TexasCHLforum.com

Teamless wrote:

We're going to have a Texas Firearms Coalition "CHL Fashion Show" when the Texas Legislative Session is over. I think folks will find it interesting and informative.

Chas.

I have been thinking about needing something like this for a long time.
I now own 4 holsters for my Springfield XD9SC, and am looking for a new pocket gun, and have almost decided on the S&W Bodyguard .380.
I have put a few "compact" 9mm in my pocket, but they seem HUGE! and I don't want to spend another $400 on a gun that doesn't do what I am looking for.
So, whenever you can have this CHL Fashion Show, please count me in!

For you pocket carry 9mms and larger, I have tried some and cannot see how you do it. If it comes down to buying another size larger pants, shorts, etc, that just doesn't work, I already have them larger for my CBST, but in my normal cargo shorts or dockers, when I sit down, i see the gun..... not a bulge, but the weapon itself and it can be discerned to be a weapon, so I am stuck and I just do not see how it is possible

Some cargo shorts come with shallow pockets. Others come with deep pockets that go down behind the smaller front flap pocket. This latter type, combined with a good pocket holster (e.g. Fist #5) conceals the gun completely even when sitting.

fulano wrote:

Excaliber wrote: Since you asked: Pepperblaster II by Kimber.

Folks with debilitating physical conditions need solutions customized to their individual needs, but their limitations shouldn't be used to draw conclusions on what's best for those not so afflicted.

A detailed discussion of that topic would properly be addressed in a different dedicated thread.

Wow!! This would be better than "Bear Spray" for hiking in the back country. For sure it would be easier to aim than those dumb cans that look like spray paint or a mini fire extinguisher. Thanks for the info.

The Pepperblaster is designed for people, not for bears. The quantity of agent fired with each shot wouldn't give me much comfort when going up against a big bruin, and it holds only two shots which may not be enough against a large animal.

There's a reason for carrying those "fire extinguisher" units - they hold lots more agent that allow you to hose down a moving bear to achieve the effect you need.

Dave2 wrote:

Excaliber wrote:The only thing I'll say about your friend's single action .22 is that it is somewhat more useful for self defense than a pellet pistol, even if only marginally so. Carrying a big heavy gun that fires tiny bullets manages to combine the low ends of both convenience and stopping power. The logic for doing so escapes me.

My late great aunt once broke her wrist by trying to open a bag of chips. If she were still with us, which non-heavy, non-.22LR handgun would you suggest she carry?

(Though I will say that carrying a single-action non-semi-automatic gun is just begging for your bad day to rapidly continue its southward trend.)

Since you asked: Pepperblaster II by Kimber.

Folks with debilitating physical conditions need solutions customized to their individual needs, but their limitations shouldn't be used to draw conclusions on what's best for those not so afflicted.

A detailed discussion of that topic would properly be addressed in a different dedicated thread.

KD5NRH wrote:

Excaliber wrote:There's a reason why police officers, who wear ballistic vests, often come with two or more, and carry radios to make it rain cops in a hurry almost all carry 40 or more rounds in a major caliber. Trust me when I tell you it's not for the workout that comes from hauling all that lead around all day every day.

Maybe they should carry more.

There are pluses and minuses to everything.

The skinny folks who run faster and live longer have a tough time fitting gun, ammo, taser, baton, OC, flashlight, handcuffs, glove case, etc. on just one belt, and it's not considered good form to wear two.

Extra personal "girth" can provide additional ammo carrying capacity by increasing the available "real estate" on the belt.

TLE2 wrote:So, if 380 isn't enough gun, can anyone point me to a 9mm or larger than I can put in my short's pocket without looking like a freak?

I normally carry a full size 1911 but when summer comes, it draws me to a pocket gun. Don't have one yet, but have come close to buying a 380.

A Kahr Arms PM9 in a Fist K5 pocket holster should fit those requirements nicely, and the gun is light and easy to shoot as well.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

G192627 wrote:

Excaliber wrote:[
Consider that the national average hit ratio for police officers in gunfights is around 18%. Now, you may be far more proficient in the use of your .380 than most police officers are with their service pistols (or not), but it's worthwhile to consider that 18% of five isn't even a whole 1. Facing the usual 2 or more BG's with a likelihood of one potential hit (which may or may not put that individual out of action) out of 5 available and a backup plan that consists only of fleet feet is well outside of my personal comfort zone.

YMMV.

I underlined the key thing for me. The single bad guy is the exception, not the rule. They travel in pairs at a minimum most of the time, right? I can't remember the last story I've read or heard about a single bad guy.

All the bad guys I've personally encountered were working alone. There are numerous real life accounts on these forums of others having the same experience (road rager, the recent druggie with a towel in his lap confronting the grandpa, etc). I think the types of violent crimes women are more likely to experience or to need to use deadly force to protect themselves from might be different from those men worry about. For example, most women who are murdered were murdered by a partner or ex-partner, I believe. Most rapists also tend to work individually, I believe.

I don't mean to imply what percentage is what or to enter the debate on whether a .380 is sufficient for two or more or whatever else. I'm only saying that the assertion that bad guys only comes in pairs is not accurate.

Different people need to protect themselves primarily from different groups. A woman who gets a handgun because she has an individual stalker is facing a very different dynamic than the owner of a convenience store whose needs are different from a police officer whose job is to engage bad guys whose needs are different from the military whose needs are different from an inner city grandma who is facing break-ins who is different from a middle to upper class male who is worried about Luby's or Denny's or other random and untargeted crime. The last group, if they face a situation requiring deadly force, will most likely face robbery which means they're more likely to face multiple assailants. That doesn't mean that their needs or concerns are the same as everyone else's and likewise the type of firearm best suited to the person and the situation will not be the same, either.

No matter what category you're in, there is no way I know of to be assured that you will only be victimized by the type of folks you expect to attack people with your profile.

If you are well prepared to manage a multiple assailant situation, you are also well prepared to manage a single assailant.

The reverse is not necessarily true.

texanron wrote:I'd wear blue jeans in Houston year round to avoid having to carry under 9mm.

A gun like the Kahr PM45 (or PM9 or PM40) carried in a kydex Fist pocket holster disappears in the pocket of a pair of cargo shorts. It's not much bigger and heavier than many .380's (the LCP's and KelTec's excepted), and one can do just about anything he can do with a 1911 with these guns too.

I may be a little slow sometimes, but to me it's so easy to do this right it makes little sense to do otherwise.

drjoker wrote:Wow.

If the 380 is too small for a CCW, then my friend with the 22lr is truly undergunned! You know, sometimes nothing but a 380 will do. The 380 is my "walking the dog in my pajamas in front of La Quinta Inn in downtown Houston at night gun". Yeah, there are guns with bigger bullets, but the 380 is the only gun light weight enough to be carried WITHOUT a belt in my pajamas. I can keep it in my pajamas in a pocket holster while I sleep and not be jolted awake by a huge hunk of metal sticking in my gut if I roll over in my sleep. I don't feel the gun at all when I roll over on top of it. So, when I hear the little furry beast yipping because he will pee in the room and lose my deposit, I can run out at a moment's notice, knowing that I am armed. A 380 in my pocket is better than a 45 in my night stand drawer. I very rarely carry and if I don't carry when staying in strange hotels in a big city, then I won't be carrying at all....

I have a friend who carries a 22lr single action revolver. It has a very light trigger and is extremely heavy so it has zero recoil. Modern double action revolvers have a trigger that is too heavy for her. For example, a S&W J frame has an 12-18 lb trigger.

Yes, a .380 in your pocket is better than a .45 left at home. However, if you ever need to use it in an emergency, you'll probably find out pretty quickly why leaving the .45 at home might not have been the best decision you've ever made.

The only thing I'll say about your friend's single action .22 is that it is somewhat more useful for self defense than a pellet pistol, even if only marginally so. Carrying a big heavy gun that fires tiny bullets manages to combine the low ends of both convenience and stopping power. The logic for doing so escapes me.

The crux of this discussion revolves around the relative importance one assigns to carrying convenience and fight stopping performance. As luck would have it, in reality both characteristics vary inversely with one another.

In other words, when you choose a gun with great convenience, you've got one with poor fight stopping ability. When you pick a gun with great fight stopping ability, its carrying convenience is low.

Both of these characteristics are on a continuum, and there are many combinations between these two extremes. However, the reality is that there's no such thing as a tiny, convenient gun with great fight stopping ability.

My personal observation is that those who have never either been in a gunfight or seen the immediate aftermath up close and personal tend to go primarily for carry convenience, because they don't understand the real world implications of the fact that not all things that go "bang" are created equal.

On the other hand, those who have either been in gunfights or seen the immediate aftermath up close and personal tend to carry the biggest gun they can reasonably conceal with a good supply of extra ammunition.

The bottom line is that everyone is responsible for making his or her own choice regarding what balance he or she is willing to bet his life on. It's worthwhile to keep in mind that if the situation we carry guns for arises, that's exactly what's at stake.

djwdjw wrote:I carry either a Kahr p380 or Sig p238, if I have a .380 sized pocket on a particular day. I've found that they are both interestingly quite accurate if you spend a little range time with them. Never had a reliability problem with either.

Sometimes my pocket is 9mm sized, sometimes .45 ACP sized.

Someone smarter than me in the forum said something like... if you need more than 5 or 6 you had better be making haste for exit or cover.

Well, that's not bad advice as far as it goes, but you might want to think a little more on that one.

There's a reason why police officers, who wear ballistic vests, often come with two or more, and carry radios to make it rain cops in a hurry almost all carry 40 or more rounds in a major caliber. Trust me when I tell you it's not for the workout that comes from hauling all that lead around all day every day.

Consider that the national average hit ratio for police officers in gunfights is around 18%. Now, you may be far more proficient in the use of your .380 than most police officers are with their service pistols (or not), but it's worthwhile to consider that 18% of five isn't even a whole 1. Facing the usual 2 or more BG's with a likelihood of one potential hit (which may or may not put that individual out of action) out of 5 available and a backup plan that consists only of fleet feet is well outside of my personal comfort zone.

YMMV.

zero4o3 wrote:

bigred90gt wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

zero4o3 wrote:

zero4o3 wrote:your best chance of survival in my mind, would be with the gun the shooter is MOST accurate with.

I assume you meant most so I changed it to keep others from getting confused.

I could be mistaken, but I believe he was referring to which round YOU would rather be shot with, in which case, which ever the shooter is least accurate with is a valid answer.

That it was I was goign for, in my mind some one who aims for and hits a vital area with anything .380 or larger is most likely going to kill you

It's true that a solid hit with a .380 or larger round in a vital area will likely result in an end to the threat.
How quickly or slowly that happens will make or break the defender's day.

There's a significant difference between "pretty quick" and "eventually" in that result. The size and power of the round has a pretty big influence on the time it takes to achieve useful effect when the shootee really wants to keep doing what he was doing that made it necessary to shoot him.

When it comes to bullets, little and light doesn't do the same job as big and heavy.

Remember that whatever you choose will be all you have to work with in a moment of need.

Choose carefully.

G.A. Heath wrote:If I am attacked and all I have is a .380 then I will wish I had a 9. If I have a 9 then I will wish I had a .40. If I have a .40 then I will wish I had a .45. If I have a .45 then I will wish I had a rifle. If I have a rifle then I will wish I had a rifle with the word magnum somewhere on the barrel. With it continuing onwards. No matter what I have on hand, when I need it I will want something bigger/badder/better. For me the .380 is a BUG, and my primary carry will always by 9x19 or larger but I will not discourage anyone from carrying a gun, even a .22, but I will encourage them to consider something with a bit more mass/energy.

G.A. Heath has put this very well, and I agree.

The only thing I would add is to adjust one's tactics to what one is carrying.

You don't have the same options with a .22 as you do with a .357 Magnum or a .45.

apostate wrote:

Excaliber wrote:For example, given the same velocity, a lighter bullet will have less momentum and will thus lose velocity more quickly than a heavier bullet when it encounters resistance, thus delivering less penetration despite the same initial velocity and diameter.

Given the same velocity, a lighter bullet has less kinetic energy. Thus, it appears energy is one factor, but not the only factor.

That is exactly correct. Kinetic energy affects penetration and, given identical projectiles and targets, more initial energy will produce more terminal penetration. However, the stopping effect is achieved through physical damage to the target, not through "energy dump".

Ameer wrote:

Excaliber wrote:Here's what the FBI concluded after all their research and testing (page 14):

"The critical wounding components for handgun ammunition, in order of importance, are penetration and permanent cavity."

For the same diameter object, more energy should mean more penetration. (stab hard > stab weak)

For the same energy, a smaller diameter should mean more penetration. (ice pick > kubaton)

If you make the assumption of equal mass and identical shape, this should generally hold true. However, if you change those parameters, you can get much different results.

For example, given the same velocity, a lighter bullet will have less momentum and will thus lose velocity more quickly than a heavier bullet when it encounters resistance, thus delivering less penetration despite the same initial velocity and diameter.

