9mm. The deadliest of all!

[xromad]

They have figured out something truly revolutionary.

No .45 for you!

[Moshe]

This is true.  The reason the Army discontinued the .45 ACP for the 9mm was for the purposes of NATO, to have a common round with maximum capacity.  Further, it is a secondary weapon.  The goal was, and for the most part has been, since the .223 was to wound rather than kill.  The reason being the antiquated philosophy that it would take three people out of the combat, the wounded, and the two or more people helping them.  Before it was kill the enemy.  Thus, the .45ACP was considered the most effective back up weapon, until the kill the enemy went by the way side.  In 1998, when we had the .40's issued to us, and the 12 gauge short barreled shotguns, and M-4's we were taught the principal of exsanguination.  We were told, "Boys, for legal purposes we have to say 'Stop the threat,' but you know very well what we mean."  We all knew the implied message was be accurate to the vital areas for killing the threat.  But, wink, wink, say no more, we-er means "stop" the threat.  

Now, in this day and age, everyone is going to 9mm, not because it is better, because we are kinder and gentler.  We just want to wound them enough to make it hurt so they don't keep aggressing.  So, I prefer and carry the .45 ACP.  I would rather not get into a knife fight after pissing them off with a 147 gr 9mm.  But, I guess if you get a vital area that causes death, they are stopped.  I think that is still in the general psyche.  Got to stop the threat, well, it is no longer moving, breathing, I must be safe now.

Thus, ends the history lesson. 

 

[Dric902]

I think what they figured out was the popularity of the 9mm

marksmanship counts for a lot, the individual scenes must be accounted for. A drive by with 17 9mms may not have any lethal hits at all but a single 45 against a mugger may be lethal.

they just crunched a bunch of numbers and made conclusions. They may as well have done the same with gun manufacturers and decided that Glock was the most deadly gun.

 

carries 0 weight

 

.

[janice6]

1 hour ago, Moshe said:

This is true.  The reason the Army discontinued the .45 ACP for the 9mm was for the purposes of NATO, to have a common round with maximum capacity.  Further, it is a secondary weapon.  The goal was, and for the most part has been, since the .223 was to wound rather than kill.  The reason being the antiquated philosophy that it would take three people out of the combat, the wounded, and the two or more people helping them.  Before it was kill the enemy.  Thus, the .45ACP was considered the most effective back up weapon, until the kill the enemy went by the way side.  In 1998, when we had the .40's issued to us, and the 12 gauge short barreled shotguns, and M-4's we were taught the principal of exsanguination.  We were told, "Boys, for legal purposes we have to say 'Stop the threat,' but you know very well what we mean."  We all knew the implied message was be accurate to the vital areas for killing the threat.  But, wink, wink, say no more, we-er means "stop" the threat.  

Now, in this day and age, everyone is going to 9mm, not because it is better, because we are kinder and gentler.  We just want to wound them enough to make it hurt so they don't keep aggressing.  So, I prefer and carry the .45 ACP.  I would rather not get into a knife fight after pissing them off with a 147 gr 9mm.  But, I guess if you get a vital area that causes death, they are stopped.  I think that is still in the general psyche.  Got to stop the threat, well, it is no longer moving, breathing, I must be safe now.

Thus, ends the history lesson. 

 

 

[Moshe]

46 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

I think what they figured out was the popularity of the 9mm

marksmanship counts for a lot, the individual scenes must be accounted for. A drive by with 17 9mms may not have any lethal hits at all but a single 45 against a mugger may be lethal.

they just crunched a bunch of numbers and made conclusions. They may as well have done the same with gun manufacturers and decided that Glock was the most deadly gun.

 

carries 0 weight

 

.

Interesting, with a Arredondo extensions and sprints I made my Glock 21 an 18 shot with one in the tube.  It is no difficult to carry than the 19 or 17, but a lot more lethality.  Also, the FNX-Tactical on my hip with 15 round magazines of which I can easily cover has 16 rounds with one in the chamber.  So, even though I have 9mm, I trust a good Speer LE Gold Dot 230 grain over my similar brand 147grain 9mm.  But, I do shoot for accuracy.  Which is why I have red dots on them.  Though, I have a wider range of vision after my eye surgery.  It is a strange sensation to have "eye buggers" again.  Before they had become hooded enough, I didn't have them anymore.  It took a couple of weeks before waking up and the parts that had been in the dark so much had to adjust as if you had been in an over chlorinated pool for a few hours.  That has stopped.  It does make for some lovely migraines.  I am just happy when two weeks ago they took out the last of the temporary contact lenses they put in during the surgery.  I hope it will be awhile until I need them again.  I have become accustomed to the Trijicon RMR's since then, just got even better with them.

[railfancwb]

 

The reason the Army adopted the 45 was that 38s from revolvers weren’t stopping the drugged up warriors in the Philippines.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Maccabeus]

So, I'm torn on this whole topic.

On the one hand, I once held to bigger is better and opted to carry .45 ACP as my duty side arm.  

On the other hand, I get the arguments of capacity and more-rounds-on-target-faster, too. 

Current mainstream thinking argues for the importance, in this order, of

1) Placement

2) 12-18" penetration, and

3) vague, unspecified, moderate expansion.

(I haven't even addressed the minority opinions about the supremacy of ft-lbs or sectional density or whatever else).

In my mind, I still prefer .45, but in reality, as a civilian, I've carried .45, 9mm, .38+P, and even .380 and have been content with all those options.

As much as I appreciate the history of the .45, I'm not convinced of my former certainty on its effectiveness.

Individual shootings have too many variables to easily compare calibers.  But, we have scores and scores of medium to large police/sheriff's departments with numerous OIS incidents every year.

If .45 ACP is really that much more effective than 9mm, where are the studies showing 9mm agencies averaging less stops than the .45 agencies? I'm not aware of any.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Maccabeus

[janice6]

Over a few years I went from quantity (FN 5.7 @ 20 rounds) to a .45 ACP at 14 rounds (G 41).  As long as I can carry it 24/7 comfortably I get both.  I would carry a 1911, but it was essentially the same round count as my .357 Magnum.

[Dric902]

26 minutes ago, Maccabeus said:

So, I'm torn on this whole topic.

On the one hand, I once held to bigger is better and opted to carry .45 ACP as my duty side arm.  

On the other hand, I get the arguments of capacity and more-rounds-on-target-faster, too. 

Current mainstream thinking argues for the importance, in this order, of

1) Placement

2) 12-18" penetration, and

3) vague, unspecified, moderate expansion.

(I haven't even addressed the minority opinions about the supremacy of ft-lbs or sectional density or whatever else).

In my mind, I still prefer .45, but in reality, as a civilian, I've carried .45, 9mm, .38+P, and even .380 and have been content with all those options.

As much as I appreciate the history of the .45, I'm not convinced of my former certainty on its effectiveness.

Individual shootings have too many variables to easily compare calibers.  But, we have scores and scores of medium to large police/sheriff's departments with numerous OIS incidents every year.

If .45 ACP is really that much more effective than 9mm, where are the studies showing 9mm agencies averaging less stops than the .45 agencies? I'm not aware of any.

The FBI says that the average rounds fired among all encounters is less than three

hasnt broken three that I have ever seen

 

.

[Steelharp]

Three rounds in three seconds at three feet is the "average."

Working at an LGS, I can tell you the fastest diminishing sales are .40. We have ammo we bought back in August for Black Friday still hanging around. We've gone through cases of 9mm.

It's shot placement, guys, not caliber. We all know that. A .22 to the tear duct works.

[Moshe]

Draw and fire in three rounds in three seconds bent elbow at 3/2 yards.  Then the same drill at 5, except then you could reference your front sight, but that was 6 shots from the holster in 6 seconds.  Ten yards were two to the chest one to head, twice.  15 yards 6 standing from the holster in 10 seconds, kneel, exchange magazines in 3 seconds, fire another string of six shots.  At the 25 it was barricade shooting, left side 4 shots standing, four shots kneeling in 20 seconds form the holster.  Again the right side barricade.  All in all it ended up being 50-52 rounds by the time you were done with course of fire.  My last qualification, before I had to retire because of OPMD, kneeling was a bitch, because it was hard as hell to get off the ground.  The rule was, if you couldn't get your own butt up, then that was a disqualification.  Needless to say it was awkward and painful, but I qualified, Toward the end a RO tried give me a hand.  I was too proud to take it, besides I could use my arms to pull myself up on the barricade.  After 8 hours of fun and games I was hurting for a week.  But, before the next quarterly qualification I was out the door.  Now, if I am on the ground, it is because someone put me there.  But, I know how to accurately shoot from that position.

[holyjohnson]

so another study that says 9mm are more deadly because they are used more often by bad guys?

 

and really,who is deciding what a 'large' or 'small' caliber is?

if i get shot by a .25 i bet it feels pretty large.

 

these are the same people that flip flopped 4 times about egg whites being healthy or not.