That's 'cause if you shoot 'em with a 10mm there isn't enough left of 'em to study.
Seriously, though, that's an interesting way of interpreting the statistics.
AppleaDay wrote: That's 'cause if you shoot 'em with a 10mm there isn't enough left of 'em to study.![]()





An excellent reason to carry a .45. Convince a .22 wielding attacker to trade up to the .45 and shoot with it...or just preemptively shoot yourself with the .45 and convince the attacker that the .45 did a good enough job.spadesofcolumbia wrote:i personally would rather get shot by a .45 then a .22lr. A .22cal will penatrate and then bounce around until your jelly...a .45 will hit and do its damage and then its done.

Reverenddel wrote:I will concur with Kreutz. This is the most civil conversation I have seen when it comes to stopping power!
Usually it boils down to one caliber over another, when in fact? It's SHOT PLACEMENT/DISTANCE/WEIGHT OF ROUND/ATTACKERS MENTALITY/SHOOTERS MENTALITY/SPEED.


A hit with a .22 is better than a miss from a .45...Reverenddel wrote:Agreed! Four shots of a .45ACP random in the area BEHIND the attacker is not NEARLY as good at ten shots from a .22LR in the head!
RPD? Rappahanock? Richmond? Virginia State Police uses .357 Sig... in the link to the study, the author lumps .357 together - .357 magnum and .357 sig...Reverenddel wrote: Just random question, what's the data on the .357 SIG? I haven't heard much about it, but the RPD carrys them... I think.

I've long been a proponent of 9mm as a good caliber, particularly for a first gun. Ammo for 9mm is cheaper and your ability to effectively use it grows exponentially with practice. I've said it before, but I'll say it again.Chasbo00 wrote:Here is an interesting article from Rob Pincus. He now favors the 9mm over the 40 S&W...
http://www.imakenews.com/valhalla/e_art ... 7QPlVl%2Cw


I understand what your trying to say...and i hate to say this myself...but out of all my customers, its the military guys that are the most ignorant about ballistics and gun related subjects...military guys use guns that the military gives them...and the military doesnt always know whats best but whats most affordable.M1A4ME wrote:Science, scientists, engineers, studies, experiments, etc.
Coffee is bad for you and gives you cancer (just 4 or 5 years ago it seems this was the result of a scientific study).
Eggs are bad for you (several years prior to the coffee BS this was all over the TV and "news" publications).
Catalytic converteors on cars make for cleaner emissions (let's not talk about the stuff the "cats" put out).
High speed on the interstates is a major cause of highway deaths (and yet now, as the speeds are raised well over the old 55 mph limit in many states traffic fatalities are decreasing every year.)
All I know is Sgt. York (WW1 in Europe) and Sgt. Baker (WW2 in the Pacific) used a 1911 in .45 acp to drop enemy squads advancing on their positions with one shot each. Sgt. York got 7 and Sgt. Baker got 8. And with that old unreliable 230 grain hardball, too.
I'll stick to my big bullets, thank you. I do like the fast moving 38 caliber bullets, too, but that's more of a "feeling" with no basis in military history.
Oh, both the Sgts. mentioned above received the Medal of Honor for their actions on those days they were out numbered and used the 1911 to destroy those enemy soldiers. The citations for the Medal of Honor winners from WW1 on till the 1911 and .45 acp were replaced contain many instances of its effectiveness in the hands of a man who knows how to put the bullets where they need to go.
