Practice Ammo vs Defensive Ammo

[Bruce]

But, as you said, a well placed shot, is probably going to at least give someone cause to pause.

Darn Skippy!!

Your illustration certainly drives home the point that a .45 is probably the weapon of choice for a defense situation, and maybe one day, I'll get one.

That's a big, ongoing debate and a huge can of worms. The 'debate' between .45 vs. 9mm is one of the biggest ever - and it is still not yet settled. Myself, I just say the 'magic' words: ".357 Magnum", smile and step back.

Not everyone can afford a high-priced super-pistol in whatever is the latest 'wonder-round', and not everyone can afford the latest and greatest 'high tech' ammo. A 9mm military surplus round shot from a used Hi-Point that hits COM is worth a whole box of .45 ACPs fired from a perfectly broken-in, custom tuned Les Bear 1911 that miss.

"Shot placement" counts far more than caliber or bullet design.

If you (G-d forbid) ever find yourself in a fight for your life, you just put 'whatever' you feed through that 9 of your's Center Of Mass (until the mag runs dry, if need be) and you should make it out alive.
.

[ungawa]

Long article, though, excessively technical, but it's definitely worth a read.

OK, read it, and looked into it further as I previously proposed.

Very interesting that they find brain damage when they shoot animals in the thigh. Is there a single case of a human suffering brain damage when shot in the thigh, or even the arm, that was not the result of blood loss?

I've been reading about hydrostatic shock since the early 80s. It's gone through a lot of iterations. Now it's gotten to the point that they say hydrostatic shock only affects the brain when a bullet hits (not a near miss) a major artery near the heart in the chest. An otherwise already lethal hit.

Now, I'm all for the bonus of an instant stop even with a lethal hit. And, I know hydrostatic effects can cause "remote" "local" effects. Which are entirely unreliable.

I went into it with an open mind, even though I've been predisposed to an outlook on this issue. I've come full circle and my mind hasn't changed on the subject from what I posted earlier. Local effects can happen with very high velocity handgun rounds (and possibly remote effects) and local and remote effects can happen with rifle rounds. With remote effects being unreliable without a lethal hit in either case. And I would not count on the effects with service caliber handgun rounds, even with the inferior Black Talons, although I cannot rule out the possibility.

I would not count on the effect with a .50 BMG hollowpoint. It's the kind of thing that's nice to know it might happen. Because otherwise you have to destroy the heart, break the spine, break the brain, or wait until blood pressure/will to fight runs out. It's sort of a bonus, not something to bank on.

[Lycanthrope]

It goes both ways. After killing well....hundred of animals....shot placement is first and bullet designis second.....with a bit of overlap.

That is....vital tissure damage is all that matters. I've seen deer run 100 yards, lung shot with a "premium" bullet designed for penetration........60 yards with the bottom half of the heart blown out with a blood spray a yard deep. I've also watched deer gutshot with an explosive spire point drop right there at the shot, too sick to move.....

Of course, pistol bullets just don't have the tissue disruption that rifle bullets do. You need to hit the vitals.......but never expect to have the adversary fold up.

Lycanunlessyouheadshootthroe