Stopping Power Bwaaaaahhhaaahaaaaa!
- Thread starter OBIWAN
- Start date
DanV1317 the scenario that you listed in your post has to be one of the silliest things I've heard about caliber effectiveness. Personally if somebody attacked me from behind and broke my knee and injuring my head then I would have bigger problems than what caliber I have at the moment. You seem to be implying that the assailant is unarmed. You will have a hard time defending yourself in court for shooting an unarmed man. In the vast majority of self defense shooting situations as JohnKSa pointed out, the most important aspect to surviving it is to hit your enemy more times in a vital area than he can hit you, not how much bigger your gun is. I'm in no way saying to carry a .32 or .25. Adequate penetration is very important. Calibers less than 9mm have been proven to be ineffective. The bottom line is that there isn't enough difference between 9mm, .40, and .45 to create a significant advantage in a defensive shooting situation.
Are you trying to imply that by simply having a .45 makes up for bad marksmanship. That is silly. If you miss and shoot somebody in the shoulder, the assailant is not going to cease hostile activity no matter if shot with a .45, a 30-30 or .25. Like I said above, if you are nearly unconcious yourself, due to the scenario that you listed, you have bigger problems than what caliber you're gun is. Missing your target even if using a "more powerful" cartridge is not going to help you.
Are you trying to imply that by simply having a .45 makes up for bad marksmanship. That is silly. If you miss and shoot somebody in the shoulder, the assailant is not going to cease hostile activity no matter if shot with a .45, a 30-30 or .25. Like I said above, if you are nearly unconcious yourself, due to the scenario that you listed, you have bigger problems than what caliber you're gun is. Missing your target even if using a "more powerful" cartridge is not going to help you.
FrankDrebin
Moderator
Well, Flint's a big town, can't you post some examples???
Carlos,
It's impossible to rule out the possibility that some folks might shoot better when the recoil gets heavier (I did say "almost certainly"), but the vast majority of people do not. If this were not true, there would be no rules in the speed shooting sports (such as IPSC) to penalize lighter recoiling calibers.
It's impossible to rule out the possibility that some folks might shoot better when the recoil gets heavier (I did say "almost certainly"), but the vast majority of people do not. If this were not true, there would be no rules in the speed shooting sports (such as IPSC) to penalize lighter recoiling calibers.
CJE, first off, we aren't talking about "other problems". I'm talking about the decision you must make to draw and fire upon this guy attacking you. You had time to only get one shot off. Do you want a 9mm or a 45 with a tad more expansion. That expansion could be the difference between hitting a vital organ or nerve to stop the guy and it not hitting anything important. So yes, one shot would be a caliber war. You have to be a good marksman. I'm not saying i'm going to carry a .45 and never practice, as opposed to carrying a 9mm and having to practice because it's a smaller caliber. You just picked apart the situation which i didn't sit here for half an hour and plan out, just wrote it up real quick to try to give somewhat of an idea for my question or statement or whatever it was that i was talking about like 3 days ago. This is my last post on this thread.
Dan,
The bottom line is that the people who have touted the .45 (or any other handgun caliber) as a spectacular "stopper" have been doing so without any hard evidence for their position. Because many of these people are in positions that render them trustworthy to the gun community, their OPINIONS have long been accepted as fact.
We're seeing in Iraq that even a torso hit from a centerfire rifle doesn't guarantee a stop--not even MULTIPLE hits. That kind of puts quibbling about the minor differences in handgun calibers into perspective.
Given that not even a rifle bullet has the oomph to take a person down with a less than perfect hit, it doesn't make sense to pick a handgun caliber under the false impression that a slightly larger bullet will make a difference. Go for capacity, go for shootability, go for minimum recoil recovery time. If you can make good center-of-mass hits, do it repeatedly and really fast you will have a much better chance of surviving. Anything that cuts down your speed, your accuracy or the number of shots you can take is not a good thing and could cost you your life.
I'm not going to set a caliber minimum, but I will reiterate that it is important to shoot something that has the capability to penetrate through and through on an ideal shot (straight on shot) made on the average human. That's important because you may not get an ideal shot and you will need that penetration to get to the vitals if you don't. I don't think rimfires are a good idea because they tend to be less reliable than centerfire.
The bottom line is that the people who have touted the .45 (or any other handgun caliber) as a spectacular "stopper" have been doing so without any hard evidence for their position. Because many of these people are in positions that render them trustworthy to the gun community, their OPINIONS have long been accepted as fact.
We're seeing in Iraq that even a torso hit from a centerfire rifle doesn't guarantee a stop--not even MULTIPLE hits. That kind of puts quibbling about the minor differences in handgun calibers into perspective.
Given that not even a rifle bullet has the oomph to take a person down with a less than perfect hit, it doesn't make sense to pick a handgun caliber under the false impression that a slightly larger bullet will make a difference. Go for capacity, go for shootability, go for minimum recoil recovery time. If you can make good center-of-mass hits, do it repeatedly and really fast you will have a much better chance of surviving. Anything that cuts down your speed, your accuracy or the number of shots you can take is not a good thing and could cost you your life.
I'm not going to set a caliber minimum, but I will reiterate that it is important to shoot something that has the capability to penetrate through and through on an ideal shot (straight on shot) made on the average human. That's important because you may not get an ideal shot and you will need that penetration to get to the vitals if you don't. I don't think rimfires are a good idea because they tend to be less reliable than centerfire.
FrankDrebin
Moderator
How many people who are in the business of killing (or at least dropping) other people for a living would prefer the .223 round over the .30-06 or .308? Or the .30 carbine over the .30-06? As a WWII guy about that one...Not a truck driver, but someone who's actually put a good deal of meat on the table.
Frank,
Read Audie Murphy's autobiography. He preferred to carry the Carbine over the Garand in at least some circumstances. I think he qualifies as someone who shot people with multiple calibers and also as someone who knew what he was doing with a firearm. I know for certain he used .30-06, .30 carbine, 50BMG and 8mm and .45ACP.
The point is that at least in some cases, Mr. Murphy felt that the quick handling and high capacity of the carbine was preferable to the punch of the Garand.
In another place he borrows a Thompson (pistol caliber) and uses it in preference of a rifle for one application.
Read Audie Murphy's autobiography. He preferred to carry the Carbine over the Garand in at least some circumstances. I think he qualifies as someone who shot people with multiple calibers and also as someone who knew what he was doing with a firearm. I know for certain he used .30-06, .30 carbine, 50BMG and 8mm and .45ACP.
The point is that at least in some cases, Mr. Murphy felt that the quick handling and high capacity of the carbine was preferable to the punch of the Garand.
In another place he borrows a Thompson (pistol caliber) and uses it in preference of a rifle for one application.
FrankDrebin
Moderator
The argument was about bullets and stopping power, not about what was a better gun for different situations. Read any of Don Burgett's books, or talk to him in person. When it came to stopping power, he had no use for the carbine and got rid of the Thompson that he carried as a squad leader as soon as possible in exchange for a .30-06.
And then the question has to be asked, what makes a soldier or police officer a good judge of bullet performance? It is not like they are doing a controlled study, and obtaining verifiable and repeatable data sets. Forensics are a poor indicater of a bullets perfomance, the variables are too great and are only done on dead people. Police mostly just follow the same information that we have, and draw their own conclusions. Of course in the case of military, they carry what the officers give them.
The military's standard round is a 9mm, so does that make them right? They are the only people in the business of killing in this country. Some of the special forces in the country carry different calibers, but the 9mm is by far the most popular.
And if the police are all good judges of a bullets performance, why do they disagree so much? Why do so many officers carry different calibers? Are the ones who carry 9mm all wrong? Are the .45cal people just believing the old information and living on hype? Are the .40cal and 10mm carriers just losers who are staking their lives on unproven rounds?
No, they all are based on preferance and compromise, and not one round can truly be considerd better than the next.
FrankDrebin
Moderator
Do you know of any departments that carry a .380 for a duty gun? A .25 acp? .32? .22 LR? Why not? They don't carry THAT many different calibers.
Actually the newer 30 carbine loadings are quite effective on humans
The older ones were not as bad as they were made out to be
More "gun rag" ballistics
But stop me if I am wrong....we were discussing handguns
Pitiful popguns that they are
Police officers "dropped" a lot of bad guys with their .38's, which are (arguably) at the lower end of the effective caliber range.
Bottom line...anyone that depends solely on caliber to "get the job done" is fooling themselves, but hopefully nobody else!
All handguns are a compromise...if we knew we were going to a gunfight we would all (almost all) carry rifles.
So, assuming you use at least minimally effective ammunition...arguing about the caliber is silly.
The older ones were not as bad as they were made out to be
More "gun rag" ballistics
But stop me if I am wrong....we were discussing handguns
Pitiful popguns that they are
Police officers "dropped" a lot of bad guys with their .38's, which are (arguably) at the lower end of the effective caliber range.
Bottom line...anyone that depends solely on caliber to "get the job done" is fooling themselves, but hopefully nobody else!
All handguns are a compromise...if we knew we were going to a gunfight we would all (almost all) carry rifles.
So, assuming you use at least minimally effective ammunition...arguing about the caliber is silly.
detructo4130
New member
...
que ball whizzed at assailant or baseball bat there would be more energy than a .45 and with the bat you never run out of ammunition.
que ball whizzed at assailant or baseball bat there would be more energy than a .45 and with the bat you never run out of ammunition.
FrankDrebin
Moderator
I thought were were talking about calibers...and someone before me brought up rifles.
What's the minimum effective ammunition that American police and military choose to use in their .380 duty guns?
Frank,
You posted: "How many people who are in the business of killing ... would prefer the ... .30 carbine over the .30-06?"
I gave you an example of a person who was given a rather impressive citation for being (among other things) very good at killing people and who preferred the .30 Carbine over the .30-06.
Mr. Murphy was certainly experienced enough to know the difference between shooting a person with the .30-06 and the .30 Carbine. And yet, in many situations he chose to use the .30 Carbine.
Your post implied that an experienced killer would never consider using the .30 Carbine round when the .30-06 was available, but that is obviously not true as evidenced by Mr. Murphy's use of the .30 Carbine.
You said: "The argument was about bullets and stopping power, not about what was a better gun for different situations."
If I read your objection right, you are saying that the .30 Carbine was superior enough in other ways that it made up for what you seem to feel is a severe "lack of caliber superiority." If that is what you intend to say, then you have made my point for me quite adroitly. Every firearm and caliber has many characteristics. To narrowly focus on one or two parameters (e.g. bullet diameter) is to be blind to the true situation.
You posted: "How many people who are in the business of killing ... would prefer the ... .30 carbine over the .30-06?"
I gave you an example of a person who was given a rather impressive citation for being (among other things) very good at killing people and who preferred the .30 Carbine over the .30-06.
Mr. Murphy was certainly experienced enough to know the difference between shooting a person with the .30-06 and the .30 Carbine. And yet, in many situations he chose to use the .30 Carbine.
Your post implied that an experienced killer would never consider using the .30 Carbine round when the .30-06 was available, but that is obviously not true as evidenced by Mr. Murphy's use of the .30 Carbine.
You said: "The argument was about bullets and stopping power, not about what was a better gun for different situations."
If I read your objection right, you are saying that the .30 Carbine was superior enough in other ways that it made up for what you seem to feel is a severe "lack of caliber superiority." If that is what you intend to say, then you have made my point for me quite adroitly. Every firearm and caliber has many characteristics. To narrowly focus on one or two parameters (e.g. bullet diameter) is to be blind to the true situation.
Yes Frank...there was one previous post that actually mentioned a bad hit from a rifle no being enough to "stop" a determined BG.
After a whole lot of sometimes animated discussion of handguns
(Some real interesting what ifs to try to shore up a pountless argument)
At which point you decided to continue to beat the dead horse with a rifle.
You obviously like to argue... I am not inclined to watch...that would be really silly!
Have fun people!
After a whole lot of sometimes animated discussion of handguns
(Some real interesting what ifs to try to shore up a pountless argument)
At which point you decided to continue to beat the dead horse with a rifle.
You obviously like to argue... I am not inclined to watch...that would be really silly!
Have fun people!
DanV1317, I didn't plan for a half an hour either. It's common sense. The scenario you stated just simply doesn't have any relevance to the topic of this thread. Are you completely ignoring your own post. In your post you listed the "other problems". All I was saying that if all of those things happened, it doesn't matter what gun you have, because you are already in bad shape. There are alot of aspects involved in surviving and most importantly avoiding gun fights. I wonder what the odds are of 1mm extra expansion hitting a vital organ. Even if the extra 1mm were to hit it wouldn't do much because you need a solid hit. I know commonly the expansion of a .45 is usually 1-2mm more than 9mm but you have to figure from the center of the bullet to the edge that is actually hitting the organ. It would range from half a mm to 1mm to possibly none. The bottom line is it doesn't matter what caliber you are using. If you don't hit your target you are not going to survive the gun fight.