We had a guy who tried to end his own life with a 12ga a few years back. IIRC it was a 00 Buck load. He stuck the gun in his mouth, but unfortunately for him he must have failed to pay attention in geometry or anatomy or both when he was in school, or else he had a wicked pre-ignition flinch. He ended up blowing to top half of his face off, but survived.

In contrast we had a stupid kid who in a drunken prank held shotgun to the side of his head in front of his buddies and pulled the trigger. Everybody's convinced he thought it was unloaded, but that birdshot load in the chamber deposited the contents of his skull all over the room.

At the ranges involved ballistics weren't a huge factor in either case, but even with the energy and payload of a 12ga, shot placement matters.

quote:

We had a guy who tried to end his own life with a 12ga a few years back. IIRC it was a 00 Buck load. He stuck the gun in his mouth, but unfortunately for him he must have failed to pay attention in geometry or anatomy or both when he was in school, or else he had a wicked pre-ignition flinch. He ended up blowing to top half of his face off, but survived.

That happens far more than one would think it would. I know of at least 2 very similar instances. Horrible that they decided to end their own lives, doubly so knowing they have made their lives FAR FAR FAR worse.

Cost of ammo has been mentioned, but I think it bears repeating.
For me at least, I can't afford to train with bigger calibers.
I'd love to be able to though, since whenever I thought experiment about shooting someone I always feel under gunned.
I imagine wanting my problem to end with certainty after a minimum amount of time. Bang/flop as they say.

So yes, I train with a 9mm, but only because I hope it improves my odds when I feel like carrying a bigger gun.

I can’t recall exactly who, but a well regarded safari / professional hunter & guide going back to the 1930’s, said with PROPER SHOT PLACEMENT every creature on earth could be effectively taken out with a 22 LR. Regardless of caliber bullet design etc, what you hit is FAR more important than what you hit it with

I own 13 (I think) pistols, not one of which is a 9mm. So...no.

quote:

Originally posted by captain127:
with PROPER SHOT PLACEMENT every creature on earth could be effectively taken out with a 22 LR.

An interesting comment because although he probably didn’t intend it to be a criticism of the “shot placement” myth, that’s exactly what it is. Another professional hunter (or professional writer about hunting, I’m not sure which) famously said, “Use enough gun!” for hunting, especially dangerous game. That sentiment and the actual practice of countless hunters throughout history up to today demonstrate that achieving perfect shot “placement”* simply cannot be relied upon in the real world and therefore they want enough power to be effective even when things aren’t perfect.

If it were possible to achieve perfectly-accurate hits every time, I’d stop relying on pistols chambered for 357 SIG as defensive carry guns and switch to my S&W model 41. It’s extremely precise and capable of accurate eyeball shots at extended distances, the recoil is nothing and it can be fired very fast, even high quality ammo is extremely inexpensive, and although its magazine will hold far more ammunition that would be required even for three or four assailants, there’s no reason to actually load the mag to that level.

In fact of course the idea that perfect shot accuracy is achievable in actual defensive or hunting situations doesn’t even deserve to be called a myth that might have some legitimate basis for belief. Anyone who believes that is stunningly ignorant and if he believes it of himself, amazingly arrogant no matter how skilled he may be when shooting at static cardboard. In real life, targets tend to move, the shooters may be moving, and other impossible to predict variables such as the imprecision of guns and ammunition have effects.

But as I’ve mentioned before, if I’m ever shot I hope it’s by someone who believes that projectile power doesn’t matter and therefore he should use the cartridge that’s the friendliest to rely on.

* Love that term that brings to mind something that an English butler might caution the kitchen staff about: “No, Abigail, the prawn fork must be placed above the consommé spoon.”

It's interesting to me having shot lots (tons) of 44 and 357 mag in the 70s and early 80s, and lots of 45 and 9 on the range, 9mm is still my favorite. Not the best for all uses, but if I had to pick one handgun for all around use in modern life, notwithstanding residing in wild places with large predators, I pick the 9mm. There's just something about this cartridge, technically and otherwise, that makes it superior. Perfect balance between size, internal and external ballistics and ballistic efficiency, general performance, etc., I can't really explain it. It's like the 308 or 375 in rifles, you just know after spending time with various cartridges. The 9x19 cartridge is just "it" for pistol calibers. I think Para's explanation above has it in the bag on this topic.

Sigfreund I was not implying that shot placement with certainty is in any way possible in a dynamic situation, or that we shouldn’t “use enough gun”.however, often some people focus too much on the little details of bullet design, or arcane measurements of ballistics, when that stuff matters only up to a point. Effective hits obtained as quickly as possible is still the answer. In the last couple weeks I have carried a 380,38,9mm or 45 based on certain circumstances and with the exception of the 380, have equal confidence in them all to do the job if I do mine

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by captain127:
with PROPER SHOT PLACEMENT every creature on earth could be effectively taken out with a 22 LR.

An interesting comment because although he probably didn’t intend it to be a criticism of the “shot placement” myth, that’s exactly what it is. Another professional hunter (or professional writer about hunting, I’m not sure which) famously said, “Use enough gun!” for hunting, especially dangerous game. That sentiment and the actual practice of countless hunters throughout history up to today demonstrate that achieving perfect shot “placement”* simply cannot be relied upon in the real world and therefore they want enough power to be effective even when things aren’t perfect.

<snip>

* Love that term that brings to mind something that an English butler might caution the kitchen staff about: “No, Abigail, the prawn fork must be placed above the consommé spoon.”

The term "shot placement" is used because it's the commonly accepted term to describe putting rounds where you want them. I don't think anybody here is under the impression that they could surgically place rounds into precise locations on a moving target during a combat situation (I don't know...maybe some can. I can't.). But the fact remains that bullets need to hit (or at least disrupt) vitals to achieve a physiological stop. Whether that's because you applied expert marksmanship fundamentals and dropped the bad guy with a head shot at 25 yards or lit him up with a mag dump and got lucky with one round out of 18, the outcome for the bad guy is the same (although the liability is much higher for you in the second scenario).

Does a .44 Mag cause more physical damage than a 9mm? Sure. But if it doesn't disrupt something that physically incapacitates a determined bad guy, it's not going to matter. But does the energy of a more powerful round make it easier to do that?

I listened to a podcast discussion with a Trauma doc a few weeks ago that I found pretty interesting. He made the point that internal organs react differently based on their contents and condition. A full stomach or bladder, for example, is going to be damaged much more severely
when struck by a bullet than the same organs in an empty state.

Around the same time I listened to that podcast, I had been shooting milk jugs with my .44 and .38 to compare penetration. Even with non-expanding bullets the .44 would absolutely destroy a full milk jug...rip it apart, launch water everywhere, and deposit the remains 20 feet away. If the milk jug was only half full, it would pretty much just make a hole, with maybe a little tearing. The .38 was far less impressive, causing a little bit of disruption to the plastic skin of even a completely full jug, but pretty much just making holes.

Obviously plastic milk jugs lack the elastic properties of animal or human tissue, so it's in no way a one-to-one comparison of what might happen in a real-world shooting, but the results did make me consider the wounding potential of higher energy rounds under certain conditions. If you shoot somebody in the stomach with a .44 right after Thanksgiving dinner and the overpressure blows their stomach apart, ruptures their diaphragm, tears the lower lobes of their lungs and bruises their heart, you're probably going to get a pretty effective stop. Make the same hit with a 9mm and you might not get the same result. But the results also might not be anywhere near as effective hours later with the .44 on somebody with a flaccid, empty stomach that the bullet passes straight through.

Even if I'm on the right track here, though, coming back to the original question in the OP we also have to consider how much energy it would take to cause that kind of disruption. The .44 Mag is a pretty extreme example and definitely not something I would recommend to someone for EDC. Do the alternative auto-loader cartridges (.357 Sig, .40 S&W, 10mm, .45 ACP) offer enough of an energy increase over the 9mm to yield significantly increased tissue disruption even under optimal circumstances? And if so is that increase enough to overcome the cost and logistical advantages provided by 9mm? I don't know, but I kind of doubt it.

I have of course long been familiar with the term shot “placement,” and that’s why I make fun of it. The only time I’ve ever “placed” a bullet anywhere was when I did something like pick one up at a range and put it in my pocket for later examination.

Likewise, I could see my “presenting” a gun to someone like a retiring sheriff who was well liked and the office personnel decided to give her a going away gift. On the other hand, I cannot imagine her presenting a gun to someone who jumped out of a car and started shooting at her following a traffic stop. Terms like these get associated with certain activities by some influential gun guru and then they take off from there. Such usages amuse me when I think about stern admonitions about the difference between clips and magazines or whether “HK” or “H and K” is proper.

Another of my favorites is the claim that “dope” in reference to bullet trajectories is an abbreviation for “data on previous engagements.” I suppose it’s true now, at least in the minds of some shooters, but that’s certainly not what the word originally meant to users.

I obviously will never change what has become common usage, but I can still make fun of them.

Although the destructive effects of firearms projectiles are a key factor in stopping aggressive attacks, they are not the only factor in the vast majority of defensive shootings. But destruction of body structures and the other major factor, general energy transfer and its physiological and psychological effects, are—all else being equal—both enhanced by greater projectile power.

But to return to the point I tried to make earlier, in most self-defense shootings the probability that the defender can “place” his shots at some perfect spot on a living, active target is very low. If, for example, we’re lucky enough to sever the attacker’s spine, the threat he poses may not be neutralized immediately, but he will become much less dangerous. A shot that hits an inch or so left or right of that fortuitous impact, however, may not have any noticeable effect for a significant amount of time. If someone’s defensive strategy is dependent upon hitting a specific vital spot, all I can say is, “Good luck to you.”

A) I think the concept of the 8.6 makes sense. Pretty sure the physics works, so I think a round designed from the ground up for modern steels, modern powders and trying to maximize rotation might be interesting

B) There are some 5.7 loads which claim 2100+ from a pistol.

I think the “micro” calibers, at very high velocities will be the eventual 9MM replacement - more capacity, lighter weight, less recoil, etc.

I find 5.7 frames more comfortable than most, but I’m a shaved ape.

An improved primer design/ignition system, and I think a lot of people will go to smaller.

I also think it depends on how people perceive the most prevalent threat.

For many of us, mob attack/terrorist attack has been something we think about - I think anyone who was of military age during 9/11 has some concern about stopping terrorists.

BLM made us worry about the lynch mob.

If life goes back to worrying about a random lunatic, etc a 1911 can offer some real appeal, as does a 38 snubbie etc.