1911’s in general, 9mm versions specifically

[solarshooter]

Compare the following:

How much distance beyond your body does a suppressed pistol protrude when you are in a shooting stance?

Vs

How much distance beyond your body does a suppressed 10.3” AR15 protrude in a shooting stance?

They are more or less functionally the same

Yeah I see that. I guess I was referring to carrying a suppressed pistol in a holster vs an AR on a sling loosely flopping around.

Again, I have never shot or carried a suppressed pistol, so this is conjecture from me. I'm curious to hear from folks who have. It does seem on the surface like it would be a very shootable package.

 

[solarshooter]

Especially when subsonic rifle rounds are usually far more devastating than subsonic pistol, given their heavy-for-caliber and subsonic-specific construction designs, and what happens on impact with them compared to pistol bullets.

I am not too familiar with the terminal effects of subsonic cartridges like 300BLK. I've heard very mixed reviews. Something like a 220gr SMK at 800fps doesn't sound like it's going to do much more than pencil through. Vs a hollow point 9mm which is optimized to hit at those speeds and still expand and penetrate adequately. I know Hornady tried to make a subsonic specific 300BLK bullet, the SUBX, and I've heard it's junk based on limited online research. I've killed deer with Speer Gold Dots from a 45 1911 before (weird gun restrictions and animals that are VERY used to people) and it did massive damage, opened up nicely, one passed through and one caught in offside hide. So I'm not sure I agree with this point.

At the core of it all is - what exactly are you selecting a tool and training for? As in, what specific use-case would you want an "unobtrusive", suppressed gun at all?

Also, when would unobtrusive be superior to the shootability and ability to hit more accurately that comes with shoulder-mounted guns?

The core question I'm asking is, is a pistol with a can more or less shootable than no can? With rifles, the answer is yes, more shootable, less recoil, less blast. Curious why that wouldn't be true with a pistol. If you are looking at carrying a sidearm as a backup to your hunting rifle, which in my mind eliminates any heavy, long, shoulder fired guns that can't be holstered, then the above suppressed, more shootable pistol should be the best option, right?

 

[Q_Sertorius]

The core question I'm asking is, is a pistol with a can more or less shootable than no can? With rifles, the answer is yes, more shootable, less recoil, less blast. Curious why that wouldn't be true with a pistol. If you are looking at carrying a sidearm as a backup to your hunting rifle, which in my mind eliminates any heavy, long, shoulder fired guns that can't be holstered, then the above suppressed, more shootable pistol should be the best option, right?

Why do you need a backup to a hunting rifle? Two-legged threats? In that case, I would rather have my Tikka than any pistol. Unless I am in an elevator, basement, or concealment is the goal.

There’s no situation in which carrying a typical pistol with a suppressor attached isn’t going to be cumbersome.

 

[Nine Banger]

Why do you need a backup to a hunting rifle?

I'm tagged out but my buddies aren't.

Two-legged threats?

Yup but Grizz is also a primary driver. If it's legal to open carry a pistol anywhere I'm hunting I want to.

I bought a 9mm suppressor for a Glock 19 as my first suppressor. It was fun for a while. Lasted as a parlor trick for a few years. It sat in the safe for 20 years and then found a home on an SBR carbine.

Suppressed pistol is a novelty item widely sought after by the newly initiated.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I'm tagged out but my buddies aren't.

Yup but Grizz is the primary driver.

I bought a 9mm suppressor for a Glock 19 as my first suppressor. It was fun for a while. Lasted as a parlor trick for a few years. It sat in the safe for 20 years and then found a home on an SBR carbine.

Suppressed pistol is a novelty item widely sought after by the newly initiated.

Are you not allowed to carry a rifle for self-defense without a tag? Honest question.

Almost all my hunting is on private land. And I carry a rifle year round, without regard to season. I don’t go more than about 50 yards from the house without a rifle. I only carry a pistol where concealment is required or desirable.

 

[Nine Banger]

Are you not allowed to carry a rifle for self-defense without a tag? Honest question.

I dunno.

Securing my rifle after tag is filled frees my hands up to be a full time spotter and grab stuff the buddy drops or leaves for me to grab out of convenience during the kill process.

 

[2Stamp]

Are you not allowed to carry a rifle for self-defense without a tag? Honest question.

Almost all my hunting is on private land. And I carry a rifle year round, without regard to season. I don’t go more than about 50 yards from the house without a rifle. I only carry a pistol where concealment is required or desirable.

Not to derail 1911 talk, but most of the guys I know here that are hunting in Griz country also carry pistols, and if not holding a tag have a shotgun with bear medicine, or in the case of the true cowboys probably have a lever gun in the scabbard.

 

[Ralphie]

in at least some of the states with grizzlies you are legal to carry a rifle for defense. And I’ve done so. I used to never carry a handgun because I had my rifle. And who wouldn’t rather have a rifle?

The chance of any bear attack is low and lower still to be attacked when the rifle isn’t in your hands. However the consequences of an attack are significant. And the cost at least to me of carrying a pistol in addition to my rifle is low.

And the reality is the rifle at some point will not be in your hands or attached to you. I can pretty much do everything hunting with the handgun attached to me.

The most likely scenario may be cutting up your kill when a bear comes in. Read the Mark Uptain attack. He did not have a rifle and had unfortunately removed his pistol from his person when he was suddenly attacked. He guided in the same area as I did. It was a bit of a wake up call to me. The best defensive gun is no good if you can’t get to it. And I haven’t figured out how to quarter elk with a rifle in my hands.

 

[solarshooter]

I dunno.

Securing my rifle after tag is filled frees my hands up to be a full time spotter and grab stuff the buddy drops or leaves for me to grab out of convenience during the kill process.

Or if you're moving meat and want to leave weight behind.

 

[4th_point]

Has anyone tried one of these from Amazon? It’s cheap and has decent reviews debating trying it for fun.
https://www.amazon.com/Relentless-T...e&keywords=1911+holster&qid=1777925933&sr=8-3

Only thing is I can't see if the leather is chrome tanned or vegetable tanned. Chrome is a no go that can cause corrosion.

I can't speak to the 1911 variants or the Defender model, but I have been using a Relentless Tactical holster for the past 6 years with a mousegun.

I've got no complaints for the price that I paid but it's their suede/rough-out model without reinforcement. It's good as a minimalist holster, but you cannot reholster with the model that I have.

They claim veg tanned for belts, but I don't see anything mentioned for holsters. I have not seen any corrosion from the leather itself, using it with a blued finish.

I was recently looking to buy another Relentless for a different mousegun. Prices still seem fair, and supposedly made in the USA.

This has been used a lot over 6 years and still works fine:

 

[RockAndSage]

Are you not allowed to carry a rifle for self-defense without a tag? Honest question.

Legal, yes, but context could leave someone open to legitimate suspicion by game wardens or other law enforcement. If I'm tagged-out but still carrying a gun around, and not specifically in grizzly or grow territory, it could be interpreted as hunting without tags - especially if I have game processing gear on me for helping with a friends' animal.

And I carry a rifle year round, without regard to season. I don’t go more than about 50 yards from the house without a rifle. I only carry a pistol where concealment is required or desirable.

The more work I have to do, the more desirable and useful a handgun is. Gates, livestock, fencing, firewood, getting in and out of vehicles repeatedly, on and off horses, loading up, unpacking, etc - having two hands free and not having a rifle banging around or tempting me to put it down all lend toward having an OWB handgun on me. That includes gear selection that enforces that - not putting it on the pack's waistbelt, but having it in a chest harness or separate belt that doesn't get taken off until bedtime.

No question, in a fight the rifle's preferable by far, but balancing out everything, the handgun is always on me. And that's an aspect of why I've always put so much work into handgunning - the handgun is always there, and in the vast majority of circumstances will not be a backup, but the one and only fighting firearm available. The greater the likelihood of a problem though, the more the rifle will be there too.

I'm curious to hear from folks who have. It does seem on the surface like it would be a very shootable package.

As mentioned, this really is a common and understandable thing for people to think, until they shoot them. The reality is that they're long, the balance point moves way further forward and gives the muzzle a lot more leverage against your wrists, which actually makes the recoil dynamics (and hence their shootability) a lot more awkward with a lot more activity in your sight picture/dot. They're also damn near impossible to conceal, and OWB holsters are almost never made specifically for a given handgun and its attached, specific suppressor.

Because of the dynamic effects, it makes them useless for handgun training - draw, fire, and manage recoil unsuppressed vs suppressed essentially make for entirely different weapon systems. It's like going from a sports car to a truck, at speed. A better analogy might be like having a sports car, and then hooking up a heavy trailer to it - it changes the experience and performance entirely, including introducing some elements that can get you into unexpected trouble.

 

[RockAndSage]

Yeah I see that. I guess I was referring to carrying a suppressed pistol in a holster vs an AR on a sling loosely flopping around.

Again, I have never shot or carried a suppressed pistol, so this is conjecture from me. I'm curious to hear from folks who have. It does seem on the surface like it would be a very shootable package.

I just realized we've shared a lot of reasons why suppressed centerfire handguns are useless. That made me wonder if there are ever situations where they can be useful at all in the civilian context. I came up with one: introducing new shooters to handguns, in a fun way that gives a bit of a Hollywood taste without the muzzle blast. They're excellent for that, and bring lots of smiles.

But in general, even with that example, if a pistol is the preferrable tool and it must be suppressed, in almost every context I can think of the better tool would be a suppressed rimfire. A lot of those things mentioned with suppressed centerfires don't apply to suppressed rimfires, or they apply a lot less. In many, recoil dynamics are improved, shootability increases, they're not excessively long, finding a holster can be easier, and cycling reliability can actually be improved for the first few hundred rounds, until they get excessively dirty.

 

[solarshooter]

Legal, yes, but context could leave someone open to legitimate suspicion by game wardens or other law enforcement. If I'm tagged-out but still carrying a gun around, and not specifically in grizzly or grow territory, it could be interpreted as hunting without tags - especially if I have game processing gear on me for helping with a friends' animal.




The more work I have to do, the more desirable and useful a handgun is. Gates, livestock, fencing, firewood, getting in and out of vehicles repeatedly, on and off horses, loading up, unpacking, etc - having two hands free and not having a rifle banging around or tempting me to put it down all lend toward having an OWB handgun on me. That includes gear selection that enforces that - not putting it on the pack's waistbelt, but having it in a chest harness or separate belt that doesn't get taken off until bedtime.

No question, in a fight the rifle's preferable by far, but balancing out everything, the handgun is always on me. And that's an aspect of why I've always put so much work into handgunning - the handgun is always there, and in the vast majority of circumstances will not be a backup, but the one and only fighting firearm available. The greater the likelihood of a problem though, the more the rifle will be there too.




As mentioned, this really is a common and understandable thing for people to think, until they shoot them. The reality is that they're long, the balance point moves way further forward and gives the muzzle a lot more leverage against your wrists, which actually makes the recoil dynamics (and hence their shootability) a lot more awkward with a lot more activity in your sight picture/dot. They're also damn near impossible to conceal, and OWB holsters are almost never made specifically for a given handgun and its attached, specific suppressor.

Because of the dynamic effects, it makes them useless for handgun training - draw, fire, and manage recoil unsuppressed vs suppressed essentially make for entirely different weapon systems. It's like going from a sports car to a truck, at speed. A better analogy might be like having a sports car, and then hooking up a heavy trailer to it - it changes the experience and performance entirely, including introducing some elements that can get you into unexpected trouble.

I just realized we've shared a lot of reasons why suppressed centerfire handguns are useless. That made me wonder if there are ever situations where they can be useful at all in the civilian context. I came up with one: introducing new shooters to handguns, in a fun way that gives a bit of a Hollywood taste without the muzzle blast. They're excellent for that, and bring lots of smiles.

But in general, even with that example, if a pistol is the preferrable tool and it must be suppressed, in almost every context I can think of the better tool would be a suppressed rimfire. A lot of those things mentioned with suppressed centerfires don't apply to suppressed rimfires, or they apply a lot less. In many, recoil dynamics are improved, shootability increases, they're not excessively long, finding a holster can be easier, and cycling reliability can actually be improved for the first few hundred rounds, until they get excessively dirty.

Thanks for the explanations on all counts, makes a lot of sense.

I'll look into a suppressed rimfire, I have a 22 pistol that doesn't get a lot of love.

 

[RussDXT]

For home defense a staccato p with an x300 and a can makes sense to me. Easier to manage in a house situation, that being said I’m not a door kicker and open to something better. I have a sp5 with a can and light as well as a sbr 10.3 ar. Just not as good of a way to store them in a bedroom.

 

[shayes11]

Man, this thread got me good! Luckily, it persuaded me to try and save some money for a platform I've always wanted to dabble with. Picked up a "used" Girsan for well under $400. Not traditional with the cerakoate finish but I'm not passing up a deal for my first. Not a spec of fouling in the barrel, no rub wear anywhere, pretty sure it was brand new.

Already my favorite handgun I've ever shot. I cant even imagine what a "good" 1911 trigger feels like.. I now understand what everyone means when they speak of shootability.