For use inside a building...

[barnbwt]

"For CQB or close quarters, Id opt for the new MPX line with a SIG Sauer sound suppressor & compact barrel."

The only drawback seems to be that the ATF won't let them do the carbine as a non-NFA item without a fight, and that the gun won't work with a true 16" barrel (which is why SIG can't sell them as anything but pistols at this point). Not everyone has the patience/ability to get a suppressed weapon, after all. I do agree that it is a very welcome breath of fresh air for the PCC world; it's been nothing but direct blowback designs since the MP5, for Pete's sake. I particularly think the 357SIG model would be extremely compelling. 10mm all the better (9mm Dillon all the better all the better...) but I don't think it's mag well can accommodate such a long round at this time

"In my metro area, a police officer is now facing multiple felony charges for firing his M4 Bushmaster 5.56mm a reported 23 times.
The police officer was shooting the rifle at a fleeing subject in a parking structure. He hit neither the subject or the vehicle."
Holy, moley! I'm not sure what's more shocking; the recklessness, the inaccuracy, or the fact he's being held accountable for his actions! Guy should've switched to his 45deg canted backup iron sights; obviously his 6000$ ACOG failed (that's why everyone gets those, right? The optics are always failing? ).

Seriously, though, you should forward that story to TTAG; they'd love that stuff over there

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

"As to shot placement, the poster above talked about the extreme straw man argument of how I said you better hit the heart or mid-brain with a PCC for quick stop, then asked if a gut shot with a rifle is OK? Um, no..."
Speaking of straw men...
I believe I stated that such a hit could not be counted on for a rapid cessation, and that the same spots that are required to be hit for rapid cessation are essentially the same, regardless what you are firing; head and upper/center torso.

"Handgun rounds only damage the tissue they touch. That is why you better punch a hole through something vital for rapid incapacitation. Miss the heart by 1/4" and you get lung. Big deal, even though a solid vital zone high chest (A zone-whatever) hit, a person can fight for many, many minutes become succumbing to a tension pneumothorax.

OTOH, miss the heart by 1/4" with a good rifle round and you might as well have hit it. Not only do you get tissue damage from the permanent wound channel, you also get tissue damage from the temporary stretch cavity taking tissue past its elastic limits. Same for a brain shot, a lot more tissue damage."
Yes, an AR hit to the head will make your head asplode, but on a predictive level, do we know how much larger that extra velocity hydro-shock effect makes the effective hit zone? Is it enough to make up for the slower shot recovery? Seems like a valid question, with probably no easy answer to be honest. All I know is that there seems to be a lot of unending debate on exactly how effective the shock/temporary cavity effect is, which suggests to me that it's not something that should be totally relied upon.

"This won't make a poor shot with a rifle good, but it can make a less than perfect shot with a rifle an immediate stopper."
This is not directed at your comments, which are reasonably tempered. But the temporary wound cavity effect is put up so often by those arguing for faster/more powerful cartridges in both defense and hunting, that I do suspect a lot of shooters actually do see it as exactly a substitute for proper shot placement. After all, if you only need to get 'close,' it's not that different from a shotgun, is it? And those don't even need a rear sight! I think it is most helpful/realistic to understand the effect as explaining a shot's more powerful effect beyond what its numbers would indicate (the non-linear effect of increasing projectile velocity vs. mass), but not as something to rely upon as a matter of course. That's just me, though. If they can distill the effect into something as predictable as quality hollow-point expansion figures, then I'd consider changing my mind. Too much debate surrounding it at present for me to take it at face value, though.

TCB

 

[Nom de Forum]

So barnbwt, yes or no: Are the advantages of a PCC significant enough to make it a better choice than an AR15 that has superior terminal ballistic performance and lower possibility of penetration through building materials?

I can't seem to find any of those 9mm +P+ Penetrator rounds you mentioned at my LGS. Do you think M193 will be just as effective as those? I am assuming you are not referring to what Buffalo Bore labels their 9mm 124gr FMJ.

 

[barnbwt]

"I can't seem to find any of those 9mm +P+ Penetrator rounds you mentioned at my LGS."
Try your local Putin's Borscht and Bullets Emporium --last I check they were still in stock

I honestly won't claim definitively which are more "effective" since "effect" is indefinite (I know, unsatisfying, but it's the truth). What I do know is that while far more frangible, two or three drywall sheets are precious little protection, so the much smarter tactic is to know clean avenues of fire and no have to care about over-penetration (not always an option, but usually it is for a defender). If it can punch a messy hole through man, it can go through 3 sheets of drywall; therefore it can seriously hurt someone on the far side of several walls --not good enough. I also know that 9mm has less everything than 223, while still delivering very lethal effect when aimed as well as any rifle will need to be in order to be effective (again, head and upper/center torso), which means you'll be even faster while still likely getting the job done --and repeatedly.

"I like the poster who took both to the range on a shot timer. Taking his results...what if we go the other way? If the PCC is 15% faster on splits and 10% faster for transitions...would it not be reasonable to assume a .22LR SBR would be at least the same percentage faster than the PCC? Why wouldn't the .22 SBR be superior to the PCC as it can be smaller and lighter still, has way less blast, recoil and muzzle flash and way less noise?"
Ah, Strambo, how'd I know you'd trot out the 22LR in this discussion... Think about exactly what you are questioning for a second, too; the actual, factual (for all you or I can know), measured results of a person who tested both themselves (thus, taking themselves out of the equation) and reached pretty clear results immediately. I have no reason to believe someone who posts their personal results in good faith is lying, nor should anyone else, here.


FWIW, the concept of a high rate-of-fire 22LR subgun was tried out, and with pretty good range reports, if memory serves. Very controllable, tons of hits, far faster and more accurately than bigger SMGs or MGs. The problem was the difference between range and reality; 22LR is easily defeated by armor (even if you Worf Barrage the guy with an entire pan magazine), 22LR is always less reliable than rimfire, rimmed cartridges (esp. rimfire) always have poorer magazine options than rimless centerfire, and 22LR is also notorious for both over-penetrating and ricocheting off anything/everything.

If you want to know why a 22LR would not be faster/more accurate in a semi-auto, it's because you can already run a ~9mm carbine trigger on target nearly as fast as your finger can go; any faster and you need an auto sear, and the ATF don't appreciate that (probably for home defense more than anything). The preponderance of AR brakes does not suggest that shooters can frequently re-level faster than their finger can pull the trigger. A suppressed, short barreled/compact, select fire 22LR would be identical to shooting a Drozd select-fire CO2 BB gun in almost every way (or an airsoft gun). Yes, I do believe a select fire airsoft gun can get more hits on target faster than a 9mm-anything. I also know that 22LR falls well below the threshold of rounds known to reliably stop human-sized things rapidly, which all but guarantees a great many more rounds will be needed than even a 9mm --can the extra rate of fire actually overcome that disadvantage? Maybe. But since a 223 is likely to be just as effective as 9mm when applied appropriately at self defense distances (meaning: the attacker is likely to be stopped with a solid hit or two), the lesser round carries a known speed advantage and only a potential disadvantage in terms of ballistic effect.

TCB

 

[USAF_Vet]

I didn't think we were talking about a typical SWAT raid. You had referenced "top hostage rescue units world-wide, military and LE" in Post #80.

Thats a whole lot different that the typical SWAT raid, which is the county deputies dressed in black kicking down the door of a stoner selling weed.

Does it matter? The average city/ county SWAT team still uses tactics and gear similar to the tactics and gear of the top hostage rescue units (whoever they are).

The county SWAT team isn't going to stop using M4s and pick up some Hi Point carbines just to raid the local pot den just because their targets are likely poorly armed and poorly trained. They aren't dumbing down their tactics and gear because the expected threat is less than the expected targets of the top hostage rescue teams.

Having overwhelming force and firepower is not a bad strategy. Our military and law enforcement relies on that strategy. Who wants to be on an equal playing field with your adversary? Unless there's a ring, a ref, and a rule book, I have no intentions of fighting fair. A fair fight means equal chances of winning as to losing, and that's not a risk I'm willing to take when losing can mean death.

Generally, I really believe most PCCs are adequate for HD. Most perps lose a lot of the will to fight with a hole suddenly appearing in their body that wasn't there when they crawled through the window. But why rely on most? Play the odds, and let the chips fall where they may, or stack the deck so heavily in your favor as to make it nearly impossible to lose.

Reality is, choice of weapon is about the least important aspect of home defense. I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to know this.

Shooting guns indoors hurts without hearing protection. Doesn't matter if it's a pistol, a PCC, a shotgun, or a rifle/ carbine. The extent of the damage done permanently varies greatly. Which is why, regardless of your choice in HD firearm, hearing protection needs to be part of the action plan.

But since the focus of the thread is about which firearm is better, I have to rely only on my experience. Which is why I use an AR style rifle in 5.56 chambering. I know first hand it's effectiveness and lethality (stopping power, to cliche the term), coupled with my and other's ability to handle and operate the weapon, the recoil, etc. Yes, it's very loud. The increased volume inside the house is understood. I'm willing to accept that risk to loss of hearing in the extraordinarily rare event I ever actually need to use it.

Without the aid of a supressor, the PCC v. AR 5.56 argument is like choosing between crunchy peanut butter and extra crunchy peanut butter.

 

[dogmush]

A couple of interesting points that came to mind while reading the last couple pages.

First I happen to know some of the city SWAT guys in St. Pete, FL. They use MP5's. I also happen to know that the SEAL's have MP5's in their armory at Coronoado, because I've shot them. I'd be interested to know which mission profiles get the SMG's and which get Carbines for NAVSPECWAR.

But that's neither here nor there in this conversation. I stand by my original statement that both weapons are adequate in trained hands, and which is, on the margin, better for a given engagement varies with the engagement and building involved. So there isn't a one size fit's all answer to Balrogs question.

I've also seen several people mention using their 16"AR's in a as there HD/building clearing weapon.

I would posit (because I've done it) that a 16" AR is too long to work in a standard US residence. You must either dismount it from your shoulder, or flag the muzzle around corners. Even an M4 is a tic long in tight corridors or rooms. Whichever caliber you decide on something with the length of a 10.5"-11" barreled AR* is really a better form factor for working inside a building.

*Yes I know this once again changes the "flash and noise vs. ballistics" equation.

**FWIW, the 5.56 pistol I pictured back in post 75 is my HD weapon. (with a light not pictured) The 9mm is very new to me, and might take over or might not. I need to play with it some more. I was just a little shocked at how much easier it was to be fast with the 9.

 

[barnbwt]

My local SWAT/PD has a bunch of P90's, and is replacing them with M4's mainly because they saw huge dollar signs for their totally clapped out guns (even P90 parts kits fetch nearly two grand, while select fire M4's are less than half that). They'd been happy/satisfied enough with them to wear them out with use/training (how you wear out a blowback, I have no idea. Must be an unholy number of rounds)

TCB

 

[CraigC]

I don't hunt...

Obviously but don't let that stop you.

 

[strambo]

So, CraigC, if you posted on a general hunting forum "why isn't a PCC superior to a rifle for hunting deer" what would the consensus be?

Plenty of deer have been killed with a bow as well...

Deer are similar size to humans and a lot could be learned from wound characteristics in deer. The instructor of the course I took in threat anatomy and shot placement this month was an avid hunter. He certainly wasn't recommending a pistol over a rifle caliber for defense though and he has killed deer with his 357 Sig carry load.

 

[CraigC]

So, CraigC, if you posted on a general hunting forum "why isn't a PCC superior to a rifle for hunting deer" what would the consensus be?

The consensus is that all the rifle gains you is range.

Your references to arrows and the .22LR tells us a lot about your understanding, or lack thereof, of terminal ballistics.

 

[allaroundhunter]

Yes allaround hunter I dont know nothing ,you in turn know so much you are not willing to accept the facts or as they say cannot see ythe forest for the trees.
I just happen to know some of the real seals and that is all I have to say, you want my sources , I can tell you it will never happen.
The people like the seal shoot over 50,00 round in practice a year in many scenarios just because you think a rifle is more powerful does noot mean it will be the best tool in every scenario get a grip.
I just answered the question by the OP , I dont have time for silly debate , if you dont like my answer you dont have to insult me.
Over and out.

Well, I left my response short and sweet since I didn't want to call you out on every single point that you were patently wrong on. But, since you insist.

That's convenient that you can't name your sources. I have plenty as well, several that I have trained with who have been my instructors that I don't mind naming (who wouldn't mind being named) and others who I have shot competitively with. None of them have ever advocated shooting without using your sights, nor have they ever trained me to do so unless I am unable to properly present my weapon. As I said earlier CMC, you are full of it.

As to only using a pistol for house clearing. Again, you are wrong. My training with some SF veterans dictates using a compact long gun when available, and using a pistol only when space is too tight to be able to properly weild and utilize a long gun. Talking with some SEALs and others who have trained to fight on ships, whether it is to combat piracy or for other reasons, the rifle is the go-to gun until you start going through tight loving quarters and other internal areas of the ship. Some of those tight spaces do make it necessary to slip the rifle and draw the pistol.

Time to take a couple classes, CMC. You could even find some they are taught by SF veterans if it makes you happy. Then you can rejoin the conversation after getting a firmer grasp of what is truly advocated by the men that you claim to know.

 

[strambo]

Ah, Strambo, how'd I know you'd trot out the 22LR in this discussion... Think about exactly what you are questioning for a second, too; the actual, factual (for all you or I can know), measured results of a person who tested both themselves (thus, taking themselves out of the equation) and reached pretty clear results immediately. I have no reason to believe someone who posts their personal results in good faith is lying, nor should anyone else, here.

That's a good way to win an argument barnbwt, twist my words around 180 degrees. Where did I say he was lying or I didn't believe him?! I applauded him for going out and putting rounds downrange on a timer and posting results...that I have no reason to doubt. They make sense, it also makes sense a .22 SBR would be faster still, so why not use it?

But since a 223 is likely to be just as effective as 9mm when applied appropriately at self defense distances (meaning: the attacker is likely to be stopped with a solid hit or two)

Likely to be just as effective as a 9mm? Seriously? You phrase that as if the 223 is the lessor or they are at best equal.

I wouldn't expect an attacker to be likely to be stopped with a solid hit or 2 from either, unless we define "solid hit" as a mid-brain, brain stem/medulla or high spine shot.

Again, a shot through the heart gives them 7-30 seconds left to fight (FBI says plan on 15). A solid hit in the upper chest area (nipple to nipple laterally, solar plexus to base of throat vertically) isn't gonna do much if you miss the heart. A person can fight a very, very long time lung hit. The massive increase in terminal performance of the 5.56 (with a good bullet) over any pistol round gives you much more chance that a well placed hit actually damages the heart, or brain.

 

[strambo]

The consensus is that all the rifle gains you is range.

Your references to arrows and the .22LR tells us a lot about your understanding, or lack thereof, of terminal ballistics.

Why? They are lethal just like the 45 colt pistol round you cited. So, you brought up the hunting lethality of the pistol round to demonstrate that the PCC is superior to the 5.56 against armed threats in a building?

Since I don't hunt, I just assumed hunters were only taking shots they know they can make, stalking or waiting until the deer gets within their known effective range and then taking the shot if it is right, not taking it if conditions are wrong.

I had no idea the marksmanship demands of hunting were the same as fighting for your life against a thinking, moving adversary who is trying to kill you and you can expect to get the same quality of shot placement in either scenario making the ballistic considerations the same.

I know an awful lot about terminal ballistics. Broadheads kill the same way as bullets, blood loss leading to oxygen deprivation to the brain. The mechanism of injury for them is laceration to organs and vessels instead of poking holes in them.

I give up, pistol rounds are just as terminally effective as 5.56 making the PCC superior in light of it also being lighter, less recoil and lest noise...

Edit: BTW my carry gun is a 9mm SIG P226, I have no caliber bias or anything against handguns, they are what they are.

 

[CraigC]

Killing deer with the .22LR is an illegal stunt best left to poachers. Hunting deer with the .45Colt is not only legal but very often practiced. The fact that more hunters use rifles is irrelevant.

I know an awful lot about terminal ballistics.

And yet you liken the .22LR to the .45Colt.


All that aside, nobody said that PCC's were "just as lethal" as a rifle. The argument is that they are plenty effective enough and in many circumstances, is probably a better choice. Despite some of what has been said here, they are absolutely significantly quieter. That's a big advantage to me because if I can survive a gunfight AND keep my hearing, I'll be glad to. IMHO, too many are obsessed with their choice in chambering.

Be honest, are you judging this by kinetic energy figures?

 

[X-Rap]

So if one follows the hunting analogy and adds the element of dangerous game that can kill you, would you rather shoot that charging Brown Bear or Cape buffalo with a 45 LC or 458 win mag?
I think those who face those problems would choose the win mag hands down for much the same reason that some would pick 5.56 for HD being that getting any rounds on target with one will do more damage and slow the attack down more than the other and shots on vitals will have a greater effect as well.

 

[strambo]

Killing deer with the .22LR is an illegal stunt best left to poachers. Hunting deer with the .45Colt is not only legal but very often practiced. The fact that more hunters use rifles is irrelevant.



And yet you liken the .22LR to the .45Colt.

How did I ever liken a .22 to a 45 Colt in terminal effectiveness? It must be quite convenient to assume arguments others never made just to easily tear them down. You said plenty of deer have been killed with 45 Colt...and that's it. No further analysis, does that mean you think PCCs are superior to ARs in 5.56 because 45 Colt kills plenty of deer?

I merely pointed out .22 LR and bows kill plenty of deer (and people) so there must be more to it than that. I figured it would be obvious to THR users that picking a .22 or bow for defensive use inside a structure would both by silly and not equivalent to a 45 Colt. I was making the point that perhaps lethality on game animals in a hunting scenario is not a good judgment criteria (especially w/o any further analysis to back up the statement).

Be honest, are you judging this by kinetic energy figures?

Kinetic energy? Again, how convenient to get to be able to assume I think something just so you can convince yourself I don't know anything.

Ironically, I'm the only poster in this thread to discuss precise anatomical structures and link them both to the respective mechanisms of injury of handgun and rifle rounds and also to the expected physiological results.

Everyone else is just talking vague generalities about "stop" and "kill" and "good hits" and "chest area." But I'm the one who knows nothing about terminal ballistics because you think I believe things I never stated and I don't hunt.

All that aside, nobody said that PCC's were "just as lethal" as a rifle. The argument is that they are plenty effective enough and in many circumstances, is probably a better choice. Despite some of what has been said here, they are absolutely significantly quieter. That's a big advantage to me because if I can survive a gunfight AND keep my hearing, I'll be glad to. IMHO, too many are obsessed with their choice in chambering.

This is the first time you've addressed the question at hand and I find this statement to be very reasonable.

 

[Balrog]

Thanks for all the advice. I have decided not to take chances, and just go with the 338 Lapua Magnum.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Black rifles; rifle ballistics....

I think in general a home owner/gun owner & a SWAT cop(hostage rescue unit) have the same standards or requirements.
Neither want to have rounds cause a injury or death to a by-stander or victim.
Neither want to have fired rounds make them deaf or lose their vision.
Both want adequate power to stop the threat.
I think with modern ammunition, the pistol caliber carbines(9x19mm, .40S&W, .357sig, .45acp) in well made designs can work very well.
The 7.62mm(.308) may be a bit extreme for a SBR or surpressed weapon.
The 5.56mm is okay but Id buy a .300aac blackout & set up a sound surpressor.

Some home or property owners think a 5.56mm MSR(modern sporting rifle) is the best thing in the world for home security. I think they have merit but newer weapons can also meet those needs.

 

[strambo]

Google ballistic gel images and look at gel shots of the 77g OTM 5.56 and similar. Also the 6.8 SPC ballistic tip, 300 BLK ballistic tip and 155g ballistic tip 7.62. Also look at some of the best performing handgun loads.

Understand (not that I know anything about terminal ballistics), that all the gel damage you see with the rifle rounds would be damaged tissue. With the pistol rounds, the only tissue damage is from the permanent cavity, a hole as wide as the bullet expanded to.

Now, mentally transpose these gel photos onto the human body in the chest and head.

A handgun round that misses the heart by an inch, in all likely hood just punches a hole through the lung. This will not even remotely incapacitate someone fast enough (we are talking double-digit minutes or more for a tension pneumothorax to develop).

A 77g OTM from a 5.56 that misses the heart by an inch will still severely damage the heart anyway and do a lot more damage to the lung resulting in a lot more air volume being dumped into the pleural space and much more blood loss.

Same goes in the cranial vault. Any handgun round that penetrates the skull into the brain (anywhere) is serious business so don't misconstrue what I'm saying.

That being said: 1st, a handgun round is a lot more likely to be deflected off of the thick bone-helmet of the skull than a rifle round. 2nd, it can damage non-vital brain tissue and not result in a stop, many people have survived handgun headshots. With a handgun, you get a hole in the brain the size of the bullet, which is very serious in and of itself...but the rifle gives us more.

Again, look at the rifle caliber gel shots and super-impose that damage in the brain. They are less likely to be deflected by the skull and once inside will do massive damage. A 1" miss of the mid-brain will still destroy it resulting in instant incapacitation.

A handgun demands perfect anatomical placement to ensure rapid or instant incapacitation...a rifle only requires you get the bullet close enough for the multiple inch wide swath of permanent tissue damage to destroy the same anatomy.

And that is just considering shot #1, let's dump multiple ones in there and see what we get. Imaging 3 of those 77g 5.56 gel shots hitting within a 4"-6" circle centered high chest superimposed on the human body.

 

[dogmush]

No kidding. No one is saying that a pistol round does more, or even equivalent damage to a 5.56.

The question we need to face is: "Do the advantages a pistol caliber offer make up for the ballistic disadvantage?"

To which I say, again, I some cases yes. In others, no. One must look at their expected engagement in totality, not just as a caliber war.

You seem to be arguing that 9mm or .45acp (the most common calibers for PCC's in the roles we are discussing) is somehow inadequate for defensive use against humans. That is ludicrous, bordering on trolling. There is better than a century of data that those two rounds are effective against people. Not the best, but effective nonetheless.

 

[Balrog]

The question we need to face is: "Do the advantages a pistol caliber offer make up for the ballistic disadvantage?"

Yes that is a better wording of my original question.
I think everyone is aware that 5.56mm ballistics are better than 9mm NATO, the question really is, in a home defense setting (not the super Rambo hostage rescue scenarios described by some), are the disadvantages of the 9mm carbine outweighed by its advantages.

The advantages of the 9mm carbine as I see them are:
Shorter weapon.
Adequate terminal performance.
Less flash and noise, though still admitted too much.

The only disadvantages I see are:
Less terminal performance than 5.56
Overpenetration, if that is an issue for you.

 

[strambo]

You seem to be arguing that 9mm or .45acp (the most common calibers for PCC's in the roles we are discussing) is somehow inadequate for defensive use against humans. That is ludicrous, bordering on trolling. There is better than a century of data that those two rounds are effective against people. Not the best, but effective nonetheless.

Not at all, I've said PCCs are very good choices on multiple occasions in this thread already. I'm simply posting exactly why rifle rounds are superior instead of using vague notions of "adequate", "kills" "stops" etc. I have repeatedly posted specific anatomical data, mechanisms of injury and physical responses to trauma to back up my points. The trauma caused by each is what it is, no more, no less. Again, I carry a 9mm handgun.

The OP asked why a PCC isn't superior to a 5.56, not if it is adequate. Limited to handgun levels of terminal performance is why it is not (generally speaking) superior.

The lower recoil, blast, noise and flash all help the user place shots better with a PCC which is a plus. They need to with handgun ballistics, which is a minus. A 5.56 SBR with a good flash hider can be driven very fast and accurately with minimal flash, blast and recoil. It isn't like Vette racing a Yugo.

Other than in certain individual circumstances, I haven't seen a good argument as to why a PCC is in general terms superior to a 5.56 for use inside a building.

That for someone well practiced with a PCC, not well practiced with an AR, and concerned with hearing loss, thinks a PCC is better for them for HD is great...and I agree with them.

 

[barnbwt]

"Now, mentally transpose these gel photos onto the human body in the chest and head"
That's not how gel testing works. All it does is provide a consistent basis for comparison that roughly approximates tissue (not a living creature). It's not a road map of what wounds will look like.

"They need to [be more accurate/fast with hits] with handgun ballistics, which is a minus."
I thought you said the wider wound track wasn't a substitute for accuracy?

TCB

 

[strambo]

It isn't a substitute for poor accuracy, it does cause a lot more tissue damage though making a near miss (of an organ, not the target) with a handgun into a damaged vital organ with a rifle.

I understand gel is just an approximation of live tissue, I guess one could google for images of rifle and handgun wounds in animals and people and look at that instead. There is a big difference in just punching a hole, and damaging tissue in a ~2.5" wide temporary cavity plus punching a hole.

 

[barnbwt]

Like I said, handgun rounds cause less, but still sufficiently terrible damage in the same hit zones, so what specifically is the so-called "overkill" getting you, especially in light of very real liabilities to speed/follow up shots?

Either PC rounds are sufficient for this task or not, and if they are, why is more power advantageous?

TCB