TexasCHLforum.com

Last night on the Outdoor Channel I was watching that defense show with Michael Blaine (don't know if that is the correct spelling). Toward the end of the show he said that anything smaller than a 9mm is considered a mouse gun round. He specifically said that .38, .380, .25, etc., were mouse gun rounds and expounded on the importance of shot placement with these calibers. I like to watch the show with Blaine and he knows a lot more than me when it comes to guns but I never thought of a .38 as a mouse gun round. Have I been wrong all this time about the 38 special

Its all a matter of opinion. Personally I wouldn't put a .38 in the "mouse gun" category .

No you are not wrong. .38sp should not be considered a mouse gun even w/ a Snubby .38 standard load ammo. When I carry my .38 W/ +Ps I do not ever consider my self under armed.

I dont like .38sp in the new reduced recoil loads especially in the winter. Lot of coat & layers of fiber to go through before starting to get any meat.

.380 down!!! Yes, I agree & especially in the "less than 2" barrels. As long as you can manage the recoil, shoot well & conceal a .38, 9mm, or up I highly recomend them. Ladies, age, size, authoritis,....do weigh in on the carry choice.

FYI It is Michael Bane.

Thanks guys. That makes me feel better. I carry a .38 snubbie more than any of my other caliber guns but sometimes will carry my Glock 36 or 27.

You are not under armed. LT said it.

Thanks CompVest. I knew that (I think). Just starting my second cup of joe. I do like his show and watched him on his previous show.

I'll bet he referred to it as a "mouse gun" because of its size since you can easily carry one in your pocket.

My own understanding of the term is that such is only suitable for hunting mice. I like "Eyeball gun" better - if you don't shoot them in the eyeball you are only gling to make them mad.

Unless he defined "9mm" a little better than you have quoted, he has trapped himself in a contradiction of terms. .380ACP is a 9mm round, as is .38 Special.

He's right about shot placement, of course, see above about eyeballs, but that would apply to any shots, even a cannon ball hitting you in the ankle is just going to injure you.

And consider how long european police carried .32s and .25s, as well as covert operatives, before they learned that they were not actually hurting anyone that they shot.

IMO it all depends if the person can actually shoot the gun, the caliber wars will go on forever. Mouse guns tend to get trashed because of their short barrels and lack of accuracy. Personally I would not want to get shot with any gun, especially by a person who knows how to shoot it. I see a lot of people who carry the pocket mouse guns, LCP, P3AT etc who cannot shoot them over 15 feet. If I was going to ever carry such a gun I would have put plenty of rounds through it and made sure I could place shots where I wanted at 11yards, under stress who knows how much ones accuracy would be degraded.

I think the problem some people have with the .38 is the same reason the military switched from .38 to the 1911 during the fighting in the Philippines during/after the Spanish American War. The Army emptied their revolvers into bare chested, though drugged up, Filipino fighters only to have them continue their attack and in many cases kill the soldier.

What seems not to be taken into consideration for the .38 is bullet improvement over the years. So, while I wouldn't use ball ammo I don't think claiming a .38 is a "mouse gun" is accurate any longer as long as the right ammo is used. I carry a .380 BUG with a mix of ammo from HP to frangible to FMJ for a total of 7 shots in the P3AT. I think it may take all the gun is loaded with plus more and try to train that way.

Ammo has improved in the hundred or so years since that war but so have the drugs many criminals take.

I personally don't like the term "mouse gun". It seems to imply that the weapon is not dangerous. Shot placement is king. A .22 is a lethal weapon when used correctly. Bigger calibers will make up for poor shot placement to a small extent, but they also increase danger to bystanders. Don't get me wrong, any competent shooter is going to want to carry the largest caliber they can effectively shoot and conceal, but you don't need a cannon to get the job done.

So I guess my German Walther PPK 9mm kurtz (aka. .380) is a mouse gun?

shootthesheet wrote:I think the problem some people have with the .38 is the same reason the military switched from .38 to the 1911 during the fighting in the Philippines during/after the Spanish American War. The Army emptied their revolvers into bare chested, though drugged up, Filipino fighters only to have them continue their attack and in many cases kill the soldier.

What seems not to be taken into consideration for the .38 is bullet improvement over the years. So, while I wouldn't use ball ammo I don't think claiming a .38 is a "mouse gun" is accurate any longer as long as the right ammo is used. I carry a .380 BUG with a mix of ammo from HP to frangible to FMJ for a total of 7 shots in the P3AT. I think it may take all the gun is loaded with plus more and try to train that way.

Ammo has improved in the hundred or so years since that war but so have the drugs many criminals take.

Yes, the .38 proved inadequate in the field in general, and specifically in the Phillipines, but the Spanish American War occurred in 1898, and Browning was still experimenting with both .32 and .38 automatics then.

Observations that the .45 Single Action Army was a better man stopper, as well as the British .455 Webley used in Africa and India, led to a search for a "better" .45.

Yes, the 1911 was eventually adopted, but not until after the 1909 New Service revolver which feature a swing out cylinder which could be reloaded more rapidly than the SAA.

Browning did not abandon the .38 until the early 1900s (dates cited vary) and his first .45, being basically an up engineered .38 failed pretty badly. Government input after several rounds of redesign eventually compromised on what we now know as the 1911.

So it could be said that inadequate stopping power led to the introduction of the most innovative semi-automatic pistol platform ever, but it wasn't directly drugged up Moros, our soldiers over there were not operating in a vacuum and they knew what they needed and got it when they could, even if it was mailed from home.

BTW, the highly thought of Krag was not much of a man stopper either, with the relatively high velocity bullets just passing right on through the charging fanatics, and of course these fanatical charges were a precursor to the Japanese Banzai, and it was hard to stop them under any circumstances.

The "Phillipine Insurrection" started in 1899 and lasted until 1902, and the "Moro Rebellion" from 1904 to 1913, but in reality no firearms were adopted exclusively due to those "wars" although they did lend well to being a proving ground for a variety of weapons, strategies, and tactics. My paternal greatgrandfather, great uncle, and maternal grandfather all served in some capacity involved in that era.

Jim called it an eyeball gun. From 32acp down I call them EENT guns.
Eye, ear, Nose & Throat.