Overemphasis on caliber? Expect too much from a handgun?

men who stare at calibers.....

Since you like animal studies, check out the Thompson-LeGarde tests (which actually did happen). They shot steers! Bigger than goats! And the only bullets available in those days were FMJ and lead.

Their results played a big part in why we adopted the requirement for a .45 caliber pistol.
 
IMO, caliber is not as important as the combine velocity, weight, SD, and type of bullet.

The old traditional "softball" target ammunition for the .45 would have had the worst wound ballistics of almost any cartridge. Even a 9 mm, with a state of the art round would be more damaging than that subsonic FMJ. I'd say that a .357 in any weight, at full potential velocity would be more deadly than the old .45 colt black powder load.

Caliber isn't the answer, a well designed and powerful round is what causes tissue damage and disabling wounds.
Click to expand...

Yet at that time, the .45 Colt aquired a legendary reputation as a "man-stopper" when compared to other equally modern cartridges then available. From what I've read, shooting someone in the hip with that heavy bullet had a very dependable disabling affect.

Enough so that the .45 ACP was designed to mimic it's performance out of a semi-auto pistol.

Using modern powder, and modern bullets in each, the 9mm doesn't even begin to compare to the .45 Colt out of a revolver strong enough to handle it's potential.

And after all, comparing a modern 9mm to a load used 100 or so years ago, and claiming it to be better means...what?

When all else is equal, caliber can matter.

Daryl
 
Gee, they got a whole different idea on this thread over at the Glock board.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1240522

I think it's sorta strange that 9mm shooters say caliber doesn't matter, and that the 9mm is "just as good" as a .45 ACP...

but I can't remember ever reading or hearing anyone who shoots a .45 saying it's "just as good" as a 9mm.

Isn't that odd?

Daryl
 
Finally respondents are responding to the OP without judgment about goats and killing them.
This test was done a long time ago, I think it was called Thompson Le Garde or some other with live cattle and pistols from .32 to .45 caliber to see how "disabling" and "killing" power in a handgun caliber compared with live tests.

They'd shoot a beef cattle with these guns and wait to see how long it took for them to die.

The whole experiment was a brutal conclusion that most handguns cause extreme pain and discomfort on the beefs before they were slaughtered or died.

They'd shoot into the liver or the lungs or the heart and wait long minutes for the beef to respond and they were pretty much disappointed in the handgun calibers they were using.

This was before the .44 Magnum or .41 Magnum. I can't remember if the .357 was used but it was a disgraceful experiment with results justified only to the sole experiment and who knows what the guys shooting the pistols and handguns knew about shooting.

For me if I had to rely on a handgun to do significant damage to an attack or attacking animal I'd just stick with a .41 or .44 Magnum and laugh at the "hand rifle" handguns we have today in the "X" frame or Contender or whatever.

If I have to take an "X" frame or Contender to kill I might as well use my 1892 Winchester in .44 Magnum and be done with it.
 
Paper on the Thompson LaGarde Tests here:

http://unblinkingeye.com/Guns/TLGR/tlgr.html


Handguns are better than nothing. You can poke a hole in an animal, but the only 100% reliable kill mechanism is blood loss. When something bleeds out, it dies. Always.

What do you expect from a handgun anyway? The momentum of a fast ball equals the momentum of a 158 gr 357 slug. Batters now wear helmets and shin guards, because a hit to the head could cause a concussion. Even so, I have never seen a hit batter blown into the backstop as you see in movies. When I have seen guys hit, they crumple, and act like they are hurt. I have never been hit by a fast ball, but I have been hit by softballs in the infield. Those hurt bad and left bruises. And I crumpled and acted like I was hurt. Because, I hurt.

The momentum transfer of a handgun is nothing like the momentum transfer of a sledge hammer. Or an axe.

If it was not for the distance advantage you get with firearms, swords, axes, and polearms would be real popular. Those things actually cut people in two. Now that was stopping power. :D
 
Using modern powder, and modern bullets in each, the 9mm doesn't even begin to compare to the .45 Colt out of a revolver strong enough to handle it's potential.

And after all, comparing a modern 9mm to a load used 100 or so years ago, and claiming it to be better means...what?

When all else is equal, caliber can matter.
Click to expand...


Without wasting any time on arguing, what this shows is that unless you take a high caliber bullet and give it heavy weight and a high velocity, it is not as effective as a smaller caliber bullet that has more important qualities, such as velocity, SD, and quality construction. If you would prefer, we can compare the .220 swift to the .45 acp.

Caliber does not make the cartridge. Bullet construction, bullet weight, bullet velocity, and bullet sectional density are all more important than whether a round is .25 or.45.

Large bore is meaningless on it's own.
 
Other fallacies some gun owners also have.

1. MYTH: A gun can save your life.
TRUTH: Guns don't save people, PEOPLE save people. The gun is just a tool.
2. MYTH: I'm safe because I carry/have a gun.
TRUTH: False sense of security. Some times, even with a gun, you don't have the time or opportunity to use it.
3. MYTH: If I shoot someone, I will HIT them.
TRUTH: Even the New York City police department, after doing investigations of police officers discharging their weapon, found less than 30% HIT their target.
4. MYTH: Some gun owners/carriers think their threat(s) are equal to that of a police officer, and therefor must prepare and be armed similarly.
TRUTH: A police officer's actions are not ONLY defensive in nature, like yours. They must offensively be prepared for numerous scenarios that a private citizen armed for DEFENSIVE purposes don't have to do. e.g. walking up to a car they stopped; knocking on a residence's door with potential criminals on the other side. Breaking up fights, domestic violence, actively engaging drugged individuals, etc...
5. MYTH: "Die Hard", "Lethal Weapon", "Red-Dawn" are real life possible scenarios for the average person.
TRUTH: Get a life and stop being so paranoid.
 
Slamfire thanks for digging up that brutal experiment.

My first fire arm handgun was the Ruger Super Blackhawk New Model and I shot it with reloads over 7,000 rounds.

Before that I had an air pistol. After the Ruger I got a .22 SW 41.

I eventually got a .357 and used them for duty in Reno.

I got hit by a softball while in 4th grade and it bounced off my head without hurting me. But where the ball hits is probably more important. It hit me in the temple on the left side and I was not even in the game just a kid that got the ball struck into his head.

It did not hurt. The players and the audience were worried I was but nothing happened I just continued running along the grass field outside the game.

Now. Let us be critical. The handgun is designed to send out a bullet that is supposed to do a magical thing.

First of all, the handgun is extremely limited. A rifle is better we all agree. But we cannot carry rifles concealed. So we carry handguns. Or knives. Or just our fists if we know how to use them. Forget the Chinese nunchuckas and all that BS we watch on TV. Remember, a Boxer had taken on some Oriental trying his feet and hands and arms against him with NO AVAIL because the Boxer was basically impervious to the Oriental BS and waited to knock him out as soon as he was willing (the chicken s oriental with the "martial art" ability) to come into range.

Knives are a problem. One wielding a knife will likely get cut up in his famous knife act to defend or offend. Knives are pointless and have the double edge or edge that ends up cutting them.

Guns (handguns) need distance. If you or anyone is 6 or 8 feet from me with a gun and I am unarmed I can make a really bad day for you. The movies show idiots pushing guns into faces and heads let alone the fact the gun holder is under 6 feet. What nonsense. The time it takes for a human being to shoot a cocked gun at that distance is too slow before the unarmed individual has committed himself to disarm or kill with hands or feet or body.

Handguns ARE over-rated. People think a handgun will solve insecurity problems. Or knives or whatever. The gun needs distance. Close in the gun is stupid unless you have fired it before it is seen or recognized by the assailant as a threat.

Handguns are way over rated and unless one appreciates what the Colt SAA did from the holster without aligning sights the handgun lesson is not understood.
 
Ah yes, it's apparently time for the Goat Roping test affair to be trotted out and run around again ... :rolleyes:

Nonsense aside ... yes, over the course of working as a firearms instructor for 20 years, and during my much longer career in LE, in general, I came to the conclusion that a significant number of folks seem to expect too much from handguns and all too often seem to place an over-emphasis on caliber. Big surprise.

I've always felt that if folks were to place the same emphasis on everything else involved in the use of firearms as defensive weapons ... such as learning, improving & maintaining their shooting skills; developing their awareness & mindset; understanding how to optimally maintain their firearms chosen to serve as defensive weapons; learn how the body & mind react under elevated levels of stress, and come to understand what happens under the hormonally induced fear state; as well as their overall knowledge about shooting and the laws governing the use of force in defense of self or others ... they'd be much better off than spending that time debating caliber 'effectiveness'.

It's just a handgun.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I'm retired too from LEO and the Army.

If my Colt Frontier Six Shooter is residing on my hip (and you are not closer than 6 feet) and you are a threat you are dead. Period. No plastic auto. No Magnum. No high cap or auto rifle.

End of the handgun lesson ending with the Colt SAA handgun with the one who knows how to use one and to use all other handguns that aren't even close.
 
Finally respondents are responding to the OP without judgment about goats and killing them.

This test was done a long time ago, I think it was called Thompson Le Garde or some other with live cattle and pistols from .32 to .45 caliber to see how "disabling" and "killing" power in a handgun caliber compared with live tests.

They'd shoot a beef cattle with these guns and wait to see how long it took for them to die.

The whole experiment was a brutal conclusion that most handguns cause extreme pain and discomfort on the beefs before they were slaughtered or died.

They'd shoot into the liver or the lungs or the heart and wait long minutes for the beef to respond and they were pretty much disappointed in the handgun calibers they were using.

This was before the .44 Magnum or .41 Magnum. I can't remember if the .357 was used but it was a disgraceful experiment with results justified only to the sole experiment and who knows what the guys shooting the pistols and handguns knew about shooting.
Click to expand...

The tests were done in 1904, well before the advente of any "Magnum" round. The tests were conducted to determine if any handgun caliber had a clear advantage over the others. Remember, this was a time when smokeless powders were taking over and newer, "small, high velocity calibers" were being promoted as most effective. There was scant evidece if this was true or not, so they set out to determine it for themselves.

Not only beef cattle were used, but a small selection of cadavers to determine the effect of bullet impacts. These were used to judge the effectiveness of handgun calibers on bones and joints as well as being used as an energy pendulum.

Their results suggested the need (at that time) for a bullet of at least .40 caliber and a mass of 200grains or more fired at a "medium velocity" up to 1000 fps. The end result, of course, was the 230gr .45 ACP at 930 fps.

Size does matter
Despite high velocity giving a lightweight projectile the same striking energy as a larger, slower moving bullet, the larger bullet still offers advantages.

Most people are simply not very good shots with a pistol. the larger diameter aids us in striking vital structures that a smaller projectile on the same path might miss. Heavier masses tend to break bones when struck and are less easily deflected.

Bullet Design Is Crucial
All of the foregoing is valid if we're talking RNL, FMJ or similar solid bullets. Once we get to expanding bullets the differences begin to diminish. In most cases, however, the larger the expanding bullet, the larger the wound channel and the possible advantage of clipping something vital.

Arm yourself with a suitable centerfire handgun cartridge in a launching system you can shoot well. Focus your efforts on a quick, safe, reliable draw from concealment and the ability to hit your target(s) accurately each time. Then, no matter what caliber you use, you can make accurate and lethal hits with it.

Speed is fine, accuracy is final.
 
I laugh when I read about ballistics tests performed on animals. How many times have you seen a deer or other similiar animal live for quite a while after being shot with a 30-06? A person would be blown over dead instantly if shot with hunting ammo. Case in point, animals are a whole lot tougher than humans and any tests should be taken with not just a grain but a whole shaker of salt.
 
Double Naught Spy Maybe I'm waiting for someting I feel like responding too, maybe I have not checked this thread yet, ect...

shafter
Good point.

I've shot a couple of deer through both lungs with a .243 rifle and a 100 gr. bullet (deer inside 100 yards), in both cases the deer was able to run about 70 yards even though a bunch of their lungs had been turned into a pulp.

Regardless of whether you think the tests happened or not. I do believe it could take 8 seconds for a handgun bullet to "incapacitate" a goat with a double lung hit, based on my experience with rifles and arrows. A broadhead doesn't carry any shock value, but it does cut a 1'' plus diameter hole and a deer can run off 60-70 yards after taking a broadhead through both lungs.

Although animals are generally tougher than people, if a 150# goat isn't "incapacitated" for nearly 8 seconds after taking a lethal hit, what about a 200# armed aggressive guy attempting to kill me? Is it reasonable to believe a 200# aggressive person that's high on drugs would be equally tough?

If we can expect up to an 8 second delay (after a well placed shot) before aggressive action stops, then we might need to consider speed of accurately placed follow up shots?
 
Its thick in here today! Broad sweeping generalizations presented as solid fact. And not always factually based, either.

Are handguns underpowered? Sure. If you set your expectations too high. Shooting goats or cattle proves what bullets do to goats and cattle. Nothing else.

Are animals tougher than people? No. Not people sized ones, anyway. What they are is different. Animals don't know they are supposed to drop and die when shot. That's not true for most people. Its about mindset, as much as physical damage.

Study history (I know, its not "relevant" for a lot of folks), and you will find people who took multiple rifle hits and kept going. You will also find people stopped from hits that "should" not have stopped them.

In the US, we have had a good century of "training" thanks to our entertainment industry, about what people do when shot. And in the last half century, it has gotten more and more fanciful and less real. Also, we have fewer people who actually know what people do when shot, from experience.

The time it takes for a human being to shoot a cocked gun at that distance is too slow before the unarmed individual has committed himself to disarm or kill with hands or feet or body.
Click to expand...

This is the kind of statement that irks me. I'm sure the speaker believes it, and taken at exactly face value, it is true, but the impression it makes on others is not what is being said. The "unarmed individual commits to disarm or kill", before they take any action. So, yes, that happens before the human being can shoot a cocked gun, because it is done before the decision to shoot is made. Technically true, but it gives the impression that an unarmed individual can actually do their intended act before one can fire a cocked gun, and reality has proven otherwise man, many times.

The only time an unarmed attacker can carry out an attack before a cocked gun can be fired is when the shooter has not "committed" to shooting. Given average reaction times, of course.

The real problem of handgun "failure" is due to either the reluctance on the shooter's part to pull the trigger when necessary, or from unrealistic expectations, created in large part by the fantasy world of our entertainment industry.

Comparing merely the energy of a bullet to a baseball or whatever with the same energy ignores the vital component of force focused in a given area. A "bullet proof vest" may stop a base ball, or a .357 bullet, but will not stop an icepick.

There is no magic bullet. There is no magic gun. Simply having a weapon does not make you safe. Sheer mass has advantages that do not express well in formulas. Don't base your expectations on Hollywood fantasy or the algorithm running your video game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top