Does caliber even matter??

[NoAlibi]

You have to go with what works the great majority of times to be adequately protected.

Hint: DVC (aka: Diligentia - Vis - Celeritas; aka: Accuracy - Power - Speed)

My cousin, 12 at the time, dropped his .22lr rifle while riding his bike and was shot through the left orbital plate (only scratching the cornea) and the bullet lodged in the left mid-cortex of his brain. He picked up his gun and rode his bike home - so much for shot placement with a .22lr. This is not the normal result of a shot to the brain, but I wanted to point out there are no guarantees, so I stand by my first statement.

PS - Cuz ended up with a mild paralysis of his right arm, but it didn't affect his ability to work, drive or stop him from marrying the prettiest girl in the county.....Doc

 

[easyg]

I can shoot a P11 fine, but in .40 what is alot of power in a small (and light) package becomes more than I can control. I like the concept, and if I took lots of time, and only shot it when fresh, and went to the gym, I am sure that I could eventually handle that gun. BUT, I would never carry it now, because I know that I can't do double taps, or even quick fire, without the gun stove piping from me limp wristing.

Well, if you shoot the P11 fine, but not the P11 in .40, then why not just stick with the P11 in 9mm Para?

I carry a .32 because I am out alot with toddlers and their mothers, this means I can't be batman, and the gun really can't be on my belt as little hands, and feet when I pick them up, eventually end up there.

Heck, with the right belt and the right holster you can carry nearly any compact or subcompact pistol, and it would be 100% safe to do so even around toddlers.

If I was going somewhere I considered especially dangerous, yes I carry more, but at the park etc. with the kids, I feel comfortable with what I carry.

So if you knew you were going somewhere "especially dangerous" then you wouldn't rely upon the .32, right?

The problem with this line of thought is that there's no way to tell when an otherwise rather safe place might suddenly become an "especially dangerous" place.

Remember Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen Texas....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hennard

Remember Columbine High School....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

Neither of these places were especially dangerous until after the shooting began.

and that is the Crux of it, I would rather pick a gun in a caliber that is capable of doing what I want to do, with a bullet design that is effective. I'm not bear hunting, I'm not going to war.

But you do what a handgun in a caliber that has a better than average chance of quickly stopping a human aggressor with as few shots as possible, right?



If the answer to that last question is "yes", then you most certainly want something more effective than a .32 caliber handgun.

Stick with the P11 in 9mm Para.
You said that you shoot it fine, right?

 

[gym]

Everything matters

 

[ugaarguy]

rather that the pissing contest between .40 and 9mm, the cult of .45 etc. don't really matter, as they all work, within their limits.

Well making comments like "I have most major calibers, except .45, too much BS, too expensive, and doesn't hold enough...", and "not disdain for the 45acp, lets just say that, to me, I haven't found a platform, or particular need that requires a .45, let me reiterate, the whole bs, koolaid, caliber champions etc. in the cult of the .45 haven't helped" pissing on the .45 ACP sure sound like you want to start a pissing contest.

Use what you like, what you can get fast & accurate hits with, and what you're comfortable with. Just don't come in here and make comments that piss on one caliber, then backtrack and say you don't want to start to a pissing contest when you get called on those comments.

As far as caliber cults; the .45 guys quote size & weight, the 9mm guys quote velocity, and the .40 S&W guys quote energy. If you want an expensive round that may or may not (it's still validly debated) do anything the big three can't get a .357 SIG. Even though I don't own one, I still think .357 SIG is a neat round. .38 Super, and 9x23 Win are also very cool, and even less mainstream. Don't get the 10mm guys started either. If you want even more exotic & expensive you could go with .400 CorBon, 9x25 Dillon, .38 Casull, or 50 GI. Everyone drinks the koolaid; just some only like one flavor, while others like many flavors.

 

[Manco]

Would you willingly go grizzly bear hunting, stalking on the ground, with a .22LR revolver?

