Speak for yourself, Nancy.
Marshall & Sannows "one shot stop" study is inherently flawed, as it does not include any incident where more than one shot was fired, regardless of hit percentages. It also doesn't take shot placement into account.
Thus it ignores the vast majority of ballistic data, and is not viable for most real world shootings.
The OPs question is about 10mm and 45, both of which have great track records. If he wants an autoloader, then thats what he should get.
I have a 40 s&m and I shoot 180 grain. Works great, no jams and plenty of punch and $20.00 a box. Cant beat it.
To ignore the only real study of real world performance of cartridges in actual shootings is foolish. Yes, the studies have some flaws, but they are still an important piece of data to be evaluated, along with other available information. And he also asked about best stopping power... which isn't found in a semi-auto cartridge. :P
.40 S&M, huh....
For the perverted gun owners
.40 S&M, huh....
For the perverted gun owners
To ignore the only real study of real world performance of cartridges in actual shootings is foolish. Yes, the studies have some flaws, but they are still an important piece of data to be evaluated, :P
It's not data. In order to be data, it has to be collected in a systematic and consistent way.
M&S's work is a collection of anecdotes. It's like saying "95% of the guys at the gun store say 10mm is better." Just because it's a number doesn't make it meaningful data.
You'll note that the modern gel testing results are based, in part, on real world shootings. They've compared their testing processes to real world shootings to make sure there is a correlation. A vital step that was overlooked for too long.
I don't have a dog in either fight, though I have read the criticisms of both studies.
My biggest problem with M&S is the fact that It willfully chooses to ignore many of the most important factors in a shooting, such as shot placement, in favor of some magic number (which is apparently "1"). M&S state that all of the one shot incidents were "hits to the torso". Hit to the torso could be anything from a shoulder, to the heart, the gut, or it could pass harmlessly between the organs. Its just too broad of a criterion to determine if any real damage was done, regardless of caliber.
I don't have a dog in either fight, though I have read the criticisms of both studies.
My biggest problem with M&S is the fact that It willfully chooses to ignore many of the most important factors in a shooting, such as shot placement, in favor of some magic number (which is apparently "1"). M&S state that all of the one shot incidents were "hits to the torso". Hit to the torso could be anything from a shoulder, to the heart, the gut, or it could pass harmlessly between the organs. Its just too broad of a criterion to determine if any real damage was done, regardless of caliber.
Congrats Brian! The XD-45 has a great reputation. It should serve you well.Thanks for all the input guys, I went to the Indy 1500 yesterday and made my decision, I went with an XD-45. I am very impressed with it so far. Hopefully it stays that way.
In all fairness Joe If the shot doesn't do any damage then how is it going to stop the attacker? What you said is all well and good, but in reality, the shot MUST do significant damage in order to physically stop your aggressor. The only other way the attacker will stop is if the presence of the gun or physical resistance are enough to stop the attacker psychologically. If thats the case, then not only was the attacker not committed to his attack, but literally any real firearm would have done the trick.in a self defense scenario, we don't care how much damage was done, or even if any real damage was done. All we care about is what the studies address: Does the bad guy stop attacking?