G.A. Heath wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:Off the top of my head I believe the 90 and 95 grain .380 loads typically deliver around 200 to 205 ft-lbs of energy. The .38 Special typically delivers slightly less than that, with I believe exception of the 110 grain loads which provides around 225 ft-lbs of energy. Typical .380+p loads typically deliver around 230 ft-lbs, if memory serves while, the .38 special +p hits significantly harder somewhere closer to 350 ft-lbs. Now these are just off the top of my head and I would need to consult loading manuals or manufacturers data. All the values I mention should be calculated for the muzzle energy. Normally comparing energy between different calibers is pointless due to bullet diameter, however both cartridges use .35 caliber bullets (.380 is .355 and 38 special is .357) negating any real difference that bullet diameter would play. I do not have access to any loading manuals at the moment to refer to, but any quality loading manual should confirm the data and be more accurate than my memory.

Energy in foot-pounds is of primarily mathematical interest has never been shown to correlate with wounding characteristics under field conditions. There are too many other factors involved. Caliber, velocity, bullet construction (and expansion or lack thereof), penetration in living tissue, and projectile integrity or fragmentation all come into play.

Energy does come into play as the energy transferred from the bullet to the target is what determines the amount of damage (Including how quickly it stops said target). Regarding the 38sp. Vs. .380 the Caliber doesn't matter as the difference is 2 thousandths of an inch. Velocity and bullet weight are what determine energy. Take two bullets of the same weight, but different velocities, the one with the greater velocity will have greater energy. Take a 90 grain 380 traveling at 1000fps, this combination will result in around 200 ft-lbf of energy. Take a 130 grain 38 special traveling at 800fps, you will see around 185 ft-lbf of energy. Both bullets will effectively make the same size hole, and have comparable energy. The 380 should penetrate deeper due to it having a significantly higher velocity. Now if we are using ball ammo or similar hollow points the 38 special will stop quicker in the target meaning that it does have a better transfer of energy and causes more shock. Unfortunately hydrostatic shock from a handgun is practically non-existent.

Both calibers are minimal calibers which have comparable ballistics until you get into +p loads, at that point the larger case of the 38 special lets it accept more powder and perform much better than the .380. in +p My point is that saying the 38 special is a better performer than the .380 doesn't hold water as both are nearly identical for ballistic purposes until you get into the +p loads.

Now I will readily admit that the 38 special has more bodies to its credit than the .380, but the 38 special has seen service as a duty firearm in many departments and the .380 has not really been popular until recently.

Energy transfer as a major component of wounding effectiveness is a myth.

According to the FBI's landmark study "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness", energy transfer is not a major factor in the wounding characteristics of handgun ammunition. If it were, an officer whose ballistic vest stops an incoming round should be similarly wounded as one shot without a vest, because he absorbs the entire energy package as the vest stops the bullet.

Here's what the FBI concluded after all their research and testing (page 14):

"The critical wounding components for handgun ammunition, in order of importance, are penetration and permanent cavity."

Given adequate ammunition, shot placement is critically important. Unless a central nervous system element is hit, a bullet has to disrupt major organs and blood vessels ti achieve a stop by causing sufficient bleeding to shut down the brain from lack of oxygen. This takes time.

The same FBI report also notes that many of the "stops" achieved with handgun ammunition are in fact "psychological stops," where the target realizes he's been shot and stops his action or collapses at the thought that he's about to die.

The full FBI report summary is not terribly long, is well written, and makes a good read for anyone who wants to get an understanding of the realities involved in stopping people from doing what they're doing with handguns. It also addresses the energy transfer hypothesis and explains in detail why it doesn't match reality in the field.

G.A. Heath wrote:Off the top of my head I believe the 90 and 95 grain .380 loads typically deliver around 200 to 205 ft-lbs of energy. The .38 Special typically delivers slightly less than that, with I believe exception of the 110 grain loads which provides around 225 ft-lbs of energy. Typical .380+p loads typically deliver around 230 ft-lbs, if memory serves while, the .38 special +p hits significantly harder somewhere closer to 350 ft-lbs. Now these are just off the top of my head and I would need to consult loading manuals or manufacturers data. All the values I mention should be calculated for the muzzle energy. Normally comparing energy between different calibers is pointless due to bullet diameter, however both cartridges use .35 caliber bullets (.380 is .355 and 38 special is .357) negating any real difference that bullet diameter would play. I do not have access to any loading manuals at the moment to refer to, but any quality loading manual should confirm the data and be more accurate than my memory.

Energy in foot-pounds is of primarily mathematical interest and has never been shown to correlate with wounding characteristics under field conditions. There are too many other factors involved. Caliber, velocity, bullet construction (and expansion or lack thereof), penetration in living tissue, and projectile integrity or fragmentation all come into play.