My new toy.

[sinsual]

Ray, the FRAME is fine, it is the SLIDE which fractured and bowed out enough to cause it to jam against the frame. The slide on the .22 conversion Work smoothly on the frame with no issues. On the Witness the slide runs inside the frame like a CZ rather than on the outside like a Colt

[paladin2019]

Ray, the FRAME is fine, it is the SLIDE which fractured and bowed out enough to cause it to jam against the frame. The slide on the .22 conversion Work smoothly on the frame with no issues. On the Witness the slide runs inside the frame like a CZ rather than on the outside like a Colt

The DEFINITELY get the frame checked. If the slide bowed out and it runs inside the frame (like a SIG 210 ), it bowed out the frame.

Oh, wait a minute...

Yet another thread where people are trying to stop Bone from inadvertently killing himself.

Nevermind, it's sin'. Yeah, do what I said.

[Raygun]

Ray, the FRAME is fine, it is the SLIDE which fractured and bowed out enough to cause it to jam against the frame. The slide on the .22 conversion Work smoothly on the frame with no issues. On the Witness the slide runs inside the frame like a CZ rather than on the outside like a Colt

Yeah, I know how the gun works. I have put a decent amount of ammunition through one over a handful of occasions. In that instance I was using the term 'frame' to mean the gun as a whole, not the just the receiver part of the handgun. Sorry for the confusion.

Did your slide crack in the same place as those pictures of the 10mm I linked to?

The DEFINITELY get the frame checked. If the slide bowed out and it runs inside the frame (like a SIG 210 ), it bowed out the frame.

It could have, yeah. It may be negligible, but if he had to knock the slide out with a mallet or something, it's a parameter worth checking. If that rail is pushed out a lot, .22 LR may be all the frame is good for anymore. If it's not, then great. Throw a 9mm upper half on it.

EDIT: In researching this issue with the Tanfoglio guns, it appears that they're made using a process called investment casting (in this picture, you can see a kind of rough, bubbly surface on the slide rail that suggests casting), which would help explain the problems with cracking like this. Investment casting is a cheaper way to manufacture steel parts compared to machining out solid billets, but it can result in inconsistent grain structures in the metal which can result in parts being more susceptible to fatigue, especially if not properly heat treated. I'd be willing to bet that Tanfoglio designed the gun for and initially manufactured them with machined billet steel, then switched to investment casting later as their demand increased, or as a cost-cutting measure. I'll look at my friend's gun the next time I get a chance and see if there's any sign of it being made from investment castings. If it isn't, it would explain a lot.

[sinsual]

I haven't had a chance to look yet Ray, the crack is along the lower edge of the slide about 1-1.5cm forward of the back egde was able to rack the slide and move it through its full range by hand, just more drag than the spring could over come on its own. I ordred the .45 long slide conversion. Ran my metric calipers down the frame and could not find any varience over. 002mm.

Getting tired of posting from my phone, need some computer time that is not spent paying bills!

[sinsual]

I've heard of this happening on the EAA Witness guns, but mainly when people are firing 10mm through it, which is going to be at the top end of the pressure envelope the gun is designed for. .45 ACP, even +P, is relatively low pressure and that gun is designed to handle a lot more.

Pretty damn close there Ray, almost exactly the same spot and almost exactly the same appearance for the crack.

[paladin2019]

the Tanfoglio guns, it appears that they're made using a process called investment casting

Yep, none for me, thanks.

[3278]

Yeah, there's a trend toward casting and away from lathing in the industry, as a cost-saving measure. QA should pick up any out-of-tolerance defects in x-raying, but if they're cutting corners, they may be allowing too-loose tolerances or doing insufficient QA.

[paladin2019]

Yeah, there's a trend toward casting and away from lathing in the industry, as a cost-saving measure.

Then stamp the receivers. SIG can make it work.

[3278]

I'm not an expert in these things, but doesn't SIG "make it work" by not taking the path of cost-savings?

[Raygun]

Pretty damn close there Ray, almost exactly the same spot and almost exactly the same appearance for the crack.

Yeah? Suck. Well, if it's going to fail, that looks to be where it's most likely to.

the Tanfoglio guns, it appears that they're made using a process called investment casting

Yep, none for me, thanks.

A lot of stuff is made that way these days. Ruger, for example. Their claim to fame is investment casting and I would be very surprised if they make even one gun that isn't made using that method (though it's also the reason I don't recommend the 77 bolt action; rough surfaces). But as long as they engineer with that method in mind and they have QC processes that account for potential problems the method is prone to, investment casting works well.

I wouldn't mind the Tanfoglio being made that way if there was more metal below the ejection port. Even leaving off that relief cut along the bottom of the port would probably help a lot (at least as far as strength is concerned). Also could be that Tanfoglio's higher end guns (Match, Stock, Elite models, etc...) are made from billet steel. Not sure.

The only reason I'd personally buy a Tanfoglio is for 10mm (it's either them, Glock, or another 1911; not much choice in 10mm). I very much like the idea of having 15 rounds of 200 grain XTPs @ 1000 fps coming out of something with a decent DA/SA trigger. Though I'd also like to be able to load the cartridge to capacity (200 @ 1250), confident that the gun has been manufactured to handle the pressure the cartridge is designed to generate. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that what Tanfoglio is cranking out right now could handle that for very long, if at all. Too bad. It's a very comfortable, accurate, awesome-handling gun.

[paladin2019]

I'm not an expert in these things, but doesn't SIG "make it work" by not taking the path of cost-savings?

The 556 has a stamped aluminum upper receiver with welded rails for the bolt carrier, rather than the machined job Eugene Stoner came up with for the AR10 and AR15. (It does use a machined lower, but that has simpler cuts.) Stamped receivers need a lower tech base to produce and thus are a cost saving measure. They are by no means an automatic decrease in quality or durability. See the AR18 and Avtomat Kalashnikova for examples of pure stamped receivers.

[3278]

So why is Tanfoglio using casting instead of stamping?

[paladin2019]

So why is Tanfoglio using casting instead of stamping?

Because they designed the weapon to be machined. Basically, you can do pretty much anything on a lathe. With stamping, your limited to what you could do with a cereal box; you start with a flat piece of metal, bend it to shape and weld where needed.

But if something was designed to be machined, it normally has complex curves, varying thickness and other geometries very difficult to replicate with stamping. Thus, your option is to make a mold and cast it or totally redesign the product for stamping.

[Raygun]

Pretty damn close there Ray, almost exactly the same spot and almost exactly the same appearance for the crack.

Hey, sin: I just noticed something kind of interesting in this picture. See how there's a relief cut on the inside of the slide and the crack is smack dab in the middle of it? Is your slide cut the same way? I can't figure out why that cut is there at all. Is it on the opposite side as well?

I also noticed in this picture that that relief cut at the bottom of the ejection port ahead of the extractor that I was talking about earlier isn't there either. When you get your new slide, will you look and see if those cuts have been made or not and let me know?

Can't wait to look at my friend's gun now. Looking at pictures of the older guns, the slide is much heavier all around. There's more metal on the outside of the slide forward of the extractor to about 1.5" from the muzzle, even with where the frame ends, and there's no relief cut at the bottom of the ejection port.

But if something was designed to be machined, it normally has complex curves, varying thickness and other geometries very difficult to replicate with stamping. Thus, your option is to make a mold and cast it or totally redesign the product for stamping.

Funny you should mention that... EAA also imports a gun from Turkey (Sarsilmaz K2) that's based on the CZ/Tanfoglio, but has a top end that looks very much like the P220, using an ejection port locking block rather than the 1911-style lugs of the Tanfoglio. I don't know if it's a stamped slide like the P220, but it's definitely different.

[3278]

So why is Tanfoglio using casting instead of stamping?

Because they designed the weapon to be machined. Basically, you can do pretty much anything on a lathe. With stamping, your limited to what you could do with a cereal box; you start with a flat piece of metal, bend it to shape and weld where needed.

But if something was designed to be machined, it normally has complex curves, varying thickness and other geometries very difficult to replicate with stamping. Thus, your option is to make a mold and cast it or totally redesign the product for stamping.

Okay, so how did SIG "make it work?"

[paladin2019]

I'm not sure about your question. In the specific example of the 556, SIG designed teh barrel mount, interface to the lower and rails for the bolt carrier as a machined part and welded a stamped cover over it. The cover is tapped for the scope mounts/Picatinny rails. But the gun was designed from the ground up to do this. It would be nearly impossible to redesign it with a stamped lower receiver.

[3278]

Well, what I'm trying to do is answer your question about why companies would be moving to casting, instead of stamping. In the case of the Tangfolio, you've just answered why: because the cost altering existing designs to accommodate parts produced by such a process would be prohibitive. For other companies, the reasons may differ, but typically, there are reasons.

[Raygun]

I'm not sure about your question. In the specific example of the 556, SIG designed teh barrel mount, interface to the lower and rails for the bolt carrier as a machined part and welded a stamped cover over it. The cover is tapped for the scope mounts/Picatinny rails. But the gun was designed from the ground up to do this. It would be nearly impossible to redesign it with a stamped lower receiver.

Wait, what? The SG55x has a stamped lower receiver. The SIG556 upper is identical to the SG55x, but the lower was redesigned for the STANAG magazine using an aluminum forging.

A better comparison in this case would be the stamped and welded slide construction of the P220 compared to the cast Tanfoglio. Here the major considerations are frame-in-slide vs. slide-in-frame and port locking block vs. Browning lugs. There's just more metal around the chamber on the barrel itself and more metal on the slide to support the chamber on the P220. The upper is just a lot beefier.

Tanfoglio uses investment casting because it's a less expensive method of construction. Period. They could stamp/weld or machine forgings or billets, but it would increase the cost of the gun and hinder their ability to compete. The more I look at it, though, the less I think that using castings is the problem (or at least, the main problem). Following the evolution of the design, it's starting to look like they were looking for ways to cut down the weight of the slide (to reduce recoil) and improve the reliability of case ejection by making the port bigger and they just ended up cutting too much metal away.

[3278]

That's the part of this that troubles me most: if you do it right, casting - while not as good, material for material - should easily be capable of producing parts of the correct strength and consistency. And doing so isn't a great or patented mystery: investment casting is pretty industry-standard when you don't want to mill something. Joseph's Audi race suspension was probably investment casted, and it lives through a lot.

So either they're not using enough material, or their QA is not catching defects [and there always are some], or their steel is not up to grade, or...there are a lot of other possibilities. But casting - while inferior to billet lathing - should do the trick, so something's going wrong somewhere.

[Raygun]

So either they're not using enough material, or their QA is not catching defects [and there always are some], or their steel is not up to grade, or...there are a lot of other possibilities. But casting - while inferior to billet lathing - should do the trick, so something's going wrong somewhere.

Yeah, exactly. The guns shouldn't be failing like this. In this particular case, we're dealing with the unknown quantity of use. Sin said he got it used, so who knows how many rounds have been through this gun? But judging by the handful of other similar cases I have been able to find, that isn't a major factor when they fail like this. This is a major part failure that shouldn't occur within the lifetime of the gun, which should be several thousands of rounds. Barrels should shoot out first, then frame-to-slide fit should start to suffer long before this kind of thing should happen.

Another possibility is that these failures could be statistically insignificant.

[sinsual]

I have been able to find out that a couple of years ago, 2 maybe 3, it seems Tangfolio did a full redesign on the Witness. Lighter slide, barrall and frame assembly. It is also about the time they came out with the Polymer version. Anyways, with the change, the crossing of parts from the .40S&W down to the .380 auto up/down to the .45acp and 10mm are no longer possible. You have to purchase the conversion kits made for the difference in the frame designs. The smaller 3 calibers use a slightly smaller frame and slide.

The higher end Witness makes, Limited/Match/Stock/Hunter are also a different frame, heavier slide etc. For the money, I would look for something else rather than one of the Higher End Witness makes. There are other makes for around $1000-$1500 with a proven record and a larger aftermarket support.

Back to your question on the relief cuts Ray, I will try and get good photos of the slide and frame.

[UncleJoseph]

Picked up a Mosin-Nagant this week, complete with ammo belt & Soviet buckle, about 800 round of ammo, and very nice looking bayonet. It was kind of an impulse buy, but I've wanted one for a while, and a friend of mine needed some cash. He sold me his for a song. Got the whole package for $150. I had seen the gun on sale at a local sporting goods shop for $90, and was considering picking one up. However, the sale guns did not come with anything, so the $150 I paid for my buddy's gun was excellent. I also believe it is a much nicer example of what I could have found in the store.

[Raygun]

The rifle and 800 rounds for $150? Nice! It's too bad you don't live closer. We could set up a course and pit the Mosin-Nagant and Lee-Enfield against each other.

[Bonefish]

And a bayonet course too.

[sinsual]

Batteries are on to charge for the studio camera, hopefully I can give some nice clear photos to look at.

Nice score Uncle Joseph.

I put 525 rounds through the .22LR conversion the other day. I had 2 rounds not fire on the first strike...No jams and for the first 100 at 20 feet was keeping a good 3 inch grouping. When I bumped it out to 30 feet, my grouping got pretty poor. I was having sighting issues with my eyes. I need to get a bore sight and actually work on getting the sights lined up right for me. The long slide kit comes with the adjustable sights.

When I bumped it out to 75 feet, and took my time, I could get 5 round groups on the 10 inch target, but that was also about the side of the shot groups. Again, my eyes were not adjusting to the sights and the range I was shooting. I was also starting to get strain spasms in my right arm. I need to work on that some more. Get some endurance back into my arm so it doesn't shake as much after an hour+ at the range.

[sinsual]

Pictures as promised finally as the new slide and barrel assembly arrived today...

















As you can see the new slide has slight differences in cuts, but not enough I think to prevent the same situation. There is however, a definite increase in weight with the long slide conversion. Wish I had a decent scale to put the 2 assemblies on.

