BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
I'm not arguing energy to be the only deciding factor here for the record. There are many factors that will influence a bullets effectiveness as I stated in one of my previous posts, and you do need to look at all of them.
however, it certainly is a very good starting point.
again, were talking bullets vs bullets here. Not arrows vs bullets. Lets try to keep this a heads up comparison and not apples and oranges. And if you're comparing say hst .40 to hst .45, ballistic gel tests have proven that .40 is just as effective.
Handgun Ammo Gel Penetration - Kobalt's Place - Gallery - ASMDSS
and for the record, I skip on 9mm because I don't think it's an effective enough round.
At this point, I'm not sure even you know what you're arguing for. You do list other factors, but go on to say that energy is the most common measure of a caliber's effectiveness. You specifically say "energy is what matters in the end", minimizing those factors.
Now you're saying energy is still a good place to start but then immediately reference ballistic gel tests? How does that even jive?
Ok, show us how muzzle energy matters. Explain why its a good measure as to the effectiveness of a handgun caliber. Explain how the chart you linked has the 'strongest' cartridge having 25% more muzzle energy than the 'weakest', yet all obtain similar results (and the 'strongest' is one of the worst penetrators).
Explain to us why you think the .40 is effective because its proven to be just as good as the .45 in ballistic tests, yet the 9mm is an ineffective cartridge even though in the same chart you just linked to, its also just as good as the .45 in ballistic tests?