http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=112504&cm_mmc=Froogle-_-Ammunition%20-%20Centerfire%20Handgun%20-%20Self%20Defense-_-PriceCompListing-_-112504

I carry 165 Grain EFMJ in my 3" Colt New Agent, the loads at the link above.

Muzzle Velocity: 1140 fps
Muzzle Energy: 476 ft. lbs.

I'm sure that's out of a 5" BBL, which is why I went with this round for the 3"

:twirl:

Of course in my 5" Springfield I carry 230 Gold Dots.

ETA - After reading the rest of the thread... a few things.

Yes, stopping power is largely a myth. Bullets do crazy, unpredictable things a lot more often than most people think. Anyone who has shot tracers in low light can attest to this. Hyrdo-Static shock, while not reliable at all... is something to take note of. If it can cause damage to soft tissue (vital organs), it will have some effect. It may not be the most important, but it applies at times. Same with fragmentation.

As stated by the Robot, the only guaranteed way to put a bad guy down quick is a Central Nervous System shot... which is HIGHLY unlikely to happen on a two way range. Which is another good reason to have larger capacity magazines, or even extras.

I'm not without my bias, but I prefer to take into account penetration and transferred energy. In my OPINION, the round that penetrates the most while transferring the largest amount of energy possible is the one I would want. Ultimately, for me, it comes down to the gun I'm comfortable with. If used properly, anything with sufficient penetration (taking clothing into account) can and will get the job done if used effectively by the shooter.

This personal choice is why I normally EDC a 3" 1911 with the aforementioned 165gr rounds. I'm more familiar with that firearm than all my others, it's got the highest round count AND the lowest failure rate of all my handguns. Even without sights, I shoot it the most accurately.

A super ninja round wouldn't do me any good out of a gun I couldn't shoot very well. Ultimately, when it comes down to it... pistols are a last chance, spur of the moment tool for protection. They are very poor man stoppers. If I knew I was going to be in a firefight, I would either bring a rifle or not go at all. The rifle I would bring would be one of the accurate ones, with a good rate of fire and magazine capacity. Proper violence of action usually can turn any fight in your favor if used effectively.

At the end of the post, I won't be disappointed if a Tommy Gun or .45 ammo isn't available in New Vegas. I never liked the things anyway. Fun to shoot, but they're too damn heavy. I was hoping for a good precision weapon to use above all else, and hopefully we'll get some. The Anti-Material Rifle and Scoped Varmint Rifle look promising.

theres actualy a couple of very light weight rounds in .45 now not counting the "cuped" sabots that people* keep trying to introduce for them

* by people I mean people who fit in the general catagory of people who think that things like Rifled paintgun barrels, loading shotguns with Fletchets, http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot30_3.htm are good ideas

Im well aware that i misquoted Twain, I assumed that I would get censored for saying "damned" but after reading your post i guess not. The quote can be applied to many things, your post being one of them. I'll leave it to you to figure out. It wasnt a bid to take on the challenge of picking on your post, i simply did it to point out the hypocrisy in your post. What makes those essays and articles that you call "evidence" valid? Is it because they support your argument? Im sure that i can go find articles that support the opposite, does that make them valid? No. Are you aware of Elephant guns? You cant hunt an elephant with a .22 simply becuase it doesnt have enough power to kill. You could shoot an elephant in the skull with a .22 and it wont kill it. You need larger caliber guns for big game, because it is simply dangerous not to carry a proficient gun in killing the larger game. They could kill you just as easily as you kill them. This is a fact, and its hardly "psychological". Just because you went and found some obscure article that supports your claim, doesn't make you right.

but as is the nature of guns bulletes come out the end of the gun...
it would be almost impossable for the force emparted on the bullet to be the same amount force emparted on the sholder of this verry unforntunate girl
as the gas formed by the relece of chemical energy by a miniture explosion in the cordite i think its called (dont qote me on that as i dont know ammo) will take the path of less resistance out the front of the barral useing most off the force created the rest will become wastefull energy heat sound and light the force at both sides of the eqasion are balanced the same force contand inside the cordite before ignition and the forces implamented after eg the heat sound the force given to the bullet and kick back equll the energy chemicly stored inside the fuel (cordite ?) but are not half given to the bullet and half given to the sholder due to waste and the fact that most of the energy went with the bullet and the super heated gas thats why your able to fire a 50 cal without killing yourself and the person behind you

ps i agrie this is off topic

Indeed, my Grandfather was once asked by some friends why he carries. "Why do you bring a gun with you wherever you go? Are you expecting trouble?" They said.
He replied "No. If I was expecting trouble I would have brought a rifle instead of this pistol here. This gun is for the unexpected trouble."
I guess that goes towards the adage of expect the unexpected and all that rot.


I don't think I was being hypocritical, but at any rate I'm glad you actually made an argument instead of a vague criticism. Simply put, the evidence is valid because it takes into account the broad range of data. Good studies recognize the points made by opposing arguments, and then provide evidence to knock them down.
If you can find me studies showing that any handgun in common defensive use can reliably put down attackers in one shot, then I welcome them. Frankly, i don't believe such studies will exist without serious intellectual dishonesty being involved, because the reality of the situation doesn't support that.

And I've already made the argument that Elephant guns and big game aren't germane to this discussion. We're talking about people here, not elephants. The inability of .22 to kill an elephant has more to do with the round being too weak to penetrate the elphants strong bones and sizable bulk. That's why you need elephant guns, because to even reach the benchmark for adequate penetration to kill an elephant, you need a really powerful round.

Not so with people. .22 is quite capable of killing a man and has done so many, many times. So basically the argument is this: If you can get the job done with what you have, upgrading to larger rounds results in a tradeoff of weight in exchange for perceived stopping power. Now I'm not making an argument for .22 as the ultimate defense round. But among rounds that have similar terminal ballistics you have to ask yourself- if a lighter, more compact round can get the job done with 2 or 3 shots to the center mass most of the time, why should I upgrade to a larger round that I can't carry as much of? Well the stopping power answer would be "because the bigger round will put him down in one", and then they'll point to instances where some guy got shot 20 times with 9mm and still survived. The problem is the same thing happens with bigger rounds too. So the mistake stopping power proponents make is believing that their big round has knockdown power. But it doesn't. It might drop someone with one hit, and it might want. You may find yourself having to shoot your enemy many, many times.

And in such an instance, I'd rather have the few extra rounds of capacity afforded to me by a smaller round that has a comparable capacity to wound someone.
And the bullet design matters too, like I said, I'd take 9mm JHP over .45 ball any day. Expansion and fragmentation are very useful in ruining someone's day, and you'll have more 9mm to ruin with too. Now ask me to chose between hollow points in 9mm or .45 and that's a tougher choice.

But really the most important factor when choosing a gun or caliber is how comfortable you are with it. Choose the gun you trust the most and are the best with. If that so happens to be a Sig Mosquito, then roll with it. Just make sure you fill your enemies with lots of little holes.

Ball ammo is bascialy for target practice imo.

almost like asking if you would take pest shot loads over ball

Ball ammo is what militaries shoot at each other. The great majoriy of rounds I shot (well to be honest my mortar didn't shoot ball) in the service was ball. Commonly known as full metal jacket. I wouldn't really call that a pest load. Ok, some militaries are pesky.....................

I was refering to his comarison of JHP to ball. thus my point, someone is trying to us ball ammo for personal defence in a handgun over rounds like the Hydrashock, or any other JHP for that mater, is in my opinion bad as someone who as trying to use varmit loads for home defence over ball. sorry I was not being clearer,

Honestly who uses Ball ammo for personal protection loads, I have Hydrashok for my .45.

now if the debate was between a round like Disintegrator? CTF?(Remington) and JHP, well thats another debate, expecialy when the TT-KX rounds are part of the discution. but considering that the company that makes thoes rounds bascialy refuses to sell to anyone whos not the US goverment thats probably a moot point to start with.