CC in Canada..what would you carry?

DT741 said:
Yup.

As much as you avoid the "dirty area" of cities, the dirt always get out of their dirt pile to "make a living" in the clean parts of those same cities.
Click to expand...

Not to mention there are many people who cannot afford to live in nice areas. Should we just tell them tough luck?

When we first got married, my wife and I lived in a bad neighborhood (my old place from when I was single). We bought a house soon after in a nice neighborhood. It is extremely rare to ever see any suspicious people or activities but I still haven't forgot what it was like to live in a bad area.
 
redshooter said:
The reality is that CC isn't about having a Combat Pistol. I have a buddy in U.S. who carries all the time (location permitting of course), he started with a Glock 19, now he carries an M&P Shield, or a 380 Bodyguard depending on the season. Why?, because in his words a large gun becomes a pain in the ass. Smaller and lighter, you tend to actually pack it all the time. The perfect carry gun? A shrouded 38/357 J frame or Colt Cobra. They are light, effective, and can be fired from a pocket if need be.
Click to expand...

I carry my full size way more than my LCP. It has 3 times the capacity, it is easier and faster to draw, and is far more accurate. It is really not that big of a hassle. A proper holster and belt goes a long way.
 
Everyday carry I'd choose Glock 42 or 43 for 24h concealability, open carry lots of options maybe Jericho 941.

Time I spent with friends in Texas very few CCW permit holders made a point to open carry or print anything.
Side note prrhaps of interest: Ex girlfriend carried a Ruger LCR (sweet gun)and had an RRA AR15 on the ready in her bedroom closet with her 19 pairs of western boots... also a lifetime NRA holder to boot!(no pun intended).
(Pretty thing but mean spirited ...more deadly than a pit viper with a .50AE in its mouth, that's why I isn't there ��)
 
Sharps '63 said:
Yup. I guess all those younger people who pack revolvers do it just because their Daddies and Granddaddies were Cowboy Action Shooters.

If you disagree with the IDPA stat, take it up with them or check their web site. I don't think they would deliberately mislead you in a sport predicated on US CCW laws dominated by semi-autos.

My tongue-in-cheek remark about 'spray & pray' 9mms is based on what I see on a regular basis at our IDPA practices. Some of the semi-auto users try to compensate by shooting beyond their skill level, hitting 'no-shoots' and even missing full sized targets. The revolver shooters tend to make every round count.

Whether on the range or the street, the law of applied firepower is the first round that hits the intended mark wins, not the first round fired or the number of rounds fired. By the remarks, it's easy to see who is a competitive shooter on this forum and who is not.

"Style and taste"? What has that got to do with proficiency? it's a shooting game and what matters after safety is putting the bullets where they need to go in the shortest time.
But, unlike REAL gunfights, there is a "Second Place Winner".

The cops were amongst the last to adopt semi-autos (notably the rcmp) as the ganstas (a group not known for it's firearms proficiency) were armed with the latest hi-cap semi-autos. They felt under gunned.
Click to expand...

Just spent 10 minutes on the IDPA website. Can't find the 60% quote. I believe you, but please provide a link so I can take a look.

I have no idea why millions of people I have never met choose what they choose. Revolvers definitely have some advantages over semi autos, and likewise semis over revolvers. Lots of room for people to weigh the factors and make a decision as to what's most appropriate for them, in their circumstances.

I don't mean any offence, and acknowledge your tongue in cheek comment, but I highly doubt there is any statistical basis for saying that a particular action of firearm can be associated with a causal effect on a particular type of shooting, although I will concede that there may be a correlation, between new shooters choosing semi autos by default, cause its what they have (in the spirit of IDPA), and being terrible at the start. Not because of the semi, but because they are new.

Personally I associate revolvers with older people, and there is a mountain of developmental psychology evidence that shows that older people are less willing to make an attempt if success is uncertain, and would rather make a single successful attempt, even if it takes longer, than several unsuccessful ones. I see this in shooting all the time.

The pattern of spray and pray that you associate with action, I suspect is more closely associated with age. Would a skilled revolver guy start spraying and praying just cause you handed him a semi. I shouldn't think so. Likewise I doubt a young spray and pray pup is gunna get much more serious just cause you hand him a wheel gun.

I find it curious though, that if revolvers are so superior to semis in a street fight, or a shooting game meant to simulate one, why does IPDA not allow semis and wheel guns to compete side by side? There are four divisions and one subdivision dedicated exclusively to semis. There is only one division and one subdivision dedicated to revolvers, and not a single division where they compete together. Why?

