Even the largely brain-dead liberals think that the proposed ban on M855 is really stupid, although not for the same reasons that you and I might suggest. This from one of HuffPo's dogs:
The fact is that shortages of this type affecting America's gun owners begets a powerful political unhappiness that no opposing lobbying or spinning can quell. It is a well-known phenomenon that every candidate must include in their electability calculus.
It deserves repeating. Banning this type of ammunition, the BATFE will affect the sporting use ecosystem of the AR-15 rifle and its owners who vote for at least two to three years. The true policy question should be, is such an inconvenience or encumbrance as I'm sure it will be called as it is politicized worthwhile?
In other word, only an obsessive gun-hater and "fundamentalist transformer" like Barack HUSSEIN Obama would bone the Dems like this. The hell with all of them.
Interesting piece from my old friend Ken Hackathorn, as quoted on AmmoLand:
After all these years, it is my belief that a .45 round is about 10% better than a 9X19mm...ball round vs ball round or JHP vs JHP. Ten percent isn’t much unless your life is at stake–then it is a whole lot. On the other hand, if you told me that I have to carry a 9X19mm pistol, I’m not going to throw a hissy fit. A nine will work just fine if you can place the round where it needs to be. It is not the number of shots fired, or the splits between the shots fired that matters (anytime I hear some talk about ‘splits’, I push the delete button on them...splits don’t mean shit in the real world). While all of us would choose a gun that holds more bullets, how often does round capacity really matter in the real world? If you miss a lot, then high capacity handguns are a great choice. Remember, shootings and gunfights are generally won by those that hit their targets with accurate shots.
Ken is quite literally as good as there is. Pay attention!
9 comments:
HEY!! A caliber debate over "about 10%"!
{{Yawn}}...
And then he states that, "if could only have 1 gun it would be a Glock 19."
No disrespect to KH but that whole 'article' is bipolar. Did some editor chop the daylights out of it?
I have the utmost respect for Ken Hackathorn also, but....
He falls into the same rut that we all have a tendency to fall into. He uses the word "belief" in the same sentence with "10%". "Belief" includes being wrong. "10%" indicates some degree of precision. What is the expected variability if we were to measure "belief". Instead, I would rather stick to data. Both calibers are effective. How effective? The data seems to actually reflect equality, if we consider the now near infinite sampling.
The moral to my story? I carry both calibers. I pick the gun to suit the application, which often is dictated by "fashion".
Life Member
Math time: I've heard that pistol calibers are poor stoppers and that data suggests it takes somewhere around 2.5 hits (regardless of the cartridge) to end an assault. Since I can't fire half a shot we'll call it 3. Then also considering that the police tend to miss about half their shots under stress (and after seeing some of the road side stop videos, I can understand why). So applying both averages, it may likely require 6 shots per assailant. The chances that there might be more than one assailant are high enough that I want to be prepared for it which mandates at least 12 rounds. So while I like .45's also, double stack 9mm's are the easiest way to accomplish that.
MB if you are going all the way to NZ sure hope to hell you are going to plan on an Austrailian wild water buff hunt in the Northern Territory.
The owner of "Target Sports" in Michigan just told Frank Beckman on the Frank Beckman Radio Show on WJR 760 AM that "He couldn't care less if they banned the M855 steel core rounds".
"When they came for the....." You know the rest.
Life Member
Ken's an experienced, well-read dude, and having grown up sitting at Col. Cooper's feet, figuratively, calibers starting with a "4" are comforting. My oldest boy, who tends to take an idea and run off a cliff with it, fantasizes on a Bren Ten in a Miami Vice rig, w/two mags on the belt, as well as the offside of the holster. That's a lot of 10mm.
Ken's an experienced, well-read dude, and having grown up sitting at Col. Cooper's feet, figuratively, calibers starting with a "4" are comforting. My oldest boy, who tends to take an idea and run off a cliff with it, fantasizes on a Bren Ten in a Miami Vice rig, w/two mags on the belt, as well as the offside of the holster. That's a lot of 10mm.
As to the M-855 mess, if these statist fools push this hard enough, there will be a fair amount of 5.56 available--- in the mag pouches of their bully-boyz corpses. A method of aquiring ammo I'd rather not see....
Hackathorn has certainly been around the block a few times, but like a lot of old-school types, perhaps hasn't updated his beliefs to change with the times. As mentioned, there isn't a whole lot of empirical evidence showing a clear advantage of .45 over 9mm - but a lot of people do shoot the 9mm more accurately (cheaper to practice, less recoil). So, getting better hits with a marginally worse (perhaps) caliber seems to answer Ken's premise quite well.
Now, add to the mix that there's a non-zero probability that you may find yourself in a multiple assailant situation - not one or two, but perhaps quite a few more. High capacity is then critical.
I prefer the .45 ACP myself, and often carry either an XDs or a Para Tac Four (15 rounds, .45) depending on the social situation. Heading into the rural grocery store nearby - pocket carry the XDs. Heading to the big city mall or downtown Seattle? High cap with an extra mag.
Would I feel undergunned with 9mm in the same situations? Not with modern ammo.
While in NZ, try to get in some fresh-water fishing.OldeForce
Post a Comment