My bullet is bigger than yours syndrome

[Mustang380gal]

^ I hope that was tongue-in-cheek, M380g!

Because if it isn't, then there's a lot of explaining to do - 14 rounds of explaining, to be exact:

During the Spanish American War, the Army was using .38 Colt. In the Phillipines, the warriors they were engaging were reported to be on whatever made warriors fearless, and would still keep coming even when hit with multiple rounds. Our soldiers didn't feel secure with the .38, and the Army adopted the .45, because it was reported that the warriors attacks were stopped far faster than before. From what Ted has read, even a long bone hit was enough to at least give them pause.

[TSiWRX]

^ I hope that was tongue-in-cheek, M380g!

Because if it isn't, then there's a lot of explaining to do - 14 rounds of explaining, to be exact:

During the Spanish American War, the Army was using .38 Colt. In the Phillipines, the warriors they were engaging were reported to be on whatever made warriors fearless, and would still keep coming even when hit with multiple rounds. Our soldiers didn't feel secure with the .38, and the Army adopted the .45, because it was reported that the warriors attacks were stopped far faster than before. From what Ted has read, even a long bone hit was enough to at least give them pause.

^ So if that's the case, then why didn't the 14 rounds of *modern* .45-ACP stop Maddox?

And....

... what they don't tell you is they still took multiple hist with the 45 and kept on coming and the 45 was no more effective at instantly stopping them.

^ That's what I'd read, too.

Although I honestly do not know if any of what either side presented actually held true.

Yes, it can be said that the Maddox/Gramins is a statistical fluke, but what if that statistical fluke was *your* fluke, as it was in the life of Gramins?

Trainer Paul Gomez, I still think, said it best - that in the US, it is extremely unlikely that you'd ever need to employ your concealed-carry firearm in self-defense, but when you do, you're going to be so far out of the bell curve that you are, at that instant, that statistical "n of 1."


-----


Also, I wanted to clarify for everyone:

I do not want my previous posts to come off as if I'm on some kind of high-horse. I sincerely apologize if it came off that way, with the questions that I posed.

I am just like any of you. I'm just a regular-Joe guy.

I'm nowhere near as physically fit as I'd like to be, and yes, I'm taking honest - if slow and steady - steps towards changing that. I can honestly look at someone in the eyes and say that yes, I'm more fit today than I was yesterday.

I'm nowhere near as proficient at empty-handed and edged weapons (and improvised weapons) defenses as I'd like to be. Yes, I'm also actively taking steps to correct this defect - no, not at the pace that I'd wanted to achieve at this time last year, but I am making an honest effort.

And I'm no Wild Bill/Wyatt Earp behind the gun, either. But as with the above, I'm always trying to shoot better and faster, to practice rigorous manipulations and integrated skills, because I do not believe that a gun works as a magical amulet that wards off evil.



I said what I did because I really believe that neither of the two schools of thought is telling the whole story. Do you need a bullet to do its job, both externally and terminally? without a doubt. But at the same time, you also will need to do your part, as the shooter, to insure that you can deliver those shots accurately, in a time-is-life context. It's the combination of the two that wins the fight, when it comes to the gun.

[Klingon00]

I said what I did because I really believe that neither of the two schools of thought is telling the whole story. Do you need a bullet to do its job, both externally and terminally? without a doubt. But at the same time, you also will need to do your part, as the shooter, to insure that you can deliver those shots accurately, in a time-is-life context. It's the combination of the two that wins the fight, when it comes to the gun.

^^This probably sums things up nicely. No handgun can be counted on stopping a threat with the first shot every time. A .22 can and has done so, a .45 may be more likely to do so, given equal shot placement. Being able to do your part is most important with caliber being a close second, in my opinion. When the adrenaline gets flowing one doesn't "rise" to the occasion, rather one tends to fall back to their level of training. Nobody is perfect, but arguments of caliber are somewhat moot since a magazine full of .45 that misses may be worthless at stopping a threat.

I believe the differences in wounding potential between the more popular self defense calibers with modern expanding ammunition is slight enough to make other factors more important to consider. Factors such as magazine capacity, gun size and weight all should be considered and not ignored since a .45 is not a magic man stopper (Although it may have a slight advantage).

As I've said before, engineering is all about trade offs. Picking a larger caliber simply for it's own sake without considering the penalties inherent is foolish in my opinion. It's not like we are comparing pea shooters to a Ma Duce. The differences are less than most people give credit (assuming modern ammo). Its the brain behind the trigger that makes more of a difference in my opinion.

[TSiWRX]

When the adrenaline gets flowing one doesn't "rise" to the occasion, rather one tends to fall back to their level of training.

^ My take on that one is that we won't "rise to the occasion," but rather, will default to the level of skill that has been mastered.

[Imcrazy]

^ I hope that was tongue-in-cheek, M380g!

Because if it isn't, then there's a lot of explaining to do - 14 rounds of explaining, to be exact:

During the Spanish American War, the Army was using .38 Colt. In the Phillipines, the warriors they were engaging were reported to be on whatever made warriors fearless, and would still keep coming even when hit with multiple rounds. Our soldiers didn't feel secure with the .38, and the Army adopted the .45, because it was reported that the warriors attacks were stopped far faster than before. From what Ted has read, even a long bone hit was enough to at least give them pause.

there is ALOT more to this story than your letting on.

Those .38's aren't anything like the .38spls available today especially not the 9mm's on the market....

From someone who's carried a .45acp for the last 4 years or so, I think 9mm is a better compromise in a carry gun than .45acp is.

[GWC]

Yep.

The .38 Colt round was pretty mild. But it is a historical fact that the Army pulled the SAA Colts in .45 Colt out of retirement to better stop the hopped up Moros.

What you usually do NOT hear is that they adopted the 1897 Winchester shotgun (and any other shotgun they could get their hands on) as the real solution.

The .45 Colt was much better than the .38 Colt, but nowhere near as effective as modern handgun ammo is, or even as effective as the .45acp ball ammo they adopted in 1911.
But the episode was the major reason the .45 caliber was chosen for the new semiauto handgun, at the same time many other countries were choosing smaller calibers.
Lots of folks will tell you it was adopted because of the Thompson/LeGarde tests, but they were cooked up to prove the decision was right, not to find out anything. The only one shot stop out of those tests was from a .30 Luger (7.63 if you prefer).

[wobblygoblin]

And all of my practice ammo (100% of it) has just a smidge MORE felt recoil than do my carry loads.

THAT is a very good idea. (ok I admit I may not be the sharpest knife in the draw or a master of the obvious for liking that because well, it just makes sense)

[wobblygoblin]

^ I hope that was tongue-in-cheek, M380g!

Because if it isn't, then there's a lot of explaining to do - 14 rounds of explaining, to be exact:

During the Spanish American War, the Army was using .38 Colt. In the Phillipines, the warriors they were engaging were reported to be on whatever made warriors fearless, and would still keep coming even when hit with multiple rounds. Our soldiers didn't feel secure with the .38, and the Army adopted the .45, because it was reported that the warriors attacks were stopped far faster than before. From what Ted has read, even a long bone hit was enough to at least give them pause.

I read Carlos Hathcock's book, One Shot, One Kill, years ago but if I recall he said he had an encounter with a VC that was so hopped up on coke, heroin, whatever, that he emptied his .45 in him and he finally stopped.

[pleasantguywhopacks]

This sums it all up...

http://youtu.be/2dA36NYLqns" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RIP Mr. Gomez

[ArmyMedic90]

I prefer carrying more rounds in a magazine over carrying fewer bigger rounds. That said, I don't carry anything less than 9x19mm. The modern 9mm offerings from premium defensive handgun ammo manufacturers like Speer and now Federal with their HST rounds (my two preferred handgun rounds) have very good ballistic performance. So that and I can mitigate recoil with 9mm loads easier than i can with bigger rounds. More shots on target in less time with more rounds to do it with.

Also, 9mm is much cheaper to practice with...

9mm wins for me.