Light rounds in short barrels

Thanks - if you'd like to post that here, or on either our blog or FB page, feel free - I'll admit that it's beyond my computer skills.

Cheers!
 
Someone else's signature line puts it well, something like 'all else being equal bigger bullets are going to leave bigger holes, but all else is rarely equal...'

Find the round you can shoot amazingly well, and that's the round to carry!
Click to expand...

While that's true to a point, there is a balance that must be reached. For example, the vast majority of people can shoot a Ruger Mk. III quicker and more accurately than they can a Glock 17. The difference in terminal performance between a .22 Long Rifle and 9mm is such, however, that unless the Glock cannot be shot well at all, few people would advocate the Ruger Mk. III as a self-defense gun over the Glock.

The above is, of course, an extreme example. Between the major service calibers (.38 Special, 9mm, .357 Sig, some .357 Magnum loadings, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP) there is actually very little difference in terminal performance and ease of shooting will make a much larger difference than slight variations in ballistics. While this may seem like an obvious disclaimer, some people have a tendency to take things to their logical (or perhaps illogical) extreme.
 
Jepthai said:
"...It sounds like your argument is something like this: "ballistics is fun, but it has no value." I disagree with that implication..."
Click to expand...
I had no intention of implying that "ballistics...has no value". My intention was rather to indicate that - as Webleymkv stated, perhaps better than I;
Webleymkv said:
"Between the major service calibers (.38 Special, 9mm, .357 Sig, some .357 Magnum loadings, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP) there is actually very little difference in terminal performance and ease of shooting will make a much larger difference than slight variations in ballistics."
Click to expand...
Webleymkv and I are in violent agreement.

I've been interested in ballistics research since the late 1980s, following the Miami FBI shootout with Platt & Matix, and over the intervening 20+ years I've seen no empirical evidence that suggests any of the major service calibers is consistently more effective than the others. Nothing hand-held seems to produce reliable, consistent results with respect to shooting humans. This is not due so much to variability among the various calibers or manufacturers of ammunition, so much as variability among humans shot with it.

Your conclusions are reasonable - 'all else being equal', some calibers and rounds produce laboratory results that appear more effective than others. Learn to shoot "more effective" rounds if you can. But IMO the anecdotal evidence over the past 20 years from actual shootings tends to suggest that the first combatant who can score several vital hits on their opponent tends to win the gunfight.

Therefore, if you can shoot a 9mm like nobody's business but have issues in getting accurate follow-on shots off with heavyweight .357 magnum rounds, even though the latter measures out as a more effective round ballistically, in your hands the former is likely to be the better choice.

Again, just one guy's opinion.

Nice work with the graphs.

Doc
 
jephthai said:
What are the drawbacks to using only momentum?
Click to expand...

Taken to an extreme, it leads to the conclusion that a baseball being pitched by a professional pitcher is deadlier than a .223 rifle bullet, it has more momentum after all.
 
Doc Intrepid wrote:

Again, just one guy's opinion.
Click to expand...

Hey, I appreciate your contribution. Sometimes discussion online can seem colder than it really is. I don't mean to seem argumentative, and really I agree with you. I'll likely be carrying a mid-weight 38 special, as I said before ;).

That said, my inner geek won't let me ignore the possibility of running the numbers!

Thanks!
 
While that's true to a point, there is a balance that must be reached. For example, the vast majority of people can shoot a Ruger Mk. III quicker and more accurately than they can a Glock 17. The difference in terminal performance between a .22 Long Rifle and 9mm is such, however, that unless the Glock cannot be shot well at all, few people would advocate the Ruger Mk. III as a self-defense gun over the Glock.
Click to expand...

This idea makes lots of sense to me. It seems like an optimization problem, which I agree with everyone will be different for each person.

The Mk. III wastes performance in exchange for unnecessary accuracy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top