Hey everyone, So a lot of people swear by a certain caliber claiming their caliber has the most "knock down" power. This isn't a thread about shot placement but comparing calibers assuming we're hitting center mass. This thread is not about how fun the calibers are to shoot or about killing bears either. The .45 is getting some hate from people who swear by velocity but what's the point of having a fairly big caliber traveling at high velocity (.357mag, .44mag) coming out of a handgun when the target is usually a few feet away? Also from a legal standpoint, shooting through walls to kill someone you can't see is a bit hard to defend in court. In a place like a house where you can't be certain that your family won't be in the line of fire, why would you want a caliber that is more likely to go through the robber and possibly hit a family member that is standing right in front of him? I currently have a 1911 in .45 and my next purchase will be a .357 magnum revolver (for outdoors), but I'm not sure why I would want a .357 magnum over a .45 ACP for self defense in my home. Also I'm very well aware of the pros and cons of revolvers vs semi-automatic pistols. My question is strictly about ballistics performance of a smaller high velocity round vs a bigger lower velocity round. No doubt the velocity helps with the effective range of the round, but the limiting factor at this point becomes the shooter and the gun itself (they're not designed to be accurate like rifles at long ranges). If you're engaging targets at long ranges with a handgun, you probably brought a handgun to a rifle fight. Let me know what you guys think. EDIT: this might be the wrong section to post in, it's strictly about ammunition but would probably fit better in general handgun discussion.