This is not commonly a topic I've read, and pardon me, if I've overlooked the section in your book. It seems logical to me that if someone is going to conceal carry a firearm that training should be done to the point of Things Being Second Nature: Drawing, Shooting, Maneuvering. Even as a competitive shooter, I see most practices do NOT translate to reality and can be quite deadly. My theory is that someone who intends to carry concealed should use one gun or a similar gun for that purpose. For me, that's a gun without an external safety. So it's a Glock or a revolver. Mechanics are similar, though reloading is different. One must be as proficient shooting, drawing, reloading the pistol, I believe. Otherwise, the result can be lethal. I don't think it's wise using a different platform in the mix for myself, like a 1911, with an external safety that is actuated by moving the safety down, or another pistol like a Beretta Storm whose safety has to be pushed up. From my reading, with law enforcement, it's hard enough for people to remember if the round is in the chamber OR if the safety is on. QUESTION: Why would anyone (who is not in law enforcement, special warfare or SWAT, like a regular citizen) want to try to carry and use different platforms for self defense or concealed carry? My follow-on questions: Of the different weapons someone may own, assuming that someone is equally competent and skillful, is there a REASONABLE maximum number of pistols someone should have in their training rotation for actual carry or use? Do you think someone would be equally effective with all of their handguns? Is the choice of barrel length going to make any effective difference in ballistics when choosing from a snubby to a 5" barrel at self defense ranges (point black to 10 yards) anyways? Assuming a Glock for a Primary, wouldn't a backup snubby or second Glock be faster than a tactical reload? Are Glocks as reliable as a revolver for "contact shooting" (pressed against the chest, for example)?