When many people think about the right gun for concealed carry, their thoughts focus on “small, light, concealable”. So things like 5-shot snub revolvers (e.g S&W 642) or tiny semi-autos (Ruger LCP, Kel-Tec P-32, Kahr PM9) come to mind. There are many things one gives up in going to such a small gun, but there are also benefits — there’s always a trade-off somewhere.
But has anyone really quantified this data? Or is it just a bunch of internet gun-slinger bravado and anecdote about why you shouldn’t carry any gun other than a 1911 in .45 ACP the way God and John Moses Browning intended?
Claude Werner has done some study into this, and many people don’t like his results because they clash with their notion of reality.
Karl Rehn opted to do some study and data collection into this area himself. Remember that Defensive Pistol Skills BUG class I did back in July? Karl’s results are finally published in USCCA Magazine.
And Karl happened to get a picture of me looking like Trogdor.
Not everyone’s going to like the results, but data speaks for itself.
Equipment matters, and having better equipment — which does mean larger guns with greater capacity and that are easier to shoot and thus gain acceptable hits — are preferred. But a smaller gun is better than no gun.
But in the end? Training, practice, skill… that trumps equipment.