Is carrying a compensated gun a bad idea?

i just got me a compensated gun the other day i wanna carry it because its really accurate not much recoil what you think?

Some will say no, some will say whatever, some will say bad idea.

Gases and flashes coming out the top of the gun is a hindrance/negative. I guess it's louder too.

Carry what you are confident and can shoot with, but understand its drawbacks and make sure you are comfortable with them too.

Curtis said:

Some will say no, some will say whatever, some will say bad idea.

Gases and flashes coming out the top of the gun is a hindrance/negative. I guess it's louder too.

Carry what you are confident and can shoot with, but understand its drawbacks and make sure you are comfortable with them too.

Click to expand...

+1

Yes, it's a bad idea. The reason is that firing from retention will result in hot gas and particles shooting up toward your eyes. Shooting from retention is an essential self-defense skill.

Curtis has a remarkably good grasp on reality Terrance.

Carry what you want but carry it for the right reasons. Don't try to plow a field with an ATV. Get a tractor.:uhoh:

I don't care for Auto's particularly and I don't care for compensated auto's.

They look cool though. Cool will get you killed.

Compensators on handguns were developed for gun games where seconds count but the target doesn't shoot back. Since the likelyhood of needing to shoot at night is pretty good, take it to the range one night and set up two targets. Shoot a mag at the first target then without stopping, finish up on the second with a fresh magazine. Then decide for yourself.

Compensated Handguns

as an every day carry are a bad idea. as previously stated when shooting from retention (gun held close to the body so it cannot be gripped and taken from you easily) the hot gasses will (note that I did not say might) get into your eyes and could set your clothing alight. Additionally if you must fire at night, after the first shot you may find yourself night blind until your pupils relax.

Just some thoughts.

Robert

p.publius said:

as an every day carry are a bad idea. as previously stated when shooting from retention (gun held close to the body so it cannot be gripped and taken from you easily) the hot gasses will (note that I did not say might) get into your eyes and could set your clothing alight. Additionally if you must fire at night, after the first shot you may find yourself night blind until your pupils relax.

Just some thoughts.

Robert

Click to expand...

Compensated guns should IMO be reserved for the range, competition where rules allow, certain hunting situations and always with hearing protection.

For a carry gun, compensation for me is a Commander size 1911 vs full size. :lol:

First, let me welcome you to OCDO and the Virginia section. The water may be rough but all the folks in the pool are trying to play nice with each other.

I'm curious why you got a compensated gun as your first gun? Who/what sold you on a compensator as the way to control recoil? And just how much less recoil are we talking about?

Any gun you buy ought to be really accurate - as in the operator needs to work to meet or improve over what the gun can give from a Ransom Rest. The truth is even my crappy guns can shoot better than me.

stay safe.

I had a G22c (which I traded in for a G29) and two things I was warned about never happened.

1. My night vision was not affected by having a compensated barrel. Most modern SD ammo uses low flash powder. I see more flash from a 357 magnum.

2. Gas and debris coming out the top ports were never an issue. But having said that I only fired arm fully extended, so it's limited to that.

This is only my experience. YMMV

swinokur said:

I had a G22c (which I traded in for a G29) and two things I was warned about never happened.

1. My night vision was not affected by having a compensated barrel. Most modern SD ammo uses low flash powder. I see more flash from a 357 magnum.

2. Gas and debris coming out the top ports were never an issue. But having said that I only fired arm fully extended, so it's limited to that.

This is only my experience. YMMV

Click to expand...

Night vision takes approximately 2 sec. to lose and about 45 min. to reacquire. Even shooting a non-compensated gum will effect it - a compensated gun will have a more pronounced effect in a comparison of the same style gun and same ammo.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31401004/...the-Dark-How-Do-We-Train-for-Night-Operations

Grapeshot said:

Night vision takes approximately 2 sec. to lose and about 45 min. to reacquire. Even shooting a non-compensated gum will effect it - a compensated gun will have a more pronounced effect in a comparison of the same style gun and same ammo.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31401004/...the-Dark-How-Do-We-Train-for-Night-Operations

Click to expand...

Which makes arguments about compensated guns being a bad idea because they're more likely to disrupt your night vision generally moot. How often are you going to be in near complete darkness for 45 minutes before you need to use your handgun in self defense?

Roscoe, who's only compensated gun is a .450 Marlin...

Grapeshot said:

Night vision takes approximately 2 sec. to lose and about 45 min. to reacquire. Even shooting a non-compensated gum will effect it - a compensated gun will have a more pronounced effect in a comparison of the same style gun and same ammo.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31401004/...the-Dark-How-Do-We-Train-for-Night-Operations

Click to expand...

roscoe13 said:

Which makes arguments about compensated guns being a bad idea because they're more likely to disrupt your night vision generally moot. How often are you going to be in near complete darkness for 45 minutes before you need to use your handgun in self defense?

Roscoe, who's only compensated gun is a .450 Marlin...

Click to expand...

You misapplied the information.

Before is not the problem -immediately after is. Yes the rods and cones (receptors) are slow to acclimate, but a bright light will quickly effect your night vision and it does NOT have to be in "near complete darkness" to have a profound effect.

A good old fashion .357 mag Silver Tip will do it quite well - think flame thrower.

If the question is moot, it is because the OP only has one gun and one is better than none.

roscoe13 said:

Which makes arguments about compensated guns being a bad idea because they're more likely to disrupt your night vision generally moot. How often are you going to be in near complete darkness for 45 minutes before you need to use your handgun in self defense?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I mean, I never go anywhere where its dark. And if I do, I run scared indoors within a minute.

In addition to flash, I would rather not give a bad guy the postmortem satisfaction of knowing at least he damaged my hearing forever.

I'll take an uncompensated .45 for self-defense, thankyouverymuch.

Grapeshot said:

Compensated guns should IMO be reserved for the range, competition where rules allow, certain hunting situations and always with hearing protection.

For a carry gun, compensation for me is a Commander size 1911 vs full size. :lol:

Click to expand...

Agree 100%. I 'compensate' when carrying my 1911s vice Hi-Power by carrying an extra mag.

Grapeshot said:

Compensated guns should IMO be reserved for the range, competition where rules allow, certain hunting situations and always with hearing protection.

For a carry gun, compensation for me is a Commander size 1911 vs full size. :lol:

Click to expand...

Grape is a very wise and experienced fellow. I happen to share his opinion most of the time.

I am profoundly sorry someone sold you a compensated pistol as a carry gun, for all the reasons already listed above. You should NEVER COMPENSATE for poor marksmanship ability. Learn how to shoot better. Your money would be wisely invested in proper marksmanship instruction and a lot of practice ammo and time well-spent at the range. Simply sending rounds downrange without being able to analyze what you're doing wrong is a big waste of ammo and time.

For example, if you find that you are consistently hitting "low", a neophyte will assume his pistol sights are wrong rather than having a very consistent (but still incorrect) wrong trigger squeeze. If you learned how to shoot from Uncle Billy-Joe-Jim-Bob (who meant well but never really learned proper marksmanship without something to rest his worn-out rifle upon when shooting), you may assume "the barrel is shot out" rather than learn that you're not focusing on your front sight when you squeeze the trigger. You also wouldn't know when the sights are truly "off" when you have an improper grip or trigger squeeze or if the rear sight is actually off to one side from years of being in a left-side holster and the seat-belt assembly of your car has actually 'pushed' the rear sight sideways.

My advice may be expensive, but well-worth it: Get rid of the compensated pistol (unless you're getting into ISPC shooting) and get some advice about a 'carry gun" and get some PROPER range instruction. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss some options. I don't mind helping you out at the range if you're receptive.

My take on race gun bells and whistles:

If you are in a situation where the ported barrel would make a difference, you as a human in that situation would not reap the benefit the reduced recoil would offer. You're simply under too much stress and adrenalin to get the intended results. Rely on your bodies chemistry and training to kick in, [some] police that have been in shootings can't even recall the number of rounds they fired, or the fact that they even reloaded.

That leaves the night blindness, hearing loss and potentially pre-contaminated ports as a downside.

OTOH, if you want to carry it as a conversation piece cause the little slits "look cool", that's on you.

MSC 45ACP said:

Grape is a very wise and experienced fellow. I happen to share his opinion most of the time.

I am profoundly sorry someone sold you a compensated pistol as a carry gun, for all the reasons already listed above. You should NEVER COMPENSATE for poor marksmanship ability. Learn how to shoot better. Your money would be wisely invested in proper marksmanship instruction and a lot of practice ammo and time well-spent at the range. Simply sending rounds downrange without being able to analyze what you're doing wrong is a big waste of ammo and time.

For example, if you find that you are consistently hitting "low", a neophyte will assume his pistol sights are wrong rather than having a very consistent (but still incorrect) wrong trigger squeeze. If you learned how to shoot from Uncle Billy-Joe-Jim-Bob (who meant well but never really learned proper marksmanship without something to rest his worn-out rifle upon when shooting), you may assume "the barrel is shot out" rather than learn that you're not focusing on your front sight when you squeeze the trigger. You also wouldn't know when the sights are truly "off" when you have an improper grip or trigger squeeze or if the rear sight is actually off to one side from years of being in a left-side holster and the seat-belt assembly of your car has actually 'pushed' the rear sight sideways.

My advice may be expensive, but well-worth it: Get rid of the compensated pistol (unless you're getting into ISPC shooting) and get some advice about a 'carry gun" and get some PROPER range instruction. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss some options. I don't mind helping you out at the range if you're receptive.

Click to expand...

I would have to partially disagree with you here. There are logical arguments in favor of a compensated gun for carry, just like there are logical arguments against it. Ultimately, it needs to fall to the individual to decide whether or not it is worth carrying.

For example, I have a friend who pocket carries a Diamondback DB380C (subcompact 380 ACP with a compensated barrel, although he also has an uncompensated barrel for it) as his BUG/casual carry firearm. (His standard carry gun is a 3.5" 1911.) Even though it's a weaker round, because the gun is so small, the compensated barrel significantly aids in controlling the recoil. He's an experienced shooter (over 2 decades), and after testing the gun thoroughly, decided to use it with the compensated barrel.

This sort of decision is no different than anything else with choosing a carry gun. You need to evaluate the available options and choose the one that you are most comfortable with. Every carry gun has potential issues and risks associated with it. Rather than criticize someone for what they choose to carry, it is better to make sure that they understand both the potential benefits as well as accept the potential risks.

Currently, my wife is limited to carrying a 22 because that is all that we have that her current wardrobe will support (she's still wearing maternity clothes). She understands the risks associated with the smaller caliber, but views it as the best option for her current situation. (She's a better shot with a 45 than I am.)

If Terrence Holman understands the risks (such as potential damage to night vision) associated with carrying a compensated gun, and accepts those risks, then it is a perfectly acceptable option for him. It's really not our place to tell him he shouldn't do that.

grylnsmn said:

It's really not our place to tell him he shouldn't do that.

Click to expand...

Except that he asked. :monkey

epilogue said:

Except that he asked. :monkey

Click to expand...

He asked what do we think. That is a golden opportunity to educate him on both the benefits and risks. We should still leave drawing conclusions up to him.