Dillon Blue Press: Interesting Article

[Jago668]

I made the switch to 9mm primarily based on logistics. My wife can't really handle a double stack .45, which is what I used to carry G30sf, and G21. So between wanting her to be able to use my pistol, and only having to buy and store one type of pistol ammo. Just made my life easier. I am not more accurate or precise with a 9mm over a .45acp. However I can get those rounds on target faster, and do get more ammo. I've shot 357 sig, 10mm, and 40 s&w as well and don't really like the recoil on them. But yeah, left 100% up to just me I'd take .45acp every day.

I have not shot a 357 sig or 10mm but my 40 is really sharp with recoil. I suppose it is due to the high pressure of the round.

It's not that I can't handle it, I just don't like it. They have a sharp, short recoil impulse. Though if I had to pick out of those three I'd take 10mm. If I'm going to deal with what I don't like, might as well get the biggest meanest of the bunch.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles,

I have the article from last month if you would like to see it and can't find your copy. The title is "Why the 45 ACP FAILED" (or some words similar but I remember the word "failed" being in all caps). I was tempted to write to the author and ask him to send me his 45 ACP pistols and ammo/reloading gear as he considers them such a terrible thing but I decided to let that on go as I knew he would get bombarded with rebuttals.

I was never in the military or law enforcement so I take training classes and talk to those that are/were and ask questions. I have talked to several Houston PD SWAT team members that all carried a 45 ACP (two in 1911 and one in a Glock). I asked why and the answer I got was that the people that they shoot just seem to go down faster when hit with a 45 ACP. One of these guys had a 1911 10mm build by a local pistol smith. I asked why and he said he wanted to be able to reach out and touch bad guys at a long range with his pistol (and he can do that, he is a very good shot). Several of the training classes I have attended were made up of mostly law enforcement with some being big city SWAT. I saw a number of those SWAT guys carrying a 1911 in 45 ACP. I asked why and got the same answer as what I got from the HPD SWAT guys. The instructor of those classes is a former Delta Team Lead. He tells us to carry the biggest thing that you can shoot well. His definition of "shoot well" is probably a much higher level of performance than most. He carries a 357 sig Glock sub compact and can really shoot that thing.

Paul Harrel just put out a video comparing the new military Sig 9mm with the Berreta and a military grade 1911. He was able to shoot the 1911 more accurately and demonstrated that (when using ball ammo) the 45 ACP did a good bit more damage than the 9 mm. The only negative he had on the 1911 in 45 ACP was the capacity of that pistol vs the capacity of the 9mm.

Was one of the HPD SWAT guy's first name Mark? I don't want to give his full name, but he's a very good friend who made the exact same statement, i.e. "bad guys just go down faster with the 45ACP." I put more emphasis on real-world experience than I do Jello tests or theoretical mathematical calculations. Remember, aeronautical engineers tell us bumblebees can't fly. I'm not trying to insult anyone -- this is just my opinion.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

One study highlighted the importance of capacity since 70 to 80% of the shots miss. Pack more 9MM in a double stack.

My reading over the years leads me to believe this horrible hit ratio is the result of the adoption of the so-called "wonder 9s" by LEO agencies many years ago. When officers carried revolvers, I think the rounds-fired-to-hit ratio was 2.x while the current ratio is a multiple of that number. This was with officers carrying .357 Magnum handguns with much greater felt-recoil.

The poor hit ratio you note is one reason I discount the "shot placement" argument many folks rely upon for using a 9mm over something larger. While it is certainly accurate to state that shot placement is important, getting a round into a desired location to stop an attacker seems to be more a matter of luck with many people, based the poor hit ratio with higher-capacity handguns. Remember, one of the primary arguments justifying a 9mm over a 45ACP is faster follow-up shots. This argument seems to be put forth in tandem with the “shot placement argument, but they are somewhat contradictory.

If shot placement is critical, and I believe it is, then the first round or two fired need to be put where they are most likely to prevent you from being killed by a would-be murderer. It is the rare person indeed that cannot fire the first round of a 45ACP just as accurately as the first round of a 9mm. The mindset should be “put the first round where it needs to go, not “I have 15 rounds to get one on target.” I know, I know, that’s an overstatement, but the concept is valid.

