One way people form preferences about guns/caliber...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stories and myths influencing gun buyers ? Yeah and mostly it’s just bravado.

anecdotally speaking, shooting a steel plate on a shepherds crook I get The most movement with calibers .45 and .40S&W, can’t speak to any “superiority” other than that.

Sometimes we go with what we see and sometimes it’s just faith in what one has heard or read either way it’s a personal choice that probably won’t ever matter.
 
I'm old enough now to chuckle about what I "learned" about guns and shooting from TV and movies growing up (much of it still going on):
Guns don't recoil so there's nothing to mess up your groups
Guys shoot in close quarters dozens of times but never have hearing damage
Bad guys are flung backwards off their feet and die immediately when shot
Good guys get shot in the leg, shoulder, hands etc but are never crippled or suffer lasting damage
There's no blood or ugly wounds when people are shot
Full auto rifles have unlimited ammo capacity, and most other guns are pretty close to that
"Silencers" make pistols and revolvers absolutely silent
1911s and similar pattern pistols don't have to have the hammer back to shoot
A .380 hits "like a brick through a plate glass window" (thank you James Bond's armorer)

There are more realistic shows but they seem few and far between. The most unfortunate thing is that the non-shooting public is fed the same drivel and is more likely to believe it.
 
This is often cited. The part that never gets reported is that the 45's were no more effective. Even their rifles failed to work quite often. Powerful drugs in ones system has that effect on people.



Examine the "facts" and forget hyperbole and 9mm and 45 ACP have always been equals in performance. Yes Modern bullets have made BOTH more effective. But for whatever reason it wasn't until modern bullets that the 9mm was given serious consideration by many.

They have never been, and are not now “equals in performance”.

Until “modern bullet” construction came along, the 9mm substantially underperformed the 45 acp in its role of making holes in people and causing ex-sanguination and incapacitation. The arrival of “modern bullets” gave the 9mm acceptable performance in this role. Since such bullets are also available in 45 cal, the suggestion that they somehow “closed the gap” is obviously wrong.
 
JohnKsa

I can remember hearing something way different about the 1911 when I was growing up. Now keep in mind that what I heard (and this was mostly from friends of my Dad who served in WWII), was that it was very unreliable, how the .45 had so much recoil it could knock you down (as well as knock down the guy you were shooting!), was so loose that all you could hear was it rattling whenever you used it, and how terribly inaccurate it was (as in can't hit the broadside of a barn).

All this negative talk about the .45 still didn't dampen my enthusiasm to wanting one though the pickings were mighty slim in terms of finding a new Colt Government Mk.IV/Series 70 when I was old enough to start buying guns. Had to make do with a lot of pre-war .45s that had seen better days. Still I didn't experience too many of the problems that my Dad's friends use to talk about. And of course this was the same time I was subscribing to Guns and Ammo magazine where Col. Jeff Cooper weighed in every month with the all encompassing virtues of the 1911! Talk about forming preferences! This made me a true believer (and I would say I still am), along with friends of mine who espoused the same philosophy as Col. Cooper! I would have to say I have owned more 1911s and their variants (Colt Commanders, Combat Commanders, Officer's Model ACP, and New Agent), than any other handgun.

The World War II veterans I grew up around didn't have any great respect for the 1911 .45. They liked the Smith & Wesson and Colt .38's a little better, but most were careful to explain that to do anything useful with them they had to be fired single action only. Few men in those days were trained hand gunners, and they had never seen a trained hand gunner shoot.

If I were in the same situation, never having fired more than a magazine or two out of a 1911, if that, and, with no idea of the weapon's possibilities, or anyone to teach me, I have no reason to think I wouldn't come to exactly the same conclusion.

To be able to use a handgun well requires time and money. Even then, I'd have to be very creative to come up with a scenario where I wouldn't really have preferred either a rifle or a shotgun.
 
My maternal grandfather was a forward artillery observer. He started on D-Day, got caught up in the Battle of the Bulge, and went all the way through to the end. Not many of his friends made it that far.

I only recall him making two firearms references. He said that, "All I had to defend myself with was a lousy 38." I assume it was a Victory model? Apparently I didn't learn much from that, since I carry a snub 38 fairly often.

I don't recall his exact words, but he really, really, really didn't like being shot at by German 88's. After reading up on it, once the Germans realized that they were being subjected to observed fire, the 88's were probably useful for direct fire at all of the spots they figured an American FAO might be hiding in.

He grew up on a farm, but he said that he didn't learn how to dig really fast until people were shooting at him.

My impression was that he would have preferred a 1911 or carbine, but he was too busy with his actual work, and his enlisted men protected him as part of their jobs.

My paternal great-uncle was a "belly gunner", I think on a B17. He was quite pleased with the effectiveness of his 50 caliber machine gun. He highly recommended it for problem solving. After his wartime experiences, he felt that handguns were laughably puny. IIRC, he kept a 32 revolver in his pocket when he was at work (construction foreman), but didn't have much confidence in it.

I have faith in my relatives' advice. I would very much prefer to use a 50 caliber machine gun ("Ma Deuce") or 88-millimeter anti-aircraft gun for SD. They aren't particularly legal or convenient, though, so I will have to settle for my 38's, 9mm's, 45acp. etc. :)
 
Last edited:
Way back when, I recall reading what seemed like a fairly well-researched article which reached the conclusion that all small arms available to the U.S. military at the time of the Philippine Insurrection were relatively unreliable in stopping the short-distance charge of a Moro -- the .38 Long, the .45 Colt, the .30-40 Krag... Of the small arms used, the 12-gauge shotgun was found to be the most reliable -- and even those didn't guarantee stoppage. The article noted that the Moros were mostly just hopped up on religious fervor to the point of being "berserker," and that they wound hemp rope repeatedly around their torsos to hold in their entrails so they could keep hacking and slicing to the last moment of consciousness. That sort of commitment proved formidable...! o_O :eek:

The article also noted that the U.S. military found the most effective weapon against the Moros was field artillery.

And the article surmised that the superior effectiveness widely reputed by the .45 Colt may have been a psychological ploy by the U.S. military to boost the morale of their own troops against the enemy.

In closing, I must note that the .45 ACP IS among my favorite cartridges. I feel it accomplishes what it needs to without a whole lot of blast or kick. :thumbup:

.
 
They have never been, and are not now “equals in performance”.

Until “modern bullet” construction came along, the 9mm substantially underperformed the 45 acp in its role of making holes in people and causing ex-sanguination and incapacitation. The arrival of “modern bullets” gave the 9mm acceptable performance in this role. Since such bullets are also available in 45 cal, the suggestion that they somehow “closed the gap” is obviously wrong.
Not to turn this into a caliber war, but I think the difference now is probably some have learned that you actually have to hit things that shut things down, with either of them, and skills and training are somewhat better, so youre seeing better results. Better bullets with both just keep the field about the same.

Id be willing to bet, that a proper hit with either, will do the job equally and just as effectively, and a similar miss anywhere else will also bring about similar results with either.

The difference in size between the calibers is only important to the person who is impressed with it. I seriously doubt someone getting shot with one or the other, will be able to tell you what you just shot them with.

And Ill bet if you point a .22 at them, and then shoot them somewhere less important, they will tell you it was a .44 or .45. :thumbup:

Pistol calibers suck as people stoppers. If you can't get it done with a 9mm, its not likely youre going to get it done with a .45acp. And if anything, if you cant hit what needs hit with the 9mm, then the 45 isnt going to be any easier, and especially if you arent at the top of your game shooting them.
 
Jframe it sounds like you are referring to the article am about to mention. An article written by Jack Lott in one of the Guns & Ammo issues from the 1980s titled "The 45 And The Moro's A Myth Exploded".

Jack Lott went on to say that he had often quoted that the 45 knocked men down with every shot. Then he said he did his own research and found that not only were there failures with the 38 Long Colt but also the 45 Colt and the 30-40 Krag rifle. The only for sure fight stopper was the 1897 Winchester 12ga pump loaded with buckshot.

He stated that initially the 38 long Colt had been a good stopper and stated in one battle 200 Moros had been killed in close quarter fighting and most were killed with the 38 Colts. It wasn't until the fighting moved south to the Jolo area that the failures started.

