Groo here
There is a difference between a "stop" and a "kill"
You can kill with a 22lr [ usuallly through infection]
but a stop could be done with a pin or not done with a 50bmg..
A stop [ the ending of the action that caused you to shoot to start with]
is usually caused by overloading the nerves.

No, they arent. Physics being what it is, you cant get a 12 gauge loaded with your choice of shot or slug to knock a man down, therefore you wont get a pistol round to do it either. Therefore "knock down power" is inherently false, and thus fantasy.

So what are you arguing for and against?

There is no difference between service calibers in "knock down power" because "knock down power" doesnt exist. Its a term of ignorance, nothing more. Other terms that can thrown in with it are "energy dump", "stopping power", "one-shot stops",
"hydraulic shock", "hydrostatic shock", etc.

The term used by informed people is "terminal performance". As in "Hey Bob, Bullet A's terminal performance closely mirrors Bullet B's terminal performance." Terminal performance deals in what the bullet actually did in the target, not what the person thinks it will do or believes it will do.

I think I quite clearly said "knock-down power" was a misnomer, maybe you missed it. By "informed people", I guess we are to assume you are an "informed expert." Everyone else got the point. You apparently are looking to either prove something or create conflict. Pass, I'm not engaging in your who's Johnson is bigger debate. Hope you carry a .22, please inform me how that works out for you in about a decade.

Contradict yourself much? That was rhetorical, no need to answer, its quite clear from the above to paragraphs you do.

It seemed you do believe, as the sentence in bold points out, that when someone says stopping/knockdown power is a fantasy, you disagree. You also state that there is a difference in knockdown power. It seems you dont get it. I'm starting to notice a trend.

Informed people meaning those that know and have a basic understanding of the science of Terminal Ballistics. This excludes you. However Stu Honea seems to get it. I dont consider myself an expert, but I'll put my knowledge of the subject against your any and everyday, and I will always come out ahead. You claim "everyone else gets it" but you dont.

Your comment is about carrying a .22 is as laughable as your other comments pertaining to knockdown power. You are the only one to mention the caliber. About that trend....

Let it go. I get it, you are soooooooooo smart. Thanks. You are the smartest and the coolest...feel better? Can you stop now or will your narcissistic personality disorder not allow it?

Electromotive and StatesRightist, let's try to come to some common ground. I looked back through previous posts to see where it went wrong, and it's not real clear, but I think I can help with what I think are the two sides to the issue, and in the end, we may all be able to say that we are arguing for the same cause, but hopefully at least maybe we can agree to disagree.

States has mentioned the misnomer in regards to "knockdown power", and I agree. Knockdown power is sometimes mythical and often perceived more than proven. I think I know where it comes from and here are some examples. There are the endless studies on energy, velocity, effects on different mediums and actual incidents in real life that can be considered, one side will state these studies as valid, and then some others will discount them in favor of another. As an example, I hunt here in Germany, and there is a caliber and power requirement, for instance, for a wild boar, 6.5 mm caliber at 2000 Joules (at 100 meters). It is rare that a German will hunt with such a small caliber rifle bore, some even use the mighty 9.3 mm, however, the laws state the minimum. Does joule indicate anything to us? Not necassarily, just that it's a minimum requirement, note that the Germans themselves would rarely if ever actually hunt boar with that caliber (with energy rating). However, I know some very experienced Germans that would do so, and even with "illegal" cartridges, utilizing a well-aimed shot. This also enters us into my favorite subject caliber vs. cartridge. For instance, you both reference the .22 caliber. I believe initially at least, States is essentially saying .22 lr is not really suitable for self-defense due to power, energy, ballistics or whatever way you wish to evaluate the effectiveness of a weapon. But if we refer to .22 caliber weapons, there are quite a few considered to be more than adequate such as the .223/5.56mm, a .22 caliber cartridge. I point this out to illustrate how just simple terminology can cause confusion. We Americans have a tendency to use the term caliber when in fact we mean cartridge.

