Forums of the Megaverse®

Posted: **Fri Jul 28, 2006 2:28 pm**

Since the Rifle worked out so well. What is your favorite pistol?

I'll start. My favorite combat pistol is the Colt M1911. It doesnt hold as many rounds as a lot of others. But I find it reliable, accurate, with enough power to get the job done. As non combat pistols go. My favorite is my Ruger Super Single Six. I have a special place in my heart for this single action revolver. Theres nothing better then spending an afternoon plinking with it.

Posted: **Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:42 pm**

I'd say the Para-Ord P14-45 is a much better piece than the M1911. Why? Well there are only 2 differneces between it and the old Colt. First is the Made in Canada stamp, the second is the clip holds 14 rounds instead of 7.

As for what pistol I think is the best, right now I'm still trying to chosoe calibre. I'm not sure if the .40S&W or the .357 SiG is probably the best handgun cartridge in the world, so that makes it hard to pic a specific number for either. As for the gun holding the round, the glocks have always impressed me with capabilty, but not style. I think I like the classic M1911/GP 35 lines, so a Browing or a Colt in one of those two cartridges would be best I think.

Posted: **Fri Jul 28, 2006 4:12 pm**

SIG P229 in .357SIG.

Posted: **Sat Jul 29, 2006 1:46 am**

I happen to like the SIG-Sauer P-220. The first time I shot one was right after shooting a custom M-1911, and the P-220 shot just as well right out of the box.

As far as .22 pistols go I happen to like the Ruger MK-III/45. I am saving up for a supressed one.

With Revolvers I have to go with Ruger again. This time it is the Super Redhawk in .44 magnum. I am going with the .44 magnum as I already have a carbine in that caliber (that would be a Marlin 1894S) and it saves on re-loading time and effort.

Posted: **Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:58 am**

Glock 21 (45), Glock 36 (45), S&W 44 (6 inch barrel, stainless).

Posted: **Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:42 am**

I’ve only fired the U.S. Military issue Beretta M-92F and the DSS’s standard issue Sig (I forget the type).

After putting 30 round though the Sig I loved it, better trigger pull, and recoil then the Beretta.

I have had my eye on the Glock 27 for few years.

Posted: **Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:44 am**

.357 revolver.
Revolvers are easy to clean, and they don't jam.

Posted: **Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:52 am**

Killer Cyborg wrote:.357 revolver.
Revolvers are easy to clean, and they don't jam.

Now that you mention it yes I have fired the SW .357, our escoltas had them

Posted: **Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:07 pm**

Alejandro wrote:Never heard the term "escolta" before. What's that?

Basically they are escorts for our vehicles, in case somebody tries to steal it or kidnap us in the vehicle.

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:21 pm**

Alejandro wrote:
So they're the armed guys in the vehicles with you while driving? Didn't know that there was a term for em'.

Well that is the term down in South America

We wern't allowed to drive either so we had a driver too, and the Escolta had a Uzi under the seat too.

Posted: **Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:52 pm**

Alejandro wrote:
Ahhh...never went to SA while in uniform. Makes sense now though...just couldn't figure out why Marine escorts were being called escoltas.

We weren't the escorts we were the ones being escorted......not sure if you picked up on that.

Posted: **Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:44 pm**

MODERATED ~ Mack

Posted: **Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:33 pm**

Chello!

Not a modern combat firearm but...

I've recently started doing WW2 SOVIET reeneactment...the weapons are flipping cheap!!

Anyway, I picked up a Nagant M1895 pistol (revolver), 7.62mm Izhevsk Armory, 1944 dated. I was playing around with it and was thinking, "Hmmm, that trigger pull seems a bit tight."

I looked up the vitals onlne and...the thing comes from the factory with a 20# trigger pull!!! Holy Jambalayma!

It also has interesting ammo. the casing comes up to the tip of the round...supposed to allow for a better "gas seal" in the revolver.

Oh, and it's a 7 rounder.

Not much stopping power at all, but fun for plinking...or shooting the fascist invaders of the Rodina in the back of the head!

Tony

Posted: **Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:32 pm**

Chello!

Actually, the Luger is a very decent handgun...and it does look cool!

Tony

Posted: **Fri Feb 23, 2007 9:29 pm**

Writers Block wrote:1911 has several companys, Para Ord included, that can do after market mods to give as much as 14 rds in the mag. They bore out the innards of the handle somewhat and this gives the extra room for larger mag. Factor in Plus 2 Mags, and one in the pipe, a 1911 can carry 17 rounds if you so desire...

ok, as I have some friends who are M-1911 junkies.

First: they do not "bore out the innards of the handle", they widen the frame to take a double collum magazine.

Second: you are thinking Glock when you talk about +2 garbage floorplates. The problem with them is that as soon as you give them one good bump your stuck with the round in the chamber.

