Bill DeShivs
New member
Bond never used a .380. It was a .32-just for the record.
An honest debate on why our carry cartridge needs power
- Thread starter threegun
- Start date
- Status
Scattergun Bob,
Why don't you keep your posts relevant to the discussion please? No one wants to read through posts which have no value in regards to the topic at hand. Also, attacks of a personal nature allowed on this forum.
If you don't like what Glenn E. Meyer or anyone else has to say, great. But the rest of us really don't care. Please contribute to topic discussion, or keep your attacks to yourself.
Why don't you keep your posts relevant to the discussion please? No one wants to read through posts which have no value in regards to the topic at hand. Also, attacks of a personal nature allowed on this forum.
If you don't like what Glenn E. Meyer or anyone else has to say, great. But the rest of us really don't care. Please contribute to topic discussion, or keep your attacks to yourself.
My two carry firearms are both 9mm. Maybe a .45 be more effective, maybe, but I can belt well placed shots out of my 9mm's a lot quicker than any .45 I've shot. They are easy to control and I can dump the whole magazine as fast as I can and keep it well within COM. I'm not to good with a .45 so I keep my carry pieces in 9mm. I never get into caliber wars with people, if you can't control it why carry it? I can target shoot fine with a .45, but more than likely a SD shooting situation is going to be FAR from ideal, and more than likely would require 1 hand shooting, ect.
David Armstrong
Moderator
Very few things in life are always true, particualrly when it comes to decision making in situations with multiple variables, which is why I tossed in the "IMO" qualifier. However, I will stand by my original statement: "If the BG is running away you don't need to keep shooting at him, IMO." But yes, I do agree that if he is just moving to a position of vantage to continue the fight you should keep shooting.
We'll agreeably disagee. When someone make a declaration of fact and then claims not to have made that same declaration, there is a contradiction IMO.
But the value of the rifle goes far beyond the simple issue of stopping ability. Ease of control, greater accuracy, and other such factors can become the dominant factor, not the power. I'd much rather take a .30 M1 carbine into a fight than a 1911, for example. For that matter, if I knew the fight was coming, I'd probably go for a Ruger 10/22 over a 1911.
Exactly.
Actually, I have interviewed quite a few folks who have survived gunfights.
One thing that always impresses me is that the gunfights are messy and have a strong element of surprise/anarchy - and placement almost always trumps power. The last interview I had was with someone ambushed by a man firing a .357. The assailant shot the victim in the leg<grazed the leg>and the victim ran back to their car , pulled out a .38 snubbie and from about 15yds. away and nailed the assailant with one shot to the chest. Lots of folks have been put out of commission with a .22. On the other hand, I'm always amazed by folks who get excited and can't hit the side of a barn - and by folks shot muti-times by every caliber imaginable but still survive.
In a sense there's no 'self-defense' - but only 'counter-offense.' The ability to rapidly recover and deliver a well-placed shot to preserve one's life - no matter what the caliber is - is what's most important. Incidentally, the fellow who made the good shot from 15yds with a .38 was charged with involuntary manslaughter.<seems they were in an ongoing chronic violent conflict>
The tactics of the mousegun that make up for its anemic power - is simply that of quickness and conealability. I can easily carry without anybody knowing I'm carrying it, and in 2secs I can draw and fire 7 shots at close range. Also the mousegun forces one to think and focus on situations with a mougun tactical frame of mind ie. the gun is for close quarters and for getting one out of a bad situation. In an ugly sense , it's a kind of counter assasination weapon rather than a gunfight weapon. It's a weapon meant to turn the tables rather than rearrange the entire dining room.
Bigger calibers are fine, but smallness,speed and controlability are good features too. I like the .38 because of its revolver platform - and while it too is best for close quarters, it extends the range a bit and delivers more power. I'm not opposed to 'power.' Power is a good thing, but it's only a part of the equation. The .32/.327 and .38/.357 calibers are perhaps ideal.
One thing that always impresses me is that the gunfights are messy and have a strong element of surprise/anarchy - and placement almost always trumps power. The last interview I had was with someone ambushed by a man firing a .357. The assailant shot the victim in the leg<grazed the leg>and the victim ran back to their car , pulled out a .38 snubbie and from about 15yds. away and nailed the assailant with one shot to the chest. Lots of folks have been put out of commission with a .22. On the other hand, I'm always amazed by folks who get excited and can't hit the side of a barn - and by folks shot muti-times by every caliber imaginable but still survive.
In a sense there's no 'self-defense' - but only 'counter-offense.' The ability to rapidly recover and deliver a well-placed shot to preserve one's life - no matter what the caliber is - is what's most important. Incidentally, the fellow who made the good shot from 15yds with a .38 was charged with involuntary manslaughter.<seems they were in an ongoing chronic violent conflict>
The tactics of the mousegun that make up for its anemic power - is simply that of quickness and conealability. I can easily carry without anybody knowing I'm carrying it, and in 2secs I can draw and fire 7 shots at close range. Also the mousegun forces one to think and focus on situations with a mougun tactical frame of mind ie. the gun is for close quarters and for getting one out of a bad situation. In an ugly sense , it's a kind of counter assasination weapon rather than a gunfight weapon. It's a weapon meant to turn the tables rather than rearrange the entire dining room.
Bigger calibers are fine, but smallness,speed and controlability are good features too. I like the .38 because of its revolver platform - and while it too is best for close quarters, it extends the range a bit and delivers more power. I'm not opposed to 'power.' Power is a good thing, but it's only a part of the equation. The .32/.327 and .38/.357 calibers are perhaps ideal.
I've carried a Beretta .25 950 BS, to .38 snubbies, to 9mm compacts, to compact .45's.
The main reason I carry a weapon is to escape harm. My first choice is flight and preventing the bad guy from attacking me or my family.
As a deputy sheriff, the only time I had a weapon out was off-duty to prevent an attack from a much larger individual but who was not, obviously armed. Had I shot him, I probably would have lost my badge and gone to jail (I was only about 24 then). Fortunately, he changed his mind and allowed himself to be arrested. FWIW, my thinking was I couldn't take the guy in a fight and he may have gotten my weapon and used it on me. As this was San Francisco in the 1970'w, what happened to me had I shot would have been iffy.
I generally feel well-armed with a small 9mm or my nearly 18 year old 442. Not so much with the Beretta although chances of the statistics quoted by the OP of being attacked are somewhat skewed. Those of us who live in places like Idaho have a smaller chance of a dangerous confrontation than those of you in larger more urban areas, I suspect.
The main reason I carry a weapon is to escape harm. My first choice is flight and preventing the bad guy from attacking me or my family.
As a deputy sheriff, the only time I had a weapon out was off-duty to prevent an attack from a much larger individual but who was not, obviously armed. Had I shot him, I probably would have lost my badge and gone to jail (I was only about 24 then). Fortunately, he changed his mind and allowed himself to be arrested. FWIW, my thinking was I couldn't take the guy in a fight and he may have gotten my weapon and used it on me. As this was San Francisco in the 1970'w, what happened to me had I shot would have been iffy.
I generally feel well-armed with a small 9mm or my nearly 18 year old 442. Not so much with the Beretta although chances of the statistics quoted by the OP of being attacked are somewhat skewed. Those of us who live in places like Idaho have a smaller chance of a dangerous confrontation than those of you in larger more urban areas, I suspect.
I said if they are shooting while retreating, something I see frequently on robbery turned shootout video's. You hunker down and pray David, I'll try to put as many rounds on them as I can while hunkering down as long as they pose a deadly threat to me or mine.
Sigh. Ok what I was trying to say is that history/odds/statistics aren't a guarantee and that Murphy's law will see to it that I get the long shot. Hope that cleared it up for you.
As for compromise......I really don't see that much difference in the larger handgun calibers in terms of stopping power, as long as they can penetrate after striking large bones.
BTW, Carry what you want just don't say that carrying smaller is not a disadvantage.
I was talking about handgun caliber wars. Bigger is better if long guns and shotguns are added. With handguns you have a plateau in stopping power. None (in a concealable package) can deliver consistent stops. They force us to rely on blood loss to stop a determined attacker. Thats why once your chosen carry cartridge has the power to penetrate through likely obstacles, muscle and bones, the difference is not worth arguing.
P.S. You know darned good and well we were arguing 22/25 vs 38's &+ anyway and bigger here is better.
And if you meet one of those few.......you get to call a timeout........no you die.
Of the choices you can conceal and considering how you would choose bigger (rifle) if you knew in advance something was going to happen my comparison is accurate and points out your hypocrisy.
Usually, almost never, rare, is not never.
I'm a 45ACP guy. I love that round, and have been shooting pistols in .45 for about 1/2 the time the cartridge has been around. I've shot varmints and small game with it, often at very long range, big game once or twice, and a huge amount of paper, cans, old cars, and various other targets. I have nearly absolute faith in this cartridge.
However, my daily carry is a P3AT. I can dress the same way as I would if I was unarmed. It never interferes with my activities. Because of this I have it with me always. I practice enough to know mine is 100% reliable, and can rapidly place my shots where they are needed. Even the smallest .45 would get left at home some of the time, but not the tiny .380.
The .380 is a huge step down in power from the .45, but the .45 is a huge step down from a BAR, which is a huge step down from 16" naval guns. Everything in life requires some compromise. All you can do is analyze your lifestyle and the threats you might face, and make an intelligent choice based on that. If you ever have to use your pistol, I bet you wish it was at least the BAR.
However, my daily carry is a P3AT. I can dress the same way as I would if I was unarmed. It never interferes with my activities. Because of this I have it with me always. I practice enough to know mine is 100% reliable, and can rapidly place my shots where they are needed. Even the smallest .45 would get left at home some of the time, but not the tiny .380.
The .380 is a huge step down in power from the .45, but the .45 is a huge step down from a BAR, which is a huge step down from 16" naval guns. Everything in life requires some compromise. All you can do is analyze your lifestyle and the threats you might face, and make an intelligent choice based on that. If you ever have to use your pistol, I bet you wish it was at least the BAR.
If the handgun is a compromise to the rifle and a "step down" is it not safe to conclude that the puny caliber handguns are a compromise to the larger bored handguns and likewise a "step down"?
Carry what you wish...everyone.....just don't try to suggest, insinuate, allude, hint, imply, or smack that being armed with a 22/25 is equal to being armed with the bigger caliber handguns.
When you do this, it encourages those who don't have much experience, to carry puny without understanding its short comings.
Carry what you wish...everyone.....just don't try to suggest, insinuate, allude, hint, imply, or smack that being armed with a 22/25 is equal to being armed with the bigger caliber handguns.
When you do this, it encourages those who don't have much experience, to carry puny without understanding its short comings.
To be frank, I had no idea how high the odds were that I be attacked by a BG armed with a gun. With a 1 in 933 chance of getting attacked by a BG armed with a GUN, hoping for compliance is just insane. After all regardless of stats you are one squeeze of a BG's finger from death.
We have highly educated gun guys on this board who push tactical training, mental conditioning, and FOF training because it increases your chances of survival.
So David?????Why bother expending the time and money training if simply showing my gun or popping off a few rounds will end most attacks? You once told me that my competitive experience was nothing compared to FOF. Now you say that it is very unlikely, very rare, almost never, that I will need anything more than just showing the carry gun or perhaps letting a couple rounds go. The hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it.
This whole justification of puny is scary.
We practice tactics, fire tons of expensive ammo, and perhaps pay expensive fees to attend top notch gun schools to prepare ourselves to fight at the best of our ability with the knowledge and skills to help us come away from a gun fight alive. We are taught what it takes to stop a BG (in the real world and not fantasy land). We are taught that putting a bad guy under duress of fire increases your chance of winning.
WHY??????????????
Just as you and many other knowledgeable gun guys advocate something they will very very likely never even need.
We have highly educated gun guys on this board who push tactical training, mental conditioning, and FOF training because it increases your chances of survival.
So David?????Why bother expending the time and money training if simply showing my gun or popping off a few rounds will end most attacks? You once told me that my competitive experience was nothing compared to FOF. Now you say that it is very unlikely, very rare, almost never, that I will need anything more than just showing the carry gun or perhaps letting a couple rounds go. The hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it.
This whole justification of puny is scary.
We practice tactics, fire tons of expensive ammo, and perhaps pay expensive fees to attend top notch gun schools to prepare ourselves to fight at the best of our ability with the knowledge and skills to help us come away from a gun fight alive. We are taught what it takes to stop a BG (in the real world and not fantasy land). We are taught that putting a bad guy under duress of fire increases your chance of winning.
WHY??????????????
Just as you and many other knowledgeable gun guys advocate something they will very very likely never even need.
I'm going to pull this back, since I have been assaulted, battered, and survived by three big guys, drunk and high, and, it really had nothing to do with me.
I was in Mel's bowling Alley in Alemeda. We had bowled in a league, and, they gave us free bowling after the league.
The manager was an *******, and, he was white. Prior to all this, he kicked the 3 black guys out for being drunk. They came back. They watched me kiss this *******s' ass so we could get the lanes turned on, and, thought I was his friend.
NOTHING was further from the truth. They waited until I went to the bathroom, cornered me, and tried to intimidate me. I started yelling, pushed through the 3 of them to the door. At this point, all the rules to the game changed. I had trained in martial arts for 20 years, and, the guy pulled a Walther PPKS, and hit me over the head with it. At close quarters, I would have tried to kill all three as fast as I could, eyes first, etc. the guy hit me over the head, and, I dropped down on my haunches, ready to go, if he pointed the gun at me. He didn't. No one else hit me. They left. It would have been a good day to die, and, I was ready.
If I had a gun, the guy with the PPKS would be dead first, shot in the head, at point blank range. For this purpose, a 22lr would have worked. Maybe 22 short, but, I'm not sure it would get through the frontal skill consistently.
I'm pretty sure the guys .380 would have done me in at that range. So, I guess the question is, for me, at point blank range, what caliber will consistently penetrate the thick skull of a 260-340 pound person?
Now, for a safer shot, I could have shot each guy in the chest. First getting off three aimed shot would have very hard in that situation, double taps out of the question, before the other two grabbed me.
So, at point blank range, COM shot, what would have been most likely to stop these guys, drunk and high?
I'd start with a 357 Snub, then think about the Glock 29, with 10mm full house stuff, and then 45 Super, maybe out of my Detonics, like 1200 fps with a 200 grain bullet. Given the situation, I'd probably go for 125 grain in the 357, 155 or 165, maybe even 135 grains in 10mm, and, 185 @ 1350 fps in the Detonics, or the 200's. Why? Light recoil, hope the velocity and muzzle blast at that range give radical, quick expansion, and that I can get the 3 shots off before they can.
I was in Mel's bowling Alley in Alemeda. We had bowled in a league, and, they gave us free bowling after the league.
The manager was an *******, and, he was white. Prior to all this, he kicked the 3 black guys out for being drunk. They came back. They watched me kiss this *******s' ass so we could get the lanes turned on, and, thought I was his friend.
NOTHING was further from the truth. They waited until I went to the bathroom, cornered me, and tried to intimidate me. I started yelling, pushed through the 3 of them to the door. At this point, all the rules to the game changed. I had trained in martial arts for 20 years, and, the guy pulled a Walther PPKS, and hit me over the head with it. At close quarters, I would have tried to kill all three as fast as I could, eyes first, etc. the guy hit me over the head, and, I dropped down on my haunches, ready to go, if he pointed the gun at me. He didn't. No one else hit me. They left. It would have been a good day to die, and, I was ready.
If I had a gun, the guy with the PPKS would be dead first, shot in the head, at point blank range. For this purpose, a 22lr would have worked. Maybe 22 short, but, I'm not sure it would get through the frontal skill consistently.
I'm pretty sure the guys .380 would have done me in at that range. So, I guess the question is, for me, at point blank range, what caliber will consistently penetrate the thick skull of a 260-340 pound person?
Now, for a safer shot, I could have shot each guy in the chest. First getting off three aimed shot would have very hard in that situation, double taps out of the question, before the other two grabbed me.
So, at point blank range, COM shot, what would have been most likely to stop these guys, drunk and high?
I'd start with a 357 Snub, then think about the Glock 29, with 10mm full house stuff, and then 45 Super, maybe out of my Detonics, like 1200 fps with a 200 grain bullet. Given the situation, I'd probably go for 125 grain in the 357, 155 or 165, maybe even 135 grains in 10mm, and, 185 @ 1350 fps in the Detonics, or the 200's. Why? Light recoil, hope the velocity and muzzle blast at that range give radical, quick expansion, and that I can get the 3 shots off before they can.
According to Lott, about 76% of the time a successful defensive gun use doesn't involve the gun being fired.
If you figure that about half the time when the gun IS fired the criminal is not hit. then 9 times out of 10 what caliber you carry has absolutely no effect.
I think that Kleck's numbers indicated that the gun was fired in only 1 case out of 50, even less than Lott's data suggests.
It's also important to remember that just because a criminal gives up after being shot, it doesn't mean that he COULDN'T continue the attack. Many give up regardless of the severity of the injury.
So, when you stack all that up, YES, the odds are heavily against caliber affecting the outcome of a defensive gun use.
How you use that information is up to you, I guess.
One interesting observation. It seems to be quite commonly accepted that it's reasonable to prepare for the "average gun fight". That is, a gunfight involving less than 4 shots in less than 10 seconds at less than 25 feet. However, when it comes to caliber, it's quite commonly accepted that it's unreasonable to prepare for the average defensive gun use--one that doesn't involve the gun even being fired. Interesting, no?
Deaf Smith
New member
Keep in mind the term, "average", is 1/2 or 50 percent. Average don't mean squat. Why do you know almost 1/2 of the population is below average?
If LEOs when by that idea, six shooter would still be the order of the day.
So I don't sit and think about averages. I know I can't prepare for every last possibility but I can sure do more than 'average'.
If LEOs when by that idea, six shooter would still be the order of the day.
So I don't sit and think about averages. I know I can't prepare for every last possibility but I can sure do more than 'average'.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Keep in mind the term, "average", is 1/2 or 50 percent. Average don't mean squat. Why do you know almost 1/2 of the population is below average?
------- Nope, that's the median - not the average if by that you mean the mean.
One shouldn't ignore the correct meanings of the terms or you make decisions not based on the actual distributional properties.
I've argued in other threads that one should not plan for the ill defined average but instead think of a cutoff value that gives you a reasonable risk - as you want to define it based on distributional shape.
As John reviewed from Kleck, the success rates are such in DGUs without shots fired and then in them with just a hit - that the implicit mantra that carrying a lesser caliber has a high probability of NOT being useful (what Threegun seems to imply most of the time) is incorrect.
If one wants to state that you should carry a bigger caliber that you shoot well for the instances where you do have to make a physically based stop, that's fine - I agree - but one shouldn't ignore the fact that if you want to carry a smaller caliber it is much more likely to help you than not.
It's very simple if one really does understand the idea of decision and risk.
That's why taking a psych research design/stat course or one from a similar discipline - sociology, CJ, business, economics, biostats, engineering, etc. would enable folks to have thoughts which are not so scatterbrained and full of hot air.
There are great texts on human engineering, accident prevention and risks that would lay this kind of thing out, instead of gong on and on about the risk of the Buggering Behemoth of a Biker who absorbs 32 ACPs and keeps coming - if that nightmare makes you not carry a gun at all.
For the record - I carry 32 HR Mag/38 SPL +P or 9mm based on dress issues. My 45 ACP is just too big for comfort here.
------- Nope, that's the median - not the average if by that you mean the mean.
One shouldn't ignore the correct meanings of the terms or you make decisions not based on the actual distributional properties.
I've argued in other threads that one should not plan for the ill defined average but instead think of a cutoff value that gives you a reasonable risk - as you want to define it based on distributional shape.
As John reviewed from Kleck, the success rates are such in DGUs without shots fired and then in them with just a hit - that the implicit mantra that carrying a lesser caliber has a high probability of NOT being useful (what Threegun seems to imply most of the time) is incorrect.
If one wants to state that you should carry a bigger caliber that you shoot well for the instances where you do have to make a physically based stop, that's fine - I agree - but one shouldn't ignore the fact that if you want to carry a smaller caliber it is much more likely to help you than not.
It's very simple if one really does understand the idea of decision and risk.
That's why taking a psych research design/stat course or one from a similar discipline - sociology, CJ, business, economics, biostats, engineering, etc. would enable folks to have thoughts which are not so scatterbrained and full of hot air.
There are great texts on human engineering, accident prevention and risks that would lay this kind of thing out, instead of gong on and on about the risk of the Buggering Behemoth of a Biker who absorbs 32 ACPs and keeps coming - if that nightmare makes you not carry a gun at all.
For the record - I carry 32 HR Mag/38 SPL +P or 9mm based on dress issues. My 45 ACP is just too big for comfort here.
- Status