Over time I receive numerous questions concerning the
"right" handgun for self-protection as well as requests for information on the
"best" loads/calibers for "stopping" someone who is bent upon doing one harm.
I thought that it might be interesting to compile the most
commonly asked questions I receive and answer them in an article, but let me
hasten to add that I am not an expert and have never claimed
otherwise. I am a retired police officer, police firearm instructor, tactical
team leader, and have been seriously interested in what handgun bullets actually
do to human aggressors for decades. I have seen felons shot and in each
instance was seriously unimpressed with the actual incapacitation times
required to truly render the bad guy harmless, be that through
unconsciousness or death. Calibers involved ranged from .38 Special, 9mm, and
.357 magnum through .45 ACP. Of those incidents, only two involved nonexpanding
ammunition. The rest were with hollow points.
Over the years, it has been my privilege to visit with law
enforcement/military personnel who had been forced to use handguns to "stop"
another human being. More officers than soldiers actually had this experience
since most soldiers are not issued pistols. I have not and will not disclose the
names of those persons. Some of these contacts are recent while others are
decades old. One faction of the "stopping power community" will declare any such
information as "anecdotal" and useless because it is not documented. I honestly
could not care less. It is not my goal, aim, or intention to be published in the
scientific literature surrounding this topic. I truly respect the scientific
method and understand its precepts from my college days as a double major in
physics and mathematics, but have enough common sense to listen to those who
have actually been in the urine stench atmosphere of life-and-death shootouts
and close quarter combat. The laboratory approach to terminal ballistics is a
fine thing and that I have great respect for. At the same time, results from the
street are hard to just discount. Discussions with coroners have also occurred
but on a less frequent basis. I find it interesting that when our military's
scientific personnel engineer a new weapon, all that can be done in the lab to
assure its reliability, etc, is no doubt done. Still, the weapon finds its way
to a proving ground. Might not the street's real life conflicts be a direct
parallel to the military proving ground?
I also hunt with a handgun and have since the early '70's.
The largest animals I've repeatedly killed cleanly with one shot have been Texas
whitetail deer. Most critters I've killed have ranged in size from the cagey and
sly coyote to the tough-as-nails javelina, raccoon and fox. On these, I have
been singularly unimpressed with solids used in any caliber from .38
Special to .45 ACP. (With .45 Colt using the large 255-gr. CSWC having a very
wide meplat, things are much better. The .41 and .44 magnums with their smaller
CSWC meplats apparently have the speed to make up for their slightly smaller
flat compared to the .45 Colt.)
While the shooting of animals versus felons emphatically is
not the same thing, I think that there are similarities involved in
"stopping" or the mechanism of collapse. How pertinent these are will always be
open to debate.
With regard to "proper" defensive handguns, I personally will
not go lighter than a .38 snub using expanding +P ammunition for a hideout or
backup gun. The belt gun should be 9mm, .38 Super, .40 S&W, .357 SIG, or .45 ACP
in my opinion. Those opting for revolvers should not go lighter than .38 Special
+P. With the six-gun, I'd prefer a bit more and strongly suggest going with the
most potent revolver caliber that a person can effectively handle under
stress.
I have little tolerance or use for the dogma so often
associated with either of these related topics. I have yet to see and much less
understand how some people seem to believe that such discussion is license for
rudeness and all around boorish behavior.
Hopefully, you see where I'm coming from and I leave it
entirely to the reader to decide how much of this is worthwhile, on the money,
or just dead wrong. It is not my aim to try and sway a single soul to my
beliefs, but it is my goal to provide what I believe to be true
and offer them more "food for thought" in making up their own minds on these
topics.
With this in mind, let's proceed to the questions.
- What is your preferred number one defensive handgun?
For pocket,
hideout, or BUG use, my preference remains the S&W J-frame snub in .38 Special
and with +P expanding ammunition. Right now, the top choice for me is the
Airweight S&W Model 642 or 442. I prefer it to the all-steel snubs and only
carry "pre-lock" revolvers. I also choose the aluminum gun over the newer
lighter scandium/titanium revolvers because I am not limited to jacketed ammo.
Those revolvers lighter than the "Airweight" series cannot be used with lead
bullets; they unseat themselves in recoil and lock up the gun. I have
personally tried this and such has been the case in caliber .38, .357, and .44
Special. If the snub is to be worn on the belt, I'd go with a steel revolver
with at least a 3" bbl, if there is a choice. With regard to semiautomatic
handguns, I have no real desire for those lighter than 9x19mm nor having less
than a 3" barrel…and much prefer longer barrels. My favorite all around 9mm
pistol remains the lightly modified Browning Hi Power Mk III. From a strictly
defensive viewpoint, I do favor the .45 ACP from a 5" 1911 pattern pistol.
Using a two-hand hold, I note no real difference in handling ability, but when
using one hand, I do slightly better with the Hi Power.
- Why are you against the .380 and 9x19mm Makarov for self-defense?
While I like and admire several of the handgun designs in these calibers, they
are just a tad below what I trust to offer both expansion and sufficient
penetration from any angle. Both are probably "OK" for straight on,
unobstructed shots, but I have serious qualms about them if an arm, etc is
struck by the bullet while on the way to the torso. I own several handguns in
.380 ACP and 9mm Makarov, but they simply are not my first choices. I freely
acknowledge that many folks find them easier to shoot well than the
lightweight snub nose 38 revolver. At the same time, getting a good hit with a
bullet that cannot get deep enough while expanding vs. one that can but has to
remain 36-caliber just doesn't play well with me, particularly when either are
almost below 1100 ft/sec and less than 100-grains in weight.
In my opinion, the 38 Special +P is the lightest caliber
acceptable for self-defense. Here we see a Remington 158-gr. LSWCHP +P
compared to the Federal 90-gr. JHP.
- But if you HAD to go with a 380 or 9mm Mak, what would your choices be?
I would chose the traditional size pistol in these calibers. They offer enough
sight radius to get the hit or hits and enough velocity to get bullet
expansion using many JHP rounds. For carry guns, I would go with smaller than
the Beretta double-stacks or the CZ-83. Right now, my first choice would be
the Bersa Thunder, but only after testing it for reliability as well as POA
vs. POI. If going with the Mak round, I would go with the Makarov handgun over
all others in t his caliber. In the .380, my ammo choices would be Corbon DPX
(Later runs of this ammo have had the Barnes X-bullet tweaked for slightly
deeper penetration.), or Hornady XTP. With the 9mm Makarov, I'd go with either
Hornady XTP or the Brown Bear 115-gr. JHP. The latter round can cause
problems in some Makarov pistols as it has a slightly longer LOA than most
JHP's in this caliber. After I made a small correction at the bottom of my
guns' feed ramps, it runs as slick as a gut in my three Mak pistols. (For
those interested, this topic is covered in articles listed under "Other
Handguns.")
- Which is more important, velocity or bullet weight?
It depends on the
particular caliber being discussed in my view. For example, in my own informal
testing I remain convinced that from the 4 to 5" barrels, the .45 ACP
continues to do best with the traditional 230-gr. bullet. They usually strike
at or very near POA compared to lighter, faster bullets and many JHP's are
available. FWIW, my choices are Winchester Ranger JHP, Remington Golden Saber,
followed by Federal Classic JHP. The Speer Gold Dot is favored by many and if
it runs reliably in your pistol, it is a very good choice as well. It
feeds nicely in some of my .45's but not all. The others run slick as a gut in
all of them and with all magazines. In .38 Special I cling to the Remington
158-gr. LSWCHP +P. It expands more reliably than the Winchester counterpart
from the 1 7/8" bbl in my experience, but either work fine from 3 or 4" tubes.
