TexasCHLforum.com

djjoshuad wrote:I was trying to spread some knowledge about a new type of ammo that is proving itself to be an excellent SD round.

Believe it or not, most of us appreciate that. We just like to turn things inside out and examine them from all angles.
Someone says some new thingamajig is better, you've suddenly got a bunch of us wanting proof, as well as defending the old thingamajigs we've trusted for years. I don't think anyone's attacking you personally, but gun owners are an opinionated bunch. And stopping power has been debated forever and will continue to be debated for the forseeable future. When you present a new bullet as being better than older designs, it just opens a new chapter in the debate. Nothing wrong with that. We all learn from the discussion. Maybe in time this frangible core bullet will prove to be the greatest man-stopper ever invented. Or maybe it will be a flop. Until it's been in common use for a decade or so, there just won't be that much evidence one way or the other. And we'll continue to debate Strasbourg goat tests, one-shot stop percentages, performance in bare ballistic gelatin, performance in ballistic gelatin after passing through various bariers such as clothing, sheetrock, and car windows, performance in water, performance in wet phone books, you name it.

If you wrestle a pig in the mud, you'll get dirty and eventually figure out that the pig enjoys it.
If you debate terminal ballistics with a bunch of gun nuts, you'll find that we enjoy the debate and that some will question your conclusions. That doesn't mean we don't want you to continue throwing ideas out there.

I like big bullets and I can not lie. . . .
My two main pistols are in .45 ACP and .40 S&W.
We can debate bullets, calibers, and stopping power for decades and never completely agree.
I do not doubt that there are some very good small-caliber bullets available today for self defense. But I also think that the same technology applied to larger calibers is even better.
However, carrying around a huge handgun may not be practical. I did not mean to say that the ammo djjoshuad is talking about is in any way inadequate. I'd like to have a little pocket .380 myself.

Today, gun manufacturers seem to be in a race to see who can make the smallest, lightest 9mm. This interests me a lot for a concealed carry weapon. We're seeing .32s and even .380s in guns now that are the size you used to only get .25ACP in. We may soon see 9mm in guns just about that small.

I agree with Col. Cooper on a number of things, including what he said about the .25.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Quoting the famous Jeff Cooper:

As we used to teach in the spook business, carry a 25 if it makes you feel good, but do not ever load it. If you load it you may shoot it. If you shoot it you may hit somebody, and if you hit somebody - and he finds out about it - he may be very angry with you.

But I will admit to frequently going about armed only with an NAA Pug in .22 Mag when my larger pistols were just too big. It's better than a sharp stick.



My hands are a little smaller than average, so that gives you an idea of the size.
Small guns have their place. And I'm all for companies making better and better defensive ammo for these small guns.
The right gun for the right occasion.

jamisjockey wrote:There is something to be said for consistiency. If you are constantly bouncing from platform to platform, how do you know you'll be able to operate that firearm under stress?

I do agree with that too. You need to practice to be competent with whatever weapon you carry. If you change between different platforms, you need to practice with all of them. Some people will carry multiple sizes of the same basic platform. Glocks and XDs come in various sizes of the same gun so there's very little extra learning involved there. 1911s come in several sizes.
Even if you have a couple of totally different guns, a 1911 and a Glock, for example, and you practice to be good with both, you might wonder how much more competent you'd be if you put all your practice time/ammo into one platform and carried just that. These things are personal decisions we all have to make. Discussing and debating this stuff here may not change many people's minds, but it does make us more aware of these issues we need to consider.

djjoshuad wrote:IMO, ammo selection is just as important as caliber selection. a 9mm with some solid (expensive) self-protection rounds is far more deadly than a .45 with ball ammo or even a wal-mart hollow point. The ballistics of some ammo I just picked up (RCBO?) in .45 is insane - 2200 ft/sec muzzle velocity and 815-ish lb/ft of force applied to the target at 15 yards. And that's a 90 grain load. It's a soft hollow point with a frangible lead core that makes it feed better in an SA pistol, stop better when it hits the target, and spread out like crazy, doing a lot more internal damage. Of course, it's over $40 for a box of 20... definitely not something I can afford to practice with regularly.

That same ammo in .380 is going to hit just as hard and do just as much damage as generic WWB JHP .45, according to ballistics studies. Of course, my .45 Kimber using that ammo is still a better choice... but if I had to conceal an LCP-sized weapon and had the right ammo for it, I would not be any less confident in my "stopping power" :)

Absolutely agree with chosing the right ammo.
Not sure I agree with everything you posted there but I do agree with the general idea.
Good 9mm as good as .45 ball? Probably. Better than? . . . questionable.
Plus, you can't rely on the idea that your ammo will always expand properly. A .45 caliber bullet is going to punch a .45 caliber hole. A 9mm bullet might expand to make a hole that big or even bigger. And it might not.
I'd like to see the tests that show a .380 that's as good as WWB JHP .45.

I was recently on another forum where they were discussing what gun you needed for shooting grizzly in Alaska. The Alaska residents, including a number of guides on the forum, tended to shake their heads and laugh at some of the things hunters from the lower 48 thought they wanted/needed. The Alaskans were saying that a .30-06 with the right bullet, and with good shot placement, was plenty. People who brought their .458 Win Mag elephant gun were mostly people on their first trip to Alaska. So yeah, shot placement and bullet design is as important as caliber.

But the same advances we've seen in small calibers have also been applied to the larger calibers. The same companies who make good 9mm hollow points make .45 hollow points that are even better.

Like with automobile engines, there's no substitute for cubic inches.

That doesn't mean I would feel unarmed when carrying a .380. But no .380 would make me feel as well-armed as a caliber starting with a 4.

But . . . shifting in the other direction:
Lower recoil will allow you to get back on target for faster follow-up shots. Is one shot with a .45 as good as two shots with a 9mm? I don't know. More hits with a smaller caliber vs. fewer hits with a larger caliber is a subject I've never seen explored and might be worth looking into.

Carry the largest gun you can adequately conceal in the most powerful caliber you can shoot well.

The largest gun you can conceal may change depending on how you're dressed that day. It's nice to have the luxury of several handguns to choose from when getting dressed. If you can only have one, get one that will conceal in just about any clothing you might wear.

Some compromises will be made, both in how much gun you can carry and in how you will dress to conceal that gun.