-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
OT- Munk's defensive ammo
- Thread starter Spectre
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 3, 1998
- Messages
- 4,331
Easy. Please don't put words in my mouth. I've shot stuff with the .41, remember? And I've shot stuff with the .40. Bullet construction does count.
I'm afraid we have a strong difference of opinions. You claim that magnum revolver rounds are "better" in proper terrain because of all the additional energy they bring- then you indicate a preference for heavy rounds at modest velocities. You might as well just use an autoloader for the effects you'll get on the target.
Heh. Challenge accepted. Now, I'm only halfway through a paper that's due in an hour and a half, so I'll accept help from anyone who's willing to look it up, or I'll find it myself later- what we're looking for are ballistic gelatin expansion/penetration tests.
If we cannot find at least *some* .40 S&W loads that are superior in effect- at least at typical engagement angles (the torso is only about 12" deep when facing you), the ginger ale is on me, next time we meet.
John
- Joined
- Nov 3, 1998
- Messages
- 4,331
Okay, here's decent performance from a .40:The 135-grain bullet penetrated 11 1/2 inches in the test medium, leaving a large permanent cavity in its wake. Unlike the 9mm, this .40 projectile exhibited a curved wake in the gelatin, but the recovered bullet otherwise exhibited classic performance, weighing 134 grains, having expanded to .753 inch in the process.
http://www.handgunsmag.com/ammunition/corbon_1209/
Here's another: http://www.handgunsmag.com/ammunition/triton_722/
I'll find some .41/.44 tests later.
http://www.handgunsmag.com/ammunition/corbon_1209/
Here's another: http://www.handgunsmag.com/ammunition/triton_722/
I'll find some .41/.44 tests later.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2003
- Messages
- 13,182
I never worry too much about stuff like that. I figure my house is so small that at that range if I hit them I'll be ok.
I got a 45 and .455 but my main home defense gun is just a 9X18 with FMJ's. I figure keep the others locked up and no big deal if somebody steals the Makarov
If I was a cop or lived in a high crime area I might think more about stopping power, but our main criminals are meth makers here and they stay pretty much to themselves
So far this year one trailer blew up on my hollow and one lab got busted and the guy is going up the river cause he did 7 years previously for attempted murder. The other guy whose trailer blew up did 4 months for assault but he's nice to me. Then there is another sex offender that lives down the hollow, convicted of having sex with a minor, and stealing a police cruiser and wrecking it, but I give him rides down to the carry out to get beer cause he has no license so he likes me. My formerly nearest neighbors moved out and burnt their house down. The old man was busted for cultivation when we first moved in. He was about 70 and has since died of leukemia. The son was convicted of murder and didn't move back after he got out of the pen. The grandson did 2 years for grand larceny and turned over a new leaf and didn't move back. I had some hard times with those close neighbors but we are friendly now when I see them.
I got a 45 and .455 but my main home defense gun is just a 9X18 with FMJ's. I figure keep the others locked up and no big deal if somebody steals the Makarov
If I was a cop or lived in a high crime area I might think more about stopping power, but our main criminals are meth makers here and they stay pretty much to themselves
So far this year one trailer blew up on my hollow and one lab got busted and the guy is going up the river cause he did 7 years previously for attempted murder. The other guy whose trailer blew up did 4 months for assault but he's nice to me. Then there is another sex offender that lives down the hollow, convicted of having sex with a minor, and stealing a police cruiser and wrecking it, but I give him rides down to the carry out to get beer cause he has no license so he likes me. My formerly nearest neighbors moved out and burnt their house down. The old man was busted for cultivation when we first moved in. He was about 70 and has since died of leukemia. The son was convicted of murder and didn't move back after he got out of the pen. The grandson did 2 years for grand larceny and turned over a new leaf and didn't move back. I had some hard times with those close neighbors but we are friendly now when I see them.THIS JUST IN: Less Equals More. Weakness is Strength! Weaker rounds kill better than stronger rounds. Do not fear the 50 Browning- it is pathetic, and merely zips through!!!! Who says these things? Why, modern ammunition and firearms companys selling production!!!!! Gun writers say these things, so they must be true!!!
Spectre, do people hunt Deer with Nine mill and 40 SW's? No. Regardless of the loading, they don't do it because there is just not enough energy.
I've picked the Deer because that animal is fairly close to a human- they can weigh the same, though men can weigh more. A lot of us aren't as tough as a deer, but many of us are- Felons lifting weights for many years, martial artists with heavier bone density.
If a Hog seems more anagolus to you, take a hog. They don't hunt those with 40's either.
I'm afraid all you will have with your Paper is an exercise.
Will a 243 kill a deer? Certainly, especially if you have a broadside shot and not too long yardarge. That small bullet is driven fast and must expand and penetrate- a tough job. Do people kill deer with a 44/40? That's not far from your 40 SW, and the answer is yes, though Wyoming forbids it's use because it is simply not very powerful. Wyoming also forbids the use of a 40 SW on deer. Not so the 41 or 44
You are bending the laws of physics to fit personal preference.
Now, I hold you in high esteem, we will have to disagree. There is not a single loading of the 40 that I could not make better with a 41 or 45 Colt.
As I said, a round with limited energy is more dependant upon 'energy dump' inside the target than a more powerful round.
We don't use mag big bores for police work because of overpentration and control issues, let along mag cap. "Overpenetration' is a problem for those pedestrians across the street watching, not for the bad guy who was just hit. There is absolutely no question a mag big bore will kill more effectively than other handgun rounds, but the Police are understandably unwilling to put up with the recoil and litigaion issues. I've said many times if I lived in an apartment I would not use a full house load.
I've also said I'm comfortable using all kinds of loads and cartridges. But that doesn't mean that a 41 or 44 won't kill better than lesser rounds.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Jeff Cooper recently said something positive about the old 230 RN FMJ 45 ACP. He said they stopped people. I was only mildly surprised.
I've read ballistic and terminal performance data for over 30 years. They change their minds, circle back to the beginning, and venture out again. Fads seem to influence thinking. For a long time, the 230 gr FMJ was seen at pathetic. No expansion you see.
There are many ways to accomplish a task. When we heard the 'little bullet' vs 'big bullet' debate between OConnor and Keith, I believed OConnor. He said that big bullets would do it, and his 270 would also.
>>>>>>
Modern bullets are wonders. They've expanded the edges and brought more usefullness to all kinds of cartridges. They have exploited the laws of physics, not dismissed them.
munk
Spectre, do people hunt Deer with Nine mill and 40 SW's? No. Regardless of the loading, they don't do it because there is just not enough energy.
I've picked the Deer because that animal is fairly close to a human- they can weigh the same, though men can weigh more. A lot of us aren't as tough as a deer, but many of us are- Felons lifting weights for many years, martial artists with heavier bone density.
If a Hog seems more anagolus to you, take a hog. They don't hunt those with 40's either.
I'm afraid all you will have with your Paper is an exercise.
Will a 243 kill a deer? Certainly, especially if you have a broadside shot and not too long yardarge. That small bullet is driven fast and must expand and penetrate- a tough job. Do people kill deer with a 44/40? That's not far from your 40 SW, and the answer is yes, though Wyoming forbids it's use because it is simply not very powerful. Wyoming also forbids the use of a 40 SW on deer. Not so the 41 or 44
You are bending the laws of physics to fit personal preference.
Now, I hold you in high esteem, we will have to disagree. There is not a single loading of the 40 that I could not make better with a 41 or 45 Colt.
As I said, a round with limited energy is more dependant upon 'energy dump' inside the target than a more powerful round.
We don't use mag big bores for police work because of overpentration and control issues, let along mag cap. "Overpenetration' is a problem for those pedestrians across the street watching, not for the bad guy who was just hit. There is absolutely no question a mag big bore will kill more effectively than other handgun rounds, but the Police are understandably unwilling to put up with the recoil and litigaion issues. I've said many times if I lived in an apartment I would not use a full house load.
I've also said I'm comfortable using all kinds of loads and cartridges. But that doesn't mean that a 41 or 44 won't kill better than lesser rounds.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Jeff Cooper recently said something positive about the old 230 RN FMJ 45 ACP. He said they stopped people. I was only mildly surprised.
I've read ballistic and terminal performance data for over 30 years. They change their minds, circle back to the beginning, and venture out again. Fads seem to influence thinking. For a long time, the 230 gr FMJ was seen at pathetic. No expansion you see.
There are many ways to accomplish a task. When we heard the 'little bullet' vs 'big bullet' debate between OConnor and Keith, I believed OConnor. He said that big bullets would do it, and his 270 would also.
>>>>>>
Modern bullets are wonders. They've expanded the edges and brought more usefullness to all kinds of cartridges. They have exploited the laws of physics, not dismissed them.
munk
I've posted this question over in the High Road for you.
You are not absurd- just wrong. But let's see what the ballistic experts in the forum where you are a moderator have to say. Perhaps they can convince me where you could not. You and I have always had strong opinions on firearms related matters. I think posting it in the High Road removes some of the pressure from here, and in the crowd of our peerage, perhaps won't be as touchy a subject.
take care,
munk
You are not absurd- just wrong. But let's see what the ballistic experts in the forum where you are a moderator have to say. Perhaps they can convince me where you could not. You and I have always had strong opinions on firearms related matters. I think posting it in the High Road removes some of the pressure from here, and in the crowd of our peerage, perhaps won't be as touchy a subject.
take care,
munk
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2003
- Messages
- 13,182
I'm interested to see how the new .243 I have works on deer.
I have always used my trusted .35 Remington, but the .35 with factory loads doesn't seem to have much knockdown. When I used handloads it would literally knock them over if you hit them a little high. I guess the factory loads are loaded with potential liability in mind.
I have always used my trusted .35 Remington, but the .35 with factory loads doesn't seem to have much knockdown. When I used handloads it would literally knock them over if you hit them a little high. I guess the factory loads are loaded with potential liability in mind.
You know, I try hard, but am not always successful in keeping the tone I like best. When John and I talk by phone, there are no delicate nerves- we both sound like little kids, excited, and with a tone of voice very similar to the other. For some reason, in this public forum, when the question is firearms or ballistics, the tone becomes ponderous and feelings are more easily injured.
In general, John is more up to date than I am. I no longer follow the newest weapons systems. I see this primarily as a passage of years- I was johnny on the spot when I was thirty and managed a gun store.
Over the years I've seen terminal philosophy change many times. My question is really simple; would you rather be hit by a hot 10 mill or a 40 SW? A 308 or 223? A 375 H&H or a 308? Would you rather be hit by a 40 SW or a 3006? The O6 will over-penetrate, but no one would argue the hunting bullet from that cartridge would not be devastating to a man.
There isn't any question larger more powerful rounds can do more damage. That doesn't mean you might not be better hit with a solid from a 460 than a soft point from a 308, but if both rounds are loaded correctly, the larger more powerful one will destroy more. ( I actually would question whether even a solid from a 460 is very survivable)
I think the current 'fad' in these things tends to dismiss the revolver rounds, though more powerful, as not able to deliver. This is not true. But sells guns, I'm guessing. The same technology that allows modest projectiles great terminal performance will benefit more powerful revolver rounds even more.
Why is our military dissatified with the .223, and wants a bigger, heavier, larger diameter projectile?
Uh huh.
So, I'm lost. I can't argue this any more.
Did we land on the moon or was it a hoax?
Everything being equal, the 40 SW is no match for a big bore magnum round. If I'm a civilian and betting on my life, that is the best bet. I've used semi wads in revolvers before and never felt inadquate. I would not feel inadaquate with a 40 with modern controlled expansion rounds.
Rusty in his last years liked little rounds. I'd tease him some, but not much. His little 380 with 14 shots would do the job if he'd the nerve, and he had the nerve. But you know what? The only reason he didn't use the 41 anymore was because he could not handle the recoil, not because it's terminal performance was not among the greatest available.
I have his 41 I dont have his 40 SW, because he did not own one or see the need for one!!! And he lived in the outdoors, as do I.
munk
In general, John is more up to date than I am. I no longer follow the newest weapons systems. I see this primarily as a passage of years- I was johnny on the spot when I was thirty and managed a gun store.
Over the years I've seen terminal philosophy change many times. My question is really simple; would you rather be hit by a hot 10 mill or a 40 SW? A 308 or 223? A 375 H&H or a 308? Would you rather be hit by a 40 SW or a 3006? The O6 will over-penetrate, but no one would argue the hunting bullet from that cartridge would not be devastating to a man.
