Stu Honea
Member
I was going to ask why this thread contained so many references to the fairy tale term "knockdown power" but others beat me to it.
.40 vs .45 caliber
- Thread starter starbuck
- Start date
StatesRightist
Member
It's amazing how the pendulum swings we went from over valuing calibers, to now under valuing them. There is a difference in knock down power. Yes, a hit in the heart with a .22lr is deadly, accuracy is supreme.
But the statements that caliber/knockdown power is a fantasy amaze me. They are obtuse.
All of you making these statements, you carry .25's or .22lr's right? After all they are just as good right? They go through barriers, penetrate heavy clothing, get through shoulders, forearms etc just as well don't they?
It is a known fact for example the .357 came about because law enforcement of the time needed a better barrier and windshield penetrating gun.
I have J frame .38's, 9mm's all the way up to .44's for SD, each has it's advantages, but I do not carry mouse guns for a two reasons, experience and street results. Am I under gunned with my P228, no, I hit what I shoot at, but .38/9mm is the minimum caliber I'm carrying because I know anything below that is not worth the tradeoff.
Maybe I am arguing semantics in one sense and what you mean is among the varying service/military/police sidearm calibers all are effective. That I will agree with, but my issue is with the blanket statements being made that there is no difference among calibers in "knock down" power, that's just silly. Almost as silly as the term "knock down" power, we need a new term, maybe effectiveness, I don't know, but rarely is a shot person instantly knocked down. The misnomer of the term I agree with.
But the statements that caliber/knockdown power is a fantasy amaze me. They are obtuse.
All of you making these statements, you carry .25's or .22lr's right? After all they are just as good right? They go through barriers, penetrate heavy clothing, get through shoulders, forearms etc just as well don't they?
It is a known fact for example the .357 came about because law enforcement of the time needed a better barrier and windshield penetrating gun.
I have J frame .38's, 9mm's all the way up to .44's for SD, each has it's advantages, but I do not carry mouse guns for a two reasons, experience and street results. Am I under gunned with my P228, no, I hit what I shoot at, but .38/9mm is the minimum caliber I'm carrying because I know anything below that is not worth the tradeoff.
Maybe I am arguing semantics in one sense and what you mean is among the varying service/military/police sidearm calibers all are effective. That I will agree with, but my issue is with the blanket statements being made that there is no difference among calibers in "knock down" power, that's just silly. Almost as silly as the term "knock down" power, we need a new term, maybe effectiveness, I don't know, but rarely is a shot person instantly knocked down. The misnomer of the term I agree with.
StatesRightist
Member
Here we go Stu...lol.
"Could somebody please compare the .40 vs the .45 in regards to effectiveness such as knock-down, etc.. It seems many prefer to compare most carry guns to the standard .45 caliber. Thanks."
As to effectiveness... .40 or .45, it's a wash. One can get emotional about it, but a 180 gr. .40 bullet at 900 FPS or more is going to get the job done... just like a 230 gr. .45 bullet at 830 FPS... if that slug is put into a vital zone. Regardless of caliber, you've got to make the holes in the right places, otherwise... your just making holes. Don't put much stock in terms like "knock-down power, etc. It sounds good, but it doesn't mean anything. The phrase is a good example of irrational misleading terminology. A grown man is not "knocked down" buy a bullet. Now a brick might do the job... or a baseball bat. But a bullet in any normally encountered .40 or .45 handgun round... no.
As to effectiveness... .40 or .45, it's a wash. One can get emotional about it, but a 180 gr. .40 bullet at 900 FPS or more is going to get the job done... just like a 230 gr. .45 bullet at 830 FPS... if that slug is put into a vital zone. Regardless of caliber, you've got to make the holes in the right places, otherwise... your just making holes. Don't put much stock in terms like "knock-down power, etc. It sounds good, but it doesn't mean anything. The phrase is a good example of irrational misleading terminology. A grown man is not "knocked down" buy a bullet. Now a brick might do the job... or a baseball bat. But a bullet in any normally encountered .40 or .45 handgun round... no.
Stu Honea
Member
Ha Ha
,not this time. I see what you are saying exactly and agree that someone smarter than me should coin a new term to replace "knockdown power." As long as everyone understands that we are talking about terminal effects and not the ability to actually knock down an adversary, then all is well.Actually,when all is said and done I think you and I wouild agree on more than we disagree on.
I feel that the overuse of that term will give false impressions to the less knowledgeable,that it will actually occur,and holding that impression foremost in the mind is dangerous,as I'm sure you are quite aware.
Education is the key,and as always,"shoot 'em to the ground " applies. I consider our exchanges a pleasant experience,and thanks for remembering me.
StatesRightist
Member
Ha Ha
Actually,when all is said and done I think you and I wouild agree on more than we disagree on.
I feel that the overuse of that term will give false impressions to the less knowledgeable,that it will actually occur,and holding that impression foremost in the mind is dangerous,as I'm sure you are quite aware.
Education is the key,and as always,"shoot 'em to the ground " applies. I consider our exchanges a pleasant experience,and thanks for remembering me.
You are right. I can tell from your posts you are informed. That's the fun of debating you, I get back well thought out, non-emotional responses. I think we both have been around long enough to separate the BS from fact, so we agree on more than we disagree on. Have a good weekend.
Stu Honea
Member
You have a good one as well,sir.
Halco46,I think you'll probably be ok with that caliber.
Halco46,I think you'll probably be ok with that caliber.
Groo01
Member
Groo here
The term was coined back in the 1930's..
The gun cartridge that had the most "SLAP" aka physical or felt
impact.
This is usually caused by the amount of "pain"
or "senation: to the target..
Thank you MR Keith.....
The term was coined back in the 1930's..
The gun cartridge that had the most "SLAP" aka physical or felt
impact.
This is usually caused by the amount of "pain"
or "senation: to the target..
Thank you MR Keith.....
Groo01
Member
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.
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.
ElectroMotive
Member
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.
StatesRightist
Member
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.
Last edited:
ElectroMotive
Member
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....
Last edited:
StatesRightist
Member
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?
M2MikeGolf
US Veteran
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.
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.
StatesRightist
Member
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 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.
ElectroMotive
Member
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
ElectroMotive
Member
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.
M2MikeGolf
US Veteran
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.
Similar threads
