First of all....I am delighted to see this thread has become more than just a poll. I smiled quietly to myself when I read Michaelson's post. It brought knowledge, history and a wee bit of wisdom to the table. Others have contributed some great points as well. I have just a couple of points to add.
There has been much talk about "knock down power". For the most part that is not logical or applicable when discussing handguns. Physics teaches us that the amount of energy received cannot be greater than the energy transmitted. In other words, the amount of hit or recoil you feel when shooting is less than the hit or punch felt by the person being shot. Most high power rifles don't even have enough "knock down power" to physically knock you to the ground much less a handgun. If I take a pin and poke you in the butt and you jump two feet in the air, it won't be due to the force or knock down power of the pin. It is just you reacting to it.
40-50% of people shot in the torso will fall to the ground because that's what they have seen on movies and television. They have been programmed to fall down when shot.
Many police or military that have been shot in battle don't even know they were wounded until the fight is over. The body goes into survival mode and ignores the wound.
The only way to immediately stop someone or incapacitate them is to basically kill them. Instant incapacitation with a firearm can only be done by shooting someone in, the brain, the upper spine from the neck to the head, the heart or the two main arteries that run on each side of the spine deep within the chest cavity: the aorta and the vena cava. The latter is the larger target and is why law enforcement trains to shoot center mass.
I have read police reports of bad guys shot 42 times and still shooting back. He had received what is called non-survivable wounds…meaning that if you could have stopped the fight and took this guy to the hospital he would still have died. Never-the-less he still fought on until he was shot in the spine.
What all this means is….where you shoot has a much greater determination of stopping power (a better term) than a discussion of whither a 9mm or .45 is better.
Those interested in knowing more about this grusome subject should look for the written works of Dr. Martin Fackler, the US Army's former leading specialist on the subject and the current President of International Wound Ballistics. Also Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow have done some very interesting studies on ammunition as well.
Michaelson brings up a good point about 9mm ammo in 1936. I hadn’t considered that. Due to the winter clothing….. in that situation full metal jacket would be better. Hollow points would get clogged, so a bigger hole would be better. I think if I had to choose a handgun to fight multiple guys with machineguns (which is NOT my idea of a good time), I would have chosen a Colt .45 ACP with 230 grain FMJ. I could change mags quick and who knows……being that round will penetrate 29 inches of flesh, I could probably get two for one!
Michaelson wrote: Of course, using today's standards, all bets are off as the 9mm has been developed as a highly successful and powerful round, especially after it's lousy performance in the infamous Miami shootout, but that's another story.
I don't know about that. That lousey performing 9mm gave one of the bad guys a non-survivable wound at the start of the fight. Also the same folks at the FBI who were bad mouthing the 9mm decided the 10mm was the way to go and we both know what a big sucess that was.
We will have to talk about this over a cold one next time I see you. May perhaps?
