Comparitive Overview - Most effective calibers - Page 2

Comparitive Overview - Most effective calibers

This is a discussion on Comparitive Overview - Most effective calibers within the Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by clubsoda22 handguns suck....next thread. The most effective calibers are fired from centerfire long guns. :3schild40 Ouch, truth hurts. But how bad does ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 38

Thread: Comparitive Overview - Most effective calibers

  1. #16
    Member Array Monty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Charleston, WV
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by clubsoda22
    handguns suck....next thread.

    The most effective calibers are fired from centerfire long guns.
    :3schild40 Ouch, truth hurts.

    But how bad does a .45 suck compared to how bad a .41 Mag sucks?

    So....30 rounds of .223 or 10 rounds of .308???

    Monty


  2. #17
    DC Founder
    Array Bumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    20,045
    Quote Originally Posted by clubsoda22
    handguns suck....next thread.

    The most effective calibers are fired from centerfire long guns.
    From your post one would think that Gunkid was back, if I didn't know better. The subject of this thread was effective handgun calibers. If you have nothing better to post you might want to post nothing....
    Bumper
    Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde; Beware the anger of a patient man.

  3. #18
    Membership Revoked Array clubsoda22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    177
    Bumper, the subject of this thread is "most effective calibers," which, in itself is incorrect since the discussion is about the most effective cartridges.

    You fail to understand the point i am making. Handgun ballistics suck. Arguing over which service caliber yeilds "better" terminal ballistics when the difference is so marginal is a waste of time. An extra tenth of an inch here or there is not going to make a poorly placed shot effective....that's what a shotgun is for.

    GSW's from a handgun average about a 20% mortality rate. Whether you left the house with a 9mm or 45 is moot.

  4. #19
    Membership Revoked Array clubsoda22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Monty
    :3schild40 Ouch, truth hurts.

    But how bad does a .45 suck compared to how bad a .41 Mag sucks?

    So....30 rounds of .223 or 10 rounds of .308???

    Monty
    If you have to suffice with anything short of an air strike, your mindset and training weigh far more on the outcome of a lethal force encounter. Equipment is just fine tuning.

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array Euclidean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,213
    Club I know what you're saying. We get too caught up sometimes in handgun calibers, and all handgun calibers are weak by design.

    But this is more or less a handgun central forum where we focus on this tiny slim little piece of the low end of the ballistics spectrum. There IS a difference between .38 Special and .45 ACP. After all, if you're going to have a handgun why not have the best handgun there is to be had?

    If we follow your logic to its extreme, let's all carry .22s. Even in handguns there are more effective and less effective choices yes?

    Now as for what the best handgun is, well, we're all looking for it.

  6. #21
    DC Founder
    Array Bumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    20,045
    Quote Originally Posted by clubsoda22
    Bumper, the subject of this thread is "most effective calibers," which, in itself is incorrect since the discussion is about the most effective cartridges.

    You fail to understand the point i am making. Handgun ballistics suck. Arguing over which service caliber yeilds "better" terminal ballistics when the difference is so marginal is a waste of time. An extra tenth of an inch here or there is not going to make a poorly placed shot effective....that's what a shotgun is for.

    GSW's from a handgun average about a 20% mortality rate. Whether you left the house with a 9mm or 45 is moot.
    I think if you look at the first post, by Trader, who opened the thread, that he said "My listing was the .45 ACP and the .357 Mag. Just under the effectivness of the above are the .40 S&W, .44 Special and 9mm. Below these are the .38 special and .380 ACP." I think we can all agree that those calibers are all generally considered to be handgun rounds. If, in the course of the posts the topic includes specific ammunition (which it usually does) then so be it. And, I disagree, that handgun ballistics suck. We would probably all agree that a rifle may be more effective than a handgun in most situations, but a bit impractical. The ballistics may be less desireable than a rifle, but that does not mean that a handgun is not effective.

    As Euclidean has already said we are sorta focused on handguns here. I know you don't have your permit as yet, but if you haven't heard, most of us with permits carry handguns. If you were actually trying to make a valid point with your post, you might want to approach it a bit differently next time.
    Bumper
    Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde; Beware the anger of a patient man.

  7. #22
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,484
    Bumper - +1
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

  8. #23
    Membership Revoked Array clubsoda22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    177
    Allright, i'll illustrate the point to you.



    Performance is all pretty much the same. inch or two of penetration, 1/10 an inch of expansion. The temporary stretch cavity of all of the rounds isn't big enough to cause any significant damage.

    A hit with these rounds that misses vital organs will be just that regardless of caliber. The only way to significantly increase the chances of damaging vital organs with the same hit is with a high velocity projectile (rifle) or multiple projctiles (shotgun). It's pretty obvious that i'm not advocating that everyone try to conceal a long gun under a trench coat. I'm saying that arguing which service caliber is better is pointless.

    The case can be made that your 45 is better than a 32 or a 380. but better than a 9mm, 357, 40, 38+P (out or a decent legnth barrel), etc? Not really. as long as the round meets penetration standards it's pretty much all good.

    If you want me to argue cartridge superiority i can do that as well, but not really from a ballistic standpoint. I'll speak about it from a combat effectiveness standpoint. This of course requires making generalizations which some people will disagree with, for instance, my assertion that revolvers are ineffective combat arms for modern times.

    Lets set aside anything .380 or smaller since these are really ineffective as combat arms. They are often low capacity and do not penetrate sufficiently.

    Let's also set aside 38 special, 357 magnum, 44 spec/magnum, etc. These are revolver chamberings and the most common method of carry for these is a short barreled revolver. These revolvers, even their longer barreled variants lack capacity which hinders their combat effectiveness against the very real threat of multiple opponents, despite otherwise good terminal ballistics of the .357 magnum. 44magnum is overkill (has a tendency to overpenetrate) for human sized game and most people can't control it properly.

    At the top of the list, i'll put 9mm followed by 40/357sig and 45/10mm. Most 9mm handguns offer higher capacity and more concealability for that capacity, this means more firepower and the ability to carry more ammunition. Most 40/357sig caliber handguns come in the same packages but users inexplicably choose lower capacity for cartridges that offer virtually identical terminal ballistics as 9mm. There are several excellent 45 caliber service arms but the ones that offer sufficient capacity are often very large and therefore not commonly carried. The smaller variants often lack capacity and adiquate barrel legnth to get proper expansion from the .45. The few exceptions, such as the glock 30, still carry 3-5 less rounds than similarly sized 9mm handguns, and most people will opt for a slimmer gun with revolveresque capacity. 10mm handguns are often on the same frame as 45's and although offer slightly higher capacity, the round is not in common usage and might as well be a 40 as full house rounds are once again overkill (has a tendency to overpenetrate) for human sized targets
    Last edited by clubsoda22; May 3rd, 2005 at 10:29 AM.

  9. #24
    Senior Member Array Tom357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Richmond VA
    Posts
    1,068
    Quote Originally Posted by clubsoda22
    ...I'm saying that arguing which service caliber is better is pointless...
    Nice picture.

    Make mine .357 SIG. And the reasons I choose it are not inexplicable, if you care to discuss that, sometime. But in the end, they are my reasons, whether or not you approve.

    Besides, you don't need as many rounds when the BOOM scares 'em to death.
    - Tom
    You have the power to donate life.

  10. #25
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,903

    clubsoda22

    There are a few more holes in your effective handgun cartridge theory than in your ballistic gelatin photo.

  11. #26
    DC Founder
    Array Bumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    20,045
    There are several arguments I could make with you on your ballistic gelatin post above, but I won't. That was not the original point I was making in the first place. But, I think we can all accept your post immediately above as a basis for valid arguments. It's much better than the "handguns suck....next thread." In your first post you made no valid argument, nor contributed anything of value. Next time you might want to consider making a post like your last one first and save the first one for somewhere else.
    Bumper
    Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde; Beware the anger of a patient man.

