[snake eater 332]

Here's a very well thought out and articulate explanation, backed by research and facts, of the comparison of 9mm vs .45 by Paul Gomez of Gomez Training Iternational:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dA36NYLqns&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Bio for Paul Gomez, provided at his GTI website:

http://gomez-training.com/who-is-paul-gomez/

Food for thought....

[NG VI]

Summary?

[beeb173]

Summary...all pistol bullets are designed to do the same thing so why not carry more bullets.

[Salmoneye]

Summary...all pistol bullets are designed to do the same thing so why not carry more bullets.

Because he completely ignores revolver calibers, does not mean he is right...

:D

[Vern Humphrey]

It takes that boy a long time to say basically nothing.

[David E]

Vern, totally agree. I couldn't get even 1/2 way thru it. He went down more rabbit trails than the Easter Bunny.

[skt239]

More ammo isn't always the solution, any instructor worth his salt knows that. The largest capacity gun I carry holds eight rounds of .9mm and that's plenty for me. Swapping that out for a harder hitting, big caliber would only be a step up.

[browningguy]

More ammo may not be the solution, but it never hurts.

[PabloJ]

Shlomo Baum suggested minimum of 6 spare mags.

[TennJed]

Shlomo Baum suggested minimum of 6 spare mags.
6 mags? Is that a recommendation for military. I may be wrong but has there EVER been a case of a civilian using 6 mags in a self defense situation?

[Sapper771]

I watched half. Never heard of the guy. Too many YouTube "Pro's" popping up these days .

Sounded like he is just repeating what has already been established.

[PabloJ]

6 mags? Is that a recommendation for military. I may be wrong but has there EVER been a case of a civilian using 6 mags in a self defense situation?
How does one survive being caught up in a riot? By joining rioters until opportunity arises to exit the crowd of course. More good advise can be found in 'Secrets of Street Survival-Israeli Style...'

[Creature]

Paul Gomez, an excellent instructor, makes some salient points if you actually listen to him:

-most modern ammo manufactures are designing ammo to penetrate to the exact same limits.
-most modern ammo designs expand to very similar diameters.
-the ability to accurately put a round into the target often wins the fight. The ability to put fact and accurate follow-up shot on target is just as, if not more, important. Many people can do that better with a 9mm than with a .45. In that respect, a high-cap .45 may not be as good as a high-cap 9mm.
-being temporarily (or permanently) out of the fight due to an empty gun can be a significant factor in surviving a fight...the ability to remain in the fight is often dependent on ammo capacity. This must be considered before choosing a carry weapon.

[Hangingrock]

One would have to admit that YouTube is a marketing tool good, bad or indifferent.

[Loosedhorse]

If someone has a preference for the 9mm, that's cool. If they have one for the .45, that's cool, too.

If they want to come up with all sorts of reasons why one is "definitely" better than the other for all (or most) users, well, that's doomed to failure.

Mostly because they both stink compared to 10mm. ;):D-the ability to accurately put a round into the target often wins the fight.And yet, given poor lighting, target movement, and shooter movement during a gunfight, it may be the one thing you can depend upon least. Not easy to practice that type of shooting a lot, and it's not clear that more "static" target shooting in daylight transfers well (it probably does to some extent).

In order to improve your odds of a good hit (on an equipment level), is the solution more rounds? Less recoil? Bigger bullets? More rounds and bigger bullets?

Ya paiz ya munny...

[Salmoneye]

In order to improve your odds of a good hit (on an equipment level), is the solution more rounds? Less recoil? Bigger bullets? More rounds and bigger bullets?

Ya paiz ya munny...

Bingo.

[buddyemily]

Paul Gomez....who????

[Rexster]

Paul Gomez is an excellent instructor. He and SouthNarc instructed the ECQC classes I attended back around 2005-2006, so Paul is not exactly new at the business.

I don't watch YouTube videos anymore, as my gadgets spend far, far more time buffering, or whatever that process is, than playing, so I cannot comment on this video clip itself. I don't have the whole afternoon it takes to watch a half-hour YouTube. I do remember, however, remember Paul's thoughts on choosing 9mm, and have no problems with any of it. While I tend to prefer weapons chambered in other cartridges, 9mm is fine with me. This is not the 1970s or 1980s, anymore. Controlled-expansion JHP science has progressed far.

I may well start carrying 9mm as a duty cartridge soon. Though we (very large PD) standardized on the .40 for uniformed patrol in 1997, a new policy has been sent up for the chief's signature, to add 9mm as a second standard cartridge* My aging, ailing right wrist will certainly welcome the change! A SWAT officer of my acquaintance, not bound by the .40 standard for patrol, and quite the big-bore fan, has already gone 9mm. I have a pre-owned, gently-treated G17 on layaway, already. (The G17's lower bore axis will
additionally help mitigate recoil, compared to my present duty P229.)

*I cannot specify the PD; we are prohibited from discussing certain subjects on social media while being identifiable as a member of the PD.

I do still like .45 ACP. It is the .40 that I find rather useless these days.

[jad0110]

In order to improve your odds of a good hit (on an equipment level), is the solution more rounds? Less recoil? Bigger bullets? More rounds and bigger bullets?

Or another option: pick a platform that "fits" you. One that, #1 you'll actually carry daily and #2 points as naturally, and instinctively as possible (combination of weight, balance, trigger reach, and shape/size/material of the grips / grip frame. A 20 round wonderauto won't do any good if one can't grasp it effectively enough to make point shooting a viable option. Definitely no one size fits all solutions here.

[David E]

6 mags? Is that a recommendation for military. I may be wrong but has there EVER been a case of a civilian using 6 mags in a self defense situation?

Why is it that everytime the number of spare mags is mentioned, someone automatically thinks it's referring to how many you should carry on your person if you get into a gunfight?

99.9% of the time, when someone suggests the number of spare mags, it refers to how many you should OWN, not how many you should carry.

In which case, 6 is bare minimum for any serious gun.

Usually, mags that are to be carried are referred to as "reloads." ("you should carry at least one reload...")

[Rexster]

jad0110 makes a good point about fit. I dislike double-column-magazine pistols, because my thumbs, and ring and pinkie fingers, are rather short. I am mandated to tote a double-column pistol while in uniform, but off the clock, use revolvers or a single-column 1911 auto. To me, most double-column pistols are not handguns, but handS-guns. During a fight, my support hand might have something else important to do, off the pistol.

[72guns92]

If you need more than a cylinder full or a mag full your wasting ammo,just IMHO

[PabloJ]

jad0110 makes a good point about fit. I dislike double-column-magazine pistols, because my thumbs, and ring and pinkie fingers, are rather short. I am mandated to tote a double-column pistol while in uniform, but off the clock, use revolvers or a single-column 1911 auto. To me, most double-column pistols are not handguns, but handS-guns. During a fight, my support hand might have something else important to do, off the pistol.
There are some double-stack exceptions for example the 10-shot S&W99 .45Auto with small grip insert is a hand gun.

[Swing]

Paul Gomez....who????

Wonder'n the same thing.

[PabloJ]

Wonder'n the same thing.
Let's hope it's not 'Gomez' from McMurty's Dead Man's Walk. He killed bunch of them pilgrims on their way to Mexico.

[GEM]

Paul is a great guy. We've trained together and I've heard him present. If you don't know who he is - take the opportunity to take a class from him.

It might do you some good.

[coalman]

Summary...all pistol bullets are designed to do the same thing so why not carry more bullets.

All automobiles transport from point A to point B. Why not all drive the same one? IMO, yet another example of first selecting caliber x then creating reason y after to justify and validate it for reassurance. Many scenarios can be imagined. Use what helps you sleep at night.

[jad0110]

Quote:
Summary...all pistol bullets are designed to do the same thing so why not carry more bullets.
All automobiles transport from point A to point B. Why not all drive the same one? IMO, yet another example of first selecting caliber x then creating reason y after to justify and validate it for reassurance. Many scenarios can be imagined. Use what helps you sleep at night.

To add to this, because there are a lot more decision factors than just how many cartridges a gun holds. Each one of us has our own selection criteria and priorities. Which explains why there are so many different weapon choices on the market.

Granted, more rounds are better. If that is your only requirement, then a Glock 17 or 19 with a 33 round mag is your gun. If you have additional requirements that you've put more importance on (like being able to grasp the gun with tiny hands, or wanting to conceal the thing in Florida ... in August), then that option is probably gonna be the least desirable choice.

Going back to the car example, by itself, more power is always better. Until you have to put $3.50 / gas in it. :p I'd love to own a BMW 3 series. Lots of fun to drive and reasonably practical for a family of 3. But those 3 letters stand for "Break My Wallet" for a reason :evil: . Since I figure life cycle costs of ownership into my decision, I ended up with a rather bland (but highly affordable) Toyota instead. Can you tell that I am a nerd? :o

[David E]

.45 bullets make bigger holes than 9mm bullets.

If its only about the number of shots the gun holds, why is Gomez not championing the Kel-Tec .22 magnum P-30 that holds 30 rounds? Those bullets are "designed to do the same thing," too.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by beeb173: Summary...all pistol bullets are designed to do the same thing so why not carry more bullets.That's not what he said. He said that all of the common service cartridges--9MM, .357 SIG. ,40 S&W, and .45 ACP--are designed to provide "more or less the same penetration".

[Bubba613]

In which case, 6 is bare minimum for any serious gun.
I must be deficient then because I don't own a single gun that has 6 mags with it.

As for the OP, once you reach a threshold it is largely shot placement and basically luck. I think confidence in your weapon and ability to use it are pretty important. So if someone thinks his .45 will do the job then great, he needs to carry that. If someone else thinks his 9mm will be just the thing, great. And if someone else thinks 6 rounds of .357mag will take care of any problem he is right!

[GEM]

:D Except the 7th guy - or when you missed 5 times and there are 2 guys.

Of course, no one on the internet ever misses or hits a trivial area.

[Bubba613]

If you have seven guys who aren't running like heck away from you you've either got serious problems or you're playing a video game.

[David E]

I must be deficient then because I don't own a single gun that has 6 mags with it.

Then you are magazine deficient.

So if someone thinks his .45 will do the job then great, he needs to carry that. If someone else thinks his 9mm will be just the thing, great. And if someone else thinks 6 rounds of .357mag will take care of any problem he is right!

If someone "feels" well armed or "confident" carrying a single shot derringer in .22 Short, he's still an idiot.

No one cares how much "confidence" the shooter has in his gun, caliber or capacity thereof. The only opinion that matters at that moment of shooting in defense of your life is the opinion of the guy you're shooting.

Hopefully, you'll have chosen wisely and the badguy you're shooting with your selected gun/caliber/capacity will agree with you.....before he kills you.

[beeb173]

That's not what he said. He said that all of the common service cartridges--9MM, .357 SIG. ,40 S&W, and .45 ACP--are designed to provide "more or less the same penetration".
What was I thinking, kleanbore? My insincerest apologies.

[JimStC]

^^^^^ Too funny :D

[Bubba613]

Then you are magazine deficient.
Wow. All these years and I had no idea.

If someone "feels" well armed or "confident" carrying a single shot derringer in .22 Short, he's still an idiot.

No one cares how much "confidence" the shooter has in his gun, caliber or capacity thereof. The only opinion that matters at that moment of shooting in defense of your life is the opinion of the guy you're shooting.

Try reading hte whole post.

[David E]

Wow. All these years and I had no idea.

I am referring to "serious" guns. If you are too, well....

Try reading hte whole post.

I did. Doesn't change what I said.

[Bubba613]

All my guns look pretty serious to me. I'd hate to be on the other end of any of them. But I never saw the need for 6 mags.

[David E]

All my guns look pretty serious to me. I'd hate to be on the other end of any of them. But I never saw the need for 6 mags.

Many folks have six or more spares for their serious guns, especially if they hold more than 10, for multitudinous reasons. Interesting you haven't stumbled across any of them.

[Bubba613]

Lots of folks do lots of things. Doesn't mean everyone has to do that. I do have one customer who wants like 6+ mags for every gun he has. Good for me.
Personally I never saw the need.

[mnhntr]

Everyone is an expert these days. It does not take a whole lot to become an instructor, and becoming one does not make you an expert.

[Walking Dead]

He basically offends the 1911 crowd is what I'm getting from this.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Walking Dead: He basically offends the 1911 crowd is what I'm getting from this.Some of them, perhaps, but he most certainly does not offend me, and I do have a seven shot STI in .45 ACP.

To be frank, when I bought it, I was not aware of how close the 9MM and .45 actually are in terms of penetration.

Nor had I participated in any high performance defensive pistol shooting. When I did, I realized for the first time that what I had been doing--practicing aimed fire from a standing position at a range--was a very poor analog for SD shooting.

I also found that the guys with the service-sized double column 9MM and .40 S&W pistols had me at a real disadvantage in terms of getting rounds on multiple targets at close range. Some of that was due to skill, and some had to do with magazine capacity and recoil.

I have never trained with Paul, but I do put a lot of stock in GEM's recommendations. Also, Paul's comparisons and evaluations of the several duty cartridges are entirely consistent with other people's evaluations.

There are other highly qualified trainers out there. I think most of them will say about the same thing: that the important thing is getting multiple shots on targets quickly; that all of the popular service weapons are roughly comparable in term of penetration; and that no service handgun will reliably provide one stop shots.

And I may be mistaken, but I also predict that most of the students will come away with the same conclusions: that "range marksmanship" is of little or no little use in SD shooting, though the basic skills are transferable; that larger capacity is better; that lighter recoil is better; and that a longer sight radius and a larger (longer) grip are preferable to those on compact handguns.

But don't take my word for it. Find some really good instructors and sign up.

[beatledog7]

Too many "expert" bad guy shooters and too few expert bad guy avoiders. Just my opinion.

[Calhoun321]

What isn't said is that there IS a notable difference in barrier penetration between the service rounds. Some high dollar 9mm do OK in barrier tests. But, I can buy equally effective .40 or .45 ammo cheaper and more readily. Barrier penetration matters greatly IMHO, because you can't assume your confrontation will be with a thin criminal who is lightly dressed without any available cover.

[mnhntr]

Funny thing is the same "experts" who say you should carry a polymer wonder pistol with mags that hold a bizillion rounds are the same "experts" who will tell you most gunfights are done in 3-4 rds fired except for LEOs.

[David E]

Lots of folks do lots of things. Doesn't mean everyone has to do that. I do have one customer who wants like 6+ mags for every gun he has. Good for me.
Personally I never saw the need.

Basic reasons include:

Loss, breakage, theft, worn out, convenience, spreading the wear among several instead of few, can't replace hicap in future (or currently in some states), to name but a few reasons.

[snake eater 332]

Some of them, perhaps, but he most certainly does not offend me, and I do have a seven shot STI in .45 ACP.

To be frank, when I bought it, I was not aware of how close the 9MM and .45 actually are in terms of penetration.

Nor had I participated in any high performance defensive pistol shooting. When I did, I realized for the first time that what I had been doing--practicing aimed fire from a standing position at a range--was a very poor analog for SD shooting.

I also found that the guys with the service-sized double column 9MM and .40 S&W pistols had me at a real disadvantage in terms of getting rounds on multiple targets at close range. Some of that was due to skill, and some had to do with magazine capacity and recoil.

I have never trained with Paul, but I do put a lot of stock in GEM's recommendations. Also, Paul's comparisons and evaluations of the several duty cartridges are entirely consistent with other people's evaluations.

There are other highly qualified trainers out there. I think most of them will say about the same thing: that the important thing is getting multiple shots on targets quickly; that all of the popular service weapons are roughly comparable in term of penetration; and that no service handgun will reliably provide one stop shots.

And I may be mistaken, but I also predict that most of the students will come away with the same conclusions: that "range marksmanship" is of little or no little use in SD shooting, though the basic skills are transferable; that larger capacity is better; that lighter recoil is better; and that a longer sight radius and a larger (longer) grip are preferable to those on compact handguns.

But don't take my word for it. Find some really good instructors and sign up.

^^^ I agree wholeheartedly! Extremely well said!

[snake eater 332]

Here's Steve Reichert, former USMC sniper and founder of T1G (Tier 1 Group), weighing in on the matter of handgun caliber choice and why:

http://stevereichert.com/srs-handgun-caliber-choice-and-why/

If you're not familiar with him, here's some further info:

http://stevereichert.com/bio/

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=25833

[Skribs]

Just because you haven't heard a name doesn't mean he's not a smart person. I watched a few of his videos on youtube and learned a lot. Over in the S&T section here he posted a link to a video, and several people here (including mods) seemed to learn something. Sounds like a smart guy to me, although I haven't watched this video.

When I got my first gun, I couldn't decide between 9 and .45, so I got a .40.

[X-Rap]

Good article snake eater, I hope the Buffoons don't take to much offense:rolleyes:

[wildehond]

(deleted)

[jimbo555]

Depends on what kind of an encounter your training for.High capacity full size duty weapons are great for some attacks but closeup down and dirty type of attacks where a fraction of a second counts a small snubnose revolver might be superior.Its much harder to get a hold on a j-frame revolver and faster on presentation.

[Skribs]

Jimbo, that's not really relavent to the 9 vs .45 debate. That's a full-size semi-automatic vs. snub-nose revolver debate.

[Ky Larry]

Whack. Whack. Whack. Whack. Whack. Whack. Whack. Whack. Whack.




The sound of a dead horse being beaten.:rolleyes:

[jimbo555]

What if the revolver is a 9mm?;)

[GEM]

Or a Judge loaded with 45 ACP? And you are attacked by a watermelon?

I agree about the horse's suffering.

I think it is pretty clear that round for round, quality 9s, 40s or 45s cannot be distinguished such that one has a statistically significant and more importantly usable effect size difference in efficacy. Thus, the idea of more capacity would seem more reasonable, given easier shootability, etc.

[David E]

You can't shoot .45 acp in a Judge.

[GEM]

Eeek - I meant a Governor!! My bad!!

Maybe I also meant a canteloupe!

[Coop45]

Wouldn't life be dull if everyone liked the same thing.

[buckhorn_cortez]

My only question is - if more = better, then why the emphasis on carry weight and concealability? Manufacturers making reduced round count, single stack, semi-autos in whatever caliber you choose seems to be counterintuitive to the more = better advice.

Won't even get into mouse guns....

[X-Rap]

Its all a matter of choice, some think 5 rds is plenty and I guess that is true if 4 or 5 do the job. Me, I'd just as soon have plenty left over if I ever have that really bad day.

[Bubba613]

I dunno.
Someone on here had a saying, Shot placement is king, penetration is queen. Anything else is angels dancing on the head of a pin. I thoguht that was pretty good and use it frequently.
But theoretically at the margin the .45 will create a bigger hole and be more effective. But it's a thin margin.

[Skribs]

My only question is - if more = better, then why the emphasis on carry weight and concealability? Manufacturers making reduced round count, single stack, semi-autos in whatever caliber you choose seems to be counterintuitive to the more = better advice.

You're talking about something different than 9 vs. 45 here. Within the same size gun, you can get more 9 than .45. The slimline sub-compact .45s hold 5 rounds, and are generally a tad bigger than the 6-round 9mm.

As to "more bullets" vs. "slimline, compact", that's about a tradeoff. 6 rounds of 9mm in the LC9 that you brought with you are better than the 19 rounds of 9mm in your XDm that you left in the drawer at home because you didn't want to bother with a holster and a baggy shirt.

[YankeeFlyr]

I'll take a full-size handgun full of 9mm rounds vs. .45 ACP. The diff in ME/round is a LOT LESS (sometimes negligible) than the total ME per mag reload.

Funny, my carry is the Beretta 92FS but the pistol next to the bed is a 1911A1.

One with 124 grain HS [15+1] and the other with 230 grain HS [8+1] (could be ball rounds...)

Just gotta remember to cock the 1911A1 before I go downstairs to see 'what WAS that?'

[303tom]

More blood comes out of a bigger hole !

[JustinJ]

Why is it that everytime the number of spare mags is mentioned, someone automatically thinks it's referring to how many you should carry on your person if you get into a gunfight?

99.9% of the time, when someone suggests the number of spare mags, it refers to how many you should OWN, not how many you should carry.

In which case, 6 is bare minimum for any serious gun.

Usually, mags that are to be carried are referred to as "reloads." ("you should carry at least one reload...")

If one only carries one reload what good does having four others at home do? I can see saying "one should have at least one spare at home in case a carry mag breaks" but beyond that is just a matter of convenience. I have quite a few mags for my guns that can hold 10+ just because i worry about another AWB but aside from that there is no need to have over one more than what you normally carry. Sounds kind of like "serious gun guy snobbery".

[coalman]

I'll take a full-size handgun full of 9mm rounds vs. .45 ACP.

Agree. I'd take 19 rounds of 9mm (e.g. 92fs w/ Mec-Gar 18rd) over 9 rounds (e.g. 1911 w/ 8rd) of .45acp. With a spare that would be 37 rounds of 9mm vs. 17 rounds of .45acp.

Would I take 16 rounds of 9mm (e.g. Glock 19) over 11 rounds of .45acp (e.g. Glock 30)? Or, 11rds of 9mm (e.g Glock 26) over 11rds of .45acp (e.g. Glock 30)? IMO, those are the relevant questions.

Gun size also comes into play for CCW. As does shooter skill w/ 9mm vs. .45acp. Cost is a factor for many, too. These are all good considerations. Often, for many, it's about more than caliber performance, though they may errantly try to argue caliber "equality" after selecting 9mm based off size, control and/or cost.

[David E]

If one only carries one reload what good does having four others at home do? I can see saying "one should have at least one spare at home in case a carry mag breaks" but beyond that is just a matter of convenience. I have quite a few mags for my guns that can hold 10+ just because i worry about another AWB but aside from that there is no need to have over one more than what you normally carry. Sounds kind of like "serious gun guy snobbery".

You copied and pasted what I said, but you apparently didn't read it. I addressed everything you bring up here and expanded on it in Post #48

Gun snobbery? No, observable fact.

[Skribs]

Coalman, you're comparing apples to grapples when you compare a double-stack 9mm to a single-stack .45, there's two variables changing there. In reality it is 19 vs. 13 (XDM), 16 vs. 15 (FNP, I don't know why their 9mm is so much smaller), 17 vs. 13 (Glock), or 9 vs. 7 (1911). I know there are a lot more, but this is just to give the general idea. When you compare 9mm to .45, in general you're looking at a gain of about 30% capacity, depending on what model you look at. If you take the highest capacity flush magazines on the market and compare the XDm 9 to the FNP 45, it's a 27% gain in capacity, 19 vs. 15.

If you're comparing the capacity of 9 vs. .45, you have to campare in similar framed guns. Otherwise you're comparing two factors (caliber and size) at the same time.

[X-Rap]

Given the unproven or contentious difference between the two calibers how is it wrong to compare two similar sized guns of which one almost doubles the capacity of the other?

[Skribs]

X-Rap, it's not a bad idea. But if you're saying "9mm vs. .45" you should look at two similar guns. Look at Glock vs. 1911, OR look at 9mm vs. .45, but don't look at Glock 9mm vs. 1911 in .45.

As I said, you're not comparing 18 to 9. You're comparing 19+1 to 13+1, or 9+1 to 7+1, or so on. When you run trials in an experiment, you should only change one variable at a time, otherwise you get results where different variables affect it.

Like someone said above, if you compare a Glock 21 (13 rounds of .45) to a Ruger LC9 (6 rounds of 9mm) then the .45 wins because it has more than double. Okay, you said same size. G21 (13x.45) vs. 9mm 1911 (9x9mm), .45 still has more. It's because even though the two guns have similar dimensions, the grip is wider on a double-stack, which is why they have different capacities.

[JustinJ]

You copied and pasted what I said, but you apparently didn't read it. I addressed everything you bring up here and expanded on it in Post #48

I overlooked the post 48 but i would still maintain that plus one is still plenty sufficient so long as new ones can be purchased. Even then i believe previous federal legislation still allowed for the purchase of replacement springs and followers. Sub 10 round mags future legislation is not a concern though, imo.

[Bubba613]

I'll take a full-size handgun full of 9mm rounds vs. .45 ACP. The diff in ME/round is a LOT LESS (sometimes negligible) than the total ME per mag reload.

It is simply a fact that most gunfights are over in 5 rounds or less. IN fact I can't recall an incident that required much more than that. Since you are likely to have one to two chances at stopping the bad guy it makes more sense to throw as much as possible the first time around than count on follow up shots that will likely not happen.
Now, whether one round of .45 will be more effective than 1 rd of 9mm is another issue. The original video by Gomez seems to imply yes. But he is looking at a very narrow set of criteria. And although gelatine is the recognized standard, it is not a very good representation of human beings.

[SabbathWolf]

I own handguns that fire 9mm, 357 mag, 38spl & 45acp as well.
So I'd have to consider myself non-prejudice here on this.
However, I still like the 45acp the best.

With hollow-ponts...the 9mm "may" expand and get bigger.
But the 45acp is still never gonna get "smaller." :D

Given that penetration may be about the same with either rounds...
It's hitting something "vital" that makes the difference to me.
So in theory, a larger diameter gives you an advantage of "maybe" at least nicking or grazing something vital if your shot was not placed "perfectly."

That's what makes shotguns so great for example at close range.
It's not that they hit the target multiple times, but rather, that they increase the odds of hitting something vital. Different platform....same idea.

[X-Rap]

The statistics on rounds shot per incident would be very interesting, if as you say "most" are over with 5 shots it would be interesting to know if that is 51%, 40%, 20%. Personally even 10 out of 100 is not an encouraging number for me.
More important would be stats relating to the number of assailants. This list could go on with questions of geography and demography but I somehow doubt if it's as simple as you represent it.

[X-Rap]

So in theory, a larger diameter gives you an advantage of "maybe" at least nicking or grazing something vital if your shot was not placed "perfectly."


If that is a comparison to the pattern of buckshot I will agree but it isn't really a fair comparison to a handgun, if it is ranking the difference in size of 9mm and .45 it is laughable.

[SabbathWolf]

"Laughable?"
Says who?
You?
lol......big deal.

So your stance would be that pistol rounds are all the same then?
A 9mm ball will be just as effective as a 45acp hollow-point for example?
I already know for sure that 9mm ball isn't as effective as 9mm HPs.
So, I'm failing to find the humor you see.

I'll take every little advantage possible in a gun fight...even if it's minuscule.
I mean, if we look at this truthfully...if 9mm was equal to 45acp, then there would never have been HPs designed for the 9mm in the 1st place.
Even just looking at my own ammo, I can "definitely" see a difference.
;)




http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v648/Swampdragon/15acd3f1.jpg

[Bubba613]

The statistics on rounds shot per incident would be very interesting, if as you say "most" are over with 5 shots it would be interesting to know if that is 51%, 40%, 20%. Personally even 10 out of 100 is not an encouraging number for me.
More important would be stats relating to the number of assailants. This list could go on with questions of geography and demography but I somehow doubt if it's as simple as you represent it
It's an average representing the mode.
And it's probably like one out of 100, and that one involves drug-related gangs.
The number of assailants is seldom more than 3.
Putting in perspective of how often an armed response is required (very seldom for the average white middle class American) I would take those stats to Vegas.

[Bubba613]

Even just looking at my own ammo, I can "definitely" see a difference.
What you see is a difference is size. That may or may not be a difference in effectiveness, which you cannot see.

[X-Rap]

So you wish to rely on .093 of an inch difference in diameter and I wish to rely on double the capacity. To each his own but that is a tight margin of error and counting on it to make or break my guns lethality is laughable.

I mean, if we look at this truthfully...if 9mm was equal to 45acp, then there would never have been HPs designed for the 9mm in the 1st place.


On the other hand JMB The Great would never had built the Hi Power if he thought the .45 was the end all cartridge.;)

[Kleanbore]

Posted by SabbathWolf: It's hitting something "vital" that makes the difference to me.Yep.

So in theory, a larger diameter gives you an advantage of "maybe" at least nicking or grazing something vital if your shot was not placed "perfectly."Well, not exactly.

Second part first: In a violent encounter with a fast moving, very dangerous attacker, one cannot hope to "place" a shot "perfectly". One can only shoot fast and shoot until the attacker stops--which may result from the psychological impact, or which may result from hitting something vital. The shooter can only shoot fast and hope.

Now to the first part: The effect of the larger diameter is not theoretical. It's just that it may not be all that great. Shoot several shots very, very fast at a two or more humanoid-shaped targets. Vary the shape and position of the target.

Have someone knowledgeable of the human anatomy provide an opinion of what, in terms of potentially vital body parts in that three dimensional attacker that each bullet would likely have damaged. Remember that vital parts refer to stops, and not to lethality; a shot to one element of the heart won't help much if your attacker has decided to play out Mr. Tueller's drill for you.

The variable is bullet diameter, or rather, radius. An expanded JHP .45 is larger than a 9MM. But not that much larger, and it won't matter much if the bullet passes some distance from anything vital.

The FBI's report on the subject (http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf) puts it this way:

Given adequate penetration, a larger diameter bullet will have an edge in wounding effectiveness. It will damage a blood vessel the smaller projectile barely misses. The larger permanent cavity may lead to faster blood loss. Although such an edge clearly exists, its significance cannot be quantified.

So--ask what a .45 bullet might have damaged that a 9MM would not. You may see a meaningful difference or you may not.

And that brings us back to the other variable, the one that spawned the discussion--the difference in the number of quick shots on target.

So, what's the answer? I'll go with GEM's conclusion:

I think it is pretty clear that round for round, quality 9s, 40s or 45s cannot be distinguished such that one has a statistically significant and more importantly usable effect size difference in efficacy. Thus, the idea of more capacity would seem more reasonable, given easier shootability, etc.

[Skribs]

X-Rap, it is not double the capacity unless you change platforms along with caliber. In some cases, staying within the same platform, it's less than 7% capacity gain (FNP), and at most (XDm) it's a difference of only 47%. Not even 1 1/2 times the capacity, let alone double.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Skribs: X-Rap, it is not double the capacity unless you change platforms along with caliber.And one just may choose to do that, for reasons pertaining to grip size, weight loaded, concealability, size and weight of extra magazines, or any combination thereof.

I carry a double column 9MM, but I am not about to carry a double column .45; my .45 is single column.

[Teachu2]

Would I take 16 rounds of 9mm (e.g. Glock 19) over 11 rounds of .45acp (e.g. Glock 30)? Or, 11rds of 9mm (e.g Glock 26) over 11rds of .45acp (e.g. Glock 30)? IMO, those are the relevant questions.

Gun size also comes into play for CCW. As does shooter skill w/ 9mm vs. .45acp. Cost is a factor for many, too. These are all good considerations. Often, for many, it's about more than caliber performance, though they may errantly try to argue caliber "equality" after selecting 9mm based off size, control and/or cost.

Here in the Land of Liberal Sunshine and Shiny Liberals, Home of the 10 Round Mag, the clear winner becomes the G30 - if you can conceal it effectively. 11 rounds of .45acp vs 11 rounds of 9mm....

[Skribs]

Kleanbore, you're the first person I've seen discuss it only one variable at a time. Grip size with 9mm vs. .45 means you would choose a different platform. All the others just arbitrarily compared a high cap 9mm with a single column .45 to exagerate the difference in 9.

[SabbathWolf]

What you see is a difference is size. That may or may not be a difference in effectiveness, which you cannot see.


I already explained "my" preference for larger "size" (as in-diameter) in post #76.


Like I said, I do own a handgun, and a pistol caliber carbine in 9mm as well.
So, I don't "dislike" 9mm at all.
I agree with the video guy though, that I too, also prefer the 147gr in 9mm.
But I do feel the 45acp gives you a slight advantage, and always will.

[SabbathWolf]

Yep.

Well, not exactly.




Yes. Exactly.

The bigger the hole diameter, the greater the odds that at least "part" of that hole may nick something vital...even if the difference is very small.
It's not an opinion.
It's simple math.
:D

Now a clean hit straight into something vital with either a 9mm or 45acp will be a good hit either way.
Don't confuse the two different things.
That's the entire premise behind HP ammo in the first place, regardless of caliber....to give you a "larger diameter hole."
The larger the hole, the greater chance of at least nicking something vital if your shot wasn't perfectly placed.
Wait...didn't I already say all this?

[SabbathWolf]

And one just may choose to do that, for reasons pertaining to grip size, weight loaded, concealability, size and weight of extra magazines, or any combination thereof.

I carry a double column 9MM, but I am not about to carry a double column .45; my .45 is single column.

That's getting into platforms really instead of one caliber vs another though, right?
I mean, I have a 12+1 45acp and don't find it too big.
A 17 shot 9mm Glock or Beretta M9 is roughly the very same size.

[X-Rap]

Thank God we don't all live in the land of 10 rd magazines. I have carried double column 45 pistols and still have a Para Limited and G21 so I know the difference and yes I choose to change the platform from a single stack 45 to a double 9mm and that makes a considerable difference to me.
More ammo and quicker shots has to mean something, I consider the G19 to be the optimum combination of size, caliber and capacity YMMD.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by SabbathWolf: The larger the hole, the greater chance of at least nicking something vital if your shot wasn't perfectly placed.The term "perfectly placed" does not mean much in self defense. There are all kinds of points and angles of entry, and they all may have a different effect internally. And they are likely a matter of luck. But perhaps we are engaged in semantics.

Wait...didn't I already say all this?No. Your phrase was "in theory".

The bigger the hole diameter, the greater the odds that at least "part" of that hole may nick something vital...even if the difference is very small.True fact.

[SabbathWolf]

The term "perfectly placed" does not mean much in self defense.



Oh Geeze.
I think I'm done here.
Common sense has gone straight out the window along with any sense of reality...or reading comprehension as well.
I've already said "numerous" times that perfectly placed shots are difficult.

After 20 years in the army and numerous engagements...I think I may know just a "little" about self-defense.
:rolleyes:

[David E]

I overlooked the post 48 but i would still maintain that plus one is still plenty sufficient so long as new ones can be purchased. Even then i believe previous federal legislation still allowed for the purchase of replacement springs and followers. Sub 10 round mags future legislation is not a concern though, imo.

Ever take a gun class? Ever shoot a match? Ever crack feedlips?

Any gun class beyond the super basic ("the bullet comes out the skinny end really fast !") will require a minimum of three mags. Most classes require or strongly encourage the student to bring more than 3. Six gives you a spare set so you can rest a set while you run the other, but most would load them all up to keep things flowing smoothly.

At the range, it sucks to shoot only 1-2 mags, then have to reload them before being able to continue.....for a very short time, then repeat. Over and over.

If someone keeps a semi auto for defense but only has one or two magazines for it, it's been my observation over the past 4 decades that they are not serious about it. To them, the gun is simply a talisman.

[michaelbsc]

That's getting into platforms really instead of one caliber vs another though, right?
I mean, I have a 12+1 45acp and don't find it too big.
A 17 shot 9mm Glock or Beretta M9 is roughly the very same size.

And throwing in a personal variable, I have pretty small hands. So I am never going to comfortably use a double stack 9mm.

So I do find myself questioning whether I could effectively recover and refire faster and more accurately out of a single stack 9mm with lighter recoil than I could with a single stack 1911. Maybe. It is certainly a legitimate question that I need to ask myself.

Or maybe I should stick to a .357 revolver.

[SabbathWolf]

And throwing in a personal variable, I have pretty small hands. So I am never going to comfortably use a double stack 9mm.

So I do find myself questioning whether I could effectively recover and refire faster and more accurately out of a single stack 9mm with lighter recoil than I could with a single stack 1911. Maybe. It is certainly a legitimate question that I need to ask myself.

Or maybe I should stick to a .357 revolver.

Depends on barrel length and weight I'd say.
My 357 recoils harder than my 45acp and 9mm both as far as muzzle rise and recovery time.

[Nauga]

I'd like to see somebody survive a 45 in the head...

[SabbathWolf]

I'd like to see somebody survive a 45 in the head...


A clean shot to the head is another matter completely.
When I was around 12, my best friend's older brother was killed with a 22lr shot to the head from a 10/22.
It was an accident...but that didn't change the outcome.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Nauga: I'd like to see somebody survive a 45 in the head...Just what does that have with the discussion of Mr. Gomez' presentation?

[45_auto]

The bigger the hole diameter, the greater the odds that at least "part" of that hole may nick something vital...even if the difference is very small.
It's not an opinion.
It's simple math.

That must be why all the professional pistol shooters shoot .45's, because those bigger bullets give them a better chance that the hole in the target will nick the line, giving them the higher value.

Oops, turns out that 95% of them shoot .40 or 9mm, seems that they figured out that placement and controllability is more important than a few thousandths of an inch in bullet diameter. Your theory that bigger is automatically better only applies if you're counting on pure luck to hit something.

Just think, if you applied your vast knowledge of the benefits of bigger diameter bullets, you could easily be national champion!

2010 USPSA Nationals

40_______218_______63.01%
9mm_____111________32.08%
45_______16________4.62%
10mm_____1________0.29%
38 Super___0________0.00%

_________346______100.00%

[Bubba613]

If someone keeps a semi auto for defense but only has one or two magazines for it, it's been my observation over the past 4 decades that they are not serious about it. To them, the gun is simply a talisman.

I guess I must be non-serious.:rolleyes:

[Loosedhorse]

2010 USPSA NationalsYour point is well taken. The numbers you cite: are they all divisions? Just the production division? My guess is that the caliber break-down for the single-stack division might be different.

In any case, we should realized that USPSA pistol choice is governed by USPSA rules regarding major and minor calibers, scoring of targets, courses of fire requiring multiple target engagement, etc.

The rules seem also to favor carrying, what, four double-stack mags?

http://www.downrange.tv/blog/wp-content/uploads/cache/6905_NpAdvHover.jpg

We cannot be sure that the "rules" of real gunfights--especially regarding "scoring" of hits--are the same.

[David E]

That must be why all the professional pistol shooters shoot .45's, because those bigger bullets give them a better chance that the hole in the target will nick the line, giving them the higher value.

Oops, turns out that 95% of them shoot .40 or 9mm, seems that they figured out that placement and controllability is more important than a few thousandths of an inch in bullet diameter. Your theory that bigger is automatically better only applies if you're counting on pure luck to hit something.

Just think, if you applied your vast knowledge of the benefits of bigger diameter bullets, you could easily be national champion!

2010 USPSA Nationals

40_______218_______63.01%
9mm_____111________32.08%
45_______16________4.62%
10mm_____1________0.29%
38 Super___0________0.00%

_________346______100.00%

Wow! Talk about misrepresenting information to make your point!!

Which Nationals are these Stats from? Let me guess: Limited/Production.

Why is the .40 King in Limited? Because it scores "major" while allowing high capacity. .45 also scores "major," but the guns don't hold as many rounds as a .40

The 111 9mm shooters were shooting Production division where ALL calibers score "minor," so there's no point in dealing with more kick.

Cite the caliber stats from the Single Stack Nationals where, to score major, mags can't hold more than 8 rds. The .45 is well represented, altho the .40 is establishing itself there, too. Probably due to cheaper ammo, shooter convenience, etc. But you'll discover the minor scoring 9mm/.38 Super barely used, even tho mags for those calibers can hold 10 rds in the Single Stack division.

[David E]

I guess I must be non-serious.:rolleyes:

The first step to recovery is acknowledging you have a problem....:D

[Kleanbore]

Posted by David E: If someone keeps a semi auto for defense but only has one or two magazines for it, it's been my observation over the past 4 decades that they are not serious about it. To them, the gun is simply a talisman.That's a very interesting comment, and I would not have grasped the meaning some years ago.

The person who has only one or two magazines for his or her SD semi-auto certainly has not taken it to a good high performance defensive pistol class, and attending classes of that kind is a very good idea for anyone who is serious about self defense.

When I bought my .45 semi-auto, I had two magazines for it. A friend recommended that I take a course he had taken in high performance defensive pistol shooting conducted by several ranked IPSA and IDPA competitors.

I signed up, and among the list of "what to bring" items were several magazines and belt mounted magazine holders.

I bought them and I sure used them.

The topic of this thread is not about how many magazines one should own, but since the subject has come up in the discussion, it is helpful to explain why it is important.

[Bubba613]

The first step to recovery is acknowledging you have a problem.
I don't have a problem.

I suppose anyone who doesn't take a "high performance defensive course" just isn't serious.
Maybe I should just lie down in the gutter and die?

