handguns for self defense

[Runs With Fire]

There are exceptions where one caliber is better than another (more rounds in the average 9mm, more penetration in .357, etc.). In most use-of-force circumstances, being competent and comfortable with the gun is more influential than the caliber until you get to extreme comparisons (.22LR vs. .45ACP, for instance). Caliber does matter, so please don't hear me saying it doesn't. I'm not sure any handgun is a good option against a 6.5 Creedmoor (handgun vs. rifle is usually a bad idea for one or the other, depending upon context). And the difference in caliber doesn't really seem relevant to that situation, unless the guy holding the rifle is hard to bring down. Being able to shoot accurately from a distance and behind cover seems more relevant. For me, in that situation, I'd rather have my old Glock 17.

That's exactly it, especially the distance part. In a handgun, I'm not looking at size, I'm looking at max effective range. Being accurate and having adequate lethality at longer ranges. I'd say 100 yds maximum, 10-50 yds preferably. I know most shootings are under fifteen feet, and I'm supposed to get away if possible, but as a dad, I'm more likely to engage if it means ending a threat. I am talking with the security team at my church about carrying during my sunday school class. In that situation, there is no retreating with 20-30 first graders. Mine is a corner classroom with about 50 yards both directions down the hall from the center of the room. I would need to be able to handle 50 yards and shooting through my classroom windows. no threat of over penetration as all walls are concrete block and brick. They recomend a full size 40 as minimum.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Here is the thing to always remember. If you do not have it on you then it isn't doing you any good. Way to many people want the biggest gun possible with the highest caliber. However, lugging that 45 around all day and concealing it well can be really difficult for most people and after awhile they might not carry it.

Plus if you can't shoot a 45 well then you probably shouldn't be carrying it. However if you can carry and conceal it easily and you are proficient with it then it would be a great fit for you.

People are different. We come in different shapes and sizes and varying degrees of skill when it comes to firearms proficiency. So each and everyone of us should carry what we are comfortable with and proficient with.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Everyone I know who has a CPL or CCW or whatever the equivalent is, doesn't always carry.

I've had a few people argue with me and say they carry 100% of the time. I call BS. No you do not.

It's too hot. The gun is too big. It prints through your summer clothes. You're wearing shorts. Blah blah blah blah blah.

You don't carry 100%.

And even if you do, MOST people with permits do not.

That's a fact. A fact. Argue all you like, it's a fact.

The gun you do not have with you will not save you.

The gun you do have with you MAY NOT save you either.

But it's a damned sight better than the one you left behind because it wasn't working with your jodhpurs that day.

Big calibers. Very nice. Fashionable guns. Lovely. The gun-du-jour and the caliber all the hip dudes are talking about impresses me not at all.

And three carry guns including a sawed-off AR in a briefcase? Are you woofing me? That's not being prepared, that's a walking mental illness right there.

 

[CB Jones]

I've had a few people argue with me and say they carry 100% of the time. I call BS. No you do not.

Excluding when I'm in bed....I am carrying.

When I get up in the morning either my Glock 43 goes in my waistband or my S&W Bodyguard goes in my pocket.....no exceptions.



On second thought, do take it out when I work out but I do carry the bodyguard when I go running or walking.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Excluding when I'm in bed....I am carrying.

When I get up in the morning either my Glock 43 goes in my waistband or my S&W Bodyguard goes in my pocket.....no exceptions.



On second thought, do take it out when I work out but I do carry the bodyguard when I go running or walking.

No exceptions - except there are exceptions. That's my point.

The best gun to have is the one you carry.

And while I am not putting you down for not carrying in bed or in the shower or whilst making sweet sweet love or whatever, I am saying that some of these gigantic boomsticks are not going to be carried by most people. Feel free to exclude yourself from 'most people' but yeah, it's most people, and by a huge margin. You're not the typical CCW person, you're the rare exception.

I spent too many years in law enforcement, too much time with fellow gun-nuts, too much general curiosity ("Dude, are you carrying today? No? Why not?") to believe otherwise.

I am also singularly unimpressed with the plethora of OMG super cool whatever whatever tacticool guns and calibers. Every year it's the newest fashion, the newest accessory, and it's all runway models clutching their beaded purses as far as I can see. It's fetishism is what. It's beard-bro hipster crapola of the finest kind.

I wish people would take concealed carry as seriously, no, more seriously, than religion. It's a somber, sobering, experience, and you don't take the f'ing thing off. You train with it, you carry it, and you STOP getting all fetishy about it. It's a good, valuable, trustworthy, tool. It's a potential life-saver MAYBE. All these arguments about 380 versus 9mm versus 41 cal versus 45 ACP versus blah blah blah make me want to vomit. Find a gun you're going to actually freaking carry. Buy it. Train with it. Have it with you always. Done.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Heh.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Here is the thing to always remember. If you do not have it on you then it isn't doing you any good. Way to many people want the biggest gun possible with the highest caliber. However, lugging that 45 around all day and concealing it well can be really difficult for most people and after awhile they might not carry it.

Plus if you can't shoot a 45 well then you probably shouldn't be carrying it. However if you can carry and conceal it easily and you are proficient with it then it would be a great fit for you.

People are different. We come in different shapes and sizes and varying degrees of skill when it comes to firearms proficiency. So each and everyone of us should carry what we are comfortable with and proficient with.

That second paragraph was why I got rid of my 1911 Officer's. It carried well, but my shooting with it wasn't nearly as good as with other guns. Still better than others I've shot with, and I really liked the gun, but practicality won out.

Unfortunately, I now can't practically carry on a regular basis.

 

[oftheherd1]

I used to carry daily. I don't now. Felt a little naked when I first quit. Then I didn't miss it much, and now not at all. I have considered going for a concealed carry, but I'm not so sure I want to. Granted there are a lot more nuts on the streets, but I try to spend time where they aren't.

But if I do return to carrying, I am not sure what I would carry. A .45 auto is surprisingly easy to conceal and carries plenty of firepower with modern hollow point rounds.

A 380 round is still potent with a hollow point round, and even more concealable.

A .45 long round hasn't lost its killing power in the many years it has been around. The weapons to shoot it aren't so concealable. But if you fire at a miscreant and miss, the noise will probably make him think he has been shot and give you time to aim properly.

The two guns/rounds that scare me the most, are the most concealable. They are .22 and .25. Both guns, but especially the .22 (non-jacketed) are known to ricochet at every bone they get introduced to. Given the right path, you can almost bleed out before you hit the ground. Don't know why there is such fascination with big guns/rounds except for specific circumstances.

 

[oftheherd1]

That second paragraph was why I got rid of my 1911 Officer's. It carried well, but my shooting with it wasn't nearly as good as with other guns. Still better than others I've shot with, and I really liked the gun, but practicality won out.

Unfortunately, I now can't practically carry on a regular basis.

2nd time I have seen the reference to 1911 Officer weapon. How did that differ from the common 1911A1 the US Army used?

EDIT: I looked it up. I once met a guy while in MA in 1970. I think he came from NH. He made a short barreled .45. It was neat, but it was only more concealable due to the shortened barrel. I just decided I didn't want to have one. I guess I need to get out more. I had never heard of the 1911 Officers.

Besides, I had been carrying .45 concealed for a couple of years in Vietnam. I was quite comfortable with it.

 

[CB Jones]

Don't know why there is such fascination with big guns/rounds except for specific circumstances.

Because big guns provide better penetration and do more damage lessening your need for precision during a gun fight.

With a .22 you better be lucky

 

[Gerry Seymour]

2nd time I have seen the reference to 1911 Officer weapon. How did that differ from the common 1911A1 the US Army used?

EDIT: I looked it up. I once met a guy while in MA in 1970. I think he came from NH. He made a short barreled .45. It was neat, but it was only more concealable due to the shortened barrel. I just decided I didn't want to have one. I guess I need to get out more. I had never heard of the 1911 Officers.

It's smaller. 3.5" barrel, I think, and 1 round fewer in the mag. Makes it lighter and easier to conceal. Also makes it less forgiving with .45 (and likely with .40) than a full-size 1911. Also note that I may be using the wrong term for the model. I've heard references to both Officer and Commander models, and I'm not sure if they are the same thing - I seem to recall some 1911 folks explaining thnere was a difference between the two designations. I'm also not sure whether my Springfield was approximately spec for either one. I seem to remember Springfield had it labeled as one or the other.

 

[oftheherd1]

Because big guns provide better penetration and do more damage lessening your need for precision during a gun fight.

