Just killing Thanksgiving morning fellas and looking over the posts in this forum
FWIW: Some of you are obsessing over caliber choice to the point where it is ridiculous.
I am a retired LEO from NY. I did 6 years in patrol and 18 in SWAT. During that time I have seen for myself or was present for the aftermath of probably hundreds of shootings with all types of weapons from handguns up to 223 and 308 rifles. I remember seeing a guy hit dead center mass with a 22lr die within a minute, yet another person hit in the same place with a JHP 357mag (was still standing when I got there) tell me what happened, who shot him, etc and survive. I also saw a guy hit with a 223 go down after getting hit in the left torso...lose a lung but survived too. I remember another time when a suspect was struck in the arm with a single 9mm round die from a heart attack but yet another guy was riddled with MP5 9mm rounds died only after being shot in the head with a 308 round.
I guess that my point is this: don't obsess over which caliber is best because I don't think that it matters much because bodies do strange things. There isn't a damm bit of difference between getting shot in the same place by a 9mm, 40, or 45 round with good/modern bullets...that's for damm sure.
With that in mind, I would carry a minimum of a 38/9mm in a gun that I shoot well.
FWIW: I ONLY carry a G19 with Speer 124gr Gold Dots because it was my duty weapon and I am 1,000% sure that the G19 is the best weapon for me. I like the fact that it holds 16 rounds which I would rather have than 8 with a 45ACP. I had a G23 for a while but I sold it because I didn't like the recoil and increased muzzle blast of the 40cal for an insignificant/irrelevant increase in "stopping power."
What? Relying on your super duper nuclear Underwood ammo to compensate for your lack of ability, because slower shots are better, and thinking your super duper nuclear Underwood ammo negates shot placement, is a bad thing
It seems you haven't read the thread (can't say I blame you).
If you read back, it will become clear that at least one poster in this thread claims it doesn't matter how slow and inaccurate you are, if you carry underwood .357 sig you're better off...even with poor shots.
All pistol qualifications have a time element, this can not ne ignored by anyone with at least half a brain. So maybe a really good test is give a novice shooter a basic qulaification test, for time, with the sane gun, diff calibers & measure the hit to time ratio. Then get back to me & tell me accuracy at speed means nothing, john wayne & clint eastwood aside. Pretty much what the LE communtiy does.
What percentage of LE practice on a weekly basis?(IF you had to guess)
How many outside of their LE jobs don't use a firearm?
Maybe this is part of the reason for the majority of LE agencies switching to 9mm?(Oh & the cost of ammo also)
I'm asking here, I figured you may know.
Not sure what John Wayne/Clint Eastwood have to do with speed/qualification?
At the risk of sounding like Rodney King....... Is there any chance in hell that believing that being able to deliver one to three shots CM with a proven street load and doing it consistently quickly could be the sweet spot compromise without taking sides on the matter and getting the drizzles over worrying about the " what ifs " ?
absolutely. Accuracy and speed as well as multiple shots on target. Put it up there with tactics, physical fitness (often forgotten about), situational awareness, mindset (the willingness to escalate violence and the wisdom to know why and when). Aggression the decision to fight through and survive an incredibly traumatic incident. The variables involved are innumerable imo.
I need to stop posting about this and go do pushups.
absolutely. Accuracy and speed as well as multiple shots on target. Put it up there with tactics, physical fitness (often forgotten about), situational awareness, mindset (the willingness to escalate violence and the wisdom to know why and when). Aggression the decision to fight through and survive an incredibly traumatic incident. The variables involved are innumerable imo.
I need to stop posting about this and go do pushups.
Well stated, no two gun fights are the same, a great many variables enter into the picture. But the problem we are having here is that just one variable of marginal value in the big picture is by some given exaggerated importance.
The slight fraction of a second difference in accurate shot placement speed between calibers is insignificant when compared to the total amount of time needed to cause incapacitation. Even when shot through the heart A BG can still keep fighting for up to..... 15 full seconds before going down. What importance if any would even a full second be in this fight, in real world values (not the range) nothing.
As you point out there are many factors in a gun fight, many of them much more important than a small fraction of a second.
The FBI and Glock figured this out. It was called the Glock 22 Gen. 4. It combined controllability with capacity and a cartridge with proven performance. I own a 2011 model with the Frying Pan finish. It’s easy to shoot accurately and it has back strap inserts to fit a variety of hand sizes.
Kudos to Glock for a brilliant marketing scheme that netted in the sale of a lot of pistols. In ten years or so, it will be time for another such scheme.
I was just replying that barrier penetration with jhp's is still possible. I did observe an infiniti with 14 hits in the drivers door where only one penetrated entirely. This was a in evidence and I have no other details of it. Just an observance. My opinion and take it for what you pay for it is everyone should carry the weapon in the caliber with the capacity with the ammunition that they feel is best. If you believe that barrier penetration is high on your list of probables or that a .22 or a derringer or a g40 with an rds best suits your situation awesome. Have at it. Who the hell am I to tell you otherwise. This is why the USA irregardless of its problems is the best because we are all free to buy , use and make our own choices within our own capabilities.
There are a lot of variables in a gun fight, heavy clothing or a BG taking cover fall under barrier penetration which could be very significant in some situations. The 357 Sig, 357 Magnum and the 10mm do a good job of penetrating barriers simply because of their power. The Underwood XD and XP rounds also perform very well against barriers. Oh and don't even think that if you shoot really really fast at a barrier you will penetrate it, but you will just end up being another name on the 6:00 news.
No Underwood ammo is very good for SD after all look at how much ....faster it gets to the target now if we just had a timer to measure this I am sure it would be significant!
No, No, haven't you been following the thread? if it isn't bigger than a 9mm you are doomed to fail. Bullets will bounce off the bad guy & you will die. All that is required is carry a caliber that makes as much noise as possible, as powerful a round as you can actually shoot, at least once, good to go. After all, if you miss him once it certainly won't happen again right? As the fight continues you will certainly get better under that stress right? Oh yes, practice is over rated, especially if you carry larger calibers.:chatter:
No, No, haven't you been following the thread? if it isn't bigger than a 9mm you are doomed to fail. Bullets will bounce off the bad guy & you will die. All that is required is carry a caliber that makes as much noise as possible, as powerful a round as you can actually shoot, at least once, good to go. After all, if you miss him once it certainly won't happen again right? As the fight continues you will certainly get better under that stress right? Oh yes, practice is over rated, especially if you carry larger calibers.:chatter:
Maybe instead of asking which caliber is best. The question should be given certain criteria , penetration expansion etc. capacity , timed splits. is there any difference in the above big enough to make anyone already invested in a certain caliber, platform, pistol , manufacturer s ammo etc. dump their current setup and go with one of the other two? Most of things being argued about are thousandths of a second, hundredths of an inch.
This has nothing to do with the gun, gun caliber, power, training or accuracy this is simply about the misconception that 2 or 3 rounds fired a fraction of a second faster than 2 or 3 rounds from another gun is somehow going to make a significant difference in the outcome of a fight.
Three bullets fired from a 9mm in 2.7 seconds will do nothing more that three bullets fired from a 9mm in 3.0 seconds.....nothing significant is going to happen in the 0.3 second speed difference from equal guns unless a lucky CNS hit is made.
Fractions of a second will not make a difference when same caliber guns are compared and it certainly will not even begin to close the performance gap with a more powerful weapon, fanboy fantasy or not.
And you are correct there are a number of factors that can influence the outcome of a gun fight.
I think why the .357 sig or the .45 gap aren't more widely used is timing. At the time of their introduction .40 s+w had already taken hold in between the 9mm and the.45. Nothing they were offering was signifigantly improved over the .40 or the other two for that matter. basically kind of echoing my point if you have satisfactory performance with one system I've yet to see an advantage through my own research worth dumping it and going with another caliber.
in simple terms "its still a handgun wgaf"
Advanced knowledge of something that needs to be shot I'll take a longarm any second of any day.
And all handguns are poor man stoppers etc etc, just another way of saying all handguns (calibers) are equal. Handguns aren't as good as long guns for SD but handguns will end a fight and they aren't all equal for this purpose.
YES. Caliber, while a factor, should be a partial consideration to the overall picture. When I use a Beretta, I choose 9mm, because clearly (to me) 18 rounds of 9mm made for a better overall package, than 13. However, had I been restricted to 10, I’d more likely have gone .40.
If you take out every other factor other than actual round effectiveness, the .40 is going to be superior. But of course, you can’t do that. As a general issue round, the 9mm makes more sense. The number of people that are issued handguns are more likely to be below average shooters, than above average shooters.
Yet exp shooters will run the 9mm faster still with superior accuracy. So still not under gunned for a SD situation. I can shoot anything, can choose just about anything. I used to carry a 45 a lot, mostly because I love the 1911 platform & at the time, shot it better than anything else. After immersing myself into the G26/19/32 platform, I am carrying them more & more. Mostly because of the size/wt. Bullet reaches 60-65cal, penetrates deep, don't over think it is right.
Yet exp shooters will run the 9mm faster still with superior accuracy. So still not under gunned for a SD situation. I can shoot anything, can choose just about anything. I used to carry a 45 a lot, mostly because I love the 1911 platform & at the time, shot it better than anything else. After immersing myself into the G26/19/32 platform, I am carrying them more & more. Mostly because of the size/wt. Bullet reaches 60-65cal, penetrates deep, don't over think it is right.
You entirely missed my point. If we're to only judge the effectiveness of a single hit of the best .40 versus the best 9mm, the .40 will fair better on average.
No what I'm saying is if the question is which is best of the above three? My question is at what? And again in the standards listed the actual differences are measured in thousandths of an inch and tenths of a second etc. I like all three calibers probably equal my point is if your already invested in one I don't see any point in changing if your in the market for a pistol you could do your own research , draw conclusions based on what you find and go from there and like goose said that will probably come down to whichever gun you prefer shooting rather than caliber. Put it this way 90% of the time I carry a shield 9mm off duty. At times I feel an itch to carry more rounds. So I 've been looking at the g26 I had a buddy with a g27 for sale , looking at the sig 365.
My conclusion was instead of spending a couple hundred on another gun I bought an extra mag for the shield. I have a g19 and a usp compact in .40 were I to really feel a need for more firepower and neither of the baby glocks or the sigs incremental increase in firepower or the sigs incremental decrease in size was worth the investment FOR ME. Other peoples situations, finances , whatever might be.
In the 90's wondernines were hot then as the awb wore on the 1911's were all over the place, then the awb sunsetted and people were jumping all over standard cap pistols and mags, now leo's are going to 9mm (for primarily financial reasons) so everyones going that way. This is nothing but a fashion show imo.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Glock Talk
21M posts
185.2K members
Since 1999
A forum community dedicated to Glock firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, troubleshooting, accessories, classifieds, and more!