I don't know, because I don't know what Kimber's and Para's are selling for. When I looked at Baer's, the model I was interested in was the Premier. It cost about $1200 wholesale but that's been several years ago.
Which revolver/pistol?
- Thread starter knucklehead
- Start date
- Views: 9261
TresCrows
Elite Member
Well, yes, little better than a "sharp stick", if we are talking about large and dangerous or at least dangerous critters (rabid gophers) that might be encountered at close range, grizzly, large bears, moose, alligators (did you see the 19 footer) then shooting one of these would not likely stop it until after it had killed you. In such as case you might as well have had a sharp stick, while an exaggeration of sorts, I want something no less than a 454Casull or a 50 caliber such as Rugers new 50 cal cartridge or such as that, a 38Special, a 9MM, a 45Auto, a 45Colt, a 357Mag or even a 44Mag would not reliably stop some of the named critters if enraged and determined at close range while being charged. Defending against people is a different subject and one I am not going to discuss, but y'all feel free to, I was only referring to dangerous animals and even there if possible I would rather flee than kill. J
Egon
Epic Contributor
Fellows:
If you are real serious about stopping power with a short gun perhaps look into some of the bolt action custom versions that will handle the large Weatherby calibers or even the lowly Winchester .338. They are out there and there are clubs that do long distance shooting with them.
Egon
If you are real serious about stopping power with a short gun perhaps look into some of the bolt action custom versions that will handle the large Weatherby calibers or even the lowly Winchester .338. They are out there and there are clubs that do long distance shooting with them.
Egon
k8ny
Silver Member
I was referring to the 2 legged type of 'predator'. I prefer the the LW Commander for its light weight, compactness (shorter barrel but not as short as the combat commander or officer's model), good accuracy almost as a good as the full size and last, the round itself.
Granted, if you look at the ballistics on the .45 ACP it can be a bit lacking in the muzzle velocity as well as the muzzle energy departments, so let's not kid ourselves here. However, for tight situations in possibly populated areas the less powerful round is just what is needed for hits and penetration and 'sticking' power.
Just my opinion.
Bob
PS Not recommended for animal protection, TresCrows points are well taken.
Granted, if you look at the ballistics on the .45 ACP it can be a bit lacking in the muzzle velocity as well as the muzzle energy departments, so let's not kid ourselves here. However, for tight situations in possibly populated areas the less powerful round is just what is needed for hits and penetration and 'sticking' power.
Just my opinion.
Bob
PS Not recommended for animal protection, TresCrows points are well taken.
<font color=blue>Well, yes, little better than a "sharp stick"...while an exaggeration of sorts
I want something no less than a ....</font color=blue>
I concur on the bigger/better comment for dangerous game. (I wouldn't want to go against a gator with a handgun anyway!) Didn't mean to imply otherwise. My point was that a .45 ACP would be far superior in such a situation than a .25, .32, .380 etc. even if it isn't the preferable piece.
I want something no less than a ....</font color=blue>
I concur on the bigger/better comment for dangerous game. (I wouldn't want to go against a gator with a handgun anyway!) Didn't mean to imply otherwise. My point was that a .45 ACP would be far superior in such a situation than a .25, .32, .380 etc. even if it isn't the preferable piece.
Buster57
Platinum Member
The energy transfer is what will kill an animal. The amount of energy the body absorbs. A 44 mag at close range may go right thru a target while a 45 may enter and transfer all the energy to the target area.
This is what my neighbor told me. He is a retired Army surgeon with combat experience.
He knows more then I do about the topic.
This is what my neighbor told me. He is a retired Army surgeon with combat experience.
He knows more then I do about the topic.
<font color=blue>This is what my neighbor told me. He is a retired Army surgeon with combat experience.
He knows more then I do about the topic. </font color=blue>
Your friend is right. Energy transfer is critical when hunting. You may drop a deer with one shot from a "lower powered" cartridge where he (assuming a buck /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif) runs off after being hit with a "Monster Magnum" and dies a long time/long distance later for just that reason. (I'm not "badmouthing magnums", just pointing out that they don't guarantee success on a hunt.)
Basically the higher the projectile/target energy transfer, the more tissue damage occurs, which increases the probability of affecting a vital organ in "bucky." Shot placement is still critical (even with 100% energy transfer, if you hit "bucky" in the hoof, he ain't gonna "drop like a stone.") Energy transfer is one of the issues bullet manufacturers pursue with great zeal, hence all the different designs to "build a better mousetrap."
He knows more then I do about the topic. </font color=blue>
Your friend is right. Energy transfer is critical when hunting. You may drop a deer with one shot from a "lower powered" cartridge where he (assuming a buck /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif) runs off after being hit with a "Monster Magnum" and dies a long time/long distance later for just that reason. (I'm not "badmouthing magnums", just pointing out that they don't guarantee success on a hunt.)
