I have watched for some time on this forum where people have very strong feelings and opinions about what is the greatest personal defense handgun. I�ve been doing quite a bit of thinking on this matter and I may just write an article on the subject for ShootersJournal.net. But I was wondering if anyone could tell me about your preferences for a self defense pistol. Doesn�t have to be just one gun. But tell why. What you require in a personal defense pistol and what you really don�t care about. I�ll start off with an example.

Primary carry gun / home defense gun:

1- LW Commander: In either .45 ACP or .38 Super. Reasons:
- Reliable
- Powerful
- Ergonomics
- Accurate
- Flat
- Light Weight
- Easily Customizable

I�m not going to make any outlandish claims that the LW Commander, or even the 1911 is the greatest pistol in the world even though one could make such a case and back it up. But MY LW Commander isn�t built to any military spec, is not used by any military or LE Agency that I�m aware of, and I really don�t care. The design is very proven, and my personal gun is very proven; that�s all I need. I�m not at war and I never will be. My gun will not be subjected to extreme conditions or circumstances. It will be maintained fairly well, and shot on a regular basis. It gets dry fired EVERY day of the week. For ME, it�s an excellent carry piece.

I have carried a lot of pistols over the years. When I was doing executive protection, often I�d find myself in a position where I had to carry what was handed to me, so I learned to be proficient with a wide variety of guns, and learned to trust them. It doesn�t have to be the greatest pistol that ever was, it just has to get the job you ask of it done.

I may follow up with some rather pointed questions about your thought process in choosing your trusty Roscoe; please don�t be offended, I�m just trying to understand.

I have, over the years, went through swings in what I feel is the best gun for me. I started out as a 1911 fan, and still am. I do not feel, however, that the 1911 is the optimum platform. They are expensive, harder (not hard) to maintain, and have limited capacity.

I have settled on the M&P 9mm. With modern bullet technology, there is not enough difference in terminal performance between the major defensive calibers to warrant argument. They all work, and they all work well. With a 9mm, you gain capacity, reduced cost in ammunition, and an easier to shoot gun.

In my opinion, the optimum defensive pistol today is a medium frame, polymer, high capacity 9mm, such as the Glock 19 or M&P 9. I carry the M&P9 Pro, but I have uniformed daily carry to contend with. I like the way the 5" Pro shoots, and I have long since overcome my phobia toward the 9mm.

That being said, I dont fault anyone for carrying a 1911, as long as it is a quality piece, such as yours. They are no less lethal than they were when designed. The only thing that has changed since its introduction is that other, more viable platforms have arrived. The very fact that just about every defensive gun is compared to the 1911 is testament to its abilities.

The only caliber I do not care for is the .40 S&W. Truly, and answer to an unasked question.

I carry an LC9 in a pocket holster loaded with Corbon DPX's, simply because I don't like carrying a holster or IWB. If I did I would probably carry something like yours.

I have basically settled on 2 types of firearms for ccw. One is an LCP with CT laser, it gets carried when it's to hot in MS. to carry much of anything else, or as a backup to my primary gun. My primary gun these days is a XD 45 Compact carried in a Crossbreed Supertuck IWB. It holds 11 rounds fully loaded. I have carried a 1911 over the years, and may again at some point.

The poly guns have moved into first place due to light weight, reduced maintenance and reliability. I never liked condition one personally in my pants so favor a DAO or striker fired gun.

I have carried a handgun for most of my adult life and always made sure I was proficient in its use, both as a Peace Officer, member of the military and now a retired old fart! I will always be armed till the time comes when I am no longer able or competent to do so.

I am to the stage in life where all I carry anymore is "get off me" type guns. The ability to be completely concealed while still readily available for instant use is my main criteria. This is last ditch stuff for me, the FINAL OPTION as it were.

NO handgun is a perfect 1 shot stopper as in totally incapacitated, that is the function of the shootee. Some people will fall down damn near dead and wail like a banshee if hit with a .22 rf. Others will absorb a massive amount of big slugs and keep on coming, then there is the whole drug thing.

I will avoid any confrontation like the plague if at all even remotely possible. I do NOT go to areas that are likely to put me in a bad situation willingly. If cornered I WILL EMPTY whatever I am carrying into the aggressor/aggressors and still be ready to fight for my life tooth & nail or di di mau if I can.

If I KNEW a gunfight was coming I would have a center fire repeating rifle and cover!

I really think that the whole SD with a handgun thing is all over the place and it comes down to where you are, situational awareness, mindset and common sense, caliber and platform is secondary to the proceeding IMHO.

As has been said many times on these pages: "Any gun when you need a gun is better than no gun."

It also beats hell out of harsh words.

My wife carries a Berreta 92 in a Gun Totin Mama's purse loaded with the same Corbons I use. I know it's a big pistol for a 9mm, but she shoots it well and it conceals easily in the purse.

1. Dependability.
2. Reliability.
3. Durability.
4. Shootability.
5. Concealability.

Caliber means much less than the above.

I wouldn't recommend a 1911 style pistol to anyone, in any caliber, because you've got to flip a safety off to use it. When the chips are down, I don't believe the majority of people will have the necessary motor skills and practice to remember to do it quickly and properly.
A DA/SA or DAO semi-auto or revolver would be my suggestion.

Most all of the active-duty LEO's that I associate with carry just such a gun when they're not working.

Not I. I carry a gun that I would want to fight with, whether on or off duty. A small bit of inconvenience and discomfort is a small price to pay for ability.

Factors one should consider for an Immediate Defense Firearm (ie: one that is apt to be carried on the person or kept close at hand in the home):

1. Absolute reliability, every time one pulls the trigger. Not just for the first shot, but for every shot that follows.

2. Simplicity of operation. The hand gun must be capable of being immediately brought into action with one hand.

3. Ergonomics. It must fit one's hand, and provide maximum controllablity when fired.

4. Power. But not so powerful as to be difficult to control for second and subsequent shots.

5. Size. This is only a consideration if carrying concealed; depending on one's manner of dress, and the occasion when the handgun will be carried, there is no "one size fits all" option and one may have posses more than one defensive handgun to go about armed at all times.

6. The 3AM factor. This refers to the ability to seize and immediately fire the handgun at 3 o'clock in the morning, when roused from a deep sleep, and with an intruder already in your bedroom.

With regard to the above it is obvious that selecting a single IDF will involve numerous trade outs, and these trade outs will be based on personal bias as much as personal experience. For some a .22 caliber single action revolver my be the preferred firearm, while others may believe that only a massive .50 caliber semi-automatic pistol will fill the bill.

+1

I love, love, LOVE me some 1911. I don't carry it.

Why?

Weight and size. For me: The lighter and smaller, the more I'll carry it. This, in turn, means I�m protected more of the time.

9m is the smallest I carry.

Why a 9m?

The heavy HP bullets from most manufacturers penetrate in excess of 12in. (I don't care about the size of a wound channel.. or as I put it: how dead someone is.) .380 may get there, but I�m not convinced it is there yet. And I can carry more 9m than 40 or 45.

Price also played a role. I don't know why, but for me $550 was ok for a CC firearm, but $850 wasn't. I don�t' really feel like my CC is a throw away, but I don't want to lose my USP? Maybe I thought about wear and tear from carry?

Like I said, I can't explain it. But the price of the handgun was in my equation.

File this under the irony of diversity of thought vs. confrontation please.

I was perusing the "Cooper Comments" from the commentaries web site the other day and ran across his assessment of the purpose of the defensive handgun. His listing is not entirely the inverse of yours, but close:

The first requirement of a defensive sidearm is stopping power. The shooter must have the best possible chance of terminating the action with one well-directed shot. (It may be pointed out that even more important than stopping power is the need for the weapon to go off when the trigger is pulled. I will have to admit that, but I do not think that failure to fire on the first shot is a problem of any great consequence in current manufacture.)

The second requirement of the defensive pistol is reliability. It must continue to function after the first shot, even though this should not be given great importance.

The third requirement is handiness. If the piece is uncomfortable to wear and to use, it will not be present when needed.

Despite the foregoing, we see a great deal of emphasis placed upon "accuracy." Now certainly a shot which misses its target does no good, but nearly all defensive pistols available today are quite capable of placing all their shots in the center of a man's chest at defensive distances. Correspondents continually write me about systems they might use to increase the accuracy of their defensive pistols, as if they could appreciate the difference between a 3" group and a 5" group at 50 meters! Accuracy increments of this sort are absolutely irrelevant. But the majority of "gun writers" do not seem to see it this way.

And then there is a matter of magazine capacity. "If my piece holds twelve rounds, while yours hold only ten, I win." Here again we are dealing with irrelevance. The highest score I have ever heard of in a pistol fight was five, and that victory was achieved with a 7-round magazine, without reloading. Our late companion Bruce Nelson was once asked in the course of an interview at a police station if it was not a good idea to carry a P35 because of its high capacity magazine. Bruce's response was, "Well, sure, if you plan to miss a lot."

As much as i like the 1911 it isn't my first choice for a carry gun, but very close just because they feel so good in the hand. I truly believe the Glock 19, and the Smith M&P or the best options in carry guns with their high cap mag's and i believe the 9mm with the loads you can get today rival the 45 ACP in stopping power and with less recoil. The M&P has become my favorite because it fit my hand better than any of my carry gun and i shoot it very well. No matter which handgun you choose to carry it should be 100% reliable with the ammo you choose to carry. My carry holster is the Crossbreed Super Tuck

I never cared for the 1911. I had a Colt 70 series for years but never could grow to love it. I also don't like striker fired semi-autos. For me, the old SA/DA semi auto is the best. I carry a H&K USPC in 40 S&W, but the 45 ACP caliber would be fine, also.

I challenge you to present any evidence other than your opinion to back that up. Pistols with safeties have been working in the real world for the better part of a century. Clearly you prefer a gun without a safety, but to say they're a hindrance or danger just doesn't match the reality of the real world.

Most are better off with the manual safety. The best manual safety is on the 1911 and the worst is on the Beretta 92.
When i carry my 1911 the safety is off before it clears the holster

WOW! What a great thread, and some terrific posts in here. Thanks, Kevin (we REALLY need to get you on board with the Raiders!)

T.Lee Your post was classic. I find myself much in the same boat these days.

I am 'only' 51 years of age and still big and strong - 6'3" 245lbs with thrice weekly trips to the gym - BUT I am also on a medical leave sabbatical for a while and with five bulged disks, four impacting my spinal column, not so well controlled hypertension and a growth on my Pituitary that makes me often feel weak and exhuasted so I am, as some have said here often, 'too damned old to take an ass whippin!' from a gaggle of punks yet I still have the manliness or heart in my inner being to dive in regardless of the personal costs involved if a bad deed is in front of me i.e. an innocent is in grave danger. SO..... for me, I have been searching for 31 years of carrying a handgun for that 'perfect' weapon. If it is cool enough out to be wearing a vest or jacket I have oft carried some kind of aluminum framed 4 inch 45 but find that too much of the time they are not on my person when I am out and about. I have my KAHR arms CW40 stoked with PD only +P Black Talons back from a freind that was my daily carry piece for a long time and it has been on my person a lot of late but I am probably going to end up with two carry guns when money allows. 1) a polymer framed micro 380 like the LCP loaded with Buffalo Bore +P 95 or 100gr ammo and then another aluminum or polymer framed 4 inch 1911 in 45 0r 10mm for carry when I can make it work and for backwoods cruising. 255gr +P ammo in it for bear country and +P Hornaday or Speer Gold dots for urban and Suburban carry.

Packability has shown ittself to be a BIG deal over the years, and it is far better, as I see it, to have a 380 in your hand than a full custom race gun 45 back in your car or on your dresser when the bad guys are at hand. As TLee said, if one KNOWS that a gunfight is imminenet, one should have a good long gun at hand. Pistols and revolvers are only for unforseen emergency situations. My .02 FWIW.

After trying out a lot of different options over the years, I've settled on a three gun rotation. They're all Smith third gen hicaps. Sorry for the clutter, they're starting top left, then angle down and across.

5904 (w/ 5906 top end) night sights and lasergrips for holster carry and nightstand.
6946 fiber optic front side for clip-draw appendix carry
5906TSW night sights lasergrip light for nightstand

They all work all the time (they're third gen Smiths after all), they fit my hand nicely, they operate similarly, I shoot them well. They all use the same mags, as does the Marlin Camp 9 in the bedroom closet.

The 6946 is as small as I care to go for a carry gun, and since it conceals so well in my pants, there's no problem there.

The 5904 (aluminum frame) is light and comfy for long term carry.

I would only criticize your personal choice in the sense that it requires a good bit of regular live-fire practice to be able to handle it effectively right out of the holster, due to the recoil of this lightweight and hard hitting choice. I don't practice enough for that to be the case for myself, but I assume you do. It's jut too expensive and time consuming for me to do so, and that's likely the case as well for many others.

That said, there's always a trade off. For example, I like your list, and it leads me to the full weight (i.e., all-steel) Commander or Government Model. For me, dramatically less live-fire practice is needed to be able to draw and fire it, cold, with a high degree of effectiveness. Its drawback is, of course, greater carry weight, but the only time I find that a problem is during prolonged vigorous activity, such as hard-pushing endurance training.

I was in fact carrying a full weight Government Model IWB until I was invited on an elk hunt (in the mountains of northern Idaho) six or seven weeks ago. Then I started hard-pushing outdoor endurance training, and quickly realized I'd have to switch to something else, at least till after the hunt, since it began to not only become noticeable on my hip, but downright painful, so I switched to another of my high ranking choices for daily concealed carry, my Kahr P-9, which shares many of the characteristics of the lightweight Commander that you like so much, except for being more compact, less powerful, lighter, and of a different action type (one I like nearly as well as a single action auto). It's light weight doesn't much interfere with effective, right out of the holster, shooting, either, since it's a much lighter recoiling round.

Allow me to fix.
You can always count on some smarty-pants to jump in and take something to an extreme.

But I can agree with your assessment given common combat cartridges. A hit with a 9mm is far more important than a miss with a .45.

Absolutely, this is MY choice. I don't expect for a minute that it's the right choice for anyone else. I don't subscribe to the one gun for all theory. That is a must in a military for logistical reasons. Many LE agencies will cite the same, but I strongly disagree with that. A handgun as a primary defensive tool is a very personal thing. What works for one may be completely inadequate for another. Given MY personal threat assessment, and MY personal situation, I consider my choice to be a very good one. Not perfect, but very good. I also recognize that there are AT LEAST two dozen other pistols that would serve me quite well. And I would hate to see someone rush out and buy a LW Commander because that's what Kevin carries; that's just nonsense. Just like I wont go out and by X pistol because XX high-speed, low-drag commando ninja's use it; equally nonsensical.

I should have more carefully worded my statement, as what I intended to say doesn't disagree with what you say above.

Well said. I rarely think of it in these terms, but that's the easiest way to explain it.

and Kevin, you ARE a high-speed, low-drag commando ninja.. So tell me what to buy!

I mistakenly took for granted those who know me know I advocate 9MM as the "smallest" I use for self defense.
I should have stated that as part of my first post.

I firmly believe, after much research and evidence gathering, that modern bullet designs and loadings make the service calibers (9MM, .40SW, .45ACP, .45GAP) pretty close in their terminal performance. Since I like to see good results on target which are obtained through a pistol which is shootable, the 9MM gets a strong thumbs up from me. And my wife can work them as well.

More like low-speed, draggin-ass You're funny.

I find it interesting that just about everyone now considers a high-capacity autoloader to be, if not an absolute requirement for personal defense, at least the ideal to strive for. You hear it from the police brass too, when they whine about how they "need" MP5s or full-auto M4s in every patrol car because they are "outgunned" by AK-wielding gangsters.
In my opinion, a hi-cap pistol has one purpose: car defense. If I am practicing evasive driving while shooting to disable the car of an attacker bent on stopping me, I want lots of rounds in a gun I can handle and maneuver with one hand. Barring that unlikely scenario, I want an utterly reliable sidearm with substantial (for a defensive handgun) stopping power. To me that means a full- or midsized (L or N frame size) double action revolver in .357, .41 or .44 Magnum, .45 Colt, or .44 Special+P. .45 Auto or 10mm in full moon clips works, too. And if possible, I don't like to be too many steps away from some kind of longarm.

Here's my thinking: assuming you can shoot, if you get in a defensive situation where 5 or 6 rounds doesn't resolve the problem, you are not going to live though the encounter. Of course, if you can't shoot and neither can your adversary, you may indeed fire 17 or more rounds and live to tell about it, but then you will probably be "telling about it" in both criminal and civil court, because those bullets don't just vaporize when they don't hit your intended target.
Allow me to explain that in more detail. If a guy attacks me with a 17-shot 9mm and he gets one into my center of mass, I probably will not be able to fire very many rounds of my own in response, at least not effectively. And my lack of effectiveness would probably give him a perfect opportunity to put a few more into me, no matter how many rounds I have at my disposal. On the other hand, if I get one round of .357 Magnum into his center of mass, he likewise won't be able to utilize the 17 rounds he has available. So with one assailant, the situation should be resolved one way or the other in less than 5 rounds if one or both combatants can shoot and uses an effective round.
If there are two assailants, the same situation applies except that one of them will probably run away when he sees his buddy go down, anyway. If not, with a 5 or 6 shot revolver you still have a couple rounds to serve the second assailant, too.
Now, as you envision multiple assailants attacking you so that you really need 12 or more rounds, keep in mind that they will all be attacking you at once, almost certainly from a distance of less than 10 yards. Can you get 12 or more rounds on target before any of them can shoot, stab, slash or hit you in the head with a baseball bat? Who are you; Superman?

By the same token, consider a cop armed with a Winchester .30/30 lever action, facing a thug with an AK. If he fires one round and hits center mass, will it matter to that cop that he has 29 more rounds? If the cop gets a round of .30/30 into the thug's center mass, will the thug be able to use his remaining 29 rounds?

Of course, if I ever get in a situation where I am barricaded against multiple armed adversaries, I want my AR-15. A high capacity pistol is not a suitable replacement.

In ANY defensive situation one may find themselves limited to firing with one hand as the other hand could be quite busy.
And either hand (dominant or weak) might be called upon to do the work.
Using something one can control with a single hand is wise. Practicing both the strong and weak side is even wiser.

There was a man I once knew who both had a need to carry and experience in killing men up close and personally, as an ex-special forces type during the Viet Nam war.

His choice for civilian carry: the smallest .22lr auto he could find. Carried it in the hip pocket of his jeans. No holster.

I asked him why. He said; "It makes neat little holes."

That's what he wanted. Neat little holes. And he knew where to put them. And he knew how to do it. He'd BT/DT, and had perfect confidence in his ability.

There was no way I was going to tell him he didn't know what he was talking about.

This has got to be the single most discombobulated thing I have ever read.

I knew this thread would be interesting...I thought it would be more interesting.

What I find interesting is the viewpoints of different people in how they view the "threat" that they are arming against. Your viewpoint of the "threat" often will dictate your choices.

I also find it funny how people sort of paint themselves into a corner. Because of A, I HAVE to choose B and that's the only way to go.

My self defense handgun is a D/A stainless S&W 640 5-shot .357 mag:

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/..._757798_757797_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

Reasons:

Reliability/dependability.
Simple manual of arms/no safety.
Substantial stopping power w/ vast ammo choice.
Compact size/reasonable weight. Fits in pocket.
EZ maintenance.

....which is why anecdotal references are almost totally irrelevant in tactical/defensive discussions. BT/DT discussions degrade quickly to a "3 blind men describing the elephant" argument.

The .30-30 vs AK47 example mentioned earlier brings up Raisuli's theory that gangs are highly trained and super equiped which I think most thinking people discount to some degree. It also feeds into his argument about using the sights---a sighted shot with a .30-30 trumps a spray and pray AK burst everytime outside of arms length distances.

Back in the early IPSC days, Ken Hackathorn set up the old "Flying M" course and ran a handgun shooter against a shooter with a fully automatic weapon. The distances with the Flying M don't exceed 12 yards IIRC. The handgunner ALWAYS won. I didn't believe him so we set up the same course. Ran against an M-16 and a Thompson. Again, the handgun always won. Perhaps it's hypocritical to reference anecdotal experience when I just discounted it above, however, it does beg the question: is high capacity allowing for "spray and pray" worth considering?

Hi Kevin.

You are an excellent writer, so I know that the product of your research will be excellent.

The primary criterion of self-defense handgun selection is survival. Therefore, any such weapon must accord its user the best opportunity for surviving. The difficult criteria is anticipating circumstances of being forced to rely upon a weapon for survival.


Buena Suerte,

R

EXCELLENT revolver...

I had the 7th 640 to come off the assembly line and carried it exclusively for two years before a collector friend of mine offered me an obscene amount of money for a single digit serial number S&W. I had some likes and dislikes. The gun is truly excellent in every way; typical of S&W. But after a lot of use, including competing in IPSC with full power magnum loads, I abandoned the .357 magnum round altogether for defense. This was a hard thing for me to do because my first handgun was a .357 and I have a strong bond to that round. The cartridge has outstanding performance in a 4� or greater length barrel. But that performance comes at the expense of massive muzzle blast/noise/flash; so much so, that I consider it a liability. One shot and everyone (including you) nearby is deaf and blind. With a snubbie the situation gets worse as already significant recoil is now greatly accentuated, muzzle blast, noise, & flash is now horrendous; but you take a big hit to your velocity. When I did this article (http://shootersjournal.net/snub-nose-roundup-a-look-at-today%E2%80%99s-small-frame-snub-nosed-revolvers/ ) I did a significant amount of chronographing different loads and found that the normally 1450fps .357 load from a 4� barrel is reduced to an average of 1140fps out of a 2� barrel; that�s a significant drop in velocity. And that significant drop in velocity comes at a significant increase in noise, recoil, and muzzle flash.

Now on the positive side, I sincerely believe that the noise and muzzle flash play a role in the performance of the .357. Since most who are shot and go down after being hit have gone down for something other than physiological, I can�t help but wonder how much that huge bang and blinding flash plays on the psychological & psychosomatic side of the �stopping power� equation. Still, I just think the .357 carries too much baggage. If it were me, I�d drop Speer Short Barrel .38 +P�s in that 640 and feel better armed�but this is just me.

gmoats,

You gotta be cautious when using extremism when trying to prove a point. It's always better to cite actual examples of what you purport another wrote.

Gangsters do train. How extensively they train is not always certain. It's common for some gangs such as those moving drugs to recruit ex-soldiers. Others might train to the extent of planning and practicing robberies. What you have to figure out is the likelihood of facing a well-trained Black Panther or outlaw biker or lesser trained killers. It's up to you to decide. However, I know what's right for me. And since I've had experience with gangsters, I know to avoid 'em.

Never forget that there's only one sure way to survive a gunfight: don't get in one. If you can't avoid, then know that you're in one because someone wants to kill you. And I just don't like the idea of another wanting me to be a coroner's case number.

Were I you, gmoats, I'd know of gang activity in my area. Hence, if there are no gangs where you live & you're not going to venture where there are, then you're good to go. But that is not the case where I live.


Take care,

R

The Speer GD 124 +P from a G26 gives that while doubling what's available on board. That fact helped influence my own decisionmaking a few years ago.

Now there�s the bottom line; well said. (and thank you for the comment sir, I�m delighted you find my writing useful)

When I got into the executive protection business and went to school for that profession, we received a lot of education in differing sorts of threats. From a chance encounter, to the classic obsessive stalker, to the hardcore terrorist; all had to be considered when doing executive protection.

But security of any sort is a compromise in nature. The truly �secure� thing to do is be armed to the teeth inside a bank vault; but that�s not very practical is it?

So we spent the largest amount of our time learning how to do a threat assessment and prepare for what�s likely. No, you�ll never know what you�re really going to face, and chances are, when it�s all over, if you had to do it again, there�s much you would change. But you do your homework and you make reasonable, real world assumptions, and then design your security strategy around those assumptions; and pray to God you get more right than you got wrong.

There are those who feel they NEED a high capacity arm and a couple spare magazines. There are those who feel they need more than one gun. There are those who want a long arm close by. Unless someone gives me some sort of intimate look inside their world; who am I to criticize their choices? There may be times that I may question or even criticize someone�s thought process; most times it�s because someone will speak in absolutes�it HAS to be this way, only an idiot would do it different, or so and so says this is the way it has to be.

Self defense & security are an inexact science. You�ll find that the TRUE experts tend to stay away from absolutes. This is because they have the experience to know that for every absolute someone will lay out, they can always think of a few reasons why it�s just not so.

A firearm is but one part of our security measures and most often it�s the least important element. Always remember the 4 pillars of security:

Deter
Detect
Delay
Respond

A firearm falls into category 4�so all else has to fail before a firearm becomes involved. SWEAT the first 3 and you won�t have to sweat the last one.

Kevin, was that snubby article the one you were thinking of using my picture in?

Unless a man has personal experience in killing other men, other peoples' anecdotes are all he's got to go on when thinking about self-defense.

the first rule is have a gun with you when you need it

the second rule is to know how to operate it under stress

Everything else isn't that important...

What about reason, logic, and knowledge that comes from science? For instance action is faster than reaction; therefore, bad guys have advantage if they know they're going to initiate gunfights.


Take care,

R

Tell that to tens of thousands of G.I.'s & cops.

Originally, yes. But they changed editors on me mid-stream and me and the new editor didn't see eye to eye, so I never submitted that (or any other) article. It was one of the last straws for the magazine industry. I just don't have any interest in writing about the crap that they want in gun magazines anymore. Now I get to choose what I write about, my terms, my subjects.

I agree with Kevin IF,IF,IF, you get some training using a 1911 and shoot it a bunch every year. For all broke-ass non-reloaders, Trigger is probably correct.

DO NOT swap different guns around for carry that have a different manual-of-arms. A friend took a bullet on a drug raid 'cause he didn't flip the HUGE(what a joke) safety off of a Hi Power and squeezed the trigger. As soon as he unphucked himself he took a round. He'd been shooting and carrying nothing but a Glock for a while.

I doubt neither the existence of well organized gangs, nor your knowledge/experience with the same. I do doubt that the para-military-cartel description that you've intimated in previous threads is universal or even wide spread beyond major metropolitan and border cities. Living in LA will dictate different ques of awareness than living in suburban Kansas City.

As it relates to the subject at hand--the need for high capacity weapons for self defense ties into this it would seem. If there's a realistic and constant threat of para-military offensive action, I grant that high volume of sustained fire would be an asset. Where we probably differ is in your opinion of point shooting vs aimed shooting.


Can't disagree with any of that.

Dude, you really, really need to get some training. A few days with Randy Cain or Lewis Awerbuck might remedy your situation. The safety is properly disengaged after the draw, after the hands come together at position three.

I do wholeheartedly concur that the Beretta 92 safety is an ill-concieved POS.

Now this is getting interesting!

Not going to follow you down a rabbit hole, Raisuli.

The only additional thing I'm going to say about anecdotal evidence is this: if the reason you know something is because someone told you about it, or you read about it, you've based your knowledge on anecdotal evidence.

I think a S&W Commander slide/Officer's frame is a about as cool as a carry gun gets. I have trouble hiding a full-sized frame on a Glock or a 1911. I think the average person is better served by a Glock 19 though, if they can use that grip or are prepared to spend the money to fix it. I think the ultimate carry gun is a G17 with a 1911 grip conversion cutdown for G19 mags.

With all due respect to the late Colonel Cooper, who had a lot of good opinions and true but tended to be blind to the experience of others once his mind was made up, that is just horseshit.

I have interviewed dozens and dozens of LEOs and debriefed them about their personal experiences in officer-involved shootings. The number of shots fired by the officer in question has varied widely, and while the average number of shots fired is certainly less than five, numerous cases exist where the LEO fired in excess of 20 rounds.

In one case the officer fired 5 rounds of 44 Magnum into the criminal's chest at bad-breath distance, then finished the fight with a 6th shot into the brain. The same officer in another fight used a brain shot to kill a felon who had absorbed 12 bullets in the chest and neck. In another the subject was hit with 17 police bullets (rifle and handgun) before he went down, and he continued to fight even when being handcuffed. In yet another case the LEO I interviewed was ambushed by the subject, took cover behind his squad, then fired every round of .40 S&W ammo he had on his person (3 14-round magazines) to keep the rifle-wielding felon from advancing on him; he ran outof ammo and was reinforced by another officer who nearly exhausted all of his ammo while providing covering fire so that a 3rd officer could flank the subject and finish the fight.

Finally, a good friend and retired LEO who used to work for LASO ran out of ammo in his first gunfight and vowed it would never happen again. Thereafter he carried 96 rounds of 357 Mag ammo on his person. Surprisingly, he ran out of ammo once more, shortly before he retired. In both shootings the suspect(s) were hit multiple times but continued to fight and lay down a fierce base of fire against the LEOs.

Magazine capacity is ALWAYS a consideration. As a civilian you are less likely to get involved in a protracted gunfight than is a patrol officer, but it can and does happen. I always recommend to my students, LEO and civilian, that they carry as much ammo on their person as they reasonably can. In my opinion, that means carrying a minimum of one spare double-stack magazine or two single-stack magazines for a civilian (24+ rounds of ammo). For a LEO on duty, that means a minimum of 50 rounds on your person, on your gun plus what's on your belt.

Kevin, I don't think there's a single greatest handgun, any more than there's a single greatest car, or truck, or pair of skis, or NFL quarterback. I've found that a lot of tools have uses to which they're better suited than others, and this includes my sidearms.

Over the years I have carried the following handguns for plainclothes duty use or for personal CCW:

Beretta M9
Glock 22
Glock 23
Sig P220
Taurus PT92AF
1911A1
S&W 19, 21, 29, 65, 66, 686, 640, 625
Colt SAA
Walther PPK/S
KelTec 380
Kahr K9
Kahr PM9

If push came to shove and I was handed any of the above pistols and told that's what I had to carry for personal protection for the next X number of days, I'd be fine with it. I would not willingly choose a 380 over a larger caliber nowadays, but if I had to I could make it work. (I carried the 380's back before viable 9x19mm pocket pistols like the Kahrs came along).

All of them were solid choices, in my experience. They were/are all:

Reliable
Powerful (powerful enough, anyway)
Ergonomically suitable
Accurate

None of these pistols had any significant "custom" work done on them, other than minor action work. Most were not flat or lightweight, either. I shot every one of them a great deal, to convince myself they weren't going to puke when the SHTF, and to satisfy myself that I could make them work as intended under any and all circumstances.

But if I had to pick only one handgun from that list as my choice for the rest of my life (ugh, I hate that hypothetical, but, okay, for once I'll play along) I'd pick the Glock 23, 2nd Generation model with night sights, standard 13-round magazine. My second choice would probably the the SIG P220, and the main reason it's #2 is its single-stack 8-rnd magazine. My third choice would probably be the S&W M65.

Good luck with your article. Let us know when it comes out.

The last paragraph is solid advice, IMO. As much as I revere the COL however, I must agree with you.

Yeah, I've read just about all of Col Cooper's books and hold his life's work in very high regard indeed. I have found little in his writings or life that I could argue with.

...hence the irrelevancy of anecdotal experiences. I don't know if you ever had the chance to meet and talk with Jim Cirillo (it's too late now). He arguably has shot and killed more people outside of military combat than any other contemporary American. He could tell morbid stories and have you laughing at the same time. He was a died in the wool revolver man--would carry backups, but magazine capacity was obviously never a consideration for him. The stake out squad in NYC of the 70's and 80's is no longer--and circumstances change, but one man's wisdom is another man's folly based upon equally valid experiences.

Yes, I had the chance to speak with Jim Cirillo about a year before his untimely death. He was a great man, and a very personable one, and as you say, funny as can be. If you ever get a chance to talk to Pat Rogers (formerly of Gunsite, now running his own EAG Tactical training outfit), you'll find a kindred spirit there.

As a revolver shooter Jim was obviously not concerned about magazine capacity. That doesn't mean he didn't think having lots of ammo on hand was unnecessary. He did say, both in print and in person, he carried multiple revolvers on his person on stake-out squad ops. IIRC, he carried 4 revolvers as a rule. He was also very adept with a speedloader.

...you'll appreciate this then Doc....

here's a treasured pic that I took at the first Soldier of Fortune Match (it might have been the second--it was the first and only one held at Chapman's) of Jim Cirillo getting a "lesson" from Ken Hackathorn on how to shoot an autoloader!! I got them to pose a second one with Cirillo "teaching" Ken to shoot a revolver (a Model 29). Good times, those.

gmoats,

Here's an enlightening link for you: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/gangs.htm

Gangsters joining the military to receive combat training has motivated them since I was a cop, so it's not a recent problem. In fact, not all that long ago I watched a TV clip of gangsters assaulting cops using military tactics.

I might be wrong here, but I do believe that the Black Panthers was the first gang to train extensively using military-type tactics. It makes sense because it was the first gang of which I'm aware that had as its primary objective the overthrow of the US government. In essence, they were preparing for war.


Good luck,

R

gmoats,

Here's another enlightening link that I'd suggest all watch. It'll force everyone to take another look at what s/he might expect were s/he to encounter gangsters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gqShQTSDCM

I'm just curious. Do you consider Jim Cirillo's experiences to be something other than anecdotal?

Because if you weren't there with him, they certainly weren't personal.

If I knew English my friend would still be alive. He was bitten by a rattlesnake, and I didn't know the difference between anecdote and antidote.
***Ron White

....missed my point completely....probably my fault.....Jim's experiences seem to be polar opposites of those related by Doc....and your .22 yielding Green Beret's experiences are antithetical to just about everyone's whose ever been in armed conflict. As Raisuli said, logic (as well as science and math) have to enter the argument somewhere because you'll ALWAYS be able to find some example to prove any point that you desire to make. David killed Goliath with a sling--sure enough someone, somewhere is going to argue the lethality of rocks as major caliber ammunition.

Cirillo had a system (interesting one at that) that worked for him (quite obviously). Others have had systems that worked for them. Point shooting, aimed fire, revolvers, autos, low capacity, high capacity. For each �system� you�ll find a high profile proponent, and interesting anecdotal evidence to support said system.

Now, for US mere mortals�

We need to pick a system that we think (after some SOUND CRITICAL THINKING) will work for us, for our individual situations; and then train. Because regardless of �system� all of these guys have one thing in common: training!

It doesn�t matter which system you choose. If you can do it well, you�re better off. If you can�t do it well, it does you no good. I�m not going to say which system is best, because �best� is a subjective term. �Best� for one guy wouldn�t work for the next guy. If everyone could shoot like Ed Mc Givern, we�d have very little to worry about. But not everyone has the time, energy, or talent to be Ed Mc Givern�come to think of it; there has only been ONE Ed Mc Givern�so much for THAT system.

Pick a weapon that works well for YOU and train with it; simple as that. Still, there are no guarantees.

I use revolvers and semi auto's, mostly 1911's. The one thing that they all have in common is that they start with a 4 and end with a number larger than ZERO.

I like both revolver and semi auto, but use the 1911 mostly for a personal defensive weapon.The safety on the 1911 is automatic to me because I have used one for over 3 decades.

Hi gmoats,

It's the logical fallacy of relying upon an exception to disprove a rule. I'm sure someone somewhere has used a single-shot .22LR to stop a bear's charge. But should such an incident have occurred, it would be fallacy to conclude a .22LR is sufficient for bear defense.


Take care,

R

gmoats, just to clarify... the examples I posted were not intended as the norm in shooting scenarios, in fact if we did a statistical analysis they'd all be more than two standard deviations outside of the mean, whereas shootings resolved with only one shot would be well inside two standard deviations.

I brought them up solely to prove the point that if you plan only for the statistically most likely scenario, you may find yourself SOL when the flag goes up.

Let's face it: the chance that any civilian is going to need to fire his pistol to protect his/her life is infinitesimal. At that point, you're already so far outside the realms of statistical probability you have to expect other aspects of the scenario are also going to fall outside the realms of likelihood. As such, carrying adequate amounts of spare ammo is a wise hedge against an improbable bet.

This is where critical thinking needs to intervene. It's incumbent upon ALL who choose to arm themselves with a firearm to apply such critical thinking and decide how best to employ said weapon.

Quite the contrary from Take_A_Knee�s advice of training with a similar weapons (systems), which is pretty sound advice; that didn�t fit MY situation.

When I was doing bodyguard work, often I would somewhat unexpectedly find myself going somewhere that required me to leave my gun behind (un-planned trip on an aircraft), and have to use what someone gave me when I arrived at my destination. I�ve been armed with a wide array of handguns and a few times, rifles or shotguns.

Therefore, my training regimen was to train with every different gun I could get my hands on. Often I�d have people just randomly place a gun in front of me while I was blind folded and I would figure out the manual of arms by feel, typically in less than about 5 seconds. The relevance was that I familiarized myself with all systems so when someone handed me a gun, I could quietly walk away, and do a few dry snaps, function check the weapon, and get my brain tuned to what I was carrying. It can be done, but you have to keep your brain in the game.

This was the application of MY critical thinking; but I strongly doubt my experience is right for everyone else. I have confidence that I can make any handgun perform in my hands and that�s a nice thing. But it doesn�t mean diddly-squat to others; only me. My critical thinking had me do what was right for ME.

Each must go through this same process, but I expect each person will arrive at a very different solution than I did.

This is the most sound advice that can be given to anyone on the matter of carrying a weapon for personal defense.

Doc...

The problem with your (very sound) logic here� You�re applying your threat assessment to his world; and you don�t necessarily know his world. He talks a LOT about not just gangs, but very well organized gangs. Perhaps he�s a former DEA officer. Or perhaps he�s just a little old man living in a bad neighborhood who�s so paranoid he�s convinced himself that everyone around him is a highly trained psychotic killer�two extreme examples. But both extremes would make someone have such a viewpoint. Your world view is probably more in line with most people, but this is precisely my point. Each has a different threat assessment.

Some who are not well versed at making a proper threat assessment will make the classic rookie mistake of vastly over-estimating the threat. Others will lull themselves into a false sense of security by thinking anyone but a licensed concealed carrier is an un-trained thug. Reality for most falls somewhere in-between. But it�s up to the individual to make that assessment, and no one else can do it for him.

I certainly wouldn't argue against you on this, KG. When it comes to armed personal defense, you pays yer money and you takes yer chances, and if/when the SHTF, it's all on yer own nut.

Which might explain why I've spent at least 10 times as much money on training as I have on guns.

Ohhh does Kevin ever fit that description...LOL

I you are under the age of 60 i have been shooting a lot longer than you and you need to learn to keep you finger of the trigger until the weapon is clear of the holster and then you want be afraid of shooting yourself.

Yeah, that's what a SWAT cop buddy of mine used to say, right up until he shot himself in the ass, literally, with a 1911. Dude the technique of the modern pistol has been around for 30 or so years, this shouldn't be news but I guess it is to some.

I guess it hard to argue with a expert. I guess i will have to wait until my Glock, XD, and Kahr is out of the holster to take the safety off also so i won't shoot myself in the ass. I'm sorry the 1911 scares you.

I gotta agree with ya. I carried a 1911 for several years on and off duty, and the safety was always swept off as the gun cleared the holster. If the situation demanded a pistol be pointed at someone, with the safety on, it got re engaged.

Yeah, that simply means, however, that it's not to the satisfaction of scientists. So what? Wisdom about practical matters has passed down from one generation to the next in that manner for untold thousands of years?

My P7 PSP is a cool, ingenious design. Simple enough that I could probably remember to just squeeze the grip to fire it. Very accurate, too.

That said, I vote .45 cal 1911. Why?

- among major caliber handguns it gives me the best combo of speed & accuracy.
- reliability among the good ones is completely satisfactory.
- Among guns that hold more shots, they either aren't .45's, or they don't fit my hand, or I just don't shoot them that well.

If I KNEW someone bad was about to come in the house, like T Lee said, they would likely be met by .30 cal projectiles...

Very true.

Doc:

A common problem I see recurring is a tendency for some people to look at a few scenarios, find them unappealing and dismiss them as being merely anecdotal.

Other scenarios, more appealing for one reason or another, are not merely anecdotal, for reasons that are never explained.

"Anecdotal" thus becomes a pejorative term, and wrongly so.

The example I gave above in this thread was clearly out of the norm. It's anecdotal, but so is every other scenario on this thread.

Your point about statistically likely scenarios is well made. Few of us will ever sit a stakeout in an inner city liquor store, and no one is ever going to be allowed to duplicate Jim Cirillo's shootings on prisoners in order to achieve peer review.

The best that any of us can do is consider a wide range of anecdotally based scenarios - there is no other kind - and draw our own conclusions about what we should do.

On the topic of Jum Cirillo, one must remember that in the vast majority of his shootings, he knew he was going to a gunfight. He often carried and used a long gun, usually a 20ga SxS Stevens or M1 Carbine. He viewed the pistol as a backup, and carried several, coining the term "New York Reload,"

No, you need to learn to keep your finger off of the trigger (and not disengage the external safety) until the muzzle is clear of YOU! I'd like to read of any proponent of the modern pistol technique who reccomends otherwise. As Lewis Awerbuck opined, "If, at anytime during a gunfight, you shoot yourself, you have lost."

Anyone knowingly going to a gun fight would be a fool to take a pistol when a rifle was available. That was the purpose of the 30 MI Carbine to replace the pistol and make it easier to make hit in a real gunfight. As a close to medium range weapon the 30 carbine is way under rated these days.

However, the carbine is difficult to holster concealed. And drawing it efficiently is a pain as well.

Yessir. I concur wholeheartedly with that approach.

That's a very important point.

How do you do that with a "Glock"? It has no safety

A Glock has three safeties.

The thumb safety is located, where?

Damn dude, is English a second language for you?

Again there is no safety to disengage as the gun is drawn as is on the 1911

What is your language???

I've been accused of speaking grit, but I write and read Standard Written English, apparently quite a bit better than you. Your post said the Glock had no safety, you didn't say a damned thing about an external safety. I correctly replied that a Glock has three safeties. Apparently you need work on more than your draw stroke.

I believe there are seven criteria to help you through the decision process of choosing a CCW:
(1) The gun has to be with you when you need it. When do you need it? When you don't expect to need it (if you expected trouble, you would be armed with a rifle). A gun that is too much trouble to carry won't be with you when you need it.
(2) The gun has to be quick into action. (this drives the loaded condition of the gun and how you carry it)
(3) The gun has to be powerful enough to get the job done (your presentation of the gun may not deter the adversary. you may really have to shoot, and you want it to be powerful enough to cease hostilities with one well placed shot)
(4) Reliable in your hands (must always go bang)
(5) Accurate in your hands (hit what you aim at)
(6) Controllable in your hands (fast and accurate follow-up shots)
(7) the gun does you no harm (eg no magnaporting -- which depending on the presentation of the firearm could put hot gasses into your eyes)

With all that said, my choices are three: A Colt Ltwt Commander, a Walther PPS, or a Smith J-frame revolver.

No I don't need to work on my"draw and stroke". You were lecturing on when the 1911 safety was to be disengaged and I asked plainly how was that to be done with a Glock. I did not specify external safety, but since that was what the discussion was about, it was a given that you were incapable of grasping. Are you sure that you are fluent in English?

I dont normally "carry" but I usually have a 6906 near me in my bag.
But at the risk of called a girl
I picked up a 317 S&W today OK its 10oz (not inc ammo) and 8 shots of 22LR from a J frame
Because its light and easy to carry I may quite a bit more often
Because its a J frame revolver its easy to opperate
Because its 22 my next shots will be controllable

What about that?

"Grasping" huh, at straws maybe? Bless your heart.

You had no way out and still don't

The best safety is keep you finger off the trigger until you have the pistol out of the holster . Drawing a 1911 with the thumb safety off is no different than drawing a Glock or XD from the holster. Finger off the trigger will keep you from accidental gunshot in the leg or foot. End of argument .

This is a fascinating thought provoking post, Kevin. Some really good points have been made.
My choices are kind of broad based. They are based on a number of things. But first a few "rules" or shall we say considerations.
Where are you carrying and what are the threats there ? How difficult is it to keep that thing truly concealed but ready when needed ? What kind of tactics do you plan to use if confronted by something you must deal with which requires a gun ?
I've been a cop and still know lots of them. I was around when the Black Panthers got started, etc. They aren't really trained like an elite military force BTW. I know/knew some of the guys that shot it out with them. I've known a fair number of guys who were employed by LAPD and the LA county SO.
I've been to lots of shootings involving civilians, etc. Self defense, drunken arguments, you name it. I've been there and done that when we took down both low class and at least one high class hit man, etc.
Like has been said. If you live and/or work in a high crime area, that is not just different but far different than living in a quiet, peaceful community. I've done both and seen what a really big difference there is. BTW, crime stats don't tell anything like the truth in our big cities compared to places where I live now. Even our big cities have stark differences in the threat levels that you face when in them.
This all means you need to have situation awareness and you need to employ tactics which will be a matter of habit.
For example, I always lock doors behind me when I come home or leave. Always. When in a public place, particularly a restuarant or any probable robbery target, I'm aware of who is where and what they are like and doing. If I sit down, it always with my back against a wall, and watching the door.
My point is that a gun is no good if you don't see it coming. My second one is that I never rely on the gun as my only tactic. That means if it looks like something is about to happen, I/we are out of there.
Nor am I carrying a gun to make any arrests or to rescue those I don't know. Too many chances it will go wrong. And if it does, it goes really bad.
Guns and why ? I like the 1911's in .45 ACP. I'm going to look seriously at a Commander style like your S&W w/ a laser, or a Colt Defender. One thing some don't realize is that a 230 gr. .45 will do a good job of shooting things like auto glass or interior doors where the 9mm's don't I kind like that option. But, frankly, if I'm feeling lazy and want to carry something lighter, I like the 5.7 FN. Won't shoot through glass and doors, but it will do alot more damage than any .380 load.
Above all, they conceal very well, are availiable to either hand and can be operated with eiither hand. Keeping that gun truly concealed is something that is alot more important than some think. If you get made, the bad guys will think you are a cop, and the good guys may think you are a bad guy.
All this means is that which gun is important only to you. It must be very familar to you. Like an extenson of your arm. You must have complete faith in it. And you must know it strenth and weaknesses. Not hard for gun nuts. E

Mas Ayoob and every other trainer of note says you are FOS.

(I guess many of us have varying personal pistol protection preferences.)

I personally have no need or desire to 'carry' a handgun (routinely) or to have a 'license' to do so.

Still, I strongly rely on some of my handguns to be ACCESSIBLE for personal defense purposes: Travelling, camping, home (and away) protection ... whatever.

I'm not interested in 'custom' jobs or larger caliber, sub~compact~micro handguns - or comfortable with any bullet bigger than 45 Caliber - or tolerant of any cartridge more powerful than .357 Magnum. (recoil)

What I do like is a handgun that is for me 'right size', one that stows away with some convenience, AND a handgun that 'fits' right and 'feels' right. (One that I can 'shoot' right.)

Just an outta-the-box, durable, reliable, good quality, and accurate handgun.

Three of my favorites I rely on, are a CZ 40-P, A Walther P-88 C (9MM), and an FN Belgium 40 Hi-Power. (NO polymer.)

I have two different risk scenarios. I live west of Denver at 8,500 ft in the Colorado Rockies right next to the Roosevelt National Forest.

1. I work as a consultant, mostly from home and the crime rate here is mostly non-existant. The critters are all around. We have Moose, Elk, Mule Deer, Mountain Lion and most often problems from Black Bears. I have been trying to figure out what to carry when working in the yard and possibly between vehicle and house. Inside the house is Mossberg 500 12ga, slugs in summer and buckshot when the bears are sleeping. In the yard it is Kahr MK40 with 200gr Double Tap Lead Wide Flat Nose Hard Cast lead bullets. Would like to find a light 41 mag or 44 mag which I already shoot and reload for.

2. For trips into Denver or elsewhere in summer I carry a Kahr MK40 often with extra mags loaded with Double Tap 180 gr JHP Gold Dots in a DeSantis Nemisis Front Pocket Holster. In winter when I can conceal with a jacket or sweater I carry either a Para Ordnance 12-45 in a Milt Sparks Versa Max II or a Fusion Firearms 1911 6-inch longslide in 10mm in a shoulder holster that was a cheap nylon model modified to function properly by me with cutting and heavy needle and thread work.

Eremicus,

You've raised an excellent point. Good guys ought to know what would cause them to intervene. I have always held the position that I will never intervene unless the lives of my kids or mine were in imminent danger. But I know I couldn't turn my back on a cop who was in danger. And if an innocent person were to be murdered, I am not sure I would be able to live with myself if I had ability to help & didn't.

I can only pray that I will never be placed in a position to find out what I'd do were an innocent person's life in imminent danger.


Adios,

R

I work in a gunshop/range and always carry my G19 there. When I'm just out and about, it's a M&P340 loaded with .38+P. I'm one of the minority whose hand fits the Glock grip angle. I call the 340 my American Express card because I never leave home without it. I've never had a problem concealing it, so I have no need to go smaller. The G19 normally rides in a Don Hume JIT and the 340 in an Uncle Mikes pocket holster. Like others have mentioned, I'm too old to be looking for trouble. I'm 52 but have severe arthritis in both shoulders.

Kevin,

As usual, your likes & logic pretty closely mirror my preferences & thinking so I'll just add a few more of my thoughts & thinking.

My primary carry gun is also a LW Commander sized 1911 as well.

A 1911 is always my 1st choice as a SD/carry gun, be it LW Commander size or steel Govt. sized.

I grew up shooting a 1911 & have competed using one for 30 years as well & the gun is just simply 2nd nature to me; I know it intimately, it's comfortable & it's just naturally instinctive for me to handle & shoot it........and mine all work perfectly, each & every time.

I like wheel guns & am perfectly happy & comfortable shooting most models of them, but they're not my choice of a carried SD handgun.

The 1911 is always the choice if I know I am going into a questionable area or traveling; even if I am not carrying one, there is always a Govt. sized gun in the vehicle & a holster if needed.

I carry other guns from time to time, depending on circumstances, from a M27 Glock to a J-frame S&W to a 380 auto. The Glock is an all purpose carry gun from light to serious duty; the others are mainly for light duty occasions.

My philosophy behind carrying a 1911, besides most all of what you have already cited, is that it's what's most comfortable for me in all situations.

All things being equal, I want the threat as far away from me as possible as I believe my shooting expertise is better than most "on the street" threats is likely to be, & the 45 ACP is an adequate round & the 1911 is an adequate platform at ranges from 30 to 50 yards or so..........I've shot lots of matches at 50 yards.

If the action is up close & personal, the 1911 can handle that situation as well also.

Avoidance is naturally the best policy, but in today's crazy world, one just never knows what each new day will bring.........the crazies just seem to be multiplying.

If I knew I was going to a gunfight or even into a really high risk area, there'd be a shotgun with plenty of ammo and/or an M-4 with plenty of clips loaded. In fact, with long distance trips, there's usually one or the other along.

MM

A good post & the best I've ever seen from you.

Congrats..............

MM

There are exceptions to every rule. I, too, don't think I could turn my back on a cop in real danger. E

Interesting that you should say that. NH K9 commented once that he always developed a plan to kill everyone in the room in any given instance. Not as diabolical as it seems. He simply meant that he works out scenarios to deal with a situation of one or more of the people near him suddenly going homicidal. I admitted I too habitually work out such scenarios.

While at the outdoor range a couple of weeks ago, I found myself there at the rifle range with one other guy I didn't know (I'm usually alone on the entire property of this private, locked gate, gun club). He was shooting a Beretta Storm, a handgun caliber security carbine. I was sighting in my hunting rifle. I went up to check my targets and he stayed behind. It occurred to me that should he go homicidal on me (highly unlikely, but I believe in the Boy Scout motto), at the range we were distance from each other, I'd be at a gigantic disadvantage, only carrying on me a Kahr P-9, and that if I were carrying a standard weight Government Model, the odds would be a good ways closer. That mental exercise habit has a tendency to "keep one honest" in one's handgun choices.

Mine is equipped with CTC Laser Grips. I like them as an adjunct to my night sights, but my first instinct is to just use the sights. My instinct is not (nor will it ever be) to look for a laser dot, but my front sight. However, there are situations where the laser is one clever little device. A little time on the range training with the laser will make you a believer.




I see absolutely nothing wrong with a .45 ACP. But be aware, a 147 Grain 9mm will out penetrate a .45 JHP in any instance or class. And the newer ones do expand; it's an excellent LE round.

Here�s the thing�

For those who teach a pistol course, they will typically teach the shooter to thumb the safety off when the gun is clear of leather and pointing forward. When is open to debate. Some say immediately after the gun is forward, to accommodate a speed rock. Others say only after the two hands have been joined together so as to avoid putting holes in your weak hand (don�t think for a minute it doesn�t happen; even to professionals). Then there are those who use their trigger finger as the safety, and thumb the manual safety off the second they have enough thumb on the lever to switch it off.

It really doesn�t matter which one you do, as long as you understand what�s at stake. With the light pull of the 1911 the second you touch that trigger in a gunfight, it�s going off; so your training better allow for getting your other hand the hell out of the way.

The reason why shooting schools teach you to wait until the last minute to disengage the safety is because they have to teach to the lowest denominator and assume you�re an idiot. I used to thumb the safety off while the gun was coming out of the holster until I went to ESI and took Farnam�s course. At that point I saw that while I was safe in my procedure doing it the other way, there was a better way of doing things.

There�s also better ways of gently letting people know their procedure can be improved upon.

had no idea we were related Mark!


felt very familiar reading your words, great post.

told someone the other day I'd entered the dangerous stage of my life.

used to be willing to take an azz whuppin or give one, now I'm not so inclined to take one.


so I have to be extremely careful, actually had a confrontation with 4 misguided young men last week. But I had a sheetrock hammer handy, so two were going down hard and who knows what happens after that, depends upon the mindset and speed of the two remaining.

amazing that they didn't seem to want any of it when the issue was pressed. Guess they were just trying to sell some wolf tickets and picked the wrong gray bearded old geezer as a customer.

When I was younger and training all the time (boxing, Kenpo, firearms, etc.), I walked with a bit more of an air of confidence and I saw that carried well. Often times I�d have someone begin to challenge me from afar, only to back down when they got up close and realized I was more than willing to accommodate them; somehow, body language I suppose, they got the impression I wasn�t the soft target they thought I was (I always had a bit of a baby face). That was nice; pretty handy. My oldest boy has that due to his size (6�6� 350lbs); only the really dumb ones tie into him�they always lose.

I haven�t had anyone mess with me in a LONG time, and I thank God for that every day. Since I had my knee replacement and I�m significantly less capable. My hand speed is still good, but my footwork has gone all to hell. I have a tough time in the ring these days, but I still enjoy getting in the ring from time to time (but these young doods hit HARD; thank God for head gear).

If I were smart, I�d carry a can of pepper spray, but it�s kinda hard to find in my town.

Given that NH-K9 is a LEO & probably goes into places he'd probably really rather not be, that only makes good sense............I did that in times past when I was willing to go places & get involved in doing things I just simply don't do anymore.

As I said in my earlier post, avoidance keeps you out of a lot of potential schitty situations, but if you are going into anything at all that could put you at risk, you absolutely have to have a plan & then a fall-back plan on top of that.

Pretty basic strategy & tactics, really.

As a rule, I don't carry because I think I'm going to need it on any given day; I carry for the just-in-case scenario.

My wife carries, too & is a pretty respectable shooter & she is cool & calm as well, so when we are together, I'm fortunate to have a backup.

MM

We're all "idiots" when the SHTF. It's called the "tachy-psyche effect". That's what the Modern Technique of the pistol assumes and plans for. You bring up a good point about the speed rock. That is another argument against an external safety, that is, if you are trained to pop the safety off at position three, you'll likely forget to do it under stress with a speed rock at arm's distance. As you said earlier, you'd better train, and train hard, with what you carry.

You seem to assume everyone is a complete idiot. I don�t understand this mindset and you�re very closed minded, which makes me think you�re either just an inherently closed minded person, or you have very limited experience or training. This stuff about forgetting to thumb off the safety, is just astonishing to me; you really think people are idiots. Perhaps your only exposure to training is the training of very poorly educated or poorly trained people. For those who are �into� guns, typically the manipulation or manual of arms of their pet Roscoe becomes second nature; ESPECIALLY for those who have been using them for years. I don�t recall ever hearing of a well trained individual who forgot how his weapon worked; that�s why we train for God�s sake. And if someone forgot to do something, they either froze in combat (which just happens and weapon choice won�t change that), or didn�t have sufficient training (FOR THEM � we�re not all the same) with their chosen weapon.

Now like I said before, I consistently trained with every different system I could get my hands on, and when it all hit the fan; I�ve never had any problem remembering what I was carrying, and how it worked. Every time I�ve drawn my weapon in defense, I�ve known what I was carrying (even if only for a few hours) and what the manual of arms was. I�ve carried Glocks in Mexico, Sig�s in W.Virginia, and a Taurus in Honduras. Hi Powers in California, as well as S&W K frames and another Taurus. For the past 17 years I�ve carried a Browning Hi Power for 10 and a LW Commander for the past 7. Hand me a Beretta 92 with the safety on, and tuck it into a holster and I�m sufficiently armed; I�m not in the LEAST bit concerned I�ll �forget� to do anything.

I�ve drawn a weapon in self defense or defense of a client several times and thankfully never had to shoot. I�ve never had any problems remembering what I was carrying and how it worked, no matter how different it was from the pistol I normally carried.

It is true that there are those who get their brain trained one way and get locked on that; perhaps that�s you (and I don�t mean that as a slight at all; would explain where you come from). But to think that because that happens sometimes, it happens all the time and to everyone is just ignorant. Remember, we�re not talking about training a group of recruits here; we�re talking about training individuals. And when you train an individual, things can be MUCH more flexible; you don�t have to use a one size fits all approach. With shooting schools that run �em in like cattle through a chute, the one size fits all approach makes a lot of sense. But when you teach private, one on one lessons, you get more time to learn the intricacies of the individual and can tailor the training to the personality type, and match the training to their threat.

You should also know that the tachy psych effect not only is very different for everyone, but training can offset much of it. I�m glad you have your system, but don�t beat down everyone else�s just because it doesn�t fit your world and what you�ve learned. The first thing all the names you consistently drop should have told you (and if you trained with 1/10th of them; you�ve heard it), is there�s no ONE right way or wrong way to do anything. They have put considerable thought to the issue and have come up with THEIR solutions�not THE solutions.

Got it Kevin. Hell, I'll just leave the safety off on a 1911 from now on. If anything bad happens it'll be the result of my being an incompetent dumbass. Got it.

Please expound on that thought a little. Do you believe the .45ACP Gov't Model is that much better than a short barrelled 9MM when distance is involved?

Facing a carbine, either would be a poor choice IMO.

Sarcasm noted; thanks.

Yes, it is. Partly because of the longer sight radius but mainly because of the trigger, if it has a good one. Don't take my word for it. Put up a 12in gong at 75 or 100yd and go prone with both guns. I do agree that either makes you undergunned against someone with an AR, but you stand a better chance with a tuned 1911. If you are limited to a handgun and a long shot is on the table, that's the one.

Just speaking personally, I shoot a Government Model quite a bit better than I do a Kahr P-9. Your mileage may vary. I do believe, however, that this same rule would apply to anyone who'd applied any significant degree of training with both. Reasons in no particular order: 1) larger hand-filling frame on the Government Model, 2) much greater weight, and therefore stability under recoil, with the Government Model, 3) trigger on the Government Model is much more amenable to precision work at distance than that of the Kahr, 4) longer sight radius on the Government Model, and 5) the .45 ACP from a five inch barrel is a somewhat better fight stopper than 9mm from a three inch barrel.

My interest in his thoughts lean towards the caliber selection, and if that plays a difference in his choice. Until he responds, I'm of the belief that he has a 1911A1 that is simply more accurate for him than his Kahr.

I know the 1911A1 trigger, and I know the Kahr trigger. Neither pistol would be completely optimal for the task. Maybe one is somewhat better than the other but that would be quite subjective and based on the individual representative pistols involved along with that shooter's abilities and skill level.

Some Kahrs shoot very well (I've never owned one that did for me), some 1911A1's are pure crap (carried plenty of them on active duty).

EDIT: I see the response hit while I was sending this post. Thanks for the additional info TRH. We were somewhat thinking the very same thing.

I'm still amazed at the so called experts who are afraid of the 1911 and its cocked and locked option just because it is visible to the eye. To bad most pistol aren't clear so they can see how the striker system works, if so they would be afraid to carry any modern handgun. Carrying a 1911 with the manual safety off would probably be as safe as some as the modern action types, the grip safety works really well from preventing a accidental firing of the weapon. Take-a-knee you need some more training with the 1911 platform and should go to some of these schools you tend to refer to in every post. Every gun fighter regardless of the time period in history had his own Technic when it comes to pistol shooting and weapon presentation. What works best for you may not work the best for someone else. Forgetting you have a safety on the pistol show lack of training with the weapon you choose to carry. Long distant pistol shooting takes practice, a good set of sights and hard to do under stress.

Sure thing. This is the Government Model I carry when I carry one. It's a pre-Series 70 Colt and has an excellently crisp and ideally light trigger. No bells and whistles, and I much prefer it that way.

I disagree.
If one KNOWS longer than normal pistol combat ranges will be required, revolvers rule the day for accurate aimed fire. That's what you see used on "sillywet" steel target ranges.

If facing a long arm at distance with a combat pistol, one best be able to supply a high enough rate of fire to somewhat suppress or negatively influence the rifleman's aimed fire. Going at each other with aimed fire will result in a quick loss for the pistol shooter. One best do what they can to prevent the rifleman from well aimed fire.
Not "spray and pray" but having plenty of rounds of higher velocity ammo on board is a good thing. Well, maybe the "pray" part anyhow...

Very nice!
I have a Combat Commander with the only changes being a beavertail safety and better sights. It is no doubt much easier to get hits with than the Kahrs I've owned and sold.
But if I had to answer someone intent on taking my life with a long arm, at a distance outside of "bad breath" I'd have to rely on a P226, G19 or a G17. It will not even the odds, but I'll surely send some fast flying and flatter shooting 9MM+P heat his direction!

In a gunfight you just better pray you don't have to face a rifle at long range when only armed with a pistol. You will probably die or be serious crippled. Just ask the FBI, in the 1986 Florida Shootout

AMEN.

My "plan," instantly developed, regardless of handgun, was to move laterally for cover (along the side edge of the range, along which I was walking, is a high and steep ridge with lots of bushes and crevices), hopefully drawing him a good bit closer, evening the odds a bit as he'd be drawn in to approach my position while I simply had to wait for him to come into view, sidearm already aimed his way.

Undeniably true, but still better to make a plan.

Very nicely put, Kevin. I concur.

It's apparent that many shooters have already identified their favorite weapons and seek to justify their choices by rationale that supports their choices. But then again, confidence in a weapon is important even though they're are better weapons for self-defense. I look at it the other way. What practical weapon provides me with the greatest odds of surviving what I pray I can avoid?

I have read God knows how many shooters attempt to defend revolvers as their preferred self-defense weapons. Assuredly, they have affinity for revolvers which causes them to create their illusory preeminence. It's impossible to introduce reason and logic into discussions involving sentiment. An ugly chick to one might be a fox to another. I like revolvers, but they are not suitable survival weapons in gunfights. They have far too many limitations. Yes, I know trick shooters can reload one just as fast as a semiauto. But that's not reason & logic: it's entertainment. I'd bet bad guy should such a trick shot confront a banger who ain't afraid to die. Most bangers know the value of a good tactical weapons, which is why most prefer military-type weapons.

A serious problem that was far more ubiquitous during the nascent days of the 'net was that most relied upon entertainment for knowledge. Gun magazines are entertainment. They depend upon sales for business viability. They are not objective sources of tactical knowledge.

Within ten years shooters have become much more knowledgeable. For instance, I can't remember anyone recently asserting that the 9MM is equal to a .45ACP, yet ten years ago it was common for shooters to actually believe it because they read it in entertainment media.

Using a .22 anything for self-defense is not wise. I don't care who uses it; just the fact that someone would rely upon one tells me that there's a paucity of knowledge there.

Small caliber & limited capacity weapons for self-defense fall into the lack of knowledge category. If shooters want to risk their lives on such weapons, that's their decisions. I wish them well.

I know that reloading places one at a tactical disadvantage. That's why tactical reloading is important. And it's a primary reason why I like a 12 round .40 S&W mag, .40 S&W being my minimum self-defense caliber. I am not an energy dump guy. I want a through-and-through wound. I want maximum blood loss if I can't hit CNS.

The cause of gunfights is because a bad guy wants to kill a good guy. Shooting at targets assuredly has no predictive value when one must return rife under stress of dodging a bad guy's bullets. My suggestion is to practice under stressful scenarios. We used to have to identify and decide with instructors yelling in our faces. While it did produce a lot of stress, it was nothing like a bad guy shooting at us. However, it's impractical to create an actual real-life shooting scenario. So the best that can be hoped for is a close simulation.

If a gunfight can't be avoided, tactical retreat should always be at the forefront of one's tactics. The good guy wants the gunfight over posthaste. While many believe it's possible to aim in gunfights, I can assure you that gunfights, especially at close range, is all point shooting. If you have time to aim, you ought to be considering running. Point shooting should be part of cover fire while you're effectuating tactical retreat or running for cover. If a good guy remains stationary, he'll make himself a better target for a bad guy who wants to kill him. So making yourself a target is always a bad idea.

Eyes will never kill you. Never waste time staring at a bad guy's face. You'll expose yourself to danger. A suspect's hands will kill you. Pay attention to them. When I confronted bad guys, I kept my eyes on hands and a barrier that I could hind behind. And believe me, if I had to I'd be shooting at the bad guy while hightailing it to a barrier. Hence, no aiming, only point shooting. The absolute dumbest tactical response is to remain stationary, acquiring sights, and shooting it out with a bad guy. Such tactical response causes coroners more work, but it gives hope to organ recipients.

Choosing a handgun is part of a comprehensive survival plan, foremost of which is avoidance. It's the survivor's responsibility to choose wisely unless he's bored with temporal existence, which I ain't.


Buena Suerte,

R

Solid plan. Avoidance of concrete, cross tie walls and the like is wise, and getting some dirt between the threat and yourself is quite important.

Getting small and utilizing what cover is available (terrain) is the first and most important step.
Getting mad as hell will help in the next step!

The Real Hawkeye,

That is the only weapon of which I'm aware that was designed for actual combat. The Beretta 92 was designed as a cop gun that was adapted for combat. And I believe that a 5" 1911A1 is the best balanced of all tactical weapons. It has a very natural point. And best of all, it fires a round that was designed for combat effectiveness.

If you know the best, the rest are imitations.


Buena Suerte,

R

Agreed.

That's funny!

I think he meant sidearm rather than weapon. Don't know if the statement is technically true or not (he did say, "that I know of," however, which covers error), but I agree with the gist of his statement.

The 100 Greatest Combat Pistols
Hand-On Tests and Evaluations of Handguns from Around the World
by Timothy J Mullin

Suggested read for R.

My number one rule is to try not to put myself in a position to where i have to shoot someone. I know someday i may not be able to avoid a shoot out with another, so i carry and i hope if the need arises my mental capacity hold up until the fight is over and if I'm the winner or i should say I'm still alive then i will have time to panic. No one knows how they will react when bullets are coming their way so all you can do is hope for the best if it happens to you. Stress kills more people than any thing else in this world and no one knows how they will react to it, they are only guessing.

WTM45,

You gotta distinguish combat pistols as those designed as such from those adapted for such.

If you read Browning's historical development of the Model 1911A1 to satisfy the Army's specs, you'll learn that he created it to be a combat weapon.


Adios,

R

Ho The Real Hawkeye,

You're right, I did mean pistol for combat.


Take care,

R

I'm suggesting the read to you because it will show the 1911 was not the only handgun design intended from its inception and design for combat use.

Is it s good one? You betcha.
Is it the only one? Not even close.

When one is considering CCW, the baseline for this entire thread, whether or not a handgun was designed from the start for military combat use is not the primary consideration to be addressed. But if one wishes to use the factual testing and experience of how a particular model fared in military/LE combat, well, that's a very prudent step. Knowledge helps make better decisions.
But we can never confuse the needs of military/LE with the average citizen CCW holder's needs. They are quite different by nature.

WTM45,

Always keep in mind that authors create to make $$$. Such books are much different from professional journals.


R

The 9mm Parabellum was designed just for Combat and War

WTM45,

What's your preferred source of info on the topic?


R

Jeez... I'm suggesting the read because of the experience and knowledge of the particular author. It is a good read, not biased by any manufacturer or advertisement stipends that I could note.
It was not intended to be insulting, but to be a sharing of resource information.

I'm not sure you're correct. The 9MM was originally known as the 9MM Luger. I'm not sure when parabellum was attached to the cartridge and why. It was first used in combat in WWII, and I believe it was used as a submachine gun cartridge. So was parabellum attached to it due to its submachine gun use?

I don't believe it was designed as a handgun combat cartridge. But I might be wrong. If you know of primary source documents that support your theory, I'd love to peruse them.


Buena Suerte,

R

A close family member who not only faced the elephant in Bitche, France, but chased its rampaging ass clear to Heidelberg.

My own outgoing and incoming fire paled in comparison to his. So I listen, I read what others have experienced and I adapt.

WTM45,

That's why it's crucial to know sources of "information" before concluding validity. If it's knowledge I'm after, I prefer journals such as the "FBI Law Enforcment Bulletin" which are more likely to contain knowledge while "Guns and Ammo" contains entertainment.


Buena Suerte,

R

WTM45,

Just friendly advice: when resorting to extremism when arguing a point you risk losing credibility.

Jus' sayin'...



R

You trust all .gov stats?
HA!

Best get up to speed on the history of the 9MM first, my friend!

9�19mm Parabellum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"9mm" redirects here. For other cartridges with 9mm bullets, see 9 mm caliber. For other uses, see 9mm (disambiguation).
9�19mm Parabellum

9�19mm Parabellum FMJ (left) and hollowpoint (right) rounds
Type Handgun
Place of origin German Empire
Service history
Used by NATO and others
Wars World War I�present
Production history
Designer Georg Luger
Designed 1901
Produced 1902�present
Variants 9 mm NATO
9�19mm Parabellum +P
9�19mm 7N21 +P+
9�19mm 7N31 +P+
Specifications
Parent case 7.65�21mm Parabellum
Case type Rimless, tapered
Bullet diameter 9.03 mm (0.356 in)
Neck diameter 9.65 mm (0.380 in)
Base diameter 9.93 mm (0.391 in)
Rim diameter 9.96 mm (0.392 in)
Rim thickness 0.90 mm (0.035 in)
Case length 19.15 mm (0.754 in)
Overall length 29.69 mm (1.169 in)
Case capacity 0.862 cm� (13 gr H2O)
Primer type Berdan or Boxer small pistol
Maximum pressure 235.00 MPa (34,084 psi)
Ballistic performance
Bullet weight/type Velocity Energy
7.45 g (115.0 gr) FMJ 390 m/s (1,300 ft/s) 570 J (420 ft�lbf)
8.04 g (124.1 gr) FMJ 360 m/s (1,200 ft/s) 518 J (382 ft�lbf)
9.50 g (146.6 gr) JHP 368 m/s (1,210 ft/s) 643 J (474 ft�lbf)
7.45 g (115.0 gr) JHP +P 411 m/s (1,350 ft/s) 632 J (466 ft�lbf)
7.45 g (115.0 gr) JHP +P+ 435 m/s (1,430 ft/s) 704 J (519 ft�lbf)
Source(s): Sellier & Bellot,[1] Vihtavuori Reloading Guide 2009,[2] Buffalo Bore,[3] C.I.P.,[4] Cor-Bon[5]
The 9�19mm Parabellum (abbreviated 9mm, 9�19mm or 9�19) cartridge was designed by Georg Luger and introduced in 1902 by the German weapons manufacturer Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabriken (DWM) for their Luger semi-automatic pistol.[6] For this reason, it is commonly called the 9 mm Luger cartridge, differentiating it from the also-popular 9mm Makarov and 9mm Browning (.380 ACP) cartridges.
The book Cartridges of the World stated in 2006 that the 9�19mm Parabellum is "the world's most popular and widely used military handgun cartridge."[7]
The name Parabellum is derived from the Latin: Si vis pacem, para bellum ("If you seek peace, prepare for war"), which was the motto of DWM.
In addition to being used by over 60% of police in the U.S., Newsweek credits 9�19 pistol sales with making semi-automatic pistols more popular than revolvers.[8] The popularity of this cartridge can be attributed to the widely held conviction that it is highly effective in police and self-defense use.[9] Its low cost and wide availability (subject to jurisdiction) are self-sustaining contributors to the caliber's continuing popularity.

You gotta explain that one. If by "extremism" you are referring to actual military combat experience, then yes. It is quite extreme.

I care very little if you feel I am credible. I have nothing to prove. I am but another poster on a website.
I'm just another face in the crowd.

Sorry, but that�s just not true. The Beretta was not only developed as a military arm, but specifically with the US military in mind; it was not designed to be a cop�s gun (not that it matters one bit). Beretta had been winning US pistol evaluations with the 92 since 1976 and they worked closely with US procurement to develop the 92 as the US military saw fit. You need to study the history of that weapon a bit. It started as the 951 which was 100% military pistol (and a damn good one at that). Then they did a major re-design to make it DA, changed it to a frame mounted safety, high capacity magazine and an aluminum frame. Next came the same gun with a slide mounted safety. Then came the addition of a firing pin block. Then finally a redesign of the grip and trigger guard, which became the M9. All of these changes were at the suggestion of the US Military.

Sentiment aside, the Beretta 92 has had its issues, but these days it�s a solid gun. Are there better guns? Sure, depending on the person and situation.

Oodles of semi auto pistols were created with military or law enforcement in mind; that�s where the real money is.

Kevin,

You could be right. What I do know is that it was used as a police weapon before it was adopted by our military.

In contrast, the 1911A1 was designed to meet the US Army's specifications for a suitable combat sidearm. The 9MM was examined and discarded as being insufficient to meet the army's combat requirements. And from what I understand, the US Army is reverting to the 1911A1.

While the 9MM was once all the rage in law enforcement, when I retired from that gig, many agencies were discarding it for the .40 S&W and .45 ACP. Keeping in mind that my first issued weapon was a Model 15, that agency no longer allows revolvers, and .40 S&W is minimum. And after the infamous North Hollywood shootout, LAPD authorized carry of the .45ACP. My last duty weapon was an H&K USP .45ACP, which I didn't much care for because it's huge. I would have rather reverted to my P-229 in .40 S&W.

While the .45ACP was designed to be a combat sidearm, I don't believe the 9MM was. But I might be wrong. Either way, it ain't much a good combat caliber. I ain't heard the same about the .45ACP.


Buena Suerte,

R

You know what I love about those older Colts? I love the small, very subtle roll stamping on the sides of the slide, and the little rampant colt. They had taste back then and didn�t make the beautiful slab sides of the slide a giant billboard. Take a look at all makers of just about all pistols, each has like 20pt font size on the slides of their guns. Now on something as ugly as a Glock or an M&P that�s fine, but when you have a nicely blued 1911 why the hell do they have to ruin it with all that large writing on the side? Very classy gun my friend�wanna trade?

No they're not. I have a friend in military procurement and they simply won't even consider a 1911; it's obsolete in their opinion.

The 9mm was intended from the getgo as a combat cartridge, Parabellum roughly means "for war"

This is extremism...unless it's true, which I doubt.

Wrong you are.

The 9MM has released more souls from their earthly bodies than the .45ACP, that's a fact.

Doubt seems to be something you are very good at. But you can bet the farm on what I say as being gospel.

Enjoy your retirement from LE. You deserve it. I mean it.

I remember reading that the 9mm was designed to cause massive numbers of wounded enemies so as to slow down unwounded enemy forces in caring for them.

That depends on what you have to trade, but I doubt it.

The name Parabellum is derived from the Latin: Si vis pacem, para bellum ("If you seek peace, prepare for war"), which was the motto of DWM.

The Luger was the German Navy (and a few years later became the German Army) sidearm. It was designed to kill, and with use of the tangent sighting system and stock it could be used to lay down suppressive fire at distances.

The 9MM Luger outperformed the .38 in revolvers of the timeperiod, so would we say the .38 was designed only to "wound?"

I think it is highly adviseable for anyone opting to carry a ccw to read some of the books from people with adequate resumes to write them, get actual hands on training on the topic and do as much live fire training as one can afford backed up with almost daily dry fire exercises so that their techniques and weapons platforms become entirely second nature.


I hope to never use my ccw in defense but if the time comes I believe I'm ready. I've sought training to get others insights as to what works for THEM, I've tried their methods in live fire drills and came up with techniques that work for ME. These have been reinforced with thousands of rounds of ammo and 10 times as much dry fire work. I have what I believe to be adequate confidence in my system to give my own ass and those with me a reasonable chance at survival.

For my preferences I use a 1911 LW Commander. Specifically I carry an original Kimber Pro CDP pre Schwartz safety. It's carried in either a Kramer horsehide IWB or a Brommeland IWB. It's light, fast into action and accurate in my hands. To say its second nature to me is an understatement.

I spent a lot of time researching ammo choices both online and in person. Due to my career I have daily interaction with LEO's (I'm not Leo) and I took the opportunity to ask what they were currently issued, what they had prior and their impressions. I am also fortunate enough to work with a local trauma team and have one of the most respected US trauma sytems virtually in my backyard. As such I have able to discuss with the trauma surgeons the damage done in particulate incidents and weighs that against the bullet used. I'm lucky that my Kimber dotes on both Hornady TAP and Winchester Ranger T both in 230gr +P loads as both are very common ammo for my local LEO's who carry both 40 and 45's.

I did all of the same research when I decided on a J-frame for summer carry when the 1911 isn't practical and my Glock 23 that I use for hiking/outdoor pursuits.

Again that is the steps I took and my thoughts on the topic. It's no way the end all be all or right for everyone, just for ME.

Long story short their is no substitute for training and dry fire work but popped primers tell the story of what works for every individual.

My favorite carry round in my Springfield 45 ACP Champion is the Speer 185 GR Gold Dot , because my pistol loves this round. I believe most Police Dept carry what is dictated by their dept and that is what they get the best deal on, price wise.

I just kinda skimmed this Kevin - I didn't read it all thoroughly but I gather the 1911 is (as usual) getting the most mentions.

I'll give you a somewhat different take.

As a lefty, stock 1911s don't work well, especially in terms of operating the safety and slide (I gather you can have one customized LH nowadays, but that's neither here nor there).

They're also pretty darn heavy.

I've chosen an H&K USP40 Compact in a Galco shoulder holster. It's a fully LH Variant 2 and quite light (even still the whole set-up is 3# with a spare magazine) I might have chosen a .45USP but they didn't make one at the time and Galco still doesn't make a LH holster for it now - so again that's neither here nor there.

I "rationalize" my choice thusly:

--it's LH (and modularly so)
--someone makes a comfortable and concealable LH shoulder rig for it
--it's light enough (and concealable enough) that I have it with me 90% or more of the time
--it's a large enough caliber with a large enough capacity to suit my comfort level
--it's proven super-reliable over the past 10 years
--it's super easy to strip and maintain
--and it's finish has proven to be pretty bulletproof over time

WTM45,

Reread my post. There's nothing in it about which round has caused more deaths. However, it is about creating a handgun & cartridge for combat.

WTM45, please point me in the direction of primary source documents such as Luger brothers' notes about why they created the 9MM. That way we'll both know for sure its intent. If it was intended to be a battle handgun round, it was not a very well researched choice.

Finally, how do you know for a fact how many deaths either a 9MM or a .45 ACP caused? To reach such a conclusion one would need access to autopsy reports and factual accounts about the circumstances causing death. Otherwise, it would be anecdotal, no?


Buena Suerte,

R

WTM45,

WWI was trench warfare battles. While I have studied it some years ago including its significant battles, I don't recall learning about the 9MM being used in actual combat conditions. It was a war that saw introduction of the machine gun as battle weapon that kept opposing soldiers out of no man's land, the area between trenches. Since it was impossible to kill soldiers with small arms who were ensconced within trenches, artillery was perfected, which accounted for most WWI fatalities. Then, of course, the French invented poison gas as a way to get Germans out of their trenches. So gas masks were invented. And the Germans responded by creating their own poison gas. So if handgun were used in WWI, they saw extremely limited duty, certainly not enough to reach a conclusion about their effectiveness.

Some British soldiers did have handguns. But I have no idea how often they were used and if they were used, conditions of their use. The rifle was the primary battle weapons of all soldiers.

While the 9MM was issued to the German navy during WWI, I know of no account of their actual use in battle. Do you?

Finally, a battle handgun is not designed to wound. It is a CQB weapon where an enemy's charge has to be stopped immediately lest he's able to inflict carnage on his enemy. This was the essence of developing the .45 ACP. While no handgun is as reliable as a rifle in terminating an enemy's charge, some battle handguns are much better than others.

WOW, rolling in the esoteric, eh boys?

Maybe this thread will produce a new noun: guessecdotal: where anecdotal is the product of a guess.

Don't lose your senses of humor lest I bust out some real jokes!


Buena Suerte,

R

The new 147 gr. 9mm ammo will out penetrate the 230 gr. .45 ACP ? In what ? It sure didn't when the FBI tested it against the .45 ACP Federal HydraShok after the Miami shootout.
When I say "didn't out penetrate," I don't mean testing medium. I'm refering to windshield glass and car doors with enough left to do real damage to the bad guy on the other side.
I find it interesting that the emphasis these days in 40 S&W ammo is away from the 180 gr. loads to the 150 gr. or even the 135 gr. stuff. I guess nobody is worried about having to exchange fire with a BG behind a car door or in a vehicle.
Me ? I like an edge if it doesn't cost too much. E

There is nothing wrong with guessing when it comes to selecting what to carry. I'd go so far as to say guessing is a key to making a good decision. You "guess" as to what the threat will be and carry what you "guess" will do the job in your hands. Then you learn how well it works for you.
Odviously, alot depends upon how well one is informed as to potential threats, how well one is familar with the capabilities of what he chooses, and his own abilities to use it.
The guy who picked the .22 for his CCW gun is not what alot of us would choose. But the guy knew very well what he could do with such a gun and in what situations having been there and done it. Odviously, he was very well informed and experienced as to what it would and would not do in his hands. My "guess" is that he had a pretty good idea as to what he believed he'd face and how he'd make his choice work. Frankly, I've got a hunch he's alot better at that sort of thing than I am.
I dunno about you guys but I'm always fascinated by anybody who has done the real thing. I want to learn all I can about his choice, about who he is, and what his experiences are. I never try to tell such people they have made bad choices. We might discuss the pros mand cons, and maybe we can help each other, but that's all I try to do.
I learned a long time ago that alot of so called professionals and experts, lack some pretty basic stuff that anyone with real experience knows.
For instance, when I signed up for my first handgun shooting course, the instructor, a local PD detective with alot of street experience, told us all to focus on the target which was 25 yds. away and to shoot one handed, target shooter style. To his credit, after trying to embarass me, he tried my method, focusing on the sights. Even he shot better and he was man enough to admit it.
But th bottom line is that in spite of his profession, he lack some pretty basic understandings. In the end, this is what we need to be aware of as well. E

I don't "carry." I HAVE, but 99+% of the time I don't.

I like my 1996 Sig p220 45acp (SA/DA). Light enough. Accurate enough (actually vey accurate). Always goes "bang." Points well for me (one and two handed, which is very important in my book, as if it is dark, I'm POINTING, not AIMING-I want the bullet to go instinctively where I'm pointing. At least that's my thought). I like the decocker and design feature to carry with loaded chamber (safety issues).

For personal protection around home, I like a revolver (357 mag). It has the above attributes (less the decocker), but it is simple enough for my wife to use (I'm not mocking her). I don't like semiautos for my wife. She handles a firearm well enough, but I think there is a greater chance for error with a semiauto by her in the event of a stressful situation. My greatest concern is either having her load/unload a magazine, and forgetting to rack the slide (either not loading it, or leaving it loaded). With a revolver, you open the cylinder for a positive inspection of loaded/unloaded condition. The revolver we have for that role is a 4" barreled Ruger GP100 with 140 grain hollowpoints.

With that said, for home personal protection, I prefer a breakopen shotgun. O/U or s/s. Same simplicity issue with revolver (open check loaded/unloaded), but easier to hit in a stressful situation. Pumps are great, but for a user not 100% familar with it (ie my wife), I feel you still have the same issue of loading/unloading and leaving an empty or full chamber when you least want one.

I think a semi-auto pistol for personal protection used by anyone less than totally familiarized with it, has a higher level of failure/glitch. Don't want that in a critical moment by my wife-so therefore the mid-size sa/da 357 revolver gets the nod-based on my assessment of criteria (wifw factor, simple, safe, powerful enough, fits both her/me well-enough).

I have never been in combat, nor have I been in a personal protection situation. I do feel 100% comfortable with any firearm I have, but I honestly don't practice at 3:30 am (drowsy and getting eyes focused-and maybe without my eyeglasses), in the dark, and in my boxers.

For that, I'd prefer my Citori over my Sig P220, Springfield 1911a1, Ruger gp100 or 45 Colt Redhawk. Of those pistols/revolvers just listed, I like my 5.5" barreled Colt Ruger Redhawk (a bigger thumper for me, and very pointable with Uncle Mike's combat grips). But that is not a "carry gun." I also have a Brittany Spaniel that is an excellent watch dog-great way to let potential "visitors" know they have been detected (and gives additional time for me/wife to respond.)

It all depends what your greatest need is and location (carry, home, multiple users, threat level etc). It's always a compromise (where you are, user(s) involved, threat).

So to me and my wife's requirements, key issues are: simplicity, safety, pointability/high chance for first shot connection in worse case/stress/dark conditions (which includes reliability, simplicity and accuracy requirements). Open-bored break-open shotguns fit the bill for "home base personal protection" criteria-but not exactly good for "carry." If it's 3 am, cold and I'm (or my wife) is bleary-eyed,heart pumping with the dog barking, I like our odds for a first shot hit with a shotgun.

I live in rural Maine. My biggest concern is a potential home invasion by idiots looking to fund drug habits. I don't pass through mean "downtowns." There ARE gangs in our area, but they are usually selling cookies for their local troop, and wear green dresses and berets.

Simplicity/safety, pointability/fit/hitting target, enough power.

Raisuli, if you knew anything of history and FACT you would know the 9MM Luger/Parabellum was developed to make the Luger an even better pistol for combat than its original chambering.
It was the intent of the design from the start, to be a battle round and was well researched and tested.
It has done much killing around the world in combat. I don't give a damn if you believe it or not.

The Luger platform was even submitted for US testing in .45ACP, since the US had decided on the caliber before the platform. We all know Browning's design won.

Glock 23 for me! High capacity firearms have their place in today's day and age! The need for more rounds when dealing with multiple assailants (criminals tend to run in pairs) and handguns not having the power of a shotgun or rifle the need to shoot an assailant multiple times is not uncommon. The fact that today we in the U.S. can face active shooter scenarios with one or more attackers. One more thing to consider for those against high capacity is the fact criminals have or can get body armor. I read one of the posts that sounded like anything more than 5 or 6 shots you would be dead? I don't agree with that mindset. In a gunfight you can never have enough rounds and thats not to say I agree with the spray and pray mentality but I would not be caught short with a 5 or 6 round handgun.

This has been an interesting thread, however, I have read very few responses addressing the needs of those in rural/ wilderness interface areas.
For those who proclaim revolvers are dead, try stopping a rabid critter. With the possible exceptions of the 45 ACP, or the 10mm-depending on the ammunition, autoloader cartridges are at best inadequate.
Park Service Protection Rangers relatively recently gave up their 357's for the 40 S&W, and when called upon to deal with tooth, fang, and claw they tend to use boatloads of ammo, where that was not the case when they carried GP100's loaded with 158 JSPs.
I don't know about anyone else, but I am less than comforted knowing that so many are prepared to simply fill the air with as much hot lead as possible.
For my purposes the revolver is not only very much alive, but very much preferred over urban choices. To the horror of many here, I will also admit that not only is the revolver king, the single action revolver continues in a prominent role. I have stood face to face with human threats who packed their hicap plastic fantastics, and who backed down before facing my thumbuster.
In the realm where one must concentrate on 4 legged AND two legged threats, the luxury of specialization in defensive arm evaporates. It won't matter if you have 15, 17, or 20 rounds, if your rounds are ineffective. In fact, if you attempt to use the specialized urban weapons in a rural critter encounter, you probably won't have the time to expend those 15+ rounds before you are transformed into lunch.
Rural defense often requires a big flash boom to be effective for reasons that urbanites rarely, if ever face. If you need to break up a dog fight, before it gets to the point of shredding area humans, a 357 fired into the dirt does wonders.
Rural guns are called upon for many situations that urban guns will never face, for extreme conditions of weather, where they have faced a baking by the sun, been blasted by dust, then full submergence in water, all on the same day, and still were called upon to work.
The simple mechanism of the single action lends itself quite well to this environment, and despite what just about everyone says, is easy to operate under stress, when exhausted, dirty, tired, or just pissed off.
Autoloaders, especially the newer designs, rarely fare well under these conditions.
Some things, however, are the same as urban encounters. For one, its always preferable to reach for a rifle, and for two, its always best to step aside, and let Daddy Bear have his space.

The Walker Colt was designed for combat, I think that predates the 1911 just a little bit.

Just thought I'd add that in here since someone's now mentioned single action revolvers.

maarty,

I don't think so. I believe the Walker Colt was a frontier sidearm.
Regardless it certainly ain't a battle weapon today.

Mak, you might want to consider scenarios in which you're likely to use a weapon to save your life. That way you'll have ammo with which to rethink your self-defense weapon.

There's a reason what you don't see cops carrying revolvers, let alone single action copies.


Buena Suerte,

R

It was designed at the request of a US military officer, and was intended for immediate combat duty against the Mexicans upon delivery of the first 1000 copies.
And that is where they went.

WTM45,

I am still waiting for you to tell me how you KNOW how many people have gone t*ts up after being capped with a 9MM Luger and how many gave up ghosts due to the .45 ACP. Did you rely on something you read in a gun magazine, or did you just make it up?

Trying to reason my way through your wild accusation, it would be impossible to know unless one perused autopsy reports, which I'd bet you haven't. So that leaves the FACT that you're willing to spread bullsugar in order to try to win an argument, which makes you awfully darn suspicious.

Next thing you're gunna write is that a 9MM Luger & not silver bullets is what really works to send Dracula back to his castle.


R

Any simple study of actual historical military documents will clearly show how many countries have issued and used the 9MM in combat operations around the globe.
Ordinance issue reports continue to support the premise that more 9MM ammo has been created, issued and expended through handguns worldwide than .45ACP.
One country alone has burned more 9MM rounds in combat than you can dream.

Regradless of what you THINK or imagine the 9MM was designed for combat, is a combat proven round and is well designed for such.

The amount of factual information is quite vast, and is easily found by someone who would wish to increase their knowledge of military small arms and their application.

I suggest you do your own work. Seems you don't have a decent grasp of what has occured within the US regarding military small arms, nevertheless the entire globe.

I offer you resources, you dismiss them out of hand without consideration. Why would I waste time sharing more of my library with you?

I will refute incorrect information at will. Be prepared.

I will agree on this, the the GP-100 is one of the best weapons in the handgun world and i would feel well armed when carrying one for personal protection against four or two legged animals. I love mine and carry 158 gr Gold Dots load with a max load of Win 296. I own the 6 inch version and it is a little heavy and awkward for conceal carry. May add a four inch in the future.

I agree with you the revolver has its place in defense, and I agree that the power a revolver can bring to bear makes it a great choice for rural situations, I have to disagree a little bit with your statement above.

There are autoloaders which are more subject to problems when weather is involved (rust) or debris is common (sand), the majority of autoloaders provide great service and durability in some wicked conditions. Combat issue and LEO issue getting daily carry and use in some extremes have proven their usefulness.
Additional power can be found in some modern loadings and autoloader designs.
So, the autoloader is not a "poor" choice any more than a revolver is a "poor" choice. It can depend greatly on the need and application.

I would consider someone as well versed in the use of the single action as you a very well defended person against any situation, any handgun (auto or revolver) totin' criminal or vermin. Mindset, training and experience would be the biggest factors in obtaining a positive outcome!

WTM45,

Just what research info have you provided other than your proclamations?

Are you assuming that because a handgun was issued that it was actually used in combat? That is was designed for combat? Not even the venerable Peacemaker was designed for combat. It was a frontier weapon that was used in combat.

The 9MM is a horrible self-defense round when compared with other, more suitable rounds. In the 80's it was all the rage in law enforcement, assuredly due to high capacity handguns that chambered it. But now it's not found that often on the hips of our nation's cops. The agencies for which I used to work do not even allow its cops to carry a 9MM. One issues only the .45 ACP while the other limits handguns to either the .40 or .45.

I used to work with a woman whose hands were too small for an H&K USP full-size .45 ACP. The agency that employed us allowed her to carry a compact version, but it was .45 ACP.

It seems as though you've postured yourself into the untenable position of 9MM superiority and will rely upon your assertions without factual basis for supporting them.

If you want to believe the 9MM is all that, have at it. But your proclamations without proof is fantasy...just like your proclamation about how many people have been killed by the 9MM. You have no clue how many people have died as a result of a 9MM nor does anyone. At best it's a guess. Yet you insist it's factual. As a former professor I once had used to refrain, theory w/o facts is fantasy. So where are your facts to support your fantasy???

A battle handgun is a last resort weapon save for those sent into tunnels in Vietnam. The idea is to prepare so a soldier does not have to rely upon a last resort weapon.

Finally, you have repeatedly asserted that the 9MM was designed for battle. Yet you have provided no proof of your claim. Please provide a link that supports your claim. I'm sure the 9MM was designed to kill, but that's not even close to it being a battle weapon unless you're implying its use as a submachine gun round.

In contrast, the US Army found that handguns, namely the .38, that were used in battle were wholly ineffective. Therefore, it commissioned its ordinance department to accept bids from small arms manufacturers for handguns designed for battle that were chambered for a cartridge that would work as a weapon of last resort. The 1911A1 proved to work so well that in the Korean War many soldiers preferred it to the .30 Carbine.

Keep close to your heart the FACT that theory w/o facts is fantasy.


R

I would agree the Colt Walker was a battle implement, because if you ran out of bullets, it made a great bludgeon...

RE, Mak: " ... address the needs of those in wilderness/rural areas."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I totally agree with your endorsement of the Single-Action Revolver for defense in the great outdoors. It's a natural and it works.

~ Ruger Vaquero, 45 Colt.

This absolutely ludicrous. With current ammo design and technology, there is so little difference in the terminal effectiveness between the major defensive calibers they are virtually identical. The theory you profess as fact is rooted in a time when JHP ammunition was in its infancy, and the real argument concerned commonly used FMJ ammo. In that scenario, the .45 absolutely trumps the 9mm, due to nothing but the size of the hole it pokes, unless penetration is a requirment, in which case the .45 fails miserably.

You can regurgitate Cooper and his ilk all you want, it makes it no less dated, and currently false. As for your observations of current Law Enforcement, you are again wrong. The 9mm is enjoying a huge resurgence, due mainly to strides in ammunition development. Couple this with the small, but dedicated, popularity of the .357 Sig, the 9mm is far from dead, and even farther from ineffective.

One can argue that the .45 is actually a poorer choice than the 9mm and .357 Sig, due to the increased amount of officer involved shootings involving armor, and through car doors, windshields, etc. The smaller, faster round fares better than the fatter slower one in most cases.





Before everyone strokes out, I still load, shoot, and occasionally carry a .45. Its a very good round, but no better or worse than the others in the grand scheme. Technology has all but leveled the playing field. Argument in disarrangement is nothing but mental masturbation.

It's no wonder JOG has given up posting here anymore.............

MM

liliysdad,

And just what proof do you have in support of your theory? You've called my post ludicrous, so to you truth is ludicrous.

The obvious fallacy of your theory is that you believe that modern bullets make the 9MM effective. Does this mean that you know more than the Firearms training Unit of the FBI??? Must be...


Buena Suerte,

R

RE, Liliysdad: "Argument in disarrangement is nothing more than mental masturbation."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I like that - you should post more. My wrist gets sore just from strokin' the keyboard.

I also like my handguns - collecting/shooting/protecting.

I often can't help but thinking about the 'people' out there that actually go out and commit most of those murders in polite society using a HANDGUN.

I don't think the KILLERS give a 2nd thought (or poop) about Corbon Defensive Ammo, or about caliber/bore size - let alone 'trigger jobs, custom work, special holsters, tactical stuff, ... etc.

If my handguns work right and shoot right (right out-of-the-box) - That's the way I use them. I also use/carry the same ammunition that I practice with, cheap FMJ/Hardball. It works! (I'm sure.)

I appreciate 'all' of the more sophisticated self-defense aficiandos who strive 'To the Nth degree' for every conceivable 'advantage' ... And I find their discourse both interesting and informative.

But ... just not for 'me' so much.

(Low crime in North Dakota. Considered well armed with a "Daisy" B-B Gun.)

Considered well armed with a "Daisy" B-B Gun.)

Mice or Men just shoot them in the eyes

The choice to carry FMJ, when there is a plethora of effective, inexpensive JHP ammo on the market is quite foolish. I see quite a few gunshots, and FMJ traditionally does a pretty poor job of anything but poking holes.

For sure.

Get off your ass and do some research. I could give you six to ten books, title and author, which are on my shelf right now but you would find any excuse to avoid putting on the bifocals and reading any one of them.
You continue to reveal an extreme lack of knowledge, therefore I am finished with you.
Apology to all who are interested in gathering good info from this thread.

It doesn't matter if your gunfight is in the Military , Law Enforcement or Civilian Life any Gunfight is a battle to stay alive so i believe every handgun rounds was designed for battle from the 25 auto to the 45 ACP.

The 9MM (as we know it, the 9x19) was designed SPECIFICALLY for increasing velocity thereby increasing the terminal effectiveness and accuracy of the P-08 Luger. Fact.
Kenyon and Walter each have written very good reference books with much factual research and documentation included.

Even the FBI issues G17's to agents deployed overseas. Fact.

England moved to a smaller caliber revolver from the .455 to increase velocity and effectiveness. Then, to the 9MM Hi-Power. Fact.

More 9MM handguns have been built for military contract and duty than Colt's ever built .45ACP's for military contract and duty. Fact.


I've never stated the 9MM is exclusively superior, nor have I disparaged the .45ACP. In current defensive loadings, which means everything to the current CCW permit holder, it's a damn fine line between the effectiveness of service caliber loadings.
They are all that close in performance.
Fact.
And it is well documented.

We have to consider ourselves quite fortunate to have all the choices we have at our disposal. Caliber or platform, the most important thing in being successful is mindset.

Believe what you like, history and every educated person on here proves you wrong.
As for it not being a battle weapon today, maybe it's not the first choice but I'd still feel perfectly well armed having a loaded Walker colt clone in my hand at close range, those big soft lead balls will make any attackers day go from bad to worse.
Besides it fits with your needs, a gun capable of laying down fire to allow you to hide, that big cloud of smoke works well for hiding behind.

45 Peacemaker is a great self defense pistol, if you don't believe me just ask Sam McCloud.

9x19mm Parabellum. Designed by Georg Luger as a military round.

That it was intended to be used in battle is certainly a reasonable assumption.

From Wikipedia:


.....Georg Luger developed the 9�19mm Parabellum cartridge from Luger's earlier 7.65�21mm Parabellum. In 1902, Luger presented the new round to the British Small Arms Committee as well as three prototype versions to the U.S. Army for testing at Springfield Arsenal in mid-1903. The German Navy adopted the cartridge in 1904 and in 1906 the German Army adopted it as well....

The word Parabellum is a noun coined by German arms maker Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabriken and is derived from the Latin saying si vis pacem, para bellum, meaning If you wish for peace, prepare for war. The term has been used in the naming of a number of cartridges.

Yep.

Kind of tough to mount an argument that the 9mm WASN'T designed for military use, and combat.

I applaud your efforts but feel it's a total waste of time, trying to prove anything to Raisin is like pushing $hit up hill with a sharp stick.
When I was a kid I remember reading a book about military weapons and in there it stated the 9mm and the Luger pistol were specifically designed for military use.
I no longer have the book and even if I did I wouldn't be able to post the info so Raisin wouldn't believe it.
The fact that he considers the 1911 ( a pistol I really like)to be the only sidearm developed specifically for military use and the fact that he thinks the Walker Colt wasn't is proof of his very limited knowledge of firearms of any type.

The "choice to carry FMJ" ammo is not "quite foolish".
The Military does it all the time.

Even its name says it all:
= FULL MILITARY JACKET =

The military does so out of necessity, by restriction of the Hague Convention. Another, lesser, consideration in the military's use of FMJ ammo is its propensity to function across a wider spectrum of weapons platforms. When given the choice, carrying FMJ in lieu of JHP ammunition is foolish.

Also incorrect is the name you have incorrectly quoted. FMJ stands for Full Metal Jacket.

I know that.
- - - - - - -
I thought everyone would recognize my above comment as being factious.

I also do understand your point ... BUT I just happen to use the ammo I already have, if I want to use one of my handguns for a protective purpose. Often for the sense of security that a gun affords me in the darker places - more than the perception of any real threat.

Putting FMJ "holes" into someone is NOT necessarily ineffective. (As you said otherwise.)

Putting holes into someone where there isn't supposed to be any holes - can still make them just as dead. It happens all the time.

For me, I don't concern myself with all the ballistic comparisons and honed readiness of handgun combat/self defense.

I am comfortable with a good gun and any bullet (which is still quite effective) in the unlikely situation that I would have to deploy it anyways.

I was trying to make a point (earlier post) that the people who are doing all the senseless killing are doing an effective job using only common guns and common ammo.

Citizens who are MORE discriminating, certainly have the right to exercise ALL the stratigical options at their disposal. I respect that.

I probably have a firearm accessable when I want one, MORE than ayone else that I associate with. But certainly not nearly as much as many of the good folks on this Handgun Forum.

I'm only 'offering' a different opinion that happens to suit ME - And NOT recommending my particular view to anyone else.

The Military uses a lot of expanding/fragmenting ammo. The US is not a signatory of the Hague Accord

I realize the US is not a signatory of the Accords, but they still, for the most part, abide by them voluntarily. I am also aware of the use of fragmenting and expanding ammunition by certain factions within the military, predominantly when the mission falls outside of the guidelines of the afore mentioned Accords.

As for the choice of FMJ, I never said, not would ever argue that FMJ is ineffective, only that is the worst possible choice. A horse and buggy will surely get you where you need to go, but its not the best choice given modern alternatives. In comparison to modern expanding JHP ammunition, FMJ performs very poorly, with the sole exception of barrier penetration. I keep a magazine of FMJ ammo for the duty gun I carry for just this scenario.

Can we get back to the original poster's question?

Sure can.

In my mind a pp handgun is a last ditch defensive weapon for close range.
To that end it needs to go bang everytime it's supposed to and push a reasonably large hunk of lead out quick enough to incapacitate an attacker.
It doesn't need bells and whistles, no tacticool rails and lasers and bayonets and grenade launchers, just a plain reliable pistol in a fairly large caliber.

See, I tend to think along the lines of what will average joe citizen jury member believe.
MR prosecutor is standing there holding your tricked out 9mm with the tactical rail mounted light, the laser, the extended 25 round mag etc etc and asking "What was the purpose of owning the pistol you shot my client mr scumbag rapist home invader with?"
And you say "To defend myself and family" He then points out all the added bells and whistles you put on there to make it "a more efficient killing machine". MR joe citizen jury member thinks "Hmmmmmmm looks like the one on that movie with the assassin who killed all those people"

Or he's standing there holding your grandfathers bone stock 1911/ browning/luger that he brought back from the war asking the same question and you answer him, "It was my grandfathers and I keep it to protect my family"
MR joe citizen jury member thinks "Hmmmmmm looks like my grandfathers pistol"

which scenario is more likely to end well for you?
Both pistols kill or wound just as effectively as the other, the difference is perception of the public.

Having been a part of, and witness to, several trials, both jury and non, I have never seen the make, caliber, ancestry, or modification of any firearm used in a shooting be a factor in anything. Mas Ayoob strikes again.

"I feel like I'm playin' cards with my brother's kids."

"I feel like I'm playin' hopscotch with my sister's daughters."

Buttstock, I found your post to be a very good one when it came to choosing a handgun for self defense. One should always consider the effects of stress and the training/experience level of the user. I bought a S&W Kit Gun, in .22 LR as a self defense gun for my first wife because that's was her level of training and experience.
I would suggest, however, that you test a shotgun at across the room distances. At those ranges, the spread of the shot isn't useful. Powerful and deadly, yes. But it works like a rifle at that range. You need to be 15-20 yds from your target before the pattern spreads much. E

Very good points Mak. When carrying concealed what are the threats or uses to which the gun will be used ? You answered that quite well.
I, too, would point out that the larger, well established auto loaders are very tough. As a cop, I saw alot of revolvers dropped on hard surfaces or used as clubs. 50% of those dropped on hard surfaces would not fire, the clynders wouldn't rotate, when picked up. Never saw a big auto, like a 1911 Colt or a Browning HP put out of action. Talked to a gunsmith with a big bussiness in repairing guns, including cop guns, who told me he had lots of parts for wheel guns but stocked none for auto loaders. E

You need to pick up a BOOK; http://www.amazon.com/Handguns-World-Military-Revolvers-Self-Loaders/dp/0811708160

The 9mm was designed as a military cartridge.

What's more I'd like to see you back you YOUR comments on the 9mm. True it is not nearly as popular for LE use now that we have the .40 but it is still used quite widely, including the NYPD (the largest police force in the world, and the 8th largest standing army; or used to be) and the FBI issues 9mm's to those who prefer it.

Most of the impetus for the move to .40 came from 147 grain JHP failures on the street, even a couple that involved cops being shot by their partners THROUGH the intended victim because the JHP failed to expand. But those stories are all over 15 years old. The current crop of 9mm 147 grain JHP's perform VERY well (I know, I've personally done ballistic gelatin tests myself) and still meet all the FBI's requirments.

As a former Paramedic, I've actually TREATED a good number of handgun wounds in my day, and if you think there's any meaningful difference on a person hit with a 9mm vs. a .40 or .45 then you'll just be disappointed.

The only thing that really matters is where you place your shot. Do that well and everything such as caliber and load are a non-issue.

Very astute observation. The Founding Fathers would have had no hesitation identifying our modern police forces as internal standing armies, something they considered the second greatest threat to the liberties of a free people, the first being banks with the power to print a nation's currency and to determine interest rates, such as we've had since 1913.

Let's put this 9mm NONSENSE to rest.

Book: Handguns of the World by Edward Clinton Ezell
Page: 181
Text:
The success of the Marine Model 1904 and the 1906 neuer art pistols led the German Army to further consider the Luger Parabellum as a military pistol. On 22 August 1908, it adopted a slightly modified neuer Art Pistole in 9 x 19mm, officially designated the Pistole Parabellum (Pistol for War), but more commonly known as the Pistole 08 or simply, the P08.

I suppose we'll never know how many American soldiers were put down and flat out killed in WWII by that worthless 9mm parabellum FMJ.

More than a few, I expect.

Aww, c'mon, Kevin.............tell us how you really feel.

MM

As a former Paramedic, I've actually TREATED a good number of handgun wounds in my day, and if you think there's any meaningful difference on a person hit with a 9mm vs. a .40 or .45 then you'll just be disappointed.

The only thing that really matters is where you place your shot. Do that well and everything such as caliber and load are a non-issue.

total agreement subject to the bullet being used. If they don't work like they are suppose to i would default to the bigger caliber piece of lead

Ron, just curious, but how about the .380 compared to those others you mentioned? Or is it still mainly a shot-placement issue?

All things being equal, the amount and degree of vital tissue disruption is what determines stopping power. You cannot get around the fact that an expanded .45 caliber 230 grain bullet traveling at ACP velocities does that to a far greater amount and degree than an expanded .355 caliber 125 grain bullet traveling at Parabellum (let alone Kurz) velocities. The total "volume" of tissue disruption (think three dimensionally, now, along the bullet's path, describing a conical to cylindrically shaped area of disruption) is significantly more massive. Put in the right place, as between the two, the .45 is going to put a determined man down faster. It's just physics/biology. It's just simply not only about shot placement.

In my experience as a former Paramedic, the 22 lr was responsible for most of the deaths I saw.

That's because when a more serious caliber is used, it's the coroner they call, not the paramedics.

Do you even read before you pontificate, or is your brain suffering from "vital tissue disruption"?

I take it you feel the .22 long rifle is a serious man stopper, then?

I didn't take that away from his post. I read it simply as his stating his experience in what he observed. The .22 is so "common" that it doesn't really surprise me. Going through my memory banks, I would say that I've handled a larger percentage of suicides using a .22 than anything else (again, I'm thinking common and easy). None of the "suicides gone wrong" have ever been a .22....that damn flinch thing .

George

Numbers of deaths don't equate to stopping power. Ubiquity of the round alone, as you suggest, is the likely explanation for his observation.

if it were only that simple, then yes, you would be correct. There are many factors which play into the effectiveness of a gunshot wound that one isolated element. One can argue that the physical size of the tissue disruption, i.e., caliber, can be somewhat offset by the violence of that disruption, i.e., velocity. If all bullets traveled at the same speed, then yes, the larger one would win, but that simply is not so. Temporary wound cavity and hydrostatic shock due to the afore mentioned violence of impact is a very real element to the equation.

The perfect defensive round would be one that would combine size with speed, but no one seems to have conquered that algorithm as of yet. Given that fact, one must weigh various advantages against their disadvantage, and choose that which they feel is the best balance. For some, it is the .45, for others, the 9mm. To state either is right or wrong is ridiculous. As Mr. Gibson stated above, if you think any of the major defensive rounds produce results that differ enough to warrant debate, then you are either mistaken, or refuse to see truth based on personal bias.

When I say "amount" think "volume of disruption." When I say "degree" think "violence (to use your word) of the disruption," which would encompass, for example, the concepts of "hydrostatic shock" and "temporary wound cavity." The latest thinking, however, as I recall it from when I used to study this stuff, is that temporary would cavity and hydrostatic shock have far less effect on stopping power than first hypothesized, permanent wound cavity being the more telling characteristic.

My mistake. With clarification, I see the point you were intending to make. My apologies. I do not agree with your assertion, and neither do the leading experts in the field. That being said, I dont find any fault in your choice of defensive calibers, the .45 is a great one. I simply dont think its any better then the others.

Not a problem.

I worked in Critical Care for over 30 years and i have seen a number of gunshot wounds. The most effective and DOA where with the 38 SPL and from a 4 inch Smith the Va State Police carried and the Winchester 158 Lead SWC or FBI Load . The trauma from this load has to be seen to believe , worst than any 9mm or 45 ACP. That is one load you don't want to be shot with. Most death from shooting in this order were from the 25 Auto, 22 lr and 38 spl. The patients that survived being shot most often was from the 25 Auto and most shot with the 22 lr died later from internal bleeding. Most gunshot in my area were from the 25 Auto and i guess the reason is you could buy one for less than 50 bucks. As with all handgun round bullet placement played a bigger part than the cal or type of pistol used.

I've always had a lot of confidence in the FBI load from a three or four inch barrel, so this doesn't surprise me. I wonder what the wound would look like from one of Buffalo Bore's new .38 Special offerings, i.e., the full meplat, hard cast lead, 150 grain wadcutter, designed for snubbies. I'm betting it's brutal.

I would say you are right, it would be lethal without a dough

Well if you mean is it lethal, than yes. If you mean it fills the TKO formula for the charging Meth head, no. I am not allowed to state my personal observations from actual shootings? Here is a question, based on my experience, is the 270 Win lethal from contact distance?

Sure, placed over the heart. Placed over the palm, probably not.

Hey, Raisuli,
There are people with defense needs other than cops. I suggest you re-read my original post. It rebuts your statement concerning the so-called superiority of department issued weaponry.

Even for cop guns, he's clueless.

Eremicus,
Please note, my statement concerning autoloaders included the proviso that those exhibiting the most serious reliability issues were those of recent design. You mention the HP and ol' slab sides, both of which were originally designed to function and deliver accurate shots in harsh conditions. As mentioned, the shortcoming of autoloaders lies in their ammunition. Finding ammo that works as well as revolver ammo is an expensive headache.
A further issue with modern pistol designs,esp such offerings from the 1980's onward, is their abysmal level of accuracy at distance. Believe me, you do not want to have to stop a rabid critter at spitting ranges, to use one of my earlier examples, but modern hicaps essentially force one to do so. This brings up another one of my pet peeves, which is filling the air with bullets. Inaccurate hicaps practically invite this practice, and its a great way to create unintentional disasters.
I personally have dropped guns more often than I care to admit, and while it is true that they were dropped on rocks and dirt, rather than concrete, I have yet to have any cylinder freeze, so I have no experience, and thus no useful input regarding "frozen" wheelguns.
I will, however, relate a true story of an associate of mine, who was fond of extended pack trips into the back country. During one trip, he ran a trap line, and his favored trapline gun was a Ruger Single Six with the 22 Mag. cylinder in place. Well, he got all involved in other things, and managed to leave that SS out in the elements when he broke camp.
He didn't realize he was missing the gun until he returned. Busy in life, he forgot about it until the next spring. Took him a few weeks to get the time to make another pack trip, this time to retrieve the gun. He did find it, and after an entire winter and spring outside, it really looked like Hell. The wood stocks were in terrible shape, so he taped them together. Removing the oxidation took most of the finish off, but the bore was good. We loaded her up with el cheapo Aguila hollowpoints from the area store, and every one of them went pop when the hammer dropped. Whats more, that ol veteran placed all those little bullets into a neat cluster at 40 long paces.

You are quite a bit denser that I suspected. If you had actually read Ron's post you might have noticed he said they were DEAD. Do you honestly believe that people assess the cartridge used before deciding whether to call the paramedics or the coroner? Wait, please don't answer that.

On paper, you�re absolutely right, but in the real world; no difference.

Think about it. We talk about bullets in tenth�s to hundreths of an inch. Now take about .15 and put it on your chest and tell me how big that is in relation to your chest; no all that impressive now is it? And that .15 at best is the difference between an expanded .45 and an expanded 9mm. Now look at an anatomical view of a human torso and tell me when, if EVER .15 is going to turn a bad wound into a severe wound. JHP�s do increase the performance of all handgun bullets on human targests; that�s not in dispute. But to think that .15 difference actually means anything on a human torso�I�ve had too many years on the street treating wounds, and too many years in the bush hunting. Plain and simple, I don�t buy it at all. Use a handgun with a JHP that has reasonable performance and place that round into the vitals and you�ll NEVER tell the difference between a 9mm & a .45. I tend to think the FBI�s criteria is pretty damn good; perhaps makes for a bit more penetration than some of us need, but still pretty damn good. The FBI has so much confidence in their criteria that any caliber/load that passes their tests is good with them (I�m not saying they immediately certify it for FBI use, I�m saying they feel it�s adequate).

