Does a modern top break have a place in today's concealed carry world?

[Bill DeShivs]

I'll say it again-
The only sure stop with any pistol is a central nervous system shot.
It doesn't matter what caliber that CNS shot is.
Any other shot than CNS would rely on blood loss to incapacitate-this takes MINUTES.
The difference in most calibers is insignificant.
Some people have more sense than others.

[Dave T]

Any other shot than CNS would rely on blood loss to incapacitate-this takes MINUTES. The difference in most calibers is insignificant. Some people have more sense than others.

I have studied this subject (handgun stopping ability) for 50 years, professionally for 16 of those years. If you actually believe caliber makes no difference then I feel sorry for you.

Dave

[Bill DeShivs]

My wording was "insignificant difference," and it was in regard to a CNS shot.
If I knew I was going to have to shoot someone, I would have a .44 magnum. But the odds are that I won't ever have to use a gun for self defense-nor will you.

The odds are also that just presenting a gun-any gun will cease hostilities.
If it doesn't, shooting someone probably will cause hostilities to cease-either through pain, shock, or fear.

But, if the above doesn't work- a CNS shot is the only 100% sure stopping shot- and it doesn't really matter what that shot is accomplished with.

[JohnKSa]

I have studied this subject (handgun stopping ability) for 50 years, professionally for 16 of those years. If you actually believe caliber makes no difference then I feel sorry for you.

Caliber makes a lot of difference. However, most people who study caliber differences focus almost exclusively on terminal effect, the one difference that is the hardest to quantify in terms of the practically significant differences it makes it real-world scenarios.

Which means that they almost totally ignore the other differences, many of which make very easily quantifiable practical differences in real-world scenarios.

[Dave T]

Caliber makes a lot of difference. However, most people who study caliber differences focus almost exclusively on terminal effect, the one difference that is the hardest to quantify in terms of the practically significant differences it makes it real-world scenarios.

Which means that they almost totally ignore the other differences, many of which make very easily quantifiable practical differences in real-world scenarios.

John,

I'm not sure what you are getting at. In my own studies I was always interested in what stopped the assault. I didn't care if the assailant died or just quit. I was always a strong proponent of the idea that you shoot to stop, not to kill and taught all my students that concept/approach.

Dave

[1MoreFord]

IMO a modern top break revolver would be welcome to the shooting world.

Back in the day when Detonics was around they had a prototype(bread board model in their terminology IIRC) .44spl or .45acp top break in development. At the time I really wanted one. It would still be on my want list were they available today.

[JohnKSa]

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

People who say they study "caliber difference" usually focus almost exclusive on only one "caliber difference". They study the actual terminal effect of the bullet and ignore all of the other differences that caliber makes.

Problem is that terminal effect (the difference that a bullet in one caliber makes in effectively stopping a real-world attack vs. an identically placed bullet in a different caliber in a more or less identical real-world attack) is very difficult to quantify, or even detect for generally similar calibers. As the disparity in caliber changes dramatically, it starts to become possible to make some very general observations, but looking at real world shootings demonstrates that even widely disparate calibers can have apparently identical effectiveness in terms of successful self-defense uses.

Here are some examples.

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alte...stopping-power

Does anyone really think that differences in terminal effect can explain why in this study, it took on average, fewer .22LR rounds to incapacitate someone than .45ACP rounds?

What that should tell us is that while terminal effect differences that show up in simple measurements and testing may provide some interesting information, even when looking at hundreds of shootings, it's very difficult to take that information and make useful observations about how much faster or more effectively caliber A will stop someone compared to caliber B.

But people will still focus exclusively on terminal effect, ignoring other differences that can be easily demonstrated to actually have really practical effects in the real world. Things like ease of carry, ease of use, recoil recovery/shootability, practice costs, capacity, etc...

[TailGator]

Does anyone really think that differences in terminal effect can explain why in this study, it took on average, fewer .22LR rounds to incapacitate someone than .45ACP rounds?

I have asked before whether this data was adjusted for target distance, and no one seems to know. My working theory is that it is not, and that the smaller calibers were more commonly close shots, like contact distance or nearly so. That is at least somewhat the nature of the carry guns that take .22 and .25 caliber ammo. Just a thought, though - haven't dug deep enough to substantiate my idea.

[Kemikos]

I agree with the OP and others in that I would like to see a tiny revolver made and sized for some caliber in between .22 and .38 (as opposed to a .38-sized gun with .32 rounds stuffed in). Ideally I'd like for it to be top-break too, and instead of trying to come up with an important-sounding reason, I'll just admit that it's because I think top-breaks are cool.

I also, unfortunately, agree with other posters in that I don't see a high chance of that happening.

However, what I really dropped in to say is this:

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

2. Here's a modern Russian break top that didn't make it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP-412_REX

Man, that REX is a nice-looking gun. Not in a classic "rosewood and stainless" way, but in a modern, utilitarian, dare I say "tactical" way.

OK, carry on.

[JohnKSa]

My working theory is that it is not, and that the smaller calibers were more commonly close shots, like contact distance or nearly so.

That could very well be. That is another variable that really has nothing to do with terminal effect but that could have a very significant effect on the overall outcome.

The point is that typically when people talk about "caliber difference" they want to focus exclusively on terminal effect from one bullet size vs. a different bullet size. There are lots of other differences which can be shown to be very significant from a practical perspective, but most of the time people studiously ignore all of those differences choosing instead to study the one difference that has an effect that is nearly impossible to nail down in real-world shootings.