To make you feel like you're covered. I'm looking for personal feeling and opinion. What do you think? Does it work for you?
Peace...
My carry pistols are a 9mm and a .45 semi-automatic pistols. For close encounters of the coyote, stray dog, or bobcat kind, I think they would work just fine. Whether or not any firearm is coverage enough for self defense would surely depend upon the situation.
I've really not done a whole lot of research, but IMHO,* and giving my best SWAG,* it seems to reason that the range and stopping power are greater with the these two, or even with a .40 semi-automatic pistol, with their longer barrels, larger bullets, and differing grain measurements over my .380s.
The following 3 paragraphs are from
this site:
9mm Versus .380 ACP For Self-Defense
by Dick Metcalf, Technical Editor, Shooting Times
"The .380 is simply not in the same performance class as the 9mm..."
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Some have argued that in the very short barrels (in the 3.0- to 3.25-inch range) typically found on small pistols, the apparent ballistic advantage of the longer case 9mm is canceled and the two loads' performances are essentially the same. [/FONT]...
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The .380 ACP is nothing other than a short 9mm (its German name, in fact, 9mm Kurtz, literally translates as 9mm Short), and like the .22 Short in relation to the .22 Long Rifle, or even the .38 Special in relation to the .357 Magnum, the shorter cartridge has only a portion of the authority of the longer 9mm.[/FONT] ...
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Overall, the 9mm provides a 40 percent greater wounding effectiveness (based on wound channel surface area) than does the .380. When equivalent bullet designs in the two cartridges are compared directly (for example, the Winchester SXTs and Remington Golden Sabers), the distinction is obvious. The .380 is simply not in the same performance class as the 9mm, even though the subjective experience of firing the two pistols is very much the same.[/FONT] ..."
Back to my thoughts.
If a .380 is really just a "shorter" version of the 9mm, and if the 9mm provides for a greater wounding effectiveness" for self defense, would not also the .40 and a .45 provide for a greater wounding effectiveness than the .380?
I'm sure there are other arguments for all the firearms and their respective "projectiles" for grain, weight, and performance; for the weight of individual firearms for comfort of carry, (heavy v light
and for the overall sizes and lengths of each for ease of concealment, (small/short v large/long.)
However, IDK if any of them would be "enough" defense to feel "covered" against a BG
Link Removed when they don't feel anything at all, or a BG shooting at me from a great distance as
from a university tower, or a BG who "goes off" as did the
Beltway Sniper from the Washington DC area.
We used to hear on the Los Angeles area news where BGs were shot multiple times by police, but then they kept on coming, "running dead," charging toward officers, out of control, stripping off their clothes, ranting and raving, on
PCP, commonly known as Angel Dust, or on something else.
In these types of cases, what most people CC or OC might not be good enough for ANYONE'S defense. We all just take our chances and hedge our bets the best we can that we prevail in our self defense efforts against the BGs.
Like we used to say years ago when we heard the Friday morning, 10 am sirens in L.A., CA., "If a "nuke" (or in this case, a high-powered, long-range bullet) ever came my way then that's the time that I could just bend over and kiss my arse goodbye." :fie:
IMHO - in my humble opinion
SWAG - scientific wild arse guess
