TexasCHLforum.com

The Topic about the new Beretta Nano got me thinking and--not to start yet another caliber war, please--I can see validity on both sides of the 9mm pocket pistol issue. Since tiny form-factor pistols have become so popular among CHL holders, I thought we might discuss pocket pistols and calibers.

A strong market niche has developed around the magic size of about 5" to 5.5" long, 4" to 4.25" high, and 1" wide or less. So let's keep the caliber comments to semiauto pistols in or near that size range, and not get off track with larger guns.

My two cents:

I think the last decade has absolutely proven that with the increasing number of concealed carry permit holders, pocket-sized handguns have became an expanding--and probably permanent--market segment. As often as old hands and LEOs will counsel going with a larger carry gun, the pocket pistols are here to stay.

While we've had blowback and tilt-barrel designs for .25 ACP and .32 ACP for decades, the tiny pistol selection remained pretty slim pickens...let's say the "adequately functioning" tiny pistol selection was slim; there are some that helped lead to the "Saturday Night Special" moniker that shouldn't be included, IMHO.

We started seeing small .32 pistol designs from Kel-Tec, Seecamp, and others, followed by .380s based on the same or similar designs around 2003/2004. The .380 rapidly became the pocket-pistol caliber of choice because that was what was available, and it's been during the past decade that the majority of concealed carry permit holders around the country first got their licenses. I wonder how many P3ATs and LCPs have been sold, just looking at one similar platform? And remember the long period of .380 ammo scarcity starting in late 2008?

But the .380 ACP didn't become popular because of the round's performance. It became popular because that's what the newest generations of pocket pistols fired.

The current trend seems to be a natural extension of the .32-to-.380 progression: many manufacturers are producing new pocket models in 9mm. Recently, in addition to Beretta's newest Nano, we've seen a variety of small form-factor 9s from Ruger, SIG, Kel-Tec, Kahr, Walther, Kimber, and Rohrbaugh, among others. There's even the interesting (though I'm not running out to put my name on the list until its had some boots-on-the-ground proof time) Boberg XR9.

Some argue that a 9mm does not a useful pocket pistol make. That if you want a mouse gun for ultra-easy concealment, you should get a mouse gun in .380; if you want a 9mm, you should step up to a larger form-factor "compact" size pistol. Some of those taking this stance are good sources of information, like Caleb at Gun Nuts Media, or Gunmart Eric over at The Truth about Guns.

Their principal argument is that if you think your P3AT or LCP isn't fun to shoot, just wait until you've tried a tiny, 12- to 20-ounce pistol in 9mm. The stance is that experienced shooters will not want to spend the range time necessary to become proficient with 9mm pocket rockets, and that novice shooters may try it only once. They point out that modern .380 defensive ammo is effective enough for non-LEO concealed carry.

I have mixed feelings, though. I own a PM9 and don't find it uncomfortable at all to shoot. I've shot the new(ish) Kimber Solo and found it quite smooth and accurate. I've shot the smallest of the lot, the Rohrbaugh R9s, and while it would never be a range plinker, it didn't threaten to fly out of my hand. If I ever found a new R9s at a time I'm willing to fork over $1,100 for it, that would become the replacement for my .32 BUG.

Fifteen or twenty years from now, if my hands are arthritic, will I feel the same about shooting a mini-9? Probably not. Are they suitable now for folks with weak hands, or who haven't put in the range time to become proficient with a larger pistol in handgun basics? Probably not.

But for those who can shoot them accurately and without discomfort, I personally think the mini-9s are a valid product for CHLers.