Lee ermy On Glocks and caliber selections

Status
Not open for further replies.
I like Lee Ermey as much as the next guy, but I don't think his anecdotal opinions on this subject should be taken with anything more than a grain of salt (and, I can say all of this as a guy who actually carries a Glock 37 in .45 GAP as a duty weapon).

First, the 9mm vs. .45 debate is about as old as dirt, and with modern ammo I'd say that either one is equally capable of stopping a fight. I've actually attended seminars where various handgun loads were fired into calibrated ballistic gelatin, per the FBI protocol. The 9mm almost always has a slight edge on penetration, and the 45 almost always has a slight edge on expanded size. The emphasis in this statement should be on the term SLIGHT. If you put the bullet where it needs to go, the problem is solved; if not, it is anyone's guess.

I've personally witnessed the stopping power of both the 9mm and the .45 firsthand. I wouldn't hesitate to carry either into a fight, and I've even considered making the switch to 9mm (magazine capacity is much better, and follow-up shots are faster). Conversely, I've seen both the 9mm and .45cal fail to stop a human, and these failures nearly always resulted from poor shot placement.

As for the Glock vs 1911 debate, I think that Glocks have a better track record for reliability, which is more crucial for duty use. 1911 pistols win more action pistol competitions, but that doesn't make them more viable for duty/defensive carry.

Still, I'd say that Lee Ermey might just be a little biased on this subject, particularly since he's on the Glock payroll. Todd Jarret thinks Para is wonderful, and Rob Leatham seems to like Springfield. Notice a trend here? It isn't an unbiased endorsement when they are paying the bills for you!

Just some food for thought.
 
I love the gunny, and I have met him personally, but remember, most of his bluster and attitude is for fun. If someone throws him a couple of bucks to plug a good gun, I don't resent him for it.

But (without watching the link to know exactly what he said,) what he stated above is far from strictly true. A man may take more than two .45s and keep coming. A man might take a .22 and drop. And before you say it's all about shot placement, none of you are good enough to reliably get CNS hits in an emergency situation. It will be largely about luck.

I agree that the .45 is more effective, but that doesn't make it the ideal choice for across-the-board sidearm choices. Having trained a lot of soldiers this summer, many of whom had never shot a pistol before, and many females with small hands, honestly the gun I would prefer to train them on (as long as we are using NATO 9mm,) is a Glock 17. If we were using .45, I don't know if I would want a big double-stack, because many of my female soldiers have a hard time reaching the controls on the M-9. A big .45 wouldn't make it easier.
 
I agree with mljdeckard. I have met R Lee Ermey also. He did a meet & greet at a local Glock dealer. I liked the man. I also agree that he is doing his job. If he is pushing the .45 GAP though I believe the guns are smaller than many other .45's. Unless I'm mistaken it was designed to be able to put a .45 in a smaller platform.
 
They should use 9mm so that they don't kill the soldier and it takes 2 more soldiers to haul him off the battlefield, and another guy driving a jeep to take him back to a hospital. If they used a .45 the enemy would detonate and no additional resources would be needed to save him.

Just wondering why we should put any faith in a celebrity opinion?
 
I like Glocks a lot, but he is a paid spokesman for the company. I really don't care what his opinion is on the gun or calibers. Quantifying the number of shots it takes to stop an attacker with various calibers is senseless. There are an infinite number a variables at play in any shooting event. The importance put on caliber and bullet delivery device is disproportionate to its relevance.
 
R Lee's credentials are "peccable"

He is only an actor, but a good communicator to those who need a bobble-head figure on their dashboard. His new advert for an insurance agency is a real HOOT! Yes, he is an ex-marine, AND also now an "Honorary Gunny" thanks to his movie acting. And I love his shows on the History channel, especially when he gets off into the non-scripted parts, where he thrives! He IS a leader, but he is also for hire. OOOO-rah! At an air show near INDY, R Lee was supporting the Disabled Marine contingent by signing autographs and posing for pics. I have two Glock slides signed by R Lee with white-Bic-pen. Priceless to me.
 
Last edited:
But he says it straight up and down, 2 points he makes is a 45 in the chest will stop any attacker, where as it takes 3 rounds of 9mm to do the same job,
Click to expand...

Okay, so we have established the R. Lee maybe really doesn't know what he is talking about. Two .45 shots to the chest isn't a magic number/location for stops.

Quantifying the number of shots it takes to stop an attacker with various calibers is senseless. There are an infinite number a variables at play in any shooting event. The importance put on caliber and bullet delivery device is disproportionate to its relevance.
Click to expand...

Right.

and that Glock is the number 1 choice in his opinion for handguns.
Click to expand...

Funny thing, the Glocks in .45 acp seem to be some of the least reliable of the Glock line.
 
Friend Double Naught Spy,
Okay, so we have established the R. Lee maybe really doesn't know what he is talking about. Two .45 shots to the chest isn't a magic number/location for stops.
Click to expand...

He may very well be right, but the fact that he is R. Lee does not give him any more credibility that the average talking head celebrity. Massad Ayoob and Jeff Cooper have credibility. R. Lee is just an ex-Marine who got a lucky break. I am glad he got it, and I enjoy watching him, but the last time I shot with an ex-Marine (my older brother) he shot me in the leg while trying to clear a jam in a rented pistol with his finger on the trigger and the pistol pointed at me rather than down range.
 
I don't take advice from anyone who says "lolol 1 .45 will do the job but youll need 3-4 9mms to do the same thing lololol"

(This coming from someone who carries .45/.357 mag)
 
I like the gunny. He is on our side and that's good enough for me. I don't choose my firearms based on endosements by actors/celebrities,gun writers(including Ayoob and Cooper regardless of their credibility)nor do I reject brands/calibers because of bad reviews by the same or even gun forum posters. I have this thing about trying them and making up my own mind.
 
The simple and most effective answer to this debate is this, choose what fits you and your shooting abilities the best and what you are the most efficient with. If that happens to be a .45acp or a 9mm Glock, Sig, Springfield, or whatever and you are CONFIDENT with that weapon then that is the weapon for you. Doesn't matter what any actor or "professional" says. In a combat situation, you have to have a weapon that YOU YOURSELF can fire with accuracy and confidence. The "Gunny" or anyone else is not the one there under fire with you. I personally do not like Glocks. I don't like the feel of them. Too "boxy" for my taste. That doesn't mean they are junk, just means I don't like the feel of it in my hand and that would affect my accuracy with it.

All that being said, as far as calibre .45 vs 9mm goes, either would do the job at hand and do it well if used properly. As would many other calibers.
 
I have the (almost) best of all worlds. I have a Springfield XDm 45 ACP - 13+1 rounds of high end punching power. My CZ 75DB is 16+1 of 9mm stinging death. The only question for me is: what to carry? What to carry?

BTW, I owned a Glock 19. It was reliable, but chunky. I wouldn't have a Gen 4 Glock with all the problems, if I got it for free. IMHO, Glock shot themselves in the foot with the Gen 4.
 
.45 vs 9mm

Having seen the "gunny" hold forth on Glocks in the past, but not having seen the video you speak of, I feel sure that he is speaking of the .45GAP. I remember hearing about the extreme failures of 9mm ammo to manage gunfights...( Illinois SP is one I remember), and while I own several 9mms and rely on them for CC I would prefer the .45acp's solid reputation for stopping fights and would rather see our military folks armed with them. Having said that I am no fan of .45GAP. It is a round that seems intended to fill a non-existent void in ammo needs. My father carried a 1911 in WWII and I carried one in VietNam, My sons, both US Marines were trained on and issued 9mms. I wish the .45ACP was still respected for what it is and does rather than seeing it cast aside over and again to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
 
Yep, sounds like you shot about 3-5 rounds to take out that one bad guy. Except...you would have done the exact same thing with a .45. The only difference being, that with a .45 you're now almost empty. With a 9mm, you've shot less than a third of your rounds. That and it's easier to get back on target after a shot with the lighter recoiling 9mm.

Two smaller holes compared to one bigger one causes more trauma. Two smaller holes doubles the likelihood of hitting the spine or heart. Two smaller holes doubles your chances of even scoring a hit on the bad guy at all. More rounds at the target means more chances of hitting the target. More hits, more trauma, more chances at CNS hits, and more holes to bleed out of. Toss in the likelihood of a lot of your rounds being misses in the first place since on average, handgun shootings result in around 50% misses or more, and you're pretty thankful your pistol can hold 15-17 rounds instead of half of that.
Click to expand...

Some questions: 1. If the first round misses do subsequent rounds become more accurate? Does continued jerking the trigger calm the shooter down so he realizes he is being inaccurate...maybe if he is shooting tracers or the ground is dusty.
2. It takes time to fire each round even if you are shooting a .22. Time is your enemy cause until you incapcitate the other guy he is shooting at you. If he incapacitates you with the first shot then he can move on to shooting your buddies or taking even more careful aim for the ear shot.
3. Wasting ammo is a concern but putting down subjects as quick as possible(least amount of shots) is obviously important if there are multiple adversarys.
4. I believe this is one of the major unintended consequences of high capacity, smaller caliber rifles and pistols. Shooters become trained in spraying lead since volume means "I have to hit my target if I shoot enough times". We recently had a police swat shooting in our city wherein subject was hit with 9 rounds from cop with mp5 up close. He survived and is sueing the city. BTW he was pointing a soldering iron at the cop. This happened in Boise, ID.
I personally like high capacity mags but I know which way I shoot best.
 
He may very well be right, but the fact that he is R. Lee does not give him any more credibility that the average talking head celebrity.
Click to expand...

No, R. Lee is not right. 2 .45 rounds to the chest won't necessarily stop anybody. There is no proof that it takes 3 rounds of 9mm to do the job of 2 .45 rounds. That is all just fabricated garbage. If 2 rounds of .45 to the chest always stopped folks as claimed, then the celebrity gun experts which you feel have credibility (Ayoob and Cooper) would not have been teaching failure to stop drills to those students who carried the almighty .45 acp.

Celebrity status gives folks all sorts of credibiltiy and marketers have known it for at least the last century. The credibility may not be justified or real, but a message delivered by a famous person is often believed or taken more seriously than a message given by some unknown expert.
 
Ermey says some pretty dumb things about 9mm vs. 45. This isn't the first time. I saw a writeup by him in a gun mag where he claims that you might as well use a .22 if you're going to have a 9mm, but a .45 is one shot one kill center mass every time.

I like gunny and all, but man does he sound like a dumbass on this topic.
 
i have a small problem with wat a previos poster said. the us military has always used a full size duty pistol as a side arm. with that being said if the switch was made to a FULL size glock pistol chambered for .45 acp it would be the G21 and last i checked mine has a 13+1 capacity which kind of nullifies that whole argument.
 
I didn't read all of the replys.

But he is talking about the 45 GAP not ACP.
Just wanted to make that clear.
 
45GAP allows 45 ACP performance in a small grip size. Some of us find the 45 GLOCKs too big. The 45 ACP is a pretty old round and has more case capacity than is necessary for the performance. That being said, when comparing 45 to 9mm shooting ball ammo and factoring that if you are using your handgun the sierra has definitely hit the fan, I'd prefer to opt for the bigger round.

Of course there are other issues to consider. The 9mm was adopted primarily for NATO comparability. Switching to another round defeats that aim.

Further, while small arms in general contribute very little to the calculus of combat - handguns are even less important in the 'big picture'. As a former infantry officer, I can definitely say my rifle and handgun were important to me, but to war planners and generals, small arms aren't very important in the whole scheme of things. Current issue weapons are seen as 'good enough'.

Finally, the PDW encroaching on handgun territory. Who among us wouldn't rather have a rifle versus a pistol in a hot situation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
HK45c or Glock?
Replies
12
Views
3K
Dan Crocker
D
E
  • Locked
  • Poll
Glock 22 or M&P .45
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
tydephan
T
R
  • Locked
Time to Retire my Model 12....going for a Glock.
Replies
8
Views
611
Rob1035
R
C
  • Locked
Ruger P345, Glock 19, or Glock 21?
Replies
23
Views
3K
denfoote
D
B
  • Locked
Glocks - which ones are which Cal./Frame size
Replies
1
Views
249
1KPerDay
1KPerDay
Back
Top