Why does it matter if I use .357, .44, or any other handgun caliber for hunting if there's no differences between handgun calibers as far as ball...

Why does it matter if I use .357, .44, or any other handgun caliber for hunting if there's no differences between handgun calibers as far as ballistic performance? Many people here tell me .357 won't work as a handgun hunting caliber for large deer or blackbear, and I need .44 magnum. Unless it's attacking me, in which I can use anything?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    yeah

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because any gun will usually make an animal frick off. You’re going for quick, ethical kill while hunting so you need a decent amount of energy going down range.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There are no major differences in terminal ballistics between handgun calibers.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Correct. As long as you have adequate penetration and a flat nose, nothing else really matters. You can definitely use .357 magnum on deer, even from a handgun. Bullet stabilization and construction do have a lot of influence here though, so fmj flatnose, semi jacketed soft points (not hollow) and harcasts will be your easiest to obtain handgun hunting ammo for .357. Also, shot placement counts, so use a barrel length that will stabilize the round well enough for a semi-accurate shot. A 6" barrel will do you more favors (and the deer) than a snubby.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >adequate penetration and a flat nose
          Once you go black...

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            mind broken thirdie

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Is there somewhere I could read more about this? Because it seems contrary to the notion that bullet weight and speed should deliver more energy on target.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          yes but there's only so much energy you can fit inside of a handgun cartridge before it becomes unmanageable. 44 magnum is not very hot for a rifle cartridge and pretty hot for a pistol.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Is there somewhere I could read more about this?
          Yes, but anon is misunderstanding the facts slightly. What this is referring to is the fact that in defensive shooting statistics (number of shots needed to stop a human attacker), all mainstream handgun cartridges perform statistically similar. That "mainstream" part is important. It specifically refers to .380, .38 Special, 9mm, .40S&W, 10mm, and .45ACP. Those perform about the same. Magnum cartridges like .357 and .44 perform better. Weaker stuff like .32 and .25 Auto perform poorly. Really hot hunting cartridges like .454 Casull aren't even in the list.
          Anyway, there's plenty of data on the subject, just make sure you understand what it's saying unlike some of the morons ITT.

          >no differences between handgun calibers as far as ballistic performance?
          You misunderstand. There's no difference between COMMON pistol calibers for HUMANS. .357 and .44 are more effective against humans than most typical pistol cartridges. We're also no longer talking about defense against humans we're talking about ethically hunting animals.

          this

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the classic book on the subject which got the fudds panties in a twist when they learned their .45 ACP is no better than 9mm. But it doesn't say shit about hunting bears with .454

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              More good data here
              https://www.tierthreetactical.com/analyzing-1800-shootings-which-caliber-has-the-best-stopping-power/

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Marshall and Sanow
              lmao next you're gonna be telling us about the mythical Strasbourg goat tests.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's kind of unreal how a couple of shitty gun rag writers from literally 40 years ago continue to be referenced as an authority in 2024.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The pen is mightier…

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's kind of unreal how a couple of shitty gun rag writers from literally 40 years ago continue to be referenced as an authority in 2024.

                It's literally just one moron who constantly posts that shit here for (You)s. I haven't seen that garbage brought up anywhere else except to mock it in well over a decade. Probably closer to 20 years. It was so embarrassingly fraudulent that even Paladin Press stopped publishing their books.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >all mainstream handgun cartridges perform statistically similar
            I personally don't consider 30% and 60% to be similar

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Neither do I, which I why I said
              >That "mainstream" part is important. It specifically refers to .380, .38 Special, 9mm, .40S&W, 10mm, and .45ACP

              .44 Magnum isn't a mainstream cartridge. It's powerful enough that it performs significantly better than the rest.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Stuff like hot loaded 357 magnum and 44 mimic terminal ballistics of rifles, ie they have enough energy that the temporary cavity is so large that it creates a larger permanent cavity than the bullet itself.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Looks like .40 S&W is noticeably better than 9mm. Hell, even .38 special has a statically relevant edge over it.
            Have 9gays been lying the whole time?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Depending on when these stats were gathered you could probably chalk up this performance to who is using it, 10 years ago LEOs were very gay for 40sw.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Actually this chart appears to imply that 9mm is barely better than .22LR. So what the hell?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >So what the hell?
              It's almost like shot placement is king. But more importantly look at more than one study. go read Street Stoppers. Go check out the site

              More good data here
              https://www.tierthreetactical.com/analyzing-1800-shootings-which-caliber-has-the-best-stopping-power/

              linked. Seek out more data on your own.

              Stuff like hot loaded 357 magnum and 44 mimic terminal ballistics of rifles, ie they have enough energy that the temporary cavity is so large that it creates a larger permanent cavity than the bullet itself.

              Yes. Hot loaded meme ammo generally doesn't factor in. These are collections of real-world shooting data where most people aren't carrying bubba's pissin hot reloads or meme brands like Buffalo Bore. We'd expect the hotter ammo to perform better, but we don't have enough data to say.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                We don't have good data in the first place because every cartridge's ability is subject to the shooter's ability.
                No meaningful conclusions can be drawn from the data except that some calibers are owned by people who shoot better.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Selectively picking graphs from the ellifritz OSS "study" to support a narrative
            Smh. Percentage of assailants actually stopped by 1 round of .44 magnum was 53%. By 9mm it's 47%. You be the judge of wether that's a meaningful difference, and one that's certainly not accounted effected by the difference in the kind of shooters who use the calibers, the situations they tend to be used in, or the increase in time to firing a second shot. Also note that Greg has never made the data for his study available for other people to examine either for the veracity of it or whether the math was even done right.

            https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              picking graphs
              Gimme a break anon, it was my first post. Right afterward I shared

              https://i.imgur.com/v20hVKz.jpeg

              the classic book on the subject which got the fudds panties in a twist when they learned their .45 ACP is no better than 9mm. But it doesn't say shit about hunting bears with .454

              and

              More good data here
              https://www.tierthreetactical.com/analyzing-1800-shootings-which-caliber-has-the-best-stopping-power/

              Clearly looking at one source is moronic, you should consider as many as possible

              We don't have good data in the first place because every cartridge's ability is subject to the shooter's ability.
              No meaningful conclusions can be drawn from the data except that some calibers are owned by people who shoot better.

              It sure would be nice if we had better data, but it's clear you've never taken a statistics course in your life.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >NOOO YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND STATISTICS
                More like you're drawing the wrong fricking conclusions from dogshit data.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Marshall & sannow are effectively considered a fraud at this point. Won't allow anybody to look at there data and there's considerable circumstantial evidence that their "data" is made up. Didn't stop me from buying a copy of street stoppers for shits and because I'm autistic about the subject

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              https://i.imgur.com/bHqXMLo.jpeg

              >Is there somewhere I could read more about this?
              Yes, but anon is misunderstanding the facts slightly. What this is referring to is the fact that in defensive shooting statistics (number of shots needed to stop a human attacker), all mainstream handgun cartridges perform statistically similar. That "mainstream" part is important. It specifically refers to .380, .38 Special, 9mm, .40S&W, 10mm, and .45ACP. Those perform about the same. Magnum cartridges like .357 and .44 perform better. Weaker stuff like .32 and .25 Auto perform poorly. Really hot hunting cartridges like .454 Casull aren't even in the list.
              Anyway, there's plenty of data on the subject, just make sure you understand what it's saying unlike some of the morons ITT.

              [...]
              this

              both of these graphs are junk data, made by clowns picking through news reports who did no close examination of the shootings in question, the weapons or the bodies of those who were killed. The original "source" for this "data" was literally a fricking gun magazine from the 80's.

              See the reviews of the Marshall and Sanow "studies" in these reviews by Martin Fackler and others in the archived International Wound Ballistics Association journal.

              https://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/1997-Vol3No1.pdf
              https://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/1999-Vol4No2.pdf

              Is there somewhere I could read more about this? Because it seems contrary to the notion that bullet weight and speed should deliver more energy on target.

