The Fallacy Of the .45?

[Obiwan]

The term "stopping power" confuses a lot of people...

It leads to the more power/better performance mindset...which is dangerous.

There is some truth to "bigger is better" but it is towards the bottom of the list of importance

People stop either because they;

1. Lose the will to fight (psychological)

2. They lose enough blood that they can't function

3. They get hit in the CNS (turn out the lights)

Less effective rounds can kill instantly but they pretty much require #1 or #3

Effective rounds disrupt tissue....they penetrate far enough to hit major organs and they leave a nasty hole so blood will run out.

Think bigger deeper holes (aka bigger is better...maybe)

Bullet design is more important than caliber with one caveat....most all bullet designs need a minimum amount of velocity in order to penetrate AND expand....below 9mm/.38 that is almost impossible.

Most bullet designs have a velocity range in which they exhibit the required amount of penetration AND expansion....so your best choice may be predicated on barrel length to some extent.

The two most important things to remember

1. Shot placement(for multiple shots) is key

2. Gun magazines are not the best place to get terminal effectiveness data

So...in a nutshell...the best .9mm loadings are pretty much on par with the best .45 loadings...

So if you can get multiple accurate hits with a .45...by all means...use tha larger round.

But...if a smaller caliber (no lower than 9mm) allows you to make faster, more consistent hits...then you may be better served with a 9mm

 

[Mil Novecientos Once]

Here's another interesting point of view regarding stopping power:

Stopping Power: Just How Important Is It?

 

[MrAcheson]

I thought that the military was looking to move up to 6.8mm with the XM-8 in a few years?

Nope the XM-8 is a 5.56er. Despite what the 6.5 grendel and 6.9 SPC folks are saying, the Army is fairly happy with 5.56. Their after action studies have shown that the 5.56 "failures" are heavily influenced by shot placement. Companies that place emphasis on marksmanship and good target acquisition have had few problems. A head or body shot with 5.56 at ranges under 300 meters is a reliable stopper. An extremity shot isn't going to be a reliable stopper with any caliber. They may move to something other than m855 ball, but they aren't planning to ditch 5.56 last time I checked.

 

[Handgunr]

CZF,

After being a Sheriff's Dept. Firearms Instructor for the better part of 16yrs. it's nice to see that this issue still rages on.

Several of the fella's stated shot placement is key. Basically, I agree wholeheartedly.
Evan Marshall's findings on this subject were, at one time, a major source of departmental information on choosing a "carry weapon".

His writings referred to the RCI, or "Relative Incapacitation Index", rather than stopping power, which they felt was a misnomer.

To look at things in perspective, the issues of velocity, bullet mass and bullet frontal area all seem to play a role in depositing energy to target.
Looking at shot placement alone, one could argue the point that a .22 rimfire could do the job, but would most carry one for protection...I'd hope not.
During a heated gun conflict, concious thought to action becomes blurred and automatic, or trained responses take over. What we used to refer to as "muscle memory".

Indirectly, this can result in less than perfect shot placement.
I use to pass on the old reference relayed to me when I started, regarding caliber size and incapacitation of a bad guy;
" A minimum of .40 caliber, and a 1000fps."

I had to train within the dept's parameters, and without prejudice regarding one caliber over another, but when I was asked, it was a standard ".357 in revolvers, and .40S&W, .45ACP, or 10mm in autos". With the advent in different bullet designs and configurations, the 9mm has improved somewhat, but is considered minimal by most police.
In the real world, shot placement "should" be paramount, but in a gunfight it's not always attainable.

Frontal area of a bullet, (and usually in relation, it's mass) transmits, or sheds more energy on impact. In turn it leaves a larger entrance wound, and providing it expands, will enter the body with a "head start" over smaller rounds.
Only when you take a round like the .357 Magnum, at velocities from 1300-1500fps., well above what the 9mm and .45ACP range at, do you see Evan Marshall's rating of 96% one shot stops become apparent.

Also, at the time when Marshall was conducting his research, most agencies in the US carried the .357 as a standard sidearm resulting in higher incidents to draw from.

The .357 SIG might be a viable option as well though.

Just my 2 cents.

Take care,
Bob

 

[JohnK]

Looking at shot placement alone, one could argue the point that a .22 rimfire could do the job, but would most carry one for protection...I'd hope not.

The way I think of it is shot placement is most important, caliber and bullet choice just give us a wider margin of error in shot placement.

 

[Grunt]

Ah, careful shot placement. I would have to wonder if those that espouse this point of view have ever had to fire a weapon at a living, moving target or if it's been restricted to either stationary paper targets or at most, targets on a pulley system that move in one direction at one speed never changing direction, ducking or any of the other gyrations an actual human being makes. If you've never fired at an actual human being, be in it self defense, law enforcement or combat, you are going to be in for one hell of a surprise the day your own personal balloon goes up and you find out that good shot placement ain't quite so easy as you thought it was on the range with paper targets that don't shoot back!

 

[JohnK]

So because it will be harder to shoot accurately when under stress it doesn't matter, is that the point you're trying to make Grunt? Better break out the magic bullets.

 

[MrAcheson]

Unless they get scared by the noise, you can never miss fast enough to win.

 

[sturmruger]

Here is what I think

 

[Grunt]

No, my point is that 9mm FMJ ammo has to be the worst stopper it's ever been my sorry displeasure to witness. Towlie takes 6 in the chest from an M-9 and it never slows him down until a burst form an M-60E3 stops him cold! My point is that hitting a living, thinking, moving target is tough enough and now you have to have an extra level of marksmanship because you are issued a weapon in an anemic caliber. Has the .45 failed to stop a bad guy? I'm sure it has at some point in it's day but given the choice I'd take a large heavy slug that has a better reputation for stopping the bad guy even with a hit that's not placed as well over a smaller, lighter bullet that even when several find their mark right on the numbers, still fails to get the job done that I have seen first hand. Is there any wonder why SOCOM and MEUSOC units have gone back to the old .45 rather than stay with the 9mm round just to be in lock step with the Euro-weenies! How many old vets have you talked to that had complaints about the old .45 ending a fight and how many vets of more recent times do you know that have had anything good to say about the 9mm FMJ round?

 

[armoredman]

people have survived multiple hits from 50 BMG, albeit, not many! The last true one-shot-stopper is a Mack truck moving at 100 miles an hour. Survive that!
In the mean time, I'll keep my 40, and maybe get a 9mm CZ75, and just stuff the best I can get in it, like the new Federal Expanding Full Metal Jacket ammo - it is getting good reviews so far, and offers 100% feeding reliability.

 

[R.H. Lee]

What Grunt said

 

[Joey2]

When did we start hearing about the "double tap" ? I have been shooting for over 40 yrs. and never heard of it until the 9mm. and .223 came on the sceen.

Why is that? The military has been sold a bill of goods going to the lesser calibers.

Why are troops in Afraganistan wanting the .308 and the .45 back? Sentimental reasons? I doubt that.

Grunt is correct about shooting at live 2 legged targets. What was in favor of us in Vietnam was that we were shooting at LBF's (little bitty ????ers) and they did not have winter clothing on.

I have experienced that it did take more that one shot to drop them and we wounded more than we killed.

 

[Hal]

Unless they get scared by the noise, you can never miss fast enough to win.

Mr.A,
I know that comment is mostly in jest but there's a large grain of truth behind it. From the impression I get, small arms have moved into the area of "noise makers" first, and effective "killing machines" second. - meaning, small arms are used to keep the opposition pinned until the heavier stuff can knock them out. Whether by design (which I doubt) or via "the mother of invention"( which I believe), it seems as though that's been the trend since WWI.

Anyway, battlefield and military aside, I'll stick by my earlier simplified view.
My 9mm CZ75b gives me warm fuzzy's sitting by the computer. Something goes bump in the night, and I want more.

 

[jercamp45]

A dead horse indeed!!

Having seen failures to stop with to popular midbore's, I have stuck with the .45 auto for decades...and other than four leggged game have not needed it for defense. The targets I did shoot...dropped.
A handgun is wimpy for stopping power...that is why you get the biggest you can control.
The real fighting is the rifle or shotguns' territory..the pistol is for when you do not know you are getting into the fecal matter.
Since the handgun is so wimpy, I am gnna stack the oodds in the historical experience of a proven design and large caliber bullet. But that is me.
You can have new and improved. I'll take old and proven.
Jercamp45

 

[jc2]

All of todays service calibres, 9x19, .357 SIG, .40 S&W and .45 ACP deliver consistently (and equal) performance. All are capable of spectacular failures including the .45 ACP including the two bad guys who took 32 hits of .45 JHPs of 52 total rounds fired by 7 officers from 5 inch guns. One is hit 25 times; takes one volley of hits, walks around his vehicle, takes another volley before going down. His bad guy brother takes 7 hits before going down. Gunfight lasts about 30 seconds. They managed to return fire with their 9x19s and killed one cop and wounded another. So, there's no guarantee a 9x19 is going to lose a gunfight, or a .45 ACP is going to win it--and none stack odds in your favour.

 

[MrAcheson]

Whether by design (which I doubt) or via "the mother of invention"( which I believe), it seems as though that's been the trend since WWI.

Its by design and doctrine. Multiple rounds is a much better lethality enhancer than larger caliber once you have enough power to kill someone. The intermediate round, high capacity, and high rate-of-fire rifles of today spring from this concept.

A similar idea applies to 9mm vs. .45 acp. Its really hard to justify .45 when magazine capacity usually dictates 2 rounds of 9mm for every round of .45. Even if 9mm isn't as good (which isn't the case with JHPs anyway), having 2 rounds makes up for it.

 

[Handgunr]

Like I mentioned in my post, shot placement is very important as far as incapacitating an adversary, but is it always attainable ?, No.
Are your shooting skills the same when shooting at someone shooting back, or while shooting at targets or pop cans......No, definitely not.

As an instructor, I had to teach these high stress effects on shooting to hundreds of basic police. (Hopefully, I did a good job.) I even think it scared some and sent a message.
I developed my own stress course for our regular officers because it was too dangerous for basics, but I did commit class time regarding such for the recruits.
Nationally, the majority of person to person shootouts occur from 3 to 5 ft., and encompass 2.5 rnds (that's reported averages). They only take seconds.
Shot placement under those circumstances will be from the hip, or instinctive "point & shoot" styles.
Most of us shoot paper as it is a relaxing form, and allows us to sharpen our skills on the sights & trigger, leisurely.
To shoot well ( I shoud say better) in high stress situations, you have to train that way, or simulate it as best as possible. That means far more point & shoot, hip, and instinctive shooting rather than the standard 7, 15 and 25 yd. qualifying, using sights.

I've personally experienced several incidents where I've been shot at, as well as responding to a shooting in progress. It's extremely unnerving, and I wouldn't wish the experience on anyone.
But, if it should ever happen, training that way, or with the aniticipation that it might possibly occur, will vastly improve your chances.

Training for "shot placement" is very important, yes, but it is agreeably different in the scenarios mentioned. Chamberings and energy, as well as bullet configuration, make a big difference, and widen your margins considerably.
The 9mm and .38 Special are considered minimal, but that being said, I've admittedly carried a PPK/S during undercover drug operations as concealment was more important at the time. Was I comfortable with it, not really, I actually felt quite naked, but this was before the mini-Glocks and other compacts they produce today.

My point is there are balances out there, and each needs to find his own.


Bob

 

[X-out]

Might be helpful:

http://medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNINTRO.html

 

[jc2]

Agreed, but there is nothing to really support the idea that there is a meaningful difference in performance of service calibres 9x19, 357 SIG, .40 S&W and .45 ACP with current generation premium ammunition. They are all generally performing very in actual LE shootings--and all have failed spectacularly.

In addition to the incident I cited earlier involving the .45 ACP just not putting bad guys down in what was definitely a high stress LE incident, we can also look at the Indiana State Police's experience with the 147-grain 9x19 versus the Texas DPS experience with the .45 ACP. The Indiana State Police had better results from the 147/9 HS from 90 to 99 (no failures) than the Texas DPS did with their 200/45 Speer JHPs and 230/45 Win SXTs from 92 to 97 (several failures). With our current generation of LE bullets, you just cannot build a case for the superiority of any round (as much as we all have our favourites).

Frankly, I think having a weapon that fits your needs, fits you well (points well for you), is reliable and shoots well is far more important than calibre. For example, (though I own neither at this point), I, personally, would be far better armed with a G19 in 9x19 than I would be with a G21 in .45 ACP because the G19 fits me better and points for me better. I'd get more hits and better hits faster with the G19 than the G21. Calibre will not make up for poor weapon selection, poor training or lack of practice.

 

[Obiwan]

"do you know that have had anything good to say about the 9mm FMJ round?"

Nobody thinks 9mm FMJ is the best choice.

And Nobody said that..I am pretty certain I would have noticed that.

I also did not see the point of your diatribe on "the heat of battle"

JC2 put it quite well...with GOOD HOLLOWPOINT BULLETS, all calibers work pretty well.

Now..in the future please limit your caffeine intake

 

[dairycreek]

An old friend of mine.....................

who was an old, old man when I knew him summed it up best when he said B]"a BB in the boiler room is better than any bullet in the butt"! [/B] Words to live by I think and certainly germane to this thread. Good shooting

 

[Grunt]

"do you know that have had anything good to say about the 9mm FMJ round?"

Nobody thinks 9mm FMJ is the best choice.

And Nobody said that..I am pretty certain I would have noticed that.

I also did not see the point of your diatribe on "the heat of battle"

JC2 put it quite well...with GOOD HOLLOWPOINT BULLETS, all calibers work pretty well.

Now..in the future please limit your caffeine intake

Well, either I get my caffice or else I am forced to sacrafice a virgin to the caffine gods!
No, when it comes to HP rounds, they may fair a little better but my experience has been with FMJ ammo and I WAS NOT impressed with it. If they allowed the use of HP ammo for combat I probably wouldn't have as much of a problem with the 9mm but since we stick to ball ammo, the 9mm is the worst choice the military could have made.

 

[CZF]

Yes, one of Marshalls' early articles dealt with HIS observations in Detriot.

At the time he was limited to FMJ in autopistols, but got approval for
the then new BAT 9mm round.

You guys have some interesting replies. I would choose .45 ball over 9mm
ball, but with the modern HPs the 9mm performs somewhat better than ACP Hardball.

I wonder what LAPD officers could contribute to this thread.

They used 9mm for years, then after the N Hollywood bank robberyy,,some went to .45.

Now they can even carry .40 Glocks?

Will be interesting to hear about the .40s .

 

[Edmond]

The .45 is like the small block Chevy, it'll never die or fade away.