WOW Both!!!, But i am partial to my GLOCK
yep...I love my 1911, but there is something very comforting about a mitt full of Glock 19 and a generous supply of 9mm.
1911 or Glock ( what do you think?? )
- Thread starter Nick E
- Start date
- Status
yep...I love my 1911, but there is something very comforting about a mitt full of Glock 19 and a generous supply of 9mm.
TDC
ETA: Why are we running this pole?
Autopsy reports tell a different story. Bigger bullet = greater damage. So if you are off you are better off.Back on topic. If buying a Glock buy a .45ACP Model or a 1911.
I'll take 7 rounds of rock and roll over 17 rounds of mickey mouse any day
I agree and 10 round extended mags are legal and available for the 1911 in .45ACP
The number of votes for the 1911 in comparison to the number of votes for the Glock are hardly surprising. The question is similar to "Would you prefer a Hyundai Accent, or a truck?"
First of all, the truck (1911) will usually be superior, unless you find an inferior manufacturer.
Secondly, there's so many different trucks (1911s) around, that people are going to have a different picture of what a 1911 is to them, compared to the relatively narrow choice of Hyundai Accent (Glock).
1911s aren't limited to .45 ACP anymore either. You can find versions in a lot of different chamberings.
Glocks are reliable, functional and proven firearms, but for me they set the minimum standard for what a pistol should be. Yeah, it'll get you from A to B, but they don't have any flair.
1911s come in all kinds of combinations, and can be upgraded to personalize them further. I would much prefer a nice 1911 to a Glock, but I would probably prefer a Glock over a cheap 1911, only because I dislike Norcoffs more.
To each their own.
First of all, the truck (1911) will usually be superior, unless you find an inferior manufacturer
. Secondly, there's so many different trucks (1911s) around, that people are going to have a different picture of what a 1911 is to them, compared to the relatively narrow choice of Hyundai Accent (Glock).
1911s aren't limited to .45 ACP anymore either. You can find versions in a lot of different chamberings.
Glocks are reliable, functional and proven firearms, but for me they set the minimum standard for what a pistol should be. Yeah, it'll get you from A to B, but they don't have any flair.
1911s come in all kinds of combinations, and can be upgraded to personalize them further. I would much prefer a nice 1911 to a Glock, but I would probably prefer a Glock over a cheap 1911, only because I dislike Norcoffs more.
To each their own.
<--- As you can tell, I own a Glock ...but thats not to say that I think one is better than the other.
I think the dude above me was partially right when he said it's like comparing a truck to a car...the Glock and 1911 are two different things all together. Kinda like having an old Impala/Lincoln/Bel-Air (1911) and a modern sports car (Glock).
I used to shoot a Springfield GI, today the Glock suits my needs. I still dig the 1911's and I can appreciate the heritage that goes along with them. Both do the same job but in a different way. There's two kinds of cool.
Thats my 2 cents...AND I EXPECT MY CHANGE BACK !
...but thats not to say that I think one is better than the other. I think the dude above me was partially right when he said it's like comparing a truck to a car...the Glock and 1911 are two different things all together. Kinda like having an old Impala/Lincoln/Bel-Air (1911) and a modern sports car (Glock).
I used to shoot a Springfield GI, today the Glock suits my needs. I still dig the 1911's and I can appreciate the heritage that goes along with them. Both do the same job but in a different way. There's two kinds of cool.
Thats my 2 cents...AND I EXPECT MY CHANGE BACK !
TDC
ETA: Why are we running this pole?
Perhaps you should have a read of this, sir.
Mr Deadmeat (works in a morgue, formerly a police officer) talks about his observations of various firearms stopping power. It's much to long to quote in its entirety here.
http://www.mouseguns.com/deadmeat.htm
Quote:
I see an average of 8.2 autopsies per day/365 days per year, and I can tell you that when the chips are down, there's nothing that beats a 12-gauge. As for handguns, the name of the game is not only shot placement but how a properly-placed bullet acts once it gets there. I've seen folks killed by a bb to the eye and others survive after being hit by several well-placed rounds with a 9mm. As for me, I'll take a slow-moving .45 to a gun fight any day. ... I'm only stating what I've seen in the morgue, which I consider to be the finest university of self-defense. I'm far from an expert in ballistics, but having been a cop for seven years, a hunter and avid handgunner for half a century, and having seen thousands of autopsies gives me a unique perspective.
