PDA

View Full Version : Is caliber really all that important for ccw


mo84
February 6, 2012, 07:42 PM
I see alot of threads where the caliber for concealed carry is vibrantly discussed. Some think a 22 is fine where as some believe it needs to be a 45 and up. So I got to thinking; once a person is hit with a bullet whither it be 22 or 500 mag, they are most likely not going to keep walking your way like they are the terminator or something. If they did for some chance keep walking after getting hit, a follow up shot should surely slow them down no matter the caliber. If stopping the person from coming at you is the goal, then I think in most casses, the caliber probably does not matter. There will always be an exception to the rule but For the most part that is how I see it.

PawPaw
February 6, 2012, 07:49 PM
once a person is hit with a bullet whither it be 22 or 500 mag, they are most likely not going to keep walking your way like they are the terminator or something. If they did for some chance keep walking after getting hit, a follow up shot should surely slow them down no matter the caliber.

Uuuh, no. Handguns don't work like that. I've known folks who get wounded in a gunfight and don't even realize it for several minutes. When I got shot, I didn't know what had happened to me, I thought I had a bad charley-horse in my leg. All I knew is that my leg didn't work like it should, and I didn't understand why. Coupla minutes later: Oh, bullet hole. That explains it. Take me to a hospital.

Without getting into all the "why's" about caliber, larger is generally better. What most folks do is try to balance cartridge size with handgun size, something they can conceal easily.

ScottRiqui
February 6, 2012, 07:49 PM
I agree that it's probably not as critical as some would make it sound, but then again, if I'm going to try to beat someone senseless, I'm going to grab a baseball bat and not a pair of chopsticks. There are far more cases of a .22 or .25 round getting caught up in multiple layers of clothing compared to .40 or .45.

If you put any stock in the FBI penetration testing, there seems to be a big difference between ".380 ACP and larger" and "everything smaller". There's even a pretty fair jump between .380 ACP and 9mm. So all else being equal, I'd probably consider one of those rounds as my minimum for a SD gun.

kraigwy
February 6, 2012, 07:59 PM
If you put any stock in the FBI penetration testing

I don't.

1911Jeeper
February 6, 2012, 08:01 PM
Shoot the largest caliber that you are accurate with and can be reasonably quick with follow up shots, if needed.

Multiple hits with a smaller caliber are better than a miss with a larger caliber.

hoytinak
February 6, 2012, 08:02 PM
If you put any stock in the FBI penetration testing

I don't either.


I say carry what you're comfortable with.

Mobuck
February 6, 2012, 08:03 PM
A lot of those ideas are pandered by folks who've not actually used a handgun to shoot anything but targets.
I'm fully confident in the 9mm I carry. If I wasn't, I'd be packing something else.

Alpha Wolf
February 6, 2012, 08:07 PM
I think it more important that if you are going to carry to have a gun you will carry routinely and practice with.

With modern hollow point ammo I would not want to be shot by any of them myself. A 22 lr is better than a stick IMHO...
;)

Chuck M
February 6, 2012, 08:42 PM
I'm pretty sure you can do a bunch of math and the numbers will show that certain calibers would indeed cause more damage than others, and you can take a bunch of targets and shoot them and see more or less visible damage. The bottom line is with proper training any caliber can be deadly. A well placed shot with .22lr to the base of the brain will give the same end result as a .44 mag...the aggressor will never, ever move again.

I carry a M&P 9c and a Springfield LW Champion Operator 1911. I train with both weapons. I carry a hollow point variant for both not just because they cause more damage but because I want to avoid over-penetration.

Which ever firearm/caliber fits the individuals hand, can be controlled, shot accurately, and properly concealed (if that's the case) is the firearm for that individual.

44 AMP
February 6, 2012, 09:30 PM
So I got to thinking; once a person is hit with a bullet whither it be 22 or 500 mag, they are most likely not going to keep walking your way like they are the terminator or something....

Caliber doesn't matter as much as having a gun, any gun when you need it.

Now, consider what you said, and how you said it. Someone walking at you (with clear intent to do injury or murder) is only one possible situation.

Another possible situation is several someones advancing and threatening you. There are almost as many possible situations as there are things and people in our lives.

If small calibers didn't ever work, we wouldn't have them.

Everything above mousegun increases your odds a bit, until you reach the point of having too much cannon to manage.

If the situation gets to having to use the gun, then the one you can make the most effective is best. And that is a combination of bullet performance, gun performance, and your performance.

Caliber matters, but only hits count.
(note sig line....)

highvel
February 6, 2012, 09:39 PM
I think after the second or third big "bang" with no injury would probably boost the bad guy's confidence!:D

I carry either a 9mm, .45 acp and don't worry about em a bit!

Deaf Smith
February 6, 2012, 09:54 PM
Is caliber really all that important for ccw?

84,

The cartridge you use is lower in importance than a) Will to use it, B) Skill to use it, C) Tactical knowledge to use it, D) Weapon platform to use it.

Yes it's nice to have a .45, it is a bit better than a .40, and a .40 is a bit better than a 9mm, and a 9mm is a bit better than a .32, and a .32 is a bit better than a .25.

I have read of one case where a NYPD woman cop interrupted a bank robbery where three felons, all armed, and one with a .45, and all she had was a J .38. She shot all three and captured them.

Does that mean I think the J .38 is the cat's meow of CCW? Heck NO.

But don't get to wrapped up in the caliber wars.

Use the most powerful weapon you can control, hit with, and conceal. But it a .45, 9mm, .357 Sig, .38 Spl, or even a .22!

Deaf

trex1310
February 6, 2012, 10:30 PM
I can tell you from personal experience that a solid sternum hit from
the venerable .45acp is not always the manstopper that some internet
gun experts would have you believe. In my case, the individual didn't
appear to react at all to being hit. I would choose the largest caliber
that I could shoot accurately. I have moved on from carrying the
.45acp and now carry the .357 Sig. Hopefully, it will never be needed.

Webleymkv
February 6, 2012, 11:45 PM
I think that caliber does make some difference, but not as much as many would have you to believe. To my mind, handgun cartridges are separated into three basic categories: small/deep concealment cartridges including .22 Long Rifle, .25 ACP, and .32 ACP; medim/service cartridges including .38 +P, 9mm, .357 Sig, .40 S&W, .44 Special, and .45 ACP; and large/magnums like .41 Magnum, .44 Magnum, .454 Casull, and .500 S&W.

With small/deep concealment cartridges you're pretty much completely dependent upon penetration and very precise shot placement and their main advantage is light recoil and availability in very small, light packages. With these types of cartridges, FMJ or other types of non-expanding bullet are the best choices in order to ensure adequate penetration. The upper limit of this type of cartridge which, with the right loading, can perform more like a medium/service caliber are .380 Auto and standard pressure .38 Special.

Medium/service cartridges are the best choices for the majority of people as they offer good performance with manageable recoil in a still practical size and weight package. While placement and penetration are still paramount, medium/service cartridges also offer JHP ammunition which can both expand reliably and penetrate adequately. The upper limit of this type of cartridge which can, with the right loadings, perform more like a large/magnum cartridge are .357 Magnum and 10mm Auto.

Large/magnum cartridges deliver quite possibly the most impressive performance available in a handgun, but only with carefully selected loadings in the hands of a shooter experienced with heavy recoil. Many of the loadings available for these types of cartridges are designed for hunting and will likely blow clean through an erect biped with little or no expansion. Also, recoil is usually rather heavy and a great many shooters simply cannot handle these sorts of cartridges with an acceptable degree of speed and accuracy. These cartridges also often come in large, heavy packages that may be impractical for many uses.

