In my opinion, no matter how big or small the caliber is, if u can't shoot, ur gun is useless & more so dangerous. I rather have skills & a .22 than have a .45 & don't kno what I'm doing. Ijs
There was an article that was done not to long ago that basically said that there is not that much difference between the .45, .40, and 9mm. The two things they were looking at was expansion and penetration. It did give the edge to the .45 though. http://www.firearmstalk.com/entries/What-round-is-More-Effective-9-45-or-40.html
mine is bigger than yours so I'm more of a man Seriously, shot placement is where it's at. Gimme a .357 or a .22 and I'll eliminate the threat.
He's ignoring one critical component of the FBI test, linked below. The FBI states that HPs expand only 60-70% of the time and as such the shooter can only rely on the unexpanded diameter, as that is the only consistency. They also state that the size of the permanent wound cavity, which in the picture on that link is essentially just before and just after the 12" line, is what is important from a blood loss incapacitation standpoint. The temporary wound cavity, which is the big one in the gel picture, really "wows" in the picture but is absolutely useless in a human being. There are only two ways to stop a determined adversary; disrupt the central nervous system, which means putting a round through the brain or upper spine, or incapacitation via blood loss to the point that they simply can't continue. Blood loss is the more likely occurrence, but it's not an instant stop; only a CNS hit can accomplish an instant stop. The FBI also states that a larger diameter bullet may hit blood vessels that smaller rounds barely miss, which leads to faster blood loss. They state, very plainly, that larger calibers provide an advantage, even if it's a small one, and that any advantage should be taken. The other thing he ignores is that 12" penetration is the minimum the FBI considers acceptable. 14-18" is the ideal. So if you're shooting a 9mm that just makes the 12" mark, it's barely acceptable. The FBI says, in order of importance, it's penetration, shot placement, caliber. And yes, they say bigger is better. People have been killed by a single .22; others have survived 6 rounds of .357 magnum. You can't discount any caliber, but the faster blood loss happens, the sooner the assailant will stop. People have taken a .45 to the heart and continued to fight for several seconds. I've personally seen a guy who was shot in the chest with a .38 who was still up, walking around, when we got to the scene, a good 10+ minutes after the shooting. He died a few hours later, at the hospital. Considering the hospital was 45 minutes or so away, that's not a big surprise. It's not a matter of if the round kills your assailant; it's a matter of how fast it takes them down. The only "one shot stop" outside of a hit to the CNS, is a person who falls down when shot; that is a person who is not a determined assailant. We, as a society, have been conditioned by Hollywood to believe that people should fall down when they get shot. Here's the FBI report. It's only 19 pages and a bunch of those are only 1/4-1/2 pages, so it doesn't take long to read. http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf
To add to what is above, he implied it but didn't outright say it: People who are shot rarely go to the ground, and when they do, almost never stay there.
Torture the numbers long enough, they will admit to anything. For every study that states bigger is better, there is one by an equally good expert that speaks the opposite. That being said, you are going to believe whatever you are comfortable with, and always find information that makes you think you are right.
and i'll say it again that FBI report is from '89, thus generated after the '86 shootout that failed miserably and NOT just because of ammo size, even though that didn't help but there were other factors that lead to the failure. Ammo has changed since then.
And as I said in the other thread (how many threads are we having this discussion in anyway?) that yes, the report is old and yes ammo has improved, but the basic premises in the report are sound. 9mm isn't the only ammo that's improved. .40 and .45, along with all the rest, have improved as well. Until such time as there is a HP that expands 90+% of the time, the original diameter of the round is the only diameter you can count on to create the permanent wound cavity, which is a big part of their findings from '89.
That's why I chose the G21 for my first handgun. Its a reliable firearm with a cartridge that has lasted a century. expanding bullets are great, but i know that if i can shoot straight i will make a .45 inch hole in whatever i want to shoot with a FMJ.
I agree with the original question. If you can't handle a .45 or 10mm, even IF it has better ballistics, what good does it do?
I will agree with you. I have a friend that can unload his Jennings 22 at an empty cigarette pack at 20 feet faster then all get out, and hit all rounds. I'd not want to be on the other end of that gun!!
