Gun Accessories: How Much Is Too Much?

Slapping a bunch of extra stuff on your gun can be fun, and sometimes even useful, but how much is too much?

An interesting thing happened over the past few years concerning just how much stuff we could add to our guns. Today, however, we are in the midst of some serious advances in technology concerning just what type of accessories we can attach to our firearms, and this race is leading us to some interesting places.

Five years ago, it was common to send out your slide to be milled for an RMR. Now, an increasing majority of pistols are coming standard with optic plates. This jump into the future came suddenly and, for the most part, it’s good—but there are some concerns to address during this honeymoon.

Ethical Paradigms

There is a school of thought that says you should use whatever technology is available, because chances are your enemies will use it against you if they are given the chance. Baseline, this mode of thinking negates all but the most advanced weapons and optical systems, akin to choosing to use a rotary phone when we have satellite communications.

While not quite as large of a jump, few people today realize just how advanced our firearms and optics are … and just how small and rugged they can be. I don’t take most firearms instructors all that seriously, but that’s my personal hangup. I’m not a fan of drinking Kool-Aid in most cases, and I’m a problem student when it comes to asking questions outside the area of supposed expertise. I question the instructor who recoils at the sight of a five-shot J-Frame.

Choosing a deliberate handicap isn’t something that many people consciously do. However, there are some notable exceptions, in that there are certain technological aspects we consider to be truly antiquated.

Namely, if we are talking about carrying a revolver, most people will consider this to be a double-action proposition. Single-action revolvers are still very popular and especially useful when we’re talking about hunting with powerful cartridges. Are they technically more accurate than double actions? Well, considering most double actions are also capable of single-action fire, that point isn’t necessarily valid and it’s more of a personal choice.

That said, I don’t know anyone who carries a single-action revolver for self-defense, and I can’t say that I know anyone who keeps an old six-gun in the nightstand. I am sure that there are plenty of people who do, and this begs the same question we’ve been asking: Just how much technology is required?

Hindsight and Statistics

Statistically speaking, it could be argued that you will be completely fine defending yourself with a 4¾-inch Colt SAA in .45 Colt. That’s a well-known fighting cartridge and packs some serious power. It’s just as lethal now as it was when it was introduced: 270 grains of hardcast at 1,000 fps isn’t a joke by any stretch of the imagination.

So, knowing this, is simply having the gun the stopgap in a bad situation … or is there more to it?

Looking at how gunfights shake out across the board, there’s often an amount of random circumstances that dictate success, and we often find think tanks developing arms and ammunition that would have done better in a fight we already had, but are somewhat unlikely to have again. Take, for instance, the 1986 FBI Miami Shootout and the subsequent popularity of the 10mm Auto, and the fervent demand to replace 5.56 NATO with something else during the War on Terror campaigns. Neither of these things really grew legs.

What needs to be asked of this technology is this: Would it have made a real difference in the fighting itself? With hindsight always being 20/20, we have the luxury to evaluate and learn, but the next time—in the exact scenario—things might play out entirely differently.

If you were in 10 gunfights (assuming you’re just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and manage to survive each time), you’d have a pretty good sample size for this and arguably would be an expert. Few instructors I’ve met can “talk about what they did” in their time in the military or police, and fewer still are instructing on things outside of their own training and experience. Preparing for a fight you will not be in, and being trained by a person who will likely not be there with you, is just playing make-believe in a lot of ways.

The individual sample size of people out there fighting with guns regularly is rare, and if they are doing so, it’s typically with the support of the world’s largest military industrial complex backing them. All that gear is not only expensive and hard to get, but it also requires a lot of people to manage it.

The individual today, out in public, typically will have only a handgun—possibly a rifle or shotgun accessible in the home. That’s not exactly what you’d be storming the beaches with alone.

Take into account the now thousands of first-person videos being filmed in the war in Ukraine: All those casualties have armor, helmets and the same cartridges you own. Those who survive are often called upon to instruct with the knowledge they gained from such experiences. The tactics you learn from one of these types of instructors will not stop you from being killed, when in fact most of these guys learn these tactics with the expectation of taking casualties.

Think about that for a moment. Most of the common tactics we have now, and the gear you need for it, are designed around expected loss, a learning curve that takes into account how many people have been killed doing the same thing.

You’re always taking gear into action based on what happened last time.

How Much Is Too Much?

As a result of the constant technological march, we now have a near complete integration of guns, mounting surfaces, optical equipment, lights, lasers and suppressors. You can build a self-defense gun to include any and all of these things, but the considerations you make need to reflect what your reality is.

Much of my gear is set up with modern technology, but I do acknowledge that a good deal of it is perhaps a bit over-complicated. I really like my guns to look cool, which I believe is a valid consideration to make, and there’s certainly enhanced function as a result of some of these accessories. Serious drawbacks do exist, however, and I will get to that in a moment.

So what is the appropriate amount of baseline technology to have on a self-defense gun?

In general, a good light mounted to the gun is the only accessory I’d consider a must, the rest being somewhat subjective. When I’m in public, most times I dress pretty casual. I will usually have a small flashlight and a folding knife on me just for the sake of utility, and I’m not a big fan of lots of weight on my person.

My typical carry gun is a five-shot .357 Mag., in which I carry .38 Special +P loads. I’m a practical man in this aspect, and yes, I do know the details of the Miami shootout where that was not seen as a good choice in a real gunfight. Well, I won’t be going back to 1986, and I don’t care for Miami, so my odds are slim that I will be presented with the opportunity to repeat history.

Where I live, I don’t really worry about much—but I am always aware of my surroundings. My choice of equipment reflects my attire and lifestyle, as something bigger and heavier would stand out. I never want to look like the guy who appears to have a gun.

This minimalism comes with its own challenges. The little Smith & Wesson double action isn’t easy to shoot and isn’t exactly geared for accuracy … just extremely close-range standoffs. I get asked all the time if I think five shots is enough, and I typically reply: “Enough for what?” This is a great question to ask in general, because the gear race is completely real.

We have instructors doing “combat” pistol training at 50 yards or more in some of the classes I’ve attended, swapping in and out with carbines and other rifles. Tactical training, in my experience, is trending toward the ridiculous. Legally speaking, if you see a person firing a gun at something more than 50 yards away, and you decide to pull your pistol and shoot, well, that’s not a good look.

Now, I’m not saying you should get closer on purpose to an obvious threat. No technology as of late makes you bulletproof, and the more advanced technology you have at your disposal doesn’t do anything to keep you safe from the legal system.

My take on accessories is that they must do two things: increase your ability to identify threats, and not slow you down. If you are slowed down in acquiring a target by using a slide-mounted optic, don’t use one. In a real fight, you can’t script the situation, so don’t add in a piece of equipment that slows you down.

The Controversial Perspective

This segues into a topic that I think will be considered a hot take: I’m generally not into suppressors on handguns for defense. I like shooting suppressed pistols and I hunt with them; in fact, they’re really handy. I don’t, however, consider suppressors to be valid for self-defense, from the standpoint of practicality. Doubling the length of your pistol isn’t conducive to a fast draw, and you’re not going to be able to use something like that easily in tight confines. A suppressor also makes a gun that much easier to grab if a threat is close enough.

Similarly, having done my fair share of shoot houses, adding a can to a home defense gun makes the maneuverability notably slower, and it’s harder to keep the pistol close to your body. As a civilian, you’re probably going to be woken up in the dead of night to glass breaking—or in the parking lot and hear someone step behind you when you’re getting your kids into the car. You won’t know when this is going to happen, and a suppressor on a pistol is likely going to slow down your defense.

For suppressors in the home, we can reasonably talk about rifles. Rifle suppressors are fantastic—I love them. I barely shoot without them unless it’s a classic military rifle. That said, things get long and heavy quickly. With a 16-inch barrel, you’re looking at what’s a functional minimum of about 6 inches for a shorty suppressor, so while the cosmetics might look smaller, in practice you’d be looking at the same length upper as a 20-inch M16 or longer in many cases.

There are, of course, ways to deal with that, such as going the SBR or braced pistol routes, but in general my argument against rifles is that they’re a two-handed proposition. If you need to get help, call the cops, shepherd your kids to safety or really anything else, you’re going to have to do it at a disadvantage over a handgun with similar technology on it. There are, of course, plenty of advantages to cans in general—it’s just something to think about when you’re adding more and more to your guns.

Again, cans are great, but beware of their potential downfalls and how they might affect your situation and needs.

Stay Safe Out There

To conclude this diatribe, one of the things I strongly recommend is to actually test your upgrades and accessories where you plan to use them. Optics can get easily washed out by white light, sight bodies can obscure your vision … and so on. The weight and size are something you and your able-bodied loved ones should all know how to work around in case you’re wounded or unable to defend yourself otherwise.

Needless to say, don’t make your self-defense weapons so complicated to use for your family that they become a liability if the worst does happen. Anything you add to a gun should make it easier to use, not more likely to cause you problems.

Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared in the April 2025 issue of Gun Digest the Magazine.

More On Gun Accessories: