Pistols Are Pistols, and Rifles Are Rifles...

The title comes from the venerable Box of Truth website, and usually follows a shooting session where a rifle round once again makes short work of something that a pistol round could not. There's reams of articles out there that drive home the point that "a handgun is what you use to fight your way to a real gun" or that "When a man with a .45 meets a man with a rifle, the man with a pistol is a dead man". It's all true of course; even the most powerful of handgun rounds like the nigh-unto-ridiculous .500 S&W Magnum only have a small fraction of the sheer brute force stopping power of even a .30-30.

Which makes the following seem almost counterintuitive. The Survivalist Blog makes the case that a 4" barreled .357 Magnum revolver would make the best SHTF gun were one to be limited to a single firearm. I'm not exactly inclined to disagree. Now, all the standard caveats apply - shoot what you're comfortable with, what you can afford to shoot, what you're comfortable carrying, etc. But there's a number of very good points made as to why a handgun might be preferable to a longarm in a SHTF-type scenario.

Now, I'll admit my bias right up front: I'm a pistolero. Part of it comes from getting my start in shooting at a local public range that only allowed pistol calibers. Part of it comes from growing up in a cop family (this is before the widespread militarization of the local PD). But I think the greatest reason comes from {gasp} a pragmatic standpoint - I'm far more likely to be in a situation where I'll need my handgun than a rifle. I understand and agree that, all things being equal, my Bushmaster is a *far* superior defensive weapon than my G30 or my Model 13. It carries more rounds that impart more force to the target in a firearm that's easier to shoot accurately.

It also doesn't fit under my vest.

And that's the crux of the argument right there - where the whole "rifles are better" crowd misses is that we don't carry rifles around with us. Even in the most pro-gun states folks don't walk around with loaded rifles slung over their shoulder; even if they did, a light six pound rifle is going to feel like a brick when compared to a 25 ounce handgun after a day's worth of hauling it around. Comfort matters. If carrying your sidearm becomes an onerous chore, you're not going to carry it, plain and simple.

The accuracy's another issue - rifles are inherently easier to make accurate hits with because of the longer sight radius and more stable hold. However, when shooting for defense means, anything beyond 25 yards is just showing off - if you're shooting at a target 50 yards away for defense, perhaps it's time to think about moving to a better neighborhood, like Beirut. The rifle's clear advantage become muddied and decidedly less clear when applied to 'real world' scenarios. While we'd all like to think that our prowess with a Garand at 200 yards means we could keep the homestead safe from Black Bart, the logistics of claiming a 100+ yard kill was self-defense become daunting indeed.

In a nutshell, you want something that you can carry with you all the time. You want to be able to practice enough with that sidearm so that you can hit a man-sized target at ranges up to 25 yards. If that something is a .357 Magnum revolver, great. Ditto a 9mm "wündernine", the venerable .45 ACP, the pocketable .380 ACP, or the timeless .38 Special. Caliber is largely irrelevant other than availability and your own comfort level.

If you carry the gun regularly and can hit the broadside of a berm with it, it's the ideal firearm for you.

That is all.