# Dr. No



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

I know this isn't exactly the place for it, but one does discuss firearms here, sooo,,,,,,,,,

I was watching Dr. No (circa 1962) last evening when there was a scene, the one in which James Bond has his wee Italian .25 Beretta Modelo 418 taken from him and replaced, much to his chagrin, with a Walther PPK 7.65 "with a delivery like a brick through a plate-glass window" (the 7.65 is a .32ACP for those keeping score).

Now my question is this, and I have had this discussion endlessly with my Good Son; why do so many CC folk seem to feel they need a pocket cannon for "self-defense". Generations of men (and women) carried and defended themselves quite successfully with very small calibre handguns, but now one hears from instructors and "experts" that one ought "carry the largest calibre you can control".

My own "everyday and always" piece is a NAA mini-revolver in .22 magnum; arguably more powerful than either the .25ACP or the .32ACP. I have larger calibre pieces: 1911's, .45LC's (of late), and even a PPK clone in .380, but only the latter is remotely "carriable" or concealable. My Good Son, I think is starting to see the light, and has ordered in his own NAA mini-revolver in .22 magnum.

By the by, PPK stands for ' Polizei Pistole Kriminal ' or Police Pistol Criminal, indicating its use as a detectives gun.

I do know that some will say, "Do you realize that the Bond films aren't real life?", but the truth is that Ian Fleming discussed the change in Bond's weapon from a.25ACP to a .32ACP with a Mr. Geoffrey Boothroyd who was a firearms expert based in Glasgow, UK, and the truth is that the 1911 and other such large calibre pistols and revolvers though widely available, were not top choices for a conceal carry weapon in the 1950's. One wonders why modern folk these days feel the need for large calibres, and/or magazines holding nigh a full box of cartridges?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> why do so many CC folk seem to feel they need a pocket cannon for "self-defense".


Because smart people want a caliber large enough to give a high percentage of "one shot stops", and your little mini gun isnt up to the task

Ask yourself why the police an militaries carry larger calibers, if you think smaller ones are *as effective*


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

I guess small calibers would be effective on say a cowardly felon robbing a 7-11. 

But, if you want to be prepared for a psyco all hepped up on crack, nothing short of a small cannon is gonna stop him. I've read several accounts where even a full mag of 9mm's hasnt stopped some of these dope heads.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

I am the first one to champion the fact that any gun you have when you need one is better than one you don't have. A .22 magnum or even a .22 LR is infinitely better to have than nothing. BUT as you said, most people advocate using the 'largest caliber you can control.' If you can control and accurately shoot a 9MM or a .45ACP, (and there are concealable sized firearms in these calibers) and they will create a much stronger punch and a bigger hole, why limit yourself to a .22?

The diameters of a 9MM and .45 are about 50% and slightly more than twice the diameter of a .22 respectively. The _areas_ of those calibers are nearly 4 times for the 9 and more than 5 times the area of a .22, which create much larger wound channels.

When the subject is self-defense, the idea that you need to repel a very real attack on your life, I see no downside to using the 'largest caliber you can control'.


----------



## lostspring (Jun 29, 2007)

I think it all comes down to bullet placement. A 22mag or for that matter a 22 of any type is probably enough. Placement is the key. With a larger caliber round you don't have to be as exact. With a 45 a shoulder hit is probably enough to put your man down. The reccomendation for larger caliber rounds is probably due to marginal accuracy and nerves.


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

Agree with post 2,3 and 4, but will add one more reason...Because I can.
I often carry a plain ol .22lr in the summer because it conceals better. If it is coat season, 9mm is shouldered. In the house, however, something always handy (and far out of reach and sight from others, especially little ones), along with an 11-87.
Never had to use then for SD, hope I never do, but should the situation arise, being in a castle doctrine state, I'd want as much stopping power as I can grab hold of.
Matt


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

lostspring said:


> The reccomendation for larger caliber rounds is probably due to marginal accuracy and nerves.


I can agree with that. A larger calibre may make allowance for sloppy shooting and/or a lack of courage on the part of those carrying a weapon for protection.

Large calibre handguns have been around for many decades and the same fellow who designed the Colt 1911 in .45 ACP also designed a small Colt auto in .25 ACP; one wonders why he (Browning) would muck about with the smaller calibre if it were useless as a self-defense weapon (?), but then of course, its larger cousin was designed as a military combat type weapon, not a "pocket pistol" for self-protection.

Still though, up until about the time of "Dirty Harry", people, and many police forces around the world, tended toward smaller pieces, suddenly now, it seems to many, smaller arms just aren't enough for personal protection.


----------



## brownegg (Jan 5, 2006)

I agree that a self defense weapon is a tool with a specific job, and that's to stop the culprit right now, if needed. My choice is S&W 40cal. It is also the most common LEO carry caliber.
brownegg


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Haggis said:


> Still though, up until about the time of "Dirty Harry", people, and many police forces around the world, tended toward smaller pieces...


But even then, the 'smaller' pieces in the police forces were usually .38 specials.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> one wonders why he (Browning) would muck about with the smaller calibre if it were useless as a self-defense weapon (?),


It's not "useless", but it's not the best choice IF you can carry something larger.

The smaller handguns were largely designed to fit in small places, not because they were as effective


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> many police forces around the world, tended toward smaller pieces, suddenly now, it seems to many, smaller arms just aren't enough for personal protection


Older black powder cartidges were larger due to lower velocities and plain lead bullets

With smokeless powders and jacketed bullets, most went down to a 38 cal.

Later on semi autos became popular, and 9 mm was the "standard" until they realized it really isn't that great.

Most Depts now carry either a 40 or a 45 cal


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> allowance for sloppy shooting and/or a lack of courage


Neither of those have anything to do with it.

PENETRATION is the key issue


----------



## SteveO (Apr 14, 2009)

So in this debate that bigger is better is there a distance where smaller and yet not accurate would be enough. Based on the number of shots fired when the police do, do they really pass a target test?? Or is that why the weapon of choice is a shotgun??
Just asken
s


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

I think that a lot depends on what the other fella is packing........


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

1.Any caliber firearm is better than none.
2.When using a handgun for self defence-the object is to stop the attack-not kill,large calibers stop better than mouseguns(If you don't believe it,read the entire synopsys of the"Miami Massacre"-the FBI agent hit the perp in the heart first shot-which killed him.....eventually-in the next 26 seconds he killed 3 agents and wounded 2 so severly they retired.
3.I have carried a steel 1911 for 30 yrs-no printing,no problem-the QUALITY holster makes all the difference.....my newest is a Mitch Rosen shoulder holster,which is so comfortable if I did'nt sleep on my side,I would wear it to bed
4.I believe in carrying what you shoot best,for me it's a .45 with a S&W Airweight Bodyguard for backup...but to each his own.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

I'm sure a .22 or a .25 would do a pretty good job of killing most small to medium size things.
I knew a guy who used to poach deer with a .22 just to hold down the noise.
He would shoot the deer a few times, and it would soon die.
Personally though, if I was being attacked by a Rottweiler, a mountain lion, a crackhead, etc, I'd feel better with something a little bigger.
I don't want a mean animal or a mean person dying of their wounds 10 minutes after they kill me.
Face it, if bigger wasn't better, everybody would be carrying a 50 shot .22.
I feel a 9mm is more than sufficient for defense, some feel anything less than a .45 is undergunned.
I say carry what you are comfortable with, and practice with whatever you decide to carry, whether it be a .25acp or a 500S&W or anything in between.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> So in this debate that bigger is better is there a distance where smaller and yet *not accurate *would be enough


Accuracy has little to do with it.

It has to do more with energy and penetration to reach vital areas or break bone.

Haggis's 22 Mag would probably stop anyone with one shot IF you stuck it in their ear first, but it's better to not get that close.

A 38 Special with *good* bullets will stop about 65% with one *good* hit

A 9MM is about 90%, but 40's and 45's get about 95%

http://www.abaris.net/info/ballistics/handgun-stopping-power.htm


----------



## Paquebot (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Accuracy has little to do with it.
> 
> It has to do more with energy and penetration to reach vital areas or break bone.


I lost a rare Marlin Model 30 .22 when my father borrowed it supposedly to shoot sparrows in a canning company warehouse in 1966. Shot his wife and then himself. Both shots fatal.

Martin


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Both shots fatal


Any firearm can be fatal

That has nothing to do with being a good* defensive *weapon


----------



## Paquebot (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Any firearm can be fatal
> 
> That has nothing to do with being a good* defensive *weapon


Yes, fatal when combined with accuracy. 

Martin


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Paquebot said:


> Yes, fatal when combined with accuracy.
> 
> Martin


I'm sorry to hear about that.
I'm guessing the range in both was point blank?
Nobody is saying a .22 can't kill, and for defense, it beats a sharp stick or a harsh word, but if I had my druthers, I druther have a little bigger caliber.


----------



## FTG-05 (Mar 10, 2010)

Because back in the '50's your choices were usually small guns like the PPK, .38 Special snubnose or full size guns like the M-1911, Browning HP etc.. There were no small sized .45's back then nor Glock 33's etc.

Plus Bond was an assassin, licensed to kill, not defend. It's easy to kill with a small caliber gun.

My .02.


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> I say carry what you are comfortable with, and practice with whatever you decide to carry, whether it be a .25acp or a 500S&W or anything in between.


I can agree with this 100%.

Still though, one does question why so many today feel the need for large bore, large capacity pieces when literally 100's of years of history show men (and women) carrying small bore, small capacity pieces for personal protection, even when the larger bore and larger capacity sorts were readily available.

If protecting one's self from an armed adversary were a key element, and one finds ones self mimicking the police force or the military in choice of side arm, then it would follow that one would also be wearing ballistic armor as do the police forces and the military, but one seldom sees or hears of the large bore CC folk bothering with anything more than "the largest pistol or revolver 'they' can control". Ballistic armor is in many cases cheaper than many large bore handguns, certainly safer than any large bore handgun, and if stolen, the thief wouldn't be killing anyone with it. (Much of this latter bit would apply to wee pocket pistols and revolvers as well.)

One thinks, after reading very much on the subject, and after talking with countless folk on the subject, that the only correct answer to reason behind a private citizen carrying a large bore, large capacity piece ought be, and can only be, "Because I can". One supposes that that is more than reason enough. On the same token, I carry a very small piece, "Because I can", because it is more than adequate to the function of arming me, and more than adequate to the purpose of self-defense weapon.


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

Albin said:


> Because back in the '50's your choices were usually small guns like the PPK, .38 Special snubnose or full size guns like the M-1911, Browning HP etc.. *There were no small sized .45's back then nor Glock 33's etc.* Plus Bond was an assassin, licensed to kill, not defend. It's easy to kill with a small caliber gun.
> 
> My .02.


The fictional character, "Bond", was using his .25ACP, and later the .32ACP simply because they were the weapon of choice of his real life counterparts in European police forces, and by "covert operatives" around the world. A very small weapon firing a very small calibre cartridge does not have the muzzle jump of a very small weapon firing a large, powerful cartridge; less muzzle jump means less effort to control the weapon and staying on the target rathering than wasting time trying to re-acquire the target after every shot.


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

The US milatary went to smaller a caliber the 223. The reasoning is the lighter recoil, lighter weight of lots of rounds and tis better to wound than to kill. Takes more people to take care of wounded than the dead. 

Big caliber hand guns are not worth the powder it takes to move the bullet if the person doing the shooting can't controll the recoil or is afraid of the recoil.

 Al


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

alleyyooper said:


> The US milatary went to smaller a caliber the 223. The reasoning is the lighter recoil, lighter weight of lots of rounds and tis better to wound than to kill. Takes more people to take care of wounded than the dead.
> Al


This brings up an important question in this whole "self-defense" scenario; is the purpose of a CC self-defense handgun to "kill" or merely to take the fight out of an antagonist? If asked, I would say the purpose to the latter, as I have no desire to kill, mortally wound, or permanently disable even the most hateful of antagonists.



alleyyooper said:


> Big caliber hand guns are not worth the powder it takes to move the bullet if the person doing the shooting can't controll the recoil or is afraid of the recoil.


Ah yes, the machismo of "controlling recoil"; I am large enough, and, at nigh 61, yet strong enough to fire even a .44 magnum revolver with but one hand, still, the management of recoil in a crisis situation ought never enter into the equation. In a crisis, I would prefer a weapon with no recoil to manage.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Still though, one does question why so many today *feel the need *for large bore, large capacity pieces when literally 100's of years of history show men (and women) carrying small bore, small capacity pieces for personal protection, even when the larger bore and larger capacity sorts were readily available.


Hundreds of years of history show people riding horses, but most today prefer a car.
There WERE no *high powered *handguns before the 50's that were *very concealable*.

The fact that "people carried them" doesn't mean they were the best choice, but only that they were available



> less muzzle jump means less effort to control the weapon and staying on the target rathering than wasting time trying to re-acquire the target after every shot.


If you can't keep a 40 or a 45 on target, you're not much of a shot



> Ah yes, the *machismo *of "controlling recoil";


You have the mistaken impression this has something to do with "courage" or "machismo", and that somehow you're "braver" by carryiing your little 5 shot 22.

Carry whatever makes you happy, but don't assume anyone who carries something larger
is a "coward", or has "something to prove"

They are simply using the BEST tool available

As to body armor; it does NOTHING to *defend *you.
It merely lessens the likelihood that you will be shot fatally in the torso.

It offers almost no protection against knives or blunt objects or unarmed thugs, and does nothing to stop the threat


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Carry whatever makes you happy, but don't assume anyone who carries something larger is a "coward", or has "something to prove"


Thank you kindly, I will carry what I like, and happily encourage others carry what they like, but I will continue to assume the obvious until I see any concrete proof to the contrary.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

,


> but I will continue to *assume the obvious *until I see any *concrete proof *to the contrary.


There is nothing "obvious" to assume, and you've been shown concrete proof in the form of actual test data.

It's pure *physics.*

These figures were compiled using longer barrels than your NAA Mini, so yours is even LESS effective.



> Used for self defence in a revolver, the .22 WMR has compiled a* 42% one shot stop rate *according to Marshall and Sanow.


http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Haggis said:


> Thank you kindly, I will carry what I like, and happily encourage others carry what they like, but I will continue to assume the obvious until I see any concrete proof to the contrary.


What would be the advantage of carrying a small caliber handgun when the bigger ones are available and easily carried?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You have the mistaken impression this has something to do with "courage" or "machismo", and that somehow you're "braver" by carryiing your little 5 shot 22.


I agree, it's got nothing to do with "courage" or the lack of it.
It's personal preference, and bigger is obviously better.
that's why there are laws governing the minimum bullet energy for hunting, that's why the .45 Colt was a better tool than a little .32 Derringer.
To say a man who carries a .22 is braver than a man who carries a .45 is ridiculous as saying a man who uses a chainsaw is lazier than a man who uses an ax.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> To say *a man who carries a .22 is braver *than a man who carries a .45 is ridiculous


I get the impression that's the main things he keeps trying to imply.

If there is a choice between a gun with 42% one shot stops and 95% one shot stops, there is only ONE intelligent choice


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

My main defense gun is a 12ga. pumpgun with a cylinder bore loaded with #4 buckshot. I believe at close range this is quite effective.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

As I thought,Haggis is trolling.....I have held a NAA mini revolver and anyone that thinks in a time of severe emotional/physical crisis(which is what a self defence scenario is in real life)they will be able to handle a tiny little gun with no triggerguard and a small grip lives in a fantasy world.I would like to see Haggis use his little friend in a 3 day self defence course run by professionals-that would be fun to watch.When put under the stress of multiple shots,different angles,weak hand shooting-ain't gonna happen....But if he likes it and feels comfortable with it,I have no problem...merely a question of judgement.


----------



## catahoula (Dec 14, 2005)

alleyyooper said:


> The US military went to smaller a caliber the 223. The reasoning is the lighter recoil, lighter weight of lots of rounds and it's better to wound than to kill. Takes more people to take care of wounded than the dead.
> Al


Except that now we are dealing with an enemy that doesn't really care about their dead and wounded and are willing to blow themselves up for the cause. That's a heck of a thing. 

A .22 is better than a pocket full of rocks or a sharp stick. A .45 is like carrying a tool belt. I suppose a .32 is a good compromise. 

Shoot them in the neck or face, spinal interuptis is a pretty instant neutralizer, ten million ninjas can't be wrong.


----------



## Reptyle (Jul 28, 2005)

Haggis said:


> Thank you kindly, I will carry what I like, and happily encourage others carry what they like, but I will continue to assume the obvious until I see any concrete proof to the contrary.


You assumption is based on flawed logic...It has about as much merit as someone assuming you carry a smaller caliber pistol because, secretly, you think you're James Bond...

If your intent is simply to "deter" and not kill, why bother putting more than one bullet in the gun? One bullet should deter just fine. Anymore than that and you run the risk of killing someone.


----------



## Wis Bang 2 (Jan 12, 2010)

I inherited a Colt 'Police Positive' in 38 special. It is old and ugly, dad bought it from a retiring butcher who kept it wrapped in an oily rag in the glove box of his delivery truck.

According to the serial number, it was made in 1910 and was a former PD weapon.

If I ever get around to needing another weapon, I would consider a 45 auto BUT I don't feel 'under gunned' when I carry this one. A 22mag is a fine gun, for plinking, but I'd prefer something just a little larger.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Haggis said:


> Thank you kindly, I will carry what I like, and happily encourage others carry what they like, but I will continue to assume *what I want to assume regardless of* any concrete proof to the contrary.


Fixed it for ya.


----------