[coalman]

Agree. I'd take 19 rounds of 9mm (e.g. 92fs w/ Mec-Gar 18rd) over 9 rounds (e.g. 1911 w/ 8rd) of .45acp. With a spare that would be 37 rounds of 9mm vs. 17 rounds of .45acp.

Would I take 16 rounds of 9mm (e.g. Glock 19) over 11 rounds of .45acp (e.g. Glock 30)? Or, 11rds of 9mm (e.g Glock 26) over 11rds of .45acp (e.g. Glock 30)? IMO, those are the relevant questions.

Gun size also comes into play for CCW. As does shooter skill w/ 9mm vs. .45acp. Cost is a factor for many, too. These are all good considerations. Often, for many, it's about more than caliber performance, though they may errantly try to argue caliber "equality" after selecting 9mm based off size, control and/or cost.
Coalman, you're comparing apples to grapples when you compare a double-stack 9mm to a single-stack .45, there's two variables changing there. In reality it is 19 vs. 13 (XDM), 16 vs. 15 (FNP, I don't know why their 9mm is so much smaller), 17 vs. 13 (Glock), or 9 vs. 7 (1911). I know there are a lot more, but this is just to give the general idea. When you compare 9mm to .45, in general you're looking at a gain of about 30% capacity, depending on what model you look at. If you take the highest capacity flush magazines on the market and compare the XDm 9 to the FNP 45, it's a 27% gain in capacity, 19 vs. 15.

If you're comparing the capacity of 9 vs. .45, you have to campare in similar framed guns. Otherwise you're comparing two factors (caliber and size) at the same time.


Skribs: Reread paragraph two of my post. You and I (paragraph two) are saying the same thing as my reply in paragraph one was to a 1911 reference from an earlier post. When comparing by capacity, the correct comparison is "high capacity" in 9mm and .45acp (e.g. Glock 17 vs. Glock 21). IMO, you gotta read a post as a whole not break it into parts.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Bubba613: I suppose anyone who doesn't take a "high performance defensive course" just isn't serious.Once again, taking such a course is a very good idea for anyone who is serious about developing skills that could prove essential in an armed defensive encounter.

Personally, I learned a lot. Some of it involved improvement in technique. The most eye opening aspect for me, and I had been either ignorant or naive or both, was gaining an understanding of the need for shooting very quickly and forgetting about group size. That is germane to the subject of this thread.

The thing that such a course can provide that one cannot acquire by oneself at the range is an evaluation of what one is doing right and wrong, so that one does not continue to practice bad habits. I strongly recommend that people avail themselves of such training.

Those courses are certainly not the only courses from which one can benefit. Some good training in tactics, including FoF, and a course in the legal aspects of the defensive use of force, such as MAG-20, can be very valuable also.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by coalman: When comparing, the correct comparison is "high capacity" in 9mm and .45acp (e.g. Glock 17 vs. Glock 21).I cannot speak to the Glock examples, but I can tell you that for me, a double-column 9MM can be concealed comfortably and carried all day, and while a single-column Commander size .45 is also a reasonable choice, a full-size loaded double-column .45 is not.

The purpose of the comparison is not to evaluate the differences between two calibers, but to evaluate different weapons that one might select for SD.

For the person who can reasonably carry a loaded high capacity .45 and who would include one among the candidates, it is reasonable to include one among the comparisons.

But not for me. And I think that it is implicit among Mr. Gomez' assumptions that that will apply to many others.

[David E]

I don't have a problem.

Dang, thought we had a break through...

I suppose anyone who doesn't take a "high performance defensive course" just isn't serious.

It's a good indicator, but not the only one.

I'm reminded of a friends father who never shot his handgun, despite being invited to the range many times. Why should he go? I mean, after all, he bragged, "I already know I can cut a man in 1/2" with his hicap 9mm.

Years later, I did get him to the range. I hoped my prediction would be wrong, but he didn't know which lever was the safety, which was the slide stop, etc.

He only had a pair of magazines, too. For him, a hicap 9mm made sense...

What does this have to do with you? Perhaps nothing, but most folks that consider themselves to be "serious" about their defensive gun skills discover early on the value of having more than 1-2 magazines for their serious guns.

Best of luck to you.

[coalman]

Oh Geeze.
I think I'm done here. Common sense has gone straight out the window along with any sense of reality...or reading comprehension as well. I've already said "numerous" times that perfectly placed shots are difficult. After 20 years in the army and numerous engagements...I think I may know just a "little" about self-defense.


You gotta keep in mind the objective for many in these debates is trying to (appear to) win the debate by sounding right not actually being right. Also, if they've selected 9mm already I've found that greatly influences their perspective. It's likewise humors to me how stuff we accept or dismiss in all other contexts goes right out the window in a caliber debate. Where else is it argued that bigger/heavier = smaller/lighter? There is a size reason why linebackers are linebackers and wide receviers are wide receivers. There is a reason a Ford Focus will not haul the 5th wheel. A reason you don't use a tack hammer to build a house. Why there are difference weight classes in boxing. And so on...

[Skribs]

You also have to remember that these "high quality defensive courses" require time and money that not everyone can spend on them. I'd rather go to the range here and there and have a few backup guns in case one goes out of commission (which is why I recently bought my second shotgun) instead of saving up for the ammo cost and training dues that I'd have to pay in order to go through a course.

You don't have to go through an advanced course to know where stuff is on your weapon. Drawing the line between a man who never went to the range and someone who regularly attends advanced courses is a very big line, with a lot of range in between for people who know the basics, but may not have the "advanced" course. I'm not saying that a class wouldn't help, but it doesn't make me any less serious.

The purpose of the comparison is not to evaluate the differences between two calibers, but to evaluate different weapons that one might select for SD.

The purpose of this thread, I believe, was to compare the two calibers. That is information you would use when selecting for SD, but you're adding in more factors when you start doing that. Like I said, you were the first person to say "I can comfortably carry single-column .45 or double-column 9," as opposed to everyone else who seemed to look at two guns (most people associate the Glock or Beretta with 9mm and the 1911 platform with .45) and then make the extrapolation that because a Beretta holds 15+1 and a 1911 holds 7+1, you can hold double in 9mm.

[coalman]

I cannot speak to the Glock examples, but I can tell you that for me, a double-column 9MM can be concealed comfortably and carried all day, and while a single-column Commander size .45 is also a reasonable choice, a full-size loaded double-column .45 is not.

The purpose of the comparison is not to evaluate the differences between two calibers, but to evaluate different weapons that one might select for SD.

For the person who can reasonably carry a loaded high capacity .45 and who would include one among the candidates, it is reasonable to include one among the comparisons.

But not for me. And I think that it is implicit among Mr. Gomez' assumptions that that will apply to many others.

Exact opposite for me. My slimmer compact 1911 is more comfy than my Glock 19. Keep in mind that the 1911 comes in many different flavors, too, as all are not the all-steel variety. Regardless, I find the shorter grip of my Glock 30 more comfy than my Glock 19. I use a heavy gun belt, thin low profile holsters, allow extra size in my pant waist and have a more lean build suitable to IWB. Different strokes...

p.s. And, I did address the different reasons for selecting a caliber (aside from performance) in my earlier post. Gun size, control and cost matter, too. But, these considerations are different than a focused discussion on caliber performance x vs. caliber performance y as I interpret most/this caliber discussions. The "caliber debate" question is whether the two things being compared are equal in comparative/relative performance, not whether a given shooter is equal with them or if individual considerations makes one better than the other. IMO, failing to appreciate this, in addition to personal bias, causes much derailment to caliber discussions. It's silly IMO to select 9mm because you think it's "equal" (i.e. the same) in relative performance as .45acp. It's just not. It is however very wise to select 9mm because, given your needs and/or skill, or preference/need for capacity, smaller/lighter gun size and/or cost for practice, it's superior to .45acp. If I could have only one caliber it would be 9mm.

[Andrew Wyatt]

If you don't seek out every available chance to expand your knowledge, you're not serious, Bubba613.

[Teachu2]

If you don't seek out every available chance to expand your knowledge, you're not serious, Bubba613.


seriously obsessive-compulsive, maybe. Every available chance casts a VERY wide net!

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Skribs: You also have to remember that these "high quality defensive courses" require time and money that not everyone can spend on them. I'd rather go to the range here and there and have a few backup guns...True, they do const money. And if you have to travel somewhere and stay overnight, the cost is even higher. Best to find one locally if possible.

Personally, I got a lot more benefit out of taking a nine-hour course that cost in the low hundreds than I would have by buying another gun for the safe.

I tell the people the same thing about MAG-20, which required me to spend three nights out of town.

Let's add one other point of comparison--MAG-20, with travel and per diem included, cost me the same as around three billable hours from an experienced criminal defense attorney, and I would recommend spending that much up front to obviate the need to spend a whole lot more later.

You don't have to go through an advanced course to know where stuff is on your weapon.Of course not. I've been firing handguns for over fifty years. I can still pick up a Luger or a Radom and use it. But that's not all one should be able to do for self defense.

Had a friend not recommended a high performance pistol course, I'm sure I would never have attended one. And frankly, i would never have learned what it was that I did not know.

Drawing the line between a man who never went to the range and someone who regularly attends advanced courses is a very big line, with a lot of range in between for people who know the basics, but may not have the "advanced" course.I don't think that one needs to attend the advanced courses regularly. If you have a range that permits very rapid fire, you can practice to maintain the perishable skills learned in the class itself; otherwise it would pay to find one. Still better if drawing from concealment is permitted.

What constitutes the "basics" for one person may not be the same as for someone else.

For me, the "basics" include grip, sight picture, and trigger control. I gained a lot from having several qualified instructors evaluate my technique and teach me proper techniques.

The other really important things that I learned was that one will not shoot for groups or for hits in any particular part of the body. Rather, the key is to get the gun into action from concealment very quickly and to get multiple hits as quickly as possible anywhere on the largest area presented by what is likely to be a very quickly moving target until the target stops.

Now, for many that may be plainly obvious without their having to be told, but for whatever reason it was not obvious for me at the outset. It was necessary for me to take a course involving shooting at steel targets before I really understood why my CCW instructor had recommended practicing on a blank piece of notebook paper.

By the way, the drill we practiced involved shooting two shots into each of three steel targets very quickly, dropping and replacing the magazine as quickly as possible to address that skill, and repeating the cycle. The experienced participants could do that in a little over four seconds--twelve hits with a reload.

The guys and gals with 9s and .40s seemed to have quite an advantage.

And that is directly relevant to the point of Mr. Gomez' presentation.

[Nauga]

I said "I'd like to see somebody survive a 45 in the head"...
N' then Kleanbore said "Just what does that have with the discussion of Mr. Gomez' presentation?"

Just an observation, considering a highly publicized shooting of a politician type person that was recently in the news. Mr. Gomez is trying to make an argument for the 9mm over the .45, so I figured my post was sort of relevant anyway.

[David E]

You don't have to go through an advanced course to know where stuff is on your weapon.

Who said anything about "advanced?" there areore training opportunities available than most people realize and they don't all cost $500 or more, take 3-7 days or require 2000 rds of ammo. Some are $50, last 4 hours and require only 50-100 rds.

Drawing the line between a man who never went to the range and someone who regularly attends advanced courses is a very big line, with a lot of range in between for people who know the basics, but may not have the "advanced" course. I'm not saying that a class wouldn't help, but it doesn't make me any less serious.


You keep repeating the word "advanced," but that may indicate part of the problem: the word "advanced" intimidates people ("I'm not ready for that, yet!") and implies it costs more than "basic" or "intermediate" classes.

This is the opposite effect the word "basic" imparts: ("I already know that stuff, so I'm not going to pay someone else money for stuff I already know!")

This is why many classes are called "intermediate!"

It was a long time before I was able to take my first class, yet I considered myself serious before that. I oracticed, both live and dry-fire, bought the essential associated gear and set targets up that improved defensive handgun skills. I started shooting matches, which further increased my skill, pointed out shortcomings in gear, technique and weak areas that needed more practice.

I mastered all the handgun action types, including single stack .45's and hicap 9mm....all before I took my first formal class.

Regardless of your preferred caliber, 9mm, .40 or .45 (see? Thread related!) to be serious, you need to practice with it regularly. When that practice is at the range, serious folks know the value of having more than 1-2 magazines to practice with.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by coalman: The "caliber debate" question is whether the two things being compared are equal in comparative/relative performance, not whether a given shooter is equal with them or if individual considerations makes one better than the other. I really disagree with that. We are speaking here of the firearm as part of a man-machine system, and part of what is important is how the same person performs with different tools.

IMO, failing to appreciate this, in addition to personal bias, causes much derailment to caliber discussions.And the purpose of such a limited discussion would be....?

It's silly IMO to select 9mm because you think it's "equal" (i.e. the same) in relative performance as .45acp. It's just not.True. The .45 is slightly superior in wound ballistics. The 9MM beats the .45 in magazine capacity (usually, anyway) and in rapidity of hits.

If I could have only one caliber it would be 9mm.I tend to agree---I think.

I bought my .45 (1) before doing any serious study of the its relative performance vs the 9MM, which I later did before the Gomez video became available, and while laboring under a lot of misconceptions borne of myth and folklore; and (2) before I ever tried to use it in a pistol class.

It is a high-end 1911 type. There are some things I really like about it.

[taraquian]

I am astounded that even here on THR the instant we speak of caliber everyone picks a side. I don't post often because someone usually says it better sooner than I could,but I have a few pointson this one:

The OP was passing along an expert opinion, not a fact

We all seem to assume that although westudy, practice, and simulate using our guns that the bad guys can outdo us, why?

I have from 380 to 45, somewith 7 rds some with 17 and ill trust any ofthem becausethey are mine


FWIW I like .40 :neener:

[Skribs]

Do those beginner courses that only require 50-100 rounds require you to have 6 magazines? That was what I was referring to, was about being serious without having 6 magazines.

Then again, I do have 6 for my primary handgun. But I'd have 3 if I didn't have two sets (one set of 11-round compact and one set of 16-round full magazines).

[coalman]

Kleanbore - Short list of reasons to select a caliber IN NO ORDER:
1) Performance of caliber regardless of shooter
2) Control of caliber by shooter relative to #3
3) Gun Size
4) Capacity of caliber relative to #3
5) Cost of ammo
There are those that truly believe (e.g. convinced themselve because they own 9mm?) that 9mm and .45acp are equal in #1. They are not relative to #1. But, 9mm is superior in #2-#5 which may wisely outweigh #1 for a shooter. Can for me. However, none of this changes #1 for the purpose of a caliber performance debate relative to just #1. My main point is the error in believing 9mm and .45acp are "equal" in #1. They just aren't.

[David E]

Do those beginner courses that only require 50-100 rounds require you to have 6 magazines?

Most require a MINIMUM of 3. (keyword: minimum)

That was what I was referring to, was about being serious without having 6 magazines.

That still holds true. 6 mags isn't very many, but it allows you to have 2 sets of three. Once you verify their reliability, one set can become your "carry" set, while the other 3 take the wear and tear and abuse of being a range/practice mag. This method would be included in my previous post about spreading the wear and tear among many mags, not just one or two.

If I were starting over and had to pick one semi-auto caliber to do all _I_ want to do, I'd choose .40

I'd argue that a 9mm means more shots on target in the same time frame, all else being equal. It's a matter of technique. What matters more in rapid fire is action type.

[Bubba613]

If you don't seek out every available chance to expand your knowledge, you're not serious, Bubba613.
Then why are you sitting there posting on this forum? You must not be serious.

Many of the "high level" handgun courses are taught by people with no understanding of teaching. Some are downright charlatans.
As to finding out that speed beats pinpoint accuracy, Fairbairn/Sykes made that point 70 years ago. I didn't need a "high level" pistol class to learn that.

[Skribs]

What matters more in rapid fire is action type.

Hence why I'm looking for a new trigger for my XDm :P. I would argue that you could do 3 for range/carry. Just empty them before you load the others at the range, and then load them back up when you're done.

Coalman, very good breakdown. For example, my Mom cannot shoot anything above a 9mm well (your #2), so the caliber war is easy for her to pick a side on.

[Teachu2]

In my wild and woolly past, I have had numerous opportunities to observe gunshot wounds. If asked "Would you rather be shot with a 9mm, .38, .357M, .40, or .45acp?" my answer is "No."

Every one of these rounds can cause fatal wounds. It is far more critical to choose a weapon that you can shoot well, carry comfortably, and have complete confidence in. Over the years, I've carried a S&W .38 Airweight, a S&W M66 2.5" .357, a S&W M27 6" .357 (I'm a big guy!), and a Colt M1911 5" .45acp. I am now transitioning to a Glock 30, which I shoot very well - it fits my hands well, and I'm very confident in it.

My wife, OTOH, started with a LC9 and found it to be a poor fit. She is getting a S&W M&P 9c next week. She shoots the rental one better than any other that she tried, and enjoys it enough to practice a lot with it. The LC9 will become my pocket carry, as I shoot it just fine.

"Everything else being equal" NEVER IS. Experienced shooters have opinions based on their experience, and have arrived at what they feel is the best choice for them - but that may not be the best choice for someone else. If either the 9mm or .45acp cartridges worked for everyone, the 10mm would not have been developed in the way it was - and the .40 would not have furthered that quest when the 10mm failed to be the Universal Perfect Cartridge. There is no such cartridge, and never will be. The diversity of shooters makes a one-fits-all cartridge impossible.

Bigger is better (unless it's too big) and more is better (if they're big enough) and more, bigger and faster is better still (unless you fail to hit the target).

For me, being a XXL-sized guy, comfortably shooting a double-stack .45acp rapidly is not an issue. California further simplified the decision with 10-round magazines, negating the 9mm numerical advantage. This led me to look for a 10+1 .45acp compact - and the Glock 30 turned out to work well for me, but not so for my wife. She shoots a 1911 very accurately, and very, very slowly. For her to shoot rapidly and comfortably, a 9mm is the correct caliber. She will need a lot of practice to get faster, but because she enjoys shooting the 9c, she will get that practice.

Two in the torso and one in the head will ruin the BGs day with either caliber. Ten misses won't - with either caliber. The gun that you like to shoot is probably your best SD choice, as you're going to be shooting under different conditions than what you trained for.

[David E]

Many of the "high level" handgun courses are taught by people with no understanding of teaching. Some are downright charlatans.

Wow, sounds like you've taken dozens of gun classes. What are your top 6?

As to finding out that speed beats pinpoint accuracy, Fairbairn/Sykes made that point 70 years ago. I didn't need a "high level" pistol class to learn that.

You can be shown a key point, practice it under the experienced eye of the instructor who makes subtle, yet key, corrections in your technique until its done the best way possible....or you can simply read about it and think that's just as good...:rolleyes:

[David E]

I would argue that you could do 3 for range/carry. Just empty them before you load the others at the range, and then load them back up when you're done.

How would using the same three mags at the range minimize the wear and abuse they endure at the range before returning them to carry duty?

[Hedgemeister]

Dang it! I only have 5 mags for my primary. I guess when the bad guy comes I'll just throw it at him and start crying. I suck!

[David E]

When I said "all else being equal," I was only referring to the guns.

IE; if someone says they can shoot a 9mm faster than a .45, it's not fair to compare a 5" 1911 9mm shooting subsonic ammo to a Kahr PM-45 shooting +P Gold Dot.

[Skribs]

It wouldn't, David, but it does work. Reducing the wear and abuse on them was not one of my primary concerns.

I think there are many factors which tell you whether someone is a serious shooter or not, and whether or not he has 6 magazines is a very minor indication, if any at all, of his level of seriousness.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Skribs: I think there are many factors which tell you whether someone is a serious shooter or not, and whether or not he has 6 magazines is a very minor indication, if any at all, of his level of seriousness.Let's not get wound around the axle on the term "serious" or "seriousness".

When someone first mentioned the idea of having six magazines, I thought it was off topic and way out in left field--until the topic of training was mentioned. I bought extra magazines and magazine carriers for a class, and that had slipped my mind.

"Seriousness" aside, one who has taken the effort to avail himself or herself of some competent training in the skills required to hit multiple moving targets very quickly will likely have the edge over one who has not. One would expect such a person to have owned or had access to several magazines, at least at one time.

Speaking seriously, I would urge anyone who carries a firearm for self defense to look into what training is reasonably available to them and try to get something worthwhile on the priority list. No, it won't be inexpensive, but in comparison with a lot of other things, including that new firearm that one might be looking at, it could prove a lot more beneficial.

Here (http://www.tfaonline.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3696) is one example that one might consider. The tuition for the twenty hour class is $400; that may sound like a lot but I can attest to two things: one can learn a lot of valuable information; and the investment really pales in comparison with a small amount of legal services.

I did not attend the third day shooting at Rangemaster last year for personal reasons, but I've heard only good things about it.

Do you need to do this to be "serious?". No--whatever that means. But it will sure make you better prepared.

It will likely something about your choice of firearm, holster, and so forth.

Frankly, I would may not have chosen a seven shot, Commander length .45 if I had taken some training first, but I had to have a firearm before I could enroll, and that's what I bought.

[David E]

It wouldn't, David, but it does work.

Obviously, by unloading your carry ammo you can use those mags at the range. No one said otherwise.

Reducing the wear and abuse on them was not one of my primary concerns.

Maybe it should be. I've shot on ranges where the ground was concrete, rocks, mud, sand, talcum-fine dust and everything in between. This takes a toll on the magazines sooner or later. Of course, if none of your mags ever hit the ground then this doesn't apply....but the "training" then becomes suspect.

I think there are many factors which tell you whether someone is a serious shooter or not,

Obviously. Someone that uses fobus, no-name nylon holsters, folks that keep one 50 rd box of ammo for their defense gun (less 12-32 rds) or someone that fiddles with their gun to find the slide or mag release or the safety or who never shoots, or thinks their carrygun is a Schmidt and Western pocket auto chambered in .308

and whether or not he has 6 magazines is a very minor indication, if any at all, of his level of seriousness.

Owning 100 mags per gun by itself doesn't mean he's serious, either, but those folks are far and few between.

But claiming to be serious about defensive rifle or pistol craft skills while owning but one or two mags for it is an oxymoron.

Since so much can depend on your carrygun which directly depends on reliable magazines to function, it's clear that having additional magazines is a good idea, if only for the "just in case" reason. Why would you not get a few extra?

If you never need them, what have you lost? You can sell or trade them down the road. But if your one or two mags break or whatever, what then? You're SOL and you may not be able to replace it with the same capacity or maybe not the same quality mag and it'll certainly cost more.

Since Gomez champions a 9mm holding a lot of shots, future availability of 11+ rd mags isn't assured. (thread related!) Therefore, the prudent would buy extras now.

Your choice.

[X-Rap]

I guess I'm done for I have some Fobus holsters, does having some Blackhawk, Galco, ElPaso absolve me of my sins?:rolleyes:
I do have quite a few magazines;)

[Skribs]

David, the place I go shooting is an indoor range. I live in western washington, which is notorious for rain. My magazines get placed on the counter when I'm not using them.

I used a no-name nylon holster! For half a day. The magazine fell out of the magazine pouch and reholstering one-handed was a joke.

If you never need them, what have you lost? You can sell or trade them down the road. But if your one or two mags break or whatever, what then? You're SOL and you may not be able to replace it with the same capacity or maybe not the same quality mag and it'll certainly cost more.

If they break, I have backup guns instead of backup magazines. If the magazine on my SP101 breaks I'm totally screwed, and I've got a couple others. Like I said, I don't run my magazines very hard, so I haven't worried abou them.

But claiming to be serious about defensive rifle or pistol craft skills while owning but one or two mags for it is an oxymoron.

I disagree. Like I said, there are different situations based on budget. I have to choose where I go with my "seriousness" about the shooting craft. Magazines are not on top of my list.

[Loosedhorse]

future availability of 11+ rd mags isn't assured. (thread related!)Nothing is assured. Should I stock up on mags, ammo, "assault weapons", etc. now...or wait to panic later?

I'm a little wary of the mutliple mags equals competence or "seriousness", idea, but I don't know. There's this saying about "Beware the man with one gun." Not sure if it needs to be updated to "Beware the man with one gun and at least 6 mags for it."

;)The tuition for the twenty hour class is $400I'm happy to tell anyone the LF1-1 course I took (MAG-40 now, I guess) was the best money I've spent on training; and the legal portion (MAG-20 now) was the most important part of that. For me--YMMV.

Great news about MAG-20: you don't have to buy a single new magazine! :D Whether you should spend that $400 on Mas's non-shootig course, or a shoooting course, or spare mags...or something else? You'd know better than I.

BTW, things may have changed, but Mas used to rotate guns: one week he wore this, the next week that. The week I took LFI-1, he wore a 1911 Gov't. Several other instructors have done did the same, and another used a (gasp!) single stack 9mm.

Go with what you like, and make sure you're good with it. Personally, I'd say get as much training as (and the best training) you can afford.

[Bubba613]

But claiming to be serious about defensive rifle or pistol craft skills while owning but one or two mags for it is an oxymoron.

Darn. I'm just gonna go lie down in the gutter and die now.
Actually I have no magazines for my carry gun. Does that mean I'm just kidding?

[David E]

My magazines get placed on the counter when I'm not using them. Like I said, I don't run my magazines very hard, so I haven't worried abou them

Clearly!

If they (magazines) break, I have backup guns instead of backup magazines.

Ok, soooo cost isn't an issue, since you buy back-up GUNS instead of back-up magazines.....:rolleyes:

I have to choose where I go with my "seriousness" about the shooting craft.

Pray tell, where might that be?

[David E]

Nothing is assured. Should I stock up on mags, ammo, "assault weapons", etc. now...or wait to panic later?

It's not idle speculation. For the ten years the AWB was in effect, hicap mags were hard to find and pricey when you did. As time went on, prices went up. No one knew it would sunset until it did....for now. After obama won, there was an ammo drought for about a year. i had to wait months for a few hicap mags that had previously always been in stock. Wait if you wish. Most people buy the fire extinguisher before the fire. Those that didn't sure wish they had.

I'm a little wary of the mutliple mags equals competence or "seriousness", idea, but I don't know.

As I've already said, owning multiple mags alone doesn't identify someone as serious, but I've never come across anyone but recreational shooters that only owned 1-2 mags for their primary gun.

Understand, there's nothing wrong with that! But this thread has to do with defensive pistol use, not recreational shooting.

The word "serious" has caused several here to bristle as if it were a personal insult, which wasn't my intent. But it makes me wonder what standard they are using to identify themselves as such, but that's probably a different thread.

[David E]

Actually I have no magazines for my carry gun. Does that mean I'm just kidding?

It probably means you carry a revolver...or a single-shot....hard to know for sure....:D

[SabbathWolf]

That must be why all the professional pistol shooters shoot .45's, because those bigger bullets give them a better chance that the hole in the target will nick the line, giving them the higher value.

Oops, turns out that 95% of them shoot .40 or 9mm, seems that they figured out that placement and controllability is more important than a few thousandths of an inch in bullet diameter. Your theory that bigger is automatically better only applies if you're counting on pure luck to hit something.

Just think, if you applied your vast knowledge of the benefits of bigger diameter bullets, you could easily be national champion!

2010 USPSA Nationals

40_______218_______63.01%
9mm_____111________32.08%
45_______16________4.62%
10mm_____1________0.29%
38 Super___0________0.00%

_________346______100.00%



Placement and controllability is a personal thing. It has nothing to do with which bullet is potentially more lethal.

[Bubba613]

All of my extra cylinders are hi cap. And I have an Ashley Big Dot front sight.
AND, I wear 5.11 tactical vests.

[David E]

All of my extra cylinders are hi cap. And I have an Ashley Big Dot front sight.
AND, I wear 5.11 tactical vests.

Well, there you go!

[Skribs]

David, my point was, if I have a spare magazine, and my magazine breaks, I can use the spare. If I have a spare magazine, and my gun breaks, that spare don't help me.

A good example of this was with my shotgun. My Supernova, which was my only shotgun, got taken out of commission. It's nothing that would have happened in a firefight, but the way it broke prevented me from securing the recoil pad on it, which would have made it hurt me as much as it hurt the BG. Hence I bought my 930 SPX.

Other examples are, trying to find a good way to CCW, I got an SP101 and an LCP in addition to my XDm, and then tried different holsters. After getting a bit of advice at the range, I found out I should be shooting (and carrying) left-handed, which meant I needed new holsters...which meant I needed to start over because the manufacturer's I'd already tried don't make left-handed models of the holsters I liked from them. So there's some cost.

I'd rather have an XD with 3 magazines and an LCP with 2 than just and XD with 6magazines, because if something happens to the XD, those 5 spares do me no good.

So yes, I've spent money. It hasn't been on magazines. It's been on finding a good way to CCW, including holster and other platforms, as well as good platforms for HD. Next, it's going to be a trigger job for my XD. But you're right. Because I've been focusing on other things, and not getting magazines, I must not be serious.

How many speedloaders should I have for my SP101?

[SabbathWolf]

...How many speedloaders should I have for my SP101?



SP101 = 101 SPeed loaders doesn't it?
:D

[David E]

David, my point was, if I have a spare magazine, and my magazine breaks, I can use the spare. If I have a spare magazine, and my gun breaks, that spare don't help me.

Of course, when your mag breaks and you use your spare, you then have no reload, until and unless you can buy a replacement. It's (currently) an incredibly easy problem to prevent, so its amusing how hard some argue against it.

[Skribs]

I'm not arguing against it. I see the logic in having spares. I also see the logic in other things. I'm also not saying "don't have any spares," I have some. But I think 3 magazines is plenty and you can be serious with that.

Also, if I'm carrying IWB, I usually don't carry a spare. Way I see it, if I'm good with 10 rounds in my SP101 (with a speedloader, which I often don't bother with) I'm good with 11 in my XDm 40C. I do carry a double mag pouch if I'm going out at night, though.

[David E]

getting a bit of advice at the range, I found out I should be....

Next time you're there, ask those same guys what they think about spare mags.

When I was a cop, I encouraged a fellow officer to wear a vest, citing various reasons. He "didn't see the need," so he didn't wear one...until his sergeant told him to, citing the exact same reasons I had months before. I was a little annoyed, but glad he finally understood the wisdom of it.

Best of luck to you.

[Skribs]

Wearing a vest in a field you're likely to get shot at and having spare mags that just sit at home "in case" one breaks are two different things.

Like I said, I don't deny that having spares is a good thing. All I'm saying is, just because someone doesn't have 6 spares doesn't make them less serious.

[David E]

I said having 6 mags alone doesn't identify one as "serious," and listed other observed tell tale signs.

Since you don't like my stated observation, perhaps you can tell us what identifies someone as "serious" in your experience.

[X-Rap]

So if 3 mags of 15 is good does that mean you should carry 6 of 7 rds? And keep 12?
That subject was as far off topic as I thought it could go until the vest came in.
What happened to the discussion on the merits of the video?

[Andrew Wyatt]

A lot of people are unwilling to question their own beliefs on how things work, and they don't know how to argue a point.

There is another phenomenon at play here. it's called the Dunning-Kruger Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect). Basically, The lower one's knowledge on a subject, the less able they are to accurately gauge their competence in the subject.

The way to avoid falling into the trap of the dunning kruger effect is to accept that you are a poor judge of your competency.

A good way to get better at pistolshooting is a three cornered approcah.

1. Take training classes from reputable people.

2. practice what you learned regularly.

3. shoot competition.


Training teaches you what to practice, and competition shows you what skills are weak and need reenforcement.

[power5]

Pretty sure I do not need to compete to know what skills are lacking. Unless you just shoot randomly. I am always shooting at a target of some sort. I can usually tell how good I am by the hits on that target. A good way to get better at pistol shooting is: PRACTICE

[David E]

Since Gomez favors hicap 9's as opposed to lo-cap 9's, discussing hicap magazines as part of the topic is relevant.

And, with all due respect, if the ONLY thing you're looking at to gauge your skill level progress is the target....well, there's more to it than that. Much more.

[BBQLS1]

Paul is a good guy. He has some very valid and well thought out points of view.

Who is he? Google can be you friend:

http://gomez-training.com/

He's also a poster here: http://www.thehighroad.org/search.php?searchid=10212608

He actually posts quite a bit of stuff in the Strategies and Tactics section. It's kinda odd nobody here has ever heard of him before this thread. Does everyone know that we have such a section?



.

[NMGonzo]

I like shooting .45, which I carry, because I can see the holes in the target from afar.

[BBQLS1]

Definitely easier.

[Vern Humphrey]

That must be why all the professional pistol shooters shoot .45's, because those bigger bullets give them a better chance that the hole in the target will nick the line, giving them the higher value.

Oops, turns out that 95% of them shoot .40 or 9mm, seems that they figured out that placement and controllability is more important than a few thousandths of an inch in bullet diameter. Your theory that bigger is automatically better only applies if you're counting on pure luck to hit something.

Just think, if you applied your vast knowledge of the benefits of bigger diameter bullets, you could easily be national champion!

2010 USPSA Nationals

40_______218_______63.01%
9mm_____111________32.08%
45_______16________4.62%
10mm_____1________0.29%
38 Super___0________0.00%

_________346______100.00%
But how many men were killed at the 2010 USPSA Nationals?

[Andrew Wyatt]

What's your point?

[jimbo555]

I think Verns point is that shooting games and shooting for real are 2 different things.

[David E]

I wonder....if the AWB were reinstated and the magazine capacity was 10, regardless of caliber, would Gomez still promote a Glock 19 over a Glock 23 or Glock 30?

I doubt it, as he apparently favors capacity over caliber.

[X-Rap]

Since we are now fantasizing about tyranny I wonder what his choice would be if a ban called for 5 shot maximum? Perhaps his choice would shift to a 357mag or 44 spl.
Pretty silly question aside for validating the need for lots of magazines to keep those G19's up and running

[David E]

Since we are now fantasizing about tyranny I wonder what his choice would be if a ban called for 5 shot maximum?

You make a totally illogical leap here. Or maybe I missed the five round magazine capacity Federal requirement, whereas the 10 rd mag limit is very recent historical fact.

Point is, if given equal capacities in the same size gun, would he still favor the 9mm because he thinks it's better? Or is there acknowledgement that a .40 or .45 are better in a fight?

Pretty silly question aside for validating the need for lots of magazines to keep those G19's up and running

You think six magazines for a primary defensive weapon qualifies as "a lot?" That's interesting.

[X-Rap]

Don't recall ever saying 6 was a lot (I'm with you on believing in spares, plenty of them) but to say that harsher limits than 10 are any more of a leap than what was the last restrictive law regulating semi auto capacity is no more speculative than assuming there would be an identical requirement of the former AWB.
I will say that a fool would contend that a 9 = a .40 = a .45 all things being equal regardimg modern components, what I take away from Gomez as well as some others is that the difference in modern ammo is not significant enough to overcome the benefit of much higher (in some cases double) the capacity as well as the shootability of the lighter 9mm round in a gun of similar size.
Some will contend that the "serious shooter" will be able to control the muzzle of a larger caliber as well but in reality if that is true he should still be superior with the lighter round.
The question or point to be made is not which is the best one shot terminal caliber because it is pretty well established that handgun calibers in general "suck" in terms of terminal performance but given the small difference in the various available defensive gun/caliber combinations and the dynamics of a gunfight some believe that the added capacity is superior to the added performance of the caliber.
That seems to be at the heart of what Gomez was saying, this thread is well off the tracks but lets try and get it back to that simple discussion.

[David E]

Some will contend that the "serious shooter" will be able to control the muzzle of a larger caliber as well but in reality if that is true he should still be superior with the lighter round.

In my case, I proved to be equally fast and accurate with the .45 acp as I was with a 9mm.

I don't know where that line is drawn to be able to do that, but I contend that it's within the ability of most shooters, given proper instruction in technique and the practice to go with it. It's not as difficult as many seem to think it is. I further contend that most folks reading this could achieve that level of skill fairly fast, once they believed it possible.

[Andrew Wyatt]

Point is, if given equal capacities in the same size gun, would he still favor the 9mm because he thinks it's better? Or is there acknowledgement that a .40 or .45 are better in a fight?

I think his opinion that 9mm is better everywhere.

I recently sold my G23 and picked up a G19 because the G23 was more difficult to shoot, and ammunition was expensive.

I'm quite happy with my choice, i can afford to shoot more, and i shoot better.

The only difference was caliber.

The price difference in ammunition really has an effect when you start shooting a lot in practice or in classes.

http://www.ammoman.com/p/324/9mm-federal-124-grain
price, 1000 rounds, 299.

http://www.ammoman.com/p/77/speer-9mm-gold-dot-124-grain-jhp-53618
price, 1000 rounds, 450


http://www.ammoman.com/p/137/federal-40-sw-155-grain-target-ae40r2
price, 1000 rounds, 349

http://www.ammoman.com/p/316/40-sw-speer-factory-new-gold-dot-hp-155-grain-53961
Price, 1000 rounds, 499

[David E]

I've always been a proponent of going with the gun/caliber YOU can control that's at least a 9mm or .38

Of course then, we need to define "control," as that means different things to different people.

But being able to afford the ammo to shoot is critical in reaching any decent level of skill.

9mm has a lot going for it, with perhaps the lower cost of ammo alone outweighing the virtues of the more expensive calibers.

[Bubba613]

Since you don't like my stated observation, perhaps you can tell us what identifies someone as "serious" in your experience

Anyone who does anything other than throw the gun in the bottom drawer of his dresser is serious, imo.

[David E]

So, if they throw the gun in the top drawer after maybe firing 6 shots, they're "serious?"

Ok. I admit that is a standard I had not considered.......

[Skribs]

David, I was just thinking, you talk about follow-up shots not being any faster with 9 than .45...what's your take on companies designing HD ammo based more on fast follow-up shots than on terminal effects? i.e. a lighter, faster bullet with less energy and momentum to "increase follow-up shots and reduce overpenetration."

Specifically, do you think that these bullets would have faster follow-up shots compared to a generic, heavier-weight bullet. (such as a 155 gr .40 vs. a 180 gr .40).

[David E]

David, I was just thinking, you talk about follow-up shots not being any faster with 9 than .45..

With proper technique and sufficient practice in similar sized guns of the same action type, yes.

what's your take on companies designing HD ammo based more on fast follow-up shots than on terminal effects? i.e. a lighter, faster bullet with less energy and momentum to "increase follow-up shots and reduce over penetration."

1) Marketing

2) Realization that many don't practice enough (if at all)

Specifically, do you think that these bullets would (ALLOW) faster follow-up shots compared to a generic, heavier-weight bullet. (such as a 155 gr .40 vs. a 180 gr .40).

During my recent testing of shot-to-shot times between a 9mm and .45, I also included a .22 Buckmark. I averaged about 1/100th of a second faster (.16) between shots than with either the 9 or .45, (.17) but groups were also smaller: tennis ball compared to 6-8" softball, so there is a point where less kick matters.

If you take a .45 acp +P 200 grain JHP Gold Dot out of a 3" lightweight Kimber and compare it to a watered down "defense" 9mm load out of a Springfield EMP, I'd be shocked if a shooter didn't fire the EMP better and faster.

[Skribs]

I also wondered, right after I made my last post, how the 9 vs. .45 thing works when shooting 1-handed (as you might have to in a SD situation), especially with a smaller-framed, less-athletic person like myself.

[David E]

I wondered the same thing, but I was pretty tired when I did my recent testing, so I didn't do any one hand comparisons.

Next time, I'll do it, but when I go out, actually test and report certain things the problems are:

1) no one believes me

2) I "did it wrong"

3) it's nothing more than "ballistic masturbation." (yeah, that's a quote!)

4) Various other dismissive/derogatory remarks

All from folks that never tested anything themselves. :rolleyes:

And all that is fine, since it doesn't matter what _I_ can do, it only matters what you can do. (that said, there is nothing extraordinary about my skill, nearly anyone could achieve the same level with practice)

I suggest you go out, do some drills to determine for yourself what gun/caliber/ load works best for YOU. Do not simply accept so-called conventional thinking on such matters without checking it out yourself.

[GEM]

SWAT has an article this month where the author is moving from a 45 to a 9. More capacity in the gun and easier to shoot.

Stopping power is equivalent with modern ammo - equally crappy handgun level.

[TexasRedneck]

FYI.....news hittin' the wire right now is that Gomez has passed. No details known at this time.

[BBQLS1]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=662195&highlight=gomez

Very sad news indeed.