NoThanksImOut

Thanks. Now I just need to be on the hunt to get my hands on these, or just concede to the 9c which I'm sure I'll like.

That helps me rule out the LC9 at least, which I greatly appreciate. The only minus on paper I have for the Nano is no slide stop. Do you think the 9c could be comfortable IWB, or is this a Shield or go home situation? Any chance the Shield could be entirely too small? I like the shape and texture of the M&Ps for certain. Wow, the PM9 and CM9 are very small and light. I'm guessing the overall width is 0.95 like the Shield or 1.0 like the XDs considering the slide is 0.9.

I'm more than willing to entertain swapping this in instead of the LC9 or Nano. Oh I'm not discounting it because I don't think I'll like it, I'm discounting it due to ammo cost and the fact that I already have a nice quantity of 9mm rounds stocked up. If the extra case of ammo I received for Christmas was 45, maybe I'd have a different outlook.

Let me preface this by saying that if I didn't have to deal with the permits, I'd just buy multiple and sell/return the ones I didn't want. However, all of us here are stuck with that reality. My shortlist on paper is/was: Ruger LC9, Beretta Nano, M&P Shield 9, M&P9c, Glock 26 and Springfield XDS. I believe I've scratched the last two as I do not like the feel of any Glock I've ever held/shot, and I don't want a small 45. The Nano is last of the remaining four on paper, because of the lack of a slide release. On some of these, it's not even purchasing, but more like getting on a wait list. With that in mind, I have 4 months left on my permits if I include the extension. I want to hold these because I'm concerned that the LC9, Nano, and Shield may be too small for my hands. I don't have large palms, but I have long (piano) fingers. I find a 92FS and a 1911 comfortable. I like the feel of the full size M&P also, and the compact is the same width. I'm also concerned I may end up liking how one feels significantly more than the others. Does anyone know of a shop that stands any chance of having 3/4 of these, even if I have to get on a wait list to purchase the one I want? Thanks for the help guys.

I don't think there's a whole lot they can do different until after the electronic medical records deadline in 2015. Even then the stragglers are still going to cause problems. They need to be more forceful about this requirement for reasons like this.

This honestly doesn't sound bad at all. There are background checks at gun shows. As for the other two points, they would just require a FFL transfer. I have no problem with that. Sorry, but I'm in the boat of people who agree with mental health checks, even before the Colorado incident. I would be very surprised if another AWB made it through. I'd be surprised if Obama even signed one. I don't think it makes sense for him to attempt something like that, even if it was in his eighth year.

Understood, and thanks for the clarification. I know that I would benefit greatly from some degree of training. As I am certain I will need a light on my shotgun for something like this, I'll make another thread to avoid jacking this one once I have an idea of what to get. Thanks again.

That post was very helpful to a newbie, and it's appreciated. Thank you. I understand what you mean by moving from acquire to identify and that I could use some home defense specific training. What you're getting at is that while I can identify that someone is there in low light and I could identify someone I am already familiar with, I couldn't tell the difference between a police officer and an armed robber.

For handguns, I only feel comfortable with condition 1 or 0 if it is in a holster that covers the trigger. As was referenced earlier in the thread, it has to do with your training. I was surprised no one else mentioned this, as I'm guessing most have received training that involves condition 1 or 0 just sitting on a table next to their bed. Having practiced, I find it easy to get my firearm from the holster very quickly, but I still prefer the shotgun without one in the chamber. I am a relative gun newbie compared to many, and I'm sorry, but this statement made me do your "Wait, what?" If I open my bedroom door with a flashlight turned on, someone down the stairs and around the complete other side of the house breaking into a window now knows that I came out of my bedroom just by sight alone. I can see sufficiently with my two night lights, and ghost rings. Even without them, the streetlight outside the front of my house is very useful. I find I only need a very small amount of light to see effectively in the dark, especially if I've just woken up. Now I'm not saying a gun attached light does not have it's place - everyone's house is different and you have to prepare yourself for your own environment. The thing that makes me wonder the most is the super bright flashlights I see attached to weapons sometimes. Wouldn't anything over 5-10 lumens ruin your peripheral vision if your eyes have adjusted to the dark? I find 1-4 lumens to be more than sufficient.

nm

I think I'll try to at least hold a shotgun with one installed before I take the dive then. $100 is a lot of 7.5shot. Thanks.

Is there any functional reason you prefer a standard stock over the thumb hole stock or just personal preference? I figured the shape of the butt of the stock would still be similar to a standard, just with the added grip.

Hey guys, I did a search and looked through the 'Post Your Tactical Shotgun' thread, but I didn't see anyone with pictures of this stock. I think the shape looks good, the padding/recoil reduction looks nice and the compartment is interesting. Everyone seems to go traditional or with the AR-style stock. Any particular reason for the lack of thumbhole stocks like this one? Thanks!

Hi everyone! I found your forum roughly two months ago, shortly after I applied for my permit. Since then I've been lurking and learning what I can here, and there's a wealth of information to be had. I got my permit a couple of weeks ago, and I am unfortunately addicted.