Interestingly, as a sort-of-coroner, he's not concerned with people missing (except through drywall) or bullets going through people and hitting bystanders behind them.
Quote:
As for overpenetration, yes, it's something to be concerned about but not overly so. I see bullets that pass through the body and are not recovered every day. I can only think of a very few times, though, when overpenetration led to an unintended target being hit after passing through the BG, and even then the other person survived if I remember correctly. Keep in mind that most of the folks I see on an autopsy table weren't shot while going to prayer meeting, while watching an Atlanta Falcons game in the stadium, or during an AC/DC concert. BGs are opportunists, which means that they look for places where contact with civilians other than the intended victim is minimal and they can get away without being identified. Sure, some occur in large gatherings and in plain view, but by far and large most involve a minimum of people. As a result, even if overpenetration occurs, more than likely the bullet will lodge in some inanimate object, not another civilian.
Quote:
The .357 is gloriously effective. It's just that semi-autos are much more common than they used to be, so we see far more 9mm and .380 rounds on the autopsy table than we do the .38 and .357. Particularly among the gangbangers, the 9mm and .380 are the weapons of choice. The .357 is a wonderfully effective round for self-defense from what I've seen, but it's rare that we get them in anymore.
Again, this is from experience that I've made my calls on what works and what doesn't. I have no use for mouse guns like the .32, although it's a lot better to have a mouse gun than nothing at all. Personally, I'll never carry anything smaller than a .40 and prefer the .45. Day in and day out, results from the autopsy table show me that the .45 is the gun to have in a gun fight, provided you can shoot it well. If not, it's better to have something you can shoot well, even if it's a mouse gun, than something you can't.
I'll take slow and heavy to light and fast any day. What I want is a round that plows through bone and tissue and expends ALL of its energy in the body. That said, the 125-grain .357 is marvelously effective.
S/W-Lifer, You're correct in what you're thinking. Yes, the 9mm and .380 are the rounds I most often see on the autopsy table, but they're also the rounds that usually require multiple hits to make the kill. The standing joke in the morgue is to guess the caliber by looking at the x-rays. If multiple rounds show up on the x-rays more often than not it's a 9mm or .380 (or .32 or .25 or some mouse gun caliber). If only one round shows up, it could be an inordinately good hit with a .380 or 9mm, but more likely it's a .40 or .45.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen a .380 or 9mm strike bone on a well-placed shot and skip off in a non-vital direction, leaving the BG free to return fire. With the .40 and .45, this seldom happens. Bone is in the body for basically two reasons--to give support as with the legs and spinal column and to protect major organs, such as the ribs protecting the heart or the skull protecting the brain. Skip a bullet off a support bone, such as the leg, and the BG will keep shooting. Break it, like you generally do with a .40 or .45, and the BG is going to hit the pavement and your chances of survival increase dramatically. It's the same with a shot to the chest. Skip a 9mm off the sternum (breastbone) and the fight continues; plow through the sternum with a .45 and, trust me, the fight is over. I'm just convinced that all things being equal, bigger is better when it comes to bullet size.
I also like bullets to expend all their energy in the body, not only for the protection of nearby civilians, but because I think it imparts more damage. I'm a bit less certain of this one, however, than I am about bullet size.
And almost without exception, the bullet weight I see most often with the .44 is the commercially-available 240 grains.
