Hello guys what are your thoughts on this?Anyone I have ever talked to who has used hardball ammo,this is in .45ACP mind you,has said that the person fell down and stood there.Is this just war legend?I don't think that GI's would praise any gun or cartridge that failed them. I have never served but know many war vetrens from WW2 and Nam.They do usaully curse the M-1 Carbine as not having enough stopping power.So what are your thoughts on this?Why do people say .45 hardball is not a good stopper against a "determined attacker"?Is a criminal who wants your wallet any more determined than a soilder who wants to kill you before you kill him?Tell me what you think guys.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK OF-"THEY ALL FALL TO HARDBALL?
- Thread starter 45automan
- Start date
VictorLouis
New member
I don't believe it at all. But, I don't think the avg. BG looking for your wallet has anywhere NEAR the determination of an enemy soldier intent on your demise. That said, there is a lot of merit in the "psychological" response to being shot. IOW, there has been MANY deaths attributed to either non-vital, or small caliber, wounds that autopsy later showed to be "medically survivable." Then again I've seen several self-styled "OGs" take numerous pistol hits (non-vital)and curse all the way to the ER.
I rank this saying right up there with "If the glove does not fit, you must acquit." It rhymes but is not backed by reason. They don't all fall to hardball, hollow-points, or even rifled slugs or RIFLE slugs, at least not right away.
------------------
When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; IT IS that they shall be destroyed forever...Psalms 92.7
------------------
When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; IT IS that they shall be destroyed forever...Psalms 92.7
OK here is my thing. Any good current 1911 pistol should be able to feed hollow points reliably. So why shoot hard ball for self defense unless it can't. With a hollow point you have a great chance that the bullet will expand. If it does not expand then essentially what you end up with is hard ball any way. I like that chance for expansion though. Either way the .45 still makes a big hole. If you are using under a 5" barrel and shooting HP's I would suggest that you use 185 grain loads. Not sure about the 200 grain loads. I have never shot them.
------------------
Talk about the greatest pistol ever made.
www.1911Forum.com
------------------
Talk about the greatest pistol ever made.
www.1911Forum.com
DerGlockenpooper
New member
Total BS based on romantic myth of a beautiful gun that has a strong following.
There is NO, I repeat NO evidence to support this claim that you are referring to.
For instance, in regard to the romnaticism associated with the .45 1911, I hear people talk about how medal of honors holders have carried the 1911 .45. (As if the fact that these soldiers were forced to carry that gun and happened to have it on them when they died, somehow makes the .45 hardball more effective??? That is not a very good scientific conclusion) I read an article in a gun rag about how the 1911 was at the side of many medal of honor winners. With all respect to the medal of honor winners (who died with that gun): who cares what gun they had on when they died???
In every story, the guy used the gun and ended up getting killed. Makes for good stories and I fully respect these people, but just because someone dies using the 1911 .45 hardball does not make it any more special or any more effective than any other gun.
I believe there are 4 medal of honor winners that used a 9mm Luger, by the way.
Anyway, the .45 has a very strong romantic following and people convince themselves that it is such a good manstopper because they like the gun. Also, their delusion that the .45 is so effective gives them a warm fuzzy feeling when they carry it, but they have NO evidence to back up their claim that it is any more effective than anything else.
In fact, I used to work in emergency medicine. I saw myself a man who was shot at point blank with an entire magazine of .45 and he was no more than annoyed at being shot. He was alert and talkative (and in pain of course, but not incapacitated by any means) for over 20 minutes until he got to the hospital. How is that for an example of such a devastating manstopper?
In fact, there is tons of evidence that they all work about same. 9mm, .40, .45, .357, they all work abuot the same in every study of real shootings and real wounds.
And, 9mm FMJ works just as well as .45 FMJ (there is no appreciable difference in the wound or the stopping ability in any study).
That's a fact, and a bitter pill to swallow for some people.
Lastly, hollowpoints work better than FMJ. They do NOT "all fall to ball", in fact very few determined people do. Your odds are much better with a good hollwpoint.
