Put the beast to bed (.45 vs .357 .... bonus .45 vs .40)

Still.

Ha. The debate continues......kinda makes me smile. When I was a young man back in the - well, let's go back 50 years - the gun mags (Guns, Guns and Ammo, etc.) were almost constantly in the .357/.45 debate, test after test. And here we are, nothing settled yet. Maybe in another 50 years.
Pete
 
The more people I know are walking around with compact .45's, the safer I will feel with my G23.
Click to expand...

I don't get it. Is this because the man in the steel suit is looking for people armed with compact .45s?? :confused:
 
How do you go from shooting metal plates, to determining .45 Commander and officer models aren't reliable. In what, performance? Feeding? Ballistics? OOh! I see another "scientific" study comin!:D
 
It's important to remember that in the real world, you just never know what effect a round will have on a human target. See the Ronald Reagan shooting for proof of this. The weapon used was a crummy .22 revolver. James Brady: hit in the forehead, down immediately, out of the fight. Washington D.C. police officer: hit in the stomach, down immediately, out of the fight. 81 year old Ronald Reagan: hit in the chest (transversely penetrated), unaware he'd been hit, able to return fire if so inclined.

Moral? Carry the most potent round that you can comfortably carry and confidently score hits with.
 
seeker two,

The .357 load was a factory 120 JHP. The .264 load was a 140 Sierra MKHP and a bunch of 4831. Ball 45 ACP was just generic 45 ACP Ball.

The plates were (are) fun due the 'instant feedback' you get from shooting steel.

My post was intended to generate a chuckle or two.

salty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top