Quote:
Remember, folks, that what I see on the autopsy table is most often BGs shooting BGs (sniff, sniff. Forgive me, my eyes are welling up with tears and I might have to continue this thread later. Ok, better now, so I'll continue) or, worse, BGs shooting good guys. In either case, BGs usually aren't students of ballistics, they aren't NRA members, they don't read Guns and Ammo, and they don't sit down at the Dillon 550 at night cranking out some new handload they've read about. They buy commercially-available ammo and, occasionally, add some personal touches they've read about in the latest issue of Gangbanger Magazine, such as filling the cavity of the hollowpoint with mercury (Yes, I've seen it. Worked just like hardball.)or deeply scoring the nose of the bullet (worked just like frangible except that it came apart on the outside of the other BGs clothing, which is why we had this one on the autopsy table (sniff).
Quote:
First, Houston is mostly right in assuming that multiple rounds seen from the 9mm and .380 are from the higher magazine capacity and contollability of the two calibers. Again, however, much of it is due to the fact that these two calibers just aren't getting the job done before the other BG returns fire and sends our BG to gangbanger heaven. Yes, the shots were eventually lethal, but many times not immediately so. And, yes, they CAN BE an effective weapon IF placed in a lethal area and IF the bullet gets the job done once it gets there instead of skipping off in a non-lethal direction. My advice, however, is to get a larger caliber such as a .40 or .45
Quote:
Almost without exception, the BGs are toting semi-autos with the 9mm, .380, and occasionally the .40 or .45. And, yes, I think the "spray and pray" mentality (gee, is that a misnomer) may well be responsible for the high number of poorly placed shots we see. It's kind of hard to hold the old Glock over the head and sideways, Gangsta style, and direct a shot with any kind of accuracy. Fortunately, the gangbangers don't know this or, if they do, do it anyway because it looks so cool
Quote:
Hollowpoints are really hard to get a handle on. From my experience, the limiting factor on the effectiveness of a hollowpoint is that the cavity can and often does get packed full of something besides tissue prior to entering the body, and this can inhibit expansion. Sheet rock is about the worst although heavy clothing can be a problem also. Once you cram the cavity full of anything but tissue, you've essentially got hardball. It's largely weight retention that allows the bullet to continue to blast through bone and reach those deep vital organs that will end the fight in a hurry, and hardball is well known for maintaining its weight at autopsy. Some hollowpoints expand so rapidly and lose weight so quickly that they haul up short of reaching the vital organs. All things being equal, yes, I'd rather have a properly expanded hollowpoint reach the same location as a hardball round since, for the most part, the hollowpoint will infict more damage than hardball. But things aren't always equal. Unlike some hollowpoints, hardball generally has no problems feeding (as always, this is more a matter of knowing your gun and what it feeds reliably) and almost without exception it just plows along its merry way busting up whatever it comes into contact with. Hollowpoints, even the best of them, can do really strange things such as shedding the jacket, losing an inordinate amount of weight, or expanding so rapidly that they don't reach the vitals. I've seen it time and time again and many times I don't have an explanation for it. It's just empirical observation and something to think about.
Quote:
Ok, let me give a few thoughts on shot placement. First, as j2k22 suggests, there's no shot that will end the fight faster than a head shot. The brain is the center of the neurological system, and a shot there will end things immediately. The problem is that the head is very mobile and can be darting from side to side while the thorax stays still. A shot to the spine is also a very good choice, but the spine is probably no more than two inches wide and can be very hard to hit.
When all is said and done, go for the chest. Unless it's a child molester or rapist, however, in which case I plan to give him a .45 caliber vasectomy first so in the event I don't kill him with subsequent shots, at least he'll no longer be able to commit assault with a friendly weapon. The body remains relatively stable, while the legs, arms, and head can be moving from side to side. Trust me, when the BG is sending bullets in your direction and the adrenaline is pumping, it does very strange things to a sight picture, so you'll want to go for the biggest thing there is. On top of that, there are loads of really nice things to hit in the chest, any one of which will end the fight. There are plenty of arteries and large veins, bones that will prevent or inhibit the accurate firing of the weapon (e.g., shoulderblade, collarbone), or paralyze him (spine), and organs such as the lungs and heart that will shut down the BG if hit. And if you hit too low, you've also got a good chance of poking a hole in the liver, spleen, stomach, and other organs which, although they may not cause immediate death, may severely incapacitate the BG.
Remember, your goal in a gunfight is to incapacitate the BG to the point that his ability to fight ceases or he breaks off the engagement voluntarily. If you kill him, fine; if not, you want to wound him to the extent that he can no longer return fire effectively and you'll live to see another day.
Quote:
As for Gold Dot, it's what I carry in my carry gun (.45, naturally), although if I can see some more examples of the Federal EFMJ I might switch to that. Many of our LE personnel are carrying Gold Dot as well as others carrying Federal HS. Of the two, I've come to like Gold Dot better. I don't know why but I've seen some really funky stuff with HS. When it works, it works great; when it doesn't it's pretty lame. In fact, some folks in my neck of the woods refer to it as Hydra Sucks. Hydroshock is something I've never been quite sure of, at least with handgun bullets. Seeing the wound cavity in ballistic gelatin is really impressive, and the theory is that even if the bullet doesn't actually make contact with something vital, the shock wave created by the passage of the bullet will inflict its own damage. Maybe, maybe not.
Quote:
Of all the thousands of autopsies I've seen, I can't remember a single one that was wearing body armor
Quote:
Now for rifles and shotguns. I'll say first that whenever possible use a shotgun. Doesn't matter if you're using 7.5 shot or 00 buck, use a shotgun! Trust me on this one! A spray of birdshot to the 'nads or the eyes can end a fight really quickly, and if the range is short enough a high concentration of even very small shot can make a really, really big hole. Also, you'd be surprised at how deeply small shot can penetrate at relatively long distances. And even if the distance is such that small shot will be ineffective, most BGs aren't willing to chance closing the distance to get a better shot once they know a shotgun is in use.
Barring shotguns, use a rifle. And like the shotgun, it doesn't make much difference which as long as it's bigger than a .22 rimfire. The other day I saw a head shot with a .204 Ruger that was just beyond belief! An itty bitty bullet moving at .220 Swift velocities (about 4100 fps) is most impressive when it fragments inside the noggin. I've seen just about all rifle calibers used at one time or another, and they were almost all impressive. Unlike handguns, rifles have the velocity to drive smaller, lighter bullets deeply into the body cavity. Expansion (and often fragmentation) is complete, and damage is magnified.
In short, my first choice in almost all situations will be a shotgun, followed by a rifle, followed by a handgun.
Quote:
When a bullet strikes tissue the kinetic energy begins to create a temporary cavity behind it, sort of like the videos you've seen of space capsules re-entering the atmosphere. Maximum expansion occurs some time after passage of the bullet (measured in milliseconds) and the diameter of the expansion depends largely on velocity (as well as tissue density and cohesiveness, but we've already touched on that), with higher velocities producing larger temporary cavities. The temporary cavity is extremely important in that it is largely responsible for producing injuries to arteries, veins, organs, and nerves that are not directly struck by the bullet or its fragments. In fact, it's possible for the bullet to strike nothing vital at all but still produce incapacitation or death by the temporary cavity that does.
Quote:
Although we most often see the .380 and 9mm on the autopsy table, we've pretty well beaten these to death (no pun intended). Suffice it to say, I would never trust either caliber to save my life regardless of what round I carried in it. Why the government in its infinite wisdom ever switched from a proven man-stopper like the .45 to the 9mm will forever remain a mystery to me.
Quote:
Same with the .45. Although we see it less than the .40, it has a justifiable reputation of being able to put a stop to a gunfight VERY quickly. Again, we see it with Federal HS and Gold Dots, and both work VERY well. Of all the rounds I've seen that are 1-shot kills, it's the .45 that is the clear winner followed by the .40. It's also the caliber I carry.
Ah, the .44 Magnum. I've got 3 of these suckers and love 'em all. About the only time we see them in the morgue is during a suicide and, trust me, there's no such thing as an "attempted suicide" with a .44 Magnum.
...
The ubiquitous .22, since it's the most commonly fired caliber in the US, is never in short supply, and many folks who own no other firearm own a .22. Most often the site of the wound is to the head, and penetration is almost always more than sufficient to get the job done. With body shots, either in defensive situations or suicides, multiple shots are usually required unless someone gets inordinately lucky and plants the bullet firmly in a vital organ. I've seen more than one example of someone who tried to commit suicide by emptying a cylinder into the chest and was forced to reload before completing the job with a shot to the head.
Quote:
Actually, with the exception of the .357 (Magnum and Sig), I can't think of any rounds that start with a number smaller than 4 following the decimal point that I would trust my life with.
Quote:
controllability. Dirty Harry's one-handed shooting notwithstanding, most of us just aren't good enough to get off that often-needed second shot from a .44 with any kind of accuracy, at least not in the time we need to be able to do it effectively. The .357 is more easily controlled and therefore a better option for self-defense, I think.
Quote:
I've learned that multiple layers of winter clothing can slow the bullet to the point that a well-placed shot won't reach the vital organs (it isn't Kevlar, folks, but it can be marvelously effective).
Quote:
As for the .500, no, I haven't seen it on the autopsy table and don't expect to. Remember, most of the guns of this size are in the hands of law abiding gun owners, not gangbangers. Gangbangers are usually of the previously-mentioned "spray and pray" philosophy, meaning they want something like a 9mm or .380 that they can shoot rapidly (somehow, shot placement takes a back seat to unloading the magazine as rapidly as possible for these guys), and the .500 just isn't a gun to be shot rapidly.
Quote:
But in addition to physiological factors, we've also got a psychological component to consider. That is, what's the state of mind of the assailant and how determined is he to continue the fight once the bullets start flying? For you students of the Hatcher Formula, you'll know that this is not a new concept. I'll try to summarize Hatcher's thoughts here, taking a bit of poetic license from my own experience in the morgue.
First, there's the assailant who, when the rounds start flying, suddenly remembers an appointment with his dentist to have a couple of root canals done. To quote Hatcher, he has "no stomach for the fight, or who has no expectation of trouble and is taken by surprise." He will "quit at the first sign of trouble, and any wound, however slight, will put him out of the fight." There are documented cases of assailants fainting at the first sound of gunfire even though they were not hit. These are the BGs we all hope to encounter.
The second group is pretty much what we've come to expect from this lengthy discussion. The gunfight starts, the adrenaline is pumping, and there's an ongoing assessment of the situation. If a wound is slight, the gunfight may continue. If it's significant, self-preservation usually takes over and the assailant seeks medical attention or at least breaks off the conflict in the hope of doing so. This is pretty much the normal reaction.
The third group is the assailant who is determined to kill you regardless of the consequences. Often they are enraged, drug-ridden, or simply mentally disturbed, and self-preservation takes a back seat to their all-important purpose of killing you. Of the three groups, these are the ones we most have to worry about. Cumulative, well-placed shots in the torso of these folks may well kill but not immediately, leaving them time to return fire.
Quote:
Even though our goodie-packed thoracic area is what we should be aiming at, there's no guarantee that the vital organs contained therein will be hit. Hence, the luck factor. The temporary cavity of almost any self-defense handgun round is so small that it will pretty much take a direct hit from the bullet itself to bring about the much-desired damage. Believe it or not, there's a fair amount of dead space (uh, let me rephrase that, non-vital space)in the chest that will allow a bullet to penetrate and exit without striking something vital. We see it from time to time and it's the main reason that it's tactically advantageous to continue firing until the BG is either headed to Gangbanger Heaven or he's shot so full of holes that he probably will be shortly. The more rounds that hit the chest the better the odds are that at least one of them will hit something that will cause incapacitation
Quote:
For ME, there's one main factor I'm looking for in a defensive weapon, and everything else is secondary. It isn't velocity, since in most handgun calibers we just can't get the velocity up enough to make an appreciable increase in in the size of the temporary cavity. It isn't bullet type, because for the most part modern bullets have increased in efficiency to the point that they pretty much do what we want them to and do it reliably. It isn't dumping all the energy in the BG although this is preferable to dumping it outside of him. And, no, it isn't even caliber. It's something I've talked about in a couple of other posts.
It's PENETRATION. Pure and simple. Give me guaranteed penetration to the vital organs with whatever caliber you like and I'll take it to a gunfight any day, 9mm included. As I said in another post, you don't have to shred the heart, just hit it, and a BG with an artery nicked by a 9mm is just as bad off if it were hit with a .45.
Quote:
I've seen 9mm rounds fragment before reaching the vital organs and I don't think I've ever seen a .45 do that. That's all I've said, nothing more. I've never claimed that this was research, just observation.
Quote:
A subject walked up to the back door of the station once. He had been involved in a fight with another subject and told the first Officer that he had been shot. He raised his shirt and showed 5 entry wounds to his chest. I followed the ambulance to the hospital and looked at the X rays with the doctors. Every single round missed every single vital organ. It was FMJ .380. No organs, bones or ribs were hit. It was amazing.
All credits to RangeBob for the original post on CanadaCarry.org.
Maybe you should compare that with the quotes I have left here for the actual referenced real people who are SWAT shooters and SF instructors that all carry Glocks, and those mostly in 9mm. E
Even Larry Vickers, who has 45's named after him...
Oh well thus can go on all day, say what you will and call me a mall ninja. The IPSC guys will even bug me because they say they shoot better than the cops, and I don't wear a shiny shirt.
Well. Let's see them do that in 40 lbs of gear, with a dynamic breach of a steel door, and flashbangs going off here.
First, though they are related, people in these threads are considering rudimentary ballistics, but not TACTICS and SKILL as well as MISSION. Yes, this is important for sport shooters and civvies too.
So if we follow then than the .45 is better than the 9mm, then we all know 5.56 is even more of a killer. Well, ask Paul Howe, who was at "BLACKHAWK DOWN" in Somalia what he thought of the round against "The Skinnys".
You have talked to Paul about this right? No, some other instructors? No? People with experience carrying for a living? No?
OK...
You can have one morgue guy.... Or the whole US ARMY which uses a 9mm.
An anonymous internet CSI, or the 20 or so times I have posted the names of highly trained instructors with special forces or SWAT backgrounds that mostly carry G19's in 9mm.
And TDC...!
Here is one.
Did you ask what all the top instructors in the country were shooting at NTI this year when you were there?
No?
But of course, you and your anonymous coroner know best.
See what I am saying?
PS
Just thinking since the body armor most soldiers and bad guys have is going to stop .45, all the more reason for the 16 plus rounds of 9mm in an M9 or G17/19 for the headshots.
You have been practising your headshots I hope. You run out fast with a 1911...
New potential sig:
"Your personal choices and preferences: I cannot argue with. However your lack of evidence, experience, and references I will go Godzilla on all day."
Even Larry Vickers, who has 45's named after him...Oh well thus can go on all day, say what you will and call me a mall ninja. The IPSC guys will even bug me because they say they shoot better than the cops, and I don't wear a shiny shirt.
Well. Let's see them do that in 40 lbs of gear, with a dynamic breach of a steel door, and flashbangs going off here.
First, though they are related, people in these threads are considering rudimentary ballistics, but not TACTICS and SKILL as well as MISSION. Yes, this is important for sport shooters and civvies too.
So if we follow then than the .45 is better than the 9mm, then we all know 5.56 is even more of a killer. Well, ask Paul Howe, who was at "BLACKHAWK DOWN" in Somalia what he thought of the round against "The Skinnys".
You have talked to Paul about this right? No, some other instructors? No? People with experience carrying for a living? No?
OK...
You can have one morgue guy.... Or the whole US ARMY which uses a 9mm.
An anonymous internet CSI, or the 20 or so times I have posted the names of highly trained instructors with special forces or SWAT backgrounds that mostly carry G19's in 9mm.
And TDC...!
Here is one.
Did you ask what all the top instructors in the country were shooting at NTI this year when you were there?
No?
But of course, you and your anonymous coroner know best.
See what I am saying?
PS
Just thinking since the body armor most soldiers and bad guys have is going to stop .45, all the more reason for the 16 plus rounds of 9mm in an M9 or G17/19 for the headshots.
You have been practising your headshots I hope. You run out fast with a 1911...
New potential sig:
"Your personal choices and preferences: I cannot argue with. However your lack of evidence, experience, and references I will go Godzilla on all day."
The army for the most part has no choice in what they carry. (CF) Same with about 99.9 % of police agencys.
I'm going to hazard a guess and assume the instructors use 9 MM because it's cheap, easy to control, easy to find, cheap to reload.
I have never stated I know best, I posted an article that I found interesting. I wouldn't stand infront of .22, does that make it a good self defence round too? My personal HD handgun is infact a G17.
A couple of things you have to take in account though.
- What if your gun jams and you have to use it as a baseball bat? Glock isn't my first choice because of the polymer.
- Glocks are very light, cheap, that makes it more of use to me. I don't care if I drop or damage my Glock pistol.
- Glocks do come in other cals besides 9MM.
Their is pro's and con's in both guns and both calibers.
You're free to have your own opinion, i'll have mine.
Perhaps you should check your sources.
I Call:
Busted
Selective editing is quite dishonest, and does little to sell a case.:
Perhaps the person you copied it from altered it, but that just shows you might want to read the original.
Sir.
Could have been an honest cut and paste mistake? Or lying in self preservation and altering the coroners actual words to support a myth they/you believe?
But FYI Everyone:
The actual quote is:
"As for me, I'll take a slow-moving .45 to a gun fight any day. I absolutely despise a 9mm for defensive situations (yes, they will eventually kill but often not quickly enough to prevent the BG from doing you in first)and a .380 as well. These are probably the two calibers I see most often on the autopsy table.
SO in reality, most people killed are killed with a 9mm????
Hmmm... I know, that doesn't say much, but neither does his anecdotes.
But this post in the end of THE ACTUAL THREAD sums up this poor argument well.
"I also am having trouble reconciling a few things:
1. The most common gunshot wounds DM2 sees are from .380 and 9mm.
2. He works in a morgue so these are all deaths.
3. Therefore, he sees more people killed with .380 and 9mm than any other caliber.
4. But the .380 and 9mm are ineffective as defense calibers?
And
"(I understand that there is a difference between "stopping" someone and killing them, but this whole thread is about dead folks, not "stopped" folks)"
BEST
Therefore:
"Maybe more people shot with the .45 survive? Or are a lot less people shot with the .45? If so, what does that say about the validity of the conclusions?"
"Why does DM2 say the 9mm is a bad choice? I can't discern the reason from the data. If it that they didn't expire quickly enough, fine, tell me more. Is it that when they come in they are accompanied by anoter dead guy, whom they shot after first being hit? Great, tell me more.
If it is just the fact that the deceased often have multiple injuries, does that mean the first round failed? Does it mean the first round didn't work? Or does it mean these calibers allow follow-up shots that are harder to accomplish with larger calibers? Or does it mean they were killed by some whacko who just kept shooting? Are the multiple shots well-placed? Tell me more. What are the comparisons? If you have, say, three times as many 9mm shootings as .45 shootings you would expect to see a lot more weird results. What are the statistics?
If you have 40 shootings with a .45 and 50 with a 9mm and 7 out of 10 of the .45 shootings were one shot "kills" that might tell me something, but I don't find that here."
This is also good:
"Yes, the 9mm and .380 are the rounds I most often see on the autopsy table, but they're also the rounds that usually require multiple hits to make the kill. The standing joke in the morgue is to guess the caliber by looking at the x-rays. If multiple rounds show up on the x-rays more often than not it's a 9mm or .380 (or .32 or .25 or some mouse gun caliber). If only one round shows up, it could be an inordinately good hit with a .380 or 9mm, but more likely it's a .40 or .45."
Well, the other option, seeing as scientific as this great coroners opinion is is this:
That the guys shooting the .45 ran out of ammo. They guys shooting the 9mm did not. That is why there are more of them in the morgue.
Shame Shame.
"What engenders respect is not the particular outcome that a legal scholar arrives at but, rather, the intellectual rigor and honesty with which he or she arrives at a decision."
True Justins, but you said yourself "has no choice in what they carry". I myself think there is to much hype around glocks. I dont think that there is a goverment on this planet who is gonna fork out to arm the military as well as police with the best handgun on the market ( they want something cheap ).
The Colt 1911a1 was produced in 1909 ( proved in WW1,WW2,Korea,Cypress,Vietnam and the Gulf war )
The Glock was produced in 1982
The Colt 1911a1 was produced in 1909 ( proved in WW1,WW2,Korea,Cypress,Vietnam and the Gulf war )
The Glock was produced in 1982
True Justins, but you said yourself "has no choice in what they carry". I myself think there is to much hype around glocks. I dont think that there is a goverment on this planet who is gonna fork out to arm the military as well as police with the best handgun on the market ( they want something cheap ).
The Colt 1911a1 was produced in 1909 ( proved in WW1,WW2,Korea,Cypress,Vietnam and the Gulf war )
The Glock was produced in 1982
Right. And THE GUYS THAT TEACH THE ARMY DO HAVE A CHOICE....
Even when the got a special Delta 1911.... What do you find on the hip and in the classroom for EVERYDAY use.
Sorry YYYY, I think your getting the idea I hate Glocks or 9MM. You are wrong. I have have stated, I own a G17. I use it for a number of different things such as, and not limited to;
- IPSC
- HD
- Target shooting
What would be my carry gun? It would be a Glock. Bottom line, people who select a heavy gun don't wear it often. Now we are really getting off track here, to the OP i'm sorry.
YYYY, you wouldn't happen to hold shares in 9MM Luger would you?
- IPSC
- HD
- Target shooting
What would be my carry gun? It would be a Glock. Bottom line, people who select a heavy gun don't wear it often. Now we are really getting off track here, to the OP i'm sorry.
YYYY, you wouldn't happen to hold shares in 9MM Luger would you?
I have a Glock 17 and a Colt 1911. I like both but if I had the choice of keeping only one I would keep the 1911. Not because of the 9mm vs .45ACP debate, because if that was the main issue then I could get the Glock in .45ACP.
The issue for me is that the 1911 is just more desirable. I actually feel positive emotions about it. The solid feel of steel, the smell, the sleek design, the feeling of menace it exudes etc. On the other hand, the Glock comes across as a tool, kind of like a drill.
It is possible I may chose the Glock for it's reliability if going into a firefight, but for pride of ownership I would choose the 1911.
The issue for me is that the 1911 is just more desirable. I actually feel positive emotions about it. The solid feel of steel, the smell, the sleek design, the feeling of menace it exudes etc. On the other hand, the Glock comes across as a tool, kind of like a drill.
It is possible I may chose the Glock for it's reliability if going into a firefight, but for pride of ownership I would choose the 1911.
There you go!
Good honest answer! Much appreciated!
I like you last line best personally.
And since they were designed for, and I would be carrying one for that reason, I would take the Glock.
I posted this elsewhere, you might appreciate it. Some dude on a different forum wrote basically what you did in your last line, but added:
"I will buy based on feeling when they make it feel like a c-cup titty."
But you are shopping for menace... And I appreciate that.
Here's an idea. A 1911 in 9mm.
"All the menance, now with more ammo!"
Good honest answer! Much appreciated!
I like you last line best personally.
And since they were designed for, and I would be carrying one for that reason, I would take the Glock.
I posted this elsewhere, you might appreciate it. Some dude on a different forum wrote basically what you did in your last line, but added:
"I will buy based on feeling when they make it feel like a c-cup titty."
But you are shopping for menace... And I appreciate that.
Here's an idea. A 1911 in 9mm.
"All the menance, now with more ammo!"
- Status
