An honest debate on why our carry cartridge needs power

[nate45]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

Today on Oprah:

You get a 38
and
You get a 38
and
You get a 38
and
You get a 38
and
You get a 38
and
You get a 38

Thats the solution! Lets all get .38 Special snub-noses and carry 158 grain lead round nose ammo. Then the caliber war will be over. As far as 'stopping power' goes don't worry, I saw an episode of Hawaii 5-0 once where McGarret shot down a helicopter with his! How much more power do you need.

[Hard Ball]

"Winston Churchill was his, when it got down to the bottom line, own bodyguard".

He carrie a 7.62mm Military Mauser when he went to war, He wrote that it was the best weapon in the world and that he lilled 5 men for certain with it..

[Glenn E. Meyer]

"the race is not always to the faster nor the stronger, but that's the way to bet".


"the jockey with no horse usually is left in the horsepoop".

That's the point, isn't it. That if you only have a lesser caliber (for whatever reason), it can be useful. Otherwise, we repeat oursleves.

Scattergun - since you ignore me - you won't see me say that you contribute little but hot air.

As far as saying the same old thing - I imagine it has some utility but it just seems like a family fight between a long married and hateful couple, rehashing the same business till they pass on.

I was dead serious that we are just saying the same arguments.

1. The most powerful, reliable gun that you can actually and practically carry/shoot is best
2. From what we know, in the very large majority of defense gun usages - caliber doesn't seem to make a difference
3. Because of #2, it would be not reasonable to carry a lesser gun as compared to NO gun.

The quoted stats that 3G used to start the thread really doesn't impact the analysis.

[David Armstrong]

It does if they are shooting while retreating and your hits penetrate well at the different angles you may encounter by a moving bad guy.

If the BG is running away you don't need to keep shooting at him, IMO. Hunker down and stay safe.

Unfortunately history isn't going to smash the bad guys bones or penetrate deeply for me when Mr Murphy sees to it that I get the long shot.

Sigh. Once again simple logic just goes whizzing by. Since you seem to have missed the point, history indicates that you don't need to do that stuff. As for Mr. Murphy, you have chosen to compromise what you carry, why do you think it OK for you to now criticize how others compromise in what they carry?

And as I have also pointed out many times I'm not for bigger is better in the traditional debate.

Strange. Let's see now...."The same guys who tout how they would bring a rifle to a gunfight and not a handgun refuse to admit that bigger is better. Thats hypocritical thinking in my book." Looks like you are having a hard time figuring out just what it is you believe. One post you are all for bigger is better. Next post you are not for bigger is better. Sort of hypocritical??

I'm simply saying that the caliber should be big enough to consistently do what needs to be done to force compliance by a bad guy under gun fight dynamics.

Everybody knows what you are saying. We are simply pointing out that what you say is contradicted by the reality of gunfights. You are mandating a performance parameter that is virtually irrelevant in the conventional CCW environment. Very few BG need to be forced into compliance. They do it anyway!

One of the reasons is power and the ability to do what needs to be done to stop a threat.

Those are two reasons. For me it is simple, and it is one reason--it improves my chances to get rounds on the BG. Again, caliber is fairly irrelevant.

The shortest list in the world would be that of folks who would chose the 22 or 25 if a shootout was eminent.

Well, we might disagree. As we have seen here, I think that short list would be folks who would choose any handgun if a shootout was imminent. You don't carry a CCW handgun because you think a shootout is imminent, so that entire line of thought is rather silly.

You keep justifying puny and I'll keep debating against it.

You can debate all you want, but until you can come up with some reasons to explain why we should ignore the history of success it is sort of like arguing that birds cannot fly.

Because David in the end even with all your stats indicating just how adequate the puny calibers are, even you will choose bigger if a shoot out was eminent. For me that speaks volumes.

For you to continually have to resort to a situation where few folks would pick ANY handgun at all in order to justify your selection of handgun speaks volumes also.

Something that the puny ones simply cannot reliably do.

And which they apparently do not need to do. That is your main problem on this issue.

Dave, one of the ideas that I miss reading about is the idea of confidence.

I think I addressed that in the other thread, or at least tried to do so. And I agree, confidence is important. Some people put confidence in their tools, some have confidence in themselves.

However, as you point out it is the history and it is hard to dispute.

You would think so, yet so many regularly try to argue against the lessons of history. This is only one of those areas.

We know movement is likely. We know hits are difficult to get under the duress of a life and death struggle (low hit ratio's in actual shoot outs). We know that 22/25's lack sufficient penetration to reliably penetrate at the different angles we are likely to encounter much less if bone is contacted.

And we also know that doesn't seem to matter much to the success of a DGU incident. We know you usually don't have to get a hit. We know that any hit, with any caliber, usually stops the incident. We know that sufficient penetration usually has no impact on the BG stopping. Strange that you keep ignoring all those other "we knows".

[JohnKSa]

If the BG is running away you don't need to keep shooting at him, IMO.

Not always true. A person can retreat to cover and may do so while firing or not firing. If the BG is TRULY exiting the situation then you don't need to keep shooting. If it seems likely that he's just looking for a better vantage point from which to shoot back then that's a different story.

Strange. Let's see now...."The same guys who tout how they would bring a rifle to a gunfight and not a handgun refuse to admit that bigger is better.

There is no contradiction.

YES, a rifle is more powerful than a handgun. So much so that it is very likely to make a practical difference in stopping ability.

In general, particularly if one compares performance within the service pistol class, there is little practical difference in stopping ability. That's exactly why this debate rages on.

And we also know that doesn't seem to matter much to the success of a DGU incident. We know you usually don't have to get a hit. We know that any hit, with any caliber, usually stops the incident. We know that sufficient penetration usually has no impact on the BG stopping.

This is all exactly correct. Handgun caliber makes a difference in only a very small percentage of self-defense gun uses for the following reasons.

1. The gun is only rarely fired.
2. If the gun is fired most give up regardless of whether they're hit or not and regardless of the severity of the wound.

It's a very rare case where a defender is required to actually "break down" an attacker by physically damaging him with bullets to the point that he's completely unable to continue the attack.

[Scattergun Bob]

Damm, I hate it when I make the same mistake twice!

I would have thought the CORRECT insult would go something like " waisted or useless bytes" since "thank God" I don't have to be bored by your ramblings in person. I think that psychologists like yourself cornered the market in "hot air" many years ago!

[agtman]

Wow ... came into this thread a bit late, but had to chime in after reading this:

"I saw an episode of Hawaii 5-0 once where McGarret shot down a helicopter with his [.38 Special snubnose] ***"

I saw an episode of Miami Vice 1.0 once (2nd Season, pilot episode, title "Prodigal Son," to be exact), where Det. Sonny Crockett shot down a helicopter with his Bren Ten 10mm handcannon - much more realistic, and guess what? Vltor's bringing out a modified, improved version of the Bren, to be called the Fortis, so all the 10mm-haters out there can just wring their little hands and stay tuned.

Plus, Colt will be releasing a "limited run" of Delta Elites later this year. And from certain "inner circles," there's a rumor about hush-hush experiments with a 10mm M&P ... ... interesting - especially for a cartridge that "eveybody knows is way dead," to quote an on-line critic.

Well, after 25 years and despite its detractors, the 10mm AUTO is still the most powerful service cartridge that can be stuffed inside a semi-automatic pistol of reasonable size and weight.

Finally serious about stopping power?

Good. Ignore the critics and step up to the 10mm ...

http://bren-ten.com/agtman/id10.html

[Hawg]

Jesse James could defend himself quite well with a single action revolver.

True but when he died he was carrying a S&W Schofield double action.
Y'all can argue what's best all day long and not accomplish anything. Carry what you're comfortable with and hope like Hell you never need to use it. I carry a 1911 .45 ACP in my truck and if I ever need it that 255 gr. Keith will put a whompin on whoever it hits.

[tenusdad]

If I thought I was going to a gunfight I'd run or call the cops - if I couldn't I'd pack a 12 guage shotgun, extra ammo and a pair of 1911's with 10 spare magazines - but my carry gun is just another contingency escape plan - not for an extended firefight which is very very unlikely for me - soooooo - a Kel-Tec 32 works fine for most of the real world, is a big suprise for a bad person and would at least spoil the day of anything that gets in front of it's muzzel (then I run and call the cops) - save the N frame for the bedroom drawer

[.300H&H]

McGarret, Cannon, Barnaby Jones, Mannix, Kojak...all carried .38's.
James Bond carried a .25acp and then switched to a .380acp.



Yawning...


Blackbeard the pirate carried flintlocks that delivered about the same energy as a modern mildly loaded .38.


U.S. Brigadier Generals in WW2 were issued .32's.


Tom Selleck in Magnum P.I. used a .45.


I prefer a .38, but also carry at times a .25acp. Call me old-fashioned.

[Bill DeShivs]

Bond never used a .380. It was a .32-just for the record.

[KD5NRH]

That means we have a 1 in 280 chance of being a victim and a 1 in 933 chance of being a victim to someone armed with a firearm.

Per year.

I plan to be around for at least another 30 years, so that works out to about 1:9 of being a victim and 1:31 of facing a firearm. I'll stick with my .357.

[Derius_T]

Scattergun Bob,

Why don't you keep your posts relevant to the discussion please? No one wants to read through posts which have no value in regards to the topic at hand. Also, attacks of a personal nature allowed on this forum.

If you don't like what Glenn E. Meyer or anyone else has to say, great. But the rest of us really don't care. Please contribute to topic discussion, or keep your attacks to yourself.

[HKFan9]

My two carry firearms are both 9mm. Maybe a .45 be more effective, maybe, but I can belt well placed shots out of my 9mm's a lot quicker than any .45 I've shot. They are easy to control and I can dump the whole magazine as fast as I can and keep it well within COM. I'm not to good with a .45 so I keep my carry pieces in 9mm. I never get into caliber wars with people, if you can't control it why carry it? I can target shoot fine with a .45, but more than likely a SD shooting situation is going to be FAR from ideal, and more than likely would require 1 hand shooting, ect.

[David Armstrong]

Not always true.

Very few things in life are always true, particualrly when it comes to decision making in situations with multiple variables, which is why I tossed in the "IMO" qualifier. However, I will stand by my original statement: "If the BG is running away you don't need to keep shooting at him, IMO." But yes, I do agree that if he is just moving to a position of vantage to continue the fight you should keep shooting.

There is no contradiction.

We'll agreeably disagee. When someone make a declaration of fact and then claims not to have made that same declaration, there is a contradiction IMO.

YES, a rifle is more powerful than a handgun. So much so that it is very likely to make a practical difference in stopping ability.

But the value of the rifle goes far beyond the simple issue of stopping ability. Ease of control, greater accuracy, and other such factors can become the dominant factor, not the power. I'd much rather take a .30 M1 carbine into a fight than a 1911, for example. For that matter, if I knew the fight was coming, I'd probably go for a Ruger 10/22 over a 1911.

It's a very rare case where a defender is required to actually "break down" an attacker by physically damaging him with bullets to the point that he's completely unable to continue the attack.

Exactly.

[Water-Man]

Wow! There sure are alot of folks on this thread who have been in a gunfight before. Amazing!

[.300H&H]

Actually, I have interviewed quite a few folks who have survived gunfights.
One thing that always impresses me is that the gunfights are messy and have a strong element of surprise/anarchy - and placement almost always trumps power. The last interview I had was with someone ambushed by a man firing a .357. The assailant shot the victim in the leg<grazed the leg>and the victim ran back to their car , pulled out a .38 snubbie and from about 15yds. away and nailed the assailant with one shot to the chest. Lots of folks have been put out of commission with a .22. On the other hand, I'm always amazed by folks who get excited and can't hit the side of a barn - and by folks shot muti-times by every caliber imaginable but still survive.


In a sense there's no 'self-defense' - but only 'counter-offense.' The ability to rapidly recover and deliver a well-placed shot to preserve one's life - no matter what the caliber is - is what's most important. Incidentally, the fellow who made the good shot from 15yds with a .38 was charged with involuntary manslaughter.<seems they were in an ongoing chronic violent conflict>


The tactics of the mousegun that make up for its anemic power - is simply that of quickness and conealability. I can easily carry without anybody knowing I'm carrying it, and in 2secs I can draw and fire 7 shots at close range. Also the mousegun forces one to think and focus on situations with a mougun tactical frame of mind ie. the gun is for close quarters and for getting one out of a bad situation. In an ugly sense , it's a kind of counter assasination weapon rather than a gunfight weapon. It's a weapon meant to turn the tables rather than rearrange the entire dining room.


Bigger calibers are fine, but smallness,speed and controlability are good features too. I like the .38 because of its revolver platform - and while it too is best for close quarters, it extends the range a bit and delivers more power. I'm not opposed to 'power.' Power is a good thing, but it's only a part of the equation. The .32/.327 and .38/.357 calibers are perhaps ideal.

[Creature]

In a sense there's no 'self-defense' - but only 'counter-offense.' The ability to rapidly recover and deliver a well-placed shot to preserve one's life - no matter what the caliber is - is what's most important.

That's it in a nutshell...

[CSG]

I've carried a Beretta .25 950 BS, to .38 snubbies, to 9mm compacts, to compact .45's.

The main reason I carry a weapon is to escape harm. My first choice is flight and preventing the bad guy from attacking me or my family.

As a deputy sheriff, the only time I had a weapon out was off-duty to prevent an attack from a much larger individual but who was not, obviously armed. Had I shot him, I probably would have lost my badge and gone to jail (I was only about 24 then). Fortunately, he changed his mind and allowed himself to be arrested. FWIW, my thinking was I couldn't take the guy in a fight and he may have gotten my weapon and used it on me. As this was San Francisco in the 1970'w, what happened to me had I shot would have been iffy.

I generally feel well-armed with a small 9mm or my nearly 18 year old 442. Not so much with the Beretta although chances of the statistics quoted by the OP of being attacked are somewhat skewed. Those of us who live in places like Idaho have a smaller chance of a dangerous confrontation than those of you in larger more urban areas, I suspect.

[threegun]

If the BG is running away you don't need to keep shooting at him, IMO. Hunker down and stay safe.

I said if they are shooting while retreating, something I see frequently on robbery turned shootout video's. You hunker down and pray David, I'll try to put as many rounds on them as I can while hunkering down as long as they pose a deadly threat to me or mine.

Sigh. Once again simple logic just goes whizzing by. Since you seem to have missed the point, history indicates that you don't need to do that stuff. As for Mr. Murphy, you have chosen to compromise what you carry, why do you think it OK for you to now criticize how others compromise in what they carry?

Sigh. Ok what I was trying to say is that history/odds/statistics aren't a guarantee and that Murphy's law will see to it that I get the long shot. Hope that cleared it up for you.

As for compromise......I really don't see that much difference in the larger handgun calibers in terms of stopping power, as long as they can penetrate after striking large bones.

BTW, Carry what you want just don't say that carrying smaller is not a disadvantage.

Strange. Let's see now...."The same guys who tout how they would bring a rifle to a gunfight and not a handgun refuse to admit that bigger is better. Thats hypocritical thinking in my book." Looks like you are having a hard time figuring out just what it is you believe. One post you are all for bigger is better. Next post you are not for bigger is better. Sort of hypocritical??

I was talking about handgun caliber wars. Bigger is better if long guns and shotguns are added. With handguns you have a plateau in stopping power. None (in a concealable package) can deliver consistent stops. They force us to rely on blood loss to stop a determined attacker. Thats why once your chosen carry cartridge has the power to penetrate through likely obstacles, muscle and bones, the difference is not worth arguing.

P.S. You know darned good and well we were arguing 22/25 vs 38's &+ anyway and bigger here is better.

Everybody knows what you are saying. We are simply pointing out that what you say is contradicted by the reality of gunfights. You are mandating a performance parameter that is virtually irrelevant in the conventional CCW environment. Very few BG need to be forced into compliance. They do it anyway!

And if you meet one of those few.......you get to call a timeout........no you die.

For you to continually have to resort to a situation where few folks would pick ANY handgun at all in order to justify your selection of handgun speaks volumes also.

Of the choices you can conceal and considering how you would choose bigger (rifle) if you knew in advance something was going to happen my comparison is accurate and points out your hypocrisy.

And we also know that doesn't seem to matter much to the success of a DGU incident. We know you usually don't have to get a hit. We know that any hit, with any caliber, usually stops the incident. We know that sufficient penetration usually has no impact on the BG stopping. Strange that you keep ignoring all those other "we knows".

Usually, almost never, rare, is not never.

[obxned]

I'm a 45ACP guy. I love that round, and have been shooting pistols in .45 for about 1/2 the time the cartridge has been around. I've shot varmints and small game with it, often at very long range, big game once or twice, and a huge amount of paper, cans, old cars, and various other targets. I have nearly absolute faith in this cartridge.

However, my daily carry is a P3AT. I can dress the same way as I would if I was unarmed. It never interferes with my activities. Because of this I have it with me always. I practice enough to know mine is 100% reliable, and can rapidly place my shots where they are needed. Even the smallest .45 would get left at home some of the time, but not the tiny .380.

The .380 is a huge step down in power from the .45, but the .45 is a huge step down from a BAR, which is a huge step down from 16" naval guns. Everything in life requires some compromise. All you can do is analyze your lifestyle and the threats you might face, and make an intelligent choice based on that. If you ever have to use your pistol, I bet you wish it was at least the BAR.

[threegun]

If the handgun is a compromise to the rifle and a "step down" is it not safe to conclude that the puny caliber handguns are a compromise to the larger bored handguns and likewise a "step down"?

Carry what you wish...everyone.....just don't try to suggest, insinuate, allude, hint, imply, or smack that being armed with a 22/25 is equal to being armed with the bigger caliber handguns.

When you do this, it encourages those who don't have much experience, to carry puny without understanding its short comings.

[threegun]

To be frank, I had no idea how high the odds were that I be attacked by a BG armed with a gun. With a 1 in 933 chance of getting attacked by a BG armed with a GUN, hoping for compliance is just insane. After all regardless of stats you are one squeeze of a BG's finger from death.

We have highly educated gun guys on this board who push tactical training, mental conditioning, and FOF training because it increases your chances of survival.

So David?????Why bother expending the time and money training if simply showing my gun or popping off a few rounds will end most attacks? You once told me that my competitive experience was nothing compared to FOF. Now you say that it is very unlikely, very rare, almost never, that I will need anything more than just showing the carry gun or perhaps letting a couple rounds go. The hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it.

This whole justification of puny is scary.

We practice tactics, fire tons of expensive ammo, and perhaps pay expensive fees to attend top notch gun schools to prepare ourselves to fight at the best of our ability with the knowledge and skills to help us come away from a gun fight alive. We are taught what it takes to stop a BG (in the real world and not fantasy land). We are taught that putting a bad guy under duress of fire increases your chance of winning.

WHY??????????????

We are simply pointing out that what you say is contradicted by the reality of gunfights. You are mandating a performance parameter that is virtually irrelevant in the conventional CCW environment. Very few BG need to be forced into compliance. They do it anyway!

Just as you and many other knowledgeable gun guys advocate something they will very very likely never even need.

[Socrates]

I'm going to pull this back, since I have been assaulted, battered, and survived by three big guys, drunk and high, and, it really had nothing to do with me.

I was in Mel's bowling Alley in Alemeda. We had bowled in a league, and, they gave us free bowling after the league.

The manager was an *******, and, he was white. Prior to all this, he kicked the 3 black guys out for being drunk. They came back. They watched me kiss this *******s' ass so we could get the lanes turned on, and, thought I was his friend.
NOTHING was further from the truth. They waited until I went to the bathroom, cornered me, and tried to intimidate me. I started yelling, pushed through the 3 of them to the door. At this point, all the rules to the game changed. I had trained in martial arts for 20 years, and, the guy pulled a Walther PPKS, and hit me over the head with it. At close quarters, I would have tried to kill all three as fast as I could, eyes first, etc. the guy hit me over the head, and, I dropped down on my haunches, ready to go, if he pointed the gun at me. He didn't. No one else hit me. They left. It would have been a good day to die, and, I was ready.

If I had a gun, the guy with the PPKS would be dead first, shot in the head, at point blank range. For this purpose, a 22lr would have worked. Maybe 22 short, but, I'm not sure it would get through the frontal skill consistently.

I'm pretty sure the guys .380 would have done me in at that range. So, I guess the question is, for me, at point blank range, what caliber will consistently penetrate the thick skull of a 260-340 pound person?

Now, for a safer shot, I could have shot each guy in the chest. First getting off three aimed shot would have very hard in that situation, double taps out of the question, before the other two grabbed me.

So, at point blank range, COM shot, what would have been most likely to stop these guys, drunk and high?

I'd start with a 357 Snub, then think about the Glock 29, with 10mm full house stuff, and then 45 Super, maybe out of my Detonics, like 1200 fps with a 200 grain bullet. Given the situation, I'd probably go for 125 grain in the 357, 155 or 165, maybe even 135 grains in 10mm, and, 185 @ 1350 fps in the Detonics, or the 200's. Why? Light recoil, hope the velocity and muzzle blast at that range give radical, quick expansion, and that I can get the 3 shots off before they can.

[threegun]

Nope Socrates all you've gotta do is pull a gun and according to "history" they will run like a Gerbal from Richard Simmons.