"CARRY-ability" in CCW Handguns

There's probably no such word, but I've been thinking about the concept of "carry-ability" in guns designed for daily carry by civilians (i.e., neither military nor law enforcement). Usually, when you read the gun rags — including my articles, so I am not without sin! — the focus on concealed carry guns falls into one of two camps:

1) ANYBODY, including size-challenged adult women and particularly smart dogs, can carry a full-size semi-auto pistol (which is gunwriter-speak for a 1911 .45) all day long with ease and no discomfort if you just buy a holster from...Captain Whizbang...whatever... OR,
2) Are you nuts? Can you get the gun smaller? Lighter? The ideal carry gun is the size of a throat lozenge and weighs less than Paris Hilton's pink panties.

I've always fallen somewhere in the middle of those two camps, except, of course, in the debate on Paris Hilton's pink panties, where I'm squarely on the side of "absent." Try though I might, I have never been able to cart a full-sized 1911 around all day without feeling like evil demons were trying to pull down my pants and my entire body was canting to the right. Duct-tape a brickbat to your right side at waist level, walk around with it all day, then send me an e-mail about how much you liked it. No, wait...don't do that. Somewhere out there in Internet-Land there's a bunch of boys and girls who live for walking with brickbats (sounds like a new Marc Cohen song, does't it?), and I personally don't want to hear from them. Or even know they exist.

Still, I'm not a fan of the itsy-bitsy teeny-weenie all-plastic gun-ikini (okay, so that's a reach...). My good friend Captain Dave Arnold, a longtime police officer and firearms trainer, once told me that you should never fire, much less own, a gun small enough to swallow. I mean, it's a nasty question of physics, which apparently everyone but me flunked in high school — nerd that I was, I had honor credits in physics and math. You make the little puppies light and small, then make them fire a "significant" caliber — 9mm up — and they are going to be BEARS to shoot!

As much as I admire the technology used to create an 11-ounce .357 revolver, I've grown accustomed to my wrists, the way they bend both back and forth — Okay! I've got to stop writing in song lyric cadence before I lose my mind entirely! Seriously, I've fired all the little monsters, the ultra-lite .357 revolvers, the tiny .40 S&W semi-autos, the even tinier .32s and .22s, and n truth, none of them are exactly laugh riots to shoot.

Girlly man! Girlly man! Real mens can shoot .454 Cassulls gripped only with their teeth! This must be true, because we've read it in the American Hand-Blasters and Other Manly Diversions Magazine and seen it on them other television shows!

Here's the point of this post — the as-yet-non-defined concept of carry-ability is what makes a great CCW handgun. For the point of this discussion. let's definite carry-ability as the combined aspects of a handgun that makes it easy and painless to carry. Further, just because we can, let's assign a 10-scale to carry-ability. The easier a gun is to carry, the higher the carry-ability rating and, consequently, the larger the number. For example, a 1911 .45 (Colt, Springfield, Kimber, Wilson, Baer, Pastrami-on-Rye Special of the Day, whatever) rates — in my opinion, humble though it might be — a "5." Yes, you can cart it around all day, especially if you write for some magazine and do commercials on the side as a successful posterboy for those male enhancement products. Interestingly enough, I'd say a Brownng Hi-Power, which is almost the same size and weight as the 1911, rates a solid "7" on the carry-ability scale.

Why should that be? I think it's a function of ergonomics — both of the design of the grip and the overall gun — the lack of sharp edges and points that dig into the skin, the weight distribution of the pistol and the shape (okay...a component of ergonomics) of the pistol. EX: I would rate and H-K P-7 squeeze cocker at a "5" because the butt-heavy weight distribution of the little pistol and it's slighly awkward shape because of the squeeze-cocker requires me to carry it in a higher ride holster than I would normally prefer.

This gets me to my SIG 225, which I just started carrying. I would rate it a "9.5" on the carry-ability scale. In an apples-to-apples comparison to my previous excellent carry gun, an STI LS-9 (essentially a small all-steel 1911 in 9mm), both carried in Alessi IWBs of identical design, I noticed the SIG much less. That's interesting, because the two guns weigh exactly the same loaded, they're close to the same size (with the SIG coming in as a bit larger in length and width), and the STI has been "de-horned," so it doesn't have any sharp edges.

Now why should the SIG carry easier? A more ergonomically designed pistol? The grip tucks in closer? The weight distribution of the pistol more perfectly matches the weight distribution the holster was designed for?

Points to think about! Right now, I've got to go buy some of that male enhancement stuff so I can start writing for the gun magazines again!