9mm vs 44 magnum

File: 1489106430668.jpg (25KB, 500x465px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x465px

>>33659738
>44 magnum and 10mm
Yes.

Not trying to start a caliber war but I think this would be interesting to test out

Most would agree that handgun calibers suck compared to rifle calibers, but where is the line between the two? It would be advantageous to be able to pack around (somewhat) rifle lever power with you concealed/ everywhere you go

>most 223 ammo hovers around 1300 ilbs
>a buffalo bore 225 grain Barnes xpb out of a 4 inch barrel is right at 980 ilbs

It's closer to 223 than it is to 9 (assuming 400 ilbs)

File: IMG_1272.png (764KB, 1334x750px) Image search: [Google]

764KB, 1334x750px

>>33659840
*level not lever

I'd imagine that a glock 20 with maybe two rounds of underwood or a 4 inch n frame with buffalo bore center mass would get as close to a "one shot stop" as you can with a handgun.

However concealing and feeding these motherfuckers would be a another problem in and of itself

As a side note I have been thinking of getting a 10mm 1911.

Deltas get shit on constantly, so I've been thinking about going the custom route and springing for a Dan Wesson or maybe even a Nighthawk.

I would love to carry a pinned and recessed model 29, but I don't think I could conceal it very well. Also shooting proper 44 for me requires rubber grips which kill the aesthetic

>>33659738

>Backed up by the FBI, mainstream thought proposes that all the major handgun calibers perform about the same

This is wrong.
They clearly stated larger calibers have an advantage in wounding effectiveness.

>>33659982
Really? I'm fairly certain they found that permanent wound tracks were all about the same, and 9mm jhps penetrated just as deep as 40 or 45

Correct me if I'm wrong

>>33660011

http://gundata.org/images/fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf

>Given adequate penetration, a larger diameter bullet will have an edge in wounding effectiveness.

>>33660030
But this would only make a difference if you missed a vital by .2 of an inch right?

Assuming 9 expands to .65 and 45 expands to .87 (hst)

The reason I was geeking on the 44 was that it could cause rifle type permanent wound channels

>>33660030
Thanks for responding btw

9mm and 44 magnum with non-retarded loads will both reliably penetrate a person deep enough to reach vital organs and put them down. Only real edge 44 magnum has on 9mm when it comes to human targets is the chance for hydrostatic shock, which doesn't matter nearly as much as proper shot placement. Meanwhile, 9mm allows for a higher volume of shots and less recoil that will allow for quicker, more accurate follow up shots. Either caliber can do the job if you know how to aim. 44 mag would just be overkill though.

But you can't hunt deer/boar/bear with a 9mm.

>>33660078
I really don't understand why people say 44 is overkill when rifles and shotguns are the defacto choice for putting down bad guys

I was under the impression that handguns suck and therefore a caliber that approaches rifle energy would be a better choice

>>33660063

>It will damage a blood vessel the smaller projectile barely misses. The larger permanent cavity may lead to faster blood loss. Although such an edge clearly exists, its significance cannot be quantified.

Surface area is a function of pi*radius^2
So as radius increases, area increases exponentially, leading to a larger disparity than you would think.

>>33660094

>I was under the impression that handguns suck and therefore a caliber that approaches rifle energy would be a better choice

Kinetic energy is not a wounding mechanism, it is a measure of work done on an object.
It is argued that the high velocity impact of rifle rounds causes hydrostatic shock, and remote wounding, but this is often debated.

>>33659953
>Deltas get shit on constantly
IIRC the new 2016-7 models are good. It's mostly the crappy ones from the 80s that explode with Norma-spec ammo.

>>33659738
Out of a Carbine yes, out of a pistol no.

>>33660125
Large expanding hollowpoint hitting target with high ammount of energy = bigger permanent cavity

>>33660094
>I really don't understand why people say 44 is overkill when rifles and shotguns are the defacto choice for putting down bad guys
Because assuming what you're using can go deep enough to cause real damage, proper shot placement and accurate follow up shots matter far more than a marginally bigger wound channel. Rifles aren't considered better just because the round is more powerful than a handgun, but also because they're far easier to aim and manage the recoil.

Comparing 9mm to 44 in the realm of handguns is like comparing 5.56 to .50 beowulf in the realm of rifles. Sure, the .50 beowulf will hit way harder than a 5.56, but the tradeoff in magazine capacity, accuracy and ease of followup shots just isn't worth it.

>>33660155

>Large expanding hollowpoint hitting target with high ammount of energy = bigger permanent cavity

Like I said, energy is a measure of the work done on an object.
It would be more informative to know the momentum of the bullet if you wanted to calculate penetration.

Also, that statement is only true compared to an FMJ round if the FMJ causes an exit wound.
Which in turn would cause more bleeding.