Ron, just curious, but how about the .380 compared to those others you mentioned? Or is it still mainly a shot-placement issue?
On paper, you�re absolutely right, but in the real world; no difference.
Think about it. We talk about bullets in tenth�s to hundreths of an inch. Now take about .15 and put it on your chest and tell me how big that is in relation to your chest; no all that impressive now is it? And that .15 at best is the difference between an expanded .45 and an expanded 9mm. Now look at an anatomical view of a human torso and tell me when, if EVER .15 is going to turn a bad wound into a severe wound. JHP�s do increase the performance of all handgun bullets on human targests; that�s not in dispute. But to think that .15 difference actually means anything on a human torso�I�ve had too many years on the street treating wounds, and too many years in the bush hunting. Plain and simple, I don�t buy it at all. Use a handgun with a JHP that has reasonable performance and place that round into the vitals and you�ll NEVER tell the difference between a 9mm & a .45. I tend to think the FBI�s criteria is pretty damn good; perhaps makes for a bit more penetration than some of us need, but still pretty damn good. The FBI has so much confidence in their criteria that any caliber/load that passes their tests is good with them (I�m not saying they immediately certify it for FBI use, I�m saying they feel it�s adequate).
If I�m carrying a Browning Hi Power in 9mm with standard velocity JHP�s, I don�t feel ONE IOTA less armed than when I�m carrying my LW Commander in .45 ACP. I think us gun guys have a tendency to be a little too much into guns sometimes.
Just my .02 YMMV.
Kevin, those are not my words. I'd appreciate it if you'd remove my name from that quote. Thanks.
PS Not that I disagree with the sentiment.
Hawk - My bad, I fixed it; really sorry about that.
