still carry the .45?

[ms6852]

Most people forget that when its your time to go, it's time. Why does some one survive a fall from a 3 story building and another one falls off a horse and dies. Remember when the gunman opened fire in the holocaust museum, he killed a couple of guards with a 22 caliber rifle and he survived a headshot from a 9 mm.

Regardless of what everyone thinks no single caliber has "stopping power" from a handgun.
If it's your time, and God has called your number, you could die from being shot in the toe with a BB gun . Your wound gets infected than the bone which gets into your bloodstream and bam! You are deAd.

I carry a 1911 because I like it and shoot it very well.

 

[jbrown50]

Finally, the lost lesson of this incident seems to be the importance of aimed fire. At the end, from a solid prone position where Tim had his hardest “front sight focus” of the fight, was when three rapid shots to the head all struck the intended target, the last one “shutting off the computer” and bringing the death battle to a decisive close on the side of The Good Guy.

I can't say it any better than that.

 

[1911 guy]

I stuck with the .45acp because I've been heavily invested in pistols and ammo for decades. If I were starting over, I'd strongly consider the 9mm because of the advances that have been made in bullet technology.

But yeah, I still carry a .45. 1911 even.

 

[Old Dog]

whoops, double tap ...

 

[Old Dog]

Good grief, some of you are still maintaining this is about caliber and "stopping power." This ain't no caliber war, at least with regard to debating the effectiveness of the two calibers. If you'd read the whole article, perhaps you missed this:

This adds up to 146 rounds on tap. A widely-circulated police article by our mutual friend Charles Remsberg made Tim famous in cop circles as the policeman who carries almost 150 rounds of ammo on his person. “I can carry a hundred rounds more ammo, and it only weighs a couple of pounds,” Gramins told American Handgunner. “Round count seems to be skyrocketing in police gun battles, police running out of ammunition. I don’t want to be in such position. I came close to it, with only four rounds left in my GLOCK 21.”

Gramins confirmed that he simply wants to have more ammunition on tap; presumably, from his statements, it had nothing to do with the effectiveness of .45 ACP, but rather, his desire to not be in the position again of having to worry about running out of ammo ...

 

[cslinger]

Gramins confirmed that he simply wants to have more ammunition on tap; presumably, from his statements, it had nothing to do with the effectiveness of .45 ACP, but rather, his desire to not be in the position again of having to worry about running out of ammo ...

Totally agree, but it stems from a traumatic circumstance where in his mind the Glock 21/.45 failed him and like damn near any of us he went looking for a better tool and found something that allowed higher capacity.

I still contend in the same incident would have happened with a Glock 17/19 then he would be clamoring for a .45 caliber G21.

Handguns SUCK. But our brains try to rationalize minute differences as better especially with perceived failure.

I have reached a point where caliber makes no nevermind beyond enjoyment. So as long as it's a reliable platform with reliable ammo then I am all good.

 

[guyfromohio]

This discussion has much to do with the gun as well. I occasionally carry one of my 1911s because I enjoy shooting and carrying it. I see no reason for me to get a 9mm version for any of the above reasons. Now if someone said "choose one of these....." and the choice was a G30 and a G19' I'd take the G19 all day long. Same gun, capacity wins out for me. However, I usually carry either a PPS, P99, or 1911 Commander. All carry pretty easily, the PPS being the most unobtrusive. Why would I carry the .45 then? I simply shoot it better than any other.

 

[DeepSouth]

im not looking for arguement. just your thoughts and opinions on continuing to carry .45ACP (or GAP for that matter, if thats your choice)

I'll try a simple approach:

Question:
Why do I still carry a .45?

Answer:

In order of which matter most to me-----

1- I enjoy shooting it
2- I have a wide selection of .45's
3- I like big boolits
4- A fully expanded .45 Gold Dot looks incredible
5- When I shoot with my best friend we can share ammo
6- It's a low pressure round
7- relatively low recoil (contrary to popular belief)
8- I like thin grips and single stack 45's are common
9- Big bores are cool
10- I believe it to be (just barely) the most effective of the big 3 (9mm, .40&.45)
11- Why not carry a .45?

I should add:
I don't care much at all about capacity, I sometimes carry nothing but a derringer, yes a .45 derringer....
I also don't care much about the effectiveness of any particular caliber....


Different folks care about different things, we have different priorities. Odds are I'll never need a gun in a self defense situation. If I do, odds are three shots or less will be needed, odds are caliber choice would be nearly irrelevant.

 

[Zerodefect]

.45, .40, and .357sig each have a niche of things they may, or may not, do better. For example .357 does very well through car type barriers that an officer may see frequently.

Know those differences between caliber, and chose appropriately.

9mm's niche is capacity and light recoil in subcompacts. So I rarely choose it for my CCW. 9mm tech may have improved, but ammo tech for the other calibers has improved as well. Each caliber difference may be minor, but it's still there.

Most of 9mm's fanfare is truly the fact that it's cheaper to use. For many, low recoil and capacity are just excuses to to add to the argument. Nothing really wrong with that, as long as you're not lying to yourself.

 

[stoky]

What I like about 9mm is...............................................
uhmmm.........................................................................
I'll get back to you

 

[Deanimator]

Carried a Citadel 3.5 CS yesterday.

I have no doubt it would get the job done.

 

[justin22885]

i dont get where people get these ideas that self defense scenarios will look like some hollywood shootout, and with bullet advancements even .380 is more viable... two things are really all thats needed, placement and penetration.. after these capacity, kinetic energy, and expansion are far, far down the list in importance

im personally seeing more use for smaller, lighter cartridges myself, though the 45acp trumps almost all when suppressed, 9mm is good enough but its not its magazine capacity i like or even care about, just the fact that its so much cheaper and lighter making it much easier to stockpile ammo for

 

[RayTheGreat]

The 1911 is my favorite platform, but I'd be fine carrying either caliber, to tell you the truth, especially if the loads are modern defense ammunition. With standard load fmj, I'd be leaning towards the .45 (although I would be much more comfortable with HP's regardless of caliber).
What it comes down to for me, really, is that I just like the .45 more, and shoot better with it. Simple! I believe both will probably get the job done...
Of course, God forbid me ever having to use a handgun in a gunfight, and especially one where I'd require 3+ magazines. Yikes! Sounds like a bad day.
Just my thoughts -Ray

 

[amprecon]

I gave up my three Glock 21's and all my .45 ammo and bought three Glock 17's and loaded up on 9mm ammo.
I was hella accurate with those Glock 21's, but they are large handguns. I have female family members whose hands aren't as big as mine, even though they shot very well with them.

Here are my reasons to make the switch to the Glock 17's rather than .40s&w or any other caliber.
The 17's are slimmer, lighter, holds more ammo, lighter recoil and ammo is cheaper.
Regarding pistol calibers I have lots of respect and admiration for the .45acp, but their performance is very similar, they just achieve it in different ways. In fmj guise, the .45acp has the edge in incapacitation but with all the defensive ammo options available, that edge disappears pretty quickly.
I've also owned pistols in .40 and .380, we found the snappy recoil of the .40 took away from the accuracy potential and pistols in .380 are not much smaller than 9mm pistols.
Penetration tests between the three major calibers is nearly equal and the smaller frontal area of the 9mm gives it better barrier penetration than the large frontal area of the .45acp.
I remember seeing the WWII training video of a german helmet hung on a tree being hit by a .45 slug and it left a nice big dent in it and I thought, man that should of put a hole in it.
Do I regret getting rid of .45? a little, but I feel the benefits outweigh the negatives. Is our confidence affected by the change? As long as we're all accurate with them, no. We believe that if we do our part and hit the target the 9mm will do it's part.

 

[JohnKSa]

So here's what I got out of that story...

Pistol caliber hits don't result in instant stops on determined assailants unless the Central Nervous System is hit.

If an instant stop is required, be sure to have enough rounds on tap to be able to keep shooting until a Central Nervous System hit is achieved.

 

[Overkill870]

So here's what I got out of that story...

Pistol caliber hits don't result in instant stops on determined assailants unless the Central Nervous System is hit.

If an instant stop is required, be sure to have enough rounds on tap to be able to keep shooting until a Central Nervous System hit is achieved.

Yep. I was going to post this. I am a long time revolver and 1911 fan, but this makes too much sense. This is the reason I finally got a Glock 19.

 

[25-5]

I am most familiar and confident with my Colt series 70. We've known each other more than a few decades. I also believe that it's the size of the hole and where you put it.
I don't care what others do. So I never argue the subject.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

GADZOOKS!

Folks are missing the point, and so did the author of the article....

the lost lesson of this incident seems to be the importance of aimed fire. At the end, from a solid prone position where Tim had his hardest “front sight focus” of the fight, was when three rapid shots to the head all struck the intended target, the last one “shutting off the computer” and bringing the death battle to a decisive close on the side of The Good Guy.

So, would 150 rounds of poorly aimed shots from a 9mm = better than fewer poorly aimed shots from a .45? A miss is a miss folks.

The gunfight ended when one of the two involved men engaged with aimed fire, and scored an incapacitating hit on the other. So, had the officer had his present gun, the results would have been the same. And if he engaged in another running gunfight, judging from what the article gives as information, he is simply going to miss more, until he applies his sights....OR perhaps there is another reason, barely touched upon in the article???

The officer didn't go to the different handgun because his ammunition choice might be under performing on impact ....

The officer didn't go to the different handgun because of a malfunction possibility...

The officer didn't go to the different handgun because it's much more accurate than the one he used.....

The officer didn't go to the different handgun because the other one is too heavy ....

The officer didn't go to the different handgun because he thinks he'd like less magazines but have the same amount of ammo giving him less mag changes using double stacked mags....

The officer didn't go to the different handgun because he had multiple attackers which he hit and stopped, but started to run low as he finished the final attacker...

He went to the different handgun to increase his ammo capacity....WHY? Because he didn't hit much with the amount of ammunition that he had, and thinks more = better for him..., yet the answer was to actually aim to end the fight....but consider WHEN he was able to apply his sights !

Now AFTER the fight was over, it was supposed that the officer actually created suppressing fire that prevented the suspect from grabbing the rifle. Applying suppressive fire wasn't really a conscious decision on the part of the officer, but a happy circumstance. Well the suspect's brain is mush so we can't actually know that was the reason the suspect didn't use the rifle. Just as we can't know if the officer had applied aimed fire earlier, the fight might have ended sooner with the same, favorable outcome.

So perhaps that's the real lesson in this particular case? The desire by the officer for enough ammo to give him the ability to apply suppressing fire, allowing him to get to a good cover location, and THEN apply the sights..., if this happens in the future. Remember he may have his choice of approved on duty weapons, but not the choice of any of the quality handguns/calibers/ammunition out there on the market.... and that IS a big difference that does not bear on a civilian.

Otherwise, why not simply go to a Para Ordinance?

I have had to use my Glock duty weapon twice to defend myself as an LEO, once it was a 9mm, and the other was in .40 S&W, and after both, I lamented that I would've preferred something in .45 ACP, even if it was as antiquated as a plain 1911A1 with multiple magazines.

LD

 

[bigboredad]

From what I've seen from primary shooters. More ammo does not equal better shooting. Limited number of rounds usually again usually makes a person really hunker down and use the fundamentals. At competitions I have shot in I know it is how I shoot and the majority of the casual shooters this way. However no one is throwing any lead back at me. I do have confidence in my 1911 and the ammo and I think that goes a long way in terms of what we carry despite what others say and test may or may not prove. Just adding fuel to the fire

 

[AK103K]

More ammo does not equal better shooting.

It doesnt necessarily mean worse shooting either.

The way I look at it is, it simply allows for more good shooting, if need be.

 

[Old Dog]

Folks are missing the point....

Um, no they're not. And Monday-morning armchair quarterbacking of another's efforts to survive in a gunfight will rarely result in someone "getting" the point. Easy to critique someone's marksmanship when he is the one facing the incoming rounds and you did not.

, and so did the author of the article

Massad Ayoob has presumably interviewed a few more gunfight survivors than either you or I. At this point, not having been in the involved officer's shoes, all we can do is accept his stated reason for switching pistols to gain increased magazine capacity.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

I'm confused Did you mean cartridges?

What's confusing about it? And, NO, I meant calibers. I have 2 9mm weapons and 3 .45 ACP weapons. I'm confused as to why you would think I meant cartridges?

 

[JohnKSa]

He went to the different handgun to increase his ammo capacity....WHY? Because he didn't hit much with the amount of ammunition that he had, and thinks more = better for him..., yet the answer was to actually aim to end the fight....but consider WHEN he was able to apply his sights !

The reality is that most people would probably react very much like he did when confronted with a deadly threat at muzzle-blast range--simply shooting wildly to stay alive for another second or two until he was able to create some distance.

Given that reality, it might be handy to have enough ammo on hand to finish the fight after one's primitive brain finally relinquishes control and allows one to react a bit more constructively. At least that's what he decided--and it makes sense to me.

 

[Mr.510]

could you tell me what your reasons are to continue to Carry .45.

That's easy, I still carry a .45 because they still don't make a .46!

But seriously, I consider all the things everybody else considers when choosing a carry gun and caliber and .45 makes the most sense for me and the situations I find myself in. The biggest factor for me is that I'm a firm believer in carrying the same gun, in the same holster, in the same place, every day. I live and work in a run down industrial area surrounded by the worst neighborhoods of this particular major city. My house and shop are in a 'compound' with eight foot chainlink fence and razor wire, just like every other business in the area. I also have a house way out in the woods that's frequently visited by a large cougar and small-ish black bears. The game wardens that work in the forest behind my house in the woods can carry whatever they want and they all carry double stack polymer .45s loaded with self defense ammo so I do too. The higher capacity of a smaller caliber might be nice at my place in the city but I'm not going into the woods where I know cougars live armed with only a 9mm! .40 is too snappy and I don't shoot it well. .357 Sig is worse. I shoot .45 very well. Remember I own one carry gun and carry it every single day, wherever I go and whatever I do.

I carry an XD45 Compact loaded 10+1 with 230 grain HST +Ps and a 13 round reload of the same. There are also two 13 round mags in the glovebox of my car and two in the console of my truck.