"Why the .45 ACP Failed"

[Drifting Fate]

First, weight doesn't determine expansion, design and velocity to fit inside a given design envelope do.

Second, while 9mm & .45ACP (et al) are just about the same in the quantitative elements we can objectively measure, there is nothing to say we have the entire picture at this point in time. Yes, crush cavity and penetration are the only things we can say are consistent from target to target and which can be counted upon incident after incident, but no one has, or probably ever will be able to, quantify the affect bullets have on the nervous system, blood pressure, psyche, and God only knows what else. Before someone cries fowl, remember that the effects on the CNS are one of the primary incapacitating elements of bladed weapons (citation: some Ayoob article from 10-15 years ago). Face it, knives and arrows don't follow our blunt wounding theories. And, for the first person who responds that "a coroner can't tell a difference" between service cartridges, I would posit that it's not the coroner who is being shot nor who we are worried about. How bullets affect and are perceived by living, breathing human beings is the issue at hand.

Man is not a game animal, but cross references aren't entirely moot, either. Hunters poke a lot of holes in a lot of meat every year, a whole lot more than lab rats and self-defense minded individuals do. Following our "all cartridges are the same" model, why not use .357mag on dangerous game instead of the heavy .44's and .45's? OK, it's been done, but what are the majority choices? The mid-bore is easier to pack, has less recoil, can chamber more rounds in a given envelope, all the same arguments apply, but I know if I were facing off with an upset boar or cornered cougar on a dark Texas night, I'd rather be packing a .44 magnum than any of my beloved .357 magnums. The big, heavier bullets just typically work better. Not always, but typically.

Now, don't get me wrong. I respect the 9mm. All of my current defensive needs are met by 9mm or .38spc because they are adequate. I don't mean that as a backhanded compliment. They work. They work, cost less to feed, are typically chambered in very reliable platforms with many different options to tailor them to just about anyone's particular needs, and carry more rounds even in a single stack. I keep cases of 9mm on hand. I like it so much that when it came time to get back into the 1911 world, I commissioned Nighthawk to build a pistol to my specifications - in 9mm. (For the record, they knocked it out of the ballpark.)

The move to 9mm makes sense and is well-reasoned. But, it's not, or shouldn't be, "because they all work the same."

Higher velocity mid-bores or wide and heavy large bores just do more work - in general, given. How else are we to look at it? Not every time, but often enough as to be noticed over decades of use by men harder than we, and even into the "modern design" era. There is no free lunch. Lower recoil comes with less damage. It just does. There's no reason to make excuses for choosing 9mm by running down the competition.

It's good we have people analyzing things scientifically, but science is not an end unto itself. It's meant to be an exploratory process with ever increasing boundaries. Just because we have things good now with defensive ammo choices in no way means we know all there is to know, and it doesn't mean we have to leave reason by the door as if it's a red headed step child.

Remember, history is not over. We don't know everything there is to know. Use some common sense. Bullets going into human flesh don't operate differently than bullets going into animal flesh (sigh, yes, in general). Be secure in your choice. If you have to make excuses, me thinks thou dost protest too much.

[BehindBlueI's]

The move to 9mm makes sense and is well-reasoned. But, it's not, or shouldn't be, "because they all work the same."

Why have police departments that have switched calibers seen no difference in outcomes of large numbers of officer involved shootings? Note there were times in history when this was *not* the case and larger calibers did equate to generally better results. In recent times, though? Everyone is showing same-same. That's the real world telling you that they do work the same.

[Hunter Rose]

The only thing I don't understand is what seems to be a recent shift to folks seeming to argue that there is ZERO difference between 9mm and 45 Auto in terminal performance. It used to be the sentiment that there was still a slight edge to 45 Auto, but that because 9mm now performed much better than before, that the other 9mm qualities of lower recoil, more capacity, cheaper for more training were what made 9mm way more attractive. This seems logical to me.

However, I missed the point where 9mm performs exactly the same as 45 Auto. On another forum recently someone was even arguing that the technology improvements in modern 9mm HPs did nothing to improve modern 45 Auto performance. This is when my cognitive dissonance kicks in.

Doc's sticky says .45 is good at making big holes and is often better after barriers, his testing shows 45 HST expands larger than 9mm HST while penetrating the same, SMEs have stated 45 will break a large bone like a femur better. Hell, when I recently asked on the difference between 45 HST standard and +P HST Doc stated there was a slight but measurable increase in terminal performance of the +P load. If the +P 45 HST is slightly better than the standard load, how is not slightly better than the 9mm HST?

Anyway, that's where my logic gets me. That calling modern 9mm identical to modern 45 Auto is a slight bridge too far. I think the previous sentiment that there is a slight advantage to 45, but because modern 9mm attained an effective enough level of performance that all the other positive attributes of 9mm trumped the slight terminal performance increase of 45 Auto, makes more logical sense to me.

[paherne]

Look, back in the 1990's we knew that a 38 Spl 158 grain LSWCHP+p did a pretty good job at stopping bad guys if placed in the upper chest area. Similarly, the Olin Super Match 147 grain JHP out of a 9mm did about as good if the intended target was not wearing heavy clothing, nor sitting in a vehicle surrounded by laminated glass and sheet steel. If we could achieve those results on targets wearing heavy clothing or behind intermediate barriers, IMO we never would have seen the PDs switch to 40 and 45 caliber pistols. 8-9 years ago, bullet technology advanced and we got rounds like HST and Gold Dot, etc. that allowed the 9mm to perform as well through barriers and heavy clothing in regards to penetration and jacket retention as larger calibers. Not in recovered diameter, of course, but close enough that it didn't make a nickel's worth of difference. That 15" of penetration with expanded diameter about .50" seems to be the trick or floor for acceptable ballistic performance on real live humans. Can a 45 do better than that? Sure. Does it matter? Probably not if both bullets are in the upper chest at midline on the torso.

The caliber wars is an over-played, over-hyped gunwriter's wet dream to sell ads, clicks and magazines. With the availability of modern LE hollowpoints, shot placement is far and away more important that caliber as long as it meets that bottom threshold of about 35 caliber, around 150 grains and about 1000 fps.

[HCM]

Here’s my take:

Romantic notions aside old handguns actually suck to shoot /hit with. Even more so with standard “service” style grips. With the exception of adjustable sight S&Ws they all have shitty sights, shitty triggers or both.

Shot Placement is king, especially with handgun calibers and most people suck with handguns.

Despite shitty sights, the 1911s trigger characteristics, including lighter weight, short travel and the fact it moves in a track, minimizing the lateral movement common to pivoting triggers all contributed to better Shot Placement with 1911s. That improved Shot Placement resulting from better “human factors” of the 1911 is what really made the 45acp’s reputation as a “man stopper” rather than its terminal performance.

The Colt SAA’s being argued about also have better “human factors” than their DA contemporaries. Easier gun to shoot well = better shot Placement.

[JRB]

...I know a Vietnam era SEAL who swore he'd never carry a 9mm for serious use. I also know an Army CID agent who told me, straight faced and dead serious, that the muzzle blast from a 45 could knock a threat down; and a "hit in the big toe will tear their leg off."...

I can tell you that I don't have much confidence in M882 ball 9mm as we're issued for our M9's. But an M9 that's been gone-through by someone with a modicum of knowing what the hell is going on with a Beretta (e.g. one out of maybe 100 armament repairers, and maybe one in every 10,000 arms room nannies) you can get it sorted out and shoot it well enough, hopefully, to achieve shot placement stops which are basically required of any handgun round anyway.

As for the Army CID - my interactions with CID agents in discussions of weapons, particularly on M9 ranges, are even worse than hoplophobic civilian LE. In my experience, Army CID agents are the population most afflicted by Dunning-Krueger on small arms knowledge and it is BAD.
What you encountered with that talk of .45 is consistent with the ignorance typically displayed by CID, MP's, and generally the Army as a whole when it comes to handguns and handgun use. It's depressing, to say the least. I'm still a rank newb with a handgun compared to P-F's standard, but I can keep the first DA round from an M9 in a group with the other four shots in a Bill Drill, and I have watched jaws *drop* at M9 ranges when I demonstrate it.

It's counterintuitive but the Army as a whole are not shooters. A solid 50% of Soldiers genuinely struggle and show ineptitude with basic rifle handling on their assigned M4's or M16's. It's depressing.

Well, you have proved that it is a third hand anecdote- "repeatedly been reported". Did he see it himself, or did someone just tell him?...
...Having shot a fair amount of .45 acp through a S&W 1917, I can attest that the recoil isn't all that strong.

I currently work in a 2-star command. Generals do not *experience* anything but briefings from their subordinates, who are all tasked with collecting and sorting out a succinct conclusion from as much data as they can. Generals typically make decisions based on the logical conclusions from that data.

In a recent green-on-blue attack in Afghanistan, when one General was wounded and another drew his weapon, that was a BIG DEAL. It led to the SCW request and the fact that a General was wounded and another General drew his sidearm were profoundly significant in this idea getting any traction.
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....ct-Weapon-SCW)

[Drifting Fate]

Why have police departments that have switched calibers seen no difference in outcomes of large numbers of officer involved shootings? Note there were times in history when this was *not* the case and larger calibers did equate to generally better results. In recent times, though? Everyone is showing same-same. That's the real world telling you that they do work the same.

A fair question, but not as clear cut as we might think upon first blush. First off, I'm not sure the "same-same" is true, but let's go with that it is.

We can all agree that shot placement is critical. A spot-on heart or CNS hit which penetrates with any modicum of velocity by far trumps any other factor.

But, in asking your question, you've skewed the underlying question from "what causes the most damage per trigger pull" to "what gun/caliber package produces better stops"? The answer probably lies in one word: training. Just about every significant transition in platform or caliber will see an uptick in performance, be that stops on the street or qualification scores. Why? Because at the very least refresher training has occurred and that gets the typically uninterested-in-guns cops back to the range and working on the fundamentals. Also, the day of Marshall and Sanow has passed, if was ever truly here. In a "shoot them to the ground" mindset, how do we draw parallels between someone hit five times with a .45 and someone hit eight times with a 9mm? We simply can't. Here's something to chew on: if an expected uptick in street stops isn't there, why? Are we seeing a less damaging wound being made up for in other ways such as number of hit and shot placement? Something to ponder at least.

While most enthusiasts have no more difficulty hitting with a .45 than a 9mm, that's not the case for most people. One of the big selling points I keep hearing about the 9mm is that, "it's easier to hit with." If that's the case, by all means, take the advantage, but that doesn't mean 9mm is doing as much work as a more powerful cartridge that one can't hit with.

Also, we need a sample population large enough where everything else has remained the same - does that even exist with so many other changes being made at once? 1) It could be one department in which different calibers are authorized, or 2) one where there is a large data set of shootings with the previous, larger caliber and enough years to collect data on the new smaller cartridge, or 3) even two departments working the same area where the only difference is in the cartridge issued. The first scenario, in my experience, favors the harder hitting calibers. Those in the LAPD who tend to get into the most shootings favor the larger caliber. Culture or street cred, it's what they do (thinking SWAT & SIS). The second, I don't know that we've seen enough changes to enough large departments to know. Military spec ops guys are their own thing and we're never going to get enough information out of those dark recesses to know about how different calibers have performed in the real world, at least I won't. Maybe the FBI shift will give us a large before and after data set, but it's far too soon. While not "bigger to smaller," the TX DPS shift from .357 Sig to 9mm will be an interesting one to watch. An example of what I mean in scenario 3) is there was a time when LAPD and LACSO both carried 9mm but in different bullet weights. The 115grn LAPD load generally trounced the Sheriff's 147grn offering in the real world. Times change. What was once a poor choice in weight now does quite well. Problem is, that's not the comparison we are looking for.

So, the "why the same-same after a transition" isn't the real world telling us nearly as much about wounding as it does about the human factor - shot placement, training works, and so does the greater emphasis on shooting them to the ground. Modern 9mm has shrunk the performance gap because that is where the greatest gains were to be made, but it's didn't close the gap, which I believe was the point of the OP. Is this splitting hairs? Maybe, but I think not for those interested in such things. Ballistics has been, and will always be, a good part voodoo.

[Ed L]

I'm sure Marshall and Sanow are good guys, but collecting anecdotes isn't science, nor is asking your experienced street cop buddy what he thinks.

Marshall and Sanow were proved to have fabricated data and used an invalid model.

First many of the agencies who Marshall and Sanow claimed to have gotten their data from have come forward and stated that they either did not provide Marshall and Sanow with any information on shootings, or the information that they did provide them was grossly distorted by Marshall and Sanow.

Also, the biggest problem with the Marshall and Sanow's so called one-shot stop statistics is that by their own admission they excluded EVERY situation where one or more rounds were fired and a person was not stopped which required that more rounds be fired.

They created a formula that claimed to calculate one-shot stops but is grossly flawed because it deliberately excludes the most common one-shot failures--all situations where one shot is fired and it fails to stop someone so additional shots need to be fired.

Their one shot stop numbers are meaningless because they do not factor situations when one shot was not enough to stop someone and more shots had to be fired.

Successes are meaningless unless you factor in failures. And Marshall & Sanow's numbers do not factor in a major number of failures, therefore they have no meaning.

[JHC]

Well, you have proved that it is a third hand anecdote- "repeatedly been reported". Did he see it himself, or did someone just tell him?

As the saying goes, anecdote =/= data. There's a lot we don't know:
-How many actual shots were made with the .38 vs the .45?
-What kind of shot placement are we looking at?
-Is selection bias at work here- just how scientific is this finding, anyway?

For one, it has been proved that no handgun caliber is actually able to physically knock a man down- the physics just ain't there.
You may get a psychological stop, but actually throwing someone down can't happen unless it also throws the person with the gun back. That's simple action/ reaction.
Having shot a fair amount of .45 acp through a S&W 1917, I can attest that the recoil isn't all that strong.

My thoughts about that .45 vs Moro's legend must credit @HCM for turning this light on. He observed about a spectacularly dramatic fast knock down of an armed robber in a security cam vid of a gunshop robbery (attempted) where the elder gunshop man drew a 1911 and straight up DECKED that mutherFKR with the first shot. HCM's adroit comment was that perhaps the legend of the .45 grew partly from the centerline hits users were able to deliver with it.

Segue to the Moro uprising - I understand that a good many Colt SAA's were pressed into service. I can easily imagine the troops weaned on them making better centered hits straight away vs cranking away double action with the .38s.


@HCM - I posted before spotting you making the same point. Oops. Meh, it's a point worth making twice maybe.

[JHC]

Yeah he made that point in the P&S Snubby Podcast I listened to past weekend.

I’m thinking of designing a shooting target with like 4” circles or something like that to practice on. Or maybe just the black on a B8 bull. And then shoot drills where a miss is a fail.

I don't know all the history behind so many SOCOM shooters' attraction to the B8. IDK if it's about the scoring and measures over time or the coincidental size of it. But it sure figures prominently in a lot of places. I have used a vertically oriented 4x6 card for a lower A zone a lot too.