Good info. I've been trying to decide whether my next handgun should be a .45 or another .357 Mag. Sounds like I should stick with the .357. Any recommendation on a good .357 magnum semi-auto brand?

Actually, there's no .357 Mag semi-auto that I know of -- most guns in that caliber are revolvers. But there is the .357 Sig caliber, which is relatively new but is supposed to largely duplicate the ballistics of the .357 Mag in a semi-auto. That might be worth investigating because autos have greater capacity, and you can carry mags for much quicker reloads.

Whether you get a .45 or a .357 should probably depend on which you're more comfortable shooting. If you can find a range where you can rent guns to shoot by the half-hour (there are quite a few out there), then that would really help.

The article is Patriotard fantasy fiction wish-fulfillment. Victory to the people's resistance of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think the two are very comparable. Stopping power isn't a technical term as much as it is a marketing one. It's all relative to the target material/mass and the style of bullet hitting it.

I don't object to the term "stopping power" because it's clear that some bullets are more effective than others. Obviously a .22 handgun is not as effective as a .45, all other things being equal.

However, you bring up a good point: a hell of a lot of factors come into play when determining whether a bullet hit will drop an assailant or not. There's a lot of probability involved, including inevitable uncertainties in the shooter's shot placement under stress and the physical and psychological condition of the assailant. A .22 that hits someone in the eye will obviously do more damage than a .45 that hits someone in the hand, and a .32 that hits a vital organ will be more effective than a .45 that doesn't.

I think this is why controllability is important and not just sheer power. Just hitting someone with a handgun bullet won't stop them from shooting you back unless you hit them in a vital area. So rapid, well-aimed followup shots are important. That's where I think the .45 has the .357 Mag beaten (I don't know what the recoil of the .357 Sig is like). And while the .45 is not as powerful, it has well-regarded stopping power. It's one of the best compromises between power and controllability (at least for me).

I think that the top American sniper in Vietnam was Chuck Mawhinney by the way. It surely wasn't Carlos Hathcock. I hate hyperreality morons who live in pop culture.

I don't know, sounds like it could be fake. The weapons will catch your interest, make it sound cool, and make it sound like the information would come from someone on the ground. But it is also full of propaganda and doesn't miss a single neocon point:

--The troops want to stay and get the job done (False]

Great analysis, and this thread illustrates why among all the forums VNNF is the only one worth a bucket of warm spit. Just about every poster here, starting with Konrad Jackson, figured this bit of "made for prime time TV" propaganda. I'm trying hard and I can't figure out anything else that the scripter of this letter could have stuffed into it.

Enkidu

Hunter S. Thompson, "Big dark, coming soon"

 

That article was posted all over the gun forums two years ago. It was, usually, unanimously thought to be bullshit.