View Single Post
Old 04-10-2011, 17:52   #47
Senior Member
fredj338's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 23,210
Blog Entries: 3
Originally Posted by GVFlyer View Post
I think that might have been a carry-over of the McNamara Rule that it was "better to wound than kill" that led to the replacement of the 7.62 mm with the 5.56 mm. In any event, after they force issued us the M9 Barettas, the joke was, "If you have to shoot someone with that thing, make sure you shoot him a lot".
Maybe, but the smaller rounds make more sense on the battle field logistically speaking. You can carry more ammo & it's cheaper for the DD to buy & ship. I am sure few soldiers who have used larger roudns are extatic over the 9mm or the 223, esp w/ ball ammo.
LEA are subject to budgets too. Also with smaller male & female officers, they don't handle bigger guns & heavier loads, one reason the 10mm never made it & why the 45 is pretty much a special units choice. Many depts go with a combo that offers balance in cost & shootabilty. I think the 357sig is more shooter friendly, especially in lighter guns, but either work if the guy pulling the trigger does their job. I use/carry them all in one form or another, so I really have no particular bias.
"Given adequate penetration, a larger diameter bullet will have an edge in wounding effectiveness. It will damage a blood vessel the smaller projectile barely misses. The larger permanent cavity may lead to faster blood loss. Although such an edge clearly exists, its significance cannot be quantified".

Last edited by fredj338; 04-10-2011 at 17:54..
fredj338 is offline