Best caliber for self defense

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by PzGren

My son is an emergency physician and worked in Northern Ohio during his residency and has seen single .22 l.r rounds being lethal while multiple hits with 9mm and .40 SW were survived. Even head shots.

It should be noted that the 9mm and .40 were FMJ and that lethality and incapacitation are not exactly the same.

Being able to perform the Bil Drill successfully with a 9mm is probably better than slow fire ( one shot per second ) and misses from a .45 ACP or .44 Rem Mag.

I asked that question of a guy who said he had seen all these gun battles with various calibers.

He never did answer.

I was just wondering.

It had to be somebody like Jim Cirillo or Bill Allard, I thought.........but they're both dead.

Point is, precious few of us have actually SEEN a lot of gunfights.

Which is why, I guess, we get so many reports of some guy who heard from another guy who said he had seen this or that.......proving........something.

So........isn't it about time for another post saying that a hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .44 Magnum?

It's been at least two pages since somebody gifted us with that old cliche.

[jar]

Originally Posted by The Verminator

So........isn't it about time for another post saying that a hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .44 Magnum?

It's been at least two pages since somebody gifted us with that old cliche.

All that long and the cliche is still true.

[PzGren]

I had the misfortune of living in dangerous Third World country where shootings, robberies, and kidnappings are part of what is to be expected every day.

I had learnt quickly that my S&W 64 did not have the capacity that was needed against multiple opponents and carried a Glock religiously wherever I went but had an AK with 7.62 HP ammo around the house.

I have seen people soak up half a dozen rounds without being incapacitated and I have seen a man that was dropped with one shot of birdshot at around 20 feet and trust me, he will not give anybody dirty looks again.

So when I read that some dude who hasn't been there is writing about old cliches, I can only smile mildly. Some of those "cliches" from men like the colonel are about mindset, skill and assessment of one's abilities and have become the basis of defensive shooting.

Confidence into one's skills is very comforting when bad situations start developing.

Everybody who signs up to a gun forum is, or course, a naturally born gun fighter and the skill level increases with post count, no range time necessary.

[The Verminator]

A hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .44 Magnum.

And a hit with a .44 Magnum is better than a miss with a .22.

A broad axe to the forehead is better than a teaspoon to the knee.

A hit with a bicycle is better than a miss with a loaded cement truck.

Being decapitated by a broadsword is a far more serious injury than being poked with a pencil.

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

Thank you, Mr. Obvious.

[Gunfu_blaster]

The biggest one you can use effectively.

[ChuteTheMall]

Cliches don't endure unless they are usually true.

Everyone's needs are different: some might value availability, others might prefer boutique ammo. Cost might even be a factor, if it limits practice. Recoil might limit practice, and the need for smaller and lighter guns might increase recoil. Old age, arthritis, or hand injuries might make recoil a factor limiting practice, even if premium ammo gets carried often but shot rarely.

Certainly, bigger is better when it comes to terminal ballistics. No argument there.
But there are so many other considerations affecting speed and accuracy.

I shoot 9mm best, thru a G17 or G26, but here in FL we don't wear cover garments.

I carry G42 and/or P32 more often (.380 or .32) so every range session I try to practice with the pocket guns too.
They are not as fast or as accurate in my hands, have less capacity, and less terminal effectiveness. So they are less fun.
But they are far more likely to be carried on my person, and RULE ONE is have a gun even if it's a tired cliche.

If I have time to go back to get my bigger gun, I'll just keep going.

[Red Devil]

Originally Posted by ChuteTheMall

Everyone's needs are different...

Disagree.

For this problem, Everyone's need is the same - to stop the threat ahead of violence.

And, while there is more that one way to skin this cat, the quickest way is generally the best.

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




Red

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Red Devil
For this problem, Everyone's need is the same - to stop the threat ahead of violence.

And, while there is more that one way to skin this cat, the quickest way is generally the best.

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

But which hits count most? Do more hits count more than better hits? Do better hits count more than bigger hits? Do bigger hits count more than more hits?

For example, is six hits of .44 Magnum better than 15 hits of 9mm? Is one really good hit of .22 LR better than an ok hit with 9mm? Is ten mediocre hits with any caliber better than one really good hit of the same?

[Red Devil]

Only hits count.
- Accuracy
- Size
- Speed/Capacity

Don't hurt yourself overthinking it.


GR

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Red Devil
Only hits count.
- Accuracy
- Size
- Speed/Capacity

Don't hurt yourself overthinking it.

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.

[Red Devil]

Originally Posted by Webleymkv

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.

Academic nonsense.

Outcome is determined by:

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




Red

[Webleymkv]

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.

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 Verminator]

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.

Red

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

[44 AMP]

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!!

He didn't run far, but he did run away...

[The Verminator]

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.

[Red Devil]

Originally Posted by The Verminator

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

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

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by Red Devil

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

Well, at least it wasn't my fake eyelashes.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by Red Devil

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

Red

I didn't say that it did.

[The Verminator]

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.