9mm vs .45 acp

45acp = American invention that kills targets instantly.

9mm = Eurofag invention that bounces off targets.

Fuck you gook. My uncle shot a gook bastard with a .45 and dropped him with one bullet. He said we lost because the niggers in his platoon kept trying to run away.

Best boomer bait I think I've ever seen, thank you

Lol spooks used to fear fire and would bow down before the white god when they saw it. Warrior genes my ass.

Whites can't fight

> Also nigges have a high rate of warrior gene and are dump as fuck so they are the most unlikely to run away from a violent confrontation.
Kek.... no, just, no.

Attached: image.jpg (824x800, 307K)

>I always thought that the amount of energy a bullet posesses is the determing factor of its damagecapability or am i missing something in the whole bullet deadlieness determination process.

Energy tells you very little here, because you can't really tell how much of the energy the bullet transfers to the target will actually do something useful, and how much will simply be lost to friction. Though you can always be certain that friction will eat a lot, and this amount increases quite rapidly as the speed of the bullet increases since that's how drag scales. One way of illustrating how worthless "energy dump/transfer" is at predicting lethality is to look at bullet proof vests. Imagine a bullet that will go right through you if you're shot naked, but will be stopped by a kevlar vest. If it goes right through it will have some of its energy remaining as it leaves you, but if the vest stops it all of the bullets energy will have been dumped into the target. So if energy was the key to killing then wearing that bullet proof vest would make you more likely to be killed, which is obviously nonsense.

Instead of energy, look at what we want to have happen. We want to make a deep, wide (prioritized in that order, as long as we're not looking at ridiculous extremes) hole in the target. So the bullet should penetrate deeply, ideally right through, and the bullet proof vest saves your life by preventing this penetration. Once the hole is as deep as it needs to be, we want to make it as wide as possible. And what governs penetration depth? Momentum, ie the mass of the bullet multiplied with its speed. Compare this to the energy (half of mass times speed squared) and you'll find that going by energy would make you overestimate the effectiveness of fast, light bullets and underestimate heavy, slow bullets.

But in the end the difference between handgun rounds is usually lost in the noise of how randomly people react to getting shot. Look up Phineas Gage on wikipedia.

Very knowledgefull respons, my thanks user.

soldiersystems.net/2014/09/25/fbi-9mm-justification-fbi-training-division/

Here's a very pertinent summary of why the FBI switched back to 9mm. I'm sure others will disagree with their conclusions but it seems like a good jumping off point. Here's sample of the important points:
>Most of what is “common knowledge” with ammunition and its effects on the human target are rooted in myth and folklore
>Handgun stopping power is simply a myth
>The single most important factor in effectively wounding a human target is to have penetration to a scientifically valid depth (FBI uses 12” – 18”)
>There is little to no noticeable difference in the wound tracks between premium line law Auto enforcement projectiles from 9mm Luger through the .45 Auto
>Shots to the Central Nervous System (CNS) at the level of the cervical spine (neck) or above, are the only means to reliably cause immediate incapacitation.
>At the lower velocities of handgun rounds, the temporary cavity is not produced with sufficient velocity to have any wounding effect; therefore any difference in temporary cavity noted between handgun calibers is irrelevant. “In order to cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly.”

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selous_Scouts
-3/10 bait

>trusting the FBI when it comes to science or telling the truth
I agree in general that the differences between common handgun service calibers in terms of "stopping power" is somewhere between non existent and academic, but that is one appeal to authority that i just can't get behind. Whether its lie detectors, hair type analysis, bite mark analysis, bullet metallurgy analysis, or the relevance of criminal profiling for identifying suspects the FBI has a very long history of bad science and straight up lying through their teeth to avoid admitting to being wrong.
>There is little to no noticeable difference in the wound tracks between premium line law Auto enforcement projectiles from 9mm Luger through the .45 Auto
This is a good example, if you bother to look at a wound cavity created by a moderately expanding 9mm bullet and a very well expanding .45 ACP JHP there is quite an apparent difference to even the naked eye. Not to say that one will have a better stopping effect than the other, but their claim here is clearly incorrect, and displays a willingness to mislead or lie to people to support their opinion. for example, look at the difference in results between 135gr critical duty and 230gr Ranger T in actual muscle tissue. Both of these are rounds currently in use by the FBI FWIW.
youtube.com/watch?v=_GxzACGdJIY
youtube.com/watch?v=S2JMWrnW608
and 230gr HST just for fun,
youtube.com/watch?v=OyfQ6fz-N0Q

>At the lower velocities of handgun rounds, the temporary cavity is not produced with sufficient velocity to have any wounding effect; therefore any difference in temporary cavity noted between handgun calibers is irrelevant.
Again, this seems at best a biased simplification conveniently made to support their previously existing stance. While most TYPICAL ammo moving at NORMAL handgun velocities won't produce notable TSC even die hard facklerite experts in the field like doctor roberts(pic related), when questioned hard enough, admit that the threshold at which an expanding 9mm projectile is capable of significant cavitation is actually at a value that is readily reachable by boutique and magnum handgun rounds. Approximately 1600fps to be specific, a bar that many fairly handleable calibers can readily surpass, calibers that folks routinely claim offer no benefits over classic subsonic loads.

In closing, given the FBIs demonstrated lack of academic ethics, and the fact that they seem to be incorrect or intentionally misleading people on some of their core points, i find no reason to take them at their word. Appealing to their "expertise" blindly should be considered fallacious without thorough supporting evidence.

Attached: DocGKR on TSC from handgun rounds feb 2019.png (1868x375, 69K)

You seem to be solely going off the random sample of points I picked out rather than the entire article I posted, hence why I called it a sample and not a summary. There is more context in the article that pretty much goes alongside what you've posted.

>This is a good example, if you bother to look at a wound cavity created by a moderately expanding 9mm bullet and a very well expanding .45 ACP JHP there is quite an apparent difference to even the naked eye.
The article states, "most relevant to the caliber debate is what projectile is being considered for use and its terminal performance potential." This, for the most part, goes along with what you're saying. A greatly expanding .45 will beat an not so greatly expanding 9mm. However, if you have both great performing projectiles the difference is much smaller, possibly even negligible, which goes along with the initial point I picked out.

>the threshold at which an expanding 9mm projectile is capable of significant cavitation is actually at a value that is readily reachable by boutique and magnum handgun rounds.
Again, you seem to be addressing the sample points without the entire context. That's why it seems to like a simplification to you, because it is. In the article, "For the temporary cavity of most handgun projectiles to have an effect on wounding, the velocity of the projectile needs to exceed roughly 2,000 fps." This goes exactly with your statements. I'm assuming you said the threshold of 1600 fps because Dr. Roberts stated in your screenshot that "one would likely start seeing increasing TC effects at 1600 fps and certainly by 2000 fps." So you're basically saying the same thing just with an additional caveat that at 1600 fps there potentially might be an effect and at 2000 fps it's a certainty. While it's possible with boutique and magnum rounds, it really isn't feasible or worth the additional detriments such as additional cost, recoil, reduced capacity, etc.

>appeal to authority
>FBIs demonstrated lack of academic ethics
>Appealing to their "expertise" blindly should be considered fallacious without thorough supporting evidence.
These statements seem more like an attempt to poison the well rather than actual points addressing the FBI's claims, which is funny since, in full context, you're stating almost the exact same thing. As I initially stated, it seemed like a good jumping off point for discussion. I never stated, nor am I stating now, that the FBI's findings should be taken as gospel. The reason for quoting it now is to show how it doesn't diverge that much for your statements.