9mm vs. .45 sidearms


PDA






Banana357
June 2, 2004, 12:39 AM
The US military currently uses a 9mm weapon but previously employed a .45ACP weapon for many decades. I was wondering which round you guys think is more useful in most situations. Does the greater stopping power of the .45 outweigh the 9mms lower recoil and increased clip capacity? Or is a compromise like the .40S&W superior all-around?

If you enjoyed reading about "9mm vs. .45 sidearms" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Dr.Rob
June 2, 2004, 12:57 AM
This is probably the MOST often asked question on discussion boards about firearms.

Use the search feature to look up 9mm vs 45 and you'll find thousands of responses.

Bottom line is both will do the job. Pick the one you shoot best and train with it. Caliber is only one small part of picking the "best" defensive arm for yourself.

Welcome to THR.

Expect a LOT of answers to this.

roscoe
June 2, 2004, 01:15 AM
Hmmmmmm. 9mm or .45ACP - this is something we should talk about a bit.

Blamp
June 2, 2004, 01:36 AM
bit of a repost, 'eh? oh well.

I say .45. Yeah you can carry more 9mm, and some may argue velocity is better. I like slower rounds for pistols, less likely to plow through someone into a bystander, etc. So if you're not as accurate, go with 9mm. ;) Not the same stopping power, but shootin' a fella with one will definately change his priorites.

.45 - Least amount of rounds per mag, best stopping power. Oldie but goody.
.40 - Probably best of all worlds. I see no real downfall.
.357 (9mm) - Highest capacity, least power. The round for more weak/innaccurate, theoretically. Still a great round.

God Bless America,
Jeff

armoredman
June 2, 2004, 01:42 AM
Nah, 500 mag.:cool:

Black Majik
June 2, 2004, 01:46 AM
LOL.... what a first post! :D

Baba Louie
June 2, 2004, 01:51 AM
I was wondering which round you guys think is more useful in most situations. Get a couple of each :D Then you can enter into the My Beretta is better than your Colt or Glock or...
If you're European, refined, sophisticated, go to the Opera, and feel the need to invade France... stick with the 9mm.
If you're Not European, rough and rowdy, have to kill thousands of charging indians or religious island fanatics and like the Grand Old Opery, and feel the need to save France... stick with the .45.

Does that work for ya? ;)

SteelyDan
June 2, 2004, 01:51 AM
Banana, welcome, but you just cannot make this your first post, or morons like me will give you a little crap. Instead, try asking "AK or AR," or what's the best gun for bears...

But since you asked, the answer is .45s, though a .40 would do in a pinch.

Now we can both duck.

steelhead
June 2, 2004, 02:55 AM
Of course the .45 must be chambered in a 1911 and not plastic (might as well bring in the combat tupperware debate as well):D .

carpettbaggerr
June 2, 2004, 03:40 AM
And, remember, you can get either in a revolver, which everyone knows is far superior to the autoloader. However, I'd stick with the .44 Mag for bear. Zombies, on the other hand.....



:neener:

And welcome to THR. :D

Treylis
June 2, 2004, 06:52 AM
Personally, I'm more interested in "guns for zombies" threads. ;-)

Insofar as the actual question, if it's the military using it, which means they're using ball, they're probably better off with .45ACP.

I don't even want to get into a debate about 9mm/.45ACP when hollowpoints are on the table. I already have a headache, heh.

Son of John
June 2, 2004, 07:22 AM
No handgun ever won a war. It doesn't matter whether you are carrying a .45 or 9 mm, you are outgunned by everybody else with a long gun. For that matter, I think you are outgunned with a .223 against everyone else as well.

All being said, I think both 9 mm and .45 have had their day and more powerful rounds now available such as 10 mm should be looked at to do the job. Since the "short ten" (.40) is so common in law enforcement, maybe it should be applied in the military as well.

Here comes the flame fuel... go with a Glock 20 for special forces, 22 for standard issue, 23 for flight crews and smaller hands (female). Training
and manual of arms would be similar for all three.

Go back to .308 in the long guns as well......

:D

Delmar
June 2, 2004, 07:28 AM
This might be one worn out horse, but I'll give it a ride. Some assumptions here:
We limit the troops to ball ammo or full metal jacket if you prefer that term, where the only way to make a bigger hole is to use a bigger caliber, and said sidearm is made for combat at spitting distance, I'll take a cup of 45 please.

What say you, Banana357? What do you own/shoot/favor and why?

LeonCarr
June 2, 2004, 12:20 PM
If I know I am going to a fight, I much prefer a .223 or .308 rifle to any handgun.

Did I say .223 or .308? Another topic for discussion, or maybe argument?

To quote Britney Spears,

OOPS I DID IT AGAIN :)

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

meathammer
June 2, 2004, 12:54 PM
Welcome Banana,

I usually don't chime in on this infamous debate. I do however enjoy sitting back and watching the carnage. All of my handgun calibers other than my 22/45 start with a .4, so to stick with tradition I'll say .45ACP. ;)

R.H. Lee
June 2, 2004, 02:52 PM
.45 of course

http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/reviews/lastmanstanding.jpg

Kaylee
June 2, 2004, 04:54 PM
45 Colt.
Now that's a real service sidearm cartridge, baby! M1873, yeehaw!

:D

sm
June 2, 2004, 05:19 PM
Welcome to TFL !

Well you see it is like this about us members...Take me for example the Browning Power is for 9mm, The 1911 style is for 45ACP.

I choose these platforms for proven history,/ performance- real applicable to your question-since Militaries , even elsewhere adapted these same choices.

Members like Kaylee...what can I say...darned and determined to figure a way to toss in more history and have the caliber fit a lever action to boot.

Women, practical, smart and that do handcrafted work....Thanks a lot Kaylee.
:)

walkindude
June 2, 2004, 05:23 PM
Have to go with the .45 too, actually have both 1991a1 and glock 19 wouldnt feel undergunned with either, as long as the glock had a hicap mag :p

PaladinX13
June 2, 2004, 06:12 PM
Use the search feature to look up 9mm vs 45 and you'll find thousands of responses.

Though sometimes it can be tough to get exactly what you want because one of the search terms is too short. Caliber and weapon models have this problem all the time. I try to make a conscious effort to extend subject terms so they're searchable... like ".45ACP" instead of "45" or "M-18" rather than just "18".

gbran
June 2, 2004, 06:33 PM
Somebody is going to say caliber doesn't matter and it's all shot placement.

Somebody is going to infer that bigger calibers can't achieve shot placement.

Excuse me while I go and duck for cover.

BryanP
June 2, 2004, 09:07 PM
As long as we're doing the tongue-in-cheek bit ...

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=1038125

cool45auto
June 2, 2004, 09:17 PM
:cuss:




:neener:

Sunray
June 2, 2004, 11:32 PM
"...greater stopping power of the .45..." This is an old wive's tale. The .45 does not have better stopping power. Mind you, this exact thing has been discussed in every gun rag ad nauseum for eons.

R.H. Lee
June 3, 2004, 12:50 AM
"...greater stopping power of the .45..." This is an old wive's tale.

Actually, it's an old widow's tale




















:neener:

Lone_Gunman
June 3, 2004, 08:34 AM
This is an old wive's tale. The .45 does not have better stopping power.


Actually its an old wive's tale that it is an old wive's tale.

Penforhire
June 3, 2004, 07:43 PM
This topic will never go away until the gun rag writers do a better job explaining how shot placement trumps caliber every time. And next on the list is bullet performance (penetration with expansion). And then caliber is a distant third...

FWIW, I think MILITARY use of hand guns is best served with higher capacity (carrying ability and magazines), therefore I'd vote 9 mm over .45. As pointed out earlier, you're screwed against long guns anyway. Would make the most sense if a common ammo could be used in both handguns and rifles.

steelhead
June 3, 2004, 11:30 PM
This topic will never go away until the gun rag writers do a better job explaining how shot placement trumps caliber every time. And next on the list is bullet performance (penetration with expansion). And then caliber is a distant third...

I agree that placement, performance and then caliber is the correct order of importance.

But if that is the case, then why do MEU SOC, Delta, HRT, etc., etc.. choose .45 ACP platform over a 9MM or .40 or .32. They seem to be all about shot placement and if anyone was in a situation where a hi-cap was needed - it would be them.

Granted you can be just as dead from a head shot with a 9mm and a long gun will be even better but it seems some of the guys, who are at the top of their game, are choosing 8 round .45's over hi-cap 9's. I would like to think it isn't hype or bravado as their own and other's lives depend upon the decisions they make whether it is tactics or caliber selection.

paladyn
June 4, 2004, 12:50 PM
I started out using .9mms. I've heard too many stories from police, etc though about how people kept coming at them after being shot with 9s and how .45s would knock them down even if they were only wounded, so I changed to .45s and .40s. Most law enforcement/self defense guys I've talked to say the 9mm is now the minimum they would use.
People jacked up on crack, for example, seem to not even notice being shot by 9s. That can happen with any round of course, but I've heard more about .40s and .45s stopping criminals with fewer shots than 9mms.

ducktapehero
June 4, 2004, 05:27 PM
I like the 45, in FMJ I think the 45 is a much superior stopper than the 9mm. Although with modern loads the difference between the 2 shrinks dramatically. Just my opinion of course.

TheLastBoyScout
June 5, 2004, 12:02 AM
I prefer 9mm.

I've shot a 1911 and Glock 36 in .45, and could hit with them, but the only pistol I can reliably shoot with "minute-of-braincase" accuracy at speed is my '92.

The GI 1911 was decent, but for its horrendous sights. If it had a decent set it would go a long way to evening it out with the Beretta (but there's still the fact that the Beretta holds 2x as many rounds...)

Going to a .40 cal would be the least likely course of action. The reason we use 9mm is cause its NATO standard. If we ever were to go off NATO standard to get something with more stopping power, there would be no reason not to go back up to a .45.

owsi26
June 5, 2004, 12:39 PM
Carry both of them!

Harold Mayo
June 5, 2004, 09:05 PM
But if that is the case, then why do MEU SOC, Delta, HRT, etc., etc.. choose .45 ACP platform over a 9MM or .40 or .32. They seem to be all about shot placement and if anyone was in a situation where a hi-cap was needed - it would be them.


I try not to base my firearms choices on what professional police and military guys "choose" because it's simply a bad thing to do.

Professional LE and military rarely actually get a choice of the firearm that they will use. Administrators do so. In the case of HRT, the administrators happened to be firearms enthusiasts who liked .45 ACP 1911s. Read the specs that they actually wrote up for the HRT guns and you'll see that they read like they ripped a page out of a gun-rag.

HRT used to use Browning hi-powers. SEAL teams are issued 9mm Sigs. Israeli SF used to use BHPs and now use 9mm Sigs.

Other than in the US, you really won't find ANYONE using anything but 9mm. People need to get off their high horses when it comes to caliber wars. Americans see very little use of handgun calibers in any situation compared to the rest of the world. 9mm is all you need. Why do you think H&K flat-out REFUSED to make a .45 ACP MP5, even though it was requested by US LE and military?

:banghead:

45Badger
June 5, 2004, 09:23 PM
bigger holes!

bradvanhorn
June 5, 2004, 10:07 PM
Harold got it right!

First, handguns for "operators", regardless of affiliation, are almost universally a last resort; long guns (your primary) rule. No one wants to use their secondary weapon, but in the extreme you want the piece of mind that you have one.

Second, "operators" get a lot more training/trigger time with primary and secondary weapons (or they dang well should!), so if they want a handgun that gives them more wood by making a bigger hole, then they can go for it.

Personally I am willing to entrust my life with the Beretta (since that's what the Corps gives me as a secondary) and the 9mm (which is what I personally use anyway). The 9mm is easy to shoot, gives you plenty of ammo, and stopping power is a myth. Make two holes in a sheet of paper, one .355, the other .45, then hold that up to your chest. Do you think it'll really make that big a difference? It certainly could, but .1 isn't worth the trade offs in my opinion.

Also, stories like, "I shot him 50 times in the chest with my 9 mil and he kept coming," versus, "I shot him in the left pinky finger with my 45 and he flew 50 ft across the parking lot," are b.s. They make for great stories, so have a beer and talk trash about "wimpy" handgun rounds; when you sober up come back to reality. Reality is this: all handgun rounds are weak, and the differences between the common fighting calibers (9/40/45) are practically speaking irrelevent.

That said, shoot what makes you happy; nothing else will do!

Atticus
June 6, 2004, 01:13 AM
When asked how long a man's legs should be, President Lincoln replied, "Long enough to reach the ground".

paladyn
June 6, 2004, 10:03 PM
I don't buy into the mythical stories about .45s, such as the one mentioned, but I do know people associated with law enforcement who have told me the .45 is better.
They know more about it than I do.

Pylon
June 7, 2004, 08:32 PM
I believe it comes down to getting your hits and practicing. I can simply afford to shoot more with my 9mm gun then a .45acp gun of choice. Any modern weapons platform these days will do more then enough to score your hits so choose what you will be able to practice with.

Hey, if you can afford spending more to get profiecent with .45 and spending more the time learning to reload those mags quicker, then more opower to ya! .45 it is!

But like someone else said on this thread, the difference between a .355 (9mm) and a .45acp bullet is not that big of a difference to worry over. And one more thing, most of the discussion over this caliber debate is over one shot stops. Well i heard this from some SWAT dude i talked to once and i'll never forget it... "If he's worth shooting once, he's worth shooting twice"

That pretty much ends the caliber debate right there.


-Pylon

paladyn
June 8, 2004, 04:05 PM
Agreed.

tpdtom
June 8, 2004, 07:29 PM
If I knew I were going to a gunfight , and there was no way out of it , I would grab my 5" Burns Custom Colt 1911 . After I finished wiping and cleaning up I mean :D .

At any other time I would feel comfortable with any of the following I could carry :

Kimber Custom CDP .45
Kimber Ultra CDP .45
Les Baer Concept VII .45
H&K USP Compact .45
Browning Hi Power 9MM
H&K P7M8 9MM
Kahr PM9 9MM
Glock 26 9MM
Walther P-38 9MM
Kel Tec P11 9MM
S&W Model 19 .357
S&W Model 442 .38 +P

Any of the above loaded with the appropriate hollow point ammo that functions reliably in the weapon will suffice for self defense IMHO ....Tom

The_Shootist
June 8, 2004, 11:57 PM
Gotta go with the .45...it's what get used on rough nights in Galveston

Pylon
June 9, 2004, 12:06 AM
Way of The Gun, one of the all time best gun movies ever made :)

Penforhire
June 11, 2004, 08:25 PM
The question about why Operators chose .45 is answered, to me, first by the trigger. The 1911 SA trigger is sweet, no doubt about it. There may be some 9's available with similar triggers but you have a big selection in .45.

1911 reliability is probably a good 2nd reason.

I'm still thinking caliber is not the top reason,.

IndridCold
June 15, 2004, 04:46 AM
Hmmm, taste great or less filling? Pretty much the same argument. What works for one, doesn't work for all. That being said I'd NEVER EVER go with a 9mm over a .45 even though the Beretta 92 carries roughly twice the capacity as the old 1911s. The military for some odd reason felt the need to change the caliber and make of a handgun that served damn well for some 80 odd years, and I dont know why. Everyone I know that was in one branch of service that was around when the change took place loathed the Berettas.
I think a good compromise could be, and I can't believe anyone has said it yet, the .357 sig. Trust me I'm not much of a fan of the new wildcat round, but if the military has to have it's 9mm cartridge, what better to drive it than a shell casing of a .40. Much more thump than a standard nine, and they wouldn't be surrendering much in capacity, maybe two or three rounds. If memory serves, the Federal air Marshalls almost exclusivley carry Sig 229s chambered in .357 sig.

Model520Fan
June 15, 2004, 08:37 AM
Depends on what the enemy is wearing. Clearly the best commercially available military round is the .30 Mauser, which also has the advantage of being chambered in the "awkward Mauser Broomhandle," (snicker, snicker). Cross-sectional area is low, aiding penetration, but shot placement is aided by the fact that a near miss will not spin the malefactor around and drop him on the ground, making it harder to see the optimum point of aim.

Remember, the three most important factors in choosing a handgun cartridge are shot placement, shot placement, and, you guessed it, shot placement.

Get serious? Not a chance.

agtman
June 15, 2004, 10:20 PM
"I was wondering which round you guys think is more useful in most situations."

"More useful in most situations" implies a quest for versatility. The most versatile autoloading cartridge extant is the 10mm AUTO.

With the 10mm AUTO, you get a round that approximates the speed of the 9-minimeter with the historic "knock-down thump" of the .45acp. Plus, the 10mm brings to the table higher sectional density than the .45 for better penetration against intermediate barriers. In most pistols of equivalent size, the 10mm also has a higher mag capacity than the .45 (if that's an issue).

When you're finally serious about stopping power, you're ready for the 10mm AUTO.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-12/73942/agtman_g20.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-12/73942/agtman_sw1006v2.jpg

:cool:

Moparmike
June 15, 2004, 10:29 PM
Nothing like the continuation of the beating of deceased equines. :rolleyes:


Someone should at least secure the horse to his perch, otherwise he could bust through the doors and voooom! Off he goes!

Pylon
June 15, 2004, 11:40 PM
I don't think i'll ever get bored of the caliber debates. And its always very useful for newbies before they settle on their own favorite caliber. I'm still bent on 9mm myself :)

-Pylon

horge
June 15, 2004, 11:59 PM
My head.
Make it stop.
Please make the hurting stop.


:D

Pylon
June 16, 2004, 12:02 AM
rawr! :what:

orangeninja
June 16, 2004, 12:06 AM
.40 S&W would be ideal....

9mm for supressing fire.

.45 for take em down.

Pylon
June 16, 2004, 12:32 AM
I got it,

Lets just make a bullet that is 9mm + .40 + .45 and we'll never have to do with the caliber war again :)

Treylis
June 16, 2004, 10:23 AM
Lets just make a bullet that is 9mm + .40 + .45 and we'll never have to do with the caliber war again

Or maybe one of those duckfoot/tri-barrel guns so you can fire all three [i]at the same time![/b]

Pylon
June 16, 2004, 04:34 PM
This is starting to have go off topic from the caliber war, but this thought just poped into my head. I once saw this "deck gun" at a museum i was at. It was basically a huge shotgun bolted onto the deck of some boat made to "take out floaks of geese" in one shot. I want me one of those.

:what:

Model520Fan
June 16, 2004, 07:08 PM
But what would be the best size of shot to use in it? .36 cal? .45? .40, as some have suggested? or even my apparent favorite, .31?

This is undoubtedly worthy of a thread of its own.

BluesBear
June 17, 2004, 05:31 AM
made to "take out floaks of geese" in one shot What you are referring to is a "Punt Gun"

In the last half of the 19th century "market hunters" used large bore shotguns. These ranged in size from 8 bore up to 2 inches! :what:
The hunters mounted these cannon/shotguns on the bow of a flat-bottomed duck boat, called a punt. The boat was designed to glide silently through the water. Imagine a Jon Boat crossed with a Sculling Boat.
"Harvesting" was usually done at night, while a flock of ducks rested on the water. Once in range the punt gunner fired a large load of shot that killed a large portion of the flock all at once. Operating in pairs, two good "hunters" could bag up to 500 ducks per night. The use of punt guns has been unlawful since 1918.

http://www.sinkbox.com/images/p000456.jpg
John Paley Punt Gun Print (http://www.sinkbox.com/p000456.htm)

This boat is a little different than normal as there is no area for "the harvest".


Punt Guns are GREAT for hunting Dirt Dragons! (http://files.actionflash.com/dirt_dragons.swf) :evil:

Gabe
June 17, 2004, 06:17 AM
They still do that in Russia. I saw a picture in one issue of National Geographics. The hunter used a 4 guage shotgun.

Pylon
June 17, 2004, 03:00 PM
Imagine this 4 guage shotgun with the barrel running almost the entire length of the 8 foot Jon Boat or so..and then imagine the recoi of this thingl and picture the Jon Boat (with the guy) going the other way....really fast :what:

-Pylon

halvey
June 17, 2004, 03:55 PM
.45

In reality, the way wars are fought, sidearms are becoming less useful. With the exception for special forces and the like.

BigG
June 17, 2004, 03:58 PM
Other than in the US, you really won't find ANYONE using anything but 9mm.
Harold Mayo: Other than the US, ain't nobody won a war in the last two generations. Coincidence? ;)

No Trespassing
June 17, 2004, 04:46 PM
"law enforcement who have told me the .45 is better.
They know more about it than I do."

___________________________________________


Why should they? I would think that a firearms enthusiast, whose primary pursuit is shooting and ballistics would know more than a cop who carries a gun becasue he/she has too.

Aside from special teams personel, I don't think LEO's know any more about firearms that the non-LEO shooter or non-gunner.

Almost all of the LEO's I know could care less about guns. I regularly BBQ with 15-20 cops & sheriff (courtesy of my cousin's husband). Aside from required testing, all but two ever shoot for fun/training. BTW, one prefer's 9mm, the other .45ACP both for reasons stated above.

Me, I like both. But my preferred auto round is my .44mag DE!


__________________

No Trespassing
June 17, 2004, 05:05 PM
Edit!


I said "..all but two ever shoot for fun/training."

I meant to say "ONLY two ever shoot for fun or training."

Pylon
June 17, 2004, 05:43 PM
Wooo! Let the caliber war go on :)

steelhead
June 18, 2004, 12:01 AM
.22 caliber pellet gun is far superior to the .177. Better sectional density, bigger hole, can knock a woodchuck completely around and back 3 inches if hit anywhere on the torso. U.S. Boy Scouts choose .22 over .177 whenever they have the choice and when it is not dictated to them by bean counters who have never shot an airgun. It is true that most of Europe uses the .177 claiming better controlability but that is just a weak excuse for not practicing enough to handle the significantly more affective .22.

In fact, one time at bandcamp....we got these goats but forgot our video camera......:neener: :neener: :neener:

Pylon
June 18, 2004, 12:18 AM
Ohh...now thats a debate i haven't had before. .22 vs .177


I vote for, .177 pellet and i stand by my shot placement theory. Ok on second thought maybe that won't work. Can i just shoot a bunch of .22's to add up to a 9mm? or is that cheating?

Blisshead
June 18, 2004, 02:38 PM
Hey, at least feel good that it's been educational for the new people, like me.

Pylon
June 18, 2004, 04:18 PM
Blisshead,

Glad some of our ramblings could be of such help to you. Fee free to make a new topic if you have any questions so we can ramble some more :)

Berg01
June 18, 2004, 04:44 PM
I was wondering which round you guys think is more useful in most situations. [QUOTE]
Assuming my shot placement is good with either caliber; 9mm in a Mil Spec Beretta is useful, .45 ACP in a Mil Spec 1911A1 is more useful...

[QUOTE]Does the greater stopping power of the .45 outweigh the 9mms lower recoil and increased clip capacity?[QUOTE]
Perceived recoil is a subjective thing for different shooters; If I'm training diligently with a .45, its a non-issue, because you can hold the .45 on target if you have enough reps with it. You always carry extra mag(s) in a combat / defensive situation, so the cap of the .45 is not an issue

[QUOTE]Or is a compromise like the .40S&W superior all-around?IMHO, A Mil Spec 1911A1 .45. would stiil be better defensively, even if the Armed Forces were to trade the 9mm Berettas in for the .40 Beretta

Mil Novecientos Once
June 19, 2004, 01:19 AM
http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/dead_horse.jpg

bukijin
June 19, 2004, 07:14 AM
Depends if your primary weapon is a tommy gun or an mp5. You did say sidearm didn't you ?

Is there a place for lever action .357 and .357 revolver in this debate ?

Pylon
June 19, 2004, 12:15 PM
There is such thing as a .357 lever action gun? And are we talking about 357sig or 357mag?

Devonai
June 19, 2004, 02:01 PM
Ooh, I gotta get in on this thread.

I have owned semi-auto handguns in .380, 9x19mm, .40, .45, and 7.62x25mm.

With the exception of the .380, I have used every one of these for rapid-fire, shoot-and-scoot scenarios.

While my marksmanship on the slow-fire range has been pretty much equal with all calibers, such action-oriented scenarios have had much more varied results.

I've found that my best hit percentage was with either my Beretta 92FS or a Glock 17 when the scenario called for more than 15 rounds.

Firing a Glock 22 or a 1911A1 resulted in satisfactory performace when under 15 rounds were used, but beyond that point recoil and muscle fatigue became a major liability. The Glock 22 was the worst offender by far. Only the 9x19mm allowed the same performance for me on the first magazine as well as the fourth, with no fatigue effecting my sight picture or magazine changes.

I can't judge the 7.62x25mm in the same fashion because I only have two mags for it, but I would estimate the recoil to be somewhat more than the 9x19mm and somewhat less than the .40.

Since I am hardly lacking in upper body strength, these results are very compelling to me. I've discovered that for self-defense, any of the above calibers are acceptable. For battle, give me the 9x19! YMMV.

cracked butt
June 20, 2004, 06:01 AM
Both are inadequate, but I've heard that buckshot will stop a charging rhino in its tracks:neener:

Longbow
June 20, 2004, 06:51 PM
.40 cal! ' best "compromise" defense round. ' nufff said.
Now, can we do 1911 vs. Glock again? :D

spartacus2002
June 20, 2004, 08:21 PM
Since we're talkin' caliber wars, how about I tell you guys why 7.62 is so much better than 5.56?

(ducks for cover, runs away snickering....):D

bdburns7289
January 16, 2005, 12:36 AM
If you want to compare .45 and 9mm in war times, a 9mm wont even dent flak jackets or body armor. A .45 would. But the russian 9x19 works well with body armor, so thats my favorite caliber.

Devonai
January 16, 2005, 01:14 AM
Necropost!!!

Welcome to the forums. :D

MICHAEL T
January 16, 2005, 01:21 AM
A 45 of course, however must be fired from nothing less than a 4.25 in. barell and a 5 in. with a pony on the slide even better. :D

DMF
January 16, 2005, 01:51 AM
I've heard too many stories from police, etc though about how people kept coming at them after being shot with 9s and how .45s would knock them down even if they were only wounded, so I changed to .45s and .40s. Comments like this always crack me up. I'm a cop, and as a DT instructor I spend alot of time studying use of force situations. Recently for all the guys in my agency that were complaining our 9mm's aren't enough, I showed them the video of a badguy (stone cold sober BTW) getting gut shot with .45ACP at close range, who not only doesn't go down, but continues to fight the cop HARD for several minutes, until he is cuffed. The badguy lived, with no long term injuries.

Then I showed them the video of the trooper who puts 5 rounds from a .357 Magnum into a BG. AFTER taking 5 shots from a .357 Mag the BG cranks off one round from a .22 which hits the trooper under the arm and penetrates all the way into the heart, killing him.

Now, I'm certainly not saying you should carry a .22 over a .357 or .45, but my point is shot placement, and penetrating far enough to damage the CNS or shut down the heart, is the only way to GUARANTEE a quick stop.

Energy transfer, fast vs. slow, 9mm vs. 45, blah, blah, blah, blah, . . . The key is HIT THE TARGET, keep hitting the target until the threat stops, and penetrating far enough to do the CNS or heart damage necessary to stop the threat is what is paramount.

So get yourself a good gun, and carry a round that has shown to provide 12 or more inches of penetration in gelatin tests. There are plenty of options available in 9mm, .40, .357 (Mag and Sig), and .45ACP. Get yourself a gun you are comfortable with, and practice with it.

The efficacy of the 9mm is often understated, the efficacy of the .45 is often overinflated. Plenty of folks worldwide have been killed by both, and plenty have lived through multiple shots from both.

Sir Aardvark
January 16, 2005, 03:20 AM
My opinion........

If you're going to shoot somebody, make sure the caliber begins with a 4 (.357 gets rounded up).

Pylon
January 16, 2005, 05:10 AM
9mm for me!

RyanM
January 16, 2005, 05:40 AM
How about a real compromise?

A 45mm pistol! :D :eek: :D

BilboTN
January 16, 2005, 07:55 AM
I pick none of the above.


.44 Magnum through a 6.5" barrel

Pylon
January 16, 2005, 09:03 AM
Let me know what is the largest caliber available...i'll take one caliber larger then that please :D

Yooper
January 16, 2005, 01:59 PM
Sometimes I wonder how many fewer gun magazines would be sold if I was to solve that problem definitively.

DMF
January 16, 2005, 02:05 PM
If you're going to shoot somebody, make sure the caliber begins with a 4 (.357 gets rounded up).Well then I guess you're OK with a 9mm, since that's just a .357 bullet? How about a .380 or .38Spl, do they get rounded up too? ;)

Old Dog
January 17, 2005, 12:17 AM
9mm vs. .45 ACP? Not again, please, not again! -- didn't we clear this up in 1992? Please, make it stop!

Brick
January 17, 2005, 10:36 PM
Hello everyone.â„¢

Yeah, it's me again... :uhoh:

Hey I'll bet this was never started before:

.22 Short vs. .50BMG?

.17 Rem. vs. .812?

.700 Nitro Express ( :D ) vs. .50AE?

:confused: :confused:

Hey let's have some fun in the meantime :D
http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/content/Pod/00/37/14/p003714sq01.jpg
http://www.accuratereloading.com/700c.jpg

Last one is .700 Nitro Express. :p

Nick96
January 17, 2005, 11:42 PM
Unless you reload, ammo cost is going to determine how much you practice. If it's too expensive, you probably won't practice much. And if you don't practice, chances are reduced that you will hit what you want to hit when you really need to hit it. 9MM is typically 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of equivalently loaded factory .45's.

If you actually intend to carry a handgun, then ligh & small with minimal recoil & blast is appealing. The smallest, lightest, highest capacity and easiest to control major caliber handguns are 9MM's

With modern hollow point loadings, the practical defensive difference probably isn't all that great between the two rounds. The .45 is probably a bit better in all around loadings, but the 9MM is perfectly adequate for the majority of situations where a handgun would be employed.

So all things considered - the 9MM is probably a better choice for "all around" use. Now throw in reliability, really light weight & ease of operation - and you'll probably conclude that the small frame .38 Spl. revolver is probably the most useful all around personal defence handgun. As they have been for over 100 years.

fedlaw
January 18, 2005, 02:19 PM
Since I have no experience killing people with handguns, I have to rely on a former client's experiences. He was an enforcer for one of the less gentlemanly gangs and had (allegedly) killed 12 of the opposition in gunfights (he was proud of never being involved in the cowardly drive-by type of shooting). He told me he relied on his Colt Python for work and carried his Beretta 92 for pleasure. Unfortunately, I never got the chance to ask him what he thought of .45 cal.

Pylon
January 19, 2005, 03:42 AM
ohh, the wonderful drama of the 9mm vs .45 debate.

*sits down in chair, popcorn anyone?*

cracked butt
January 21, 2005, 06:37 AM
Let me kill this thread by saying:

"Hitler prefered 9mms!"

:neener:

seeker_two
January 21, 2005, 07:07 AM
So, we've all agreed that the 9mm and .45ACP are both inferior to the .357Magnum, right? :scrutiny:

After all, it's a revolver round. And we've all already agreed that revolvers are superior to autos in our prior posts....


Now that we have THAT settled, let's get back to discussing politics & religion.... :D

Island Beretta
January 21, 2005, 09:46 AM
..i tried to resist the temptation but couldn't..

first, Way of the Gun, FWIW..the guy with the little .38 revolver did the guys in with the .45s and a mass of high-powered weapons.. watch the movie again and LEARN WHAT WIN GUNFIGHTS..

secondly, ask this question, which would you not mind being shot in the brain with, a 9mm or .45 bullet? what about in the hand? see your answer might change because suddenly it dawns on you: HEY, IT'S SHOT PLACEMENT THAT COUNTS.. :eek: :eek:

thirdly, the fact that this question is the question of the internetneeyonder, then it means that the difference, if any, isn't night and day.. i mean which is faster, a Porsche or a Corolla? :rolleyes:

Pylon
January 21, 2005, 02:41 PM
Island Beretta, nicely put. I love that movie btw. I never thought about it in the way you discribed it though.

Fumbler
January 21, 2005, 03:29 PM
If you're going to shoot somebody, make sure the caliber begins with a 4 (.357 gets rounded up).
ahAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!

Sir Aardvark, I am not laughing with you, I am laughing at you.

DMF is right, you'd have no problems with the 9mm then (which is actually 0.355" not 0.357").

Marshall
January 21, 2005, 04:22 PM
Just have something, heck a .22 is better than nothing.

Island Beretta
January 21, 2005, 06:27 PM
a .22 is a WHOLE LOT BETTER than nothing..

Texshooter
January 24, 2005, 12:23 AM
So the real question becomes - Who here has had to fire their pistol in defense of their life? What caliber, gun, and what happened.

No, not what you read or what so and so said, but YOU. Who here has had to use it for real and what happened?

mikemex
January 28, 2005, 05:57 AM
The nine is the best cartridge out there. Not because it's powerful, but because it's the most practical to date.

For those who say it is a weak round, I would like to propose something:

We both get a gun, yours chambered in .700 Nitro Express, mine in .22 short.

We both get one shot, but I do it first.

An easy challenge, don't you think? With all that powet I am quite sure that you will win...

Parallax
January 28, 2005, 06:36 AM
I got a 9mm because it's my first handgun and I didn't want to start off with something too powerful (probably should have started with a .22). But from what I've read, there's not too much difference between 9mm & .45 in the real world, as long as you do your part.

ruger357
January 28, 2005, 08:17 AM
1911 .45.

McCall911
January 28, 2005, 08:57 AM
9mm Para and .45 ACP for me, please!
I own both and love both.

rossj711
January 2, 2006, 02:09 AM
Quick question....

Scenario: You shoot a vehicle with a 9mm, you shoot the vehicle behind it with a .45.

Which hole is going to be bigger?

MarshallDodge
January 2, 2006, 02:23 AM
Quick question....

Scenario: You shoot a vehicle with a 9mm, you shoot the vehicle behind it with a .45.

Which hole is going to be bigger?
The vehicle that has been shot with the .45 will have the bigger hole.

I am a .45 guy. I like the 1911 and that's what was meant to be shot in it but I do own a 1911 in 9mm that is fun to shoot and good for beginners. There is something that feels different about .40 that I can't put my finger on but I think it's a good compromise between 9mm and .45 .

It's all about shot placement.

Grunt
January 2, 2006, 04:29 AM
So the real question becomes - Who here has had to fire their pistol in defense of their life? What caliber, gun, and what happened.

No, not what you read or what so and so said, but YOU. Who here has had to use it for real and what happened?

Well, I wasn't the one behind the M9 (that was my Ssgt.) but I was there in the sandbox when he dumped 6 rounds center mass on a towlie that didn't go down until I got the turret spun around and a quick burst from the '60 dropped him in his tracks. Lessons learned? 9mm FMJ ammo is the worst ammunition you can ever issue a man. IMHO, the dolts that shoved 9mm down our throats just to have a NATO standard round ought to be tried for treason!:fire: The other poster that suggested the military stay with the 9mm may not have been thinking that we are restricted to FMJ ammo that is fit for nothing more than poking holes in paper and small vermin! 9mm with good hollow points may be a different story but for military use restriced to FMJ ammo, the old .45 is the only way to go...and it looks like the powers that be are FINALLY getting that message!!:cuss:

IndianaDean
January 2, 2006, 04:58 AM
I too like 1911s. I also have Hi Powers in 9. However, as our military is restricted to ball ammo, I think we should say the h*ll with Nato and go back to the .45. I don't care for the .40.

Dwayne Russell
January 2, 2006, 05:03 AM
My neighbor and good friend is a Sheriff’s deputy that has been shot in the line of duty. Thankfully he was wearing a vest. The round that hit him was fired from a 9mm. The impact knocked him down but he was immediately back up and he and his partner emptied both of their 9mm weapons. Twenty-Eight rounds were fired by the officers and not one of them hit their target. The shooter eventually shot himself.

Which proves that shot placement is everything.

Having said that I personally would not risk my life on a POS like the 9mm.

Four million dead German soldiers can't be wrong. Give me the .45

williamlayton
January 2, 2006, 07:17 AM
If you are in the market for a 9mm at least get a 9x23, roll your own and have a weapon that surpasses a .45 for protection and shoots soft.
Blessings

outofbattery
January 2, 2006, 10:24 AM
Harold Mayo: Other than the US, ain't nobody won a war in the last two generations. Coincidence? ;)


It sounds cute but even if you somehow believe that the 1911 had even the slightest outcome in America's 9th inning entry into WWI and in the overall outcome of WWII,don't you also have to count that it's responsible for a tie in Korea and a loss in Vietnam?

R.W.Dale
January 2, 2006, 11:52 AM
What kind of person carries a .45. THE SAME KIND OF PERSON THAT DREGES UP A 2yo THREAD! :cuss:

Inline_6
January 2, 2006, 12:03 PM
I'll throw in my .02 I guess. :)

1) Let us remember... we are talking about handguns. They are *defensive* only 99.99% of the world. If you are using a sidearm, you are already in a bad place. Handguns (all calibers) are weak and underpowered. We carry them for convenience (light & small), and concealability. If you are looking for a fight, or know trouble is headed your way... get a long gun.

2) With regard to the military... you cannot compare our selection of caliber to LEOs and private citizens. The Hague Convention requires us to use FMJ ammo (except on certain terrorists) which has lousy results in any caliber. If you are restricted to FMJ ammo, then the bigger bullet is better IMO. This is why the DoD is returning to the 45ACP for all handguns. The RFP has already been released asking for entries.

3) With private citizens and LEOs, there is a great selection of hollowpoint/defensive ammo to choose from. With appropriate ammo, the 9mm is plenty potent. It earned its bad reputation from the early days in LE where 9mm HPs were still not at peak performance. While I do not feel less safe, or under-armed when carrying a 9mm (w/ appropriate ammo), I prefer the 45ACP. Why? Bcz with appropriate ammo it makes a bigger hole. In the end though, shot placement is key and it's a defensive tool, so it doesn't matter what caliber it is (unless you start talking mouse guns).

4) There are plenty of failures to stop in all handgun calibers. Heck, even in the 1920s, a Tommy Gun in 45ACP (read: higher velocity from the longer barrel). I want to say it was "Baby Face" something or other, but a gangster was in a shootout with a couple federal agents. He was hit 17 times (yes, seventeen) by the feds 45ACP Tommy Gun. He charged the two agents and killed them both, then drove off dying later of blood loss.

Banana, if you asked about this to buy your own gun, find the one you can most easily shoot well and practice with it. If you asked to stir the pot on an age-old debate, then congrats. ;)

Borachon
January 4, 2006, 07:20 PM
"Baby Face" something or other, but a gangster was in a shootout with a couple federal agents. He was hit 17 times (yes, seventeen) by the feds 45ACP Tommy Gun.

Actually, I think Baby Face Nelson was also shot with other guns the agent were carrying. A shotgun and .38 if I'm not wrong.

If I remember correctly, Baby Face was "only" shot 5 or 6 times with a .45. :)

Then he took his own Thompson, strolled across the road casually, (a telephone lineman was watching from a distance away) and slew both agents. Then walked back to his car and drove off. Dying some hour or so later.

Wish he'd gone into the Army. We could have used him around 1942.

Inline_6
January 4, 2006, 07:50 PM
Actually, I think Baby Face Nelson was also shot with other guns the agent were carrying. A shotgun and .38 if I'm not wrong.

If I remember correctly, Baby Face was "only" shot 5 or 6 times with a .45. :)

Then he took his own Thompson, strolled across the road casually, (a telephone lineman was watching from a distance away) and slew both agents. Then walked back to his car and drove off. Dying some hour or so later.

Wish he'd gone into the Army. We could have used him around 1942.
Eh.. could be. That was how I read the story, but it was years ago and I never had the interest to follow it up with any research. Couldn't even begin to tell you the source. Guess I have something to google tonight. :cool:

meef
January 4, 2006, 08:00 PM
My neighbor and good friend is a Sheriff’s deputy that has been shot in the line of duty. Thankfully he was wearing a vest. The round that hit him was fired from a 9mm. The impact knocked him down but he was immediately back up and he and his partner emptied both of their 9mm weapons.
Actually, I believe it would be more accurate to say that his psychological reaction to being on the receiving end of a bullet was what caused him to go down - not the actual impact from a 9mm.

The shooter eventually shot himself. Which proves that shot placement is everything.
::chuckle...::

:)

palerider1
January 4, 2006, 08:16 PM
i have owned both a 9mm and a 45.....i like the 45 :D

palerider1

gremlin_bros
January 4, 2006, 08:25 PM
own both shoot both carry 45
wife
own both shoots both carries 45
wife likes to quote 9mm= 45 acp set to stun
me its all about knock down power

R.H. Lee
January 4, 2006, 08:25 PM
Having said that I personally would not risk my life on a POS like the 9mm.

Four million dead German soldiers can't be wrong. Give me the .45 Given proper shot placement, the difference between a 9mm and a .45 is negligible. Caliber won't compensate for marksmanship, but either round will penetrate enough to do significant damage. Ask an ER doc if he can tell the difference in wound channels, tissue damage, or blood loss between the two rounds. I'd bet he can't.

MDG1976
January 4, 2006, 08:35 PM
Having said that I personally would not risk my life on a POS like the 9mm.

Give me a flippin' break!!
Moderators: please close this thread!! For the love of humanity, please close this thread!!

R.W.Dale
January 4, 2006, 08:39 PM
Give me a flippin' break!!
Moderators: please close this thread!! For the love of humanity, please close this thread!!

http://stud.ntnu.no/~terjehoa/pics/pics_forum/noescape.jpg

gunfan
January 4, 2006, 09:35 PM
"I was wondering which round you guys think is more useful in most situations."

"More useful in most situations" implies a quest for versatility. The most versatile autoloading cartridge extant is the 10mm AUTO.

With the 10mm AUTO, you get a round that approximates the speed of the 9-minimeter with the historic "knock-down thump" of the .45acp. Plus, the 10mm brings to the table higher sectional density than the .45 for better penetration against intermediate barriers. In most pistols of equivalent size, the 10mm also has a higher mag capacity than the .45 (if that's an issue).

When you're finally serious about stopping power, you're ready for the 10mm AUTO.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-12/73942/agtman_g20.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-12/73942/agtman_sw1006v2.jpg

:cool:

Works for me! :D

Scott

kimberkrazy
January 4, 2006, 09:45 PM
For years I was a 9mm only kind of guy thinking the 45 had too much recoil for me. Then I purchased a good 45 ACP and fell in love. It does everything better! I have only one 9mm now as a CCW in a Kahr PM9 and I think it is perfect for my CCW but the rest are 45's and 22's. Factory ammo cost is the only draw back I can find. I tried a few 40's and I see no reason to go there with so many 45's looking for a home.

f4t9r
January 4, 2006, 09:47 PM
welcome
the answer is 45

UWstudent
January 4, 2006, 10:06 PM
i believe the .17 bullet shot by the heritage ruff rider revolver will do signifficantly more damage than any 1911 .45 or 9mm.
haha

lets have a debate over .17 vs. .45

mmike87
January 4, 2006, 10:24 PM
Works for me! :D

Scott

The biggest drawbacks of the 10mm:

- Ammo cost
- Availability of guns in 10mm

If you go with a 10, you really limit your choices of pistols. That said, I WILL own a 10mm someday ... but I think that availaibility of guns and cost of ammo does need to be a consideration.

gunfan
January 4, 2006, 10:38 PM
The biggest drawbacks of the 10mm:

- Ammo cost
- Availability of guns in 10mm

If you go with a 10, you really limit your choices of pistols. That said, I WILL own a 10mm someday ... but I think that availaibility of guns and cost of ammo does need to be a consideration.

There are: a) at least seven handguns currently being manufactured in 10mm auto and, b) eight different manufacturers, Federal, Winchester, Double Tap, CCI-Speer (Blazer) UMC, Reed's Research Ammunition, Buffalo Bore, Georgia Arms loading for the cartridge. Not all are excessively expensive. I have seen them for as little as $9.00 per box. May I suggest that you do your homework before you make such statements. It might behoove you to go to www.10mmtalk.com and do some research.

Your argument is baseless and does not "hold water". Sorry.:rolleyes:

Scott

mmike87
January 4, 2006, 10:46 PM
There are: a) at least seven handguns currently being manufactured in 10mm auto and, b) eight different manufacturers, Federal, Winchester, Double Tap, CCI-Speer (Blazer) UMC, Reed's Research Ammunition, Buffalo Bore, Georgia Arms loading for the cartridge. Not all are excessively expensive. I have seen them for as little as $9.00 per box. May I suggest that you do your homework before you make such statements. It might behoove you to go to www.10mmtalk.com and do some research.

Your argument is baseless and does not "hold water". Sorry.:rolleyes:

Scott


Baseless? Gimme a break. Seven handguns? I call that limited selection. :confused:

And, in MOST cases the 10mm is more expensive than a lot of other ammo. I never said it was "excessively" expensive. Or that there were NO handguns available in 10mm.

I wish .45 was less expensive, too. There are a LOT more guns chambered for .45 than 10mm, however.

I like the 10mm, and want one. I just wish the ammo were a little less expensive and there were a larger selection of guns available in that cartridge. I find that hardly deserved of your "eye roll" emoticon. Sorry!

gunfan
January 5, 2006, 01:29 AM
Baseless? Gimme a break. Seven handguns? I call that limited selection. :confused:

And, in MOST cases the 10mm is more expensive than a lot of other ammo. I never said it was "excessively" expensive. Or that there were NO handguns available in 10mm.

I wish .45 was less expensive, too. There are a LOT more guns chambered for .45 than 10mm, however.

I like the 10mm, and want one. I just wish the ammo were a little less expensive and there were a larger selection of guns available in that cartridge. I find that hardly deserved of your "eye roll" emoticon. Sorry!

I forgot to mention the Texas Ammunition Company (that makes NINE). There are: 4 Tanfoglio models, 2 Dan Wesson models, 2 Glock Models, 2 Kimber models, 1 Strayer-Voigt model (Infinity), 2 Bond Arms derringers, 1 Waco Arms derringer, 1 Reeder Custom Guns model, 1 Les Baer model, (Monolith). That's SIXTEEN models (as nearly as my limited faculties can determine).

While the 9mm and .45 ACP are as common as grass, the 10mm is an elite cartridge. You MUST be a true affecionado to understand the true nature of the cartridge. My signature says that the 10mm is the most versatile autoloading cartridge extant. I stand by that. It can do anything that the 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP as well as the .357 S&W Magnum and some .41 Magnum loads can.

It is ignorance and "gunzine" writers that placed a black mark upon the cartridge and the pistols chambered for it. It is MUCH better than its detractors would have you believe.

Scott

mmike87
January 5, 2006, 10:10 AM
I forgot to mention the Texas Ammunition Company (that makes NINE). There are: 4 Tanfoglio models, 2 Dan Wesson models, 2 Glock Models, 2 Kimber models, 1 Strayer-Voigt model (Infinity), 2 Bond Arms derringers, 1 Waco Arms derringer, 1 Reeder Custom Guns model, 1 Les Baer model, (Monolith). That's SIXTEEN models (as nearly as my limited faculties can determine).

While the 9mm and .45 ACP are as common as grass, the 10mm is an elite cartridge. You MUST be a true affecionado to understand the true nature of the cartridge. My signature says that the 10mm is the most versatile autoloading cartridge extant. I stand by that. It can do anything that the 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP as well as the .357 S&W Magnum and some .41 Magnum loads can.

It is ignorance and "gunzine" writers that placed a black mark upon the cartridge and the pistols chambered for it. It is MUCH better than its detractors would have you believe.

Scott

I agree with everything you have said. Really, everything. I think the 10mm is great. I place no have I placed any black marks on anything. I like the 10mm (I thoroughly enjoyed the couple of times I have had the pleasure of shooting one) and continue to wait for the elusive SIG P220 in 10mm.

I don't see how you read anything I said as a black mark against the cartridge. That was certainly not the intent. I wish there were as many guns chambered to 10mm as for .45 and 9mm. Selection is a wonderful thing.

tribal ranger
January 8, 2006, 02:47 AM
i use the ruger p345 as my duty weapon and as of yet it has never failed me infact i traded my s&w sw9ve for the ruger and now i will never go back to a 9mm again. but i also have a question someone out there might beable to help me with does anyone know if the ruger P90 clip will work in my P345

Dwayne Russell
January 8, 2006, 03:32 AM
Actually, I believe it would be more accurate to say that his psychological reaction to being on the receiving end of a bullet was what caused him to go down - not the actual impact from a 9mm.

::chuckle...::

:)

I see you have read the report by Urey Patrick regarding the physics of bullet mass and the impossibility of creating enough energy to actually knock down a human being. The report states the following.

"A bullet simply cannot knock a man down. If it had the energy to do so, then equal energy would be applied against the shooter and he too would be knocked down This is simple physics, and has been known for hundreds of years. The amount of energy deposited in the body by a bullet is approximately equivalent to being hit with a baseball".

Well I am not one to argue with physics, so I suspect as he was leaving the cruiser the hit was sufficient to knock him off balance.

As far as psychological effect, well there was plenty of that in play but it was all after the fact. His wife was pregnant after years of trying to have a baby. When he was shot in the line of duty she just about had a meltdown. He went back to desk duty for a while to give her some peace of mind.

As far as the impact was concern it really did knock him down. He had a major rasberry about the size of a baseball from it. I spoke to him the day after the shooting. I asked him what it felt like and he said it felt like somebody took a baseball bat and hit him across the chest with it. Even then it didn't stop him from getting right back up and immediately emptying his weapon.

Dwayne Russell
January 8, 2006, 05:12 AM
Given proper shot placement, the difference between a 9mm and a .45 is negligible. Caliber won't compensate for marksmanship, but either round will penetrate enough to do significant damage. Ask an ER doc if he can tell the difference in wound channels, tissue damage, or blood loss between the two rounds. I'd bet he can't.

First off thank you for an intelligent retort. I appreciate the thought that went into your posting. I went looking for data that we could use for discussion material and found that the 1989 FBI study from Quantico, VA concluded the 9mm and .45 round both provided adequate penetration and very similar wound criteria. I suppose we could discuss advancements in bullet technology that might skew the results of this study. But I think we agree then or now, they are both very capable of doing the job.

The FBI report discussed every aspect from psychological factors, cavity displacement, expansion, penetration and disruption of vital organs. Your point is well taken. I think we both agree placement is still a very critical aspect. As I finished reading though the report the FBI concluded the following in the very last paragraph.

"Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet".

Give me a flippin' break!!
Moderators: please close this thread!! For the love of humanity, please close this thread!!

Perhaps you will excuse me for having an opinion on this subject, I do however have my reasons. My father is a retired doctor and I was a Los Angeles County EMT for 13 years. During this timeframe two fellow team mates were shot and killed in the line of duty. I have been both shot and stabbed. There are also two accomodations on my wall from Police Chief's and Mayor's regarding my work. Like anyone else in my line of work I could curl your hair with stories, but then I am sure my opinion wouldn't mean anything to you. So I apologize to you and ask you to forgive me for my opinion.

I am sorry to have offended you.

McCall911
January 8, 2006, 08:05 AM
:D :D :D
LOL....LOL....LOL

Does anybody realize that the one who opened this whole can of worms has made exactly one post?

And this one is it!

:D :D :D
LOL....LOL....LOL

^5 to Banana357!!!

Deer Hunter
January 8, 2006, 07:54 PM
I was reading this thread, and someone mentioned Tanfolgio making 10mm handguns, but only counted it as "1" in the overall 9 handguns chambered in 10mm. Tanfolgio makes many handguns chambered in 10mm, from compacts to "hunter" versions. Also, Glock makes two handguns chambered in 10mm. Dan Wesson, the Kimber 1911 conversions, and the S&W 610 revolver are all great 10mm platforms. I don't really think that's limited at all. There's a 10mm for everyone.

10-Ring
January 8, 2006, 10:19 PM
I'm steering clear of this one...bin there dun that :evil:

All I got for ya is welcome to the board! :cool:

Draven32
January 10, 2006, 04:44 AM
HRT used to use Browning hi-powers. SEAL teams are issued 9mm Sigs. Israeli SF used to use BHPs and now use 9mm Sigs.

Other than in the US, you really won't find ANYONE using anything but 9mm. People need to get off their high horses when it comes to caliber wars. Americans see very little use of handgun calibers in any situation compared to the rest of the world. 9mm is all you need. Why do you think H&K flat-out REFUSED to make a .45 ACP MP5, even though it was requested by US LE and military?

:banghead:

SEAL teams are issued Mk 23s- hence why the Mk 23 spec called for such strict salt water resistance.

H&K did make MP5s in .45 ACP, they used a plastic mag and were called the MP5/45. They also made a MP5 in 10mm. they don't make either anymore because they are rying to replace the MP5 with the UMP (http://www.hk-usa.com/index.jsp?loc=231&SITEID=B&PartNumber=UMP) line, which is available in 9mm, .40S&W, and .45 ACP.

Inline_6
January 10, 2006, 04:14 PM
SEAL teams are issued Mk 23s- hence why the Mk 23 spec called for such strict salt water resistance.

H&K did make MP5s in .45 ACP, they used a plastic mag and were called the MP5/45. They also made a MP5 in 10mm. they don't make either anymore because they are rying to replace the MP5 with the UMP (http://www.hk-usa.com/index.jsp?loc=231&SITEID=B&PartNumber=UMP) line, which is available in 9mm, .40S&W, and .45 ACP.
Um... the SEALs do have some Mk23s but rarely carry them anywhere. The Mk23 was designed to be a primary weapon, not a sidearm (thus the size and weight). The SOF community uses them as appropriate, but when going on a typical mission, the Mk23 doesn't come along -- if it does it is probably in a rucksack. The "high-speed" Army SOF use 1911s custom built to the user. Regular Army SOF (read: ODAs) use M9s or M11s. SEALs use the Sig 226 (same gun the British SAS adopted to replace their Hi-Powers) as a sidearm.

Are you sure the MP5 in 10mm is no longer made?? That is the FBIs favorite SMG at the moment. I am frequently on HKPRO and have not heard that.

Draven32
January 10, 2006, 09:11 PM
H&K's law enforcement site doesn't list it as available anymore.

Inline_6
January 10, 2006, 09:35 PM
H&K's law enforcement site doesn't list it as available anymore.
I see MP5s here:
http://www.hkdefense.us/pages/military-le/fedops.html

and here:
http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/index.jsp?loc=230&REFID=A0000&SITEID=B

:confused:

The UMP comes in 40, but not 10mm. The Bureau seems to be in love with the ballistics a 10mm gives from an SMG... doom on HK if they stop making them.

Blackhawk 6
January 10, 2006, 10:20 PM
The FBI SWAT guys I spent some time with told me the Bureau was moving away from the MP-5/10 to the M-4. That's what they were carrying.

poppy
January 10, 2006, 10:40 PM
Deer Hunter wrote: I was reading this thread, and someone mentioned Tanfolgio making 10mm handguns, but only counted it as "1" in the overall 9 handguns chambered in 10mm. Tanfolgio makes many handguns chambered in 10mm, from compacts to "hunter" versions. Also, Glock makes two handguns chambered in 10mm. Dan Wesson, the Kimber 1911 conversions, and the S&W 610 revolver are all great 10mm platforms. I don't really think that's limited at all. There's a 10mm for everyone.

Heck, even Ruger has/had a revolver in 10mm, so don't forget them. poppy

Draven32
January 10, 2006, 10:50 PM
I see MP5s here:
http://www.hkdefense.us/pages/military-le/fedops.html

and here:
http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/index.jsp?loc=230&REFID=A0000&SITEID=B

:confused:

The UMP comes in 40, but not 10mm. The Bureau seems to be in love with the ballistics a 10mm gives from an SMG... doom on HK if they stop making them.

yes, you see 9mm MP5s in those locations- not .45 or 10mm or .40S&W.

IndianaDean
January 10, 2006, 11:08 PM
45, and it doesn't matter what length the barrel is, or what brand is on the slide.

Pakalolo
August 7, 2006, 08:26 PM
I thought the .45 did have a greater stopping power, which is why the military is or was, thinking of switching back. Because over in Iraq the 9mm is going right through them and most times not stopping them. Also, law enforcement especially, you get a guy on PCP and shoot him with a 9mm and that isn't going to do anything. Atleast a .45 will knock him on his butt, course if you think that way might as well get a 500 magnum.

Black Knight
August 7, 2006, 08:53 PM
The military is currently considering a replacement for the M9 pistol (9mm Beretta). They are considering a joint services pistol in .45ACP. I carry the 9 on duty duty the .45 off duty, and prefer the .45.
I agree with Baba Louie except for one point. Why would anyone feel the need to save France????

LightningJoe
August 8, 2006, 07:32 AM
.44 Magnum revolver. Six inch barrel. Moon clips.

Draven32
August 8, 2006, 08:15 AM
Engage four or five targets. Then shot to death while reloading. Average female soldier won't touch it...

I hope you thought you were being funny...

LightningJoe
August 8, 2006, 04:00 PM
Well, if I were in a war zone and I got lost somewhere with no rifle, the 44 Magnum with a 6" barrel is what I'd want. I wouldn't be trying to win the war, just to reliably incapacitate somebody who probably had more moral fibre than I think a criminal does (a foreign soldier may be a man of honor just like me) and also to be able to hit man-size targets from as far away as practicable with a handgun. You can have an automatic with a 4" barrel. I'm fine with that. You can get killed while reloading one of those, too, though. I don't really care if a woman will touch one, since I expect all the women to be home praying for victory--not in the war zone (it's an all-volunteer military in America; ladies, just say no thanks).

Draven32
August 8, 2006, 08:51 PM
Why not just carry a .460 revolver and be done with it?

LightningJoe
August 8, 2006, 09:06 PM
Never heard of it. Might be willing to consider 45LC.

Draven32
August 8, 2006, 09:28 PM
here you go-

S&W 460V (http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=11101&storeId=10001&productId=44954&langId=-1&parent_category_rn=15707&isFirearm=Y), 5" bbl, fires .460 S&W mag, .454 Casull, and .45 LC.

LightningJoe
August 8, 2006, 11:32 PM
Wow. I guess there's some practical limit. Don't know where it is, though.

jjohnson
August 8, 2006, 11:36 PM
Oh, for chrissakes, if you ever really thought you were going to have to use it, you'd carry a .45 only because you value your life. Yeah, I know, I've even carried a .380 when I HAD to for concealability, but God and the spirit of John Moses Browning want you to be packing the .45 if you're in for "business." :evil:

jjohnson
August 8, 2006, 11:42 PM
Sorry. If you're using it in your signature line, please spell it correctly. I don't care what kind of microbus it was, it wasn't chartruce, and it's making me crazy. See what I mean?

MCgunner
August 10, 2006, 11:36 AM
Stupid to even respond to this subject anymore, but I've been tossing up which gun I'll carry IWB when I want a bigger gun to tote, like going to the big city. I have a P90 in .45 and a P85 in 9mm. I love to shoot that P90, so accurate, and I have a zen thing going with it, but having 31 rounds in two magazines, or 46 rounds in three magazines IS kinda neat. :D And, that P85 feels and shoot similar to the P90 if not as accurate. It's plenty accurate enough, though, just doesn't put 'em all into an inch at 25 yards like that P90 does. Also, the P90 is a stainless gun which I like. Hmmm. I'll continue to worry over it. Something tells me I can't make a poor decision, though.:D

KI4LIV
August 10, 2006, 12:26 PM
I'm going to throw in my 2 cents on this - yes, this is a really old thread, but hey, why the heck not?

I'm not sure how many of you have ever been in a combat/life threatening situation where all you were armed with was a handgun. I personally was.

I used to beat the mean streets every day, carrying a 9mm Beretta on my side. I was part of a competition shooting team at the local range as well. In addition, I was in the USMC reserve as a 5813, Military Police Accident Investigator. Between the police department and the USMC, not to mention being one of the leading shooters on the team, I'd like to think that I could shoot - and shoot well!

The one and only time I ever had to fire my weapon in a defensive situation was during a traffic stop. I pulled the guy over for an equipment violation. I stepped out of my vehicle - as did he. He proceeded to step towards me, holding a small .380 (Lorcin POS if I remember correctly), which he held up, fired one round, and then experienced a jam.

He began to run - I took up chase and while he was running he was able to somehow miraculously clear the jam, turned the pistol towards me, and fired another 2 rounds while running. I took cover behind a parked car, and what does this clown do? He starts coming towards me again, at a slow, walking pace, firing off a few more rounds.

In the process, I raised my pistol and fired off 12 - yes TWELVE rounds - until one finally struck him and he went down. It was not a one-shot kill, but was enough to incapacitate him so I could kick the weapon away...

About 30 seconds later, backup arrived - A lot of good they were :)

Anyhow, what's the moral of my story? In a stress-fire situation, training goes out the window. No matter how well you think you can shoot at paper targets, forget about it. You can think you can prep for a situation like this by doing a hard brisk run and then shooting immediately afterwards - trust me, it's not the same - BY A LONG SHOT.

You might get lucky and hit the target with one of the 8 rounds in your .45 - but in my case, had I been carrying a 1911, I would have been screwed - reloading only takes a small number of seconds, but that is a LIFETIME that you are wide open and defenseless! Then you have to take into consideration - what if that one lucky round hit the attacker somewhere that will not stop him, say, the arm? Then what?

Personally, I will suggest to anyone to go with the higher capacity weapon simply to avoid the ultimate demise that you may run into should be in a situation such as mine.

But hey - that's just my 2 cents! Take or leave it!

MCgunner
August 10, 2006, 04:10 PM
KI4LIV, thanks for the story, very interesting. You make a valid point and I have confidence that the round is as capable as about any so called major caliber, not hung up in the bullet size thing. My daily carry is a pocket size Kel Tec 9 with 10+1. After reading this, I might buy a couple of 12 round mags for it. :eek: I carry a small revolver mainly when I'm out fishing. Any other time I have the 9. I like the .38 outdoors and for fishing due to its stainless construction.

One thing I like about my 9s is the tapered double stack mag. It is much easier to get those speed reloads with. It funnels itself into the mag well without a modified mag well. The P90's single stack mags, inevitably, will hang on the mag well and cost me time nearly every time I've shot IDPA with it. That's why I switched to shooting 9mm, first with a P95, then a P85, in competition back when I was shooting IDPA a lot. In the real world, the fact that I have 16 rounds on tap before I have to make that reload is comforting, I gotta admit.

IDPA is fun and good practice, but it's a game. They limit you to 10 round mags. While IDPA attempts to recreate real life scenarios, it's not real life. In real life, I don't see a reason to limit magazine capacity. I know, I know, average two shots fired in a confrontation. The old macho thing "if you can't hit 'em with eight, you need practice". But, your story brings home the reality of real life combat and it ain't no game. Cheaters win.:D You just can't count on it being a two shot confrontation.

Anyway, thanks for the reality check.

gunner

KI4LIV
August 10, 2006, 08:37 PM
MCGunner,

My pleasure... I hope at least someone can benefit from it.

I think the only way to conquer "stress fire" is to be exposed to the same type of life threatening situation multiple times. If you are wanting to volunteer for that, be my guest :-)

45Cal
August 10, 2006, 08:50 PM
With all due respect,
I'm sure that these folks would beg to differ.

Read some of the true stories about people that got the job done with an old' .45 pistol while under heavy fire.
Legends of the M1911 Pistol
http://www.sightm1911.com/


Soldiers
Sgt. Alvin York 2nd Lt. Frank Luke, Jr. Marine Sgt. Al Schmid
Gunnery Sgt. John Basilone MSG Ernest R. Kouma 1st Lt. John M. McGovern
2nd Lt. Owen Bagget Lt. Walt Hagan MG Sheffield Banta
Maj. Charles W. Davis Cpl. Dan D. Schoonover Sgt. Darrell Samuel Cole
Master Sgt. Gary I. Gordon Cpt. Harold A. Fritz 1st Lt. Harry Linn Martin
Cpl. Henry F. Warner Pfc. Jack G. Hanson 2nd Lt. John J. McGinty III
2nd Lt. Patrick Regan Sgt. Randall D. Shughart Robert D. Maxwell
Robert Eugene Bush Lt. Col. Robert G. Cole Sgt. Thomas A. Baker
1st Lt. William B. Turner Lt. Col. William J. O'Brien 1st Lt. Willibald C. Bianchi
Dwight H. Johnson John E. Holbrook
Lawmen
Billy M. Sheriff Jim Wilson Texas Ranger Joaquin Jackson
Texas Ranger Charlie Miller

KI4LIV
August 10, 2006, 08:51 PM
And that's their right - I was stating my opinion.

45Cal
August 10, 2006, 09:08 PM
Everybody has one.

KI4LIV
August 10, 2006, 09:09 PM
Amen to that!

Medusa
August 11, 2006, 03:01 PM
Both, 9x19 and .45ACP have their advantages and deficiences, compared to other. Real issue is to learn what the caliber can do well and what it does bad, to balance the deficiencies with advantages and put the caliber into most effective use.
They are basically same, IMHO, difference is in the user and his/her capabilities.

vynx
August 11, 2006, 08:07 PM
I think that KI4LIV has a good point - while it may not hold true for everyone for a lot of us it is something worth considerring.

This is why I purchased a Para Ordinance P-12 many years ago - 12+1 of .45.

BUt, as I age and my eyesight changes I find that a .40 seems to suit me more...still if I knew i was going to use it I'd have a high Capacity .45 like a P-14.

P.S. If i didn't line in ********** I would have one of those hi cap 9s.

MCgunner
August 11, 2006, 11:12 PM
I think that KI4LIV has a good point - while it may not hold true for everyone for a lot of us it is something worth considerring.

Well, I ain't gonna argue with him since I've never had to pull the trigger on anyone, much less with them shooting back. I know my capabilities as a marksman are up to snuff when shooting in paper combat, killing paper guys, but games are games and I know the adrenalin dump can't be what it is with the real thing. I'm a pretty calm guy, can concentrate in the hardest of situations pretty well. I hope that if I ever have to shoot for real, I'll keep my wits about me and not start spraying the street. LOL But, how are you gonna know without getting into that situation which is not really a thing I wanna do. Just hope you fall back on your training and concentrate on CM and the front sight.

I just see it as a better to be safe than sorry thing. I mean, more ammo the better. There is no such thing as "too much" ammo in a gunfight when you're fighting for your life, or at least I fail to see how that could be.

If I wanted more power to go with the firepower, a Glock 20 would be nice. However, it's an awful big gun to carry concealed. I don't care much for Glocks, anyway. 40s are a decent compromise. For now, I'll stick with my 9, though. I rather like it. Maybe I'll finally buy a 40 someday, never know. I don't happen to think 9mm is lacking anything for a PDW, though. My loads are 115 grain Hornady XTPs and they're shootin' around 1340 fps out of the Ruger, IIRC, over 1300 fps anyway. I could look it up, but I'm lazy. I keep all this chrono stuff recorded in my range/reloading notebook.

I say all this, but today I've been givin' my 9 a break and carrying my five shot revolver. ROFL. Oh, well, in the thriving megalopolis of Port Lavaca, I don't feel real threatened and I just have this thing for revolvers. Not real logical seeing as how deficient I am with speed loaders, but what the heck. I'll load the 9 again in the morning. I just like to unload the magazines every few weeks and give it a break and clean it up/lube it, get the pocket lint out of it.

CornCod
August 13, 2006, 12:59 AM
I might as well weigh in on the the great pistol debate.

I would choose the .45 if I could shoot 50 practice rounds out of a .45 on a weekly basis. Like most people, I can't afford to do that, its just too expensive, so I use 9mm handguns for self-defense (High-Power and Beretta 9000s) .

I love my plain vanilla Springfield Armory M1911, but I really don't think I can shoot it well under stress and with so little practice time. Thanks to the el cheapo Wolf ammo coming in from Russia, I can shoot 9mm every week and still keep up with my mortgage.

BluesBear
August 13, 2006, 03:09 AM
I just like to unload the magazines every few weeks and give it a break Actually, loading and unloading the magazines is much harder on the springs than leaving them compressed.

SilverState
August 13, 2006, 03:15 AM
45acp

Yes

No

BluesBear
August 13, 2006, 03:15 AM
I would choose the .45 if I could shoot 50 practice rounds out of a .45 on a weekly basis. Like most people, I can't afford to do that, its just too expensive,...
...I can shoot 9mm every week and still keep up with my mortgage.You can't afford $10 for a box of Wolf or Blazer .45acp? :confused:
Or $12 for a box of Sellier & Bellot or Fiocchi.

Dude, you need to refinance.


If you reloaded you could do .45 for about $4.00 per box/50.

Baba Louie
August 13, 2006, 11:09 AM
Found this last night while over at www.customknivesandguns.com from a post by one Mr. Allen Elishewitz (whom some of you may know to be a bladesmith of some repute)...(really cool site BTW) just a (long) story FWIW...
(begin)
A very interesting after-action report has come to my attention. This incident took place yesterday in an African country that shall be un-named, for reasons that will become obvious. The protagonists were three people whom I know, along with a fourth who's a friend of theirs. The three I know have extensive military and civilian experience with firearms, and also studied Col. Cooper's techniques with me in a sort of "home-school" environment back in that African country during the 1980's. The four of them had an encounter with a street gang in a car-jacking attempt.

Briefly, the gang of car-jackers used two vehicles on a major freeway, obviously looking for a suitable vehicle for their attentions. My friends were in a high-end Mercedes-Benz, travelling at speeds of up to 80 mph. When the gang spotted them, they trailed them on the freeway with both of their vehicles. After a short interval, they were spotted by the (always attentive) driver, and my friends went to Orange. They decided to take the next off-ramp, leading to a fairly deserted industrial area (this being Saturday, there was little traffic in that area), and see what transpired.

As soon as they moved over to the turnoff lane, one of the gang vehicles abruptly accelerated ahead of them and slipped into the same lane, while the other moved into the lane behind them. There was obviously good co-ordination and some decent training involved in the way the vehicles worked together. As they exited the freeway, about halfway down the off-ramp, the vehicle in front of them slammed on its brakes and turned sideways, across the off-ramp, blocking further progress. The vehicle behind them then struck their rear bumper with some force, knocking their vehicle into the front (blocking) car, obviously in an attempt to disorient them.

My buddies, of course, were armed and ready. They exited the car, with the two front seat occupants concentrating on the vehicle in front of them, while the two rear seat occupants took on the vehicle behind them. Three people were in the front vehicle, one armed with an AK derivative (full-auto), one with a shotgun, and one with a handgun. Two people were in the vehicle behind them, one with an Uzi and one with a handgun.

For ease of description, I'll concentrate on each "target" vehicle in turn, beginning with that in front. The guy with the AK opened fire, full-auto, but hit only the car, and was taken under fire by the passenger-seat occupant, using a Glock 19. He hit him eleven times, by actual count, with 9mm. +P hollowpoints (Speer Gold Dot) without dropping him. The BG eventually went down on the 12th shot, which took him on the bridge of the nose and shut down his CNS right there. The other two, with shotgun and handgun, were engaged by the driver, using a .357 Magnum revolver (a S&W K-frame of unknown model). He double-tapped each one to COM with his carry load, the 145gr. Winchester Silvertip JHP. The BG with the handgun went down instantly, but the BG with the shotgun was still on his feet, although obviously badly hurt and unable to wield the shotgun effectively. He received a further round to the head, which resolved matters satisfactorily.

The two BG's in the rear car were engaged by the rear-seat passengers. One was using a CZ-75 with Winchester Silvertip JHP's. He put half-a-dozen rounds COM into his target, without visible results - the BG returned fire with his Uzi, tagging my friend in the left arm with the first burst. While this was going on, the other rear-seat passenger engaged the handgun-wielding BG with his SIG P220, using 185gr. Remington Golden Saber Bonded JHP's. Two rounds of this COM dropped that BG immediately. He then switched his target to the Uzi-wielding BG, putting two rounds into his chest from the left side, and dropping him as he tried to get off another burst at the other passenger. The final round actually went into his lower neck area, as he was already dropping from the first round to the chest.

The end result was four BG's DRT, and one dying (the guy who took two .357's to the chest - he was obviously in the last extremity), with one GG wounded in the left arm by a burst of 9mm. FMJ from the Uzi. My buddies did a quick but comprehensive scan of the scene, including an examination of their targeting, and searching the BG's. The hits were mostly good, solid shots, COM to heart and lungs, and to the head where necessary. The guy with the AK also showed several hits to both forearms, which were obviously blocking the "direct" path to his chest, and absorbed some of the 9mm. hits meant for COM. Interestingly, these forearm hits did not make him drop the AK, nor did they stop him from operating it, despite a broken left forearm! His adrenaline must have been well and truly pumping... Both BG's hit with the 9mm.'s would certainly have died, but were not put down immediately, and both were able to continue shooting at the GG's despite their COM injuries. The .357 and the 45 obviously had much greater effect on their targets, although one of the BG's hit with the .357 required a head shot to finish him off. However, it was noted that after the two COM shots, he wasn't shooting any more, and although still holding his weapon, was clearly on the point of going down, and would probably have done so without the final head shot to ensure things.

What was extremely interesting is that four of the five BG's were carrying police identification! - one of them at a fairly senior rank. This decided my friends to exit the scene immediately, without summoning or waiting for law enforcement assistance. They exited the area using back roads, and were able to get to the home of one of them without further incident, where their vehicle was immediately garaged to prevent anyone noticing anything untoward. They took their injured comrade to a doctor friend of theirs for attention, and by the application of a little folding currency were able to get him good medical care without any records being kept. He's apparently going to be fine, although his arm will be in a cast for a few weeks. Their car was, of course, damaged by the collision, and had a couple of bullet holes in it, but I understand that things can be put right without any unnecessary paperwork being filed (again, the judicious application of a little folding currency has a wonderfully silencing effect).

This incident took place yesterday, and the friend who called me this morning indicated that no report of this shooting has been printed in any of the Sunday newspapers, despite this occuring in a major city, where reporters could be expected to get wind of things very quickly. He further reports that the intersection where this took place looks completely normal this morning, with both BG vehicles removed, no trace of blood, etc. on the street, and no evidence of crime scene investigation. He informed me that "a little bird told them" that both vehicles were taken to the rear of a local police station, where they're now sitting, with no forensics investigation marks (e.g. fingerprint powder, etc.) visible on them. Apparently there is no official report in that police station's logbook of the vehicles being brought in, or of the bodies that must have been recovered. (He has sufficient reliable - and discreet - LE contacts to be able to get this information.)

The upshot is, as he suggests, that it behooves visitors to this nameless Southern African nation to be on their guard against not just crooks, but also against crooks in the police force. The deafening silence concerning this incident suggests to him (and to me) that there is a high-level cover-up going on. Draw your own conclusions...

I asked a lot of questions while talking to my friend, as I was interested in gun and ammo performance. I'm told that my friends who relied on their Wondernines are now cursing fluently, and trying to work out how to upgrade to a heavier caliber (difficult in the light of this country's fairly Draconian laws concerning civilian ownership of firearms). The two who used the .45 and .357 are very satisfied with the performance of their chosen weapons and loads.

Thought you might be interested. This certainly reinforces my long-standing distrust of the 9mm. as a "stopping" caliber. I'll use it for training (cheap ammo), and in a backup gun (as I will also for 38 Special), but I won't trust it as a primary defensive caliber.
(end)

Almost sounds like something Jeff Cooper would write... Several lessons to be learned here. To me, a main one being, BG will probably have his firearm in front of his chest, thus his supporting arms, which your bullet(s) may/will need to penetrate/bi-pass for a COM shot. Use what you feel is best, placement placement placement, cover cover cover, situational awareness is key, bigger is better. Avoid certain parts of Africa (and parts of America)?

MCgunner
August 13, 2006, 01:32 PM
I'll keep carrying my pocket 9, thanks.:rolleyes:

Matt King
August 13, 2006, 01:53 PM
The 9mm, and the .45 are both fine defensive weapons. Pick the one that you shoot better, and practice, pratice, practice!


But if you were to ask me, I would say that you get a .357. :neener:

R.W.Dale
August 13, 2006, 01:56 PM
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y96/krochus/smack/deadhorse.gif

Harley Quinn
August 13, 2006, 02:18 PM
It is the best of both worlds IMHO.

Any comments?;)

The 9mm ammo is cheap and keep's you shooting for a lot less money expended, Time also not reloading.
The 45 is a good reloaders gun. Most who shoot it seriously, reload. I personally would never rely on reloads for my safety. I know many do, but it is not reccomended by the ammo loaders who do it commercially HMMM.:rolleyes:

The 40 S&W is a fine handgun for defense. I believe the 10mm is better for hunting game. I am going to get a 45 mdl 21 and get a 20 slide barrel and spring and shoot them in the one gun and see what happens.

Any thoughts or facts on the 21 or 20?

HQ:)

MCgunner
August 13, 2006, 03:54 PM
Great gif! How appropriate. :D

.40 is the only big bore alternative in my mind, and I ain't got one yet. Might sometime, don't rule it out, but I ain't all that hung up on the minuscule differences in performance of the major defensive handgun calibers.

Reason I say .40 is the only option is I really like a pocket sized subcompact as has been available for a dozen or so years now from Kel Tec and Kahr among others. You can usually get the gun with minus one round capacity in .40, ie G26 vs G27. Any truly pocketable .45 would be far less firepower. Something real comforting knowing you got 10+ rounds of major defensive caliber in your pocket, be in 9mm or .40. You just never know what sort of situation you're going to fall into let alone how you'll perform when the time comes.

I got absolutely nothing against the .45 caliber, have owned several, still own one in a gun I really, really like. It just won't fit in a pocket and it's heavy and big for IWB wear all day long. I'll probably carry my P85 when big gunnin' it. I like the idea of 16 rounds in the gun and 46 rounds available if I'm going to be in a bad area of a big town. Around here, heck, I'm happy with my .38. :D

MCgunner
August 13, 2006, 04:00 PM
Quote:
I just like to unload the magazines every few weeks and give it a break

Actually, loading and unloading the magazines is much harder on the springs than leaving them compressed.

Perhaps, don't know, but I unload the gun, strip it, clean it, lube it and put a bit of lube on the mags, then let it sit a day or two. I figure it's a good thing to clean an auto that's been in a sweaty pocket constantly. At least I get any dust bunnies out of it that might collect. Never THAT dirty, but I prefer to clean it before it really needs it. Besides, I like to carry the revolver now and then.

DixieTexian
April 20, 2007, 02:47 PM
I just saw this thread...the guy who started it still only has one post count. I think y'all ran him off.:neener:

longeyes
April 20, 2007, 03:53 PM
Baba Louie,

Were your friends wearing any body armor?

Im283
April 20, 2007, 10:45 PM
What I really want to know is, will my tupperware 9mm keep my bullets fresher?

I think that is the real determining factor!

Black Majik
April 20, 2007, 10:47 PM
Oh my goodness. I do see that it did last til' 2006. Gotta give props to the person who resurrected it in 06' instead of starting a new 9mm vs. 45 thread :D

Greg8098
April 20, 2007, 11:57 PM
Did someone on the first page of this thread say that the .357 is for the weak and inaccurate :confused: ??? Whether they meant .357 Magnum or .357 sig, I think they need to go back to Kindergarten, pull out a sleeping mat, and wake back up with some sense ;) .


P.S - Hmmmm 9mm or .45,... let's see,...... Well, anyway you slice it, it's still cake.

boomstik45
April 21, 2007, 12:38 AM
Perhaps the original (and secret) question was how many serious answers would actually be given in such a thread? :D

here's my serious answer: get a good platform in both, practice like your life depends on it (it does) and carry each as you find comfortable and appropriate, based on a number of factors. That way no matter what, you are never wrong! :D :D . No really, I thing it's plain smart to have both.

nemoaz
April 21, 2007, 02:52 AM
using a Glock 19. He hit him eleven times, by actual count, with 9mm. +P hollowpoints (Speer Gold Dot) without dropping him. The BG eventually went down on the 12th shot, which took him on the bridge of the nose and shut down his CNS right there. The other two, with shotgun and handgun, were engaged by the driver, using a .357 Magnum revolver (a S&W K-frame of unknown model). He double-tapped each one to COM with his carry load, the 145gr. Winchester Silvertip JHP. One was using a CZ-75 with Winchester Silvertip JHP's. He put half-a-dozen rounds COM into his target, without visible results - the BG returned fire with his Uzi, tagging my friend in the left arm with the first burst. While this was going on, the other rear-seat passenger engaged the handgun-wielding BG with his SIG P220, using 185gr. Remington Golden Saber Bonded JHP's. Two rounds of this COM dropped that BG immediately. He then switched his target to the Uzi-wielding BG, putting two rounds into his chest from the left side, and dropping him as he tried to get off another burst at the other passenger. The final round actually went into his lower neck area, as he was already dropping from the first round to the chest.

The end result was four BG's DRT, and one dying (the guy who took two .357's to the chest - he was obviously in the last extremity), with one GG wounded in the left arm by a burst of 9mm. FMJ from the Uzi.

YEAH whatever. Badguys spit out those .355 124 grain bullets travelling at 1250 fps but shreek and die immediately from .356 125 grain bullets travelling at 1400 fps. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: The ignorance never ceases.

Well, I know some Mexican drug dealers that got shot up by a G3, each hit 8-15 times and they all lived to tell about it so .308 sucks.

And I know a guy who took 8 hits in the chest and abdomen from .45 ACP 185 HP and didn't even stop driving so .45 ACP sucks.

And I know an agent who took 3 hits in the leg from an AK and two hits to the chest and he's still working so 7.62x39 sucks.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: All true by the way, except that those rounds don't suck either.

DixieTexian
April 23, 2007, 02:13 AM
The point is, the guy who started this thread made his first post. He has never posted again. I think y'all scared him off.

Autolycus
April 23, 2007, 10:53 AM
Now this is a resurrected thread.

Titan6
April 23, 2007, 06:18 PM
There is only way to resolve this important issue. Pistols at 50 paces. :what:

MarshallDodge
April 23, 2007, 07:15 PM
Like I said in my original post....it's all about shot placement.
Have any of you tried bowling pin shooting? It's a lot easier to knock a pin down with a 45 than a 9mm. That's what a 45 was meant to do - knock people down.

Mulliga
April 23, 2007, 08:20 PM
Hmm. I know something that knocks bowling pins down even better than a .45 auto.


Namely, a bowling ball.

:neener: ;)

nemoaz
April 24, 2007, 02:56 AM
knock people down.

Knock'em down huh? The .45 would do that pretty well, if it was travelling at 15,000 fps. Of course, it would knock you down too when you fired it. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For some reason, the rules of physics don't apply to .45 freaks.

The .45 ACP was designed to be better than .38 S&W --a caliber weaker than a standard pressure .38 Special. And that it does. However, many .355 magnum (9mm parabellum) rounds are just as powerful and every .357 magnum is superior. 45 ACP was really the hottest thing on the market... in 1899 or so. Even John Browning called the Browning HP in .355 magnum his best work.

45 ACP still works for sure but these .45philes and their inane comments get old. The bottom line is that many gun owners are pretty ignorant. They see a big case and they think bigger must be better. (It's not. Standard pressure .44 special is a rather pedestrian round roughly equivalent to .38 Special.) .45 ACP must be better than 9mm because it's bigger. (It's not, they are roughly comparable so long as you use high velocity ammo that we seem to call +P in the states-- whatever you do don't use that subsonic trash that was intended for SEALS and their silenced MP5s) And .38 special is better than 9mm because it's bigger. (It's not, .38 is more comparable to .380). Although they are quick to point out that .40 recoils more than .45, they don't realize it is because the .40 being more powerful. The believe it has to do with Saint Cooper, now that he's in heaven, bending the rules of physics in favor of the .45ACP.

I've seen many many gunshot victims, most still wriggling. You can generally tell the difference between a small caliber and a medium caliber (.380/.38 Special and above), but you've been snorting blackpowder if you think there are big differences between 9mm parabellum, .45 ACP, or .357 magnum.

High Planes Drifter
April 24, 2007, 08:22 PM
There is only way to resolve this important issue. Pistols at 50 paces.

Dam you. I spit my wine out on that one.


I've seen many many gunshot victims, most still wriggling. You can generally tell the difference between a small caliber and a medium caliber (.380/.38 Special and above), but you've been snorting blackpowder if you think there are big differences between 9mm parabellum, .45 ACP, or .357 magnum.

Actually I can tell the difference; and no, I dont snort gunpowder.

Baba Louie
April 24, 2007, 09:30 PM
This thread is STILL going? 25,629 hits... someone must care. :rolleyes:
longeyes... that was just something I found online, 'tweren't no friends of mine.

Would ya rather have a short barrel .45, say 3" - 3.5" using 230 gr ball going a whopping 780 fps or something from CorBon in .355 JHP popping along (same barrel length) at about 1000 fps? Assuming proper placement of course. Or are ya talking about something from a 5", .45 acp using Cor-Bon's 185 gr JHP +P (1075fps/475ft-lbs) compared to Cor-Bon's 9mm 115 gr JHP +P (1350/466)?

Back when I was a kid in the 60's, 9mm v. .45acp with milsurp ball ammo was one thing... maybe even something worth arguin' about (well, not really... if you were an American shooter you KNEW which of those two was the best... and that was a .357 magnum in a Colt/S&W revolver) but that was...(gulp) a long long time ago in terms of ammunition (and handgun) design and performance.

Is this a great country or what? If it wasn't for American shooters wanting more, bigger, faster, harder hitting ammo, I'd bet that EU Cops would still be using 7.65 Browning and 9mmK's...

Angus Podgorney
April 28, 2007, 07:03 PM
.355 magnum (9mm parabellum)

Huh?

45 ACP was really the hottest thing on the market... in 1899 or so

You're a few years early on that one.

Even John Browning called the Browning HP in .355 magnum his best work.

Did he now? Bet you can't find that quote anywhere! Betcna, betcha, betcha!

The Unknown User
April 28, 2007, 07:21 PM
After all of the case reports I read when I thought caliber was important, I think it's pretty crucial to understand that muzzle speed, bullet diameter, and all that nonsense mean nothing.

The most important things when it comes to stopping an aggressor are shot placement, penetration, and expansion, in no particular order.

If you shot me with a bullet, it doesn't matter how big it is. It doesn't matter how fast it moves. It doesn't matter how heavy the bullet is. What matters is that you hit me in a crucial area, that the bullet stops inside my body, and that it expands its maximum amount.

Why? If you shoot me, and the bullet passes right through me, not only do I not absorb the impact, but the bullet obviously doesn't expand much, so unless you hit an artery or an organ, I'll put my finger in the hole, laugh at you, and then continue the assault.

So what is better then, oh wise Rob87? Whatever the hell you can carry and use effectively without screwing it up. A 9mm that hits is better than a .45 that misses.

Browns Fan
April 28, 2007, 07:31 PM
No horse is so dead that we cant beat up on it some more!:D

obxned
April 28, 2007, 07:35 PM
If the .35" bullet in a 9mm works as well as the .45, then shouldn't we be try the .25?

torpid
April 28, 2007, 07:40 PM
Another 9mm vs. .45 gun thread brought back from the dead... Bub approves!
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=30576&d=1130727898

denfoote
April 28, 2007, 07:52 PM
An old thread which attempts to punish, by flogging, a deceased equine!!

Bondo_Red
April 28, 2007, 07:58 PM
9 mm is for police so they reasonable stopping power while inflicting minimal bodily damage.45 ACP is for STOPPING someone,Whether they're a burly thug picking a fight or an enemy soldier trying to kill you.At least thats what I think.

Angus Podgorney
April 28, 2007, 08:37 PM
The most important things when it comes to stopping an aggressor are shot placement, penetration, and expansion, in no particular order.

If you shot me with a bullet, it doesn't matter how big it is. It doesn't matter how fast it moves. It doesn't matter how heavy the bullet is. What matters is that you hit me in a crucial area, that the bullet stops inside my body, and that it expands its maximum amount.

Why? If you shoot me, and the bullet passes right through me, not only do I not absorb the impact, but the bullet obviously doesn't expand much, so unless you hit an artery or an organ, I'll put my finger in the hole, laugh at you, and then continue the assault.

:banghead:

Now that's funny! I bet if you repeat it enough you just might start to believe it to! (Did you ever stop to think that velocity has a lot to do with expansion and weight has a lot to do with velocity?)

Lonestar49
April 28, 2007, 09:12 PM
...

OK, time for the puppet show ~

Puppet takes (for purpose of demonstration) 1/4 " 9mm screwdriver and stabs other puppet, but not going all the way through, that puppet looks down in shock at the impaled screwdriver in him.

Then Puppet takes 1/2" 45cal, takes frying pain and hits puppet in the chest, and looks down at shocked puppet flat on his back, out of breath.

End of the puppet show ~


LS :neener:

The Canuck
April 28, 2007, 10:40 PM
I say that the best one is the one you use best.

JaxNovice
April 30, 2007, 08:24 PM
I think that if you ever really had to rely on your sidearm in a military combat situation you are really screwed and I am not sure it matters if it is a 9mm or
.45 . Things are not looking good. Having to rely on the sidearm is about as comforting as your Lt. looking down the line and yelling "fix bayonets". Things are about to get very uncomfortable.

hankdatank1362
April 30, 2007, 11:18 PM
hahahahaha!

Silvanus
May 1, 2007, 07:06 AM
That would make for a great sigline:D

Having to rely on the sidearm is about as comforting as your Lt. looking down the line and yelling "fix bayonets".

Quiet
May 1, 2007, 08:43 AM
9x19mm and .45 ACP are both fine and will get the job done when employed properly (ie. shot placement).

Sure, the US Military used the .45 ACP for over 70 years and replaced it with the 9x19mm. However, after about 20 years in service, the US Military is now contemplating a return to the .45 ACP.

slow944
May 1, 2007, 12:49 PM
I remember our Lt saying those exact words. Then the napalm started falling and everybody was running like hell to get away from it.

David904
May 2, 2007, 02:32 PM
Somebody stated earlier in the thread that SpecOps units see pistols as backup or secondary weapons.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Pistols are seen as tools to be used where the situation dictates their advantage over a longarm. In many CQB sitations, battlespace is so restricted that a pistol is the best way to go. Prisoner handling is often accomplished with a sidearm, etc.

Anyway... from what I have seen and been told, no pistol cartridge is the wondrous man-stopper that we all want it to be. Unless you hit something truly vital and or structural, the BG is going to keep functioning.

I like both 9mm and .45 ACP, but I'll continue to carry my Sig226 in 9mm. Lots of rounds for me to use to finally hit the "sweet spot" on the BG when under extreme duress. Plus, I get quicker follow-up shots than I do w/ the .45ACP.

YMMV

HiroProX
May 16, 2007, 07:06 PM
Which is better?

Well, I'd say it's the one that goes "BANG!" and goes where you aim it.

mrtoadzwildride
July 3, 2007, 12:46 PM
Long time lurker... First time poster. The biggest reason I could see to owning a 9mm is that a large portion of NATO forces use this caliber. That would make it much easier to come by in the case of a civil uprising.

---Food for thought-----

rantingredneck
July 3, 2007, 01:05 PM
I own both and want to be shot with neither. :)

goon
July 3, 2007, 02:56 PM
I've owned 9mm, .45 ACP, .357, and .40 handguns.
Last week I traded the .40 for another 9mm.
For me, the 9mm is the best choice.

spankaveli
July 3, 2007, 02:58 PM
I own a G34 & a 1911 and have no problem carrying either. :D

TomN
July 3, 2007, 11:52 PM
I like both and think both will do the job. Which one would I choose if I knew I was going to a gunfight? I'd choose to stay home. :D

If the gunfight was at my house? I'd choose the 12 gauge.

rantingredneck
July 3, 2007, 11:55 PM
I agree with everything the previous gentleman said. :)

Alphazulu6
July 4, 2007, 12:03 AM
oops double post.

Alphazulu6
July 4, 2007, 12:06 AM
Does the greater stopping power of the .45 outweigh the 9mms lower recoil and increased clip capacity? Or is a compromise like the .40S&W superior all-around?


The .40 is no compromise (only numerically)... the .40 S&W is a definite upgrade of the two in stopping power and ballistic capabilities. I believe the .40 cal is 15-20% more powerful than the .45. The .40 has 30-35% more power than the 9mm. Its ballistically superior. Though if you do not go with the .40 then go with the .45 ... unless you love cheap ammo then get the 9mm. Good Luck!

Ready2Defend
July 4, 2007, 12:08 AM
What a great question! Whichever you choose make sure you load it with hollowpoint. I am very partial to the 45, but my wife shoots her 9 mm very well. At least don't get less powerful than a 9 mm.

I have been known to call the 9 mm, 223, and 20 gauge as girly guns. But obviously any of these is better than going unarmed.

the pistolero
July 4, 2007, 01:33 PM
FWIW, I've read here and elsewhere that JMB did indeed proclaim the Hi-Power as the superior design (or was it his favorite?), though I don't know if the caliber entered into his assessment.
And everybody knows 10mm is the answer to the 9mm vs. .45 debate, even if they don't wanna admit it. :cool:






....and yes, that was partially tongue-in-cheek....

moxie
July 4, 2007, 03:59 PM
Actually, I prefer back inflation to jacket style....oops!!, wrong forum!

Snapping Twig
July 8, 2007, 02:06 AM
The only time I ever put a gun in a goblin's face, it was 2 goblins and I had a .45.

I never had to pull the trigger, I thank God for that, they went away and all was well and my family lived.

I've had a couple other occasions to carry a pistol when I thought I might need it, and I put my faith in a .45.

I prefer the .45, but that's me. I've been through Jeff Cooper's school since and now I am firmly in the .45 camp. When I hunt, in addition to a rifle I carry a .44, so for me it's all about the big piece of lead.

eltorrente
July 8, 2007, 02:57 AM
People always talk about, "oh it doesn't really matter, all that is important is the shot placement". Yeah, of course, but that isn't really what is important *to me*. I would just carry a .22 and go for head-shots if that's all that is important.

The key thing is what is your bullet gonna do if you don't hit him in the optimum spot. I like the knowledge that my heavier round is gonna give me more ability to shatter a bone(s) if I shoot at a "bad" angle. A 9mm will indeed bust up a bone, but as you start decreasing the angle that you hit the bone, the chance becomes more and more likely that it will skip off. A .45 allows for a measurable decrease in the angle that you can strike a bone and still break it.

I know that my rounds will give more opportunities to bust his body up- maybe shatter his pelvis or his femur, or shoulder blade. Perhaps a shot at an angle that hits a rib or sternum may bounce off that a .45 would break thru and get into the vital area.

Too bad dangerous encounters happen nothing at all like at your range or wherever you got your training. They will likely be desperate situations involving movement and perhaps physical contact. You will pull your gun and start firing at the center of mass and hope for the best. Maybe you'll be firing from the hip at close range at an upward angle or something like that. Training for the event is awesome and useful, but the fact is that most people lose their cool in these situations when that fight/flight response kicks in.

I imagine it's similar to getting into a serious fist-fight, at some level. The first few fights I got into, I was in a rage and just swinging like crazy and my normal thinking went to the wayside for a few minutes. After being in a few like that (some rough neihborhoods/schools/attitude growing up), I noticed that I would keep my cool and could actually think about what I was doing in the middle of the fight. Conversely, I saw/see many others get into fights and I can see them completely lose control as the powerful insticts take over. I'm not saying I'd be calm in a fire-fight, because I've never had one thank God, but my point still stands in regards to controlling emotions in a scary situation. You have to actually be exposed to that sort of activity to KNOW that you will perform.

You might THINK you are gonna shoot accurately and be in full control, but you're not. I'm sure battle-hardened soldiers experience that same sort of thing- after a few fire-fights they remain calmer and more efficient, despite being scared, because they've had their baptism by fire already and survived.

That's my theory, anyway. I think policeman are the ones that get more opportunites to stand a distance away and draw their weapons and get into their stances, but you can't go around drawing on everyone you think might be up to no good. Seems like on the occasions that you would be able to draw on someone and keep your magical 21-foot distance or whatever, there wouldn't be any shooting anyway.

rkh
July 15, 2007, 11:54 AM
I think this thread warrants further discussion.

*bump*

RNB65
July 15, 2007, 12:07 PM
I'm still holding out for a return to the .45 Colt and the Single Action Army.

:D

Redneck with a 40
July 15, 2007, 01:31 PM
I choose neither.:neener: I'll take the 357 magnum Jeff Quinn has a story on his site, www.gunblast.com of when he had to shoot a thug, shot him with a 357 mag, said he stumbled about 6 feet and left his guts behind him.:eek: He said the 125 grain lead hollowpoint in 357 mag is absolutely devastating, I believe it.

My choice in auto-pistol calibers is 40 S&W. In my opinion, the 40 S&W has the velocity of the 9mm in the lighter weight bullets (155 grain) and it has a larger frontal area, the best of both worlds in my book. I'm not a fan of the 45's sedate velocity, especially when your dealing with barriers such as car doors or windshields, 45 is ineffective. Cor-Bon has a 135 grain load in 40 S&W that clocks 1325 fps. Pretty impressive.

jkomp316
July 15, 2007, 01:40 PM
the thing with bad guys, scaring them is better than shooting them. if you pull out a pink gripped .22 and cowardly ask them to leave you alone... they most likley wont.

if they're looking at a full framed .45 hole, and your screaming at the top of your lungs... they most likely WILL leave you alone.

SniperStraz
July 15, 2007, 03:51 PM
That's true jkomp316 but the role of my CCW is not to scare people, it's to eliminate threats quickly and permanantly. By you're standards it seems I'd be better off with a plastic Uzi and a megaphone. That's not to say that the .45 isn't effective its just that its purpose isn't to scare.

eltorrente
July 15, 2007, 04:51 PM
That's true jkomp316 but the role of my CCW is not to scare people, it's to eliminate threats quickly and permanantly. By you're standards it seems I'd be better off with a plastic Uzi and a megaphone. That's not to say that the .45 isn't effective its just that its purpose isn't to scare.

That may be true, however, if your gun DOES happen to scare him - that's much better than actually killing him.

I know that if I was a desparate criminal about to attack someone, I'd probably be more hesitant if he pulled out a Dirty Harry gun compared to a little pink .32. Sure, of course some people could be on PCP or just plain insane and intent on killing me no matter what - but a little extra indimidation factor in a pistol has to be considered desirable.

jkomp316
July 15, 2007, 08:09 PM
a good friend of mine works in the security field, he told me the best situation deterant is a full framed auto, a laser dot, and lungs of steel.

Stevie-Ray
July 15, 2007, 11:10 PM
Well, for me it's all about the .45 ACP. I have 3 of those compared to one 9mm. I intend to increase my 9 count, eventually as it's a good cartridge and in fact one of my primary carries is a 9. But, .45 ACP will always be my favorite cartridge.

The fact that the business end of .45s have a rather large hole is just another of the many plusses in my opinion.

whistler
July 16, 2007, 01:32 AM
if I have to pull my ccw on a bg it will be to shot them not to scare them.as for 9mm vs 45 just do some research on one shot stops.hint 357mag & 45acp are best.:neener:

Seven For Sure
July 16, 2007, 12:29 PM
I must agree with agtman. The 10mm would be an ideal sidearm for the military. Capacity, range, power and barrier penetration. 200 gr FMJ's for the battlefield and 180 gr HP's for MP's. The G20 would be awsome in that role. If I were a LEO, I'd feel undergunned with anything but a G20 for a sidearm.

reppondj
July 16, 2007, 01:00 PM
The most useful round is the one that you can consistantly put where you want it, be it 9mm or 45. I own both and like both, but,,,,,,,,,,,my CCW is 45!

Angus Podgorney
July 16, 2007, 08:13 PM
FWIW, I've read here and elsewhere that JMB did indeed proclaim the Hi-Power as the superior design (or was it his favorite?)

Of course you have and twice in this thread alone. BUT, can you find a verifiable quote that is attributed to JMB that says so?

He was dead before the gun was awarded a patent and the gun in the patent has little in relation to what we know today as the HP or GP35.

the pistolero
July 16, 2007, 11:22 PM
can you find a verifiable quote that is attributed to JMB that says so?

I cannot. Really, I was just making the observation. For what it's worth, I wouldn't want to get hit by either a 9mm or a .45, but my personal choice is the .45. For the best of both worlds (or, in this case, cartridges), though, the 10mm can't be beat.

gallo
October 20, 2007, 09:42 PM
The age-old question, .45 or 9 mm? Which has greater stopping power?

The 9 mm caliber is not anemic, weak, and negligible as some .45 zealots make it sound. 9 mm equals .354 inches in the English system. This means the 9 mm caliber is one-tenth (.10 inches) smaller than the .45 round. To put things into perspective a BB is .177 inches in diameter. So the difference between the two rounds is less than the size of BB. Do you really think that a projectile traveling several hundred feet faster than the .45 round and only one-tenth of an inch smaller is something negligible?

So OK, the .45 round makes a hole one-tenth of an inch bigger than the 9 mm. Is it reasonable or even logical to dismiss the 9 mm round as weak and insignificant? If that is your position, then might as well discount the .45 round as weak and insignificant too since the difference in diameter between the two rounds is so small that if one is weak, the other must be too.

Many of the arguments against the 9 mm round say the bullet tends to go through a body and therefore does not deposit all of it energy inside the target. This argument is greatly flawed. Again, think logically before you answer this question: Do you rather have 1 hole .45 inch in diameter traversing half your body width, or two holes .354 inches (9 mm) in diameter from a bullet that traversed your entire body and exited at the other end? If either bullet hits a vital organ like the heart, liver, or mayor artery the threat stops. This would apply to even a small caliber like the .22. If the bullet did not hit vital organs or arteries, then the blood loss from two holes, the entry and exit wounds, and a longer wound cavity from the 9 mm round is greater than from 1 hole with a slightly wider wound cavity but shorter path of the .45 round.

These are my two cents into this debate. I am not a ballistics expert. Hell, the only gun I own is a .22 for plinking. But not all the bravado talk for the .45 round passes the smell test. In my opinion, the 9 mm round is one-tenth of an inch smaller than the .45 round but it travels faster. Therefore, by the transitive property of equality it cannot be significantly different from the .45 round. Will the 9 mm round stop the much feared 250-pound drug crazed crack addict that will brake into your house in the middle of the night? Maybe not, but do not count on the .45 doing the job either. Besides, all crack addicts that I have seen are poor, anorexic devils weighing 110 lbs. Do not worry about the stopping power rhetoric surrounding these two calibers. Focus on shot placement, and double tap if possible. Both calibers are good, both kill, both stop a threat.

Autolycus
October 20, 2007, 09:55 PM
Please make it stop!;)

Brian Williams
October 21, 2007, 12:04 AM
Good night and good luck
Got a shovel this is dead and I am going to bury it..

If you enjoyed reading about "9mm vs. .45 sidearms" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!