TrailRunner
Regular Member
Ultimate Fighting Handgun? I don't think it exists. Handguns are defensive tools, and none of us are in an action movie.
-
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.
-
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
- Thread starter cmdr_iceman71
- Start date
Aknazer
Regular Member
Another thing with the .22 is this that just because it might kill more people doesn't mean that it stopped them at the scene of the shooting. Something like the .22 "can" kill instantly with proper shot placement, it's far more likely to cause death by simply simply bouncing around inside of a victim and causing mortal wounds. The issue here is that the "victim" is likely still able to fire back even if they are mortally wounded.
So yes something like a .22 can be deadly, but that doesn't make it a viable option when you're looking for something that has both stopping power and is fatal. And the fact is, the larger the round the more stopping power you have and the less accurate you need to be. Now sure you need to train with your weapon but the truth is that shooting in a hostile situation is FAR different than shooting at your range. I mean real people move, stress affects your accuracy, drugs can make someone stand when a normal person would be on the ground, and a myrad of other things that can cause a good shooter to not place their shots exactly where they want them to be or for the enemy to go down right away. And that means the larger round is what you want to make sure the person goes down even when your placement isn't 100% perfect.
So yes something like a .22 can be deadly, but that doesn't make it a viable option when you're looking for something that has both stopping power and is fatal. And the fact is, the larger the round the more stopping power you have and the less accurate you need to be. Now sure you need to train with your weapon but the truth is that shooting in a hostile situation is FAR different than shooting at your range. I mean real people move, stress affects your accuracy, drugs can make someone stand when a normal person would be on the ground, and a myrad of other things that can cause a good shooter to not place their shots exactly where they want them to be or for the enemy to go down right away. And that means the larger round is what you want to make sure the person goes down even when your placement isn't 100% perfect.
Dreamer
Regular Member
I can see that not one single word of what I've been saying is getting through to any of you guys, so I'm going to try a different strategy to get my point across...
All the dick-waving, big-caliber posturing and "I've been in the **** and you haven't" chest thumping don't mean didn't squat in a real-world self-defense situation.
What matters is training and competency.
If someone is carrying a .44 magnum with +P+ loads behind the most state-of-the-art hyper-expanding hollowpoints, it won't matter diddle-squat if they don't hit the target.
But if someone is carrying a .25acp when the SHTF because that is all they are comfortable carrying and practicing with, and they DO practice and train with it, and are GOOD with it, and they can get two shots off in under 2 seconds and "hit the mark", then THAT is the "ultimate fighting gun" for that person.
And I strongly doubt a dead BG with 2 .25 slugs in him is going to say "gee it's a good thing she wasn't carrying a .44 Magnum..."
GUNS and BULLETS don't kill people on their own.
It is the BRAIN and BODY that is utilizing the tools that makes the decisions, operates the tool, and pulls the trigger.
Without a trained, competent PERSON in the equation the idea of an "ultimate fighting gun" is simply absurd. Wthout a PERSON to pull the trigger, all guns are just a fancy bit of machinery sitting on a table, and all ammo is just a little brass can filled with combustible material, capped off with lead and copper.
The "ultimate fighting weapon" is the BRAIN. anything else we put into that equation--gun, ammo, knife, sword, staff, axe, light sabre, whatever--is merely a TOOL by which the REAL "ultimate fighting weapon" may exercise it's will...
That is the point...
All the dick-waving, big-caliber posturing and "I've been in the **** and you haven't" chest thumping don't mean didn't squat in a real-world self-defense situation.
What matters is training and competency.
If someone is carrying a .44 magnum with +P+ loads behind the most state-of-the-art hyper-expanding hollowpoints, it won't matter diddle-squat if they don't hit the target.
But if someone is carrying a .25acp when the SHTF because that is all they are comfortable carrying and practicing with, and they DO practice and train with it, and are GOOD with it, and they can get two shots off in under 2 seconds and "hit the mark", then THAT is the "ultimate fighting gun" for that person.
And I strongly doubt a dead BG with 2 .25 slugs in him is going to say "gee it's a good thing she wasn't carrying a .44 Magnum..."
GUNS and BULLETS don't kill people on their own.
It is the BRAIN and BODY that is utilizing the tools that makes the decisions, operates the tool, and pulls the trigger.
Without a trained, competent PERSON in the equation the idea of an "ultimate fighting gun" is simply absurd. Wthout a PERSON to pull the trigger, all guns are just a fancy bit of machinery sitting on a table, and all ammo is just a little brass can filled with combustible material, capped off with lead and copper.
The "ultimate fighting weapon" is the BRAIN. anything else we put into that equation--gun, ammo, knife, sword, staff, axe, light sabre, whatever--is merely a TOOL by which the REAL "ultimate fighting weapon" may exercise it's will...
That is the point...
Nevada carrier
Regular Member
I agree with the poster who recommended either the M1911 or the M9.
I think had it not been for NATO wanting the US to conform to their standards, we might very well still be issuing M1911's for the same reason the M16 has been in service for so long. Military armorers know how to work on them and if a part breaks or wears out, it's less likely to box the whole gun. The service life of an M1911 was in the hundreds of thousands of rounds before it became cheaper to replace than to repair. How many other firearms can make that claim?
Are there designs that offer easier take down and assembly? yes. Are there designs that are lighter? yes. Are there designs that carry more rounds yes. But none of them offer a service life that compares and none of them I would trust with my life in combat. In combat though, your are maintaining your firearms every day, if not more often. You are constantly training and identifying problems with your equipment (PMCS) so that you know it will work when your life depends on it. In the civilian world there are many makes that I can trust my life with. But then again, my civilian arms are not subject to the same abuses that they would be in combat, therefor I can put more faith that they will work the same as the last time I went to the range. You better believe I perform a function check on every service ready firearm I own weekly. I like to do this on Mondays simply because Monday was PMCS day in the ARMY. The firearm I happen to carry gets PCCed and PCIed before I leave home with it.
To be honest though, if the decision to abandon the 1911 was unavoidable, the M9 is a great option for the same reasons I gave for the M1911. Parts are easily replaceable, and it has a very long service life. The US military likes all their equipment to be designed to have parts that wear be replaceable rather than having to replace the whole unit just because one part failed. One of the reasons is that there are huge differences in the costs associated with a Mil-spec M9 and a Beretta 92. Operationally these are the same, but every part in an M9 has to meet a much higher standard than the 92 and thus the entire unit is much more expensive. You can get into big trouble for putting ordinary consumer parts into military equipment. Ordinary consumer products similar to mil spec counterparts are not expected to be subject to the same abuses. This is why the military spends thousands on things most people think are worth only a fraction of the price.
I think had it not been for NATO wanting the US to conform to their standards, we might very well still be issuing M1911's for the same reason the M16 has been in service for so long. Military armorers know how to work on them and if a part breaks or wears out, it's less likely to box the whole gun. The service life of an M1911 was in the hundreds of thousands of rounds before it became cheaper to replace than to repair. How many other firearms can make that claim?
Are there designs that offer easier take down and assembly? yes. Are there designs that are lighter? yes. Are there designs that carry more rounds yes. But none of them offer a service life that compares and none of them I would trust with my life in combat. In combat though, your are maintaining your firearms every day, if not more often. You are constantly training and identifying problems with your equipment (PMCS) so that you know it will work when your life depends on it. In the civilian world there are many makes that I can trust my life with. But then again, my civilian arms are not subject to the same abuses that they would be in combat, therefor I can put more faith that they will work the same as the last time I went to the range. You better believe I perform a function check on every service ready firearm I own weekly. I like to do this on Mondays simply because Monday was PMCS day in the ARMY. The firearm I happen to carry gets PCCed and PCIed before I leave home with it.
To be honest though, if the decision to abandon the 1911 was unavoidable, the M9 is a great option for the same reasons I gave for the M1911. Parts are easily replaceable, and it has a very long service life. The US military likes all their equipment to be designed to have parts that wear be replaceable rather than having to replace the whole unit just because one part failed. One of the reasons is that there are huge differences in the costs associated with a Mil-spec M9 and a Beretta 92. Operationally these are the same, but every part in an M9 has to meet a much higher standard than the 92 and thus the entire unit is much more expensive. You can get into big trouble for putting ordinary consumer parts into military equipment. Ordinary consumer products similar to mil spec counterparts are not expected to be subject to the same abuses. This is why the military spends thousands on things most people think are worth only a fraction of the price.
Last edited:
Dreamer
Regular Member
As usual, I've found someone who sums up, in ONE SENTENCE, what has taken me (unsuccessfully) to relate in several pages...
From the words of the brilliant, and immortal Jeff Cooper:
"Owning a handgun doesn't make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician."
In other words, owning the "ultimate fighting gun" won't make you Jeff Cooper and more than owning a vintage original Gibson Hummbucker will make you Chuck Berry. What really matters is training, practice, and to some extent, innate talent...
From the words of the brilliant, and immortal Jeff Cooper:
"Owning a handgun doesn't make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician."
In other words, owning the "ultimate fighting gun" won't make you Jeff Cooper and more than owning a vintage original Gibson Hummbucker will make you Chuck Berry. What really matters is training, practice, and to some extent, innate talent...
Last edited:
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
Aknazer
Regular Member
Dreamer, YOU aren't getting what a bunch of us are saying. And that is that if training, skill, comfort level, etc are all the same regardless of caliber then the only difference is the strength of the bullet. And the fact is that the larger caliber bullets are more likely to make sure that a target goes down on the spot and with fewest shots needed. So a wound that might not of dropped someone with a smaller caliber round just might with the larger one. And you're not going to have all of your shots hit exactly where you want them to regardless of how much training you have, so the bigger round can make the difference there.
As for why the military spends so much on things, it's multi-fold. Yes some of the equipment has to be tested to higher standards but that's not they only factor. Other factors are things like the company charging more for stocking older parts or simply because they can. I've seen multiple things more expensive at the GSA mart (government approved vendors that we're supposed to buy from if possible basically) when the EXACT SAME item is a lot cheaper at somewhere like Target (I mean it's not like a computer desk or filing cabinet needs to be battle hardened). I'm sure there's even more reasons for why the government pays more (some reasonable), but the simple reason is that companies charge the government more because they can.
As for why the military spends so much on things, it's multi-fold. Yes some of the equipment has to be tested to higher standards but that's not they only factor. Other factors are things like the company charging more for stocking older parts or simply because they can. I've seen multiple things more expensive at the GSA mart (government approved vendors that we're supposed to buy from if possible basically) when the EXACT SAME item is a lot cheaper at somewhere like Target (I mean it's not like a computer desk or filing cabinet needs to be battle hardened). I'm sure there's even more reasons for why the government pays more (some reasonable), but the simple reason is that companies charge the government more because they can.
Dreamer, we aren't disagreeing with you-we get it. Lol. We're talking about the hardware end of the equation, is all.
"more than owning a vintage original Gibson Hummbucker will make you Jimmy Page" -fixed. :banana:
" I've seen multiple things more expensive at the GSA mart (government approved vendors that we're supposed to buy from if possible basically) when the EXACT SAME item is a lot cheaper at somewhere like Target (I mean it's not like a computer desk or filing cabinet needs to be battle hardened). "
Oh,dont get me started on this one, lol. a WHOLE other thread could be spent..
"more than owning a vintage original Gibson Hummbucker will make you Jimmy Page" -fixed. :banana:
" I've seen multiple things more expensive at the GSA mart (government approved vendors that we're supposed to buy from if possible basically) when the EXACT SAME item is a lot cheaper at somewhere like Target (I mean it's not like a computer desk or filing cabinet needs to be battle hardened). "
Oh,dont get me started on this one, lol. a WHOLE other thread could be spent..
KansasMustang
Regular Member
As was said earlier, not the weapon but the person wielding it that makes the ultimate fighting handgun. But my choice for a combat situation is a large caliber, preferably .45. I personally love my Springfield XD .45. In a close combat fight I'd prefer having 13+1 of .45 cal. But in the case of a OH chit moment while in CC I have a .40 cal Taurus PT140. 10+1 of "Black Talons. Hopefully I'm up to the task of being the fella that walks away. I think I am but hey,,,
Last edited:
Aknazer
Regular Member
No fair invoking Dirty Harry. There's no argument against him
Sure there is, you just have to be lucky.
DevinWKuska
Regular Member
I would like to sum up what I feel the majority of the replies on this thread are saying. By stating that your idea of "Ultimate combat scenario" handgun is ultimate only in your own mind. You need to decide whats imortant to you... but ffs keep a .22lr cuz with a suppressor you can wound/kill quite a few beofre they figure out whats going on.
Johnsmith1521
Regular Member
you watch too much T.V.
There is no ultimate fighting handgun!!! You can have a good defense tool (gun)... It takes practice, practice, and more practice... Their are a lot of good pistols out there, I personally don't on a FN and don't really plan on getting one anytime soon... If you can't stop a threat with 3 rounds, maybe you should start taking some classes and learn how to shoot... I'm not trying to put you down or anything but come on, what are the chances of you getting into a huge gun fight where you're going to need 30+ rounds?
IMHO, A good 1911 will do the job... or a XD, or a glock, or a HK, or even your twin FN's...
There is no ultimate fighting handgun!!! You can have a good defense tool (gun)... It takes practice, practice, and more practice... Their are a lot of good pistols out there, I personally don't on a FN and don't really plan on getting one anytime soon... If you can't stop a threat with 3 rounds, maybe you should start taking some classes and learn how to shoot... I'm not trying to put you down or anything but come on, what are the chances of you getting into a huge gun fight where you're going to need 30+ rounds?
IMHO, A good 1911 will do the job... or a XD, or a glock, or a HK, or even your twin FN's...
Depends entirely on how many BG's you find yourself up against, doesnt it? Would you rather have as much as you can load, or come up short and find yourself facing one determined meth-head, and/or 6 of his buddies still coming at you and saying to yourself "damn, wish I'd brought a Hi-Cap instead.."
Granted, if he were choosing a 9mm or .40, he'd need every round he could fit into every pocket he had available, but..even with .45 better to have plenty than to have too few.
Granted the majority of scenarios are one-vs.-one, but.. Mr Murphy likes to jump in on such things whenever possible. Usually when it's you or me in the mix..
Last edited:
Johnsmith1521
Regular Member
Johnsmith1521
Regular Member
+1 :banana:
cmdr_iceman71
Regular Member
I’m talking about what handgun would you want to augment your assault rifle in a post apocalyptic world where law and order no longer exist and there is no one coming to the rescue per se. Think of the movie "The Book of Eli."
Let’s say you have prepared well and have fared much better than most in the first six months after the fall of civilization and now you must venture out from your keep to forage for food and clean water.
You and three other close friends or family members strike out on a foraging party in search of food and water. One mile out from your base, you are detected and set upon by a roving gang of let’s say 12 armed men wearing makeshift body armor. They are armed with an assortment of assault riles, hunting rifles, pistols, edged weapons and bludgeoning type weapons.
In the opening moments of the engagement you and one of your family members are wounded. Your family member is wounded in the lower abdomen and must be carried. The thumb on your strong hand has been shot off and is now hanging by the skin only. You take cover inside an abandoned apartment building to rally but are quickly surrounded and pinned down. Your teammates have better weapons and armor but aren’t trained for this type of combat. An intense 20 minute firefight ensues, you and your teammates mange to whittle their numbers down to eight. Both you and your enemy are low on ammo. They quickly realize that while they still have the superior numbers they should storm the building and finish you off.
Your other teammates are already out of ammo and are using their pistols. You are down to your last assault rifle magazine and the engagement is about to switch to close quarters combat (CQC) in a darkened building with no power. And remember you have wounded to carry out.
What handgun(s) would you prefer to have at your side?
Let’s say you have prepared well and have fared much better than most in the first six months after the fall of civilization and now you must venture out from your keep to forage for food and clean water.
You and three other close friends or family members strike out on a foraging party in search of food and water. One mile out from your base, you are detected and set upon by a roving gang of let’s say 12 armed men wearing makeshift body armor. They are armed with an assortment of assault riles, hunting rifles, pistols, edged weapons and bludgeoning type weapons.
In the opening moments of the engagement you and one of your family members are wounded. Your family member is wounded in the lower abdomen and must be carried. The thumb on your strong hand has been shot off and is now hanging by the skin only. You take cover inside an abandoned apartment building to rally but are quickly surrounded and pinned down. Your teammates have better weapons and armor but aren’t trained for this type of combat. An intense 20 minute firefight ensues, you and your teammates mange to whittle their numbers down to eight. Both you and your enemy are low on ammo. They quickly realize that while they still have the superior numbers they should storm the building and finish you off.
Your other teammates are already out of ammo and are using their pistols. You are down to your last assault rifle magazine and the engagement is about to switch to close quarters combat (CQC) in a darkened building with no power. And remember you have wounded to carry out.
What handgun(s) would you prefer to have at your side?