Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
What I'm saying is to stop talking about "machine gunning". Period.
It's neither on topic nor a term of common use nor a SD strategy.
It's neither on topic nor a term of common use nor a SD strategy.
The general rule is that everyone gets firsts before anyone gets seconds. Exceptions, of course, but that obviously shouldn't have been one of them.
Deaf Smith posted:
I suspect the .357 Sig expands to the .63 call earlier, after impact, than the 9mm and thus does more damage. Yes same penetration but more volume of damage for that amount of penetration.
And I'm not sure the rounds I specified for the .357 Sig give just 12 inches of penetration either.
And adding 10 to 20 percent more velocity and about 25 percent more energy, with the same excellent bullet construction is not a bad thing.
The catch is one has to decide how much clout .vs. control they can balance. Some may not be able to handle a .357 Sig from a such small package as a Shield. My Glock 33 is within my capabilities shooting fast one handed. For some people though it may be to much for them.
Deaf
Deaf Smith said:... I suspect the .357 Sig expands to the .63 call earlier, after impact, than the 9mm and thus does more damage. Yes same penetration but more volume of damage for that amount of penetration. ...
Ive carried full sized handguns concealed in street clothes, 18+ hours a day, everyday, most of my adult life, as well as a double reload and often a second gun. Carrying them isnt a problem, constant practice solves the other issue
As for advantage of one over the other I susbscriber to Jeff Cooper's advice.
Since you still get +12" of penetration, so no big whoop, and it can be said that you do indeed get a slightly better "something-or-other" with higher velocity rounds like .357sig. I'm not certain it's anything important, but it's measurable.
Whether that confers any real advantage owing to those factors, or a disadvantage owing to more recoil ... I think we're in the area of raw conjecture, YMMV and opinion at that point.
Actually, terminal ballistics is the very thing we are discussing.Well it's not about ballistics per see.
Mas (and others?) is a great guy ... seriously, a hero of mine for all the reasons he ought to be. I RSO'd for a class of his once and found him to be a genuinely decent person with a great sense of humor. He's also fascinating to talk to at the dinner table.Ayoob and others have found that yes the more powerful guns do TEND to stop better. And the better shaped and designed bullets TEND to do better. And shot placement does TEND to make a difference.