Same gun I say every month when we do this thread...G17 cut down to G19 grip size.
Weapon light on the gun, green front/yellow rear tritiums, Atomic Dog holster IWB at 4:00.
Would also consider a quality full-size 1911 in .45.
There's no particular advantage to .45acp for defensive purposes, but 1911s run better in .45 for a variety of reasons.
People who say you can't carry a full-size .45 have never carried a 1911.
People who say you need .45 for defensive purposes don't shoot enough.
People who think that a .45 compensates for failing to hit a vital organ don't know what they're talking about and should be ignored.
There are two ways to stop somebody who means you harm so severe you can actually justify shooting them:
1) convince them to stop. How do you know when they're convinced? You don't. You're just gambling.
2) ensure they cannot continue projecting force at the level they are when you decide you're better off dealing with legal, and real, nightmares, than just hoping that you don't die.
There is ONE way to ensure they can no longer project force: make their brain give up control of their body. That's it.
You can do this mechanically or hydraulically: either wreck the brain itself, or cause a sufficient loss of blood pressure to the brain that it doesn't work right.
So your options are: shoot them in the central nervous system, or shoot them in a vital organ and make them bleed until they pass out. Nothing else ensures that they will stop.
This level of intervention is so extreme that it's very rarely warranted, of course. But it does happen, or we wouldn't have police carrying guns.
Anyway, this is all just background to the key points about defensive hardware:
1) it must, must, MUST work when you need it to. One stoppage in three hundred rounds is no good. The odds of a stoppage must be extremely tiny, because in the event of a critical incident, statistically speaking, you will empty your gun. The more rounds, the more likely an unreliable gun will cease to function.
2) it must fire a projectile which will generate sufficient penetration to hit vitals. Fortunately, 9mm, .40 and .45 all do this. 10mm does this as well, then sends the target a picture of you f**king the target's mom. But all the standard service calibers work fine.
3) pistol calibers wound through permanent cavity ONLY. The temporary cavity they generate is insignificant. Therefore, you should be using a bullet that opens up substantially in addition to retaining the vast majority of its weight (for penetration purposes) so that your odds of generating substantial blood loss increase.
4) the gun should be sufficiently accurate that you can make the hits you need to make, while panicking and terrified. Generally most guns are not a problem in this regard.
5) YOU should be sufficiently accurate that you can make the hits you need to make, while panicking and terrified. This is the real issue. Most people can't shoot to save their lives...despite intending, and, in some sad cases, HOPING, to shoot to save their lives.
My choice would be a Glock, but the pistol is the least of your worries, unless you just have to go full retard and carry a gun with known issues.
Other good choices include:
QUALITY 1911, full size, .45acp
M&P 9, 40 and 45
226 or 229
USP/P2000/P30/HK45
I have no experience with the Walther P99s and so on. My impression is favourable...but I am not in a position to give them the thumbs up or down.
Poor choices for carry include:
"budget" 1911s unless they have been THOROUGHLY improved by someone who REALLY knows what they are doing
guns from manufacturers that consistently suck...I am talking to you, Hi-point
any gun you bought because it's "just as good" as something else, but cheaper
any gun at all, unless you shoot at least a few thousand rounds through it every year and are serious about things like "training" and "improvement"
Anyway, we'll never see CCW in this country IMO. I am in favour of concealed carry for people with a high degree of training. I used to be in favour of concealed carry, generally. These days...I am still in favour of it, but if it was available only to people with, say, one hundred hours of professional instruction time, then at least we'd have more fairly competent shooters, just because it would be worth getting the training if it meant you could get a concealed carry permit.
And training is THE most important factor in defensive shooting as far as I'm concerned. Without training, chances are pretty good that you will shoot AT an attacker.
But shooting AT someone is not what will save you.
