thinking out loud

C

croc4

New member
So I have read many many threads about the caliber wars, bigger is a must etc, 9mm or 32acp way way to small etc. But if we look back to history these rounds were considered fine for self defense and other tasks, heck even the .22.

And in general I would consider people of the past far tougher than the average person today, and yet the smaller calibers suited them just fine.

So what has changed?

This leads me to my assertion/guess. Is it the quality of medical care that is available today?, this would make a fatal (or potential fatal)would of days gone by, far less critical by today's standards, and does this play into the mental state of a person that is shot?, knowing that they are still able to fight and still have a good change of being treated and surviving. Or is it something else?


Croc4
 
The purpose of me carrying a handgun for defense is to incapacitate a threat as quickly as possible; not to kill the threat at some time in the distant future. So it is not a matter of lethality but of "fast" incapacitation. It is not relevant to solving the problem of stopping a threat of imminent death, whether the threat eventually dies a week later.

What is "fast incapacitation" is a somewhat subjective time span.

Is a fraction of a second fast?
Is 5 seconds fast?
Is 60 seconds fast?

As to what has changed, both the invention of smokeless powders and advances in metallurgy have allowed manufactures to create smaller guns shooting more powerful cartridges.

What was a full sized gun in 1870 shooting a .45 Colt black powder cartridge, can now be matched in a Glock 30. In the 1800s a person wanting a pocket pistol had to compromise power a lot more than a person today. Also, the standard of living in the U.S.A. is much greater today than 100 years ago. That means that more people have more disposable income to spend on firearms than people 100 years ago.

So it may be that people having greater choices, of available guns from manufacturers and more money to spend, get more powerful pistols with which to defend themselves and increase their survival chances in the event of a self-defense encounter.
 
Last edited:
well. in the US phillipines war in 1902, the .38 colt was used against the moro tribe, which turned out to be ineffective, since they used wood armor which could absorb or defeat the .38 colt. the replacement the .45 colt, did much better. in 1911 :P the 1911 .45 acp was born, and that served as the standard for the us army all the way up until 1980s when the beretta was adopted as the service pistol

and police adopted them too. but then bad guys started wearing body armor, and they bumped things back up to .40 and some went back to the .45

in terms of rifles, in ww1 and ww2, infantry used big honking rifles that shot huge bullets, and could kill men out to 1000 yards. and that had been the case for a while until the korean war where waves of chinese would rush the us soldiers and combat was done at 30 yards. and they used a .30 cal carbine. in vietnam they made the m16 with the 5.56 bullet which was much smaller and only effective out to 400 yards, which is what statistics showed to be the average engagement distance.

most LEO cite that they will shoot a BG with a 9mm round, and they wont stop. keep coming at them even if they put 5-6 rounds in a perp.

they say when they shoot someone with a single .45, it tends to drop them and puts them into shock.

in a self defense situation, you want to stop your opponent asap. in war, wounding a soldier is much better than killing them. it causes the other side more resources to care for them, than if they had just died
 
Last edited:
they say when they shoot someone with a single .45, and they hit bone or a vital organ, it dumps all the energy into the perp, and it puts them into shock.
Click to expand...

That's an apples to oranges comparison though. You're pitting a smaller caliber given less than ideal shot placement against a larger caliber and ideal shot placement.

Plus, the goal in a self-defense situation is to stop the attacker ASAP, as opposed to killing them. The vast majority of the time, it's enough to a show an attacker a gun and they give up, so the attacker is already stopped without any shots fired at all. Furthermore, I believe in most situations in which the attacker does get shot, most of the time, the attacker does NOT die, yet the attack is still averted.
 
Plus, the goal in a self-defense situation is to stop the attacker ASAP, as opposed to killing them. The vast majority of the time, it's enough to a show an attacker a gun and they give up, so the attacker is already stopped without any shots fired at all. Furthermore, I believe in most situations in which the attacker does get shot, most of the time, the attacker does NOT die, yet the attack is still averted.
Click to expand...

The way it's been explained to me (by LEO's and according to their training), the only justifiable reason to shoot someone is to end the threat. To end the threat, you must shoot to kill. Shooting to intentionally wound someone isn't ok. Even so, if the person DOESN'T die from the shot, but the threat ends, then you can't justifiably shoot them again.

Therefore, it's "Shoot to end the threat".

On caliber, I believe that bigger is usually better, within certain guidelines. A person doesn't need a .454 Casull for SD, and although it'll certainly work, it becomes a liability from over-penetration.

But with every-day carry, sometimes the bigger guns get heavy, and are hard to conceal for those who prefer concealed carry. As a result, they get left at home, or in the glove box, or wherever to "lighten the load". The gun that's with you is far more effective than the bigger gun that isn't.

And I suppose men and women of old were similar in their beliefs. Bigger is better, but it's less convenient to keep with you. Like most of us, the majority of them probably didn't have a lot of experience with combat.

The information we can get while sitting at our computer would have taken years and years back then, so maybe they just didn't know any better?

Daryl
 
A well designed 9mm JHP will do far more damage than a .45 ACP FMJ.

I've heard good and bad stories about both rounds.

Carry the biggest and fastest load you can shoot well end of story.
 
So what has changed?
Click to expand...

Nothing, really. The only thing that MIGHT have changed is the intent of the victim with a gun. Given the viciousness of some criminals today, the victim wants to make absolutely sure they can stop the BG. They believe caliber enables that. It does not. Shot placement is king. NO handgun round is an absolute 100% stopper - ever, period.

No one wants to be shot with anything, be it a .22 Short or a honking .44 Mag. Since we "shoot to stop", :rolleyes: the quality of medical care afterward isn't germaine.

The "caliber contestants" will have you think anything short of a .45 ACP is practically worthless. My wife carries a .32 ACP. She can put a full mag in the head at 15 feet. I'll be proud to have her back me up or stand by me any time in a gunfight. A couple of .32 ACP rounds in the face is by far better than a .45 hit in the arm, IMO.

It might even be compensation. "My cartridge is bigger than yours." I dunno.

What I'm saying is any gun you can carry and shoot accurately is much better than one left on the dresser at home because it kicks too much, is too big, etc.

Carry what you shoot best. XD9SC here. BTW,
I switched from an XD40SC to the 9. 13+1 of 9 is more preferable than 9+1 of .40 S&W. I don't feel undergunned AT ALL.
 
well. in the US phillipines war in 1902, the .38 special was used against the moro tribe, which turned out to be ineffective,
Click to expand...

I wouldn't compare a 1902 .38 Special against what's available today.
and police adopted them too. but then bad guys started wearing body armor, and they bumped things back up to .40 and some went back to the .45
Click to expand...

Do you have any data on which departments use 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP?
most LEO cite that they will shoot a BG with a 9mm round, and they wont stop. keep coming at them even if they put 5-6 rounds in a perp.
Click to expand...

Haven't heard that one. I guess they cant get solid COM hits.
they say when they shoot someone with a single .45, and they hit bone or a vital organ, it dumps all the energy into the perp, and it puts them into shock.
Click to expand...

Yup. Same thing happens if you hit a vital or bone with a 9mm or even a lowly .380.
in a self defense situation, you want to kill your opponent dead asap.
Click to expand...

If you testify to that in court, you're up for a murder charge. The paradox is "We shoot to stop, not to kill." vs "You cannot shoot unless you feel in imminent danger of loss of life or severe bodily injury." Only then may you use "deadly force". :confused:
 
Someday,after guns are not needed because of what is now available,there will be a big foot note about bullets.Big is nice,but placement is most important.
 
So what has changed? We've gone from black powder to smokeless powder, from FMJs and RNLs to JHPs, JSPs, etc. I don't think people of the past were
any tougher than those today. I think firearms seem to go in cycles, cf the switch from revolvers to semi-autos in US LE agencies, the caliber wars, the
attempts to fill the "calber gap"-the 40 S&W, e.g. National preference-it seems for decades the 32ACP was THE police round in Europe, the 9MM was considered military, while our 45ACP was considered a cannon, while we based our reliance on the 45 caliber due to our bad experience with the 38 Long Colt against the Moros. IMHO a lot of it comes down to personal preferences, but we like to justify our choices with seemingly "objective"
data.
 
well. in the US phillipines war in 1902, the .38 special was used against the moro tribe, which turned out to be ineffective,
Click to expand...

It wasn't the .38 Spl. It was the .38 Colt which about the same as the .38 S&W was a good bit milder than the .38Spl.

tipoc
 
So what has changed?
Click to expand...

Not much really. "Back in the day" folks used the most effective cartridge they could get and carried it in a gun they matched to the task. Today we have more powerful ammo then was available 100 years ago, even 80 years ago. We can put that ammo in smaller and lighter firearms.

It has always been the case, that when possible, people tend to carry the most effective round they can handle. The decisive criteria being handle well. This means that some rounds like the .25 acp are less popular today then 50 years ago. The same is true of the .32acp. The .380 has grown in popularity. Folks will carry a 9mm over a .380 depending on the task.

Nothing much at all has changed except some technology.

tipoc
 
in terms of rifles, in ww1 and ww2, infantry used big honking rifles that shot huge bullets, and could kill men out to 1000 yards. and that had been the case for a while until the korean war where waves of chinese would rush the us soldiers and combat was done at 30 yards. and they used a .30 cal carbine. in vietnam they made the m16 with the 7.62 bullet which was much smaller and only effective out to 400 yards, which is what statistics showed to be the average engagement distance.
Click to expand...

WHAT? " m16 with the 7.62 bullet"...? Damn, I was in Vietnam in 1969
and 1970, and I never saw an M16 chambered for 7.62. But I coveted
an M14, which WAS chambered for the 7.62, but was very hard to get,
unless you were a scout-sniper, or a platoon sergeant or higher.

I wasn't either. I carried a 5.56 M16, and later an M79. But I really
wanted an M14.

Walter
 
its the american way, bigger and badder. Just look at the history of our military industrial complex, bigger and badder..will mow down anything else purely for political gain and or profit. Same goes with our cars, bullets..and what not, people want big and bad. Excess and consumption is our way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top