None of that is meaningful, useful, or a lawful objective in self defense.
Does .45 live up to the hype?
- Thread starter The Exile
- Start date
- Status
Yep.
Howland937
Member
Selecting a handgun round is a compromise, no matter which direction you choose to go. None are really efficient people stoppers compared to offerings in non-handguns. 9mm enjoys it's popularity today for the same reasons .45 had it's time in the sun...
It's a cycle of availability/price/technology. Military and law enforcement usage drives all 3 factors.
The idea that one is better than the other is about as ludicrous as arguing Glock vs SA vs SW and proclaiming one as best.
Figure out your goals, figure out which platform serves you best, then get it in the caliber that best suits your needs.
It's a cycle of availability/price/technology. Military and law enforcement usage drives all 3 factors.
The idea that one is better than the other is about as ludicrous as arguing Glock vs SA vs SW and proclaiming one as best.
Figure out your goals, figure out which platform serves you best, then get it in the caliber that best suits your needs.
As with many things it depends 
.454 Casuul (which is 45 caliber), will kill a griz, I would not go into Brown bear territory with a 9mm
a .22 will kill a deer, though not as quickly or humanely as a .243 or bigger unless you hit the right spot
.38, .357 were the ammo of choice for FBI and LE for many years.
If you think you might be facing multiple attackers then round count and/or ability to reload quickly is equally as important as caliber
For SD, it is my opinion, either will work, I believe a couple .22s or .380s in the right place is better than a whatever (9mm, .45, etc) that does not hit a spot that will stop the attacker. but, if you can put the 9mm or .45 in the right spot, then they are "better" then the .22lr ands being centerfire, historically more reliable
As for the old debate of .38 vs .45 against drugged up Moro warriors, that can happen today with crack addicts and a .45, and, if I recall correctly, they Moros tied off their limbs to stop blood loss and were pretty much suicide warriors, they died from the .38, just not before they could inflict damage.
YMMV
d
.454 Casuul (which is 45 caliber), will kill a griz, I would not go into Brown bear territory with a 9mm
a .22 will kill a deer, though not as quickly or humanely as a .243 or bigger unless you hit the right spot
.38, .357 were the ammo of choice for FBI and LE for many years.
If you think you might be facing multiple attackers then round count and/or ability to reload quickly is equally as important as caliber
For SD, it is my opinion, either will work, I believe a couple .22s or .380s in the right place is better than a whatever (9mm, .45, etc) that does not hit a spot that will stop the attacker. but, if you can put the 9mm or .45 in the right spot, then they are "better" then the .22lr ands being centerfire, historically more reliable
As for the old debate of .38 vs .45 against drugged up Moro warriors, that can happen today with crack addicts and a .45, and, if I recall correctly, they Moros tied off their limbs to stop blood loss and were pretty much suicide warriors, they died from the .38, just not before they could inflict damage.
YMMV
d
Last edited:
Nothing meets that criteria as a "one shot stop".
"reliably stop the threat" has to be defined as well since a threat is stopped if the attack is stopped. If that definition is used, just about any .38 and larger statistically stops an attacker.
If the definition is that the attacker is disabled and can't carry on the attack there are so many different loadings and bullet designs to make that very difficult to analyze.
BJung
Member
Tough question. I bought a .45 to chamber all the brass I picked up at the range.. I read that the .45 was adopted with the .38's poor performance in the Philippines in mind. Atleast the .45 could drop those teeny drugged up Moros. The .38 with Windowmaker LRN bullets didn't cut it. Instead the US Officers got cut up. Today, .38 and 9mm bullets are much better. The .38 bullets back then could have been better with a hollow point bullet. Maybe those were used? Here are photos of a 38-135gr GD expanded. It's about the size of a .45. So, the 38 and 9mm expanded bullets are about equal to a .45. So is an expanded LHP bullet. But Matt's Bullets' .45 hollow points claim to expand to almost an inch. A 1" hole made by a 230gr piece leaves an impact and makes a large drain hole. Are the US Seals still using the .45 or did they switch to 9mm?
Attachments
So thought I, but it turns out that that was not true.
"Impact" causes only penetration. A "drain hole" is meaningful for hunting, but not in self defense.
9mm.
redcon1
member
This article put me on the path to carrying 9mm.
This perp was still shooting back despite having been shot 14 times with a Glock 21 in .45 acp. 6 of those hits were in supposedly fatal locations- in the heart, right lung, left lung, liver, diaphragm, and right kidney and this guy was still in the fight. Officer Gramins had a total of 47 rounds on him at the start of the 56 second long firefight. He had 4 rounds left after he was finally able to make 4 shots to the head and even after the 4 shots to the head, the perp was still alive when EMS arrived and there were no drugs or alcohol detected in his system. This was just one guy. It is common for there to be multiple perpetrators.
I'd post the whole article but that's probably a copyright violation. A lot of folks here are certainly aware of this account but if you aren't, it's worth taking a couple of minutes out of your life to read and consider. Or don't. I really don't care what you do or what you carry.
Before the call that changed Timothy Gramins’ life forever, he typically carried 47 rounds of handgun ammunition on his person while on duty. Now, he carries 145, “every day, without fail.”
Gramins detailed the gunfight that caused the difference in a gripping presentation at the annual conference of the Assn. of SWAT Personnel-Wisconsin in 2012.
This perp was still shooting back despite having been shot 14 times with a Glock 21 in .45 acp. 6 of those hits were in supposedly fatal locations- in the heart, right lung, left lung, liver, diaphragm, and right kidney and this guy was still in the fight. Officer Gramins had a total of 47 rounds on him at the start of the 56 second long firefight. He had 4 rounds left after he was finally able to make 4 shots to the head and even after the 4 shots to the head, the perp was still alive when EMS arrived and there were no drugs or alcohol detected in his system. This was just one guy. It is common for there to be multiple perpetrators.
I'd post the whole article but that's probably a copyright violation. A lot of folks here are certainly aware of this account but if you aren't, it's worth taking a couple of minutes out of your life to read and consider. Or don't. I really don't care what you do or what you carry.
Before the call that changed Timothy Gramins’ life forever, he typically carried 47 rounds of handgun ammunition on his person while on duty. Now, he carries 145, “every day, without fail.”
Gramins detailed the gunfight that caused the difference in a gripping presentation at the annual conference of the Assn. of SWAT Personnel-Wisconsin in 2012.
BJung
Member
I saw an old video where the perp wouldn't stop after being shot multiple times with a 9mm. I figured I'd try something else if I had to.
BJung
Member
Maybe the best test is to test the bullet you want to use for SD for each caliber. Have a lamb bbq with beer and buy two sheep of the same size. Then shoot each sheep with each caliber and see which one drops first. Finish the job. Then, have your bbg and drink your beer.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Firstly, hardball is terrible, regardless of size. It's so bad, it's not even worth discussing. The context should be modern expanding ammunition or nothing.
It's rather comical. In the hunting realm, where we're actually regularly shooting critters with handgun bullets, no one questions the fact that the .41, .44 and .45 are measurably more effective than the .357. Keith wrote of it 100yrs ago and no one has argued it since. In the world of self defense, where we're dealing largely with speculation, somehow the 9mm is "just as good". IMHO, it's "good enough" but since we're dealing with mostly speculation, most people are comfortable with never finding out whether it's true or not. I guess it's a good thing that collectively, good people tend to shoot more deer and hogs than other people.
It's rather comical. In the hunting realm, where we're actually regularly shooting critters with handgun bullets, no one questions the fact that the .41, .44 and .45 are measurably more effective than the .357. Keith wrote of it 100yrs ago and no one has argued it since. In the world of self defense, where we're dealing largely with speculation, somehow the 9mm is "just as good". IMHO, it's "good enough" but since we're dealing with mostly speculation, most people are comfortable with never finding out whether it's true or not. I guess it's a good thing that collectively, good people tend to shoot more deer and hogs than other people.
redcon1
member
On the street, for self defense against, primarily, humans, I'd still carry my 9mm before I'd carry my .44 magnum.
fxvr5
Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2017
- Messages
- 3,294
Roverguy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2021
- Messages
- 900
Caliber wars aside, the research shows that immediate debilitation of a threat requires a central nervous system hit in the overwhelming majority of gunfights. Whether the hit on the CNS results from a .22 .35 .40 or .45 inch bullet is irrelevant. There may be something to the idea that lesser recoil puts more shots on target but the idea that in a gunfight one will be taking aimed shots at the target’s head and neck is something reserved for Tommy Takitkewl’s YouTube channel.
After CNS, ending the threat depends on exsanguination, end of lung function, or end of heart function, none of which is immediate and, depending on the target, could take some time. In theory, bigger holes are better, and much is made of how modern expanding bullets have .356” bullets making .5” holes. But with the same technology, will not .451” bullets make .6” holes? Doesn’t seem to matter in the real world. Again, research shows that .38 Special and larger all have similar rates of debilitation in a gunfight, or, to be more exact, that there is no clearly apparent advantage in non-CNS hits accorded to bullet size.
So, carry whatever gives you the most confidence. But practice with it is the key to it being successful when it matters.
After CNS, ending the threat depends on exsanguination, end of lung function, or end of heart function, none of which is immediate and, depending on the target, could take some time. In theory, bigger holes are better, and much is made of how modern expanding bullets have .356” bullets making .5” holes. But with the same technology, will not .451” bullets make .6” holes? Doesn’t seem to matter in the real world. Again, research shows that .38 Special and larger all have similar rates of debilitation in a gunfight, or, to be more exact, that there is no clearly apparent advantage in non-CNS hits accorded to bullet size.
So, carry whatever gives you the most confidence. But practice with it is the key to it being successful when it matters.
BreechFace
Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2020
- Messages
- 3,545
I don’t feel the legacy of my grandfather firing any cartridge. And my idea of the 2nd Amendment is our ability to shoot any cartridge.
This type of argument is so old and stale, and somehow we always get here.
As to the OP question, 45ACP is a great defensive round, as is 10mm, 40S&W, 357 Mag, 38 Special, and 9mm. Personally, I choose 9mm because I can train with it twice as much than with 45ACP. Also, the fact that if I’m caught in a scenario (movie theatre, church, mall, etc) where there’s potential for multiple perpetrators or hardened perpetrators and I have no way of escape or loved ones need defended then I’m going to appreciate a handgun with 15+1 (G48 in 9mm) than one that is 7+1 (1911 in 45ACP). Both of these firearms are similar in size, but not weight, the Glock being lighter.
Tallinar
Member
My comment was completely lighthearted. Don’t read into it.
That said, I think these conversations should account for the fact that we own what we own and shoot what we shoot for more reasons than “empirical data” on what’s “better.”
Last edited:
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I would too but not because it's less effective.
Any study that concludes that there is no difference is fundamentally flawed.
.455_Hunter
Member
The attitude that one caliber/capacity camp has the "correct viewpoint" is the fundamental problem. Pick what works for you based on your own preferences, assessments, and worthwhile third party opinions (if you so desire). Just because Tommy Tacticool thinks high capacity 9mm is the only way to go and Jimbo Johnson thinks anything less than .45 is ignorant, doesn't mean their viewpoints are gospel, no matter how many credentials they list. Your reasoned opinion is the correct one for you, not necessarily the opinion of Ayoob/Ellifritz/Pincus/Yeager/Vickers/Correia/Smith/Cunningham/ad nauseam...
Last edited:
fxvr5
Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2017
- Messages
- 3,294
What you're saying is that you refuse to believe any data that does not agree with you/your preconceptions.
redcon1
member
9mm is cheaper. Cheaper = more likely to train with IMO which = more likely to deliver good initial shot placement. 9mm also = more bullets in the magazine for making the CNS shot if good initial shot placement is inadequate to incapacitate the attacker.
And, there is the psychological aspect of being shot. Most people are going to stop threatening you once you have pulled a gun out, pointed it at them and then put a bullet of any caliber into them anywhere- most but not all and that's what we're talking about here really, those rare individuals that keep fighting after being shot. In those cases, you need to shoot them in the brain or the spinal cord to take them out of the fight and you're going to need to do that while they're shooting at you, rushing you with a blade or other weapon, while you're in an awkward shooting position, while you're wounded perhaps, while they're right on top of you maybe. In those rare cases, more ammunition is going to be of greater benefit to you than a .2" larger permanent wound channel.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Nope. What I'm saying is that I am HIGHLY skeptical of anything that conflicts with what I've seen with my own eyes. Seriously, on what planet is the .380 and .357 even remotely equal???
.455_Hunter
Member
If that's the viewpoint you have determined and want to run with for your personal carry regime, there shouldn't be a problem. Others may determine differently, which is also OK.
fxvr5
Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2017
- Messages
- 3,294
Please share your data investigating hundreds of shootings (involving only humans).
.455_Hunter
Member
Why should he?
If he wants to carry a proven defensive round like the .45, their should be no arguments.
See maybe I should have opened with this because while the .45's mythic status is kept alive from how it's shown mainly in video games these days but it comes from real life experience. There was a video I saw on this subject that reported the tribesmen were showing up to battle with tight bandages wrapped on their torsos which prevented excess bloodloss and they were showing up high on something and American troops were needing their entire cylinders to down a single one, then someone dug out an old SAA and that was getting those consistent one shots. Not exactly a 9mm vs .45 example but the sort of thing I'm talking about. How much of that story is rooted in reality?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked