9mm vs. .357 magnum-Myth Busted
- Thread starter Rangerrich99
- Start date
- Status
OzeanJaeger
New member
No question they’re lethal. So is a knife. So is an arrow. Rifles are just a lot more lethal, and a much better tool for making living things dead. I agree on the proximity of advanced trauma treatment, though we’ve gotten a lot better at that in the field.
Carring around a rifle around is not as practical for most people. We make compromises where we feel it suits us, but I know a lot of people who keep a rifle in their truck. The pistol is there already, so it is better in most cases, but I don’t think it silly to keep more firepower as close as is practicle if you keep the truck locked and it’s alarmed.
Carring around a rifle around is not as practical for most people. We make compromises where we feel it suits us, but I know a lot of people who keep a rifle in their truck. The pistol is there already, so it is better in most cases, but I don’t think it silly to keep more firepower as close as is practicle if you keep the truck locked and it’s alarmed.
Can't. Won't. Because, it's not. And, its not what I said, either. .357 Sig is not the worst choice for self defense. The two worlds involved are firepower (capacity) and power (which can be either actual energy, or bullet size, depending on who's doing the talking)
Some say it's the best of both worlds, meaning you get some or even most of the benefits of both. Others will say it's the worst, because you get neither of the biggest advantages of both. Same thing is said about the .40S&W.
Best of both worlds (a compromise), you get "almost" the capacity of the 9mm, and "almost" the power of the .357. (or in the case of the .40, "almost" the big bullet of the .45)
Worst of both worlds, you don't get as much capacity as a 9mm, and you don't get the full power and versatility of the .357 Magnum.... remember, it doesn't have to make good sense, its an opinion.
They're called sidearms, because they are worn on the side of the body.
Agreed. While they do share some things in common, there are significant differences, which make direct comparison meaningless.
I agree that generally the rifle is the better tool, but there are situations where it isn't. And, also, there is no such thing as "a lot more lethal". Dead is dead. There is no "deader" than dead. Rifles are more likely to be lethal, they are not "more lethal". A nuance of language, but one I think should be kept in mind.
Many people say that handguns suck at killing people. Most police and civilian shootings of people that were killed, are killed, BY FAR, more with handguns then rifles.
OzeanJaeger
New member
Semantics. I would guess a lot more people also survive being shot with a handgun, which is fine. I carry one for protection, not for killing. If a .380 stops the attack it’s done it’s job and is a win. If I expected a gunfight I’m not going to be weaponing up with a handgun; not a high cap 9mm, and not a .500 Magnum.
I love shooting handguns. I have a mess of them. I’m not against them. Just being realistic. I like knives too, but I carry a handgun.
I love shooting handguns. I have a mess of them. I’m not against them. Just being realistic. I like knives too, but I carry a handgun.
Well I kind of agree, and yet, we are still all being civil to each other and regularly some good points are being brought up so I don't think its turned into one of 'those' threads, the reportable kind, yet.
I don't really have anything else to contribute except to say I've enjoyed the thread and hope everyone contributing sticks around.
OldMarksman
Staff
That's really not at issue here. The issue is that handguns are less effective than long arms in stopping people rapidly.
What does that have to do with self defense?
Model12Win
Moderator
I agree.
I am a daily watcher of Liveleak, which posts new videos of police officer involved shootings (and body camera footage) and civillian shootings as well.
I'll have to say, handguns sure as hell don't seem as ineffective as many Internet gurus tend to think for whatever reasons. In fact they usually do the intended job of stopping the threat quite well.
Someone above mentioned handguns "suck at killing men."
Well quite frankly for our purposes, we do not necessarily want to kill anybody. Do you WANT to end the live of a human being? Or do yo want to STOP them? Obviously death can easily be the result of a justifiable self defense shooting, but it is not the goal of said shooting.
Sometimes these shooting videos don't end well for the officers. Perhaps they were ambushed, didn't have time to draw their weapons, but when they do and when lethal force is necessary, I'm sorry but handguns are effective defensive weapons.
The proof is in the pudding.
I am a daily watcher of Liveleak, which posts new videos of police officer involved shootings (and body camera footage) and civillian shootings as well.
I'll have to say, handguns sure as hell don't seem as ineffective as many Internet gurus tend to think for whatever reasons. In fact they usually do the intended job of stopping the threat quite well.
Someone above mentioned handguns "suck at killing men."
Well quite frankly for our purposes, we do not necessarily want to kill anybody. Do you WANT to end the live of a human being? Or do yo want to STOP them? Obviously death can easily be the result of a justifiable self defense shooting, but it is not the goal of said shooting.
Sometimes these shooting videos don't end well for the officers. Perhaps they were ambushed, didn't have time to draw their weapons, but when they do and when lethal force is necessary, I'm sorry but handguns are effective defensive weapons.
The proof is in the pudding.
"Handguns suck at stopping people" or some version of it is parroted because its what they read.
If a person was shot from the side, as shooting a broadside deer, one bullet could perforate both lungs, the person (like a deer) would have up to ten seconds of voluntary action remaining; that doesn't correlate with suck, because a .243 would allow the same amount of time on a double lung hit.
People attacking someone would typically be shot facing forward, one bullet might get one lung but not both, time remaining for voluntary action has now increased; doesn't mean the bullet sucked, person still has one functional lung.
Equally annoying to the handguns suck cliche are the "doctors can't tell a difference" and "temporary cavity from handguns doesn't do any damage / matter".
Broad generalizations.
There are two possibilities:
(1.) There are photos of damage from different handgun rounds indicating the caliber and bullet used, for example subjects A, B, C shot with 9mm/40/45 HST, subjects D, E, F shot with 9mm/40/45 Gold Dot, and G, H, I were Golden Saber in 9mm/40/45 and a team of medical professionals can't discern any wound difference, how about you? Pics available for layperson review.
(2.) There are not comparison pics, rather this cliche is based on anecdotal observations of doctors more focused on saving a patients life than differentiating between the damage done by different bullets.
I assume it to be the 2nd of the two possibilities, possibility 1 would be a published book.
KE doesn't matter at handgun velocity generalization:
Very likely that differences in caliber and bullet type aside most people shot by police and civilians alike are with handgun bullets generating less than 400# KE including 9mm, 40, 45 and it is possible that less than 400# KE doesn't result in obvious or meaningful temporary cavity effect.
I've seen 2,000 fps cited as the velocity at which damage from the temporary cavity isn't so temporary, starts to matter. I am skeptical that there is zero difference below the 2,000 fps threshold. Makes more sense that it might be zero effect at 1,000 fps, (350# KE) but some difference at 1,300 fps (500-600# KE) increasing with velocity (KE) up to 2,000 fps where apparently the effect is wow. (deer lungs turned into pulp)
Less commonly used carry calibers capable of generating 500+# KE are 357 Sig and 10mm.
Temporary cavity effect in gel is dismissed by "KE don't matter" people because gel is not tissue, accurate statement.
Find an example where someone took the time to take pics of a deer they shot with 10mm and the reply is "just one deer" or damage bigger than the bullet on entry is not the same as lungs, need to see the lungs. (actual replies)
I like deer meat and I've bowkilled a couple dozen.
Gun season opens soon and I'm taking a Delta Elite 10mm, not a bow.
Bullet is 155 XTP @ 1,400 fps (my chrono average) generating 675# KE at muzzle.
According to ballistics calculator that will have about 1,330 fps /608# KE at 18 yards, anticipated distance at which hopefully a deer will be shot.
If successful, I will see for myself whether 600# KE produces any tissue damage beyond the diameter of the bullet (temporary cavity effect that aint so temporary).
If no, then parroted generalization of "KE don't matter at handgun velocity" accurate enough. However, if there is 1.5 inch of pulverized lung tissue from a bullet that only expands to .65 then the generalization is mythbusted and I will have pics for peer (layperson)
review.Subsequent generalization parroted on internet will have to include a disclaimer like "KE don't matter from commonly used
handguns" cause it would not apply to someone carrying a Glock 20 or Delta Elite with ammo producing excess of 600# KE.fostereast
New member
I see you have no problem doing your part to help the caliber war along...
Did you read the quote i was responding to?
OldMarksman
Staff
Yes, and that note was rather inane.
My point that killing and lethality are not proper objectives of self defense, so the number of people killed is moot.
- Status