Favorite Round for CC?

[SR9]

My defensive and everyday carry round in the 9MM hollow point. I use round nose 9MM FMJ for target only.

 

[apvbguy]

Clearly I need to specify a few things. First and foremost all of you have criticized the 100 yard issue for defense, and some of you even doubt it being possible with a handgun. I can say with 100% certainty that I can consistently hit a target the size of a torso at 100 yards with a pistol, l

who gives a rats ass?
1. at 100 yards you should not be using a handgun for defensive purposes, use the right tool for the job, think AR
2. at 100 yards you will have myriad legal issues trying to claim that you were shooting an adversary who was placing your life in imminent danger, america is not a war zone, yet.

now please crawl back under your bridge

 

[apvbguy]

Name one LEO, or one military that has developed their own round or weapon system...here's a hint they go to the private sector for that. Anyone who thinks that LEOs or the armed forces are the standard for marksmanship, weapon craft, weapon knowledge, weapon expertise, are naïve. There is a reason they contract out the work every time they need a new capability. Research the SRD formerly DCD for the Army, or Aberdeen Proving Grounds, or ATK Lake City, or Browning, or Colt, or Armalite, or AAI Corp, ect. The military got ride of the M1 Carbine for the AR weapon platform because "the .30 cal M1 Carbine did not have enough stopping power." The Military then got rid of the Colt 1911 for the Baretta 9mm, and I have never heard a good or consistent reason for that change. When the US Military adopted the AR weapon platform they made NATO convert from .308 to .223 (from 7.62 to 5.56).
The real question is why the hell would you consider LEOs and the Armed forces to be a good source of expertise?

you still haven't named one law enforcement agency or military unit that uses a .22 as a standard duty weapon.

now go crawl back under your bridge

 

[dad45acp]

I applaud your ability to hit a long range target with a pistol. Its seriously a fun thing to do and practice. However realistically in a life or death situation when your target at 100yds is shooting back at you and you have a major fight/flight physiologic response going on, you're not going to snipe that target with a pistol. Just short of luck, no way no how will it happen. Same reason why cops have a history of not being able to hit a life threat only feet away unless they pray and spray and empty all their mags. When the target shoots back, its a game changer.

Sent from my hand-held mind distractor

 

[wolf_fire]

Clearly I need to specify a few things. First and foremost all of you have criticized the 100 yard issue for defense, and some of you even doubt it being possible with a handgun. I can say with 100% certainty that I can consistently hit a target the size of a torso at 100 yards with a pistol, left or right handed As far as 100 yards of standoff is concerned, if you have the capability why would you ignore it and not develop it?
In an age where mass shootings are getting more and more popular I like the knowledge that if all I have on me is a pistol, it is still a relatively fair fight in a wide open public place. So if I had to stand off against someone with an AR, at least within 100 yards I still have a fighting chance. Take Aurora Colorado as a prime example. That little prick shot over 70 people and only killed 12 (12/70 *100 = 17.14% lethality). He had an AR 15, a Remmington 870 tactical 12 gauge, and a Glock 22 (.40 cal) inside a movie theatre which is what maybe 35 to 45 yards long from corner to corner depending on the size of the theatre? At that distance I am consisting hitting a bowling pin with 230 grain .45 ACP... advantage me. But if he had time to wound 70 people, then a lot of people sat back and did not react at all, or did so very slowly. It would have only taken one well trained person (one who had considered shooting more than 25 yards when they selected caliber and weapon) legally carrying concealed to stop that shooting.
Now take the same scenario and apply it to a mall setting like one of the more recent shooting. How far are the distances in a mall? 100 yards, 150 maybe even close to 200 or 300 in the largest parts of bigger malls. Yes statistically speaking I am more likely to win the lottery or get hit by a meteor; but how stupid would I feel in death if I knew I could have prevented being a victim but only limited myself to a 10ft to 25 yard plan of action? I have the ability, I would be stupid to ignore it and not develop it because it is not considered the "norm" in the firearm community. As far as the law is concerned my first squad leader shared a little wisdom with me when I was a young kid that I still think rings true today: "It's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."

OK, let's say you can hit a target CoM at 100 yards with a 22LR round in a pistol (which I still highly doubt, noting how great a shot that is with a .22 rifle). Here's the deal, it won't be effective at stopping them. You lose tremendous speed at that distance even with a rifle which will have a significantly higher muzzle velocity than your .22LR pistol. This is why I own a .17HMR rifle. I use it to hunt squirrel at distances at 100 yards since the .22 at those distances isn't effective. And you claim your pistol at 100 yards will stop a mall shooter. Sorry, nope, it won't.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Clearly I need to specify a few things. First and foremost all of you have criticized the 100 yard issue for defense, and some of you even doubt it being possible with a handgun. I can say with 100% certainty that I can consistently hit a target the size of a torso at 100 yards with a pistol, left or right handed As far as 100 yards of standoff is concerned, if you have the capability why would you ignore it and not develop it?
In an age where mass shootings are getting more and more popular I like the knowledge that if all I have on me is a pistol, it is still a relatively fair fight in a wide open public place. So if I had to stand off against someone with an AR, at least within 100 yards I still have a fighting chance. Take Aurora Colorado as a prime example. That little prick shot over 70 people and only killed 12 (12/70 *100 = 17.14% lethality). He had an AR 15, a Remmington 870 tactical 12 gauge, and a Glock 22 (.40 cal) inside a movie theatre which is what maybe 35 to 45 yards long from corner to corner depending on the size of the theatre? At that distance I am consisting hitting a bowling pin with 230 grain .45 ACP... advantage me. But if he had time to wound 70 people, then a lot of people sat back and did not react at all, or did so very slowly. It would have only taken one well trained person (one who had considered shooting more than 25 yards when they selected caliber and weapon) legally carrying concealed to stop that shooting.
Now take the same scenario and apply it to a mall setting like one of the more recent shooting. How far are the distances in a mall? 100 yards, 150 maybe even close to 200 or 300 in the largest parts of bigger malls. Yes statistically speaking I am more likely to win the lottery or get hit by a meteor; but how stupid would I feel in death if I knew I could have prevented being a victim but only limited myself to a 10ft to 25 yard plan of action? I have the ability, I would be stupid to ignore it and not develop it because it is not considered the "norm" in the firearm community. As far as the law is concerned my first squad leader shared a little wisdom with me when I was a young kid that I still think rings true today: "It's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."

Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

 

[r1derbike]

Clearly, not every one of us criticized the "100 yard issue".

I'm still trying to figure-out what-the-hell this thread is really about, even after reading between the lines?

 

[apvbguy]

Clearly, not every one of us criticized the "100 yard issue".

I'm still trying to figure-out what-the-hell this thread is really about, even after reading between the lines?

there have been reports of the anti crowd visit sites like this to stir up problems
there have been a few other "oddball" threads recently this could probably be a lame attempt to get someone to make a very foolish comment that could be used against the supporters of gun rights
ymmv

 

[mappow]

Per the OP, JHP. Expansion on impact will lesson the degree of pass through to innocents. Ball ie... full jacket will pass through and keep on going. I don't want to be on that end of a law suit.

 

[CR Williams]

100 yard shots and concealed carry don't belong in the same sentence.

Sure they do. Just not very often.

 

[CR Williams]

Clearly, not every one of us criticized the "100 yard issue".

I'm still trying to figure-out what-the-hell this thread is really about, even after reading between the lines?

He's attempting to gather justification and agreement to the idea of running a .22LR pistol for CCW even though he can (I assume) easily run one of the usually-toted calibers.

 

[CR Williams]

To address the original post:

My concern with the .22 is not whether you can hit with it or not. My concern with the .22 is not whether it's a lethal round or not. My concern with the .22 is whether it will stop the attack soon enough to keep someone from dying or not. History demonstrates that this doesn't happen.

I think the OP also expressed some idea that 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP et al lost so much power that they were not lethal at 100 yards or more. That's an very incorrect assumption. Yes, it's less kinetic energy/muzzle velocity/mojo/oomph/whatever at 100 than right out of the muzzle. Still enough to do what you need to with hits, though.

So, no, not the .22. Bring it out to the range of if you want to pot the odd squirrel now and again. Against criminal assault? Get a bigger gun. You will be glad you did.

 

[Blakester]

To address the original post:

My concern with the .22 is not whether you can hit with it or not. My concern with the .22 is not whether it's a lethal round or not. My concern with the .22 is whether it will stop the attack soon enough to keep someone from dying or not. History demonstrates that this doesn't happen.

I think the OP also expressed some idea that 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP et al lost so much power that they were not lethal at 100 yards or more. That's an very incorrect assumption. Yes, it's less kinetic energy/muzzle velocity/mojo/oomph/whatever at 100 than right out of the muzzle. Still enough to do what you need to with hits, though.

So, no, not the .22. Bring it out to the range of if you want to pot the odd squirrel now and again. Against criminal assault? Get a bigger gun. You will be glad you did.

Thank you for addressing the OP rather than trying to get high and mighty on me. I know the .45 ACP has the KE at 100, but as I stated, it drops like a rock before getting there and you really need to compensate (almost volley fire) just to get the round there. My primary carries have been .22LR for shot placement, and 230 grain .45 ACP because of a 1911 (Can't go wrong with a weapon that has proven itself for over 100 years). A bigger gun would be a good option if it weren't for carry and conceal purposes.
.40 cal is what I have been leaning toward because I know it flies flat at 100 yard (point of aim, point of impact). 9mm I have not seriously considered because of my own biases. My first unfortunate experience with 9mm was the M9 baretta during my time on Active Duty. Its possible that the combination of wore out pistols, and crappy ball ammunition just gave me a bad experience, but I have always heard mixed love / hate reviews on 9mm. I would entertain a good argument or case made for 9mm, but I would appreciate something more substantial than the same old argument of "it has always worked for me."

 

[Blakester]

there have been reports of the anti crowd visit sites like this to stir up problems
there have been a few other "oddball" threads recently this could probably be a lame attempt to get someone to make a very foolish comment that could be used against the supporters of gun rights
ymmv

My intent with this thread was to try and spawn a good ballistics conversation by posing the challenge of what pistol and or round is effective at 100 yards but still concealable. I thought if would bring about some interesting intellectual conversation about ballistics, but instead I got berated by narrow-minded individuals who assume that carry and conceal is synonymous with defense and is therefore synonymous with 0-25 yards.
As far as what organizations use .22LR, none of them. You are correct in those regards. But the Entire armed forces, the DoD, NATO, and most SWAT teams all use a .22 caliber round, what do you think 5.56mm (.223) is? The .223 caliber round is just a beefed up version of .22LR. Hence my earlier criticism of swapping the M1 carbine for the AR platform.
I support firearms rights, just not simple minded chest beating rhetoric that is so often found among 2nd amendment advocates. My influence and contributions have impacted future weapon systems that the warfighters to come will appreciate. I have created firearm knowledge that previously was only conjecture through an independent study, and I support the armed citizens project because rather than being doctrine and stat thumpers they are putting theory into practice.

 

[Blakester]

OK, let's say you can hit a target CoM at 100 yards with a 22LR round in a pistol (which I still highly doubt, noting how great a shot that is with a .22 rifle). Here's the deal, it won't be effective at stopping them. You lose tremendous speed at that distance even with a rifle which will have a significantly higher muzzle velocity than your .22LR pistol. This is why I own a .17HMR rifle. I use it to hunt squirrel at distances at 100 yards since the .22 at those distances isn't effective. And you claim your pistol at 100 yards will stop a mall shooter. Sorry, nope, it won't.

Hence the purpose of my original post. It is really difficult to try and generate a decent ballistics conversation in these forums.

