Best caliber for self defense

[Tool]

All of my handguns have been 9mm. I'm tempted to buy an HK USP with a larger caliber. After all, I live in a state that prevent me from using magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds anyway.

Which one is better? 45 acp or 40 SW?

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by Tool

All of my handguns have been 9mm. I'm tempted to buy an HK USP with a larger caliber. After all, I live in a state that prevent me from using magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds anyway.

Which one is better? 45 acp or 40 SW?

My Glock 30 magazine holds ten rounds.

It's the best caliber for self-defense.

Problem solved.

[105kw]

My choice would be for .45ACP. There are a lot of good guns out there.
Ammo is available, bullets are better then what we used 40yrs ago. Better bullets for reloading XTP, and Gold Dot come to mind.
If I don't choose a 9mm, next choice would be .45 Auto

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by Tool

All of my handguns have been 9mm. I'm tempted to buy an HK USP with a larger caliber. After all, I live in a state that prevent me from using magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds anyway.

Which one is better? 45 acp or 40 SW?

Neither, they both do the same thing. The "best" caliber is the one you can practice with the most....

[74A95]

They are equal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nycYxb-zNwc

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alte...stopping-power

[74A95]

Originally Posted by The Verminator

My Glock 30 magazine holds ten rounds.

It's the best caliber for self-defense.

Are you going to tell people the caliber of a Glock 30?

[georgehwbush]

"beware the man that has only one guy"

me thinks practice trumps caliber. the quote above was from an az st rifle turnament iirc, it's been a while. but a local sheriff toke the trophy with a model 94 in 30-30. no one expected that to happen, except him.

[Hawg]

Originally Posted by 74A95

Are you going to tell people the caliber of a Glock 30?

.45 ACP.

[rc]

If you don't have a 45 you need a good 1911 40 is a very good round. It's short and weak compared with the 10mm but with 155 grain and 135 grain loads you can surpass the 9mm with ballistics rivaling 357 mag and 357 sig. With 180 grain loads 40 is close to 45 in power. 40 is just a lot more expensive than 9mm to feed and very close in price to 45.

[44 AMP]

"beware the man that has only one guy"

me thinks practice trumps caliber. the quote above was from an az st rifle turnament iirc, it's been a while.

The proper quote is "Beware the man with only one gun, he probably knows how to use it!" and is much older than any AZ tournament.

Practice does not trump caliber, practice trumps inexperience.

An old friend of mine used to say "Practice does not make perfect. Practice makes better. PERFECT practice makes perfect."

They weren't wrong...

All the common "duty class" semi auto rounds are the same, in that all can work, and all can fail. The one you shoot best, in the gun you use best is the better choice.

I'm a .45 guy, have been since the days when virtually all semi auto ammo came in one flavor, FMJ. I believe in my signature line, have never found anything in life to disprove it. But do note the phrasing....

[Nathan]

Interesting. While i wouldn’t sell a 9mm to buy a 40 or 45, 40 sw has better bullet performance in gel, etc.

That said, 9mm has an advantage of size….guns can be smaller. 9mm also has the advantage of lower recoil.

45 is just the next step up in performance.

All that said, the question ought to focus heavily on how well can you shoot each level up in performance. If you can shoot a 10rd 45 auto with 0.15” splits, that’s your answer. If recoil is driving you to 0.5s splits, try stepping down to 40 or 9. If you don’t know your splits, how are you making your decision?…..

I mean 500 S&W is the most effective caliber, but my splits are about 1 min!

[jar]

YAWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by 74A95

Are you going to tell people the caliber of a Glock 30?

.45

[Aguila Blanca]

IMHO, the best caliber is whatever you can afford and can shoot proficiently.

I carry a 1911, in .45 ACP. I also have a 1911 chambered in 9mm and I don't feel under-gunned or unprotected if I carry that. I own a couple of pistols in .40 S&W. In fact, I have a 1911 in .40 S&W that's pretty much an exact copy of one of my .45s. Shooting them against one another, the recoil of the .40 is "snappier" than the recoil of the .45. Either will work for self-defense, but I find the .45 to be easier to shoot accurately, and less unpleasant to shoot.

Some people carry .22 Magnum for self-defense.

[mk70ss]

There is no best caliber. There are many good calibers for self defense. What is more important is an absolutely reliable firearm than is reasonably accurate for self defense. The most important factor though is an operator of said firearm that can place shots into an assailant accurately under a high stress situation. A calm, resolute, good marksman with a .22 is more dangerous than a hysterical, person that never trains with their gun and has a 9mm or .45.

But all things being equal, I would be happy with either my 9mm, my .45 ACP, or my .357 revolver

[Mike P. Wagner]

A hit with a .380 is far more devastating than a miss with a 10 mm.

So my question is: With what pistol/caliber are you most likely to hit what you intend to hit?

The ancillary to that is: What caliber can you afford to shoot 5K - 10K rounds a year (100 - 200 rounds a week) - at at minimum to maintain your accuracy/gun handling skills.

My favorite self defense caliber would probably be 357 SIG - but at something like 45¢ a round, that's $4500/year.

I chose 9mm because at 18¢ round, $1800/year is more affordable.

But that's me - if you want to shoot 400 Corbin and can afford to train with it, knock yourself out.

[44 AMP]

The ancillary to that is: What caliber can you afford to shoot 5K - 10K rounds a year (100 - 200 rounds a week) - at at minimum to maintain your accuracy/gun handling skills.

IF you are a well heeled enthusiast, you can shoot that much. Most of us can't afford that. I've known lots of people who have what they consider entirely adequate skills, who don't shoot nearly that much.

I don't know of any cops who shoot that much. And the police are as close to "professional gun fighters" as you're going to find outside of the military in active combat, and THEY don't shoot that much in practice, (particularly handguns), not even close.

The corollary to your 100-200rnds a week statement is the implied idea that if you don't shoot that much (at a minimum), you cannot maintain your accuracy/gun handling skills, and from what I've seen and experienced in over 60 years of recreational shooting, its just not true. Might be true if you're trying to maintain match winning proficiency, but few of us are.

Additionally, shooting that much can cause physical damage. Service class semis are soft shooters, compared to some guns.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by Mike P. Wagner

.....(100 - 200 rounds a week) - at at minimum to maintain your accuracy/gun handling skills.

Same rule may not apply to all.

Yeah, I'm more likely to shoot 100-200 rounds a YEAR.

But I'm retired military and have been shooting handguns for a little over 70 years.

I can hit minute of center mass area at 25 yards or less........that's all I want.

[Mike P. Wagner]

Originally Posted by The Verminator

Same rule may not apply to all.

Yeah, I'm more likely to shoot 100-200 rounds a YEAR.

But I'm retired military and have been shooting handguns for a little over 70 years.

I can hit minute of center mass area at 25 yards or less........that's all I want.

That makes sense - but it brings up a question that I have been curious about for a while - what branches of the military actually train extensively with pistols?

I ask in part because my dad served for 20 years in the Navy - and as far as I know - qualified once with a 1911 in OCS, and was never to do any more.

I think - but I don't know - that almost no one in the Navy trains extensively with any firearms except for MPs and special ops. My dad's friends joked that they measured caliber in inches, not hundredths. :-)

I assume Marines and Army train with rifles extensively. Do either of them train a lot with pistols?

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by Mike P. Wagner

That makes sense - but it brings up a question that I have been curious about for a while - what branches of the military actually train extensively with pistols?

I ask in part because my dad served for 20 years in the Navy - and as far as I know - qualified once with a 1911 in OCS, and was never to do any more.

I think - but I don't know - that almost no one in the Navy trains extensively with any firearms except for MPs and special ops. My dad's friends joked that they measured caliber in inches, not hundredths. :-)

I assume Marines and Army train with rifles extensively. Do either of them train a lot with pistols?

