Replies

“I do not care to get that close, and i prefer large caliber handguns. The kind of handguns that rarely require a follow up shot.”

Pretty much my preferences too: one’s chances are better with a 45 Colt than a 25 ACP. Though even the little 25 can kill if it hits right.

The knife-vs-handgun analysis has been done largely to inform and assist law enforcement, who have fewer choices about which situations they enter, often on very short notice.

After 64-1/2 years of living, and sustaining barely-survivable injuries in a landing mishap, I avoid physical encounters more carefully than ever, despite being a CCW permit holder. Fortunately, work & daily life no longer require my presence in high-risk areas.

But years of reading - and writing - test reports (for every weapon system including small arms), picking the brains of ground troops and law enforcement folks, fixing guns for police & private citizens, and simply thinking about the problem, have led me to the conclusion that the only halfway-certain statements we can make about close-quarters violent encounters is that there are many variables, not all are identified, and no one can predict outcomes very accurately.

I used to believe large-caliber handgun rounds were clearly superior.

Now I’m less sure.

Even the vaunted US 45 ACP is marginal. 9mm NATO generates more energy (best predictor of effectiveness, as determined by USAF’s Weapons Lab, who conducted JSSAP) and has a greater effective range.

But the 455 Webley revolver cartridge used by the British attained an international reputation as a fight-stopper, despite some loadings that had a sedate muzzle velocity of 600 ft/sec. The US Thompson-LaGarde tests also rated the 455 superior in stopping power to the 45 Colt.

Many more variables need to be identified and better understood. But the “ideal” cartridge does not exist; neither does an “ideal” handgun. There are nothing but tradeoffs, some of which aren’t pretty.