What Is Really Necessary In A Self-Defense Firearm?

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
According to some admittedly very dated studies, approximately 90% of self-defense uses of a firearm involve no shots fired a d just the display of a firearm.

The very controversial Marshal/Sanow data, which arguably may not even be genuine data, if nothing else seems to suggest that regardless of the caliber used, a single shot deters attack in 60% of the cases that make it past the threshhold above.

So in a very wide swath of self-defense shootings, just having a working firearm of any caliber is sufficient.

Of course, if you happen to be at the extreme ends of the odds, that is probably not much comfort. If you do happen to run in to a dedicated attacker willing to press the attack in the face of death or serious bodily injury, then the list of acceptable firearms and ammo narrows quite a bit.

But do we focus so much on the extreme end of that scale (low probability; but extremely serious consequences) that we leave ourselves vulnerable to more probable scenarios because our FBI-approved service caliber pistol isn't handy when we need it?
 
Maximum killyness.

But seriously, I carry a P238 because it's small and handy.

And there's a pretty nifty AR in the trunk.
 
The horse is dead!..... Long live the horse!

Yes, I do leave myself open to the extreme, but rare, possibility. I have decided on a level of personal protection that works for me and in the unlikely event that a chose wrong I am willing to live or die with my decision.

EDIT: The wording of your last sentence makes it slightly unclear, to me, what you are asking. To clarify my response I carry a smaller gun and fewer rounds than many people claim to prefer. It works for me.
 
First it is Necessary to have your firearm .
I never met anyone that would like it better to be shot with the specification of firearm used .
 
But do we focus so much on the extreme end of that scale (low probability; but extremely serious consequences) that we leave ourselves vulnerable to more probable scenarios because our FBI-approved service caliber pistol isn't handy when we need it?
Click to expand...

If you are asking if some of us won't carry a smaller weapon, and therefore carry nothing at times I think the answer is yes. Do we leave ourselves vulnerable when we choose not to carry? Absolutely. A well concealed 380 is much better than a folding knife or harsh words.
 
For lesser calibers than 44, you need a bullet which will expand upon impact to produce a wide wound channel. Even the mild 22 LR has been used successfully in self defense but I'd choose a faster cartridge myself. I feel that 22 MAG with hollow tip bullets is an acceptable minimum.

Jack
 
We live in the golden age of concealed carry. There are more options and configurations that anyone could possibly need, which is a great thing.

I've always found that the most influential factor for me personally in whether I choose to carry or not is comfort. I like to carry, but I hate to have a pistol jabbing me constantly and printing is a huge no no. So, I found a comfortable (read: small) pistol that still had an effective round that I could handle and shoot confidently. For me it's a Shield 9, so my wife can shoot it well too, if the need should arise. For others it might be a 22mag. Does it make a huge difference? Probably not.

Pick a gun you can carry comfortably, then pick the biggest caliber you can shoot accurately and quickly.

Ps. I'd like to clarify that I DO NOT believe that just waving an empty gun is a good "self-defense" solution. A gun should only be put into play if you're ready to kill someone by shooting them until they stop being a threat. A gun is not a deterrent, it's a weapon. Both the gun and the user need to be able to inflict lethal damage, or else just leave it at home. Why bring a gun that you're not ready to use? Higher likelihood that the baddie will take the gun and use it against you or others.

PPs. I'd also like to clarify that yes, a 22 in the pocket is better than a 9/40/45 at home in the safe. BUT, a 9/40/45 in the pocket is better than a 22 in the pocket. Size does matter. If you actually have to use a gun, might as well use the most effective gun that you personally can use effectively.
 
But do we focus so much on the extreme end of that scale (low probability; but extremely serious consequences) that we leave ourselves vulnerable to more probable scenarios because our FBI-approved service caliber pistol isn't handy when we need it?
Click to expand...

I can't answer for "we," only for "me," but there are enough choices in 9 mm and .380 ACP handguns that I don't see why one can't be handy when I need it. I favor handguns over long guns even at home precisely because they are closer, and easier to maneuver in small houses and apartments. I don't find it harder to have a G26 or a Sig P238 at hand (to use examples from my own pistol cabinet) than a .22LR or a starter pistol or a realistic toy plastic gun to scare away the bad guys, so why would I not make allowances for an escalation?

To focus back on the thread title: Personally, I value the ability to control a pistol for follow up shots pretty highly, since handgun calibers are notoriously poor at one-shot stops.
 
What Is Really Necessary In A Self-Defense Firearm?
Click to expand...

What is really necessary is that you have the (loaded) firearm, WHEN you need it. And that it work, when needed.

Everything else is a matter of wants, and what you, or others think will work better...
 
No rules of gunfighting yet?

1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.
Click to expand...

But do we focus so much on the extreme end of that scale (low probability; but extremely serious consequences) that we leave ourselves vulnerable to more probable scenarios because our FBI-approved service caliber pistol isn't handy when we need it?
Click to expand...

Your FBI approved service caliber pistol is an inadequate gun for serious work. If it were adequate armies would equip all of their soldiers with them. Instead they give them carbines, rifles and machine guns for the serious work.

What it is, is convenient. We can make an inadequate weapon even worse by shortening the barrel, reducing the caliber size, reducing the cartridge length and making other reductions and thereby making it even more convenient. After all if you are going to carry around something that you may never use or use only once or twice in a lifetime than it makes sense to make it as convenient as possible.

If a smaller convenient pistol won't end the fight than I will immediately want the most effective fight stopper that I can find. This would mean a long gun, preferably a rifle in a CFR caliber. Long guns can be tough to have easily accessible but they are the best solution to difficult problems. A slightly bigger and better pistol won't be nearly as useful.

EDIT: The wording of your last sentence makes it slightly unclear, to me, what you are asking.
Click to expand...

I am going to agree. Your implication is that the average person will be more likely to deal with a dedicated murderous rampaging attacker than dealing with a thug after your wallet, smart phone and virtue.

So what is probable? This varies quite a bit based upon a lot of different factors. If you avoid known dangerous areas, don't imbibe or deal in narcotics, aren't in a relationship with an abuser and don't have a security or other high risk job (like liquor store clerk) your odds of being assaulted or killed violently plummet. This is where most people are.

Does this mean you are more likely to be killed by terrorists clad in body armor toting an AR-15 trying to kill as many people as possible? I'd say no.
 
As another poster said, a gun that is absolutely reliable.

Beyond that I prefer to carry the most powerful handgun that I can conceal and shoot well. Most days it's a 1911 .45, some days a Kahr K40, the rest of the time a J frame .38.

Your circumstances and personal preference may and probably will call for something different.
 
Carrying a weapon, any weapon, suggests having the will to defend against a potentially deadly encounter with some kind of vicious predator.
But more importantly, the skill to use it, what ever the choice of weapon, is primary, especially against the human variety that most of us are thinking of.
In the final analysis, the old adage is most true:
"The weapon (gun?) is the least of it."
In other words, we would benefit with less concerns about stuff, and more about how to use stuff.
End of unsolicited nagging lecture falling on mostly deafened ears. :o
 
The firearm must be in your hand, loaded, and function when and if the trigger is pulled. All other considerations are secondary.
 
Carrying a weapon, any weapon, suggests having the will to defend against a potentially deadly encounter with some kind of vicious predator.
But more importantly, the skill to use it, what ever the choice of weapon, is primary, especially against the human variety that most of us are thinking of.
In the final analysis, the old adage is most true:
"The weapon (gun?) is the least of it."
In other words, we would benefit with less concerns about stuff, and more about how to use stuff.
End of unsolicited nagging lecture falling on mostly deafened ears.
Click to expand...

The firearm must be in your hand, loaded, and function when and if the trigger is pulled. All other considerations are secondary.
Click to expand...

Two different perspectives, one focused on the weapon and one on ability to use it effectively. Both absolutely correct.
 
"The weapon (gun?) is the least of it."
In other words, we would benefit with less concerns about stuff, and more about how to use stuff.
Click to expand...

I agree! But I do like my stuff. After all I have to have something to spend my money on. Or at least the small portion the government lets me keep. Cain't waste it all on rent and groceries:).

I have 2 carry firearms, one a 9mm that holds 7 and 38 Special 5 shot revolver. I feel confident that either would serve me well. One of the reasons I can say this is because I don't fit into any of the high risk categories.

With above said my chosen commute route to and from work does take me through a higher risk part of Dallas. I am an older white guy and I think the most likely risk I face is a car jacking while in this area or even a small riot. I can chose another route and considered doing so earlier this month with the police shootings and tensions around that. Realizing that my carry firearms would be marginal for an encounter of this kind I have started to also have a full size pistol in the vehicle.

So to answer the OP's question what I think is really necessary is my carry options and recent vehicle carry. I will probably abandon vehicle carry if tensions lower, we will see. There is a comfort level in knowing it is there.

A question to the OP if he wants to answer. Is "really necessary" another way of saying "minimum necessary"? I answered with minimum necessary as I see it. If we could chose the situation that the stats cover we would be better able to arm ourselves for that situation, that is very seldom the case. Or at lease seldom for those of us that are not in law enforcement, other jobs requiring contact with the criminal element or engage in actual illegal activity.
 
The skill and willingness to shoot it accurately.
"...for those of us that are not..." Having been in some of those places when very young and fairly recently as one of those that are not, unarmed, my observation is that most non-LEO types carry more because they can than they have the need. Who wants to opt to live where carrying a firearm is necessary?
"...FBI-approved..." Who appointed them as the arbitrators? They can't decide what to issue the their own people.
 
my observation is that most non-LEO types carry more because they can than they have the need.
Click to expand...

I can only answer for myself as someone who is low risk of the need because of my lifestyle and chosen profession. I find it somewhat inconvenient to routinely carry, but have gotten used to it and have no plans to abandon carrying. I don't think I look like a victim but am older, overweight and out of shape. I find comfort in at least having a chance to answer a physical assault if confronted with one. Even though I am low risk there is some risk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top