what advantage does an 8-shot .45 have over a 16shot 9mm??

[piece of meat]

everywhere i look i see 8-shot .45's touted as great 'combat' pistols, 'serious defensive' pistols, 'battle proven' etc etc...but my rational mind still cannot see how in any real world shooting encounter a gun with 8 lethal rounds would hold ANY advantage over a gun with 16 lethal rounds, which would provide enough comparative firepower to allow for suppressive fire as well as misses; despite the worldwide praise i dont get how a 1911, no matter how stylish they are and how cool they look and feel, would be better than a 16-shot cz75 9mm in any real world deadly encounter application

 

[FoMoGo]

In a public area... are you REALLY going to be laying down suppressive fire?


Jim

 

[piece of meat]

prob not but the point is you have the option...not just talking about 'public areas' but all aspects of handgun practicality including actual combat

 

[buttrap]

Well I guess it could be possable in a public area in some where like Iraq or Afganistan. The local mall I would think no.

 

[Hypnogator]

OH PLEASE, NOT ANOTHER 9MM VS .45 THREAD!:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[wow6599]

despite the worldwide praise i dont get how a 1911, no matter how stylish they are and how cool they look and feel, would be better than a 16-shot cz75 9mm in any real world deadly encounter application

Then buy a 16 shot .45...............

 

[gofastman]

Spare mags are lighter


Id feel just fine with 8 rounds of good .45 ammo (heck, I'd feel fine with 5rds of 38spl)

Id feel a lot better with 16 rounds of good 9mm+P though, especially if were talking about guns in the same size class.

Handguns are weak and how shooters/shootee's react is unpredictable, give me the gun with more bullets I say (as long as we're talking about "service" calibers of course)

 

[GRIZ22]

What about those who carry a 7 or 8 shot 9mm vs 13 shot Glock 21? Different strokes are fine as long as they are not stupid. Surpressive fire in a SD situation is generally not a responsible action.

As long as I can carry spare magazines I would be just a s comfortable with a Glock 17 as I would a 1911.

 

[TomKat]

I would imagine in a real world situation, you would not need more than 7 or 8 shots. It would most certainly be close quarters, and if you practice even half as much as you should... I'd think you'd still be able to hit center mass fairly easily with 7 or 8 shots.

Now if your in the army, more rounds the better... you'll most likely be going up against multiple targets from various angles. But in civilian life, it'll prob be just one, maybe two. I carry 8 rounds of 9mm and feel just fine about it.

 

[Skylerbone]

So long as you are satisfied with your own conclusion and can conceive of others arriving at an alternative there should be no arguement. Are you hoping to convince others or yourself?

Fact is the .45 ACP has indeed proven itself effective in combat through many battles. By extension that makes it a serious defensive weapon (what firearm isn't?) If your rational mind can accept that information AND you believe 9mm is every bit as effective/lethal then you can still declare yourself correct in postulating that twice the ammo should always hold the advantage in any given scenario.

Should there be any doubt about the lethality of a given round, be it 9mm or .25 ACP, you may understand how others opinions differ. Is 9mm enough? Quite likely. Three rounds enough? Same answer. Heck a .22LR can bring down any man when properly placed but I wouldn't go hunting elephants with a 10/22 and a banana mag. for the life of me.

 

[TMann]

If you believe all of the following:

1. A .45 bullet is more effective than a 9 mm bullet.
2. Eight rounds (plus a mag) is adequate capacity.
3. The precise trigger and natural pointability of the 1911 make for more precise shot placement than other pistols.

Then you'll believe that the 1911 is a better gun than the 75B.

If you believe all of the following:

1. A 9 mm bullet is essentially equal to a .45 bullet.
2. Eight rounds (plus a mag) is likely to be inadequate.
3. The lighter recoil and the cheaper ammo (more practice) of the 9 mm round will make for more precise shot placement than pistols that shoot .45 or .40 caliber rounds.

Then you'll believe that the 75B is a better gun than the 1911.

Since none of those presuppositions is easy to PROVE, we are left without one clear choice of best handgun. Choose what works best for you.

TMann

 

[cyclopsshooter]

If you need more than three bullets you're dead anyway..

 

[millertyme]

Since none of those presuppositions is easy to PROVE, we are left without one clear choice of best handgun. Choose what works best for you.

Amen, brother. Keep preaching that gospel.

 

[9mmepiphany]

The most objective advantage that the 1911 platform has over a 16 shot 9mm is the ability to fit a smaller hand and it's excellent ergonomics. The 1911 has been around so long that there are any number of aftermarket parts for it. It can outfitted better for a smaller hand than any other service pistol.

The ergos of the 1911 are what most service pistols are compared to. Wide body double stacks just have a hard time meeting those standards. The achilles heel of the 1911 compared to a modern platform is that it does not stand up as well to neglect.

To answer your question, it isn't about caliber at all, it is about the platform

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

If you need more than three bullets you're dead anyway..

So I guess you save yourself the trouble and only load your gun with 3 rounds. After all you don't want that excess weight because it gets uncomfortable.

 

[RevolvingGarbage]

I personally would feel comfortable with either, or a 6 or 5 shot .38 revolver, from an effectiveness/firepower standpoint.

In practice, I generally find the 1911's single action trigger and the slimness/ergonomics of the gun lend it to be the best shooting gun for me, and the most easily carried (for a full size service pistol).

I think the most important thing is to find a gun that feels the most natural and fluid to use, and practice practice practice until manipulating and shooting it comes as easy as breathing.

 

[Girodin]

Well I guess it could be possable (sic) in a public area in some where like Iraq or Afganistan(sic). The local mall I would think no.

We had a heavily armed guy go on a shooting rampage in the mall here, so why unlikely you never know.

If you need more than three bullets you're dead anyway

I'm not sure why one would make such a silly comment. There are plenty of incidents showing this to be demonstrably untrue.

To answer your question, it isn't about caliber at all, it is about the platform

Exactly.

 

[cyclopsshooter]

I'm not sure why one would make such a silly comment. There are plenty of incidents showing this to be demonstrably untrue.

If you are speaking from a LEO duty perspective I see your point but if you are talking about a self defense situation you're just being paranoid.

 

[JohnBiltz]

Quote:
I'm not sure why one would make such a silly comment. There are plenty of incidents showing this to be demonstrably untrue.
If you are speaking from a LEO duty perspective I see your point but if you are talking about a self defense situation you're just being paranoid.
__________________

That is just nonsense. It may well take more than 3 shots just to get a stop on one man. It may take 3 shots to get a hit. I've read numerous accounts of people in gunfights that fired more than 3 shots and lived and one guy that did it 4 times. Three shots is the often spoken of average number of shots fired in a gun fight, considering that number includes suicides its actually higher.

Personally I want 10 rounds in a gun I'm carrying. I don't care if I have more than 12 in a magazine but I want at least 10. I'm not a 1911 fan. It doesn't feel good in my hand. I also don't think it sets any kind of standard for ergonomics. The rest of the world moved past it in ergonomics and manufacturers are not exactly lining up new models of single action cocked and locked pistols for release. Saying that, a 1911 in the hands of someone who knows how to use it have settled a lot of gunfights and 16 shots don't mean a lot if someone puts a few .45 bullets in you before you get to use them.

 

[12131]

OH PLEASE, NOT ANOTHER 9MM VS .45 THREAD!:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Seriously!

 

[Jed Carter]

While the CZ 75B is a fine service pistol I am more confident with my abilities shooting a 1911 platform. For sometime now I have been using a CZ 75D PCR as my CCW. I recently replaced it in the rotation with a SIG RCS 1911, caliber had very little to do with the choice. The PCR was a double stack 14+1 and the SIG is a 7+1 single stack. Height and length were similar but the width of the grip was too thick to carry under normally fitting clothes IMO. The SIG has real Tritium night sights, the CZ had glow in the dark about 50% brightness after 1 hour. Shootability up to 30 yards and under most conditions, concealability under appropriate clothing, and reliability = a good CCW, caliber has little to do with my choice, capacity even less. Actually wish SIG made the RCS in 9mm, if you think you shoot a CZ 9mm well, then try it out of a good 1911.

 

[CZ223]

My solution is to buy both

or several of each, and carry what you are comfortable with. I used to carry a Glock 23 in 40 S&W, possibly the perfect combination of size, capacity and firepower going. I'll gladly give up two rounds of capcity to have the power of the 40 S&W over the 9mm G19 which is the same size. With the G23 I carried one spare mag for a total of 27 rounds. By the way, I feel the 40 gives up nothing compared to the 45 when it comes to "power". I now carry a 1911, most often my Kimber Tac Pro II, with 2 spare mags, for a total of 25 rounds.

 

[Snowdog]

It boils down to what you're comfortable with. No one is going to be as accurate gauging your comfort level as you are.

If someone were to tell me 13 years ago when I first started to carry that I would eventually find myself comfortable with a 6+1 auto in 9x18, I'm sure I wouldn't have believed it.

I prefer my Bersa UC9 or K9 over my P64, but during hotter months I really don't feel uncomfortable with just the P64 and a spare magazine in Thunderwear... unless I sit down wrong.

 

[EddieNFL]

...but my rational mind still cannot see how in any real world shooting encounter a gun with 8 lethal rounds would hold ANY advantage over a gun with 16 lethal rounds,

As long as we're arguing semantics...why not select a .22 Magnum with 30 lethal rounds?

Since none of those presuppositions is easy to PROVE, we are left without one clear choice of best handgun. Choose what works best for you.

A seldom seen logical (or rational) response.

We had a heavily armed guy go on a shooting rampage in the mall here, so why unlikely you never know.

Did an armed citizen lay down suppressive fire until the cops arrived, or just shoot him two or three times?

 

[AK103K]

It may well take more than 3 shots just to get a stop on one man. It may take 3 shots to get a hit.

Thats just it. It takes what it takes, regardless the caliber. You "shoot them to the ground" and until they are down and out, and that simply takes what it takes to do it.

So, how many rounds do you need to solve a single problem? What about multiple problems? What about "difficult" problems, like a threat or threats behind cover that absorbs or hinders your "well aimed" rounds that were fired under a "little" stress? What are you basing your skill levels on to feel comfortable with whats in your gun?

Since ammo advancements have brought performance a lot closer in line between the calibers, and gun sizes are about the same (the grip on my Glock 17 is actually smaller than my 1911's), why limit yourself to less rounds in a gun thats basically the same size? I dont see how having "extra" on board ammo is a bad thing.