earlthegoat2
Member
If you do your part they will all put lethal holes in said target.
What will a 9mm, .40, .45 do to a man?
- Thread starter chinoanoah
- Start date
- Status
Marshall
Member
The issue is in mixing FBI ammunition penetration ratings with standard penetration figures.
In other words, the fact that the FBI says a particular loading has penetration rating under 12" is not indication that it won't penetrate 12" in a typical self-defense encounter. Their penetration rating is much more stringent than most people understand.
Well, actually they're saying that they want 12 to 18" of penetration as defined by their testing.
If you have documentation or support that the FBI prefers 18" in all cases or that anything greater than 12" is progressively better up to 18" I wouldn't mind seeing that.
The only thing any handgun bullet will do is make a hole in a human being. According to medics, doctors, and folks that study such things they say they can't tell rather someone was hit by a 9mm or .45 by the entrance hole. The only way they know what caliber it is is by removing the bullet. The human body will try to save itself from such trama. One of the things it does is close as tightly as it can around the wound to reduce blood loss. Most handgun wounds are smaller than the frontal area of the bullet because of this self preservation process.
So many people say all a 9mm will do is punch a hole through you. That's all any handgun round can do. They just don't have enough power to stretch tissue beyond it's elastic limits like a high velocity rifle round. So a 9mm, .40, or .45 all make about the same size hole upon striking the human body. Yes their is a few tenths of an inch difference between 9mm, .40, and .45 effect on the body. But it simply is not a great a difference as some would have you believe. A handgun round makes a hole. Some a little bigger. Others a little smaller. But it's all about where the hole(s) is that counts. So when you here somene say "it only makes a hole in someone" that is correct. But what is it making that hole through that makes the real difference.
So many people say all a 9mm will do is punch a hole through you. That's all any handgun round can do. They just don't have enough power to stretch tissue beyond it's elastic limits like a high velocity rifle round. So a 9mm, .40, or .45 all make about the same size hole upon striking the human body. Yes their is a few tenths of an inch difference between 9mm, .40, and .45 effect on the body. But it simply is not a great a difference as some would have you believe. A handgun round makes a hole. Some a little bigger. Others a little smaller. But it's all about where the hole(s) is that counts. So when you here somene say "it only makes a hole in someone" that is correct. But what is it making that hole through that makes the real difference.
As a newer shooter to ‘higher caliber’ rounds, I have often wondered if the added cost of shooting a .45 vs. a 9mm would make me safer in the long run. The 9mm is cheaper, which allows you to practice more. A bullet the size of a bowling ball going a million FPS does nothing if it misses. Practice hitting what you are aiming at and have realistic expectations of what will likely happen in a situation where you will need your gun. Personally, there are times when I would feel adequately armed with a .22. The caliber of the gun is the last thing a bad guy would think about when he is staring at the painful end of the gun.
Back to the caliber thing… just choose one and feel confident in it and believe it is the correct choice. If there was one best caliber, EVERYBODY would use it. In reality, there are literally hundreds of loads in many many calibers out there.
Just my $0.02
Back to the caliber thing… just choose one and feel confident in it and believe it is the correct choice. If there was one best caliber, EVERYBODY would use it. In reality, there are literally hundreds of loads in many many calibers out there.
Just my $0.02
We're actually talking about two different things here. I'm referring to the FBI's oft-quoted guide on handgun wounding factors, which is available here:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf
It's all about what the bullet does and should do to the bad guy, according to their findings, and says nothing about testing protocols. This is where they recommend a range of penetration depths for ammunition to be sufficiently effective (12"-18"), and that's all I talked about, too: how far a bullet needs to go into the bad guy to be as effective as it can be.
Whether a bullet passes through any barriers first is a separate issue entirely, and you're free to use whatever data you'd like from any source that you trust to some degree. If the FBI gives out their own test results as a single number without additional data such as which barrier resulted in what penetration depth, then you would be right to question whether it applies to your expected usage. In that case, I would suggest using a different ("standard" as you said) source that better matches your goals if possible, however this does not change what the FBI recommends in a separate report that is independent of even their own testing protocol.
The document referenced above contains the following quote:
Note that they only mention "soft body tissue" with no mention of barriers. What I've said in this thread is my interpretation of this statement--more explicit in certain ways, but accurate nonetheless. Many people seem to believe that 12" is what they're suggesting as an ideal depth of penetration, and most ammunition manufacturers seem to strive to keep penetration down to that level with maximum expansion, but to the FBI it is in actuality a minimum, with 18" being "preferable" in their own words. Furthermore, it stands to reason that if 18" is better than 12", then 16" is better than 14", and I just wanted to make that explicit. This is my reaction to the 12" standard being quoted everywhere with no mention whatsoever (except by me, repeatedly
) that 18" is even better, at least according to the original source of the 12" standard.Now, some people have concerns about overpenetration and would prefer to meet the minimum standard and no more, and that's their prerogative, no question, but I want to make sure that they are fully aware of what the thinking is behind this standard, specifically that 12" is not necessarily the ideal amount because 18" is supposed to be even better. I guess I've become an advocate for more effective penetration over maximum expansion due to the strong emphasis I keep seeing on expansion.
By the way, sometimes you can find data regarding penetration and expansion for each barrier that is tested, including bare gelatin (no barrier). The following table of data published by Winchester seems to conform to the FBI's testing protocol (whether it comes from Winchester's testing or the FBI's I'm not quite sure):
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/WinchesterRangerAmmo.gif
The FBI's duty loads for their special agents are the 180 grain .40 S&W Bonded (main duty load) and the 147 grain 9mm Bonded (for agents who prefer lighter recoil). The figures that typical civilians would find most useful are penetration and expansion through Heavy Cloth, which is generally intended to represent clothing. Feel free to pick out only the numbers you're personally interested in, but the 12"-18" (with 18" preferred) penetration standard applies to all of them (and data from any other source).
It doesn't say anything about their testing protocols because they are readily available and widely known. Here we have an FBI Special Agent from the FBI Firearms Training Unit writing a document for use by the FBI. He is writing about penetration performance standards and using the identical quoted standard (12"-18") described as the performance standard in the FBI ammunition testing protocol. But we're supposed to believe he's not talking about FBI penetration standards and protocols? That seems quite a stretch. What rationale are you providing as the basis for such a leap of faith?
Since it's stated as the lower limit of a range, it's hard to understand how anyone could consider it as ideal. It's clearly "acceptable" but there's nothing implying it's ideal.
18" is the maximum acceptable penetration rating.
The quote says "penetration UP TO 18". In other words, just as 12" is the lower limit of acceptable (and as you say not ideal), 18" is the upper limit of acceptable. I don't see anything in the document that says it gets better and better as it gets deeper, it just provides two limits and says it needs to stay between them. If one were to speculate (which I'm not advocating) a far more reasonable interpretation would be that the ideal penetration figure is somewhere in the middle of the two acceptable extremes rather than at one of the extremes.
mljdeckard
Member
I don't even need to read the last four pages of posts to know what they say.
I've carried all three. I let other people tell me that a .45 kicks harder and is more difficult to control. I found, on my own, that two guns otherwise identical, one in .45 and one in .40, the .40 will have snappier recoil.
As for the capacity issue, I don't live in MelGibsonland. I don't know how many rounds I will need. But I am pretty sure that if I crank out 15+1, and have a reload and burn straight through that one too, so fast that if it had been a 1911 I wouldn't have had time to reload it, then higher capacity probably isn't going to save me anyway.
Bottom line, carry the biggest, nastiest gun you can handle. I find I handle a 1911 best, and 230 gr HSTs routinely expand to the size of a quarter. Why use anything smaller?
I've carried all three. I let other people tell me that a .45 kicks harder and is more difficult to control. I found, on my own, that two guns otherwise identical, one in .45 and one in .40, the .40 will have snappier recoil.
As for the capacity issue, I don't live in MelGibsonland. I don't know how many rounds I will need. But I am pretty sure that if I crank out 15+1, and have a reload and burn straight through that one too, so fast that if it had been a 1911 I wouldn't have had time to reload it, then higher capacity probably isn't going to save me anyway.
Bottom line, carry the biggest, nastiest gun you can handle. I find I handle a 1911 best, and 230 gr HSTs routinely expand to the size of a quarter. Why use anything smaller?
mljdeckard
Member
Oh, and the reason I responded in the first place, to answer the question of if they will knock someone down?
The short answer is; don't plan on it. Most people who are hit with a handgun bullet will run away. Anything worth shooting at all is worth shooting at least twice.
But it's not absolute. There are some circumstances that will knock a man down when hit with a handgun bullet, but it's not the bullet by itself that does it. We all know that if you are standing off balance, and someone jabs you in the chest with their fingertips, you will fall over because you were off-balance. A bullet has enough force to break ribs. That kind of force can absolutely knock you over under the right circumstances. If it hits a heavy bone that almost stops it, something like that. this is why when you are shooting defensively, you must use a fighting stance, just as if you are preparing to get hit and remain standing. (Because you are.)
The short answer is; don't plan on it. Most people who are hit with a handgun bullet will run away. Anything worth shooting at all is worth shooting at least twice.
But it's not absolute. There are some circumstances that will knock a man down when hit with a handgun bullet, but it's not the bullet by itself that does it. We all know that if you are standing off balance, and someone jabs you in the chest with their fingertips, you will fall over because you were off-balance. A bullet has enough force to break ribs. That kind of force can absolutely knock you over under the right circumstances. If it hits a heavy bone that almost stops it, something like that. this is why when you are shooting defensively, you must use a fighting stance, just as if you are preparing to get hit and remain standing. (Because you are.)
Onward Allusion
Member
Noooooooooooooo!!!
I guess I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make.
Penetration depth is how far a bullet goes into ballistic gelatin after passing through different types of barriers, each measured separately, including no barrier at all, yes or no?
The referenced document describes how much penetration a bullet should achieve to be sufficiently effective, yes or no?
Exactly how is all of this so much more complicated than that?
How exactly would it affect what he says, anyway? 12"-18" of penetration into bad guy is not that difficult to comprehend independently of FBI-specific test protocols.
It's very simple. Somebody read the FBI document at some point and spread the word that 12" is the minimum penetration required by some authority on the subject. Lots of people somehow got the notion in their heads that avoiding overpenetration (i.e. penetration all the way through their target and unintentionally hitting something behind it) is extremely desirable, which then goes hand-in-hand with how impressed they are with the consistent and generally wide expansion of modern JHPs (limiting penetration), creating a strong overall impression that while 12" of penetration is required, any more than that risks the dreaded overpenetration scenario. At least that's my theory, whatever the true reason may be. Regardless, I rarely see anybody mention the actual 12"-18" standard, and I bet that some people don't even realize exactly where the simpler 12" standard came from in the first place.
No, the special agent who wrote the document said that 18" is "preferable." Implicitly, any more than that would be a waste, but 18" is preferable to 12", and there is no reason to believe that 16" would somehow be less preferable than 12", for example. And since their chosen duty load in .40 S&W gets a bit more than 18" of penetration through some barriers, including the undoubtedly common "Heavy Cloth" scenario, it is safe to say that 18" is not their absolute maximum, making it quite likely that they find it ideal, although admittedly that is my interpretation.
No, they just say that 18" is preferable, and my interpretation is quite reasonable. Others are free to interpret their statements as they please, of course, and I'm more than happy to provide quotes and links.
I seriously doubt it because they're primarily concerned with getting enough penetration, not avoiding overpenetration. While some expansion is desired in order to maximize wounding, they clearly emphasize the greater importance of penetration. In these ways, their standard does differ conceptually from those of many people, and therefore I want people who may believe otherwise--that they're doing exactly what the FBI suggests by settling for only 12"--to get all the facts and reconsider their position.
The point is that an FBI penetration rating is NOT a simple penetration measurement. It is an average of the results from 8 different tests, most of which involve intermediate barriers and those results are the average of five shots.
Trying to equate an FBI penetration rating (described above) with a simple penetration depth measurement is misleading.
The point is that if you don't carefully specify the intermediate barriers, etc. then "penetration depth" can mean anything. I could tell you that the penetration depth of round X is consistently zero and unless you know that I measured that penetration depth in a gelatin block on the other side of a 6" concrete block you would have a VERY skewed idea of the penetration capability of round X.
Similarly when the FBI says "12" to 18" of penetration" it's important to know what they mean. It's not the same thing that the man on the street means when he says "12" to 18" of penetration" unless he understands the FBI ammunition testing protocol.
As you know, interposing barriers can drastically alter the penetration of the round and different barriers have different effects.
So when the man on the street says: "I saw a gel block test where round X penetrated 14" and therefore it passes the FBI standards.", that is not a true statement. The round in question might miserably fail to pass the FBI testing protocols due to the effects of intermediate barriers on the round's penetration.
Similarly when an FBI agent talks about round X reliably penetrating to Z inches he's talking about Z inches of penetration with round X as defined by the results of the FBI's testing protocol.
Bottom line, trying to define the performance of a caliber or round using FBI penetration standards without also keeping in mind the FBI penetration testing protocols can give a very skewed idea of what those rounds and calibers will do.
It's not a huge deal, it's just something to keep in mind.
No, he said that: "UP TO 18 inches is preferable". This is clearly stating an upper limit. Otherwise he would have simply said (as you did) that "18 inches is preferable".
The acceptable range is 12" to 18". Acceptable is inside the range, unacceptable is outside the range. 12" is the lower limit, 18" is the upper limit. Rounds must reliably penetrate 12". Rounds must not penetrate more than 18".
That's not what it says. I'm reading it directly from the quote in your post and I clicked through to the link and read the document (again) to verify that the quote in your post is correct. It clearly says that "UP TO 18 is preferable". You can't just go through a paper deleting the author's words to support your point of view. That approach is just as invalid as inserting words. The document doesn't say that it's progressively better up to 18".
For what it's worth, I believe that Fackler goes along with the FBI standard but also states that 12.5" to 14" is ideal which is consistent with the idea that the FBI's standards provide only upper and lower limits on penetration but not IDEAL penetration figures.
Last edited:
The 9mm is an "acceptable" round, but why settle for acceptable.
Compare the momentum from these rounds:
Kahr P9: Fed 115 gr. 9mm +P+ 1,221 fps / 380# KE / .62 momentum
Glock 33: 125 gr. Ranger T 1,280 fps / 454# KE / .71 momentum
Glock 27: 165 gr. Ranger T 1,116 fps / 456# KE / .81 momentum
Glock 39: 185 gr. Gold Dot 932 fps / 356# KE / .77 momentum
I chose some of the hotter loads for this comparison (one of the hottest for the 9mm) and the pistols have comparable barrel lengths, so I think it's indicative of their power.
In compact concealable pistols, I like the 39, 27 and 33. Which one to carry?
The 39 has that big bullet appeal.
The 27 is a compromise of bullet diameter, but produces plenty of power.
The 33 produces the least recoil, and is the KE king, but compromises bullet diameter. It does have the feeding advantage of the bottleneck design.
I sometimes have trouble deciding which pistol to carry.
I have to ask myself, "If I had to use one of these for SD today and unfortunately the firing pin happened to break after the first shot
, which round would stop the situation quicker, given equivalent shot placement?"
I don't want "acceptable". I give the advantage to larger bullet diameters and momentum levels.
Compare the momentum from these rounds:
Kahr P9: Fed 115 gr. 9mm +P+ 1,221 fps / 380# KE / .62 momentum
Glock 33: 125 gr. Ranger T 1,280 fps / 454# KE / .71 momentum
Glock 27: 165 gr. Ranger T 1,116 fps / 456# KE / .81 momentum
Glock 39: 185 gr. Gold Dot 932 fps / 356# KE / .77 momentum
I chose some of the hotter loads for this comparison (one of the hottest for the 9mm) and the pistols have comparable barrel lengths, so I think it's indicative of their power.
In compact concealable pistols, I like the 39, 27 and 33. Which one to carry?
The 39 has that big bullet appeal.
The 27 is a compromise of bullet diameter, but produces plenty of power.
The 33 produces the least recoil, and is the KE king, but compromises bullet diameter. It does have the feeding advantage of the bottleneck design.
I sometimes have trouble deciding which pistol to carry.
I have to ask myself, "If I had to use one of these for SD today and unfortunately the firing pin happened to break after the first shot
, which round would stop the situation quicker, given equivalent shot placement?"I don't want "acceptable". I give the advantage to larger bullet diameters and momentum levels.
Is that what you think the 12"-18" standard refers to?
It only concerns bullets and bad guys. It's not the result of any particular set of tests of any particular load. You're way out in left field on this. Rating? It's not a rating of the performance of any particular load, it's how far ANY handgun bullet theoretically needs to go into a bad guy to be considered effective. The whole document is about wounding effects, not testing ammo. I gave you some data on the latter in a separate document, and it does specify what the penetration is into ballistic gelatin for each intermediate barrier, but it's still a separate issue.
Correct, but the 12"-18" standard is clearly specified to be in "soft body tissue" and it is a requirement, not an actual measurement! :banghead: Intermediate barriers are used in testing ammo, which must meet this simple requirement AFTER passing through each barrier.
It means 12"-18" of penetration into bad guys, no matter what barriers you care about, if any. If you don't care about any barriers and only want to consider bare skin, then the test results you should pay attention to are the ones specifically listed under "Bare Gelatin." This has no bearing whatsoever on the 12"-18" standard itself--it is simply the goal to reach regarding penetration into bad guys in real life and ballistic gelatin in testing after any barriers have been penetrated, with 18" being preferred over 12".
That is very obvious but also quite irrelevant except for actual testing. At this point, I suppose an analogy might help. The 12"-18" standard is like giving out grades for a paper in school--90% is an A, 80% is a B, and 70% is a C, for example. This scale is not affected by testing, it is simply a set of standards for any students to meet in any test. Barriers to achieving higher standards may include a lack of intelligence, a lack of studying, a lack of sleep, or anything else of that nature. In the end, it doesn't matter--90% is still an A, 80% is still a B, and 70% is still a C. What you're apparently trying to say is that barriers are somehow taken into account in designing the standard, sort of like grading on a curve in analogy. Tell me exactly where, aside from your own assumptions, the FBI document in question says that they're "grading on a curve." They simply say that a bullet needs to penetrate "soft body tissue"--this is simply matching the percentage to the grade, with 12" being a D grade (barely passing) and 18" being an A.
The specific standard in question does not take into account the full requirements that the FBI has for their ammo--it only concerns what a bullet must do to a bad guy's "soft body tissue" to be effective. You're just unable to separate the two for some reason. :banghead:
If a person has lower standards than the FBI regarding penetration through barriers, then that's just fine with me, but they still need to have an idea of how far a bullet needs to penetrate a bad guy's body once it gets there, without regard to barriers. This is the very basic 12"-18" standard that the FBI suggests for all law enforcement agencies, whatever their test protocols may be, and many civilians also choose to follow it. The problem is that many seem to think for some reason that 12" is the ideal, but I'm telling them that 18" is actually considered better. It's all extremely simple in reality, but you've succeeded in making it extremely complex in a grand fashion.
This is in regard to actual test results (which I've also supplied), not the 12"-18" standard, which only concerns penetration into flesh after whatever barriers have been penetrated.
Geez, don't you think that somewhere in this huge mess somebody has to know, in the most basic terms possible, how far a bullet needs to penetrate in order to be effective, regardless of all other factors? That's what the 12"-18" standard is all about--how much a bullet needs to go into the bad guy to maximize its potential to disable him, and nothing else.
It's not even a small deal, in fact it's totally irrelevant.
Anything past 18" is always going to go through the bad guy and be a waste, while anything short of 18" is not going to penetrate all the way and therefore may miss out on some critical wounding (it's not actually that simple, of course, but we have to pick a number). Therefore what makes the most sense physically is that any ideal penetration depth would be at the top of the useful range and no higher, which is why I support 18" as being the ideal that is touted.
If it were an upper limit as you claim, then the FBI's main duty load would have failed their own tests, with 19" of penetration through "Heavy Cloth" and 21.8" through "Denim (4 Layers)." I guess it's not an upper limit after all.
Interpretation involves more than picking at specific words--it involves the understanding of overall context and intent, of which you have demonstrated startlingly little in this case, I'm afraid. Again, from where do you get the assumption that actual testing has anything to do with what is said in that document?
Oh, and I did NOT delete the "up to" when I quoted the entire paragraph earlier (in fact, it was very completely quoted, including their underlining and emphasis). What you're complaining about is just a little snippet of what I consider to be the salient part of what they said. If they had explicitly said "up to 18 inches with 15 inches being preferable" then that would be different, but they were sort of being ambiguous with regard to writing, and I want to clear things up with whatever makes the most physical sense, as long as it conforms to the theme of their paper, which it does.
Much depends on what their underlying goals are. In the case of the FBI, they stress adequate penetration well above any concerns of overpenetration that would bother many people, and also well above expansion which is also considered so important to many. Knowing this, one can read everything they say and choose to agree or disagree with them, but I want it to be known. And based their point of emphasis as well as their selection of duty ammo, I think it is most reasonable to interpret what they're saying as anything up to 18" of penetration just keeps getting better and that anything over that is a slight waste but no big deal.
Last edited:
AKElroy
Member
Reckon the OP should just PM you for any questions he might have, lest he polute the internet with less than fully researched opinion.
Ok, we're talking past each other a bit due to the way the thread topic has drifted over time.
This thread started off with a question about various calibers and how they perform relative to each other. When you mentioned the FBI penetration standards I merely pointed out that if you're going to talk about relative caliber performance and the FBI penetration standards then it's important to understand their testing protocols.
Then the thread stopped being about comparing calibers and started being primarily about what it takes for a handgun round to be effective regardless of caliber. Once the discussion stopped being about comparing calibers then the testing protocol doesn't enter into it.
OK, here is an example where it's important to understand how a penetration rating is derived. It's an average of results. Therefore one can have a round that goes too deep in one test and still have an average that's acceptable.
I realize that--I even stated in my last post that I was quoting from one of your posts when I put in the "up to". It was only when you were "interpreting" the quote that you left out words that didn't fit your interpretation.
I'm not trying to suppress anything. I've read that paper through several times--quoted it numerous times and linked to it frequently. That's why your interpretation caught my eye as being inconsistent with the actual statement in the document.
All three calibers will do the job. The key is practicing with whichever you are using and become very proficient with it. Alot of the tests on 9mm which led alot of folks and agencies to the .40 caliber was done years ago with inferior ammo in today's terms. There are alot of very good defensive loads for the 9mm today, many of which achieve levels that were unheard of years ago. A few examples: 1)Double Tap 115gr +P JHP - 1415 fps, 511 ft lbs of energy. 2)Buffalo Bore 115gr +P+ JHP - 1400 fps, 500 ft lbs of energy. 3)Corbon 115gr +P JHP - 1350 fps, 466 ft lbs of energy. And the Corbon DPX 115gr +P JHP with its copper design may be one of the best loads even though its numbers are not quite as impressive as the others which I listed. That being said .45 and .40 are dadgum good loads and I am not going to go into all of their ballistics. I just thought I would point out that modern design has elevated the 9mm to a different round than it was 20 years ago. I feel safe with any of the three calibers.
Place a Glock 17 with 17+1 rounds of 9mm and a 1911 with 8+1 rounds of .45 ACP (not a Glock 21 because the grip is too fat for some people's hands--my example, my rules
) on a table. Three armed perps are coming through the door. Which weapon do you pick up to stop them?I'll say!
It's only necessary if you elect to use their test results, and I provided some help for that with a link to Winchester's test result table. The 12"-18", on the other hand, is suggested not only for the FBI itself but for any law enforcement agency regardless of their own testing protocols, which may differ greatly. It's like pure research into a single, fairly narrowly-defined aspect of handgun performance. Other people are then expected to use this information as part of their testing and evaluation of calibers and specific loads. Nowhere does it say that 12"-18" implies a set of specific barriers, or that any round that penetrates in that range automatically passes the FBI's full set of requirements of ammunition--it is a very basic piece of information regarding only bullets and the human body.
It's relevant because we have to know what is effective before we argue over the relative effectiveness of each caliber.
Of course it's an average and of course it's important to know exactly what the test results are in regard to. I agree. My point is that this has no bearing on the 12"-18" penetration standard, which is not a result of shooting bullets into gelatin but examining numerous shootings and taking many measurements of the human body to figure out what a bullet should, in theory, do.
I think the agent who wrote this piece tried to jumble too many ideas into a single sentence with too few words. I believe he tried to say that 18" is both the maximum penetration that is needed and also the ideal amount, based on the rationale I gave in my last post. He could have simply said that 12"-18" is the acceptable range, but he also said, somewhat vaguely, that 18" is preferable to the minimum of 12". The "up to" part does indeed count, and it implies that anything over 18" is not preferable; what it does not necessarily imply is that 18" is the maximum allowed, for which no figure is given. Taking all of this together with the physical reality we are presented with, it is very reasonable to conclude that 18" is both the most that one should strive for and the most preferred depth of penetration. He tried to say both things at the same time and ended up being a bit ambiguous, that's all.
I think I've said what they meant and tried to say. Others are free to judge for themselves, of course.
I am going to pick up the one that I can get to first. I am not going to try to figure out which is which.
Just my way of thinking, but I place volicity over caliber. I have seen High Volicity rip flesh apart and I have seen large calibers make large holes. If I had to choose between a 45 at 950FPS and a 22 at 3000FPS (22-250) I am going with the .22 Yes I know a 22-250 is a rifle, but I just used it to make a point.
mljdeckard
Member
Shooting through ANYTHING to hit the bad guy is on the outside fringe of possibilities. And if I were doing it, I wouldn't prefer a handgun at all. If I were shooting through a door with my .45, I wouldn't be thinking; "I really wish that I had a 9mm to do this."; I would be thinking; "I really wish I had my AR to do this."
Why is that? Service caliber handguns can shoot through typical doors almost as though the doors weren't even there. ARs can do this too, of course, although small bullets such as 5.56x45mm/.223 may be deflected or otherwise perturbed more.
KodiakBeer
member
What you'll learn is that the reality of CCW boils down to what you can comfortably carry concealed. It has to be hidden on your person, so you'll have to make compromises.
It depends on how big a guy you are, what kind of clothes you wear, and even time of year. I started with a full-sized 1911, but it didn't take long for the weight and size to change my mind about that wisdom, especially when driving with that thing jabbing me in the side, etc. Weight also becomes a consideration. Ideally, your carry gun should not feel like you're dragging around a brick.
For me, a compact aluminum 1911 .45 works in winter since I can tuck it against my waist with outer clothes covering it. In summer, it just doesn't work, so I carry something much smaller.
In general, I'd keep weight, size and width in mind as you select your carry gun. Double stack mags may give you more ammo without a reload, but they weigh more and are thicker than single column choices. You can carry extra mags.
If stopping power was the only consideration, we'd all be carrying 12 gauge shotguns.
It depends on how big a guy you are, what kind of clothes you wear, and even time of year. I started with a full-sized 1911, but it didn't take long for the weight and size to change my mind about that wisdom, especially when driving with that thing jabbing me in the side, etc. Weight also becomes a consideration. Ideally, your carry gun should not feel like you're dragging around a brick.
For me, a compact aluminum 1911 .45 works in winter since I can tuck it against my waist with outer clothes covering it. In summer, it just doesn't work, so I carry something much smaller.
In general, I'd keep weight, size and width in mind as you select your carry gun. Double stack mags may give you more ammo without a reload, but they weigh more and are thicker than single column choices. You can carry extra mags.
If stopping power was the only consideration, we'd all be carrying 12 gauge shotguns.
mljdeckard
Member
Not with SS109 it wouldn't. Ask me how I know.
If you are using an AR for HD, something like Hornady TAP is the best option. But I keep a magazine of SS109 on the butt, like keeping slugs in the buttcuff. It is unlikely that you will need to shoot through anything. But it is unwise to not prepare for it anyway. Particularly if it is a truck gun. Smashing through hard objects to stop an attacker is a rifle job, not a pistol job.
If you are using an AR for HD, something like Hornady TAP is the best option. But I keep a magazine of SS109 on the butt, like keeping slugs in the buttcuff. It is unlikely that you will need to shoot through anything. But it is unwise to not prepare for it anyway. Particularly if it is a truck gun. Smashing through hard objects to stop an attacker is a rifle job, not a pistol job.
- Status