Ignorant statement of the day....
- Thread starter saturno_v
- Start date
- Status
Walt Sherrill
Member
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.
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
member
It seems the fellow was misinformed or ignorant and or biased.
Inebriated
Member
.40 will penetrate better (in that weight). Sectional density, and all that.
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.
IMTHDUKE
Member
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.
I watched "The Expendables" last night, and they clearly proved that the man with more bullets fired won.
moto_stevo
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Messages
- 69
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?
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
Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2010
- Messages
- 646
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.
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.
2 in the chest, 1 in the head.
Calm Nerves x Accuracy + Energy Transfer = I win.
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
internet infantryman
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2012
- Messages
- 983
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."
Walt Sherrill
Member
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
Member
And this is "high road" how?
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Hard, too.
"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
)TCB
TimboKhan
Member
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
