45Acp fails and 9mm saves the day in shoot out in Ohio


PDA






BHP9
April 5, 2003, 07:22 PM
I was talking to a police officer today that told me a story that adds much more evidence to some of my findings through by tests down through the years with the .45Acp v/s the 9mm.

I own and shoot both calibers and have conducted penetration tests and uncovered a U.S. Government test made in 1945 with these two calibers. In the Government test the 9mm penetrated a G.I. STEEL helment at a phenominal 130 yards while the .45 ACP bounced off at a mere point blank range of only 30 yards.

My own tests including shooting at steel 55 gallion drums at a range of only 3 feet showed the .45 acp would penetrate only one side of the steel drum using full power loads while the 9mm using weak wimpy loaded down ammo easily penetrated both sides of the steel drum.

The Shoot out:

A man in a basement with a knife faced 6 police officers and refused to put down the knife. He raised the knife and was shot twice with a 1911 using soft points by the first officer. The man was wearing a winter coat and the .45 slugs only penetrated only about an inch into the flesh. No. 2 officer then shot the man with a .38 special and again no reaction at all. Officer no.3 shot the man with one shot out of a 9mm and the bullet went through the man and he dropped him and he later was saved by parametics but was permanently paralized.

I think that the longer the range the lethality really goes down when using the .45 Acp. I think that in its original military loading with a full metal jacketed bullet at close ranges of 7 to 10 yards the .45acp really does its bestand contrary to popular belief soft points may actually decrease the lethality of the .45 acp cartridge especially as the distance increases.

Smaller bullets traveling at higher velocity were proven many years ago by famous gun-smith P.O. Ackley to penetrate armor plate (.220 swift) when even 30-06 armor piercing bullets failed to penetrate the armor.

This idea has born frutation in FN's latest military pistol that actually fires a shortened .223 cal rifle round. Its extremely high velocity for a pistol round penetrates most if not all modern body armor even when not using armor piercing ammo but ordinary Full metall jacketed ammo.

If you enjoyed reading about "45Acp fails and 9mm saves the day in shoot out in Ohio" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Feanaro
April 5, 2003, 07:25 PM
Interesting. I kinda figured 9MM would penetrate better, it is smaller and faster. Although I'd prefer to get hit with neither. :D

BTW, what is this about 9MM saving the day in Ohio?

BHP9
April 5, 2003, 07:35 PM
BTW, what is this about 9MM saving the day in Ohio?

Sorry about that I hit the post button too soon, scroll back up and read the ammended post again.

Sven
April 5, 2003, 07:40 PM
Chuck Taylor had 5 one-stop shots with .45 ball, or something like that. One was through a car window of a truck driving away from him.

Design irrespective, bullets are bad news - on the receiving end.

DeltaElite
April 5, 2003, 08:11 PM
Just imagine if they had a real caliber like 10mm. ;)

It's a nice story that fits your theory.
Where and when did it happen? Other than Ohio.
Is there any data to support this story, or is it just a story?

Inquiring mimes wanna know. :D

444
April 5, 2003, 08:13 PM
:rolleyes:

DeltaElite
April 5, 2003, 08:28 PM
Wow, now that's a well thought out response. :neener:

Tamara
April 5, 2003, 08:38 PM
The man was wearing a winter coat and the .45 slugs only penetrated only about an inch into the flesh.

That sounds a little fishy to me.

HKcenterMass
April 5, 2003, 08:38 PM
Why dothe 9's always have to prove something? Its like little man's syndrome. Shoot what you like and be happy.

hondo68
April 5, 2003, 08:43 PM
After taking two .45's and a .38 you could have knocked him over with a feather. 9mm is better than .45, but this ain't the story to prove it. .357 SIG is better than both.

DeltaElite
April 5, 2003, 08:50 PM
All calibers have their place.
I believe in shooting what you like.
I just want to see some documentation and not some story from a cop. Cops lie. :D

BTW, 10mm puts all the calibers listed so far to shame. :neener:
I do have a fondness for 357Sig. :D

TheMariner
April 5, 2003, 08:56 PM
HKcenterMass is right.... Doesn't really matter....

What does matter is the shooter. As a professional marksman, I could drop a person at 50yrds with a .22LR from a Ruger Mk II. You pick which eye. Accuracy is what is imperative. I'm as good with a 9mm as a .45 ACP but I prefer the .40S&W as an inbetween. THe 9mm is easy to handle one handed where any .45 requires two hands for me. THe .40 is, for me, a nice balance between size of bullet, kick, cost, guns in the chamber, and reasonable round capacity. 10 shots of 9mm WILL affect a smaller volume than 10 shots of .40 or .45, given the same bullet type from the same manufacturer, at the normal engagement range of about 15 feet. THat is a simple fact of physics. But 1 shot of any of them to the neck or heart is going to kill.

Me? I prefer as big a bullet as I can handle from any position. THe .40 happens to fit the bill. I have an uncle who could easily man handle a .44 mag or .50AE, but he prefer's is old 9mm with its 14 round magazine. My father trusts his life to my Walther P99, in .40S&W. For him and me both, 10 shots per mag is plenty. Both of us are crack pistol marksmen at ranges under 15 yrds.

rennaissancemann
April 5, 2003, 08:59 PM
This is an old argument with no absolute answer that I’ve ever heard. If physics alone were the determining factor in stopping power, then high velocity, small bore pistol rounds would rule the day. The fact is that they don’t. I’m not saying that they’re not effective, small caliber bullets kill people every day, but stopping power is a loosely defined quality ascribed to a cartridge used for hunting or self defense. Generally speaking; hollow point bullets have greater stopping power than fully jacketed ones. Larger bullets have a greater stopping power than smaller ones. Higher velocity rounds have a greater stopping power than lower velocity ones. Clothing can effect how a bullet performs. So can some pharmaceutical substances. Shot placement always counts.

Anecdotal stories like this abound, but a .45 does a consistently better job of stopping an opponent than 9 mm does. Maybe it’s because high quality .45 caliber hollow points cause more tissue damage than a high quality 9 mm hollow point. Maybe it’s because more folks that use a .45 for social purposes practice more often than the folks that choose a 9mm for the same purpose. Maybe… I don’t know for sure, and I’m not certain that anybody does.


Respectfully

Gerald McDonald
April 5, 2003, 09:03 PM
Having had an uncle killed by a robber with one shot from a 22 long in the side of the head from approx 10 feet, I'm more of a believer in shot placement than size.
Gerald

Flatfender
April 5, 2003, 09:03 PM
220...221 :rolleyes: whatever it takes.



http://www.moviequotes.com/fullquote.cgi?qnum=23669

JohnKSa
April 5, 2003, 09:16 PM
This is an old argument with no absolute answer that I’ve ever heard. If physics alone were the determining factor in stopping power,
Without question, physics alone IS the determining factor.

But, NOT highschool physics.

This is a very complex problem; the oversimplified, pablum-physics doled out in little bite-sized spoonfuls to highschool students isn't going to begin to scratch the surface.

agtman
April 5, 2003, 09:27 PM
:rolleyes:


And then there are the more commonly reported incidents that don't fit the "9mm-as-Uber-cartridge" theory, like this one:

http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=63621

There, a BG took repeated hits point-blank from an off-duty cop's 9mm and kept coming. Maybe the 9mm is only effective from a distance - ya think? BTW, can you figure out which cop in Jersy is now carrying a .45? :scrutiny:

Weekend chuckle: :D What'd ya call an unfired 9mm round? *














* A FTS waiting to happen. :what:


:neener:

HKcenterMass
April 5, 2003, 09:42 PM
Amen, there is no "correct" answer here. To blanketly say that the 9mm is better than the .45, or the .45 is better than the 9, is quite honestly a stupid, stupid statement, we are all dumber for having to listen to it, and may God have mercy on your soul. Its a personal thing, if a certain caliber works better for you, that doesnt make it a better round for everyone... for me, a .45 is better suited for me because it is my opinion that 850 fps with a .45 size bullet is sufficient for getting the job done against a human aggressor...if your hollow point "cocoons" from heavy winter clothing, you still have i nice size bullet leaving a nice size hole... now, i like my 9mm as well, but use it more for warmer weather b/c its easier to conceal, and you dont have to worry about heavy clothing and cocooning. I'm sure everyone has seen this, but i'll post it. :
Bye the way, has anyone taken any of chuck's tayols classes?

"The controversy continues: Which is the better manstopper? -- big, slow bullets or those which are small, and fast? Upon which are you willing to bet your life? -- documented history, computer simulations or limited case-study review?"

Of late we have seen a rash of "new revelations" on the old subject of bullet performance, specifically the issue of stopping power and whether or not hollow point bullets are all they're cracked up to be. These "revelations", based upon results obtained in irrelevant target mediums like gelatin, clay, wet Los Angeles telephone books, limited personal experience or, worse, pure assumption based on nothing at all, are beginning to inundate the pages of the gun press and completely muddle an already abstract and sensitive issue.

Perhaps none of this makes much difference to many readers, but it does indeed matter to a significant percentage of people -- those who either carry a gun for a living or train those who do. In other words, some of us read the trade journals for reasons other than simply to be entertained.

I've said many times that life and death are serious business -- too serious to be left to amateurs. A harsh statement? Perhaps. But to me the problem is that these days it seems like everybody wants us to believe that they have all the answers. And maybe they do, but, at times, I can't help but wonder...

I note that the most prominent writers espousing these "revelations" never give the source of their percentages or the details of their examination -- and I feel this to be significant. On the other hand, I've known Jeff Cooper, for example, for two decades and, while it's no secret that we have differing views on many things, I can tell you that he was once a Professor of History and as such, views all issues from that perspective.

Thus, his review of historic and technical data covering more than a hundred years, shows that the .45 ACP, for example, "gets the job done nineteen times out of twenty or perhaps a little bit more". Now, years later, he has come under criticism for this statement by these same writers, none of whom possess his credentials or intellect.

He isn't alone. The same critics also debunk Hatcher, even though his famous Relative Stopping Power thesis has been far more accurate than anything else so far, and has withstood the test of time -- more than seventy years, as a matter of fact.

Why the assault? Charitably, it's my guess that at best, these writers undertook a less comprehensive examination than Hatcher or Cooper and subsequently concluded that the .45 was only about 65% effective. Neither Hatcher or Cooper ever claimed that the .45 ACP is infallible, only that it is 85-92% effective, depending upon the type of bullet used.

I, too, am a student of history with a pretty fair amount of background, experience and even a bit of expertise with firearms, because as far as I'm concerned, all of these things are part of truly being a professional. And I think it's worth mentioning that Jeff's preference for the big bore is shared by not only the late General Hatcher, but by Elmer Keith, Colonel Townsend Whelen, and tens of thousands of GI combat veterans and lawmen for more than eight decades.

I've examined the same data as Cooper and been in eight handgun fights myself, as well as dozens more involving other small arms, and I can see readily why he feels the way he does. In fact, in general, I concur with his findings because what I have seen in actual combat mirrors both his views and those of General Hatcher.


Were I to "play the percentages," or base my opinion on a more narrow examination such as (for example) a review of the files of the law enforcement agencies with which I have been associated or draw from my own personal experiences alone, I could legitimately state that .45 ACP 230 gr. "hardball" fired from a M-1911 Colt auto, is 100% effective!

How? Simple -- in all of the departmental shootings in which it was used, it worked. And because in five of the seven pistol fights in which I have been a participant, I used a .45 with ball ammo -- and it worked. I won all five with my first shot, my opponent collapsing before I could fire again. Five center hits, five one-shot stops, five DOS (dead on the scene).

Perfect, right? 100% effective. See what I mean about percentages? It's all in your perspective, isn't it?

The first handgun failure-to-stop (FTS) I experienced was with a 4-inch .357 Magnum and 158 gr. JHPs. My adversary panicked upon realizing he had been hit in the chest, abandoned his weapon and ran a full sixty yards in the opposite direction before he became incapacitated, collapsed and died.

My second FTS was with a 9mm Browning P-35. The subject, a terrorist (who was "rockin' 'n rollin'" an AK-47, fortunately with the stock folded, at me during the entire encounter) was struck under the left nipple by my first shot with no effect. Luckily -- and coincidentally -- my second shot, while it struck within two inches of the first, penetrated sufficiently to shatter his spinal column, both incapacitating and killing him almost instantly.

Were I to take the limited view of the writers in question, I could claim the .357 and 9mm to be completely ineffective. But we both know that such a claim would not only be rubbish, but actually insulting to your intelligence.

Again, perspective.

Obviously, the answer lies somewhere in between the two extremes. The rub is in the fact that however "high tech" the testing methodology, there is really no way to obtain data of absolute value by using artificial testing mediums. If you want to find out what really happens in gunfights, you've got to shoot people, not clay, Jello, water jugs, or water-soaked phone books.


And people are different from each other. They possess wildly varying physical and psychological characteristics, from a testing standpoint, all of which are completely uncontrollable. This is why I, too, feel that only an overview of history can give us the broadly-based perspective we need.

How? Because history has recorded what actually happened, pretty accurately for the most part. And when we skim the extremes from both the top and bottom of the spectrum, we find an astonishing consistency over a very long period of time.

This is the best we can hope for, remembering that we're dealing with a highly diverse, abstract and complex subject. And, like it or not, it won't be superseded until/unless we have the socio-political-legal ability to hook up a thousand or so humans to our technology and shoot them under varied conditions and record what actually happens!

Don't laugh. The inability to do this is why we are forced to utilize artificial mediums or review shooting files in the first place.

And I think that it shows a definite loss of perspective when someone who claims to be an expert makes statements that clash with over a century of observed, recorded history, especially when their opinion comes solely from shooting a couple of water-filled 1 gallon plastic milk jugs or looking at a limited number of police files.

Take just a moment and think about it -- are you willing to bet your life or the lives of those you train on bullet performance in artificial mediums or opinions based upon a superficial review of a small number of police files? I'm not and I don't think you are either.

Another observation -- more personal, but still true. Invariably, those who debunk large bore/low velocity handguns prefer them for their own personal use.

And while casting stones is not my intent, I can't help but note that what a man selects for his own defense is the most valid indicator of what he really thinks works best! He can say whatever he wishes, but it's what he does that "tells the tale," as far as I'm concerned.

Logically, the performance of a given number of different projectiles in a medium of consistent density can only be a valid measure of comparison in that medium. There is no definitive proof that those projectiles will behave in the same manner in human beings, all of whom exhibit different bone structure and varying degrees of water content, muscle bulk, muscle tone, nerve sensitivity and mental/emotional condition.

No, I'm not trying to convince you that frangible bullets never expand. However, I am saying that in the real world, reliable expansion is highly questionable at typical service handgun velocities and is influenced heavily by what the bullet encounters during its passage through the target. This in itself is yet another uncontrollable variable, particularly when we consider the different barrel lengths in use and their effects on velocity.

In short, I'm trying to make you think -- no more, no less. By showing you these bullets, all claimed to be Red Hot Expanders, that didn't perform as claimed when shot into real people...

...maybe, just maybe, we can keep some of those we train from getting hurt unnecessarily or even save a life or two.

So, look at the overview before you decide what you are going to bet your life on. And remember too that regardless of your choice of weapon, caliber or bullet style, you must still get solid hits in the thorax or cranial cavity to stop your assailant with a minimum of shots fired. There is simply no substitute for marksmanship, a point that, all too often seems to be overlooked.

Otherwise, you're casting your fate to the wind.

goon
April 5, 2003, 09:51 PM
Chuck Taylor had 5 one-stop shots with .45 ball, or something like that. One was through a car window of a truck driving away from him.

Why was he shooting at the guy if he was driving away?

Shane
April 5, 2003, 10:25 PM
The man was wearing a winter coat and the .45 slugs only penetrated only about an inch into the flesh.

Sounds fishy to me....only a 1" deep wound?. Either someone isn't measuring the wound correctly, or the man was wearing more than a winter coat. A .45 ACP should be able to get more than 1 inch penetration through coat and flesh, IMO. YMMV

gudel
April 5, 2003, 10:45 PM
i'm skeptical about this story. Link to the original news site please. :cool:

Blueduck
April 5, 2003, 10:52 PM
Why was he shooting at the guy if he was driving away?

Gotta remember shooting a fleeing felon was the rule of law and perfectly acceptable for LEO's not too long ago. Still often is under more stringent circumstances (jeopardy from him/her escaping).

"Joe Psycho" guns down two people, refuses to stop and is running toward a crowded mall. Though it may make Roy Rogers blanch, one right between the shoulder blades is a Policeman's proper response.

Sorry to get OT, but assuming a back shot is a bad shoot is a pet peeve of mine ;)

BHP9
April 5, 2003, 11:44 PM
to HKcenterMas

..So, look at the overview before you decide what you are going to bet your life on. And remember too that regardless of your choice of weapon, caliber or bullet style, you must still get solid hits in the thorax or cranial cavity to stop your assailant with a minimum of shots fired. There is simply no substitute for marksmanship, a point that, all too often seems to be overlooked.

Excellent reply and well written and I do agree and or sympathize with most of what you say but in a way your last statement reflects a point that is often overlooked by even the most intelligent people many of which are not immune to seeing what they wish to see.

Case in point:

Did you know that in the infamous Thompson tests of early in the last century that most experts chose to totally ignore the fact that the .30 Luger did about as well as the .45 acp when shooting gigantic animal steers in the tests that took place in a Chicago slaughter house. The big bore boys that have been beating the big bore drums for years simply chose to ignore how well the much smaller but much higher velocity 30 luger did in killing the steers.

I really think in a big way the results agree with your last statement and that is under ideal conditions if shot placement is precise as in the slaughter house tests with cattle, that precise accurate penetration with small diameter bullets (solids or expanding bullets) kills as quickly as the larger bullets if either small or large bullets are put in the same place with the same penetration to reach and thereby destroy vital organs.

In other words internal organs like the heart stop working just as fast when hit by small or large diameter projectiles and if this were not true you would not see such tradgedies as the instant deaths of people that were shot for fun with .177 caliber air rifles because the idiots that shot them thought that such a small caliber weapon could not really hurt anyone.

In conclusion I would have to say the 9mm Luger is prehaps in the U.S. (Not the entire rest of the world that has used it successfully for almost 100 years) the most underrated of cartridges and the .45 Acp the most Mythical and most overrated cartridge. In some circumstances the 9mm may indeed be the better overall cartridge when things like distance (residual velocity) , odd angles (shooting through an arm to reach the body) or penetrating barriers such as thick clothing, body armor, or barriers such as wood or sheet metal (cars) are concerned.

This is not to say the .45acp is a dud, far from it, almost 100 years of history as proved otherwise but saying that the .45 acp is in the superior cartridge is to ignore the history of the 9mm luger cartridge. 1/10 of an inch bigger diameter difference and a way lower velocity and penetration of the .45acp does not make for a superior cartridge over the 9mm.


I myself feel well armed with full metal jacketed ammo in the .45 acp (the ammo that really made the reputation of the .45acp) and I would feel equally well armed with the 9mm with just about any reasonable bullet both in 121 grain soft point or full metal jacketed ammo.

Marksmanship in the end may indeed be the best insurance as to the handguns lethality no matter what caliber you may choose to carry.

Coronach
April 6, 2003, 12:01 AM
Cite?

Mike

firestar
April 6, 2003, 12:09 AM
NO WAY! There is no way a puny little 9mm could even have penetrated a t-shirt let alone a winter coat! A .45 could knock down a wall and STILL have enough energy to go to work, come home, cook dinner, clean the house, give the dog a bath and kill 3-4 fat guys with one shot. Haven't you heard that the .45 is the best caliber ever and nothing else even comes close?

:rolleyes:

Blackhawk
April 6, 2003, 12:12 AM
Placement, placement, placement.

Double Naught Spy
April 6, 2003, 01:39 AM
Anecdotal stories like the one provided that contrasted t .45 acp, .38 Special, and 9 mm rounds are interesting stories, but may not be that insightful.

The supposition that the 9 mm round was more effective because the bad guy did not fall until after being struck by the 9 mm round does not necessarily mean it was the 9 mm round that dropped him. Of particular interest here is that the suspect had already been shot multiple times by other calibers. So whether it was the 9 mm round that actually did the trick would be naive to assume to be true. There is no way to know if the same result would have happened in this case had the guy not been shot by the other rounds first. Something else to keep in mind is that people don't always collapse when shot or don't always collapsed immediately when shot. So, given that the 9 mm came last, it is likely that the guy was going to collapse and started to collapse about the time the 9 mm hit, but not because he was hit by a 9 mm.

So, all we have is a description and order of the events. Short of an autopsy, it would be hard to prove the 9 mm was the incapacitating shot.

As an aside, Clint Smith tells the story of a cop serving a warrant with a partner. The suspect managed to wound/kill(?)

[Anecdotal stories like the one provided that contrasted t .45 acp, .38 Special, and 9 mm rounds are interesting stories, but may not be that insightful.

The supposition that the 9 mm round was more effective because the bad guy did not fall until after being struck by the 9 mm round does not necessarily mean it was the 9 mm round that dropped him. Of particular interest here is that the suspect had already been shot multiple times by other calibers. So whether it was the 9 mm round that actually did the trick would be naive to assume to be true. There is no way to know if the same result would have happened in this case had the guy not been shot by the other rounds first. Something else to keep in mind is that people don't always collapse when shot or don't always collapsed immediately when shot. So, given that the 9 mm came last, it is likely that the guy was going to collapse and started to collapse about the time the 9 mm hit, but not because he was hit by a 9 mm.

Clint Smith tells an anecdotal story about two officers serving a warrant. The suspect open the door and managed to hack the junior officer with a machete (maybe killed him?). At that point, the senior officer shot the suspect at something like 3 feet with a 12 ga loaded some small shot size (bird or #4). The shot shredded the suspect's heart and before the officer could pump another round into the suspect, he charged the officer and was attempting to hack him. The officer beat feet as fast as he could to stay out of the blade's reach. The suspect chased the officer off the porch, into the yard, out the front gate and then around the officer's car, a distance of about 75' before the suspect collapsed.

So, taking into consideration the sequence of events, we could argue that the shotgun blast was ineffective and it was only the 75' run that actually killed the suspect. Obviously, that would be naive to believe to be true. My point is that event sequence and correlation does not necessarily translate into causation.

Chuck Taylor had 5 one-stop shots with .45 ball, or something like that. One was through a car window of a truck driving away from him.

To this statement goon asked why he shot at the guy since he was driving away.

I somehow get the impression that you feel that shooting a person driving away is somehow bad or wrong. It really doesn't matter if the guy is down, has his back to you, or is fleeing in some manner if he is still somehow posing a lethal risk to you or others.

I think we often get lulled into believing some tactically unsound reasons not to shoot, in part due to folk lore, in part due to TV and the movies, and in part simply due to ignorance and not knowing the relevant laws. Things like driving away by the bad guy do not necessarily default into a no-shoot situation. Similarly, just because the subject has been shot and gone down does not mean that he is out of the fight.

Warner
April 6, 2003, 01:48 AM
History + placement.

dsk
April 6, 2003, 01:59 AM
So, now we're supposed to believe that a 9mm round can penetrate a GI helmet at 130 yards (?!?), that a .45 can't penetrate an inch beyond a thick coat (BTW who out there actually makes .45 soft points?), and also that the notoriously anemic .30 Luger round was supposedly the equal of the .45ACP in the Thompson-LeGuard tests?

Got news for ya. The .45ACP wasn't even in the T/L tests! It was developed partially in response to the T/L tests that suggested a minimum .45 caliber round.

The 9mm will certainly do the job with the right ammo and with proper shot placement. But it ain't no wonder-round, and certainly isn't superior to the .45ACP no matter what some misinformed individuals claim.

cratz2
April 6, 2003, 03:16 AM
The .45ACP wasn't even in the T/L tests! It was developed partially in response to the T/L tests that suggested a minimum .45 caliber round.

Thank you! I love it when people that have obviously never attempted to read, let alone comprehend, the tests, either claim that the T/L tests showed that the 45ACP was superior to all others or that some other cartridge was proven nearly as effective at killing dead cattle. :cuss:

I was raised a 1911 guy and I respect the 45ACP. But I really wouldn't want to take a couple shots from 124 +P Gold Dots or +P+ 115 Gr CorBons. I don't care what anybody says. I have no doubt in measured tests with FMJ ammo, that 147 Gr 9mm penetrates like few other semi auto pistol loads. But penetration isn't everything.

I can also cite an instance where a 'bad guy' was shot point blank, almost at contact range with a 9mm FMJ from a Glock 17 and the bullet bounced off his head leaving very little blood. Of course, it knocked the guy out cold and resolved the situation. So there's one that's difficult to categorize: one shot, the guy stopped, a 9mm that didn't penetrate at all, yet there was no need for additional shots.

Good loads in decent length barrel 9mm, 357 SIG, 40S&W, 45ACP or 10mm will typically deliver very positive results. Law enforcement issues aside, for civilians, they are pretty similar. The promoters of each cartridge may have you believe differently but in civilian hands against other civilians with proper shot placement, any of them can really ruin a bad guys day. ;)

By the way Wild Romanian, I'd really hate to have watched you shooting steel at a distance of 3 feet. Please tell me you were firing the gun yourself with your own hand. That picture... comforts me... somehow. Hunkered down on one knee, gun in hand outstretched carefully aiming straight into a 55 gallon steel drum 3 feet away. :D

meathammer
April 6, 2003, 10:44 AM
Placement, placement, placement.

I believe Blackhawk's statement pretty much sums it up for me.

BHP9
April 6, 2003, 08:23 PM
Chuck Taylor had 5 one-stop shots with .45 ball, or something like that. One was through a car window of a truck driving away from him.

Chuch Taylor is probably the least credible gun writer writing in the gun rags today. Anyone at all that has any experience putting large amounts of rounds through a handgun knows that when he claims to have gotton 170000 rounds through a Glock with no parts replacement whatsoever and then fires it under water again with no special modifications simply cannot be believed.

Just one example would be the recoil spring, there is not one made that would go even half that long without causing extreme malfunctions to the weapon.

BHP9
April 6, 2003, 08:24 PM
By the way Wild Romanian, I'd really hate to have watched you shooting steel at a distance of 3 feet. Please tell me you were firing the gun yourself with your own hand. That picture... comforts me... somehow. Hunkered down on one knee, gun in hand outstretched carefully aiming straight into a 55 gallon steel drum 3 feet away.

Thats exactly how I did it. It was no big deal.

BHP9
April 6, 2003, 08:29 PM
So, now we're supposed to believe that a 9mm round can penetrate a GI helmet at 130 yards (?!?), that a .45 can't penetrate an inch beyond a thick coat (BTW who out there actually makes .45 soft points?), and also that the notoriously anemic .30 Luger round was supposedly the equal of the .45ACP in the Thompson-LeGuard tests

It has been all documented . Anyone who has read the Tompson tests already knows this and it there was an article published about it in the Gun Digest, I believe by one of the major gun writers some years back.

If you go back into the archives you can also read the U.S. Military tests of 1945 that proved the 9mm did indeed penetrate a steel helmet at 130 yars while the .45 bounced off.at only 30 yards.

Anyone doubting the low penetration of the .45 round can try their own tests. Old G.I. helmets and 55 gal. drums are just about everywhere.

When comparing say the 225 grain .45 load to a 120 grain 9mm load you can easily beat the 45 by at least 200 fps or even more, now compare that to rifle cartridges, sometimes in rifle cartridges there is only a mere 150 to 200 fps seperation like comparing the .270 to the 7mm magnum.

I think the ballistics are there, the smaller diameter of the 9mm coupled with its tremedous velocity advantage should not suprise anyone when it easily out penetrates the .45.

Lets face it a .45 going only 850 to 900 fps slows down real fast after it leaves the muzzle and its no suprise at all it bounced off G.I. helmets by the time it got to 30 yards.

Double Maduro
April 6, 2003, 10:26 PM
He raised the knife and was shot twice with a 1911 using soft points by the first officer. The man was wearing a winter coat and the .45 slugs only penetrated only about an inch into the flesh. No. 2 officer then shot the man with a .38 special and again no reaction at all. Officer no.3 shot the man with one shot out of a 9mm and the bullet went through the man and he dropped him and he later was saved by parametics but was permanently paralized.

1. Three cops taking turns shooting a man attacking them with a knife, not likely.

2. What happened to the energy from the first four rounds?

3. Five handgun shots in a basement, can anyone say "pass the excedrine"?

I shoot .45 because I am accurate with it and like it. I have shot 9mm and am accurate with it but don't trust it as much as I do .45.

Seems there was a thread on TFL on the debate between 9mm and .45 and one of the respondents was a trauma center doctor. His comment was something to the effect that he had worked on lots of people with wounds from 9mm, 10mm, .22, .38 and even the vaunted .357 but he had never worked on anyone shot with a .45. There was no need, they all were dead by the time they got to him.

Like most of the above posts, this is anecdotal evidence and should be viewed with suspicion.

gryphon
April 6, 2003, 10:39 PM
For every post like this there is another one that shows how small and puny the 9mm is and the how magical the .45 performs.
Oh, well, here's another one to add.

Mr. Purple
April 6, 2003, 10:50 PM
38 special, 9mm, 40 S&W, and 45 acp. They all work and they all don't work. Having been involved with law enforcement for 23 years in a major metropolitan area and being involved in the investigation of police shootings, I have seen examples of each of these calibers killing both good and bad guys with one shot and have observed good and bad guys survive multiple hits with examples of each caliber.

Take this as a well established shooting fact that has been documented well before I ever carried a gun, THERE IS NO HANDGUN CABLIBER GUARANTEED TO MAKE A ONE SHOT STOP ON ANYBODY.

All of the above calibers work if you do your job. Me, I like the 40 because its alot of power with a pretty big hole in a 9mm sized package. That said I always have a 6 shot detective special with me no matter what else, if anything I am carrying.

BHP9, As for Chuck Taylor and the Glock 9mm doing 170,000 without any problem, I believe it. Go to any busy range that rents Glocks, they have similar experiences. This is no isolated incident. A major ammo company has a Glock 17 thats fired more than 348,000. (see page 49, 02 Glock annual, Glocks in Switzerland). Mr. Taylor has survived more gunfights than I ever hope NOT to be in. I have no reason to doubt his advice or the use he has documented in any of his guns.

DeltaElite
April 6, 2003, 10:52 PM
These arguments are amusing. :neener:

Any cartridge, 9mm and above is fine if you place the shots accurately.
I prefer 10mm and 45acp, but that's just me. :D

Snowdog
April 6, 2003, 11:42 PM
Not that I really care what others think of the 9mm and the .45acp, I just thought I'd chime in.

Lets face it a .45 going only 850 to 900 fps slows down real fast after it leaves the muzzle

I'm quite certain that I've read that the .45acp doesn't slow down any faster than a 9mm (in fact, I believe it was the opposite if the 115gr 9mm was in question) due to its superior sectional density.

Second, I'd also like to know who makes a .45acp soft point. This is new to me.

Finally, only 1" after winter clothing? I think not. I've monkeyed around with the .45acp quite a bit with all kinds of fun, reactive targets. Unless the fellow was using home-spun SWC black powder fodder, I simply cannot see that happening for the life of me.

As for hard targets, the .45acp just doesn't compare to the 9mm simply due to velocity... the .45acp is more prone to deflection. However, soft targets are a completely different matter. 230gr .45acp hardball will penetrate deeper into ballistic gelatin than a 115gr 9mm FMJ by a good two inches*. However, as pointed out above, penetration isn't everything.

Take it however it strikes you, just thought I'd share.


* Street Stoppers

Tamara
April 7, 2003, 12:33 AM
It has been all documented . Anyone who has read the Tompson tests already knows this and it there was an article published about it in the Gun Digest, I believe by one of the major gun writers some years back.

It'd be interesting for you to quote how you think the .45ACP did in the Thompson-LaGarde tests, considering that the cartridge wasn't invented until two years later.

So, how did .45ACP perform in those tests? :confused:

Boats
April 7, 2003, 01:01 AM
Wait a minute! This guy, (BHP9), is the same one who thinks all pistols made after 1936 are garbage? Now it is revealed he is an irrational 9mm fan too?

No one can make this stuff up, it is too funny. Yes, the .45ACP sucks, (especially because there is an unattributed pro 9mm anomaly appearing here), because it didn't strike stockyard animals forcefully enough from the future.

Then, during World War II, after having proven capable of killing many a Jap or German soldier, the .45 ACP FMJ proves incapable of penetrating a steel pot at 90 feet!?! Of course the dent in that pot (having seen one in an old training film excerpted in the History Channel's Tales of the Gun) from the bigmouth is going to have Mrsrs. Kraut and Banzai thinking that they are dead by the time the next shot hits home. And to think, the Army and Marines relied on this anemic cartridge in subguns (Thompsons) that were feared, and sought after, the world over. How did that happen?

Hmmm. My .45s have penetrated many a steel drum, junked car, bowling pin, and even managed to scratch a manhole cover used as a gong. I must be doing something wrong.

I do dread the day when I am attacked by some loon wearing a surplus brain bucket because I will have to rely solely upon all of that COM shooting I do. Dang, I feel like a goner already, especially since my frontline SD pistol was built in 2002, an era well known for having no material quality or QC inspections at all.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Mike Irwin
April 7, 2003, 01:31 AM
"Did you know that in the infamous Thompson tests of early in the last century that most experts chose to totally ignore the fact that the .30 Luger did about as well as the .45 acp when shooting gigantic animal steers in the tests that took place in a Chicago slaughter house. The big bore boys that have been beating the big bore drums for years simply chose to ignore how well the much smaller but much higher velocity 30 luger did in killing the steers."


Oh?

Hum...

I danced with someone on this very subject some time ago (link at bottom of page...)

There's a very good summary of the Thompson LaGarde tests in the 4th Edition of Cartridges of the World. It coincides very nicely with my reading of a copy of the actual report when I worked for NRA.

In short, that premise that the .30 Luger cartridge did about as well as the .45 ACP can be summed up by a singled word...

FALSE

First, and most importantly, the .45 ACP wasn't tested. An earlier, prototype of the round, firing a 200-grain bullet, was tested, however.

"The second part of this Army test involved shooting into live animals in order to observe the actual effect on living tissue...

No shots were fired into vital organs such as the heart or brain, all shots being fired into the lung or intestinal areas.

With the .30 Luger, in no instances did an animal drop by the tenth shot and in fact none of them appeared to suffer great pain, shock, or distress.

Animals shot with the 9mm or the .38 Colt auto showed greater distress and by the sixth or seventh shot showed great distress, shock or exhaustion and usually dropped before the eighth shot.

With the .45 Colt revolver the animals showed great shock and distress and dropped by the fourth or fifth shot. With the .455 and .475 caliber revolvers the animal usually dropped by the third shot.

Those shot with the large calibers would begin to bleed from the nose and mouth by the second or third shot. This did not happen with the smaller calibers.

The major conclusions drawn from the Army lethality tests of 1904 were as follows:

1. Within the velocity range possible with handguns there is no marked effect from velocity alone other than greater penetration.

2. At handgun velocities there is little difference in the effect of different bullet materials (lead or jacketed) when traversing flesh. However, lead or expanding bullets will inflict more damage when they strike bone.

3. In fles there appears to be little difference betwene a sharpt pointed or round nosed bullet. On the other hand, a flat or blunt point does substantially more damage to blood vessels and bone and has less tendency to be deflected by bone or cartilage.

4. The weight of the bullet does not appear to be critical, although it is to be noted that the most effective bullets weren ot only of large caliber, but also the heaviest weight.

5. The diameter or caliber of the bullet is important because at handgun velocities expansion of shot point or other expanding bullets is not reliable. The larger diameter bullets simply destroy more tissue and blood vessels becaus they affect a larger cross sectional area.

Quite frankly, the ONLY area in which rounds like the .30 were found to be more effective were in head shots, where their higher velocity increased the amount of destruction out of proportion to their size.



Here's a very interesting thread from The Firing Line on this very subject...

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=124250&highlight=thompson+lagarde

Lofland
April 7, 2003, 01:38 AM
Tactics, Tactics, Tactics


What is Chuck Taylor's Web site, please?


You can pick your wound ballistics guru at www.stoppingpower.net or www.ammolab.com, or the Terminal Ballistics forum at www.tacticalforums.com.

Tamara
April 7, 2003, 01:38 AM
Imagine that! ;)

Andrew Wyatt
April 7, 2003, 02:20 AM
THIS CANNOT BE! Mc Bride was fond of the .45 ACP and once stated that the only one hit stop he witnessed with the 9mm was a fellow who was smacked with a holstered luger on a belt.


we all know that Mc Bride is the sole judge of what is suitable for combat, right?

Feanaro
April 7, 2003, 02:20 AM
I can end this. Anyone who says a particular caliber is ineffective can visit my house, bringing with them a working pistol of said caliber. You sign a peice of paper that says I am not responsible for whatever happens to you, etc. I will then shoot you in the chest. Wear any normal clothed you want, t-shirts, casual suits. As long as it's not kevlar or something similar. Any takers? :D

Tamara
April 7, 2003, 02:25 AM
we all know that Mc Bride is the sole judge of what is suitable for combat, right?

That all depends on who McBride was agreeing with at the time, I guess... ;)

Dave Williams
April 7, 2003, 02:45 AM
I heard that after being shot with a 45acp, you actually feel better.

Andrew Wyatt
April 7, 2003, 02:52 AM
nono, that's after HAVING shot a .45 acp. :)

Mike Irwin
April 7, 2003, 04:04 AM
Tams,

Imagine what?

That someone else is mischaracterizing the results of the Thompson-LaGarde tests? :)

Giant
April 7, 2003, 04:54 AM
So! Where can one find the gigantic steers mentioned by our 9mm lover? Please! Steak sauce and grill at the ready...

Giant

Double Maduro
April 7, 2003, 05:26 AM
Giant,

I'll be right over.

meathammer
April 7, 2003, 08:36 AM
I heard that after being shot with a 45acp, you actually feel better.

ROFL, I almost gave my monitor and keyboard a coffee shower. Dave, you should use that quote as your sig line! :D

cratz2
April 7, 2003, 01:21 PM
I heard that after being shot with a 45acp, you actually feel better.

If he doesn't take it, I'm gonna!

krept
April 7, 2003, 02:46 PM
1. Within the velocity range possible with handguns there is no marked effect from velocity alone other than greater penetration.

.38 special vs. .357 Magnum

9mm vs. 357 SIG

.40 Auto vs. 10mm or .40 Super

:confused:

krept
April 7, 2003, 02:47 PM
IF:

"Modern bullet construction..."

THEN:

"The conclusion would now be..."

?

BevrFevr
April 7, 2003, 02:56 PM
They are what you use when you don't have a real gun with you.

:neener:

-bevr

Mike Irwin
April 7, 2003, 03:24 PM
Krept,

Not exactly sure what you're asking...

BHP9
April 7, 2003, 03:58 PM
[QUOgreater distress and by the sixth or seventh shot showed great distress, shock or exhaustion and usually dropped before the eighth shot. [/QUOTE]

With the .45 Colt revolver the animals showed great shock and distress and dropped by the fourth or fifth shot. With the .455 and .475 caliber revolvers the animal usually dropped by the third shot.

AS we can see there was indeed very little difference if any because the 9mm used up to 6 or 7 shots while the bigger .45 calibers took 4 or 5 shots (none of the .45 calibers were the later developed and much weaker and lighter .45acp.

The people who conducted the tests had a agenda from the begiinning I.E. that the bigger is better and that is proven beyond any doubt whatsoever because they did not shoot to kill I.E. shoot for vital organs.


Years later much more valid tests were conducted on animals far closer to humans in size and survivabiltiy i.e. barnyard pigs. "Pistolero Magazine" went to Mexico to circumvent any animal cruelty laws and shot barn yard pigs in vital areas to kill them not wound them as in the Tompson tests.

So what were the results. The pigs died just as fast when shot with the 9mm as opposed to being shot with the .45.

AS a matter of fact "Pistolero Magazine" observed that the pigs squealed louder and jumped higher when hit by the 9MM as compared to being hit with the slower moving .45.

1. Within the velocity range possible with handguns there is no marked effect from velocity alone other than greater penetration.

Precisely my point from the very beginning of all of this. This is where the .45 fails again and again and with not enough penetration you cannot reach vital organs to destroy them. This once again is were the 9mm excells and this is why in Ohio an eye witness (the police officer I spoke with) emphasized the lack of penetration of the .45acp that would have enabled the man with the knife, if he had not been shot with the 9mm to walk away with nothing more than a couple of bad bruises and minor bleeding.

In conclusion I am not going to throw any of my .45 1911's away but I do realize the limitations of this caliber i.e. that if you use soft point bullets (expanding bullets) that your lethality may go way down, not up and that you are better off with this low velocity caliber to use FMJ ammo and even those rounds may just barely make it through the human body as the range increases.

Tamara
April 7, 2003, 04:37 PM
AS a matter of fact "Pistolero Magazine" observed that the pigs squealed louder and jumped higher when hit by the 9MM as compared to being hit with the slower moving .45.

I just don't know where to start with this... :rolleyes:

(Would anyone here who actually handgun hunts for hogs or whatever actually use 9mm Parabellum in preference over .45 Colt/ACP/Super/Whathaveyou?)

Frohickey
April 7, 2003, 04:53 PM
If LEO#1 with the 45ACP fired 2 center-mass and failed to stop the knife-guy, then LEO#1 should be fired. LEO#1 should have done a CNS shot following the COM double-tap.

If LEO#2 with the 38Spc fired 2 center-mass and failed to stop the knife-guy, then LEO#2 should be fired. LEO#2 should have done a CNS shot following the COM double-tap.

If LEO #3 with the 9mm fired 2 center-mass and succeeded in stopping the knife-guy, LEO#1 and LEO#2 should be buying LEO#3 donuts and coffee for life! :D

BHP9
April 7, 2003, 05:10 PM
(Would anyone here who actually handgun hunts for hogs or whatever actually use 9mm Parabellum in preference over .45 Colt/ACP/Super/Whathaveyou?)

Here again we were talking about the .45acp and the 9mm not other calibers like the .38 super that is a lot faster in velocity.

Why don't more people use it? Because of two reasons. 1. In many states only certain handgun calibers are legal to use and 2. Its the same old story ,most have been led to believe bigger is better so if only two hangun caliber choices were allowed the .45 or 9mm most because of the .45 Myth would naturally choose the .45 over the 9mm.

I can't help but remember reading only recently a book that was written with quotes from all of the old time hunters that resisted switching over from huge diameter black powder cartridges and even switching over from larger more modern but slower centerfire cartridges (450/400) when calibers like the then new 7x57 and 6.5 manlicher cartridges came out. Their higher velocity and smaller diameter were poo-pooed by the big bore boy's but men like William Bell killed over 1,000 elephants with the 7x57 and 6.5 mm mannlicher cartridges.

Even in more modern times big bore boys like Elmer Keith claimed small bullets like the .270 bounced off of wild game but men like Jack O'Conner,( who really knew what they were talking about )killed even Grizzly bears and Elk with the much smaller .270.

BHP9
April 7, 2003, 05:17 PM
Mathmatical reality in regards to the Alice in Wonder Land World of Chuck Taylor

Has anyone done any simple math whe reading such wild stories of getting 170,000 rounds with no parts replacement out of any pistol including the supposed Glock good old Chuck supposedly used.

Simple math witll tell you it would cost even at wholesale prices a whopping $20,400. dollars to shoot up this much ammo. Now lets face it even gun writers don't make this much money and few people realize how small firearms companies really are as compared to the big boys like automobiles and tobbaco. So if you think good old Chuck really did conduct a test, it may have been done, but it was probably done with way , way less rounds than he claimed. Economics prove it beyone a shadow of a doubt.

By the way I have personally seen recoil springs fail in as litte as 2,000 rounds when using ordinary non- plus p ammo i.e. standard velocity factory ammo. In conducting a test of this magnitude even if the spring made it through 10,000 rounds of torture it would have had to bee replaced at least 17 times before the end of the test.

Mike Irwin
April 7, 2003, 05:22 PM
It's amazing how quickly someone can change focus when pushed up against incorrect statements...

THIS is your original assertion regarding the Thompson-LaGarde tests...

"Did you know that in the infamous Thompson tests of early in the last century that most experts chose to totally ignore the fact that the .30 Luger did about as well as the .45 acp..."

As I've already shown you, you've completely mischaracterized the tests by asserting that the .30 Luger did about as well as the .45 ACP (which wasn't even there).

So, now, that that errant claim is out in the open, you jump on to something else...


"AS we can see there was indeed very little difference if any because the 9mm used up to 6 or 7 shots while the bigger .45 calibers took 4 or 5 shots (none of the .45 calibers were the later developed and much weaker and lighter .45acp."

No, T&LG didn't find as much difference between the 9mm and the .45s. But that's NOT what you originally claimed now, is it?

Then we have...

"None of the .45 calibers were the later developed and much weaker and lighter .45 ACP.."

You REALLY need to sit down with a good book on ballistics and take a look at the relative performance levels of the rounds tested BEFORE you categorize the .45 ACP as "much weaker."

Finally, you also need to understand something about the .45 Auto round that WAS tested -- it fired a 200-gr. bullet at 900 fps, which gives it almost exactly the same striking energy as the later-adopted .45 ACP military hardball round.

That same bullet weight loading -- 200 grs. at 900 fps -- is also still popular today as a defensive round.

"The people who conducted the tests had a agenda from the begiinning I.E. that the bigger is better and that is proven beyond any doubt whatsoever because they did not shoot to kill I.E. shoot for vital organs."

I'm not certain where you come up with some of these assertions, but there's absolutely NOTHING of record to support that claim about Thompson or LaGarde.

Both men WERE, however, familiar with the field results of the .38 Long Colt in the Philippines, and the results of the .45 Long Colt, which was brought back into service and issued to troops after the failings of the .38 cartridge were noted.

Had T&LG been, simply, "bigger is better" men they wouldn't have gone through the pains of testing the smaller rounds in the first place, but would have simply given over to the assertion that smaller is less capable.

Yet, that's not how they conducted the tests.

The fact that Thompson & LaGarde did NOT shoot the steers in the heart, etc., shows an inherent understanding of the nature of the handgun in military service -- that the majority of the hits that DO hit the adversary in or around the center of mass do NOT strike the heart.

The implication there is that Thompson & LaGarde understood that a strike in the heart would likely provide much faster and surer incapacitation, but that hitting a target roughly the size of a man's fist, in combat conditions, is more LUCK than skill.

In that light, Thompson & LaGarde's tests, including those with human cadavers, tested conditions that would be REALISTICALLY faced by troops armed with handguns -- bullets striking the lungs, stomach, and intestinal regions of the body.

What also isn't noted anywhere in this discussion is that the heart is an amazing organ with, because of it's muscle structure, a large degree of "self-sealing" capability.

Being struck in the heart with a non-expanding bullet, especially a small caliber bullet, is NOT an instant laser-beam of death. Many people have survived substantial lengths of time, sometimes hours, with bullet wounds directly to the heart.

"AS a matter of fact "Pistolero Magazine" observed that the pigs squealed louder and jumped higher when hit by the 9MM as compared to being hit with the slower moving .45.... Precisely my point from the very beginning of all of this."

Now you're contradicting yourself again.

You're saying that velocity has little do with the equasion, seemingly saying that you agree with the Thompson LaGarde tests, then you infer that velocity was the cause of the pigs "jumping higher and squealing louder" when hit with the 9mm, as opposed to the "slower moving .45 ACP."

Quite frankly, you're all over the map here, but as with other posters here, I'm quite skeptical about the "reported" results, but that's of no consequence, being more concerned with your original statement regarding the supposed efficacy of the .30 Luger and your complete mischaracterization of the Thompson LaGarde tests.

But, even so, I'd be very interested in reading Pistolero's testing. Please provide the year and month of the issue.

Mike Irwin
April 7, 2003, 05:27 PM
Glock pistols with over 200,000 rounds with no parts replacements?

Quite a few of them out there, including a Glock 17 used in the rental case at Blue Ridge Arsenal in Chantilly, Virginia, in the middle1990s.

Its use was tracked, along with the number of rounds purchased to be shot through it.

Before it was stolen and ended up in DC Police Evidence, it fired over 250,000 rounds with NO parts replacements at all.

NONE.

As for why Bell chose the 6.5 MS and other cartridges like it for hunting elephant, I don't know if I should say, or if I should let you guess...

BHP9
April 7, 2003, 05:48 PM
As I've already shown you, you've completely mischaracterized the tests by asserting that the .30 Luger did about as well as the .45 ACP (which wasn't even there).

Wrong Mike I was quoting a gun writer that looked at the entire test not just a quickie selective biased short review of it.

You REALLY need to sit down with a good book on ballistics and take a look at the relative performance levels of the rounds tested BEFORE you categorize the .45 ACP as "much weaker."

I'm not certain where you come up with some of these assertions, but there's absolutely NOTHING of record to support that claim about Thompson or LaGarde.

If you cannot see this simple fact I just cannot explain it in any simplier terms. I am not trying to flame you , I am really amazed that you cannot see this.

Both men WERE, however, familiar with the field results of the .38 Long Colt in the Philippines, and the results of the .45 Long Colt, which was brought back into service and issued to troops after the failings of the .38 cartridge were noted.

Once again people see only what they wish to see. They also conveniently ignored the fact that the full power 30 caliber military rifles also failed to stop these warriors. Now how do we explain this. Should we have went back to the 45/70 and dropped the .30 caliber military rifle. According to the big bore boys philosophy this is exactly what we should have done.

You're saying that velocity has little do with the equasion, seemingly saying that you agree with the Thompson LaGarde tests, then you infer that velocity was the cause of the pigs "jumping higher and squealing louder" when hit with the 9mm, as opposed to the "slower moving .45 ACP."

Nope not at all. Once again and once again. Velocity coupled with smaller diameter are proven to penetrate deeper as proven by both P.O. Ackely in shooting ferral Mules and by shooting through armor plate with nothing more than a high velocity .22 centerfire (220 swifte)when the slower and bigger and even steel penetrator .30 caliber bullets failed to do the job).and therefore penetration to the vital areas will kill and is necessary to kill because without penetration no matter how big a bullet you use if you do not reach the vital organ it does you no good. Precicely why the .45 failed in Ohio.

By the way I will let you know what issue of Pistolero the pig story was in because it was so facinating and proved once and for all the Myth of the .45 was just that, only a myth.

BHP9
April 7, 2003, 06:04 PM
Ok Mike I believe it or not I found it without taking hours to find it. It is dated Spring of 84.

I have a picture of the front cover I hope it comes out clear enough.

Double Maduro
April 7, 2003, 06:08 PM
BHP9,

You said,


"AS we can see there was indeed very little difference if any because the 9mm used up to 6 or 7 shots while the bigger .45 calibers took 4 or 5 shots (none of the .45 calibers were the later developed and much weaker and lighter .45acp."


Assuming your figures are correct, the .45 was at best amost twice as effective - 4 shots to 7 and at worst about 25% more effective.

Don't know about you but I like the advantage. Almost twice as effective is not an insignificant advantage.

BHP9
April 7, 2003, 06:09 PM
I will try it once more. Ok look in the upper left hand corner. The title says "Hogs not Slop".

Mal H
April 7, 2003, 06:12 PM
BHP9 - Back to the original story. Which Ohio police force was involved? Did the encounter have a multiple municipality call to apprehend the knife wielder? It is a rare police dept. that allows its officers to carry different weapons as their main weapon. Does that particular police dept. have a "firing chip (FC)" rule of engagement? Officer #1 fired his .45, it didn't work, pass the FC to #2 who tries his .38 Spcl revolver, pass the FC to #3 who fires only one round of 9mm. What was the knife wielder doing in the meantime?

BHP9
April 7, 2003, 06:13 PM
Assuming your figures are correct, the .45 was at best amost twice as effective - 4 shots to 7 and at worst about 25% more effective.

Here again lets not forget we are speaking of the results of shooting to wound not kill. Both calibers would have given a determined assailent all the time in the world he needed to shoot you back.

Double Maduro
April 7, 2003, 06:22 PM
bhp9,

I think the increased trauma from the bigger hole and the extra energy would have slowed him down more.

By the way, why don't you answer the questions posed by Mal H, myself and others about where this happened and in which paper it was reported?

If you can't provide proof, be man enough to admit it.

Until I have proof that this really occured I am going to treat it as an urban myth and ignore it, and you.

BHP9
April 7, 2003, 07:13 PM
By the way, why don't you answer the questions posed by Mal H, myself and others about where this happened and in which paper it was reported?

This came from a Massillon , Ohio Police officer. Since he is on the Massillon force and he himself was there I natuarally assume it took place in the Canton/ Massillon area. This was my understanding of the converstation that took place only a few days ago. He was on duty at a gun show that I was attending and I am relating to you the story that he told me.

BHP9
April 7, 2003, 07:22 PM
Food for thought from a retired Aerospace Enginneer.

At the recent gun show I attended I got a chance to talk to an engineer that spent 40 some years testing things with the most advanced equipment available in the world.

This is what he told me during our conversation that covered many subjects including guns.

He told me that you should believe or trust nothing no matter what higher authority it comes from or from how famous the individual or source may be. EXAMPLE: Chuck Taylor or the Tompson Tests. He said that they as engineers were taught to conduct their own testing before any other tests results by other engineers were even considered or looked at.

I think that too many people take as gospel anything that is handed to them on a platter by the "Powers that be".

No one but no one has all the answers but my soul purpose of these posts was to get people to think and evalutate other points of view on a very controversial subject of handgun calibers and stopping power. And perhaps you too may conduct your own tests and come to your own conclusions. But never assume that old stories must be true simply because they are old or because they have come from "The exalted ones that sit on high".

cratz2
April 7, 2003, 07:55 PM
Discussing the findings of the T-L testing is nice academic discussion for those of us that have actually read them but it has no bearing on todays choices. And anyone that indicates that the 45ACP came out on top is politely dismissed from the conversation, thank you very much. I can't take a very strong stance on either side as I've long been a 45ACP guy and recently switched to the 9mm as a primary carry piece.

Truth be told, I think the 9x23 is nearly the ideal cartridge for defensive use and for playing. Basically a 357 Magnum which is proven very effective, you can put a whole bunch of rounds in a small magazine such as Glock 19/23 sized gun would have. Much less recoil than the 45ACP, if you're the sort to use ported guns, they work very well with the cartridge. Lots to recommend them, very little to say against them.

I've said it before and I'llk say it again - use the right loads that match your needs and anything 9mm and up should be roughly equally effective. Most testing has a 3% margin of error and the best loads of 9mm, 38 Super, 40S&W and 45ACP are within 3% according to most testing meaning they're pretty equal. But you have to him something important.

These threads infuriate me no end. I don't see how some of you guys stay civil with as much inane regurgitation as comes out of some folks mouths. :rolleyes:

cratz2
April 7, 2003, 08:03 PM
And, hanging my head low, I agree with Wild Romanian on one issue. Don't take a gun writers word as gospel. Unless you've done actual shooting on a variety of human torsos with varying amounts of clothing and varying amounts of hard cover, how can you know absolutely for sure? You can't. Now to turn it back on BHP9, how much of this have you done? I didn't think so.

Without getting the PETA folks all up in arms, it shouldn't be too hard for most folks to do some of their own testing on live game. Or even recently dead game. Well all know someone that lives in the country and there are plenty of targets out there if you look hard enough. One thing you will find, is FMJ handgun ammo is far less effective at stopping game than any of us would have guessed. I promise you that. Now this won't translate directly to human effectiveness but it's a start.

Double Maduro
April 7, 2003, 08:04 PM
bhp9,

I did a search of the Masillon, Ohio Independent on line for reports of police involved shootings from 01/01/02 untill the present and came up with nothing that matches your story.



http://www.indeonline.com/left.php?external=repsearch_results.php&mainCreationDate=020101&mainBody=police+shooting&mainHeadline=&mainByline=&mainCaption=&mainCategory=&mainSpecialStatus=&dateop=>&OP=AND&dateConverted=yes&startrecord=80&maxrecords=10&Count=89

Double Maduro
April 7, 2003, 08:12 PM
if you do a cut and paste on the whole url it will give you the list.

DonGlock26
April 7, 2003, 08:36 PM
Based on the story, it appears the 9mm penetrated and struck the spinal cord. This explains why the 9mm worked. To stop a aggressor, you need shot placement and penetration. Use a heavy JHP in your caliber of choice and pratice.

DeltaElite
April 7, 2003, 08:56 PM
I smell a 9mm troll. :D

Double Maduro
April 7, 2003, 09:30 PM
Donglock,

There was no report of this happening in the last year and 1/3.

Frohickey
April 7, 2003, 09:42 PM
Only caliber advice that I will believe without independent consultation is that a 28million grain projectile going at 36.7FPS is going to give anyone a very bad day. :D

Thats a 2 ton SUV going 25MPH. :what:

vanfunk
April 7, 2003, 09:55 PM
Despite his admirable enthusiasm, we must reject BHP9's hypothesis on the grounds that he has failed to cite any relevant, realistic, provable, documented, verified and quantifiable evidence in support of his thesis:eek:

Back to the drawing board...
vanfunk

PS- Lest anyone think I'd try to silence this debate - think not!
This is exactly the kind of exchange that keeps the blade of scientific inquiry sharp against nod of complacency. It's just made all the more relevant when we can confine the discourse to the facts.

Island Beretta
April 7, 2003, 09:59 PM
Guys:

I live in a country that has a very high murder rate. 9mm spent shells are the predominant casings retrieved from crime scenes with the occassional .45ACP and .40S&W.

MY POINT IS THAT THEY BOTH CAN KILL!! AS TO WHICH ONE IS THE MORE EFFECTIVE KILLER ON THE DAY, THE DETERMINING FACTORS ARE TOO NUMEROUS TO EVEN BEGIN TO LIST THEM!! NONE OF THE ROUNDS ARE ALWAYS BETTER .

The physics is simple: Force= mass x acceleration. Powder loadings and bullet mass can be altered to cause force ratings to approach each other for either caliber. The issue about pressure arises also as the smaller the diameter the smaller the surface area and so the larger the pressure exerted at the point of contact-hence the 9mm penetrates more and has a slower rate of deceleration than the .45. Hence the argument about mass (.45) vs. velocity (9mm) arises!! As stated previously, on the day any one can be better, it just depends!!!!!!

Be happy with what you shoot...:)

DeltaElite
April 7, 2003, 10:00 PM
bhp9 sounds like the Iraqi information ministry. :D
Lots of chatter, but none of it credible. :D

Mike Irwin
April 7, 2003, 10:18 PM
"Here again lets not forget we are speaking of the results of shooting to wound not kill."

Quite frankly, shooting to kill and what Thompson LaGarde did are IDENTICAL.

I'll say that again.

Shooting to kill and what Thompson LaGarde did are IDENTICAL.

Why?

Because when you shoot to kill you shoot for the center of mass.

What's in the center of mass?

Well, there's the heart, which is about the size of a human fist, and as I've noted, is an extremely difficult target at the BEST of times.

What else occupies the center of mass?

In fact, the MAJORITY of the center of mass? Where someone who is "shooting to kill" is MOST likely to hit the intended target?

The lungs.

The stomach.

The intestines.

So, when you're claiming that Thompson & LaGarde weren't "shooting" to kill because they were shooting at the center of mass, you're simply wrong AGAIN.

Mike Irwin
April 7, 2003, 10:23 PM
Cratz,

I agree with you that the Thompson LaGarde tests really have little bearing on what we're facing today.

But if you go back and read the quote that initially got me started on this, you'll see that TODAY wasn't being addressed.

What was being address -- incorrectly -- were the supposed findings from the Thompson LaGarde tests in 1904.

Mike Irwin
April 7, 2003, 10:42 PM
"He told me that you should believe or trust nothing no matter what higher authority it comes from or from how famous the individual or source may be. EXAMPLE: Chuck Taylor or the Tompson Tests. He said that they as engineers were taught to conduct their own testing before any other tests results by other engineers were even considered or looked at."


Just WHAT the hell are you talking about?

You're actually coming out with that kind of statement, and yet:

YOU'RE the one who started this by presenting, AS FACT, the second-hand story of a "police officer who was there."

Have YOU actually conducted a test that supports YOUR supposition that the .45 fails and 9mm saves the day as you tout in the header for this entire discussion?

No?

Even more...

YOU'RE the one who is claiming that the Thompson LaGarde tests showed something that they absolutely did NOT show, and then you switch the angle of attack so that it's now supposedly supported by the testing "gurus" of Pistolero Magazine?

How many steer have you shot while conducting your tests?

How many pigs have you tested these theories on?

None?

I'm sorry, this is really getting out of hand.

Simply put, and based on:

-- The quote that opens this message (copied and pasted from your message).

-- On the two points I've made that obvious belie your basis for making the referenced quote.

-- The continued misrepresentation of the findings of the Thompson LaGarde tests.

-- And your immediate changes in direction to avoid addressing point/statements on which you've been called,

I'm sorry, your credibility is about nil at this point.

Mal H
April 7, 2003, 10:54 PM
... and furthermore, that credibility is damaged even more when the sole [not "soul"] basis for the "facts" and reports given are from gun show conversations between you and unnamed persons whose credibility we have absolutely no way of knowing:

This came from a Massillon , Ohio Police officer. Since he is on the Massillon force and he himself was there I natuarally assume it took place in the Canton/ Massillon area. This was my understanding of the converstation that took place only a few days ago. He was on duty at a gun show that I was attending and I am relating to you the story that he told me.

At the recent gun show I attended I got a chance to talk to an engineer ...

BHP9
April 7, 2003, 10:56 PM
Despite his admirable enthusiasm, we must reject BHP9's hypothesis on the grounds that he has failed to cite any relevant, realistic, provable, documented, verified and quantifiable evidence in support of his thesis

I think that even if you discount the Policmans story (which I certainly do not) the results of the Pistolero test conducted in modern times with modern ammo complete with graphic pictures on animals (pigs) that were far closer to human anatomy as most doctors will attest proved beyond any doubt that the 9mm certainly is the equal of any .45 acp with modern ammo and I would like to add that it in my opinion has a lot of advantages of the .45 even with hard ball being able to far out penetrate the .45 harball round by a full 100 yards of range and penetrate at the closer level much better through such things as wood , car bodies, walls, heavy clothing etc. I think this is one reason why so many countries militaries and police stuck with the flatter shooting , deeper penetrating 9mm over the last 100 years rather than adopt the American .45. Very few of which did.

Mike Irwin
April 7, 2003, 11:34 PM
"conducted in modern times with modern ammo complete with graphic pictures on animals (pigs) that were far closer to human anatomy as most doctors will attest proved beyond any doubt that the 9mm certainly is the equal of any .45 acp with modern ammo..."

Once again, you fail to understand the Thompson LaGarde tests, which you brought up in the first place.

The Thompson LaGarde tests were conducted with ammo that would most likely be used by a military organization -- hardball and, for some of the revolver rounds, lead ball ammo.

Hollow points weren't available or generally known at the time.

The Thompson LaGarde tests contain not only PHOTOGRAPHS of various gunshow wounds in the steers, but also the gunshot wounds that resulted when fresh human corpses were shot.

Pistolero magazine didn't do this, did they?

The Thompson LaGarde book also included autopsy findings for the corpse tests.

Did Pistolero do that, or did they just BBQ the results?


"proved beyond any doubt that the 9mm certainly is the equal of any .45 acp with modern ammo..."

The Pistolero tests -- and I don't know why I haven't noted this before; IF they took place, and gave the results that you're claiming (given your previous assertions, that's open to serious debate) -- the ONLY thing that they truly proved is that pigs are susceptible to being wounded by bullets.

Until I can actually find a copy of Pistolero, and read this "test" for myself, that's the ONLY conclusion that I can logically drawn from this information, simply because it's apparent that you can't be trusted to correctly abstract information.

Tamara
April 8, 2003, 01:02 AM
Heck, I'm still trying to figure out how BHP9 found the .45 ACP results in the Thompson-LaGarde tests, seeing as how the cartridge hadn't even been invented yet, and all... ;)

Mike Irwin
April 8, 2003, 01:30 AM
Oh, I know, Tams.

I'd also like to know how he figures that the later .45 ACP was in his own words:

"none of the .45 calibers were the later developed and much weaker and lighter .45acp."

Especially given that the .45 auto cartridge tested was MORE powerful that the .455 and .476 cartridges used by Britain, had the same energy, in foot pounds, as the .45 ACP round that was developed in 1905, and lagged behind the .45 Colt by not a whole lot of either bullet weight or energy.

I also love how he makes definitive comments on the Thompson LaGarde tests, then backtracks to say he was quoting a writer who examined the entire study, and ignores the fact that while I was quoting the article in Cartridges of the World, 4th Edition, I ALSO have examined the entire study, in depth, when I was....

My GOD! When I was writing firearms-related articles for American Rifleman magazine! :)

Never is the other gun writer's name mentioned, with the only reference given to a single article in a firearms magazine that apparently stayed around for about 3 quarterly issues.

If our erstwhile reporter is quoting this writer's findings accurately (which I tend to doubt), I can only say that he's the only person who has ever reached those conclusions based on an examination of the Thompson LaGarde tests.

I'll also note this, by Frank Barnes, whose firearms and scientific pedigree isn't in question, who writes this about the .30 Luger cartridge: "It is not noted for great stopping power because of the small diameter, lightweight, full jacket bullet. It is used occasionally for small game hunting and will do a fair job on rabbits and the like, provided that bullets are properly placed. For self-defense, it leaves much to be desired because a man can absorb quite a few poorly placed bullets without being put out of action.

While I don't know the basis for Barnes comments, it's very interesting to note that two other, MORE powerful rounds, the 7.62 Tokarev and the 7.63 Mauser, also had fairly poor reputations as man stoppers.

German experience in World War II, and even American experience in Korea, fighting North Korean and Chinese soldiers armed with handguns and submachine guns chambered for the 7.62 round, bore this out.

I'm really beginning to think that this individual lacks credibility not as a function of lack of comprehension or experience, but because the person has a specific desire to feign a lack of comprehension.

If true, this person is actually a troll instead of any of the alternatives.

cratz2
April 8, 2003, 01:40 AM
...Pistolero test conducted in modern times with modern ammo...

To further pick nits, Spring 1984 is not modern if the world of ammunition. To see how we've advanced, even with your beloved 9mm, compare the 147 Gr Ranger ammo of today to 147 Gr ammo that was available in 1984... no even close.

Mike Irwin
April 8, 2003, 01:42 AM
Damn, Cratz...

That's a very insightful point, one which I had not even considered.

Still doesn't change the situation, though.

There's a serious credibility gap, and it's not you, it's not me, and it's not Tamara....

Al Thompson
April 8, 2003, 08:27 AM
I remember both the magazine and article. Pistolero was (in) famous for calling a spade a spade. I think first gen silvertips, Fat Frank's BAT rounds and maybe some Super-Vels were tested. As Cratz2 aptly points out, none of the good stuff was even a dream then.

BHP9
April 8, 2003, 09:11 AM
QUOTE]While I don't know the basis for Barnes comments, it's very interesting to note that two other, MORE powerful rounds, the 7.62 Tokarev and the 7.63 Mauser, also had fairly poor reputations as man stoppers. [/QUOTE]

German experience in World War II, and even American experience in Korea, fighting North Korean and Chinese soldiers armed with handguns and submachine guns chambered for the 7.62 round, bore this out.

I disagree. The Russians used this cartridge in both their pistols and more importantly in their sub-guns. The Russians learned early in the war that the people who were issued the sub-guns actually fired their weapons in combat when they were in isolated positions out of sight of their comrades. As a consequence of this many more sub-guns were issued to front line troops than the bolt action Mosins.

If the cartridge was a dud (which it cerainly was not) the Russians would not have killed so many Germans with it and would have withdrawn it from service very quickly.

I think this proves that just as the .45 is steeped in Myth (such as knocking a man down or spinning him around if he is hit in the shoulder) so too was the perception that since the small diameter bullets like the 30 Mauser and 30 Tokerov were small therefore it follows they were ineffectual killers.

WWII on the Russian front proved otherwise when it was used there successfully by one of the largest armies in the world, the Russian Army. This cartridge would never have remained in service for the many decades that it did if it was as the "Myth claims" that it is an ineffectual and very aenimic non- lethal round. History has not bore this out.

AS a sidebar. I watched a special about the Russians fighting the Germans in WWII. A German solider was captured and interrogated and after they questioned him they told one of the interrogators that happened to be a woman to take him out and shoot him , which she did. She used her pistol and he dropped with one shot. I would not call this caliber a poor man killer.

BHP9
April 8, 2003, 09:39 AM
To further pick nits, Spring 1984 is not modern if the world of ammunition. To see how we've advanced, even with your beloved 9mm, compare the 147 Gr Ranger ammo of today to 147 Gr ammo that was available in 1984... no even close.

Your post is not even valid for a variety of reasons.

1. With the ammo tested the 9mm worked just as well as the .45 and Pistolero seemed to think it worked better than the .45acp.

2. Contrary to popular belief all the so called advances in ammo since 1900 has been more advertisement hoopla than any real improvement in performance. Bullets made today are largely the same in the expanding type as they were in the early part of the last century. The only difference sometimes being that they are now loaded up in some calibers way beyond what the weapons are capable of standing if fed a steady diet of such extremely hot loads which is not all to the worse if they are only used for self-defense and not for everyday practice which by the way soon destroys most pistols.

One exception to this is the bonded bullet that in most cases is actually less effective when shooting into soft tissue than the traditional come apart violently old fashion bullet that has been around for almost 100 years. AS a matter of fact the bonded bullet often acts more like a solid than an expanded bulllet and other bullets made of solid copper (barnes) or a combination of copper and bonded lead like Winchester fail safe, show beyond any dout they expand very little which is all too the good when deep penetration into large animals is required.

There have been exotic bullets like those that suspend shot pellets in liquid teflon but they seem to often give erratic performance such as either blowing up to fast or not blowing up at all.

There have been spectacular advertising campains like the infamous "Black Talon" that actually worked no better than many of its close competitors. I often wonder who got hoodwinked more, the anti-gun news media or gun owners that should have at least known better but didn't. They still pay big bucks for the few remaning rounds that turn up at gun shows because they all believe in the super bullet myth and few actually have tested them along side competitors bullets that are still for sale on todays market and work just as well.

Everyone seems to believe in some super bullet and its myth but even if you use these bullets that are being made today after of course going through the proper prayer, ritual and incantations by the light of the moon before using them, the fact remains that the bullets used in 1984 by Pistolero killed the pigs very dead and if the truth be known todays bullets are not much better if any over what was availble back then.

BHP9
April 8, 2003, 09:56 AM
There's a serious credibility gap, and it's not you, it's not me, and it's not Tamara....

Seriously no matter what evidence I would present there are those that would not even consider it if it does not fit in with their philosophy. I do not ask anyone to change his philosophy only to consider another point of view without resorting to classifying it as not credible simply because you do not agree with it.

1. I presented a police officers story who was actually at a shooting.

2. I presented actual tests conducted in Mexico complete with graphic pictures. Anyone who has a copy of this magazine or can get one will see the pictures of both the animals and ammo used. It even shows the animals at the moment of death which is very disturbing to say the least. Believe me it would have been tough to fake these pictures even with todays technology let alone what was availabel back in 1984.

Seriously I really believe that if I lived in a third world country and paraded a buch of prisoners out in full view of everyone and shot them with both the 9mm and .45 acp and they all fell down just as quickly with one caliber as with the other that everyone who prior to the event that believed the 9mm was not capable of this lethality would once again say it was all faked and was not credible.

BevrFevr
April 8, 2003, 11:51 AM
.45 fans really seem to be sensitive. You would almost think they were glock owners.

Most handgun calibers are versatile enough. If you are wanting the caliber to do all the work for you then get a shotgun.

Handguns are fun and all and part of the job if youre a cop or a rent a cop but if youre in fear of your life and your first instinct is to grab a handgun I guess you will be fodder for these forums.

You don't seem to hear stories like "he was shot twice with at 12 guage but he kept coming then we showed him a .45 and he collapsed and died" or "he was shot in the head 3 times with a .444Marlin but none of the bullets penetrated the skull."

You do seem to hear lots of stories like this about handguns. Especially about handguns weaker that .357mag. I get a kick out of these magic bullet debates.

-bevr

Tamara
April 8, 2003, 01:01 PM
Seriously no matter what evidence I would present

Were you planning on presenting some?

You have referenced an apocryphal police shooting. One that never even made the papers of the town it allegedly occured in. Part of the data was an extraordinary claim of underpenetration by .45. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and you can't provide any proof other than "a guy told me..."

You have misrepresented the results of the Thompson-LaGarde tests and been forced to backpedal from there.

Your constant references to shooting through steel pots or drums, terming JHPs "softpoints" and insisting that hollowpoint technology hasn't changed since '84 except for advertising hype betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of both the mechanisms of penetration and expansion and the difference between hard- and soft-target penetration. For instance, a green tip .223 will penetrate armour plate, yet a hard-cast Garrett Hammerhead will shoot clean through most game animals on this planet. Why is that? What of the various types of hollowpoints that have sprung from rigorous FBI and other testing since that time? A Gold Dot, Ranger or Golden Saber is a long way from the old "FMJ-with-a-hole-in-the-tip" days.

Your best piece of evidence is a 19 year old magazine article that involved shooting pigs with different bullets. You claim that the piggies died just as fast with the 9mm as with the .45. I can buy that, although the "squealed louder and jumped higher" bit is amusing. (Did they use a squealometer and a jump gauge to verify this? ;) ) I suppose I should just be grateful that the "Strasbourg Tests" weren't cited and drive on.

What causes the brouhaha is not stating that the 9mm is an adequate self defense round; I agree completely, and if I didn't I certainly wouldn't carry one as often as I do. I'm perfectly comfortable carrying a nine. Heck, I'm perfectly comfortable carrying a .38 Special. No, the flap is caused when you feel compelled to support this stance with anecdotal tales of .45 only penetrating one inch in the bad guy as though it's an indictment of the caliber on scientific grounds. That doesn't even pass the "Ha ha" test, much less the smell test.

So, in conclusion, if you wish to present evidence to support your original contention of 9mm as the superior defense round due to superior penetration vis a vis the dismal penetration of .45 ACP, please do so, but you ain't done it yet. :)

Dain Bramage
April 8, 2003, 01:46 PM
I don't have a lot of time, but I just want to comment on two of BHP9's remarks about the 7.62x25mm round.

1. I have a CZ-52 and a Norinco Tok. I like the guns and the cartridge, but killing efficiency is not why the Soviet Union kept the round. Rather, it was manufacturing efficiency, or what of it they could eke out of their Communist system.

All of their small-arms mills and lathes were geared toward constructing 7.62mm barrels. Everything from pistols to light machine guns were constructed in that caliber (7.62x25, 7.62x54R, and later, 7.62x39). They even manufactured two Ppsh barrels, in the darkest days, by cutting Mosin-Nagant barrels in half.

Battlefield efficiency would not, and could not, have changed their minds. How would they have known anyway? Training, tactics, or pistol cartridges? Who cares. The standard response was always to throw more men and material into the breach.

And if anyone thinks I am impugning the Soviet Army, I am not. They caused the vast majority of German battlefield casualties during WWII, but even at the end, at the Battle of Berlin, they were taking a 4/1 ratio of casualties to the Germans.

2. Taking someone out back and capping them is a poor test for a pistol. I would expect every cartridge to perform adequately, except perhaps the .22 short.

Mike Irwin
April 8, 2003, 02:11 PM
And now, for a dissection of the Wild Romanian's latest misunderstandings, misstatements, and flat out erroneous information, with a real gem at the end...

I disagree. The Russians used this cartridge in both their pistols and more importantly in their sub-guns.

Disagree all you want, the 7.62 Tok round was considered to be distinctly lacking in, as I noted, man stopping ability by the Germans and Americans during their combat experience facing it.

Could a man be killed by a 7.62 Tok round? Of course. No one has said that they couldn’t be, but the fact remains that the 7.62, like the .30 Luger, punched small holes through its target. A hit in a lung or stomach could, as Thompson LaGarde noted with the .30 Luger 40 years before, leave little visible or physiological evidence and allow the individual so wounded to operate relatively effectively for a long period of time.

There are several military monographs on the effectiveness of small arms ammunition, written post Korea, that discuss the performance of the 7.62 round as a combat round and find it to be distinctly lacking in much the same way that the .30 Carbine round (same diameter bullet, but roughly the double the energy) was found to be lacking in stopping determined adversaries.

As with the .30 carbine round, the 7.62 relied mainly on multiple hits on target in order to produce effective results. When you start hosing the target with upwards 900 rounds a minute, you’re more likely to get multiple hits on the target – multiplying the effect of the rounds that do strike.


The Russians learned early in the war that the people who were issued the sub-guns actually fired their weapons in combat when they were in isolated positions out of sight of their comrades. As a consequence of this many more were issued to front line troops than the bolt action Mosins.

Uh.... Uh.... Heh. I’ve NO clue where you come up with this, but again it shows complete lack of understanding as to how the Soviet military structure operated, or the obstacles it was up against.

First, the submachine gun became the primary Soviet weapon for a number of reasons, primarily because the PPsH (and other submachine guns in Soviet use) could be produced in roughly 1/3rd the time that it took to make a Moisin Nagant rifle. The same machinery that made Nagant barrels was employed to make subgun barrels – a finished barrel was then cut in two to give two subgun barrels. That step alone significantly increased production.

Also, as the Soviets learned in Finland in 1939, the submachine was an EXTREMELY effective weapon when used either by or against massed infantry formations. When used by a massed infantry formation, the level of short-range fire that could be laid down by a unit was staggering. When used against a massed infantry formation, the Suomi subgun helped the Finns kill nearly 8 times as many Russians as Finnish losses.

Given their propensity for massed infantry tactics, then, the submachine gun was a natural integration into the Soviet military structure. The North Koreans and Chinese, being modeled after the Soviet system, and also favored massed infantry tactics and use of the submachine gun.

If the cartridge was a dud (which it cerainly was not) the Russians would not have killed so many Germans with it and would have withdrawn it from service very quickly.

Please note that NOWHERE have I used the word “dud” in reference to the 7.62 Tokarev round, or in reference to the .30 Luger round. You’re the one who has continually attempted to claim performance levels for these cartridges far above what is factually known by continuing to misrepresent information that is available, placed your faith in completely anecdotal (and quite frankly, since you won’t provide any more information on the event, likely completely fraudulent) “evidence,” made illogical leaps of so-called logic, and drawn spurious and unsupportable conclusions.

As for how long the 7.62 Tokarev round was in Soviet service, in handguns until roughly 1957, or whenever the Makarov (a 9mm, adopted interestingly enough because it was recognized that the larger bullet would provide better terminal ballistics), or slightly over 20 years, and in submachine guns? Slightly over a decade. The first Soviet issue subguns chambering the 7.62 round were adopted around 1938/1939, and were largely withdrawn from active military service by 1953, to be replaced by the SKS and the AK-47 – certainly not the decades that you claim.

WWII on the Russian front proved otherwise when it was used there successfully by one of the largest armies in the world, the Russian Army. This cartridge would never have remained in service for the many decades that it did if it was as the "Myth claims" that it is an ineffectual and very aenimic non- lethal round. History has not bore this out.

As I’ve noted above, the term of service of the 7.62 Tok round in the Soviet army was comparatively short, and was adopted out of EXPEDIENCY.

And, once again, you mischaracterize what has actually been stated when you say “very anemic non-lethal round.” You KNOW I never said that, and your attempt to characterize previous comments as such are nothing but more bald-faced LIES on your part, with more fanciful leaps of illogic not borne out by the statements previously made.

Please tell me where you get the assessment of “non-lethal round” from any of the previous comments? Ah, I know where you got it, yet another fanciful leap of illogic coupled with a lie. How quaint.

She used her pistol and he dropped with one shot. I would not call this caliber a poor man killer.

And now, for the final fanciful leap, brought to you by the Wild Romanian, who actually managed to find an apocryphal pearl that SUPPORTS the findings of the Thompson LaGarde tests (which we know you don’t believe now, do you?), we have the above statement.

What does this actually prove? Perhaps that this woman also works on a police force in Ohio?

If you can, think about this for a little bit...

If you’re going to execute someone, how are you going to do it?

You’re going to shoot the person in the HEAD.

And what did the Thompson LaGarde tests tell us about small-caliber, high-velocity rounds when they hit the head?

That they cause damage all out of proportion to their size!

Without your realizing it, you’ve just stumbled into JUSTIFICATION of the findings of the Thompson LaGarde tests! Congratulations!

Mike Irwin
April 8, 2003, 02:27 PM
"Contrary to popular belief all the so called advances in ammo since 1900 has been more advertisement hoopla than any real improvement in performance. Bullets made today are largely the same in the expanding type as they were in the early part of the last century."

Ok, your credibility meter is now absolutely ZERO.

If you believe this, you'll believe anything...

Here's one for you...

Did you know that a police officer in another small town in Ohio shot a man with a rocket propelled grenade, which detonated on his winter coat, and only left him scorched?

But that an office armed with a 2.7mm Kolibri shot the guy, and it not only penetrated all the way through, but turned around and came back again, killing him deader than a door nail?

And that when PistolPumper magazine shot squirrels (which are, statistically, even MORE closely related to human anatomy than steers or pigs!) with the 2.7mm Kolibri it was found that it was its lethality was SO great that the CIA, FBI, INS, and KGB came in and shut the testing down and confiscated every Kolibri pistol aroudn the world?

And that's why you never see 2.7mm Kolibri pistols?




Given your inability to understand even the basic tenets of this discussion, it's not surprising that you'd fail to understand the great leaps in the design and manufacture of hollow-point/expanding bullets over the past 15 to 20 years, and how for the first time in the history of jacketed bullets we actually have bullets that will RELIABLY and REPEATABLY expand even at low velocities -- reliability and repeatability that was unobtainable 20 years ago.

I'm not certain what fantasy world you inhabit where the known technological advances in bullet design are "advertising hoopla," but it's not even a distant neighbor of reality.

I spent 3.5 years on staff at American Rifleman magazine, following the advances in bullet design, talking with the men and women who were designing and manufacturing these bullets, and TESTING the products they were brining to market.

You are, without a doubt, the single most unknowledgable "gun" person I have ever come across -- the only probem is I just can't figure out whether it's real, or whether it's an act.

If it's real, it's shameful and disheartening that anyone who professes to own and like firearms could be so unknowledgable about them.

If it's an act, then you should be banned from this board for the simple act of continued trolling.

cratz2
April 8, 2003, 02:31 PM
Your post is not even valid for a variety of reasons.

How can you say that Wild Romanian? Coming from someone with such credibility as yourself, it almost makes me want to cry. :rolleyes: After all the forums we've been together on and you've been banned from. :p

Are you honestly going to tell me that in 1984, 147 Gr 9mm ammo existed that was equilavent to todays 147 Gr Ranger? That's ridiculous. Even the most pro-9mm writers, testers and data gatherers faulted the 147 Gr as among the very worst choice available. Today, the 147 Gr Ranger is a very valid choice. Seems like you aren't following your beloved gun rag authors, Marshall and Sanow or David DiFabio. (No offense to Mr DiFabio, I respect and trust his work).

1. With the ammo tested the 9mm worked just as well as the .45 and Pistolero seemed to think it worked better than the .45acp.

You just don't get it, do you? You're still relying on and testifying on behalf of a test you didn't see written by people you've never met. I just don't see how you can have this argument and honestly believe it. If we were in court, if you chose your words as poorly as you have in this thread, you'd be in jail my friend. Then maybe you could talk to some folks that have experience shooting people with various cartridges. :cuss:

Intune
April 8, 2003, 02:45 PM
Did the Thompson LaGarde tests include quirts and equines? The flogging continues, "long live the beast!" One must admire the fighter who, despite the foregone conclusion as to the outcome of the bout, continues to stagger from his corner in response to the bell. At some point though the sight of a fluttering towel sailing in from the corner brings welcome relief to all.

DeltaElite
April 8, 2003, 03:08 PM
No evidence has been presented to show that the 9mm is superior to the 45acp.
A story from some cop, which sounds like a tall tale.
Some magazine that shot pigs, I feel bad for the pigs, since I am one. ;)
Other claims that are unsubstantiated.

I do know this, a 9mm may expand to .45 or above, but 45acp starts out there. ;)

Island Beretta
April 8, 2003, 06:31 PM
Guys, thanks for the entertainment!! I am only now recovering from the stitches obtained from laughing so hard...

The killer line which came from Tamara and pertained to evidence was' Where you planning on providing some'
:D :D

So long, until the next 9mm vs. 45ACP debate!!!:evil: :evil:

Double Maduro
April 8, 2003, 06:51 PM
Island

There is already one started but this time they included the .40, and somebody tried to sneak in the 10mm. LOL

It goes on and on.

Safety First
April 8, 2003, 07:23 PM
Will the.. " this is the best hand-gun bullet, no it's not, this is the best bullet "debate ever end? I mean for crying out loud,shoot what you want. I mean a .45 makes a bigger hole than a 9mm,right? Ok but then some will say sure it does if it can penetrate...Some say they would rather have more 9mm rounds than fewer .45 rounds..Some say" placement is the key".. I mean jeeees louise,pick your bullet and live or die with it. Or I guess you could load up with a .45 in the summer,a 9mm in the winter,and Oh yes, don't forget the laser for "placement is the key" Well, I know I feel better now...Thanks for letting me vent (and oh yes, I do my venting with a 9mm):neener:

BHP9
April 8, 2003, 07:34 PM
You have referenced an apocryphal police shooting. One that never even made the papers of the town it allegedly occured in. Part of the data was an extraordinary claim of underpenetration by .45. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and you can't provide any proof other than "a guy told

You cetrainly did not pay attention to or read the U.S. military test trials that I posted severl times showing the phenominal penetration of the 9mm over the .45.

You did not believe me when I gave you a simple test that anyone can perform on 55 gallon drums , it does not get much simplier or more credible than that.



Anyone that has studied WWII knows that this info has published years ago and it was in fact the driving concept behind the modern assault rifle i.e. that the modern assault rifle had all the psycholocial effects of the sub-gun but an increased range over the pistol chambered sub-gun.

[ .[/B] QUOTE]Please note that NOWHERE have I used the word “dud” in reference to the 7.62 Tokarev round, or in reference to the .30 Luger round.

Now your playing absolutely nothing but word games and looking for wiggle room. It has been posted and once again read the copy of my quote by simply scrolling up that the 30 caliber pistol cartridges were------------

QUOTE]While I don't know the basis for Barnes comments, it's very interesting to note that two other, MORE powerful rounds, the 7.62 Tokarev and the 7.63 Mauser, also had fairly poor reputations as man stoppers. [/QUOTE

[B]There is no difference in all in the interpretation simply a game you are playing with words

She used her pistol and he dropped with one shot. I would not call this caliber a poor man killer. And now, for the final fanciful leap, brought to you by the Wild Romanian, who actually managed to find an apocryphal pearl that SUPPORTS the findings of the Thompson LaGarde tests (which we know you don’t believe now, do you?), we have the above statement.

Once again you did not slow down and comprehend what I posted. 1. The womand was a Russian Soldier not a police officer but I am glad you mentioned the word "Police" because-------------------[B] About 6 months ago in Massillon, Ohio a man refused to stop in a traffic check. He shot a police officer with a Tokerov and the Police officer was killed instantly. Now what kind of wiggle room is there in this one. Once again, proving that it is easy to call a person a lier, I will not result to such tatics as you do , its childish, but I refer you to the news accounts that went nationalwide on this one.]

[B]If you’re going to execute someone, how are you going to do it? You’re going to shoot the person in the HEAD.

Speculation, you were not there so you cannot make this statement. A more valid statement would be to look at the Police officer than was killed in Massillon with the Tokerov and he was not shot in the head.

Double Maduro
April 8, 2003, 07:40 PM
lol@ Safety First

I am still ignoring bhp9.
I just wish he could spell better. LOL

I think we have upset the boy and that makes his fingers disconnect from his brain.

This did get a lot of posts though.

Handy
April 8, 2003, 07:44 PM
Wow. You kids have certainly been at it.

So, for defense, would I be better off with a .68 caliber, 2000 grain wadcutter traveling at 30 fps or the 5 grain flechette going Mach 8?

What do the pigs think?





Does anyone else think that anecdotal evidence is somewhat worthless when the wound victim is more complicated internally than an earthworm? Does it maybe matter if the bullet goes through the liver rather than heart?

Double Maduro
April 8, 2003, 07:56 PM
Handy,

You are right, anecdotal evidence is amusing but worthless and should not be called evidence.

Of the 2 rounds you mention for defense I guess it would depend.

But that 5 grain would make a heck of a mosquito gun. The only thing faster would be speed of light weaponry. I want one. Does it come in a rifle?

Handy
April 8, 2003, 08:00 PM
Double,

Your best bet for portability and knockdown come from the X-Ray laser class of weapons. Immense directed energy for the size package.

The down side is that it's a single shot.






And you'll be incinerated along with the gun upon firing.

BHP9
April 8, 2003, 08:06 PM
"Contrary to popular belief all the so called advances in ammo since 1900 has been more advertisement hoopla than any real improvement in performance. Bullets made today are largely the same in the expanding type as they were in the early part of the last century."

.Ok, your credibility meter is now absolutely ZERO.

I stand by my statment when refering to rapidly expanding bullets. Examples of these bullets included the Sierra which still makes bullets for hunting or even the non-bonded bullets that Hornady or Speer or other manufactures make.

They still contain plain lead surrouded by a thin copper jacket. They made them this exact way back at the turn of the century and from reading acccounts of these bullets they too expanded very rapidly and also had the problem many of todays bullets do that are not bonded and that is that they often do not penetrate enough or hold together well enough when shot at very close ranges.

My statement was much more valid than you thought

Tamara
April 8, 2003, 08:08 PM
I would, but I can't figure out what the best material for the focussing rods would be. Maybe someone in the reloading forum could help? ;)

Tamara
April 8, 2003, 08:11 PM
I stand by by statment when refering to rapidly expanding bullets. Examples of these bullets included the Sierra which still makes bullets for hunting or even the non-bonded bullets that Hornady or Speer or other manufactures make.

I wouldn't stand by that statement, were I you.

Other examples (of which your statement seems unaware) would be the Gold Dot, Hydra-Shok, Golden Saber, and Ranger SXT.

To hold up the utterly conventional Speer and Hornady JHPs as cutting-edge examples of the breed makes you look like you've just been thawed from a twenty-year cryonic sleep. :rolleyes:

DeltaElite
April 8, 2003, 08:11 PM
Well, I interviewed this pig and he prefers the 45acp and 10mm over the 9mm.
It seems that the pig has spoken and settled this debate. :neener:

http://members.aol.com/dandtshowpigs/pig2.jpg

Double Maduro
April 8, 2003, 08:35 PM
Lol @ the pig,

Has anyone tried the new copper expanders from Taurus yet?

I am thinking of them as a defense round.

Mike Irwin
April 8, 2003, 09:51 PM
Ah...

I'm playing wiggle room... Cute... And not a chance.

Because YOU'RE the one who is playing word games by simply choosing to IGNORE what the word "dud" means in the common vernacular.

Dud, in common talk, means something that abjectly fails to perform in all ways.

As I've already noted, the 7.62/.30 is a poor man stopper, but it's not totally a dud.

Why?

Because as Thompson LaGarde noted, a hit to the head with the .30 Luger would produce pretty spectacular wounds, and given its higher velocity, it's very easy to postulate that the 7.62/7.63 would provide similar results.


That's not a dud.

Then we have 2 war's worth of experience in a WIDE variety of wounds caused by the 7.62 Tok. round, where multiple hits were often required to stop a determined attacker, simply because of the relatively small amount of damage that the small bullet would inflict.

That said, though, the Soviets and Chinese killed many Germans and Americans with the 7.62.

Does that make the round a dud?

Nope, but there are likely a lot of people who were wounded with the 7.62 who are alive today simply because it was a 7.62.

Once again your ability to mischaracterize, misinterpret, misunderstand, and misrepresent is second to none.


"Once again you did not slow down and comprehend what I posted"

Oh, I comprehended QUITE well what you posted.

It was an attempt to again MISCHARACTERIZE and MISREPRESENT the effectiveness of a cartridge based on a SINGLE incident.

You ask how we know that the woman soldier shot the German in the head.

Well, we don't. But we can certainly make some educated guesses.

Such as, if you're shooting someone, and you wish to kill him quickly, do you shoot him in the foot?

Or do you shoot him in the one place virtually guaranteed to cause INSTANT death? (hint, that's the head. Even a heart shot can result in the person living for a considerable amount of time).

We also have a whole body of evidence that shows the Soviet military's preferred method of killing prisoners...

Do you know how they it?

With a shot to the HEAD!

Over 4,000 bodies excavated from the Katyn Woods in Poland show that quite dramatically -- the bodies of over 4,000 Polish Army Officers who were executed by the Soviets in 1940 -- all by a single shot to the head with a handgun.

But, you're right, Officer Eric Taylor wasn't shot in the head. We also do NOT know how long he lived or the true nature of his wounds.

What ALSO must be recognized, though, is that a SINGLE incident, does not constitute the entire body of experience with any item.

If it did, however, then I would simply refute your 9mm story with a single example of my own -- the Miami Shootout of 1986, in which one of your highly penetrating laserbeam 9mms failed to reach the heart of either Platt or Maddix (can't remember which one), allowing him to live for at least 5 more minutes and cause unbelievable mayhem and carnage.

MY GOD! Based on that, the 9mm IS THE WORST round ever!

See how it works?

Now, scuttle on to your next misrepresentation, misinterpretation, etc.

Mannlicher
April 8, 2003, 10:10 PM
Personally, I think the story is apocryphal. I flat don't believe it.

HKcenterMass
April 8, 2003, 11:10 PM
Just use a .22 like a 9mm, its smaller than a .45, but faster than both a 9 and .45, hence, like a 9, smaller and faster, easier to control = better man stopper :)

zpo
April 9, 2003, 07:57 AM
Probably not the best way to start out here but, 50 Cent was shot in the face 9 times with a 9mm and lives to rap about it, so, does that count as proof that the 9 really can't kill anyone and all the stories we here are just propaganda by ammo manufacturers to sell us bad rounds. Maybe we really need the 45 messiah foretold by the ancient wisdom. But I still like my 10mm.

Double Maduro
April 9, 2003, 02:55 PM
zpo,

Welcome to the board. I think You'll like it here.

The 9 vs .45 argument will never be satisfied, it is akin to arguing religion.

There are those who think that it is all about penetration and number of rounds and there are those who feel it is about transferred energy and mass destruction and shot placement. And those who believe in every combination of the above.

I hope you don't judge us by the contents of this one thread.

DM

Handy
April 9, 2003, 07:17 PM
I think Jesus would choose 9mm.

Mike Irwin
April 9, 2003, 09:24 PM
"I think Jesus would choose 9mm"

WWJS...

What Would Jesus Shoot?

DeltaElite
April 9, 2003, 09:42 PM
WWJS? What Would Jesus Shoot?

Easy, A Delta Gold Cup. :D

Mr. Purple
April 9, 2003, 10:24 PM
Wow, I'm shocked that this thread has gone on so long. Why argue calibers? Why are you guys arguing over stuff that happened over 50 years ago. Its not relevant to the ammo used today so why bother. Lets talk reality not theoretical nonsense.

I say go and check any data or study you want and then you will reach the conclusion stated in my other post on this thread. THERE IS NO HANDGUN CALIBER THAT CAN GUARANTEE A ONE SHOT STOP.

With that premise in mind, go find a gun that fits your hand in a caliber that you shoot well, then practice, practice, practice. Rapid continuous shooting is the name of the game. Not single shots, not double taps, not Mosambique drills. But continuous rapid, on target shots. Hopefully you will never have to use deadly force to defend yourself or your family. But if you do, keep shooting until the threat is no longer a threat.

For what its worth one of the most deadly rounds I've seen is the 38 +p 158 gr lead semi wad cutter HP commonly called the metro (Metro-Dade) or FBI load but people don't want to believe that.

Mike Irwin
April 10, 2003, 01:51 AM
I've stated numerous times what brought me into this discussion, Mr. Purple -- another member's abject misrepresentation and subsequtent mischaracterization of the Thompson LaGarde tests, followed many more unrealistic, unsubstantiated, unsupportable, and unreasonable statements.

Mr. Purple
April 10, 2003, 01:59 AM
.

New_comer
April 10, 2003, 02:31 AM
Iraqi envoy to reporter: " The game is over!"

Much like this thread would be in just a moment... :rolleyes:

Al Thompson
April 10, 2003, 08:24 AM
IMHO, this thread has outlived it's usefullness.

Nick96
April 10, 2003, 11:19 PM
WOW!! A 6 page thread on 9MM vs. 45ACP. I guess this is always going to be a "which came first - the chicken or the egg" sort of debate.

If you enjoyed reading about "45Acp fails and 9mm saves the day in shoot out in Ohio" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!