By and large, cartridges in each class perform much more similarly to each other than differently. While I think that there is a pretty significant difference between a .25 ACP and a .44 Magnum; 9mm vs. .45 ACP not so much.

lefteye
February 6, 2012, 11:45 PM
Is caliber really all that important for ccw

Caliber (and cartridge) ARE important for CCW (as well as hunting and military). If you are being attacked by a drug addict, would you prefer to rely on a few .22 Shorts or a couple of 9mm, .38, .40, .357 or .45 rounds? A knife is better than a toothpick; a .22 short is better (probably) than a knife; a 9mm is better than ... and so on. This doesn't mean you need to carry a S&W 629 .44 Magnum. It means that you should carry a firearm chambered in a cartridge adequate for self defense if you choose to carry.

MTT TL
February 7, 2012, 12:05 AM
I must admit that everyone I have seen get shot with a handgun lived and that most of the people I have seen shot with rifles did not. There is an important lesson right there. If you really believe that calibers do not matter you are fooling yourself. They matter quite a bit. Energy, mass, sectional density all play a role. Handguns are closer in power to each other than CFR are to handguns, still.

Other things matter more. Like shot placement, luck, target and a host of other issues.

Frank Ettin
February 7, 2012, 12:40 AM
The cartridge can matter, but perhaps less than some people think.

There are four ways in which shooting an assailant actually can stop a fight:

psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."
massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function
breaking major skeletal support structures
damaging the central nervous system.

Depending on someone just giving up because he's been shot is iffy. Probably most fights are stopped that way, but some aren't; and there are no guarantees.

Breaking major skeletal structures can quickly impair mobility, but someone with a gun can still shoot. And it will probably take something bigger than a .22 or .32 to reliably break a large bone.

Hits to the central nervous system are sure and quick, but the CNS presents a small and uncertain target. And sometimes significant penetration will be needed to reach it.

The most common and sure physiological way in which shooting someone stops him is blood loss -- depriving the brain and muscles of oxygen and nutrients, thus impairing the ability of the brain and muscles to function. Blood loss is facilitated by (1) large holes causing tissue damage; (2) getting the holes in the right places to damage major blood vessels or blood bearing organs; and (3) adequate penetration to get those holes into the blood vessels and organs which are fairly deep in the body. The problem is that blood loss takes time. People have continued to fight effectively when gravely, even mortally, wounded. So things that can speed up blood loss, more holes, bigger holes, better placed holes, etc., help.

So as a rule of thumb --

More holes are better than fewer holes.
Larger holes are better than smaller holes.
Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places.
Holes that are deep enough are better than holes that aren't.
There are no magic bullets.

The bottom line is that a lower power cartridge with a smaller caliber bullet will make smaller holes and may not be able to as reliably penetrate to where those holes need to be to be most effective. On the other hand, a small gun that you actually have with you and that you have trained with and can manage well will serve better than the larger, more powerful gun that is so large you left it home or so powerful you can't shoot it accurately.

So it comes down to a compromise. If you can learn to manage a more powerful gun and find ways to keep it with you and handle it effectively, you're likely to be better off.

briandg
February 7, 2012, 12:51 AM
Yes.

LockedBreech
February 7, 2012, 01:12 AM
Myself, I created a "carry window".

.380 Automatic
9x18 Makarov
.38 Special
9x19 Parabellum/9mm Luger
.40 Smith & Wesson
.45 Automatic Colt Pistol

I don't know why I typed them all out. Sometimes they seem kinda cool that way. I'm a geek.

Anyway, anything smaller or larger than that (very rough) window I'm not interested in carrying concealed. Those rounds, to me, represent the bare minimum defensive round against a human target (.380) to the maximum I can shoot comfortably in a concealable handgun (.45).

To me, the sweet spot for small/medium guns is 9x19, for large guns it's .40/.45

nate45
February 7, 2012, 01:14 AM
Somewhere there is a happy medium between .22 Short and .500 Magnum.

Usually a small frame revolver in .38 Special, or one of the newer sub-compacts in 9mm fill the bill. They meet the power to size equation very well. They'll also be plenty effective in most situations.

On the lower side of those two choices are mouse guns (.32 ACP is as low as I'd personally go) and on the upper maybe a Commander Size 1911, Glock 19, K/L frame, etc.

Any bigger, or smaller than the above and problems of low power, or increased concealment difficulty are encountered.

However, if an individual is comfortable with a .22 Short mouse gun, or a 6.5 inch .44 Magnum strapped on under a sport coat...well, to each his own.

JohnKSa
February 7, 2012, 01:16 AM
Sure it is, for several reasons.

1. Terminal performance varies from caliber to caliber, especially if one considers the entire spectrum of calibers (.22Short up to the magnums) used for carry.
2. Caliber selection affects capacity for a given size carry gun.
3. Caliber selection affects shootability.
4. Caliber selection affects practice costs.

ltc444
February 7, 2012, 03:38 AM
The only thing that matters in a gun fight surviving.

You survive by will, hitting the target and putting it on the ground.

A miss with a 76 cal supermag exploding elephant stopper is a lot less effective than multiple hits with a 22 lr.

If you can't hit your target because you can't accurately shoot the Major caliber your carrying, then you need to get a different pistol or practice a lot more. But it is to late to discover this fact when the fight is on.

Nathan
February 7, 2012, 05:27 AM
Drugs and/or adrenalin are missing from your argument. A person amped up on killing or robbing you most likely won't take no from a 22 or 25. I would rather carry OC.

40 S&W and 45 ACP are proven stoppers in testing and street statistics.

jhenry
February 7, 2012, 08:19 AM
Of course caliber matters. Within the range of effective choices the differences start to get less important, but caliber certainly matters.

C0untZer0
February 7, 2012, 08:34 AM
I don't view the issue as "Is caliber really all that important for ccw". The laws of physics don't take a holiday for "ccw" and projectiles don't act differently in the human body because it's a ccw situation.

I think the FBI did the best job possible at the time of finding a way of modeling handgun ballistics and wounding through various barriers.

The FBI certainly has shown a willingness to switch caliber and sidearm if the field experience of their agents doesn't verify predicted results from testing.

So anyway, I do put stock in the FBI tests. And I do think caliber is important in any situation where you're defending yourself with a firearm.

nate45
February 7, 2012, 03:26 PM
As an aside, of course ballistic testing is important. Without it, we would not have the reliably expanding projectiles we have today.

For those who don't subscribe to ballistic testing; how do you propose that bullet penetration and expansion be tested?

There is a great body of scientific work on bullet performance and it has been absolutely proven, that the aggregate penetration and expansion between bare ballistic gelatin and gelatin covered by 4-layers of denim, closely mimics actual living tissue shooting results.

Why Four Layers of Denim Cloth? (http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/2006/04/02/0604-02a.htm)

Go to Winchester Law Enforcement Ammunition (http://www.winchester.com/Products/le/Pages/ammunition-testing.aspx) web site, you will find that they use the FBI and IWBA test protocol. Through that testing they were able to develop their outstanding Ranger-T line.

Science is our friend.

2damnold4this
February 7, 2012, 06:40 PM
+1 Nate

That doesn't mean that a round that doesn't make the ideal FBI numbers can't kill or disable you but it does give us a way to compare ammunition.

mavracer
February 7, 2012, 08:25 PM
Since the vast majority of stops will be of the psycological type these are far more dependant on Mr BGs mindset than caliber.
Caliber matters little.
The BGs that are not so inclined to stop and must be stopped physoligacly place all handguns securly in the iffy at best catagory.
Caliber matters a little more but still well below shot placement.

mo84
February 7, 2012, 09:04 PM
I can say that their has been alot of thought put into these responses and I can see how in some cercumstances bigger is going to be better, for the person that is hell bent on attacking you and amped on drugs. I guess I just figured, that for the most part, when an attacker gets hit, they would most likely be more worried about their own health and seeking safety rather than keep coming after you. I am also happy to see this thread didn't get carried away as it easily could have. Very interesting and informative to see how everyone views this question:D

Nnobby45
February 7, 2012, 09:39 PM
If they did for some chance keep walking after getting hit, a follow up shot should surely slow them down no matter the caliber. If stopping the person from coming at you is the goal, then I think in most casses, the caliber probably does not matter. There will always be an exception to the rule but For the most part that is how I see it.

Apparently, after ZILLIONS of threads and discussions on the subject, as well as accurate technical data involving real shootings, you have, without reading any of them, created your own theory and expressed such wisdom as "a follow up shot should surely slow them down no matter what the caliber."

A couple of points:

1. A person with a gun doesn't have to come at you. This may come as a shock, but he can actually kill you from a distance.

2. A substantial number of people who have been shot, don't know it at the time. A fatally shot person may still kill you, since adrenaline is a powerful drug in it's own right and both good guys and bad have continued to fight after receiving serious, or even fatal, wounds.

3. Using normal thinking to judge the actions, or reaction to being shot, of a doped up criminal whose thinking is anything but normal, might be a mistake.

Something else to think about, is that the criminal mind set would more likely be to "come at you" before you knew what was happening, and long before you had a chance to draw your gun.

Frank Ettin
February 7, 2012, 10:40 PM
Since the vast majority of stops will be of the psycological type these are far more dependant on Mr BGs mindset than caliber.
Caliber matters little.
The BGs that are not so inclined to stop and must be stopped physoligacly place all handguns securly in the iffy at best catagory.
Caliber matters a little more but still well below shot placement. Except you don't get to choose your BG ahead of time. Maybe the guy who will attack you next week will be particularly sensitive to bullet wounds, but I sure wouldn't count on it. So the better prepared you are to stop him, no matter what his disposition, the happier you'll be with the outcome.

Nnobby45
February 7, 2012, 10:53 PM
Originally Posted by mavracer
Since the vast majority of stops will be of the psycological type these are far more dependant on Mr BGs mindset than caliber.
Caliber matters little.
The BGs that are not so inclined to stop and must be stopped physoligacly place all handguns securly in the iffy at best catagory.
Caliber matters a little more but still well below shot placement.



This ignores advances in bullet technology that have shown better results on the streets in actual shootings.

I believe it's incorrect to suggest that caliber and bullet design always take a back seat to the mind set of the criminal when bullets are placed with reasonable accuracy. Lesser calibers and inferior bullet designs require surgical accuracy.

B.N.Real
February 8, 2012, 01:03 AM
The scary parts is that a human being can kill you before he dies from all the bullets you put in him.

For that reason,you need to shoot calibers of large enough size to at least let him know he's being shot.

You are talking about an encounter with another human being determined to do you harm and he's closing distance on you in likely no more then two seconds.

In that distance,you might get two or three rounds off before he's on you.

This is someone with a knife or a club or just his hands,wacked out -angry as hell.

A person with a handgun is another matter altogehter as you will face exactly what you are trying to defend yourself with.

A person of unknown training using a gun against you of unknown caliber who is trying to kill you-presumably to rob you or who knows-mayber today was the day this guy's -had it with the world day-and you 'unlucked' into his perimeter.

The only thing that will stop your assailant is the ballistic damage you do to him before he can harm you.

If that damage is not sufficient to make him consciously stop his attack-you need to create enough physical damage in his body so he cannot continue his attack.

And human fat acts as a great destabilizer of weak calibers ballisitic performance so the bigger and nastier the bad guy the more ballistic performance you will need to make any change in the bad guys trajectory towards YOU.

You might only have two seconds to do all that.

You want a 22 lr to defend yourself now?

mavracer
February 8, 2012, 02:06 PM
So the better prepared you are to stop him, no matter what his disposition, the happier you'll be with the outcome.
There's a better than fair chance that you won't be "happy" with the outcome no matter what your packing.
I believe it's incorrect to suggest that caliber and bullet design always take a back seat to the mind set of the criminal when bullets are placed with reasonable accuracy. Lesser calibers and inferior bullet designs require surgical accuracy.
I'm sorry but I've seen too much game run off with solid hits from a high powered rifle to beleve that any service handgun is not going to require surgical accuracy for a real physicological stop.

jason_iowa
February 8, 2012, 02:20 PM
357 mag and up are my criteria. To answer your question yes it is that important to me. I'm happy to make suggestions to people but I won't tell anyone what or if they carry and I won't let anyone tell me what's best for me to carry. If you have something you are capable and competent enough to deploy it then you're in the right ball park...

Frank Ettin
February 8, 2012, 02:36 PM
There's a better than fair chance that you won't be "happy" with the outcome no matter what your packing... ."Happy" in this context is a relative term.

johnmed3
February 8, 2012, 02:49 PM
Personally i would not carry anything smaller than 9mm. Always carry the biggest caliber you can carry and shoot well. Remember "carrying a handgun is supposed to be comforting not comfortable"

BlackFeather
February 8, 2012, 03:25 PM
For me, it goes in order of:


How the weapon will be carried
Size of the weapon, determined by how it will be carried.
Caliber of the weapon, to fit the size needed, and to determine 4
Capacity of the weapon. Maximum allowed by size and caliber.


I find it's important in selecting the firearm, yes. Plenty of people have been killed with smaller calibers, plenty have been killed by larger calibers. I'm going to determine what caliber by the size of the gun, a .45 with a smaller grip will be harder to shoot for me. Would I prefer a full size .45? Sure, but all else taken into account it's not going to be possible.

As for "stopping power", any bullet will do something, as long as you hit, and hit well. I'm going to be more worried about the situation, and my ability to draw, than the bullet size. More importantly, do you really think he's going to know?

manta49
February 8, 2012, 03:51 PM
Nathan.
Quote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 S&W and 45 ACP are proven stoppers in testing and street statistics.

What and where are the statistics showing that. ?

manta49
February 8, 2012, 04:11 PM
The army issued a .22 pistol here for personal protection. They must of tought it would be effective. I think if you want to stop someone consistently without perfect shots you need a rifle.

mavracer
February 8, 2012, 04:36 PM
"Happy" in this context is a relative term
Yes and it's quite contengent. Your going to have to survive in order to have any happiness. Using a larger caliber doesn't guarentee survival so there is no guarentee that you'll be any happier by using a larger caliber.
Of course I can't imagine getting through and wondering if you could have got by with less gun:rolleyes:

TexasJustice7
February 8, 2012, 04:46 PM
LawScholar: Myself, I created a "carry window".

.380 Automatic
9x18 Makarov
.38 Special
9x19 Parabellum/9mm Luger
.40 Smith & Wesson
.45 Automatic Colt Pistol

I don't know why I typed them all out. Sometimes they seem kinda cool that way. I'm a geek.

Anyway, anything smaller or larger than that (very rough) window I'm not interested in carrying concealed. Those rounds, to me, represent the bare minimum defensive round against a human target (.380) to the maximum I can shoot comfortably in a concealable

I notice you did not include the 44 Spl. I carry a Charter Arms 44 Spl Bulldog 3" as primary, a S&W 38 Spl as backup, and do not always carry a S&W 625 4" Long Colt 45. I have confidence in the stopping power of a 44 Spl as the Bulldog is very close to the size of a J Frame and comfortable to carry.

markj
February 8, 2012, 05:18 PM
After my cousin was shot 4 times with a 357 I must say shot placement is king. Dont matter what you shoot him with unless its a 20mm or larger, that if you dont hit the important parts he will not just lay down and die.

Same goes with hunting..... why wouldnt it go with SD?

Frank Ettin
February 8, 2012, 05:31 PM
...Using a larger doesn't guarantee survival...Nope, just improves your chances some, if you can manage it and all other things being equal.

Deutscher
February 8, 2012, 06:01 PM
There are four ways in which shooting an assailant actually can stop a fight:

psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."
massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function
breaking major skeletal support structures
damaging the central nervous system.


@Fiddletown. Loved your post. I think you hit it on the head.

mavracer
February 8, 2012, 07:20 PM
just improves your chances some
it might, maybe, but even then only some of the time.
And are you sure it does. Even if you destroy the heart and lungs you have 15-30 seconds that Mr BG can return fire, so who is better off the guy who thinks I'm carrying a XX uber magnum and emptys all 25 rounds COM only to have Mr BG drill him in the head with his 10th shot or the guy who realizes all handguns suck and after the first two rounds don't have the desired effect puts the 3rd 32acp right between mr BG's eyes ending his aggression

kgpcr
February 8, 2012, 07:30 PM
It makes no difference at all. That is why so many Alaskana carry a .22lr for bear defence. Yes it does make a difference. the bigger the hole the faster they go down.

MTT TL
February 8, 2012, 07:33 PM
The army issued a .22 pistol here for personal protection. They must of tought it would be effective.

I think that is a poor assumption given all the facts.

Nnobby45
February 8, 2012, 07:47 PM
It makes no difference at all. That is why so many Alaskana carry a .22lr for bear defence. Yes it does make a difference. the bigger the hole the faster they go down.

As a survival gun, yes --for small game. Easily stored in a small airplane along with a good supply of ammo. If you think Alaskans carry a .22 for bear defense, I like to contact you about selling some moon rock that fell in my boat while fishing for tarpon at Lake Iliamna, AK; (ok, I probably spelled it wrong). :p;)

Frank Ettin
February 8, 2012, 08:00 PM
...just improves your chances some ...it might, maybe, but even then only some of the time.
And are you sure it does. Even if you destroy the heart and lungs you have 15-30 seconds that Mr BG can return fire, so who is better off the guy who thinks I'm carrying a XX uber magnum and emptys all 25 rounds COM only to have Mr BG drill him in the head with his 10th shot or the guy who realizes all handguns suck and after the first two rounds don't have the desired effect puts the 3rd 32acp right between mr BG's eyes ending his aggression Now you're being intellectually dishonest. You've quoted me out of context and changed the parameters. What I wrote (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4950528&postcount=44) was (emphasis added):Nope, just improves your chances some, if you can manage it and all other things being equal.

BlackFeather
February 8, 2012, 08:11 PM
Okay, so, how about the FN 5.7? Higher velocity, but still a small round. Intermediate round?

bds32
February 8, 2012, 08:13 PM
Does caliber matter?

If you were hiking in grizzly bear country, would you take just a 22lr revolver with you? I know I wouldn't.

Now, of course humans aren't grizzly bears so you don't need to carry a 454 Casull or larger to stop a bad character. But, since the only reliable method of stopping someone (or any other living creature) that is actively trying to kill you, is the rapid loss of blood to the brain, I would think you would want to carry a caliber that produces ammunition known for its reliable expansion and penetration. Years and years of encounters have shown that something in .38 special/9mm and larger (40, 41, 10mm, 44, 45), designed to pentrate and expand, are a viable option for handgun defense against humans. That is not to say that the .32 calibers and the .380 variations are completely without merit. Since these two tend to be made in pistols known for their excellent portability, I would say they are at least a decent choice as compared to the 22lr and .25acp.

To me, caliber matters but there are other variables that need to be considered. However, I would think that one would try to maximize caliber taking into consideration the totality of personal needs.

MTT TL
February 8, 2012, 08:14 PM
Okay, so, how about the FN 5.7? Higher velocity, but still a small round.

Depends upon what you mean by this:

Intermediate round?

BlackFeather
February 8, 2012, 08:19 PM
Depends upon what you mean by this:

Intermediate round, it's built a bit more like a rifle round yet still available in a pistol platform. It's purpose is defense, but it's a small caliber.

So does the higher velocity substitute for mass with .45 versus 5.7MM, all else being equal?

mavracer
February 8, 2012, 08:20 PM
Now you're being intellectually dishonest.
Are you sure you want to make that argument.
Nope, just improves your chances some, if you can manage it and all other things being equal.
since all other things can not be equal, there is no way to quantify your chances of improvement. your statement is pretty dang dishonest intellectually. If your statement was honest there'd be a formula to calculate stopping power by now and there'd be a universal concensus for all the 9mm vs 40 vs 45 vs 357 vs 10mm.
and here I'll fix it so I dont change any of your parameters.
And are you sure it does. Even if you destroy the heart and lungs you have 15-30 seconds that Mr BG can return fire, so who is better off the guy who's carrying a XX uber magnum shoot COM breaks a rib and destroys heart and lungs only to have Mr BG drill him in the head seconds later or the guy carrys a 32acp shoots COM deflects off the rib and hits ths spine between 3rd and 4th vertabre ending his aggression

skoro
February 8, 2012, 08:41 PM
I think it is, but not as all-fired important as many make it out to be. Personally, I see 380 as the minimum for me. And if I ever needed a handgun in a critical situation, I'm sure I be wishing I had a 357mag or 45acp.

That said, I also think that a good marskman with a 22 pocket pistol could be effective in 95+% of the situations an ordinary citizen would face.

MTT TL
February 8, 2012, 08:47 PM
So does the higher velocity substitute for mass with .45 versus 5.7MM, all else being equal?

It is supposed to. Whether it does or not is a matter of opinion as it is not easily quantifiable. I would feel pretty confident with a pistol in 5.7.

Frank Ettin
February 8, 2012, 09:04 PM
Now you're being intellectually dishonest....
Are you sure you want to make that argument.

Nope, just improves your chances some, if you can manage it and all other things being equal.
since all other things can not be equal, there is no way to quantify your chances of improvement. your statement is intelectually dishonest. If your statement was honest there'd be a formula to calculate stopping power by now and there'd be a universal concensus for all the 9mm vs 40 vs 45 vs 357 vs 10mm. It doesn't mean that at all. It simply means that given similar shot placement and the same number of rounds, something like a .45 ACP will have an edge in terminal performance over something like, say, a .32 S&W.

As for universal consensus, all law enforcement agencies pretty much authorize 9x19, .40 S&W and/or .45 ACP for duty use. I'm not aware of any issuing officers .22 lr for their pistols. The thing is that 9x19, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .357 Magnum and 10mm (and other comparable cartridges) are all reasonable choices for general self defense applications, at least with well designed JHP bullets. Most of the debate about which is best is probably found on Internet gun forums.

Other cartridges may be decent choices for special applications. Some lower powered cartridges may be useful when a smaller gun is needed for deep concealment or for someone particularly sensitive to recoil. More powerful cartridges probably aren't very useful for self defense (except for some animal defense), because the terminal ballistic - controllability trade off is too disadvantageous.

...who is better off the guy who's carrying a XX uber magnum shoot COM breaks a rib and destroys heart and lungs only to have Mr BG drill him in the head seconds later or the guy carrys a 32acp shoots COM deflects off the rib and hits ths spine between 3rd and 4th vertabre ending his aggression... And of course, when arguing on the bases of hypotheticals, it's always possible to construct a hypothetical that supports your position. That doesn't make the hypothetical, or your position, meaningful.

MTT TL
February 8, 2012, 09:08 PM
I'm not aware of any issuing officers .22 lr for their pistols.

As our Irish friend pointed out the Ulster Guards were issued .22s. The decision was almost entirely political though. Short of that I know of none.

mavracer
February 8, 2012, 09:58 PM
It simply means that given similar shot placement and the same number of rounds, something like a .45 ACP will have an edge in terminal performance over something like, say, a .32 S&W.
Since it's quite concevable for a instantly incapisation cns shot with the 32 S&W there maybe no edge in terminal performance for a 45. therefore your statement is false however were you to say a .45 ACP most definitly might have an edge in terminal performance over something like, say, a .32 S&W then that would be a correct statement.
As for universal consensus, all law enforcement agencies pretty much authorize 9x19, .40 S&W and/or .45 ACP for duty use. I'm not aware of any issuing officers .22 lr for their pistols. The thing is that 9x19, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .357 Magnum and 10mm (and other comparable cartridges) are all reasonable choices for general self defense applications, at least with well designed JHP bullets. Most of the debate about which is best is probably found on Internet gun forums.
now your gonna tell me that the 45 is better than a 32 but a 10mm is no better 9mm? are you serious? And is there a concensus on JHP vs FMJ in 45 yet?

Frank Ettin
February 8, 2012, 11:01 PM
Since it's quite concevable for a instantly incapisation cns shot with the 32 S&W there maybe no edge in terminal performance for a 45. therefore your statement is false however were you to say a .45 ACP most definitly might have an edge in terminal performance over something like, say, a .32 S&W then that would be a correct statement...There you go, again manufacturing a hypothetical to support your view.

In any case, a lot of things are conceivable. It's also conceivable that a .32 will just cause a bone chip to the spine, while a .45 at the same spot would cause disabling nerve trauma. It's also conceivable that a .32 will not fully penetrate the pelvis, while a .45 at the same place will crack the bone creating an incapacitating injury. It's conceivable that a .32 will just miss a major blood vessel, while a .45 in the same place will tear the blood vessel accelerating blood loss and incapacitation from exsanguination.

In unique situations, a .32 might work out well. But overall, a .45 will produce more damage and thus gives one an overall edge.

...a 10mm is no better 9mm?...Well. it's largely a matter of tradeoffs. The 10mm certainly reliably produces larger and deeper holes, but a 9x19, with a good JHP, can still penetrate adequately and cause a reasonably big hole. And in its favor, a 9x19 is a good deal more controllable, in general, than a 10mm, given guns of comparable size and weight; and it's certainly controllable in a smaller, more concealable, gun.

...is there a concensus on JHP vs FMJ in 45 yet? Perhaps not on the Internet, but pretty much all U. S. police agencies use JHPs, even in .45 ACP.

tbeb
February 9, 2012, 02:19 AM
I think it is. I carry a snub .38 loaded with +P ammo, and I would go no smaller. Ask yourself this question: If you knew your life or your family's life was going to be threatened, would you want to be armed with a .22 handgun or a .45 handgun? My answer would be .45 every time.

AZAK
February 9, 2012, 03:02 AM
In any case, a lot of things are conceivable. It's also conceivable that a .32 will just cause a bone chip to the spine, while a .45 at the same spot would cause disabling nerve trauma. It's also conceivable that a .32 will not fully penetrate the pelvis, while a .45 at the same place will crack the bone creating an incapacitating injury. It's conceivable that a .32 will just miss a major blood vessel, while a .45 in the same place will tear the blood vessel accelerating blood loss and incapacitation from exsanguination.

In unique situations, a .32 might work out well. But overall, a .45 will produce more damage and thus gives one an overall edge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mavracer
...a 10mm is no better 9mm?...
Well. it's largely a matter of tradeoffs. The 10mm certainly reliably produces larger and deeper holes, but a 9x19, with a good JHP, can still penetrate adequately and cause a reasonably big hole. And in its favor, a 9x19 is a good deal more controllable, in general, than a 10mm, given guns of comparable size and weight; and it's certainly controllable in a smaller, more concealable, gun.

I am a bit confused? It appears that one can substitute the .32 for the 9mm and the .45 for the 10mm (and visa vera) and have true yet conflicting statements; or an appeal to relativism?

mavracer
February 9, 2012, 08:12 AM
There you go, again manufacturing a hypothetical to support your view
As long as you continue to make the absolutte statement that a 45 will increase your chances, I only need one plausable hypothetical to disprove it.

It appears that one can substitute the .32 for the 9mm and the .45 for the 10mm (and visa vera) and have true yet conflicting statements; or an appeal to relativism?
There does seem to be some hypocracy at work there.

Frank Ettin
February 9, 2012, 10:49 AM
As long as you continue to make the absolutte statement that a 45 will increase your chances, I only need one plausable hypothetical to disprove it.Actually, that's not correct. If a statement is one of probability, a single instance of a less probably event doesn't really mean anything.

OldMarksman
February 9, 2012, 11:09 AM
Posted by fiddletown: Actually, that [I only need one plausable hypothetical to disprove the .. statement that a 45 will increase your chances] 's not correct. If a statement is one of probability, a single instance of a less probably event doesn't really mean anything.A true statement.

mavracer
February 9, 2012, 11:32 AM
Actually, that's not correct. If a statement is one of probability, a single instance of a less probably event doesn't really mean anything.
If you'd make a statement of probability that'd be differennt.
A 45 may increase your chances is a statement of probabbility.
A 45 will inccrease your chances is a absolute statement.
Which is not true in all instances. Given that my prefered 32 acp load will out penatrate most commercial 45 JHP in bare gel.
And as soon as you have a 11oz 45 acp that's 3/4" wide annd hols 7 rounds then all things can be equal. Until then all handguns will be a compramise.

Frank Ettin
February 9, 2012, 11:37 AM
...A 45 will inccrease your chances is a absolute statement... No, it is not. "Increase your chances" is a statement of probability.

mavracer
February 9, 2012, 12:08 PM
No, it is not. "Increase your chances" is a statement of probability.
quoting yourself out of context is intellectually dishonest. you say it "will" increase you chances, when it quite clearly may or may not increase your chances at all, and in some cases it could actually decrease your chances.

Frank Ettin
February 9, 2012, 12:15 PM
...quoting yourself out of context is intellectually dishonest. you say it "will" increase you chances,...Yes, it will increase your chances. But the word "chances" refers to probability.

You might not understand what I've written (although it has been in perfectly good English). But I suspect that others reading this thread will be able to.

So this discussion between you and I on this subject must now come to an end so that others can participate in this thread.

lefteye
February 9, 2012, 01:32 PM
"Chances" and "probability" are synonyms in the context of this discussion.

manta49
February 9, 2012, 03:39 PM
MTT TL. Quote.


As our Irish friend pointed out the Ulster Guards were issued .22s. The decision was almost entirely political though. Short of that I know of none.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In the mid-1970s the Royal Army Ordnance Corps purchased about 3000 Walther PPs in 22LR for the Ulster Defence Regiment, an infantry regiment operating out of Northern Ireland. These guns were designated L66A1 and described, maybe a touch grandiosely, as a PDW or "personal defense weapon.

I think you are right there were political reasons. I don't know what the thinking was and i live here but obviously a larger caliber would of being more effective.

markj
February 9, 2012, 05:20 PM
If you think Alaskans carry a .22 for bear defense, I like to contact you about selling some moon rock that fell in my boat while fishing for tarpon at Lake Iliamna, AK; (ok, I probably spelled it wrong).

I have seen videos of the Inuit indians using a 22 LR on polar bears and getting the bear. They do use them there, check up on it.

BTW it is a Salvation Army Reverend that took them while they took him on a hunt.

Madcap_Magician
February 9, 2012, 05:55 PM
I suppose it depends by what you mean by "all that important."

Any caliber is good enough for self-defense until it isn't.

People have died instantly to a .22 Short and suffered no serious injury from being shot in the head with a .44 Magnum.

Of course, one is more likely than another, but there is no line at which you can say "Everything more powerful than this always works."

Kevin Rohrer
February 9, 2012, 08:06 PM
Is caliber really all that important for ccw

It depends on how valuable your life is to you. If you don't care much about yourself, go ahead and carry that .22 Short single-shot. :rolleyes:

If you do feel your life is worth more than 20-cents, carry the largest and most powerful weapon you can conceal and shoot accurately/quickly. :cool:

Sparks1957
February 9, 2012, 08:14 PM
It depends on how valuable your life is to you.

Oh, for goodness' sake... not another "if you really value your life, you wouldn't carry that gun" comment. :rolleyes:

Nnobby45
February 9, 2012, 10:08 PM
I have seen videos of the Inuit indians using a 22 LR on polar bears and getting the bear. They do use them there, check up on it.


I saw a documentary (Gordon Eastman, I think) of Native Alaskans coming up behind a swimming Brown Bear, in a canoe and carefully placing the shot behind or IN the ear with a .22 rifle from a distance of 2 or 3 ft. That's not bear defense.

Didn't see the video you refer to, but I suspect they shot the bear while it was swimming and helpless, since it isn't likely that the Intuits have survived so long by being suicidal or stupid.

Whatever the circumstances (that you havn't elected to tell us about), the conditions were obviously ideal and represented minimal danger to the hunters, who, if on land, were most likely backed up by a real rifle.

Saw an Alaska State Trooper episode where an inhabitant of a northern village was on "Polar Bear" guard duty armed with a Mini-14.

markj
February 10, 2012, 05:47 PM
Didn't see the video you refer to, but I suspect they shot the bear while it was swimming and helpless

They were on land, were behind the bear and shot it in the rear, it bled out in its den and they dragged it out and skinned it. Was a home made film my Pastor showed us of the time he was in Alaska doing Salvation Army stuff. He was there for many years with these hunters.

Does this clear it up? They used their heads and know how to kill it safely as they do everything they kill like whales from canoes etc.

First defense is your smarts, dont have any? well you wont be able to defend anything with out them, smarts that is.

Double Naught Spy
February 10, 2012, 06:25 PM
They were on land, were behind the bear and shot it in the rear, it bled out in its den and they dragged it out and skinned it. Was a home made film my Pastor showed us of the time he was in Alaska doing Salvation Army stuff. He was there for many years with these hunters.

Does this clear it up? They used their heads and know how to kill it safely as they do everything they kill like whales from canoes etc.

None of these hunting tactics have anything to do with self defense. There is nothing safe about shooting a polar bear in the butt with a .22. Hunting whales from canoes definitely is not safe and the Inuit will tell you so.
http://www.alaska.boemre.gov/native/rexford/rexford.htm

If you delve seriously into the topic, you will find that the cash strapped Alaskan natives often make do as best they can, not because they think the .22 rifle is the ultimate in hunting, but because it is what they can afford.

You have seemed to really confuse the diffferences between self defense and hunting and the two are not readily compared.

I do find it ironic that you posted contradictory statements.

After my cousin was shot 4 times with a 357 I must say shot placement is king. Dont matter what you shoot him with unless its a 20mm or larger, that if you dont hit the important parts he will not just lay down and die.

Same goes with hunting..... why wouldnt it go with SD?

If you don't hit the important part in self defense, the bad guy isn't just going to lay down and die, but if you shoot a polar bear in the butt, apparently it will after crawling back to its den, but hunting and self defense are the same?

That is some bizarre counter logic.

Nnobby45
February 10, 2012, 06:48 PM
None of these hunting tactics have anything to do with self defense. There is nothing safe about shooting a polar bear in the butt with a .22. Hunting whales from canoes definitely is not safe and the Inuit will tell you so.


The above is the only point I'm trying to make. Not argue about shooting a defenseless bear under circumstances that have nothing to do with stopping a large carnivore in the process of eating you for breakfast, or protecting it's young.

Frank Ettin
February 10, 2012, 07:36 PM
And we've had quite enough discussion of Inuit hunting practices. Back on topic please before posts start disappearing.

kgpcr
February 10, 2012, 10:20 PM
My comment on a .22lr being carried by guides in Alaska was a smart alack comment. having spent a lot of time in AK with bear we all carry BIG handguns for a reason. I carry a .454 with very stout loads. The bigger the hole the faster they go down.

Cascade1911
February 11, 2012, 06:21 AM
.380 in the hand is worth two .45's in the safe.

Beyond that, shot placement being the same (I can shoot a .380 no better than a .45), the increased diameter, sectional density and energy of the .45 have got to increase your odds. Sure someone will argue that they've got this magic load for the .380 that has the energy of the .45 while expanding to the size of a dinner plate after penetrating ten inches but hey, you can get magic bullets for the .45 as well. :D

Once you get to the realm of 9mm, 40, 44, 357, 45 you getting more to an argument of velocity vs mass, capacity, reliable expansion etc. At this point you pays your money and takes your choice.

matthew261
February 11, 2012, 12:36 PM
The most important weapon in the self-defense arsenal is your brain. Educate yourself on tactics, don't underestimate the intelligence of your attacker, practice, practice, practice and whatever caliber you happen to be carrying, know its advantages and weaknesses based on YOUR real world testing (and did I say) practice. You can be carrying a 454 Casull but if you're unpracticed at using it and your attacker can plink your eye socket at 7 yds with a .22 short, you've been outgunned.

seeker_two
February 11, 2012, 05:02 PM
Matthew261 has a valid point....caliber isn't as important as having the appropriate tactics.....you don't use the same tactics with a .25ACP (close-range, crainio-ocular target) as you use for a .45ACP (COM, distance allowed).....it's just as important to adapt your tactics to your gun as it is to adapt your gun to your tactics.....

markj
February 13, 2012, 05:38 PM
I will say, in any sd situation, you must use your head and outsmart the assailant. Same as in hunting, you must use your head. That is and will be my point in any discussion on SD. To aimlessly point and shoot will not do the job.

Your mind is the best weapon you have.

Cascade1911
February 16, 2012, 08:46 PM
If all you have while hunting is a .22 LR, yep, tactics are king. If you are planning to hunt white tail deer are you going to choose .22 lr ?

So, yes, tactics, training, outsmart, whatever, all good. But, at the end of it all.....

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The bigger the better as long as its not so hot that you 1) can't afford to train with it or 2) your more afraid to pull the trigger on it than get attacked by the assailant.

If you can be no less stupid with a .45 then with a .22, I'd say a .45 is better. If for some reason you can shoot a .22 and turn into an idiot as soon as a .45 is placed into your hand...by all means, stick with the .22 lr.

lincoln5
March 8, 2012, 02:33 PM
Calibers for CCW is a tough call (and this is from an LEO point of view) as
the weapon usually has to be fairly compact so as to not be detected to the untrained eye. In small to medium size towns with low crime rates, I would say that the normal, compact snubbies and small caliber semi-autos are adequate for CCW. However, that being said, if you live in a large city with a high violent crime rate and your profession requires you to spend a lot of time in a high-risk area where many of the robberies and assaults are with a firearm, then you really should consider concealing a full size weapon of at least .40 caliber. The problem with .32, .38, .380/9mm weapons is not that they don't work, they do, but if you are being assaulted by someone with a firearm and you instinctively double tap them to "center mass" as you have been trained with these small caliber weapons, you are probably going to be shot as well before your attacker collapses. With a more potent caliber with a full-length barrel, the odds are significantly higher of delivering enough shock on a "double tap" to center mass to prevent accurate return fire.