Third: leave the 20+ round magazines for a submachinegun as they are usually impractical for a handgun.

Posted: **Fri Feb 23, 2007 9:33 pm**

1 round, 1 kill.

I prefer revolvers but my G36 is easier to carry.

Posted: **Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:36 pm**

Say, since so many here seem to really have a thing for the classic M1911... Does it take a lot of practice, or do you need to be particularly beefy to handle that baby and fire effectively with .45 ACP? I like big calibers, and the look of that pistol, but I was a 100 pound weakling before I became a 190lb tub o'lard on two legs, so I have serious doubts as to my ability to handle it, if I ever got to handgun practice.

Can I indulge myself, or should I really go for something lighter, like 9mm, or maybe a .32 PPK?

Posted: **Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:01 pm**

Don't be afraid of a 1911 recoil wise. its not bad at all. The best piece of advise I can give you if your shopping for a pistol. Is to pick it up. If it doesn't feel good in your hand and fit you. You will never be very comfortable shooting it. Which will effect your accuracy and your want to shoot the darn thing. A good example of this is. Ruger has several Single action revolvers with the old west style birds head grips on them. I think they look neater than all get out. But I will never own one because that style of grip, because it fits my had so poorly. On the other hand I have a Ruger Super Single Six revolver, the grip of which I love. The gun is an extension of my hand when I pick it up. I've owned it for ten years and its still one of my favorite guns to shoot. (Of course it doesn't hurt .22 LR is cheap to shoot, so I can plink all day.)

Posted: **Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:29 pm**

svartalf wrote:Say, since so many here seem to really have a thing for the classic M1911... Does it take a lot of practice, or do you need to be particularly beefy to handle that baby and fire effectively with .45 ACP? I like big calibers, and the look of that pistol, but I was a 100 pound weakling before I became a 190lb tub o'lard on two legs, so I have serious doubts as to my ability to handle it, if I ever got to handgun practice.

Can I indulge myself, or should I really go for something lighter, like 9mm, or maybe a .32 PPK?

From my personal experience it does not take allot of practice to learn the basics of an M-1911. As far as needing to be "beefy", my friend Lindsey is only 5'3" and she has no problem with handling a 1911. then again she trains regulary with her 5' long broadsword.

Now the best thing that you could do is find a basic handgun safety course by a reputable instructor(another forum member gave an excellent example of the sort to avoid). Take the course to learn the rules of basic pistol handling, then find a range that does handgun rentals. it's not cheap but it's slightly better than paying $800+ for a quality pistol you may not want.

As for the Luger, it's ok on a shooting range but nothing I would ever want to trust my life to. there are more modern ( including the M-1911) designs that are just as accurate, more reliable, and you can still find parts for them.

Posted: **Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:00 pm**

Alejandro wrote:I honestly could never get into Glocks, no matter how highly praised they are.

They just look and feel like toys to me...I dunno...can't get over that.

Do you want something that feels good, or something that works?

There's a good reason that many police have gone to glocks. They don't fail.

Posted: **Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:48 pm**

Glock, sure, but I have some others that right there, too, Sig Saur P226 and HK .40 compact...

Do not make me pick!

Posted: **Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:31 am**

Black Cross wrote:
GhostKnight wrote:
Alejandro wrote:I honestly could never get into Glocks, no matter how highly praised they are.

They just look and feel like toys to me...I dunno...can't get over that.

Do you want something that feels good, or something that works?

There's a good reason that many police have gone to glocks. They don't fail.

That and the fact that Glock undercut their competition in a lot of cases price wise. The almighty dollar does rule after all. And if Glocks were so good why are they not used in certain quarters?

Bias.

Posted: **Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:53 pm**

I have a lot of experience with glock, and only a little with the others you mentioned.

I can say that after firing over 1,000 rounds it needed cleaning but I never cleaned it, and it fired just like it did out of the box. Cheap ammo, expensive match grade ammo, hand loaded ammo, it fired anything I put through it.

My H&K USP .40 compact prefers expensive ammo, which I would only use in a carry situation anyway. It sometimes misfires the cheap ammo.

My Sig Saur P226 has an interesting feature. The slide does not always lock upon ejecting the last cartridge, which I have heard other reports of this happening, too.

So the Glock still gets my vote.

Posted: **Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:48 pm**

Lucky wrote:Lather- the slide-lock thing could be a magazine issue. try changing out different mags and see if you have a bad one.

I have five mags for it, and it happens with all them. It is possible they are all goofy, I guess.

Lucky wrote:As for glocks, I personally dont like them. I have nothing against the company, but the design of the guns just dont agree with me. For one, they make my hands sweaty. Secondly, some of them have a funny angle that just doesn't feel comfortable aiming with.

The angle is strange, but perhaps I have grown accustomed to it. I can switch between pistols I practice with without difficulty... when I practice, I practice with all of them.

Lucky wrote:My favorite, however, would have to be the Kimber custom II .45 ACP

That kimber is nice. I do not own one but have fired one enough. I really enjoyed that pistol.

Posted: **Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:03 pm**

Not sure which hi-cap .45 your talking about, but Para-Ord, STI, & Wilson all widen the grip frames on their .45s to accomodate hi-cap magazines. Para-Ord uses thinner grip panels to try and reduce the thickness, but the difference is still apparent when you handle them.

And 20+ round magazines are great, if you like practicing clearing failure to feed jams.

Posted: **Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:36 pm**

Thank you Lee,
it's nice to hear from someone else who has seen the inside of a Handgun and not someone who has just read about them someplace.

By M1911 Junkies, I mean people who favor the M1911 to the point of owning dozens of them in multiple configurations. from models that are as cut down as the Detonics Combatmaster(thats small enough that I can't grip it with my pinkie finger) to full blown "Star Wars" raceguns. The upshot of all that is My having personally handled quite a number of M-1911 handguns. Putting a High-cap 1911 and a GI 1911 side by side, the high-cap has a wider frame.

as for those +2 magazines, the maker of them is found Here. And you can google their failures yourself.

Posted: **Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:24 am**

I personally am from a family that has been making firearms from 1735. Altho the company is no longer in family hands, there are various members who still build their own firearms.

I personally grew up in a household with a variety of firearms. I started shooting in 1988-89, wich given my 1981 birthdate gives you the age I started shooting.

by age 17 I had squeezed the trigger on everything from .177 single shot airpistols to 84mm Rocket launchers and Civil War era cannon. More importantly I could tell you how they worked and if given the tools could build them.

The closest I personally have come to writing a magazine article is the previous version of the China Lake pumpgun article on Wikipedia. The current article being written by someone with typing and communications skills. As far as being a writer in the firearms industry, I believe that Dean at www.thegunzone.com has covered how most gun hacks write.

Me, I do my best to comment with a large source of factual information at hand.

Posted: **Sat Oct 06, 2007 10:46 pm**

Waaay back when I lived on fort hood and in JROTC.Some recruiters came to our school.They let us see and handle some of the toys(weapons)they brought.I got to handle the colt 1911 and found it very light.Since that time their have been only two other pistols that I'd choose to own that is the TT-33 Tokarev.Got it through my uncle a Viet Nam Vet.Talk about a tough pistol.The other is the colt peace maker I have one but it is a copy.

Posted: **Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:11 am**

Mike Wong wrote:Let me quote Revolver Ocelot: "The Colt New Model Army, the greatest handgun ever created!" Or something like that. I have a weakness for the older revolvers mainly for the grip...the new ones like my Python (got rid of it) felt like wearing high-heel shoes...just not pointable. My Peacemaker copy, however, is nice. (just a .22 but that's enough for fun-shooting) In the forces we use Browning HP 35's mostly, which are ok if you can get a new one. Most we get are ancient wrecks. I fired the Glock 17 which a pleasure, and the Colt 1911 a lot which is cool once you get used to its unique feel. As for the Walther PPk, well, I have tiny hands and it still doesn't sit right in my hand.

Theres a lot to be said about a single action revolver. I own several. If pressed into a fight. I think I would be better off with one of them than any of the pistols I own.

Posted: **Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:33 pm**

Here is one of the reasons several of us like the M-1911 design. The desigh is quite simple when compaired to more modern handguns. On the same hand an M-1911 is as reliable as any modern handgun in similar condition.

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:29 pm**

Ahhh the TT-33 - quite probably as lethal as a blunt impliment as it is as a gun

Posted: **Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:00 pm**

I ran through the department's pistol course twice today, once with the Beretta 92 and once with the Springfield XD-45. I was amazed at how tight the XD's shot groups were.

Svartalf wrote:Does it take a lot of practice, or do you need to be particularly beefy to handle that baby and fire effectively with .45 ACP? I like big calibers, and the look of that pistol, but .... Can I indulge myself, or should I really go for something lighter, like 9mm, or maybe a .32 PPK?

My wife can handle .45 ACP, and she's no athlete. If you're ever in town, swing by and I'll take you to the range, let you try it out.

Posted: **Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:10 am**

I prefer a .45ACP Sig P220 with Novak sights and Hogue rubber grips. I'm also partial to the P245!

Posted: **Wed May 07, 2008 12:41 pm**

Writers Block wrote:On the other hand, it has a hell of a lot of moving parts compared to many other semi-autos, and that means more things to go wrong. Add to that a scenario where parts are at a premium or such (TEOTWAWKI or the like) and it becomes more of an issue. It is also quite hefty to lug around (eight hours under your arm in July is a treat...day after day; it gets even better...) and if you want to carry serious ammo for it the same goes for that as well.

Now that's funny the M-1911 has less parts than a Ruger, S&W, SIG-Sauer, or a Glock. Heck the animation in my previous post shows every single part to an M-1911 and how they all fit together. It's such a simple design that a ten year old can figure out how to field strip the design after seeing it once. As far as daily carry with one it's not very bad with the right holster. If you backpack like myself then a loaded M-1911 is a real comfort because as a cavalry weapon the M-1911 had to be effective against a horse. While it may take all seven rounds to dispatch a rogue bear, it's rather overkill on overgrown sand colored housecats(Yeah, a mountain lion is related to your housecat. It's the largest cat that can purr if I remember correctly).

Posted: **Fri May 09, 2008 6:49 pm**

Writers Block wrote:I wasn't saying it has LOTS of parts; I am aware there are plenty with more. I am just pointing out there are plenty with less...

And from a standpoint of protection, for things like backpacking and other outdoors pursuits, why not a .45 revolver? You only lose one round...

Oh, and I am so glad to see no one is singing the praises of the Desert Eagle...that thing is crap (IMHO).

As far as a semi-automatic pistol in .45ACP goes it has as much controlability as a .357 Magnum revolver and it makes a much bigger hole in things. My last backpacking trip my Grandfater brought along a snub-nosed Taurus .357 and while it was nice and compact it had much more noticable recoil than my uncle's Colt Commander.

As far as revolvers in the same caliber you need Moon clips to use them. Besides such revolvers are rather rare. Revolvers in .45 Long Colt or .454 Cassul are more common but you start getting weight and recoil penalties. As a backpacker I can say that unless you are taking a pack horse then every ounce counts. For me it's a matter of my personal preferances. While I do shoot .357's and .44 magnums, I prefer the M-1911 pattern handgun.

Posted: **Sat May 10, 2008 11:06 am**

Rockwolf66 wrote:
Writers Block wrote:On the other hand, it has a hell of a lot of moving parts compared to many other semi-autos, and that means more things to go wrong. Add to that a scenario where parts are at a premium or such (TEOTWAWKI or the like) and it becomes more of an issue. It is also quite hefty to lug around (eight hours under your arm in July is a treat...day after day; it gets even better...) and if you want to carry serious ammo for it the same goes for that as well.

Now that's funny the M-1911 has less parts than a Ruger, S&W, SIG-Sauer, or a Glock. Heck the animation in my previous post shows every single part to an M-1911 and how they all fit together. It's such a simple design that a ten year old can figure out how to field strip the design after seeing it once. As far as daily carry with one it's not very bad with the right holster. If you backpack like myself then a loaded M-1911 is a real comfort because as a cavalry weapon the M-1911 had to be effective against a horse. While it may take all seven rounds to dispatch a rogue bear, it's rather overkill on overgrown sand colored housecats(Yeah, a mountain lion is related to your housecat. It's the largest cat that can purr if I remember correctly).

A stock Series 80 Gov't Model has 52 parts, Glocks have 34. I'd much rather field strip a Glock or SIG, as there's only 6 including the magazine rather 11 for a 1911a1, and all the Glock/Sig parts are relatively big. Dropping a barrel link and/or barrel link pin in the mud can ruin your day.

Posted: **Mon May 12, 2008 3:29 am**

I like, and use, the USP Tactical .45 (with no sights – I removed them; my Granddad always used to say [and it was parroted by my chief], “if you can point at your target at those ranges you will hit him”). The USP Tac has a fast rate of fire and high capacity magazine (so I can put a lot of lead in many directions in a short amount of time), accuracy (so I can hit what I point at), reliability and durability (so I know it will work when I need it to in the environment I find myself in), and small size (for use in close quarters) – find a way to give me another handgun that meets those requirements and I will jump at the chance to use it!

Posted: **Tue May 13, 2008 9:41 pm**

Hey Beatmeclever, try a Springfield XD .45!

Posted: **Wed May 14, 2008 12:39 pm**

I'll give it a shot (laugh at the pun if you need to).

Thanks.

Posted: **Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:28 am**

Capt. Amundson wrote:Glock G17. Love my 9mm's.

Have to agree here. With modern JHPs you don't see that big a difference between 9mm and the heavier calibers "stopping power" any more.

G17 was the first and is still the best one they make, IMO.

Posted: **Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:10 pm**

[quote="Black Cross"
That and the fact that Glock undercut their competition in a lot of cases price wise. The almighty dollar does rule after all. And if Glocks were so good why are they not used in certain quarters?[/quote]
What quarters are you referring?
I own a Kimber TLR 2 and Im issued a Glock 23 w/streamlight, which I carry everyday I work. I love 1911s but that being said the G23 fulfills everything I need from cocealled carry to room entry. I cant comfortably carry the Kimber concealed. I wish I could carry the G30 on duty.