 

[Blakester]

I applaud your ability to hit a long range target with a pistol. Its seriously a fun thing to do and practice. However realistically in a life or death situation when your target at 100yds is shooting back at you and you have a major fight/flight physiologic response going on, you're not going to snipe that target with a pistol. Just short of luck, no way no how will it happen. Same reason why cops have a history of not being able to hit a life threat only feet away unless they pray and spray and empty all their mags. When the target shoots back, its a game changer.

Sent from my hand-held mind distractor

Its a good point, and almost all instances I would typically agree with you. Unfortunately for me I have been shot at plenty of times, I know from experience that I would stay calm under pressure. Good insight though, and I appreciate you generating your own opinion rather than just jumping on the bandwagon.

 

[dad45acp]

Its a good point, and almost all instances I would typically agree with you. Unfortunately for me I have been shot at plenty of times, I know from experience that I would stay calm under pressure. Good insight though, and I appreciate you generating your own opinion rather than just jumping on the bandwagon.

Combat conditioning is something that a lot of the forum avengers on here know little or nothing about.

Sent from my hand-held mind distractor

 

[wolf_fire]

My intent with this thread was to try and spawn a good ballistics conversation by posing the challenge of what pistol and or round is effective at 100 yards but still concealable. I thought if would bring about some interesting intellectual conversation about ballistics, but instead I got berated by narrow-minded individuals who assume that carry and conceal is synonymous with defense and is therefore synonymous with 0-25 yards.
As far as what organizations use .22LR, none of them. You are correct in those regards. But the Entire armed forces, the DoD, NATO, and most SWAT teams all use a .22 caliber round, what do you think 5.56mm (.223) is? The .223 caliber round is just a beefed up version of .22LR. Hence my earlier criticism of swapping the M1 carbine for the AR platform.
I support firearms rights, just not simple minded chest beating rhetoric that is so often found among 2nd amendment advocates. My influence and contributions have impacted future weapon systems that the warfighters to come will appreciate. I have created firearm knowledge that previously was only conjecture through an independent study, and I support the armed citizens project because rather than being doctrine and stat thumpers they are putting theory into practice.

Your original post asked specifically, and I quote, "What do you guys think is ballistically the best round for carrying concealed, while maintaining lethality from 0-100 yards?"

What other reason do you carry concealed for and still wish to maintain lethality unless it's for defense? (If it's for offense, then this conversation is over, if it's for target shooting, why do you need to carry concealed to target shoot?) And then, if it is for defense, I still maintain using a pistol for defense at 100 yards is absurd for a few reasons: Pistols, with their shorter barrels do not produce near the muzzle velocity and energy that a rifle does with its longer barrel. At 100 yards, pistols lose tremendous velocity and energy and hence, their lethality. In a court room, after you've shot someone with your pistol at 100 yards, you will have an extremely difficult time expressing why you felt your life was in danger when you shot that person a football field away with your pistol. Heck, at 25 yards you will have an extremely difficult time expressing why you felt your life was in danger.

If you are truly interested in what happens to the ballistics of a handgun round at distance, the following link I'm sure will be very helpful. Your .22 will only have about 75 ft lbs of energy at 100 yards.

FIREARMS TUTORIAL

 

[GR8GLOCKS]

I have been an advocate for .22lr for cc for a long time. I am now wondering though if I should refocus to something in .40 cal. I have been doing a little bit of distance plinking with pistols lately, just broadening my horizons, and I find the .45 ACP just drops too fast at distance for full consideration. I can consistently hit a bowling pin at 50 yards, and I can nail an E-type at 100 with no issues, which is what is making me lean more toward .40 cal. I know .40 cal will fly flat for 100 and still have some knock down power. I am not sure about the knock down power of .22lr at 100. I know the .45ACP (230 grain0, drops about a foot at 100 yards and feels like I am doing a volley fire just to get it to reach 100.

What do you guys think is ballistically the best round for carrying concealed, while maintaining lethality from 0-100 yards?

.40 cal is just 10mm light...


Sent from my iPad using Link Removed

 

[CharlesMorrison]

My influence and contributions have impacted future weapon systems that the war fighters to come will appreciate. I have created firearm knowledge that previously was only conjecture through an independent study

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back!!

Sent from behind Enemy Lines.