Glock compact or sub compact?
- Thread starter buck91
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: hatt
Then why are you still arguing that civilians aren't in the same sitations as poice at times lol.
Because they clearly aren't at times - at most times for that matter. That much should be obvious. There are times they are, and there are times they are not.
I don't buy into magazine restrictions and all that nonsense against civilians.
Then why are you still arguing that civilians aren't in the same sitations as poice at times lol.
Because they clearly aren't at times - at most times for that matter. That much should be obvious. There are times they are, and there are times they are not.
I don't buy into magazine restrictions and all that nonsense against civilians.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: hatt
Law enforcement bias. "I need it, you don't." The notion that the police need 18 rounds and 3 reloads and body armor and backup and a carbine but Joe Citizen needs 5-6 rounds and a cell phone that'll get the police there in 5 to 30 minutes is ludicrous. Joe walks the same streets as LEO.
If I gave you the impression that I think LE needs access to stuff that civilians don't then I completely apologize. I cannot express more clearly that I am a HUGE believer in the citizen being able to defend himself to any practical manner he deems fit. I was a CCW civilian before I became a Deputy. And I FULLY support the entire BoR. I am not threatened or intimidated by the thought of other folks having weapons; I am mindful of the bad entities that have access to weapons that would do me or others harm. AS far as I care, you can carry as much as you can shoulder. I don't believe that LE has some exclusive "right" to have "more" of anything. I really don't care what someone carries as long as it's done legally and responsibily. If I gave anyone the impression that I think LE should be entitled to stuff you aren't, then I've somehow not expressed myself well. PLEASE do not lump me into the mentality that you infer; that's not me (or other Deputies I work with). I don't believe that I deserve something you don't when it comes to defense of life.
I was only trying to give some practical advice as to why cops carry more ammo when on duty. We have two contributing criteria:
1) we are called INTO situations that most folks typically can avoid by choice; face it - no one dials 911 when they are having a good day.
2) we are honor and duty bound to stay in the fight, so we need to outlast the bad guys
As an engineer by day trade, I often do FMEAs. For those familiar with the concept, it's a matter of risk assessment viewing three criteria:
1)severity of failure mode
2)frequency of occurence or propensity to happen
3)ability to detect or control
These are typically rated on a scale of 1-10; the higher the number the greater the contributing criteria.
- For anyone, death offers the same severity, so that would be equal. Death is a 10 severity for anyone.
- For frequency, officers are called into situations that others can avoid, or at least would flee if able. Here, John Q may score a 4-6 where cops score a 9 or 10; we are sworn to enter to stop the offense. You have the right to defend yourself; we are sworn to defend anyone and everyone. The frequency is multiplied many hundreds of times.
- For detection, there is a little bit of disparity. For control, it's a matter of legal authority combined with personal ability. LE scores a higher value here as well.
Civilians have the right to pick and choose contributors to their situation. I FULLY agree that no one can control every single thing in life; I get that and please don't throw that out as some "gotcha" topic. What I'm trying to point out is that civi's can often choose where to drive, walk, live, etc. Cops have to go where crime leads. Don't get caught up in the semantics of the words or the numbers; embrace the simple fact that cops are more LIKELY to be involved in a PROLONGED shooting event.
Think of this in a similar venue in public service. You can choose to own a fire extinguisher or not, and how many you want in your home and your car and garage and at work, and how much capacity they can hold. But I suspect you want the firefighter to carry as much hose, as many tools, as much gear, as he can muster together on his rig and on his person. He has a NEED for these things to serve the public, whereas you can CHOOSE if you want these things, and you can run away from the fire if you are at all able.
When I used the word "need" in terms of how much ammo to carry, it was not in a manner as to show some type of regulatory conditional limit for the public; it was simply an acknowledgment that LE has a higher potential risk assessment and has a reason to bring more stuff on his person. My use of the word "need" in terms of LE ammos was NOT meant to place a maximum limit on the civilian, but only to explain the disparity of risk calculation and how LEOs must be equipped to confront a larger risk FMEA.
Hope that does a better job of clarifying my thoughts on this topic.
Law enforcement bias. "I need it, you don't." The notion that the police need 18 rounds and 3 reloads and body armor and backup and a carbine but Joe Citizen needs 5-6 rounds and a cell phone that'll get the police there in 5 to 30 minutes is ludicrous. Joe walks the same streets as LEO.
If I gave you the impression that I think LE needs access to stuff that civilians don't then I completely apologize. I cannot express more clearly that I am a HUGE believer in the citizen being able to defend himself to any practical manner he deems fit. I was a CCW civilian before I became a Deputy. And I FULLY support the entire BoR. I am not threatened or intimidated by the thought of other folks having weapons; I am mindful of the bad entities that have access to weapons that would do me or others harm. AS far as I care, you can carry as much as you can shoulder. I don't believe that LE has some exclusive "right" to have "more" of anything. I really don't care what someone carries as long as it's done legally and responsibily. If I gave anyone the impression that I think LE should be entitled to stuff you aren't, then I've somehow not expressed myself well. PLEASE do not lump me into the mentality that you infer; that's not me (or other Deputies I work with). I don't believe that I deserve something you don't when it comes to defense of life.
I was only trying to give some practical advice as to why cops carry more ammo when on duty. We have two contributing criteria:
1) we are called INTO situations that most folks typically can avoid by choice; face it - no one dials 911 when they are having a good day.
2) we are honor and duty bound to stay in the fight, so we need to outlast the bad guys
As an engineer by day trade, I often do FMEAs. For those familiar with the concept, it's a matter of risk assessment viewing three criteria:
1)severity of failure mode
2)frequency of occurence or propensity to happen
3)ability to detect or control
These are typically rated on a scale of 1-10; the higher the number the greater the contributing criteria.
- For anyone, death offers the same severity, so that would be equal. Death is a 10 severity for anyone.
- For frequency, officers are called into situations that others can avoid, or at least would flee if able. Here, John Q may score a 4-6 where cops score a 9 or 10; we are sworn to enter to stop the offense. You have the right to defend yourself; we are sworn to defend anyone and everyone. The frequency is multiplied many hundreds of times.
- For detection, there is a little bit of disparity. For control, it's a matter of legal authority combined with personal ability. LE scores a higher value here as well.
Civilians have the right to pick and choose contributors to their situation. I FULLY agree that no one can control every single thing in life; I get that and please don't throw that out as some "gotcha" topic. What I'm trying to point out is that civi's can often choose where to drive, walk, live, etc. Cops have to go where crime leads. Don't get caught up in the semantics of the words or the numbers; embrace the simple fact that cops are more LIKELY to be involved in a PROLONGED shooting event.
Think of this in a similar venue in public service. You can choose to own a fire extinguisher or not, and how many you want in your home and your car and garage and at work, and how much capacity they can hold. But I suspect you want the firefighter to carry as much hose, as many tools, as much gear, as he can muster together on his rig and on his person. He has a NEED for these things to serve the public, whereas you can CHOOSE if you want these things, and you can run away from the fire if you are at all able.
When I used the word "need" in terms of how much ammo to carry, it was not in a manner as to show some type of regulatory conditional limit for the public; it was simply an acknowledgment that LE has a higher potential risk assessment and has a reason to bring more stuff on his person. My use of the word "need" in terms of LE ammos was NOT meant to place a maximum limit on the civilian, but only to explain the disparity of risk calculation and how LEOs must be equipped to confront a larger risk FMEA.
Hope that does a better job of clarifying my thoughts on this topic.
That basically answered it better than I could have, too.
And all that is exactly why police carry a few spare mags, body armor, radios, long guns, etc; while the typical CCW carries one gun and MAYBE a reload.
The issue here everyone is arguing about is one handgun's capacity. It's a simply issue.
The issue here everyone is arguing about is one handgun's capacity. It's a simply issue.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Think of this in a similar venue in public service. You can choose to own a fire extinguisher or not, and how many you want in your home and your car and garage and at work, and how much capacity they can hold. But I suspect you want the firefighter to carry as much hose, as many tools, as much gear, as he can muster together on his rig and on his person. He has a NEED for these things to serve the public, whereas you can CHOOSE if you want these things, and you can run away from the fire if you are at all able.
Re-reading this, that's a great analogy. An individual may run into the same situation that a firefighter does. That doesn't make it convenient, cost effective, or convenient to have one's own fire hall and fire trucks. A civilian can be the victim of an NBC attack, just like a military target or a nation state. That doesn't mean it's feasible for me to start my own nuclear program. France probably won't nuke me, but I'd rather have mutually assured destruction on my side than the statistics, right?
Think of this in a similar venue in public service. You can choose to own a fire extinguisher or not, and how many you want in your home and your car and garage and at work, and how much capacity they can hold. But I suspect you want the firefighter to carry as much hose, as many tools, as much gear, as he can muster together on his rig and on his person. He has a NEED for these things to serve the public, whereas you can CHOOSE if you want these things, and you can run away from the fire if you are at all able.
Re-reading this, that's a great analogy. An individual may run into the same situation that a firefighter does. That doesn't make it convenient, cost effective, or convenient to have one's own fire hall and fire trucks. A civilian can be the victim of an NBC attack, just like a military target or a nation state. That doesn't mean it's feasible for me to start my own nuclear program. France probably won't nuke me, but I'd rather have mutually assured destruction on my side than the statistics, right?
What I'm saying is that we can never actually prepare for each and every contingency. We can say that we civilians might face the same things as police officers, so we have to balance magazine capacity and firearm choice with what we're comfortable shooting and carrying and what we can afford. But, there is a point where preparedness hits anal retentiveness and where anal retentiveness turns into outright paranoia.
Citizens could be in more dire situations than police officers. Attacks on citizens exist that police officers by the nature of their authority might not have to face.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Citizens could be in more dire situations than police officers. Attacks on citizens exist that police officers by the nature of their authority might not have to face.
Of course, that's certainly true, but that is a different matter altogether. An old lady stands a much greater chance of being mugged for her purse than does a uniformed police officer. That much is obvious. But, if I were a bank employee and my bank were being robbed, I'd be calling the police, not my grandmother, no matter what she carried for personal defence.
Citizens could be in more dire situations than police officers. Attacks on citizens exist that police officers by the nature of their authority might not have to face.
Of course, that's certainly true, but that is a different matter altogether. An old lady stands a much greater chance of being mugged for her purse than does a uniformed police officer. That much is obvious. But, if I were a bank employee and my bank were being robbed, I'd be calling the police, not my grandmother, no matter what she carried for personal defence.
Originally Posted By: Garak
What I'm saying is that we can never actually prepare for each and every contingency.
So be as little prepared as possible?
Quote:
We can say that we civilians might face the same things as police officers, so we have to balance magazine capacity and firearm choice with what we're comfortable shooting and carrying and what we can afford.
OK, that makes sense. Pretty much all the modern handgun designs shoot and carry well.
Quote:
But, there is a point where preparedness hits anal retentiveness and where anal retentiveness turns into outright paranoia.
And that point is somewhere well AFTER simply having a gun with a higher mag capacity. No one ever suggested carrying a SAW with 3 nutsacks to get milk.
I really don't know what the problem is here. You trying to get the thread locked or something? If you believe civilians should carry no more than 6-10 rounds you're anti gun and I have no further need to deal with you on the issue. No competent modern firearms instructor would teach that you should only carry a minimal number of rounds.
What I'm saying is that we can never actually prepare for each and every contingency.
So be as little prepared as possible?
Quote:
We can say that we civilians might face the same things as police officers, so we have to balance magazine capacity and firearm choice with what we're comfortable shooting and carrying and what we can afford.
OK, that makes sense. Pretty much all the modern handgun designs shoot and carry well.
Quote:
But, there is a point where preparedness hits anal retentiveness and where anal retentiveness turns into outright paranoia.
And that point is somewhere well AFTER simply having a gun with a higher mag capacity. No one ever suggested carrying a SAW with 3 nutsacks to get milk.
I really don't know what the problem is here. You trying to get the thread locked or something? If you believe civilians should carry no more than 6-10 rounds you're anti gun and I have no further need to deal with you on the issue. No competent modern firearms instructor would teach that you should only carry a minimal number of rounds.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: hatt
So be as little prepared as possible?
Not at all. I would advise "sensible" preparedness, but that is obviously different for different people. Everyone has different skill levels, comfort levels, risk factors, and may live under different regulatory environments.
Originally Posted By: hatt
And that point is somewhere well AFTER simply having a gun with a higher mag capacity. No one ever suggested carrying a SAW with 3 nutsacks to get milk.
There are other situations that are a little more difficult to handle, yet still legally feasible (or at least they once were). A 30 round magazine for a Glock 17 was easily obtainable in North America once upon a time. I wouldn't want to be carrying such a thing, though.
Originally Posted By: hatt
I really don't know what the problem is here. You trying to get the thread locked or something? If you believe civilians should carry no more than 6-10 rounds you're anti gun and I have no further need to deal with you on the issue. No competent modern firearms instructor would teach that you should only carry a minimal number of rounds.
How am I trying to get this thread locked? I'm not getting political, and the closest thing to political I've said is that I am against magazine capacity restrictions. And I'm not stating that everyone who carries should carry a five shot SA revolver. What I am saying is that we shouldn't be reasoning that local department X carries a Glock 17 with 17+1 rounds, therefore, I must carry at least that many because I can hypothetically face the same situations that they could.
I don't care what someone else carries in the least. If we were allowed to carry up here, I'd choose what would work for me.
So be as little prepared as possible?
Not at all. I would advise "sensible" preparedness, but that is obviously different for different people. Everyone has different skill levels, comfort levels, risk factors, and may live under different regulatory environments.
Originally Posted By: hatt
And that point is somewhere well AFTER simply having a gun with a higher mag capacity. No one ever suggested carrying a SAW with 3 nutsacks to get milk.
There are other situations that are a little more difficult to handle, yet still legally feasible (or at least they once were). A 30 round magazine for a Glock 17 was easily obtainable in North America once upon a time. I wouldn't want to be carrying such a thing, though.
Originally Posted By: hatt
I really don't know what the problem is here. You trying to get the thread locked or something? If you believe civilians should carry no more than 6-10 rounds you're anti gun and I have no further need to deal with you on the issue. No competent modern firearms instructor would teach that you should only carry a minimal number of rounds.
How am I trying to get this thread locked? I'm not getting political, and the closest thing to political I've said is that I am against magazine capacity restrictions. And I'm not stating that everyone who carries should carry a five shot SA revolver. What I am saying is that we shouldn't be reasoning that local department X carries a Glock 17 with 17+1 rounds, therefore, I must carry at least that many because I can hypothetically face the same situations that they could.
I don't care what someone else carries in the least. If we were allowed to carry up here, I'd choose what would work for me.
Quote:
What I am saying is that we shouldn't be reasoning that local department X carries a Glock 17 with 17+1 rounds, therefore, I must carry at least that many because I can hypothetically face the same situations that they could.
No one else is saying it either. You're arguing with yourself. You carry the best you can carry at the time you're carrying. If all you can manage to tuck somewhere is a J frame then that's a mighty fine weapon. If you could comfortably and easily carry a G19 it'd be silly to think you should carry the J frame cause I don't want too much advantage.
I have extended Glock mags. Of course they don't make sense in the carry gun but for spares in the truck,bug out bag, home, etc, why not? It's also good thinking if you carry a G26 to have a 17 or 19 spare mag. It's also sound advice if you live in iffy gun friendly areas to carry what the police carry. The local prosecutor isn't going to be able to beat up your evil gun/ammo choice if the local cops are using the same thing.
What I am saying is that we shouldn't be reasoning that local department X carries a Glock 17 with 17+1 rounds, therefore, I must carry at least that many because I can hypothetically face the same situations that they could.
No one else is saying it either. You're arguing with yourself. You carry the best you can carry at the time you're carrying. If all you can manage to tuck somewhere is a J frame then that's a mighty fine weapon. If you could comfortably and easily carry a G19 it'd be silly to think you should carry the J frame cause I don't want too much advantage.
I have extended Glock mags. Of course they don't make sense in the carry gun but for spares in the truck,bug out bag, home, etc, why not? It's also good thinking if you carry a G26 to have a 17 or 19 spare mag. It's also sound advice if you live in iffy gun friendly areas to carry what the police carry. The local prosecutor isn't going to be able to beat up your evil gun/ammo choice if the local cops are using the same thing.
That ammo issue certainly makes sense - probably even from a liability perspective, too.
A Right-to-Carry permit holder was leaving an apartment in Reading, Pa. when he noticed that the nearby Krick’s Korner convenience store was being robbed by a pair of armed and masked men. The permit holder went to the store’s entrance and ordered the criminals to halt. The robbers responded by drawing their guns on the permit holder, prompting the armed citizen to fire on the thieves, killing them.
Following the shooting, Berks County District Attorney John T. Adams told reporters, “I think that this is an incident where the concerned citizen acted justifiably under the law.” A woman who lives near the store told a local media outlet that Krick’s Korner has been the scene of multiple robberies in recent years. (The Reading Eagle, Reading, Pa. 11/05/13)
Following the shooting, Berks County District Attorney John T. Adams told reporters, “I think that this is an incident where the concerned citizen acted justifiably under the law.” A woman who lives near the store told a local media outlet that Krick’s Korner has been the scene of multiple robberies in recent years. (The Reading Eagle, Reading, Pa. 11/05/13)
Originally Posted By: Astro14
A Right-to-Carry permit holder was leaving an apartment in Reading, Pa. when he noticed that the nearby Krick’s Korner convenience store was being robbed by a pair of armed and masked men. The permit holder went to the store’s entrance and ordered the criminals to halt. The robbers responded by drawing their guns on the permit holder, prompting the armed citizen to fire on the thieves, killing them.
Following the shooting, Berks County District Attorney John T. Adams told reporters, “I think that this is an incident where the concerned citizen acted justifiably under the law.” A woman who lives near the store told a local media outlet that Krick’s Korner has been the scene of multiple robberies in recent years. (The Reading Eagle, Reading, Pa. 11/05/13)
Thats a situation that as a permit holder , i would not walk into. The only way is if my family member were in the store or owned it. I would not go looking for a situation like that to intervene.
Unless i was a situation where i had no choice. Above all do no harm, meaning don't escalate a situation and make it worse than it is.
A Right-to-Carry permit holder was leaving an apartment in Reading, Pa. when he noticed that the nearby Krick’s Korner convenience store was being robbed by a pair of armed and masked men. The permit holder went to the store’s entrance and ordered the criminals to halt. The robbers responded by drawing their guns on the permit holder, prompting the armed citizen to fire on the thieves, killing them.
Following the shooting, Berks County District Attorney John T. Adams told reporters, “I think that this is an incident where the concerned citizen acted justifiably under the law.” A woman who lives near the store told a local media outlet that Krick’s Korner has been the scene of multiple robberies in recent years. (The Reading Eagle, Reading, Pa. 11/05/13)
Thats a situation that as a permit holder , i would not walk into. The only way is if my family member were in the store or owned it. I would not go looking for a situation like that to intervene.
Unless i was a situation where i had no choice. Above all do no harm, meaning don't escalate a situation and make it worse than it is.
Last edited:
Not certain what I would do in this instance. Thought it was an interesting anecdote given the direction that this thread has gone...
For the record, and back OT, I am not a fan of the subcompact Glocks...the grip doesn't doesn't fill my hand the way that a G19 or 23 does...so I feel like I am barely holding on to the gun.
That said, whatever you are able to carry sure beats the gun that you left at home because it was too big...
For the record, and back OT, I am not a fan of the subcompact Glocks...the grip doesn't doesn't fill my hand the way that a G19 or 23 does...so I feel like I am barely holding on to the gun.
That said, whatever you are able to carry sure beats the gun that you left at home because it was too big...
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Not certain what I would do in this instance. Thought it was an interesting anecdote given the direction that this thread has gone...
For the record, and back OT, I am not a fan of the subcompact Glocks...the grip doesn't doesn't fill my hand the way that a G19 or 23 does...so I feel like I am barely holding on to the gun.
That said, whatever you are able to carry sure beats the gun that you left at home because it was too big...
I like how the guns are designed, but they don't fit my hands. I have small hands and the glock 26 is too big for my palm.
I really like the S+W M+P shield in 9mm. slim fits my hand, but 8 rounds max. Have not decided to buy it yet.
Not certain what I would do in this instance. Thought it was an interesting anecdote given the direction that this thread has gone...
For the record, and back OT, I am not a fan of the subcompact Glocks...the grip doesn't doesn't fill my hand the way that a G19 or 23 does...so I feel like I am barely holding on to the gun.
That said, whatever you are able to carry sure beats the gun that you left at home because it was too big...
I like how the guns are designed, but they don't fit my hands. I have small hands and the glock 26 is too big for my palm.
I really like the S+W M+P shield in 9mm. slim fits my hand, but 8 rounds max. Have not decided to buy it yet.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Not certain what I would do in this instance. Thought it was an interesting anecdote given the direction that this thread has gone...
For the record, and back OT, I am not a fan of the subcompact Glocks...the grip doesn't doesn't fill my hand the way that a G19 or 23 does...so I feel like I am barely holding on to the gun.
That said, whatever you are able to carry sure beats the gun that you left at home because it was too big...
Agree. If you can carry a Glock sub you can usually also manage the much better compact. There is also a bunch of solutions that extend the grip on the sub. But then you're right back to may as well get a compact. A compact Glock is a marvel of small size teamed with a good deal of firepower.
Not certain what I would do in this instance. Thought it was an interesting anecdote given the direction that this thread has gone...
For the record, and back OT, I am not a fan of the subcompact Glocks...the grip doesn't doesn't fill my hand the way that a G19 or 23 does...so I feel like I am barely holding on to the gun.
That said, whatever you are able to carry sure beats the gun that you left at home because it was too big...
Agree. If you can carry a Glock sub you can usually also manage the much better compact. There is also a bunch of solutions that extend the grip on the sub. But then you're right back to may as well get a compact. A compact Glock is a marvel of small size teamed with a good deal of firepower.
- Status
