TexasCHLforum.com

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=52316" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; I was reading this most interesting thread and noted that the advice given in the referenced article was to buy an inexpensive pistol for carrying on the street. This was based on the comment that if you are forced to shoot that you would likely never get your pistol returned to you. I wonder what how often that is the case here in Texas? I also wonder how many of us actually do carry a less expensive model for just this reason. Gives me something else to ponder.

I won't carry something that i am not completely comfortable with.
Why have a gun you like to shoot, practice with, etc, and carry something different?
If I had to use my weapon in a self defense situation, the cost of possibly replacing a firearm is SOOO far below the cost of my lawyer, that it wouldn't even factor in to my thought process.

I do not worry about it. The chances of me being in a shooting are slim and if it happens that will be the least of my worries.

mrvmax wrote:I do not worry about it. The chances of me being in a shooting are slim and if it happens that will be the least of my worries.

THIS.

Life is too short to carry an ugly gun.

Teamless wrote:I won't carry something that i am not completely comfortable with.
Why have a gun you like to shoot, practice with, etc, and carry something different?
If I had to use my weapon in a self defense situation, the cost of possibly replacing a firearm is SOOO far below the cost of my lawyer, that it wouldn't even factor in to my thought process.

rwg3 wrote: . . . the advice given in the referenced article was to buy an inexpensive pistol for carrying on the street. This was based on the comment that if you are forced to shoot that you would likely never get your pistol returned to you . . .

What's cheap? Lorcin? Jennings? Bryco? RG?

In order to have the gun taken from you by police, first you have to survive. I won't deliberately choose something cheap to bet my life on any more than I'll invest my 401(k) funds with the fellow in Nigeria who keeps emailing me with great money-making opportunities.

HankB wrote:

rwg3 wrote: . . . the advice given in the referenced article was to buy an inexpensive pistol for carrying on the street. This was based on the comment that if you are forced to shoot that you would likely never get your pistol returned to you . . .

What's cheap? Lorcin? Jennings? Bryco? RG?

In order to have the gun taken from you by police, first you have to survive. I won't deliberately choose something cheap to bet my life on any more than I'll invest my 401(k) funds with the fellow in Nigeria who keeps emailing me with great money-making opportunities.

Glock 26 NIB-$399
Glock 30 NIB- $464
Sp101 NIB-$449
Worst case scenario, with any of my carry guns.... less than 500 bucks.

I believe, in context, he's suggesting people not carry a $3000 custom gun, unless they can accept the risk it ends up in an evidence locker. Elsewhere in the article he suggests carry guns like "the Ruger LC9, SIG 239, Glock 26/27" and says he likes a Glock 19. So, clearly he's not advocating Lorcin or Jennings, or even Hi-Point.

It seems like reasonable advice. If I had a classic sports car, I wouldn't use it for my daily commute. For that purpose, I want a vehicle that won't make me cry if it picks up a few scratches and dings in the parking garage. However, that doesn't require me to sacrifice reliability, power, or whatever practical attributes I find desirable in my daily driver.

I own a firearm I would not risk the bumps, bangs, and like, not to mention possible theft if I’m incapacitated for any reason, or confiscation by LEO.... That gun is not my chosen carry gun. At the same time, I’m not carrying a pistol that is not the best available to me for the task.. Money is just money.. Odds are I'll never use it to defend myself. Odds are if I do, It will not be taken from me.. that leaves a very small chance that a gun I’m not likely to use, and not likely to be taken from me will be lost to confiscation and that’s a risk I’m willing to accept, vice carrying a lesser gun I would consider a throwaway.

Gun Confiscation

Or...
Evidence Recovery


It's in the details really.

I'm not a fan of weapons in the upper echelon price/quality range. I don't want something I have to baby so I don't feel like I ruined its value. As a man with normal means, I look for a good "bang for the buck". While I would not poo poo a $3000 Wilson Combat should it be presented to me, I certainly would not aim to bring one into my collection. All my handguns were purchased for under $800 (really just my 1911 is close to $800), and I would readily give them up for my life. Even my AR I built from scratch, whose sum total is around $2000 and have fond memories of, is not as valuable as my life. I would readily use it to defend myself knowing I would never see it again. If you are a competitive shooter (where you have perhaps money riding on your ability to shoot) you should probably have a few guns in your collection. The one that fits you best for competition will probably not be the same for your carry. If it is, then be a big boy and buy two.

In closing, I would use my truck to defend my life knowing I would never see it again.

gigag04 wrote:

Gun Confiscation

Or...
Evidence Recovery


It's in the details really.

touché
And fairly stated

All my guns are workin guns. They are made to be fired. Not sit in a safe and look pretty on BBQ days.

For the record, I carry a Rock Island 1911 Tactical that I have less than 500 bucks in. reliable, accurate and purty.

To me, the first two are what counts.

I have no idea of today's motorcycle helmet ratings, but when I last was involved in the sport, "Snell 1990" was the safety rating that was most desireable, with whatever the DOT rating at the time being considered the minimum standard. You could usually find DOT rated helmets back then for under $100, and Snell rated helmets generally ran $150 and up.

As a salesman in a motorcycle accessory store at the time, and also having had years under my belt working in an ER, I naturally steered customers to the Snell rated helmets. They were a bigger sale, AND they were a better helmet. They also tended to have extra, desireable features such as ventilation and higher quality visors.

I was often griped at by people who were angry about having to pay more for a better helmet. Their mood didn't improve after I told them that once they "used" the helmet by interspersing it between their noggin and the pavement at anything above walking speed, it would be likely be useless for protecting their noggin any further.

"Well then, why should I pay more for the Snell helmet if it's going to be worthless after a crash?"

"Because the DOT rated helmet is a minimum standard designed by a government comittee at the direction of someone in Congress. The Snell helmet is designed to withstand the actual forces your head is likely to be subjected to by the pavement (or car, or curb, or tree, or whatever) when your head comes in contact with it at 60 MPH."

"Yeah, but that's a lot of money."

"What is your brain worth? You only have one. Put a dent in it, and it won't ever be the same again.........if you live. What do you think an hour or two spent in a trauma room, neurosurgery, and a week or two in ICU cost, and a month or two in a regular bed on the neurosurgury ward, plus physical therapy so you can learn to walk again, speech therapy to learn how to talk again, occupational therapy so you can learn how to button your fly again..........if you live?"

The cheapest gun I carry is a CW45 which cost me $399. That doesn't seem like that much money on balance. If it gets "evidence recovered," and never returned, I'm not nearly as seriously inconvenienced as I would be if I carried a substandard gun that failed me when i most needed it to perform.