Caliber effectiveness

[pblanc]

Originally Posted by Nanuk

Then how do you explain the differences between the 38 Special and the 357 Magnum when the only difference in more energy?



8 was enough because the pistols were used for shooting deserters and trouble makers, not fighting, historical doctrine.

The difference is more velocity, typically anywhere from around 38% to over 50% more velocity in a .357 diameter projectile on a same weight basis.

Of course, more velocity means more energy but that is hardly the only thing. It also means more momentum (38 to over 50% more). More velocity and momentum mean potentially better penetration but also greater ability to shatter bone that the projectile hits, plow right on through the sternum and keep on going, etc.

[zplinker]

OK,for a strictly non-scientific report: over the past several years, I have shot literally hundreds of running raccoons, with both the .40 and .45. Using live traps, I like to roll it over, let them run for it, and see how it goes. There is no question, the .40 stops them more reliably than the .45, each loaded with quality hollow point bullets, and top end loads. Now, have I parked my carry .45? No. But the difference in results is very obvious.

[44 AMP]

8 was enough because the pistols were used for shooting deserters and trouble makers, not fighting, historical doctrine.

Doctrine is what the boss says you should do. Reality is often different. There are plenty of verified examples of people using handguns in combat, against uniformed enemy military. As well as them being used to shoot "deserters and trouble makers".

Sure, a handgun isn't meant to be the primary offensive weapon, but it absolutely has been used in that role by lots of people over lots of years.

[stinkeypete]

I like zPlinker’s data point.

As for being “unscientific”... not necessarily.

Traditional science was “quantitative”... by using experimental techniques then statistical analysis, the goal is to prove or disprove a hypothesis in a way that the same experiment can be repeated by others. If the results can be repeated by others, “that’s the ree in research” as my boss used to say.

Although disparaged by people who don’t understand it, sometimes very complex questions can be answered using “qualitative” research. Sometimes you simply can’t do an experiment 100 times. So instead, there are accepted ways to do good qualitative research and some stuff that is simply “bad science.” The goal is to document what one does and carefully write up your impressions. Of course, bias is possible and one works to overcome that.

Now, a man says “I’ve shot a whole bunch of raccoons with both and .40 is a lot better at it, you can easily tell”... I absolutely believe him.

My love of the .45 comes from my intended use for it, which was as a target shooting range toy. I had a Glock 22 long slide race gun that I got in a trade from a guy that sunk a lot of money in to it. I tried to love it, too. For what I did, it was too much power for shooting paper and for hunting I prefer .44 magnum.

Hardball .45acp is not real pleasant, either but tamed by generally heavier steel guns compared to the traditional Glock polymer. As a “woods gun”, light weight is important as I walk miles. For a range toy, heavy is good.

Let’s see... if I had to make a list of stuff I would not want to be on the wrong end of a traditional semi-auto pistol by, .40 is probably at the top of the list for “please, if I have to get shot, not the .40” But I still an not standing in front of a .22 short, either. If I had to make a terrible choice, that’s my pick to get shot with. Hunting guns are exempt from this list... like .44 and the super magnums.

[Nanuk]

The difference is more velocity, typically anywhere from around 38% to over 50% more velocity in a .357 diameter projectile on a same weight basis.

Of course, more velocity means more energy but that is hardly the only thing. It also means more momentum (38 to over 50% more). More velocity and momentum mean potentially better penetration but also greater ability to shatter bone that the projectile hits, plow right on through the sternum and keep on going, etc.

Exactly. Which to me at least seems at odds with your previous statement.

[Nanuk]

There are plenty of verified examples of people using handguns in combat, against uniformed enemy military.

Yes, there are but we are talking about Germans in WWI and WWII. I believe only officers carried pistols in the German Army.

[pblanc]

Originally Posted by Nanuk

Exactly. Which to me at least seems at odds with your previous statement.

What I am saying is that it is unnecessary to invoke damage outside of the primary crush channel resulting from a larger temporary cavity as a result of greater kinetic energy delivery to explain greater wounding potential resulting from higher velocity.

It has long been argued, as JohnKSa alluded, that a large temporary cavity might correlate with some sort of physiological or psychological shock that can perhaps transiently disable the GSW victim in the absence of any visible tissue damage within the temporary cavity. That is a possibility, but may be impossible to either prove or disprove.

Physicians and biological scientists have searched for years for an objective means of quantitating perceived pain without success. In other words, I cannot objectively measure how much pain another person is feeling, any more than I can know what they are thinking. I can only go by what they tell me. And the reactions of individuals who are shot vary from "I didn't know it" to "The worst pain I ever felt".

[peterg7]

Size(bullet) matters but weight(gun) matters more, for CC. Everything else is background noise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HiBC]

None of this helps me decide between a 7 rd 45 ACP Shield and an 8 rd 9mm Shield.

And no,telling me to choose a different gun is not the point.

[COSteve]

The simple truth is that the most effective pistol caliber for a given individual is the one that he/she can shoot well. Missing the target with a 10mm, 45 Super, 44 Mag, or 500 S&W isn't as effective as hitting it with a 25, 32, or 380.

[COSteve]

Originally Posted by peterg7

Size(bullet) matters but weight(gun) matters more, for CC. Everything else is background noise.

So, by your logic (or lack thereof) an empty 25acp pocket gun would be the most effective CC weapon because it's the smallest and lightest.

NOT!!

[44 AMP]

Yes, there are but we are talking about Germans in WWI and WWII. I believe only officers carried pistols in the German Army.

This is incorrect. A lot of German soldiers carried pistols. More so, over all, than ours did. from Line Infantry NCOs, though Paratroops, Panzer crewmen, and crew served weapon crews (machine guns, etc)

Squad leaders carried either 9mm pistols or SMGs, sometimes both. Officers carried pistols, sure, and rarely anything else, even in the Infantry.

Additionally, the Nazis were kind of "pistol crazy". Nearly EVERY Nazi uniform, from combat troops down to the dog catcher and the postman had a pistol as part of their uniform. Often a dagger as well, and while the daggers weren't daily wear, the pistols WERE.

[peterg7]

Originally Posted by COSteve

So, by your logic (or lack thereof) an empty 25acp pocket gun would be the most effective CC weapon because it's the smallest and lightest.



NOT!!

O if it’s

Now that’s just being boorish.

the loaded gun on my belt(or pocket) will do me more good than the one in the safe, So if it’s a 9mm or .380 then I ok with it. Just as I would with a .40 I just can’t always CC a G23


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stinkeypete]

7 round .45acp vs. 8 round Shield- which is better? Better for what, under what circumstance?

The marketing department at firearms companies would not like it if you all shared my opinion: they are close enough that it’s simply personal preference and “fashion.” It doesn’t matter.

But to sell guns,
Which is better: seven rounds of .45 or 21 rounds of 9mm? Everyone buy high capacity 9mm. Time passes, sales dwindle.
Which is better, 21 rounds of 9mm or 18 rounds of .40? Everyone runs to buy a .40. Time passes, sales dwindle.
Which is better, a special forces sized .40 or teeny tiny micropistols? Everyone buy a micropistol and argue about tiny revolvers only having 5 shots.
Which is better, just tell me what to buy for my wife? (which is like getting your mom a baseball glove for Christmas.) Back to the Glock 42 and M&P Shield EZ which remarkably swing us back around to what the cops carried in Europe before WW2 and was powerful enough to start WWI (arch duke Ferdinand was assassinated with a .380 so there is a data point regarding “starting power.” It started a world war.)

Okay, it’s good enough for a wife or girlfriend but .... moar power... see, 9mm is moar powah... everyone buy..... single stack compacts because .38 special sucks despite being good enough for the cops for decades.

Meanwhile, Gramps sold his old Python for $4,000 because Rick shoots zombies with it on the Netflix and some kid had to have it. His old .45 still shoots great after 60 years of faithful service, so it’ll do.

It’s fun. Buy it, try it, trade it if you don’t like it. Cheaper than golf as a hobby.

[HiBC]

Maybe I was not clear. I'm talking about a 45ACP Shield 2.0 vs a 9 mm Shield 2.0.
The capacity difference is one round.

Other than that,they are close to identical.

The niche is to be light/compact enough for edc.

I'm leaning toward the 45,but loaded,it will weigh a little more,and the gun seems to cost a little more in 45. 9 mm's are easier to find,more likely to be on sale.
9mm and 45 are already in the supply chain,dies,brass,etc. I don't think I want to add 40 S+W
One of these days I'll just pick one.Its no big deal.I'm not paralyzed by the choice.

Its my way of saying I did not find anything new in the video. I still remember when I throw a big rock in a pond it makes more disruption than a small rock.


A GSW that cuts the abdominal aorta will likely be fatal. Soon. 9mm or 45.


But if it hits the rib where it joins the spine,will the greater area of a 45 translate to more temporary "stun" delivered from the rib to the spine?

[44 AMP]

A GSW that cuts the abdominal aorta will likely be fatal. Soon. 9mm or 45.

Yes, BUT will it be fast enough to save lives? Study the 1986 FBI Miami shootout for one possible result. (where lives were lost after the bad guy took a fatal wound, but before he was stopped)

But if it hits the rib where it joins the spine,will the greater area of a 45 translate to more temporary "stun" delivered from the rib to the spine?

Again, I'll point to the 96 Miami shootout. One of the agents took a .223 to the neck. Not the spine, but close enough that the shock damage to the spine left him paralysed and unable to do anything during the fight.

Every situation is different, and there's no guarantee and what worked one way in one shooting might not do the same in another.

[HiBC]

Every situation is different, and there's no guarantee and what worked one way in one shooting might not do the same in another.

I understand and agree.

I'm not trying to be a smart alec.but ts just true that on one day,a Bersa 22 might make a one stop shot,and on another day,I knew a Man who was a Medic on the Korean War.He stepped on a mine.It blew off one foot and the other leg at the knee. He crawled to keep tending wounded.

What,IMO,is just unavailable data,is the first 10 seconds after a hit. The first three seconds after a hit. I get it,one shot stop s illusion.

I accept and have heard most of the "doctrine"

I'm not arguing.

I wonder if I'd get the same response if I asked the same question,but instead of a Shield,45 vs 9 mm,I asked 1911,45 vs 9mm. Single stack,both cases.

I actually tend to make my own decisions and take responsibility for them.
I don't need to be told which gun to buy..I can handle it.

I'm illustrating that after yet another 9mm vs 45 ACP thread, what is new?

If I'm carrying either,I have a gun.An adequate gun. Maybe. Hits count.Maybe. And Life is uncertain.

[JJ45]

The AK was designed and purpose built to provide a large volume of suppressive fire in support of unabated armored attack. As German Blitzkreig tactics changed the operational doctrine of almost every military ....especially the Soviets, the PPsh machine pistol had proved the effectiveness in this type of warfare.

Intermediate cartridge, compact (less obtrusive in an APC), high capacity, select fire.

[cslinger]

Maybe I was not clear. I'm talking about a 45ACP Shield 2.0 vs a 9 mm Shield 2.0.
The capacity difference is one round.

The 9mm and not for ballistic reasons

-in that small if a gun .40/.45 becomes a bit of a shooting liability IMO. 9mm makes more sense. Even with lots of practice you really need to be on your game with larger calibers in such a small light platform. This matters much less as the platform size increases IMO.

- Capacity. I personally think the difference between 13 and 15 rounds is negligible, 15 vs 17 same. 10 and 12 also fairly negligible. Once, however, you start dropping below ten I think each extra shot starts to matter.


-Weight. You are buying an itty bitty carry gun so size and weight must matter. 9mm is lighter.

-Enjoyment. I find that most folks practice more with guns they have fun with. Will you ENJOY shooting .45 out of a small platform such as this?

At the end of the day it’s almost all software that matters with the hardware being a very distant deciding factor. You can learn to shoot anything well.

At any rate I say 9mm in this package

I have no dog in the caliber fight. I shoot them all.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Sharkbite

https://youtu.be/T6kUvi72s0Y

Found a great video on handgun wounding and the realities of bullet performance.

Not trying to start a caliber war...far from it. Im hoping to put some of the myths we hear repeated endlessly to rest.

Well, 45 posts and not much 'put to bed' on the continuing 'caliber wars'...

I've watched a few of these types of vids and good info all. Not etched on tablets and brought down from a mountain top but.....take the stuff that makes sense to ya and press on..

[5whiskey]

The 9mm and not for ballistic reasons

-in that small if a gun .40/.45 becomes a bit of a shooting liability IMO. 9mm makes more sense. Even with lots of practice you really need to be on your game with larger calibers in such a small light platform. This matters much less as the platform size increases IMO.

- Capacity. I personally think the difference between 13 and 15 rounds is negligible, 15 vs 17 same. 10 and 12 also fairly negligible. Once, however, you start dropping below ten I think each extra shot starts to matter.


-Weight. You are buying an itty bitty carry gun so size and weight must matter. 9mm is lighter.

-Enjoyment. I find that most folks practice more with guns they have fun with. Will you ENJOY shooting .45 out of a small platform such as this?

I agree, and all points made here are valid. I have one more. Small CC handguns are typically more reliable in 9mm than they are in .45. The physics of that longer fatter cartridge chambering properly play hell with small easily concealed weapons. I have no experience with the shield in .45, they may have mastered reliability in the platform. I know Kahr arms PM, CM, and CWs typically run like a sewing machine in 9mm... not quite so in .45.

[Double Naught Spy]

Interesting video. Interesting comments. I think stinkypete hit upon a significant factor in all this, popularity. Popularity in calibers and capacities has often come from a combination of marketing and actual field data, but the field data, as a whole for a caliber or bullet type, has been a single aggregate CORRELATED with performance that people will assume to be CAUSATIVE. It is not causative because each and every shooting is unique from every other shooting. Nobody can discern, looking at raw data, why X number of people failed to die (or be stopped, or be stopped fast enough) when using whatever is currently the ultimate stopper de jour. This is a significant problem with the one shot stop and similar studies. Far too many variables of the shootings could NOT be controlled for and they often could not be controlled for because the explicit detail needed to control for them was not available. More over, end users took one shot stop to be definitive of bullet performance, despite the fact that many one shot stops were psychological and not physiological (a guy shot in the shoulder or gut and gave up equated to one through the heart and spine and died instantly). However, this type of study is popular because it appears to provide a definitive answer on performance, which in reality it did not do because too many factors were not controlled for by the study.

What we can get from the aggregate data sets are some trends of possible or probable expected performance, if taken with a whole host of assumptive parameters, which we often discard from statement or consideration despite the fact that they are actually critical to the end results we are trying to understand.

So because the end data are not wholly reliable to glean what we want to know, we try to simulate it with a controlled media (ballistics gel) that comes with its own host of assumptions and considerations. While gel use is really cool and let's us "see" how the bullet performs in a uniform media, strangely, human and animal targets are not uniform media and what happens in living targets is not always a match for what happens in ballistics gel. I know what was said in the video about ballistics gel and what happens in the field, but there is no reason to assume that just because it does happen in gel that it will happen in the field. Again, lots of variables involved. Ballistics gel, for lack of a better description, is a sort of the ideal of what will happen and it really seems to tell us more about what happens to the bullet than what happens to actual living tissue. These ballistic gel results, like one shot stop studies, tend to narrow focus on a very select set of parameters, excluding all else, from which the data crunchers and end users tend to drawn conclusions that simply may not happen in the real world.

Are these helpful? Sure. Are they definitive? No. Do they resolve caliber superiority claims? No, not except for more extreme comparisons where the answer was already pretty obvious (like the .17 hmr/.45-70 comparison noted above).

I necropsy a bunch of the hogs that I shoot to see how bullets perform. It is interesting to see the same bullet model/load fired from the same gun perform in very different manners when hitting hogs. No doubt this is because not all of the hogs are hit in the exact same trajectory at the exact same distance (velocity), and not all hogs are exactly the same in composition (sort of like humans). One thing I have noticed to be true is that the consistently symmetrical, perfect, and pretty expanded bullets you see in the gel tests are very often not what I recover in the field which are often fragmented or lopsided and look almost nothing like their ballistics gel counterparts. And here I make an assumption, but if the bullets are coming out looking very different, then how they performed in animal tissue is also likely different that what is shown in the gel tests.

8 was enough because the pistols were used for shooting deserters and trouble makers, not fighting, historical doctrine.

The Luger was not adopted by the German and Swiss militaries for shooting deserters and trouble makers. Neither was the P38. They were adopted, like the 1911, as a combat weapons.

Yes, there are but we are talking about Germans in WWI and WWII. I believe only officers carried pistols in the German Army.

Not quite right. Officers, as was common in the US military often had pistols and not long guns issued to them, but officers were not the only people that carried them. They were issued to NCOs, air crews, machinegunners, etc. It was not standard for the average enlisted army soldier to be given a side arm, much like in the US military, where the 1911 was not adopted or used primarily for shooting deserters and troublemakers.

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by HiBC

None of this helps me decide between a 7 rd 45 ACP Shield and an 8 rd 9mm Shield.

And no,telling me to choose a different gun is not the point.

Between those two models, does either of them carry/conceal more easily for you as you go about all of your normal daily/evening activities? If so, then that difference might be of importance to you in your choice when it comes to concealment.

Do you shoot either of them better, especially under demanding and stressful conditions? For example, have you used both of them in any IDPA events, and if so, did either allow you to noticeably "do better" when it came to handling, manipulation, shooting and scoring?

If they both "carry" equally well, and you feel you shoot both of them "identically well", then choosing one is up to using whatever other criteria you think may matter ... while accepting that the totality of any circumstances and situations you may encounter might render your reasoning moot.

I've invested a fair number of years carrying and using both, as both a working cop and a longtime LE firearms trainer. While I fully understand that a heavier .45ACP bullet might have some additional momentum that's useful in knocking over a lightweight plastic-clad wooden bowling pin, or a lightweight steel plate ... and some JHP's might expand under ideal conditions to a couple tenth's of an inch more than another JHP ... I don't pretend that a full-size adult's anatomy is in any way similar in complexity, size and full body weight to a bowling pin or small steel plate.

Some days I prefer to carry one of my 7, 8 or 10rd 9's (G26, 3913, CS9, SW999c), and some days I prefer to carry one of my 6rd .45's (CS45 or original 4513TSW) ... or one of my 7 or 9rd .40's.

Whenever someone for whom I've been responsible to help train asks me for a suggestion, I typically tell them to either use whatever they've been given (issued), or have optionally chosen to use (for reasons of their own informed choice), as long as they make sure they can run it well, controllably and accurately, employ sound tactics in its use and use if effectively for the circumstances. If they want to imbue their choice with some "talismanic" properties that makes them feel better about themselves and their choice, that's not my business.

Choose as you will, but be prepared to live with the responsibility of accepting the consequences of your decision.

It's just a handgun.

[44 AMP]

..like the .17 hmr/.45-70 comparison ...

While the .17/.45-70 comparison is illustrative, I prefer .22-250/.45-70 for the comparison. The reasons being, I have both, and have personal experience with them, and I don't have a .17.

And, I looked things up a while back, and the .22-250 and the .45-70 can be loaded to IDENTICAL energy levels. The exact same number of ft/lbs.

I like to use this example for those who tout energy (ft/lbs) as being the deciding, or most important factor in performance or "stopping power".

Say an irate bear decides you are his next chew toy, or a peeved buffalo wants you underfoot, and is approaching at speed. You have time for one well aimed shot. There are two rifles within reach equal in ft/lbs of energy. One is a .22-250, the other a .45-70. Which one do you grab??

Personally, if I were about to be attacked by a block of ballistic gel run amok, I might pick the .22-250. Anything else, I'd be grabbing the .45-70

Energy (ft/lbs) ALONE isn't the full story, or the most important part.

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

...
I like to use this example for those who tout energy (ft/lbs) as being the deciding, or most important factor in performance or "stopping power".

Say an irate bear decides you are his next chew toy, or a peeved buffalo wants you underfoot, and is approaching at speed. You have time for one well aimed shot. There are two rifles within reach equal in ft/lbs of energy. One is a .22-250, the other a .45-70. Which one do you grab??

Personally, if I were about to be attacked by a block of ballistic gel run amok, I might pick the .22-250. Anything else, I'd be grabbing the .45-70

Energy (ft/lbs) ALONE isn't the full story, or the most important part.

Absolutely.

It's just that some folks like to use calculated ME for a way to support their favorite confirmation bias when it comes to calibers.

For some it also seems to remove the onus of accepting their degree of responsibility to choose and act effectively for the circumstances, and be able to themselves perform adequately to the needs of the moment. Blame the caliber is a long popular reaction and response, sad to say.