Best Concealed Favorite for Wives

[GripItAndRipIt]

Slightly smaller, some people don't notice it but it's pretty obvious to me.

Yup.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Women in general wear more tight fit clothing.

Praise Jesus!

Some men wear tight fit clothes and I'm sure they have the same issue. I can't picture my wife wearing baggier clothing just so she can put a full sized gun in her pants that she typically doesn't wear a belt with. I on the other hand, and im sure many of you are fine tailoring our clothing just so we can have a 1911 or G19 with an extra mag, knife, pepper spray, medical kit on the ankle and so on. Women have a choice in what gun they get. I'm pretty sure they can use google and read forums and so on enough to get a general idea of what they want. If they get something deemed "not serious", it's because they don't care, not because they're being discriminated against.

Agreed. Every woman I've ever known -- regardless of how rugged she might be and how badly she can out-shoot me -- still likes to look good and have a few "pretty things." So she wants a purple compact Glock. Better than no Glock.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Women need to choose their own guns. Wives are women. Their brains do not shut off when they marry. Nor do their physical characteristics suddenly change to resemble those of some other wife. If you are a male and are presuming to choose a gun for your wife, imagine saying this to her, which is actually what you would be doing: "Honey, I consider all adult males on the planet smart enough to choose their own guns and individual enough to need to. But since I consider you more stupid than every single male on the planet as well as just a generic female, interchangeable with all other human females, I'll choose your guns for you based on what some other man tells me worked for his wife" How well would that go down?

A wimpy caliber does not become more effective in SD just because a woman shoots it. Too often men steer women toward .22 or .380 when most women can handle 9 mm or .38sp in appropriate guns just fine. A serious SD gun is capable of making seriously big holes in bad guys. A lesser caliber may need to be chosen as a compromise with skill level or carry needs. But at least 9mm or .38sp or better should always be the preference if possible, whatever the gender of the shooter. On the other hand, a .22 is orders of magnitude better than no gun.

If a woman has very tiny or weak hands (or arthritis) and can't jack the slide in most semi autos it might be useful to hear about the choices of women with similar problems. But most women can jack the slides on pistols just fine. Yet a whole lot of men give advice for women assuming that every woman on the planet has small or weak hands and trouble jacking slides.

I think cutesy guns that look like toys like that bright blue Glock back on page one are a good way for a woman to get herself killed or greatly handicap herself in a SD crisis. The cutesy gun is less intimidating in a crisis. Women are less intimidating to bad guys anyway, and more likely to be suspected of being unwilling to actually pull the trigger. If the bad guy you're pointing a gun at thinks you won't shoot, he's much more likely to try to take the gun away from you instead of running. Meaning because of the cutesy gun, the woman is more likely to have to shoot the bad guy to stop him. A far more dangerous situation than if he runs away. The guns that are the most intimidating are bigger, black, blue, or stainless steel, and they have large rather than smaller bores. Interestingly even full size target .22s have some intimidation ability, just from size and the fact they look like serious guns, not toys.

I think having a .22 mimic version of a bigger caliber SD gun is not worth the time or money. Recoil is too large a part of shooting a larger caliber gun. And a .22 on a frame for a bigger bore gun is an inferior .22 that weighs much more than needed. I do think having a dedicated .22 target pistol designed to be just what it is is useful.

Respectfully, I inferred from the OP that the dude is hoping to encourage his wife to carry and is seeking advice on this forum to start the process, possibly making a few suggestions. I did not read that he didn't think she is smart enough to make her own decision. You're making quite an assumption there.

Second, you do not carry a firearm to intimidate anyone: You carry one to place ordinance on the target when you are faced with a lethal threat. The mint-green Glock fires the same round and delivers the same energy to the target as the scary black one. Proper training and repetition drills teach us to draw and fire instinctively. If you do it right, the bad guy never knows that he was shot with a pink gun as they slip the sheet over his face.

Third the irony: You state that "cutesy guns that look like toys are a good way for a woman to get herself killed" but then claim "on the other hand, a .22 is orders of magnitude better than no gun." Convincing anybody that a .22 is a viable defensive weapon is an excellent way to get them killed by instilling a false sense of security over adopting a defensive mindset. YMMV.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Bill nailed it.

My wife and her group of girls were getting into carrying so I bought her a ruger lcp. She's only shot it once because she doesnt like it (I don't either lol) and therefore it just sits in the safe.

Looks pretty though lol

I'm a big Ruger fan, but I have to say I really don't like the LCP. Never felt right in my hand. But, in a pinch, it goes "bang." So that's the idea...

 

[OldBroad44]

You should have explained to her that Bond carries a PPK. Women love having things explained to them by men.

Ha ha. Shame on you, @GripItAndRipIt . Trying to bait your female NWFA buddies.

Mansplaining. Interesting word. The essay and book that started the use of the word, Men Explain Things to Me, was by Rebecca Solnit. Actually, I love having stuff I'm interested in explained to me, and in 9-part harmony. And I don't care a fig about the gender, age, or formal credentials or lack thereof of the explainer as long as they really know their stuff and are good at explaining and its new to me. And I delight in explaining to others too. Likely in more detail than most people want.

As for men explaining stuff to me that I'm not interested in or that I wrote the book on--it pretty much doesn't happen. Why not? It seems to be an almost universal experience of women to be explained at in a patronizing way, supposedly. I think its because I just say I'm not interested when I'm not. I'm not rude about it, but I'm direct and unsubtle. Most women will either suffer through explaining they don't want in silence, or will hint at preferring otherwise instead of being more obvious. And if the explanation is cast at a level way below them and they don't redirect, the explaining comes across as condescension. Sometimes it is condescension. But usually its at least partly lack of appropriate feedback.

Women are taught to try to please, appease, and defer to men. Not interrupt them. Allow themselves to be interrupted. Pretend to be interested when they aren't. But if they do so they are depriving men of honest feedback, and are at least partially responsible for being explained at without consent. Perhaps even mostly responsible.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Ha ha. Shame on you, @GripItAndRipIt . Trying to bait your female NWFA buddies.

Satire doesn't always translate over teh internetz. I hope it is understood my comments were made in gest.

Mansplaining. Interesting word. The essay and book that started the use of the word, Men Explain Things to Me, was by Rebecca Solnit. Actually, I love having stuff I'm interested in explained to me, and in 9-part harmony. And I don't care a fig about the gender, age, or formal credentials or lack thereof of the explainer as long as they really know their stuff and are good at explaining and its new to me. And I delight in explaining to others too. Likely in more detail than most people want.

Yeah, that's cool. I don't care what's between your legs, but what's between your ears. If you know your bubblegum you know your bubblegum -- whether you stand or squat to pee. I have a lot of women friends in somewhat of an extended family and we shoot, golf, fish, ride bikes, fart, belch, and call each others' bullbubblegum. I wouldn't have it any other way.

As for men explaining stuff to me that I'm not interested in or that I wrote the book on--it pretty much doesn't happen. Why not? It seems to be an almost universal experience of women to be explained at in a patronizing way, supposedly. I think its because I just say I'm not interested when I'm not. I'm not rude about it, but I'm direct and unsubtle. Most women will either suffer through explaining they don't want in silence, or will hint at preferring otherwise instead of being more obvious. And if the explanation is cast at a level way below them and they don't redirect, the explaining comes across as condescension. Sometimes it is condescension. But usually its at least partly lack of appropriate feedback.

I think that's a double-edged sword. I've encountered a few woke ladies in my life who consider the simple act of me opening my mouth to speak as "mansplaining." I get it. I don't like it, but I get it.

Women are taught to try to please, appease, and defer to men. Not interrupt them. Allow themselves to be interrupted. Pretend to be interested when they aren't. But if they do so they are depriving men of honest feedback, and are at least partially responsible for being explained at without consent. Perhaps even mostly responsible.

I observe groups of women at bars and other social settings constantly interrupting each other. And my ex-wife, well... If I got to say ten words in a day, that was something I would journal about. Just kidding, journal is a noun, not a verb FFS.

Ironically, that ex-wife now calls to ask me for advice. When the worm turns...

 

[OldBroad44]

Respectfully, I inferred from the OP that the dude is hoping to encourage his wife to carry and is seeking advice on this forum to start the process, possibly making a few suggestions. I did not read that he didn't think she is smart enough to make her own decision. You're making quite an assumption there.

Second, you do not carry a firearm to intimidate anyone: You carry one to place ordinance on the target when you are faced with a lethal threat. The mint-green Glock fires the same round and delivers the same energy to the target as the scary black one. Proper training and repetition drills teach us to draw and fire instinctively. If you do it right, the bad guy never knows that he was shot with a pink gun.

Third the irony: You state that "cutesy guns that look like toys are a good way for a woman to get herself killed" but then claim "on the other hand, a .22 is orders of magnitude better than no gun." Convincing anybody that a .22 is a viable defensive weapon is an excellent way to get them killed by instilling a false sense of security over adopting a defensive mindset. YMMV.

Hi @GripItAndRipIt . I agree totally that carrying a gun to intimidate is a bad idea. A gun as a SD tool is for protecting yourself or innocent others from being killed, maimed, or raped. The basic first line of defensive use of your gun must be to stop serious attacks of that sort by putting holes in the assailant in critical places. If you aren't willing to kill an assailant in such situations you shouldn't have a gun for SD.

However, most of the time in citizen SD uses of guns the bad guy is intimidated and flees rather than continuing the attack and requiring you to shoot him. This is the best possible result for the defender. No shootout or hand to hand/knife with assailant. No bodies you have to explain or legal repercussions or suits by assailant or his friends or family. You don't even need to report the event unless you want to. I've read that only one in four SD uses of a gun involves pulling the trigger, and the proportion of such situations where the assailant flees because the prospective victim has a gun might be 9 in 10 or more. No way to tell since many or even most may be unreported.

So if the most common result of a SD gun use by a citizen is the bad guy flees the minute he sees the gun, then intimidation of the bad guy by defender or gun is clearly an important factor in the outcome of most SD uses of guns. In the scenario you suggested where you have to draw your gun and fire immediately, the gun's ability to intimidate would indeed make no difference. However, SD use of a gun often involves the defender pointing gun at bad guy from a bit of distance away, and had guy makes a decision to either continue invading/attacking or to run. Factors that enhance intimidation would include factors related to defender: gender, size, apparent physical strength, whether their stance and holding of gun suggests confidence and competence. But I propose the gun matters too. My inferences are from showing guns to various people and noticing whether they seemed impressed. Especially people not all that familiar with guns.

As for .22s--
I saved my bacon with a .22 Gillesie when I pointed it at a would-be home invader. He ceased his efforts at coming in through my window and fled. I was a poor kid working my way through college and a .22 was all I could afford. A year later I saved the bacon of a woman being attacked by a would-be rapist with that same 22. Before I even left home my mother saved herself and her two young children (one of them me) from two would-be rapists with a Colt Woodsman .22. Later in life I was more affluent and had more appropriate SD guns. When I accidentally interrupted a robber and he charged me I had a .44. And when a deranged man tried to invade my home in a different state, I had a .357. But fact is, either my my mother or I could have put several bullets into the head(s) of the attacker(s) before they could reach us. The .22 is definitely a viable option for SD.

However a gun in a bigger caliber is better than a .22 for SD provided you shoot both equally well. I'd take a pink gun in a larger caliber over the .22 also. Given my druthers though, I would take a good 22 target pistol over a J frame Smith in .38 or .357. Why? Because I would feel confident that I could place several shots in the head of an assailant in an instant with the .22. But I don't shoot little smiths well and would have to go for chest shots. But I would prefer a medium frame Smith in .357 to any .22 for SD, obviously.

 

[OldBroad44]

Yep, @GripItAndRipIt . I took your comments as meant in fun. As was my "For Shame" etc. Woulda put a smiley face in there but don't know how to call up the menu with various smiley faces from with in a message.

How do I call up the smiley face menus or the emoji menu when writing a message? Haven't been able to since the last website update.

 

[DirectDrive]

Yep, @GripItAndRipIt . I took your comments as meant in fun. As was my "For Shame" etc. Woulda put a smiley face in there but don't know how to call up the menu with various smiley faces from with in a message.

How do I call up the smiley face menus or the emoji menu when writing a message? Haven't been able to since the last website update.

It's still there or you can type : ) with no space and the basic smiley will appear.

 

[OldBroad44]

Don't shoot intruders with a .25 Jennings.... they might find out and get pizzed off!!!

I had a Jennings .22 that was very consistent. It always jammed on the first round so was consistently a single shot.

 

[American123]

Ha ha. Shame on you, @GripItAndRipIt . Trying to bait your female NWFA buddies.

Mansplaining. Interesting word. The essay and book that started the use of the word, Men Explain Things to Me, was by Rebecca Solnit. Actually, I love having stuff I'm interested in explained to me, and in 9-part harmony. And I don't care a fig about the gender, age, or formal credentials or lack thereof of the explainer as long as they really know their stuff and are good at explaining and its new to me. And I delight in explaining to others too. Likely in more detail than most people want.

As for men explaining stuff to me that I'm not interested in or that I wrote the book on--it pretty much doesn't happen. Why not? It seems to be an almost universal experience of women to be explained at in a patronizing way, supposedly. I think its because I just say I'm not interested when I'm not. I'm not rude about it, but I'm direct and unsubtle. Most women will either suffer through explaining they don't want in silence, or will hint at preferring otherwise instead of being more obvious. And if the explanation is cast at a level way below them and they don't redirect, the explaining comes across as condescension. Sometimes it is condescension. But usually its at least partly lack of appropriate feedback.

Women are taught to try to please, appease, and defer to men. Not interrupt them. Allow themselves to be interrupted. Pretend to be interested when they aren't. But if they do so they are depriving men of honest feedback, and are at least partially responsible for being explained at without consent. Perhaps even mostly responsible.

Where is this school that teaches women how they are supposed try to please, appease and defer to men? Because it seems like the majority of women I've ever met 35 years old and younger didn't know about it either.

 

[American123]

I think there are two distinct goals that really have different prerequisites in order to be achieved.

1) getting the woman shooting - keeping the activity fun, safe, and meaningful (maybe a simple goal to achieve or work on, but not in a drill sergeant manner). You could make each range trip part of a lunch date afterward. That should make it decently acceptable to participate in.

2) getting the woman carrying - this is the more difficult challenge because it basically requires that she perceive a need to carry in order for her to deal with the inconvenience of carrying a gun and the resulting sacrifices and/or adaptations to clothing and behavior that come with it. Most women default to purse carry for this reason because it represents the least inconvenience, it's basically half hearted commitment to carry because nearly any situation they would need to draw it would be unlikely they could access it effectively from the purse.

Toward this end, bringing up violent crime statistics against women may be a relevant conversation because most violent crime against women could be stopped by the intended victim if she were adequately armed and trained to to deploy it defensively.

 

[bbbass]

As for .22s--

The problem that I read about with .22lr for SD is the ammo. People report it not being reliable, not always firing. Tho I have to say I've rarely had that problem, and still consider a .22 better than nothing. Before my wife's cognitive problems I very much considered buying her a .22lr revolver because of her very very arthritic hands.

I had a Jennings .22 that was very consistent. It always jammed on the first round so was consistently a single shot.

My wife's Taurus .380 mouse gun works the same as your Jennings.

 

[OldBroad44]

The problem that I read about with .22lr for SD is the ammo. People report it not being reliable, not always firing. Tho I have to say I've rarely had that problem, and still consider a .22 better than nothing. Before my wife's cognitive problems I very much considered buying her a .22lr revolver because of her very very arthritic hands.



My wife's Taurus .380 mouse gun works the same as your Jennings.

That's what I've read about .22 or for SD too. But I shot many thousands of rounds through my Ruger Mark II and it never failed to fire or jammed even once. Supposedly the primer can be spread unevenly around the rim creating an inherent unreliability. But I wonder whether this applies to just certain brands of ammo or a different era rather than modern .22 ammo.

There are probably people on this forum who have fired hundreds of thousands of .22 rounds of specific modern brands of ammo through specific guns who have some useful insights.

???

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

22 revolvers require a heavy trigger pull so the hammer will strike the case rim with enough force for reliable ignition. We tried a Ruger LCR38 vs the Ruger LCR22 and the trigger of the 22 was much stiffer.

 

[smitty007]

As many have said, a class is a good way to go…hitting a range that allows her to rent and try a few different ones out is what we plan to do.

There are a few I have in mind to start with:

• P365/P365X
• G43/G43X
• M&P Shield
• Walther PPS

Ultimately, it will be up to what feels best to her! Good luck

 

[OldBroad44]

Where is this school that teaches women how they are supposed try to please, appease and defer to men? Because it seems like the majority of women I've ever met 35 years old and younger didn't know about it either.

It starts with our mothers, then is reinforced by virtually everyone in families and the rest of life including school teachers, by every conversation or novel that uses the accusation of being a woman as an insult. My mother tried to teach me to pretend to be stupid, to let men do all the talking, etc. I remember plenty of such conversations when I was only in the second grade. Males supposedly had fragile egos that had to be constantly built up by mothers, sisters, wives, and all females always deferring, always treating males of all ages as more important than themselves. My mother spent pretty much every hour after my dad came home from work that she was not fixing dinner listening to my dad talk about himself and his day. Not once did I hear her spending even one minute talking to Dad about herself or her day. Basically, both my parents viewed only males as real human beings who could/should accomplish things in the world. Women were just the support system for and means of reproducing real human beings. For America, my family was extreme even for my era. I didn't buy into my family's world view. If anything it made me more determined to accomplish things myself.

What's happening with women under 35 I don't really know. I operate in a context where I'm the author of books that most of the young people I interact with have read or at least heard about, so I have high status in my small bubble and get treated very respectfully . From what I see on YouTube, though, there is a whole lot of contempt and hatred being expressed toward males these days. Its undoubtedly not any more enjoyable for men to be on the receiving end of that than it is/was for women.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Whatever fits in an apron pocket.








JUST KIDDING!!

 

[Makers Mark]

My wife started out with a police department trade-in Glock 17 gen 2 as a bedside gun many years ago, and it has continued to perform well for all these years. She is very proficient with it.

At some point I got one of the original LCP's for pocket carry (in addition to, or instead of the belt carried gun), and she ended up getting one also (for purse carry).

I sugested that my wife and little sister take a class together to get some training and exposure to other types of firearms. They completed the class and got to handle and shoot many different kinds of guns. My wife ended up getting a G43 (in green/blue) as a carry gun, and she shoots it well. Sister got a S&W 357/38 revolver as a bedside gun. In retrospect I believe having them take that class together was a very good thing. They got to hear the 'message' from someone besides me.

 

[DirectDrive]

• P365/P365X
• G43/G43X
• M&P Shield (S&W 9mm EZ, S&W 380 EZ)
• Walther PPS (PPS-M2)