…and how powerful should your handgun ammunition be?
Recently, I was doing some benchrest accuracy shooting at a local range. During a pause in the firing, I overheard some other shooters discussing some hand loaded ammunition one of them was testing in a small revolver. Although it sounded pretty ferocious from where I was sitting, one of the first comments I heard was how the shooter was able to “control” the heavy load. When I looked over, I could see that every shooter was in fact having extreme difficulty controlling the weapon. I then got to thinking about how subjective the word “control” is, both in general, and how it relates to firearms.
These shooters and, I believe, many others define “control” of a firearm as anything short of it flying out of their hands, or striking them in the face. As long as you don’t lose a tooth or watch the weapon sail over your shoulder, it seems, it is “under control” and a viable choice for carry or self-defense.
In my opinion, control of a firearm means that I can make rapid follow-up shots, and no less. If the recoil is so intense that I have to adjust my grip after every shot, I don’t define it as a weapon that I can easily control. If I have difficulty making rapid follow-up shots, I don’t say that I can control the weapon easily. I see no point in claiming something that simply is not true, especially when my personal safety is involved after all, if I can control a very powerful weapon, shouldn’t I use it for carry?
I’ve heard many people say that new shooters should buy the largest handgun (in terms of caliber) that they can easily control or shoot. The problem with this is that there are varying levels of control. I can easily control a 1911 in .45 ACP, but I don’t always carry one. I can shoot a 9 mm Luger pistol faster and with more accuracy and precision than I can shoot an otherwise identical .40 Smith & Wesson pistol, but sometimes I carry a .40 instead of a 9 mm. For new shooters, I think that the price of ammunition is a far more important factor than whether or not they can subjectively “control” a 40 Smith & Wesson handgun better than they can “control” a 45 ACP handgun, or vice versa.
Experienced shooters should also take their real ability to control firearms into consideration. For example, I find that my new Kahr CW45 is at the upper limit of what I would consider controllable with standard pressure ammunition, and +P ammunition is simply uncontrollable. I said so in my YouTube intro to the CW 45, and a few commenters responded that they didn’t think it was hard to control at all. Between that video and this article, I know that I’ve thrown down the gauntlet for someone to say that they can easily control a CW 45 firing +Ps, so take this into consideration.
Recently, I ran into my friend Mike Pannone at the range. Not only is he a far more experienced shooter than I, but his muscles are considerably larger and more impressive. Here’s what it looks like when the weapon is in full recoil and he is doing his utmost to control it. This was not his first shot, so he knew what to expect:
I think that Mike would have a much better chance of controlling it than I, but even with his strength and experience advantage, it nearly broke his support side grip. Sure, the weapon didn’t fly out of our hands, but this weapon and ammo (CW45/Federal 230gr +P JHP) combination was not something that either of us felt we could make rapid hits with.
I know that there is a lot of testosterone involved when men gather to talk about things such as guns, but I’m not afraid of the loss of face that will result from admitting that I just can’t control a Kahr CW 45 firing +P ammunition very well. It is of no advantage for me to claim otherwise.
I hope that a lot of people read this one. When telling people to buy the largest caliber handgun they can control, they need to know what ‘control’ really means.
I wish more people would hear this early. The first time I ever shot a handgun, my brother-in-law handed me a Ruger .44 Magnum with some handloads a guy from work sold him. He said, “These may be a little hot, so hold on tight.” After three rounds and a cut on my hand from the hard edge of the grip, I handed it back and almost didn’t shoot the rest of the day.
A few years later I made a similar mistake with a .40 S&W handgun while showing my then girlfriend (now wife) how to shoot. She didn’t shoot for 7.5 years after that. Now one of our favorite things to do together is shoot – so my stupid mistake cost me 7.5 years of enjoying that with my wife.
Thanks for all the good posts lately! Not intending on starting a caliber debate, I’ll just say what we all know anyway – that common handguns only poke holes. So I’d rather poke a few more in the right places 😉
Thanks for the article, Andrew. I just finished a concealed carry class, and am in the process of choosing a carry weapon. I, too, have heard the oft repeated mantra “you should carry the largest caliber you can control” and it seemed reasonable to me as long as one heeds the caveat you gave, i.e. “control” means more than simply “hang on to”. You said: “For new shooters, I think that the price of ammunition is a far more important factor than whether or not they can subjectively “control” a 40 Smith & Wesson handgun better than they can “control” a 45 ACP handgun, or vice versa.”
This seems reasonable too, but you didn’t explain what you meant. Can you tell us more about what you mean here?
Thanks,
jpr
Well, 9mm is cheaper than .40, which is cheaper than .45. The cheaper your handgun’s ammo is, the more you can practice, and the better you’ll get with whatever handgun you choose. If you can afford to practice a lot with a more expensive type of ammo, then by all means, do so (I use .22 conversions to save money and practice more, but I still shoot a lot of 9/40/45). However, sacrificing the ability to regularly practice just to have a slightly more “powerful” handgun is not a good idea for a new shooter/concealed carrier.
Thanks Andrew, exactly what I was looking for.
jpr
You’re welcome, glad I could clarify, and thanks for bringing it up.
Those same people generally never engage in any sort of practical shooting scenario under the clock or stress. Control to them means the ability to hit a man sized target at 15 yard at their leisure.
Conversely, I’ve also heard quite a few people recommend that a new shooter should buy a .22 revolver. I disagree with that assertion on a number of levels – but mainly because a .22 revolver is a range gun, and not much else. I also feel that revolvers aren’t for everyone, but that’s just my opinion.
In the wonderful state of New York, you technically aren’t supposed to handle a handgun until you receive your permit. This means that those looking for their first handgun cannot adequately determine the caliber that they feel most comfortable with before making a purchase. I feel that this is not only poor policy, but also downright dangerous. It creates a situation where new buyers feel compelled to heed the “largest caliber” suggestion with visions of Dirty Harry hitting his mark every single time. If Clint Eastwood can handle a .44, so can I!
Your statement – “For new shooters, I think that the price of ammunition is a far more important factor…” – is dead on. It’s imperative that new shooters should be able to afford to shoot their gun, becoming familiar with all of it’s functions.
Clint Eastwood aka Dirty Harry did a bigger disservice to new shooters than almost anyone else I can think of.
On the other hand, Smith and Wesson ain’t complaining.
I’m becoming a big fan of the 9mm. Excluding 22lr, I like shoot more 9mm handgun ammo than anything else. First, the cost 9mm is generally less than other calibers so I shoot alot more of it. The 9mm is easier on the shooter (ie me). And with the assortment of ammo from cheap practice to quality self-defense what’s not to like. Plus I don’t in anyway consider the 9mm to be a subpar defense round. In my younger days I thought bigger was better, but later in life I found out that’s not what shooting is all about.
I absolutely see the value of big-bore handguns in bear country, and I would likely carry .357 or larger if my likely opponent were 800lbs, 3 foot wide, and not likely to return fire. It may be better for everyone if we disaggregate urban and rural defensive shooting.
From an urban defense perspective, .40 (and especially 10mm) are just not fun for me to shoot. .45 is okay, and 9mm is just right for me (as a large-ish man). That’s not in any way an indictment of ballistics; only shootability and the tendency to stay on the firing line a little bit longer, a little more often.
I am definitely in the 9mm camp for the reasons you listed above, plus cost, portability, and as a commodity in bad times. If I move to Alaska, that would likely change.
Carrying a . 357 in bear country will get you in slightly less trouble that playing Russian roulette with it.
Curious, where do you draw the line for small revolvers? I shot .38 +p out of a S&W 642 once, and it was one of the worst. The combination of the small grip, snappy recoil, and long trigger squeeze made it impossible to follow up quickly.
I carry 148gr wadcutters in my J frame. Pretty much the lowest recoil you can get in a .38, coupled with not-horrible terminal performance.
I started my girlfriend out with a mouse-fart gun at close range and worked her up to my 45ACP and she’s a better shot than me now. She loves to shoot with me and looks forward to it every time we can. She’s seen those stupid vids where macho man laughs at his GF during her first shot of a big gun. Actually, it’s the macho numnutz who is stupid for pulling crap like that on her. He has just spawned another gun-hating woman who will spread the horror story to all her girlfriends.