# Carry Weapon?



## big rockpile

Ok both have .380 and like them never had to use them, hope never have to. Can put 7 out of 7, off hand, rapid fire in 6 inch bull at 20 yards. My wife says good enough at short range, defensive weapon. She also says having the same ammo is a Good Thing.

Got the more penetration thing in my head. Looking at a 9MM for $500. The pistol and Trigger pull feels good. 

My wife says 9MM is a waste of money on something probably never use and we already have .380. Thoughts?

big rockpile


----------



## Alice In TX/MO

Your wife is right. My whole family carries legally, and one son is very into guns. He thinks the 9 mm is overrated. 

I carry a Lady Smith .38 that will put an adequate hole in any target.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

big rockpile said:


> My wife says 9MM is a waste of money on something probably never use and we already have .380. Thoughts?


She's right.

Shot placement matters most, and the cartridge matters next.

With good ammo you won't be that much better off with a 9mm than you are with the .380.


----------



## GTX63

If you already have a 380 then I'd stay with that. Caliber is more about preference than effectiveness.
The more calibers you have the more bullets you have to buy and keep sorted.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

This shows some 9mm loads fired from a 3" barrel, with velocities ranging from about 900 fps to 1350 fps:
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html

This shows some .380 loads from a 3" barrel with velocities ranging from 860 fps to 1160 fps.
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/380auto2.html

Simply changing the barrel lengths can make the .380 more powerful than the 9mm.

The .38 SPCL from a 2" barrel pretty much matches the low end 9mm and .380 loads at 850-960 fps:

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/38special.html

The cartridge itself is just one of many variables.

Shot *placement* will always matter most.


----------



## Cornhusker

There's no doubt the 9mm is a better cartridge for defense, but that doesn't mean the .380 can't do the job.
The 9mm delivers a heavier bullet at similar velocities, therefore more energy.
If you like the .380 and are a good shot with it, then it will do the job.
If you want a 9mm, get a 9mm, it's not a wrong choice, just one of the right choices.


----------



## muleskinner2

big rockpile said:


> My wife says 9MM is a waste of money on something probably never use and we already have .380. Thoughts?


You are not buying garden tools. This is something you may have to bet your life on. I have seen the aftermath, and been involved in shootings myself. A .380 will almost never "Do the job", unless through pure luck you make a clean head shot. Remember you must stop an attacker right now. If he can stay on his feet for five or six seconds he has time to kill you. I have seen people with a full magazine of .380's center mass, finish the fight, and then drive themselves to the emergency room. Any hand gun is an iffy proposition for self defiance. Please don't choose the smallest, just because you happen to have one on hand.

Punching holes in paper at twenty yards, has nothing in the world to do with winning gun fights. It is more about how much damage you can do at arms length. In the dark, with blood running down your face.

An officer who happened to be a good friend of mine, ended up in a gun fight one night. And a few days later we were talking about what had happened. He had made a traffic stop for a fail to stop, at a stop sign.

When he asked for a drivers license the guy came up with a pistol. My friend was standing next to the drivers door, as the gun came out the window he deflected it with his left hand. With his right hand he drew his service pistol, a 9mm Beretta 92, and shot the suspect three times. Two shots in the neck, and one in the head.

The suspect drove away, and escaped. Later that night his girl friend took him to an emergency room. The suspect was able to walk in the door, and they set him down in a wheel chair. He survived and was charged.

The 9mm with a heavy 140gr bullet should be the minimum place to start. And there are way better calibers. There are many different models to choose from. You don't have to buy new ones, go to a big pawn shop and look them over.
This is my opinion.

Muleskinner2


----------



## oceantoad

How about hotter ammo like Buffalo Bore?


----------



## Bungiex88

I carry a ruger Alaskan as my protection pistol. No no I don’t but it would be pretty America. You shoot a robber with that and then police show up there going to ask where is the robber you shot and you just tell them you vaporized him


----------



## Fishindude

Just carry whatever you are comfortable with. The lowly .22 rimfire has killed more cattle and hogs than you could count.


----------



## Chuck R.

There was a time when I carried a .380 with confidence, I know set 9mm as my minimum and prefer to carry my 357SIG.

But that's just me. I wouldn't go .380 simply because the ammo is more expensive than 9mm and there's a good number of single stack 9mms that approach .380s in size. Here's a pretty good article on "stopping power" with a rationale on why it's not worth getting spun up about:

https://gundigest.com/gear-ammo/ammunition/the-mystery-of-stopping-power



> The dilemma of our situation, our life’s work in firearms is this — statistically speaking, caliber doesn’t matter. In 990 times out of 1,000, caliber didn’t matter.
> 
> You can quibble with the actual numbers, but the point is this: The subset of potentially lethal encounters where stopping power becomes the determinate factor is very small. You are better served with proper situational awareness, having a plan, knowing the law and being proactive than in obsessing over a few percentage points on a theoretical scale of “stopping power.” Put your effort where it will deliver the greatest return.


----------



## Ohio Rusty

I also have a .380 and a .38 revolver. I practice often shooting below the belt line instead of center of mass at close range. A shot smashing thru the pelvis or exploding the hip socket will quickly put an attacker down, even if they are high or drunk.. If they are wearing a bullet proof vest they bought off Ebay and a leather jacket a smash below the belt line will avoid those issues and hopefully stop them or take them off their feet. I currently shoot Reminton 125 grain HP +P's from the 38 and 102 grain Golden Sabre HP for the little .380.


----------



## bobp

I gave the last 9mm inhad away. They're junk. Same goes for the 38.
I'd rather have no the 22lr as opposed to those. Just saying... I've killed wild hogs with a single 6 22. I've seen a small hog kill a dog with 6 9mm bullets in him.

My choice would be a 44. (Leaves only one interview'ee)
But i under stand it's a bit much for some folks so i reccomend a good woman's caliber....the trusty 45.... even a 12yr old girl can shoot it....


----------



## Bearfootfarm

bobp said:


> I've seen a small hog kill a dog with 6 9mm bullets in him.


Shot placement matters, not the number of poor hits.


----------



## muleskinner2

Chuck R. said:


> There was a time when I carried a .380 with confidence, I know set 9mm as my minimum and prefer to carry my 357SIG.
> 
> But that's just me. I wouldn't go .380 simply because the ammo is more expensive than 9mm and there's a good number of single stack 9mms that approach .380s in size. Here's a pretty good article on "stopping power" with a rationale on why it's not worth getting spun up about:
> 
> https://gundigest.com/gear-ammo/ammunition/the-mystery-of-stopping-power


I think you should carry whatever you like and have a nice day. As a matter of face I saw a pink .380 in a gun store a few days ago. That might me a good choice.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

bobp said:


> I gave the last 9mm inhad away. They're junk. Same goes for the 38.
> I'd rather have no the 22lr as opposed to those. Just saying... I've killed wild hogs with a single 6 22. I've seen a small hog kill a dog with 6 9mm bullets in him.
> 
> My choice would be a 44. (Leaves only one interview'ee)
> But i under stand it's a bit much for some folks so i reccomend a good woman's caliber....the trusty 45.... even a 12yr old girl can shoot it....


Really?

You'd rather have a. 22 LR than either a .380 or a 9mm, because they're junk, and you've managed to kill hogs with a . 22 but seen them survive a 9mm.

With anecdotal evidence from such an impeccable source, I wonder why us manufacturers and agencies even bother to do ballistic testing, and hire engineers with slide-rules. We should have just saved our money and called you.

There's millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours down the drain.



@big rockpile if you shoot your .380s well, and you have a decent stockpile of good quality carry and practice ammo, there's no reason to change.

I recently did a gel shoot with a major state agency, and we were testing the gamut of modern ninja-killer 9mm loads. At the end, one of the officers wanted to test his backup G42 (a .380), he was carrying Hornady XTP America Gunner, and someone else had a handful of Remington Golden Saber to try. Both rounds hung quite respectably with the 9mms being tested.

This was an FBI-spec test, through barriers into 10%-nominal calibrated ordnance gel, scoring for penetration, expansion, and weight retention. The .380s matched the 9s for expansion and weight retention, and we're within an inch or two on penetration. The barriers were everything from heavy clothing to laminated windshield glass, and the "little" gun was still getting 12-15" into the gel.

.380 is a good round. Great if you can shoot it well.

In the long run, 9mm is cheaper to shoot. Just like owning a dog or a horse, buying the gun is the cheap part- it's feeding it that gets expensive. If you're practicing the way you should, the difference in price between 9mm and .380 will make up the price of a new gun in short order.

I've passed up on more than one gun deal because I didn't want to have to start stocking a new kind of ammo, and bought more than a few guns just because I needed something to feed a pile of ammo I'd collected to.


----------



## Chuck R.

muleskinner2 said:


> That is a very nice article about every thing being equal, and you always being able to place the perfect shot, and the rationale behind all of this drivel. Written by someone who has never fired a shot in a gun fight. I did not get my stats from on article in some gun rag. Written by some key board warrior who is an expert because he can write an article in the above mentioned gun rag.
> 
> My information comes from forty plus years of personal observation of me shooting animals and people. If you are in a gunfight things have already left the rational arena. You will not be standing in a Weaver stance, on a range with good light and a range master with a stop watch. And the fight won't end when someone blows a whistle.
> 
> Unless you are a cold blooded killer with no fear or any emotion, you will be scared, your hands will be shaking and you will have no fine motor skills. If you are lucky and the bad guy has missed you with his first two or three shots, you will still be trying to pull your pistol from under your shirt, or the bottom of a purse.
> 
> If the bad guy is within twenty one feet of you and armed with a rock, unless you already have your gun in your hand, he will be beating you over the head before you can get your gun out. If he is armed with a knife you will be stabbed and or cut before you can get your gun out.
> 
> You will be thinking about your family, looking for cover, and weather or not it is safe to return fire. If you are justified in the use of deadly force, then miss the bad guy and hit a little kid, you are going to prison for a very ling time.
> 
> At this point you need to start putting big ragged holes where they will do the most good. Most gun fights take place from start to finish within ten feet. You must get your gun out, put the front sight center mass and start making hits.
> 
> The next time someone tells you that a .380 is all you need in a gun fight, ask him how many people he has shot in gun fights.
> 
> Having said all of this, you carry whatever you like. Keep reading stories about the little old lady that took on an entire biker gang with a two shot .22 derringer. Keep watching all of those videos of people shooting blocks of jello on You Tube. If you are ever attacked by block of jello you will be ready.
> 
> Muleskinner2


I get the strong feeling that reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. IF you had read it AND understood, you might have been able to save a chitload of bandwidth worth of that rambling post.


----------



## muleskinner2

Chuck R. said:


> I get the strong feeling that reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. IF you had read it AND understood, you might have been able to save a chitload of bandwidth worth of that rambling post.


By By.


----------



## Cornhusker

The caliber wars continue


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Fishindude said:


> The lowly .22 rimfire has killed more cattle and hogs than you could count.


That's a scenario where one gets to choose the perfect shot placement and the perfect timing.

It really has nothing to do with self defense, where the object has nothing to do with "killing" and everything to do with "stopping".


----------



## Chuck R.

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's a scenario where one gets to choose the perfect shot placement and the perfect timing.
> 
> It really has nothing to do with self defense, where the object has nothing to do with "killing" and everything to do with "stopping".


Agree.

And to add, the extremely hard part for the guys that try to track the whole "stopping power" thing is differentiating between a psychological vs physiological stop. Which was kind of the gist of the article I posted. In extremely rare incidences does the caliber even play a role in the outcome because in the majority of firearm defensive uses the threat is "stopped" either because it doesn't want to get shot, or it doesn't want to get shot again..

There was an excellent study/article posted a while back that sudied as best as the author could the effects of various calibers involved in shootings:

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power



> *Some interesting findings:*
> I think the most interesting statistic is the percentage of people who stopped with one shot to the torso or head. There wasn't much variation between calibers. Between the most common defensive calibers (.38, 9mm, .40, and .45) there was a spread of only eight percentage points. No matter what gun you are shooting, you can only expect a little more than half of the people you shoot to be immediately incapacitated by your first hit.
> 
> The average number of rounds until incapacitation was also remarkably similar between calibers. All the common defensive calibers required around 2 rounds on average to incapacitate. Something else to look at here is the question of how fast can the rounds be fired out of each gun. The .38 SPL probably has the slowest rate of fire (long double action revolver trigger pulls and stout recoil in small revolvers) and the fewest rounds fired to get an incapacitation (1.87). Conversely the 9mm can probably be fired fastest of the common calibers and it had the most rounds fired to get an incapacitation (2.45). The .40 (2.36) and the .45 (2.08) split the difference. It is my personal belief that there really isn't much difference between each of these calibers. It is only the fact that some guns can be fired faster than others that causes the perceived difference in stopping power. If a person takes an average of 5 seconds to stop after being hit, the defender who shoots a lighter recoiling gun can get more hits in that time period. It could be that fewer rounds would have stopped the attacker (given enough time) but the ability to fire more quickly resulted in more hits being put onto the attacker. It may not have anything to do with the stopping power of the round


----------



## hiddensprings

I think its a matter of personal preference. I carried a 357 but found a revolver to be too bulky. So I now have a 9 mm that fits nicely and is easier for me to carry concealed.


----------



## montysky

If you feel better w/ the 9mm get it, We are open carry and my go to is a SW586. there is a reason back in the day it was carried by a lot of police officers. also will carry at times a 1911 .45 if CC fits my mood.


----------



## Dutch 106

Snerk so you guys, havn't heard of the guy who dumped 15 rounds of 380 out of a Browning BDA excellent little guns. The trouble is its a 380 a fellow was attacked with a knife, he dumped his whole magazine. into the bad guy at 5 feet (way to fn close) because The good guy was badly frightened and the bad guy just stood there. He cheated and practiced weekly. he ended putting all 15 rounds into the boiler room (9 inch circle center mass) The DA took one look and decided it was murder (good guy not the bad guy) and Massad Ayoub was called in to testify. and what finally convinced the jury he wasn't a murderer was when Mass told them a reasonably competent shooter could shoot all 15 rounds in 1.5 seconds and the good guy had been badly scared by the bady
I carry 45acp in 3 in mini's 41 mag in a snubby and now a 10mm which does hold 15 rounds. Which I'm more thinking of multiple badys. 2 rounds center mass and one to the forehead (yes really) each even that will be considered excessive by DA's who think bullets are magic and one handgun round always gets the job done (not even 45's can) 3 rounds in 45 with proper placement maybe , yes I said maybe. 380 not for my life!
Dutch


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Dutch 106 said:


> Snerk so you guys, havn't heard of the guy who dumped 15 rounds of 380 out of a Browning BDA excellent little guns. The trouble is its a 380 a fellow was attacked with a knife, he dumped his whole magazine. into the bad guy at 5 feet (way to fn close) because The good guy was badly frightened and the bad guy just stood there. He cheated and practiced weekly. he ended putting all 15 rounds into the boiler room (9 inch circle center mass) The DA took one look and decided it was murder (good guy not the bad guy) and Massad Ayoub was called in to testify. and what finally convinced the jury he wasn't a murderer was when Mass told them a reasonably competent shooter could shoot all 15 rounds in 1.5 seconds and the good guy had been badly scared by the bady
> I carry 45acp in 3 in mini's 41 mag in a snubby and now a 10mm which does hold 15 rounds. Which I'm more thinking of multiple badys. 2 rounds center mass and one to the forehead (yes really) each even that will be considered excessive by DA's who think bullets are magic and one handgun round always gets the job done (not even 45's can) 3 rounds in 45 with proper placement maybe , yes I said maybe. 380 not for my life!
> Dutch


I might be missing the point of your story. Am I reading right that the good guy got 15 rounds of .380 into a close-in bad guy, and was charged with murder (meaning those 15 hits killed him)?

If that’s the case, I think that was kind of the point of the last article Chuck posted. Because of its light recoil, a .380 can be fired pretty fast, giving you the possibility of a lot of hits (or misses) in a short period of time. 

Couple that with the fact that there is only one, very small shot-placement that results in instant incapacitation, even when the caliber is larger, incapacitation usually takes at least a second or two- in which time, according to Ayoob, a decent shooter can get off 15 rounds out of a .380.


----------



## big rockpile

What is kind of funny we are comparing defending and killing but we was trained to empty on the Bad Guy.

Interesting just Interesting!

big rockpile


----------



## snowbeast

Personally I would go with a 9mm - purely as it is the most common round in our village. This comes in handy when responding to something as you know your buddy has the same ammo as you.
Other than that I don't fall for the debates on what round does what damage. You shot, you are shot, a gun in hand is better than nothing.
If you and your wife decide to have different calibers you each are responsible for making sure you carry enough ammo for yourselves.

Personally I don't like revolvers, but it comes down to personal preference.
If you are happy with what you have use the money to get a bullet proof vest (not sure what your laws are, but we are allowed them in South Africa) and a good tactical bag that is comfortable and can carry a first aid kit, torch, spare ammo, batteries and what ever else you might need.
Living in the bush I personally carry pliers to cut fences and matches and a lighter in case I ever have t back burn a run away fire.

Your self defense loadout is really personal, what works for some, doesnt work for others.


----------



## GTX63

If there is a commonality among the threads, it might be the word preference.
First gun my wife had was a 1911 Browning in, wait for it....22LR.
She has weak hands and wrists and multiple heath issues. 22LR worked for her at the time and she progressed.
If you have a rock, you use it. If you have a knife you use it. If you can't hit your target with a 38 but you did with a 9, then go with the 9. 
I've seen too many husbands and boyfriends take women into a gun shop or range and immediately put a 45 or 357 in their hands. Those early experiences can ruin it for a newbie.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

big rockpile said:


> we was trained to empty on the Bad Guy.


Whoever told you that is a poor instructor.


----------



## Chuck R.

Bearfootfarm said:


> Whoever told you that is a poor instructor.


Agree, a lot of instructors now are stressing more "assessing" rather than going with "shooting them to the ground"..

From Grant Cunnigham:



> *Decision making while shooting*
> In a self defense shooting, there are several questions which the defender (you) needs to process in rapid succession:
> 
> Do I need to shoot this guy?
> Do I need to shoot this guy again?
> Do I need to keep shooting this guy?
> Do I need to stop shooting this guy?
> All of them require some specific information to answer, the most important being whether the opponent still poses a threat to your life. If he does, and the other elements of justifiable defense are in place, then you can decide whether to press the trigger.
> 
> This decision making takes a bit of time, and the decision to shoot (or shoot again) has been shown to happen significantly faster than the decision to stop shooting. What’s more, the difference between the two has shown to increase dramatically as the cadence of shooting increases.
> 
> In other words, the faster you pull the trigger the longer it will take you to stop shooting. Those rounds you fire between the time you need to stop shooting and the time that you actually do are the ones which dramatically increase your liability.
> 
> If you’re yanking the trigger as fast as you’re physically capable, it’s quite likely that your bullets will be leaving the muzzle at a greater rate than you can make the “stop” decision. I’ve come to believe that’s a very bad thing.


http://www.grantcunningham.com/2018/03/how-fast-should-you-shoot/

Here's another good one that deals with excessive number of shots:

https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/top-three-errors



> *Hayes:* The second issue is when they actually start firing the gun. Many people fire way too many shots, for a number of reasons. When that occurs, the individual starts reacting to being shot, they twist, turn and fall down. And, they are reacting to the first couple of shots, but it is shot number three or four that end up hitting him in the side or back. Were all those shots necessary? That’s unknown, but if the person had taken the time to actually aim the first one or two shots, instead of pointing the gun and yanking on the trigger, they might have just seen the person change their behavior and stop the attack. Shots in the back will very likely result in prosecution.
> 
> *eJournal:* Well, many drills and exercises literally train us for speed shooting. That is the part of most school standards.
> 
> *Hayes:* Yes, and I pull my hair out when I hear garbage like, “You have to get your shot to shot times down to two-tenth of a second splits.” Give me a break! This isn’t a darned IPSC match, you know, and you are not Rob Leatham. You don’t need sub-point-two-second splits. Every time you pull the trigger, it needs to be a purposeful act, not an ingrained habit.
> 
> *eJournal:* That’s worth the price of admission. Please say that again.
> 
> Hayes: Every time you pull the trigger, it needs to be a purposeful act, not an ingrained habit. Let me explain what I’m talking about. For many, many decades it was in vogue to teach, “If you have to shoot once, you have to shoot twice,” and the term “double tap” came about, and the term “controlled pair” came about, and the term “hammer” came about, as a result. That’s all good, and in fact there had been a whole shooting sport centered around two shots fired at each target. The general sport of practical shooting is that way and the individual disciplines of USPSA and IDPA shooting pretty much center around requiring two hits on each target all the time.
> 
> Well, I tell you, I run an IDPA club and most of the time in a given match, we have specified perhaps one shot required or maybe two shots or three shots, but we never have a match where it is always two shots required. Having said that, when I put a stage out where we are requiring three shots, so many times, I see people fire two and start to move to the next target, then they think, “Oh, yeah, I had to shoot a third time so they come back and shoot a third time. Or if only one shot is fired, they go ahead and fire two and sometimes they even pick up a time penalty because you are only supposed to shoot one shot. It has become an ingrained habit, when it really should not be.
> 
> Part of the problem–and I am going to get all kinds of hate mail on this but I don’t care–is that the people are shooting 9mms and because of their ease of being able to shoot that gun, they are going to shoot it a half a dozen times. I have personally gone away from using a 9mm. At one point I carried one on duty as a cop, but then the .40 caliber came out and I started carrying a .40 and recently, I switched over to a 10mm because if I have to shoot someone, I want to purposefully shoot him once maybe twice in the center of the chest or head and stop shooting. Here’s the deal—if two shots didn’t work, then three shots probably aren’t going to work, either. I will go ahead and stop and I am training myself to do that all the time. So, one shot, maybe two, but they are going to have to be purposeful acts.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Chuck R. said:


> Agree, a lot of instructors now are stressing more "assessing" rather than going with "shooting them to the ground"..
> 
> From Grant Cunnigham:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.grantcunningham.com/2018/03/how-fast-should-you-shoot/
> 
> Here's another good one that deals with excessive number of shots:
> 
> https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/top-three-errors


There’s both wisdom and some unrealistic conjecture in what Marty Hayes had to say there. 

Yes, every shot _should_ be a purposeful act, but, in a life or death situation, whether you’re trained and experienced in them or not, reaction and rationality can quickly get at odds with each other. 

Given human reaction time, compounded with the lock time of the weapon, and, moreso, the “lock time” of the human body, managing to not put a final round, or even two, into the side or back of an attacker can be very difficult. 

That’s not to say that walking up to a downed attacker and putting one more into the back of their head should ever be considered acceptable, but we shouldn’t drive the bar so high that a defender, in fear for their life, should be held accountable for what happens in the last 0.75 seconds of an active gun fight.


----------



## Chuck R.

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> There’s both wisdom and some unrealistic conjecture in what Marty Hayes had to say there.
> 
> Yes, every shot _should_ be a purposeful act, but, in a life or death situation, whether you’re trained and experienced in them or not, reaction and rationality can quickly get at odds with each other.
> 
> Given human reaction time, compounded with the lock time of the weapon, and, moreso, the “lock time” of the human body, managing to not put a final round, or even two, into the side or back of an attacker can be very difficult.
> 
> That’s not to say that walking up to a downed attacker and putting one more into the back of their head should ever be considered acceptable, but we shouldn’t drive the bar so high that a defender, in fear for their life, should be held accountable for what happens in the last 0.75 seconds of an active gun fight.


Agree 100%, sometimes (a lot of times) the writers come up with some unrealistic expectations. I do like the idea that he varies the round count for his IDPA stages rather than the normal "controlled pair" response that I see a lot of in IDPA and 3Gun. 

Back in MAR I took a Carbine class at the invite of a couple PDs down in SE KS. There were 4 of us Army types, 20+ LEOs and the instructor was a team leader with Memphis TN SWAT. The difference in the tgt engagements was kind of striking. Most of he time now soldiers are going with controlled pairs or hammers, whereas the LEOs predominately fired once then assessed. 

I think the gist of both articles was to get away from an ingrained auto response.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Chuck R. said:


> Agree 100%, sometimes (a lot of times) the writers come up with some unrealistic expectations. I do like the idea that he varies the round count for his IDPA stages rather than the normal "controlled pair" response that I see a lot of in IDPA and 3Gun.
> 
> Back in MAR I took a Carbine class at the invite of a couple PDs down in SE KS. There were 4 of us Army types, 20+ LEOs and the instructor was a team leader with Memphis TN SWAT. The difference in the tgt engagements was kind of striking. Most of he time now soldiers are going with controlled pairs or hammers, whereas the LEOs predominately fired once then assessed.
> 
> I think the gist of both articles was to get away from an ingrained auto response.


