If 9mm is sufficient, why is it almost never used by serious

>>34711441
Because most people don't use handguns for hunting.

But you knew that already.

>>34711448
Doesn't matter. An animal's physiology is very similar to a man's. If it will kill a man, it will kill a hog and vice versa.

>>34711449
That is very much false.

>>34711449
>>34711441
hi summer

>>34711456
No, it isn't. They have the same organs and body function we do (with a few minor modifications). That's why xenotransplantation is a thing.
>>34711462
Not an argument.

File: 1482243055868.png (2MB, 959x679px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 959x679px

>>34711449
Are you really this daft or just shit at trolling?

>>34711478
Not an argument.

>>34711478
Not going to go up thread to confirm the Bologna, but that single post is actually correct. Hogs and humans are about the same weight, have similar size organs, and a similar muscle density and bone structure. The exception is the head, hogs have a skull shape and thickness more likely to survive a bullet impact.

>>34711441
Best handgun caliber for hunting = best handgun caliber for defense

Damn. You got me with that logic

>>34711558
Both bullets do exactly the same job. They both kill medium sized mammals. If you've got an argument as to why the two would be different, let's hear it.

>>34711441
In a defensive situation you don't care if the guy you shot suffers a bit more before dying. Hunters typically care or are legally obligated to kill their prey in certain calibers to give a more humane death.

>>34711574
Capacity and the ability to be reloaded quickly under stress are important for a defensive firearm, but not for hunting in most cases

Stop bumping this retarded troll thread.

>>34711441
Because it's meant to kill things on two legs who can't charge you and gore you after taking a round to the chest or head.

File: bullshit.jpg (17KB, 226x207px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 226x207px

>>34711441

File: op is a faggot.gif (2MB, 268x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 268x200px

>>34711441

Because service handgun calibers all suck about equally at killing things quickly, effectively and reliably, which is why in a defensive situation you magdump center mass until the guy drops, which is conveniently usually the only thing you have the faculties to do when a nigger on PCP springs at you in an alley, and that's if you're fortunate.
Comparing this to a caliber used in hunting, where ALL factors relevant to carry/defense take a second seat to the ability to quickly and with as little suffering as possible take down a large animal with (preferably) a single, well placed, calmly prepared shot, is disingenuous at best.

You posted the same shit last week.

>>34711617
I do, not because I care about him, but because I want him to die as soon as possible. The sooner that happens, the sooner he stops shooting at me.
>>34711622
They're not important for gunfights in most cases either. A 41 magnum holds 6 rounds. How many dudes are you going to take down? Realistically, 1 or 2 is all. 3 in extreme circumstances. We're not talking about mowing down legions of zombies.
>>34711663
>who can't charge you and gore you after taking a round to the chest or head.
That's flatly false.
>>34711680
Not an argument.
>>34711681
>Because service handgun calibers all suck about equally at killing things quickly, effectively and reliably, which is why in a defensive situation you magdump center mass until the guy drops,
Wouldn't it be better to use one round in the middle of the chest?
>>34711681
>which is conveniently usually the only thing you have the faculties to do when a nigger on PCP springs at you in an alley, and that's if you're fortunate
Oh, come one. People get charged by hogs. A person isn't any different.

>>34711681
>ALL factors relevant to carry/defense take a second seat to the ability to quickly
As well they should. First things first. If your bullet can't do its job, nothing else matters. If you need more than one shot, your bullet is NOT doing its job. If an animal (and humans are animals) doesn't stop when you shoot it, that should be a sign to you that need a better bullet. If you can't hit with one shot, that should be a sign that you need better marksmanship.

>>34711701
Yeah because people never miss their target under stress. They are important for a firearm you intend to use for defense in every case

>>34711734
Stress is not an excuse. Self control is what makes a good marksman. If you can't trust yourself to hit your target, panic shooting wildly is only a good way to injure bystanders.

>>34711701
>Wouldn't it be better to use one round in the middle of the chest?

If you feel like betting your life on one handgun shot taken under circumstances that usually don't allow for careful aiming, sure, squeeze one out and see what happens.

>Oh, come one. People get charged by hogs. A person isn't any different.

Hunting weapons and calibers, unlike the defensive ones, usually aren't chosen with an unsuspected, charging and dangerous adversary in mind. If they are, you'll notice they tend to stop being readily distinguishable from defensive weapons.

>>34711729
>If you need more than one shot, your bullet is NOT doing its job.

