.22 vs 9mm vs .45

[AR.Hunter.308]

True, but one of the military contract competitors was the Sig Sauer P226.....which was not chosen, and in my opinion is FAR superior to the Beretta in almost every way.

The Air Force conducted the first testing, and chose the Beretta. I have a feeing that the biggest influence in them picking the Beretta was to get Italy to allow us to put cruise missiles over there. It was more of a "you scratch my back, Ill scratch yours" thing then actually choosing the best firearm for the task.

The competitors with the Air Force testing were:

Beretta 92S-1, Colt SSP, Smith & Wesson 459, FN DA, FN FA, FN High Power, Star M28, Heckler & Koch P9S and H&K VP70

The US Army contested the results, and then conducted their own testing while adding a few offerings they wanted in the lineup. All of them except the Sig failed the test against the 1911, not only the first time, but the second time as well. They lowered the standards of the test, and ended up taking the Beretta over the Sig because Beretta's bid was lower.

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.

[asmurff]

Well the cost per unit will always be a major factor in the choice for weapons for the military.

[rodent.22]

I am as likely to miss with a .22, 9mm, or .45. If given a choice my P90 in .45 is good. Very big but VERY reliable with hollowpoints. My P95 in 9mm a little bit easier to hide and VERY reliable with hollowpoints. I also have a 5 shot .38 that I enjoy carrying. I simply cannot believe that a .45 round is not sufficient to stop 99.99 % of attackers. Mentally I think of the .45 as a one-shot, The 9mm or .38 as a probable multiple shot scenario. Just my 2 cents worth, I'm REALLY enjoying this discussion.... :beer:

[Kilibreaux]

Such questions as you pose are known as "counter intuitive" because they ask questions to which the answer is obvious.

SIX .22LR rounds are far more deadly than a single .45 ACP or 2 rounds of 9mm.  EACH round of .22LR has the potential to kill so if each is placed correctly one has the ability to kill 6 people - theoretically speaking.

If you faced someone with just ONE shot...regardless of caliber versus 6 shots....that is the TRUTH of the handgun debate.  ONE round of .22 CAN be lethal and often IS incapacitating, so why would anyone choose a single .45 round over 6 .22LR rounds....????

[Kilibreaux]

If all you have, or choose to carry is a pistol chambered in .22LR, then you are WELL ARMED!

Forget all the BS and hype about other calibers, the .22LR will get the job done.

[AR.Hunter.308]

If all you have, or choose to carry is a pistol chambered in .22LR, then you are WELL ARMED!

Forget all the BS and hype about other calibers, the .22LR will get the job done.

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.

[crashoverrideplik]

My choice would be the .45. My Glock 21 holds 13. If you are looking for stopping power in a close quarters situation the .45 has the most knock down power and damage potential. I shoot 400 rounds  of 9mm and .45 each weekend at the range and average about 1-2K out of the AR with the .22 upper. Any of these weapons with the right shot placement would kill. For me I use Hornady rounds in my 9mm and .45 for personal defense. Any shot in the chest area with these rounds are going to leave a critical wound  (and gaping hole) at anything less than 10 yards. IMO a shot further than 10 yards means you have left your house and shouldn't be shooting.

[AR.Hunter.308]

My choice would be the .45. My Glock 21 holds 13. .............Any shot in the chest area with these rounds are going to leave a critical wound  (and gaping hole) at anything less than 10 yards. IMO a shot further than 10 yards means you have left your house and shouldn't be shooting.

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.

[crashoverrideplik]

1. You don't get 13 rounds of .45, you only get 1 round.  That's the rules

Sorry, I was posting that to another post saying a .45 only holds 8. Still one shot. I'd choose the .45.

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 was commenting to a threat in the house. About 10 yards is the max shot for me in my house without penetration into other houses, etc.

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.

You make valid points. I was basing my comments on threats to me.  Threats to my wife or child would be a different story.

[AR.Hunter.308]

You make valid points. I was basing my comments on threats to me.  Threats to my wife or child would be a different story.

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? 

[asmurff]

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?

My personal opinion is the law abiding citizen should have no requirement to retreat and any law saying otherwise is unconstitutional.