The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

JoshB · May 14, 2007, 01:23 AM

We hear all this talk about "shot placement," etc. Now as important as it is, why is it that all but 3 or 4 percent of the voters went for something OTHER THAN the 22 or 25? All the handguns were similar with the only difference being the caliber. Apart from the natural accuracy certain rounds may/may not have, the key factor here is the caliber. Assuming [I bring this assumption in here for the first time] that all the pistols were full size 1911's where the recoil of larger calibers is compensated by the weight of the gun, why would anyone pick up a 22, 25 or even a 9mm when you can bring something more to the fight? After all, shot placement is more important than caliber, right?
Lets see where this goes...

May 14, 2007, 01:23 AM	#41
JoshB Senior Member Join Date: March 18, 2006 Posts: 333	We hear all this talk about "shot placement," etc. Now as important as it is, why is it that all but 3 or 4 percent of the voters went for something OTHER THAN the 22 or 25? All the handguns were similar with the only difference being the caliber. Apart from the natural accuracy certain rounds may/may not have, the key factor here is the caliber. Assuming [I bring this assumption in here for the first time] that all the pistols were full size 1911's where the recoil of larger calibers is compensated by the weight of the gun, why would anyone pick up a 22, 25 or even a 9mm when you can bring something more to the fight? After all, shot placement is more important than caliber, right? Lets see where this goes... __________________ -Josh Deut. 12.32