Ignorant statement of the day....


PDA






saturno_v
November 28, 2012, 11:34 PM
Today at the range a quick chat with a nice but "know it all" man in his sixties (I guess)

He categorically stated "you cannot compare the 40 to the 45, it is exactly like comparing a 32 ACP or a 380 ACP to a 9mm :scrutiny:

I respectfully replied that the energy level of the 40 S&W can match the same figures for some 45 +P loadings while the 9mm does exceed the energy level of a 380 or 32 ACP by ~50% or more and the sectional density of the 40 common loadings is the same of the common 45 offering while the 9mm popular loadings SD significantly exceed the 380 and even more the 32 ACP...

He did look at me puzzled and did not reply....I thought I would share....

If you enjoyed reading about "Ignorant statement of the day...." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Inebriated
November 28, 2012, 11:56 PM
Don't let people know that the differences in the big three (9mm, .40, .45) are so slim.


They'll start taking all my 9mm off the shelves.

creeper1956
November 29, 2012, 12:17 AM
You hit him with facts. Shame on you, don't you know that you should respect your elders... by blindly agreeing with any mythology they want to rattle off?

I shouldn't talk... I'm closer to 60 than 50.

Hey! You kids get off my lawn!!! :cuss:

Shadow 7D
November 29, 2012, 12:52 AM
I usually just look at them all starry eyed and do my best little rascals "gee mister, really"
then proceed to dump my BUG into the foil pie tin (I like how it sounds when you hit em)

and point out that I doubt that guy is going to be arguing about sectional density...

TarDevil
November 29, 2012, 01:07 AM
Reminds me of a BBQ I recently attended...guy said, "I prefer a .45 Long Colt to a regular .45 Colt...and there IS a difference."

I bit my lip.

SDDL-UP
November 29, 2012, 01:09 AM
Here's the way I like to look at it...

As far as bullet cross section goes 7 rounds of 45ACP = 10 rounds 40S&W = 13 rounds 9mm

The smaller rounds will put more energy into the target, not round to round, but magazine to magazine.

It's all about trade offs!

Skribs
November 29, 2012, 02:58 AM
The energy isn't what's important; the hole in the target is. And, assuming similar bullet construction, the .45 will make a bigger hole than the .40. That said, most similiar designs will be roughly the same overall, it's just the .45 will penetrate slightly farther and/or expand slightly wider.

SDDL-UP, actually that's incorrect. Let's take a very common pistol, the Glock. You're comparing 13, 15, and 17 across the board. So you have in each magazine (assuming unexpanded for simplicity):
(.45/2)^2*3.14 * 13 = 2.06 in^2
(0.40/2)^2*3.14 * 15 = 1.88 in^2
(0.36/2)^2*3.14 * 17 = 1.73 in^2

Quick and dirty napkin math, but per magazine you'll get bigger holes out of the .45, at least in this comparison.

In the end, though, I'll take the 9. Simply because I have more chances to hit something important.

Patrick Gookin
November 29, 2012, 03:19 AM
(.45/2)^2*3.14 * 13 = 2.06 in^2
(0.40/2)^2*3.14 * 15 = 1.88 in^2
(0.36/2)^2*3.14 * 15 = 1.73 in^2

The 15 should be a 17 there, but you used a 17 in the math, so the outcome is still correct.

AFDavis11
November 29, 2012, 04:09 AM
What other math and science subjects can we utilize to argue about caliber selection? :neener:

ku4hx
November 29, 2012, 09:11 AM
Some of us old farts just can't deal with getting old and tend to cling to the ideas of our youth. Why, I once met a man who claimed a 45 ACP hit to a man's finger would spin him around and knock him down.

But one thing's for sure, we'll all be one of those old windbags one of these days trying to figure out the latest do-dad. At least we will if we live that long.

Fotno
November 29, 2012, 09:32 AM
My next door neighbor (70 years old) keeps free range chickens. I've been trying to explain to him that the only thing he needs roosters for is more chickens, the hens can lay eggs all by themselves. Of course I "Don't know what I'm talking about" so he has lots and lots of chickens.

As my grandmother was fond of saying; "There's nothing wrong with 'don't know', it's 'won't learn' that matters."

3leggeddog
November 29, 2012, 10:08 AM
wow, dont you just hate know it alls ;)

TAKtical
November 29, 2012, 10:38 AM
My favorite was when a senior citizen asked if I liked his gun and I said "yeah thats a nice 1911" and he said "i dont think its a 1911, its called a dan wesson"

Carl N. Brown
November 29, 2012, 10:58 AM
....guy said, "I prefer a .45 Long Colt to a regular .45 Colt...and there IS a difference."

I bit my lip.

The old .45 Long Colt for .45 Colt makes me want to call .45 Schofield the ".45 Short Colt."




The cavalry-era Army issued .45 Schofield cartridges for use in the Schofield revolver and the Colt Single Action Army revolver which also took the longer .45 Colt cartridge. That's the only reason the .45 Colt gets called .45 Long Colt.

Carl N. Brown
November 29, 2012, 11:04 AM
Back to opening post, I like to compare .40 S&W to .45 ACP 180gr loadings. i consider them equivalent in the same bullet weights.

Skribs
November 29, 2012, 11:47 AM
"There's nothing wrong with 'don't know', it's 'won't learn' that matters."

This is one of the best quotes I've read in a while.

saturno_v
November 29, 2012, 11:48 AM
The energy isn't what's important; the hole in the target is


According to this theory a 45 ACP would be more effective than a 357 magnum.....which clearly is not...

Actually the 40 S&W seems to be a better penetrator compared to the 45 especially against light barriers....

Corpral_Agarn
November 29, 2012, 11:51 AM
I have an old timer friend that gets all worked up when I go shoot to practice.
"Just throwing your money away!" He says.
"What you need to practice for? just line up the sights and pull the trigger," he says.
I take everything with a grain of salt from most "experts."

Skribs
November 29, 2012, 12:12 PM
According to this theory a 45 ACP would be more effective than a 357 magnum.....which clearly is not...

Do you have intrinsic proof to back this up? Or just quotes about the .357 as a "manstopper" and the failed one-shot-stop statistics?

Also note I didn't just say "the diameter of the hole" I said "the hole". There are many factors here, including penetration depth, that make up the difference. The point is, you can talk about energy numbers all you want, but its what actually happens in the target that matters. That's more up to bullet constructon than anything else.

JR47
November 29, 2012, 12:17 PM
Could it be that he was talking about dry-firing? Even the best shooters recommend that.

As for the .40 vs. .45 question, who cares? Many departments are actually going either to the 9x19, or the .45 ACP again, in order to enable officers to qualify without the snappy recoil of the .40 S&W.


The .40 S&W guns are essentially upgraded 9x19 platforms, adding more power to a small platform is always a great way to add more flinch to a new shooter.

Old Fuff
November 29, 2012, 12:22 PM
In the end, though, I'll take the 9. Simply because I have more chances to hit something important.

I don't pay any attention to those young 60 year-old kids... they're still wet behind the ears.

In common handguns, energy is a meaningless factor, and the bigger the primary channel is the better. But the key to stopping an assault is bullet placement - more so then bullet diameter. You may have more rounds in your pistol magazine with a mid-bore vs. a large one, but it takes time to shoot those smaller cartridges, and doing it rapidly does not likely improve accuracy. Regardless of the number of hits you make, if they donít disable the other individual(s) they can keep attacking you. In addition if any of those subsequent shots miss and go wild, you can be, and likely will be held responsible for whatever (or whoever) they hit, regardless of your intentions. In the end what will matter most is precise hits rather then simply numerous ones.

