Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
IF and only IF the rounds in question are actually capable of damaging the target enough to stop it...
Many weaker rounds is preferable. Consider that the only real way to stop a threat is a CNS(central nervous system) hit. Brain, brain stem, spinal cord. Only damaging these organs can actually shut a human being off. Causing someone to bleed out, as with a heart shot, or doubnle over with pain, like with a stomach shot can be enough to stop some threats. Aiming for center mass, as we are all taught, gives you the best chance of a hit at all, plus it allows you a good chance on getting to the spine, as well as causing pain, and creating a wound channel that will let the target lose enough blood as to stop motor function.
But in the end, a hit is a hit, and a miss is a miss. If I fire 3 rounds of 9mm, and only one hits, it is still far better than missing with one or two rounds of .50cal. I also personally always train to fire at least two rounds per target. There is no such thing as a single shot. When I fire at all, it's two trigger pulls, whether it be a .22lr or a .50cal. You have more chances of hitting your target at all with more rounds, and more of those rounds have better chances of hitting the CNS. 1 big .45ACP might create a big wound, but if the target still has enough motor function to shoot back for a few moments, what have you accomplished? I prefer to give the target 2 quick 9mm shots(a caliber that is easier to place accurate followup shots) and reevaluate. Then two more if necessary.
The whole small vs. large debate always seems to center around the wound channel created by a large round vs a small round. No on ever seems to take probability of hitting at all, followup shots, how many rounds one fires at a threat, and likelihood of hitting the CNS into account.
Many weaker rounds is preferable. Consider that the only real way to stop a threat is a CNS(central nervous system) hit. Brain, brain stem, spinal cord. Only damaging these organs can actually shut a human being off. Causing someone to bleed out, as with a heart shot, or doubnle over with pain, like with a stomach shot can be enough to stop some threats. Aiming for center mass, as we are all taught, gives you the best chance of a hit at all, plus it allows you a good chance on getting to the spine, as well as causing pain, and creating a wound channel that will let the target lose enough blood as to stop motor function.
But in the end, a hit is a hit, and a miss is a miss. If I fire 3 rounds of 9mm, and only one hits, it is still far better than missing with one or two rounds of .50cal. I also personally always train to fire at least two rounds per target. There is no such thing as a single shot. When I fire at all, it's two trigger pulls, whether it be a .22lr or a .50cal. You have more chances of hitting your target at all with more rounds, and more of those rounds have better chances of hitting the CNS. 1 big .45ACP might create a big wound, but if the target still has enough motor function to shoot back for a few moments, what have you accomplished? I prefer to give the target 2 quick 9mm shots(a caliber that is easier to place accurate followup shots) and reevaluate. Then two more if necessary.
The whole small vs. large debate always seems to center around the wound channel created by a large round vs a small round. No on ever seems to take probability of hitting at all, followup shots, how many rounds one fires at a threat, and likelihood of hitting the CNS into account.