While out the other day, I did get to handle, but not fire, a Ruger LC9. A little small for my hands, but damn near perfect for my wife.

I am going to order from http://www.crossbreedholsters.com/SuperTuckDeluxe/tabid/90/List/0/ProductID/1/CategoryID/1/Level/1/Default.aspx?SortField=ProductName,ProductName a SuperTuck IWB. One of the guys at the range wears one all the time, and unless you know, you can't see it. He carries a Para-Ordanance 1911.

I like the IWB carry for when I am on my bike. Gives the gun just a little more security, is even easier to conceal under the various jackets I ride with. Not like I am going to be shooting from the bike while it is moving (not as difficult as it sounds to do, especially with cruise control) since accuracy is going to be something of a joke.

Anyone need some 185gr +P Magtechs in .45acp?

[paladin2019]

Anyone need some 185gr +P Magtechs in .45acp?

I might have taken you up on that if I fired anything other than 230gr FMJ and JHP. I'm kind of a purist that way.

[Raygun]

Well, your old slide is definitely one of the newer style, with the Novak-style rear sight and all the lightening cuts in it. Do you have any idea how many total rounds have been through it? The rails look pretty good as far as I can tell. Are those dings and chips in the corners of the top strap or what? But that crack on the opposite side at the back end of the ejection port is the first one I've seen that way, including 10mm KBs. Not that 10mms wouldn't break that way, I just haven't seen one with that same crack.

Did the primer pop out of the case on the round that broke the slide?

A lot of very significant differences in cuts on the new slide, though. It doesn't have that relief cut on the inside of the slide where the crack is below the port and forward of the extractor on your old slide (and the 10mm in that link I posted) and in fact even appears a little thicker in that area. The cut at the bottom of the ejection port is also relieved from the inside rather than the bottom of the whole ejection port. Both of these differences are exactly what I was expecting to see if they'd made any changes at all. There's also no external relief cut between the ejection port and the muzzle.

I can't see any obvious casting marks on the new slide either, but that doesn't mean they're not there. You see any? Also, does your frame have the light mount cut into it?

[sinsual]

Anyone need some 185gr +P Magtechs in .45acp?

I might have taken you up on that if I fired anything other than 230gr FMJ and JHP. I'm kind of a purist that way.

Magtech Golden Gaurdian 185gr JHP +P

Do you have any idea how many total rounds have been through it?

I know I have put 500 rounds of Winchester target rounds and 1 +P round

Before I got it, no idea.

Did the primer pop out of the case on the round that broke the slide?

No noticeable deformation on the case of the round that broke the slide.

It doesn't have that relief cut on the inside of the slide where the crack is below the port and forward of the extractor on your old slide

The relief cut /is/ still there, but it is much much shallower, very hard to see in the photos, and tapered from the back of the ejection port forward so its not a "square" cut.

Nicks and scratches.
Light Rail, yes, as a matter of fact, I picked up a cheap rail mounted laser for when I use the .22LR conversion, just haven't put it on. It was made for use with airsoft/bb/pellet/.17hmr/.22short/.22LR, I expect the recoil would break it if I left it on for the .45acp.

I got the "Super Sights" with the Longslide, it allows elevation and the front sight is mounted differently. Thought I was getting the fiber optic front, but was looking at the wrong line in the catalog. Need to pick up a bore sight too while I am at it.

No commentary on the choice of holsters?

[Raygun]

Magtech Golden Gaurdian 185gr JHP +P

If you want to get rid of it and you can't find anyone closer who wants it, I'm sure my 1911 will eat it.

I know I have put 500 rounds of Winchester target rounds and 1 +P round

Before I got it, no idea.

Hmm. Was the frame-to-slide fit good? Not noticeably wobbly in any direction?

No noticeable deformation on the case of the round that broke the slide.

That could be, but the primer looks like a normal popped primer? Not pushed out of the pocket any or smooshed unusually flat?

The relief cut /is/ still there, but it is much much shallower, very hard to see in the photos, and tapered from the back of the ejection port forward so its not a "square" cut.

Ah. In the pictures it looks like there's more metal there.

Light Rail, yes, as a matter of fact, I picked up a cheap rail mounted laser for when I use the .22LR conversion, just haven't put it on. It was made for use with airsoft/bb/pellet/.17hmr/.22short/.22LR, I expect the recoil would break it if I left it on for the .45acp.

Ah. Gives us a better idea of the vintage.

I got the "Super Sights" with the Longslide, it allows elevation and the front sight is mounted differently. Thought I was getting the fiber optic front, but was looking at the wrong line in the catalog. Need to pick up a bore sight too while I am at it.

