Ok maybe 2 with a .44 or .50. Most people survive pistol wounds, that's why we use rifles for combat.

We use rifles for combat for range and accuracy. You aren't hitting squat with any consistency at 50 yds with a pistol. As far as survival rates of pistol versus rifle wounds, again it's an accuracy issue. All things equal a fatal shot is a fatal shot. Doesn't matter if it's a 9mm or a 5.56

We use rifles for combat for range and accuracy. You aren't hitting squat with any consistency at 50 yds with a pistol. As far as survival rates of pistol versus rifle wounds, again it's an accuracy issue. All things equal a fatal shot is a fatal shot. Doesn't matter if it's a 9mm or a 5.56

 

I do agree with you that range and accuracy are the primary reasons for using a rifle rather than a pistol over lethality in battle, however in general, a rifle round is more likely to kill than a pistol round due to the much greater speed a rifle round goes causing hydrostatic shock along with more tissue damage.

 

One article I read to why NATO nations dropped the full powered 7.62x51mm NATO round for the intermediate round 5.56x45mm NATO as the primary use cartridge was due to war changing for long range trench battle to short range city/jungle battle but also because unlike full powered rounds which almost always killed, 5.56 NATO could possibly only severly injure resulting in the severely injured enemy soldier needed aid from another enemy soldier thereby removing two soldiers from battle (for a period of time atleast) instead of just one. Shortly after the Vietnam War, the Soviet Union dropped the AK-47 and it's 30 caliber, intermediate 7.62x39 for the AK-74 and it's 22 caliber, intermediate 5.45x39 which is very similar to the 5.56. It appears the Russians liked the characteristics of the M16 round more so than the AK-47 round.

I do agree with you that range and accuracy are the primary reasons for using a rifle rather than a pistol over lethality in battle, however in general, a rifle round is more likely to kill than a pistol round due to the much greater speed a rifle round goes causing hydrostatic shock along with more tissue damage.

 

One article I read to why NATO nations dropped the full powered 7.62x51mm NATO round for the intermediate round 5.56x45mm NATO as the primary use cartridge was due to war changing for long range trench battle to short range city/jungle battle but also because unlike full powered rounds which almost always killed, 5.56 NATO could possibly only severly injure resulting in the severely injured enemy soldier needed aid from another enemy soldier thereby removing two soldiers from battle (for a period of time atleast) instead of just one. Shortly after the Vietnam War, the Soviet Union dropped the AK-47 and it's 30 caliber, intermediate 7.62x39 for the AK-74 and it's 22 caliber, intermediate 5.45x39 which is very similar to the 5.56. It appears the Russians liked the characteristics of the M16 round more so than the AK-47 round.

 

In general I am one that favors the higher caliber rounds, but what you just posted does make perfect sense and it has began to work it's way into pistol rounds as well. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the 9mm has went through vast improvements in ammunition over the years, increasing velocity. I doubt they will ever get to the point of causing hydrostatic shock out of that round, but increased velocity along with technology for hollow points is what has made it become a respectable round. I still like the larger caliber rounds in general, because your typically going to do more with less, in terms of shots fired.

 

After the Fort Hood shooting, I purchased a FNH 5.7, mainly because I was intrigued about the gun and had a feeling it would be put on a ban list. It's basically a .223/.224 round with a shortened casing. It's essentially a rifle round for a handgun that provides very little recoil, but travels at around 2000 feet per second which causes hydroshock, but on top of that it's designed to tumble upon impact creating an even larger wound cavity. Here is a quote from a review on the small caliber 5.7 round.

 

"Many of these combat-oriented shooters are concerned about the Five-SeveN’s stopping power. And with good reason. In its defense (or yours), penetration is not an issue. The Five-SeveN sends lead-free SS195 hollow-point jacketed bullet downrange at 1950 feet per second, generating some 220 ft-lbs. of muzzle energy. The SS195 round penetrates traditional ballistic gelatin (in the usual testing process) to a depth of 10.5 to 11 inches.More to the point (so to speak), the SS195 round is designed to tumble and yaw when it hits its target, creating a wound channel as wide as the bullet is tall (21.6-mm or .85 in). The Secret Service is down with that. But then they get the law enforcement-only SS198LF cartridge. That bullet’s 2050 FPS velocity gives the feds body armor-piercing capabilities while maintaining the round’s flat-shooting flight characteristics and loss of lethality at 550 to 750 yards (vs. approximately one mile for a 9mm bullet)."

 

So not all is bad with smaller rounds and to be honest, the 5.7 is the most fun I've ever had shooting a handgun. But at the same time, it's still not what sits next to me while I sleep.

Edited January 5, 20179 yr by JDEaston

I do agree with you that range and accuracy are the primary reasons for using a rifle rather than a pistol over lethality in battle, however in general, a rifle round is more likely to kill than a pistol round due to the much greater speed a rifle round goes causing hydrostatic shock along with more tissue damage.

 

One article I read to why NATO nations dropped the full powered 7.62x51mm NATO round for the intermediate round 5.56x45mm NATO as the primary use cartridge was due to war changing for long range trench battle to short range city/jungle battle but also because unlike full powered rounds which almost always killed, 5.56 NATO could possibly only severly injure resulting in the severely injured enemy soldier needed aid from another enemy soldier thereby removing two soldiers from battle (for a period of time atleast) instead of just one. Shortly after the Vietnam War, the Soviet Union dropped the AK-47 and it's 30 caliber, intermediate 7.62x39 for the AK-74 and it's 22 caliber, intermediate 5.45x39 which is very similar to the 5.56. It appears the Russians liked the characteristics of the M16 round more so than the AK-47 round.

 

That's interesting about the Russians going away from the AK-47. I didn't realize that. I wonder if cost of ammo and over weight of ammo had anything to do with it.

 

My point original point to JA's post was there are more factors to it. A target is much harder to hit with a hand gun, especially under stress, even at close range than a rifle. Really just based on nothing more than really the handling of the weapon. At 20ft you would be able to be much more accurate with a 9MM rifle as you would a 9MM pistol. Now add in what you said about about overall power and tissue damage and a handgun even at close ranges leave little room for error to put down a target much less make a lethal shot. This is more a blanket comment for the masses.

I wish there was a small frame gun I liked to carry. I haven't found one yet. I tried the Kimber Solo and didn't like it either. I'll stick with the .45 I guess. Heck, @Bert carries a 10. But he's tall enough to conceal a goose gun.

 

I've been carrying a Kimber Micro 380 for years. I love it. Kimber is now also making a Micro 9mm. I looked at one and really liked it but my Micro 380 is the perfect carry pistol for me.

In general I am one that favors the higher caliber rounds, but what you just posted does make perfect sense and it has began to work it's way into pistol rounds as well. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the 9mm has went through vast improvements in ammunition over the years, increasing velocity. I doubt they will ever get to the point of causing hydrostatic shock out of that round, but increased velocity along with technology for hollow points is what has made it become a respectable round. I still like the larger caliber rounds in general, because your typically going to do more with less, in terms of shots fired.

 

After the Fort Hood shooting, I purchased a FNH 5.7, mainly because I was intrigued about the gun and had a feeling it would be put on a ban list. It's basically a .223/.224 round with a shortened casing. It's essentially a rifle round for a handgun that provides very little recoil, but travels at around 2000 feet per second which causes hydroshock, but on top of that it's designed to tumble upon impact creating an even larger wound cavity. Here is a quote from a review on the small caliber 5.7 round.

 

"Many of these combat-oriented shooters are concerned about the Five-SeveN’s stopping power. And with good reason. In its defense (or yours), penetration is not an issue. The Five-SeveN sends lead-free SS195 hollow-point jacketed bullet downrange at 1950 feet per second, generating some 220 ft-lbs. of muzzle energy. The SS195 round penetrates traditional ballistic gelatin (in the usual testing process) to a depth of 10.5 to 11 inches.More to the point (so to speak), the SS195 round is designed to tumble and yaw when it hits its target, creating a wound channel as wide as the bullet is tall (21.6-mm or .85 in). The Secret Service is down with that. But then they get the law enforcement-only SS198LF cartridge. That bullet’s 2050 FPS velocity gives the feds body armor-piercing capabilities while maintaining the round’s flat-shooting flight characteristics and loss of lethality at 550 to 750 yards (vs. approximately one mile for a 9mm bullet)."

 

So not all is bad with smaller rounds and to be honest, the 5.7 is the most fun I've ever had shooting a handgun. But at the same time, it's still not what sits next to me while I sleep.

 

Has it been confirmed the 5.7 does cause hydrostatic shock? Magazine writers have been arguing about that since the round has been out. Didn't know if a conclusion had been reached.

Ran by Cabela's today and bought 400 rounds of 9 mm now it's time to break in the new Glock 17.

 

They also had a deal that I couldn't pass up on .22 LR hollow points so I got 300 rounds.

 

Now its time to go smell some gunpowder.

Has it been confirmed the 5.7 does cause hydrostatic shock? Magazine writers have been arguing about that since the round has been out. Didn't know if a conclusion had been reached.

 

It has been about 6-7 years since I bought the FNH 5.7, but everything I read back then said that the majority of the rounds would for that caliber would in fact cause hydrostatic shock. Some of the solid steel rounds will actually penetrate level three vests but I forget at what distance that was. As far as hydrostatic shock goes, typically anything even in the .22 diameter traveling around 2000fps will cause hydrostatic shock.

Again, the 5.7 isn't on my nightstand for a reason though, as I like the larger caliber weapons. Which is why I don't go with the theory of more rounds is always better. My 5.7 came with three 20 round clips, that one gun and two clips laying next to it would go a long way in terms of rounds fired and the scary factor. But in the grand scheme of things, it stays in the safe while the revolvers lay next to the bed. I will say it's a super fun gun to shoot though, other than the price of ammo.

We use rifles for combat for range and accuracy. You aren't hitting squat with any consistency at 50 yds with a pistol. As far as survival rates of pistol versus rifle wounds, again it's an accuracy issue. All things equal a fatal shot is a fatal shot. Doesn't matter if it's a 9mm or a 5.56

 

You are far more likely to die from a rifle round vs a pistol. Pistols will do the job but rifles are optimal.

My guess is the common a service rounds i.e. 9mm, .40, .45 ACP, .38 Spc, etc.

 

Yes sir, 3 shots, 3 feet, last 3 seconds is the average self defense encounter.

 

Caliber aside pick whatever you are accurate with, that's the most important thing.

You are far more likely to die from a rifle round vs a pistol. Pistols will do the job but rifles are optimal.

 

Are you saying I should stick with my rem .44 carbine for self defense? LoL. No doubt in my mind it would do the job, but I may kill my neighbor due to overpenetration.

You are far more likely to die from a rifle round vs a pistol. Pistols will do the job but rifles are optimal.

Of course you are but that's not why we use rifles instead of pistols as the primary weapon during war.

Of course you are but that's not why we use rifles instead of pistols as the primary weapon during war.

 

Well of course it's about distance and accuracy you gotta hit pop up targets in Army basic training out to 300 meters.

 

I just feel that it's the best well rounded tool to protect your castle with.

 

However, the average SD situation is at very close range, so a pistol you can handle flawlessly is your best friend.

Ok maybe 2 with a .44 or .50. Most people survive pistol wounds, that's why we use rifles for combat.

No, we use rifles for range. Your premise is absolutely wrong.