View Full Version : Which one - 17 rounds of 9mm vs 7 rds of .45 cal?
I'm trying to determine why so many experienced folks prefer 7 rounds of .45 cal over more rounds in a slightly less powerful caliber. If it boils down to personal preference, I'm cool with that. If there are good reasons for carrying the larger, heavier and lower capacity .45, I'd really like to learn what they are. If the decision on one over the other is situationally dependent, I'd like to hear what those situations would look like.
I used this site:
http://www.winchester.com/lawenforcement/flash/win_flash.html
and compared the expansion and penetration data between Ranger T in a 147gr 9mm and the 230gr +P Ranger T. From my perspective, after reviewing the data Winchester provides, the two rounds provide nearly the same penetration and expansion is close too.
I'm not trying to start a caliber war, I really am trying to learn something from folks who have been there and done that...
tia, y'all!
BushmasterFanBoy
04-13-08, 20:11
No actual experience killing people, but I'll throw my opinion in. (I've taken my fair share of critters though :D ).
Since a hit matters more than a miss, and a well placed shot is better than one that hits the wrong spot, I would go with whichever of the two you shoot better.
Since you put "7 rounds" I can assume you mean the 1911. It has the best trigger in the world, and is generally pretty accurate with today's upgrades, it's very ergonomic, carries well, etc. The magical trigger has kept it alive for almost 100 years. If you shoot them as much as I do, get ready to spend a lot of time under the hood of that thing to keep it performing well.
The Glock 17 (gold standard for hi-capacity 9mms) is cheap, uber-reliable, require no professional attention to run right, and has 17+1 rounds at the user's disposal. When utilizing the right ammo and shot placement it's more than effective enough. Most folks are better suited to one of these IMO. It's cheaper to buy mags and ammo, and you'll get fewer trips to the factory/gunsmith to keep it running. I can toss a wet Glock back in my range back after dropping it in mud and it will still work fin a month later.
I choose the Glock 19 for EDC for the above reasons. Certain offerings like the M&P 45 now offset the capacity/reliability gap and offer hi-capacity .45s in a cheap, shootable, low-to-no maintenance package and shouldn't be ignored either.
Since you put "7 rounds" I can assume you mean the 1911.
Yes, I was thinking of the 1911, because it is one of the choices I see made by experts and professionals who rely on their sidearm to stay alive. It also shows the greatest disparity in ammo capacity and yet those folks still choose the 1911. There seems to be something very desirable about that platform... FWIW, I have a couple of various size 9mm's and a 1911 too. My concealed carry is a small 9mm and because there appears to be enough experts floating around carrying .45 cal, I thought I should find out why.
The folks who choose the 1911 as a sidearm understand that they have a primary weapon on them too -- a carbine w/ 30rds onboard and 150rds or so in reserve. A pistol is a secondary. Those people are also very good shooters, and very good at reloading. That being said, some of those people are making their way to the Glocks.
I carry three pistols and do not ever feel undergunned with any of them. I carry a G19 with 15+1 and a 17rd reload. A G21SF with 13+1 and two 13rd reloads. A 1911 with 8+1 and two 8rd reloads. I am not going to ever have a Blackhawk Down scenario in my life. Period. So mag capacity most likely will never be an issue for me.
RogerinTPA
04-13-08, 20:51
Since a hit matters more than a miss, and a well placed shot is better than one that hits the wrong spot, I would go with whichever of the two you shoot better.
Totally agree. It's all about shot placement. I have all kinds of handguns in various cals. I go with my M&P9c the majority of the time with 2 spare mags and the G23 as the other concealed carry option. Go with the one you are most accurate and comfortable with.
Moon Doggie
04-13-08, 21:00
I would say Personal Preference I guess :)
I have a Springfield XD-40 with 12+1 and Love it, it is very Accurate with most any Round I run through it :)
I am thinking of Getting an XD-45 Next, I think the XD-45 is 13+1 if I am not Mistaken, 14 Rounds of .45 ACP is some serious Fire Power, but you still have to be able to Hit with it.
1 of the Biggest Selling Points for ME on the XD Series was/is the Grip Safety and the Trigger Safety, I don't have my CCW just yet, but I felt that it is pretty hard to get a ND while Pulling out of the Holster, and My Wife can shoot it without having to worry about Flipping a Safety off or on :D
Is the M&P .45 a High Capacity Pistol ? I didn't know it was, are the M&P .45's fairly Cheap in Price ?
Thank You Very Much
Moon Doggie
I can shoot faster and am more comfortable under stress with a 9mm than a 45.
Just something to think about.
Shivan pointed out something important, most of the people folks think carry 1911s---don't. It is a plastic world for the most part. Guys carrying the 1911s are fewer a farther between as time goes on. People who can perform the maintenance on them are dwindling and op-tempos are so high they had a mess of a time keeping them running.
FBI HRT still uses the Springfield Pro with good results.
RogerinTPA
04-13-08, 21:25
is the M&P .45 a High Capacity Pistol ? I didn't know it was, are the M&P .45's fairly Cheap in Price ?
It has a 10 rnd mag cap. I bought an M&P45, flat dark earth with night sights from Grant at G&R tactical back in Feb for $509.00 with 2 extra mags, a mail in $50.00 rebate and 2 free mags from S&W. It shoots great. I just got his current price sheet. Depending on the configuration you want, they range from $430 to $515. The rebate with S&W ends at the end of the month IIRC.
Changed the subject title for you.
The two most important points have already been made: a lot of people assume that the 1911 is being used by all sorts of folks who actually carry other guns, usually hi-cap 9mm or .40 pistols ... and there is a difference between what a tactical team needs as their secondary weapons and what you may want as your primary home defense or CCW pistol.
On the other hand, as much of an anit-1911 guy as I am, it's only fair to point out that some of the same things that make the 1911 problematic for a team or unit make it somewhat more practical for an enthusiastic individual. You can set up the gun exactly the way you want, maintain it the way you think you should, and switch to something else overnight if you have problems.
Personally, I chose the 17rd of 9mm (M&P9). I'm completely confident that my 9mm carry ammo will "work" just as well as any .45 ammo. But if you're not, pay more money so you can practice less with a round that recoils more in a gun that carries less ammo and be happy. :cool:
I really spent a lot of time and money on this exact issue. My firearms instructors that I paid good money to learn from finally settled it for me.
As an above user mentioned, I also learned that the idea of Mil Spec-Ops/LE SWAT teams carrying a 1911 generally have good armorers to back them up. Maintenance is required and it's an investment of time and money for a normal guy like me to keep the 1911 running as a dependable carry gun. I'd have to learn how to be my own armorer, or I'd have to send the gun off to someone.
The Glock (and others like it) provided a gun in which I could do most all of the work needed to keep it running. I wouldn't need to send it off for $500+ of work for it to run uber-reliably out of the box (thinking Mil-spec 1911 here. A local trainer out here named Bill Murphy got me thinking along those lines. LAV further cemented the Glock in 9mm caliber for me while asking him about the issue.
Our SEB teams (SWAT) could use whatever they want... they use our Department issue M9 with 147gr Ranger T's. Granted they use a long gun as their primary weapon... but they report good success with the M9. A couple of the guys told me that the MD's who work on their suspects in the operating rooms are paid to come in to speak with them about the damage done by our issue 9mm rounds. They stated that the Docs note a good amount of trama and penetration out of the M9. That helped me believe in the 147gr Ranger T.
Just last night our boys put down a guy with two shots of the 147gr... he died on the spot as one round went up his neck into his brain. Our department allows for the .45 (optional) or 9mm (issue) platform. Our boys report success with both. Mainly when it comes down to it guys choose either based on personal preference or "what I heard was that..."
I believe a user here named Doc said choose any modern hollowpoint loading, make sure it runs in your gun, and then keep training... I have never read something so simple yet utterly true about the subject.
I love being able to sleep easy now knowing that my 9mm platform will do it's job if I do mine.
With today's FBI stats showing that the average gunfight involves 5 assailants and 17 rounds of ammo expended, I've all but retired my 1911's and gone back to my Glocks. I carry a Glock 19 at work and a Glock 19 or Glock 21 outside of work.
ChandlerSniper158
04-13-08, 23:41
I believe its more about what YOU are comfortable with and can shoot well. I have no issues with carrying a 9mm with the right ammo. If I do what I`m supposed to do, it will do it`s job. Do I have a 1911.. yep the Chuck Rogers one thats my avitar, do I carry it no.. I carry my Glock 17 at work and for CCW.
I have no doubt that if I had the time and money for a good 1911, ammo, range time, and good instruction, that I could shoot a 1911 a lot better than my G17.
But I don't have any of those things, so Glock it is. I know that on the infrequent occasions that I actually get to shoot it, it'll go bang and put holes in things at a reasonable distance. Given the amount of time/money/effort I'm able to put into it on my end, that'll do fine.
One or the other isn't "better" for everything in general, just, different.
Moon Doggie
04-14-08, 00:12
I can hit with my XD-40 from 1 yard out to 50 yards, I haven't shot it past 50 yards, YET.
I am thinking of getting a Springfield .45 also, but that would be used just for Shooting around.
I am SO Comfortable, Confident and Familiar with my XD-40 that I wouldn't want to carry another Hand Gun.
What really sold me was that no matter what I fed the XD, it shot them perfect
My Wife Loves my XD-40, she shot my Ruger GP-100 and told me that she never wants to shoot the GP-100 again, and she was shooting .38 Spcl in it :confused:
She asked me to get her a 9mm, she said she wanted to take the CCW Class, so I was going over them and thinking which one was good for Her and I decided to ask her a question, and I told her to Think HARD about it, I asked her IF she could pull the Trigger and KILL another Human Being if need be, if the Guy was going to Rape her or Kill her, and she said NO !!!
So she said that MAYBE, if someone attacked me or the Kids, but she said that she could NOT drop the Hammer on another Human Being no matter what :eek:
Well needless to say, she isn't getting her own Gun, but I had Confidence in New Bullet Technology, enough that I was going to get her a Hi Cap 9mm.
I wouldn't Carry or use a 9mm, but I am addicted to the .40 S&W and the
.45 ACP
Moon Doggie
NCPatrolAR
04-14-08, 00:37
With today's FBI stats showing that the average gunfight involves 5 assailants and 17 rounds of ammo expended,
? I've yet to hear that. I know that doesnt hold true in these parts.
Army Chief
04-14-08, 00:38
I politely disagree with the assertion that most engagements are likely to involve multiple assailants and 17+ rounds fired. That may well be what the FBI is encountering in their tip-of-the-spear operations, but this seems to be out of step with law enforcement in general -- at least, in all but the bluest of blue states -- and it is definitely out of step with the "average" self-defense scenario.
If you look at other data sources (i.e. the NRA tracks this rather well) private citizens tend to face a single assailant -- occasionally with a co-beligerent in tow -- and the fight is usually over in 3-5 rounds. If you find yourself facing multiple attackers with the need for repeated reloads, I've got to ask (a) where the heck you are, and (b) how you let yourself get there in the first place. Good situational awareness wil prevent most shooting scenarios -- justiifed or otherwise.
Of course, the question here was less about platforms and more about calibers, and while I think one's chosen platform has a very great impact upon the discussion, in simplistic terms, it really does boil down to the inherent accuracy of the weapon and the competence of the operator. Two hits with a .45 ACP are definitely better than 17+ near-misses with a 9x19mm -- but on the other hand, two hits with a .22 LR would also be better than 17+ misses with a 9.
The .40 seems to occupy the middle ground here, but in the 9mm versus .45 ACP debate, I think it comes to this: the high-capacity 9mms of the 1980s resulted in a migration away from revolvers and older automatics because the round was easier to shoot (training issue), and you could keep a lot more of it immediately on tap (firepower issue). That pretty much remained the case for the rank-and-file until the mid-90s when magazine capacity restrictions negated some of the latter argument. While the die-hard pistol aficianados had been carrying 1911s all along, more and more casual shooters began to see the benefit of going back to a harder hitting round, since fewer of them could be legally carried.
Thus began the 1911s grand resurgence in the marketplace ... but it didn't really change the endgame. Suppliers tooled up to meet the demand, and a great many finicky pistols were sold to people who weren't altogether comfortable (or competent) with the .45 ACP round, and who were increasingly frustrated with the fact that their new Brand-X 1911 wasn't as idiot-proof or tolerant of abuse as their old Glock Model-X. When the magazine ban expired, we ended up with a whole lot of people standing around trying to figure out what to do -- but I suspect most have gone back to a high-capacity autoloader.
I'm not a Glock basher, but when I carry a 9mm, it's an old P7. When I carry anything else, it's usually a Wilson 1911. Hi-cap 9mms are wonderful tools, but I don't really want to get into the "spray and pray" mindset that seems to prevail in a lot of modern police departments. As a former LEO, I'm not taking anything away from my brothers in blue, but we all know that when you have more rounds to fire, the tendency is to fire more rounds, whether or not you're actually taking the time to compose the shot and actually hit anything. When you know that you've got fewer on tap to begin with, you tend to make each one count. The hardware has improved over the years, but human nature is still human nature. :)
9x19 or .45 ACP? Who cares? Find a pistol you can hit with, train with it regularly, and let somebody else worry about the statistics and ballistics reports. LOL
Chief
SGT D USMC
04-14-08, 00:52
9 mm's are good--------for harrassment fire
While I agree that the ball ammo issued to those in service is less than desireable, that is not the same as the personal defense ammo that is commercialy available to us now.
I am perfectly comfortable using 9 mm G17/19's; full size .40 M&P's, or properly set-up 5" .45 ACP single stack 1911's--with proper training and practice, any will work adequately. I personally am more accurate with the 1911, but they require more attention to maintenance and more practice to maximize effectiveness.
Recent (post 86) performance handgun bullets are designed to meet FBI desired criteria: 12" minimum and 18" maximum penetation in specially prepared gelatin, bare, and also though a variety of intermediate barriers.
Despite the "They all fall to hardball" line of thinking, there is precious little difference between the performance of the better 38/9/40/10/45 loads. The ammo makers are trying (and succeeding) to meet the FBI criteria.
Moreover, even with ball ammo, a hit to the heart or brain with a 9mm is little different (and not enough to matter) than a hit to the heart or brain with a 45.
With Ball and JHP, unexpanded diameter of 9mm to .45 is merely .1" different:355" v. .451".
Max expanded JHP diameters that I've seen have been in the .6" range and .7 range, respectively.
Could that extra .1" make a critical difference? Or is it inconsequential?
Of course, with 9 v. 40 and 40 v. 45, we're only talking .05" difference in projectile diameter. Again, is this inconsequential?
Remember, all the above bullets are very similar in how much penetration they achieve.
Would an extra 9 rounds in the mag (8+1 v. 17+1) make a significant difference in a gunfight?
Handguns are rather anemic and ill suited to the task of incapcacitating people who are trying to kill you. We carry them because they are convenient, not because they are effective. If you are expecting a fight, take a long gun.
Because handguns are less ballistically effective, it can (and generally does) take more shots to stop the threat with a handgun, than it would for a long gun.
I believe that not having to reload (or to reload less often) is a good thing, especially if you have to carry your spare mags under a cover garment, which lengthens the time it takes to reload the pistol.
I'd like to believe that people with low cap guns tend to shoot them more carefully to attain better hits, but I have not seen that to be the case when holding live fire scenarios and sims scenarios. I have yet to find more than anedotal support for this line of thinking.
To take this line of thinking to its logical extention, we should arm everyone with single or double shot handguns, because then they would be real careful about how they used that 1 or 2 shots. After all, the "average" shooting only takes 3-5 seconds, with 1 attacker, and only a few shots are fired, right?
On the flip side, spraying and praying is never the answer. However, when you are engaging a thinking, breathing, moving threat (or threats) trying to kill you, in reduced light conditions, and suffering from perceptual distortions and loss of fine and complex motor skills, it becomes a bit more difficult to get good hits, and people tend to miss more often.
Officers who shoot high scores on qualifications courses usually attain low hit percentages in the real world (the average is often quoted as around 20%).
Sims and other RBT training can improve peformance and also hit ratios, but how many people (agencies? officers? private individuals?) can and do train in this way? Not most.
In summary, IMO, not having to reload the pistol trumps .05" or .1" difference in diameter of the projectile.
Army Chief
04-14-08, 02:24
Handguns are rather anemic and ill suited to the task of incapcacitating people who are trying to kill you. We carry them because they are convenient, not because they are effective. If you are expecting a fight, take a long gun.
I left it unsaid, but to my way of thinking, this is perhaps the most salient point made yet. Carry what you can consistently hit with, but if you're expecting a fight, you really shouldn't be there with a handgun in the first place.
Chief
With Sig making 20 round factory mags for the 226, coupled with the short reset trigger in my 226 elite, I will pick that combo over any other handgun in the world.
variablebinary
04-14-08, 03:42
Anyone that carries will debate this at one point.
I personally went with a G19.
I prefer volume, and being further away from slide lock. I carry good JHP ammo and an extra mag in most cases
Mexican and Polynesian gangs are another issue. More people means more bullets.
With today's FBI stats showing that the average gunfight involves 5 assailants and 17 rounds of ammo expended, I've all but retired my 1911's and gone back to my Glocks. I carry a Glock 19 at work and a Glock 19 or Glock 21 outside of work.
As an active LEO I must say false. This has spawned from gun counter talk, most likely derived from the infamous "FBI-Miami Shootout of 1986". This is the incident where the FBI's .38 +P's and 9mm's "failed" against two heavily armed bank robbers and led to the adoption of the S&W 1076 (?) 10mm and ulimately spawned the .40 S&W. (see link below for a good read). Or maybe it was just some Jakie Chan movie?
Unofficially (my take), most shootings are spontaneous engagements at very close range. Involved Officers nearly always believe they fired "a couple of rounds" when in reality numerous rounds were fired. A good percentage of shootings involve vehicles; shooting into, out of, through or - the vehicle itself is the deadly weapon being used against the officer. Auto glass and auto bodies is a consideration for choosing a duty round/caliber. That said, what is the best round?
Any reliable 9mm, .40 or .45 that you shoot well. Loaded with modern (bonded for LEO) _______(your brand here) hollow point ammo that reliably feeds in your weapon.
What do I carry? Glock 22/27 .40's. Why? It was MY compromise after carrying a "whimpy" S&W 6909 9mm for years. This was when all the cool kids were carrying bigger, badder, high-cap guns. I twice turned down the Glock 23 when it was issued to me. The reason was, I loved that gun, I shot it very well and the only thing that caused it malfunctions was Montana Gold ammo (if anyone remembers that filthy stuff). I had no doubt I could place the 13 rnds of 9 on target. After 8 ('96-'04) years, it was time for a weapons update. The Glock .40 is the most commonly issued/carried LEO weapon in my neck of the woods. I can honestly say I don't like my Glock 22. It is a tool. It is a tool that I trust my life with and I shoot it well. The 27 is another story. I love that gun and shoot it better than it's big brother. And no Glock .40 kabooms! The .40 is a snappy, obnoxious round to shoot. Some may have issues with that. I don't. With no scientific data to support this, I just believe the .40 to be a better "all-around" performer. And that is what it is all about. What ever makes you sleep better at night. Some prefer to leave as big of hole as possible, while others swear by the 9. In the end, they are ALL handgun rounds, which lack the power to substantially flatten someone as a rifle round would. Yes, I have a G17, and 1911's and well as "modern" .45's. The .40 was my choice, based on my needs and what I felt was the best tool for the job. YMWV (your mileage WILL vary).
A good read on the FBI-Miami incedent:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm
O 319
It looks we have at least two points of complete agreement on this subject:
1) pick one or the other based on your personal circumstances
2) be darn sure to train to use the one you pick!
With today's FBI stats showing that the average gunfight involves 5 assailants and 17 rounds of ammo expended
I believe the round count, but that number for the bad guys.
Average being intermediate between extremes, 5 far exceeds anything I've seen in my area.
Gutshot John
04-14-08, 09:16
I think of it as a false choice.
Both are perfectly adequate calibers. All things being equal... slightly bigger bullets make slightly bigger holes, bigger holes mean more blood, so I guess if you absolutely HAVE to choose... choose the biggest bullet you can shoot accurately.
I shoot 9mm best and am almost as good with a .45. I'd confidently reach for whatever was most readily available. I am least accurate with a .40/.357 sig.
My choice between the two has little to do with caliber/firepower but what will I shoot better with under stress. Given the safety and other things I prefer the "no switches, no glitches, no bitches" mantra. I love the 1911 but for combat I'd rather have the Glock 17/19/34 but BOTH perform their intended functions.
CarlosDJackal
04-14-08, 09:54
I'm trying to determine why so many experienced folks prefer 7 rounds of .45 cal over more rounds in a slightly less powerful caliber....
1) Which one can you use EFFECTIVELY? This means that you can, under duress and in any condition, put the rounds where you want to as fast as you can. It has to provide the appropriate balance of accuracy and speed. Remember, a fast miss is still a miss.
2) What is your situation? This will help dictate if you need 17+1 versus 7+1 (plus reloads). If you realistically expect to face a dozen gang-bangers at one time, then the 17-round 9mm would probably be the better choice.
3) Which one would you be willing to practice regularly with? You could have the most "powerful" handgun in the world, but if something (ie: cost, weight, etc) about it will prevent you from practicing regularly with it, then what good is it? I prefer to buy and shoot a hundred rounds of 9mm over 50-rounds of .45 ACP (exaggerated to make the point).
4) Which one do you think you would actually carry regularly? A defensive handgun, no matter how great it is, is no good to you if you cannot access it when needed.
This is a personal preference thing. But with the advancements in self-defense ammunition design, R&D, and manufacturing; a 9mm is more than capable of provide the effectiveness that you would need for self-defense in MOST SITUATIONS. Notice, I said "MOST SITUATIONS" because I personally know of one situation in which the 9mm failed the shooter (it involved shots to a Chow to the head). But then again, this may very well have been a failure in the part of the ammunition .
I personally have no issues carrying a Glock 26 (10+1) for self-defense even though I used to carry a Glock 30 (9+1). When it comes to self-defense a cartridge's "power" is only only relevant if you can deliver that power were it is needed. Remember, "power is nothing without control". JM2CW.
ADDED: My current duty gun is a Glock 35 and my primary off duty gun is a Glock 23. Once in a while, I carry the Glock 26, Glock 19 or the Kel-Tec P-3AT (normally my BUG). For the .40, I carry the Winchester 180-grain SXTs. For the 9mm I carry either the Winchester 127-grain +P SXT or the Federal 115-grain +P+ JHP.
The risk of multiple perps is reality. The probability you are going to have the same hit factor in an actual defensive shooting as you do during a practice session is not. There is a reason police traded in more powerful, 357 and 41 Magnum 6 shot revolvers for less powerful, but higher capacity 9mm and 40S&W guns.
I'd like to believe that people with low cap guns tend to shoot them more carefully to attain better hits, but I have not seen that to be the case when holding live fire scenarios and sims scenarios. I have yet to find more than anedotal support for this line of thinking.
This has been my experience as well. The number of people I've seen who purposely "slow down" under the stress of a dynamic confrontation is right around zero.
At the same time, I think it's fair to look at this from the other side. OK, we can imagine a 6-on-1 situation where lots o' bullets will be a good thing. But how many 6-on-1 Sim scenarios have you seen go in the individual's favor? Don't get me wrong, I've said before it would suck to have your last thought on earth be, "Damn, wish I had more ammo." But from a practical standpoint, extra ammo reaches a point of diminishing returns for an individual carrying for defensive/reactive purposes.
To me, the benefits of a high-capacity gun are: I can engage a few threats with 5-6 rounds each without having to reload.
If I've shot a number of rounds and only have a second to get my gun up to full capacity, I can do a speed ("IPSC style") reload, leaving that partial mag on the ground and still have more ammo than a guy carrying a 1911 + 1 spare mag.
John_Wayne777
04-14-08, 11:30
I'm trying to determine why so many experienced folks prefer 7 rounds of .45 cal over more rounds in a slightly less powerful caliber.
Probably because the 1911 lets them hit a target under stress better than other handguns.
That's why I am a fan of 1911s. When the time comes to put a bullet in a target I find that the 1911 lets me do it without conscious thought.
As a result, I carried one for a long time.
These days I carry an M&P 90 + % of the time because it gives me performance that is close to what my 1911 offered at a fraction of the price, and it holds a lot more ammo to boot. Score.
After reliability the single most important measure of a handgun design's suitability for your purposes, in my opinion, is whether or not you can use it to put a bullet where you need it under stress. Give me a choice between my reliable 1911 with 9 rounds of .45 ACP that I know I can put on target when I need to versus a Glock 17 with 18 rounds that maybe on a really good day I can put where they need to go, and I will select the 1911 almost every time.
If I may be so bold as to borrow Mr. Vickers' motto: "Speed is fine. Accuracy is final." and modify it somewhat, I'd say "Capacity is fine. Accuracy is final."
Hits end threats. The RELIABLE weapon (and yes, 1911s can be very reliable) that lets you make hits under stress with the greatest of ease is, ceteris paribus, the weapon that I would suggest you carry as a defensive tool.
John_Wayne777
04-14-08, 11:34
I have no doubt that if I had the time and money for a good 1911, ammo, range time, and good instruction, that I could shoot a 1911 a lot better than my G17.
My experience is that most folks can shoot a 1911 better than a Glock with very little training time...
But then there's that little issue of getting a 1911 that is as reliable as an out of the box Glock, and that sure as hell ain't a cheap proposition. The cost of a good reliable 1911 is what sent me back to the realm of the plastic pistols. After seeing other folks have some luck with the M&P's I decided I would give them a shot too. So far I have been very pleased with the results I've had from them.
HolyRoller
04-14-08, 12:41
Which one - 17 rounds of 9mm vs 7 rds of .45 cal?
I'll take 6 rounds of 12-gauge 15-pellet 00, or 28 rounds of 5.56mm, please.
The average gunfight involves x bad guys and y rounds fired at z range ...
What en thee Hayul is an "average" gunfight? Bad guys around here must not have read the FBI/NYPD/LAPD stats because they keep starting above-average gunfights.
Studies have found conclusive scientific proof that 94.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot. It's not what your enemy will LIKELY do--it's what your enemy CAN do. Prepare for as much of that as you can make time and money for.
Carlos,
The Winchester 127-grain +P SXT is significantly more robust and consistent than the Federal 115-grain +P+ JHP.
I'll take round count over size. Especially if the round count has a 2:1 advantage over size. Frankly, when you are in a situation to use your pistol and the adrenalin surges, your aim goes to sh*t and you'll need more rounds to complete your task. If you are especially adept at keeping your adrenalin surge at bay, then shot placement can occur and either bullet will do its job.
That said, I have enjoyed the compromise of the .40 in full size pistol frames. For smaller CCW, 9mm is my primary choice for pistol control and appropriate round count.
I'll take the .45 always. My Kimber over a Glock anyday.
Average being intermediate between extremes, 5 far exceeds anything I've seen in my area.
Actually, that's the median. But we digress.......
I think it is dangerous to put too much weight in averages and statistics. Such mathematical calculations only have meaning when you are dealing with a very large sample. You may only have one gunfight and avergaes and statistics won't matter.
I think of the off-duty officer that confronted the shotgun wielding jihadist in the Salt Lake UT area mall. He was armed with a Kimber 1911 and 8 rounds of .45 ACP. The badguy was on another level of the mall and was behind cover.
That officer stated that he was aware of his low ammunition capacity and fired occasionally at him to keep him pinned down. He even stated that he planned on saving his last few rounds to go after the guy.
The 1911 is a great gun, but I'm sure that in that particular situation he would have preferred a higher capacity pistol and a reload. A Glock 17 with a spare mag would have given him 35 rounds. His Kimber (if he had brought a reload) would have been 15-16 rounds. In his situation, the more ammo he would have had, the longer he would have until he would have to make a desperate decision.
The point I am making is not whether a 8-9 shot 1911 is better or worse than an 18 shot G17. Just don't assume that because most gunfights involve 1 assailant at close range and require around 3 shots that if you find yourself in a gunfight that is what you will have.
Personally, when off-duty I carry a G26 with 12 rounds loaded and a spare G17 mag. That's more ammo then I used to carry on duty with a Sig 220.
Just don't assume that because most gunfights involve 1 assailant at close range and require around 3 shots that if you find yourself in a gunfight that is what you will have.
I think your statement is spot on about not getting caught up in the normal box of off-duty/personal encounters. Great point... my training partner and I now ALWAYS carry a spare magazine just in case one were to be in a situation like you described... you just never know when extra rounds will come in handy.
SGT D USMC
04-14-08, 23:39
I'm a 1911 man all the way, perhaps because you can't teach an old dog new tricks, but----- speaking of old tricks, when hitting the target with the next shot means surviving, I defy anyone to tell me of a hand gun that would give you more confidence than looking down the sights of a N frame S&W and squezing off a single action shot.-------------------he went into younder village and never returned.
ALWAYS carry extra magazines!
If I am running a G19 off duty, that preferably means one in the pistol (14+1) and 2 extra G17 mags (32) for a total of 47 rounds; with a 1911 off duty, in the same space I get 1 in the gun (8+1) + 4 extras (24) for a total of 41 rounds--not much different.
Note--we download our Glock mags by 1 round for optimal function.
do i trust my skills enough to only have 7 rounds on tap when the zombie goul is charging me with a machete, chemical cocktail dump in my body, and it is all i can do to get the damn pistol clear of kydex before i start humping the trigger?
no.
give me as many chances to **** up as possible.
do i trust my skills enough to only have 7 rounds on tap when the zombie goul is charging me with a machete, chemical cocktail dump in my body, and it is all i can do to get the damn pistol clear of kydex before i start humping the trigger?
no.
give me as many chances to **** up as possible.
The reality is that the zombie ghoul is already dead, so you can't kill it any further. If you're in that situation, you might as well set down whatever you have because you're totally f**ked anyway..... :D
"zombie ghoul" being metaphor for any machete wielding assailant.....of course.;)
Everyone knows zombies are dead, but can be de-animated through cerebral trauma.
And you can de-animate a lot more of them with a Glock.
Everyone knows zombies are dead, but can be de-animated through cerebral trauma.
And you can de-animate a lot more of them with a Glock.
Is anything like erasing a cartoon? :p
I have not been there and done that. But for me, it's situation dependant. I don't pay too much attention to statistical averages. Right now, my "default" carry gun is a 45 (8+1 in a Sig P220). I think both the 45 and 9mm are bad people stopper rounds. But, in my humble opinion, from everything I've seen, know, heard . . . , the 45 is overall, significantly terminally ballistically superior to the 9mm.
However, if I'm in a situation where I think I may need more capacity, I'll usually carry a Sig P226 (a high capacity 9mm). If I'm out in the middle of nowhere, this is what I'm likely to have on me.
I always carry at least one extra mag, and like to have it easily accessible. I carry it just as much to help me if I need to clear a malfunction than for the extra ammo. That being said, the magazine capacity difference for each gun option is even more significant when you factor in the second magazine's capacity.
This whole discussion reminds me of something funny I once heard. No one ever stood up in the middle of a gunfight, threw up their hands and said, "STOP!. I have entirely too much ammo."
Joe Mamma
SGT D USMC
04-15-08, 11:29
My background is military not law enforcement. Law enforcement shootings are often In the news, and as much as I hate to quote that source, the most often mention of large magazine capacity is when 1 or 2 policemen shoot one bad guy 14 or 28 times so fast he dosn't get a chance to die before they run dry (also it is from a sub cal. round --9mm--) Well how often do you read about a person being shot after their 1911 ran dry? Please understand I am not condiming a policeman for shooting the bad guy too many times. If it is a shooting sutuation shoot until the threat is gone. But what good was the extra cap of little bullets. The big question is will you empty the mag. on one target when confronting multible targets? If you are self training and you like to shoot at a can, rock , or whatever and enpress yourself and others by how fast you can empty your high cap. mag. You may very well act as trained. --------------he went into younder village and never returned
For a while, I was going back and forth - 1911 or Glock, 9mm or .45, 17 rds or 8, etc. Then I got some very sound advice from a gunfight survivor. He said all that crap doesn't matter. He told me that it is my gunfight, I own it, and I have decide what is best for me. I won't be able to get advice on the internet.
So I put some thought into what I carried, why, how I trained, how well I shot, and what I thought I might face. I carry two guns. Primarily a 5" 1911 with 8 rd mag plus one in the chamber, along with 2 spare 8 rd mags, or a Glock 19 14+1 with one spare mag. I am comfortable with either, though I shoot the 1911 better. Both have proven reliable.
What is more important to me is that I am carrying a gun that I am competent with, that I'm able and prepared to use, and that will work when needed. I tend to favor the .45 based off my experiences of dealing with gunshot wounds. The area I work in is ghetto, to be blunt. I deal with gunshot victims damn near daily. I have seen cases where an extra .1" may have made the difference between cutting an artery, or hitting the spinal chord.
Again, based of what I have seen with my own eyes, I feel bigger is better. The bigger the hole, the harder it is for me to stop the bleeding. It also seems that the bigger calibers do a better job of smashing bone, especially the heavier bones such as the femur and pelvis. None of this is scientific, I'm not that smart. I'm just staying in my lane posting what I have experienced and seen first hand. No need to argue with me or tell me why the 9mm is better, thats not my point - I don't want to get shot with either. The point is that I came to a educated, informed decision on what I prefered to primarily carry based on my own experiences and research.
I'm not as concerned with the capacity issue. In three years, I have been on well over 30 shootings. I can't remember any over 5 rounds, including OIS. Again, I know statistically 30 is nothing, but it is what it is, my first hand experience. Yes I could end up facing a bunch of armed MS-13 guys, but I could also get struck by lightning. I'm comfortable with 9 in the gun.
A well built 1911 with 8+1, plus a couple spares, in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing is nothing to take lightly. Neither is a Glock 17. Both our outstanding platforms to protect yourself with. Neither is perfect, each has its trade offs, and nobody but you can decide which is better.
While I agree that the ball ammo issued to those in service is less than desireable, that is not the same as the personal defense ammo that is commercialy available to us now.
I have to agree with that.....If ball were/is the only choice, then I'll take one of my 1911s any day of the week....If there's no limit set on ammo choice I'll take either the G17 or one of the 1911s
RogerinTPA
04-15-08, 20:52
My background is military not law enforcement. Law enforcement shootings are often In the news, and as much as I hate to quote that source, the most often mention of large magazine capacity is when 1 or 2 policemen shoot one bad guy 14 or 28 times so fast he dosn't get a chance to die before they run dry (also it is from a sub cal. round --9mm--) Well how often do you read about a person being shot after their 1911 ran dry? Please understand I am not condiming a policeman for shooting the bad guy too many times. If it is a shooting sutuation shoot until the threat is gone. But what good was the extra cap of little bullets. The big question is will you empty the mag. on one target when confronting multible targets? If you are self training and you like to shoot at a can, rock , or whatever and enpress yourself and others by how fast you can empty your high cap. mag. You may very well act as trained. --------------he went into younder village and never returned
How many times have you read where the cops fire 50 to 100 plus rounds and only hit the guy 3 or 4 times from 4 or more cops???? Shooting everything BUT the bad guy.:rolleyes: Looks like they should practice more "Bill Drills"!
How many times have you read where the cops fire 50 to 100 plus rounds and only hit the guy 3 or 4 times from 4 or more cops???? Shooting everything BUT the bad guy.:rolleyes: Looks like they should practice more "Bill Drills"!
There is a tremendous difference between firing "50 to 100 plus rounds" and actually hitting someone 50-100 times without effect, or even ten times.
In my experience, probably not 1% of the police officers on the street would know what a Bill Drill is. Nor have I ever seen a mandatory qualification that has anything close to that kind of speed requirement.
The fact that I might be able to put six rounds of 9mm into someone in the time it takes his body to fall down, as opposed to three or four rounds of .45 in that same time period, doesn't seem like a negative to me. :cool:
The Virginia Tech shooter was (unfortunately) very effective with a high cap 9mm and a .22.
The Virginia Tech shooter was (unfortunately) very effective with a high cap 9mm and a .22.
Yes facing young, unarmed, surprised victims.
How many times have you read where the cops fire 50 to 100 plus rounds and only hit the guy 3 or 4 times from 4 or more cops???? Shooting everything BUT the bad guy.:rolleyes: Looks like they should practice more "Bill Drills"!
You have to understand the general consensus among L.E. administrators across the country to understand this. Those administrators in many cases do not wish to spend their budgets on training LEO's to become proficient at winning a gunfight. The mere thought invokes fears of negative newspaper headlines. Now each agency is different... YMMV.
The vast majority of L.E. does not receive the level of training provided at a single LAV course. Heck, Frontsight even rivals many basic academy courses... and Frontsight is BASIC training. Many LEO's are required to qual every trimester or less often. A qual might be as simple as 10-30 rounds on target at 25 yards.
Should the individual LEO train more? Yes... but many take the attitude that their department has properly trained them for a gunfight, so why spend the time and money. They rely on luck to help them survive a confrontation which usually sees the bad guy as the first one to get a shot off. The amazing thing is that the bad guys don't often win.
The amazing thing is that the bad guys don't often win.
Well.......
The Killing Mindset
Richard Valdemar
"If the sword is always sheathed, it will become rusty, the blade will dull, and people will think as much of its owner." —Yamamoto Tsunetomo, Hagakure: The Book of the Samurai
Recently the FBI published a study entitled "violent encounters: A study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers," which found that criminal gang members and other felons practice their skills with firearms more often and shoot more accurately then the police officers they try to kill. The research was conducted and summarized in a report by clinical forensic psychologist Dr. Anthony Pinizzotto and criminal investigative instructor Ed Davis. Both are now with the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit. Also contributing to this study was Charles Miller III, coordinator of LEO's Killed and Assaulted statistical program. An in-depth article covering the findings of this study was published by the Force Science Research Center; it is recommended reading.
The research carefully studied over 800 violent encounters and selected 40 incidents involving 43 offenders, including 13 who were admitted gang members and drug dealers. The 40 selected incidents also involved 50 law enforcement officers. Both the cops and the bad guys were interviewed in detail and crime scenes were visited to glean valuable information in understanding these lethal encounters.
Although I have encountered many of the circumstances described in this study during my 30+ years as a gang assault investigator with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, it was shocking to read just how much of a disadvantage the average officer has over the felons who would attempt to kill him. A great number of the gang homicides and drive-by shootings that I have investigated involved lethal shots to the victim's head, which means that they shoot pretty good, even from a moving car. I have seen many photographs of White, Hispanic, African American, and Asian gang members practicing their weapons skills "at the range."
Judging by this photographic evidence, Asian Gangs conduct the most training and preparation for a firefight. Video captured in an Asian Boyz case a few years ago shows the gang repeatedly firing at two 55-gallon drums from two moving vehicles. A follow vehicle would then stop and a designated shooter would run up to the drums and at close range administer the "Todome" (Japanese) or "Coup de Grace" (French), simulating the killing of any surviving victims.
In a Los Angeles FOX 11 TV news story, white gang members from the PEN1 Death Squad are seen practicing with pistols and shotguns on targets meant to simulate African Americans.
In contrast to the preparation undertaken by gang members, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department requires all sworn deputies to qualify at the shooting range only once every quarter. Many deputies have difficulty meeting this minimal test. Thirty years ago, we were required to qualify every month. While many police officers in my era were hunters, had military experience, or were otherwise familiar with shooting firearms, this is not true today. In those former days our LASD range had reloading equipment; we utilized the empty brass, and produced cheep practice ammunition. The range staff encouraged us to use this ammunition in frequent and extended trips to the range for hours of recreational shooting. Today LASD deputies are pushed through the standard qualification course in assembly line fashion. This regimented punching holes in paper is not the kind of preparation you need to survive a "close encounter of the worst kind," and good luck finding a safe place to shoot for recreation in the Los Angeles area.
According to the FBI's violent encounters study, some offenders admitted to regularly carrying weapons at the ages of nine to 12 years old. On average, the offenders were 17 years old when they first were armed "most of the time." Gang members were highlighted as starting especially young. Surprisingly, almost 40 percent of the offenders had some type of formal firearms training, primarily from the military. 80 percent reported that they "regularly practiced with handguns," averaging about 23 practice sessions a year. That means that they practiced on average six times more often than LASD requires of its deputies. But the average victim officer averaged even less: only about 14 hours of sidearm training and only 2.5 qualifications in a year. Only six of the 50 officers reported regular practice outside of the department.
Before they even attacked officers in the studied incidents, more than 40 percent of the felons admitted to being involved in prior shooting confrontations. Ten of the offenders were described as "street combat veterans" with five or more "criminal fire fights" in their lifetimes* all of them from inner city drug-trafficking environments. How many have you experienced?
One of the "street combat veterans" said he was only 14 years old when he was first shot on the street and "about 18 before a cop shot me." Another reported that getting shot was a pivotal experience, "because I made up my mind no one was gonna shoot me again." One offender talked about practice and motivation, he fired 12 rounds striking the victim officer four times. The officer fired seven rounds, all of them were misses.
In general, all of the offenders were more successful in getting rounds on target than their officer counterparts. 70 percent of the offenders got at least one hit and only 40 percent of the officers scored a hit. Ed Davis pointed out that the offenders in all but three incidents fired first catching the officer by surprise. This put the officers at an immediate disadvantage. Ten of the victim officers were impaired by their wounds in attempting to return fire.
The most disturbing aspect of the report is the disparity of the mindsets held by the offenders and the officers. Having had many encounters with career offenders and prison gang members, I knew that this was an important factor, but underestimated its effects. The violent encounters study pointed out many of the victim officers had experienced an average of four "hazardous situations where they had the legal authority" to use deadly force "but chose not to shoot." The researchers concluded, "It appears clear that none of these officers were willing to use deadly force against an offender if other options were available."
On the other hand, the offender's mindset was totally different. Davis said that the study team "did not realize how cold blooded the younger generation of offender is. They have been exposed to killing after killing, they fully expect to get killed and they don't hesitate to shoot anybody, including a police officer. They can go from riding down the street saying what a beautiful day it is, to killing in the next instant." The repot states, "Offenders typically displayed no moral or ethical restraints in using firearms… In fact the street combat veterans survived by developing a shoot first mentality."
Got big plans for this weekend? Watching the football or baseball game on your new HD television? Thinking about a night out with the boys or girls? Maybe you are planning a round of golf? Well, maybe you should listen to Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman when he says, "Piss on Golf!" Practice your martial arts skills, especially your shooting skills. Practice and prepare for that bad day, that violent encounter.
SGT D USMC
04-16-08, 02:06
Thank you JLM for the time and trouble of your posting. It was A good glass of ice water in the face.------------------he went into younder village and never returned.
variablebinary
04-16-08, 02:08
Well...
There is a solution...
Split the difference and get a .40
On average you get 12-13 rounds in a compact pistol.
What's not to like :)
Well...
There is a solution...
Split the difference and get a .40
On average you get 12-13 rounds in a compact pistol.
What's not to like :)
A solution to what problem exactly? I'm all for solutions but ;)
I fail to see what .40 does that 9x19 can't in most instances. And if part of the solution includes a G22, well.........no :o
.40 was a great exercise in how to market something.
NCPatrolAR
04-16-08, 02:33
He said all that crap doesn't matter. He told me that it is my gunfight, I own it, and I have decide what is best for me. I won't be able to get advice on the internet.
Sounds like something I heard Bill Jeans say.
variablebinary
04-16-08, 03:10
A solution to what problem exactly? I'm all for solutions but ;)
I fail to see what .40 does that 9x19 can't in most instances. And if part of the solution includes a G22, well.........no :o
.40 was a great exercise in how to market something.
Nahhh, that's just silly.
The .40 does in fact make bigger holes, and hits harder than a 9mm, and gives you more bullets than a .45 in a 9mm package
For people torn between .45 and 9mm the .40 is an ideal solution. There is a lot to like there.
We are going a bit OT here but:
Hits harder? Do you mean in the old Evan Marshall "Stopping Power" / Kinetic Energy sense? :o
variablebinary
04-16-08, 03:45
We are going a bit OT here but:
Hits harder? Do you mean in the old Evan Marshall "Stopping Power" / Kinetic Energy sense? :o
Mostly I was jesting about the .40, but sense you asked :)
No, I meant the .40 literally hits harder. Like, literally in the truest sense. No point in saying it doesnt, now.
And yeah we are going OT here
Nah, I mean it literally hits harder. It's true. Not much to refute really.
"Hits harder" in what sense?
To whit:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf
The often referred to "knock-down power" implies the ability of a bullet to move its target. This is nothing more than momentum of the bullet. It is the transfer of momentum that will cause a target to move in response to the blow received. "Isaac Newton proved this to be the case mathematically in the 17th Century, and Benjamin Robins verified it experimentally through the invention and use of the ballistic pendulum to determine muzzle velocity by measurement of the pendulum motion."29
Goddard amply proves the fallacy of "knock-down power" by calculating the heights (and resultant velocities) from which a one pound weight and a ten pound weight must be dropped to equal the momentum of 9mm and .45ACP projectiles at muzzle velocities, respectively. The results are revealing. In order to equal the impact of a 9mm bullet at its muzzle velocity, a one pound weight must be dropped from a height of 5.96 feet, achieving a velocity of 19.6 fps. To equal the impact of a .45ACP bullet, the one pound weight needs a velocity of 27.1 fps and must be dropped from a height of 11.4 feet. A ten pound weight equals the impact of a 9mm bullet when dropped from a height of 0.72 inches (velocity attained is 1.96 fps), and equals the impact of a .45 when dropped from 1.37 inches (achieving a velocity of 2.71 fps).30
A bullet simply cannot knock a man down. If it had the energy to do so, then equal energy would be applied against the shooter and he too would be knocked down. This is simple physics, and has been known for hundreds of years.31 The amount of energy deposited in the body by a bullet is approximately equivalent to being hit with a baseball.32 Tissue damage is the only physical link to incapacitation within the desired time frame, i.e., instantaneously.
The human target can be reliably incapacitated only by disrupting or destroying the brain or upper spinal cord. Absent that, incapacitation is subject to a host of variables, the most important of which are beyond the control of the shooter. Incapacitation becomes an eventual event, not necessarily an immediate one. If the psychological factors which can contribute to incapacitation are present, even a minor wound can be immediately incapacitating. If they are not present, incapacitation can be significantly delayed even with major, unsurvivable wounds.
The critical wounding components for handgun ammunition, in order of importance, are penetration and permanent cavity.33 The bullet must penetrate sufficiently to pass through vital organs and be able to do so from less than optimal angles. For example, a shot from the side through an arm must penetrate at least 10-12 inches to pass through the heart. A bullet fired from the front through the abdomen must penetrate about 7 inches in a slender adult just to reach the major blood vessels in the back of the abdominal cavity. Penetration must be sufficiently deep to reach and pass through vital organs, and the permanent cavity must be large enough to maximize tissue destruction and consequent hemorrhaging.
Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding.
Are your referencing differences in permanent cavity sizes or what? If you mean "hits harder" in reference to kinetic energy well then.....
By all means if .40 floats your boat, and you shoot it well....
variablebinary
04-16-08, 04:03
"Hits harder" in what sense?
...you're not serious...
Yes, I'm seriously asking you to define what you mean by 'hits harder'. See references above. If I 'hit' something 'harder' that implies I'm imparting more kinetic energy to it. Physics is funny like that :D
ETA: I'm glad I had time to quote your original post before you had a chance to go back and edit it.
We can now get back to the 1000 year old argument of 9 v .45. Which is really a non argument but :D
variablebinary
04-16-08, 04:46
Yes, I'm seriously asking you to define what you mean by 'hits harder'. See references above. If I 'hit' something 'harder' that implies I'm imparting more kinetic energy to it. Physics is funny like that :D
The statement in itself is not complex. The .40 strikes harder than 9mm, end of story, nothing more to debate, goodnight Vienna.
I draw G23 and fire 155gr. @ 1275fps and it hits the steel plate with 560 ft/lbs
I draw G19 and fire 124gr @ 1295fps and it hits the plate with 462 ft. lbs
Is 462 greater than 560? Complex question? Not really. Savvy?
Bullet performance is the sum of many parts. None of the parts are irrelevent. Hitting harder is one part of the equation, not the most important, but by no means irrelevent. If that were the case than a .40 Golddot fired from a slingshot would be just as effective as one fired from a Glock, all things being equal other Energy
The statement in itself is not complex. The .40 strikes harder than 9mm, end of story, nothing more to debate, goodnight Vienna.
I draw G23 and fire 155gr. @ 1275fps and it hits the steel plate with 560 ft/lbs
I draw G19 and fire 124gr @ 1295fps and it hits the plate with 462 ft. lbs
So here is a question for you? Is 462 greater than 560?
Good numbers to have, if I am attacked by a steel plate. Thanks :cool:
Good numbers to have, if I am attacked by a steel plate. Thanks :cool:
Reminds me of one of my favorite stories from my days at SIG.
We had some folks from the Army up to the factory for a big briefing and tour and some class time at the Academy. From the beginning, we were beating them up about the fact that the then-JCP was going to be a 45 Auto. After a full day of getting hit with arguments in favor of the 40, one of their guys pulls me aside and says, "Look, we get it. But this has got to stop." So I spread the word to my management that we've got to cut it out.
