/k/ - Weapons

>>581105

How well can you shoot it?

this really belongs in QTDDTOT

>shield .45

it's probably fine, I never shot one. Thanks for choosing .45 btw.

I myself CCW a P229 in 357 Sig.

>>581105

but tbh I'd go with the 2.0 Shield.

>>581110

The .45 shield is a 2.0

Nothing wrong with it as a ccw, but I didn't enjoy shooting it at the range, gets painful to shoot after 100 rounds.

>45

>single stack .45 still too big for reasonable pocket carry

why tho?

.45 shield is too snappy, the .40 is very comfortable though.

>>581134

>red dot on a pistol

yeah okay good luck with that faggot

Walther CCP tbh

I just like interesting firearm actions, smh

>not ccing a full sized 10mm 1911

>not ccing two of them

>not ccing 50 AE Desert Eagles

>not ccing folding 12 gauge

>not ccing a full rifle

>not ccing a motar

>not ccing a 20mm PTRD

>not ccing 5 Child Soldiers with full kits as support

If the situation arises it is better to cause carnage than damage. War doesn't wait for you to get home.

>>581134

>urban carry

Isn't that a shitty meme? If you can't find a good aftermarket holster for a gun (any gun) there are plenty of companies that will mold you a custom Kydex holster tailored to your pistol, just use one of those instead.

Shield .45

>7+1 w/ extended mag

>$479 MSRP

>can find them for just over $400

Shield 9mm

>8+1 w/ extended mag

>$479 MSRP

>can find them for just over $400

Sig P365

>10+1 w/ regular mag

>12+1 w/ extended mag

>accessory rail (not picatinny but still a rail)

>$599 MSRP

>can find them for around $530

I think it's worth the extra 100 bucks for the superior capacity. But that's just me. I do VERY much like how the Shield shoots and it's an easy recommend as well.

>>581301

Treat it like a 1911.

>>581298

>400 for shield

Literally picked one with a laser up Saturday for 325 after my transfer. The normal ones pretty frequently go for around 300 and even without sales you can get 350.

>>581301

Half cock is fine.

The real problem is with the round zipping right through your target.

I feel like I'd rather have the compact than the shield. That laser looks nice though. Is it worth having the laser over having a slightly bigger gun?

>>581397

>It shoots through schools.

I see no problem.

>>581301

>Weapon of war

>having "safety" option

That's why communists win all the time. )^:

Keep it pointed at something you want/don't mind hurting at all times.

Dangerous for whom?

>>581471

Depends where you carry, what you wear, and your own shape. Take your preferred holster and either the PPQ or a dummy mold of it and see if you print while wearing it.

>>581134

>Glock 19

*yawn*

>>581471

the grip is kinda long, thickness doesn't matter. How fat are you? The bigger you are, the easier to conceal. I barely get away with a p229.

>>581547

>Glock 19

>*yawn*

I bet you yawn at ARs and AKs too

>>581602

do you think it would be a good idea to get one as a first handgun? ppl say I should get a full-size for the shootability but cash is tight and I'd rather err on the side of getting a gun with which I could get a permit and carry than getting one that would pull my pants down and print so I'd only ever take it to the range

>>581599

I own 3 ar's

9mm is boring, go Glock 23.

>>581610

get a police-trade in glock 23 or 27 from recoilgunworks.com

https://www.recoilgunworks.com/glock-pistol-night-sights-very-good-condition-p-24720.html

>>581635

>used shit soaked in zogbot sweat

meh, I'd rather buy NIB

>>581633

>.40 Short & Weak

Why?

>>581709

Because it's objectively better performing than 9mm.

>>581610

Dude if you're looking for a CCW then you need to train with said CCW.

Shootability is for when shooting guns for fun.

If you don't have the money you spend it first on the gun you NEED (protection), not on a leisure activity.

Also >>581635 has the right idea (but poor execution), a second hand gun if money is tight is always a smart choice but I don't recommend buying it on a site unless the site explicitly tells and show that particular gun is in great condition.

That's the reason why gun shops still exists…

>.45

AMERICAN CLOWN PISTOL

>>581741

There's no statistically significant information to be gleaned from that video. The sample size is too small and the medium isn't effectively reproducible. The peer reviewed literature has overwhelmingly arrived at the conclusion that there is no appreciable difference in lethality against human targets for any of the major service calibers. Well sourced compendiums of ballistics and terminal effectiveness like DiMaio's Gunshot Wounds have had this information easily accessible for nearly 20 years now; the caliber wars have long since ended.

>>581799

>waaaaaahhhhh it's not true

yes it is, you ignorant ass

1) non-bonded 9mm JHP has penetration problems

2) 147 grain 9mm is a dogshit load: you have .45acp velocity but with a much smaller, lighter load, so it doesn't expand for shit

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/05/18/concealed-carry-performance-short-barrel-federal-9mm-147gr-hst-gel-test/

3) bonded 9mm JHP doesn't expand any better than 147 grain because bonded bullets are inherently designed to not expand as much as non-bonded, that's why they're used for hunting rounds on big game.

4) So the lesson is: use 115 gr jhp for 9mm and deal with the fact that while you will have great splash damage, your penetration is dogshit

5) .40 sw has no penetration problems and expands excellently in non-bonded, run-of-the-mill Federal JHP, that's not even considering the elite defensive JHP ammo.

verdict: .40sw is objectively superior to 9mm.

9mm guys should just switch over to .357 SIG, which is basically a modernized 9mm and is even better than .40, but 9mm shills have invested their ego in that dogshit round and therefore cannot see reason. They can only say "no, nuh uhh it's just as good caliber wars are dumb." They know their round is outclassed by the others, so they try to look reasonable by dismissing the entire caliber debate, but they just look like butthurt denialists.

>>581767

you're right that some online sites are dogshit when it comes to 2nd hand guns, but recoilgunworks is giving you the actual picture of the weapon. They have a strong reputation.

>>581845

>post TFB as a source

Fucking discarded like a niglet in a trashcan.

>>581851

>huehuehue I'm cool cuz I don't read that place, amirite guiz?

gas yourself

Why not get a Steyr instead?

>>581105

got a Shield last year after doing a lot of research. It's great, as long as you use the 8 round extended mag so your pinky doesn't hang off the grip. it's not the most accurate pistol in the world but it shoots well enough for a 3.25" barrel and the default sights are the best I've seen so far on a pistol. it's a bit of a bitch to get a good enough grip on the slide to rack it, the scalloping doesn't really help as much as you think. it gets easier once broken in. stock trigger is okay, feels chunky; you don't need to replace it but there is a cheap drop-in from apex that'll drop the pull if you want it. I have it chambered in 9mm and the recoil is very manageable. It almost feels like you're shooting a full framed gun. I'd recommend it, I CC it every day. I got a bitching AIWB holster from redline concealment (cost 90 bucks, wait time was 5 months due to backorders) but finding decent holsters TODAY that won't break your wallet isn't hard at all, since it is an extremely popular pistol.

I don't recommend this pistol in higher calibers. 9mm expansion and penetration are adequate. just use gold dots or critical defense or whatever.

the Shield 2.0 also doesn't offer all that much more than the original but if the price is right and you want a laser on it stock, might as well.

>>581934

>getting into fights with blocks of ballistic gel

One you get ambushed by a gang of ballistic gel cubes, you're going to be ashamed of your words and deeds (^:

>>581105

Walther PPQ is a superior platform and is molded better for CC draw.

Got PPK-L in .32 ACP

>>584714

*Underwood

>>584714

Nice pocket rocket

>>581165

i dont shoot pistols the post

>>584727

>muh red dot works in a sterile environment shooting paper at 25 meters so surely it will work in a chaotic urban environment if i ever leave the house

practicing fundamentals sucks just buy a roland special amirite guise

>>584712

can't think of any downsides, as long as you can get a form-fitted holster. lights are awesome.

>>581105

.45 ACP isn't very fun to shoot in a babby sized autoloader. I unironically like shooting .357 out of a snubbie better than .45ACP in a Shield, mostly because the Shield's trigger guard keeps slapping my trigger finger.

>>581771

Such a clown pistol Norway built its own 1911, very fine ones at that. Shame on you brother.

Also since I'm too lazy to look it up, what does QTDDTOT mean

>>588191

Fuddy Five

tbh even 9mm is unpleasant to shoot in these micropenis guns

the problem is the micropenis guns. Get a real CC gun, like a p229.

>>588191

>muh one irrelevant country built them so they're good

>>588191

Questions That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread

>>588440

Don't you have a revolver to be oiling or did the Belgians deign to supply you lot pistols?

>>588440

The British Flag: The universal symbol of being an expert on handguns

What's your opinion on Springfield Armory? Specifically the XD 9mm Compact

>>598757

>Springfield Armory

We're still pissed at them for the whole Illinois disarmament-lobbying scandal. Buy secondhand if you absolutely have to have one.

>>598788

>baretta 92 is the best handgun on earth

>slide mounted safety

>exposed barrel

You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you?

>>598840

>Slide mounted safety

Here is where I shit on grip safeties. Instead, I will exalt it's rugged construction and the fact it isn't a plastic piece of shit.

>Exposed barrel

What like… Most guns?

>>598854

Wrong, in the 1930s the Germans wanted an automatic pistol specifically with an exposed barrel. The Walter P38 won, and then West Germany reintroduced it in 1957. Then they switched to the P1, which is virtually the same gun. They only started replacing it in the 1990s, and only finished that in 2004.

>>598854

>>598861

Just bought myself an SP-01 Phantom yesterday. My first DA/SA auto. Did I do good?

Sweet shooter, very easy to be accurate with… trigger's a little strange, but I'll get used to it.

>>598882

>SP01 Phantom

My nigger. I love mine, had it for about a year now

>>598886

Do you carry it? Any holster recommendations?

I was looking at this guy

https://www.daraholsters.com/owb/

Probably high ride with a 7.5 degree forward cant.

It's way too big for a guy my size to conceal. I'm not usually a fan of open carry, but I'm liking the gun so much that I might start.

Should be fine. What matters is if you can afford the ammo to train with it and it won't fucking jam if it has a bit of lint in it.

How would 10mm Auto or .357 SIG perform out of a 80mm (~3.15") barrel? Are they comparable to snubnosed revolvers that have similarly short barrels. Of course, in the case of revolvers the chamber is not part of the barrel, and so that 80mm is more like 48-51mm (~1.9-2") if we don't measure the chamber.

>>599052

Assuming you mean recoil characteristics, it also depends on weapon weight, ammo load hot/normal, cycling action, and bore axis placement, all of which can affect the recoil markedly.

>>599056

No, I mean make people dead.

>>599058

inb4: I know that pistol ammunition is simply terrible for that job.

>>599058

>No, I mean make people dead.

? Then barrel length is irrelevant, and you're talking about ammo wound channel characteristics.

>>599066

Now don't tell me that there isn't a relationship between barrel length, the energy of the projectile, and its wound channel characteristics.

>>598788

>HUE HUE ALL PISTOL ROUNDS ARE WEAK THEREFORE 9MM BEING WEAK DOESN'T MATTER CUZ IT'S THE BEST

9mm shill logic at its finest

>>599058

10mm and .357 SIG are in every way superior to 9mm, they will make, have made, and continue to make people much deader.

the two pistol rounds with the most one stop shots are .357 magnum and .40. .357 SIG is .357 magnum, and 10mm is a beefed up .40, so you should be carrying one of those three rounds. .357 SIG, .40 or 10mm.

I'd give a pass on .45acp because you can get +p .45 ammo that really is pretty bad.

9mm is a chickenshit plaything for weak faggots.

>>599086

it's a good little gun, but you've gotta tighten up those groupings, son.

>>599052

>>599058

>>599091

>effect of barrel length on making people dead

You're either trolling, or trying to ask about the effect of barrel length on shot accuracy in a very obscure way.

If you do mean accuracy, then the stuff I mentioned about recoil comes into play, since with most pistol cartridges you'll need follow up shots. There are also issues about chamber pressures to fully accelerate the bullet, and would also be dependent on the ammo load and cycling action.

TL;DR

It would be snappy, and I wouldn't be counting on it to engage a threat on the other side of a parking lot.

>>599086

>>599100

I'd suggest tightening up on practice regime too.

How do you accurately tell how much you've improved by in 6 months if you're hand drawing a target on scrap?

If you're poor fag, get some wallpaper on sale and make a simple target stencil out of card. You can draw large targets onto the plain white back of the wallpaper and cut them out or hang them up.

>>599098

So a subcompact pistol chambered for either of those rounds would actually make sense, is that correct? Of course, it would have limited utility, but in theory they should be about as effective as .357 Magnum. Or at least the data here suggests that:

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357sig.html

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/10mm.html

>>599101

>You're either trolling, or trying to ask about the effect of barrel length on shot accuracy in a very obscure way.

No, I'm asking about the ballistics of 10mm Auto and .357 SIG out of a 80mm barrel in a rather direct way.

Small changes in barrel length may not change the terminal ballistics that much, however more extreme barrel lengths can change it quite a bit. Maybe you won't see much difference between a 2 inch and 3 inch, or even 4 inch, but at some point performance will change as the inches of the barrel increase. Its a complicated issue, though.

Certain cartridges have vastly different internal ballistic properties. I carry a 357 Magnum in 6 inch barrel, and its quite the cartridge in this regard, the difference between the average 4 inch barrel revolver and 18 inch rifle using the same 357 and 38 Special loads is about DOUBLE. One looks at the data and it appears these cartridges are far more sensitive to barrel length; other pistol cartridges see moderate gains from longer barrels all the way up to absolute near 100% optimization.

This can be considered good or bad, good in the fact you can rest assured that the terminal performance of your compact pistol isn't going to suffer much for choosing the smaller barrel. It also can be viewed as bad because it reduces the gain from using a carbine in that cartridge. Strong loads of 158 grain bullets in 357 Magnum can acheive upwards of 1,350 fps in 4 inch revolvers and 1,850 fps in a rifle, doubling the energy, the rifle now is an ethical choice for short range deer hunting. A longer barrel 9mm carbine is definitely an advantage, but no where near the gain (nor the loss) of the 357 Magnum.

This might be a bigger issue in high power, higher case capacity cartridges rather than smaller ones. Still, the evidence is there that short enough barrels might effect killing ability, so you should do your research on your particular gun, loads desired to shoot, barrels, learn a little about the hicks and kinks of your particular cartridge.

THEN we have to consider that various guns will have different characteristics. Even with similar barrel lengths wear, tightness, action, all play a roll in performance. Cylinder gaps in revolvers play a crucial roll. I think either Speer or Sierra did tests on magnum revolvers that after 6,000 rounds of high pressure full power loads revolvers would lose an average 100 fps for life from throat erosion and wear. The idea that your old beat up Glock will have lower velocities than you brand new shiny Glock of the same model is not an insane one.

Follow up note is that longer barrels are easier to control. You change the axis to your advantage, you reduce muzzle blast's effect on pushing the weapon around, you push it further away from you. All of this leads to better combat shooting by way of making the firearm easier to control. Yes, one can shoot a high power short barreled gun quickly in some cases, but it takes everything the man has to attempt to control it, both hands, his full weight and effort; not all of these things are available in combat. The longer barrel gun offers better control when wounded, tired, in a poor position, weak, injured, one handed shooting which easily happens in real life.

This makes full frame pistols and revolvers superior, in every aspect save for perhaps weight and totally in concealment. The bigger, heavier, longer gun has better control, ballistics, lest blast, recoil mitigation, and often capacity. These are facts. You want to carry a very concealable gun, that's fine, just keep in mind the objective facts of the field.

At some point my Hi Power is better in a carjacking situation, where you are shooting weak, one handed, out the side of a window, than a micro 9mm Luger. My full size 1911 is superior to a compact 45 ACP in the same scenario. I can control my 6 inch barrel M-27 pretty easy in that situation, not as easy for someone with a snub nosed lighter weight smaller framed 357 Magnum.

Last note of value is the dreaded undergun followed by underload syndrome. Johnny buys a super lightweight snub nose 38 Special rated for +p ammunition. He says he will carry +p high end ammunition. Johnny shoots the high power ammunition and gets sick of the blast and recoil. Johnny downgrades and starts to shoot light load 38 Special regular pressure. Johnny doesn't simply just have a small barrel, he has a light load to go with it. Soon he is shooting weak rounds and should just stick ot non expanding ammunition just to keep it from under penetrating.

My big boi revolver and all its heavy weight and long barrel makes it suitable for the most hottest powerful 357 Magnum loads that can be loaded and fired. The point is firing super hot loads of 357 Magnum is more comfortable, and more controllable, in my big revolver than light loads in Johnny's snub compact ultra light. Johnny made a good decicion on a good gun, I recommend the old J frames, but the point stands; those of us who carry full size can control full power rounds better than gutted rounds in smaller guns.

Concealability does in deed come at a cost.

>>599124

Faggot that's been CC-ing an SP101 .357 with babby-tier 2.25 inch barrel for the better part of a decade here.

Would just like to add, with enough training you can, you really can, overcome all those issues. "Enough training" in this case meaning "seriously tens of thousands of rounds and combined totals of months of practice", but it can be done. I can reliably nail targets at the medium rifle range at my gun range with the SP but I had to shoot it a truely insane amount in order to get to that point.

In the amount of time it takes you to git gud with a snubnose revolver you could git olympic-tier with virtually any other type of gun. Same goes for reloading. I can reload mine FAST, but that's only because I've A) gotten it chamfered and B) gotten it down to muscle memory I've done it so much.

I've also never really had trouble with the muzzle blast. I always hear it's blinding from a snubnose but good god I have never ever noticed it being any worse or better than any other gun after shooting it a shit-ton. Maybe that's just me.

>>599100

>>599105

Do you shoot better than that at 25 yards with a sub compact .45?

>buying targets

>not saving money for more ammo

>>599115

yes, but tbh don't go for subcompact, it is shit-tier in generally because sub 4 inch barrels is where you really lose performance across the board. Stay with a 4" barrel compact gun like the Glock 21, the p229. Glock 29 would work as long as you're carrying real 10mm loads because 10mm is so powerful, and the barrel is still like 3.8 inches.

>>599142

>shoot better than that

The point I was making is, "that" is ill-defined without standardization. I wasn't asking to compare cock sizes with you.

>>599142

I don't carry subcompact because you lose too much velocity with the 3" barrel and the 2 finger grip aggravates me to death. The only subcompact I'd carry would be a g29, because it's really closer to the compact size

Do I shoot better groupings than that with my p229 .357 Sig? Yes.

>>599052

10mm auto and .357 sig were created during the modern era of semi-automatic pistols, so they've taken shorter barrels into consideration. Also, the limited case capacity means they have to use fast-burning powders to get performance out of them. In other words, a shorter barrel will mean lower velocity, but not a LOT lower if you're only talking a difference of a couple inches.

.357 mag is a huge cartridge, with a huge capacity for powder, developed during a time where 6"+ barrels AND lever-action carbines were common. Slow-burning powders were used to give maximum possible performance. The original .357 mag load was built to be shot from an 8" revolver, if memory serves. This means that there is a much steeper drop-off in velocity per missing inch of barrel.

HOWEVER, many modern .357 mag loads do use faster-burning powder, and there are quite a few short-barrel-optimized loads as well.

I guess what I'm saying is that any modern self-defense-labeled ammo from a reputable manufacturer is going to be fine in a concealable gun.

>>599127

I use that exact gun for woods carry, loaded up with some nasty 180 grain wrist breakers. To be fair, due to its weight the SP101 is probably one of the easiest concealable snubbies to become proficient with.

I usually recommend upgrading sights, finding a grip that works well, and a trigger job (just polishing if it's going to be used for self-defense) for small guns to give every possible advantage, but proficiency can absolutely be achieved on anything with enough practice.

And like

>>599124

said, it's important not to carry underpowered ammo. I'm not saying I'd carry magnums in the SP101 100% of the time if it were my EDC, but certainly the best 38 +P I could get.

>>599151

>Glock 29 would work as long as you're carrying real 10mm loads

>would work

Anything 10mm is going to "work." That subcompact 10mm is going to be just as good as a compact .40 or .357 sig or a full-size 9mm, easily. As far as "real" 10mm loads go… that's a pretty good point - most popular 10mm loads are anemic, so the choice between shitty 10mm loads in a subcompact and hot .40s in a compact isn't so clear.

I guess all my rambling really comes down to this (and forgive me, because I don't even know who I'm talking to at this point):

1. Choose a gun that is comfortable enough to carry that you won't leave it at home. You may need something super thin, or super lightweight, or with a short barrel, or a short grip, or with a certain shape… that's fine. As long as you can carry it the way you want, get it. This step involves proper holster selection as well.

2. Get the absolute best ammunition you can for it for your particular circumstances. This step requires LOTS of research, watching hours of videos of ballistics gel tests, and range time to ensure that you're accurate with it and that there is an affordable practice load that will hit at the same POI.

3. Train. Constantly. Daily dry-fire practice. Range trips as frequently as you can. Drawing, one-handed operation, reloads, malfunctions. Use of cover, shooting/reloading/drawing on the move or when grappling.

4. Once you gain proficiency with the stock firearm, you can start looking at improved sights, grips, triggers, or any other modification to give you an edge. DO NOT take this step too early, or it could retard your development.

>>599339

Can't tell if sarcasm or not.

>>599364

Doesn't dry firing break firing mechanisms on 99% of firearms?

>>599481

Its not good for rimfires given how their operation is.

>>599481

lol no. most centerfire firearms that you will use are perfectly fine to dry fire. ARs don't give a shit, striker-fired pistols don't give a shit, etc.

