55 and 75grn

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I see it more of the other way around as well that 40 also failed after reading it all the way through. It was a case of complete failure on all counts. Expansion may take more than an inch but it still ment nothing. Quoted: I think you need to re-read the report, or get the full version.  The PowerPoint by the FBI tells the tale correctly.  No offense, but you have it backwards, .40 worked, .223 tap shit the bed for the most part.  I have this and shared it already, It was a PA Officer Involved shooting that the FBI reviewed, not the FBI doing the shooting.  Bullets fail!   Quoted: I have a PDF file of a gunfight 40 S&W vs 45acp vs 223 Perp had a .45.......he took several hits with the 40 (FBI) and several with a .223 TAP bullet.  TAP bullet crushed his ankle bone and pelvis...40 didn't do shit.  Penetrated only 1 inch except for his arm, where it broke the bone.  If you'll send me an email address, I'll send you the PDF.  PDF has morgue x-ray and photo.  It's not gory. Which TAP bullet was involved?   55 grain by responding SWAT, 75 grain by patrol. Scott

the PDF says 55gr Hornady TAP ballistic tip and 72gr Hornady TAP hollow points.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I see it more of the other way around as well that 40 also failed after reading it all the way through. It was a case of complete failure on all counts. Expansion may take more than an inch but it still ment nothing. Quoted: I think you need to re-read the report, or get the full version.  The PowerPoint by the FBI tells the tale correctly.  No offense, but you have it backwards, .40 worked, .223 tap shit the bed for the most part.  I have this and shared it already, It was a PA Officer Involved shooting that the FBI reviewed, not the FBI doing the shooting.  Bullets fail!   Quoted: I have a PDF file of a gunfight 40 S&W vs 45acp vs 223 Perp had a .45.......he took several hits with the 40 (FBI) and several with a .223 TAP bullet.  TAP bullet crushed his ankle bone and pelvis...40 didn't do shit.  Penetrated only 1 inch except for his arm, where it broke the bone.  If you'll send me an email address, I'll send you the PDF.  PDF has morgue x-ray and photo.  It's not gory. Which TAP bullet was involved?   55 grain by responding SWAT, 75 grain by patrol. Scott the PDF says 55gr Hornady TAP ballistic tip and 72gr Hornady TAP hollow points.

Yes, on page 7 of the PDF, but on page 3 it is listed as 75 grn.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I see it more of the other way around as well that 40 also failed after reading it all the way through. It was a case of complete failure on all counts. Expansion may take more than an inch but it still ment nothing. Quoted: I think you need to re-read the report, or get the full version.  The PowerPoint by the FBI tells the tale correctly.  No offense, but you have it backwards, .40 worked, .223 tap shit the bed for the most part.  I have this and shared it already, It was a PA Officer Involved shooting that the FBI reviewed, not the FBI doing the shooting.  Bullets fail!   Quoted: I have a PDF file of a gunfight 40 S&W vs 45acp vs 223 Perp had a .45.......he took several hits with the 40 (FBI) and several with a .223 TAP bullet.  TAP bullet crushed his ankle bone and pelvis...40 didn't do shit.  Penetrated only 1 inch except for his arm, where it broke the bone.  If you'll send me an email address, I'll send you the PDF.  PDF has morgue x-ray and photo.  It's not gory. Which TAP bullet was involved?   55 grain by responding SWAT, 75 grain by patrol. Scott the PDF says 55gr Hornady TAP ballistic tip and 72gr Hornady TAP hollow points.

No such animal, FBI report states a typo on the NTOA website by the poster.  PDF is NOT the full report.  75 grain for sure.
Scott

All,
• The following was posted on an NTOA blog last night:
• 3 officers were involved in a shooting this week. An ambush was set up for the officers prior to their
arrival, they took fire while still in their cruisers. One officer was hit in the forearm, another received
wounds to his forehead from a ricochet, another was injured (NFI). The suspect was armed with a .45
handgun. The officers were armed with Glock 22's and SPEER 180 gr. Gold Dot Hollow Points.
• Officers fired on the subject and hit him in the left arm, completely shattering the bone. He was also hit
five times in the chest and abdomen. All rounds penetrated less than 1". All of the rounds expanded
fully but did not cause incapacitation due to the lack of penetration. According to the Medical
Examiner, none of the rounds caused any life threatening injuries. The subject also received one round
into the front of his throat, it penetrated less than 1" as well. The Medical Examiner stated that the
recovered rounds were in pristine condition (still had rifling marks on them).
• The subject was wearing a down jacket at the time of the incident. He was finally taken down after
receiving rounds from an M-4 .223, with Hornady Tap 55 gr ballistic tip rounds and Hornady Tap 72 gr.
Hollow Points.
• The officer with the M-4 was able to shoot underneath a vehicle and hit the suspect in the ankle. The
officer then flanked the subject, who continued to engage officers, and was eventually killed by the
officer with the M-4.
• The subject had a trace amount of marijuana in his system.
• Range between subject and officers: 20 feet.
• Subject had a t-shirt on under his jacket.
• Subject received approximately sixteen .223 rounds, thirteen of these rounds went completely
through. One round struck his hip and completely shattered it. Another .223 round struck his aorta and
another pierced and collapsed his lung. Both of these rounds lodged themselves inside the subject. The
Medical Examiner stated that the .223 rounds caused massive internal damage.
• This is the second shooting that the PD has experienced where they had to shoot a subject in excess of ten
times with .40 S&W ammo to incapacitate or kill. There was another incident where a subject was shot
inside of his vehicle. He was struck approximately ten times, all the while continuing to fire at
officers. He was eventually killed after suffering a shot to the back of his head. In this same incident, the
back of the subject's seat was struck multiple times, the .40 S&W rounds never penetrated through the
seat. In this incident, all shots had passed through either the windshield or rear window. Investigators
assume that this was the reason for the poor ballistic performance.
• (The) PD is now considering replacing their Glock 22's with Glock 21's.

AND...here is what the FBI concluded...DM, can you work your screenshot magic on this part?

There is plenty of inaccurate information regarding ballistics/terminal performance disseminated on web forums, even those which are dedicated as LE only.
The .40 S&W ammunition did not fail in this incident.
The performance of the .223 TAP ammunition, although consistent with manufacturer’s claims, did not perform terminally as this Police Department expected.

And I am out of it, this is getting to retarded for me.

Quoted: AND...here is what the FBI concluded...DM, can you work your screenshot magic on this part? There is plenty of inaccurate information regarding ballistics/terminal performance disseminated on web forums, even those which are dedicated as LE only. The .40 S&W ammunition did not fail in this incident. The performance of the .223 TAP ammunition, although consistent with manufacturer’s claims, did not perform terminally as this Police Department expected.

So how many of the tap rounds did he catch while he was in the car?  I thought they were relatively well known not to be ideal for "through car" shootings.  

Bad guy was not in a car.  LEO was ambushed in their cruisers.
Scott

Quoted: Quoted: AND...here is what the FBI concluded...DM, can you work your screenshot magic on this part? There is plenty of inaccurate information regarding ballistics/terminal performance disseminated on web forums, even those which are dedicated as LE only. The .40 S&W ammunition did not fail in this incident. The performance of the .223 TAP ammunition, although consistent with manufacturer’s claims, did not perform terminally as this Police Department expected. So how many of the tap rounds did he catch while he was in the car?  I thought they were relatively well known not to be ideal for "through car" shootings.

Quoted: I understand the caliber thing in WW2.  But this doesn't address the Vietnam War era.  Most of the guys I have talked to that walked point wanted a full auto .45 over anything else.  How, then, can someone say that super light and fast, ala .223, has better killing power than heavy and slow?  Up close, say within 50 yards, wouldn't you rather have heavy and slow?

If I was given a brand new rifle with no cleaning kit that was proclaimed as "self cleaning", along with ammunition that was made with out of spec powder that gunked up the system, I'd want something that was proven and "comperable".

Light weight, full auto, 30 round mags...your only other option was the thompson, which had a battle proven record.

Ask yourself whats on the battlefield TODAY.  Ask yourself whats in the hands of SWAT teams TODAY.

It ain't thompsons, and it ain't MP5's (albiet there are exceptions to the MP5 rule, but largely you see 5.56)

So I guess I'm just confused as to what the discussion is about then.

Subject received approximately sixteen .223 rounds, thirteen of these rounds went completely through. One round struck his hip and completely shattered it. Another .223 round struck his aorta and another pierced and collapsed his lung. Both of these rounds lodged themselves inside the subject. The Medical Examiner stated that the .223 rounds caused massive internal damage.

It sounds like the TAP performed but they expected an immediate death ray.  This relates back to a pistol being better somehow?

Quoted: I am not in a war situation. Just the mean streets. The only two things, I have is a 40 cal glock hand gun with hollow point 147 grain std canadian police issue or Colt Canada C8A2 ( m-16 style) in .223 Canada is not a big gun place and there is very little real life advice here Which is going to stop the person best?

I've never seen a 147 grain .40S&W round.

That is a weight common amongst 9mm rounds.

Not better, just more effective in THIS incident.  I don't think there is a right or wrong, better or worse answer.  Both rounds will fail and succeed under certain circumstances.  There is no magic bullet that is better than any other.  I just used this example to show that you can't say 100% "Rifles always work" or "Pistols always work".  
Scott

Quoted: So I guess I'm just confused as to what the discussion is about then. Subject received approximately sixteen .223 rounds, thirteen of these rounds went completely through. One round struck his hip and completely shattered it. Another .223 round struck his aorta and another pierced and collapsed his lung. Both of these rounds lodged themselves inside the subject. The Medical Examiner stated that the .223 rounds caused massive internal damage. It sounds like the TAP performed but they expected an immediate death ray.  This relates back to a pistol being better somehow?

Again.... BOTH rounds failed to immediatly stop the subject. Subject still had to be fought down and handcuffed AFTER the shooting.

Quoted: Not better, just more effective in THIS incident.  I don't think there is a right or wrong, better or worse answer.  Both rounds will fail and succeed under certain circumstances.  There is no magic bullet that is better than any other.  I just used this example to show that you can't say 100% "Rifles always work" or "Pistols always work".   Scott Quoted: So I guess I'm just confused as to what the discussion is about then. Subject received approximately sixteen .223 rounds, thirteen of these rounds went completely through. One round struck his hip and completely shattered it. Another .223 round struck his aorta and another pierced and collapsed his lung. Both of these rounds lodged themselves inside the subject. The Medical Examiner stated that the .223 rounds caused massive internal damage. It sounds like the TAP performed but they expected an immediate death ray.  This relates back to a pistol being better somehow?

Quoted: Not better, just more effective in THIS incident.  I don't think there is a right or wrong, better or worse answer.  Both rounds will fail and succeed under certain circumstances.  There is no magic bullet that is better than any other.  I just used this example to show that you can't say 100% "Rifles always work" or "Pistols always work".   Scott Quoted: So I guess I'm just confused as to what the discussion is about then. Subject received approximately sixteen .223 rounds, thirteen of these rounds went completely through. One round struck his hip and completely shattered it. Another .223 round struck his aorta and another pierced and collapsed his lung. Both of these rounds lodged themselves inside the subject. The Medical Examiner stated that the .223 rounds caused massive internal damage. It sounds like the TAP performed but they expected an immediate death ray.  This relates back to a pistol being better somehow?

Are we talking about the same incident?  From the summary ivchris posted it sounds like the tap did massive damage to the guy's body and the .40 rounds did very little.  It sounds like neither was all that effective at ending the fight quickly but long term the damage the tap did might eventually have done it.   And no I don't know how it actually ended.