There isn't any question larger more powerful rounds can do more damage. That doesn't mean you might not be better hit with a solid from a 460 than a soft point from a 308, but if both rounds are loaded correctly, the larger more powerful one will destroy more. ( I actually would question whether even a solid from a 460 is very survivable)
I think the current 'fad' in these things tends to dismiss the revolver rounds, though more powerful, as not able to deliver. This is not true. But sells guns, I'm guessing. The same technology that allows modest projectiles great terminal performance will benefit more powerful revolver rounds even more.
Why is our military dissatified with the .223, and wants a bigger, heavier, larger diameter projectile?
Uh huh.
So, I'm lost. I can't argue this any more.
Did we land on the moon or was it a hoax?
Everything being equal, the 40 SW is no match for a big bore magnum round. If I'm a civilian and betting on my life, that is the best bet. I've used semi wads in revolvers before and never felt inadquate. I would not feel inadaquate with a 40 with modern controlled expansion rounds.
Rusty in his last years liked little rounds. I'd tease him some, but not much. His little 380 with 14 shots would do the job if he'd the nerve, and he had the nerve. But you know what? The only reason he didn't use the 41 anymore was because he could not handle the recoil, not because it's terminal performance was not among the greatest available.
I have his 41 I dont have his 40 SW, because he did not own one or see the need for one!!! And he lived in the outdoors, as do I.
munk
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2002
- Messages
- 2,634
munk said:
Another very well respected gun operator (as opposed to gun writer), Dave Lauck (a master gunsmith and veteran cop) highly advocates carrying Federal FMJ 230gr .45 in your 1911. The bullet starts out at almost a 1/2 inch so further expansion is not nearly as important as with smaller rounds. The round nose feeds reliably (reliability must not be sacrificed for anything). It is a round you can practice with without breaking the bank. And its use is much more easily defended in court as opposed to why you shot the bad guy with the latest "man killing wonderkin hollow point bullet" which obviously meant you were looking for someone to shoot.
Semp
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2003
- Messages
- 4,793
munk said:
Munk, this obviously is something different people can have informed opinions on, and sometimes speaking in absolutes can get you in trouble. It is clear that both are 10 mm. bullets, and that _overall_ the 41 is more powerful, but there are out of the box factory loads that are very close.
10 mm Norma factory load, 170 gr. JHP, 1340 FPS, 680 ft. lbs.
41 Rem Mag. factory load, 170 gr. JHP, 1420 FPS, 761 ft. lbs.
The difference is only 80 FPS and 81 ft. lbs.
For use in a defensive pistol the 10 mm. full-house load is about as good as you can get. If I wanted a great hunting revolver, and even more power, especially with handloads, using the same bullet, I would go with the .41.
Norm
- Joined
- May 18, 1999
- Messages
- 15,395
I don't know a damned thing about what you guys are talking about, not at all.
:grumpy:
But I'd rather be hit with the hardest hitting, more tissue destroying force, that can be put in my body than one even 25 milligrams less weight and five foot less foot pounds.
I'd rather get shot with the most-est and go quick rather than having to fight to recover over a wound that severe. YMMV. 
:grumpy: But I'd rather be hit with the hardest hitting, more tissue destroying force, that can be put in my body than one even 25 milligrams less weight and five foot less foot pounds.
I'd rather get shot with the most-est and go quick rather than having to fight to recover over a wound that severe. YMMV.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2000
- Messages
- 3,002
I know just enough to realize that both Munk and Spectre are carrying what's best for themselves as individuals. To the best of my recollection, Munk is a ways in the boondocks where mean critters ocassionally roam carrying a single action pistol. What this means to me is he's very wise to carry something with a bit of weight and power that can be more potent on mean critters. Also, perform spectacularly on bipeds, as long as he puts the shot where it counts. Double taps aint often a huge issue with a SA revolver.
As I recall Spectre lives in an area with more bipedal threats and more frequently relies on autos, or DA revolvers, thusly making rounds that don't overpenetrate, and allow good quick double taps a very good idea.
As far as what I'd rather get shot with, I believe it's more of a question of fate and the other six million random factors than of bullet weight. I wouldn't want either of them shooting at me, with any kinda bullet.
As I recall Spectre lives in an area with more bipedal threats and more frequently relies on autos, or DA revolvers, thusly making rounds that don't overpenetrate, and allow good quick double taps a very good idea.
As far as what I'd rather get shot with, I believe it's more of a question of fate and the other six million random factors than of bullet weight. I wouldn't want either of them shooting at me, with any kinda bullet.
1) Show me an old Norma round today- it's no longer around. The 10 is significantly downloaded. Even so- handload to it's former max, and I can easily exceed that with the 41 Sierra shows only 1100 fps with a 180 gr bullet. Remember the 41 is 1600fps plus.
2) the 41 can deliver 1000 foot pounds of energy with certain loadings. The current Federal 250 is not far behind. (If memory serves it's somewhere in the 1200's) Any 10 load is nowhere near that.
3) the load shown, the old Norma 170, is pitifull compared to a 41 giving you 1600 plus fps with the same bullet weight. Speer stops listing data after a certain velocity, saying the results are going to be 'explosive' and not wanting to keep going, even though there is more pressure within SAMMI left to go.
I quote, Sierra Number 3: JD Jones, noted handgun expert, "claims that the 10 mill is the equal of the 41 Mag in power are simply someone's daydream."
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You and Spectre can cherry pick loads against weaker 41 loads to make a point that is no point. It is simply not rational. Any load you pick with the 10, I can beat with the 41 AS IT'S CASE CAPACITY IS SIMPLY GREATER!!
I own both. I love them both. But the 41 is a superior round. It has more case capacity and more power.
Where is this irrational need to believe in one's pet cartridge coming from? I just don't get it.
If the 10 was superior I'd say so. If the 40 SW, with even less case capacity was superior, I'd say so. You cannot negate amount of powder by nostalgia or quaint belief systems. Likewise, though the 41 is wonderful, and I even prefer it in many regards, the 44 is more powerful. The 44 has a slightly bigger diamter, can shoot 300 gr bullets, and is about 2O% more kinetic energy. It can be argued the warm loads of the 45 Colt in the right gun are superior to the 44- now this is a rationale discussion. The case capacity is greater, but the pressure less. They are close.
Yes, men can disagree. You can believe the 38 Special is superior to the 45 Win Mag- it is not true or rational, but you can believe it.
Here is a law of physics for you, take similar weights and bullet diameter's, load a smaller case to any pressure you desire, load a bigger case to the same pressure, and the bigger case will win every time.
10 mil case; .992 long, .423 wide
41 case; 1.290 long, .434 wide
Hornady has a modest little loading of the 41 with a 210 XTP at nearly 1400 fps and 1000 foot pounds of energy. It is not a barn burner. It could be exceeded.
You know, I could hot load a 38 Special in a Ruger Redhawk to beat some 41 mag loadings- it would hardly mean the 38 Special was a superior round. It only means if you handicap the 41 lesser rounds can beat it. Well, surprise surprise.
munk
2) the 41 can deliver 1000 foot pounds of energy with certain loadings. The current Federal 250 is not far behind. (If memory serves it's somewhere in the 1200's) Any 10 load is nowhere near that.
3) the load shown, the old Norma 170, is pitifull compared to a 41 giving you 1600 plus fps with the same bullet weight. Speer stops listing data after a certain velocity, saying the results are going to be 'explosive' and not wanting to keep going, even though there is more pressure within SAMMI left to go.
I quote, Sierra Number 3: JD Jones, noted handgun expert, "claims that the 10 mill is the equal of the 41 Mag in power are simply someone's daydream."
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You and Spectre can cherry pick loads against weaker 41 loads to make a point that is no point. It is simply not rational. Any load you pick with the 10, I can beat with the 41 AS IT'S CASE CAPACITY IS SIMPLY GREATER!!
I own both. I love them both. But the 41 is a superior round. It has more case capacity and more power.
Where is this irrational need to believe in one's pet cartridge coming from? I just don't get it.
If the 10 was superior I'd say so. If the 40 SW, with even less case capacity was superior, I'd say so. You cannot negate amount of powder by nostalgia or quaint belief systems. Likewise, though the 41 is wonderful, and I even prefer it in many regards, the 44 is more powerful. The 44 has a slightly bigger diamter, can shoot 300 gr bullets, and is about 2O% more kinetic energy. It can be argued the warm loads of the 45 Colt in the right gun are superior to the 44- now this is a rationale discussion. The case capacity is greater, but the pressure less. They are close.
Yes, men can disagree. You can believe the 38 Special is superior to the 45 Win Mag- it is not true or rational, but you can believe it.
Here is a law of physics for you, take similar weights and bullet diameter's, load a smaller case to any pressure you desire, load a bigger case to the same pressure, and the bigger case will win every time.
10 mil case; .992 long, .423 wide
41 case; 1.290 long, .434 wide
Hornady has a modest little loading of the 41 with a 210 XTP at nearly 1400 fps and 1000 foot pounds of energy. It is not a barn burner. It could be exceeded.
You know, I could hot load a 38 Special in a Ruger Redhawk to beat some 41 mag loadings- it would hardly mean the 38 Special was a superior round. It only means if you handicap the 41 lesser rounds can beat it. Well, surprise surprise.
munk
- Joined
- Nov 3, 1998
- Messages
- 4,331
munk, the problem is, you keep saying absurd things- I can go back and quote 4 or 5 for you, if you like- as though I (or others who disagree) have said them. You're using a form of the straw argument, which is a fallacy related to audience, and I'm really tired of it. Just address what I've actually said, please.
I have merely called bullet construction into the question. Shooting a bullet that is designed to expand little, if at all, even if the platform is inherently capable of shooting very powerful rounds vs. a less powerful arm, firing a bullet designed to expand, does not automatically mean the bullet designed not to expand wins. Even if the arm firing it is capable of generating much more force.
That's logical. I hope you can see this.
What is more, I think, though I hope this never matters, you're being a bit irresponsible by advocating what I perceive as poor choices for defensive usage. Otherwise, who gives a damn what someone carries?! It would be nice if you just stuck with the facts when debating, though.
Now, I'm about talked out, and I have lots of work to do. If someone happens to find some good pictures of gel shots with a .41 or .44 hard cast to compare with the nice shots I posted earlier of the .40, please post them for us.
John
I have merely called bullet construction into the question. Shooting a bullet that is designed to expand little, if at all, even if the platform is inherently capable of shooting very powerful rounds vs. a less powerful arm, firing a bullet designed to expand, does not automatically mean the bullet designed not to expand wins. Even if the arm firing it is capable of generating much more force.
That's logical. I hope you can see this.
What is more, I think, though I hope this never matters, you're being a bit irresponsible by advocating what I perceive as poor choices for defensive usage. Otherwise, who gives a damn what someone carries?! It would be nice if you just stuck with the facts when debating, though.
Now, I'm about talked out, and I have lots of work to do. If someone happens to find some good pictures of gel shots with a .41 or .44 hard cast to compare with the nice shots I posted earlier of the .40, please post them for us.
John
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2003
- Messages
- 4,793
Geez, Munk, hold on there! Get a grip on your Model 57 there, and don't lump everyone who has a disagreement about the efficacy of terminal ballistics of various cartridges all in one big enemy camp. I never said they were "ballistically identical." You did. I never said the 10 mm. was superior. You said I did. Read what I said a few posts up. In fact, I said that for hunting I would use the .41 because of it's greater power. I don't know who you are arguing with so passionately, but it ain't me.
The fact is those two _specific_ loads, as mentioned in the Ninth Cartridges of the World from 5 years ago, are almost identical. I was pointing this out to show that your absolutist statement was not always true, and not by handloading. If the Norma round has been discontinued, then it has been since 2000, so is not exactly ancient.
I am willing to concede that your .41 mag is the King Of All Cartridges. Now put it in an autoloader and I'll buy it. Until that happens, the full house 10 is a better choice, in that semi-auto configuration, to _approach_ or even match _factory_ .41 mag loads, without having to go to a Desert Eagle in .44 mag.
