wacki
Member
I love these threads. Both bullets penetrate 12" into ballistics gel. Both bullets perform equally when it comes to stopping power according to the Buckeye studies.
Why would anyone get a 40?
Why would anyone get a 40?
Because I have seen what both caliber bullets did on "real human shootings" and I did not like the damage done by 9mm bullets. Simulated gelatin penetration and expansion test is one thing. Talk to enough ER staff, EMTs and LEOs and you will get a good sense of which caliber do more damage.wacki said:I love these threads. Both bullets penetrate 12" into ballistics gel. Both bullets perform equally when it comes to stopping power according to the Buckeye studies.
Why would anyone get a 40?
Simulated gelatin penetration and expansion test is one thing. Talk to enough ER staff, EMTs and LEOs and you will get a good sense of which caliber do more damage.
I do appreciate what Greg Ellifritz did but we must keep in mind that his data considered limited "averages" (more on this later) using various types of ammunition that factored in the "psychological" factor and he wrote:wacki said:Then how do you explain this?
When my life and lives of my family is on the line, I cannot count on the "psychological" factor of my attacker.Greg Ellifritz said:The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible ... The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this.
One other factor to consider is that the majority of these shootings did NOT involve shooting through intermediate barriers, cover or heavy clothing. If you anticipate having to do this in your life ... again, I would lean towards the larger or more powerful rounds.
If you want to be prepared to deal with someone who won't give up so easily, or you want to be able to have good performance even after shooting through an intermediate barrier, I would skip carrying the "mouse gun" .22s, .25s and .32s.
wacki said:
I would agree on the capacity for full-size pistols.mljdeckard said:9 has more capacity, and a .45 makes a slightly bigger hole.
lonestarwings said:Your data shows .40 S&W to be a little more effective than 9mm, as expected. It had about a 10% higher one shot stop statistic, not surprising considering it's about 10% larger in diameter and weight than a 9mm.
I've seen plenty of pictures of folks with big old (multiple) nails shot into their head with nail guns etc, and they came out in pretty good shape.
It doesn't take much research to see that a number of folks with bigger caibers than you're talking have survived shots to the head, and were not "vegetables".
They are not mutually exclusive - of course shot placement is going to matter more than caliber, but to state that a 22 to the head is going to stop someone more than a 44 to the leg...maybe, maybe not?I think TimeRegained's point stands, that shot placement is going to matter more than caliber.
They are not mutually exclusive - of course shot placement is going to matter more than caliber, but to state that a 22 to the head is going to stop someone more than a 44 to the leg...maybe, maybe not?
In the real world, folks often find placement is much more difficult than it is from behind a keyboard.
Thanks to FN 45 TackiKOOL one no longer has to compromise. It is especially lovely choice for Hulk or Green Giant being of right size and color to match skin tone!I kind of ran out of reasons to have a .40. A 9 has more capacity, and a .45 makes a slightly bigger hole. All are quite effective.