From the
Insights Training Center blog, on 9mm vs .45:
In our thought-experiment, we are going to shoot a bad guy (BG) who is posing a deadly threat towards us. We will assume he is reasonably motivated and doesn’t just quit upon seeing our gun. We will assume that our first shot is a mortal wound to the heart (thus subsequent shots are largely irrelevant). We will assume that there are no spinal hits or effective head shots (which, regardless of caliber, would be instantly incapacitating and so pointless to consider).
Common wisdom is that properly adrenalized and motivated individuals can continue to function for up to 15 seconds with a fatally damaged heart. We will also assume that the shooters can both shoot 3 rounds per second (0.33 splits) and their reload times are 3 seconds.
In our first case, we will assume the BG drops in just 5 seconds. In this instance Shooter #1 (1911) will shoot 7 rounds. Shooter #2 will shoot 16.
I used to talk a lot about 9mm vs .45...my rationale for carrying a 9mm was the follow-up shots...lotsa bullets delivered in the same timeframe as a few shots. Now I pretty much agree with M.D. Creekwood at the
Survivalist Blog:
Personally I think the whole stopping power debate is a load of crap and a waste of time. Get a reliable weapon and learn to shoot. Simple...
Key point — when you leave the house,
HAVE A GUN WITH YOU! Every time; every day.
11 comments:
I wonder how many 45 ACP advocates actually carry them without exception. Better the .380 in the pocket than the 500 S&W in the safe.
John
After listening to Burkett tell a class that over 80% of folks shot with handguns live, I gave up on the pistol caliber debate and only use the handgun to get back to the rifle. ;)
Is the theory presented: does the 9mm gun (with more shots) have a higher chance of hitting the bad guy again and therefore doing something extra (after the heart hit) that would stop her attack sooner?
Can someone help me explain why why shoot for the chest and not the stomach? It seems to me that the chest is well-armored, while the belly is soft, hurts more, and if you miss you may hit the hips and drop the guy to the floor.
I guess there's more chance of a stray headshot if you go for the chest, but the upper and lower torso seem to be about the same size to me.
And then there's the consideration that merely carrying a gun - any gun - likely will give you a subtle advantage in body language that may affect the perception of you by predators.
If you appear to be less vulnerable because you're carrying, you might win that contest without ever drawing your weapon.
Mine is a .380 but I "HAVE A GUN WITH YOU (me)! Every time; every day."
And I don't feel under-gunned for precisely that reason. I have it with me.
I prefer the .45. Have 3, don't own any parabellumizers. The .45 is more of a "boom", while the 9mm is more of a sharper "bang". I don't flinch with the softer shooting .45; I used to flinch with a barky, little parabellum I used to have. Since accuracy is paramount, I go with the .45. I think it's physiologically more ergonomic for a shooter with a human nervous system. My two cents.
I carry a 9mm (Glock 26) because it is more compact. And yes, it is "ordnance on target" that counts. But I do believe the .45 has more punch and more destructive to tissue, which promotes more rapid blood loss. If I was knowingly going in harm's way, then I'd pack a .45, but for casual carry where I might be forced to engage an unavoidable threat, then I am confident in carrying the 9mm.
Wolfwood: More opportunities for quick exsanguination with the chest as the target than the stomach.
RSR
Thank you for posting this. I like the keep it simple approach of just learning how to shoot and carry the gun.
I carry a 45. Not in the 7rd variety but a Sprinfield XD in the 13+1 of 230g HP Flavor. It and a spare mag are my constant companion within the limits of the carry laws of NC. Comp-Tac = Comfort.
-Max
Post a Comment