An honest debate on why our carry cartridge needs power

[Socrates]

So, at point blank range, COM shot, what would have been most likely to stop these guys, drunk and high?

I'm taking this out of the realm of statistics to an actual situation, which is what this topic is about, I think.

Any answers?

 

[threegun]

Glenn and John given the highly unlikely event of having to dispatch a determined attacker why do you guys push tactical training?

You guys seem to think that you are better served having a knowledge and skill set that statistics tell us you will likely never need. Now I push for being prepared for a determined attacker with a heavier caliber and I'm wrong according to stats.

Any yahoo with 10 minutes of practice can draw and pop off a few rounds. Stats say hits don't even matter in making a BG retreat. No need for a heavy caliber and no need for premium tactical training...........according to your own stats. To me it is hypocritical to push training only to compromise with regard to caliber.

 

[threegun]

Socrates, The biggest, deepest, hole that will cause the most blood loss possible.

And for a 260-300 pounder it better be able to penetrate deep.

 

[JohnKSa]

Glenn and John given the highly unlikely event of having to dispatch a determined attacker why do you guys push tactical training?

First of all, no one's saying that caliber means NOTHING at all, only that statistics show it contributes nothing in most cases. *

Second, tactics & training is not just about shooting your attacker, it's also about learning to prevent/avoid situations. GOOD tactical training is useful in EVERY situation whether you pull your gun or not.

Third, it's not crazy to prepare for the statistical outlier, but there needs to be some balance.

People want to buy stopping power in a box. They can't. They will have to earn it at the range.

Many seem to think that the things that will make the biggest difference are gun choice and caliber choice. Not so, they don't make ANY difference in most cases. *

Try this simple research project. Go through the forums in Hogan's Alley on TFL (T&T, Gen Handguns, Revolvers, SemiAutos) and count up all the "what gun" & "what caliber" threads. Now do the same but make a total of all the "what training" & "how can I improve my shooting/how am I shooting" threads. If that's not enough of an eye-opener, I don't know what will convince you. The point isn't that caliber means nothing, the point is that the amount of attention focused on it is far out of proportion with reality.

* "in most cases" is not the same as "in all cases".

 

[threegun]

Second, tactics & training is not just about shooting your attacker, it's also about learning to prevent/avoid situations. GOOD tactical training is useful in EVERY situation whether you pull your gun or not.

The tactical training I was referring to focuses on better dealing with threats. The gunsites and thunder ranches.

First of all, no one's saying that caliber means NOTHING at all, only that statistics show it contributes nothing in most cases. *

Don't these same stats show that good tactics aren't going to be needed?

Many seem to think that the things that will make the biggest difference are gun choice and caliber choice. Not so, they don't make ANY difference in most cases. *

Neither do tactics.......which is why I raised the comparison. Still everyone "in the know" stresses the need for tactical training.............myself included.

 

[JohnKSa]

The tactical training I was referring to focuses on better dealing with threats.

Ok, so let's take your somewhat restrictive definition of tactics and call it "tactics a'la threegun" or TaT for short. By TaT, we mean only what happens while the trigger is being pulled.

So I'll modify your comment here so that it's addressing only our newly defined term.

Don't these same stats show that TaT aren't going to be needed?

No. This is still not what I said, besides redefining tactics, you've constructed a strawman argument and used it in place of what I actually said. There IS a difference between "in most cases" and "in all cases". There is a difference between "not needed" and "not needed in most cases".

So, let's modify that one more time to change it so that it actually addresses the comments I made.

Don't these same stats show that TaT aren't going to be needed in most cases?

Yes. The stats show that TaT will only rarely be of use in defensive gun uses.

It's much less complicated if you will not construct strawmen and just address what I actually post... I have NEVER said here or on any other thread on TFL or any other forum that caliber selection is of no value or that it shouldn't be considered at all. I have REPEATEDLY asserted that too much attention is paid to it and that most people have an unrealistic expectation of the difference that caliber selection will make.

Finally, I note that you completely failed to address the last paragraph in my post--sort of the summation of everything I was trying to say. That's unfortunate because it clearly would have answered some of your concerns. What I said was that I don't believe tactics (not TaT--the actual definition of tactics) gets enough attention while caliber gets too much. Balance--it's all about balance.

 

[threegun]

John, I agree that tactics aren't given the weight that they deserve. I understand that caliber and advanced tactics play a small role in the over all defense of self scheme of things because they will only come into play if we face a determined attacker.

My point was only to show the hypocrisy of some here on TFL that say caliber is of little use because of statistics yet tout advanced tactics like FOF training with their next breath. One such highly regarded member even belittled me for not obtaining such training.

If the litmus test for caliber is "DGU history" "DGU stats" and not prepare for as much as possible beforehand then advanced tactics will hardly ever come into play and like caliber only against a determined attacker.

I think the main sticking point in this debate is the suggestion that smaller (22/25) isn't a disadvantage over the 38-45's. Clearly it is despite the higher odds of it never coming into play. Same goes for advanced training.

 

[buzz_knox]

People want to buy stopping power in a box. They can't. They will have to earn it at the range.

This is simply beautiful. I don't think I've ever seen this articulated so well.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

My point was only to show the hypocrisy of some here on TFL that say caliber is of little use because of statistics yet tout advanced tactics like FOF training with their next breath. One such highly regarded member even belittled me for not obtaining such training.


Again, a misinterpretation - I never said caliber is of little use. I have always said that given the choice of no gun vs. a smaller caliber, I find that the smaller caliber gives me much added utility in my behaviorial response set.

Second - the reason for FOF training is that it does aid you in the extremes and I've said that I make my decision based on a reasonable risk take. The majority of DGUs may be no shots fired DGUs, but some may not be. Thus, I choose to have that training.

FOF also teaches you a range of responses beyond the simple gunfight. For example, Insights SVT and the NTI train you in a continuum of responses that the square range or IDPA match never consider. Most of you don't practice being engaged by two large panhandlers at contact distance or being in a bank when a domestic dispute erupts. So you have a large caliber handgun - is that the solution?

FOF stress innoculation is far and away more than that of a match.

I might never need them but my personal style is that if I want to engage in something, I want to know about it.

I think I said in the beginning, I didn't value the thread because it was the same old thing with folks making the points they made in other posts as they are trying to win some verbal battle. It would have little real evaluation discussion. I got some insightful PMs about me being a tad harsh - sorry for that but it was frustration.

One thing about quality FOF like at the NTI, Insights, KRtraining, etc. is that you move quickly beyond the caliber wars to talk about the total package of self-defense issues. In fact, if you try to raise the issue of caliber wars as the central focus - you get shut down. The quality trainers regard that as not the main focus. Most subscribe to being able to use the gun and understand the situation. I don't think any of them, given the choice of having a minor gun or NO gun would go for the former. That's my point.

I wonder why the military and police are spending so much on FOF and simulations now? Why not just take their folks to the square range with a big gun?

 

[threegun]

FOF also teaches you a range of responses beyond the simple gunfight. For example, Insights SVT and the NTI train you in a continuum of responses that the square range or IDPA match never consider. Most of you don't practice being engaged by two large panhandlers at contact distance or being in a bank when a domestic dispute erupts. So you have a large caliber handgun - is that the solution?

The advanced training academies I have researched spend the VAST amount of time teaching us how to efficiently and effectively put rounds on target. They teach us how to deal with failures in equipment and body parts. Very little of what they teach is useful except when facing a determined attacker (one who fights back).

So you have advanced training-is that the solution?

BTW You needed to be trained in how to deal with a domestic dispute in a bank? Call the cops on your way out.....training over .

The mere pulling of my gun is statistically proved to be almost always enough to frighten away a foe. Again I'm comparing the two (caliber vs adv training)because both are mainly significant when facing a determined attacker. Yet one is said to be insignificant and the other very significant.

 

[David Armstrong]

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.

As will I. If they pose a deadly threat just hunkering down is not a recommended course of action, prayer or not.

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.

There are no guarantees in this, only probabilities. Murphy is just as likely to see to it that you don't get the long shot, or that you will miss the long shot. You wish to base your defense on Murphy, that is fine, but don't knock folks who know better.

BTW, Carry what you want just don't say that carrying smaller is not a disadvantage.

It is a disadvantage in some ways, it is an advantage in others. Fortunately the disadvantages don't seem to matter much in DGU incidents.

You know darned good and well we were arguing 22/25 vs 38's &+ anyway and bigger here is better.

You seem to be arguing that. Most of us are arguing that bigger doesn't matter for DGU incidents.

And if you meet one of those few.......you get to call a timeout........no you die.

Which is exactly the same when you meet one of those outside of your particular performance parameter.

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.

No, the hypocrisy is to continue to try to use a situation where virtually NOBODY would choose a handgun to justify choosing a bigger handgun. And I would choose the rifle on other factors, not on "bigger."

Usually, almost never, rare, is not never.

Umm, so what? One chance in a googol is not never also.

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?

Because it is a fun experience and gives you the chance to play a lot in an environment that you might not get otherwise. As a fringe benefit you learn skills and techniques that can serve you in a variety of formats, and hopefully learn something that will (A) keep you out of trouble; and (B) help if you get into trouble. Certain types of training in particular will focus avoidance, defusing situations, determining risk accurately, and so on. And as a benefit you get some insight into techniques that might, in some very rare situation, help you in a gunfight. Sort of like the Bondurant Racing School. I'll never get to run a Corvette at 175 mph out here on the streets, but it sure is fun to learn how!

 

[threegun]

Glenn,

I think I said in the beginning, I didn't value the thread because it was the same old thing with folks making the points they made in other posts as they are trying to win some verbal battle. It would have little real evaluation discussion. I got some insightful PMs about me being a tad harsh - sorry for that but it was frustration.

I have a very thick skin so no problem.

I don't think any of them, given the choice of having a minor gun or NO gun would go for the former. That's my point.

I never argued that though Glenn. I just get miffed when someone says that they are as well armed with a puny mouse as a larger calibered gun simply because stats say needing bigger is a bigger long shot.

I get more miffed when the same folks (not you BTW) then tout advanced training.

I get even more aggravated when the same folks would choose bigger if they knew in advance of pending danger.

For the record I am a proponent of training as much as possible and carrying at minimum a caliber that can penetrate after bone is struck. Folks who cannot (for whatever reason) carry bigger then any gun is better than no gun. I think we agree more than you think.

 

[threegun]

No, the hypocrisy is to continue to try to use a situation where virtually NOBODY would choose a handgun to justify choosing a bigger handgun. And I would choose the rifle on other factors, not on "bigger."

Still the same bottom line if you knew "it" was coming you would want something bigger than a 22/25. You know thats the point I'm trying to make but would rather go round and round with words than concede the point.

Because it is a fun experience and gives you the chance to play a lot in an environment that you might not get otherwise.

This reason I like.

Certain types of training in particular will focus avoidance, defusing situations, determining risk accurately, and so on. And as a benefit you get some insight into techniques that might, in some very rare situation, help you in a gunfight.

From what friends who have taken much training have told me and my own research into the itinerary of the bigger schools MOST of the training is focused on helping you survive the gunfight. You can twist it to avoid the appearance of being hypocritical but that does change things.

Do you remember suggesting that I was ignorant because I thought that I was adequately prepared for a gun fight despite not having attended any of the formal schools? You verbally scolded me like a great professor annoyed at his student. You were adamant about trainings value in surviving a gunfight. Now its " get some insight into techniques that might, in some very rare situation, help you in a gunfight." a total flip flop......you running for president?

Also you make every effort to poke, insult, or take a jab at my persistence in challenging those who voluntarily chose to carry puny. Now I have pointed out one of your peeves (formal tactical training) that doesn't seem to matter much in most DGU incidents. You gonna stop stressing the value of training? Same answer for me stressing caliber.

 

[Deaf Smith]

------- Nope, that's the median - not the average if by that you mean the mean.

Glenn,

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/average

No, I was correct. Like the 'average' distance of a gunfight is supposed to be 20 feet or so. 50 percent are inside, 50 percent are outside that distance. And the 'average' number of shots fired. Same thing. I dislike averages or mean or median or standard deviation. Average didn't mean squat to those on the Titanic.

What is more, while most encounters don't end in shootings, those that do end in shootings, this is where one needs to look at effectivness of their weapons. Sure some just miss (and a miss with a .22 is just the same miss as a .45) but when it comes to hitting and you are playing for keeps, one then gets as powerful a weapon as they can control and hit with (and conceal if it's CCW.) Think of it as an 'average' inside an 'average' inside an 'average'.

As for which one, even the cops can't decide as many a LEO organization uses 9mm, .357 Sig, .40 S&W, .45 GAP, .45 ACP, etc... Not to mention some cops still drag around .38s and .357s. And they do all kinds of testing.

 

[David Armstrong]

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?

Yes, quite interesting, and further proof that many are selective about what data they consider and reject without understanding the ramifications of it.

 

[David Armstrong]

No, I was correct. Like the 'average' distance of a gunfight is supposed to be 20 feet or so. 50 percent are inside, 50 percent are outside that distance.

Not really. Let's have 10 gunfights. 9 of them occur at 5 feet, 1 is at 155 feet. The average (your definition) distance in the fights is 20 feet, but 9 (90%) are inside the average while only one (10%) is outside. That is why the median is important for, as Glenn put it, understanding "actual distributional properties".

Average didn't mean squat to those on the Titanic.

Putting aside which definition of "average", of course it did. Using probability one could easily have seen that if there was an incident being female or juvenile significantly improved the chance of living, as did your assigned rooms on the ship. The average survival rate was strongly influenced by those factors.

 

[.300H&H]

I handled 3 firearms today - a P95 Ruger, a CZ75B and a Glock 26. I kinda like the CZ and the Ruger about the same...but thhey are all fine firearms. In fact, I'd say the P95<imho>is just about the best bargain in a semiauto one can find. However, these semiautos are all not exactly the most concealable fireams and they require a tactical learning curb that <imho>that requires much more intense training and practice than does a snubnose revolver.


Even a semiauto mousegun is easier to deploy in a close quarters situation than the bigger semiauto. In a close quarters situation I don't want something that will snag or get grabbed by the bad guy. It's gotta be quick, small, and reliable in regard to rapid fire. Caliber and power are great, but they don't mean anything if they can't be concealed and be brought to use.


The average gunfight might be at a distance of 25ft., but that's a bit misleading ie. the average mugging is not 25 ft. and the close quarters situations one might encounter a thug aren't 25ft. If someone breaks into my home - yeah, they might be 25ft.away, but that's not a situation I'm necessarily reaching for a concealed weapon or mousegun.

 

[David Armstrong]

Still the same bottom line if you knew "it" was coming you would want something bigger than a 22/25. You know thats the point I'm trying to make but would rather go round and round with words than concede the point.

No, I would want something other than a handgun of any type. That is the point. I believe I made it clear earlier that in all but the rarest situations I would take a .22 rifle over any handgun if I knew in advance there was going to be fight. There is no point to concede---caliber is virtually irrelevant to the outcome of DGU incidents.

From what friends who have taken much training have told me and my own research into the itinerary of the bigger schools MOST of the training is focused on helping you survive the gunfight.

So I take it you are now commenting on what goes on at these schools without ever having taken a class. Perhaps we have identified the source of the problem here. Actually most of the "gun" part is usually focused on improving your accuracy and gunhandling skills, neither of which, again, is caliber dependent.

Do you remember suggesting that I was ignorant because I thought that I was adequately prepared for a gun fight despite not having attended any of the formal schools?

I think that, as ususal, you are not presenting an accurate summary. IIRC, I told you that shooting IPSC and IDPA and such did not prepare you for a gunfight, and that if you wanted to improve those skills you needed to take some formal training and get some FoF behind you. I don't recollect saying that doing so was necessary to survive a gunfight.

Also you make every effort to poke, insult, or take a jab at my persistence in challenging those who voluntarily chose to carry puny.

Gosh, let's not let me take all the credit. Seems there are a lot of other fairly knowledgable folks here who are also pointing out how that position does not seem to be accurate. Your persistence in ignoring reality in favor of your own imaginary world view is admirable, but it is also worth pointing out how out of touch with reality it is.

Now I have pointed out one of your peeves (formal tactical training) that doesn't seem to matter much in most DGU incidents.

As so often happens, you apparently miss the point entirely. Formal training goes far beyond shooting. I believe Glenn has already pointed that out.

You gonna stop stressing the value of training?

Well, if you do a really good search you should find more than a few places in the internet where I have said that there is little relationship between success in the typical DGU incident and training, and that in most successful shootings the CCWer has had little or no training. So I think that once again you try to make a claim about what I do that is not quite accurate.

 

[threegun]

So I take it you are now commenting on what goes on at these schools without ever having taken a class. Perhaps we have identified the source of the problem here. Actually most of the "gun" part is usually focused on improving your accuracy and gun handling skills, neither of which, again, is caliber dependent.

Yes since I have friends who have taken many of the courses. BTW I clearly said most of the time is spent....

The advanced training academies I have researched spend the VAST amount of time teaching us how to efficiently and effectively put rounds on target. They teach us how to deal with failures in equipment and body parts.

.........doing what you just said.

My problem? You base your carry caliber choice on statistics? You choose to buck the odds by carrying since you will probably never even need the gun. Then I'm the problem for preparing for the even longer shot............pure hypocrisy.

 

[Jim Watson]

Such sturm und drang.

I am an "enthusiast" as referred to in the Liberal press as a "gun nut." So my choice of a sidearm is not primarily based on ballistics, statistics, war stories, or distant authorities.

I carry what I am interested in at the time. There are certainly factors for what I consider adequate power, convenient carriage and the inventory at the time. There were a couple of occasions when I was darned glad to have a .22 at hand and no thought of anything "better." For a while I was willing to hump a magnum revolver or an all-steel .45 auto. Phew.

Now it shakes out to a 9mm auto or .38 Spl +P revolver, action type depending on what I have been shooting the most lately.

I do have a dinky .32 which is better than nothing and easy to have along but it leaves me feeling a little out of sorts.

But it occurs to me that the last authoritative source I saw to recommend a .22 for self defense was none other than the Gunners' Guru, Jeff Cooper. With a condition, of course: "When you can hit a tennis ball from anywhere on the court."

Oh, yeah, from some of the posts above...

James Bond (Fleming original or Connery movie versions) did not carry a .380. His PPK was a .32; but he was provided with a .38 Special for when more power was needed. Not to mention "the long barrelled .45" stashed in the agency Aston Martin.

The S&W Schofield was not a double action revolver. And best evidence is that Jesse James had a No 3 New Model .44 single action rather than the Schofield .45.