Is caliber really all that important for ccw

[BlackFeather]

Okay, so, how about the FN 5.7? Higher velocity, but still a small round. Intermediate round?

[bds32]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by mavracer

Are you sure you want to make that argument.

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.

Originally Posted by mavracer

...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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by mavracer

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.

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.

Originally Posted by mavracer

...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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by mavracer

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by mavracer

...A 45 will inccrease your chances is a absolute statement...

No, it is not. "Increase your chances" is a statement of probability.

[mavracer]

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]

Originally Posted by mavracer

...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]

"Chances" and "probability" are synonyms in the context of this discussion.

[manta49]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.