TexasCHLforum.com

nitrogen wrote:OK, this thread is somewhat dead, so first, apologies for resurrecting it.

I wanted to post two pictures that I had sitting on a site that has been down for a few weeks. These are 2 pictures giving the relative size differences between common handgun ammo, both unexpanded and expanded.

Nice red X's.

Geister wrote:

XDgal wrote:Personally, I don't worry about the difference, I carry ( and pratice with) both 9mm and 45acp! IMHO, as long as you can hit your target, a bleeding hole is a bleeding hole, doesn't really mater if its 1/16th ( 0.0625) of an inch (which is the difference between the two) bigger or smaller. It's what you will carry and shoot well with that really matters.

Yeah, but if I shoot an attacker, I want him to stop in his tracks, not just bleed.

As I have written, we had a police officer shot center mass with six.45 rounds. He was able to move to cover, draw and put his attacker down with is .38 revolver.

A .45 is not a magic man stopper.

Geister wrote:I've never seen any benefit of using a 9mm when one can go for a .45. More ammo with the 9mm? Sure, but the .45 is more powerful anyway.

I believe the only strong argument for the 9mm is the fact that 9mm pistols can be built smaller.

9mm= less expensive to practice
9mm= much more concealable
9mm= more ammo capacity per size
9mm= less felt recoil (especially important for smaller people or people with medical issues where recoil can be dramatic.)


It entirely depends on the user and requirements.

That said, .45 for me. But I would not feel undergunned with a modern 9mm over a .45.

stroo wrote:TX Investigator:
As I thought about this last night, I have to apologize if I offended you in some way. I was only trying to make two points being (1) that shot placement matters more that caliber when talking 9mm up and (2) that head shots should be taken as a last resort after COM has failed or if it is the only shot you have.

I agree but add 1 more; if the BG needs to be instantaneously "shut off" such as holding a family member as a shield with a deadly weapon, etc.

It appears that I misread your statement as a recommendation to take headshots as a first resort. I am glad you don't teach that since every training I have had and every reputable source I have talked to recommend shooting COM first. Again, if I offended you, I am sorry.

I am not offended, but thanks. Someone wondered why the person would have made a head shot, and my point is that people confident with that might do so. I failed to add that my confidence in being able to make that shot would be dependant on many things in that particular situation. Make sense?

stroo wrote:TX Investigator,

Heads are small targets, particularly considering that you really only have a small area on the head to hit to shut a BG down.

That makes it hard target to hit in the right spot under pressure, even by skilled shooters.

[heavy sarcasm] Really? I never would have guessed. [/heavy sarcasm] I am fully aware of and teach that. What I wrote does not contradict that.

Who knows, maybe he did aim COM and he missed those, then put one in the guys forehead. Any as someone else said, it did stop the fight.

Perhaps he simply shot high from his intended POA and hit him in the head. I agree, we don't know where his POA was.

Bullets can and do act strange. We had an officer shot 6 times with a .45, pretty much point blank COM and survive.

We had a guy get shot in the upper leg with a .22, and he died.

stroo wrote:It sounds like the bullet hit him in the forehead which is the toughest part of the head. Not really a good place to shoot someone.

.

You have to wonder why the victim was shooting for the head instead of COM.

We don't know that he was. That said, if I am confident that I can make a head shot I would not hesitate to do so.