Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns why do new handgun calibers so often fail?

This.

Between older male relatives and two patrol sergeants I worked for 35 years ago, I had 6-7 firsthand accounts of 45 FMJ against enemy combatants in Korea or Vietnam. Only two required a second shot (termed 'insurance') and all but one were left for dead on the battlefield, the survivor being carted off for interrogation. Saw it used in three homicides, 1-2 shots and done.

Sarge,

Like you, my information regarding shots fired in anger via the 45 ACP are all universally with ball ammo .

That the people I've known were "prejudiced" in regards to actually using it didnt have the benefit of better bullets or data that basically ignores the events that they lived through probably wouldn't give them much pause for commentary.

I believe all the ballistic arguments aside, everyone is missing the main point. These were two trained, and highly determined soldiers that were hellbent on causing as much damage before they went down......you just can't quantify that factor!

Too much is being derived from gel and statistics, instead of actual experience.
Statistics can be made to say whatever you want them to say

What’s the fun in that ?

9mm guy : “I read a report on ballistics today , 374 pages . I think the 9 would kill something in 3-4 shots , no worries , I’ve got 19 on board . What did you do today ?”


45 guy : “ Shot the hell outta some pigs . Got five . Had 2 rounds left for protection at the store on the way home . (Spits in Texan accent ) “

I personally give much more weight to the testimony of people who've used a round in combat or self-defense (or even hunting) on multiple occasions than I do in lab test results.

You absolutely can quantify that factor. We called them dead-enders but names hardly matter. They don't give two shiiizs about dying and even less about being mortally wounded. They won't hesitate to open fire with the heaviest hitters they can lay hands on, to inflict maximum damage on the way out. People like this are precisely why you train and equip for the worst case scenario.

They're going to be hard to hit while this is going on. Whatever hits you to make had better be hard.

The FBI isn't stupid. They realized the Miami debacle occurred precisely because their first good hits didn't settle accounts. They correctly recognized it as a hardware problem and set about correcting that. Their initial solution was to increase caliber and bullet weight. They overdid it and had to water it down so the lowest common denominator could qualify with it.

The Bureau's return to the 9mm makes sense from a logistics and budget standpoint. Any agency that fields a lot of SMGs would prefer to have their service pistol using the same ammunition . Additionally, the AR-15 is being deployed far more that was in 1986.

When your troops are basically bookworms and lawyers you end up with a bunch of soft-handed non shooters. The FBI qualification is not a cakewalk so if a 9 millimeter helps them qualify, I get that. I trained cops for 25 years. I had very little trouble teaching women and smaller men to handle the 40 S&W, but we did allow the 9mm as an option for those who needed it.

As I have mentioned before, when the FBI changes service cartridges a whole lot of state and local agencies are going to change right along with them. So will a lot of civilian defensive shooters. Just don't kid yourself about what it is; essentially the modern version of that 38 + P lead hollow point load.

I have no backup, no SMG and my carry gun is also my woods/chore gun. Where I live a 12 shot 45 ACP handles that real well.

This talk of battle field accounts reminds me of stories from the Philippines. 38 vs 45 Colt....hence the development of the 45apc..

Spot on Sarge

I blame Obammy for agencies switching to the 9mm.

If it wasn’t for the Great Ammo Famine causing the prices to skyrocket, 40’s would more than likely be top dog yet, or 357 Sig.
Bean counters have convinced everyone with eloquent writings and statistics that the the 9 is the end all be all. I will say there is a place for the 9mm , but not every place.

And how did all the LEO’s of yesterday manage to qualify with 357’s and 45’s. My old Chief Deputy who was 5’3 carried a 1911. He was tough as nails though.

as do I believe actual shootings over gel tests, the number of actual shootings with anything from a 25auto to a 44 magnum are fairly well cataloged. There is not a nickles worth of difference between the results of a 9mm shooting and a 45 acp shooting as an self defense pistol. Its the same thing with everything, anecdotal stories do not trump actual tabulated data. As far as veterans using them, well that's what Uncle Sam provided, secondly the 45 acp is a few dB lower in volume than the 9mm. I would pick a 12 shot 45ACP over any 9mm in a tunnel, you might be able to hear the next ones coming for you if you did.
My woods carry gun is a 15 round 10 mm, just sayin is all.

What data are you referring to ?
How was the data tabulated? Were determined attackers noted? Were hits causing minor wounds given the same credence as more sever wounds if the attacker stopped?
The data that I have seen collected was very flawed

If I recall the Marshall data correctly, which is no doubt a big portion of that which Jimmy is referring to, there was no allowance made for anything other than a one shot stop. That left out a lot of shootings right there. It also didn't consider the size of the person shot, clothing, etc. Lots of variables were uncontrolled, but that's the nature of a compilation as opposed to a test. There were also those who questioned Marshall's truthfulness. I don't remember what Ayoob's parameters were other than his compilation sample wasn't as large as Marshall's.

Just for the record...the last time I saw Marshall's data, the 40 was in the lead with something like 96% one shot stops, with what was then, the best ammo for that caliber and the 357 was only a percentage point or so in back. 9mm +P+ was at 89%, take your pick of JHP from the big three ammo makers. The best 45 ACP was someplace in between. I don't think enough shootings had been compiled to place the 44 Mag. or the 10.

Take note that the above results were not caliber compilations, but AMMO compilations. I don't remember at all which 40 S&W rounds were the best. I do remember on the 9. IIRC the 357 was a 125 grain round, but I forget which one. All were JHP.

there are so many variables, ammo, recoil tolerance/ability to shoot a lighter recoiling gun better, bullets used, part of body hit. One study I saw rated a 22 LR relatively close to a 9mm, and a 9mm was not that far from a 45ACP. All things considered if more people can make better hits with a 22LR then the data is going to show the 22LR as just about as lethal as a 9mm. That said I cannot believe a center mass hit with a 124 grain HST and a 230 grain HST will have remarkably different results.

Here you go Viking.

https://www.guns.com/news/2012/07/17/lthompson-lagarde-test-45-colt-1911

"Bigger bullets leave bigger holes."

Seems reasonable.

As far as the 5.7x28 is concerned....two things contribute to its lack of popularity: the gun is expensive and up until now there was only a single pistol chambered for it, FN’s FiveSeven. Ammo is expensive relative to more common pistol ammo like the 9mm and not available everywhere.
It is also seen by many as simply a glorified .22 magnum though it is far more than that.
Perhaps this will change with the advent of Ruger’s 57 pistol. Less expensive, maybe it will stimulate other ammo companies to start making the 5.7x28