Is bigger really better?

[tntnixon]

I carry a eighty-eight Magnum.

It shoots through schools.

Can't believe they don't have the most effective load listed for those. Probably a 7000gr Federal Hydrshok.

[Guest cheez]

It is interesting that the three top calibers for one shot stops are the 357, 40 S & W and the 45 ACP

[SL1M]

It's the indian, not the arrow.

I'd go what I can shoot accurately. I either carry my P30 or P2000sk in 9mm(both with LEM), depending on the situation. I have .45's but I don't think they are necessary for their frame size or limited ammo capacity. Modern JHPs work very well and I wouldn't feel outgunned with any of the service calibers (9mm, .40, .45).

I have some qualms about having the XD as a carry gun. All 9mm Glocks and all M&Ps are gtg btw. PM me on why the XD is not an ideal carry piece, as not to derail this thread.

Edited June 2, 2010 by SL1M

[Guest Bluemax]

It is interesting that the three top calibers for one shot stops are the 357, 40 S & W and the 45 ACP

I found that interesting as well,: not that anything is wrong with these calibers but I can't figure out why they would out perform the 44 mag or the 10 mm ???

[tntnixon]

I found that interesting as well,: not that anything is wrong with these calibers but I can't figure out why they would out perform the 44 mag or the 10 mm ???

From what I've read, it's not how much energy a round delivers, but where in the body cavity it delivers most of it's energy. Deliver the energy too early=poor results. Deliver energy too late= poor results. Deliver the energy in just the right spot (even if it's less enegy)=priceless(and devastating).

[Guest Jamie]

I found that interesting as well,: not that anything is wrong with these calibers but I can't figure out why they would out perform the 44 mag or the 10 mm ???

Probably has something to do with the 44 and 10mm producing more power than human tissue can absorb... so it just blows on through without sticking around to do any extra damage.

Think about it this way; if you stand a 1/2 inch thick pine board up on it's edge, then shoot it with a .22 short, you'll probably knock it over every time.

Shoot it with a .223, however, and it may just keep standing there most of the time. The bullet just blows through it too quickly to transfer enough energy to push it over.

J.

[Smith]

Here's a better chart with various bullets per calibers. https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_4McV2qH6r_NDM3ZGE3NmUtNTU1OS00YzA0LTliMTEtOWZhMTdhNjJjNTIy&hl=en

[mikegideon]

Probably has something to do with the 44 and 10mm producing more power than human tissue can absorb... so it just blows on through without sticking around to do any extra damage.

Think about it this way; if you stand a 1/2 inch thick pine board up on it's edge, then shoot it with a .22 short, you'll probably knock it over every time.

Shoot it with a .223, however, and it may just keep standing there most of the time. The bullet just blows through it too quickly to transfer enough energy to push it over.

J.

I've heard marshall and sanow's methodology questioned more than once. I've read a lot on the fly, but recall the accusations were about data analysis.

[Oh Shoot]

...

I have some qualms about having the XD as a carry gun. All 9mm Glocks and all M&Ps are gtg btw. PM me on why the XD is not an ideal carry piece, as not to derail this thread.

Au contraire.

The XD 9 SC is a perfect carry weapon.

Conceals well and holds plenty of rounds, and no Glock Butt when reholstering.

- OS

[mikegideon]

Au contraire.

The XD 9 SC is a perfect carry weapon.

Conceals well and holds plenty of rounds, and no Glock Butt when reholstering.

- OS

... and you can carry it mexican style

[Oh Shoot]

... and you can carry it mexican style

Hell yeah. Them XD SCs are versatile, I tell ya.

- OS

[Guest Jamie]

I've heard marshall and sanow's methodology questioned more than once. I've read a lot on the fly, but recall the accusations were about data analysis.

I'm not arguing the data, or anyone's methodology, one way or the other...

However, I have seen video of a couple of rednecks having a shoot-out with .44 mags... They both crawled around and returned fire after having taken more than one round each. They did so for quite a long while, 'til one of them eventually expired. Probably from blood loss.

My previous explanation is about the only reason I could come up with for them being able to do that.

J.

[mikegideon]

I'm not arguing the data, or anyone's methodology, one way or the other...

However, I have seen video of a couple of rednecks having a shoot-out with .44 mags... They both crawled around and returned fire after having taken more than one round each. They did so for quite a long while, 'til one of them eventually expired. Probably from blood loss.

My previous explanation is about the only reason I could come up with for them being able to do that.

J.

Makes sense to me. Sounds like some bullet design needs to happen.

[Guest Jamie]

Makes sense to me. Sounds like some bullet design needs to happen.

Yep. But I also suspect there's also a "window", where there's too much power/velocity/whatever for human anatomy to absorb and transfer to other areas, but not enough to have the secondary effects that you would get with a rifle bullet or other extremely high-velocity projectile. A sort of no man's land where nothing works particularly well, until you get one side or the other of it.

J.

[mikegideon]

A frangible would have to be nasty with that much snort behind it.

[G27]

A frangible would have to be nasty with that much snort behind it.

Haha, nice.

[Smith]

Makes sense to me. Sounds like some bullet design needs to happen.

A frangible would have to be nasty with that much snort behind it.

If you look at the chart I posted you will see that effectiveness is greatly influenced by bullet design. One stops ranged from low 80's to mid 90's on most good calibers depending on bullet design. I think that is directly related to the factors you are talking about and the designs ability to maximize the potential of different calibers.

[molonlabetn]

Yes bigger is better... but skill and technique can make up for some deficiency in 'caliber'.

[JAB]

That first chart shows both the .32acp (at 66%) and .380 (at 71%) as having better 'one shot stop' percentages than standard pressure .38 Special (65%). Heck, the .44 Special (at 76%) doesn't have the .380 beaten by much, according to their numbers. .38 Special +P (at 80%) actually beats the .44 Special. 40 S&W (94%) comes in just one point below a 30-30 (95%) - but would you think a .40 pistol would be as effective on a whitetail deer as a 30-30 rifle? Finally, I see that by the chart in question, a friggin' .308 (98%) is only about two percentage points higher than a .357 (96%). Now, .357 is one of my favorite cartridges but to say that it is comparable in one shot stop capability to a high powered rifle? Sounds like more data is needed.

That chart says three things to me:

1. There are lies, damned lies and statistics and

2. Velocity and energy numbers don't always tell the whole story of what will happen in any given situation nor do those numbers necessarily have any direct correlation with how any one assailant might react (if I shoot once at an attacker and miss but the attacker stops the attack and runs away, is that not a one shot stop?) and

3. While taking 1 ad 2 into account, I still believe that a .380 or a .32 can be effective SD weapons.

Edited June 3, 2010 by JAB

[mikegideon]

That first chart shows both the .32acp (at 66%) and .380 (at 71%) as having better 'one shot stop' percentages than standard pressure .38 Special (65%). Heck, the .44 Special (at 76%) doesn't have the .380 beaten by much, according to their numbers. .38 Special +P (at 80%) actually beats the .44 Special. 40 S&W (94%) comes in just one point below a 30-30 (95%) - but would you think a .40 pistol would be as effective on a whitetail deer as a 30-30 rifle? Finally, I see that by the chart in question, a friggin' .308 (98%) is only about two percentage points higher than a .357 (96%). Now, .357 is one of my favorite cartridges but to say that it is comparable in one shot stop capability to a high powered rifle? Sounds like more data is needed.

That chart says three things to me:

1. There are lies, damned lies and statistics and

2. Velocity and energy numbers don't always tell the whole story of what will happen in any given situation nor do those numbers necessarily have any direct correlation with how any one assailant might react (if I shoot once at an attacker and miss but the attacker stops the attack and runs away, is that not a one shot stop?) and

3. While taking 1 ad 2 into account, I still believe that a .380 or a .32 can be effective SD weapons.

Marshall and sanow is a compilation of actual shooting statistics. The methods have been questioned. I don't put as much stock in them as some do... like chuck hawks

[tntnixon]

That first chart shows both the .32acp (at 66%) and .380 (at 71%) as having better 'one shot stop' percentages than standard pressure .38 Special (65%). Heck, the .44 Special (at 76%) doesn't have the .380 beaten by much, according to their numbers. .38 Special +P (at 80%) actually beats the .44 Special. 40 S&W (94%) comes in just one point below a 30-30 (95%) - but would you think a .40 pistol would be as effective on a whitetail deer as a 30-30 rifle? Finally, I see that by the chart in question, a friggin' .308 (98%) is only about two percentage points higher than a .357 (96%). Now, .357 is one of my favorite cartridges but to say that it is comparable in one shot stop capability to a high powered rifle? Sounds like more data is needed.

That chart says three things to me:

1. There are lies, damned lies and statistics and

2. Velocity and energy numbers don't always tell the whole story of what will happen in any given situation nor do those numbers necessarily have any direct correlation with how any one assailant might react (if I shoot once at an attacker and miss but the attacker stops the attack and runs away, is that not a one shot stop?) and

3. While taking 1 ad 2 into account, I still believe that a .380 or a .32 can be effective SD weapons.

You can go ahead and throw out the rifle data, not because it's not true, but because of the difference in situations where one would use a rifle vs. a pistol. Of course you can compare the rifle data to other rifle data and pistol vs pistol, but not rifle vs pistol because of distance (I doubt that a .308 was used at 5 yards).

[guyandarifle]

I've never believed you could control the variables enough to make anything other than some generalities with that kind of data. It's nobody's fault and I don't think anyone is being dishonest but you're trying to make sense out of chaos after the fact. You can have two different people hit in exactly the same place by exactly the same round and still have wildly differing results. Anyone that's hunted much knows this. One deer (or whatever) went down DRT and yet another shot, that damned if you can tell was any different, and you've got a 75yrd (or whatever) tracking job.

If I've got ONE shot that could be the difference between me seeing the sunrise tomorrow and the choice is X caliber over Y caliber then yeah, I'm going to choose bigger every time unless prevented from so doing. (like having to choose a mouse gun or nothing)

I'm not interested in arguing statistics and the finer points of data gathering and assessment with my rear on the line. What anyone else is comfortable defending their tails with is up to them.

[Guest Jamie]

(I doubt that a .308 was used at 5 yards).

Why? If you threaten me at 5 yards, and I have a .308 in hand... guess what you're gonna get shot with?

It's quite possible some damn fool "broke into the wrong rec room", to quote Burt Gummer, and got a close-range dose of .308.

I do agree that rifle info shouldn't be in a handgun shooting study though, even though it is an interesting comparison.

J.