Is There a Role for Large Caliber Handguns?

[GardoneVT]

Given that many LE agencies and the US Military broadly speaking seem to manage fine with quality 9mm and .40 S&W ammo and handguns, where is the role for .45 ACP/ 10mm /.357 Magnum ? What is the expert consensus on an application for such rounds in terms of self defense from human and non-human animals?

[Tamara]

What is the expert consensus...

I think this phrase is wildly optimistic, but I'm interested in seeing what answers you get. ;)

[1slow]

I've had and shot extensively:
Autos
.45 Win Mag Grizzly (1911 on steroids) .50 AE Desert Eagles. Also various 9mm, 10mm, .40 S&W, .45acp.
Revolvers
.44 mag, .454 Casull, .500, .475 Linebaugh Bowen Redhawks, .500 S&W. Also .357, .38 special etc...

IMHO, YMMV.
To defend against criminals, I like a service auto pistol 9mm, .45 etc..

To defend against large animals I prefer a revolver .44 Mag and up. My favorite is a Bowen 4" .500 Linebaugh Redhawk he built for me about 1990. 440 gr at 1200 fps 3 pound pistol.
To me the magnum autos are unwieldy and underpowered for their weight and size.

GJM make good points for a 10mm auto as a generalist self defense handgun. I would think this would be perfect against wild dog packs if you have this problem.

Generally I like: for defense from criminals, J frame revolvers as pocket pistols, service autos as belt pistols. I like very powerful revolvers as anti large animal pistols.

[Lester Polfus]

To defend against human attackers, I like a service auto pistol 9mm, .45 etc..

To defend against large animals I prefer a revolver .44 Mag and up. My favorite is a Bowen 4" .500 Linebaugh Redhawk he built for me about 1990. 440 gr at 1200 fps 3 pound pistol.
To me the magnum autos are unwieldy and underpowered for their weight and size.

GJM make good points for a 10mm auto as a generalist self defense handgun. I would think this would be perfect against wild dog packs if you have this problem.

Generally I like: for defense from criminals, J frame revolvers as pocket pistols, service autos as belt pistols. I like very powerful revolvers as anti large animal pistols.

Not sure if I qualify as an expert, but I'd agree with all that.

I spend quite a bit of time in the woods. Hell my yard qualifies as the woods, especially as we've a Black Bear living up the hill. Honestly, in the lower 48, most service caliber pistols (Ie 9mm/.40) would be fine for bears and cougars, but I'd prefer something in the .357/10mm power level.

When you start talking Alaska, the bigger stuff starts coming into it's own. I do find that the .44 Mag with Rompin' Stompin' Robot loads is about the highest power level I feel like I could shoot well under stress.

[GJM]

Given that many LE agencies and the US Military broadly speaking seem to manage fine with quality 9mm and .40 S&W ammo and handguns, where is the role for .45 ACP/ 10mm /.357 Magnum ? What is the expert consensus on an application for such rounds in terms of self defense from human and non-human animals?

My reaction to being scared by a large animal has never been to wish I had a smaller caliber. If they made something bigger than 10mm that functioned in a good, production service pistol I would be all over it. 10mm for people -- I could care less.

[Malamute]

I get a little complacent now and then about what I carry around near home. The recent news story of a bear killing someone got me thinking right again. Always carry something larger caliber in the mountains. If I had to thin down the guns, the larger caliber ones would be the last to go. Not quite typical of what most people need, but there are some places they are not the least bit out of place.

[Magic_Salad0892]

I like the .45 ACP, because I spend the vast majority of my time in a car, or in a building with a ton of intermediate, and light barriers. Heavier projectiles that work better through light cover is the order of the day in my situation.

[1slow]

My reaction to being scared by a large animal has never been to wish I had a smaller caliber. If they made something bigger than 10mm that functioned in a good, production service pistol I would be all over it. 10mm for people -- I could care less.

When I was at Rogers', I seem to remember Bill talking about some loads in the HK MK23 that were 230gr @ 1150 fps. Evidently something that one group brought to class and found not to be the ticket for the class.
The MK23 is sort of big like a plastic Desert Eagle but shoots well and is not particularly heavy. Would this gain you much. How about .45 super in some HK etc....

[GJM]

When I was at Rogers', I seem to remember Bill talking about some loads in the HK MK23 that were 230gr @ 1150 fps. Evidently something that one group brought to class and found not to be the ticket for the class.
The MK23 is sort of big like a plastic Desert Eagle but shoots well and is not particularly heavy. Would this gain you much. How about .45 super in some HK etc....

Maybe. Somebody else figure it out and let me know!

[Robinson]

I'm not a user of 9mm or .40S&W because I use and carry 1911s and revolvers, not because I think there is anything wrong with 9mm or .40S&W.

So I guess the role that .45ACP, .38Spl, .38 Super, etc... fill for me comes from the types of handguns I choose. If I suddenly decided to switch to a Glock it would probably be a 9mm, or if a M&P it would probably be .40S&W, etc...

[Chuck Haggard]

For me the only use for a larger handgun caliber nowadays is big animals.

I started on the job with .357 mags, then went to 9mm, got big bullet-itis and carried .40 or .45s when I was doing SWAT work. First gun I was issued was a 1911 so I guess I started with .45s really, but anyway.

There isn't anything I need a handgun for in the lower 48 that I can't get done with my Glock 9mms, my J frame 38s, or my 4" .357mags

[LSP972]

To answer the question posed by the thread title:

Yes. One role is for guys like me, who acknowledge that modern bullet construction PROBABLY makes the "good" 9mm duty ammo the equal of bigger bullets across the board, but who prefer to hedge their bets with big bullets just... because.

I can (and do) down-load .45s for practice so they don't beat me up. I can (and do) load factory-duplication cartridges so I don't get too comfortable with bunny fart practice loads. I can (and do) load the same variety in .40 for my wife, because she prefers that caliber after overhearing a prominent instructor disparaging the Euro Pellet...:D

Plus, when reloading I'd rather handle a fat .45 case or a not-so-fat .40 case than fumble around with those itty-bitty .380 Long Rifles.

So, yes, Virginia, there are indeed roles for large caliber handguns, aside from BIG critter hunting/protection from same...;)

.

[mizer67]

To answer the question posed by the thread title: Plus, when reloading I'd rather handle a fat .45 case or a not-so-fat .40 case than fumble around with those itty-bitty .380 Long Rifles.


A case and bullet fed reloading machine obviates the need to handle well, anything. :)

[Rich]

For me the only use for a larger handgun caliber nowadays is big animals.

I started on the job with .357 mags, then went to 9mm, got big bullet-itis and carried .40 or .45s when I was doing SWAT work. First gun I was issues was a 1911 so I guess I started with .45s really, but anyway.

There isn't anything I need a handgun for in the lower 48 that I can't get done with my Glock 9mms, my J frame 38s, or my 4" .357mags

What Chuck says.

[LSP972]

A case and bullet fed reloading machine obviates the need to handle well, anything. :)

Indeed. Unfortunately, my allotted reloading space does not allow for the Dillon case feeder; too much overhead junk.

.

[John Hearne]

Yes. One role is for guys like me, who acknowledge that modern bullet construction PROBABLY makes the "good" 9mm duty ammo the equal of bigger bullets across the board, but who prefer to hedge their bets with big bullets just... because.


Preach it brother.... Because 9mm's may expand but 45's don't shrink.

(If you really want to make someone's head spin, look at how the viscosity of blood makes it super sensitive to hole size when determining how quickly fluid leaks. If you are counting on fluid leakage as a stopping mechanism then it matters. Quoting people smarter than me:

When you consider the flow of blood through a vessel you get to what the Docs call the Poiseuille equation:, where P is pressure (ΔP being the difference in pressure), r is the radius of the vessel, L is the length and η is the viscosity.

Q = (ΔP π r^4)/(8 L η)

The important thing here is that flow increases as the 4th power of radius!)

[KeeFus]

Q = (ΔP π r^4)/(8 L η)



Yea, what John said...cause I have no clue what he said. :D

[TR675]

Preach it brother.... Because 9mm's may expand but 45's don't shrink.

Wiggins' testing showing that cold boolets don't always expand was food for thought...

[LSP972]

Wiggins' testing showing that cold boolets don't always expand was food for thought...

Got a link? We have a resident "ballistic expert" at our lab; one of those guys that, if you could buy him for what he knows and sell him for what he thinks he knows, he'd make you a wealthy man. I love bringing him published scientific data that fries his brain.

In the meantime, this may well be the answer to the perennial question.

http://www.thebullettesttube.com/faq.html

Who need steenkin' gelatin testing, anyways???:D

.

Never mind, found it in the ammo forum. Gotta figure how to present that tidbit...

[Mr_White]

The role of large caliber handguns is to distract many shooters from pressing the trigger straight back while paying attention to the sights the whole time, lol. :p

[Hambo]

Q = (ΔP π r^4)/(8 L η)



You lost me there, buddy.

I carry a .44 some of the time in the woods, usually with a round or two of snake shot followed by HPs over H110. That covers the continuum from rattlers to hogs to bears to meth cookers. Not that it's likely I'd have to shoot a black bear, but I feel more love with magnums than my 9mm.

[JAD]

I'm carrying a .45 at the moment because I think that it's native to my preferred platform. For me, the extra round of capacity and the improved split times are not as significant as the fact that 1911s run particularly well with it. This is setting aside terminal considerations; but since terminal considerations often have a lot of 'probably's sprinkled in their discussions, and I 'probably' won't need the extra round or the 0.05 split differential, I consider it at least a wash.

I do not wish my P30 was a .40 - .40s make me flinch - but I would not kick it out of bed if it had been designed around 8 rounds of .45 GAP.

[farscott]

I have two distinct roles for large-caliber handguns:

1) Hunting large game, such as wild pigs. For that, I use a .454 Casull in a FA83 with a 300-grain JFP at about 1250 fps. That is about as much recoil as I can tolerate. I have looked at some reduced loads, but I have not yet settled on one I like.

2) For when I want to carry a 1911. I do have a 9x23 that is perfectly reliable but the brass is expensive and the report is concussive in a confined space. I prefer .45 ACP for indoor practice as the report seems less obnoxious to me. Outdoor practice I prefer 9x19 or 9x23.

[TR675]

Got a link?...Never mind, found it in the ammo forum. Gotta figure how to present that tidbit...

Heh, I should have linked it from the get-go.

The "cold bullet" - probably "cold powder" is more accurate - test was interesting, but I don't know how much it really matters for IWB carriers, especially Southern ones. Maybe more so for cops and OWB carriers up north. I'm interested if DocGKR has any input on that, or if some of our more northern police brethren can shed some anecdotal light on it.

[LSP972]

- probably "cold powder" is more accurate -

Exactly. For instance, the old Hercules Blue Dot was known to suffer velocity loss in cold weather; dunno about the current Alliant blend of this propellant.

WST, OTOH, shows velocity loss in HOT weather, according to a couple of USPSA buddies who found out the hard way; which goes against the grain (no pun intended) of most powders, which generally produce higher pressures as the temps go up. That's why you see hi-power and benchrest shooters doing everything they can to keep their ammo out of direct sunlight.

At any rate, this has just enough "tooth" in it to give my man pause; perhaps not enough to short him out, but I'm hoping for at least a furrowed brow...:cool:

.

[LSP972]

I don't know how much it really matters for IWB carriers, especially Southern ones.

Spot on again. This tidbit is particularly useful when dealing with those who think using any sort of grease on your carry piece is tantamount to committing suicide, as they will invariably bring up the "But it will congeal in cold weather!!!" mantra.

Ah, guess again, Cletus… there's this little thing called body heat…


.

[Alpha Sierra]

I have no use for bore sizes above .357"

In revolvers, .38 Special and .357 Magnum do all I need. In auto pistols, 9x19 does the same.

[JHC]

I have no use for bore sizes above .357"

In revolvers, .38 Special and .357 Magnum do all I need. In auto pistols, 9x19 does the same.

I hear tell that plenty of grizzlies have been ended with a .357.

[Chuck Haggard]

Just to poke John, the only complete "failure to stop" event I ever saw was a bad guy that one of our narcs shot straight through the sternum with .45 ball launched from a S&W 645

Every single Gold Dot 9mm bullet we have launched into a bad guy has resulted in a well expanded bullet, and a bad guy on the ground in four rounds or less.

Just sayin.

I'll throw in a gratuitous quote from Kyle Defoor;
I appreciate the 1911's innovations 100 years ago. Without it we would not have the modern semis we have. But seriously, 7 shots? mediocre performance without heavy expensive mods? and a caliber that still is not proved is better than 9mm? - not for me.

[PD Sgt.]

I feel that in addition to wilderness defense, where a 10mm or .44 are my personal preferences, another situation where larger calibers remain relevant are in areas where magazine capacities are limited to single digits or 10.

Personally, if I am limited to 10 rounds in a defensive pistol, I am likely to choose a midsize .45 such as a HK45c or M&Pc over a similarly sized 9mm with limited capacity magazines. This preference is with the condition that I am training/practicing to manage the greater recoil so I do not lose as much in the speed of my follow on shots. If one is not able to manage the larger caliber effectively, I would recommend sticking with the smaller caliber.

[David Armstrong]

Outside of shooting a bear or a moose or some such, I will stick with the mid-calibers like the .38, 9mm, .357, etc. I have a few .45s but other than the range I don't use them. I would if that was all I had, but I haven't found anything it would do that I needed that wasn't done just fine with the 9 or the .38.

[Redhat]

Just to poke John, the only complete "failure to stop" event I ever saw was a bad guy that one of our narcs shot straight through the sternum with .45 ball launched from a S&W 645

Every single Gold Dot 9mm bullet we have launched into a bad guy has resulted in a well expanded bullet, and a bad guy on the ground in four rounds or less.

Just sayin.

I'll throw in a gratuitous quote from Kyle Defoor;
I appreciate the 1911's innovations 100 years ago. Without it we would not have the modern semis we have. But seriously, 7 shots? mediocre performance without heavy expensive mods? and a caliber that still is not proved is better than 9mm? - not for me.

Hold on a minute...got any more detail on that straight through the sternum shot? Sounds like some details are being left out.

Thanks

[ScotchMan]

Someone beat me to the "limited capacity" state point. I think that is a big sell for someone in an enemy-controlled state otherwise capable of handling the recoil. This coming from someone whose magazine is currently 1/3 air :/

Another thing that's always bugged me re: terminal ballistics. I am good with the idea that 9mm in a good JHP has the same stopping power as .45 because it expands. What I've never been able to understand is why .45 isn't still proportionally better because it too expands. For example, a 9mm is .35", and can expand to say 0.50". A .45 is .45" and could expand to, say, .60", if not more. Right? So why isn't .45 still better than 9mm?

I'm sure there is an answer but I've not yet come across it.

[Chuck Haggard]

Hold on a minute...got any more detail on that straight through the sternum shot? Sounds like some details are being left out.

Thanks

5/8ths" entrance hole, 7/8ths" exit hole, bullet passed through the aorta. Reported to have not even flinched on being shot. Bad guys was trying to get a 20 gauge shotgun into play, he thankfully forgot to take the safety off (there's a training lesson in that bit rioght there). Bad guy chased the narc down a flight of stairs, realized the house was full of cops, ran back up the stairs, down the hall, barricaed himself in the bedroom. Calls to throw out the gun and show his hands were met with "F U"s. Bad guy eventually realized he was shot and called 911 demanding an ambulance.
He eventually died from blood loss, but it wasn't quick and he was dangerous for a few minutes after being fatally shot.

[czech6]

Someone beat me to the "limited capacity" state point. I think that is a big sell for someone in an enemy-controlled state otherwise capable of handling the recoil. This coming from someone whose magazine is currently 1/3 air :/

Another thing that's always bugged me re: terminal ballistics. I am good with the idea that 9mm in a good JHP has the same stopping power as .45 because it expands. What I've never been able to understand is why .45 isn't still proportionally better because it too expands. For example, a 9mm is .35", and can expand to say 0.50". A .45 is .45" and could expand to, say, .60", if not more. Right? So why isn't .45 still better than 9mm?

I'm sure there is an answer but I've not yet come across it.

Because duty ammo lives in an egalitarian system, rounds are designed to meet FBI specifications. When duty rounds for handguns are designed to have the same results, what they start off as has a lot less relevance.

[Redhat]

5/8ths" entrance hole, 7/8ths" exit hole, bullet passed through the aorta. Reported to have not even flinched on being shot. Bad guys was trying to get a 20 gauge shotgun into play, he thankfully forgot to take the safety off (there's a training lesson in that bit rioght there). Bad guy chased the narc down a flight of stairs, realized the house was full of cops, ran back up the stairs, down the hall, barricaed himself in the bedroom. Calls to throw out the gun and show his hands were met with "F U"s. Bad guy eventually realized he was shot and called 911 demanding an ambulance.
He eventually died from blood loss, but it wasn't quick and he was dangerous for a few minutes after being fatally shot.

Thanks Chuck,

I guess the first question I would ask, regardless of caliber, is why the officer fired only one round? Followed by, why was he using ball ammo?

In this instance, should we believe a ball round of 9mm or .40 SW would have performed better?

[Hunter Rose]

What I've never been able to understand is why .45 isn't still proportionally better because it too expands. For example, a 9mm is .35", and can expand to say 0.50". A .45 is .45" and could expand to, say, .60", if not more. Right? So why isn't .45 still better than 9mm?


Ceterus parabus, a .45 ACP modern hollow point IS better than the same modem hollowpoint in 9mm.

What you're failing to grasp is when comparing .45 to 9mm in real life, the parabus isn't ceterized. The marginally larger wound channel potential per individual round comes at the price of reduced capacity and increased recoil when using .45 ACP. Very few people shoot a .45 at the same speed/accuracy level as a similar 9mm. Lots of people, myself included, feel a more shootable pistol that gives from 5-8 extra chances to incapacitate a threat is much more important than having a round that is slightly more destructive.

I also like to think of it another way, no one in the late '90s early '00s every really complained about the poor wounding potential of .45 ACP hollowpoints of that era. If you look at the numbers, modern 9mm HPs equal or surpass the penetration and expansion performance I those older .45 rounds.

[Chuck Haggard]

Thanks Chuck,

I guess the first question I would ask, regardless of caliber, is why the officer fired only one round? Followed by, why was he using ball ammo?

In this instance, should we believe a ball round of 9mm or .40 SW would have performed better?


Narc guy was trying to get out of the way of the shotgun muzzle, fired one handed while ducking, and thought getting down the stairs to cover was smarter than standing there and duking it out.

He was using ball ammo because the first shooting he had using Silvertips also went poorly, in that case due to a complete lack of ability to penetrate anything.

And no, I think 9mm or .40 would have given similar results.

[Chuck Haggard]

Ceterus parabus, a .45 ACP modern hollow point IS better than the same modem hollowpoint in 9mm.

What you're failing to grasp is when comparing .45 to 9mm in real life, the parabus isn't ceterized. The marginally larger wound channel potential per individual round comes at the price of reduced capacity and increased recoil when using .45 ACP. Very few people shoot a .45 at the same speed/accuracy level as a similar 9mm. Lots of people, myself included, feel a more shootable pistol that gives from 5-8 extra chances to incapacitate a threat is much more important than having a round that is slightly more destructive.

I also like to think of it another way, no one in the late '90s early '00s every really complained about the poor wounding potential of .45 ACP hollowpoints of that era. If you look at the numbers, modern 9mm HPs equal or surpass the penetration and expansion performance I those older .45 rounds.



Sometimes.

To steal a quote from myself, because I am too lazy to retype the whole thing, when I got into a caliber war on a local forum (they "all fall to hardball" and such needs to be countered, IMHO....);


Lots of people like to pull out math to "prove" the bigger rounds are better, the problem is that the math is basically bull****, most especially when people start to report crap like cubic inches of bullet hole.


Almost no JHP cuts a hole as wide as the bullet, and RN or SWC ammo certainly does not (I have seen up to .45acp FMJRN entrance wounds that had closed up completely, you had to physically move the tissue with a finger to see the wound).

All of the service caliber handgun bullets leave basically the same hole in/through tissue, a doctor looking at a shooting victim or a coroner at a murder victim can not tell the wound path of a .38/9mm from a .40 or a .45.

Fact.

