Shooter45

I was told to shoot the BG a whole bunch of times in the chest and if he still keeps comming or standing, shoot him a whole bunch of times in the face. Even if you are shooting with a .22 cal you should be able to stop the aggressor. Me personally I carry a 45cal. loaded with COR BON Power Ball +P

ccw9mm

It's a straightforward exercise to comparatively test a variety of firearms, ammunition and target media (ie, ballistic gelatin blocks, denim-encased chopped+pressed hams, and so on), as to primary characteristics: barrel length, pressures developed, muzzle speed & energy, at-target speed & energy, depth & volume of the wound cavity, etc. That assumes all else is held constant. Works very well.

The variables will always be: type of actual target, the angle of the target to the shooter (ie, did the perp turn away at the moment of the shot), the clothing on the target (which varies), the placement of the bullet on the target, the specific ammo/barrel used (in terms of terminal ballistics). Every perp doesn't shop at Macy's, and no shooters' skills and ammo/gun selections are exactly the same.

Controlling for the shooter, ammunition, barrel, wind, and target composition, the actual results of a given shooting will tend to approximate the test results, on average. This assumes proper testing of simulated circumstances that approximate reality. Many would argue that ballstic gel blocks don't come close to reality. As would I. However, a variety of test media would show the varying performance of a given load across situations as compared to others under the same circumstances. That's the beauty of a scientific approach. If done properly, it is indeed a fair representation of the likelihood of seeing similar results in actual situations. (As is obvious, though, likelihood and certainty are different.) That said, the "tests" we've seen are woefully deficient, given that they don't go very far in terms of varying the conditions. For example, many (most?) tests simply use blocks of gel and call it "good."

In reality, shooter "A" might have a Glock 19 with Winchester Silvertips in 124gr 9mm and be a marksman, while shooter "B" might be a 1911 guy with pie-plate accuracy and 230gr ball 45ACP, and the target criminals will vary as to clothing, density of their bodies, location and angle where the bullet struck, etc. In practice, how to gauge comparative results? Almost impossible. IMO, it's this simple reality that causes the endless debates.

It'll always come down to one thing, though, and it's something that you cannot know: what will be enough against the specific target that you're facing at the moment? Dunno. But it's nice to know that, comparatively speaking, a given ammo/gun combination held up well or poorly in controlled testing. At least that provides a yardstick against which to measure one's personal ammo/gun selection.

Doubt it? Look to any controlled testing ever done and consider the power of prediction from those simple tests. Works well, for comparing automobile performance and likelihood of outperforming a given car on a track; for determining the relative performance of a given tennis ball versus others; for determining the useful life (in MTBF hours) of a spring; and, countless other things. Assuming, of course, a controlled experiment was done that incorporated the relevant variables.

Me? I'm happy enough with the mix of characteristics provided by: a high-cap 9mm, good controllability, good repeat shot placement, performance of the round in actual shootings, excellent availability, good selection, low cost. I tend to value the ergonomic aspects far more than simple would ballistics. Can't shoot most other calibers better. Haven't found a better mix of traits.

Which is best? Under what circumstances, at what point of impact, against what type/density of target, etc.? Depends.

__________________
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
Reports: CZ P01 pt1, pt2.
Thoughts: Justifiable self defense.
Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
Tip: Use the <search> feature.

High Altitude

Hot 10mm loads are close to .41 mag performance. Glock makes a 10mm about the same size as there small Glock 30 .45acp.

You can check out some of the various 10mm ammo that doubletap sells.

http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/cat...hp?cPath=21_25

I would like to get a 10mm for a woods gun with this load.

http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/cat...roducts_id=105

jofrdo

You can see a table of "one shot stopping power" at http://www.alpharubicon.com/leo/calloadgoshin.htm

What it told me is that .40 S&W is so close to .45 ACP in actual performance that I would prefer to carry the smaller .40 and more of it in the same size frame.

9 mm is a fine defensive caliber but you should plan on using multiple shots. With anything less than 9 mm, there are compromises made in stopping power in the name of concealability and controllability of the gun.

Doc Holliday

You could have an bottomless magazine filled with thermo-nuclear tipped hollowpoints and it still wouldn't matter if you can't hit SQUAT with 'em!

__________________
Give Doc the shotgun.
They'll be less apt to get nervous if he's on the street howitzer.

Why, Johnny Ringo, you look like somebody just walked over your grave.

I have two guns, one for each of ya.

Doc Holliday

I would plan on using mulitple shots regardless of caliber. Double taps.

__________________
Give Doc the shotgun.
They'll be less apt to get nervous if he's on the street howitzer.

Why, Johnny Ringo, you look like somebody just walked over your grave.

I have two guns, one for each of ya.

retsupt99

How expensive are those thermo-nuclear tipped hollowpoints?
Can you get them at Wal-Mart?

ret

__________________
"That I cannot do."

"Give this to, uh, Clemenza. I want reliable people, people who aren't going to be carried away. After all we're not murderers in spite of what this undertaker thinks."


***********************************

NRA Life Member

Roundeyesamurai

I'm glad to see the large number of very reasonable answers to this question.

Let's state, for the record, one thing which ought to be held to be incontrovertible, but isn't (for one reason or another): There is very little difference in performance in living beings between various service-pistol cartridges. What little differences do exist are, at best, academic.

Please read that carefully, before coming back with some argument about 10mm in comparison to .380ACP.

We can hypothesize based on performance in jello, rehashing of "fishing stories" (including those told by a Colonel in Arizona and taken as gospel by altogether too many people), mathematical calculations, and hare-brained conjecture; but these are mere hypotheses. They're theories.

Common sense (and experience) tells us that whether you're shot with a .38 or with a .45, you're just as dead if it hits some parts of you, and not dead if it hits other parts of you. Under the conditions under which one would actually use them, they're too comparable to distinguish one over others.

Blackeagle

I have tried very hard to stay out of this debate after initially answering Atua's question, but after this statement I find myself unable to resist. As I said in my first post, choosing a caliber is a complicated tradeoff that's different for every individual, but to say that there's no difference in terminal effect is laughable.

You call all terminal ballistics research "theories" but then present absolutely no evidence to support your own "theory", instead appealing to "common sense".

So, what are these parts? Well, we're basically talking about the brain stem and central nervous system (instant stop) and the blood supply (non-instant stop).

The brainstem and central nervous system are pretty well protected by being encased in bone. If we want to kill someone, we need to penetrate this bone, which is surprisingly good at resisting or deflecting handgun bullets. How do we increase the chances of shattering through the bone and damaging the central nervous system? Basic physics: increase mass, increase velocity or both. That means that not all service handgun rounds are created equal, and makes the choice of caliber important.

So what about the blood supply? Well we've got to put a hole in the heart or major artery and we've got to get the blood out. Penetration is still important (major arteries tend to be buried in the middle of the body) but not as important as a brainstem/central nervous system shot. We've also got to make a big enough hole that the BG will bleed out quickly. It doesn't matter if he's going to die in five minutes if he kills me in the next 30 seconds, so we want to make bigger holes. So how do we increase the chances of hitting a major artery and creating a large hole? Basic geometry: a bullet with a larger frontal area is going to carve up a bigger hole going through the bad guy, making it more likely that it will hit a major artery and more likely that it will rip a big hole in the artery. Again, not all service handgun rounds are created equal, making the choice of caliber important.

To stop a bad guy you do need to hit the right parts, but "common sense" indicates that some calibers are going to be more likely to hit those parts than others.

Roundeyesamurai

I didn't say there is no difference. Read more carefully.

The question which remains is "How much more likely?". The answer is that, despite all of the jello-testing, theorizing, rhetoric, and so forth, the difference in performance on living beings between service pistol cartridges isn't enough to write home about.

Incidentally, thank you for offhandedly categorizing me as part of the "debate", despite the fact that the point of my post is to establish that the "debate" itself is asinine.