If I�m carrying a Browning Hi Power in 9mm with standard velocity JHP�s, I don�t feel ONE IOTA less armed than when I�m carrying my LW Commander in .45 ACP. I think us gun guys have a tendency to be a little too much into guns sometimes.

Just my .02 YMMV.

You're thinking two dimensionally, Kevin. Now think three dimensionally and reevaluate your example considering the total "volume" of effect along the entire path of the bullet. Big difference in the volume of disruption between an expanded .355 caliber bullet and an expanded .45 caliber bullet, assuming about the same depth of penetration. I can't imagine that makes no difference in stopping power, all else being equal.

Hawk - My bad, I fixed it; really sorry about that.

No I get you there, and certainly you�re right; again, on paper. As to volume of tissue destroyed, there�s a big difference on paper. But that�s the problem, we�re looking at mathematical figures on paper, not a living breathing being. Unless you hit a vital area, you can remove HUGE volumes of tissue and not create incapacitation. Three dimensionally speaking, the only area that really matters is the vital organ. Let�s take the heart for example. All the tissue destroyed before and after the heart are basically inconsequential, unless by some miracle you manage to take out the spine also. And let�s say you just hit a lung, and there�s a lot of lung space with absolutely nothing vital in front of or behind. In that instance the difference in diameter makes a difference, you destroy more lung. But it a .15 difference in bullet size enough to make any difference in how long the person stays up? We�ve all seen deer hit with guns of vastly greater power than a handgun, and they trot off and die about 30-45 seconds later if they�re hit well; very few bang-flops. Hit them in the lung, and they go quite a bit farther.

From a 3 dimensional standpoint, the only thing you gain is slightly more destruction of small, non-critical veins and arteries which greatly complicates surgery; but doesn�t significantly add to incapacitation.

I guess the difference is when I talk, I talk as one who has been around a lot of shooting victims. My opinions come from real world scenarios (and I don�t say that to minimize your opinion at all � mine is just an OPINION; not necessarily fact), and I�ve see so many people shot with handgun cartridges. I�ve also observed trauma surgery, and autopsies, and I have drawn some big conclusions from that. Further, I�ve done ballistics gelatin testing and the difference in wound size between 9mm, .40, & .45 (even 3 dimensionally) really aren�t as much as you would think. My conclusions are; don�t expect your handgun to put a guy down with one round. Almost every patient I�ve had that was shot in the torso with one shot, had fight left in him when I arrived. Some died, but most lived. On the other hand, when people had been shot multiple times, it was rare they still had a pulse when I arrived, and I can�t remember any that had any fight left in them when I arrived. And it really didn�t matter what the cartridge or load was.

One shot, perhaps bullet and caliber could make a difference (I remain unconvinced). Multiple shots, it just doesn�t matter which cartridge and load. I�m talking real world, out on the street here; not gelatin and mathematical figures on a piece of paper.

It was just a quote feature screw up. Certainly no problem on my end. Just wanted you to clarify it.

That's certainly a valid addition to our knowledge base.

You sure about that?? You sure about that?? Until a firing pin goes..

Trust - but carry a spare..

Just tossin' out a couple of 'ifs' atcha Kevin... And I know you pay attention to that stuff..

But I'm gettin' a bit leary of the growing economic/sociopathic factions and feel it's prudent not to put all the eggs in one glass basket - if ya get my drift..

Heck, I don't even go to a turkey shoot without at least one (if not two) backup comp guns..

No argument here.. Isn't that why many places teach 'two, center mass - one in the head'. After that, it's pretty much moot..

I remember a "COPS" episode - they were tryin' to talk to a young white guy outta his handgun when he was next to the curb.. He was threatening to kill himself.. Before they could talk him out of anything he turned the gun into his stomach and launched a round.. (.44 or .45 revolver, IIRC).. Cops called paramedics asap and while he then sat down and looked dazed, they opened his shirt and all there was was a little round hole.. Medics hauled him off and were pretty sure he would not only live but probably recover quite well.. But his shot placement was lower abdomen - maybe just below the stomach.. Can't recall exactly..

Imagination isn't really necessary. If you want to measure the physical difference between a .45 caliber projectile and a 9mm projectile permanent cavity, the best measurement is of the surface area of the wound track. I've done some of this research myself, and it's insanely difficult. I've also collaborated with one of the foremost wound ballistics researchers in the world. But for what it's worth, to the best of our estimation, the difference in surface area of the permanent cavity between 9mm and 45 Auto is about 20%. That's it. It's not physiologically or anatomically significant. All other ballistics factors are roughly equal as well.

Although there is a lot of anecdotal "evidence" offered by people based on their personal experience in the medical/paramedical field, there really isn't any generally accepted peer-reviewed publication to establish one service caliber being superior to another. (By definition of "service caliber", the wound ballistics literature includes the common LE/Military rounds in use in the USA: 38 Special, 357 Magnum, 9mm, 357 SIG, 40 S&W, 45 ACP. Other calibers such as 10mm, 41 Magnum, 44 Special, and 44 Magnum are in sporadic use by isolated agencies and are not generally included in comparative studies. Sub-optimal calibers such as 380 Auto, 32 Auto, and 22LR do not perform at a level, either in the lab or on the street, to qualify for duty carry. This doesn't mean they can't be highly effective manstoppers if used well, it just means arming your cops with such guns is an invitation to a lawsuit, so nobody issues them for duty.)

Ed Sanow (of Marshall & Sanow fame) continues to collect data according to the established Marshall & Sanow method. I attended a talk he gave at the ILEETA convention a couple of years ago that updated the data listed in their two published books. These data didn't really tell us anything new, but rather confirmed that the standard service calibers, when loaded with reliable hollow-point ammunition, are all pretty capable of stopping a human being from offering further violence.

I teach wound ballistics and shot placement to LE agencies all over the USA and Canada. As such, I am privy to details of a lot of shootings. My accumulated files over the past decade or so confirms pretty much what the established researchers have been saying for years, i.e., that what you shoot 'em with (as long as it's one of the service calibers described above) is far less important than where you shoot them.

Agencies that train their officers to shoot the most vulnerable anatomic regions of the body have a much higher rate of "successful stops" than agencies that don't teach this targeting method, regardless of caliber.

The important lesson to draw from this is that worrying about gun/caliber is far less important than selecting a gun in one of the service calibers that you can shoot well, and then to train with it to the point of mastery. If the SHTF and you end up getting into a deadly force situation, any of the common calibers will get the job done as long as you are able to put your shots where they need to go.

I'm with you my friend, and I'm okay if all that happens too; but I don't think it will.

As for breaking a firing pin. In 30 years of dry firing handguns without snap caps, I've managed to break a grand total of two firing pins; NEVER in a 1911 though. Still, I function check my 1911 quite often.

I can unequivically tell you that a 45 ACP leavves a larger wound in every game animal that I have shot that is bigger than the wound that the 9mm left. In-fact I no longer use the 9mm, but still use the 45.

Marshall and Sanow are frauds

Sanow Strikes Out Again


The Marshall & Sanow "Data" - Statistical Analysi the Ugly Story

More


Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow "Data Base": An Evaluation Over Time

Very Good. One of the things I noticed on the street and in the shootings I've seen, etc. is that alot of Bad Guys are hopped up on something. Or they are nuts. Multiple hits in the torso don't stop such people very often. They do die faster, but it doesn't stop them. So the rule of thumb is one in the chest and if that doesn't do it, then one in the head.
Odviously it's much harder to do a head shot than a chest hit. But, sometimes, you have no choice.
BTW, while I respect the 9mm, I choose a .45. Shoots through stuff and still does a good bit of damage. I like an edge. E

I don't know about you, but I consider 20% greater destructive impact to be significant.

jwp... Thanks for posting those links. They're of some value to those who haven't immersed themselves in the Let's Get Marshall & Sanow bloodbath to date. You won't find a lot of links to writings by people asking for civility and discretion when it comes to M&S. I used to be one, but I got tired of the incessant attacks by those who regard Marshall and Sanow with the same emotion that Buffy regards Vampires.

I don't lend a whole lot of credence to the M&S data from a scholarly perspective, but I have conversed with both Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow. I don't hold stock in their company, and I do not subscribe to their methods or conclusions. I prefer to regard them as amateur scientists who came up with a novel way of looking at things, and if nothing else, they "raised consciousness" about wound ballistics at a time when there was a lot less hard evidence than we have today. They have been subjected to a torrent of criticism and abuse that was and is out of all proportion to any "fraud" they may have committed.

I really don't get the virulent anti-M&S attitude out there. If they had been pushing for something that got people killed, I could understand it. If they had been making obscene profits from their publication empire, I could understand it. But none of that applies. So why the vitriol?

The fact is that in 2011 we have access to wonderfully accurate and reliable handguns and ammo that we didn't have in 1986 when this firestorm first erupted.

But wonderful handguns and ammo won't overcome bad training, bad marksmanship, and bad tactics. I can prove that with an overwhelming volume of case by case evidence from my files.

Good tactics and training, and good shot placement trump all other aspects of the discussion. Which is exactly what Evan Marshall wrote in the preface to his first book. So let's get over the M&S bashing, shall we?

"Destructive impact"? Define that term, if you please. I've been a professional in the wound ballistics field and in LE firearms training for a lot of years, and "destructive impact" is not a term I've ever come across before.

You're talking about drilling a hole with a surface area 20% larger or smaller than another hole(actually, 16%, but let's not quibble, it's really insignificant). The actual energy imparted by both bullets is equal, and when compared to even modest rifle and shotgun loads, both 9mm and 45ACP are freaking pipsqueaks.

Let me repeat: there is NO empiric evidence that can lend a shred of credence to the assertion that a .45 bullet will "stop" a man faster or better than a 9mm. None. Zero. And if you start breaking down Officer-Involved Shooting (OIS) anecdotal reports from multiple agencies, you'll find the same thing. There is simply no solid evidence on any front to prove that a 45 will do a better/quicker/more devastating job than a 9mm.

Fact is, pistols are damn poor manstoppers. The only reason we tolerate that is that they're damn handy! You can carry them almost anywhere without undue convenience, unlike rifles, shotguns, or real artillery. A handgun is a better choice than a knife or bludgeon in a sudden lethal force situation, but to ascribe some kind of mythical manstopping power to one caliber over another is just silly.

Now, that being said, I have to admit that I feel better carrying a .45 than I do a 9mm. My favorite carry/duty pistols are .45 ACP pistols, but my Always gun is either a Kahr 9mm or a 38 Special J-frame. It comes down to personal preference guys, but you have to recognize that that is all it is. There is no solid evidence to prove that there is any superiority to the caliber that starts with the numeral "4".

I believe it's the square root of "vital tissue disruption" multiplied by the distance of head inserted in the permanent anal cavity, taken in three dimensions, all else being equal.

And Doc, you're wasting your time.

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.

No one is arguing the "on paper" advantage the larger bullet has. What causes contention is if paper advantage is outweighed by the real world advantage. In many opinions, 17-19rds of "damn near as good" trumps 7-9rds of "maybe just a little better." This decision must be made by each individual user, and each weapon considered as a total package.

I'll carry the extra magazines to keep the better feel in my hand.............fat & wide gripped pistols don't horn me up.

If I'm going to a war & feel the need for high volume sustained fire, I'll bring my M4 & a [bleep] of 30 round mags.

This thread is (was) centered around personal protection, as in everyday carry usage, maybe even concealed carry (TIC), so in actuality, size & conceal-ability is a consideration.

Besides, I just don't like double stack mags.

YMMV & obviously does.

MM

I absolutely agree, each person must weight the different criteria they feel important. Myself, I will take a little inconvenience in carry to have a full size gun. I typically carry the same gun on and off duty, a 5" S&W M&P9 Pro. This is not for everyone, and I would never assume that my way is the only way. It is an answer to the question, but its not THE answer.

My needs and cost/benefit analysis are a bit different than the typical concealed carrier, and my experiences further dictate my choices. Each person's past is different, and will play a different role in the choices they make.

I was never intending to assault anyone's choice of gun. Any gun is better than none, and one you are confident in is always the best choice. Where I was having issues was with certain folks who are so misinformed, uneducated, or simply naive enough to believe that anything other than what THEY carry is crap, and that nay of the common calibers are really any better than the other.

If I have something that is reliable with decent ergonomics and concealability in a 2 lb or less package (loaded), in .38 Special or above, and I can pick the ammo and carry enough spare ammo in an appropriate manner, I'll manage. I've been through a lot of guns in the quest for "perfect," and I'm still not done, but they're all pretty good in a jam.

If you are a LEO, that approach makes some sense, depending on your off-duty carry mode. If I were a LEO, I'd probably opt for a hi-capacity double stack as my duty gun too, for very obvious & very good reason.

Also, as has been more or less said here numerous times, everyone's preference is just that.........personal preference, none really "right", none really "wrong".

I just get a kick out of some that have been reading too many SOF magazines & think they are going to an all out firefight every time they step out of the house.

Besides, what I may carry in my vehicle, may be considerably different than what I may carry on my person at any given time.

As a LEO, I am sure you can appreciate the value of the additional tools that you may have in your car.............

MM

As a non-LEO, if I make it to the car I'll just drive away...and maybe chase the bad guy around the parking lot a few times.

TFF But very smart; probably politically correct too, so you get extra point for that as well !!!!



Glad to see you back.............


MM

Me too. I mean if that�s what inspires you and makes you feel confident, then by all means. But to say that it�s needed by an armed C I V I L I A N just cracks me up.

I'm not sure that I see the relevance of the two deer example as the hunter is on the offense vs. being on the defense--were they attacking grizzlies, charging buffalo, adrenaline charged wild boar coming towards you I think that it would change the conclusion that you drew--but, it's really a moot point.

Jim Higginbotham had a handout at this year's tactical conference held at the US Shooting Academy called "Fire for Effect-Training for the close encounter of the worst kind" Bear with me as try to copy some of the content which seems relevant to this discussion:

"The following cases count ONLY the "Center Mass" hits before the subject ceased to be a threat. Note that many subjects were hit many more times--this is only C.O.M. hits

--San bernardino--50+ hits--9mm JHP (total hits 106, over 50 were considered lethal)

--Tulsa--13 hits-- .40 JHP including 5 to the heart*

--Memphis--11 hits--.40 JHP

--Louisville--11 hits-- .40 JHP

--NYC--14 hits--.223

--Rural KY--12 hits--.223 JSP*

--Afghanistan--7hits--5.56 NATO OTM JSP*

--Rural SC--5 hits--.357 Mag. JHP*

--Miami--2 hits--9mm JHP (both unsurvivable)*

--Louisiana--10 hits-- .357 Mag. JHP (incliding the head)*

--Location unknown--4 hits--.45 JHP (27 total hits, 4 of which were "Q" zone)*

*Subject injured of killed others after or while being shot"

"...It is true enough we should prepare ourselves for the most likely events, since to do otherwise would be to be unprepared for norm. The overwhelming majority of lethal encounters in which you are the intended victim, will occur at conversational ranges (well within 10 feet), will be over in two to three seconds, and will involve one or two assailants (about even odds on either) and will end without you having to fire a shot if you merely demonstrate you are armed and intend to fight back. That said, we run into exceptions to this rule regularly...Preparing for the vast majority of lethal encounters is simple and easy (be alert, have a gun, be ready to use it). Preparing for the minority of cases in which you have to shoot for your life is not quite that easy. While it is probably a waste of time, or at least a misallocation of time, to prepare for the truly arcane situation (the dreaded attack of the aliens or the human wave invasion from the Duchy of Fenwick) it is a good idea to spend some time preparing for the really difficult - but reasonable - situation....Over my years in law enforcement and military training I have watched several hundred lethal encounters at close range that were caught on film. What I saw in these is shocking and disturbing. Not only in the human sense of the loss of life and limb but disturbing as to the contrast between real life encounters and the assumptions that we make as trainers and students. Without going into great detail I will tell you that, while the outcomes were desirable for the good guys in the majority of cases, that outcome was decided by the bad guy. In less than 10% of those cases the attacker(s) were rendered incapable of taking lethal action within 5 seconds! The obvious conclusion here is that the good guy survived not because of his skill but because of the lack of skill or determination on the part of the attacker!"

Jim ran an inspiring, no BS class---when it was over he bottom lined it by advising that you carry the largest caliber that you can shoot accurately and "keep shooting until the target changes shape or catches on fire." :-)

Well, Kevin, I have to say again that that "need", like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. One man's minimum armament might be another man's TEOTWAWKI load-out.

I have a good friend in FL, a retired NYPD cop who works as a reserve deputy for his local sheriff. Mike and I were out for lunch once, across the border in Georgia one day. The restaurant we were entering had a sign forbidding any "armed persons" from entering. Mike's wife hissed at him, "Mike! YOU'RE armed!"

He laughed and said, "Nah, I'm not armed. All I got is a J-frame." And he meant it!

This is not news, if you think about it. Those of us who are law-abiding do not initiate violence upon others, but rather we react to the violence brought down upon us by the lawless. This necessarily puts us "behind the curve". Training and luck are the only things that will allow you to get ahead of the curve and gain the advantage over your adversary.

As an armed citizen (non-LEO) your chance of surviving a deadly force encounter is greatly enhanced by being prepared in advance. Advance preparation consists of situational awareness and threat avoidance, primarily; having a reliable weapon and being able to use it effectively should be secondary at best, and really should be only your last resort.

Doc, I don't remember where I heard it, but one of the major trainers said that your survival in an armed confrontation depends upon 4 factors:
1. Your skill
2. Your luck
3. Your adversary's skill
4. Your adversary's luck
You only have the ability to influence one of those 4.

Similar to the earlier discussion regarding the lack of an empirical difference between various handgun cartridges, it's difficult to establish any link between training and successfully defending yourself with a handgun. If John Lott is to be believed, ordinary folks thwart bad guys some 2-million times per year.

If all those folks prove anything, it's the importance of having a gun and the will to use it. Everything else is guessing.

I think that that's very well stated JOG. I guess at that point logic and intellect play a role for a thinking person. Owning a guitar doesn't make me a rock-star anymore than owning a gun makes me a commando, regardless of what the video games connote. Unfortunately there is a world full of video-experienced wannbees in the world--occassionally we even get some here at the campfire.

That's just TFF

Been saying that for years.

The concealed carry permit holder is at a disadvantage from the beginning because the attacker all ways has to make the first move.

Gotta be able to read sign..............LOL

Just sayin'.

MM

you may be right, but if you make the first move you may go to jail.

Thank you, sir.

More bullets equals fewer witnesses. 9mm wins again.

Didn't say nuthin' about makin' the 1st move; you're the one that mentioned it.................

MM

Just wondering about some questions. Not posted specifically to Kevin, just because he seems to have great experience. I numbered questions so people can answer specific questions.

1. If caliber is not important, why use HP ammo, why not just FMJ?

2. If caliber is not important, why not use .22lr for cheaper cost? Or is there a gradual difference?

3. Is power of a cartridge important? Penetration seems like it would matter too.

4. Is there a mixture of things to consider? Like 147gr HP 9mms may penetrate better than .45 HP's? But a FMJ 9mm will penetrate even more, but will not work as well as HP?

