The Best Caliber for a Tactical Situation

Now I have read many discussions on the stopping power which is arguable, but I believe the most important aspect is how managable the caliber will be in a tactical situation.

....

However, the most managable round is the 9 which is fun to shoot in my opinion and can be done one-handed if needed.

So which round would you choose and why for a tactical situation? Personally, I like the .45.[/QUOTE]

Given your logic that how manageable a caliber is should be the most important consideration, then by choosing the .45, you have chosen poorly as you feel the 9mm is the most managable.
Click to expand...
 
I welcome corrections...

The .357 magnum is the self-defense cartridge for the revolver, whereas the .45ACP is the self-defense cartridge for the semiautomatic.

I wouldn't use a .40, personally, because the recoil is more like a SLAP or KICK versus the .45's PUSH.

So, it works out like this:

REVOLVER = 357 magnum, with .38+P as an option.

SEMIAUTOMATIC = .45ACP, or 9mm for cost, recoil, and perhaps smaller hands.

As always, I'm open to changing my opinions and listen for corrective advice.
 
Like somebody above mentioned - The Geneva Convention hinders the effectiveness of both the 9 mm and 5.56 mm for the military - full metal jacket. I wouldn't use a pistol in a tactical situation but if I had to - I would go with the highest capacity. All things equal - I'd take the 45.
 
I am not a pro with ballistics, but here are my opinions.

9mm in a light gun can be very unenjoyable to shoot. Hotter 9mm rounds have a more violent (snappy) kick than a 45. My SA XD9 kicks alot worse than my SA 1911 TRP 45. The 45 feels like a big push, instead of a violent snap. The ability to carry more rounds in a 9mm means nothing to me. 8 rounds of 45 should be enough to end most engagements. The reason a traditional 45 only holds 8 rounds is because the single stack makes for a slim comfortable grip.

The main problem witht the 5.56 is not the reduction in speed, it is the lack of mass. The lower speeds hurt it more, but a 5.56 can never compete with a 7.62, no matter what velocity. 5.56 is my current battlerifle cartridge due to accuracy and convenience, but I know it is a poor man stopper and terrible glass breecher.

357 is an incredible people stopper because it has both, mass and velocity. but is a poor semi-auto pistol cartridge due to the ergonomics that would result from a gun that could feed the cartridge. And the recoil is a problem.

45 works better not just because of a larger diameter, but also due to the mass of the bullet. a 230 grain 45 is double a typical 115 grain 9mm.

Proven results in the battlefield show the 5.56 and the 9mm to be poor man stoppers compared to what we had prior to Vietnam. All of the military will be moving to a larger rifle cartridge (maybe 6.82), and BACK TO THE 45 ACP.

Unless you really like a 1911 (superior in many aspects), get a Taurus 24/7 OSS in 45 ACP, or a SA XD 45 and don't look back.

http://www.taurustactical.com/dsp_247oss.cfm
http://www.springfield-armory.com/xd.php?model=3
 
All of the military will be moving to a larger rifle cartridge (maybe 6.82), and BACK TO THE 45 ACP.
Click to expand...
Larger rifle cartridge? Maybe.

Back to the .45? Yeah, a few special units might.
But the entire U.S. military? Not a chance; the 9mm is here to stay.
 
Every request for bid from the military for a new gun design have specified the 45 ACP. You're right, most of those have been "Special Operations", but I bet it will go widespread.
 
Personally, give me .45, even though I stock .38, .40, .357, 9mm, .380, and .22 for the handguns I own. That said, part of the reason for the military's use of 9mm is for the sake of compatability between NATO forces. As far as high capacity goes in the 9mm vs. .45 argument, a good answer could be a SA XD45...13 + 1 of .45 is hard to beat :)
 
NJTRIGGER:
Now such testing cannot be done today because of ethical standards. I believe they developed the .45 not just for stopping power, but they also took into account other factors such as usability in a tactical situation. They designed the .45 for a soldier in close combat where the rifle could not be practically used (like in tight cave or bunker).
Click to expand...

They were a sidearm for those that didn't carry a long gun. Officers, artillery tenders, pilots, etc.

NJTRIGGER:
The 9 mm, I believe, is more for a soldier when his rifle has failed or he can no longer use his rifle out on the battlefield. Lets say his arm gets shot or hit with shrapnel and he can only use one hand then the 9mm, I believe, is the best choice. The 9mm has range and low recoil.
Click to expand...

Soldiers with rifles don't carry a sidearm. But your assertion that the sidearm is used by the above mentioned folks not carrying long arms to keep heads down till you can find cover or your way to a long arm is correct. SF excepted.

NJTRIGGER:
The FBI director who had testified in front of Congress stated in an interview that he would have went with the .45 except that months before the Army had argued that they wanted the 9 mm. Therefore, he couldn't just say he wanted the .45 so they developed the .40.
Click to expand...

The 40 was developed after the FBI requested the 10mm and then wanted it in a reduced velocity. The EVENTUAL result was the 40 which is the same caliber as the 10mm but can be easily put on the 9mm frame be reducing the length of the casing.

NJTRIGGER:
The .357, in my opinion, just has too much flash and bang. Lets say I wake up and need to use the pistol. I'm not sure how that extra flash and bang would help me out in a dark environment where I am half-asleep. I think it would further disorient me. The .40 is just too much and requires a strong hand.
Click to expand...

For the sake of your long term freedom, DO NOT SHOOT INTO THE DARK;)
There are 5 rules.....live by them.....never vary from them.....one is to be SURE of your target and what is beyond it.

Please don't feel I am picking on you.. if you got that feeling I truly apologize. Good information is the goal here and I just hope to correct mis-information so the it doesn't reproduce it's self as it has a tendency to do.
 
I use 9mm, 357 magnum & 45 acp with equal confidence in their effectiveness. The one constant I have is my 12 ga. pump shotgun.
 
The main problem witht the 5.56 is not the reduction in speed, it is the lack of mass. The lower speeds hurt it more, but a 5.56 can never compete with a 7.62, no matter what velocity. 5.56 is my current battlerifle cartridge due to accuracy and convenience, but I know it is a poor man stopper and terrible glass breecher.
Click to expand...

The 5.56MM in its original 55 grain 3,250fps form is a devastating wound producer. In small bodied animals like people it is a great stopper. It does lack mass and that kills penetration into larger animals and hard objects......even glass. It does have limitations because of the penetration but it has advantages as well. It allows soldiers to carry more ammunition in the same weight and its reduced (almost nil) recoil allows for much faster engaging speeds.

Don't be fooled into thinking that the 762 ball is a magic fight stopper. I heard a soldier telling his story of how he and his team of 4 men were under attack by 200 taliban fighters. One of his men was shot by small arms (762x39) at least 4 times yet was still alive and fighting back. He finally died along with 2 other team members. I can't remember for certain but I believe all had been shot multiple times and hit by shrapnel. Had this happen with the 5.56 it would be blamed on caliber the .30 however gets a free ride.
 
Mattro, Dead is dead. Using that logic you should have asked for a 50BMG or heck maybe even a cannon round LOL.

Having seen the results of a 223 round on deer, albeit a soft point, a human just isn't likely to survive a hit to the chest from a 5.56MM projectile traveling over 2800fps, the speed needed for disintegration. My deer ran less than 40 yards and was on the full run when shot behind the shoulder in the lung area. Field dressing showed complete destruction of the lungs.
 
If you go to any stories about those who lived and got a medal of honor, you will find many soldiers who were shot multiple times by rifle rounds and survived. I guess you just have to get lucky and not have the rounds hit anything vital.

It is possible to survive a rifle round, although, I think it not probable.
 
Just some thoughts...

Being 23 years old, I consider the deaths of both Biggie Smalls and Tupac Shakur to be a reminder that even a "little" 9mm round can put you to sleep for good.

Then again Tupac was shot before the shooting that claimed his life and lived. He took 6 and lived.

Shot placement is the genesis of tactics...

eL
 
There is no "best", only "different". What is best for one tactical situation might not be best for another. Any of the basic fighting calibers are fine for the job if you do your part, and none of them are good enough if you don't do your part.
 
Use what works for you. I personally usually carry either a Glock 19 9mm or a S&W Model 25 .45 ACP. However, f I knew I was going to get in an unavoidable gunfight and could only bring a handgun, my choice would likely be a .44... why settle for fast and light or slow and heavy when you can have fast and heavy instead? :D
 
To me, it is the tactics which make the ammo more effective as well as shot placement. A 9mm through the head is probably more effective than a .45 in the chest. Two to the chest and one to the head at close range has always been effective no matter the size of the bullet. If you can deliver the 2 chest shots and 1 to the head with speed and accuracy then that is the right pistol ammo choice for you. My favorite over all shooters are the .40 and the .45 bullets but I would not hesitate to carry a 9mm handgun into battle as a back-up to my 7.62 or 6.8 SPC rifle which I would be issued.
 
Soldiers with rifles don't carry a sidearm. But your assertion that the sidearm is used by the above mentioned folks not carrying long arms to keep heads down till you can find cover or your way to a long arm is correct. SF excepted.
Click to expand...

Thats just simply not the case. At all. Specialty units or not, many carry both.

The reason for the 9mm is because of NATO and capacity. Much of the force can't shoot too well, so capacity is key. Its pretty simple.

Yes, 7.62 and .45ACP are much more capable killers, but capacity is key.

NATO is no excuse for the 5.56. I think beurocrats and their view of women not being able to handle the round is the reason for not switching to the 7.62.

Yes, they test .45, and yes, they test other rifles and other rifle rounds. Every single time, our current weapons get beat up pretty bad, and every single time they say it will be too expensive. Why even conduct the tests?
 
mattro


I would hate to carry 610 rounds of 7.62 and have to run, jump over 6-7 foot walls all while being shot at and wearing body armor in 140 degree weather with no clouds to shade you.

Proven results in the battlefield show the 5.56 and the 9mm to be poor man stoppers compared to what we had prior to Vietnam. All of the military will be moving to a larger rifle cartridge (maybe 6.82), and BACK TO THE 45 ACP.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you have never been there.

While I never killed anyone with a 9mm over there, the 5.56 did just fine for me and we mainly carried M955 ball, the stuff with a tungsten carbide core. Or as you would know it, armor piercing. It still has a air pocket upfront and will still tumble in flesh, it just dont fragment.

It did just fine with controlled pairs and headshots for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top