              A simple explanation is that there is some difference between handgun calibers but it is not huge but also not negligible. The primary performance characteristic of a cartridge is penetration, a bullet needs to have enough penetration to reach the vital blood vessels or CNS structures to be effective and this is non negotiable. If you look at simple gel testing, you will see that many handgun calibers including 9mm will provide more than enough penetration per the FBI spec of 12-18", so there is not a significant difference with respect to the most important attribute, correct?
              This is where it gets more complicated, because the second factor is the actual size of the hole crushed by the projectile. A larger projectile will crush a larger diameter of tissue, meaning they are not fully identical to a smaller projectile, a larger projectile will hit a target that was barely missed by a smaller one by the difference in the diameter which can be relevant to the real world when your actual necessary target is the critical blood vessels and organs in the body and not the entire torso. Direct hits to the torso with pistol rounds that miss all large blood vessels and the spine will not incapacitate the target in any physiological way. This is a very small difference to be sure but it is not totally negligible. This all applies in the case of expanding ammo as well.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There is a difference but it's not enough to override preferences for semi-auto handguns for ease of shooting,price,etc. Anyone who claims their 1911 .45acp is the ONLY handgun to carry because .45acp is "so much better than 9mm" is a pants on head moron.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          [...]
          both of these graphs are junk data, made by clowns picking through news reports who did no close examination of the shootings in question, the weapons or the bodies of those who were killed. The original "source" for this "data" was literally a fricking gun magazine from the 80's.

          See the reviews of the Marshall and Sanow "studies" in these reviews by Martin Fackler and others in the archived International Wound Ballistics Association journal.

          https://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/1997-Vol3No1.pdf
          https://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/1999-Vol4No2.pdf

          [...]
          A simple explanation is that there is some difference between handgun calibers but it is not huge but also not negligible. The primary performance characteristic of a cartridge is penetration, a bullet needs to have enough penetration to reach the vital blood vessels or CNS structures to be effective and this is non negotiable. If you look at simple gel testing, you will see that many handgun calibers including 9mm will provide more than enough penetration per the FBI spec of 12-18", so there is not a significant difference with respect to the most important attribute, correct?
          This is where it gets more complicated, because the second factor is the actual size of the hole crushed by the projectile. A larger projectile will crush a larger diameter of tissue, meaning they are not fully identical to a smaller projectile, a larger projectile will hit a target that was barely missed by a smaller one by the difference in the diameter which can be relevant to the real world when your actual necessary target is the critical blood vessels and organs in the body and not the entire torso. Direct hits to the torso with pistol rounds that miss all large blood vessels and the spine will not incapacitate the target in any physiological way. This is a very small difference to be sure but it is not totally negligible. This all applies in the case of expanding ammo as well.

          The reason why energy and bullet weight do not translate to direct improvements to wounding largely comes down to the fact that the body is elastic. If you take a given 9mm round for example and increase its speed by 10%, it will not deliver 10% improved wounding on the target or likely even 1%, because the only effect of that minor speed increase is to make the tissue expand very slightly more before it contracts back to it's original state aside from the path directly struck by the bullet which was crushed. That crushed bullet path will appear effectively identical between the original round and the 10% faster example.
          This does not continue infinitely however, which is why rifle wounding characteristics are so much different and so much more devastating than handguns, the speed of typical rifle bullets is so much higher than they are in an entirely different regime of wounding on tissue that pistols cannot practically reach. They cause so much stretching of the tissue that they can cause the tissue to reach its elastic limit, inducing tearing of the flesh outside of the direct path of the bullet.

          No practical handgun cartridges can reach the regime of wounding that rifles can, so the differences in on-target effect come down to the differences in the crushed tissue in the direct path of the bullet. There are some exceptions to this but they are technical and not all that relevant for a basic understanding.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Penetration basically is the end answer, and more penetration will be presented with a .44 mag than a 9mm, with similar barrel lengths.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          [...]
          both of these graphs are junk data, made by clowns picking through news reports who did no close examination of the shootings in question, the weapons or the bodies of those who were killed. The original "source" for this "data" was literally a fricking gun magazine from the 80's.

          See the reviews of the Marshall and Sanow "studies" in these reviews by Martin Fackler and others in the archived International Wound Ballistics Association journal.

          https://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/1997-Vol3No1.pdf
          https://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/1999-Vol4No2.pdf

          [...]
          A simple explanation is that there is some difference between handgun calibers but it is not huge but also not negligible. The primary performance characteristic of a cartridge is penetration, a bullet needs to have enough penetration to reach the vital blood vessels or CNS structures to be effective and this is non negotiable. If you look at simple gel testing, you will see that many handgun calibers including 9mm will provide more than enough penetration per the FBI spec of 12-18", so there is not a significant difference with respect to the most important attribute, correct?
          This is where it gets more complicated, because the second factor is the actual size of the hole crushed by the projectile. A larger projectile will crush a larger diameter of tissue, meaning they are not fully identical to a smaller projectile, a larger projectile will hit a target that was barely missed by a smaller one by the difference in the diameter which can be relevant to the real world when your actual necessary target is the critical blood vessels and organs in the body and not the entire torso. Direct hits to the torso with pistol rounds that miss all large blood vessels and the spine will not incapacitate the target in any physiological way. This is a very small difference to be sure but it is not totally negligible. This all applies in the case of expanding ammo as well.

          [...]
          The reason why energy and bullet weight do not translate to direct improvements to wounding largely comes down to the fact that the body is elastic. If you take a given 9mm round for example and increase its speed by 10%, it will not deliver 10% improved wounding on the target or likely even 1%, because the only effect of that minor speed increase is to make the tissue expand very slightly more before it contracts back to it's original state aside from the path directly struck by the bullet which was crushed. That crushed bullet path will appear effectively identical between the original round and the 10% faster example.
          This does not continue infinitely however, which is why rifle wounding characteristics are so much different and so much more devastating than handguns, the speed of typical rifle bullets is so much higher than they are in an entirely different regime of wounding on tissue that pistols cannot practically reach. They cause so much stretching of the tissue that they can cause the tissue to reach its elastic limit, inducing tearing of the flesh outside of the direct path of the bullet.

          No practical handgun cartridges can reach the regime of wounding that rifles can, so the differences in on-target effect come down to the differences in the crushed tissue in the direct path of the bullet. There are some exceptions to this but they are technical and not all that relevant for a basic understanding.

          So why did law enforcement agencies look for a more powerful round to replace 9mm ending up with the .40 S&W? Because of another factor that applies to real world shootings especially for cops, barriers.
          FBI spec gel testing is not done with simple bare gel blocks, they have a variety of barrier tests to see how the round performs through common materials. They include simple things like heavy clothing, to building materials like wood and drywall, to the most difficult barrier example in the test, auto glass or tempered windshield glass.
          Old school hollow points had significant difficulties passing these tests, the really old and primitive designs would clog with heavy clothing and fail to expand, but arguably more significant was their tendency to have enormously reduced penetration through hard materials like walls and glass.
          And in fact there was another issue with barriers, deflection. Old projectile designs would very commonly be deflected massively from the point of aim when striking barriers, which makes your bullet completely ineffective when it misses the target, particularly relevant with car windshields since the tempered glass is extremely hard and strong, and a significant distance from where the occupants are seated. Deflection is even a problem with FMJ projectiles, so there was no good solution to avoid it.

          So they switched to a more powerful round that could cope better with those types of barriers, but those things no longer apply with the newer generations of bullets designed for defensive use. This is where the people saying modern bullet technology makes everything equal come from, and it's why law enforcement agencies switched back to 9mms. Modern bullet construction has massively improved performance through barriers, and this was largely accomplished by the usage of 'bonded bullets'. Bonded bullets are bullets where the lead core and copper jacket are physically fused together into a single object.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >So why did law enforcement agencies look for a more powerful round to replace 9mm ending up with the .40 S&W?
            Cops are dumb.
            Feds are mega dumb.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              nice job not reading the post.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nothing I said was untrue, and it underscores every single decision made by boots.