Posted: **Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:43 pm**

psychophipps wrote:
Capt. Amundson wrote:Glock G17. Love my 9mm's.

Have to agree here. With modern JHPs you don't see that big a difference between 9mm and the heavier calibers "stopping power" any more.

G17 was the first and is still the best one they make, IMO.

You cant always rely on a hollow point to open, or perform well against different materials and conditions. In that case a larger bullet hits the target with more force than a smaller one. Therefore a bigger is better. A thick winter coat like a carhart. Can keep a bullet from mushrooming, or performing as otherwise expected. In the summer time I carry a Keltec P-32, chambered for .32 auto. (yeah I know its a little mouse gun, but I can use the change pocket in my jeans as a holster. Not to mention its so light you dont even know its there. Plus it conceals really well.) I dont trust it to pentrate and open correctly in the winter time, against a target with a coat. So in the winter I carry my Ruger SP101 .357mag snub nose revolver. (which is easier to conceal in the winter under a coat.) So even if the hollow point doesnt perform as expected, the target is still hit with a .357 magnum slug.

Posted: **Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:14 am**

Grey Death wrote:You cant always rely on a hollow point to open, or perform well against different materials and conditions. In that case a larger bullet hits the target with more force than a smaller one. Therefore a bigger is better. A thick winter coat like a carhart can keep a bullet from mushrooming, or performing as otherwise expected.

This is pretty much not an issue with modern JHPs. It was a recognized issue with the older Hydra-Shok ammo but modern JHPs will mushroom pretty much 100% of the time regardless of baggy or padded clothing as has been demonstrated in countless testing examples found (with video and/or photographic examples) with a simple google search. In fact, I have yet to see an example of a modern JHP completely failing to mushroom during such testing.

Posted: **Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:16 pm**

psychophipps wrote:
Grey Death wrote:You cant always rely on a hollow point to open, or perform well against different materials and conditions. In that case a larger bullet hits the target with more force than a smaller one. Therefore a bigger is better. A thick winter coat like a carhart can keep a bullet from mushrooming, or performing as otherwise expected.

This is pretty much not an issue with modern JHPs. It was a recognized issue with the older Hydra-Shok ammo but modern JHPs will mushroom pretty much 100% of the time regardless of baggy or padded clothing as has been demonstrated in countless testing examples found (with video and/or photographic examples) with a simple google search. In fact, I have yet to see an example of a modern JHP completely failing to mushroom during such testing.

I'm sorry but bigger is always better. Especially when it comes to stopping power. Let give you a little example from history. In response to problems encountered by American units fighting Moro guerrillas during the Philippine-American War, the then-standard .38 Long Colt revolver was found to be unsuitable particularly in terms of stopping power, as the Moros had very high battle morale and frequently used drugs to inhibit the sensation of pain. The U.S. Army briefly reverted to using the M1873 single-action revolver "Peacemakers" in .45 Colt caliber, which had been standard during the last decades of the 19th century; the slower, heavier bullet was found to be more effective against charging tribesmen. After this and the Thompson-LaGarde pistol round effectiveness tests, it was determined to quote Colonel John T. Thompson "should not be of less than .45 caliber". Because it could not be trusted to bring down a target. Now you claim that advanced bullet design has made this a moot point. I say to you if a 9x19mm with JHP is great, than .45 ACP JHP is an unstoppable juggernaut.
Lets look and compare some ammo shall we.
9x19mm 147Gr Hornady TAP-FRD (Which is their top of the line self defense JHP)
at the muzzle 975 ft per sec and 310 ft lbs of energy
at 50 yds 935 ft per sec, and 285 ft lbs of energy
at 100 yds 899 ft per sec, and 264 ft lbs of energy
now lets compare that to
.45ACP 230Gr Hornady FMJ
at the muzzle 850 ft per sec, and 369 ft lbs of energy
at 50 yds 818 ft per sec, and 342 ft lbs of energy
at 100 yds 788 ft per sec, and 317 ft lbs of energy
So lets take a look at the stats. The big .45 does move a lot slower at all ranges. But it consistantly delivers 50+ lbs more energy to the target.
Velocity is great, but it means nothing if you dont have the power with it, when it makes contact. Bigger heavier bullets reguardless of bullet style will always prove to have more stopping power.
Even though I do carry a little mouse gun loaded with JHP in the summer time. (Loaded with Hornady .32 auto 60gr JHP/XTP and yes Hornady is one of my favorite ammos, if your wondering. Have had good luck reloading with their bullets, and ammunition.) Even though its loaded with these "Modern JHP". I'm not thinking that one or two rounds of these always mushrooming bullet as you say will be sufficent to stop an assailant. I train to if facing a single opponent to fire to entire 7 rounds magazine. If facing multiple opponents no target would recieve less than 2 rounds. Now if in the same situation one on one with the 357. Two rounds center of mass is more than enough. If facing multiple a single round per target is acceptable. Now all my ranting here probably wont change your mind about smaller caliber JHP. Conversely I cant believe in the idea of relying on design, over sheer brute force.

