• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Searching for the Ultimate Fighting Handgun

DevinWKuska

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
300
Location
Spanaway
As to the gangbangers preference, I'm sure that has more to do with how cheap the rounds are than it does their effectiveness as a fighting round. You're also talking about guys who shoot worse than the Taliban and have really taken to heart the policy of spraying and praying. From the sheer number of rounds that they expend they'd be bound to hit something.

Ever been to say... seattle? Los Angelas? There are some gangs locally that have gotten a reputation for being surgical shots! I have a coworker who is a volunteer EMT who will vouch that he has seen "Sniper like" shots from gangmembers at police and EMT's trying to save a wounded rival gangmember. Perphaps you have been too influenced by TV?
 
Last edited:

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
"Or talk to trauma unit surgeons in major cities. They will tell you that they get tens of times more DOAs and victims that arrive with a "condition incompatible with life" suffering from small-caliber gunshot wounds (.22, .25, .32) than all the large-caliber pistol rounds combined..."

100% correct. 5 yrs, working X-rays in a trauma center that avg'd 4-6 gunshot victims per night taught me this. THE SINGLE most frequently-fatal round used in street shootings was the .25 acp fired from Ravens. Hands -down.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
MIB.jpeg


I can't believe no one has mentioned this one yet.
 
Last edited:

cmdr_iceman71

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
409
Location
Detroit, Michigan, USA
Remember how New Orleans descended into chaos where there were roving bands of thugs armed with guns, edged weapons, and clubs looting and raping as they pleased?

I asked myself if I were pinned down by such a group in my home, in the streets, or had to go inside a building to stop a rape in progress against multiple threats what handgun would I want at my side to augment my assault rifle?

And Dreamer, youre correct I understand that the deadliest weapon in combat isn't the gun per se but the human mind that is wielding it.
 

ABNinfantryman

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
204
Location
Columbus, Georgia, United States
Ever been to say... seattle? Los Angelas? There are some gangs locally that have gotten a reputation for being surgical shots! I have a coworker who is a volunteer EMT who will vouch that he has seen "Sniper like" shots from gangmembers at police and EMT's trying to save a wounded rival gangmember. Perphaps you have been too influenced by TV?

I lived in Los Angeles for four years when I was in high school, hated every minute of it.

I still maintain that their preference for smaller caliber rounds has to do with the cost of said rounds. $30 buys you either 500 rounds of .22lr or 150 rounds of 9mm. Regardless, my point still stands as not a single one of you has said it's your preferred caliber. Would I use a small caliber weapon if nothing else was available, yes. However I would not consider it the ultimate fighting pistol. The FN FiveseveN would get the nod before any other small caliber.
 

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
I dont think anyone is saying .22/.25 would be their primary choice.Just that it's not a round to under-estimate. Lots have done so, and paid for it. But as a last-ditch BUG, or the only thing at hand when Murphy drops in on us (at time a place you nor I get any choice in,usually), it'll do what it needs to, if the shooter does what THEY need to.

As for gangsters' use of em- ya mostly down to cost, etc. The whole "Saturday Night Special" bit, with .25s/ .22's being available for cheap as heck- compared to 9's , etc.

But Sam Colt nailed it back around 1870 with the "long" load, John Browning re-confirmed it back around 1900 with the ACP load, and almost every gunfight that used either has been proving it beyond a doubt ever since.

And lots of test data bear it out as well.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot28.htm

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/thebuickotruth.htm
 
Last edited:

ABNinfantryman

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
204
Location
Columbus, Georgia, United States

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
However I would not consider it the ultimate fighting pistol. The FN FiveseveN would get the nod before any other small caliber.


The point I'm trying to make is not to defend small-caliber rounds...

The point I'm trying to make is to say the CONCEPT of an "ultimate fighting pistol" is absurd. It's like a bunch of artists standing around arguing over which company's watercolors will produce the next masterpiece.

It's the BRAIN (and it's skills, training, and ability to problem solve) behind the weapon that ultimately matters...

Good tools won't make a bad carpenter a master cabinet maker, but a master can make a masterpiece with a $5 pocketknife...

Good tools are nice (I own a lot of them). They make it easier to do a quality job. But the ultimate outcome of any task is MUCH more dependent on the brain operating that tool, than the tool itself.

That's my point...
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
ABNinfantryman;1485953I still maintain that their preference for smaller caliber rounds has to do with the cost of said rounds. $30 buys you either 500 rounds of .22lr or 150 rounds of 9mm.[/QUOTE said:
Listen to your own logic...

Here we have a gun that is:
--inexpensive,
--used ridiculously inexpensive ammo,
--is small, light and easy to carry,
--and according to trauma staff in hospitals, creates more dead victims than any other caliber.

Why would you NOT consider this an effective weapon.

Who are you gonna believe, a bunch of egg-head engineers shooting into blocks of Jello, who are being paid to come up with data to support the claims of their employers--the manufacturers of high-priced, expensive-ammo-eating firearms....

Or an ever-growing stack of dead bodies with.25 and .22 sized holes in them?

Do the math, folks...

Anyone who says that, all other variables aside, one gun (or caliber) is "more effective" than any other has either got something to sell you, or has no clue as to the reality of the physiological implications of gunshot trauma.
 

irish52084

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Messages
285
Location
Puyallup< WA
Do the math, folks...

Anyone who says that, all other variables aside, one gun (or caliber) is "more effective" than any other has either got something to sell you, or has no clue as to the reality of the physiological implications of gunshot trauma.

I have a small disagreement with this last part. I agree that caliber choice is pretty nil when we're talking about 9mm compared to 45 or 10mm or whatever other popular defensive caliber. That said, a 45 caliber hole is still larger than a .355 hole made by a 9mm, so in a purely mathematical instance the 45 caliber is slightly more effective or at least has a slightly larger chance of hitting a vital area.

I personally believe that, caliber wise, 9mm is my minimum caliber and I do carry a 9mm about 50% of the time. If I could get a 45 with 18+ capacity and a grip the size of my 9mm, that's what I would carry, because math says it might be slightly more effective.

You are correct that training and mindset are more important than what gun you carry, and I agree with you 100%. A trained person is at a huge advantage in a fight versus an untrained opponent. There is no dispute for me about that.
 

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
"Anyone who says that, all other variables aside, one gun (or caliber) is "more effective" than any other has either got something to sell you, or has no clue as to the reality of the physiological implications of gunshot trauma. "

Yes, and no. My other point on the sheer amount of fatalities w/ those rounds was that was one of the rounds most often-used in those shootings. They could well have all used .32 acp or .380 acp and one of those rounds may well be the most often fatal as well.
BUT- the #2 most-often encountered round used was the 9mm, of course. And here is the significant difference. There were far LESS fatalities resulting from 9mm per usage, than was the case with .25 acp.
Why? Whole bunch of different factors, including shot-placement-BUT even "properly" placed 9mm hits failed more often than not,wheras the .25 did not.
 

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
I have a small disagreement with this last part. I agree that caliber choice is pretty nil when we're talking about 9mm compared to 45 or 10mm or whatever other popular defensive caliber. That said, a 45 caliber hole is still larger than a .355 hole made by a 9mm, so in a purely mathematical instance the 45 caliber is slightly more effective or at least has a slightly larger chance of hitting a vital area.

I personally believe that, caliber wise, 9mm is my minimum caliber and I do carry a 9mm about 50% of the time. If I could get a 45 with 18+ capacity and a grip the size of my 9mm, that's what I would carry, because math says it might be slightly more effective.

You are correct that training and mindset are more important than what gun you carry, and I agree with you 100%. A trained person is at a huge advantage in a fight versus an untrained opponent. There is no dispute for me about that.

Good points on both ends of that-the big thing being that ALL of it is a combination of factors. BUT- just on the hardware end alone, there are phyiscally significant differences in how the different rounds effect things.

Example-even if we exclude exotic or even HP rounds for 9mm/.40/.45 - and just go with FMJ in each type- the bigger,heavier, slower rounds are going to be less prone to deflection, fragmentation,etc. than will the lighter, faster rounds. Some of the tests I linked earlier demonstrate this very well.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Listen to your own logic...

Here we have a gun that is:
--inexpensive,
--used ridiculously inexpensive ammo,
--is small, light and easy to carry,
--and according to trauma staff in hospitals, creates more dead victims than any other caliber.

Why would you NOT consider this an effective weapon.

Who are you gonna believe, a bunch of egg-head engineers shooting into blocks of Jello, who are being paid to come up with data to support the claims of their employers--the manufacturers of high-priced, expensive-ammo-eating firearms....

Or an ever-growing stack of dead bodies with.25 and .22 sized holes in them?

Do the math, folks...

Anyone who says that, all other variables aside, one gun (or caliber) is "more effective" than any other has either got something to sell you, or has no clue as to the reality of the physiological implications of gunshot trauma.

You're conflating statistical efficacy with the effective potential of a single round. I'm sure you know that, but it's apples and oranges.

While arming my Fantasy Gang for my Fantasy Gang League, I will consider the .25 caliber.

When arming myself, I have different considerations to make.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
That said, a 45 caliber hole is still larger than a .355 hole made by a 9mm, so in a purely mathematical instance the 45 caliber is slightly more effective or at least has a slightly larger chance of hitting a vital area.


In the hands of someone who can't shoot, a .45acp is NO MORE LIKELY to hit a target than a .22. Period. To say otherwise shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the principles of probability, statistics, and the mechanics of firearms.

But in the hands of Jerry Miculik or Bob Munden, a Ruger Single Six (.22lr) would kill you just a dead as a .45Long Colt...

End of discussion...

And THAT is the point I'm attempting to make here.

It's not the gun or the bullets. It's the brain behind them that is the "ultimate" part of this equation...

You guys are using the same argument that the "antis" use--that it's the GUN and the BULLETS that are responsible for the damage they cause--NOT the people pulling the trigger!

Get on the right team, folks--STOP arguing for the anti's side...

If you're going to be a pro-2A activist, y'all need to STOP thinking like statistics-obsessed, test-bench worshiping geeks, and START thinking about the language you use, the way you address issues, and the public perception of the things you discuss.

Because EVERYTHING you say can and will be used against you...
 
Last edited:

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
In the hands of someone who can't shoot, a .45acp is NO MORE LIKELY to hit a target than a .22. Period. To say otherwise shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the principles of probability, statistics, and the mechanics of firearms.

But in the hands of Jerry Miculik or Bob Munden, a Ruger Single Six (.22lr) would kill you just a dead as a .45Long Colt...

End of discussion...

And THAT is the point I'm attempting to make here.

It's not the gun or the bullets. It's the brain behind them that is the "ultimate" part of this equation...

You guys are using the same argument that the "antis" use--that it's the GUN and the BULLETS that are responsible for the damage they cause--NOT the people pulling the trigger!

Get on the right team, folks--STOP arguing for the anti's side...

If you're going to be a pro-2A activist, y'all need to STOP thinking like statistics-obsessed, test-bench worshiping geeks, and START thinking about the language you use, the way you address issues, and the public perception of the things you discuss.

Because EVERYTHING you say can and will be used against you...


Well, err ya, we consider that ^^^ to be a given. Hence we practice and train and equip to ( hopefully) be on the better side of the outcome. Let John Q. Gangbanger flail away with the .22/.25/9mm...I intend to try to place my big, slow, .45 -bore slugs where they need to go-while doing what they are designed to do.
 

irish52084

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Messages
285
Location
Puyallup< WA
In the hands of someone who can't shoot, a .45acp is NO MORE LIKELY to hit a target than a .22. Period. To say otherwise shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the principles of probability, statistics, and the mechanics of firearms.

But in the hands of Jerry Miculik or Bob Munden, a Ruger Single Six (.22lr) would kill you just a dead as a .45Long Colt...

End of discussion...

And THAT is the point I'm attempting to make here.

It's not the gun or the bullets. It's the brain behind them that is the "ultimate" part of this equation...

You guys are using the same argument that the "antis" use--that it's the GUN and the BULLETS that are responsible for the damage they cause--NOT the people pulling the trigger!

Get on the right team, folks--STOP arguing for the anti's side...

If you're going to be a pro-2A activist, y'all need to STOP thinking like statistics-obsessed, test-bench worshiping geeks, and START thinking about the language you use, the way you address issues, and the public perception of the things you discuss.

Because EVERYTHING you say can and will be used against you...

I never said anything about placement in my earlier post. I said that because a 45 caliber hole is bigger than a 9mm hole it is more likely to hit a vital area based off diameter. If a bullet of .355 caliber misses the central nervous system of an attacker by .075 inches and a .45 caliber bullet enters through the same spot as the 9mm it will hit the CNS due to it's larger diameter. Math wins in this scenario, assuming all things are equal and in a vacuum.
 

ABNinfantryman

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
204
Location
Columbus, Georgia, United States
Listen to your own logic...

Here we have a gun that is:
--inexpensive,
--used ridiculously inexpensive ammo,
--is small, light and easy to carry,
--and according to trauma staff in hospitals, creates more dead victims than any other caliber.

Why would you NOT consider this an effective weapon.

Now you're just starting to irritate me. I don't know how many times I have to say that I AGREE WITH YOU that it is an effective weapon, BUT I don't consider it the ULTIMATE FIGHTING GUN.

Who are you gonna believe, a bunch of egg-head engineers shooting into blocks of Jello, who are being paid to come up with data to support the claims of their employers--the manufacturers of high-priced, expensive-ammo-eating firearms....

Or an ever-growing stack of dead bodies with.25 and .22 sized holes in them?

Do the math, folks...

Anyone who says that, all other variables aside, one gun (or caliber) is "more effective" than any other has either got something to sell you, or has no clue as to the reality of the physiological implications of gunshot trauma.

Now let me flip experiences with .22 caliber rounds, seeing as how I have a great deal of experience of actually using it in a combat environment along with the 7.62/.308 and the .50 BMG. I have seen with my own two eyes Taliban fighters take multiple 5.56 rounds center mass and not go down, from M4/M16s to M249 SAWs. On the flip side, I have not seen a single individual who was shot by a 7.62 round, either from an M14/M21/M24 or an M240B MG continue to fight. I don't need an engineer to tell me this, I've seen it. In fact you probably have to. Ever seen that video of the Iraqi standing in the middle of the road with an RPG and get shot? He was shot with a SAW, twice. The first burst riddled him in the legs and abdomen, he didn't go down until the second burst caught him in the head.

You're using the Soviet definition of effective, that being to get as much lead down range as possible, which is actually counter to your argument of shot placement. The reason they're effective is through sheer volume of rounds fired, because like you said your EMT buddy said, they would dig out multiple rounds from one vic. I would consider the ultimate fighting gun to be a gun which is controllable, accurate, and can statistically deliver a round capable of knocking down an individual in one shot. Are there stories of, say, a .45 round not putting someone down, yes, but they're fewer than a .22 or even a 9mm.

One last thing,

or has no clue as to the reality of the physiological implications of gunshot trauma.

Ever been shot? Ever seen someone shot? Ever had your fingers in a bullet wound?
 
Top