Norm
The fact is those two _specific_ loads, as mentioned in the Ninth Cartridges of the World from 5 years ago, are almost identical. I was pointing this out to show that your absolutist statement was not always true, and not by handloading. If the Norma round has been discontinued, then it has been since 2000, so is not exactly ancient.
I am willing to concede that your .41 mag is the King Of All Cartridges. Now put it in an autoloader and I'll buy it. Until that happens, the full house 10 is a better choice, in that semi-auto configuration, to _approach_ or even match _factory_ .41 mag loads, without having to go to a Desert Eagle in .44 mag.
Norm
Norm, you did say the 41 was overall more powerful than the 10mm; I stand happily corrected.
Spectre, I asked you which round had the most terminal destructive performance. I've tried to bring back and quote your 'irrational' prevarications, but the program does not allow me to quote from page one while I'm replying on page 2.
I've done everything I can for you. I've stated I admire and like you. I've said you are knowledgable. I've said I would not feel undergunned by any reasonable weapon cartridge combination. I've said the semi auto rounds are marvels. I've acknowledged the public forum does not do either of us justice. Yet now I hear from you I've said absurd things.
All I have ever asked is an agreement on the laws of physics- larger bullets, driven faster, do more damage. Given relatively comparitive bullet construction to the smaller rounds. You have been unwilling to acknowlege this, for reasons of your own. Pride? Don't know. You draw fantastic comparison's which are ingermane to the issue- yes, a misloaded mag round will be outperformed by a properly loaded 40 SW. What does that have to do with my premise? A properly loaded 38 Special will outperform a misloaded 40 SW. What does that prove? Nothing.
The modern semi auto round, with controlled expansion bullets is a wonderful compromise giving one more shots with controllable power. On an ultimate absolute destruction potential, they cannot compare shot for shot with a magnum revolver.
munk
Spectre, I asked you which round had the most terminal destructive performance. I've tried to bring back and quote your 'irrational' prevarications, but the program does not allow me to quote from page one while I'm replying on page 2.
I've done everything I can for you. I've stated I admire and like you. I've said you are knowledgable. I've said I would not feel undergunned by any reasonable weapon cartridge combination. I've said the semi auto rounds are marvels. I've acknowledged the public forum does not do either of us justice. Yet now I hear from you I've said absurd things.
All I have ever asked is an agreement on the laws of physics- larger bullets, driven faster, do more damage. Given relatively comparitive bullet construction to the smaller rounds. You have been unwilling to acknowlege this, for reasons of your own. Pride? Don't know. You draw fantastic comparison's which are ingermane to the issue- yes, a misloaded mag round will be outperformed by a properly loaded 40 SW. What does that have to do with my premise? A properly loaded 38 Special will outperform a misloaded 40 SW. What does that prove? Nothing.
The modern semi auto round, with controlled expansion bullets is a wonderful compromise giving one more shots with controllable power. On an ultimate absolute destruction potential, they cannot compare shot for shot with a magnum revolver.
munk
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2004
- Messages
- 3,178
Which would I rather get hit with, .40 or .41? Neither. I'm fragile. I don't even like getting hit with paintballs or sim rounds.
One of the few joys of public service is that you never have to worry about what you're packing - someone in an office somewhere makes that decision for you.
Interesting topic, regardless. I've always thought that NATO should've gone with the .40 S&W...
I don't even like getting hit with paintballs or sim rounds.One of the few joys of public service is that you never have to worry about what you're packing - someone in an office somewhere makes that decision for you.
Interesting topic, regardless. I've always thought that NATO should've gone with the .40 S&W...
Actually, Satori, (and Spectre) if I were looking for a new semi auto, and was leaving the 1911 platform, I'd be looking for a high capacity 4o SW. Does that surprise anyone?
I'm not immune to the percieved comfort of having more shots in the silo ready to go.
I am wondering if the first year reports of the 40, that of marginal accuracy, have been addressed. There are some rounds more inherently accurate than others and the reasons are not always fully understood. They may well have addressed any shortcomings by now.
munk
I'm not immune to the percieved comfort of having more shots in the silo ready to go.
I am wondering if the first year reports of the 40, that of marginal accuracy, have been addressed. There are some rounds more inherently accurate than others and the reasons are not always fully understood. They may well have addressed any shortcomings by now.
munk