Capacity vs. Stopping Power vs. Compromise

[Mac]

Work aside....

I do not require "stopping power". Therefore it only makes sense to me to use something that is cheaper to shoot (9mm) and cheaper for me to reload.

I still own a 1911 though

 

[Doc M]

Leaving out .45 ACP makes this poll a fail.

Put my vote down for "other" because all I'd want is a .45 ACP.

-M

 

[bluemike807]

Leaving out .45 ACP makes this poll a fail.

Maybe I should have explicitly mentioned it, but I would've lumped .45 ACP in with the 'Stopping power' category; its twice as expensive as 9mm Para, you have much smaller capacity in magazines (even with double stack), etc.

So, so far, this is telling me that people would rather go with either the 9mm or a .40 S&W. Does that translate to higher calibre pistols just being impractical?

As a Corollary, I keep coming back to what I've read in, among other things, Emergency by Neil Strauss. Now I appreciate that this book in particular isnt the see all and end all of authority, but at one point he goes to Gunsite and takes their pistol combat course. He talks about how he and one other are the only students with 9mms (his being a Springfield XD and the other a military woman with a Beretta 92fs). Everyone else sports a .45 ACP (likely assorted variants of 1911's). He describes how the other with the 9mm experiences a series of jams, all but labelling the 92fs as a Jam-o-Matic.

One of the instructors says the following:

"The bigger the bullet,
the more fluid goes out and the more air comes in:'

"When a guy hits the ground, the fight
isn't over. He's dropping because the hole in him is causing his
blood pressure to drop. But when he's down, his blood pressure
will rise again and this means he could still be a threat'

Between that logic, and the apparent poor performance of the 92fs (and/or its calibre) - it seems to imply that the bigger the bullet, the more effective. Granted that doesn't take into account shot placement which is obviously the key thing, but its still interesting, especially given what I've read here in the forums. I honestly don't know what to think.

 

[Danimal247]

If we didn't have capped mags at 10 it would be cool to have a 33+1 glock 9mm, but that's not going to happen.

All things aside, .40 cal is right in the middle of the spectrum and you can get the best of both worlds - it would be my choice

 

[Ganderite]

40 S&W is the compromise cartridge.

 

[BP7]

Maybe I should have explicitly mentioned it, but I would've lumped .45 ACP in with the 'Stopping power' category; its twice as expensive as 9mm Para, you have much smaller capacity in magazines (even with double stack), etc.

So, so far, this is telling me that people would rather go with either the 9mm or a .40 S&W. Does that translate to higher calibre pistols just being impractical?

As a Corollary, I keep coming back to what I've read in, among other things, Emergency by Neil Strauss. Now I appreciate that this book in particular isnt the see all and end all of authority, but at one point he goes to Gunsite and takes their pistol combat course. He talks about how he and one other are the only students with 9mms (his being a Springfield XD and the other a military woman with a Beretta 92fs). Everyone else sports a .45 ACP (likely assorted variants of 1911's). He describes how the other with the 9mm experiences a series of jams, all but labelling the 92fs as a Jam-o-Matic.

One of the instructors says the following:

"The bigger the bullet,
the more fluid goes out and the more air comes in:'

"When a guy hits the ground, the fight
isn't over. He's dropping because the hole in him is causing his
blood pressure to drop. But when he's down, his blood pressure
will rise again and this means he could still be a threat'

Between that logic, and the apparent poor performance of the 92fs (and/or its calibre) - it seems to imply that the bigger the bullet, the more effective. Granted that doesn't take into account shot placement which is obviously the key thing, but its still interesting, especially given what I've read here in the forums. I honestly don't know what to think.

it seems that there are TWO things necessary to bring down (and possibly keep down) an assailant: a big nasty hole causing lots of blood loss and imparting shock to disrupt remote regions, and accurate shot placement to hit the important high-risk bits.

one is bought. the other is learned. as a "crutch" for those with limited budgets, there is redundancy - lots of reasonably sized (and priced) holes in decent locations done with fair skill.

a giant hole in the left hand is about as effective as a pinhole in the jugular. annoying, but far from deadly.

 

[B]

I don't see much difference between 9mm,.40 and .45 neither do people who think about such things for a living. I guess I have yet to drink any kool-aid. That said I am a big 10mm Auto fan. I shoot 5 different cartridges out of my Glock 20. My pick for a "TEOTWAWKI" gun...

 

[Gunney]

Full power loads of 10mm. Hollow point for summer, FMJ for winter. Second choice .45ACP with similar (HST and FMJ) ammo.

Moot of course as far as carry is concerned in this country.

Now which case is the .458 magnum in again ... ?

 

[TIM_COX]

capacity means nothing in the argument in stopping power, and frankly the stopping power argument in the last 5 years is a moot point.... properly designed JHP in any caliber is effective enough...

I am a firm believer in 9mm +p+ for "defensive" use.

 

[foxytrapper]

If it isn't .45acp, you should practice more with .22cbs.

 

[Starscream]

All else is academic debate.

 

[colt45cz75]

It's been said that a pistol is for fighting your way back to the rifle you shouldn't have laid down. I agree with this and my choice would be a 10mm, 45 or 357 sig pistol.And an AR-15 rifle.

 

[Trigun]

Maybe I should have explicitly mentioned it, but I would've lumped .45 ACP in with the 'Stopping power' category; its twice as expensive as 9mm Para, you have much smaller capacity in magazines (even with double stack), etc.

So, so far, this is telling me that people would rather go with either the 9mm or a .40 S&W. Does that translate to higher calibre pistols just being impractical?

As a Corollary, I keep coming back to what I've read in, among other things, Emergency by Neil Strauss. Now I appreciate that this book in particular isnt the see all and end all of authority, but at one point he goes to Gunsite and takes their pistol combat course. He talks about how he and one other are the only students with 9mms (his being a Springfield XD and the other a military woman with a Beretta 92fs). Everyone else sports a .45 ACP (likely assorted variants of 1911's). He describes how the other with the 9mm experiences a series of jams, all but labelling the 92fs as a Jam-o-Matic.

One of the instructors says the following:

"The bigger the bullet,
the more fluid goes out and the more air comes in:'

"When a guy hits the ground, the fight
isn't over. He's dropping because the hole in him is causing his
blood pressure to drop. But when he's down, his blood pressure
will rise again and this means he could still be a threat'

Between that logic, and the apparent poor performance of the 92fs (and/or its calibre) - it seems to imply that the bigger the bullet, the more effective. Granted that doesn't take into account shot placement which is obviously the key thing, but its still interesting, especially given what I've read here in the forums. I honestly don't know what to think.

Hmmm...interesting, you take out .45 acp because you think it is expensive, so life is cheaper than a single ammo cost? Plus I never saw a jam-o matic 92fs during my ten years shooting life, even in this forum, many beretta shooter here but I don't seem heard any poor performance.

Trigun

 

[Stevo]

Here's one for the "stopping power" guys.

 

[Greenhorse six]

there's a Survival subforum?

I like the .45ACP 1911, no real reason,it just fits my hand well, and with 8rd mag [got a few 10rd ones as well] don't feel its low cap, well in canada anyway.

 

[B]

Here's one for the "stopping power" guys.

Not sure what to make of this?... Are you using one of the s**ttiest pistols ever produced to say that .45 is best? Or is it the opposite? Shooting twice would be silly with that gun, you'd likely die reloading.

 

[NAA]

Yeah, .40 S&W is a compromise. My SHTF scenario go-to pistola would be a Glock 22 .40 cal with 180 gr HP's.

That said, I'd be happy with a USGI 1911A1 with 7 round mags of 230 grain hardball .45ACP. Worked for the US military in all conditions for well over 75 years....

My .02.... your mileage may vary...

NAA.

 

[TheTooner]

....40 cal is right in the middle of the spectrum and you can get the best of both worlds ...

I think you misunderstand the compromise. You don't get the best of both worlds. What you get is to avoid the worst of both worlds.

 

[smokechecker]

I'll stick with 9mm.+p+jhp. You can still put 'em down with a survivable hole so a higher authority can deal with him. If a threat to life is still emminent, then THE Higher Authority will have to deal with it.
IMO, better for someone to learn the mistake.

 

[Danimal247]

I think you misunderstand the compromise. You don't get the best of both worlds. What you get is to avoid the worst of both worlds.

Glass is half-empty, or half-full - pick your poison