45Acp fails and 9mm saves the day in shoot out in Ohio
- Thread starter BHP9
- Start date
- Status
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Anecdotal stories like the one provided that contrasted t .45 acp, .38 Special, and 9 mm rounds are interesting stories, but may not be that insightful.
The supposition that the 9 mm round was more effective because the bad guy did not fall until after being struck by the 9 mm round does not necessarily mean it was the 9 mm round that dropped him. Of particular interest here is that the suspect had already been shot multiple times by other calibers. So whether it was the 9 mm round that actually did the trick would be naive to assume to be true. There is no way to know if the same result would have happened in this case had the guy not been shot by the other rounds first. Something else to keep in mind is that people don't always collapse when shot or don't always collapsed immediately when shot. So, given that the 9 mm came last, it is likely that the guy was going to collapse and started to collapse about the time the 9 mm hit, but not because he was hit by a 9 mm.
So, all we have is a description and order of the events. Short of an autopsy, it would be hard to prove the 9 mm was the incapacitating shot.
As an aside, Clint Smith tells the story of a cop serving a warrant with a partner. The suspect managed to wound/kill(?)
[Anecdotal stories like the one provided that contrasted t .45 acp, .38 Special, and 9 mm rounds are interesting stories, but may not be that insightful.
The supposition that the 9 mm round was more effective because the bad guy did not fall until after being struck by the 9 mm round does not necessarily mean it was the 9 mm round that dropped him. Of particular interest here is that the suspect had already been shot multiple times by other calibers. So whether it was the 9 mm round that actually did the trick would be naive to assume to be true. There is no way to know if the same result would have happened in this case had the guy not been shot by the other rounds first. Something else to keep in mind is that people don't always collapse when shot or don't always collapsed immediately when shot. So, given that the 9 mm came last, it is likely that the guy was going to collapse and started to collapse about the time the 9 mm hit, but not because he was hit by a 9 mm.
Clint Smith tells an anecdotal story about two officers serving a warrant. The suspect open the door and managed to hack the junior officer with a machete (maybe killed him?). At that point, the senior officer shot the suspect at something like 3 feet with a 12 ga loaded some small shot size (bird or #4). The shot shredded the suspect's heart and before the officer could pump another round into the suspect, he charged the officer and was attempting to hack him. The officer beat feet as fast as he could to stay out of the blade's reach. The suspect chased the officer off the porch, into the yard, out the front gate and then around the officer's car, a distance of about 75' before the suspect collapsed.
So, taking into consideration the sequence of events, we could argue that the shotgun blast was ineffective and it was only the 75' run that actually killed the suspect. Obviously, that would be naive to believe to be true. My point is that event sequence and correlation does not necessarily translate into causation.
Chuck Taylor had 5 one-stop shots with .45 ball, or something like that. One was through a car window of a truck driving away from him.
To this statement goon asked why he shot at the guy since he was driving away.
I somehow get the impression that you feel that shooting a person driving away is somehow bad or wrong. It really doesn't matter if the guy is down, has his back to you, or is fleeing in some manner if he is still somehow posing a lethal risk to you or others.
I think we often get lulled into believing some tactically unsound reasons not to shoot, in part due to folk lore, in part due to TV and the movies, and in part simply due to ignorance and not knowing the relevant laws. Things like driving away by the bad guy do not necessarily default into a no-shoot situation. Similarly, just because the subject has been shot and gone down does not mean that he is out of the fight.
The supposition that the 9 mm round was more effective because the bad guy did not fall until after being struck by the 9 mm round does not necessarily mean it was the 9 mm round that dropped him. Of particular interest here is that the suspect had already been shot multiple times by other calibers. So whether it was the 9 mm round that actually did the trick would be naive to assume to be true. There is no way to know if the same result would have happened in this case had the guy not been shot by the other rounds first. Something else to keep in mind is that people don't always collapse when shot or don't always collapsed immediately when shot. So, given that the 9 mm came last, it is likely that the guy was going to collapse and started to collapse about the time the 9 mm hit, but not because he was hit by a 9 mm.
So, all we have is a description and order of the events. Short of an autopsy, it would be hard to prove the 9 mm was the incapacitating shot.
As an aside, Clint Smith tells the story of a cop serving a warrant with a partner. The suspect managed to wound/kill(?)
[Anecdotal stories like the one provided that contrasted t .45 acp, .38 Special, and 9 mm rounds are interesting stories, but may not be that insightful.
The supposition that the 9 mm round was more effective because the bad guy did not fall until after being struck by the 9 mm round does not necessarily mean it was the 9 mm round that dropped him. Of particular interest here is that the suspect had already been shot multiple times by other calibers. So whether it was the 9 mm round that actually did the trick would be naive to assume to be true. There is no way to know if the same result would have happened in this case had the guy not been shot by the other rounds first. Something else to keep in mind is that people don't always collapse when shot or don't always collapsed immediately when shot. So, given that the 9 mm came last, it is likely that the guy was going to collapse and started to collapse about the time the 9 mm hit, but not because he was hit by a 9 mm.
Clint Smith tells an anecdotal story about two officers serving a warrant. The suspect open the door and managed to hack the junior officer with a machete (maybe killed him?). At that point, the senior officer shot the suspect at something like 3 feet with a 12 ga loaded some small shot size (bird or #4). The shot shredded the suspect's heart and before the officer could pump another round into the suspect, he charged the officer and was attempting to hack him. The officer beat feet as fast as he could to stay out of the blade's reach. The suspect chased the officer off the porch, into the yard, out the front gate and then around the officer's car, a distance of about 75' before the suspect collapsed.
So, taking into consideration the sequence of events, we could argue that the shotgun blast was ineffective and it was only the 75' run that actually killed the suspect. Obviously, that would be naive to believe to be true. My point is that event sequence and correlation does not necessarily translate into causation.
Chuck Taylor had 5 one-stop shots with .45 ball, or something like that. One was through a car window of a truck driving away from him.
To this statement goon asked why he shot at the guy since he was driving away.
I somehow get the impression that you feel that shooting a person driving away is somehow bad or wrong. It really doesn't matter if the guy is down, has his back to you, or is fleeing in some manner if he is still somehow posing a lethal risk to you or others.
I think we often get lulled into believing some tactically unsound reasons not to shoot, in part due to folk lore, in part due to TV and the movies, and in part simply due to ignorance and not knowing the relevant laws. Things like driving away by the bad guy do not necessarily default into a no-shoot situation. Similarly, just because the subject has been shot and gone down does not mean that he is out of the fight.
So, now we're supposed to believe that a 9mm round can penetrate a GI helmet at 130 yards (?!?), that a .45 can't penetrate an inch beyond a thick coat (BTW who out there actually makes .45 soft points?), and also that the notoriously anemic .30 Luger round was supposedly the equal of the .45ACP in the Thompson-LeGuard tests?
Got news for ya. The .45ACP wasn't even in the T/L tests! It was developed partially in response to the T/L tests that suggested a minimum .45 caliber round.
The 9mm will certainly do the job with the right ammo and with proper shot placement. But it ain't no wonder-round, and certainly isn't superior to the .45ACP no matter what some misinformed individuals claim.
Got news for ya. The .45ACP wasn't even in the T/L tests! It was developed partially in response to the T/L tests that suggested a minimum .45 caliber round.
The 9mm will certainly do the job with the right ammo and with proper shot placement. But it ain't no wonder-round, and certainly isn't superior to the .45ACP no matter what some misinformed individuals claim.
cratz2
Member
Thank you! I love it when people that have obviously never attempted to read, let alone comprehend, the tests, either claim that the T/L tests showed that the 45ACP was superior to all others or that some other cartridge was proven nearly as effective at killing dead cattle.
I was raised a 1911 guy and I respect the 45ACP. But I really wouldn't want to take a couple shots from 124 +P Gold Dots or +P+ 115 Gr CorBons. I don't care what anybody says. I have no doubt in measured tests with FMJ ammo, that 147 Gr 9mm penetrates like few other semi auto pistol loads. But penetration isn't everything.
I can also cite an instance where a 'bad guy' was shot point blank, almost at contact range with a 9mm FMJ from a Glock 17 and the bullet bounced off his head leaving very little blood. Of course, it knocked the guy out cold and resolved the situation. So there's one that's difficult to categorize: one shot, the guy stopped, a 9mm that didn't penetrate at all, yet there was no need for additional shots.
Good loads in decent length barrel 9mm, 357 SIG, 40S&W, 45ACP or 10mm will typically deliver very positive results. Law enforcement issues aside, for civilians, they are pretty similar. The promoters of each cartridge may have you believe differently but in civilian hands against other civilians with proper shot placement, any of them can really ruin a bad guys day.
By the way Wild Romanian, I'd really hate to have watched you shooting steel at a distance of 3 feet. Please tell me you were firing the gun yourself with your own hand. That picture... comforts me... somehow. Hunkered down on one knee, gun in hand outstretched carefully aiming straight into a 55 gallon steel drum 3 feet away.
meathammer
Member
I believe Blackhawk's statement pretty much sums it up for me.
Chuch Taylor is probably the least credible gun writer writing in the gun rags today. Anyone at all that has any experience putting large amounts of rounds through a handgun knows that when he claims to have gotton 170000 rounds through a Glock with no parts replacement whatsoever and then fires it under water again with no special modifications simply cannot be believed.
Just one example would be the recoil spring, there is not one made that would go even half that long without causing extreme malfunctions to the weapon.
It has been all documented . Anyone who has read the Tompson tests already knows this and it there was an article published about it in the Gun Digest, I believe by one of the major gun writers some years back.
If you go back into the archives you can also read the U.S. Military tests of 1945 that proved the 9mm did indeed penetrate a steel helmet at 130 yars while the .45 bounced off.at only 30 yards.
Anyone doubting the low penetration of the .45 round can try their own tests. Old G.I. helmets and 55 gal. drums are just about everywhere.
When comparing say the 225 grain .45 load to a 120 grain 9mm load you can easily beat the 45 by at least 200 fps or even more, now compare that to rifle cartridges, sometimes in rifle cartridges there is only a mere 150 to 200 fps seperation like comparing the .270 to the 7mm magnum.
I think the ballistics are there, the smaller diameter of the 9mm coupled with its tremedous velocity advantage should not suprise anyone when it easily out penetrates the .45.
Lets face it a .45 going only 850 to 900 fps slows down real fast after it leaves the muzzle and its no suprise at all it bounced off G.I. helmets by the time it got to 30 yards.
Double Maduro
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2002
- Messages
- 1,125
1. Three cops taking turns shooting a man attacking them with a knife, not likely.
2. What happened to the energy from the first four rounds?
3. Five handgun shots in a basement, can anyone say "pass the excedrine"?
I shoot .45 because I am accurate with it and like it. I have shot 9mm and am accurate with it but don't trust it as much as I do .45.
Seems there was a thread on TFL on the debate between 9mm and .45 and one of the respondents was a trauma center doctor. His comment was something to the effect that he had worked on lots of people with wounds from 9mm, 10mm, .22, .38 and even the vaunted .357 but he had never worked on anyone shot with a .45. There was no need, they all were dead by the time they got to him.
Like most of the above posts, this is anecdotal evidence and should be viewed with suspicion.
gryphon
Member
For every post like this there is another one that shows how small and puny the 9mm is and the how magical the .45 performs.
Oh, well, here's another one to add.
Oh, well, here's another one to add.
Mr. Purple
member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2003
- Messages
- 32
38 special, 9mm, 40 S&W, and 45 acp. They all work and they all don't work. Having been involved with law enforcement for 23 years in a major metropolitan area and being involved in the investigation of police shootings, I have seen examples of each of these calibers killing both good and bad guys with one shot and have observed good and bad guys survive multiple hits with examples of each caliber.
Take this as a well established shooting fact that has been documented well before I ever carried a gun, THERE IS NO HANDGUN CABLIBER GUARANTEED TO MAKE A ONE SHOT STOP ON ANYBODY.
All of the above calibers work if you do your job. Me, I like the 40 because its alot of power with a pretty big hole in a 9mm sized package. That said I always have a 6 shot detective special with me no matter what else, if anything I am carrying.
BHP9, As for Chuck Taylor and the Glock 9mm doing 170,000 without any problem, I believe it. Go to any busy range that rents Glocks, they have similar experiences. This is no isolated incident. A major ammo company has a Glock 17 thats fired more than 348,000. (see page 49, 02 Glock annual, Glocks in Switzerland). Mr. Taylor has survived more gunfights than I ever hope NOT to be in. I have no reason to doubt his advice or the use he has documented in any of his guns.
Take this as a well established shooting fact that has been documented well before I ever carried a gun, THERE IS NO HANDGUN CABLIBER GUARANTEED TO MAKE A ONE SHOT STOP ON ANYBODY.
All of the above calibers work if you do your job. Me, I like the 40 because its alot of power with a pretty big hole in a 9mm sized package. That said I always have a 6 shot detective special with me no matter what else, if anything I am carrying.
BHP9, As for Chuck Taylor and the Glock 9mm doing 170,000 without any problem, I believe it. Go to any busy range that rents Glocks, they have similar experiences. This is no isolated incident. A major ammo company has a Glock 17 thats fired more than 348,000. (see page 49, 02 Glock annual, Glocks in Switzerland). Mr. Taylor has survived more gunfights than I ever hope NOT to be in. I have no reason to doubt his advice or the use he has documented in any of his guns.
DeltaElite
Member
These arguments are amusing. 
Any cartridge, 9mm and above is fine if you place the shots accurately.
I prefer 10mm and 45acp, but that's just me.
Any cartridge, 9mm and above is fine if you place the shots accurately.
I prefer 10mm and 45acp, but that's just me.
Snowdog
Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2002
- Messages
- 4,608
Not that I really care what others think of the 9mm and the .45acp, I just thought I'd chime in.
I'm quite certain that I've read that the .45acp doesn't slow down any faster than a 9mm (in fact, I believe it was the opposite if the 115gr 9mm was in question) due to its superior sectional density.
Second, I'd also like to know who makes a .45acp soft point. This is new to me.
Finally, only 1" after winter clothing? I think not. I've monkeyed around with the .45acp quite a bit with all kinds of fun, reactive targets. Unless the fellow was using home-spun SWC black powder fodder, I simply cannot see that happening for the life of me.
As for hard targets, the .45acp just doesn't compare to the 9mm simply due to velocity... the .45acp is more prone to deflection. However, soft targets are a completely different matter. 230gr .45acp hardball will penetrate deeper into ballistic gelatin than a 115gr 9mm FMJ by a good two inches*. However, as pointed out above, penetration isn't everything.
Take it however it strikes you, just thought I'd share.
* Street Stoppers
I'm quite certain that I've read that the .45acp doesn't slow down any faster than a 9mm (in fact, I believe it was the opposite if the 115gr 9mm was in question) due to its superior sectional density.
Second, I'd also like to know who makes a .45acp soft point. This is new to me.
Finally, only 1" after winter clothing? I think not. I've monkeyed around with the .45acp quite a bit with all kinds of fun, reactive targets. Unless the fellow was using home-spun SWC black powder fodder, I simply cannot see that happening for the life of me.
As for hard targets, the .45acp just doesn't compare to the 9mm simply due to velocity... the .45acp is more prone to deflection. However, soft targets are a completely different matter. 230gr .45acp hardball will penetrate deeper into ballistic gelatin than a 115gr 9mm FMJ by a good two inches*. However, as pointed out above, penetration isn't everything.
Take it however it strikes you, just thought I'd share.
* Street Stoppers
Tamara
Senior Member
BHP9,
It'd be interesting for you to quote how you think the .45ACP did in the Thompson-LaGarde tests, considering that the cartridge wasn't invented until two years later.
So, how did .45ACP perform in those tests?
It'd be interesting for you to quote how you think the .45ACP did in the Thompson-LaGarde tests, considering that the cartridge wasn't invented until two years later.
So, how did .45ACP perform in those tests?
Wait a minute! This guy, (BHP9), is the same one who thinks all pistols made after 1936 are garbage? Now it is revealed he is an irrational 9mm fan too?
No one can make this stuff up, it is too funny. Yes, the .45ACP sucks, (especially because there is an unattributed pro 9mm anomaly appearing here), because it didn't strike stockyard animals forcefully enough from the future.
Then, during World War II, after having proven capable of killing many a Jap or German soldier, the .45 ACP FMJ proves incapable of penetrating a steel pot at 90 feet!?! Of course the dent in that pot (having seen one in an old training film excerpted in the History Channel's Tales of the Gun) from the bigmouth is going to have Mrsrs. Kraut and Banzai thinking that they are dead by the time the next shot hits home. And to think, the Army and Marines relied on this anemic cartridge in subguns (Thompsons) that were feared, and sought after, the world over. How did that happen?
Hmmm. My .45s have penetrated many a steel drum, junked car, bowling pin, and even managed to scratch a manhole cover used as a gong. I must be doing something wrong.
I do dread the day when I am attacked by some loon wearing a surplus brain bucket because I will have to rely solely upon all of that COM shooting I do. Dang, I feel like a goner already, especially since my frontline SD pistol was built in 2002, an era well known for having no material quality or QC inspections at all.
No one can make this stuff up, it is too funny. Yes, the .45ACP sucks, (especially because there is an unattributed pro 9mm anomaly appearing here), because it didn't strike stockyard animals forcefully enough from the future.
Then, during World War II, after having proven capable of killing many a Jap or German soldier, the .45 ACP FMJ proves incapable of penetrating a steel pot at 90 feet!?! Of course the dent in that pot (having seen one in an old training film excerpted in the History Channel's Tales of the Gun) from the bigmouth is going to have Mrsrs. Kraut and Banzai thinking that they are dead by the time the next shot hits home. And to think, the Army and Marines relied on this anemic cartridge in subguns (Thompsons) that were feared, and sought after, the world over. How did that happen?
Hmmm. My .45s have penetrated many a steel drum, junked car, bowling pin, and even managed to scratch a manhole cover used as a gong. I must be doing something wrong.
I do dread the day when I am attacked by some loon wearing a surplus brain bucket because I will have to rely solely upon all of that COM shooting I do. Dang, I feel like a goner already, especially since my frontline SD pistol was built in 2002, an era well known for having no material quality or QC inspections at all.
Mike Irwin
Member
"Did you know that in the infamous Thompson tests of early in the last century that most experts chose to totally ignore the fact that the .30 Luger did about as well as the .45 acp when shooting gigantic animal steers in the tests that took place in a Chicago slaughter house. The big bore boys that have been beating the big bore drums for years simply chose to ignore how well the much smaller but much higher velocity 30 luger did in killing the steers."
Oh?
Hum...
I danced with someone on this very subject some time ago (link at bottom of page...)
There's a very good summary of the Thompson LaGarde tests in the 4th Edition of Cartridges of the World. It coincides very nicely with my reading of a copy of the actual report when I worked for NRA.
In short, that premise that the .30 Luger cartridge did about as well as the .45 ACP can be summed up by a singled word...
FALSE
First, and most importantly, the .45 ACP wasn't tested. An earlier, prototype of the round, firing a 200-grain bullet, was tested, however.
"The second part of this Army test involved shooting into live animals in order to observe the actual effect on living tissue...
No shots were fired into vital organs such as the heart or brain, all shots being fired into the lung or intestinal areas.
With the .30 Luger, in no instances did an animal drop by the tenth shot and in fact none of them appeared to suffer great pain, shock, or distress.
Animals shot with the 9mm or the .38 Colt auto showed greater distress and by the sixth or seventh shot showed great distress, shock or exhaustion and usually dropped before the eighth shot.
With the .45 Colt revolver the animals showed great shock and distress and dropped by the fourth or fifth shot. With the .455 and .475 caliber revolvers the animal usually dropped by the third shot.
Those shot with the large calibers would begin to bleed from the nose and mouth by the second or third shot. This did not happen with the smaller calibers.
The major conclusions drawn from the Army lethality tests of 1904 were as follows:
1. Within the velocity range possible with handguns there is no marked effect from velocity alone other than greater penetration.
2. At handgun velocities there is little difference in the effect of different bullet materials (lead or jacketed) when traversing flesh. However, lead or expanding bullets will inflict more damage when they strike bone.
3. In fles there appears to be little difference betwene a sharpt pointed or round nosed bullet. On the other hand, a flat or blunt point does substantially more damage to blood vessels and bone and has less tendency to be deflected by bone or cartilage.
4. The weight of the bullet does not appear to be critical, although it is to be noted that the most effective bullets weren ot only of large caliber, but also the heaviest weight.
5. The diameter or caliber of the bullet is important because at handgun velocities expansion of shot point or other expanding bullets is not reliable. The larger diameter bullets simply destroy more tissue and blood vessels becaus they affect a larger cross sectional area.
Quite frankly, the ONLY area in which rounds like the .30 were found to be more effective were in head shots, where their higher velocity increased the amount of destruction out of proportion to their size.
Here's a very interesting thread from The Firing Line on this very subject...
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=124250&highlight=thompson+lagarde
Oh?
Hum...
I danced with someone on this very subject some time ago (link at bottom of page...)
There's a very good summary of the Thompson LaGarde tests in the 4th Edition of Cartridges of the World. It coincides very nicely with my reading of a copy of the actual report when I worked for NRA.
In short, that premise that the .30 Luger cartridge did about as well as the .45 ACP can be summed up by a singled word...
FALSE
First, and most importantly, the .45 ACP wasn't tested. An earlier, prototype of the round, firing a 200-grain bullet, was tested, however.
"The second part of this Army test involved shooting into live animals in order to observe the actual effect on living tissue...
No shots were fired into vital organs such as the heart or brain, all shots being fired into the lung or intestinal areas.
With the .30 Luger, in no instances did an animal drop by the tenth shot and in fact none of them appeared to suffer great pain, shock, or distress.
Animals shot with the 9mm or the .38 Colt auto showed greater distress and by the sixth or seventh shot showed great distress, shock or exhaustion and usually dropped before the eighth shot.
With the .45 Colt revolver the animals showed great shock and distress and dropped by the fourth or fifth shot. With the .455 and .475 caliber revolvers the animal usually dropped by the third shot.
Those shot with the large calibers would begin to bleed from the nose and mouth by the second or third shot. This did not happen with the smaller calibers.
The major conclusions drawn from the Army lethality tests of 1904 were as follows:
1. Within the velocity range possible with handguns there is no marked effect from velocity alone other than greater penetration.
2. At handgun velocities there is little difference in the effect of different bullet materials (lead or jacketed) when traversing flesh. However, lead or expanding bullets will inflict more damage when they strike bone.
3. In fles there appears to be little difference betwene a sharpt pointed or round nosed bullet. On the other hand, a flat or blunt point does substantially more damage to blood vessels and bone and has less tendency to be deflected by bone or cartilage.
4. The weight of the bullet does not appear to be critical, although it is to be noted that the most effective bullets weren ot only of large caliber, but also the heaviest weight.
5. The diameter or caliber of the bullet is important because at handgun velocities expansion of shot point or other expanding bullets is not reliable. The larger diameter bullets simply destroy more tissue and blood vessels becaus they affect a larger cross sectional area.
Quite frankly, the ONLY area in which rounds like the .30 were found to be more effective were in head shots, where their higher velocity increased the amount of destruction out of proportion to their size.
Here's a very interesting thread from The Firing Line on this very subject...
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=124250&highlight=thompson+lagarde
Lofland
Member
Tactics, Tactics, Tactics
What is Chuck Taylor's Web site, please?
You can pick your wound ballistics guru at www.stoppingpower.net or www.ammolab.com, or the Terminal Ballistics forum at www.tacticalforums.com.
What is Chuck Taylor's Web site, please?
You can pick your wound ballistics guru at www.stoppingpower.net or www.ammolab.com, or the Terminal Ballistics forum at www.tacticalforums.com.
Tamara
Senior Member
Mike Irwin,
Imagine that!
Imagine that!
Andrew Wyatt
Member
THIS CANNOT BE! Mc Bride was fond of the .45 ACP and once stated that the only one hit stop he witnessed with the 9mm was a fellow who was smacked with a holstered luger on a belt.
we all know that Mc Bride is the sole judge of what is suitable for combat, right?
we all know that Mc Bride is the sole judge of what is suitable for combat, right?
Feanaro
Member
I can end this. Anyone who says a particular caliber is ineffective can visit my house, bringing with them a working pistol of said caliber. You sign a peice of paper that says I am not responsible for whatever happens to you, etc. I will then shoot you in the chest. Wear any normal clothed you want, t-shirts, casual suits. As long as it's not kevlar or something similar. Any takers?
Tamara
Senior Member
Andrew wyatt,
That all depends on who McBride was agreeing with at the time, I guess...
That all depends on who McBride was agreeing with at the time, I guess...
Dave Williams
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 377
I heard that after being shot with a 45acp, you actually feel better.
Andrew Wyatt
Member
nono, that's after HAVING shot a .45 acp.
Mike Irwin
Member
Tams,
Imagine what?
That someone else is mischaracterizing the results of the Thompson-LaGarde tests?
Imagine what?
That someone else is mischaracterizing the results of the Thompson-LaGarde tests?
- Status
