Carry Concealed

Home / Blog / Women Shooters / Dyann Callahan

CCW Ladies step up in the firearm market Categories:

Dyann Callahan

Ladies step up in the firearm market

Women are coming in at a sizable slice of the shooting culture. Guns don’t discriminate, and shooting is a great equalizer in the playing field. I had always searched for smaller frames on guns to accommodate a lack of choice for women over the years.

I have favored Smith and Wesson .38 Specials. I would choose the smaller J-Frame over the larger K-Frame or L-Frames, leaving the same grips, one of 3 types of hammer designs, and not limiting load size. The Smith & Wesson J-Frame will shoot .22 LR, .38 S&W Special, .22 or the punishing .357 Magnum loads. This seemed to work well for me.

Finally gun companies are starting to acknowledge the female shooter and her different needs in size and form of a quality firearm. A smaller stature in build, strength and hand size is being noted in new designs without resorting to lower powered pistols or souped up youth models.

Her needs are the same as a male firearm owner: recreational, sport, hunting or for home and self defense. While many companies now have brightly colored firearms, or those with highly fashionable finishes adequate fire power is still number one above flair.

A huntress still needs the ability to effectively kill her prey and in a self defense position, power is still needed over comfort or fashion.
Manufacturers have stepped up to this design need in the current market and are starting to respond with some nicely full powered firearms by smaller grip sizes and thickly padded stocks for absorption of recoil.

While some address a real need for female-friendly models in the firearm market, some are angling to the younger generation by appealing to family friendly outings by including daughters as well as sons in what used to be a father-son only activity.

The Remington 870 Express Jr. Pink Laminate 20-Gauge Pump Shotgun actually has a laser engraved "Shoot like a girl… if you can!" in its cute pink laminate stock.

The 2006 survey taken by U.S. Fish & Wildlife reported 46% of birders were women and a 9% overall number of hunters were women with the 2011 results showing the same numbers.
So ladies are keeping their foothold in the firearm market.

"Aim at a high mark and you will hit it. No, not the first time, not the second time and maybe not the third. But keep on aiming and keep on shooting for only practice will make you perfect. Finally, you'll hit the bulls-eye of success." Annie Oakley (1860-1926)

Posted on Mon, April 9, 2012 by Dyann Callahan filed under

23 comments (Add your own)

1. Jefferson wrote:: Of course not! But you see, we free tinhknig people have to put up with people who tried to destroy our country by advocating, supporting, endorsing, campaigning for, preaching the merits of and obeying the false words of their own little liberal messiah Obama, and people like him. It's these people who are the true enemies of freedom, I find it amazing that there's people walking around out there, who claim to support our Bill of Rights, Constitution, and Declaration of Independence, but they campaigned, supported, defended and argued for Obama, and people like him! The very people who would strip this nation of individual freedoms, and so called patriots actually defend them! Can you believe the stupidity of these people DCA?? Let me ask you, as you seem to be a fairly intelligent individual DCA, if you knew someone who openly supported, campaigned for and endorsed Obama, and people like him, people who would sell this country down the road for personal gain and power, would you trust anything these supporters of usurpers had to say? DCA, I can see that you are a smart man, a man who thinks about things, and probably thinks about things a bit deeper than the average Joe does, so you can hopefully understand my point here, when you are confronted by an individual who blindly follows what the media tells him to follow, instead of reading for himself the history of a candidate, would you consider that person to be a patriot? Or a sheep? THIS is what we, as free tinhknig people are up against! This is why we have the people in office we have now, people who do not care about the wishes of their constituents, people who bow to special interest groups, bow to foreigners trying to gain control over America, people who will do what they can in the short time they have in office to destroy as much of America as they can for some dark reason. Politicians are only part of the problem DCA, it's the people who blindly follow, without tinhknig, researching, and studying these people for themselves who are the real problem with America. Do you happen to know anyone like that DCA, someone who campaigned for a candidate who was obviously the wrong choice for freedom, because they were too wrapped up in the media storm of misinformation?
Mon, April 23, 2012 @ 8:21 PM
2. Raul wrote:: porta's cat,you're the first of 1200 that understands. Just when i srettad to lose all hope:PJust to clarify a few things...I did not watch the entire video, as it was getting boring after a bit. SO I "jumped" ahead to see what the middle and finish looked like. I saw one "scene" where an individual produced a wallet and then a gun, pointed at camera. That was about all I "saw" that was not what amounted to playing around at the range, with some loose (at best) gun handling. Having not watched the entire "movie", I cannot comment one way or the other about any blatant safety concerns on a "known" loaded firearm (as opposed to a hopefully unloaded one being pointed at an unmanned camera, noted above).All of that to put into context my question, in are people more concerned about the content, than the method.Personally, it makes little sense for "us" to condemn "you" for making a little movie full of silly "gun action", if "we" are not going to condemn every movie of the same (and there are plenty). Your "youtube movie" will have very little impact or viewership compared to the dozens of movies you "copy" so well. I can think of quite a few well known gun personages who use similar "first person" camera angles and "down range" camera shots, and Todd Jarret being one that most "here" will be familiar. And a few well known gun bloggers do so occasionally, myself included. So your use of the same, assuming safety precautions are followed, may not be within the sensibilities of some more sensitive gun owners, but it is not out of the realm of what is out there by many well known by "us". I can only assume, via comments by those who watched the entire video, that you broke some rules of safety. Obviously and blatant. For that, you deserve a bit of a reality check.I support your artistic right to make silly, trite, bombastic, or inane "gun movies", no matter how much they might frighten the public, as long as you follow the safety rules in doing the same.
Mon, April 23, 2012 @ 11:17 PM
3. cherrylovlie wrote:: My feelings are all Military taeinrd people would be an asset to the country in the prevention of crime,if allowed to carry a weapon,many other people too. Some testing or Qualifying would be necessary to insure proficiency. It is a tragedy of our times that unbalanced people from time to time start shooting in a public place and armed citizens would prevent much of the bloodshed by stopping the shooter.We have gun free zones and that only applies to lawful citizens. I take it as a personal affront by our Government that they called me to defend the Homeland from foreign threats but don't trust me to protect my fellow citizens at home. I as many others took an oath to protect and defend and I have never revoked it,it's still in force and I am proud to have taken it. In Jersey where I now live this is especially so with all the restrictions.
Mon, April 23, 2012 @ 11:49 PM
4. Anil wrote:: that we all have a right to keep and bear arms. So far as tininrag, yes. Mandatory tininrag, no. This goes to the concept of personal responsibility that is tied to each of our rights as citizens. Anyone who would carry a hand cannon and not know the muzzle from the butt is a damned fool, in my never humble opinion, but you don't need the Government to tell you that. Anyone who would let a 4 year old have access to a gun is a damn fool, but you don't need the Government to tell you that. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! It goes a long way in defending against well meaning but horribly misinformed and misguided legislators infringing on our rights.
Tue, April 24, 2012 @ 10:53 AM
5. Suheda wrote:: people who have proven thleemevss untrustworthy should not be allowed this freedom, such as those who were convicted of violent crimes, are not of reasonably sound mind, or are on mind-altering substances. Just remember often people who have proven thleemevss untrustworthy and irresponsible have lost other rights and freedoms that are guaranteed to the public. This is for our safety and due to their own actions. Here in the United States, the legal precedent has always been innocent until proven guilty, infringing on the rights of law abiding people like you have mentioned in your question clearly violates this principle.
Tue, April 24, 2012 @ 11:36 AM
6. Kathiravan wrote:: Sorry to get in on this one so late...Minus some of the obvious setafy concerns, are folks upset about the actual "content" of the vid?It seems a bit obsessive in some ways, but in others it looks like the guys were trying to be theatrical more than anything else. Certainly nothing they were doing was more or less idiotic than the movies they were mimicking. I, as well, have taken "first person" videos, and have set up a camera down range to videotape the effect and view from that perspective. More of a general interest thing than anything else. It may be strange to some, but it hardly rates as "inherently unsafe" anymore than running around an IDPA scenario with a loaded pistol in hand.
Tue, April 24, 2012 @ 7:32 PM
7. bmzyqjdj wrote:: 2ebKqn tmpdxrruonyu
Tue, April 24, 2012 @ 9:03 PM
8. bkdmgehmzk wrote:: nisD3h zkcgpfofanzs
Wed, April 25, 2012 @ 11:31 PM
9. wrdgcj wrote:: vJ71s7 oaswkrgzrlqy
Thu, April 26, 2012 @ 12:53 AM
10. Gladys wrote:: Kristopher,"That magazine cut-off was added to make them happy. No one could psolibsy need to shoot faster than a trapdoor .45-70, after all. That's just wasting ammo."When we adopted the '03, we'd been using the magazine-fed Krag for years. Of course, it was also equipped with a cutoff. So were the M1886 Lebel and the Mk.III Lee-Enfield. Mag cutoffs, with the magazine held in reserve for 'final protective fire', were popular among countries who had experience of relatively small detachments of troops fighting mobs of howling savages at the ends of long and tenuous supply lines. Incidentally, the British Webley Self-Loading Mk I autopistol can be operated as a single-shot with the magazine held in reserve...)
Thu, April 26, 2012 @ 4:32 PM
11. Marie wrote:: Jake (formerly Riposte3),It seems that we are thinking along sialimr lines. Given how hidebound most military establishments are and the fact that EVERYBODY was using bolt guns during the period, I can just see Mexican military officers dismissing the rifle out of hand in favor of a Mauser of some sort. (I can readily imagine US Army officers circa 1905 turning their noses up at an M-14).As for the design in question, I agree on the potential weaknesses. Further, it just looks fragile: it looks to me like this thing would break in half after being used to deliver a stout buttstroke to the head.
Thu, April 26, 2012 @ 6:34 PM
12. artmatilx wrote:: 4ae4YU , [url=http://egzfazxcfswg.com/]egzfazxcfswg[/url], [link=http://bbvrlisskied.com/]bbvrlisskied[/link], http://bgjnzqyvtqwo.com/
Thu, April 26, 2012 @ 10:11 PM
13. xtgldoh wrote:: YYy9b2 , [url=http://ezptbaaugzku.com/]ezptbaaugzku[/url], [link=http://fqybdrjoyvqx.com/]fqybdrjoyvqx[/link], http://maixbdmsrrbw.com/
Thu, April 26, 2012 @ 11:14 PM
14. Don Graham wrote:: I'm glad to see women stepping up in the firearm market. There are a lot of people that are critical and scared of guns. That is because they do not know how to handle or shoot one. Not knowing how to use a gun is like not knowing how to swim because you are scared of the water. But both can save your's or someone else's life if you learn how.
Fri, May 18, 2012 @ 8:31 AM
15. Omer wrote:: @ docjim505:Honestly, given the time peiord when it was designed (between 1911 and 1918), I would give #2 more of an edge than #1. Bolt actions were fairly well established at that point.I can see a couple of potential flaws, though. The way the front and rear of the rifle are connected only by the bolt and chamber creates a structural weak point compared to a more conventional bolt action, which would be a significant negative in a combat weapon. Another is that the hole for the magazine indicator would allow dirt and debris into that mechanism, so it would have to be designed in such a way that if the indicator plunger jammed it wouldn't jam up the feed mechanism as well.I'm sure there are others, but those two are the first ones that popped into my head. Neither is unfixable, though the first one would probably require a significant re-design.
Mon, July 9, 2012 @ 6:00 PM
16. Yoursweet wrote:: Kristopher,"That magazine cut-off was added to make them happy. No one could posslbiy need to shoot faster than a trapdoor .45-70, after all. That's just wasting ammo."When we adopted the '03, we'd been using the magazine-fed Krag for years. Of course, it was also equipped with a cutoff. So were the M1886 Lebel and the Mk.III Lee-Enfield. Mag cutoffs, with the magazine held in reserve for 'final protective fire', were popular among countries who had experience of relatively small detachments of troops fighting mobs of howling savages at the ends of long and tenuous supply lines. Incidentally, the British Webley Self-Loading Mk I autopistol can be operated as a single-shot with the magazine held in reserve...)
Tue, July 10, 2012 @ 12:21 AM
17. Cora wrote:: My problem is that many pploee who are not liberals buy into the Obama worship.I don't get this. When I listen to Obama speak, I feel...nothing. I'm not inspired, motivated, annoyed, offended,...anything. Ok, perhaps a little bored. For all his talk of hope, I don't come away feeling all that hopeful. It's as if he thinks that by simply mentioning hope often enough, that it automatically makes the speech inspiring. However, other speakers (e.g., Reagan, MLK, etc.), could make pploee feel hopeful without even mentioning the word "hope" at all.To me, he just sounds like another politician. Nothing to get excited about.
Tue, July 10, 2012 @ 12:22 AM
18. Lita wrote:: I wonder why it faelid. I suggest that it's either:1. It didn't work very well;2. "Hey! That doesn't look a damned thing like the guns everybody else is using, so it CAN'T be good!"I'm giving a slight edge to #1, but I'm certainly not ruling out #2.
Tue, July 10, 2012 @ 9:39 AM
19. Hans wrote:: We get what we focus on in life. We should not be loinokg to guns. Our bodies & sex are natural. You don't know the difference between what is real & what is material. A gun repressents an ARM we have arms. We don't need a gun to protect us. We need a mind with faith to know we are safe. The more we focus on guns keeping us safe the more we create situation where we need a gun to be safe .this is why the more schools talk about drugs the more the country because addicted to drugs. It is an advertisement. How many people you know who do not take some medication for something? I live in a conservative area & while the businesses that closed up around her were a lot in the past several years we have had lots of medical places go up.Remember the NRA put out that Obama was taking guns. This was done when Clinton was in office. The NRA is not your friend they are your pusher. They help the gun stores & manufacters to keep people like you from waking up & seeing you have God given arms that will protect you. You have arms to love & hold you don't need guns.The lies they told helped the gun stores sell out but nothing has ever happened to take your guns away. The people who die from guns the most are GUN OWNERS. The amount of people is kept from the public. I remember the first year I worked in an emergency dept at the local hospital. In MD 8 people had died the first day of hunting season. I thought that was shocking & it was before lunch time. Now one did just get home from hunting & lifted a dear to move it & fell over so that was not a gun shot wound. He was in his early 40 s. I remember that day in our country hospital seeing the families come in to go to the room of these dead people. We had 3 in our hospital. I thought this was going to be a huge story there was no story. It was hushed up.We get what we focus on in life. I focus on the safety I have & there is lots of proof of that. I focus on freedom & all the good I have.If you seriously think about guns you will attrack something into your life about this but it is not natural it is materialism. It is amazing that many people who focus on guns claim they also believe in God. That just can't be possible. How can a person have faith in God & a gun.References :
Tue, July 10, 2012 @ 2:04 PM
20. aoiivdxz wrote:: lfDbOW , [url=http://gngvnxshsftx.com/]gngvnxshsftx[/url], [link=http://gmskzddldtom.com/]gmskzddldtom[/link], http://aprafhytrhif.com/
Thu, July 12, 2012 @ 7:42 AM
21. Bruna wrote:: "Being atheist in no way redners you left or liberal, much less far."Uuh. That's not what Helen said. She said: "..far left liberals are typically agnostic or atheists and their progressive causes serve as a kind of religion for them." She said that lefties disproportionately tend to be atheists--which is certainly true--not that being atheistic magically redners you a leftie. All dogs are animals. Not all aninmals are dogs.
Thu, July 12, 2012 @ 4:56 PM
22. Varun wrote:: When the anti - Christ comes, (as in Network) he will not be dressed in a red suit with horns and a spear tail. No one is that situpd.He will be beautiful, well dressed, speak what others want to hear, be eloquent, yet empty. And people will buy it lock, stock, and barrel.People want to believe in something, in someone. Whether they admit it, or not. Or realize it, or not.I just don't see anybody at this time, who is running for office. Anywhwere.
Thu, July 12, 2012 @ 6:42 PM
23. zbheevhun wrote:: c5hYpv yanpecfmmitl
Fri, July 13, 2012 @ 6:31 AM

Add a New Comment

Your Name:

Your Email/URL (Optional):

Your Comment:

Enter the code you see below:
code

Comment Guidelines: No HTML is allowed. Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Thanks.