Why use a .45?

Boats

June 30, 2005, 09:55 AM

I like the 9mm just fine, but I prefer my .3x round to be the .357 Magnum, which has been indisputably getting the job done since its introduction.

I have 1911s too, but to me they're more about love of platform than love of caliber. I am not depending on any handgun round to stop someone with just one solid hit. I have personally had deer run away after being lung shot by a .30-30 from less than 50 yards where the bullet didn't even exit the far side hide of the target. Even at fifty yards, that round is still carrying more energy at that distance than most handguns will ever produce. Why on earth would I think any pistol is just going to unerringly drop my target?

In my view, 9mm, .40S&W, 10mm, .357 Mag, and .45ACP are all so close in terminal performance any more that one is really in a game of diminishing returns looking for the best loading amongst them. Again, for me, it all comes down to what am I shooting the round from, not what round I am shooting.

So to answer the question, a good reason to not use 9mm is that the 1911s that come in that caliber are generally low capacity ones, unless one considers a P-O widebody to be a proper 1911-style pistol, (with its fat grip, I think the P-O sacrifices the flatness of the 1911 for a dubious increase in magazine capacity.)

Rinspeed

June 30, 2005, 02:33 PM

From the info I've gathered from reading threads on THR and TFL, I've come to the conlusion that the 9mm is the bullet to end all bullets.

It is if you're a girl :)

Trisha

June 30, 2005, 02:58 PM

Why a .45acp with heavy Gold Dot bullets pushed to perform?

http://image24.webshots.com/25/7/53/57/276275357GPsIDi_ph.jpg

I dunno - it could be a blonde/lesbian/nonconformist thing. . .

:neener:

dodging230grainers

June 30, 2005, 03:00 PM

From the info I've gathered from reading threads on THR and TFL, I've come to the conlusion that the 9mm is the bullet to end all bullets.

/Sarcasm :D

LeonCarr

June 30, 2005, 03:13 PM

Ok...the 9mm is not superior to everything, but there are choices a whole lot worse.

I carry a 9mm, loaded with Winchester Ranger 127 grain +P+ :). IMO the best combination of magazine capacity and performance.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

Standing Wolf

June 30, 2005, 03:39 PM

As well as I've ever been able to discern, the .45 A.C.P. is for bullseye shooters and those who can't figure out what to do with magnum cartridges in revolvers.

It's not a bad bullseye round, loaded properly.

bbgun

June 30, 2005, 03:53 PM

when a 223 has 1000 ft lbs, and everyone knows that a 223 sp just bounces off of all the tough guys here. :-) I'd like ONE shot at such bozos, with a .223, and then I'd stand there and let them shoot back all they COULD.

chaim

June 30, 2005, 04:24 PM

I like the 9mm just fine...

I have 1911s too, but to me they're more about love of platform than love of caliber....

In my view, 9mm, .40S&W, 10mm, .357 Mag, and .45ACP are all so close in terminal performance any more that one is really in a game of diminishing returns looking for the best loading amongst them. Again, for me, it all comes down to what am I shooting the round from, not what round I am shooting.

+1

It is about platform, not caliber. In the proper self-defense loadings any of the big 3 auto calibers (9mm, .40S&W and .45ACP) plus some of the less common ones (.357SIG, .45GAP, 10mm) will do the job just fine. The only real advantage of .40 or .45 is that they start out bigger so you don't have to be quite as careful when selecting the ammo you will go with. The real world performance of the 3 is so close as to not really be much different. As for the added capacity of the 9mm, few "civilian" or even police shootings need more than 3 shots so I'm not sure that is really worth considering (plus, don't you have either reloads or a backup gun with you). So go with platform first. If you have a real psychological block against a smaller bullet, or if you feel you must have capacity, then by all means go with the .45 for the former or 9mm for the latter, but don't denigrate my choices (I do have self defense guns in all three BTW) because of your hangups.

hillbilly

June 30, 2005, 04:36 PM

Uh, not quite......

The 9mm IS the be-all, end-all, ultimate killer of everthing bullet.......but ONLY when fired from a gun held by a NINJA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hillbilly

bbgun

June 30, 2005, 04:38 PM

A pathetic 250 ft lb 147b gr 9mm is a long, long ways from being as effective as an 850 ft lb Double Tap 135 gr at 1700 fps in a 10mm, dude. Such can be proven rather readily, on animals. A 96 gr, 1850 fps origninal Glaser 9mm, however, would be right up there with a 200 gr, 1100 fps 10mm jhp, assuming that a way was found to make the 9mm have 8-10" of penetration. I've found a way to do that.

hillbilly

June 30, 2005, 04:45 PM

bbgun wrote:

"A 96 gr, 1850 fps origninal Glaser 9mm, however, would be right up there with a 200 gr, 1100 fps 10mm jhp, assuming that a way was found to make the 9mm have 8-10" of penetration. I've found a way to do that."

This claim of bbgun's combined with his other charming posts thus far in various other threads tells me something immediately.............

Looks like we done got ourselves anuther one of them Ninjas riiiiiight here.......

Like I said. The 9mm IS the ultimate killer-cool everything bullet ONLY when fired by a (hiiiiiiiiiiiiii-yah!) NINJA!!!!!!!

Especially if the Ninja is at the mall, and wearing ballistic trauma plates duct-taped to his back in case he takes .308 rounds from an unseen sniper to his rear........

;)

hillbilly

mainmech48

June 30, 2005, 05:14 PM

I regularly carry sidearms of both calibers as primary SD. In the warmest months, I feel confident that my Star M-43 and its 124 gr. Gold Dots will suffice quite well if I deliver them to the proper point(s). As has been said, my confidence is mostly due to the platform which happens to be exactly similar to my GM, just a great deal smaller. It has proved to be 100% reliable in function over several hundreds of those rounds and puts them exactly where I point 'em to 25 yds and somewhat beyond.

I do however have to admit that except when my clothing options demand the most compact package for optimum concealment and discretion, either my Para C7.45 or my Springfield Champion will be there, both .45 ACPs. It may mostly be due to my Incipient Geezerhood, but my faith that a big, fat hole is better than a little one for letting the air out a BG's balloon remains pretty much unshaken.

Heck, if .50 GI guns and ammo weren't so expensive and hard to come by I might even try one of those. Same size platform and even bigger holes.

bakert

June 30, 2005, 05:16 PM

If your shots hit a BG's ass, elbow, hand, foot or the wall behind him, caliber don't make that much difference. :D

cookekdjr

June 30, 2005, 05:25 PM

If your shots hit a BG's ass, elbow, hand, foot or the wall behind him, caliber don't make that much difference.
Wrong. I've had a number of cases where the .357 round in the ass broke a victim's leg, severed majored arteries, and the victim collapsed and bled to death in just a few minutes. I've heard of similar cases involving legs and arms when I talked with co-workers. .45's have similar results.
The reason to use a .45 is that it offers relatively low recoil when compared to its level of performance (penetrates deeply, breaks bones, and makes big holes). A 1911 or Sig p220 is easy to shoot well, but the performance is devesating. And that's using cheap ball ammo.
EMT's rule of thumb: The guys shot by 9mm's usually live. The guys shot by .40's and .45's usually die.
Good enough for me.
-David

Dr.Rob

June 30, 2005, 05:39 PM

My Colt Government Model with eight rounds wieghs about the same as my FEG Hi-Power clone with 15. That's more chances to put high quality hollowpoints on target where they belong.

Both are good. I just shoot the 9 better.

Now my OTHER .45 is a New Service Colt... and I shoot that VERY well... hard to conceal, don't fit in the little IDPA box... can be used as a blackjack. No issues of feeding big hollowpoints, can load heap big 255 grain .45 Colt bullets into ACP cases if ya want... only holds six. Weighs a LOT more than either of the above.

dodging230grainers

June 30, 2005, 05:45 PM

Marshall

June 30, 2005, 07:08 PM

Why not the .40 S&W? Seems like a good defense cartridge to me. Or the .357 Sig?

bakert

June 30, 2005, 09:45 PM

cookekdjr, seriously when the State police in Ky were using the model 66 .357 magnum some years ago, the stopping percentages they had even with extremity hits were some of the highest anywhere. That's when they were using the 125 gr JHPs.

CZF

June 30, 2005, 10:05 PM

Over the years i've carried both calibers, as well as .357 Magnum.
Forced to carry a NINE I never felt comfortable with the issued 147 gr ammo.
I've seen people shot with a 9mm and also a .45, the BGs with .45 holes in them were instant stops. Those with 9mm tok one or two hits..sometimes more. Spray and pray mentality was rampant among my agency when saddled with the much hated Nine.

I don't have much contact with American cops, but still have ties to S.African
officers. I was told that a special unit went to Glock .40s due to 9mm terminal
performance. Also know that those guys still stuck with PMP ball ammo tend to place bullets precisley and usually emerge the victor, but those with the sense to carry hollow-point ammo or the approved Sentry load do much better.

Still, given the choice..they would like to carry CZ or Glock .45s! Oddly, only Cor-Bon and Winchester Ranger are seen there for American made HPs. The 127 gr +P+ load is not restricted. Gold-Dots are cruelly expensive and not as well known/trusted as CB and WIN.

The war stories about the stopping power of the vaunted .45 ACp are many.
Actual incidents where the 9mm failed to stop are also numerous. Many cases
tell of where the officer(s) involved soon changed calibers!

Ammo companies have improved the technology of the NINE in recent years, but the .45 ACP (and even GAP) have benefited also.

I've always wondered how the S&W and Beretta .45s on the LAPD have fared in actual shootings? Word is that the Glock .45 is the most popular new gun for them.

Power, accuracy and reliability,, and ease of reloading..
I used to love the CZ75 until they made me a .45:)

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/897801/ham.JPG

Sunray

June 30, 2005, 10:14 PM

"...when it full expands..." If it expands. There's no guarantee that it will. Mind you, no handgun round will expand 100% of the time.

HSMITH

June 30, 2005, 11:21 PM

I wouldn't feel unprotected with a 9mm and I own a couple, but if I think bad things are going to happen I grab a 45 acp first and a 40 second, my 9's are the last to come out. Should a bullet fail to expand the 45 is nearly what quality 9mm does when it DOES expand, I like that. I have also shot animals with 9mm and 45 using good bullets, the difference is disctinct and the 45 clearly superior. 357 magnum with a good bullet outclasses the 45 acp on animals without a doubt, and I have some of them laying around here too. My only problem, and this coming from a revolver guy, is the cylinder of a revolver makes them harder to conceal for daily carry. For open carry or field carry a 357 magnum is a great choice.

My 357 holds 6 shots, my 45 holds 15, my 40 holds 16, and my 9mm holds 18. I am sticking with my 45.

Too Many Choices!?

July 1, 2005, 12:29 AM

They(the big three 9mm, .40S&W, and .45 ACP) are very close now'days. I agree with all the guys that say it depends on the platform the round is coming out of. If I can't have a long enough barrel to get some good velocity(for penetration) why use the 9mm? Like when I carry concealed(IWB), shorter is better, but detrimental to velocity(penetration). In this case, I choose .45 ACP, not because bigger is always better, but because it is less dependant on velocity for it's intended effect. This is the reason I will NEVER, EVER, get a 9mm pistol with a short barrel, you just took away the one thing you had going for it, speed. Now I also carry/use .40 S&W, shot out of the Glock 23(the mid-sized, OWB carry I can have a longer barrel). Since the barrel was going to be less than a full-sized, I wanted a little more ,"Oomph!!",behind each round when it hits. Which caused me to bypass 9mm, and head straight to the .40S&W! .40 S&W happens to be the best caliber for mid-sized hand guns,IMHO, due to its balance of this. The smaller the gun(shorter the barrel), the bigger the hole I want at the end of it; since a round with no velocity only has one thing going for it, it's size :uhoh: ...

*warning* Slight Side-track to my soap box *warning*

This is also why my AR pistol has a 10 1/2" barrel instead of the really cool 7 1/2" barrel that is so popular. With itty bitty bullets, velocity is your friend. If I had to take a weapon with that short of a barrel, I would want it to be a Krinkov type pistol(AK pistol),because, like I said above, once you take away the velocity from a bullet, all that is left is the diameter of the hole it will punch :uhoh: !

I now return you to your regularly scheduled caliber battle goofines... I mean goodness lol... :evil:

bad LT

July 1, 2005, 12:42 AM

I have seen small deer (100-130 pound) hit with a 12 gauge shotgun slug in the heart run a hundred yards before dying. What handgun caliber compares to a 12 gauge slug?

I will practice more Mozambique drills as I have no confidence in the stopping power of any handheld weapon.

Russ

July 1, 2005, 02:27 AM

I was watching the idiot bix the other night as I do every night. They were going through revolvers over the years. They came to a Brittish revolver in .450 that was said to be more effective in putting down unruly would Brittish subjects. In other words, the natives were less likely to get up after being hit by a .45 as opposed to the .38's they had at the time. More mass, larger hole, more blood loss. They adopted the .45 for a reason back then. Now the 9mm with the increased firepower in terms of rounds is probably about the same. Shoot them 3 times instead of once. Same difference.

Joey101

July 1, 2005, 03:27 AM

I guess the reason I don't like the 9mm is because it's just too small. I feel much better about .45 then a 9mm. Bigger hole, larger surface area to strike a object, and yes more blood loss.

Plainly put a .45 hit center mass on a person will most likely kill them. Unless of course they are protected by something. Can anyone say that about a 9mm. I can see a 9mm killing a person if he were say shot in the head or any of the vitals. But your chances are slimer. And if members of my cities SWAT Team can't keep a person down with a 9mm then what are my chances? Not good. I have a much better chance of survival with a .45.

Gabe

July 1, 2005, 04:27 AM

I remember that cop video where the perp was shot with a 45 to the stomach and proceeded to punch and wrestle the cop for several minutes. I'm convinced good 9mm today are only marginally inferior to the best 45 as to be insignificant. No I'm not interested in "war stories" regarding non-expanding bullets, irrelevant.

45acp is a fine cartrige and I certainly wouldn't feel under armed with it. But it's just a pistol round, which means it cannot be trusted.

earthworm

July 1, 2005, 04:50 AM

I forgot who said but one answer was,"Because noone makes a .50!"

Dave R

July 1, 2005, 11:12 AM

I dunno - it could be a blonde/lesbian/nonconformist thing. . . I don't think so. I think its more of a "common sense" thing. I'm a gray/heterosexual/traditional family guy and agree with your choice completely.

onerifle

July 1, 2005, 11:17 AM

I forgot who said but one answer was,"Because noone makes a .50!"

Actually, someone does- the .50 GI: :D

http://www.guncrafterindustries.com/50_gi.htm

Joey101

July 1, 2005, 03:19 PM

"Actually, someone does- the .50 GI:

http://www.guncrafterindustries.com/50_gi.htm"

GOOD LORD!!!!!!

I am saving my pennies as we speak!!!!

dodge

July 2, 2005, 08:52 AM

Because I just like it. For me that's all it takes. There's something about the .45 that is just so American that it just warms my heart. I've owned and shot 9 mm's and I just can't warm up to the caliber. With that said I own a Ruger Blackhawk Convertable in 357/9mm that I have shot 1 box of 9mm through and probably not shot another box through it as it's not all that accurate with the 9mm cylinder in it.

355sigfan

July 2, 2005, 10:28 AM

A .45 with HP will expand to .60 to .70 when it full expands. That my friend will stop the target, most of the time a 9mm won't.
END QUOTE

Wrong. Good ammo in both calibers is simular. For example the Ranger T 45 acp 230 grain JHP +p expands to .79 caliber and goes about 14 inches.

The +p+ 127 grain Ranger we issue for the 9mm's goes about 13 inches and expands to .70 caliber. Most of your good 9mm jhp's (Ranger, Golden Saber, Golddot, HST ext) will expand between .60 and .70 caliber as reliably as any 45 or 40 load. As a swat trained officer I prefer a 1911 not because of the caliber but rather the gun itself. The 45 is nice and it gives you a slight edge. But the gun itself is the easiest to shoot well understress. The 1911 is the most common gun seen on SWAT and spec opps teams.

On the other hand the GLock 17 in 9mm is about the best gun for the average cop, soldier or home owner. Its very easy to shoot well has reasonable power for a pistol and is extreemly reliable and takes abuse well.
Pat

355sigfan

July 2, 2005, 10:32 AM

Should a bullet fail to expand the 45 is nearly what quality 9mm does when it DOES expand,
END QUOTE

Not to be rude but thats is wrong. Quality 9mms as I said before reliably expand from .60 to 70 caliber or more. Thats with at least 12 inches of penetration. 40's average about .63 to .75 and 45's average .60 to as much as .85.

Were not talking about a huge difference here.
Pat

Len

July 2, 2005, 10:56 AM

Having autos in both 9 and 45, I've come to this conclusion. Since the 9 is the first caliber I owned and fired thousands of times, I'm just better with it. [Even though both calibers are made by the same manufacturer...same style...and to tell the truth, don't handle all that much differently.]

For carry, I use Hydra-Shok in both, 147 in the 9, 230 in the 45. I'm confident that both weapons are good choices.

The 45 is kept handy in the house, for close in defense if needed, the 9 is my choice for street carry.

I just don't prefer FMJ's for anything but range work...and I don't have enough experience with smaller calibers to spout off about them...but I have another "abstract" line as far as caliber goes...giving me a gut feeling on a caliber that would be too small. Entirely subjective thinking on my part...

Having seen quite a few cases of Gun Shot Wounds in the course of my work, I'm also not impressed with stories of people being shot who didn't go down "as expected." I know for a fact that a BG on some drugs may actually appear to shrug off a centered hit, no matter what caliber was used...for a while anyway...as will some psychos...But, this does not diminish the good argument for bigger calibers for defense!!

I believe it all really boils down to the abstract formula that works best for each shooter, i.e., the combination of an acceptable caliber size, bullet type, rounds available in the mag, the shooter's experience with the gun...

StrikeEagle

July 2, 2005, 11:58 AM

As far as I can tell there are TWO groups of people...

1) Those who feel that both .9mm and .45 ACP are fine

2) Those who feel that .9mm is insufficient and .45 is fine

See what I'm saying here? EVERYONE agrees that .45 ACP does a job of work. :)

Let armchair commandos and ballisticians debate the fine points of all this. Just carry a .45 and relax. :p

StrikeEagle :)

Surefire

July 2, 2005, 12:10 PM

1) Those who feel that both .9mm and .45 ACP are fine

I fall in this group. Both are fine, although I prefer .45 acp.

Bacon

July 2, 2005, 01:13 PM

I see where 355sigfan compares a +P+ 9mm to a standard velocity .45.

I'm sure the 9mm is a good round but when comparing apples to apples, gimme the .45!

turbonatr

July 2, 2005, 02:20 PM

Perhaps an eye opener for those that think handguns possess "stopping power".

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2004/oct2004/oct04leb.htm#page_15

Vern Humphrey

July 2, 2005, 02:41 PM

Perhaps an eye opener for those that think handguns possess "stopping power".

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb...leb.htm#page_15

This tends to reinforce my own position that the "one shot stop" is not a valid criterion for measuring success -- what we should use is win/lose data.

What did the winners of gunfights use? What determined the outcome? Was it technique, training, caliber of handgun, type of bullet, or some other factor?

turbonatr

July 2, 2005, 03:09 PM

As the above linked article hints at, caliber is not a definitive determining factor (remember Trooper Coates?). There are far too many variables that come into play...shot placement, bullet performance (different than caliber performance!), mindset of both the good and bad guys, etc. This is why arguing over which caliber is best is silly. How you use your chosen carry cartridge is far more important than what that cartridge is.

Your caliber won't determine who wins the fight, you will determine who wins the fight.

1911 guy

July 2, 2005, 10:26 PM

My humble opinion, while carrying a .45 auto, is if you know you're going to a gunfight, take a rifle. We carry pistols for "what if?" scenarios. Sure, I'll stick with my 1911 but if I have to use it I'll be wishing I had a shottie or rifle. Remember, not long after the advent of the revolver, cutlasses and sabres were no longer issued. Not counting dress occasions and ships RSL's, of course.

355sigfan

July 3, 2005, 01:51 AM

Wrong. Good ammo in both calibers is simular. For example the Ranger T 45 acp 230 grain JHP +p expands to .79 caliber and goes about 14 inches.
END QUOTE

Thats what I said bacon. You will see the little +P symbol next to the 45 acp Ranger load. You need to read the post before you reply. I like both the 9mm and the 45 acp. I carry +p ammo in both.
Pat

TX_RGR

July 3, 2005, 02:47 AM

1. A ballistician for the FBI among scores of others reports that hp's only expand 40-50% of the time, and of course always at the expense of penetration (physics, darlin)

2. Number of shots in a mag is highly overrated (dare I say, IRRELEVANT?), as most engagements are proven to be 4 shots or less. Not to mention anyone who you plan on firing at 15 times is almost certainly firing BACK at you, and may be doing so with a superior caliber.

3. This one's easy. The big convincer. Sit a 9mm upright on a level surface. Sit a .45 next to it. No more questions, game over, good night!!!

TX

355sigfan

July 3, 2005, 07:59 AM

That is old data regarding expansion from about 10 years ago. Bullet technology has come along way. Good loads previously mentioned (Golden Saber, HST, Ranger) do expand far more than not in actual shootings.

I agree for the most part on capacity. But I will conceed to the high cap fans there is never a tactical disadvantage in having too much ammo. Also not all gunfights are average. Some involved lots of rounds at longer range. Don't count on having an average gunfight. Nothing about a gun fight feels average.

Ok the table test. Wow were talking about .10 difference in caliber. Its not that impressive. Compare each bullet to your body both are small in comparision.

I feel well armed with my 1911's in 45 acp and my Glocks in 9mm. The most important factor in stopping power is shotplacement. So I know if I fail it was me and not the ammo that did not do the job.
Pat

Buzztail

July 3, 2005, 08:51 AM

I carry a .45 because my .308 won't fit in my pants.

That's EXACTLY how I feel :D

but I like the '06 :neener:

Ryder

July 3, 2005, 01:54 PM

Well I have a wide assortemnt of calibers and enjoy shooting them all but I don't feel the need to justify to myself why I prefer the 45 over the rest so why would I feel the need to justify it to anyone else?

Some things just is and some things just aint. You get a feel for these things after a while. Know what I mean?

Mute

July 3, 2005, 02:04 PM

Bottom line is that even the best hollowpoints sometimes do fail to expand. When that happens with a .45, you still have a .45 caliber hole through the bad guy. It may not be idea, but it's still better than a 9mm hole.

That doesn't mean, though, that I won't carry 9mm. I'll just make sure I get the best 9mm ammo I can. For many the 9mm makes sense, but others the .45 makes more sense. IOW, all things being equal, I'll take the .45.

coltrane679

July 3, 2005, 02:41 PM

Get a 10mm 1911 (Kimber, Dan Wesson, a used Colt DE, whatever). Load it up with Double Tap, Buffalo Bore, Texas Ammunition, Reed Ammunition or any other FULL power 10mm (not that .40 long crap). Hell, roll your own if you like.

Now you have the platform AND the hammer of God ammo all in one package. Why compromise when you don't have to?

355sigfan

July 3, 2005, 02:58 PM

Yes the 45 is better from a terminal performance standpoint. I like it. But the point is its not as much better as many give it credit for. 45 ball is not much better than 9mm ball. Its a little better. Its a little wider and may nick something vital that a 9mm bullet may miss. Its possible. But not likely.
Pat

cslinger

July 3, 2005, 03:41 PM

I really am a .45 ACP, .357 maggie guy at heart but truely believe that if you place multiple shots well any caliber will do you just fine.

To all the folks who talk about the maximum expansion of a 9mm they are correct a 9mm can expand to the same or slightly smaller then the expansion of a .45 but one must also remember that even though a 9mm MAY very well expand a .45 will most certainly NEVER shrink.

Ehhh all things considered for SD anything 9x19 on up makes me feel just fine and I do think .40 offers the benefits of both 9mm and .45. If I know I have to fight then it is 12 bore or semi auto magazine fed rifle time.

Don't sweat your caliber choice. Sweat your training. Learn to put rounds where you want, when you want, as fast as you can. The fact is there are very few humans who would survive two .380's to the heart and one to the head.

Chris

Surefire

July 4, 2005, 01:20 PM

Perhaps an eye opener for those that think handguns possess "stopping power".

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb...leb.htm#page_15

So, IMO, this begs the question: "Are five or six rounds enough"?

If its fairly common for gun battles to result in a BG being shot 4+ times and still not going down, as happened in some of the cases in this article, then is a revolver really the best option? Even more alarming, is that under stress, many people lose accuracy and may not necessarily hit the target as often as when practice shooting, and certainly won't get as many center of mass hits.

I'm a HUGE revolver fan, but this article makes me question if five, six, or seven is really enough? In defense of the revolver though, I've learned to reload with a speedloader about as quickly as changing magazines.....however doing it under stress (matching up the bullets to the charge holes) might be another matter.

1911 guy

July 5, 2005, 03:18 PM

We all know the first rule, "actually have a gun." The second rule is to hit what you aim at. We all have to admit that a high stress situation affects our ability to aim, it's the affect of stress on fine motor skill. The trick is to make it as much "muscle memory" as possible. I once saw a training film consisting of narration and dash cam footage of a traffic stop. As the patrolman reached the drivers door, passenger got out and began firing. Patrolman returned fire from no more than 10 feet, the width of the car plus a step or two backward by both parties. Both men shot until empty, reloaded, then went at it again until the passenger turned and RAN AWAY! Two things very good, passenger is an awful shot, and the driver did not get aggresive at all. Bad thing, passenger also was unhurt.
To me, this reinforces the line of thought to carry what you're comfortable and proficient with, caliber is secondary.

July 5, 2005, 03:46 PM

A person shot in the right place with a 9mm or a 45ACP will die.

Either is just as good as the person using it. I have more .45's than 9mm, but carry both depending on season etc. If you use good quality ammunition designed for self defense and know what you are doing it will most likely perform as needed and end the threat. I doubt anyone who has ever been shot with a 45 has said, "man, I wish he'd have shot me with a 9mm." And I doubt anyone shot with a 9mm has said" Good thing he wasn't using a .45".

Krag

July 5, 2005, 06:31 PM

Most of the folks I know who brag "I'd never carry anything but a .45 caliber 1911" - don't. Let's face it, they're too big and heavy for practical all day concealed carry - especially if you live in a hot area like I do.

Whereas my Kahr PM9 can be carried anywhere, under the lightest attire, in complete comfort all the time. That's what converted me.

cslinger

July 5, 2005, 07:21 PM

Most of the folks I know who brag "I'd never carry anything but a .45 caliber 1911" - don't. Let's face it, they're too big and heavy for practical all day concealed carry - especially if you live in a hot area like I do.

Absolutely right, which leads me to my previous comment.....

I really am a .45 ACP, .357 maggie guy at heart

The .357 maggie is for those hot days or everyday carry mostly. :D

355sigfan

July 6, 2005, 02:19 AM

Thats funny I carry my Wilson CQB off duty with a un tucked t shirt in a Milt Sparks Versa max 2. No problems no matter what the weather. I always carry..
Pat

1911 guy

July 6, 2005, 12:07 PM

Um, Krag, you're wrong. I'm sure some folks talk about but don't carry what is admitedly a large pistol, but there are plenty of us who do carry. I hope I never need it but if I do I want a handgun I'm familiar and confident with and I want my reload, too.

NineseveN

July 6, 2005, 03:07 PM

I carry a .45 because my .308 won't fit in my pants.

To all the folks who talk about the maximum expansion of a 9mm they are correct a 9mm can expand to the same or slightly smaller then the expansion of a .45 but one must also remember that even though a 9mm MAY very well expand a .45 will most certainly NEVER shrink.

Those two points, with all things considered, win the thread hands down. Pack up, go home, buy a .45.

:p

NineseveN

July 6, 2005, 03:09 PM

Krag, I carry all the time, regardless of weather. Hell, I carry in my bathrobe!

No, I'm not kidding...

Why are you looking at me like that? Somethin funny? :scrutiny:

Dr.Rob

July 6, 2005, 03:19 PM

Maybe it's the grip of the Contender Encore sticking out of your bathrobe?

1. Shoot whatever you are the most accurate with.

2. Shoot the biggest fastest heaviest most reliable hollowpoint you can find that fits rule #1.

NineseveN

July 6, 2005, 03:35 PM

Good point Doc. :D

buzz_knox

July 6, 2005, 03:45 PM

All handgun rounds suck at stopping people in that they can't do it reliably. Some just suck less. The .45 and 9mm both fall into that category. With good loads (yes, even some .45 loads are lousy), either will perform their job "effectively." So the issue becomes what platform allows you to safely and effectively fire those rounds. I'm considering a switch back to 1911 because of the platform. My prior carry weapons, the Glock 17 and the Sig 228, were both highly effective with the right loads. I just believe I might be more effective at this stage of my training with the 1911 . . . and the right loads.

StrikeEagle

July 6, 2005, 03:55 PM

yes, even some .45 loads are lousy

Since even .45 Ball is highly regarded as a combat/defense round, I'm just not sure what the lousy .45 loads might be. Can you list a few for us, please?
Thanks!

StrikeEagle

ps You mean one that won't function in the gun?

buzz_knox

July 6, 2005, 04:09 PM

Since even .45 Ball is highly regarded as a combat/defense round, I'm just not sure what the lousy .45 loads might be. Can you list a few for us, please?

Sure, although in hindsight perhaps lousy is inappropriate, as lousy applies to most every round. So, consider it relative.

Ball for one. As surprising as it may be, people don't recognize that ball is highly regarded as a combat round by comparison with other combat rounds, all of which are FMJ (and the comparison wasn't universally in the .45s favor, as many countries were quite content with the 9mm, which they found to have a good balance of power, controllability, and "more suitable" platforms). There's a lot of myths floating around as well, such as the .45s effectiveness against Moros. There are many confirmed stories of .45 failing, just like there are confirmed stories of M80 7.62 failing. The penchant for recommending ball in weapons is a combination of factors: (1) belief in the wive's tales about ball flipping a man head over heels at 100 yards (heard that one from my father); (2) concerns about reliability; (3) belief that all handgun rounds suck wind; (4) failure to recognize that modern hollowpoints and weapons designs have eliminated much of (2) and (3); (5) some combination of these (Clint Smith recommends ball because of 2 and 3).

David DiFabio has a few choice words to say about high velocity 185 gr rounds (I believe Corbon 185 +P), which failed to stop his attacker with 3(?) well-placed shots. The rounds were not sufficiently well developed to penetrate deeply into the target and put effective metal into the meat that matters most (the CNS).

Would I carry .45 ball? If I needed to carry that platform and didn't have the chance to work up another load, sure. But it's not my preferred method of operation.

Krag

July 6, 2005, 04:23 PM

The .45 ACP didn't see service during the Moro pacification campaigns in the Phillipines. The army reissued the old SAA in .45 Colt thinking it would be a better manstopper than the .38 Long Colt. The .45 still proved incapable of stopping a drug/religious crazed Juramentado bent on hacking up infidels with his bolo.

The solution was to form soldiers/Marines into pairs, one with a Krag rifle and the other with a Winchester M1897 riotgun loaded with "blue whistlers." If the rifleman didn't stop the Moro at a distance, the M1897 did when he got up close up!

00 buckshot is far superior to ANY handgun cartridge! :what:

buzz_knox

July 6, 2005, 04:26 PM

The .45 ACP didn't see service during the Moro pacification campaigns in the Phillipines. The army reissued the old SAA in .45 Colt thinking it would be a better manstopper than the .38 Long Colt. The .45 still proved incapable of stopping a drug/religious crazed Juramentado bent on hacking up infidels with his bolo.

I know. But one of the myths is that the .45 ACP (after all, until the GAP came along, .45 meant .45 ACP, right, right?) fought and won against the Moros. Just like "they all fall to hardball."

bad LT

July 6, 2005, 04:30 PM

One other valid point with regards to the eternal .45 vs 9mm debate:

9mm ammo is cheaper than .45 ammo letting those of us who are "financially challenged" shoot more. The more you shoot the more fun you have :D and the better you get with your sidearm.

Friendly Neighborhood Leathernec

July 6, 2005, 07:25 PM

With all good points being said, I decided to purchase the new Sig Sauer P245. Compact for concealed carry, and does the job.

And yes I'm a newbie to this board.

StrikeEagle

July 6, 2005, 07:33 PM

Looks like a good piece... how's it handle with warmer loads? I'm thinking it's about like my Officer's Model as far as recoil goes.

I'm curious about the reliability too. Let us know, please?

In any case, .45 ACP should bring you home safe. :)

StrikeEagle

Shootcraps

July 6, 2005, 07:44 PM

From the info I've gathered from reading threads on THR and TFL,

The first mistake in your logic. These two websites are not the font of all knowledge concerning bullets.

I've come to the conlusion that the 9mm is the bullet to end all bullets.

The second. You based your conclusion on incomplete data. If this were true, there'd be no other bullets. :neener:

Cosmoline

July 6, 2005, 08:25 PM

You're all wasting your time. My .357 revolvers will do far more than a 9x19 and .45 ACP combined. :neener:

dodging230grainers

July 6, 2005, 08:45 PM

I've come to the conlusion that the 9mm is the bullet to end all bullets

I was being sarcastic. :p

coltrane679

July 7, 2005, 12:48 AM

cookekdjr

July 7, 2005, 12:04 PM

cookekdjr,

Can you usually tell when looking at GSW victims what bullet brand they were hit by? (i.e. speer gold dot, hydrashok, etc.) If so, what seems to kill/incapacitate the most often? Thought maybe you might know.

Dodging230grainers,
Sorry, I just now noticed your question. Typically, the bad guy uses a stolen gun or something new and cheap. I did have a couple guys use expensive stuff (Kimber, H&K, Sig), but usually the high-end stuff is stolen.
RE: ammo, the most popular choice is cheap fmj's. Of hp rounds, I haven't noticed a prevelance of any brand. I did have one case where a woman was shot through the heart with a ranger talon 9mm. It did not expand at all. I had one case where a kid was killed by one shot through the heart and lungs with a zinc 9mm round (federal ballisticlean). I have noticed that hp ammo sometimes clogs with clothing, which limits penetration. But generally hp's act exactly like fmj if they don't clog- they rarely expand.
In other words, caliber selection is a huge factor, while ammo selection means almost nothing.
-David

dodging230grainers

July 7, 2005, 03:27 PM

Thx for the response cookekdjr. Also, does .45ACP fmj do more internal damage usually than 9mm fmj? Or are they about the same? Thanks.

cookekdjr

July 7, 2005, 03:42 PM

Thx for the response cookekdjr. Also, does .45ACP fmj do more internal damage usually than 9mm fmj? Or are they about the same? Thanks.

.45 fmj usually does more damage than 9mm fmj, because the bullet has a larger diameter and a heavier weight.
In other words, the bigger, heavier bullet makes a bigger, deeper hole that more reliably breaks bones and passes through the body. This translates to more blood loss, more damage, and a greater chance of incapacitation and death (and faster incapacitation, to boot).
From what I've seen, .40 cal may perform similarly, but I'm not sure. .40 definately appears to outperform 9mm.
-David

dodging230grainers

July 7, 2005, 04:02 PM

cool :D . last question: which caliber tends to penetrate through and through the most? (FMJ bullets, not JHP)
thx.

Krag

July 7, 2005, 04:03 PM

Coltrane - dang, it's a shame the rest of us aren't REAL men like you are. I'm impressed! :barf:

coltrane679

July 8, 2005, 12:28 AM

Oh, many are--you I can't speak for, however.

People should shoot for self-defense the biggest caliber, most powerful caliber they can shoot accurately (and carry, if applicable)--if that is 9mm, great, it's a fine round (but far from ideal). What they shouldn't do is try to fob off their own personal limitations as some rationalized "truth" about ballistics--that's bullcrap. And I read a LOT of bullcrap about 9mm. As I said, where you fit in I don't know (or really care)--but if you took personal offense, then I can guess.

355sigfan

July 8, 2005, 05:21 AM

You should carry what your comfortable with in a desent caliber. The 9mm is just fine. The difference between the best 9mm's and the best 45's is about .10 caliber of expansion and about 50 foot pounds or so. The extra expansion of the 45 is countered by the increased rate of fire of the 9mm. Its pretty much a wash. It could even be argued you could put more of a hurting on a bad guy with a 9mm in the same amount of time as the .45. (for example you could shoot him 4 times with the 45 or 5 with the 9mm due to difference in recoil and faster split times) I prefer the 45 overall but mostly due to the fact I prefer the 1911 and thats the caliber that runs best in it. I feel pretty comfortable with my Glock 17 and 26 as well.
Pat

BioDemon

July 8, 2005, 07:28 AM

I'd take a 45acp,40s&w,10mm,357sig, or a 357mag all before I grabed a 9mm. That's given if they were all equal quality guns. But that's just me. If I had to choose between a 9mm Sig and a 45acp Jennings, I'd take the 9mm Sig. It's all what you trust your life with. My sister shoots a 380 auto. She is VERY recoil sensitive! She can't hit a darn thing with My 40 S&W or my wifes 357 MAG. But she can definatly shoot her 380 auto good enough that I wouldn't want to be at the recieving end. I say if you shoot a 9mm better than a anything bigger then that's the gun for you. I shoot my 40 S&W much much better than my old 44mag. So you can bet I'd grab the 40 S&W over a 44mag! My advise is that all handgun rounds are under powered compared to a 12 ga shotgun! Get the biggest caliber you personaly shoot good enough to trust your life with.

buzz_knox

July 8, 2005, 08:48 AM

And I've come to the conclusion that 9mm is the god of those unable to handle larger caliber handguns, so to rationalize their own inablities they try to convince others that there is no effective difference between 9mm and other calibers like .45, 10mm, etc.

What they shouldn't do is try to fob off their own personal limitations as some rationalized "truth" about ballistics--that's bullcrap. And I read a LOT of bullcrap about 9mm. As I said, where you fit in I don't know (or really care)--but if you took personal offense, then I can guess.

From the contrast of these two statements, it seems you've been reading a lot of bullcrap, much along the lines of "the 9mm is for pansies." Some of the best shooters (and some of the best in the world) use a 9mm because it provides an excellent balance of control and power. It's also recommended by some of the most renowned experts in the ballistics fields. But hey, what do Rob Leatham (carries a 9mm subcompact), or Gary Roberts (a Glock 17 9mm makes his top three list of carry weapons) know?

cookekdjr

July 8, 2005, 09:39 AM

cool . last question: which caliber tends to penetrate through and through the most? (FMJ bullets, not JHP)
thx.
Based on what I've seen at autopsies, its hard to say which common handgun caliber penetrates through and through the most reliably, although I know its definately not 9mm.
Based on my experience viewing hundreds of autopsies and the slugs recovered from them/the crime scene, you can't go wrong with any caliber that begins with a "4". :)
I would be comfortable carrying .357/.357 Sig, but there have been some rather famous stoppage failures with .357.
On the other hand, I will say this...I've personally never had a case where the loser of the gunfight carried a .357...
9mm on the other hand...those guys might as well have their own cemetary.
Just my experience, YMMV.
-David

LightningJoe

July 8, 2005, 10:38 AM

When a handgun is used for self-defense, typically it is not fired. When it is fired, typically the intended target is not hit. When the intended target is hit, very oftentimes the severity of the injury inflicted does not affect the outcome of the encounter. When the severity of the injury inflicted does affect the outcome of the encounter, very oftentimes the difference between the severity of the injury inflicted by the caliber used and the severity of the injury that would have been inflicted by some other caliber is not significant. As a consequence of the foregoing, I am forced to conclude that in the vast majority of the situations in which a handgun in used for self-defense, caliber does not matter. John Dillinger is reputed to have escaped from custody armed with a gun carved from a bar of soap. What caliber was that bar of soap?

Very few are the opponents that will stand flat-footed and shoot it out with an person armed with a gun. Such very dangerous criminals do exist and are the reason police officers must carry competent calibers, but Joe Average mainly just needs a gun of some sort.

That said, .45 ACP is the gold standard. It's very unlikely I'll ever get into a gunfight, but my 45 commands respect. Reputation has a value all its own.

coltrane679

July 8, 2005, 11:55 AM

It's also recommended by some of the most renowned experts in the ballistics fields. But hey, what do Rob Leatham (carries a 9mm subcompact), or Gary Roberts (a Glock 17 9mm makes his top three list of carry weapons) know?

Oh, wow, the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy--gee, how unique on gun forums. Guaranteed to pop up with stunning regularity.

I have no idea what caliber any other individual--even a "great authority"--can shoot comfortably in a defensive situation (nor, as I said before, do I care). Again, I agree people need to shoot a caliber they feel comfortable handling without qualms--even if it is LESS than 9mm. Nor do I have a big problem with those who like the 9mm as a "compromise" round, because they like the extra capacity they can get out of similarly sized guns, which can be significiant in small carry guns such as a G26 v. G36 (although, personally, I think many capacity concerns are generally way overrated for non-LE defensive purposes).

All that ticks me off is the plainly irrational insistence of some that 9mm is the effective equivalent of all other defensive handgun calibers. This defies physics, common sense and experience (which, without starting another bogus "appeal to authority", explains why LE, taken as a whole, has increasingly moved away from 9mm over the past 15 years). When otherwise presumably rational people start spouting such nonsense, you have to "look under the hood" to see what is really driving them.

355sigfan

July 8, 2005, 06:00 PM

coltrane679

What experience do you have shooting people. I do know of many departments that are quite happy with the 9mm's performance in acutal shootings. Most are using either 147 Grain Ranger T's or 127 grain +P+ Ranger T's. The 9mm is fine so is the 45 acp 40sw and 357 sig. All will do the job if you do yours. There is no huge difference between them.
Pat

Krag

July 8, 2005, 06:44 PM

IMHO fans of the .45 have an unreasonable belief that their favorite cartridge is the be all and end all of defensive handgun calibers. They will abide no other opinion or compromise. Well, if that gets their rocks off more power to them.

Those of us who favor the 9mm realize its limitations but also feel that its advantages outweigh these. We don't go around claiming it is the "Hammer of Thor" or will "...knock them off their feet even if you only hit them in the left hand." For some reason .45 fans become irritable and defensive when someone even suggests that other calibers might be just as efficient. It almost seems that they have some kind of inferiority complex which prevents them from realizing that other calibers are viable as defensive cartridges. Much of this is based upon tradition, legend an hearsay.

This debate will never end and no compromise will ever be reached. If they want to carry their large, overweight, complex pistols so be it. More power to them. I feel very comfortable with my Kahr PM9 and Glock 17.

We wil just have to agree to disagree. I'm out of here! :cool:

jerryd

July 8, 2005, 07:16 PM

I like the 45 because i dont have the money for the new 50acp! All kidding aside i m yself do not want to get shot by ANYTHING! But looking at history the 45 served the military for almost 100yrs,then the 9mm and now they are going back to the 45, dont know whos though. I have carried the 45 for 2 yrs overseas and have seen what it can do, and have been carrying one ever since i got out in 1968. Although i also carry 9mm glocks and H&K, the secret is SHOT PLACEMENT, do a search and see how many people are killed by 22s. My 2 cents is carry what you are proficient with, and are able to hit what you aim at, and practice!

Bullet

July 9, 2005, 02:25 AM

355sigfan Quote – “The 9mm is fine so is the 45 acp 40sw and 357 sig. All will do the job if you do yours. There is no huge difference between them.”

jerryd Quote – “the secret is SHOT PLACEMENT”

I agree with both the statements above.

buzz_knox

July 9, 2005, 02:43 PM

All that ticks me off is the plainly irrational insistence of some that 9mm is the effective equivalent of all other defensive handgun calibers.

First, it's not an appeal to authority. It's a specific refutation of your argument that those with limitations on their ability are rationalizing the choice. To the contrary, those with established and recognized experties in the field have commented on the issue, and their comments are completely relevant to the matter. Once your argument is exposed as groundless, you fall back to false accusations of improper debate technique. The appeal to authority argument only applies where someone has no support for the argument for which the citation is offered except "well, so and so says so." That's not what's occurring here. But I suspect you knew that before you made the statement.

As for "plainly irrational" I'll leave it to the other posters to see who falls within that criteria. Personally, I'm secure in my . . . abilities, so I use 9mm or .45 as the situation dictates.

R.H. Lee

July 9, 2005, 02:47 PM

Welcome Lightning Joe. I think you nailed it. :D

Blackhawk 6

July 9, 2005, 03:00 PM

I carried a 9mm for 10+ years both privately and professionally and never felt poorly equipped. I recently switched to a .45 1911. (For the platform not the caliber) I do not feel any more or less properly equipped.

Coltrane679 or any other 9mm detractor,

Would you kindly explain where it is that I can hit a threat with a .45 and achieve incapacitation and a hit in the same location with a 9mm will not achieve the same result?

Looking forward to your reply.

cookekdjr

July 9, 2005, 03:37 PM

Would you kindly explain where it is that I can hit a threat with a .45 and achieve incapacitation and a hit in the same location with a 9mm will not achieve the same result?

I've had a number of folks shot in the hip/butt/thigh area in my homicide cases.
Of the people shot with 9mm, nobody died. One guy was incapacitated, but he rutrned fire and killed the guy holding the 9mm who ambushed him from gehind (he had a .45 :) ).
Of the people shot with .357, about half died. The other half were incapacitated and would have died without immediate care.
Of the people shot with .45, all were incapacitated from the shot, but none died. (remember, we're only talking hip/leg/butt shots)
People with .40's don't shoot other folks in the a-- for some reason. :D
What I have noticed is that, generally, 9mm wounds are less severe than .40, .45, and .357 wounds. This applies to torso shots as well as the limbs. That's not to say that I haven't seen one-shot stops from 9mm (heck, I've seen one-shot kills from .25acp), or that I haven't seen people shot by larger calibers and live (although I can't recall a single time someone was shot more than once with a .40, .45, or .357 and lived in my cases- hmmm- I'll have to think about that one and review my records).
But, as a general rule of thumb, 9mm wounds are less severe and are less likely to kill or disable.
Just my experience as a prosecutor for 9 years, having viewed hundreds of autopsies and prosecuted 1000's of cases. YMMV.
BTW, every case I've had where the victim was shot by a 30-30, they died. The 12 gauge has had more mixed results, but then, half the shotgunners were drunk and couldn't shoot straight even with the scattergun. :)
Have a great weekend, folks.
-David
YMMV.

Blackhawk 6

July 9, 2005, 03:58 PM

Buzztail

July 9, 2005, 04:48 PM

I'll bet on that .100" - I'm a machinist, and can appreciate how much that is. I know a little about weight too, so I can also appreciate the difference between 115, and 230 grains- IIRC it's about double. Bigger is better, and too big is just right :D I'd tote my .480 Ruger if I thought I could find a left handed carry rig for it :evil:

I have no beef with a 9mm, I just would rather carry a 45. I'm actually getting ready to look for a Glock 17 just because I don't have one.....I don't think I'll ever carry it because I don't intend to buy anything other than cheap ball ammo to plink with.

Rinspeed

July 9, 2005, 04:58 PM

TheGoodLife

July 9, 2005, 05:05 PM

I myself just have no idea how or why these debates get started and why people think think they need to change others opinions. Carry what you want I don't give a sh** what it is. Just practice with it as often as you can and stay safe.

Rinspeed
I will keep your thoughts in mind. :D

I've never owned any kind of handgun, so some of these debates are helping me 'form my opinion'.

cookekdjr

July 9, 2005, 10:07 PM

Cookekdjr,

I appreciate you sharing your experience. Hits to the "hip/butt/thigh area" is really somewhat ambiguous. A 9mm thru and thru of the buttocks and a .45 to the femoral artery are both hits to the "hip/butt/thigh area" but two different things altogether.

All things being equal, caliber is going to make a difference, but not to the extent some would have you believe. In my expereince, its all about putting a hole in something important. Again, in my experience all the 9mm is giving up to the .45 is about .10"

I would be interested if you have information to the contrary
Hey Blackhawk,
Re: hits to hip/butt/thigh area, if there was a "lucky" shot to an artery, I'd mention it. Here's the thing: 9mm doesn't seem to shatter bone as reliably as .357; it seems to "chip and ricochet" instead (although, occasionally it shatters a femur quite nicely).
Yes, bullet placement is key. But its more important for 9mm. I notice alot of cases where folks are shot w/9mm's, and live...even when they are shot in the torso.
But I have alot of murder cases where the shot seemed innoculous, but it tore the person to pieces inside. Those shots are typically a .357.
The cases where the person takes multiple hits to vital areas and lives are ALWAYS 9mm and smaller.
I've actually had shootout cases where one bad guy has a .45, the other bad guy has a 9mm....the 9mm NEVER wins.
Now understand, although I have alot of experience in this area, this is all anecdotal and not a scientific study.
But from what I've seen, if you are carrying 9mm, placement is very important. If you are carrying .45, .40, or .357, its not nearly as important. The damage these rounds cause lead to such rapid blood loss that folks die, even if the shot doesn't hit something "vital". It turns out blood is alot more vital than we thought ... :)
Anyway, YMMV, but that's what I have seen.
Have a nice evening,
David
P.S. having this discussion has made me reflect alot on my firearms cases...I think my next purchase will be a Glock in .357 SIG, or a Taurus 7 shot .357 revolver...

coltrane679

July 10, 2005, 12:22 AM

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."

---Jonathan Swift

ajax

July 10, 2005, 11:40 PM

:evil: Hypothetical situation! Two men 7 yards apart. One man has a.45 the other a 9mm. 230grfmj vs 115fmj. Both men are shooting center mass shots. Which mans shoes would you prefer to be in.

355sigfan

July 10, 2005, 11:45 PM

Never seen 119 grain ball ammo is that a new load? Seriously it would not matter as much as who was the better marksman.
Pat

Missouri Mule

July 11, 2005, 09:06 AM

Who was the "Gun Guru" who once said carry and shoot as much gun as you can handle!

In the late 80's a freind who happened to be an San Antonio TX leo told me that they were trading in their S&W model 65 because to many of the officers couldn't quality with the issued 357 mag ammo.

He said they were going with 9mm auto because it was easier for the majority of female officers and most inexperienced male officers to qualify with them.

The first large bore handgun I ever shot for qualification was a pretty worn GI .45 at Ft. McClellan in 1982.
Hmm.....1rst time with the .45, first qual firing....1rst expert rating!!
I ain't no real big guy either.

FWIW...the females qualified with the .38 S&W M&P.

NineseveN

July 11, 2005, 10:40 AM

Like has been said before, carry what you're comfortable with. Your odds of getting into a gunfight are miniscule anyway, so if you stick to 9mm minimum and .45 maximum (9mm, 40S&W, .357Sig, .45GAP, .45ACP) you have literally more than 100 quality concealable firearms to choose from and if you can hit what you aim at, then youre as good to go as you ought to be. So practice, practice, practice!

Sure you can go smaller (.380 Bersa Thunder or Walther PPK) or larger (.50AE Desert Eagle) but why? Unless you absolutely NEED a pocket gun or you're hunting the Incredible Hulk, there are better options out there (notably some of the sub-comapct 9mm's out there and a .50 Cal rifle for the Hulk).

Make sure you research and choose your carry ammuniton carefully in any caliber. I use Speer Gold Dots in .40, Ranger's in 9mm and I am currently still evaluating my .45 carry load. Ammolab.com has had a ton of good info on specific rounds so make sure you don't fall into the rut of thinking that Federal or Speer or Joesammocompany has the best rounds in EVERY caliber. Reasearch it first.

Interesting aside. I found a good deal on a .357Sig Glock Fullsize (31?) and passed the info on to a friend. He only shoot's 9mm right now because he is what I call a "capacity freak". He likes them 14round mags in his Steyr M9. We got to the range aqnd I saw a HUGE grin on his face as he was loading the mags of his new Glock. He had 3-15 round mags! "Damn", I thought looking down at my USP Compact .45 carrying only 8, "That's nuts man!". He looked at me and smiled and said, "I know hehe".

But before I got too amazed by this wonder-gun of magnificent capacity, I remembered why I carry a .45 now, based on what I have seen and learned over the years, I have more faith in that round than any other I can reasonably carry. The operative word is "faith", because that's all it is. Gunfights do not occur in a vaccuum, there are hundreds of variables that can either make your pea-shooter 9mm the one-hit endgame or your .45 hand cannon an irritating lead sore, or vice versa. Load, shoot and be merry. But .45 is still better, ask anyone! :neener:

Shootcraps

July 11, 2005, 11:51 AM

In the late 80's a freind who happened to be an San Antonio TX leo told me that they were trading in their S&W model 65 because to many of the officers couldn't quality with the issued 357 mag ammo.

I would be suspect of someones abilities if they couldn't qualify with a 4" barreled .357. That just blows my mind. :what:

Harold Mayo

July 11, 2005, 12:49 PM

EMT's rule of thumb: The guys shot by 9mm's usually live. The guys shot by .40's and .45's usually die.

That's not the rule of thumb I've heard... :rolleyes:

caz223

July 11, 2005, 02:53 PM

Don't use a .45, it's inadequate.
Carry a rifle with you at all times.
Or at least 2 glock 20s, preferably full auto.
See how silly the whole thing is when put into perspective?

NineseveN

July 11, 2005, 04:03 PM

Don't use a .45, it's inadequate.
Compared to? A Rifle? Well of course it is. :D

Carry a rifle with you at all times.
Not possible or feasible. Whereas, carrying a 9mm or a .45 handgun are both pretty much equally feasible in the same situations given similar sizes.

Or at least 2 glock 20s, preferably full auto. I wonder what that would be like? Are they controllable? Anyone handled one? Still a little bulky, but would make New York Reloads quite interesting.

See how silly the whole thing is when put into perspective?
I see siliness in the anger and outright contempt this argument sometimes brings out, but I aslo see the value of such discussions.

But for those arguing for the 9mm because they expand to a similar diameter as a .45, why not .380? Or something smaller if you could get it in a high-cap firearm of similar quality? What does a .380 HP expand to? Close to a 9mm, right? Does that mean that .380 is as good as a 9mm in terminal ballistics, and therefor, according to your arguments, as good as a .45? Or is 9mm the bottom shelf in carry-able/concealable, defensive semi-auto handgun rounds? If 9mm is at the bottom, is .45 at the top?

Food for thought I supose.

MICHAEL T

July 11, 2005, 04:31 PM

Because God decided BIG rocks would hurt and do more damage than little rocks. That idea worked so good he decided bullets should work same way.

355sigfan

July 11, 2005, 05:14 PM

But for those arguing for the 9mm because they expand to a similar diameter as a .45, why not .380? Or something smaller if you could get it in a high-cap firearm of similar quality? What does a .380 HP expand to? Close to a 9mm, right? Does that mean that .380 is as good as a 9mm in terminal ballistics, and therefor, according to your arguments, as good as a .45? Or is 9mm the bottom shelf in carry-able/concealable, defensive semi-auto handgun rounds? If 9mm is at the bottom, is .45 at the top?
END QUOTE

Sorry but your mistaken. 380 JHP's don't expand reliabily and the ones that do can't penetrate 12 inches. None are anywhere near the 9mm or 45 acp in performance. The 380 has less than half the muzzle energey and about 1/3 the momentium of a 9mm load. The 9mm compares faviorably with the 45 acp. The 380 can't touch either.
Pat

DAVE RICHARDS

July 11, 2005, 05:34 PM

First off I feel fine with a 9mm with good load selection. In fact to make thing's easy I have with a few exceptions gone to 9mm's and .45's. I think the biggest pluses for the .45 are pretty obvious. First even if the bullet doesn't expand you've still got a pretty big hole. Unlike the high pressure rounds the .45 gives a "roll" in recoil compared to a "snap" from the others. And for a big round because of the rolling recoil it can get back on target fairly fast. And it happens to be a very accurate round.

NineseveN

July 12, 2005, 10:22 AM

Sorry but your mistaken. 380 JHP's don't expand reliabily and the ones that do can't penetrate 12 inches. None are anywhere near the 9mm or 45 acp in performance. The 380 has less than half the muzzle energey and about 1/3 the momentium of a 9mm load. The 9mm compares faviorably with the 45 acp. The 380 can't touch either.
Pat

Well, I was asking a question, not forming an opinion, but that neither here nor there. So then, 9mm is the bottom shelf (smallest viable defense round) and .45ACP is at the top (as far as size is concerned). There are still differences between the two, even if some data is similar. So you take a few trade-offs depending on choice. But Regardless, I have not seen any data at all that shows that a 9mm round can be the equal or better of one of the top .45ACP rounds tested. There is a difference between "similar" and "equal" or "better". It all comes down to what is important to the purchaser/user.

Capacity: Though it is arguable that you will never need 14+ rounds in one magazine. Most gunfights consume less than 5 rounds as far as I understand it. So unless we're all carrying handguns to repel a terrorist attack or something, capacity is kinda arguable. Of course, under stress, do we all really think we could make our 7-9 rounds of .45 actualy count? One on attacker, surely, on 2 or 3? Not much room for error there. So perhaps, given different shooters, capacity is a huge comfort.

Performance: Though the results on performance between rounds has been shown to be "similar", simialr is not "equal", which means one round came out on top. That's pretty much the .45ACP. I am less concerned about making my 9 rounds of .45 count than I am about whether or not one of those rounds will expand and do its job or not. Rounds don't always expand, I am confident that even under duress I can hit reasonably well enough not to need 9 rounds of .45 on one target. Since, as one THR member so eloquently put it, .45's don't shrink, it would seem that even under worst/worst case scenarios (neither round expands), the .45 has an edge.

But most of us will NEVER be in a gunfight. Statistically, this conversation is irrellevant. But is doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss this topic and others like it from time to time. I don't feel undergunned when carrying my Walther P99 in 9mm, but I prefer to have my .45 on me (and in fact I have not carried my Walther once since I got the USP .45, before that, I carried the Walther for over 2 years). Call it personal preference.

::EDIT::
Removed the quote from ammolab.com, forgot they frown upon such things.

:)

Harold Mayo

July 12, 2005, 11:50 AM

Though the results on performance between rounds has been shown to be "similar", simialr is not "equal", which means one round came out on top. That's pretty much the .45ACP.

It is? Is that your opinion or is there some information somewhere to actually back that up? I'm asking 'cause I've seen all of the published studies and I don't see anywhere that ".45 ACP" trumps everything else. A lot of factors go into it and simple bullet diameter is just ONE variable.

NineseveN

July 12, 2005, 12:08 PM

It is? Is that your opinion or is there some information somewhere to actually back that up? I'm asking 'cause I've seen all of the published studies and I don't see anywhere that ".45 ACP" trumps everything else. A lot of factors go into it and simple bullet diameter is just ONE variable.

You catch me at a loss at the moment. I'm at work, can't do a full search right now and ammolab.com's test results seem to be password protected. I could be remembering things incorrectly, but the majority of the gel tests I have seen indicate that.45ACP edges out 9mm on almost all overall acounts (the sum of wound cavity, temp cavity, penetration, expansion etc...).

buzz_knox

July 12, 2005, 12:25 PM

cookekdjr

July 12, 2005, 01:02 PM

Quote:
EMT's rule of thumb: The guys shot by 9mm's usually live. The guys shot by .40's and .45's usually die.

That's not the rule of thumb I've heard...

Hi, Harold.
What is the rule of thumb you heard? And who did you hear it from?
I heard mine from the EMT's I see at homicide crime scenes. I'd be interested to hear another point of view from other experienced folks.
Thanks,

David

Harold Mayo

July 12, 2005, 01:16 PM

Harold Mayo

July 12, 2005, 01:22 PM

I'd actually be curious to see statistics, though. No bias based on anything...simply the caliber (and bullet configuration), number of times shot, where they were shot and whether they lived or died (and, in the latter case, how long it took them to die). People argue about one-shot stops and such and statistical irregularities, but I'd like to see a couple of thousand shootings with the above information so that I could draw my own conclusions without having to view it through the perspective of someone else.

NineseveN

July 12, 2005, 01:51 PM

So which is it? Is it that the .45 edges out (i.e. has a slight advantage over) all others, or is the advantage so great that concerns over capacity, etc. are effectively irrelevant in the fact of the superiority? You've argued both.

These discussions often take a defensive tone, which I am seeing now (not necessarily from anyone in particular). Let me be clear if I have not already:

Caliber selection is a wholly personal choice. My concerns are not likely yours, yours are not likely mine. I worry about 4 things when choosing a handgun and caliber for carry. Capacity, Caliber, Concealbility and Platform/Reliability (ordered from lowest concern to highest). Working backwards I research the most reliable manufacturers and models in my price range. I define a key list of features I must have (i.e. manual safety or decocker etc...) as well as some I would like to have (standard accessory rail, bobbed hammer or grip) and discard the rest. Then I pick out those which size would allow me to conceal the firearm well given most circumstances. Using those criteria I narrow it down to the 4-5 models I would consider, then I look at caliber. With most firearms, they are avialable in at least 2 of the big 4 (9mm, .40, .357sig, .45). I then make comparisons based on capacity (i.e, if it is available in a .45, does it have mag capacity of at least 8 rounds. If it is a 9mm, are hi-caps readly available and inexpensive etc...). I then decide which of the platforms I would like to try and I either find someone who has one to test out, rent one at a range or, price permitting, simply buy it and test it out. Once I find the largest caliber handgun that has the minimum acceptable number of rounds for a specific caliber in the mag that feels nice, conceals easily and I can fire well, I then have my trial carry piece. I then test it for function with a few different ammo brands and types. Then it becomes my full-time peice. I put a lot fo thoght into it, and a lot of my decisions are subjective to my own input and thus biased. I couldn't choose a handgun for someone else to carry or pick a caliber for them, but I can often add some data to their search and some advice in certain areas.

What I was saying about the "slight" advantage is this:
On paper it may only be .10inches of expansion, .5 inches of penetration or a "slightly" larger wound channel, but you're betting your life on that + or - .10 inches of expansion, .5 inches of penetration or "slightly" larger wound channel. Nascar racecars are very similar with "slight" differences, yet we always have a winner, not likely to tie there. The win may only be by a thousandth of a second, but it's a win. When my life is on the line, I want that .10 inches or .5 inches or "slight" edge. Some may feel comfortable without it, gaining increased attempts to incapacitate. And that's cool. As I said earlier in this thread, under stress, often your groups will balloon into monstrous balls of inaccuracy. If that is a concern for the user, then they would be best served and likely more comfortable with the increased capacity that something other than a .45 can give you (other than the rare exceptions). Or if recoil is a concern, a smaller round might be in order as well. I would not laugh at anyone or have words over someone choosing 9mm as a carry or defense round. I have in the past, firends of mine do, people I respect do as well. I choose otherwise, my personal concern is not my group size under duress or controlling the recoil of a larger round, I have confidence in my own ability to perform under such situations. I also don't plan on repelling a terrorist invasion with my handgun so capacity, for me is moot. And since capacity, in my case, is rendered moot, I want that slight advantage on paper that the .45 gives when I can have it. Because that slight advantage, even if others fail to admit to or see it, does translate into an advantage on the street going bullet for bullet. The .45ACP is far from a magic bullet, but it suits my needs exactly, which is why I carry one. YMMV.

Missouri Mule

July 12, 2005, 01:54 PM

I sometimes carry my only 9mm handgun. It's a Kahr PM9. It is my compromise gun between my 1911 and my P3AT.
It is my opinion that the small light weight PM9 is the perfect mate for the 9mm luger.

Why do I nearly always choose the .45acp over the 9mm as a primary carry.

Pretty somple really....the .45 just gives me more warm fuzzies than the 9mm.

NineseveN

July 12, 2005, 01:57 PM

So many people out there want to bad-mouth the M16/M4/AR15 and the .223/5.56 but I had the opportunity to see the wound channel caused by a single .223 round in a human cadaver once. To those of you who want to argue about the round not causing enough damage, you really don't know what you're talking about. To see what that one little high-velocity piece of metal did was enough to ensure that I would never, ever speak of a .223 as not being "enough" (not that I did before, but that's beside the point).

Well, they heard it on the internet, it must be true!!!

The .223 depends on velocity when we're talking about SS109 or watever other military ball ammo. It has to have a certain amount of velocity to cause those wound effects. Out of a 20" or longer bbl, the military .223 performs rather nicely in a lot of cases. Out of the shorter bbls, well, the effective range of the round is reduced greatly. Now, when we get into JHP ammo and some of the ammo available to LEOs and such, it's a whole new ball game, a little less dependant on velocity. .308 is not so dependant on velocity in ball ammo. That's kind of like the 9mm and .45 comparison now that I think of it. :)

Sorry to get off track, found that interesting is all.

Missouri Mule

July 12, 2005, 02:06 PM

Quote:
In the late 80's a freind who happened to be an San Antonio TX leo told me that they were trading in their S&W model 65 because to many of the officers couldn't quality with the issued 357 mag ammo.

Maybe I shouldn't have said couldn't qualify when what I meant to say, had difficulty qualifying.

I would be suspect of someones abilities if they couldn't qualify with a 4" barreled .357. That just blows my mind.

I agree! But as my friend said. Most of the folks going through the academy weren't experienced shooters and a lot had never even fired a gun.

I've shot his service revolver some. It is a pussy cat with .38's but load it with
full power 125's and it starts getting an attitude.

cookekdjr

July 12, 2005, 02:31 PM

Rule of thumb from the EMT/paramedics/ER nurses/ER doctors that I've spoken with who have very much experience say that most people shot by handguns, regardless of caliber, tend to live. Those shot by rifles and shotguns have a marked tendency over and above those shot by handguns to die. The key factor with the handgun-inflicted wounds is simply stopping bleeding since there's normally not an awful lot of other damage (unless the heart, brain or spine is hit). Stop the bleeding, save the life.

I agree with the rule of thumb that most people shot with a handgun live. That is definately the case. More on that later.

I also agree people shot by longguns have a marked tendency above those shot by handguns to die. No doubt that is true. Huge understatement.

However, keep in mind that many in the group above (EMT/paramedics/ER nurses/ER doctors) deal with walk-in cases. Guy gets shot by 9mm, guy walks 5 blocks to hospital. Or drives there next day, etc. I have a number of cases where "victim" shoots defendant in the butt/leg with 9mm, the defendant never seeks medical attention (or seeks it the next day) and then the defendant kills the victim in revenge days later. Commonplace occurance.

In contrast, the EMT's I've talked to are ambulance drivers- they get called out to a scene where the subject is incapacitated, and appears to need critical care. It is from these test subjects that the rule of thumb appears ("guys shot by 9mm usually live, guys shot by .40/.45 usually die").

Now, what the medical professionals have told you about blood loss is true. Blood loss is what causes the majority of gunshot wound deaths. But therein lies the key to the .40/.45/.357's success. They cause far more blood loss than 9mm. That is why shot placement is more critical for 9mm (as you said above, generally handguns must strike the heart, brain, or spine to kill- you may want to add lungs or liver, but you get the idea). But since .40/.45/.357 make much more devastating holes, the gusnhot victim is much more likely to suffer massive, rapid blood loss. That, along with their ability to shatter bone, is why those calibers are more effective that 9mm.

By the way, saw another autopsy today. If you have to use a knife, stab, don't slash. Slashing looks ugly, but stabbing kills. Just ask the dead guy. :)

Have a good day,

David

Kalashnikov

July 12, 2005, 03:13 PM

Why use a .45?

Because S&W .500 isn't avalible in a semi auto :evil:

buzz_knox

July 12, 2005, 03:39 PM

Because S&W .500 isn't avalible in a semi auto

You bring up an excellent point. The S&W .500 isn't available, but the .50 GI is. So are we going to see people in the "I carry a .45 'cause they don't make a .46" crowd switching to the .50 GI, or will that be exposed for mere hyperbole with nothing backing it up?

Kalashnikov

July 12, 2005, 04:02 PM

How is the .50GI anyways? I've heard very little about it but I am interested since I like the idea of a .50 on a .45 body.

dodging230grainers

July 12, 2005, 04:32 PM

From what I've heard the .50 GI is 300 grains @ 700 FPS.

NineseveN

July 12, 2005, 05:25 PM

"You bring up an excellent point. The S&W .500 isn't available, but the .50 GI is. So are we going to see people in the "I carry a .45 'cause they don't make a .46" crowd switching to the .50 GI, or will that be exposed for mere hyperbole with nothing backing it up?"

I think most of us will wait until a well-known, reputable and reliable firearm is tooled up for it, and then for some good ballistsics data and more widespread acceptance. If the capacity is similar, the terminal ballistics are good, ammo is available in multiple brands/loads/configs and it comes in an HK, I'd buy it.

Can't speak for everyone though.

Krag

July 12, 2005, 06:29 PM

My friend in the UK is going to send me a double barreled .577 Howdah pistol the ultimate big bore handgun. Now I'll be able to show up all those .45 acp fans out there.

I know a guy who carries TWO 1911s: a full sized Gov't Model in a Yaqui slide holster and a light weight "Officers Model" in a shoulder holster - plus two extra magazines - all under a light weight vest. I don't know if he's putting us all on or is really that paranoid?

My advice to him was "Stay away from deep water!" :neener:

Marshall

July 12, 2005, 10:24 PM

I dunno? I carry a 357mag J-Frame the majority of the time, a 9mm BHP a fair amount, an XD-40 some and a few others from time to time. I would much rather have a .45 in a defensive gun fight, I just don't have a .45 I like carrying, yet.

Do I feel under armed with a 357 mag? Uh, not a chance. Do I think today's premium 147gr 9mm defensive cartidges won't get the job done? No way. But no one will get me to believe that a 230gr 45 caliber bullet isn't going to stand better odds of ruining someones day more than the 9mm would.

TheGoodLife

July 13, 2005, 11:58 AM

I have a few questions about what I'm reading, and I appreciate your patience in listening.

I don't want to redirect the thread, but would anyone care to respond to the following. For me, it will have some bearing on my choice of a CCW.

1) Cost factor - of the ammo for any of the weapons that are mentioned in this thread- 45, 9mm, 357, etc

Which costs more?

I plan to purchase something, but I don't want to go broke trying to learn how to shoot.

2) Availability of ammo for the weapons mentioned-45, 9mm, 357, etc

Are all equally available, or are some harder to find?

Thanks.

NineseveN

July 13, 2005, 12:21 PM

It depends on your budget. If you are scraping pennies together, for target practice I'd suggest .22. If you must have a carry/defense gun and .22 is ruled out, 9mm is your best bet. If you have a little free money, but not much, any of the big 4 will do. Over the long haul it may be more expensive, but only by 200-300 hundred dollars per year (unless you shoot A LOT).

If you buy your plinking ammo in bulk (500 rounds or more), this is what I typically pay (excluding Wolf ammo or great deals):

.45 = $140 for 500
.40 = $110 for 500
.357sig = $120 for 500
9mm = $75 for 500
So what it comes down to is the frequency at which you shoot.

If 500 rounds will last you 5 range sessions over a 4 month period, then for the year, .45 is only $195 more expensive per year ($16.25 per month) than 9mm. If 500 rounds lasts you only one month or less, then .45 becomes MUCH more expensive.

None of the big 4 should be hard to find, even at Wallyworld.

If you're new to shooting, a .22 is a GREAT learning tool and VERY inexpensive (like $150 for 5,000 rounds hehe). The 9mm is very mild in recoil and almost every popular handgun has a model chambered in it.

I'd suggest you find a range where you can rent some handguns in different calibers to both get a feel for each round and see how well each model sits in your hand. Or have some of us THR members near you take you to a range and check out some of our gear.

Rinspeed

July 13, 2005, 12:31 PM

I have a few questions about what I'm reading, and I appreciate your patience in listening.

I plan to purchase something, but I don't want to go broke trying to learn how to shoot.

If you want something for carry and to help you learn to be a good shot there is no comparison. The 357 is the most versatile of those listed. You can shoot inexpensive light .38 special loads with almost no recoil or full house 357 loads for protection or hunting.

NineseveN

July 13, 2005, 12:53 PM

Yes, if you are considering a revolver, .357magnum/.38special is a great choice.

355sigfan

July 13, 2005, 01:53 PM

NineseveN

July 13, 2005, 02:03 PM

But the load doesn't change trigger technique, correct? So, make sure to not ONLY plink with .38, make sure you keep yourself in on .357 as much as possible, but shooting some .38 too is no different than having 2 handguns you shoot in different calibers. If you're on a budget and can't buy two firearms, it's a good compromise, provided you don't crutch one round over the other (i.e. you must shoot your carry round regularly for optimal results).

TheGoodLife

July 13, 2005, 02:06 PM

Thanks NineseveN, Rinspeed, and 357sigfan

Very helpful!

You just don't know how much when you are first getting started in these areas.

Rinspeed

July 13, 2005, 10:21 PM

We found out long ago as cops that its a poor idea to shoot 38's and carry 357 mag ammo. Practice with a load with recoil that is about the same as your carry load. You also want a simular point of impact as well.

First you have to learn the fundamentals. It doesn't matter what load you are using in your carry gun if you can't hit with it. You have to learn trigger control first and the best way is with light loads. Different points of impact have very little if anything to do the discussion when you are talking about self defense.

NineseveN

July 13, 2005, 11:42 PM

That's kinda what I thought Rinspeed, but perhaps he was speaking from the standpoint of a police officer. I mean, we may never need our CCWs, LEOs are in a different situation because they are in harm's way every day simply by the nature of thier profession. They are a lot more likely to need to use their firearm than we are, and much, much, much more likely to need it more than once. We use ours as last-ditch resorts, they use thiers as a tool of their profession. I still think it's a bit off, but perhaps that's the perspective.

bigmike45

July 14, 2005, 12:14 PM

A thread like this is always going to cause some hurt feelings between its participants. Instead of chastizing mabey we should all support each others choice, whether its from the heart or actual printed evidence that was used to formulate an informed decision.

If you look at what is being used by law enforcement, it is pretty much skewed to the smaller calibers. There is obviously many reasons for the choice. As long is the shooter is proficient enough to hit the intended target and stop the threat the caliber is irrelivant. It just may take more shots.

You drive a Ford and I drive a GM product. Each gets us to the same location but in different ways with different means. I have a radio you have a stereo, I have a big engine, yours is smaller. Mine is red and yours is blue.....comeon!