Thought about small caliber carry guns.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Each person has to carry what they feel comfortable with. All people are not gifted with the same ability, no matter how much some people say anyone can learn to shoot a .45. They may, but they won't like it, and thats a huge key. If they don't like it, they may not work at it. It's not fun.

I can shoot pretty much anything, but I go shooting for fun, first and formost. I had a Colt 1911, and after a few years I sold it off, because I never really bonded with it. My better half got rid of her Glock 17 that she never really liked. But we're serious shooters. I met my wife of 40 years, at a shooting range in San Antonio Texas, where I was stationed at Fort Sam Houston. The very first time I laid eyes on the girl who was to be my wife, she had a Smith and Wesson model 17 in her hand, and was doing very well with it. That day, I was shooting my Smith and Wesson model 18.

Now 40 years later, we still shoot .22's more than anything, almost to the point of exclusive. Being both retired, we have the time to go shooting twice a week at the local gun club we belong to, and our ammo consumption is about one bulk box of Federals from Walmart a week. A bit more in warm weather. Both of us feel extremely comfortable with a .22 if something didn't seem right. Karen is a wicked shot with her 317 that she keeps under her side of the mattress, and I feel good with my 10 shot 617. Both of these guns get used twice a week. Could we shoot as much as we do with center fire? Not on our social security fixed income. Besides, we love our small caliber guns as it may be. If Maryland did have a CCW, I wouldn't feel bad about carrying my 317 at all, loaded up with some good CCI ammo. We shoot a heck of a lot of .22's, because we like it. Because we shoot so often, and for a good amount, we feel confident in what we can do with our choice.

I've heard all the idiot gun shop gurus spit out the "You'll just make him mad and really hurt you" garbage. Or the "I'd rather have a sharp stick" line. Well, I've seen first hand shooting with a .22 while I was a police officer, and none of them were shrugging it off. That includes the three hoodlums who were assaulting two victims, one of which had an old cheapie RG .22 revolver and used it quite well. All three of the attackers were put out of action, one with the stomach wound was laying on the sidewalk in a tight fetal position, screaming that his guts were on fire, the second one was shot in the right shoulder was sitting on his butt back to the wall groaning that he needed help. The third was shot in the left arm, was caught a block away, could not move the arm without a lot of pain. That was three shots that hit, the other three rounds went who knows. But not bad effect for a small caliber. Each attacker was hit just the once. Not one of them was saying they were alright, it was just a .22. The attackers were armed with a sawed off pool que, a baseball bat, and a Raven .25 auto. The guy with the .25 never got off a shot, he was the one gut shot right at the onset of the fight.

I had the chance to respond to an accidental shooting one afternoon. A high school kid got home early, decieded to go rabbit hunting. He did and on getting back home about 5 o'çlock, pulled his pickup into the driveway. Getting out, he leaned back in to grab his gun by the end of the barrel, and pull it over to him by the drivers door. It went of, hitting him in the stomach. This was a big kid, football star and jock about 6 foot and well built. He went down in the driveway, curled up and couldn't move. He thanks God that his neighbor was out tending her flower garden, heard the crack, and came running over when he fell. When I interviewed him at the hospital, after 4 hours of emergency surgery, he said it was like a white hot steel rod in his guts, and the he couldn't have moved to save his life.

The third shooting I was witness to, took place when I was 12 years old. It was my father defending our family.

It was a hot summer weekend, and he drove us out to the Shenendoah Mountains to get away from the Washington D.C. city heat. Mom had packed the picnic basket for lunch, and we stopped at a roadside picnic area. While eating lunch, three men came out of the woods, looking rough, down at the heels. They came our way, and dad stood up and got between them and his family. One of them had a large sheath knife on his belt. They asked dad for some beer money, and dad told them to go away and not bother his family. He was polite, but firm. They got verbally abusive, and yelled that since dad had enough to buy a new Pontiac Star Chief, he had money to spare. Dad again told them to leave. The one with the knife pulled it out of the sheath and threatened dad, dad stepped back and pulled out the Colt Woodsman he always carried. The one with the knife kept advancing toward dad, and dad stepped back and yelled at the man to go away. The man took another step and dad fired. The man with the knife stopped and sort of hunched over, then advanced on dad again. Dad shot him twice more, and the knife man doubled over, went down on his knees, then fell over sideways, screaming "It burns!, it burns!" and then got quiet. He rocked back and forth for a minute, then stopped moving.

The other people at the picnic area went and got me and my sister and mom aside while someone went down the road to a payphone to call the police. When the ambulance got there, they covered up the man that had the knife on the stretcher, including his face, he was dead on the scene. Dad had to through the investigation, and it was found self defense, because of all the witnesses. After 90 days, dad filed some papers, and got his Colt .22 back. It was his only gun. He had it since 1937, and it was by his bed when he passed away in 1981.

So you may excuse me if I seem a bit jaded with the gun shop gurus. A bullet is a bullet, and in my life, I've seen what happens first hand when a small caliber bullet his something vital. It's the person holding the gun that makes all the difference in the world. I watch my wife bounce that tennis ball down range shooting rapid double action with any of her Smith and Wesson .22 revolvers, and I feel good knowing that she's safe when I'm away. Does she need a larger caliber? Not if its not fun for her and she won't shoot it like we shoot our .22's to the tune of many thousands of rounds a year. She's got 50 years of shooting .22 revolvers behind her. The only time she ever used an auto was her Smith and Wesson 41 that she used in competition. When she slowed down after retiring, she sold it. But she's still wicked with the old Model 17 her dad bought her for high school graduation. If something goes bump in the night, I'll have my 10 shot 617, Karen will have her 8 shot 317. That's 18 rounds from two people that have 100 years of shooting .22 revolvers between them.

Carl
 
Carl -

Thanks for that post with all the colorful description. Your experience is pretty consistent with what I've heard about shootings; hit the BG in the gizzard and he's going down, even it's a hit from a 22.
 
Carl, thank you.

Some around here know, that I know very well what a .22 revolver will do in regard to stopping threat(s).

Carl, you and I have shared some things in private, and all I will share publicly is, some of my Mentors & Elders also carried a Colt Woodsman. Some other small caliber guns were carried as well, and we will leave it said, these folks did so, in real deal situations. They also made sure to carry a small penknife.

Life is life, and reality is real. One never knows in the blink of an eye, when they may have a accident, injury, or surgery, that leads to "no recoil orders" from a Doctor, Surgeon and Physical Therapist.

Such events are not exclusive to the older of age folks either. All it takes is a car accident, falling off a ladder, slipping on ice on the front porch, and the like.

Detached retina, busted hip, neck and back injuries and anyone no matter of age, may find themselves under "no recoil orders" thus leaving a .22 rimfire, or similar as the only option for a gun period.

And it flat hurts after some surgeries to carry some guns. I, and others, including some Staff here, do NOT feel less able to handle a situation with a Beretta Bobcat, in .22 rimfire.
 
You're welcome, Steve.

You and I grew up in a different era. Older times, with mentors that had gained their experience from real world doing, not gun magazine pages. It was a simpler time, with simpler outlook. Mindset, skill set, hardware. In that order. Cops all carried the same Colt Official Police or the Smith and Wesson counterpart, the old model 10. They put plenty of bad guys under the daisy's with those oldies but goodies.

Today, we have a whole generation of young guys, who didn't have the mentors we had. They think if one does not have the latest wonder gun of the month the gun magazines push to please their advertisers, you're dead meat. No real world experience or mentors that have been there.

During WW2, the most popular gun among the O.S.S. personel was the Colt .32 auto. Nice flat little gun. These were people who had a choice of any of the guns of the day. The Colt 1911 .45, the .38 revolvers from both Colt, Smith and Wesson, and the English Enfield. But the Colt .32 was the favorite pick for it's flat profile and light weight. The .32acp round was considered to be good enough if put in the right place. Skill set.

These were agents who if caught, faced certain death after interrogation that would make death welcome. After WW2, the .32acp round was the standard police round for all of Europe until the 1980's. Yet today, it's considered a so-so round at best. Too bad all those O.S.S. agents didn't know how bad they were underguned.:D

A few years back, the New York city police department did a very detailed study of 5,000 shooting incidents. The single one thing that they found out that stopped a shooting, stopped the bad guy, was not the size or amount of rounds. It was shot placement. Where did the round go. Did the round go into something vital. The caliber of the round did not seem to matter. What the round hit, did. Accurate shooting won the day. Again, skill set.

I see these young guys out at the range, putting a heck of a lot of rounds down range. I can't help it, I'm nosy, I look over at their targets now and then. It's a little scary. Some holes scattered around in the black, some off in the white edges of the target. But a fast count of holes vs the sum total of the three 17 round mags from that Glock leaves a lot of un-accounted bullets gone who knows where. This on a nice daylight target range. Oh, they have the hardware alright. They all have the latest gun the TV action hero has, with the light rail under the barrel and laser sight in the grip. And they know how to pump out the rounds fast, just like Bruce Willis. But it's too bad they can't shoot well. No skill set.

On the other hand, there's the mystery lady. She's called that because nobody in the club knows anything about her, including the prez. She pays her dues, and that's it. She shows up pretty regular. About late 60's, slim and graceful for her age, and very attractive. She would would have been head turning beautiful in her younger days. She pulls up in a very nice Jag sedan, dressed in classic well tailored pantsuit by somebody expencive. Takes two little cloth bags out of her shooting bag. One old Fabrique Nationale .25 auto with most of the blue worn off, leaving it a soft silvery finish. The other gun she uses is an old Beretta Jetfire. The old one, made in Italy before they were made here. She puts up half size silhouette targets, and shoots. Holds gun down by her side, then in one graceful fluid movement, raises gun and shoots two rounds then one. Bang-bang, pause, bang. She does this with both guns. On her target there's one cluster of holes in the 10 ring that can be covered with a playing card. There's a smaller cluster of holes in the face area, also playing card size. This at 10 yards. The lady has skill set. I feel sorry for the guy who tries to take her on, in spite of her using a .25 auto.

Mindset, skill set, hardware. In that order.

Or to put it another way; Who would you rather take on if hardware is that important, some gangbanger with a 9mm, or Bob Munden with a .22?

Carl.
 
WHat She SAID !!!!!

I am going to cautiously weigh in here.

I have been known to carry a little mouse gun under some circumstances. As mentioned, better a little gun in your Pocket, yada yada yada.

I carry a 23 Glock almost all the time.

On some summer time ocassions I can't hide that Glock. (Summer halter tops and shorts)

Just grab a little mouse gun (22 mag mini revolver and drop it in the pocket)

Now we can beat to death the old rhetoric of "DONT leave home with a gun that has a caliber that starts with anything less than a 4 "

OK all kidding aside, If you can use what your carrying effectively, it will do.

The question certainly has merrit.

You can carry a 50 DE, can you be effective with it ????

A nice little 40 Glock or a Springfield XD compact in 40??

A featherweight 357 snubby

A 9mm Taurus

If you feel comfortable and you can be effective, it will probably do the trick.

The dirty little 22 LR will stop a hardened killer, if the shot is placed right.

I have even carried the FNH "Five seven" I dont like the thing particularly. Those tiny little rounds just dont make me all comfortable. I wonder if they would really work that well.

Sure, Placed right, they will work.

The 1911 45 colt was developed in an era when the stopping power of the 38 was just not getting it done.

The large 45 slugs got the task handled.

Back many years, the FBI agents were out gunned and getting their butts handed to them.

The call for more power went out, the 10mm was developed.

Many agents to be BLUNT were scared of the big 10. The 40 S&W was developed and proved to be a great compromise in power and controlability.

Myself I will grab the first good used Glock 29 (10mm compact) that walks through my shop door and stuff it in a Holster and call it MINE

I feel that there is really not a cut a dried answer here. I dont advise my students to choose a mouse gun, but if they can't handle a large caiber well (as in hit well) I will explore the smaller calibers with them.

38 spec, 380, 9mm, 25, 32 lots to choose from.

Hope this helps some ??????????//

Snowy
WHAT SHE SAID.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Very well put!

In a perfect world, carry the largest caliber and configuration that you can put ACCURATE rounds on target... or in and old vernacular, dance with what brung ya!

I have witnessed the outcome of many armed encounters, I am not a fan of .25's, or .32's however a 4" .32 HR Mag, would not be anything to sneeze at, in fact I am thinking about building one on a K frame.