With a .22 you better be lucky

That said, I know of two GIs getting shot with a .45. Both at point blank range. One in the stomach. He grabbed his stomach, protested that the MP shot him, and wilted. The other, granted high on pills (which I was always told was what the .45 was designed to stop), was first pistol whipped, then shot in the thigh, but kept up a good fight. An MP shot him again, the 2nd time in the foot (lots of bones to interact with) and kept fighting for a few moments, then sat down and declared he was a little tired, but after he had rested, he was going to get up and really beat the crap out of the two MPs.

The .45 is a pretty big caliber.

EDIT: Barring striking a bone, I would say .22 or 25 have a lot of penetration. They don't however have the weight over all, just for their size.

 

[oftheherd1]

Because big guns provide better penetration and do more damage lessening your need for precision during a gun fight.

With a .22 you better be lucky

Being a good shot will suffice. No luck needed then. I am a good shot, but better with a rifle than a pistol. Still, I don't do bad.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Because big guns provide better penetration and do more damage lessening your need for precision during a gun fight.

With a .22 you better be lucky

If you're in a gunfight, you'd better be lucky.

I agree that a big round has, in general, more 'stopping power' than a smaller round.

But that's just one facet. An important one, but still there are other points to be considered.

The first is what I said already. Bigger calibers, bigger guns. Tradeoff for a smaller gun with a larger caliber, usually in terms of ability to control the weapon while firing. Bigger guns tend to be carried concealed less often. They're big, after all. Heavy, generally. They become a PITA. They don't hide well with beach wear. Etc.

The second is realistic threat evaluation. I don't carry a chemical weapon gas mask because I evaluate that I won't be attacked by a nerve agent on the street, and if I was, I would not have sufficient warning or time to don and clear such a mask before I had taken a lethal dose.

So. What threat does one imagine they need multiple large-cap magazines, more than one firearm, or uber-large calibers for, exactly?

Is a .22 or a 25ACP an unacceptable round for self-defense? No. People can and have defended themselves with such rounds. In terms of one-shot lethality, sure, it's clear they offer less power. But they offer other advantages, such as light weight and concealability. Again, any gun that you have on you is better than the one out in your car or left in the dresser at home.

Eternal arguments about one-shot stops with various calibers misses the point, in my estimation, and often amounts to little more than gun-fetish masturbation. Two decades ago, it was the wonder-nine guns that everyone was losing their minds over. Then .40 and .41 and OMG Desert Eagle, take me now Lord. Whatever. Figure out the realistic threat, evaluation your own ability or desire to protect against it, and then train, train, train, and carry, carry, carry. A 22 is fine if you'll carry it with you everywhere and every time you go out and train hard with it.

Yes, you have to be lucky. We all do.

 

[CB Jones]

EDIT: Barring striking a bone, I would say .22 or 25 have a lot of penetration. They don't however have the weight over all, just for their size.

And that's the a big part of the problem. Aside from soft tissue those rounds penetration and energy is effected to greatly by other things.

Also the wound channels are smaller and do less damage requiring more precision.

With those you have to hope that nothing negatively effects the bullet and that you get perfect shot placement. A 9mm - .45 caliber are much more efficient calibers compared to the .22 or .25.

 

[CB Jones]

Being a good shot will suffice. No luck needed then. I am a good shot, but better with a rifle than a pistol. Still, I don't do bad.

Doesn't matter.

With the adrenaline and blood pressure spike along with the fear....you aren't making pinpoint shots.

I've been part of enough shootings investigations to know that perfect shot ain't happening.

Even when we do sims round training and do force on force you see the shots spread out and almost none are perfect.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

A derringer is called a 'belly gun' for a good reason. The idea is you will be engaging at a very close distance with one. Draw, shove it in the bad guy's belly (or eye or ear or etc) and fire. If that is not the case, then a derringer is the wrong gun for the encounter. The question then is what kind of encounter does not suppose will occur?

 

[CB Jones]

If you're in a gunfight, you'd better be lucky.

I agree that a big round has, in general, more 'stopping power' than a smaller round.

But that's just one facet. An important one, but still there are other points to be considered.

The first is what I said already. Bigger calibers, bigger guns. Tradeoff for a smaller gun with a larger caliber, usually in terms of ability to control the weapon while firing. Bigger guns tend to be carried concealed less often. They're big, after all. Heavy, generally. They become a PITA. They don't hide well with beach wear. Etc.

The second is realistic threat evaluation. I don't carry a chemical weapon gas mask because I evaluate that I won't be attacked by a nerve agent on the street, and if I was, I would not have sufficient warning or time to don and clear such a mask before I had taken a lethal dose.

So. What threat does one imagine they need multiple large-cap magazines, more than one firearm, or uber-large calibers for, exactly?

Is a .22 or a 25ACP an unacceptable round for self-defense? No. People can and have defended themselves with such rounds. In terms of one-shot lethality, sure, it's clear they offer less power. But they offer other advantages, such as light weight and concealability. Again, any gun that you have on you is better than the one out in your car or left in the dresser at home.

Eternal arguments about one-shot stops with various calibers misses the point, in my estimation, and often amounts to little more than gun-fetish masturbation. Two decades ago, it was the wonder-nine guns that everyone was losing their minds over. Then .40 and .41 and OMG Desert Eagle, take me now Lord. Whatever. Figure out the realistic threat, evaluation your own ability or desire to protect against it, and then train, train, train, and carry, carry, carry. A 22 is fine if you'll carry it with you everywhere and every time you go out and train hard with it.

Yes, you have to be lucky. We all do.

Disagree.

When I fire my 9mm or .40 cal I don't have to hope it can punch through my attackers cell phone....I know it's going through. I'm not depending on luck to get that round through.

When I fire my 9 mm or .40 cal I'm not hoping or depending on getting a good deflection off a bone....I know it's going through causing damage. I'm relying on my ability....not luck.

And 20 years ago finding small easy concealed 9mm, .40 cal, or .45 was difficult, but not anymore. There are a bunch of guns in these calibers that are just as easily concealed as .22s.


It's not about one shot stops....it's about having a better tool to depend on.

 

[oftheherd1]

Doesn't matter.

With the adrenaline and blood pressure spike along with the fear....you aren't making pinpoint shots.

I've been part of enough shootings investigations to know that perfect shot ain't happening.

Even when we do sims round training and do force on force you see the shots spread out and almost none are perfect.

Then is a larger caliber really such a big advantage, if you can't hit vital areas?

Disagree.

When I fire my 9mm or .40 cal I don't have to hope it can punch through my attackers cell phone....I know it's going through. I'm not depending on luck to get that round through.

Again, what's the difference if you aren't going to hit his cell phone anyway?

When I fire my 9 mm or .40 cal I'm not hoping or depending on getting a good deflection off a bone....I know it's going through causing damage. I'm relying on my ability....not luck.

And 20 years ago finding small easy concealed 9mm, .40 cal, or .45 was difficult, but not anymore. There are a bunch of guns in these calibers that are just as easily concealed as .22s.


It's not about one shot stops....it's about having a better tool to depend on.

All good points. But really we're kind of nit picking each other don't you think? If I have a small caliber such as a .25 auto, and it goes between your ribs, nicks your heart, and goes out your other ribs, you will be as dead as if I used a 50 cal machine gun bullet following the same path.

So should I always carry a 50 cal pistol hoping to follow the same path, knowing it will be more destructive? No.

There are just too many variables to consider, the size, weight, and speed of the bullet, the anatomy of the victim, the shooter's experience and mental makeup, and experience with the weapon used. I don't think we can do much more than speak in generalities. I can dispute your beliefs and you mine. I am sure we can each come up with real life anecdotes to dispute each other. Fun to debate, but not to take to seriously.

 

[CB Jones]

But really we're kind of nit picking each other don't you think? If I have a small caliber such as a .25 auto, and it goes between your ribs, nicks your heart, and goes out your other ribs, you will be as dead as if I used a 50 cal machine gun bullet following the same path.

Will you think it is nitpicking when your .25 auto round hits my phone and a rib and fails to penetrate my chest cavity while my 9 mm goes through your phone, rib and lung?

Hey this has the ability to kill you:

But if you ask me what's a good gun for self defense I'm not gonna tell you that a Wogdon Flintlock is a good choice.

Just like a .22 or a .25 is not a good choice when now they make 9mm and .40s that are just as small but are more effective and efficient.

Fact is .22 and .25 are not good calibers for self defense.