TexasCHLforum.com

...if, after all this discussion, you're not certain...you need to carry a .45...

speedsix wrote:...if, after all this discussion, you're not certain...you need to carry a .45...

They need to make a 19-round magazine-fed pocket .45 that has manageable recoil and can transform into a commander 1911 with a flip of a switch. Now THAT'S a carry gun!

AndyC wrote: I didn't say or imply that anything you said was woo-woo junk science; merely that the concept of "energy dump" as proposed by Bulldog is, in fact, junk science.

pa-lease... Nowhere have I stated that I believe a bullet can magical create it's own energy. I've stated a mere fact that my bullet used all it's energy and therefore stopped, where as yours continued out of the body.

I think we've discovered the whole issue...

AndyC wrote:GrillKing wrote:And I agreed, if you read my posts,

If you don't agree with the facts I state then feel free to post a proof that disproves it, but don't simply attempt to discredit my knowledge by associating me(or crediting me with inventing) this "woo-woo" science.

EDIT:
From the OP:

USA1 wrote: I would be leery of FMJ because I've seen a .380 FMJ round pass
completely through a refrigerator, so my fear would be over-penetration.

If his fear is over-penetration, then a hollow point would definitely be the way to go.

loadedliberal wrote:No bad guy is going to like getting shot, I don't care what anyone says weather it's a .25 FMJ or a .44 mag JHP gettin shot hurts all stats aside. Now considering that JHPs are designed for self defense and FMJs for targets its an easy decision for me to make when it comes to my carry ammo and caliber.

No, nobody likes getting shot. But I have personally witnessed people who were shot and didn't know it. When I worked in the ER, we treated a patient who walked in with 4 or 5 entrance wounds in the back. He had driven himself to the hospital. On arrival, he walked up to the triage desk and told the nurse, "I think I've been shot," and then he got light-headed and kind of keeled over. He lived. He had been shot in the back by a .38 Special, as he was running away from a drug deal gone bad. All the hits were solid hits into the lung fields. I'll give the shooter this: to put 4 or 5 rounds into a subject who is running away and hit center of mass with each round is pretty good shooting. But he's lucky the guy was running away, and not toward him, because the vic had the ability to run a couple of blocks to his car, jump in, and then drive it 3 or 4 miles to the hospital, park it, get out, and walk his narrow behind into the ER. If he had it in his mind to kill the shooter, the shooter might well be dead.

Let that be a lesson to those who choose to carry underpowered cartridges. My dinkey little PM9 is stoked with 115 grain Corbon +P DPX. My scandium snubbie is stoked with 125 grain Critical Defense .357s instead of .38s. I'm not foolish enough to think that my .45s are some kind of magic talisman. SEE THIS THREAD. The bad guy absorbed 2 hits COM from bad breath distance, fired from a Glock 36 .45 ACP stoked with Cor-Bon "Pow'R Ball" ammo. The BG alive to tell about it, and so, thankfully, is the CHLer who shot him.

This is primarily why I am not a fan of the .380. I just don't have confidence that it will put someone down in most situations. I don't have confidence that a .45 ACP will put someone down all of the time either, but I have greater confidence in it than in the .380, and that confidence is earned and supported by the data. And being perfectly honest about my own abilities, I am a decent (not great, but decent) shot at the range, and I shoot regularly. But under the duress of an actual shooting, about the only thing that I think I can count on is hitting center of mass. I seriously doubt, with all the adrenaline dump and loss of fine motor control, that I would be able to aim specifically for the sternum, or the hip. Everything that I've ever read or heard first hand from people who have been in a shooting is that it all happens so fast that even if you train and are walking around in condition yellow/orange, you're never really ready for when it happens.

So why handicap yourself with a .380? I do not mean to insult anyone else's choices, and I fully acknowledge that the .380 in your pocket beats the .45 you left at home, but in the current market, where it seems like companies are on a race to develop the smallest micro pocket 9mm and .45 pistols ever made, pistol size ought no longer really a driving force in one's carry caliber decision-making. The Kahr PM9/CM9 disappears into a pocket and is flatter and smaller than even a scandium J-frame .357 (which is another great choice). Kimber makes the 9mm Solo, which is smaller yet. All these guns, and others, are small, light, pocketable, very concealable, and chambered in calibers more powerful than .380. I know it sounds dumb, but you guys are friends, and I worry that someone I know may get hurt because they didn't carry enough gun.

Anyway, that's my 2¢.

Are you seriously reading these posts? The words I used were energy transfer. Now you are arguing that energy cannot be transferred?
Never did I say my bullet is better because it used all it's energy. My argument was that it would stop inside the person. The quote you posted from Dr. Fackler does not disprove the fact that energy can be transferred.

And you call my comprehension into question

Bulldog1911 wrote:And you call my comprehension into question

Not that AndyC needs any help, but.... Ummm. Yes.

