Does .45 live up to the hype?

[webrx]

I for one do not believe smaller is better, I also don’t think the study says that either. The study implies that just about any round needs a 2 round minimum to stop a threat

45 was 1.x and .380 was 1.x and 9mm was 1.x. So I read that as pull the trigger twice as a minimum. Regardless of what you carry.

if in bear country and a bear is charging I don’t know about you, but I am gonna send as much lead as I can in the bears direction. I am not gonna stop at one and hope (assuming there is time for more than 1 round).
If I am defending against 1 or more attackers same thing send rounds until the threat stops. Reload if needed. not gonna shoot once or twice and hope they stop.

Caliber matters or everyone including police and military would carry .22lr. It is cheap, easy to get hits with, easy to practice with, easy to score well in quals, etc.

I read that survey as .380 to .45 are all adequate and all need 2 rounds on avg to stop a threat. Smaller calibers not as good but not completely useless either.

carry what you want I carry a 9 most the time but a 380 sometimes and also have a 1911 in 45 if I feel the need.

D

 

[ev780]

This debate has raged since Sam Colt made all men equal in 1836 and it had no end or answer. But it sure is fun intellectual exercise. Can I play?

Disclaimer: I use gorilla math so if you were toilet trained at gunpoint prepare to be triggered.

I'll take on the follow up shot debate. My hypothesis is that average grown-up men and women with no physical issues, notice the difference in recoil but it has minimal effect on shooting. To argue my point I will use the IDPA Nationals from 2021. The SSP vs CDP classes.

Quick IDPA primer for those who need it. SSP Stock Service Pistol division dominated by 9mm Combat Plastic loaded 10+1. CDP is Custom Defensive Pistol aka 1911 single stack .45 loaded 8+1. IDPA scoring converts everything into time. Misses, fouls/faults, etc, are added time. In the beginning, before striker fired pistols, SSP was for SA/DA which couldn't stand a chance against the 1911 with that long first pull. Striker fired plastic changed all that.

The difference between the first place in SSP and CDP was about 20 seconds faster for the SSP division. Amazingly, same for DFL in each category, 20 seconds to SSP. Looking good for the 9mm guys.

The IDPA Nationals were 274 official rounds. So 20 seconds divided by the 274 rounds is .07 seconds per round. Alright so is that significant? Only you can answer. In practical real world terms, over the universe of gunfights? Not a chance.

However, there is a two round mag capacity difference so the weakness of my study (in addition to the weak math I chose to use)is that difference. Somewhere along the lines there may be differences in timing of reloads which would theoretically favor SSP. Probably not 20 seconds worth however.

So for me, 230 gr 45 multiplied by 9 = 2070 grains of metal to inject into my enemy. Versus 16 rounds of 124gr 9mm which is 1984 grains of metal. If nothing else I get all that weight into my enemy faster by a mile. OK 147s yield 2350 grains of injectable metal but I'll still get it injected faster.

 

[WrongHanded]

Sure, blood loss can be important and bigger diameter does cause more bleed. But a minutes later bleed out might be way too long in a defensive situation where you need that stop right now and in that case it’s fishing for a CNS hit (assuming no psychological stop, which is a big assumption). In that case I think more and easier hits with a service caliber might be better, especially the easier part.

But as I said, I like them all, shoot them all and have carried the main ones (.40, 9mm, .45) in the past and likely in the future.

I agree with the general assessment that more hits are better. But I also agree with the assessment that larger wound tracks are better. Which is really where the argument is based.

And yes, you're right; we're fishing for a CNS hit. Or failing that (which we might), a direct hit to the heart or a major artery, for very fast blood loss causing a rapid blackout from low blood pressure. This can been see in the submission arts, where blood chokes can put a guy under in 5 seconds or less if done correctly. It can really happen that fast.

Regarding the CNS, I still believe there may be something to the remote shock hypothesis of handguns (hydrostatic shock). And I believe it's possible for this to happen via shock to the spinal cord (which happens to run right through that "center of mass" we're told to aim for). I feel the 9mm is more likely than the .45acp to accomplish this, based on the higher velocity. There is certainly some evidence that can be put up toward the argument, but not enough to come to a solid conclusion. And it's a different can of worms.

 

[Kleanbore]

I'll take on the follow up shot debate.

I would not characterize shooting as a function of "follow up" shots; the defender cannot reasonably wait, assess, and fire a "follow-up" shot if necessary. It's a matter of hitting with several shots rapidly.

My hypothesis is that average grown-up men and women with no physical issues, notice the difference in recoil but it has minimal effect on shooting.

It has a meaningful effect on the rapidity of controlled fire.

So 20 seconds divided by the 274 rounds is .07 seconds per round. Alright so is that significant? Only you can answer.

In .07 seconds, an attacker can move one foot. Four inches or less can make all the difference.

In practical real world terms, over the universe of gunfights? Not a chance.

I don't see it that way at all.

Somewhere along the lines there may be differences in timing of reloads

Have you ever tried reloading in a Tueller exercise?

So for me, 230 gr 45 multiplied by 9 = 2070 grains of metal to inject into my enemy. Versus 16 rounds of 124gr 9mm which is 1984 grains of metal. If nothing else I get all that weight into my enemy faster by a mile. OK 147s yield 2350 grains of injectable metal but I'll still get it injected faster.

Since when has any of that had any relevance to handgun wounding mechanics?

 

[Kleanbore]

he study implies that just about any round needs a 2 round minimum to stop a threat

45 was 1.x and .380 was 1.x and 9mm was 1.x. So I read that as pull the trigger twice as a minimum. Regardless of what you carry.

"The study" involves matters that depend on far more variables than the amount (number) of data can properly address.

 

[webrx]

"The study" involves matters that depend on far more variables than the amount (number) of data can properly address.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

as I have stated before stats can be manipulated to say what the researcher wants it to say simply by how the data is used and what fields are included or not.

 

[ev780]

I would not characterize shooting as a function of "follow up" shots; the defender cannot reasonably wait, assess, and fire a "follow-up" shot if necessary. It's a matter of hitting with several shots rapidly.

Huh? It is one piece of this debate as it was mentioned numerous time in the thread. There is no waiting in competition either. The only meaning full differences between SSP and CDP are caliber and two rounds. So one thing we can extrapolate (remember my disclaimer) is that the difference is how long it takes to get that second shot on target and to move to additional targets.

It has a meaningful effect on the rapidity of controlled fire.

In .07 seconds, an attacker can move one foot. Four inches or less can make all the difference.

Really? How often had it made the difference?

I don't see it that way at all.

Intellect allows for that. Let me add to my logic here. There are very few gunfights. Rarely happens to cops and, god love them, they run to gunfire. As a civilian even rarer. And of those how many were decided by how quickly someone could get a follow up shots on target because of recoil? There are way way too many factors at play to believe in a .07 second advantage.

Have you ever tried reloading in a Tueller exercise?

I am not too sure what your's is but my point is that the 1911 guys had to reload a couple times more than the 9mm guys thus adding to their time and narrowing the gap. My argument is that with equalized mag size and weapons repeated a large number of times, there would be very little difference in who wins with 9mm vs 45. Negating the "recoil effect". Yes the 9 wins in (sample size of one with many flaws) 274 rounds but not by much.

Since when has any of that had any relevance to handgun wounding mechanics?

Well the assailant is now a 1/3 pound heavier and has to carry that on his way through me. So if you believe in .07 seconds you gotta believe in my 1/3 pound theory! In all seriousness, not one bit! But my criteria are no more or less ridiculous than some of the others. It was irony to prove the debate is ultimately pointless but can be fun.

 

[JR24]

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

as I have stated before stats can be manipulated to say what the researcher wants it to say simply by how the data is used and what fields are included or not.

As someone who has a degree reliant on statistics I can say … yep. Correct.

 

[jeepnik]

Well now, 7 pages in, with the inevitable thread drift into caliber wars and more written words than you can shake a stick out and all for a simple yes or no answer. So in a vain attempt to bring things back on track I will reiterate my answer. YES.

 

[PzGren]

.32 ACP, .380 ACP. 9mm Luger, .38 Special, .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum and 45 ACP are all the same - just as a heavyweight boxer does not hit harder than a welterweight.

You don't have to be in a gun fight to get fighting experience. Logically thinking is good enough to decide about ballistics.

Intelligence is needed to process info and for proper logical thinking, use it wisely.

 

[Kleanbore]

.32 ACP, .380 ACP. 9mm Luger, .38 Special, .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum and 45 ACP are all the same - just as a heavyweight boxer does not hit harder than a welterweight.

Hand guns do not "hit hard" unless one is shooting at plates or pins.

Bullets penetrate, tear, and crush, and either stop inside or pass through people.

 

[brutus51]

I'll stick with my 45 for home defense. Won't blind me or blow out my eardrums in the middle of the night.

 

[Kleanbore]

Really? How often had it made the difference?

Depends on what is destroys, and we can model that.

There are very few gunfights. Rarely happens to cops and, god love them, they run to gunfire. As a civilian even rarer. And of those how many were decided by how quickly someone could get a follow up shots on target because of recoil?

we are not evaluating the paucity of historical data.

There are way way too many factors at play to believe in a .07 second advantage.

Study your anatomy and measure the movement in that time interval. Easily shown.

I am not too sure what your's is but my point is that the 1911 guys had to reload a couple times more...

If someone is covering the distance in Dennis Tueller's 1.5 seconds, the defender will not be drawing, firing, and also reloading.

Yes the 9 wins in (sample size of one with many flaws) 274 rounds but not by much.

It does not take much at all. Half an inch can matter.

 

[Kleanbore]

I'll stick with my 45 for home defense. Won't blind me or blow out my eardrums in the middle of the night.

Valid point!

 

[trackskippy]

I'll stick with my 45 for home defense. Won't blind me or blow out my eardrums in the middle of the night.

Anything fired in a confined space without hearing protection or even in some cases with a suppressor will deafen me, so that point is moot. A .22 fired in a semi open area without hearing protection deafens me for a couple of days, a 45 isn't going to be better.

I really cant remember the last time I saw anything flashy when fired indoors or low light with current handgun powders, at least auto caliber wise anyway. Even my reloads dont usually light things up. Something else that bears figuring out ahead of time should you notice.

Inadvertently flashing yourself with your light will probably do more in that respect than what most powder flashes might do, and even then, recovery is usually pretty quick, unless you leave it on and stare at it, so you're not really likely to be "blind".

And if you're smart, you should shoot what you use in a confined space, in the dark, up point blank against a target, etc, in practice so you know what to expect. You dont want the first time you're experiencing it to be when you dont need the distraction the most.

 

[John Joseph]

Wrong on brain size. It's about half the size of the human brain. At an average of 1.3 pounds for a horse it's not far from half the average 2.8 pound human brain.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24335261/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8072950/

This is why you don't believe stuff posted on forums. People post absolute BS.

How many horses have you had to put down with a firearm?
Two for me. And yes, if you're not on the mark, they will stand there and look at you.
I have one of the skulls hanging on my back fence.

 

[American Finn]

We're here. Again. Back in 1986. No, back in 1991. No, that's not really way back, but I sure remember the argument that's going on now was a topic in all the gun magazines (periodicals) for about two or three years. Maybe even ten years. Made the covers of all of 'em. Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, Guns, American Rifleman, Combat Handguns, yep, all of 'em.

@Old Dog I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself. I remember reading the gun rags back in the '80's and 90's and, like you said, we've been here before.

And, yes, before anyone jumps down my back I'm trying to give everyone a good laugh.

 

[ev780]

......

Study your anatomy and measure the movement in that time interval. Easily shown......

Please know to whom you speak before you start issuing commands.

And I will refer to my original disclaimer and return to my beer and hockey.

 

[fxvr5]

How many horses have you had to put down with a firearm?
Two for me. And yes, if you're not on the mark, they will stand there and look at you.
I have one of the skulls hanging on my back fence.

One. And the first shot missed the brain and it sure as hell did not stand there and look at me. And I've unfortunately had to dispatch cows as well.

In fact that's a pretty silly thing to say. Do you think a horse shot in the eye without hitting the brain will not react? Your comment is ludicrous.

 

[JR24]

Please know to whom you speak before you start issuing commands.

And I will refer to my original disclaimer and return to my beer and hockey.

Seems more of a turn of phrase rather than a command to me.

 

[John Joseph]

One. And the first shot missed the brain and it sure as hell did not stand there and look at me. And I've unfortunately had to dispatch cows as well.

In fact that's a pretty silly thing to say. Do you think a horse shot in the eye without hitting the brain will not react? Your comment is ludicrous.

Didn't shoot him in the eye, and he did stand there, waiting for a kill shot
Nor do you put down cows the same as horses, cow's brains sit lower down between the eyes.
Horse #1 was put down with a .22 LR
Horse #2 with a .38 Spl and dropped immediately
Putting down a horse is terrible duty and needs to be done as painlessly as possible.

 

[JohnKSa]

My first shot was taken out of the rapid fire equation. The clock was already at zero from the first shot.

That's what I said.

Here's the sequence with 0.2 second splits.

Shot 1 happens at time 0.0 (The clock is at zero at the first shot.)
Shot 2 happens at time 0.2
Shot 3 happens at time 0.4
Shot 4 happens at time 0.6
Shot 5 happens at time 0.8
Shot 6 happens at time 1.0

Time between shots = 0.2 seconds
Time from first shot to last shot = 1.0 second
Number of shots fired = 6
Number of shots fired in one second with 0.2 second splits = 6

If there's no difference between the .380 and .45ACP, then why did we need better bullets for the 9mm?

A lot of people also speak as if all bullet development of the last 20-30yrs has been exclusive to improving the 9mm. Just not true.

The better bullets for the 9mm were to make it consistently pass the FBI testing protocol. If you're waiting for someone to provide hard data based on real-world shootings that the improved 9mm bullets are going to actually make a measurable difference in the outcome of real world shootings, I think you'll be waiting for a long time.

Just like we've been waiting for decades for someone to be able to prove that there are differences in the terminal effect between the service pistol calibers significant enough to make a measurable difference in the outcome of real world shootings. We will keep waiting.

And, yes, of course, the same advancements apply not just to the 9mm, but also to other calibers.

 

[Richard Jay King]

LOL! I love these threads! Just like "what is the best oil" threads on motorcycle forums! If I knew I was going to be killed or maimed by street thugs I would choose a tire iron over my fists, a .22LR over the tire iron, a .380 over the .22, a 9mm over the .380, a .357 over the 9mm, a .44 mag over the .357 and for sure a 12 gauge riot gun over ANY handgun....The real issue is WHAT will you choose to have ON you as you go through your day..

 

[Hartkopf]

That's what I said.

Here's the sequence with 0.2 second splits.

Shot 1 happens at time 0.0 (The clock is at zero at the first shot.)
Shot 2 happens at time 0.2
Shot 3 happens at time 0.4
Shot 4 happens at time 0.6
Shot 5 happens at time 0.8
Shot 6 happens at time 1.0

I said "after" and you said "at."

I said I have 4 spaces between my toes and you're saying; No, you have 5 toes.


I took "Shot 1" out of the equation (by saying after) because they happened at the same time between the two guns. The comparison is what happened after the first shot between the two guns, not the total number of shots. (((In one second I can shoot 5 rounds of 9mm or 4 rounds of 45.))) Yes this totals 6 rounds of 9mm and 5 shots 45ACP.

I was trying to let our fellow caliber debaters know how fast I can shoot the two calibers (and I'm pretty much an average guy) in rapid fire. Forget the first shot of each, the rate of fire is 5 rounds of 9mm per second and 4 rounds of 45ACP per second.

These numbers can be used as a gage for people who argue how much better a 7/8" hole is than a 5/8" hole. But after the first shot, (equal between the two calibers) are four 7/8" holes better than five 5/8" holes?

 

[Hartkopf]

The equation for cubic inches of wound track would be: diameter X diameter X .7854 X depth X number of holes.

9mm expanded bullet of .625 with a depth of 9" X five holes = 13.8 cubic inches of wound.

45 expanded bullet of .875 with a depth of 9" X four holes = 21.65 cubic inches of wound.