the .40 short and weak, the 357 Sig and the 9x21. The only one that amounted to a hoot is the 357 Sig, and that one was only cause people are too lazy, ignorant and cowardly to load the 9x21 to its real potential
why settle for 350 ft lbs in a belt gun, when you can have 600 ft lbs so easily? if you dont think 300 more ft lbs is worth having, then why have a .22 hornet, as vs .22 mag rimfire? There's a BIG difference on big canines, for a fact. Therefore, there's going to be a big difference on men.
cheapskate freaks, man. So WHAT if it costs you $200 for 100 rds?you've got thousands to throw away on bs guns and ammo blown thru them, but you aint got $200 to get more effective ammo into your carry gun? Testfire it 70 rds-80 rds and keep 20-30 rds for duty. That's plenty of testing. Especially if the rd's ogive can be matched with some other normal bullet, like the 90 gr 9mm jhp, and even more so if the rd has the PowRball plastic nose for reliable feeding. Modern guns have such low angled feed ramps that feed reliabity problems are almost unheard of any more, anyway.
Hey gunchild, have you ever shot the 9x21? I shot IPSC in the early '90's with a guy who used one. You required both ear plugs and ear defenders if you wanted to keep your hearing. It was nothing but a noisy "fad".