TexasCHLforum.com

Been cautioned several times.

As far as any studies showing smaller calibers producing neural shock, the recent 10 year study that has been all over gun forums does just that,

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Since long tooth is going to take me before the board for my believes I like to point out that the article shows charts and the second chart from the bottom supports what I am saying that .22,.25 and .32’s have up to a 30-40% failure rate to incapacitate… double or better the rate of any other round

barstoolguru wrote:

As far as any studies showing smaller calibers producing neural shock, the recent 10 year study that has been all over gun forums does just that,

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Since long tooth is going to take me before the board for my believes I like to point out that the article shows charts and the second chart from the bottom supports what I am saying that .22,.25 and .32’s have up to a 30-40% failure rate to incapacitate… double or better the rate of any other round

Longtooth was not challenging the data; He was talking about your attitude and the way you come across as arrogant and condescending to other members in posts. Read back through a this topic and you will see you have been called on it several times. Knock it off.

Not my job to tell people what they can carry. It's a matter of personal choice.
SD is an art form just like anything else. What you decide to carry is what is best for you to stand or die with.

For me........I have made the decision to not carry anything less than 9mm (except also .38/357mag).

And........in ALL cases my carry ammo is Federal +P JHP.

AEA wrote:For me........I have made the decision to not carry anything less than 9mm (except also .38/357mag).

And........in ALL cases my carry ammo is Federal +P JHP.

And excellent choice of course! I'm thinking of many times in forums I have seen folks mention they carry a .380 or .32, and without any further questions be told how stupid that is and they may as well not carry anything. But, unless we know more or can see through the computer screen, we may not know they are crippled, arthritic, elderly, etc. We need to know more before we make such judgements. My intent was not caliber war but compassion for the other.

It is not a question of what you carry, but where the bullet stops.

barstool,

the problem isn't your beliefs, it's your attitude....the whole point of this thread was not to criticize people's gun choices and then you get on and do the exact thing wgoforth was saying not to do.

I found it interesting that the .380 did as well as it did. The 16% that did not stop was better than the .38 Sp -17%l, and not terribly worse than the 9MM - 13%, the .40 - 13%. and the .45 - 14%. The .357 Magnum did best - 9%.
But the little .380 did better than any of the other calibers in the % stopped after 1 shot with 62%
The only time my little Ruger LCP .380 has jammed was when I got "frugal" and put some of the cheap, steel case, Russian crap (Tula) ammo through it. And even then, If I wipe each cartridge down with Remington Oil wipes before loading, I get pretty good results. (About 2 jams in a box of 50.)
Currently, the little LCP is my only carry gun. I've got a S&W .38 Spl revolver, but haven't committed to carry it as primary. Frankly, I feel pretty good about the LCP as a defensive weapon. That being said, I'm looking seriously at a Glock 26. Truth be told, if I had the money, I'd be holding it. I'll probably get a Glock in the next year. (I also looked at a S&W Chief Special that I liked. Might could be talked into going that route.)
But until then, I'll feel pretty comfortable with my LCP.

Of course, there are a zillion variables that probably affect the results. The high percent of first round stops by the .380 may be due to them all being at much closer range. I know my mind set, is strictly defensive. It would be the act of last resort, and most probably at close range. If I can run run away, I will.
The whole concept of a protector roll never even occurred to me. The gun was there strictly to protect me and mine. (and by that, I mean living souls, not necessarily property.)
I'm not dismissing it out of hand. I'm examining it VERY carefully. I'd really like to hear from LEOs how they feel about CHL holders in that roll.
I'm trying to get a grasp on what I'll consider my legal, and ethical responsibilities.

My NRA training counselor told a student not to criticize the person's choice of gun. They may not be able to afford anything other than a HiPoint (the gun in question) or have physical disabilities that prevents them from using a more potent caliber. I'm just glad to see people take the initiative to protect themselves.

There are some old sayings among gunfighters - - -

"The best gun to have is the one in your hand."

"A hit with a .22 beats a miss with a .45."

"No knowledgeable man or woman will willingly go to a gunfight armed only with a handgun."

"No sensible person will willingly go to a gunfight."

"The gunfight you avoid is the only one you win."

"Eschew the OSG!*" (*Oh Shucks, Gunfight!)

wgoforth wrote:All of us are biased to our favorite guns...otherwise they wouldn't be our favorite! And like to a caliber size. The caliber war will go on till the cows come home, and doubt that anyone really disagrees with the concept that bigger is better.

I would like to offer a thought of caution though in telling folks what ~they~ should get, or should have gotten or criticizing choices made. In CHL classes you probably heard the term "totality of the situation" (if not, you should have). This also applies to gun choices.

That fellow who carries a .32 may have severe arthritis in his wrists or neck and that little .32 be all he can take to be willing to practice with. His clothing requirement at work may require a .380 mouse gun at max. We may browbeat them into getting a Glock 26 that they now are not willing to practice with. Have we helped them? Then,you throw this in...I encourage spouses to find a gun that works for both of them and carry matching guns so they can swap mags in a fight, or if accidentally grabbing the others gun it doesn't confuse. So now finding one that fits both people limits it further.

I have seen little ladies with arthritic gnarled fingers in my class who could not hold a 9mm firmly in recoil. It jumped all over the place to the point of looking dangerous.

I guess the older I get the more understanding I am of what folks have to do in their lives to compromise for their lifestyle.

Anyway, just some thoughts about considering another guys choices.

Carry on!

I seem to see too many people doing just that. Although I am new to this forum, I have read over thousands of posts; and more often than not, this behavior is involved. I completely agree with this post!

Majek,
As in this thread we try to coach them into a more gentlemanly & statesman like posting virtue.

A guy on one of my motorcycle forums patiently explained (tongue in cheek) that anybody with a bike smaller than his was a sissy little weeny and anybody with a bike bigger than his is an egotistical megalomaniac.

BigGuy wrote:A guy on one of my motorcycle forums patiently explained (tongue in cheek) that anybody with a bike smaller than his was a sissy little weeny and anybody with a bike bigger than his is an egotistical megalomaniac.

I like that.

BigGuy wrote:I found it interesting that the .380 did as well as it did. The 16% that did not stop was better than the .38 Sp -17%l, and not terribly worse than the 9MM - 13%, the .40 - 13%. and the .45 - 14%. The .357 Magnum did best - 9%.
But the little .380 did better than any of the other calibers in the % stopped after 1 shot with 62%
The only time my little Ruger LCP .380 has jammed was when I got "frugal" and put some of the cheap, steel case, Russian crap (Tula) ammo through it. And even then, If I wipe each cartridge down with Remington Oil wipes before loading, I get pretty good results. (About 2 jams in a box of 50.)
Currently, the little LCP is my only carry gun. I've got a S&W .38 Spl revolver, but haven't committed to carry it as primary. Frankly, I feel pretty good about the LCP as a defensive weapon. That being said, I'm looking seriously at a Glock 26. Truth be told, if I had the money, I'd be holding it. I'll probably get a Glock in the next year. (I also looked at a S&W Chief Special that I liked. Might could be talked into going that route.)
But until then, I'll feel pretty comfortable with my LCP.

Of course, there are a zillion variables that probably affect the results. The high percent of first round stops by the .380 may be due to them all being at much closer range. I know my mind set, is strictly defensive. It would be the act of last resort, and most probably at close range. If I can run run away, I will.
The whole concept of a protector roll never even occurred to me. The gun was there strictly to protect me and mine. (and by that, I mean living souls, not necessarily property.)
I'm not dismissing it out of hand. I'm examining it VERY carefully. I'd really like to hear from LEOs how they feel about CHL holders in that roll.
I'm trying to get a grasp on what I'll consider my legal, and ethical responsibilities.

Yup....that's why I feel the .380 to be the under appreciated round. The newer designs and powders make a difference for sure. Now, while it is on par in the number of rounds till incapacitation, bigger rounds have the advantage in the one-shot kill. So yes bigger is still better, but I do not believe .380 to be a bad round. Two reasons I believe account for the .380 doing so well in the test.... the 9mm may have had more ball ammo (the study couldn't distinguish FMJ vs JHP) and the lower velocity of the .380 may make it faster for target reacquisition. I could not hit the X ring with my LCP/TCP/P3AT at 20 yards, but i can consistently do so with my P238.