The 1911 Colt Auto Just Won't Die

.45 why shoot twice?

It has always been my fav.

No contest.

If you ever had to lock and load to defend yourself then you would want to be holding a .45cal. in your hand.

Stopping power is what counts.

I hardly ever used or carried my pistol outside the wire in Afghanistan. For the weight of a pistol and it's ammo I could carry two more rifle mags.

Besides, my magazines were dented from being squashed against my body while seated in vehicles when in their pouches and would not feed properly so I couldn't use the pistol anyway. This is why I like plastic mags for pistols. Modern polymers are dent resistant and more durable.

Also, I never heard of anyone I worked with having to pull their pistol and use it in combat.

Robert L at August 29, 2012 4:04 PM

Yeah I concur...

I carried a P35, back in the day. and seldom used it....my khukri got more use.

There is no doubt about the .45 ACP power-wise.
My Thompson could make "thin skinned game under 200 lb" touch their toes when hit in the belt buckle...out to 100 yds.

However, I found most of the grunts were intimidated by the hairy recoil of the big Colt(flinching). 9mm no so much...my position is: better a head shot with a 9 than a miss with a .45.

The 1911 is by far the best handgun in Battlefield: Bad Company 2.

I love it when this guy tests all this stuff in his Youtube videos:

http://www.youtube.com/user/hickok45

There was a company,Para Ordnance, not sure if still in business, that widened the mag well by 1/2 inch. This allowed a double stacked mag to be used, like Browning Hi Power. It still fired .45 and the slightly wider grip allowed better control.

As long as it gets the job done (if you know what I mean).

If in doubt, give them both.

10mm. If it's good enough for bears... :D

We just need NATO to adopt it so the economies of scale kick in and make it affordable for the rest of us.

Shoot what’s best for you. The marines should have an individual choice between the two.

I like the .45acp 1911 myself, shoots sharp and clean from my Kimber Gold Combat II – (for me). Guaranteed 1” 25yard 3 shot group from the factory.

Nothing wrong with the 9mm, especially for big hands on a double stack magazine and good hollow point ammo. Have always liked the CZ-75 owned my first in 85’ and have been shooting a boringly functional and accurate S&W M&P 9 for this last year.

Which of course is the biggest issue for the military, NATO hardball ammo (no expansion).
9mm lots of small holes verses .45ACP fewer but bigger holes. Whatever pistol puts the most holes quickly, accurately, and comfortably on target for each individual is the pistol for them.

Never warmed up to the .40S&W, it's neither fish nor fowl for me. Little too much wear and tear on the pistol for my liking (in a personal firearm), still prefer either the 9mm or .45 overall.

"The pro 45 crowd says that where you would need only 1 round of a 45 you would need 2 or more from an M9.

When the M9 was tested, it was not tested on insurgents wearing body armour that were hopped up on drugs. I say this to try and level the debate on this issue from different eras. To play devils advocate, if you were only shooting at an enemy wearing a couple layers of shirts, then the 9mm could have worked with a double tap."

If you need to draw your pistol, the bad guys are probably too close; and you are standing in the kill zone of their vest armaments. If you had to rely on one of the two I would go with the 45 as as the higher weight projectile would deliver an increased kinetic punch, hopefully before the bad guy detonates.

Pistols would be okay in the range 50 to 100 yards, depending on your skill, your rifle around 800-1200 yards. (excluding sniper rifles)
Also accuracy would vary depending if you are using the recommended two handed grip, or going all Wyatt Earp with a one handed style (favoured by movie fans, less so by seasoned professionals).

If the bad guy is within 25 yards with a loaded vest you are most likely dead...due to a barrage of ball bearings. :(

Also the longer the barrel and with faster burning powder you can increase muzzle velocity and accuracy; assuming a reasonably steady hand.

I would concur with sasquatch, if the bad guy is 100 yds out and better, the tool of choice may still be your rifle.

Cheers

Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”

Neither. 10mm offers stopping power and capacity. Glock 20 is the way to go unless you are blessed enough to live in a concealed carry state in which case go with the Glock 29.

Disclaimer, I have zero combat trigger time, and only one armed incident in my life with zero shots fired.

I've shot a hell of a lot of guns though. Pistols I've owned were a .380, a 9mm and a .38 snubbie. All of which I had to sell when I came home to Ontario which hacked me off. I'd sooner have had a .45, but they cost a fortune and I was poor at the time. 9mm recoil is less than .45 in most guns I've fired, so where recoil is a concern 9mm is worth a look.

According to Dr. Martin Fackler, the .45 outdoes the 9mm for overall damage potential. He's the wound ballistics guru, he's done the experiments.

My personal experience, I met several patients in Yonkers NY who had been shot several times with a 9mm pistol and lived. One guy was shot through the liver, transversely through the neck as he turned, and through the fibula as he RAN AWAY, and indeed ran for several blocks. Another guy was hit several times in the torso with 9mm from a MAC-10, didn't seem to have done him much harm to my eye.

In the literature and from cops you hear that story a lot, man shot several times with 9mm runs away. You hear it a lot less often that the guy runs away after being shot with a .45.

If I remember my history the Colt 1911 .45 ACP was adopted by the US Army after the Philippines, because the Moros wouldn't fall down if you shot them with anything smaller.

The US Army adopted the 9mm pistol so women could shoot comfier and to fit in with the rest of NATO. Not because the 9mm is the best choice for shooting people.

Even .45 is marginal, for my taste. I like .303, .308, 8mm Schnauzer (dog joke!),.300 WinMag and 12 gauge for my social occasions. If you has to shoot 'em you should try to hurt 'em.

Mark >

"When the M9 was tested, it was not tested on insurgents wearing body armour that were hopped up on drugs."

The reality is NO pistol is effective against even light body armor. Both the 9mm & .45ACP are duds really, with penetrating edge going to the nine. Unless used in a small carbine to dramatically increase velocities.

The best common (mid-range) pistol rounds for penetration would probably be the 10mm as suggested above or a .357mag. IMO. They each have the snot in velocity for thicker clothing ecetera.

Another pricey auto pistol penetrator is the .357SIG (a necked down .40S&W to .355”), and I do believe both the Russian and British intelligence have produced some wicked little armor penetrating rounds in some specialized pistol ammunitions.

Hans;

Fast burning powder= less velocity.

The Phantom >

Absolutely agree with everything you said.

The biggest difference here is the “Philosophy of Use”.

The marines using hardball verses police & civilians using hallow points is key to stopping power, and a big consideration towards the .45ACP for the marines.

Street statistics are also flawed, especially when it comes to gang banger shootings what-have-you. Aside from no skills other than dry firing at TV cartoons, they tend to load their “nines” with the cheapest hardball they can find. (Obviously a good thing).

The most credible real world studies show (FBI penetration tests) along with Marshall & Snow, that the most effective “one shot stop” commercial ammo on the market is Federal .357mag 125gr hollow point fired from a 4” – 6” barrel.

Just like General George Patton if you don’t mind packing it's weight, and learn to speed load, there’s no pistol more devastating than a 4 – 6” .357mag revolver on the hip, or close at hand.

These comments are from an ex soldier, who never saw any action. I have fired a lot of pistols, and most people cannot hit the broad side of a barn with a pistol - even soldiers who are trained to use them because it is their primary weapon. In the old days in the Canadian army as an officer I was equipped with a 9mm. Most people did not carry pistols. I understand that in the US forces almost everyone carries a pistol.

I am inclined to think that in most cases its dead weight. Why would you ever need to shoot anyone with a hand gun if you are armed with a rifle/carbine as well?

Given that just about any pistol is useless against someone with body armour, NATO issued a requirement (long time ago now) for a "personal defence Weapon" for people who were not directly in combat. The number one requirement was that it had to be able to defeat body armour. I think a weapon called the FN P90 came out of this but don't know anything about that.

Other than special requirements a pistol is a useless weapon. If I had to go into combat I would ditch my pistol and get a rifle.

Minuteman >

All true, but there is a case for redundancy, especially if separated from your unit.

Pistols are small and compact; they serve as a backup if your rifle failed to function, became lost, or was “inconvenient” to carry (evasion, wounded, disguised).

2 -3 pounds of pistol + ammo seems like a small amount if you needed it, to me at least, but each to their own.

There’s also a case for general carry around base. The Fort Hood shooter would have gone down if a few soldiers had a sidearm no doubt (it was a highlighted issue at the time). The same could also be said for base camps in hostile territories (Green Zones) where soldiers may be more at ease without their rifles, but at least minimally armed at all times.

Just putting those points out there.

Two items, first regarding para ordnance, that Ted mentioned, they were a Canadian company headquartered in Toronto, but between mayor davy miller and billy blair they up and moved to the states.. north Carolina I believe.

Second, regarding the 9mm.. Col. Jeff Cooper said it best,... use a .45, a 9mm will just hurt someone, maybe put out an eye... however my personal favorite is the 40 cal.

The 1911 Colt Auto Just Won't Die

Unlike the 2012 Chevy Volt.

Col. Jeff Cooper, Bill Jordan , Elmer Keith were .44 or .45 fans. Keith designed 44 mag is easiest to reload. versatile, mild or wild loads.

There is no doubt that, all other things being equal, the .45 is a better man-stopper than the 9mm. That’s hardly the whole picture however.

First off, there is the old line that, “A pistol is something you use to fight your way back to the rifle you shouldn’t have put down in the first place.” With some very few exceptions, pistols are very much tertiary weapons, ones that will neither win nor lose a battle. Pistols are carried by those unlikely to need a weapon; they are backup or emergency weapons and anybody expecting trouble will have a rifle or something else effective. Too much should not be made of this therefore.

Secondly, the issue of body armour is disingenuous, at best. First, when was the last time that the US armed forces have faced opponents equipped with body armour? Secondly, as Msrk has noted, if the opponent is wearing armour, neither the .45 nor the 9mm will penetrate. If anything, the 9mm is a better penetrator.

Lastly, something that the author has failed to mention – training. A handgun’s only virtue is size and portability. It is a difficult weapon to use. The .45 ACP is renowned for its recoil, far more so than the 9mm Parabellum. This is not an inconsiderable issue. The most important thing is to be able to hit the target and it`s simply easier with the 9mm. It`s much harder to get good with a .45 than with a 9mm; it`s harder to stay that way, too. Yes, this can be overcome with lots of practice, but the people carrying handguns in an army are paradoxically generally those receiving the least practice.

Tempest, meet teapot.

About 20 years ago I was in Chicago. I met a police officer at a function and we started trading stories. My power line stuff was boring in comparison...

Anyway he told me how he traded in his "x" gun with 6 bullets in the gun and 2 extra clips for 18 total for "Y" gun. That one had 19 in the gun(18 in the clip, one in the gun?) and two extra clips for 55 rounds.

Did not have the stopping power he said but he was tired of running out of bullets.

Yeah you had to be there... funnier when he told the story.

It was a long time ago and the exact facts elude me and I am not gun knowledgeable(but pro gun) but this post and replies brought the story back.

As a physician I have treated individuals shot with 9mm 5 to 6 times and at close range who were still walking around when they got to the paramedics. I have treated individuals shot by .22 calibre at close range who were near death.

The reality is that where the bullets land is the real point. That being said, a .45 ACP tends to shatter long bones more often and in my opinion leaves a more devastating permanent wound cavity which is responsible for the bleeding required to eventually incapacitate victims.

Shotgun wounds with the right shot are devastating at close range. The "common and benign according to the media" hunting rifle ie: in 30-06, can leave exit wounds the size of dinner plates.

I have actually seen a lot of new shooters hit targets more accurately with a 45ACP than a 9mm due to the fact that the 1911 has a smaller grip and is easier to hold for people learning how to aquire a proper grip and stance.

The problem with a .44mag hand cannon, besides the fact that 99% of people can’t hit the side of a barn with one, is that the 240grain bullet blows right through assailants without much expansion and dumps most of its energy wherever it lands on the other side.

That is why the .357mag 125gr is considered the most effective one shot stopper. It dumps most of its significant kinetic energy mostly inside its target.

As far as .45ACP and recoil, try hand-loading the 200gr bullet instead of the common 230gr bullet, as it was originally designed by John Browning. It was subsequently overlooked by the military in favor of the 230gr .Using the 200gr it becomes a supremely manageable round with plenty of velocity, punch and much reduced recoil.

I do use the 185gr occasionally due to cheap FMJ bulk bullets I get locally, and the recoil is reduced slightly again, but nothing beats the 200gr overall.

I have shot a Colt 1911 45 and Glock 20 10mm for years. I love the feel of the 1911 over the Glock because it fits my hand better - the Glock's double stacking grip is too wide. Glock has the advantage in that it can be field stripped in 5 seconds with no tools whereas the 1911 takes about 15 minutes with tools. Factory ammo is gentler for the 45, but I reload my own, so I lighten the load in the 10mm a tad so that recoil is about the same.

My personal defense weapon of choice is an AR15 with a 10-1/2" barrel, collapsing stock, laser pointer and a pouch full of 10 round (pistol) clips.

When my shooting buddies mock my Beretta 9 mm vs. their Springfield Armory/Colt/etc .45 I challenge them to a duel. I offer 10 paces ( so they won't miss), but I get the first shot. Remarkably I've yet to have any takers with my obviously to them underpowered handgun. Shuts them right up every time.
I do have other pistols from .22, .357, .40, .44 & .45. I enjoy the 9mm most of all, followed closely by the .357 (Colt Python, 8" barrel.) The S&W .22 is a blast for plinking.

If Mordor ever allows concealed carry I'll choose the .40 cal. Beretta Cougar. My 92 Vertec with frikkin' laser is too big for concealed carry.
BTW: back in my paramedics days we picked up Sumdood that had been shot 6 times in the torso with a .45. His comment to us was: It hurts! F@#%, it hurts! He survived.

knight 99: "As far as .45ACP and recoil, try hand-loading the 200gr bullet instead of the common 230gr bullet, as it was originally designed by John Browning. It was subsequently overlooked by the military in favor of the 230gr .Using the 200gr it becomes a supremely manageable round with plenty of velocity, punch and much reduced recoil."

Absolutely, but the issue 230 FMJ is the round in question.

Grandpa was right. Go with the .45. The 1911 should be in museums around the world as an object of sublime design beauty, reliability, and practicality.

And if given the choice, I would take the .45 even today.

bob >

Yup a little diversion for some of the .45ACP recoil comments.

Personally I shoot the 230gr just fine and the 200gr much better. I would consider felt recoil in a standard 1911 with 200gr loads nearly equal to the recoil of my lighter M&P 9 with standard/ +P-ish loads.

Maybe the Army/ Marines should revisit John Browning’s original intension with the .45ACP if recoil is a contention. No retooling required, cheaper to buy, and lighter to carry by dropping 30gr per round.

Phantom said "If I remember my history the Colt 1911 .45 ACP was adopted by the US Army after the Philippines, because the Moros wouldn't fall down if you shot them with anything smaller."

Thanks for pointing this out. The martial art folks I used to study with were quite proud of this.

The reason the 9mm is preferred by NATO countries is precisely because it often wounds rather than kills. A dead man is just dead. A wounded man needs a couple people to carry him off the field (who are then not firing their weapons effectively) and then extended medical care. And he might end up dead from his wounds later anyways.

This is the argument that will never die. The US adopted the 9mm as it was a NATO approved round that has been around since 1908 that both the Brits and the West Germans used. Since the .223 and .308 are both NATO rounds of US origin it was felt that this was a political compromise.

First off as we are talking military usage here, only 'ball' ammunition is allowed. Leave the hollowpoints out of it.

Also, we have to leave out the revolver rounds. While the .357 magnum is a great cartridge, it has a honking great rim as all revolver cartridges do. This makes it difficult to engineer a semi-automatic pistol that will not jam due to 'nose-diving' of the top round when the slide kicks it in the backside as the action cycles. Also the .357 and .44 magnum cartridges are much longer than cartridges designed for semi-auto pistols. This makes for a big grip so any pistol for them will be suitable for big hands only. Also the slide has to travel farther due to the cartridge length making for a bulkier, heavier gun.

Which brings us to the old warhorses. Which harms the most, a big bullet moving at subsonic speed or a smaller bullet of half the weight moving at supersonic speed? Well a .45 firing a 230gr bullet at 835fps has 356 ftlbs of muzzle energy and a 9mm with a 115gr bullet at 1,155fps has 341 ftlbs, so not that much difference there.

I have never been in combat but I did shoot in IPSC matches a while back with both a CZ75 in 9mm and a Para-Ordnance in .45 which I still own along with a Ruger in .357magnum. I found that the 9mm has a sharper kick to it, with the muzzle snapping upward while the .45 has a slower slide velocity which made for a more manageable recoil so I was able to get the second shot off a few hundredths of a second quicker with the .45. I eventually stopped using the 9mm because I was just that little bit faster with the 45 and just as accurate. As for the magnum, well it has 40% more energy than either of the warhorses. The interval between shots is measured in seconds not tenths of seconds because of its kick and the double-action trigger.

Para-Ordnance was started in Scarborough (a suburb of Toronto) in the late '80s as a maker of wide body receivers and magazines for 1911 style pistols. You bought the receiver with it's double stack magazine well and transferred your slide and barrel assembly from your old single stack pistol. Now you had 14+1 shots in your .45 which was a big advantage in IPSC since you eliminated half your magazine changes in a competition stage. Soon after they sold complete pistols which as far as I know are still made in Toronto. The US headquarters is in North Carolina.
Last year I was told that Para-Ordnance has withdrawn from the Canadian market, which is a shame. I want one of the Wild Bunch Stainless model in my gun safe.

Too many rounds encourage the type of over-shooting seen in the New York, Empire State Building, police shootings of innocent citizens.

Less rounds available lead to more accurate shooting.

I once (Never again!) fired the real man-stopper of a 45-70 revolver. Ouch!

9mm.

A pistol is a secondary weapon used only until you get a functioning primary. It is more important that the pistol be small and light while still being lethal. 9mm pistols and ammo are both.

Soldiers spend a lot of time training on their primary weapon systems and are much more proficient with them than any secondary. As such, if they encounter a stoppage with their primary, the vast majority of the time they will be faster at clearing their primary, which is more effective, than switching to their secondary.

Most front line troops won't even carry a pistol because they are better off carrying more rifle ammo instead. Those that do tend to be vehicle crews, office workers or have a specific use for the pistol.

Throwing around figures about muzzle velocity, calibre, energy, etcetera is mostly bullshit. The most important number is $$$. 9mm is cheaper. Which means that at equal cost the troops get to fire more rounds in training. Better training means better shot placement which trumps the insignificant differences in ballistics.

No combat trigger experience, but lots of trigger time on 9mm, 45ACP and 40 S&W. My goto gun of the bunch is .40S&W. As many have commented, 9 just doesn't quite get the job done, and in mine, has a snappier recoil that I don't like, than my 40 S&W. I would rather have the .40 or 45 for downing power over the 9, but prefer the .40 as a carry - more ammo, good recoil/recovery and I expect the fat little bullets will be more effective than the skinny 9s, and a lot less bulky to pack than the .45. I 've always figured the 9 for a double tapper as a matter of course, so you're carrying the same fire power as the .45 more or less if you need two per to get the job done with the 9.

A lot of police forces pack the .40 S&W rather than the 9.

I've shot them both, never in anger. I remember reading a story by a US soldier armed with a .45 who came face to face with a Luger armed German and they shot each other. He solved the argument by saying, "I've still got the Luger."

Al_in_Ottawa >

Good write-up, agree with everything you said.

The only caveat with your one comment:
“a .45 firing a 230gr bullet at 835fps has 356 ftlbs of muzzle energy and a 9mm with a 115gr bullet at 1,155fps has 341 ftlbs,.....” – Al

...... The caveat is the extra available momentum with the .45 due to its weight for bone contact (breakage and deformation) along with the larger wound channel regardless of FMJ or HP.

A higher velocity does indeed generate the energy, but it also sheds itself quickly when it connects with solids. A sledgehammer verses a ball-peen in the energy world.

Another consideration with your chosen bullet weights is that the 115gr 9mm has a sectional density of 0.130 and the 230gr .45acp a SD of .162 which amounts to something akin to a short crossbow bolt verses a long bow arrow (in relative terms).

The 230gr .45acp SD is truly comparable to the 147gr. 9mm SD (a favorite of some law enforcement). The difference here is that now your 9mm velocities drop off to around 950 -1000 fps. You’d need to run the energy calc’s on that.

Worthy considerations over raw energy data when considering the application anyway.

speaking as an ex-military armourer, competitive shooter of many years and current LEO, when people ask me why I prefer a .45 I usually say "because they don't make a .46"

I find it more accurate and comtrollable than almost every 9mm racegun and for military and LEO use, para-ordnance makes a very nice doublestack frame that eliminates the magazine capacity issue

I'd rather hit hard once with a hammer than several jabs with an icepick....

in any event, my weapon of choice in a 'social situation' would be a 10ga shotgun with 'ball and buck'...slugs and 0 or maybe #2 or 3 buckshot

you want 100% of the available energy transferred to your target or it's completely wasted and mass x velocity still matters....

a 200gr swc .45 moving at 1000 fps will 'outstop' a 147gr .355 (9mm) moving at 1200 fps and so will a 230gr .45 ball round moving at 850fps

the larger cross sectional area allows for a much faster energy dump and less overpenetration while preventing it from 'blowing up' like some hollowpoints

a wise man once said "never take a pistol to a fight that doesn't have a calibre starting with a '4' which is why liebrals pee themselves when they think of their military and police using something that works instead of getting them killed after punching a half dozen 9mm holes into an attacker that continues on to kill them with a knife

My 2 cents; pistols only serve one purpose; to provide souvenirs for the enemy. If you need a pistol in a theatre of war, you've done somthing wrong. It's silly for home defense when you can have a 12g shotgun. Cops? The cops at my club can't shoot for crap. Stick to your club. Now, that's out of the way, in the several years I taught combat pistol shooting, I've seen lots of things. Get a pistol you LIKE. Shoot it A LOT. The difference between a good shot and a bad one is a truckload of ammunition. I personally like my Python, a finer handgun has yet to be built, but that's my opinion (opinions are like a$$holes; everyone has one, and they usually stink ).

All this talk of large calibers has me reading Shooting Illustrated this evening. The August issue has a nice article about the 6.5 Grendel and the .50 Beowulf, both of which can be fired out of an AR-15 with the appropriate upper and magazine.

The .50 Beowulf looks like a pop can. Hits like Mjolnir. I can see getting to like it for inside-the-house work. You want to seriously hurt something, that'll do it.

The 6.5 Grendel reportedly stays supersonic past 1000 yards and shoots flatter than the .308. Nice for outside the house in a handy carbine package.

Minuteman said: "I am inclined to think that in most cases its dead weight. Why would you ever need to shoot anyone with a hand gun if you are armed with a rifle/carbine as well?"

Two things. First, these days being on-base is almost as dangerous as being in the field for US servicemen and Canadians in Afghanistan. Inside the mess, in your quarters, inside vehicles, rifles are impractical. But you can still come under attack, as the Marines have been lately. Pistols are good for those situations.

Second, your rifle jams in a firefight, a pistol is better than nothing. Its a New York reload. I'd have one.

The FN P90 PDW is that weird looking thing they carry on the Stargate TV show. It fires an equally weird little cartridge, 5.7x28mm. These do come in "armor piercing" tungsten, and they are a spire point bullet. The idea was to replace the 9mm sub-machine gun with something that hit harder and was very compact, again for use in vehicles. Nice gun, never shot one.

Its one of those "neither fish nor fowl" things, nice in its intended usage but of limited value outside that. I'd take a 1911 along in case the fancy buzzgun broke a spring. And a big fricking knife too. I've never been in combat, thank God, but my civilian experience shows that even well maintained arms can flake on you occasionally.

Redundancy is good, redundancy is good!

Dr. Langmann is correct. Shot placement is the most important consideration.

Handguns are ballistically challenged compared to long guns.

Caliber wars will never be resolved. The best thing for ordinary people to do is select a handgun that fits in your hand, using the largest caliber and hottest load that you can control.

A nine millimeter with a quality jacketed hollow point +P load, placed properly in the thoracic cavity or the cranial-occular cavity will generally stop an attack.

The wild cards are a perp on drugs, wearing body armor, or a dedicated opponent who is determined to take you down no matter what happens to him and will not quit.

Whatever weapon you use, it's a good idea to be properly trained in its use by professionals. Then practice practice practice.

A cop pal of mine that I used to shoot with was sent to New York on some RCMP course thing and when he got there the instructor on the course showed a slide of a grave site where two detectives were buried. They answered a call of Man with a gun and found a guy with a .45 stuffed in his waistband. They gave the usual commands and he started to pull the .45. They scored 10 hits with their .38 snubbies and he fired twice. They died, he recovered from his wounds.

Just fuel for the debate.

I would go back to the Colt Government 38 Super. No one ever complained about that gun. I use 124 grain HBRN-TP and I'm getting about 500f/lbs @ 1400f/ps. Hollow points if they are not wearing body armor, but those are too expensive for the range. In my 1911 version, you get 9 rnds vs. 7 in the .45 cal.

I followed this argument for years and could not decide so I got both. A nice govt A1 1911 and a more modern STI 1911. This along with a Glock G17 and a G34. Problem solved.

The most convincing and realistic study of "stopping power" I've read is the following from the FBI:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

Their conclusion is this: Hydrostatic shock, energy transfer, "knock down", etc are all bunk. The most important factors are 1) that your bullet penetrates 2) If you penetrate, a larger caliber is supierior because it is more likely to damage something on the way through.

And of course 3) Shot placement should not be overlooked, it can be utterly critical, however the realities of how humans react under extreme stress means that no matter how hard you train for that perfect headshot, chances are that when it comes to the real thing you probably won't even take time to find the sights on your gun.

Famous studies ranking calibers stopping power based on individual shooting incidents seem highly flawed to me. The countless permutations around the specific details of any individual shooting make these methods suspect, and too often the data samples are far too small to prove anything.

For military applications, 9mm and .45 are both fine choices for a pistol, and are both available in excellent guns. The truth of the matter is that pistols are near the very bottom of any military's priorities. Battles, even counter-insurgency battles, as we have recently seen, are won with airpower, artillery, machine guns, and rifles.

Military pistol priorities are nicely illustrated by the fact that while I was over there I was issued a 9mm Browning High Power pistol that had been manufactured in WWII. Old but functional, certainly a time proven gun. The army can't be bothered to replace them because it has bigger things on its mind.

Just like someone else already mentioned, I don't know anyone who drew their pistol in combat over there. In some extreme close quarters it would certainly have a use, but besides that, use it to fight your way to your rifle, and then carry on from there.

One thing I'm sure we can all agree upon though, when it comes to close range stopping power, a 12 guage shotgun is at the head of the pack, and by a wide margin.

I understand the people who prefer the .45. I like the 9m better, I find I am more accurate. I have 2, a Kimber and a Sig. Both excellent guns that still work perfectly after 5-6000 rounds.

When it comes down to it,it doesn't matter the make caliber weight of bullet or anything else. If you won't practice continuesly because it scares you, you shouldn't have one.

"...these days being on-base is almost as dangerous as being in the field for US servicemen and Canadians in Afghanistan. Inside the mess, in your quarters, inside vehicles, rifles are impractical."

1)Orders are to carry your rifle with you when you move about on base if it is your primary weapon. Having actually done just that, it isn't impractical...esp. when compared to a C9/M249 that some souls have to carry with them. Jeez, the C7/M16 isn't a Lee-Enfield or Mosin-Nagant in terms of length.

2) Your rifle is used when you are outside the vehicle. Canadian APC's have no provision for rifle use while mounted(that's what the machine gun is for, or the 25mm cannon, depending on what you are in).

3) Your rifle jams? Do your damn drills and clear the stoppage.