I'm not the best person to ask.

I had four years in the Navy and 18 years in the Air National Guard--retiring in 2002.

So I don't know much about how things are now with pistol training, I expect you don't get much, but more recent active duty vets can probably tell you more.

I didn't get to shoot anything but the M-1 in Boot Camp. They demonstrated several other weapons.

In Yokosuka, Japan in 1966-67 I was on the base intramural pistol team for two years. The various commands competed with each other. We had the honor of ALMOST beating the Marine Barracks team.

At Yokosuka I got some unusual training with the 1911 due to the quite serious and potentially dangerous demonstrations against allowing nuclear submarines into the port. Many E-3s and below had to attend anti-riot training for three days. We learned to advance in formation with our M-1s with bayonets attached--stamping our feet in unison and looking dangerous. It was a break from our normal work. We loved it.

We also got to shoot a few magazines through some old 1911s. That was the highlight of the training, I thought. We also got to learn how to field strip them and clean them.

I next went to Guam where there were no pistol teams but I got to know the old Gunners Mate who ran the pistol range and I worked that into hanging out at the range with him and doing some shooting.

My important shooting started when my dad handed me a 38-40 Colt Peacemaker at the age of five and told me to shoot it. He had to catch it as it recoiled above my head. I loved it. The beginning of hearing loss.

My dad had been in the Pacific Theatre in the SeaBees. He had PTSD before it was invented. He carried the 1911 (that he illegally brought home) for years after the war. He was somewhat crazy but I was lucky to have him as he thought it important to teach me how to shoot. He felt I would be needed in the coming war with Russia. It turned out to be Vietnam.

As a youngster I got to roam on our farm and hunt and plink with quality handguns......among them a K-22 and a Colt Woodsman.

That's where I really got my training. Burning up a lot of .22 shells on animate and inanimate targets.

Now I'm an old man and all I have is memories........(but I'm still dangerous).

[Metric]

Personally, if I were branching out from 9mm, it wouldn't be to 40 or 45. All three are basic self-defense cartridges, and in that role they are all basically interchangeable. Branching out to 40 or 45 would do little except to add another, more expensive caliber that you have to stock and keep track of.

Personally, I would look to 22 or 10mm. Both add a dimension of "hunting and survival utility" beyond a pure self-defense tool. And they are both distinct enough from 9mm to give another level of shooting fun.

For pure self-defense, caliber matters less than you think:

[Pumpkin]

The comparison between calibers of the number of people shot in this study totally throws off it’s credibility.

[mehavey]

I think the best thing to say about the figures in the graph above is....
... they are so counterintuitive as to beg the question digging into comparative circumstances.

I'm not a big fan of 9mm.... but something's wrong in that comparison to lesser cartridges.

[Pumpkin]

I have never, thank God, have had to shoot another human.
I have however used my pistols on various forms of varmints (50 lbs and under) over the past 42 years and I can personally vouch for the difference in effectiveness between the 22lr and the 44mag.
The 22 is usually just enough while the 44 with a JHP hits like a neutron bomb yet the chart begs to differ.
And how cartridges like the 9mm, 40s&w and 45acp are rated so close to the 380 and under cartridges is ridiculous, sorry.
I would never recommend a pistol cartridge using the information from this study as my guide.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by Metric

Personally, if I were branching out from 9mm, it wouldn't be to 40 or 45. All three are basic self-defense cartridges, and in that role they are all basically interchangeable. Branching out to 40 or 45 would do little except to add another, more expensive caliber that you have to stock and keep track of.

Personally, I would look to 22 or 10mm. Both add a dimension of "hunting and survival utility" beyond a pure self-defense tool. And they are both distinct enough from 9mm to give another level of shooting fun.

For pure self-defense, caliber matters less than you think:

The study is meaningless because it lumps together head shots and torso shots.

They should be separate studies as they are totally different outcomes.

And the ranking of the .32 above so many good cartridges is ludicrous.