If the doctor can't tell the difference then how does the guy that got shot know?
(In the FWIW department; two friends who are a coroner and a trauma surgeon respectively both carry Glock 19s loaded with 124gr +P Gold Dot, due to the capacity, reliability, shootability, and ease of concealment of this platform, along with professional observation of how bullets work in general and how these bullets work specifically. I'll note both of these guys are smarter than me. The coroner thinks that 9mms are more reliable wounders due to expanding more reliably, this due to having higher velocities than the bigger bullets).


People also like to quote the averages that show their fav-o-rite bullet in the best light, which is also BS.

Check these out;
Win 230 gr Ranger Talon JHP (RA45T) fired from 1911 at ave vel of 911 f/s; 5 shot ave below:
BG: Pen = 12.3", Ave RD = 0.70", Ave RL = 0.44", Ave RW = 227.2gr
4LD: Pen = 25.1", Ave RD = 0.45", Ave RL = 0.60", Ave RW = 228.8 gr
AG: Pen = 16.1", Ave RD = 0.54", Ave RL = 0.48", Ave RW = 189.6 gr

Fed HST 230 gr JHP (P45HST2) fired from 1911 at ave vel of 879 f/s; 5 shot ave below::
BG: Pen = 12.6", Ave RD = 0.80", Ave RL = 0.44", Ave RW = 231.5 gr
4LD: Pen = 13.4", Ave RD = 0.55", Ave RL = 0.71", Ave RW = 231.2 gr
AG: Pen = 16.3", Ave RD = 0.54", Ave RL = 0.58", Ave RW = 230.6 gr

vs

9mm Fed 147 gr HST JHP; ave vel=997 fps (G19)
BG: pen=14.6", RD=0.61", RL=0.39", RW=147.1gr
4LD: pen=15.6", RD=0.56", RL=0.53", RW=145.5gr

Win 124 gr +P Ranger Talon (RA124TP) fired from G17 at ave vel of 1238 f/s; 5 shot ave below:
BG: Pen = 13.0”, RD = 0.62”, RL= 0.35", RW = 114.7gr
4LD: Pen = 13.0”, RD = 0.59”, RL= 0.40", RW = 116.8gr
AG: Pen = 18.9”, RD = 0.50”, RL= 0.52", RW = 117.5gr

vs

.40 S&W Fed 180 gr HST JHP; ave vel=959 fps (S&W 4006)
BG: pen=14.0", RD=0.70", RL=0.43", RW=181.2gr
4LD: pen=15.0", RD=0.56", RL=0.52", RW=180.7gr

Note in my cherry picked tests, info from Doc Roberts, bolding the four layer denim test to illustrate (Which BTW is a very street realistic test in my observation of bullets recovered from real bodies), the 147gr 9mm beats both the .40 and .45 by either more expansion or more penetration, or both.

Even through auto glass, the event where the bigger bullets are supposed to have some sort of huge edge, the 124gr non-bonded +P Ranger-T gives better penetration in the noted testing.

The truth is, on average, they all work about the same, and they all work well if the shooter has all their crap in one bag, if not then none of them work.


Stealing a quote from Doc Roberts;
Quote:
Keeping in mind that handguns generally offer poor incapacitation potential, bullets with effective terminal performance are available in all of the most commonly used duty pistol calibers—pick the one that you shoot most accurately, that is most reliable in the type of pistol you choose, and best suits you likely engagement scenarios.
The keys are:

-- Cultivate a warrior mindset
-- Invest in competent, thorough initial training and then maintain skills with regular ongoing practice
-- Acquire a reliable and durable weapon system
-- Purchase a consistent, robust performing duty/self-defense load in sufficient quantities (at least 1000 rounds) then STOP worrying about the nuances of handgun ammunition terminal performance.

This is also very good reading;
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/H...No%20Faith.htm

and;
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/9mm%20vs%2045.htm

An awesome quote from Mr. Camp;
Quote:
Once you have a caliber capable of adequate penetration and expansion, placement is power.

[Hunter Rose]

Excellent point, Chuck. My brain tends to only remember the ballistic gel numbers, so I guess I fell into that trap.

[Kimura]

Someone beat me to the "limited capacity" state point. I think that is a big sell for someone in an enemy-controlled state otherwise capable of handling the recoil. This coming from someone whose magazine is currently 1/3 air :/

Another thing that's always bugged me re: terminal ballistics. I am good with the idea that 9mm in a good JHP has the same stopping power as .45 because it expands. What I've never been able to understand is why .45 isn't still proportionally better because it too expands. For example, a 9mm is .35", and can expand to say 0.50". A .45 is .45" and could expand to, say, .60", if not more. Right? So why isn't .45 still better than 9mm?

I'm sure there is an answer but I've not yet come across it.

ATK and Winchester both have load comparison tables you can play around with and see how each load performs. For instance, Winchester Ranger 180gr bonded, 40 cal penetrates heavy clothing better than 147gr 9mm or 230gr .45 bonded, but there is very little difference between the three when it comes to windshield penetration. And then you can look at expansion versus... I've looked at the load comparison tables and honestly, you can find loads that support your point of view, whatever that may be. And not even the SMEs all agree on the subject. For instance, unless he's changed his mind in the last 18 months or so, Scott Reitz thinks that the history of the .45 speaks for itself. Take a look for yourself. Here are links to the comparison tables I mentioned above.

http://le.atk.com/wound_ballistics/load_comparison/load_comparison.aspx

http://www.winchester.com/PRODUCTS/LE/Pages/ammunition-testing.aspx

[Redhat]

Narc guy was trying to get out of the way of the shotgun muzzle, fired one handed while ducking, and thought getting down the stairs to cover was smarter than standing there and duking it out.

He was using ball ammo because the first shooting he had using Silvertips also went poorly, in that case due to a complete lack of ability to penetrate anything.

And no, I think 9mm or .40 would have given similar results.

Thanks for filling in the blanks...that must have been some time ago if he was using Win Silvertips, but as you described it, getting a center hit under those conditions, whether luck or skill, is pretty good shooting.

As to wound tracks, it would seem to me a larger caliber has to make a larger hole regardless of what happens after the projectile passes through...

[Chuck Haggard]

The issue is that the hole is slightly larger, very slightly. And tissue wants to close up. I have seen entrance wounds from .45 ball ammo that I had to search for to find, hole closes right up quite often.

[Rich]

Just to poke John, the only complete "failure to stop" event I ever saw was a bad guy that one of our narcs shot straight through the sternum with .45 ball launched from a S&W 645

Every single Gold Dot 9mm bullet we have launched into a bad guy has resulted in a well expanded bullet, and a bad guy on the ground in four rounds or less.

Just sayin.

I'll throw in a gratuitous quote from Kyle Defoor;
I appreciate the 1911's innovations 100 years ago. Without it we would not have the modern semis we have. But seriously, 7 shots? mediocre performance without heavy expensive mods? and a caliber that still is not proved is better than 9mm? - not for me.

Chuck is which GD load ? SP 124,+P 124 or 147. The local police here use standard pressure 124gr GD. They might of changed because I asked back in 2004.

[Rich]

Outside of shooting a bear or a moose or some such, I will stick with the mid-calibers like the .38, 9mm, .357, etc. I have a few .45s but other than the range I don't use them. I would if that was all I had, but I haven't found anything it would do that I needed that wasn't done just fine with the 9 or the .38.

I walk the trails here in SWF and be on the look out for Panther, Black Bear , Crocks , Gators, hogs,and venomous snakes.
I use to carry my P229 in 40S&W and this year started carrying a 9mm again.

Even if we had Brown Bear here I wouldn't carry a pistol that had more recoil than the 40S&W 180gr.

[Chuck Whitlock]

The issue is that the hole is slightly larger, very slightly. And tissue wants to close up. I have seen entrance wounds from .45 ball ammo that I had to search for to find, hole closes right up quite often.

^^^^^
THIS. I remember an assault victim I was interviewing in the ER. I happened to notice a slit in the side of his shirt approximately 3/4" wide. Dude had a stab wound about 3-4" deep that he and the doc were unaware of. No blood on skin or shirt. Dude didn't feel it at all until the doc probed the wound.

[Lester Polfus]

Ok. I'll pile in with some war stories.

We had a dirtbag on dirtbag shooting right before I left the road. Responded to an altercation at a transit center, with shots fired to find a guy who was about 6'2" 300, wearing a black puffy jacket, standing in the middle of the street screaming.

I got him calmed down and cuffed. There was a little bit of blood running out of his mouth. His story was that he was minding his own damn business, when some other dude got in his face for no apparent reason and punched him in the mouf. They exchanged blows, the other guy pulled a piece, took a shot at him, and ran away. Yo.

As he talked, more blood was coming out of his mouth, to the point that it became quite a lot. So we rolled an ambulance.

The am-bu-lance and our K9 arrived at about the same time. It was a couple of minutes before the medics realized that while he had, indeed been punched in the mouf, and had a cut lip, the real problem was the puncture wound in the upper right quadrant of the front of his chest, which was matched by a twin on his back. Both wounds looked like a little slit and weren't even bleeding all that much. At least not on the outside.

By this time, the guy was a little gray and ashen, but upon hearing that he'd been shot said "Damn! I thought the mother fucker missed. Let me out of here so I can go find him." He did run out of steam a little while after that and they sped off to the hospital.

We couldn't find a shell casing and speculated that if we did find a gun, it would probably be a .22 or .32 or something similar. About that time, the K9 found a Beretta 96 (stolen) with 10 rounds of .40 FMJ-TC in the magazine. After the dust settled, the gang guys found out this was, of course, a dispute over a bag of weed, and somebody being disrespected. They arrested the shooter in his momma's living room. The shootee had a collapsed lung and stayed in the hospital for a while then refused to cooperate with the investigation.

I'm sure, of course, had it been .45 ACP ball, he would have been vaporized...

[41magfan]

Another thing that's always bugged me re: terminal ballistics. I am good with the idea that 9mm in a good JHP has the same stopping power as .45 because it expands. What I've never been able to understand is why .45 isn't still proportionally better because it too expands. For example, a 9mm is .35", and can expand to say 0.50". A .45 is .45" and could expand to, say, .60", if not more. Right? So why isn't .45 still better than 9mm?

I'm sure there is an answer but I've not yet come across it.

Neither have I.

In my experiences as a COP, the overwhelming majority of people that are shot (or even shot at) cease their aggressive behavior regardless of where they are hit and usually in complete deference to the gun, caliber or bullet. In that context, it’s reasonable to argue a 9mm is functionally equivalent to a .45 ACP.

In contrast, the 9mm is NOT functionally equivalent to the .45 ACP in the majority of circumstances where those cartridges are used against wild game.

Now I’ve come to my own conclusions regarding that disparity in performance, but everyone has to decide for themselves what's relevant.

[1slow]

There is a big difference between the shootee choosing to quit and being stopped even though they are still intending to kill you.
These get confused.

[Chuck Haggard]

Chuck is which GD load ? SP 124,+P 124 or 147. The local police here use standard pressure 124gr GD. They might of changed because I asked back in 2004.

124gr +P


BTW, in our OISs we have had a large number of bad guys hit the deck against their will. I get the "I quit" psychological stop, which a lot of shootings are, but when a highly aggressive hard core felon bad guy bailing out of a car after a pursuit, wielding two pistols and trying to get an angle on the officers that were chasing him, takes a hit and slides into the dirt like the rhino in the movie 300, and is completely incoherent when the good guys go to secure him, I would submit that there is a bit more in play than a psychological stop, I'd say that was a stop-stop.

[LSP972]

124gr +P


BTW, in our OISs we have had a large number of bad guys hit the deck against their will. I get the "I quit" psychological stop, which a lot of shootings are, but when a highly aggressive hard core felon bad guy bailing out of a car after a pursuit, wielding two pistols and trying to get an angle on the officers that were chasing him, takes a hit and slides into the dirt like the rhino in the movie 300, and is completely incoherent when the good guys go to secure him, I would submit that there is a bit more in play than a psychological stop, I'd say that was a stop-stop.

Yeah, but a .45 would have cuffed him and made him ready to receive his Miranda rights…;)

.

[1slow]

124gr +P


BTW, in our OISs we have had a large number of bad guys hit the deck against their will. I get the "I quit" psychological stop, which a lot of shootings are, but when a highly aggressive hard core felon bad guy bailing out of a car after a pursuit, wielding two pistols and trying to get an angle on the officers that were chasing him, takes a hit and slides into the dirt like the rhino in the movie 300, and is completely incoherent when the good guys go to secure him, I would submit that there is a bit more in play than a psychological stop, I'd say that was a stop-stop.

I agree. You are not one of the confused IMHO.

[SAWBONES]

Altogether apart from the issue of what you hit being by far the most important thing, is there any role played by momentum with defensive handgun ammunition? Intuitively, it seems like it should somehow be important.

I used to do a lot of shooting at heavy swinging steel ("rotator") targets with 115gr FMJ 9mm and 230gr FMJ .45ACP, and I'm impressed that there's an enormous difference in the momentum of the two rounds; as few as four rounds of 230gr .45ACP can rotate the target*, whereas no number of 115gr 9mm will get the bugger to spin.

Hunters use heavy solids in order to penetrate big dense animals (think elephants); obviously momentum is important there, and bullet expansion doesn't occur.

If we were all limited to carrying FMJ/RNL bullets, I suspect most would prefer .45ACP over 9mm, but assuming modern and equivalent "best bullet" technology (that is, best-designed JHPs in 9mm and .45ACP, of similar sectional density), does the extra momentum of a heavier, bigger bullet provide anything worthwhile in and of itself?


===================


*Two 8" square steel plates connected by a 3.5 ft. steel bar, which in turn is attached perpendicularly to a horizontal crosspiece. The steel bar is attached very slightly above its center in order to weight the apparatus so that, at rest, it presents two plates facing the shooter, and is a very good means of practicing shot timing and trigger control.

[RevolverRob]

Not an expert, don't play one on TV.

I find .38, 9mm, more than adequate for most defensive needs. I like .357 Magnum for the flatter trajectory over longer distances. In west Texas you might take a shot that turns out to be a lot longer than you thought it was (personally, I have trouble estimating distances in areas without consistent landmarks to use for judgement) and the flatter trajectory of a magnum round works better for this situation.

I won't lie though, I appreciate the psychological effect that a truly big gun has though. I doubt many folks bust out the calipers to measure muzzle size when a gun is pointed out them, but a .44 or .45 just seems huge in comparison to a mid-bore.

-Rob

[1slow]

Personally I always wanted the Bland-Pryse .577 Webley type revolver Ross Seyfried wrote about. .620 diameter 400 gr @ 700 fps ( if memory serves ).

[Chuck Haggard]

I don't think service caliber handguns have enough momentum to count for anything.

[LSP972]

Sawbones, you are correct.

I've seen several folks (here and on other forums) dismiss momentum as inconsequential. Its hard to tell whether these people have seriously thought about it, or are just re-affirming their justification for little bullets.

The 1993 FBI Wound Ballistics Seminar, which I was priviledged to be a presenter at, was convened for two reasons: the purpose of re-examining the findings of the first seminar in 1987 (which was a direct result of the Miami Massacre) and what the results of the implementation of those findings had been over the ensuing six years…. and dispelling the utter hogwash being pushed in the popular gun press- i.e., gun magazines: no internet back then- by two writers with an agenda. That first seminar established that penetration to vital organs was the #1 desired performance standard, and bullet mass, or weight, was a key factor… much like the heavy, solid bullet principle for dangerous game that you mentioned. This is what gave birth to the 147gr 9mm bullet for LE use. Prior to 1987, the 147gr 9mm projectile was unheard of except in select military circles. It had been developed two decades earlier to produce a sub-sonic 9mm cartridge for use in suppressed pistols.

Of course, velocity usually trumps mass, but remember that back in those days +P 9mm ammunition did not exist as a generally-available commodity; the 124gr NATO load was what most folks who had never heard of Lee Jurras or SuperVel used when they wanted a bit of extra oomph in their 9mm pistol. The 147gr sub-sonic loading was seen as a solution that did not venture into uncharted territory with high-pressure ammunition.

And it worked, most of the time. The late Gene Wohlberg, of the San Diego crime lab, was an early champion of this concept, and managed to persuade the San Diego PD brass to start using this stuff; which was marketed by Winchester as the Q4127 load. The results were excellent. Other agencies followed suit, with equally satisfactory results. I was selected as a panel member due to two shootings we had, using this ammunition, that were illustrative of the efficacy of the cartridge. Of the 30+ panel members, only four of us were cops, each with a couple of case studies indicating the validity of the heavy bullet concept. The other members were scientists, forensic pathologists, ballistic engineers, and one shitbird from the Department of Justice who managed to piss off EVERYBODY… but I digress.

It was pretty heady stuff; I remember sitting riveted to my seat during Dave Longren's presentation. He was a senior ballistician at Federal Cartridge, and one of the most knowledgeable and entertaining lecturers I have ever run across. Vincent Dimao from Texas was another spell-binder; he had made more canoes out of shooting victims than you could shake a stick at, and was VERY well-versed on what bullets did when they hit meat. All these guys were at the top of their fields; the four of us felt very much like kids allowed to sit at the grown-up's table.

At any rate, much water has passed under the bridge since then. Great strides in propellants and bullet designs have brought us to where we are now; but as has been said here more than once… you can't beat physics.

IOW, the heavy bullet concept is as valid today as it was 20 years ago. Some folks seem to lose sight of that (if they ever knew it to begin with), and is why I rarely participate in these sort of discussions.

.

[Alpha Sierra]

I hear tell that plenty of grizzlies have been ended with a .357.
There are no grizzlies here and I have zero interest in going where they are.

[SAWBONES]

Sawbones, you are correct.

I've seen several folks (here and on other forums) dismiss momentum as inconsequential. Its hard to tell whether these people have seriously thought about it, or are just re-affirming their justification for little bullets. {snip}


Thank you for your comments and for that interesting background information.

I have no dog in the "best handgun caliber" fight, but I've thought seriously about the involved ballistics, and the physics underlying it, for nearly thirty years.

I share your questioning attitude about what seems to be the gun-aficionado "current fashion" of leetle boolit luv. :p

How much of it is simply reactionary to the "they all fall to (.45ACP) hardball" sort of nonsense?

In dismissing all the "manly caliber" hype, is there perhaps some risk of overlooking a potential advantage, small though such may be, to larger bullet size and larger bullet mass?

I think we probably all agree that handgun rounds, (at least those that are reasonably easy and convenient to shoot, from sidearms that are easy to carry, easy to shoot and fast to shoot), are weak compared to rifle bullets, and that the terminal-effect differences among premium JHP examples of 9mm, .40S&W and .45ACP cartridges are relatively modest in degree. (I'm mentioning those three cartridges because they account for the majority of LE and private CCW ammunition purchases; .38 Special, 357Sig, 45GAP, and .44 Special could all be interpolated into the list as well, though probably .357 Magnum, .41 Magnum and .44 Magnum should be excluded, since "felt recoil" makes followup shots significantly slower.)

I suspect also that most here would intuit the better performance of larger, heavier bullets than smaller, lighter bullets, if only solid/non-expanding bullets were being compared among the three handgun calibers listed.

Furthermore, all will presumably recognize and agree about the paramount importance of what is hit, in contrast to which bullet does the hitting, and the significance of the "crush cavity volume" as a measure of actual tissue damage, along with the concept of sufficient bullet penetration depth.

Taking those issues as granted, I don't have any other confirmed "belief systems" about handgun calibers or handgun bullet designs, but it seems to me that bullet momentum is more important than bullet energy to terminal ballistic effects , and therefore that concepts relating to bullet mass and size shouldn't be cavalierly dismissed as being altogether unimportant.

The pendulum swings back & forth on these handgun bullet-size views.

Handgun ammunition designs have definitely improved over time, but JHP bullets still don't expand reliably in ballistic gelatin after passing through any and all sorts of heavy clothing (denim, leather) barriers, and it seems to me that those "best-effect" gelatin results which are so often touted by the folks who seem to prefer the 9mm probably aren't sufficiently predictive of bullet performance under all "street" conditions to make any sort of universal endorsement for smaller-faster bullets over larger-heavier altogether realistic, especially when the larger, heavier bullet will definitely do more tissue damage and penetrate more deeply, if expansion does not occur.

Just my thoughts, not looking for a brouhaha.

