My friend,Sounds good my friend.
What specifically are you referring to as a ‘straw man’?
The part you bolded? The 9mm does have more recoil then the .22? So on and so on?
I absolutely agree with this and don’t see anywhere I have suggested differently? In fact, I’m sure there is a post of mine in the what weapon in an intrusion thread that even mentions don’t choose a shotgun if you can’t handle it and pick the right weapon for exactly how one plans on handling the specific situation?
I would even go further in saying, If you can’t handle a 9mm, then get a .22? Isn’t a .22 in the hands of someone better than nothing?
It wasn’t too long back the President of my HOA approached me and told me he was thinking about getting an AR for home defense and could I take him to the range to try out and shoot an AR?
I did that very thing. However, even though he is 80 years old, there are many kinds and types of 80 year olds? While this particular 80 year old is very small in height and weight, he is also very thin and frail. While he is in good health and walks his dog a couple of miles every day, I could tell he is very weak in his legs, upper torso with out much muscle mass.
He also owns a S&W M&P compact, so I asked him to bring it along. Before I even put the AR in his hands, I had him shoot his 9mm.
After about an half hour, I realized his lack of coordination, lack of grip strength, lack of finger strength for proper trigger control even with the striker fired trigger wasn’t good. I even had to repeatedly charge the pistol as he didn’t have the strength to manipulate the slide.
He showed these same discrepancies with the AR. He shot the AR fine from a rest. But he could not shoulder it, hold it there with any firm foundation of self support. He had a very hard time working the controls or reloading or even charging the rifle while supporting it under his own power.
Well, guess what? Because I was already a bit doubtful and pessimistic before we even got to the range, I also brought with me my Ruger MKIV and my Ruger 10/22 with the Ruger BX-25 magazines.
We spent a couple of hours with those Rugers, me showing him and his wife, how to shoot, operate, manipulate, carry, load and reload those two Ruger .22’s.
He and his wife, live in a very safe gated community, in a very safe neighborhood in a very safe suburb of the city.
The odds of them having to use a couple of .22’s is hopefully close to nil. However, you should have seen their eyes light up and the smiles and glow of confidence on their faces and the relief I could see in their expressions when they learned to use and consistently operate those .22’s and that even at 80 and quite frail, they felt the feeling of independence again with the ability to possibly be able to protect themselves real or imagined.
They now are the proud owners of their own Ruger MK IV and 10/22..
There are many who get this with 9mm, .45, .357, .40 and yes, even .22.
I agree sir. But do you also agree they will also do it better and faster than .357? .44? 10mm? What about .380? Or .22?
I think a healthy viably stronger person can learn to shoot most caliber’s without ‘Grandmaster skills’? Where does it begin on the caliber size scale for the need of Grandmaster skills? Talk about your ‘straw-man’s?
I spent 10 years successfully teaching young adult males & females to use Glock 22’s & 23’s chambered in .40 S&W. There were always a few here, or one or two there, who I sent home and ended their LE careers because they couldn’t learn the proficiency it takes to carry and use a .40 caliber Glock. We didn’t bounce them down to a 9mm, we bounced them out.
But the majority of participating cadets did make it and became or are police officers as I type this. In saying this, this same department’s policies now only train cadets in the academy with 9mm instead of .40. How times change. But are they doing this because 9mm “ is just as good” as .40? Or because it’s cheaper to purchase a 1,000 rounds per cadet? Along with it being easier? They also allow the choice of 9mm .40 and .45 for officers after the academy as long as they qualify with their preferred choice.
But let’s not get reality twisted. Just because 9mm is easier, that doesn’t make it better or just as good? IMO, the best skills learned are sometimes, the harder to obtain? But always well worth the time & trouble put into in order to obtain them.
I personally think there is a huge learning curve between a .22 and a .44 Magnum. But .22 to .32? Not so much? .41 Magnum to .44 Magnum? Not so much. .40 S&W to 10mm? Not so much.
9mm to .40? Barely noticeable at all if we are simply speaking in terms of combat pistols at combat ranges when it comes to recoil, muzzle rise, follow up and shots on targets. If a person is viable enough physically to learn the skill of controlling 9mm, .40 isn’t that different? It just takes the time, desire and commitment to do so. It absolutely amazes me, that the same people who suggest that the .40 is somehow WAY more difficult to shoot over the 9mm, these same people want us to believe that 9mm round is comparable to the .40 in terminal ballistics and the gap between them is so small and insignificant?
Really? Can’t have it both ways? It’s much harder to control because of its increased power? But the 9mm is just as capable? Confusingly interesting to me.
If you want to talk 4 leaf clovers in competition? Ok, but that’s a straw man because those guys are looking for the smallest groups in order to win they’re not looking to end a fight fast.
If you want to talk about wet behind the ear non shooters who have never touched a gun? That’s a straw man also, because if you argue 9mm, I would say a .22 is the first gun they should touch.
Even my G23 holds 13 rounds in the magazine with a 14th in the pipe.
No one is arguing here that everyone should carry and use a .40. I carry a 9mm 99% of the time in my retired civilian life and feel efficiently armed.
I have clearly stated only two things. One is personal preference of the .40 either as a duty caliber or if/when you absolutely know you will be going into harms way.
The second is fact.
The 9mm gets it done only by speed.
The .45 gets it done only by size.
The .40 gets it done by speed & size. Which is a superior option if we are just strictly comparing the calibers and not any of the many other intricacies or straw man’s into the equation or debate.
Speaking on just the calibers, do you disagree?
I missed my calling as a defense attorney….
The ad infinitum .22 is easier than .380 is easier than 9mm, etc., etc., that is so frequently used on gun boards, is the straw man, and it serves none of us well.
I'm not trying to convince anyone to use a particular caliber.
Your statement regarding the relative merits of the calibers, based on terminal efficacy requirements, is true.
However. For a defensive sidearm of the 3 main calibers, the majority of shooters will have more and more accurate hits with the 9mm. If we remove the criteria of using a double-stack weapon, and allow single-stacks, on the exceeding and anecdotal information I've randomly encountered, the trainers I've known/worked with will say shooters using 9mm and .45 are pretty neck and neck.
Granted, many folks (including yourself) perform well with .40, but as evidenced by virtually every department in the country backtracking and allowing, if not converting back to, 9mm and occasionally .45, for shooters of comparable experience and performance level, the milder calibers will show better hit ratios.
Having said that, it is possible to take a HK USP (the first handgun designed around the .40) and MagnaPort it, change the springs, do a bit of tuck-n-tailor on the grip, and it's a whole new platform (btdt). If I were starting over with the funds I have available in a no-kids-at-home life, I would seriously look at .40. Cost in system support and extra rounds in training is higher, but starting from ground zero that would be calculating the cost of the tower, speaking parabolically.
Peace.