Basically the higher the projectile/target energy transfer, the more tissue damage occurs, which increases the probability of affecting a vital organ in "bucky." Shot placement is still critical (even with 100% energy transfer, if you hit "bucky" in the hoof, he ain't gonna "drop like a stone.") Energy transfer is one of the issues bullet manufacturers pursue with great zeal, hence all the different designs to "build a better mousetrap."
Mmmmmmm....going to have to disagree about 'energy transfer' being what kills animals. If it was, the .22-250 Remington (1625 ft-lb) would be on a par with a .45-70 (1597 ft-lb) on game--it isn't.
Maximum permanent wound channel is the ticket. Penetration is good. That's about all you can ask of a pistol bullet is to penetrate; caliber supplies the diameter of the wound channel, penetration supplies the length.
A 'sharp stick', could be far more effective than ANY pistol cartridge if you jam the base end in the ground and let the charging critter impale himself upon it.
Maximum permanent wound channel is the ticket. Penetration is good. That's about all you can ask of a pistol bullet is to penetrate; caliber supplies the diameter of the wound channel, penetration supplies the length.
A 'sharp stick', could be far more effective than ANY pistol cartridge if you jam the base end in the ground and let the charging critter impale himself upon it.
cp1969 -
I understand your "wound channel" comment, (even was going to put something about that in my original post - didn't want to start another "discussion" on ballistic gelatin examples though since it is almost as controversial as Gear vs. HST /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif). That being said, if you re-read my post I think you'll see that we're on the same page essentially. (That's always the danger with over simplification in these areas since there are so many nuances and "factors" that apply.)
I said, <font color=red>Basically the higher the projectile/target energy transfer, the more tissue damage occurs, which increases the probability of affecting a vital organ in "bucky." </font color=red>
Ok, if all the energy is expended in the outermost area of the animal (skin and outside layers of muscle tissue) and none of the vitals are affected, 1) yes, you have very effective energy transfer, but 2) the animal does not go down. Unfortunately I was assuming "appropriate" penetration in my example but didn't explicitly state it. (Penetration is good - but only to a point as over penetration results in "wasted energy" and doesn't enhance the size of the wound channel)
Bullet energy/target transfer, assuming appropriate penetration, directly impacts the size of the wound channel, and therefore the probability of affecting a vital organ. Penetration is important, but so is energy transfer as they go hand-in-hand in creating "more tissue damage" (i.e. wound channel). So, again, I think we're on the same page on this one.
<font color=blue>That's about all you can ask of a pistol bullet is to penetrate; caliber supplies the diameter of the wound channel</font color=blue>
Well, kindof. The "caliber" of the bullet, during & after expansion, is what matters. A .45 cal bullet that stays .45 cal through the target is not as desirable as a .44 cal bullet that, say, expands 20% on impact. So, I "do ask more" from the bullets I shoot I suppose. Who hunts with FMJ? (ok, if you are going after pelts, but that's an exception) SP, HP, SWC, even WC are all generally preferable, depending on the cartridge being used (yes, yes, another "simplification" - /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif)
The entire function of expansion 1) reduces penetration, 2) increases energy transfer, and 3) increases tissue destruction (or wound channel per se). You have to have enough energy to achieve "appropriate" penetration, but if you have ineffective energy transfer, you're wound channel is going to be more like an "ice pick" wound - potentially lethal, but hardly appropriate for most hunting. Basically I'm saying "balance" is the key. Yes, you must have both energy transfer and penetration to achieve the desired results.
<font color=blue>A 'sharp stick', could be far more effective than ANY pistol cartridge if you jam the base end in the ground and let the charging critter impale himself upon it.</font color=blue>
I'll agree with the "could" part. I think I'll stick with the gun though.../w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
I understand your "wound channel" comment, (even was going to put something about that in my original post - didn't want to start another "discussion" on ballistic gelatin examples though since it is almost as controversial as Gear vs. HST /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif). That being said, if you re-read my post I think you'll see that we're on the same page essentially. (That's always the danger with over simplification in these areas since there are so many nuances and "factors" that apply.)
I said, <font color=red>Basically the higher the projectile/target energy transfer, the more tissue damage occurs, which increases the probability of affecting a vital organ in "bucky." </font color=red>
Ok, if all the energy is expended in the outermost area of the animal (skin and outside layers of muscle tissue) and none of the vitals are affected, 1) yes, you have very effective energy transfer, but 2) the animal does not go down. Unfortunately I was assuming "appropriate" penetration in my example but didn't explicitly state it. (Penetration is good - but only to a point as over penetration results in "wasted energy" and doesn't enhance the size of the wound channel)
Bullet energy/target transfer, assuming appropriate penetration, directly impacts the size of the wound channel, and therefore the probability of affecting a vital organ. Penetration is important, but so is energy transfer as they go hand-in-hand in creating "more tissue damage" (i.e. wound channel). So, again, I think we're on the same page on this one.
