Caliber effectiveness

[natedog]

PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THIS THE WRONG WAY- I AM NOT TRYING TO START A FLAME WAR.

We often hear on this board in the gun world about certain calibers effectiveness. Usually, there is one side that says caliber A (say, 9mm or 5.56mm) is not good enough in killing and should be replaced or not be used, while another group thinks that said caliber is inadequate. Myself, I don't think it really matters how effective it might be with one shot. Take an M-16 for example. You have 30 rounds in the magazine and 1 round in the chamber. 31 rounds to do what you have to do with a rifle, and then several more magazines filled with ammunition. If 1 round doesn't do the job, then shoot again. If you don't have an opportunity to shoot again (the target goes prone, ducks behind cover), I doubt that many people would still be a threat. Your thoughts?

"Anything worth shooting once is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap- life is expensive".

 

[timbo]

Well, what happens when that guy goes to hide and go for a hand grenade to use against you? I'm afraid my combat experience only involves computer games, but if the guy ducks out of the way after you shoot, he may be going for grenades or to call reinforcements. I'd say if you'll only get one shot at him, hit him with the biggest, meanest bullet you can, and hit him where it counts. While 5.56 NATO might be fine, I'd feel a bit safer with something bigger.

When you have the choice, I say use the most powerful cartridge you can shoot well.

 

[cheygriz]

Natedog,

The shooting community is EXTREMELY conservative, and EXTREMELY resistant to ANY kind of change!!!!

The same arguments being used against the .223 today, were used against the .30-40 Krag when it replaced the .45-70.

The Jeffie Cooper types of the 1890s were thoroughly convinced that you couldn't possibly kill a man with a little pissant poodle shooter like a .30 calibre.

20 years or so from now, when the .223 is replaced by a much more effective, smaller round, the current crew will whine that we should have stayed with a bigger round like the .223.

Most shooters are comfortable with whatever their grandfathers grew up with, and any attempt to change it elicits yowls of outrage. Look how long it took for LE to switch from cowboy guns to modern semi-autos. and there's still some resistance there.

Fortunately, our military planners are not as resistant to progress. If they were, our troops in Iraq would be carrying Trapdoor Springfield .45-70s loaded with blackpowder, and single action revolvers.

 

[Ryder]

My thought?

A bullet's a bullet and any bullet can work but time and certainty are one tradeoff I don't care to sacrifice when my life is at risk. There is no benefit to giving evil a sporting chance.

 

[papercut]

20mm sounds like a good start. If it's still moving, try 105mm.

 

[papercut]

If that doesn't work, try a tactical nuclear warhead.

If that doesn't work, you're on your own.

 

[papercut]

The same arguments being used against the .223 today, were used against the .30-40 Krag when it replaced the .45-70.

What's wrong with .45-70??? It makes a nice big hole. (OK, so the follow-up shot takes a little longer...but other than that....)

 

[artherd]

nate- you bring up a very good point.

"Marine Sniper" has one (real, this is non-fiction) account of a Failure to Stop involving over 12 rounds of .308 and .30-06 mixed. The guy had the chance to run over *200yards* while being hammered by two men with very powerful rifles. Shots 13/14 finally put him down.

Some people just need to be shot more.

PS: .223REM carries more than 3 times the energy of the .45ACP. It's quite effective, within it's range of limitations. Nothing is a magic-bullet however. Carry lots of mags

 

[Majic]

Look how long it took for LE to switch from cowboy guns to modern semi-autos. and there's still some resistance there.

....And that lead to the shot count rising while the hit ratio fell. Not a good trade off IMO.
As for the military, the switch to the .30 caliber was for the ranging capabilities over the 45-70. When they went with the .22 caliber it was for increased capacity while trading off weight. Each soldier could now have an automatic weapon with more ammo instead of just one in the squad.
A change in tactics is what brought about the .22 caliber, not some idea of better caliber effectiveness. If the .22 caliber is superior to the .30 caliber then why hasn't it replaced it on the hunting fields?