Where did you get that idea?
Where did you get that idea?
I've read hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds reports of handgun usage by law enforcement, military, armed citizens, gang members, and other people who have been involved in shootings. I've read every study ever conducted on handgun performance. I have been mentally aggregating this data for 15 years. I have also shot a lot of animals with many different types of cartridges and bullets. There is absolutely no consistency to the "stopping" effectiveness of any handgun caliber or bullet design. None. Every weak pocket pistol round has stopped people dead in their tracks with chest hits and FMJs. Every modern service cartridge with the latest and greatest bullets and +p loadings has failed to stop people after dumping entire magazines into them. What I've learned is that:
1. Many people are predisposed to ceasing hostilities, even laying down on the ground, when shot, regardless of the cartridge or bullet used, even people who seem to be acting very aggressively. I believe this is a phenomenon of the psychology of humans and not bullets.
2. The only way to gauruntee instantaneous incapacitation is to destroy the central nervous system. Even a 22 is often sufficient to do this, though it's bullets tend to be prone to deflection. Taking out large structural supports such as the hip girdle is also very often effective, but also does not require high energy rounds with expanding bullets. With edged weapons you can slice through tendons and muscles and make it impossible for your opponent to continue fighting, but bullets don't do this very well.
3. Large caliber bullets, bullets with flat metplats, and hollow points tend to result in unconsciousness and death faster and more reliably than non-expanding round nose bullets with sharply tapered geometry in small calibers.
If you're shooting a guy with a knife at 7 yards, he may be predisposed to falling down when shot, or you may be predisposed to taking headshots, but either way, the cartridge and bullet selection is going to be one of least important factors in the outcome of this situation. These factors are far more important when taking shots at long range where a headshot can not be reliably executed and where you might be utilizing cover and depending on your attackers succumbing to their wounds over time due to blood loss and lack of oxygen.
If I thought that a defensive situation could only occur at close range and could only transpire the way people describe in gun forums and self defense courses, I would carry something like a keltec PMR 30 with FMJs. I would see no point to using anything more potent. I can make 2-3" groups at 20 yards on command purely through reflex with virtually any modern handgun because I have shot handguns almost every day for 11 years. The reason why I carry weapons like 9mm, 40SW, 45ACP, etc is because I do not have a home, and I don't go out in public very much, so I will never be the victim of a home invasion, nor will I be attacked by a crackhead on the street. I spend most of my time in the woods, so if I ever have to defend myself, the situation is going to be less like what you read about in the gun magazines, and more like guerilla warfare. The shooting range could be as much as 100 yards. I will probably be outnumbered. The aggressor could easily be a bear or a moose (this has happened to me more than once.) My carry pistol is also my defacto survival and casual hunting gun, and must be capable of lethally wounding deer size game from 40 yards with a thoracic shot broadside or quartering, without the shoulder plate ruining the performance of the bullet.
Just my opinions.