PabloJ
November 29, 2012, 12:24 PM
I do think "Grandpa" got you there. Did you know that ole' smokey .44-40 "put up" more tombstones then anything else? It took tremendous amount of will power for me to walk away from N-framed S&W revolver so chambered. It was very limited "pre-Dirty Harry or Great Grandpa Special".

saturno_v
November 29, 2012, 12:26 PM
Do you have intrinsic proof to back this up? Or just quotes about the .357 as a "manstopper" and the failed one-shot-stop statistics?


The 357 is considered an entry level hunting and wildlife defense round, the 45 ACP...no so much....

In common handguns, energy is a meaningless factor,


hmm really??....I don't know about you but for me, facing a huge, muscle bound assailant, if I get the choice I rather have a 357 than a 9mm any time of the day.....assuming I can shoot both as effectively.....

Skribs
November 29, 2012, 12:28 PM
In common handguns, energy is a meaningless factor, and the bigger the primary channel is the better. But the key to stopping an assault is bullet placement - more so then bullet diameter. You may have more rounds in your pistol magazine with a mid-bore vs. a large one, but it takes time to shoot those smaller cartridges, and doing it rapidly does not likely improve accuracy. Regardless of the number of hits you make, if they don’t disable the other individual(s) they can keep attacking you. In addition if any of those subsequent shots miss and go wild, you can be, and likely will be held responsible for whatever (or whoever) they hit, regardless of your intentions. In the end what will matter most is precise hits rather then simply numerous ones.

I'm not saying that I'm likely to miss 60% of the time so I might as well have more bullets (although I don't know what my actual accuracy would be in a real self defense situation, it probably won't be 100%). What I am saying is that the best way to cause a physiological stop is to hit the CNS or the heart. From my rudimentary understanding of physiology, if I hit the lungs, or a major artery, or some other vital organ, it can take a while before the attack stops if the attacker is determined enough. So even though I might hit the target (the attacker), it doesn't mean I've hit my target (the heart).

I'm not trying to get into a caliber war here, just to clarify what I mean by "hit something important."

The 357 is considered an entry level hunting and wildlife defense round, the 45 ACP...no so much....

And is it because the .357 has more energy? Or is it because of the depth of the hole that the .357 makes? Are all .357 bullets of similar energy equal in terms of performance, or does bullet construction matter? That's what I'm getting at. Energy by itself is a useless statistic to know. I read somewhere recently, if your neighbor tells you a meteorite smashed into his yard, and you ask how big the crater is, what you want to know is how wide is the hole and how deep does it go. If he gives you the retained mass and the impact velocity...it's all nice and good, but it doesn't actually answer your question.

saturno_v
November 29, 2012, 12:36 PM
And is it because the .357 has more energy? Or is it because of the depth of the hole that the .357 makes? Are all .357 bullets of similar energy equal in terms of performance, or does bullet construction matter? That's what I'm getting at. Energy by itself is a useless statistic to know. I read somewhere recently, if your neighbor tells you a meteorite smashed into his yard, and you ask how big the crater is, what you want to know is how wide is the hole and how deep does it go. If he gives you the retained mass and the impact velocity...it's all nice and good, but it doesn't actually answer your question.



Obviously everything counts...energy, bullet construction and SD.....the 357 Mag has higher energy and higher SD than a 45 ACP and this is the reason why the 357 can be considered a hunting round while the 45 ACP is not....simple

higher energy + higher SD = more penetration, all else being equal....

PabloJ
November 29, 2012, 12:41 PM
While not .45LC given choice I would take 11.25x23 over 9x19 every time. It seems the 9 is mostly about cheap ammo and large capacity magazines which "kids" like.

Walt Sherrill
November 29, 2012, 01:05 PM
I've come to the conclusion that getting multiple rounds into the bad guy is the most important thing. The closer those shots are to vital areas, the better. CNS hits are the best.

I've also come to the conclusion that, in a real-life threatening situation, my state of mind and related tension are not going to let me get as many rounds into the target as I'd get at the range. (Just shooting in IDPA, where only EGO seems to be at risk, has shown me that adrenaline can be a BIG factor, and those targets aren't going to harm me if I miss.)

A final conclusion: one-shot stops are the dream of gun magazine writers, particularly if your opponent is drugged up, very close, has experienced a gunshot wound, or is really hacked off and determined to get you. (The old "one-stop shot" database, if I remember correctly, totally disregarded shootings that required more than one shot to stop the bad guy; I wonder how many MORE people were stopped after multiple shots rather than just one?)

Given these factors, I think I'd personally be more interested in having MORE rounds available to me and try/hope that one or more shots hits the bad guy's CNS. For me, that probably means a 9mm, although my skills with my .40s and .45s are improving. That said, however, if I can't do the job with 5-6 shots of the largest caliber, I may not have enough time to fire more shots with a smaller caliber.

The argument about which caliber is best reminds me of the story of clerics arguing about how many angels could dance on the point of a pin... interesting, but arguably meaningless.

Certaindeaf
November 29, 2012, 01:12 PM
It seems the fellow was misinformed or ignorant and or biased.

Inebriated
November 29, 2012, 01:53 PM
Back to opening post, I like to compare .40 S&W to .45 ACP 180gr loadings. i consider them equivalent in the same bullet weights.

.40 will penetrate better (in that weight). Sectional density, and all that.

PabloJ
November 29, 2012, 01:56 PM
I've come to the conclusion that getting multiple rounds into the bad guy is the most important thing. The closer those shots are to vital areas, the better. CNS hits are the best.

I've also come to the conclusion that, in a real-life threatening situation, my state of mind and related tension are not going to let me get as many rounds into the target as I'd get at the range. (Just shooting in IDPA, where only EGO seems to be at risk, has shown me that adrenaline can be a BIG factor, and those targets aren't going to harm me if I miss.)

A final conclusion: one-shot stops are the dream of gun magazine writers, particularly if your opponent is drugged up, very close, has experienced a gunshot wound, or is really hacked off and determined to get you. (The old "one-stop shot" database, if I remember correctly, totally disregarded shootings that required more than one shot to stop the bad guy; I wonder how many MORE people were stopped after multiple shots rather than just one?)

Given these factors, I think I'd personally be more interested in having MORE rounds available to me and try/hope that one or more shots hits the bad guy's CNS. For me, that probably means a 9mm, although my skills with my .40s and .45s are improving. That said, however, if I can't do the job with 5-6 shots of the largest caliber, I may not have enough time to fire more shots with a smaller caliber.

The argument about which caliber is best reminds me of the story of clerics arguing about how many angels could dance on the point of a pin... interesting, but arguably meaningless.
Might want to share this insight with "five shot wheelie boys". They seem to have no problem with carrying little snubies with couple strips of cartridges in pant pockets. If you look at one of those strips as re-loads you would proly laugh.

itchy1
November 29, 2012, 02:10 PM
Maybe they need to make a triple holster? That way I could carry 3 different calibers to make sure that I always had the "right" one:neener: Nothing frustrates me more than wondering whether or not I chose the right caliber that day:banghead:

Skribs
November 29, 2012, 02:30 PM
Nothing frustrates me more than wondering whether or not I chose the right caliber that day

That's why I picked one and my plan is to stick with it.

IMTHDUKE
November 29, 2012, 06:30 PM
I don't think any of this is right.

I watched "The Expendables" last night, and they clearly proved that the man with more bullets fired won.:D

moto_stevo
November 29, 2012, 07:05 PM
I gotta laugh out of this thread.
I would like to know, that if the size of the hole is what matters, then why do people hunt deer with a .308 or .30-30 and not a .45?

Zombiphobia
November 29, 2012, 07:13 PM
I don't care about 'sectional density' or whatever.

2 in the chest, 1 in the head.

Calm Nerves x Accuracy + Energy Transfer = I win.:neener:


That can be accomplished with pretty much anything mentioned here so far including the .32 ACP. It'll take out a cerebellum/medulla oblongata as well as a .44 magnum, but less messy... and all the upcoming arguments about hole size and sectional density aside, the point is that the vital organ in question is destroyed resulting in practically instant death. That's the only argument I need, and science is on my side to prove it.

http://biology.about.com/od/anatomy/p/medulla-oblongata.htm

Sure, you'd almost have to be behind them and at point-blank 'execution range' to hit that target with any real certainty, but the point is that if you hit it, they drop like a sack of bricks. The brain won't discern what it was destroyed with. The cerebellum is the part of the brain that controls motor function, and sends electronic signals down the brain stem to the rest of the body through the medulla oblongata. Take out either point, and the body simply cannot function. No if's and's or but's, they are going down for the count. SHOT PLACEMENT. Energy transfer comes into play here when the bullet enters the cranium, it transfers it's energy into these vital areas, destroying them. You could argue that it's not necessarily energy transfer, but merely severing a vital connection, but either way, energy will be transferred to surrounding parts(see temporary cavity/wound channel), and even if you miss the main target, energy will be transferred, and at the least, interrupting function.

That type of energy transfer is true of all organs of the body. So whoever tells you that energy transfer isn't important in terminal ballistics, does not know of what they speak. And so therefore, it goes without saying that a larger bullet will cause more permanent damage. BUT a smaller, faster one may a larger temporary cavity, which is the result of energy transfer.

When you really break it all down, it doesn't matter as long as you can hit your target, and that your target is a point that will disable your aggressor.


As far as ignorant comments go, know-it-all's are in abundant supply throughout the world and enjoy sharing their limitless knowledge of BS with great pride and confidence.

Ehtereon11B
November 29, 2012, 08:50 PM
I am in my 20s. Can't tell you how many times some old codger (no offense to anyone over the age of 70 or so) tried to tell me something about ballistics. "7mm-08 is a (not nice word) .308!" or ".35Rem can't kill anything on 4 legs, get a 7mm Magnum!" or "A man will laugh of getting his with a .22 Magnum!" Most of these were from "Range Safeties."

Balrog
November 29, 2012, 08:57 PM
Isnt it amazing that people are still having these arguments?

powder
November 29, 2012, 09:16 PM
There are no facts there, only opinions.

If you cannot make a consistent head shot with the .40 or .45, you better try it with the 9mm.
Shot placement is king, everything else in the "debate" is fluff.

Walt Sherrill
November 29, 2012, 09:25 PM
I am in my 20s. Can't tell you how many times some old codger (no offense to anyone over the age of 70 or so) tried to tell me something about ballistics.

You only need to read responses on this forum to realize that strange opinions and prejudices often have little to do with reality and are not limited to just us OLD folks. Regardless of age, those "out-there" opinions are generally due to limited experience.

barnett
November 29, 2012, 09:25 PM
And this is "high road" how?

Swing
November 29, 2012, 09:48 PM
Isnt it amazing that people are still having these arguments?

Yes, yes it is.

barnbwt
November 29, 2012, 09:57 PM
You hit him with facts.
Hard, too.
There are no facts there, only opinions.
"I don't have opinions anymore. Everybody's equal and we're all the best at everything..."
-Principal Skinner


Nothing more annoying than folks with ballistics tables for brains when trying to make conversation--*HINT*HINT*
(although, I should be used to it by now; owning a 5.7, and being foolish enough to post about my satisfaction with it :rolleyes:)

TCB

TimboKhan
November 29, 2012, 09:58 PM
Ug. This is getting closed. It's two pages of pointing out how dumb people are with very little positive. Plus some math, double tap advice, and general snark.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ignorant statement of the day...." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!