View Single Post
Old November 22nd, 2007 #69
Derrick MacThomas
Senior Member
 
Derrick MacThomas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In your nightmares
Posts: 2,193
Derrick MacThomas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NS Cat View Post
I made a mistake in my previous question,

Let me repeat it.

Why are .25 and .32 worse than .22lr?
What about .380/9mmkurz?
Get hold of a book called Survival Guns.
It has a table of almost every calibre. The table has a lot of information, which includes the impact energy delivered by each calibre.
In revolvers .44 magnum is the ultimate calibre, but far too large for a concealed carry, so .38 special is a satisfactory compromise.
.25 and .32 are next to useless. Too small, too light, too slow.
9mm has only half the stopping power of .45 ACP.
This is why .45 ACP will go through the front plate of a nigger's skull and kill it with 100% reliability, but 9mm does not have that level of reliability.
9mm will deliver an instant kill only if it strikes heart or brain, unlike .45 ACP which will deliver an instant kill with any torso hit within 25 metres of the muzzle.
Shoot someone with 9mm and the bastard will probably be able to return fire and kill you, even if he is bleeding to death from a lung hit.
.223, for example, delivers only one third of the impact energy to the target that 7.62x51mm provides, which is one of the reasons why the M16/AR15 are fishtank ornaments or mouse guns. I speak from the perspective of a former soldier who has had to fire a weapon in anger.
One of the worst decisions the US military made was to scrap the M14 and adopt the M16 mouse gun.
Another really bad decision was to switch from .45 ACP to 9mm in pistols.
The US military now has rifle and pistol calibres that are not man killers.
This makes a grunt's life really difficult and unnecessarily dangerous.
When a grunt shoots someone he wants to kill the bastard instantly. To do anything else risks the grunt's life because the target may be functional enough to return fire.