Magazine Capacity An Asset In A Gunfight

[Charles L. Cotton]

I can't quarrel with Gabe's data or his conclusions as I didn't do the research he's done on this issue. However, I do have a few historical observations.

Firepower First, when LEOs went from revolvers, typically .357 Mag. revolvers, to the then-new "wonder nines," the ratio of hits to rounds fired went down dramatically. This was widely reported some years after the switch, but I couldn't begin to cite the study material now. The numbers spawned many discussions about accuracy v. spray-and-pray tactics, with the result being a significant change in some departments' training policies and procedures. To the extent that large capacity handguns tend to encourage spray-and-pray responses by CHLs, then I question this recommendation. I am especially concerned if, as Gabe indicates, people never tend to use the sights. (I have to confess I don't buy that part of the analysis.)

9mm v. .45 ACP There are some truisms that simply cannot be denied. Some are: 1) there are no magic bullets; 2) shot placement is critical; 3) instant incapacitation by handgun rounds is rare; and 4) the art and science of designing and manufacturing defensive handgun bullets has improved over the years. It's also true that a deadly threat is ended when the assailant suffers; 1) a central nervous system hit (usually stops very quickly); 2) excessive blood loss (takes much longer than a CNS hit); 3) pain (very inconsistent and unpredictable); or 4) a loss of will to fight/continue (also very unpredictable). All of these are more likely to occur or occur sooner with greater tissue damage.

I find it interesting when it is argued that improved bullets make the 9mm equal to the .45 ACP. It's interesting because it presumes that .45 ACP bullets have not improved at the same rate as 9mm, and it seems to ignore the premise that there are no magic bullets. Yes, I know that bullet performance is a factor in how quickly an attacker is incapacitated, but if we accept that fact that there are no magic bullets and that even the best premium bullet can fail to perform as advertised, then how can we rely upon faulty technology to bring the 9mm up to the standard of a .45 ACP? In my view, we cannot.

As for the argument that worldwide more people have died at the receiving end of a 9mm (if they died by a handgun round), I find that argument incomplete. It doesn't tell us how quickly they were incapacitated and therefore when they were no longer a deadly threat. When we fire in self-defense, our goal is to stop the attack as quickly as possible. We care little if any whether the attacker survives; we just what him to quit tying to kill us.

I think it's also telling that many of our special forces use the .45 ACP, rather than the standard military 9mm. I know some will respond that this is the result of having to use full metal jacket ammo, rather than modern hollow points. This is certainly a valid point, but consider this. If our modern HP round fails to expand, then it becomes a FMJ in terms of performance. If a .45 ACP JHP fails to expand, it's still a 45 and the same is true of a 9mm.

Before you folks who carry a 9mm start hanging me in effigy, I'm not saying that you are "under gunned" if you carry a 9mm. I just don't buy the logic that you can chose a non-existent magic 9mm round that transforms it into a .45 ACP. If you choose to carry a hi-cap 9mm so you can have more rounds without having to reload, then that is a well-reasoned decision and the right one for you. I carry a .45 ACP because in my view, it is the best fits what my evaluation of defensive handgun rounds. Neither of us are wrong; we just chose differently.

Chas.

[Texasdoc]

Very well said Charles, I choose a 45 as some know I was in a Gun fight as a LEO and placed 32 rds of 9mm in to him and he still had lots of fight left in him , he was hopped up on PCP and my choice of bullets where Silver tips, Nyclad,and talon's they bullets did what they where suppose to do but PCP will out rank most /or all bullets.

right after that fire fight I choose a 45 as the bigger slow round places more energy in to the subject,that translates into stopping/or slowing his reactions.

Someone made a point that they carried a hi-cap as you might lost your hands in a fight,I was hit twice in the chest with a 357 mag 158gr. HP at 7 to 10 feet , (thank god my Vest worked) I was Shooting a HK P-7 M13 and had 3 mag changes in this 1 minute 37second gun fight.

I have come to the idea that 2 spare mags of 45 Win STX plus the 9rds in the gun is a good choice for my protection and I do not fault anyone for there choice of protection gun or bullet.

I didn't want to start a contest over type of ammo or more mags . This was something I thought was interesting and got me thinking so I passed it on.

Doc

As a side note I will be gone to Suarez International Training class in Culpeper Va. from the 10th thru the 17th of March and will let you know how it is. I am taking his street survival class plus his fighting Rifle skills class

[mgood]

I find it interesting when it is argued that improved bullets make the 9mm equal to the .45 ACP. It's interesting because it presumes that .45 ACP bullets have not improved at the same rate as 9mm, and it seems to ignore the premise that there are no magic bullets. Yes, I know that bullet performance is a factor in how quickly an attacker is incapacitated, but if we accept that fact that there are no magic bullets and that even the best premium bullet can fail to perform as advertised, then how can we rely upon faulty technology to bring the 9mm up to the standard of a .45 ACP? In my view, we cannot.

