Tulsa Store Armed Robbery
- Thread starter pronstar
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I think the below counts as "arguing caliber matters" (which it does to a certain extent, but not between 9, 40, and 45). And the link refutes the claims below.
And you can also find studies that say otherwise, if you spend two more seconds on google. Most studies only talk about fatalities. Which could occur immediately or days later and thus renders those studies completely useless in this conversation. For instance, a .22 can bounce around in the ribcage and the person may bleed to death before the docs can find all the internal wounds. But usually leaves the person able to keep functioning.
What I heard is was related first person and certainly does count. Conclusive on its own? No. But combined with historical data, yes.
You can have the last word.
I will take 50% more momentum and a larger hole/wound channel.
Feel free to have the last word.
FTFY.
And I don't care about rate of fatality, the goal of any conceal carrier is rate of incapacitation, which is what the link specifically talks about. If fatality mattered, I'd carry a 22lr all day. There is nothing to support your claim on modern day high quality hollow points, while plenty more supports the fact that the difference between all 3 of these calibers are marginal. All of this also doesn't take into account the fact that 9mm is better for faster follow up shots, more accurate due to less recoil, and greater capacity in magazines
Ah, my bad.
Yeah, using a 9 mm you are gonna need that greater capacity for sure.
The other factors are negligible.
Since you are big on studies, what percentage of the civilian encounters involve more than a couple of rounds from typically 5 yards or less?
Oh, I thought you were gone.
I've cited studies, while you've provided nothing. I'm not sure what you're still arguing about. But let's play your game of 2 rounds within 5 yards, the average rate of incapacitation between 9mm and 45 is about the same (2 rounds) as shown by the same article above. But then this isn't factoring in recoil, ease of shooting, and ammo capacity all of which are definitely not negligible. Or are you gonna argue less ammo and more recoil is actually better now?
Last edited:
Eight rounds is plenty (at least with a decent caliber). If more than that are required (exceedingly unlikely for civilians), I will either be seeking cover or will have a second to two to swap mags. For civilians, the extra capacity is moot.
The recoil effects are small enough to be negligible. Even more so at the close range at which the vast amount of encounters occur.
If you give just a little thought to the real world, you will know these things are true.
And I am not going to take the time and effort to spoon feed you the decades of study and conversations regarding caliber effectiveness. If you have an open mind, you will search and find the same things with some time and effort. If you are a 9 mm fanboy, you won't bother looking.
I think the bigger issue is you been your fan or whatever starts with a 4. Even with evidence in front of your eyes. Thats the true symptom of "fanboyism". And you've still quoted no evidence. So enough said.
I forgot firearm and ammunition technology hasn't advanced at all in the last 70 years. My bad.
No not equally, by the facts I posted repeatedly for the other folks in this thread.
Please re read the thread
I went back through your posts.
If 9mm ammo has not advanced more than .45, or vice versa, what would make post #51 relevant?
In order to make one better than the other today?
If 9mm ammo has not advanced more than .45, or vice versa, what would make post #51 relevant?
In order to make one better than the other today?
Big Dipper
TGT Addict
9 mm introduced in 1902
.45 ACP designed 1905
Try 100+ years of development of both, including the newer .45.
As to lethality, Gabby Giffords was hit point blank in the head with a 9 mm and lived to rail about gun control.
No argument.
Discussion.
My way of thinking, if .45 was better than 9mm up until the time of ammunition improvements, that means .45 would still be better because it's improved the same amount.
I do understand that ammo improvements have greatly increased 9mm effectiveness.
I'm not a .45 or 1911 fanboi.
I don't carry either, unless it's to a Bar B Q.
I would carry a 9mm, over a .45 most every time.
Last edited:
Last edited:
