1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
While I believe that to be true, I never understand why people use that argument to justify carrying a less powerful caliber.
FWIW...and this is my observation...I don't think that anybody is trying to justify it as much as they are trying to determine if the .380 is adequate for a sudden close quarters emergency. The simple answer is while there are no guarantees...even with a .44 magnum...the odds are much greater with the .380 or even a .22 than with nothing. In most instances, I feel that the .380 will serve that purpose well enough to carry it.
If Mongo, the Master of Mayhem has you by the throat...and you pump 5 or 6 90-grain slugs into the region of his groin from a distance of one inch or less...he'll turn loose. He may not be down and completely out sand, but his attention will very likely be diverted long enough for you make a hasty exit, and the gun has filled its primary role. In such a situation, there is also less chance of punching through Mongo and striking some kid playing in his front yard a block away.
After all, the purpose of a defensive sidearm is to get you home alive...not to engage in running gunfights across a parking lot with an MS13 goon platoon.
From listening to many conversations on the subject, I've gleaned that everybody who goes armed feels that their moment of truth will be such a scenario...where everybody is shooting the area to Helen Gone, with the lone good guy returning fire...maneuvering and changing magazines...and emerging the victor against seemingly insurmountable odds. The chances are much greater that it will be only one or possibly two assailants...and that it will start as a hand-to-hand struggle.