You really do make me wonder which of the two of us is a competitive shooter, especially if you can't see the role that shooting style and personal preferences make in the shooting sports. Matching your equipment to your strategy is the art and science of all sport, and is why there are different divisions. If it was all strictly about science, IDPA would have one division, there would only be one approved firearm, and it would be a pure test of physical skill.

Why would experienced and proficient cops, particularly the RCMP, want to abandon their revolvers just because the ignorant untrained gangsters had semis? Why would they feel outgunned if revolvers were the superior choice and yielded better results?

I love the idea of action sports, but unlike the IDPA, the real world doesn't have a clock. Success in the real world is determined by survival and in many cases on the street, survival is achieved without firing a shot. Never seen someone win an IPSC/IDPA match without firing a shot. So while the shooting sports are helpful in practicing SOME of the skills applicable to CCW, is it not the be all end all, and what works best in competition won't necessarily work best on the street.
 
So, you love the idea of action shooting sports, but you're not a competitor. Kind of invalidates your armchair opinions, doesn't it?

Who said revolvers were superior in any way to semi-autos? They are merely the choice of many who carry. The over 60% stat I gave you was from one of the weekly email bulletins you get as an IDPA member.

Even the survivalist 'sperts concede that competition is a good venue for honing street survival skills. It puts you under pressure in a compressed time frame, like you would be in a real gun fight. If you don't think there is a clock running in a gun fight, go back and read what I said about the rule of applied firepower and the first round hitting the intended mark being the winner, not the first fired or the number fired.

Yes, there are distinct revolver and semi-auto classes in IDPA and IPSC. A good man with a revolver can hold his own against a lot of semi-auto shooters. At least in my experience. Yours may differ. One of the methods of levelling the playing field is by limiting the COF to 18 rds to be "revolver friendly", the norm in IDPA.
Most people are not adept at revolver reloading, a skill that must be practiced to master. If you think semi-auto shooters don't fumble reloads, think again. I'm curious - do you keep your revolver in your strong hand or switch to your weak hand to reload?

Regarding the ejection problem from snub .357 revolvers with magnum length brass, it is easily solved by using .38 Spl. brass. Loads of magnum potential are uncomfortable in .357 snubs as is the muzzle blast. If you want more potential, load up to +P.
 
Last edited:
Who said I dont compete? Not me.

And I have been in gun fights on more than one occasion, including with pistols at short range.

Just take my word for it, life does not limit the course of fire to be 'revolver friendly'.

And no, a gun fight is not a timed match like IDPA or chess, and targets in IDPA dont shoot back. There is no penalty in either IPA or IPSC for exposing yourself to enemy fire. Ducking behind cover until your opponent runs his gun dry can be, but obviously not always, a legitimate strategy. So is barricading yourself until help shows up. Gun fights can lest seconds or literally days, and if you win, no one cares how long it took.

Yes first accurate shot typically wins, but that doesnt justify tactically poor decisions just to get there. Time is just one of a variety of factors.

As for the superiority of revolvers you have made multiple comments indicating you think so. Which is totally fine. I am sure there is no shortage of revolver guys that could out shoot me all day long. Got nothing against revolvers or folks who shoot them. Just wouldnt be my choice thats all.
 
Last edited:
So, in what shooting sports do you compete? You don't compete with a revolver, and you don't even shoot one but you beak off as though you knew what you were talking about re: their effectiveness as a CCW or in competition. What were you shooting in your gun fighting experiences? Must be extensive if they lasted for days. And pistols are generally thought of as "short range" weapons.

Waiting for your opponent to run dry and barricading yourself? Gimme a break ..... what kind of gun fighting philosophy is that? You've been watching too many TV movies.

Who said "life limits the course of fire to be revolver friendly"? Not me. There certainly IS a penalty for "exposing yourself to enemy fire" in IDPA. Try limiting yourself to things you actually know about.

I didn't say anything about revolvers being superior, just the preferred weapon of choice for a lot of people. Don't misquote me. Anyone who makes a first hit successfully does not necessarily do so by making "tactically poor decisions". On the contrary, he did it right.

Quit while you're losing what little credibility you had to begin with.

Cameron SS said:
Who said I dont compete? Not me.

And I have been in gun fights on more than one occasion, including with pistols atshort range.

Just take my word for it, life does not limit the course of fire to be revolver friendly.

And no, a gun fight is not a timed match like IDPA or chess, and targets in IDPA dont shoot back. There is no penalty in either IPA or IPSC for exposing yourself to enemy fire. Ducking behind cover until your opponent runs his gun dry can be, but obviously not always, a legitimate strategy. So is barricading yourself until help shows up. Gun fights can lest seconds or literally days, and if you win, no one cares how long it took.

Yes first accurate shot typically wins, but that doesnt justify tactically poor decisions just to get there. Time is just one of a variety of factors.

As for the superiority of revolvers you have made multiple comments indicating you think so. Which is totally fine. I am sure there is no shortage of revolver guys that could out shoot me all day long. Got nothing against revolvers or folks who shoot them. Just wouldnt be my choice thats all.
Click to expand...
 
Sharps '63 said:
Who said "life limits the course of fire to be revolver friendly"? Not me. There certainly IS a penalty for "exposing yourself to enemy fire" in IDPA.
Click to expand...

I don't want to get in the middle of this spirited exchange but just to be clear. With the new 2017 IDPA RB if you use cover at all it will be only because of course design. We now use fault lines to determine cover and for a lot of stages 100% of your body will be exposed to targets and you will be deemed to be behind cover. Strange I know but it is what it is. If you have a foot touching the ground on the other side of the fault line you get a "cover" call but that is is it. No cover warnings anymore either.

Now Carry on. Most shooters shooting IDPA become better shooters but it is a sport with little relevance to actual two way exchanges. Unless you are in the business of selling drugs on the other guys turf being involved in a shoot out in Canada is about as remote as being hit by lightning, in fact there may even be less chance.

Take Care

Bob
 
Sharps '63 said:
So, in what shooting sports do you compete? You don't compete with a revolver, and you don't even shoot one but you beak off as though you knew what you were talking about re: their effectiveness as a CCW or in competition. What were you shooting in your gun fighting experiences? Must be extensive if they lasted for days. And pistols are generally thought of as "short range" weapons.

Waiting for your opponent to run dry and barricading yourself? Gimme a break ..... what kind of gun fighting philosophy is that? You've been watching too many TV movies.

Who said "life limits the course of fire to be revolver friendly"? Not me. There certainly IS a penalty for "exposing yourself to enemy fire" in IDPA. Try limiting yourself to things you actually know about.

I didn't say anything about revolvers being superior, just the preferred weapon of choice for a lot of people. Don't misquote me. Anyone who makes a first hit successfully does not necessarily do so by making "tactically poor decisions". On the contrary, he did it right.

Quit while you're losing what little credibility you had to begin with.
Click to expand...

Don't want to derail an otherwise decent thread, so I hope we can keep this civil.

In the past I have competed in IPSC, IDPA, F Class, Precision rifle, Service Conditions, ISSF 3P Smallbore Rifle, and more. I have both won provincial championships and finished dead last. I enjoyed them all, some more than others.

I am sure you have shot in many many more IPDA matches then I have, but in the matches I have been to PEs were handed out more for not following the stage rules as they were set out, regardless of whether the stage set up conformed to a realistic scenario or not. In one case, a person was specifically penalized for being innovative because he gained a competitive advantage with his rule breaking. Unsportsmanlike? sure. But as training for the real world goes, counter productive. While IDPA does a much better job than IPSC, stage walkthroughs and stage design will always erode realism and constrain a person into a narrower set of options than a real world event would. Most stages are developed with a preconceived route in mind, and range constraints prevent shooters from considering unpredictable avenues of approach and sneaking up on targets from behind, for a few examples.

Not one of the stages I saw had a target surrender. Yes there were no shoot targets, but that was predetermined and known in advance. Frequently shooters would step out from behind cover and engage multiple targets in quick succession as opposed to piecing out and engaging each one in turn. Didn't see any PEs get handed out for that but may some match directors are stricter than others. Reactive targets notwithstanding, nothing about the stage design was responsive to the actions or movements of the shooter. At best most of the matches I have seen are better practice for a zombie invasion than a CCW event.

Barricading yourself has saved lives. In some cases a winning strategy, in other cases can be fatal. Its not a philosophy. Its a tactic. Sometimes appropriate, sometimes not.

In my gun fights, most of which I was armed with a service rifle, but some with a GPMG, DM Rifle, 60mm mortar and more (but not all at the same time), ranges from 20 to 400m. Twice while stateside, I was involved with shootings (neither time did I have to shoot). First time I was unarmed and managed to wrestle the firearm from the attacker. Never would have been my first choice, but the attack was sudden and at zero range. Even if I had my own gun it probably would have been useless as the attacker already had his pointed with finger on trigger by the time I even saw him. I don't care how fast you think you can draw, When the other guy has that kind of head start, and can see what you are doing, you need to look for other options. By the time I got the gun from him, managed to break physical contact, and cleared the stoppage created when he tried to shoot while my hand was on the slide, he was running for the hills. Second time two days later was myself and several friends headed into a bar while there was a shooting inside. All of us drew (after the first attack and subsequent encounter with the sheriffs office, I was assured I would be safe and legal to carry), and took cover. Didn't want to go in because there were way too many people. Shooter came out waving his gun around, saw us, dropped his gun and ran.

When John Lott talks about 2 million defensive gun uses in America annually, this is what he is talking about. Up to 2 million defensive gun uses in America annually, less than 1,000 excusable homicides (ie self defense). I have never seen a shooting sport that adequately addresses the realities of CCW. Sports are for action. Most CCW events are short lived and boring (at least for the arm chair quarter back) in comparison. In action sports, targets don't respond to taunts, threats or intimidation.

The law for self defense is different in different circumstances, but in general S34 of the criminal code requires that if time permits, individuals must explore lesser use of force options. No sport with a clock can realistically create a points scheme for successfully navigate the complexities of correct application of the law, dynamic use of cover, human targets, and skilled shooting. Such is the purview of training, not sport.

If you don't think I have any credibility, than so be it. But I can do without your derision and insults.
 
Thank you for your service. That was a sincere statement, not sarcasm.

No one in this exchange had lauded ANY action shooting sport as a substitute or training ground for the "two way range" where targets shoot back. They do however, hone a shooter's skill set MUCH better than any other form of training.

I've watched several US Army training films and what they are demonstrating is far behind the skill set of many top ranking competitors in 3 Gun, IDPA and IPSC. However, this does not apply to the Army teams that compete in those sports.

I applaud the mentioned changes to the rules of IDPA competition re: the use of cover, etc.; anything to make it more realistic. I do have trouble with the magazine retention rule unless you shoot your gun to lock back. You can't even dump an empty mag if you have one up the spout. Who thought that one up? The last thing you'd be concerned about in a firefight is retaining an empty mag.

But back to the revolver vs semi-auto topic .... what got my goat were your anti-revolver comments when you are not a revolver user in war or sport. I would not presume to comment on the weapons you are trained on without any first hand knowledge or experience.

For what it's worth - my main gun in IDPA is one of the several 1911's I own, especially a box stock R1 with a target grade trigger right out of the box. However, I expect a new Ruger SS CMD (Commander) .45 ACP to arrive by mail tomorrow and intend to make this my next IDPA challenge.

Peace, brother.
 
Mmm mmm I'm pretty sure I'd be taking a .380 Walther PPK with me. I get a lot of trigger time with the PPK and some Kel-Tec's when I'm down south. While I'd prefer a .40 or .45 Cal the PPK holsters nicely, its well balanced for me and I don't know about you but I sure as heck would never want .380 lead coming at me. I don't buy firearms to extend my #### length I buy them for functionality, historical significance and sometimes beauty. The PPK is a tried and tested platform and it just so happen that I like shooting it. It's great to conceal and doesn't feel like you're trying to keep a porcupine holstered. There's a ton of great options posted in here but I was surprised what my friends wore down south as their daily carry's.. some snub nosed hammerless revolvers and such. Like they said to me that if you wear your concealed weapon everyday religiously then you're going to re-evaluate your carry decision pretty quickly if you think that the desert eagle is the right one for you. LoL. Now if it were open carry that's a different ballgame, in that case I'd likely be sporting a Walther PPQ 45.
 
Sharps '63 said:
I applaud the mentioned changes to the rules of IDPA competition re: the use of cover, etc.; anything to make it more realistic. I do have trouble with the magazine retention rule unless you shoot your gun to lock back. You can't even dump an empty mag if you have one up the spout. Who thought that one up? The last thing you'd be concerned about in a firefight is retaining an empty mag.
Click to expand...

Who counts rounds in a gun fight? Nobody. The idea behind the rule is to ad a bit of realism to the sport. Wilson didn't want to encourage folks counting rounds while shooting IDPA. That is the genesis of the rule. I think you will agree once you understand the idea behind the rule you begin to see how it fits the sport. Peace.

Take Care

Bob
 
Sharps '63 said:
Thank you for your service. That was a sincere statement, not sarcasm.

No one in this exchange had lauded ANY action shooting sport as a substitute or training ground for the "two way range" where targets shoot back. They do however, hone a shooter's skill set MUCH better than any other form of training.

I've watched several US Army training films and what they are demonstrating is far behind the skill set of many top ranking competitors in 3 Gun, IDPA and IPSC. However, this does not apply to the Army teams that compete in those sports.

