Jump to content

Looking for a new home defense/carry gun

Mossyoakglock

By Mossyoakglock
in The Off-Topic Bar

Recommended Posts

Nitro375 Enthusiast

Nitro375

Posted
Posted

I have a Kimber Ultra Carry C.D.P. and really like it, but after I got my Colt Lightweight 21st century Commander it became my "go too gun." It packs just as easily, lightweight, very thin and it is scary accurate.

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply
99gst_racer Enthusiast

99gst_racer

Posted
Posted

I carry a Glock 23 too, and I love it. But I too am in the market for a thinner carry option for summer carry.

 

The Springfield single stack XD-S is only available in .45 right now, but the 9mm and .40 are due later this year. I'm holding out my next gun purchase for the .40 release of the XD-s.

scottmoyer Enthusiast

scottmoyer

Posted
Posted

Someone mentioned earlier that the Kimber they have doesn't have the tight tolerances that they are used to for a 1911. Well, they must not have a Custom Shop Kimber. The Ultra CDP II is a 3" gun, very accurate for carry purposes and is very "tight", tolerance wise. I was shooting about an inch to 1.5" off center target at 60 feet. In self defense, a 60 foot shot will be hard to explain to the judge and jury, but it still hit the mark!

Mossyoakglock Senior Enthusiast

Mossyoakglock

Posted
  • Author
Posted

So I was able to look at a few guns this past weekend. I absolutely loved the Kimbers but those might be out due to price and size since I am wanting to go a little smaller (I would get the Pro Carry II if I went with Kimber). The more I think about it I am leaning towards the Glock 26/27 or the Walther PPS. I would love to get either one in .40 but with such a smaller frame I'm wondering if that might be to harsh and I should go with the 9mm. I have a 23 (.40) and the recoil is not bad at all.

 

For those with a 27, what's the recoil like?

 

Anybody shot the PPS in .40? How is the recoil with that caliber in such a small gun?

 

I would like to get one in .40 since my father-in-law reloads and has everything to reload .40. It's much cheaper and will allow me to practice more.

99gst_racer Enthusiast

99gst_racer

Posted
Posted

The recoil of the Glock 27 is no different than any other .40 Glock that I've fired. It's also worth noting that the subcompacts aren't much better to carry than a compacts. They are the same width, which is critical. Take the 23 vs the 27 - The 23 is only 1" longer and 1.5 oz heavier. To me, it's worth it to have the extra capacity and barrel length and better grip. But I probably wouldn't want to carry anything larger than the 23.

 

If you really want somthing on the small side, then look for something thinner than 1.18". Springfield really has something going with their XD-s series. I hope Glock follows suit.

TimmyG Senior Enthusiast

TimmyG

Posted
Posted

Love my 27, 23 is just as easy to carry, now the wifes bersa .380 is very easy to carry!

 

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

Mossyoakglock Senior Enthusiast

Mossyoakglock

Posted
  • Author
Posted

If you really want somthing on the small side, then look for something thinner than 1.18". Springfield really has something going with their XD-s series. I hope Glock follows suit.

 

 

This is the problem that I am having. Of the guns that I am looking at, they are not much thinner than the Glocks. The Kimbers are actually thicker than the Glocks. This is overall thickness, not just slide thickness (slide thickness is probably thinner than the Glocks). The PPS is only .14" thinner and the XD-s is only .18" thinner, not much in my eyes.

 

While how thin a gun is is important, it's more of the length, height and weight of the gun for me. I can conceal the 23 fairly well but it's the length of the grip that is the problem, not so much the thickness. With the 26/27 being 1" shorter in both height and length, it will conceal much easier than the 23 especially in the summer with a t-shirt.

 

I still haven't been able to find a PPS or XD-s to check out but hopefully can find one this weekend.

 

I'm still considering the 3" Kimber but from what I've read, reliability drops with any 1911 style pistol under 4" so I would go with the Pro Carry which is the same size as the 23 so that doesn't help me. That could be my winter carry since it would easier to conceal with a jacket.

Nitro375 Enthusiast

Nitro375

Posted
Posted

Someone mentioned earlier that the Kimber they have doesn't have the tight tolerances that they are used to for a 1911. Well, they must not have a Custom Shop Kimber. The Ultra CDP II is a 3" gun, very accurate for carry purposes and is very "tight", tolerance wise. I was shooting about an inch to 1.5" off center target at 60 feet. In self defense, a 60 foot shot will be hard to explain to the judge and jury, but it still hit the mark!

 

 

I concur, my Ultra shoots very well.

amc31b Enthusiast

amc31b

Posted
Posted

If you really want somthing on the small side, then look for something thinner than 1.18". Springfield really has something going with their XD-s series. I hope Glock follows suit.

 

 

This is the problem that I am having. Of the guns that I am looking at, they are not much thinner than the Glocks. The Kimbers are actually thicker than the Glocks. This is overall thickness, not just slide thickness (slide thickness is probably thinner than the Glocks). The PPS is only .14" thinner and the XD-s is only .18" thinner, not much in my eyes.

 

While how thin a gun is is important, it's more of the length, height and weight of the gun for me. I can conceal the 23 fairly well but it's the length of the grip that is the problem, not so much the thickness. With the 26/27 being 1" shorter in both height and length, it will conceal much easier than the 23 especially in the summer with a t-shirt.

 

I still haven't been able to find a PPS or XD-s to check out but hopefully can find one this weekend.

 

I'm still considering the 3" Kimber but from what I've read, reliability drops with any 1911 style pistol under 4" so I would go with the Pro Carry which is the same size as the 23 so that doesn't help me. That could be my winter carry since it would easier to conceal with a jacket.

 

 

Another gun I highly recommend if light weight and thiness are important to you, The Kel-tec PF9. Very thin and flat, light weight, actually has a decent trigger, very reliable for being so small, points and shoots well, especially for such a small gun. I put the pocket clip on mine and carry it every day just clipped to the front of my waist band. I can even carry wearing basketball shorts and a tank top. 500 plus rounds of all types of ammunition and no jambs or problems at all.

desrtrat Senior Enthusiast

desrtrat

Posted
Posted

Home Defense: 12 gauge -

 

 

i agree. most 12 gauge shot will stay in the confines of a room. high power hand guns could/ will pass thru a couple of rooms into one that your kids may be sleeping in... nothing sounds more intimidating than hearing a 12 ga pump jacking in a shell in the dark.. :lol:

Sinkhole Enthusiast

Sinkhole

Posted
Posted

I would recommend you look into the S&W Shield 9, S&W M&P9c or Ruger SR9c. I'm not a huge fan of .40 S&W It has a lot snappier recoil than 9mm or even .45 Auto. If' you wanted more stopping power than a 9mm I would go straight to .45 Auto the S&W M&P 45c is really nice. You can also never go wrong with a Glock. I would also recommend you look hard at the FNH FNS-9. It has the best trigger of ANY striker fired gun on the market. They list a compact model on their website however I have not seen one and am not sure they have been released yet.

 

If your looking for a good .380 look into the Ruger LCP, I love mine.

 

This is my Ruger SR9c

IMG_0074.jpg

This is my Ruger LCP with Crimson Trace laser

IMG_0284.jpg

TStarkPC1500 Enthusiast

TStarkPC1500

Posted
Posted

I love my S&W M&P .45c. It's thinner than the Glock 21, although mag capacity (8+1) is lacking, and the grip doesnt feel like a 2x4 like the Glocks. All the M&Ps have adjustable grip sizes so it would be ideal for you wife too. Overall for a .45 its a comfortable gun to carry- i usually carry it at the 4 o clock position. The M&P has been a great shooter so far, considering the short barrel- it's been accurate and reliable. Not a single jam in almost 800 rounds. If size is a concern, the 9mm or .40 compacts are much slimmer- i probably will pick up a M&P 9mm Compact for my next carry pistol.

jdubub Senior Enthusiast

jdubub

Posted
Posted

I say Springfield, Glock, FN, Kimber or kahr!

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,914
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    AidenVorpagel
    Newest Member
    AidenVorpagel
    Joined

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 545 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Sugar Bears 2015 GMC Terrain SLE-2 2.4 AWD

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      286,740 Mile Services   8/6/2026   New AC Compressor. Refrigerant oil and dye, evacuate and charge system.  New exhaust system from cat back.  New Iridium plugs plus replace #3 coil Repair/rewire headlamp wiring (passenger side) and replace all forward bulbs. Polish lenses of both assemblies.  Pull rear rotors, clean and adjust parking assembly. Inspect, clean and grease front calipers. Check pads and shoes.  4 wheel power bleed of brake system. Dot 4 Reset idle speed 50 rpm higher New Serpentine belt.    Will need new pads in the rear in about 5K more miles.    Tax Title and License out the door just short of a grand.    AC clutch had bitten the dust. 1 year warranty on the pick and save replacement. Thing will make a Polar Bear cry Uncle.  He spent quite some time on the wiring. It was in the harness and he does nothing half. I got off cheap. I have considerable more light down the road. Sylvania Silver Star replacements.  Gas seal between the porcelain and shell of plug #3 was blown, cooked the coil. That was the cold miss.  Love the new exhaust. I can sneak into the neighborhood again.  Nice to have a working parking brake again. Belle Tire never got it done. That was disappointing.    This was one of her bigger bills and still way cheaper than a payment even given the oil consumption. This thing cost me under a hundred a month in repairs and normal routine costs. What is my incentive to replace it? 🤔           
    • AidenVorpagel
      cam upgrade in CA

      By AidenVorpagel · Posted

      hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • B14Sierra
      Noise after AFM delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Did you figure it out?
    • B14Sierra
      Possible lifter tick after DOD delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...