Fast forward to the next day, and finally we get a chance to put the Army guys in a room with the company CEO. The moment introductions are finished, the CEO starts in on the 40 vs 45 thing. The debate turns a bit heated and finally the CEO says, "You can't possibly tell me that if I shot a prairie dog with a 40 and another with a 45, you'd be able to tell me the difference!"
To which the gentleman from the Army immediately responded:
Sir, in the event the United States is ever invaded by prairie dogs, we'll take that under advisement.
I blew out a sinus trying not to laugh.
And Rocky Marciano could throw a 925 ft lb punch...shrug
And Rocky Marciano could throw a 925 ft lb punch...shrug
ok, so no matter how potent the punch, you still need a LOT of them to get the job done?
so that is an argument for hi cap 9mm's right lump?
Just trying to make sure im following the logic.:D
I wasn't applying the least bit of logic.
I find handgun caliber debates silly.
Gutshot John
04-16-08, 12:50
The 45 vs. 40 vs. 9mm debate relies on one salient, but ultimately flawed premise: The individual can shoot equally well with all.
Ft/lb measurements are interesting statistically but otherwise physiologically worthless. Medical professionals calculate the energy imparted to tissue in a radically different way. Velocity, not mass is invariably the deciding factor in terminal ballistics [mass*(velocity squared)]. No pistol round travels at sufficient velocity to impart these benefits. Hence the reason a 55gr .223 will produce a more horrifying wound than a 230gr .45.
Physiologically speaking any difference between 9mm, 40 and .45 is negligible. All things being equal a .45 makes a SLIGHTLY bigger hole. All things being equal a 9mm penetrates SLIGHTLY father. All things being equal the .40 is either the best or worst of both worlds.
In short use whatever you shoot best with.
The 45 vs. 40 vs. 9mm debate relies on one salient, but ultimately flawed premise: The individual can shoot equally well with all.
Ft/lb measurements are interesting statistically but otherwise physiologically worthless. Medical professionals calculate the energy imparted to tissue in a radically different way. Velocity, not mass is invariably the deciding factor in terminal ballistics [mass*(velocity squared)]. No pistol round travels at sufficient velocity to impart these benefits. Hence the reason a 55gr .223 will produce a more horrifying wound than a 230gr .45.
Physiologically speaking any difference between 9mm, 40 and .45 is negligible. All things being equal a .45 makes a SLIGHTLY bigger hole. All things being equal a 9mm penetrates SLIGHTLY father. All things being equal the .40 is either the best or worst of both worlds.
In short use whatever you shoot best with.
Big +1 on that Ol' Gut Shot one.
SGT D USMC
04-16-08, 13:31
As an old dog I will never let anyone argue me out of a 45ACP. And don't attempt to confuse me with logic. Now figure this out I got hit by a piece of srapnel just above the left knee , It spun me almost 180 degrees and my leg went backwards. I did not go down but It sure hurt and got my attention. the small chunk of metal laid on the ground. Years latter as a reloader I weighed it and it weighed 17 grains. The wound was a blood blister. light in weight and slow in volocity. it moved my 190 lbs a bunch. I was very hyper when It happened. and My guess Is that the movement was just a reaction. I have witnessed fatal gunshot wounds that resulted in much less body movement.
,By the way if I had ask for a purple heart I would have been laughted out of the Corps. -----------------he went into younder village and never returned.
SGT D USMC
04-16-08, 14:01
also as an old dog I am very opiniated. 7 rounds vs 13----------- Ive never used a hand gun in a firefight, Ive never been in a urban fire fight as a civilian. I have been though firefights in vietnam with a rifle. In my experence in the only arena that I have actual experience is that inless they are coming over the wall in hords, your shots will be made at a very fleeting target you will get very few chances in which you will be able to fire several well aimed shots at one target. Your sucess will depend on your ability to fire a fast well aimed shot, maybe 2. I found that at first I saw the enemy, the front sight. and the subconcious outline of the rear aptriture sight and at that moment I let the shot go. This did not work until well until I learned to actually aline all 3 objects just like you would on the range but extreamely faster.----------I carried a M14 ,I left country just as we were getting M 16's. I think that my stubborn old mind equates m-16 's and hicap sub cal hand guns with poor combat sucess due to trying to shoot too fast rather than hitting the target. ------- the truth is learn to shoot fast with a very good sight picture and hold it through the shot. this will bring you sucess reguardless of a few mm's one way or another. -------------------------he went into younder village and never returned.
Well gentleman, you've helped me pass 15min of my work day revisting an argument as old as the chicken and the egg. By the way which did come first, 9mm vs. .45 or the chicken and the egg?
I like the 1911 45ACP because I can shoot it very well. I find it a very accurate pitols and wasy to shoot. Also 7 rounds. you can run 8+1 or even 10+1 and it easy to carry a couple of slim back up Mags. ;)
I would like to one day own a 10mm 1911. Now that would be sweet!
olds442tyguy
04-16-08, 16:39
I think the pistol being compatible with the person is more important than the round count, or even the caliber. For instance, I'd take a 1911 over a G17 but a G19 over a Para.
Strictly personal preference.
I remember a good write-up of the FBI Miami shoot-out. One of the things that stuck in my head is that two of the surviving agents picked different handguns when the FBI went away from the revolver.
One picked a seven or eight shot 45 ACP.
One picked a high-capacity 9mm.
Both lived the essence of "been-there, done-that" and drew different conclusions from the same incident.
One picked a seven or eight shot 45 ACP.
When I met him about five years ago, he was still carrying a SIG P220.
jasonhgross
04-21-08, 07:14
With multiple attacker secenarios I am going to go with the most rounds I can carry in a gun that I feel confident with. I feel confident with a glock platform, its most reliable in 9mm, coincidently, the 9 is also cheaper to shoot, so that works well for me. After seeing the number of reloads 1911's have to go through in realistic training scenarios, combined with the failures I have seen in even well-maintained 1911's, and my lack of desire to do any more gun smithing than I do already, I go with the glock. If you are confident in your 1911/45 based weapon system, you can carry it, and the price of ammo doesnt matter so much to you, then sweet.
With multiple attacker secenarios I am going to go with the most rounds I can carry in a gun that I feel confident with. I feel confident with a glock platform, its most reliable in 9mm, coincidently, the 9 is also cheaper to shoot, so that works well for me. After seeing the number of reloads 1911's have to go through in realistic training scenarios, combined with the failures I have seen in even well-maintained 1911's, and my lack of desire to do any more gun smithing than I do already, I go with the glock. If you are confident in your 1911/45 based weapon system, you can carry it, and the price of ammo doesnt matter so much to you, then sweet.
sensible. and very cogent.
and while my sensibilities tend to agree with this - that is, since NO pistol round can conceivably be considered a one-shot stopper, and therefore you MUST assume beforehand that you are going to expend at least two rounds per attacker, having more rounds in the gun makes more sense than fewer rounds.
so, having said that, what's on my nightstand? a surefire and my 1911 with a 10 round mag...
jasonhgross
04-21-08, 13:08
Thats exactly right. They are all just pistol rounds, can't expect much. Since there is no such thing as a one stop shot (in my mind at least) with anything, I repeat as necessary until the threat is terminated or I am out of targets or really far away.
SGT D USMC
04-21-08, 13:51
I still won't be confused with facts, and by the way what is the gang of hostiles doing while you are shooting them each twice with a sub caliber. Iv'e been there with a rifle and the targets scattered and shot back and hitting any of them once is very difficult. I will say one thing and that is that high cap is nice, there is no terror worse than taking your eyes out of the fight to reload when its all happing right in your face. you can train to minimize this, but will never be good enough to put 2 rounds neatly into each target once the caos starts. 1911's are not as reliable as some other simi's. I have a few that have been 100% for some time. I also have 2 springfield 1911's that are high cap. they listed them a few years ago then quit. I have tweaked them for 2 years and have had good gun smiths work on them too. To date they have never been truly reliable.,----just an old man rambling. -------------------------he went into younder villiage and never returned.
CarlosDJackal
04-21-08, 14:32
FWIW, I was talking to my cousin's husband. His brother is a Shock Trauma Surgeon in the Cleveland area. In fact, he worked on one of the highway "sniping" victims a year or two ago. He's had a lot of experience treating individuals who have been shot from both sides of the law.
Based on his years of experience doing this, he has come to an educated opinion about the large and slow versus the small and fast bullet issue. As best as he can determine, there really isn't much difference between them as long as the vitals are hit. According to his experiences, a .32 hitting the heart does just as much overall or general damage as a .44 Magnum. As long as the shooter puts the projectile in the appropriate location, the bullet will support the effort. YMMV.
Carlos, not questioning your story or the conclusion at all, but there is something just irresistibly funny about a story on the internet that starts, "I heard it from my cousin's husband's brother that ..." :D
I just read this entire thread through (all 5+ pages!) and it's very interesting. I am currently carrying the M&P 9C as my EDC, but I had convinced myself that I would switch to the M&P 45C when it was released this spring/summer. Now after reading the sound arguments, I'm not so eager anymore.
For concealment/comfort, I still plan on carrying the 9C with the 12 rd mag. But I'll carry a 17-rd full size mag (with concealment concepts sleeve) as my reload. That gives me 29 rds of 9mm at the ready. Comparing that to 16 rds of .45 ACP suddenly doesn't seem so inviting.
Maybe 2 M&P's will be enough for now....
Jim
Matt Edwards
04-22-08, 10:16
The job can be done with both. I have carried both and currently carry both (not at the same time). For every argument there is a counter point. For every counter point there is a "but". Carry what you shoot well and train.
Beware of guys who HATE one and LOVE the other.
Gutshot John
04-22-08, 14:45
Carlos, not questioning your story or the conclusion at all, but there is something just irresistibly funny about a story on the internet that starts, "I heard it from my cousin's husband's brother that ..." :D
Like the difference between a fairy tale and a war story? :D
Seriously though, I seem to remember when I was a paramedic that statistically, the round the caused the greatest number of deaths in ERs was a .22lr. Apparently it richochets around the body a bit causing multiple wound tracks and hemorrhage.
In my own experience, I saw far more .22lr GSWs than anything else, even in the really bad neighborhoods. A good number of them were fatalities, but quite a few were somewhat "amusing" NDs.
I wonder if there's any virtue in having a handgun with 50-60 round mag of .22. :)) Ammo would be cheap.
I wonder if there's any virtue in having a handgun with 50-60 round mag of .22. :)) Ammo would be cheap.
I think they call that a P90. Except for the cheap ammo part.
The statement in itself is not complex. The .40 strikes harder than 9mm, end of story, nothing more to debate, goodnight Vienna.
I draw G23 and fire 155gr. @ 1275fps and it hits the steel plate with 560 ft/lbs
I draw G19 and fire 124gr @ 1295fps and it hits the plate with 462 ft. lbs
Is 462 greater than 560? Complex question? Not really. Savvy?
Bullet performance is the sum of many parts. None of the parts are irrelevent. Hitting harder is one part of the equation, not the most important, but by no means irrelevent. If that were the case than a .40 Golddot fired from a slingshot would be just as effective as one fired from a Glock, all things being equal other Energy
Heres the deal, if the 9mm penetrates reliably to the same depth as the .40 in the bad guy, what effect did kinetic energy have? I fail to see the logic in using something that will have sharper, harder recoil which in turn slows down my ability to make a follow-up shot when I can use a milder recoiling round that will have the exact same effect on my soft tissue and bone target. A good representation of how useless a bullet's energy is on its target, I believe second chance body armor is the company who made the video of the guy getting shot by a fal while wearing their lvl IV vest from no more than 4 or 5 feet, while balancing on one foot and barely lost balance when shot square in the chest. Not up to speed off the top of my head how much energy M80 ball (if thats what they used for the test, not sure) has from the muzzle, but Im pretty sure it is significantly higher than any service pistol round no matter how many times you put +P in front of it. If a .308 that dumps 100% of its energy onto a man and doesnt have any major effect on him while balancing on one foot, then ft lbs really doesnt mean squat when we talk about the effects of a round on a human body. Ill post a link to the video clip when I find it, its been a while since Ive seen it.
edit* Second Chance video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaS_2l8nGdg)
Heres the deal, if the 9mm penetrates reliably to the same depth as the .40 in the bad guy, what effect did kinetic energy have?
According to the FBI FTU, none. You are correct.
A good representation of how useless a bullet's energy is on its target, I believe second chance body armor is the company who made the video of the guy getting shot by a fal while wearing their lvl IV vest from no more than 4 or 5 feet, while balancing on one foot and barely lost balance when shot square in the chest.
Without getting into a debate about whether ME/vel is important in a handgun round ...
The example you cited has no relevance to terminal performance of a cartridge. The guy was wearing body armor. Body armor is supposed to mitigate the effect of a cartridge. No one is saying that bullets have adequate kinetic energy to throw someone to the ground by blunt force. But what a bullet does when it enters a non-homogenous fluid media (your chest) is dramatically different than what it does if it hits a piece of armor steel.
sigmundsauer
05-29-08, 10:59
Heres the deal, if the 9mm penetrates reliably to the same depth as the .40 in the bad guy, what effect did kinetic energy have? I fail to see the logic in using something that will have sharper, harder recoil which in turn slows down my ability to make a follow-up shot when I can use a milder recoiling round that will have the exact same effect on my soft tissue and bone target. A good representation of how useless a bullet's energy is on its target, I believe second chance body armor is the company who made the video of the guy getting shot by a fal while wearing their lvl IV vest from no more than 4 or 5 feet, while balancing on one foot and barely lost balance when shot square in the chest. Not up to speed off the top of my head how much energy M80 ball (if thats what they used for the test, not sure) has from the muzzle, but Im pretty sure it is significantly higher than any service pistol round no matter how many times you put +P in front of it. If a .308 that dumps 100% of its energy onto a man and doesnt have any major effect on him while balancing on one foot, then ft lbs really doesnt mean squat when we talk about the effects of a round on a human body. Ill post a link to the video clip when I find it, its been a while since Ive seen it.
edit* Second Chance video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaS_2l8nGdg)
The body armor is irrelevant. One need look no further than the recoil impulse generated to approximate how hard the bullet would strike on the business end.
Energy is a simple measurement of potential of work. I'm not a big energy buff but I do know that a 124 grain bullet at 1300 fps has measurably greater potential for work able to be accomplished than the same bullet at 1100 fps. You can play with the numbers all you want, but you can't manipulate the laws of physics. The same bullet at a higher velocity = more work (tissue damage). ...or... A constant velocity using a heavier bullet = more work (tissue damage). Cavitation rates are ambiguous but clearly have some effect at some point. It is physically impossible for a 147 grain 9mm to accomplish the same work at 975 fps as a 180 grain .40 cal at the same velocity.
Tim
This thread was brought back to life....yay.
Moon Doggie
05-29-08, 12:36
Without getting into a debate about whether ME/vel is important in a handgun round ...
The example you cited has no relevance to terminal performance of a cartridge. The guy was wearing body armor. Body armor is supposed to mitigate the effect of a cartridge. No one is saying that bullets have adequate kinetic energy to throw someone to the ground by blunt force. But what a bullet does when it enters a non-homogenous fluid media (your chest) is dramatically different than what it does if it hits a piece of armor steel.
No lie on this one, Body Armor compared to real body tissue is apples to oranges, unless I am reading all of this wrong ?
Yes armor to flesh is pretty meaningless. So is muzzle energy. Energy is not conserved in collisions. Momentum is, however, and that would bias one towards heavy, slower bullets. This is why .45 does better than 9mm at knocking down small steel plates. I say "would bias...", because it doesn't matter much, either. The fact is that the mass of bullets are so small compared to the human body that it is analogous to insects hitting your windshield. Which slows your truck down more, a fruit fly or a horse fly? Neither.
Pistol rounds are effective at incapacitating only when they hit and destroy something very important immediately, i.e., interupting central nervous system function. And all the standard service calibers are capable of doing that with quality modern ammunition. Diameter, velocity, bullet construction, shot angle, intermediate barriers, clothing, etc. all make that a very dynamic system with lots of variables and no "one" answer.
Does bleeding out matter? Sure, to the paramedics who show up 5 minutes after the fight. But it won't save your butt while the fellow you're shooting at, is shooting back...
Get a gun, shoot it lots. If you bullets hit where you aim, and the gun goes bang every time, and you can operate it in a fairly efficient matter, then be happy. And go shoot it some more.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.