Poll: Which gun for coastal bicycle riding? (LONG and tedious post)

[coosbaycreep]

I was riding down HWY 101 earlier tonight, and some a-hole threw a bottle or cup at me. It didn't hit me, but needless to say, it pissed me off. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to see their license, but I called the cops anyway, even though I already knew that they'll never get caught for it.

This kinda garbage happens fairly frequently to me while bike riding. I've had numerous things thrown at me (all the solid items have missed thankfully...so far), I've been shot at with airguns and paintball guns (those have all missed me too), I've been honked at, cussed at, blinded with lights, people have weaved from the oncoming lane to within inches of hitting me when I'm on the shoulder, A-holes have tried to sick their dog on me when I'm on a public road minding my own business, and one time someone either threw urine or saliva on me (not 100% sure what kind of nasty fluid it was, but that one DID land on me). After awhile, it really gets on your nerves.

Now if it was legal, I'd pack an AK with me everywhere I go, and wrecklessly spray bullets towards any vehicle, person, or small, defenseless child that so much as looks at me crosseyed, let alone those who throw stuff at me. But, being the scrawny, defenseless white dude that I am, I don't really think I'd have a good time in prison, and unfortunately, I can't just go popping shots off at cars that have thrown stuff at me, despite the fact that it could possibly kill me (primarily by causing me to crash, weave into traffic and get ran over, etc).

Normally I carry a little keltec .32, and I'm fine with that most of the time. It's not much firepower, but to me, the ease of carry and concealment outweighs the hassle of packing around something bigger most of the time. I bicycle a lot of logging and BLM roads, and sometimes I carry a larger gun on the rear rack of my bike, since I don't have to be burdened by the extra weight and bulk of having it attached to my body. Riding in town though, I just carry the keltec because I haven't seen any bears (I've encountered a LOT of black bears in the past few years hiking/biking), and because I'm lazy, and also because I don't like people gawking at me for having a gun strapped to my bike. I also worry about my guns getting rusty too.

Tonight was the final straw though. I've now decided that the extra margin of safety of having a high capacity 9mm outweighs the comfort and convenience of the diminutive keltec for bicycling, and I want some opinions. (I'm still going to rely on the lowly .32 for CC the rest of the time though...that, and the fetal position).

I have three other handguns that I'm considering for carry; S&W 629 with a 5" barrel, beretta PX4 9mm, and a glock 17.

The 629 is by far my favorite handgun, the one I shoot the most, and the most accurate. While I know revolvers can malfunction, I'd trust one over any pistol, any day of the week. It's also the classiest gun I own, and I feel like God when I shoot stuff with it. It's also fun to recite quotes from Dirty Harry when I take it out of the safe and lovingly caress it. Try doing that with a glock. It's just not the same.

I carry the 629 in the woods a lot, and it's the gun that I eventually plan on taking with me to Alaska too, so although I don't like it being exposed to rain and bad weather, I bought the gun with the intention that someday it's going to go to some bad places and see some crappy weather. I'm not sure how it will hold up to salt water though. The 629 is also my most expensive handgun, and I can't afford to replace it anytime soon either.

Of course, .44mag isn't exactly an ideal SD round, and would probably look bad in court in the unfortunate event that I actually did have to use it to defend myself. So the more likely candidates for coastal rust are the glock and beretta.

I've had the beretta awhile now, but still don't even have 100 rounds through it, so obviously I need more trigger time to get accustomed to it, and to see how reliable it is. It's been 100% so far though, and I'd still trust it to go boom with one in the chamber whether I ever shoot it again or not, so I don't foresee any reliability problems with it.

The beretta seems pretty accurate (I at least hit more stuff with it than I do the glock), but it doesn't really seem to fit my hands very well, and I've tried all the different backstraps.

I'm not real keen on this gun getting rained on either. I try to keep all my nice guns nice, and if I start packing it around on the back of a crusty old bicycle, it's bound to get uglied up, and it's about as pretty of polymer gun as there is.

The glock on the other hand, is butt ugly, and has absolutely no soul or personality whatsoever. I really don't like glocks, but bought it because they've been widely regarded as the world standard for semi-auto reliability for years now, and because of the price and availability of hi-cap mags for it.

The glock was originally going to be my SHTF gun, but I haven't shot it much, and have only carried it a few times. It's got less than 400 rounds through it (probably closer to only 300) and has had one malfunction, but that's still reliable enough for me. The bad thing, is that I'm not accurate with it at all. The last time I took it out, I was chronographing some ammo with it, and managed to shoot my chrony twice (out of only about 15 or 20 rounds). I'm sure the fact that I'm as much of a marksman as Barney Fife is probably had something to do with it, but I'd still like to blame the gun or the ammo for the bad shooting. Despite all that though, I still think I can (hopefully) hit good enough for most of the ranges that any kind of SD situation is likely going to occur at.

Regardless of what gun I end up packing, I'm going to practice more with it first.

So, now that you've read my lengthy ramblings (or at least skimmed through most of them), what do you think I should carry? Which gun will hold up the best to salt water and rain without rusting horribly? I'm good about wiping my guns down and keeping them dry when not in use, but I don't like dissasembling them a lot, and I don't want to carry a gun that's coated in oil either. That's messy and nasty and not worth the hassle.

Also, buying a different gun is not an option at the moment.

Thanks

Read More

 

[bmw2]

My 629 is also my favorite gun but in this case I vote for the glock, it's lighter and the extra rounds could be an advantage to someone who could be out of breath and thus not as steady(from riding). That said, the 629 would be a better choice for punching through a car door if it came to that sort of thing. The 629 might hold up to moisture a bit better but I don't know that it will make much difference unless it's neglected a lot, the finish on a glock is pretty tough. If you have the option later down the road, a Glock 29 might be the perfect answer for that sort of thing. Higher round count and lighter weight than a .44 and better energy and penetration than a 9mm.

 

[Mr. Black]

The S&W 629 is stainless steel, right?

Operative word being "stainless", it should hold up to the elements fine..

That being said, sounds to me like you would be best of open carrying..
People might be a little more hesitant to be disrespectful then..

Otherwise, strap a machete to your back.. No one will mess with you then...

 

[PDXGS]

I purchsed a S&W 360 PD for my cycling "encounters".
It's light
It's large caliber
It's compact

I dont know what the he11 motivates folks to act like shi+heads in this state but it's sad. I've tought folks long-distance cycling for years in a few states and never seen so many jerks as I encounter in Oregon. I've found that a good memory and a cell phone make for more powerful tools than a handgun....but I never ride unarmed.

 

[The Quiet Man]

I purchsed a S&W 360 PD for my cycling "encounters".

...I dont know what the he11 motivates folks to act like shi+heads in this state but it's sad. I've tought folks long-distance cycling for years in a few states and never seen so many jerks as I encounter in Oregon...

Interesting observation. I have lived and driven all over the country and have never found a place like Oregon where people ride bicyles on winding rural highways with no shoulders while holding up vehicle traffic that has difficulty seeing and avoiding them. I consistently see them riding on highways where a sane person would not dare walk for fear of being hit by a car. Just my observation.

 

[CLee0507]

.

 

[M.Link]

I would carry the Glock if it were me. I also have problems with bikers while driving a lot! I think they need bike riding licenses. I don't need to get started on my thoughts about them. Anyway, yea, the Glock would be my choice.

 

[deen_ad]

You left out the new KT polymer in 9mm. Almost as small as the KT P-3AT but packs a little more punch.

I carry a Taurus PT-145, but I don't ride a bike anymore either.

 

[coosbaycreep]

Well if it makes you guys feel any better, I can't stand dealing with about 99% of the bicyclists I see on the road when I'm driving either. Oregon law (and most other states that I've cycled in) states that you're suppose to ride as close to the shoulder as safely possible, and in a single file line. All the morons who ride two abreast, run stop signs, and act like idiots should get wreckless driving tickets the same way that someone in a car would if they drove like that as far as I'm concerned.

But, a whole lot of people in cars don't give cyclists enough room even when they are riding safely. From a car, it's tough to see all the debris and crap that cyclists might have to swerve to avoid. I see people driving like maniacs all the time, and they always act like it's someone else's fault if they have to slow down and actually do the speed limit. I guess it's too difficult to just leave earlier, instead of driving like a jerk. A lot of the big city cyclists share that same mentality as well.

A lot of the people who don't like cyclists wouldn't like them regardless of whether or not they're riding single file in a bike lane, or in the middle of a narrow two lane road. Anything that might possibly delay them even a minute or two is enough to aggravate them enough to the point of passing when it's not safe and endangering cyclists or others. It's no different than the A-holes who tailgate. It seems like people are always angry most of the time anymore, and take it out on others when the only thing they would've did with the time they lost by going slower is to waste it by sitting on their fat butt in front of a TV drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon and eating Doritos.

There's a lot of animosity towards cyclists, some deserved (especially in Eugene and Portland), some not. I can say though, that Oregonians (Roseburg and Coos Bay especially) are without a doubt the rudest people towards cyclists of all the places I've rode though, and I've done a fair amount of riding. I've got a little over 22k miles on my cannondale since 2004. I've rode from Bandon to San Diego/Tijuana three times, part of Baja (my bike got stolen before I could finish the peninsula), and to Montana once on the TransAm (got tired of riding and gave up on a cross country attempt).

I've noticed there's a lot of non-bikers who always complain that people should have to pay for a license of some sort to ride a bike on the road too. Even if that was a requirement, I can guarantee that all the people who bubblegum and moan about bikers would still bubblegum and moan about bikers, regardless of whether they had to pay some sort of fee to ride the same way that someone has to operate a motor vehicle or not.

To TheQuietMan, those winding rural roads can provide some of the best cycling there is if you don't like dealing with noisy highways.

To deen_ad, I use to have a keltec PF9. It was a nice gun, and I wouldn't mind having another one to keep in the glove box, but that's not something that's going to be in my budget for a very long time most likely.

It's a shame that so many people treat people on bikes like crap. I think before someone can get their driver's license, that they should have to ride a few miles down a busy, narrow highway so they can see what's it like having to deal with a-holes in cars. Maybe then there wouldn't be so many jerks throwing crap at people and trying to run them off the road. There'd probably be a lot less fat people waddling around too. It's a win-situation.

 

[pdxjohann]

Why take all that attention on yourself? Get some mean dogs for the saddle bags and a cold beer bag. You can have a cold beer while we rednecks worry about the dogs. We won't even think fast enough to toss the bad stuff....... Promise.

Thoreau never mentioned troubles like yours, out in nature man.

 

[Mason]

I think you have a bigger problem CBC.. If you ever do have a social engagement with a firearm you best hope the DA doesn't read your post here.

 

[smurf hunter]

I'd been pondering a similar thing myself. Technically I've wondered what I could possibly handle, aim and fire while riding. I'm a regular cyclist, commute every day to work by bike. There have been a few times when I've been assaulted by motorists: objects thrown from vehicle, drivers swerving towards me - lots of honking and "compliments".

Only once did a driver exit his vehicle and confront me (I've been riding regularly for 6 years). By some small miracle I maintained composure and talked him down. Believe me, I wanted to smash his face with my fist, but thought about my family and how nothing good would come from it.

So my point is, while I firmly believe it's my right to carry while cycling, I'm not sure what the use case is. For touring where you are camping or traveling into new areas - it's a self defense usage. For routine riding where the rare "road rage" breaks out, I can't see being armed any more helpful that two motorists in an altercation.

A lot of this comes down to the basic premise of concealed carry. If it makes sense while driving/walking - why not cycling?

 

[Kimber Custom]

Another vote for the G17. What CW009 says about the trigger reset is right on. Prior to learning that I hated shooting Glocks; felt very awkward to me. Once I mastered the trigger reset I grew quite fond/accurate of my G17.

You might consider a shoulder rig for riding.

 

[ZachS]

You might consider a shoulder rig for riding.

That would be uncomfortable and drench the gun with sweat in anything other than a short ride.

I'd probably carry in a handlebar bag. That would leave my body unencumbered, but keep the weapon close at hand. And I wouldn't have to worry about wearing extra clothing for concealment (or dealing with the potential downsides of open carry).

 

[The Quiet Man]

Well if it makes you guys feel any better, I can't stand dealing with about 99% of the bicyclists I see on the road when I'm driving either. Oregon law (and most other states that I've cycled in) states that you're suppose to ride as close to the shoulder as safely possible, and in a single file line. All the morons who ride two abreast, run stop signs, and act like idiots should get wreckless driving tickets the same way that someone in a car would if they drove like that as far as I'm concerned.

But, a whole lot of people in cars don't give cyclists enough room even when they are riding safely. From a car, it's tough to see all the debris and crap that cyclists might have to swerve to avoid. I see people driving like maniacs all the time, and they always act like it's someone else's fault if they have to slow down and actually do the speed limit. I guess it's too difficult to just leave earlier, instead of driving like a jerk. A lot of the big city cyclists share that same mentality as well.

A lot of the people who don't like cyclists wouldn't like them regardless of whether or not they're riding single file in a bike lane, or in the middle of a narrow two lane road. Anything that might possibly delay them even a minute or two is enough to aggravate them enough to the point of passing when it's not safe and endangering cyclists or others. It's no different than the A-holes who tailgate. It seems like people are always angry most of the time anymore, and take it out on others when the only thing they would've did with the time they lost by going slower is to waste it by sitting on their fat butt in front of a TV drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon and eating Doritos.

There's a lot of animosity towards cyclists, some deserved (especially in Eugene and Portland), some not. I can say though, that Oregonians (Roseburg and Coos Bay especially) are without a doubt the rudest people towards cyclists of all the places I've rode though, and I've done a fair amount of riding. I've got a little over 22k miles on my cannondale since 2004. I've rode from Bandon to San Diego/Tijuana three times, part of Baja (my bike got stolen before I could finish the peninsula), and to Montana once on the TransAm (got tired of riding and gave up on a cross country attempt).

I've noticed there's a lot of non-bikers who always complain that people should have to pay for a license of some sort to ride a bike on the road too. Even if that was a requirement, I can guarantee that all the people who bubblegum and moan about bikers would still bubblegum and moan about bikers, regardless of whether they had to pay some sort of fee to ride the same way that someone has to operate a motor vehicle or not.

To TheQuietMan, those winding rural roads can provide some of the best cycling there is if you don't like dealing with noisy highways.

To deen_ad, I use to have a keltec PF9. It was a nice gun, and I wouldn't mind having another one to keep in the glove box, but that's not something that's going to be in my budget for a very long time most likely.

It's a shame that so many people treat people on bikes like crap. I think before someone can get their driver's license, that they should have to ride a few miles down a busy, narrow highway so they can see what's it like having to deal with a-holes in cars. Maybe then there wouldn't be so many jerks throwing crap at people and trying to run them off the road. There'd probably be a lot less fat people waddling around too. It's a win-situation.

I guess it is too bad that vehicle drivers treat bicycle riders poorly because of the 99% of riders who cause all the problems. The reason I disagree with your idea of requiring vehicle drivers to ride down a busy narrow highway on a bike before being allowed to drive a car is because I find riding a bicycle on such a highway a stupid thing to do. I might get hit by a car and I find doing that on purpose and for pleasure to be an unsafe thing for me to do. I feel the same about walking along a narrow highway out on the edge of the driving lane. I don't want to get hit by a car or truck and I certainly don't want to hit someone riding down the highway. I agree that the winding rural highways are pleasant places. However, they are designed for vehicle traffic at 55 miles per hour. Rounding a curve or coming over a hill at the legal speed limit and finding bike rider's pedaling along at 5 miles per hour in the road is just plain unsafe. My wife and I have bicycles and enjoy riding them. We just don't do it on highways where the chance of getting hit by a car is high. I have nothing against bicycle riders but I do think they should exercise some common sense by riding in safe places. They will be killed if hit by a car or truck... no matter how "in the right" they may be. No one wants that and it is so easy to avoid by practicing some common sense.

 

[matt_w]

I guess it is too bad that vehicle drivers treat bicycle riders poorly because of the 99% of riders who cause all the problems. The reason I disagree with your idea of requiring vehicle drivers to ride down a busy narrow highway on a bike before being allowed to drive a car is because I find riding a bicycle on such a highway a stupid thing to do. I might get hit by a car and I find doing that on purpose and for pleasure to be an unsafe thing for me to do. I feel the same about walking along a narrow highway out on the edge of the driving lane. I don't want to get hit by a car or truck and I certainly don't want to hit someone riding down the highway. I agree that the winding rural highways are pleasant places. However, they are designed for vehicle traffic at 55 miles per hour. Rounding a curve or coming over a hill at the legal speed limit and finding bike rider's pedaling along at 5 miles per hour in the road is just plain unsafe. My wife and I have bicycles and enjoy riding them. We just don't do it on highways where the chance of getting hit by a car is high. I have nothing against bicycle riders but I do think they should exercise some common sense by riding in safe places. They will be killed if hit by a car or truck... no matter how "in the right" they may be. No one wants that and it is so easy to avoid by practicing some common sense.

If he wants to do it, it's his business and not your concern.

To the OP:
Maybe if you open carried less people would mess with you?

 

[turq]

I understand your problem.
Times have changed in my 'ol Oregon.
No body should ever throw things out of cars.
It's kind of a comfortable and secure place for unthinking morons to tour from.

G-17

Have you thought of getting a Kawasaki KDX 250?
Light nimble good on gas wind still blowing into your helmet/face less tiring go more places packs more...? Just my take on it(oh and more safe than a bicycle on HYW 101.)

 

[coosbaycreep]

I think you have a bigger problem CBC.. If you ever do have a social engagement with a firearm you best hope the DA doesn't read your post here.

Care to fill me in on what my bigger problem is and why I should hope the DA never reads my post if I ever have to defend myself?

 

[coosbaycreep]

I don't think a shoulder rig would be comfortable. I've tried a handlebar bag with my old .357, and I've also just used carabiners to strap the holster to the handlebars/cables and that worked alright too, but that gun was considerably smaller than the glock or .44.

I've got a jandd rear rack bag thingie (don't have a clue what the "technical" name is), and if I can rig something up on the side of it where the gun is canted towards me, I should be able to reach back and unholster it fairly easy. Of course if I'm laying 20 feet from my bike in a ditch in a puddle of blood or something, that probably won't work out too good for me, but you can't plan for every scenario.

I usually carry the bigger guns on top of the rear rack bag, but it's not very easy to get them out in a hurry.

 

[The Quiet Man]

If he wants to do it, it's his business and not your concern.

Quite correct, Matt. Why should anyone care what they do.