The Best Caliber for a Tactical Situation

[mattro]

Every request for bid from the military for a new gun design have specified the 45 ACP. You're right, most of those have been "Special Operations", but I bet it will go widespread.

[stevekolt]

Personally, give me .45, even though I stock .38, .40, .357, 9mm, .380, and .22 for the handguns I own. That said, part of the reason for the military's use of 9mm is for the sake of compatability between NATO forces. As far as high capacity goes in the 9mm vs. .45 argument, a good answer could be a SA XD45...13 + 1 of .45 is hard to beat

[Bruxley]

NJTRIGGER:

Now such testing cannot be done today because of ethical standards. I believe they developed the .45 not just for stopping power, but they also took into account other factors such as usability in a tactical situation. They designed the .45 for a soldier in close combat where the rifle could not be practically used (like in tight cave or bunker).

They were a sidearm for those that didn't carry a long gun. Officers, artillery tenders, pilots, etc.

NJTRIGGER:

The 9 mm, I believe, is more for a soldier when his rifle has failed or he can no longer use his rifle out on the battlefield. Lets say his arm gets shot or hit with shrapnel and he can only use one hand then the 9mm, I believe, is the best choice. The 9mm has range and low recoil.

Soldiers with rifles don't carry a sidearm. But your assertion that the sidearm is used by the above mentioned folks not carrying long arms to keep heads down till you can find cover or your way to a long arm is correct. SF excepted.

NJTRIGGER:

The FBI director who had testified in front of Congress stated in an interview that he would have went with the .45 except that months before the Army had argued that they wanted the 9 mm. Therefore, he couldn't just say he wanted the .45 so they developed the .40.

The 40 was developed after the FBI requested the 10mm and then wanted it in a reduced velocity. The EVENTUAL result was the 40 which is the same caliber as the 10mm but can be easily put on the 9mm frame be reducing the length of the casing.

NJTRIGGER:

The .357, in my opinion, just has too much flash and bang. Lets say I wake up and need to use the pistol. I'm not sure how that extra flash and bang would help me out in a dark environment where I am half-asleep. I think it would further disorient me. The .40 is just too much and requires a strong hand.

For the sake of your long term freedom, DO NOT SHOOT INTO THE DARK
There are 5 rules.....live by them.....never vary from them.....one is to be SURE of your target and what is beyond it.

Please don't feel I am picking on you.. if you got that feeling I truly apologize. Good information is the goal here and I just hope to correct mis-information so the it doesn't reproduce it's self as it has a tendency to do.

[Kermit]

I use 9mm, 357 magnum & 45 acp with equal confidence in their effectiveness. The one constant I have is my 12 ga. pump shotgun.

[threegun]

The main problem witht the 5.56 is not the reduction in speed, it is the lack of mass. The lower speeds hurt it more, but a 5.56 can never compete with a 7.62, no matter what velocity. 5.56 is my current battlerifle cartridge due to accuracy and convenience, but I know it is a poor man stopper and terrible glass breecher.

The 5.56MM in its original 55 grain 3,250fps form is a devastating wound producer. In small bodied animals like people it is a great stopper. It does lack mass and that kills penetration into larger animals and hard objects......even glass. It does have limitations because of the penetration but it has advantages as well. It allows soldiers to carry more ammunition in the same weight and its reduced (almost nil) recoil allows for much faster engaging speeds.

Don't be fooled into thinking that the 762 ball is a magic fight stopper. I heard a soldier telling his story of how he and his team of 4 men were under attack by 200 taliban fighters. One of his men was shot by small arms (762x39) at least 4 times yet was still alive and fighting back. He finally died along with 2 other team members. I can't remember for certain but I believe all had been shot multiple times and hit by shrapnel. Had this happen with the 5.56 it would be blamed on caliber the .30 however gets a free ride.

[mattro]

If I had to be put down with a firing squad, I would hope they are using 7.62x54, not 5.56.

[threegun]

Mattro, Dead is dead. Using that logic you should have asked for a 50BMG or heck maybe even a cannon round LOL.

Having seen the results of a 223 round on deer, albeit a soft point, a human just isn't likely to survive a hit to the chest from a 5.56MM projectile traveling over 2800fps, the speed needed for disintegration. My deer ran less than 40 yards and was on the full run when shot behind the shoulder in the lung area. Field dressing showed complete destruction of the lungs.

[njtrigger]

If you go to any stories about those who lived and got a medal of honor, you will find many soldiers who were shot multiple times by rifle rounds and survived. I guess you just have to get lucky and not have the rounds hit anything vital.

It is possible to survive a rifle round, although, I think it not probable.

[eldogg4life]

Being 23 years old, I consider the deaths of both Biggie Smalls and Tupac Shakur to be a reminder that even a "little" 9mm round can put you to sleep for good.

Then again Tupac was shot before the shooting that claimed his life and lived. He took 6 and lived.

Shot placement is the genesis of tactics...

eL

[David Armstrong]

There is no "best", only "different". What is best for one tactical situation might not be best for another. Any of the basic fighting calibers are fine for the job if you do your part, and none of them are good enough if you don't do your part.

[ATW525]

Use what works for you. I personally usually carry either a Glock 19 9mm or a S&W Model 25 .45 ACP. However, f I knew I was going to get in an unavoidable gunfight and could only bring a handgun, my choice would likely be a .44... why settle for fast and light or slow and heavy when you can have fast and heavy instead?

[Tanzer]

Here we go again...

[Rifleman 173]

To me, it is the tactics which make the ammo more effective as well as shot placement. A 9mm through the head is probably more effective than a .45 in the chest. Two to the chest and one to the head at close range has always been effective no matter the size of the bullet. If you can deliver the 2 chest shots and 1 to the head with speed and accuracy then that is the right pistol ammo choice for you. My favorite over all shooters are the .40 and the .45 bullets but I would not hesitate to carry a 9mm handgun into battle as a back-up to my 7.62 or 6.8 SPC rifle which I would be issued.

[golf97]

Soldiers with rifles don't carry a sidearm. But your assertion that the sidearm is used by the above mentioned folks not carrying long arms to keep heads down till you can find cover or your way to a long arm is correct. SF excepted.

Thats just simply not the case. At all. Specialty units or not, many carry both.

The reason for the 9mm is because of NATO and capacity. Much of the force can't shoot too well, so capacity is key. Its pretty simple.

Yes, 7.62 and .45ACP are much more capable killers, but capacity is key.

NATO is no excuse for the 5.56. I think beurocrats and their view of women not being able to handle the round is the reason for not switching to the 7.62.

Yes, they test .45, and yes, they test other rifles and other rifle rounds. Every single time, our current weapons get beat up pretty bad, and every single time they say it will be too expensive. Why even conduct the tests?

[Boris Bush]

mattro


I would hate to carry 610 rounds of 7.62 and have to run, jump over 6-7 foot walls all while being shot at and wearing body armor in 140 degree weather with no clouds to shade you.

Proven results in the battlefield show the 5.56 and the 9mm to be poor man stoppers compared to what we had prior to Vietnam. All of the military will be moving to a larger rifle cartridge (maybe 6.82), and BACK TO THE 45 ACP.

Sounds like you have never been there.

While I never killed anyone with a 9mm over there, the 5.56 did just fine for me and we mainly carried M955 ball, the stuff with a tungsten carbide core. Or as you would know it, armor piercing. It still has a air pocket upfront and will still tumble in flesh, it just dont fragment.

It did just fine with controlled pairs and headshots for me.

[STLRN]

Proven results in the battlefield show the 5.56 and the 9mm to be poor man stoppers compared to what we had prior to Vietnam.

Do you understand that the number one killer on the battlefield during that period of time was not small arms fire? Historically artillery and explosives have killed 9-10 times as many people as small arms fire.

[Perldog007]

I honestly don't know which round is "best". Seems like they all have their moments and ideal uses. Hope I never find out and concentrate on shot placement in the meantime.

[Erik]

All of the above will do in backing up the sbmachine guns, automatic rifles and shotguns typically present in tactical situations.

But I guess that statement hinges on what tactical means.

[TacticalDefense1911]

Originally Posted by Creature

I look at 9mm and 45ACP this way: would a BG rather be hit with a 100mph baseball or a 75mph bowling ball?

I'm sorry, but that is not even close to a good comparison. The differences between a 9mm and a .45 are no where near as drastic as that comparison might say.

Bottom line; the best the self defense caliber is the one you feel the most confident with. All of those calibers are up to the task given the right ammunition is used. Tactics, accuracy and ammunition selection are far more important issues than caliber. If you handle the 9mm the best and feel most comfortable with it then you already answered your question.

[IdahoG36]

I keep a Mossberg 590 loaded with 00 buckshot and a Wilson Combat Protector loaded with 200gr +p Speer Goldots next to my bed. That oughta cover any situation that's likely to occur.

[Socrates]

I've said this before, but, handguns can often be used in place of rifles, and, they are concealable, and, some of them are NOT limited by the choices mentioned earlier. The .500 JRH, .475 and .500 Linebaugh, all with 'light' 325 grain to 400 grain Hawk bullets, or even XTP's, are going to effect the target much like a 375 H&H rifle, and, they can be carried in one hand, when going to the door, and, if you live on a ranch,
or in Alaska, they at least give you a better then middling chance against bear, moose, elk, or a bad guy in cover.

[Lawyer Daggit]

What tactical situation?

Obviously the more manageable power the better. But you have to factor in concealability and carryability.

ie I regard the Soviet Makarov to be probably a better pistol for soldiers than a large Beretta or Browning? - despite the fact that a full size 9mm or 45 is a better killer. Why? when you look at all of the kit that a soldier winds up needing to carry at the end of the day it comes down what compromises he has to make in terms of gear carried in order to reduce the weight of his kit. ie if I pack the pistol do I have to leave some granades behind.

Also If the enemy can see I am carrying a pistol it identifies me as a more valueable target than someone who is just carrying a rifle - ie I am potentially an Officer or a highly trained specialist assett and not merely a rifleman.

[Double Naught Spy]

So njtrigger, if you feel the best caliber is the one that is most managable and that the 9mm is the most managable (out of the choices you provided), then why would you hamper yourself by going with .45?

The development of the .45 was done using real animals and ultimately tested on real humans in the Philippines.

Given that the .45 acp was developed in conjunction with the 1911 and given that the war in the Philippines was long over, I don't think your information is correct that the .45 was tested there. Yes, they used the .45 Colt in the Philippines, but not the .45 acp.

The new caliber was then given to the soldiers to test out on the battlefield which they did and they were very satisfied with the results.

You mean several years later is WWI?

Now such testing cannot be done today because of ethical standards. I believe they developed the .45 not just for stopping power, but they also took into account other factors such as usability in a tactical situation. They designed the .45 for a soldier in close combat where the rifle could not be practically used (like in tight cave or bunker).

As noted, the 1911 wasn't so much developed for tactical situations as it was an officer's gun. I guess you are suggesting officers were used for clearing caves and bunkers and the like?

[Tamara]

Originally Posted by njtrigger

So which round would you choose and why for a tactical situation?

Best caliber for a "tactical situation"? So far, the proper application of tactics has allowed me to largely avoid situations.

Originally Posted by njtrigger

I believe they developed the .45 not just for stopping power, but they also took into account other factors such as usability in a tactical situation. They designed the .45 for a soldier in close combat where the rifle could not be practically used (like in tight cave or bunker).

The "tactical situation" that the 1911 was developed for involved a guy on a horse, which rarely occurred in caves or bunkers.

[Double Naught Spy]

LOL - no subterranian calvary?

Didn't they use Little People on those minature Scottish mine horses for that?