Guy switches from .45 to 9mm after gunfight

I'm new but it feels like I have been in this forum before. I'm a laughing 2 pages in.

But my first response when I read op: he switched because when the gun fight ended He wanted to pull the trigger more and was out of ammo while reloading he realized he did not need more ammo. But if there is ever is a next time he will have more ammo in the mag. IMO

More bullets = better IMO
 
I have never shot a 45acp.

One thing that surprises me about my Glock 19 is how fast I can shoot it, and put them in about a pie plate.

I tend to believe in a big or real fast bullet for one good knock down shot. But maybe in real life, you are more likely to do a bunch of shooting as fast as you can. Just keep shooting until its over, one way or the other.
 
Note that this was 35 yard confrontation, where it is harder to hit, and multiple shots may be needed. At close range, I tend to think the gun with the most knock down on the first shot, would be best, speaking from my bowels.
 
sigp220.45 said:
A while ago some fellow Indian Country guys and I were comparing notes, and discovered that one type of firearm had proven to be 100 percent effective in rendering someone dead. Keep in mind we also work non-fatal shootings, too, so its not like we don't see a ton of those, too.

Every shooting with a .22 rifle had proved fatal. I had the closest thing to a non-fatal - a guy drove past the War Bonnet bar on the Blackfeet rez and shot up the front. A guy was just lifting a shot glass to his lips and a round hit that, causing glass to cut his lip. Since the bullet didn't hit him, I didn't count that one.
Click to expand...

Concur with Sig. Worked a homicide down in the southern portion of NM on a Pueblo...one resident was attacked by two knife wielding assailants. Two shots from a .22 SHORT; one DRT, the other made it a couple hundred yards. No charges due to bona fide self-defense.
 
I have never killed anyone with a handgun. I have been shot at. Anyone who doesn't get excited is either an idiot or stoned on some serious drugs. I have shot lots of animals, from rabbits to elk. I use an appropriate round for different sized animal. As I have witnessed some interesting failures to drop with good shot placement. Elk that have been seriously lung shot, deer with 308s through the chest doing major damage and the animal still runs 50 yards or more.. A deer that took 2 solid chest hits with a 357 went farther. If it ran the 50 yds in just 3 seconds.That means a bad guy could crank off several rounds. Every one I have shot with a 44 mag or a 45LC has dropped. Some of it was a slightly better hit and some of it was what the animal was doing when hit. As I have aged I have went to bigger rounds and I will continue with them. Nothing goes very far when I hit it with my 338. Ya, the 9mm has been improved, but the 45 didn't exactly stand still either. I agree that you should shot what your good with. I am a big guy, with big hands and arms and have never had recoil problems. I will keep packing my 44s and 45s. As a civilian living where I live, the odds I will ever need more than 5 or 6 is huge. Each to his own and the best of luck no mater what you chose if it comes down.

I must say that if I ever was on the winning side of a pistol encounter I would be hard pressed to change what worked.
 
Last edited:
steelslaver said:
I must say that if I ever was on the winning side of a pistol encounter I would be hard pressed to change what worked.
Click to expand...

No sh*t. I get the idea of learning, man is supposed to be able to do that.
 
Erich said:
Well, again, the fact that the only thing that seems to guarantee cessation of aggressive action (when discussing use of a handgun - rifles and shotguns are different) is direct damage of certain vitals (brain/spinal cord/heart/aorta). And the fact that any one of these rounds is capable of the shot-placement and penetration necessary to effect such. So . . . a valid question is - which round is most capable of delivering more hits to those vitals in a given interaction? Which is more controllable? Which has more in the gun?

Here's something else that I found profoundly interesting: a Big Name Pathologist (hired as an expert on one of our cases) told me that - after thousands of autopsies of handgun killings - he remains unable to tell whether the gun used was a .38, .357, 9mm, .40, or .45 from the wound tracks left behind (it was actually an issue in our case - who fired the fatal shot?).

So I kinda chuckle at the opinions of amateur experts that one handgun round is some sort of death ray and another will be deflected by tinfoil.

Shot placement is king; adequate penetration is queen; everything else is angels dancing on the heads of pins. :)

9mmvs40vs45ri8.gif

​
Click to expand...

You know..... I can't recall a single time that I could just look at an entrance or exit wound and definitively say what caliber caused the damage. Granted, most of these were in the middle of the night securing the scene & waiting on investigators sometimes with little illumination other than my flashlight. Caliber really didn't seem to effect the outcome. The only other factor not mentioned so far is the physical condition of the person shot. Someone who is on PCP etc. is a lot harder to convince to cease any behavior including breathing.
 
Last edited:
Bigger holes are better more often than not. No doubt a 9mm hole that hits the brain or heart is pretty much as effective as a .45ACP that hits the brain or heart.

A .45 that hits the shoulder will most likely be more damaging that a 9mm that hits the shoulder. If we did not believe bigger holes were better we would all shoot FMJ rounds, but we don't. We shoot hollow points that expand and make bigger holes.

So the "shot placement is everything" logic is flawed. Shot placement may be the most important thing, but bigger holes are also important.

Still if you hit better with a 9mm then that is what you should shoot. But if you shoot both well, I would go with the bigger bullet diameter.

If size were not important we would all shoot .22LR in FMJ. We don't.

I spent most of my life trying to convince young ladies that size did not matter, and now here I am trying to convince old shooters that it does matter.
 
I've found my new round...

Never really noticed it before but I want this George Washington 25 caliber round.

That thing'll make holes the size of a quarter. :D

9mmvs40vs45ri8.gif

[/LEFT][/QUOTE]

Lad
 
Smithsrevenge said:
Yep. Hate to say it but my P229 drives nails a heck a lot better than my smith's, my Glocks, Berettas and 1911s. Most accurate gun I own. 10x more than I am anyway.
Click to expand...

Agreed, even my Astra A-80 (aka P220 knockoff) .45 is scary accurate.
 
I'm a police officer. I am a firearms instructer with my department. I and my fellow instructors do not teach the "Spray and Pray" method. Not at all.
 
Well now, every caliber is lethal and the other way around, also. The object is that the other guy dies---even if you have to use a trenching tool.
Blessings
 
If the choice was a .45 1911 or a 9mm Beretta FS92 for example,
I am personally going to go with the 9mm .
The reasons being are as follows..
I would much rather have 17 rounds than 8
I prefer the ability to get back on target as quickly as possible (less recoil)
9mm hollowpoints do the job as long as I do MY job , which is
shot placement .

Lewis
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Glock 40 S&W Kaboom warning
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
29K
clarkz71
clarkz71
SW CQB 45
Small Female Officer and Glock vs M&P
2
Replies
31
Views
16K
SMMAssociates
SMMAssociates
N
I have to express my concern.
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
7K
M2MikeGolf
M2MikeGolf
G
A Gun Board Classic
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
Glenn R. McMannly
Glenn R. McMannly
Kelly Green
Instructor meets idiot.
3 4 5
Replies
99
Views
13K
S.Hammer
S

Latest posts

Back
Top