The Best Caliber for a Tactical Situation

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.
Click to expand...

Do you understand that the number one killer on the battlefield during that period of time was not small arms fire? Historically artillery and explosives have killed 9-10 times as many people as small arms fire.
 
I honestly don't know which round is "best". Seems like they all have their moments and ideal uses. Hope I never find out and concentrate on shot placement in the meantime.
 
All of the above will do in backing up the sbmachine guns, automatic rifles and shotguns typically present in tactical situations.

But I guess that statement hinges on what tactical means.
 
Creature said:
I look at 9mm and 45ACP this way: would a BG rather be hit with a 100mph baseball or a 75mph bowling ball?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that is not even close to a good comparison. The differences between a 9mm and a .45 are no where near as drastic as that comparison might say.

Bottom line; the best the self defense caliber is the one you feel the most confident with. All of those calibers are up to the task given the right ammunition is used. Tactics, accuracy and ammunition selection are far more important issues than caliber. If you handle the 9mm the best and feel most comfortable with it then you already answered your question.
 
I keep a Mossberg 590 loaded with 00 buckshot and a Wilson Combat Protector loaded with 200gr +p Speer Goldots next to my bed. That oughta cover any situation that's likely to occur.
 
I've said this before, but, handguns can often be used in place of rifles, and, they are concealable, and, some of them are NOT limited by the choices mentioned earlier. The .500 JRH, .475 and .500 Linebaugh, all with 'light' 325 grain to 400 grain Hawk bullets, or even XTP's, are going to effect the target much like a 375 H&H rifle, and, they can be carried in one hand, when going to the door, and, if you live on a ranch,
or in Alaska, they at least give you a better then middling chance against bear, moose, elk, or a bad guy in cover.
 
What tactical situation?

Obviously the more manageable power the better. But you have to factor in concealability and carryability.

ie I regard the Soviet Makarov to be probably a better pistol for soldiers than a large Beretta or Browning? - despite the fact that a full size 9mm or 45 is a better killer. Why? when you look at all of the kit that a soldier winds up needing to carry at the end of the day it comes down what compromises he has to make in terms of gear carried in order to reduce the weight of his kit. ie if I pack the pistol do I have to leave some granades behind.

Also If the enemy can see I am carrying a pistol it identifies me as a more valueable target than someone who is just carrying a rifle - ie I am potentially an Officer or a highly trained specialist assett and not merely a rifleman.
 
So njtrigger, if you feel the best caliber is the one that is most managable and that the 9mm is the most managable (out of the choices you provided), then why would you hamper yourself by going with .45?

The development of the .45 was done using real animals and ultimately tested on real humans in the Philippines.
Click to expand...

Given that the .45 acp was developed in conjunction with the 1911 and given that the war in the Philippines was long over, I don't think your information is correct that the .45 was tested there. Yes, they used the .45 Colt in the Philippines, but not the .45 acp.

The new caliber was then given to the soldiers to test out on the battlefield which they did and they were very satisfied with the results.
Click to expand...

You mean several years later is WWI?

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...

As noted, the 1911 wasn't so much developed for tactical situations as it was an officer's gun. I guess you are suggesting officers were used for clearing caves and bunkers and the like?
 
njtrigger said:
So which round would you choose and why for a tactical situation?
Click to expand...

Best caliber for a "tactical situation"? So far, the proper application of tactics has allowed me to largely avoid situations. ;)

njtrigger said:
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...

The "tactical situation" that the 1911 was developed for involved a guy on a horse, which rarely occurred in caves or bunkers.
 
The developement of the .45 was done using real animals and ultimately tested on real humans in the Philippines.
Click to expand...

The .45 acp was not developed because of the Morros in the Philippines.

This is an incorrect myth that is widely believed and circulated.

Straight from the 2006 Guns and Ammo Book of the 1911-

"The Army wanted the .45 to knock down Moros in the Phillipines-
Oh, puh-leeze. Yes the Army was not at all happy with the performance of the .38 Colt during the Phillipine insurrection. The real reason we got a .45 and not a .38/9mm pistol? Cavalry. A century ago, the cavalry was the prestige branch of the service. It was what Delta, Rangers, Recon, and Spec Ops are today. If you wanted to be "somebody" in the Army, you had to have commanded a cavalry troop. And the biggest problem any calvary unit would face was...cavalry. Stopping a man was one thing, but getting a horse to quit was something else."
"Ever wonder why the Thompson-LaGarde tests were done on cattle and not goats? Because everyone involved was more interested in what handguns (the premier arm of the premier branch of the service) would do to horses. Oh yes, they tested on cadavers, but the live subjects weights starting at 1,200 pounds. It wasn't 140-pound Moros they were worried about but 1,400 pound chargers. Stop the horse and you stop the charge. That it did well on people was a bonus."
 
Last edited:
IdahoG36 said:
The real reason we got a .45 and not a .38/9mm pistol? Calvary. A century ago, the calvary was the prestige branch of the service.
Click to expand...
FWIW, "Calvary" is a hill in the Bible, "cavalry" is guys on horses. :)
 
I keep seeing it repeated several times in this and other threads, about how the U.S is switching from 5.56 to some bigger caliber. I know that the Military was testing the 6.8spc and the 6.5grendel for the use in spec ops teams, but to the best of my knowldge neither of those were adopted on any large scale. I have not seen nor heard any thing on the net regarding some wholesale switch to a bigger rifle round.

So, to the 2-3 guys here that keep saying that the military is switching wholesale to bigger RIFLE bullets please post links and or some form of proof. I know they did some requests on a new .45 gun for the USSOCOM, but that is a limited force, and according to what i have read, even if it was adopted the entire rest of the military will still use the m9.

Again please post some citations and proof, that clearly states that the military intends to switch wholesale to a bigger rifle round.
 
True during the Morro uprising there were complaints about the 38s, However there were also complains about the 30-40 Krag, 45-70, 45 Colt and the 12 Gauge shotgun when shooting Morro warrior who were both on drugs and tied what were in effect tourniquets to the arms and legs prior to charging the American lines. So the natural solution was adapt a round with similar terminal performance to what already was complained about.
 
It Doesn't Really Matter...

Practically speaking it won't matter. All of the calibers mentioned (9mm, .357 Sig, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, 10 mm) are all effective.

I guess what you're really asking are the mechanisms by which a bullet destroys tissue and which caliber best offers this.

Before anyone tries to answer this it should be mentioned that bullet construction is probably more important than "caliber" (of the ones listed).

Take Federal HST for example. The gelatin tests all look very similar with bullets nearly doubling in expanded diameter and all penetrating within 1/2 inch or so of each other.

Therefore, when I say "it doesn't matter, it's all about placement" and your ability to manage recoil adequately for whatever your Accuracy-Speed criteria may be.
 
After many years of gleaning Internet knowledge, this sums it up as well as anything I've read.

joke.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top