testtest

What Is the Best Caliber for Self-Defense?

Talyn said:
Not stopping anyone from commenting. Just watching the show, or game...

View attachment 49559

BTW coolness is a relative concept. In other words, cool exists only in comparison with things considered less cool.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that. anyone that don't think those cats are cool have no soul.
As for best cal. for S.D...........AHH..........how about the one you don't need?;):ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::devilish:
 
I appreciate these controversies as much as I despise them. From a positive perspective it does get people playing the "What if?" game in their mind, and that is a vital key to success in a violent encounter.

The armed encounter is more often circumstance based, than a generic one-size-fits-all. As such, I would offer a scenario in response, with an added question to consider:

Let's say a bad-actor(s) targets you, and the justification criteria of ability, opportunity, & jeopardy have been satisfied, and they act with deadly force from a typical encounter distance (say up to 10 yds). If that serious action requires an immediate response from you in order to save your or a family member's life (a retreat, or alternative measure, not being a safe or viable option in this instance)...
...what bullet would you want to respond with (center mass) in opposing/stopping their life-threatening act?

In general, given a similar circumstance, one might consider:
A 45acp/40SW JHP being satisfactory for daily carry, and a likelihood of any bad-actor(s) being less than a few.

A 9mm+P high-cap for bad-actor(s) that may exceed several (as some urban locales might reveal via gangs, etc, or if reloading ability were limited or compromised).

A 10mm high-cap when several miles from town/assistance, because there may be dangerous 4-legged's out there, and the dangerous two-legged's may have a long-gun(s) as well as a handgun(s) when in more remote geographic areas.

As many astute members here have already said, if you chose to arm yourself for protection, the goal would be to:
--Safely possess a reliable handgun that fits the circumstance you may find yourself in, and then know how best to use it if necessary.

Also accept that you may need to switch the type of firearm you carry once, or more times, during a given day as your circumstances/environment may change.

My best offering of advice, based on years of experience, would be:
Practice integrity in your armed condition.

Regularly engage in Firearms training covering:
Education/Understanding. Safety/Selection. Storage/Maintenance. Manipulation/Marksmanship. Tactics/Trauma.
Then, Repeat, often.

Stand up for what is right, and do not falter
Hawk
 
I appreciate the article and threads like this, but still think for myself. I am a long time shooter and have handled all types of firearms for more than 50 years. BUT, I have no M&P background and not as near technical as most of you guys and gals. While I am absolutely better at the range and drills with my 1911 Colt, I am a fat boy at 67yo 240 lbs and found that I can get to my Hellcat much easier from concealment.
 
Rainman said:
I appreciate the article and threads like this, but still think for myself. I am a long time shooter and have handled all types of firearms for more than 50 years. BUT, I have no M&P background and not as near technical as most of you guys and gals. While I am absolutely better at the range and drills with my 1911 Colt, I am a fat boy at 67yo 240 lbs and found that I can get to my Hellcat much easier from concealment.
Click to expand...
Then practice, a lot, with the Hellcat. I shoot a 1911 better than I do most of mine, so I’d like to have that platform with me. But, a 1911 is heavy and hard to conceal. Therefor,I carry and practice a lot with an EMP (and for where even that’s too big, a Sig 938.). Shoot whatever you actually carry. For rangetime anything’s fine, but the piece you should be most familiar with oughta be they one that’s with you when you need one. I carry a pistol on me for the same reason I’ve got a spare tire on my truck. Ice no plans to actually use either one, but if you need it, you need it badly and nothing else will quite do the job.
 
Mike H. said:
Hello all, here is today's article posted on TheArmoryLife.com. It is titled “What Is the Best Caliber for Self-Defense?” and can be found at https://www.thearmorylife.com/most-practical-caliber-for-self-defense/.

Click to expand...
It's the caliber that you can hit your target with. Hitting something with a .22 round half the time has more stopping power than always missing your target with a 9mm or anything else. Too many so-called experts evaluate calibers based on one round compared to another one round. That's not life or reality. That isn't stopping power. In most real life situations we are talking about multiple rounds hitting your assailant before they stop. If you are always missing with your hand cannon and there is too much recoil to get back on target quickly, you are better off with a .22 round that you can actually control and hit your assailant with.
 
The thing I love about going to the gun range is EVERYBODY is a firearms expert with 40+ years of police and military service and an opinion. LOL! I've never met so many "experts" in my life. And they are going to school you! Gotta use this caliber of round, they say. Gotta only buy Glock, the Glock fanboys say. Most of them are bordering on obesity. Their knife and spoon and fork are going to kill them before any bad guy. They take 10 seconds to line up their shot and then their hand-cannon goes off with a satisfying BOOM! and their shooting hand and gun flap around wildly from the recoil. Then it takes them 10 seconds to get back on target and another 10 to line up the next shot. They are going to get that bad-guy when he breaks into their home!
 
HansGruber said:
I re-qualified, for the 5th time, for my MN carry permit earlier this year.

Went to a new instructor; it was a larger class, 20+ students, vast majority first timers.

It was, for the most part, a good class…but I really had to hold my tongue when the instructor claimed that the only gun worth carrying was a high-cap 9, and carrying a revolver, or a lesser caliber (his words: “A .22 will only tick off your attacker…”; wanted to raise my hand and ask if he was willing to take a double tap to prove it…).

He has other…strong opinions “Don’t carry anything with a safety/-it’ll only get you killed”. Asked him after class how many gunfights he’d been in to form his opinions; seemed that number was zero. My response—“Duly noted” would have made Alan Rickman proud.
Also said he should acquaint himself with the Ellifritz study, and got a blank look.

Won’t be taking another class from him.

Which is a long, dragged out way of saying:

If you simply have a gun, ant can show that you’re willing to use it, the vast majority of gunfights end without shots fired.

If you do shoot—if you get more than one hit, rapidly, the gunfight will most likely end there.

Oh, and the caliber?

Doesn’t. F’ing. MATTER.
Click to expand...
I've never understood the whole "don't buy or use a safety" way of thinking. Most gun fights don't start as quick draw situations. That's just not the reality. If you can't remember to take off the safety... well, there are a lot of other things you might not have remembered. Maybe you didn't remember to load bullets into your magazine. Maybe you didn't remember to load the magazine into your gun. If someone tells me that they might not remember to take off their safety I know they haven't practiced much with their weapon. That disengaging the safety movement is pure muscle memory. I got into an argument with bozos years ago about Glock. I think it is a horrible business decision for Glock to not offer their guns with an optional safety. I know hundreds of women who have passed on Glock because there was no safety option. "But," these bozos say, "You don't need a safety if you are following the 4 cardinal gun rules." That's not the point. A lot of people want that safety option. Glock is making a bad business decision by not offering a safety as an option. They are losing sales. And if you really think you are always in imminent danger, you don't have to buy that safety option if you don't want it.
I always point out that most gun fights don't start as quick draws. "But they might!" they exclaim. "Unlikely," I respond. The argument that ALWAYS gets them though is when I point out that if you don't like a safety, THEN DON'T PUT IT ON. It's your gun. Nobody is making you use the safety. "But... but...," they stammer as they comprehend the logic. "I might ACCIDENTLY put the safety on and then when I am getting attacked and I need to quick draw..." That's when I start laughing. "I thought you were a firearm's expert," I say. "An old pro like you surely wouldn't accidently engage the safety and not know about it."
While we are on the subject of Glock, the only reason for them not to offer a safety option is for marketing purposes. They market themselves to the wannabe cop crowd who believe they are always in imminent danger and who think they will need to do a quick draw. They have forsaken the gun owners who want a safety option because they have calculated they will make more money by being the badass gun maker who doesn't make a gun with a safety. That image appeals to some gun buyers. I still think they would make more money by offering the safety option.
One more story because I'm on a roll. I was interested in a Springfield XD-M Elite handgun with a grip safety. The young man at the gun range store was telling me how grip safeties are bad because if you are in a dangerous situation you will be shaking from the adrenalin and you won't have a firm grip on the gun and the safety won't release. I literally couldn't stop laughing. I felt bad because he was a really nice kid. I finally said, "If you are shaking so hard you can't grip your gun and release the grip safety then you shouldn't take the shot because you aren't going to hit your attacker." I did buy that XD-M Elite with the grip safety and it works flawlessly. I can't even tell the grip safety is there. I will never own another gun without a grip safety. (And I know there will be some bozo who says, "But grip safeties are mechanical and they might fail when you need your gun the most!" Yeah, and your trigger and firing pin and seer and a dozen other parts are also mechanical and they might fail, too. What's your point?)
 
Last edited:
TheTwinsDaddy said:
I've never understood the whole "don't buy or use a safety" way of thinking. Most gun fights don't start as quick draw situations. That's just not the reality. If you can't remember to take off the safety... well, there are a lot of other things you might not have remembered. Maybe you didn't remember to load bullets into your magazine. Maybe you didn't remember to load the magazine into your gun. If someone tells me that they might not remember to take off their safety I know they haven't practiced much with their weapon. That disengaging the safety movement is pure muscle memory. I got into an argument with bozos years ago about Glock. I think it is a horrible business decision for Glock to not offer their guns with an optional safety. I know hundreds of women who have passed on Glock because there was no safety option. "But," these bozos say, "You don't need a safety if you are following the 4 cardinal gun rules." That's not the point. A lot of people want that safety option. Glock is making a bad business decision by not offering a safety as an option. They are losing sales. And if you really think you are always in imminent danger, you don't have to buy that safety option if you don't want it.
I always point out that most gun fights don't start as quick draws. "But they might!" they exclaim. "Unlikely," I respond. The argument that ALWAYS gets them though is when I point out that if you don't like a safety, THEN DON'T PUT IT ON. It's your gun. Nobody is making you use the safety. "But... but...," they stammer as they comprehend the logic. "I might ACCIDENTLY put the safety on and then when I am getting attacked and I need to quick draw..." That's when I start laughing. "I thought you were a firearm's expert," I say. "An old pro like you surely wouldn't accidently engage the safety and not know about it."
While we are on the subject of Glock, the only reason for them not to offer a safety option is for marketing purposes. They market themselves to the wannabe cop crowd who believe they are always in imminent danger and who think they will need to do a quick draw. They have forsaken the gun owners who want a safety option because they have calculated they will make more money by being the badass gun maker who doesn't make a gun with a safety. That image appeals to some gun buyers. I still think they would make more money by offering the safety option.
One more story because I'm on a roll. I was interested in a Springfield XD-M Elite handgun with a grip safety. The young man at the gun range store was telling me how grip safeties are bad because if you are in a dangerous situation you will be shaking from the adrenalin and you won't have a firm grip on the gun and the safety won't release. I literally couldn't stop laughing. I felt bad because he was a really nice kid. I finally said, "If you are shaking so hard you can't grip your gun and release the grip safety then you shouldn't take the shot because you aren't going to hit your attacker." I did buy that XD-M Elite with the grip safety and it works flawlessly. I can't even tell the grip safety is there. I will never own another gun without a grip safety. (And I know there will be some bozo who says, "But grip safeties are mechanical and they might fail when you need your gun the most!" Yeah, and your trigger and firing pin and seer and a dozen other parts are also mechanical and they might fail, too. What's your point?)
Click to expand...
eca3a924-4a11-46d7-81f0-507fd665f345_text.gif
 
I say this all the time. All that matters most with pistol rounds is shot placement and penetration. A lot of people are overly obsessed with velocity and muzzle energy as if it's the end all be all. As the higher the velocity is on all relatively slow moving pistol rounds, the more of a one shot stop man stopper it is. That's not necessarily true at all...
 
There is a story that has been told in our local Police Academy for as long as I can remember. (33years now I'm on the job). But the story is a rather large man almost 7 feet tall with the strength of a buffalo and a laundry list of mental health issues went off the deep end. 2 PA. State Troopers went to the family homestead. He charged w a large knife. He was shot 6 times in the abdomen with 158 gr. 357 magnum rounds, keep charging. A Sgt. arrived as shots were going at the suspect. The Sgt. leveled a Remington 12 gauge, suspect took a round from that also in the abdomen. He dropped but it took 4 Troopers to cuff him and get into the ambulance. He fought the whole ride to the hospital. Once at the hospital he assaulted 3 troopers, 2 nurses and a trauma doc. All of them required treatment. Suspect died several hours later. My DAD is close friends with the SGT. (been to my childhood home many times, 1 of the reasons why I became a cop) who fired the shotgun and it still haunts him till this day. He said that suspect was just pure evil.
 
WellArmed said:
I say this all the time. All that matters most with pistol rounds is shot placement and penetration. A lot of people are overly obsessed with velocity and muzzle energy as if it's the end all be all. As the higher the velocity is on all relatively slow moving pistol rounds, the more of a one shot stop man stopper it is. That's not necessarily true at all...
Click to expand...
Look at all the stats from any war.
Many, many die.
Many, many, many more are wounded.

Shot placement matters whether it is a .22Lr or a 155mm Howitzer round.

The human body is more resilient than you think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top