I’m not trolling for an argument. Just wondering why someone (especially gun mag writers) often say that a smaller caliber, such as a .32 or .380, “would serve well as a back-up” but not as a primary weapon.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0b8d9/0b8d9aaf1d9401304b20d8f7c35645ec5dff90b3" alt="confused5 :confused5"
Moderator: carlson1
BobCat wrote:Perhaps because it is smaller, lighter, and more concealable than your primary, and meant to be used only as a last ditch effort to end an attack if you have run your primary sidearm out of ammo or whatever.
I think your logic is correct. If it is an inadequate caliber there is no real point, except to have "something" instead of "nothing" once your primary sidearm is out of the picture.
I do not carry a backup. The actual chance that I will need to draw a weapon is quite small - it is there, but in 60 years I've never faced a situation requiring it, and I've gotten nothing but more careful and conservative over the years. I carry because it is prudent (the chance of needing it is small but not zero) and because I like to feel prepared.........
So - I think your logic is sound but I'm far from judging anything that anyone else chooses to carry.
To steal from the other thread...usa1 wrote:two .45s...one at 9o'clock...one at 3o'clock
if i have to draw..well , you get the picture![]()
PX wrote: I avoid any community where the main street is named after a deceased preacher