Posted: **Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:24 pm**

Grey Death wrote:
psychophipps wrote:
Grey Death wrote:I'm sorry but bigger is always better. Especially when it comes to stopping power. Let give you a little example from history. In response to problems encountered by American units fighting Moro guerrillas during the Philippine-American War, the then-standard .38 Long Colt revolver was found to be unsuitable particularly in terms of stopping power, as the Moros had very high battle morale and frequently used drugs to inhibit the sensation of pain. The U.S. Army briefly reverted to using the M1873 single-action revolver "Peacemakers" in .45 Colt caliber, which had been standard during the last decades of the 19th century; the slower, heavier bullet was found to be more effective against charging tribesmen. After this and the Thompson-LaGarde pistol round effectiveness tests, it was determined to quote Colonel John T. Thompson "should not be of less than .45 caliber". Because it could not be trusted to bring down a target. Now you claim that advanced bullet design has made this a moot point. I say to you if a 9x19mm with JHP is great, than .45 ACP JHP is an unstoppable juggernaut.
Lets look and compare some ammo shall we.
9x19mm 147Gr Hornady TAP-FRD (Which is their top of the line self defense JHP)
at the muzzle 975 ft per sec and 310 ft lbs of energy
at 50 yds 935 ft per sec, and 285 ft lbs of energy
at 100 yds 899 ft per sec, and 264 ft lbs of energy
now lets compare that to
.45ACP 230Gr Hornady FMJ
at the muzzle 850 ft per sec, and 369 ft lbs of energy
at 50 yds 818 ft per sec, and 342 ft lbs of energy
at 100 yds 788 ft per sec, and 317 ft lbs of energy
So lets take a look at the stats. The big .45 does move a lot slower at all ranges. But it consistently delivers 50+ lbs more energy to the target.
Velocity is great, but it means nothing if you don't have the power with it, when it makes contact. Bigger heavier bullets regardless of bullet style will always prove to have more stopping power.
Even though I do carry a little mouse gun loaded with JHP in the summer time. (Loaded with Hornady .32 auto 60gr JHP/XTP and yes Hornady is one of my favorite ammos, if your wondering. Have had good luck reloading with their bullets, and ammunition.) Even though its loaded with these "Modern JHP". I'm not thinking that one or two rounds of these always mushrooming bullet as you say will be sufficient to stop an assailant. I train to if facing a single opponent to fire to entire 7 rounds magazine. If facing multiple opponents no target would receive less than 2 rounds. Now if in the same situation one on one with the 357. Two rounds center of mass is more than enough. If facing multiple a single round per target is acceptable. Now all my ranting here probably won't change your mind about smaller caliber JHP. Conversely I cant believe in the idea of relying on design, over sheer brute force.

The problem with your "bigger is better" is the fact that energy delivered, at least in pistol calibers less than quite a bit over the speed of sound, has been largely shown to be a moot point. It's all about disruption of the CNS and MBBO. Any handgun round is like driving a dowel into your target the width of the bullet (this is what makes bonded JHP work the best as they don't fragment and lose mass) so if you don't hit something immediately important then the size of the bullet doesn't really matter much. Add the recent US Army and FBI research showing that in a firefight the participants strongly tend to be either up and fighting or down and out and you again get to the #1 most important aspect of firearms defensive shooting...

Two words: "Shot" and "Placement"

AS for the 230gr .45 ACP as being the bestest of the bestest, that was around 100 years ago. It's 100 years ago anymore. .357 Magnum 125gr JHP and .40 S&W 165gr JHP are the top of the charts in one-shot stops in LE and civilian shootings and have maintained their slots for a number of years now.

Posted: **Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:33 am**

Two words: "Shot" and "Placement"

I have personally seen someone die when a 3mm wide piece of shrapnel penetrated the base of her skull and travelled upward into the cranial vault, destroying minimal brain tissue but severing several blood vessels killing her. She looked like she just went to sleep and leaned forward. No noise at all.

I have also seen someone shot across the torso, left to right, through and through penetrating injury 7.62x39mm. Casualty just slid down and with the exception of a slight burbling, expired in approximately 20 seconds.

I have also seen 25mm HE rounds explode near a taget (approx. 1 foot away) and the overpressure and shrapnel destroyed the head.

I have also seen a group have 9 x 25mm HE rounds land near them (within 5 feet). 8 of them died (three of them were blown apart into just limbs, the other five died of massive shrapnel injuries) and one of them lost his left leg at the knee and his left arm at the elbow. Instead of dying OR bleeding to death, he got up and hobbled away escaping from a squad of soldiers!

I have also seen 1 man jump, dive, dodge and plain run fast so that he was not killed with 4 IFV's firing 300 rounds of 25mm HE, 100 rounds of 25mm AP, and 3000 rounds of 7.62mm ball ammunition! What was destroyed was two buses, three cars, two walls, 1 billboard, a streetlight and four storefronts!

SHOT PLACEMENT!

-STS

Posted: **Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:18 pm**

Rockwolf66 wrote:Now that's funny the M-1911 has less parts than a Ruger, S&W, SIG-Sauer, or a Glock. Heck the animation in my previous post shows every single part to an M-1911 and how they all fit together. It's such a simple design that a ten year old can figure out how to field strip the design after seeing it once. As far as daily carry with one it's not very bad with the right holster. If you backpack like myself then a loaded M-1911 is a real comfort because as a cavalry weapon the M-1911 had to be effective against a horse. While it may take all seven rounds to dispatch a rogue bear, it's rather overkill on overgrown sand colored housecats(Yeah, a mountain lion is related to your housecat. It's the largest cat that can purr if I remember correctly).

Actually, the M1911 was designed for use by cavalry, not against it. This makes it the only handgun in the 20th century to be entirely designed as an offensive weapon. Sorry, but the .45ACP is as effective against riding horses as it is against Elk (which ain't much and they're about the same size).

As for the parts bit, I officially call horse-hockey. The 1911 has more moving parts than any Glock model (and even more if it's got the PRK/Mass hammer/firing pin safety)...period.

Posted: **Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:29 pm**

psychophipps wrote:
Grey Death wrote:
psychophipps wrote:
Grey Death wrote:I'm sorry but bigger is always better. Especially when it comes to stopping power. Let give you a little example from history. In response to problems encountered by American units fighting Moro guerrillas during the Philippine-American War, the then-standard .38 Long Colt revolver was found to be unsuitable particularly in terms of stopping power, as the Moros had very high battle morale and frequently used drugs to inhibit the sensation of pain. The U.S. Army briefly reverted to using the M1873 single-action revolver "Peacemakers" in .45 Colt caliber, which had been standard during the last decades of the 19th century; the slower, heavier bullet was found to be more effective against charging tribesmen. After this and the Thompson-LaGarde pistol round effectiveness tests, it was determined to quote Colonel John T. Thompson "should not be of less than .45 caliber". Because it could not be trusted to bring down a target. Now you claim that advanced bullet design has made this a moot point. I say to you if a 9x19mm with JHP is great, than .45 ACP JHP is an unstoppable juggernaut.
Lets look and compare some ammo shall we.
9x19mm 147Gr Hornady TAP-FRD (Which is their top of the line self defense JHP)
at the muzzle 975 ft per sec and 310 ft lbs of energy
at 50 yds 935 ft per sec, and 285 ft lbs of energy
at 100 yds 899 ft per sec, and 264 ft lbs of energy
now lets compare that to
.45ACP 230Gr Hornady FMJ
at the muzzle 850 ft per sec, and 369 ft lbs of energy
at 50 yds 818 ft per sec, and 342 ft lbs of energy
at 100 yds 788 ft per sec, and 317 ft lbs of energy
So lets take a look at the stats. The big .45 does move a lot slower at all ranges. But it consistently delivers 50+ lbs more energy to the target.
Velocity is great, but it means nothing if you don't have the power with it, when it makes contact. Bigger heavier bullets regardless of bullet style will always prove to have more stopping power.
Even though I do carry a little mouse gun loaded with JHP in the summer time. (Loaded with Hornady .32 auto 60gr JHP/XTP and yes Hornady is one of my favorite ammos, if your wondering. Have had good luck reloading with their bullets, and ammunition.) Even though its loaded with these "Modern JHP". I'm not thinking that one or two rounds of these always mushrooming bullet as you say will be sufficient to stop an assailant. I train to if facing a single opponent to fire to entire 7 rounds magazine. If facing multiple opponents no target would receive less than 2 rounds. Now if in the same situation one on one with the 357. Two rounds center of mass is more than enough. If facing multiple a single round per target is acceptable. Now all my ranting here probably won't change your mind about smaller caliber JHP. Conversely I cant believe in the idea of relying on design, over sheer brute force.

The problem with your "bigger is better" is the fact that energy delivered, at least in pistol calibers less than quite a bit over the speed of sound, has been largely shown to be a moot point. It's all about disruption of the CNS and MBBO. Any handgun round is like driving a dowel into your target the width of the bullet (this is what makes bonded JHP work the best as they don't fragment and lose mass) so if you don't hit something immediately important then the size of the bullet doesn't really matter much. Add the recent US Army and FBI research showing that in a firefight the participants strongly tend to be either up and fighting or down and out and you again get to the #1 most important aspect of firearms defensive shooting...