  12. #27
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,903
    It is an absolute matter of fact that handgun cartridges have evolved out of necessity to become more effective in actual street use.
    While (of course) no handgun caliber is going to be more effective on an aggressive human target than (pick your high power rifle cartridge) or a 12 gauge...we are realistically limited by what we can conceal on body for personal protection.
    Certainly no argument can be made that various Police depts found the .40 to have far more effective stopping power than the ol' .38 special round nose.
    And there must be some logical reason that our troops are not super thrilled with the 9mm & want the .45acp back.
    Rather than look at ballistic gelatin one really needs to look at exit wound and body & tissue damage data & couple that with a comparative # of effective stops per shooting incident.
    All handgun cartridges and bullet styles/configurations are not created equally no matter how they might look and act in gelatin.
    When you factor in some of the newly R&Ded ultra~modern Law Enforcement Only specially engineered bullet designs things begin to really change for the better also.
    Actually the most realistic indicator of relative handgun cartridge effectiveness is to ask one simple question.
    You are going to get shot in the cakepot & you get to pick the caliber that you're going to get hit with.
    Which do you pick...and why?

    The 9 mm 147gr JHP at 1032 or a 10 mm Auto 155 Gr. JHP at 1400 fps

    .44 Rem Mag. 270 gr at 1400fps
    .41 Rem Mag. 170 gr. JHC at 1525
    .357 Sig 115 Gr. JHP at 1434
    .357 Rem Mag 125 Gr. JHP 1750 fps
    10mm Auto 155 Gr. JHP 1400
    and I can name quite a few more that would look a bit more impressive in the above gelatin.
    Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ

  13. #28
    Membership Revoked Array clubsoda22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    177
    currently, ballistic gelatin is the only scientific way to judge terminal ballistics and has found to be very accurate when compared to expansion and penetration of comparable rounds in autopsy reports.

    Police departments switched to 40 because revolvers are outdated and ineffective handguns for modern police work. The big push to switch to 40 came in the age of high velocity 115gr 9mms that fragment and underpenetrate and 147gr 9mms that failed to expand. The most modern loads have made the difference between 9mm and 40 negligable. .357 sigs popularity is the result of good marketing. There is no difference other than uncomfortable muzzle blast. The troops want to go back to .45 because they can't use hollowpoints. They also hate .223 because they have to use green tips. The military is not the place to look for a valid case study.

    Yes, all those rounds you picked have impressive terminal ballistics, with the exception of the 357 sig load which will probably fragment and underpenatrate. The rest are magnum cartridges, the majority of which are seldom carried with the exception of the 357 magnum, which is most often carried in a snubbie (completely squashing its impressive figures.) I personally like the 10mm. I just think it's overkill.

  14. #29
    VIP Member Array Euclidean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,213
    Tisk tisk club. I can see where you're coming from but that's TWICE you've insulted revolvers.

    Don't make me get the tube sock after ya.

    There was once a really good thread on The High Road posted by an LEO who was pissed off they took away his revolver and gave him a piece of tupperware. I wish I'd bookmarked it.

    Seriously I don't blame you for not liking them but saying stuff like they aren't suitable for <insert situation here> is your subjective opinion. I sincerely challenge anyone to paint a scenario where a semiautomatic is objectively better short of a full military engagement where you're trying to lay down cover fire with a handgun*.

    *Hopefully that has never happened in the history humankind

  15. #30
    Senior Member Array Tom357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Richmond VA
    Posts
    1,068
    Quote Originally Posted by clubsoda22
    currently, ballistic gelatin is the only scientific way to judge terminal ballistics and has found to be very accurate when compared to expansion and penetration of comparable rounds in autopsy reports...
    Strong opinions for one so young. You regurgitate the IWBA line well. Gelatin serves as an acceptable analogue for human tissue for the purpose of observing the behavior and performance of a projectile moving through a medium. It will even allow us to predict the approximate penetration and behavior of a given projectile. However, it is an homogenous medium, unlike the human body, and it is not self-aware or perceptive, so it fails us as a predictor of the effectiveness of a cartridge in actual use. The best it can do is help us predict how deeply a projectile might penetrate and how it might behave as it travels through tissue.
    ... .357 sigs popularity is the result of good marketing. There is no difference other than uncomfortable muzzle blast.
    You are certainly entitled to your opinion, as is the person whose opinion you have adopted, but your conclusion is flawed. The .357 SIG established itself because it offered two things that were superior to equivalent 9mm loads available at the time: (1) superior barrier penetration, and (2) when using the 125gr bullet, .357 Magnum performance from a semi-automatic platform with less muzzle flash, less noise, and less felt recoil than a .357 Magnum revolver. More guns are being chambered for .357 SIG, not fewer. A wider variety of ammunition is becoming available in .357 SIG, not less. More and more agencies are switching to .357 SIG, even though it is more expensive, and those that switch are sticking with it, not moving to something you would consider equivalent and less expensive. I think this last is the telling point. If they could switch to something equivalent and less expensive, and use the money saved for other things, they would, particularly given the extended belt-tightening days of our recent recessionary period. But they don't.

    While improvements in 9mm bullet design have evened the playing field with regard to barrier penetration, and offer similar penetration and expansion characteristics, the .357 SIG still delivers its payload faster and more accurately. What gelatin can't tell us is how effective a round is against a living human target. We have to rely on experience to tell us that. Experience suggests that most agencies that switch to the .357 SIG aren't switching to something else. Because I think agencies are driven by economic fundamentals of cost and benefit, I conclude that the success of the .357 SIG is due to more than marketing. Given that there are good 9mm alternatives out there, now, there has to be a reason they don't switch.
    ...with the exception of the 357 sig load which will probably fragment and underpenatrate.
    I agree. Federal designed the .357 SIG around a 125gr projectile. The 125gr projectile doesn't fragment and underpenetrate the way the 115gr 9mm projectile did at 1300-1400fps. It also doesn't fail to expand and overpenetrate the way the 147gr projectile tends to. What it does do is approach the performance of a 125gr .357 Magnum fired from a 4" barrel, with higher capacity, less muzzle flash, less noise, and less felt recoil. Apparently, many prefer this to 9mm loads that offer similar penetration and expansion.

    As you implied in a previous post, there are effective handgun cartridges in most medium to large calibers. None are as effective as their long gun relatives. Recent advances in bullet design have significantly improved their performance, though, which make the shooter's shot placement a more important determinant in overall effectiveness. Thus, a shooter is obliged to select the firearm and platform he or she shoots best, whether small and fast, big and slow, or big and fast. I welcome your opinion of your choice. I am less interested in your judgement of others.
    - Tom
    You have the power to donate life.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. AR calibers?
    By jwalker497 in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: September 16th, 2009, 12:27 PM
  2. AR calibers?
    By Heimer in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: November 12th, 2008, 10:24 AM
  3. How many calibers?
    By fatboy97 in forum Reloading
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: January 24th, 2008, 01:14 AM
  4. Difference between calibers?
    By Diesel 007 in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: November 20th, 2007, 11:07 AM
  5. Defensive Knife Overview In Dayton, OH - Sat., January 13, 2007
    By Ripper in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 11th, 2006, 09:43 AM

Search tags for this page

45 acp derringer effectivness

,

all handgun calibers suck

,

defensive carry calibers

,

fearg combat arms

,

most efective hand gun calibuur

,

most effective bullet caliber

,

most effective calibers

,

optimal caliber for defensive carry

,

the most effective handgun caliber

Click on a term to search for related topics.