I applaud the mentioned changes to the rules of IDPA competition re: the use of cover, etc.; anything to make it more realistic. I do have trouble with the magazine retention rule unless you shoot your gun to lock back. You can't even dump an empty mag if you have one up the spout. Who thought that one up? The last thing you'd be concerned about in a firefight is retaining an empty mag.

But back to the revolver vs semi-auto topic .... what got my goat were your anti-revolver comments when you are not a revolver user in war or sport. I would not presume to comment on the weapons you are trained on without any first hand knowledge or experience.

For what it's worth - my main gun in IDPA is one of the several 1911's I own, especially a box stock R1 with a target grade trigger right out of the box. However, I expect a new Ruger SS CMD (Commander) .45 ACP to arrive by mail tomorrow and intend to make this my next IDPA challenge.

Peace, brother.
Click to expand...

Thank you kindly.

In rereading all my posts, I don't really see where I made specifically anti-revolver comments.

I did question the surprising to me fact that 60% of CCW carriers are using them, and I rejected the spray and pay notion you asserted onto semi shooters.

Several times I indicated that revolvers do have several advantages over semis, and vice versa.

You indicated that some sports/divisions make concessions in format to be more 'revolver friendly', and I indicated that life doesn't do this.

Never really bad mouthed revolvers or the people that use them.

I think we agree about the role that both training and sport can have in preparing a CCW holder for the street. Neither on their will produce the best possible skill level. Specifically, good training should always include some degree of competition.

I DO know more than a few people, particularly those I have met at various matches, that believe their participation in sport alone makes them ready for a CCW incident, and I think you would agree that they are probably grossly overstating their knowledge and abilities.
 
Canuck44 said:
Who counts rounds in a gun fight? Nobody. The idea behind the rule is to ad a bit of realism to the sport. Wilson didn't want to encourage folks counting rounds while shooting IDPA. That is the genesis of the rule. I think you will agree once you understand the idea behind the rule you begin to see how it fits the sport. Peace.

Take Care

Bob
Click to expand...

In our training we always teach shooters to change mags when you can, not when you have to. Its not about counting rounds per se, but taking advantage of lulls and cover to change mags on your own terms when its safer, and not while exposed and trying to engage an active target.

All sports have rules, and thats fine. But deliberately running your gun dry to the point of a stoppage isnt a good strategy IMO.

If it happens, it happens, and people should be ready and able to react quickly. Match stages can easily be designed to ensure it happens naturally without forcing a bad strategy onto people with a rule.

Getting people to not count rounds can be achieved by varying mag load and randomizing the mag positions in the belt.
 
Last edited:
Cameron SS said:
In our training we always teach shooters to change mags when you can, not when you have to. Its not about counting rounds per se, but taking advantage of lulls and cover to change mags on your own terms when its safer, and not while exposed and trying to engage an active target.

All sports have rules, and that's fine. But deliberately running your gun dry to the point of a stoppage isn't a good strategy IMO.

If it happens, it happens, and people should be ready and able to react quickly. Match stages can easily be designed to ensure it happens naturally without forcing a bad strategy onto people with a rule.

Getting people to not count rounds can be achieved by varying mag load and randomizing the mag positions in the belt.
Click to expand...

Cameron IDPA is a game not training. Do you teach your students to retain their mags containing rounds or just toss them?

If you want to play a game with a different rule fill your boots. You, nor I, are going to change the IDPA rule. Running your gun dry to do a faster reload as opposed to having retain the partially loaded mag is a great and winning strategy for playing the game of IDPA. Not sure what strategy is involved for those playing "Operator" in the civilian context. Armed forces is a different matter entirely.

You say John Lott claims 2 Million defensive uses of forearms in the US. Well if that is true than think about this. Based upon having 1/10th of the population Canada would have 200,000 incidents of gun usage IF our societies had the same mindset. Well I doubt there was 2,000 armed incidents in Canada last year let alone 200,000. I can appreciate the Self Defense Industry in the US and to a lessor extent in Canada floats stats around to convince the world or some portion of it is about to go to hell in a hand bucket. Subscribe to it if you wish, if you are involved in civilian self defense training here in Canada. Fly at it. I just don't believe this country would be a safer place if we all were carting guns around to protect ourselves.

There is no evidence it helps much in the US. Folks will claim crime rates fell when CCW was expanded throughout most of the lower 48. The argument and claims to that effect dissipate rather quickly when you see the same decline in crime rates north of the 48 where there is no CCW. You can look it up the declining crime rates in both countries are virtually identical. The aging of the Baby Boomers in both countries caused the decline to rate pre- 1960 rates. The jump in crime through the 60's ,70's and 80's was caused by the boomers. So too the decline.

Take Care

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom