"Why the .45 ACP Failed"

[Baldanders]

I imagine it would be weighed the same as a suspect with a firearm...you don't shoot at the weapon, you shoot at the suspect.

I was in an OIS a little over a year ago involving a suspect in a vehicle. Our policy also prohibited shooting at vehicles merely to stop them.

During my I/A interview they asked "Why did you shoot at the vehicle?"

"I didn't...I shot at the driver, who was the threat and using his vehicle as a weapon." No policy violation.

I wish I could figure out a way to present this in my classes as an example of why good language skills are very important.

But many of my students get all bugged out when I merely mention that I talk to many LE AND former LE online on a regular basis.

A+, sir.

[jd950]

I imagine it would be weighed the same as a suspect with a firearm...you don't shoot at the weapon, you shoot at the suspect.

I was in an OIS a little over a year ago involving a suspect in a vehicle. Our policy also prohibited shooting at vehicles merely to stop them.

During my I/A interview they asked "Why did you shoot at the vehicle?"

"I didn't...I shot at the driver, who was the threat and using his vehicle as a weapon." No policy violation.

My only knowledge of bullet deflection after hitting glass is what I have read. I do know based on first-hand experience that I have not been impressed by the performance of 124 +P gold dots on bad guys after going through auto bodies and auto glass. I am inclined to think that is a 124gr problem more than a Gold Dot problem, but that is an assumption, and is only based on maybe 3-4 situations. Perhaps they were anomalies.

The "modern trend" at least in my part of the world is no shooting at a moving car (or the occupants of said car), if the only weapon/threat is the car itself. Of course if the occupants appear to be grabbing for a gun, well….

Your response to the question would not help in at least a couple of departments in my area. I am glad that worked out for you.

Please note that I am just reporting on local polices on shooting at/into vehicles, not expressing any personal opinions.

[GardoneVT]

Determining the effectiveness of a specific caliber first requires an analytically impossible task ; isolating the effect of caliber independent of user skill. Good luck with that. Without isolating user skill there’s no way to know if the .45 Auto fight ending hit can be compared to the 9mm fight ending hit. Did the 45 round hit because of skill and the 9mm because of luck?

There’s a lot of data you need to isolate before getting to the same zip code as a conclusive determination. For obvious reasons pointed out upthread, a controlled study is impossible. In addition, finding a dataset of exactly skilled (not trained!) people with .45s to shoot at another equally skilled set of shooters armed with 9mm pistols is neither ethical or likely.

We are thus left with the unsatisfactory alternative that is opinion and guesswork.

[Galbraith]

Determining the effectiveness of a specific caliber first requires an analytically impossible task ; isolating the effect of caliber independent of user skill. Good luck with that. Without isolating user skill there’s no way to know if the .45 Auto fight ending hit can be compared to the 9mm fight ending hit. Did the 45 round hit because of skill and the 9mm because of luck?

There’s a lot of data you need to isolate before getting to the same zip code as a conclusive determination. For obvious reasons pointed out upthread, a controlled study is impossible. In addition, finding a dataset of exactly skilled (not trained!) people with .45s to shoot at another equally skilled set of shooters armed with 9mm pistols is neither ethical or likely.

We are thus left with the unsatisfactory alternative that is opinion and guesswork.

I agree with many of your points. We can measure the physical trauma inflicted by a projectile post-mortem, or maybe a brief observation in surgery. If their are no physical signs post-mortem or in surgery, then any additional effects are theoretical and very likely, not reliably repeatable for study.

[Balisong]

Galbraith, and everyone else in here, thank you for sharing your real world experiences and testing, especially in regards to performance against vehicles/autoglass.

[maximus83]

New here at PF, but followed Doc's research the last decade. Doc, thanks again, appreciated your willingness to share your work on public forums. Learned most of what (little) I know about service calibers, ammunition choices, and terminal ballistics, from your research. Reading this thread was super informative, hadn't thought about the service caliber debates for a while. The vast experiences of other folks with shootings or real world data in this thread that that tend to confirm Doc's findings, are really valuable.

For a long time, I've run mostly 9mm due to Doc's findings. But always kept a few .45's around, because I clung to this unproven premise that somehow--assuming good shot placement and same type of bullet--that big beautiful .45 bullet just *has* to be more effective, right?

Problem is, it's hard to make decisions based on unknowns. Seems the data we have mostly suggests either parity, or that .45 has a small but measurable advantage in a few situations already discussed, like after penetration of auto glass. Does that small advantage really overcome the many other advantages of 9mm?

For me: no. I've gone 100% 9mm in carry guns. I keep .45 around for one reason: it runs well in 1911's. Even there, makers like WC, C&S, DW, others, have debugged the 9mm 1911 to the point it's reliable and viable. If starting today, I probably wouldn't get a .45 anything, even a 1911.

All the service calibers work adequately:

Attachment 42211

Use the one you want.

However, at this time 9 mm offers several advantages. In the last decade or so, ammo engineers have produced a superb generation of 9 mm projectiles that offer penetration in the ideal range and that are capable of good performance after common intermediate barriers. As many agencies are discovering, when looked at in aggregate, modern robust expanding, barrier blind 9 mm ammunition is performing on par with larger caliber handgun loads. As an added benefit, 9 mm offers substantial fiscal and training benefits. In test after test, most officers demonstrate a higher qualification score when shooting 9 mm compared to other common service calibers. Smaller statured officers and those with small hands tend to shoot better with 9 mm. Service pistols tend to be more durable in 9 mm than those in .357 Sig and .40 S&W. In a time of fiscal austerity, 9 mm ammunition is certainly less expensive. For most LE duties, there are a lot of advantages in carrying a 9 mm: easy to shoot--especially one handed, relatively inexpensive to practice with, lots of bullets immediately on tap. (When I injured my strong hand a few years ago and lost its use for several months, I found out how much more effective I was using a G19 weak handed compared to a .45 Auto 1911). In addition, 9 mm tends to be easier on the body (hands, wrists, elbows, etc...) than larger calibers during high volume practice sessions.

[JAH 3rd]

Determining the effectiveness of a specific caliber first requires an analytically impossible task ; isolating the effect of caliber independent of user skill. Good luck with that. Without isolating user skill there’s no way to know if the .45 Auto fight ending hit can be compared to the 9mm fight ending hit. Did the 45 round hit because of skill and the 9mm because of luck?

There’s a lot of data you need to isolate before getting to the same zip code as a conclusive determination. For obvious reasons pointed out upthread, a controlled study is impossible. In addition, finding a dataset of exactly skilled (not trained!) people with .45s to shoot at another equally skilled set of shooters armed with 9mm pistols is neither ethical or likely.

We are thus left with the unsatisfactory alternative that is opinion and guesswork.

Couldn't agree more. Many variables that could be either a positive or negative, depending on the situation the bullet finds itself confronted with. Look at the FBI and the handguns and calibers they have used over the years. I guess as new products come out (firearms and ammo), the search will continue. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

[Redhat]

Post shooting medical examination can show how much damage was done but that's after the incident. I'm much more interested in the effect on target at the moment of the incident. Am I wrong here?...is that info even reliably available?

Thanks

[JAH 3rd]

When one makes a decision to shoot a 2-legged or 4-legged creature, you want the threat incapacitated as quickly as possible. Incapacitation of that creature means quickly stopping the aggression toward you or another person. It may take multiple rounds to stop the threat. You shoot to stop the threat, not kill. Obviously with firearms, serious injury or death can occur. But you are shooting to stop the threat. Your "intent" is to stop the threat.

[Galbraith]

I'm much more interested in the effect on target at the moment of the incident. Am I wrong here?...is that info even reliably available?

Thanks

Scientifically, you can only examine the physically observed damage afterward and then draw conclusions about how this would have effected the person/animal after the observed damage was inflicted. Characteristics such as temporary cavity stretch that can be observed in ballistic gel are not observed in soft tissue post-morten/surgery unless it comes from a high powered rifle. Any additional incapacitating effects that occur outside of observed physical damage cannot be reliably measured through a repeatable scientific process.