                Black person.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        until you're in the range of .44 magnum and .454 Casull

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >There are no major differences in terminal ballistics between handgun calibers.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Dead is dead but for hunting theres a decent difference between drops right now and ran for half a mile down a cliff bleeding out then you have to go get it.
          You want the ethical kill.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Then get a .380 and go camping in bear country

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          People actually suggested this to me. I wouldn't distrust .380, but .22lr/25acp I wouldn't trust.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >There are no major differences in terminal ballistics between handgun calibers.

        You're forgetting the really important unsaid part at the end of that statement "in humans".
        All your popular handgun calibers are plenty capable of acheiving the penetration necessary to reach vital organs in humans. And penetration is the key factor, not velocity or foot pounds or cavities; penetration. Because if your bullet doesn't reach a timer (something to bleed them out) or an off switch (a CNS or heart hit) then it's size and velocity and foot pounds and everything else don't matter.
        Humans are a significantly different target than most of the animals you'd be hunting with handgun. Which means performance in humans doesn't really fricking matter. Performance on the intended target that you're hunting is what matters. And there is significant difference in calibers and bullet weights, etc. that can acheive significantly more or less penetration. And generally, you're going for more, much more, penetration. Generally, the heavier the bullet, the more it will penetrate. So yeah, caliber suddenly matters a lot.
        Don't be a dickbag, use an appropriate round.

        But this is a troll thread. So herbs.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If I say it confidently with feined authority structured as a fact, then fools will believe it.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Imagine being this much of a stupid fricking gaping butthole, holy shit. Not only are you stupid and wrong, but you're a moronic homosexual on top of this, god damn cheesus crust. This meme is only repeated due to FBI ballistics tests, which were rigged from the start and inherently tied to them wanting lighter and cheaper guns, so they could switch to the 9mm, despite there being clear, DISTINCT advantages of one over the other. Even in their raw data, you can see that not only were the .45's more reliable, but they averaged around 50+ more ft+lbs of force, in some cases over 100. On top of this, the .45 generally penetrated deeper and delivered larger wounds (in one case over 1/5th of an inch, which is very significant if we're talking wounds).

        If you bump this up to 10mm, the differences become even more significant, with up to 400 ft/lbs difference in energy delivered, and several inches deeper penetration.

        You're a no-guns phony ass-cancer c**t-cucked cum-licker, and I refuse to accept anything you have to say on the matter. GET FRICKED.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          really hilarious that you are referencing test from fricking 1989 as if it's at all relevant to 2024. Early hollow points were indeed pretty bad, are you trying to pretend that's news?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >On top of this, the .45 generally penetrated deeper and delivered larger wounds (in one case over 1/5th of an inch, which is very significant if we're talking wounds).
          That's "very significant"? That means that you would hit a target with a .45 that you missed by 0.2" with a 9mm, actually 0.1" since that's the difference in radius as opposed to the diameter.
          Sure you could find cases where that mattered, but it would be an extremely small minority of cases, the probabilities are very low that 0.1" is going to be the deciding factor in a gun fight.

          Sounds to me like he was right, and there isn't any MAJOR differences to speak of here.
          see

          [...]
          both of these graphs are junk data, made by clowns picking through news reports who did no close examination of the shootings in question, the weapons or the bodies of those who were killed. The original "source" for this "data" was literally a fricking gun magazine from the 80's.