That illustrates a shortcoming with competition targetry for practical training (not that any competition scenario can ever replicate the real thing)- there’s no good way to do threat assessment. Yes, you can try to count your bullet holes and back-figure your score, but that’s an entirely different brain function than the one involved with assessing when a threat has ended.

A buddy and I came up with an awesome prac-app target one day on the range when our clients’ flight got delayed and we had nothing better to do. We had a acoustic frame set up and the software reported score according to conventional rings. My buddy made a quick bit of code on the reporting software that applied a random multiplier to the score before adding it to the running total.

We came up with an arbitrary number that meant “dead”, and we took turns drilling the target until the other guy saw the dead-score surpassed, and hit the stopwatch.


We were shooting long range, but bring that back to carbine/pistol range, and make a few other changes, and it could be the coolest 3-gun targetry ever.

Replicate the acoustic frame cheap enough to put several targets on a stage, and rig the top of the frame with a red and a green light. When the red light is lit, the target is still a threat. Each hit is worth a point value according to where it is on the target, but each shot has a random multiplier, so you couldn’t game it, and know that, say, one head shot is dead. You keep drilling the target until the light turns green. Shots fired after green decrease your score.


----------



## big rockpile

Bearfootfarm said:


> Whoever told you that is a poor instructor.


Interesting it was Law Enforcement.

My wife did come up with something yesterday. The Guy trying to sell me the 9MM only had one thing in mind, commission on a $500 Pistol.

big rockpile


----------



## big rockpile

Ok rethinking this. Do with a Pistol like I would with any other weapon, know it will kill or put down. Let it have a chance to do its Job.

But this in mind, put a round in Bad Guy, backing up, if they continue to come put another round in. 

big rockpile


----------



## Bearfootfarm

big rockpile said:


> Interesting it was Law Enforcement.


That doesn't mean they aren't stupid.
LEO's are still human.

A smart LEO would have told you to stop shooting once the threat was ended.


----------



## Chuck R.

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> That illustrates a shortcoming with competition targetry for practical training (not that any competition scenario can ever replicate the real thing)- there’s no good way to do threat assessment. Yes, you can try to count your bullet holes and back-figure your score, but that’s an entirely different brain function than the one involved with assessing when a threat has ended.
> 
> A buddy and I came up with an awesome prac-app target one day on the range when our clients’ flight got delayed and we had nothing better to do. We had a acoustic frame set up and the software reported score according to conventional rings. My buddy made a quick bit of code on the reporting software that applied a random multiplier to the score before adding it to the running total.
> 
> We came up with an arbitrary number that meant “dead”, and we took turns drilling the target until the other guy saw the dead-score surpassed, and hit the stopwatch.
> 
> 
> We were shooting long range, but bring that back to carbine/pistol range, and make a few other changes, and it could be the coolest 3-gun targetry ever.
> 
> Replicate the acoustic frame cheap enough to put several targets on a stage, and rig the top of the frame with a red and a green light. When the red light is lit, the target is still a threat. Each hit is worth a point value according to where it is on the target, but each shot has a random multiplier, so you couldn’t game it, and know that, say, one head shot is dead. You keep drilling the target until the light turns green. Shots fired after green decrease your score.


Excellent concept!! I really like tgts that get to a cognitive process.

I use a cheaper-simpler solution that I picked up in a defensive pistol class when working in a shoot house. The instructors had knockdown tgts that were hidden behind silhouettes that were also covered with T shirts providing no clear aim point. Behind the silhouette was either a 6" steel plate COM, 4" steel plate behind the head, or both. The tgts were calibrated to require either multiple hits to knock down, a single hit, or a single head shot. The concept was to teach a non-standard response and also failure drills. Basically you shot until the tgt went down and was no longer a threat.

For a lot of the students it was an eye opening experience as they'd engage a TGT COM and either not hit rapidly enough to take the tgt down, miss entirely, then they'd transition to a head shot with a non-existent steel plate behind it. Lot of frustration and students not finishing the exercise due to running out of ammo.

After that I bought a commercial version for my range:


























I also added an "Ocular cavity" plate for the head shot (3" triangular plate) and the printable faces for aiming point. It can also be easily calibrated to take multiple hits, but a single ocular cavity shot will take it down.


----------



## Dutch 106

Snerk, The difference 40 years makes. 40 years ago they told you to shoot till the bad guy went down! The current legal thoughts is that you shoot and look, then decide if you will shoot again! Legal is an ass. Why I train to engage each target with three rounds. and insist on using a heavy caliber, that might each get the job done. So your both right within your training parameters!
Dutch


----------



## Fishindude

Can't tell you how many times I've been in this debate, yet I still generally pack a semi auto .22 rimfire.
#1 The chance of myself getting into a life or death gun battle is about as high as it is of meeting Elvis.
#2 Since I have that .22 on hand frequently I tend to shoot it a lot because it's cheap and there are many opportunities to plink with a .22, not as easy to do with bigger pistols.
#3 I'll probably be able to hit what I'm aiming at with the .22 since it's so familiar.
#4 I've got ten shots, take two or three .22 rimfire slugs anywhere in your body and then tell me how much more you want to keep fighting.

I'm sure I would feel differently if I was in law enforcement or living in Afghanistan, but that isn't the case.


----------



## muleskinner2

Fishindude said:


> Can't tell you how many times I've been in this debate, yet I still generally pack a semi auto .22 rimfire.
> #1 The chance of myself getting into a life or death gun battle is about as high as it is of meeting Elvis.
> #2 Since I have that .22 on hand frequently I tend to shoot it a lot because it's cheap and there are many opportunities to plink with a .22, not as easy to do with bigger pistols.
> #3 I'll probably be able to hit what I'm aiming at with the .22 since it's so familiar.
> #4 I've got ten shots, take two or three .22 rimfire slugs anywhere in your body and then tell me how much more you want to keep fighting.
> 
> I'm sure I would feel differently if I was in law enforcement or living in Afghanistan, but that isn't the case.


If you are walking across the parking lot of your local shopping mall and three gang bangers confront you and threaten your life. For the next ten or fifteen seconds you might as well be in Afghanistan. I have been in war zones, and I have been in large cities. I prefer the war zones, they are safer.


----------



## flewism

I still like my 9's cheap to shoot and some fairly decent hollow points.


----------



## Fishindude

muleskinner2 said:


> If you are walking across the parking lot of your local shopping mall and three gang bangers confront you and threaten your life. For the next ten or fifteen seconds you might as well be in Afghanistan. I have been in war zones, and I have been in large cities. I prefer the war zones, they are safer.


Living where we do in small town rural midwest, we don't even have gang bangers. Might run across a mean dog sometime?
However, when we go to a large metro area, this is where situational awareness comes in to play. Be aware and avoid the hazard.


----------



## muleskinner2

Fishindude said:


> Living where we do in small town rural midwest, we don't even have gang bangers. Might run across a mean dog sometime?
> However, when we go to a large metro area, this is where situational awareness comes in to play. Be aware and avoid the hazard.


You are right, situational awareness is more important than any weapon you might be carrying. Your weapon is for the times when situational awareness isn't enough. If you live in any town in the united states, you have gangbangers. The Crips control the drug trafficking in Iowa. I am pretty sure that Iowa is in the midwest.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

Living in a small town in the Midwest with a state highway through it , I have no illusions bad people drive past nearly every day .

a short talk with the local police definitely confirms it.


----------



## big rockpile

Summer we have several thousand more in our area from the Cities. Plus Meth is Big around here.

I have loaded with Full Metal Jacket but went to Hollow Points. I found I like my Pistol more than my wife's. Slide Locks back when Empty and less Trigger pull.

Went to Hollow Points after seeing what they will do to a small Tree. Plus it was brought up Sights, in a Defensive situation, most times Sights are not used and really not needed because it will be so close.

big rockpile


----------



## Bearfootfarm

big rockpile said:


> most times Sights are not used and really *not needed* because it will be so close.


Sights should always be used when possible.

Thinking they aren't needed is why so many people miss, even up close.


----------



## Chuck R.

Bearfootfarm said:


> Sights should always be used when possible.
> 
> Thinking they aren't needed is why so many people miss, even up close.


Agree 100%

Go to any "tactical" style match and you'll see folks miss up close targets or achieve marginal hits. All it take is the little pressure that a timer and an audience provides. Yesterday I shot a local 3GUN match, and I screwed up a couple up close tgts with both pistol and carbine.

Last year I took a Pincus "Fight Focused Concept" pistol class which focused on "intuitive shooting", not the standard "front sight press focus". Guess what, we spent quite a bit of time working precision shots and using sights. As Pincus put it, sights are a function of "time and distance". IF you have both, then by all means use your sights.

I do "OK" with the non-sighted stuff up close, but for me that's a functionality of familiarization with the pistol. I shoot quite a bit (+20K in pistol alone annually) and there's a couple of my guns that even in matches up close I'm "pointing" rather than aiming. But, there's a lot of folks that don't get that much practice in and would be better off going to their sights.

A really good drill to get to the concept of "enough sights" or as one instructor put it "seeing what you need to see" is a modified "El Presidente:


White, blue, then yellow 8" plates


















I generally run it on steel just cause it's faster than scoring and pasting. Normally the drill is 3 targets with a lateral spread only. I add the depth to get to the concept of how much sight you have to use to make your hits. Basically, start facing up range in a surrender position, at the buzzer turn and engage each tgt 2 rds, reload and work your way back. When I miss, it's usually the middle tgt as that's the transition point when I've transition from more speed, less sights to having to put more sights into it and I screw it up. For the back tgt I'm normally taking more time and focusing hard on sights.


----------



## royB

Bearfootfarm said:


> A smart LEO would have told you to stop shooting once the threat was ended.


