Very interesting thread on glocktalk.com

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Duke City Six

New member
I hope it's okay to reference this here. I'm certainly no expert on this subject, and I'm not taking sides, but I found this to be interesting reading.

The sub-forum is "Caliber Corner," the poster is "Lookin4U," and the thread title is "Observations From Actual Shootings." It's originally dated 01-02-2010. Edit: It's many pages back, so I found that the easiest way to find it is to simply google the title.

If it has already been referenced here, my apologies.

P.S. I don't yet know how to post a link.:)
 
Last edited:
The information posted in that thread may be interesting.... but it is largely, maybe entirely, irrelevant in my mind, considering the anonymity and "newness" of the poster.

I could post anything that was said in that thread and it would be equally believable, and entirely fabricated.
 
Okay,
So it's not THAT interesting, and maybe it's irrelevant.

Some of the later posts in the thread sort of "flesh out" the discussion.;)

It was just a whim. Hope I didn't waste anybody's time.
 
Some of the later posts in the thread sort of "flesh out" the discussion.

It was just a whim. Hope I didn't waste anybody's time.
Click to expand...

No time wasted at all. That why we're here. Post things and talk about them.

We just all don't believe them all.;):)
 
Thanks peetza.

This forum seems like a new home to me. For now, all the others are secondary and I just lurk in them from time to time. TFL is the BOMB!
 
Last edited:
So, according to him, there is no advantage to a .45 ACP JHP over a 9mm FMJ for self defense.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

This goes against every study I've ever read. I'm calling BS.
 
OK. Just for the sake of arguement lets say we are all perfect shots and can see inside the targets to the vital organs. If we place every shot perfectly then yeah, maybe one could say that a 9mm FMJ would resolve the issue the same as a modern .45 HP or JHP.

Now should perchance this happen I would still rather use a .45 JHP from the pure standpoint of a projectile that becomes ~.75 with jagged edges would do more damage to the effected area than a projectile of .355 that is nice and smooth or maybe flat pointed to some degree.

Now reality. I cant even make those video games that let you do all that fancy see inside your target stuff work 100% of the time. So for me the added margin of error of .4 inches well lets say I'll take all the help I can get if I ever actually have to defend myself.

Radioman
 
There have been two books called "Handgun Stopping Power." These guys studied police records from all over the country. A one shot stop by the various rounds has been studied. The shootings themselves have also been studied as to where the bullet hit and damage done, circumstances etc. The book is a comprehensive study. Their conclusions may not be the be all end all but you have to give some credence thousands of actual shootings.
I had the first book and the best one shot stopper in actual shootings was the .357 Magnum with 125 grain JHP's at 96%. I think it may still be the one to beat.The .45 with ball ammo was 65%. With Hydroshocks it was in the high eighties I believe.
The guy on that forum seems to be off base in my opinion saying various rounds cause the same damage. There's little mention of hollowpoints, soft points or any other type bullet. Bullet type will change the amount of tissue damage. I'm glad there were some people intelligent and knowledgeable enough to call him on it.
 
Last edited:
That was a great read, thanks for posting the link to that thread. It confirms what I have seen also.

Thanks
 
So, according to him, there is no advantage to a .45 ACP JHP over a 9mm FMJ for self defense.
Click to expand...
Bwaha! The truth comes out! :D

I've read so many conflicting studies on handgun wounding effectiveness that I've come to the following conclusions:

  • Carry the most powerful, accurate, reliable gun you can.
  • If you have to choose between power and accuracy, choose accuracy.
  • If you have to choose between any other factor and reliability, go with what's reliable.
  • Carry the best ammunition you can get for that gun.
  • Stop reading about comparative ballistics and spend that time on the range.

This is how I ended up preferring .357 K-Frames as carry guns. However, I also have several guns in 9mm and .38 that are also reliable tack-drivers, and I'd rather have one of those than some oddball race gun that only feeds 95%.
 
caliber issues again

Tom S is correct. There is a large amount of conflicting information, some of it data, most is opinion. The NYPD has maintained an extremely large database of cop/perp shooting incidents. One of their major findings was that shot placement trumped every other factor in ending the gunfights.
As Tom S said, given adequate power choose accuracy and reliability over all other considerations.
 
It is easy to spot opinion from fact on these boards. Fact is established by actual observations, not by theory.

The OP on the glock board simply related his observations. This is how facts are established.

Theories are a good basis to start on, but when theories are disproved through fact, they should be discarded.

For those of you who responded that the OP was 'bullspitting", do yourselves a favor and go back and reread his postings. This was valuable information he shared with us, much more valuable than you're opinions for these types of discussions.
 
NIght Sleeper said:
It is easy to spot opinion from fact on these boards. Fact is established by actual observations, not by theory.

The OP on the glock board simply related his observations. This is how facts are established.

Theories are a good basis to start on, but when theories are disproved through fact, they should be discarded.

For those of you who responded that the OP was 'bullspitting", do yourselves a favor and go back and reread his postings. This was valuable information he shared with us, much more valuable than you're opinions for these types of discussions.
Click to expand...


I think you're overlooking the simple possibility that the "experiences" could be entirely fabricated.

That's the whole point. We have no idea who that poster really is. We have no way of knowing how much of those posts are fact vs fabrication, opinion vs science or assumption vs reality. We also have no way of knowing what type of background the OP in that thread has that would validate his opinions.

I'm not about to read through 10 pages of thread to find out either, and that leaves me with only the information in his public profile... which is ZERO. Hence, my opinion of him is, zero.
 
"but it is largely, maybe entirely, irrelevant in my mind, considering the anonymity and "newness" of the poster."


:confused::rolleyes:

So...

You're anonymous, and compared to me in time on board AND post count, you're a newbie.

So I should discount anything you say here?

What kind of bogus crap is that?
 
Mike Irwin said:
You're anonymous, and compared to me in time on board AND post count, you're a newbie.

So I should discount anything you say here?

What kind of bogus crap is that?
Click to expand...

It's not bogus crap at all, Mike. In fact, we all do it everyday in real life, person to person interactions.

Scenario:

You're in a gun shop. Some guy that you've seen in there 2 or 3 times in several months with whom you have not exchanged more than a few sentences of conversation, comes in and says, "Hey, they've just developed a new 45 caliber pistol cartridge that produces 2500fps muzzle velocity but has a damper system that makes it recoil like a 9mm."

How are you going to take that claim?

What if it was Glenn, Pax, Rich Lucibella or even a long time, well-known, more or less level headed poster like PlayBoyPenguin that made the claim?

Would it not INSTANTLY add credibility? Sure, you might still doubt it but it's not the same as some random guy on the street. You would be much less likely to dismiss it out right.


As for me, should you discount anything that I have to say here? That's up to you. I have over 5000 posts, of which you have read more than a few, on which to make that decision.

Post count does not make authority or add "instant" credibility. It builds a picture by which the poster can be judged, just like real life interactions.

If I have any credibility, it is because of the content of what I have said. 5000+ posts. More than enough chances to say stupid things and wrong things.... and I've done both. Anyone who posts frequently has.

Now, some new guy who shows up and sees that you have 20k+ posts should in no way give that any credibility but me, well, I've seen a few hundred maybe a few thousand of your posts. Therefore, I have a basis on which to form an opinion of you and your knowledge base. Someone with 50 post, of which I have read like 5, and who has NO public profile information to back up their assertions has NO credibility in my eyes. Particularly when their assertions tend to disagree with those who DO have credibility.
 
Last edited:
Simple time of service or post count does NOT add credibility to anyone, myself included.

There are more than a few people here with long service and high post counts who are, in my estimation, so FOS that their eyes are brown.

There are more than a few people here who are anonymous, with low post counts and who are recent arrivals who are far more credible.

The nature of one's comments (new or old), the manner in which they are delivered, the poster's overall tone...

Those are just a few of the things that add veracity to a poster. Not simply their time of service.

Oh, and anyone who takes my pronouncements as gospel simply because I have 21K posts, have been here for a decade, and use my real name is... well... an idiot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top