Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Does size matter? Excellent info here...

No one is making such a stupid argument. The point relates to the difference in the physical force applied to the target by the projectile. Greater force equals more damage potential.

I've been saying as much for years on this forum; handguns aren't rifles.

When the target impact speed is gone, handgun bullets may or may not expand, may penetrate less etc..

It's easier to make a larger caliber expand at lower velocity, but more difficult to get penetration from it while keeping recoil down. Range is an effect as well.

Handguns are pretty simple, it's only by treating them like rifles do the mechanics get complicated, convoluted and follows with nonsense that was universally quelled over a hundred years ago.

Flat, large and keep the expansion to a minimum. I hear pure lead or 1-20 punks up nicely, but as long as folks think they make a bullet that can go through a windshield and 7/8ths of a dead perp from 10 feet to 50 yards, the concept of an entrance and an exit hole is way too dangerous....

FWIW, lead and flat noses were banned from military application, probably because both worked.

I do find it interesting that what often gets recommended for large animal defense is suddenly not applicable for human defense and suddenly bullets must take on an entirely different composition, shape, role etc..

Interesting about that 2200 fps threshold where a temporary cavity results in tearing. Not a 45 vs. 9mm thing, but I did video my buddy shooting a 629 S&W with a .44 Special 200 grain jhp and then a .44 Magnum 240 grain jhp into water filled milk jugs. Both .429" diameter but 900 fps vs. 1400 fps DID make quite a different impression on the milk jug and those of us watching.

That 2200 fps threshold certainly explains why a snowshoe hare that I gunned once with a 180 grain from a .308 came apart like it did. A 180 grain .308 bullet sure wasn't going to expand much in a four pound animal, but the higher velocity temporary cavity exceeded the exterior size of the target.

No one is making such a stupid argument. The point relates to the difference in the physical force applied to the target by the projectile. Greater force equals more damage potential. [/quote]

My comment was made to illustrate there isn't a thing as "knock down power" in handguns, and meant to be taken in context with the rest of my comments regarding my personal experience with handgun wounding in humans. You can cherry pick my comments and take them out of context if you wish, but clearly, you missed the entire point of my post.

That may or may not be true depending on the bullet. I have some Underwood 45 Super Ammo with the 230 XTP and 185 XTP bullets. The 230's expand readily, wide and hold together like a bonded bullet. The 230's have a deep hollow point and a softer core than the 185's. The 185's have a shallow hollow point and a much harder core and don't not open as wide as the 230's despite 1300+ FPS velocity

The authors of those articles are using assumptions if they didn't test their position

Now shoot that same water jug with a 5.56 or a .270 Winchester and see what happens.

Your post was stupid. No one was saying a 9mm or 45 was going to slam a person to the ground. You implied that is what I was trying to say and the implication is truly idiotic. The real hawkeye was spot on:

The term "knock down power" was never meant literally. If a bullet could physically knock someone down, the shooter would also be knocked down when his gun went off. Attacking the concept as though it was ever meant literally is a straw man argument.

You literally just made my point.

I have not shot the 9mm in large bore events. I have seen guys use 9mm's and I think what I have seen mostly mirrors your experience. On fresh pins, the 9mm is enough to get the job done, and the shooter gets the advantages you've identified. However, as pins gain weight, the 9mm isn't enough. As others have said, momentum is key in a bowling pin match, and the 9mm just can't produce the necessary momentum, even with a 147gr bullet. (At our club, there is no "capacity advantage" with the 9mm, as our rules limit all guns to 6 rounds per magazine.)

As an aside, I've seen guys shoot 185gr bullets out of the .45 ACP in an attempt to lesson recoil, yet still have enough momentum. It didn't work though, because the lighter bullets didn't move pins when they got heavy. So the guys loaded the 185gr bullets to really hot sppeds (1000 fps, 1050 fps, or even a smidge faster). That, of course, increased the recoil and still only got them momentum numbers that were about equal to a 230gr bullet at 850 fps.

And just to be clear, I'm just answering a bowling pin question--I'm in no way saying that any of this has any impact on the question of what's best for self-defense.

Only if serious folks ever used that term literally, which they didn't.

FWIW, I read Mannyspd1's point as he says it was intended. It was not "stupid."

There's no harm in starting at the beginning--too many people still believe that when a person gets shot with a .44 Magnum or a 12 gauge shotgun that the person will be lifted off the ground and sent through the picture window behind them. They saw it in a movie so it must be true--just as "silencers" make guns completely quiet.

Mannyspd1's post must be read in its entirety and taken in context.

I would also add that this forum typically is more understanding and courteous than other forums on the 'fire. We all benefit when we take the time to clarify what somebody means rather than just flame them.

BSA, my post was stupid? Please enlighten me where anything I said was not factually correct? Again, I will type slowly so you can understand...

You are cherry picking and taking my comment out of context. It was meant as part of the complete post, illustrating handgun wounding.

One guy with over 34k posts, and another with over 106k posts, you think you guys could understand this. Yet my post was stupid.

How about this? If I need help with my computer keyboard, I'll give you a shout. When it comes to handgun wounding in humans, I'll stick to what I know.

See ya.

Manny

I trimmed his original post down to the most salient points. It would appear that his data sample is large, which is significant, and he's saying the same thing as the guys in the video. He also reaches the same choice as most of us for an EDC--a high capacity 9mm.

Thank you for sharing, Manny.

Momentum can be a plus (penetration).
Pistol bullets being large frontal area relative to length, IMHO, can more easily be bumped off course when traveling through stuff.

I laugh about shot placement being key.
Its always key.

Hit em with something, repeatedly, in the right spots. Even then, I would think bigger is better.

With todays criminals however, capacity may be more of a factor than caliber.
The one vs one, or two..........now we have to think about gangs/mobs.

I don't hear much about knockdown power these days.
Spine or take out a leg, that'll drop em.
Other than that.............yeah whatever.

Handguns are pretty wimpy for defense, they work, but aint magical.

I dunno if the old Sanow stuff was vilified or verified, but IIRC 10% of those shot by handgun died, and only 10% of those died at the scene.
Of course there's proly a ton of variables, and noise, in that data.

But still.............I don't expect a bad guy to give up even with a good hit.

Pound em down.

The only time I've ever wanted a different gun than what I had. I wanted a rifle, not a bigger handgun. I would have, in that moment been satisfied with a 22LR as long as it was a rifle.

Maybe an irrational thought. Still, there's something to be said for confidence when its conspicuously absent.

You're welcome Waders.

My take is I'm certain,

That it depends.

So much varies that results can be lost in the noise.

22LR is often said to be unbelievably deadly.
And penetrates very deeply.

Then, someone takes a 22 direct to the head and it glances off.

Many instances of pistol rounds doing the same.

Small caliber guys claim it's all about accuracy.
Because they can shoot, by God. (You cant)
But they don't choose 32acp with fmj. Why?

Big caliber guys rely on size.
Like a big dam gun removes the need for decent hits.
Who actually believes that?

I believe bigger/faster is better than otherwise.
That it won't always show up in results, but it can.

Then, practicality pops up...

Thank you.