What school of thought do you subscribe to?

[Mushroom]

My carry gun's caliber will always start with a (4), I would prefer a .45. But in my case I find that some compromise was necessary. I don't want to have to "dress around the gun" so that limits me to a compact single stack DAO. I can't find a .45 that I can hide without wearing a jacket so I had to settle for a .40. I carry a Kahr-MK40 in a Blade-Tech IWB holster. Using this rig the little Kahr just disappears under only my tucked in shirt.

[HK4U]

A 9mm with lots of expansion.

[Glock Fan]

I like the 165gr .40 s&w round. There's good velocity, knock down power and energy.


gf

[tattedupboy]

Any round will do the job if it hits the right place. Many newbies mistakenly believe that the bigger the round, the more "manly" you are. However, carrying a big caliber will not amount to a hill of beans if you can't hit what you're shooting at. You should only carry what you can shoot well. To hell with anyone who makes you believe that you're a wimp if you prefer a .380 over a .357 magnum or a .32 over a .45.

[HK4U]

Any round will do the job if it hits the right place. Many newbies mistakenly believe that the bigger the round, the more "manly" you are. However, carrying a big caliber will not amount to a hill of beans if you can't hit what you're shooting at. You should only carry what you can shoot well. To hell with anyone who makes you believe that you're a wimp if you prefer a .380 over a .357 magnum or a .32 over a .45.

What is the saying? Any gun will do if you will do?

[Glock Fan]

My recommendation to new shooters is to choose the biggest caliber that they can shoot accurately. I've instructed all kinds of folks. There was an elderly lady who could only shoot a .22 LR. She purchased a Sig Mosquito and is very happy with her purchase. This is what I would consider a "special case". Most folks can handle the "recommended" calibers for self defense. These would be .380 and up. I personally wouldn't carry anything smaller than a .357 mag. Most folks can handle .40 s&w better than a .357 mag.

Bottom line is that it's a matter of personal preference, and think about the situations in which you will be shooting. The adrenaline will be running high and the "oh ******" factor will come into play. Practice properly, and practice often.



gf

[2075RAMI4ME]

Now let's compare the two rounds using Winchester's penetration numbers in bare gelatin:

147gr = 13.9"
124gr+P = 12.2"

If the 124gr. +P has more momentum than the 147, why did the 147gr. penetrate deeper?

That is because the 124gr. was dependent on it's velocity for it's momentum. Once the bullet strikes it's target, the velocity is quickly lost where as the mass of the 147gr, not being as dependent on velocity for it's momentum, penetrated deeper. The higher velocity 124gr bullet almost assuredly expanded quicker than the 147gr bullet due to it's velocity further reducing it's penetration. In this example the 124gr. bullet expanded to .70 caliber where as the 147gr. expanded to .65 and retained more weight - 141gr. overall compared to 116.2 for the 124gr bullet.

Interesting. Thanks for the info. Where can you find the results of these kinds of studies?

[The Gunny]

This reminded me of something I had heard in the past regarding hunting rounds for deer.

They used to say that the old 30/30 Winchester was a better brush gun due to it being a heavier and slower round. The theory being that the bullet would not be as easily deflected by branches etc. This was I believe due to the bullets weight and momentum driving it. Where as the lighter faster spitzer type bullets would more easily be driven off course should they encounter a branch prior to the deer.

Now I know I am kind of mixing apples and oranges here in that we ain't deer huntin' but I think I can see some similarities.

I would be interested to know if there is an truth to this theory and if there is does it have relevence to this topic?

As a bit of a comparison the AK-47 in 7.62mmX39 fires one ball buster of a round compared to the puny M-16 in 5.56mm. Based on ballistics they have us beat in an urban combat senario. However we have compensated by outfitting our M-16s with some great optics ACOG's, EO-TECH's etc. Not to mention our night vision optics. So our military has compensated for the lack of stopping power by improving our chances of hitting the target. I would prefer we did both however it seems to cost to much to re-tool our military for a more effective round.

Yes I know I am talking about rifles and different calibers of rifles so I am not exactly on target for this discussion. But I suppose I just wanted to offer some thoughts on things sort of similar to this subject that have been floating around in my mind a while.

[Glock Fan]

sounds like something I would submit to the "Mythbusters" show. I'd like to see Adam and Jaime do their testing on this one. :)

[ecocks]

in the end all the cliches are true. Simply, 8 rounds of .45 that miss the target are far worse than a single .17 placed dead-center. The same is true no matter how you change either the number of rounds or caliber. If you can hit what you aim at with a DE .44 AutoMag then GREAT! If you cannot control anything over a .22 due to arthritis or concealability issues, then you are doing what you can and more power to you. No one can say that my 81 year old father is an idiot because he carries a .22. When he fires anything larger it either risks damage/injury to his hand or his lack of control is dangerous to others. I told him to keep my Buckmark loaded in his nightstand. It's the best he can manage and that simply has to be enough (for now). My ex wasn't happy with anything larger than a .32 that would be "hers". I didn't want her worried about control, carry or comfort if she had to protect herself.

There is NO one-size fits all, nor is there a "best" caliber/style/carry method/whatever that will fit everyone. Find what works for you and the hell with everyone else's judgment(s).