New pocket spoon, way lighter!

[Bill Douglas]

But as self defence they are excellent.

[vonsmog]

Jeff, I have killed large game with a pistol and have put kill shots in game I have shot with shotgun and rifle. I would take a 22 rim fire as a carry gun over some large frame 44 mag. I have a very active life and would rather dress for comfort than to hide some cannon which I pray I will never need. I plan on this small Ruger to be with me when mountain biking, hiking, jogging and other activities. Now if I were one to just sit in a car or walk around in long pants and overcoat, things might be different. But for me and it sounds like many others these small guns fit the bill.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Bill Douglas

But as self defence they are excellent.

By what measure? Have you any personal experiences you can relate? I don't, so I rely on "reports from the field", and viewing of real life defensive shooting situations in which others were unlucky enough to find themselves. And, believe me, these little guns are absolutely terribly ineffective in pretty much every instance I have ever reviewed.

So, yeah, a Bic lighter is super light and easy to carry. Is it a valid defensive tool? Prolly not...

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by vonsmog

Jeff, I have killed large game with a pistol and have put kill shots in game I have shot with shotgun and rifle. I would take a 22 rim fire as a carry gun over some large frame 44 mag. I have a very active life and would rather dress for comfort than to hide some cannon which I pray I will never need. I plan on this small Ruger to be with me when mountain biking, hiking, jogging and other activities. Now if I were one to just sit in a car or walk around in long pants and overcoat, things might be different. But for me and it sounds like many others these small guns fit the bill.

No one is suggesting a large frame .44 mag as a carry gun. It would probably be about as useless as that .22 rimfire, but for other reasons.

I've used revolvers to kill an awful lot of game, as my primary weapon. Deer, elk, black bear, antelope, and caribou. I've related all of this here previously. I started with the .357 mag on deer, loaded with a popular 158 grain JSP in a pretty stiff handload. To say that load was "ineffective" on our mulies here in Washington would be an understatement. So I went up to the .44 mag, with a popular 240 grain JSP, again in a fairly stout handload. Not really any better, to be honest. In both loads the bullets simply opened up too much and failed to adequately penetrate. To paraphrase our favorite Black Knight from The Search for the Holy Grail, they would only leave "flesh wounds". I wound up chasing too many of them way too far after good hits in the heart/lung area. The bullets just didn't get deep enough into them to significantly damage those parts.

Things did not improve until I learned about, and switched to, hard cast lead bullets. With that change alone, things improved dramatically, and game was no longer running off after good hits. The bullets were achieving 100% penetration, exiting the far side regardless of the angle from which I hit them. The most impressive was full length penetration on a mature bull caribou, when I put a 300 grain LBT (Lead Bullet Technologies, aka Veral Smith out of Idaho) LFN (long flat nose) into the brisket (he was facing me at about 20 yards) that exited right next to his bunghole. Launched from a .44 mag at about 1,200 fps. These hard cast lead bullets absolutely do not expand, nor are they meant to do so. Every one I've ever recovered, save for rifling marks, could probably be reloaded and shot again. We give up expansion for penetration with these. This is important - we don't get to have both from any handgun load.

That's all well and good, and I can certainly prattle on with such "war stories" long enough to bore anyone. But how does that relate to the topic at hand? Well, folks seem to believe that putting some whiz-bang ammo into these little pea shooters somehow makes them "more effective". Some fancy hollow point, or other such contrivance. They look great in the ads in the magazines, all beautifully (and uniformly) mushroomed. They'll fool anyone who has not actually killed with a handgun. Alas, nothing could be further from the truth...

Back to my experiences with the JSP's in both the .357 and .44 mags. Ineffective due to a lack of penetration. And these two magnum handgun rounds, fired from 6" and 7 1/2" hunting revolvers, generate 600-700 foot pounds of energy in the former, over 1,000 in the latter. Compare that to a .380 out of a 2" barrel, where most loads drop below 200 foot pound of energy. And we expect those fancy hollow points to expand (as shown on T.V.), and penetrate? No way in hell are they going to be able to do that. No way. Impossible. Powerful hunting loads from magnum revolvers cannot do both - expand and adequately penetrate - yet we are to believe these little rounds can achieve that? Uh huh...

There are many stories of various European police agencies that had once adopted the .380 for their officers. In full size guns, mind you, so they are getting that (still exceedingly weak) "full" 300 foot pounds of muzzle energy. They found, much to their dismay, that in winter weather this little round would often fail to even penetrate their adversary's overcoat when using hollow point bullets. Switching to FMJ's didn't help much, by the way.

We have to make choices with handguns. Penetration or expansion - we do not get both, even in powerful hunting revolver rounds. Much less these little guys. Even loaded with FMJ ammo, they are extremely poor penetrators. Loaded with the fancy hollow points they will fail to penetrate sufficiently almost every time, leaving that "flesh wound" that failed to impress our Black Knight. Real world data, and having now the opportunity to watch real world gun fights (thanks to the modern "virtual panopticon" in which we all now live), bears this out. These little guns do not make the perps stop fighting. This has been demonstrated far too often for my taste.

[72doug2,2S]

I have yet to carry, but I know it would be my LCP. I get that it isn't as effective as other calibers, but I carry nothing now.

[Bill Douglas]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

By what measure?

I was shot in the face by a .38 spl fragment. I would be in no mood for antics after that. Blood everywhere and knocked me on my arse.

[Por_sha911]

There is a difference between shooting a lean and athletic deer at 25 yards and shooting an punk perp at 5 yards. Everything has a purpose and a limitation. To say a .380 has no defensive value at 3-7 yards because it can't kill a mullie at 25 yards is apples and oranges. I normally carry 9mm +P but there is a time and a place for the .380.

[Por_sha911]

Originally Posted by Tim Hancock

After trying both many years ago my wife and I both pocket carry the Taurus TCP Vs the Ruger LCP. Basically the same size, but the TCP trigger is a bit "nicer", TCP has last shot hold open and TCP has ever so slightly larger "sights".

Take a look at the LCP II: much better trigger and slides stays open on last shot. If you want the extra capacity go with the LCP Max.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

There is a difference between shooting a lean and athletic deer at 25 yards and shooting an punk perp at 5 yards. Everything has a purpose and a limitation. To say a .380 has no defensive value at 3-7 yards because it can't kill a mullie at 25 yards is apples and oranges. I normally carry 9mm +P but there is a time and a place for the .380.

I couldn't agree more. That is, however, my only personal experience. Oh - and that lean, mean mulie has likely not been shooting meth all day. The drugs are a huge factor in "bullet resistance". I hope I never have to shoot that punk perp... flying on meth... he won't even feel it. You have to actually disable some vital system to make him stop. Pain won't do it. He won't notice. These little pea shooters are largely, and quite demonstrably, incapable of doing that.

That said, that is only one point of reference I offered. The others are probably more valid with regards to shooting that punk perp, but they are not my own. As Muldar used to say, "the truth is out there". I referenced several sources for that "truth". Readily available surveillance camera footage of actual real life defensive shootings. Watch some - they succeeded in pretty much scaring me into changing my mind with regards to what I would ever consider as a defensive sidearm. Add to that the afore mentioned difficulties encountered by many European police agencies that had adopted (and subsequently abandoned) the .380 in full size guns, and I am convinced they are entirely inadequate. That Bic lighter might actually be better...

[Por_sha911]

We are on the same page as far as more firepower being better. We should always encourage folks to carry the most rounds in the highest caliber they can handle.

My concern is that I feel that you are standing too firm with an 'all or nothing' posture. That little powder-puff .380 will help me in a 2-3 yard situation with a few well placed shots to the face when I am unable to carry a reasonably sized pistol.

As far as the much suggested meth-head attacker is concerned, statistically you are way out of range. What about if the attacker has body armor and hand grenades?

BTW, Bic lighter? John Wick can get it done with a pencil.

[fred cook]

My deep carry gun is a Sig P365 SAS. It is the one with no sights on top of the slide, but rather a green bubble sight on the rear of the slide. Nothing to catch on clothes when doing a fast draw. It is relatively light, 9mm and has a 10 rd magazine (10+1). For hot weather carry, I use a KelTec P32 in an inside the pocket holster. It completely disappears in most pants pockets. I know, 32 is too small, but it really can go anywhere at anytime and be out of sight. For cold weather/heavy coat carry, I use a Sig P220 in 45 ACP. What I have depends on the time of year but I do (almost) always have something at hand!

[john70t]

I would hazard a guess that a personal carry firearm is only as useful as the ability to access and draw it quickly in a situation. Most situations are up close and personal. It takes a second to realize you are under threat and might have to do harm against another human. A lot of distance can be covered in that time either way. The first to draw always has the advantage. No matter the caliper. And smaller calipers have smaller kickback.

If it's anything more than that, taking cover or fleeing should be considered foremost.
Perps usually flee when the first two go down.

(er. I don't ever see myself shooting through windshields in a highway shootout and probably wouldn't make it.)

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

We are on the same page as far as more firepower being better. We should always encourage folks to carry the most rounds in the highest caliber they can handle.

My concern is that I feel that you are standing too firm with an 'all or nothing' posture. That little powder-puff .380 will help me in a 2-3 yard situation with a few well placed shots to the face when I am unable to carry a reasonably sized pistol.

As far as the much suggested meth-head attacker is concerned, statistically you are way out of range. What about if the attacker has body armor and hand grenades?

BTW, Bic lighter? John Wick can get it done with a pencil.

We all have our mental image of how this might play out. I would implore anyone who harbors any such to spend some time watching how it actually does play out, in real life. It's never how we imagine it might go.

That includes shooting someone in the face. I've watched literally dozens and dozens (maybe hundreds) of real life defensive shootings captured on surveillance cameras. In not one single instance - not one - was anyone able to shoot the other guy in the face. Not one. Not even when "highly trained" police officers are involved. The situations unfold too rapidly, things are way too dynamic and rushed. At 2-3 yards, believe it or not, many manage to miss the entire torso. Thinking you will be able to shoot anyone in the face is simply unrealistic. You aren't good enough. I guarantee it. No one is. Not even John Wick. And, by the way, wasn't that the Joker? Didn't he slam the guy's head down on the pencil?

And, yeah, let's talk about that meth head. You might meet him, but you probably will not. What you absolutely will meet under these circumstances is far, far worse - an opponent jacked up on adrenaline. And you will be too. It will have an affect on both of you that will help determine the outcome of the fight. It will make him, for all intents and purposes "bullet proof".

Again, like our meth head, nothing short of a "critical" hit - central nervous system or heart - will immediately stop him. You must destroy one or the other, or he keeps fighting. Even a few seconds of "keeps fighting" can change the outcome for you. It doesn't matter if you have scored a fatal hit. He can die hours later in the hospital, or even minutes later right there in front of you. Doesn't matter. What matters is how long he can continue the fight after he is mortally wounded. In big game hunting, we refer to this as "stopping power". Make that god damned thing stop now - kill him later. There is a difference.

Back to adrenaline and how it affects you. Back to that "just shoot him in the face". Good luck with that. Like I said, I have never seen anyone succeed. You will be surprised how easy it is to miss when you are pumped full of the stuff. Fine motor skills simply vanish. You will be lucky to score non-fatal hits anywhere on the other guy, even at 2-3 yards.

We all owe it to ourselves, if we choose to do this, to educate ourselves. This plays out far, far differently than any of us imagine. We live in an age where we can actually watch how it plays out for others. Take advantage of that. I have said it has changed my outlook.

I went from thinking I was "armed" with a 19th century Single Action in .45 Colt - a substantial caliber even by modern standards (I've killed elk with it for God's sake), carrying only five rounds, to a much, much more realistic assessment of all of this. I was the "victim" of my own romantic fantasies of old west gunfights. I shoot those things intuitively, like an extension of my own hand. I thought I could handle any number of assailants, up to five anyway. I know better now. And I know enough to understand that some little pocket gun, with less than 200 ft lbs of energy available, is simple laughable as a self defense gun.

Bad guys, whether on meth or just adrenaline, simply shrug off anything less than spinal cord or brain hits from these puny little calibers. Either one, in a quickly unfolding defensive situation, will be impossible to hit from a pure marksmanship point of view anyway. Now add the inability of the underpowered, inadequate round to even penetrate that deep if by some stroke of luck you actually do send a shot that way, and we have a recipe for failure.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

We all have our mental image of how this might play out. I would implore anyone who harbors any such to spend some time watching how it actually does play out, in real life. It's never how we imagine it might go.

That includes shooting someone in the face. I've watched literally dozens and dozens (maybe hundreds) of real life defensive shootings captured on surveillance cameras. In not one single instance - not one - was anyone able to shoot the other guy in the face. Not one. Not even when "highly trained" police officers are involved. The situations unfold too rapidly, things are way too dynamic and rushed. At 2-3 yards, believe it or not, many manage to miss the entire torso. Thinking you will be able to shoot anyone in the face is simply unrealistic. You aren't good enough. I guarantee it. No one is. Not even John Wick. And, by the way, wasn't that the Joker? Didn't he slam the guy's head down on the pencil?

And, yeah, let's talk about that meth head. You might meet him, but you probably will not. What you absolutely will meet under these circumstances is far, far worse - an opponent jacked up on adrenaline. And you will be too. It will have an affect on both of you that will help determine the outcome of the fight. It will make him, for all intents and purposes "bullet proof".

Again, like our meth head, nothing short of a "critical" hit - central nervous system or heart - will immediately stop him. You must destroy one or the other, or he keeps fighting. Even a few seconds of "keeps fighting" can change the outcome for you. It doesn't matter if you have scored a fatal hit. He can die hours later in the hospital, or even minutes later right there in front of you. Doesn't matter. What matters is how long he can continue the fight after he is mortally wounded. In big game hunting, we refer to this as "stopping power". Make that god damned thing stop now - kill him later. There is a difference.

Back to adrenaline and how it affects you. Back to that "just shoot him in the face". Good luck with that. Like I said, I have never seen anyone succeed. You will be surprised how easy it is to miss when you are pumped full of the stuff. Fine motor skills simply vanish. You will be lucky to score non-fatal hits anywhere on the other guy, even at 2-3 yards.

We all owe it to ourselves, if we choose to do this, to educate ourselves. This plays out far, far differently than any of us imagine. We live in an age where we can actually watch how it plays out for others. Take advantage of that. I have said it has changed my outlook.

I went from thinking I was "armed" with a 19th century Single Action in .45 Colt - a substantial caliber even by modern standards (I've killed elk with it for God's sake), carrying only five rounds, to a much, much more realistic assessment of all of this. I was the "victim" of my own romantic fantasies of old west gunfights. I shoot those things intuitively, like an extension of my own hand. I thought I could handle any number of assailants, up to five anyway. I know better now. And I know enough to understand that some little pocket gun, with less than 200 ft lbs of energy available, is simple laughable as a self defense gun.

Bad guys, whether on meth or just adrenaline, simply shrug off anything less than spinal cord or brain hits from these puny little calibers. Either one, in a quickly unfolding defensive situation, will be impossible to hit from a pure marksmanship point of view anyway. Now add the inability of the underpowered, inadequate round to even penetrate that deep if by some stroke of luck you actually do send a shot that way, and we have a recipe for failure.

I'm actually with you. My only counter is that I too have seen videos of shoot outs and defensive shootings. What I've seen is that often times if the intended victim starts shooting, the bad guys run away. They weren't expecting that sort of response and their sense of self preservation kicks in. Yes, I've also seen defensive shootings where the aggressor gets shot and doesn't slow down.

I'm assuming that what we have is something like 99.9% of people will never need to defend themselves with a gun. For the .1% of people that do need to defend themselves with a gun, as soon as they start shooting at the bad guy 99% of the bad guys will run. That remaining 1% of bad guys are hopped up on adrenaline or drugs and have to be killed before they'll stop.

[KFC911]

I have always been fan of Jeff's admonishments and a .45 ACP was my choich. When I don't listen to the Col like I did for decades I slip a Ruger LC9S (sweet trigger btw, and accurate)... in my jeans/shorts front pocket. Derived from the LCP lineage and a good, cheap, "disposable" pocket spoon (not a Colt or S&W, etc). I have zero experience with any other wimpy pocket spoons fwiw.... but I do like mine .

[rfuerst911sc]

I find these conversations interesting on what caliber and how many are needed to kill or ward off a bad guy . Will 5-6 from a revolver do the job ? Will 11-12 from a semi auto be enough ? There are so many scenarios that could happen and obviously there is no single right answer .

I am in the camp that whatever weapon you have on hand ( bat/knife/gun ) that's what you use and be as proficient as possible with it . Ultimately I want to avoid EVER being in a situation where lethal force is needed . For what it's worth all my hand spoons are revolvers in calibers .22LR .... 32 S&W ..... 357 magnum .

I would take any of those over a stick on the ground 😁

[KFC911]

I'd always pick up that stick instead of the twig next to it too .... given a choich .

That one time when my heart was beatin' about 250 or so with my LC9S in my pocket.... I think I might have been able to hit something better with a Loiusville Slugger instead

[Tim Hancock]

Jeff's arguments are valid.... But that said, in the smallish NW Ohio community we live near and work in I am fine with my choice of the .380 for every day carry. Company I work for does not allow carry in buildings. So my carry piece usually lives in my car. When I go out to lunch or gas station, it is super simple to slip my little TCP into my pocket whether wearing summer or winter attire. If I had to instead strap on something larger every time I got out of my car.... I wouldn't.... So IOW, something is better than nothing for me.

I have some experience putting down animals with .22 and have had instances where I have had to pump a whole bunch of rounds into a raccoon or similar to get it to stop moving. But I would rather have the option of a fighting chance with a .380 at close range than not having a larger pistol with me at all.

If I lived/worked in a rougher area, I would likely have already purchased a newer slim small 9mm. When traveling, I do typically have both my pocket gun and my Glock in car with me and will often choose to carry the larger caliber when I get out
of car.

When I worked in much more "urban" Toledo years ago, I chose to carry my 9mm Glock when exiting my car at the typical gas station there.

[Por_sha911]

Jeff: I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Frankly, I am a big fan of the Mozambique Drill. I could present proof of shots to the face but it doesn't matter.

Pencil: (NSFW language)

[Bill Douglas]

For around the house - non carry, something heavy weight is great.

But for in your pocket, when it's a case of only bringing it because because it doesn't become uncomfortable/intrusive, one of those little puppies is the business.