“It’s better than nothing.” It’s the phrase that launched a million snub-nosed revolvers and pocket-sized semi-automatic pistols. “I’d like to carry my full-size gun, but it’s just not practical. So I carry this. It’s only for emergencies, like a parachute. Besides, it’s better than nothing.” While there are plenty of examples of gun owners using a mouse gun to stop a life-threatening attack, generally speaking, it’s not true. Nothing is better than the wrong gun. And for most people, a small gun is the wrong gun. Here’s why mouse guns are a bad choice for self-defense and why you’re better off with nothing . . .
1. You’ll miss
Miniature barrel, non-existent sights, two-finger grip, big recoil. Put it all together and it spells the first four letters of the Hospitality State. When you’re trying to shoot someone, missing them is a no-no. Oh, sorry, I forgot: adrenalin rush, low-light, moving target(s), the need for cover and friendlies you don’t want to kill.
Yes, there is that. On the range, missing a target is no big deal. In real life, every shot that doesn’t hit the bad guy can hit a good guy. And that sucks. Especially if the good guy is someone you know or love.
The argument against the mouse gun’s obvious limitations: “Most gun fights occur at the seven to ten foot range.”
Setting aside the fact that I’ve seen revolver owners miss a paper target at five feet, that oft-quoted number is an average. For every gunfight that occurs at point-blank range, you need one at twenty feet to create the stat. Truth be told, you don’t know what kind of accuracy you’ll need. But more is always better than less.
A mouse gun’s accuracy depends on two main factors: distance and skill. The further away your target, the more skill you need to hit it. There is a point at which your accuracy is non-existent. A point that’s a LOT closer than it would be if you were using a gun with a longer barrel, a bigger grip, a longer sight radius, proper sights and better recoil control. How much closer? Again, that depends on your skill.
And that depends on your level of training and practice. There are revolver experts who can shoot the eye out of a newt at 40 feet with a snub-nosed revolver. That’s because they’ve got flawless trigger technique, unshakeable recoil control and superb hand-eye coordination. And practice. Lots and lots and lots of practice.
Who the hell wants to practice with a mouse gun? Those things hurt. What’s more, the people who gravitate towards a gun that fits in their purse or front pocket are exactly the type of people who don’t practice. “One of the great ironies,” the rabbi told me this morning. “Is that the people who are least able to shoot buy the hardest gun to shoot.”
And, it must be said, one of the guns least likely to kill someone. Which leads us to . . .
2. You’ll really annoy the bad guy
The point of shooting someone: stop them from attacking you. Bullets are pretty good at that sort of thing (provided you’re shooting them from a gun). Which is why a lot of people who are not au fait with guns buy small revolvers and semis. What they don’t realize: shooting someone with a small bullet may not stop them. Quite the opposite . . .
We’ve discussed stopping power on these e-pages dozens of times. So let’s recap: a bigger bullet has a better chance of hurting someone enough to stop them from trying to hurt you than a smaller one. While we can debate the differences between calibers, it helps to think of 9mm as the dividing line. Anything 9mm and up is your friend. Anything below (.380. .38. 32. .25 .22) is . . . risky.
The defenders of smaller caliber ammo invariably base their argument on shot placement. “It’s better to hit someone with a .22 than miss them with a .357.” Yes, well, another word for “effective shot placement” is “accuracy.” [See: above.] And if it’s all the same to you, why not have both accuracy and a large caliber bullet? You can! Unless you’ve got a mouse gun.
And here’s the danger: if you shoot someone with a small caliber bullet, they may not die at all. Not one little bit. They may not even feel any pain. But they will realize that you’ve just tried to kill them. And that’s going to get them angry. Which brings us to the “nothing” part of the program . . .
3. You’ll escalate the violence
Careful. I’m not saying that it’s better to appease an attacker than attack them. I’m pointing out that shooting someone—and not hitting them hard or well enough to stop them—is a sure way to increase their level of violence. It may be that they’re already at maximum mayhem. But if they’re not, shooting them with a mouse gun is sure to ratchet up their aggression levels.
4. You’ll miss more effective tactical options
If you don’t have a gun when facing a life or death attack, you’ll do something other than try to shoot your assailant. You’ll run, hit them with something, seek cover, scream, something. All of which would be a LOT more effective than shooting a mouse gun and missing or hitting then with a diddy bullet and pissing them off. If only because fights usually last seconds. You don’t get three or four or five decision points. You usually get one. If you use up valuable time trying to use an ineffective tool, chances are you’ll lose.
As for the “mouse gun as parachute” meme, for most people, a mouse gun is like a parachute with holes. If you knew your parachute wasn’t going to work, well, what then?
Most gunfights – aren't. Simply showing a gun (yeah, yeah, I know, the Rabbi don't like that either) but just showing one will quite often cause the other side to back down. Or, if a scream will stop an attack, how about a really really loud bang from a snub-nosed whatever. There's the old saying, if I don't hit them at least they'll shit their pants. Not all gunfights involve fighting off IRA terrorists. So yeah, count me as one in the "Better a small gun than no gun" camp.
What happens when "quite often" isn't? I prefer to rely on a full size gun over a load in the bad guy's pants. Underestimating your adversary (showing a mouse gun) may have deadly consequenses.
I'd prefer a contingent of marines over a full size gun. Better yet, pull out and hit them with an orbital nuke. You can't always pack exactly what you'd want. Face it, having an adversary in the first place may have deadly consequences, regardless of firearm choice. The question isn't a large gun vs. a small gun – according to Robert's logic you either pack a large gun or nothing. So, if you can't have your full size gun, pack a mini or pack nothing? I'd pack a mini and then understand that there are some limitations.
As for when "quite often" isn't, then you pull the frigging trigger.
As Clint Eastwood says, a man's gotta know his limitations.
If you can't use a gun effectively, you shouldn't use it. Small guns are FAR harder to master than larger ones, and bigger bullets are better than small ones.
I reckon the key is to find and carry the best gun (i.e. biggest and largest caliber) you can use with reasonable accuracy (a subjective measure if there ever was one), and train enough so that you understand what you can and can not do with it from various distances in various scenarios.
How many mouse gun buyers approach it from that direction? Me, I want to "upgrade" to an XD-M 45. I'm not good enough yet. Nor am I good enough to carry a mouse gun. I'm working on it . . .
Your defense involves a small gun and a pile of shit? Me thinks that's a stinky plan.
I used to be leery of "mouse guns."
But now I own a few, and practice with them, a couple of .380's and even a .32.
I'd much rather have a mouse gun than a sharp pointy stick or a good-sized rock.
No matter what caliber handgun I'm carrying (all handgun calibers are puny for self-defense) my first plan is situational awareness, and fleeing the scene if at all possible, while calling 9-1-1.
The gun is only for a last resort.
During my "last stand" I really want a gun, not a hammer or a club.
Even a .22 would give me a chance, if I could get several fast hits in the upper middle chest.
If there are two attackers, and all I've got is a club or hammer, I think I've got less of a chance than if I've got a reliable mouse gun that I've practiced with.
But as others have said, practice and familiarity is the key, as it is with anything else.
Robert, I'd only agree insofar as the .25ACP is concerned. To me the flaw of the .25 (besides the fact that most .25 cal pistols are too small to handle with skill) is that it combines the power of a rimfire with the ammo cost of a centerfire.
Still, there's a lot to be said for choosing a firerarm with which you are proficient, regardless of caliber. Once when I left for an extended trip my wife asked me to leave a pistol for her, "just in case." The pistol she asked for was not the nice new .38 snubby I had just bought her, it was the rather clunky Taurus .22 revolver I had before I even knew her. Why did she prefer the Taurus? Easy: She was familiar with it. She had shot it dozens of times and could make an aluminum can dance from 25 feet. She knew how to shoot it and how to hit what she was shooting at. The more I thought about it the more that made sense. After all, the most valuable weapon you carry is the one between your ears.
http://www.laindependent.com/news/local/west-holl…
People shouldn't carry full-size guns either because sometimes people miss!
people should only carry carbines with optics…concealed of course, because open carry is evil and scares the Brady Campaign.
Martin Albright, amen on the .25 ACP comments.
The .25 is like the worst of everything….barely bigger diameter than a .22, with velocity below a .22, and way more expensive than a .22
I don't think that a mouse gun is for a running gun battle through Fallujah. They are primarily for women to use to avoid being kidnapped and/or raped. If you opponent is close enough to touch with the barrel, then you should be able to hit whatever is in front of the barrel.
I agree except for the sexist remark. (aren't we beyond the "Guns for Women" meme?)
It works well for small frame people who have difficulty concealing a larger gun, or for times when deep concealment is paramount.
Nope, not ideal guns at all (then again handguns kinda suck when you look at overall ballistics) but far better than the stupid remark of "you’re better off with nothing ".
Sometimes it is all you can carry. Don't show it, just pull in up close, put it in their eye, and fire. That is how you use a small gun, up close and personal.
All good points,but; any reliable data available to back up the author's arguments? It would be instructive to access real-world encounters involving the use of mouse guns in stress fire situations. Thanks
Man, I thought I was a non-mouse gunner myself, but after reading this, I'm not sure. I agree that the average thug does not want a gunfight, he wants a victim. Any gun displayed will probably scare him off. But, what if it doesn't?
Ok, first, don't even think about .25acp as a gun. I have seen .25 bounce off clothing from 20 feet. I saw this with my own eyes. The target was a nylon jacket like a members only (it was the 80s, give me a break. It was a target after all). The load was a FMJ, I don't remember the weight. The .22 went through, and as stated above, costs about 1/4 as much.
There are a lot of fans of the .32acp. Sorry, Im not one of them. IMHO, if you insist on carrying a smaller round, carry a .380. There are a number of small .380s that are only slightly larger than a .22. I have become a big fan of kel-tec products. I have shot the p3at, and found it to be accurate and reliable (and cheap).
Personally, I don't carry anything smaller than a 9mm. My latest acquisition is a Kel Tec PF9. It will be used as an alternative to my G26 and PT-145 (which is having some problems). The PF9 is only slightly larger than the average .380, but holds 7+1 of the more effective (and cheaper to practice with) 9mm. They are selling for right at $200 too. This is a gun that will take some getting used to though. It is small and light which means that it will be harder to shoot that a full size gun. Maybe not a good "first gun"?
As for reliability? A broken .45 is not as good as a reliable 9mm. Any gun you consider should be tested (after at least 100 rounds for break in) with at least 50 rounds of the load you intend to carry. More would be better. The gun should work in almost any position. Yea, you should be able to hold it gangsta style with no feed problems. I also would not waste my money on those dollar a round super bullets. Find a decent hollow point that is cheap enough to practice with. Your carry piece should also be the one thing in your life that is maintained. Maybe you let your oil changes get behind? You Windows people may leave your defrag for another month. Don't take chances with your carry piece. Clean it often and go to the range and practice, practice, practice.
Didn't mean to get so long winded, but there are so many variables in choosing a carry piece. My rule has always been "carry the biggest, baddest, gun that I can fit in my pocket". I hope I never have to shoot anyone, but I refuse to allow my family to be at some criminals mercy.
I don't think a 38+p would be risky at all as you stated.
I carry anything from .45 ACP (Officer’s Model), .38 Special (Model 642 J Frame), to 9 MM Parabellum (Keltec P-11 or Browning Hi-Power). First requirement for weapon is reliability. Second requirement is for me to be able to hit the target effectively.
I like the J frame better since I put laser grips on it; the P-11 is now my last choice at night, since I’ve got lasers on all the rest. By the way–I subscribe to the bigger hole theory for self defense handgun applications– but you must be able to make holes where they count (and good quality self defense ammo is required). The smaller the gun, the harder that becomes, especially without practice. Carry what you can practice with and hit with, and what will make the most effect when it hits! I rule out .380′s and .44 magnums — personally, I’m comfortable with most of what’s in between. That ‘better than nothing…’ argument is so lame…
I have a .25 titan, mirror image of the one at the top of the page. While it does not have size, caliber or capacity on its side, from 0-10 feet it is capable of keyhole accuracy. My .45 caliber (High-Point yes, reliable and accurate, also yes, bought for price and durability, I have to feed my family AND defend them, so I can’t spend too much on my arsenal ) is my mainstay, and I would rather not use the .25 unless it was all I had handy, but therein lies the tale…. The .25 won’t drop anyone, but its low recoil and accuracy means its entire magazine can get pumped into places that it doesn’t take a big bullet to do a lot of damage. Yeah I would rather just double-tap with the .45, but nine rounds of .25 in a weapon that (with good velocity loads) can reliable put into eye socket, jugular, and any other exposed soft target as easily as most others can hit center mass targets is far better than nothing. On the flip side, at eleven feet the accuracy drops off and gets worse from there, the barrel is short and while my sights are spot on, well with the anemic round and tiny pistol if I expected more I would need committed asap. Sorry to run on so far, but figured I would put in my two bits. It is better than nothing, but only as a pocket backup for a larger sidearm in my view.
Also, while ammo is pricey, I still put a box through it every few months, as I train at least once a month so as to not allow rust to develop.
where can i find a clip at