Originally posted by G. Glock
Just affirms my contention that all the caliber wars that exist online are pretty silly. A cool head and proficiency with the firearm you're carrying far, far outweigh the difference between a 9mm, .40, and .45.
I think some who participate in these arguments are providing great information to support several differnt types of view. Others though are probably looking to read opinions that support their own because caliber choice appears to be such a sensitive issue. I would probably advise someone who asked "which caliber" to make their choice and then avoid this forum.
If the statistics I've read from John Lott are accurate then a CCW holder has an excellent chance of surviving a would-be attack from a turd simply by letting the turd know that he has a gun. Of those who would risk getting shot to attack a gun-holder, many stop once they're shot, regardless of the caliber of ammunition or type of gun used (according the FBI Wounding Ballistics .pdf that I've seen linked around here). If that also is true then simply having a gun and the ability to shoot an attacker if necessary gives the defender an excellent chance of success in a confrontation. It's not even until someone is unfortunate enough to face the small number of determined attackers left who won't stop until they're forced to do so that shot-placement and caliber even become an issue.
It seems to me that once someone can settle on a caliber that has proven to penetrate adequately, the differences in the ballistics of the calibers that qualify might not outweigh the other factors such as ability to shoot well, cost and availability of ammunition, enjoyment of shooting (and practicing), confidence in the selected caliber, etc, etc.