Spats McGee
March 8, 2012, 02:43 PM
. . . . In small to medium size towns with low crime rates, I would say that the normal, compact snubbies and small caliber semi-autos are adequate for CCW. However, that being said, if you live in a large city with a high violent crime rate and your profession requires you to spend a lot of time in a high-risk area where many of the robberies and assaults are with a firearm, then you really should consider concealing a full size weapon of at least .40 caliber. The problem with .32, .38, .380/9mm weapons is not that they don't work, they do, but if you are being assaulted by someone with a firearm and you instinctively double tap them to "center mass" as you have been trained with these small caliber weapons, you are probably going to be shot as well before your attacker collapses
I can see the area of my domicile making a difference in how often I carry, but I don't see the connection between "small town/big town" and "caliber choice." Bad guys aren't actually any larger in the big city. A weapon & caliber sufficient for Bubba Backwoods ought to work on Donny Downtown. Or did I miss something here?

DasGuy
March 8, 2012, 08:12 PM
LOL at "Bubba Backwoods" and "Donny Downtown"

C0untZer0
March 8, 2012, 08:36 PM
There is nothing safe about shooting a polar bear in the butt with a .22.


Words to live by.


.

jhenry
March 8, 2012, 08:42 PM
Amen brother.

matthew261
March 8, 2012, 08:55 PM
In 2007 Kenneth Shipp, after being involved in a traffic incident, drew and fired a .22 magnum North American Arms SA revolver into the face of Officer Eric Freeman. Sadly, Officer Freeman died of the wound shortly thereafter. Conversely, Officer Massad Ayoob (and famed ballistics and defensive shooting expert) fired five .38 special rounds point blank into the face of a perp...and he lived.

Does caliber matter? In most instances, 'yes', in others, not so much. Ultimately I believe that caliber matters. I carry a .357 magnum most (99% of the time), a .45 ACP .5% of the time and a .22 magnum the other .5% of the time (don't ask, just know that's what's required). I believe that a .357 magnum is the most effective round for stopping a human attack...therefore I carry it most often. On the very rare occasion that I think I'll need more firepower, I carry my full size HK45. On the occasions that I absolutely cannot carry anything more, I carry my mouse gun (which I load with 45 gr. Critical Defense loads from Hornady and would not hesitate in sticking in in the eye of an aggresor).

Caliber is important, but shot placement is paramount. Carry, practice and use that with which you are most comfortable and contribute to the NRA.

Nathan
March 8, 2012, 09:22 PM
Look, somebody will always have a success story with your pet caliber, even a bb gin, blow gun or 22lr.

It can also be argued that 5.7, 380, 9mm and other small calibers are good SD calibers, multiple test results and actual shootings show calibers larger in size which normally expand and still penetrate 14" are the best for self defense. When plugged with clothing, I would still rather be making 45 holes vs 22 holes. 14" gets you through even with a light barrier. Hunters know exit wounds bleed out, so you have to get through. In addition, the spine is in a human's back, covered with bone.

So 40+ sized calibers which can be shot fast are best for sd.

If completely impractical, I like things which will penetrate and shoot fast for caliber like 357 mag or 38+P. These should keep the 14" penetration and be more likely to expand due to high velocity for caliber.

Last, if you need to hide it in a speedo, lesser calibers in fmj should at least penetrate to the spine and give an exit wound like 32 ACP or 380.

This is why I struggle with 9mm. Then bullets need to expand to stop, but they often penetrate less when they do. The gun is usually as big as a 40. The only good thing is 9 is easy to shoot fast and the ammo is much cheaper.

The 22 has cheap ammo and is ideal if attacked by prairie dogs or other rodents and snake. A good utility gun and the ammo is light. Hiking, I would be tempted to carry a 45 for sd and a 22 with lots of ammo for fun, snakes, survival, etc.

lincoln5
March 8, 2012, 10:24 PM
I think some of you are somehow missing the point of my post.
The point is, if you don't live in a big city, high-crime, "Little Beirut" type of
area, do you really want to carry a 40 oz. weapon concealed everyday? My first suggestion of course, would be to move. In small town USA where there is little crime and what rare problems you do encounter are not likely to possess a firearm, then the typical .38 snubbie, small semi-auto CCW weapon that is easy to carry and conceal daily is certainly adequate.

Frank Ettin
March 8, 2012, 10:35 PM
I think some of you are somehow missing the point of my post.
The point is, if you don't live in a big city, high-crime, "Little Beirut" type of
area, do you really want to carry a 40 oz. weapon concealed everyday? My first suggestion of course, would be to move. In small town USA where there is little crime and what problems you encounter are not likely to possess a
firearm, then the typical .38 snubbie, small semi-auto CCW weapon that is easy to carry daily is adequate. If that's really your point, I think your reasoning is specious.

Yes, a private citizen, especially if he can avoid "high crime" areas, is very unlikely to need his gun. But the likelihood that he might need his gun is independent of the nature of the threat he might need his gun to defend against.

So while he might never need his gun, it's still possible that if he does he will need to deal with a strong, determined adversary who is under the influence of drugs and who will be difficult to stop.

Rifleman 173
March 9, 2012, 05:18 AM
I've learned over the years that shot placement and multiple hits on target are more important than caliber or millimeter size. You hit a guy square in the head a couple of times with a .22 long rifle and you're probably going the win the day. If you do 2 to the chest and 1 or 2 to the head, that will probably make you a winner too. I do, however, personally prefer using the larger and heavier bullets when I can, but if I can't, I do multiple shots and go for good shot placement.

lincoln5
March 9, 2012, 09:09 AM
LOL on the Bubba Backwoods, Donny Downtown, etc...
I think the point there is where "bubba" lives there is maybe 2 homocides per year. We have a nearby city of 40,000 that had 0, read zero homocides for 2011.
Where "donny" lives there are up to 10 homocides per day.

C0untZer0
March 9, 2012, 09:30 AM
Officer Reston took a .45 to the chin from assailant Joel Abner and the shot caused Reston to go down, the assailant fired a few more rounds at his chest and thinking the officer dead began walking away, Reston sat up, drew his sidearm and the two exchanged fire. Reston's protective vest stopped the rounds fired at his chest. Reston was struck two more times - one in the arm and once in the hip / buttocks. The conflict ended when Reston grappled Abner and fired 2 point blank shots into his head.

So anyway, there is an example of someone getting shot with a .45, in the chin, and he continues to fight and eventually prevails.

Things may have been very different if Abner had been using hollow point ammo... the FMJ bullet that stuck Reston punched a very neat hole in his chin, traveled down his neck and exited out the back of his neck. It broke his jaw but that's about it, meaning the path of the bullet was a fairly clean path.

Spats McGee
March 9, 2012, 12:02 PM
LOL on the Bubba Backwoods, Donny Downtown, etc...
I think the point there is where "bubba" lives there is maybe 2 homocides per year. We have a nearby city of 40,000 that had 0, read zero homocides for 2011.
Where "donny" lives there are up to 10 homocides per day.
Oh, I get the point, but I have some reservations about the reasoning. Of course, leave it to fiddletown to reduce to one sentence, that which takes me all day to articulate:
. . . . the likelihood that [a private citizen] might need his gun is independent of the nature of the threat he might need his gun to defend against.
The odds of having to shoot go up in a high crime area. The ballistics don't change, though.

ScottRiqui
March 9, 2012, 12:12 PM
The odds of having to shoot go up in a high crime area. The ballistics don't change, though.

That's exactly what fiddletown said - the likelihood of an encounter is independent of the severity of the encounter, should it occur. I'm much less likely to fall off a bridge that has a guardrail compared to a bridge of the same height that doesn't have a guardrail, but if it happens, the outcome will be the same in either case.

Spats McGee
March 9, 2012, 12:19 PM
Yes, it is exactly what fiddletown said. It's the point that I had been getting at in an earlier post, but which I failed to articulate very well.

ScottRiqui
March 9, 2012, 12:31 PM
Oh crap - I missed the line in your post where you plainly said that you were agreeing with him. That's what I get for reading posts on my phone. Sorry about the misunderstanding - that's completely on me.

Spats McGee
March 9, 2012, 02:05 PM
It happens. No harm, no foul.

TenRing
March 9, 2012, 02:15 PM
Sure, caliber is important. There is a reason why police don't carry .22 LR pistols.

Caliber isn't the most important thing but don't fool yourself into thinking it isn't important at all.

The most important thing is to make sure that you have "A Gun" when you need it. The type, caliber, brand and color of your gun can be considered after that.

seeker_two
March 9, 2012, 10:12 PM
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4996832&postcount=93

Matthew261: Do you have a citation for this story? I'm surprised Ayoob was carrying a .38Spl snub....he usually carries a .357Mag if. he carries a snub.....

Mas Ayoob
March 10, 2012, 05:48 AM
Nope, that wasn't me.

seeker_two
March 10, 2012, 06:13 AM
Well....that answers my question.....

farmerboy
March 10, 2012, 02:26 PM
most likely "NO". how many instances where most of us on here had to shoot someone and find out? hardly ever happens but if all I had was a 22 I believe it would work fine even though Id rather have my 40 cal.

Frank Ettin
March 10, 2012, 02:35 PM
most likely "NO". how many instances where most of us on here had to shoot someone and find out?...True enough. If you don't have to shoot, caliber won't matter. What if you do need to shoot?

... if all I had was a 22 I believe it would work fine even though Id rather have my 40 cal. Well it looks like caliber matters to you if you do need to shoot. Sure, if all you have is a .22, you'd have no choice but to use it. But if you have a choice, you'd rather have something bigger.

Making do with what you have is one thing. Getting to choose what you'd rather have is another. As long as I can choose, it won't be a .22.

Single Six
March 10, 2012, 03:10 PM
In my opinion, yes, caliber counts. Of course, to be fair, so does marksmanship and tactics. Anyhow, when I look at a round of .45 ACP next to a .40 S&W and 9mm round, the size disparity always stands out. Try to chamber either a .40 or 9mm round in a .45, and they'll fall right down the barrel and out of the muzzle. Handguns aren't all that powerful anyway [compared to rifles or shotguns], so to me, it makes sense to go with the larger of the aforementioned trio. My philosophy about handguns follows the same logic that I apply to paychecks, steaks, hamburgers, locomotives, and women: Bigger is better!:D

farmerboy
March 10, 2012, 05:21 PM
really, you hear of someone that gets shot with a 45 five times and still runs off and other get shot with a 22 and die almost instantly. Sometimes when your times up its up. I wouldnt want to get shot with a 45 or a 22. I think 99% of the time an indiv. gets shot with whatever will be out of the fight, most BG's hear a gunshot will be leaving the other direction. Still theres those on pcp that may get shot 5-6 times with a cannon and still have to bleed out before theyre no longer a threat. But for 99.9% of us on here a 22 would be fine. But yes my duty gun is a glock 22 gen 4 and Id rather not wound someone with a 22 in a shooting, if I have to shoot someone Id rather put a end to the BG then and there and not have to pay taxes to so many who play the system. Just my opinion!

Frank Ettin
March 10, 2012, 06:14 PM
really, you hear of someone that gets shot with a 45 five times and still runs off and other get shot with a 22 and die almost instantly....One hears all kinds of things. Whether what he hears is true is another question. What it means is yet another.

But we do know some of the physiological mechanisms by which getting shot can impair someone's ability to continue fighting, and for those mechanisms caliber matters.

couldbeanyone
March 10, 2012, 08:56 PM
So while he might never need his gun, it's still possible that if he does he will need to deal with a strong, determined adversary who is under the influence of drugs and who will be difficult to stop.

Darn, I knew I should have kept my scoped Encore in 300 Win Mag. After all there was this guy on a clock tower with a scoped rifle in Texas once, so it is "possible" that I would need to carry it to offer effective return fire. After all at that range I would be totally screwed with a mere .45.

Ok, let the hysterical wailings over .380 vs. 9mm vs. 45 continue.

TenRing
March 10, 2012, 09:32 PM
If you have a gun, you will probably be ok. If you have a bigger gun with higher capacity, then you will probably be more ok.

Spats McGee
March 11, 2012, 08:12 AM
I look at it this way: If given no choice on carry weapon, for whatever reason, you shoots what you gets. If given a choice of what to carry, caliber counts. There's a "window" of viable choices in carry calibers. Where most posters seem to disagree (in my observation) is how large that window is, and what fits inside it. Personally, I prefer a .45, given a choice. However, if I could only carry a 9mm, I'd be comfortable with that. If I could only carry a .22LR, I wouldn't be particularly comfortable, but I'd take what I got.

Edited to add: Someone (fiddletown, I think) posted some "rules of thumb" recently that sum up my belief on SD calibers pretty well. While I was unable to locate the particular post, they went something like this:

Hits beat misses, regardless of caliber.
Big holes work better than small holes.
Many holes work better than few holes.

LockedBreech
March 11, 2012, 11:57 PM
For all the cases of someone taking a half-dozens .45s and living, or someone taking .22s and dying, it's important to remember that's the exception, and not the rule.

Driven by a skilled driver, I'm sure a Kia could beat a BMW in a race, if the BMW was driven by a rank amateur. That doesn't make the Kia a better race car.

L_Killkenny
March 12, 2012, 11:46 AM
While I won't go as far as saying caliber should have no bearing on your desision I will say there are plenty of other issues that should be thought of first. When/if the time comes that I have to pull the trigger I'd generally like to have all the benifits I can get. But the difference between carrying a .22lr or a .45acp, let alone the difference between carrying a .380 vs. 9mm vs. 45acp, aren't nearly as great as some would lead you to believe.

LK

farmerboy
March 12, 2012, 12:14 PM
when I say a 22 would do just as good as a 45 I mean to stop the threat, most will haul butt when hit with a 22 or fall to ground and flounce like a fish but the threat is still over. Maybe not dead but over. Yes everyone knows a 45 or close to it most of the times will knock someone down or end life then and there (most of the time) but in reality the 22 did just as good, it ended the threat! Even though Im like most others Id rather finish the threat not just end it!

L_Killkenny
March 12, 2012, 12:54 PM
when I say a 22 would do just as good as a 45 I mean to stop the threat, most will haul butt when hit with a 22 or fall to ground and flounce like a fish but the threat is still over. Maybe not dead but over. Yes everyone knows a 45 or close to it most of the times will knock someone down or end life then and there (most of the time) but in reality the 22 did just as good, it ended the threat! Even though Im like most others Id rather finish the threat not just end it!

I've been preaching the same thing for years. Bad guys generally don't like to get shot at. They fall and cry for mommy or they run like the wind whether it be a .22lr or a .50AE that's chuckin lead at em. But I looked at worst case scenario for me, gas station hold up. Say I'm in back getting a pop, beer or ice and someone walks in and shoots the cashier. At that point I'm cowering in the back of the store, pissin myself and trying to be invisible. But if I have a gun it's gonna be out and how confident am I gonna be in my .22? Personally, I'd be wishing I'd hired a couple dudes with MP5's to protect me (after all, how much is my life worth is an arguement some make around here:rolleyes:) but since that's not an option if things go bad I'd like something a little bigger.

That being said more than likely I won't have any gun let alone a great one in the million to one chance things go that sideways.

LK

Frank Ettin
March 12, 2012, 07:58 PM
Started getting snippy and silly -- time to quit.