Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Training & Safety (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f55/)
-   -   Why Rob Pincus now prefers the 9mm over .40 S&W for self defense (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f55/why-rob-pincus-now-prefers-9mm-over-40-s-w-self-defense-48340/)

BigByrd47119 09-16-2011 03:55 AM

Why Rob Pincus now prefers the 9mm over .40 S&W for self defense
 
I ran across this article on another forum and thought it merited being brought up here. Its, in my opinion, a great article.

I'm highly interested in everyone's take on this!

Why Rob Pincus now prefers the 9mm over .40 S&W for self defense

Quote:

1. The Myth of the “One Shot Stop”, Part 1: Faster Strings of Fire are Better.
2. The Myth of the “One Shot Stop”, Part 2: Higher Capacity is Better.
3. Negligible Difference in Practical Wounding Potential.
4. Lower Cost, High Value Practice

Vincine 09-16-2011 11:08 AM

>So, why do I think the 9mm is a better choice for personal defense . (snip) . the best recommendation I can give.<

Thatís what I thought.

IGETEVEN 09-16-2011 01:08 PM

Never had a doubt. The fact that 9mm and .40 ammo availability is abundant, fairly priced and can be obtained most any place has always been a factor.

Being shot with either one will definitely be an instant attitude adjustment.

Being shot faster, repeatedly and with more rounds for shot placement, the 9mm will kill you...period. :cool:

Alchemist 09-16-2011 02:55 PM

Yeah... well... Writers need to write about SOMETHING... That's how they make their living. This is better... that's better... this COULD be better... that COULD be better... I used to like like Chevys, now I like Fords... but Chevys aren't bad either... what-EVerrrr...

#1 rule for a gunfight:

Have a gun.

Overkill0084 09-16-2011 03:34 PM

I'm certainly glad to see that issue is finally settled once and for all. :rolleyes:
We need never speak of it again.
Now for the ongoing "tastes great" vs. "Less filling" debate.

hydrashok 09-16-2011 05:39 PM

So.... having a 9mm is better because of the ECONOMY of it????

I refuse to make my SELF DEFENSE selection based, primarily, on COST!

I, once, carried a 9mm for self defense (Browning Hi-Power). I got into a shooting with said 9mm. I lived, the bad guy didn't. However, the police measured 21 meters from gun-to-gun. Using Federal Hydrashoks, every round went all the way through the bad guy.

The 9mm is just too fast for my comfort, so I don't carry it anymore. My choice wasn't based on the economy of what I carry, but the effectiveness without overpenetration.

usmcprofessional 09-17-2011 12:25 AM

wounding potential? definitly not what i look for in a fire arm. his basic argument can be said the same for the .22. if you want more rounds and faster rate of fire with control, and a "wounding" potential, why not defend yourself and your home with a .22? according to his logic you are a frickin genius if you do.

IGETEVEN 09-17-2011 06:28 PM

Based on the performance of any size choice of handgun caliber, shot placement delivery and the more holes you can put into someone, causing more loss of blood and internal organ/tissue/CNS damage, are always the top two actions that determine any shootout loser/winner.

usmcprofessional 09-17-2011 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IGETEVEN (Post 581790)
Based on the performance of any size choice of handgun caliber, shot placement delivery and the more holes you can put into someone, causing more loss of blood and internal organ/tissue/CNS damage, are always the top two actions that determine any shootout loser/winner.

so again, following logic, the .22 would be the best choice. it holds the most rounds and it is the easiest to control. and following the other guy its cheap. not to mention .22 pistols can be fired almost rapid without that much kickback. if we want to discuss shot placement and blood loss potential than more is better, and the control over the more would make the most sense right? to me the .22 is the best choice for those areas.

BigByrd47119 09-17-2011 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by usmcprofessional (Post 581868)
so again, following logic, the .22 would be the best choice. it holds the most rounds and it is the easiest to control. and following the other guy its cheap. not to mention .22 pistols can be fired almost rapid without that much kickback. if we want to discuss shot placement and blood loss potential than more is better, and the control over the more would make the most sense right? to me the .22 is the best choice for those areas.

I think the moral of the story (from the authors perspective) is that the .40 S&W round simply isn't "better enough" than the 9mm to excuse its higher price, higher recoil, and lower capacity.

I would agree here strongly when it becomes an issue of how often someone going to the range to shoot. Aside from that, I'm really undecided. I think the 9mm is more than acceptable when fired from a adequate length barrel.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:00 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.