Posted by Nanuk: [(In response to "What do you mean by "shoot well"?)] For example I was shooting my new S&W 640 Pro and at 10 yards with 4 types of ammo I was grouping about a 6" pattern at 10 yards slow fire, for comparison my Glock 27 and I do a 2" group at the same distance.
While slow fire groups such a those might well help in the development of certain very fundamental skills, I cannot see how they would serve as a measure of merit in trying to assess how well one can put multiple rounds into a rapidly moving target quickly enough to stop a violent criminal actor before he can do serious damage.
I do not understand what you mean by negatives, there are trade offs and options.
I was referring to the effect of additonal recoil on the time between shots.
The 640 only has 5 shots, but I carry magnums, that sort of offsets the capacity provided you can make good hits.
This leads me to believe that a bullet of the same diameter that penetrates the same body parts will have little or no more effect fired from a magnum than from a 9MM semiauto.
Shooting my magnum snubbies through an IDPA match I actually shoot better and faster with Magnums than 38's.
That's amazing. How do you do against competitors with service semi-autos?
Don't get me wrong, I do not disagree with Mr Gomez.
Given the importance and rough equivalence of penetration and the fact that quick multiple hits on potentially multiple moving targets, the importance of fast shooting and a reasonable magazine capacity should be rather obvious.
The above-linked FBI report tells me that extra
donder und blitzen at the muzzle will not help much unless there is a need for additional penetration--say, in hunting, or against barriers rarely encountered in justifiable SD shooting.
The other variable is bullet diameter. It stands to reason that a larger diameter wound will have somewhat greater effect than a smaller one, and just maybe, a greater
immediate effect. From the above link:
Given adequate penetration, a larger diameter bullet will have an edge in wounding effectiveness. It will damage a blood vessel the smaller projectile barely misses.
But:
Although such an edge clearly exists, its significance cannot be quantified.
So, as you say, there are trade-offs. Do you want to trade slower fire and smaller capacity for larger bullets, given roughly the same, and adequate, penetration?
Each person has to decide for himself or herself. Personally, I would rather score some hits in the extremities and some hits in the boiler room on all of the dangerous attackers with a 9MM than score some hits on extremities with a .45 and end up with an empty firearm before the danger has passed.
Is the latter a risk? Well, that's why they sell several calibers, isn't it? It's a judgment call.