One shot stops

[George Hill]

It's not so much the number of rounds you fire, but the number of hits you actually make into the target's vitals.
:banghead:

 

[JohnKSa]

If what you say is true, then ball ammuntion should be as good as hollowpoints and so on. And we know that isn't the case.

Well, I'm not arguing that you can compare target ammo to premium self-defense ammunition and get good results. I thought we were comparing terminal performance of handguns within a given performance class. Not ball to hp ammo.

Clearly, it's possible to handicap oneself by a poor choice of ammunition regardless of the performance class of your handgun.

If you want to extend the discussion to ammunition considerations then I would make the statement that within a given performance class ball ammo should provide similar results across the board (comparing handguns all using ball ammo within a performance class). Likewise, if the performance is compared across the board with premium self-defense ammunition, results within the class would be virtually identical.

It's not so much the number of rounds you fire, but the number of hits you actually make into the target's vitals.

Precisely. And given the fact that shooting performance (hit rate) deteriorates dramatically when a person is under stress, it's critical that a person have as many chances as possible to make a hit to the vitals.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Okay, George...

not in combat, in the range...

15 yard, 3" circle, 15 rounds, in the circle, 3 seconds...

No brag, fact. Probably a very good day (aaaah, hell with it, it WAS a very good day) but it works for me.

Could I do it in a BG, Gremlin, whatever situation. You bet your ass!

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Well, I'm not arguing that you can compare target ammo to premium self-defense ammunition and get good results. I thought we were comparing terminal performance of handguns within a given performance class.

You're correct. But the issue I'm addressing is the adding of things which individually have too small an effect to measure, but which in aggregation make a difference.

For example if we take extreme cases (say .22 to .458) we can show increasing caliber makes a difference. But between .40 S&W and .45 ACP the difference is too small to measure (or to detect a difference in real-world shootings.) But the probability is there is a difference -- we just can't measure it.

Again, we can't measure the (probably) increased effectiveness of hollowpoints versus ball (we had someone earlier point that out), nor of +P versus normal, or of a 5" barrel versus a 3" barrel.

But if we stack all the probable increased effectiveness on one side, and compare it to the other side, we can see a difference.

 

[JohnKSa]

difference is too small to measure

Then that's not a difference you should be concerned with--pretty straighforward.

But if we stack all the probable increased effectiveness on one side, and compare it to the other side, we can see a difference.

If that were true, then this debate would have ended long ago and every handgun effectiveness thread would end with a link to the proof.

And the fact remains that even if there IS a difference, it's so small that we're using words like theoretical, probable, and talking about summing lots of these differences to try to get something might be detectable.

On the other hand the COSTS of getting these minimal effects are significant, easily detectable, universally accepted and negative.

 

[BluesBear]

Could I do it in a BG, Gremlin, whatever situation. You bet your ass!

No you're the one betting your ass.
My ass has already survived more than once.

Now, if we were betting money I'd take that bet. (so would anyone who has been there and done that)
Because when the balloon goes up your entire world will change.
And that's a fact Jack. Don't kid yourself that it isn't.

You need a reality check but I pray that you don't actually get it.

 

[BluesBear]

Now you'd think a .40S&W shot into an 8 pound housecat would be a one shot stop wouldn't you?

As the constable entered the home, the cat ran up the stairs and stared the officer down.

Speaking to The Intelligencer on condition of anonymity, the constable said he had “ ... never seen an animal act like that before — it was like it was possessed or something, hissing and growling.”

The officer shot the cat square in the chest with his Beretta .40-calibre handgun.

“Even after he shot it, that cat was so hopped up — we’re talking about a little, eight-pound cat — Mickey ran down the hall into the bathroom and jumped into the tub,” the husband recollected. “He didn’t die for at least five minutes ... he was all nerves and adrenaline ... he wasn’t in his right mind.”

Belleville Intelligencer

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

You need a reality check but I pray that you don't actually get it.

Me too. Thanks, Blues.

Been in a few messes, but not the fatal kind, as you surmised. God bless.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Then that's not a difference you should be concerned with--pretty straighforward.If that were true, then this debate would have ended long ago and every handgun effectiveness thread would end with a link to the proof.

No. As I pointed out, by stacking those things we cannot measure, but which should make a difference, we can produce an end product that is measurably superior.

And the fact remains that even if there IS a difference, it's so small that we're using words like theoretical, probable, and talking about summing lots of these differences to try to get something might be detectable.

On the other hand the COSTS of getting these minimal effects are significant, easily detectable, universally accepted and negative.[/QUOTE]

So we should go with smaller calibers, ball ammo, in short barrels?

 

[JohnKSa]

As I pointed out, by stacking those things we cannot measure, but which should make a difference, we can produce an end product that is measurably superior.

It's not measurably superior or the debate wouldn't continue. It's as simple as that. If it were measurably superior then that measurable superiority would have ended the debate long ago.

So we should go with smaller calibers, ball ammo, in short barrels?

Ok, I'll respond ignoring the fact that this is a somewhat obvious attempt to overstate the premise in an attempt to make it appear ridiculous.

Ball ammo: Unless you can come up with a significant reason NOT to use premium HP ammo in modern firearms then I don't see why you wouldn't want to use HP. Personally, I don't see the relevance of ball vs HP to a discussion of caliber performance differences, but whatever...

Short barrels: Longer barrels offer more sight radius and therefore improve shootability so I think there's sufficient reason to try for a balance here.

Smaller calibers: I would say that shootability and capacity are the goals while staying within a performance class. All other things being equal, going smaller in caliber doesn't always mean more shootability (there's more to recoil/muzzle flip/shot recovery time than muzzle diameter) though it almost always improves capacity.