Yeah, like a Bo-Mar rear sight. I wouldn't bother with a bore sight on a handgun unless it's way off when you're at 10-12 yards. I imagine you'd have it pretty well set by eye after a mag at most.

No commentary on the choice of holsters?

Don't carry. Sorry. IWBs seem like the way to go if you're serious about carrying a full size gun, though. And that looks like a decent one.

Personally, I think I'd just stick with a pocket-sized gun in the leg pocket of cargo pants or something like that. The way I see it, in that kind of a situation, if you can't change someone's mind with a few .380s, anything between that and a rifle probably isn't going to help much. I think I'd rather carry a couple of .380s than one big-ass .45, unless the .45 were in a drop leg holster or on a molle vest for the whole world to see. But that's me.

[sinsual]

I know I have put 500 rounds of Winchester target rounds and 1 +P round

Before I got it, no idea.

Hmm. Was the frame-to-slide fit good? Not noticeably wobbly in any direction?

Very smooth, very minimal play in the slide. The new slide fits just as tight.

That could be, but the primer looks like a normal popped primer? Not pushed out of the pocket any or smooshed unusually flat?

Nope, looked normal.

The relief cut /is/ still there, but it is much much shallower, very hard to see in the photos, and tapered from the back of the ejection port forward so its not a "square" cut.

Ah. In the pictures it looks like there's more metal there.

There "is" more metal, but that relief cut still starts at the same spot and without breaking out the micrometer, where the crack occurred is within a millimeter of where the cuts appear to be the same depth. The main difference is the old slide is a square cut, the new slide is a taper cut, deep at the back to shallow at the front.

I got the "Super Sights" with the Longslide, it allows elevation and the front sight is mounted differently. Thought I was getting the fiber optic front, but was looking at the wrong line in the catalog. Need to pick up a bore sight too while I am at it.

Yeah, like a Bo-Mar rear sight. I wouldn't bother with a bore sight on a handgun unless it's way off when you're at 10-12 yards. I imagine you'd have it pretty well set by eye after a mag at most.

The bore sight is for me. Having issues with my vision out beyond 10 yards and being able to gauge where the sight is lined up and where the barrel is lined up. 2-3 inch shot circle at 5 yards jumps drastically out to 6-12 inches at 10 yards. Since one purpose is also sporting and not just home defense, it would be good to figure out wtf.

Personally, I think I'd just stick with a pocket-sized gun in the leg pocket of cargo pants or something like that. The way I see it, in that kind of a situation, if you can't change someone's mind with a few .380s, anything between that and a rifle probably isn't going to help much. I think I'd rather carry a couple of .380s than one big-ass .45, unless the .45 were in a drop leg holster or on a molle vest for the whole world to see. But that's me.

Understandable, carry situation is the biggest decider. Cargo pants with a loose handgun in the pocket while the wind is ripping at that pocket makes for torn pants or missing gun I ride too much to not have that be a main consideration. If I spent more time in a car, I can definitely see your logic. See comment regarding Ruger LC9. Trying to see if the range has one to rent yet to test out. (The range has been sold out). My point being, the LC9 fits your description perfectly, but is 9mm as opposed to .380.

[3278]

In my mind, the biggest recommendation for concealable holsters also appears on a Shadowrun table, about Quick Draw. Trying to pull a gun out of my cargo pockets, in a hurry, when I'm stressing, would be, I would think, a lot more time-consuming and awkward than pulling a gun from a holster specifically designed to be easy to draw from when you're stupid with adrenaline. But if I were going to carry concealed, I'd just start wearing a suit all the time again, and carry a short .40 in a shoulder holster and call it good. But for summer, yeah, concealable holster all the way. I wouldn't know enough to pick one, though: I'd lean on Joseph for that.

[Raygun]

Understandable, carry situation is the biggest decider. Cargo pants with a loose handgun in the pocket while the wind is ripping at that pocket makes for torn pants or missing gun I ride too much to not have that be a main consideration. If I spent more time in a car, I can definitely see your logic.

Ah. Yeah, In that case, the choice of pants might be a bigger consideration. Perhaps a pair with zippers, or carrying the gun in an inside jacket pocket or the like. Far be it from me to decide what's best for your situation, though. If you feel an IWB would work best for your needs, then yeah, go that way.

See comment regarding Ruger LC9. Trying to see if the range has one to rent yet to test out. (The range has been sold out). My point being, the LC9 fits your description perfectly, but is 9mm as opposed to .380.

Yeah, the LC9 is pretty nice, though a bit bigger and more energy than I think is really necessary for the job under most situations. It and the Kel-Tec PF9 are pretty much on-par, I think. Same with the LCP and P3AT. Though the plastic is a bit better on the Rugers.