>>599497

Fuck you up the ass if you think I'm going to bother tracking down your idiocy in the thread just to satisfy your stupid faggot ass.

There's about one useful thing that per shooter you own can do: your face.

>>599481

ever heard of snap caps?

>>599481

The only guns you have to worry about are rimfires, and shitty east euro pistols with zinc firing pins. Even then just use snap caps, or the old field expedient snap caps of a piece of fired deprimed if you really worry brass.

>>599481

Nah, almost all modern firearms explicitly say in the manual that dry-firing is safe, even many rimfires (however I don't know that I trust it 100%.)

Snap caps can mitigate any concerns about that though.

I firmly believe that dry-firing is a necessary part of firearm competency training: it can teach you trigger control, help stop you from flinching, and most importantly, you can practice all your draws, reloads, etc., from the comfort of your own home.

>>581175

>not ccing a full sized 10mm 1911

I literally do exactly that. Full size pistols aren't really that hard to conceal if you put in a little effort and/or money (I use a shoulder rig and lots of sport coats and tropical shirts), so size shouldn't be as much of a concern in your CCW decision as people make it out to be. Same with capacity, as it usually makes very little difference in an actual gunfight. Really, the most important thing is just finding out what works best for you, what you're best at shooting, and/or what is most comfortable in your hands. After all, you're trusting it with your life, so you should probably be able to shoot it.

>>599098

>10mm is a beefed up .40

Correction: .40 is a watered down 10mm. The FBI wanted something that hit a bit harder than 9 after Miami-Dade, so they went for the most extreme option available at the time, the new 10mm round. A lot of other law enforcement agencies followed suit, and it became kind of a big deal, but then the FBI promptly discovered that most of their agents couldn't shoot it worth dog shit, so they started soft-loading their 10s, and eventually that gave birth to the shortened .40SW cartridge, and 10 just kind of died off for like… the next 20 years.

>>600485

>excuse me m'lady I must correct this gentleman

yes, I fucking know that 10mm came first, you pedantic asshole.

>>600485

upbote for cc'ing full size guns

not sure about 1911, but it's easy to do with a glock 17 IF you have the right holster. All holsters should be Galco tbh.

and that's why I fucking hate the subcompacts and the p365. Micropenis guns are a reddit fad.

>>600506

Easy there, tiger. I correct to educate, not to be a snobby, know-it-all dick. There are newfags who don't know the history of every niche caliber out there and will genuinely make mistakes like that.

>>600507

>All holsters should be Galco tbh.

Agreed. Galco, or a custom rig if you're a richfag.

>and that's why I fucking hate the subcompacts and the p365. Micropenis guns are a reddit fad.

True, to an extent. They have their applications, such as ankle-carry or, in the case of women, cleavage carry (not that I'm actually a proponent of cleavage carry. There are so many better ways to conceal, in terms of accessibility, comfort, and your actual firearm options). But pretty much any application for a subcompact, you could do just as well with a small revolver or a regular compact.

>>600509

my mistake, I tend to get very angry and serious on the internet

test

>>581105

Go to a gun range and shoot a few if you’re unsure about what to carry. 45 is obviously great stoppin powah, but take a look at 9mm as well. 9 is popular because it’s cheaper, you can carry more rounds, and you can get ammo that will do nearly as much damage if you carry something like HSTs or equivalent.

The most important part about self defense is hit placement, and you git gud by practicing shooting. 9mm is cheaper than 45 by quite a bit, and you’ll end up being able to afford to shoot more often.

>>611233

>bullet technology meme

9mm is, was, and always will be the weaker round.

>muh bullet technology

a meaningless platitude, but the same HST ammo is also available for the other calibers, so that's twice "muh bullet technology" is proved wrong.

>>612840

>Those punches

jesus christ

>>613561

>be prepared to engage 2-3 attackers

Lots of variables involved, but being prepared for 3 guys is reasonable depending on where you are and what kinds of situations you're usually in on a day to day basis.

>15 rounds available per attacker

inb4 hurr durr 9mm you'll need a mag to put them down

You'll never know if you have enough ammunition or not.

One guy can crumple up after one shot to the chest while the other either soaks up the rest of the magazine or dives behind cover and shoots towards the ceiling trying to kill you.

Like I said, there's way too many variables to give hard advice like that. While more is always good, having more than two magazines on backup might be too bulky, maybe a full-size pistol is too large for comfort during daily routines.

if you're carrying a revolver it's better to go for a new york reload

also just don't carry a derringer and you're golden for most situations except for a buffalo stampede

>>613561

>Also wtf is a CCW badge?

It's like a bumper sticker that you only show to people on the internet.

>>613561

>>613569

he's just pulling numbers out of his ass

carry an extra magazine in your pocket when CC'ing, regardless of caliber.

if you're going with 9mm, go with a big gun like a 17 so you get the extra bullets and velocity, you may need it.

in the end, just concentrate on shooting the attacker square in the chest, and keep shooting him there until he drops.

>>613571

>It's legitimately a fake badge that just says 'ccw holder'.

Holy shit just use a bad dragon patch at that point.

>>613654

My CC is a approximately the size of a g19 but decently thinner and it carries 15+1. Is defense ammo worth it? Uncle Paul calls it bunk but I see so many other people praising 'muh expansion' and reliability.

>>613715

I'd go with the prices. If you can get HST for 30 cents per round, do it.

Is 9mm hype ammo bunco? IDK, I don't shoot 9 much. I can say that I've had good results with .40 and .45 HST against pigs. I'm not saying Paul is wrong, but HST is fundamentally designed to be expansion proof with the gaping hollow-point and full serrations.

>>613740

I'll have to run some through my gun on the range, thanks for the recommendation.

>135 grain

I've legit never seen 9mm come in that weight. Do you generally want to go heavy as you can with defensive ammo? I generally buy either 115 or 124 grain PMC bronze for the range. I can never tell the difference between the two so does ammo weight even matter?

>>613762

>Do you generally want to go heavy as you can with defensive ammo?

Not necessarily, as velocity starts to suffer. Case in point is 147 gr 9mm, objectively one of the worst 9mm loadings out there but people still buy it in spades because of that "moar grains=bettar" mentality. One extra mag should be plenty for you. Uncle Paul says the average number of shots fired in a civilian engagement that he could find reliable data for is 5 shots. And regardless of that, you have to think of diminishing returns. If 31 rounds weren't enough to take care of it, you're probably in deep enough shit to the point that another 15 won't save you.

>>613762

>does weight matter?

for penetration yes because generally it means a better ballistic coefficient (concentrated center of gravity) which allows the object to drive deeper into a target.

thing about 9mm 147 grain is what >>613834 says, the velocity on it suffers, especially out of short barrels where you're getting about 850 fps. The reason this is a problem is because at that low of a velocity the 9mm round starts having expansion problems. .45acp can get away with the low velocity because the diameter of the bullet is so wide. This is another reason why 147 grains penetrate so well in 9mm; they don't expand as well.

When I do shoot or carry 9mm, I've always liked the 115 grain load because it's very easy to shoot. Its penetration sucks, but it's so easy to shoot that I can just spray the target to death.

btw the only 135 grain out there is that Hornady +p Critical Duty load. Good round but expensive for 9mm.

Good ol' normal 115 grain Federal Premium JHP is a cheap and reliable JHP round. I carry the same Remington green/white box Paul used for his .357 Sig videos in my p229. I think the brand matters more at the end of the day.

