Why do people like certain calibers?
- Thread starter Holgersen
- Start date
- Status
christcorp
Member
Vern, sorry but my response wasn't toward you. You replied in between me reading the one before you and when I posted. The post I was replying to said:
As for the comments insinuated by some that there is "Some Limit" as to the caliber; I.e. Nothing below a 9mm is worthy to be used for self defense; that is just pure Bull, ignorant, and naive. At least if you're going to say such things, at least preface it with the statement: "In my opinion". Because that's all it is. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a 25, 32, or 380 auto being used as a carry gun for self defense. And there is definitely nothing wrong with having 5,6,7, or 8 rounds in a revolver or semi-auto instead of 10,15,or 18 rounds. I'm sure that there are those out there that are really terrible shots; don't practice enough; and so on. For them, bigger bullets and more of them are definitely needed. For those who know how to shoot; can keep their composure; practice often; and have great shot placement; they have the luxury of not need a 15 round magazine or 9mm or 40sw. Some may just like the "Security Blanket" affect. But that is just my opinion.
Oh, and easyg; I didn't give her a limited selection of guns to try. I mentioned 3 of them. And for what it's worth, the 38 spl is pretty close to ballistics to the 9mm. And having a 4" barrel probably made the recoil about the same. So while she didn't mind the 38 special, she wasn't tickled about it. But if you must know; she had the chance to shoot:
1. Sig P220
2. S&W Mod 13-1
3. CZ 82 9x18 mak (In between a 380 and 9mm)
4. AMT 380 backup
5. Walther PPK 32auto
6. FEG 7.65 (32 auto) (Clone to the walther)
7. schmidt 22 mag/lr revolver
This wasn't everything available, but she also got to shoot quite a few rifles. But because she lives in the Communist State of New Jersey (I was born there); she will probably never get a chance to shoot again for quite a while. But if she was to decide on getting a handgun for self defense, there is no way in hell that I would let her get a 9mm, 40sw, or 10mm. Not because of the caliber, but because it's a semi-auto. I also wouldn't let her go for the Walther 32acp or the Sig P220 45acp. ANY person buying a hand gun for self defense and either doesn't have a lot of experience with weapons and/or won't be practicing a lot, should be getting a revolver of some type. Preferably a 357 mag that they can shoot 38 specials through it; yet has the ability for them to grow into if they'd like.
So, the question is: "Why do people like certain calibers". Well, I like certain calibers for 3 reasons: 1) They have a true PURPOSE. Not hype; not because someone's been watching too much hollywood; but a real purpose. 2) For fun. Some calibers I like simply because they are fun to shoot. Or, they are so cheap; e.g. 9x18 mak, that they become more fun to shoot because I can shoot more of it. 3) And finally, as a collector. I.e. I would never choose a 30-06 for hunting; even though many do. However, I love military weapons, and the M1 Garand is one of the best rifles in the history of warfare. And it happens to be a 30-06. And while I don't own a 9mm for self defense; "I have no need for one when my regular carry guns are either a 45acp or a 32acp which both work just as well"; I really like german lugers and other military weapons. The 9mm was very popular in the early parts of the 20th century. So there's 3 reasons why I like certain calibers. But for self/home defense purpose, #1 is the reason. The caliber has to have a purpose. The 40 and the 10mm never really had a purpose other than to provide more rounds in the magazine than a 45acp. Because the 45acp was obviously so much better than the 9mm anyway. But because I have no need for more than the normal 7 rounds in a traditional 45acp, the 40 and 10mm have no purpose for me.
As for the comments insinuated by some that there is "Some Limit" as to the caliber; I.e. Nothing below a 9mm is worthy to be used for self defense; that is just pure Bull, ignorant, and naive. At least if you're going to say such things, at least preface it with the statement: "In my opinion". Because that's all it is. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a 25, 32, or 380 auto being used as a carry gun for self defense. And there is definitely nothing wrong with having 5,6,7, or 8 rounds in a revolver or semi-auto instead of 10,15,or 18 rounds. I'm sure that there are those out there that are really terrible shots; don't practice enough; and so on. For them, bigger bullets and more of them are definitely needed. For those who know how to shoot; can keep their composure; practice often; and have great shot placement; they have the luxury of not need a 15 round magazine or 9mm or 40sw. Some may just like the "Security Blanket" affect. But that is just my opinion.
Oh, and easyg; I didn't give her a limited selection of guns to try. I mentioned 3 of them. And for what it's worth, the 38 spl is pretty close to ballistics to the 9mm. And having a 4" barrel probably made the recoil about the same. So while she didn't mind the 38 special, she wasn't tickled about it. But if you must know; she had the chance to shoot:
1. Sig P220
2. S&W Mod 13-1
3. CZ 82 9x18 mak (In between a 380 and 9mm)
4. AMT 380 backup
5. Walther PPK 32auto
6. FEG 7.65 (32 auto) (Clone to the walther)
7. schmidt 22 mag/lr revolver
This wasn't everything available, but she also got to shoot quite a few rifles. But because she lives in the Communist State of New Jersey (I was born there); she will probably never get a chance to shoot again for quite a while. But if she was to decide on getting a handgun for self defense, there is no way in hell that I would let her get a 9mm, 40sw, or 10mm. Not because of the caliber, but because it's a semi-auto. I also wouldn't let her go for the Walther 32acp or the Sig P220 45acp. ANY person buying a hand gun for self defense and either doesn't have a lot of experience with weapons and/or won't be practicing a lot, should be getting a revolver of some type. Preferably a 357 mag that they can shoot 38 specials through it; yet has the ability for them to grow into if they'd like.
So, the question is: "Why do people like certain calibers". Well, I like certain calibers for 3 reasons: 1) They have a true PURPOSE. Not hype; not because someone's been watching too much hollywood; but a real purpose. 2) For fun. Some calibers I like simply because they are fun to shoot. Or, they are so cheap; e.g. 9x18 mak, that they become more fun to shoot because I can shoot more of it. 3) And finally, as a collector. I.e. I would never choose a 30-06 for hunting; even though many do. However, I love military weapons, and the M1 Garand is one of the best rifles in the history of warfare. And it happens to be a 30-06. And while I don't own a 9mm for self defense; "I have no need for one when my regular carry guns are either a 45acp or a 32acp which both work just as well"; I really like german lugers and other military weapons. The 9mm was very popular in the early parts of the 20th century. So there's 3 reasons why I like certain calibers. But for self/home defense purpose, #1 is the reason. The caliber has to have a purpose. The 40 and the 10mm never really had a purpose other than to provide more rounds in the magazine than a 45acp. Because the 45acp was obviously so much better than the 9mm anyway. But because I have no need for more than the normal 7 rounds in a traditional 45acp, the 40 and 10mm have no purpose for me.
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
I don't think of it as loyalty as much as preference.
.22; cuz it's a fun and useful round. Plinking, target work, small game.
9mm; Mostly I like this round because of the guns it's chambered in but it's low recoil and availability make it useful for training and range work. It's also a very good defensive caliber with the right loads.
38 Super; simply one of the best handgun calibers ever developed. Easy to reload and fun to shoot. Excellent defensive caliber and good for game up to deer and smaller hogs with proper shot placement. It's natural home is the 1911. 10 rounds of a 147 gr. bullet at 1250 fps from a Commander works well for me. More powerful than the 9mm it works very well with a wider variety of bullet weights from 90 grains to 158. A versatile round.
.38 Spl. useful for self defense, target work, training, etc. An accurate round that is fun to shoot. I like the .357 less than the .38 though I shoot both. I prefer only certain loads of the .357. The .38 Spl. is a very versatile round.
44 Special. A 200 -240 gr, bullet at 900-1000 fps good for hunting and self defense. It's bigger brother I shoot also but I shoot the Spl. the most. From an N frame S&W hard to beat.
.45 acp and the 1911.
These calibers are fun and for me quite useful.
tipoc
.22; cuz it's a fun and useful round. Plinking, target work, small game.
9mm; Mostly I like this round because of the guns it's chambered in but it's low recoil and availability make it useful for training and range work. It's also a very good defensive caliber with the right loads.
38 Super; simply one of the best handgun calibers ever developed. Easy to reload and fun to shoot. Excellent defensive caliber and good for game up to deer and smaller hogs with proper shot placement. It's natural home is the 1911. 10 rounds of a 147 gr. bullet at 1250 fps from a Commander works well for me. More powerful than the 9mm it works very well with a wider variety of bullet weights from 90 grains to 158. A versatile round.
.38 Spl. useful for self defense, target work, training, etc. An accurate round that is fun to shoot. I like the .357 less than the .38 though I shoot both. I prefer only certain loads of the .357. The .38 Spl. is a very versatile round.
44 Special. A 200 -240 gr, bullet at 900-1000 fps good for hunting and self defense. It's bigger brother I shoot also but I shoot the Spl. the most. From an N frame S&W hard to beat.
.45 acp and the 1911.
These calibers are fun and for me quite useful.
tipoc
Last edited:
mljdeckard
Member
There is no reason to preface a statement with "In my opinion" if the statement is absolutely true. "I WILL NEVER ADVISE TO ANY PERSON THAT THE .25 ACP IS THE RIGHT CALIBER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES" is a statement of fact, not opinion.
Carrying handguns at all for personal defense is a bad idea. The only reason we do it at all is because it's not practical to carry a rifle everywhere. In dropping down to the very bare minimum cartridge that will clear the barrel is saying that you think, when all your other plans have fallen apart, and the world is crashing in around you, you have decided to trust your life to the lowest energy, worst-penetrating cartridge on the market. It's like someone buying a car with bald tires, faulty electrical systems, and bad oil leaks, and telling them, "Hey, it's ok. Any car is better than no car at all, right?" NOT IF IT'S UNSAFE. Get a real car, get a real gun. (Opinion.) If it's a person who I actually care whether or not they live or die, I will either loan them a better gun, or give them the extra $200 to get something better. (Fact.)
Smaller guns are NOT beginner guns. They have more felt recoil and a shorter sight radius. If you absolutely MUST have a subcompact gun, there are subcompact options in 9mm, .357 SIG, .40, .45 GAP, and .45 ACP. Size is not an excuse anymore. In carrying something smaller, you are saying; "I say I am serious about my safety, but I am too lazy and cheap to get one of a size and quality that has the best chance of helping me when I really need it." Own what you want. Because it's cute. Because it's fun to shoot. Whatever. But don't rationalize that it's ok to carry it because you are too cheap and lazy to get something better. (Opinion again.)
Carrying handguns at all for personal defense is a bad idea. The only reason we do it at all is because it's not practical to carry a rifle everywhere. In dropping down to the very bare minimum cartridge that will clear the barrel is saying that you think, when all your other plans have fallen apart, and the world is crashing in around you, you have decided to trust your life to the lowest energy, worst-penetrating cartridge on the market. It's like someone buying a car with bald tires, faulty electrical systems, and bad oil leaks, and telling them, "Hey, it's ok. Any car is better than no car at all, right?" NOT IF IT'S UNSAFE. Get a real car, get a real gun. (Opinion.) If it's a person who I actually care whether or not they live or die, I will either loan them a better gun, or give them the extra $200 to get something better. (Fact.)
Smaller guns are NOT beginner guns. They have more felt recoil and a shorter sight radius. If you absolutely MUST have a subcompact gun, there are subcompact options in 9mm, .357 SIG, .40, .45 GAP, and .45 ACP. Size is not an excuse anymore. In carrying something smaller, you are saying; "I say I am serious about my safety, but I am too lazy and cheap to get one of a size and quality that has the best chance of helping me when I really need it." Own what you want. Because it's cute. Because it's fun to shoot. Whatever. But don't rationalize that it's ok to carry it because you are too cheap and lazy to get something better. (Opinion again.)
JWF III
Member
I'm not "loyal" to any one cartridge. I own handguns in many different chamberings (stopped counting once I hit double digits). But I do have preferrences for carrying.
I think a lot of peoples loyalty comes from, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
I have I have 5 (ccw type) handguns, in 7 cartridges (.357 Sig barrel for .40 Glock, and .38/.357 revolver), that many people would be proud to carry. I will only carry the j-frame, loaded with full house mags.
Wyman
I think a lot of peoples loyalty comes from, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
I have I have 5 (ccw type) handguns, in 7 cartridges (.357 Sig barrel for .40 Glock, and .38/.357 revolver), that many people would be proud to carry. I will only carry the j-frame, loaded with full house mags.
Wyman
christcorp
Member
mlj; I understand what you're saying, but your analogy is totally wrong. It is not like compared to a car with bald tires, oil leaks, slipping transmission. It's like comparing A NEW Ford F250 pickup truck to a NEW Ford Focus car for driving around town and to work. Yes, the pickup is bigger and stronger, and if in an accident you "Might" be better protected. But the Ford Focus will also get you where you're going; reliably; dependably; and comfortably. Is there a chance that the pickup truck would be better than the focus in certain scenarios; such as a major snow storm? "POSSIBLY". Is there a chance that a 45acp will be better than a 32acp; such as in winter with the bad guy wearing layers of clothing and a heavy coat? "POSSIBLY". That is why in the winter months, I drive the explorer and pickup more often than the small car. Just like in the winter, I carry my 45acp instead of the 32acp.
But I've also said many times that if a person ONLY has 1 gun because they either can't afford another one, or because it's strictly for self defense and they only practice shooting a couple times a year; then they should be buying a 357 magnum revolver. They can shoot light 38 spl or full 357 mag or anything in between that is comfortable for them. If they are going to have more than one handgun and practice somewhat often; then having a 32acp for some circumstance and a 45acp for other times is practical. If you practice enough to make semi-autos practical. And yes, if a person is only going to have 1 gun, and they really want a semi-auto, then a 9mm, 40sw, or 10mm is practical. You need something that covers a wide range. But if you can have more than one gun, you don't need an in between gun. You can buy the more appropriate caliber in each. And a 25, 32, or 380 auto is a fine caliber with the right ammunition for the right situation.
But I've also said many times that if a person ONLY has 1 gun because they either can't afford another one, or because it's strictly for self defense and they only practice shooting a couple times a year; then they should be buying a 357 magnum revolver. They can shoot light 38 spl or full 357 mag or anything in between that is comfortable for them. If they are going to have more than one handgun and practice somewhat often; then having a 32acp for some circumstance and a 45acp for other times is practical. If you practice enough to make semi-autos practical. And yes, if a person is only going to have 1 gun, and they really want a semi-auto, then a 9mm, 40sw, or 10mm is practical. You need something that covers a wide range. But if you can have more than one gun, you don't need an in between gun. You can buy the more appropriate caliber in each. And a 25, 32, or 380 auto is a fine caliber with the right ammunition for the right situation.
mljdeckard
Member
It's not "A chance". It's an overwhelming likelihood. They need to get comfortable. If they only have one, it should be their full-power one. Get little fun ones later. FOR FUN.
My dad just finally went to the class for his carry permit. At the last minute, my mom said she wanted to go to. Good times. The instructor tested them for shooting (not a state requirement, it's the instructor's discretion) and loaned my mom a Mk II with a bull barrel. Now, if she has shot a handgun in 25 years, I'm not aware of it. So she limp-wristed it, had jams, couldn't hit anything, and got frustrated. Now we shooters know, it doesn't get much easier than a bull-barreled Mk II. But to someone who has just NEVER tried it before, it's completely alien to them. So my dad says; "I'm thinking about getting her a little .22 to carry." I told him the same thing I have repeatedly said in this board. A small pistol is not a substitute for shooting skills. If anything, you need MORE shooting skills if you are going to carry a small pistol. We're going to go find her a medium framed 9mm or .357 that she can learn to shoot .38s through, and build her way up to full loads. Get new tires. Fix the wiring. Make it safe until you can get something better.
(The truth is, his 1911 should work for her as well as anything else. When it was designed, the average height and hand size of the American male was much smaller than today. The trigger and backstrap are adjustable, it's thin, and has less recoil than most .40s.)
My dad just finally went to the class for his carry permit. At the last minute, my mom said she wanted to go to. Good times. The instructor tested them for shooting (not a state requirement, it's the instructor's discretion) and loaned my mom a Mk II with a bull barrel. Now, if she has shot a handgun in 25 years, I'm not aware of it. So she limp-wristed it, had jams, couldn't hit anything, and got frustrated. Now we shooters know, it doesn't get much easier than a bull-barreled Mk II. But to someone who has just NEVER tried it before, it's completely alien to them. So my dad says; "I'm thinking about getting her a little .22 to carry." I told him the same thing I have repeatedly said in this board. A small pistol is not a substitute for shooting skills. If anything, you need MORE shooting skills if you are going to carry a small pistol. We're going to go find her a medium framed 9mm or .357 that she can learn to shoot .38s through, and build her way up to full loads. Get new tires. Fix the wiring. Make it safe until you can get something better.
(The truth is, his 1911 should work for her as well as anything else. When it was designed, the average height and hand size of the American male was much smaller than today. The trigger and backstrap are adjustable, it's thin, and has less recoil than most .40s.)
jhco
Member
different strokes for different folks
easyg
Member
This is one of the worse analogies I have seen lately.
No, it's not like comparing cars and trucks....it's comparing a weak caliber that is not likely to stop an attacker to a more effective caliber that is more likely to stop an attacker.
No, there's no "possibly" to it.
The .45ACP is a more effective round at stopping humans than the .32ACP, all other things being equal.
A miss with a .32 is just as ineffective as a miss with a .45ACP, but a hit with a .45ACP is MUCH more effective against a human than a hit with a .32ACP, all other things being equal.
As much as you claim otherwise, caliber does matter.
Yes, shot placement is most important, but a well placed spitball is simple not as effective at stopping a human attacker as a well placed 9mm Para, (or .40S&W, or .45ACP, or .357Sig, or .45GAP, or .38 Special, ect....).
And personally, I think that if you tell an inexperienced person that they are just as well armed for self-defense with a .32, or .22, or .25, as they would be with a larger caliber handgun, then you are being deceptive at the least.
RedAlert
Member
Some folks like red. Some blue. Doesn't matter, they just like it.
Ed Ames
Member
I think there are a couple of answers.
The first is that there are a couple schools of thought about how a handgun is effective. Off the top of my head the main ones are:
1) Energy transferrers. Higher energy = better.
2) Hole punchers. Bigger or more holes = better.
3) CNS damagers. Accurate shot placement = better.
4) Intimidators. Bigger gun = better.
6) Markers. Requiring medical attention = better.
If you believe handguns are most effective in way #3 you are probably not going to care about the projectile diameter so much as the practical accuracy. A .22, .25, .32, etc are all going to be fine so long as you can shoot accurately and quickly with the gun.
If you believe it's a matter of punching holes (#2) you are more likely to want big holes (.45ACP), lots of holes (9mm), or some blend (.40S&W).
If you believe it's a matter of transferring energy (#1), you are more likely to want fast projectiles (.357, .44mag, etc.) that can deliver a lot of energy.
The list goes on.
Someone who believes that their theory is the only important one ("all that matters is draining blood quickly so you need lots of big holes") will naturally dismiss anyone who subscribes to one of the other theories ("People can retain consciousness for 5 seconds after their heart is destroyed and that's enough to shoot back so anything but a precision weapon for destroying the CNS is useless. Once I have precision I don't need to make big holes."), and vice versa.
The only reason it may seem less true for revolverkin is that many revolvers can handle multiple cartridges and power loadings, and they aren't subject to feed issues the way pistols are, so it's natural to vary the ammunition choices more to suit circumstances.
The first is that there are a couple schools of thought about how a handgun is effective. Off the top of my head the main ones are:
1) Energy transferrers. Higher energy = better.
2) Hole punchers. Bigger or more holes = better.
3) CNS damagers. Accurate shot placement = better.
4) Intimidators. Bigger gun = better.
6) Markers. Requiring medical attention = better.
If you believe handguns are most effective in way #3 you are probably not going to care about the projectile diameter so much as the practical accuracy. A .22, .25, .32, etc are all going to be fine so long as you can shoot accurately and quickly with the gun.
If you believe it's a matter of punching holes (#2) you are more likely to want big holes (.45ACP), lots of holes (9mm), or some blend (.40S&W).
If you believe it's a matter of transferring energy (#1), you are more likely to want fast projectiles (.357, .44mag, etc.) that can deliver a lot of energy.
The list goes on.
Someone who believes that their theory is the only important one ("all that matters is draining blood quickly so you need lots of big holes") will naturally dismiss anyone who subscribes to one of the other theories ("People can retain consciousness for 5 seconds after their heart is destroyed and that's enough to shoot back so anything but a precision weapon for destroying the CNS is useless. Once I have precision I don't need to make big holes."), and vice versa.
The only reason it may seem less true for revolverkin is that many revolvers can handle multiple cartridges and power loadings, and they aren't subject to feed issues the way pistols are, so it's natural to vary the ammunition choices more to suit circumstances.
easyg
Member
However, this type of thinking seems to based upon the false notion that a shooter firing a larger caliber cannot also be precise.
Precision with bigger holes and more energy is better than precision with smaller holes and less energy.
Ed Ames
Member
Does that matter?
I mean, the question was "Why the preferences?", not "what's your preference?"
I mean, the question was "Why the preferences?", not "what's your preference?"
easyg
Member
I think that it does matter if one is recommending a weak and ineffective caliber to someone with very limited firearms knowledge.
Ed Ames
Member
OK. How does that relate to this thread?
Hint: Christcorp wasn't recommending a gun to someone with very limited firearms knowledge.
Hint: Christcorp wasn't recommending a gun to someone with very limited firearms knowledge.
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,712
I'm a believer in carrying the most powerful cartridge you can shoot well. The more I practice, the more I find that I shoot the 45acp (in 1911s) and the .41 Mag/.45 Colt (in revolvers) as well as or better than other cartridges/platforms.
That is subject to change, as are my preferences.
That is subject to change, as are my preferences.
christcorp
Member
Some people here obviously know more about physics than they do weapons. And some definitely don't know how to read prior posts, but imply what they WANT posts to say instead of what they will say. There's enough other threads on the subject that this one is headed, but I will add a final thought to this thread.
1.Read my posts and you will see that when it comes to "someone with very limited firearms knowledge", there was NO recommendation for ANY CALIBER that comes in a semi-automatic. An inexperienced shooter, one where they only own 1 firearm, and one where they will not be practicing on a regular basis, should NEVER, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, have a semi-automatic. They should have a revolver; in the 38/357mag caliber that can be loaded to any number of flavors to fit their abilities. And ANYONE who recommends a semi-auto to an inexperienced shooter who is not planning on consistently practicing at least monthly, is IRRESPONSIBLE!!!! That is not negotiable!!!
2. There are plenty of people who have died from a .22 bullet, as well as those from a .25, .32. and .380. Just like there are plenty that have survived from a shot by a 44 mag, 45acp, 40sw, and 9mm. At close range, which is what self defense is, the 32acp, depending on the ammunition, can have between 130, 150, and up to 200 ft/lbs of energy. That's at the muzzle, and self defense is considered less than 30 feet. Beyond that and you should be finding your way out of there. This isn't a "Shoot Out" movie. And that amount of energy from a 71 grain bullet is quite effective. Also, you have to understand your attacker. Women have an added factor in the equation that a lot of men don't consider. The criminal many times will get into a women's "Personal Space". For MANY reasons, some quite OBVIOUS. They won't do that to a man. And a women, who is trained, and carrying a palm size 25acp with a shot TO THE FACE of the criminal is extremely effective. So while a women has the disadvantage of the criminal getting up in her "Grill"; that can also be a very good defensive move on her part that also allows her the advantage of a 25acp. In many self defense, martial arts, etc... training; you are taught when there are few choices, to WALK INTO the attacker instead of PULLING AWAY. A women has this advantage. Again, we're talking about training.
And again, the untrained and non-practicing shooter has no business with ANY semi-auto pistol. None at all.
