Nope, because that was back in the day when you had to say stuff like that to someone's face in an environment in which one was liable to get shot talking to someone so condescendingly as that.

Thanks to the internet, even the most ignorant of cowards who've probably never shot anything the least bit threatening can make their voices heard in a risk free environment in which even the most mildly insulting retort results in disciplinary action.

So nowadays you'll see ignorant hicks arguing with veteran soldiers/police officers over caliber effectiveness, despite the fact that the extent of their experience on caliber effectiveness is; "Wheee doggy, that there .44 Magnum sure did blow up that tree rat real good!" or maybe a Doe they shot in a tree stand with a .30-06 using bait at best.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

.45 is a lousy caliber. Here is actual documented proof.
A Skokie cop shot a bad guy 17 times with a .45; after the shooting he switched to a 9mm.

“There were 17 total hits on his body including three fatal shots to his head, a couple to his torso, and one to his abdomen," Gramins says. "Which means that even though Maddox was mortally wounded before the head shots, he was still able to engage me.

"People don't die the way we think they do," Gramins says. "I had 17 rounds in the guy. That will teach you how critical shot placement is."
Shots Fired: Skokie, Illinois 08/25/2008 - Patrol - POLICE Magazine

well thanks for the input guys! I think everyone brought up many valid points. One person noted here a pistol that begins with a 4 and a rifle that begins with a 3 is the only sure bet to end the right sooner.

I have read that 9mm +P and .45+P have performed very well. So my take on this is velocity does help. One ammo manufacturer often overlooked is "Underwood." for .45acp they have a 120gr that is 1400fps and that is near .357 Magnum velocity. I carry the Sig p320 using .357 underwoods 65gr that goes well over 2100fps.

I think for most 0mm gets the job done but if I had it my choice it would be th3e .45acp or the .357 sig

+P isnt necessary in any cartridge.

Case in point; Dallas, Texas PD. DPD started issuing 9mm in 1988. The first JHP was the Hornady XTP. There were failures. DPD moved to the then 9mm Tresury Load, a 115gr +P+ Remington JHP (green/white box). There were failures. The same kind as the standard pressure XTP. Bullets clogged with soft barrier material (clothing) and sailed through or bullets fragged in the target and didnt reach deep enough. DPD switched to the Winchester 147gr Ranger SXT, they got better, more reliable performance. They switched again to the follow up design, Winchester 147gr Ranger Talon. They had few problems, until Winchester QC started to decline, then switched to Hornady 135gr CD.

I carry Federal 147gr HST in my full sized 9mms, and Federal 147gr+P HST in my tiny guns. I dont carry the +P variant because its mo' deadly, I carry it because I believe a slightly faster slide velocity is needed in those tiny pistolas.

I know and have shot with a fairly small statured female friend who works for a fairly small department about 55 officers) where unfortunately the officer assigned the task of procuring a new duty weapon was an avid shooter who selected the Sig P226 in .357 Sig.

It’s just not something she - or frankly most of the other female officers and a fair percentage of the male officers - will ever shoot well.

It doesn’t fit her hand and the recoil is excessive.

The FBI more or less figured that out as well and reverted from the .40 S&W to the 9mm Luger. And the .40 S&W was itself adopted after the 10mm didn’t work out very well. Bigger isn’t always better, as agents and officers need to be able to both shoot the weapon accurately and control the weapon effectively.

It was an issue in the US military as well when they dropped the 1911 that had a grip that fit most people pretty well and adopted the M9, which was both large for a 9mm and had not only a double stack magazine but also housed it in a larger than necessary grip, and had a long trigger reach to boot. Troops could shoot it, but not many shot it well and it was poorly suited to anyone with other than large hands.

Completely agree with the first point. As I mentioned in my post you will have a difficult time requiring a handgun that produces consistent and quick stops without a CNS hit. Something like a Deagle in .50AE, or perhaps a .454 Casull revolver, or just maybe a .500 S&W. Something like a 10mm will certainly be able to penetrate better than a 9mm or .40 (given the right bullets) and achieve results at greater ranges or with light cover/barrier to defeat, but it's no death ray.

Troops shot the M9 quite well vs. the 1911. The M9 was quite a bit more accurate than the old 1911s. This is not a knock on the 1911; these guns were 40+ years old by this time and weren't made to be particularly accurate in the first place. The DoD wanted a doublestack 9mm for a lot of reasons. They also wanted a simpler manual of arms and takedown procedures, both put the Beretta ahead. I got to shoot a lot of 9mm on Uncle Sugar's dime through the M9 and never had the itch to buy one (I have medium sized hands). The SIG and the Glock are frankly better, and I appreciate the 1911s quirks a lot more than the DoD ever did. The M17 is oddly slippery in the wrong spots (I put grip tape on the beavertail on mine) and I noticed a lot of fellow soldiers tend to shoot low due to the not-quite ergonomic grip angle.

You forget about the M11, the SIG P228 that was issued to some with smaller hands.

__________________
Psalm 27:2

The 9mm is the world standard for too many reasons to go into here. It will remain so for the foreseeable future. My Beretta 92FS that I keep handy for HD is loaded with warm FMJ ammo. Reliable function, complete penetration from any angle, tumbling in soft tissue to create a larger than caliber wound channel, what’s not to like?

Let's be honest, every handgun is a compromise for portability. None have enough velocity to produce hydrostatic shock so it becomes very hard to produce rapid incapacitation unless you can hit the CNS and shut off the bad guys' motor functions. The old masters like Bill Jordan preached competency- the ability to draw fast and put rounds accurately on target while being under extreme stress- and that is as true today as it ever was. So it would seem that a plausible approach would be to carry the heaviest caliber one can competently manage and realize that any lethal encounter will also depend on "Old Blind Fortune" to a certain degree.

I'd guess I can. One time several years ago my brother and a friend of his were shooting at an improvised range and shooting at a coke bottle cap at 85 yds. They were shooting a .44mag Ruger Super Blackhawk. 24 rounds and neither hit the bottle cap nor from what I could see did they come close.

It took me a bit of time (maybe 30 sec) as I leveled my .45ACP 1911 but one shot sent the bottle cap flying into the brush. Did I get a square hit, did I hit on the edge of the cap, did I hit next to it which caused it to fly away? I don't know because I never found it after looking for several minutes. What I do know is given the time, you're not safe from a shot from me at that distance. Mind you the bottle cap was not shooting back and I really can't swear that I'd have the same level of accuracy if you were.

One shot, one bottle cap! I quit shooting for the day, didn't have anything else to prove.

The NMSP armorer told me and a deputy chief confirmed they went 9mm because of ammo cost and training time. Period.

And of the 17,000 plus law enforcement agencies in the US, there is the ever so remote possibility that some may have went 9mm for reasons other than the NMSP's reason. Another period.

That's a circular argument. You need a question mark, not a period.

The 9mm is cheaper because it is so popular and the world standard?

Or, maybe, the 9mm is the world standard because it is cheaper?

Around and around you go.

Either way, it wouldn't be the world standard if it didn't work.

If you can place your shot, you probably shouldn't be shooting.

__________________
I've still got it made.

What did John M. Browning choose for his 1911 army pistol? Thy will be done.

__________________
Made it, Ma! Top of the world!

St John of Browning didn't choose the 45ACP when he designed his military semiautomatic. He turned in his design prototype and was told by the Army, "Almost, but no cigar. Build it in a 45 and we'll talk!"

Froggie

What did John M. Browning choose as his own carry gun for self defense? His 1910 model in .32 acp even though it was also made in .380.

I wouldn’t trust a bullet that tumbles in soft tissue.

And why is that? The 5.56 NATO bullet tumbles in soft tissue and that is why it’s so effective. Some FMJ rifle bullets like the .303 British WW2 bullets were made in a way that assured tumbling. And my penetration test in tightly bound wet newspapers showed that ALL .32 and .380 factory FMJ bullets tumbled to some degree as they plowed through the wet paper. Some actually did a full 180 degree turn. Wound channel size is increased and so is effectiveness.

One of my best friends is a retired 20 year 1st Sargent Army Rangers. The Beretta was never carried on their missions ,only 1911's of various makes. He stated the reason was , that on their missions they were there to kill period , and not to please NATO by carrying a nine.

I’m not sure how to take this. If you mean:

- “If you can’t shoot accurately under extreme stress you probably should not be carrying a gun.”

then we are in agreement.

If however you mean:

- “if you have the time to shoot accurately you probably don’t have a need to shoot at all.”

then we disagree.

If that second one is the case then it’s one of those rare occasions suitable for the southern idiom “Bless your heart”.

I’ll leave it to you to decide which of these applies.

——

For everyone else let’s assume it’s a case of the often cited “you don’t have time to use your sights in a real world shoot.” Well…that’s undoubtedly true if you don’t train enough to become proficient.

I fully understand that the very high percentage of LEOs that shoot just twice a year to qualify probably can’t place a shot under extreme stress. Bless their hearts too.

But when applied to a proficient shooter that just isn’t the case, even when said shooter is receiving fire.

The main gig right now for my semi-retired self is flying and ironically enough the subject came up this morning when discussing what has to happen to plant a tail wheel aircraft on a short, rough strip so that you can immediately get on the brakes. The problem is by the time you think about what you have to do and do it the moment has already passed. Consequently given the stress and time pressure it *has* to be second nature.

Since both of us briefing the flight in the hangar had a shooting background I used the process of learning tactical pistol shooting and being able to do it under extreme stress as an example as it contains the same “has to be totally second nature” elements - if you are going to be able tp do it as an ingrained almost reflex action under extreme stress and time pressure. The lesson plan strategy is the same for both. You start out with drills to ingrain the critical eye motor loop items until they are second nature.

1) For learning to shoot a tactical pistol accurately and very fast, you start out really slow, focusing on your target while you draw and raise the pistol into your line of sight. You then place the front sight on the spot you want to bleed, and then you *pause* while you align the front sight in the rear sight, and then hold that alignment of rear sight, front sight and target while you release the shot.

2) Eventually the muscles in your hand know exactly how much tension they each have to have to align the sights. When that point is achieved, when you pause, you find the sights are already aligned with the front sight, which is in turn already on target.

That might be a few hundred rounds for some shooters and it might be a couple thousand for others. The point here is that you are learning and then over learning the basics of sight alignment, grip and trigger control until they are second nature and require no conscious thought.

3) At that point you start picking up the pace, shortening the pause until it is just to a very small fraction of a second while you confirm the front sight is on target. *But* you also take care not to sacrifice accuracy either. In other words you maintain the basic fundamentals of grip, sight alignment and trigger control, while shooting at speed.

4) In the real world that very small fraction of a second pause is still to ensure the front sight is on target but it’s also used to assess the need to shoot. For example, you’ve just delivered a double tap or a controlled pair center of mass and since the assailant hasn’t went down you are transitioning to the head for a failure to stop shot. As you recover from the recoil of the second shot and bring the front sight to where the head should be, you’re already noting whether the assailant is going down or not.

That’s only happening because the grip, sight alignment and trigger control are all ingrained responses that require zero bandwidth. That is absolutelyvital as under extreme stress, and particularly when receiving fire, you have very little bandwidth to work with and all of it needs to be focused on strategy and tactics, not remembering to place the front sight on target.

LEOs shooting only twice a year to qualify are never going to reach that level. That’s unfortunate as the vast majority of LEOs don’t take shooting seriously enough to bother to get any better. Worse, since they met a (very low bar) community standard by successfully qualifying, then then make the logical fallacy of misidentifying themselves as “qualified” tactical shooting experts.

People devolve to their lowest level of *fully mastered* training under extreme stress and for shoot twice a year LEOs that invariably is something akin to pointing their duty weapon in the general direction of the assailant and shooting as fast as they can. Bless their hearts.

——-

Last time I saw the data on it, 80% of officers in officer involved shoots did not use or remember using the front sight. They literally were pointing their duty weapon in the general direction of the assailant and mashing the trigger as fast as they could.

In short, the “bless your heart” comes from using that unfortunate reality for 80% of LEOs as a justification for statements like “your sights are useless in a gunfight” or “things haven’t too fast to use your sights in a gunfight” or “you don’t have the time motor skills to align your sights in a gunfight”. said “if you can place your shot you probably sho

I disagree. It’s a training and a skills deficiency. Period.

It’s why LEOs in most departments miss about 80% of the time. It’s fortunate (for them, not innocent bystanders) that they have some combination of sovereign immunity, department attorneys and department provided liability insurance to cover the liability of all those misses skipping around the neighborhood hood looking to tag innocent bystanders.

Of course. But the only two reasons NMSP (my old agency) went to 9mm are cheaper ammo and easier training. Not bullet performance, not gel tests, not magazine capacity, not FBI actions.

Yeah, but he wasn't shot with a 45ACP round.

Thank you for that.

Oh yeah...... almost forgot......

And Bless Your Heart.

False dichotomy. Not about time, it's about distance.

To shoot "accurately," you need to use the sights. To use the sights, you need to extend your arms. The assailant must be far enough away from you that he can't grab the gun when you extend it toward him. If the assailant is that far away, you may not be in immediate danger. Shooting may not be justified.

But more. Most civilian defense shootings occur at extremely short range, as should be expected.

"Well…that’s undoubtedly true if you don’t train enough to become proficient."

This is really bad advise. If a civilian actually has to shoot someone, they need to be able to point and shoot at 3 yards. Training to shoot accurately is exactly wrong. Train to shoot quickly and closely. Even from retention position.

__________________
I've still got it made.

Shot placement is very important. Bullet type is too. 9mm is very effective!

Source? ...

Aw Man ..... Gamecock and BB57 have done gotten into it now , with THE philosophical Debate that dwarfs the 9mm vs .45 debate !

A little bit of differing terminology and different base assumptions , but one of them is about 80 % right ( or at least in accordance with my views that I think I can strongly defend ) .

The Legend of .45acp Hardball is over exaggerated . ( Not saying it's bad within the military context , just grown beyond the reality in the retelling

The Good And Bad hype about 9x19 are Both exaggerated .

Every pistol ( and rifle , and machinegun) round has had " failures " . Every projectile down to BB guns has had instant incapations . Moving on to various true statements :

9mm with most modern era duty/ defensive ammo is more than reasonably adaquate for general usage.

Logistics and training issues shouldn't be the Sole criteria , but are valid additional factors .

9mm isn't " more better than everything else " as the FBI is spinning . As much as wiz bang bullet technology has improved 9mm performance , that technology can also be applied to .357Sig , .40S&W, .45acp, .38 Spl , etc .

In addition to the gun & projectile , terminal effectiveness is also greatly effected by the exact placement , and the shootee's levels of various CDS , alcohol , adrenaline , and general mental attitude at the moment .


My opinions :

Uniformity of equipment is highly overrated , and confidence of the user is meaningful ( if actually justified) .

If the Tooth Fairy snapped her fingers and gave me control over ( organization primarily armed with handguns , for serious purposes ) , my inclinations would be along these lines :

I would Issue a Glock 17 equivalent , with mainstream 124gr std vel JHP ( in my younger years a 4in M10 with +P ).

If anyone was inclined to carry whatever larger/ more powerful , and do so on their own dime , And qualify at 90% or higher , they could do so .

If an

When I was with SBU26 in PANAMA, my SEAL friend who was XO
had the Armorer send back all the 9mms to Little Creek and requested and got 1911s in .45ACP. A lot of the bad guys were druggies in CENTRAL and South America and the 9mm would not stop them if they were juiced up.
It was a beautiful sight to walk into the armory and see 100 gleaming, well oiled 1911s. in the racks.

__________________
V/r,
Markham

Capacity? 14 vs. 17? IMHO, after a dozen (or so?) it really does not matter, much...

Caliber? If skill levels are equal, the BIGGER the better... (Anything is better than nothing!)

Shot placement? Hopefully one of the first few will be in a vital area, otherwise it is probably best to continue until the threat is terminated... (Bella did!)

What is decided (and, ultimately, for WHATEVER reasons?) to be the best for a group does not, and should not, IMHO, dictate what is right for an individual...

Cheers!

P.S. i, too, have a high opinion of the 40 S&W, but would probably choose the 357 SIG if I happened to be looking for trouble. But that's not something I normally contemplate.

I bet this debate is as old as time. I can see it now a group of cavemen debating on which spear kills a mammoth the quickest. The grunts and the ughs well my stick is bigger so it works better or the other well I can carry more sticks so I have one more just in case. Then there is the caveman carrying the stick that works the best through repeated throwing and tweaking. He knows that all the sticks don't work the same all the time on every mammoth so he practices throwing his stick and carries another just in case.

I really like the comments in this thread, very educative.

I will share a story that goes along with the general consensus about calibers.

My grand father was an artillery leutenant during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939).
During a battle, they were atacked by german paratroopers (as granddad use to tell me), at one point he was looking at the muzzle of a Luger (P08) 9 mm pistol....on the other end a German Captain.

Grand dad carry his own pistol during the war.....A Luger in 30 parabellum.

When he realized that he was about to get killed, he emptied his 30 cal Luger on the German Captain....Killing him almost instantly (I guess).

When the skirmish was over (they managed to kill the entire german platoon), one of his men aproach and told him "Commander you have been shot", my grand father didnt realize that the Nazi officer shot at him (several times according to his troops), and hitting him once between the shoulder and the neck. The scar was there and I saw it countless of times.

He use to say that..."a couple of centimeters more and that Nazi would have blown my neck".

Sometimes is more about luck than the diameter of the bullet....I think

__________________
"lets be careful out there"

Uh, a "couple of centimeters more..."?

You mean an 11 mm?

Cheers!

His scar was very near to the base of his neck about half an inch from it.

__________________
"lets be careful out there"

I noticed few things while working Robbery/Homicide GSW cases. First thing I noticed is those hit with larger caliber handgun rounds were usually at the scene waiting for us, to chalk up their outline.

Those hit with smaller caliber rounds usually were at the hospital and the vast majority of them were saved by medical intervention.

But in ALL the GSW Homicides I worked, the constant was shot placement. A hit in the eye socket with a 380 being better than peripheral hit with a Fo-tay.

When shot placement coincided with a large caliber round, we used a lot of chalk.

The other thing I noticed is these unfortunate incidents involving social gunfire were over VERY quickly. 2, 3, 4 shots being the norm. Then you had a 1st place and a 2nd place winner. Only one case I recall ran more than that. That miscreant was hit by 8 rounds. But the ME told us the 2nd round killed him. His murderer fired the additional 6 rounds into him while doing a "victory dance" according to witnesses.

And the "Officer Grammins incident" is constantly brought up by the small caliber high capacity crowd as an excuse to go to 9mm vs 45. It is a poor example to use for that purpose. By Officer Grammins own admission right after the incident, when he tried to calm down, focus on his sights and "work the basics" he fired the round that ended the fight. This case was used in training to illustrate to us the value of trying to remain calm and work the basics QUICKLY. To end a fight using shot placement. Regardless of caliber.

And YES I am aware that Grammins now uses a 9mm and carries almost 150 rounds on duty on his already heavy duty belt. More power to him! Those that go forth should have the final say on what goes with them.

And a single stack 45 loaded with RA45T is what goes with me more often than not. Capacity is NOT a concern, to me. If I fell the need for "capacity" I'll carry an extra mag. Or two. I know, based on experience, that I will be out of time, before I am out of ammo. I will also likely be the 2nd one to know I am in an unfortunate incident.

And on days I need a discreet carry gun, like going to social events or Church, I will carry a single stack 9mm. With 147 RA9T. And I will not feel as comfortable or "comforted" as I would with a 45 in my holster. But in the event of an incident, I will try to be calm and work the basics quickly.....while fighting my way to my shotgun. YMMV and probably should. Regards 18DAI

__________________
7 +1 Rounds of hope & change

18DAI-
Good post, but I doubt you'll sway those who spend most waking moments obsessing over gunfighting theory and all that goes with it - jello and denim "testing", the latest in magical bullets, YouTube, FBI trivia, big magazine capacities, cartridge arguments, etc. They'll never tire of what they consider "reasoning" and all else that is tired and worn out.

Maybe they need to get out and do some shooting instead.

Elmer Keith certainly got out and did a lot of shooting. Despite being a big bore fan he called the .45 acp ball round “a poor killer”. He said it was unreliable even on small game. He shot many tough old Jack rabbits with it and said when hit through the body with a round they usually showed no immediate reaction and continued feeding. His .44 spl loads with sharp shoulder flat nose SWCs were much more effective. The 1911 along with the lumbering 800 FPS RN bullet is the most over rated, over hyped gun and ctg. in history. A good 9mm FMJ round is .355” in dia and runs at 1200 FPS. If you actually believe it’s ineffective and the 3/32 “ larger .45 acp FMJ at 800 FPS is a knock em down and stomp em death ray.... Hopefully you’ll never have to bet your life on it.

I Remember back when the 10rd magazine laws when into effect. Suddenly the popular 9mm restricted to 10 rounds , trailed behind the .40 cal in sales. Once that ban was lifted the 9mm became the gun to have again.Honestly the big attraction to that round will always be the high capacity guns that chamber it.

All of my 9mm firearms are in my gun safe gathering dust. My .40 calibers and 357 Magnums are my choice to EDC.
NUFF SAID!

__________________
How many guns are too many?

How do you shoot a perp x16 with a 45 and it takes head shot to stop him?
The only answer regardless of BS is than no major organs or bones were hit. It must be considered a miracle that blood loss alone should have shut the guy down.
I have shot deer with 12g slugs, that cleaned out their ticker and they ran till they hit a tree. Many deer shot on the dead run, are running dead. Have shot deer multiple hits with 30/06, nothing important struck and spent hours tracking them to where they bled to death.
On the other hand deer that are unaware they are going to be shot usually go down like a sack of sand. I had to shoot a 700 lb steer with a 22 one time. It was about 20yds standing in pasture, waited for it to put its head down and dropped it.
I’m more comfortable with an accurate & dependable gun than the caliber.

My best friend's neighbor knows a guy who is in charge of weapons and munitions for the newly formed Space Force. He says that they have dumped all their powder and bullet weapons and ammo and replaced them with phased plasma rifles and pistols in the 40 watt range. Turns a man into jello, he says.

A person shooting another in SD using multiple shots really needs to be able to justify each and every shot, especially if the perp is dead. I'm not a lawyer, but there are some slick ones out there that will grill you in court!

While this is both a truthful and logical statement, it is a flawed sentiment which is based on misconception.

You see, 9mm JHP technology was improved out of necessity because back in the early days of Jacketed Hollowpoint ammunition being used in Law Enforcement, prior to the formation of the established FBI Specifications, ballistics performance was highly theoretical, and therefore JHPs weren't designed nor tested to confirm that they performed adequately because nobody had established a baseline for effectiveness. In fact, early on, the FBI was far more concerned with expansion than penetration, opting for bullets which expanded as much in diameter as possible, believing that the energy dump and larger wound diameter would be more incapacitating, right up until the infamous Miami-Dade FBI Shootout of 1986 when it was illustrated that deeper penetration was required for reliable incapacitation.

These facts are largely rejected by 9mm Luger advocates as it doesn't fit their narrative that 9mm Luger was always perfect and that there was never any legitimate need for the FBI to switch cartridges because the Miami Shootout was only such a huge disaster because the bad guys had rifles, and the underpenetration of the 9mm cartridge was only a scapegoat because apparently it would have made no difference if the bullet had reacted the heart.
Not to say that there was no fault in the FBI's tactics, but yeah, 9mm Luger did indeed fail to penetrate deeply enough in that instance, and the FBI was right to seek a new bullet.

Ironically, advocates of the 9mm Luger cartridge are also the first to point out the advancements in ballistics technology which they also claim were unnecessary, regardless of the fact that said advancements would have never occurred if the FBI hadn't moved away from the cartridge and formed the Testing Protocol which lead to the established FBI Specifications which were in turn used as the basis for modern 9mm JHP performance.

Anyway, as I was saying, the improvements in ballistics technology which made the 9mm JHP viable for duty aren't applicable to .40 S&W because .40 S&W was the basis for said performance to begin with, and is also less beneficial towards .45 ACP JHPs which already penetrated/expanded reliably, yet merely wasn't chosen as a replacement for .38 Special/9mm Luger in the past due to the lesser magazine capacity and poor barrier penetration. (At the time, the FBI was far more concerned about straight line barrier penetration since the perps in the Miami Shootout had used their car as cover which was believed to be a factor in the failure of JHPs.)

So no, the technology that made 9mm JHPs viable is by and large non-applicable towards other cartridges like .40 S&W, .357 SIG, and .45 ACP since those cartridges were either designed around FBI Specifications to begin with (.40 S&W / .357 SIG) or other never had any serious problems with reliable expansion or penetration to begin with.
If the improvements which were applied to 9mm JHP were applied to other catridges, then their performance would exceed FBI Specs, thus rendering them a failure being their "enhanced performance" would become a liability. There's a reason why the mighty 10mm Auto isn't a popular self-defense cartridge in full-power loads, and contrary to popular egocentric belief, it isn't because it's just so gosh-darn powerful that even trained LEOs can't handle the incredible recoil/blast that only the manliest of men can handle. It's because it overpenetrates, which can lead to collateral damage. (Yeah, yeah, I know... Not all 10mm loads overpenetrate, right? Well lemme guess, they aren't 200grs @ 1200fps, are they? Closer to maybe 180gr @ 1000fps or some 135gr @ 1700fps deal that can't overpenetrate because it fragments in soft tissue, right? Okay, good talk.)

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

I can only relate with my personal experience and that of a few of my work friends. There are a lot of arm chair experts around but from those of us who were in the trenches any of the above calibers mentioned will work if you put the bullet in the right spot. Before buying the next biggest hand howitzer you read about, just learn to use the one you got accurately and chances are very high you will be well armed for an emergency that I hope will never come.

You're right, but outnumbered by the arm chair experts. A true law enforcement perspective from those who actually did real police work is worth far more than what many self-recognized experts have for educational credentials - an education often based on YouTube videos and other Internet sources of dubious worth.

Since concealed carry became widespread, it has developed into a hobby of its own. Included in this hobby are the theories, obsessions, specialty ammos, gadgets, "what ifs", frequent reference to an FBI shootout, and general obstinacy. It seems the hobby enthusiasts place little importance on learning to shoot well because that's seldom mentioned.

^^^^This is perfect.

Nothing brings stupid to the front like a caliber discussion.

Excellent alternative history.

The problem is, hollow point bullets were adopted by LE to REDUCE OVER PENETRATION. That is the "effectiveness" sought. Not protecting officers, not subduing perps quicker.

__________________
I've still got it made.

Absolutely false. LE/military perspective is worse than useless to civilian defensive shooters.

This forum has different groups of participants. I expect civilian gun owners on this forum outnumber the LE/military, though the largest group may be like me, a veteran, civilian gun owner.

I am not a low drag, high speed operator. I have no interest in being one. I'm not going to train much.

Early posts about shot placement are actually correct for LE/military. They are completely wrong for the mass of civilian gun owners on this forum.

__________________
I've still got it made.

Perhaps I didn't phrase it well if that's your understanding of what I stated. What I meant was that law enforcement personnel who have spent years doing actual police work (not administrative) have an understanding of many things mentioned in these posts that many civilian concealed carriers don't have. That's no slight to civilian carriers, but it seems many of them try to look at matters from a law enforcement perspective, a perspective they lack.

I have no idea what a "low drag, high speed operator" is. Practice is important in becoming a skilled shooter. We all know that.

None of this is worth arguing.