>>613840

Sig, Federal, and Fiocci are loading 10mm to its upper limit these days.

https://www.targetsportsusa.com/sig-sauer-elite-performance-10mm-auto-ammo-180-gr-v-crown-jhp-e10mm1-20-p-54716.aspx

https://www.targetsportsusa.com/fiocchi-shooting-dynamics-10mm-auto-ammo-180gr-jhp-10aphp-p-107857.aspx

you should get a Galco holster, much easier to carry than pocket. Go with the King Tuk. Very low printing holster, I can CC a G17 with it and it doesn't print the gun.

>>613843

That Sig is the same line I carried in my Nano, which I liked, so I'll give that a shot. Holster will have to wait a bit, but I'll try it when I get the money. For now, ass pocket carry will do. Thanks, anon.

>>613840

If you want something as close to the performance of the original 10mm spec (before it became common practice in the industry to soft-load it) as possible, Underwood 200 gr JHP is a pretty well-respected round, it seems to perform pretty consistently, and surprisingly, it doesn't break the bank nearly as much as some of the other high-end 10mm ammo on the market. If you want something with which to break your wrist, anything should work, since you bought a polymer subcompact, but I've heard some people going on about how great Buffalo Bore 180 gr is.

>>613843

Don't know about the others, but I've seen multiple different tests that showed that Federal was either fudging their numbers, or just couldn't perform that well consistently.

>>613840

Why do you want a longer barrel?

>>613848

sure, when you do decide to get the holster, check ebay first, they're cheaper on there for some reason.

>>613849

I was thinking of Federal's bonded soft-point 10mm, which obviously isn't a defense round for humans but it's apparently very hot judging by Hickok's video.

I've shot both the Fiocci and Sig loads however, and they are indeed very hot 10mm, big recoil.

but you're right, Underwood is a great choice, but expensive. You'll be paying over $1 per round, same with Buffalo Bore.

>>613849

>anything should work

I bought some bargain bin armscor 180gr for $20 (that I overpaid for) when I bought the gun which felt slightly more powerful than 147gr American Eagle in a Beretta 92, and that was with a 3 finger grip. Shot accurately enough, though.

>>613851

I saw comparisons between the 20 and 29 in terms of bullet velocity, and the 20 obviously won out with the longer barrel. I thought it'd just be better to buy the smaller 29 and upgrade to a longer barrel and get grip extensions for the mags, since I can always revert it to subcompact size even if it'll cost more more in the long run. Either way, Jamar probably can't tell the difference between 1100fps FMJ and 1400fps JHP, which is why it's low on a list of priorities.

>>613853

Noted. Thanks again.

>>600506

Sounds like you have no argument.

>>613856

As long as it's above expansion threshold, velocity means jackshit.

>>617158

>velocity means jackshit

physics begs to differ, bong.

>>618501

Lurk for a few years before you post, anon.

>>618616

.40 Short & Weak isn't an argument, anon, it's leftover humor from halfchan. Please return to reddit since you refuse to assimilate.

.40sw is dying and it was never good to begin with.

>>618501

its a joke faggot stop acting like a nigger

>>618805

>be me

>live in ban state

>can ccw and own a few handguns legally

>still carry P80 handgun occasionally

Because 'merica

>>618792

at falling out of use

>>618833

9mm is a weak round, that's why it's popular.

>>618888

i might buy a 40 once they drop down to $200

>>618996

9mm: the weak, poorfag round.

bump

also, nobody uses .40 slow and womanly

>>619250

Momentum is better than kinetic energy, whenever you can get it go for that instead.

>>617160

>>619250

Agreed, but I get where he's coming from. Handgun bullets will never be fast enough to cause the kind of stretch damage you see from rifle bullets, so in a sense more velocity/energy doesn't necessarily mean anything BY ITSELF.

The ballistics and characteristics of the bullet are way more important to its effectiveness. Yes, when comparing the same shape and size projectile, more velocity/energy = more better, as long as it retains its desirable ballistics at the higher velocity.

>>619256

Would you legitimately recommend a hot .357 magnum over a .223?

>>619261

I apologize for this post… a little bit. It illustrates my point, but I'm comparing apples to oranges in it.

Here's the thing: momentum, like velocity and energy, doesn't mean anything BY ITSELF. More momentum doesn't necessarily mean better, and vice-versa. The fact is, however, that if Bullet A and Bullet B have the same exact characteristics (same expansion, ballistic coefficient, shape, etc.) then ENERGY will be a better predictor of wound channel volume than momentum.

>>619261

Absofuckinglutely, it's not even a competition.

>>619263

The difference between momentum and kinetic energy is obvious in the way that the equation is put together.

Ek=mv^2/2

p=mv

If we ignore the halving which affects both variables, velocity is basically so important in that equation that we can ignore mass, "speed kills". The perfect Ek projectile is a photon of light.

In momentum, the mass and velocity are equally important. Ergo the perfect p projectile is one that's balanced exactly in terms of speed and mass to achieve an objective.

By definition, in this century at least, projectiles that focus on momentum are far superior than those than focus on velocity alone.

Also I like momentum because it is FAR more important in the force equations of terminal ballistics. Ek basically is only a useful measure from the moment the bullet leaves the rifle, to the moment it hits the target. Everything else is momentum.

>>619275

>suggesting a pistol round over a rifle round

Anon, I'm deeply concerned.

>>619250

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=bullet+ballistic+effects+on+human+body&&view=detail&mid=D9CC1CA0197A57EAE64AD9CC1CA0197A57EAE64A&&FORM=VRDGAR

>>619286

The video is various gauges of projectile on drms of water, 9mm to 50 cal sniper

>>619278

1. it's in more compact weapons

2. it offers superior tissue damage

3. it deviates less due to wind or obstacles

>>619275

You just vaguely described the differences between kinetic energy and momentum and said "that's why momentum matters more."

>>619289

And it gives us no useful information in regards to the topic at hand.

>>619292

I'm sorry I was as detailed as possible, I can't make it any simpler.

>>619278

.357 doesn't lose out much (if at all) in terms of energy if the barrel length is the same for both, and of course the .357 has more momentum. If we're only comparing the cartridge and not the guns they're usually used in then the only possible reason I can see to pick .223 is that it would hopefully be better against some armor.

>>619295

I really can't tell if I'm being trolled right now or not. I've had a few drinks and I'm in a shit mood, so let me recap and comment on what you said in

>>619275

>the difference between momentum and kinetic energy is obvious

Yes, it is. No arguments there.

>velocity is so important to [kinetic energy] that we can ignore the mass

lol, okay. I'm still on-board at this point, but I'm preparing for a let-down

>the perfect [kinetic energy] particle is a photon of light

I know what these words mean, but I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

>in momentum, the mass and velocity are equally important

Yes, that is what the equation says. You're right.

>Therefore, the perfect [momentum] projectile is one

There you go using that phrase "perfect projectile" again. No idea what the fuck that means, but it sure sounds like a good thing since you said it's

>balanced exactly

You haven't made any arguments that momentum is more important yet. But hold on, maybe you'll get to that in your next sentence

>by definition, projectiles that focus on momentum are superior to those that focus on velocity alone

Wait, by "definition?" Do you know what that means?

Also, are we doing momentum (i.e. mass and velocity) versus velocity alone? Did ignoring mass in your second sentence really come back to bite you in the ass here?

