...Speaking of ammo, an interesting read

[Boisesteve]

www.activeresponsetraining.net/mouse-gun-gelatin-testing-results

[Bigbird48]

AND THE NEXT article talks about changing ammo or not changing ammo for winter

[WECSOG]

Tamara Keel. That's a name I hadn't heard in a few years.
This article is severely lacking in information. The fact that all of the centerfire loads fully penetrated the 16" block of gelatin and only a couple of them showed any deformation makes me doubt the validity of the test. It does state that "This gelatin does not exactly duplicate the calibrated ballistic gelatin specified in the FBI's ammunition testing protocols..."

Also, the complete lack of chrono data for all rounds and even barrel length of the .22 and .32 revolvers makes it even less useful. Both a 1-1/8" NAA mini and a 2-1/2" Sheriff, maybe even a 3" Charter Pathfinder could be considered snub nose revolvers, but there is a large difference in velocity. Even a 1-7/8" LCR in .22 LR gives substantially more velocity than the 1-1/8" Mini.
Don't get me wrong; these sort of tests are interesting and maybe even entertaining. But they posted a conclusion when the data as presented is not enough to support it, IMO.

[Canoeal]

Yep and the penetrations of 16 inches, Yep< Ithought the same thing.
There are a lot of Bogus comparisons out there. I watched one comparing  a 5.57 X28 vs a 22 Mag, out of semi-auto pistols. They were similiar in performance in some ways, But took issue with a couple of things. The only ammo for their 22 Mag was CCI 30 gr HPs, but he used three different ammos in the 5.57 including green tip armor piercing. When testing the two against a grade 2 body panel he used the armor piecing stuff against the light weight 30 CCI HP. it would have expected the 557 to do better and it did, but the little 30 grain out of a kel-tec almost went through the panel! I would have thought a CCI FMJ 40 gr would have been more realistic comparison (though not really) and would have made a difference. Just the way my mind works, but a gun shop comparison is about selling bigger, badder isn't it?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmhmtJvLZQU

[cbl51]

If we are to believe the tests, then it really doesn't matter what you shoot someone with, as long as you have good shot placement. Back to square one.

I have long thought all these talk about penetration is so much nonsense. The FBOIhas it that you need like 12 inches, and the self promoting gun guru's quote this to a nauseating degree. How deep is the average human heart or lungs? Liver? A 7 inch blade shoved in the right spot will do the deed. I will always remember our friend Al who ends up face down on the parking garage floor with a single .25acp in the chest. Stoped the ticker dead.

Doesn't matter what you shot him with, but where you hit him.

[grayelky]

Had the .25 ACP not penetrated deep enough, the gentleman would still be here. Yes, penetration is important. FBI is quoting 12 inches into ballistic gelatin, which they have determined is comparable to adequate penetration into a human. No, I don't understand the details. There is nothing new here. For years, we have known even small calibers can, and have been, effective with adequate bullet placement. The reason for using larger calibers is to compensate for bullet placement. Contrary to what most seem to think, using a large caliber handgun will not compensate for lack of practice. Should anyone care, or even be curious, I am a supporter of the .45 ACP. Currently, my favorite carry firearm is a Kimber Solo 9 mm. While I really like my 1911 in 45 ACP, I feel with my experience and expertise, the 9 mm will serve me nicely, and a 15 oz weapon is so much easier to carry than a 25 oz weapon.

After all is said and done, the most important factor is the confidence an individual has in their carry weapon.

[Bigbird48]

I'm still under the impression that no one wants to stand in front of me and let me shoot them with my BW loaded with CCI TNT mini mags.No one want to get shot with anything and if it comes down to getting shot or leaving the area I think most will choose to leave 

[WECSOG]

Defense with a .22: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/06/foghorn/ask-foghorn-22l-for-self-defense/

[redhawk4]

While reluctant to enter a caliber debate, the one inconsistency I see in the argument of many who insist we need a 45 is when it comes to velocity. There is a trade off between the two. I don't think anyone would claim that 45acp from a 1911 would outperform 30-06 from a rifle and yet that's only 7.62 mm and typically a 150 grain bullet, compared to a 11.43 mm (.45") 230 grain bullet. Obviously the velocity is very different under 1000 fps compared to almost 3,000 fps. So everyone accepts, even if unwittingly, that a smaller bullet at higher velocity is capable of killing, just about anything that moves and is extremely effective on human targets even using an FMJ bullet as dictated for military use. I have 45 in a 1911 and also 9mm in several handguns including a Beretta M9. With quality Self Defense ammo to say that the 45 is going to be more effective than the 9mm is certainly not a given when you have a 124gr 9mm bullet travelling at 1300 fps vs a 230 grain at 900 fps. At some point the velocity factor kicks in to create the stopping power both in terms of energy and the ability to expand bullets. Too often not enough consideration is given to barrel lengths, in terms of it's effects on velocity for different rounds, if some folks checked how fast their 45 round is actually exiting their 3" barrel, they might have more doubts about how effective it will be.

With small 22 and 25 calibers, ultimately shot placement will be the key, a bullet to the heart will be lethal where as one in the arm that goes right through the flesh will not incapacitate someone who for whatever reason didn't decide to quit when the saw you had a gun. I still think that just as you'd find it hard to find someone who would agree to be shot by your feeble 22, you would be hard pressed to find someone in a life and death situation that would say, "no thanks", as you try to hand them a mini as they are going out through the door to face the threat, unarmed.

[Floridave]

I agree that article is lacking so much detail that it's fairly useless, but the final sentence, conclusion I do agree with.  " Rely on good shot placement instead of magical bullet construction to stop your attacker.".

[LHB]

Bullet placement, energy etc..... Several years ago I read an article in "Shooting Times" by Dick Metcalf, the man who got fired a few years ago for his statements about black rifles and gun control, about hunting deer with a hand gun.  He lives in Pike County Illinois, and this was about the time that Illinois opened the whole state up to handguns for deer.  He said that some time before, he got a call from a friend in Pike County Missouri to come over for a handgun deer hunt.  The only handgun of a halfway suitable caliber was a six inch Python, so he took it.  Seven years later, he had fired seven shots, and field dressed seven deer.  He said that in that seven years he had spent more time helping to look for deer that had been hit with a 44 than he had field dressing the deer he shot with a 357.  His thought were that the 44 had complete pass through, and expended it's energy into the dirt, while the 357 was not getting a pass through, and giving more shock to the animal, with the deer going down quicker.

[redhawk4]

Bullet placement, energy etc..... Several years ago I read an article in "Shooting Times" by Dick Metcalf, the man who got fired a few years ago for his statements about black rifles and gun control, about hunting deer with a hand gun.  He lives in Pike County Illinois, and this was about the time that Illinois opened the whole state up to handguns for deer.  He said that some time before, he got a call from a friend in Pike County Missouri to come over for a handgun deer hunt.  The only handgun of a halfway suitable caliber was a six inch Python, so he took it.  Seven years later, he had fired seven shots, and field dressed seven deer.  He said that in that seven years he had spent more time helping to look for deer that had been hit with a 44 than he had field dressing the deer he shot with a 357.  His thought were that the 44 had complete pass through, and expended it's energy into the dirt, while the 357 was not getting a pass through, and giving more shock to the animal, with the deer going down quicker.

I think the issue is that often people with 44 mags and 45's are so set on it's death ray abilities that they often don't consider their ammo choice. A bullet that doesn't expand and exits the target still at high speed will not have been as effective as it could be. So regardless of caliber, we need to consider what purpose the gun is being used for. Another factor in your account is that lots of people cannot shoot a 44 magnum well, due to the recoil and even it's anticipation as they pull the trigger. Most will be more accurate with a 357 mag, again it's shot placement, plus the caliber and the type of bullet used that determines how effective a shot will be. I've seen examples of people taking an elk at 100 yards with a 44 mag from a revolver, so it can certainly do the business if the other 2 factors are correct too.

[cbl51]

The .45 fan boys fanatical belief in that death ray like power of the .45 is beyond my comprehension. All I now is what I've seen work, and what historically worked. As for the .45 vs the 9mm, I recall a bit of hosiery. The German's used the 9mm a a lot in the MP40's and Walther. The Brits used the heck out of the 9mm in those little STEN mk$'s they turned put by the zillion. They dropped them to resistance in France, Netherlands, Greece, Yugoslavia, Albania, and elsewhere. There wasn't much complaint they were not up to the job of ambushing and killing germans.

After the war, the front men for the Haganah, what was to become the Israeli Defense force, bought up tons of those Sten mk4's, and the Israeli war for independence in 1948 saw a lot of use of the 9mm subgenus. The Israelis liked it so much, that when they designed and manufactured thier own gun, the Uzi, it was made in 9mm. Apparently they Isreali army, constantly outnumbered, chose a weak round to defend their brand new country with?

As a solution to the constant hijackings, the Mossad, the later day members of what was once the Irgun, choose the .22 semiautonomous pistol to provide in flight security. Did the Mossad choose a weak round to defend the people flying on El Al airlines?

It all depends on what you hit. A .45 can pass though without hitting anything vital. But  if that little .25 round punches the ticker, it's game over. Same if a puny .22 goes into the noggin.

In the end all the studies, polls, statistics don't matter. What gets hit does. Gabrielle Gifford got a 9mm right through the head. A couple years later she walked up to the podium to deliver her farewell speach as she resigned her seat. Yeah, she stuttered a few times, and her hubby Mark Kelly had to lend an arm for her to balance as she walked, , but she made it. On the other hand, Jim Brady got a .22 in the head and spent the rest of his life in a wheel chair smiling vacantly. I don't think he could order a burger and fries. Two people shot in the head, two different outcomes. Luck? Chance of what gets taken out?

[WECSOG]

The .45 fan boys fanatical belief in that death ray like power of the .45 is beyond my comprehension. All I now is what I've seen work, and what historically worked. As for the .45 vs the 9mm, I recall a bit of hosiery. The German's used the 9mm a a lot in the MP40's and Walther. The Brits used the heck out of the 9mm in those little STEN mk$'s they turned put by the zillion. They dropped them to resistance in France, Netherlands, Greece, Yugoslavia, Albania, and elsewhere. There wasn't much complaint they were not up to the job of ambushing and killing germans.

After the war, the front me for the Haganah, what was to become the Israeli Defense force, bought up tins of the Sten mk4's, and the Israeli war for independence in 1948 saw a ton of use by the 9mm subgenus. The Israelis liked it so much, that when they designed and manufactured tier own gun, the Uzi, it was made in 9mm. Apparently they Isreali army, constantly outnumbered, chose a weak round to defend their brand new country with?

As a solution to the constant hijackings, the Mossad, the later day members of what was once the Irgun, choose the .22 semiautonomous pistol to provide in flight security. Did the Mossad choose a weak round to defend the people flying on El Al airlines?

It all depends on what you hit. A .45 can pass though without hitting anything vital. But  if that little .25 round punches the ticker, it's game over. Same if a puny .22 goes into the noggin.

In the end all the studies, polls, statistics don't matter. What gets hit does. Gabrielle Gifford got a 9mm right through the head. A couple years later she walked up to the podium to deliver her farewell speach as she resigned her seat. Yeah, she stuttered a few times, and her hubby Mark Kelly had to lend an arm for her to balance as she walked, , but she made it. On the other hand, Jim Brady got a .22 in the head and spent the rest of his life in a wheel chair smiling vacantly. I don't think he could order a burger and fries. Two people shot in the head, two different outcomes. Luck? Chance of what gets taken out?

Your first example was a leftist. Second example wasn't, but became one after being shot in the head. Seems like there's a conclusion in there somewhere, just waiting to be drawn out... 

[Canoeal]

CB- It is interesting, that even here in the land of 22 caliber minis, you still have to make people see it is not so much caliber, but what it hits that counts. You can hit a person in head and possibly miss killing them. You will not miss incapacitating them, if it goes through the skull. 22 or 500, matters only a little. What matters is being able to pick up your weapon, rapidly and accurately fire. Yes some people can be accurate with a 357 or a 10mm. Good for them, let them have 'em. I do however know an awful lot of people around here, that can't,  heck they can't even shoot their 9s, 380s and 38s close enough to hit a torso let alone a head shot. I say let them have them. I carry and practice with both of my 22 mags, and I think hope and pray that if I am tested I can be as accurate as I am in practice, or that God sees to it I am good enough. Yes an accurate 9 or 10mm or a 357 is effective I am sure. I am also sure I can't carry one every day without a whole lot of changes I am not willing to make, to carry a gun I won't like to fire. I choose to carry my 22 mag BW and for me it is enough. I am not running around the dessert, the northwoods or living in Philly, and I have no LEO duties, so my choice is what it is. I may sometime get a 32 Snubbie but that to will be my choice. I am OK with my choices and don't need to convince anyone else. Live and let live.
I have in the past asked a lot of questions here, and while most here are good helpful folk, but on caliber some succumb to the same old arguments, and what it comes down to is justifying the Gun(s) they own or carry. Nothing objective about that.

[Bigbird48]

This discussion reminds me of a Famous FBI shoot out, but for the life of me I can't remember the who, what, where and when of it, but that's not important, the thing I do remember is most of the bad guys got away do to the poor marksmanship of the FBI guys, they couldn't hit what they were shooting at.
I'm sure someone here will remember it and tell us the REST Of THE STORY
good day

[cbl51]

CB- It is interesting, that even here in the land of 22 caliber minis, you still have to make people see it is not so much caliber, but what it hits that counts. You can hit a person in head and possibly miss killing them. You will not miss incapacitating them, if it goes through the skull. 22 or 500, matters only a little. What matters is being able to pick up your weapon, rapidly and accurately fire. Yes some people can be accurate with a 357 or a 10mm. Good for them, let them have 'em. I do however know an awful lot of people around here, that can't,  heck they can't even shoot their 9s, 380s and 38s close enough to hit a torso let alone a head shot. I say let them have them. I carry and practice with both of my 22 mags, and I think hope and pray that if I am tested I can be as accurate as I am in practice, or that God sees to it I am good enough. Yes an accurate 9 or 10mm or a 357 is effective I am sure. I am also sure I can't carry one every day without a whole lot of changes I am not willing to make to carry a gun I won't like to fire. I choose to carry my 22 mag BW and for me it is enough. I am not running around the dessert, the northwwods or living in Philly, and I have no LEO duties, so my choice is what it is. I may sometime get a 32 Snubbie but that to will be my choice. I am OK with my choices and don't need to convince anyone else. Live and let live.
I have in the past asked a lot of questions here, and while most here are good helpful folk, but on caliber some succumb to the same old arguments, and what it comes down to is justifying the Gun(s) they own or carry. Nothing objective about that.

What you are saying is very true for me. I'm a pretty decent shot with my .22's, but it gets a lot harder with the higher calibers. Most of it is practice, but then I run into the expense. When I was young, there wasn't much money to be spent on ammo, but .22's were doable. A box of .22's were like 75 cents to a dollar depending if shorts or long rifles. Later in life with a wife and kids, a few boxes of .22's were still a lot cheaper than a box of .38's.  I've had a couple .38 revolvers, but with anything else but mild wadcutter target loads I just am not as good a shot as with my .22. A steel frame .38 is okay, but I don't like .357's. Takes too much concentration and practice for me to handle.

Even once I retired, the .22's were still way cheaper and easier to practice with. In pre-obama times, a box of 550 rounds of Federal bulk box was all of 8.99. Even half that amount of center fire ammo was a weeks worth of gas or a lot groceries. Plus the .22 was just more fun to shoot, so I shot more of them. But even if the cost of ammo was not that much higher, I just can't shoot the other guns as well as my .22's. I'm sure there are people out there that can handle a 9mm as well as a .22, but not me.

But then I'm not trying to take some enemy position, or apprehend some criminal. I'm not a cop, black ops operator, or super hero. Just a 67 year old retired machine shop guy living quietly. If I have a contact with a criminal type, I'll be happy to be successful at sending him packing.  So far it has happened a few times, and my little .22 has been enough.

I don't see myself changing soon. I don't want dress around 2 or 3 pounds of gun in a warm climate. Dressed in Wrangler shorts, light weight fishing shirt and Keen sandals, I love how easy it is to carry a small gun like a mini. And I know that at the very close range it will be used, it will be effective.

[Canoeal]

CB151-on all of that you and I agree. I am a wooden canoe builder and have chosen that profession. It has been good to me for 30 years, but never a high profit business. I too watch what I spend and in order to do so, do a lot of research first. I chose the 22 mag over the 22lr only for bullet weight and velocity. I am happy with my choices, and I think a 22 mag is BTA in the combination of penetration and expansion. I can't but 25 guns, try them all, sell them at a loss, and keep going. I would be broke AND divorced. So,shoot straight my friend. A one time Philly boy. AL

[redhawk4]

For rounds constantly criticised for being ineffective 22 and 9mm have killed an awful lot of people through history as Wecsog points out. I doubt so many rounds of fmj 9mm would have been used by various military sources if they couldn't incapacitate the enemy. Lets face it in the USA, 9mm will never get a fair shake because the military had the nerve to go to the M9's from Beretta forsaking "old slab sides" in 45. I recall reading somewhere an account by an ex-serviceman who'd actually used the M9 in a combat situation in fairly recent years and he claimed it to have good "stopping power" and that was obviously with the fmj ammo they are stuck with, With the premium SD ammo we have the luxury of being able to purchase, anyone who wants to continue the "9mm is worthless" rhetoric is just being plain ignorant to the facts.

I also think that 9mm for many is about the biggest and most powerful caliber they will be able to shoot accurately from the sort of platform most would regularly carry for SD purposes, thereby giving them the best chance of hitting what they need to coupled with more rapid follow up shots if needed.

Talking of follow up shots, given the short time you may have to shoot at an attacker, would say 2 shots of a larger caliber be more effective than say 4 shots on target from a 22 or 25 where you can pretty much pull the trigger as fast as you can with less need to get back on target with the minimal recoil?

[cbl51]

Talking of follow up shots, given the short time you may have to shoot at an attacker, would say 2 shots of a larger caliber be more effective than say 4 shots on target from a 22 or 25 where you can pretty much pull the trigger as fast as you can with less need to get back on target with the minimal recoil?

Could John Moses Browning have had that in mind when he designed the .25acp round and then built the 1908 vest pocket pistol around it?

[LHB]

It is my understanding that Browning developed the 25 to equal the 22 long rifle in performance, because he could not come up with a design that would reliably handle the rimmed 22.

9mm-45  The US Army of the Indian Wars looked upon a handgun as a weapon, and with experience in Africa and Asia, the British also came to see the handgun as a weapon, but in Europe, where the cavalry still carried lances, the handgun was a badge of rank and status, not a weapon, until the trench raids started. In WWI, most of the Europeans were using 32s, with the German 9 being a big bore to the Europeans, but the British and Americans were using 45s to stop a fight, or put a horse down.  Of course, this was with FMJ ammo.

Remember reading in the early 60s, as the 9-45 issue was heating up, one writer said that you could walk into any large VFW post in America, and probably find at least one man who had taken 2 or 3 hits from a MP-40, but in Germany you won't find many living Germans who took 2-3 hits from a Thompson, even with FMJ.

Can a 9 do the job with hollow points, yes, just be careful of the Hague convention, and don't get shot on the spot just for having soft or hollow point ammo on you.

[redhawk4]

There are other issues to the debate too, but one factor I've read is that a 9mm would shoot through a steel WWII helmet whereas a 45 would leave a big dent. There are so many different scenarios and contributing factors, that I don't believe the caliber debate can ever be settled by anecdotal stories.

[Bigbird48]

I say shoot what your comfortable shooting and don't worry what anyone else says. There debate settled!!

[redhawk4]

I say shoot what your comfortable shooting and don't worry what anyone else says. There debate settled!!

I think that sort of advice holds true for many things, if you worry too much what others think or say about your house, truck, motorcycle, gun etc. you'll never be happy or for that matter satisfy your detractors, because there will always be those who have something bigger and better, or think they do. I really feel so blessed with all I have in life, but if I walk out of my front door and go around the neighborhood it seems like everyone has a bigger house, two people have Lamborghinis, one of them has an Aston Martin and Porsche as well, some have swimming pools and so on, but I'm contented with my lot, in fact often I feel uncomfortable with even what I have when I'm involved in helping others who are facing various crises in there lives and I see what a $1,000 means to them. They say money can't buy you happiness, so if you are happy you are already among the richest of people.

[Ruger]

. . . . . They say money can't buy you happiness, . . . . . .

But it sure makes misery more fun . . . and keeps the kids in touch.

[Ruger]

I say shoot what your comfortable shooting and don't worry what anyone else says. There debate settled!!

As I have said many times in the Forum, "A hole where it doesn't belong is never a good thing".  Always carry something that can make holes; especially something that can do it from a distance.

[Bigbird48]

Good advice

[redhawk4]

. . . . . They say money can't buy you happiness, . . . . . .

But it sure makes misery more fun . . . and keeps the kids in touch.

My Dad always used to say "money can't buy you happiness, but at least you can be miserable in comfort"

[Canoeal]

I think Redhawk is on to something about the 9mm, but it does not ALL have to do with the 1911 .45s and Baretta. I think there is even a more difficult mtn to overcome. In two World wars the 9mm was always in the enemy's gun...And too many old generals would not let that go in the past. It has become the stigma of the 9... And you know Americans...Ours must be better...

[redhawk4]

That's also a valid point. Could I also point out coming from the UK and having been converted to metric in my teens, and then having to return to standard measurement since living in the USA, the that the fact its a metric caliber must also have hampered it's acceptance in the US where just about no one knows how big  a mm actually is. They probably thought it was very weak for a Howitzer round originally, with a 9 at the front.

[Bigbird48]

Size Difference

[redhawk4]

Size Difference

3 out of 10 people said they couldn't tell the difference when shot, the other 7 expressed no preference, unfortunately they were unable to provide a clear answer, before death 

[LHB]

Redhawks comment about shooting through a WWII helmet, I don't think that it would really matter which one hit the helmet if you were wearing it.  The 9 might penetrate, but that big dent from the 45 would probably ring your bell, like taking a punch from a champion heavyweight boxer.  Both would probably take you out of the fight.

[Canoeal]

Yeah, it would take you out of the fight, but at some point, you would wake up with the dent.

[MR_22]

That's also a valid point. Could I also point out coming from the UK and having been converted to metric in my teens, and then having to return to standard measurement since living in the USA, the that the fact its a metric caliber must also have hampered it's acceptance in the US where just about no one knows how big  a mm actually is. They probably thought it was very weak for a Howitzer round originally, with a 9 at the front.

When I was in the 4th grade in about 1976, there was a HUGE push to move to the Metric system. They told us that by the time we were adults, everything in the U.S. would be measured using Metrics. We had to do this because the rest of the world used the Metric system or would within a few years. So I actually got very familiar with it and how it compared to the British Imperial measurements. By the time I was in junior high, though, around 1979, nobody was talking about the Metric system anymore. By the 1980's, the metric system was history.

So, when I went to England in the late 1990's, I was surprised to see speed-limit signs in MPH rather than KPH. I guess even the UK didn't completely make the conversion.