Why not CCW a powerful handgun?

Status
Not open for further replies.
quote:
----------------------------------
Urban setting; Kimber Pro Carry .45 ACP with 200gr +P Speer Gold Dot JHP

Out in the bush; S&W 1006 10MM loaded with hot 180gr Hornady XTP home brew ammo.
-------------------------------------

Hmmm. . . .

Urban setting; Kimber Custom Classic.45 ACP with 230gr Hydrashok, and sometimes a Colt Detective Special dropped in a pocket on the way out the door.

Out in the bush; Colt Officer's Model Target .22 (or one of a number of other .22s) OR Colt M357 or SAA in .357 Mag OR Colt New Service or Ruger Blackhaws in .45 Colt (the latter sometimes with full-charge "Ruger Only" loads.

Backpacking, where weight is a premium: Colt Detective Special in a belt pouch.
 
quote:
------------------------------
Not much of a difference between .357 SIG, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP, with 9mm only the tiniest bit behind.

As long as your bullet of choice can penetrate 12" or more, you aren't under-gunned.
------------------------------

Still, caliber counts for something. As a wise man once said, "A 9mm may expand, but a .45 will never shrink."
 
when people read these threads they get the idea that if they can't/won't carry a full size .45 with a reload and a shotgun in the trunk they're wasting their time.
Click to expand...
Case in point, there's a guy on the strategies and tactics practically in a panic because he shoots better with a 9mm than a .40 cal.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=132045

Personally, I think it's really sad that a person has absorbed enough caliber war propaganda that he would consider carrying a gun he can't shoot well (by his own assessment) because he's convinced that the 9mm isn't adequate.

Somewhere we need to draw the line. Does anybody really think it's productive to push the anti-nine agenda so hard that we end up with people carrying guns they can't shoot?

How about just a tiny bit of common sense, for a change.
 
I carry a 9mm sometimes, more so in the summer. If I do my job, my walther p99 will do its job. I do not worry about caliber, I worry about shot placement. The 9mm has been dropping folks, quite well, for almost 100 years.
 
"Except that ft/lbs is pretty much nothing more than a useless number when it comes to real life wounding capability."

Seems like a useful number to me, and a good place to start when picking a cartridge for a particular purpose.

.22LR = 140 ft/lb
9mm = 360 ft/lb
.357mag = 580 ft/lb
.223 = 1200 ft/lb
.30-06 = 2600 ft/lb

Don't you think there's some correlation between energy and what you describe as "wounding capability"? Obviously you can't get fixed on one metric--other things like bullet type are important too.


* rough energy numbers are taken from http://matrix.dumpshock.com/raygun/basics/casedata.html
 
Don't you think there's some correlation between energy and what you describe as "wounding capability"?
Click to expand...
You tell me.

Look at the numbers that you yourself posted...
(I notice you left out .380, .38 special and any handgun caliber beginning with a 4)


22LR = 140 ft/lb
9mm = 360 ft/lb
.357mag = 580 ft/lb
.223 = 1200 ft/lb
.30-06 = 2600 ft/lb

Look especially hard at the 9mm and .357mag "ratings".
Do YOU think there's that much disparity in the real world?

Were these numbers all arrived at fom identical barrel lengths?
Are they barrel lengths that people actually use?
 
Don't feel like answering huh? I thought it was a reasonable question.

Let's try it again:
.22LR = 138
.380 = 200
.38Spl = 284
9mm = 364
.45acp = 373
.40sw = 500
.357mag = 583
.44mag = 971
.223 = 1290
.50ae = 1568
.30-30 = 1902
.30-06 = 2660
.50BMG = 12630

These numbers are energy in ft/lbs and are from http://matrix.dumpshock.com/raygun/basics/casedata.html. I don't know what barrel lengths were used to get these numbers, but as rough measurements they seem reasonable. Individual loads/guns will vary obviously.

As to the difference between the numbers for the 9mm and .357mag, I guess it depends on what you consider "real world". I'd bet that the 9mm load here is not +P, so YMMV.
 
Unfortunately, people know how to do regression statistics and 'energy' has not been conclusively demonstrated to be related to stopping power with the .GE. 9mm, 40 SW, 357 and 45 ACP rounds.

There seems a clear divide between the 22s, 25s and 32s, vs these but even then placement is more potent as a variable.

The energy folk have never really proven their case with the greater calibers.

When you do a regression, you need the energy figures vs. some outcome variable. Let's see that.
 
There seems a clear divide between the 22s, 25s and 32s, vs these but even then placement is more potent as a variable.

The energy folk have never really proven their case with the greater calibers.

When you do a regression, you need the energy figures vs. some outcome variable. Let's see that.
Click to expand...

I'm extremely against the energy "theory," but I'll try doing a scatter plot. Energy (ft-lbs) vs. expanded diameter^2 (in) * penetration depth (in), how about. Energy vs. maximum theoretical wound volume, basically.

Expect to see a graph posted here soon.
 
The best gun to CCW is the one you can hit the target with. There are calibers that are marginal for self defense but someone that can put a .22 through someones eye at 15 yards will be as effective as shooting someone with a larger caliber.

Since I could not do that under stress consistiently I choose my favorite caliber .45acp. in these guns for my daily carry:
Sig P220ST
Kimber Custom TLE II
Colt M1991A1
Springfield Armory Champion
Para Ordnance Carry 12 LDA
Taurus PT-145 (My favorite pocket carry)

Then I also have:
Kel-Tec P11 in 9mm (My second favorite pocket carry)
Ruger SP-101 2" .357mag
Taurus Model 415 .41mag

Any of these will suffice for me....
 
Vern-

I like that......

Another wise man said "bullet weight and diameter don't diminish with distance"
 
When you do a regression, you need the energy figures vs. some outcome variable. Let's see that.
Click to expand...

Well, my guess is that for a question as complex as this, simple linear regession won't cut it. Moderated multiple regression would be more useful.
 
RyanM: Nice graphs!

While I don't want to set myself up as a champion on Energy As The One True Metric (see my previous posts in this thread), I'll make a few contrary comments, since that's the side of the argument I seem to have fallen on.

1. You have replaced the "theory of energy" with the "theory of hole volume". Is it an underlying assumption that hole volume = stopping power?

2. If it were shown that a bullet made a hole 87 inches deep, does your formula correct for "hole outside the expected target"?

3. Are your holes cylinders, or cones?
 
1. You have replaced the "theory of energy" with the "theory of hole volume". Is it an underlying assumption that hole volume = stopping power?

2. If it were shown that a bullet made a hole 87 inches deep, does your formula correct for "hole outside the expected target"?

3. Are your holes cylinders, or cones?
Click to expand...

1. My theory is basically that hole volume = ouchies. Stopping power is determined by whether or not that hole happens to intersect something vital, like the heart or spinal cord. A bigger hole gives you a higher chance of nicking a vital organ, and causes more damage to what it does hit, though, so it would affect stopping power. But not as much as placement.

2. No corrections for penetrations at either extreme of the spectrum. However, the deepest penetrations were for 9mm ball and .45 hardball, 27.56" and 25.59", respectively. Almost everything else was under 18", and the majority were under 15". So 2 very deep shots shouldn't mess things up very much. It was tempting to reduce the values for shots that penetrated only 6", but I didn't mess with those, either.

3. Cylinders. Volume of a cone = volume of a cylinder divided by 3. So it wouldn't make any difference, really, in terms of the difference between X and Y rounds. Now, if I were going by surface area instead of volume, there would be a big difference, but is a 4.5" wide cannonball hole really only 10x more "ouchie" than 10 shots of .45 (area), or more like 100 (volume)?
 
RyanM: Would you mind making one of those graphs where the bullet type is the same (9mm/.357cal fmj for example)?
 
No problem. Here's one of all .38 SPL +P JHPs, with 1 LHP (FBI load) in there somewhere. The only one I can specifically identify by just looking is the Cor-Bon Pow'R'Ball. That's the one at the very far right, near the middle vertically.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 38 SPL JHP.gif
    38 SPL JHP.gif
    2 KB · Views: 199
I guess I was trying to remove bullet composition from consideration by suggesting fmj. I'm not sure if we're testing energy or hollow point characteristics.

I suppose a way to remedy this is to actually measure the avulsion, rather than project a theoretical shape on the wound. It's probably too difficult though. Can you measure the cavilty formed in gelatin by inserting a liquid?
 
Let's try this approach.
Who out there is unsure of whether or not a 9mm will kill you?
How about a .45?
.32?

Well if you are convinced that any of them can, you then know the tool is capable of the task. There will of course be other varibles to contend with, but there will always be and it is impossible to account for all of them.
If you are not convinced I could offer a little experiment ...
No one would choose a pistol if he knew he was going to get into a gunfight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
High-powered handgun loads for self defense
2 3
Replies
70
Views
6K
JohnKSa
JohnKSa
Baron66
  • Locked
What is the best and most capable .22lr handgun for concealed carry?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
9K
Robert
Robert
U
  • Locked
What do YOU carry, and exactly how often do you carry it?
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Replies
198
Views
13K
AtticusThraxx
A
I
  • Locked
Trusting a CCW handgun
2
Replies
42
Views
1K
mgkdrgn
M
G
  • Locked
Why do you Limit Yourself?
2 3
Replies
58
Views
3K
32winspl
3
Back
Top