Certainly there is some caliber or power or bullet construction that comes into the decision. I don't think anyone here would handgun hunt black bears with a .25ACP when a .44 Mag was available. I agree that the modern bullets in HP have made the "defensive" calibers much better, but I don't want to be in a robbery waving a handgun around saying "it starts with a 2, it starts with a 2".

1.) With modern ,expanding JHP ammo, there is not enough difference in the common defensive calibers to make a difference.

2.) Common calibers are 9mm, .40S&W, .357 Sig, and .45ACP. I suppose 10mm, .357 Magnum, and .38spl could be lumped in as well, but they really arent common anymore.

3.) FBI tests, and real world case studies show that 12" is the golden depth for penetration. Deeper may or may not be more effective, depending on a number of variables, and shallower rarely is as effective. Bullet design plays as much a role in this as power/muzzle energy/velocity, but both of these factors work hand in hand.

4.) This is where it gets less fact based, and more emotion driven. The manufacturers have done a pretty good job of leveling the playing field through bullet design. How each caliber, and its respective load accomplish this is a combination of the above factors, working to achieve the same goal. One must decide which method he prefers.

Some folks are saying that .45 ACP and 9mm are close in stopping power because what one lacks in velocity it makes up in bullet mass and size of hole, and vice versa. I don't think anyone is saying that .22 lr is equal to .44 Magnum.

IME shooting game with an expanding bullet in the 9mm penetration suffers. I have also noticed that the 45 is quicker in putting down game. Dr. Martin Fackler states that bigger is better, but does not qunatify how much better. I concur with that statementbased on my experience taking game with both calibers

Yea, I agree with that. And the example of 243 and 30-06 on deer, well I'll bite that they could be close. But what about 243 and heavy bullet against 30-06with heavy bullets against grizzley. Maybe 9mm to 45ACP is pretty close, but 9mm to 44 mag with proficient shot placement with both is not likely to be equal. There are definately differences if you look at the extremes...knife vs. thermonuclear warhead. I agree that the "defensive" calibers have gotten both better and closer together. Round count vs. bullet mass are things I always think about...9mm, 40, 45, 10mm right now.

Too counter anecdotes with anecdotes, I have shot three dogs in my career. Two with a .45, one with a 9mm. The two .45 hits were with Gold Dot, one 230gr, and the other with 200gr +P.

One was a straight on chest cavity shot, and a follow up shoulder shot. I chased the dog nearly three miles before I lost it. There was more blood than I though possible.

The second, with the 200gr +P was a solid shoulder shot, from above, facing toward me. Entered high left shoulder, exited right armpit. Dog continued to try to bite me, and had to be kicked off of me. He ran several blocks before expiring.

The last was shot with a 9mm Winchester Ranger-T 124gr. Much the same shot as above, little lower on the shoulder. The dog continued toward me, then collpased about a foot from me, still trying to bite me. It was dead within 30 seconds.


You know what the moral of the story is?









I need to start shooting dogs in the head.

That was funny. I get your point. Or, you could carry a 12ga with buckshot (not to say a 12ga is better than a 9mm or .45 due to avoidance of flame wars).

Trust me, if I had of had time to get to the shotgun, I would have..a pistol is NEVER the thing I want to have to fight with.

I have mostly black bear problems here, probably 6 over the last 13 years. Have had some act aggressive, one broke a window out, frame and all. One little one tried to swat me from the back deck when I was looking out of the back window at night to see what was making noise. Window did not break, but bonked me in the head pretty good when the window flexed. I am not looking at 9mm for carry around the house. Still looking at 41 mag and 44 mag options. Maybe 10mm.

I dont blame you one bit for that one.

For scenarios like that, Im a pretty big .45LC fan.

Sorry, but this just isn't true. There are plenty of .38spl and .357mag revolvers still out there being used for self defense. And the muzzle energy difference between the two is better than 2-1/2:1.

I agree there too. My wife has a .357 with 38 spl practice because she can't work the slide on any of my semi autos.

The vast majority of empirical data is gleaned from law enforcement shootings. In law enforcement circles, any caliber other than the big 4 is basically irrelevant, due to the minute amount of data. It was not my intent to say the calibers are no longer commonly used, but simply not common in the context of these sorts of studies.

As for your other clarification, muzzle energy has nothing to do with lethality. Much like Taylors Index or Hatchers Theory, its a good yardstick to measure one caliber against another, but it has no correlation to anything in the real world.

You really should get out more.

Seriously, I'm sure you have a lot of experience, but now you're arguing simply to justify your previous (frivolous) comments. Energy has nothing to do w/ lethality?
OK, if you say so.

OK, perhaps I worded that wrong......no perhaps, thats looks retarded.

What I should have said is that muzzle energy in and of itself is irrelevant except as a yardstick against which to measure comparable cartridges. The number itself means nothing, its just a number.

Of course relative power is a factor, just as expansion and penetration are factors. However, one you cross that threshold of acceptable power, and the other factors are within their envelope of design, the argument becomes moot.

That matches my intuition, also.

In most every instance that I said caliber isn't important, I said within reason; there's always someone who just HAS to take things to an extreme just to make a point.

It's more a matter of penetration sufficient to reach the vitals; and that's consistent with both Fackler's and the FBI's methodology. So if the .243 bullet reaches the vitals and manages to destroy them, then there will be no discernable difference to how fast the animal dies if you use the .30-06...again, this is all within reason.

You could immediately jump to an extreme of .243 vs. .50 BMG; the comparison of the two just become rediculous.

With combat handgun cartridges, the assumption is that we're being reasonable in our discussion and not jumping to extremes. Pack a .600 Nitro Express revolver and everythinig I have said flies right out the window. But for some, it's more about winning the arguement than getting to the facts. If it's all about winning the arguement, I'll just concede now and be done with it. But I like the debate because it always stimulates brain cells (a rare thing for me), and makes me (and hopefully others) re-examine what I "know" (more like think I know) to be true.

The old saying applies here again: Shot placement is King, penetration is Queen, anything else is gravy.

I�m unaware of any such �data�. Is there some organization or agency that collects, analyzes, and tabulates such data? And when talking law enforcement shootings, what is �empirical data?�

How long have you been here?

Marshall's and Sanow's data, whether flawed or not, was the ground breaker for these types of studies. The current torch carrier is Dr. Gary Roberts, and his colleagues at the International Wound Ballistics Association. The FBI and various other agencies compile reports, the majority of which are sensitive.

I heard a trainer one day make an unsubstantiatable (is there such a word?)claim that apart from war time fatalities, more people have been killed with a .22lr than any other caliber. I'm not sure that I believe him--in fact I'm pretty sure that I don't--however, the .22lr is a tremendous "killing" round but a poor "stopping" round. I had a Dr. friend that worked ER (maybe Kevin can join here due to his EMT background)--- he said that he saw a number of .22 related fatalities as the round had a tendancy to enter the body and "bounce around" the interior of the cavity and tear up a bunch of organs vs a larger caliber bullet tearing the heck out of one or two organs. The patients died------eventually. The need to shoot someone is dependent upon the imperative to stop them from their current action, killing them is irrelevant, or at least secondary. They must stop what they're doing immediately. Therefore the self defense round must deliver enough foot pounds of energy and penetrated to sufficient depth to affect bodily functions with some shock value. A .22 will provide this if the target is pretty much limited to the ocular lobes, but other than that it provides little "stopping" power.

On the flip side---in most defensive encounters, the "shootee" having been shot, more often "quits" than is "stopped." Therefore having a .22 trumps having a knife or nothing. The problem is that "most" isn't something to bet your life on. Someone once said that 9 out of 10 black bears will run away from you---the problem is that you don't encounter them in numerical order so you don't which bear you're looking at---same for people.

The "quitting" vs. "stopping" argument is very valid, especially when comparing the performance of a certain round against animals and humans. Humans are both hard wired and psychologically trained that when you are shot, you die. Animals are not. Humans, sans mental and/or chemical issues, typically quit what they are doing when shot. This has always been a huge training hurdle in law enforcement, and we strive to teach cops that being shot does not mean dying, and to keep fighting. While this is most certainly not a factor upon which to rely, it is one that cannot be ignored.

I'll continue to ignore it. The fight ain't over 'til it's over. Keep shooting, keep swinging, or keep biting until any guesswork is over. Having expectations on how the bad guy might or should react will only work against me.

Absolutely..thats the mindset you have to have. This is very hard to overcome, but its been found that force on force training is the absolute best way to ingrain this into folks heads. When we do training, we do not allow our guys to quit, no matter how bad they screw up, no matter how many times they have been hit. Instinctively, when hit, most folks stop, and yell "Im hit!" Its our job, as trainers, to get in their ass and make them press on.

The trouble is your adversary can 'un-quit'. I can list off lots of fights I've seen, and one where I learned my lesson, where the gentlemanly thing to do was stop swinging when the other guy gives up - and the gentleman gets attacked again the instant he turns his back. In my case it almost meant getting whacked with a swinging beer pitcher. Somehow the guy just missed - I felt the breeze on the back of my head.

Let's say you shoot the bad guy and he doubles over and turns his back on you without dropping his gun. What would you do?

Don't answer - just food for thought.

Like I said before, this is absolutely, positively, without a doubt not something that should be counted one, but it something to keep in the back of your mind. When gunplay is involved, gentlemanly is the last friggin thing I care about.....but I do see your point.

This is what i most remember from my Military training.The battle isn't over until you are dead or the enemy is dead

Maybe I missed it, but don't think anyone has mentioned the great work of Masaad Ayoob on what actually works? Might be showing my age.

Yep, I always take my advice from a New Hampshire reserve cop who endorses carrying a Ruger P-series on duty.

Mas is a great guy, very knowledgeable an one hell of an instructor, but his �data� lacks any scientific validity just like Marshall/Sanow�s. (by the way, I happen to personally like both Marshall & Snow; very good guys, but they�re not scientists).

Since you mention IWBA and the FBI, care to point me to where I can read their source data? Because if you can�t (and I�m thinking you can�t), then YOU haven�t seen it either, so this �empirical data� you speak of can�t be cross examined, peer reviewed, or validated in any way; wouldn�t you agree? And if that�s the case, the science is basically non-existent.

I haven't heard that one before, gmoats, but it's pretty apt!

Folks who disparage training are usually people who haven't been involved in a real world shooting scenario. I train with and provide training to LEOs as a sideline business. Many of the guys I train and train with, perhaps even the majority, have been in at least one officer-involved shooting. All have close personal knowledge of at least one OIS involving someone they know very well.

I commented to one class I was teaching about this interesting bit of trivia. One of the guys in the class responded thusly:

"I survived my shooting, but I realized immediately that it was as much due to luck as it was to my skill with my firearm. I realized that if I ever got into a shooting situation again, I wanted to reduce my reliance on luck as much as possible, and the best way to do that was to increase my skill with my firearms and my ability to fight effectively. That's why I train like I do."

That cop, and others like him, spend their own time and money to get better training because they've seen the elephant and they don't want to have to rely on luck to win next time around.

The mission of a cop is different than that of "civilian" just seeking to defend himself against crime. Will training improve the crime victim's chances? Sure, but stats indicate that in the vast majority of cases, even old ladies armed with a handgun, only knowing the basic functions of their weapon, can effectively neutralize criminal confrontation. That could have something to do with the fact that most crooks figure a non-cop is more likely than a cop to just pop them and be done with it, so they're a little quicker to surrender or run off.

Kevin, I never mentioned them.

Kevin, one of the best articles on OIS's is by Tom Aveni of the Police Policy Studies Council. If you go to their website:

http://www.theppsc.org

... and scroll down the main page you'll find a link to an article entitled "Officer Involved Shootings: What We Didn't Know Has Hurt Us". It's not a new study, but it's very well-written by a very scholarly guy and it explains a lot about how and why getting raw shootings data is so difficult.

I have been accumulating OIS reports from all over the country for over a decade. I can only assemble a "complete" report one time in 20; people just don't like to share the information, for reasons Aveni goes into in his paper. I have shared my findings at LE conferences but have no desire to put this information into a published format because, as you say, my findings don't meet the basic requirements of scientific investigation.

In terms of real science of wound ballistics, terminal effects, etc, there is a little bit of stuff here and there in the trauma literature, lots of good info in the now-defunct IWBA Journal, and the FBI gelatin studies database. I believe the FBI data are available for the asking, but don't have any idea who you'd need to get hold of for that.

I am not at liberty to disperse anything I receive from the FBI, as it is all marked LE Sensitive. You may contact them, and they may release it to you, I have no idea. The only open source document I have seen is the study published in 1989, after the Miami shootout.

As for the IWBA, contact Dr. Gary K. Roberts, he is more than glad to share what he and his peers have. many of their articles and studies can be found at firearmstactical.net. They seem to have ended the majority of their web presence, but Dr. Roberts is still very active in the field.

Most of the time they can, which is why I am such a strong proponent of the 2A and lawful concealed carry of firearms. Any potential crime victim is better off having a gun than not having a gun. CCW laws that require training are, in my view, wrong-headed. People who can't and won't train still have the right to defend themselves. They may not be very good at exercising that right when the SHTF, but that right is inalienable.

But luck is still a huge part of the equation in a deadly force situation, and the only thing you can do to reduce its effect is to train. FWIW, Massad Ayoob's basic class (used to be called LFI-1, it's now called MAG-20) is 90% cerebral training, although his basic shooting system (Stressfire) is a very good system for people new to the use of the handgun. Training your mind is more important than training with your firearm, but training with your firearm is by no means unimportant.

Firearmstactical.net is not frequented by Dr. Roberts much any more. He and I both moved to the M4carbine.net forums a couple of years ago after the website owner at the other site started slandering one of the best trainers in the industry. If you go to http://www.m4carbine.net/forum.php and then scroll down to the "Terminal Ballistics Information" forum you'll find a very good set of "stickies" by Dr. Roberts. He updates his information pretty regularly. He posts under the handle DocGKR, I post under DrJSW. I don't visit that site as much as I used to, but it's still a very good source for terminal ballistics info with a very low BS factor.

Nothing to disagree with there. Icing on a cake is better than just the cake. Reality is, though, that most folks who have a gun for crime defense won't train beyond making sure they know how to load and fire it, and for most, that's good enough.

Mas is a great guy and very, very intelligent. He doesn't represent himself as a ballistics expert, but when he advised people on what to carry lately, he's deferred to Dr. Roberts' advice on this topic, which is pretty much the industry standard.

DocRocket, I follow your stuff on Lightfighter, and have exchanged emails with Dr. Roberts here and there. I didnt mention Lightfighter here, as I don't think this is the type of audience that would frequent, and I had forgotten about M4C. Thank you.

I agree, lightfighter and M4Carbine are aimed at a different audience. People who really want to get into this subject will like it, though.

I really try to avoid getting into these debates here on 24HCF, for the same reason I avoid giving singing lessons to pigs. But Kevin seems to bring up some good questions, and sometimes I just can't stop posting when someone posts a viewpoint that I fear is going to get someone else injured or killed.

My bad, I guess.

Doc,

After careful observation and consideration, I've come to the conclusion that you kinda know your chit!!

Chance favors the prepared mind....it a good quote and I dont know who the give the credit to

Thanks, Kevin. I know a bit, but the more I learn, the more I realize I need to learn.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...st-in-minn-is-beaten-with-her-own-taser/
She was saved because the guy couldn't operate the safety!

The moral of this story is that the bad guy is not always impressed because you have a badge, uniform or weapons.
whelennut

I took a Statistics class that mentioned that to be valid a sample size should be one hundred or at the very least forty.
The moral of the story is that you need to shoot 197 more dogs before you can make any assumptions about 9mm vs .45 ACP as a dog stopper.
whelennut

Chance favors the prepared mind....it a good quote and I dont know who the give the credit to

Under Siege II: Dark Territory.

Never really worked for me without Erica Elaniac...



This just reminded me of the pocket pistol thread...

I shot a stray cat with a 45 ACP and got an instant kill.
I shot a big pregnant barn cat with a +P 38 Remington Golden Sabre 125 gr. Hollow Point which crawled under a hay bale and died.
The moral of this story is that I need to shoot 198 more cats before I can make any assumptions about handgun effectiveness on cats. (statistically valid assumptions)
whelennnut

She only has a few options when it comes to concealment, but I'm OK with that.
whelennut

Concealment? Heck, she could be holding a RPG and no one would notice.

Welcome back, JOG. You were missed. I always enjoy your posts, like the one above, and often learn something useful. E

She was in the 1st Under Seige movie, not Under Seige II, not that it matters, she's still easy on the eyes.

For me, after reading this post with interest, I need a firearm that I can shoot and handle well, given the amount of shooting that I am able to do as a civilian, with a real job and real family and ammo that costs real money. So, for me, I have settled on 9mm for my CCW firearms. They are slightly different, but similar. I have a Kahr PM9 for warm weather or deeper concealment and a M&P 9mm for when I am dressed to conceal a weapon of that size. I prefer the S&W, as I am a better shot with it, but can do passably with the little Kahr as well. I have a J-frame with a bobbed hammer that I will rarely drop in a pocket holster for a quick trip out but I don't carry it on a regular basis. I rarely carry multiple magazines, especially with the M&P, occasionally with the Kahr. Just what works for me.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me; some good choices there.

I realize that, I did say it was not the same without her!

Wanna argue about penetration factors?

Thanks, E. I've been enjoying the heck out of your elk hunt thread.

After reading through this thread I came to the realization that what I really need from a personal protection handgun is the characteristic of being fun to fire and practice with. That's no doubt why I gravitate toward quality 1911's, Hi-Powers, and K-frames.

Foremost, accuracy and dependability come to mind for me. That being said, I have an addiction to the Glock pistols and the .357 SIG cartridge as both seem to encompass said qualities.

I'm not sure that there's anything more dependable than a Glock. They're butt ugly and (to me) at first they feel funny in the hand but I got over that quickly. In many thousands of rounds fired the only failures I've had were directly attribuatable to the weakest link in the system...myself, the shooter. For a carry piece I settled on the 32, small, light, and runs a powerful cartridge.

The .357 SIG shoots accurate, flat and hits hard and that's enough for me. I did find, however, that it was necessary to load Hornady XTP's to get any expansion. The Sierras seem to be a little bit hard and zipped right thru a pronghorn's chest like knitting needles on one occasion a couple years back.

I cannot light matches, hit asprin, or take the caps off bottles at fiffty yards with my 32. Can't do it at 25 yards either but this kind of accuracy is not what a defensive handgun is all about.

On the Hi Power note, I would love to have one of the shortened Hi Powers, for example from Cylinder and Slide, but my wallet is a bit thin for that.

what i really need from a personal protection handgun is cheap practice ammo.

A suppressor would be nice.

The G32/357Sig is a good combo. The TN. Highway Patrol went to that combo from 40S&W years ago. This due to better results against hard targets such as auto bodies & auto glass, then 40S&W.

The Argentine firm of FM made an inexpensive version called the "Detective"; which can be had for around $400.00 when you find them.

For my daily carry and home defense my S&W 1911PD fits the role very nice. If I were going to war in the Middle East, honestly I�d give very serious consideration to a Glock, since they�re in abundance in the Middle East (parts), and they work well with NATO pressure 9mm. I honestly have nothing against the M9 provided it�s one of the newer ones with factory magazines.

I have a complete Detective Top End conversion unit for BHP availble. I just picked it up this weekend. Its never been on a gun yet has the original package (package not in good shape) and the manual. Contact me if interested. They are a cool unit.