The Rabbi

Why would that make sense to you?

But that seldom, if ever, happens in a private citizen type shooting. I dont think anyone is saying caliber is unimportant. But it is a definite second to shot placement for effectiveness. Ultimately it's a silly argument that each side can take to extemes. So we have the "why doesnt everyone just use a .17HMR" to "You can shoot a cannonball at someone but if you miss what good is it". Balance. Balance.

I would think it is any place where alcohol is sold for consumption on premises, regardless of whether alcohol is actually being sold or not. But does anyone really want to open carry into Applebee's at 11AM Sun morning and find out??

The other issue is that you dont always have control over shot placement but have to take what you can get. A larger heavier caliber might make the difference between effective and ineffective.

My opinon is one thing, a rehash of the issues is another. Personally I wouldnt have a problem with either one. On the one side (AK) you have -Reliability -Few moving parts -Little maintenance needed. -Heavier bullet Negatives are: -Lack of accuracy -Difficult balky safety. -Larger felt recoil On the AR side: -Good accuracy -More available ammo in western countries -Less recoil I'm sure I've left stuff out. If I were just buying one, price no object, I would take the AR since I would just personally get more enjoyment out of learning to shoot it well than I would out of the AK.

The information on this debate is all over the web. There have probably been thousands of pages on discussion boards as well as articles covering it. There is little point in reinventing the wheel. And yes, as a matter of fact I DO know all the answers.... Next topic, in a SHTF situation would you prefer an AR or an AK?

This was a discussion at least as old as WW1. The result then was that the Thompson Sub was chambered in .45acp rather than 9mm. Col Fairbairn had some interesting things to say about .454 Webley and 7.63 Mauser. That was in the 1920s. I really dont think a lot has changed. And the result is the same: -Shot placement counts for far more than bullet weight or speed. -Compatibility between the shooter and his caliber is more important than caliber itself. -No one cartridge is a "death ray" guaranteed one stop shot. Can anyone really add anything that isnt addressed substantively by these statements?

Oh no, it's "9mm vs .45" all over again! Die, thread, die!

Welcome. It's a down home friendly place. Most of the time anyway.

Because they are all too old to type:D What is it someone said? One guy will tell you why he thinks the .40 cal is the best. Another guy will tell you why the .357sig is best. And that old guy in the corner doesnt say much but keeps cleaning his Model 10 and chuckling like a maniac.

My 9mm Lapua CEPP extras wont ricochet. As for having it and not needing it, I need cheap practice ammo to maintain any proficiency. And I wont get that in .357sig. Actually even the .357mag 158gr sjhp wouldnt work too well from over-penetration.

A car door or windshield is not a 1/4" piece of stainless steel. As for "it happens", I'll bet no one could make a list of more than a dozen times in 20 years that a private citizen has had to do that. (Yeah, yeah, "my brother in law's cousin once told me....") You have better odds dying from anthrax. In any case "more penetration" does not necessarily equal "more effective." In fact, PDs stopped using the 158gr .357mag round and went to the light 125gr precisely because over penetration meant not enough energy was getting dumped into the targets. I'll spend 99.999% of my time at the range and .0001% of my time involved in a combat shooting, and hopefully zero percent. So why should I spend the extra money on a caliber that is expensive to shoot and probably more wearing on the gun?

thanks. If I'm ever attacked by a piece of 1/4 in stainless steel I'll know what gun to use.

That;s what they make these for:

Another polymer-frame sissy gun....

I've seen plenty of average folks there. I guess some neos as well. My issue is that there are always a bunch of seedy guys at the door. When you come in, they ask "whatcha got in the case?" You show them and they ask what you want for it. It doesnt matter what you answer. You could tell them you want $50 for your unfired Colt Python and they'll hand it back to you and say thanks. Last show I went to I scoped out the ammo. Most of it was more than I charge in my little retail shop. You can get hard to find magazines and holsters. I stopped by one guy to talk about grips for one of my revolvers. He was just short of rude. But it would be worth it just to see Frank's table with his kewl toys on it.

I will be anywhere else. I hate gun shows.

You need to compare apples to apples. True, premium 9mm ammo will cost every bit of what premium .357s ammo will. But how much of that stuff does anyone use? 1 box a month? Maybe. The cost savings comes in using the practice ammo. You will never find cheap practice ammo for .357s that doesnt come out of your reloading machine. For some people that isnt an issue. OK. As for battering the frame of a 9mm, you arent going to shoot enough +P+ to make much of a difference. If someone wants to shoot really hot loads, get a .357s. Or a 10mm for that matter. As for KBs, I wonder how many we're going to see out of the Glocks.

30-06? No, you need something with some stopping power. I've been toting a Mare's Leg in 45-70. Remember, if you bring a gun to fight, you can use any caliber as long as it starts with a 4.

Except you can get .357mag performance out of a 9mm by using +P+ ammo and still retain all the other advantages. Of course, you can get .357mag performance out of a .357mag revolver (and still retain the capacity to use cheap .38 for practice)and to heck with malfunction drills and a host of other problems. You can't solve it in 6 (or 7 or 8) you'll need more than a handgun anyway.

Actually it's because the Smith Model 19 comes in .357. I wouldnt have any problem carrying a Model 15, which is the same thing in .38. Heck, Metro Nashville carried the Model 64 .38spc until the early 1990s. And my whole point so far has been that the difference in speed between a .357SIG in a standard loading and a 9mm +P+ is pretty negligble.

The advantages are: -Availability wherever ammo is sold. -Availability of a wide variety of bullet styles, weights, and velocities -Availability of cheap practice ammo. -Generally higher capacity in comparable size magazines. The advantage of the .357SIG (and only with some selected loads) is: -It goes faster. -It sounds kewl/cutting edge. Your call. I'll also allow that I personally carry a .357magnum loaded with 158gr bullets, mainly because I find the 125gr loads too unpleasant to shoot.

This is why I am a staunch supporter of the NRA and will never join GOA or those jokers at JPFO. NRA is the big-daddy of gun orgs. They are the only, only, effective organization lobbying for gun rights. I have been consistently impressed with their professionalism in handling issues, generally in a manner that focuses on results and avoids inflammatory language. When we first got reports about gun confiscations in NOLA, the NRA launched an investigation to ascertain the facts before doing anything. Once they had those, they filed law suits and pushed legislation. They were succesful in both endeavors. What has GOA actually done for gun rights, other than sending screaming alarmist hype at its membership? What legislation have they helped introduce? What suits have they filed? That goes double for the JPFO. The Left is afraid of the NRA. They arent afraid of the other guys. So whom should we support?

The advantages of the 9mm over the .357Sig imvho greatly outweigh the advantages of the .357. It would be like a family of 6 opting for a Porsche over a mini-van just because the Porsche will go faster.

Actually there probably wont be much. Not nearly as much as people might imagine, given the other variables in a shooting. And PDs went away from the 158gr .357mag in favor of the 125gr, I suspect because over-penetration was an issue.