Handgun Caliber Debate Question?

[Big Bad Bob]

So I am "younger" guy, so much of my defensive handgun upbringing has centered around the use of semi automatic handguns.

So my question is, when revolvers were the predominant defensive handgun of choice in 60's, 70's and 80's did people debate caliber/cartridge effectives of the .38 vs 357 vs 41 vs 44 vs 45LC? Special vs Magnum? etc. much in the way people are constantly debating the 9 vs 40 vs 45 vs 357sig/10mm/45GAP etc. now?

And if they were, what was the consensus argument of the day?

 

[oldbear]

So my question is, when revolvers were the predominant defensive handgun of choice in 60's, 70's and 80's did people debate caliber/cartridge effectives of the .38 vs 357 vs 41 vs 44 vs 45LC? Special vs Magnum? etc. much in the way people are constantly debating the 9 vs 40 vs 45 vs 357sig/10mm/45GAP etc. now?

And if they were, what was the consensus argument of the day?

During that time frame the revolver was far and away the most common handgun for L/E and personal defense. In L/E the .357 Magnum was the KING. Almost every officer who could carry the .357 Magnum did, and those who were not allowed to wished they could. The current level of 38 special ammo was, for the most part, a long way off.

As for autoloaders the .45 was the caliber of choice. By the mid to late 70's the 9 M/M was coming into vogue, in large part do to the extra capacity of rounds. Sadly the 9 M/M ammo of the time did not always live up to it's hype. Much of this, hype, was based on the success of the assorted 9 M/M sub-machine guns in delivering many rounds quickly on one target.

Of the hundreds of offices I worked with and knew only a handful carried any of the other calibers you asked about.

Hope this helps.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I have no doubt that debates, discussions, and even arguments were had about the utility and effectiveness of different available cartridges.

However the big difference is it would have happened through firearm publications, correspondence, at the range, in discussions between friends, coworkers, and shooting buddies.

Today, forums, the internet, and Youtube give a lot more people a voice in these matters, so the debates are undoubtedly louder, involving a lot more people, in a lot more contexts, and with educated and uneducated folks participating.

So the answer is yes, but the scope and efficiency of the debates has greatly increased. I doubt anyone back then came to any better consensuses than we do today, though perhaps they did. The evolution of bullet technology, metallurgy, firearms technology, polymers, and new cartridges, along with more and more people choosing to carry guns has undoubtedly opened the door to a lot more debatable issues.

 

[buck460XVR]

In the 60s, the firearm carried by most street gangs was a improvised .22 single shot Zip-gun. Most LEOs sidearms never left their holster unless they had to qualify. Many small town cops at that time didn't even carry a firearm, even when checking doors, alone late at night. While the mob and big crime syndicates had large capacity autos(like Thompsons) they generally used them against each other and were restricted to big cities. As the capacity and firepower of the average street punk escalated, LEOs had to keep up. There wasn't as much discussion about calibers back in the 60s and early 70s because there were fewer accepted SD calibers. This is why Inspector Callahan got so much attention for his famous ".44".

 

[Skribs]

I have no doubt that at one time man was debating whether unngghjjhhh (clubs) were better than oooggggggga (rocks).

 

[2zulu1]

357mag was very popular in the western states, lead exposed jacketed hollow points are as effective today as they were decades ago. The service revolver debates during the '60s-'70s were more along the line of Smith and Wesson vs Colt. Many officers who were limited to 38 Special carried Super Vel ammunition.

 

[Sunray]

In 60's, 70's and 80's, the gun rags continually ran 9mm vs .45 ACP articles. Still do and they're the same articles.
"...so the debates are undoubtedly louder..." Yep. And just as daft.
You'll never get a consensus with more than one person discussing anything firearm related. People still get into heated arguments about which vehicle maker is better. Ford or Chevy.(it's neither.)
The .41 Mag, in the 70's and 80's, was pretty much as unheard of by most people as it is now.

 

[Jim K]

"The .41 Mag, in the 70's and 80's, was pretty much as unheard of by most people as it is now."

And in older days, the .41 (Colt that is) was thought by many to be superior to the .45 Colt, .44 S&W, and various .38's for its moderate recoil and decent power.

Jim

 

[ku4hx]

In 60's, 70's and 80's, the gun rags continually ran 9mm vs .45 ACP articles. Still do and they're the same articles.

I cancelled all my gun rag subscriptions in the early '90s when I noticed they were recycling articles. I seldom read any now, but considering those I have glanced at I noted you can still pay to read the same old thoughts by some of the same old people and a few younger ones.

I still have some of them with my favorite articles being about the "new" 10mm and the guns chambered for it and how it was so much better than the 45 ACP, the enormous impact of the awesome 40 S&W, one on SC's SLED being an early adopter of the Glock 22 and numerous articles on the new "Wonder nines". Prior to those was one comparing a Smith model 29 to a Ruger Super Blackhawk. That was circa 1964.

Some things just never change.

 

[MedWheeler]

My first issue sidearm was a revolver in .38, and the duty load was Winchester's 95-grain Silvertip HP +P round. Most of us felt that was too light a projectile, and were somewhat envious of neighboring agencies that issued some sort of +P 125-grain JHP, and especially of a couple that issued a 110-grain SJHP in .357 Magnum.

I don't remember much debating regarding concealed-carry guns; the J-frame-type .38 revolver pretty much dominated the category, and that's just the way it was. If not a .38 in your pocket, it was likely a .380 auto.

 

[Swing]

In 60's, 70's and 80's, the gun rags continually ran 9mm vs .45 ACP articles.

Indeed. And I feel a migraine coming on just remembering that: "1911 (bonk!) ... no Wonder-9 (bonk!) ... no damn it 1911 ..." And we were told that some magical cartridge (10mm, .41AE, .40S&W, et al.) was going to end the debate forever. Didn't quite work out that way.

 

[bikerdoc]

In my lifetime the debate may been going on but I had no choice. I was told what to carry.
In 64 dad gave me 38 for HD when he was away.
ln 66 the army handed me a 45.
In 72 the PD said carry a 357.
In 84 the same PD said here, carry a 9mm.
Fast forward to retirement in the early 90's and I finally got to make choice.
Is 2 dozen guns in 6 calibers too much.

BTW 45 is my favorite.

 

[Nom de Forum]

So I am "younger" guy, so much of my defensive handgun upbringing has centered around the use of semi automatic handguns.

So my question is, when revolvers were the predominant defensive handgun of choice in 60's, 70's and 80's did people debate caliber/cartridge effectives of the .38 vs 357 vs 41 vs 44 vs 45LC? Special vs Magnum? etc. much in the way people are constantly debating the 9 vs 40 vs 45 vs 357sig/10mm/45GAP etc. now?

And if they were, what was the consensus argument of the day?

As long as there has been projectile weaponry and probably weaponry of any kind I doubt there has ever been a "consensus argument".

I may be wrong but I think the 1970's may be the golden age of the handgun caliber/cartridge effectiveness debate. In the 1970's the .357 Magnum Revolver still had the reputation of being the King of police and self-defense handguns (regardless of Dirty Harry's .44 Mag impressing non-shooters) It was in the 70's that the semiauto and specifically the .45ACP and 9mm began the dethronement of the King, but only because of the platform that used the .357 and not because of the terminal ballistic performance.

What I most remember about the debate in the 70's is just how sure experts were about the high effectiveness of there pet caliber instantly incapacitating with one hit in comparison to the fact that today it is acknowledged that all calibers and types of handgun bullets are often not very effective in instantly incapacitating with multiple shots. The other thing from the 70's that stands out in my mind is some people incredibly believing that the 45ACP was vastly more effective than the 9mm with little more than anecdote and junk science to support that belief.

 

[Deaf Smith]

So I am "younger" guy, so much of my defensive handgun upbringing has centered around the use of semi automatic handguns.

So my question is, when revolvers were the predominant defensive handgun of choice in 60's, 70's and 80's did people debate caliber/cartridge effectives of the .38 vs 357 vs 41 vs 44 vs 45LC? Special vs Magnum? etc. much in the way people are constantly debating the 9 vs 40 vs 45 vs 357sig/10mm/45GAP etc. now?

And if they were, what was the consensus argument of the day?

Oh yea. In fact even in the Civil War they debated Colt .44 .vs. Colt .36 for years.

The consensus?

Use the most powerful handgun you can control and conceal!

Deaf

 

[Jeff22]

OMG almost every issue of every general purpose gun magazine in the later 1970s had some variation of one of these articles?

"Which is better, 9mm or .38 Special?"

"Which is better, .357 Magnum or .45 ACP?"

"Which is better, revolvers or auto pistols?"

"Which is better, single action or double action pistols?"

Some of the articles were actually well written and well researched.

Most of the articles were NOT that well written, contained no new information, but they had LOTS of pictures.

 

[MedWheeler]

Bikerdoc, a few years back, someone here said that when he retired from LE, he was offered to keep whatever 9mm he'd been currently issued and carrying, or his older Ruger Service Six back. Was that you?

 

[StrawHat]

So I am "younger" guy, so much of my defensive handgun upbringing has centered around the use of semi automatic handguns.

So my question is, when revolvers were the predominant defensive handgun of choice in 60's, 70's and 80's did people debate caliber/cartridge effectives of the .38 vs 357 vs 41 vs 44 vs 45LC? Special vs Magnum? etc. much in the way people are constantly debating the 9 vs 40 vs 45 vs 357sig/10mm/45GAP etc. now?

And if they were, what was the consensus argument of the day?

I am a product of those decades and still carry a revolver. Back then, there was not much of a debate, everyone knew that the 44 Special or the 45 long Colt was the one to carry! Magnums were to be considered for hunting. Most departments that issued a 357 Magnum revolver also issued 38 Special ammunition to be used in it. My department preferred the 125 +p variety.

Seriously, the debate has raged on for centuries and much like the Ford/Chevy debate, the answer is totally individual. My carry piece was and is a S&W "N" frame chambered in 45 ACP. It is what I like and what I shoot best.

Kevin

 

[Scarpia]

If the web and the forum culture existed in the 1960-70's when wheel guns ruled, the debate on the value of 38Spl, vs. 38 +p vs. 357 Magnum would have been never ending.

 

[bikerdoc]

MEDWHEELER said

Bikerdoc, a few years back, someone here said that when he retired from LE, he was offered to keep whatever 9mm he'd been currently issued and carrying, or his older Ruger Service Six back. Was that you?

Yes sir, still have that Six. Might go old school today and strap it on.

 

[Big Bad Bob]

Thanks for all the responses thus far. Minus one hunting revolver, (super redhawk .44 magnum) I have never owned a defensive wheel gun.

I got the answer I was kinda looking for, I was hoping the answer would be "No" and then anytime people keep rehashing this argument, the response would be "hey in the revolver days people didn't argue about this, they used what they felt worked best for them"

I know the Army debated the caliber debate several times, particularly when adopting the .45 ACP over .38 S&W and then 9mm vs 45 auto. Interestingly some Tier 1 units were using Glock 22 and 23's at one point.

I think the caliber debate myself is kinda mute. Carry what you can control and conceal is best, a 40 or 45 isn't any good to you if you cant control it and shoot accurately with it. I personally like the 45 auto cartridge BUT I know I am faster with a 9mm and equally as accurate.

As far as gun magazines I quit buying them, when I noticed every gun review was overly glowing, and they felt more like a bought and paid manufacturer's advertisement than an actual magazine. I do like "Recoil" but only when I am in the store with my wife and browsing through it why she gets groceries.

 

[Skribs]

Lucky you. All they got at my grocery store is teen magazines, cosmopolitan, and tabloids.

 

[Big Bad Bob]

That sounds dreadful, my grocery has a whole rack of gun and hunting rags.

 

[Ankeny]

Back in my old LEO days (started mid-70's) the consensus seemed to be bigger is better. The issues were is the cartridge authorized and can the officer control/qualify with the gun?

The .41 Mag, in the 70's and 80's, was pretty much as unheard of by most people as it is now.

The .41 mag was well known in LEO circles. I had a four inch model 57 that I carried for a time. My FTO packed a model 58. The .41 mag debate centered around the old 210 lead "police" load vs. a more stout "commercial" load. Seemed like the .41 was eclipsed by the .44 in a model 29 until cops went back to the model 19 for weight savings and because a .44 was too much to handle.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

I have no doubt that at one time man was debating whether unngghjjhhh (clubs) were better than oooggggggga (rocks).

^^^^ THIS!
It is probably true and it made me laugh to boot!

I think that the other thing to consider about revolvers is that there we not as many options for each size handgun. Today, for the same size handgun, we have 9, 40, 357 sig, 45, 10mm, etc.

Back then, if you wanted six shots (in a double action), you had to at least have carried a K frame. That meant 38spl or 357 mag (not much of an argument about which is more effective). If you went up to a L Frame, you had more options but the most common was the 357 mag. Then you got into the N frames for your big guns (44, etc) and they were heavy for everyday carry (unless you are Callahan, of course).

Today we have so many options! I like options. Best to have one or two of each, I think.

 

[JTQ]

You can see the .357 Mag vs .44 debate in the film Magnum Force when they get to the outdoor range.

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Magnum_Force