Hypothetical which would you carry

[C-grunt]

Lets say that you lived in an area where being attacked was a good possibility. You can carry a gun but are limited to two choices:

1. a single shot .45ACP

2. a two shot .32 ACP

Which would you carry and why?

Me, my gut would say 45, but I logically like the two shot 32.

 

[wcwhitey]

I could not stop thinking about the French guy who only had a "Liberator" single shot .45 smooth bore to use trying to mount a strong resistance. I felt sorry for him. Then I thought that shot placement would be critical and the round secondary. The two shot .32 at least gave me a second chance. I would have felt better if part of the option was, take the shot, pick up the Luger, P38 or Mauser and continue the fight. With either choice I guess I stand a better chance of kicking his butt, although I am not happy with the options.

 

[Anna's Dad]

Two is better than one. Shot placement usually trumps caliber and I'd rather have two to place.

 

[carterbeauford]

I'd rather have a single shot 1911 that I could use as a blunt object after a miss than have a lightweight .32ACP with which to do the same after two hits.

Too many variables, I cite the facts that the former has 6-8 times the energy of the latter and I am a pretty good shot with a 1911 under 21'

 

[TMM]

2 shot .32.

I chose this because of the second shot capability. dosn't matter how big the bullet is, but if you miss, you're screwed.

~tmm

 

[Black Majik]

Two small holes are better than one big hole.

I'll take the 2 shot .32 acp

 

[usmccpl]

One hand you got a single shot 45 on the other you got a two shot 32. I say put both hands togather. Carry both.

 

[GaryP]

I prefer the odds to be in my favor!

Give me the .32acp loaded with 2!

 

[10-Ring]

I would go w/ 2 32 acps

 

[Eightball]

.32 is a weak round, and I'm not sure two would make too much of a difference if you missed a vital area--.45 makes more of a difference. And, if you only have one shot, odds are you will take it when you are close and more or less CANNOT miss, and the .45 has more one-shot-stops to its name than the .32 does two-shotters.

Just MHO.

 

[azredhawk44]

I voted single 45acp.

If I'm in the Warsaw getto and I need to build an arsenal for my fellow freedom fighters, I want that first shot to do the most damage possible and incapacitate that soldier. That way, I don't need to worry about hand to hand combat or closing the distance on him before the guy can get his luger or mauser into play since the .32 was slowed by his bulky coat and winter uniform.

Not "knocking" the .32, but I have more faith in the .45 to get the job done. I'm deliberately not going after multiple targets in this environment... I'm choosing a loner target.

Re-reading the OP, this isn't set in WWII (darn you guys and your Liberators!). I'd still choose the .45acp though.

 

[Waywatcher]

Tough call, but seeing as how recoil and follow-up shots are a moot point, I would go for the biggest caliber I can get.
.45

 

[JoeG52]

I just can't believe anybody would take the 32!

 

[Leonardo]

Sorry, bullet placement is important but it isn't everything. Just read the news... there are cases of bad guys being shot 4 times with .40S&W and they still fight back. Two shots is still much less than I would want in a gun fight, so I'd rather take the .45ACP and practice a lot. But I'd still carry a knife, just in case.

 

[longeyes]

The .45 with a good, long knife.

 

[Caimlas]

1-shot .45: If you hit him, you've done (say) x amount of damage. You only have to hit him once to do this much damage.

2-shot .32: If you hit him with both bullets, you manage to do x amaount of damage, taking twice as much time and possibly giving him time to react. You have to hit him twice to do this much damage. One hit delivers half as much damage as a .45 single-shot.

 

[Snappy_13]

2 shots are better than one in my opinion

 

[Sistema1927]

I would choose the single-shot .45 just so long as I could quickly reload.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Single shot .45 so I could put it against my head and say "anyone move and the $%*$ gets it!"

(apologies to Mel Brooks and Blazing Saddles).

 

[Mad Chemist]

I tend to think that most of the "choose between these two" threads are rather lame daydream scenarios. This one seems especially lame.

If there is a point to be made, then make it already.

I don't mean to sound rude. Maybe I just don't get it.

 

[hceptj]

2 shots because i might run into more than one BG

 

[Plink]

2 small shots might be better than one unless they don't penetrate to something vital and make a big enough hole in it to bleed out quick. Thus my vote. I'll take 1 of something I'm comfortable with over 2 of something I have doubts about.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Lets say that you lived in an area where being attacked was a good possibility. You can carry a gun but are limited to two choices:

1. a single shot .45ACP

2. a two shot .32 ACP

I would suggest a third option. Neither of those is terribly appealing, given the nature of a defensive shooting.

The smallest amount of firepower I would feel comfortable carrying is a K-T P3AT.

Seriously, there are so many better and affordable options than the two mentioned. P3AT's can be had for under $200 used, and they are not the only choice in that price range. Makarov's, Bersa's-heck, even Hi-Point.

 

[GunNut]

Give me the .45acp and let me get close so that I can make that one shot count.

Steve

 

[Maximum1]

I'll take the two shot .32 ACP because it will always be in my pocket while the one shot .45 is at home because I had light summer clothes on so I had to leave it at home