I see your point, and it is quite illustrative, however determining the effectiveness of a caliber's or individual round's terminal ballistics is a bit more complex than this example makes it appear. This is because not all aspects of shots are equally weighted, and the energy/momentum potential of a round of any caliber can be redistributed to optimize its effectiveness, at least to a point.

For example, let's assume that reasonable shot placement opportunity is available when given a certain depth of penetration (using calibrated ballistic gelatin as an arbitrary standard medium) in a certain class of target, and that shot placement and penetration are the two most important parameters of any instance of shooting, with wound channel diameter a distant third. For human targets, a typical penetration depth of 12" is generally considered sufficient for virtually full effectiveness, so calibers that would grossly overpenetrate when using the most basic bullet designs, such as 9mm, are optimized by using expanding bullets that limit penetration to 12" and put the rest of the caliber's energy into creating wider wound channels, which incrementally improves shot placement probability and the potential for faster bleed-out. Without this optimization, it could be argued that 9mm is no more effective than .380 ACP or .38 Special, calibers that have similar bullet diameters and likewise overpenetrate; in other words, 9mm would be overkill and a waste without JHPs (leaving aside barrier penetration here for the sake of simplicity). It could also be argued, based on the priorities assigned to the various aspects of shootings, that an 80-20 rule likely applies to the 9mm caliber with regard to humans in that about 80% of its energy goes toward about only a 20% improvement over a smaller caliber, such as .22 LR, that is also able to meet the more important penetration depth standard of 12" when properly optimized. Viewed from a different angle, it could be argued that .22 LR is able to achieve perhaps 80% of what 9mm can, against humans, with only 20% of the energy (sort of the engineering version of the Pareto principle).

As you might expect, the grizzly example is different because they're physically so much larger and tougher than humans. While .22 LR can kill practically any living creature under certain circumstances and with extremely precise shot placement, it simply lacks the penetrative capability to offer reasonable shot placement opportunity in defensive shooting scenarios. It's just not a directly comparable case, period, because caliber effectiveness does not scale proportionally with target size when we consider humans like you're implying, but according to something like the 80-20 rule instead, once the most important parameters of terminal ballistics have been satisfied (which is possible with humans but not grizzlies for .22 LR). I wouldn't hunt a grizzly with a 9mm JHP load, either, because it lacks sufficient penetration against this target just like .22 LR. Now, using hard-cast bullets or at least FMJ bullets would increase the 9mm caliber's effectiveness against grizzlies tremendously vis-à-vis JHP bullets, while the opposite (though not as dramatic) would be true against humans. See what I mean about direct comparisons being meaningless? While .22 LR may be practically useless against grizzlies, against humans it can be almost as effective as even 9mm.

 

[Manco]

So my advice is this:
If all you can handle and shoot accurately is a .22 or a .32 then I guess that's what you'll have to go with.
It's better than nothing for sure.

Agreed, however I would add that it may also be better than using larger, more powerful calibers for these folks.

But if you can accurately shoot a 9mm para or larger, then I see no good reason to choose a less capable caliber.

Absolutely.

the .32 was considered a good enough caliber for many years in Europe, and if it didn't have a place, there wouldn't be guns made in it or people buying them.

Using FMJ bullets it's about as effective, at least when measured in gelatin, as a .22 LR rifle shooting hollow-points (maybe a bit less because of bullet shape), so it'll get the job done with the right shot placement.

The .32 is a poor second to a combat caliber, but, for my situation it fits the bill, I don't go unarmed.

While .32 ACP is indeed less effective, we're not talking fractions here, in my opinion, as I think they're a lot closer than that against human targets. The key physical question is whether the smaller caliber can get sufficient penetration, and with FMJ bullets .32 ACP can.

As far as caliber cults; the .45 guys quote size & weight, the 9mm guys quote velocity, and the .40 S&W guys quote energy. If you want an expensive round that may or may not (it's still validly debated) do anything the big three can't get a .357 SIG.

I think it's actually the .357 SIG guys who quote both velocity and energy more than anybody else.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Ja, listen, I'm in the market for a .45 now, if anybody has a spare one, like I said, I don't shoot one, and the 'stuff' around the caliber has turned me off it, and the price of ammo too. Has to be cheap, as I am broke right now,

I guess another way of phrasing this question is, with the variety and availability of a huge number of calibers, why should you or shouldn't you, pick and choose what you use? Yeah, a 45 might make a bigger hole, but there a few pics and thread here showing what happens when shot, and no matter if it's a .22 or a .45, it's a bloody mess.

A pistol isn't going to 'drop' a guy in one shot, unless you get a CNS hit, so caliber after that is a personal choice. It seems that many mysterious properties get attributed to a specific caliber, but there seem to be no do all, end all caliber, or is there something I'm missing?

 

[Shadow 7D]

Oh, as to a belt holster, It's not the belt, it's not the holster, it's the activity I do every day. I have a Number of reasons for not wearing one, the kids are one, if you have little ones, they will and do get into everything, and when you pick one up, and they crawl all over you, then are going to step on your gun in the process, hence pocket carry for me, and that is from experience, it's bad enough that my tike goes and tell mommy about my gun, I really don't want him showing her too, or freaking out his friends mommies at play group, and yes part is training thing, and I am working on that too.

 

[skoro]

Probably not as much as most of us would tend to believe. In many cases, I think a 38spl or 9mm will serve as well as a 45, given similar shot placement. Having said that, if I was in a SD situation, I'd still prefer to be armed with the 45.

 

[ugaarguy]

Ja, listen, I'm in the market for a .45 now, if anybody has a spare one, like I said, I don't shoot one, and the 'stuff' around the caliber has turned me off it, and the price of ammo too. Has to be cheap, as I am broke right now,

If you're broke and have a wife & kids save your money - another gun can wait. Use what you can spare for your play/fun budget for ammo to train with what you have. Keep the software & mindset sharp first; then worry about more hardware later.

As far as why I like .45 ACP (amongst many others), is not just what it can do, but the fact that it does it at roughly 2/3 to 1/2 the SAAMI max pressure (21k PSI) of 9mm & .40 S&W (both 35k PSI), 10mm (37.5k PSI), and .357 SIG (40k PSI). That translates to longer case life, less wear on the weapon, easier extraction, and less chance of a ruptured case. When you consider the strength of most modern firearms it also means that you have a wider margin of safety if you accidentally overcharge a round.

I've been blasted before for comparing to .45 ACP to 10mm, and while they don't really compare, the .45 ACP holds up quite well to the big 10mm.

Comparing the hottest loads of the same or similar bullet weights between the two in my Speer Reloading Manual #13 here's the data after a little number crunching:
200gr bullets the .45 ACP is doing 83 of the 10mm's velocity. Comparing the 2nd hottest 10mm load, only because it's .5 grain less (10gr v. 10.5gr) of the same propellant (Blue Dot) as the .45 ACP's hottest load, the gap closes to 87% of the velocity.

In 185gr loadings the hottest standard pressure .45 ACP load is getting 81% of the 10mm's 180gr velocity - yes I'm comparing 185gr .45 ACP to the well hyped, 10mm 180gr JHP over 11.0gr of Blue Dot, doing 1295 fps, and putting out nearly 700 fpe at the muzzle.

Not a bad showing for .45 ACP with similar charges of some of the same powders as 10mm, but loaded to only 56% of the pressure. So maybe they do compare after all

Compared to .40 S&W the .45 ACP throws 185gr. loads a bit faster than the .40 S&W throws 180gr loads (that's the closest to an overlap of bullet weight as is in my Speer manual). It also does so at 60% of the pressure.

I own a .40 S&W 1911 because it came from the factory with a ramped bbl. (full case head support), and will also allow me to fit a ramped 10mm bbl (drop swap with mag change after the bbl is fitted, ) to it. I also own other 1911s in .45 ACP.

