Lots of theories on what is best for various situations most of which boil down to personal preference. For a general home defense gun which may have to be used by women or children in an emergency I lean towards a youth 20 gauge automatic shotgun. No precision aiming needed, not too much felt recoil, excellent availability
The nice thing about living in New Jersey is that we don’t have any of these complicated choices...
I’ve been told the best round to fire is the one you have available.
UNTIL you spend time and shoot THOUSANDS OF ROUNDS........
.......think revolver, revolver Revolver, REVOLVER!!
.38 SPECIAL essentially the same thing re: energy and power and is good enough until you are an expert—and fine even then.
Good article. Years ago when I first got my carry permit I used a .380 semi-auto. Eventually my husband wanted me to upgrade. I bought a .38 Special Ultra-lite snub-nose revolver. When I questioned the accuracy and the fact that it only held five bullets he said that it was accurate at a distance that I would need it for self-defense and if somebody was close enough for me to need it that five bullets were plenty. He said the .38 loaded with hollow points was perfect for my needs. He was afraid that the .380 might not be enough against somebody huge and/or high on drugs. Thankfully I have not needed to use it and hope I never do but I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. I have always preferred a revolver over a semi-auto and I love this one!
I disagree with one thing he says tho I think I know what he is saying.
Energy is important. It is not everything but is necessary to do what he is claiming. The ability to destroy tissue or bones or organs.
Over the last few years I have coalesced around 9mm ammo. With the exception of scatter guns, all my current inventory are 9mm based. It seems to be the best compromise when you factor in availability, price, weapon weight, and the considerations under which a weapon may be used.
If energy isn’t important why do rifle rounds out perform pistol rounds?
The amount of tissue it damages is dependent upon energy and velocity, as well as how well the bullet expands. A high-energy full-metal-jacket which just passes through and expends most of its energy into the wall behind the bad guy is not as good as a lower-energy hollowpoint which expands and delivers all of its energy into the bad guy.
But a high-energy bullet which expands and delivers all its energy into damaging the bad guy is better than either of the former.
.88 magnum. Accept no substitutes.
Yet another “firearms expert” that doesn’t have any actual experience. I’ve seen the 9mm and the .45 used in combat - the .45 was a killer, the 9mm was a wounder.
The M-14 in 7.62mm killed reliably close up and at distance, the M-16 didn’t do as well.
I was shot by an AK. I’m still here.
Gun writers are a dime a dozen.
Everyone’s got an opinion about ammo, knock down power etc. it’s all BS. And anything from .22 and up will do the job
Interesting article.
I’ve always liked revolvers, just more comfortable with them. I *finally* tried a Glock 17 a few years ago and my God, I could hit any damned thing I aimed at, like it was an extension of my hand. Still like my.357 King Cobra and my little 5 shot .38 for concealed carry, but just might have to get a plastic fantastic. My only dispute is with the ‘get it done in 6’ knock; as someone who CAN’T get to a range more than a few times a year at the most, and with zero training or combat experience, if I am ever in a situation where the issue is NOT resolved with my first shot, I’m dead.
As a pistol instructor I see many comments about .38 revolvers. They are accurate with practice. Problem is, even for me is shooting single action my trigger finger give out after about 20 shots. Many new shooters give out after 10. Practice is needed for Consistency and that means shooting. And the recoil for a new shooter can be surprising.
That pretty much sums it.. But, If I'm not buying it, there are better choices.. :)
Two things I want from a cartridge, velocity and I want them to exit. I want them bleeding from both sides. In my 9mm I shoot 147 gran FMJ flat nose. In my hunting rifles I shoot Nosler Partitions, I’ve yet to have one exit and we’re talking high shoulder shots on deer and elk.
I particularly liked the comment about Newton’s 3rd Law which destroys the silly Hollywood’ism of a person being blown backwards through a window when hit with a shot gun blast.
I used to do a lot of black powder shooting using pure lead projectiles at steel targets. What I learned there is that pure lead spatters like water when hitting a steel plate. It breaks up into little particles flying in different directions. Which leads me to my comment about another Hollywood’ism, which is the cowboy bandit with the strongbox on the ground next to his feet as he shoots open the padlock. Some of that spatter is bound to wind up in his feet! And the worst that slow moving soft projectile could possible due is put a dent in the lock making it unopenable with the key.
I carry a Glock 23, but if I was buying a defensive pistol today, I would go with the Glock 19. 9mm ammo has definitely improved over the years.
“While it has been advocated by many-a-misinformed-gun-counter commando that some sort of energy transfer occurs between a projectile and its target, this has been rejected by everyone I respect who studies terminal ballistics for a living. “
Oh really? Then what happens to the energy?
Case in point:
"KNOCKDOWN POWER
This doesn’t actually exist. If a bullet had enough force to knock down an individual, it would also knock down the individual firing the gun...."
Bullcrap. One of the most common "myths" alleging to refute "knockdown power" and it's a complete misunderstanding and misapplication of Newton's second law of motion. Somebody with no understanding of the laws of physics parroting something he (errantly) thinks is clever.
Force = mass x acceleration
... and ...
acceleration = final velocity minus initial velocity divided by elapsed time
... therefore ...
Force = (mass x Δv)/Δt
... so ...
Provided mass remains constant, Force changes inversely with elapsed time
Which means -- and despite all the misinterpretations -- the forces at either end DO NOT HAVE TO BE EQUAL and will tend to be higher on whichever end has the briefer period of acceleration.
No matter how many parrots claim otherwise, nothing in Newton's 2nd states that "If a bullet had enough force to knock down an individual, it would also knock down the individual firing the gun." In fact, it states exactly the opposite. Force must vary inversely with the acceleration interval. Which means it is possible -- both in theory and in practice -- for the target to receive more "force" (in the classic sense) than was delivered by the firearm to the shooter. Much more in fact.
If I were to shoot someone wearing Level IV body armor (with SAPI) from a range of one inch (1") with an M4 carbine, the bullet would strike the SAPI with near as makes no difference the exact same velocity as it had at muzzle exit. Therefore bullet mass, V2 and V1 all are (virtually) the same at both ends. But what changes is acceleration.
The bullet at firing would accelerate over a distance of slightly less than 13" but it would de-accelerate to a complete stop in a distance of less than an inch. Since final velocity at the firing end approximates initial velocity at the target end, the force received by the target (ignoring the effects of ejected propellant gasses) would be 13 times(-ish) greater than that created at the shooter's end.
Even ignoring body armor, a human torso is about a foot thick, so provided the bullet was fired from a barrel significantly longer than 12", and provided the bullet looses all velocity and remains within the target, and ignoring the decay in bullet velocity while it is in flight, the target will always receive more force than was delivered to the shooter.
Granted it's something of a moot point to a discussion of the 9mm cartridge since few handguns have a barrel of more than 12", but my point is that anyone who flaunts his ignorance of Newton as means of bolstering the reader's impression of his firearms "expertise" isn't to be trusted on either count.
So popular myth notwithstanding, it is quite possible to build a handheld gun that is capable of physically knocking a man off his feet. But that would require an exceedingly long acceleration interval, which translates to a exceedingly long barrel, which would be too heavy and unwieldy to serve any practical use.
Possible? Yes. Practical? No.