Pistol Caliber Effectiveness from a Medical Point of View

[manta49]

I have spent very little money on training and practice does not require a hefty financial investment. Take a course and then practice those key concepts at the range or at home. Go get a $50 airsoft pistol and some protective eye-wear and practice drawing and firing from retention. Make a day out of it, invite some friends over, everyone take turns attacking each other with Wiffle bats, have a few beers afterwards. Go nuts.

I would agree, it has to be interesting and fun or people won't stick at it.

 

[A pause for the COZ]

Thats why even after I have many options for a home defense gun. The 1st gun I used in that role is still on duty.
An old Remington 11-48 Semi Auto shot gun. Shaved to the legal limit.
loaded with 5 12ga 00 bucks
Not many would be able to continue an attack facing off with that old girl.

hmmm come to think about it. I haven't shot that thing in a while.
Some thing to do next weekend.

 

[AK103K]

Few people have the need interest time or money to train to that level.

If youre not willing to be proficient with what you carry, then really shouldnt be carrying a gun. You dont have to be the next Jerry Miculek, but you need to be reasonably proficient in your skills.

It's not about acquiring championship skills, it's about acting without thinking about it.

Realistically, tha't;s the only way one can expect to prevail in a violent defensive encounter.

Exactly.

Possibly, but few in the police or army for example train to that level. But they are expected to prevail.

Thats the government for you. Give you a couple of basics and expect the world. Although I imagine, the police in the US get a bit more firearms training than they do in the UK.

Not that Ive been very impressed with a lot of the cops (and military) Ive shot with over the years. Those who are into firearms, tend to be the ones who can shoot, and thats mainly because they too shoot all the time and put in the effort to be more than what is just expected of them.

Ive shot with people of all levels and skill sets. Those who shoot all the time, and with a more realistic mindset, are the ones who are usually ahead of the curve. Those who dont put in the time or effort, can expect to get out of it, exactly what they put into it.

Ive seen reasonably good recreational bulls eye shooters freak out, when you challenge them to put their pistol in their waistband or a holster, and then tell them on command, move off line, drawing and shooting as hard as they can go, as they go. If youre not practicing regularly and realistically, the skills are not going to magically appear when you need them the most.

Its like anything else that requires a skill, you need to put the time in to the point you can do it without thought.

 

[AK103K]

Thats why even after I have many options for a home defense gun. The 1st gun I used in that role is still on duty.

The gun I use in that role, is the gun I always have on. Its the one thats ALWAYS with me, and I dont have to go look for it.

Of course, if time permits, I have other things handy, and would certainly grab them first, but you know how that usually goes. When you really need something, you need it NOW. You arent likely going to have time to go looking for it, even if its just across the room.

 

[4thPoint]

The survival rate is very high indeed these days.
That is completely irrelevant to the question of defensive effectiveness.

I presume you are trying to say that surviving is irrelevant compared to stopping the cessation of hostilities?

If so, allow me to say it for you, "Whether or not an attacker is killed is inconsequential to the attacker being stopped from continuing his attack."

But I wasn't necessarily speaking only of shooting an attacker but of being the victim of a shooting. Being shot isn't necessarily a death sentence, as I posted.

A 90% survival rate would indicate that it's almost immaterial what bullet construction, weight, or manufacturer there is. Do the best with what you can, don't be afraid to spend an extra .50 or dollar to ensure the threat is stopped*.

Perhaps if you had not taken my words out of context you would have had a better understanding. But then, if you had a better understanding of what I wrote there wouldn't have been anything to say.


* The words not included and which allowed my words to be taken out of context.

 

[manta49]

If youre not willing to be proficient with what you carry, then really shouldnt be carrying a gun. You dont have to be the next Jerry Miculek, but you need to be reasonably proficient in your skills.

That depends on what you call reasonably proficient. I am sure there are plenty carrying firearms that haven't a clue. If you go down that road should people not be allowed firearms unless they have training.

Although I imagine, the police in the US get a bit more firearms training than they do in the UK.

I would say the police in this part of the UK get a similar amount of training as in America.

 

[Sharkbite]

Posted by RaySendero:
Quote:
I'll just stay with my 45acp and my strategy to, if anyway possible, make that 1st shot count.
At one time Rob Pincus recommended the .45. But read this.

At one time Rob said a 2" J frame was all that was needed and sneered at my 1911. I was teaching with him at Valhalla at the time. We had more then a few lively discussions on the subject of carry guns. Now he has drifted more to the higher capacity pistols....so have i

 

[dirtd0g]

If youre not willing to be proficient with what you carry, then really shouldnt be carrying a gun. You dont have to be the next Jerry Miculek, but you need to be reasonably proficient in your skills.

That depends on what you call reasonably proficient. I am sure there are plenty carrying firearms that haven't a clue. If you go down that road should people not be allowed firearms unless they have training.

I can see this becoming an acceptable "middle ground" in the US in some form or another.

Imagine if we handed driving licensure out the way many states dealt with LTCs. Fill out this form, pass a background check, get your license in the mail, go driving! Even if you have never even STARTED a car before!

 

[AK103K]

I am sure there are plenty carrying firearms that haven't a clue. If you go down that road should people not be allowed firearms unless they have training.

There are quite a few that dont have a clue.

As far as training goes, thats the responsibility of the owner, and no one else. If you screw things up, its all on you. Im not sure how many have really thought that part through though.

 

[A pause for the COZ]

Thats why even after I have many options for a home defense gun. The 1st gun I used in that role is still on duty.

The gun I use in that role, is the gun I always have on. Its the one thats ALWAYS with me, and I dont have to go look for it.

Of course, if time permits, I have other things handy, and would certainly grab them first, but you know how that usually goes. When you really need something, you need it NOW. You arent likely going to have time to go looking for it, even if its just across the room.

True here too, But I dont sleep with my carry piece on. So mine is not on all the time. Might poke me in the wrong place.

Besides the wife can shoot the shot gun if I am not home.

Also I have other options around too. Seriously though, Not so good about carrying in the house. I have tried, but it just does not work for me. So I am a planter.

Out side I open carry.
I am just weird I guess. and have seen to many Meth heads around snoopin.

Just in case:

This is on the back of my computer chair. Little armor never hurt any one.

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Old Marksman
That requires control in fast shooting--ie, less recoil.

The 10MM is contraindicated for that.

Really, there is nobody out there who can shoot a 10mm in a fast, controlled manner?

I see the argument more and more against larger and/or more powerful cartridge that they are "less controllable" but it seems to be ignored that there is and has always been an acceptable compromise between power and controllability. I think it's probably a pretty safe be that most people would find a full-sized gun in a small caliber like .22 Long Rifle to be far easier to shoot than a "service" cartridge like 9mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP. However, I've not heard many recommendations for people to start trading in their Glocks and Sigs for Ruger Mk. III's and Browning Buckmarks. The reason, of course, is that while a .22 rimfire is about the easiest common gun to shoot, the increase in power that larger calibers offer more than makes up for the sacrifice in controllability.

The real question, for me anyway, is at what point does controllability diminish to the point that the increase in power is no longer worth it? The answer to that question, I think, varies from person to person. I have no doubt that there are indeed people out there who simply cannot shoot anything larger than a 9mm with adequate speed and accuracy but I think there are probably also people who can shoot a .44 Magnum proficiently enough for it to be an acceptable choice for self-defense.

As far as the 10mm being "contraindicated" for fast, controlled shooting, I simply don't think that's the case for everyone. I know from personal experience (I own and occasionally carry a 10mm) that even with full-power ammunition from makers like Underwood and Buffalo Bore, I can shoot my 10mm with just as much, if not more, speed and control as I can a run-of-the-mill .357 Magnum through a medium-to-large-frame revolver (I also own and occasionally carry several .357 Magnum revolvers). Since there have been an awful lot of gunfights won with .357 Magnum revolvers over the last 80 years, I'd venture to guess that there are at least some people who can handle that level of recoil adequately. While the recoil of a 10mm may be too severe for some people, to say or imply that it is too much for everyone is simply incorrect.

 

[jmhyer]

dirtd0g said --
"I can see this becoming an acceptable "middle ground" in the US in some form or another.

Imagine if we handed driving licensure out the way many states dealt with LTCs. Fill out this form, pass a background check, get your license in the mail, go driving! Even if you have never even STARTED a car before!"





I don't really see that happening...at least I hope it doesn't. Driving is a privilege. It is well established that owning and using guns is a constitutional right that shall not be infringed.

But that's another topic for a different thread and section.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Webleymkv:

The real question, for me anyway, is at what point does controllability diminish to the point that the increase in power is no longer worth it?

For defensive purposes against human targets, any increase over the FBI penetration standard is worth nothing. A bullet that goes through the target has no advantage.

As far as the 10mm being "contraindicated" for fast, controlled shooting, I simply don't think that's the case for everyone.

Rob Pincus expressed it better than most:

Physics dictates that the 9mm is going to be a more manageable round (lower recoil) than the .40 S&W out of any particular firearm. So, no matter how much you train and how much you practice, everyone should be able to shoot a string of Combat Accurate 9mm rounds faster than they can fire a string of .40.

Emphasis added.

Of course, the 10MM is worse than the .40 in that regard.

I'd venture to guess that there are at least some people who can handle that level of recoil adequately. While the recoil of a 10mm may be too severe for some people, to say or imply that it is too much for everyone is simply incorrect.

It is not a matter of whether the recoil is "too much". The question is how many rounds can be fired with combat accuracy in a very short time.

Think four or five shots into the upper chest in one second.

Remember, if you do not happen to hit anything vital, all of that boom and blast means nothing.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

SOMEONE is choosing the distances for the conflict, then.

Yes, but it isn't going to be you.

I would consider myself lucky if an assailant decided to open up on me with a pistol at those ranges.

LOL, you don't get to choose your attacker's weapons just like you don't get to choose the conflict distance. Who says your attacker will have a pistol?

I have plenty of room to try and GTFO, find cover, call police. And, if he advances on my position across open ground his shots become more difficult while mine become easier.

Now you are just kidding yourself.

Now, if the assailant opens up on me with a carbine or shoulder fired weapon and all I have is a pistol it would be to his advantage if I tried to exchange fire with him.

It is his advantage whether you try to exchange fire with him or not. However, it isn't who has the most firepower that matters, but what is done with said firepower.

But, why would someone do that? I don't have enemies that want to kill me on sight. I doubt someone robbing me would shout, "give me your wallet" from 50-feet away and then start shooting... We're not talking combat, we're talking self-defense in the civilian world.

Yep, and people do indeed get shot beyond 50 in the civilian world. No reason to limit your skills as you indicate you have been doing. If you are as good as you claim to be, at short range, then you need to be expanding your capabilities.

MOST domestic cases of gun violence occur within 25-feet or closer.

Who says it will be a domestic?

Does this mean I don't take some shots at longer ranges? No! I like to see what I can hit and like to know how my CCW behaves at those distances. But I have yet to find a defensive pistol shooting course that covers long-range pistol shooting as a core concept.

You think pistol courses will determine the distance at which you will have a conflict?

I am not going to put more effort into preparing for the far-fetched and extremely rare incidents... Especially when, all things considered, preparing to fire my weapon under duress in the real world is already extremely unlikely.

So why are you preparing at all if it is all so unlikely? Apparently, it is just far-fetched, huh?

 

[Model12Win]

Say what you will, but the 10mm will do more tissue damage, with the right bullet, than any other common service cartridge. With the Glock 20, you also get 15+1 and with a high-quality magazine extension you can get 20+1.

A Glock 20 with high performance 10mm JHP loads, a tactical light, and night sights is perhaps the greatest home defense handgun ever devised and equally effective for CCW by those blessed with a frame large enough to carry such an impressive piece of hardware.

JMHO,

YMMV.

 

[jmr40]

I heard was that about "90% of all gunshot wounds are survivable; if you make it to the emergency room with a heartbeat you will likely survive."

The point of using a weapon for SD is to stop the threat, not necessarily to produce a non-survivable wound. While 90% may survive, the research says that most of the common handgun rounds, with the best HP ammo are all about 85-95% effective at stopping the threat with a solid hit. That is a pretty good track record. A long guns advantage is better accuracy and longer range. At close range I don't think handguns suck at all. A rifle or shotgun is usually preferable, but not always.

There has never been any research, testing or any other documentation that shows any of the common calibers used, 9mm, 40, 45, or either of the 357's, are significantly better than another. At least against human threats.

The larger calibers such as 357 magnum with heavy bullets, 10mm, 45 colt, or even 44 magnum don't offer any significant advantage over the best 9mm, 40, or 45 loads against humans. Their advantage comes into play for protection from larger animal threats or for hunting.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Model 12Win:

Say what you will, but the 10mm will do more tissue damage, with the right bullet, than any other common service cartridge.

One shot will do damage, but if it does not damage anything vital, that won't count for much at all. Do not confuse boom and blast at the muzzle with wounding effectiveness, or penetration into something behind the target with useful power.

What is vital is hidden, and hitting something that is hidden is largely a matter of luck, and that luck can be improved only by hitting more times.

A Glock 20 with high performance 10mm JHP loads, a tactical light, and night sights is perhaps the greatest home defense handgun ever devised and equally effective for CCW by those blessed with a frame large enough to carry such an impressive piece of hardware.

Personally, I would never even think of firing a 10mm inside the house. It would be among my last choices. I could don hearing protection, but my wife would have to do so too, and I would never consider exposing the dog to such permanent damage.

Way too much downside for such a small potential upside.

 

[DA/SA Fan]

OldMarksman. Now let me get this straight. You are saying that if a .4 inch projectile enters a BG's chest and mushrooms to .7something and has enough energy to blow a .7something inch plug of tissue out the backside and leaves a hole that size bleeding out, that the extra energy over a 9mm that stopped at 12 inches doesn't amount to anything useful? Also, I do believe that while there might be a difference in the speed of follow up shots, between a smaller caliber and a 10mm, the difference is not all that significant If you are 1. capable of handling the recoil in the first place. and 2.Practice enough to get as good as you can.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by DA/SA Fan:

You are saying that if a .4 inch projectile enters a BG's chest and mushrooms to .7something and has enough energy to blow a .7something inch plug of tissue out the backside and leaves a hole that size bleeding out, that the extra energy over a 9mm that stopped at 12 inches doesn't amount to anything useful?

Probably some, but for the immediacy of stopping, the question is one of how much.

For that purpose, one or even two shots in one lung probably do not have much immediate effect unless they happen to hit something vital.

What I am saying is that the kinetic energy that remains in a bullet that has passed through its target is wasted. That should be self evident.

Also, I do believe that while there might be a difference in the speed of follow up shots, between a smaller caliber and a 10mm, the difference is not all that significant If you are 1. capable of handling the recoil in the first place. and 2.Practice enough to get as good as you can.

The significance will depend entirely upon what is damaged, as Sharkbite pointed out in Post #21.

That will depend on luck, which will depend in large part on the number of hits.

When an aggressor is moving at five meters per second at close range, the number of hits will depend a great deal upon the speed of follow up shots.

 

[GEARHEAD_ENG]

We've all herd of stories of gun shot victims that were shot and the bullet missed the heart or vital by 1mm and survivied. So I guess 1mm can make the all difference depending on how "close" the shot is.

Sorry, I'm probably throwing more fuel in the fire.