It's like people saying that smaller, high-tech automobile engines are more powerful than the big blocks of the muscle car era. But they never seem to consider that the same technology can be applied to the larger engine. Nothing beats cubic inches.

I like calibers that start with "4".
And I think the odds of me getting into a situation that requires me to fire more than seven rounds to defend myself rank right up there with me being elected Pope.
(This from a guy who has ten loaded 15-round magazines sitting near him. But I'm wanting to go to the range and loaded those so I won't have to reload while practicing.)
BUT, something I've been considering lately is recoil and it's affect on follow-up shots.
I am NOT a competitive shooter who fires 1000 rounds a week in practice. I don't think I ever will be.
With my .40, I can fire maybe two rounds per second on a good day and hit a milk-jug sized target with nearly every shot at any range out to about 30-40 feet. (One target. Not multiple targets. I'm not moving except for recoil and the target is not moving except for minor jumps due to bullet impact.) I'm sure there are lots of folks here who can do better. But I think I'm waaaay ahead of the "I've got a gun" crowd who purchased a pistol 10 years ago, fired it once or twice for familiarization, and stuck in the the nightstand or on the top shelf of the bedroom closet, and haven't seen it since.
In the time it takes the average casual shooter (not the people who only shoot once every few years, but not the hardcore shooters either) to fire two rounds of .45 ACP aimed well enough to hit more or less center of mass on a silhouette target (not even talking about a target that's shooting back yet), how many times could that shooter have hit that target with a 9mm? Three times? Four?

There are some truisms that simply cannot be denied. Some are: 1) there are no magic bullets; 2) shot placement is critical; 3) instant incapacitation by handgun rounds is rare; and 4) the art and science of designing and manufacturing defensive handgun bullets has improved over the years. It's also true that a deadly threat is ended when the assailant suffers; 1) a central nervous system hit (usually stops very quickly); 2) excessive blood loss (takes much longer than a CNS hit); 3) pain (very inconsistent and unpredictable); or 4) a loss of will to fight/continue (also very unpredictable). All of these are more likely to occur or occur sooner with greater tissue damage.

We can not depend on pain or loss of will to stop a determined attacker. Those might depend on just how determined he is and/or how high he is. We can't control that.
So outside of a hit to the brain or upper spine, we're down to #2, excessive blood loss. That's what we can control. A hit with a .45 is likely to cause more blood loss quicker than a hit with a 9mm. But are two shots with a .45 as good as three or four shots with a 9mm? I doubt it, but I know of no science to really argue one way or the other.
That's where the lower recoil round with the higher magazine capacity might have an advantage.
The addage that "anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice" might not be true if you're shooting for meat or want to save the beast's hide, but it's definately true when defending yourself from attack.
On the other hand, most of the stories we hear about people being shot umpteen times and still fighting are shot with 9mm. That reinforces the American tendency to prefer larger calibers. I suspect those situations are the exception rather than the norm, but that doesn't change the fact that people reading about such cases feel safer with a more potent round.

I am not debating Charles. I'm just thinking out loud in response to some common ideas that he has stated very well.

An FBI report I read somewhere (I'll try to dig it up and post a link) claimed that the "shock value" or "energy transfer" is bull.
[I found it: http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf A very good read, even if you don't agree with everything in it.]
The author states that the impact shock of being shot is roughly equivalent to being hit by a baseball. It's going to hurt, a lot, but it's not likely to stop a determined attacker. The same report said that the temporary wound cavity is not relevant. The tissue in the body has enough elasticity to spring back and that the temporary cavity rarely does anything to cause serious damage. He claims penetration and the permanent wound cavity are the only real factors in "stopping power." And he states that bullet expansion is very unreliable in the human body, so bullet diameter is the main factor in creating a larger wound cavity. If the bullet does expand as intended, just consider that a bonus, but don't count on it. [I'm not sure I agree with his statements about unreliable expansion given the state of technology in modern hollow point bullets. The report is from 1989. But the FBI does seem to have better info on such things than anyone else, so . . . ] He also makes a good point regarding "over-penetration."

The concern that a bullet would pass through the body of a subjectand injure an innocent bystander is clearly exaggerated. Any review of law enforcement shootings will reveal that the great majority of shots fired by officers do not hit any subjects at all. It should be obvious that the relatively few shots that do hit a subject are not somehow more dangerous to bystanders than the shots that miss the subject entirely.

Also, a bullet that completely penetrates a subject will give up a great deal of energy doing so. . . .

No law enforcement officer has lost his life because a bullet over penetrated his adversary, and virtually none have ever been sued for hitting an innocent bystander through an adversary. On the other hand, tragically large numbers of officers have been killed because their bullets did not penetrate deeply enough.

[I do think over penetration might be an issue when talking about penetrating walls. But I completely agree with the author about penetrating people.]

I realize that that last wonders way off the topic of magazine capacity. But mag capacity discussions are often fueled by thoughts on stopping power (high capacity vs. stopping power), so maybe it's somewhat relevant. In any event, the linked FBI report is worth the read. Much of the information contradicts what we frequently read in gun magazines. That does not, in my opinion, mean the gun writers are wrong. But it does make you look at things differently.

[Liko81]

I can't quarrel with Gabe's data or his conclusions as I didn't do the research he's done on this issue. However, I do have a few historical observations.

(SNIP)

Valid points all, but I'll play devil's advocate. You do take more care with each shot when you have fewer, and/or the next one is slower in coming (like a bolt action rifle vs an AR), but in some situations it's simple numbers; you could well be faced with a multiple assailant situation, and a revolver (or traditional 7+1 1911) might or might not have enough bullets to put them all down. I'm reminded of The Boondock Saints when Rocco attempts a hit with a six-shooter to find someone else has already done the deed: "There's nine bodies, genius! What were you gonna do, laugh the last three to death, 'Funny Man'?!". Not that I ever plan on taking on nine armed men with one gun unless it's an M-4.

Muzzle energy is only a factor in penetration of a given diameter bullet. Whether it's a small bullet approaching the speed of sound or a big bullet traveling much slower, you're talking about the same force imparted to the target as that of an amateur baseball pitch. It simply cannot slow or stop a BG unless the bullet hit the heart, aorta or CNS.

Military and civilian are indeed two different environments. When you can't use expanders, 9mm is an inferior round and it shows. However, your average premium 9mm expander loads (Federal, Cor-Bon, Gold Dot) pass the FBI's test for penetration and are widely available for civilians, and they expand far more reliably and fragment far less often than the first iterations of hollow-points, which the FBI snubbed in favor of .45s in the "handgun wounding factors" memo. Your standard-pressure .45 with an HP projectile does not; you need a high-pressure load to get the same design of expanding .45 to penetrate more than 12 inches of ballistic gel, further exacerbating the recoil difference between a 9 and a 45. The status quo has always been "use expanders with 9mm, ball rounds with .45", and with today's expanders the 9mm quite simply is superior to any ball handgun round.

And, in the event a HP does in fact not expand, it still does more damage than a 45 ball because the nose of the bullet will crush any tisssue in the path of the hollow point (permanent cavity). A ball round will push the tissue aside (temporary cavity), thus even though a 45 bullet is larger, if you fire ball rounds they will not create as big a permanent cavity as a 9mm "wadcutter" (as the 9mm would become if it didn't expand). Simple example; borrow a 9mm and take it and your .45 to the range. Fire a few shots of 9mm FMJ at the target as a control (separate the shots; this isn't about group size). Now, fire a few 9mm HS rounds, then a few .45 ball, then a few .45 HS. When you get the target back, flatten the rips around each hole so only the very center is left open. That's the paper punched out by the round and represents the permanent cavity; the rips represent temporary cavity which is both unlikely to be seriously damaged as a result and a hindrance to bleed-out. The paper doesn't provide enough resistance to a hollow-point to expand it, so what you see would be a representation of an HP acting as a wadcutter. I think you'll find it's very clear that even without expanding, the HP is more effective than even the larger .45 ball.

Lastly, consider the relative ammo caps of a double-stack 9 with a single-stack .45 of comparable frame size. The 9 has approximately twice the rounds depending on the two models you consider (a 1911 can hold between 7 and 9 rounds, while a 9mm generally is between 15 and 18 rounds all depending on frame size, make and model). That means you can theoretically make twice the holes per mag. Speaking strictly mathematically, 2 holes are better than one; .9073 in^2 of combined permanent and temporary cavity from 2 9mms is more than the .6361 in^2 hole made by a single .45. So on a per-mag basis, the 9mm can do more damage even if each hole is smaller. Coupled with the lighter recoil which increases the average firing rate, you can do more damage both per-mag and per second with a 9mm.

Either way, discussions about ammo effectiveness are for people who can't hit the 10-ring. Either bullet is more than effective enough to drop your badguy with practically any headshot or a well-placed torso shot. You just have to do so.

[mgood]

. . . I choose a 45 as some know I was in a Gun fight as a LEO and placed 32 rds of 9mm in to him and he still had lots of fight left in him. . . .

I was not debating Texasdoc either. He posted while I was putting my post together.

[austin]

I carry a pistol to protect myself from 4-legged critters as well as the 2-legged.

I know from first hand experience that a 9mm will not penetrate the skull of a bovine, but a 45 will.

Using a hi-cap magazine increases the chances you will not have to manipulate the pistol in a fight and that you will not have to manipulate a pistol with your weak hand shot up.

[austin]

Lastly, consider the relative ammo caps of a double-stack 9 with a single-stack .45 of comparable frame size. The 9 has approximately twice the rounds depending on the two models you consider (a 1911 can hold between 7 and 9 rounds, while a 9mm generally is between 15 and 18 rounds all depending on frame size, make and model). That means you can theoretically make twice the holes per mag. Speaking strictly mathematically, 2 holes are better than one; .9073 in^2 of combined permanent and temporary cavity from 2 9mms is more than the .6361 in^2 hole made by a single .45. So on a per-mag basis, the 9mm can do more damage even if each hole is smaller. Coupled with the lighter recoil which increases the average firing rate, you can do more damage both per-mag and per second with a 9mm.

Either way, discussions about ammo effectiveness are for people who can't hit the 10-ring. Either bullet is more than effective enough to drop your badguy with practically any headshot or a well-placed torso shot. You just have to do so.

My XD45 Service holds 13+1 and the similarly size G19 holds 15+1. Not much of a difference.

The hollow-point 45 can expand to .8 square inches, not the .63 you say.

The XD service is a much heavier pistol with all those .45 rounds making it more stable than the G19. My first three round hammers are always grouped even when doing GOTX.

The 9mm is a good bullet, but the 45 is going to break ribs and bones the 9mm won't.

In most gunfights many of the shots miss because one or all of the people are moving. You are better off getting an imperfectly aimed shot or hammer off now that you know will hit the person rather than waiting for the perfect shot later. I have yet to see anyone who can hit the "x-ring" on a moving person.

[yerasimos]

Here, I am trying to quantify the amount of copper and lead on tap, and the theoretical "leakage delivery", for a few representative pistol and cartridge combinations. (Maybe someone else can do the revolvers! ) For reference, one of these combinations is what was recently discussed here as the choice of our state highway patrol. Keep in mind that for all four calibers, there exist loads that will penetrate 12" minimum in bare ballistic gelatin. I picked out the bullet weights that were the heaviest and yet commonly available, as the heavier bullets are assumed to skew toward the optimal 12"+ penetration.



Glock 17: 9mm Luger, 18 (17+1) rounds
Assuming 147gr bullets,
2646gr of Cu&Pb
1.78 sq" total frontal surface area

Glock 19: 9mm Luger, 16 (15+1) rounds
Assuming 147gr bullets,
2352gr of Cu&Pb
1.58 sq" total frontal surface area

SIG 226: .357 SIG, 13 (12+1) rounds
Assuming 125gr bullets,
1625gr of Cu&Pb
1.29 sq" total frontal surface area

S&W M&P40: .40 S&W, 16 (15+1) rounds
Assuming 180gr bullets,
2880gr of Cu&Pb
2.01 sq" total frontal surface area

generic 1911 clone: .45 ACP, 9 (8+1) rounds
Assuming 230gr bullets,
2070gr of Cu&Pb
1.43 sq" total frontal surface area

Springfield Armory XD45: .45 ACP, 14 (13+1) rounds
Assuming 230gr bullets,
3220gr of Cu&Pb
2.23 sq" total frontal surface area

[shootthesheet]

Everything is "situational". The problem is we never know what situation will force us to defend ourselves. All I am concerned with is that my tools work and I have enough ammo to stop the threat/s. That may be one shot or it may be fifty. I just hope it isn't 51.....

[waffenmacht]

Very good read. Far too often I see the .45 vs 9mm vs whatever aurgument. I once hear a saying that stuck: "carry the biggest gun you will carry everyday" . I personally carry a 9mm, with 3 mags totaling 58 rds. Thats alot, compared to someone carrying 7 rds total. But to each his own, I have done it for a few years now and am very comfortable carrying that loadout. I hope and pray I will never need a single round. But in a fight, I would rather have too much, then too little.

[austin]

Everything is "situational". The problem is we never know what situation will force us to defend ourselves. All I am concerned with is that my tools work and I have enough ammo to stop the threat/s. That may be one shot or it may be fifty. I just hope it isn't 51.....

True.

If I get halfway into my first mag, then things are way out of control and its become a very different situation. Its probably time to break contact and run away. My 2d and 3d mags and the bottom half of my primary mag are FMJs for this reason assuming I won't be able to run away.

[NcongruNt]

My XD45 Service holds 13+1 and the similarly size G19 holds 15+1. Not much of a difference.

I believe the debate in comparison in here dealt with the traditional 1911 in .45 vs. newer 9mm double stacks

If you want to make a more fair comparison along those lines, consider the full-sized 1911 and the Hi-Power. These guns have the same profile and width, with a slightly thicker grip on the Hi-Power.

A 1911 in .45 with a flush magazine will hold 7+1.

A Hi-Power in 9mm with a flush OEM magazine will hold 13+1. Mec-Gar makes flush mags that up that to 15+1. This is what I carry.


As far as your XD is concerned, the equivalent XD9 Service holds 16+1, a difference of 3 rounds from the XD45. The relatively small drop in rounds in the 45 does not come without sacrifices, though. The XD45 not only has a larger grip, but is taller, as well. Apparently, Springfield does not l like to advertise the width measurements of the XD series, because I could not find those measurements anywhere. My guess would be that the OAW of the XD45 is greater than the XD9 as well.

As far as a comparison between the Glocks go, the same principle is true here as well. The G17 (9mm) is capable of 17+1 with a standard mag, with the G21 coming out at 13+1. As was the case with the XD, the G21 is taller, wider and has a larger grip to lessen the disparity of round count between the calibers.

The point is, as far as round count goes, 9mm has a distinct advantage over 45, given equally concealable guns. Yes, higher capacity guns in .45 do exist, but they are considerably bulkier. I certainly wouldn't want to carry one myself. If you're looking for something with the same fingerprint as a 1911 that has a greater capacity, 9mm is the way to accomplish that goal.

[45 4 life]

I feel the high capacity that we should all be counting on is the brain matter between the years. As long as you are carrying what you have confidence in, and you shoot well, you are carrying the right weapon.

If I were still in uniform I to would be carrying more than I do today. I would still prefer a 1911 in 45 as the primary with a high capcity 9 for back up. However being cancealed at all times does limit you. It is also different from being in a uniform and responding to situations where you are entering a hostile area. As CHL holders we must rely on surprise being a major factor if we should happen to find the need to exit a hostile situation. There is a difference in firearms used for offensive measures and those used for defensive measures.

Allot has been said about being in a shoot out for some time length. If you find yourself and the BG in positions of cover, stop firing and start calling. Hold your position if futher retreat is not an option, but get on the phone with 911 and try and wait for back up. That is how LEO's are trained. When you find that you are alive, and out of immeadiate danger, your self defense weapon has performed its duty.

One other comment, years ago while I was on the department firing range for practice I shot my Ruger 44mag Super Blackhawk. After shooting all the other officers commented about never wanting to be in front of one when it goes off. Other conversations since then have convinced me that the bigger the bore the bigger the bang. There is a psychological advantage in firing these 45's over the 9mm with not all, but most people.

All good comments and post here, and it is obvious that those replying are confident in both their abilities and their choice of weapon. Thats a big bonus if you ever have to pull it.

[The Annoyed Man]

I've never been in a gunfight, and God willing, I never will be in one; but I have personally helped to treat literally hundreds of gunshot patients in a Los Angeles area emergency room setting, shot with all kinds of calibers, from .22 Short up to and including .25, .32, .38, .380, 9mm, .45 ACP, and .44 Magnum - and that's just those shot with handguns.

I've seen people shot dead in each of those calibers, who died of their wounds in hospital. I've seen people DOA from being hit with all those calibers. And, I've seen people arrive fully conscious, alert, and oriented to time and place with multiple hits from those calibers, who survived to eventually walk out of the hospital (or into a jail cell).

That being said, it is my experience that the ones shot with calibers beginning with "4" most often seemed to fare worse than those shot with smaller diameter handgun bullets. That's why I choose to carry (for now, anyway) in that kind of caliber. Incidentally, one of my carry pistols, in .40 S&W, has a 12+1 capacity.

All the same, you won't see me volunteering to be shot by a .22 either.

[jbirds1210]

A good IDPA shooter can fire 12 rounds in about 12 seconds from the buzzer. Some can do it with a revolver.
- Jim

Jim-

Are you factoring in time for a smoke and something to drink?!

Jason