Replies

"Those are not negligible differences. Ok, well... Not in my book they aren't. ;-)"

As far as statistical comparisons go, by the numbers, yes, they show apparent differences in the respective performance of the cartridges. I would argue the differences would be considered "highly significant" if you could find a person who would look at them and say, "OK, I guess with numbers like that, you can shoot me with a .357 Sig, but not a.357 magnum or a .10mm!"

And yes...as "different" as those performance numbers are, when placed against the broader spectrum of handgun ballistics, they fall within a relatively narrow band of one another (even more so when you exclude the 10mm and run the .357s head to head).

If you don't believe me, There was an interesting study from about a year ago by Greg Ellifritz:

"Ayoob took his critics to task. He suggested that if people didn't believe his data, they should collect their own and do their own analysis. That made sense to me. So that's just what I did. "

Among the numbers he explored were % 1 shot stops, Avg. # of hits until incapacitated, % fatal shootings, etc. Essentially, while he concludes that some handgun rounds are somewhat better than others, they are generally close enough in performance across the boards that one's best choice is a rifle :-)

Yep. In pistols it pretty much comes down to actually being comfortable enough with what your are shooting that you can deploy it effectively in an OMGSHTFWTFBBQ situation.

Evidence from the Morgue suggests that mid-range calibers with mid to high-end performance are the most effective.

I don't want to have to count on my ability to pull off an eyeball shot with a .380 ACP, so I carry something big enough to blow chunks out of a person no matter where I hit them.

To each their own...