Caliber effectiveness

[5whiskey]

5whiskey..you make a good case.

I'm reconsidering...I may well go 9 mm

If you’re an accomplished shooter that can shot the shield 45 well, it’s a viable option so long as it suffers no reliability issues. I have no experience with the gun, but my experience with similar sized platforms tells me 9mm is easier to “get right” in a ccw piece. I’m not trying to convince anyone. I think all calibers are pretty much divinely inspired gifts to mankind, or at least the shooting world.

[briandg]

I have one thing that a whole lot of people don't have, I have faith that whatever I do will work out as well as I can hope. I hope that if I am ever in a shooting I won't screw up, that my shots will go where they should go, and that the bullets that I fire will live up to their potential.

Regarding whether I screw up, that is all up to either chaos, or the will of god, and I know that neither of them are in my control. I believe that I will be able to handle a situation that isn't completely bug nuts crazy and too chaotic for my limited abilities. I do believe that the 9mm rounds and other rounds I keep for combat use will perform well. So, I guess that I expect (hope) that any event will result in me getting in the first hits and my shots being enough to disable an opponent before he disables me.

I'm not trying to go too deeply into the weird metaphysical stuff, but I kind of just have faith that there will be an official watching for fouls and that this official will throw the flag and give me a free throw, or something like that.

I used to be all wrapped up in what bullet would be best for whatever I shot at. I used to sweat about whether or not I could get that last tenth of an MOA in accuracy or whether the sierra, lacking any form of controlled mushrooming would be able to kill a deer.

I spent decades wondering if I should be carrying the ultimate round for whatever, and how I could find out what that round is, or what firearm would best serve me. Recently I realized that I am REALLY ORDINARY. Carrying factory Remington into the field won't mean lost game. Carrying silvertips in the car isn't going to get me killed. Choosing my dad's .357 instead of a new sig isn't going to put me at a dangerous disadvantage against a punk with a knife.

Faith and confidence in a defense or hunting system is a good thing. Now seriously, if a person gets that faith by obsessively reading about jello testing, that's fine. Confidence and faith can come from any source, the important thing is having that confidence in whatever your choice is.

Personally, I believe in a higher power, and I also believe in fate. I'm going to do what seems like the best plan and hope that it ends well.

And this still comes around to accepting that life is all controlled by chance, or chaos. a few millimeters or a second of hesitation can and will decide everything. You just give it your best shot and you either go home with a pheasant or survive a mugging.

If my point is lost in all of this blather, it would be this. You can't control what happens when the bullet leaves the barrel, and you frequently have very little control over anything that precedes taking that shot. The responsibility of what happens lies almost entirely in whether or not a person makes an effective hit.

An interesting story came up a few hundred years ago. A guy was sitting in a barber's chair and was shot in the back of the head. No, not with a bullet, a guy used a blank powered anchoring gun on a wall. Whatever the reason was, the nail blasted through the wall and pegged Harvey Haircut in the spine and he was left quadriplegic.

Did you guys ever read 'The Imp of the Perverse'? There is a god in this universe whose only job is to make weird stuff happen. I hope that I never piss him off. All I want out of life is to avoid being the target of an angry god of chaos, since ordinarily I think that my handgun, ammo, and skills can possibly disable an attacker who means to hurt or kill me.

There is also the thought that you shouldn't tempt fate. That you shouldn't haul the wrist rocket around and expect it to save your life if you anger a moose. Be prepared. Don't bother losing sleep trying to remove another 1/1000th of the possible doubt.

[Lohman446]

I have one thing that a whole lot of people don't have, I have faith that whatever I do will work out as well as I can hope

I have acceptance of mortality and fate. If I am going to go down because an individual, or group, of competent and determined (or lucky) individuals decided they were going to over power me I will meet the Valkyries perplexed that I died in battle in the modern world while living in a relatively peaceful area.

Does gun matter? Once in a while perhaps. The most memorable time I ever had to put my hand on my gun involved three very aggressive individuals, one of whom had made an only loosely veiled threat, hey did not stop and ask a lot of questions. We bid one another good day and they moved on. They didn't stop to ask if I could control recoil of the Kimber I carried at the time or if the 8? shots of Federal Hydra-Shok would do its job. They didn't ask about my draw times. If anything was considered it was the counter between two of them and I, the time it would take the third to get around the end of the counter he was at, and the fact that I had stepped back into an aisle to prevent being overwhelmed. They collectively surveyed the risk to reward ratio and moved on.

