Best caliber for self defense

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

When it comes to the personal choice of a defensive caliber, and firearm for my personal use, I do not (and should not) use the same criteria that a large organization uses.

I don't think you should, either.

I don’t think a person should use a cartridge solely because organization X uses it. If a person looks at the stated reasons for why that organization uses that cartridge and that reasoning fits within their own standards, then I personally don’t see an issue in using that data, as limited as it may be, to inform their decision.

A number of people disregard the FBI. Fair enough. The problem I see is many people do not have the means or time to do their own extensive testing. If someone can point to another publicly available source of information I am all for it.

[jar]

The one fact that can be verified is that right now there are lots and lots of used .40 pistols on the market because the people who had those .40 pistol no longer wanted them.

[Ricklin]

Nice job Jar!

[Pumpkin]

More for the rest of us that like the 40.

[JohnKSa]

The one fact that can be verified is that right now there are lots and lots of used .40 pistols on the market because the people who had those .40 pistol no longer wanted them.

Yes, and the knife cuts both ways. The same lack of evidence of superiority for one member the service pistol caliber performance class over the others says that the .40 is as good a choice for self-defense as any of the members of the class.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by jar

The one fact that can be verified is that right now there are lots and lots of used .40 pistols on the market because the people who had those .40 pistol no longer wanted them.

People have dumped their .40s simply because most people hate the snappy recoil and see no reason to deal with it when the 9mm will do the same job with less fuss and in a weapon carrying more ammo.

The folks that like the .40 should be thrilled to have all these old discarded pistols available cheap.

Funny thing is........people are not snapping these bargains up.

Go figure.

[Pumpkin]

Let’s see;
$100,000 pickups
$50,000 midsize pickups
$1,200 for a set of passenger car tires
$100 22 Hornet ammo
$800 Ruger Single Sixes
$1,000-$2,500 lever action rifles
Gas, groceries thru the friggen roof!
I bet you will find your answer somewhere here.
Oh, and feel free to correct me for any underestimating.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by The Verminator
People have dumped their .40s simply because most people hate the snappy recoil and see no reason to deal with it when the 9mm will do the same job with less fuss and in a weapon carrying more ammo.

That might be the reason for some people, but I doubt its the only reason. I suspect that the cost of ammunition is a big part of it in that 9mm is and has been for years the lowest priced centerfire handgun ammunition available. For many years, .40 S&W was only slightly more expensive than 9mm but as of late, the price difference has become more pronounced to the point that .40 S&W ammunition is near or equal in price to larger calibers like .45 ACP and 10mm. I suspect that a lot of people have switched to 9mm because in a day and age where all ammunition is expensive, they need all the help they can get.

The folks that like the .40 should be thrilled to have all these old discarded pistols available cheap.

Funny thing is........people are not snapping these bargains up.

Who says they aren't? I've personally bought a couple of .40 S&W pistols just because they were available for good prices and I know a few other people who have done the same. I think that .40 S&W pistols are in much the same boat that .38 Special and .357 Magnum revolvers were 30 years ago: Police have abandoned them en masse and so the market is glutted with them. As was the case with revolvers, I think eventually the inexpensive trade-in .40's will dry up and their prices will increase.

In the same vein, the gun market in general is somewhat glutted right now as you've had massive amounts of panic buying over the last several years. This forum is primarily frequented by firearms enthusiasts and most of us probably buy and own a lot more firearms than the public at large. If someone already owns a handgun that meets their needs, then a lot of people aren't likely to buy another one no matter how cheap because they simply already have all the handguns they feel that they need or want.

[rc]

If you don't have a 1911 buy a 45 and learn why it's still one of the most popular guns ever invented. It may not be the best carry gun caliber but for a home defense handgun it's hard to beat a 1911 in 45 for a lot of reasons. The round is relatively slow and it doesn't have the flash and blast of the magnums or the politically incorrect 11 round magazines for your nanny state politicians. It's not necessarily a bear gun or a best farm gun caliber. That would be a 357 where penetration, range and power would be more of an advantage over 9mm, 40 or 45. 45 has limited penetration with good hollow points so that's a Plus too in an urban setting. A 40 is a great caliber too and the 155s can rival 357 mag in performance but I would get a 45 first and stick with 230 grain hollow points for defense and 230 grain ball for practice. If a 45 won't do the job, neither will a 40 or 9mm.

[1972RedNeck]

That might be the reason for some people, but I doubt its the only reason. I suspect that the cost of ammunition is a big part of it in that 9mm is and has been for years the lowest priced centerfire handgun ammunition available. For many years, .40 S&W was only slightly more expensive than 9mm but as of late, the price difference has become more pronounced to the point that .40 S&W ammunition is near or equal in price to larger calibers like .45 ACP and 10mm. I suspect that a lot of people have switched to 9mm because in a day and age where all ammunition is expensive, they need all the help they can get.

Yup. I bought a 9mm a couple years ago. The ONLY reason I bought it was because I wanted to start practicing (3k - 4k rounds per year) with handguns and the ammo savings in one year more than paid for it.

[davidsog]

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

That would be called, "The Bowling Pin" on an FBI silhouette and would be considered lethal shot placement.

[radom]

All in all what you are comfy with and can hit with. People tend take basics to a way past the fine point takes a PHD vs its the indian not the bow...

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by davidsog

That would be called, "The Bowling Pin" on an FBI silhouette and would be considered lethal shot placement.

LOL!

A shot to the torso is not equal to a shot to the head.