The kinetic energy fallacy is a smokescreen which hides the actual ways in which the projectile interacts with tissue. Authors who use "kinetic energy transfer" as an explanation of how a projectile causes a particular injury are missing the crux of wound ballistics, as well as spreading the worst kind of misinformation; that which induces complacency by masquerading as knowledge. How much better off the field would be if the words "kinetic energy" were erased from its vocabulary; then one would be forced to look into the mechanical interactions of projectiles and tissue wherein lies the key to understanding.

Dr Martin Fackler

AndyC wrote:

Bulldog1911 wrote:I've stated a mere fact that my bullet used all it's energy and therefore stopped, where as yours continued out of the body.

No. You didn't simply state a fact - you implied that yours is better because it stopped in the body, and I'd like to know why.

so you're arguing inference over stated fact?

Bulldog1911 wrote:I think a more accurate term would be energy transfer. I think we would all agree that if a bullet stops inside someone then all of that bullets energy has been successfully transferred from the bullet to the BG. If it penetrates through, then it was not all transferred, and for all intents and purposes, wasted.

Above is fact whether you want to believe it or not. Doesn't mean that it's a better bullet, but it's true.

AndyC wrote: Go on - one more time, I'm challenging YOU to tell us why "energy dump" is such a good thing and exactly how it causes more damage - and kindly don't bother wimping out by saying "it used all its energy", because that means zero when it comes to wounds.

I'll once again state (since you have problems comprehending) I've never said "energy dump is a good thing and that it causes more damage." Maybe you inferred that, but you were mistaken.

Not being a student of Physics, and basing my preferences entirely on what I read, hear and see, I have always been under the impression that the JHP causes more damage to the issue than the FMJ that completely penetrates the body. I also grant that this absolutely ignores shot-placement, what type of tissue and organs are hit in the path of travel of the projectile and the like.
I tend to also believe that AndyC probably has a really good idea what he is talking about.
I use JHP in my .380 and my .40 caliber weapons.
Should I continue doing so in the case of the .380 or switch to FMJ? I don't see any argument for changing to FMJ for the .40 caliber due to its inherent "stopping power". (and after reading all this physics stuff it really makes me reluctant to use that phrase)

RottenApple wrote:

Bulldog1911 wrote:And you call my comprehension into question

Not that AndyC needs any help, but.... Ummm. Yes.

The kinetic energy fallacy is a smokescreen which hides the actual ways in which the projectile interacts with tissue. Authors who use "kinetic energy transfer" as an explanation of how a projectile causes a particular injury are missing the crux of wound ballistics, as well as spreading the worst kind of misinformation; that which induces complacency by masquerading as knowledge. How much better off the field would be if the words "kinetic energy" were erased from its vocabulary; then one would be forced to look into the mechanical interactions of projectiles and tissue wherein lies the key to understanding.

Dr Martin Fackler

Ill help you out too...
Authors who use "kinetic energy transfer" as an explanation of how a projectile causes a particular injury

I did no such thing.

Bulldog1911:

Let it go!!! I am. (I lied, this is actually my last take on this topic!!!).

AndyC states a simplified model to make a valid point (facts, which are true, I agreed with him!) and then appears to me, maybe not, but thats how it looks to me, to derive conclusions (FMJ is better) from that, as it likely has better penetration. This is not explicitly stated, but implied, at least to me.

He has taken both our comments out of context and way off the original topic. There is not a single thing I said that was either not factually correct or was not labeled as opinion/speculation, with the possible exception of his intent on who he suggested was practicing w-w-junk science. For that I admit my error and apologize.

My problem is attitude - He also calls peoples intelligence into question:
woo-woo junk science (there are implications there), states annoyance at having to "dumb it down" (my words) so we can understand (maybe if you are that annoyed at us, you should go somewhere else - I am!), challenges me to a discussion of the actual wound damage - cavitation, etc - questions whether I want to go there: implying I am out of my league or not as smart?? Not sure.....

Some discussions simply aren't worth it. When the person you are talking to doesn't actually read what you said, and tells you that you are wrong without giving a concise rebuttal of a specific comment in the context it was given andthen challenges you to dispute what he said (when you have already agreed that it is true), well that horse has died.

I will not respond to any posts in this thread (I mean it this time!), as I simply no longer care to discuss this topic. There are other things I prefer to do with my time than discuss (argue) with someone who clearly shows annoyance (hey, he said so) and such sarcasm toward the other posters in their posts.

I have gotten to the point that I am not behaving in line with my character, therefore my exit from this discussion is permanent. I am sorry for my anger, but it seems personal and that sets me off.

AndC: you seem like a greatand knowledgable guy. I have and hopefully will continue to gain insight from you knowledge and experience. I am sorry if I have offended you or taken what you say or mean out of context. I can only base my responses on what is written on these pages and we all know that sometimes does not convey the true spirit of the person's intent

Good bye all and good luck. Remember, in the whole scheme of things, remember though, we are on the same side. None of you are my enemy!!!