TexasCHLforum.com

Personally, I think both of you are out of line..... but what do I know?

I only know what I know from having treated hundreds of gunshot patients over several years....most of whom survived, but many of whom did not....and having done CPR to no effect of people shot with a .22 in the lungs and other seemingly "non-vital" areas.....and having seen people shot right through the heart with a 9mm and being awake and alert and talking......and having seen two people shot multiple times with the same .44 magnum, one of them DOA, the other dead a week later in ICU with his guts turned into soup......and having seen a guy hit right in the head with a .308 which evacuated most of his cranium, and two years later he was still curled up like a fetus and shivering like a small wet animal. But other than that, I don't know nuttin'.

I certainly don't know enough to insult someone because he disagrees with me.

SlowDave wrote:Do we need a support group?

We have one. It's called TexasCHLForum.com.

C-dub wrote:

RHenriksen wrote:You know, I just realized something else about that video. I'd decided years ago to make the caliber vs capacity trade off and go with a .40 instead of a .45. Given what the doctor was saying about how one or two handgun rounds being unlikely to be decisive, it make me feel better about opting for the compromise cartridge & having a higher round count.

There, I said it! Let the caliber wars resume :-p

I did too many years ago, but I had never fired a .45 and thought it would kick more than a .40, which I had also never fired. All I knew at that time was that .45's generally held 7-8 rounds, .40's could hold up to 15, and 9mm held 19. So, I also opted for the compromise round until TAM let me shoot his .45 and I found out about Glock's double stack .45 SF models.

I also started thinking about that FN5.7. It looks more like a rifle round, but has like half the powder than a 5.56 round and maybe less than a .45. It's got some good velocities, but again about half way between rifle and handgun velocities. It might perform better than a .45. IDK

The recoil of the .45 ACP cartridge is very over-rated. It's just a big pussycat, and I find it easier to shoot than the snappier calibers like 9mm and .40 S&W. It's more of a big push than a sharp kick.

Re: 5.7, I don't think of it as a rifle round, although you can buy rifles chambered in it. The reason I think that is because in almost any application where I might use a carbine chambered in 5.7, I might just as easily use one chambered in 9mm, .45 ACP, or 5.56 NATO. But the 5.7 cartridge I think really shines in what it can do in a pistol. In many ways it reminds me of the .22 magnum, and indeed the Kel-Tec PMR-30 is an interesting alternative to the FiveSeveN pistol as another smallbore/high cap defense pistol, but it is somewhat more capable than the .22 magnum. But the problem with the 5.7, which Karder alluded to, is the limited commercially available ammo choices which exclude "the good stuff." And the other thing, which he has previously posted in other threads, is that it is a fairly large pistol for concealed carry. Not that it can't be concealed, but it definitely a "full-sized" pistol.

karder wrote:If I have an attacker still charging after 30 rounds or 5.7, I will look awfully silly in front of St. Peter!

Well that's because he carries a .45, and he'll tell you "I told you so, but you wouldn't listen!"

mrvmax wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:
That is why I choose .45 over 9mm. That is why I choose a 9mm over .380. That is why I choose a .357 over a .38 Special. IF you believe that the situation has reached the point where you have to go to guns, it makes zero sense at all to arm yourself with a lesser caliber if the means to a more powerful caliber is within your reach. Capacity has really more to do with whether or not your preferred strategy involves sticking around and duking it out in a running gun battle. Me personally, I'm going to beat feet as fast as I can move my fat butt down the road. I own a couple of higher capacity .45s, but my EDC is still a single stack CW45 with one back up magazine. In my world, the real world, that's what makes sense for an overweight and physically limited 60 year old.

I agree but I have different calibers/firearms for different purposes. I normally carry a full size 1911 in 45. But, I may carry my LCR (.357) in an ankle holster, or I may carry my H&K P2000 (9mm) or I may carry my I.O.Inc. 380. It all depends on what I am wearing and where I am going.

And that's fine......but you didn't make the weakest of those calibers your primary carry choice; and that's what I was getting at.

RHenriksen wrote:

mrvmax wrote:More proof of the facts:
...
2. There is no one caliber that is better than all the rest.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. I would say that based on the doctor's experiences,

almost any rifle > .45 > .40 > 9mm > .380 > .32 > .25 > .22

(But don't tell the mouse pistol brigade that... they'll just get cranky)

This. ^^

And that was not to start another forum caliber war. It's just common sense. I carry both .45 and 9mm pistols, but on any given day, it is more likely to be the .45 than the 9mm. A LOT of people around the world have been killed with 9mm pistols. But at least back when I worked in the ER, I saw a lot more people shot dead with a .22. The question isn't really if one caliber is more lethal than the other, as they are all lethal if applied in sufficient quantity over sufficient time. But short of a brain shot that destroys the brain stem, the question becomes "what will up the odds of incapacitating the attacker?" THAT is the question that should concern us as CHLs.

The doctor made one simple statement in the segment where he was talking about the differences between the diameters of expanded hollowpoints of different calibers. He had previously demonstrated beyond challenge the following:

1. ALL people who are shot dead die of a combination of blood loss and tissue damage, the ratios of each being directly attributable to the velocity (rifles versus pistols) and caliber;
2. that rifle bullets (.22 LR excepted) produce greater tissue destruction and blood loss than pistol bullets because their of their much greater velocities and energies;
3. that among pistol bullets, expanding type designs are more lethal than FMJ designs, but that neither, including expanding types, causes anything near the damage caused by a rifle bullet;
4. that pistol bullets kill by virtue of the crushing of tissue directly in the bullet's path rather than the hydrostatic shock caused tissue destruction produced by a rifle bullet;
5. that with unexpanded bullets, there is little or no discernable difference to a forensic pathologist between the amount of tissue damaged produced by .45 bullets versus 9mm bullets;
6. (which is pertinent to us as CHLS) that a larger diameter expanded bullet is more likely to "snag" a critical structure than than a smaller diameter expanded bullet

That last item is really of exceeding importance for anyone who carries a pistol. Gunshot wounds produce a "stop" by two means: physical incapacitation, where the physical injury literally inhibits further physical action; and psychological incapacitation, where the psychological impact of having been shot and the attendant fear of dying cancel out any desire to continue the fight. It goes without saying that if the person shot is under the sway of a psychotic rage or drug/alcohol induced rage at the moment they are shot, there may well be little or no psychological incapacitation due to a gunshot injury. If anything, it may fuel their rage even more. As the doctor pointed out repeatedly and demonstrated with videos, that person can continue to perform a lot of physical action before the biological effects of the gunshot wound begin to manifest themselves through circulatory hypotension and hypoxia, causing a physical collapse.

But it is not enough for the bullet to do its job. We must also do ours, which translates primarily as "accuracy under pressure." The thing is, when one takes into account one's own movements, the other guy's movements, the ange of the shot(s) fired, and other like variables, it is a whole lot different to consistently knock out badguys with "fatal" center of mass hits in a three gun competition, and doing the same thing when the target is trying to tear your head off and "fertilize" your neck. That's why one, two, or three shots may not be enough to stop the other person. If your game plan is hampered by caliber AND capacity, you hamstring your ability to prevail if you have to face the elephant for real.

The thing is, in the real world, we each have to make the compromises that work for us individually within the context of our individual lives. Some of us need to conceal more deeply than others because of work issues. Others of us may have difficulty managing a more powerful caliber than a weaker one, and we have to make our carry decisions accordingly. But whatever the issues, the ONLY thing that makes sense is to carry the most amount of gun that you will actually exercise the discipline to carry.

Me? I'm an adequate pistol shot when I'm standing at a firing line, shooting at targets that don't shoot back. I'm also old enough and physically limited enough that I'm not going to practice entering and exiting the Walmart while executing a tactical roll to left or right. I'm willing to bet that a LOT more CHLs are like me than they are like tactical ninjas. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep up some basic skills to the extent that we are able, but it does mean that we have to take into account things like, "since I'm not going to carry a combat load out, maybe I should carry the most powerful caliber I can possibly carry, in a pistol platform that fits into my lifestyle."

Here's an example of what I'm talking about: Since a 9mm PM/CM9 conceals every bit as easily as a .380 Kel-Tec P3AT and is more powerful than the P3AT, why on earth would I want to carry the P3AT? Since a lightweight .357 magnum snubby is far more powerful than a lightweight .38 Special snubby and weighs the same as the .38, why on earth would I want to carry the .38? (And for those who can't comfortably shoot a .357 snubby but who can manage a .38, why would you choose a .22 revolver over a .38?) The point is that, while we hope to never ever have to use our guns, it makes no sense to carry one at all if we don't carry the most gun we can within the context of our lifestyles.

That is why I choose .45 over 9mm. That is why I choose a 9mm over .380. That is why I choose a .357 over a .38 Special. IF you believe that the situation has reached the point where you have to go to guns, it makes zero sense at all to arm yourself with a lesser caliber if the means to a more powerful caliber is within your reach. Capacity has really more to do with whether or not your preferred strategy involves sticking around and duking it out in a running gun battle. Me personally, I'm going to beat feet as fast as I can move my fat butt down the road. I own a couple of higher capacity .45s, but my EDC is still a single stack CW45 with one back up magazine. In my world, the real world, that's what makes sense for an overweight and physically limited 60 year old.

magillapd wrote:Interesting Video. These things are good to know. If you ever need to use your gun, chances are you might also be one who gets shot....so Don't give up fighting! A side note, since some people get shot with their own gun, might be worth carrying a 9mm vs a .45 just sayin

I don't know if you meant that to be funny or not, but THAT was funny!

Jumping Frog wrote:

JALLEN wrote:This is a long video by a ER/OR doc discussing his experiences with gunshot wounds. A few gory photos!

I think that is the first time I actually had enough interest to watch a full 34 minutes of video in a gun forum link. Thanks for posting, and I have bookmarked.

From a self defense perspective, the answer is clear: more bullet holes.

He also definitely stated that in handgun calibers, bigger is probably better.

baldeagle wrote:So who would have thought that 6 out of every 7 handgun shooting victims survive? Fascinating information about how the medical field continues to improve as they learn things. And a huge tip of the hat to our boys in the field who, by getting shot in battle, are making our survivability rates ever higher. Just one more way that our vets contribute to our well being, and one more reason to thank them profusely whenever we see them.

I'm almost surprised it is that low a survival rate. Anyone who has spent time working in an ER can tell you that most GSW victims survive their injuries.