Loosedhorse
member
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.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.There is no such thing as "stopping power".
Small children also "believe" in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the tooth-fairy, but that doesn't mean that those entities exist either. Because of its reliance upon a faulty premise, your argument fails to stand on its own.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.
This is why I carry a 357 sig.
Both the 10mm and 45 kool aids taste like garbage to me
Huh.
That's kind of like "should I buy a Ford F-150 or a Nissan Titan" being answered with "Mahindra TR40"
The .357 Sig is inferior to both rounds. Smaller bullet making less energy (yes, I'm going with .45 +P numbers, since the .357 Sig is maxxed out, pressure-wise)
Besides-there's what, like, three makers chambering it these days (Sig, Glock, S&W)? Makes the 10mm look popular by comparison.
stopping power' maybe, maybe not
depends on where the shot goes
ask bambi
You shoot me in the left big toe with your 10mm at the exact same time I shoot you in the left big toe with my .45. Same shot placement, right? Think either one of us is going to give up at that point? I'm not.
While you're dragging your 10mm back down out of recoil I shoot you twice in the chest with the .45, then empty the rest of the magazine into you on your way down before I reload. We never get to see the "stopping power" of your follow-up shots since you never make them because you're dead before you can get them off.
a concession by Jeff Cooper
even Col. Cooper believed in one-shot stops
pretty muchTo say"There is no stopping power" is to say "there is no knock down factor..."
481, I think this has turned into a semantic argument. I don't see Loosedhorse (or anyone else) arguing that any of the handgun rounds has the capacity to knock a grown man off his feet from the force of impact, nor to instantly and reliably incapacitate on a non-CNS hit. That seems to be what you are "hearing," though, when you read "stopping power." "Stopping power" is being used to mean something different: the propensity/probability of a round from the caliber under discussion to lead to a fairly immediate cessation of purposeful and aggressive action by the target. I.e., the chance that a hit will cause the target to "stop" doing the thing that made him a target to begin with.
Is that a fuzzy definition? Sure. It's not a physics term, and it's not supposed to be a physics term. It's about how certain physical properties of a round are likely, in the aggregate and over many iterations, to interact with human behavior. For example, while everyone here acknowledges that a .44 special bullet lacks the momentum to knock down a man-sized target, and that it lacks the kinetic energy to physically rip/blow a human being to pieces, it nevertheless has a better chance of stopping a target from returning fire than a .22lr. Neither round is a death ray, and neither is a love tap on the butt. But the chances of one stopping a target are not the same as the chances for the other. Likewise, within a given caliber, there could be meaningful differences in stopping power based on bullet type (FMJ v modern JHP) or loadings (+p versus de-loaded target rounds).
Unfortunately, because of the state of terminal ballistics knowledge (a relative ignorance compounded by the fact that different outcomes often result from the same apparent inputs), a debate over the stopping power of 10mm versus .45 is probably incapable of definitive resolution unless and until we have a few hundred volunteers eager to be subjected to controlled shootings with both!
of course it would be better to discuss which was better at destroying what is in it's path instead of wasting bandwith arguing because you don't like the term "stopping power"For these reasons, it is pointless to debate the alleged effect using such simple criteria.
Since you've demonstrated clearly that you missed the point of the post that you quoted, it is not possible to take you seriously.of course it would be better to discuss which was better at destroying what is in it's path instead of wasting bandwith arguing because you don't like the term "stopping power"
If you had a point it would be easier to understand. But your position is there is no point in discussing which round has the greater potential for damage. Because you don't understand that the term "stopping power" as is being used here would be discussing the relative potential ability of a round to do enough damage to cause a threat to stop being a threat. Clearly this doesn't involve the momentum or energy to throww the threat thru a window or even knock them down, slump to the floor in pain will work fine for this discussion.Since you've demonstrated clearly that you missed the point of the post that you quoted, it is not possible to take you seriously.
True...because you're not Jeff Cooper.Jeff Cooper was very opinionated and shared his opinions frequently. Don't confuse opinion with fact, though. I can talk smack and share opinion all day long, doesn't make me an authority...
I didn't say small children believed in one-shot stops. I said Cooper did.Small children also "believe" in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the tooth-fairy, but that doesn't mean that those entities exist either.
You got it. Standard strawman tactic. Define (for example) "knock-down power" as the ability of a round to blow an attacker backward 30 ft (through a stained-glass window!), and now you can proclaim that there's no such thing as knock-down power.481, I think this has turned into a semantic argument.
Rather, I am addressing the fact that the term is a colloquial one whose definition relies upon the criteria set by each particular person using it. The term itself has no accepted standard or unit of measure and definitions, when they are offered, vary with the person suggesting it and oftentimes ignores the importance of proper shot placement. Some folks use KE, others momentum (mass times velocity), power (work done per unit time) or percentages (relying upon variable criteria and collected from prior events). None of these phenomena constitute "stopping power" and as a result any debate where different parties argue the supposed effect each using their own definition is doomed to go nowhere or prove anything.
Is there such a thing a thing as "stopping power"?
If there is, it is certainly not expressed as a function of any single terminal ballistic performance dimension or percentage, but rather a highly complex set of inter-related parameters including where the projectile strikes and what it destroys.
If you had a point it would be easier to understand. But your position is there is no point in discussing which round has the greater potential for damage. Because you don't understand that the term "stopping power" as is being used here would be discussing the relative potential ability of a round to do enough damage to cause a threat to stop being a threat. Clearly this doesn't involve the momentum or energy to throww the threat thru a window or even knock them down, slump to the floor in pain will work fine for this discussion.
So save Newton's theorys for explaining why bullets don't really throw BGs over cars for another time. This isn't the place. The OP wants to know which round has the greater potential for damage there by has the greater potential for faster incapasitation.
Now do you have anything to add to that discussion?
I didn't say small children believed in one-shot stops.
I said Cooper did.
You got it. Standard strawman tactic. Define (for example) "knock-down power" as the ability of a round to blow an attacker backward 30 ft (through a stained-glass window!), and now you can proclaim that there's no such thing as knock-down power.
Except of course no one claimed that's what knock-down power meant.