You can be our expert on who is an expert.I have learned on thing for sure ............. a large percentage of members on this thread are experts on everything.
I'm extremely well acquainted with both, thanks. The things you're saying are not math, science or physics. They're hear say and myth. The amount of damage from the diameter of the round relative to another is tiny from a pistol. The velocity is too slow to cause damage to tissues near by from the cavitation, and pretty much all the damage is from what the round actually hit. The actual difference between 9mm or .40 or 45 is splitting hairs. The difference is pretty much negligible.Please become acquainted with physics and biology.
If you're able to hit vital areas under whatever circumstances, then yay, but you guys sound like you all think you're John wick or some special ops guy that is going to be cool under pressure and there's always a clear opening for a clean shot with your ultra steady hands as your adrenaline rush courses through your veins. I wouldn't count on it as a sure thing.So shooting where there is no body armor isnt overcoming the problem body armor presents?
I'm not an expert on anything, but I call bullshit where people dump it. A lot of this garbage is just regurgitated nonsense that has nothing to back it up. They've heard it and repeated it so many times they believe it.I have learned on thing for sure ............. a large percentage of members on this thread are experts on everything.
Oh my.If you're able to hit vital areas under whatever circumstances, then yay, but you guys sound like you all think you're John wick or some special ops guy that is going to be cool under pressure and there's always a clear opening for a clean shot with your ultra steady hands as your adrenaline rush courses through your veins. I wouldn't count on it as a sure thing.
Oh my.
So school us teach.
Oh and incase you missed the subtle nature of my comment, insert any handgun you wish where I put the word "glock".I wouldn't consider a Glock hitting where there's no body armor, penetrating/overcoming body armor. I'm aware of 5.7, I was only referring to the Glock statement.
I'm being realistic about it, Mr Wick. I didn't realize I was in the presence of so many elite operators and assassins... /SarcasmOh my.
So school us teach.
I get it that's why i clarified my statement.Guys, this thread is not about Glocks, it's about calibers.
I'm being realistic about it, Mr Wick. I didn't realize I was in the presence of so many elite operators and assassins... /Sarcasm
To address the original thought, 40 became popular when 9mm ammo wasn't as effective as it is today and there was a real advantage to the 40 over the 9mm.
The fact the 9mm is seemingly closing that gap due to modern ammo is why many are going back to it. There is no reason to put up with the increase in recoil.
So no?
Is it shot placement.
Caliber.
Weight.
Platform.
You seem to think you know more than the rest of us so please impart your knowledge.
Please read post #3 and explain your statement it to me.
You didnt explain, really, what you did was you told several folks that they were wrong even seemingly contradicting your self regarding shot placement, if its important or not referencing bullet diameters and the ability to shoot under stress.I've already explained it in previous posts, if you have actual questions feel free to ask for elaboration. It's not a single characteristic about a pistol round. The statements I've made are regarding the typical calibers used in handguns, not things like the smart ass responses about .22lr, etc ...
You didnt explain, really, what you did was you told several folks that they were wrong even seemingly contradicting your self regarding shot placement, if its important or not referencing bullet diameters and the ability to shoot under stress.