Quote:
Originally Posted by Schroeder
I don't want to talk down the .45 but I actually wonder whether there have been cases where a 9mm wasn't enough to stop somebody. 
I sure as hell wouldn't want to attack any one anymore if I had been hit by one.  |
A .22 in the heart or a major artery will kill him just as well as a .44 magnum. The problem comes with knockdown power. As related in the 'Philippines' story, the attacking Moros could be shot several times with a .36 and still keep coming if not hit in a vital spot, and the .45 would knock them down even if hit in the arm.
On the other hand the .36 in question was a revolver, and only held six shots. The modern 9mm does let you shoot two or three times in rapid succession, which certainly helps. Also important is the fact that most gunfights involve a lot more misses than hits, so having that extra ammo is nice.
I good explanation can be found in the post by Alex Niese here
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?ui...18&topic=19107. He gives the reasons for preferring either weapon, and for his personal preference.
Quote:
|
It boils down to preference. The 9mm is faster, has a higher capacity, is more accurate, and is prone to over-penetration. This puts you in situations where you have to worry about wounding an innocent with a through-and-through shot. The .45 is slower, has a smaller capacity, and because of it's slower speed, expands better and is more likely to stay in the body. Also, the .45's wound channel is larger, and has a better chance of staying open. I know, I know, penetration all depends on the bad guy's body mass, clothing, etc, I'm talking about tests in ballistic gelatin. It's honestly just a personal choice--I couldn't decide between the two, thats why I went with .40. Its a nice balance of the two. Then again, thats just my opinion, not the law.
|