If you think the human torso is a singular organ that decides to turn off when a "sufficiently powerful" bullet, whatever that means, hits it, then you need to watch less movies and take an anatomy class.
And no, magical meme wounding mechanisms aren't enough to incapacitate when there's zero damage to vital organs.

>If you can't hit with one shot, that should be a sign that you need better marksmanship.

How many shots exactly have you taken in a life-or-death situation that took you completely by surprise? Be honest.

>>34711745
>Self control is what makes a good marksman.

t. fedoralord armchair warrior who bench shoots once a week and thinks this translates to being any good in a gunfight

>>34711465
>a few minor modifications

Yeah, like a thick hide, denser bones, and more tissue. These are all things that require more penetration than 9mm, .40, or .45 normally have.

>>34711441
9mm is for innastreets
10mm is for innawoods

There's no such thing as the perfect round for literally every situation.

>>34711752
>If you feel like betting your life on one handgun shot taken under circumstances that usually don't allow for careful aiming, sure, squeeze one out and see what happens.
This ain't shooting minute of angle. A man sized target at typical range is pretty big.
>>34711752
>Hunting weapons and calibers, unlike the defensive ones, usually aren't chosen with an unsuspected, charging and dangerous adversary in mind. If they are, you'll notice they tend to stop being readily distinguishable from defensive weapons.
Flatly false. Hunters get charged by ornery game animals all the time.
>>34711752
>If you think the human torso is a singular organ that decides to turn off when a "sufficiently powerful" bullet, whatever that means, hits it, then you need to watch less movies and take an anatomy class.
Then how do you explain the fact that bullets work at stopping other animals?
>>34711752
>How many shots exactly have you taken in a life-or-death situation that took you completely by surprise? Be honest.
Why don't you ask lion hunters? They don't have 16 round magazines. They use bolt action rifles for God's sake.
>>34711760
I know you are, but what am I?
>>34711766
They are not exactly alike, but the principle is the same.

>>34711441
Not an argument.

>>34711775
Oh, but it is an argument. People who advocate 9mm have never had to shoot anything but paper, so they don't know just how inadequate their small, slow bullets are.

>>34711779
9mm has never killed anyone?

>>34711745
Yeah because if you miss you must be "panic shooting wildly." You don't know the first thing about defensive shooting. You have to make sure your background is clear before you decide to shoot, especially if you're using a .41 magnum

>>34711781
Only if you count people who take 12 rounds of it and bleed out 30 minutes later.

>>34711788
Can you show me some examples of that happening? I'm surprised 9mm has been in service for so long if this is true.

>>34711786
>Yeah because if you miss you must be "panic shooting wildly."
If you need more than 6 rounds, you are fucking panic shooting.
>>34711786
>You have to make sure your background is clear before you decide to shoot
Easier said than done. You don't always know what's behind walls etc.
>especially if you're using a .41 magnum
What is sectional density? A bullet with proper sectional density will not overpenetrate.

File: Gabby.jpg (18KB, 220x275px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 220x275px

>>34711791
Jared could have done society a favor and used 41 magnum.

>>34711798
What is sectional density?

>>34711806
Cross sectional area divided by mass. Bullets with more penetrate more.

>>34711774
>This ain't shooting minute of angle. A man sized target at typical range is pretty big.

The portion of the target area where you can't expect a 100% reliable immediate incapacitation with any handgun caliber is also pretty big, which is why you magdump.

>Flatly false. Hunters get charged by ornery game animals all the time.

Mostly at their terms, in a situation where they fully expect to shoot and are both physically and mentally poised to do so.

>Then how do you explain the fact that bullets work at stopping other animals?

Quite often I've seen them fail to work quickly enough, even after shots that seemed well placed first, and even with full power rifle rounds.
Your grasp of anatomy (or rather a lack thereof) makes me think your experience with hunting consists of watching youtube videos.

>Why don't you ask lion hunters? They don't have 16 round magazines. They use bolt action rifles for God's sake.

From what I've seen the vast majority of them take a well aimed shot at a distance where they trust themselves to be able to take 2+ follow up shots in case the animal doesn't go down, which is a possibility they expect and are prepared for. Even so, some of them get killed by their weapon choice.

Anyway, this doesn't answer my question at all, so I'll ask you again - how many shots exactly have you taken in a life-or-death situation that took you completely by surprise? Be honest.

>They are not exactly alike, but the principle is the same.

"It's completely different, but other than that it's the same and applying the same principles would totally work, everyone else is doing it wrong!" - this is your only argument throughout the thread.

>>34711803
What did Cho use?

>>34711812
Are there any manufacturers that make .41 bullets designed to not over penetrate a human target?

>>34711798
You said if you don't hit your target you're panic shooting wildly. I didn't say miss 6 times. If a wall is your backdrop you need to change your elevation before you shoot, and yes, it certainly can overpenetrate if it goes through a thoracic cavity without hitting bone. Go get some training

>>34711813
>The portion of the target area where you can't expect a 100% reliable immediate incapacitation with any handgun caliber is also pretty big, which is why you magdump.
Damage is cumulative. The first round of 41 magnum will do more damage than the first 3 of 9mm. Also, by the time you get off the 3rd round of 9mm, you're probably dead. The first shot has to count.
>>34711813
>Mostly at their terms, in a situation where they fully expect to shoot and are both physically and mentally poised to do so.
What is combat mindset?
>>34711813
>Quite often I've seen them fail to work quickly enough
Define quickly enough.
>>34711813
>From what I've seen the vast majority of them take a well aimed shot at a distance where they trust themselves to be able to take 2+ follow up shots in case the animal doesn't go down, which is a possibility they expect and are prepared for. Even so, some of them get killed by their weapon choice.
Because their weapon choice is too weak.
>>34711813
>Anyway, this doesn't answer my question at all, so I'll ask you again - how many shots exactly have you taken in a life-or-death situation that took you completely by surprise? Be honest.
How many have you?
>>34711813
>"It's completely different, but other than that it's the same and applying the same principles would totally work, everyone else is doing it wrong!" - this is your only argument throughout the thread.
Strawman. I never admitted that it's completely different. The anatomical differences between man and the other animals are differences only of degree. Certainly, a pig is much closer to a man than a block of ballistic jelly.
>>34711814
9mm. That's why so many of his victims lived.
>>34711817
Yes, glad you asked.
https://www.sierrabullets.com/store/product.cfm/sn/8500/410-dia-170-gr-JHC
>>34711829
>yes, it certainly can overpenetrate if it goes through a thoracic cavity without hitting bone
By that time, it will have lost most of its momentum.

>>34711841
>Damage is cumulative. The first round of 41 magnum will do more damage than the first 3 of 9mm.

This is such a load of videogame-tier bullshit I'm going to just quote it and let it sit there for anyone to laugh at.

>>34711846
>This is such a load of videogame-tier bullshit
Prove it.

just came from /b/ where there is a 9mm bash thread going on on the front page what gives

>>34711851
Even /b/tards know 9mm sucks.

File: fat_robert_earl_hughes.jpg (187KB, 500x451px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 500x451px

>>34711441
bears and moose are bigger than most people

>>34711841
No knowledge of anatomy or terminal ballistics

>>34711867
Prove it.

>>34711849

Gunshot wounds being cumulative is a completely ridiculous notion to anyone who knows anything about anatomy.
If your .41 magnum shot hits a lung and the three 9mm hit a lung, the spine and the heart, then given a motivated enough attacker, the second one is going down immediately, whereas the first one is going to push your shit in before blacking out due to hypoxia after they develop a haemo or pneumothorax.
You just proved to everyone ITT how fucking retarded you are.

>>34711849
He doesn't even have to entertain that, let alone prove it

>>34711872
Death is still caused by blood loss, which is cumulative. If you keep pumping round after round into a man, he'll eventually bleed out, but why do it the hard way?

>>34711871
You already did

>>34711880
>Death is still caused by blood loss

Instant incapacitation is not.
Instant incapacitation, unlike death, is actually relevant to a defensive situation.

>>34711885
For all intents and purposes, they are the same.

File: dasb8.gif (3MB, 500x207px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x207px

>>34711441

>>34711880
Not even any shot to the chest will cause major bleeding, even with a .41 mag

>>34711888
No. Many people have died at the hands of people they already killed. Incapacitation is the only goal in a defensive shooting

>>34711888

You're so full of shit. Save for an instant and complete obliteration of the heart or both sides of a. carotis, there simply isn't a way for causing a blood pressure drop rapid enough to incapacitate a person in a defensive situation (i.e. rapid enough that they don't have the 2-3 seconds required to close the distance and stab you in the fucking guts).

You're a retard OP, come try hunting african game with any handgun, any caliber and you will be in serious shit. Humans aren't medium sized game we are weak even if a human in shot with a .22lr he is immobilized, and seriously injured, shooting any antelope with this caliber even with perfect shot placement with have a small chance of being fatal

>>34711441
People who advocate for 41 magnum have never left their moms basement

>anything less than 45 70 and you're just asking to get killed

They even make a 45 70 derringer for self defense.

OP is a retarded new fag if he genuinely believes .41 magnum is enough to kill anything. I mean ballistics gel tests probably lulled him in to a fall sense sense of security but that's retarded.

>why would you carry less than 45 70?

>>34711906
That's why you keep shooting until they change shape or catch fire

>>34711902
>Many people have died at the hands of people they already killed
They weren't killed yet.
>>34711907
I never said handguns were sufficient for African game (although it has been done before).

>>34711920

To be perfectly honest, most (~70%) attackers will drop after taking one shot from pretty much anything, even though there's no legitimate physiological reason for them to.
Why would you want to bet your life on these odds is anyone's guess, though.

>>34711926
You're right, 41 magnum caliber hand guns aren't enough because .41 magnum is a shitty round that's made for girly men who don't want to kill. If you own a 41 magnum you just wish to compensate for your small penis with no knowledge of how to kill or even the ability to kill well. If you had a 45 70 handgun you could take down big game in Africa but OP is too much of a new fag and never actually hunted anything to know that

>>34711926
Why were you talking about lion hunting earlier?

>>34711849
a .22lr directly on the femur artery or the heart can and will kill you

A .50 cal in one hand will probably amputate it but you have still
high chances of survival

>>34711926
And of course OP continues to ignore the 45 70 argument because it completely defeats all his own arguments

>OP HAS OFFICIALLY BEEN BTFO AND OUTED AS A HOMOSEXUAL NEWFAG
>EVERYONE CAN GO HOME NOW

>>34711926
>They weren't killed yet.

They were bleeding heavily enough to die within a minute, but were not incapacitated.
This is why blood loss as a wounding mechanism sucks, unless you're under no threat from whatever you're shooting at, and this is why everyone was trying to hammer into your stupid head that the only thing that matters in a defensive shooting is incapacitation.

>>34711943
To prove that you don't need 16 rounds for combat. If 5 shots is enough for a lion, it ought to be enough for a man. Yes, I realize that lion rounds are much bigger, but everything in its proper proportion, so to speak.
>>34711945
How was that relevant to my post?
>>34711950
If I could shoot a 45-70 handgun, I would consider it.
>>34711953
>incapacitation
How do you do that without death?

>>34711926
Not dead yet. To kill is to cause the death of someone. That's the first definition of the word kill. Sucks when you go for the semantical argument but you're retarded on that subject as well

>>34711956
No one is arguing for incapacitation without death, only pointing out that causing someone to die isn't the same as incapacitation. You just decided to flip it

>>34711956
>How do you do that without death?

CNS damage or immobilization (obliteration of a hip joint or the pelvis works like a charm).
If you pump enough rounds into anyone's mid to lower torso, one of these is bound to happen, and death usually follows not too long afterwards.

>>34711965
OK. How does this relate to my original argument, that common handgun calibers are insufficient?
>>34711966
>CNS damage or immobilization (obliteration of a hip joint or the pelvis works like a charm).
So you aim for the pelvis?

>>34711969
>So you aim for the pelvis?

Lower torso, yes. If you have any beef with it, take it up with the guy who trains us, who unlike you, has actually shot people and been shot at.
He calmly explained all the benefits to the last armchair general retard who thought he was hot shit and could heart/headshot people under fire, too.

>>34711956
> don't need 16 rounds for combat

You'll notice that armed professionals don't say shit like that

>>34711980
>If you have any beef with it,
I can see the benefits of it. My only concern is that the enemy would still be able to shoot even if he can't walk.
>>34711982
Because they fight far greater numbers than you or I ever would.

>>34711969
Because you may only need one round to kill them, but you need to shoot them repeatedly to incapacitate them as quickly as possible. Your .41 mag death ray may not get the job done quickly enough because of excessive recoil, or limited capacity, or both

>>34711988
I'm talking about mainly cops, not ninjas. I'm glad you get to decide the terms of your gunfight. I wish we all had that luxury

>>34711995
If 41 mag takes too long to kill, then wouldn't a smaller caliber take even longer?
>>34711999
Cops carry whatever some bureaucrat issues them.
>>34711999
>'m glad you get to decide the terms of your gunfight. I wish we all had that luxury
I'm just being realistic.

>>34711988
>My only concern is that the enemy would still be able to shoot even if he can't walk.

If one of your legs crumbles under you all of a sudden, it's pretty hard to stay on target and remain shooting effectively.
Conversely it's pretty easy for you to keep a - now stationary - target in your sights and start shooting again at the first sign they don't intend to quit.
The majority of people who warranted the use of lethal force in the last couple of years were armed with knives, anyway.

>>34712004
Not if you can put more adaquately performing rounds into them quickly. You missed that the first time. And ok, you keep being realistic, I'll be prepared, because hope isn't part of my plan

>>34712023
>because hope isn't part of my plan
You hope that your tiny bullets will be adequate, which they probably won't.

>>34712004
You know that civilians have had to shoot more than 6 rounds before don't you? Ithanks doesn't matter if it's .41 mag, there may be more than one person

>>34712004
>If 41 mag takes too long to kill, then wouldn't a smaller caliber take even longer?

You yourself laid down the arbitrary 3 9mm vs 1 .41 Mag ratio.
Both 9mm and .41 Mag are capable of incapacitating hits, whereas the overlap where a .41 hit would cause incapacitation and 9mm would not is fairly minor, being mostly limited to grazing hits of vital organs and suboptimal angles where 9mm would fail to penetrate deep enough.
So if both are within the same general vicinity of a likelihood to land an incapacitating hit, but given all the circumstances you can squeeze off three 9mm for every .41 Mag, then 9mm is clearly the superior choice.

>>34712029
Reality would suggest otherwise. It's not like you're actually a shooter anyway. I train with instructors who actually know what the hell they're talking about. Guess how many times .41 mag has come up in conversation. Go ahead

>>34712037
>You know that civilians have had to shoot more than 6 rounds before don't you?
Only when they miss a lot.
>>34712038
Again, bleeding is cumulative. Death by bleeding will occur faster with the 41 mag than with 9mm, even if 9mm is fired more.

>>34712044
>Again, bleeding is cumulative.

Again, bleeding is completely irrelevant to a defensive shooting.

>>34712042
>I train with instructors who actually know what the hell they're talking about
Because they learned from other instructors who learned from other instructors...
>>34712042
>Reality would suggest otherwise
You realize most people shot with 9mm actually survive, right?
>>34712047
Not when death is the surest form of incapacitate.

>>34712044
Again proving you don't know how bleeding works. You know every shot won't hit an artery or large vein, don't you? You've already demonstrated that you don't

>>34712051
>Not when death is the surest form of incapacitate.

Death by old age is the surest form of death, but that doesn't meant you should wait for the attacker to die in a defensive shooting.
You might not have the twenty seconds an attacker will take to pass out from a blood pressure drop. You might not even have five.

>>34712063
A 41 magnum in the chest is going to cause some serious bleeding.
>>34712065
I don't see a better option. Magdumping will cause the same death by bleeding, just less efficiently.

File: 1491853861159.jpg (13KB, 192x192px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 192x192px

>>34711441
>handgun hunting

>>34712079
It's a thing.

>>34712077
Not if it doesn't go through a major artery, a large vein, or the heart. Do you really think your chest is just full of blood? Are you that uneducated?

>>34712051
Most people shot by any handgun survive because handguns are difficult to shoot accurately

>>34712077
>Magdumping will cause the same death by bleeding, just less efficiently.

Magdumping vastly increases your chance that a more rapid means of incapacitation (CNS damage, joint/long bone damage) will occur.
Also you live under the really silly delusion that the rate of blood loss is a constant for a given caliber. It's not, blood loss rate varies wildly between shots and depends much more on shot placement than caliber choice (when handguns are concerned), so magdumping also vastly increases the chance you sever a major blood vessel.

File: Vein_art_near.png (117KB, 235x235px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 235x235px

>>34712089
There's major blood vessels all over the place, and 41 magnum cuts a pretty wide path of destruction.
>>34712106
So why not just use 22 magnum? You could magdump faster and more rounds, since it's all about shot placement and shot placement is all about luck?

>>34711516
>hogs and humans are about the same weight
Wut. An AVERAGE hog is 300lbs. A trophy hog is 700lbs+.

Theyre 2-3x bigger than people.

>>34712132
No, some of them get that big, but it's not that common.

>>34712124
>So why not just use 22 magnum?

Rimmed trash with suboptimal tissue penetration and non-existant barrier penetration.
But it's nice to see you've been reduced to "HURR WHY NOT JUST USE .22 THEN???!!" kind of shitposting.
And just FYI, the percentage of people who have successfully defended themselves using .22 is rather high.

>>34712155
>Rimmed trash
There are rimless versions of it, like 5.7.
>>34712155
>But it's nice to see you've been reduced to "HURR WHY NOT JUST USE .22 THEN???!!" kind of shitposting.
It's a perfectly valid argument. The reductio ad absurdum of spray and pray.
>>34712155
>And just FYI, the percentage of people who have successfully defended themselves using .22 is rather high.
I don't doubt it.

File: Maximum_trolling.jpg (47KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 720x480px

>>34712164
>reductio ad absurdum
>perfectly valid argument

File: 19bck.jpg (1MB, 3200x1800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3200x1800px

glock 19 taking out a buck

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA9yReNI5S8

>>34712137
It is in every state I've lived that had feral hogs
>NC
>SC
>GA
>MO
>KS
>TX
>AR

>>34712004
Why would a bureaucrat want to issue a pistol with 16 rounds instead of 5?

>>34712164
>It's a perfectly valid argument. The reductio ad absurdum of spray and pray.

The reductio ad absurdum of complaining about an inflated defense budget is spending $20,000 a year on a janitor and calling him the DOD, that doesn't make it a valid argument.

>>34711945
But what if the .50 bounces off the metacarpals into the skull?

>>34712077
>A 41 magnum in the chest is going to cause some serious bleeding.
No it isn't. Aiming for center body mass you have a high likelyhood of piercing a lung, much lower chances of actually hitting vital targets like the heart, spine, and arteries on a target who is actively trying to close while avoiding being shot.
Where as someone firing a volley of 9mmm has the same chance from each bullet of hitting something vital.
The wound channel is not appreciably wider for a .41 that you will be able to hit something vital if you where not on target already.
This is not a game of warhammer, you are not rolling to hit and then rolling to wound - any hit can be lethal, any hit could fail to strike something vital.

But you are still missing what people are saying, the round is irrelevant, in a defensive shooting you are not aiming to kill, you are aiming to stop the target advancing.
Let's use your hunting analogy, if you shoot a rhino in the head it won't stop it powering you down through inertia, blast a leg from under it and it will come skidding to a halt.

>>34711441
9mm is sufficient for people you doofus. A 1000lb bear can shrug it off.

>>34711441
If .41 magnum is sufficient, why doesn't NASA use it to launch satellites into orbit?

Checkmate, atheists.

>>34711772
Maybe not a perfect load but I would argue that 10mm is a better round than 9mm because it has the ability to be loaded hotter for woods, or lighter for rapid shooting.

If someone would come out with a single stack 10mm gun that isn't a 1911 or similar size, it could even conceal like a 45 shield or xds

>>34712164
>It's a perfectly valid argument. The reductio ad absurdum of spray and pray.
Then we must counter with why not use a break action .50 BMG pistol? Or a 1.00cal powder revolver after all 1 wound channel is all that matters.

It's called reductio ad absurdum because you are taking an argument to the absurd if based on no limiting criteria, never was it stated the statement was true for all weapons, we are talking in the specific case of 9mm that is a limiting factor to the argument.
This changes the Ad Absurdum arguement to being simply strawmanning fallacy as it was never claimed to be true of all calibers

>>34711441
Because Hunters carry a large hand gun to humanely kill suffering animals, not as a primary hunting tool

>>34712627
I carry a handgun when I'm hunting for bigfeet and aliens. The only time I've had to dispatch a downed animal I used my knife.

>>34711880
A 41 magnum doesn't have ++Bleed status effect you daft cunt. So with you're argument right now what you're saying is that 9mm and the likes are better since they hold more rounds, can fire more rounds, can hit with more of those rounds, and thus cause more bleeding to have that dank cumulative bleeding effect. Now please go suck start your .41 magnum.

>>34712652
Then you're lucky enough to have never needed to finish anything bigger than a squirrel.

If you're dealing with something like a panicked deer who's taken a hit in the flank they can still do damage if you get too close.

File: Incase_Xeno7.jpg (41KB, 480x367px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 480x367px

>>34711491

>>34711449
>Get mugged
>Shoot person
>He stops
>If he doesn't, shoot him again until he does

>Hunt deer
>Shoot it
>It dies, or makes it maybe 100 yards at most before succumbing
>If not, it tears across the woods never to be seen again

This is why hunters usually opt for more powerful cartridges than those typically used to kill their fellow man. You usually don't get a second shot.

So many 9mm bait threads.
They're annoying as fuck now, and I don't even own a 9mm!

>>34712905
Then it was a fuckhueg squirrel with antlers that I killed.

What do you do if you don't drop a gobbler dead with the first shot? Try to shoot it with your handgun when it's flopping on the ground? If you aren't a timid manlet you stomp its neck like a normal person.

>>34712174

killed by 9mm glock

>dindunothin

Why do I get the feeling that OP is just trying to justify his owning a .41 magnum?

>>34713693

I think he's just a noguns who came over from jewtube where he watched one too many handgun hunting videos and is now trying to justify the use of niche revolver calibers for anything and everything.
Then again, he DID latch strangely onto the .41 despite the fact it doesn't really excel at anything even among other similar rounds, so you might be correct.

>>34711441
Because, mechanically speaking, people are a lot easier to kill than animals.

>>34711814
Glock 19 and Walther P22

>>34712174
Something something humane hunting

>>34711969
>>34711980
I had a buddy who was with 3rd LAR in the early 200's, dude had to draw down on some guy who had a gun on his buddy, shot him in the hip twice. Shot-guy came into the dispensary my buddy worked at a couple weeks later, full hip cast and crutches, it was pretty awkward.

>>34713752
>because, mechanically speaking, most hunters can't shoot that well, and rely on overkill to make up for poor shot placement.

ftfy. Also, we just had this thread with rifles like 4 days ago.

>>34712124
Fucking LOL, a path of destruction that's ~.03" wider than 9mm's, shut up you stupid fag, you could have at least picked .45acp and gotten the 1911 fags to help you.

File: 1501503356198 copy.png (114KB, 235x235px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 235x235px

>>34712124

Senpai, if blood loss were the only factor and you hit anywhere outside the green area, the guy is going to have enough time to kill you and rape your corpse before even starting to feel faint from blood loss alone.

>>34712173
What's wrong with reductio ad absurdum. It's used in mathematics all the time?
>>34712224
Because cops are bad shots.
>>34712551
>Let's use your hunting analogy, if you shoot a rhino in the head it won't stop it powering you down through inertia, blast a leg from under it and it will come skidding to a halt.
So why do actual rhino hunters shoot for the head or chest, not the fucking leg?
>>34712572
Oh, you got us there.
>>34712619
>Then we must counter with why not use a break action .50 BMG pistol? Or a 1.00cal powder revolver after all 1 wound channel is all that matters.
Because the recoil of a 50 BMG pistol would probably knock it out of your hand. Recoil imposes a limit.
>>34712619
>9mm that is a limiting factor to the argument
What is the limiting factor? Why is 9mm enough but 22 magnum isn't?
>>34712627
>not as a primary hunting tool
Not true of handgun hunters.
>>34713693
>>34713738
No, I just used that as an example. Handgun hunting does not interest me. I just use it to illustrate a point.

>>34715116
>Because cops are bad shots.

And the users of /k/ aren't? You aren't proving anything.

>>34715116
>What's wrong with reductio ad absurdum.

Yours is not even a true reductio ad absurdum. It's just a plain appeal to extremes, which takes the argument out of any reasonable real world circumstances and to an absurd extreme where it stops making sense, then concluding that because it doesn't make sense now, it didn't make any sense from the beginning. It's called a logical fallacy for a reason.

>>34715170
The typical /k/ommando is more likely to die of diabetes than gunfire.

>>34715174
Don't be coy with me. Tell me what separates 9mm from 22 magnum. If you are claiming that they are fundamentally different in some way, tell us why.

>>34715175
What does that imply? Because the average user of this board is overweight, I should stop carrying a double stack 9mm handgun? You're not making any sense.

>>34715190

Terminal ballistics don't scale, up or down, for many reasons that have a lot to do with physics, the square cube law etc.
That's the reason your argument is symptomatic either of poor education...

>It's used in mathematics all the time?

...or autism.

>>34715214
No, I was just acknowledging what >>34715170 said.

>>34715225
You're still not making any sense. Cops carry pistols with magazine capacities in the high teens, presumably because they are inaccurate shooters. What do fat people have to do with this?

>>34715218

To clarify, they certainly do scale, but not in a linear way, which invalidates any attempt at reductio ad absurdum because the balance of the factors diverges the further down (or up) in caliber and energy you go.

>>34711441
9mm isn't used for hunting because the .25 ACP is better for hunting. Why use a less optimal round when the superior .25 is already strapped to your ankle?

>>34715218
>Terminal ballistics don't scale, up or down, for many reasons that have a lot to do with physics, the square cube law etc.
You're still avoiding the question. If getting lucky and hitting major blood vessels is really what matters, why not magdump with 22 magnum? You could do it even faster than with 9mm, and you'd have more shots even in a small handgun. Penetration isn't the problem. When loaded with a bullet that doesn't disintegrate, 22 magnum has plenty of that.
>>34715218
>That's the reason your argument is symptomatic either of poor education...
Poor education? Reductio ad absurdum arguments were among the earliest ever used by mathematicians.
>>34715249
/k/ommandos are bad shots, but they can afford to be because they are in no danger of ever being in a gunfight.
>>34715261
That was actually pretty funny. Good one.
>>34715257
But it's all about shot placement. Hitting a vein with 22 magnum will make it bleed about as much as 9mm, and you'll have more chances to hit it.

>>34715284
>/k/ommandos are bad shots, but they can afford to be because they are in no danger of ever being in a gunfight.

Then why try to justify one caliber being a better pick for self defense if none of us will ever use our CCW? Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no reason for this thread to exist if I understand you right.

>>34715357
Yes, the argument about which munitions are ideal is largely academic. From a purely practical point of view, most of us could go our whole lives without owning any guns, but where's the fun in that? The very existence of gun forums is a testament to the fact that weapons are interesting.

>>34715385
So this has been an exercise in armchair operating? Why should I take heed of anything discussed in this thread over following the example of professionals who carry pistols for their career?

>>34715402
Because most of those professionals don't know a damn thing about ballistics. They just carry whatever they're issued by some bureaucrat.
>>34715402
>So this has been an exercise in armchair operating?
You've just described every gun forum on the internet. Back in our grandfather's days, it was magazines.

>>34715420
Wouldn't the professionals be able to discern any serious weaknesses 9mm may present? There are lots of options for equipment these days, it's not written into the constitution that police officers must carry a 9mm handgun.
>>34715420
I don't know why you quoted me twice. But I will do the same for you.

>>34715439
>Wouldn't the professionals be able to discern any serious weaknesses 9mm may present?
Many of them have for decades. People have been saying the 9mm doesn't have enough stopping power since WW1. New hollowpoint designs do inflict wider wounds, but they often lack penetration.
>>34715439
>I don't know why you quoted me twice. But I will do the same for you.
If you highlight text in a post and then click the post number, it automatically inserts the quoted text and post number into your own post's text field. Try it.

>>34715477
People have also been saying the earth is flat for centuries, but that doesn't make them right. And thanks for the imageboard posting tutorial, did you also know you can copy and paste highlighted text by using CTRL+C and CTRL+V? You can insert your own meme arrow by using SHIFT+6.

>>34715517
>And thanks for the imageboard posting tutorial, did you also know you can copy and paste highlighted text by using CTRL+C and CTRL+V? You can insert your own meme arrow by using SHIFT+6.
That requires more keystrokes than doing it my way.
>>34715517
>People have also been saying the earth is flat for centuries, but that doesn't make them right
You're the one who brought up the argument about experts. My point was that the consensus you claim doesn't exist. Plenty of "experts" have and do advocate more stopping power.

>>34715547
Where did you get "expert" or "consensus" from "professional"? Trying to take my words and turn them into your own doesn't make any sense. Neither does discounting what's used in the real world just because somebody on an imageboard is trying to justify his .41 Magnum fetish.

>>34715571
You said:
>Wouldn't the professionals be able to discern any serious weaknesses 9mm may present?
And I pointed out that they already have. By implying that they haven't, you are implying a consensus which does not exist.
>>34715571
>discounting what's used in the real world
Just because it is used doesn't mean it should be.

>>34715385
You're a faggot. You being a faggot was one of the first arguments made by mathematicians. Realistically you're more likely to bleed out from anal penetration than from ever being in a gun fight.

>all handgun rounds are equally effective
>9mm isn't enough to hunt medium game with ethically due to it's highly marginal and variable performance once bone get's involved in things
>10mm and some .357mag are enough to ethically hunt medium sized game with
>ethically in this context means while killing said game quickly, reliably, and without undue suffering.
>not wanting the power to quickly and reliably kill medium sized game in a gun specifically aimed at killing violent medium sized game that is multiple times smarter than a prey item and may have a knife or gun.
ISHYGDDT

File: 20170731_182421.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

>>34711941
I'm pretty sure most of you have never even fired a real gun much less hunted anything, holy fuck some of this info is dangerously wrong,but hey whatever

>>34716271
I know you are, but what am I?