 

[razorback2003]

I think that all handguns are poor choices when it comes to stopping large things....a rifle works better...I am a deer hunter and have seen this first hand. No way would I use a 9mm, 38 special, or 45 ACP as my primary when deer hunting...but I do carry a handgun as backup to finish deer off that have been shot with a rifle and have done it with a 9mm.

I think it is best to find what you shoot best. I have a 38 snub that I carry on me in public and keep a 45 1911 at home. I like the 1911 platform because it is comfortable/thin/heavy gun for range and I like the single action trigger.....9mm 1911's are expensive....and I got a pretty good deal on my 45 1911...either a 45, 9mm, or 38 super are probably equal with good hollowpoints out of a 5inch 1911 for self defense..I have reloading equipment so not too worried about 45 ball price to practice..PRACTICE is what matters....my Browning Buck Mark 22LR is just like my 1911..controls wise...that helps...I'd like to get a 22LR DA S&W revolver in time....shoot what you are comfortable with...enjoy..and have fun with...because that will make you shoot more and get you to the range more and learn more...that is what matters....also get a 22LR handgun.

 

[NoAlibi]

Shadow 7D:

A pistol isn't going to 'drop' a guy in one shot, unless you get a CNS hit, so caliber after that is a personal choice.

Please refer to post # 52

Also to get a CNS hit you have to get through the bone. Prior going to the homicide section I investigated numerous shootings and most notably .22s, 25s, and .32s did not penetrate the calvarium, but rather ricocheted off it.

If you are counting on getting a small caliber, low powered bullet into the brain you are going to have to make a shot through the orbital plates (right behind the eye) because those are the thinnest bones in the skull.

IMO very few folks can make that shot under pressure when the BG and you are moving, unless you get him in a headlock first, put the muzzle of your mouse gun in the eye socket and pull the trigger.

 

[easyg]

While .22 LR may be practically useless against grizzlies, against humans it can be almost as effective as even 9mm.

Ummm, no, the .22LR, from a pistol, is not even close to a 9mm Para when it comes to quickly stopping human aggressors.

You can point out gelatin results all day long, but the .22LR from a handgun (not a rifle) has a dismal reputation for dropping human targets in a quick manner.
Sure the .22LR has sent many a man to his grave, just not very quickly.

There's a very good reason that cops don't rely upon .22LR handguns (or .32 caliber handguns):
Because those calibers suck when it comes to quickly stopping human aggressors in a reliable manner.
Believe me, if the .22LR (fired from a handgun) was reliably effective at quickly stopping humans then cops would be carrying them.

 

[easyg]

Compared to .40 S&W the .45 ACP throws 185gr. loads a bit faster than the .40 S&W throws 180gr loads (that's the closest to an overlap of bullet weight as is in my Speer manual). It also does so at 60% of the pressure.

Not to be nit-picky, but consider that according to Speer's website, the .45 was fired from a handgun with a 5" barrel while the .40 was fired from a handgun with a 4" barrel.

And even with the barrel differences the speed was very close:

.45ACP = 1050 fps
.40S&W = 1025 fps

The muzzle energy was very close too:

.45ACP = 453 ft.lbs.
.40S&W = 420 ft.lbs.

Shoot them both from a 4" barrel (or both from a 5" barrel) and there would be virtually no difference except this:

The .45 would make a slightly bigger hole (.05), but the .40 would offer more bullets in the magazine (in comparable sized handguns).

 

[GLOOB]

Among other things, YES, how else do you get the description of x millimeter wound channel, and lets not even get onto the temporary wound channel, that may be valid with a tumbling rifle round, but not a handgun.

Shaow 7D: Just because someone puts a description of "x centimeters by x centimeters by x centimeters" in an autopsy report doesn't make it so. It's just one person's best guess to put a number on what isn't so easily quantifiable as a box or a cube. In some cases a wound may be easy to measure. In some cases, it is not.

I would take as fairly accurate a mole that is described as 2mm by 3mm. A gunshot wound described to the mm? Haha... Why only the closest millimeter? Why not go down to micrometers? (That's sarcasm... If only people were made of ballistic gelatin )

 

[Shadow 7D]

Yeah, I understand, most of that came from my training, and that is how they described it, in a reasonable way, irregular entrance wound x millimeters by x, oblique oblong in appearance.

If you don't cover the margin, color, regularity and texture, along with classification in your description of that mole, and while you're at it take a biopsy for Path., you are leaving yourself open for a hell of a malpractice suit

 

[CDW4ME]

I always carried either a 40 (Glock 23 or 27) or 45 (Glock 30SF) over a 9mm (Glock 19). Why? Bigger bullets.

I knew I could shoot a 9mm quicker, didn't know how much, but went for the bigger bullets anyway.

After 20+ years of shooting I finally got a timer.

I've always practiced "double taps" but the timer encouraged me to try and improve, plus compare.

I would put a 6'' circle on a B27 target and the target would be 18 feet (6 yards) away (seemed like a reasonable distance); my goal was to keep both shots on the 6'' circle as quickly as possible. If both shots failed to hit the 6'' circle time didn't count (a 1/2'' miss was a "disqualification") At first, I wasn't that quick; my times ran .46 -.50 for nearly everything. After (much) practice I was able to get that down to .27 - .29 average for about 20 "qualifying" times. Although I could shoot the 40 (Glock 23) as quickly as the 9mm (19) after practice the accuracy wasn't as good with the 40; I had to work harder to keep the front sight on target and there were more "disqualifications" with the 40. I dug a Colt lightweight Commander out of the safe (I had not shot it in over 10 years) and to my sheer amazement posted average times of .32 using 230 gr. FMJ with equivalent accuracy to the Glock 19. I'm in the process of getting a new 1911 because of these timer "tests" and I've sold 3 pistols that fared poorly (slow times in combination with lots of misses and no I won't say what they were); 2 out of the 3 pistols I've sold were frequent carry pistols.

AS you can see, I'm big on accurate quick follow up shots. The 19 is now carried over the 23 (Not selling the 23) and I'm getting a new 1911 (major for someone who hasn't shot or carried one in a while).

I'm sure there are a bunch of people that are like I was, they carry a 45 or 40 because of bullet diameter but have not compared several pistols in an objective manner. I have seen other threads about how some shooting ranges do not allow "double taps" so I know I'm right. If you can't perform some kind of timed comparison with an accuracy component you really do not know what would serve you best, sticking with 9mm and up.

I guess if accuracy is equal then you will have to decide how much slower you are willing to be on the 2nd shot for a larger bullet. My 19 was the absolute fastest, but the 1911 Commander was only .03 sec slower with equivalent accuracy. I'm willing to give up .03 of a second for the caliber upgrade. However, I would not be willing to go from .29 up to .49 on accurate follow up shots just for a bigger bullet. (Two of the pistols I sold were chopped 45's and they could do no better than .62 -.64 with inconsistent shot placement and a lot of work to keep the front sight down).

I don't think 1 or 2mm of bullet diameter will offset 2'' of placement and you may need to shoot a follow up shot quickly.

Does caliber matter? Yes. Do shot placement (accuracy) and speed matter? Yes.
I'm going to have the best combination of those three ingredients.

 

[CDR_Glock]

Practice for Position, Placement and Penetration. Position: I have only been in one threatening position where self defense would have been a possibility. Luckily I talked myself out of a position of vulnerability in DC. Never let yourself get in a situation that will compromise your existence on earth.

Rifles and shotguns will win, hands down. The handgun is not as effective given range, capacity and ballistics. It is not practical for us to carry such weaponry.

Self defense is a mindset that involves proper preparation through practice, concealment, tactics, training and discussions. However, budget plays a big role in our plans for defense. Not everyone can afford a Dan Wesson or Les Bauer (and eat a meal, at least). Not everyone can buy a GI issue 1911 and upgrade it to spec and have enough money to shoot efficiently. Not everyone has the budget to attend basic and advanced tactical shooting courses, reload, buy a whole cache of concealment holsters or even an entire wardrobe to fit the lifestyle of concealed carry.

A debate will continue amongst the usefulness of caliber A versus B. Reading what experts have written, the minimum defensive round is the 380 ACP and the 38. There are enough anectdotal police reports and after action reports to show what caliber works. However, each scenario is different. What climate? What is the clothing? What distance? Is there body armor involved? How many assailants? What was the collateral damage? What was the weapon? There are no constants. We cannot concurrently carry a weapon to handle every single problem. We prepare for what we THINK is best. Our calculation may be wrong.

Placement is key, but that takes practice. Not only at the range, but dry firing, controlled pairs, strong hand, weak hand, supine, prone, behind a barrier, while running/on the move, against moving targets, from a vehicle. Paper targets don't shoot back or sad still.

Penetration is based upon what is minimally effective. If that round meets the criteria, then use it. If it is "unproven" or not enough data is available, don't stake your life on it. A well placed rock throw, golf club/baseball bat, tactical knife or buzz saw blade has it's place. It is up to us to know how to use our weapon of choice.

This was an interesting article that I read convincing me of what I like to use.
http://www.gunthorp.com/Terminal Ballistics as viewed in a morgue.htm

It is important to know the law regarding self defense. It doesn't seem to have an emphasis. "Self Defense Laws of all 50 States" by Mitch Vilos and Evan Vilos is a great book. "Florida Firearms: Laws, Use and Ownership" is another great book for legal scenarios for Florida.

Choose a caliber that fits your ability and lifestyle. Stick to it. Learn to carry and conceal it. A moments notice is all you have to decide. Shoot true and shoot straight. Once you shoot, get a good defense lawyer. Good luck.

 

[Manco]

Ummm, no, the .22LR, from a pistol, is not even close to a 9mm Para when it comes to quickly stopping human aggressors.

So what do 9mm bullets do that supposedly stops human aggressors so much more quickly? Short of a CNS hit, in the examples of determined aggressors I've seen and heard about, 9mm seemed to do squat in slowing them down, at least in the short term.

You can point out gelatin results all day long, but the .22LR from a handgun (not a rifle) has a dismal reputation for dropping human targets in a quick manner.
Sure the .22LR has sent many a man to his grave, just not very quickly.

Perhaps the loads that were used were inadequate out of short barrels, or more generally were not well matched with the lengths of the barrels, which may well have resulted in inadequate penetration--I've seen those test results, too, and they were definitely not promising. However, there are high-velocity .22 LR loads that will penetrate sometimes even 15" or more in gelatin (albeit with no expansion) when shot from short-barreled (~3-4 inches) handguns. This should at least match the performance of weaker, non-expanding loads shot from .22 LR rifles, which do have a much better reputation for dropping humans.

As I had said earlier on, with the smaller calibers load selection is far more critical, and with .22 LR you have to be extra careful about matching any load with the right barrel length. For example, a lot of people seem to like the CCI Stinger as a potential defensive load because it is such a high-velocity round, but in my opinion, based on lab tests, it's really only effective out of rather short barrels--I'd say 2.5" at the most (basically snubbies). Out of a 6" handgun barrel, the Stinger would be far too likely to expand, which would significantly reduce its average penetration depth and thereby its overall effectiveness, so it is not recommended in this barrel length. In between, the results are unpredictable and also not recommended. When shot from rifles, the Stinger tends to fragment violently and penetrate poorly--once again, I would recommend against this well known and popular load for the purpose of self-defense against humans, at least in 3" barrels or longer.

There's a very good reason that cops don't rely upon .22LR handguns (or .32 caliber handguns):
Because those calibers suck when it comes to quickly stopping human aggressors in a reliable manner.

Well, some police forces have relied on .32 ACP for many years. The reason that they don't rely on anything smaller is that they don't feel they have to, even though it may be the best choice for some people. Also, historically .22 LR hasn't always been able to get sufficient penetration out of handguns, so naturally it developed a reputation for poor performance even though that is not necessarily the case today if you know what you're doing.

Many police forces have moved away from 9mm to larger calibers, but does that necessarily mean that 9mm is ineffective? Even the FBI went back to using 9mm (as an option with .40 S&W still the standard) because today's JHP loads penetrate so much better than they used to, and I think the same is true of .22 LR with the right load in the right handgun. Of course, it's always hard to overcome a long-held reputation even after some critical changes have occurred (both in hardware and our understanding of handgun wounding factors).

Believe me, if the .22LR (fired from a handgun) was reliably effective at quickly stopping humans then cops would be carrying them.

No, I don't believe that's what they all base their caliber selections on, especially since no handgun caliber is all that effective in the first place. Like everybody else, they should use the largest caliber with which they are proficient, even though the smallest effective caliber, namely .22 LR, would actually be fairly close in effectiveness against humans. Similarly, I'll stick with my .40 S&W, too, but that doesn't mean I'm going to deny that it only gives me a rather limited advantage over .22 LR (kind of disappointing, actually, but I'd still want that edge when my life is on the line). Until we get to high-powered rifles, the law of diminishing returns (which is very much related to the 80-20 rule I referenced earlier) has definitely set in, even though it's something I don't like to admit.

 

[Fishman777]

.22 for bear defense...

No.

I wouldn't use a .22 for bear defense.

You are missing my point.

People on these types of boards have this crazy idea that .22s are like spit balls. .22s will penetrate a cow skull and can easily shoot through house doors and even car doors. I mentioned the article to prove that .22s are plenty dangerous, if you hit a vital. Non-expanding rounds will penetrate and can do a lot of damage.

For a large bear, a rifle or a shotgun, with slugs, would be ideal.

For a large brown bear, I'd probably prefer a .44 revolver or possibly a 10 mm with really, really hot ammo. Someone just killed an adult alaskan brown with nine .45 acp rounds at Denali National Park about a month or two ago. This proves that even non-traditional bear cartridges can do the trick if you hit a vital. It took nine shots for this guy to get the job done, but he took the bear down. I don't think that you really need a howitzer to take a brown bear down. You need shot placement with adequate penetration to get a CNS hit.

 

[3:00hold]

You know a thread has been lost when you see ".22 for bear defense . . . ", regarless of the context.

When was the last time a police force relied on the .32 auto? Seriously.

Self defense isn't archery hunting. You don't get to sit down for an hour and wait for the BG to bleed to death.

 

[easyg]

So what do 9mm bullets do that supposedly stops human aggressors so much more quickly?

Creates a bigger hole in the tissue it hits, and causes more damage and trauma to the tissue it hits, and transfers more energy to the tissue it hits, and no doubt increases the odds of systemic shock to the target.

Will a 9mm Para round quickly stop a human aggressor?
Not always.
But it has a much much much better chance of doing so than a .22LR round from a handgun.

Well, some police forces have relied on .32 ACP for many years.

Please, name them for us.
I'm curious as to which police forces relied upon the .32ACP as their primary handgun caliber, and for how long.

Also, historically .22 LR hasn't always been able to get sufficient penetration out of handguns, so naturally it developed a reputation for poor performance even though that is not necessarily the case today if you know what you're doing.

Penetration is not the end all be all of the equation.
The round must not only penetrate but also destroy tissue and cause enough traumatic injury to the target so that the target stops its actions.
The .22LR from a handgun just doesn't reliably cause enough damage to the human body to quickly stop an attacker.

Sure one might get lucky and stop the attacker with a .22LR round from a handgun, but if one is serious about stacking the deck in his favor of surviving a violent encounter, the .22 is a terrible choice of caliber for self defense (as is the .32ACP).

Many police forces have moved away from 9mm to larger calibers, but does that necessarily mean that 9mm is ineffective?

It means that the 9mm is LESS effective than certain other calibers.

Even the FBI went back to using 9mm

This is news to me.
When did this happen.
I happen to have a family member who is a Fed and she hates the .40, but she told me that she cannot use a 9mm.
According to her, her only options are the Glock 22 or the Glock 23.

No, I don't believe that's what they all base their caliber selections on, especially since no handgun caliber is all that effective in the first place.

When compared to rifles, handguns are not that effective, but to claim that no handgun is that effective is simply not true.
And it ignores the fact that some handgun calibers are MUCH more effective than other calibers at quickly stopping humans.

...even though the smallest effective caliber, namely .22 LR, would actually be fairly close in effectiveness against humans.

Again, no, the .22 would be a terrible choice for cops to carry.
As would the choice of a .32ACP.
Choosing such weak calibers would only get more cops killed.

Easy

 

[easyg]

People on these types of boards have this crazy idea that .22s are like spit balls. .22s will penetrate a cow skull and can easily shoot through house doors and even car doors. I mentioned the article to prove that .22s are plenty dangerous, if you hit a vital. Non-expanding rounds will penetrate and can do a lot of damage.

No, the .22 is not a spit ball, but it's also not a very effective self-defense caliber.

I honestly cannot image why anyone would entrust their life to such a weak and ineffective caliber.

 

[mljdeckard]

There is no guarantee that ANY bullet will do ANYTHING. There are however, bullets that are MUCH more likely to do certain things than others.

When you shoot someone, you are trying to cause as many cm3 of tissue damage as fast as you possibly can. When you use bullets of significant size, meaning, 9mm or bigger, fired from cartridges with enough force to push them all the way through a most human targets most of the time, (meaning, 9mm or bigger, and I'll allow some of the hotter .380 and .32 loads just to keep from getting heckled about it,) you are creating wound channels that displace and tear muscle, smash bones, cut blood vessels and nerves. My 230 gr HSTs routinely, consistently expand to the size of a quarter. If I can get three good hits, that's a LOT of cm3 of tissue damage. Is it guaranteed that I will hit something that will cause immediate loss of motor function? No. Is it MUCH MORE LIKELY than if I got three good hits with a Stinger HP? You betcher bippie. When you are trying to cause tissue damage, you can cause a lot more a lot faster with bigger bullets.

My sole experience with a .22 wound was when a buddy of mine got hit below the ribs in front, and had an exit would in the back. After uttering a very naughty word and driving him to the hospital as fast as we could, he walked out 20 minutes later with three stitches and a band-aid, because the bullet entered at an angle, skimmed around the OUTSIDE of his torso, and exited out of the skin on his back. He didn't feel it. He didn't notice he had been hit. He didn't stop doing anything or fall over. These are NOT the results I want when I'm shooting someone who is trying to stop me.

I've said it before, I'll say it (at least) one more time. Carry what you want. But don't kid yourself about the effectiveness of a TINY bullet if you have a better option.

 

[ugaarguy]

Not to be nit-picky, but consider that according to Speer's website, the .45 was fired from a handgun with a 5" barrel while the .40 was fired from a handgun with a 4" barrel.

And even with the barrel differences the speed was very close:

.45ACP = 1050 fps
.40S&W = 1025 fps

The muzzle energy was very close too:

.45ACP = 453 ft.lbs.
.40S&W = 420 ft.lbs.

Shoot them both from a 4" barrel (or both from a 5" barrel) and there would be virtually no difference except this:

The .45 would make a slightly bigger hole (.05), but the .40 would offer more bullets in the magazine (in comparable sized handguns).

Nit picky is all good. My point wasn't that .45 ACP was a cannon compared to .40 S&W, but that the .45 ACP is performing at that level at very low comparative pressures.