Is caliber really all that important for ccw

[Frank Ettin]

Since it's quite concevable for a instantly incapisation cns shot with the 32 S&W there maybe no edge in terminal performance for a 45. therefore your statement is false however were you to say a .45 ACP most definitly might have an edge in terminal performance over something like, say, a .32 S&W then that would be a correct statement...

There you go, again manufacturing a hypothetical to support your view.

In any case, a lot of things are conceivable. It's also conceivable that a .32 will just cause a bone chip to the spine, while a .45 at the same spot would cause disabling nerve trauma. It's also conceivable that a .32 will not fully penetrate the pelvis, while a .45 at the same place will crack the bone creating an incapacitating injury. It's conceivable that a .32 will just miss a major blood vessel, while a .45 in the same place will tear the blood vessel accelerating blood loss and incapacitation from exsanguination.

In unique situations, a .32 might work out well. But overall, a .45 will produce more damage and thus gives one an overall edge.

...a 10mm is no better 9mm?...

Well. it's largely a matter of tradeoffs. The 10mm certainly reliably produces larger and deeper holes, but a 9x19, with a good JHP, can still penetrate adequately and cause a reasonably big hole. And in its favor, a 9x19 is a good deal more controllable, in general, than a 10mm, given guns of comparable size and weight; and it's certainly controllable in a smaller, more concealable, gun.

...is there a concensus on JHP vs FMJ in 45 yet?

Perhaps not on the Internet, but pretty much all U. S. police agencies use JHPs, even in .45 ACP.

 

[tbeb]

I think it is. I carry a snub .38 loaded with +P ammo, and I would go no smaller. Ask yourself this question: If you knew your life or your family's life was going to be threatened, would you want to be armed with a .22 handgun or a .45 handgun? My answer would be .45 every time.

 

[AZAK]

fiddletown

In any case, a lot of things are conceivable. It's also conceivable that a .32 will just cause a bone chip to the spine, while a .45 at the same spot would cause disabling nerve trauma. It's also conceivable that a .32 will not fully penetrate the pelvis, while a .45 at the same place will crack the bone creating an incapacitating injury. It's conceivable that a .32 will just miss a major blood vessel, while a .45 in the same place will tear the blood vessel accelerating blood loss and incapacitation from exsanguination.

In unique situations, a .32 might work out well. But overall, a .45 will produce more damage and thus gives one an overall edge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mavracer
...a 10mm is no better 9mm?...
Well. it's largely a matter of tradeoffs. The 10mm certainly reliably produces larger and deeper holes, but a 9x19, with a good JHP, can still penetrate adequately and cause a reasonably big hole. And in its favor, a 9x19 is a good deal more controllable, in general, than a 10mm, given guns of comparable size and weight; and it's certainly controllable in a smaller, more concealable, gun.

I am a bit confused? It appears that one can substitute the .32 for the 9mm and the .45 for the 10mm (and visa vera) and have true yet conflicting statements; or an appeal to relativism?

 

[mavracer]

There you go, again manufacturing a hypothetical to support your view

As long as you continue to make the absolutte statement that a 45 will increase your chances, I only need one plausable hypothetical to disprove it.

It appears that one can substitute the .32 for the 9mm and the .45 for the 10mm (and visa vera) and have true yet conflicting statements; or an appeal to relativism?

There does seem to be some hypocracy at work there.

 

[Frank Ettin]

As long as you continue to make the absolutte statement that a 45 will increase your chances, I only need one plausable hypothetical to disprove it.

Actually, that's not correct. If a statement is one of probability, a single instance of a less probably event doesn't really mean anything.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by fiddletown: Actually, that [I only need one plausable hypothetical to disprove the .. statement that a 45 will increase your chances] 's not correct. If a statement is one of probability, a single instance of a less probably event doesn't really mean anything.

A true statement.

 

[mavracer]

Actually, that's not correct. If a statement is one of probability, a single instance of a less probably event doesn't really mean anything.

If you'd make a statement of probability that'd be differennt.
A 45 may increase your chances is a statement of probabbility.
A 45 will inccrease your chances is a absolute statement.
Which is not true in all instances. Given that my prefered 32 acp load will out penatrate most commercial 45 JHP in bare gel.
And as soon as you have a 11oz 45 acp that's 3/4" wide annd hols 7 rounds then all things can be equal. Until then all handguns will be a compramise.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...A 45 will inccrease your chances is a absolute statement...

No, it is not. "Increase your chances" is a statement of probability.

 

[mavracer]

No, it is not. "Increase your chances" is a statement of probability.

quoting yourself out of context is intellectually dishonest. you say it "will" increase you chances, when it quite clearly may or may not increase your chances at all, and in some cases it could actually decrease your chances.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...quoting yourself out of context is intellectually dishonest. you say it "will" increase you chances,...

Yes, it will increase your chances. But the word "chances" refers to probability.

You might not understand what I've written (although it has been in perfectly good English). But I suspect that others reading this thread will be able to.

So this discussion between you and I on this subject must now come to an end so that others can participate in this thread.

 

[lefteye]

"Chances" and "probability" are synonyms in the context of this discussion.

 

[manta49]

MTT TL. Quote.


As our Irish friend pointed out the Ulster Guards were issued .22s. The decision was almost entirely political though. Short of that I know of none.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In the mid-1970s the Royal Army Ordnance Corps purchased about 3000 Walther PPs in 22LR for the Ulster Defence Regiment, an infantry regiment operating out of Northern Ireland. These guns were designated L66A1 and described, maybe a touch grandiosely, as a PDW or "personal defense weapon.

I think you are right there were political reasons. I don't know what the thinking was and i live here but obviously a larger caliber would of being more effective.

 

[markj]

If you think Alaskans carry a .22 for bear defense, I like to contact you about selling some moon rock that fell in my boat while fishing for tarpon at Lake Iliamna, AK; (ok, I probably spelled it wrong).

I have seen videos of the Inuit indians using a 22 LR on polar bears and getting the bear. They do use them there, check up on it.

BTW it is a Salvation Army Reverend that took them while they took him on a hunt.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

I suppose it depends by what you mean by "all that important."

Any caliber is good enough for self-defense until it isn't.

People have died instantly to a .22 Short and suffered no serious injury from being shot in the head with a .44 Magnum.

Of course, one is more likely than another, but there is no line at which you can say "Everything more powerful than this always works."

 

[Kevin Rohrer]

Is caliber really all that important for ccw

It depends on how valuable your life is to you. If you don't care much about yourself, go ahead and carry that .22 Short single-shot.

If you do feel your life is worth more than 20-cents, carry the largest and most powerful weapon you can conceal and shoot accurately/quickly.

 

[Sparks1957]

It depends on how valuable your life is to you.

Oh, for goodness' sake... not another "if you really value your life, you wouldn't carry that gun" comment.

 

[Nnobby45]

I have seen videos of the Inuit indians using a 22 LR on polar bears and getting the bear. They do use them there, check up on it.

I saw a documentary (Gordon Eastman, I think) of Native Alaskans coming up behind a swimming Brown Bear, in a canoe and carefully placing the shot behind or IN the ear with a .22 rifle from a distance of 2 or 3 ft. That's not bear defense.

Didn't see the video you refer to, but I suspect they shot the bear while it was swimming and helpless, since it isn't likely that the Intuits have survived so long by being suicidal or stupid.

Whatever the circumstances (that you havn't elected to tell us about), the conditions were obviously ideal and represented minimal danger to the hunters, who, if on land, were most likely backed up by a real rifle.

Saw an Alaska State Trooper episode where an inhabitant of a northern village was on "Polar Bear" guard duty armed with a Mini-14.

 

[markj]

Didn't see the video you refer to, but I suspect they shot the bear while it was swimming and helpless

They were on land, were behind the bear and shot it in the rear, it bled out in its den and they dragged it out and skinned it. Was a home made film my Pastor showed us of the time he was in Alaska doing Salvation Army stuff. He was there for many years with these hunters.

Does this clear it up? They used their heads and know how to kill it safely as they do everything they kill like whales from canoes etc.

First defense is your smarts, dont have any? well you wont be able to defend anything with out them, smarts that is.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

They were on land, were behind the bear and shot it in the rear, it bled out in its den and they dragged it out and skinned it. Was a home made film my Pastor showed us of the time he was in Alaska doing Salvation Army stuff. He was there for many years with these hunters.

Does this clear it up? They used their heads and know how to kill it safely as they do everything they kill like whales from canoes etc.

None of these hunting tactics have anything to do with self defense. There is nothing safe about shooting a polar bear in the butt with a .22. Hunting whales from canoes definitely is not safe and the Inuit will tell you so.
http://www.alaska.boemre.gov/native/rexford/rexford.htm

If you delve seriously into the topic, you will find that the cash strapped Alaskan natives often make do as best they can, not because they think the .22 rifle is the ultimate in hunting, but because it is what they can afford.

You have seemed to really confuse the diffferences between self defense and hunting and the two are not readily compared.

I do find it ironic that you posted contradictory statements.

After my cousin was shot 4 times with a 357 I must say shot placement is king. Dont matter what you shoot him with unless its a 20mm or larger, that if you dont hit the important parts he will not just lay down and die.

Same goes with hunting..... why wouldnt it go with SD?

If you don't hit the important part in self defense, the bad guy isn't just going to lay down and die, but if you shoot a polar bear in the butt, apparently it will after crawling back to its den, but hunting and self defense are the same?

That is some bizarre counter logic.

 

[Nnobby45]

None of these hunting tactics have anything to do with self defense. There is nothing safe about shooting a polar bear in the butt with a .22. Hunting whales from canoes definitely is not safe and the Inuit will tell you so.

The above is the only point I'm trying to make. Not argue about shooting a defenseless bear under circumstances that have nothing to do with stopping a large carnivore in the process of eating you for breakfast, or protecting it's young.