Don't do things or present yourself in a manner that skews that risk to reward ratio to make it "worth it." This is probably FAR more important than number of shots or what caliber you are carrying. One of the best pieces of advise I have read in regards to personal safety listed rule #1 as "Avoid love triangles" and that was in one of the gun magazines when I was growing up.

[stinkeypete]

“You frequently have little control over anything that precedes taking that shot.”

1. Frequently??? Since it’s frequent, surely you have three specific instances you can describe.

2. You might enjoy training in avoidance and deescalation. My experience is I am 60 years old, never carried other than hunting, and never felt the lack. I have walked away from trouble many times.

[Nanuk]

And if the hole is in the right spot, it generally works the way we expect. If not, it doesn't.

If you've done enough hunting, you learn that a heart shot animal may drop DRT, OR it may not. And there's no accurate predictor which it will be.

Bingo.

[Ruger45LC]

It's easy to get caught up in caliber debates, at times it's fun though. I'm a .40 guy, love the .40 and 10mm both and have used them for quite a while. I've had them all though, and I do think the 9mm is a good cartridge, but it's not a .40 and never will be.

That said, the arguments for 9mm are pretty solid, extra capacity and lower recoil are benefits, but then again, depending on the platform, the difference in both recoil and capacity between 9mm and .40 is quite small. To me, the arguments for 9mm are not based on ballistics but on variables like slight capacity increase and slight recoil reduction and to me, that's not enough of an advantage to accept shooting smaller, lighter weight, less powerful projectiles.

I like the .45 ACP but I'm not crazy about it, it's a good option but it generally requires a bigger gun. I also feel the performance gap between the .40 and .45 is a lot smaller than the performance gap between 9mm and .40. The thing about the .40 is that I can have a 9mm sized gun, 9mm like capacity but poke bigger holes and hit the target harder than 9mm. It (along with .45) also has more potential in it, the 9mm will continue to do well but at this point only relies on bullet technology to help it try and keep up, the .40 and .45 have more power on tap, something the 9mm doens't.

[Cosmodragoon]

If you hit something really important, most major defensive calibers will do just fine. If you don't, then differences between calibers could matter. In a messy or entangled defensive encounter in which you might only be able to put one into a thigh, shoulder, hip, gut, etc., then bigger or more energetic could be more helpful.

Look, gel is awesome and tells us a lot. People and animals are not made of gel. We have bone, various tissues, and all sorts of structures. Hydrostatic shock is usually a red herring in terms of handguns. Sometimes, a defensive encounter comes down to destroying or disrupting flesh, bone, mechanically important structures, etc.

[Lohman446]

If you shoot someone in the leg, thigh, shoulder, etc and are still killed or severely injured in the ensuing contact fight the issue is far greater than the difference between .32 and .45.

[briandg]

1. Frequently??? Since it’s frequent, surely you have three specific instances you can describe.

2. You might enjoy training in avoidance and deescalation. My experience is I am 60 years old, never carried other than hunting, and never felt the lack. I have walked away from trouble many times.

Pete, I can't even begin to understand what your point is.

What I said was that if you draw your gun, you obviously were not in control of the situation as it unfolded. If you draw your gun, you will have failed to de-escalate or escape. The locks on your house must have been too weak. You didn't see the suspicious guy (who intended to rob you) walking up the street and avoid contact.

If a person draws a gun, that means that the man carrying it wasn't safe. That means that it was drawn because there was a threat of imminent serious injury or death. If there was a threat of serious injury or death, then the person who drew the gun did not have control of the situation, that his position in the confrontation was not a position of power and control.

Sure, there are exceptions when the guy who drew the gun was actually in control over the other guy's moves all along and just drew the gun because it seemed like the smart thing to do. I don't know why you object to 'frequently'. I didn't say 'always'.

What I do understand is that you are sixty, that you have never had to use a gun to defend yourself and you don't believe that it is necessary, and that it's unnecessary because you are smart. This is a textbook case of denial and complacency. people who live like you die frequently for the sole reason that they ignore basic survival principles like wearing helmets and seat belts, taking their warfarin, etc.

Whether or not you choose to carry a gun isn't in that same category, nevertheless, unarmed people die quite often when being armed might have saved them.

[44 AMP]

people who live like you die frequently for the sole reason that they ignore basic survival principles like wearing helmets and seat belts, taking their warfarin, etc.

Yes, and people who wear their helmets and seatbelts and take their meds on schedule ALSO die, frequently. Everyone dies, that's life.

And yes, I'd say its obvious that if you need to draw a gun you don't have control of the situation. That's kind of the point of a gun, to gain, or regain control of the situation.