[LSP552]

With modern expanding ammunition, I don't believe there isn't enough difference in performance to off-set differences in platform. In any caliber 9mm and up, the emphases should be on the platform you drive the best or that offers the control, feel, or other intangibles that make a difference in YOUR performance.

If I was limited to non-expanding FMJ, then I'd likely carry a .45 ACP. Since I don't live in such a place, I have a bevy of 9mm Glocks loaded with Gold Dot 124+P.

I like .44 and .45 revolvers for the woods.

[SAWBONES]

With modern expanding ammunition, I don't believe there isn't enough difference in performance to off-set differences in platform. In any caliber 9mm and up, the emphases should be on the platform you drive the best or that offers the control, feel, or other intangibles that make a difference in YOUR performance.

Yup.


If I was limited to non-expanding FMJ, then I'd likely carry a .45 ACP.

Yup.


Since I don't live in such a place, I have a bevy of 9mm Glocks loaded with Gold Dot 124+P.


Same here, though I'm thinking about acquiring (regular) 147gr stuff in preference to the 124gr and 127gr +P stuff I've got.

[LSP972]

I'm thinking about acquiring (regular) 147gr stuff in preference to the 124gr and 127gr +P stuff I've got.

I wouldn't bother. A +P 124 or 127 is probably as good as its going to get in 9mm Parabellum. Standard pressure 147s are nice, but tend to print high at distance (25 yards+) and, truth be told, are more than likely eclipsed in penetration/expansion by the "new kids" in +P trim.

I devoutly hope that you did not draw a wrong impression from my post. The 147 sub-sonic was the best thing going in 9mm twenty years ago. That has changed; remember, velocity usually trumps mass. I have a safe full of 124, 127, and 147 9mm "duty" ammo. My "ready" 9mms are loaded with 124gr +P HST.

Where I question the "momentum is inconsequential" crowd is when you increase the mass AND the size. But again, there are convincing arguments on both sides of the question, and I have argued my last over any of it. Life is getting shorter, so I have better things to do. Everybody is entitled to their own take on it, and to choose their carry caliber/ammo accordingly.

.

[JBP55]

With modern expanding ammunition, I don't believe there isn't enough difference in performance to off-set differences in platform. In any caliber 9mm and up, the emphases should be on the platform you drive the best or that offers the control, feel, or other intangibles that make a difference in YOUR performance.

If I was limited to non-expanding FMJ, then I'd likely carry a .45 ACP. Since I don't live in such a place, I have a bevy of 9mm Glocks loaded with Gold Dot 124+P.

.

This.

[Jeep]

I wouldn't bother. A +P 124 or 127 is probably as good as its going to get in 9mm Parabellum. Standard pressure 147s are nice, but tend to print high at distance (25 yards+) and, truth be told, are more than likely eclipsed in penetration/expansion by the "new kids" in +P trim.

I devoutly hope that you did not draw a wrong impression from my post. The 147 sub-sonic was the best thing going in 9mm twenty years ago. That has changed; remember, velocity usually trumps mass. I have a safe full of 124, 127, and 147 9mm "duty" ammo. My "ready" 9mms are loaded with 124gr +P HST.

Where I question the "momentum is inconsequential" crowd is when you increase the mass AND the size. But again, there are convincing arguments on both sides of the question, and I have argued my last over any of it. Life is getting shorter, so I have better things to do. Everybody is entitled to their own take on it, and to choose their carry caliber/ammo accordingly.

.

It strikes me that this post, and most of the other posts over the last few pages, are filled with a lot of common sense. I am personally of the view that 124 gr +P rounds are a good compromise for me, but I also am fine with 165 and 180 gr. .40's or 230 grain .45's (or 158 gr. .357's) or even old 9BPLE ammo. Lots of stuff can work; nothing is a magic bullet (though that 9BPLE comes close to being a magic bullet on small critters).

[SAWBONES]

I wouldn't bother. A +P 124 or 127 is probably as good as its going to get in 9mm Parabellum. Standard pressure 147s are nice, but tend to print high at distance (25 yards+) and, truth be told, are more than likely eclipsed in penetration/expansion by the "new kids" in +P trim.

I devoutly hope that you did not draw a wrong impression from my post.

No worries. I'll stick with the 9mm 124gr and 127gr loads I've got.


The 147 sub-sonic was the best thing going in 9mm twenty years ago.

Actually, when it first came out, it seemed to be rather a dud, IIRC, some 15 years ago, when 115gr+P+ JHP was considered the standard 9mm "hot stuff". I recall a number of LEO reports at the time where the 147gr stuff failed to expand or to "stop" the bad guy.


That has changed; remember, velocity usually trumps mass.

Does it? I'm unconvinced. I think mass trumps velocity, in the ballistic sense that momentum trumps energy.
(Of course we know energy increases as the square of the velocity, but what does that actually mean in terms of terminal ballistics?)


I have a safe full of 124, 127, and 147 9mm "duty" ammo. My "ready" 9mms are loaded with 124gr +P HST.

Where I question the "momentum is inconsequential" crowd is when you increase the mass AND the size. But again, there are convincing arguments on both sides of the question, and I have argued my last over any of it. Life is getting shorter, so I have better things to do. Everybody is entitled to their own take on it, and to choose their carry caliber/ammo accordingly.


No argument from me. I have no axe to grind.
I just want the best load, or at least one of the best loads, in the given caliber.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[LSP972]

No argument from me.

I wasn't referring to you.;)

.

[LSP972]

Actually, when it first came out, it seemed to be rather a dud, IIRC, some 15 years ago, when 115gr+P+ JHP was considered the standard 9mm "hot stuff". I recall a number of LEO reports at the time where the 147gr stuff failed to expand or to "stop" the bad guy.





It began to see wide spread use almost 25 years ago; the late 80s.

Nothing works all of the time. You'll always see 'reports' of where something didn't do the job. Hell, the first shooting we had after adopting the .45 in 1996, the bad guy took a 230gr HydraShok in the gut and ran off (it was a fast-draw contest at arm's reach; our guy won :) ).

Some would say that was a failure. Our guy would argue the point with you. ;)

.

[Chuck Haggard]

The 147gr 9mms no doubt got a bad rap early on, but the core issue IMHO was crappy QC on the ammo, and bullets that weren't well developed at that time.

Dave Spaulding documents that an officer on his department shot a kidnapping suspect in the arm with a 147gr JHP and the bullet stuck in his elbow, starting a long high speed vehicle pursuit. He later crono'd that ammo, IIRC some of the ammo left in that officer's pistol magazine, and found rounds launching bullets in the 500-600fps range.

My friend and mentor Vince O'Neill was with Lawrence KS PD when they had similar issues. They had an OIS in which the bad guy aggressed the officers with a knife, after verbals commands failed he was shot, six times at it turns out. Officers were armed with brand new Sig 226s and 147gr ammo "because FBI". None of those bullets expanded, all drilled straight through with minimal effect. At autopsy it was found that three of those bullets had directly struck the suspect's heart.

Ammunition from the lot that was issued was crono'd and also found to be in the 600fps range. Obviously this is far too slow to expand properly, and frankly I am a bit surprised that the pistols even functioned with it.
The 147gr bullets being made at that time had a very small meplat, so we have a medium caliber bullet, with minimal frontal area, that is rather slick and very stable, that does not expand, being launched at low velocity. This is not the recipe for a "manstopper".

The bullets being used in the 147gr loads at that time were not optimized for expansion, they were built to be accurate.

My department started in issuing 9mms by going with the 147gr Hydrashock, again because FBI. We quickly found that this bullet was prone to fail to expand if it had to get through heavy clothing, we had multiple OISs showing this result, but that it would also fragment if it had to get through auto glass, or struck soft tissue with no barriers such as heavy clothing to slow expansion. We went to the 124gr Hydrashock (same results, only worse....), then later to the first generation 124gr +P Gold Dot. We have been happy with the Gold Dot ever since (although Speer did redesign the bullet for more expansion/less penetration after several OISs that we gave then feedback on).

Better bullet design followed. Some of the 147gr bullets we have nowadays are very, very good. I have seen a ton of testing, and several shootings locally where 147gr Ranger-T or HST have been used on people, the results were impressive. I would carry any of the modern 147gr loads without any worries.

[LSP972]

Dave Spaulding documents that an officer on his department shot a kidnapping suspect in the arm with a 147gr JHP and the bullet stuck in his elbow, starting a long high speed vehicle pursuit. He later crono'd that ammo, IIRC some of the ammo left in that officer's pistol magazine, and found rounds launching bullets in the 500-600fps range.

My friend and mentor Vince O'Neill was with Lawrence KS PD when they had similar issues. They had an OIS in which the bad guy aggressed the officers with a knife, after verbals commands failed he was shot, six times at it turns out. Officers were armed with brand new Sig 226s and 147gr ammo "because FBI". None of those bullets expanded, all drilled straight through with minimal effect. At autopsy it was found that three of those bullets had directly struck the suspect's heart.

Ammunition from the lot that was issued was crono'd and also found to be in the 600fps range. Obviously this is far too slow to expand properly, and frankly I am a bit surprised that the pistols even functioned with it.
The 147gr bullets being made at that time had a very small meplat, so we have a medium caliber bullet, with minimal frontal area, that is rather slick and very stable, that does not expand, being launched at low velocity. This is not the recipe for a "manstopper".

.


What time frame/brand of ammunition was this, Chuck?

.

[LSP972]

The bullets being used in the 147gr loads at that time were not optimized for expansion, they were built to be accurate.

.

Very true regarding the Winchester Q4127.

HydraShoks, OTOH, were purpose-built for the job of expanding. Define "heavy clothing"... with one exception that was a definite psychological incapacitation (upper arm hit), to my knowledge every subject we shot with 147gr HydraShoks was stopped by the ammo. I don't recall now exactly what all these folks were wearing, but if the clothing had been a factor I WOULD remember that.

Anyway... all ancient history. It was some interesting times, though...

.

[Jeep]

The 147gr 9mms no doubt got a bad rap early on, but the core issue IMHO was crappy QC on the ammo, and bullets that weren't well developed at that time.

Dave Spaulding documents that an officer on his department shot a kidnapping suspect in the arm with a 147gr JHP and the bullet stuck in his elbow, starting a long high speed vehicle pursuit. He later crono'd that ammo, IIRC some of the ammo left in that officer's pistol magazine, and found rounds launching bullets in the 500-600fps range.

My friend and mentor Vince O'Neill was with Lawrence KS PD when they had similar issues. They had an OIS in which the bad guy aggressed the officers with a knife, after verbals commands failed he was shot, six times at it turns out. Officers were armed with brand new Sig 226s and 147gr ammo "because FBI". None of those bullets expanded, all drilled straight through with minimal effect. At autopsy it was found that three of those bullets had directly struck the suspect's heart.

Ammunition from the lot that was issued was crono'd and also found to be in the 600fps range. Obviously this is far too slow to expand properly, and frankly I am a bit surprised that the pistols even functioned with it.
The 147gr bullets being made at that time had a very small meplat, so we have a medium caliber bullet, with minimal frontal area, that is rather slick and very stable, that does not expand, being launched at low velocity. This is not the recipe for a "manstopper".

The bullets being used in the 147gr loads at that time were not optimized for expansion, they were built to be accurate.

My department started in issuing 9mms by going with the 147gr Hydrashock, again because FBI. We quickly found that this bullet was prone to fail to expand if it had to get through heavy clothing, we had multiple OISs showing this result, but that it would also fragment if it had to get through auto glass, or struck soft tissue with no barriers such as heavy clothing to slow expansion. We went to the 124gr Hydrashock (same results, only worse....), then later to the first generation 124gr +P Gold Dot. We have been happy with the Gold Dot ever since (although Speer did redesign the bullet for more expansion/less penetration after several OISs that we gave then feedback on).

Better bullet design followed. Some of the 147gr bullets we have nowadays are very, very good. I have seen a ton of testing, and several shootings locally where 147gr Ranger-T or HST have been used on people, the results were impressive. I would carry any of the modern 147gr loads without any worries.

The first moral I take from this is that the ammo companies do listen, competition helps to ensure progress and as a result, ammunition technology has come a long way in less than 30 years.

The second moral is that we owe a huge debt of thanks to Dr. Fackler and others for insisting upon modern, scientific, ballistic-gelatin-based testing. Without it I don't think we would have seen these advances.

[psalms144.1]

Anyway... all ancient history. It was some interesting times, though...Except for us who are required to carry "issued" ammunition (even in our authorized personal pistols). Our 9mm JHP load is 9MS equivalent, still barely breaking 900 fps with a 147 gr JHP out of typical "duty" length barrel. Super accurate, but, won't cycle the dual recoil spring-equipped Gen4 G19. In fact, back in '05ish, I chrono'd some of our stuff out of a PM9 and the TOP velocity I got was 650 fps.

There's a reason some of us are eagerly awaiting the tap being turned on for .45 ACP.

Having said all that, for anyone NOT hampered by criminally poor issued ammunition, I don't see what the .45 brings to the table for 90% of applications.

Regards,

Kevin

[KevinB]

Anyone using the Speer 9mm Short Barrel Gold Dot in small guns?
I'm using it in my Shield - mainly due to concerns voiced above.

With the normal +P HST 124gr loading.

Personally for me - if I need something more than a 9mm handgun, I need a rifle or a shotgun...

[Mitch]

Anyone using the Speer 9mm Short Barrel Gold Dot in small guns?
I'm using it in my Shield - mainly due to concerns voiced above.

With the normal +P HST 124gr loading.

Personally for me - if I need something more than a 9mm handgun, I need a rifle or a shotgun...
Have you run it over a chronograph? I've been wondering what the velocity difference is.

[threedogdad]

Personally for me - if I need something more than a 9mm handgun, I need a rifle or a shotgun...


I apologize in advance if this is too "derpy" but I wonder if anyone's thought processes in this regard would change if their expected antagonist walked on four legs instead of two.

I'm not thinking of Kodiaks, where a more obvious choice would be a large bore revolver or a slug gun.

Rather, how would your semi-auto handgun caliber choices differ if you were reasonably sure you were being watched by a mountain lion or followed by a pack of coyotes or were to come across a black bear on the trail while hiking or camping?

I ask because I really am curious to know if a .45 ACP +P offers any distinct advantage over a 9mm in this kind of scenario.

Thank you.

Not trying to stir up any controversy. If this is too far off topic or out of line, mods please feel free to delete.

[Haraise]

I apologize in advance if this is too "derpy" but I wonder if anyone's thought processes in this regard would change if their expected antagonist walked on four legs instead of two.

I'm not thinking of Kodiaks, where a more obvious choice would be a large bore revolver or a slug gun.

Rather, how would your semi-auto handgun caliber choices differ if you were reasonably sure you were being watched by a mountain lion or followed by a pack of yotes or come across a black bear on the trail while hiking or camping?

I ask because I really am curious to know if a .45 ACP +P offers any distinct advantage over a 9mm in this kind of scenario.

Thank you.

Not trying to stir up any controversy. If this is too far off topic or out of line, mods please feel free to delete.

I think you're looking in the wrong direction, as far as bear and coyotes.

Pack of wild dogs, that's a lot of targets moving fast and low. High capacity is king there, and 9mm will take out a coyote.

Black bear, and you're going to want a lot of sectional density with velocity to penetrate. I'm not sure if .45 is what you're looking for there, either.

Personally, for me, .45 is for: single stack guns (8+1 of .45 compared to 10+1 of 9mm, .45 wins in crushed tissue), possibly suppressed applications, and for the statistical majority of defensive gun use that is only a few shots (a few somewhat more effective shots).

[LSP972]

Personally, for me, .45 is for: single stack guns (8+1 of .45 compared to 10+1 of 9mm, .45 wins in crushed tissue)... and for the statistical majority of defensive gun use that is only a few shots (a few somewhat more effective shots).

Exactly.

.

[GJM]

I think the main arguments for .45 are:

1) you really like the 1911.

2) you live in a 10 round or less state.

3) you subscribe to the "I carry a .45 because they don't make a .50," school of thought.

Absent .45 Super or special loads, I don't view .45 acp as being a great penetrator on larger animals.

[threedogdad]

Wow. Thanks for the quick replies. I really appreciate the input from such knowledgeable members. Thank you.

If I may, I'd like to flesh this out with just a few more details and try to see if I'm on the right track. If not, perhaps you can point out where I'm going wrong.

I gave the example of .45 ACP because my usual "mountain pistol" is an M&P 45 with 10 round mags. (Federal HST 230 +P) I had some minor reliability problems with it earlier this summer and have started hiking with my "city pistol" a Gen 4 G19 instead. (Federal HST 124 +P) That switch, and this thread, have got me wondering whether or not the Glock could be used effectively for both roles.

On top of that, I've tried to assess what are the real world probabilities of needing a larger caliber for larger animals versus a 9mm for the coyotes; i.e. am I being overly concerned about nothing?

Just taking the past five years as a statistical pie slice, I've run across at close range two black bears, about a dozen moose, a dozen or so mountain goats and a "bunch" of foxes and coyotes. Haven't seen any cougars, but have seen plenty of tracks. Other than one overly curious bull moose, the canines were the only animals that paid me (or my dog) any attention at all.

So, in a roundabout way, I guess I'm asking is, are either the G19 or the M&P45 an acceptable choice if the odds are pretty high that I'll run across coyotes and pretty low (but not nil) that I'll run across bear and moose?

Sorry to be so confusing. Appreciate you sharing your experience, wisdom and advice. Thank you.

[GJM]

I would put .40, 10mm and the usual suspects (.41 mag, .44 mag, .45LC, etc.) all ahead of 9 or .45 on moose and bears.

[Malamute]

I would put .40, 10mm and the usual suspects (.41 mag, .44 mag, .45LC, etc.) all ahead of 9 or .45 on moose and bears.


I'm in agreement with this. The 45 auto with the heavier 45 Colt bullets may penetrate decently (out of the normal load category), but I'd prefer a revolver, even an SA, with heavier loads if any of the larger animals were regular players in the neighborhood.

[Mitch]

I'm not sure I see a role for .45 acp outside of 1911s, a hobby gun that you just want a 45 (and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that if one can afford it), or maybe shooting suppressed. I say maybe there because I live in Illinois, we don't have suppressors here, so I can't speak from first hand experience. It seems to me though that velocity loss from a suppressor would hurt a 45s performance less than a 9 mm though (someone please correct me if I'm wrong).

I don't see mag capacity as a reason to go for a 45 any more. If quality hollow points perform pretty much the same, why sign up for more recoil? All the other advantages to 9 are still there, even if you are forced to use neutered mags.

This all kills me to say because I have really been yearning for an HK45c lately, but other than just wanting one I can't think of a reason to part with the cash. 8 rounds? That's about half of what the rest of my pistols have. Not a huge jump in terminal performance, but more recoil, and I'd need to stock up on a separate set of reloading components and tools? Thank you but no.

And if I'm worried about 4 legged threats, I'm looking at a .357 or .44 mag. I used to think 10 mm but GJM has kind of talked me out of that with his issues of getting the penetrator rounds to cycle reliable in a G20.

[threedogdad]

Thanks again for the great info and advice. This thread has given me much to think about.

As an aside, I have tried toting a 357 on my treks. Not a good long term solution. It's just too darned heavy for the terrain I'm in, the miles I'm covering and the pack I'm carrying.

Very intrigued by this 10mm suggestion, though. Like I said, much to consider.

Thank you all again for your help.

[GJM]

Thanks again for the great info and advice. This thread has given me much to think about.

As an aside, I have tried toting a 357 on my treks. Not a good long term solution. It's just too darned heavy for the terrain I'm in, the miles I'm covering and the pack I'm carrying.

Very intrigued by this 10mm suggestion, though. Like I said, much to consider.

Thank you all again for your help.

That is a problem with wheel guns -- excepting the Scandium 329 or equivalent, they are heavy. At the moment the bear comes, though, I wouldn't mind the weight and horsepower of .44 mag or bigger, one bit. The niche of the 10mm is crossing over between what you might want a service pistol for, and attempting to do what you might do with the wheel gun.

Right now, I think the Glock 29 with the Federal Trophy Bonded 180 grain ammo, or a S&W 1066/1076 with the Trophy Bonded or 200 Underwood or Double Tap load is a good compromise between semi-auto and serious revolver. Possibly something in .40 that feeds the DoubleTap 200 hard cast, like the FNS .40 as a next tier choice.

[MGW]

I'm curious if the 9mm beats the 45 in every way for LEO use, and I have no reason to doubt that, what justification do major departments use for still issuing 45s? I know of KHP and LAPD SIS off the top of my head that are still using it but I know there are many more. I would think the bean counters would figure it out and force a change.

[DocGKR]

.45 Auto is an optional caliber at LAPD, not the primary caliber issued to patrol officers. SJPD is the same way--a 9 mm pistol is issued and officers have the option of carrying a .40 or .45 Auto from an approved list of firearms.

[Jeep]

That is a problem with wheel guns -- excepting the Scandium 329 or equivalent, they are heavy. At the moment the bear comes, though, I wouldn't mind the weight and horsepower of .44 mag or bigger, one bit. The niche of the 10mm is crossing over between what you might want a service pistol for, and attempting to do what you might do with the wheel gun.

Right now, I think the Glock 29 with the Federal Trophy Bonded 180 grain ammo, or a S&W 1066/1076 with the Trophy Bonded or 200 Underwood or Double Tap load is a good compromise between semi-auto and serious revolver. Possibly something in .40 that feeds the DoubleTap 200 hard cast, like the FNS .40 as a next tier choice.

GJM: Do you have any concern that a 200 gr bullet in a .40 is simply too large for safety and risks overpressure problems?

[Tom Duffy]

That is a problem with wheel guns -- excepting the Scandium 329 or equivalent, they are heavy. At the moment the bear comes, though, I wouldn't mind the weight and horsepower of .44 mag or bigger, one bit. The niche of the 10mm is crossing over between what you might want a service pistol for, and attempting to do what you might do with the wheel gun.

Right now, I think the Glock 29 with the Federal Trophy Bonded 180 grain ammo, or a S&W 1066/1076 with the Trophy Bonded or 200 Underwood or Double Tap load is a good compromise between semi-auto and serious revolver. Possibly something in .40 that feeds the DoubleTap 200 hard cast, like the FNS .40 as a next tier choice.

I'm a big fan of the Ruger SP101 357 magnum with the 4.2 inch barrel. It weighs under 30 ounces and carries 5 rounds of 200 grain lead bullet. The gun is extremely accurate and reliable.

[KevinB]

I'm not sure I see a role for .45 acp outside of 1911s, a hobby gun that you just want a 45 (and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that if one can afford it), or maybe shooting suppressed. I say maybe there because I live in Illinois, we don't have suppressors here, so I can't speak from first hand experience. It seems to me though that velocity loss from a suppressor would hurt a 45s performance less than a 9 mm though (someone please correct me if I'm wrong).
your wrong ;)

Suppressors - other than wipe suppressors (generally Gov only these days due to BATFE rulings on spare wipes) will not reduce MV - they will generally slightly increase it (freebore boost).



I don't see mag capacity as a reason to go for a 45 any more. If quality hollow points perform pretty much the same, why sign up for more recoil? All the other advantages to 9 are still there, even if you are forced to use neutered mags. - neutred mags generally suck more than unneutred mags - so ideally carry the capacity the gun is designed for.



This all kills me to say because I have really been yearning for an HK45c lately, but other than just wanting one I can't think of a reason to part with the cash. 8 rounds? That's about half of what the rest of my pistols have. Not a huge jump in terminal performance, but more recoil, and I'd need to stock up on a separate set of reloading components and tools? Thank you but no. buy guns for fun too ;)





And if I'm worried about 4 legged threats, I'm looking at a .357 or .44 mag. I used to think 10 mm but GJM has kind of talked me out of that with his issues of getting the penetrator rounds to cycle reliable in a G20.


Regarding the other animal comments -- I have certain rules at this point of my life, avoid dangerous situations if you can is one of them.
IF I am treking in bear country, I have a RIFLE or a SHOTGUN.
While certain handgun calibers could be used none can do what rifles and shotty's can do.

I'm thinking of getting one of those little Serbu 7" Mossberg AOW's for that role.

[GJM]

Regarding the other animal comments -- I have certain rules at this point of my life, avoid dangerous situations if you can is one of them.
IF I am treking in bear country, I have a RIFLE or a SHOTGUN.

This is the kind of advice generally offered by folks that don't actually live in bear country.

Of course we want a long gun, that is just common sense. However if you live in bear country, you will quickly figure out there are many things that are very hard to do with a long gun in your hands. Paddle a boat, cut up a moose, climb terrain so steep that requires two hands, get in and out of a float plane, sleep in a mummy bag in a small tent, fly an aircraft and on and on and on. A handgun is for all those times your long gun is not in your hands, you have one or more hands occupied, or your long gun is TU.

Having lived in Alaska since 2002, I can say with assurance that while I see many long guns on ATVs, in planes, in boats and other places, it is extremely uncommon to see a long gun in someone's hands, unless that person is hunting. I try to carry one as much as I can, but I always have a handgun on.

On the question of 200 grain ammo in a .40, I defer to someone else who knows a lot more than me about this. That issue is a reason I prefer ammo from outfits like Federal, I figure they ship enough product, some other derp will have gone before me and figured out what doesn't work.

[Chuck Haggard]

Ref handguns;

Had a conversation at a training with a retired Alaska State Trooper who had lived there his whole life. When we were talking about the then new Ruger Alaskan .454 snub he though it would make a "handy dishwashing gun". I thought "Wut?"

He explained that "...when you are in camp and doing chores and washing dishes and such your rifle is leaning against a tree, that's when stuff sneaks up on ya. You gotta have a dishwashing gun!"

[Mitch]

your wrong ;)

Suppressors - other than wipe suppressors (generally Gov only these days due to BATFE rulings on spare wipes) will not reduce MV - they will generally slightly increase it (freebore boost).
Ha, well it's not the first time. That's interesting, though, I'll have to read up on suppressors some, I'm curious how they work (but that's probably outside the scope of this thread).


- neutred mags generally suck more than unneutred mags - so ideally carry the capacity the gun is designed for.
I've heard that Glocks in particular have issues with neutered mags. I guess I'll amend my previous statement to "functioning issues aside," whether you have 10 or 20 rounds, the other advantages to 9 (cost, parts life, lack of recoil, similar terminal ballistics) are still there.


buy guns for fun too ;)
Get out of my head and away from my wallet!! ;)

I definitely see the value in that. But my wife and I are buying our first house, and I'm taking my first training class this month and I want there to be more to follow after that. New guns (for now) take a back seat to all that for me.

[KevinB]

This is the kind of advice generally offered by folks that don't actually live in bear country.
I lived in Canada for a long time - and have a healthy respect for bears.



Of course we want a long gun, that is just common sense. However if you live in bear country, you will quickly figure out there are many things that are very hard to do with a long gun in your hands. Paddle a boat, cut up a moose, climb terrain so steep that requires two hands, get in and out of a float plane, sleep in a mummy bag in a small tent, fly an aircraft and on and on and on. A handgun is for all those times your long gun is not in your hands, you have one or more hands occupied, or your long gun is TU.
I agree 100% - however most of those things I can do with a slung long gun.


Having lived in Alaska since 2002, I can say with assurance that while I see many long guns on ATVs, in planes, in boats and other places, it is extremely uncommon to see a long gun in someone's hands, unless that person is hunting. I try to carry one as much as I can, but I always have a handgun on.
I can appreciate your POV - I'm not living in Alaska, but when I go camping/hiking etc. I have dogs -- the dogs know stuff is near way before me - and given that I believe even if I was in AK, that they would give me time for rifle/shotgun.

It may make sense for some folks to have a BAH (BigAssHandgun - TM) I just don't don't see the requirement for me.

[GJM]

I lived in Canada for a long time - and have a healthy respect for bears.


I agree 100% - however most of those things I can do with a slung long gun.

I can appreciate your POV - I'm not living in Alaska, but when I go camping/hiking etc. I have dogs -- the dogs know stuff is near way before me - and given that I believe even if I was in AK, that they would give me time for rifle/shotgun.

It may make sense for some folks to have a BAH (BigAssHandgun - TM) I just don't don't see the requirement for me.

Kevin, I forgot you lived in the land of "eh." Those BAH handguns just don't seem to be in the Canadian DNA, although I note my Canadian friends sure want to hold and carry mine when they visit.

The dogs are a mixed blessing. Surely will alert you, and also give you the chance to stop a close charge when Fido heads to their master for protection, with Bubba bear in hot pursuit.

[GJM]

Since this migrated to one of my favorite topics, bears, here is a link to some info I put in the hog thread:

http://www.arcticwild.com/blog/efficacy-of-firearms-for-bear-deterrence-in-Alaska.pdf

ABSTRACT We compiled, summarized, and reviewed 269 incidents of bear–human conflict involving firearms that occurred in Alaska during 1883–2009. Encounters involving brown bears (Ursus arctos; 218 incidents, 81%), black bears (Ursus americanus; 30 incidents, 11%), polar bears (Ursus maritimus; 6 incidents, 2%), and 15 (6%) unidentified species provided insight into firearms success and failure. A total of 444 people and at least 367 bears were involved in these incidents. We found no significant difference in success rates (i.e., success being when the bear was stopped in its aggressive behavior) associated with long guns (76%) and handguns (84%). Moreover, firearm bearers suffered the same injury rates in close encounters with bears whether they used their firearms or not. Bears were killed in 61% (n 1⁄4 162) of bear–firearms incidents. Additionally, we identified multiple reasons for firearms failing to stop an aggressive bear. Using logistic regression, the best model for predicting a successful outcome for firearm users included species and cohort of bear, human activity at time of encounter, whether or not the bear charged, and if fish or game meat was present. Firearm variables (e.g., type of gun, number of shots) were not useful in predicting outcomes in bear–firearms incidents. Although firearms have failed to protect some users, they are the only deterrent that can lethally stop an aggressive bear. Where firearms have failed to protect people, we identified contributing causes. Our findings suggest that only those proficient in firearms use should rely on them for protection in bear country. " 2012 The Wildlife Society.

[Malamute]

I like my BAH's to be moderately sized. :D A 4" 29 doesn't bother me to carry all day.

My dogs have been good so far. They've gone on alert many times on the trail. Mostly its just knowing somethings around but not seeing it, no excitement other than barking at moose that wasn't sure what to do but decided elsewhere was the place to do it, and a cow moose that didn't like them at all. They decided to remove themselves from the vicinity of that moose. Had one bear that tried coming into camp about dusk, the dogs went ballistic barking, and wouldn't come in. Good outcome for all.

Current dog barks like crazy at snakes and wont get near them. Doesn't take much gun to kill snakes though.

[GJM]

Current dog barks like crazy at snakes and wont get near them. Doesn't take much gun to kill snakes though.

Our Vizsla was snake trained last spring. Before she associated the shock with the rattler, she thought the rattling was neat and would bark at the snake when it stopped rattling. Now she just goes the other direction with her tail tucked.

[JHC]

I think two of the bear maulings in AK this summer that I read of involved a person's off leash dog getting out ahead, pissing of a brown bear then racing back to their best friend for help with bear in hot pursuit.

[Malamute]

Our Vizsla was snake trained last spring. Before she associated the shock with the rattler, she thought the rattling was neat and would bark at the snake when it stopped rattling. Now she just goes the other direction with her tail tucked.

I had one dog get bit in the face and almost die. She didn't know what it was that got her, as she was very curious about snakes when I'd kill them.

Current dog was snake trained in the yard in a fortuitous moment with a bull snake. One buzz with the training collar was all it took. She thinks all snakes are bad news.

I keep the training collar on her when out, if she acts inappropriately with a bear, moose, porky or whatever, I can remedy it. I use the beeper most though, just to call her in quietly.

[threedogdad]

I keep the training collar on her when out, if she acts inappropriately with a bear, moose, porky or whatever, I can remedy it. I use the beeper most though, just to call her in quietly.

Same here. In my experience, a good quality training collar will vastly reduce the number of "oh, crap!" moments in the mountains.

I have no worries that my dog will get too far out ahead of me and bring Mr. Bruin back my direction. My dog has been trained to walk/run "with me" and not run around on his own. Not only does this greatly enhance safety--for both of us--it allows us to cover more terrain in a shorter time with less fatigue.

Well worth every penny.

Back on topic, I've been considering all that has been said here, especially about the G29. Because my local shop doesn't have any in stock right now, I think my plan for the immediate future is to man up and lug my 357 revolver with me on the next couple of hikes and see if it's as bad as I've made it out to be in my mind.

[ScotchMan]

This is probably one of the more valuable discussions I've seen on this topic, certainly the best on the Internet.

My issue still comes down to this logic:

Given the constant that .45ACP FMJ is better than 9mm FMJ:
9mm Modern Hollowpoint is X better than 9mm FMJ...THEREFORE....45ACP Modern Hollowpoint should be X better than .45ACP FMJ.

Why is 9mm JHP so much better than 9mm FMJ? Maybe the answer lies there. Maybe the benefit of the JHP applies more substantially to the 9mm than it does to the .45, so in the end you have two close performing cartridges. If so, why?

I get all the arguments about capacity, controllability, shot times, recoil. And I am comfy with the idea that 9mm is better than .45 as a big picture. I'm asking purely in terms of terminal ballistics.



I think the main arguments for .45 are:

1) you really like the 1911.

2) you live in a 10 round or less state.

3) you subscribe to the "I carry a .45 because they don't make a .50," school of thought.

Absent .45 Super or special loads, I don't view .45 acp as being a great penetrator on larger animals.

Part of my interest in the topic is exactly because I live in a <=10 round state. Carrying a larger gun for the other benefits mentioned above, now has me taking a closer look at .45.

[shane45]

I am what I would consider an average good shooter. Not great, probably not even really good, but good average if that makes any sense. But the thing that I cant say I understand is the "shootability" of one caliber over another. My speed and accuracy is far more affected by platform than caliber when it comes to 9 and 45. On the clock with various drills and back to back I run certain platforms slower, not calibers. Is that odd?
The results of 1 drill I did across multiple platforms worked out like this:
I ran a 1911 in 45 and a P30 Lem the fastest with the smallest margin going to the 1911. Time averages put these two consistently under .05 apart.
1911 in 45 overall avg fastest
Next is a P30 Lem in 9
Next is an HK45C Lem
Next is a P30 DA/SA 9mm
Next is a FNX45
Last is a G19 in 9
The spread in avg times from fastest to slowest was about .6 for the drill I was running.

[GJM]

I don't find this at all surprising.

It is also my experience that as my abilities change, how I shoot different platforms changes. For example, my focus on trigger over the last 3 or 4 months has improved my ability to shoot a Glock on more demanding, longer range drills like the Derp Test and 50/75 yard groups.

[threedogdad]

And I've spent the entire summer and a couple thousand rounds trying to get used to the NY1 trigger in my G19. Ugggh. I hate it. At this point I am convinced I could shoot a slingshot more rapidly and accurately.

[SAWBONES]

And I've spent the entire summer and a couple thousand rounds trying to get used to the NY1 trigger in my G19. Ugggh. I hate it. At this point I am convinced I could shoot a slingshot more rapidly and accurately.

I agree.

I too tried the "NY1" trigger-return setup (with the "-" connector) for a while, and found the trigger action so awful as to interfere with usefulness of practice.

While I appreciate the better reliability and durability of a spring working under compression (NY) rather than extension (the standard part), that theoretic benefit is pretty much negated by an actual impairment in trigger action.

I don't see why Glock (or somebody) can't produce a trigger-return part setup similar to the NY1, with the spring working in compression, but with a spring tension similar to the standard (extension) spring.

[JHC]

Given the constant that .45ACP FMJ is better than 9mm FMJ:



Is that "constant" really valididate by today's terminal ballistic science? I'm not sure it is. On these pages I've seen reports of shootings that might call that into question. I've read reports from mil users that 9mm hardball delivered to the upper chest got results PDQ. And the poor results with poor hits of either caliber are legion.

Just sayin'

[ScotchMan]

Good point, I am willing to re-examine that assumption. I thought that was pretty well agreed upon given the long history with both calibers, but if not then I am open to hearing more.

It can all stop people quickly if you hit the right spot. But something makes the JHP better than the FMJ, I'm assuming that thing is wounding potential and I think .45ACP has that over 9mm as well.

Whatever your constants are, it seems to me they should apply to .45 proportionally to 9mm. I guess that's what I'm trying to get at.

[JHC]

Good point, I am willing to re-examine that assumption. I thought that was pretty well agreed upon given the long history with both calibers, but if not then I am open to hearing more.

It can all stop people quickly if you hit the right spot. But something makes the JHP better than the FMJ, I'm assuming that thing is wounding potential and I think .45ACP has that over 9mm as well.

Whatever your constants are, it seems to me they should apply to .45 proportionally to 9mm. I guess that's what I'm trying to get at.

I've accepted the advantage of .45 ball vs 9mm ball without question for decades too. Not sure if it holds up or not in reality. But today based on my shooting, I would prefer 15-17 rounds of the choice that is easier to hit with precision faster.

If I were limited to 10 rounds, I think I'd still want the fastest best hitting choice for me. I think that is still a 9mm although as Doc points out - in a med/large size Glock (my choice) that means the potentially sketchy 10 rounders. Reliability being paramount, that's a real issue.

[ScotchMan]

I've accepted the advantage of .45 ball vs 9mm ball without question for decades too. Not sure if it holds up or not in reality. But today based on my shooting, I would prefer 15-17 rounds of the choice that is easier to hit with precision faster.

If I were limited to 10 rounds, I think I'd still want the fastest best hitting choice for me. I think that is still a 9mm although as Doc points out - in a med/large size Glock (my choice) that means the potentially sketchy 10 rounders. Reliability being paramount, that's a real issue.

So getting back to math, let's assume for the moment that the only stop is a hit to the CNS (basically true, but we're ignoring pelvic kirdle, psychological stops, etc for the moment).

If a 9mm is 0.35" and a .45 is 0.45% doesn't that mean I have 29% better odds of hitting the CNS if I would have otherwise missed?

[David Armstrong]

My issue still comes down to this logic:

Given the constant that .45ACP FMJ is better than 9mm FMJ:
9mm Modern Hollowpoint is X better than 9mm FMJ...THEREFORE....45ACP Modern Hollowpoint should be X better than .45ACP FMJ.

I am also of the view that I am not real sure that logic holds up under scrutiny. My experiences differ a bit from many because I got to spend a fair amount of my formative shooting development overseas where the 9mm WAS considered a big-bore, and honestly can't recall much of the problems so many claim about it's lack of ability, nor did there seem to be much if any evidence that the .45 did any better than the 9 in similar circumstances with similar bullet design.

[KevinB]

So getting back to math, let's assume for the moment that the only stop is a hit to the CNS (basically true, but we're ignoring pelvic kirdle, psychological stops, etc for the moment).

If a 9mm is 0.35" and a .45 is 0.45% doesn't that mean I have 29% better odds of hitting the CNS if I would have otherwise missed?


No - your just expanding your impact area -- you'd need to factory in accuracy, size of target, dispersion from POI etc to come up with a increased odds -- I would say it is insignificant...

[JHC]

So getting back to math, let's assume for the moment that the only stop is a hit to the CNS (basically true, but we're ignoring pelvic kirdle, psychological stops, etc for the moment).

If a 9mm is 0.35" and a .45 is 0.45% doesn't that mean I have 29% better odds of hitting the CNS if I would have otherwise missed?

IDK. IDK if in any given event a grazing impact of 0.01" or 0.02" or 0.1" that is the diff of a passing 9mm vs passing .45 has any impact on an effective CNS hit. Because a drilled CNS is a drilled CNS.

[LSP552]

I also factor MY ability to put three 9mms vs two .45s in the same time at the same accuracy level. I'm clearly better off shooting 9mm against two legged things.

[ScotchMan]

Yeah. I certainly agree that when you factor in everything, 9mm wins. But it is an interesting discussion if you only look at the science of one round of each fired with identical effectiveness, and the terminal ballistics that ensue.

[GJM]

Yeah. I certainly agree that when you factor in everything, 9mm wins. But it is an interesting discussion if you only look at the science of one round of each fired with identical effectiveness, and the terminal ballistics that ensue.

Obama will admit Benghazi was a terrorist attack before the typical 9mm devotee acknowledges a single round of .45 is more effective than a single round of 9mm.

[LSP972]

Obama will admit Benghazi was a terrorist attack before the typical 9mm devotee acknowledges a single round of .45 is more effective than a single round of 9mm.

Heart shot for the win!

That said… the overall picture enters in to it. "Shootability", as Ken noted, is quite important. Capacity can be an issue.

Its interesting to watch this being batted back and forth by this proponent or that proponent, but in the end, its all about compromise… and each of us must decide for ourselves.

The cornerstone of the "9mm is equal" crowd is that modern bullet design/propellants/etc. level the playing field in terms of cartridge performance. While true to an extent, there is NO way that I personally buy into the opinion that a "proper" 9mm JHP loading is fully the equivalent of .45. I have seen a few results of actual shootings and held in my gloved hands bullets that have been removed from corpses.

On the one hand, it is sobering to realize that many of those are 9mm ball bullets. On the other, you must factor in that the great majority of the dead folks these bullets came out of WERE NOT EXPECTING TO GET SHOT. An amped-up individual is much more resistant to gunfire; particularly one who has been nipping at the pharmaceutical jug. And THAT sort of individual is the kind that most of us (non-military/non-LE citizens who carry for personal defense) are likely to be facing when/if the time comes. And you'll already be behind the curve, because this guy/guys have selected YOU for the next dance, and unless he/they are stone psychopaths, he/they will be experiencing elevated heart rates and an adrenalin dump.

To me, it all boils down to three things:

1. Is the pistol reliable, and can I carry it properly and shoot it well (i.e., quickly and accurately)?
2. Does its ammunition have a reasonable track record of getting the job done (and here is the BIG can of worms, because you can only draw general conclusions from actual shootings, gelatin tests, etc.)?
3. Does it hold an acceptable number of rounds for the potential encounter?

Given those parameters, I have chosen to stay with the big bullet/HK45C "platform" for everyday comings and goings. However, I have been looking for something lighter to pack around all day (the HK45C isn't overly heavy, but 19 rounds of 230gr .45 certainly is more noticeable to this old man) and would not hesitate to go to 9mm for this if an ideal pistol comes along. But if the SHTF, as it were, I'll be shucking that HK45C for a "high capacity" 9mm, in either Glock or HK flavor. Capacity suddenly becomes a Real Issue in those scenarios, as far as I'm concerned (Ken calls it "my walking the earth pistol" :D ), and while I have no illusions re surviving a for-real, full-blown societal breakdown rat bang, I'd still like to be around for at least the first few days and see just how bad its going to get…;)

.

[SAWBONES]

To me, it all boils down to three things:

1. Is the pistol reliable, and can I carry it properly and shoot it well (i.e., quickly and accurately)?
2. Does its ammunition have a reasonable track record of getting the job done (and here is the BIG can of worms, because you can only draw general conclusions from actual shootings, gelatin tests, etc.)?
3. Does it hold an acceptable number of rounds for the potential encounter?

Good thoughts about pistol reliability, "carryability", personal competence, and good ammunition in sufficient quantity, to which I would add only:

In addition to shooting quickly, be sure to hit something truly important, and do sufficient damage that whatever it is that you hit, it stops working.

[LSP972]

In addition to shooting quickly, be sure to hit something truly important, and do sufficient damage that whatever it is that you hit, it stops working.

That's the "accurately" part…;)

.

[David Armstrong]

Yeah. I certainly agree that when you factor in everything, 9mm wins. But it is an interesting discussion if you only look at the science of one round of each fired with identical effectiveness, and the terminal ballistics that ensue.
Each round tends to do much the same. They do it using a different method, and that is where any difference comes about. Does that matter? Maybe not. A well thrown baseball will take down a pepper popper with more authority than a .45, for example, but unless you are knocking down pepper poppers does it matter? I've been investigating and researching shootings for over 30 years now and if there is any actual difference in the end result with the traditional fighting calibers that is based on caliber I've not been able to see it.

[Mr_White]

Obama will admit Benghazi was a terrorist attack before the typical 9mm devotee acknowledges a single round of .45 is more effective than a single round of 9mm.

Lol! I don't have any problem acknowledging that a good .45 will probably do a little more raw physical damage than a good 9mm. And I know that you and I agree that a good 9mm package is for many people the best deal, as I judge it to be for myself.

The objection I have, if I really have one, is to mischaracterization of the difference between 9mm and .45, which I've heard people make pretty overdramatically, like 'peas vs. pumpkins' or 'pebbles vs. bowling balls.' The diameter difference between my index and middle fingers is more like it.

[45dotACP]

Obama will admit Benghazi was a terrorist attack before the typical 9mm devotee acknowledges a single round of .45 is more effective than a single round of 9mm.

Haha, this made my day!

For what it's worth, I prefer 9mm, but solely for the purposes of being able to shoot a 9mm faster. The capacity advantage is nice, but even if I were in a restricted rights state, I'd probably pick a 9mm. Power is fine, but speed and accuracy are final. :D

[John Hearne]

Preparing to alienate everyone in 3, 2, 1....

My personal take is that the folks who argue that they can shoot a 9mm better than a 45 so therefore they carry a 9mm are 1) overly invested in their shooting performance at an ego level 2) are poor shots or 3) misc other.

If you are shooting at a level that demands any skill, almost everyone will perform better with a 9mm. For instance, you will have better splits on the last four shots of the FAST because you're shooting a 9mm. There is less energy/momentum/recoil being transmitted to the shooter and you are doing less work when you shoot a 9mm versus a 45. When I shoot the FAST with my 45, my last four shots will run between 0.25-0.20. If I shot a 9mm would my splits be better - sure. The question is are sub .20 or .15 splits worth shooting a lesser caliber. If I am trying to sooth my ego, then yes, I can feel like a rock star by shooting a 9mm - but the same can be said for shooting a .22LR.

In a defensive context, you fairly quickly hit the point of diminishing returns with shooting speed but you hit the point of diminishing returns for accuracy a lot later. Paul Howe advised that the 5 body/1 head from high ready in 3 seconds was the caliber check test of his standards. If you cannot pass this then the caliber you are shooting is too large (or the gun is too small). That isn't that arduous of a standard. I suspect that a lot of the shooters on this board could do that with a 45 Super or a 44 magnum.

If you can't shoot a 45 well, then maybe you need to learn to shoot better. To use an analogy, if you can do a reps with a 35 lb weight but can't lift a 45 lb weight then maybe, you need to get stronger so that you can do lift the 45 lb weight. It sure beats stalling out at your initial performance and calling it good enough and saying that lifting 35 lb is "good enough."

I do have three concerns with 45's for everyone. First, the 45 really wants a 5" barrel to perform best. This means that you have to carry a larger pistol and there are practical limits to what folks can reasonably carry concealed. (This is a moot point for uniformed LE) Second, 45's tend to be larger framed guns. There are legitimate limits to what guns folks with small hands can shoot well. Third, ammo costs are higher. The only compelling reason I see for police departments to transition to 9mm is that officer's can afford to buy practice ammo out of their pocket. If you're going to shoot a 45 at any volume then there's probably some reloading in your future.

[Haraise]

First, the 45 really wants a 5" barrel to perform best. This means that you have to carry a larger pistol and there are practical limits to what folks can reasonably carry concealed. (This is a moot point for uniformed LE) Second, 45's tend to be larger framed guns. There are legitimate limits to what guns folks with small hands can shoot well.

You made some really good points in your post, but these two I have a bit of an issue with.

On the first, if you look at: http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html and http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/45auto.html

.45 does very well out of a 4" barrel. Comparatively, as good or better than a 4" 9mm, in percentage of FPS drop loss in the inch of barrel.

It makes sense, given that it's a larger bore, lower pressure round, and that's a recipe for short barrels working well (pistol vs rifle, .300 blk vs 5.56, etc).

On the second, smaller hands. I'd like to point out that nothing fits my smaller hands as well as a single stack 1911. Barring that, a single stack Sig 220 would do well, too. Certainly I'd never want to shoot a Glock 21, but there are a lot of small hand friendly options.

[shane45]

I may have assumed incorrectly, I automatically took the performance comment of 5" vs 4" to be about reliability in terms of a 1911.

[John Hearne]

On the second, smaller hands. I'd like to point out that nothing fits my smaller hands as well as a single stack 1911. Barring that, a single stack Sig 220 would do well, too. Certainly I'd never want to shoot a Glock 21, but there are a lot of small hand friendly options.

I tend to agree with you on the single stack guns. It has been my observation over the years that the more recoil sensitive shooters also tend to have smaller hands. So, even if you have a small grip frame, the 45 may not be ideal for those folks.

The Glock 21 is my big concern. I know departments that mandate a Glock 21 and I think it is a disservice to the small handed folks. From an agency perspective, I'd let them shoot 9mm or 45 ACP. To transition to a 45, they'd have to shoot above the passing score with a 9mm - say 80% to carry the 45 versus 70% to pass in general. I'd also require that those wishing to carry a 45 had the same bump. That is you've got to be able to shoot the 45 at 80% to keep it versus 70% with a 9mm.


.45 does very well out of a 4" barrel. Comparatively, as good or better than a 4" 9mm, in percentage of FPS drop loss in the inch of barrel.

I originally posted this else where but it captures my concerns:

The only issue I have with 45 loads is that most bullets are designed expected a 5" barrel. This means that the velocity window (range of optimal expansion velocities) is biased towards the longer barrel. This can lead to failures to expand as we get shorter and shorter in the barrel.

This was seen a few years ago in Winchester Ranger 45's when the cutters used to make the hollow points were not replaced promptly. This led to standard pressure 45's that were not reliably expanding out of shorter barrels like Sig Sauer P220's. The exact same bullets with the same "defect" would expand reliably when loaded to +P standards.

The Dr. Roberts advice is to avoid 45's below 4". If you want something that starts with a "4" and are going under 4" in barrel, go to a 40 S&W.

If you are under 4", then I'd look at the Speer short barrel loads. If you look at their load data, their short barrel 45 is tested in a 4" barrel. (Their standard for short in a 40 is 3.5").

If the Speer aren't an option, then a +P load might be worthwhile. I like +P because they will function a dirty gun, like one carried concealed and full of dust bunnies. +P also increases the performance in terms acoustic stopping power.

[JHC]

Preparing to alienate everyone in 3, 2, 1....

My personal take is that the folks who argue that they can shoot a 9mm better than a 45 so therefore they carry a 9mm are 1) overly invested in their shooting performance at an ego level 2) are poor shots or 3) misc other.

If you are shooting at a level that demands any skill, almost everyone will perform better with a 9mm. For instance, you will have better splits on the last four shots of the FAST because you're shooting a 9mm. There is less energy/momentum/recoil being transmitted to the shooter and you are doing less work when you shoot a 9mm versus a 45. When I shoot the FAST with my 45, my last four shots will run between 0.25-0.20. If I shot a 9mm would my splits be better - sure. The question is are sub .20 or .15 splits worth shooting a lesser caliber. If I am trying to sooth my ego, then yes, I can feel like a rock star by shooting a 9mm - but the same can be said for shooting a .22LR.

In a defensive context, you fairly quickly hit the point of diminishing returns with shooting speed but you hit the point of diminishing returns for accuracy a lot later. Paul Howe advised that the 5 body/1 head from high ready in 3 seconds was the caliber check test of his standards. If you cannot pass this then the caliber you are shooting is too large (or the gun is too small). That isn't that arduous of a standard. I suspect that a lot of the shooters on this board could do that with a 45 Super or a 44 magnum.

If you can't shoot a 45 well, then maybe you need to learn to shoot better. To use an analogy, if you can do a reps with a 35 lb weight but can't lift a 45 lb weight then maybe, you need to get stronger so that you can do lift the 45 lb weight. It sure beats stalling out at your initial performance and calling it good enough and saying that lifting 35 lb is "good enough."

I do have three concerns with 45's for everyone. First, the 45 really wants a 5" barrel to perform best. This means that you have to carry a larger pistol and there are practical limits to what folks can reasonably carry concealed. (This is a moot point for uniformed LE) Second, 45's tend to be larger framed guns. There are legitimate limits to what guns folks with small hands can shoot well. Third, ammo costs are higher. The only compelling reason I see for police departments to transition to 9mm is that officer's can afford to buy practice ammo out of their pocket. If you're going to shoot a 45 at any volume then there's probably some reloading in your future.

Good post! (I don't buy some of it but a solid argument.) Do you feel all your arguments hold up when the pistolero is reduced to a damaged SHO or WHO?

[GJM]

John, it has been said that the move by LE to 9mm is motivated by reduced cost of ammo, less wear and tear on pistols, and better qualification scores for average LE shooters. There are also folks that can shoot 9, .40, .45 and 10mm well, and still choose 9mm. Other shooters that choose by platform and let caliber follow based on what caliber makes the most sense in that platform.

[Haraise]

I tend to agree with you on the single stack guns. It has been my observation over the years that the more recoil sensitive shooters also tend to have smaller hands. So, even if you have a small grip frame, the 45 may not be ideal for those folks.

That's a good point, but a lot of recoil sensitive people tend to prefer the softness of a metal framed gun with a thumpy feeling .45. I find recoil sensitive people tend to flinch from the snap of recoil, like a whiffle bat hitting their palm as opposed to a .45 push.



I originally posted this else where but it captures my concerns:

The only issue I have with 45 loads is that most bullets are designed expected a 5" barrel. This means that the velocity window (range of optimal expansion velocities) is biased towards the longer barrel. This can lead to failures to expand as we get shorter and shorter in the barrel.

This was seen a few years ago in Winchester Ranger 45's when the cutters used to make the hollow points were not replaced promptly. This led to standard pressure 45's that were not reliably expanding out of shorter barrels like Sig Sauer P220's. The exact same bullets with the same "defect" would expand reliably when loaded to +P standards.

The Dr. Roberts advice is to avoid 45's below 4". If you want something that starts with a "4" and are going under 4" in barrel, go to a 40 S&W.

If you are under 4", then I'd look at the Speer short barrel loads. If you look at their load data, their short barrel 45 is tested in a 4" barrel. (Their standard for short in a 40 is 3.5").

If the Speer aren't an option, then a +P load might be worthwhile. I like +P because they will function a dirty gun, like one carried concealed and full of dust bunnies. +P also increases the performance in terms acoustic stopping power.

Definitely validate your ammo matches your platform, to be sure. That's not just an issue with .45 though, look at the 9mm shorty ammo quest by Shooting the Bull .410 on youtube.

[threedogdad]

This is turning into a very informative discussion. Thanks to all.

No to derail it too far, but just for a quick giggle intermission...

I just returned from my local store where I was looking for a G29 for hiking, based on GJM's recommendation.

Bubba didn't have any in stock, but did his darndest to convince me that what I really need for the moose, cougar and bear that live in my neck of the woods is not a 10mm, but an FN 5.7 because..."it's like carrying a rifle in your holster and you don't have to wait for the animal to charge; you can take them out at over 50 yards before they come after you."

No thank you. :mad:

[shane45]

:eek:

[1slow]

This is turning into a very informative discussion. Thanks to all.

No to derail it too far, but just for a quick giggle intermission...

I just returned from my local store where I was looking for a G29 for hiking, based on GJM's recommendation.

Bubba didn't have any in stock, but did his darndest to convince me that what I really need for the moose, cougar and bear that live in my neck of the woods is not a 10mm, but an FN 5.7 because..."it's like carrying a rifle in your holster and you don't have to wait for the animal to charge; you can take them out at over 50 yards before they come after you."

No thank you. :mad:

Like you really want to shoot a dangerous animal with a glorified .22 magnum ? Bubba is a idiot !

[David Armstrong]

John, it has been said that the move by LE to 9mm is motivated by reduced cost of ammo, less wear and tear on pistols, and better qualification scores for average LE shooters. There are also folks that can shoot 9, .40, .45 and 10mm well, and still choose 9mm. Other shooters that choose by platform and let caliber follow based on what caliber makes the most sense in that platform.
Agreed. I can carry pretty much what I want any time I want these days. I carried a .45 for a long time and was good enough with it to win a fair number of competitive endeavors with it. I've got Glocks in .45, .40 and 9mm (finally got rid of the 357) and shoot them all well. But it is a 9mm that I go to day in and day out for carry purposes. If I could find someone to trade a G26 for the G27 I would. If I had tot give up the G17 or G19 I'd probably go back to a single stack 9, the S&W 39. Same thign with revolvers. While there are .44, .41 and .357s in the safe, when I grab a revolver for carry it is loaded with .38 ammo. I've just never seen enough difference in the final product as it relates to self defense to worry about it.

[DocGKR]

Assuming equivalently constructed projectiles, a single round of .45 generally causes more tissue damage than a single round of 9mm. That is simple physics and physiology; however, defensive shooting involves substantially more factors. When looking at the totality of a defensive handgun encounter, most individuals are better off shooting a modern double stack 9 mm.

[John Hearne]

Good post! (I don't buy some of it but a solid argument.) Do you feel all your arguments hold up when the pistolero is reduced to a damaged SHO or WHO?

Practice more? Seriously, if you are going to carry a cartridge that is more difficult to shoot then you have an obligation to do the work to shoot it well.

One of the refrains that drives me crazy is "I don't shoot good so I carry a 45 because any hit with it will stop 'em." If you don't shoot well the last thing you need is a 45.

(Also, I suspect that the number of gunfight attendees wounded and reduced to one hand is vastly exceeded by those who use one hand because they haven't put in the work to have two handed eye level shooting ingrained)

[John Hearne]

John, it has been said that the move by LE to 9mm is motivated by reduced cost of ammo, less wear and tear on pistols, and better qualification scores for average LE shooters. There are also folks that can shoot 9, .40, .45 and 10mm well, and still choose 9mm. Other shooters that choose by platform and let caliber follow based on what caliber makes the most sense in that platform.

The number one motivation for the LE switch to 9mm is to save money. Both in terms of the raw cost of the ammo and the training resources needed to get someone to pass an irrelevant qualification course. If an agency switching to 9mm took every dime that was saved by changing calibers and plowed that back into more/better training and higher shooting standards then I'd be all for it. How many agencies are actually doing that? How many of those saved training dollars are going to be spent on something other than use of force training?

I'm not opposed to the 9mm. My take is that you should shoot the largest caliber you can shoot well. If a 9mm is all you can shoot well then be very picky about what you stuff in it and go forth. (There are people with real physical limitations that can't shoot anything bigger than a 9mm. That is fundamentally different than "I'm too lazy to practice.") What I object to is the premise that if you can shoot a larger caliber well then there is NO advantage in carrying that larger caliber.

I also think that the armed citizen needs to worry less about caliber than those charged with wrangling and/or eliminating feral humans. The last thing an armed robber expects is being shot by their victim. If they had thought the potential victim was any risk to them they would pick someone else - almost all of the time. There are fundamentally different dynamics at work when you pursue and corner people because of their propensity and/or love of violence. It is akin to sniping a deer at 300 yards versus confronting a cornered racoon.

FWIW, I think that the FBI going to 9mm is probably a good thing. The vast majority of their agents don't regularly pursue feral humans. Half of their shootings occur when an armed robber tries to ply their trade on them. When the FBI makes an arrest for a violent crime, then they'll likely involve more seriously armed and trained agents to affect that arrest.

I like the concept that small cartridges go in small pistols and large cartridges go into large pistols. The Kahr P-9 Covert is the ideal 9mm in my mind. If you're going to carry a full-size pistol, especially openly like uniform LE then a small pistol makes no sense to me. Don't tell Higginbotham but there are times when I carry a 9mm. Those times are never when I'm on-duty and expecting to go and hunt trouble. I find the 9mm great as a pistol when carrying something bigger is limited by clothing and it is very convenient. However, if I'm going to wear more normal clothes, I simply suck it up and carry my 5" P220. For most off-duty or armed citizen problems, a Glock 19 is plenty of pistol. Now, if the world goes all "Belsan" or "Kenya Mall" then it sucks to be you but it would suck to be you in that situation even if you had a long gun.

[Kimura]

John, it has been said that the move by LE to 9mm is motivated by reduced cost of ammo, less wear and tear on pistols, and better qualification scores for average LE shooters.

I get the 9mm is easier to shoot/easier on guns concepts. At least I get it if you're shooting standard velocity ammo, but if you're shooting +p or +p+ ammo, how much less wear can there actually be on the gun and how much less recoil. At some point you have to be nudging up against .40/.357sig wear and recoil. In which case, what would be the point in 9mm?