1.Read my posts and you will see that when it comes to "someone with very limited firearms knowledge", there was NO recommendation for ANY CALIBER that comes in a semi-automatic. An inexperienced shooter, one where they only own 1 firearm, and one where they will not be practicing on a regular basis, should NEVER, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, have a semi-automatic. They should have a revolver; in the 38/357mag caliber that can be loaded to any number of flavors to fit their abilities. And ANYONE who recommends a semi-auto to an inexperienced shooter who is not planning on consistently practicing at least monthly, is IRRESPONSIBLE!!!! That is not negotiable!!!
2. There are plenty of people who have died from a .22 bullet, as well as those from a .25, .32. and .380. Just like there are plenty that have survived from a shot by a 44 mag, 45acp, 40sw, and 9mm. At close range, which is what self defense is, the 32acp, depending on the ammunition, can have between 130, 150, and up to 200 ft/lbs of energy. That's at the muzzle, and self defense is considered less than 30 feet. Beyond that and you should be finding your way out of there. This isn't a "Shoot Out" movie. And that amount of energy from a 71 grain bullet is quite effective. Also, you have to understand your attacker. Women have an added factor in the equation that a lot of men don't consider. The criminal many times will get into a women's "Personal Space". For MANY reasons, some quite OBVIOUS. They won't do that to a man. And a women, who is trained, and carrying a palm size 25acp with a shot TO THE FACE of the criminal is extremely effective. So while a women has the disadvantage of the criminal getting up in her "Grill"; that can also be a very good defensive move on her part that also allows her the advantage of a 25acp. In many self defense, martial arts, etc... training; you are taught when there are few choices, to WALK INTO the attacker instead of PULLING AWAY. A women has this advantage. Again, we're talking about training.
And again, the untrained and non-practicing shooter has no business with ANY semi-auto pistol. None at all.
Ed Ames
Member
Absolutes are the enemy of truth.
And there are plenty of people who are fine starting out with a semi-auto. Claiming they shouldn't sounds like pointless bluster.
And there are plenty of people who are fine starting out with a semi-auto. Claiming they shouldn't sounds like pointless bluster.
christcorp
Member
If by saying "Starting out" you mean like SO MANY OTHERS they will rarely take the gun out to go shooting, (As I mentioned DIRECTLY); then no, it is NOT pointless blunder; but truth. Actually, Life Saving truth. If however by saying "Starting Out", you mean someone brand new but they are "Practicing" with their weapon on a somewhat consistent basis; (Which I ALSO mentioned DIRECTLY); then your comment it totally irrelevant, because I nor anyone else said anything contrary to that. So, your post doesn't make sense. Unless you are actually saying that an inexperienced shooter, just starting out, and who will remain an inexperienced shooter as SO MANY do. And will maybe pull the weapon out once or twice a year, and then maybe to just look at it and clean it; and not shoot it; then I stand 100% by my comment that they have no business whatsoever having a semi-auto weapon. Not if it's for self defense. (Which I ALSO mentioned directly). For that, it's NOT pointless blunder.
It's always interesting to ponder...
Even as how for any given Callibre, there are usually various Cartridges...and for any given Cartridge, respecting any given Arm chambering them, there will be various Loadings possible for the Cartridge and the Arm...
A basic Harrington and Richardson .22 Revolver, usually refered to as a 'Tackle Box Gun', in the right Hands, is worth more as an effective defence recourse, than any number of examples of sophisticated Arms or ostensibly impressive Cartridges in inept Hands.
There's endless variables which can or will mitigate or qualify or cast sidelight on any general observation about what Arm or Callibre or Cartidge presents what advanage or, merit...and to whom, and under what conditions specifically.
I'd say for me, in practice, .38 Special, standard Loadings, RNL, have been the defacto Calibre and Cartridge of choice.
Though I recognise other attractive and sensible options one could elect.
.41 Magnum, would probably be my most admired Revolver Cartridge, if I had to pick one.
And .45 ACP, if regarding Automatics.
Even as how for any given Callibre, there are usually various Cartridges...and for any given Cartridge, respecting any given Arm chambering them, there will be various Loadings possible for the Cartridge and the Arm...
A basic Harrington and Richardson .22 Revolver, usually refered to as a 'Tackle Box Gun', in the right Hands, is worth more as an effective defence recourse, than any number of examples of sophisticated Arms or ostensibly impressive Cartridges in inept Hands.
There's endless variables which can or will mitigate or qualify or cast sidelight on any general observation about what Arm or Callibre or Cartidge presents what advanage or, merit...and to whom, and under what conditions specifically.
I'd say for me, in practice, .38 Special, standard Loadings, RNL, have been the defacto Calibre and Cartridge of choice.
Though I recognise other attractive and sensible options one could elect.
.41 Magnum, would probably be my most admired Revolver Cartridge, if I had to pick one.
And .45 ACP, if regarding Automatics.
jackstinson
Member
Why do people like Budweiser beer? Same concept.
Ed Ames
Member
I said bluster. To quote someone on this thread, "And some definitely don't know how to read prior posts..."
I won't say ANY type of firearm is best for all people of a given experience level... most people are best served by a selection of firearms spanning several types... but I will say that, If there is an able person who can't operate a semi-auto handgun successfully after 20 minutes of decent instruction I haven't met them. I've met people who can't for health reasons, sure. I know one person who is pretty much limited to single action revolvers because they can't pull a DA trigger comfortably or work a slide (I've never probed but muscular dystrophy would be my guess). Beyond those very limited cases, everyone can operate a semi-auto.
Are they better off with a semi-auto? Depends on conditions, including their ability with the weapons at their disposal. It's hubris for you to say they shouldn't use a class of weapon...no matter how hard a time you hand learning to use them yourself.
It's pointless bluster, intended to stoke your own ego, to say that semi-autos are expert-only weapons.
But it does sort of point out an answer to the OP's question: prejudice.
christcorp
Member
Ed; for weapons; any weapon; to become an effective tool, practice, familiarity, and preferably, muscle memory needs to be exercised. Personally, I like semi-auto pistols. I have quite a few and carry quite a few. But because my wife and daughter may need to use something at home, it's the revolvers that are available for their use there. It doesn't matter if you teach a person for 6 hours on the day they purchase the gun. If they don't practice and shoot the gun, a semi-auto potentially is very dangerous for them to have. A revolver also can fail, but not at any level near that of an semi-auto. And when I say fail, that include human error. There is a very large number of gun owners who have a gun for home protection, who NEVER pull the gun out. It sits in a closet, dresser, night stand, etc... I personally know people who have a gun for protection who haven't laid a hand on it in a couple of years. That is NOT uncommon. Maybe not on a forum of enthusiasts, but in the real world, it is not uncommon at all for gun owners to never touch their gun. A semi-auto in the hands of these people can be lethal to THEM. Even if they know what a stove pipe is; fail to feed; remember where the safety is; etc... not practicing and using your gun will be disastrous if you really need to use the weapon and one of these things happens in the process, and your brain isn't working. A revolver by it's nature is simply Point and Click. Just pull the trigger.
Remember; just like "Guns don't kill people..... people kill people"; well the same is in reverse. "Guns don't SAVE people..... people SAVE people". It's your mind that's going to save you during a threat. Not the gun. But if you need to use that gun as a tool, and the tool isn't working properly and you can't remember why; then you're screwed.
There are some absolutes in the world. And this has nothing to do with ego. I have more than 30 years of experience with weapons and shooting. 21 of those years with the military. ALL of those years with both semi-autos and revolvers. Learning how to use a weapon, ANY weapon, has never been a problem. The only EGO problem here is that some people think that a semi-auto is the way to go. That it's the "COOL" weapon to use. That if you don't have a 15 round magazine, you aren't protected. These people think that "GUNS SAVE PEOPLE". They don't!!!! So, if a person doesn't train, practice, or stay proficient with a weapon; and the gun is basically going to stay in the house for home defense without any recurring usage; which is normal for many gun owners; then NO, they shouldn't get a semi-auto. They should get a revolver. And I have absolutely no problem stating a certain type of firearm is best for this type of person.
I won't say what caliber is best. However, in the revolver world, the 38/357 provides a caliber that can be loaded as small as a weak 9mm or beyond the capabilities of a 9mm, 40sw, 10mm, or 45acp. And for all practical purposes, there isn't 1 handgun/caliber out there in the WORLD for self/home defense, that can do ANYTHING that a 38/357 magnum revolver can't do. None at all. The only advantage certain semi-autos have over the 38/357 mag revolver has, is the sense of security of a larger magazine. But functionally, for self/home defense, there is no semi-auto that can do more or better anything the 38/357 mag revolver can't do. But I have absolutely no problem saying that for the inexperienced gun owner who DOES NOT use, practice, or otherwise stay proficient with their weapon; and the gun is going to be used for self/home defense; they definitely need to be using a revolver. Even if it's NOT COOL; and they aren't using them in Hollywood movies. Not being cool is better than being dead.
Remember; just like "Guns don't kill people..... people kill people"; well the same is in reverse. "Guns don't SAVE people..... people SAVE people". It's your mind that's going to save you during a threat. Not the gun. But if you need to use that gun as a tool, and the tool isn't working properly and you can't remember why; then you're screwed.
There are some absolutes in the world. And this has nothing to do with ego. I have more than 30 years of experience with weapons and shooting. 21 of those years with the military. ALL of those years with both semi-autos and revolvers. Learning how to use a weapon, ANY weapon, has never been a problem. The only EGO problem here is that some people think that a semi-auto is the way to go. That it's the "COOL" weapon to use. That if you don't have a 15 round magazine, you aren't protected. These people think that "GUNS SAVE PEOPLE". They don't!!!! So, if a person doesn't train, practice, or stay proficient with a weapon; and the gun is basically going to stay in the house for home defense without any recurring usage; which is normal for many gun owners; then NO, they shouldn't get a semi-auto. They should get a revolver. And I have absolutely no problem stating a certain type of firearm is best for this type of person.
