Nicely done thread topic MikeJ ... and you're drawing out some interesting and well considered responses (keep your fingers crossed
).
Don't mistake my previous comments as implying that a "lesser caliber" than .38 is something I consider as "less potent", or "ineffective", though. I've carried .380 ACP in the past, in the form of a nice little Beretta, in addition to the .22's & .25 ACP ... and I know at least one instructor with much more experience than I who still sometimes carries his Seecamp .32 ACP, just not as often now that he's got both Ti & Sc J-frames.
I just elected to "standardize" on a .38 J-frame because it's something I determined I can shoot very well ... with enough practice, although it requires a lot of continual practice ... and it's significantly smaller than the other 9mm's, .40 S&W's & .45 ACP's I often carry (and definitely smaller and easier to carry than the other revolvers I still sometimes carry, albeit rarely).
Of the many potential off duty situations I've considered I might encounter, which might require my armed intervention in my capacity as L/E, I decided that I wanted to carry some combination of platform & caliber that would be potentially practical in situations and circumstances where the threat might be anywhere from arm's length, to up to 15 yards distance. Unlikely? Hopefully.
But ... as the years went by I lost interest in always carrying a large, full size off duty weapon in ALL situations, and didn't see the "necessity" of doing so in many circumstances. Hence, the selection of the J-frame. Sure, I'd carried a few different J-frames when I was younger, but in those days I was admittedly less concerned about being more than "adequately" proficient. That's when I occasionally carried other guns chambered in the smaller calibers, too. I focused my training on the larger issued and personally owned pistols & revolvers of "larger" caliber.
In recent years, the world situation has changed, and like most cops I've found that I want to carry an off duty weapon in more circumstances than I might've been prone to carry in the past ... but not always a full size one.
MY compromise has been to intensify my training with J-frames, and to adopt that platform & caliber as MY "minimum" off duty weapon ... for those times when I "don't expect" to really need one.
Would I still want to carry a larger, more "powerful" caliber if I wasn't anticipating I might be having to intervene and invoke my L/E powers off duty? And at longer distances than arm's reach? And I wasn't L/E anymore? Maybe, maybe not ... It depends.
I don't consider folks who elect to carry a caliber smaller than .38 as being "inadequately armed", however. That's a choice and determination THEY have to make for themselves. I know some folks who are very competent with smaller caliber weapons.
"Caliber", per se, isn't often touted as being a "replacement" for proper Placement & sufficient Penetration, you know.
Will their choice provide them with a weapon & caliber that will give them a reasonably "effective" combination, which would be likely to "immediately incapacitate" a deadly threat attacker?
How would I know?
That's for everyone to determine for themselves, after doing whatever they consider is reasonable research, and then based upon that research, make an informed decision for themselves ...
I generally tell folks ... L/E & non-L/E alike ... that they need to worry more about the laws governing the appropriate and lawful use of deadly force, than whatever "cool" and "powerful" handgun, ammunition & holster combination they're interested in for lawful CCW ...
I'm certainly not going to be the one to try and convince a skilled shooter, using a quality pistol (like a SIG .380 ACP, for instance), and who's able to accurately & rapidly deliver precisely placed hits under reasonable qualification conditions ... that they're "not adequately armed". Not my place ...
I really like my 642, though ...
Thanks again ...
