Sidearms, what do you look for.

[MiB]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MiB:

My philosophy is, I prefer a little overkill. 9mm is a bullet, and it'll do the things that bullets do. .45ACP starts up 1/10" or so wider, and also expands a bit more iirc. So it gives you that much more of a chance to hit something vital enough to produce a stop.

If someone prefers 9mm, I can't really tell them they're picking something inferior per se (other than, of course, noting the larger diameter.) I still prefer having all the % I can on my side, though.

Before someone says "Well shoot them 5 more times with your extra ammo!", sometimes you don't have the time to pull the trigger 5 extra times. Also, just remember: Cop or Joe shmoe defending your home or life, you are MORALLY and LEGALLY responsible for where any misses go. I think I could hit someone in rapid fire at anything under 10 yards without a miss, but I've practiced a hell of a lot. You need to, too, if that's going to be your plan.

I would note that basing lethality predictions on calibre is shaky ground, as far as small-arms go. There are plenty of accounts of people still geting up after being hit by rifle or machine gun fire, and those pack vastly more energy and effect compared to a pistol. Of course, the plural of anecdote is not data, but the data suggests that, if you want your target to go down and stay down, that the shotgun is the preferred option. If you don't have time to pull a trigger on a semi-automatic weapon five times, then you have no time to do anything. The only sure stops are hits to the central nervous system, with any pistol.

Equally, that doesn't make the 9mm any better than the .45. Go with what you like and can use. And be aware of what it means to use it before you have to. </font>

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by MiB:

Antedotal evidence that you may present is ridiculous. Shot placement matters a lot more than caliber, granted - but assuming two equally skilled shooters, but who are not so skilled as to automatically get center of head shots 100% of the time from the draw, one with a .45 is going to get more stops with fewer rounds expended than one with a 9mm. Simple fact.

Is that a statistically significant "simple fact"? What does it mean, anyway? Does the .45 get more stops per engagement, regardless of the number of rounds used, or are the .45 and 9mm roughly equivalent in stops per engagement, with the 9mm firing more shots?

[rleete]

I did a lot of shooting last weekend at hunting camp. Several versions of the Ruger .22 were there, as well as a modern repro Luger. Both fit very comfortably in the hand. That angled grip style just makes target aquisition so much smoother. If it weren't for the inevitable stovepiping of the Luger, I'd go for one of those.

Does anyone make a Luger style pistol with a modern slide action?

[MiB]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MiB:

Antedotal evidence that you may present is ridiculous. Shot placement matters a lot more than caliber, granted - but assuming two equally skilled shooters, but who are not so skilled as to automatically get center of head shots 100% of the time from the draw, one with a .45 is going to get more stops with fewer rounds expended than one with a 9mm. Simple fact.

Is that a statistically significant "simple fact"? What does it mean, anyway? Does the .45 get more stops per engagement, regardless of the number of rounds used, or are the .45 and 9mm roughly equivalent in stops per engagement, with the 9mm firing more shots? </font>