Damn, this salsa is spicy.

I think the reason I busted a nut laughing is because it was flat on top. Like they had compacted as much into the glass as possible.

We didn't pay for it, at least. The 20-year-old waitress had no idea what we were complaining about either, since frozen = ice. Frozen margarita must = ice then, logically.
 
Sarcasmo said:
Only sensible thing? :confused:

Half the people I know carry .40s or .45s. It's all about the holster and location. Always carry the biggest caliber you can shoot well. Elementary carry rule. (At least in Texas)
Click to expand...

Half the people you know are wrong. There, I said it.
 
Sarcasmo said:
You ARE kinda small though. :fly:
Click to expand...

There isn't anything a .40, and for that matter perhaps even a .45, can do that a 9mm +P JHP defense round can't. With 9mm you get better capacity, less expense when training, and (in most case) better reliability. My brain pretty much refuses to acknowledge that Glock makes anything other than the 17,18,19, 26, and 34.
 
Last edited:
Sarcasmo said:
I think the reason I busted a nut laughing is because it was flat on top. Like they had compacted as much into the glass as possible.

We didn't pay for it, at least. The 20-year-old waitress had no idea what we were complaining about either, since frozen = ice. Frozen margarita must = ice then, logically.
Click to expand...

You should've asked for a hammer and chisel :fly:
 
It's more an issue of weapon heft with me, though 9mm +P rounds will probably do less consistent damage than a good, high grain .45 load simply due to the mass differential.
 
Makes sense intuitively, but intuition lies unless you took physics. Bullets penetrate, they dont transfer much energy because they are mostly passing through. Air, skin, muscle, brains, it doesnt make a huge difference. Hydraulic pressure also plays a minimal role at the handgun level, the so called "hydrostatic shock" theory.

It's a handgun, it's never going to be as good as a rifle when it comes to terminal ballistics. Shot placement and number is the best measure of real tissue damage. Wound channels of a .45 and a 9mm arent signficantly different except in regards to depth. If you picked some number like 10% more wounding potential from a .45, the ability to put 11 extra shots on target from a 9mm would make it 330% more effective, per magazine.
 
The terminal wounding effects of firearms is caused mostly by the speed and fragmentation of the projectile once it enters the body. This is why we still use 5.56NATO super hot loaded. Speed causes fragmentation and the formation of temporary cavities in soft tissue. Temporary cavities are the big deal, they tear up nerves, organs, blood vessels. Your ribcage provides a little protection from the most damaging characteristics, and you dont have organs in your extremities. Getting shot in the stomach with an M16 is all she wrote, bowels burst, fragments just about always end up tear apart your lungs, liver, and your abdominal aorta is almost always cut to confetti.

We know how to kill each other so well it's almost scary sometimes.

For more info http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=martin+fackler&btnG=Search
 
ZRH said:
Makes sense intuitively, but intuition lies unless you took physics. Bullets penetrate, they dont transfer much energy because they are mostly passing through. Air, skin, muscle, brains, it doesnt make a huge difference. Hydraulic pressure also plays a minimal role at the handgun level, the so called "hydrostatic shock" theory.

It's a handgun, it's never going to be as good as a rifle when it comes to terminal ballistics. Shot placement and number is the best measure of real tissue damage. Wound channels of a .45 and a 9mm arent signficantly different except in regards to depth. If you picked some number like 10% more wounding potential from a .45, the ability to put 11 extra shots on target from a 9mm would make it 330% more effective, per magazine.
Click to expand...

Meh, you can't arbitrarily assign numbers and percentages like that anyway. Different loads give different results. Obviously. I've yet to see any 9mm round outperform a mid-200 grain .45 round though in terms of punch. But then I've shot way more .45s than I have 9mm. By about a 200-to-1 ratio. I've shot .45s all my life whereas I only started shooting 9mms in my early 20s. I suspect Knyte's experience is the opposite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back