Does .45 live up to the hype?

[Hartkopf]

Calculated volume of wound tracks is very simplistic, so a person might conclude that 45ACP is WAY better than 9mm. But the 9mm will get an extra chance at the CNC, the smaller bullet might actually penetrate deeper (changing the equation considerably), calculated wound track volumes might not mean what we think they mean, you might be more accurate with the 9mm, etc.

I pretty much just confused myself with this BS! To hell with it I'll just carry a 40 and call it good enough!

 

[ev780]

Seems more of a turn of phrase rather than a command to me.

It is, but using imperative verbs in an unfamiliar conversation is rude. Especially, when the writer has no clue what the reader knows on the subject.

I answered in kind.

 

[JR24]

It is, but using imperative verbs in an unfamiliar conversation is rude. Especially, when the writer has no clue what the reader knows on the subject.

I answered in kind.

Im not going to get further between a new poster and a Mod’s argument about who knows what, but as a third party observer I’ll offer the unsolicited advice to lighten up.

It’s a discussion on the internet.

 

[CraigC]

This is something that a lot of people seem to miss. Hunting isn't "fighting", usually anyway, and its a whole different thing than what most hunters do when they "hunt", which is basically just "target shooting" in the field, and most of the time, the critter is usually just a static "target", and has no idea its about to be shot.

Now, if youre on the ground hunting something likely to be hunting you while youre hunting it, and especially something that comes quickly, with surprise, and you have to react and shoot and deal with the target moving and youre moving, etc, then you just found a great training aide.

Oh that's priceless. Yes, studying exactly what handgun bullets do to living tissue is not worthwhile at all. Because we all know that tissue destruction and blood loss are meaningless. No one said, "hunting is fighting". Speaking of missed points.

Anything fired in a confined space without hearing protection or even in some cases with a suppressor will deafen me, so that point is moot. A .22 fired in a semi open area without hearing protection deafens me for a couple of days, a 45 isn't going to be better.

There is certainly a difference between cartridges. When SPL effectively doubles every 3db. Yeah, "they're all loud" but some are louder than others. This is why I utterly disregard the .357 as a home defense cartridge.

I really cant remember the last time I saw anything flashy when fired indoors or low light with current handgun powders, at least auto caliber wise anyway. Even my reloads dont usually light things up. Something else that bears figuring out ahead of time should you notice.

Inadvertently flashing yourself with your light will probably do more in that respect than what most powder flashes might do, and even then, recovery is usually pretty quick, unless you leave it on and stare at it, so you're not really likely to be "blind".

You need to get out more.

 

[Kleanbore]

Seems more of a turn of phrase rather than a command to me.

It was, and it was rather pointed. The poster had ignored earlier objective explanations of why a small small difference in the rate of controlled fire is well understood to be important in defensive shooting. In continuing to try to downplay that importance , he went off on a tangent about the mass of metal injected into a charging attacker.

The poster seems to know quite a bit about pistol shooting, but he has not been bringing to bear in a logical manner anything about the science of handgun wounding mechanics or anything about shooting at fast-moving, attacking human targets. Those factors are integral to the discussion, and that poster's views aside, it is important that the large number of guests on our board have the best information that can be provided.

On the subject of moving targets, I made an error. The poster provided some data regarding the time need to fire some hundreds of .45 and 9mm rounds, and said that the difference in rate of fire was 0.7 rounds per second. That would obviously be very significant in defensive shooting. But it occurs to me that few people will experience such a difference in "split times". The numbers apparently included time for reloading, which would be irrelevant.

The best instructors do, however, emphasize the importance of the rate of controlled fire in explaining their selection of the 9mm over the .40.

 

[trackskippy]

Oh that's priceless. Yes, studying exactly what handgun bullets do to living tissue is not worthwhile at all. Because we all know that tissue destruction and blood loss are meaningless. No one said, "hunting is fighting". Speaking of missed points.

Actually, I said "hunting isnt fighting", and it still isn't.

My point here is relevant to SD ammo, and actually the same for hunting ammo used against dangerous game that's moving against you. Your mentality and skills are more meaningful than the ammo in your gun. Of course, if you can, you choose the best ammo for the use, but if you cant place the rounds under stress, and continue to do so as needed, what's it matter what's in the gun?

A similar hit with a 45acp HP and a 9mm HP will likely bring about the same exact result, as will a miss with either. Whats more important than caliber, or even bullet type here is, choose what "you" shoot best with, and in every way you might need to have to shoot the gun and be able to do that on-demand, and youre on the right track.

Do all the studying you want, is the response with any caliber or bullet any different if the target isn't going down and is still a threat to you?

There is certainly a difference between cartridges. When SPL effectively doubles every 3db. Yeah, "they're all loud" but some are louder than others. This is why I utterly disregard the .357 as a home defense cartridge.

Never said there wasnt a difference. Simply said "for me", it makes no difference, as Im deaf with any of them, so its a moot point. After the first unprotected round or even most suppressed rounds indoors, its all going to be pretty quiet for me after the first round.

You need to get out more.

LOL. OK then!

If youre shooting flame thrower SD rounds, maybe you need to do some more studying on the subject.

 

[CraigC]

Actually, I said "hunting isnt fighting", and it still isn't.

My point here is relevant to SD ammo, and actually the same for hunting ammo used against dangerous game that's moving against you. Your mentality and skills are more meaningful than the ammo in your gun. Of course, if you can, you choose the best ammo for the use, but if you cant place the rounds under stress, and continue to do so as needed, what's it matter what's in the gun?

Uh, yeah, I know.

We're talking about terminal ballistics and you're talking about everything else.

Never said there wasnt a difference. Simply said "for me", it makes no difference, as Im deaf with any of them, so its a moot point. After the first unprotected round or even most suppressed rounds indoors, its all going to be pretty quiet for me after the first round.

Your ears aren't special. It is not a moot point or maybe you didn't understand the point. Your perception of sound has no bearing on the physical damage a certain sound pressure level does to your hearing. Yes, a .22 is loud and will cause your ears to ring. A .357 is exponentially louder and can cause disorientation. There are levels of "loud", believe it or not.

If youre shooting flame thrower SD rounds, maybe you need to do some more studying on the subject.

Or maybe you need to train in the dark more. I do it all the time.

 

[trackskippy]

Uh, yeah, I know.

We're talking about terminal ballistics and you're talking about everything else.

Terminal IS the point here, isnt it? Thats what I was talking about. Regardless how well the bullets work, or dont, for whatever reason, just keep moving ahead and getting to the terminal part. Youve got all the answers, how do you do it otherwise?

Or are you just going to argue with whatever or whoever you've been trying to shoot and complain they arent doing what they are supposed to be doing because your study of the subject says they shouldnt be doing what they are still doing?

Your ears aren't special. It is not a moot point or maybe you didn't understand the point. Your perception of sound has no bearing on the physical damage a certain sound pressure level does to your hearing. Yes, a .22 is loud and will cause your ears to ring. A .357 is exponentially louder and can cause disorientation. There are levels of "loud", believe it or not.

Never said they were. Just that it is what it is, and it IS a moot point "FOR ME". All I said was I will be basically deaf for days or longer, with just one round of any of them in a confined space. You seem to be the one that wants to belabor this here and troll on. So, go ahead and carry on as usual. You can try and twist it in any direction you want, the answer will still be the same.

Or maybe you need to train in the dark more. I do it all the time.

Hate to tell ya there buddy, but you ain't special.

What are you shooting that the flash blinds you so you cant continue anyway?

 

[Izzy77]

Shot placement first.

Bullet Selection Next.

Then Caliber.

.45 vs. 9mm vs. .40 is like being at Baskin Robins...pick what you like and enjoy.

 

[.455_Hunter]

This whole discussion reminds of a Consumer Reports article on cars back in the late 90's.

It essentially said that their "recognized experts" agree that a Toyota Camry/Honda Accord station wagon was the best vehicle to meet the everyday requirements of a family. If you don't agree, then you didn't understand transportation needs, had unsupportable bias based on ill-conceived perceptions, and were generally just ignorant. No doubt these 90's wagons were excellent vehicles by all measures, but hardly the only acceptable sound and realistic decision- many other great choices were available.

It seems that the 9mm cartridge, along with the compact higher capacity striker guns that fire it, have become the 90's Camry/Accord station wagon in the eyes of the "recognized experts".

 

[Kleanbore]

It seems that the 9mm cartridge, along with the compact higher capacity striker guns that fire it, have become the 90's Camry/Accord station wagon in the eyes of the "recognized experts".

A better analogy would be a SIG, Glock 19, or Shield.

"Recognized experts" and pundits aside, there are objective, measurable, and repeatable exercised that can help law enforcement armorers and ordinary defensive pistol carriers evaluate 9s, .40s, .38s, and so on.

 

[Kleanbore]

Your ears aren't special. It is not a moot point or maybe you didn't understand the point. Your perception of sound has no bearing on the physical damage a certain sound pressure level does to your hearing. Yes, a .22 is loud and will cause your ears to ring. A .357 is exponentially louder and can cause disorientation. There are levels of "loud", believe it or not.

Bears repeating.

 

[.455_Hunter]

A better analogy would be a SIG, Glock 19, or Shield.

I think my analogy is pretty correct, but you are free to disagree.

"Recognized experts" and pundits aside, there are objective, measurable, and repeatable exercised that can help law enforcement armorers and ordinary defensive pistol carriers evaluate 9s, .40s, .38s, and so on.

Just like the objective, measurable, and repeatable factors used to evaluate automobiles (repair rates, recalls, gas mileage, total lifespan, etc.)

 

[redcon1]

It seems that the 9mm cartridge, along with the compact higher capacity striker guns that fire it, have become the 90's Camry/Accord station wagon in the eyes of the "recognized experts".

For me, it's not about the cartridge as much as it is the platform. I prefer having 17 rounds of perfectly inadequate SD ammunition in my magazine as opposed to 7 rounds of slightly less inadequate SD ammunition. I don't want to have to change magazines in a fight and, more than that, I wouldn't want my wife to have to change magazines in a fight. It's also because I feel that multiple perpetrator attacks are the norm, not the exception and missing, as much as we like to think that we won't, is probably more common than hitting. One might need to deliver suppressing fire too and, there again, 17 rounds in the stack affords you that option. So I want a high cap double stack magazine and I will not routinely carry something that isn't high cap. In fact, I mostly just won't. I would (and used to) carry my Glock 20 because I think that 10mm is better than 9mm or .45acp but it's too hard to train with it and it's a lot easier to carry my 19x and I would be very comfortable using it in a gun fight. Much has been said here about follow up shots. I know that with that pistol, I can put 124 gr HSTs into the chest as fast as I can pull the trigger. If I need to adjust fire for the cranium, no problem. It is exceptionally controllable due to the full size grip and the shorter muzzle and, at least in my hands, I know I can deliver accurate rapid fire shots faster with the Glock 19x than the Glock 21. But I'm a huge fan of the Glock 21 too.

 

[.455_Hunter]

On the other topic, .455 Webley out of 6 inch barrel actually has very low relative sound level. Low pressure round with a long barrel equals reduced sonic output.

 

[.455_Hunter]

For me, it's not about the cartridge as much as it is the platform. I prefer having 17 rounds of perfectly inadequate SD ammunition in my magazine as opposed to 7 rounds of slightly less inadequate SD ammunition. I don't want to have to change magazines in a fight and, more than that, I wouldn't want my wife to have to change magazines in a fight. It's also because I feel that multiple perpetrator attacks are the norm, not the exception and missing, as much as we like to think that we won't, is probably more common than hitting. One might need to deliver suppressing fire too and, there again, 17 rounds in the stack affords you that option. So I want a high cap double stack magazine and I will not routinely carry something that isn't high cap. In fact, I mostly just won't. I would (and used to) carry my Glock 20 because I think that 10mm is better than 9mm or .45acp but it's too hard to train with it and it's a lot easier to carry my 19x and I would be very comfortable using it in a gun fight. Much has been said here about follow up shots. I know that with that pistol, I can put 124 gr HSTs into the chest as fast as I can pull the trigger. If I need to adjust fire for the cranium, no problem. It is exceptionally controllable due to the full size grip and the shorter muzzle and, at least in my hands, I know I can deliver accurate rapid fire shots faster with the Glock 19x than the Glock 21. But I'm a huge fan of the Glock 21 too.

Valid arguments, just like the ones they used for the station wagons.

 

[Kleanbore]

One might need to deliver suppressing fire too and, there again, 17 rounds in the stack affords you that option.

Under what circumstances might that be a reasonable and lawful strategy?

 

[redcon1]

Valid arguments, just like the ones they used for the station wagons.

And what's wrong with station wagons? They're not as fast or as cool as a chevelle or a corvette but they are quite effective at their intended purpose. In fact, my aunt beat a corvette with my grandpa's Nomad 409 station wagon but that's probably a story for another forum.

 

[redcon1]

Under what circumstances might that be a reasonable and lawful strategy?

If there are multiple attackers maneuvering against you. If that happens, I'm not going to spend a fraction of a second worrying about a jury. It's never even going to enter my mind. And the fact is, as unlikely as any of this is, why should I choose to train with and carry a sidearm that denies that possibility to me?

 

[.455_Hunter]

And what's wrong with station wagons? They're not as fast or as cool as a chevelle or a corvette but they are quite effective at their intended purpose. In fact, my aunt beat a corvette with my grandpa's Nomad 409 station wagon but that's probably a story for another forum.

Go back and read my post. I didn't say anything was wrong with them. However, many individuals chose different vehicles based on their own assessments of criteria, regardless of "subject matter experts".

 

[Kleanbore]

If there are multiple attackers maneuvering against you.

You would properly shoot, when it is practical immediately necessary to do so, to hit each of them, while exercising due care to avoid recklessly endangering other people who may be "down range" or in the area.

I cannot see how to "deliver suppressing fire" would be effective, helpful, or reasonable.

 

[redcon1]

It seems that the 9mm cartridge, along with the compact higher capacity striker guns that fire it, have become the 90's Camry/Accord station wagon in the eyes of the "recognized experts".

Go back and read my post. I didn't say anything was wrong with them. However, many individuals chose different vehicles based on their own assessments of criteria, regardless of "subject matter experts".

I got the impression that you didn't like Camrys or station wagons and felt that there was something inferior about them and striker fired 9mm handguns. Regardless, the Glock pistol has proven itself. It earned its stripes just like 1911 did and just like Beretta 92 did and the 9mm parabellum was literally created "for war" and has also earned its stripes. .45 is great but it has limitations and chief among them is magazine capacity. Magazine capacity means something in combat. Whether the 1911 crowd wants to admit that or not isn't something I worry about.

You would properly shoot, when it is practical immediately necessary to do so, to hit each of them, while exercising due care to avoid recklessly endangering other people who may be "down range" or in the area.

I cannot see how to "deliver suppressing fire" would be effective, helpful, or reasonable.

Neither of us knows what threat we may face in the future. Limiting your capabilities doesn't make sense. We hope for the best but we prepare for the worst. That's all I'm saying.

 

[.455_Hunter]

I got the impression that you didn't like Camrys or station wagons and felt that there was something inferior about them and striker fired 9mm handguns. Regardless, the Glock pistol has proven itself. It earned its stripes just like 1911 did and just like Beretta 92 did and the 9mm parabellum was literally created "for war" and has also earned its stripes. .45 is great but it has limitations and chief among them is magazine capacity. Magazine capacity means something in combat. Whether the 1911 crowd wants to admit that or not isn't something I worry about.

My personal preferences is don't really align with station wagons nor striker 9mm handguns. In both areas, I have determined that different products better meet my self-assessed needs and requirements. Others have determined differently. It's fine to debate the merits of a given class of products, but what has been seen in both topical areas is a pseudo-vilification of individuals who don't toe-the-line in agreement with "the experts".

 

[redcon1]

My personal preferences is don't really align with station wagons nor striker 9mm handguns. In both areas, I have determined that different products better meet my self-assessed needs and requirements. It's fine to debate the merits of a given class of products, but what has been seen in both topical areas is a pseudo-vilification of individuals who don't toe-the-line in agreement with "the experts".

Fair enough. For me, it's as much about the overall platform as it is the caliber. I've carried and trained with enough different platforms and calibers to be very comfortable carrying the Glock 19x. The 19 feels a little small in my hand. the 19x feels better to me and is just really controllable. I don't shoot it as well as I shoot my Kimber ultra Carry .45 acp though but I still prefer that 17-19 round magazine. I have some pretty good reloads for the Kimber and it has a CT laser so it has some advantages there. When I used to run a laser on my 19x, it was pretty comparable. I would usually shoot at a reduced B27 silhouette target and at 43 feet, with the green laser, the Glock would dump every round into the cranium at maybe half speed. At close to full speed, it would keep most of them inside the 8 ring. At around 20 feet, it was hard to miss the head of the silhouette even at full speed. Unfortunately, the range implemented a "1 second between shots" rule recently and the laser died so.

 

[Kleanbore]

Limiting your capabilities doesn't make sense.

No, but limiting your actions does, and that means not trying "suppressive fire" except in wartime