[GJM]

I'm not opposed to the 9mm. My take is that you should shoot the largest caliber you can shoot well. If a 9mm is all you can shoot well then be very picky about what you stuff in it and go forth. (There are people with real physical limitations that can't shoot anything bigger than a 9mm. That is fundamentally different than "I'm too lazy to practice.") What I object to is the premise that if you can shoot a larger caliber well then there is NO advantage in carrying that larger caliber.

I don't agree with the notion "that you should shoot the largest caliber you can shoot well."

While I don't have people shooting experience, I have shot a bunch of creatures over the years. I started off hunting buffalo in Africa with a .460 G&A (on the recommendation of Col. Cooper) and .470 NE. Through experience, I found a .416 Rigby did a better job for me on animals up through elephant size. On elk and mule deer, I downsized from .338 to .270 Weatherby and .270 WSM, and have since piled up over a dozen elk and mule deer with one shot stops. The two elk I had to chase around were shot with a .338.

For bears, I built up a Benelli 20 gauge this year, and carry it with Brenneke slugs. I can shoot a 12 gauge well, but I can shoot a 20 gauge Benelli even better -- especially in odd positions, with one hand, and with faster splits. I think this is very analogous to the 9 versus .45 debate -- different strokes for different folks.

I have heard the reason Tom Givens switched from a 1911 to a Glock 35, is "a 1911 is a two bad guy pistol in a 3-4 bad guy world." Does that make the proper advice for you or me? Not at all. I believe that whatever floats your boat, and you practice with, and you stuff full of the best ammo, and you have confidence in, is the proper choice.

[Kyle Reese]

This is turning into a very informative discussion. Thanks to all.

No to derail it too far, but just for a quick giggle intermission...

I just returned from my local store where I was looking for a G29 for hiking, based on GJM's recommendation.

Bubba didn't have any in stock, but did his darndest to convince me that what I really need for the moose, cougar and bear that live in my neck of the woods is not a 10mm, but an FN 5.7 because..."it's like carrying a rifle in your holster and you don't have to wait for the animal to charge; you can take them out at over 50 yards before they come after you."

No thank you. :mad:

Did you laugh in his face? If my FFL tried to sell me a 5.7 I'd think he was having a laugh.

[Jared]

Assuming equivalently constructed projectiles, a single round of .45 generally causes more tissue damage than a single round of 9mm. That is simple physics and physiology; however, defensive shooting involves substantially more factors. When looking at the totality of a defensive handgun encounter, most individuals are better off shooting a modern double stack 9 mm.


DocGKR,

I fully agree with this. I am a bit curious though, how much more damage does one get with a 45 over a 9? Assuming good bullets, say 45 HST vs 9mm HST?

[DocGKR]

Which hurts more/damages tissue more--a 22 ga IV cath or an 18 ga IV cath?

[SAWBONES]

Which hurts more/damages tissue more--a 22 ga IV cath or an 18 ga IV cath?

Obviously the 18 gauge tapered-point needle introducer-stylet (not the catheter itself) hurts more and "damages more tissue", but is the issue in bullet-wounding one of total volume of tissue harmed (a function of penetration depth as well as bullet frontal surface area), or really just the doing of damage to a particular locus at a particular depth?

It seems obvious to me that it's the latter, since the wound track made by the bullet travelling on its path to the desired target is probably physiologically largely superfluous to "wounding", unless said wound track also traverses important vascular vessels or other tissues on its way to _______ (heart, brain, cervical spinal cord).


================================================== ======

Thought experiment:

suppose we could teleport a tiny bomb into a given tissue and detonate it, and that said little bomb would reliably produce a volume of tissue destruction within the desired tissue (heart, let's say) identical to what would occur to that tissue with the penetration of a specified bullet of a given caliber and construction to that exact same spot.

Would the effective physical result ("stopping power") meaningfully differ between the "internal detonation" case and the "tissue-penetration-by-bullet" case? I'd vote no, since I don't believe in things like "stretch cavity neural-shock" as a reliable wounding mechanism.

Obviously, the volume of the damaged tissue at the "target organ" would matter to some degree, that is, a volume of tissue injury corresponding to what would occur with a shooting by a 9mm FMJ vs. a 45ACP FMJ might be important, though obviously it wouldn't be anywhere near as important as if the volume comparison were between a shooting by 22LR FMJ and 50BMG FMJ.

The never-ending arguments over "best caliber" and "best bullet" seem to always revolve around relatively small ammunition differences that correspond to those sorts of sidearms most people can reasonably carry, shooting bullets mostly in the range of .355" to .45" caliber. (I never see anybody arguing in favor of carrying a 50S&W revolver, for instance, over a 380ACP semiauto.)

It's not that small differences in these things don't matter at all, but rather that folks tend to make overmuch of them, investing the issues with greater importance than they probably deserve.

JMNSHO Saturday AM ramblings. :cool:

[David Armstrong]

This type of discussion seems to often go off on a track that I am not sure is appropriate. Yes, round "X" might destroy more tissue than round "Y". But is that really the point? For me the question becomes "does any additional damage really matter?" Much like GJM pointed out, a .270 Weatherby stops the elk just as good as a .338. So does the additional effect of the .338 matter? If you are going to the local market to buy groceries does the fact that the Porsche can go twice as fast as the family Taurus really matter?

[shane45]

I would think that damage is the point. Although I don't care for rifle analogies as it seems to me to be an entirely a different ballgame in consideration of the far greater aspects of damage including hydrostatic shock.

[Wondering Beard]

This type of discussion seems to often go off on a track that I am not sure is appropriate. Yes, round "X" might destroy more tissue than round "Y". But is that really the point? For me the question becomes "does any additional damage really matter?" Much like GJM pointed out, a .270 Weatherby stops the elk just as good as a .338. So does the additional effect of the .338 matter? If you are going to the local market to buy groceries does the fact that the Porsche can go twice as fast as the family Taurus really matter?

So, short summary:
Is the 45 ACP a better caliber than the 9mm parabellum: yes.

By how much: don't know, too many variables, probably not much.

Does it make a difference in defensive shootings: sometimes it has, sometimes it hasn't, there are lots of stories out there, don't expect it to happen.

Does the above sound agreable to most of you?

[JHC]

I haven't seen real evidence that total damage per individual PISTOL round is all that important. Handguns are still just handguns. There are accounts of LEO's driving multiple .44 mag and .41 mag loads through opponents without prompt effect. Still just a pistol.

I think the role of the big bore is breaking big bones and driving deep where that is important in the game fields.

[JHC]

So, short summary:
Is the 45 ACP a better caliber than the 9mm parabellum: yes.

By how much: don't know, too many variables, probably not much.

Does it make a difference in defensive shootings: sometimes it has, sometimes it hasn't, there are lots of stories out there, don't expect it to happen.

Does the above sound agreable to most of you?

If that is provable that might be a first. Seriously. Mostly I just see anecdotes that say the .45 was a death ray this day and yet what about the examples Chuck has described where 9mm 124 gr +P was an equal death ray? Just service pistols.

[GJM]

Reasonable people who carry a .45 often estimate the .45 to be some multiple of effectiveness greater than a 9mm.

Reasonable people who carry a 9 think the differences are inconsequential, and in total outweighed by other advantages of a double stack 9.

I don't think this is likely to be resolved anytime soon.

[Wondering Beard]

Mostly I just see anecdotes that say the .45 was a death ray this day and yet what about the examples Chuck has described where 9mm 124 gr +P was an equal death ray? Just service pistols.


That's what I meant with "sometimes it has, sometimes it hasn't"; I know of no way to prove it past anecdotes and since I wasn't there at any of them ...

[Kimura]

This type of discussion seems to often go off on a track that I am not sure is appropriate. Yes, round "X" might destroy more tissue than round "Y". But is that really the point? For me the question becomes "does any additional damage really matter?" Much like GJM pointed out, a .270 Weatherby stops the elk just as good as a .338. So does the additional effect of the .338 matter? If you are going to the local market to buy groceries does the fact that the Porsche can go twice as fast as the family Taurus really matter?

Does it? Depends on the situation. And that's really the point. You don't know. There are number of factors that the "science" of ballistics can't account for. Situation, LSP972 mentioned pharmaceuticals, there's adrenaline and some people are just tougher than others. There's too many unpredictable variables in a fight that you simply can't account for. The FBI or anyone else can look at past shootings/gunfights all they want and I understand why they do that, but that doesn't mean the next one or any of the next ones are going to fit the mold. You simply never know for sure.

As individuals we have to balance the scale to, first, what we shoot well and from those choices what we're most comfortable with. As an agency I would venture to guess that you either have to balance to the weakest link in the chain or, better than that, offer choices based on how well the individual shoots. Good shooters get to choose what they're most comfortable with and marginal/less than marginal shooters get no choices other than the 9mm.

[JHC]

That's what I meant with "sometimes it has, sometimes it hasn't"; I know of no way to prove it past anecdotes and since I wasn't there at any of them ...

Roger. I'm tracking.

[Jared]

Reasonable people who carry a .45 often estimate the .45 to be some multiple of effectiveness greater than a 9mm.

Reasonable people who carry a 9 think the differences are inconsequential, and in total outweighed by other advantages of a double stack 9.

I don't think this is likely to be resolved anytime soon.

That's what I was getting at with my question. I get that a single round does more damage, it makes too much sense. How much more is my question. 1%? 5%? 20%? I'm dyed in the wool 9mm all the way for two legged defense, so it's just an academic curiosity, but it is interesting to me.

[Haraise]

That's what I was getting at with my question. I get that a single round does more damage, it makes too much sense. How much more is my question. 1%? 5%? 20%? I'm dyed in the wool 9mm all the way for two legged defense, so it's just an academic curiosity, but it is interesting to me.

Well, let's make this really simple and leave out a lot of benefits of larger caliber (ability to break through sternum/ribs/skull, such as the 9mm forehead failure: 2656 ) and just go with crush cavity.

Let's do it with the 4LD test on the Federal HST, given it's been said that reflects reality the best and HST is the standard of modern ammo.

The standard 9mm HST is 124 +P and .45 is 230 +P.

Each bullet has a crush cavity, which can be roughly calculated very easily. Area of crushed times the length of the cavity (http://www.mathopenref.com/cylindervolume.html).

9mm 124+P = .61" x 13"

.45 230+P = .89" x 13"

So each round of 9mm destroys around 3.8 cubic inches of tissue.

Each round of .45 destroys around 8.1 cubic inches of tissue.

So that means, every equal shot between the two, the .45 will destroy 2.132x more than a 9mm.

Which means a 1911 with 8+1 will destroy more tissue than a 17+1 9mm, all shots equal. Can you make that up with faster shots? More chances to hit? Increased ability for suppressive fire? Ability to shoot at more targets? More reasons get other people to leave? Longer time between reloads? It's a personal choice.

[DocGKR]

.45 Auto did not impress Jared Reston...

In fact the rather amazing Officer Reston has publicly stated that he prefers carrying a 9 mm, as do I.

[Haraise]

.45 Auto did not impress Jared Reston...

In fact the rather amazing Officer Reston has publicly stated that he prefers carrying a 9 mm, as do I.

Nothing that can be held in one hand is very impressive...

I carry a 9 most days as well. I didn't give any advice in that post.

[JHC]

But neither of the HST slugs are at their max expanded diameter the entire 13". The investigation continues! ;)

[GardoneVT]

Id write something snarky here, but im gonna do some dry fire instead. It would seem that "stopping power " lies exclusively with the shooting ability of the owner, rather then the size of the projectile.

[45dotACP]

Id write something snarky here, but im gonna do some dry fire instead. It would seem that "stopping power " lies exclusively with the shooting ability of the owner, rather then the size of the projectile.

Surely you jest!

Kind of a silly reason, but I shoot a lot of .45 because it's easier for me to handload than a 9mm due to availability of components, so I shoot a lot more .45 than 9mm. But as far as shootability is concerned, I think if I can shoot a .45 well, I can shoot a 9mm better.

[Salamander]

Since this migrated to one of my favorite topics, bears, here is a link to some info I put in the hog thread:

http://www.arcticwild.com/blog/efficacy-of-firearms-for-bear-deterrence-in-Alaska.pdf

ABSTRACT We compiled, summarized, and reviewed 269 incidents of bear–human conflict involving firearms that occurred in Alaska during 1883–2009. Encounters involving brown bears (Ursus arctos; 218 incidents, 81%), black bears (Ursus americanus; 30 incidents, 11%), polar bears (Ursus maritimus; 6 incidents, 2%), and 15 (6%) unidentified species provided insight into firearms success and failure. A total of 444 people and at least 367 bears were involved in these incidents. We found no significant difference in success rates (i.e., success being when the bear was stopped in its aggressive behavior) associated with long guns (76%) and handguns (84%). Moreover, firearm bearers suffered the same injury rates in close encounters with bears whether they used their firearms or not. Bears were killed in 61% (n 1⁄4 162) of bear–firearms incidents. Additionally, we identified multiple reasons for firearms failing to stop an aggressive bear. Using logistic regression, the best model for predicting a successful outcome for firearm users included species and cohort of bear, human activity at time of encounter, whether or not the bear charged, and if fish or game meat was present. Firearm variables (e.g., type of gun, number of shots) were not useful in predicting outcomes in bear–firearms incidents. Although firearms have failed to protect some users, they are the only deterrent that can lethally stop an aggressive bear. Where firearms have failed to protect people, we identified contributing causes. Our findings suggest that only those proficient in firearms use should rely on them for protection in bear country. " 2012 The Wildlife Society.

Good info, thank you. I'm a TWS member (publisher of that journal) and active in the local chapter, and the hard data in the article is consistent with qualitative info I've heard from a number of biologists.

A key point from the text of the article, for those in the lower 48: "Herrero (2002) reported that black bears rarely attack people in response to sudden encounters." The reported numbers also highlight a disproportionate number of attacks by brown/grizzly bears, they accounted for the majority of the aggressive interactions despite much lower population estimates. In the lower 48, grizzlies are generally limited to parts of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, so for most of us potential encounters are with smaller and less aggressive black bears. Black bear are common here (northern California), I've seen a few inside the city limits within half a mile of my house, and every one I've encountered has run away. I'm aware of only one local aggressive interaction (it did not result in injury), and I know a lot of people who spend a great deal of time in the woods.

Personally, I don't feel a need for a big magnum most of the time. It's been months since I've carried anything bigger than 9mm. The decision would likely be different if I lived in Alaska or in the Montana mountains.

[Chuck Haggard]

Well, let's make this really simple and leave out a lot of benefits of larger caliber (ability to break through sternum/ribs/skull, such as the 9mm forehead failure and just go with crush cavity.

Let's do it with the 4LD test on the Federal HST, given it's been said that reflects reality the best and HST is the standard of modern ammo.

The standard 9mm HST is 124 +P and .45 is 230 +P.

Each bullet has a crush cavity, which can be roughly calculated very easily. Area of crushed times the length of the cavity (http://www.mathopenref.com/cylindervolume.html).

9mm 124+P = .61" x 13"

.45 230+P = .89" x 13"

So each round of 9mm destroys around 3.8 cubic inches of tissue.

Each round of .45 destroys around 8.1 cubic inches of tissue.

So that means, every equal shot between the two, the .45 will destroy 2.132x more than a 9mm.

Which means a 1911 with 8+1 will destroy more tissue than a 17+1 9mm, all shots equal. Can you make that up with faster shots? More chances to hit? Increased ability for suppressive fire? Ability to shoot at more targets? More reasons get other people to leave? Longer time between reloads? It's a personal choice.


The last three head shot failures I have attended were execution range shots involving .40s and a .45, bullets commonly bounce off of the brain housing group. I know of two cases where this happened with 12 gauge slugs.

In the case you posted on we know zero on what bullet or the angle of impact. No F'ing way was that a direct perpendicular hit with any normal 9mm loading of any kind that just ricocheted off that dude's forhead. There are clearly other factors involved than "9mm sucks and it's for girls".


Ref bullet math; Those comparisons are IMHO silly assed and misleading. If something is the width of a human hair, and I add another hair, I increase the width by 100%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, but how much are we really talking about? Is this even significant? That's the real question.

Because I haven't had coffee yet and I am feeling lazy I will steal a quote from myself from another site;

Doc tests;

Win 230 gr Ranger Talon JHP (RA45T) fired from 1911 at ave vel of 911 f/s; 5 shot ave below:
BG: Pen = 12.3", Ave RD = 0.70", Ave RL = 0.44", Ave RW = 227.2gr
4LD: Pen = 25.1", Ave RD = 0.45", Ave RL = 0.60", Ave RW = 228.8 gr
AG: Pen = 16.1", Ave RD = 0.54", Ave RL = 0.48", Ave RW = 189.6 gr

Fed HST 230 gr JHP (P45HST2) fired from 1911 at ave vel of 879 f/s; 5 shot ave below::
BG: Pen = 12.6", Ave RD = 0.80", Ave RL = 0.44", Ave RW = 231.5 gr
4LD: Pen = 13.4", Ave RD = 0.55", Ave RL = 0.71", Ave RW = 231.2 gr
AG: Pen = 16.3", Ave RD = 0.54", Ave RL = 0.58", Ave RW = 230.6 gr

vs

9mm Fed 147 gr HST JHP; ave vel=997 fps (G19)
BG: pen=14.6", RD=0.61", RL=0.39", RW=147.1gr
4LD: pen=15.6", RD=0.56", RL=0.53", RW=145.5gr

Win 124 gr +P Ranger Talon (RA124TP) fired from G17 at ave vel of 1238 f/s; 5 shot ave below:
BG: Pen = 13.0”, RD = 0.62”, RL= 0.35", RW = 114.7gr
4LD: Pen = 13.0”, RD = 0.59”, RL= 0.40", RW = 116.8gr
AG: Pen = 18.9”, RD = 0.50”, RL= 0.52", RW = 117.5gr

vs

.40 S&W Fed 180 gr HST JHP; ave vel=959 fps (S&W 4006)
BG: pen=14.0", RD=0.70", RL=0.43", RW=181.2gr
4LD: pen=15.0", RD=0.56", RL=0.52", RW=180.7gr

Note in my cherry picked tests, bolding the four layer denim test to illustrate (Which BTW is a very street realistic test in my observation of bullets recovered from real bodies), the 147gr 9mm beats both the .40 and .45 by either more expansion or more penetration, or both.

Even through auto glass, the event where the bigger bullets are supposed to have some sort of huge edge, the 124gr non-bonded +P Ranger-T gives better penetration in the noted testing.

The truth is, on average, they all work about the same, and they all work well if the shooter has all their crap in one bag, if not then none of them work.


Now, in the noted .45 vs 147gr HST vs .40, someone explain to me how the 9mm "sucks" and the .45 is awesome, when in those tests on that day the 9mm clearly beat the .45?

It's frankly too close to call in real life, hence the point of many folks I know that it ain't even worth worrying about.

Oh, and clearly the .40 and .45 do not ALWAYS outperform the 9mm on a shot-to-shot basis.

[DocGKR]

http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/summit/123157986157950.xml&coll=2

[Chuck Haggard]

.45 Auto did not impress Jared Reston...

In fact the rather amazing Officer Reston has publicly stated that he prefers carrying a 9 mm, as do I.


Tim Gramins is carrying a 9mm now, after it took 14 hits from his G21 to put a bad guy down and make him stop returning fire, in fact it wasn't until the third headshot landed that said bad guy was down for the count.

[Kevin B.]

Tim Gramins is carrying a 9mm now, after it took 14 hits from his G21 to put a bad guy down and make him stop returning fire, in fact it wasn't until the third headshot landed that said bad guy was down for the count.

This is the officer who carries 100+ rounds without fail now, right?

[Haraise]

This is the officer who carries 100+ rounds without fail now, right?

That's the guy, it's 145 rounds.

[Kevin B.]

That's the guy, it's 145 rounds.

Thanks.

I do not find an endorsement by an individual who carries 145 rounds of pistol ammunition very compelling.

[Haraise]

... "9mm sucks and it's for girls". ...silly assed and misleading. If something is the width of a human hair, and I add another hair, I increase the width by 100%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ...the 9mm "sucks" and the .45 is awesome, when in those tests on that day the 9mm clearly beat the .45?

You might want to have your coffee first. Other people here are being rather more adult in their responses, not at all as you seem to be smearing them.

No one has claimed: 9mm is for girls, a hair's width is monumental, the 9mm sucks.

