Quote:
My knife instructor describes wounds into 2 categories....timers and switches.
Well put, but probably lost on most.
Duh. Yeah I guess you're the only one smart enough to get the "inside" reference.
Quote:
My knife instructor describes wounds into 2 categories....timers and switches.
Well put, but probably lost on most.
#77
manta49
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,412
Quote:
My knife instructor describes wounds into 2 categories....timers and switches.
You have a knife instructor.
It would be more accurate to say that any caliber is as likely as any other caliber to stop an attack with a non-critical hit.No caliber is likely to stop an attack with a non-critical hit.
DoubleNaughtSpy said:So why are you preparing at all if it is all so unlikely? Apparently, it is just far-fetched, huh?dirtd0g said: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.
Boncrayon said:I'd say minimum 9 mm, However, I think it's not so much the caliber, rather the type of ammo used in it. A ball type bullet can go right through parts of the body, whereas a specialty "knock-down/kill requires the bullet to open and doing its damage by the spinning motion to cut tissue. Others splinter in many directions that create a multiple organ trauma.
My ultimate CCW protection is the Hornidy Critical Duty which met all 12 requirements of the CIA. It will go through cloth and bone before opening in the chest cavity. The Critical Defense round only met 8 of CIA's requirements.
I pray I never have to use it on my Critical Duty on another human, unless my live or innocents around be are under deadly attack!
tin foil said:Valid point. I feel at the heart of the matter we think in terms of 'comfort level' as oppose to any quantum set of rules/theory's.DeShivs said:ANY gun is 100% better than having no gun. Having a multiple shot gun increases your odds greatly. Having a large caliber gun increases your odds, but by how much in the real world?
AK103K said:Knives usually dont get the respect they truly deserve, especially in the gun community, were the gun solves all problems.
JohnKSa said:The takeaway is that the differences in terminal performance are less impressive than many assume and therefore other selection criteria (shootability, rapid-fire accuracy, etc.) should be more heavily weighted than terminal performance.
Originally posted by Old Marksman
Quote:
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.
Originally posted by Old Marksman
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.
Originally posted by Old Marksman
Quote:
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.
The point I'm trying to make is that the power/controllability balance is something that cannot be easily quantified and, as such, we really can't make blanket statements about it. There are numerous factors that play into how controllable a given cartridge is including the size and weight of the gun, the strength of the shooter, the experience level of the shooter, the power of the particular ammunition being used, the bore axis of the gun, and the fit of the gun to the shooters hands just to name a few. Without knowing all of these variables, predicting how well a given person can shoot a given cartridge is pretty much impossible.
The FBI never tested, used, issued or trained with anything other than the 180gr@ 980fps FBI load.The first bureaucratic fix was to change to the 10mm FBI load (aka 10mm Lite), in the same guns.
Unfortunately it's even more difficult to quantify terminal effect in terms of actual stopping power/incapacitation time/incapacitation probability/etc. So difficult, in fact, that no one has managed to come up with an accepted method in decades of trying. Various people measure diameter, energy, momentum, power factor, penetration, wound volume, etc., and endlessly argue why one parameter is better than another one for predicting effectiveness. But when you ask them what the measured differences will mean in terms of how much faster someone hit solidly will stop shooting at you, or how many fewer shots it will take to incapacitate someone using a caliber that scores higher things get very quiet.The point I'm trying to make is that the power/controllability balance is something that cannot be easily quantified and, as such, we really can't make blanket statements about it. There are numerous factors that play into how controllable a given cartridge is including the size and weight of the gun, the strength of the shooter, the experience level of the shooter, the power of the particular ammunition being used, the bore axis of the gun, and the fit of the gun to the shooters hands just to name a few. Without knowing all of these variables, predicting how well a given person can shoot a given cartridge is pretty much impossible.
I can certainly see how one could improve one's score with the 10mm with practice, but how would that improvement not also carry over to the 9mm and keep the difference more or less the same?...you can reduce that difference to the point of not being important.
Sure, any time you can get something for essentially nothing, that's a good deal. The problem is that such a thing rarely happens. In the real world, you almost always have to give something up in order to get something.If you can get 5 shots on target and it takes you a tenth of a second longer with the 10mm I'd much prefer the 10.
Originally posted by JohnKSa
Quote:
The point I'm trying to make is that the power/controllability balance is something that cannot be easily quantified and, as such, we really can't make blanket statements about it. There are numerous factors that play into how controllable a given cartridge is including the size and weight of the gun, the strength of the shooter, the experience level of the shooter, the power of the particular ammunition being used, the bore axis of the gun, and the fit of the gun to the shooters hands just to name a few. Without knowing all of these variables, predicting how well a given person can shoot a given cartridge is pretty much impossible.
Unfortunately it's even more difficult to quantify terminal effect in terms of actual stopping power/incapacitation time/incapacitation probability/etc. So difficult, in fact, that no one has managed to come up with an accepted method in decades of trying. Various people measure diameter, energy, momentum, power factor, penetration, wound volume, etc., and endlessly argue why one parameter is better than another one for predicting effectiveness. But when you ask them what the measured differences will mean in terms of how much faster someone hit solidly will stop shooting at you, or how many fewer shots it will take to incapacitate someone using a caliber that scores higher things get very quiet.
Originally posted by JohnKSa
On the other hand, when talking about controllability, it's reasonably easy to shoot a couple of drills with each caliber/platform and compare the times and accuracy to determine if one caliber/platform combination is noticeably superior or inferior. In fact, one can not only decide which is superior or inferior, one can even quantify the difference.
For example, last year, I shot the same match with two very similar guns, one chambered in 9mm and one in 10mm. The score (combined time and accuracy penalties) with the 10mm gun over the identical course of fire was 34% worse than the score shot with the 9mm gun.
Originally posted by JohnKSa
Quote:
...you can reduce that difference to the point of not being important.
I can certainly see how one could improve one's score with the 10mm with practice, but how would that improvement not also carry over to the 9mm and keep the difference more or less the same?
Quote:
If you can get 5 shots on target and it takes you a tenth of a second longer with the 10mm I'd much prefer the 10.
Sure, any time you can get something for essentially nothing, that's a good deal. The problem is that such a thing rarely happens. In the real world, you almost always have to give something up in order to get something.