I refer you to this thread for starters:
http://glocktalk.com/docs/gtubb/Forum15/HTML/001295.html
Time and again I have challenged people that think the .45 is so effective to give me some PROOF. Scientific evidence. The fact is, there is none. Every single scientist and study from Fackler and IWBA, to Marshall Sanow, to Dr. DiMaio, to the INS to all other law agencies and militaries and even the crazy goat tests that have tested these rounds side by side in the lab and on the street have come to the conclusion that the .45 work no better than any of ther others. I challege anyone to find me a study that shows otherwise. I have at least 5 complete studies and numerous other partial studies that show that all defensive pistol calibers work about the same from 9mm on up.
There is NO, I repeat NO evidence to support this claim that you are referring to.
For instance, in regard to the romnaticism associated with the .45 1911, I hear people talk about how medal of honors holders have carried the 1911 .45. (As if the fact that these soldiers were forced to carry that gun and happened to have it on them when they died, somehow makes the .45 hardball more effective??? That is not a very good scientific conclusion) I read an article in a gun rag about how the 1911 was at the side of many medal of honor winners. With all respect to the medal of honor winners (who died with that gun): who cares what gun they had on when they died???
In every story, the guy used the gun and ended up getting killed. Makes for good stories and I fully respect these people, but just because someone dies using the 1911 .45 hardball does not make it any more special or any more effective than any other gun.
I believe there are 4 medal of honor winners that used a 9mm Luger, by the way.
Anyway, the .45 has a very strong romantic following and people convince themselves that it is such a good manstopper because they like the gun. Also, their delusion that the .45 is so effective gives them a warm fuzzy feeling when they carry it, but they have NO evidence to back up their claim that it is any more effective than anything else.
In fact, I used to work in emergency medicine. I saw myself a man who was shot at point blank with an entire magazine of .45 and he was no more than annoyed at being shot. He was alert and talkative (and in pain of course, but not incapacitated by any means) for over 20 minutes until he got to the hospital. How is that for an example of such a devastating manstopper?
In fact, there is tons of evidence that they all work about same. 9mm, .40, .45, .357, they all work abuot the same in every study of real shootings and real wounds.
And, 9mm FMJ works just as well as .45 FMJ (there is no appreciable difference in the wound or the stopping ability in any study).
That's a fact, and a bitter pill to swallow for some people.
Lastly, hollowpoints work better than FMJ. They do NOT "all fall to ball", in fact very few determined people do. Your odds are much better with a good hollwpoint.
I refer you to this thread for starters:
http://glocktalk.com/docs/gtubb/Forum15/HTML/001295.html
Time and again I have challenged people that think the .45 is so effective to give me some PROOF. Scientific evidence. The fact is, there is none. Every single scientist and study from Fackler and IWBA, to Marshall Sanow, to Dr. DiMaio, to the INS to all other law agencies and militaries and even the crazy goat tests that have tested these rounds side by side in the lab and on the street have come to the conclusion that the .45 work no better than any of ther others. I challege anyone to find me a study that shows otherwise. I have at least 5 complete studies and numerous other partial studies that show that all defensive pistol calibers work about the same from 9mm on up.
RE: VictorLouis' post
I think that it is very likely that the person who is trying to take your wallet is going to be much more motivated than someone you meet in combat. In general, the BG on street is a predator who has chosen you as his prey; in combat, your opponent may be a draftee, a conscientious objector, etc. , who has absolutely no desire to kill you or anyone else. It's also probably more likely that your opponent on the street is drunk or high, which might make him more bullet-resistant (A recent study indicates that something like 75%-85% of murderers and murderees were drunk or high at the time of the murder).
Just to stir the pot a little; if all of the scientific evidence is true, then how did Cpl. York pull-off his perfect seven-for-seven with a handgun of any kind? I mean, if .45 hardball is only going to get you a one-shot stop 40% of the time, or 60% of the time, or whatever your "science" of choice indicates, York should have really had his hands full with the two or three guys who kept on coming. Also, why is it that only the .45 seems to have the anecdotal history of decisive stopping power? I never hear it claimed for any other cartridge. Are Americans just more romantic about their handguns, or what? Do the Brits sit around and reminisce about the .38/200?
I think that it is very likely that the person who is trying to take your wallet is going to be much more motivated than someone you meet in combat. In general, the BG on street is a predator who has chosen you as his prey; in combat, your opponent may be a draftee, a conscientious objector, etc. , who has absolutely no desire to kill you or anyone else. It's also probably more likely that your opponent on the street is drunk or high, which might make him more bullet-resistant (A recent study indicates that something like 75%-85% of murderers and murderees were drunk or high at the time of the murder).
Just to stir the pot a little; if all of the scientific evidence is true, then how did Cpl. York pull-off his perfect seven-for-seven with a handgun of any kind? I mean, if .45 hardball is only going to get you a one-shot stop 40% of the time, or 60% of the time, or whatever your "science" of choice indicates, York should have really had his hands full with the two or three guys who kept on coming. Also, why is it that only the .45 seems to have the anecdotal history of decisive stopping power? I never hear it claimed for any other cartridge. Are Americans just more romantic about their handguns, or what? Do the Brits sit around and reminisce about the .38/200?
York was just a good shot. He would probably
be able do the same trick with a good .22, as other professionals could do. .45 is a good caliber for a pistol, but nothing to be really excited about in terms of stopping power or whatever it's called.
I regard to combat aganinst street attack comparison - come on, man, get serious, in combat you are much more likely to meet a guy who doesn't care about your wallet and just wants to nail you as soon as possible, because it's a simple drill called "kill or be killed".
be able do the same trick with a good .22, as other professionals could do. .45 is a good caliber for a pistol, but nothing to be really excited about in terms of stopping power or whatever it's called.
I regard to combat aganinst street attack comparison - come on, man, get serious, in combat you are much more likely to meet a guy who doesn't care about your wallet and just wants to nail you as soon as possible, because it's a simple drill called "kill or be killed".
Ruben Nasser
New member
Eventually ...they all fall to hardball (or anything else, in any caliber/gun combo). I'll take a good hollow point that is 100% reliable in my handgun, anytime. And remember there is not such a thing as a "90+% stopper" in any handgun caliber/bullet/gun combo.
1911Ford, I would NEVER carry a 185 grain .45 in a 5 inch barrel, very light bullets like that with all that added velocity tend to overexpand/fragment too early and tend to fail to penetrate deeply enough to ensure reaching vital organs, 2 cases immediately come to mind..1, the MIami shootout, and another case where a patrol officer hit an overwieght suspect multiple times with .357 silvertips, all the light bullets failing to penetrate deeply enough to reach ANY vital organs, the officer was ultimately shot and killed by this suspect.
------------------
"what gives a government that arms the whole world the right to disarm it's own citizens?"
------------------
"what gives a government that arms the whole world the right to disarm it's own citizens?"
swatman, I think that is why I said I would suggest that you use the 185 grain loads if you are using a gun with under a 5" barrel. For example a 4" barrel! I use 230 grain in my GM 1911's. I would have no problem shooting 185 or 200.
So you would never shoot a .40 either. Check out ballistics on a 165 grain .40 and a 185 grain .45 No .357 sig? No .357 Mag. ?
So you would never shoot a .40 either. Check out ballistics on a 165 grain .40 and a 185 grain .45 No .357 sig? No .357 Mag. ?
RickB: You posted what I was thinking about Victor Louis' post, as far as the psychological component, the average BG vs. Enemy Soldier. Upon reflection, I think you are both right because there is no way to see what the average soldier is, how many are all-out killers vs. draftees who just want to go home. The circumstances of what the shootee knows will happen after he is shot factor in the response. Will he, as a soldier in a more controlled area, be medivaced out to a nice soft hospital bed, even for a minor wound? Or will the wound result in his being jailed or executed or whatever if he stops fighting? It's kind of off the thread of all falling to hardball, but sums up what I think is the most important but least controllable factor in the one shot stop argument: How bad does the shootee want to keep-or stop fighting? If falling means the death penalty, now or later, he will damn sure stay in the fight if he has a bit of physical ability left, or the drugs allow him to feel no pain. That is why I don't get into the stopping power threads much, seems like we may be doing what we call "naming postholes" in Texas. Reasonable?
I've had a little experience with a 45.
For the first 4 months incountry (Vietnam) I carried a M-60 so I had to also carry a 45.
Never fired it in anger but it was a good chow gun. Every three days a Huey would bring us hot chow and you had to take your weapon to get the chow. Also when working out of fire bases the 45 was good to carry around inside the base instead of the 60 or a 16.
By the way I only had one mag. for the 45.
My thoughts were if we were in deep trouble (firefight) and I ran out of ammo or the 60 ceased working I'd be looking for a 16 from a WIA or a KIA to continue the fight.
A 45 or any handgun is better than nothing to protect yourself. But as I've always said if you know you're going to a gunfight take a rifle.
You talk about stopping power multiple hits from a 45. I've seen guys take hits from 16's and AK's and continue to fight even saw one NVA that took a 50 Browning round and still able to fight. My personal opinion is it's where your hit not how many times.
Turk
For the first 4 months incountry (Vietnam) I carried a M-60 so I had to also carry a 45.
Never fired it in anger but it was a good chow gun. Every three days a Huey would bring us hot chow and you had to take your weapon to get the chow. Also when working out of fire bases the 45 was good to carry around inside the base instead of the 60 or a 16.
By the way I only had one mag. for the 45.
My thoughts were if we were in deep trouble (firefight) and I ran out of ammo or the 60 ceased working I'd be looking for a 16 from a WIA or a KIA to continue the fight.
A 45 or any handgun is better than nothing to protect yourself. But as I've always said if you know you're going to a gunfight take a rifle.
You talk about stopping power multiple hits from a 45. I've seen guys take hits from 16's and AK's and continue to fight even saw one NVA that took a 50 Browning round and still able to fight. My personal opinion is it's where your hit not how many times.
Turk
I have seen somewhere between 40 and 50 shootings with .45 automatics loaded with full metal jacketed (hard ball) ammunition.
In all cases the men hit went down and were not capable of returning fire. No matter what theories people want to come up with .45s work. The only other caliber with equal performance which I have actually seen used is the .357 Magnum.
In all cases the men hit went down and were not capable of returning fire. No matter what theories people want to come up with .45s work. The only other caliber with equal performance which I have actually seen used is the .357 Magnum.
Sorry this is so long, but this happens to be a hobby of mine.
PT 1.
If anyone is interested in reading an excellent book (excellent in the sense
of well researched, not necessarily in its conclusion) on the psychology of
killing in war, I would strongly recommend "On Killing" by Lt. Col Dave
Grossman. He settles on the following equation;
Probability of personal kill = (demands of authority) x (group absolution) x
(total distance from victim) x (target attractiveness of victim) x aggressive
predisposition of killer) (p. 341)
He discusses how the knowledge of such psychological factors increased the
active firing rates of combat personnel in WWII of 15-20% (Grossman, p. 15 from
Marshall below) to 90% in Vietnam (Grossman, p. 35).
Basically he states that there has been a long history of non-firing soldiers
throughout the history of armed conflict. He relates an interesting story
about Civil War muskets found with multiple loads in the barrels indicating
that the well trained soldier had gone through the loading drill repeatedly
without pulling the trigger.
Grossman cites cited S.L.A. Marshall's book "Men Against Fire"
and another on my must read list for anyone who carries a firearm for work or
personal protection, "Acts of War" by Richard Holmes.
PT. 2
After looking at the statistics on the Persian Gulf War (Online: http://www.netwizards.net/~cryan/war.html)
Over the 43 day period of the Persian Gulf War;
Americans in action
467,539
American KIA
148 c. 1/3159
Iraqi's in action
545,000 c.
Iraqi KIA
100,000 c. 1/5.5 (American military est.)
This means that if distributed, 1 in every 5 Americans killed an Iraqi
soldier. Now, I am just supposing, but my point is that even a generous
estimate would place 95% of the total enemy killed as an effect of the air
war, so the real figure is probably something like 5000 enemy killed due to
individual combat. (If anyone has access to this real figure please tell me!)
so that is 1/109.
Given that the .223 is the standard round for most American combat personnel,
does anyone have any knowledge of any enemy soldier killed with a handgun in
that conflict?
I know I saw "Courage Under fire" too but...
It would seem to me that the handgun is a totally irrelevant weapon in modern
combat.
Now for my double punch line...
1. You might be more realistic saying all fall to bombing runs.
and
2. Given the following statistic:
For the same time period, (43 days in 1991) 8364 Americans died from Motor
Vehicle Accidents, Falls, Poison, Drowning, Ingestion of food, Firearms,and
Poison.
I think that the safest sidearm of all is.... The NAA .22 because it will not
drag you down while you are swimming, and is less likely than a full sized
1911 to chafe you while driving causing road rage and a higher likelihood of
getting in an auto accident.
Now can I please get back to my Masters Thesis?
-dennis
[This message has been edited by mowgli (edited July 13, 2000).]
PT 1.
If anyone is interested in reading an excellent book (excellent in the sense
of well researched, not necessarily in its conclusion) on the psychology of
killing in war, I would strongly recommend "On Killing" by Lt. Col Dave
Grossman. He settles on the following equation;
Probability of personal kill = (demands of authority) x (group absolution) x
(total distance from victim) x (target attractiveness of victim) x aggressive
predisposition of killer) (p. 341)
He discusses how the knowledge of such psychological factors increased the
active firing rates of combat personnel in WWII of 15-20% (Grossman, p. 15 from
Marshall below) to 90% in Vietnam (Grossman, p. 35).
Basically he states that there has been a long history of non-firing soldiers
throughout the history of armed conflict. He relates an interesting story
about Civil War muskets found with multiple loads in the barrels indicating
that the well trained soldier had gone through the loading drill repeatedly
without pulling the trigger.
Grossman cites cited S.L.A. Marshall's book "Men Against Fire"
and another on my must read list for anyone who carries a firearm for work or
personal protection, "Acts of War" by Richard Holmes.
PT. 2
After looking at the statistics on the Persian Gulf War (Online: http://www.netwizards.net/~cryan/war.html)
Over the 43 day period of the Persian Gulf War;
Americans in action
467,539
American KIA
148 c. 1/3159
Iraqi's in action
545,000 c.
Iraqi KIA
100,000 c. 1/5.5 (American military est.)
This means that if distributed, 1 in every 5 Americans killed an Iraqi
soldier. Now, I am just supposing, but my point is that even a generous
estimate would place 95% of the total enemy killed as an effect of the air
war, so the real figure is probably something like 5000 enemy killed due to
individual combat. (If anyone has access to this real figure please tell me!)
so that is 1/109.
Given that the .223 is the standard round for most American combat personnel,
does anyone have any knowledge of any enemy soldier killed with a handgun in
that conflict?
I know I saw "Courage Under fire" too but...
It would seem to me that the handgun is a totally irrelevant weapon in modern
combat.
Now for my double punch line...
1. You might be more realistic saying all fall to bombing runs.
and
2. Given the following statistic:
For the same time period, (43 days in 1991) 8364 Americans died from Motor
Vehicle Accidents, Falls, Poison, Drowning, Ingestion of food, Firearms,and
Poison.
I think that the safest sidearm of all is.... The NAA .22 because it will not
drag you down while you are swimming, and is less likely than a full sized
1911 to chafe you while driving causing road rage and a higher likelihood of
getting in an auto accident.
Now can I please get back to my Masters Thesis?
-dennis
[This message has been edited by mowgli (edited July 13, 2000).]
P
PreserveFreedom
Guest
The *only* reason I own a 45 is so that I can shoot 230 Grain Ball ammo. The high transfer of energy from that round will stop just about anything IMHO.
P. S. All you anti-45 people, don't get mad! I also shoot .22LR, .223REM, .38SPL, .357 Magnum, and .40S&W regularly and trust my life to them regularly. ;-)
P. S. All you anti-45 people, don't get mad! I also shoot .22LR, .223REM, .38SPL, .357 Magnum, and .40S&W regularly and trust my life to them regularly. ;-)
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
All handguns are unreliable for stopping power. If I KNOW I'm going to a gun fight I'm not going to get just a rifle...I'm going to get all my friends with rifles!!
------------------
Byron Quick
------------------
Byron Quick