<font color=blue>That's about all you can ask of a pistol bullet is to penetrate; caliber supplies the diameter of the wound channel</font color=blue>
Well, kindof. The "caliber" of the bullet, during & after expansion, is what matters. A .45 cal bullet that stays .45 cal through the target is not as desirable as a .44 cal bullet that, say, expands 20% on impact. So, I "do ask more" from the bullets I shoot I suppose. Who hunts with FMJ? (ok, if you are going after pelts, but that's an exception) SP, HP, SWC, even WC are all generally preferable, depending on the cartridge being used (yes, yes, another "simplification" - /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif)
The entire function of expansion 1) reduces penetration, 2) increases energy transfer, and 3) increases tissue destruction (or wound channel per se). You have to have enough energy to achieve "appropriate" penetration, but if you have ineffective energy transfer, you're wound channel is going to be more like an "ice pick" wound - potentially lethal, but hardly appropriate for most hunting. Basically I'm saying "balance" is the key. Yes, you must have both energy transfer and penetration to achieve the desired results.
<font color=blue>A 'sharp stick', could be far more effective than ANY pistol cartridge if you jam the base end in the ground and let the charging critter impale himself upon it.</font color=blue>
I'll agree with the "could" part. I think I'll stick with the gun though.../w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
I think we're basically on the same page, but there really are two camps on this issue. Most people subscribe to the 'expanding bullet/energy transfer" theory. I tend to go for "caliber and penetration", especially regarding handguns.
I want no part of an expanding bullet in a handgun. That's why we start with .44 or .45--it's always that caliber no matter the impact range. I also want complete penetration. That way the length of the permanent wound channel is as long as it can possibly be. The reason for this is that in a handgun (as pertaining to the situation at hand, namely stopping an aggressive target) there is no "stopping power" (aka hydraulic shock) such as there is with a rifle. It takes impact velocities on the order of 2000 fps to initiate hydraulic shock, and no handgun in my inventory will achieve anything close to that. Therefore, to "stop" anything, something vital HAS to be hit, such as the brain or spinal column. Maximum penetration gives the maximum opportunity for this to happen. Energy expended on the trees or dirt after exiting is fine with me because the bullet will have done all that I asked it to do--cut a .45 caliber sized hole all the way through. If I managed to hit something in the central nervous system, I will have stopped the beast. If not, it will probably croak after eating me, but expanding bullets will not change that.
Hydraulic shock can product some tremendous temporary wound channels, and in fact, if the size of the temporary wound channel exceeds the size of the animal, the animal literally explodes. Can't get much better stopping power than that. But, on larger animals, where explosion isn't a possibility, the temporary wound channel simply closes back up, leaving only the permanent wound channel, which better be as deep as possible.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Notice that I am not claiming that I'm right and you're not--I don't know if that's true; I could very well be wrong. It's just my opinion, formed over my lifetime of shooting, and nothing more. How many charges have I withstood? None, nor do I expect to ever be in a position to. I have, however, personally witnessed and experienced myself many spectacular and unexplained expanding-bullet failures, in both rifles and pistols, with hollowpoints being the worst offenders.
I want no part of an expanding bullet in a handgun. That's why we start with .44 or .45--it's always that caliber no matter the impact range. I also want complete penetration. That way the length of the permanent wound channel is as long as it can possibly be. The reason for this is that in a handgun (as pertaining to the situation at hand, namely stopping an aggressive target) there is no "stopping power" (aka hydraulic shock) such as there is with a rifle. It takes impact velocities on the order of 2000 fps to initiate hydraulic shock, and no handgun in my inventory will achieve anything close to that. Therefore, to "stop" anything, something vital HAS to be hit, such as the brain or spinal column. Maximum penetration gives the maximum opportunity for this to happen. Energy expended on the trees or dirt after exiting is fine with me because the bullet will have done all that I asked it to do--cut a .45 caliber sized hole all the way through. If I managed to hit something in the central nervous system, I will have stopped the beast. If not, it will probably croak after eating me, but expanding bullets will not change that.
Hydraulic shock can product some tremendous temporary wound channels, and in fact, if the size of the temporary wound channel exceeds the size of the animal, the animal literally explodes. Can't get much better stopping power than that. But, on larger animals, where explosion isn't a possibility, the temporary wound channel simply closes back up, leaving only the permanent wound channel, which better be as deep as possible.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Notice that I am not claiming that I'm right and you're not--I don't know if that's true; I could very well be wrong. It's just my opinion, formed over my lifetime of shooting, and nothing more. How many charges have I withstood? None, nor do I expect to ever be in a position to. I have, however, personally witnessed and experienced myself many spectacular and unexplained expanding-bullet failures, in both rifles and pistols, with hollowpoints being the worst offenders.