10mm vs 45 ACP which has more stopping power.

[X-Rap]

I have been through all the calibers up to 454 and found the best compromise regarding control, power, capacity is the lowly 9mm loaded with quality HP ammo. I would say that most common men will out score the hot 10mm and 45 with the 9 and most of them carry twice the rounds with less weight.

 

[Mike1234567]

ATLDave wrote: "stopping power" = "most effective"

BINGO!!!

 

[BMF500]

I only own 1 hand gun with "stopping power" and it is not of either of these calibers. Provided it actually hits what you're aiming at.

 

[Sulaco]

IBTL!

 

[orionengnr]

I was hoping to learn something in this thread.

But honestly, this thread (with a few notable exceptions) has contained more baseless opinion and less factual info than most threads I have read.

I own and shoot both 10mm and .45acp, and enjoy both, but I can see that expressing any opinion at this point is an exercise in futility.

 

[saturno_v]

To the OP...

Against a typical human target is a moot point...both very effective (it is almost like asking what is more effective against a paper target, a 38 Special or a 357 Magnum)......however the 10mm Auto is a much more powerful cartridge....it develops significantly higher energy driving bullets of higher SD...which means more penetration/bone breaking capabilities against bigger/fatter targets or odd angles.....that is all you need to know and it is not an opinion....it is a fact and not open to debate...

Ask any 45 die hard fan if they rather have a 45 ACP or a full house 10mm Auto (assuming the best bullets for the job for both) in defence against a mountain lion, a black bear or a wounded hog....obviously we are assuming proficiency with both, after all a hit with a 45 is better than a miss with a 10mm.....my S&W 1006 is my "light" wildlife (typical here in Western WA) defence sidearm....

 

[thaddeus]

10mm

 

[ShawnC]

Just to throw a monkey wrench into the discussion, the military moved from the .38 Special to the .45 (in the Phillipines IIRC) because the .38 didn't have enough "stopping power".

And...GO!

 

[ugaarguy]

Just to throw a monkey wrench into the discussion, the military moved from the .38 Special to the .45 (in the Phillipines IIRC) because the .38 didn't have enough "stopping power".

Actually it was the .38 Colt Service Cartridge, which is downright anemic compared to the the .38 S&W Special.

 

[ShawnC]

Actually it was the .38 Colt Service Cartridge, which is downright anemic compared to the the .38 S&W Special.

My bad.

I stand by the rest of my statement, though.

 

[ugaarguy]

I stand by the rest of my statement, though.

Okay, they reissued .45 Colt revolvers, a cartridge was designed for cavalry soldiers to shoot a horse out from under their opponent. The .45 ACP was developed to use then new smokeless powders to replicate .45 Colt ballistics in a smaller package. This was before true expanding ammo. All you could do then was make a wider cartridge, with wider bullet, to make a wider wound.

Now, even the old .38 Spl. "FBI LOAD" +P 158gr LSWC HP, and various 9mm JHP loads create similar permanent wound cavities to .45 ACP JHP & 10mm JHP.

I'm not buying this whole "stopping power" thing that no one can even agree on the definition of.

 

[ShawnC]

My taser has more stopping power than all those rounds...

 

[Mike1234567]

My taser has more stopping power than all those rounds...

Not necessarily. There are documented cases that prove that tasers are sometimes virtually uneffective.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Simply, your argument failed because you presented as factual support for your claim the unproven assertion of another.

No: I presented the opinion of an acknowledged expert, Col. Cooper, and I presented it as the opinion of an acknowledged expert.

you have no idea what you are talking about

Yes, it does seem that most of your counter-argument is ad hominem, toward me and others. We should conclude (again) that you have nothing on-point to offer.

To refresh: you have claimed that "stopping power" doesn't exist. See?

neither equates to "stopping power" since there is no such thing.

That's a categorical, absolutist claim. Perhaps you have some proof to offer (and proof that something doesn't exist is a tall order!), the type of proof you like to demand of others?

Oh, but wait, then you perhaps contradicted yourself:

Is there such a thing a thing as "stopping power"?

If there is, it is certainly not expressed as a function...

I'll take proof of either claim, since you seem to be working two of them.

 

[481]

My, it is fun watchin' you squirm.

No: I presented the opinion of an acknowledged expert, Col. Cooper, and I presented it as the opinion of an acknowledged expert. We should conclude (again) that you have nothing on-point to offer.

So then you have no proof. And yet you speak of having nothing to contribute?

There is no such thing as "stopping power".

Sure there is. As quoted above, even Col. Cooper believed in one-shot stops; and thought 10mm could do it out to 50 yards. Reliably.

How can you state that there is such a thing as "stopping power" where your only "proof" such as it is, is nothing more than the opinion of another? I even underlined it for you so that you don't become even more confused.

I doubt seriously that you can even define what constitutes "stopping power", let alone prove it's existence.

Yes, it does seem that most of your counter-argument is ad hominem, toward me and others. We should conclude (again) that you have nothing on-point to offer.

Pointing out the frequent errors in your clumsy arguments or asking for proof of opinions being put forth as fact or offered as proof does not constitute an ad hominem attack. I'd have thought that you'd have become used to this by now given your numerous prior failing arguments.

 

[Maple_City_Woodsman]

ATLDave wrote: "stopping power" = "most effective"

BINGO!!!

... and what exactly constitutes effectiveness?

 

[Mike1234567]

... and what exactly constitutes effectiveness?

Metrics.

 

[481]

Metrics (a system of measurement) are not equivalent to and do not constitute effectiveness.

Effectiveness is defined as being brought about by one or more causal factors or the attainment of a result.

 

[Mike1234567]

^^^ "Metrics" =/= the "metric (measuring) system".

 

[481]

OK, I'll be clearer.

Your response was the single word

Metrics.

which I took as being defined as: -of or relating to the process of measurement. I know that you weren't referring to "the" metric system.

Metrics itself does not constitute effectiveness.

Effectiveness is defined as being brought about by one or more causal factors or the attainment of a result.

 

[Mike1234567]

^^^ Metrics = documented data.

 

[481]

^^^ Metrics = documented data.

OK, I have to ask...

So how does "documented data" constitute "effectiveness" (the quality of bringing something about by one or more causal factors or the attainment of a result)?

 

[Mike1234567]

^^^ I'll await your researched and posted "metrics" to support your argument. I'm too lazy to do the research. When you post your documented research with "documented metrics" then I'll look for mine and will thank you for lighting a fire under my byootox to do so.

 

[MCgunner]

and what exactly constitutes effectiveness?

I won, he lost?

 

[481]

^^^ I'll await your researched and posted "metrics" to support your argument.

Your argument, not mine. I have no time to waste supporting your argument. You argument that metrics (or documented data) constitutes effectiveness and "stopping power" is not my problem.

Originally posted by ATLDave:

"stopping power" = "most effective"

Originally Posted by Maple_City_Woodsman:

... and what exactly constitutes effectiveness?

Originally posted by Mike1234567:

Metrics.

A response like this

I'm too lazy to do the research.

makes it difficult to take your argument ("metrics" is effectiveness which equals "stopping power"), and anything else that you have to offer, seriously.

When you post your documented research with "documented metrics" then I'll look for mine and will thank you for lighting a fire under my byootox to do so.

Not my problem. "Support" your own argument.