A .22lr is a deep penetrating round, I would take one over a .25 or a .32. Personally I have carried a Walther PP in .380 for over 30 years, with the right hand load it is a PROVEN man stopper. But with the .380 for stopping power, it is all about the ammo.

Same with a 2" .38SPL. There are loads out there that are impressive for the 2" .38's.

.40 and up is preferred, but again, it has to be above 1000fps for me to think about it.

This is an AGE OLD DEBATE... my take, it's like Baskin and Robbins, but there are a lot more than 31 Flavors to choose from, carry the gun that you are comfortable with, the one that YOU like and works for you. Carry the MOST EFFECTIVE ammunition that you can get. something that will drill deep enough and OPEN UP.
 
Hi! I'm new to this site,as you can see, but Ican't help agreeing with Carl. I grew up in poor conditions,and did alot of hunting to help put food on the table.My rifle was aRemington552c.that my older brother would let me use. he taught me to save ammo,and shoot straight,and that advice came in handy inVietnam.While there,we had a firefight,and one of the weopons I found,afterwards,was a Russian mod.69 bolt-action .22. Ifired it ,afew times,and Iwas impressed by its abilities. Now I own one!
 
In a perfect world I will carry a .44 magnum everywhere I go and all my shots will land in the head and the perp will vaporize and there will be no trial no police and I would go about my business.

In the real world there may be people behind my attacker, or someone may be held hostage by a perp, or someone my be pinning me down and he mouse gun will have to do the trick.

It is not the gun in the fight; is the man/woman in the fight that counts.
 
Great posts, Carl, and I agree with everything you said. :cool: Just about anything that is accurate and can penetrate and disrupt tissue can get the job done when properly used, and .22 LR is well proven against two-legged predators (more so than most people seem to think). Larger, more powerful calibers can improve one's odds, but then again so can placing rounds more accurately and rapidly, which .22 LR can enable for many folks.

The 1911 45 colt was developed in an era when the stopping power of the 38 was just not getting it done.

Well, the .38 that was issued at the time, namely the .38 Long Colt, may not have been able to immediately and reliably drop determined attackers, but then again even more powerful calibers with modern hollow-points don't have that inherent capability either. :scrutiny:

The large 45 slugs got the task handled.

Did .45 Colt and .45 ACP really get the job done significantly better, or were they simply not blamed for failing because they're so large (with failures attributed to other factors)?

If, in the case of the Moros, shields and armor (the latter being limited to the wealthy/elite I'm guessing) were factors, then I suppose that the .45 calibers would indeed have performed better than .38 LC, but so would 9mm Parabellum for that matter.

Back many years, the FBI agents were out gunned and getting their butts handed to them.

The call for more power went out, the 10mm was developed.

They were outgunned by rifles, not larger calibers, and 10mm wasn't intended to make up for it. The intention was to maximize the effectiveness of the FBI's handguns whenever those are used, and the most favored load that was tested happened to be in 10mm (similar performance to the best .45 ACP loads at the time with greater capacity).

Many agents to be BLUNT were scared of the big 10. The 40 S&W was developed and proved to be a great compromise in power and controlability.

But the 10mm load that the FBI used was very similar to current 180 grain .40 S&W loads today (which is no accident). The main difference is that .40 S&W can be chambered in handguns with smaller grips and frames, as well as shorter trigger reach, making it more accessible to agents with smaller hands.

I carry a 40 and not a 45 simply because I don't want the heavier weight and bulkier gun to pack around.

My point exactly. ;)

Big holes allow more blood loss and quicker shutdown.

That could definitely be helpful in a prolonged firefight, and has to be balanced against capacity and controllability (more rounds on target can mean quicker shutdown, too).

IIRC The reason for the 223 in the AR15/M16/M4 was to afford larger capicity, lighter weapon, and the idea that a wounded soldier was going to tie up more personell to care for them than otherwise might happen with an ouright kill.

In my view, that last notion has no truth to it whatsoever. There is no dividing line here between wounding and killing--a more powerful round may wound more but won't necessarily kill, while a smaller one may wound less but still kill instantly depending on where it hits. The reasons for 5.56x45mm were controllable automatic fire in a rifle (as opposed to a heavy machine gun) and more rounds per weight for logistical purposes--basically more rounds, period. Even though automatic fire in a rifle has practically been done away with by the US military, controllability plus being able to put more rounds downrange--either for cover (something like 99.9999% of all rounds actually fired) or on target. The reduced effect of each round was a necessary compromise, but in no way was intentionally designed for or characterized as wounding instead of killing.

I would say that the same can be said for the small pistol caliber. Of course the civilian does not worry about the need of 3 others to care for the Bad guy that needs help.

Considering that the common "large" pistol calibers wound even less than 5.56x45mm, how could the same principle apply, even just on the face of it?

I think we will all agree that heavy caliber, hard hitting, big holes are the best option.

They are as long as you can shoot them as well or very nearly as well as smaller calibers, which from what I've seen at the local range is less common than most people wish to believe.
 
There was a discussion in another forum about lightweight J-frames. The question was asked, which would you choose for your daily CCW:

15-oz 5-shot .38sp
13-oz 6-shot .327/.32 Magnum
11-oz 7-shot .22 Magnum
10-oz 8-shot .22 LR

Now, the weights might not be exact and the .22 revolvers may have heavier triggers, but consider it more of a theoretical question in which everything else - size, grip, trigger, etc is equal. Which do you choose?

I think the .32 might hit the sweet spot, but the ammo availability might be an issue.

The CEO hinted that NAA might be working on a .32 Break Top or mini revolver. That could be an interesting carry option if it was significantly smaller than a J-frame. Single-action would still be an issue for a lot of people, though.
 
Last edited:
Shot placement. Trooper Coates was killed with a .22. He was armed with a .357 and had shot and hit the defendant 5 times in the chest. Defendant shot back and hit the Trooper under the bicep. The round traveled up the arm into his chest hitting vitals killing him. Lucky shot but a 22 non the less. Being able to hit the target is a large factor. Training is important as well as the mindset to win. Use what you practice the most with and Practice Practice Practice Practice.
 
I don't use small caliber guns.

My whole setup is based on the kinds of questions I'll ask myself if I have to use my gun and things do NOT end well.

Say for example, I have to use my gun, but a loved one is lost. I'm going to want to know I made the best choices I knew how to make when I had a chance to make them.

Before the fact, I projected myself into the situation and answered questions like:

- Did you get training? Did you practice?
- Did you carry the most powerful ammo you can handle?
- Did you have reasonable confidence in our overall setup?
- Is your holster stable?
- Is the grip on your gun big enough for you to feel confident making follow-up shots?

So, I use the most powerful ammo I can control and still shoot one handed with either hand.
 
There was a discussion in another forum about lightweight J-frames. The question was asked, which would you choose for your daily CCW:

15-oz 5-shot .38sp
13-oz 6-shot .327/.32 Magnum
11-oz 7-shot .22 Magnum
10-oz 8-shot .22 LR

Now, the weights might not be exact and the .22 revolvers may have heavier triggers, but consider it more of a theoretical question in which everything else - size, grip, trigger, etc is equal. Which do you choose?

I think the .32 might hit the sweet spot, but the ammo availability might be an issue.

While the .32 does seem to strike an optimal balance between theoretical per-round effectiveness, capacity, and controllability given all of the other parameters, there other issues to consider such as ammo availability (as you said) and cost (.32 S&W Long should be more available and inexpensive, but that would be a step down in performance), as well as the fact that it is a Magnum cartridge in a snubby, which means that some of its potential will go to waste as an extra-large blast & flash (another negative in and of itself, in my view). So while I may possibly recommend the .32 for certain people, I personally would choose the .38. The .22 may be a consideration with a 3" barrel, but if it has to be a snubby, then I'd go with the .38 for sure.

Having said that, I should point out that J-frame revolvers are not the most compact handguns around, and that those who need even more concealable weapons would be served well by a .32 ACP auto, for example. Also, those who are quite sensitive to recoil would be well served by a .32 or .22 revolver, which I've recommended on occasion.
 
Last edited:
Each person has to carry what they feel comfortable with.

It's been my observation that most people carry what's convenient.

a bullet is a bullet

Then a "car is a car." A "woman is a woman."

Some types are better suited to certain tasks than others. While they are are, technically, the same........they're not, really.

If facing a couple of armed thugs, I'd rather have a cool-headed person armed with a .22 that he's been deadly accurate with for 40 years with me than some hot-shot armed with a Para Ordnance .45 that he can't hit squat with.

.22's can kill, no question. But that's not the goal of a gunfight. The goal is to stop the guy before he completes the act that you shot him for in the first place.

If I only had a .22 I certainly wouldn't give up, but I'd practice rapid ear, eye, nose throat shots.
 
Mouseguns require different tactics and an entirely different mindset.

What I like to call the "warrior" mindset will get a mousegun user killed. There's not enough firepower. What a mousegun is best as a means of running off an attacker who may be skittish or not expecting a counter-measure. This is the bulk of what one would see.

What you need is a survival mindset instead....focus on getting the hell out of there, and use the mousegun as the tool to do it.

a .25acp ball has about 14" of gelatin penetration...the Hornady XTP has about 7.5" of penetration, but a .35 average expansion. This is very similar overall damage figures, and nothing to scoff at when you factor how quickly a full magazine can be put into an assailant.


The best method with mouseguns is point blank...press into the body and use the muzzle gasses to cause massive internal damage.

The other aspect is how easy it is to get great accuracy from the better mouseguns. I can do things with my Cub that people think is impossible for such a small gun simply due to how controllable that little gun is. It points naturally and has practically no recoil.
 
Mouseguns require different tactics and an entirely different mindset.

What I like to call the "warrior" mindset will get a mousegun user killed. There's not enough firepower. What a mousegun is best as a means of running off an attacker who may be skittish or not expecting a counter-measure. This is the bulk of what one would see.

The same would be true of any ordinary (i.e. less than rifle power) handgun, I would think. The only difference, if there is one, is that I might lean toward expending ammo more freely with the smaller calibers, whereas I may hold back a little with larger ones in case I need the rounds (balancing the perceived difference in effectiveness).

What you need is a survival mindset instead....focus on getting the hell out of there, and use the mousegun as the tool to do it.

I always have a survival mindset. :)

a .25acp ball has about 14" of gelatin penetration...the Hornady XTP has about 7.5" of penetration, but a .35 average expansion.

In that case I'd use ball, as hollow-points in this caliber are not well suited for combat against human-sized targets.

This is very similar overall damage figures, and nothing to scoff at when you factor how quickly a full magazine can be put into an assailant.

Totally agree here.

The best method with mouseguns is point blank...press into the body and use the muzzle gasses to cause massive internal damage.

I'd prefer to maintain some distance if possible, thanks....

The other aspect is how easy it is to get great accuracy from the better mouseguns. I can do things with my Cub that people think is impossible for such a small gun simply due to how controllable that little gun is. It points naturally and has practically no recoil.

Which is exactly what makes mouse guns--or more generally smaller, less powerful calibers--ideal for beginners and those who have physical limitations (not implying you, but many people can't handle larger calibers, and most of those who can have had a lot of practice). Anybody who shoots them substantially better will be more effective with them than with large-caliber handguns, in my opinion. Being able to slow-fire large calibers while readjusting one's grip and composing oneself between shots won't cut it in a real defensive scenario against determined attackers (while any caliber would suffice against not-so-determined attackers).
 
My reason for carrying one is it's the most practical firearm I can carry easily.

My 9mm is a pain in the rump to remove the holster and then re-set the holster every time I have to remove it (when I get to work, when I leave work, when I hit up a gun shop (respecting their policies), etc etc)...the mousegun is just a matter of "remove pocket holster, throw in center console, rock and roll".

Perhaps once I lose some weight and possibly develop enough "hind curvature" that I don't need to cinch the heck out of my belts, I could carry my 9mm and deal with the whole hoslter shuffle, just not now.
 
I am usually all for small caliber guns in these debates. I have known people that got the job done with a .32S&W Long and .32acp. However in all of those cases it was a one on one deal. I don't want to think about getting close enough for contact with two or three people.

Now I know some people will start talking statistics and a lot of other things. However, I am sitting here tonight knowing that there is a fifty-fifty chance three escaped convicts are headed in the direction I live. Now there are a lot of houses to choose from between here and there. So, the chances are slim they will show up here. However, I am really wishing I had an AK-47, M1 Carbine, or 12 gauge for my main gun. I'm also really wishing I had a 10+ round semi-auto in 9mm or better for the wife to back me up. The chances are slim but the possibility is real.

Every time I've used a gun in defense or felt I might need to there have been multiple people, or the possibility that multiple people could become involved. I'm sorry, but a .25 or a .32acp probably isn't going to cut it against three escaped convicts. It probably isn't going to cut it if your facing multiple agressors at more than three yards.

Three convicts come knocking through your door, do you want to hug them to stop them?

If you are physically unable to carry a larger caliber, or higher capacity, use what you can. If you are able to carry more, carry as much as you can. That doesn't mean you have to go with a .45. In my opinion it means carrying at least a 9x19 with 10 rounds or more. Give yourself the best fighting chance you can.
 
I settled on a 9mm as the best compromise, for me, between power and size. I use the Kel-Tec P11 because I can just drop it in a pocked if I dont want to wear an overshirt or jacket.

That being said, my wife who has M.S. can't handle the recoil of even my 9. She has a .22 semi-auto. It's accurate and the nonexistant recoil means either of us can dump multiple shots in the kill zone or head of a silouet with impressive speed. Yes, if she could handle a larger calibur I would want her to have it, but I'd rather she had the .22 and be confident with it than have her carry a handgun she can't shoot well.
 
I am usually all for small caliber guns in these debates. I have known people that got the job done with a .32S&W Long and .32acp. However in all of those cases it was a one on one deal.

Well, nobody wants to get shot by anything, so it may be possible to chase off multiple assailants once one of them has been shot. That doesn't always happen as some attackers exhibit a mystifying degree of determination, while others may simply react violently regardless. In such cases, sure I'd prefer a more powerful weapon AND more rounds, but there are other considerations in the big picture.

I don't want to think about getting close enough for contact with two or three people.

I think about it and train for it all time, just in case. That way, if it does happen I won't be caught unprepared and possibly paralyzed by fear or trying to figure out what to do on the spot. There's a guy who has made threats against me, and now I've heard that he's threatened to hire hitmen to go after his own sister, too, so I think it's prudent for me to prepare for certain possibilities.

Now I know some people will start talking statistics and a lot of other things. However, I am sitting here tonight knowing that there is a fifty-fifty chance three escaped convicts are headed in the direction I live. Now there are a lot of houses to choose from between here and there. So, the chances are slim they will show up here.

The chances would be even slimmer if you hardened your house against forced entry. While it's true that it's impossible to keep out anybody who is absolutely determined to get inside, you can at least strongly deter those who are looking for an easy burglary or for that matter escaped convicts on the lam looking for a hiding place. Making your house difficult to break into also buys you some time to escape or prepare to defend, even if somebody is determined to rob or kill you no matter how much effort it takes.

In your case, in which the danger is current and there is practically no time to prepare, you could at least stick a sturdy chair (or something like that) under the doorknobs of your exterior doors to help brace them--this may seem like a movie cliché, but in reality it works better than a deadbolt that goes into a typical door frame, which almost anybody could easily kick in if they tried (just telling you in case you don't already know).

Every time I've used a gun in defense or felt I might need to there have been multiple people, or the possibility that multiple people could become involved. I'm sorry, but a .25 or a .32acp probably isn't going to cut it against three escaped convicts. It probably isn't going to cut it if your facing multiple agressors at more than three yards.

Perhaps no handgun would cut it in some cases, while a mouse gun would in others. In my view, it all comes down to probabilities and the degrees of difference, which then have to be weighed against other considerations such as convenience (easily dismissed until we have to deal with impracticality every day). Mouse guns perform the same duties that service-caliber weapons do, with some compromises to be sure, but we're talking about degrees and probabilities (with regard to both what can happen and how effective each round will be) here, not a whole different paradigm. Of course, mouse guns are recommended more for carry rather than home defense, where more options would be open.

If you are physically unable to carry a larger caliber, or higher capacity, use what you can. If you are able to carry more, carry as much as you can. That doesn't mean you have to go with a .45. In my opinion it means carrying at least a 9x19 with 10 rounds or more. Give yourself the best fighting chance you can.

Makes sense to me, as long as you can handle the recoil of 9x19mm, that is. By that I mean shooting it fast with accuracy. From my observations at the range, some folks can while others only think that they can.
 
In such cases, sure I'd prefer a more powerful weapon AND more rounds, but there are other considerations in the big picture.

The point that was driven home for me last night was that you don't always get to pick the circumstance. I know their are a lot of considerations to purchasing a weapon. These days though you can get a Ruger LC9, or Taurus Slim that holds 8 rounds of 9x19 and fits in your pocket with ease. You can also get a Springfield XD Subcompact in 9x19. It fits easily in to the pocket of carpenter jeans and holds 13 rounds.

I believe with proper training and/or practice nearly anyone can handle one of those guns. There are some people that are physically limited and can not. I think that is a smaller portion of the shooting public. I firmly believe that most of the bad shooting you see comes from lack of practice. In those cases even the softest recoiling .25acp or .32acp isn't going to be a big help.

I think about it and train for it all time, just in case. That way, if it does happen I won't be caught unprepared and possibly paralyzed by fear or trying to figure out what to do on the spot.

I should have said, I don't want that to be my game plan. I think about it, and have trained for it. A lot of gun battles are at conversation distance, and nearly as many are at dancing distance.

The chances would be even slimmer if you hardened your house against forced entry.

Motion lights, security lights from the electric company, only one door that can easily be used as an entrance, storm door locked on the previously mentioned door, motion alarms on the porch steps, and a gate on the porch that is kept closed and latched are all part of securing the perimeter. There are still a couple of other things, but I don't want to give away all of the secrets.

I like the idea about a chair. I forgot all about that one. I know it works a lot better than people realize. It just has to be sturdy, and you have to get the angle right.


Perhaps no handgun would cut it in some cases, while a mouse gun would in others. In my view, it all comes down to probabilities and the degrees of difference, which then have to be weighed against other considerations such as convenience (easily dismissed until we have to deal with impracticality every day). Mouse guns perform the same duties that service-caliber weapons do, with some compromises to be sure, but we're talking about degrees and probabilities (with regard to both what can happen and how effective each round will be) here, not a whole different paradigm.

I agree that mouse guns perform the same job as service pistols, with compromises. I have known people that used mouse guns to end a fight permenantly. I also learned the lesson that the NYPD taught with Angel Alvarez. 21 shots of 9x19 can be useless if you don't shoot properly. 3 rounds can be fatal if well placed.

I also understand that convenience is important and a necessary consideration. I routinely have to carry a kid, a diaper bag, or something of that nature while going about my day. A F&N fullsize is not in the equation. That doesn't mean that a compact or subcompact 9mm is too cumbersome.

In my experience, and from what I've seen of the world growing up, it looks like the chance of me meeting a bad guy one on one is next to nill. I want to be able to stop the threats as fast as possible and I want as many rounds as is reasonable. I guess it might be different if I lived some where else. I just happen to travel to and work in the 98th most dangeous city in the country nearly every day. Plus I travel to three other cities ranked in the top 100, for crime, on a regular basis. Winston Salem, Greensboro, Charlotte, and Durham, NC are all places I visit on a regular basis or work in. They are all ranked between 50 and 100 in the list of most dangerous cities. I also travel through High Point often. It is ranked the 108th most dangerous city in the country. I really started thinking about that last night. I expose myself to more danger than most people I know. For me it seems prudent to step up the caliber and capaciy.

Now, I just found out I live about 2.5 miles from a prison. Which pissed me off. There is no sign and nobody told me when I moved here.
 
Great thread! It's very thought-provoking. Also, thanks for keeping to The High Road!
"The size of the gun that the guy carries is important, but more important is the size of the fight of the guy with the gun."--NMGonzo
The willingness (especially as perceived by the Bad Guy) to fight can be as important as the "size of the gun". A person with a "mousegun" who is determined to stop an attack will much more likely prevail than a "hand cannon" packer who is hesitant.

Thugs thrive on and seek out weakness, so unless he's crazed, the knowledge that he's about to be shot can in itself discourage an attack. Bluffing doesn't count-he can read that. You better have it settled in your mind that you will shoot if the attack continues, and then do so, as often as needed.
Even then, you may still be wounded or killed, but you have to accept that and fight anyway, if the situation demands it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top