klm@uunet.UU.NET (Kevin L. McBride) (06/19/91)
In article <35659@mimsy.umd.edu> ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) writes:
#I've seen a man drop stone cold dead from a single .22 round. I've seen
#a man with 5 .45 slugs in him badly maul 6 police officers. The variability
#of human response to penetrating wounds is so extreme that the question of
#9mm vs .45 seems moot. High velocity rounds do seem to cause a momentary
#stun effect that may allow you time to deliver a well placed followup
#shot. Unless you are the assailant, you rarely have the luxury of a
#well aimed first shot. Your first shot is likely designed to get the
#assailant's head down and stop him from shooting at you *again*. Your
#mileage may vary.
#
#Gary
Yup, and a number of years back there was a case in MA that I was
nearly a witness to in which a state trooper pulled over a car for a
moving violation. The passenger got out and opened fire on the
trooper.
The trooper put 12 rounds into the guy to *stop* the attacker and did
not score a kill. The 'perp' weighed about 450 lbs. and the .38 spl
revolver loads (I assume that's what they were because that's what the
MA Gestapo carried at the time) just bounced around in the piles of
fat without penetrating anything vital.
There are way too many variables involved to say with any certainty
that any given load will or will not be effective in a given
situation.
Just remember Jeff Cooper's first rule of gunfighting: "Have a gun."
I personally prefer 9mm. It's a good tradeoff (for me) between
performance and concealability. But given the choice, I'd rather have
a single shot .22 than nothing at all.
--
Kevin L. McBride DoD // Just say NO to the war on your freedom which,
President #0348 // by the way, is being fought with YOUR money.
MSCG, Inc. \\ // Let them know you've had enough.
uunet!wang!gozer!klm \X/ Vote Libertarian.