jad0110
Member
Kind of Blued said:A small calliber does not always mean a small gun.
Kind of Blued said:That being said, there are people that will carry something tiny and ineffective because it's what they have. That, of course, makes a great deal of sense. I just don't see a reason anybody would ever be so burdened that they have to carry anything less effective than a .380.
One good reason I've seen more than once is for EXTREMELY recoil sensitive shooters. They may not be common, but they do exist. I've met one person who is only comfortable with 22 because of severe arthritis. I've seen another that flinched with anything smaller/lighter/more powerful than a steel 22 revolver. One of those two (can't remember which) described the recoil of an all-steel S&W 9 mm semi auto as being "severe".
In response to quote #2, 1st sentence, that certainly is a valid reason. My father-in-law is looking to getting his first gun for home protection, and he has a VERY tight budget right now (he's been hit back-to-back with several unexpected expenses). So for now, the best he can do is a rough/ugly but functional H&R single shot 20 gauge.
But as I told him, with a some practice one can become deadly proficient with such a weapon.
---
BTW, my minimum caliber would be a 22LR, (not a.17 HMR) simply because of ammo cost. But I shoot more potent platforms just as well, so I carry 38 Spl and 45 ACP and feel fine with either.