AR.Hunter.308

You might have mis-wrote what you were trying to say, it happens. I read that you said we shouldn't be shooting outside the home. A lot of people forget the aspect of self-defense that includes protection your family. Even in magazine articles, because you see a lot of stuff on "fight or flight." I have 2,3,5 year olds. There's not going to be a lot of "flight" -- we would never be fast enough in most situations. A few years back our (ex-) governor tried this crap where if someone broke into your house, and they clearly had a gun and was threatening your life with it, and you shot the person -- get this -- you would be found guilty, if it could be proven that you had a "reasonable means of escape/retreat." Can you believe that horse pucky?

1. You don't get 13 rounds of .45, you only get 1 round. That's the rules 2. Shouldn't be shooting further than 10 yards because you're not in your house? IMO that doesn't even make any sense. What if your out in your backyard with your family and some nut job walks up and starts to pull out a gun? What about a situation like Columbine, or at church, when a nut job walks in and starts shooting and you have a chance to shoot him. What if you're minding your own business walking down the sidewalk and a group of men is walking towards you and when they get 20 feet away one of them pulls a gun and starts to aim it at you? Can you outrun his bullets or are you going to pull? I hate to say it but if you think self defense isn't going to happen out side of your house, you're missing about 95% of the threat. You're also basing your thoughts on self defense of just you, where you can choose to fight or flee, but what if the self defense involves your loved ones? I tell you what, when it comes to my wife and kids, I don't care if the S.O.B is 75 yards away, if he starts shooting at us, I'm pulling my handgun, and I don't even care if I hit him, I'm laying down some frickin' suppressive fire so they can get the heck out.

I agree with you, that the .22 has the potential to kill, so you have the POTENTIAL to kill with 6 shots. Some food for thought, though. An arrow from a bow is a popular item to hunt deer with. If you shoot it with a bow, you generally expect, they are going to run a ways, then you'll follow the blood trail to find him. Same, probably if you shot him with a .22. He'll EVENTUALLY die. But if I shoot him with my 7mm Weatherby Mag, he's going to drop on the spot. Now think, with an armed thug coming at you, sure, with a .22, if you shoot him in his vitals, he'll most likely die, but how long will it take him to do it? Will he get to you before he does? The .45 is a definite man stopper. But what if you miss? I don't think this is a simple answer. There is some GREAT thought going into this, though. I love this topic.

But you do realize that there is no "best" answer for the military. If they chose pistol A, 80% would disagree because they are proponents of pistol B, C, D, E, or F. If they chose B, 80% would disagree, and so on and so forth. There is no win for them. Then factor in 25 years go by and new pistols hit the market, and now you have people that don't like pistols A-F, and now feel it should be Pistol G or H. Like now, say we had gone with the Sig. Now all the Glockaholic fanboys would be on here ranting how we should be going with Glocks.

You're absolutely right, and to sum up what you said: Shot placement is the most important thing. That's really what you mean by "proficient." This has been a good conversation so far, no heated exchange of word, so a little debate is good. Though the shift to discussing the merits of the 92FS has steered us off course a bit.

This has been a great conversation so far, which is what I had hoped for. Don't be so hard on yourself, we all need a little comic relief. Just think of yourself as the JarJar Binks of this thread. haha.

I absolutely love the Beretta. I know a lot don't but I do. In fact it is my favorite handgun of all time. To me it's far more reliable and better made than the GI issue 1911. And I don't think the .45 ball ammo is the holy grail of knock down power that many make it up to be. I carried it for over 10 years while I was in and don't recall one single issue with any of the Berettas I was issued. Having said that, I agree with you that it is too big and bulky for anything but military or police duty. I would maybe consider it for open carry. I have med/large hands, so grip size or working the safety was never an issue. Plus, my hands are of a size that it's pretty easy to reach up with my left thumb and flip the safety, as well (I'm right handed). (Funny thing also, I don't know if it was intended to do this, but my issued holster, a Bianchi, whenever I drew my M9, the safety would flick off because of the holster. If that's not intentional, I think they should make it so.) As we've discussed before, everything is a compromise, as was the M9 for the military. You said there are better alternatives out there than the Beretta, but you have to remember, when the M9 was adopted, it was state of the art for high cap pistols. Polymer pistols hadn't really taken off yet. Nowadays, since polymer pistols don't have metal frames, you can double stack a lot more rounds into a skinnier grip. So things have changed since then. So it's easy to say there are better things out there now, but not necessarily when it was adopted. And I also think you have to take a look at the big picture -- you said the M9 is a poor choice for military service, then you later had a whole paragraph of the faults of the 1911 -- those are huge issues, and have to be taken into account. From your own words, it looks to me like a 1911 is a poor choice for general military service. Also, I have to point out, the GI issue 1911 was NEVER as reliable as you and others make it out to be. Troops have always loved it, but there were reliability issues in combat dating back to WWI, and in ever war it's been in since. Don't get me wrong, it's the most influential handgun ever made, and I consider it the greatest handgun ever made. But a lot of the confusion stems from the fact that it was the most reliable semi-auto of it's time. But that doesn't make it reliable by today's standards. If I had to guess, I think the term "stove-piping" was probably coined by a 1911 user. Also, the springs weakened easy, and after some military use, there was also a lot of play between the slide and lower assembly which killed any attempt at accuracy. And once again, I'm going to point out, before I get flamed, I'm talking General Issue military 1911s, not all the custom guns you see on the market now. I own a lot of handguns, and I have an HK USP .45 next to my bed (which I would use to fight my way to my real guns -- my rifles -- in the safe). When my state joins the rest of the country and passes concealed carry, I would probably cary my LCP .380 during the summer, and my USP compact .45 in the winter. But if the SHTF (country collapses, Red Dawn, or Zombie apocalypse) and I could only choose 1 handgun, I would reach for the Beretta 92FS every time.

The first paragraph I actually feel the opposite about. I've always found people to choose larger calibers to make up for poor shooting skills or lack of confidence in their shooting ability, especially amongst hunters, but it carries over into all segments of shooting. People feel that the larger caliber will compensate for a lack of accuracy. I think there are a lot of reasons people prefer the 9mm for combat use, over the .45. For a lot of soldiers, the larger capacity of the 9mm isn't to compensate for poor shooting, it's because in the current conflict, any engagement will include multiple targets. For me, personally, (I know I'll probably be flamed for this) I found the GI issue M9 to be a far more reliable and superior weapon to the GI Issue 1911 (note: I said GI issue, because there are some really high end 1911s on the market.). As for your second paragraph, I have an FN5.7 also, and agree with you. I love it, it's a great pistol. It's extremely light, however it's a little big for everyday carry (I'm speaking hypothetically of course, because I'm from a state that doesn't allow CC.) Why do you only have 8 rds, mine carries 20 rds. Are you in Cali or something?

Microgunner said it best -- everything in life is a compromise. Smaller calibers equal more capacity, lower recoil (thus faster follow on shots), smaller firearms, and more maneuverable, but less power and range. Higher calibers equal more power and range, but higher recoil (slower follow up shots), larger firearms, lower capacity, less maneuverable. These are the rules, so once you find a firearm that is an exception to these rules, you've found a great firearm.

In the scenario I described, you won't be able to "stagger," because you only have one round. If you choose the .45, you only get 1 round. My intent is to compare 230 gr of .45 to (approx) 230 gr of 9mm and .22LR

Thank you, all

Right, but that's not an option in the given scenario. :) Just my opinion, but it's also not a great idea to empty your entire mag -- most of the bad guys around here don't travel alone, so when one goes down, you better be looking for more.

I think I would take the 2x 9mm. My logic: the .45 would do the most damage, but only 1 shot, so what if you miss a vital? The 9mm gives you a back up shot so that you can put both rounds in the same group, or shoot one to the chest and one to the head. I think the .22 would be my second choice. With the no recoil you could pump the six rounds out pretty fast into the chest, or some to the chest and some to the head. The bad thing about the .22 is no matter how fast you shoot it, you'll have to adjust fire, because the attacker will undoubtedly move between the first and last round.

I should have added a third question: 3. Which one would you choose if an attacker were approaching you 1x round of .45, 2x of 9mm or 6x of .22?

In the first one I was debating in my mind which would be more lethal, one very large wound channel, 2 medium wound channels or 6 small wound channels. Becasuse if you're getting into the size of the .45, as you say, all else being equal, the 1x .45, 2x 9mm and 6x .22s all have the same mass, just spread out over an area. The .45 would do more damage, but to one area. The 9mm a little less damage, but to two areas. And the .22 would do even less damage, but to six areas. I try to think of it in different terms, such as bombs. If I were to take a house and drop 1 large bomb, or two medium, or 6 xtra small, which would do more damage to the house. Or a dam: 1 large hole, two medium holes, or 6 xtra small holes. To me, with all else being equal, the first one is kind of a toss up.

Thank you

Here's a hypothetical I have cooked up in my brain. A .22LR is 36 grains, so it takes roughly 3 .22LR to equal 1 9mm 115gr round, and roughly 6 to equal a .45 230gr round. Given this, I have two questions: 1. Setting aside -- for a moment -- velocity and penetration, which wound channel would prove more lethal: 1x .45, 2x 9mm, or 6x .22LR? 2. Now including velocity and penetration, in the real world, which of those 3 would prove more lethal?

Hi, just joined the forums. My interest in .22s has grown in the last several months and will be looking in the next few months to add some tactical .22s to my collection. As for .22s, I don't really own any tactical rifles, but the .22s I own are: Ruger MkIII Browning Buckmark Hi Standard Dura-Matic Rem Nylon 66 Ruger 10/22 Mossberg 42MB Beretta 87 Cheetah (actually wife's)