In my mind, the biggest recommendation for concealable holsters also appears on a Shadowrun table, about Quick Draw. Trying to pull a gun out of my cargo pockets, in a hurry, when I'm stressing, would be, I would think, a lot more time-consuming and awkward than pulling a gun from a holster specifically designed to be easy to draw from when you're stupid with adrenaline.

That's why ideally, you'd draw before you get stupid with adrenaline. A very major part of carry concealed weapons in public situations involves alertness and methods of classifying threats and learning at which point it's prudent to present arms. If you've opted to carry concealed, you've already chosen discretion over speed. It's just a matter of how much. The method you choose should be proportionate to the kind of situations you expect to find yourself in. In any case, you should spend time practicing drawing from what ever method you choose.

I was referring to every day casual carry. I wear cargo pants a lot, so it makes sense to me. No, it's probably not a fast as a shoulder holster under a jacket in most situations, but that depends on a lot of factors.

[UncleJoseph]

In my opinion, you shouldn't carry a handgun unless it is in a well made, well designed holster. Concealed carry or not, you should definitely consider "secured" carry, which means having the weapon in a holster. Pocket carry without a holster can be okay, if the fun fits into the pocket without inadvertently re-orienting itself as you move. For example, if you normally insert the gun into your pocket with the barrel pointing down, you don't want it working its way around to pointing up as you walk, sit, go about your day, etc. The reason for this is that, when you reach for the weapon, you want it to be oriented in the drawing position for safety. I've had enough experience with non-concealed and concealed carry (I've carried a gun nearly every day for the last 12 years) to know that digging around in a pocket invites an accidental discharge, or as I would normally say, "negligent" discharge. I have come close enough to yanking the trigger accidentally while attempting to get a proper grip on my gun enough times that I always carry in a holster.

I have several IWB holsters, and I've carried everything from my 1911s to my Glock 27 this way. I prefer them for concealed carry in warmer climates. I prefer standard hip or SOB holsters for concealed carry in colder climates, when I can pull a sweatshirt down over the weapons. I also prefer holsters with some type of positive retention, so that the gun doesn't fall out of your carry spot when you bend over or reach for something (this is also the reason simply carrying a gun in your waistband sans holster is foolish).

There are a gajillion brands and models out there. There are some nice inside-the-pocket holsters that don't have any real positive retention (not really needed in a pocket carry situation), but that do protect the trigger and have "sticky" material on the outside that keeps the holster in the right spot inside the pocket, in similar fashion to a Hidden Tailor. Holsters are inexpensive compared to the price of the gun itself. Get something that fits your needs, and practice with it. Better yet, get some training on drawing and firing from the holster, and then practice your ass off...you really need to build up that muscle memory if you plan on being effective.

Carrying a weapon, any weapon, is an enormous responsibility, and should be treated as such. My wife will be carrying her Kahr PM9 in her purse, but she has a basic holster that she can wear or carry in the purse when she carries her gun. Accidental/Negligent discharges are infrequent, but they are inexcusable. They always involve some type of negligence on the part of a person. In all but the rarest cases, loaded guns can never just go off without some type of interference. You could let a loaded gun sit for centuries, and it will rust away into nothing without ever having gone off (unless someone fucks with it).

[Serious Paul]

Carrying a weapon, any weapon, is an enormous responsibility, and should be treated as such. My wife will be carrying her Kahr PM9 in her purse, but she has a basic holster that she can wear or carry in the purse when she carries her gun. Accidental/Negligent discharges are infrequent, but they are inexcusable. They always involve some type of negligence on the part of a person. In all but the rarest cases, loaded guns can never just go off without some type of interference. You could let a loaded gun sit for centuries, and it will rust away into nothing without ever having gone off (unless someone fucks with it).

This mirrors my own experience and opinions. Every negligent discharge I've seen, and I've seen them in a variety of professional settings, have been because of the dope behind the weapon, not the dope on the weapon.

[UncleJoseph]

Also, when you first start practicing with your holster, do it with an unloaded weapon and pay particular attention to your off-hand and muzzle sweep. I've seen folks draw and fire, only to shoot themselves in the hand or foot or leg or whatever while getting into the firing position, because they're unfamiliar with holster use. I've also seen people shoot themselves when re-holstering because they didn't take their finger off the trigger when attempting to re-holster. When they went to push the gun back into the holster, it jammed their index finger back on the trigger causing the gun to go off. The body (the trigger finger, for example), can do strange things while you're learning a new manual dexterity task, even when you know better about keeping your finger off the trigger and out of the trigger guard until ready to shoot.

[3278]

That's why ideally, you'd draw before you get stupid with adrenaline. A very major part of carry concealed weapons in public situations involves alertness and methods of classifying threats and learning at which point it's prudent to present arms.

Absolutely. But a very major part of driving involves alertness and methods of classifying threats and learning at which point it's prudent to respond to them, but yet they still make that brake pedal as big as they possibly can. Since manual brakes, they haven't needed to make them wide enough to use both your feet, after all. Most of the time, any old button or lever would do, but it's those panic situations that are the most dangerous, even though they're the least common.

Pocket carry without a holster can be okay, if the fun fits into the pocket without inadvertently re-orienting itself as you move.

Freudian typo aside, this would be my fear, too, and then I'd reach in to grab the gun and not get the part I wanted to get, or have to pull it, get it reoriented, and then be ready to fire, and I'd just rather have the whole thing go smoother than that, go the same way every time.

I'm not sure if it's my British deep-seated fear of absolutely everything or my German desire for precision in all things, but I want this thing that kills stuff and saves my bacon to be locked down, with its trigger blocked, and its frame always in the same place and facing the same direction. But that may well be over-caution.

If I were going to pocket carry, or purse carry - hey, it could happen! - or bag carry, I think I'd still want a holster to keep the gun clean, protected, and contained. Unless it's my finger and I'm firing, I don't want anything to come inside that trigger guard that's not designed to prevent a trigger pull.

I carry my cell phone with no case [although it goes in a specific pocket, and nothing else goes in that pocket], and my Swiss Army knife just rattles around in another pocket. But a pistol isn't a cell phone. Even when I carried my big Spyderco folder, it got clipped to one [safe] place, every time, all the time. [My carry of my baton was more foolish and less well-intentioned.] I don't know if I respect the gun or fear the gun, but I know I want to control the gun, and that's what a holster gives me.

But I own a BB pistol, and I never carry, concealed or otherwise, so what the hell do I know?

[Raygun]

In my opinion, you shouldn't carry a handgun unless it is in a well made, well designed holster. Concealed carry or not, you should definitely consider "secured" carry, which means having the weapon in a holster. Pocket carry without a holster can be okay, if the fun fits into the pocket without inadvertently re-orienting itself as you move. For example, if you normally insert the gun into your pocket with the barrel pointing down, you don't want it working its way around to pointing up as you walk, sit, go about your day, etc. The reason for this is that, when you reach for the weapon, you want it to be oriented in the drawing position for safety. I've had enough experience with non-concealed and concealed carry (I've carried a gun nearly every day for the last 12 years) to know that digging around in a pocket invites an accidental discharge, or as I would normally say, "negligent" discharge. I have come close enough to yanking the trigger accidentally while attempting to get a proper grip on my gun enough times that I always carry in a holster.

I agree with all of this. I certainly don't think throwing a gun in a pocket that allows it to move around any more than the length of the trigger's travel is advisable. My thinking, particularly with the guns and method of carry I was discussing, was along the lines of a clip mounted on the side of the gun (Kel-Tec offers these, though others my make them) stuck in a pen pocket or similar sewn inside of the cargo pocket. This keeps the gun oriented, but the trigger free. I also would not carry an automatic with a round in the chamber unless there were some method of protecting the trigger while the gun was stowed, like a pocket holster.

[paladin2019]

What Unca' Joe sez!

Any part of my kit gets its own spot and goes there all the time. And I index almost constantly. Taking a second to ensure everything's where it's supposed to be before you nod for the ram is a hard habit to break.

[sinsual]

Personally, pocket carry for me involves a pocket holster. Otherwise its IWB. I ride, already mentioned the cargo pant issue, but looking further, the loose jacket gets flapped around by the wind, even my leather jackets that fit snug get moved around at highway speeds. Even more so on windy days. Retention holsters are high on my list for that reason. I also don't need to advertise as the back of my jacket rides up from the wind a gun on my hip. Something like the Supertuck still keeps it well concealed.

I took a holster class a couple of decades ago, and will be renewing that class soon. I am a firm believer in "snap caps" for dry firing for practice. I can practice with a loaded weapon, but not have a live round anywhere it can discharge.

Lastly for this late night, I wish they made a .22WMR conversion :-) Was watching a video of a co-worker with the new KelTec .22WMR plinking with spinning targets out to 75 yards was hilarious 30 rounds of .22WMR goes pretty damn fast when your hitting 1 in 5 at 75 yards from a pistol:lol

[UncleJoseph]

I am a firm believer in "snap caps" for dry firing for practice.

I find them useful as dummy rounds for doing malfunction drills, but not much else. Are you just using them for dry firing, or in combinations with other training methods (e.g. malfunction drills)? They used to be marketed for "protecting the firing pin" of guns. And they do this well, it's just not necessary on most modern designs. I used to have guys come into the store and buy a modern Glock or Sig Sauer or Ruger or whatever, and they'd freak out if someone dry fired any gun (even though the user manuals of most firearms specifically state that dry firing is perfectly fine), including the modern ones. The dry firing/firing pin damage is largely an old wives' tale these days, unless you're dealing with replicas of older guns or actual older guns (and by older, I generally mean 100+ years).

There are exceptions, however, to any rule. Snap caps are cheap and easy, so I always tell folks to use 'em if they're worried about it.

[UncleJoseph]

Went shooting with my wife and her Kahr last night. Discovered that she has a tendency to limp-wrist it, causing both feeding and cycling problems. Those compact, short-cycle, stiff recoil springs are really susceptible to a short-stroke if you don't hold it firmly. After a few magazines we got her shooting with less malfunctions, but we're going to need to spend some time at the range ironing out the kinks. She had everything from fail to feeds, stove pipes, fail to lock into battery, and once when her magazine couldn't eject due to a partially fed round. It's not the gun's fault, it's just that my wife is very small, and keeping the gun from jumping out of her hand is a challenge. Even with a 9mm.

[Raygun]

Hmm. Well, if training can't fix it with that gun, a J frame is something to consider.

[UncleJoseph]

Hmm. Well, if training can't fix it with that gun, a J frame is something to consider.

Yeah, we talked about wheel guns before we got the Kahr...she definitely wants an auto, mainly due to looks, but that's what she also is more familiar with...I can train the familiarity with with a wheel gun into her, but I don't think she's go with it. She was commenting today about how she was worried about all the malfunctions. I reassured her that I can train her to shoot it just fine. Watching her shoot last night, I think I'm going to have to make her shoot Isosceles. She was shooting Weaver, but she keeps her strong arm bent in that stance (despite my telling her to do otherwise), making her much less strong. When I put her in Isosceles, she stopped having malfunctions. I'm convinced the problem lies with her stance and grip. Isosceles is a stronger stance for most people anyway, and studies have shown that even folks like me who shoot Weaver (and have for years), revert to Isosceles under stress (i.e. during a real shootout).

EDIT:

If we can't get her shooting properly with the Kahr (the only gun we've found to fit her hand in the concealment line), then wheel gun it will have to be. I can get some really good trigger work done on a DAO trigger, so I'm not too worried that she won't be able to shoot that. Incidentally, I already have a Colt SF-VI that she could probably carry. It has the smoothest trigger of any revolver I've played with, aside from my stepdad's custom Python. We'll use the SF-VI and go from there if necessary.

[3278]

How does having a weak wrist result in misfires? If the gun isn't properly braced, does that mean the energy that would normally work the action gets wasted, and thus can't complete the action properly?

[Raygun]

Yup. There needs to be a certain amount of resistance against recoil for that type of operation to cycle properly.

UJ, if it were me, I think I'd rather she carried something she can use from one hand if necessary rather than having to depend on a two-handed stance to operate the action. Have you looked at the Taurus 905? It's a clip-loaded 9x19mm J frame. It has an exposed hammer, but that can be bobbed if you want to go DAO. They used to offer it with a bobbed hammer, but that one's discontinued. I know you've got the Colt, but just an idea.

[UncleJoseph]

UJ, if it were me, I think I'd rather have her carry something she can use from one hand if necessary rather than having to depend on a two-handed stance to operate the action. Have you looked at the Taurus 905? It's a clip-loaded 9x19mm J frame. It has an exposed hammer, but that can be bobbed if you want to go DAO.

Agreed, but I can't force her do carry something she doesn't want to carry. Even though she's basing much of her decision on the "looks" of the gun, she thus far has flat-out refused to carry a revolver. She shot them in her CPL class and doesn't like them. Plus, she likes the looks of an auto. I think ultimately, I'll be able to get her shooting it one-handed too. I just have to work on her grip so that she's holding the gun securely, without death-gripping it and shaking all over the place. I think the main problem was that she was shooting with a bent elbow with her strong hand. It's going to be a training issue primarily. Besides, last night was simply just to make sure the gun worked properly...we'll be working on her technique for the next range days. Also, if she ultimately doesn't end up carrying this gun, I will. I'm going to wait on my next concealed carry gun until we know if she's going to stay with this one.

I haven't started exploring revolvers yet since we just had the cycling issue with the Kahr last night.

[Raygun]

Cool. I imagine you should be able to get her and the Kahr working well together. Just a suggestion.

[3278]

Have you looked at the Taurus 905? It's a clip-loaded 9x19mm J frame.

Clip-loaded? Me no understand.

[Raygun]

This revolver is chambered for a cartridge designed for automatic pistols (9x19mm, the same cartridge UJ's wife's Kahr uses). Instead of loading one round at a time into each chamber, all five rounds are held together by a clip and are loaded into and ejected from the cylinder at once.