Ruger GP100 in 44 spl.

[jackmoser65]

And Elmer Keith was shooting large and relatively tough animals, not smaller and relatively weak humans.

Deer, antelope, really? Maybe you should try actually reading Elmer Keith before making comments?

I guess I have to spell it out. The studies are flawed. Any study predicated on determining the percentage of gun fights ended with those magical one shot stops; not to mention relying on data procured from 3rd party sources involved in what is one of the most stressful situations a human can find themselves in; coupled with the opinions of medical workers not educated on the subject of terminal ballistics, who are focused on saving the victim's life, rather than determining the terminal effect of a given load, is automatically and fundamentally flawed. Yeah, I put more faith in information gleaned from actual experience in the hunting fields. Feel free to disagree, it's a free country.

Let me simplify it for the theorists:

Bigger bullets = bigger holes = quicker incapacitation, man or beast.

I'm done with the theorists.

 

[Theohazard]

Deer, antelope, really?

Elmer Keith wasn't just shooting deer and antelope. But game animals like deer, antelope, elk, etc. require handgun loads with more power for three main reasons: First, some of those animals are larger than humans. Second, most shots on those animals take place from much farther away than most self-defense gunfights occur. Third, even with animals that can weigh the same or less than a human, the body shape of those animals means that shots from certain angles often require more penetration in order to get to the vital organs.

Maybe you should try actually reading Elmer Keith before making comments?

I haven't read anything of his in a while, but when I first got into guns back in the late 80s I read plenty of stuff both by him and about him.

I guess I have to spell it out. The studies are flawed. Any study predicated on determining the percentage of gun fights ended with those magical one shot stops

Some studies are flawed. Some aren't. I assume you're referring to the Marshall and Sanow study? That one has shown to be very flawed. But that doesn't mean they all are.

Yeah, I put more faith in information gleaned from actual experience in the hunting fields.

OK, so you think that the best way to determine the performance of how a round will perform in a gunfight with a human is by relying on one single person's experience hunting game animals? And somehow that experience is much better than well-documented data from thousands of self-defense shootings? Got it...

I'm done with the theorists

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-theory

 

[eastbank]

my .44 special is a S&W md 624 four inch barrel and 240 hard cast GC at close to 1000 fps. i shot a medium size doe(100-110lbs) going away from me at a slight right angle at 45-50 yards at a good walk, i hit her on the left side of her anus and the bullet exited out the right front of her chest. she made about 30 yards before falling over. eastbank.

 

[Real Gun]

Nice shot!