fxvr5
Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2017
- Messages
- 3,274
The issue is about what the data in the Ellifritz study says.
I've not said anything about forcing people to carry a given caliber/cartridge. I have no idea where you came up with that.
Does .45 live up to the hype?
- Thread starter The Exile
- Start date
- Status
The issue is about what the data in the Ellifritz study says.
I've not said anything about forcing people to carry a given caliber/cartridge. I have no idea where you came up with that.
.455_Hunter
Member
It's a common attitude amongst certain camps.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Or you could spend nearly 40yrs hunting with handguns and come back to me when you conclude that bigger holes made by bigger bullets do not cause greater blood loss and more rapid incapacitation. I'll wait.
Y'all can continue to argue about it. I've done my time.
fxvr5
Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2017
- Messages
- 3,274
The Ellifritz data is not hunting data. Ellifritz is not talking about incapacitating a game animal. The Ellifritz data is about humans. You get that, right? Guess not.
BJung
Member
I can train with any of my handguns the same because I reload.
Socorro27
Member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2022
- Messages
- 8
Hi all, been away for a while (so long in fact that my account was recycled!). I was actually talking about this subject with friends this week (I've been abroad for many years and only learned THIS WEEK that the FBI switched to 9mm, WTH?).
I started clicking the multi-quote and when I got to three or four I decided to remove those and just type a reply.
Regarding "dumping energy in the target," this is urban rumor. At handgun velocities the bullet simply makes a hole. The only advantage that velocity brings is in aiding in bullet expansion and/or ensuring that the bullet exits the target.
I saw one argument that the bigger hole = greater blood loss and chance for loss of life and while I agree with that assessment, only for hunting. In a gun fight you want the bad guy to stop now, before he shoots you, he can die later, or not, but must stop now. I will argue that a .50 slug (expanded or not) has a huge advantage over a .38 slug because it has a greater chance of actually hitting the heart, an artery, or better, a rib, or even more so, the spine. As noted by several in this thread, some .45 loads expand to 1". If the spine is 1" wide you have a much better chance of hitting it if you make 2, 3, or 4, holes that are 1" wide rather than .60" wide. In the OP's linked video it concluded that the 9mm was probably scored lower because so many used ball ammo. Do we not believe that the same is true for the .45? or other calibers? How many of these ineffective .45 shootings involved 1" expanded 230 grain slugs? Probably few to none.
I was not at all swayed to move from the .45 to the 9mm when I saw that the FBI made the move. They didn't do it because the 9mm is a better round, they did it because it is easier to train folks to become competent on the 9mm than the .40. Logic suggests that this would also be true for the .45 and 10mm. No doubt, the FBI also did it for economics. 9mm ammo (and guns) are cheaper and if they feel that the 9mm is "good enough," is there any among us who doesn't believe that bureaucrats wouldn't take the fiscally easy route?
One member was incredulous that the .380 could be as effective as the .45 and another comment here said they would never take a 9mm into bear territory. Neither would I, before this week. And then I saw this:
https://www.ammoland.com/2018/02/de...s-rate-37-incidents-by-caliber/#axzz5Of8TQPXv
Based on this research, 9mm works against bears! Who knew?
If you take 20 minutes to read each story in that report you'll see that most of the smaller caliber successes were CNS hits on the bears. And this is probably why the .380 has such a high stop rate as the shots on bears: well aimed shots. If a bear is charging and you KNOW that you have only ONE SHOT, and that ONLY a brain shot will stop it are you going to do a rapid mag dump or are you going to take that 1/2 to 1 second moment to aim and aim well? This is one reason why revolvers have such a high success rate compared with autos - the shooter aims because he can't rapid fire. If every Glock 17 owner fired like they only had one round we would probably see much better 9mm results. Indeed, if every auto shooter acted like they had a musket we would probably see a lot more "one shot (CNS) stops."
A parting thought: most of the shootings in these stats are not from folks in the gun community. These shootings are from poorly trained cops, Joe and Jane Q public who fired two boxes of ammo when they got their CCW, some gang bangers who never fired a shot before this recorded incident, the little old lady with a .38 shooting down the hall at a robber, etc. Because a 9mm in the hands of an untrained person is "as effective" as a .45 in the hands of an untrained person shouldn't sway us that we should settle for a lesser caliber.
I started clicking the multi-quote and when I got to three or four I decided to remove those and just type a reply.
Regarding "dumping energy in the target," this is urban rumor. At handgun velocities the bullet simply makes a hole. The only advantage that velocity brings is in aiding in bullet expansion and/or ensuring that the bullet exits the target.
I saw one argument that the bigger hole = greater blood loss and chance for loss of life and while I agree with that assessment, only for hunting. In a gun fight you want the bad guy to stop now, before he shoots you, he can die later, or not, but must stop now. I will argue that a .50 slug (expanded or not) has a huge advantage over a .38 slug because it has a greater chance of actually hitting the heart, an artery, or better, a rib, or even more so, the spine. As noted by several in this thread, some .45 loads expand to 1". If the spine is 1" wide you have a much better chance of hitting it if you make 2, 3, or 4, holes that are 1" wide rather than .60" wide. In the OP's linked video it concluded that the 9mm was probably scored lower because so many used ball ammo. Do we not believe that the same is true for the .45? or other calibers? How many of these ineffective .45 shootings involved 1" expanded 230 grain slugs? Probably few to none.
I was not at all swayed to move from the .45 to the 9mm when I saw that the FBI made the move. They didn't do it because the 9mm is a better round, they did it because it is easier to train folks to become competent on the 9mm than the .40. Logic suggests that this would also be true for the .45 and 10mm. No doubt, the FBI also did it for economics. 9mm ammo (and guns) are cheaper and if they feel that the 9mm is "good enough," is there any among us who doesn't believe that bureaucrats wouldn't take the fiscally easy route?
One member was incredulous that the .380 could be as effective as the .45 and another comment here said they would never take a 9mm into bear territory. Neither would I, before this week. And then I saw this:
https://www.ammoland.com/2018/02/de...s-rate-37-incidents-by-caliber/#axzz5Of8TQPXv
Based on this research, 9mm works against bears! Who knew?
If you take 20 minutes to read each story in that report you'll see that most of the smaller caliber successes were CNS hits on the bears. And this is probably why the .380 has such a high stop rate as the shots on bears: well aimed shots. If a bear is charging and you KNOW that you have only ONE SHOT, and that ONLY a brain shot will stop it are you going to do a rapid mag dump or are you going to take that 1/2 to 1 second moment to aim and aim well? This is one reason why revolvers have such a high success rate compared with autos - the shooter aims because he can't rapid fire. If every Glock 17 owner fired like they only had one round we would probably see much better 9mm results. Indeed, if every auto shooter acted like they had a musket we would probably see a lot more "one shot (CNS) stops."
A parting thought: most of the shootings in these stats are not from folks in the gun community. These shootings are from poorly trained cops, Joe and Jane Q public who fired two boxes of ammo when they got their CCW, some gang bangers who never fired a shot before this recorded incident, the little old lady with a .38 shooting down the hall at a robber, etc. Because a 9mm in the hands of an untrained person is "as effective" as a .45 in the hands of an untrained person shouldn't sway us that we should settle for a lesser caliber.
Last edited:
redcon1
member
I used to hate 9mm. I would carry anything but 9mm. I eventually came around to thinking that 10mm was the ticket and it probably would be if it wasn't so expensive. I found myself more concerned about where my brass was landing than where my bullets were landing. The fact is, I just want to train with my SD weapon and I don't want to have to screw around with reloading for it (even though I did end up reloading for 9mm too and now have piles of 9mm brass and bullets). But it's just nice to order a case of 9mm bulk and shoot it through a Glock 9mm pistol that will digest anything I feed it. It's nice to just train without any concern for where the cases are landing. KISS
redcon1
member
Don't underestimate those gangbangers. They've probably killed more people than you ever have or will.
Although I do not agree with all the data, this is still useful:
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power
Regardless of caliber it takes two hits on average to incapacitate an attacker.
One may practice and hope for but can't expect 100% hits or good hits.
One shot stop, don't count on it, most are not.
Strive to carry a handgun that you can draw and shoot accurately, quickly, repeatedly.
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power
Regardless of caliber it takes two hits on average to incapacitate an attacker.
One may practice and hope for but can't expect 100% hits or good hits.
One shot stop, don't count on it, most are not.
Strive to carry a handgun that you can draw and shoot accurately, quickly, repeatedly.
redcon1
member
As a cartridge, the .44 magnum is undeniably more effective. As a SD platform though, I think it's less effective in most cases and if I really thought I needed that kind of energy to defend myself, I'd be carrying a rifle, openly and at the low ready. I have always thought that the Glock 20 in 10mm is about as close as you can get to carrying a rifle concealed on your belt. The Glock 21 in 460 Rowland perhaps more so. But again, it's just not necessary because 9mm with it's 360 ft lbs of muzzle energy is sufficiently adequate for EDC. IMHO anjyways.
Not no difference period. No measurable difference in the outcomes of real world shootings that can be attributed to differences in the terminal performance of "service pistol" calibers.
Well, neither the .380 nor the .357 are really in the service pistol caliber class. But again, it's not about equality so much as it is about parity in terms of actual outcomes of shootings.
When you can look at hundreds or even thousands of shootings and still not be able to crown a clear winner based on outcome, do you conclude that there's a difference but you can't see it or do you conclude that there is no practical difference? And does it even matter which of those two conclusions you choose?
.455_Hunter
Member
FWIW - When I retired in '19 the Bureau was spending the exact same dollar amount for ammo per agent as they had been doing since 1998! Imagine the ammo you could buy in 1998 and how much less you could buy in 2019 due to inflation. The switch to 9mm was for economic reasons. Ammo cost and training hours (lower disqual rate) were all saved.
True, and back then I would have definitely included it. Now when you see data on the topic, it less commonly includes the .357Mag, and if it does, the number of shootings is often so small it's hard to pretend that there's enough to draw any conclusions. It probably would have been better to comment that if one compares widely disparate cartridges, then you can start to see practical differences showing up in the outcome of real-world shootings. However, even then the results can be counterintuitive.
For example, Ellifritz's data has the .22LR showing the same fatality level as the .357Mag and also showing a lower "rounds to incapacitate" figure. .380ACP and .357Mag show identical figures for one shot stops out of his data. What that's telling us is that there's hugely more to this story than just terminal effect, and therefore it's important not to get tunnel-vision with the focus on terminal effect.
When I took my first CHL course many years ago, the instructor made an interesting comment based on his extensive study of police shootings. "Don't pick a self-defense gun so big that it gets you killed."
His assessment was that when it comes to defensive shootings, with both the attacker and defender moving around, the probability factor was huge. So it was critically important to be able to shoot a lot of aimed rounds very quickly to maximize the chances of getting a good hit. If the other guy is putting three .22LR rounds in the air for every one of your .44Mag rounds, the odds are likely to catch up to you in a bad way.
I'm not saying to go with .22LR, but the point is that if one focuses exclusively on terminal effect, the practical effect can actually be detrimental. There are other factors that come into play and they can be critically important. You don't want to ignore factors that are easily controlled and can be easily shown to have a critical effect on the outcome of actual shootings while placing a high-value on a factor that has been hotly debated for decades without anyone being able to crown a clear winner.
.455_Hunter
Member
I would agree with you .357 is not a frequent CURRENT service caliber, but it is absolutely a service level caliber based on extremely common and proven usage in recent decades.
Absolutely!
Yep.
I wouldn't say "huge"--and that's only on a per-shot basis.
But therein lies the rub. With a target moving at 180 inches per second, the slower rate of fire resulting from the greater recoil of the .45 reduces the likely number of hits, and therefore, the likelihood of a physical stop.
Not really. They found that agents and other officers shoot better with the 9 because they can put more shots on target in the same amount of time. Anyone can.
Roverguy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2021
- Messages
- 891
That’s certainly an opinion. Others will have different opinions.
What would seem to be fact, rather than opinion, is that if one doesn’t practice and train, neither more bullets nor bigger are going to do much good.
Terry Vincent
Member
The goal is to Stop the deadly force threat with an absolute certainty. Not probabilities or eventual possibilities, and the only way to realize an absolute certainty is a head/spinal shot with a handgun regardless of caliber employed. Why not train for the first shot to be a head shot knowing a cranial cavity hit with any caliber handgun will immediately stop the aggressor?
Agreement is all over this board that even multiple hits to the plural cavity cannot reliably end deadly force confrontations instantly; however, cranial cavity/spinal hits with any caliber handgun will realize the absolute outcome desired. Why not train to take the extra two or three tenths of a second to deliver the head shot rather than chance on a possibility of stopping your attacker with a body shot? Teddy Roosevelt stated, (paraphrased) “No amount of rapidity of fire can replace a poorly executed first shot.” Case studies have been submitted herein affirming multiple hits to the body cannot be expected to be 100% reliable in stopping aggression. Officer Gramin’s case study verifies the need for well aimed head shots to end the fight with absolute certainty.
Surviving your firefight isn’t about what handgun or caliber you employ, rather it is where you place that first shot on your aggressor.
Agreement is all over this board that even multiple hits to the plural cavity cannot reliably end deadly force confrontations instantly; however, cranial cavity/spinal hits with any caliber handgun will realize the absolute outcome desired. Why not train to take the extra two or three tenths of a second to deliver the head shot rather than chance on a possibility of stopping your attacker with a body shot? Teddy Roosevelt stated, (paraphrased) “No amount of rapidity of fire can replace a poorly executed first shot.” Case studies have been submitted herein affirming multiple hits to the body cannot be expected to be 100% reliable in stopping aggression. Officer Gramin’s case study verifies the need for well aimed head shots to end the fight with absolute certainty.
Surviving your firefight isn’t about what handgun or caliber you employ, rather it is where you place that first shot on your aggressor.
This...^^
Training to a hit bounding and bobbing hidden target smaller than a tennis ball and moving at 180 inches per second is not a viable strategy.
.455_Hunter
Member
Where do the other rounds go?
nettlle
Contributing Member
For many years there were debates over the lethality of the different rifle calibers. And there are many more rifle calibers than pistol. In an attempt to determine what is most lethal Foot pounds of energy were posted for each caliber. Although foot pounds of energy seems to be a thing of the past I still like to review this data. Foot pounds may not be the best data but from everything else I am seeing (this thread included) I am going to continue to review the foot pound data.
Terry Vincent
Member
Kleanbore, isn’t the head attached to the body? If the head is moving so is the torso and even if you hit it, you’re probably leading to a certainty not going to stop the threat. Every autopsy I attended had brains way bigger than tennis balls. 180” per second cannot out run my bullets at 1300 fps!
No. Many attackers are stopped.
The CNS is a very small part of the brain.
What might that have to do with it?
nettlle
Contributing Member
For many years there were debates over the lethality of the different rifle calibers. And there are many more rifle calibers than pistol. In an attempt to determine what is most lethal Foot pounds of energy were posted for each caliber. Although foot pounds of energy seems to be a thing of the past I still like to review this data. Foot pounds may not be the best data but from everything else I am seeing (this thread included) I am going to continue to review the foot pound data.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked