An honest debate on why our carry cartridge needs power

[cyprian]

Well, having lived through that, that's what I took away from it. Bicker all you want.

[threegun]

Cyprian, You just hit several nerves (I only hit one "caliber war").

Always use more than just one shot

What if they stop after the first?

don't shoot to stop. Shoot to kill

Not good for our shooting community at minimum (this kind of talk).

Don't carry your Glock chambered.

I won't even go here.............as a Glock man.

[MLeake]

There are a few reasons why bigger isn't always better.

1) Too much gun (IE shooter can't control it) is arguably worse than too little gun (lesser caliber). "It's better to be missed by a .45 than hit by a .22."

2) Impractical to conceal (Some of us can effectively conceal a 1911 or similar sized auto; not everybody is built well for that.)

3) Uncomfortable to carry (Unless the perceived need is really strong, IE regularly transiting really nasty areas for work, etc, most of us won't regularly carry a gun that is uncomfortably bulky or heavy). If I don't feel the need for the round capacity of a 92FS, or the controllable power of a 1911, or the versatility of a 4" GP100, then I am much more likely to carry a P239 or SP101. The gun I have will beat the gun at home every time.

Frankly, where I'm going next, I'll carry an M16 with a bunch of magazines, an M9 with a bunch of magazines, a SOG Daggert1, and one or two lockback folders, not to mention an Interceptor vest. There are times and places for loading for bear. However, around my hometown, I tend to go with what is comfortable, concealable, ultra-reliable, and reasonably effective.

[Derius_T]

IMHO, training with the gun you carry, so as to be proficient and accurate with it in a split second scenario, is alot more important than caliber. If you can't draw it, or hit whats trying to kill you, it doesn't matter if its a .22 or a rocket launcher.

The second thing I would consider is the reliability of the weapon you choose. If you wanna bet your life on a piece or crap gun thats just as liable to stop you instead of the threat, then I can't help you. Do some research. Find the carry gun that you are the most comfortable and the most proficient with, and that is mechanically reliable, and carry it.

Who cares if its a .32 or a .45? A well placed bullet to a vital area from a small caliber = just as dead as one from a larger caliber. Machoism has no place in concealed carry decisions.

[threegun]

"Dead is dead" right? Whether it be caused by a 22lr or a 10MM. Thing is the time to incapacitation and the ability of our foe to return fire after being hit. The 22/25's I would argue have the longest time to incapacitation and cause the least damage to a BG allowing them to return more fire and more accurate fire.

"It's better to be missed by a .45 than hit by a .22."

For sure but the real question is whether or not it is better to hit with a .22 or with a .45. No one would argue that one shouldn't carry a weapon they are not both comfortable handling and competent shooting.

[threegun]

Again this isn't about carrying the biggest hand cannon going. This is about carrying something who's caliber is powerful enough to consistently get the job done in the real world dynamics of a gun fight. For me thats 38 special and up.

I agree that machismo has no place in carry gun decision making but neither should the wishful thinking of folks who believe range groups will transfer to the street or that the BG is just going to stand square and receive your fire.

[MLeake]

The majority of posters seem to prefer .32 and larger, with most .32 carriers having either the Seecamp or Kel-Tec. The .32 carriers argue in favor of the convenience of carry.

Another argues for his .25, but he seems to be an exception. (Personally, I've never seen the point of the .25auto; the .22LR has similar energy and seems to have better functional reliability, plus it's easy to find at any gun shop... but the .25 has its adherents.)

Most posters advocate .380 or bigger.

While I can see scenarios where smaller guns in smaller calibers have distinct advantages, I would tend to agree with the "carry the biggest you can handle" argument, with the caveat that handling the caliber should include the ability to:

1) hit the target
2) fire reasonably rapid, accurate follow-up shots
3) deal with flash and blast in a nighttime scenario
4) comfortably carry and conceal the weapon used

For me, this means either a compact 9mm or .45, or a .357 snub loaded with .38+P. In jacket weather, a 4" .357 becomes feasible.

For some people, this will mean a .45Super or a 4" .44mag.

But for others, this will mean a .22LR revolver or auto, or maybe a high standard derringer in .22WMR. It will depend on their shooting ability, and the environment in which they will carry.

[Sigma 40 Blaster]

So what - I explained it - everyone go watch Oprah.

I'll be tuned in tomorrow. Maybe the MODS will add a new rule to this forum like they did General Discussion...no more "best handgun caliber/caliber war" threads?

[.300H&H]

Bigger is not necessarily better. There's this weird notion that somehow something 'magic' occurs when a .45 is used, but that everything smaller is somehow less lethal. I would argue that all the calibers are quite lethal, but they all require dedicated tactical efficiency...and tactics can vary.


A lot of folks seem to advocate a .357 over a .38, but firing a .357mag from a little J-Frame is a bit masochistic - and I would argue that a J-Frame is more efficient when its firing .38's...and the shooter is more likely to fire .38's from a J-Frame more efficiently. Two rapid well-placed shots from a .38 beat one big not-so-well-controlled shot from a .357mag. At close range a .38 is not exactly an anemic round.


In regard to .25's, .22's and .32's...I'll just say that someone who knows how to shoot them with confidence is not exactly naked - and at close range, well, they can kill a person quite nastily. If I've trained well to rapidly and accurately pop off 7 shots from a .22 at a bad guy who is 5ft away, I'm a few steps ahead of the person who has a .45 but who hasn't really trained to rapidly fire at anything in a close quarters situation.


It comes down to training and proficiency and two mechanical factors:1)power ie. the ability to deliver energy 2) controllability ie. less recoil and the ability to rapidly draw and fire. The snubnosed .38 is hard to beat. It draws quickly. It's concealable. It delivers a powerful but controllable round.


One can step up the power and go up in caliber, or one can step up the controllability and go down in caliber. Whichever direction one goes, there's the challenge to become proficient in the tactics to be used.


At the extreme end of controllability is the .22/.25acp ie. it's as light as a toy and has no recoil. It can be whipped out and fire 7 shots in less than 2 seconds. It's extremely concealable. At the extreme end of power there's .40S&W's and .357mags and one reasonable shot will usually be all that's needed. In the middle is the ol'.38.


One nice aspect of the SP101 in .327mag. is the .327 mag. has the power of a .357mag. - but it can also shoot .32longs and .32H&R mags. - so in theory one could plink and practice with it in .32's and .327mag and have the best of both worlds. My biggest beef with the .22's/.25's is not so much the caliber size inasmuch I believe revolvers are better than semiauto's for close quarters self-defense.


The revolver is less likely to malfunction. When one's adrenaline is rushing, the revolver is more controllable<especially to someone not as experienced>and the revolver is more easily fired from a weakened hand.
I would not pick a .22 revolver because ironically the trigger pull is likely to be heavier than the trigger pull of revolvers used on centerfire rounds. A .32/.327 or .38/.357 would be my top choice.


However, there's times when concealability is what's really needed - and a Seecamp or a little .22/.25acp is the most concealable. There's lots of choices - lots of viable options to fit one's needs.

[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

This is so boring. I've learned nothing from this thread except that we rehash the same old crap.

Why do I read it - because it's there!

[threegun]

Most threads are a rehash of some type or another. I click on them and say the same thing as the last post by Glenn..........to my self. Then I click to the next interesting thread.

Some folks don't like FOX News but instead of watching CNN they try to get Fox shut down.

I feel it is very important to inform folks of the limitations of carrying puny caliber weapons as primary. Others may not. Still others may be preaching pro puny without understanding fully the dynamics involved in an armed confrontation.

A long time ago I was one of those guys who thought my one hole groups at the range would make hitting a bad guy easy. Friends with much more knowledge than I helped me understand what happens in a gunfight physiologically and dynamically. Things they said were confirmed somewhat by statistics (particularly hit ratios) and so many shoot out videos now available.

I fully understand, as David Armstrong so often points out, that the odds of ever having to trade rounds with a bad guy is very slim. Even slimmer are the odds of someone continuing to fight after getting shot.

Still I feel advocating, as some do, the voluntary carrying of a primary gun chambered in puny calibers is not proper. It is tactically unsound IMO to chose a PCG that isn't capable of doing what professionals agree needs to be done to stop a threat or to increase your chances of survival if things get ugly.

Again this is not for folks who simply cannot carry bigger for whatever reason.

[David Armstrong]

Now given the odds of having to face an firearm armed adversary does caliber still mean little to you guys?

Victimization chances have no bearing on caliber effectiveness, so yes, caliber still means very little to me when it comes to DGUs. As chris in va stated, “it seems to me ANY shooting back will turn an attacker on their heels.” That is the case. Determined adversarys, willing to advance against an armed opponent, are statistically non-existent for most of us. As tshadow6 points out, if you do encounter that mythical unstoppable BG, no handgun caliber is going to stop him right away (unless you get a good CNS hit). And if you get a good CNS hit, it doesn’t matter what the caliber is. Way too many examples out there of that to ignore. The overwhelming number of situations end because the BG decides to stop, not because he is physically forced to stop.

I fully understand that most attackers will run at the sight of your gun or after a round buzzes their tower but that still leaves an awful lot of folks who will exchange gunfire while retreating or press the attack.

If they are retreating then the caliber doesn’t matter. And it isn’t an “awful lot” that will press the attack, it is “very few”.

This IMO disqualifies any of the tiny calibers from performing primary carry duty unless they are the ONLY option.

Your opinion is duly noted, but it is worth pointing out that your opinion is in conflict with known history, where the small calibers have shown themselves to be excellent performers in the self-defense arena, which is one reason they are still chosen over large guns by most people.

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.

Rewrite your book. What so many others have said is that the bigger does not equal better. As I’ve pointed out over and over, you don’t carry a S&W 6” .44 Magnum, although it is bigger. You don’t carry a full size Glock, although it is bigger. So perhaps the hypocrisy is yours. As for rifles and handguns, if you fail to understand the difference there in terms of tactical use, it does no good to try to continue.

This is about carrying something who's caliber is powerful enough to consistently get the job done in the real world dynamics of a gun fight.

Well then, that seems to be .22 and up, at least according to history. NO traditional handgun caliber has ever been shown to regularly fail to get the job done in the real world. Just the opposite is true, in fact, that all calibers have consistently been found effective in most DGU incidents, just as all calibers have been found to fail in few DGU incidents.

I feel it is very important to inform folks of the limitations of carrying puny caliber weapons as primary.

Just as other feel it is very important to inform folks that your so-called limitations are for the most part totally irrelevant to the real-world use of the handgun in a CCW environment.

[Hawg]

I've carried everything from a .25 to a .45. I'm a trucker now and I don't carry on my person much but I do keep a .45 in the truck. Our drop yard is in a bad section of New Orleans. If I go there after dark the gun is in my hand at all times. Why a .45? Chances are if I get accosted in that neighborhood they're going to be hyped up on something and I want something that will put them down but don't want my unprotected ears subjected to the blast of a .357 or .44 magnum.

[threegun]

If they are retreating then the caliber doesn’t matter. And it isn’t an “awful lot” that will press the attack, it is “very few”.

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. That is if the commonly professed notion that good hits decrease an opponents ability to hit you is true.

Your opinion is duly noted, but it is worth pointing out that your opinion is in conflict with known history, where the small calibers have shown themselves to be excellent performers in the self-defense arena, which is one reason they are still chosen over large guns by most people.

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.

Rewrite your book. What so many others have said is that the bigger does not equal better. As I’ve pointed out over and over, you don’t carry a S&W 6” .44 Magnum, although it is bigger. You don’t carry a full size Glock, although it is bigger. So perhaps the hypocrisy is yours. As for rifles and handguns, if you fail to understand the difference there in terms of tactical use, it does no good to try to continue.

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

I understand the rifle like this. I want it over my handgun and depending on the situation over my shotgun. One of the reasons is power and the ability to do what needs to be done to stop a threat. Just as I feel my larger handgun caliber hits will better help me survive in a shoot out than puny handgun hits, the rifle hit will further increase my odds for survival over handgun hits. Its one of the reasons you and most folks in the know will chose a rifle if a known threat was eminent.

Well then, that seems to be .22 and up, at least according to history. NO traditional handgun caliber has ever been shown to regularly fail to get the job done in the real world. Just the opposite is true, in fact, that all calibers have consistently been found effective in most DGU incidents, just as all calibers have been found to fail in few DGU incidents

The shortest list in the world would be that of folks who would chose the 22 or 25 if a shootout was eminent. You keep justifying puny and I'll keep debating against it.

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.

I would chose bigger if I knew "it" was coming. I prepare for "it" by choosing to carry. Since I can't conceal a rifle and most of the upper handgun calibers are similar in power, I have decided that my caliber have at minimum, the ability to penetrate and smash bones. Something that the puny ones simply cannot reliably do.

[threegun]

Hawg, Your ears will be damaged by that 45 without a doubt.

[Scattergun Bob]

Dave, one of the ideas that I miss reading about is the idea of confidence. I "think" that is what 3 gun and others are making reference to. As a "old" trainer who is no longer "in the know" i stressed gaining confidence in whatever weapon was at hand. I strongly feel that this little used word makes a great difference on the battlefield. I understand how much of a leap of faith it is to believe that a 25ACP can end the gunfight as well as a .40 S&W. However, as you point out it is the history and it is hard to dispute.

3GUN, I am the last person in the world that will tell you to carry something other than what you choose. In the final result NO ONE will be there to extract your ASS from a bad situation even if their advise caused you harm. That said, everyone gets to decide BEFORE they leave the house what flavor of caliber they will take with them this day. I value your opinion, and you read my reply to you earlier in this melee. Good Luck and thanks for the warning.


Glenn E. Meyer glad to see your watching Oprah, from your history and posts I think it is a better past time for you than this forum! I have been in the personal defense business since 1969 and I still learn something new with each thread, with this one I learned to always log in, since you are on my ignore button and that way I don't have to read your drivel.

Good Luck & Be Safe

[c4v3man]

Robbery's totaled 338,100 in 2005. 42 percent were armed with a firearm.

Aggravated Assault's totaled 720,115 in 05. 21 percent used firearms.

Both of the above groups had over 60 percent of attackers armed with some type of weapon.

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.

Am I the only one who sees a problem with these statistics? It's actually 27.7% of these crimes are committed with a firearm. That changes the dynamics of this discussion quite a bit IMO.


I carry a 380 to work, and a 45 on the weekends. I'm proficient in both, however I'm not as fast drawing from my pocket carry 380 as I am from my IWB 45. I carry as much gun as I can, but I can't always carry as big as I want.

[c4v3man]

Let me also add that these statistics are annual, not extrapolated over a lifetime either. So while there is a 1 in 280 (not my number) chance of you becoming a victim THIS YEAR, your chances only increase through the years (or so I would imagine).

I didn't look at the report, I'm only working off the numbers given by the original poster.

[Hawg]

Hawg, Your ears will be damaged by that 45 without a doubt.

My ears are already damaged but the .45 won't hurt nearly as much as the .357 or .44 mag.

[Deaf Smith]

The only reason to carry a more powerful weapon, presuming you can conceal it and control it while shooting fast with one hand if need be, is that you will actually have to fire it and stop someone with it!

As long as you don't have to fire it, well any old gun will do. But...

While all handgun cartridges will kill, some TEND to stop the attacker better than others. It's well known from such as Ayoob that, all other things equal, then the more powerful rounds tend to stop attackers better. This is modified by such as bullet construction (not all JHPs are equal you might say.) A poorly constructed .45 bullet might not work as well as a well constructed .380 ACP!

Do any of them stop attackers 100 percent of the time? No. Even the .44 magnum has failed.

Do any of then stop attacks zero percent of the time? No. Even the .25 ACP as dropped some right there.

But, as you go up the scale in power, they do tend to be more sucessful. That's just a fact. And that is why you see LEO organizations go from 9mm or .40 S&W or .357 Sig or .45 ACP & GAP. Some prefer the 9mm, others the .40, others the .45. Each has it's assets and each it's liabilities. None are perfect, but all, if talking about actually using it (as in shooting someone with it), are more sucessful than the .25 or .22 lr!

What is more, when you carry a weapon, there is more than just the cartrige to think about (weapon platforms that is.) But that's another thread!

[.300H&H]

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

James Bond did quite well with his .25acp and his .380acp.

Tactics and Practice and Confidence...are most important.

If I'm carrying only a mousegun, my tactics are going to be different than when I carry a .357mag. Likewise my tactics are going to be different if I'm carrying a high capacity 9mm instead of a 5-shot .38. A person using a single-action revolver<if he/she knows how to use it well>can get off a 1st shot faster than someone using a double-action revolver or a semiauto.
Blackbeard the Pirate with a flintlock has a tactical advantage over Barney Fife with a double-action revolver.

[cyprian]

That's all reet

[threegun]

300, Please list the tactics that will makeup for the 22/25's limitations in power. I'm gonna guess from your past posts that its 7 fast shots to the torso. I can see it now BG approaches begins to jerk a pistol from his waist. I respond by pulling my puny pistol. BG begins to bob and weave and cant his body while launching bullets wildly. I fire 7 fast shots which all hit his torso. Never mind the pressure. Never mind the movement (which isn't predictable).

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.

But look at the bright side its not likely that any of you will ever find out these limitations......just ask DA. I guess that alone makes them "adequate".

[threegun]

How are your tactics going to be different for the 38 snubby vs the hi-cap 9mm?

[Deaf Smith]

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

James Bond did quite well with his .25acp and his .380acp.

Jesse's attackers ALL had SSA to. That's how.

James Bond? Bond's a BS mythology weenie actor that never was. That's how he kocks them dead.

How are your tactics going to be different for the 38 snubby vs the hi-cap 9mm?

You have more rounds to play with. You can fire three or four rounds and not worry about reloading. That's one of the real advantages of any simi-auto, not just HC 9s.

Tactics to make up for the .22 & .25s lack of power? It's kind of like the tactics need to make up for being smaller and weaker.

Yes there are cases where those with smaller weapons have prevailed. There are cases where people with larger weapons have failed. But like they say, "the race is not always to the faster nor the stronger, but that's the way to bet".