[Mello2u]

It seems to me that the author (John Farnam) of the linked article is using a different meaning to the phrase "use enough gun" which is the title of Robert Ruark's book. On the one hand, where Ruark was focused on choosing an adequately powerful and penetrating big game rifle cartridge; on the other hand, the linked article seems to be premised upon at ranges over 20 yards a handgun is not enough gun. Not enough because pistols lack what a rifle has, a shoulder stock and a forearm which provides much greater stability; and therefore, accuracy at what Farnam calls "beyond pistol range".

Farnam states: "The fact is, this threat was out of pistol range!" [the distance was 21 meters.]

Farnam lists several example of cartridges he feels would do: "223, 7.62x39, 7.62x51, 6.8Spc, 300Blk, 30Carbine".

I can only imagine how difficult it is to place shots on a armed adversary who is firing at me. I know how difficult it is in IPSC competition and in the Gunsite shoot-offs to quickly and accurately place major caliber hits. However, my competitive experiences are artificial stress and can't compare to a life and death shoot out.

I remember one night on patrol being the first officer on the scene of a shooting where I spotted a man down on the sidewalk. I was trying to look in ten different directions for potential threats, trying to call for help, preserve the scene, and identify and corral witnesses . . . . .
That was stressful, and no one was shooting at me.

I can agree that having the option of a readily accessible carbine in a patrol car would be good for officer survival. Even pistol cartridges in a carbine platform would have likely have been a great advantage. It was not a lack of power or a lack of the bullets to incapacitate, but a lack of hits on the threat that was the focus of the article.