Silvanus
Member
Pretty stupid argument IMO. The 9mm is known to have better penetration than the .45. Besides, in that situation, neither would have shown an effect on the robbers.
Maybe the 9mm isn't very effective!
- Thread starter XDn00b101
- Start date
- Status
Pretty stupid argument IMO. The 9mm is known to have better penetration than the .45. Besides, in that situation, neither would have shown an effect on the robbers.
R127
Member
I love all the anecdotes where a badguy absorbs a whole mag of 9mm until somebody shows up and dispatches him with a single shot of "X," "x" often being a .45. Because, obviously, taking more than a dozen hits prior had nothing to do with the badguy's demise...
MCgunner
Member
Now, you could do a statistical study of gun fights and use all these so called real life gun fights to prove your point, .45 is the only caliber that will kill a man. But, I think it's already been done by Evan Marshall and all the big bore guys poo faw the results because it doesn't support their inherent vast knowledge of terminal ballistics. 
psychophipps
Member
While I can see the coroner's point in noting the caliber-to-bullets-in-corpse disparity, he's also not taking some important points into account. Your average gangbanger is an untrained idiot who's idea of shooting technique is based on Scarface and MTV videos.
While this might not seem to immediately mean anything in this discussion, it means more than you think when you take into account the fact these aforementioned untrained idiots also have no recoil-control training. To wit, the heavier loads (.357, .45 ACP, etc.) cause enough muzzle flip, only made worse by the large propensity of these people to hold the weapon sideways, that a second shot on-target is going to be much less likely than with lighter loadings like the 9mm Luger and .380.
You have people who develop flinch reflexes with the "good" loadings, at least as they pertain to the coroner's observations, when they shoot a bit. Now make this ten times worse by never going to the range, holding the firearm sideways and forthermore not making sure (or any effort at all for that matter) that the line of recoil is in-line with the forearm and wrist and you see a lot less of "The best calibers EVER" and more "he actually lined of for a decent second shot with that lighter round" than might have been previously discussed.
Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )
While this might not seem to immediately mean anything in this discussion, it means more than you think when you take into account the fact these aforementioned untrained idiots also have no recoil-control training. To wit, the heavier loads (.357, .45 ACP, etc.) cause enough muzzle flip, only made worse by the large propensity of these people to hold the weapon sideways, that a second shot on-target is going to be much less likely than with lighter loadings like the 9mm Luger and .380.
You have people who develop flinch reflexes with the "good" loadings, at least as they pertain to the coroner's observations, when they shoot a bit. Now make this ten times worse by never going to the range, holding the firearm sideways and forthermore not making sure (or any effort at all for that matter) that the line of recoil is in-line with the forearm and wrist and you see a lot less of "The best calibers EVER" and more "he actually lined of for a decent second shot with that lighter round" than might have been previously discussed.
Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )
AmbulanceDriver
Member
Normally
I wouldn't even have read through every page of this thread. But I wanted to check to make sure that no one had brought this one up....
Was at the local gun range the other day, and saw the handgun that would once and for all end the .45 vs 9mm vs 10mm vs
debate.
It was an AK-47 style receiver with a short barrel, and a pistol grip. No buttstock.
With a 30 rd mag hanging under it.
7.62x39 wins this one I think...
p.s. I know, someone is gonna point out that the 7.62x39 won't get up to full velocity out of a short barrel. I really doubt that it would make all that much of a difference.....
I wouldn't even have read through every page of this thread. But I wanted to check to make sure that no one had brought this one up....
Was at the local gun range the other day, and saw the handgun that would once and for all end the .45 vs 9mm vs 10mm vs
debate.It was an AK-47 style receiver with a short barrel, and a pistol grip. No buttstock.
With a 30 rd mag hanging under it.
7.62x39 wins this one I think...
p.s. I know, someone is gonna point out that the 7.62x39 won't get up to full velocity out of a short barrel. I really doubt that it would make all that much of a difference.....
BluesBear
member
And you're gonna carry this in your waistband or in an ankle holster?
Someone said that a .32 auto had been stopped by someone's front teeth.. that's not unheard of. A solder in Iraq took a 9mm right below his nose point blank and all it cost him were his teeth. It left him with an ugly smile, but he'll smile it for a long time. I don't know that a .45 would have done anything different.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/teeth.asp
My .02, for what it's worth -- a handgun is only useful because it's small enough to carry. Carry the biggest one you're sure will always be with you. Know its limitations and adjust your tactics whenever possible.
The 9mm strikes a great balance between power and compactness. After it, as you go up in calibers and firepower, you get seroiusly "diminishing returns." The odds of another practical concealed carry caliber making a difference once you've drawn the weapon are probably statistically insignificant.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/teeth.asp
My .02, for what it's worth -- a handgun is only useful because it's small enough to carry. Carry the biggest one you're sure will always be with you. Know its limitations and adjust your tactics whenever possible.
The 9mm strikes a great balance between power and compactness. After it, as you go up in calibers and firepower, you get seroiusly "diminishing returns." The odds of another practical concealed carry caliber making a difference once you've drawn the weapon are probably statistically insignificant.
makarovnik
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,678
Hollowpoints vs. FMJ
The guy does say the 9mm is one of the wounds he sees most often on the autopsy table. Yes shot placement is important but it's most important with small and medium calibers. With a .45 you can hit someone in the arm and possibly decapitate them. They will probably go into shock, bleed out right away or have enough meat missing to render them harmless. That being said I carry a makarov. It certainly isn't the most effective caliber but with FMJ it has adequate penetration to hit vital organs, it's comfortable to carry and I shoot it well. My pistol is very accurate but I notice that almost all rounds look as though they're slightly canted when they go through a paper target. I read some information online that this was normal with this round and they tend to tumble through human flesh. Anybody else heard this?
Of course ammo can be a decisive factor. For self defense I actually like FMJ in the .380, 9x18 and .45 ACP. Why? Because you really need to get up around 1000 feet per second in order for hollowpoints to expand reliably in human flesh. You also have the trade off between wound diameter vs. penetration. I think the real danger of FMJ is over-penetration. With a fast round like 9mm luger I prefer the hollowpoints. The bullet is moving fast enough to expand reliably and a FMJ on the other hand might go right through and hit a bystander.
What does everyone else think? Assuming your pistol feeds hollowpoints reliably, are they always the best for self defense or only in certain calibers?
The guy does say the 9mm is one of the wounds he sees most often on the autopsy table. Yes shot placement is important but it's most important with small and medium calibers. With a .45 you can hit someone in the arm and possibly decapitate them. They will probably go into shock, bleed out right away or have enough meat missing to render them harmless. That being said I carry a makarov. It certainly isn't the most effective caliber but with FMJ it has adequate penetration to hit vital organs, it's comfortable to carry and I shoot it well. My pistol is very accurate but I notice that almost all rounds look as though they're slightly canted when they go through a paper target. I read some information online that this was normal with this round and they tend to tumble through human flesh. Anybody else heard this?
Of course ammo can be a decisive factor. For self defense I actually like FMJ in the .380, 9x18 and .45 ACP. Why? Because you really need to get up around 1000 feet per second in order for hollowpoints to expand reliably in human flesh. You also have the trade off between wound diameter vs. penetration. I think the real danger of FMJ is over-penetration. With a fast round like 9mm luger I prefer the hollowpoints. The bullet is moving fast enough to expand reliably and a FMJ on the other hand might go right through and hit a bystander.
What does everyone else think? Assuming your pistol feeds hollowpoints reliably, are they always the best for self defense or only in certain calibers?
makarovnik
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,678
Hollow points vs. FMJ
Oops! Sorry about the double post
Oops! Sorry about the double post
To those who call the anthropologist a troll or a fibber.
If you read close, there are a couple of people who figure out who he is. He is a legit person. If you have any skills on Google you can figure out who he is. Seeing he has not seen fit to divulge neither will I. He gives enough clues, just read the stories.
While he does not do the autopsies, he is in the room for an awful lot of them. His background is ID'ing those who have gone on with no record, cold cases, war atrocities etc. He has seen more dead people than Halley Joel Osment.
Read what he is saying, when dead bodies of criminals show up, those shot but smaller rounds have more holes, often those holes show evidence of deflection and insufficient damage to have resulted in a quick stop. Likewise what he is saying is that when crooks show up with one or two bullet holes, they are usually shot by .40 or 45's. At the same time, the bullet trails seem to be straighter and more likely to have gone thru bone rather than be deflected by it. The man has the background and the evidence. Why are you unwilling to learn from it?
Which do you want to carry, a gun that stops the BG with one or two shot's or one that needs more?
Re the Rob Leatham comment. He was probably refering to his 9x23 race gun for shooting an arbitrary game with arbitrary power ratings. within the parameters of his sport, that was true, but it was more based on the ability of hi end compensated pistols to function better with more gas velocity than it was on a stone stock 9mm or 45. But if referenced to the Dr's posting, then it makes this statement seem to be true, that you would need to shoot the 9 twice as fast to be as effective as the 45. Can you shoot your nine twice as fast?
just putting out the fire with gasoline.
If you read close, there are a couple of people who figure out who he is. He is a legit person. If you have any skills on Google you can figure out who he is. Seeing he has not seen fit to divulge neither will I. He gives enough clues, just read the stories.
While he does not do the autopsies, he is in the room for an awful lot of them. His background is ID'ing those who have gone on with no record, cold cases, war atrocities etc. He has seen more dead people than Halley Joel Osment.
Read what he is saying, when dead bodies of criminals show up, those shot but smaller rounds have more holes, often those holes show evidence of deflection and insufficient damage to have resulted in a quick stop. Likewise what he is saying is that when crooks show up with one or two bullet holes, they are usually shot by .40 or 45's. At the same time, the bullet trails seem to be straighter and more likely to have gone thru bone rather than be deflected by it. The man has the background and the evidence. Why are you unwilling to learn from it?
Which do you want to carry, a gun that stops the BG with one or two shot's or one that needs more?
Re the Rob Leatham comment. He was probably refering to his 9x23 race gun for shooting an arbitrary game with arbitrary power ratings. within the parameters of his sport, that was true, but it was more based on the ability of hi end compensated pistols to function better with more gas velocity than it was on a stone stock 9mm or 45. But if referenced to the Dr's posting, then it makes this statement seem to be true, that you would need to shoot the 9 twice as fast to be as effective as the 45. Can you shoot your nine twice as fast?
just putting out the fire with gasoline.
MCgunner
Member
What I want to carry is the smallest size gun in a service (9x19mm) caliber. I've never shot a man in my life and I'm 53 years old. If I can shoot 10 out of 10 rams at 200 yards with an open sighted pistol, I can hit center mass at 3 feet. A bullet that's packin' 410 ft lbs ain't something I wanna get shot with, either, no matter how many hundredths of an inch it is.
If you wanna carry around a .44 mag desert eagle, fine, more power to you. Me, I'll be carryin' a compact nine, 14 ounces of +P fire power, thanks. It rates in the 90s in REAL gun fights for comparative purposes, similar to the .45ACP, as it should with over 400 ft lbs of energy and 1260 fps of velocity to open up that hollow point. It won't challenge the 4" service .357 magnum, king of the hill in handgun power. I guess that's because the bullet is .002" smaller than the .357... But, the .357 is a flash/bang wimp out of a carryable sized gun, a snubby. The 9 has more energy with a similar size/weight bullet. It gets it done with a faster burning, denser powder out of short barrels and, thus, also has much less recoil and is easier to fire rapidly.
For CCW, a gun you will have with you is far better than the shotgun at home in the closet. You have to realize, NO handgun is a "stopper", period, not even the holy .45 ACP. The .357 out of a long enough barrel begins to approach rifle like power, but it ain't there out of anything all day carryable. You can't carry a Mossberg Persuader IWB or in a pocket, so just choose what you WILL have with you, something you CAN carry all day, every day, all year. The 9 offers the most power for the carryable size of any handgun caliber with the possible exception of some of the compact .40s. Between .40 and 9mm, I've chosen the 9. It's easier on those little frames and packs enough punch IMHO and it's easy to shoot accurately and fast. the .40 is a viable choice, though. I've yet to see the .45 ACP that's pocket sized. If we're talkin' service guns, I'd argue for the .357 magnum revolver as to caliber above all others save maybe a .41 magnum, but I'm not a cop or security guard. I carry concealed, usually pocket or IWB.
As was stated earlier, if a coroner is examining a body, it is probably a dead one no matter the caliber that put it there.
A bullet that's packin' 410 ft lbs ain't something I wanna get shot with, either, no matter how many hundredths of an inch it is. If you wanna carry around a .44 mag desert eagle, fine, more power to you. Me, I'll be carryin' a compact nine, 14 ounces of +P fire power, thanks. It rates in the 90s in REAL gun fights for comparative purposes, similar to the .45ACP, as it should with over 400 ft lbs of energy and 1260 fps of velocity to open up that hollow point. It won't challenge the 4" service .357 magnum, king of the hill in handgun power. I guess that's because the bullet is .002" smaller than the .357...
But, the .357 is a flash/bang wimp out of a carryable sized gun, a snubby. The 9 has more energy with a similar size/weight bullet. It gets it done with a faster burning, denser powder out of short barrels and, thus, also has much less recoil and is easier to fire rapidly.For CCW, a gun you will have with you is far better than the shotgun at home in the closet. You have to realize, NO handgun is a "stopper", period, not even the holy .45 ACP. The .357 out of a long enough barrel begins to approach rifle like power, but it ain't there out of anything all day carryable. You can't carry a Mossberg Persuader IWB or in a pocket, so just choose what you WILL have with you, something you CAN carry all day, every day, all year. The 9 offers the most power for the carryable size of any handgun caliber with the possible exception of some of the compact .40s. Between .40 and 9mm, I've chosen the 9. It's easier on those little frames and packs enough punch IMHO and it's easy to shoot accurately and fast. the .40 is a viable choice, though. I've yet to see the .45 ACP that's pocket sized. If we're talkin' service guns, I'd argue for the .357 magnum revolver as to caliber above all others save maybe a .41 magnum, but I'm not a cop or security guard. I carry concealed, usually pocket or IWB.
As was stated earlier, if a coroner is examining a body, it is probably a dead one no matter the caliber that put it there.
So, you think this is him? Time to make a phone call.
http://www.state.ga.us/gbi/pathology/bios.html
"Dr. Frederick Snow graduated from Georgia State University in Atlanta, GA with a B.A in 1970. He served as a patrolman for the Dekalb County Police Department from 1973 to 1980. Dr. Snow enrolled as a graduate student at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, Tennessee and received a master's degree in anthropology in 1989. He joined the Georgia Bureau of Investigation in 2002 and earned a Ph.D. in anthropology from the University of Tennessee in 2004.
Dr. Snow has extensive field experience in the identification of remains from mass grave/disaster sites. Internationally, he served as a forensic anthropologist for the UN War Crimes Tribunal for Kosovo in 1999, helping to determine manner of death and gain evidence for the indictment of war criminals. He also excavated mass graves for the International Commission on Missing Persons in Sarajevo and Herzegovina, Bosnia to recover evidence for use at the UN War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague in 2001. Finally, Dr. Snow served in an administrative role for the tsunami victims identification project in 2005 in Phuket, Thailand. Domestically, he was part of the Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Team (DMORT), in Noble, Georgia in 2002, and helped recover and identify remains from 326 individuals at the Tri-State Crematory.
At the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Dr. Snow has collected, analyzed, and archived approximately 200 sets of unidentified human skeletal remains dating to 1969. "
http://www.state.ga.us/gbi/pathology/bios.html
"Dr. Frederick Snow graduated from Georgia State University in Atlanta, GA with a B.A in 1970. He served as a patrolman for the Dekalb County Police Department from 1973 to 1980. Dr. Snow enrolled as a graduate student at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, Tennessee and received a master's degree in anthropology in 1989. He joined the Georgia Bureau of Investigation in 2002 and earned a Ph.D. in anthropology from the University of Tennessee in 2004.
Dr. Snow has extensive field experience in the identification of remains from mass grave/disaster sites. Internationally, he served as a forensic anthropologist for the UN War Crimes Tribunal for Kosovo in 1999, helping to determine manner of death and gain evidence for the indictment of war criminals. He also excavated mass graves for the International Commission on Missing Persons in Sarajevo and Herzegovina, Bosnia to recover evidence for use at the UN War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague in 2001. Finally, Dr. Snow served in an administrative role for the tsunami victims identification project in 2005 in Phuket, Thailand. Domestically, he was part of the Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Team (DMORT), in Noble, Georgia in 2002, and helped recover and identify remains from 326 individuals at the Tri-State Crematory.
At the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Dr. Snow has collected, analyzed, and archived approximately 200 sets of unidentified human skeletal remains dating to 1969. "
A lot of great qualifications. None of which, unfortunately, go to the primary thesis of the thread: the adequacy or inadequacy of the 9mm. That simply isn't possible to be determined from skeletal/decomposed remains (which is what such an expert typically deals with).
MCgunner
Member
An anthropologist is a terminal ballistics expert?
30-06 lover
Member
LOL these threads make me laugh. Placement is not everything. Power is not everything.
-Mike
-Mike
BluesBear
member
But isn't anecdotal evidence and personal obserbation what 99% of The High Road members base their posts on?
MCgunner
Member
Well, terminal ballistics is best understood by the physicists and even they don't even have a good handle on it. They can split the atom, but terminal ballistics is still a bit of a quandary. But, hey, I'll let the physicists argue with the anthropologists, whatever, and keep carrying my pocket 9.
I saw a deal on history channel once where an anthropologist enlisted the help of his physics department to measure the power of an atlatl to see if it actually COULD kill a mammoth. That right there tells ME somethin', eh? Oh, the big and slow guys would LOVE that atlatl. I don't remember the ft lbs, but modern man ain't got nothin' on it, not shoulder fired anyway!
But, hey, I'll let the physicists argue with the anthropologists, whatever, and keep carrying my pocket 9. I saw a deal on history channel once where an anthropologist enlisted the help of his physics department to measure the power of an atlatl to see if it actually COULD kill a mammoth. That right there tells ME somethin', eh? Oh, the big and slow guys would LOVE that atlatl. I don't remember the ft lbs, but modern man ain't got nothin' on it, not shoulder fired anyway!
Billy Wyrick
Member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2006
- Messages
- 3
A very interesting thread. I was just wondering about Mr. Marshall and Mr. Sanow, and just what caliber they carry now after their study has been published? It seams to me, I read a few years or more ago, that Mr. Marshall said he went over to a Sig .357. But maybe someone knows just what "THE TWO OF THEM" carry today? I hope someone has the answer, thanks in advance.
Billy Wyrick
Billy Wyrick
I'm not sure about all the autopsy and studies others have done.
I've done a little (emphasis on little) research on this and believe the .45 is a better stopping round than the 9mm. I say that because I've shot a few deer with each and deer shot with the .45 died quicker.
Yes, this is far from scientific. While all of the shots were in the bread basket, they were not identically placed. Some broke a rib going in, some didn't.
That said, I have also shot a few deer with a .44 magnum and it pretty much dropped them in their tracks.
Still - this is a good thread. We all have our preferences and reasons for having them. Some claim to hate these threads, but we still read them.
I've done a little (emphasis on little) research on this and believe the .45 is a better stopping round than the 9mm. I say that because I've shot a few deer with each and deer shot with the .45 died quicker.
Yes, this is far from scientific. While all of the shots were in the bread basket, they were not identically placed. Some broke a rib going in, some didn't.
That said, I have also shot a few deer with a .44 magnum and it pretty much dropped them in their tracks.
Still - this is a good thread. We all have our preferences and reasons for having them. Some claim to hate these threads, but we still read them.
Power matters to a point -- you have to have enough power behind the bullet to consistently reach the vital organs or CNS, after that it's shot placement. Carry what you can shoot well and shoot until the threat stops. Don't expect a one-shot-stop from your death-ray just because you read something online.
BluesBear
member
Most people who are advocating carrying Caliber A, Brand X type R ammunition instead of Caliber B, Brand Z type U ammunition are not terminal ballisticians either.
My point was he didn't say he was an expert in terminal ballistics.
In fact, I don't recall him saying he was an expert in anything?
He was just commenting on what HE had PERSONALLY observed.
As I read all 20+ pages I didn't get the impression he was trying to change anyone's mine. He was just expesssing his personal opinions.
The vast majority of everything said in this Forum is someone's opinion.
Where is it written in the book of life that one has to be an expert to give advice or voice an opinion.
And what exacrtly is the benchmark of determining expertise?
Is Dr Fackler an expert? DOes everyone agree with him?
Are Marshall & Sanow experts? Does everyone agree with them?
So just who is and who isn't an expert doesn't really matter much in the grande scheme.
Besides you cannot teach anything to a person who already knows it all.
My point was he didn't say he was an expert in terminal ballistics.
In fact, I don't recall him saying he was an expert in anything?
He was just commenting on what HE had PERSONALLY observed.
As I read all 20+ pages I didn't get the impression he was trying to change anyone's mine. He was just expesssing his personal opinions.
The vast majority of everything said in this Forum is someone's opinion.
Where is it written in the book of life that one has to be an expert to give advice or voice an opinion.
And what exacrtly is the benchmark of determining expertise?
Is Dr Fackler an expert? DOes everyone agree with him?
Are Marshall & Sanow experts? Does everyone agree with them?
So just who is and who isn't an expert doesn't really matter much in the grande scheme.
Besides you cannot teach anything to a person who already knows it all.
It isn't written anywhere because it's not true.
But representing yourself to be something you're not in order to give your opinion more credence isn't kosher.
Here's what DM2 says as his opening statement for the thread: "One of the benefits of working in a morgue is that I get to see what works and what doesn't. Ballistic gelatin is good as far as it goes, but there's nothing like seeing what a bullet actually does once it strikes bone, flesh, and organs."
Wow!, the reader thinks, "This guy has the real inside scoop! He's such an expert that he even knows better than people like Fackler who have spent their whole lives studying terminal ballistics in gelatin.
His second post starts out: "The .357 is gloriously effective." Not "IMO it is gloriously effective." Not "I think the .357 is very effective". No, he makes his statement as if it is an incontrovertible fact. Later in that post he says: "this is from experience that I've made my calls on what works and what doesn't." Again, not his opinion, but his experience tells him what works.
Contrast that with this post later in the thread when some of his inconsistencies are pushing him into a corner.
"...my dissertation isn't on ballistics, wound characteristics, or anything else even vaguely related to this topic."
"...you're absolutely right that often the ME can't tell what caliber and/or bullet was recovered at autopsy, and I clearly stated that in one of my earlier posts. "
"I've seen 9mm rounds fragment before reaching the vital organs and I don't think I've ever seen a .45 do that. That's all I've said, nothing more."
The last comment stands in STARK contrast to his unqualified endorsement of the .357Magnum as being "gloriously effective."
I'm not saying his opinion is invalid. It's as valid as anyone else's. But I AM saying that whether by design or by accident, his initial postings painted him as an expert in the field of terminal ballistics making unassailable statements backed up by forensic evidence--it wasn't until 15 pages into the thread that he started saying things like "I think" "I don't think", etc.
It's not WHAT he's saying, it's how he sold it.
- Status
