Biggfoot44
Ultimate Member
- Aug 2, 2009
- 33,137
The ft lb per magazine may not be crazy talk per se , but it is largely irrelevant. The First Hit is by far the most important hit, and may well be thw only hit. In between them moving, you moving, short time constraints, multiple bad guys, etc, don't hold your breath to expect more than one or two hits.
And as much as that would seem initially to argue for power per se to be overridding factor, there's more to this.
As Dbledoc pointed out what's really important is making hits, making good hits. (And adding myself, making buncha good hits, rapidly). So control counts too.
For people * With medium-ish chunk of initial training, who then shoot once or twice a year to maintain proficiency* ( is most LE most people who pack heat in exchange for paycheck generally) will have a steep decline in proficiency at a point on the power/ recoil/ controlability scale. At that level starts kicking in when you get much more than 9mm/ .38+P in full size -ish gun.
No , this doesn't extrapolate all the way down to .22lr duty/ defensive guns, a certain floor level of reasonably adequate power and effectiveness is needed, beyond which control and on target accuracy must be balanced vs more power.
Sure, 5-10 % will self motivate to increase and maintain proficiency. And ideally employers would double the frequency and round count of periodic practice/ in service training, vut don't hold your breath for that either.
Being anarchist inclined on such matters, I don't think there should be a standard issue calibre/ pistol. One answer does not fit all.
Yeah, yeah, usual arguments against that. But even if I grant 85% of the argument to the other side, there are still big improvements to be had.
Using example of FBI like hypothetical organization. Standarize on Glock fire control, operating systems, armorer skills and tools. Give individual peons their option of full size, midsize, compact, and a cpl additional cal choices. All the peons will still know how to handle each other's pistols. Same knowledge base for instructors. Same knowledge base and equipment for armorers. If they choose to standardize on frame size, largely standardize on leather gear. If they want to pinch pennies issue G19 by default, and allow private purchase, dept inspected 17 or 26, plus equiv of some combinations in .357S,.40, .45 (acp or GAP). Yeah , they would have to select and/ or stock multiple cals, but that's not insurmountable, and once they decide on a particular load for 9mm, not rocket science to exprapolate same product line over the othet cals. Ie ,if say 124 Gold Dot is the pick for 9mm , the easy pick is 125 GD for .357, 165 or 180 GD for .40 , 230 GD for either.45.
And as much as that would seem initially to argue for power per se to be overridding factor, there's more to this.
As Dbledoc pointed out what's really important is making hits, making good hits. (And adding myself, making buncha good hits, rapidly). So control counts too.
For people * With medium-ish chunk of initial training, who then shoot once or twice a year to maintain proficiency* ( is most LE most people who pack heat in exchange for paycheck generally) will have a steep decline in proficiency at a point on the power/ recoil/ controlability scale. At that level starts kicking in when you get much more than 9mm/ .38+P in full size -ish gun.
No , this doesn't extrapolate all the way down to .22lr duty/ defensive guns, a certain floor level of reasonably adequate power and effectiveness is needed, beyond which control and on target accuracy must be balanced vs more power.
Sure, 5-10 % will self motivate to increase and maintain proficiency. And ideally employers would double the frequency and round count of periodic practice/ in service training, vut don't hold your breath for that either.
Being anarchist inclined on such matters, I don't think there should be a standard issue calibre/ pistol. One answer does not fit all.
Yeah, yeah, usual arguments against that. But even if I grant 85% of the argument to the other side, there are still big improvements to be had.
Using example of FBI like hypothetical organization. Standarize on Glock fire control, operating systems, armorer skills and tools. Give individual peons their option of full size, midsize, compact, and a cpl additional cal choices. All the peons will still know how to handle each other's pistols. Same knowledge base for instructors. Same knowledge base and equipment for armorers. If they choose to standardize on frame size, largely standardize on leather gear. If they want to pinch pennies issue G19 by default, and allow private purchase, dept inspected 17 or 26, plus equiv of some combinations in .357S,.40, .45 (acp or GAP). Yeah , they would have to select and/ or stock multiple cals, but that's not insurmountable, and once they decide on a particular load for 9mm, not rocket science to exprapolate same product line over the othet cals. Ie ,if say 124 Gold Dot is the pick for 9mm , the easy pick is 125 GD for .357, 165 or 180 GD for .40 , 230 GD for either.45.
You may have seen that in one test but I would respectfully suggest going over some different ballistic charts. Hornady makes a quality product in manufacturing terms but from what I have seen their bullets, including Critical Duty rounds, are on the lower-end of 9mm expansion performance. Usually around .40-.50" give or take a little. A lot of the quality loads in .40 and .45 are going to expand up to around .70 or higher in a standard ballistic gel test. Most of the high end 9mm loads hang down around .50-.60". I'm talking about partial clothing ballistic gel tests here, because I think those are the most realistic.
