearm falls into category 4�so all else has to fail before a firearm becomes involved. SWEAT the first 3 and you won�t have to sweat the last one.

Kevin, was that snubby article the one you were thinking of using my picture in?