terryg wrote:The Annoyed Man wrote:Maybe so. I also think that there is one factor which above all others will determine whether someone chooses to "caliber down" to a .380 over choosing a pocket 9mm, and that is whether or not they were a "gun person" with a fair amount of firearms experience going into this, or were they first time gun buyers who bought a gun because they saw the need for a CHL.
I was a gun person for many many years before I ever got a CHL. Long before I bought my PM9, I had been carrying and shooting mostly .45s, including a lightweight 3" 1911. Recoil sensitivity is not necessarily an issue for me. I love shooting my Model 29 .44 Magnum, for instance, and yet, there are calibers that are harder for me to get back on target with after the first shot. For me, .45 is easy. So is 9mm. But .40 S&W turns out not to be my favorite, and neither is .380 ACP. I still own one .380, a Colt Government model. It is an all steel gun, and quite a bit heavier than my old Kel-Tech was, but even this Colt is not much fun to shoot—lots of "sturm und drang" for not very much power....or "plenty of fuss, but not much muss." It's not that it is intimidating to me, it is that the bark is out of proportion to the bite. In the very lightweight pistols that are typically chambered in this caliber, it makes for a less than optimum shooting experience. My PM9 packs significantly more power than my Colt, is smaller in every dimension but perhaps the width of the slide (by an insignificant amount), is considerably lighter in weight, and is easier to shoot. Why wouldn't I choose such a gun over a pocket .380?
Coming from the other side of the spectrum are people who maybe owned a gun, but weren't really enthusiastic gun owners; or who perhaps never owned a gun at all and bought their first one because they decided to procure a CHL, for understandable reasons. Perhaps they aren't as much interested in all the gun culture stuff as they are in just having a gun they can conveniently carry, in a caliber that doesn't make them feel overwhelmed.
Of course, there are lots of people whose life experience and motivations fall in between those two extremes; and I'm not suggesting that one description necessarily has more legitimacy than the other version. But that said, those with the greater experience have more options available to them because of the familiarity that their experience brings. More options is usually better, right? And also, isn't the "gun wisdom" of those with greater experience worth listening to, and maybe trying to adopt it into one's own life? That right there is one of the primary reasons for the existence of this forum.
That's all I wanted to say. Everyone has to draw their own conclusions.
Good synopses. Like any attempt to classify human behavior, there will be 'holes' and variances. But I can clearly see myself at various stages of this journey in both extremes you presented.
Gun manufacturers' new focus on highly concealable "pocket pistols" in 9mm are rapidly eroding the reasoning behind compromising effectiveness in favor of diminutive size by the choice of a .380 or smaller caliber to defend one's life and loved ones.
The Beretta Nano, Sig P290, Kimber Solo, Ruger SR9, Kahr PM9 and CW9, and others in the same vein are an emerging new category of mouse guns that roar. A serious defensive pistol in a truly subcompact package is now readily available in more configurations than ever before.
IMHO, these remove the last vestiges of validity from trying to explain why it's a good idea to walk around with a pocketful of wishful thinking instead of a useful defensive weapon.