There were 2 things drilled into us for our carry permit - end the threat, and carry what you can shoot proficiently. It doesn't matter if a .44 will do more damage if you can't hit the target. I have a 40, 357, and 9. I carry the 9 most since it is lighter. I prefer the 40 because it is a smoother recoil, but the 357 will certainly do the job! Added plus, those are all common calibers so ammo is not too bad and easy to find (if I need to find it)


----------



## Shrek

I carry my 6 shot Colt in my pocket holster and my .22 magnum derringer or minimag revolver in my shirt pocket. Amusing part is the times I have had to palm a piece due to potential danger, I have drawn my shirt pocket hide out .22 once or twice more in the 36 years I have carried.

I load both pistols with hollow points and on my last range outing I was able to group the little .22 with a 5 out of 6 rounds in a 6 inch bulls eye at 10 yards with one shot a half inch out of the bull and I got all six of the .38 rounds of my 3 inch barrel Colt in the bulls eye at a little more than 20 yards.


----------



## flewism

I'm sticking with my 9's, S&W shields as my carry weapons, I can hit what I aim at quickly with them, that's all that counts and know them very well.
Wife carries an air-weight in .38,
I have a LCP in .380 and I can't hit squat with it, must be my fat fingers, but the wife likes to shoot it but like to carry revolvers.


----------



## big rockpile

Just heard something that scares me. Know this Guy that has abused his Mom for years. He just bought a Pistol.

This same Guy told my wife if she ever turned him in for dealing drugs he would kill her. 

big rockpile


----------



## muleskinner2

big rockpile said:


> Just heard something that scares me. Know this Guy that has abused his Mom for years. He just bought a Pistol.
> 
> This same Guy told my wife if she ever turned him in for dealing drugs he would kill her.
> 
> big rockpile


Turn him in, make sure the threat goes in the report. When he shows up at your house, dump him.


----------



## markt1

I own a an old H&R 22LR revolver, a 1968 Colt Detective revolver, a 1911 45ACP pistol, and a 454 Casull Magnum revolver. Have owned a 357 Magnum revolver and a 44 Magnum revolver in the past. It's my opinion that the 9mm is marginal in all but the very best hollow point cartridges. Google the 1986 Miami FBI Shootout. One bad guy took a dozen 9mm hits before croaking. Two agents were killed and five wounded. The FBI immediately changed their weapons. For situations without a coat or jacket, I carry my Colt revolver with original Hydro-shock bullets that are plastic coated lead hollow points, the only ammo I would trust to expand in a 38 snubby. With a jacket or unbuttoned long-tail shirt, I carry a the 45 pistol in a minimal belt loop holster using Winchester's deadly Ranger RA45T hollow points that are difficult to find since Winchester's policy is to only sell them to law enforcement. Weak cartridges such as the 380 may require many shots to stop the attacker. If you ever are charged in court by an over zealous prosecutor, quite possibly he will use the multiple shots to claim you were intending the attacker to die, which is a murder charge. Politically far better to use a bullet more likely to stop the attacker with a single shot. Like a 45ACP hollow point or a 125 grain 357 Mag hollow point. Yet you can't use a 44 Magnum or a 454 Magnum, dirty harry notwithstanding. The recoil on such powerful cartridges prevents rapid follow up shots. If two guys rush you at close range, you might destroy the first one, but you'll still be pulling the gun down when the second attacker reaches you. The 357 may be a bit much for a new gun owner, but female Marines have never had a problem using 45ACPs. Go with a lightweight 4.25" barreled 1911 45ACP pistol if you want to be serious about your survival.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

you can call it marginal , but hits matter misses don't unless you hit something of importance that wasn't your target.

9, 40, 45 all bring virtually the same energy to a fight like wise data is showing us they are about equally effective against bear attack. https://www.ammoland.com/2018/02/de...s-rate-37-incidents-by-caliber/#axzz5cQpSi3tV

they are the 3 most common carried calibers in law enforcement we could argue all day about 9 vs 40 vs 45 but the actual results keeps showing us multiple hits with good shot placement is a better deciding factor in a fight than bullet size or weight and their velocity is so close it is almost null in the argument.

so the gun and caliber you shoot the best and can get shots on target the fastest with and with the best accuracy at that fast speed , one handed , weak hand, standing on one foot leaning out around cover.


----------



## LT2108

I carry a .45 everywhere I go

G30SF


----------



## bobp

Bottom line use the largest caliber you can safely and accurately use.

If, and i mean IF, i were to be a hand gun toter id carry a 44......if you hit center theres only going to be one story to write down......

Honestly a short 12ga, with buckshot leaned up by the night stand is the obvious choice...


----------



## Grey Mare

I carry a concealed Glock 19 .9mm. I am accurate with it, practice often and carry when I am out and about in town.


----------



## wannabfarmer

I have either a S&W 9mm 2.0 or a S&W shield in a .45. both are great for carry. .38 is fine. I agree shot placement is key not so much the round. I own more 9mm so I really have no reason to buy a .38 to carry but i'm not against it. I like buying multiple guns but sticking to only a few different types of rounds. I only use 4 types of ammo as they are what I've gotten comfortable shooting so I stick to what I know. I also want to eventually start reloading so the less styles of rounds I have to make the better. i'm glad the 7.62 is becoming more popular and more platforms are starting to support it.


----------