I suspect the real problem was just plain bad shooting on the part of the soldiers. I doubt many were given any real handgun training other than a little practice ammo and some paper targets to poke holes in. And by the time the fighting had moved south the Moros had the fighting style of the Army figured out. They knew the best way to defeat the soldiers was to wait and then dash out of the brush and charge before the soldies could make any well aimed shots. Its hard to make a good shot when some crazy is running at you swinging a machette and screaming and is just a few feet away from you. And it may be more than one who is charging you at the same time.

I wish the forum rules would allow it and I would scan in and post that article. As for reading material and war stories influencing me in what to buy. I don't think so. I like them all. And I don't own a 45 and don't really want one unless I get a screaming deal on one. I like 32s, 38s, 357s and 44 mags. But I shoot more 38s than anything else. And of course I like the three 9mm handguns I own. I think its a fine round as far as handguns go.
 
I suspect the real problem was just plain bad shooting on the part of the soldiers. I doubt many were given any real handgun training other than a little practice ammo and some paper targets to poke holes in. And by the time the fighting had moved south the Moros had the fighting style of the Army figured out. They knew the best way to defeat the soldiers was to wait and then dash out of the brush and charge before the soldies could make any well aimed shots. Its hard to make a good shot when some crazy is running at you swinging a machette and screaming and is just a few feet away from you. And it may be more than one who is charging you at the same time.
I think youve hit on the actual answer, but thats not the answer people want to hear.

I grew up in the military in the 50's and 60's, and heard constant, and all sorts of stories from people who were in WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam, and some were in a couple of each. I learned early on to watch the old man's face (he'd been with a number of these guys through some things) to know how deep things were getting. :)

One of my favorites was from a boy who said they drilled out the nose of USGI 45acp rounds, and inserted 22 blanks into the hole, to make the bullets explosive when they hit. He said this is what they were shooting out of their M3's in VN. The look on the old mans face was priceless. :D

Of course, like all the others, I said "cool". :thumbup:

Nothing like hearing war stories, especially when there are bunch of them together and the beer is flowing. :)

Just from watching some people shoot, who were "supposedly" trained in the military and also supposedly were in a lot of combat, I was always amazed at how much people seem to have forgotten what they were taught and knew how to do, when actually handed something they say they were "experts" with and you let them pull the trigger.

I learned early on, you NEVER give ANYONE a SMG with a full mag, until you actually see them shoot a few rounds. I dont care what they said they were or what they say they can do.

The scariest people I ever let shoot my SMG's, were ex-military and cops, who swore they knew what was what. :eek:

I guess they forgot. ;)
 
Jframe it sounds like you are referring to the article am about to mention. An article written by Jack Lott in one of the Guns & Ammo issues from the 1980s titled "The 45 And The Moro's A Myth Exploded".

Jack Lott went on to say that he had often quoted that the 45 knocked men down with every shot. Then he said he did his own research and found that not only were there failures with the 38 Long Colt but also the 45 Colt and the 30-40 Krag rifle. The only for sure fight stopper was the 1897 Winchester 12ga pump loaded with buckshot.

He stated that initially the 38 long Colt had been a good stopper and stated in one battle 200 Moros had been killed in close quarter fighting and most were killed with the 38 Colts. It wasn't until the fighting moved south to the Jolo area that the failures started.

I suspect the real problem was just plain bad shooting on the part of the soldiers. I doubt many were given any real handgun training other than a little practice ammo and some paper targets to poke holes in. And by the time the fighting had moved south the Moros had the fighting style of the Army figured out. They knew the best way to defeat the soldiers was to wait and then dash out of the brush and charge before the soldies could make any well aimed shots. Its hard to make a good shot when some crazy is running at you swinging a machette and screaming and is just a few feet away from you. And it may be more than one who is charging you at the same time.

I wish the forum rules would allow it and I would scan in and post that article. As for reading material and war stories influencing me in what to buy. I don't think so. I like them all. And I don't own a 45 and don't really want one unless I get a screaming deal on one. I like 32s, 38s, 357s and 44 mags. But I shoot more 38s than anything else. And of course I like the three 9mm handguns I own. I think its a fine round as far as handguns go.

Hey Ratshooter -- that could indeed be the source material I was referencing. :thumbup: Day-um... I read it when it first came out, so if it was the 1980s -- I'm rather surprised by my memory! :D

Your observation about bad shooting (or just plain wildly inaccurate shooting) makes perfect sense. When someone, let alone a kill-crazed guy with a bolo or a barong, erupts out of the jungle a few yards from you -- I think I might be more than likely to put a bunch of holes in the foliage also! o_O

In a way, this makes me think of the reputed lack of "stopping power" of the M-1 carbine during the Korean War. Anecdotal word-of-mouth had it that the .30 carbine cartridge lacked the penetration to go through the bundles of pillow-clothing worn by the Chinese, and that they lacked punch at the end of it. A little clinical reflection would seem to indicate that the "lack of penetration" part of it is nonsense. A conjecture I've heard, which makes more sense to me, is that the Chinese were so thickly padded in their clothing, that the G.I.s thought they were placing shots, when actually all they were doing was putting "hits" through clothing, and making tertiary hits at best.

I guess when it comes down to it, I'm not a caliber loyalist either. I have handguns in .22LR, .22WMR, .25 ACP, .380 ACP, 9mm, .38 Special, .357, .40 S&W, .44 Magnum, and .45 ACP. I probably have a "reason" or two for getting all of them -- but when it comes down to it, I'm actually glad I have all of them. :)

.
 
Last edited:
In a way, this makes me think of the reputed lack of "stopping power" of the M-1 carbine during the Korean War. Anecdotal word-of-mouth had it that the .30 carbine cartridge lacked the penetration to go through the bundles of pillow-clothing worn by the Chinese, and that they lacked punch at the end of it. A little clinical reflection would seem to indicate that the "lack of penetration" part of it is nonsense.

I have no doubt that the Carbine was deadly as hell out to 100 yards through any kind of clothing. Even the reported "frozen" vest. I read one story where the troops stated the bullets from the carbine didn't kill the Chinese so the commander sawed off the protective ears on each side of the front sight and the complaints stopped. I guess the guys in a panicked state were using the ears as a front sight and just flat out missing the target.

I have handguns in .22LR, .22WMR, .25 ACP, 9mm, .38 Special, .357, .40 S&W, .44 Magnum, and .45 ACP. I probably have a "reason" or two for getting all of them -- but when it comes down to it, I'm actually glad I have all of them. :)

I have all of those too except the 40 and 45. I really enjoy the 32 long and 32 mag rounds. I am more of a trail gun guy than a SD guy. I have all the guns I need for SD now. But I will buy any decent 32 I find for the right price.

I think youve hit on the actual answer, but thats not the answer people want to hear.

Yep everybody is a dead eye dick and they never miss. Some of the best fun you can have is to buy a few of those airsoft pistols and get some guys together and and have some airsoft battles. Its surprising how quick you can make a kill shot and even more surprising how quick someone makes a kill shot on you. You also find out just how hard it is to make a good shot on a moving dodging target.
 
I have no doubt that the Carbine was deadly as hell out to 100 yards through any kind of clothing. Even the reported "frozen" vest. I read one story where the troops stated the bullets from the carbine didn't kill the Chinese so the commander sawed off the protective ears on each side of the front sight and the complaints stopped. I guess the guys in a panicked state were using the ears as a front sight and just flat out missing the target.

OMG... LOVE that story...! :rofl::rofl:

I have all of those too except the 40 and 45. I really enjoy the 32 long and 32 mag rounds. I am more of a trail gun guy than a SD guy. I have all the guns I need for SD now. But I will buy any decent 32 I find for the right price.

I have to admit, none of those neat .32s have managed to enter my collection -- but not for lack of interest. It just comes down to that "so many choices, so darn little time" category... :( They do sound like very versatile and handy cartridges... :)

I had to edit my list above to include a .380. One managed to sneak into my inventory a year or so ago. :)

.
 
Right, he was amazed at the extra killyness the hollow points offered, of course ball ammo will kill you dead on the first shot, just not so impressively

In real estate, they say location, location and did I say location. With bullets, it is shot placement, shot placement, and did I say shot placement. ;)

For many years, .45 ACP ball did the job in many wars and conflicts and 9 mm ball did the same thing.


Go to about 1:28 and he is talking about 9 mm FMJ.
IMO, it is putting bullets where they count that does the job.
 
Pick a handgun you like and then pick a round that makes sense.to.you in that handgun.

M60 .38 Spl
Shield .45
P365 9mm
M&P 2.0 .40 S&W

.357 in M60, Smaller Shield .40 or P365 in .40 (If they made it) wouldn't work for me but in those platforms those calibers work for me.
 
The books and magazines that I grew up reading claimed that a light 357 HP shot out of a longish barrel was particularly effective.

On the one hand, I'm not too sure about the "science" that was behind the claims.

On the other hand, I still feel very comfortable with that combination as a HD handgun.

 
Pick a handgun you like and then pick a round that makes sense.to.you in that handgun.

M60 .38 Spl
Shield .45
P365 9mm
M&P 2.0 .40 S&W

.357 in M60, Smaller Shield .40 or P365 in .40 (If they made it) wouldn't work for me but in those platforms those calibers work for me.

In the "If you could only have one handgun" thread, I grudgingly picked my S&W 60-Pro with 3" barrel, using mostly .38 Special but with the ability to fire .357. :) I say "grudgingly," because picking one handgun is like a "Sophie's Choice" dilemma... :uhoh:

.
 
I could really care less about why or how someone picks out their "favorite" piece. What difference does it make? Why this ongoing need to chastise others on these types of forums for their choice, while trying to impress everyone with with one's unlimited knowledge? Funny so may folks claim one needs no reason to get a new firearm other than the desire, but then in the next breath want to criticize them for their choice. One reason I despise going to public ranges is not because of dangerous newbies, but because there is always that one bravado know it all, that has to burst some newbies excitement with their negativity about the newbies firearm....or has to bash dad's/grandpa's choice for their son's/grandson's first deer rifle.....because they know better. As long as those fellow owners are responsible and support my right to choose what I want for a firearm, why would I be a jerk? So what if one way folk's make a preference is because of myth and embellishment? If they shoot it and enjoy it, is it really such a big deal?
 
In real estate, they say location, location and did I say location. With bullets, it is shot placement, shot placement, and did I say shot placement. ;)

For many years, .45 ACP ball did the job in many wars and conflicts and 9 mm ball did the same thing.


Go to about 1:28 and he is talking about 9 mm FMJ.
IMO, it is putting bullets where they count that does the job.


Right, that's been my position in the million caliber wars out there, my comment was mostly because he believed th exit hole would be basketball sized, I.E. basically the whole torso, that's all.

Didn't mean to spark some FMJ/JHP 9mm/45 war.

I like both, carry both.
 
Right, that's been my position in the million caliber wars out there, my comment was mostly because he believed th exit hole would be basketball sized, I.E. basically the whole torso, that's all.

Didn't mean to spark some FMJ/JHP 9mm/45 war.

I like both, carry both.

Basketball sized? :what: :D

Shot placement isn't a caliber war; it is being a good shot. ;)

I like both and carry both myself.
 
I read that during WW I some very brave and tough guys specialized in trench warfare. These guys used a variety of pistols, sometimes whatever they could get their hands on but (according to the writer of the article) the most prized were the 1911's both for reliability & the power of the 45 ACP . It was reported that the pistols issued to soldiers at that time fired less powerful ammo & were not as effective in incapacitating enemy soldiers.

I realize that there are many modern high capacity semi autos that are superior for SD & CC but the all-steel 1911 remains my favorite semi auto.
 
Just curious but what about the several hundred 1911's made for troop testing? Might not some of them made it to PI before regular production?

Would have seemed a great test site....

-kBob
 
Perhaps a lot of these stories came from soldiers, like my Dad, who never handled a firearm before or after their service. With nothing to compare it with, the recoil of a .45 might have seemed fearsome.

My father served as armored infantry during WWII with the 3rd Armored Division. He unfortunately saw much combat including the Battle of the Bulge, the Battle of Hurtgen Forest, Aachen, Roer River, and many other nasty social encounters. He was very closed mouthed about the war, I couldn't get much out of him about it.

I questioned him about the guns as a kid, all he would say is he didn't like the Carbine or the M3. He had much respect, and apprehension, for the German 88's. American armor was no match for it, while the American tank guns couldn't penetrate German armor.

He earned a Bronze Star, but never touched a gun after the war. One can only imagine what soldiers like him went through during that horrible frozen winter of war.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top