CCW in theory: Big and slow vs light and fast?

More effective: Slow and fat, vs quick and light?

  • Slow and fat!

    Votes: 77 57.9%
  • Quick and slow!

    Votes: 56 42.1%

  • Total voters
    133

mr00jimbo

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Location
GVRD
Say CCW were to come to Canada in a mainstream level and we were given the opportunity to carry.

Which school of thought do you implore; "slow and big" as being more effective, or "light and fast" ?
Beating a dead horse? Surely.
But oh well.
:dancingbanana:

Debate away.

I've always subscribed to the big and slow camp as being the most effective, but with quick +P 9mm rounds and the .357 sig, it makes it hard to choose.

Which would you say would be the most effective?
(and as far as shot placement, we're talking theoretically so we'll say shot placement is on target)

Edit: D'oh! Quick and LIGHT I meant to say, in the poll! :dancingbanana:
 
Last edited:
well im sure each has its merits and apparently 357 is pretty rough stuff, however i guess there is something to be said for the big slow bullet as it does not require some high priced "trick" bullet to do the job, nor does it lose a great deal of effectiveness if the hollowpoint doesn't expand. i've heard old timers talk of the old .455 webley being a real stopper and that round looks pretty bad on paper as far as ballistics go.

not to mention, the big slow rounds seem quieter to me, gotta protect whats left of my ears :)
 
Last edited:
I'd pick a 45 ACP.

Mostly becuase with a quick change of magazine I can go from bear defense 45-08 ammo to 45 ACP 2 legged predator defense...

Although frankly, I doubt I woudl carry often anywere except the bush.
 
.
.
.
Neither... for me, if I were going for 'most effective', I'd choose 'big and fast', either my Glock-20 or Glock-29 10mm or my 1911 in .45Super :) Either one, 180 grain plus, at over 1200 feet per second :D

Personally, though, I'd probably carry my Glock-19 9mm or a Browning 1910 or 1922 .380 day-to-day, as they're both small, concealable, and light. Even though the calibers aren't as hard-hitting, I could actually carry them without them getting in the way, and with either, I can hit what I aim at, which counts for a lot...

...and dude, your poll is messed up! LOL
.
.
.
 
Last edited:
I am sorry I didn't get the question. Or poll. Something silly, like "slow and fast"? What CCW? Where am I? Who are you people...
 
Can't vote: you don't have my choice.

If I could, I'd choose to carry fast and fat....

... oh wait; I already do.

200 gr. @ 1100 fps. I'm comfortable with it.
 
for unarmored targets 200grain at 1100fps in a .45 is as good as it gets for concealable autoloaders. I wouldn't look at Anything under 1000fps though, it just doesn't crush/shred tissue and bone that well... it just kind of squeezes through. 230grain fmj .45acp won't even scratch an old kevlar vest(it actualy bounces off)....
 
for unarmored targets 200grain at 1100fps in a .45 is as good as it gets for concealable autoloaders.
Glad you think that, but it's a .40 S&W load, actually. Most people would agree it is pretty damned unpleasant in a little Kahr. But much nicer in a BHP, and with proper holster choice is very concealable indeed.

I wouldn't look at Anything under 1000fps though, it just doesn't crush/shred tissue and bone that well... it just kind of squeezes through.
I don't know about that...

572tme


That doesn't look like it is just "squeezing" through anything.

The 158 gr. .38 Spl +p LSWHP that the Force and other agencies including the FBI used just prior to the change to pistols never hit 1000 fps and built up a reputation as a very effective load.
 
Light and fast makes bigger and DEADLIER wound channels.

eg 125 gr SJHP 357 Magnum @ 1700 fps. Nasty

eg 125 grain Nosler .308 win @ 3000 fps. Nasty


Slow and heavy makes long skinny wound channel.

eg 230 gr JHP .45 ACP @ 850 fps. Clean

eg 400 gr LRN 45-70 @ 1400 fps. Clean


All you .45 junkies out there need to study the effects of trauma on the human body.
 
Back
Top Bottom