"I don't know anyone that would stand in front of...."
- Status
Many criminals who are about to attack someone are either mentally ill, under the influence of alcohol or drugs which severely reduce their capacity to feel pain, or otherwise not thinking about the consequences of their actions which is why I don't like the saying "I wouldn't want to get hit with (insert caliber)"
I also don't like the "better than nothing" reasoning. With self defense you are either successful or unsuccessful. When you go to the store to buy something worth $10, bringing a $5 bill is of no use. It isn't enough. However, if you bring a $10 bill you will be just fine, if you bring a $20 bill you are also fine, even though you don't need it all. There is no layaway with self defense. One either has not enough, enough, or more than enough and there is no way to know precisely how much will be needed.
I also don't like the "better than nothing" reasoning. With self defense you are either successful or unsuccessful. When you go to the store to buy something worth $10, bringing a $5 bill is of no use. It isn't enough. However, if you bring a $10 bill you will be just fine, if you bring a $20 bill you are also fine, even though you don't need it all. There is no layaway with self defense. One either has not enough, enough, or more than enough and there is no way to know precisely how much will be needed.
tark
Member
I once shot a 2X4 with my Mauser .25 ACP. It didn't come out the other side. Tried my Nagant revolver. Same results, but the .25 penetrated further. Don't know if a .25 ACP is better than nothing, but I know it's better than a Nagant!!
tark
Member
All right, I'll ask you the same question I asked LookAtYou: You have a choice between defending yourself with either a .25 or nothing at all. Are you gonna tell me that you will choose the latter, because the .25 is no better.?
.308 Norma
Member
If I added a 3rd line: "Its okay if you disagree with me, I can't force you to be right"
Alte Schule
Member
If you are armed with a .25 caliber pistol and placed in a situation where you have to defend yourself aim for the groin, knees or feet. Lots of pain receptors in the feet, a bullet through the knee or knee cap almost guarantees the person shot will go down and a shot to the testicles, or a close miss, would probably allow you to break contact and disengage.
There's a lot of bluster about "mouse guns", the real truth is, the smaller caliber is going to keep you on target faster, and 4 or five hits with a 22 or 25 is far better than less accuracy, and less rounds, with a larger caliber.
OTOH, not so much with 22s, but 25 caliber firearms are small, in the extreme. They look like a toy, or a novelty cigarette lighter, or something. So there's about zero deterrence factor, in pulling your 25ACP, if you pull it, you're probably going to have to shoot it. When I carry my Governor, it's impressive size just may have a deterrent factor, at the last second, the attacker may have a sudden change of heart, and flee, because the gun is a serious handful. I would far rather pull a large gun, and not have to shoot, than pull a small gun, and have to unload it, into some unfortunate putz.
OTOH, not so much with 22s, but 25 caliber firearms are small, in the extreme. They look like a toy, or a novelty cigarette lighter, or something. So there's about zero deterrence factor, in pulling your 25ACP, if you pull it, you're probably going to have to shoot it. When I carry my Governor, it's impressive size just may have a deterrent factor, at the last second, the attacker may have a sudden change of heart, and flee, because the gun is a serious handful. I would far rather pull a large gun, and not have to shoot, than pull a small gun, and have to unload it, into some unfortunate putz.
The deterrence factor of firearms is undeniable. It's the reason that most defensive gun uses don't even involve the gun being fired. No matter how small the firearm, nor how feeble the caliber, there's always the chance that taking a bullet from it could be lethal and rational/informed persons will avoid that risk given the choice. (I do NOT advocate that people should carry firearms purely for their deterrent value. One should prepare for the situation where an attacker is not deterred. However, it is clear that the deterrent value is there and is significant. Ignoring it will make it impossible to get a full understanding of the situation.)
Not all attackers are deterred by firearms. They may be irrational due to extreme emotion, mental illness, intoxication, or it's possible they are misinformed/uninformed about the potential lethality of all firearms. Or maybe they just don't care. In that case the defender may require a firearm to do more than intimidate.
The difference in capability of various firearms and calibers is undeniable. As velocities and bullet weights fall, achieving adequate penetration can become problematic, especially with expanding ammunition. As penetration becomes more difficult to achieve, the potential effectiveness of the firearm to actually disable the attacker falls. There's more chance that a round might fail to penetrate sufficiently to incapacitate the attacker.
Even a wound that is not sufficient to completely incapacitate an attacker can begin to change priorities, and it can also partially incapacitate which can give a defender some advantage in a physical struggle if that is the next step in the attack after the attacker is shot but not incapacitated.
So is something better than nothing?
1. Yes, any firearm has the potential to be lethal and therefore has some deterrent value to most people.
2. Yes, any firearm has the potential to incapacitate and therefore has the potential to end an attack even if the attacker is not deterred.
3. Yes. Even if the firearm does not stop the attacker, a wound can reduce the resolve of an attacker, and/or, reduce the physical effectiveness of an attacker who continues the attack after being shot.
Does that mean all guns/calibers are equivalent in terms of defensive utility? No, there are multiple factors including shootability, penetration capablity, capacity, etc. that can make one gun/caliber combination a better choice for defense than another.
What's the bottom line?
"I wouldn't stand in front of it." Is a useful (if obvious) observation that applies to most attackers (rational/informed). On the other hand, it tends to dramatically oversimplify the situation and some may mistakenly take it to mean that all defensive firearm choices are equivalent.
Not all attackers are deterred by firearms. They may be irrational due to extreme emotion, mental illness, intoxication, or it's possible they are misinformed/uninformed about the potential lethality of all firearms. Or maybe they just don't care. In that case the defender may require a firearm to do more than intimidate.
The difference in capability of various firearms and calibers is undeniable. As velocities and bullet weights fall, achieving adequate penetration can become problematic, especially with expanding ammunition. As penetration becomes more difficult to achieve, the potential effectiveness of the firearm to actually disable the attacker falls. There's more chance that a round might fail to penetrate sufficiently to incapacitate the attacker.
Even a wound that is not sufficient to completely incapacitate an attacker can begin to change priorities, and it can also partially incapacitate which can give a defender some advantage in a physical struggle if that is the next step in the attack after the attacker is shot but not incapacitated.
So is something better than nothing?
1. Yes, any firearm has the potential to be lethal and therefore has some deterrent value to most people.
2. Yes, any firearm has the potential to incapacitate and therefore has the potential to end an attack even if the attacker is not deterred.
3. Yes. Even if the firearm does not stop the attacker, a wound can reduce the resolve of an attacker, and/or, reduce the physical effectiveness of an attacker who continues the attack after being shot.
Does that mean all guns/calibers are equivalent in terms of defensive utility? No, there are multiple factors including shootability, penetration capablity, capacity, etc. that can make one gun/caliber combination a better choice for defense than another.
What's the bottom line?
"I wouldn't stand in front of it." Is a useful (if obvious) observation that applies to most attackers (rational/informed). On the other hand, it tends to dramatically oversimplify the situation and some may mistakenly take it to mean that all defensive firearm choices are equivalent.
If it's all I have then I'll do my best to make it work, and it might work, but at the end of the day if it doesn't and I end up dead was it really better than nothing? The same goes for anything from a .22 to a 30-06.
Hokkmike
Member
apples & oranges, I never said that, etc., and etc.
Yet those who call the .380 a pea shooter won't stand in front of one. It's about the same power as a .38 special, carried by cops for decades. A perp hearing a bang followed by a bullet in his direction will most likely break off the attack and pick on someone else.
After all these replies ...
Nobody volunteer to get shot with _____ ? No? No takers? Well then, ... its good to go.
Forget about 12-18'' penetration and consistent expansion, we have a new standard.
Ever try "aiming for" anything with one of those?
Kevin Keith
Member
I can't decide if this is a "which is better" thread or a "would you rather" thread.
wiscoaster
Member
Either way, at this point, it's about a "it's had its day" thread.
RougeLeader1
Member
A bullet penetrating the brain will end things in a second.
A bullet penetrating the heart will end things in a few seconds.
A bullet penetrating and collapsing a lung may end things in a minute or so, or not end things at all.
A bullet penetrating soft tissue may or may not end things in several seconds, or not end things at all.
A bullet that breaks bones will render the supported structures either useless or severely impaired.
A bullet that severs a tendon will render the adjacent muscle mass severely impaired.
A bullet that severs a major muscle group will render the relevant limb/structure useless or severely impaired.
None of these facts have to do with the size, mass, impact velocity, or construction of the projectile. This is just simple anatomy and physiology.
Ask yourself which of these a 25 ACP, or any other chambering, can achieve and you will get your answer in terms of the capability of the lethality of that chambering. Combine that with your performance with a relevant firearm and you have your answer in terms of the practical damage that can be done in an ideal world in which you yourself do not receive damage of your own. Some of that comes down to preference, for instance I (being in a restricted state) prefer a more 'lethal' round that may not have the highest composite practical performance given the platform, but that is a calculation you must make yourself.
Would I want to be shot with a 25 ACP? No. Would I and do I carry it? No.
Do I carry 380? Yes. Thats just where I personally have put my threshold based on the above analysis and expected threat analysis.
A bullet penetrating the heart will end things in a few seconds.
A bullet penetrating and collapsing a lung may end things in a minute or so, or not end things at all.
A bullet penetrating soft tissue may or may not end things in several seconds, or not end things at all.
A bullet that breaks bones will render the supported structures either useless or severely impaired.
A bullet that severs a tendon will render the adjacent muscle mass severely impaired.
A bullet that severs a major muscle group will render the relevant limb/structure useless or severely impaired.
None of these facts have to do with the size, mass, impact velocity, or construction of the projectile. This is just simple anatomy and physiology.
Ask yourself which of these a 25 ACP, or any other chambering, can achieve and you will get your answer in terms of the capability of the lethality of that chambering. Combine that with your performance with a relevant firearm and you have your answer in terms of the practical damage that can be done in an ideal world in which you yourself do not receive damage of your own. Some of that comes down to preference, for instance I (being in a restricted state) prefer a more 'lethal' round that may not have the highest composite practical performance given the platform, but that is a calculation you must make yourself.
Would I want to be shot with a 25 ACP? No. Would I and do I carry it? No.
Do I carry 380? Yes. Thats just where I personally have put my threshold based on the above analysis and expected threat analysis.
snowman357
Member
If I had to pick a gun to be shot with it would be nerf. The 25acp ammo is high price for what it is, since 22lr has become more reliable the 25 has declined. A long time ago the 25 was carried because 22lr was not as reliable as the centerfire 25acp. With any round shot placement is the most critical factor. With mostly saturday night specials and few quality guns in 25acp not much attention is given to the 25 round, hornady does make a critical defense round for it but from youtube test videos it doesnt do much. For a shirt pocket gun in 22lr or 25acp I would bet on the 25 being more accurate and reliable than a 22lr. With all that being said I draw the line at 380.
Aletheia
Member
Bill Burr's take on it. Bad video, but he's right on as usual.
Howland937
Member
Having owned both, I'd take your bet.
I guess the whole premise of this thread could have been qualified with "nobody in their right mind" or "nobody would voluntarily"...
Sure, people will do dumb crap for money or some type of reward. Nobody on here has offered to take a round of any caliber to the face or even center mass. Nobody will. That doesn't mean that "any caliber" is a good SD option.
Rock185
Member
I don't believe that any amount of money would persuade me to willingly be shot with anything.
And FWIW, I attended an autopsy wherein the deceased subject had been shot with one round of .380 ball ammo. Didn't matter that it was .380 ball. The little bullet was in the guy's heart, and he was most certainly as dead as Caesar's ghost. Nope, wouldn't willingly allow myself to be shot anywhere with anything, not even a .25
And FWIW, I attended an autopsy wherein the deceased subject had been shot with one round of .380 ball ammo. Didn't matter that it was .380 ball. The little bullet was in the guy's heart, and he was most certainly as dead as Caesar's ghost. Nope, wouldn't willingly allow myself to be shot anywhere with anything, not even a .25
Yes it is, I'm not talking about +P .38s.
No guarantees on any caliber. This chart says the .380 is pretty good:
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power
I don't believe that any amount of money would persuade me to willingly be shot with anything.
And FWIW, I attended an autopsy wherein the deceased subject had been shot with one round of .380 ball ammo. Didn't matter that it was .380 ball. The little bullet was in the guy's heart, and he was most certainly as dead as Caesar's ghost. Nope, wouldn't willingly allow myself to be shot anywhere with anything, not even a .25
He didn't get the internet memo that a .380 is useless for SD.
- Status
