Stopping Power Bwaaaaahhhaaahaaaaa!

[OBIWAN]

Here is the text that goes along with the picture

http://www.ammolab.myhomepage.com/page/page/1632847.htm

I could not agree more.

Size CAN matter...but not at the expense of accuracy and ability

A good comparison is a .357 snubby and a 9mm autoloader. Lots of "power" in that .357 revolver, but it is useless IF you cannot control it well enough to unload all 5 shots quickly and accurately...and if you fumble through a reload when more than 5 are required. I personally would rather have 10 rds of 9mm.

But neither answer is "right" for everyone in every situation

FD.....one milimeter :barf: ..( a stretch IMHO ...but I don't watch ER )

[DanV1317]

So maybe you are the best shot in the whole entire world with your weapon... but what if somebody attacks you from behind or kicks your leg out and breaks your knee. You hit your head and become a bit woozie and aren't seeing absolutly straight. You draw your weapon, but have a hard time seeing your sights exactly, or exactly where you need to hit your attacker with that one round that you can get off before he probably jumps on you and continues to beat you. Is your shot going to be perfect if your lieing down on your side, shooting with either strong or weak hand, having a hard time seeing your sights exactly? I dont think so. Being that you most likely wont get that perfect shot off, do you want to sink a 9mm into the guy or a .45?

Everybody says shot placement shot placement. If you assured me every situation would allow for a perfect acessment of the target, perfect time to draw my weapon, and the right amount of time to align my sights, then why dont i carry a .22? because i can probably shoot my SW model 41 the best! I'll just have amazing shot placement and hit the guy between the eyes!

It comes down to using the caliber that is as large as you can handle and carry efficiently. You could be the best shot in the world, but if something goes wrong and you can't get off that perfect shot, that extra few milimeters of expansion may be your ticket to tomorrow.

[brickeyee]

Actually, just hiting the spinal column (the bony portion) with a heavy enough blow will stop nerve functioning for a while. Think of the 'bumping your funny bone' type action. Nerves do not respond well to being banged, bumped, or bruised. Function may return after some period of time from seconds to minutes to weeks or even months.
Severing the spinal cord is permanent since so far the splicing techniques used on smaller nerve bundles will not fit in the body space available.

[Mannlicher]

this is SO boring................

[JohnKSa]

Being that you most likely wont get that perfect shot off, do you want to sink a 9mm into the guy or a .45?

Being that you most likely won't stop him with a single shot and that given your scenario you might not even hit him with the first shot, would you rather deal with .45 or 9mm recoil on your second shot?

It comes down to using the caliber that is as large as you can handle and carry efficiently.

Nope, it all comes down to HITTING your target COM as many times as you can manage in as small a time period as you can manage. If he can get off two shots while you're dragging the muzzle back down to recover from your first shot, you'll most likely lose. The guy who gets shot the most times almost always loses according to some research done on LEO shootings by a local constable. Carrying a gun that recoils significantly more than the other guy's gun can get you killed--especially if it also unnecessarily limits how many rounds you can carry.

Originally Posted by Mannlicher

this is SO boring................

And yet you keep opening the thread!

[DanV1317]

Hey john, do you carry a .22 caliber gun?

If he can get off two shots while you're dragging the muzzle back down to recover from your first shot, you'll most likely lose.

If not, your statement sure sounds like any gun will do! It has nice light recoil, and you can probably get a bunch of rounds off because of the significantly less recoil.

it all comes down to HITTING your target COM as many times as you can manage in as small a time period as you can manage

Also, if you read what i wrote, i specifically stated, that you would only have time to get that one crucial round off as the attacker was running towards you and just about to jump on you...maybe you didn't see that part. One round. That means NOPE, NO SECOND SHOT. That means NOPE, NEED TO WORRY ABOUT RECOIL.

It comes down to using the caliber that is as large as you can handle and carry efficiently.

Yeps to that! John, if you double tapped a 9mm and a 45 from 7 yards away? what would the difference be in inches between your first and second shot with the 45 and the 9? I'd say if you can't keep a quick double tap of 45 within a 5 inch circle at 7 yards then something is wrong. My strength vs. your strength will certainly effect the recoil of the 45. I may be able to control the recoil of a .45 better than you or you may be able to control it better than me. If i can shoot a 45 just as well as you can shoot a 9mm, why would i carry a 9?

Then again i did say in my original post that you would only have time for one shot to be fired...

[DanV1317]

If he can get off two shots while you're dragging the muzzle back down to recover from your first shot, you'll most likely lose.

Did i even say the guy had a gun? I beleive i said the guy was going to jump on you and start beating on you...

[JohnKSa]

your statement sure sounds like any gun will do

Caliber matters only to the extent that you need something that will penetrate deeply enough to damage the vitals. I wouldn't recommend a rimfire for personal defense and the .25 is notorious for poor penetration. In some of the lighter "pocket" calibers, it's probably a good idea to carry FMJ so you don't limit your penetration depth until it's ineffective.

One round. That means NOPE, NO SECOND SHOT.

There's nothing you can carry that will reliably stop a person with a single shot. Not even with a good solid COM hit. If you want, I can dig up the quote from the medic who treated a couple of Iraqis hit with .50 BMG rounds. So, in a real sense, it doesn't matter what you shoot him with. Unless you get lucky and damage the upper central nervous system, you're not going to stop him no matter what you're shooting. And, if you do damage the upper central nervous system you're going to stop him--again regardless of what you're shooting. There was an article regarding a study by the FBI posted on this forum awhile back that made exactly that point. Where you hit makes a big difference. What you're shooting make very little difference. That's why shooting rapidly and accurately really stacks the odds in your favor--the more you shoot and hit, the better your chance of living.

If i can shoot a 45 just as well as you can shoot a 9mm, why would i carry a 9?

Because you would almost certainly be able to shoot a 9mm even better and faster, and, in all likelihood you'd be carrying more rounds as well. If you don't think shooting a 9mm is an advantage compared to shooting a .45ACP then ask yourself why the IPSC rules handicap 9mm and other "minor calibers"? The guys who set it up knew that the 9mm could be shot faster so they designed the rules so the guys using .45s would be able to compete.

Besides, you might not be up against someone like me--who can make good COM hits on a silhouette at 7 yards while shooting my 9mm pistol so that it sounds like an UZI (according to the guy in the shooting lane next to me )--you might be up against some guy who can REALLY shoot!

[CarlosDJackal]

How does it go again? Mindset, Tactics, Skill, then Equipment. Funny how equipment is at the bottom of the list, isn't it?

Because you would almost certainly be able to shoot a 9mm even better and faster,

This is pure speculation on the poster's part. I shot my Glock 30 and 21 (.45 ACP) much better than any of my 9mm Glocks (19, 26 and 34). I find the slower recoil impulse of the .45 ACP much more comfortable than the 9mm and allows me to shoot it all day. YMMV.

FWIW, I currently carry .40 S&W for CCW or duty. I switched primarily because that is what the Sheriff's Office issues (Glock 22).

[hotntot12]

Just as a matter of reply to you . The area I was refering to was Flint,Michigan.I don't need to read a report or study just the newspaper.Other options are readily available on the streets.I do come the Detroit area and what you say about that area is true.Once again--no big point-just fact.

[OBIWAN]

Sigh...how do these ALWAYS turn into a caliber war

[cje1980]

DanV1317 the scenario that you listed in your post has to be one of the silliest things I've heard about caliber effectiveness. Personally if somebody attacked me from behind and broke my knee and injuring my head then I would have bigger problems than what caliber I have at the moment. You seem to be implying that the assailant is unarmed. You will have a hard time defending yourself in court for shooting an unarmed man. In the vast majority of self defense shooting situations as JohnKSa pointed out, the most important aspect to surviving it is to hit your enemy more times in a vital area than he can hit you, not how much bigger your gun is. I'm in no way saying to carry a .32 or .25. Adequate penetration is very important. Calibers less than 9mm have been proven to be ineffective. The bottom line is that there isn't enough difference between 9mm, .40, and .45 to create a significant advantage in a defensive shooting situation.

Being that you most likely wont get that perfect shot off, do you want to sink a 9mm into the guy or a .45?

Are you trying to imply that by simply having a .45 makes up for bad marksmanship. That is silly. If you miss and shoot somebody in the shoulder, the assailant is not going to cease hostile activity no matter if shot with a .45, a 30-30 or .25. Like I said above, if you are nearly unconcious yourself, due to the scenario that you listed, you have bigger problems than what caliber you're gun is. Missing your target even if using a "more powerful" cartridge is not going to help you.

[FrankDrebin]

Just as a matter of reply to you . The area I was refering to was Flint,Michigan.

Well, Flint's a big town, can't you post some examples???

[JohnKSa]

Carlos,

It's impossible to rule out the possibility that some folks might shoot better when the recoil gets heavier (I did say "almost certainly"), but the vast majority of people do not. If this were not true, there would be no rules in the speed shooting sports (such as IPSC) to penalize lighter recoiling calibers.

[DanV1317]

CJE, first off, we aren't talking about "other problems". I'm talking about the decision you must make to draw and fire upon this guy attacking you. You had time to only get one shot off. Do you want a 9mm or a 45 with a tad more expansion. That expansion could be the difference between hitting a vital organ or nerve to stop the guy and it not hitting anything important. So yes, one shot would be a caliber war. You have to be a good marksman. I'm not saying i'm going to carry a .45 and never practice, as opposed to carrying a 9mm and having to practice because it's a smaller caliber. You just picked apart the situation which i didn't sit here for half an hour and plan out, just wrote it up real quick to try to give somewhat of an idea for my question or statement or whatever it was that i was talking about like 3 days ago. This is my last post on this thread.

[JohnKSa]

Dan,

The bottom line is that the people who have touted the .45 (or any other handgun caliber) as a spectacular "stopper" have been doing so without any hard evidence for their position. Because many of these people are in positions that render them trustworthy to the gun community, their OPINIONS have long been accepted as fact.

We're seeing in Iraq that even a torso hit from a centerfire rifle doesn't guarantee a stop--not even MULTIPLE hits. That kind of puts quibbling about the minor differences in handgun calibers into perspective.

Given that not even a rifle bullet has the oomph to take a person down with a less than perfect hit, it doesn't make sense to pick a handgun caliber under the false impression that a slightly larger bullet will make a difference. Go for capacity, go for shootability, go for minimum recoil recovery time. If you can make good center-of-mass hits, do it repeatedly and really fast you will have a much better chance of surviving. Anything that cuts down your speed, your accuracy or the number of shots you can take is not a good thing and could cost you your life.

I'm not going to set a caliber minimum, but I will reiterate that it is important to shoot something that has the capability to penetrate through and through on an ideal shot (straight on shot) made on the average human. That's important because you may not get an ideal shot and you will need that penetration to get to the vitals if you don't. I don't think rimfires are a good idea because they tend to be less reliable than centerfire.

[OBIWAN]

Amen Brother!

[FrankDrebin]

How many people who are in the business of killing (or at least dropping) other people for a living would prefer the .223 round over the .30-06 or .308? Or the .30 carbine over the .30-06? As a WWII guy about that one...Not a truck driver, but someone who's actually put a good deal of meat on the table.

[OBIWAN]

Frank...buddy...let it go man

[JohnKSa]

Frank,

Read Audie Murphy's autobiography. He preferred to carry the Carbine over the Garand in at least some circumstances. I think he qualifies as someone who shot people with multiple calibers and also as someone who knew what he was doing with a firearm. I know for certain he used .30-06, .30 carbine, 50BMG and 8mm and .45ACP.

The point is that at least in some cases, Mr. Murphy felt that the quick handling and high capacity of the carbine was preferable to the punch of the Garand.

In another place he borrows a Thompson (pistol caliber) and uses it in preference of a rifle for one application.

[FrankDrebin]

The point is that at least in some cases, Mr. Murphy felt that the quick handling and high capacity of the carbine was preferable to the punch of the Garand.

The argument was about bullets and stopping power, not about what was a better gun for different situations. Read any of Don Burgett's books, or talk to him in person. When it came to stopping power, he had no use for the carbine and got rid of the Thompson that he carried as a squad leader as soon as possible in exchange for a .30-06.

[caegal]

How many people who are in the business of killing (or at least dropping) other people for a living would prefer the .223 round over the .30-06 or .308?

And then the question has to be asked, what makes a soldier or police officer a good judge of bullet performance? It is not like they are doing a controlled study, and obtaining verifiable and repeatable data sets. Forensics are a poor indicater of a bullets perfomance, the variables are too great and are only done on dead people. Police mostly just follow the same information that we have, and draw their own conclusions. Of course in the case of military, they carry what the officers give them.

The military's standard round is a 9mm, so does that make them right? They are the only people in the business of killing in this country. Some of the special forces in the country carry different calibers, but the 9mm is by far the most popular.

And if the police are all good judges of a bullets performance, why do they disagree so much? Why do so many officers carry different calibers? Are the ones who carry 9mm all wrong? Are the .45cal people just believing the old information and living on hype? Are the .40cal and 10mm carriers just losers who are staking their lives on unproven rounds?


No, they all are based on preferance and compromise, and not one round can truly be considerd better than the next.

[FrankDrebin]

And if the police are all good judges of a bullets performance, why do they disagree so much? Why do so many officers carry different calibers?

Do you know of any departments that carry a .380 for a duty gun? A .25 acp? .32? .22 LR? Why not? They don't carry THAT many different calibers.

[OBIWAN]

Actually the newer 30 carbine loadings are quite effective on humans

The older ones were not as bad as they were made out to be

More "gun rag" ballistics

But stop me if I am wrong....we were discussing handguns

Pitiful popguns that they are

Police officers "dropped" a lot of bad guys with their .38's, which are (arguably) at the lower end of the effective caliber range.

Bottom line...anyone that depends solely on caliber to "get the job done" is fooling themselves, but hopefully nobody else!

All handguns are a compromise...if we knew we were going to a gunfight we would all (almost all) carry rifles.

So, assuming you use at least minimally effective ammunition...arguing about the caliber is silly.

[detructo4130]

que ball whizzed at assailant or baseball bat there would be more energy than a .45 and with the bat you never run out of ammunition.