What’s better; 16 rounds @ 350 ft/lbs muzzle energy, or 8 rounds @ 580 ft/lbs muzzle energy?

What’s better; 16 rounds @ 350 ft/lbs muzzle energy, or 8 rounds @ 580 ft/lbs muzzle energy?

Attached: C531A195-746E-41B6-B370-CA80D246284C.jpg (250x315, 18K)

The one you’re more confident at shooting

>16 rounds @ 350 ft/lbs muzzle energy
capacity >>>>>> energy

Shot placement.

Any other answer is irrelevant.

lets say you can only get one round off

handguns are all equally shit at killing people so 16 > 8

Combined and this is the correct answer. We have this fucking thread every day

Id rather hit 8 home runs then 16 single bases hits

Attached: 1532321977759.png (300x282, 140K)

Looking badass < Shootability/Shot Placement < Capacity < Energy

>Better capacity
>More energy
There is a win-win solution.

Attached: hg3788-n_c39v2_ak_pistol_angle.png (720x450, 250K)

>580 ft/lbs
thats optimistic

How many of each can you hit with?

>Hunting
Energy
>Literally every other situation, ever
Capacity

We only care if you get on base.

Attached: moneyball.jpg (1704x920, 179K)

this user has the only answer

15 rounds @ 900 ft lbs of energy

Attached: 1543896465389.jpg (300x225, 8K)

16x350= 5,600
8x580= 4,640
Inb4 adding up energy means nothing, shotguns add up each individual pellet because when you break it down, the average buckshot pellet is ~53 grains going ~1325 which is ~207 ft/lbs per pellet at 9 pellets = 1,863 ft/lbs of energy.
So by that logic having 5,600 ft/lbs available beats only having 4,640 ft/lbs

>includes the least important metrics for measuring per round performance
>no mention of bullet construction let alone what the intended use is
Anybody giving OP an answer other than "can't say without more information" is a fake expert. 16 rounds of modern JHPs are going to be better than 8 at that given energy level, but you'd sure as fuck be better off with the .45 if we're talking 1980s bullet tech. Also if we're talking about civilian CCW instead LEO/Mil use then capacity is nearly a moot point in this example anyways.

You are delusional if you think 10mm out of a handgun reaches 900 ft/lbs, some of the hottest loads are underwood and their 155gr at 1500 fps is around 770 ft/lbs but in certain chronographed videos the round only goes around 1450 out of a glock 20 (4.6inch barrel) netting 725 ft/lbs. still alot of energy but not no 900ft/lbs

I love how everyone forgets that revolvers are loud due to escaping gasses which makes a .357 magnum revolver super loud.

Short AK "pistols" are loud as hell too and would make you deaf after a first shot

Attached: moradores-do-residencial-agua-boa-reclamam-de-disparos-de-arma-de-fogo-frequentemente-no-bairro-2017 (800x349, 21K)

But u can go over 1000FPE with 460R!

Attached: A3F71967-44DE-4A24-8D36-64B7817E46FF.jpg (900x729, 189K)

>holy moly grade non sequitur
>follows it up with "by that logic"
That would honestly be a pretty funny joke, if it were meant to be one.

Attached: Bottomless brain case.jpg (645x729, 81K)

>Also if we're talking about civilian CCW instead LEO/Mil use then capacity is nearly a moot point in this example anyways.

Civilians need less rounds than LEO's? Kill yourself bootlicker. Capacity matters

Attached: 1550136211212.jpg (189x325, 12K)

>only using foot pounds as a measurement of lethality

Energy is more important than shootability or capacity? Based on that logic, a Thompson Contender in .50 BMG is the ultimate carry gun.

yeah you'll be deaf after the C39 explodes in your hands

we are comparing pistol rounds, they are all first base runs

If they both get 12-18" of penetration, who gives a shit.

>Capacity matters
Then you shouldn't have any problem posting several civilian CCW shootings where having 16 rounds in a mag was necessary to end the threat and there was no chance for reloading.
>ib4 that one video with the two female shop clerks
And that isn't a result of gross incompetence where an extra 2-3 rounds clearly wouldn't have changed anything.

No bootlicker. Explain to me why people who travel in pairs need more rounds than civilians. I ll wait cocksucker.

Attached: 1550778401423.jpg (412x430, 29K)

You are now aware the gun with 16 rounds will be substantially smaller than the gun with 8 rounds when both are modified to meet your arbitrary capacity requirement.

>thinks people are bootlickers for pointing out that capacity isn't a pressing concern for CCW after a certain point
First off, No. Second, you aren't fooling anybody with your pitiful attempt at reversing the burden of proof either. An absence of evidence is a perfectly reasonable argument for assuming a position of disbelief in regards to a claim, and we both know that if you actually had any argument you would've made it by now. It isn't up to me to prove unicorns aren't real.

>thinks people are bootlickers for pointing out that capacity isn't a pressing concern for CCW after a certain point

You said that capacity only matters when it comes to LEO's and you are yet to explain why.

One pig with 16 rounds is not enough and needs at least two other pigs as backup but you think civilians need a 1/4 of the rounds to do the same job.

Attached: 44eccc77dca23766670f364521b29e0c4519633269aea7f4d91de7f306a0091d.jpg (1116x1470, 183K)

civilians aren't doing the same job.

Different user here, why is how many times civilians fire in an average defensive encounter a reason that civilians should not be allowed to carry XYZ amount of ammunition?

You are correct, it is not an LEO's job to defend a civilians life.

>You said that capacity only matters when it comes to LEO's and you are yet to explain why.
There are numerous well documented examples of LEOs getting into gun fights that fall within my previously outlined parameters. This is what people with a basic education call "evidence". On the other hand there is a stark lack of that same thing called "evidence" when it comes to civilian shootings falling within my previously outlined parameters.
>Capacity matters
put up or shut up.

>civilians should not be allowed to carry XYZ amount of ammunition?
You might wanna get yourself checked out user, because i literally never said that, or anything about average rounds fired in a defensive encounter either.

Civilians need more rounds because they are alone and can face multiple targets.
While police can avoid a shootout a civilian is forced into it and has to fire as many rounds as possible fast.

I would argue that CCW is a mistake and that people should open carry, 2 or 3 pistols if not a real full auto AK with a drum magazine.

Attached: 0a1b9d28c4ef674d9faaeb8760cec67ee0e049f4dde6293d294f152e1ef23334.jpg (768x1008, 129K)

>Civilians need more rounds because they are alone and can face multiple targets. While police can avoid a shootout a civilian is forced into it
>I would argue that CCW is a mistake and that people should open carry, 2 or 3 pistols if not a real full auto AK with a drum magazine.
is this real life?

You are arguing that civilians do not need more than XYZ.

I'd rather get 16 swings in than 8.

>implying
I've plainly said what i meant repeatedly now. I never said, claimed, or so much as implied that people shouldn't be allowed to carry literally anything. You're just trying to put words into people's mouths to avoid arguing the actual points that have been brought up.

You are arguing capacity doesn't matter above the average amount of shots fired which is inherently a faulty premise because there is a given amount of times where more shots were fired.

>You are arguing capacity doesn't matter above the average amount of shots fired
You're literally just lying about what im saying at this point. I never said that.

that's a good way to lose your barrel bushing fuckwad
Put it together right next time

Attached: 1531500216014.png (783x594, 371K)

In talking a 6 inch barrel pistol

10mm liberty civil defense borders on 900

Underwood 100 grain extreme defenders

>7 shot capacity

Boomer knows how a 1911 works lol

>10mm liberty civil defense borders on 900
No they don't, not even from a 6" barrel.
>inb4 muh spreadsheet with made up vlaues

Anything fired out of a 1911 is best.
Thread/

you do realize people once walked around with 5 shot revolvers in pissant 32 without a care in the world

>What’s better; 16 rounds of a handgun cartridge with adequate penetration to reach vital organs/CNS or 8 rounds of a handgun cartridge with adequate penetration to reach vital organs/CNS
Gee

You seem to care about the foot pounds. Add up the total foot pounds of all the rounds and voila op. Just remember the beretta has flush fit 18 round mags that cost about $25.00, the 1911 10 rounder is gonna stick out like a shitty tumor. Consider the aftermarket increases to your capacity/foot pounds.

practice makes perfect
maybe someday kid you'll be in the
major league

Attached: 1548885885555.jpg (480x415, 34K)

13 rounds @ 580 ft/lbs or 15 rounds of 10mm at 700 ft/lbs

This, get a M92 or Draco.

yeah but you know when the Dr. say to the gun shot victim, another millimeter and you would be dead, That Never happens when its a .45

Attached: 1504051898096.jpg (3120x4160, 3.05M)

>What’s better; 16 rounds @ 350 ft/lbs muzzle energy, or 8 rounds @ 580 ft/lbs muzzle energy?
The round that hits your target.

Someone who gets it. People on this board think life is a game of hit points. Games like The District have ruined people’s minds

Then the one that's easiest to shoot and get another round off on.

And you do realize that:
a.) Handguns weren't as advanced back then as they are today, in terms of capacity and bullet lethality
b.) People died from untreated/poorly treated gunshot wounds ``after the fact``

used a grave accent rather than an apostrophe
''fuck''

It's more complicated than that, but you're considerably better off with the stout round, assuming you can shoot either reliably. Shootings are resolved in under 5 shots the vast majority of the time, and stopping power does exist, despite what allthesamefags think. Slow anything will do considerably less damage than fast anything else, as long as we're comparing duty rounds.

22lr? Idiot

This

>8 rounds @ 580 ft/lbs
I try not to carry something I cant drop a wild boar or deer with. If it will kill a four legged animal it will probably work on two even better

Brutal cope Rowland fag

10mm is in a sweet spot, carry a snubnose .500 if you just want a big round

Doesn't matter. Any argument about .45 vs (insert caliber here) only holds water with the overall diameter of a round giving an increased tolerance for inaccuracy. You're more likely to hit a vital spot, or nick one, with a larger bullet.

You're even more likely to do it with a lot of bullets.

All handguns suck at killing people. Don't think too hard into it. Pick a gun you like to shoot, can afford to shoot, and are willing to shoot often. Everything .32ACP and above will reasonably stop somebody, and literally everything that shoots projectiles will stop people from doing what they're doing.

FiveseveN wins again

looks like my bb gun has all you muh shot placement-faggots beat

Other than RIAs somewhat lackluster .22 TCM 1911, what other options exist for a small bore centerfire pistol other than FN's 5.7? Did anyone ever make a pistol in 4.7x30 or .30 carbine? .25 NAA sounded cool until I saw it only got 6" into 10% gelatin.

The 16. Next question!

t. Insecure .45AARP fag

There are rare .30 carbine pistols. If 4.7x30 was the round for the MP7, then yes HK made prototypes that went nowhere.

All overpriced and not appreciably better. Unless you literally just want to own a clown caliber meme gun, standard calibers are the way to go.
>protip: they're standard for good reason

30rds at 900ft-lbs