You made ZERO argument for momentum being a better indicator of projectile effectiveness than kinetic energy. BUT WAIT!

>it is FAR more important in the force equations of terminal ballistics

I'm so hard at this point. Show me those sweet equations and how they translate to actual effectiveness!

>kinetic energy is only useful when the projectile is flying through the air

>everything else is momentum

Such a let down.

See, here's what it boils down to:

momentum is more or less the measure of an object's ability to resist a change to its motion. A hollowpoint projectile with extraordinarily high momentum would not be able to expand. A FMJ projectile with extraordinarily high momentum would not be able to tumble. A projectile with very little momentum would simply come to a dead stop when it hit its target.

Kinetic energy, on the other hand, is a measure of the ability of a moving object to perform work. It's the ability of the projectile to apply force to, and move, the target.

Now of course the shape and type of projectile will determine exactly how the energy is applied to the target, but the fact remains that kinetic energy pretty much directly measures how much shit the projectile can possibly fuck up.

>>619297

No no no, when I posted

>>619261

I was thinking along the lines of

158 grain .357 magnum at 1240 fps from a 4" barrel vs 60g .223 at 3160 fps from a 24" barrel.

The magnum has slightly more momentum, but the .223 has well over twice the kinetic energy… and I don't think I need to tell anyone here which one would fuck someone's day up more.

Note that I later admitted that it's a bit of an apples vs. oranges comparison since the rifle round has enough energy to cause tissues to stretch beyond the point where they can't bounce back to normal (in other words, meeting the "blow your shit apart" velocity threshold, or what some may call "hydrostatic shock").

>>619275

tiny bullets going super fast does have one advantage, armor penetration. That is why the 5.7x28 exists.

a hot .357 would deal more damage on a soft body target but would lose to a .223 to an armored target.

obviously the solution is 7.62 nato

>>619259

>9mm shill

9mm shills love to say "all handguns are weak, therefore 9mm is best" because they absolutely have nothing else to support their pet round, because they know it's weak, so they pull this non-argument out their ass to try and feel better about their mistake.

Sure, compared to a .308, .357 magnum is weak, but compared to 9mm, .357 magnum is way more powerful/energetic and therefore effective.

the only way you can say that it's not is to arbitrarily cherry-pick a certain velocity threshold at which physics no longer apply because "that's the low velocity that supports my non-argument" and you still end up looking like a self-serving dumbass.

Physics doesn't cease to exist just because your round is obsolete, sorry.

>>619261

no, .223 has way more energy, 223 5.56 is more effective.

granted, hot .357 magnum is going to drop you anyway, but 5.56 would be even more devastating to the target.

EVERYTHING in the gun world is about energy. Why? Ever heard of physics?

9mm SUCKS

>>619308

I didn't even mention 9mm. And I agreed with you. I was just saying I understood what he meant in that context (which was regarding the effect of barrel length on Jamar-killing.)

>>619309

You don't seem to know how to read more than one post back. I know that .223 is more effective. I was asking the other guy if HE would choose the .357 over the .223 since he argued that momentum is more important than energy.

>>619311

>more than one post back

no, I didn't, because much of this thread is nonsense because there's these faggots that won't admit that the whole reason why firearms are effective in the first place regardless of caliber is because the technology implemented scientifically manipulates the laws of physics to work in our favor for the specific purpose of destroying an enemy, and the driving ultimate rule behind all physics (and chemistry) is energy. Therefore, the most energetic round is the most effective round. THAT'S WHY THESE STUPID FUCKING IDIOTS ARE FORCED TO ADMIT RIFLE ROUNDS ARE THEMSELVES MORE EFFECTIVE.

now this is where they try to back track and retcon reality in their favor, they'll arbitrarily choose a certain velocity threshold and say "at this point all rounds below it no longer implement hydrostatic shock and therefore energy is meaningless," but it's purely an arbitrary cherry-pick, and they know it. That's why they endlessly parrot the "muh rifle" bullshit and never go further.

The truth is that energy NEVER just fucking goes away all of a sudden, it is always happening, but that's what these idiots want you to think, that physics suddenly stops applying to the natural world when their pet round goes obsolete.

FUCK 9mm faggots, they're fudd idiots that deliberately ignore physics and mathematics because not doing so would cause them to have an existential crisis. Get a fucking job so you can afford to shoot a real gun.

>>619311

>>619312

You ever hear the phrase, "a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing"? The Internet being freely available means that it applies to any layman looking up a subject on their own. People can make a few searches, learn that energy isn't the only thing that determines effectiveness, and then jump to the conclusion that energy doesn't matter. Carrying on about momentum somehow superseding energy is one of the worse offenses, as momentum is quite literally a derivation from energy.

<more than one post back

>no, I didn't

I get that retards being retards is annoying, but you have to at least read the posts of the guy to whom you're replying.

>>619261

Now we are talking barrel lengths! If you actually look at real world ballistics reports in terms of velocity and barrel length, the 357 Magnum and 223 are actually almost 'brothers" of a sort. In a 20 inch barrel the strong 357 Magnum averages around 1,200 ft. lbs. of energy at the muzzle, about the same if a little less than a 223 of the same barrel length. Shoot a 223 out of a 7 inch barrel and how close is it to a longer barrel 357 Magnum? Not quite perfect parrellel, but roughly close with the right barrels.

At close range a 357 Magnum out of a 20 inch barrel will outdamage a 223 out of a 20 inch barrel. A meme gun 7 inch barrel 223 ain't much, if actually vastly inferior, to a 8 3/8 or even my 6 1/2 inch barrel revolver in 357 Magnum. A mare's leg lever gun with no cylinder gap would do even better depending on final barrel length of similar lengths. It comes down to the fact that the bigger caliber, flatter faced bullets, and the efficiency of the entire caliber considered give 357 Magnum an advantage in close range damage capability.

223's advantages are in flat shooting to longer ranges, weight savings, better soft armor penetration. To be honest, a 20 inch barrel 223 can cause some capable damage, just that it can't beat other calibers of the same barrel length with similar energies. An M-16 or AR with 20 inch barrel is better than a 357 Magnum in 2 inch snubnose.

Also on the point of barrel length once again, how many of you have practiced in low light? I've been doing some because I'm on my own property for years, muzzle flash is one thing in a nice lit indoor range or outside during the brightness of the day. Shoot close to dark, or in dark, you will see exactly how much muzzle flash you really have. You quickly see the advantage of not only lower flash powder, but especially barrel length. Cut down the inches, increase the blinding nature of the muzzle flash. My PTR91 with ACOG now with lower mount, now the ACOG is in perfect axis and plane to blind the fuck out of you with muzzle flash using standard M80 ball. My other battle rifles are 21 and 22 inch, and there is a reason I use full size barrel for the model.

>>619313

Good!

get a Galco holster though, King Tuk

>>619027

Rather have 16 shots, over 8.

>>619366

lol, what a cuck. You only need one.

Pick one

>16 inch

>46 cm

>51 cm

>>619368

>you only need one

You have never gotten into a firefight. I hope to God you don't, until after you've grown past this delusion.

>5.56/.223 vs .357 Magnum

You seem to forgot that the have nearly the same base diameter, so their difference in capacity mostly comes from the different lenght. A 5.56 brass cut down to the proper length and then necked up to 9mm would be essentially the same as a rimless .357 Magnum. In theory you could even fire it from a .357 revolver with a moonclip.

http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/uploads/tdcc/tab-iv/357-magnum-en.pdf

http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/uploads/tdcc/tab-i/223-rem-170406-en.pdf

Also, something interesting:

http://quarryhs.co.uk/600mv2015num.pdf

>the wildcat 6.5-357” (.357 Magnum case necked down to .264”)

>For example, the 103gr HFB bullet fired from a 6.5mm TCU case in a 28” barrel delivered equal retained energy between ~650m and ~950m and a better trajectory as the 7.62 mm DM41 ball (24-25g cartridge) when fired from a 22” barrel, with a cartridge weight slightly less than 15g (6.7g bullet, 1.8g powder load and 6.2g for the case and primer). An extreme case (but quite impractical) was the small 6.5-357” cartridge (~13g cartridge, 57.4mm COAL) delivering (from a 28” barrel) the same energy as the 7.62mm DM41 when fired from a 16” barrel, between 650m and 950m.

>>619371

You actually are an American though, that's why you hide your flag.

>>619339

> I guess it's amazing if you just shoot for fun but if you oper8 there are more important factors than reducing the noise coming at you.

Actually, they were designed with opr8rs in mind. The idea is to direct all of the flash and noise towards the enemy so that he becomes more disoriented.

>>619375

Hm, i didn't think about it that way, kinda cool. Still, a flash hider can be better before you've given out your position or just at longer ranges.

>>619310

9mm is more effective than 10mm

>>619371

>implying not living in a land of niggers means you shouldn't have the most efficient means of defense

You juden sure do despise the nine. All the more reason for me to fire it towards you (in self-defense).

>>619316

see

>>619306

I was just trying to get the guy I was replying to to say that he thinks a .357 is universally more effective than a .223, which he did in

>>619275

and clarified that he assumed a .357 handgun vs. a .223 rifle in

>>619290

This segues me into a summary of my main argument in this post, which is that

>>619259

>more velocity/energy doesn't necessarily mean anything BY ITSELF

and

>>619263

>momentum doesn't mean anything BY ITSELF

On another note,

>>619312

Jesus Christ man, it's just bullets. Also

>technology implemented scientifically manipulates the laws of physics

This doesn't seem likely to me.

>the most energetic round is the most effective round

Also doesn't seem likely; however, I did argue that

>>619263

>energy will be a better predictor of wound volume that momentum

so I guess we kind of agree.

>>619316

>low light practice

Every chance I get. Paul Harrel has a video on low-flash/low-recoil ammo (sorry, I don't have the time to go find it right now). If I recall correctly, he drew mixed conclusions from his experience, but that video persuaded me to switch to low-flash ammo in all my defensive handguns. I still haven't decided on standard rounds for many of my defensive rifles and carbines, but I'm definitely take muzzle flash into account.

The difference really is night and day!

(sorry, I couldn't resist making that joke)

>>619382

10mm, .357 magnum, .357 SIG, 40 > 9mm

>>619382

Only on your wallet and for follow-up shots which is why I chose 9mm

>>619303

>I know what these words mean, but I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Jesus Christ how is that my fault.

>>619307

That's not really the case, the penetration equation works better with momentum than with energy. Problem is that people tend to leave out sectional density and bite, which are the other two components of penetration.

Newton worked this out before tanks were a thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_depth

>>619720

>Jesus Christ how is that my fault.

I'm just assuming you know less than I do about physics. "Perfect kinetic energy projectile" means nothing. Photons don't have anything to do with typical projectiles because of their complex behavior. "The perfect momentum projectile is one that's balanced exactly in terms of speed and mass" means even less than nothing.

Even if you're not wrong, you haven't made an actual argument for your point.

Your post was literally:

>equations for energy and momentum

>a perfect energy projectile would be a photon

>a perfect momentum projectile would be some other thing

>failed to explain why one is better than the other for some reason

>therefore momentum is more important

So please clarify, and don't be afraid to get as technical as you can.

Also, in that Wikipedia article, it's important that you read the whole thing:

"This approach only holds for a blunt impactor (no aerodynamical shape) and a target material with no fibres (no cohesion), at least not at the impactor's speed. This is usually true if the impactor's speed is much higher than the speed of sound within the target material. At such high velocities, most materials start to behave like a fluid. It is then important that the projectile stay in a compact shape during impact (no spreading)."

It's important to note, also, that the page lacks inline citations, so it's unclear which source each argument comes from or if it even comes from one of the sources at all. After skimming the sources, however, it seems that NONE of them would apply to a human target. In fact, the source from Young has en entire list of exclusions:

"The following are assumptions or limitations which apply to all the penetration equations:

1. The penetrator remains intact during penetration.

2. The penetrator follows a basically stable trajectory. (No large changes in direction, and no

tumbling or J-hook during penetration.)

3. The impact velocity is less than 4000 fps. In hard materials, the “intact penetrator”

assumption probably governs the upper allowable impact velocity. In soft materials, there is

no data at very high impact velocity for equation validation, so the upper limit on impact

velocity is not known.

4. When the penetration depth is less than about 3 calibers (penetrator diameters), the equations

may be questionable.

5. The equations are not valid for water or air penetration.

6. The equations are not applicable for armor penetration (eg, not for metals, ceramics or

materials other than those specifically listed).

7. Minimum penetrator weight: about five pounds for soil and ten pounds for rock, concrete,

ice and frozen soil.

8. The lower velocity limit of applicability has never been defined. In fact, limitation “4” above

is likely the more realistic lower velocity limit in most targets."

In other words, it doesn't apply to any bullets at all. Useless.

>>619423

not really

>>620199

yup. sorry.

>>620149

>I'm just assuming you know less than I do about physics.

Fucking wow.

1. The energy equation favors velocity over mass. If you increase velocity at expense of mass, it is BETTER in terms of kinetic energy. Ergo if you take that to its logical extreme, you're ending up with particle weapons.

2. Momentum equation does not favor velocity or mass, both much be in balance. This results in far more balanced projectiles, and more thought placed into how the projectile behaves downrange. Taken to its logical extreme you aren't getting some weird exotic weapon, you just have a well balanced bullet, therefore it's more realistic for rifle and bullet discussions.

I also went on to explain how momentum is more important in a lot of ballistic qualities, including penetration of cover, penetration of obstacles, resistance to deviation, and behavior in terminal phase of travel.

Which is highlighted by you complaining about this:

>if the impactor's speed is much higher than the speed of sound within the target material

Which for steel and ceramic is somewhere between 3.5 and 4 miles per second, while the fastest KEW (3VBM) barely break 1 mile per second. Meaning you've pushed the argument into fiction simply by sticking to Ek.

>newtons penetration equation assumptions

Um… hello… this was NEWTON. He didn't exist in the era of tanks or even rifles you moron, that equation is the basis for the equation we have today.

I went into the gun store looking for a Shield because I wanted a thumb safety. I couldn't stand the trigger and got a P365. Pricey but happy with it so far. Having a hard holster with high retention makes me feel safe while carrying with a round in the chamber. I thought I'd be nervous about it but that went away when I realized how hard it is to take the gun out of its holster without it being on my belt. I was nervous about it with other guns because I felt like there was a small chance the gun would come out. It has night sights which I didn't care for at first but they grew on me. I can see them glowing next to my bed. They're the only thing visible in my room at night. It's assuring to see them.

>>620478

>P365

Hope your firing pin doesn't break

>>620469

>1. The energy equation favors velocity over mass. If you increase velocity at expense of mass, it is BETTER in terms of kinetic energy. Ergo if you take that to its logical extreme, you're ending up with particle weapons.

>2. Momentum equation does not favor velocity or mass, both much be in balance. This results in far more balanced projectiles, and more thought placed into how the projectile behaves downrange. Taken to its logical extreme you aren't

Except that's bullshit, because it's all riding on the assumption that decreasing mass by a factor of x will increase velocity by the exact same proportion, and vice versa. This clearly doesn't happen, so the premise of your argument is false, and therefore the entire argument is worthless. Let us take two hypothetical projectiles, one with a large-mass bullet and one with a small-mass bullet. Assume they use the same powder charge, and assume the rear surface area of the bullet is the same in both. Neglect the force of friction. Let's put this in equation form:

>K=1/2(m1)(v1)^2; K=1/2(2m1)(v2)^2

Both equal K, therefore after dividing out the common terms we have:

>(m1)(v1)^2=(2m1)(v2)^2

>(v1)^2=2(v2)^2

>v1=sqrt(2)(v2)

As you can see, while mass varies by a factor of 2, velocity varies by a factor of sqrt(2). The trade-off between the two is not one-to-one, therefore your entire premise about the equation "favoring" velocity over mass is bullshit.

Further, momentum is quite literally the derivative of kinetic energy, the two are intrinsically related. Suggesting one is "better" than the other for measuring effectiveness is ignorant at best and duplicitous at worst.

>>620515

That's been addressed. Any gun can break. It's important to shoot a carry gun regularly and to keep it maintained.

>>620517

>Both equal K

Did you flunk out of grade school? K is a variable and its different for both of those equations.

And why do you have initial and final velocity there if you're just comparing equations? Why is it initial in one and final in the other?

This boggles the mind.

>>620575

Keep a close eye on that p365 and do inspections regularly.

I love my p229 and p320, but it's true that Sig has had problems with their new guns.

>>620584

>Did you flunk out of grade school? K is a variable and its different for both of those equations.

Learn reading comprehension:

>Assume they use the same powder charge

Conservation of energy demands that an equivalent powder charge will transfer equivalent amounts of energy to either projectile.

>initial and final velocity

Seriously, learn reading comprehension.

>>620584

In his example, he's defining the following:

m1 = mass of the small-mass bullet

2m1 is 2*m1 = mass of the large-mass bullet

v1 = velocity of the small-mass bullet

v2 = velocity of the large-mass bullet

The lack of subscript text makes it look a little awkward and probably caused your confusion, but his work is sound. His conclusions are sound. He didn't even need to type out the equation for me to know exactly where he was going.

>>620469

>[velocity and mass] must be in balance

I'm still waiting to hear what the fuck this means. Yes, mass and velocity both "matter" equally in the equation for momentum. But how do you make the leap from "mass and velocity contribute equally to the momentum equation" to "therefore a bullet with more momentum is better"?

>a well balanced bullet

Again, you keep saying words that just don't make sense. There's no substance to what you're saying.

>that equation is the basis for the equation we have today

And what is that equation? What equation do "we" have that can reliably predict the penetration of a BULLET, with all its complex behavior as it spins, tumbles, expands, deforms, etc., in soft tissue?

Perhaps this would also be a good time to point out that my career is in physics… so you can stop intentionally dumbing down your arguments now. Hit me with the good stuff.

>>620272

except not really

>>620149

>I'm just assuming you know less than I do about physics.

>>620639

>Perhaps this would also be a good time to point out that my career is in physics…

This is how we get the F-35.

>>620713

>But then there should be a K1 and K2 because they wouldn't be equal

Except the small matter of the two BEING SET EQUAL, you tard. I specified as much because this entire calculation is meaningless without comparing equivalent amounts of kinetic energy.

>Where the square root would cancel out the square and both would cease to exist, he actually keeps the square root around

Except the square root canceling the square is EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS in those two steps you quoted. Do you just not know how to read? Start with

<(v1)^2=2(v2)^2

Taking the square root of the left nets you sqrt((v1)^2), equal to v1. Taking the square root of the right nets you sqrt(2(v2)^2), equal to sqrt(2)*sqrt((v2)^2), in turn equal to sqrt(2)(v2). Putting those two together gives you

<v1=sqrt(2)(v2)

And guess what? That's EXACTLY what I have written. If you still can't wrap your pretty little head around how that works plug the relation into your favorite symbolic calculator and see what it spits out for you. Jesus Christ, how retarded can one person get?

>I'm saying if you're discussing bullets, especially CCW bullets like this thread is, it's more useful to use momentum than energy as a measuring stick

And your only justification for saying that is assuming that the tradeoff between an increase in mass and a decrease in velocity is one-to-one, when it's been shown to you that it very clearly isn't.

>You should also know what a penetration equation is

And you should know that any equation is only as useful as the assumptions binding it. And the assumptions are made for that equation as they are listed here: >>620149 show that it is functionally useless for a bullet impacting a human target.

>>620713

>Even in a screwed up equation he manages to make blunders like

>>(v1)^2=2(v2)^2

>>v1=sqrt(2)(v2)

>Where the square root would cancel out the square and both would cease to exist, he actually keeps the square root around.

This must be bait??? I'll bite anyhow…

If you know jack shit about algebra it doesn't mean he is making "blunders", it means you know jack shit about algebra.

Basic algebra:

(AxB)^2 = A^2 x B^2

So taking the square root:

sqrt( (AxB)^2 ) = sqrt(A^2) x sqrt(B^2)

(AxB) = A x B

So for (v1)^2=2(v2)^2 taking the sqrt gives

(v1) = sqrt(2) x (v2)

>>620720

If both velocity and kinetic energy are constant, how can mass vary?

>>621408

This idiot is placing numbers where they shouldn't be because he imagines subscripts where none exist. I was reading the 2 as an indicator not an actual number. To this point I'm not sure what he meant to do there, tradeoff doesn't have to be 1:1 for it to be a valid difference from the momentum equation.

>>621431

Velocity isn't held constant you mystery meat mongoloid, read the post again.

>>621431

You, sir, are the byproduct of a failing educational system, wherein students are expected to work on increasingly difficult concepts without having a solid understanding of the ideas behind them.

As the derivative of the kinetic energy equation, the momentum equation simply describes the slope of the kinetic energy graph at one particular point. This is a bit of an oversimplification, but still, momentum just shows us what's happening to kinetic energy as we vary mass or velocity.

In the gentleman's equation, there are two different projectiles. One of those projectiles has a mass of m1 and the other is twice as heavy (2m1 or [2*m1]). What he's trying to find out is: how is velocity affected as we vary projectile weight but use the same powder charge?

As it turns out, just a little bit of added weight means a whole lot of lost velocity. This matters because if we apply your unique brand of logic to this situation, we conclude that momentum actually "favors" mass.

Your argument just doesn't make any sense. Even if I thought you were correct and that chasing higher momentum numbers is the really the key to making people more deader, you haven't made a good argument for that being the case.

>>621858

>As the derivative of the kinetic energy

Fucking this, I've already said it more than once in the thread. You don't even need to understand physics at a fundamental level to see it, it's the goddamn power rule.