Then why not step up to 10mm or 460 Rowland?I don’t care if the one shot effectiveness is improved by one tenth one percent...I’ll take it.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Then why not step up to 10mm or 460 Rowland?I don’t care if the one shot effectiveness is improved by one tenth one percent...I’ll take it.
Then why not step up to 10mm or 460 Rowland?
Then why not step up to 10mm or 460 Rowland?
Well you're not the person I was quoting but sure it counts for you.Sometimes I carry a 44 magnum snubby with hot 180grn or 200grn JHP's does that count?
That would make sense if there were absolutely no other variables affected by the choice. But taking a 0.1% advantage that costs you 10% in terms of accuracy and speed combined would be a truly terrible tradeoff.I don’t care if the one shot effectiveness is improved by one tenth one percent...I’ll take it.
To be more accurate, you provided some rationale why the difference might be undetectable.I have illustrated how it could be practically significant, in some particular types of cases.
To be more accurate, you provided some rationale why the difference might be undetectable.
Then why not step up to 10mm or 460 Rowland?
As you say, it is a long conversation. I confess that I am not re-reading the entire thread each time I respond to someone to ensure that my responses cover all of the posts that person has made so far in the thread.JohnKSa, this has been a long conversation. That's true for my last couple posts. I'm talking about earlier when I discussed the possibility of non-vital hits to bone, muscle, connective tissue etc. where differences in destructive capabilities might come into play. This also overlaps with entangled fights where getting a shot into someone's arm, shoulder, thigh, pelvic girdle, etc. might be your only hope. That was part of the non-isolable data.
... Here is the response I made to your initial comment about circumstances where it "might make a difference".
"If there were such a difference and if it were practically significant, how could it be undetectable?"
TunnelRat, this is part of the same reason that people tend to carry small CCW guns instead of full-sized service pistols. There are limits to what people can comfortably carry around all day, every day. Guns in 10mm or any of the .45-caliber cartridges tend to be larger.
A major claim for .40 S&W was that it could be had on the same frame as 9mm. I think that's fine when people are talking about full-sized service guns. When we drop down to small CCW guns, notice how many more people start complaining about snappy recoil. I imagine that would be much more pronounced with "compact" 10mm, .45 super, etc.
Even when we drop needs like concealment, there are practical limits to what a lot of people will choose to carry. For instance, let's consider woods carry in cases where the handgun isn't being used as a primary hunting tool. Then let's think about steel revolvers, where both power and weight can really get up there. I could tote around an XVR but I don't. I tend to cap out on an N-frame or Redhawk with six inches of barrel. Even then, I'd be more likely to choose an L-frame, GP-100, or a polymer semi-auto in 10mm.
These things are only "problems" if one refuses to accept the fact that there is no evidence that terminal effect differences in the service pistol performance class results in a detectable effect on real-world gunfights and continues to operate under the unshakeable assumption that there is a detectable effect.... and the answer to that question is the data problems I discussed.
This is all needlessly complicating something that's very simple. There are two cases. One simple, one even simpler.For instance, can anyone accurately isolate defensive shootings involving shots to areas which were non-vital but still still stopped the attack, and reference by those which involved entangled fights or point-blank shootings?
I'm not sure exactly but John keeps saying something about a difference in terminal ballistics not being detectable. If only we had a few more posts about that.
I'm not sure exactly but John keeps saying something about a difference in terminal ballistics not being detectable. If only we had a few more posts about that.
... If anyone has any evidence that terminal performance differences within the service pistol class make a detectable difference in real-world gunfights, let's look at it and discuss it. If there isn't, as we all know is the case, then that gets us to the other even simpler case.
...
Seems pretty simple when you consider that very small differences that can sometimes be detected in a carefully controlled lab testing scenario aren't being reported as something that's "detectable" in actual OIS incidents outside the lab.
Yes, back in '89 it was proposed that even a small possible "advantage" of a 1% difference might be useful, sometime, somewhere, in some incident, and if it was, then it was worth it. Just in case.
However, I'd rather work on improving, increasing and maintaining shooter skills and the ability to function under duress, myself, as those qualities are usually reported to matter more often in street conditions outside the lab.
Folks, a "miss" of several inches may easily make moot a 1% larger expanded diameter. If you can't put it where it matters most, does it matter in the right way?
Being able to avoid freezing at the wrong moment, or getting stuck too long in the Observe part of the OODA Loop, or going "blank" and being unable to draw upon skills because they aren't sufficiently ingrained and properly practiced, etc, etc. All these things, and more, may likely be more critical to being able to do the right thing, at the right moment, in the right way ... than obsessing and worrying over perceived caliber nuances which might not ever be consistently detectable outside of a lab.
Remember, the same guy who said back in '89 that a theoretically potential 1% advantage may be a good thing also said that it's counter productive to ignore either lab or street results, but to carefully consider info obtained from both in order to try and make informed choices.
So ... a difference may be detectable in the lab, but not in the street. What's the boggle?
It is a fundamental rule of the internet that all single-caliber questions inevitably devolve into caliber wars discussions. (Usually within five posts.)PatientWolf said:In the two sentence OP, I must have missed the part that asked which cartridge is better. I only saw where it asked if the .40 was going away, and to that I would say the answer is no. I don’t see anyone throwing away .40 pistols.
If the question is about the supposed decline of a cartridge, seems to make sense to discuss it in the context of other cartridges because no cartridge exists in a vacuum.In the two sentence OP, I must have missed the part that asked which cartridge is better. I only saw where it asked if the .40 was going away, and to that I would say the answer is no. I don’t see anyone throwing away .40 pistols.