On Mar 29, 9:26 am, Jay Maynard
wrote:

One need look no farther than the IPSC power factor calculation. Typically,
it's around 120 to 125 for 9mm Parabellum, and upwards of 170 for .40 S&W.
I'll happily trade one or two rounds for that kind of increase in power. To
me, .40 S&W represents the best tradeoff between power and capacity.

You are confusing "power" with "ability to stop an assailant."

If all we wanted was "power," a 20 lb sledgehammer swung rapidly would
do quite nicely.

But sledgehammers are hard to conceal, don't provide very quick follow
ups, and have a very limited range.

The IPSC is biased towards the .45, thus the "power factor"
requirement. That's fine -- they can set any parameters they want --
IPSC is a game -- but don't take that requirement as an absolute
definition of effectiveness.

It isn't.

Read the FBI report which argues this point quite well:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

Sadly, the 9mm has proven its effectiveness on many, many occasions.
The V Tech shooter killed 32 people with a .22-caliber Walther P22 and
a 9 mm semi-automatic Glock 19.

What drove the FBI, DEA, ICE, SF, and other LE and Military
communities to bigger, faster cartridges was the requirement to shoot
through glass, car doors, etc and to take down perps high on PCP,
Meth, etc.

If those situations are in your mission profile, get something big and
fast.

But MOST civilians don't have this threat as part of their normal
lives.

Thus what really matters is your mission profile -- your own
capabilities, your exposure, your risks, your local jursidiction
requirements, etc.

Define that, THEN make your choice of weapon.


Dan Mc