Seen on a bumper sticker: The Most Effective Gun Control is Using Both Hands.
No, not really, I’m afraid.
The first Double-Action revolver in the sense we know them was the British-made Beaumont-Adams revolver, which was a cap & ball revolver designed in 1862. The British almost immediately ditched single-action handguns in favour of double-action ones- this is all in the mid-19th century, a decade before the Colt Peacemaker or the S&W No. 3 or any of the other famous US handguns of that era were developed.
In short, the Colt Peacemaker was less technologically advanced than anything the British had, and by the time the Mauser C96 came out the British had been using the .455 Webley break-top revolvers for a decade, and Webley & Scott were about to produce a self-loader of their own.
American handguns were predominantly single-action for a laughably long time after everyone has had gone to double-action or even early semi-autos, although there were a handful of American Double Action revolvers towards the latter part of the 19th century (like the Colt Lightning), but they weren’t as reliable as the Webley, Enfield, Tranter, or other European revolvers.
The major advantage the Mauser C96 offered over a revolver was a higher magazine capacity, faster rate of fire, and the ability to mount a buttstock and function as a form of carbine. The Colt M1911 and the Luger P08 only hold one or two extra rounds over a revolver, and therefore their major advantage is in faster reloading time.
The C96 was a definite improvement over contemporary revolvers and was (and is) rightly popular as a result. Almost twice the ammo capacity, faster to reload, and easier to fire if you didn’t have a strong trigger finger, I’m continually amazed that Norinco or someone aren’t making a modern reproduction of the C96 in 9mm calibre.
It’s worth bearing in mind that the Colt M1911A1 really didn’t become the Cult Firearm that is is today until after WWII; before that it was well regarded but not especially popular anywhere outside the US and, inexplicably, Norway.
I’ve read a lot on the internet along this line, and tried a few things for myself. Here are some observations:
Calibre is more-or-less the diameter of the bullet in inches. That said, for example, a .38 calibre bullet is the exact same diameter as a .357 magnum bullet: 0.357 inches. (The chamber inside diameter is about .38 inches–maybe that’s it.) The bullet itself (perhaps less ambiguously called a “slug”) might be .358 or larger when you buy or mold it for reloading, but you have to size it before pressing it into the cartridge.
I don’t see “calibre” used to describe millimeter-sized bullets. Curiously, a 9mm bullet is .386 inches in diameter, and so (get this) is a .380 Auto! So when the detective knowingly looks at a hole and says it was made by a .38, he’s BSing you. I doubt anybody could tell the difference between the size of holes made by a .38, .357, .380, or 9mm bullet. (Although the amount of damage might be greater for more powerful loads. Read on.)
The .38 and .357 cartridges are designed to work in revolvers. They’ve got a flange at their base (the “head” of the cartridge) so they stop and stay in the right position when you slide them into the gun’s cylinder. Both cartridges are the same diameter, but the .357 is a little longer, so you can fit .38 shells into a .357 revolver, but not the other way around. That’s because .357 loads use more powder (a “Magnum” load) which would probably damage a .38 revolver.
9mm and .380 Auto are “auto-loader” (semi-automatic pistol) cartridges. Their cartridges (“brass”) are straight-sided so they stack up in a magazine neatly. The gun’s chamber is stepped at the front to catch the front edge of the cartridge. Auto cartridges do have a groove in their head that the gun’s mechanism can catch to extract the shell as it cycles. The .380 auto is basically a short 9mm. You could fit a .380 round in a 9mm gun, BUT DON’T. The gun would almost certainly jam and just might explode.
I don’t know much about other loads, such as rifle rounds, except it seems their sizing can be even more complex.
Each of these gun types is able to handle more or less powerful loads. A .38 is least powerful, .380 next, followed by (not sure of the order) 9mm and .357 magnum.
I’ve seen a LOT of opinions about what you need for self-defense. The stopping power of a bullet more or less depends on its ability to expand on impact and hold together well enough to transfer all its energy into your victi… assailant. Bullets sold for self-defense might actually be lighter than target rounds, with more powerful powder loads for higher velocity, and usually have hollow points or other special features to increase expansion on impact.
