The caliber debate for handguns always tends to the "it's

>>34921105
>I don't understand

/thread

>>34921142
Do you care to explain?

>>34921105
you don't want a 5,000 J handgun since it would break your wrist, but you do want a 5,000 J rifle since REMOVE ELEPHANT

All handguns chambered in a caliber weaker than 9mm are completely ineffective unless you shoot the assailant in the eye. All handguns chambered in a caliber more powerful than 9mm have the same terminal ballistics as 9mm, except with more recoil; this makes them worthless in any kind of real-world scenario.

All calibers that aren't .556 NATO, .308, 6.5 Creedmore, and .300 Blackout are outdated fudd shit that either lacks power or are horribly space inefficient for what they do.

[spoiler]All of the above is what tactifags actually believe.[/spoiler]

>>34921105
Handguns are low velocity, so they tend to lack the stoppin powah that most Hollywood movies portray them as having. The tend to make small wounds. Rifles, on the other hand, have such high velocities that even small rifle bullets can create devastating wounds (like 5.56mm or 5.45mm). Shot placement isn't as important when your rifle bullet's temporary cavity is going to expand someone's chest by a good 8" for a split second.

.30 cal fags and ar15 fags will forever argue which one is better, and the real answer is, they are both great for doing different things. A true gun guy is going to spend less time worrying about the diameter of his bullets, and more time worrying about the design of the bullet, and its velocity.

>>34921313
So in that case, why not just use a 260 Remington or 6.5 Swede for all your hunting needs? A 6.5 mm bullet in the heart will kill anything that walks.

>>34921358
I agree completely. I personally think that 6.5mm is the perfect sized round for ultimate ballistics out to 1000 yards. I also think that .338 and .416 are superior to .50

>>34921313
>worrying about the design of the bullet, and its velocity.
A bullet going at 2500 fps will kill man and beast just as dead as a bullet going at 3300 feet per second. The gun community has ballistics queens like every sorority has size queens. In fact, there was a time when ammo boxes didn't even have ballistics charts printed on them. If you wanted to know how fast a particular round was, you had to buy a reloading manual or a chronograph.

>>34921430
6 mm is just as good for anything under 400 lbs.

>>34921479
Yes and no, when you consider that a 5.56mm round needs to be traveling at speeds in excess of 2750 FPS to reliably yaw and/or fragment when they hit someone. Anything slower than that, and you will probably just get a tiny .22 hole that passes through and through cleanly. This wound will not reliably stop an aggressor.

Other than that, I agree with you. A rifle bullet will generally always kill you if it hits you in the chest. I do stand by my comments about bullet design though. It is much more important to have a high quality round designed for your application (like an OTM for long range, or an SP for hunting) than having a larger round that was not designed for your specific application

>>34921484
agreed

>>34921518
>Yes and no, when you consider that a 5.56mm round needs to be traveling at speeds in excess of 2750 FPS to reliably yaw and/or fragment when they hit someone. Anything slower than that, and you will probably just get a tiny .22 hole that passes through and through cleanly. This wound will not reliably stop an aggressor.
That's only a problem with FMJ.