| The .45 ACP is not a very powerful
cartridge. Now that may come as a shock to those who are thinking "if this is an
argument in favor of the .45 auto then I'd hate to see the other side". It might come
as even more of a shock for those who recognize me as a vocal - if not infamous -
supporter of the cartridge for self defense. I start my treatment of this subject this way
because too often we tend to exaggerate a bit when developing positions in the eternal
debate of which cartridge is best for a given mission. The mission, in our case, is
obvious but, never the less, must be stated. The mission of the defensive pistol is to
save the life of its user - or an innocent third party he is authorized to use lethal
force to protect. In more specific terms it is to end a lethal attack as expeditiously as
possible. Since it takes very little time for an attacker to strike a potentially mortal
blow (either with a firearm, edged weapon or blunt instrument) then it is imperative that
the cartridge chambered in your sidearm be as effective as practicable - for you may not
have the luxury of more than one or two shots before the blow is struck.. In truth, no
handgun round is effective enough on a determined human attacker to achieve this goal
unless the central nervous system is disrupted (this does not mean just hit - it means
serious damage must be done to the brain or spine). Unfortunately, these targets are
extremely hard to locate on a three dimensional target in a dynamic situation and are next
to impossible to hit reliably. That leaves us with disabling the adversary by causing a
loss of blood pressure, and thereby, depriving the brain of oxygen which brings about
gradual incapacitation. While no handgun round (and few rifle rounds) are effective
instantly with this type of hit, some do a better job than others. Obviously, the faster
we can drop blood pressure the quicker the incapacitation. The simple fact is, the bigger
the hole(s) the faster the drop in blood pressure. I cannot find any evidence of some
"force" or "energy" or any other property which causes rapid
incapacitation (as opposed to relatively slow incapacitation due to clinical shock) in and
of itself. Of course a simple way to increase the size of the hole is to shoot again,
repeatedly and often. However, in trained hands, at normal defense ranges (about 10 feet
or less) a .45 Auto can be fired as fast and accurately as a .22 auto. It is more a matter
of training than of caliber choice up to a point. Depending on the shooter, and to some
extent the weight of the gun, somewhere about the level of the .41 or .44 Magnum full
power loads we get into recoil that is unmanageable in rapid fire for most people.
I see a hand raised at the back of the room. "What about hydra-static
shock?" I do not mean to sound boastful or arrogant but I have been
experimenting with firearms in the hunting field for over 30 years and I have been
involved in law enforcement both as an officer and a trainer for over a quarter of a
century. Does that make me the ultimate expert - absolutely not! What it does mean is that
I have been searching for answers to terminal ballistic questions for a long time. In that
time I have shot a lot of game, interviewed a lot of folks who have been shot, have been
shot myself and seen dozens of films and videos of people actually being shot. I have shot
critters from 10 to 400 pounds (and witnessed bigger stuff go down) with bullets from .22
to .70 caliber and velocities in excess of 4,000 fps. I have not noticed anything
consistent that I could call "hydra-static shock" other than in vermin in the 10
to 30 pound weight range and shot with fragile bullets that impacted at 3000 fps or more.
I have shot larger animals with bullets that impacted at well above 3,000 fps and, while
the permanent wound cavities were impressive in some cases, I have not noticed any
consistent "magic" instant incapacitation when bullets did not strike the
Central Nervous System (CNS) or at least hit close. If a 150 gr. Rifle bullet at 3500 fps
(.300 Weatherby) will not instantly take down a deer by virtue of its "hydrostatic
shock" or "kinetic energy dump" with a lung or heart shot, then what chance
does a 9mm have (or a .45) at 1/3 the velocity? Having studied terminal ballistics on both
game and humans I have concluded that a 200 pound deer is much easier to incapacitate than
a 200 pound determined attacker (note that there are many cases of
"undetermined" attackers who have been stopped by warning shots, insignificant
wounds or even threats).
Some advocates of small to medium calibers usually opine that shot placement is far
more important than any considerations of caliber or "power". They are ALMOST
right. The key to rapid incapacitation is, of course, what the bullet destroys. This is
not exactly the same as "shot placement". Once the bullet strikes the surface of
a target "shot placement" has run its course, what the bullet actually destroys
inside the body is now subject to terminal ballistic properties. The .22 long rifle solid
is noted for its tendency to tumble and change course after it impacts a large target. It
is quite "lethal" though it is not noted to be a "stopper". No doubt,
however, if a .22 bullet strikes the brain or the spinal cord (with enough force to damage
it) rapid incapacitation would be a result. The trouble is a bullet that is placed
perfectly, say on the sternum, may deflect or disintegrate and not reach the organ it was
intended to destroy.
So, if what the bullet hits, and the amount of permanent damage done to vital organs is
the key to stopping an attack then what is wrong with using medium bore cartridges like
the 9mm or the .357 Magnum. In truth, IF one is willing to take the conservative approach
with well constructed bullets which might expand a bit but will "stay the
course" and penetrate to the vitals from all angles, there is little wrong with them.
The trouble is that pundits and experts want to push the "shock" or
"energy" properties to the maximum and that leads to light weight, fragile
bullets which are less likely to penetrate to the back of the chest wall or to the spine.
This does result in some spectacular wounds and in some cases of rapid incapacitation. But
it also results in spectacular failures, exemplified by the failures of the 9mm silver-tip
in the infamous "Miami Massacre" or the gunfight in which trooper Mark Coates
shot his assailant 5 times center mass with a .357 Magnum, only to be killed with a .22
mini revolver.
Even modern technology does not completely overcome the laws of physics. This fall I
shot two animals with the hot 9 X 23 cartridge. I used both the Winchester USA factory
load a 125 gr soft point at about 1525 fps from my 5" 1911 and a handload of a
Speer 124 gr. Gold Dot at just under 1600 fps. This performance is at the upper end of the
scale for medium bore defense loads. These loads both expanded a little (but not like the
pictures in magazines) and held their weight fairly well and both penetrated about
10". While both hit ribs, neither hit major bone except the Gold Dot which bumped up
against a leg bone on the off side with no damage, ending its travel. While neither bullet
was by any means a failure neither was the damage done to the animals spectacular. Both
produced holes in lung tissue about the size of your thumb. I have seen similar wounds
with .45 ball bullets that tumbled (this happens in large targets as often as not).
One might logically ask "so why choose a .45 if a good 9mm produces equal
wounds?" The simple answer is that, while the best (or worst depending on your point
of view) 9mm wounds are about equal to the least effective .45s - and in some cases
produce even larger diameter but shallower wounds - you pay for this by compromising the
consistency of your cartridge performance. A 9mm hollowpoint that gives consistent 12 inch
penetration in ordnance gelatin in the lab sometimes gives 8 10" penetration
in real flesh and blood targets and sometimes it gives 3 or 4" penetration and I have
seen as little as 1/2" penetration with 125 gr. .38 +P jhp (and no it did not
disintegrate nor glance off - it just stopped). If you happen to be shooting the one that
gives 3" penetration (and poor Mark Coates had 5 in a row with his Magnum) then it
does not matter if you shoot well you might as well be shooting spit wads.
So far we are comparing the best medium bores to the least spectacular larger bores. If
you compare bullets of similar technology the larger bore shows proportional performance.
A .45 230 gr. Ball round destroys about 1.7 times as much tissue as a 9mm ball round. A
230 gr. .45 jhp destroys about 1.7 time as much tissue as a 9mm 124 jhp that expands. The
thing is, due to its mass the 230 grain .45 gives more consistent penetration. While it is
difficult, you can make a .45 an inefficient performer. You do this by lightening the
bullet and increasing the velocity. While some 185 gr. .45s, reportedly, are well
constructed and give fairly consistent penetration, some are not. I have had 185 gr.
Winchester Silver-Tips fail to penetrate 8 pound ground hogs this is not confidence
inspiring.
While I have come across some lethal encounters that took a lot of rounds to settle
they mostly were the result of either poor hits (or complete misses) or lack of
penetration. Nearly all of the high round count cases I have reviewed involved 9mms, .38s,
.357s or smaller calibers. This is not to say they do not occur with major caliber
rounds. It is to say I have been collecting data for 30 years and have not encountered
many cases in which multiple hits (more than three as two or three shots are a fairly
normal reflex action) from major caliber cartridges to the center of the chest have not
been sufficient, - the single exception being a case involving the .41 Magnum loaded with
JSP bullets which did not expand - they did penetrate - it took five hits center mass to
stop the attacker - and have not encountered any with the .45, even with Ball. I have
encountered several with 5, 6 or even more hits to the center of the chest with .38, .357,
9mm and .223 rifle rounds failing to stop. Almost every one could be traced to lack of
penetration with a couple of exceptions that hit the heart but just did not cause enough
damage to be effective quickly. Note I am not talking about "torso" hits. There
is a lot of area in the torso in which a hit will seldom produce rapid incapacitation even
if hit by a 12 ga. slug or a 30-06 - we simply cannot count such data if we are going to
learn anything.
Please note that I am not saying you should avoid cartridge X because it has a track
record of 50% "stops" and there are cartridges with better records - the
information available in these data bases is simply unusable to predict what a cartridge
will do in terms if incapacitation. It is thought by some analysts that in as many as 50%
of recorded cases the subject stopped the fight for psychological reasons - and this is
not a caliber issue - so we cannot use such data to support conclusions about power. Add
to this that many data bases are polluted by inclusion of bad hits or a questionable
definition of "incapacitation" and we get into very muddy water. What we can do
is take note of the failures and try to figure out the cause.
So, do the medium bores lack "stopping power", "shocking power" or
what ever term you choose to use. Yes they do. So do the .45 Auto and the .44 magnum and
the .223 so that is not the defining issue. The issue is that they are less likely to
drive their bullet - given equal placement - through an important target with adequate
damage to the organ. In short, in the popular loads, they fail to reach or damage their
intended target more often than the larger calibers. To be sure there is the issue of
overpenetration but I feel that it is overblown. There are so many different types of
tissue and bone in the human anatomy that one cannot precisely predict how much
penetration he will need nor how much he will get. We have seen where bullets that give
14" of penetration consistently in ordnance gelatin can sometimes give 3" in the
human body. We need a good bit more margin for error than this for rounds to be effective
in their mission. Personally I want rounds that give 12 to 14 inches in gelatin as a
minimum, not a maximum and frankly I really want 18 inches but there are few loads with
give this and expand also.
In conclusion, having a reasonable amount of experience and study I have no doubt that
the larger caliber handguns are more effective that the smaller ones, given exactly the
same placement of bullets on the surface of the target, but not because of some energy,
force or power which bowls people over or carries some sort of "shock". It is
because they more consistently drill holes - larger holes - through the intended organs.
Does that mean they are better for you. Perhaps, but if you do not shoot your weapon well
it does not matter. On the other hand I have encountered cases in which people shot their
medium bores well - extremely well - and still died because their bullet did not do their
job. It is a dilemma of some import.
Perhaps the best advice I have heard on this matter is "shoot the biggest caliber
you can handle". My admonition is, dont settle for less if you dont
really have to. And if you do have to, use a bullet that will drive through to the vital
organs from any angle and through simple barriers (like arms). There are many other
factors to selecting a defense handgun, capacity, ergonomics, reliability, accuracy,
concealability and so forth (not in that order). All are at least as important as the
caliber you select but remember - failure in any one area means failure to carry out the
mission. What I am saying is dont get lulled into the idea that the choice of
caliber is unimportant or that a medium bore is big enough if the weapon meets all the
other requirements, because .... a .45 is not big enough! |