Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns What you REALLY need from a personal protection handgun

TFF!!! Thanks, amigo. I appreciate that.

I made a point of composing that post in English, so you only need to consult an English dictionary. First look up "destructive," then "impact." My meaning should be crystal clear to you after that.

I once shot an elephant in my pajammas, how he got in my pajammas I'll never know!
Groucho Marx!

My first choice is an H&K P7 PSP:

1) reliable
2) ergonomic - fits my hand better than any other and points almost as naturally as my finger
3) flat and concealable - true I give up firepower, but most high cap pistols feel like I'm holding a big square box in my hand - the one exception being the Hi Power, not to mention being more comfortable in an IWB holster
4) power - is a compromise. A 9mm isn't going to be as powerful as a .45, but its lighter recoil means I can shoot it a bit faster
5) accurate - I can shoot it as well or better than any other pistol, pure target pistols aside, even with its relatively small size. An accurate pistol gives me more confidence.
6) good and consistent trigger pull - it's a smooth short slide rather than a crisp breaking glass pull of a 1911 but it's easy to get used to and easy to manipulate. An inherently accurate gun isn't practically accurate without a good predictable trigger.
7) weight is heavier than some others, but in a good holster it's never been a problem for me.

Second choice would be a Colt Detective Special with hammer shroud in a pocket holster.
1) reliable
2) ergonomic - fits my hand pretty well and points naturally with a custom grip
3) concealable in a pocket
4) power again is a compromise
5) accurate - I shot it in a "snubby" match where everyone else was using a 3" K frame S&W and came in in the middle of the pack. it will shoot as well as I can point it.

I prefer it to the Agent/Cobra because I can shoot the heavier DS better (faster, more accurately) than the lighter Agent/Cobra. That's worth the weight trade-off to me, though I admit it hangs kind of heavy in a pocket. I also find it easier to shoot well than the J-frame Smiths, more comfortable to shoot, and of course it has the extra shot while being only minimally bigger.

Don't be disengenuous, Hawk.

I'm not trying to knock you down here. I have no ego invested in this. But the wound ballistics research field and literature is pretty solid on what kinds of terms have meaning, and what really counts in terms of wound/terminal ballistics. "Destructive impact" may mean something to you personally, but that doesn't mean it has any bearing or meaning among beyond that.

Keep in mind I'm not denigrating your choice of the .45 ACP as your personal defense caliber. It's my choice most of the time as well. I'm just saying that there's not a whole lot of solid evidence to support it as a "better" caliber than the 9mm or 40 S&W. We all make our choices for a lot of reasons, many of which are not rational.

If anyone REALLY wants to learn about terminal ballistics of handgun bullets, I strongly encourage you to go to and read the multiple "sticky" threads at M4Carbineforums:

http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=91

I'm done posting on handgun wound ballistics on this thread for now and for the foreseeable future. Those who are serious about this now have the info they need to find out what they need to know. Those who aren't, go take a flying you-know-what at a rolling donut. I don't have time for any more of this crap.

This book is excellent on the subject of how and why

Not being disingenuous. Perhaps you should look that one up, too. You indicated that you were confused as to the meaning of the words I used, so I recommended an English dictionary, since they were English words.

Keep digging deeper. You've already got the asshat meter pegged, let's see if you can break the needle.

I disagree with that statement. I don't think they are frauds, I think they're just naieve. They are cops, not scientists and their intentions were good, but their scientific methodology is HORRIBLY flawed, and their statistics should never be given any credibility whatsoever.

DocRocket � Very well said. Certainly the .45 ACP makes a larger wound. But my point is, does it mean anything on human flesh; NO IT DOESN�T. Just like there�s no difference between a .243 and a .30-06 on deer. Deer will go just as far after a shot in the vitals from both. Hell, I�ve been present when two guys shot two deer in damn near the same spot at around 60 yards, one with a .300 Win Mag and the other with a .30-30, and not only did the deer run the same distance, but they were found within 20 feet of each other. Sure the .300 Win had a bigger wound, but the actual effects were almost exactly the same (although the Win Mag made a VERY impressive �whack� sound when it hit).

It comes down to mechanism of collapse, and unless you have a psychosomatic/psychological response, or neurological interruption; nothing is going to make a person go down instantly. So it�s down to blood loss. So if you punch a .70 caliber hole through the aorta vs. a .55 caliber hole; does anyone really think that means they go down faster? That 16-20% larger hole doesn�t mean they go down 16-20% faster. In fact it means absolutely nothing.

People just can�t get past the striking visual difference of the two rounds. We can talk all we want, about how much better a .45 is than anything in the world; but in the real world, on humans, it�s just like you said. There is NO empirical evidence whatsoever.

I carry a .45 mostly because I like the package it comes in, my LW Commander. I don't carry it becuase I think I'm better armed or somehow under-armed with a 9mm. I think the .45 ACP is a fantastic round, and I DO think it does some things better than a 9mm (or .40 for that matter), but those things aren't related to "stopping power", but are more about controlled penetration through intermediate barriers.

Doc,

Thanks for posting the info.

I also choose the 1911 because I like both the gun & the caliber does make me feel more warm & fuzzy than a 38 or a 9mm even though it may not be supported by irrefutable & definitive scientific evidence.........I just tend to believe it is directionally better than the smaller rounds.

May not be 100% correct, but as I understand the need that helped drive the development of the 1911 & the 45 ACP, it was the need to have more stopping power than the 38 long revolvers in the conflict in the Phillipines with the Moro tribe.

Apparently, before going into battle, the Moros would meditate & juice up on their equivalent of cocaine & this increased their mental & physical immunity to pain..........the military needed, & got, in the 1911/45ACP, a significantly more effective man-stopper than the 38 was.

Probably neither scientific nor definitive, but again, empirically & directionally right vs the smaller rounds.

MM

And that is why it is absolutely imperative that you must shout "IT STARTS WITH A 4, IT STARTS WITH A 4!" while shooting to maximize the "perceived destructive impact".

Yes, but powder and bullets for a 38 have come a loooong way in the last 100+ years.

Edited to add a quick trip to wikipedia indicates 38 Long Colt had a 150 gr slug loafing along at 770 fps.

Fact: A larger hole provides a larger margin for error than a smaller hole.

All the quibbling is over the size of the margin.

That comment also applies to the ACP.............no big deal today to get 1,000+ FPS with a 200 Gr. bullet, & 900+ from a 230.

Also a plethora of high performance projectiles for the ACP as well.

I'd agree the gain in performance for both has improved, so the ACP maintains empirical the edge.

MM

Agreed. I assume by "directionally right" you're referring to the irrefutable fact that, in the present context, greater volume of destruction (all else being equal) is more effective than smaller. In other words, if I had a magic wand (with various power settings) that could instantly destroy tissue in a human being's body, the setting which destroyed the most tissue would undoubtedly be more effective (all else being equal) than the setting which destroyed significantly less tissue. To illustrate this, imagine the effect of using this hypothetical wand to destroy one cubic quarter inch of tissue vs ten cubic inches of tissue, at least in terms of evaluating which is the preferred direction on that continuum. Naturally, the preferred direction would be towards greater tissue damage, which is, I think, what you were getting at when you referred to the .45 ACP being "directionally right" compared to the 9mm. The difference in effect may be too small to catch in scientific terms, but intuition informs one that it's at least some degree greater, and certainly no less.

Yep.