Is caliber important ?

[Tard]

I agree that the caliber's stopping power is far less important than your ability to place good hits.

An instructor was telling me he and three other cops had a guy barricaded under a bed and NONE of their 9mm rounds would penetrate the bed and hit the guy. The one cop carrying a .45 shot the guy right through the bed.

That, and a .45 will probably go through a windshield better too.
You can shoot someone through a door easier with a larger caliber, too.
There is a big difference between CONCEALMENT and COVER.

So, the ability to go through barriers before hitting the targer is something to consider.

[jeepinbanditrider]

As posted by willbird-

Honestly what OTHER factor in picking a handgun is MORE important ??

1)Reliability

2)Does it fit you

3)Can you shoot it quickly and accurately

4)Caliber

[willbird]

1)Reliability

2)Does it fit you

3)Can you shoot it quickly and accurately

4)Caliber

#4 has a direct or indirect effect on #1, #2, and #3...and I take it by the fact that "adequate power to STOP an assailant" that you do not even consider THAT a factor ??

The ability to place good hits is for the most part a matter of PRACTICE, I have known several women of small stature (probably men out there too of small stature) that did quite well with 1911 loaded with 45 acp major caliber loads in combat pistol matches....probably because they PRACTICED until they were competent.

The history of handguns used for offense or defense is littered with the times that common practice went towards calibers smaller than 45 colt, and every single time the "fix" for the bad guys not falling down when shot multiple times has been to dust off the 45 colts...and in modern times, the 45 acp's.

I just read an article that was talking about suicide bombers in the middle east, and how they after being shot would recover enough to push the switch and set off their deadly cargo, the solution was to STOP them with a measured cadence of shots roughly one second apart until all activity ceased for good, I believe with even a small amount of practice MOST folks can make 1 hit per second with about any caliber.

Most defensive scenarios do NOT require sub 1 second shoot and recovery between shots, when we get to the topic of small calibers having a faster shoot and recover time we will often find ourselves talking about shooting games, and shooters gaming the game for an advantage.

The round count advantage in the gun has shrunk a great deal, we're talking stepping down from 45 acp to 9x19 so that we can add 3-4 cartridges to what was an already staggering 13-14 rounds....once again in real world situations if you find yourself NEEDING that 15th shot without a reload your in a very slim minority, in fact it's gonna be hard to find another living man/woman that found themselves in the same pickle to sit down and have coffee with.....and I'll bet the price of that cup of coffee that not many folks end up needing a 15th shot when their first 14 shots HIT targets.

Bill

[jeepinbanditrider]

It can be argued that of the majority of the handgun rounds out there that the difference in "stopping power" is negligible at best.

Your inaccuracy in the heat of the moment is going to play a MUCH bigger part than the caliber you chose to carry with you.

All I'm saying is that the caliber argument is usually way overblown when it comes to the major players (9mm, .40, .45, ect) and sometimes overrides much more important things to consider when talking about purchasing a handgun.

[Tard]

It sure is fun to have a 14-round .45ACP.
My main instructor carries the single-stack style .45s and when he's demonstrating, he reloads more than anyone in the class.

We all shoot Tupperware!

Of course, with him you are dead with the first two rounds anyway.

[willbird]

It can be argued that of the majority of the handgun rounds out there that the difference in "stopping power" is negligible at best.

I think that statement is in error, on deer and hogs a 45acp is barely adequate(but sure not by a whole lot), while a 9x19 is universally thought to be insufficient.

To say that a ctg. that can deliver twice the bullet weight and 25% more energy on target offers only a "negligible" difference is pretty far out on a limb.

all below is from double tap to keep things fair

9x19 511 ft lbs 1415 fps with a 115
421 ft lbs 1131 fps with a 147


40 605 ft lbs and 1420 fps with a 135 grain
490 ft lbs 1010 fps with a 200


45 acp 643 ft lbs 1325 fps with a 165
521 ft lbs 1010 fps with a 230

The whole "ft lbs" system gives velocity priority when considering energy, when in fact we generally "know" that a large bullet at a lower energy in the real world kills living animals generally better than the lighter/faster HANDGUN bullets that "ft lbs" would have us believe should be more powerful.

If we assign Taylor factors to those same loads lets see what we get

9x19 with 115 is an 8
9x19 with a 147 is an 8

40 with a 135 is an 11
40 with a 200 is a 12

45 with a 165 is a 14
45 with a 230 is a 15 (almost twice the Taylor factor of a 9x19, 1050 gives Taylor factor of 16)


Bill

[Tard]

I don't know the answer here, the different opinions and studies are very interesting. All I can say is in force-on-force training unless I'm carrying a 5" barrel .45ACP the gun feels very, very inadequate in my hands once the rounds start flying. I still carry a subcompact 9mm because it's small enough I'll actually CARRY it, but when I carry open (like when I'm the RO), I carry a service .40.

People are soft targets but can have heavy clothes or be behind stuff.

The temporary wound channel isn't that imporant because internal organs shift easily and take up the force pretty well. The permanent wound channel isn't very different from a 9mm to a .45ACP.

Even a fatal wound, if the BG is motivated he can fight for 10 full seconds with NO blood going to the brain before stopping. That is an eternity.

Energy transfer isn't really much different from 9mm to .45ACP, they are both small compared to a rifle.

I hope I never find out.

[Slugger]

My extremely scientific answer . . . . If I'm going to get into a fight . . . . I want the biggest rocks I can throw. I've practiced enough to know I can hit with everything, but 44mag overpenetrates too much and is difficult to bring out of recoil quickly. .45Acp get's the nod.

Slugger

[tenring]

Of course, with him you are dead with the first two rounds anyway.

Kinda like when I asked my LEO buddy if he thought the 9 rounds in the sub .40 were enough...he said, "if the first 2 or 3 don't count, you're in real trouble anyway."

Would it be nice to carry a .50 Desert Eagle with 14 rounds in it and three extra mags? sure, but at some point you are stepping over the line from semper paratus to semper paranoidus

[RickInTampa]

Originally Posted by mrtoadzwildride

I would like to point out the military using FMJ ammo in the M-16 and 9mm if designed to wound the enemy as it takes more peopole to aid a fallen comrade than to leave a dead body on the ground.

While I agree that this is an interesting theory, I think it's quite a stretch to purport as fact that our military's "designed goal" is merely to wound the enemy when called upon to go into battle.

I'm sure there are a few hundred thousand soldiers in Iraq right now who would respectfully disagree with that statement.

In fact, the one study I recall watching about the M-16 round vs. AK 47 round indicated that; although it was a smaller round than the AK-47; because it was fired at such a high velocity, it inflicted just as much tissue trauma as the AK round.

Basically, more bang for the buck.