I won't say what caliber is best. However, in the revolver world, the 38/357 provides a caliber that can be loaded as small as a weak 9mm or beyond the capabilities of a 9mm, 40sw, 10mm, or 45acp. And for all practical purposes, there isn't 1 handgun/caliber out there in the WORLD for self/home defense, that can do ANYTHING that a 38/357 magnum revolver can't do. None at all. The only advantage certain semi-autos have over the 38/357 mag revolver has, is the sense of security of a larger magazine. But functionally, for self/home defense, there is no semi-auto that can do more or better anything the 38/357 mag revolver can't do. But I have absolutely no problem saying that for the inexperienced gun owner who DOES NOT use, practice, or otherwise stay proficient with their weapon; and the gun is going to be used for self/home defense; they definitely need to be using a revolver. Even if it's NOT COOL; and they aren't using them in Hollywood movies. Not being cool is better than being dead.
Ed Ames
Member
Let's break this down.
Help me to see where you didn't just say "females don't practice so they will just hurt themselves with what I like for myself."
Nothing in the 687 words of your post contradicts that interpretation.
So let me ask you a question: Given that semi-autos are what you like, and that you own them, and that your wife and daughter may reasonably need to use whatever is in your home...how is it at all responsible of you to accept their (supposed...I have only your word for it) ignorance instead of encouraging them to learn skills that may save their lives?
It is like not teaching your wife or daughter to drive because if they drive without knowing how they can hurt themselves. It's circular. The point of teaching is to get someone past the danger curve so they can safely practice if they choose to take it further.
The reality is that gun knowledge helps in three ways:
1) It helps people to avoid ignorant mistakes when they encounter a firearm in the real world. Example: You die, they encounter your pistol, they need to know how to operate it well enough to verify it is safe to handle.
2) It prepares people for unexpected circumstances. Most situations which call for using a firearm are unscripted and unplanned. As such, the firearm in use may be the one knocked out of an attacker's hands. Knowledge is essential to recognizing and exploiting opportunity.
3) It allows people to choose from a broader range of options in life. A person with a well rounded education can go into a gun store and purchase any type of firearm there, take it home, and operate it safely. That doesn't mean they will be master shots the day they buy something...that's what practice is for...but they won't be intimidated away from buying their best choice (which may be a large bore revolver, pistol, .22, shotgun, .50BMG, or anything else...not knowing the circumstances you can't say what their need will be) and they will be able to build the skills they need to be an effective user of their chosen weapon.
The only way your statement would even approach logic is if revolvers removed the need to train, practice, and stay proficient. They don't. 99% of the training requirement is identical for revolvers and semi-autos. You are basically saying "some people shouldn't own semi-autos because I don't think they can handle the extra 20 minutes a pistol takes to learn over a revolver".
Sounds a lot like ego to me.
Help me to see where you didn't just say "females don't practice so they will just hurt themselves with what I like for myself."
Nothing in the 687 words of your post contradicts that interpretation.
So let me ask you a question: Given that semi-autos are what you like, and that you own them, and that your wife and daughter may reasonably need to use whatever is in your home...how is it at all responsible of you to accept their (supposed...I have only your word for it) ignorance instead of encouraging them to learn skills that may save their lives?
It is like not teaching your wife or daughter to drive because if they drive without knowing how they can hurt themselves. It's circular. The point of teaching is to get someone past the danger curve so they can safely practice if they choose to take it further.
The reality is that gun knowledge helps in three ways:
1) It helps people to avoid ignorant mistakes when they encounter a firearm in the real world. Example: You die, they encounter your pistol, they need to know how to operate it well enough to verify it is safe to handle.
2) It prepares people for unexpected circumstances. Most situations which call for using a firearm are unscripted and unplanned. As such, the firearm in use may be the one knocked out of an attacker's hands. Knowledge is essential to recognizing and exploiting opportunity.
3) It allows people to choose from a broader range of options in life. A person with a well rounded education can go into a gun store and purchase any type of firearm there, take it home, and operate it safely. That doesn't mean they will be master shots the day they buy something...that's what practice is for...but they won't be intimidated away from buying their best choice (which may be a large bore revolver, pistol, .22, shotgun, .50BMG, or anything else...not knowing the circumstances you can't say what their need will be) and they will be able to build the skills they need to be an effective user of their chosen weapon.
The only way your statement would even approach logic is if revolvers removed the need to train, practice, and stay proficient. They don't. 99% of the training requirement is identical for revolvers and semi-autos. You are basically saying "some people shouldn't own semi-autos because I don't think they can handle the extra 20 minutes a pistol takes to learn over a revolver".
Sounds a lot like ego to me.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
