An honest debate on why our carry cartridge needs power
- Thread starter threegun
- Start date
- Status
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Geez - the chambered Glock thread rivals the caliber thread as:
NOT THIS STUFF AGAIN!
NOT THIS STUFF AGAIN!
Last edited by a moderator:
Double Naught Spy
New member
It matters not if in the course of self defense (in regard to legal use of lethal force) whether one intends to shoot to stop or shoot to kill. Within the guise of the law, one can shoot to kill so long as the shootee remains a threat warranting lethal force.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There really isn't a "one size fits all"
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.
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
New member
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?
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.
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
New member
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!
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!
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.
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
Moderator
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Status