Sure, you can fault someone for not being aware, enough, not doing "enough" to de-escalate the situation, but do take into account that sometimes, NOTHING is enough to de-escalate the situation. If the other guy(s) don't WANT to de-escalate, sometimes (especially if they feel in control) they won't give you the option. Drawing a gun can often change their minds...

[briandg]

Let me rephrase that. They often die simply because they neglected safety procedures, and they would have survived otherwise. Sometimes that full enclosure helmet will be the only reason a person survives a motorcycle accident.

A man I know, last time we spoke, was taking care of his son who was in a full vegetative state. He and his son and friends were working on his crotch rocket, the son took off on the cycle wearing nothing but shorts and sandals. He wiped out on the highway, lord knows how fast he was going. The rescue units found the bike easily enough at the end of the debris field, but this kid had slid hundreds of feet past the accident site. The helmet may have saved him from that (so would a little common sense).

Everyone will die, but choosing to ignore common safety measures isn't being practical, sometimes it is a form of what is sort of known as thanatos. It's a disregard for death, ignoring the increased danger inherent in driving mostly naked down a texas highway at speeds near 100 mph.

I read a fascinating article the other day on the dynamics of stupidity. This incident would qualify as stupid.

[Sharkbite]

I would say that a ccw’d pistol is the same as a motorcycle helmet.

Nobody plans on crashing their bike, but IF you go down, its a nice thing to have. Same with the defensive pistol. Nice if needed.

[Lohman446]

Control is a funny thing. It seems those who have the most control are best at recognizing how little they have. The great Buddhist monks who can slow there very pulse to nearly imperceptible will be some of the first to admit how relative little control they have of the world around them. Never think you have control. You have the ability to influence the world around you and the outcomes or at least the circumstances of the outcome. Many believe, myself included, that the time of death is appointed long before birth. One should not fear death. One should fear that ones death is remembered as that of a fool or coward. Believing you have zero influence or that you have control may lead to either

[briandg]

Very good. Thinking that you are invulnerable leads to carelessness. Believing that some great engine runs the world and that all you are is a tiny bit of that machinery, riding along on the great machine until you wear out and are scrapped is just fine. But, there are people who choose not to maintain their cars, knowing fully well that these cars need oil, tires, and gas. Driving around town with the oil light on isn't recognition of the inevitable creep of decay, it's surrendering to forces that would be easily controlled.

[stinkeypete]

My problem is when people say “frequently”, “many times”, “often” and words like that but they can’t themselves think of three specific cases in their own life. That’s not “frequently”.

You bring up motorcycle helmets. I have friends that race. One friend has replaced 4 helmets, others at least two or three. Crashing is common and helmets clearly prevent injury. No one at the track has been injured due to their helmet, although there is a remote possibility of this. Just about every rider I know has gone down. I was just lucky and sold my bike when my kid was born.

What would you say if you found out from local, national and international statistics it was more likely the motorcycle helmet injured the rider than prevented injury? But motorcycle helmets are lionized in the movies and the motorcycle helmet industry is a huge machine... people feel powerful and safe with that helmet. Not only does it add significant risk, many people dive in to a turn too fast as a result of overconfidence. Science tells us that “feelings” are very unreliable when it comes to reality.

I like the comments about fear. I try to be cautious and prudent but am also vigilant against campaigns to manufacture fear. It’s one of the oldest control games in the book.

Think on this: suppose you owned your own magic island. You know for a fact there are no hostile people or critters. Would you still carry a pistol on your walk?

I would, because I like to shoot.

Heck, I find myself aiming for rocks and trees when I throw the ball for the dog, or trying to throw as far as I can. I am looking at getting in to archery. I seem to like the game of hitting targets.

That said, it’s fun to hit targets with a big ol slug of lead and if hunting deer... .44 magnum is the sweet spot for me. In my opinion, anything larger is wasted and too big a bang and too heavy to lug aroundT. Elk, moose, hogs, bear... I sold my .454 but in a huge heavy revolver recoil is somewhat moderated.

.357 magnum will work but offers no advantage to me over .44 magnum other than being a little flatter to shoot. My region is generally wooded and thick cover or farm fields so large pistol ranges are all irrelevant except for “one handed rifles” like the encore or Contender.

Anything less than .357 magnum I would consider irresponsible for taking deer in a responsible sporting way. That said, Wisconsin deer are 100 to 200 pounds.

10mm ? Okay.

The other stuff... I don’t see why, and only if you keep things to “traditional” bow hunting range and I still don’t see why.

