How much pistol do you really need?

[earplug]

Found this review t. and thought the testing would help some shooters who have hand and joint pain. I'm pretty sure many of us can download modern weapons and still have adequate defensive weapons. Recall the 32 ACP was a popular carry option.

• If it won't open its worth the work to find and read it is worth while.

Gun Review: Classic cap and ball revolver calibers get the ballistic gel test
11/28/16| by Terril James Herbert

 

[Jim NE]

Recall the 32 ACP was a popular carry option.

I'm told my CZ 50 (.32 acp) was what the police in eastern Europe used to carry. If you're dealing with a population that doesn't shoot back, it might be effective.

 

[bullseye308]

I have said for years the 9mm will do everything I need it to do, so long as you put it where it needs to go to do its job. I don't know that I'd personally be happy with anything less, but many have.

 

[Kendal Black]

A lightly loaded .38 or .44 cartridge revolver may be just the ticket for people with hand and joint issues. You don't get the functioning issues you find with too-light loads in an auto pistol. Furthermore, you can't limp-wrist a revolver. Maybe round balls are the right projectiles for this? Their weight is less than a modern bullet's and obviously they can be driven to adequate velocity.

Round ball weights:
https://www.beartoothbullets.com/rescources/calculators/php/roundball.htm?v1=.360&v2=2876.1




Here is a working link to the OP article: http://www.guns.com/review/gun-revi...revolver-calibers-get-the-ballistic-gel-test/

What the article says to me is that the .36 and .44 black powder revolvers had more penetration than they really needed, and the .31 had marginally enough.

In more recent times, military and police use has oftentimes gravitated toward medium calibers of approximately .36, such as in the .38 Special, .38-200, 9mmP and 9mm Makarov. I think there is a reason for so many armies and agencies clustering their choices there. The .32's declined from popularity--for a reason.

 

[peacebutready]

I'm told my CZ 50 (.32 acp) was what the police in eastern Europe used to carry. If you're dealing with a population that doesn't shoot back, it might be effective.

Something important to note: The .32, at least in the past in Europe, was loaded hotter than our .32 from outfits like Remington and Winchester. I think the energy levels weren't too far from the typical .380 loads here these days.

I don't know how hot Europe's .25 and .380 was loaded in the past or now.

 

[CDW4ME]

If one desires low muzzle flip / recoil in a decent defensive caliber = ported 9mm.
My 12 year old has no trouble shooting a Glock 19C
My wife's ported shield 9mm has very little muzzle flip / recoil for the size, 12 year old likes this too.
And no the ports do not cause blinding flash, I've shot in low light, videos on youtube disprove this misconception as well.

 

[gc70]

Much of the early development of semi-automatic pistols involved .30 caliber rounds, such as the Borchardt, Luger, Mauser, and Tokarev.

 

[ATLDave]

All of this is working at the far right end of the probability curve. (See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law.)

I'm going to make up some numbers, but I think they're directionally correct and will serve to illustrate the dynamic in question:

• 99% of non-criminal, non-LEO civilians will never have actual cause to point a gun at another human being
• 99.9% of civilians will never have actual cause to discharge a gun at another human being (with the mere appearance of a firearm sufficing to scare off the threat the vast majority of the time)
• 99.99% of civilians will never face an assailant who does not flee or give up after the first round is discharged, regardless of the direct effects of that shot
• 99.999% of civilians will never face an assailant willing to fight through the shock and pain of being shot to continue their intended crime

As I said, these numbers aren't exactly right, but they illustrate that any discussion about the effective terminal ballistics of any gun is pivoting on the tiny subset-of-a-subset-of-a-subset-of-a-subset-of-a-subset of cases in which it might matter. The chances that any individual selected at random from the non-criminal, non-LEO population will ever experience any different outcome because they are carrying a .22 lr versus a .44 magnum are pretty tiny.

I mean, my carry guns are in .45 and 10mm... but even a reasonable approximation of the math says it matters to my life expectancy as much as whether I buy a lottery ticket influences my net worth.

 

[earplug]

ATLDave your chance of getting micro fractures and joint damage have a high probability with your current SD rigs. Quality of life is important in the long run.

 

[ATLDave]

Ha! If I get a shooting-driven injury, it's far more likely to be driven by somewhat high round counts of USPSA major PF gamer loads.

My strategy is to maintain adequate body fat reserves to help cushion and dissipate the forces applied.

 

[Hokkmike]

All of this is working at the far right end of the probability curve. (See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law.)

I'm going to make up some numbers, but I think they're directionally correct and will serve to illustrate the dynamic in question:

• 99% of non-criminal, non-LEO civilians will never have actual cause to point a gun at another human being
• 99.9% of civilians will never have actual cause to discharge a gun at another human being (with the mere appearance of a firearm sufficing to scare off the threat the vast majority of the time)
• 99.99% of civilians will never face an assailant who does not flee or give up after the first round is discharged, regardless of the direct effects of that shot
• 99.999% of civilians will never face an assailant willing to fight through the shock and pain of being shot to continue their intended crime

As I said, these numbers aren't exactly right, but they illustrate that any discussion about the effective terminal ballistics of any gun is pivoting on the tiny subset-of-a-subset-of-a-subset-of-a-subset-of-a-subset of cases in which it might matter. The chances that any individual selected at random from the non-criminal, non-LEO population will ever experience any different outcome because they are carrying a .22 lr versus a .44 magnum are pretty tiny.

I mean, my carry guns are in .45 and 10mm... but even a reasonable approximation of the math says it matters to my life expectancy as much as whether I buy a lottery ticket influences my net worth.

This highlights one of principles of carry, be it open or concealed - and that is that statistically the odds of AD or ND outweigh the possibility that your EDC will be used for SD, hence (and this is the point) safety concerns trump tactical expediency when making decisions regarding use of safeties, loaded chambers, holster types, etc.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Ah but your "pivot" argument rests on the assumption that the final subset is evenly distributed across the nation..., and it isn't. Simple anthropology , conflicts between humans are first..., directly proportional to the population density. So the odds that you have a human on human situation where the threat or use of lethal force is needed is very very low in Wyoming..., and much much higher in parts of Chicago, for example. It's also true that in 80 of homicides, the victim knows the killer, and there is a dispute over drugs, money, or both. The odds are also pretty low that you'll have a fire in your home while sleeping..., yet folks have smoke detectors.

LD

 

[Hokkmike]

Ah but your "pivot" argument rests on the assumption that the final subset is evenly distributed across the nation..., and it isn't. Simple anthropology , conflicts between humans are first..., directly proportional to the population density. So the odds that you have a human on human situation where the threat or use of lethal force is needed is very very low in Wyoming..., and much much higher in parts of Chicago, for example. It's also true that in 80 of homicides, the victim knows the killer, and there is a dispute over drugs, money, or both. The odds are also pretty low that you'll have a fire in your home while sleeping..., yet folks have smoke detectors.

LD

Fire is a much more likely event where I live than repelling an intruder - but as you wisely stated, such is not the case in other parts of the country.

 

[ATLDave]

Ah but your "pivot" argument rests on the assumption that the final subset is evenly distributed across the nation..., and it isn't. Simple anthropology , conflicts between humans are first..., directly proportional to the population density. So the odds that you have a human on human situation where the threat or use of lethal force is needed is very very low in Wyoming..., and much much higher in parts of Chicago, for example. It's also true that in 80 of homicides, the victim knows the killer, and there is a dispute over drugs, money, or both. The odds are also pretty low that you'll have a fire in your home while sleeping..., yet folks have smoke detectors.LD

Absolutely correct. Not hanging out with violent or crazy people probably has a much bigger downward impact on violence-victimization expected outcomes than carrying a gun of any given caliber.

The point is that it's a very, very, very small segment of the population that will ever "see" the terminal ballistics of their chosen self-defense weapon come into play.

My personal calculus is that I'm not likely to need a gun most of the time; combined with the fact that I'm in NPE's a lot of the time (including courts with actual metal detectors), I don't carry most of the time. But when I do, I figure that, in the unlikely event I need it, I will want it to be as effective as possible. Others can very rationally reach different conclusions on all those points, and the factors are fairly individualized.

 

[earplug]

The 2nd amendment is much like the mutual assured destruction concept between nations. We the people are able to project a viable threat based on our ability to be armed. Nature seldom picks on equals.

 

[hq]

Need and need. There's no such thing as "need" in a free society. It boils down to one's personal preference. Back in 1917 my dad did fine with his .32ACP Beretta, it saved his life on a number of occasions during the red mutiny some call the finnish civil war. A 9mm has saved mine once. Nowadays I carry a high-cap 10mm and spare ammo. It's not about need, it's a personal choice between the inconvenience of having a heavy hand cannon and a couple of spare magazines to lug around and risking not having them at hand while the need unexpectedly arises. Any weapon is always far better than bare hands, ask any martial arts expert, no matter how much they officially claim to subscribe to the noble savage and fair fight narrative.

 

[Valkman]

I "need" guns in 45acp.

 

[shafter]

Every case is different. There have been cases where a 22lr has successfully stopped an attack. On the flip side people have been shot repeatedly with 357 magnums and kept on coming. Personally, I like to carry as much gun as I can get away with, but if physical issues force you to carry something light, put in the practice to get the most you can out of it.

 

[Glock Doctor]

After (literally) a lifetime of: using, shooting, modifying, and repairing handguns I agree with former Green Beret, College-Educated Survivalist, and Author 'Jeremiah Johnson' — large caliber pistol bullets with plenty of: cross-sectional area on the meplat, heavier weight, solid body, and highly manageable (rapid-fire) recoil.

....... Gee, I wonder what caliber that would be!

 

[Ed Ames]

I don't know how much I need. I am not even sure that's knowable except as a fairly broad range. I probably need less to defend my garden from hungry rabbits than to defend myself from aggressive humans, and need even more if I'm attacked by killer whales. You can obsess over potential scenarios but you won't know what you need until you need it.

What I can know is how much gun I can afford, conceal, control, etc.. That information can be discovered empirically if nothing else.

If the most gun I can use happens to be less than I need in a particular situation, well, that's a shame but still better than not having a gun or not being able to use it for some reason.

 

[DT Guy]

The great point in all self-defense scenarios is that you WON'T know 'how much you need' until you need it. You might be confronted by someone who runs at the sight of a picture of a gun, or someone who is willing to fight after their heart has literally been shredded. You won't know until it happens, hence the common 'as much gun as you can hide/shoot/carry' advice.

Larry

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Statistics break down in individual cases. There is only a 0.001% chance you will need a gun -- until you need one, then it's a 100% chance.

 

[RPRNY]

One needs the most powerful firearm that one can effectively use if one needs a firearm. If one needs a firearm, one needs to use lethal force. A pistol is already a compromise vs the lethality afforded by many long guns, albeit a compromise that offers other advantages. If one needs to conceal that firearm, further compromise is required. With that compromise almost certainly comes lower weight, which means that many people will need to chamber their pistol in a cartridge that offers diminished recoil - missing with big bullets is far worse than hitting with small ones.

So, one needs the most powerful pistol that one can effectively use in the situations for which its need is required.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

My criteria for a defensive gun is:

1. Reliability. It's got to go bang! EVERY time you pull the trigger. If it doesn't, it's just a funny-looking club.

2. Shootability. Given that it went bang!, can you hit with it?

3. Power. Given that it went bang! and you got a good hit, did it do the job?

4. Concealability -- a thin, flat gun is ideal.

All of this adds up to M1911!

 

[Warp]

All of this is working at the far right end of the probability curve. (See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law.)

I'm going to make up some numbers, but I think they're directionally correct and will serve to illustrate the dynamic in question:

• 99% of non-criminal, non-LEO civilians will never have actual cause to point a gun at another human being
• 99.9% of civilians will never have actual cause to discharge a gun at another human being (with the mere appearance of a firearm sufficing to scare off the threat the vast majority of the time)
• 99.99% of civilians will never face an assailant who does not flee or give up after the first round is discharged, regardless of the direct effects of that shot
• 99.999% of civilians will never face an assailant willing to fight through the shock and pain of being shot to continue their intended crime

As I said, these numbers aren't exactly right, but they illustrate that any discussion about the effective terminal ballistics of any gun is pivoting on the tiny subset-of-a-subset-of-a-subset-of-a-subset-of-a-subset of cases in which it might matter. The chances that any individual selected at random from the non-criminal, non-LEO population will ever experience any different outcome because they are carrying a .22 lr versus a .44 magnum are pretty tiny.

I mean, my carry guns are in .45 and 10mm... but even a reasonable approximation of the math says it matters to my life expectancy as much as whether I buy a lottery ticket influences my net worth.

Which is all a fallacy basically since we are talking about actual effectiveness if and when that comes to pass.

Unless you are considering carrying an unloaded or blank-firing-only or airsoft gun because you'll never need to actually use it

This highlights one of principles of carry, be it open or concealed - and that is that statistically the odds of AD or ND outweigh the possibility that your EDC will be used for SD, hence (and this is the point) safety concerns trump tactical expediency when making decisions regarding use of safeties, loaded chambers, holster types, etc.

Please share the stats/facts/figures that you are referring to