Now back to the disagreement. Do we really disagree here? I believe that Statesrights, Stu and Electro (among others) may all be saying the same thing here, but in different ways. Here's my view, but again, I think we are all essentially of the same mind here. I believe that laws of physics, "knockdown power" energy/ft-lbs, joule, muzzle velocity, etc. play a factor in effectiveness, but that factor number one, and the most important factor is and has always been the operator's actual proficiency with the weapon. One must choose his/her weapon and be trained and proficient with it before anything else. I will not say that caliber or cartridge selection is not important, but I will say that proficiency is the most important factor. Here is an example. In the early to mid 1900s there was a famous Scot named Walter Bell, He killed 1011 elephants with a 7x57 Mauser, (a rifle cartridge considered to be minimum for wild boar here in Germany). The reason for his success? Scrutiny and study of the anatomy of elephants, shot placement/accuracy and practice. I would never say that his experience should be some kind of standard for cartridge selection, but I always point to him to illustrate the importance of knowing how to use a weapon vs. cartridge selection. Some say that 9mm parabellum is not an adequate defense round. I believe that like Mr. Bell, if you are well trained, understand fatal shot placement/anatomy (hunters know this well), and proficiency with your weapon, that you can be every bit as effective as someone with a .44 magnum. The only weapon I've ever used that could prove fatal to someone with a near miss were 25mm high explosive rounds, but even those required a highly trained and proficient operator/shooter to use effectively or they wouldn't even be able to get those projectiles into the required 5 meter burst radius.

For the purposes of this thread, I believe that the difference in .40 S&W and .45 ACP are so little, that it's a case of whichever you prefer for whatever reason, valid or not; they are both designed to take down human sized targets at close range, and they both have a capability to do so. Get one or the other, train and practice with it.

So I hope this helps and we can all at least agree to disagree on some level or even better, just agree. Then we can all shake hands, and come out shooting, just not at each other.

M2Mike,

I have no disagreement with your post and appreciate the effort. I definitely agree once you get above a certain caliber, it's a matter of whatever you shoot the most accurately. Common consensus is the.38/9mm level, which I agree with. A well placed shot with smaller calibers will certainly do the job, but .380 down causes penetration concerns or the choice of inferior FMJ etc to get the job done from a torso perspective, but people are free to carry whatever makes them happy. I also realize some can't handle anything other than a smaller caliber due to size, age, medical condition etc, some gun is better than no gun in that case.

.40 vs. 45 is certainly nothing other than a preference issue, as each has some advantages over the other, but both are excellent SD choices.

I also agree the issue is semantics more than anything else. You mention Stu, we are actually friends, part of what I said was aimed at good-natured rousing him, he's a good guy..hence the lol on one of my posts. I could have attempted to explain our issue was more semantics than content with EM, but based on his approach, I figured it was a waste of time. I also was not thrilled with his belatedly jumping in to a discussion that had concluded well. I decided to attempt to clearly tell him with his approach, I'm not very interested in having a discussion. He still has yet, to get that. Maybe next time we can have a civil discussion, assuming he is able to approach it in something other than arrogance and aggression. We'll see.

Have a good one Mike, I appreciate your post and thank you for your service.

I agree as well. That said, as you can clearly see above, he is quoted on the same page saying two different things. Therefore its one or the other, it cannot be both.

No sir, it is not sometimes mythical, it is fully and completely mythical.


There can be endless studies, but their is only fact and opinion. Simple physics says knockdown or stopping power is not real.

Nope. I never referred to the .22LR. When I stated knockdown or stopping power were terms of ignorance and have no relevance, StatesRightist tried to imply that I was advocating the use of .22 and .25 because I believe knockdown or stopping power is fiction. It was, and still is disingenuous.

He may now be claiming that knockdown or stopping power is bogus, but I again refer you to the two posts of his from the previous page in which he states it is not. Perhaps he has had a change of heart, thats admirable. However I was addressing his ill informed opinions

Our disagreement wasnt semantics. You can claim that all you want, yet the quotes of yours I have listed above, and in bold show otherwise.

Lets say you didnt actually believe the garbage you posted previously, which I have quoted, why even post it?

You felt it was a waste of time to address this, but you had the time to add this....

Right.

I'm not on here everyday. You dont like when I respond, oh well!

My approach? My approach is to deal with this subject with fact. Nothing more or less. I addressed your inaccurate beliefs with facts. Its obvious you werent interested in having a discussion when you interjected your rhetorical questions regarding (.22 and .25). No, you were interested in banter.

Suit yourself then. Fact and opinion do not always agree and frequently don't. I'm not disputing yours, nor am I agreeing with it. T

Your opinion, of course. I say "sometimes" as there are two sides to the argument. I am not supporting either. I am not stating that it is either way, so there is no requirement to state "no" or even "yes" to my comment, only that you think that it is one way or the other. I only point out the points of view. There are some experts that discount Dr. Roberts work. Statistics do not always indicate specific results based on cause and effect.

You have a habit of quoting out of context. My point here was the differences in calibers and cartridges. You do indeed reference the .22 or I would simply have not mentioned it:

Statesrights referred to the .22 lr and then you referenced .22 caliber; I care very little about vitriolic insult trading at this point. I meant to illustrate the difference between .22 lr and .22 caliber, namely, the difference between cartridge and caliber and not devolve into a "he said, she said" spiral. I was not implying that you do or do not advocate either, merely that it was referenced. It is a very important distinction as some cartridges share the same caliber, but can be quite different ballistically. You may feel that the difference is mythology, but many others don't. You may believe that "simple" physics have no play in "knockdown power" or "stopping power", but many believe otherwise, to include experts and organizations and agencies that require use of such weapons. My experience has never demonstrated that physics is simple in relation to anything, much less ballistics. Perhaps to a handful of physicists it is. If it were, we would not need computers to determine trajectories of ballistae, rockets and other such objects. Ask any gunner on an M-1 Abrams or an artilleryman.

My opinion on the matter is restricted mostly to the operator or shooter. My view is that you can have the largest caliber and energy producing projectile in the world, but if you do not train and practice and become proficient it will cancel out any notion of a power advantage.

In the case of this thread, my position is that as .40 S&W and .45 ACP are so similar ballistically, it's not really worth the debate over energy/ballistics and "knockdown power". Although there may be some evidence that physics or any other natural law has little if any effect on such issues, a lot of organizations and agencies seem to either take them into account or abide by them, no matter what anyone's opinion is.

There comes a point where energy levels and penetration capabilities must come into play to ensure effectiveness at least to some degree, however, to me the critical issue is to be practiced and proficient with whatever one's cartridge/caliber selection is. That has been my experience with weapon use, and I think you will find that it is also what most credible experts and numerous organizations agree on. Certainly, Walter Bell agreed with that theory and so did the organization I worked for.

Let me first introduce myself by saying that what I know about the relative ballistic characteristics of ammunition can be written on the back of a matchbook with a very large grease pencil. It's pretty much limited to, "this one is bigger than that one"...and of course, that certain ammunition is designed to inflict more damage (i.e. hollowpoints, flechettes, etc.). That's it. That's about all I know. I came here to read and learn.

I said all that so that no one will think I'm challenging their statements. My questions are an attempt to learn more.

But the debate earlier just doesn't make any sense to me. If there's no such thing as knockdown power or one shot stop or hydrostatic pressure or all those other things mentioned earlier, why don't the police just carry a .22 LR cartridge? it's cheaper and lighter. If there's no ballistic benefit to larger cartridges, then what's the point of carrying them?

I usually refrain from adding to posts that have a lot of replies, particularly when I'm not sure I have anything to add. In this case I'll make an exception.

In the original (?) FBI tests, when they were looking for what cartridge would suit them, the .40 S&W and the .45ACP were about equal by their measurement. Ordinarily, that wouldn't mean much to me, but this time it did, because I felt that they actually had a good set of tests (gelatin behind various levels of clothing, and a requirement for reasonable penetration).

The .40 S&W reaches that performance with much higher pressure than the .45ACP. The .40 S&W is a slightly smaller cartridge than the .45 ACP. In some places, there may be a wider choice of ammo in .45ACP. There is a wider choice of guns in .45ACP.

I consider the cartridges about equal, and would make the choice based on the guns available, not on the cartridge itself. For me, that STRONGLY dictates one cartridge over the other, but I have no disagreement at all with someone who chooses the other way, based on what gun or guns fit him.

I don't think that I understand this. I thought that the 1911, a .45ACP, was one of the BEST guns for folks with smaller hands. More important, the .40 S&W offerings, at least originally, were ALL larger (in grip circumference and most other measurements) than the 1911. Probably bigger than a 645, too. Perhaps this has changed in recent years. Do you know of any gun in .40 S&W that is more suitable for small hands than the 1911?

I'm not an LEO, an EMT, or a coroner -- just an engineering/science type.

But it seems to me the ballistics are so similar between 40S&W, 45 ACP, 44 Special, and 45 colt (with factory loads) that there can't be much difference in effectiveness.

Where you hit the target is the most important.

And which bullet (projectile) you use is second most important.

As for recoil, I really don't think there would be much difference based on cartridge -- at least that's how it seems with my own shooting.

Recoil is more related to the weight of the gun, type (ie., revolver or auto), the type of grip, and the particular loading.

So if someone has any of the above calibers in a gun they like and can shoot well, then there is no real reason to change IMO.

Or course, none of us really needs a reason to buy another gun...

Dave

But what do you do when one does NOT own such a gun and is trying to decide what to buy.

By one route or another, I've accumulated almost a dozen handguns, but with one exception, they're all .380 or smaller. That one exception is a huge framed .38 S&W special with a very short barrel...that IMO is unsuitable for concealed carry.

I'm not an expert. I don't even claim to be an average marksman. I've taken several courses. I'm fair. I can more or less hit what I'm aiming at, assuming it isn't moving or shooting back. But shortly I'll be retired and I'm going to start "flipping" cars for extra money. That means I'll be meeting strangers while I'm carrying a load of cash. I want to make sure that whatever I'm carrying has got the horsepower to stop someone if I do NOT score a perfect hit. I accept that shot placement is king. I also accept that I won't always make that perfect shot. So what gun do I get?

Buy the best gun you can afford in the largest caliber you can control and will carry every day. Either the caliber is an acceptable self-defense round. My personal choice for routine carry is a government size 1911 in either .45 ACP or 10mm. I also pocket carry a Springfield XDS-45 as a backup gun.

__________________
U.S. Navy - U.S. Army, ret

Well, I don't know how often you will be carrying a lot of cash, but if you do a few cash deals a month you could afford to carry a larger, heavier gun than you would want if you carried it full time every day.

The rest of the time, you could either go unarmed or perhaps carry your 380.

So I think it would make sense to get a fairly large, heavier gun as those are easier to control and become proficient with.

If it were me, and I didn't have anything already, I'd do what LimaCharlie suggested and get a full size, steel, 45acp 1911 or, if you prefer, a 4" revolver like a 625.

45acp is pretty cheap to practice with, isn't too hard to control, and has been doing the job for a century.

Dave

"Knockdown" power is a term used by John "Pondoro" Taylor years ago for qualifying Big Game rifle calibers in Africa. "Stopping" power is a far more modern term and is indeed relevant as some cartridge/bullet combos have shown to be far better at STOPPING an adversary with a good hit than others. By using the term "stopping" I mean forcing someone to stop what they are doing (usually trying to hurt/kill you). This does not imply directly killing the individual, however the nature of matter sometimes entails as such.

The rounds I would put in this category are the 9mm 115 gr. +p+ (such as the legendary Fed. BPLE & Win. as well), 125 gr. JHP .357 Mag. & .357 SIG and finally the 155 gr. Rem. .40 S&W JHP as loaded for the BP. These rounds have stellar histories that are above other contemporary rounds for their respective eras.

Just my 2 cents (worth 0.0015 under Obama).

i prefer the .40 magnum (10mm) over both for ''knockdown power'' but .45 is a close second

There are a number of considerations in how lethal any hit with any caliber bullet might be. As someone said before, let's start with shot placement. The ability to immediately stop a fight through shutting down the CNS is the number 1 consideration. Then there's permanent and temporary wound channels. How much tissue disruption and blood loss does it take to end the fight? And, of course, finally there's penetration. Again, what level of tissue disruption does it take to stop the fight? Will it be actually striking an organ (or several)? Will it take a direct strike on the spinal cord or brain. All of these considerations play into the argument.

As an LEO for 36 years, most in SWAT and as a Range Master, with a considerable amount of time in Investigations as both a Detective and a Sergeant, I've had occasion to talk with several pathologists regarding the lethality of the various calibers. In the last few years, they have told me that it is virtually impossible to tell the difference between calibers from 9mm to .40 S&W to .45 ACP due to the current sophistication of design of the bullets.

For the record, I'm required to carry 9mm (Glock 17/19/26) loaded with GDHP 124 gr. +P while working. Off-duty, I usually carry .45 ACP (Glock 30s, Springfield XDs, or M&P 45 (or a J-frame).

__________________
Dave Frost

Thanks Dave and LimaCharlie. Good advice, but I also have to consider what I'm going to be doing. If you were selling a car and were meeting the buyer in a shopping center parking lot for example, and he got out with a cannon strapped to his side, what would be your reaction?

My point here is that I need something that can be at least moderately concealed. I don't think a 1911 .45 is all that easy to conceal.

Thanks Dave. I've been given to understand that a 9mm wasn't really enough of a stopper unless you were an extremely good shot...which I'm not.

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

A 1911 is one of the easiest guns to conceal, if you have a proper cover garment. If you don't, you're stuck with a pocket pistol, and then you still need the right kind of pockets, and a proper pocket holster, and it still might be easier to spot than a concealed 1911. Sometimes you might be better off buying clothing for the gun rather than a gun for the clothing.

How about 'stopping potential'? We know that handguns don't knock people off their feet but the idea is to stop an attack...quickly. The word 'power' implies that more is automatically better but 'potential' indicates that the possibilities of stopping can be improved, partly by other factors, such as shot placement.

This is analogous to electricity having a potential of say, 110 volts. The potential is there but unless a proper path is provided where that potential can overcome resistance, there will be no flow of electricity. If a proper path is provided, there will be an actual flow of current.

Far be it from me to argue with anyone here, but I don't understand how something as large as a 1911 could be "one of the easiest guns to conceal". It would seem to me that regardless of the garment used, a smaller weapon would be easier to conceal. Could you give some specifics?

As you can see from the discussions and arguments here, there is a lot of serious disagreement about this subject. I've had occasion to see the effects of shootings with 9mm, .40 and .45 first hand. All I can say is 9mm is very effective in ending a fight with lethal results. I've seen numerous shootings with 9mm in which the recipient was DRT. I've also seen several in which the .40 had less than lethal effects. The same is true for .45 ACP. So, in my experience, 9mm is quite lethal when there are center mass hits. One other consideration is how recoil affects follow-up shots. 9mm generally has less recoil and often allows for quicker target re-acquisition. Again, the progress in bullet design has had a profound effect on the damage caused by them.

I would have to say that, even as a .45 guy at heart, I have no problem carrying the 9mm handguns I'm issued. I have no doubt as to the capabilities of the 124 gr. +p GDHP.

__________________
Dave Frost

All defense cartridges try to be "as good as" the .45 ACP. The .40 S&W strikes a nice balance between capacity and stopping power. It has almost the stopping power of the .45 ACP and almost the capacity of the 9mm.

Well, what works best for me is a Milt Sparks Summer Special IWB, which is a Bruce Nelson creation that has been copied by several holster makers. I carry it at about 3:00 o'clock; others may move it a bit rearward. A smaller gun is NOT necessarily easier to conceal, even though I can see how you might think so. For instance, I find that the 1911 is easier to conceal than the Commander, because the shorter Commander on MY waist digs the muzzle into my right buttock, causing me to be tempted to shift the holster position occasionally. As for other smaller guns, I mostly can't say. I mean, why would I buy a smaller bottomfeeder and holster and play around to find that MAYBE it would work, when a full-size 1911 already works fine?

I realize that what works best for me may not be the same as what works best for others. Body shapes vary. For instance, the width of my shoulders causes normal off-the-rack clothing to provide sufficient room around my waist to conceal a stock 1911. Someone with a pear-shaped configuration might have entirely different results.

P.S. I think that one of the things that makes the 1911 very easy to conceal is that it is rather thin, particularly for the caliber. Many of the older autos were quite thin, although few were as easily carried safely and ready as the 1911.

Thanks. That helps me understand better what you're talking about.

I'm a smaller guy...5'8". And to make bad matters worse, I'm long waisted and short legged. To me, a 1911 is just a cannon. I enjoy shooting one, but I can't imagine being able to hide it at all. It would come down to my knee.

I think what I'll need to look at are some of the smaller .45's like the Springfield XDS or the Glock G38.

Jackalope, that's not really a decision somebody else should make for you. try several and see what works best for you and is in a size, wt, platform you prefer.

I appreciate that and understand what you're saying. It's impossible to know what works until you shoot them. Just today I tried out the Springfield XDS and was astonished to find that the grip is really a bit too small for me. I just couldn't grip it firmly because it was too narrow. Never saw that coming.

So your point is well taken. But I do appreciate the point of view from more experienced people. I never considered that the narrow nature of a 1911 might make it more concealable. It's just something to consider.

My primary carry gun is a Stainless Steel Colt Officers Model in .45 ACP. The aftermarket recoil system, beavertail grip safety, tuned action and its concealability (about the same as compact 9mms) make it my favorite. The down side... its all steel weight is great for recoil control but not so for carry.

__________________
Dave
SWCA #2465

The 1911 and the .45 Auto round have been bringing Americans home ever since WWI. The 1911 has been on the side of American soldiers in every war since. The US Marines have again adopted a Colt 1911 in .45 Auto for their sidearm.

I'm a revolver guy but I do own 2 semi-auto centerfire pistols. One is the Kel-Tec P-32 for those times you need something VERY small and the other is a Springfield 1911A1 because every man should have at least one 1911!

Nothing wrong with the 40 S&W and it will do what it was designed to do as long as you do your part but the 45 ACP will do the same and maybe even better since it makes a bigger hole...

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

Sorry for straying off the topic but the problem with over-penetration is fixed by using a good jacketed bullet which the military is not allowed to use.