Quoted: Quoted: Not better, just more effective in THIS incident.  I don't think there is a right or wrong, better or worse answer.  Both rounds will fail and succeed under certain circumstances.  There is no magic bullet that is better than any other.  I just used this example to show that you can't say 100% "Rifles always work" or "Pistols always work".   Scott Quoted: So I guess I'm just confused as to what the discussion is about then. Subject received approximately sixteen .223 rounds, thirteen of these rounds went completely through. One round struck his hip and completely shattered it. Another .223 round struck his aorta and another pierced and collapsed his lung. Both of these rounds lodged themselves inside the subject. The Medical Examiner stated that the .223 rounds caused massive internal damage. It sounds like the TAP performed but they expected an immediate death ray.  This relates back to a pistol being better somehow? Are we talking about the same incident?  From the summary ivchris posted it sounds like the tap did massive damage to the guy's body and the .40 rounds did very little.  It sounds like neither was all that effective at ending the fight quickly but long term the damage the tap did might eventually have done it.   And no I don't know how it actually ended.

Sounds to me like maybe he was just opemed up on. I don't think this means they shot him once, checked to see if he was going to go down, then shot another, then shot another.

I think he was just opened up on. I have heard of soldiers and Marines getting 1 shot kills with 5.56 62gr. out even to 500 yards.

Shot placement FTW  

Yes, the same incident, you just don't have the complete report with the FBI findings included.  Your PDF is a partial, if you want to see the full thing to see what I am talking about, email me and I'll shoot you a copy.

Quoted: Quoted: Not better, just more effective in THIS incident.  I don't think there is a right or wrong, better or worse answer.  Both rounds will fail and succeed under certain circumstances.  There is no magic bullet that is better than any other.  I just used this example to show that you can't say 100% "Rifles always work" or "Pistols always work".   Scott Quoted: So I guess I'm just confused as to what the discussion is about then. Subject received approximately sixteen .223 rounds, thirteen of these rounds went completely through. One round struck his hip and completely shattered it. Another .223 round struck his aorta and another pierced and collapsed his lung. Both of these rounds lodged themselves inside the subject. The Medical Examiner stated that the .223 rounds caused massive internal damage. It sounds like the TAP performed but they expected an immediate death ray.  This relates back to a pistol being better somehow? Are we talking about the same incident?  From the summary ivchris posted it sounds like the tap did massive damage to the guy's body and the .40 rounds did very little.  It sounds like neither was all that effective at ending the fight quickly but long term the damage the tap did might eventually have done it.   And no I don't know how it actually ended.

+100, thats what I've been getting at.  I don't know why I just did'nt say that instead of starting all this drama !!!

Quoted: Shot placement FTW

Gunfight lasted 3.5 minutes, they did'nt just open up on BadGuy.  This was a sustained firefight as far as LE shootouts go.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not better, just more effective in THIS incident.  I don't think there is a right or wrong, better or worse answer.  Both rounds will fail and succeed under certain circumstances.  There is no magic bullet that is better than any other.  I just used this example to show that you can't say 100% "Rifles always work" or "Pistols always work".   Scott Quoted: So I guess I'm just confused as to what the discussion is about then. Subject received approximately sixteen .223 rounds, thirteen of these rounds went completely through. One round struck his hip and completely shattered it. Another .223 round struck his aorta and another pierced and collapsed his lung. Both of these rounds lodged themselves inside the subject. The Medical Examiner stated that the .223 rounds caused massive internal damage. It sounds like the TAP performed but they expected an immediate death ray.  This relates back to a pistol being better somehow? Are we talking about the same incident?  From the summary ivchris posted it sounds like the tap did massive damage to the guy's body and the .40 rounds did very little.  It sounds like neither was all that effective at ending the fight quickly but long term the damage the tap did might eventually have done it.   And no I don't know how it actually ended. Sounds to me like maybe he was just opemed up on. I don't think this means they shot him once, checked to see if he was going to go down, then shot another, then shot another. I think he was just opened up on. I have heard of soldiers and Marines getting 1 shot kills with 5.56 62gr. out even to 500 yards.

And once again, BOTH the 40 and the 223 failed to stop the person. Only breaking down his pelvis and ankle brought him down. He had to still be FOUGHT to be handcuffed AFTER the shootout. NEITHER round was effective AT ALL.

Agreed...

Quoted: And once again, BOTH the 40 and the 223 failed to stop the person. Only breaking down his pelvis and ankle brought him down. He had to still be FOUGHT to be handcuffed AFTER the shootout. NEITHER round was effective AT ALL.

So where is the point in all of this?

Quoted: Agreed... Quoted: And once again, BOTH the 40 and the 223 failed to stop the person. Only breaking down his pelvis and ankle brought him down. He had to still be FOUGHT to be handcuffed AFTER the shootout. NEITHER round was effective AT ALL.

Quoted: Are you shooting from a conveyor belt?

the bullet wouldn't leave the barrel if fired on a conveyor belt.

Quoted: Quoted: Are you shooting from a conveyor belt? the bullet wouldn't leave the barrel if fired on a conveyor belt.

No, it needs to be from a jet plane trying to take off from a conveyor belt

Quoted:

They both sucked equally.  My point is, for the last time, shot placement and follow up shot placement, bullets will fail at their most needed time.  Arguments like this are moot, caliber does not matter.  There can be no claim that one is better or worse than another.  Handguns are not better than rifles, rifles are not better than handguns.  For every case that rifles worked and handguns did'nt, there is a case that handguns worked and rifles did'nt.  There is only a statistical probability that certain rounds MAY work better based on external and internal ballistics, there are no certainties in a gunfight.  Arrgggghhhhhh!!!!!!!!

(This is Old_Painless, and I mistakenly deleted some of your post.  Very sorry.)

Quoted: DM, pm inbound.  While the large MAJORITY of the time rifle round will win out over a handgun round, there have been several well documented cases where the opposite were true.

This seems to have been your point originally I thought

Not to be picky or anything, just dont want you John Kerrying on us...

Quoted: Quoted: So where is the point in all of this? Quoted: Agreed... Quoted: And once again, BOTH the 40 and the 223 failed to stop the person. Only breaking down his pelvis and ankle brought him down. He had to still be FOUGHT to be handcuffed AFTER the shootout. NEITHER round was effective AT ALL. They both sucked equally.  My point is, for the last time, shot placement and follow up shot placement, bullets will fail at their most needed time.  Arguments like this are moot, caliber does not matter.  There can be no claim that one is better or worse than another.  Handguns are not better than rifles, rifles are not better than handguns.  For every case that rifles worked and handguns did'nt, there is a case that handguns worked and rifles did'nt.  There is only a statistical probability that certain rounds MAY work better based on external and internal ballistics, there are no certainties in a gunfight.  Arrgggghhhhhh!!!!!!!!

I'm stil saying that!  Please don't relate me to John Kerry.  My ex roomate in Pittsburgh was his "Military Advisor" during his campaign, and I am all too familiar with his wife and her antics locally.  I know first hand what a twisted douchebag he is ...If anybody, I see myself more as a Wyatt Earp...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: They both sucked equally.  My point is, for the last time, shot placement and follow up shot placement, bullets will fail at their most needed time.  Arguments like this are moot, caliber does not matter.  There can be no claim that one is better or worse than another.  Handguns are not better than rifles, rifles are not better than handguns.  For every case that rifles worked and handguns did'nt, there is a case that handguns worked and rifles did'nt.  There is only a statistical probability that certain rounds MAY work better based on external and internal ballistics, there are no certainties in a gunfight.  Arrgggghhhhhh!!!!!!!! You are completely wrong. Rifle rounds are indeed more powerful than pistol rounds.  Exceptions in rare shootouts do not prove anything, except that there are some exceptions. If, as you say, "caliber does not matter", then US troops in Iraq would be armed with BB guns.  They are not. Using a powerful rifle round increases the likehood of a successful "Stop". That is exactly what I said!

