(quoting Panzer Jager) "Also, just for reference, yes 9mm and whatnot are proven killers. They are not reliable one-shot-stoppers (incapacitate), and people have obviously completely survived them too. Their "one-shot-stop" statistic (yes, I understand the flaws of those statistics, but one shouldn't ignore stats that are well-established with a large number of shootings) is ~60%. That means almost 1 in 2 people will fail to be incapacitated by a single shot to the torso.
Yes, if you hit vital organs with them they will still kill. But there are 2 problems with that in itself:
1) the wound channel is very small and hitting vital organs is a matter of excellent shot placement
2) accuracy is relatively bad and so shot placement becomes more random than not"
If you want to rely on fatality statistics... why is the .45 ACP 230gr FMJ a 63% stopper when the 9mm 115gr FMJ is a 63% stopper too? Of course, that is incapacitation from a chest shot, disregarding if target died afterwards, but incapacitation is what you want when the bad guy is pointing a gun at you. Those specific percentages are well-established from a wide number of shootings, and there is without a doubt some truth in them. You can't just ignore data from over 1100 shootings with .45 ACP 230gr FMJ and over 550 shootings with 9mm 115gr FMJ.[/QUOTE]
I will ( for textbook authority) reley on "Handgun stopping Power- the definitive study" by Evan P. Marshall which places it closer to 81% for .45 ball and around 57% for 9mm ball.
Never the less I'll make this point, as far as the ancient 9mm vs .45 argument goes, law enforments job is not to "kill" but to subdue in most situations and opted for the 9mm for this reason and also higher capacity.
There is a reason WW2 military picked the .45 for both thier standard issue sidearm(colt 45) and submachinegun (Thompson)....lethality!!
If someone were breaking into my home, and I only had one bullet for my 9mm and one for my .45 ( ridiculous analogy I know, but I'm trying to make a point) I would grab the .45 without even a second thought.
I think you would too.
Yes, if you hit vital organs with them they will still kill. But there are 2 problems with that in itself:
1) the wound channel is very small and hitting vital organs is a matter of excellent shot placement
2) accuracy is relatively bad and so shot placement becomes more random than not"
If you want to rely on fatality statistics... why is the .45 ACP 230gr FMJ a 63% stopper when the 9mm 115gr FMJ is a 63% stopper too? Of course, that is incapacitation from a chest shot, disregarding if target died afterwards, but incapacitation is what you want when the bad guy is pointing a gun at you. Those specific percentages are well-established from a wide number of shootings, and there is without a doubt some truth in them. You can't just ignore data from over 1100 shootings with .45 ACP 230gr FMJ and over 550 shootings with 9mm 115gr FMJ.[/QUOTE]
I will ( for textbook authority) reley on "Handgun stopping Power- the definitive study" by Evan P. Marshall which places it closer to 81% for .45 ball and around 57% for 9mm ball.
Never the less I'll make this point, as far as the ancient 9mm vs .45 argument goes, law enforments job is not to "kill" but to subdue in most situations and opted for the 9mm for this reason and also higher capacity.
There is a reason WW2 military picked the .45 for both thier standard issue sidearm(colt 45) and submachinegun (Thompson)....lethality!!
If someone were breaking into my home, and I only had one bullet for my 9mm and one for my .45 ( ridiculous analogy I know, but I'm trying to make a point) I would grab the .45 without even a second thought.
I think you would too.
Last edited:
Upvote
0