"compromise!!"

[Excaliber]

I take care of folks who are in MVCs ever day, and gunshots maybe every week(sometimes more, sometimes less). In the final analysis I drive a 5star crash and carry (when I feel the need) a small gun. I think I'm probably better off than a guy with a vette and fullsize auto.

Well, I would have to agree on your setup vs. the guy with the vette and the full size auto!

I've taken care of several folks this year alone that were instantly (and almost fatally) incapacitated by .22lrs. This is excluding head shots.

There's no doubt that small caliber bullets can produce fatal injuries. However, without a central nervous system hit, they do not reliably produce rapid incapacitation when fired defensively against a determined attacker. In some cases, the attacker doesn't even know he's been shot until later. While this can happen with any handgun round, it happens a lot more with the little ones. In one case I saw, a large male assaulted his female companion, who took exception to that action and emptied a small handgun (.22 or .25, I don't remember which) into his torso. He laughed at her and continued his assault until he got tired. He was so unconcerned, he didn't even try to get medical attention. He collapsed of hypovolemic shock and died about 30 minutes later. The wounds were certainly fatal, but the delayed incapacitation didn't help the assault victim any.

People who are ambushed, shot accidentally, or shot as part of victimization during a crime are much easier to incapacitate due to the psychological reactions as much as the physiology of the actual wound.

Out of curiosity, were any of the folks you spoke of active attackers who were downed by small caliber defensive fire?

[mr.72]

It is never my intent to give offense, and I apologize that my quick choice of words did so in this case. I can see how it could be read that way. Thanks for calling this to my attention. Let me rephrase that thought as:

"Folks select the information sources they consider to be trustworthy and reliable, and derive their conclusions from them. Some favor sources that emphasize lessons learned from multiple real life encounters. Others have confidence in only what they have experienced personally, or rely on statistical sources for their evaluations. Still others use a combination of all of these and, when sources are in conflict, give weight to whichever ones they think are best. " I'll edit my post to reflect this more accurate wording.

Well I don't like your rephrased statement a whole lot better, because it continues to emphasize only one aspect of one's choices. It appears that you are suggesting that the only reason that one chooses which gun to carry or whether or not to carry is because of the source of their information regarding their risk. If this is your only criteria, then obviously, there is no reason to not choose whatever the biggest caliber and highest firepower as you can. However there are other things in people's lives that impact their choices, and the implication here seems to be that those other things are not valid concerns in one's life or don't lead to reasonable conclusions.

The reality is that virtually all of us are at nearly zero risk, and no gun is really adequate if we are unfortunate enough to beat those odds.

I can't agree with either of these statements.

Well agree or not, statistically your chances of having to use your gun for self defense are easily rounded to zero. My point is whatever gun you choose to carry is based on a compromise on some level, and you are unlikely to wish you had carried a smaller gun or less ammo if you ever do have to use your gun in self defense.

Certainly I think many guns are indeed adequate even if they are not on the high end of the spectrum for capacity or caliber.

Not every position in the middle is equally reasonable. This goes back to what information sources you have confidence in, how you weight their relative credibility, and how you arrive at decisions on what to do about it.

No, it doesn't. Yes every position in the middle is equally reasonable, and in fact the extremes are equally reasonable, because whatever the choices are, they are more than likely made based on reason.

You weigh a number of factors and make your choice. My factors don't weigh the same as yours do, so we make a different choice. Both choices are equally reasonable, but they just have different reasons. You don't value my reasons as much as you value your own, and I don't value your reasons as much as I do my own. That's the way it is when we have different people.

And as far as weighing credibility and decisions of what to do about it, if you never have to draw your weapon in defense of persons or property, whatever you did even including carrying a .22 derringer stuck in your sock is overkill. If you get shot dead after emptying your magazine from your Kahr PM40 and only slowing down two of the three bad guys then you didn't carry enough firepower. However the odds of either of these events occurring are statistically very very small. So there is no objective way to evaluate one's strategy because there is not sufficient evidence or probability to test any hypothesis. You just have to make a choice that you can justify in your own mind and then make peace with yourself about it. Certainly you will collect data and advice from whatever sources you choose to use and make an informed choice but still, you only have the opportunity to evaluate that choice if you are very, very unfortunate. In case you draw the short straw one day, we just hope that whatever you chose to do is enough. But there always is a scenario where it's not enough no matter how much it is, and there are always scenarios where it is plenty no matter how little you actually did carry.

[sar]

Out of curiosity, were any of the folks you spoke of active attackers who were downed by small caliber defensive fire?

Heh!!
Have you ever asked a GSW patient how the got shot??? It's ALWAYS some anonymous attacker while they were behaving themselves.

However, the majority of GSW "victims" don't fulfil the classic "victim" role..as I'm sure you can imagine.


Mr. 72,

In fact, sports cars are involved in crashes more often than minivans. It's hard to interpret the data though because 1) minivans are often lumped with SUVs in the studies and 2) the driver demographic is completely different.

[Excaliber]

Heh!!
Have you ever asked a GSW patient how the got shot??? It's ALWAYS some anonymous attacker while they were behaving themselves.

However, the majority of GSW "victims" don't fulfil the classic "victim" role..as I'm sure you can imagine.

I'm well familiar with the way those conversations go - I used to listen to them a lot. I was hoping that perhaps you had gotten some information from investigating officers that might have been more enlightening than what the patients had to say.

I didn't expect that you would have come across an active attacker disabled by a .22 fired by his intended victim, but the details would have been interesting if you had.

[mr.72]

In fact, sports cars are involved in crashes more often than minivans. It's hard to interpret the data though because 1) minivans are often lumped with SUVs in the studies and 2) the driver demographic is completely different.

Well, that and the fact that Mustangs and ricer cars are lumped in with sports cars.

I was talking about in the hands of a skilled driver... having great evasive driving skills is of no use in a 4,000 lb vehicle. Having no evasive driving skills is of no use in a 2,200 lb vehicle.

[Bart]

Carrying a handgun is a compromise. Even a .45ACP or 10mm handgun is underpowered compared to a 5.56mm carbine or 12ga shotgun.

If I knew I would be attacked if I went to the movies tonight, I would stay home tonight and go to the movies a different night. A very distant second choice is to go to the movies armed for bear and bring friends who are armed for bear, some on overwatch. That's not a realistic way to live life in America today, so we compromise and carry handguns.

Considering that handguns are already a compromise, it seems silly to argue that there is one perfect compromise that fits all situations, but I accept that there's no shortage of silliness on the internet.

[NcongruNt]

In fact, sports cars are involved in crashes more often than minivans. It's hard to interpret the data though because 1) minivans are often lumped with SUVs in the studies and 2) the driver demographic is completely different.

Well, that and the fact that Mustangs and ricer cars are lumped in with sports cars.

I was talking about in the hands of a skilled driver... having great evasive driving skills is of no use in a 4,000 lb vehicle. Having no evasive driving skills is of no use in a 2,200 lb vehicle.

That really depends on the 4000lb vehicle in question. There are also plenty of 2200 lb vehicles that handle just as dismally as the afore-mentioned minivan.

I understand your point, though.

And back to the discussion in progress...

I also agree with statements made on both sides (and in the middle) of this discussion. I personally do not subscribe to the "calibers starting with a '4' " ideology, as it smacks more of religious zealotry than a calculated conclusion coming from most folks' mouths (or keyboards). Sloganeering is a sure way to turn me away from an argument.

The reality is, everyone here is guilty of compromise concerning caliber choice and size of carry weapon, as there are more powerful handguns than anyone here carries, readily available for anyone who is willing to make the proper sacrifices and get their priorities straight. Both the Desert Eagle in .50AE and the S&W 500 (in .500 S&W of course) are both mass-produced handguns of superior power to the puny .45 and .40 cal weapons most of you carry. Shoot, the 500 even comes in a snubby version. Some may cop out and say these guns aren't concealable or affordable enough. These people obviously don't value their safety and that of their loved ones enough to make the necessary adjustments and sacrifices to properly arm themselves.

In case you didn't pick up on it, the above paragraph was satire. Now, I carry a Hi-Power in 9mm and a Ruger LCP as backup. While classically there has been a desparity in performance between .45 and 9mm, modern hollow point design has closed that gap considerably concerning terminal ballistics against a soft target such as a BG's torso. In other cases (such as shooting through certain hard barriers), the 9mm outperforms .45. In any case, I believe 9mm (in my case, 124grn +P Gold Dots) to be quite sufficient for self-defense purposes and am confident with it in my carry gun. I also get the distinct benefit of having 15+1 rounds in my gun, as opposed to 7+1 in a 1911 with the same profile. Before any of you blurts out "proper shot placement won't need 16 rounds!", I agree and i practice and drill to make accurate shots. However, a 3 vs 1 scenario may warrant that kind of round count to effectively stop multiple targets. So I prepare myself (In my opinion) the best way possible. I have a reliable gun in a time-proven design, with an effective round and sufficient capacity to deal with most violent civilian encounters that necessitate the use of a defensive handgun.

Practically speaking, I am not a wealthy man. If money were no object, I likely could afford to spend quite a bit more on a fancy gun that was the best of every world. My pocket BUG would more likely be a Rohrbaugh rather than an LCP. I'd have tons of money to throw at ammo for practice in my chosen exotic super-stopper calliber. Financial reality demanded that I purchased the best with what I was able, and to be as good a shot with my chosen weapon as possible. My Hi-Power in 9mm makes that a financially feasible situation.

[NcongruNt]

Carrying a handgun is a compromise. Even a .45ACP or 10mm handgun is underpowered compared to a 5.56mm carbine or 12ga shotgun.

If I knew I would be attacked if I went to the movies tonight, I would stay home tonight and go to the movies a different night. A very distant second choice is to go to the movies armed for bear and bring friends who are armed for bear, some on overwatch. That's not a realistic way to live life in America today, so we compromise and carry handguns.

Considering that handguns are already a compromise, it seems silly to argue that there is one perfect compromise that fits all situations, but I accept that there's no shortage of silliness on the internet.

Some might also argue that 5.56/.223 is a compromise, where 7.62 NATO/.308 is obviously far superior. Those silly underpowered rifles for what... lighter ammo load? But I don't see anyone jumping on people in the multiple posts about AR-type guns the way that has happened in pretty much every pocket gun discussion as of late.

[anygunanywhere]

ARGH. KIMBER I've already wasted anger and forum space on Kimber.

Are we having a bad day?

I learned today from brianko that using "you" in a post is a personal attack so I could not ask if you were having a bad day.

My day was fine thanks.

I carry Kimbers too.

I drive a 5 star rated vehicle some of the time. The other times I am in a mayhem causing diesel smoking small car crushing Super Duty.

When it is your time it is your time.

Take as many with you as you can.

Anygunanywhere

[sar]

Nah, I'm not having a bad day. I have a 5" grand raptor that's a fantastic gun. I had an eclipse pro and an ultra raptor that were the sources of much frustration (FTF, FTE, failure to return to battery, failure of Kimber to do anything about it) Made me a bit sour on the company. Shame, also, because they're nice weapons.

Most of my post here was tongue in cheek. Just wanted to make the point that life is imperfect and we all make many compromises; many of which can have untoward consequences. Caliber choice is just one, and one which is relatively unlikely to matter.

Of course, I'm gonna carry the seecamp 380 instead of my .32 when it gets to me next summer

[CompVest]

I like Clint Smith's statement about a handgun is a way to fight your way to something bigger.

I have a CHL because I see a need to carry. The odds are not in my favor. Conservative estimates are that 1 in every 3 women will be attacked in their lifetime. I do not want to be one of them so I practice awareness. If I should happen to be one of the stats in spite of myself I want to be sure that I win the fight. This means having available to me the best equalizer out there - a gun. In order to have a gun with me it will need to be concealable (carrying a rifle around just isn't to feasible) so it will be a handgun. The size depends on where I will be and who I am with. My carry gun is like my clothing it needs to be appropriate to the occassion.

[dukalmighty]

I carry a small semi auto it holds 11 rounds of 9mm my police department I worked for when I was an LEO would not allow us to carry any calibre smaller than 9mm,I've used that as a rule of thumb when purchasing any SD guns and my EDC is a 45,you can personally carry anything your heart desires it's your choice

[hankintexas]

I guess I need to mount a .50 call to the hood of my SUV?

[The Annoyed Man]

I do carry a small gun everyday. A Kimber UC II. Ya gotta admit it is small.

[flintknapper]

I do carry a small gun everyday. A Kimber UC II. Ya gotta admit it is small.

Another weapon almost identical in size, is the Para “carry” series. If you like a 1911 platform, but want a lot of safety features (long D/A trigger pull, hammer down, thumb safety, grip safety, firing pin safety, slide will not move unless grip safety is fully depressed feature) then this might make sense.

This is what my daughter picked for her carry gun.



Carry 9 specs:

Height.....4.75"
Length.....6.5"
Weight.....24 ozs.
Capacity.....8+1 (9mm)



Kimber Ultra Carry II specs:

Height…..4.75”
Length…..6.80”
Weight…..25 ozs.
Capacity…..7+1 (.45 acp)