Carrying a 5" 1911 is hard

[Countryside]

I wasn't knocking any particular type of pistol. Maybe you rock with a Glock, or if you're in heaven with a 1911, some of you have pointed out as well that the problem is the person not the pistol.
A gun is really only as safe as the person handling it.

[LSUTiger]

I started out carrying a 5" 1911
I now carry a Glock 26

To me it's the best compromise of stopping power, firepower, concealability, comfort, not to mention it's reliability, accuracy, cost, available accessories, parts and magazine interchangeability with other Glock models and larger 9mm magazines. A winner across the board for CC . And best of all I carry it every day, doesn't get left in the truck (except for 30.06, prohibited places). A Glock 19 would be my close 2nd choice.

My recommendation is to let your CC gun evolve until you find the right combination of Gun/Holster/Ammo/Carry style that fits your situation.

For me the bottom line came down to carrying all the time vs not. CC is all about compromise.

[Feed&Guns]

@OlBill - good point about repetitions. You could do 1000 "manipulations" in your living room. But, my point to them was that most people simply aren't going to even do that. They're going to get their CHL, buy a gun, and then shoot it twice a year maybe. They should practice, but most won't. It's like me and my gym membership. Pay every month. Haven't been in over 6 months though. And it's practically across the street from my house. I did do a few pushups in my living room the other day. Then my dog licked me in my face so I quit and played with the dog. Most people won't train so I recommend a gun that comes most naturally. "Point and shoot". And maybe even consider a laser. I hate for them to get dependent on it, and I don't have one on my carry gun, but for people who simply won't ever train but want to feel safer because they carry... that's how I'm thinking about it. And when they ask about me not having a laser, I tell them I'd be happy to sell them the amount of ammo I shoot each month (in a nice way).

@Taypo - OT, how do you like that VP9? I really thought I wanted one because I liked the grip concept. I carry a glock and didn't like the grip. Thought about M&P followed by XDM and then I saw the VP9. Drool. Then I held one (at Knob Creek, no less, while on vacation crossing the country). Didn't care for the feel for some reason. HKs are great (so I hear) but I was really turned off by the feel. It felt, oddly enough, cheap and flimsy. Reminds me of wanting a Jeep Wrangler so bad until the one day I drove one and hated the feeling of nearly rolling over around curves. Cured my wants in one drive. Now I just put a Hogue grip sleeve on my G19 and feel much better. I'm sure it shoots well like an HK should.

The VP9 has three optional grip inserts for both sides of the grip, and three for the backstrap. With a little experimenting, I think just about anyone can come up with a superior ergonomic setup for their hands. You can use them in any combination (e.g., palm swell on one side and narrow on the other.)

It took me about an hour of fiddling around with different combinations, but I now have the most ergonomic double stack handgun in my collection. I still carry the 1911 more (it's hard to get more ergonomic than a single stack 1911), but when I need high capacity, the VP9 beats my "2 x 4" Glock every time. The trigger is also outstanding for a striker fired gun, and reliability is top notch (as you would expect from H&K). The gun is surprisingly light unloaded, but a full magazine restores the feel you're used to, and it meets your requirement for "draw and shoot". The engineering story behind it is impressive too - H&K didn't just rush this one out the door.

I'd suggest giving it another look after experimenting with the grip inserts.

Everything you said is what I expected. I thought, "M&P has a great idea and a non-2x4 shaped grip...I like that!" Then I saw the VP9 and said, "Man, everything I like about the M&P this has and more. Even more customizable." But when I held one, I was very underwhelmed by the "quality feel". I knew I could modify the grip characteristics to fit better, but I liken it to my eating habits. I detest eating with plastic flatware because it feels cheap. I even hate the flimsy cafeteria style flatware. Now, I'll eat a $1.88 Boston Market on sale TV dinner...but I insist on eating it with "real" flatware. It was kind of like that. Perhaps like you said with it loaded and properly fit, I'd have liked it more. Maybe I'll give it another shot. I really wanted to like that gun, too.

[Feed&Guns]

Folks who don't like 1911s are limp-wristed pinko Commies.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way... ... I'd be the first to agree that they're not a great choice for the typical lazy person's first defensive pistol because they demand the development of familiarity and ideally some expertise in their efficient use. With that said, I'd much rather have the habit of trying to wipe off a non-existent thumb-safety than the reverse

I like the idea of a wild west, everyone carrying a "man's gun". But in reality I'd rather them carry something they can shoot instinctively rather than something they have to train with...assuming most people won't train. My wife, like SO many others, got her CHL and, in the 6 months since, has been shooting 3 times. In that time, she decided she didn't like her Sig 938 so she got a Walther CCP. Shot it once so far. Never carries. Usually doesn't even know where her gun is. Sure as hell doesn't reload it with defensive ammo. And I think most people are more like her than me (me, you, and the other zealots on this board).

Having said that, one of our customers (husband and wife...the wife will be my RO for our CHL classes) comes in and we always talk guns. Started out a feed customer and now is a feed & gun customer. Anyway, her husband (nice, soft spoken man about 60-65 I'd guess...with eyes like Kurt Russel that could stare a hole through you...former SOF) pulls out from his waist (under an untucked t-shirt...never even saw the gun) a full size Coonan in 357 Magnum. So we talked about that for a while. A few days later they bring me a couple of Browning Citori O/U to sell. He demonstrates how his gun is easy to pull out because of some kind of holster lube he used...whatever...but I say, "that's not the Coonan from the other day, right?" "Oh, no. This is my 10mm." He has 3 identical 10mm full size 1911 style pistols. That day he was carrying one of them.

So I guess you can carry full size, and even in 10mm, and if you do it right, nobody would even know. I didn't know and I look for that kind of thing. He's about 5'8"-5'9", 180-190# I'd guess. Just a pretty normal guy. Couldn't meet a nicer, more humble, great couple. Whoda thought?

[Excaliber]

@OlBill - good point about repetitions. You could do 1000 "manipulations" in your living room. But, my point to them was that most people simply aren't going to even do that. They're going to get their CHL, buy a gun, and then shoot it twice a year maybe. They should practice, but most won't. It's like me and my gym membership. Pay every month. Haven't been in over 6 months though. And it's practically across the street from my house. I did do a few pushups in my living room the other day. Then my dog licked me in my face so I quit and played with the dog. Most people won't train so I recommend a gun that comes most naturally. "Point and shoot". And maybe even consider a laser. I hate for them to get dependent on it, and I don't have one on my carry gun, but for people who simply won't ever train but want to feel safer because they carry... that's how I'm thinking about it. And when they ask about me not having a laser, I tell them I'd be happy to sell them the amount of ammo I shoot each month (in a nice way).

@Taypo - OT, how do you like that VP9? I really thought I wanted one because I liked the grip concept. I carry a glock and didn't like the grip. Thought about M&P followed by XDM and then I saw the VP9. Drool. Then I held one (at Knob Creek, no less, while on vacation crossing the country). Didn't care for the feel for some reason. HKs are great (so I hear) but I was really turned off by the feel. It felt, oddly enough, cheap and flimsy. Reminds me of wanting a Jeep Wrangler so bad until the one day I drove one and hated the feeling of nearly rolling over around curves. Cured my wants in one drive. Now I just put a Hogue grip sleeve on my G19 and feel much better. I'm sure it shoots well like an HK should.

The VP9 has three optional grip inserts for both sides of the grip, and three for the backstrap. With a little experimenting, I think just about anyone can come up with a superior ergonomic setup for their hands. You can use them in any combination (e.g., palm swell on one side and narrow on the other.)

It took me about an hour of fiddling around with different combinations, but I now have the most ergonomic double stack handgun in my collection. I still carry the 1911 more (it's hard to get more ergonomic than a single stack 1911), but when I need high capacity, the VP9 beats my "2 x 4" Glock every time. The trigger is also outstanding for a striker fired gun, and reliability is top notch (as you would expect from H&K). The gun is surprisingly light unloaded, but a full magazine restores the feel you're used to, and it meets your requirement for "draw and shoot". The engineering story behind it is impressive too - H&K didn't just rush this one out the door.

I'd suggest giving it another look after experimenting with the grip inserts.

Everything you said is what I expected. I thought, "M&P has a great idea and a non-2x4 shaped grip...I like that!" Then I saw the VP9 and said, "Man, everything I like about the M&P this has and more. Even more customizable." But when I held one, I was very underwhelmed by the "quality feel". I knew I could modify the grip characteristics to fit better, but I liken it to my eating habits. I detest eating with plastic flatware because it feels cheap. I even hate the flimsy cafeteria style flatware. Now, I'll eat a $1.88 Boston Market on sale TV dinner...but I insist on eating it with "real" flatware. It was kind of like that. Perhaps like you said with it loaded and properly fit, I'd have liked it more. Maybe I'll give it another shot. I really wanted to like that gun, too.

I felt the same way about Glocks when they first came out, but when I took a closer look I realized they were a marvel of firearms engineering for the time and bought one of the first G17's to come into my area. IMHO the VP9 is sorta like that - worth another look.

[brucesw2]

I always like the commander size 1911 for carry

[brucesw2]

for summer carry I use an officer size 1911

[ShootDontTalk]

I like the idea of a wild west, everyone carrying a "man's gun". But in reality I'd rather them carry something they can shoot instinctively rather than something they have to train with...assuming most people won't train.

You're new, so I'm not going to quibble too much with some things you've said...except this one.

Owning, handling, and shooting a gun is not in any way, shape, or form an "instinctive" exercise. There are two huge liabilities with that reasoning.

1) There is no firearm ever made that allows "instinctive" safe use and handling. It takes "training" to keep from shooting yourself or others. The safest gun ever made is no more or less safe than the person holding it. It takes a certain skill set that does not come naturally, but is imparted by "training."

2) You are responsible for every discharge of your weapon. You're held to account for each bullet. "Instinctive" won't cut it IF the implication is that there are people who can just pick up a particular make of gun one time in their lives and do it right. As if the gun does all the work for you. We both know that isn't true.

Training doesn't imply going to combat shooting classes every week. Training is getting proper instruction in the safe handling of a firearm and basic instruction in using it correctly. Very few guns have ever been made that do not lend themselves to safe and effective handling and use with a little training. "Instinct" may be used anywhere except when handling something that will end your life with a seemingly insignificant mistake. Assuming most people won't train, engage in proper instruction, is a fatal mistake, and no one who understands that should ever recommend such an individual own a gun.

[Feed&Guns]

I like the idea of a wild west, everyone carrying a "man's gun". But in reality I'd rather them carry something they can shoot instinctively rather than something they have to train with...assuming most people won't train.

You're new, so I'm not going to quibble too much with some things you've said...except this one.

Owning, handling, and shooting a gun is not in any way, shape, or form an "instinctive" exercise. There are two huge liabilities with that reasoning.

1) There is no firearm ever made that allows "instinctive" safe use and handling. It takes "training" to keep from shooting yourself or others. The safest gun ever made is no more or less safe than the person holding it. It takes a certain skill set that does not come naturally, but is imparted by "training."

2) You are responsible for every discharge of your weapon. You're held to account for each bullet. "Instinctive" won't cut it IF the implication is that there are people who can just pick up a particular make of gun one time in their lives and do it right. As if the gun does all the work for you. We both know that isn't true.

Training doesn't imply going to combat shooting classes every week. Training is getting proper instruction in the safe handling of a firearm and basic instruction in using it correctly. Very few guns have ever been made that do not lend themselves to safe and effective handling and use with a little training. "Instinct" may be used anywhere except when handling something that will end your life with a seemingly insignificant mistake. Assuming most people won't train, engage in proper instruction, is a fatal mistake, and no one who understands that should ever recommend such an individual own a gun.

So you think CHL tests should be much harder I assume.

I'm glad you don't want to "quibble" since we see things the same. Especially since this is a CHL forum, you'll appreciate the difference between your theories and reality. You are right in every respect, but it's the same logic as the people saying "the world would be a safe place without guns". Ya, that's true. But it's uttered by the people who want to start by taking guns away from law abiding citizens leaving the criminals with guns. So it's a false argument.

Owning, handling, and shooting are instinctive to a certain point. You don't see a total noob grabbing the muzzle and pushing the trigger with their toes, do you? It's natural (read: instinctive) to grip the gun at the "grip". It's instinctive to put your index finger where there is a trigger conveniently placed. It's instinctive to point the muzzle toward the target. It's not so instinctive which way the bullets go apparently by the number of people who try to force the magazine in backwards...but that's a finer detail. And, as an extension of this, I'd guess 90 people out of 100 that you handed a live 1911 (who weren't trained) and you said "shoot that large piece of paper 3' away would: grip the gun on the proper end, attempt to pull the trigger with a finger, and point the muzzle at the target. That's all instinctive. But those 90 out of 100 would also NOT take the external safety off. That's "not instinctive". And that's my point.

I'll go further to say that probably 50% or more of CHL holders (gun enthusiasts to some degree) still call a magazine a "clip" and still, if you tested them in a stress situation, would forget everything except the "instinctive parts" like grip, muzzle toward target, and pull the trigger. They go to the range once or twice a year maybe. They buy a gun with a "safety" and probably even carry it condition 3...to be safe. It'd be 6-10 seconds in a stress situation before they remembered that they didn't have one in the chamber and that the manual safety was on. They don't train for that kind of gun. They pull it out, grip the grip, point the muzzle, and yank on the trigger...instinctively.

I never said safety was instinctive or that they are safe handling a gun instinctively. But a gun that doesn't go bang is a club. They meant to buy a gun, not a club. But agree that most people WON'T train no matter how much we emphasize it. We offer four classes: basic intro firearm (safety, nomenclature, basic marksmanship), CHL (to get the license), and post CHL 1 & 2 (situational stuff, drawing from concealment, strong hand/weak hand, low light, etc) so it's not the first time they've ever seen it should it arise. But most people just want to get their license.

Personally, and to my point that I agree with you, I think it's ridiculous that they either have a CHL licensing course at all or that it's as easy as it is. Really? 4 hours of lecture and a shooting test I could pass blindfolded? But it's like drivers licenses. If you can brake and go, you're good. In other countries, the tests are much more stringent. Nothing about defensive driving, slippery surfaces, grades, fixing flats etc. CHL course of fire is no draw, two handed, broad daylight, no stress, no target evaluation (shoot/no shoot), no background clearing check, etc. What kind of a test is that?

[ShootDontTalk]

So you think CHL tests should be much harder I assume.

I'm glad you don't want to "quibble" since we see things the same. Especially since this is a CHL forum, you'll appreciate the difference between your theories and reality. You are right in every respect, but it's the same logic as the people saying "the world would be a safe place without guns". Ya, that's true. But it's uttered by the people who want to start by taking guns away from law abiding citizens leaving the criminals with guns. So it's a false argument.

Sorry bud. You lost me with the first sentence followed by the first paragraph. You have no idea who I am or what my theories or realities are. I'm out.

[TXBO]

...... You are right in every respect, but it's the same logic as the people saying "the world would be a safe place without guns". Ya, that's true. But it's uttered by the people who want to start by taking guns away from law abiding citizens leaving the criminals with guns. So it's a false argument.

Without guns, the world would only be safer for the biggest and strongest among us.

"God created man, Sam Colt made them equal."

[Feed&Guns]

So you think CHL tests should be much harder I assume.

Sorry bud. You lost me with the first sentence followed by the first paragraph. You have no idea who I am or what my theories or realities are. I'm out.

You said, "It takes "training" to keep from shooting yourself or others. The safest gun ever made is no more or less safe than the person holding it. It takes a certain skill set that does not come naturally, but is imparted by "training."

The CHL class is not a training class but rather a simple test of, if you can even call it that, marksmanship. Since you say "it takes training" to be safe, and the CHL class is not firearms training, it's logical that you must believe the CHL classes should be harder. Otherwise, it would imply that you endorse licensing a bunch of "unsafe" people to carry concealed. I don't have to know you or your theories to know what a logical conclusion is...unless you're a typical liberal and therefore live in a world without logic. I assume most people on the CHL forum don't fit that description. I might be wrong.

I agree that most people don't have the fundamentals down and that training helps improve safety, and even that it's not *entirely* intuitive. I'm sure that Miami cop that shot himself in the leg in that school wished he had "a little more training". But to say that they're not at all intuitive is equally absurd. We were talking about relatively intuitive guns for new shooters who will either not train at all or train infrequently. Given that they won't train, which gun is best for their situation. Pretty sure everyone else reading this understood that point.

But if I lost you with that simple logic in the first paragraph, then the other paragraphs surely were too complex.

[ShootDontTalk]

You said, "It takes "training" to keep from shooting yourself or others. The safest gun ever made is no more or less safe than the person holding it. It takes a certain skill set that does not come naturally, but is imparted by "training."

The CHL class is not a training class but rather a simple test of, if you can even call it that, marksmanship. Since you say "it takes training" to be safe, and the CHL class is not firearms training, it's logical that you must believe the CHL classes should be harder.

Only to the extent that you put words in my mouth that I neither said nor implied. Now maybe I missed it, but I think the OP posted a title for this thread: "Carrying a 5" 1911 is hard" for a reason. That reason had nothing much to do with CHL class content.

Otherwise, it would imply that you endorse licensing a bunch of "unsafe" people to carry concealed.

There you go again. Those are your words. not mine.

I don't have to know you or your theories to know what a logical conclusion is...

No, but you do need to know me before you get very successful at putting words in my mouth.

...unless you're a typical liberal and therefore live in a world without logic. I assume most people on the CHL forum don't fit that description. I might be wrong.

Now you think I'm a "typical liberal". You see, that is the wonderful thing about the Internet. Anyone can just haul off and insult people they've never met and say things that would never go quite as smoothly face to face as they do when they hide behind a keyboard. You're right as rain about one thing: you might be wrong about several things.

I agree that most people don't have the fundamentals down and that training helps improve safety, and even that it's not *entirely* intuitive.

Finally, we agree.

I'm sure that Miami cop that shot himself in the leg in that school wished he had "a little more training".

Now you're saying training is a good thing? I thought you said all people need is instinct to be handling firearms.

But to say that they're not at all intuitive is equally absurd. We were talking about relatively intuitive guns for new shooters who will either not train at all or train infrequently.

No, you were talking about that. I said there is no such thing as an intuitive gun that will prevent someone from shooting themselves or others.

Given that they won't train, which gun is best for their situation. Pretty sure everyone else reading this understood that point.

I wonder how you arrive at that conclusion since a lot more people read this than responded.

But if I lost you with that simple logic in the first paragraph, then the other paragraphs surely were too complex.

The word is not "complex", but "convoluted". I'm not going to be snarky about this. If you think this reply is, I assure you, such was not my intent. I'm going to chalk it up to the reality that a lot of times a great many people have a lot of trouble typing out what they are thinking and making it come out right, me included.