Again, thanks for the replies. I ended up buying a Kahr CW40. It is smaller and lighter than my Glock, making it more comfortable to carry. A friend made me a nice leather holster for it.
The key differences for me between the Glock and the Kahr are weight and width. The Kahr is under an inch in width and weighs more than a half pound less than the Glock loaded. Of course I am giving up some capacity. I carry the Kahr with 6 in the magazine and one in the chamber.
I have fired 250 rounds with it so far. It functions perfectly and I am shooting it fairly well.
I guess it could be a custom chambered Blackhawk in .45 Winchester Magnum. Not sure why you would do that in a revolver, given it’s a rimless cased cartridge, but w/e. But I’m thinking one of drastic quench’s options is more likely…
Sounds like you made a great pick, Crotalus. Lots of people who have Kahrs swear by them; their P380 just seems to be the problem-child of their line. You can find deals online for cheaper ammo (I like either ammunitiondepot.com or sgammo.com), but .380’s going to be pricier than 9mm just due to there being so much less of it out there.
Glad we could help.
Edit: Oh, and thanks for the compliment, Charlie Wayne. Sorry I didn’t mention it earlier.
You cannot chamber the .22 WMR in a weapon chambered for .22 Long Rifle (or vice versa). Mossad kill squads used the Beretta 21A ‘Bobcat’ because it was easy to mount a silencer to the slightly extended barrel and because it is possible to chamber the weapon without racking the slide due to the tip-up barrel.
Revolvers can most certainly jam, and due to the exposed nature of the cylinder can suffer easily suffer damage that would render the weapon unusable without the services of a gunsmith. Autoloading pistols are far more robust and protected against contamination than revolvers, which is why every military force in the world selects autoloading pistols when they issue handguns. The ‘tap-rack-bang’ drill for autoloading pistols is a standard recovery exercise taught in every defensive pistol class which will allow the shooter to clear and ready the weapon within a couple of seconds. It should go without saying that you should practice with the weapon and run enough of the actual ammunition you intend to carry to have confidence in the reliable function of the weapon and your handling of it.
This almost certainly a North American Arms Mini chambered in .22 WMR. Despite the claim that it is “hugely deadly” the tiny barrel length ensures that most of the propellant energy actually flies out of the muzzle in a ginormous flash, so unless you put it right up against the assailant it is scarcely more effective than a .22 LR. The .22 WMR is really intended to be fired out of a rifle or long barreled pistol as a cheap varmintting gun and is not optimized for defense use.
For that era the pistol would have to be the Browning Hi-Power. This is an all-steel pistol chambered in 9x19mm Parabellum (a few were chambered in the ballistically similar 9x21mm IMI for sale in Spain where “military calibers” are prohibited) which is not an especially powerful cartridge by modern standards (compared to, say, a .40 S&W or .357 Sig), and the recoil in that gun is quite manageable. I say that from personal experience having used this model of pistol when first learning to shoot centerfire pistol at the age of 8 or 9.
Back to the o.p., the most crucial feature about a conceal carry pistol is the “carry” part, i.e. is it small enough to reasonably carry without wearing a muumuu and is it light and safe enough that you will feel comfortable carrying it on a daily basis. I no longer carry a concealed weapon but back when I did I found that boat anchors like the Beretta 92F (or the similar Taurus 99/101) or Sig P220 were just too awkward and uncomfortable to carry, while “pocket pistols” such as the previously-mention Bobcat or the Walther PPK were inaccurate, underpowered, and uncomfortable to shoot. I ended up carrying a single stack Sig Sauer P225 (which was then the Sig “compact” pistol) and my choice today would either be something like the unfortunately out-of-production HK P7 or a Sig P239. I like the size of the Kahr pistols but their sometimes irregular quality concerns me, while I find the Glock, while being a well constructed product, does not point or shoot well for me.
The choice of caliber is less important than your ability to put bullets where you want them to go, but the points made by Grey Ghost regarding the effectiveness and penetration using jacketed hollow points are exactly true. On this basis, I tend to eschew the 9mmP because of its nasty tendency (in the heavier and better penetration bullet weights) to get plugged up and not expand, passing through and through where it may pose a hazard to others, and prefer larger calibers such as the .40 S&W or .45 ACP for their more controlled penetration. The down side is that the ammunition is more expensive and the recoil is sharper on both, but not to the point that it is unmanageable.
Remember, a pistol is not really a combat gun; if you showed up knowing you were going to be in a gunfight, you’d bring a rifle or shotgun (or better yet, just stay home and enjoy some whiskey rather than looking for lost relics and fighting Nazis). A pistol is a weapon that allows you to fight your way clear to a line of escape or a better weapon. Carrying a full sized wondernine and two mags of ammo is not “concealed carry” unless you are a superspy-cum-computer salesman portrayed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, and you spend your off-time hunting terrorists and flying Harrier jets around Miami.
Well, being this is a firearms thread stretched possibly to a sporting thread, I’ll just leave it to you to explain to the nice ladies & gentlemen just which of the two you’d shoot and which you’d eat. :dubious:
