[jimhigginbotham]

It would be interesting to read their justification for reverting back to the .45 ACP. I have no dog in this 'fight', so to speak, I'm just curious about what the official government rationale is.

Their justification is that an extremely high percentage of AARs (After Action Reports) contain the message that the 9mm is inadequate as a "stopper".

The troops seem to be universally clammoring for more power in a pistol and when a recomendation is mentioned in an AAR it usually specifically mentions the .45 ACP. Still most of the AARs simply mention the inadequacy of the 9mm without a specific caliber recommendation.

I have read quite a few AARs in the last few years. I have not read one that stated the 9mm was adequate. That does not mean I think these are infallibe sources of information, it just means the folks up the chain of command are seeing a LOT of complaints.

Onward,
Jim

 

[jimhigginbotham]

Actually, I don't think a lot of this is theory nor will many be surprised. There are what some would find to be a pretty high percentage of .45s in theater (note that the Col. who captured Sadaam was packing an old G.I. 1911a1 by preference). With which to compare.

While rifles are decidely easier to shoot, have longer range and will penetrate *some* chance barriers better (some they will not which is why we choose the 5.56 in Law Enforcement) - the 5.56 does not necessarilly stop people quicker with equal hits to the high chest than does .45 ball (though it certainly does seem to do a little more damage). It is probably better with more periferal hits. It does not damage bone as much however.

The big advantage is that you can place more hits - more accuarately with the carbine. That is the main reason most would prefer it for CQB.

I cannot locate it on my computer or on the military net but once upon a time there was a nifty little document which listed the number of "center mass" (whatever that is???) hits to incapacitation for the military calibers with ball ammo. IIRC it went like this:

7.62 Nato (M68) - 1.2 rnds.
.45 ACP - 2 rnds
5.56 (M193) - 3 to 4rnds (cant remember which but that certainly agrees with the range what I am hearing from the guys coming back - we tell folks to expect it to take 3-5 *good* hits)
9mm - 6 rnds (that also agrees with some first hand reports). I have a student in one SF unit who called back the first week he was in Afghanistan to report that 9mm ball has the same effect on a Taliban as "a fly hitting a light bulb." On his two subsequent trips to the sandbox the took first a compact .45 then a full sized Govt. Model.

I am assuming that this compilation was based on unarmored targets... light body armor should change that drastically.

Again, that is based on memory (which is sketchy at best but the order of effectiveness was what got my attention). I keep looking for this study but have not run across it yet.

Onward,
Jim

 

[jimhigginbotham]

Chubby;

All numbers should be viewed with skepticism. However, having shot in excess of 2,000 critters and also having collected every bit of info I could on shootings for some 35 years, I don't have any trouble with the figures in the "study" in a general sense.

I have numerous cites of failures of 9mm JHPs (let alone ball) failing with up to 106 hits (in that case - San Bernadino CA S.O. - the coroner reported that 50 of the hits were in lethal areas). While I personally think no pistol rounds (perhaps short of the newer S&W and the Linebaughs) are "powerful" I also know from experience that neither are many rifle calibers.

But I would warn against trying to put some sort of number value on "power"...there are simply way too many variables. What is hit inside the body and the mental attitude of the subject is far more important than physics. It is probably that we must refine our idea of a "good hit" down to details... some even think a hit to the top of the heart is more effective than a hit to the bottom of the heart and I don't think I can argue against that, though I am not sure I buy it completely.

About the only thing we might conclude is that Kinetic Energy has nothing to do with effectiveness and that Temporary Cavity probably has nothing to do with it under most circumstances (there are probably exceptions - and bearing in mind that TC usually is proportional to PC).

Onward and upward,
Jim

 

[jimhigginbotham]

<snip>As an addendum to that last statement, I'd like to say that obviously, it's best to be lucky, skillful, and carry a big gun.

I cant argue with that

Onward,
Jim