BTW: You shoot to stop an assailant. The only way to be sure he’ll stop is to kill him outright. Just about any gun can kill (even shooting blanks!); don’t point one at someone unless you’re willing to kill them. The gun size issue is whether they die before or after they kill you.
Many folks say a .38 is marginal for self-defense, but if you have one that can handle “+P” (“hot” load) ammunition you can get the special self-defense rounds for it. (My gun is a .38, but I only carry it on my property in the country, with shot shells [“rat shot”] in case I encounter a poisonous snake near camp.)
BTW: “Cartridges” are for bullets. “Shells” are for shot, unless you’re talking artillery.
The .380 Auto makes for a really small pistol that’s easy to carry. (BTW: “pistol” nowadays usually means a semi-auto handgun; a “revolver” is a revolver.) You’ll hear people scoff at the .380 as a marginal round, but some of the .380 +P self-defense round vendors claim high “one-shot drop” rates. I had a Kel-Tec P3AT for a while (.380, get it?). I liked it a lot, but it’s a little hard to shoot. Also you can’t get shot shells in .380 and I got tired of making my own.
9mm seems to be the standard self-defense pistol round. If I got a gun for self-defense, it would probably be a Kel-Tec PF9 (my pockets are small in more than one sense). If you like a revolver, I’ve never heard anybody seriously question the stopping power of a .357 magnum with a self-defense load. The advantage of a revolver is reliability; you pull the trigger and it fires. Auto-loading pistols are easier to jam.
BTW again: lightweight concealed-carry guns like the PF9 are subject to jamming because of “limp wrist.” The gun is very light, so the recoil is more intense. You have to hold on very firmly for the action to work reliably. For that matter, a really lightweight .38 revolver can jam if the bullets aren’t crimped securely (when you fire, the bullets remaining in the cylinder can actually back out of the shells and jam on the frame). You’re supposed to practice with the same ammo you carry for self defense.
The more powerful the gun, the more the kick. Generally an auto is easier to fire because the action absorbs much of the energy, but it would probably be best to go to a range and try out various types before deciding what you can handle. Less powerful ammo is usually cheaper, but the best reason to use a .38 or even a less powerful round is that it’s just easier to shoot. If you’re afraid to pull the trigger, you probably can’t aim very well.
Just stuff I’ve read here and there, and tried in some cases. YMMV.
Sorry, I meant .357 magnum. The S&W J frame revolver manual warns against this for the Scandium (magnum) model. My lightweight .38 has done it, but only with the plastic shot capsule in snake shot shells.
Well, the best advice I heard is “whatever you can shoot accurately”. Best choice of action is to try out several guns (often you can rent them at local range) and whichever you feel most comfortable with - it’s your choice. Any popular caliber between .380 and .45 is effective enough for self defense, it’s just matter of choosing good, modern ammo with controlled expansion. Also remember, that in high-stress situation your level of skill will drop down. So it’s better to buy cheaper (but reliable), less fancy gun and spent rest of money on ammo and range. Training is your friend.
Thank you, kind Sir, but I’m afraid this battle is lost. It seems like magazines will be forever known as “clips”, at least in US. Here’s picture in case somebody want to educate themselves.
Or if the magazine is faulty, which happens if you reuse cheaply-made magazines (like M-16 mags) one time too many. A damaged spring can pervent a round from entering, and damaged lips can often make the weapon try and load two rounds at once, which can be a real pain in the neck.
It’s not a prerequisite but depending on the size of the gun and – more importantly – the steadiness of your hands, most people probably find that using the second hand helps with aim (and with absorbing recoil). N.B. that with a semi-auto pistol, it is important where you grip with your non-dominant (left, for most people) hand. If you grip too high, the slide can rake some skin off your hand as it travels back to cock the hammer after a shot.
For the hypothetical new gun owner looking for a self-defense weapon, I would think (and MMV, certainly) that a good entry-level option would be to find a variant (knockoff) of the Browning Hi-Power 9 mm (many relatively affordable and good ones are made, some in Brazil, some in E. Europe), and load it with hollow point ammunition.
As someone else has noted, no one’s really sure what shooting to incapacitate means. I’ve gotten beef here before from people with much more firearms/LE training than I for repeating what is probably an oversimplified maxim, but I still agree with the instructor who once said something to the effect of don’t think of having a gun unless you’re willing to think of pulling it out, don’t think of pulling it out unless you’re thinking of aiming it at something to shoot, and don’t think of shooting unless you’re willing to think of killing. Does help clarify the thought process, for me.
If you’re wondering about single-action vs. double-action, an explanation follows (I was going to post this earlier in regards to safing semi-autos, but decided it needed it’s own post):
Single-action and double-action refer to what happens when you pull the trigger. If the only thing the trigger does is release a cocked hammer, it’s single-action. If pulling the trigger cocks the hammer and then releases it, it’s double-action. The earliest revolvers were single-action; today they’re very rare, mostly specialized competative shooting guns (I saw one at a gun show that not only was single-action but didn’t even have a way to open the cylinder- rounds were put in one at a time through a loading port).
Most revolvers today are single/double action, meaning you don’t have to manually cock the hammer but you can if you want to. This puts the gun in hair-trigger mode and looks badass in movies. Some revolvers are actually double-action only; there’s no way to manually cock the hammer, and some people actually prefer that because there’s no hammer spur to potentially catch when drawing the gun.
Single and double action also refer to semi-automatic guns too, although this can be confusing at first because obviously the gun fires each time the trigger is pulled. The same rule applies as with revolvers: if the hammer has to be cocked before pulling the trigger does anything, it’s single-action, if pulling the trigger cocks the hammer too, it’s double-action. It’s just that every time the slide is worked, either manually to chamber the first round or after firing, the slide (usually) also cocks the hammer. The original 1911 .45 was single action. Most semi-autos today are single/double action, meaning the first shot will require a full trigger pull (unless you choose to manually cock the trigger), and subsequent shots will be cocked and ready to fire. Some semi-autos are double-action only because their users prefer a constant full trigger pull for safety and uniformity. These guns chamber the next round but don’t leave the hammer cocked…
Because the .45 was not a NATO round?
Not suprising at all. You pretty much have to be a gun fancier to even begin to keep it straight. On the off chance that you will someday write a detective or spy novel,* Here is the dope.
Calibre properly refers ONLY to the diameter in 1/100 inches… 38 calibre, 45 calibre being .38 and .45 inches respectivly.
Colloquially it has come to refer to the specific round the gun is designed for. US and british designed guns typically use “proper” calibre as part of the cartridge designation.
Rounds usually have some additional designation to distinguish them from other rounds with the same diameter. Many of these rounds were developed in the US, or in Britain prior to metrification, so use the inch based “calibre” designation. Military and European/Asian developed rounds carry millimeter designations. This said, it is not uncommon to find such misusage as “9mm calibre” in popular literature and television scripts. Additionally, it is common when writing, to add a redudndant decimal point making 30 calibre “.30 calibre”. It is customary never to voice the decimal when speaking of inch based rounds, both above would be spoken as “thirty calibre”, and .308 is “three oh eight”. It IS however customary to voice the decimal for millimeter designations, so the “three oh eight Winchester” round was redesignated as “seven point six two NATO” when it was adopted by that organization. (which is ALSO properly known as a 30 calibre round incidently)
The size used for a cartridge designation is USUALLY the bore major diameter, (the barrel has helical grooves, or rifliling, to spin the bullet). which is just a bit smaller than the unfired bullet.
Sometimes, in order to avoid confusion with a very similar existing round, the minor diameter of the bore, the bullet diameter, (slightly larger) or a more exact number is substituted for calibre in the cartridge designation. Thus .38 special, and .357 magnum bullets and barrels are exactly the same diameter. The same situation exists with .45 Colt/.454 Casull, .308 Winchester/30-06, 9mm/.380 automatic, and 10mm/.40 S&W. Purchasing the wrong ammo would be an inconvienience at best, and possibly dangerous for the gun owner, and having a totally different number associated with these more or less similar looking rounds helps avoid this. When there is little chance of confusion, say one cartridge being straight walled, and the other bottlenecked, Or one rimmed and the other rimless, there is little reason to alter the number… 45 Colt and .45 ACP being an example. (the 45 colt is rimmed and MUCH longer than a .45 ACP round)
The above tends NOT to apply where only the metric system is in use. Germans, for example know the .380 ACP as the 9mm kurz. (short)
The above is the second mention I’ve made of the same round being known by two designations. Below is an incomplete list of such aliases just off the top of my head:
9mm = 9mm auto = 9mm luger = 9mm parabellum = 9 X 19mm.
.380 ACP = 380 auto = 9mm kurz = 9mm corto = 9mm Browning short.
45 long Colt = 45 Colt (the 45 short colt being obsolete)
.223 Remington = 5.6mm NATO = 5.6 X 45mm.
7.62 Russian = 7.62 X 39mm.
The second part of the cartridge can be almost anything, but often follows one of the conventions below:
-The overall length of the assembled cartridge in millimeters. Examples 9 x 19mm, 7.62 X 39.
-The developer of the round or the gun it was first used in. Example: .454 Casull, developed by Dick Casull. .50 BMG (Browning Machine Gun, John Browning)
-The company that develped the round. Example: .308 Winchester.
-The country which developed or utilised the round: .303 British.
-Names chosen for the marketing appeal: .22 Hornet, .22 swift, ?? Nitro Express.
All of which begs the question: Why so damned many?
Cartridge design is a series of tradeoffs:
-Power vs. recoil
-Good box magazine feeding (rimless) vs. avoiding in case stretch (rimmed). (or you can have both with belted cases)
-Tried and proven vs. newest and bestest.
-Power vs. magazine capacity vs. ergonomics. (grip size)
-etc.
Designers are always trying to come up with a more optimal compromise.
Many more rounds have come and gone than are currently offered. Adoption by a large military organization or law enforcement tends to gaurantee popularity and longivity…probably accounting for the majority of chamberings that have survived three decades or more of production.
*British authors in particular are more or less notorious for getting significant points details regarding guns wrong…very destracting to find this in otherwise enjoyable writing.
Excellent post Kevbo
It’s a bit confusing if you’re not a shooter.
Hell, it’s confusing if you are a shooter.
The 20ga is less powerful than the 12ga shotgun for example. .22 short, longs and long rifles. Long rifles can be shot in pistols, revolvers or rifles. It’s no wonder that anti-gun folks might get a bit confused.
I’ve been shooting and driving since I was ten years old. That’s one of the best things that my parents ever did for me.
Shooting is much like driving. Anyone can do it. Not everyone is good at it. Practice makes you better and safer, but not the best.
Pretty much any shooter can pick up any gun and be safe with it. Just like most any driver can get in a rental car and be safe with it.
I do think that is important for ANYONE that may someday drive, or shoot a firearm to know the basics about them. There are lots of cars, and lots of guns out there. Someday, you may need to use one. It astounds me that some are so afraid of some basic knowledge.
A tip of the hat to the OP for trying to get information. Good on you. Fear of the unknown is not a good thing.
Well…
#1 Guns don’t accidentally fire.
#2 Yes you could shoot your ass off.
If I had to absolutely have to have both hands free, and did not want to lose my weapon (say standing in a running river) I would likely through the gun to shore.
Priorities change.
If I where Mel Gibson, and had tight enough jeans on while I was standing in a river trying to rescue the new love of my life from a canoe accident while being chased by bad guys with MP3s and german shepards on ski-doos I might put the gun in my waist at the back of my pants.
Shit. I Just wrote a movie.
Ah, yeah. An improperly maintained gun can be an ugly, ugly thing.
We had pulled into Naval Submarine Base King’s Bay. . . and anyone who’s been there knows that it’s pretty much in the middle of the swamp. The weather pretty much vacillates between hot and humid and torrential rain. Well, I was on duty and preparing to take the topside watch and during weapon turnover, after inserting the magazine, I depress the slide catch and watch in alarm as the slide slowly creeeeeeps forward. Our torpedomen were notorious for not taking proper care of the small arms, and this particular M9 had just been subject to King’s Bay weather for a bit too long, apparently.
