YOU, sir, are the biggest physics i have ever seen in my life.

So in the end it says that you should carry as much gun as you can handle. I'm a very large man, and I really don't understand why I would want anything bigger than a .22

I mean, I have never shot anyone, but I would assume that putting a few holes of any size in somebody would do a lot to dampen their spirits. Why carry as much as you could handle? I have always seen handguns bigger than 9mm as just a marketing scheme.

So in the end it says that you should carry as much gun as you can handle. I'm a very large man, and I really don't understand why I would want anything bigger than a .22

I mean, I have never shot anyone, but I would assume that putting a few holes of any size in somebody would do a lot to dampen their spirits. Why carry as much as you could handle? I have always seen handguns bigger than 9mm as just a marketing scheme.

There are three simple reasons why I opted for .45ACP:
If I have to point my gun at someone, it's because they need to die—not have their spirits dampened (if someone doesn't need to die, there's no reason to use deadly force).
I can handle the recoil of said caliber, though it certainly helps that I have a full-size 1911, and shoot it accurately from 20 feet (that being my distance from the target).
Should I be placed in mortal danger, I'd like to make as big a hole as possible.

As for why you'd want something bigger than a .22, you'd do well to research the reason .45ACP was invented in the first place.

great stuff, glad to be informed!

So in the end it says that you should carry as much gun as you can handle. I'm a very large man, and I really don't understand why I would want anything bigger than a .22

I mean, I have never shot anyone, but I would assume that putting a few holes of any size in somebody would do a lot to dampen their spirits. Why carry as much as you could handle? I have always seen handguns bigger than 9mm as just a marketing scheme.

Because it is not about "killing power" its about "stopping power." Yes, just showing you are armed will end almost all encounters, but if you have to pull that trigger you want to pull it as few times as necessary.

The "Goldfinger" quote aside (bonus points for the person who puts it here first,) bigger holes are better, generally speaking. The body of evidence tells us that as we go below the .38/9mm window we have fewer stops than when we are at that window.

I am a carbine fan at home.... but also have a Sig P220 (.45) for that job too. It is just too big and heavy for daily carry for me. So my P7M8 or hammerless .38 are my carry pieces. I do not feel underpowered with either one.

The "Goldfinger" quote

It doesn't exactly fit the context, but I can only think you were alluding to "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die."

I'm hoping that the Glaser safety slugs in mom's .44 special weren't a waste of money.

bond is on a plane with ***** galore brandishing a .45 revolver at him. He warns her if she fires the bullet will go through him and out the fuselage, decompressing the plane and killing them both.

DOmite,

It has to do with bringing down a determined assailant before they can do the harm they are originally intending.

Higher energy rounds do it faster and more reliably than smaller ones.

Evidence shows that 22LR will not penetrate most adult humans enough to do more than piss them off in combat shooting applications.

Of course, mob-style executions often use .22, because at point blank range, a .22 to the head is very clean and efficient. It doesn't leave DNA all over the crime scene.

It doesn't exactly fit the context, but I can only think you were alluding to "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die."

Actually it does, IF you find the correct quote in the book, rather than the movie. Bond and Goldfinger are discussing the firearms they carry. Bond is a bit taken aback that Goldfinger carries a .25 auto, to which Goldfinger replies:

"I aim for the right eye and I never miss."

I'm hoping that the Glaser safety slugs in mom's .44 special weren't a waste of money.


Those rounds are famous for under-penetrating due to their frangible nature. They make really grisly (if shallow) wounds though.

If your target is wearing heavy outerwear, like a biker jacket or something, the round may only produce a horrific-looking scar and some heavy bleeding in the bad guy. Against a guy in a T-shirt, they are probably fine, as long as a seriously ugly wound doesn't offend your sensibilities.

A good jacketed hollow point from a .44 special is a much better man-stopper IMHO. .44 special from a 4" barrel will net you about 400 ft-lbs muzzle energy, and the larger cross section coupled with good expansion (generally will expand to .67 inches!!) dumps the energy quickly and deep (13 inches of ballistic gel, typically) with an enormous wound channel.

It's a low-velocity round (700-850 fps), so you don't really have to sweat over-penetration, ricochets, or heavy backstops as much as with faster bullets.


So yeah...you could have gone with cheaper stuff. Get her some good SPeer Gold Dot JHP's and she'll be better off. The Glasers aren't bad...they jsut don;t live up to their advertising.

So yeah...you could have gone with cheaper stuff. Get her some good SPeer Gold Dot JHP's and she'll be better off. The Glasers aren't bad...they jsut don;t live up to their advertising.

Scrapper hit it dead on, and I can't believe I forgot to reply to HungryJoe (damn my love of movie quotes).

Joe, so far I can only find one source (http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/product/standard-item.jsp;jsessionid=YFKNVPLPGWHVJLAQBBJSCOFMCAEFII WE?_DARGS=/cabelas/en/common/catalog/item-link.jsp_A&_DAV=MainCatcat20712-cat20726-cat20837&id=0069009217154a&navCount=9&podId=0069009&parentId=cat20837&masterpathid=&navAction=push&catalogCode=9IS&rid=&parentType=index&indexId=cat601233&hasJS=true&_requestid=37704) for the 200gr. Gold Dot JHP load I'd recommend for defending oneself with a .44 Special—and it's CCI Blazer. Some people don't like them, but I think they are fine if you're not looking for reloadable brass. Here (http://www.blazer-ammo.com/blazer_chart.aspx) is a chart with the specs for the load in question.

I am not an expert in terminal ballistics, blah, blah, have a nice day.

When you talk about the external and terminal ballistics in a simplified manner, it's best not to mention the F word (force) at all.

A bullet has a certain amount of kinetic energy, which is half the product of its mass and the square of its velocity (E=1/2 mv^2).

When a bullet hits something it "gives" a portion of that energy to the target deforming it, another portion of that energy with move the target, another portion of that energy will deform the bullet. How the energy gets divided up depends on mainly on where you hit a person, and the physical construction of the bullet. The physiological effects depend on a combination of these factors, and other factors such as surface area of the bullet, etc.

Double the mass of the bullet and you double the energy, but double the speed of the bullet and you quadruple the energy. This is why a .223 round (55 grains (3.6 g) going 3000 feet per second) does so much more damage than a 9mm round (115 grains (7.45 g) going 1350 feet per second)

(yes I know the projectiles will slow due to air resistance before they hit, this is a simplified model)

THis is the problem with writing these types of articles. You gotta sorta pick a line of nit-pickiness with the physics and deal with nomenclature issues and suffer tehconsequences. OTherwise it becomes a 64-page treatise on physics and biology.

Otherwise it becomes a 64-page treatise on physics and biology.

Which I would love to read, but I don't expect you to write it.

7.62:ninja2: x 25 mm Tokarev - Google it, you'll like it!