In my view, a higher capacity handgun is desirable in the event you are attacked by multiple assailants, not to offset poor marksmanship.

Chas.

[LTUME1978]

Charles,

Yep, it was Mark.

Took a Response to Active Shooter class this summer at KR Training. We were told that, at the gay bar shooting in Florida, there was a LEO there and that the LEO emptied two magazines but never hit the shooter. More ammo does not turn someone into a good shooter. Reminds me of when I was a kid learning to duck hunt. My Dad would not let me shoot pump shotgun until I demonstrated that I could get hits with a single shot shotgun.

[eyedoc]

Charles,

Yep, it was Mark.

Took a Response to Active Shooter class this summer at KR Training. We were told that, at the gay bar shooting in Florida, there was a LEO there and that the LEO emptied two magazines but never hit the shooter. More ammo does not turn someone into a good shooter. Reminds me of when I was a kid learning to duck hunt. My Dad would not let me shoot pump shotgun until I demonstrated that I could get hits with a single shot shotgun.

I learned to hunt with a bolt action 22. I nearly always got a kill on the first shot. My brother learned with a 10/22. He would dump a whole magazine as fast as he could shoot and still miss.

[orionengnr]

Charles--
You didn't miss much. With the "new and improved" larger format Blue Press, seems they have more space to fill, and apparently they have chosen to fill it with crap. Love Dillon, but Blue Press a bit less so, lately...

I read last month's article, read this month's rebuttal. Rolled my eyes at both. Neither covered any new ground; read any 9mm vs. .45 cal post and it will all sound the same.

Couldn't be bothered to reply to either--I'm not going to change anyone's mind, and I have better things to do than engaging in a superfluous argument (note to self...don't bother with next month's firestorm of reply to replies...).

If Blue Press were web-based (maybe it is?), it would be "click-bait".

Otherwise, it's just "crap". Blah Blah Blah...

Best, Rich

[Paladin]

October issue (article Page 10)

[The Annoyed Man]

I used to carry .45 ACP, in either of several different 1911 variations, or in both double and single stack polymer pistols. I’ve also carried a .40 for a while. I sold the .40 because I don’t like the characteristics of the recoil impulse. But eventually I stopped carrying a .45 and switched to 9mm Glocks, and I did that for a very specific reason....my wife carries and shoots Glock 9mm pistols, and it was important to me that she should be able to pick up my gun and use it if she had to. She is not really a gun person, and she has no interest in learning to shoot other calibers and/or pistols; and I’ve been married to her long enough to know not to push my luck trying to push her into it.

So I now carry Glock 9mms. I agree that a .45 hits a bit harder, but 9mm has been killing people even longer than .45 ACP. Shot placement does count, but it’s not the only factor; and at least one of the variables is how determined the bad guy is to press the attack. It’s worth noting that Amber Guyger, who was convicted of murdering Botham Jean just a few days ago, fired 2 rounds.... only one of which hit the victim. That bullet hit him in the upper chest at a downward angle, went down through through his chest, passing through some major blood vessels and his lung, penetrated his diaphragm into his abdomen, holing both his stomach and his intestines. That’s impressive penetration. I believe that DPD issues 9mm Sigs to their officers, and that the individual officer may substitute .357 Sig if they want, but they have to pay for the gun themselves. If someone has more current info than that, please correct me. In any case, unless Guyger bought herself a .357 Sig and carried it, it LOOKS like she shot Jean with a 9mm, and killed him with one shot. That one shot penetrated deeply and put him out of commission VERY quickly.

I’m not naive enough to believe that all 9mm hits result in 1 shot kills ... but the same could be said for .45 ACP, or even the mighty .357 Magnum. I’ll grant that those two are more powerful and hit harder than a 9mm........BUT.....the 9mm hits hard enough. I don’t feel particularly under-armed with a 9mm, and at least my wife can shoot it and isn’t intimidated by it. I don’t think I’m likely to need all 15 rounds in the mag that’s in the gun, but it holds that many, so I might as well carry them. And I always have at least one spare mag with me, because 2 is 1 and 1 is none.

[flechero]

...switched to 9mm Glocks, and I did that for a very specific reason....my wife carries and shoots Glock 9mm pistols, and it was important to me that she should be able to pick up my gun and use it if she had to.

That is not only a valid reason, but a very compelling one. I'm fortunate that my wife shoots both 1911 and striker fired guns. But being the good woman she is, prefers the 1911 in .45acp

I agree that a .45 hits a bit harder, but 9mm has been killing people even longer than .45 ACP. Shot placement does count, but it’s not the only factor...

I’m not naive enough to believe that all 9mm hits result in 1 shot kills ... but the same could be said for .45 ACP, or even the mighty .357 Magnum. I’ll grant that those two are more powerful and hit harder than a 9mm........BUT.....the 9mm hits hard enough. I don’t feel particularly under-armed with a 9mm, and at least my wife can shoot it and isn’t intimidated by it. I don’t think I’m likely to need all 15 rounds in the mag that’s in the gun, but it holds that many, so I might as well carry them. And I always have at least one spare mag with me, because 2 is 1 and 1 is none.

I agree with you. 9mm is a good round, but I think .45acp is a better round.

My only complaint, if you want to call it that, is that so few people these days [on the 9mm side] can/will admit that there is a difference.


In the words of the Rob Leatham - While 9mm may be entirely adequate, it is not equivalent [to .45acp] so don't kid yourselves.

[narcissist]

I will stick with what I know works for me. Of course I am pigheaded. I joined the Marines when it was not cool, only stupid people who could not hold a Real Job in the World joined.

Carried the 1911 for more than a decade before the transition to the Beretta. Unit I was in kept all of the Beretta's in the armory after six months of fooling with them. Used our Unit's Special Training Funds to acquire a "Modern pistol" chambered in .45 ACP for each line person in the unit. Carried those in DS and again in 2004 in Al Anbar province.

School of Hard Knocks degree is what I follow. It works for me, others can do what works for them. After all that is why we can choose between mustard or ketchup, or both.

You brought up the 1911, im sure by the time you used it all the kinks were worked out. My Father also my Uncle said in Vietnam the 1911s were inaccurate and malfunctioned a lot. Any Vietnam Vets on here remember this and if so maybe if you dont mind telling us you're experience with the weapons. Also in nam, they had the M1 Garand then changed to the M-16 near the middle of the war. Which weapon did you prefer? Sorry off subject but....

[The Annoyed Man]

I will stick with what I know works for me. Of course I am pigheaded. I joined the Marines when it was not cool, only stupid people who could not hold a Real Job in the World joined.

Carried the 1911 for more than a decade before the transition to the Beretta. Unit I was in kept all of the Beretta's in the armory after six months of fooling with them. Used our Unit's Special Training Funds to acquire a "Modern pistol" chambered in .45 ACP for each line person in the unit. Carried those in DS and again in 2004 in Al Anbar province.

School of Hard Knocks degree is what I follow. It works for me, others can do what works for them. After all that is why we can choose between mustard or ketchup, or both.

You brought up the 1911, im sure by the time you used it all the kinks were worked out. My Father also my Uncle said in Vietnam the 1911s were inaccurate and malfunctioned a lot. Any Vietnam Vets on here remember this and if so maybe if you dont mind telling us you're experience with the weapons. Also in nam, they had the M1 Garand then changed to the M-16 near the middle of the war. Which weapon did you prefer? Sorry off subject but....

In Vietnam, they switched from the M14 to the M16, not from the M1 Garand to the M16. The M14 entered service in 1959. It was replaced by the M16 in 1968. The M14 was similar to (but not exactly like) the M1 Garand, but it had different furniture, an external removable box magazine, different gas-piston, different caliber (.308/7.62 NATO as opposed to .30-'06), a roller bearing added to the right-side bolt lug, a different operating rod, different sights front and rear, the addition if a flashhider, and let’s not forget the all important select fire lever with a setting for "full boogaloo". But yeah, other than those minor differences, it was "the same rifle".

[srothstein]

You brought up the 1911, im sure by the time you used it all the kinks were worked out. My Father also my Uncle said in Vietnam the 1911s were inaccurate and malfunctioned a lot. Any Vietnam Vets on here remember this and if so maybe if you dont mind telling us you're experience with the weapons. Also in nam, they had the M1 Garand then changed to the M-16 near the middle of the war. Which weapon did you prefer? Sorry off subject but....

Not quite the Viet Nam war, but I entered the USMC Reserves in 74 through an officer training program. We were given 1911s and M14s for qualification in training. I had no problems with the 1911 then and fired expert with hit. When I decided to go active in 75 and enlisted in the Army, I used 1911s and M16s. Had no problem with the 1911 and qualified expert with it for the next 8 years. A lot of people thought it would be better to throw it at the guy than try to shoot it and that belief is hard to shake. I remember one time at Ft. Leavenworth, another MP was having trouble qualifying. After a few tries with his assigned weapon, he was blaming it for his shooting. Since he had just seen me qualify, he asked if he could borrow my gun. He said it must be one of the rare good ones to shoot that well. I swapped guns with him and he did qualify OK. At the same time, I went through the course with his pistol and made expert again. End result was we convinced him that his faith and lack of faith in the particular weapon used was affecting his shooting. Confidence does count.

I am convinced, though I have no empirical proof, that the bad reputation of the 1911 was caused by soldiers who had never had real training with pistols getting one for a special assignment and not knowing how to use it properly. This then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and a reputation is born.

[The Annoyed Man]

I agree with you. 9mm is a good round, but I think .45acp is a better round.

My only complaint, if you want to call it that, is that so few people these days [on the 9mm side] can/will admit that there is a difference.


In the words of the Rob Leatham - While 9mm may be entirely adequate, it is not equivalent [to .45acp] so don't kid yourselves.

I compensate by carrying 135 grain +P ammo, trying to close the gap a bit that exists between 9mm and .45 ACP—even if it still isn’t a match.

[narcissist]

I will stick with what I know works for me. Of course I am pigheaded. I joined the Marines when it was not cool, only stupid people who could not hold a Real Job in the World joined.

Carried the 1911 for more than a decade before the transition to the Beretta. Unit I was in kept all of the Beretta's in the armory after six months of fooling with them. Used our Unit's Special Training Funds to acquire a "Modern pistol" chambered in .45 ACP for each line person in the unit. Carried those in DS and again in 2004 in Al Anbar province.

School of Hard Knocks degree is what I follow. It works for me, others can do what works for them. After all that is why we can choose between mustard or ketchup, or both.

You brought up the 1911, im sure by the time you used it all the kinks were worked out. My Father also my Uncle said in Vietnam the 1911s were inaccurate and malfunctioned a lot. Any Vietnam Vets on here remember this and if so maybe if you dont mind telling us you're experience with the weapons. Also in nam, they had the M1 Garand then changed to the M-16 near the middle of the war. Which weapon did you prefer? Sorry off subject but....

In Vietnam, they switched from the M14 to the M16, not from the M1 Garand to the M16. The M14 entered service in 1959. It was replaced by the M16 in 1968. The M14 was similar to (but not exactly like) the M1 Garand, but it had different furniture, an external removable box magazine, different gas-piston, different caliber (.308/7.62 NATO as opposed to .30-'06), a roller bearing added to the right-side bolt lug, a different operating rod, different sights front and rear, the addition if a flashhider, and let’s not forget the all important select fire lever with a setting for "full boogaloo". But yeah, other than those minor differences, it was "the same rifle".

Bet with the 7.62 x51 at "full boogaloo" <--(good one) was pretty hard to handle but of course needed. My father said they trained him at basic on what I realize now is the M14 ( im know he said it was the M-14 I just forgot ) but when he got to the field they had the M-16s. I can't remember if or how much training he said they did do with the M-16s. Guessing not much. Not to long ago we were at a gun show looking at the M-14 ( not full auto ) maybe called something different example:M-4/ Ar-15, anyway it was made by Springfield in full synthetic stock. Picked it up and they are solid as a Rock! Good feel also. Price was around $1650.00, not bad it had a rail infront of the action for a scope. All around good gun, felt like it could of been dragged behind a truck for 10 miles and it would of still operated.