Needless to say, I refused to stand the watch with that sidearm. Better yet, it was the midwatch, so we had to get the duty torpedoman out of the rack to replace the thing. He was upset, but God forbid I actually had a need to USE the thing on watch–I don’t think tap-rack-banging my way through an entire magazine would be an effective way to return fire.
Keep your guns clean, everyone!
Correction: Just looking at muzzle energies for one manufacturer, it seems a .38 takes more powerful loads than a .380 auto. They’re probably close enough that the choice amounts to whether you prefer a revolver or an auto loader.
It does seem that a .357 magnum self-defense load packs more power than a 9mm. Likewise at this level the choice probably amounts to revolver versus auto.
I’m surprised nobody called me on this error. I guess that’s an advantage (??) of long posts–the real know-it-alls don’t really read them.
BTW: There are likely to be some 9mm rounds that are more powerful than some .357 rounds, and likewise for .380 and .38. The key difference is how much pressure the gun’s breech, chamber, and barrel can stand without damage.
And, again, the pure stopping power of a round also depends somewhat on the bullet design. A high muzzle energy does little good if the bullet just pokes a hole through your assailant and dumps its energy into whatever (or whoever) is behind the guy. Also, the load can affect the gun’s accuracy, and different loads might work better or worse in different guns depending on factors like barrel length, gun weight and balance, and maybe a bunch of other things I never heard of.
Guns are a very complex subject. Very fun for people who think too much.
OK, so this is why we see cowboys in the old Westerns slamming their hand over the top of their revolver - they are using single-action guns and so cocking the hammer manually prior to firing their next shot. Correct?
Other than that, thanks to you and the others for some very interesting and helpful information. I’ll restate that you won’t see me with a CCW any time soon, but I hate not knowing how something works.
Kevbo, thanks for that post about calibre. It makes some sense, but in this area I clearly have a lot to learn 
Presumably, as a general rule, bigger bullets cause more damage. But presumably they also require a bigger gun to fire them, so there’s a tradeoff involved.
Well, thank you sir (or madam). I can’t see any immediate reason why I would need a gun, but I suppose a circumstance could some day arise, and if it ever does, I’m unlikely to have a couple of hours to figure out what goes where and how the damn things work. Such a circumstance would presumably involve a degree of urgency. Also, I have a generalised dislike of not understanding machinery. That’s just intellectual conceit on my part, of course.
In terms of things that are potentially dangerous, I used to ride a motorcycle. I always felt that everyone who drives a car or truck should be forced to spend a few hours on the roads on a motorcyle. I suppose that isn’t practical, but it does strike me as a good idea.
Same with guns. I hope and pray (metaphorically pray, I’m an atheist) that I’ll never have to use one (outside, perhaps, a shooting range), but if I ever do, I won’t likely have much time to think about it.
Probably not quite. They’re probably just holding the trigger back.
With a double action, if you depress and hold the trigger, than each time you slam your hand down (and pull back the hammer), you’ll fire a round, without having to alternate cocking and pulling the trigger. It’s a horrifically inaccurate way to fire a gun, but Old Western Heroes tend not to require good shooting form for accuracy.
Say bigger bullets can cause more damage, and I’ll agree. The bullet speed makes a big difference. You can get .38 and .357 ammo with the same weight bullet (say, 125 grains), and they’re the same size, but the .357 delivers about twice as much power. Even moreso because the .357 bullet is probably going fast enough to mushroom on impact, delivering a higher percentage of its energy than the .38 does.
A .357 magnum gun can be about the same size as a .38, but the .357 gun would usually have a heavier construction to take the higher power load. So in that sense you’re more or less correct about relative gun sizes. For a given gun design, the more powerful version is going to be at least a bit larger and heavier, even if the bullets are the same size.
BTW, here is a really amazing animation that shows how the M1911 (the first practical semi-auto handgun[sup]1[/sup] and the design from which most are derived) works. Once it loads, you can click the checkboxes on the lower left to see how all the insides work during the firing cycle. It makes it clear how the recoil ejects the spent cartridge, loads a new round and cocks the hammer for every shot. Very cool!
[sub]1. ETA: Non-revolver, that is[/sub]
Now that is cool, and much as I dislike guns on principal, it looks extremely clever and well-designed to me.