Unless the bad guy is wrapped up like a 4-layer-of-denim tamale, the bullet
expands. The two that I've seen recovered from felons expanded nicely, though
not as evenly as when fired into homogeneous test media. FWIW, two new loads
offer decent penetration and expansion. These are the Corbon 110-gr. DPX +P
and Speer's "Short Barrel" 135-gr. Gold Dot +P. Though I am extremely fond of
the DPX line of ammo, in this caliber, my second choice would be the Speer. In
.357 magnum, I prefer bullets weighing 140-gr. upward if being used in
service type revolvers. In the J-frame snubs, I currently use Corbon
125-gr. DPX followed by Remington 125-gr. Golden Saber. Both of these are
mid-range loads offering more "whammy" than .38 Special +P, but less than the
full power magnums. In the smaller guns it has been my experience that these
lighter loads are distinctly easier to handle at speed and for repeat shots. I
have verified this for myself using a timer. In the K-frames and up, the
heavier loads work fine in practiced hands. In 9mm, my personal choices remain
Corbon 115-gr. DPX +P and Winchester 127-gr. Ranger +P+. Going to standard
pressure, I am pretty impressed with Speer 124-gr. Gold Dot and Remington's
Golden Saber in the same weight. In the 147-gr. weight, I like the Speer Gold
Dot, Remington Golden Saber, and Winchester's Ranger. Unlike the 1911 pattern
pistol, most of the 9mm's I've tried run quite reliably with the Gold Dot. I
guess you could say that I usually want as much velocity as I can get
so long as bullet weight and penetration are not negatively affected. In small
case/high pressure calibers like the 9mm, I do favor the 115-gr. DXP and
several 124-127-gr bullets over the 147-gr. The .38 Special has more case
capacity to be sure, but its lower maximum cartridge pressure seems best
suited to bullets from 135 or 140 grains to the 158-gr. standard. (More
cartridge/caliber discussions are there for the reading in "Browning Hi Power"
and "Other Handguns" as well as "Frequently Asked Questions." For that reason,
I'm not going to prattle on here.)
- Do you prefer single or double-action automatics?
I personally prefer
the Browning Hi Power and 1911 pattern pistols to all others for personal
protection. They are simply what I am most used to and their "feel" and
operation are permanently imbedded in my brain. I also prefer their consistent
and light trigger pulls for each shot, first to last. Internally, they are
less complex than the DA/SA automatic and more easily lend themselves to
detail stripping. If their cocked-and-locked appearance frightens some, others
find their easy to disengage manual safeties comforting should a
firearm-ignorant felon manage to wrest the gun from them. A point-and-pull
pistol such as the Glock, SIG-Sauer, etc can be fired by anyone. Having said
this, I am not nearly so adamantly opposed to the DA/SA automatic or
DAO, as are some other folks.
My top choices for the defensive belt gun remains either
the 9mm Hi Power or the 1911 pattern pistol chambered for .45 ACP. That does
not mean that my choice should necessarily be your choice.
- If you had to choose a traditional double-action auto, what would it be?
I get this one a lot and the reason is simple. Some shooters simply are not
comfortable (yet) with Condition One Carry and others are not allowed to
carrying other than a DA/SA or DAO autopistol for police duty. They may have
some latitude in brands and calibers, but single-action is not one of them. I
definitely do not see them as "the badge of the incompetent" as has been said
by some. In .45 ACP, I'd go with the SIG-Sauer P-220. I have shot these quite
a bit and found them to almost always be reliable and surprisingly accurate
out of the box. While they do exhibit a bit more muzzle flip than the
Commander-size 1911's, a timer has repeatedly proven to me that very nice
"work" can be done with them in both slow and rapid-fire. For carry I prefer
the standard version of the gun, which has the aluminum alloy frame. In 9mm,
my choice is the CZ-75. This gun offers both DA/SA as well as
cocked-and-locked capability. The gun points well for me and has proven
reliable and accurate. I did not list the excellent SIG-Sauer P-226 simply
because the gun does not "feel" that great to me, but it has proven an
excellent weapon in my observation of many being used by officers over the
years.
- I shoot a 9mm better than a .45, but am afraid that it's not powerful
enough for protection. What do you think?
In my book, Defensive
Handguns, I cover this and "stopping power" (as I see it & pretty
extensively), but here are my thoughts, which are based on both personal
observation and "anecdotal" accounts of shootings by the shooters. Though I do
not believe that .45 ball is quite so grand a stopper as others, I do
believe that it is better than 9mm FMJ. I have shot jackrabbits with both and
neither stopped the stringy things unless hit in the forward third of the body
and then death was several seconds in coming. When struck in the mid-section
or guts and they ran several yards before collapsing…even with the legendary
45 FMJ. With its better loads, I believe that the .45 ACP offers an
edge over the best 9mm loads, but I remain unconvinced that the
differences are so day-and-night different as espoused by some. The deer I've
shot with expanding bullets in 9mm, .38 Super, .357 magnum, .44 Special, and
.45 ACP, exhibited no major differences in terminal effect. All dropped
immediately and kicked a few seconds or jumped and ran a few yards before
collapsing. (FWIW, I've seen the very same thing when using the moderately
loaded .45 Colt and full-power .44 magnum. The main advantage I've seen with
the heavy magnums is extended practical range over the calibers commonly
associated with self-protection.) Using the better .45 ACP loads, I do believe
that there is a ballistic advantage, but that does not mean that I think the
9mm with the better loads is ineffective. I use a 9mm as a primary house gun
and often as my primary carry gun. I would not do this if I did not trust the
capability of the 9mm loads already mentioned.
The deer heart shown was grazed with a 9mm Winchester
127-gr. +P+ Ranger fired from a Browning Hi Power. The animal died to be sure,
but kicked and twitched for approximately 16 seconds after being shot. In a
fight against a felon, this might be considered a good shot. I see no reason
to expect him to instantly drop and be still. It is my opinion that accurate
multiple hits may be required to solve such "problems".
- I've heard that a jacket hollow point going less than a thousand-feet-per
second will not expand. Is this true or not?
It depends upon the bullet
design and the velocity envelope it was designed to "work" within. A couple of
decades ago, the 1000 ft/sec thing was generally true, but there are more than
a few JHP bullets around today that emphatically do expand at less
velocity. Examples include Speer Gold Dots in .45 ACP, .38 Special, as well as
147-gr. 9mm. Ditto Winchester Ranger and Remington Golden Sabers. Let's assume
that a JHP weighs 125-grains and is intended for a full-power .357 Magnum
commercial cartridge traveling at 1350 ft/sec from the muzzle. That same
bullet may not expand if it impacts at say 800 ft/sec; the velocity may be
below its minimal threshold velocity to begin expansion. A bullet designed to
expand at 800 ft/sec will certainly expand at 1350 ft/sec, but may not hold
together, but the old saw that a bullet must be traveling at least a
thousand-feet-per-second is simply not true as a general statement with
today's better expanding handgun bullets. If you hear this from someone, they
are just not up to date on the realities of current expanding handgun
ammunition.
- I want a stainless steel pistol but am afraid of galling.
Should I
be? In my experience, no. This "problem" stems from early stainless steel
pistols introduced decades ago. With guns from quality manufacturers, today's
stainless pistols use different alloys in the frame and slide to eliminate the
problem…and have for years. I truly believe it to be a non-issue.
- Does it hurt to leave pistol magazines fully loaded? Do I need to let them
"rest"?
In my experience, the answer is no… so long as they are not
compressed to a shorter length than they were engineered for. Mr. Wolff of the
gun spring company bearing his name advises that it is the repeated
compressing and decompressing of springs that causes them to weaken. In other
words, a magazine that is loaded and unloaded many times will weaken before
one that is simply loaded to capacity. I have experimented with this over the
years leaving a couple of magazines from different make handguns fully loaded.
These included the Browning Hi Power, the Glock 26/17, various 1911 magazines,
as well as the CZ-75 and Walther PP in both 380 and .32 ACP. Ditto all Beretta
handguns from .25 ACP to 9mm. In all of these cases the magazines being used
were from the maker or were made by quality manufacturers such as MecGar,
Wilson, McCormick, etc. I definitely have seen spring weakening to the
point of unreliability with some aftermarket magazine makers. Most of these
were with the nameless "high capacity" magazines that flooded the market
before the "high capacity feeding device" ban enacted in the dark days of
1994. The only quality magazines I've ever seen weaken when left fully loaded
for approximately two years were one for the HK MP5 submachine gun and one
Colt-marked 30-shot magazine for the AR/15-M16 type rifles. Others from the
same makers left loaded for the same time period worked fine.
- I do not trust automatics and prefer a revolver for a house gun. What
would you choose?
I use revolvers for such purposes and am happy with .357
magnum, .44 Special, and .45 Colt. The magnum is loaded with the mid-power
Corbon 125-gr. DPX. The .44 and .45 are loaded with DPX as well. (Yes, I think
DPX is that good. There are reports on each of these loads in "Other
Handguns" for those who are interested.) For those not so "into" shooting, I
honestly believe that the 3 or 4" 38 Special remains a very viable choice.
Here are a couple of articles on why I believe this for those who might be
interested:
I know that you use the lightweight 38 snub as a carry gun. My wife
wants a simple handgun for home protection when I am away. Would this be a
good choice? In my opinion, no. The very characteristics that work for
the snub as a carry gun work against its being comfortable to shoot or
relatively easy to shoot accurately. Despite some gun store salesmen saying
otherwise, I truly believe that the relatively inexperienced shooter (male or
female) is better served by a mid-size, all-steel handgun for home defense. It
does not need to be super small for this purpose and will reduce felt recoil
and offer better practical accuracy as well. My wife is not a shooter. What
works best for her is an S&W 3" K-frame in .357 Magnum. It is loaded with
Remington 38 Special 158-gr. LSWCHP +P. By the same token, a 5" all-steel 1911
will have less felt recoil and should at least point better for many than the
super compact, lightweight pistols of that breed.
In my opinion, the 3 or 4" service size revolver makes much
more sense for use as a house or car gun than the lightweight snub nose
revolver in the same caliber.
I want a match barrel for my defense gun. Which do you recommend?
Unless the existing barrel is defective, I have very seldom seen a quality
handgun that was inaccurate enough not to be used for self-defense in the
private-citizen-versus-the-bad-guy type scenario. For us, distances involved
are usually going to be marked by single digits with the unit of measurement
being feet, not yards, but to answer the question, in the 1911 I'd go with
Kart. In the Hi Power and others, BarSto.
What do you think is the very most important characteristic of the
defensive handgun? Reliability is first by a wide margin in my book
followed by caliber/load and practical accuracy. (This refers to how easy it
is for the individual user to competently shoot a particular handgun.)
Which defense caliber do you trust the most and why don't you just use
weapons in that caliber? I don't "trust" any of them.
Compared to most rifle rounds and shotgun loads (at close range), handguns
offer a ballistically weak payload in my observation. I do not trust any
commonly accepted defensive handgun caliber to deliver the all elusive "one
shot stop" against a human aggressor unless it destroys the brain or cuts the
spinal column above the heart. It is true that many folks drop to a
single shot but keep in mind that people fall down for a couple of reasons:
They have to due to physical damage or because they want to for psychological
reasons. The choice of the "right" defense handgun should be based on several
factors in my opinion. These include the gun's "shootability" for the
individual for one. Caliber and load are but one part of the equation. In
whatever caliber I use, it is my view that we're better served by picking an
effective load and then practicing rather than worry so much about the ne
plus ultra stopping power caliber. (I begin to believe that a cartridge
has sufficient "stopping power" with .223 and certain expanding rounds and am
happy as a clam with .308 using expanding ammo…but understand that even these
can fail to deck the bad guy…just less often it seems. I carry a
defensive handgun or handguns because they are portable and with me 24/7 for
the unexpected.
What do you consider the minimal acceptable penetration depth for a
protection handgun round? I pretty well believe the often-quoted 12" is
fine. Some prefer more penetration, but I think that this depth should work on
most full-grown men from about any angle. That said, it should be noted that
I've received several reports of aggressive-expanding ammunition that
repeatedly makes the bad guys drop with decent hits. Most of these penetrate
around 9 to 10" in calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin. Two examples are Corbon's
9mm 115-gr. JHP +P and the same company's 185-gr. JHP +P. Go figure.
I have seen the 148-grain .38 Special wadcutter recommended as a top
standard pressure load for the .38 snub. Do you agree? I absolutely do
not. Most of the commercially loaded rounds I've chronographed have been well
under 600 ft/sec when fired from a snub! As I understand it, the
recommendation comes because most of the .38 +P loads fired from a snub do not
reliably expand in gelatin after passing through intermediate barriers such as
denim. So, why put up with the extra recoil and wear on the gun? As others
have said, there is no free lunch with handgun calibers. What if the target is
not wearing denim? The expanding bullet will probably be more effective than
the slow wadcutter, assuming equal hits. Even when the often-used LSWCHP +P
doesn’t expand, it frequently flattens or deforms to mimic the wadcutter and
smacks at 800 ft/sec or so. As I've mentioned in the past, I spoke with a man
who had been shot through the heart with a .38 wadcutter. He was sitting on a
curb and didn't feel very good to be sure, but he could talk and could've used
a gun. That he died 4 minutes later is not the point; the load was simply not
effective in that statistically insignificant incident. Unless a person has
physical limitations or simply cannot handle recoil, I would not go with the
.38 wadcutter at target velocities. Were I personally faced with having to do
so, I'd prefer a .380 or 9mm Makarov with ball in this power range; I have
more shots in an easier to shoot handgun. If using the .38 snub, it is my
belief that the top loads are required and these simply have more recoil than
the much more lightly loaded wadcutter. When I opted to go with the snub 38 as
an "always" gun for the pocket, I did so understanding that this breed of
revolver required frequent practice. I still believe that. With its limited
5-shot capacity (in most cases) and what I believe to be minimal power for
protection, being able to get the hit(s) requires some dedication and
serious
practice.
I want a small automatic for carry and prefer 9mm. What would you choose?
The super compact 9mm's don't interest me all that much so as a result,
I've tried only three extensively. These were the Kahr K9, the Kahr P9, and
the Glock 26. The K9 was reliable and accurate. I had trouble with the P9. If
using +P 9mm ammo, the slide would frequently lock to the rear with ammo still
in the magazine. In all fairness I must admit that mine was an early
production P9 and the problem may have been solved by now. Both of the Kahr
pistols gnawed holes at the base of my shooting hand thumb. This was due to
the way my hand fit the gun and may not be a problem for others. For me, the
Glock 26 has worked reliably, is easy to shoot, and continues to prove itself
durable. I continue to be surprised with how easy it is to get good
defense-type hits at speed with the thing considering that I do not find it
particularly comfortable. At this moment, I'd cast my lot with the Glock 26,
but remind you that I've not tried this genre of compact 9mm's very much. It
is the only one I can recommend based on personal observation.
I've been told to use ball ammo only in my self-protection pistols because
it is more reliable. Is this true? Maybe, but I've seen autos that would
feed certain JHP's and not ball! In my opinion, unless one lives where round
nose FMJ is mandated by law or personal choice, the defensive handgun should
be reliable with most JHP's. If I have a handgun that is only reliable with
ball, it usually goes the way of the goose or is not used for self-protection,
usually the former.
If choosing a gun for the all-important task of self-survival, shouldn't I
go with the best or most expensive? This can be argued from either
viewpoint, but in my experience a decent quality handgun, not necessarily the
most expensive, offers about all of the qualities one can ask for in a
protection handgun. It doesn't have to be the particular company's flagship
model; it does have to be reliable.
I think I want a 1911 in .45, but it seems that this design is not
reliable. Are they? In my experience, the design is reliable, but
its cutthroat competition production rate sometimes is not. The result is a
sound design that is poorly executed in the finished product. The 1911 pattern
pistol remains a most popular gun today and everybody and their dog seem to
cranking them out to meet demand. I've seen some "entry level" 1911's that
worked great and others that choked repeatedly. Sadly, I've seen this not only
at the lower end of the price range, but at the middle and top as well. Based
on my own experiences, if the gun is in spec, it will run reliably. Many
times, if you know what to do, correcting problem guns is a snap and they
become examples of reliability in the extreme. Though this is a very favored
type of handgun for me and countless others, the rapid production pace and
methods seen today can result in a less than stellar 1911. That said, I
believe that the reliable 1911 can be found without spending thousands as some
claim. I've "built" two from the ground up and they are reliable and accurate,
but I paid extremely close attention to detail and dimension. If a layman such
as myself can do this, I'd think the major manufacturers could too.
This Springfield Armory Mil Spec has proven reliable and
has been altered though most is not apparent. It is one of the less expensive
1911's on the market. This one has just fewer than 4000 rounds through it. It
has been 100% reliable. While this is no guarantee that the very next one off
the production line will be, however, and that's sad and a poor tribute to the
break-neck pace forced on manufacturers due to the immense continuing
popularity of the design.
I much prefer the revolver in .357 Magnum for protection but am concerned
with its only holding six shots. Should I go with the high-capacity automatic?
In the man vs. bad guy or two or three, I think the revolver can hold its own
IF and ONLY IF the shooter can. There is no ammo to waste and if the dudes are
determined not to stop unless forced to, every single shot is important. In
general, I believe that we run out of time before ammunition and that our
first shots are probably the most important ones. It's my view that the
revolver shooter should really practice reloading as well as the use of cover,
concealment, etc…which we all should. If one has reason to fear dedicated gang
assaults, but still doesn't feel comfortable with the automatic, I'd carry at
least one more revolver, ideally one chambered for the same cartridge as the
primary and one that would use the same speed loaders.
I've been told that a .22 makes a good defense round because the little
bullet bounces around within the body and does a lot of damage. Is this true?
I don't know. It could happen I suppose but most of the people I have seen
shot with .22lr handguns were not stopped; they were injured and some
seriously, but they didn't have to stop from immediate physical damage. The
majority did opt to leave the scene rather quickly but one didn't and
severely injured the man who shot him by beating him nearly to death with his
own revolver. I personally do not consider the .22 a viable defense caliber.
That it has been used successfully as a quiet killer in suppressed firearms
doesn't translate to effective stopper. Its use in assassinations by certain
military personnel or criminal contract killers is done with stealth surprise
and head shots. Any handgun caliber can kill with a torso shot, but it simply
may not stop the individual for several minutes vs. seconds with a more
appropriate caliber.
What about Glocks? Are they safe? I've heard that they can explode.
The Glock pistols, particularly those in their original 9mm seem to be
about as reliable as a pistol can be in my experience. I have seen 3 Glocks in which cases from factory ammo
let go and the often-discussed "kaboom" occurred. These were in the Glock 22
40-caliber in each instance that I saw. It should also be noted that this was
shortly after the forty hit the market. Such incidents seem to have declined
and I'm not convinced that it is an issue anymore. Still, I personally prefer
the 9mm Glocks to the rest. My Glock 17 sees "duty" as a house gun and is
sometimes carried concealed as a belt gun. Glocks have near fanatical devotees
and equally adamant detractors. I fall in the middle; to me they are decent
pistols that have a well-deserved reputation for reliability right out of the
(plastic) box in most instances. For me, the grip angle is not the greatest,
but I've learned it and the gun should serve well as a protection piece if I
do my part. Mine is loaded with Winchester 127-gr. +P+. Because of their
polygonal rifling, Glock warns against the use of lead or cast bullets.
Leading can build up and pressures can be increased it seems. I've shot lead
reloads in my Glocks, but no more than 200 before I thoroughly cleaned the
barrel. For folks interested in shooting lead, match grade barrels with
conventional rifling are available from more than one manufacturer. The Glock
can serve well in my view, but it is very unforgiving of poor gun handling:
Especially with the Glock, keep the trigger finger off of the trigger until
ready to shoot. Also make sure that if the holster has a retaining strap or
device that it cannot inadvertently get into the trigger guard. If it can or
does, the pistol can fire when being re-holstered.
Some say that we should use only one type of handgun if we carry a handgun
for defense. Do you think this is right? I do not think it is wrong, but
neither do I think it is universally right, either. Let me explain. When
firing under calm "range conditions" we are under no stress. Firing in
competition adds some, but nothing like what can and does occur in an
in-your-face-do-or-die-right-now situation where some dude is determined to
kill you. This is when a person can completely forget about accuracy or
disengaging a thumb safety, etc. For this reason some advise using a single
type action so that with repeated use, its operation is second nature and can
be done instantly without having to consciously think about it. If a
person shoots only for self-protection and is not really into shooting all
that much, this is probably a pretty good idea. In my own case, I am a
certifiable firearm enthusiast and shoot all types of handguns, but the ones I
shoot most are single-action automatics. This has been true over 3 decades and
manipulating the thumb safety just "happens" and has never been an issue on
the street. Often times when shooting at speed but using a revolver or a Glock,
etc, I still find myself disengaging a thumb safety that is not there!
It hurts nothing, but the reverse might very well not be true. In other
words, let's say that my primary handgun used for years is a point-and-pull
handgun like a revolver, Glock, SIG-Sauer, etc and I decided to start toting a
Browning Hi Power after but a few weeks familiarization. If the balloon went
up, it might very well be that I'd revert to just point-and-pull rather than
disengaging the thumb safety on the way to the target and such an error could
be fatal. I cannot speak for everyone on this issue, but this is the way I see
it. I do think that if one opts to use two different types of automatics
having external safeties they should both operate the same way. In other words
I wouldn't suggest carrying a 1911 with which "off safety" requires a downward
push one day and an S&W 9mm requiring an upward push to disengage the safety,
the next.
Do you use 7 or 8-round .45 magazines in your 1911's? I prefer the
7-shot magazines. The reason is simple. They are reliable all of the time in
all of my 1911 pattern guns. The 8-round magazines I've used are reliable most
of the time in some of my pistols, but not all. For me, the problem usually
occurs with the last shot failing to feed or holding the slide back. That
said, I've had the best luck with McCormick and Wilson 8-shot magazines, but
am in the process of converting all of my magazines to seven-shooters
using the Tripp CobraMag upgrade kit. In 8-shot magazines other than Tripp's,
capacity goes to 7 shots. If used in any 7-shot magazine, capacity remains
seven. This inexpensive upgrade has made even problem magazines paragons of
virtue in several different makes of 1911 pattern pistols.
Hopefully, the preceding has been of some interest and use to
the reader. Some will agree with all or some of it while others will not. As I
mentioned at the beginning, it is not my aim to sway anyone's point of view.
Each of us bases reality on what some call individual "life filters" but what
I've written here is the truth as I see it.
Believe it or not, my primary interest in handguns doesn't
focus on self-defense. I see them as interesting works of art and am drawn to
shooting them like the proverbial moth to a flame. At the same time, I realized
long ago that the handgun can be a lifesaver and that self-protection aspects
should be considered by those willing to take on the responsibility for their
own well being. It is an unfortunate reality that in today's world, it is
necessary (in my opinion) to be able to defend one's self and loved ones against
unprovoked criminal attack both at home and elsewhere. For that reason I remain
armed 24/7 whenever possible and am distinctly uncomfortable when I am not.
Best.