Lessons from a retired Marine

[Old krow]

This statement shows a disconnect from reality. Just because something CAN kill you, in no way means it's the optimal weapon to carry.

I don't know if I'd call it a disconnect from reality, but, there is a difference is showing something that has happened and attempting to predict the probability of something happening. It's a different set of rules.

In my opinion is a good topic, but, it'll get beat to death. However, here's what the statistics look like without any numbers.

The odds of needing a handgun to defend yourself - low

The next only applies if the first condition is met.

The odds of needing to use that same handguns - lower

The odds of needing a reload or a larger caliber - even lower
*This has to be true if even one person has ever stopped a BG with a .22 or without reloading.

It has been my experience that I am more at risk of skin cancer than being robbed or having a violent crime committed against me. However, I bring SPF 45 with me because it covers more situations that SPF 15 does.

 

[Crusader103]

Here is an article that I believe speaks to the topic at hand. I wrote the original article, so no copyright issues.

I am often asked my opinion on which handgun should be carried for self-defense. My answer has always been, and will continue to be, “A big one.” I believe that Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch said it best when he stated, “Carrying a concealed firearm is not supposed to be comfortable; it’s supposed to be comforting.”

While the first rule of gunfighting is to have a gun, the second should be to have enough gun. The “smallest” handgun I am ever caught with is a third generation S&W 9mm with a capacity of 15+1 rounds. Rarely will I carry a firearm without a spare magazine (or two). Keep in mind, I stand at a modest 5’8” and weigh 150lbs. Nonetheless, a full size 1911, Glock, Beretta, or FNP-40 are my constant companions. Having carried a firearm daily for 15 years, I have learned a few lessons.

Too many times those who purport to be concerned with the safety of themselves and their loved ones will attempt to find a handgun that fits into their daily lifestyle and dress. They are looking at the problem from the wrong direction. What they should be doing is designing their dress and modifying their lifestyle to fit the tools meant for their survival. Having lived in 14 different states, ranging from Arizona to Washington and Hawaii to North Carolina, there are few climates and environments that I have not experienced. What I have found to work best when choosing the right combination of clothing for concealed carry is to pick the weapon first, then pick the outfit.

I have grown extremely tired of the assertion that a handgun is only used to fight your way out of a situation and therefore even a small handgun, with few rounds, is sufficient. What happens when those whom wish to do you or your loved ones harm see it differently? Have you considered the possibility that you may be facing multiple opponents, perhaps at a distance beyond what you planned for, whom are armed with weapons mightier than your own? What are you going to do when they don’t just let you fire a couple of rounds and back your way out?

Do you think that this is a situation that couldn’t possibly happen to you? If so, you are not only naïve, but perhaps naïve to the point that your life is at stake because of it. Fight your way out of a situation you say? What if that perpetrator of violence is between you and your loved ones? What if the only exit lies beyond that heavily armed thug? What if that group of active shooters starts their tirade the moment you pull up in front of your child’s day care center? Are you going to sit back and wait for the police to show up while your baby is inside or are you going to buck up and fight your way into the battle, not out of it?

Yes, avoid areas of trouble if you can. Unfortunately, that is not always realistic. Trouble can, and does, come to the meekest of us all. When faced with the moment of truth, I hope that you will not only have the skills, but that you will have enough gun.

And for the record, I would agree that it is better to be lucky than to be skilled. But I'll still choose the third option. I'd like to be skilled and lucky.

 

[Creature]

I wonder how many of your colleagues would disagree with you. Being a professional firearms instructor, perhaps you have read studies that measure how many shots are typically fired in confrontations involving handguns.

Here is just one study:

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS- What We Didn't Know Hurt Us.pdf

Keeping in mind that a LEO is far more likely to be involved in a hostile confrontation involving a firearm, look at the data collected for the NYPD officer-involved gunfights from 1988 to 2001. Notice the average number of shots fired by each officer as well as the average shots fired per incident.

Moving on to the data collected for the Metro-Dade Police Dept. Keeping in mind the study's note regarding accidental discharges as LEOs transitioned from revolver to semi-auto, take notice of the average number of shots fired per incident involving revolvers ...and the average number of of shots fired per incident involving semi-autos. No average for each year exceeded four shots.

 

[hammerklavier]

2 - Carry enough gun.
Imagine yourself in this situation with a .32 or .380 pocket pistol or even (IMO) a five-shot .38 revolver. Is this really what you want?

Of course that's not what really what I want. I want a Benelli M4, with extended magazine tube, loaded with 00 buckshot in my hands, and an AR-15 with 30 round mag slung on my back.

Oddly enough, they won't let me into the bank armed like that.

 

[MikeNice]

The problem here is that anecdotes do NOT prove a point. There are lots of fluke incidents, but they don't mean a .22 Mag is as effective as a 9 MM or a .45 ACP.

There is a difference between an anecdote and real world experiences. When I tell it to you it is an anecdote based on a real world situation that occured. How do real world shootings not prove anything?

A .22mag isn't optimal. A .45acp isn't really optimal. Hell if you want optimal in a handgun you need to go with either a .454 cassul or a .500 S&W. Then you are carrying enough gun for anything short of a rabid grizzly.

However, real world situations have proven that even 21 shots of 9x19 isn't enough if you don't hit vital areas. It has also shown that a .22mag can get the job done. So, what is shows is that carrying the most gun you can use is carrying "enough gun."

It is about training untill you can use the gun and do your part. If you do your part a .32S&W Long will get the job done.

I always recomend that a person carry at least a .380 if they can. However, if there is a reason they can not use one well, I say go with what you can. If that means means they have to carry a .22, so be it. I would never carry one for every day use. I can comfortably carry, and accurately shoot larger calibers. If an arthritec senior tells me they can't rack the slide, or handle much recoil, I will tell them to carry what they can use.

This idea that nothing smaller than a 9mm will do the job has gotten more play than it needs.

The first three parts are indeed necessary, but only when combined with a consistently potent weapon will they be something you can reasonably count on to be enough.

My dad's aunt carried a .32 in her apron all of the time. She could pull it and empty it in to a tin can at 15 yards in less than seven seconds. It proved to be consistenly "enough gun."

She used it once on a man that threatened to "skin" her sick husband with a big knife. One shot and the guy was dead before he could take five more steps. The second time she used it the guy didn't die. She fired twice. The first shot went through a lung and severed one of his bronchial tubes. The second went through his lung and ripped his diaphraghm muscle. He lost lung function quickly and was out of the fight.

For her a .32S&W Long was enough gun. For years she had carried a Colt Detective Special in .38spl. As she aged though the .38 became too much for her to comfortably shoot. So she switched to a Colt Detective Special in .32 New Police / .32 S&W Long. It was what she could comfortably conceal, draw, and fire accurately. So, she had it with her when it was needed. Both times it was more than enough to win the fight.
(That is an anecdote because there is no documentation to back it up.)

I am not one to tell somebody they don't have enough gun. Well not unless they are carrying a .25.

 

[orionengnr]

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS- What We Didn't Know Hurt Us.pdf
Good resource. However, it raises a couple of interesting points:

First, and most importantly, regardless of what the "average" number of shots expended is, this guy exceeded it. Averages only matter in average situations. This guy's hit ratio exceeded most sworn officers, and he ran dry anyway.

My first CHL intructor was a big proponent of 5-shot snubbies, due to simplicity and concealability. Although I had qualified with a G-23, I was amenable to his recommendations. I subsequently owned a series of snubs in steel, alloy and Scandium, .38 and .357. I understand the attraction, but don't share the opinion. I am not going to color the discussion by telling you what I carry today, but it is "none of the above".

In addition, since one landmark study indicated that 85% of officers who were felonoiusly slain weren't able to fire their handguns before being slain, statistical averages must be examined with caution. (page 5)

Now that's an understatement of some magnitude. If it is accurate, then we are basing the whole argument upon 15% of the incidents, without taking that into account...in which case, the whole "average" number goes out the window...

 

[Bubba613]

Again, you are trying to draw general conclusions from a specific situation. And trying to draw conclusions from what happens to an LE is, imo, totally misguided.
I have carried 5-shot snubs often. I never feel under-armed. And likely neither does anyone else who carries one. This might explain their incredible popularity. There can be good reasons not to carry one but limited ammo is not, imo, one of them.

 

[Crusader103]

I wonder how many of your colleagues would disagree with you. Being a professional firearms instructor, perhaps you have read studies that measure how many shots are typically fired in confrontations involving handguns.

While I would never base my information solely on what my colleagues think I can say without question that every single one that I believe is worth a darn would advocate carrying as much gun as you can.

Anyone who knows me or has attended my courses understands completely that I advocate skill and mindset as being superior to the choice of weapon. That however does not mean that I believe it correct to place little emphasis on weapon selection.

True enough, a snubbie or similiar weapon will get you through a very large percentage of situations. I am familiar with the studies and percentages. However, not a single one of those percentages or studies takes into account the gunfight I may be in tonight while I'm out shopping at the mall.

For every percentage and study, I can point to a situation that can, and has, occurred that is not in keeping with the odds. I do not prepare, not do I train my students to prepare, simply for what is most likely. I have and will continue to advocate carrying the most weapon that you can because it will address the greatest number of scenarios, not just the greatest percentage. If, for whatever reason you can only carry or handle a lightweight or niche firearm, I hold no fault against you for doing so. That would indeed fit my reccommendation for carrying the most firearm that you can.

Since you asked, and this is not for the sake of argument but only because you brought it up, here is what some of my colleagues, whom I respect, advocate, along with a quote or two from them:

Clint Smith, Thunder Ranch - Full size 1911 style .45

A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him 'Why do you carry a 45?' The Ranger responded, 'Because they don't make a 46.'

You can say 'stop' or 'alto' or use any other word you think will work but I've found that a large bore muzzle pointed at someone's head is pretty much the universal language.

Freddie Blish, Gunsite instructor (and former Gunsite CO) - Seen him carry a Glock 21 or 1911

Larry Vickers, Vickers Tactical - Glock or 1911

I am a big fan of both the G17 and G19 in 9mm and that is what I use.

Massad Ayoob, Lethal Force Institute, carries various full size handguns

Rule #9 of Concealed Carry - Carry An Adequate FirearmIf you carry a single-shot, .22 Short caliber derringer, you will be considered armed with a deadly weapon in the eyes of the law. You will not, however, be adequately prepared to stop a predictable attack by multiple armed assailants. Most experts recommend a five-shot revolver as the absolute minimum in firepower, and the .380/9mm/.38SPL range as the minimum potency level in terms of handgun caliber.
It is a good idea to carry spare ammunition. Many people in their first gunfight have quickly found themselves soon clicking an empty gun. A firearm without spare ammunition is a temporary gun. Moreover, many malfunctions in semiautomatic pistols require a fresh (spare) magazine to rectify.

Chuck Taylor, American Small Arms Academy, full size 1911

My rule of thumb is to use the most potent handgun I can handle well under stress, whatever caliber it might be. I think you would also benefit from this approach.

Again, while these are quotes of instructors whom I respect, I do not just cut and paste their advice. Their views simply tend to support mine. Understanding that the world can be a cruel and dangerous place, and understanding that I don't get to choose the circumstances surrounding my next gunfight, I also understand that my gunfight may not fit neatly into the statistic of 2-3 shots fired.

I will therefore carry, and continue to reccommend carrying, a full-size firearm and spare ammunition. While I don't see any fallacy in that, I probably won't be there to assist you in your gunfight so if a limited duty firearm is your choice, I won't disparage you for that.

I truly do hope that you are right in believing you will only need a limited duty firearm. What's more, I hope you don't even need that.

 

[Cosmoline]

4 - Become familiar with your firearm.

I'd add, become familiar with your carry firearm AND the ammo you carry in it. So if you carry a .357 don't practice with .38 Special unless that's what you will use. Always favor the known and familiar firearm. Familiarity means you do not need to consciously think about how to draw, aim, deal with recoil, reload, etc. I believe this factor trumps even caliber. Though it does not mean you should not become more familiar with a more powerful firearm and use it once you are more familiar with it. It's all a question of trade-offs, and the answer depends a great deal on personal factors. Some people are going to be much more comfortable with a big 1911, others with a little Walther. Some with semis, some with revolvers. COMFORT breeds FAMILIARITY in this case, because if you like shooting a gun you are much more likely to do so.

This is why I have a big problem with the ultra-small magnums that nobody I have ever met can shoot without some pain and nobody likes shooting with carry loads. The expectation that all the flinching and discomfort will vanish in a pinch is a lot of nonsense. You may not NOTICE that you're feeling pain, but part of your nervous system still is. And you need that part to help you use the firearm.

Indeed, in a pinch when your heart is pumping it becomes even more difficult to shoot straight. That's why the biathlon is so difficult. You need every advantage you can get, and the fluidity and flinch-free fire that comes from a known and familiar firearm shooting known and familiar loads is a very serious advantage.

 

[Sky]

hahahaha just asking but seems like I read somewhere that the #1 killer of people in this country was the .22....I may be totally wrong....Probably because there are more of them around than any other caliber.

If I had to protect myself I would want the biggest and best available for sure...everything is a compromise with what one is willing and able to put up with carrying.

 

[x_wrench]

i know i am fairly new here. but that is one of the best posts i have ever read on any board. thanks, THL.

 

[Mountainman38]

hahahaha just asking but seems like I read somewhere that the #1 killer of people in this country was the .22....I may be totally wrong....Probably because there are more of them around than any other caliber.

If I had to protect myself I would want the biggest and best available for sure...everything is a compromise with what one is willing and able to put up with carrying.

This claim is put forth a lot, mostly by those who would say that ANY gun is enough gun. I highly doubt that a .22 has had the highest number of kills, if nothing else because who carries them? The .38 Special has been far more popular in it's many forms, as has the 9mm and the .45 ACP.

What self respecting gang banger is gonna pull out his Colt .22 LR SA when the homies are comparing their firepower? Or try a drive-by with a Marlin 60?

 

[Mountainman38]

jscott,

Nice to see my thoughts on the need to carry an adequate weapon verified by someone who has a lot more experience than I do.

 

[SIGLBER]

Reading the article I remember the Marine being shocked that his .45 did not drop both men right away. Not a bash on the Marine. He responded as better than most to the situation. Keeping a clear head. Not easy to do under such situations. Used his tools very well. HOOAHH Marine.

 

[brandon_mcg]

i am glad that this topic was posted. i try not to generalize too much information from one certain event. this topic has convinced me to work on my draw and shoot more so that i flip the safety to fire without even thinking. it has also convinced me that i need to reconsider my ccw holster and magazine pouch quality.

in my opinion, this story is a perfect example of how practice, practice, and more practice is essential for success.

 

[david58]

Does "not feeling undergunned" change the fact that one might be?

I ask this as it seems common to many of these threads that defenders of smaller caliber/capacity guns will refer to how they feel about what they carry. I am no self-defense expert, but I sure would want more than feelings being the basis for what I carry.

That said, I feel a whole lot better toting my 1911 than I do my .22.......

 

[exabrial]

I read this, and i'm fairly dismayed to see you guys seriously arguing about caliber!? You guys completely missed the point of this whole post.

There are a thousand debates about caliber on THR. Please do me and the public a favor and drop the arguments about shot placement and caliber and pick one of these to argue about:

1) How far can you be pushed before firing? When do you stop complying?
2) Tactically, should you "serve one, reload" or "serve all, then give out seconds"
3) What spare mag carrier do you use?
4) What cover or concealment was available?
5) Should he have counted his shots?
6) Should he have reloaded sooner?
7) endless more relavent topics...

 

[MikeNice]

1) How far can you be pushed before firing? When do you stop complying?

It depends on when their guns became visible and where there attention was at the time. I carry my license and other important pieces of info in my wallet. I am not giving them access to those things willingly. So, for me it would be as soon as legally possible.

I don't want some jack leg coming to my home later because he has my address, and thinks I might turn him in. Maybe he decides to come to my home because he'll have a compliant victim again. There are a lot of ways to be further victimized if they get your wallet.

2) Tactically, should you "serve one, reload" or "serve all, then give out seconds"

I think you should keep "serving" untill you exhaust the magazine. I know some will disagree. However, I don't like the idea of dumping three or four good bullets. You are effectively reducing your carry capacity if you start dropping mags early.

Serving them all and giving out seconds can land you in a crap load of trouble. Never use morethan is necessary. If the guy takes off, and exits the fight, let him go. If the guy is no longer a threat it is time to stop. Excessive force is a quick way to catch a life sentence.

 

[Sam1911]

read this, and i'm fairly dismayed to see you guys seriously arguing about caliber!? You guys completely missed the point of this whole post.

There are a thousand debates about caliber on THR. Please do me and the public a favor and drop the arguments about shot placement and caliber and pick one of these to argue about:

1) How far can you be pushed before firing? When do you stop complying?
2) Tactically, should you "serve one, reload" or "serve all, then give out seconds"
3) What spare mag carrier do you use?
4) What cover or concealment was available?
5) Should he have counted his shots?
6) Should he have reloaded sooner?
7) endless more relavent topics...

(Emphasis mine.)

This is probably the second most important post in the thread, after Post 1. Possibly one of the best posts in S&T this year.

Here is what you need to know about calibers and guns: Carry the largest, most powerful, and highest capacity gun and reloads that you are able to fire accurately and quickly -- and that you can and WILL carry. A .32 in your pocket beats a .45 in your drawer at home.

That is ALL anyone needs to say about caliber here in S&T.

Literally EVERY other aspect of the discussion is far more important.

 

[Kleanbore]

I agree with Sam.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Please do me and the public a favor and drop the arguments about shot placement and caliber

Well, I can go along with half of that request anyway...

Everything I know about hunting larger game animals, and dealing with humans who have been shot with various firearms over the course of several years as an EMT, tells me that there are two things that matter where terminal ballistics are concerned. And those two things are

PLACEMENT

and

PENETRATION.

A hit "two inches above the heart" with a Ma Deuce isn't a stopper if all the bullet does is barely graze the skin.

A hit "two inches above the heart" with a .22LR that penetrates to and disrupts the spinal cord is an instant stopper.

Insisting that a bigger caliber is an automatic solution to every gunfight problem is in my mind just a small step removed from the idea that any firearm is a talisman that will ward off evil by its mere presence, and that no study, training or practice is necessary in order to use said talisman effectively.

I'm not looking to provoke useless argument or any further disruption here. It's possible to simplify anything, but it's also possible to oversimplify to the point of error, and that's what I would rather avoid having us do here.

As always, YMMV-

lpl

 

[JohnBiltz]

I think it is a given that everyone will be trying to be as accurate as possible whatever they are carrying. It is not a given a that a small hand gun will be more accurate than a larger hand gun, if anything I think the reverse is true. Most of the small pocket guns have minimal sights and are not something that would exactly be considered a range gun or something that encourages practice. I don't see shot placement as an answer to a larger hand gun being better but I keep seeing it as an excuse, its a red herring.

 

[Cosmoline]

1) How far can you be pushed before firing? When do you stop complying?

You should use deadly force as soon as you are able to. Compliance is at most means to that end. If you are facing imminent deadly peril and see an opportunity to defend yourself, you must take that opportunity without hesitation or warning. The wallet is irrelevant to the matter, as is the order to go into the back. As soon as the imminent unlawful deadly force is presented, the light is green and you must proceed as soon as you are able, or escape in safety if that is an option. When you see an opportunity, draw and shoot, and keep shooting until the threat is no longer imminent or deadly. NEVER assume that the criminal will abide by some promise not to kill you if you comply. Countless thousands have gone to their graves realizing that criminals break such promises routinely.

 

[SSN Vet]

The Marine had a mindset to fight if he had to, and knew when compliance time was all done.

Somebody on here has this in their sig line, and I think it's spot on...

MInd set, skill set, tool set...... in that order

The Marine obviously had the first two down, and I believe he would have achieved a suitable outcome with just about any piece in his hand, loaded with just about any ammo.

 

[William Lee]

About the .22 as a high-volume "killer," it makes sense to me. A .22 is easy to shoot even if you've never fired a gun before, and some of them are really quiet. Also, they're cheap. These three factors make them an ideal choice for arming foot soldiers with. Biggie Smalls has .22's in his shoes. I've also heard that the .22 fired into the head is a favorite tool of professional killers because the round fragments after striking the skull causing more damage. However, none of this makes the .22 an ideal gun for self defense, although it might have some advantages if it were being used in an ambush of an unsuspecting victim. I agree with the sentiment of carrying a full sized firearm, it's what I'd want to use ideally if I had to use a handgun, so why settle for anything less?