Is it a myth? It’s written in history based off of the first hand accounts of troops in the field. This is starting to be almost like a 5.56 vs 7.62 (NATO) debate. Everyone liked the 7.62 because it could punch through the jungle and still have the power behind it to kill a guy and the guy behind him. People like 5.56 because you can carry more.
I don’t want to get into a pissing debate so I will leave it at this, 9mm will do the job with proper shot placement as will 45 and 22lr. I said it in the beginning and I will say it again: shot placement is the key. What I was questioning is the statement of there is no medical difference in wound channel created by different calibers. I call bull on that. I am no doctor but I bet after seeing a few you can tell the difference between a 22lr hole and a 45 or a 9 or a 50ae. Any of these rounds are effective with good shot placement, but the larger ones are going to create a bigger cavity and destroy more vessels in the process so the chance of bleed out is greatly increased.
No difference between 9, 40, 45. Obviously 22 is different. How much more bloodloss will .1" diameter really make? The docs say not much.
The problem with 1st hand accounts is its an uncontrolled experiment, with unknown variables, and is as subjective as the narrator wants. Ive never heard a war story in person that i believed, its like hunting stories, they always puff them up.
Quickness to second site picture is key. Lots of factors will contribute to what works best for you. Weight of the firearm has a huge impact on felt recoil. Compare a 1911 to a polymer…
On the whole “we adopted a 45 because the 38 would not stop the Moros” issue…this was also probably a huge factor in why we got a 45 caliber sidearm over a 9mm:
Cavalry!
Think about it. Cavalry…at the time of the transition to service auto pistols, was the equivalent of today’s SEALs or Green Berets. What cavalry wanted…they got. they wanted shorter rifles with saddle rings…they got carbine length trapdoors and Krags…didn’t they?
Well, cavalry officers also knew that a 45 caliber bullet stopped a horse better than a 38 caliber bullet. When you stopped the horse - you stopped the charge. The fact that the bullet worked better on people was just a bonus. Other features on the M1911 (like the lanyard ring and placement of the safety) also seem to have been geared towards mounted soldiers.
I believe that cavalry officers were asked by the powers that be, what they wanted in a new sidearm. The cavalry soldiers were comfortable with the 45 Colt round and wanted something similar if they were to go to an auto pistol.
It could be argued that the M1911 was the last of the “horse pistols” behind the outgoing 45 Single Action Army Colt revolvers.
So yeah…I tend to believe (even if I cannot totally prove it) that cavalry weighed huge in why we got a 45 caliber pistol and into the M1911’s design.
As far as the trend towards 9mm…I think the advancement in 9mm ammo, along with better data on what the various handgun rounds do in a fight factors in to the switch.
Economics also has a factor (it is cheaper to shoot) and the fact that many smaller stature officers cannot handle the larger grip sizes of some 45s and the snappiness of many 40s also is key.
I think this vid can shed some light on the topic. IMHO, JHP pistol ammo has come a long way since the 1986 Miami FBI shootout and the shallow energy dump/penetration Winchester Silvertip 9mm JHP being used at the time.
This. Talking about velocity, penetration, expansion, blah blah is all a waste of time when talking about HG calibers. What matters is SHOT PLACEMENT, the ability to make ACCURATE follow up shots and having enough bullets to either stop the threat or make them change their mind. That’s it!
I will also add that your ability to achieve the above goals is directly tied to your ability to afford ammo. For most folks, this means 9mm as it is cheaper than other defensive ammo.
The timing on testing and adoption of the 1911 is wrong for it to be a response to experience in the Philippines - it would be like US SOCOM developing and adopting the FN SCAR “in response” to Afghanistan… now that combat operations have ended and not nearly a decade ago during the height of those operations.
The test subjects for the cartridge’s terminal ballistics were too large for humans - cows instead of goats.
Every other Western power was moving toward even more anemic 38-caliber cartridges. The British in particular had a longer history of fighting drug-addled aborigines and were still fighting them when they adopted the Webley in 38. And were still fighting them for nearly half a century afterwards. History records more complaints from the British transition to the 303 than to the 38/200.
I’ve seen people shot, with all 3 popular police calibers (9mm, 40S&W and 45ACP), and it’s all about shot placement , and even that doesn’t always work. One guy in particular took a .45 to the side of the head at close range (under 25-30 feet) and it bounced off. Ruined his ballcap-put 2 holes in it, so he left it and the dented ball round behind. He ran another 1/4-1/2 mile before he let up and allowed the paramedics to treat him for a head lac and contusion.
Last week I had a guy shot (slightly built, Asian male) during an incident with a .45ACP hollowpoint, out of a Blackhawk convertible revolver (we think). The round struck him above the left kidney and lodged in the front right of his abdomen. He ran a block and a half, banging on doors to get in and hide, and when he found an open door, he got in and sat down, waiting for EMTs. He then started to give the responding units a ton of crap and a false name.
My father was a Marine in Korea during the trench warfare of 52-53. When he was issued a Glock 19 in 1990 at work, he loved it and told me he wished he had one in Korea-he hated his “ancient WW1 .45”. He’s a DAV, ghetto cop, been there done that type of guy, so when he speaks about weapons, I listen. He’s a shot placement type of guy.
The problem with real world use of guns is that no two gunfights are the same. It’s inevitable that in any situation where the gear didn’t work exactly as advertised, or the situation didn’t pan out how you envisioned or trained for, that the “If I only had done this…” thoughts are going to creep in. Too many variables. Hardcore 9mm advocates have it in their head that there is no rational reason for why anyone should carry anything other than a 9mm handgun. They’ll guarantee that there’s no variable that will in any way make a .40 or .45 better suited than a 9mm to any conceivable situation. Yes, I have heard this, almost in these words. Then there’s the “Don’t leave the house with any caliber that doesn’t start with a ‘4’” crowd. There’s many in that crowd who are convinced that a .40 or .45 packs enough punch that there’s no NEED to carry more than 8 to 10 rounds, and they can drop a man with 1 to 2 shots.
The truth is, how do we know? Let’s say there’s a guy who was killed because even the repeated center mass hits from his 9mm didn’t stop the bad guy…can we be certain that he’d be alive today if he had used a bigger bullet? Did any of his rounds miss a major organ, artery, or his spine by 0.05" and would have stopped the bad guy had they just be just a little bit bigger? Or how about a guy who was killed because his 1911 ran out of ammo and he was killed while reloading…can we be certain that he would be alive still if he had a larger magazine? Are we certain he would have hit his target with a larger magazine and less recoil? Are we certain those rounds would have hit a major organ or CNS, or would they miss by .05"?
Trends in the gun world tend to swing back and forth. For 20 something years, it was all about getting a bigger bullet with more punch. Now new studies show that it doesn’t matter. Maybe in another 20 years, after the mass exodus from the “4” guns back to 9mm there will be a bunch of new technological advances to convince people to go the .40s and .45s. For now, I think just go with what you’re going to shoot well. Yeah, maybe the 9mm is the best overall option; I’m going to get one after years with only .45s, but I’m going to hang onto my .45s. I think I’d feel fine with either one in a gunfight.
Shot placement is key, but a few shots in Miami were good shots and failed due to ammo choice, and good people died because of it. Pick a round from “the list”, any caliber, and forget ammo, just train. For ccw, non great rounds will most likely work fine, but especially when carrying around vehicles and other barriers, good ammo can have huge consequences.
Of all my range going friends, the only shooters of the group are 9mm and 45 reloaders. I can’t get any of the .40 guys out.
I’m getting 9mm wolf for .20 a round. What’s the better solution, train and carry with 9mm service pistols or have a blinged out 1911 that you never shoot and take the 22lr out 3 times a summer?
Absolutely agree! Shot placement and ammo capacities aside, the cost issue is huge.
I realize cost ultimately should not matter in a life-death issue, but the reality is training ammo costs money which might otherwise be spent on rent/mortgage, fuel, food, etc. 9MM is easily the best deal going, and makes best sense to me.
The wife unit is a classic example of this “conversation”. She shoots a 23, very well, and goes to crap on my 19s or 17… Not because of caliber, but because of confidence (or lack thereof). The 23 was her “first” pistol (she picked it, not me…) and she “knows” it like the back of her hand and oozes confidence with it. I’ll gladly pay the increased cost of ammo for her as she slowly tinkers with the 9mm… I agree with F2S (and the likes)-shot placement is the key, not caliber and with her it is “weirdly” opposite of what most would think…
Undoubtedly, smaller bore handgun ammunition has greatly improved over ammunition produced 20yrs ago when the FBI encouraged all LE agencies to transition to the .40S&W. In fact, proportionally, the 9mm has advanced to the point that it rivals the combat capabilities of the .40 or .45. Remember, penetration is key, followed by cutting/crushing efficiency, followed by projectile diameter. Thus, the FBI has returned to the 9mm, as are many large state agencies and Highway Patrol units.
20yrs of .40S&W LEO use has demonstrated for the masses that the small increase in caliber size and energy levels of the .40 showed no noticeable difference in rapid incapacitation that the 9mm or .38spl did. A good example is the Peter Soulis OIS where Soulis had to saturate the perp’s torso with .40 165gr Ranger Talons before the fight went in his favor. Michael Brown needed a head shot from Officer Wilson’s P229 .40 to end the fight. Wanna talk .45acp?..Officer Keith Borders and Tim Gramins both put over a half dozen high quality 230r JHPs into the torsos of their perps and had to keep fighting on until they got a head shot.
Prior to the original FBI transition to .40, there was VERY little reliable shooting data to confirm if a larger caliber uses by LEOs would make any noticeable difference in terminal effects. Now days, with so many LEOs using a wide array of caliber sizes, there is no measurable advantage in using the larger caliber.
Shooting on a static gun range with no time constraints and one target is a worthless measure of a defensive caliber. In an apples-to-apples comparison between like platforms, the 9mm is significantly easier to shoot faster and more accurately than the .40 and .45. With time constraints, and moving between multi-threats the speed and accuracy scores are always in favor of the 9mm. The scores aren’t even close.