          See the reviews of the Marshall and Sanow "studies" in these reviews by Martin Fackler and others in the archived International Wound Ballistics Association journal.

          https://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/1997-Vol3No1.pdf
          https://thinlineweapons.com/IWBA/1999-Vol4No2.pdf

          [...]
          A simple explanation is that there is some difference between handgun calibers but it is not huge but also not negligible. The primary performance characteristic of a cartridge is penetration, a bullet needs to have enough penetration to reach the vital blood vessels or CNS structures to be effective and this is non negotiable. If you look at simple gel testing, you will see that many handgun calibers including 9mm will provide more than enough penetration per the FBI spec of 12-18", so there is not a significant difference with respect to the most important attribute, correct?
          This is where it gets more complicated, because the second factor is the actual size of the hole crushed by the projectile. A larger projectile will crush a larger diameter of tissue, meaning they are not fully identical to a smaller projectile, a larger projectile will hit a target that was barely missed by a smaller one by the difference in the diameter which can be relevant to the real world when your actual necessary target is the critical blood vessels and organs in the body and not the entire torso. Direct hits to the torso with pistol rounds that miss all large blood vessels and the spine will not incapacitate the target in any physiological way. This is a very small difference to be sure but it is not totally negligible. This all applies in the case of expanding ammo as well.

          [...]
          The reason why energy and bullet weight do not translate to direct improvements to wounding largely comes down to the fact that the body is elastic. If you take a given 9mm round for example and increase its speed by 10%, it will not deliver 10% improved wounding on the target or likely even 1%, because the only effect of that minor speed increase is to make the tissue expand very slightly more before it contracts back to it's original state aside from the path directly struck by the bullet which was crushed. That crushed bullet path will appear effectively identical between the original round and the 10% faster example.
          This does not continue infinitely however, which is why rifle wounding characteristics are so much different and so much more devastating than handguns, the speed of typical rifle bullets is so much higher than they are in an entirely different regime of wounding on tissue that pistols cannot practically reach. They cause so much stretching of the tissue that they can cause the tissue to reach its elastic limit, inducing tearing of the flesh outside of the direct path of the bullet.

          No practical handgun cartridges can reach the regime of wounding that rifles can, so the differences in on-target effect come down to the differences in the crushed tissue in the direct path of the bullet. There are some exceptions to this but they are technical and not all that relevant for a basic understanding.

          [...]
          [...]
          So why did law enforcement agencies look for a more powerful round to replace 9mm ending up with the .40 S&W? Because of another factor that applies to real world shootings especially for cops, barriers.
          FBI spec gel testing is not done with simple bare gel blocks, they have a variety of barrier tests to see how the round performs through common materials. They include simple things like heavy clothing, to building materials like wood and drywall, to the most difficult barrier example in the test, auto glass or tempered windshield glass.
          Old school hollow points had significant difficulties passing these tests, the really old and primitive designs would clog with heavy clothing and fail to expand, but arguably more significant was their tendency to have enormously reduced penetration through hard materials like walls and glass.
          And in fact there was another issue with barriers, deflection. Old projectile designs would very commonly be deflected massively from the point of aim when striking barriers, which makes your bullet completely ineffective when it misses the target, particularly relevant with car windshields since the tempered glass is extremely hard and strong, and a significant distance from where the occupants are seated. Deflection is even a problem with FMJ projectiles, so there was no good solution to avoid it.

          So they switched to a more powerful round that could cope better with those types of barriers, but those things no longer apply with the newer generations of bullets designed for defensive use. This is where the people saying modern bullet technology makes everything equal come from, and it's why law enforcement agencies switched back to 9mms. Modern bullet construction has massively improved performance through barriers, and this was largely accomplished by the usage of 'bonded bullets'. Bonded bullets are bullets where the lead core and copper jacket are physically fused together into a single object.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            More affected tissue is potentially faster incapacitation in lieu of a vital hit. Remember that tissue is very elastic, it could make that marginal tear of an artery into a certainty.
            A .2" greater diameter is a substantial amount greater frontal surface area. (Like 50% greater for example)

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >incapacitation in lieu of a vital hit.
              This doesn't exist, without a vital hit you aren't incapacitating the target physiologically.
              > it could make that marginal tear of an artery into a certainty.
              Right, but again this is a very unlikely and minor benefit, and you could just as easily argue that having a single extra round in the mag would give you even more opportunity for a vital hit.
              >A .2" greater diameter is a substantial amount greater frontal surface area. (Like 50% greater for example)
              A proportional measure with respect to the bullet like this is not useful, it may be 50% larger or whatever number but in absolute terms in reference to the target it is absolutely marginal. It's not negligible for sure but it is an incremental improvement, and difficult to justify when considering the externalities of that slight wound diameter advantage like reduced mag capacity.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >a non-vital shot will never incapacitate
                lol lmao

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >a non-vital shot will never incapacitate physiologically.
                You missed that part.
                Sure you could incapacitate them via pain or fear but someone could also be incapacitated from pain by stubbing their toe. There's a reason why wound ballistics study focuses solely on physiological incapacitation, because psychological incapacitation is extremely unreliable and unpredictable.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I would love to hear the explanation from energy cultists for why the 10mm Norma load had an essentially identical wound cavity to the 10mm Federal 180gr load despite the fact that the Norma load had double the amount of energy and was even fired from a gun with a 1.5" longer barrel.
          Maybe quoting energy numbers isn't actually a useful metric for measuring performance? No that can't be right, why else would they print it on the side of the box?? lmao.

          Not that I particularly care about an ancient 35 year old test using obsolete bullets that aren't manufactured anymore either way.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This is because you don't need additional penetration in a human torso, but you do in a broadside shot on a bear or deer.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >but you do in a broadside shot on a bear or deer.
          Bear yes but deer probably not. They aren't all that much bigger than a human. In fact your average deer probably weighs less than your average american lmao.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, but a double lung or broadside heart shot from the opposite side needs better penetration.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I'm saying you likely have far more than enough penetration for a deer even with 9/40/45. All of those will likely go straight through a deer's torso from a perpendicular shot, you don't need some monster .454 casull or something. The depth of their torsos is not all that different from a human.

              Very large game like bear or moose is a different story obviously.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I'm saying you likely have far more than enough penetration for a deer even with 9/40/45. All of those will likely go straight through a deer's torso from a perpendicular shot, you don't need some monster .454 casull or something. The depth of their torsos is not all that different from a human.

              Very large game like bear or moose is a different story obviously.

              first random video I found on google.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Such a bad statement. Most statistics rely on older data or the fact that most people just carry whatever crap they can locally get. Modern handgun loads can cause almost 2x projectile expansion in a target. This increases the chance of hitting a vital. Your normies carrying hornady critical crap or fmjs offset what we should be looking for.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I hunt with a 40sw cmmg banshee pistol with brace (handgun) it is legal in my state and fudds absolutely go insane over it.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >if there's no differences between handgun calibers as far as ballistic performance
    Yeah, on *people*. On animals the extra penetration often comes in handy. That said, .357 is fine if your shot placement is alright.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    .357 is fine for black bear, but not for grizz/brown/kodiak bear. .44 is adequate for those. .357 is fine up to elk, but iffy on moose. For big and dangerous game, it comes down deep penetration where literal feet of flesh, depending on the angle, needs to be got through before hitting something vital.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >no differences between handgun calibers as far as ballistic performance?
    You misunderstand. There's no difference between COMMON pistol calibers for HUMANS. .357 and .44 are more effective against humans than most typical pistol cartridges. We're also no longer talking about defense against humans we're talking about ethically hunting animals.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This.
      This factoid only applies to 45. 9 40 and common loadings of 10mm and 357 magnumb

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Handgun hunting is universally moronic, no matter what caliber you're using. So in that sense, yes, there is no difference.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    First of all, performance in a defensive situation is statistically divorced from hunting performance, because defensive success counts "incapacitation" "Kill" and "ended the attack without being harmed" as "success". Defensive shootings involve multiple hits on an approaching human/animal almost half the time, and extreme close range almost all the time. Statistics have shown overwhelmingly that if a grizzly attacks you and you're able to draw and fire a 9mm, you will statistically hit him enough to kill or drive him off before he mauls you virtually every time. This statistic does not mean that a single shot of 9mm at far greater range is sufficient to reliably and very quickly kill a grizzly, which is the standard for hunting so as to not meaninglessly prolong suffering not to mention the hassle of tracking a wounded animal.

    Second off, in a more general sense:
    Caliber and energy provide a tiny extra margin of error. On the one hand, it's low on the list of priorities, on the other, there's no good reason to actively try to remove small advantages from yourself until you fail when you're doing something important.

    WM Bell said 10 grains in the best place is better than 1000 grains in the worst place, but we all know 1000 grains a couple inches to the left is better than 10 grains a couple inches to the left.

    I'm the biggest proponent of Shot Placement over Caliber, but that's shot placement OVER caliber, not "caliber literally does flat zero nothing"

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Animals get scared by big bang sounds. That being said if you are hunting or looking at bear defense the bigger the better because they do in fact have different ballistic performances and you should try to get yourself the most edge that you can.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I’m sure from a ballistic standpoint these all perform the same.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      me third from the left

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >He doesn't immediately want to buy a BFR chambered in 45-70 government
    It's like you don't even want a big iron on your hip.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      45-70 is old hat…. Gotta get with the 500 bushwacker program if you really wanna Arizona ranger these days..

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        45-70 in a BFR is easily Ruger No1 level, sure a wildcat is more powerful, but this one is available.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It isn’t too bad. It’s an 8-12 week turnaround from when they get it… mines due back mid june- July…. They’re trying to switch over to where they offer new ones for sale instead of just the conversion…. It is about twice the price of a regular bfr by the time your done shipping it around and converting it though…. And I wouldn’t do it if you don’t plan on reloading… the ammos about 5$ a round..

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's kind of what I mean, the 45-70 BFR sending a 500gr boolit at
            1700fps is all the "fun" I'd want to pay for.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              To be fair.. it’s not supposed to make sense…. It’s just because you want to make the biggest boom…. Looking forward to 520 gn @ 2150fps

              I will say as far as hunting, my brother in Ohio got a deer with a 500 mag from a Thompson encore…. Joked that if the deer hid behind a tree.. he could shoot through the tree…

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              https://i.imgur.com/TanHq94.jpeg

              It isn’t too bad. It’s an 8-12 week turnaround from when they get it… mines due back mid june- July…. They’re trying to switch over to where they offer new ones for sale instead of just the conversion…. It is about twice the price of a regular bfr by the time your done shipping it around and converting it though…. And I wouldn’t do it if you don’t plan on reloading… the ammos about 5$ a round..

              I just put in an order for some Hornady 500 grain 500 S&W magnum as well as some Underwood 700 grain flat-nose.

              How fricked am I?

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For hunting and using heavy revolver loads, there is a difference. For semi-auto self defense the difference between 9mm,.40 S&W,45acp,etc there isn't enough to where morons need to have console war homosexualry over the caliber. In the case of hunting where you can have some reliable prediction of the behavior of the target and the power of the
    round is far greater than normal and you can use a gun that can accommodate it, it matters.

    But this comicbook movie villian gun isn't good for much else aside from shooting dumb targets

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because with pistol rounds it's all about how much penetration you get out of the round. when people say that handgun calibers are practically all the same, they mean against people, because 9mm is already enough to shoot straight through a person pretty reliably, assuming they aren't a fat frick and it isn't a weird shot at a very oblique angle. the extra penetration comes in handy when you have to kill big animals that also may have thick hides/skulls. I don't know how it's so hard for you morons to understand this.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You have never seen a grizzly, or a moose, up close. And it shows.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So the trick with .357 is within 100 yards, you're fine for deer and bear. Over that though, or with bad shot placement, and you probably want something bigger. So it depends on how thick the forest is in your area.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >if there's no differences between handgun calibers as far as ballistic performance
    If that statement were true, then it wouldn't matter. Since that statement is false, it does matter. Since you're too moronic to know the difference between self-defense and hunting, it's best if you never handle firearms again. For the safety of all.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because people that carry 9mm have to rationalize their choices, while people that hunt have to reliably kill and animal.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ITT: punks

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's a difference between not causing unnecessary suffering for hunted animal and fricking up the motherfricker with whatever you have on hand.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *