Why do people like certain calibers?

christcorp

June 2, 2009, 10:00 AM

The loyalty you see in calibers and guns has to do with a view point. If a person only looked at guns and calibers that were practical for self defense and home defense, then they would pretty much be looking at 357 magnum revolvers only. They have the reliability and dependability over a semi-auto. It also can take care of shooting any level of power and recoil that the shooter wants. From low end 38 specials, to 38 +P, to weak 357, to the most powerful 357 magnum.

There is absolutely no need for a 17 round magazine. For civilian self defense purposes, a 6 shot revolver or 7-8 shoot magazine is more than enough. For the person who practices a lot and a revolver just isn't practical or desired, there are a number of semi-autos available. I have large hands, so carrying a revolver is not very comfortable. I can't really shoot a "J" frame or smaller. The only real comfortable guns are "K" frame and larger. So instead, I go with semi-autos. Obviously not mouse guns. But one of the reasons for the "Caliber Loyalty" is because of Hollywood. But this isn't something new. Growing up as kids, we were impressed with the 45 long colt of the cowboys and indians. Well there's a lot of people who like the Die Hard, lethal weapon, and terminator type movies. They see cops shooting high capacity magazines which usually means the 9mm or 40sw and they think they need them. "If it's good enough for hollywood, it's good enough for us".

Then there's the historical/military crowd that likes a certain caliber because of it's past. That's one reason for getting an M1 Garand, loving 1911A1, Winchester 30-30 lever actions, etc... There's a lot of reasons for caliber loyalty.

I do wish people would learn to pick the right gun for them, and not basing it on the caliber or gun that someone suggested to them. Suggesting a manufacturer is good. You're promoting a company's quality, service, etc... I.e For revolvers, I ALWAYS recommend S&W or Ruger. That's it. They are the best. For semi-autos, I suggest SigSauer,Colt, Springfield, and certain other brands. But I NEVER suggest a caliber. For some people or under certain circumstances, the 25 or 32acp is the RIGHT CALIBER. For some people, it's the 9mm. For some it's the 45acp. And it's NOT BECAUSE of the caliber. It's because of the gun. The gun was the right fit for the person. The caliber doesn't matter at all. If the gun that fits me perfect, feels good shooting it, lets me carry it and feed it comfortably; then it's a good choice for me. It doesn't matter if it's a 32, 9mm, 357 mag, 40, 10mm, 45acp, or 44 mag. And round capacity is definitely NOT a factor. We aren't police, military, swat, etc... We aren't fighting gangs, breaking into drug houses, shooting through walls, doors, and cars.

Anyway, there's a lot of reasons for caliber loyalty. Some are some decent reasons. Some are hollywood.

easyg

June 2, 2009, 10:21 AM

But I NEVER suggest a caliber. For some people or under certain circumstances, the 25 or 32acp is the RIGHT CALIBER. For some people, it's the 9mm. For some it's the 45acp. And it's NOT BECAUSE of the caliber. It's because of the gun. The gun was the right fit for the person. The caliber doesn't matter at all. If the gun that fits me perfect, feels good shooting it, lets me carry it and feed it comfortably; then it's a good choice for me. It doesn't matter if it's a 32, 9mm, 357 mag, 40, 10mm, 45acp, or 44 mag. And round capacity is definitely NOT a factor. We aren't police, military, swat, etc... We aren't fighting gangs, breaking into drug houses, shooting through walls, doors, and cars.
I have to disagree to some extent.
If someone asks me for a self defense gun recommendation, I simply could not recommend a .22 or a .25 in good conscious.
I would feel that I had done them a grave disservice.
Caliber does matter.
Certainly it's not the most important factor, but it cannot be ignored either.

I think that capacity is not as important as caliber, but it also must be factored in to the gun buying decision.
I routinely carry a 5-shot revolver, and I would recommend such to anyone looking for a self defense handgun.
But under no circumstances would I ever recommend a 1-shot handgun, or even a 2-shot derringer type pistol.

Vern Humphrey

June 2, 2009, 10:26 AM

If a person only looked at guns and calibers that were practical for self defense and home defense, then they would pretty much be looking at 357 magnum revolvers only. They have the reliability and dependability over a semi-auto.
If you browse these boards long enough, you will find plenty of evidence revolvers aren't any more dependable than an automatic. But most stoppages with automatics can be cleared with a tap-rack-bang drill. Revolver stoppages usually take the gun out of action completely and cannot be quickly fixed.

easyg

June 2, 2009, 10:37 AM

If you browse these boards long enough, you will find plenty of evidence revolvers aren't any more dependable than an automatic.
I have to disagree with this one as well.
The opinions of internet forum members not withstanding, revolvers certainly are more reliable (on average) than autoloaders.

It's just the nature of the beast....

The revolver only has three factors that can cause a failure: the shooter, the gun, and the ammo.

But the autoloader has four factors that can cause a failure: the shooter, the gun, the ammo, and the magazine.

pps

June 2, 2009, 10:41 AM

Crusty old bastard that I am, I say there are only 4 1/2 useful pistol cartridges:

1. .22 LR -- everyone needs a good .22 pistol, for practice, small game hunting and fun.

1 1/2. .38 Special -- A good snubbie in .38 Special is a great drop-it-in-the-pocket gun as you go out the door. You can get lightweight snubbies in .357, but you won't shoot them with full charge loads much.

2. .357 Magnum -- a great do it all cartridge.

3. .45 ACP -- a top notch defensive round if you like automatics, and it goes with the pistol designed for it, the M1911, like eggs go with ham.

4. .45 Colt. With "Ruger only" loads it will shade the .44 Mag, and even with standard SAAMI pressures will do about all you need to do for hunting and general outdoors use.

Vern, I've got to agree with you on all points except the 45lc. I'd take 44mag with "Ruger only" loads that take advantage of the extra chamber length (compared to S&W 44 mags). Other than that...spot on!

Vern Humphrey

June 2, 2009, 11:08 AM

I have to disagree with this one as well.
The opinions of internet forum members not withstanding, revolvers certainly are more reliable (on average) than autoloaders.
I'm not talking about opinions. I'm talking about reported failures.

People report things like transfer bars breaking, grit or grains of powder under the ejector star, bullets jumping crimp, primers locking up the cylinder, and so on.

christcorp

June 2, 2009, 12:14 PM

If you browse these boards long enough, you will find plenty of evidence revolvers aren't any more dependable than an automatic. But most stoppages with automatics can be cleared with a tap-rack-bang drill. Revolver stoppages usually take the gun out of action completely and cannot be quickly fixed.

I disagree that revolvers aren't more dependable than a semi-auto. What you consider an "Easy Fix" for a semi-auto is a complicated procedure for the person who has a gun at home for self defense and pulls it out and shoots it once or twice a year. When the time comes that they need it, there's a lot of things that can hinder them using it. The shooter can forget to chamber a round; forget to take the safety off. The gun can misfeed from the magazine or stove pipe during extraction or ejection. All of these things can be a problem for someone who's brain is racing; because they are scared; because their adrenaline and heart beat are racing. A revolver is simply point and click. The chances of a revolver having mechanical problems compared to the possibly no-shoot situations of a semi-auto aren't even comparable. The revolver is overwhelmingly more likely to fire when needed. It's simply POINT and CLICK.

And that is the scariest thing about self defense weapons. People who rarely if ever practice with the weapon. Shooting a gun; including fixing malfunctions; needs to be muscle memory. She can't be thinking about it. People can and do get into problems with semi-autos if they don't practice with it. For those people, a revolver is the RIGHT CHOICE. And those who have chosen a semi-auto because they believe that a 15 round magazine is essential, and that reloading the weapon faster is essential; are totally misguided.

Vern Humphrey

June 2, 2009, 12:39 PM

I disagree that revolvers aren't more dependable than a semi-auto. What you consider an "Easy Fix" for a semi-auto is a complicated procedure for the person who has a gun at home for self defense and pulls it out and shoots it once or twice a year.
For a person who doesn't know which end the bullets come out of, any gun is undependable. But something like 99% of the people on this board have more knowledge and skill than that.

When the time comes that they need it, there's a lot of things that can hinder them using it.
Yeah, like forgetting to load that revolver, or having to use it in the darkness, or having a bad case of the shakes.

The fact is, revolvers have no reliability advantage over automatics.

easyg

June 2, 2009, 01:03 PM

People report things like transfer bars breaking, grit or grains of powder under the ejector star, bullets jumping crimp, primers locking up the cylinder, and so on.
Not to turn this thread in to a "revolver vs autoloader" argument, but I think that revolver failures reported here are greatly exaggerated, to say the least.

Yes, transfer bars can break, but it certainly doesn't happen very often.
Probably no more often than slide-stops or extractors breaking on autoloaders.

And when you talk about grit or grain under the ejector star, that's practically unheard of with a clean gun firing a cylinder full of rounds.
It typically occurs during a reload after the initial cylinder full have been shot, and even then it's rather rare, especially with the cleaner shooting ammo produced today.

Bullets jumping crimp....I've never seen that one happen with any production ammo.
And I've only seen it once in my 42 years with a handload.
Again, very rare.

High primers should never be a problem unless the guy who loaded the gun never took the time to inspect his ammo.
Not very likely at all.
After all, when you only got 5 or 6 bullets, you're not likely to let a bad one get pass.

Nearly all experienced autoloader shooters know exactly what you mean when you say "tap-rack-bang drill"....ever wonder why?
Because nearly every experienced autoloader shooter has had to perform this drill before.

easyg

June 2, 2009, 01:09 PM

The fact is, revolvers have no reliability advantage over automatics.
Well, you certainly can't have a "limp wrist" failure with a revolver, or a failure to feed, or a failure to eject, or a double feed. ;)

iScream

June 2, 2009, 01:23 PM

I'm almost entirely into guns for plinking and target shooting so my caliber choice is only slightly based on self defense. I originally picked 9mm simply because it is cheap and I could fire a lot of rounds without too much expense. The fact that I could get some pretty good SD ammo was a nice side benefit.

When I got into reloading earlier this year, I decided to buy a 357 revolver so I can use it 99 percent of the time with 38 Special for plinking but still load it up with some serious cartridges if I want to.

Now that I'm loading my own 38 Special I just traded my CZ 75B 9mm for a 22 rifle. I may end up with another 9mm at some point but I think I'll buy a 44 Mag revolver next. After that a nice 45 ACP semi is probably on the short list. I don't have much interest in 380 or 40 for some reason.

-Chris

Vern Humphrey

June 2, 2009, 02:16 PM

Not to turn this thread in to a "revolver vs autoloader" argument, but I think that revolver failures reported here are greatly exaggerated, to say the least.
Exaggerated. how? Each report of a revolver failure is an independent event.

mljdeckard

June 2, 2009, 03:55 PM

I will NEVER advise to ANY person that the .25 ACP is the right caliber under ANY circumstances.

Vern Humphrey

June 2, 2009, 04:05 PM

Now wait for someone to come up wth the obligatory, "Well, John M. Browning thought the .25 ACP would be an effective weapon."

No, JMB thought a vest-pocket automatic would sell.

christcorp

June 2, 2009, 04:28 PM

My sister in law came to visit last month for my daughter's college graduation. She's from new jersey and never got to shoot a gun before. No problem, she wanted to shoot and we did. Of the handguns she shot, she didn't like the 45acp because the gun seemed too big for her. She's 4' 7". It didn't kick much, but she didn't like the feel of the gun. The 357 mag put her on her butt. 38 specials were ok, but she didn't like not being able to hold it with 1 hand. We tried others. The gun she was most comfortable with; and shot the area of a Paper Plate 25 for 25 at 10 yards, was my Walther 32acp. Not bad considering she's never held a gun in her life.

So, I guess smaller, lighter, etc... people shouldn't be allowed to shoot a gun or have one for self defense. If you can't handle at least a 9mm glock or a 38/357 revolver, you shouldn't be shooting. Well, I'd trust my little sister in law with the walther 32acp so much more than I would advising she get some 9mm or greater because "SOMEBODY" doesn't think a 380, 32, or 25acp can kill a person and protect you in self defense. After shooting with her for the day; where she didn't have any BAD HABITS that needed to be broken prior to learning; there is no doubt in my mind that she should have a 32acp. I'll take her and 7 for 7 dead on center with a 32auto than 2 for 15 for a glock 9mm that she can barely hold. When it comes to self defense (Carrying), there is no such thing as not enough gun. And you don't need 10,15,or 18 rounds either.

Vern Humphrey

June 2, 2009, 04:34 PM

So, I guess smaller, lighter, etc... people shouldn't be allowed to shoot a gun or have one for self defense.
Where do you come up with that? Who said anything about preventing other people from carrying guns?

mrt949

June 2, 2009, 06:26 PM

I have 22lr .32 acp.357 mag .and 40 sw. They all have a job to do.when the time comes.Ihope i am ready:D

easyg

June 2, 2009, 07:08 PM

So, I guess smaller, lighter, etc... people shouldn't be allowed to shoot a gun or have one for self defense. If you can't handle at least a 9mm glock or a 38/357 revolver, you shouldn't be shooting

You gave someone a rather limited selection of guns and calibers to shoot, and that person shot one of the weaker calibers best, so you feel that she should stick to that caliber and handgun rather than practice and get better with a more effective caliber handgun???

I hope you at least told her that the .32 is not likely to stop an attacker at the moment of the attack.
Yeah, he might bleed to death later in the ER, but that will probably be hours after he's done with her.

Most cops would probably shoot pistols in .22 and .32 better than they do pistols in 9mm, .40, and .45ACP, but they don't because they know that the chances of actually stopping an attacker quickly are greater with the larger calibers.

All handguns are a tradeoff of sorts, but IMO there's just no good reason to recommend a .22 or .32 as a self-defense caliber.

onlymeself

June 2, 2009, 07:17 PM

For us we have 9mm pistols and 22 pistols. It's not so much caliber loyalty as it's easier to look for ammo.
And personally I'll take my 19 round mag over a 6 shot revolver. There isn't a rule book to home invasions, they can bring as many of their "homies" as they want. So I'll bring as many rounds to the party as I can. I wouldn't want anybody feeling left out.

Guy de Loimbard

June 2, 2009, 07:25 PM

I won't go into what other people use, but here's why I like mine. Mostly I like the calibers because I like the pistols I have that are chambered in them.
9x18 Mak: I haven't yet encountered a 9x18 that wasn't perfect for concealed carry. Small, accurate, and reliable as the day is long.
.38 Super: Mine's a 1911. It's like a 1911 in 9mm, but better.
.45 Colt: Mine's a Ruger Blackhawk. Bought this as a result of watching too many westerns. Plus, since it's a Ruger, I can shoot anything from paper targets to bears with it. I know I could have done the same with a 44 magnum, but a 45 just has that ring to it. It's one bigger than a 44.

Bearhands

June 2, 2009, 07:30 PM

Ya gotta love these "urinating competitions"........... it's been done hundreds of times and it never seems to die.
*note: 99% of gunfights are over in less than 3 rounds.

Bill B.

June 2, 2009, 07:39 PM

Crusty old bastard that I am, I say there are only 4 1/2 useful pistol cartridges:

1. .22 LR -- everyone needs a good .22 pistol, for practice, small game hunting and fun.

1 1/2. .38 Special -- A good snubbie in .38 Special is a great drop-it-in-the-pocket gun as you go out the door. You can get lightweight snubbies in .357, but you won't shoot them with full charge loads much.

2. .357 Magnum -- a great do it all cartridge.

3. .45 ACP -- a top notch defensive round if you like automatics, and it goes with the pistol designed for it, the M1911, like eggs go with ham.

4. .45 Colt. With "Ruger only" loads it will shade the .44 Mag, and even with standard SAAMI pressures will do about all you need to do for hunting and general outdoors use.

Apparently I am one also because I agree with you! :D

nitetrane98

June 2, 2009, 08:20 PM

Caliber loyalty. I don't know that I really have one. I know what I think is the best. I own a .45ACP, a 10mm w/ .40 S&W drop in barrel, 9mm, 22LR and I'm looking for a nice BDA .380. I would have never owned a 9mm but for the fact that the Browning Hi Power I wanted was a 9mm. It's my absolute favorite "feeling" gun. The .40 barrel was a move to keep shooting my Delta Gold Cup at a somewhat cheaper rate. The .45 is because I was given 5,000 cast slugs for it and I had dies already.
For serious social encounters I turn to my 10mm simply because I am so impressed with the ballistics of the round. IMO it is without a doubt the most versatile handgun round made. The reloading possiblities are endless.
Before the 10mm came out I confidently carried a 6" Colt Trooper MKIII .357. When I saw the ballistics of the 10mm, I had to have one. An added bonus was that it came in a Government Model.
Maybe I do have a caliber loyalty after all.

jad0110

June 2, 2009, 09:20 PM

All handguns are a tradeoff of sorts, but IMO there's just no good reason to recommend a .22 or .32 as a self-defense caliber.

Extreme recoil sensitivity, often due to carpal tunnel syndrome or advanced arthritis. I do know people who find shooting all steel 9mm autos and/or 38 Special revolvers to be quite painful. And though you may not feel the pain in an emergency, it will certainly discourage practice.

My mother is one of those people. She does shoot her Hi Standard Citation in 22LR quite well, so that is the caliber she is best served by, at least for now. Better than a TV remote or bare hands.

Gungaga

June 2, 2009, 09:29 PM

My concern is not much about overpenetration and flash, but the deafening sound in a room or hallway. Which cartrage is good for indoor use with enough stopping power with this short barrel?

Gungaga

June 2, 2009, 09:33 PM

I have a Ruger SP101 in .357 mag. with 2 1/4" barrel. My concern is not much about overpenetration and flash, but the deafening sound in a room or hallway. Which cartrage is good for indoor use with enough stopping power with this short barrel?

Gungaga

June 2, 2009, 09:39 PM

My concern is not much about overpenetration and flash, but the deafening sound in a room or hallway. Which cartrage is good for indoor use with enough stopping power with this short barrel?

Hostile Amish

June 3, 2009, 01:11 AM

I like all calibers, provided I own guns that can chamber them.

NELSONs02

June 3, 2009, 01:21 AM

It sure is ignorant to claim one caliber as better then another.

Any-ho, the all time best ULTRA kick butt better then everything rifle round would have to be the 7mm-08.

christcorp

June 3, 2009, 01:41 AM

Vern, sorry but my response wasn't toward you. You replied in between me reading the one before you and when I posted. The post I was replying to said:
I will NEVER advise to ANY person that the .25 ACP is the right caliber under ANY circumstances.

As for the comments insinuated by some that there is "Some Limit" as to the caliber; I.e. Nothing below a 9mm is worthy to be used for self defense; that is just pure Bull, ignorant, and naive. At least if you're going to say such things, at least preface it with the statement: "In my opinion". Because that's all it is. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a 25, 32, or 380 auto being used as a carry gun for self defense. And there is definitely nothing wrong with having 5,6,7, or 8 rounds in a revolver or semi-auto instead of 10,15,or 18 rounds. I'm sure that there are those out there that are really terrible shots; don't practice enough; and so on. For them, bigger bullets and more of them are definitely needed. For those who know how to shoot; can keep their composure; practice often; and have great shot placement; they have the luxury of not need a 15 round magazine or 9mm or 40sw. Some may just like the "Security Blanket" affect. But that is just my opinion.

Oh, and easyg; I didn't give her a limited selection of guns to try. I mentioned 3 of them. And for what it's worth, the 38 spl is pretty close to ballistics to the 9mm. And having a 4" barrel probably made the recoil about the same. So while she didn't mind the 38 special, she wasn't tickled about it. But if you must know; she had the chance to shoot:

1. Sig P220
2. S&W Mod 13-1
3. CZ 82 9x18 mak (In between a 380 and 9mm)
4. AMT 380 backup
5. Walther PPK 32auto
6. FEG 7.65 (32 auto) (Clone to the walther)
7. schmidt 22 mag/lr revolver

This wasn't everything available, but she also got to shoot quite a few rifles. But because she lives in the Communist State of New Jersey (I was born there); she will probably never get a chance to shoot again for quite a while. But if she was to decide on getting a handgun for self defense, there is no way in hell that I would let her get a 9mm, 40sw, or 10mm. Not because of the caliber, but because it's a semi-auto. I also wouldn't let her go for the Walther 32acp or the Sig P220 45acp. ANY person buying a hand gun for self defense and either doesn't have a lot of experience with weapons and/or won't be practicing a lot, should be getting a revolver of some type. Preferably a 357 mag that they can shoot 38 specials through it; yet has the ability for them to grow into if they'd like.

So, the question is: "Why do people like certain calibers". Well, I like certain calibers for 3 reasons: 1) They have a true PURPOSE. Not hype; not because someone's been watching too much hollywood; but a real purpose. 2) For fun. Some calibers I like simply because they are fun to shoot. Or, they are so cheap; e.g. 9x18 mak, that they become more fun to shoot because I can shoot more of it. 3) And finally, as a collector. I.e. I would never choose a 30-06 for hunting; even though many do. However, I love military weapons, and the M1 Garand is one of the best rifles in the history of warfare. And it happens to be a 30-06. And while I don't own a 9mm for self defense; "I have no need for one when my regular carry guns are either a 45acp or a 32acp which both work just as well"; I really like german lugers and other military weapons. The 9mm was very popular in the early parts of the 20th century. So there's 3 reasons why I like certain calibers. But for self/home defense purpose, #1 is the reason. The caliber has to have a purpose. The 40 and the 10mm never really had a purpose other than to provide more rounds in the magazine than a 45acp. Because the 45acp was obviously so much better than the 9mm anyway. But because I have no need for more than the normal 7 rounds in a traditional 45acp, the 40 and 10mm have no purpose for me.

tipoc

June 3, 2009, 07:50 AM

I don't think of it as loyalty as much as preference.

.22; cuz it's a fun and useful round. Plinking, target work, small game.

9mm; Mostly I like this round because of the guns it's chambered in but it's low recoil and availability make it useful for training and range work. It's also a very good defensive caliber with the right loads.

38 Super; simply one of the best handgun calibers ever developed. Easy to reload and fun to shoot. Excellent defensive caliber and good for game up to deer and smaller hogs with proper shot placement. It's natural home is the 1911. 10 rounds of a 147 gr. bullet at 1250 fps from a Commander works well for me. More powerful than the 9mm it works very well with a wider variety of bullet weights from 90 grains to 158. A versatile round.

.38 Spl. useful for self defense, target work, training, etc. An accurate round that is fun to shoot. I like the .357 less than the .38 though I shoot both. I prefer only certain loads of the .357. The .38 Spl. is a very versatile round.

44 Special. A 200 -240 gr, bullet at 900-1000 fps good for hunting and self defense. It's bigger brother I shoot also but I shoot the Spl. the most. From an N frame S&W hard to beat.

.45 acp and the 1911.

These calibers are fun and for me quite useful.

tipoc

mljdeckard

June 3, 2009, 12:54 PM

There is no reason to preface a statement with "In my opinion" if the statement is absolutely true. "I WILL NEVER ADVISE TO ANY PERSON THAT THE .25 ACP IS THE RIGHT CALIBER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES" is a statement of fact, not opinion.

Carrying handguns at all for personal defense is a bad idea. The only reason we do it at all is because it's not practical to carry a rifle everywhere. In dropping down to the very bare minimum cartridge that will clear the barrel is saying that you think, when all your other plans have fallen apart, and the world is crashing in around you, you have decided to trust your life to the lowest energy, worst-penetrating cartridge on the market. It's like someone buying a car with bald tires, faulty electrical systems, and bad oil leaks, and telling them, "Hey, it's ok. Any car is better than no car at all, right?" NOT IF IT'S UNSAFE. Get a real car, get a real gun. (Opinion.) If it's a person who I actually care whether or not they live or die, I will either loan them a better gun, or give them the extra $200 to get something better. (Fact.)

Smaller guns are NOT beginner guns. They have more felt recoil and a shorter sight radius. If you absolutely MUST have a subcompact gun, there are subcompact options in 9mm, .357 SIG, .40, .45 GAP, and .45 ACP. Size is not an excuse anymore. In carrying something smaller, you are saying; "I say I am serious about my safety, but I am too lazy and cheap to get one of a size and quality that has the best chance of helping me when I really need it." Own what you want. Because it's cute. Because it's fun to shoot. Whatever. But don't rationalize that it's ok to carry it because you are too cheap and lazy to get something better. (Opinion again.)

JWF III

June 3, 2009, 01:38 PM

I'm not "loyal" to any one cartridge. I own handguns in many different chamberings (stopped counting once I hit double digits). But I do have preferrences for carrying.

I think a lot of peoples loyalty comes from, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

I have I have 5 (ccw type) handguns, in 7 cartridges (.357 Sig barrel for .40 Glock, and .38/.357 revolver), that many people would be proud to carry. I will only carry the j-frame, loaded with full house mags.

Wyman

paul45

June 3, 2009, 01:50 PM

Why am I bald and other people have hair?
Why do some people prefer the color blue?
Why do some people prefer convertibles?
Why does the sun come up?

christcorp

June 3, 2009, 02:13 PM

mlj; I understand what you're saying, but your analogy is totally wrong. It is not like compared to a car with bald tires, oil leaks, slipping transmission. It's like comparing A NEW Ford F250 pickup truck to a NEW Ford Focus car for driving around town and to work. Yes, the pickup is bigger and stronger, and if in an accident you "Might" be better protected. But the Ford Focus will also get you where you're going; reliably; dependably; and comfortably. Is there a chance that the pickup truck would be better than the focus in certain scenarios; such as a major snow storm? "POSSIBLY". Is there a chance that a 45acp will be better than a 32acp; such as in winter with the bad guy wearing layers of clothing and a heavy coat? "POSSIBLY". That is why in the winter months, I drive the explorer and pickup more often than the small car. Just like in the winter, I carry my 45acp instead of the 32acp.

But I've also said many times that if a person ONLY has 1 gun because they either can't afford another one, or because it's strictly for self defense and they only practice shooting a couple times a year; then they should be buying a 357 magnum revolver. They can shoot light 38 spl or full 357 mag or anything in between that is comfortable for them. If they are going to have more than one handgun and practice somewhat often; then having a 32acp for some circumstance and a 45acp for other times is practical. If you practice enough to make semi-autos practical. And yes, if a person is only going to have 1 gun, and they really want a semi-auto, then a 9mm, 40sw, or 10mm is practical. You need something that covers a wide range. But if you can have more than one gun, you don't need an in between gun. You can buy the more appropriate caliber in each. And a 25, 32, or 380 auto is a fine caliber with the right ammunition for the right situation.

mljdeckard

June 3, 2009, 03:11 PM

It's not "A chance". It's an overwhelming likelihood. They need to get comfortable. If they only have one, it should be their full-power one. Get little fun ones later. FOR FUN.

My dad just finally went to the class for his carry permit. At the last minute, my mom said she wanted to go to. Good times. The instructor tested them for shooting (not a state requirement, it's the instructor's discretion) and loaned my mom a Mk II with a bull barrel. Now, if she has shot a handgun in 25 years, I'm not aware of it. So she limp-wristed it, had jams, couldn't hit anything, and got frustrated. Now we shooters know, it doesn't get much easier than a bull-barreled Mk II. But to someone who has just NEVER tried it before, it's completely alien to them. So my dad says; "I'm thinking about getting her a little .22 to carry." I told him the same thing I have repeatedly said in this board. A small pistol is not a substitute for shooting skills. If anything, you need MORE shooting skills if you are going to carry a small pistol. We're going to go find her a medium framed 9mm or .357 that she can learn to shoot .38s through, and build her way up to full loads. Get new tires. Fix the wiring. Make it safe until you can get something better.

(The truth is, his 1911 should work for her as well as anything else. When it was designed, the average height and hand size of the American male was much smaller than today. The trigger and backstrap are adjustable, it's thin, and has less recoil than most .40s.)

jhco

June 3, 2009, 04:53 PM

different strokes for different folks

easyg

June 3, 2009, 06:28 PM

It's like comparing A NEW Ford F250 pickup truck to a NEW Ford Focus car for driving around town and to work.
This is one of the worse analogies I have seen lately.
No, it's not like comparing cars and trucks....it's comparing a weak caliber that is not likely to stop an attacker to a more effective caliber that is more likely to stop an attacker.

Is there a chance that a 45acp will be better than a 32acp; such as in winter with the bad guy wearing layers of clothing and a heavy coat? "POSSIBLY".
No, there's no "possibly" to it.
The .45ACP is a more effective round at stopping humans than the .32ACP, all other things being equal.

A miss with a .32 is just as ineffective as a miss with a .45ACP, but a hit with a .45ACP is MUCH more effective against a human than a hit with a .32ACP, all other things being equal.

As much as you claim otherwise, caliber does matter.
Yes, shot placement is most important, but a well placed spitball is simple not as effective at stopping a human attacker as a well placed 9mm Para, (or .40S&W, or .45ACP, or .357Sig, or .45GAP, or .38 Special, ect....).

And personally, I think that if you tell an inexperienced person that they are just as well armed for self-defense with a .32, or .22, or .25, as they would be with a larger caliber handgun, then you are being deceptive at the least.

RedAlert

June 3, 2009, 07:40 PM

Some folks like red. Some blue. Doesn't matter, they just like it.

Ed Ames

June 3, 2009, 07:54 PM

I think there are a couple of answers.

The first is that there are a couple schools of thought about how a handgun is effective. Off the top of my head the main ones are:

1) Energy transferrers. Higher energy = better.
2) Hole punchers. Bigger or more holes = better.
3) CNS damagers. Accurate shot placement = better.
4) Intimidators. Bigger gun = better.
6) Markers. Requiring medical attention = better.

If you believe handguns are most effective in way #3 you are probably not going to care about the projectile diameter so much as the practical accuracy. A .22, .25, .32, etc are all going to be fine so long as you can shoot accurately and quickly with the gun.

If you believe it's a matter of punching holes (#2) you are more likely to want big holes (.45ACP), lots of holes (9mm), or some blend (.40S&W).

If you believe it's a matter of transferring energy (#1), you are more likely to want fast projectiles (.357, .44mag, etc.) that can deliver a lot of energy.

The list goes on.

Someone who believes that their theory is the only important one ("all that matters is draining blood quickly so you need lots of big holes") will naturally dismiss anyone who subscribes to one of the other theories ("People can retain consciousness for 5 seconds after their heart is destroyed and that's enough to shoot back so anything but a precision weapon for destroying the CNS is useless. Once I have precision I don't need to make big holes."), and vice versa.

The only reason it may seem less true for revolverkin is that many revolvers can handle multiple cartridges and power loadings, and they aren't subject to feed issues the way pistols are, so it's natural to vary the ammunition choices more to suit circumstances.

easyg

June 3, 2009, 08:02 PM

People can retain consciousness for 5 seconds after their heart is destroyed and that's enough to shoot back so anything but a precision weapon for destroying the CNS is useless. Once I have precision I don't need to make big holes.
However, this type of thinking seems to based upon the false notion that a shooter firing a larger caliber cannot also be precise.

Precision with bigger holes and more energy is better than precision with smaller holes and less energy.

Ed Ames

June 3, 2009, 08:04 PM

Does that matter?

I mean, the question was "Why the preferences?", not "what's your preference?"

easyg

June 3, 2009, 08:08 PM

Does that matter?

I mean, the question was "Why the preferences?", not "what's your preference?"
I think that it does matter if one is recommending a weak and ineffective caliber to someone with very limited firearms knowledge.

Ed Ames

June 3, 2009, 08:11 PM

OK. How does that relate to this thread?

Hint: Christcorp wasn't recommending a gun to someone with very limited firearms knowledge.

orionengnr

June 3, 2009, 10:38 PM

I'm a believer in carrying the most powerful cartridge you can shoot well. The more I practice, the more I find that I shoot the 45acp (in 1911s) and the .41 Mag/.45 Colt (in revolvers) as well as or better than other cartridges/platforms.

That is subject to change, as are my preferences. :)

christcorp

June 3, 2009, 11:54 PM

Some people here obviously know more about physics than they do weapons. And some definitely don't know how to read prior posts, but imply what they WANT posts to say instead of what they will say. There's enough other threads on the subject that this one is headed, but I will add a final thought to this thread.

1.Read my posts and you will see that when it comes to "someone with very limited firearms knowledge", there was NO recommendation for ANY CALIBER that comes in a semi-automatic. An inexperienced shooter, one where they only own 1 firearm, and one where they will not be practicing on a regular basis, should NEVER, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, have a semi-automatic. They should have a revolver; in the 38/357mag caliber that can be loaded to any number of flavors to fit their abilities. And ANYONE who recommends a semi-auto to an inexperienced shooter who is not planning on consistently practicing at least monthly, is IRRESPONSIBLE!!!! That is not negotiable!!!

2. There are plenty of people who have died from a .22 bullet, as well as those from a .25, .32. and .380. Just like there are plenty that have survived from a shot by a 44 mag, 45acp, 40sw, and 9mm. At close range, which is what self defense is, the 32acp, depending on the ammunition, can have between 130, 150, and up to 200 ft/lbs of energy. That's at the muzzle, and self defense is considered less than 30 feet. Beyond that and you should be finding your way out of there. This isn't a "Shoot Out" movie. And that amount of energy from a 71 grain bullet is quite effective. Also, you have to understand your attacker. Women have an added factor in the equation that a lot of men don't consider. The criminal many times will get into a women's "Personal Space". For MANY reasons, some quite OBVIOUS. They won't do that to a man. And a women, who is trained, and carrying a palm size 25acp with a shot TO THE FACE of the criminal is extremely effective. So while a women has the disadvantage of the criminal getting up in her "Grill"; that can also be a very good defensive move on her part that also allows her the advantage of a 25acp. In many self defense, martial arts, etc... training; you are taught when there are few choices, to WALK INTO the attacker instead of PULLING AWAY. A women has this advantage. Again, we're talking about training.

And again, the untrained and non-practicing shooter has no business with ANY semi-auto pistol. None at all.

Ed Ames

June 4, 2009, 12:35 AM

Absolutes are the enemy of truth.

And there are plenty of people who are fine starting out with a semi-auto. Claiming they shouldn't sounds like pointless bluster.

christcorp

June 4, 2009, 01:07 AM

If by saying "Starting out" you mean like SO MANY OTHERS they will rarely take the gun out to go shooting, (As I mentioned DIRECTLY); then no, it is NOT pointless blunder; but truth. Actually, Life Saving truth. If however by saying "Starting Out", you mean someone brand new but they are "Practicing" with their weapon on a somewhat consistent basis; (Which I ALSO mentioned DIRECTLY); then your comment it totally irrelevant, because I nor anyone else said anything contrary to that. So, your post doesn't make sense. Unless you are actually saying that an inexperienced shooter, just starting out, and who will remain an inexperienced shooter as SO MANY do. And will maybe pull the weapon out once or twice a year, and then maybe to just look at it and clean it; and not shoot it; then I stand 100% by my comment that they have no business whatsoever having a semi-auto weapon. Not if it's for self defense. (Which I ALSO mentioned directly). For that, it's NOT pointless blunder.

Oyeboten

June 4, 2009, 02:19 AM

It's always interesting to ponder...

Even as how for any given Callibre, there are usually various Cartridges...and for any given Cartridge, respecting any given Arm chambering them, there will be various Loadings possible for the Cartridge and the Arm...

A basic Harrington and Richardson .22 Revolver, usually refered to as a 'Tackle Box Gun', in the right Hands, is worth more as an effective defence recourse, than any number of examples of sophisticated Arms or ostensibly impressive Cartridges in inept Hands.

There's endless variables which can or will mitigate or qualify or cast sidelight on any general observation about what Arm or Callibre or Cartidge presents what advanage or, merit...and to whom, and under what conditions specifically.

I'd say for me, in practice, .38 Special, standard Loadings, RNL, have been the defacto Calibre and Cartridge of choice.

Though I recognise other attractive and sensible options one could elect.

.41 Magnum, would probably be my most admired Revolver Cartridge, if I had to pick one.

And .45 ACP, if regarding Automatics.

jackstinson

June 4, 2009, 07:21 AM

Why do people like Budweiser beer? Same concept.

Ed Ames

June 4, 2009, 10:06 AM

For that, it's NOT pointless blunder.

I said bluster. To quote someone on this thread, "And some definitely don't know how to read prior posts..."

I won't say ANY type of firearm is best for all people of a given experience level... most people are best served by a selection of firearms spanning several types... but I will say that, If there is an able person who can't operate a semi-auto handgun successfully after 20 minutes of decent instruction I haven't met them. I've met people who can't for health reasons, sure. I know one person who is pretty much limited to single action revolvers because they can't pull a DA trigger comfortably or work a slide (I've never probed but muscular dystrophy would be my guess). Beyond those very limited cases, everyone can operate a semi-auto.

Are they better off with a semi-auto? Depends on conditions, including their ability with the weapons at their disposal. It's hubris for you to say they shouldn't use a class of weapon...no matter how hard a time you hand learning to use them yourself.

It's pointless bluster, intended to stoke your own ego, to say that semi-autos are expert-only weapons.

But it does sort of point out an answer to the OP's question: prejudice.

christcorp

June 4, 2009, 11:58 AM

Ed; for weapons; any weapon; to become an effective tool, practice, familiarity, and preferably, muscle memory needs to be exercised. Personally, I like semi-auto pistols. I have quite a few and carry quite a few. But because my wife and daughter may need to use something at home, it's the revolvers that are available for their use there. It doesn't matter if you teach a person for 6 hours on the day they purchase the gun. If they don't practice and shoot the gun, a semi-auto potentially is very dangerous for them to have. A revolver also can fail, but not at any level near that of an semi-auto. And when I say fail, that include human error. There is a very large number of gun owners who have a gun for home protection, who NEVER pull the gun out. It sits in a closet, dresser, night stand, etc... I personally know people who have a gun for protection who haven't laid a hand on it in a couple of years. That is NOT uncommon. Maybe not on a forum of enthusiasts, but in the real world, it is not uncommon at all for gun owners to never touch their gun. A semi-auto in the hands of these people can be lethal to THEM. Even if they know what a stove pipe is; fail to feed; remember where the safety is; etc... not practicing and using your gun will be disastrous if you really need to use the weapon and one of these things happens in the process, and your brain isn't working. A revolver by it's nature is simply Point and Click. Just pull the trigger.

Remember; just like "Guns don't kill people..... people kill people"; well the same is in reverse. "Guns don't SAVE people..... people SAVE people". It's your mind that's going to save you during a threat. Not the gun. But if you need to use that gun as a tool, and the tool isn't working properly and you can't remember why; then you're screwed.

There are some absolutes in the world. And this has nothing to do with ego. I have more than 30 years of experience with weapons and shooting. 21 of those years with the military. ALL of those years with both semi-autos and revolvers. Learning how to use a weapon, ANY weapon, has never been a problem. The only EGO problem here is that some people think that a semi-auto is the way to go. That it's the "COOL" weapon to use. That if you don't have a 15 round magazine, you aren't protected. These people think that "GUNS SAVE PEOPLE". They don't!!!! So, if a person doesn't train, practice, or stay proficient with a weapon; and the gun is basically going to stay in the house for home defense without any recurring usage; which is normal for many gun owners; then NO, they shouldn't get a semi-auto. They should get a revolver. And I have absolutely no problem stating a certain type of firearm is best for this type of person.

I won't say what caliber is best. However, in the revolver world, the 38/357 provides a caliber that can be loaded as small as a weak 9mm or beyond the capabilities of a 9mm, 40sw, 10mm, or 45acp. And for all practical purposes, there isn't 1 handgun/caliber out there in the WORLD for self/home defense, that can do ANYTHING that a 38/357 magnum revolver can't do. None at all. The only advantage certain semi-autos have over the 38/357 mag revolver has, is the sense of security of a larger magazine. But functionally, for self/home defense, there is no semi-auto that can do more or better anything the 38/357 mag revolver can't do. But I have absolutely no problem saying that for the inexperienced gun owner who DOES NOT use, practice, or otherwise stay proficient with their weapon; and the gun is going to be used for self/home defense; they definitely need to be using a revolver. Even if it's NOT COOL; and they aren't using them in Hollywood movies. Not being cool is better than being dead.

Ed Ames

June 4, 2009, 12:32 PM

Let's break this down.

Personally, I like semi-auto pistols. ... But because my wife and daughter may need to use something at home, it's the revolvers that are available for their use there. ... If they don't practice and shoot the gun, a semi-auto potentially is very dangerous for them to have.

Help me to see where you didn't just say "females don't practice so they will just hurt themselves with what I like for myself."

Nothing in the 687 words of your post contradicts that interpretation.

So let me ask you a question: Given that semi-autos are what you like, and that you own them, and that your wife and daughter may reasonably need to use whatever is in your home...how is it at all responsible of you to accept their (supposed...I have only your word for it) ignorance instead of encouraging them to learn skills that may save their lives?

It is like not teaching your wife or daughter to drive because if they drive without knowing how they can hurt themselves. It's circular. The point of teaching is to get someone past the danger curve so they can safely practice if they choose to take it further.

The reality is that gun knowledge helps in three ways:
1) It helps people to avoid ignorant mistakes when they encounter a firearm in the real world. Example: You die, they encounter your pistol, they need to know how to operate it well enough to verify it is safe to handle.
2) It prepares people for unexpected circumstances. Most situations which call for using a firearm are unscripted and unplanned. As such, the firearm in use may be the one knocked out of an attacker's hands. Knowledge is essential to recognizing and exploiting opportunity.
3) It allows people to choose from a broader range of options in life. A person with a well rounded education can go into a gun store and purchase any type of firearm there, take it home, and operate it safely. That doesn't mean they will be master shots the day they buy something...that's what practice is for...but they won't be intimidated away from buying their best choice (which may be a large bore revolver, pistol, .22, shotgun, .50BMG, or anything else...not knowing the circumstances you can't say what their need will be) and they will be able to build the skills they need to be an effective user of their chosen weapon.

The only way your statement would even approach logic is if revolvers removed the need to train, practice, and stay proficient. They don't. 99% of the training requirement is identical for revolvers and semi-autos. You are basically saying "some people shouldn't own semi-autos because I don't think they can handle the extra 20 minutes a pistol takes to learn over a revolver".

Sounds a lot like ego to me.

christcorp

June 4, 2009, 02:09 PM

The hardest thing about written communications is people reading into something that isn't there; and instead of asking a simple question, they decide that they know 100% what was meant, because they CHOSE to interpret it they way they think they know best. And you have shown that you are VERY good at this.

There is nothing in my post that NEEDS to contradict your interpretation, because there is absolutely NOTHING in my post that even makes the insinuation that you WANT to apply. The truth is, you want to argue with me because you're unable to argue with my comments. Therefor, you will undoubtedly interpret anything i say to reflect the way you WANT my post to appear to use as an argument; being you can't provide your own points to argue. I never said women don't practice with guns and are going to hurt themselves. If my son was still living at home, I would have included him on the list also. Then how would you have distorted or interpreted the same statement in order to try and provide an argument for your position?

The fact is; MY wife and daughter; not yours, your friend's, or anyone else; but MY wife and daughter aren't into guns and the hobby side of it like I am. They understand the importance of guns and self defense, and they practice at the range a couple times a year with me. I'm out there numerous times a month. Also; even though I really like certain semi-auto weapons (Mostly an interest in military weapons); I have absolutely no problems with using a revolver for self defense. Matter of fact; unless you believe that I have 2 guns sitting "Side by Side" that say "His and Hers"; you again read into it what you wanted to. The same revolvers that are at home for self defense for my wife and daughter; are also the same revolvers that I would use for a home threat. My semi-autos are generally used as carry weapons or range weapons. At home, it's revolvers and shotguns. They are more reliable as a weapon, and for the person who doesn't practice often, they are more dependable.

While I can appreciate your passion that training, practice, and staying proficient is paramount to using guns as a tool for self defense. I agree totally with you. Unfortunately, that is NOT reality. The real world, a large percentage of gun owners have a gun strictly for self/home defense. The weapon sits in the house some place and rarely if ever is pulled out. That is what I have said numerous times in these posts. And as such, revolvers are the safer gun for these individuals to use. You are NOT going to force people to go out there and shoot guns on a regular basis. Those who do shoot on a regular basis is the MINORITY. This is where you are mistaken. You assume that because you shoot often and stay proficient, that most people do. Well, they don't. And while it only takes about 20 more minutes to train a person on the basic operations of a semi-auto over a revolver, that isn't where the problem is. The problem is when a person doesn't use that semi-auto often, and they forget HOW to do certain things. Maybe they forget to turn the safety off. Maybe they forget to chamber a round in. What if after the first shot, it doesn't extract or eject or feed the next round properly. What if it's a light primer strike and doesn't fire. In a standard double action revolver, the basic operation is to pull the trigger and continue to pull the trigger. If it doesn't fire because of a bad round, just continue to pull the trigger.

This has absolutely nothing to do with ego. But it obviously has something to do with being naive and believing the entire world is as experienced and proficient as you are. They aren't!!! And the vast majority of your previous post was all about your interpretation that was not implied at all in my post. I welcome this debate. I think it's very important that people understand that there is a difference between revolvers and semi-autos, and as such require a different level of proficiency. But that for accomplishing the same exact goals, there is one type of weapon (The revolver), that requires less mental involvement, and therefor can be a much more efficient and reliable weapon when the time comes. This is something 30 years of experience has taught me and so many others; including experts; agree with. And it's not something that any discussion on these forums is going to change my opinion of. But these discussions are very good because they allow the noob and lurker to read and realize the importance of training, practice, and proficiency. And that if they aren't willing to spend as much time with their semi-auto developing these skills, and make instill them to muscle memory so they can clear jams, misfeeds, safety, etc... AUTOMATICALLY and without thinking; then maybe they should consider getting a revolver instead of a semi-auto for defensive purposes.

Vern Humphrey

June 4, 2009, 02:18 PM

Or, to put it another way, before we tell other people what they think, we should have the courtesy to don a turban and gaze into a crystal ball.;)

Ed Ames

June 4, 2009, 02:19 PM

I'm very good at a few things -- nice to have it acknowledged though.

My point, repeated: The difference in the proficiency practice needed to effectively use a pistol and revolver is insignificant. The total time difference is perhaps 20 minutes, and the time required for proficiency is many hours.

The goal of training is not military or combat effectiveness. It is to be able to safely take over your own training.

I'll give an example: when you learn to fly a plane, you aren't taught everything you will ever need... your instructors don't make you an expert pilot and set you loose. They bring you up to the point where you can safely learn on your own. From there you gain experience and learn by doing. Same is true of weapons training.

Revolvers are not so simple that you can hand one to someone blind. In fact they are machines with little quirks, just like semi-autos.

So your premise is flawed.

christcorp

June 4, 2009, 02:30 PM

No, my premise is not flawed; because you comment is wrong. You continue to believe that people are proficient with their guns. You continue to see the world through your eyes. The people on these forums; that you see at the gun shows and shops; are NOT the average gun owner. The average gun owner who only has one gun for self/home defense; is not out there staying proficient. But the proficiency requirements of a DA revolver is no where near similar to a semi-auto. In a DA revolver; if you know it's loaded, you aim and pull the trigger. That's how proficient you HAVE to be to make the gun work 6 out of 6 shots.

I am all for people being proficient. I'd like to see gun owners practicing at least monthly. (Including my wife). But that's just not going to always happen. And today, until hell freezes over and Christ himself comes back; if a new gun buyer asks what type of gun I recommend, I will ask them if they plan on practicing with the weapon on a somewhat regular basis? If they say yes, then I will help them with guns and calibers. It could be a snubb 38 special or a 32 auto. It could be a 357mag S&W or a 9mm/40sw. That will be totally up to them. However, if they say the gun is just for home defense, and they don't really PLAN on shooting it that often and just want it "IN CASE" (Which is extremely common); then I will continue to recommend to them that they get a revolver. And if they say they want a semi-auto, then I will tell them I don't recommend it. I will explain all the mental and physical issues/problems that can happen with a semi-auto, and that if they aren't proficient with the weapon, and it's operation and malfunctions; they shouldn't have one for self defense. Targets, plinking, etc... are fine. Those aren't life threatening situations. If they still insist on a semi, I will tell them to go get someone elses opinion because mine will NOT change.

Ed Ames

June 4, 2009, 02:48 PM

Lol... and people accuse me of attributing positions to others that they don't actually hold?

You said what you will recommend. We get it. What you haven't done is demonstrated that the difference is all that great. You say the revolver operator will be able to make noise and do damage 6 times, with (I say 20 minutes) less training. Does that mean they will stop six threats? Stop one threat six times? Kill six innocent bystanders?

If you go to advise and teach someone, it shouldn't be "that's the trigger, pull it until the noise is quieter, and we're done." It should be the theory and safe operation of the weapon. Enough that they are empowered to safely learn on their own. There is a lot you can learn at home. Dry firing and the like. Very useful. No instructor necessary...just the knowledge of what you are practicing and how it matters. There is also a lot you can learn by going solo to the range. That's the level you need to bring a new shooter to...the point where they can solo. Does that mean they will? No...but if they can it's their choice, if they can't they are trapped by ignorance.

I say that not because I think everyone will practice on their own and become proficient, but because those who don't will not be effective anyway. You admitted yourself that it's the person, not the weapon, that makes the difference. If the person won't learn it doesn't matter what weapon they have. If they will learn...it doesn't matter what weapon they have. As a teacher your job is to provide the tools so they can, and the inspiration so they will, improve themselves.

And, for that matter, do you really think a pistol won't on average deliver at least the same level of performance? I've fired a fairly broad range of handguns and modern semi-autos using decent factory ammo are all fine for a magazine or two at least. Mags being 16+ rounds these days, that's not bad.

Revolvers are great for reloaders and people who need a lot of power. I like mine. They are not particularly easy to use or new user friendly. A lot of old folks think they are because they grew up around them, saw them in movies and on TV, or the like. The rotary telephone was equally new-user friendly for a while but if you hand one to the average under-30 today they'll scratch their head and laugh.

christcorp

June 4, 2009, 02:57 PM

I would like to ask a simple question/scenario. If you answer YES to it, then I can assume that this discussion is over because there's no room for consideration. If you answer NO, then it's possible that we aren't that far off of understanding each other. 1st; let's not use the word "Proficiency". We, meaning people who visit gun forums regularly, are gun enthusiasts, practice often, etc... are not the average gun owner. We become proficient. For the people I'm talking about, lets use the word "familiarity". As in familiar with the operations and use of their gun.

Here's the question/scenario:

Assume that a person who has never shot a gun before comes into my gun shop and wants a gun for home/self defense protection. I don't care if they are a 50 year old man or woman; or 20 year old man or women. I don't care about their build. We're going to assume the average person in America. Money is no object to them. But because they can't decide between a revolver and a semi-auto, they decide to buy both. I have a range out back with instructors, and after they buy the 2 guns, they go through a 30 training period to learn the safe operations of both guns. The shoot both without any problems. Now, they take the guns home and load them both. The put both of them in their closet, dresser, night stand, wherever. That isn't important. They leave them there. 1,2, maybe 3 years goes by. They never take the guns out to shoot. They just sit there. One day, they hear someone break in. Are you telling me that the person will be able to grab EITHER gun with the SAME amount of familiarity and confidence in it's use? Are you saying that the complexity of the revolver and the semi-auto are exactly the same? Are you saying that the malfunction potential; both mechanical and human error are the exact same??? And as such, they are going to be just as successful (Whatever that level of success is) whether they use the revolver or semi-auto? And that if the round goes "CLICK" and doesn't fire, that this person will be able to equally resolve the issue and get the next round off???

If you say yes to this scenario, then obviously we can not come to any understanding. Because I adamantly will answer NO to those questions. And those are the people (Which is not uncommon) that I am speaking of and have always made mention of, when I say they should use a revolver. But if you're going to answer YES, then I guess we can meet on a different thread. Because this one won't see any progress in between us.

Vern Humphrey

June 4, 2009, 03:02 PM

Assume that a person who has never shot a gun before comes into my gun shop and wants a gun for home/self defense protection. I don't care if they are a 50 year old man or woman; or 20 year old man or women. I don't care about their build. We're going to assume the average person in America. Money is no object to them. But because they can't decide between a revolver and a semi-auto, they decide to buy both. I have a range out back with instructors, and after they buy the 2 guns, they go through a 30 training period to learn the safe operations of both guns. The shoot both without any problems. Now, they take the guns home and load them both. The put both of them in their closet, dresser, night stand, wherever. That isn't important. They leave them there. 1,2, maybe 3 years goes by. They never take the guns out to shoot. They just sit there. One day, they hear someone break in. Are you telling me that the person will be able to grab EITHER gun with the SAME amount of familiarity and confidence in it's use?
Yes.

They've only fired it once, several years ago, and so their familiarity with either gun is close to zero.

cchris

June 4, 2009, 03:05 PM

I must be the only one that likes certain calibers for certain reasons...

Price/cost.

I'm looking for a .22 pistol since it's the cheapest thing to shoot. For a centerfire pistol, I chose 9mm because I'm not loaded with money and needed the cheapest thing to shoot.

Also, the platform makes a difference. For example, if I'm gonna buy a Sig Sauer, I'm gonna want it in a 9mm caliber, even though I already have one. Now, if I get a 1911, it's of course gonna be .45 ACP, since ACP stands for Automatic Colt Pistol...and buying a 1911 in another caliber isn't something I'd really consider doing.

A friend of mine called my 9mm "wimpy", stating that a .45 is much better. I retorted with "Well, my 'wimpy' gun will shoot better than your nonexistent .45"
He wants the .45 for "stopping power", but if 10 people break into my house, I'd feel more comfortable with the extra rounds a 9mm has.
It's not like it takes two 9mm rounds to do the same as one .45 round...a higher capacity 9mm just provides some extra assurance by providing me with a few more rounds, since I don't think I'd be as accurate as I am at the shooting range if someone breaks down my door.

christcorp

June 4, 2009, 03:06 PM

I will say no because of other variables of the gun. If you want to go with 1 shot, maybe I'll agree. But if there are ANY issues with the next round, the difference become tremendous. The revolver more than like won't have ANY problem. If the round did, simply pulling the trigger gives you the next round. That isn't true with a semi-auto.

Ed Ames

June 4, 2009, 03:57 PM

A revolver... even the ever-faithful S&W M10, can jam without getting a single shot off. Carried muzzle-up (like you see on too many cop TV shows) the back of a cartridge can slide into the cylinder pin ramp, locking the cylinder and preventing the trigger from pulling. I have seen it happen, I have induced it. It is very easily cleared and someone accustomed to revolvers would never induce the problem accidentally but your 30 minute training lesson simply won't impart that sort of real-world experience needed to be safe from that mistake.

A semi-auto is more likely to fire at least one shot. If it jams the jam can be cleared. A decent one, stored properly, will fire out at least one magazine.

The revolver, once six shots have fired, introduces its next chance to jam up when the cylinder is opened. The inexperienced, panic-stricken, defender points the muzzle down, swings the cylinder out, pushes the ejector rod... and the shells fall towards the gun, one or more getting hung up under the ejector. Now they've got to swing an unloaded gun around while holding tension on a little control. They've then got to load the next six rounds which is a pain unless you've done it hundreds of times.

The semi-auto defender, OTOH, keeps shooting at 6. There is nothing that would seem to be normal operation (like copying TV and aiming up) that will induce a jam in a healthy semi-auto. They keep shooting at 12. Somewhere past 12 the slide locks back. They fumble getting the magazine out (where's the button? pull the magazine out even though it would drop by gravity, etc) push a new one in, and push the little lever on the side. they had their thumb against the slide when it released so the gun isn't fully in battery. Maybe they can't clear that... but they've still gotten two or three times the use of the revolver guy.

That's a no.

Grey Morel

June 4, 2009, 04:08 PM

Why do people like certain calibers?

I don't know, because I don't think that way. I temper my purchases and usage against two factors:

1) Cost
2) Availability

For those reasons I shoot 9mm far more than any other defensive caliber. I have nothing against those other calibers, but Walmart still sells Blazer Brass 9mm for $8.95 per box when its in stock. You can't shoot cheaper than that unless your shooting .22. This has always been the case, and probably always will be.

I own a 32 and a 40 as well as two 9mms. I do shoot the other guns on rare occasion, but not very often. In fact, there are only two reasons I even own other calibers:

1) Convenience
2) Collect ability

I say convenience because there are times when you cant find 9mm (like now). If you own similar handguns in all major calibers, you can use whatever handgun ammo you happen to find; thats where owning a 40/32/45/380/22 comes in handy. A few weeks ago, every Walmart in town was stocked to the rafters with 25acp for $13 per box when there shelves were bare of everything else. That made me with I had a nice Beretta bobcat or anything at all in 25.

I say collect ability because some guns are simply novel and fun objects with an interesting or colorful history. The reason I love my Beretta 8040D so much, even though I hardly shoot it, is because its a quality example of the gun makers art and it holds the distinction of being the first gun ever designed specifically for the 40 S&W cartridge. Now If i ever DO need to shoot it, or if 40 is all I can find to shoot, then its manual of arms is identical to that of my Glock 17, which is my regular shooter.

Logic can be FUN. :)

christcorp

June 4, 2009, 04:12 PM

I won't take the scenario past the first cylinder or magazine because 5-8 rounds vs 10-18 rounds in a 9mm mag is a totally different subject. And I also believe that for self/home defense, 10-18 is not required and therefor isn't even a consideration when I choose a defensive weapon. Magazine capacity means absolutely nothing. The scenario above could have been used with a 1911A1 45acp and a 7 round magazine to equal a 6 round revolver; but I didn't think that was necessary.

You obviously believe that for the inexperienced gun owner; who rarely if ever practices and shoots; and has the gun for the sole purpose of sitting in a closest or drawer for when the day comes they need it; that both a revolver and semi-auto pistol are equal in use, operations, and possible problems and resolutions of said problems. That is where we'll disagree and obviously need to move on. My experience and training can't agree to that. I will continue to recommend revolvers to such people. And for those who are willing to practice on occasion and stay somewhat familiar with their weapon, and are willing to learn a little about the potential fubars; both mental and mechanical; those I will include semi-auto pistols as possible calibers/guns for their consideration.

shooter10

June 4, 2009, 05:07 PM

I'm zipping up my flame proof undies as I type, but here goes. As a known gun nut, over the last 40 or 50 years, I have been asked many times what kind of a gun should I buy. If the person has no experience, I have always recommended a Ruger Convertable Single Six. Back when you buy a brick of .22 at WW for $10. or so, and with some basic instruction, most enjoyed blasting at reaonable distance and size targets. I figured they got 10 times as much practice as if they had a centerfire, then after becoming partially famaliar with it, introduce them to the .22 wrmag cylinder and much more potent loads. Many women who had never touched a pistol prior became quite interested, and asked to acompany me when ever I was going out to shoot. Some moved on up to .38/.357 revolvers, but I always felt someone who had fired up one or more bricks of .22 was much more dangerous to an attacker than someone who was scared to death of the large gun she knew she could not handle. Some one on one of the other Forums uses a tag line "better to hit with a .22 than miss with a .45", which I believe also.
Most of us have obtained old guns which are still like new, been fired one cylinder full, half way cleaned, another cylinder full loaded, and left to lay in the nightstand drawer for 25 or more years. That is mostly a waste of money, and the owner would be better off without a gun, than one he or she can not use effectively.

Ed Ames

June 4, 2009, 05:35 PM

No flames from me.

I always try to convince people to start with a .22 semi-auto. Single six would be fine too, but it's hard enough to convince new shooters to "wimp out" with a .22.

My reasoning usually goes something like:

.22 pistol: $300
5000 rds practice ammo: $200
9mm pistol, .38sp revolver, or better: $300+
300rds centerfire ammo: $100
Total: $900+

vs.

9mm pistol, .38sp revolver, or better: $300+
5300rds ammo: $1766
Total: $2066+

Proficiency: equivalent.
Capability: 2 guns are better than 1.

It is much easier to save up an extra $300+ for a second gun when you aren't being eaten alive (or driven away from shooting) by ammo costs.

That's when I don't say people should start off with a pellet gun. I think Co2 fired pellet guns are amazingly useful training aids that everyone seems to overlook.

CC: I mostly agree with your first paragraph. For the rest: I guess. I must admit that part of my issue was that, especially when it comes to family and children, not insisting kids be at least comfortable with a semi-auto ranks right up there with not insisting they learn to drive stick shift. Yeah, they can live a long and productive life without that knowledge... but if they need it someday the knowledge will be tremendously empowering. It's fun to give, it's like riding a bicycle, and what they pick up as kids will be available to them forever. The role of a parent is to give those mental tools, to create a person who is not bounded by arbitrary ignorance, whether or not the kid ever needs that power. Obviously partners are not in the same category but if their interest can be sparked it's a nice bonus.

easyg

June 4, 2009, 06:32 PM

From christcorp:
An inexperienced shooter, one where they only own 1 firearm, and one where they will not be practicing on a regular basis, should NEVER, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, have a semi-automatic. They should have a revolver; in the 38/357mag caliber that can be loaded to any number of flavors to fit their abilities. And ANYONE who recommends a semi-auto to an inexperienced shooter who is not planning on consistently practicing at least monthly, is IRRESPONSIBLE!!!! That is not negotiable!!!
So, what are your views on military personnel and law enforcement personnel?

The vast majority of military personnel (the ones who are armed with pistols) only get about 1 week of shooting in Basic or Boot and only shoot about once a year afterwards.
Heck, a career soldier might shoot his pistol less than 25 times during 20 years of service.

And the vast majority of law enforcement personnel only shoot their pistols about once per year.

Are you saying that our military and most law enforcement personnel should not be allowed to carry autoloaders?

Do you really think that it's "IRRESPONSIBLE!!!!" to give a soldier or a cop an autoloader pistol?

mljdeckard

June 4, 2009, 07:02 PM

Christcorp, for someone who lectured me about knowing the difference between fact and opinion, you seem to already absolutely know everything about everything.

orionengnr

June 4, 2009, 09:12 PM

Is it possible that two certain members take their egos and opinions off-line and allow the tread to return to it's original direction? :rolleyes:

esq_stu

June 4, 2009, 09:21 PM

For me it is strictly a balancing of capacity, economics, and ammo commonality against stopping power. For me, 9mm won.

cchris

June 4, 2009, 11:01 PM

Finally, someone agrees with me that cost or how common the ammo is has a factor in the decision.

christcorp - semi-autos are reliable. It's been 98 years since the Colt Automatic Pistol was developed. We've come a long way. Yet Hi Point still can't get it right in the $150 range, so if they made a revolver, I'd bet it'd still have a few problems. Probably the reason they don't have one - it'd fire before the round could go through the barrel.

christcorp

June 5, 2009, 12:37 AM

cchris; I never said that semi-auto's were less reliable than a revolver. I simply said that in the hands of an inexperienced shooter, who rarely if EVER shoots; should the day come where they need to grab a gun a use it in self defense; a revolver is easier for them to use. Even a person who has never touched a gun before in their life can simply point the gun and pull the trigger on a revolver. On a semi-auto, there's a number of possible issues. And for the person who won't ever really shoot a gun, a revolver is better for them.

But this conversation obviously can't evolve. It's not possible. And I am partially at fault, because I said from the very beginning that I would not change my position on this. And I won't. There is absolutely nothing that anyone can say that will change my opinion on the style of gun that a person who has little to no experience, won't practice, and won't stay somewhat familiar with it. That being a revolver. And as to the response about our military and police who rarely ever shoot, that's simply a ludicrous remark. If a person doesn't know the difference in mindset of a person where a weapon is an integral part of their job; even if they never have to fire it except for once a year; and a traditional civilian where a gun isn't part of their day to day job; then there is definitely no discussing it with them.

But this thread definitely should move back to it's original premise, and that is why certain people like certain calibers. There has definitely been some valid points. The fact that cost and availability is on some people's minds is quite interesting. I shoot a lot of 22's because it's fun and cheap. But I also have a lot of guns and go through a lot of ammunition. Cheap or not. I guess for the person who only has maybe one hand gun which is for plinking and defensive purposes, price of ammo would be a factor. I would highly recommend that they keep their primary defense weapon whatever the caliber. If you like the 45acp, then that is what you should have. There's no reason that you need to shoot hundreds of dollars a week or month on it. You can simply have 1 box of self defense ammo for it and shoot it occasionally as you want to. The money you save on ammo, use it to buy a 22lr pistol/ammo or if you want something that can be used for cheap plinking but is stronger and can be used also for defensive purposes, then get the pride of the eastern block. Get a 9x18 makarov caliber pistol. You can get a polish p64 or hungarian FEG PA-63 for about $150. And the ammo is only about $10 a box of 50 and is quite available. Plus, it's about as strong as the weaker side 9mm; so for those who aren't too keen on the 32 or 380 for defense, this is a fantastic round.

I personally choose military rounds because I like military weapons. I've spent about half my adult life in the military. I love the 45acp, 45lc, .38spl, 357 mag, 7.65 (32auto), 223, 7.62x39, 7.65 (32acp), 9x18, 7.62x54R, 30cal, 30-06 M1, and even some others and the 9mm. (Even though I no longer own one). These calibers have history; purpose; experience; and a very successful track record. Many of these calibers have similarities, but because they were developed in different countries, they really didn't overlap or duplicate another. I'm definitely not a fan of the 40sw, 10mm, 45gap, 357sig, 327mag, and other new ones. Their purpose were strictly marketing. There isn't anything that any of those calibers can do that can't be done by an existing caliber. The military rounds had purpose. I look at the gap, sig, 327, and similar, and all I see is a company trying to find a niche market and appear better. That doesn't impress me. I understand that the 40/10mm were developed in the hopes of finding a more suitable and more powerful caliber than the 9mm. I'm not a fan of those because there was nothing wrong with the 9mm that teaching officers how to shoot couldn't fix. And if power was indeed needed, the 45acp already had that covered. But they felt insecure with 8-9 rounds. So, there's definitely a purpose for the design of the 40sw/10mm, just not a purpose that I can't accomplish with a 45acp.

But in all honesty; if there was only one caliber/gun that I could choose; and I believe would be the best all around caliber/weapon; it would not doubt be the 38spl/357mag combo. With that one gun, you can shoot from a 70 grain to a 200 grain. You can shoot for defensive purposes as well as bear, deer, and other large animals. It can be loaded to work with any level of shooter. It can be load with wadcutters, semi, fmj, hp, frag, SP, and anything else you can find. It is the ultimate cartridge. Some companies have tried taking the hollywood glamor of the semi-auto that people like and put the 357 mag in it such as the Desert Eagle; as well as marketing hype rounds in semi's like the 357 sig. But in the gun it was designed for; a revolver; the round is probably the ultimate. If you take out the 38 spl factor, the 357mag still has 70 grain rounds up to 200 also. The 38 spl just allows the same weight bullets at slower speeds. It is definitely the ultimate.

easyg

June 5, 2009, 01:26 AM

And as to the response about our military and police who rarely ever shoot, that's simply a ludicrous remark. If a person doesn't know the difference in mindset of a person where a weapon is an integral part of their job; even if they never have to fire it except for once a year; and a traditional civilian where a gun isn't part of their day to day job; then there is definitely no discussing it with them.
Way to dodge the question!

christcorp

June 5, 2009, 01:37 AM

I'm not dodging the question. I spent more than 20 years in the military, and I don't have to entertain the question. It's an argument that has no basis. You're comparing offensive occupations where a weapon is part of their job with defensive uses by people who might never even think about the gun they have in a closet some place. I know exactly what our military and police are capable of. I know it first hand. Including the training of. You're not comparing apples to apples, and I won't go there.

Cohibra45

June 5, 2009, 10:35 AM

Ok, this has deteriorated into revolver vs auto...........

I have only one thing to say about this. My gunsmith/dealer friend asked me one question about personal defense weapons. He actually asks most everyone that comes into his shop.

If you were to get a baseball bat to the head and your gun goes flying.....Your (insert your own person who knows absolutely nothing about firearms, here) picks up the gun. This person then decides to shoot to protect you and the other loved ones, is this person more likely able to use a revolver or an auto? What if it needs the slide racked? Revolvers are easier for the complete novice to use.

Yes, something might happen to the revolver to make it inoperable, but if that happens, well, your SOL anyway!!!:eek:

Now back to the OP's question about caliber loyalty. It's really vanilla vs chocolate. Some people like what they like. Some have had their dads/uncles tell them what they liked, so that is what the person likes. Others have watched too much TV/movies and are influenced by them. Others go to their favorite gun shops and talked with those and were influenced that way.

After buying and shooting several different calibers in several different guns will narrow down your choices (although it might get expensive, but the best experience none the less). Also picking out what you think you might want to use the various guns for also helps. Sometimes it's just plain whatever costs the least.

I know that what I like is different from what my neighbor likes and visa versa. It's what makes the world go round.:D

BlindJustice

June 5, 2009, 04:58 PM

It's Cartrdge - guns are chambered for a certain
cartrdige. one of the characteristics of a cartridge is
the caliber.

.45 ACP - I shoot it in my 1911 as well as my S&W
625. If I take them both to the range sometimes I shoot
one better than the other, the next time it might be the
other way around. But, it's simple to have one ammo
box for .45 ACP, Accessory box has the extra mags, and
full moon clips/demooner. Ok, I do have another ammo
box for .45 Auto RIm. De-moon the full moon clips after a
range session and it's easy to accumulate once fired brass
to bag up.

I also have 1 .357 Mag. and 1 9mm Semi-Aiuto - both fairly
common cartridges.

If I ever get around to a 10mm Auto or .40 S&W I'll probably
start with the S&W 610 - both in one w/full moon clips.

Randall

sqlbullet

June 5, 2009, 06:07 PM

Prejudice.

This thread has exemplified this.

Calibers have pro's and con's. Each person must work through those pro's and con's to reach a decision about what they are going to buy. Same goes for action type.

Our prejudices are human nature. Once we have made a decision, we want to be validated in that decision by having others make the same decision. The more insecure we are, the more likely we are to attack those who have a different opinion.

Cohibra45, I am going to pick on you. Please don't take it personally. There is just a quote in your post that I can use. I happen to have a ready example that contradicts your broad statement.

You state: "Revolvers are easier for the complete novice to use."

Absolute statements like this won't stand. There are always exceptions.

My wife (non-gun person) had no problems firing a Glock (not mine) when it was handed to her. But a Ruger SP-101 (also not mine) had her befuddled. Couldn't imagine the trigger pull was really that long and hard. Kept pulling it part way, then telling me something was wrong with the gun.

Does that mean auto's are better than revolvers? Absolutely not. It means her life experiences made it easier for her to operate a Glock than a SP-101. If I had handed her a Blackhawk (also not mine) she would have been fine. (She kept asking if she needed to cock the hammer on the SP-101.)

Now, you may say, "She isn't a complete novice!". That is true. Who is? People watch TV and see movies. They have fired squirt guns, and cap guns, and staple guns. Anyone you meet is going to have certain perceptions about how to operate a gun, whether they have operated one before or not.

Who is wrong in this thread? Anyone who has said "I always recommend (platform/caliber)." Sorry. You are wrong. Every person is different. Every application is different. If you want to give good advice, you have to let go of your prejudice, ask some questions and open your mind.

Are you really going to recommend a DA revolver to someone who has a degenerative muscle issue and can't squeeze a trigger pull that is greater than 5 lbs? No! Once you know that detail, you will look to either SA revolvers, or SA autos.

I personally prefer auto's. I like condition 1 carry. However, I recently recommended a scandium frame S&W to a friend. Their over-ridding qualification was as light as possible in a 38 +p.

My caliber prejudice?

I like 10mm. It isn't for everyone. Here is why it is for me. I don't have time or interest in having a different caliber for each purpose. I wanted an all around, and I wanted a hi-capacity auto. I like condition 1 carry.

My purposes: I need to practice. I need defense. And I need the occasional trail gun.

Practice: The 10mm is very economical (for me). I cast my own bullets from free lead. Cost per practice round is equal to .22 lr. This would be true for any caliber, I admit. However, people often cite cost as a limiting factor, but it isn't for me. Ammo availability was a non-issue as I reload. If I do buy ammo, I will buy online, where 10mm is available from places like DoubleTap, Georgia Arms and BVAC.

Defense: FBI says it is very hard to beat a .400" 180 grain JHP moving 1000 fps. I can do this with 10mm. Federal's Hydra Shock loads are the FBI 10mm Lite load if I recall correctly.

Trail gun: Fifteen .401" 200 gr hardcast bullet moving 1200 fps will fit that bill. Once again, 10mm is a solid choice.

Now at this point there are a few other rounds that may still fit the bill. But then there are these last two points.

I like to be different. 10mm is different.

I have been infatuated with the 10mm since I got my first gun magazine in the early '80's. Care to guess what was on the cover (If you picked Bren Ten, you get a prize!).

So, I have two EAA Witness guns in 10mm. They fit my requirements great. They have been great guns.

In the end, I picked 10mm because of my prejudice. Those last two factors weighed heavily. I am sure I could have found a list of supporting arguments for 40 S&W, or 41 Magnum, or 454 Casull, or 45 Super, or, or, or.

BlindJustice

June 5, 2009, 08:16 PM

Uhh, sqlbullet, no problem with your choice of the
10mm Auto cartrdige however, seems the price of
primers are running about equal to a .22 LR Mini-Mag
round, so "as cheap as a .22 LR" I;ll take as B.S>
Powder isn't free, eh?

I llike .40 as a caliber, nice balance of weight,
Sectional density/ballilstic Co-efficient with a good
range of bullet weights. What's a Dan Wesson 10mm
carry in a magazine?

R-

jeepmor

June 5, 2009, 08:19 PM

Mostly because I already own some in said caliber, so I look for more in said caliber of choice.

My fav is the 10mm, so I own a 40 also so I can reload them both. It's like that for me anyhow. I have other calibers, and reload them also, but when buying another gun, I consider what I already have simply for plinking and reloading simplicity.

Ed Ames

June 5, 2009, 08:58 PM

Sql, Well said.

So many of our prejudices are inspired by random history, it can be a real challenge to sort reason from rationalization.

I'm a big fan of small high velocity handgun rounds. 7.65x25 and the like. I think they are very cool and useful. Yet, when I look at the handguns I've purchased, .45 caliber variations (acp, c, etc) rule the checkbook.

My rationalization is that the small high velocity rounds are more for hunting and other things that I, as a city dweller, don't actually do. The slower and heavier .45s, on the other hand, are very practical in urban guns. Does anyone buy that?

The sum of that prejudice is my disinterest in intermediate cartridges like .357mag. I know it is popular and I assume there is a reason (beyond the 1950s never quite dying) for that but the cartridge does zilch for me.

None of which says our choices are bad or good... just mostly harmless.

christcorp

June 5, 2009, 11:41 PM

Ed; I'm a little confused. 1st; I love the 45acp. It is by far my favorite handgun caliber. The slowness and mass make for a very easy to shoot weapon that is very effective on human targets. It is by far my favorite. But I don't understand how you can call the 357 magnum cartridge intermediate. Intermediate implies that it is in the "Middle" some place between others. With the exception of HUNTING handguns such as the 41mag, 44mag, 460, 480, 500 and others I have missed; there isn't one caliber handgun from 22lr all the way to 45acp that can reach the velocity and energy of the 357 magnum. Even factory loads can easily take the 357 magnum to 1400 fps and 600 ft/lbs.

And the other advantages of the 357 magnum is that it can go as low as a 70 grain bullet or up to 200 grains. It can be used on practically anything imaginable. It can be found and fired in revolvers, semi-autos, and rifles. Not even considering it's 38 special sister that can be fired in the same weapon; the 357 in it's own right, can be loaded with the similar weight bullets, velocity, and energy of a 9mm, through the 40sw, 10mm, and 45acp. The only calibers the 357 magnum can't reach is the smaller calibers of the 25, 32, and 380 auto; and the faster hunting rounds of the 41 mag, 44 mag, 460, 480, 500 and similar. And this isn't even considering some of the specialty ammo out there that can push a 125 grain bullet 1700 fps and 800 ft/lbs. Personally; I believe the 357 magnum to be the best caliber on the market. It can do ANYTHING that the 9mm through the 45acp and everything in between. I personally us 158 grain Hydra-shoks which is about 300 fps and 100 ft/lbs stronger than a 45acp.

But even though the 45acp is my favorite for self/home defense; there is no way I could even consider the 357 magnum as being intermediate. It is the most versatile caliber there is. It is the most powerful of traditionally accepted self defense hand guns; yet capable of being as soft as a 9mm. The only disadvantage some people may have with it is that it generally is used in a revolver, and therefor limited to 6 rounds. But for self/home defense purposes, that is generally more than enough. But except for that for some people, the 357 magnum is still the BEST overall caliber in any of the handgun ranges. Especially for self/home defense.

sqlbullet

June 6, 2009, 12:11 AM

Blind Justice, can't argue that primers are getting spendy right now. But, I have 2 ton's of lead. I can trade/sell, making primers and powder free for a long time.

Ed Ames

June 6, 2009, 12:30 AM

From a power perspective:
Low is, what, 400 ft-lbs and below? I'll even accept 300ft-lbs and below.
High? 1000 ft-lbs and above.
Intermediate is in the middle.

From a caliber perspective:
Low is less than .32" (actual -- most "32" is about .312") diameter
High is greater than .41" (actual -- .44 mag is .429") diameter.
Intermediate is between them.

.45ACP is low or intermediate power, high diameter
7.65x25 is intermediate power, low diameter
.454 casull is high, high
.22lr is low, low

.357mag is intermediate, intermediate.

Kinda arbitrary, I know, but nothing says you have to use my numbers.

christcorp

June 6, 2009, 02:10 AM

m2steven

June 6, 2009, 10:30 AM

"The fact is, revolvers have no reliability advantage over automatics."

The above is not a fact. I own revolvers and automatics. The only thing that will cause my home defense revolver to fail is bad ammo. There are
at least 2 common ways my pistol can fail and both are fatal to me in the situation we're inferring here.

If you want to make your odds the best they can be with a pistol, you have to keep a bullet in the snout. This eliminates the high percentage problem of botching the first load. It also really ups the odds someone will grab the gun and fire one unintentionally.

My strategy at home is my Ruger .327 mag revolver loaded with skull crushers backed-up with my Glock 26. Both have been 100 percent reliable. Past performance is a great indicator of future performance.

Now, to the topic at hand. I prefer the above 2 calibers for several reasons. The 19mm is cheap to shoot, really reliable, very accurate, easy to fire fast and keep on target. I shoot it at least once a week.
The 327 mag is accurate, great trigger pull, and 'hits like a brick through a plate glass window'. Plus - it easily shoots the cheap stuff for plinking.
I've never had a bullet failure with either.

How does the 19mm compare to the .327 in terms of power. It actually doesn't. However, it hits so well that i'm very comfortable with the thought of putting 7 to 10 slugs into an attacker's torso. If you shoot enough metal targets you get a feel for how much energy a bullet imparts.

The 45 auto is a great pistol if you know how to shoot it. I see too many people at the range bring these out and literally can't hit the broad side of a barn with them. Shoot a caliber you can hit something with.

Vern Humphrey

June 6, 2009, 10:38 AM

The above is not a fact. I own revolvers and automatics. The only thing that will cause my home defense revolver to fail is bad ammo.
Your revolver won't fail if you get a few grains of powder under the ejector star? It won't fail if the transfer bar breaks? It won't fail, if reloading under pressure, you allow a case to fall back into the chamber under the ejector star? It won't fail if a primer backs out, or a bullet jumps crimp?

Ed Ames

June 6, 2009, 10:43 AM

I'm far from unique in saying I think the .327 would be great as a field/kit gun cartridge, especially for a revolver/(lever action?) carbine pair. To me, this (ballistics by the inch) (http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/327mag.html) proves it.

I suspect that, As soon as I can get a carbine/revolver (especially 4") pair, I'll buy one.

<taps foot impatiently> :D

ETA:

I guess so. But except for the 454 casull, the 357 magnum can do ANY of what you listed.

A pretty good analogy for me is the 5.56x45. It's another intermediate cartridge and reasonable enough, but... it's more than I need for most of what it does well (the .222 is arguably a better varmint round) and marginal in applications other cartridges serve well (e.g. deer; it'll kill them but there are dozens of better choices). The .357 is the same sort of deal to me. If the military hadn't adopted 5.56x45 most 5.56 owners would've opted for something else. .357 had the same thing for a generation due to the FBI and/or other police forces adopting them....

Just my prejudice, not anything you have to live your life by.

Oyeboten

June 6, 2009, 11:11 AM

Reminds me of how different people have different daily-driver vehicles.

Any given one will have plusses and minuses, according to the kinds of use it's owner/driver imagines, enjoys or asks of it.

Why do people like certain vehicles?

I think it's usually far from 'certain', rather, they have what they have for whatever their reason is.

And as an earlier Poster alluded, 'Reason' does not per-se mean anyone else's idea of rational, even if it may mean rationalized according to the individual's inclination.

tipoc

June 7, 2009, 05:07 PM

I guess so. But except for the 454 casull, the 357 magnum can do ANY of what you listed. I guess that's why I don't see it as an intermediate. I see a 9mm, 40, and 10mm as an intermediate. Different perspective I guess.

A number of conceptions of handguns come to us from generations of tradition. Traditions don't always make scientific sense.

small bore: anything below the .38 (.22, .32acp, 32 Mag, 9x18, .380, etc.)
medium bore: 9mm, .38 Super, .357 Magnum, .38 Spl. etc.
Big bore: anything from .40 on up

Now I'm not making these classes up they come to us from the by-gone misty days of yore when "big bore" usually meant more power.

Why is the .380 acp considered a small bore caliber when it's the same dia. as the 9mm which is a mid bore? Power is the reason. At the same time the .357 is considered a mid bore caliber (intermediate) even though in certain loadings it has more "power" than the .44 Spl, for example. In his book, IIRC, "Big Bore Revolvers" John Taffin about apologizes for including the .357 but does so and notes it as a medium bore with big bore power.

We inherit a good deal of terms and conceptions about firearms from past generations of shooters. Some of these appear to make little sense until we learn how the terms developed.

tipoc

June 7, 2009, 05:33 PM

For me, it's a multitude of guns, a handful of calibers.

sqlbullet

June 8, 2009, 01:32 PM

there is no way I could even consider the 357 magnum as being intermediate

10mm as an intermediate

There is an inconsistency here.

The 357 Mag and the 10mm are ballistic twins at the muzzle in about any bullet weight they share. There are some lighter projectiles available for 357 (basically 100-200 gr), and some heavier ones for 10mm (basically 130-230). Delivered power is likewise within a percent or two of each other. The 357 has better sectonal density, while the 10mm has more diameter.

So, if the 357 can't be considered intermediate, then the 10mm can't either. 200 gr bullets at 1300 fps either is or is not intermediate performance.

m2steven

June 8, 2009, 02:15 PM

"Your revolver won't fail if you get a few grains of powder under the ejector star? It won't fail if the transfer bar breaks? It won't fail, if reloading under pressure, you allow a case to fall back into the chamber under the ejector star? It won't fail if a primer backs out, or a bullet jumps crimp?"

My revolver is always cleaned prior to it's wait to do it's job. I've shot the sp101 until it's filthy. I have a few other revolvers that don't handle debris as well as my ruger. However, if you take both a clean revolver and pistol - my experience is that you'll have more failures from a clean pistol than a clean revolver.

I've NEVER had a failure with my Glock 26. It's the only pistol I have owned which is perfect. I can tell with a revolver if I've got too much debris under the ejector star or my bullets aren't seating fully due to filth during loading and can be corrected before I get it ready to shoot. It's not so easy to determine beforehand with a pistol. This is just my opinion but in having spent much recent time a the range, even bad ammo won't keep a revolver from shooting the next bullet. Bad ammo in a pistol needs a rack to remove it and it can lodge itself during that process. I had a few mis-feeds with my little LCP which were corrected with a slight hit on the back of the slide pushing the bullet into the barrel. This is acceptable. Having to dig a bullet out with a knife, or the recent failure of a bullet to cycle up into loading position in the magazine is not.

It's easier to correct problems before they are critical with a revolver. Your experience may be different.

Ed Ames

June 8, 2009, 05:10 PM

Ammo problems can bedevil any type of gun.

I went out a few years ago for some revolver plinking. I was shooting at fairly close in targets when something made me pause mid way through a cylinder. I glanced at the muzzle (no, not by pointing it at myself) and there was the nose of a bullet sticking out half an inch.

Pop quiz: what happens if you believe the statement, "All revolver problems can be cured by pulling the trigger again."

wildcatter109

August 15, 2009, 10:16 PM

Im sorry but the idea that a 357 could be concidered anything but intermediate is scarey, I have shot enough groundhogs with one to tell you any standard 44 spcl or long colt load will make the 357 mag. a very eneamic round! I have taken deer with 45 colt and 44 special and assure you That is why I abandoned the 357 mag!! I know it is easy to read articles and shoot paper and think one can do whatever he wants with it, but I have used all of them in the field and out of respect for the game I hunt I would not concider a 357 for deer unless I knew I could limit my shots under 35 yards!! with any bullet or load! Make mine a REAL BIG BORE!:rolleyes:

inSight-NEO

August 15, 2009, 10:27 PM

This is a very subjective question. Too many reasons, really. But, for me, its all about need/usefulness/"track record."

Hence, I prefer the .45 ACP above all else. Second choices would be the .357 Magnum and the .40 S&W. Of course, regarding these last two calibers, it depends on which gun Im using to fire these rounds and why they are being fired in the first place.

Then, of course, there is the 12 gauge shotgun...but I wont get into that one.

S&W-Keeper

August 16, 2009, 12:19 AM

I have a major soft spot for the .357mag.It was my first center fire. I have a lot of them.

Lonestar49

August 16, 2009, 02:10 PM

...

In truth, I really don't have the_answer. But you might ask one of these guys.

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc306/Lonestar49/DaffyBugs45-9mm-fbc.gif

Ls :D

13.45

August 16, 2009, 05:19 PM

same reason they have "ford vs. chevy" loyalty or "chocolate vs. vanilla" loyalty- 'cause folks is folks ;) or, put another way, the human thought process often tends to reduce variables as a means to reach sufficiently useful decisions. sometimes we'd rather make a choice and stick with it instead of constantly having to sort through numerous complex options

TUBBY1

August 20, 2009, 12:08 PM

My favorite is the cheapest but lately it's the one they have for sale. I have 12ga.,20ga.,.410,380,38,357,40,45lc,30-30,300winmag,and last but not least,22.i wish i could tell you they all have a special purpose like sd,hd, or hunting but truth is they all go bang and i like it.god bless america.....

lawboy

August 20, 2009, 02:02 PM

I like 45ACP because I resemble 45ACP! :)

NoirFan

August 20, 2009, 11:47 PM

I don't know why "people" like certain calibers but I can tell you why "I" like the .357 magnum. Not all my reasons are rational or even defensible, but here they are:

Powerful - it's as much power as I need for anything I might call upon a handgun to do

Proven fight-stopping capability

Satisfying recoil and report, at about the upper limit of what I find enjoyable

The guns chambered in this cartridge - double action revolvers and lever rifles - look and feel better than any modern equivalents

Historically significant - it's associated with the G-men vs mobster shootouts in the 1930s, my favorite period of US history

Standing out from the crowd - no one at my range shoots full frame magnum revolvers... it's all black semiautos and rimfire revolvers there

Watching the cylinder turn - you can see the gun work! How cool is that?

Bad ass name - even people who know nothing about guns recognize the words "three fifty seven"

tipoc

August 21, 2009, 09:58 AM

Noirfan,

Those are about the best reasons I've read anywhere for liking a cartridge. I like that approach. :)

tipoc

mljdeckard

August 21, 2009, 10:33 AM

There is a tendency in this hobby, to be given to folklore. You hear stories from your uncle who was in the marines, you read detective stories, you watch the history channel and listen to opinions. Sometimes they're good, sometimes they're not.

My dad has a Remington 760 chambered in .257 Roberts. Igrew up thinking that it was the best cartridge on the planet, just because my dad had one. I knew nothing about it, or similar cartridges. As I got older and learned a little bit about it, I found out that there is a strong case for it being the best cartridge in its range.

I gravitate towards certain cartridges for simplicity. I don't want to complicate my life by having the same things in different calibers, or getting a different cartridge for every job, range, terrain, and season. That's why my life rotates around .22lr, .45 ACP, 12 ga, .308 win, .30 carbine, 22-250, 5.56, 7.62x39, 30-06, and .270. (I have the .270 because it's a gift, and I like it, but I wouldn't have gotten one if it hadn't been.) Maybe I'll add a rifle magnum eventually, and I'd love a vintage Python, but it's a ways down the road.