Why is it that the 9mm Parabellum is the first choice when choosing a handgun no matter how small it is? I think the notion that it's the best caliber overall for self defense is ridiculous especially in smaller framed guns. I don't disagree that it is a good round for self defense because it's cheap, plentiful, and will cause massive internal trauma in self defense situations depending on shot placement. It's toted as the minimum in the gun world for self defense however it's the worst in small framed guns.
What use is a gun if you cannot consistently hit the target? This rings especially true during moments of stress when at best you'll only perform at the skills you've already mastered. For instance, lets say that you own a Keltec PF9, which is 9mm, and that you've mastered the safe handling of this firearm from a concealed holster. A crazed knife wielding individual threatens your life and you pull your gun and fire multiple times at the perpetrater . What are your chances that the bullets will find their mark? I don't disagree that with proper training that this scenario would end with the baddy having multiple 9mm size entrance holes but for the average person who shoots once a year, this instance would be difficult to achieve.
How much training is required for successfully stopping any form of attack upon your person with the best factors to your advantage with the exception of mastering a small framed gun chambered in 9mm? Answer is more than your average mid-size to full-size handgun, even more if it's a small framed gun in .40 S&W and other larger rounds. I never hear of people going to the range and unloading hundreds of rounds through their small guns unless it's .380 acp or smaller.
One training technique to help out with getting around putting hundred of rounds through a gun, if it's uncomfortable is to get a similar firearm in .22lr and train with both during the same course of time at the range. A good example is having a person train with a 1911 in .45 acp and with .22lr. This works with even beginners, my first handgun I trained on was with my father's Kimber Custom Classic paired with a Ruger 22/45 Slabside. Being 13 or 14 years old at the time, I had issues with recoil. Without the benefit of having multiple handguns in differing calibers and sizes, I was given one and then the other until recoil wasn't a issue and over a short time I could shoot one or the other easily.
The differing calibers can be done with smaller, hard to shoot handguns too. However, like I mentioned before, not everyone has time to train and master so making the most at the range can be training at home. This usually involves snap caps and practicing trigger pull. This can be done at home, I would also make double sure that there is no ammo in your gun or even in the general area. Just find a target or even just put a dark piece of tape on the wall and keep your sights on it while pulling the trigger. If this is done regularly, go to the range and see if your training has shown any results.
If training is still hard to get to, which if you carry I'm a big proponent of making it to the range at least twice a year and shooting over 500rds. How much should one go for optimum results? Every month with at least one class with a certified teacher/instructor, round count should be in the thousands. Best case for me most of the time is once a month with another person who you can cross train with, switching up with people can be a great opportunity, they'll make note what is wrong and teach you other techniques or tell you about things to look into. Not to mention you'll more than likely get to try other firearms in the process.
Personally, sometimes all the training isn't worth it with such large rounds in small guns. I'm really fond of the .380 acp and the .32 acp in regards to small guns shooting small calibers. I own a Beretta 84FS because even though it's a metal framed gun the size of a Glock 19, I can empty 14rds onto the target faster than a 9mm with little effort and even less training. I can even hit a 12" target at 25m consistently at probably the same rate as a 9mm. The multiple hit probability with a smaller handgun is higher closeup with a smaller round due to less recoil, while a larger round may get one hit on target and the following rounds not hitting the mark.
The frame size, caliber, and even material make a big difference when choosing a close in handgun. I think a Glock 19 would be the smallest frame I'd take with a 9mm in plastic, however a single stack 9mm in a steel frame I'd probably go down to a Sig P238 since it's a metallic frame and has a little more heft. The smallest gun I own is a Keltec P32, which is probably the minimum caliber handgun I'd carry, of course any gun is better than no gun.
Since the early 1900's the .32 acp was carried by the police in different countries, it killed Arch Duke Ferdinand and started WWI. It's not a powerful round but with modern gun powder and new JHP bullets, it can perform. Watching youtube videos, a Keltec P32 shooting some round with a Hornaday .32 XTP bullet was able to penetrate 12" of ballistic gelatin. Which shows that even smaller rounds can be counted on in a defense situation.
No matter the gun, recoil plays an important factor in shooting, especially defense shooting. Quite often guns are chosen because of weight. To me this plays into some importance when choosing a gun however with the right size of gun along with a good holster many aluminum alloyed frames aren't without consideration. A heavier frame and lighter round can shoot with little to no recoil, a Beretta 81FS, same size as a Glock 19 can achieve this, it'll way considerable more but it's advantages are many.
Looking at a Ruger LCP or Keltec P3AT seem to recoil alot causing the shooter to loose interest training. Whilst the .32 acp cousin allows for all day shooting and much more training. Sometimes choosing a gun with low recoil in a sub-9mm round has it's advantages. Yet there aren't many guns, sure there is the Beretta Tomcat or the girlier looking EAA Pavona. To me a compact CZ or similar made gun in .380 in an alloy/steel frame would be well worth it to carry. If Tanfoglio offered a .32 acp I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
However with the average US citizenry picking up Glocks and whatever else catches their fancy in 9mm I have heavy doubts that gun manufacturers will look into smaller caliber handguns in a a compact sized frame. I think many new shooters would be better off as it doesn't require as much training to shoot a gun like that accurately and even less to shoot them faster and on target. If you do find yourself tinkering with the idea of a smaller gun in .32 or .380 acp, then by all means. There is an almost cult following to smaller guns and rounds. I'd say I myself would be in that group.
It's hard to argue this point and feel that this doesn't justly communicate my full opinion, later on I might try and expand upon this concept but until then I guess this will have to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment