Sgt York and Jeff Cooper

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JJ45

Points well taken. By "anyone have an equivalent" was not mean't to mean to reconfigure the exact scenario of Sargent York killing 7 German soldiers with a 1911 and mil issue 230 grain ball ammo.

Does anyone know of an incident where 7 bad guys were killed with 7 JHPs from a .45? Single hits, Seven shots, seven fatalities? This would be a comparison.

You are still asking a straw man question. Seriously -- in any situation, including war, what's the probability of one man -- armed only with a 1911 and 7 rounds of ammunition -- having to shoot seven (or even six) adversaries? That only happens in movies.

Beyond that, if (as was reported) York shot each of the Germans in the belly, if they died I'm sure it wasn't immediately. If they had had quick access to good medical care they probably wouldn't have died at all. If they did die it was probably some time later, from infection in the wounds, rather than immediately.

[44 AMP]

The thing that determines how effective a handgun round is the amount of energy that is imparted to the target.

I disagree. Energy is a factor, but energy alone does not determine how effective a bullet is, it is only a measure of how effective a bullet could be...

And not a great one, even for that...

What a bullet needs to be effective is to go where it needs to do and do what it needs to do to stop the action of the target. With game, the object is to stop the animal by killing it, as humanely and quickly as possible. With defensive use against humans, the object it to stop them from harming you or others, and a bullet that does that, including ones that are "psychological stops", is effective. It got the job done.

Might it not be the "best possible choice"?? sure, but if it works, it works.

...but there is the added factor of hydroscopic shock that increases the lethality.

I believe the right term is hydrostatic shock. Hydrostatic shock, "temporary stretch cavity" and related terms have been explored, tested and discussed at length over the years and opinions vary widely about how important the effect is, but one commonly agreed to point is that the effect is negligible until bullet impact speed significantly exceeds what most common service and defensive handguns are capable of.

No body in their right mind would opt to use ball ammo for hunting game over bullets designed to give quick and humane kills.

This fails as a valid blanket statement, because, sometimes, the right bullet, the one intended to give quick and humane kills, is FMJ. People who hunt the largest, most dangerous game on the planet, using the most powerful rifles available most frequently prefer "solids" which ARE FMJ bullets, designed to penetrate, NOT expand.

In my mind that is the same logic that should be applied to the ammo used in your defensive handgun.

I understand the reasoning and the logic here, and generally agree, however, I would caution against the terminology used in reference to defensive shooting. Nuances and shades of language DO matter, and matter a lot if a defensive shooting goes to court. WE don't shoot to KILL, we shoot to STOP, and if the attacker dies as a result of being stopped, that's their bad luck.

The law recognizes deadly force and that death may well result from its use, but if it is believed that it is your intent to kill, not just stop an attacker, you could well find yourself facing criminal charges.

Likewise the other side of the coin, intentionally shooting to wound. Shooting to wound only, intentionally avoiding the risk of killing the attacker has been used as evidence that you did not believe deadly force was justified, and if deadly force is not justified (in your mind, at the time) then you do not have legal justification to shoot someone.

Its a game of words, but the law is funny like that.

You are still asking a straw man question. Seriously -- in any situation, including war, what's the probability of one man -- armed only with a 1911 and 7 rounds of ammunition -- having to shoot seven (or even six) adversaries? That only happens in movies.

Including war?? well, obviously it doesn't happen only in the movies. It has happened in real life. Sgt York is probably the most famous example going seven for seven in a well witnessed event, but there have been other times where people have had to shoot multiple attackers with just their handguns and did so successfully. As well as times when they failed. Its rare, even in war, but it does happen.

Beyond that, if (as was reported) York shot each of the Germans in the belly, if they died I'm sure it wasn't immediately. If they had had quick access to good medical care they probably wouldn't have died at all. If they did die it was probably some time later, from infection in the wounds, rather than immediately.

In York's own words, the didn't die immediately. "Quick" access to good medical care on the battlefield while the shooting is going on, under WW I conditions would not be something I think one could count on. Also, "good
medical care back then was no where near what it is today. I think it most likely that the men York shot did die, from shock and blood loss, either on the field, in, or on the way to, a field hospital.

Point here is that they were put down, and no longer capable of combat.

[Mike Irwin]

York killed more Germans with a rifle chambered in .30-06 than he did with the 1911.

Why aren't you carrying a .30-06 instead?

[JJ45]

Wonder if York employed the isosceles or weaver? Just kidding!!! Probably one handed given what seemed to be the chosen technique of the day. I don't know how much training with the service pistol they got back then?

That said, this "shot them all in the belly" seems a bit hard to swallow, probably meant center mass. We all know that even a heart shot man can live a considerable time given the nature of the wound. At least long enough to return fire.

[SIGSHR]

Yes, York stopped the Germans, that is what a defensive handgun is meant to do.
The stories about the M-1 Carbine not penetrating Chinese winter uniforms in Korea.The Korean War was fought 70 years ago, has anyone read an genuine after action report with credible eye witnesses ? A groggy and exhausted and sleep deprived GI or Marine trying to fight Chinese hordes at 0200 with howling winds in zero degree temperatures.
Those 1918 vintage Germans would have been on the lean side, all those meagre Army rations kept them slim.

[JohnKSa]

Energy is a factor, but energy alone does not determine how effective a bullet is, it is only a measure of how effective a bullet could be...

Right, it's sort of a measure of the potential amount of work that could be done by the bullet. There are lots of things that might prevent the bullet from living up to its potential, here are a few:

It might miss everything important. The best bullet in the world can't do anything if it doesn't hit something important.

It might go right through and come out the back of the target with most of the energy it started with unused. This is an issue with typical round nose pistol bullets. For example, both 124gr 9mm and 230gr .45ACP FMJ bullets will penetrate about 2 FEET if no bone is hit.

It might hit something and dissipate a lot of energy without penetrating to something important. Body armor is an example of this.

[Mike Irwin]

"The stories about the M-1 Carbine not penetrating Chinese winter uniforms in Korea."

I've never heard that the quilted winter uniforms would stop M1 bullets, but I have read multiple accounts that the heavy uniforms seemed to reduce the effectiveness of the carbine's bullets, especially at longer ranges.

That makes a LOT more sense.

[Metric]

I'm pretty confident that a .45acp will poke a hole through vital organs, if aimed correctly. Much like any other.

However, if we're looking at world record exploits of pistol combat, South African 2nd Lieutenant van Vuuren and his Star BM (9mm) has to be mentioned: https://www.firearmsnews.com/editori...idge-14/392580

Drawing his 9mm Star BM pistol from its holster, the plucky South African began killing Communists from his turret hatch. When his slide locked back he reloaded and went back to work. 7.62x39mm bullets kicked up sparks around him but he continued on. He shot down five Cubans. Then seven, and finally ran out of 9mm ammunition after killing a total of 11 Communists with his Star BM pistol.

[L. Boscoe]

We used to say that Cooper was organizing a bottle eating contest- the fact he was shooting skeet with a rifle was impressive.
He was funny, not nearly as scary as he would like.

[Bill DeShivs]

A 9mm hollow point would have to work hard to be .45 caliber.

[JJ45]

Originally Posted by Metric

I'm pretty confident that a .45acp will poke a hole through vital organs, if aimed correctly. Much like any other.

However, if we're looking at world record exploits of pistol combat, South African 2nd Lieutenant van Vuuren and his Star BM (9mm) has to be mentioned: https://www.firearmsnews.com/editori...idge-14/392580

He was a cool customer under duress.

Then getting back to the effectiveness of .45 230 FMJs. The Lieutenant's Star was most certainly loaded with 9mm ball, unless I'm missing something as I didn't read the story.

My OP was an endorsement of 45 ball as good enough SD ammo compared to 45 hollow points. Does the Lieutenant's feat also support the use of 9mm ball for SD?

In America, somebody is always trying to sell you something you don't really need...JJ

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by JJ45

My OP was an endorsement of 45 ball as good enough SD ammo compared to 45 hollow points. Does the Lieutenant's feat also support the use of 9mm ball for SD?

In America, somebody is always trying to sell you something you don't really need...JJ

The idea that you can still use ball ammunition to stop a threat seems pretty obvious to me, and frankly I don’t recall an honest claim that suggests differently. The marketing behind hollow point ammunition isn’t that ball ammunition can’t cause a disabling wound, but that hollow points might have other advantages in terms of the nature of the wound inflicted or reducing “over penetration”.

[Carmady]

A few reasons I decided on 230gr FMJ for SD
1) cost
2) best odds of reliable feeding
3) the Army used it
4) this video; the 45 FMJ part starts around 20:00

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gtTEEm1-1A

[JJ45]

Originally Posted by Carmady

A few reasons I decided on 230gr FMJ for SD
1) cost
2) best odds of reliable feeding
3) the Army used it
4) this video; the 45 FMJ part starts around 20:00

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gtTEEm1-1A

My list would look about like yours.

I watched the vid. Some will say only one test, not definitive, medium don't conform, etc, etc. and we all know that. Still, a good endorsement of 230 ball because there were comparisons with other bullets.

[stagpanther]

SEALS apparently see some purpose in the 45acp--somebody should tell them what's what.

[Jim Watson]

Originally Posted by Carmady
A few reasons I decided on 230gr FMJ for SD
1) cost
2) best odds of reliable feeding
3) the Army used it
4) this video; the 45 FMJ part starts around 20:00

The only one of those that matters at all to me is No 2.
My Commander is thus far reliable with XTPs but I would have to shoot some more to be as confident as with RN. I have not tried to qualify my P220, it is kept with a hollow point in the chamber and Ball in the magazine, just as I did with the USGI 1911 that was my first serious weapon.

Cost is not a major factor unless I wished to thoroughly test the Commander with a different bullet. But why bother?

Who cares what the Army used? They haven't used many .32s, .380s, .357 Magnums, .44 Specials, etc that all have a place in the Urban Arsenal.

I don't get much out of that video, he lost me when he fired the second (third, fourth) shot at the same watermelon.

[Shadow9mm]

Army and law enforcement as well creates much more testing and real world use data on the cartridges. Its adoption also creates a large supply chain and reduces cost. They dont always choose the best, and there is a lot of politics involved. But its not irrelevant imho.

[Metric]

Originally Posted by JJ45

He was a cool customer under duress.

Then getting back to the effectiveness of .45 230 FMJs. The Lieutenant's Star was most certainly loaded with 9mm ball, unless I'm missing something as I didn't read the story.

My OP was an endorsement of 45 ball as good enough SD ammo compared to 45 hollow points. Does the Lieutenant's feat also support the use of 9mm ball for SD?

In America, somebody is always trying to sell you something you don't really need...JJ

There are always outliers that can give a misleading impression. However...

All I can reasonably expect from a pistol bullet is that it will poke a hole. FMJ will do that. In calibers below 9mm, I only carry non-expanding bullets, to ensure adequate penetration. Even in .22LR, non-expanding bullets seem to work surprisingly well when the shooter is highly competent.

At and above 9mm, I don't really need the FMJ's 36"+ of gel penetration, and am willing to trade some of that for a slightly bigger, slightly more ragged hole. Because maybe there is an edge case where a slight bigger, more ragged hole could convert a non-stop into a stop. It's questionable, but I'm only trading excess penetration for it.

If reliability were in question, I wouldn't make the trade.

One man's opinion, anyway.

[Webleymkv]

It really depends, I suppose, on what school of thought you belong to with regards to how handgun bullets work. On the one hand, there are some people which believe that the transfer of energy from the bullet to the target is one of, if not the primary, wounding mechanism and that an expanding bullet with more efficiently transfers its energy to the target will therefore create a more substantial wound and faster incapacitation.

On the other hand, others believe that only the tissue that the bullet physically crushes, tears, or otherwise displaces are significantly affected and thus only the diameter of the bullet, the depth of its penetration, and its trajectory are the only meaningful factors in the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of a particular bullet.

Really, regardless of which camp you're in, an expanding bullet should cause more tissue damage and thus incapacitate the target faster so long as penetration is adequate to reach the vital organs. If you view energy as a meaningful factor in handgun effectiveness then simple physics dictates that an expanding bullet is transferring more of it's energy to the target than one which does not deform. If you're a permanent crush cavity sort of person, an expanding bullet increases it's diameter and thus destroys more tissue than a non-expanding one (again, assuming adequate penetration).

Now, that's not to say that there aren't cases to be made against JHP ammo (though some cases are stronger than others). One might argue, as I think the OP is attempting to do, that the difference between FMJ and JHP is not large enough to justify the increased cost of JHP ammo, but that's really going to be, at best, difficult to quantify and I doubt too many people will find that argument convincing.

An argument could be made that the increased penetration of FMJ is beneficial in certain circumstances such as defense against large animals which I suppose is a valid point, but it doesn't seem to me that a 1911 in .45 is a particularly popular choice for Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my.

Some would argue that, in certain calibers, JHP gives inadequate penetration and that penetration is more important than expansion so the non-expanding FMJ bullet is the "lesser of two evils" if you will. This argument has merit when talking about small calibers like .22 LR, .25 Auto, and .32 Auto, but finding .45 ACP JHP's with adequate penetration isn't all that difficult.

Some would argue that FMJ bullets are more feed-reliable in autoloading firearms and thus should be carried for reliability's sake. This is valid I suppose if all you have is an older or lower-quality gun that isn't reliable with JHP ammo, but most guns of even mediocre quality made in the last 30-40 years will be reliable with JHP ammo as that's what they were designed to use.

The final argument I can think of for FMJ over JHP is that, simply put, JHP is unavailable due to either supply or regulation/legality. This could be because you're in the Military and have to use the FMJ ammo you're issued, it could be because you're an LEO and your department mandates FMJ ammo, or it could be because you live somewhere where using JHP ammo is legally frowned upon if not outright prohibited. This could also be because your gun is in a caliber for which JHP ammo isn't commonly available. In that case you have to use what you can get and I'll agree that FMJ ammo that's available and/or legal is superior to JHP ammo that isn't.

[Carmady]

"Cost is not a major factor unless I wished to thoroughly test the Commander with a different bullet. But why bother?

Who cares what the Army used? They haven't used many .32s, .380s, .357 Magnums, .44 Specials, etc that all have a place in the Urban Arsenal.

I don't get much out of that video, he lost me when he fired the second (third, fourth) shot at the same watermelon."

I would say cost is a factor in two ways. If someone buys the more expensive non-FMJ .45 ACP SD ammo not only does it cost more per round, but it will likely be less reliable than FMJ. At best it will function 100%, but still cost more.

Who cares what the Army used? The cartridge was developed for combat, and if it wasn't up to the task the Army wouldn't have used it as long as it did. If it's good enough for combat it's good enough for civilian SD, imo.

I don't know how much of the video you watched, but after testing a few different types of rounds he concluded, "...at least in today's application (cougar and bear defense), in .45ACP ammunition, hardball is hard to beat."

[Red Devil]

Originally Posted by JJ45

...I think a lot of the JHP 45 recommendations are more sales hoopla and not necessarily better defense rounds than 230 ball....

Here is my preferred .45 ACP Defensive Load sales hoopla.

You can have your ball.




Red

[Sgt127]

I can come up with tests that conclusively “prove” any one round is better than any other round.

Then change a couple criteria and “prove” the other round is better.

The Silvertip 9mm was the “best” at the time of the Miami shootout. A 115 gr ball round would likely have fully penetrated the bad guys thorax. Stopping him.

I’ve grown weary of most of the next greatest ammo. At $1.25 a round. I want ammo I can shoot hundreds of rounds of. In my carry gun. Not one magazines worth for $25 one time and, assume it’s good.

Poke a hole. Poke the biggest hole you can. Poke it all the way through.

I bought two cases of the Federal 9mm RCMP contract 115 gr HP. Very close, ballistically, to slightly downloaded 9BPLE. That’s what I carry when I carry a 9mn. And, I’ve shot a lot of it.

I bought 2 cases of the Gold Dot 357 SIG. That’s what I carry when I carry that caliber.

There will always be a round marketed as new. And the best. There will always be a gun oil marketed as the best and newest.

I’ve seen quite a few people get shot and, who were shot. Neither they, nor I, knew what bullet it was. Some tipped over. Others didn’t seem phased. Unless you break something important inside, they don’t really care, until it hurts, or all the hydraulic fluid leaks out.

[Metric]

Originally Posted by Sgt127

Some tipped over. Others didn’t seem phased. Unless you break something important inside, they don’t really care, until it hurts, or all the hydraulic fluid leaks out.

Yep. Psychological stops are nice when they happen. Unfortunately, they're mostly out of our control.

For a near-instant physiological stop, there is simply no substitute for putting a hole through something the badguy desperately needs to be functioning "right now, this very moment." And if you can do that, the bullet isn't likely to matter too much.

Of course there are always going to be edge cases where X would have produced a stop where Y didn't (and vice versa). But, if you look at the Ellifritz study, you basically cannot tell the difference between handgun caliber -- differences are small enough to be buried in the noise. If it's almost impossible to tease apart the difference between .380acp and .44 magnum, I'm going to have some serious doubts about the importance of bullet design.

[Shadow9mm]

Lets think about how a threat is stopped.

1, neurological. Brain or spine, things instantly stop working
2, skeletal, pelvic girdle shot will put somone on the ground instantly, but they can still be a threat.
3 blood. Stopping blood flow to the brain. Heart stops the pump, lungs stop oxygen fom being absorbed. Leaks reduce volume and pressure in the supply line but can be slow to stop a threat.

Many cartridges can do these things effectively in many different bullet styles. But without proper shot placement, even large handgun rounds like the 45 can fail to stop somone.

Heres a cool shooting break down titled, "Why one cop carries 145 rounds on the job" the attacker was shot 14 times with a 45 auto, 6 times on the vitals and kept going until a shot to the head stopped the fight instantly. https://www.police1.com/officer-shoo...BbLYpnqqHxwMq/

Heres a youtube video covering it as well if you dont feel like reading https://youtu.be/pdjcYjSsIok

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Shadow9mm

Heres a cool shooting break down titled, "Why one cop carries 145 rounds on the job" https://www.police1.com/officer-shoo...BbLYpnqqHxwMq/

I've posted that article myself in the past. Here's another one that goes to shot placement:
https://www.policemag.com/340305/sho...ida-01-26-2008