Best caliber for self defense

Webleymkv said:
It sounds simple, but it really isn't. Nothing exists in a vacuum and everything is a trade off. By and large, smaller calibers are easier to shoot quickly and accurately and hold more ammunition than larger calibers do. Also, those aren't the only three factors that play into the choice of a defensive handgun as size, price, ease of use, practicality, and in some jurisdictions legality all can be potential factors. A duty-sized 9mm like a Glock 17 or Beretta 92 is very easy to shoot well for many people and holds a good supply of ammunition, but it's also too big, bulky, and heavy for many people to regularly carry. A full-sized government model 1911 in .45 ACP can be shot very well by a great many people and shoots a bigger, more powerful bullet than the 9mm does, but it may not be quite as easy to shoot and certainly doesn't hold as many rounds. The crux of the question is whether or not a larger more powerful cartridge is advantageous enough to offset the greater ease in shooting and increased capacity of a smaller, weaker one and that is a debate that we've never achieved a consensus on and it's doubtful that we will anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Academic nonsense.

Outcome is determined by:

Only hits count.
- Better hits count more.
- Bigger hits count more.
- More hits count more.




Red
 
Originally posted by Red Devil
Academic nonsense.

Outcome is determined by:

Only hits count.
- Better hits count more.
- Bigger hits count more.
- More hits count more.
Click to expand...

So what point are you trying to make and how does it relate to what caliber someone should choose for self-defense? Should you choose the caliber you can make the best hits with, the one you can make the biggest hits with, or the one you can make the most hits with? I don't disagree that bigger, better, and more hits are better, but which one is most important? I can make good hits reasonably fast with my .44 Magnum, but I can make just as good if not better hits a lot faster with my 9mm and I can do it a lot more before having to reload, so which one is better?
 
The problem with these kinds of discussions, is that there is no standard that can be applied fairly to all situations, other than "worked or didn't work" and that isn't a standard, its a statement of results.

Every caliber has been used for self defense has examples of it working, and not working.

There is a documented case of a guy taking 2 (two) 12ga slugs to the chest, and running away!! :eek:

He didn't run far, but he did run away...:rolleyes:
 
That's why we're left with the FBI conclusion about what works best for our average Homo sapiens most of the time.

There's no perfect answer--just the compromise 9mm.

:D
 
The Verminator said:
First of all, Web's post was not nonsense of any kind.

Second, isn't your post stuff that's been said a million times?

And how could "More hits" count less?

One can only respond......yes, obviously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am3FjwsNqXc
Click to expand...

Your emotion outburst, vitriol, and hyperbole are obviously interfering with your reading for content ability.

Where does the word "less" appear in the post?

That it is not as important as good hits and bigger hits?

For the simple facts that:

- It takes more ammo to make more hits.
- It takes more time to make more hits.
- it takes more shots to make more hits,
... of which every one is a potential miss.

So, needing a high capacity magazine and being in a hurry to miss,
because you chose your SD round poorly?

Doesn't trump a better round well placed.




Red
 
And don't misunderstand me.

When I call the .40 a failed round I don't mean it's no good.

What I mean is that it has failed as a police and government caliber.

I doubt that the military ever considered it.......they do have some experts.

The .40 is an excellent round for those who can handle it.

It's just not a good recommendation for the beginning shooter or general law enforcement work.
 
The Verminator said:
And don't misunderstand me.

When I call the .40 a failed round I don't mean it's no good.

What I mean is that it has failed as a police and government caliber.

I doubt that the military ever considered it.......they do have some experts.

The .40 is an excellent round for those who can handle it.

It's just not a good recommendation for the beginning shooter or general law enforcement work.
Click to expand...

The .40 S&W is a superior round and has considerably higher bullet reliability.

There are also excuses not to use it.

The Military already traded effectiveness for ammo capacity.

The 9mm is easier for grandmas to shoot and FBI secretaries to qualify with.

A 9mm micro pistol makes a nice minimum carry.

That's about it.




Red
 
Red Devil said:
The .40 S&W is a superior round and has considerably higher bullet reliability.

There are also excuses not to use it.

The Military already traded effectiveness for ammo capacity.

The 9mm is easier for grandmas to shoot and FBI secretaries to qualify with.
Red
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence that grandmas and FBI secretaries have to qualify with the handgun?

When you say the .40 is superior is that because it's more powerful than the 9mm?
 
The Verminator said:
Do you have any evidence that grandmas and FBI secretaries have to qualify with the handgun?

When you say the .40 is superior is that because it's more powerful than the 9mm?
Click to expand...

Cross-pollinating, from the .40 S&W thread.

Red Devil said:
Given the disparity in both impact Energy and expanded bullet area, ~ 3:4 for both, that gives the .40 S&W a (1.33)^2 advantage, round it to 1.77.

That's over Three 9mm hits(3.54) for every Two(2) .40 S&W hits.

And since that extra hit-and-a-half includes the probability of a miss, call it 1:3, it leaves a pretty solid Two(2) extra rounds fired, on top of the Two initial hits, to equal Two hits from a .40 S&W.

So, one would need a 9mm magazine with Twice(2x) the capacity of the .40 S&W, not simply the Two or so additional rounds in a std. capacity service pistol.

Along with the extra time and collateral damage incurred while shooting those extra hits... and misses.
Click to expand...




Red
 
IINM: The rationale for 9mm (with MUCH improved ammunition) was that the probability of multiple hits in a very time-limited gunfight interval was much higher than the higher recoil 40S&W across the board.

That this probability only improved as smaller-framed humans were increasingly exposed to/involved in combat situations sealed the deal.

On balance... the decision as to Good-Enough is the most difficult of all arts.
 
Given the disparity in both impact Energy and expanded bullet area, ~ 3:4 for both, that gives the .40 S&W a (1.33)^2 advantage, round it to 1.77.

That's over Three 9mm hits(3.54) for every Two(2) .40 S&W hits.

And since that extra hit-and-a-half includes the probability of a miss, call it 1:3, it leaves a pretty solid Two(2) extra rounds fired, on top of the Two initial hits, to equal Two hits from a .40 S&W.

So, one would need a 9mm magazine with Twice(2x) the capacity of the .40 S&W, not simply the Two or so additional rounds in a std. capacity service pistol.

Along with the extra time and collateral damage incurred while shooting those extra hits... and misses.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately no one has been able to come up with any evidence that this sort of "calculation" has any correlation to the outcome of real-world gunfights.

If this makes you believe that the .40S&W is better and will give you an edge in real-world gunfights, I guess that's your concern, but it isn't going to satisfy anyone who's looking for generally accepted evidence of terminal superiority.
 
When I call the .40 a failed round I don't mean it's no good.

What I mean is that it has failed as a police and government caliber.
Click to expand...
The only thing I see it has failed at is longevity as the primary cartridge.

When it was the "hot new thing" lots of govt agencies and police depts adopted it.

I doubt that the military ever considered it.......they do have some experts.
Click to expand...

There is no way our military ever considered it, other than POSSIBLY for some SOG operators, who, essentially get to use what ever they want...

Look how long the .45acp was the service round. Would still probably BE the service round, if we hadn't promised NATO we would adopt their 9mm, back in the 50s. And do note that we kept the .45 for around another 30 years after promising we would adopt the 9mm round. We promised we would, we never promised WHEN we would. :D

After adopting the 9mm in what 84?? do you honestly think the military spent any time considering adopting the .40 S&W not even 10 years later??

I would remind everyone once again, that the way the military, other govt agencies, and most law enforcement agencies work is that, when it comes to choosing the pistol round (and pistols) for their people, the choice has to perform to a minimum standard of effectiveness, it has to be deemed the best overall for the ORGANIZATION'S MISSION (NOT the individual user) AND it has to fit into their budget.

IN other words, it has to work acceptably well in use, it has to be useable by the bulk of their personell, and it has to be cheap enough to afford.

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

I don't think you should, either.
 
44 AMP said:
When it comes to the personal choice of a defensive caliber, and firearm for my personal use, I do not (and should not) use the same criteria that a large organization uses.

I don't think you should, either.
Click to expand...

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

A number of people disregard the FBI. Fair enough. The problem I see is many people do not have the means or time to do their own extensive testing. If someone can point to another publicly available source of information I am all for it.
 
The one fact that can be verified is that right now there are lots and lots of used .40 pistols on the market because the people who had those .40 pistol no longer wanted them.
 
The one fact that can be verified is that right now there are lots and lots of used .40 pistols on the market because the people who had those .40 pistol no longer wanted them.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the knife cuts both ways. The same lack of evidence of superiority for one member the service pistol caliber performance class over the others says that the .40 is as good a choice for self-defense as any of the members of the class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top