TexasCHLforum.com

TEX wrote:"that the .45 has a documented performance advantage over the .40". Sorry, but I don't think that is true. I don't know what the exact distances were, but the training I have received from several sources is that if you don't get the desired result with 2-3 torso shots, you move up to the head. Perhaps a training issue, or the officer just had brain lock on that particular issue.

TEX

Granted, training and shot placement are extremely important - more so, to a point, than caliber difference. I say "to a point" because I think few would doubt that incapacitation from a well-placed hit with a .40 or .45 caliber round is going to be more devastating than a well-placed hit with a .22 or .25 caliber round - if we are talking about pistols. In the case of the involved officer in this thread, imagine the outcome of his fight if he had been carrying a Colt Woodsman in .22LR instead of a duty weapon in .40 S&W. Over a period of 6 years, I was involved in the treatment of a large number of gunshot victims, and while it is purely anecdotal evidence, you'll have to take my word for it that I've seen a LOT of people survive multiple hits with .22LR without losing consciousness, and I have also seen very few people survive multiple hits with calibers beginning with "4." So, if we can agree on that, then we have to ask why that is so... ...and the obvious answer is a combination of the size of the hole, and the energy delivered to the target.

Let's unpack that. If you go to the websites of the various better ammunition manufacturers and compare the ballistics of the various permutations of bullet weights in both .40 S&W and .45 ACP (assuming defense type JHPs) at standard load pressures, you will find that the difference in energy delivered between the two is not, INHO, significant enough to make one more disabling to an opponent than the other. However, if you look further, you'll find two significant things: 1) the .45 starts larger and expands larger than the .40; and 2) the .45 is available in +P and +P+ pressures, while the .40 is essentially loaded as hot as it can be right out of the gate, and +P or +P+ loads aren't available for it. Chalk that up to case capacity or whatever. All I know is that when you compare the hottest loads available for the .40, versus the hottest loads available for the .45, the .45 is the superior cartridge, both in energy delivered and in wound channel created. That has to count for something. Here are the available loadings from Hornady, for instance, in both calibers:






That being said, I do occasionally carry a pistol in .40 S&W, and I don't feel particularly undergunned. Even so, I think it is hard to argue against the ballistic advantages of the .45 ACP over the .40 S&W - although I agree that the ballistic advantage is worthless if you can't hit your target effectively.

Read once where one of those self defense school administrators advocates the use of .45 ACP ball ammo. Two big holes per round, proven by the U.S. Army to be a real cow stopper.

LOL, I think the only one shot kill in the entire Chicago Stockyards test was mad with some type of .30 caliber military handgun fired in the right place.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

TEX wrote:"that the .45 has a documented performance advantage over the .40". Sorry, but I don't think that is true. I don't know what the exact distances were, but the training I have received from several sources is that if you don't get the desired result with 2-3 torso shots, you move up to the head. Perhaps a training issue, or the officer just had brain lock on that particular issue.

TEX

Granted, training and shot placement are extremely important - more so, to a point, than caliber difference. I say "to a point" because I think few would doubt that incapacitation from a well-placed hit with a .40 or .45 caliber round is going to be more devastating than a well-placed hit with a .22 or .25 caliber round - if we are talking about pistols. In the case of the involved officer in this thread, imagine the outcome of his fight if he had been carrying a Colt Woodsman in .22LR instead of a duty weapon in .40 S&W. Over a period of 6 years, I was involved in the treatment of a large number of gunshot victims, and while it is purely anecdotal evidence, you'll have to take my word for it that I've seen a LOT of people survive multiple hits with .22LR without losing consciousness, and I have also seen very few people survive multiple hits with calibers beginning with "4." So, if we can agree on that, then we have to ask why that is so... ...and the obvious answer is a combination of the size of the hole, and the energy delivered to the target.

Let's unpack that. If you go to the websites of the various better ammunition manufacturers and compare the ballistics of the various permutations of bullet weights in both .40 S&W and .45 ACP (assuming defense type JHPs) at standard load pressures, you will find that the difference in energy delivered between the two is not, INHO, significant enough to make one more disabling to an opponent than the other. However, if you look further, you'll find two significant things: 1) the .45 starts larger and expands larger than the .40; and 2) the .45 is available in +P and +P+ pressures, while the .40 is essentially loaded as hot as it can be right out of the gate, and +P or +P+ loads aren't available for it. Chalk that up to case capacity or whatever. All I know is that when you compare the hottest loads available for the .40, versus the hottest loads available for the .45, the .45 is the superior cartridge, both in energy delivered and in wound channel created. That has to count for something. Here are the available loadings from Hornady, for instance, in both calibers:






That being said, I do occasionally carry a pistol in .40 S&W, and I don't feel particularly undergunned. Even so, I think it is hard to argue against the ballistic advantages of the .45 ACP over the .40 S&W - although I agree that the ballistic advantage is worthless if you can't hit your target effectively.

Both the .40 and the .45 have very good street performance records.

Projectile development has come a long ways since the late 90's when the incident in this thread occurred.

Both the .45 and the .40 expand in a manner comparable to each other given the same type of projectile and barrier materials. I don't feel disadvantaged with either one because both create sizable wound channels without expansion, and if they do expand, the wound channels are much larger which produces more rapid blood loss and quicker incapacitation. Neither one is a lightning bolt, however, and I do not expect one shot stops with anything other than a central nervous system hit.

I personally do feel somewhat less well prepared if I have to use a 9mm or .38 because, while they're capable cartridges in their own right, their effectiveness depends on expansion which is a sometimes yes, sometimes no affair.

That said, I'd use either one over a sharp stick any day, and wouldn't criticize anyone for using either one as his or her preferred caliber.

Both the .40 and the .45 have very good street performance records.

Projectile development has come a long ways since the late 90's when the incident in this thread occurred.

Both the .45 and the .40 expand in a manner comparable to each other given the same type of projectile and barrier materials. I don't feel disadvantaged with either one because both create sizable wound channels without expansion, and if they do expand, the wound channels are much larger which produces more rapid blood loss and quicker incapacitation. Neither one is a lightning bolt, however, and I do not expect one shot stops with anything other than a central nervous system hit.

I personally do feel somewhat less well prepared if I have to use a 9mm or .38 because, while they're capable cartridges in their own right, their effectiveness depends on expansion which is a sometimes yes, sometimes no affair.

That said, I'd use either one over a sharp stick any day, and wouldn't criticize anyone for using either one as his or her preferred caliber.

I subscribe to the many holes theory, not the big holes theory, so I have my 9mm. If it doesn't hit vitals as a 9mm, then it wasn't a good shot, and I want to be able to follow up as much as possible. But I think basically anything 9mm and up to .45 is all respectable as carry rounds, and the only difference is preference. Yes under some situation a .45 is gonna be better, but under a different one a 9mm might be better, or .357 sig, or..etc.

(Plus ammo is cheaper to practice )

Annoyed Man don't forget to show that chart to someone who is still alive after you shot them!!!













j/k

The Annoyed Man wrote:

TEX wrote:"that the .45 has a documented performance advantage over the .40". Sorry, but I don't think that is true. I don't know what the exact distances were, but the training I have received from several sources is that if you don't get the desired result with 2-3 torso shots, you move up to the head. Perhaps a training issue, or the officer just had brain lock on that particular issue.

TEX

Granted, training and shot placement are extremely important - more so, to a point, than caliber difference. I say "to a point" because I think few would doubt that incapacitation from a well-placed hit with a .40 or .45 caliber round is going to be more devastating than a well-placed hit with a .22 or .25 caliber round - if we are talking about pistols. In the case of the involved officer in this thread, imagine the outcome of his fight if he had been carrying a Colt Woodsman in .22LR instead of a duty weapon in .40 S&W. Over a period of 6 years, I was involved in the treatment of a large number of gunshot victims, and while it is purely anecdotal evidence, you'll have to take my word for it that I've seen a LOT of people survive multiple hits with .22LR without losing consciousness, and I have also seen very few people survive multiple hits with calibers beginning with "4." So, if we can agree on that, then we have to ask why that is so... ...and the obvious answer is a combination of the size of the hole, and the energy delivered to the target.

Let's unpack that. If you go to the websites of the various better ammunition manufacturers and compare the ballistics of the various permutations of bullet weights in both .40 S&W and .45 ACP (assuming defense type JHPs) at standard load pressures, you will find that the difference in energy delivered between the two is not, INHO, significant enough to make one more disabling to an opponent than the other. However, if you look further, you'll find two significant things: 1) the .45 starts larger and expands larger than the .40; and 2) the .45 is available in +P and +P+ pressures, while the .40 is essentially loaded as hot as it can be right out of the gate, and +P or +P+ loads aren't available for it. Chalk that up to case capacity or whatever. All I know is that when you compare the hottest loads available for the .40, versus the hottest loads available for the .45, the .45 is the superior cartridge, both in energy delivered and in wound channel created. That has to count for something. Here are the available loadings from Hornady, for instance, in both calibers:

One of the problems with these comparisons is that the charts compare .45 with a 5 inch barrel to a .40 with a 4 inch barrel. A lot of people these days are packing .45s in these tiny little 2 or 3 inch barrels. I don't know what the energy differences are but surely its significant. and comparing a 5 in barrel in .45 to a 4 inch barrel is surely going to exaggerate any energy differences.

Liberty wrote:One of the problems with these comparisons is that the charts compare .45 with a 5 inch barrel to a .40 with a 4 inch barrel. A lot of people these days are packing .45s in these tiny little 2 or 3 inch barrels. I don't know what the energy differences are but surely its significant. and comparing a 5 in barrel in .45 to a 4 inch barrel is surely going to exaggerate any energy differences.

The thing is, if you go back and look at those screen shots I provided, both calibers' ballistics are out of 5" barrels. So for the purposes of comparison, those are valid numbers. Sure, a lot of people carry their 1911s in 3" and 4" barrels, but so do the folks carrying compact and subcompact .40 cals. For instance, the barrel length on my USP Compact in .40 is 3.58", which is virtually the same length as an officers' sized 1911. So again, the comparison is still valid.

Gosh, this story is amazing. I need to start carrying 2 xtra mags vs one.

bdickens wrote:Here's a discussion question:

How can we civillians (that is, non-LEO) take his story and its subsequent analysis as referenced by the OP and apply it to plausible scenarios that might be encountered?

This is really what we should be looking at. What lessons can be learned from this incident that can be applied to you in a self-defense role?

I think the first lesson is the one I mentioned earlier: mindset. Both your mindset and the BG's will play an important part in the fight. You must realize you can be shot and still survive. Even when shot in the hand or arm, you can still use your weapon IF you can get it out (a trick we do to officers in their on duty gear is to see if they can get their weapon out of their high security holster with their weak hand). In this case, both people involved were hit and were determined to keep fighting for various reasons. And they both did so.

I think a second lesson would be the importance of practicing the failure to stop drills. As pointed out in the comments on the Mozambique drill, it does require you to learn to calm down and take the pace down a notch. I don't care whether your practice the old fashioned head shot or the newer pelvic girdle shot as the back up, either one requires you to calm down and think. I think you will find examples in the walk through scenario of both the good and bad guy stopping and thinking of their tactics - waiting for the good shot, etc.

Another lesson is the possibility of a distraction during the fight. There will be witnesses and someone will start screaming. This is even more likely if you are not a uniformed LEO. It will be scarier for the witnesses and someone may try to jump in to help EITHER side, not knowing who is the good guy. How are you going to let the witnesses and responding police know who is the good guy? How will you react when another person pulls a gun and yells for both of you to freeze? Will it make a difference if the person is in uniform or plainclothes? What about if they yell they are the police?

As a final point, consider that this guy was up to something and we will never know what. The police officer intervened and we don't know what would have happened otherwise. In the Miami shootout, the bad guys committed robberies and murders with just as much emotion and determination as this guy showed. It is highly unusual to find a bad guy who is really so dedicated to his career that he will stay and engage in an extended gun fight with you, but there are some out there. Prepare for what happens as you visualize these type of scenarios, both when they stay or when they start to disengage. Are you prepared to let him go?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Liberty wrote:One of the problems with these comparisons is that the charts compare .45 with a 5 inch barrel to a .40 with a 4 inch barrel. A lot of people these days are packing .45s in these tiny little 2 or 3 inch barrels. I don't know what the energy differences are but surely its significant. and comparing a 5 in barrel in .45 to a 4 inch barrel is surely going to exaggerate any energy differences.

The thing is, if you go back and look at those screen shots I provided, both calibers' ballistics are out of 5" barrels. So for the purposes of comparison, those are valid numbers. Sure, a lot of people carry their 1911s in 3" and 4" barrels, but so do the folks carrying compact and subcompact .40 cals. For instance, the barrel length on my USP Compact in .40 is 3.58", which is virtually the same length as an officers' sized 1911. So again, the comparison is still valid.

Maybe you are seeing different graphics than I, But I see 2 graphics describing .40 S&W the first clearly states at the bottom it is from a 4 inch barrel.
The second claims it was from a 4"V I confess that I don't know what the V means.
There are then 4 graphics of .45ACPs and all of them have 5 inch barrels.

All that being said even though the .45 has the advantage of a 5 inch barrel .. I still don't see that much of a significant difference.

I apologize to everyone for drifting the thread. I was just trying to clear up something that I thought was confusing and misleading. I understand in doing this I'm coming dangerously close to getting pulled into another caliber war. Its not my intention. Nuff said.

Mcoupe wrote:Gosh, this story is amazing. I need to start carrying 2 xtra mags vs one.

Thats what I got out of the story also. I certainly didn't come to the conclusion that I need to change calibers...

Liberty wrote:Maybe you are seeing different graphics than I, But I see 2 graphics describing .40 S&W the first clearly states at the bottom it is from a 4 inch barrel.
The second claims it was from a 4"V I confess that I don't know what the V means.
There are then 4 graphics of .45ACPs and all of them have 5 inch barrels.

Oops! Sorry about that. Chalk it up to aging eye syndrome.

I apologize about the thread drift too.

srothstein wrote:

bdickens wrote:Here's a discussion question:

How can we civillians (that is, non-LEO) take his story and its subsequent analysis as referenced by the OP and apply it to plausible scenarios that might be encountered?

Thank you for bringing the discussion back on point...

srothstein wrote:This is really what we should be looking at. What lessons can be learned from this incident that can be applied to you in a self-defense role?

I think the first lesson is the one I mentioned earlier: mindset. Both your mindset and the BG's will play an important part in the fight. You must realize you can be shot and still survive. Even when shot in the hand or arm, you can still use your weapon IF you can get it out (a trick we do to officers in their on duty gear is to see if they can get their weapon out of their high security holster with their weak hand). In this case, both people involved were hit and were determined to keep fighting for various reasons. And they both did so.

Agreed that you can often survive multiple hits - if they are not fatal wounds. OTH, if your wounds are potentially fatal in the short term, any continued fighting you do might be hastening your own death - as you your heart rate increases and you pump out your blood volume, for instance. That doesn't mean abandon the "I will survive this" mentality; but it might mean "I need to leave now to survive this." In other threads, I've mentioned a patient I helped to treat who had been hit 6 times in the back with a .38 special while fleeing his attacker. He got himself to the ER, and then collapsed upon arrival. He would have surely died had he stayed in the fight instead of beating feet. The point of this is that LEOs have a sworn duty to stay in the fight as long as they are able. The rest of us don't. It would seem to me that, once you are hit, particularly if you are hit multiple times, unless you are defending your loved ones, your survival mentality ought to focus on escape and evasion, not staying in the fight.

srothstein wrote:I think a second lesson would be the importance of practicing the failure to stop drills. As pointed out in the comments on the Mozambique drill, it does require you to learn to calm down and take the pace down a notch. I don't care whether your practice the old fashioned head shot or the newer pelvic girdle shot as the back up, either one requires you to calm down and think. I think you will find examples in the walk through scenario of both the good and bad guy stopping and thinking of their tactics - waiting for the good shot, etc.

What seems interesting to me is whether the old way or the newer way is more likely to protect you against any legal liabilities. We civilians supposed to shoot to stop the threat. Only. Regardless of what personal opinions we might hold in the matter of taking bad guys out of the gene pool. That being said, I can just as easily see the BG's attorney saying, "Now that you've permanently maimed my client, how much of a threat could my client have been if you didn't feel the need to kill him?" Granted, the law most likely protects us in that scenario, but that won't stop some unethical attorney from making mischief for you.

srothstein wrote:Another lesson is the possibility of a distraction during the fight. There will be witnesses and someone will start screaming. This is even more likely if you are not a uniformed LEO. It will be scarier for the witnesses and someone may try to jump in to help EITHER side, not knowing who is the good guy. How are you going to let the witnesses and responding police know who is the good guy? How will you react when another person pulls a gun and yells for both of you to freeze? Will it make a difference if the person is in uniform or plainclothes? What about if they yell they are the police?

I think you deal with that by loudly and vocally proclaiming your intent to defend yourself before it comes to trading shots. Anything you can do to establish in the minds of potential witnesses that it is you who is being attacked and that the other guy is the attacker, will probably go a long way toward helping those witnesses give accurate information to LEOs, and may influence those witnesses to help you, and not the other guy.

srothstein wrote:As a final point, consider that this guy was up to something and we will never know what. The police officer intervened and we don't know what would have happened otherwise. In the Miami shootout, the bad guys committed robberies and murders with just as much emotion and determination as this guy showed. It is highly unusual to find a bad guy who is really so dedicated to his career that he will stay and engage in an extended gun fight with you, but there are some out there. Prepare for what happens as you visualize these type of scenarios, both when they stay or when they start to disengage. Are you prepared to let him go?

Again, as a civilian, I don't feel that I have an obligation to pursue a gunfight to its ultimate conclusion if the BG chooses to disengage and flee. If he leaves, then I have survived - and that is my definition of "winning the fight." At that point, I think that my obligation becomes to tend to my own medical care if necessary, and to cooperate with any LEOs who arrive on the scene by becoming the best witness I can be regarding description of the other guy, etc. That being said, I think that my cooperation with LEOs would be limited as to my own involvement in the shooting until such time as I could obtain legal representation. I begin with the assumption that the matter will be referred to a grand jury, and would count myself very lucky if it was not. Given that, letting a lawyer do my talking would probably be the smartest thing I could do.

So in the circumstances, my statement to the police would be limited to a description of the bad guy, and then to say "Officer, I am sure you understand that, given my circumstances, I would prefer to have an attorney present before answering any further questions."

The Annoyed Man wrote:Agreed that you can often survive multiple hits - if they are not fatal wounds. OTH, if your wounds are potentially fatal in the short term, any continued fighting you do might be hastening your own death - as you your heart rate increases and you pump out your blood volume, for instance. That doesn't mean abandon the "I will survive this" mentality; but it might mean "I need to leave now to survive this." In other threads, I've mentioned a patient I helped to treat who had been hit 6 times in the back with a .38 special while fleeing his attacker. He got himself to the ER, and then collapsed upon arrival. He would have surely died had he stayed in the fight instead of beating feet. The point of this is that LEOs have a sworn duty to stay in the fight as long as they are able. The rest of us don't. It would seem to me that, once you are hit, particularly if you are hit multiple times, unless you are defending your loved ones, your survival mentality ought to focus on escape and evasion, not staying in the fight.

LEO's don't have any more obligation to stay in the fight when wounded than you do. However, they are taught to continue to fight until the threat they face is no longer a threat because there are no referees in gunfights and the BG who already shot you is highly likely to try to finish the job unless he is either incapacitated or decides to try to withdraw on his own.

It's not unusual for LEO's to find themselves in a situation like the officer and the BG in the case in this post - at short range, behind limited cover, and with no withdrawal option that doesn't involve exposing oneself completely on open ground. Leaving cover under these circumstances is not generally a good survival tactic.

Civlians are much less likely to see a situation like this, but it's not impossible either.

In a gunfight, the reality is that in most cases, unless the BG decides to leave on his own, you're going to have to end the threat before you can get medical treatment.

The thing that works in your favor is the vasoconstriction that occurs under life threatening stress and limits blood loss. This is one of the factors that allowed the BG in this case go function as long as he did. When you leave the fight and begin to come down from the adrenaline dump, the blood vessels open up again and blood loss becomes more profuse. You want to be under emergency responder care when this happens. You should also know how to improvise tourniquets and control bleeding in case you have to do this on your own when help is a ways away.

The Annoyed Man wrote:In other threads, I've mentioned a patient I helped to treat who had been hit 6 times in the back with a .38 special while fleeing his attacker. He got himself to the ER, and then collapsed upon arrival. He would have surely died had he stayed in the fight instead of beating feet.

Had this person not turned tail and run, I don't believe he would have received six shots to the back, unless he wasn't carrying, then I could see running like heck. Would help to serpentine his run though. Otherwise, he had as good a chance or better as the aggressor was using a .38 special and if he received six shots to the back, it may have been all the ammo the aggressor had. Makes me wonder...