Two entirely different things.

[44 AMP]

A shot to the torso is not equal to a shot to the head.

Two entirely different things.

This is a yes and no type thing. No, they are not the same thing, BUT they can produce the same results, as well as different results.

The goal is to shut down offensive action ASAP. A good head shot will do that. A good torse shot will too, but a less than perfect shot with either can fail to do that. And, the head is a smaller, more difficult to hit target.

And while the torso is bigger there is more room there for a lethal shot that isn't immediately incapacitating.

There's no free lunch.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

This is a yes and no type thing. No, they are not the same thing, BUT they can produce the same results, as well as different results.

A head shot almost always stops the fight instantly.

A torso shot rarely stops the fight instantly.

[44 AMP]

A head shot almost always stops the fight instantly.

It does look that way, but what isn't usually seen (shown or counted) are all the head hits that aren't immediate stoppers. The rounds that skid along the skull and don't penetrate, the rounds that punch through a cheek, or just clip an ear, and the rounds that, because of where they hit should have penetrated into the brain, but didn't.

Now, being shot in the face (non-fatal) frequently results in a psychological stop, and every stop is a stop, but you cannot depend on an attacker deciding to stop, while many will, you can't count on it.

A torso shot rarely stops the fight instantly.

Frequently, yes, but heart/lung shots are very often fatal, and often shut down a person pretty fast. Fast enough every single time? No. Which is a good reason to keep shooting until the threat ends.

The only thing you can positively count on is to sever the spine, between the brain and the limbs. Sometimes even brain shots do not shut people off, though that is rare, if you cut the connection between the brain and the muscles, the signal isn't going to get through.

Shooting for the spine from the front means most of the body is in the way, and it is a very narrow target. Much easier to hit from the back, but generally speaking, the law takes a dim view of intentionally shooting people in the back.

[JohnKSa]

A head shot almost always stops the fight instantly.

Brain shots yes. Head shots, not so much.

[mehavey]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-06-...headache/83320

It's Darwinian evolution that husbands are hard-headed.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

It does look that way, but what isn't usually seen (shown or counted) are all the head hits that aren't immediate stoppers. The rounds that skid along the skull and don't penetrate, the rounds that punch through a cheek, or just clip an ear, and the rounds that, because of where they hit should have penetrated into the brain, but didn't.

This book, as I recall, covers a number of fights where the bullet "skidded around the skull."

The interesting thing is that even these hits stopped the fight.

The round-nose lead bullets used in those days were inferior to today's bullets and all too often took the path of least resistance.

Cirillo was inspired to design a better bullet that would dig in.

Of course there can be exceptions in any rule.......but I'll stick with my assessment.

Even a bullet that just breaks a jaw and knocks out some teeth delivers tremendous shock to the brain.

I agree that taking off an ear is not going to stop the fight, but I don't regard that as a true head shot.

https://www.amazon.com/Guns-Bullets-...5&sr=8-1-fkmr1

[44 AMP]

I agree that taking off an ear is not going to stop the fight, but I don't regard that as a true head shot.

Taking off an ear can stop a fight, what it doesn't stop is painting!


Some one being hit, anywhere, and deciding to stop is still a stop. Peripheral hits are still hits, they just score lower, if at all.

Pretty sure if I shot your ear off, your lawyer(s) would say I shot you in the head. I'm sure that would count as ADW in court.

Now, if you shot the judge's ear off, you 'd need a new judge, because he couldn't hear the case...........

ok, I need more coffee.....

Still, point is, just because you don't consider it a true headshot doesn't mean it isn't a headshot.

My Grandfather felt the best self defense caliber was 12 gauge. And, for home defense, he recommended birdshot, and shooting the bad guy in the face!! Can't fault his logic, an ounce of #8 in the face at short (inside the house, across the room, etc.) range is going to seriously wreck your day.

Said he would have used a handgun (yes, 12 ga) , except for those stupid Federal laws, which he blamed FDR for,,,,

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Taking off an ear can stop a fight, what it doesn't stop is painting!


Some one being hit, anywhere, and deciding to stop is still a stop. Peripheral hits are still hits, they just score lower, if at all.

Pretty sure if I shot your ear off, your lawyer(s) would say I shot you in the head. I'm sure that would count as ADW in court.

Now, if you shot the judge's ear off, you 'd need a new judge, because he couldn't hear the case...........

ok, I need more coffee.....

Still, point is, just because you don't consider it a true headshot doesn't mean it isn't a headshot.

My Grandfather felt the best self defense caliber was 12 gauge. And, for home defense, he recommended birdshot, and shooting the bad guy in the face!! Can't fault his logic, an ounce of #8 in the face at short (inside the house, across the room, etc.) range is going to seriously wreck your day.

Said he would have used a handgun (yes, 12 ga) , except for those stupid Federal laws, which he blamed FDR for,,,,

Birdshot to the face is what I recommend for grizzly bears.



(And I hope the coffee helps.)

[cslinger]

Taking off an ear can stop a fight, what it doesn't stop is painting!

You sir deserve a golfers clap for this. You win the thread.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by cslinger

You sir deserve a golfers clap for this. You win the thread.

Agreed.

That really was a good one.

[R_P_K_]

Whichever one you shoot proficiently with. With good ammo there isn't much difference between the 9/.40/.45

[Tactical Jackalope]

Hmm... Another caliber war. :/

To answer your specific question, if it was between .40S&W and .45ACP, I'd go with the .45ACP.

To insert my outside opinion, 9mm.