The 9mm vs 45 ACP Debate: A Visual Aid...

Ok now I'm confused when I am looking at those gel blocks with the fancy cavities and immense damage (like from the hollow points). At service handgun velocities does all of that count?
Click to expand...
Depends on what you mean by the question.

It seems to count in terms of letting the shootee know that they've been hit which speaks directly to psychological stops. That's clearly important since psychological stops make up the majority of stops.

It seems to only rarely count in terms of doing any real physical damage. Which is why the experts recommend that you not trade away too much penetration for expansion. You still need a good chance of damaging something really important, and that part of the equation is based very heavily on where the bullet goes and how deep it goes, and (in the context of comparing service pistol calibers) very little on bullet size or the degree of expansion.
...from some of the posts on this thread, it sounds like those cavities that remain in gelatin don't (usually) show up in real tissue wounds.
Click to expand...
Gelatin tears which makes it possible to highlight the extent of temporary cavity with dye. In real tissue, that kind of tearing isn't likely except when inelastic tissues are encountered. The stretching happens, but the tearing usually doesn't.
Here is a dirty, dark secret of 'stopping the threat': that means killing someone.
Click to expand...
Successfully stopping the threat with a firearm is achieved over 90% of the time without the attacker being seriously injured. In fact, over 80% of the time, the attacker isn't even hit. In addition, 80% of handgun wounds are not lethal, which means that even when the attacker is hit, death is unlikely.

Stopping the threat means stopping the threat. Sometimes the attacker dies as a result, but in the vast majority of cases, the attacker is not killed and isn't even seriously injured.

I'm not saying that we should bank on the attacker giving up as easily as the statistics suggest is common, but it's worthwhile to understand the reality of the situation.
The military has no such qualms, and just kills people.
Click to expand...
The military operates under a very different set of legal restrictions than armed citizens. But even they don't kill people when they don't have to--combatants are allowed to give up when they choose to do so.
 
Successfully stopping the threat with a firearm is achieved over 90% of the time without the attacker being seriously injured. In fact, over 80% of the time, the attacker isn't even hit. In addition, 80% of handgun wounds are not lethal, which means that even when the attacker is hit, death is unlikely.

Stopping the threat means stopping the threat. Sometimes the attacker dies as a result, but in the vast majority of cases, the attacker is not killed and isn't even seriously injured.

I'm not saying that we should bank on the attacker giving up as easily as the statistics suggest is common, but it's worthwhile to understand the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many commenting do this for a living. I hope that this doesn't turn into thread drift about use of force, rather than the actual effectiveness of handgun rounds on humans.

I don't bank on the incompetence of others (ie their lack of accuracy and skill as a gunfighter under stress) to determine the outcome of a deadly force encounter. If you are justified in using deadly force, you are justified in using a lot of it, and you are justified in ending the other person's life. If you aren't justified in doing so, then you shouldn't be using deadly force. If the situation resolves itself before that, then everyone wins. But, I wouldn't train with the expectation that the outcome will be roses and daisies and sunshine.

When it comes to a discussion on the performance of projectiles, we are talking about terminal ballistics, and the effectiveness at a given round of causing a 'stop'. My point, as already elucidated in my first post in this hilarious mess, was that the placement of those shots matters most: hit vital structures in the circulatory, respiratory, and central nervous systems. These are the kinds of hits that 'stop' someone. They are also lethal. If we discussing the effectiveness of a given round on flesh, tissue, humans or animals, we are discussing that round's ability to achieve its end. You can call it 'stopping the threat' if you want to.

This discussion has been based on the maximum expansion, the depth of penetration, frangibility, kinetic energy, sectional density, etc. of a given round, all of which are factors in determining if that round will do what it is designed to do: crush / destroy tissue, preferably vital tissue.

If you are going to frame a discussion on 'effectiveness' in a given round, then you are talking about that round's ability to destroy things.
 
noonesshowmonkey said:
I don't bank on the incompetence of others...
Click to expand...
That's very wise. I agree.
JohnKSa said:
I'm not saying that we should bank on the attacker giving up as easily as the statistics suggest is common...
Click to expand...
If you are justified in using deadly force, you are justified in using a lot of it, and you are justified in ending the other person's life.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, I'm speaking about the use of force in a non-military situation.

If you are justified in using deadly force, you are justified in using only as much as you need to stop the attacker. The attacker may die as a RESULT of the application of deadly force, but if the attack stops and the attacker is still alive, or even uninjured, then killing him would be murder. The goal is not to kill the attacker but it is understood that it is a possible outcome.

This is a basic concept in the justifiable use of deadly force.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html

Moreover, the use of force in self-defense generally loses justification once the threat has ended. For example, if an aggressor assaults a victim but then ends the assault and indicates that there is no longer any threat of violence, then the threat of danger has ended. Any use of force by the victim against the assailant at that point would be considered retaliatory and not self-defense.​
These are the kinds of hits that 'stop' someone.
Click to expand...
Those kinds of hits will typically stop a person (though not all of them would be immediately effective), however, as you well know if you have made a study of the topic, many attackers stop attacking even when they have not actually been incapacitated. Many are stopped simply by the sight of a gun, when no shot is even fired. Many are stopped when a shot is fired but does not hit. And many are stopped when they are shot but not seriously injured. Sometimes the attacker is incapacitated but not killed. If a defender continues to use deadly force after the attacker clearly poses no further threat (whether that means that they have fled, surrendered or are incapacitated) then that use of force would not be justified. If the circumstances of the situation were such that it could be proven that the attacker had clearly given up or posed no further threat and the defender continued to shoot (as with the Ersland case) the defender would be tried for murder and very likely convicted as Jerome Ersland was.

Again, that's not to say that we should EXPECT the attacker to give up easily, but it would be foolish to pretend that's not a common outcome because it is.
They are also lethal.
Click to expand...
They are potentially lethal, however there are documented cases of people being shot with service caliber pistol rounds in the heart and surviving.
I wonder how many commenting do this for a living.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you do for a living and you may be very good at what you do. But whatever you do, it clearly has not provided you with an accurate understanding of the legal use of deadly force in a civilian context. It is a dangerous misconception to believe that any time deadly force is justified, the defender is automatically "justified in ending the other person's life". Jerome Ersland had the same misconception you do and he is now in prison as a result.

Justifiable deadly force in the civilian world is about self-defense. It is about stopping attacks and about preventing the death or serious injury of innocents. The death of the attacker may be a consequence of the justifiable use of deadly force, but it is not the goal. The goal is achieved when the attack is stopped; regardless of the medical status of the attacker.
 
Justifiable deadly force in the civilian world is about self-defense. It is about stopping attacks and about preventing the death or serious injury of innocents. The death of the attacker may be a consequence of the justifiable use of deadly force, but it is not the goal. The goal is achieved when the attack is stopped; regardless of the medical status of the attacker.
Click to expand...
Thanks John, for this last post of yours (#283); as it's a concise, accurate stating of the principles of self defense. I'd add to your precient remarks that the purpose of carrying a weapon, is to stop the threat of serious bodily harm to one's self or an innocent. My own thoughts when carrying, center on that premise: stop the threat. No more, no less.

Several years ago, I attended one of Front Sight's excellent 4-day Defensive Handgun courses. While eating lunch each day, one of their instructors made the statement that in the event that we had to actually use a handgun for self defense, our lives would irrevocably change. He stressed that the legal implications alone are daunting: possible criminal prosecution and/or civil litigation with the attendant enormous legal fees. And there is also the distinct possibility of psychological trauma. A consequence that's often overlooked by those who haven't engaged in combat...

Best regards for a great post. Rod
 
Last edited:
I have always wondered about the intimidation factor, if any in the size of the hole if you have to point it at somebody. Here with SA Range Officers in 45 and 9mm.

 
^^^^^^^

How many people do you really think would observe small differences (0.36" vs 0.45 in) during a tense standoff? Not many. They just know that A barrel is pointed at them.

Perhaps if you had a giant .500 Mag revolver and they could actually see the rounds in the cylinder, there would be an intimidation aspect if standing close to you. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top