Yes, if I have a limited amount of shots, I'd take something two hair widths over one, all else equal. Good shot placement is hard, and I'd take anything I could. You finding other data that goes the other way with the results is good. We can compare data to data, but not while I'm having words put in my mouth, or while 'math is silly and misleading.' How would you prefer to compare things, if not by math? I suppose one way is to ignore the whole subject and declare two different things are the same, but that's not logical, so I'll be ending here.

[LittleLebowski]

Leaving this here as a gentle reminder.


III. A note about SMEs

Select members of the pistol-forum.com community have been granted the title Subject Matter Expert (SME). These are individuals with proven credentials within the community who directly influence firearms-related policy decisions for high profile law enforcement, military, and/or industry entities. These professionals are often highly compensated for their time and expertise, and pistol-forum.com greatly appreciates their generous participation here. As such, forum members are expected to treat all such SMEs with appropriate respect and deference.

[Chuck Haggard]

You might want to have your coffee first. Other people here are being rather more adult in their responses, not at all as you seem to be smearing them.

No one has claimed: 9mm is for girls, a hair's width is monumental, the 9mm sucks.

Yes, if I have a limited amount of shots, I'd take something two hair widths over one, all else equal. Good shot placement is hard, and I'd take anything I could. You finding other data that goes the other way with the results is good. We can compare data to data, but not while I'm having words put in my mouth, or while 'math is silly and misleading.' How would you prefer to compare things, if not by math? I suppose one way is to ignore the whole subject and declare two different things are the same, but that's not logical, so I'll be ending here.

Perhaps I have absorbed way too much derp lately due to the FBI going to 9mm announcement and overeacted.

However, please note again my post above where the 9mm loading in that test clearly beat the .45 loadings, meaning that the extra hair width advantage goes to the 9mm for that shot.

Placing one's hopes on the slim chance that said extra hair will make the difference is what I find to be illogical, when taken against all of the other factors that are also in play and normally count for quite a bit more.

[JHC]

No one has claimed: 9mm is for girls



Not in so many words but pretty close. ;) John Hearne scored pretty solidly on me about "ego" to shoot drills well and not being strong enough for a .45 (which I swear I don't shoot "bad" just not as well and quick as a 9. :D )

[shane45]

If effectiveness is what your after, it would make sense to me to NOT chase caliber. Here is what I mean. Let me preface this with I personally don't feel at all disadvantaged for time or accuracy by shooting a 45 and my tests between the two I own has them as pretty much equal in terms of speed and accuracy for me. So to explain what I am saying, assume for one second that in a 45acp all that is available is ball ammo. But in 9 there is a world of choices including HST etc etc. Well, given the choice between the two, I would think the logical choice would be the 9mm. But Im not choosing it by caliber, Im choosing it by track record. Obviously there is a world of variables in real world shootings but with enough actual incidents, Im sure a general effectiveness comes to light. So I want the bullet that is getting the job done. Now everything I have said does not make for any considerations beyond the caliber. 2 bad guy calibers and 3 bad guy calibers is a different discussion. But in the end, if the very best of each bullet design has caused a convergence in effectiveness, I could see that. If that is where we are at then that is where the capacity concerns, barrier penetration concerns and probably a few others Im not thinking of brings that to the front of the discussion. But the caliber I seem to have heard from the LE community specifically on is the 45 HST.

[Chuck Haggard]

Thanks.

I do not find an endorsement by an individual who carries 145 rounds of pistol ammunition very compelling.


He's lightened up a bit since then. Tim is a friend of a friend, and he's a good guy.

After Korea and living through a few human wave charges my dad was a lots of ammo kind of guy as well, so perhaps that is where I am cutting him some slack.

[David Armstrong]

from Chuck Haggard:
The last three head shot failures I have attended were execution range shots involving .40s and a .45, bullets commonly bounce off of the brain housing group.
This agrees with my findings. I've seen more failures to penetrate heavy bone with the .45 than the 9mm. I don't know how the split works out when comparing different round designs, just based on memory of the caliber involved

Oh, and clearly the .40 and .45 do not ALWAYS outperform the 9mm on a shot-to-shot basis.
Going back to my original point, if they do outperform on a shot-to-shot basis I haven't found anything to indicate the minor difference in performance would matter to the outcome.

[JHC]

He's lightened up a bit since then. Tim is a friend of a friend, and he's a good guy.

After Korea and living through a few human wave charges my dad was a lots of ammo kind of guy as well, so perhaps that is where I am cutting him some slack.

An old timer in San Antonio back in the '80's told me this about his close call he once had and I have experienced the psychological effect - when you actually have a few minutes to get prepared for something bad, you seem to not be able to CARRY enough stuff. It's hard to stop adding to. ;)

[Haraise]

Perhaps I have absorbed way too much derp lately due to the FBI going to 9mm announcement and overeacted.

However, please note again my post above where the 9mm loading in that test clearly beat the .45 loadings, meaning that the extra hair width advantage goes to the 9mm for that shot.

Placing one's hopes on the slim chance that said extra hair will make the difference is what I find to be illogical, when taken against all of the other factors that are also in play and normally count for quite a bit more.

I did note it, even praised it as good information in my words you quoted. It was a great example to your point and well cited. Not at all arguing against that reasoning. As I said, I carry 9mm, I'm hardly a .45 die hard.

I like less recoil, faster shooting, higher capacity, more reasons for people to go away. Not being the first one to run out. The test you cited I'd read a long while ago, but it seemed the majority of other tests the .45 fared rather better in, that I've seen over the years. It's difficult to correlate data that is often contradictory, but I think paring the results to 'it's all the same' is rather unrealistic.

[threedogdad]

Please forgive my interruption (again) of a very enlightening and lively discussion, but I wonder if I could ask the group a couple of quick questions to help me keep on track...

First, does anyone know what ammo was involved in the example cited above where the individual was shot with .45 a dozen times before succumbing? Was this the fault of the ammo selection, shot placement, pharmaceutically enhanced criminal behavior, or something else?

Second, can someone help explain the physics behind why a .45 would be (is?) less likely to penetrate skulls and other thick bones? This just seems so counter-intuitive to me. Hard to wrap my head around it.

Since 1996 I've carried a G19 in town for two-legged predators, but usually tote a .45 in the hills, thinking it will have that little extra bone-penetrating capability I might need for the four-legged critters. Seems now my reasoning may have been incorrect.

Thank you for any information you can provide.

[JHC]

Please forgive my interruption (again) of a very enlightening and lively discussion, but I wonder if I could ask the group a couple of quick questions to help me keep on track...

First, does anyone know what ammo was involved in the example cited above where the individual was shot with .45 a dozen times before succumbing? Was this the fault of the ammo selection, shot placement, pharmaceutically enhanced criminal behavior, or something else?

Second, can someone help explain the physics behind why a .45 would be (is?) less likely to penetrate skulls and other thick bones? This just seems so counter-intuitive to me. Hard to wrap my head around it.

Since 1996 I've carried a G19 in town for two-legged predators, but usually tote a .45 in the hills, thinking it will have that little extra bone-penetrating capability I might need for the four-legged critters. Seems now my reasoning may have been incorrect.

Thank you for any information you can provide.

It's kind of mind bending how many "rules" there seems to be. In soft tissue, heavy hard slugs seem to have an advantage in penetration. On hard, rigid surfaces, much higher velocity projectiles sometimes show an advantage. I think modern windshields have been described as sort of in between. If there is any handicap of a specific round on bone it could be related to narrow performance envelopes vis a vis remaining velocity at impact and angles of impact and the ogive of a bullet . . . or something.

[John Hearne]

Regarding penetrating skulls, I don't think this is a caliber issue so much as bullet design issue. If you read Cirillo's works, you quickly realize that a life long quest of his was to design a bullet that would reliably penetrate the skull. He saw enough failures of the various calibers to spend a lot of time trying to solve the problem. (His books contain a great anecdote about a guy that was shot 11 times in the head and scared the crap out of the involved officers by sitting up to correct his age when they broadcast it incorrectly)

It comes down to the fact that the skull is "designed" to NOT be penetrated easily. The surfaces are generally round and if two round edges encounter each other, it is easy for the one that's moving to glance off. The bones of the skull are thick and in some racial groups the bones of the skull are thicker than others racial groups.

There is an Eagle Scout who received a large settlement when the FBI shot him in the head with a 5.56 at very close range. If rifle rounds can fail to penetrate then expecting miracles from pistol bullets is a bit naive. All pistol rounds suck, some suck slightly less than others.

[John Hearne]

Tim Gramins is carrying a 9mm now, after it took 14 hits from his G21 to put a bad guy down and make him stop returning fire, in fact it wasn't until the third headshot landed that said bad guy was down for the count.

Unless I'm mixing up the shootings, a friend of mine looked into this. He reported that only four of the 14 hits would have been in the "Q" zone of an FBI target and that only one of the 14 hits was in an 8" circle high in the chest.

If people are being hit in non-vital areas, then they can take a lot of rounds in the process. IIRC, the FBI was once sued for excessive force by some they had shot 65 times. He sued them, not his estate.

[Kevin B.]

Unless I'm mixing up the shootings, a friend of mine looked into this. He reported that only four of the 14 hits would have been in the "Q" zone of an FBI target and that only one of the 14 hits was in an 8" circle high in the chest.

If true, that would confirm my suspicion about the incident.

[JTQ]

If you read Cirillo's works, you quickly realize that a life long quest of his was to design a bullet that would reliably penetrate the skull. He saw enough failures of the various calibers to spend a lot of time trying to solve the problem.

I'm familiar with who Cirillo is, but I haven't read any of his works. Did he come to a conclusion on bullet shapes.

I've neither shot animals or people, but it always seems as if the bullets for each go down different paths. When using something marginal for the task at hand (is it our assumption all semi-auto rounds are marginal people stoppers), such as .357 Magnum for large dear or .44 Magnum for black bear, or when using .45-70 on large bears or large African game, nearly all the hunters seem to go for more penetration, while the folks shooting people are more often looking for reliable expansion. The hunters emphasis on penetration also seems to be even greater when dealing with something that can bite, stomp, or eat you. In other words, something you need to stop as soon as possible.

I have also wondered why there are so few rifle rounds above .35 cal available as hollow points? Do hunters think a .35 cal hole is big enough?

[JHC]

Once a projectile gets above 2000 fps the temporary stretch cavity starts actually ripping stuff so rifle rounds go to another plane of wounding.

An under 100 yard shot on a deer with a 150 grain .308 of any plain jane Rem or Win basic loading creates damage that just has to be seen to be believed. Worse if it hits a shoulder bone. I'm talking about a blizzard of bone fragments and several inches in diameter path of destruction.

A deer I double lunged at about 15 yards with a 68 grain OTM .223 load from Black Hills; upon field dressing showed both lungs destroyed and came out like so much pink scrambled eggs. It's heart was also ripped into finger sized ribbons. It was astounding. High velocity and fragments.

Pistols; very very different. Soooo slow. I've sort of lost track of where I was going here ;) but the point is not that much translates from pistol to the modern rifle except that big handguns like .41 magnum and on up do well with heavy flat faced slugs just as some rifles like the .45-70 does even more. Even a .35 caliber rifle moving modestly by rifle standards; say .35 Rem or Whelen bores a much bigger than .35 diameter hole in a softpoint configuration. About an inch and a half boring in my experience from the slowish but fast by pistol standards .30-30 at close range.

[Haraise]

Once a projectile gets above 2000 fps the temporary stretch cavity starts actually ripping stuff so rifle rounds go to another plane of wounding.

Do you have any experience with the 1500-1700 fps range? That's what's been taking up most of my research time, when it comes to ammunition. .357 magnum (NOT sig), 9x23, hot 10mm at or over 1500 seem to be exhibiting stretch tearing.

[JHC]

Do you have any experience with the 1500-1700 fps range? That's what's been taking up most of my research time, when it comes to ammunition. .357 magnum (NOT sig), 9x23, hot 10mm at or over 1500 seem to be exhibiting stretch tearing.

I don't. With deer for me it's been 30-30, .308 and .223. I've seen 2K fps mentioned as a threshold by Doc IIRC.

But I think it's been reliably reported that when you go pretty wide - like a 12 ga full diameter slug at those velocities, they displace a lot of stuff really fast which seems like a quality all it's own.

Oh hey, just tripped into this: http://www.gunnuts.net/2014/10/13/the-myth-of-the-temporary-wound-cavity/

[Chuck Haggard]

Do you have any experience with the 1500-1700 fps range? That's what's been taking up most of my research time, when it comes to ammunition. .357 magnum (NOT sig), 9x23, hot 10mm at or over 1500 seem to be exhibiting stretch tearing.

I will defer to a trauma surgeon friend who talked about this in a conversation about "what caliber" he and I had. He works in the Baltimore area, and has enough experience to be able to state, not bragging, that if you show up at his ER with a small caliber gunshot wound to the heart and a pulse then he has a better than 50% success rate of you walk out in the next few days under your own power.

He has observed that there is some stellate tearing exhibited from hotter handgun rounds, hot .357s, 10mm, etc.s, with JHP bullets, in some tissues such as liver, but he is unconvinced that it contributes to incapacitation.

BTW, the velocity thing is variable, 12 gauge Foster slugs exhibit large temp cavities but are well under 2000fps, 5.7FN is over 2000fps but the temp cavity those wee little bullets make is no more than that made by the average handgun round, as in not enough to matter.


ETA; what does trauma dude carry? Glock 19 with 124gr +P Gold Dot

[John Hearne]

Do you have any experience with the 1500-1700 fps range? That's what's been taking up most of my research time, when it comes to ammunition. .357 magnum (NOT sig), 9x23, hot 10mm at or over 1500 seem to be exhibiting stretch tearing.

The official sources say that you have to get over 2000 fps to see the additional wounding mechanisms. With that said, some of us are familiar with someone who shot folks overseas with 9x23. IIRC, the 100gr (1600 fps) Power Ball load was used. The reported terminal ballistics as well as the penetration of intermediate barriers (like AK stocks) were more akin to rifle performance than 9mm pistol performance.

[Dave Williams]

The official sources say that you have to get over 2000 fps to see the additional wounding mechanisms. With that said, some of us are familiar with someone who shot folks overseas with 9x23. IIRC, the 100gr (1600 fps) Power Ball load was used. The reported terminal ballistics as well as the penetration of intermediate barriers (like AK stocks) were more akin to rifle performance than 9mm pistol performance.

I thought it was Silvertip.

[JHC]

How does 9x23 recoil in a service pistol? Army said they wanted to increase their wounding/lethality in the next pistol . . . .
That would be a trip. ;)

[1slow]

The official sources say that you have to get over 2000 fps to see the additional wounding mechanisms. With that said, some of us are familiar with someone who shot folks overseas with 9x23. IIRC, the 100gr (1600 fps) Power Ball load was used. The reported terminal ballistics as well as the penetration of intermediate barriers (like AK stocks) were more akin to rifle performance than 9mm pistol performance.

Would 9x25 Dillon (10mm necked down to 9mm) achieve this wounding effect ?

[KevinB]

How about a 9x19 OTM Barrier Blind bullet (JHP in nice sounding words).

Lets not trip into idiotic calibers for troops that have a bare minimum of ammo for quals and training...

[GardoneVT]

How about a 9x19 OTM Barrier Blind bullet (JHP in nice sounding words).

Lets not trip into idiotic calibers for troops that have a bare minimum of ammo for quals and training...

Solving that problem requires we change calibers ASAP.Not at the armories of the DoD, but in the hallways of the Pentagon and our base command offices. Once we change our command staff ammo from "shoe clerk Box Checkers" to "People Ready to Get Kitten Done", we can then get proper troop training approved and funded so that Grandma CCW doesn't outshoot most of our Active Duty Marines, Airmen, Sailors and Soldiers.

Rant over.

[DocGKR]

In many cases, TC starts getting large enough to produce significant stretch injuries somewhere around 2000 fps, depending on projectile behavior and construction, but keep in mind it is a continuum. TC also depends on the size of the projectile--some slower expanding .45-70 and .44 Mag loads, as well as 12 ga slugs can also create an impressive amount of stretch damage at lower velocities. What the projectile does in tissue is what matters, not velocity, KE, or other less than useful calculations. Likewise, a load that has perhaps a bit slower velocity may be far more preferable than one that eeks out additional velocity at the cost of decreased reliability, inconsistent terminal performance, reduced accuracy, high pressures, large flash, and concussive blast. Velocity alone tells us very little, much like KE values. Which has a bigger TC, a projectile fired at 6000 fps or one at 1500 fps? Hmmm...can't answer that unless we know what the projectile does in tissue. A very stable solid brass .224" 50 gr projectile that is fired at 6000 fps into soft tissue, but that remains point forward without any upset, yaw, or deformation is going to produce a minimal PC as well as TC. If a projectile fired at 1500 fps happens to be a .45 caliber 400 gr JSP that has an early upset and expands to nearly 1", both a very large PC and TC will result.

http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq319/DocGKR/slow_vs_fast.jpg

[Haraise]

In many cases, TC starts getting large enough to produce significant stretch injuries somewhere around 2000 fps, depending on projectile behavior and construction, but keep in mind it is a continuum. TC also depends on the size of the projectile--some slower expanding .45-70 and .44 Mag loads, as well as 12 ga slugs can also create an impressive amount of stretch damage at lower velocities. What the projectile does in tissue is what matters, not velocity, KE, or other less than useful calculations. Likewise, a load that has perhaps a bit slower velocity may be far more preferable than one that eeks out additional velocity at the cost of decreased reliability, inconsistent terminal performance, reduced accuracy, high pressures, large flash, and concussive blast. Velocity alone tells us very little, much like KE values. Which has a bigger TC, a projectile fired at 6000 fps or one at 1500 fps? Hmmm...can't answer that unless we know what the projectile does in tissue. A very stable solid brass .224" 50 gr projectile that is fired at 6000 fps into soft tissue, but that remains point forward without any upset, yaw, or deformation is going to produce a minimal PC as well as TC. If a projectile fired at 1500 fps happens to be a .45 caliber 400 gr JSP that has an early upset and expands to nearly 1", both a very large PC and TC will result.

The theory is good to point out, but we're talking more about a very constrained data set, from what I've seen above.

The best example given was the 9x19 vs 9x23, given a JHP construction and ~1600 fps. To get good penetration, a .357 SIG Gold Dot/TAC-XP/etc could be loaded into a 9x23 casing, and 125gr pushed to ~1600. This is difficult to find tests on, due to the relative rarity of the 9x23, but the .357 magnum is nearly the same thing (JHP vs JHP, .355 vs .357 diameter, 125gr vs 125gr) and there seems to be significant tearing around the 1600 fps range.

A brass 5.56 and a lead 12g slug are very good examples of one side or the other, but the tearing/bone penetration/barrier penetration qualities of a 9x23 weapon that gives up no capacity to 9x19 is very interesting to me. (large frame Glock, 2011, 1911, CZ97, any large frame platform could do a 17+1 of 9x23).

[threedogdad]

9x23?

125 @ 1600 sounds like an awful lot of blast and flash...and even bullet fragmentation? But, I'm definitely interested to learn more about this cartridge. Thanks for bringing it up, Haraise.

[DocGKR]

At this time I have ZERO interest in 9x23mm. Very high pressure cartridge (more blast, flash, recoil, and stress on weapon). Requires a large frame pistol (think G21, M&P45, 2011 size) not optimal for CCW or self-defense use (think G19 size)--particularly for smaller individuals. 9x23mm cartridge works best with a compensator. No duty loads made for 9x23mm at this time. 9x23mm should not use typical 9 mm/0.355" projectiles when pushed to 1600 fps, as current projectiles engineered to function optimally at a lower velocity range, so entirely new projectiles will need to be designed for a 9x23mm running at 1600 fps.

[Jeep]

The theory is good to point out, but we're talking more about a very constrained data set, from what I've seen above.

The best example given was the 9x19 vs 9x23, given a JHP construction and ~1600 fps. To get good penetration, a .357 SIG Gold Dot/TAC-XP/etc could be loaded into a 9x23 casing, and 125gr pushed to ~1600. This is difficult to find tests on, due to the relative rarity of the 9x23, but the .357 magnum is nearly the same thing (JHP vs JHP, .355 vs .357 diameter, 125gr vs 125gr) and there seems to be significant tearing around the 1600 fps range.

A brass 5.56 and a lead 12g slug are very good examples of one side or the other, but the tearing/bone penetration/barrier penetration qualities of a 9x23 weapon that gives up no capacity to 9x19 is very interesting to me. (large frame Glock, 2011, 1911, CZ97, any large frame platform could do a 17+1 of 9x23).

Those .357 Sig bullets would probably blow apart at 1600 fps, but using soft points instead in a non-blowback subgun might get you something like 1800-1900 fps, which could be interesting and useful for some tasks--a PDW with some punch.

[Chuck Haggard]

So, we are trying to get an M1 carbine in hand-held form it would appear.

[Jeep]

So, we are trying to get an M1 carbine in hand-held form it would appear.

Ok. You're on to me. I love the M1 and think it is underappreciated. Of course, the one thing it was bad at is the one thing you absolutely need from a PDW--the ability to stop a motivated opponent at close ranges. The M1 couldn't do that reliably, which is why a lot of guys hated it and it is hard to rejigger the cartridge and bullet to make it more effective.

A subgun that could reliably chamber a .355 caliber soft point bullet would probably make up for that, without the sometimes difficult-to-control full auto recoil of an M-4.

Of course, it won't happen. We live in a 5.56/9 mm world, and the benefits of standardization will overwhelm the benefits of a theoretical subgun PDW. But, we can still dream (like, for example a 10 mm carbine . . . .).

[threedogdad]

So, we are trying to get an M1 carbine in hand-held form it would appear.

Is this perhaps where the .327 Fed Mag came from?

.312 diameter 100 grain bullet @ 1500 fps from a 4" barrell.

[Chuck Haggard]

Ok. You're on to me. I love the M1 and think it is underappreciated. Of course, the one thing it was bad at is the one thing you absolutely need from a PDW--the ability to stop a motivated opponent at close ranges. The M1 couldn't do that reliably, which is why a lot of guys hated it and it is hard to rejigger the cartridge and bullet to make it more effective.

A subgun that could reliably chamber a .355 caliber soft point bullet would probably make up for that, without the sometimes difficult-to-control full auto recoil of an M-4.

Of course, it won't happen. We live in a 5.56/9 mm world, and the benefits of standardization will overwhelm the benefits of a theoretical subgun PDW. But, we can still dream (like, for example a 10 mm carbine . . . .).

My dad had the opportunity to shoot a number of south bound bad guys during human wave charges in Korea. He liked the carbine, a lot. His observation was that most of the "stopping power" issues with the .30 carbine round stemmed from dudes going full auto with an M2, then talking about how they "fired a whole clip into that...." when in real life they likely missed a whole lot.

He noted the same thing ref M16s not having "stopping power" after stories started coming out of Vietnam (he did three tours there as well).

The ballistics you describe exactly fit what a .30 carbine SP is capable of.

[John Hearne]

I love the M1 and think it is underappreciated. Of course, the one thing it was bad at is the one thing you absolutely need from a PDW--the ability to

First, I suspect that an M1 stuffed with Corbon DPX would be about as good a stopper as any other non-shotgun and very small-statured individuals friendly.

Second, regarding its efficiency - I've heard more gripes from Korea than WW II. Shooting heavily clothed, well-fed Koreans is a bit different than shooting weak, starving Japanese. Also, the NY Stakeout Squads used M-1 carbines (with softpoints IIRC) and reported good results.

[Chuck Haggard]

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4339-M1-Carbines

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4334-Home-Defense-Long-Guns

[threedogdad]

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4339-M1-Carbines

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4334-Home-Defense-Long-Guns


Great info. Thank you, Chuck...and DocGKR.

I don't want to get too far off on a tangent, but since we seem to be discussing the .30 carbine round, I'm wondering whether, now that the supply of mil-surp carbines has dried up, is Fulton Armory the only game in town? I understand there have been durability issues with the Kahr repros, but has anyone handled, fired or owned one of the new production "Rockola" carbines from James River?

http://www.jamesriverarmory.com/rockola-carbine/m1-carbine-detail.html


If this belongs in a separate thread or just deserves deleting, I'll understand. I was just curious.

Thanks,

[Haraise]

Those .357 Sig bullets would probably blow apart at 1600 fps, but using soft points instead in a non-blowback subgun might get you something like 1800-1900 fps, which could be interesting and useful for some tasks--a PDW with some punch.

They're still holding up okay at 1511 fps:


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iujNWfhUx4A

And that's just a test of one. All it takes is a normal sized 1911/2011 (5 inch barrel) to get full velocity. Plenty of people here carry a G34/35, which is even longer.

[Chuck Haggard]

They're still holding up okay at 1511 fps:


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iujNWfhUx4A

And that's just a test of one. All it takes is a normal sized 1911/2011 (5 inch barrel) to get full velocity. Plenty of people here carry a G34/35, which is even longer.

A friend has a G35 with a .357Sig barrel, I'll have to ask him to crono a few rounds

[Haraise]

A friend has a G35 with a .357Sig barrel, I'll have to ask him to crono a few rounds

I don't want to be the one to cause an injury, so I need to say... Double Tap is known for loading at the ragged edge. It's a high pressure round to start putting more powder in, and some barrels lack case support compared to others. Normal .357 Sig won't get up to the kinds of speeds we're talking about for effective tearing, here are some G35 converted chronos:

"Here's what I have crono'd in a G35 with standard LW barrel:

Speer Gold Dot (54234): 1438

Federal HST 125gr: 1415

Win White Box 125gr: 1438

Hornady 147gr XTP: 1275

Corbon 125 match: 1468"

From: http://glocktalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-1406587.html

[Jeep]

My dad had the opportunity to shoot a number of south bound bad guys during human wave charges in Korea. He liked the carbine, a lot. His observation was that most of the "stopping power" issues with the .30 carbine round stemmed from dudes going full auto with an M2, then talking about how they "fired a whole clip into that...." when in real life they likely missed a whole lot.

He noted the same thing ref M16s not having "stopping power" after stories started coming out of Vietnam (he did three tours there as well).

The ballistics you describe exactly fit what a .30 carbine SP is capable of.

Chuck: Great post and I really liked your recitation of your dad's experiences.

The trouble with the carbine, as with pistols, is that it really needs good hits when shooting adrenaline-filled guys at close range. So, while a lot of guys were missing for the reason you note (full-auto has to be the best way for semi-trained guys to miss targets ever invented), too many were hitting oncoming Japanese/Germans/North Koreans/Chinese/VC/NVA in non-vital areas and not putting them down. There are many reliable reports from three wars showing this.

The flip side is that good shots (eg Audie Murphy. LTC John George and I presume your father) found it a very effective weapon, and also had enough training to keep shooting until someone went down and not just fire once, as you could generally (though not always) do with a 30-06.

I was trained by a bunch of ex-SF guys after they came back from Southeast Asia, and they generally were of two mind. Some hated the carbine, generally because they had shot someone on an ambush who kept coming at them. Others thought it was an almost ideal jungle weapon. Generally, they were the better shots.

As for the ballistics, yep, I think the two would be very similar, but the carbine has two issues. First, many of them reportedly won't feed soft points (thankfully I have never had that problem). Second, it would be hard to create a truly short-barreled weapon with the .30 carbine cartridge because it really needs at good part of that 18 inch barrel to get its velocity. My guess (and it is only a guess) is that a 9X 23 cartridge would get to full velocity with maybe an 8-10 inch barrel, which would be nice in a subgun.

So, while I love the M1--it has to be one of the quickest handling rifles ever made--I think the 9X23 might fill a slightly different role--if it ever was built which it won't be.

[John Hearne]

The flip side is that good shots (eg Audie Murphy. LTC John George and I presume your father) found it a very effective weapon, and also had enough training to keep shooting until someone went down and not just fire once, as you could generally (though not always) do with a 30-06.

A friend of mine was a acquainted with a very distinguished Korean war vet, possibly a MOH winner. His preferred long gun was the M1 carbine. When asked how it worked, he was reported to have just "Just fine." When asked why it worked so well for him, he responded that he "always shot them in the star" referring to the star on their head gear.

I'd also add that not much short of buck shot will stop someone in a full berserker rage. The 30/40 Kraig didn't do much better than the .38 against the Moros in the Philippines.

[DocGKR]

I am unaware of any scientific correlation between Clear Ballistics polymer and living tissue.

[Haraise]

Second, it would be hard to create a truly short-barreled weapon with the .30 carbine cartridge because it really needs at good part of that 18 inch barrel to get its velocity. My guess (and it is only a guess) is that a 9X 23 cartridge would get to full velocity with maybe an 8-10 inch barrel, which would be nice in a subgun.

Depends what you mean by 'full velocity.' Even normal 9x19 'needs' 14-15" of barrel to get the maximum FPS: http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html

Rather than looking for maximum FPS, I'd recommend looking at where the FPS has the 'knee' of the curve, that is to see when it stops rising so sharply. It's a subjective thing, as it's all about what you consider a good return to barrel length, but the 9x23 has been pushed up to =>1700 fps @ 125gr at just 5" of barrel. .30-30, being an older round, seems to usually have a slower burning powder for the bore to velocity ratio: http://ataleoftwothirties.com/?page_id=114

[Haraise]

Double.

[BLR]

I am unaware of any scientific correlation between Clear Ballistics polymer and living tissue.

Terminal ballistics and scientific correlation. Seems somewhat paradoxical to me.

[Jeep]

They're still holding up okay at 1511 fps:


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iujNWfhUx4A

And that's just a test of one. All it takes is a normal sized 1911/2011 (5 inch barrel) to get full velocity. Plenty of people here carry a G34/35, which is even longer.

I would have thought performance would have begun to degrade at 1500, which raises the question as to where it will degrade? Those are obviously tough bullets, though.

[Jeep]

Depends what you mean by 'full velocity.' Even normal 9x19 'needs' 14-15" of barrel to get the maximum FPS: http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html

Rather than looking for maximum FPS, I'd recommend looking at where the FPS has the 'knee' of the curve, that is to see when it stops rising so sharply. It's a subjective thing, as it's all about what you consider a good return to barrel length, but the 9x23 has been pushed up to =>1700 fps @ 125gr at just 5" of barrel. .30-30, being an older round, seems to usually have a slower burning powder for the bore to velocity ratio: http://ataleoftwothirties.com/?page_id=114

I think generally the older and revolver cartridges with slower burning powders tend to do better in longer bores, while the semi-automatic pistol cartridges don't get as much boost out of them. The .357 magnum is a good example of that. The 7.62X25--another interesting cartridge--might be an exception to that rule. I've seen some pretty unbelievable figures for the velocity out of a PPSh.

[Jeep]

A friend of mine was a acquainted with a very distinguished Korean war vet, possibly a MOH winner. His preferred long gun was the M1 carbine. When asked how it worked, he was reported to have just "Just fine." When asked why it worked so well for him, he responded that he "always shot them in the star" referring to the star on their head gear.

I'd also add that not much short of buck shot will stop someone in a full berserker rage. The 30/40 Kraig didn't do much better than the .38 against the Moros in the Philippines.

The 30-06 was not a guaranteed stopper--not even a .50 cal is--but it had a pretty good reputation for stopping Japanese soldiers in Banzai charges and Chinese in human wave attacks. But "shooting the star"--if one can do it since it isn't an easy shot at all--would seem to be a classic case of shot placement trumping everything else.

I'm not sure why the 30/40 Krag had problems. Part would be the round nose bullet but maybe the velocity was too low? I've never looked closely at the Krag and its issues.

[John Hearne]

I'm not sure why the 30/40 Krag had problems. Part would be the round nose bullet but maybe the velocity was too low? I've never looked closely at the Krag and its issues.

Shot placement. Doesn't matter what it is if it doesn't go in the right places.

The Moros tended to pre-tourniqet themselves so extremity hits didn't matter. If it wasn't high in the chest and along the midline, it wasn't going to matter much in the next ten seconds. Except buckshot, buckshot is a pretty good trump card.

[Drang]

...I'm wondering whether, now that the supply of mil-surp carbines has dried up, is Fulton Armory the only game in town?
AAMOF: MKS Supply Brings Back the M1 Carbine (http://www.ammoland.com/2014/10/mks-supply-brings-back-the-m1-carbine/#axzz3GBrgMKQL)

[JHC]

Shot placement. Doesn't matter what it is if it doesn't go in the right places.

The Moros tended to pre-tourniqet themselves so extremity hits didn't matter. If it wasn't high in the chest and along the midline, it wasn't going to matter much in the next ten seconds. Except buckshot, buckshot is a pretty good trump card.

And drugs. I've read some of the pre-tourniquet were on the privates to induce pain on top of the drugs. And while the .45 LC was drafted into service agin' them, some historians of such have argued it didn't make much of a difference either.

I suppose the Krag slug was a slow and stable penetrator.

[Chuck Haggard]

In Korea my dad had occasion to empty an M1 (Garand, not carbine) into a southbound Chinese soldier. He could tell the hits were in the torso due to the fluff from his quilted jacket shooting out his back when shot, but those hits took awhile to take effect.

Pat Rogers had occasion to double tap a NVA troop three times before dude stayed down. Pat was using an M14 that day.

Shit like that happens regularly.

[threedogdad]

AAMOF: MKS Supply Brings Back the M1 Carbine (http://www.ammoland.com/2014/10/mks-supply-brings-back-the-m1-carbine/#axzz3GBrgMKQL)


Thanks, Drang. Verrry interesting. Going to look into this further.

[Kevin B.]

In Korea my dad had occasion to empty an M1 (Garand, not carbine) into a southbound Chinese soldier. He could tell the hits were in the torso due to the fluff from his quilted jacket shooting out his back when shot, but those hits took awhile to take effect.

Pat Rogers had occasion to double tap a NVA troop three times before dude stayed down. Pat was using an M14 that day.

Shit like that happens regularly.

I think this kind of reality is missing in most discussions on "stopping power"/caliber debates.

[Jeep]

In Korea my dad had occasion to empty an M1 (Garand, not carbine) into a southbound Chinese soldier. He could tell the hits were in the torso due to the fluff from his quilted jacket shooting out his back when shot, but those hits took awhile to take effect.

Pat Rogers had occasion to double tap a NVA troop three times before dude stayed down. Pat was using an M14 that day.

Shit like that happens regularly.

Very true. I have heard stories of NVA taking .50 caliber hits and staying in the fight for at least a short time. It's all a statistics game and sometimes stuff will happen that is really a tail event on a bell shaped curve. The trouble with mass attacks (or one of the many problems with them) is that if you have only a 5% chance that an enemy soldier will take 3-4 30-06 rounds and keep coming, and they are attacking with a battalion, you are statistically likely to get several who aren't going down easily.

The problems with M1 carbines are also probably outlier events as well--just not as much so. Since all weapons are compromises between many factors, I suppose the real question is how many outlier events are you willing to put up with given the training you are willing to invest in?

[David Armstrong]

One of the guys I was with took a round from the Commie version of the .50 square in the chest. Lived long enough to cuss pretty good, empty one mag from his rifle and get a few rounds out of the new mag before he went down. Sure caused me to quite believing in magic bullets from that point on. FWIW my go-to long gun these days is an M1 carbine.

[Jeep]

One of the guys I was with took a round from the Commie version of the .50 square in the chest. Lived long enough to cuss pretty good, empty one mag from his rifle and get a few rounds out of the new mag before he went down. Sure caused me to quite believing in magic bullets from that point on. FWIW my go-to long gun these days is an M1 carbine.

Same here. I either have that (loaded with soft points) or an 870 (loaded with buckshot). My shoulder prefers when I practice with the M1 rather than the 870.

[Chuck Haggard]

A friend of my dad was shot down over Vietnam when his Cobra took multiple .50 or 12.7 AP rounds through the front of the bird, killing his gunner and taking the engine out. Two of these rounds also went through his abdomen. Years later he was still healthy enough to be on flight status in an Air Cav unit in Hanau Germany when I met him. He lost about six feet of intestines out of the deal, and had scars that were pretty impressive, but he had self extracted from the crash site and lived to fight another day.

[Jeep]

A friend of my dad was shot down over Vietnam when his Cobra took multiple .50 or 12.7 AP rounds through the front of the bird, killing his gunner and taking the engine out. Two of these rounds also went through his abdomen. Years later he was still healthy enough to be on flight status in an Air Cav unit in Hanau Germany when I met him. He lost about six feet of intestines out of the deal, and had scars that were pretty impressive, but he had self extracted from the crash site and lived to fight another day.

Those are the kind of guys I like having on our side.

[Beat Trash]

This topic has took some interesting twists and turns during 23 pages. My thoughts as I read through it:

Some people are determined to live, therefore they have the ability to continue to fight and be a threat even though they have mortal wounds. Some people just require "more killing" than others. It is what it is...

Suspects travel with associates more so than they used to. In my area it's not uncommon to have groups of 2-4 armed suspects robbing people. A 9mm with higher capacity and easier to shoot platform makes a lot of sense to me. I view ammunition like I view money. I'd rather have extra than come up short.

I have seen people shot with just about every caliber of pistol that a person can steal. The majority of our homicides are committed using FMJ rounds. It's the shot placement that seems to kill folks. I have seen rounds ride the skull bone and not penetrate. Ugly wound, but not enough to stop a determined aggressor.

Our original 9mm duty load was the Winchester 147 JHP. Sometimes it worked as it was supposed to. Sometimes it plugged up. We had one round of this ammo fired by an officer that started two weeks of full scale riots about 13 years ago. So it was hit or miss on performance with that loading. The new WW Ranger T 147 gr duty load hasn't plugged up so far for us during our OIS'. With that said, I wouldn't have an issue carrying a 124 +P GD if I had to.

I live in a part of the country where four legged threats are feral dogs and coyote. All of which can be handled by my 9mm choices. If I had to be legitimately concerned about becoming bear poop, then I would look into a big bore pistol. For this reason I feel that there is still a legitimate reason for big bore calibers, as the OP asked.

But for defense against two legged threats, I can make do with my 9mm Glock or M&P 9mm pistols. If someone feels better carrying their 45 acp, God Bless and more power to you. My adult kids have all been given a M&P9 and a Colt 6920 as they moved on with their life. I do not lose sleep wondering if they lack the tools to protect themselves.

I had a Grandfather who fought in N Africa and then in Europe during WWII. He saw the 30-06 fail to instantly stop those shot with just one round at times. But his Go-To gun in later years was an M1 carbine. He preached the importance of shot placement and good tactics. And in doing so before your opponent did the same to you.

I try to impart the same message to my kids, and those who ask my advice...

[The Fuzz]

My PD just switched to the 9mm. I was given the say of what load to go with and I chose the 124 grain +P Gold Dot. The issue was, it was on backorder and we needed ammo now. I then chose the 127 grain +P+ Ranger T. This load has a good street record and from the departments I talked to, they are all very happy with it. I use to carry a Glock 21 in 45 ACP and did so for seven years. One night I watched a car jacker get hit with a 230 grain Gold Dot out of a Glock 21 through the heart, both lungs, and liver. He ran 160 yards until another officer tagged him with another Glock 21 with the same load in the back and exited at the base of his neck. This guy had a very low BAC and a little THC in his blood. He was just running on adrenaline.

As time went on, I watched another guy get hit with a 180 grain Gold Dot for a 40 Cal Glock 22. He came at a officer with a knife and the officer fired at him. He was hit in the high right shoulder through and through front to back. The suspect turned and he was hit in the left arm twice. One punched into his chest cavity and got both lungs and the aorta. The other skidded along the back rib and exited. The suspect, a highly violent mental patient walked stiffed legged for a couple of yards and went down. I personally prefer the 357 Sig because it's like a 357 mag. I like that round a lot but because of the libaberals and Obama, my ammo source dried up and I had to find a new caliber. I switched to the 9mm and carried the 127 grain +P+ Ranger T until I did a lateral transfer. I hit a few dogs with a 45 and one with a 9mm, I didn't notice any difference in stopping the aggressive animals. I don't see a reason to carry a larger caliber anymore. You aren't getting any better performance out of it. I have seen to many departments who carry the 9mm having real good luck with the 9mm to ignore it. In fact I've noticed that most guys can't handle the larger caliber and can't hit very well with them. At my old PD, I found that guys bought the 45 to get around training and felt it was like a kids safety blanket. I don't care for that. When a monster crosses your path, putting your head under a safety blanket ain't going to save you. For those who like the 45 and can shoot it well, then roll with it. I can't afford to shoot it as much as needed and I can shoot a 9mm better.

[Chuck Haggard]

Welcome to PT Nick, good to see you here