Originally Posted by PghJim
So I would guess a large diameter arrow with a field tip would be just as effective. Although you maybe just speaking about visibly and not effectiveness.
Elephants have been killed with a bow and arrow before. I have not heard of an elephant being harvested with a 9mm.
Just a worthless tid-bit ^
I was referring to what was stated about visible damage. Would an arrow be just as effective? Only if it destroyed more vessels/structures. I will take the pistol though. Hard to carry a bow around all day.
The reason I say this is because I have yet to see evidence that anything but the amount of tissue destroyed/blood lost matters with regards to incapacitation when the psychological factor is not at work. I spent some time on Lightfighter reading the accounts of all the guys who have shot dogs, etc. (usually pits during drug raids) and the .40 180gr and the 357SIG both seemed to do about the same. No dogs "dropped on the spot", all were reported to have ran a short distance and died.
Further, I read some information about the 125gr .357 Magnum. At least one of the agencies that replaced it with the .40 have reported better results across the board with the .40.
When on agency that used the .357 magnum in it's hay day did so well, they looking into the circumstances. They saw that most of the spectacular results from the .357 occured at close range, and at night. If you have ever fired a .357 using a hot 125gr load, you know how that looks at night. They postulated that the glorious effectiveness came from the psychological effect of seeing that massive ball of fire/concussion and realising one had been hit by the projectile it launched.
I can indeed see this causing a psychological stop more than a 147gr 9mm would. By comparison, the bang/flash is a joke.