- Jan 2, 2006
- 10,455
- 35
- 91
Do all smaller guns using the same type of bullet have the same amount of recoil? Or do some guns have better recoil characteristics than others?
it depends. there are many factors that way in to recoil. weight, balance, size, barrel length, caliber, and grip all have some impact on what kind of recoil you will experience. add to that the bullet itself. with different bullet weights and different manufacturers, the amount of powder used may differ between one round by one company and another, some more powerful then others.
In a small pistol, if you go to a larger caliber, say 357, 40, 45, you will have very little control unless you are fairly strong and have a lot of experience. the pistol will be wily and out of control within a few shots. smaller calibers such as 25, 32, and 380 offer very little recoil but also sacrifice power.
in between, 38 and 9mm offer some recoil and a fair amount of power, are much easier to control, and have fairly decent stopping power. a 45 will have way better stopping power, but firing more then 4 shots in a sub compact 45 is a joke. (ideally, you should not need too, but still...)
in order to handle recoil, so pistols will use a compensator that allows the gas to escape from the barrel and push the pistol down. this can also be done by porting the barrel, much like the glock C models. This allows for faster more accurate shots, but in the case of the glock has one downfall. if you are firing in the dark, you get a nice bright flash over the pistol when you fire. But, recoil is greatly reduced.
any real small pistol will have some recoil. it's tough to predict how you will handle it when you shoot, and if you get a chance, you should shoot several different guns and several different calibers until you find something you are comfortable with.
I used to have a usp 40 and i didn't feel it had any potential recoil for a 40, as the gun is well balanced and very easy to control. By that same token, i use to have a dan wesson 357 with interchangeable barrels, a 2", a 4" and a 6" and the difference between the 2" and the 6" was quite noticeable firing magnum rounds. not only was the recoil different, but accuracy was for pot, too.
the whole thing comes down to what you expect out of a pistol. a small ccw is gonna be great if you plan on using it under 10'. at 25' in a life or death situation is a stretch for a small pistol. if you don't believe that, go to a range that has a 25' pistol stand and allows fast fire. from the bench draw the pistol and fire through the magazine aiming at center mass.
a well made pistol will help handle recoil, and give you better accuracy( but not make you accurate) Plus, a well made pistol will ensure that you don't have a jam, or any other issue when you need to rely on your pistol. While a revolver may be more reliable, they are also more problematic in self defense at under 3'. a revolver with a hammer can be stopped by someone that can reach your pistol, and unless you keep the revolver cocked, if the cylinder has to turn when cocking, if someone grabs the cylinder, you are in a world of hurt.
On the other hand, if someone grabs the slide of a semi auto they are in for a surprise if you pull the trigger. it would take a lot of force to stop the slide from gas blowback.
find a range that offers rentals, or if your police friend has an arsenal, have him bring it along.
Fritzo
Lifer
- Jan 3, 2001
- 41,920
- 2,161
- 126
I'm saying I'm not sure I would want to go to an area where I felt I needed a gun to feel safe, but that's just me. I have no problems with gun ownership, but with my wife being a police officer for 15 years in a major city, I would hear about gun disasters every week. They usually didn't involve crimes...mostly accidents. Things like "thought son was a burglar, spousal abuse turns into wife getting shot, a kids' fight were someone goes and gets dad's gun and nails someone, etc." Sadly, these stories outnumbered the "I defended myself/family with my gun" stories at least 25 to 1. I don't know what the actual stats or odds of hurting yourself with a gun for protection is, I'm just going buy real life experiences in the matter.If you want guns for sport or hobby, and you keep them locked up and secure with your ammo in a separate area than the gun, more power to you. If you're planning on using it for protection, that can be a danger sign.
Originally posted by: Fritzo
If you want guns for sport or hobby, and you keep them locked up and secure with your ammo in a separate area than the gun, more power to you. If you're planning on using it for protection, that can be a danger sign.
you are looking at skewed data for a couple of reasons. 1. your wife telling you about gun disasters. you only hear the bad, as that is what she has to deal with. 2. major city people in major cities are relatively stupid about things.( if you don't believe me, watch parking wars)
it comes down to responsibility and knowledge. if you have both towards handguns use, it's not an issue. knowledge of safety and use is the most important factor of using or possesing a handgun. knowing how t secure it, to keep it away from children or other people that don't have the same respect, knowledge and responsibility. A well trained, responsible citizen with a pistol (either open carry or concealed) is just as safe as a citizen without a gun.
while i respect most police officers, the training and protocol they use, plus the intimidation of an open carry weapon with a uniform makes for more of a disaster then me carrying a concealed weapon. some people understand what carrying a pistol means, while others see it as a crutch that makes them invincible as it makes them something more then they would normally be. Accidents happen, even in the police force. I could tell you a bunch of military accidents i have seen and that is dealing with "supposedly" well trained soldiers.
cars are more dangerous then guns, yet people take cars everywhere.
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
You should consider buying pepper spray, or even better, bear spray. IMO a gun for self defense in a non combat situation is pointless.
A gun for self defense against wildlife is stupid, IMO. You'd probably have a hard time hitting the cat or bear, whereas with spray you just point and shoot in the general direction. There is the added benefit that the animal doesn't die.
A gun for self defense against wildlife is stupid, IMO. You'd probably have a hard time hitting the cat or bear, whereas with spray you just point and shoot in the general direction. There is the added benefit that the animal doesn't die.
Mermaidman
Diamond Member
- Sep 4, 2003
- 7,987
- 93
- 91
i would agree with the bear spray, but in reality the only people that really should worry about bear spray are those that hike in alaska and parts of the west coast where brown bears are more prevalent.
If you are hiking anywhere on the east coast, especially along the AT, you almost have no worries. the AT is by far one of the safest places in the US to hike, especially if you follow simple rules about taking care of your food and where you camp. the two most bear rich areas are the shenadoah and the smokeys, and all you have to deal with is berry eating black bears. the only time you're gonna get a black bear mad is if you eat his food(berries) or get between a momma and her cubs. if you do, make noise. black bears aren't exactly stand up bears, and in most cases, they run off.
in all my time hiking, i was only scared for my life once. in yellowstone, i was awoken by a bison feeding 2 feet away from my tent. using a msr hubba hubba which is a tiny tent, he was huge compared to me. I just stayed quiet and hoped for the best.
now, colorado and california backcountry is a little different. if you've ever heard a cougar while hiking or trying to sleep, you know what i am talking about. carrying a weapon is a must in cougar country. dusk is the scariest time of day when you are out there and you knw they are there as well.
Originally posted by: Fritzo
If you want guns for sport or hobby, and you keep them locked up and secure with your ammo in a separate area than the gun, more power to you. If you're planning on using it for protection, that can be a danger sign.
Statistically gun accidents hardly ever happen (about 600 deaths a year nationally and as high as 100,000 injuries, out of perhaps 200,000,000 guns in America). Apparently nearly every accident in the United States happened in your city. By comparison there are nearly 40,000 vehicle deaths a year (between 4,000,000 and 6,000,000 injuries), and 15,000 deaths from falling. I point out vehicle deaths because there are roughly an equal number of cars and guns. That makes them almost exactly 60 times as dangerous as guns. Lawful, defensive gun uses outnumber accidents by between 500 to 1 and 4000 to 1 for fatalities and between 3 to 1 and 25 to 1 for injuries, depending on what criteria you place on each.
Those are the 'real life experiences'. It's in no way dangerous to carry for protection. Studies indicate that civilians who carry concealed weapons are significantly less likely to commit a crime than non-weapon holders, and even many times less likely to commit a crime than law enforcement officers. There is NO factual, statistically significant support for your statements. There is factual, statistically significant support for the exact opposite stance.
Cliffs: you're just wrong
Fritzo
Lifer
- Jan 3, 2001
- 41,920
- 2,161
- 126
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Fritzo
If you want guns for sport or hobby, and you keep them locked up and secure with your ammo in a separate area than the gun, more power to you. If you're planning on using it for protection, that can be a danger sign.
Statistically gun accidents hardly ever happen (about 600 deaths a year nationally and as high as 100,000 injuries, out of perhaps 200,000,000 guns in America). Apparently nearly every accident in the United States happened in your city. By comparison there are nearly 40,000 vehicle deaths a year (between 4,000,000 and 6,000,000 injuries), and 15,000 deaths from falling. I point out vehicle deaths because there are roughly an equal number of cars and guns. That makes them almost exactly 60 times as dangerous as guns. Lawful, defensive gun uses outnumber accidents by between 500 to 1 and 4000 to 1 for fatalities and between 3 to 1 and 25 to 1 for injuries, depending on what criteria you place on each.
Those are the 'real life experiences'. It's in no way dangerous to carry for protection. Studies indicate that civilians who carry concealed weapons are significantly less likely to commit a crime than non-weapon holders, and even many times less likely to commit a crime than law enforcement officers. There is NO factual, statistically significant support for your statements. There is factual, statistically significant support for the exact opposite stance.
I didn't say deaths, they were all mostly injuries. Everytime I get into one of these discussions, people start twisting and skewing things I say to make it look like things I expereinced are wrong...which is why I usually stay out of them.
If as many people carried guns as use cars, I'm sure the stats would be different.
Originally posted by: Fritzo
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Fritzo
If you want guns for sport or hobby, and you keep them locked up and secure with your ammo in a separate area than the gun, more power to you. If you're planning on using it for protection, that can be a danger sign.
Statistically gun accidents hardly ever happen (about 600 deaths a year nationally and as high as 100,000 injuries, out of perhaps 200,000,000 guns in America). Apparently nearly every accident in the United States happened in your city. By comparison there are nearly 40,000 vehicle deaths a year (between 4,000,000 and 6,000,000 injuries), and 15,000 deaths from falling. I point out vehicle deaths because there are roughly an equal number of cars and guns. That makes them almost exactly 60 times as dangerous as guns. Lawful, defensive gun uses outnumber accidents by between 500 to 1 and 4000 to 1 for fatalities and between 3 to 1 and 25 to 1 for injuries, depending on what criteria you place on each.
Those are the 'real life experiences'. It's in no way dangerous to carry for protection. Studies indicate that civilians who carry concealed weapons are significantly less likely to commit a crime than non-weapon holders, and even many times less likely to commit a crime than law enforcement officers. There is NO factual, statistically significant support for your statements. There is factual, statistically significant support for the exact opposite stance.
I didn't say deaths, they were all mostly injuries. Everytime I get into one of these discussions, people start twisting and skewing things I say to make it look like things I expereinced are wrong...which is why I usually stay out of them.
If as many people carried guns as use cars, I'm sure the stats would be different.
the thought of 275,000,000+ guns in the US just makes me all giddy.
Originally posted by: Fritzo
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Fritzo
If you want guns for sport or hobby, and you keep them locked up and secure with your ammo in a separate area than the gun, more power to you. If you're planning on using it for protection, that can be a danger sign.
Statistically gun accidents hardly ever happen (about 600 deaths a year nationally and as high as 100,000 injuries, out of perhaps 200,000,000 guns in America). Apparently nearly every accident in the United States happened in your city. By comparison there are nearly 40,000 vehicle deaths a year (between 4,000,000 and 6,000,000 injuries), and 15,000 deaths from falling. I point out vehicle deaths because there are roughly an equal number of cars and guns. That makes them almost exactly 60 times as dangerous as guns. Lawful, defensive gun uses outnumber accidents by between 500 to 1 and 4000 to 1 for fatalities and between 3 to 1 and 25 to 1 for injuries, depending on what criteria you place on each.
Those are the 'real life experiences'. It's in no way dangerous to carry for protection. Studies indicate that civilians who carry concealed weapons are significantly less likely to commit a crime than non-weapon holders, and even many times less likely to commit a crime than law enforcement officers. There is NO factual, statistically significant support for your statements. There is factual, statistically significant support for the exact opposite stance.
I didn't say deaths, they were all mostly injuries. Everytime I get into one of these discussions, people start twisting and skewing things I say to make it look like things I expereinced are wrong...which is why I usually stay out of them.
If as many people carried guns as use cars, I'm sure the stats would be different.
I didn't say you said deaths, I just clarified.
About 2-4% of eligible Americans carry guns (have concealed permits). That works out to about 12 million that carry with a permit. You don't need a permit in Alaska or Vermont, and you can carry open without a permit in many states, so we can actually put the number carrying upwards of 15 million. That's how many civilians carry a gun. Obviously you increase it even more when you include those that carry on the job (law enforcement, security, etc). Best estimates are 40-60% of all households own a gun. Out of about 112,000,000 that's somewhere around 56 million households with a gun. That's an AMAZINGLY high saturation of gun ownership with very low accident/injury/death.
Again, I used the car example because it's an equal number of cars and guns, and they're both something used every day. We can analyze international statistics to see that there is no stable, significant correlation between gun ownership or carry and accidents/injuries. Some are higher, some lower. Some because of suicide, some because of military occupation, some because of cultural differences, etc. Bottom line (backed up by the largest gun study of all time): more guns does not equal more crimes or more injury/death. Period.
soydios
Platinum Member
- Mar 12, 2006
- 2,708
- 0
- 0
how the heck does an M1911 fit small hands? I have moderately large hands, and I don't like using it because I can't easily get my thumb to the slide release like I can on an M9 (I have to move my entire right hand). oddly enough I'm more accurate with the M1911 than with the M9, though. plus a .45 makes a 9mm look puny, though I suppose it doesn't really matter the size of the hole, just that there's a hole.
revolvers are simpler, and I also tend to be more accurate with them, because the sights are farther apart. when practice shooting, you can also leave one chamber empty; if the gun jerks when you pull the trigger, then it shows that you don't have a smooth trigger pull motion. if you get a .357 Magnum, then you should practice with .357 Magnum ammunition, but for plinking you can use .38 for cost savings.
above all, try shooting the guns at the range before you buy. decide with which you are the most accurate and comfortable with. and take a safety class for sure. remember, the gun is always loaded, and Murphy's law is magnified by firearms.
revolvers are simpler, and I also tend to be more accurate with them, because the sights are farther apart. when practice shooting, you can also leave one chamber empty; if the gun jerks when you pull the trigger, then it shows that you don't have a smooth trigger pull motion. if you get a .357 Magnum, then you should practice with .357 Magnum ammunition, but for plinking you can use .38 for cost savings.
above all, try shooting the guns at the range before you buy. decide with which you are the most accurate and comfortable with. and take a safety class for sure. remember, the gun is always loaded, and Murphy's law is magnified by firearms.
Capt Caveman
Lifer
- Jan 30, 2005
- 34,543
- 651
- 126
ed21x
Diamond Member
- Oct 12, 2001
- 5,411
- 8
- 81
This is one of the reasons I never recomment a .22- while the caliber is small, guns that handle this type of ammo are usually really light and cheaply made, so the recoil often feels worse than a 9mm, which is a bit heavier, making the recoil easier to handle.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,586
- 986
- 126
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
ah, yes. the ppk/s is also one of the guns that fits me very well
You cannot do much better than a PPK/S for a compact sidearm. One of the most accurate and reliable small handguns I've ever owned.
I strongly suggest it.
Sig P230 is better and more reliable actually.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,586
- 986
- 126
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Fritzo
If you want guns for sport or hobby, and you keep them locked up and secure with your ammo in a separate area than the gun, more power to you. If you're planning on using it for protection, that can be a danger sign.
Statistically gun accidents hardly ever happen (about 600 deaths a year nationally and as high as 100,000 injuries, out of perhaps 200,000,000 guns in America). Apparently nearly every accident in the United States happened in your city. By comparison there are nearly 40,000 vehicle deaths a year (between 4,000,000 and 6,000,000 injuries), and 15,000 deaths from falling. I point out vehicle deaths because there are roughly an equal number of cars and guns. That makes them almost exactly 60 times as dangerous as guns. Lawful, defensive gun uses outnumber accidents by between 500 to 1 and 4000 to 1 for fatalities and between 3 to 1 and 25 to 1 for injuries, depending on what criteria you place on each.
Those are the 'real life experiences'. It's in no way dangerous to carry for protection. Studies indicate that civilians who carry concealed weapons are significantly less likely to commit a crime than non-weapon holders, and even many times less likely to commit a crime than law enforcement officers. There is NO factual, statistically significant support for your statements. There is factual, statistically significant support for the exact opposite stance.
Cliffs: you're just wrong
You're comparing apples to oranges. The majority of the gun owning population don't use their guns everyday, hell, I haven't touched any of my guns this week. I have driven hundreds of miles in my car in that time though.
What are you going to do if you want to travel beyond the US border?
Now I get it, American needs their guns to go out side therefore they invade other nations so that they can have their guns when travel.
The single stack .45 has a much narrower grip than the double stack 9mm, so it stands to reason that the 1911 will fit comfortably in a smaller hand than will the Beretta. Sure the layout of the slide release may not lend itself to easy one-handed operation without shifting your grip, but that doesn't really have any bearing on how it fits your hand.
And add another vote for the Taurus Millenium Pro in your choice of caliber. I have a PT145 and couldn't be happier with it. If you are near an Academy Sports store, they have the PT111 (9mm version) on sale this week for $229.99.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,586
- 986
- 126
Are you kidding? The concealed carry nuts are far too paranoid to ever travel to another country unarmed. :laugh:
Hell, I wonder what they'd do if they traveled to the big scary land of California where their permits aren't valid.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter