View Full Version : Caliber logic?
Complication
07-08-10, 17:23
I've spent plenty of time in the terminal ballistics forum and read lots of studies and seen a bunch of photos and illustrations of cavities in gel, so I'm not asking about the actual effects of any particular caliber.
NOR am I interested in a caliber war (I don't think anyone really is around these parts).
What I'm just interested in is the logic or rationale behind what I've heard a few instructors and experts say and write. (I DON'T want to get into "yes, but this bullet does this, and that bullet does that." I'm just interested in the reasoning behind the advice.)
The typical advice with regards to caliber (and here I'm just going to use 9mm and .45 as examples due to their #1 popularity and #2 representation of each end of the mainstream spectrum) goes as follows (regarding hollow points):
"No one's ever been stopped from a .45 where a 9mm wouldn't have done the trick.
No one's ever kept going after a 9mm shot where a .45 would have stopped them cold.
The most important thing is shot placement.
As far as practical use is concerned, caliber size is of negligible importance, especially when compared to other factors such as shot placement."
This is typically where I've seen caliber advice stop (with, perhaps, the addition of "if you can't handle .45, don't shoot it"). It seems to me that this argument extends, logically, to a different conclusion, however.
(NOTE: this is not what I believe, it's simply where this advice logically leads in my head. Seriously, guys, no caliber wars BS.)
This rationale seems to lead to the following addition:
"Therefore, since, all other things equal, 9mm recoil is easier to control and therefore leads to faster and/or more accurate follow-up shots (allowing for better shot-placement) and, all other things equal, you can carry more 9mm rounds in your gun and in your spare mags (enabling more well-placed shots and more time between mag changes), the 9mm is a superior self-defense round compared to .45."
A friend I'm introducing to shooting asked me about caliber selection for a self-defense gun. I supplied him with links to the terminal ballistics forum as well as all the material I've read on the subject and then gave him both the consensus as I understand it above as well as my "logical conclusions" above.
Then I back-tracked because those were just MY "logical conclusions" and I've always heard instructors and experts stop at '9mm and .45 are created equal.'
So if everyone else stops there and doesn't go on to tout the capacity and (relative) controllability of the 9mm cartridge, what am I missing? What mistakes did I make in my "logical conclusion." Or do people just never say that because they really like the 1911 or shooting a "manly" round?
Complication
07-08-10, 17:26
I didn't put this in the terminal ballistics forum because it's not about actual ballistics (and really has no bearing on actual ballistics) but rather about the advice regarding ballistics itself.
Pumpkinheaver
07-08-10, 18:24
I always liked the .45 because I have a wide cross section even if there is no bullet expansion.
You have opened a can of worms, but I'll try to get my piece in before it gets too wild.
Taken as a system, I believe the 9mm offers some advantages over the .45. As you stated there are some obvious differences like recoil and capacity. But there are some other things as well.
Economics: the 9mm is cheaper to shoot. Whether talking factory ammo or reloads, the 9mm is quite a bit cheaper. When looking at a box of ammo the difference may be slight, but multiplied out over several thousand rounds it adds up. You can spend more on training and less on ammo.
Longevity and durability: I may draw a lot of fire for this, and I can't back this up with anything more than conjecture and anecdotes, but I believe 9mm handguns last longer and break fewer parts than .40 or .45 caliber guns. The guns with enviable records for longevity are usually 9mm's like the Glock 17, P30, P226, etc. I'm speaking generally here. There can certainly be examples of long lasting .40's and .45's, but it seems that 9mm guns will keep on ticking after a .40 or .45 has needed new springs or small parts.
Reliability: The handguns that have the highest reputation for reliability are almost all 9mm (Glock 17/19, HK P30/USP, SIG P226/P228). Sure some .40s and .45s can be reliable, but overall it appears that 9mm pistols seem to operate with the fewest stoppages. Once again this is conjecture at best. I think the narrow, tapered case of the 9mm offers some advantages over the fat, straight .45 and .40 cases, at least in theory.
Shot to shot recovery: This is a function of recoil obviously, and enables faster second (or 3r, 4th, etc) hits on target or moving to a second target. Sure, a .45 can be run just as fast a 9mm in skilled hands, but a 9mm can be pushed faster in those same hands. It's my contention that, given equal skill and similar accuracy standards, the 9mm can be shot faster than the .40 or .45.
Selection: If you made a list of all of the 9mm pistols that were durable and reliable, and then did the same for .45, I'd bet you would end up with a much longer list for the 9mm. The 9mm offers more options than the .45, especially in smaller variants suitable for CCW.
Capacity: I think the capacity issue is overblown, except for two key things. The 9mm guys will always say they can carry more ammo, and this is true. But will you need it? Maybe, but I don't know if it will be the deciding factor in a gunfight. If you get to round number 20 in a gunfight and you are using a pistol, you've got serious problems. Either you can't hit what you are aiming at, or you are hip deep in the feces water way. But I digress. The two areas where the capacity issue is significant (to me) is when dealing with malfunctions and ergonomics. Magazines are the least reliable part of the weapon system. In a typical CCW loadout (gun plus one spare mag) if your mag fails in the middle of a fight, you are down to what ever is in your spare. This is obviously rare and even though I bring it up, I don't put a lot of weight on it. If Glock made a single stack 9mm, I'd buy a crate of them. In most cases the 9mm has an advantage, unless you have a high capacity .45. Which brings us to ergonomics. Unless you have extra large hands, a hi-cap .45 is usually just too big, especially when shooting one handed. Fortunately, some of the manufacturers have recognized this and come out with better mousetraps. The HK45 and M&P45 both gave up a few rounds to gain more ergonomic grips, which was the smart thing to do IMO.
Terminal Effectiveness: Is the 9mm fully the equal of the .45 in terms of wounding potential? Probably not. But from everything I've seen the difference is pretty small. Measured against the other variables involved in a bullet impact (clothing or other intermediate barriers, state of mind of the shootee, location, etc.) the minor increase in permanent crush cavity would seem pretty trivial.
Caliber selection is an intensely personal choice, and there is a lot of hot emotions when discussing it. The .45 is an excellent cartridge, and there are some fine weapons that fire it. Don't tell my Glocks, but I have had amorous feelings about a tan M&P45. But taken as a system, I think the 9mm offers a solid choice as well.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887
Which reliable and durable platform do you shoot most accurately and rapidly?
What caliber can you get the most ammunition for so you can get in sufficient practice?
Which platform is ergonomic and comfortable enough so you will unfailingly carry it each and every day?
What potential intermediate barriers are most likely to be present, if any, given the threats you have the highest probability of facing?
When you answer those questions, you will know what caliber and weapons system to choose.
------------------
Most people would be far better off picking one primary platform and sticking with it for many years in order to truly master the system. Carrying a shiny new gun every day of the week is the mark of an amateur...I want the guy who only owns a couple of well worn G19's at my side during a stressful situation.
John_Wayne777
07-08-10, 19:34
Capacity: I think the capacity issue is overblown, except for two key things. The 9mm guys will always say they can carry more ammo, and this is true. But will you need it? Maybe, but I don't know if it will be the deciding factor in a gunfight.
I view it like this:
Big federal agencies have done study of gunfight video (including dashcam footage) and have come to the conclusion that the average person fires one shot every 1/4 of a second under gunfight conditions. Thus I look at capacity as how long I can send lead in a gunfight at that speed. With a 5 round J frame that means I have 1.25 seconds of gunfight. This is somewhat concerning as the "average" gunfight lasts 3-5 seconds. With the 18 rounds in my M&P, I have 4.5 seconds of gunfight on tap. That extra 3.25 seconds is a long time in a gunfight.
I don't think capacity is the primary consideration in a carry gun, but given the opportunity I will take all of it that I can get.
My main reason for carrying 9mm, however, is training. 9mm is the cheapest centerfire to feed, which allows for more training, which, I contend, is ultimately going to pay more dividends as far as ending a threat than the extra tenth-plus inch of bullet diameter from a .45 ACP projectile.
I'm not a gunfighter or an expert on gunfighting, but from doing a little looking around and actually talking to people who really are gunfighters and who really have put a lot of study into it I've come to the conclusion that the biggest indicator of success in the real thing is the ability to put bullets into vital bits of anatomy under stress. Training seems to be the largest predictor of that ability as far as I can tell.
Given that the 9mm seems to do a darn good job with the right ammo (as many PD's in the nation can tell you), that it's cheaper to train with (meaning better performance in the real thing), and that 9mm guns hold more bullets, I'd say it's a pretty darn good option.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887
Which reliable and durable platform do you shoot most accurately and rapidly?
What caliber can you get the most ammunition for so you can get in sufficient practice?
Which platform is ergonomic and comfortable enough so you will unfailingly carry it each and every day?
What potential intermediate barriers are most likely to be present, if any, given the threats you have the highest probability of facing?
When you answer those questions, you will know what caliber and weapons system to choose.
------------------
Most people would be far better off picking one primary platform and sticking with it for many years in order to truly master the system. Carrying a shiny new gun every day of the week is the mark of an amateur...I want the guy who only owns a couple of well worn G19's at my side during a stressful situation.
Good advice. I took the odd-ball route(at least for most on this forum) and devote most of my training around the .40S&W given that I have the right platform to handle it. Everybody rationals things in a different way based on their own experiences. Caliber wars are almost always based around one guy defending his investiment, confidence, pride, and image in his caliber's defense. Once the elements of penetration and hole size ability are covered, the only thing left to argue is ballistic assumptions, training preferences, and usually outlandish defense scenarios. In the end it usually boils down to d**k measuring.
so . . . that's what all those photos of guns are about?:p
The only issue I have ever had with the caliber war BS is the group that constantly tells people that anything less than a .45 will get them killed, etc. There are so many things out there like moto posters with "a 9mm is a .45 set on stun" and how 9mms are for chicks, etc., that many beginners are led astray due to the massive noise to signal ratio.
This leads to poor decisions in weapon choice because guys want to be one of the big boys with a real man's gun (although I personally know gals who have ended up with .45s that were totally unsuitable for them due to this same dynamic).
I'd rather go through a door with Jim Cirillo, carrying his model 10 loaded with 158gr RNL, than almost anyone else I can think of carrying a .45 outside of Jeff Cooper.
The issue with caliber wars is VERY emotional, hence the real issue. When logic is applied then things get rather simple with a quickness.
I always liked the .45 because I have a wide cross section even if there is no bullet expansion.
You missed some details from the OP.
He stated if there are no cases where a 9mm went in but didn't stop and a 45 would have and there are no cases where a 45 DID stop and a smaller 9mm in the same location would NOT have...
Maybe it was worded oddly and you didn't understand.
Point is- there's no point to your "cross section" reasoning if what the OP posted is true. What he posted is directly in response to the whole cross section debate...
Doc basically summed it up.
Im a civi, never done anything in my life involving violence beyond some schoolyard fights in my adolescence but what i will say in this instance is as follows:
I dont want to get shot by anything whether its a .22 or a .45.
I will pick what i shoot well and run it all day long until my wallet cries. Like JW and other posters said, my money goes into training so that i can be sure my mind and my abilities are sharper than my hypothetical adversaries. What scares me more than any caliber is someone being "better" than me or potentially luckier.
Kind of funny investing money and time into something i hope to never have to use. :)
Doc basically summed it up.
Im a civi, never done anything in my life involving violence beyond some schoolyard fights in my adolescence but what i will say in this instance is as follows:
I dont want to get shot by anything whether its a .22 or a .45.
I will pick what i shoot well and run it all day long until my wallet cries. Like JW and other posters said, my money goes into training so that i can be sure my mind and my abilities are sharper than my hypothetical adversaries. What scares me more than any caliber is someone being "better" than I or potentially luckier.
Kind of funny investing money and time into something i hope to never have to use. :)
Kinda like carrying automobile liability insurance, wearing seat belts while riding, carrying term life insurance while the kids are still in school . . . kinda responsible. The life you save may be your own . . . or mine. So - good on yuh:)
I too fall into the consensus of this board as far as caliber choice and came to the same conclusion as the OP (and JW).
One problem when telling friends and/or other people, is that you are only one voice of reason. Even if the person you are trying to tell has a brain at all, they are most likely to seek multiple opinions on the subject... Which isn't a bad thing when considering any purchase, firearms related or not. Sometimes, your opinion, though technically and logically correct, may have less weight because the person at the gun store should be an expert right? or their buddy at work who has a ton of guns? Which in turn breeds a brand new misinformed person fueled by buyers pride amongst other things.
The problem lies in a recursive cycle of misinformation spread by ignorant people driven by misinformed events such as: "most LEO carry this" or "in this shootout". When instead they should be focusing on what's most important for them, not someone else's needs.
Unfortunately, there is no fix to the misinformed. Even in the midst of an argument, and presented with source after source of credible information... they either a)see the light (very rare) or b)remain completely ignorant (99.9% chance, seriously).....
If an officer of the law pointed a 9mm at me and said "STOP!" I'd stop . . ., or I could ask "Is that a .45?"
On the other side of the gun, who cares? If a perp is robbing a convenience store and shoots at the cashier and the cashier shoots back with a 9mm and hits him in the stomach . . . well, that happened here a few days ago. When shot, the perp ran and died in the parking area.
For those of us with CCW permit who just don't want to die at the hands of a perp, we just want to hit the person attacking us. Most of those cashiers don't know a 9mm from a 155mm. But they do know "having a gun" from "not having a gun". So the discussions are elucidating, and, frankly, FUN! But then reality sets in.
Complication
07-08-10, 21:54
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate all the feedback. But...
I'm not especially concerned with "how to pick a caliber" as I've already done that and mostly for my own personal reasons. I'm also not especially concerned with wounding potential as I can just look at some gels (as linked to above).
What I'm wondering is why "experts" who give something approximated my paraphrased advice above, give the "both do the trick" advice but then don't follow up with my so-called "logical conclusion"?
Am I over-simplifying the argument? Am I missing or misinterpreting something?
GIVEN the argument that 9mm = .45 for effectiveness (in whatever terminology one chooses to use whether that be "wounding potential," "stopping power," or "stored kills" or whatever--and let's not get into a debate about that, I too have read those posts and articles)...
Why would you not conclude that, for the above issues, 9mm > .45?
Again, this has less to do with reality and FAR more to do with (what seems to me to be) the half-logic of a certain kind of caliber recommendation (i.e. both will do the job so both are equal, even though one is cheaper, has less recoil, and fits more into the same size mag).
I'm not super excited to participate in a discussion about the pro's and con's of 9mm or .45. And even if I was, this is neither the thread nor the forum for that. I'm just wondering why people say what they often say and then don't say what I thought comes next.
Maybe I'm putting up a straw-man argument. Maybe I should go out there and find the exact wording used by someone and see if my question makes any sense anymore. I admit, I'm just paraphrasing. But, for the purposes of this thread, I'm interested in the argument/advice, not the "reality" of the situation.
To rephrase (perhaps futilely): Given the argument that 9mm and .45 will both get the job done and thus neither is clearly superior (and just that argument, not a different one), shouldn't the conclusion (due to recoil, capacity, and even cost) be that 9mm trumps .45 UNDER THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THAT ARGUMENT?
Or another option: is my impression that the "consensus" is that 9mm and .45 are, practically speaking, similarly effective--is that impression a false one that I just pulled out of my ass?
(God I hope some of this makes just a little bit of sense)
Doc basically summed it up.
Im a civi, never done anything in my life involving violence beyond some schoolyard fights in my adolescence but what i will say in this instance is as follows:
I dont want to get shot by anything whether its a .22 or a .45.
I will pick what i shoot well and run it all day long until my wallet cries. Like JW and other posters said, my money goes into training so that i can be sure my mind and my abilities are sharper than my hypothetical adversaries. What scares me more than any caliber is someone being "better" than me or potentially luckier.
Kind of funny investing money and time into something i hope to never have to use. :)
it is kinda funny..
but let's not forget, shooting is a lot of fun. 9mm is cheaper to feed, and that means both more training and more FUN for your dollar :D
Shadow1198
07-08-10, 23:17
.....Or, save yourself one hell of a headache, buy both calibers, and carry each every other day of the week. :D
Gutshot John
07-09-10, 07:06
(God I hope some of this makes just a little bit of sense)
Not really.
Doc's reply provided you with the proper questions as to how to build your "logic."
If that's insufficient than I'd submit you don't even understand your own question so how could anyone else? Instead it seems like you've already formulated an opinion and are looking for affirmation of your "logic" as some sort of universal truth.
If that's not the case and I were in your shoes, I'd step back and try to reformulate your question in a far more concise (1-2 sentences) and cogent manner because right now it's as clear as mud.
I think maybe some people are missing the point of the OPs question. As I understand it, he's asking wouldn't 9mm be a better overall performer given the logic of a pros vs cons argument and the nominal difference between hollowpoint performance.
At least I think that's what he's asking
Gutshot John
07-09-10, 08:31
I think maybe some people are missing the point of the OPs question. As I understand it, he's asking wouldn't 9mm be a better overall performer given the logic of a pros vs cons argument and the nominal difference between hollowpoint performance.
At least I think that's what he's asking
I'm not sure I understand how that is any different than the typical 9mm vs. .45 debate?
There is no "best" only what is best for YOU based on your needs. As Doc (in one of the best responses I've seen) said if you don't know what your needs are you won't be able to determine what is best for you.
The "pros v. cons" logic model the OP set up would seem to prefer the 9mm and so he has seemingly already come to a conclusion and just wants respondents to agree with him. Simply saying he doesn't want a "x vs. y" doesn't mean that he hasn't set it up that way. 9mm does very well at many things (and is my caliber of choice) but so does .45.
The response he got wasn't what he wanted but was probably what he needed.
Whether he makes use of those responses is up to him but I'm curious if he can maybe refine his question a bit.
I don't think he' trying to start a 9mm vs 45 debate, but trying to come at the subject with pure logic. And if the answer he's come to based on HIS logic is an acceptable answer, plus what reasoning each of the experts or us based OUR caliber decision on. I understand choosing a platform and caliber are a personal one, but it also sometimes helps to know why a person chose his/her caliber outside of the pure logic model.
Gutshot John
07-09-10, 08:59
I don't think he' trying to start a 9mm vs 45 debate, but trying to come at the subject with pure logic. And if the answer he's come to based on HIS logic is an acceptable answer, plus what reasoning each of the experts or us based OUR caliber decision on. I understand choosing a platform and caliber are a personal one, but it also sometimes helps to know why a person chose his/her caliber outside of the pure logic model.
In one sentence you say he's "trying to come at the subject with pure logic" in the next you say "outside of the pure logic model." You're apparently as confused as the rest of us since they're contradictory.
Outside of the logic model it's purely emotion. So again what purpose does that serve? What's the point of the question? This is what is unclear and why he's not getting the answers he apparently wants.
He's either asking for agreement that 9mm is best or he is trying to ask about the logic process.
In terms of the former he's already made an emotional choice outside of the logic model and people are either going to agree or disagree and so what's the purpose? If it's the latter Doc provided very useful questions for building a syllogism on how to pick.
If it's neither than the argument gets reduced to the same 9mm vs. .45 debate that's been going on for the better part of a century.
Not really.
Doc's reply provided you with the proper questions as to how to build your "logic."
If that's insufficient than I'd submit you don't even understand your own question so how could anyone else? Instead it seems like you've already formulated an opinion and are looking for affirmation of your "logic" as some sort of universal truth.
If that's not the case and I were in your shoes, I'd step back and try to reformulate your question in a far more concise (1-2 sentences) and cogent manner because right now it's as clear as mud.
Eh, I think you're both over-analyzing his reasons for asking the question while over-complicating the answer. Let's start with Doc's response and go from there.
Doc's reply makes perfect sense for the established shooter. If you shoot X caliber on X platform X times better and it feels X times more comfortable, then it makes sense to train primarily with that setup. HOWEVER...
Consider someone who's never shot anything bigger than a .22. They pick a prospective platform that comes in a myriad of calibers, namely 9mm, .357, .40, and .45. All weapons share the same frame and therefore (effectively) the same ergonomics. Since they have no experience with larger pistol calibers, they have no biased preference nor are they inherently more efficient with any of the calibers. Let's also say, for sake of argument, that the person is in good physical shape, has a medium-to-large body frame, and is a natural at controlling handguns in general at the range. Let's also say that they've got a decent amount of cash, so ammo pricing isn't an issue.
With the above, Doc's post doesn't really direct that shooter to any caliber. That being said, what I think Complicated is saying is that since caliber size is second to shot placement, if you can place all calibers equally on-target, wouldn't that make 9mm the better choice?
As I understood the question, the issue wasn't "which caliber" but rather "what is the paradigm" for determining which caliber.
In other words, he seems to want to reduce the caliber discussion almost to a "symbolic logic" paradigm. He seems to be using the calibers as proxies for testing out the paradigm.
It may well be that a paradigm would ultimately support the choice of one caliber over another, but the outcome appears to be less relevant to his concern than the method of reaching an outcome.
OCD perhaps, but searching for intellectual honesty nevertheless.
GutshotJohn...... I didn't state my thinking as well as I could have. I believe he' trying to reconcile the difference between the logic model and our personal choice. As oboe stated, it's not so much the caliber as the process used to reach the decision. Maybe I'm overthinking the whole situation. Who knows? The criteria set out by DocGKR is Probably the best I've seen and should help the OP resolve his conundrum.
Gutshot John
07-09-10, 09:19
With the above, Doc's post doesn't really direct that shooter to any caliber. That being said, what I think Complicated is saying is that since caliber size is second to shot placement, if you can place all calibers equally on-target, wouldn't that make 9mm the better choice?
Again how is that any different than 9mm vs. .45? Given that "logic" the 9mm is indeed better but is only correct if all targets are the same. They are not.
It's not that I'm "over-complicating" the answer it's that he's asked a simplistic question.
For instance a Highway Patrol officer shooting through vehicles or otherwise have to deal with hard cover? I have seen a transom bar in a car door stop a good many rounds.
Identify your needs and you'll have your answer. So far the OP has failed to do this which is why he isn't getting the responses he wanted.
Gutshot John
07-09-10, 09:20
The criteria set out by DocGKR is Probably the best I've seen and should help the OP resolve his conundrum.
100% agreement there which is why I'm confused as to why Doc's answer isn't good enough.
The idea is something like a court of law (with which I've had some familiarity): If the process is correct, then the result can be accepted. On appeal, the appellate court examines the record to determine if the trial process was correct. If it was, the result is left to stand. If not, either the result is changed or the matter is returned to the trial court with instructions to do it right this time.
I agree that the opening post directed our attention to a process which, if applied, would override merely personal choice.
These discussions are engaging and entertaining, especially for those of us tending to be OCD. In the end, though, it makes a lot less difference in a real fire fight than it is fun to believe. The really distinguishing issue is not which handgun caliber, but - handgun or long gun. The difference as to effectives there is so unworthy of challenge that it's a lot less fun to debate. So . . . let's keep up the good work continuing to ruminate the handgun calibers.:D
Complication
07-09-10, 09:28
The "pros v. cons" logic model the OP set up would seem to prefer the 9mm and so he has seemingly already come to a conclusion and just wants respondents to agree with him. Simply saying he doesn't want a "x vs. y" doesn't mean that he hasn't set it up that way. 9mm does very well at many things (and is my caliber of choice) but so does .45.
Hardly. In this thread, I don't particularly give a damn which is "actually" "better."
I'll try this again (and a last time):
When a friend asked me about caliber choices I parroted to him what I've found over and over again:
'9mm or .45, it doesn't make much difference, both get the job done, shot placement is far more important.'
THEN, I went on to conclude, in my own words that, due to those parameters, it would seem 9mm was a better choice due to the factors I've mentioned above.
THEN, I wondered why the conclusions I PERSONALLY draw from what I've read were not found more often since they seem TO ME to be the logical continuation of the advice I keep coming across.
Because I'm not stupid and I realize that the shit I, as a shooting novice, put together in my own head isn't law, I decided to ask the question here. Not the question of "hey guys, hur hur, 9mm is way better, am I right?" Not the question of "these so-called experts just love their 1911's too much, they should all buy 9mm 1911's instead, right?"
But instead the question of,
What am I missing? What mistakes did I make in my "logical conclusion?"
There are other arguments (9mm is better, .45 is better, each is better or worse in each circumstance, 10mm is God's gift to man, etc.) but I'm not concerned with those here in this thread.
Gutshot John
07-09-10, 09:31
Hardly. In this thread, I don't particularly give a damn which is "actually" "better."...
it would seem 9mm was a better choice due to the factors I've mentioned above.
Huh???? :confused: You don't see a contradiction between those two statements?
You've missed the point so I'll wish you nothing but good luck.
Your question is clear to me, Complication. You ask about the model formula to be applied - not the result of applying the formula.
In other words, you ask not whether the accused is guilty or not guilty. You ask, "What is the applicable law? What is the applicable procedure?"
The problem, as always, is that people tend to argue the law and the procedure in order to support the result they already know they want. You seek a purified determination of the law and procedure without consideration of which result already may be desired.
In all candor, I think this is a great discussion. It most likely will not reach an agreed conclusion, but it stimulates a lot of thought and self examination. Thank you for your initial an subsequent posts!
Complication..... I too understand what you're getting at, and oboe's analogy I think is spot on to describe your thinking process, but go back to DocGKR's post and apply that criteria to YOUR situation and NEEDS then look at the calibers/weapons that fit the bill. Now throw in your personal bias(whatever that may be) and I believe that will account for the difference in personal preferences.
Complication
07-09-10, 10:06
Complication..... I too understand what you're getting at, and oboe's analogy I think is spot on to describe your thinking process, but go back to DocGKR's post and apply that criteria to YOUR situation and NEEDS then look at the calibers/weapons that fit the bill. Now throw in your personal bias(whatever that may be) and I believe that will account for the difference in personal preferences.
Well, I know from experience what caliber works best for me. Started off with a .40 and moved to a 9mm--I find I just shoot better with it. My buddy's pretty sure already that when he buys his first pistol in the coming months, he's going to get a 9mm because he wants to learn on a forgiving platform that's big enough that he's comfortable carrying it or for HD (i.e. not a .22). I just wanted to explore (as did my buddy) my impressions of the caliber advice I've seen and just maybe discover that I was missing a piece of this particular pie. Meanwhile, I was trying to keep this as far away from my personal preferences as possible due to the fact that they are my personal preferences.
Again, I appreciate all your guys' posts.
Complication
07-09-10, 10:15
Huh???? :confused: You don't see a contradiction between those two statements?
Nope.
In this thread, I don't particularly give a damn which is "actually" "better."
...due to those parameters, it would seem 9mm was a better choice due to the factors I've mentioned above.
That's like saying, "I'm not interested in who is the better president, I just want to make sure I've got this right: If you're a republican, then George W. Bush was better. If you're a democrat, then Obama is better."
If you accept that "Parameters=Democrat" then you also accept that Obama>Bush. If you accept that "Parameters=Republican" then you also accept Bush>Obama. Those statements make no assertion about which parameter you should accept, or even if you should accept a different parameter altogether (Libertarian, Anarchist, or politically apathetic).
These are the same linguistic mechanisms which allow me to say, "If it was raining, I would take an umbrella." even if it's not raining (it happens to be raining, this morning, though).
I'm not writing this to be combative, I'm trying to explain my question and the discussion to you and others who might be confused by this thread.
I think you have it now. Personal preference/bias is the x factor of the equation and really makes a big difference. I have a personal bias towards .45 because I love the 1911 platform. But, it expensive to indulge in that game because ammo isn't cheap and it takes a lot work to maintain a 1911. As a consequence I've gone to shooting mostly 9mm over the last year. I shoot both equally well so it's not a big deal as I'm comfortable with both. Remember, it's not the caliber bit the shooter. A hit with 9mm is better than miss with 45 on any day.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887
Which reliable and durable platform do you shoot most accurately and rapidly?
What caliber can you get the most ammunition for so you can get in sufficient practice?
Which platform is ergonomic and comfortable enough so you will unfailingly carry it each and every day?
What potential intermediate barriers are most likely to be present, if any, given the threats you have the highest probability of facing?
When you answer those questions, you will know what caliber and weapons system to choose.
------------------
Most people would be far better off picking one primary platform and sticking with it for many years in order to truly master the system. Carrying a shiny new gun every day of the week is the mark of an amateur...I want the guy who only owns a couple of well worn G19's at my side during a stressful situation.
Answering Doc's questions for myself has lead me to the conclusion that 9mm and Glock [sometimes Beretta] are best for me.
Gutshot John
07-09-10, 10:27
Like I said given those parameters 9mm is a better choice but those are only true for those parameters.
If you change the parameters, based on different requirements, than the calculus changes.
Essentially you're creating a tautology which is just fine but hardly worthwhile. You've already come to a conclusion and so you're setting parameters that justify that conclusion.
For myself I prefer the 9mm but that doesn't mean it's the best choice for everyone. As myself and others have said, Doc gave you the best possible answer and so again I'm confused why it isn't good enough.
Like I said I wish you nothing but luck.
Shoot what you can afford, place shots, train, and are most comfortable wiht; no expert's advice on caliber will save your life in a gun fight. Really focusing on caliber is focusing on all teh wrong sort of details; unless your shooting a .177 BB or Pellet (Kiss your ass goodbye) all that matter sis shot placem,ent and comfortability. I know of instances when people were in the woods with their brand new 500 S&W; a bear charged and they couldn't hit him to "save their Life" literally! And other stories of guys with a 9mm handgun that took a charging bear with a mouth shot that eventually severed the brain/CNS of the bear. HE could have shot that bear in the skull all day long with that 9mm and done nothing.
No amount of "This is the better caliber" or "I choose this because CHuck Hawks and so and so say I should" is going to save your life. The tool you should be focusing on is yourself.
You have a better chance at surviving a gunfight with a slingshot you can place shots on target with; than a hand cannon you cannot hit the side of a barn with.
I prefer 9mm for a plethora of reasons; mostly personal and logistical. I absolutely love the .45 acp; served our country VERY well! But I prefer to carry my Ruger P95 9mm because that gun is going to go bang every time and hit whatever I point it at dead on; and my confidence in a weapon & its reliability are more important than any other factors for me.
Bottom line shoot what you can shoot and get over the caliber that happens to be. Oh and make sure you get a goo dload to shoot out of it; a good solid defensive load makes a big difference in a lot of ways.
Doc's list is great; just add persoanl preference and ammo availability in your specific area (Wouldn't buy a .500 S&W if I lived in Germany; I would buy a 9mm, and so on...) and you have your answers.
Like I said given those parameters 9mm is a better choice but those are only true for those parameters.
If you change the parameters, based on different requirements, than the calculus changes.
Essentially you're creating a tautology which is just fine but hardly worthwhile. You've already come to a conclusion and so you're setting parameters that justify that conclusion.
That is an excellent observation. I agree completely. Even though I may not like the 9mm for every scenario, I still purchase handguns in 9mm for various other reasons.
Bottom line is what can you shoot best affordably and how much do you practice to improve your skills.
Given that "logic" the 9mm is indeed better but is only correct if all targets are the same. They are not.
Ok, but going with that logic, how would targets differ? In regards to all human targets, shot placement is king, making the rounds effectively equal when using quality defensive ammo. What other ways could the targets differ?
I can understand the argument that a .40 or .45 will penetrate windshields, car doors, dry-wall, (i.e. cover) better, but that's not something you can realistically plan on having to do unless you're a LEO or .mil (note that I'm not saying it doesn't happen - I'm saying you can't include that as a "need" unless you KNOW you'll actually need it for that). Bullet-proof body armor? None of the above offer a truly good solution against that.
I guess what I'm getting at is the average target is going to be unarmored and not behind extensive cover. To plan otherwise means you're either LEO, mil, or simply playing the "what if?" argument (in which case we should all walk around with .50 AE - joking, naturally).
How else would you see the targets differing?
[Please note I have no personal bias in this thread - I approach all caliber choices out of a utilitarian role. I'm just curious as to the logic behind different ideologies.]
Complication
07-09-10, 12:57
Ok, but going with that logic, how would targets differ? In regards to all human targets, shot placement is king, making the rounds effectively equal when using quality defensive ammo. What other ways could the targets differ?
You'd think...
According to Ken Hackathorn, the 9mm 147 Hydra Shok was selected by the FBI because their gun engagements statistically involved cars. Therefore, performance through intermediate barriers like sheet-metal or glass became important.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_158_26/ai_86704766/
You're right though, it definitely depends on who is holding the gun. For the same reasons civilians are concerned about over-penetration, LE or MIL might be concerned about under-penetration.
I don't have any statistics, but I'm willing to be the average CCW engagement is clothes and flesh.
Serpico1985
07-09-10, 13:01
Jesus Christ my head hurts.......
Gutshot John
07-09-10, 13:02
Ok, but going with that logic, how would targets differ? In regards to all human targets, shot placement is king, making the rounds effectively equal when using quality defensive ammo. What other ways could the targets differ?
A target hiding behind a car door or other cover for instance. How else? How much clothing their wearing? What kind of fabrics? Cold weather (wearing bulky winter clothes) or Hot (tshirt and shorts)? Fat or skinny? Which angle are they facing you? Are you shooting uphill or downhill?
I can understand the argument that a .40 or .45 will penetrate windshields, car doors, dry-wall, (i.e. cover) better, but that's not something you can realistically plan on having to do unless you're a LEO or .mil
Incorrect. There are more automobiles in this country than firearms. My house has both plaster and drywall. How is either not realistic to plan for unless you think the BG is going to just sit there and let you shoot him? You may decide that other factors trump those considerations but it's wrong to say that they only apply to LEO or .mil or that you won't have to worry about it.
If you get a chance to take a class shooting around/inside vehicles like Kyle Lamb's Streetfighter or Nightfighter class. Barring that I'd highly recommend taking an opportunity to shoot up a car from different angles and with different calibers, it will be a real eye opener.
If you get a chance to take a class shooting around/inside vehicles like Kyle Lamb's Streetfighter or Nightfighter class your eyes will be opened.
I don't disagree with the fact that there are many cars. What I'm pointing out is how many people plan on shooting INTO a car as part of their non-LEO/.mil daily life? If the argument is "because it could happen," then I could point out that running out of ammo could also happen and you'd want to pick the platform that offers the most capacity. Point being, anything could happen, so unless it's part of the norm for your every day routine, it's irrelevant and you should only factor in the constants. But I digress...
I see where you're coming from and it's sound wisdom in its own right. The problem I see, however, is that it gives way to the "bigger is better" school of thought due to the "it could happen" argument, which sort of brings us back to the 9mm vs .40 vs .45 debate.
Gutshot John
07-09-10, 13:17
I don't disagree with the fact that there are many cars. What I'm pointing out is how many people plan on shooting INTO a car as part of their non-LEO/.mil daily life?
Most people (even cops and soldiers) don't shoot things in their daily life. Having never been in a gunfight I can only speculate but the whole point of training is to prepare you for the unexpected. If you're not prepared for the realities of a fight you're going to have problems.
If the argument is "because it could happen," then I could point out that running out of ammo could also happen and you'd want to pick the platform that offers the most capacity.
A perfectly valid consideration but not the only one. I'm a believer in Murphy's law and anything that could happen, probably will.
Point being, anything could happen, so unless it's part of the norm for your every day routine, it's irrelevant and you should only factor in the constants.
I don't understand how it is irrelevant.
I see where you're coming from and it's sound wisdom in its own right. The problem I see, however, is that it gives way to the "bigger is better" school of thought due to the "it could happen" argument, which sort of brings us back to the 9mm vs .40 vs .45 debate.
Agreed which is why the OPs question/model is flawed. The 9mm is a perfectly valid choice (for myself as well as others) but so is the .45.
What I'm just interested in is the logic or rationale behind what I've heard a few instructors and experts say and write. (I DON'T want to get into "yes, but this bullet does this, and that bullet does that." I'm just interested in the reasoning behind the advice.)
The typical advice with regards to caliber (and here I'm just going to use 9mm and .45 as examples due to their #1 popularity and #2 representation of each end of the mainstream spectrum) goes as follows (regarding hollow points):
"No one's ever been stopped from a .45 where a 9mm wouldn't have done the trick.
No one's ever kept going after a 9mm shot where a .45 would have stopped them cold.
The most important thing is shot placement.
As far as practical use is concerned, caliber size is of negligible importance, especially when compared to other factors such as shot placement."
This is typically where I've seen caliber advice stop (with, perhaps, the addition of "if you can't handle .45, don't shoot it"). It seems to me that this argument extends, logically, to a different conclusion, however.
I would submit that 'extending' these statements to arrive at an ideal caliber is somewhat contrary to the spirit in which the advice is given. The underlying point would seem to be that no caliber can be unilaterally considered the best choice for everyone, so trying to prove otherwise is fruitless. These statements are genereally offered as part of a deliberate attempt to avoid or end a debate regarding caliber selection.
I don't think those who make such statements intend to suggest that 9mm, .357, .40 & .45 all have IDENTICAL terminal ballistics. They're simply in opposition of putting a dissproportionate amount of time & energy into studying ballistics data when there are much more important details to worry about,such as accuracy & tactics.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887
Which reliable and durable platform do you shoot most accurately and rapidly?
What caliber can you get the most ammunition for so you can get in sufficient practice?
Which platform is ergonomic and comfortable enough so you will unfailingly carry it each and every day?
What potential intermediate barriers are most likely to be present, if any, given the threats you have the highest probability of facing?
When you answer those questions, you will know what caliber and weapons system to choose.
------------------
Most people would be far better off picking one primary platform and sticking with it for many years in order to truly master the system. Carrying a shiny new gun every day of the week is the mark of an amateur...I want the guy who only owns a couple of well worn G19's at my side during a stressful situation.
I have more fun shooting the 1911 in .45, but my answer to all 4 questions above is 9mm. Thus, I carry the Glock 19 (a well-worn one ;)). In the interest of greater knowledge, I'd like to hear the reasoning for someone answering .40 or .45 to those same questions.
Complication
07-09-10, 18:17
I would submit that 'extending' these statements to arrive at an ideal caliber is somewhat contrary to the spirit in which the advice is given. The underlying point would seem to be that no caliber can be unilaterally considered the best choice for everyone, so trying to prove otherwise is fruitless. These statements are genereally offered as part of a deliberate attempt to avoid or end a debate regarding caliber selection.
I don't think those who make such statements intend to suggest that 9mm, .357, .40 & .45 all have IDENTICAL terminal ballistics. They're simply in opposition of putting a dissproportionate amount of time & energy into studying ballistics data when there are much more important details to worry about,such as accuracy & tactics.
That seems like a reasonable explanation.
In the interest of greater knowledge, I'd like to hear the reasoning for someone answering .40 or .45 to those same questions.
I can only speak to the .40 S&W:
I bought my first pistol in .40 because I felt the .45 was too big for me to easily control and it lacked a capacity I felt comfortable with while I wanted a little more punch than a 9mm.
Eventually I realized that I shot so much better with a 9mm that any advantage, real or imagined, that the .40 offered me was moot by comparison.
So I sold one of my .40s and traded the other for a 9mm version just so I could consolidate calibers.
I also had a Sig Pro with both a .357 Sig and a .40 S&W barrel. The .357 Sig would have been nice for a self-defense round, but the Sig Pro always felt too bulky for me to carry and I didn't buy it for the caliber.
In the interest of greater knowledge, I'd like to hear the reasoning for someone answering .40 or .45 to those same questions.
My state limits magazine capacity to 15, so 9mm will generally not offer me a capacity advantage in full sized handguns when compared to similar sized handguns chambered in .40 S&W. In many cases I'm actually worse off because most manufacturers just default to 10 round CA compliant mags if the standard capacity breaks the legal limit.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887
Which reliable and durable platform do you shoot most accurately and rapidly?
What caliber can you get the most ammunition for so you can get in sufficient practice?
Which platform is ergonomic and comfortable enough so you will unfailingly carry it each and every day?
What potential intermediate barriers are most likely to be present, if any, given the threats you have the highest probability of facing?
When you answer those questions, you will know what caliber and weapons system to choose.
------------------
Most people would be far better off picking one primary platform and sticking with it for many years in order to truly master the system. Carrying a shiny new gun every day of the week is the mark of an amateur...I want the guy who only owns a couple of well worn G19's at my side during a stressful situation.
Pretty much the exact same answer I've heard most of the wound ballistics experts I've known give to these types of questions.
Always seems to confuse those that expect a magic answer to the question.
With today's good bullet designs, the "caliber war" has even less justification than ever.
I think the caliber debate is purely a subjective decision. So long as you are proficient with your choice, the only right answer is the one that appeals to you for whatever reason. I attribute 9mm vs .45 as someone asking me, do you prefer a ribeye or a filet? Both offer arguments as being a superior cut, yet both are superior in their own ways. You just choose your favorite steak based on your own tastes and cooking styles.
If I choose 9mm because of all the arguments that many of you have presented and I'm proficient with the platform I've chosen to use it in, then that's the right choice for me. I could change the 9mm to .40 or .45 and if the rest of the sentence is the same, then it's still the right choice for me.
So in the end...What is the driving force for me in the argument of 9mm or .45....well, do you want a Miller Light or an MGD?
Complication
07-09-10, 22:14
well, do you want a Miller Light or an MGD?
If those are the choices, I'm going to quit shooting. I mean, give me a Belgian beer at least.
My state limits magazine capacity to 15, so 9mm will generally not offer me a capacity advantage in full sized handguns when compared to similar sized handguns chambered in .40 S&W. In many cases I'm actually worse off because most manufacturers just default to 10 round CA compliant mags if the standard capacity breaks the legal limit.
That's an excellent point - one I hadn't thought of. I suppose my answer might have been different had I been limited to a certain capacity. I believe this may be the kind of info the OP was looking for, also, if I understand correctly.
Dan Goodwin
07-09-10, 22:34
I have and regularly carry Glocks in 9mm, .40, .357 and 10mm off duty. Almost never carry my GM or a large bore revolver anymore. I am a gun whore but fairly proficient with all. Would love to get a Smith .45 (actually an M&P 4-in. and a 625 3-in. 1989).
Just pick whichever of those calibers floats your boat and practice regularly. Chances are you will never be in a gunfight but, as someone wrote, the details of calibers/action/loads will not matter only whether you survive will seem important.
I'll confess I am having a minor caliber controversy in my own mind: which Glock to equip with a mini-red-dot for off duty use.
Complication
07-10-10, 09:51
I have and regularly carry Glocks in 9mm, .40, .357 and 10mm off duty.
Do you find that shooting different calibers out of the same platform substantially aids in allowing you to control varying levels or recoil? Or do they take just as much trigger time to master?
Doc Roberts,I carry two well worn G19's everyday. Holler if you need me,pard.
Shoot what YOU shoot best. You can go back and forth all day about "All other things being equal" unfortunately in the real world they aren't ever equal.
Different shooters, calibers, shot placement, the way and where the bullet entered and exited, what kind of wound channel the bullet created, what kind of clothing a suspect may be wearing, winter vs. summer, barriers, car windshield, bedroom door, sofa, pillow, bedroom window, muzzle velocity, drywall.
The more you shoot, the better. 9mm is cheaper. I never heard a medic, er nurse or dr say "it's a good thing he only got shot with a 9mm vs a .45"
Do you find that shooting different calibers out of the same platform substantially aids in allowing you to control varying levels or recoil? Or do they take just as much trigger time to master?
I think you make too much of shooting different calibers. I own and carry Glocks in 9 mm, .40, and .45. None of them are "light" shooters but I don't think it's difficult to shoot any of them well.
With my Glocks, I always carry an extra mag so I always have 13 to 31 rounds depending on caliber. I may just start carrying a third mag when I carry the Model 36 with its 6 round mag capacity. I also carry a .38 pocket revolver at times and must admit that I feel a little light on ammo, even with 5 extra on my belt.
I read the original question as seeking input to advice given by "the experts" but I find the advice you quoted flawed. I determine what is the minimum caliber I will rely on and carry that, or anything bigger. It doesn't have to be what I shoot best, it has to be what I shoot acceptably as a minimum, knowing that I may not shoot bigger, better, but I shoot it OK and can depend on it. I believe anyone who can shoot 9 mm OK can shoot .40 OK as well, and I also believe that most of those can shoot .45 OK too. But that's just my opinion.
The only ballistics I can quote is my experience treating individuals (34years as a fireman) shot with 22LR, .38, 9 mm, .45, 7.62, and 12 ga. Size does matter and bigger is better, in my experience, BUT I have faith in anything .38+P or bigger.
Short of duplicating those shootings with the other calibers, I can't say that those that survived with one caliber would not if shot in the exact same place with something else.
And for shot placement in a real gunfight with the adrenaline flowing, I know enough to know what I don't know. I'm a good shot and proficient manipulating my pistols without return fire. The adrenaline rush from taking fire in a paintabll shoot out is intense; I can only imagine the real deal.
Dan Goodwin
07-10-10, 23:27
Do you find that shooting different calibers out of the same platform substantially aids in allowing you to control varying levels or recoil? Or do they take just as much trigger time to master?
Shoot .40 more than the other calibers. Recoil seems equivalent to .357, 9 a bit softer. 10 a bit more with full power.
"No one's ever been stopped from a .45 where a 9mm wouldn't have done the trick.
That hypothesis is wrong IMO. As an example the performance of a 9mm round hitting a subject after passing through automotive glass was pretty dismal when compared to .45 until very recently with the improvements brought by bonded ammo. The .45 round still outperforms the 9mm in that situation albeit by a smaller margin than before. Don't get me wrong, I carry 9mm because of size, weight, capacity and the fact that I shoot 9mm better and faster but everything is a compromise and you have to know the limitations of the round/ammo you are carrying.
It comes down to proficiency. What caliber can you stand to shoot enough of to become proficient with it?
Back in the day, many autoloaders would not feed hollowpoints worth a crap. So the 9mm got a bad rap. The .40 did not exist, so most turned to .45ACP because at least it made a big hole without needing a hollowpoint bullet. But .45FMJ sucked against hard targets (which is why the .38 Super was developed). Today's pistols are generally less finicky about what they're fed, so high-performance loads make the 9mm more viable.
Having tried many different calibers, I went with M&P40s as general carry. This provides the same 15+1 capacity as my 9mm (CZ75) in a platform that has proven reliable. I reload, so practice ammo isn't an issue (I've gleaned >1,000 cases from ranges over the past few years). As a secondary carry gun, I have a .44SPL snubbie. The loads in it are very nearly the same energy level as the loads I carry in the .40S&W. Recoil and muzzle blast are tolerable to me. Downside is the 5rnd capacity, which means that even with two speedloaders, I'm still limited to the same capacity as one magazine full of .40S&W in the M&P. Obviously, not my first choice. This is what works for me & what I'm comfortable with, not the best for everybody.
As to the .45, I really enjoy my 1911 in this caliber, but am not willing to sacrifice capacity vs. .40 or 9mm. I have not found a hi-cap .45 that fits my hand as well as pistols in the smaller cartridges.
My wife doesn't like pistols, so we have a 4" .357 revolver as a house gun. It's loaded with .38SPL +Ps to keep recoil to a level that she can tolerate. If nothing else, it'll buy her time to get to the Mossberg that lives in the bedroom closet.
Seriously, we're dealing with handgun cartridges, not hi-velocity rifle projectiles. Any shot is a crapshoot, you may get lucky with a lethal T-zone hit with a .22LR or you may miss entirely. So as was stated earlier in the thread, you need the capacity to allow enough rounds to eliminate the threat. Sometimes that may be one lucky shot, but odds are it'll take more than one to do the job. I don't want to be standing there like a schmuck when the gun runs dry and the threat remains.
Here are two caliber rules I live by, which I believe to be the truth:
1. There is no "perfect" handgun caliber. Each has its pros and its cons. Individuals must decide what is best for them based on their intended use, lifestyle, comfort, experience level, etc.
2. Consider the above factors and pick one. Then STOP worrying about what caliber to use, and instead practice the hell out of whatever you chose. There are many professionals who each use/prefer something different, everything from 9mm to .45ACP .
Consider your options, consider your INDIVIDUAL needs/case, pick a caliber/platform, then train, train, train.
My $.02
Buckshot TX
07-17-10, 21:52
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887
Which reliable and durable platform do you shoot most accurately and rapidly?
What caliber can you get the most ammunition for so you can get in sufficient practice?
Which platform is ergonomic and comfortable enough so you will unfailingly carry it each and every day?
What potential intermediate barriers are most likely to be present, if any, given the threats you have the highest probability of facing?
When you answer those questions, you will know what caliber and weapons system to choose.
------------------
Most people would be far better off picking one primary platform and sticking with it for many years in order to truly master the system. Carrying a shiny new gun every day of the week is the mark of an amateur...I want the guy who only owns a couple of well worn G19's at my side during a stressful situation.
THIS! This is so perfectly, succinctly clear & logical that it oughtta be inscribed on Mt. Rushmore, or the Washington Monument, or at least a bunch of highway billboards. Thanks Doc!
So I'm going to reply to this thread.
Caliber logic for me... is a lot like gun logic.
I'm 22 years old, so I've had a little over a year and a half over the legal age to buy a handgun from an FFL.
That being said, I knew since I was 17-18, I wanted a 1911.
The first handgun I purchased was geared entirely by what I thought would be my best weapon for self-defense and carry.
That was a Dan Wesson Bob Tailed Commander Length 1911 in .45 ACP, I bought it because it was a 4.25'' I liked 1911's, but I didn't want a full size, I also had heard/read enough that when you left the Commander's size it was a trip into the unknown on consistent reliability platform to platform.
I choose that barrel length based off of that.
I also wanted it to conceal well (I hinted at that when I specified commander length) so, I went with the Bobbed Tailed 1911, and a Stainless Steel Finish, theorizing that the Stainless Steel would be sufficient for sweat, and honestly, the Bobbed Tail, I could tell no difference in how well I gripped the gun from a Bobbed tail to a Flat Main Spring Housing, so I went with that.
I didn't want a Full Length Guide Rod because I saw that it added more parts, arguably uselessly, as there's really no improved accuracy, the one real improvement I could find that checked out as a real improvement IMHO, was increased weight to the front, but, I didn't think 1 ounce would make any difference in the way the gun handled or managed recoil so I saw it as excess and more parts waiting to fail.
I liked the Checkering the 25 LPI in the front strap, I switched to VZ Double Diamond Grips, I thought I'd like 3-Dot Sights, I thought I'd like contrasting sight colors, I thought that the green front sight post would stand out, enough to be relevant, I down the road painted my front sight a white base and then orange.
I went with .45 ACP, the same model is offered in 10mm, because I believe there is no improvement in 10mm for defensive application. It offers more recoil, more wear on the components, less expansion, more penetration (which... isn't good IMHO), it's more expensive to shoot and harder to find. So needless to say I'll never own a 10mm defensive pistol.
I wanted .45 ACP because I figured honestly, after reading reports about HST 230 gr expansion in Ballistic gelatin sometimes exceeding an inch to about 12-14'' which is what defensive experts over the years at least from what I've read have said is the best depth with somewhere around 100% material retention it was the best performing bullet shot per shot available in a handgun caliber, that was reasonably manageable in recoil, accurate, and readily available. (I didn't bother to research how unobtainable HST was until after I owned a 1911, but it is what it is). I still maintain that shot per shot, it is the best handgun caliber available, I'm not here to argue that, you asked for my logic and I'm giving it to you.
I can tell you this today.
I'm saving for a Smith and Wesson M&P 9mm with a Thumb Safety, I handled one yesterday, I prefer the thin back strap, I want Warren Tactical sights as apparently the front sight/rear sight composition does give a natural tendency to focus on the front sight, which I've been taught is ideal for shooting, I also after using 3-dot sights for over a year, even though I'm fast with them, and honestly when presenting the weapon I'd say about 95% of the time they're lined up as they should be when I present them.
But I will tell you this, with the 3-dot sights, they may be lined up perfectly, but I can't see it, it takes time for my eyes to adjust to realize what they're seeing, for fractions of a second, they don't naturally fixate on it, even with the front sight being that contrasting orange and black, I have a problem with that, I want to be as efficient and as fast as I possibly can be, that's my end goal with a defensive weapon.
Also the Dot ontop of Dot sight system in theory sounds pretty simple, and honestly, when it's a life and death situation, simple is king, you can't screw it up.
I also want an Apex Sear and Firing Pin Block to make the trigger fairly light and mangeable as there are complaints about the trigger, I'm considering a MA Trigger Spring as I hear that makes the reset more crisp, more tactile, and whatever I can do to feel the trigger working, the mechanism, audible or tactil things to make me again, faster and more efficient.
I've already priced the build out with parts installed and have the dealer selected, now I wait to save.
I also decided that realistically, HST performed that well in ballistic gelatin, add in clothes, bone, obtainable ammo instead of bullets you need to try to auctioneer your way into a pack of 50 of (Speer Gold Dots or maybe Ranger T's) and you're looking at I'd say a consistent .65-75'' of expansion with a .45 ACP.
From what I've gathered .50-.60'' is a pretty reasonable expectation of 9mm JHP expansion under those types of conditions, I figure I'll be faster on target with less recoil, have more rounds at my disposal and can be a little less conscious of doing a Bill Drill on someone who's threatening my life's COM with 18 shots in the gun rather than 9, instead of fretting over when I should plan my reload, take a bit more peace of mind in having bullets more readily available.
I do carry 2 spare Chip McCormick Power Mags (10 rounders) as a backup (ETA: I said 10 Chip McCormick Power Mags, I meant to say 10 rounders and two, the thoughts ran together faster than I could type.) but... we're talking 29 rounds versus 52, nearly double.
I'm not abandoning my 1911, but I am trying different things.
I also realize that double stack magazines can have double feeds, they're not perfect, but I'm going to give the platform a shot, versus the more reliable single stack magazines, simply because of capacity.
Also, I had a hammer break in my 1911, and honestly I have a 5 year warranty on a gun I paid around a thousand dollars for, or at least the spurred portion of it.
That M&P has a Lifetime warranty and stock it costs half of what that 1911 does. That added some perspective to my gun purchases as well.
I didn't buy the guns I bought because somebody cool carried them or recommended them, I bought them to serve a very specific purpose, and I factored all of these logics before I purchased them.
I thought I'd go in detail as I was/am a pretty die hard 1911/.45 ACP fan, and honestly, if this M&P checks out, I could be telling a very different story in a year or two, also you specifically are asking for logic/thought processes, instead of what we own and what we advocate, so sorry if that was really lengthy.
Ah! Twenty-two! And since you're obviously as in love with firearms and as OCD as the rest of us, you have a WHOLE LIFETIME to sweat over this! You lucky dog!
Ah! Twenty-two! And since you're obviously as in love with firearms and as OCD as the rest of us, you have a WHOLE LIFETIME to sweat over this! You lucky dog!
:D
I turn 23 in September.
You know I was thinking about it, when I said the best handgun round available I mean as a practical defensive round, obviously Smith and Wesson's 500's would be more lethal... but realistically you can't carry that, and it'll over penetrate.
I mean calibers that people actually use.
As a side note, I'm pretty tired, I can re-read my post and spot some stuff that's a bit incoherent.
BWT,
How much good TRAINING have you had?
Before spending a lot of money on different platforms, I'd strongly suggest you use your resources on getting more knowledge and experience. Magpul Dynamics, EAG, Trident Concepts, VTAC, CSAT, Vickers Tactical, Pistoltraining.com, ITTS, TigerSwan, etc... have all offered superb instruction––I can highly recommend any of them.
Once you have improved your abilities, then pick ONE pistol type and master it. For example, purchase two or three G19's (one for training, one for carry, one extra) and really learn to run it over tens of thousands of rounds and multiple years of use.
FWIW, a Dan Wesson Bob Tailed Commander Length 1911 in .45 ACP would NOT be a pistol I'd generally recommend for primary CCW or off-duty use, especially for a new pistol shooter...
Here's my logic, unload a 9mm into someone, unload a 45 into someone else. They are both probably going to be dead at the end of it, if not they likely will wish they were..
I like to shoot 9mm much more than 45, and my hands are small so many 45 grips are uncomfortable, so I choose 9mm <shrug>
Magic_Salad0892
07-18-10, 04:24
I'm extremely comfortable with the 9x19mm round.
I learned on the Glock 17 platform, I own them now.
I shoot them well. They have very reliable expansion and most major 9x19mm pistols are known to be reliable.
At some point I will own three Gen4 G17s. I also would like an airsoft model to train on actual moving people that shoot back.
For me 9x19 makes sense.
BWT,
How much good TRAINING have you had?
Before spending a lot of money on different platforms, I'd strongly suggest you use your resources on getting more knowledge and experience. Magpul Dynamics, EAG, Trident Concepts, VTAC, CSAT, Vickers Tactical, Pistoltraining.com, ITTS, TigerSwan, etc... have all offered superb instruction––I can highly recommend any of them.
Once you have improved your abilities, then pick ONE pistol type and master it. For example, purchase two or three G19's (one for training, one for carry, one extra) and really learn to run it over tens of thousands of rounds and multiple years of use.
FWIW, a Dan Wesson Bob Tailed Commander Length 1911 in .45 ACP would NOT be a pistol I'd generally recommend for primary CCW or off-duty use, especially for a new pistol shooter...
Honestly, other than my CWP none, the instructors that taught that course have more advanced courses, but, they're largely remedial things, when reviewing the course content...
Think I should revisit those options?
The other reason I'm going to get a M&P9 is because honestly I'm a college student (for one more semester at least), I can afford to shoot 9mm much much more frequently.
It's a lot of money for me at this point in my life, maybe not in a year or so after I get out into a different job, work full time, etc. but to travel those kinds of distances, rent a room, buy the amount of ammo and pay for the class, it's just not remotely feasible.
I am looking for one platform, I've just honestly been using this pistol for long enough, that I thought I'd stick with the 1911 platform, but I'm also keeping an open mind to which platform would best serve me. I thought that pistol was "it" for me, that I'd end up buying the majority of 1911 only platforms, I'm going to try different stuff and see what I really like.
Reconsidering it, I think maybe I should look at the guys I used locally, any training is better than no training, and then in about a year or two, revisit the instructors that you've mentioned.
ETA: I have shot other pistols than a CBOB, the first handgun I fired was a Glock 21 that was my father's etc. and a variety of others I actually shot a Glock 19 to take my CWP, handled and recoiled very well, but, I decided I still liked the 1911 so much that I went ahead with that anyway.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate all the feedback. But...
I'm not especially concerned with "how to pick a caliber" as I've already done that and mostly for my own personal reasons. I'm also not especially concerned with wounding potential as I can just look at some gels (as linked to above).
What I'm wondering is why "experts" who give something approximated my paraphrased advice above, give the "both do the trick" advice but then don't follow up with my so-called "logical conclusion"?
Am I over-simplifying the argument? Am I missing or misinterpreting something?
GIVEN the argument that 9mm = .45 for effectiveness (in whatever terminology one chooses to use whether that be "wounding potential," "stopping power," or "stored kills" or whatever--and let's not get into a debate about that, I too have read those posts and articles)...
Why would you not conclude that, for the above issues, 9mm > .45?
Again, this has less to do with reality and FAR more to do with (what seems to me to be) the half-logic of a certain kind of caliber recommendation (i.e. both will do the job so both are equal, even though one is cheaper, has less recoil, and fits more into the same size mag).
I'm not super excited to participate in a discussion about the pro's and con's of 9mm or .45. And even if I was, this is neither the thread nor the forum for that. I'm just wondering why people say what they often say and then don't say what I thought comes next.
Maybe I'm putting up a straw-man argument. Maybe I should go out there and find the exact wording used by someone and see if my question makes any sense anymore. I admit, I'm just paraphrasing. But, for the purposes of this thread, I'm interested in the argument/advice, not the "reality" of the situation.
To rephrase (perhaps futilely): Given the argument that 9mm and .45 will both get the job done and thus neither is clearly superior (and just that argument, not a different one), shouldn't the conclusion (due to recoil, capacity, and even cost) be that 9mm trumps .45 UNDER THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THAT ARGUMENT?
Or another option: is my impression that the "consensus" is that 9mm and .45 are, practically speaking, similarly effective--is that impression a false one that I just pulled out of my ass?
(God I hope some of this makes just a little bit of sense)
To be brief, the LOGIC you seek has been pointed out near perfectly by Doc.
IMHO, The 'other thing' that you're missing is the lesser importance of caliber and the greater importance to the level of skill one has to operate a pistol that is comfortable in the hand and gives one the best 'natural point of aim' when employed.
I see this a lot like golf (sorry), the high-end clubs do help, but you can still get beat by a guy with 50 year old equipment......the training and practice and is what will save you.
<sarcasm> Dang it! When are we going to get the .410 Judge! <sarcasm>
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.