Please read the red part again...your "likelihood" is my "probability"...

Quoted: i24.photobucket.com/albums/c29/DM1975/75grn.jpg And I am out of it, this is getting to retarded for me.

care to post a link to where I can get the PDF or power point?
or you could email me at [email protected]

i wanna read it :)

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: They both sucked equally.  My point is, for the last time, shot placement and follow up shot placement, bullets will fail at their most needed time.  Arguments like this are moot, caliber does not matter.  There can be no claim that one is better or worse than another.  Handguns are not better than rifles, rifles are not better than handguns.  For every case that rifles worked and handguns did'nt, there is a case that handguns worked and rifles did'nt.  There is only a statistical probability that certain rounds MAY work better based on external and internal ballistics, there are no certainties in a gunfight.  Arrgggghhhhhh!!!!!!!! You are completely wrong. Rifle rounds are indeed more powerful than pistol rounds.  Exceptions in rare shootouts do not prove anything, except that there are some exceptions. If, as you say, "caliber does not matter", then US troops in Iraq would be armed with BB guns.  They are not. Using a powerful rifle round increases the likehood of a successful "Stop". That is exactly what I said! Please read the red part again...your "likelihood" is my "probability"...

No, you were arguing on anecdotal evidence, wheter in jest or not, people will take it seriously off of here and think it is fact.

owned by the double post

sent to email...

Quoted: owned by the double post

Quoted: sent to email... Quoted: owned by the double post

Thanks brother

No offense taken.  I find the discussion enlightening and appreciate all the input that others may have.  Based on MY OPINION, and evidence I HAVE SEEN, this is how I feel.  I am completely open to any other opinions on the topic, as I surely do not know everything.  I am only offering my .02 cents based off of what I know, and thats all it is.  The end user should seek out his own information and develop his own opinions on the topic.  There is a wealth of info out there, and we have been discussing one case in specifics only.  I would like to see more cases on either side of the road in detail too.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: They both sucked equally.  My point is, for the last time, shot placement and follow up shot placement, bullets will fail at their most needed time.  Arguments like this are moot, caliber does not matter.  There can be no claim that one is better or worse than another.  Handguns are not better than rifles, rifles are not better than handguns.  For every case that rifles worked and handguns did'nt, there is a case that handguns worked and rifles did'nt.  There is only a statistical probability that certain rounds MAY work better based on external and internal ballistics, there are no certainties in a gunfight.  Arrgggghhhhhh!!!!!!!! You are completely wrong. Rifle rounds are indeed more powerful than pistol rounds.  Exceptions in rare shootouts do not prove anything, except that there are some exceptions. If, as you say, "caliber does not matter", then US troops in Iraq would be armed with BB guns.  They are not. Using a powerful rifle round increases the likehood of a successful "Stop". That is exactly what I said! Please read the red part again... Okay, let's try again. You said: caliber does not matter That is an incorrect statement. You said: There can be no claim that one is better or worse than another. That is incorrect also.  Rifles are much more likely to provide a Stop than a pistol. You said: rifles are not better than handguns That is incorrect also.  Rifles are indeed more powerful and "better" in a gunfight than a handgun. You are correct that odd things happen in some gunfights, but you also made several incorrect statements. No offense meant.

One statement you said was for every time a rifle wins and a handgun fails there is a case that a handgun wins and a rifle fails. What is your basis for that statement? Show me the statistical information on that please, not just anectdotal information.

Hey, may not be safe for work (slab pics may be offensive), depending on where you work!

Quoted: Quoted: sent to email... Quoted: owned by the double post Thanks brother

All right, I hear what you are saying.  It may have been irresponsible to say "every" time.  I appologize for the wording, and let me amend my statement.  Would it be a more fair statement to say there is a an amount of data, in certain situations,that shows that rifle rounds will fail and istol rounds will win?  My main point in starting this was that I feel it is irresponsible to say rifles rule ALL the time.  I think a better description would be rifles are much MORE likely to win.  I'm really not trying to start a war here, but I may have gotton a little over the top trying to defend my point.  Noted and humbled...

Quoted: One statement you said was for every time a rifle wins and a handgun fails there is a case that a handgun wins and a rifle fails. What is your basis for that statement? Show me the statistical information on that please, not just anectdotal information.

Well, it's a free country so you're free to have your own opinion.



Even if it is wrong.

Rifle calibers are better than pistol calibers, period.  The oddball exceptions don't prove otherwise, they're just that: oddballs.

Actually, that's not true at all.  Those oddballs prove the most important point of all: shot placement is most important.  A well-placed pistol shot is better than a poorly-placed rifle shot.  A .40 bullet through the heart works better than a .223 round through the upper shoulder area.  But put them both in the same place and the rifle round works better, period.

I humbly agree and understand where my statements went wrong.  Thank you all for helping me to understand the topic better.  I was'nt trying to lead anyone astray, just trying to clarify why I felt the way I did.

Quoted: Well, it's a free country so you're free to have your own opinion. Even if it is wrong. Rifle calibers are better than pistol calibers, period.  The oddball exceptions don't prove otherwise, they're just that: oddballs. Actually, that's not true at all.  Those oddballs prove the most important point of all: shot placement is most important.  A well-placed pistol shot is better than a poorly-placed rifle shot.  A .40 bullet through the heart works better than a .223 round through the upper shoulder area.  But put them both in the same place and the rifle round works better, period.

Quoted: Hey, may not be safe for work (slab pics may be offensive), depending on where you work! Quoted: Quoted: sent to email... Quoted: owned by the double post Thanks brother

Not an issue, I am the IT guy here and will just close my door

No worries, we all overstate our opinion on here once in a while That is why there are usually 8,000 some odd members on here at any given time to bring us back down to level

Quoted: I humbly agree and understand where my statements went wrong.  Thank you all for helping me to understand the topic better.  I was'nt trying to lead anyone astray, just trying to clarify why I felt the way I did. Quoted: Well, it's a free country so you're free to have your own opinion. Even if it is wrong. Rifle calibers are better than pistol calibers, period.  The oddball exceptions don't prove otherwise, they're just that: oddballs. Actually, that's not true at all.  Those oddballs prove the most important point of all: shot placement is most important.  A well-placed pistol shot is better than a poorly-placed rifle shot.  A .40 bullet through the heart works better than a .223 round through the upper shoulder area.  But put them both in the same place and the rifle round works better, period.

Thanks guys, sometimes I need one of these !!!

Quoted: No, you were arguing on anecdotal evidence, wheter in jest or not, people will take it seriously off of here and think it is fact.

I'd like to meet the guy that takes anything off of arfcomm seriously

Quoted: Quoted: A small bullet traveling 3000 fps will usually kill with deadly force compared to a heavy slow bullet. Why is it, then, that most of the guys I've seen interviewed, or with whom I have spoken, who walked point in WW2, Korea & Vietnam, usually preferred to do so with a Thompson or a Grease Gun?

I would surmise that had more to do with firepower than bullet effectiveness.  A soldier will almost always choose the weapon with the highest rate of fire regardless of terminal effect.

Indeed. As archaic as the Thompson is, it can still deal out some incredible firepower.

Quoted: Quoted: No, you were arguing on anecdotal evidence, wheter in jest or not, people will take it seriously off of here and think it is fact. I'd like to meet the guy that takes anything off of arfcomm seriously

I have met people that will quote info off of here as if it were the gospel. For somethis is their only source of insight or training you know. Sad but true.