[Lohman446]

One has to walk a line between being a fool such driving around with that oil light on or showing up alone at the Hells Angels convention in rival colors, and being a coward who is afraid to leave the perceived safety of his or her own home. Be a fool and the caliber will not save you. Be a coward and you will die having missed the very life you sought to preserve

[5whiskey]

One has to walk a line between being a fool such driving around with that oil light on or showing up alone at the Hells Angels convention in rival colors, and being a coward who is afraid to leave the perceived safety of his or her own home. Be a fool and the caliber will not save you. Be a coward and you will die having missed the very life you sought to preserve

Indeed well said. Nec Temere Nec Timide, my family phrase... neither reckless nor timid

[Cosmodragoon]

I would say that a ccw’d pistol is the same as a motorcycle helmet.

Nobody plans on crashing their bike, but IF you go down, its a nice thing to have. Same with the defensive pistol. Nice if needed.

Well put, though I'd say it's better than "nice" if needed. I often compare it to having a fire extinguisher in the home or wearing a seat belt in the car. The difference is that it's a little more involved, and at least a little more fun to practice with and maintain.

[44 AMP]

I would say that a ccw’d pistol is the same as a motorcycle helmet.

I wouldn't say that. Not the same as seatbelts, either. The fire extinguisher comparison is better.

Because, while there are the similarities of "very good to have when/if you need it", there is a difference with helmets and seat belts, and that is the LAW.

There are still some exceptions, but in general, the LAW requires you to wear (use) that helmet and seatbelt if you are in public.

NO law requires you to be armed, CCW or otherwise, and some places do have laws against it.

[Nanuk]

One has to walk a line between being a fool such driving around with that oil light on or showing up alone at the Hells Angels convention in rival colors, and being a coward who is afraid to leave the perceived safety of his or her own home. Be a fool and the caliber will not save you. Be a coward and you will die having missed the very life you sought to preserve

Common sense?

[Bart Noir]

The only certainty is that . . . those who understand the Ginger versus Mary Ann reference are eligible for senior discounts.

Bart Noir

[Nanuk]

None of this helps me decide between a 7 rd 45 ACP Shield and an 8 rd 9mm Shield.

And no,telling me to choose a different gun is not the point.

I chose the 5 shot J frame 357 magnum for NPE carry and a fullsize Glock 40 for everywhere else. I am sure that does not help you though.

[Ruger45LC]

Everyone is different, I prefer .40 and .45 over the others. I've had 9mm's and I have no issue with them, but typically the only advantages attributed to the 9mm have nothing at all to do with ballistic performance, it's always stuff like mag capacity or slightly lower recoil. Those things can be good, I'm not denying that, but I have to ask, why am I carrying a gun? If an event ever occurs and I need to stop the threat, am I going to prefer:
A: a slightly softer shooting gun that shoots smaller bullets and doesn't hit as hard or
B: a slightly harder recoiling gun that hits harder and pokes bigger holes?

All I'm saying is, there can be benefits to lower recoil but nearly all of that is at the range. If the old adrenaline is pumping and your life or well being is at stake, I would care more about putting bigger holes in the bad guy than worrying about a slight difference in recoil. At that point, stopping the threat is the number one priority, not your comfort, and bigger bullets put them down better.

[Lohman446]

it's always stuff like mag capacity or slightly lower recoil.

The in vogue argument for 9MM is not really about capacity and more about recovery times (recoil). Let's assume that capacity, in modern semi-auto pistols, is not a great argument. If you could not manage the threat with 14 its unlikely 15 matters.

A: a slightly softer shooting gun that shoots smaller bullets and doesn't hit as hard or
B: a slightly harder recoiling gun that hits harder and pokes bigger holes?

However, as we now train to "shoot until stop," your argument becomes simplistic. Assume you have X amount of time to fire at an assailant.

Do you want to be able to score 3 "good" hits or 4? Considering a physiological stop with today's handguns is still somewhat dependent on luck the extra hit is probably more important than the minimally larger hole.

Of course I'm currently carrying an airweight 5 shot revolver loaded with .38 special round so I'm on the wrong side of the capacity, shot recovery time, and power if one puts too much focus on the debate.

[CDW4ME]

~10 seconds of voluntary aggressive action after a lethal hit.
No guarantee that all shots will hit or be good hits, LE averages about 50% hits with "service" size pistols.
Average of 2-3 rounds fired to stop a threat, can't shoot 2.4 rounds.
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alte...stopping-power
A difference in caliber may (could) matter less than having more rounds available.
I've favored bigger bullets, but the difference in comparable loads of 9mm/40 is kinda small:
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/sel...llistic-tests/
147 HST +P 19.2''/.60
180 HST 18.5'' / .72
I've even carried a Glock 19 instead of a 23 or 32 lately.