any handgun gurus?

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: pontifex


guess i should have used the :roll: emoticon after that.

i was making fun of you saying that a .45 is better because you heard stories that people lived through being hsot multiple times with a 9mm.

like the other guy said, it matters where you shoot, not the caliber size.

That plays a huge part in it. I still stand by the fact that there have been many more cases where people simply won't go down with a 9mm shot to the chest. This happens less often with a .45.

http://www.handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp?Caliber=0

As you can see, the .45s have proven to be more effective at stopping their target.

Unless you can say where those shots were placed you are standing by worthless data.

Doesn't matter now does it?

 

[squirrel dog]

I have the P90 in 45 , its very solid . You may want to go to a range that will let you rent some guns and try different ones . A revolver in double action is a good choice also . I've had three rugers in 44 mag that were fun , I have Dan Wessons now , one in 357 , one in 44 . The 357 is an excellent gun , you can change the barrell length , I have a 4" and a 6" for it . I also hand load and you can work up loads that arent nearly as 'hot' as factory ammo which makes shooting a lot more fun and is way cheaper also .

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: dnuggett
side note- it always cracks me up when you people talk about the effectiveness of one caliber over another, like any of you truly know what you are talking about besides what you read after some jello test was conducted. The 9mm round is a great round, and if any of you think it won't stop someone, take a well placed one for the team. Let's see if you can post the results.

BTW... getting shot in the chest is not always a game over event no matter if it's a .357, 9mm, .357 SIG, .40, .45 or anything else. There is a lot tissue mass and bone in the chest, and unless you tag a vital organ AND damage that organ it may not be game over.

See my post in the "Are you prepared to shoot an intruder" thread. One shot to the chest with a 9mm took him down, and was not lethal.

I'll bet the .45 would have killed him. It's better to have them dead, or you may get sued or they might get back up.

You sir are clueless. That's like saying some one in Ford Expedition would have survived an accident that killed someone in an Explorer without any regard to speed, or any other factor that could have caused the death other than size of the vehicle.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: pontifex


guess i should have used the :roll: emoticon after that.

i was making fun of you saying that a .45 is better because you heard stories that people lived through being hsot multiple times with a 9mm.

like the other guy said, it matters where you shoot, not the caliber size.

That plays a huge part in it. I still stand by the fact that there have been many more cases where people simply won't go down with a 9mm shot to the chest. This happens less often with a .45.

http://www.handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp?Caliber=0

As you can see, the .45s have proven to be more effective at stopping their target.

Unless you can say where those shots were placed you are standing by worthless data.

Doesn't matter now does it?

Wow...

How could it not matter. If the 9mm shots were not placed as well as the .45 the data is off. How do you not get this? It's not good enough to say it was placed as a chest shot. IT'S WHERE YOU PLACE THE SHOT IN THE CHEST. Damn how hard is this to grasp?

 

[BlancoNino]

Of course there are tons of little factors that go into everything. I'm just saying that more often a .45 will kill a target more often than a 9mm.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Of course there are tons of little factors that go into everything. I'm just saying that more often a .45 will kill a target more often than a 9mm.

And what do you have to back this claim up? Skewed data in which you have no idea of the reliability? Or is it just cause the round is bigger, therefore it must be better?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Wow...

How could it not matter. If the 9mm shots were not placed as well as the .45 the data is off. How do you not get this? It's nto good enough to say it was placed as a chest shot. IT'S WHERE YOU PLACE THE SHOT N THE CHEST. Damn how hard is this to grasp?

It could be off by a little bit. But I'm sure they're pretty accurate. It's not like they're a biased website or antyhing.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Of course there are tons of little factors that go into everything. I'm just saying that more often a .45 will kill a target more often than a 9mm.

And what do you have to back this claim up? Skewed data in which you have no idea of the reliability? Or is it just cause the round is bigger, therefore it must be better?

I've read multiple articles and have yet to come across one that didn't say the .45 was more capable of killing than a 9mm.

And if you'd have read my previous posts, you'd realize that I know that having a bigger round isn't always better. Why else would .223 and 3.08 rounds be so deadly?

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Wow...

How could it not matter. If the 9mm shots were not placed as well as the .45 the data is off. How do you not get this? It's nto good enough to say it was placed as a chest shot. IT'S WHERE YOU PLACE THE SHOT N THE CHEST. Damn how hard is this to grasp?

It could be off by a little bit. But I'm sure they're pretty accurate. It's not like they're a biased website or antyhing.

I am not suggesting they introduce bias. I am saying without mapping the .45 shots and overlaying the 9mm shots area by area, there is no way to conclusively prove that the one stoppers the .45's claim couldn't have been one stoppers by the 9mm too. Once again it's about exact location of the shots. Unless you know this a comparison is worthless. Prove that statement wrong, and I'll agree with you.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: huberm
I am interested in getting a new handgun, but not sure what to look for. I know I want a Ruger, but thats all I've concluded so far.

I want it to be fairly light, and comfortable while concealing (I plan to carry it sometimes once I get my permit). I also have fairly large hands, so it can't feel too small. As far as bullet size, I just want something that will effectively stop someone from harming me if I shoot them.

Oh, and I'm left handed, if that makes any difference. Any recommendations?

Is this your first handgun? If so, I recommend a .357 Magnum revolver. You can shoot .38 Special through it all day and load it with .357 Magnum rounds for self defense.

Ruger makes excellent revolvers but personally, I am partial to Smith & Wesson revolvers.

Excellent gun. My friend has a S&W .357 Magnum Revolver that's ported and it kicks ass. ALthough I'm not sure if a magnum revolver is necessarily the best choice for a first handgun. They have a kick to them.

Not when you shoot .38 Special through them.

 

[JDMnAR1]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
And if you'd have read my previous posts, you'd realize that I know that having a bigger round isn't always better. Why else would .223 and 3.08 rounds be so deadly?

Could it possible have something to do with them being rifle rounds?? :roll:

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: pontifex


guess i should have used the :roll: emoticon after that.

i was making fun of you saying that a .45 is better because you heard stories that people lived through being hsot multiple times with a 9mm.

like the other guy said, it matters where you shoot, not the caliber size.

That plays a huge part in it. I still stand by the fact that there have been many more cases where people simply won't go down with a 9mm shot to the chest. This happens less often with a .45.

... because it's rare - relative to 9mm's - that a .45 is involved in a shooting.

You have numerous people telling you that a .45 is not only overkill, it's counterproductive to the very goal you're trying to achieve (self-defense).

Listen for a sec, bro .

BTW - I got a Sig P226 40SW and it's sweet. VERY comfortable, high-quality handgun.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Of course there are tons of little factors that go into everything. I'm just saying that more often a .45 will kill a target more often than a 9mm.

And what do you have to back this claim up? Skewed data in which you have no idea of the reliability? Or is it just cause the round is bigger, therefore it must be better?

I've read multiple articles and have yet to come across one that didn't say the .45 was more capable of killing than a 9mm.

And if you'd have read my previous posts, you'd realize that I know that having a bigger round isn't always better. Why else would .223 and 3.08 rounds be so deadly?

I'm about to blow the lid off your world. I can tell you don't know what you're talking about because you typed "3.08." That let's me know that you're going off of what you've heard people say, and not what you've read.

Get this, a 9mm bullet is typically 115 grains. A .223 is typically between 55 and 75 grains. And a .308 is between 150 and 175 grains. A .45 ACP by comparison is typically 200 to 230 grains. Did you read that right? The rifle bullets are SMALLER. How in the world could they be MORE deadly?

Because they're going faster. And a 9mm is going about 1300fps, while a .45 ACP is piddling along at about 850fps.

Have you been pwned enough for now, Mr. Bigger is better?

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: pontifex


guess i should have used the :roll: emoticon after that.

i was making fun of you saying that a .45 is better because you heard stories that people lived through being hsot multiple times with a 9mm.

like the other guy said, it matters where you shoot, not the caliber size.

That plays a huge part in it. I still stand by the fact that there have been many more cases where people simply won't go down with a 9mm shot to the chest. This happens less often with a .45.

http://www.handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp?Caliber=0

As you can see, the .45s have proven to be more effective at stopping their target.

and how many cases are there where i guy was plugged several times at once and lived, with either round? i'm guessing its not many. the likelihood of it happening is probably extremely small.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Of course there are tons of little factors that go into everything. I'm just saying that more often a .45 will kill a target more often than a 9mm.

And what do you have to back this claim up? Skewed data in which you have no idea of the reliability? Or is it just cause the round is bigger, therefore it must be better?

I've read multiple articles and have yet to come across one that didn't say the .45 was more capable of killing than a 9mm.

And if you'd have read my previous posts, you'd realize that I know that having a bigger round isn't always better. Why else would .223 and 3.08 rounds be so deadly?

I'm about to blow the lid off your world. I can tell you don't know what you're talking about because you typed "3.08." That let's me know that you're going off of what you've heard people say, and not what you've read.

Get this, a 9mm bullet is typically 115 grains. A .223 is typically between 55 and 75 grains. And a .308 is between 150 and 175 grains. A .45 ACP by comparison is typically 200 to 230 grains. Did you read that right? The rifle bullets are SMALLER. How in the world could they be MORE deadly?

Because they're going faster. And a 9mm is going about 1300fps, while a .45 ACP is piddling along at about 850fps.

Have you been pwned enough for now, Mr. Bigger is better?

I didn't say faster was better either. You've got me all wrong. It's just how the entire equation works out (Ballistics and Size). More on both doesn't mean better. Sorry if I was unclear on this.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Of course there are tons of little factors that go into everything. I'm just saying that more often a .45 will kill a target more often than a 9mm.

And what do you have to back this claim up? Skewed data in which you have no idea of the reliability? Or is it just cause the round is bigger, therefore it must be better?

I've read multiple articles and have yet to come across one that didn't say the .45 was more capable of killing than a 9mm.

And if you'd have read my previous posts, you'd realize that I know that having a bigger round isn't always better. Why else would .223 and 3.08 rounds be so deadly?

I'm about to blow the lid off your world. I can tell you don't know what you're talking about because you typed "3.08." That let's me know that you're going off of what you've heard people say, and not what you've read.

Get this, a 9mm bullet is typically 115 grains. A .223 is typically between 55 and 75 grains. And a .308 is between 150 and 175 grains. A .45 ACP by comparison is typically 200 to 230 grains. Did you read that right? The rifle bullets are SMALLER. How in the world could they be MORE deadly?

Because they're going faster. And a 9mm is going about 1300fps, while a .45 ACP is piddling along at about 850fps.

Have you been pwned enough for now, Mr. Bigger is better?

I didn't say faster was better either. You've got me all wrong. It's just how the entire equation works out (Ballistics and Size). More on both doesn't mean better. Sorry if I was unclear on this.

I know you didn't say faster was better. You were oblivious to that fact. You asked why .223 and "3.08" were so deadly. The answer is, they're faster. The reason you got so owned is that you were repeatedly saying how much better the .45 is than the 9mm, even though the 9mm is much faster.

I shouldn't have had to explain the irony to you.