Two words: "Shot" and "Placement"

AS for the 230gr .45 ACP as being the bestest of the bestest, that was around 100 years ago. It's 100 years ago anymore. .357 Magnum 125gr JHP and .40 S&W 165gr JHP are the top of the charts in one-shot stops in LE and civilian shootings and have maintained their slots for a number of years now.

Your missing the point about the 230gr FMJ. My point was a simple stupid basic heavy bullet. Delivers more energy than a smaller bullet. More energy delivered on target contributes to greater wound probability.
Shot and placement, cant argue with you there. The one thing I think we both can agree on.
.357 and .40 are both widely carried now a days. Helps contribute to increase statistics of them in one-shot stops. Just because they see more action now. Besides It also proves my point about larger bullets. Typical gr weights for 9x19mm self defense loads run 115-147 (generally), while .357 runs 125-158, .40S&&W runs 155-180. For the most part bigger, heavier bullets than 9mm.
Oh and this,
Add the recent US Army and FBI research showing that in a firefight the participants strongly tend to be either up and fighting or down and out
This is about the silliest thing I've read in a while. So in a gun fight your either shot and wounded/killed or not. No kidding? Brilliant, nice to see my tax dollars at work. Helping to validate facts like this. Come on you can do better than this.

Posted: **Tue Nov 04, 2008 10:10 pm**

Grey Death wrote:Your missing the point about the 230gr FMJ. My point was a simple stupid basic heavy bullet. Delivers more energy than a smaller bullet. More energy delivered on target contributes to greater wound probability.
Shot and placement, cant argue with you there. The one thing I think we both can agree on.
.357 and .40 are both widely carried now a days. Helps contribute to increase statistics of them in one-shot stops. Just because they see more action now. Besides It also proves my point about larger bullets. Typical gr weights for 9x19mm self defense loads run 115-147 (generally), while .357 runs 125-158, .40S&&W runs 155-180. For the most part bigger, heavier bullets than 9mm.
Oh and this,
Add the recent US Army and FBI research showing that in a firefight the participants strongly tend to be either up and fighting or down and out
This is about the silliest thing I've read in a while. So in a gun fight your either shot and wounded/killed or not. No kidding? Brilliant, nice to see my tax dollars at work. Helping to validate facts like this. Come on you can do better than this.

#1: No it doesn't. A .45 FMJ has a much greater chance of blowing right through the target vs. a 9mm JHP so you'll be dumping more energy (which doesn't really matter anyway) with the 9mm in this case.

#2: Coolies.

#3: The .40 S&W, yes. The .357 Magnum, not so much anymore. Revolvers have seriously started to fall from favor except for snubbies in the last 10 years or so. Kind of a bummer, really. Also, your .357 Magnum terminal effect is maximized with a 125gr JHP from a 5" barrel which tends to limit this to the odd tactical team as a shield gun or a few OCers willing to put up with the weight.

#4: You misunderstood me. I was saying that the target is either hit somewhere really darn important with pistol ammo or it's potentially a moot point depending upon the target. Pistol ammo impacts lack the massive shockwaves caused by high velocity rifle projectiles so you need to not only get your hits, but you need to hit them somewhere in the CNS or a MBBO to ensure a rapid stopping of the target to a level that is much greater than even light rifle ammo like 5.45 x 39 or .223.
Now add that many shooters don't like shooting .45 ACP due to it's heavier recoil, that the slower projectile velocity causes a longer "bang...hit" gap so shooting movers is harder (especially for inexperienced shooters...which is most of them), that .45 ACP is much more expensive than both .40 S&W or 9mm in bulk, and that the 1911 in general is a lot heavier and more complex with a lower magazine capacity than it really has to be when compared to more modern pistols and you get to see the many advantages of the lighter rounds for training, effective tactical use, and logistics vs. the .45 ACP.

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:47 pm**

#1 You still missing my point. True an FMJ has a greater chance of wasting its energy blowing through the target. My point was that even this non expanding bullet, carries more potential energy than a smaller expanding bullet. So if a small expanding bullet is good, a larger expanding bullet is even better. Bigger equals more energy. More energy equals greater stopping power.

#2 Nuff said.

#3 Yes it is bummer. A good wheel gun is a fantastic weapon. (At least in my opinion.

) I do have to agree that a round from a snub, is not effective as a longer (5") barrel. (Dang it, quit making sense

) Those not willing to put up with the weight? Wussys.

#4 So we're just back to shot and placemnt then? The recoil thing I can mildly understand. But those who consider .45 to much recoil need to man the heck up. Its not like its S&W .500. That has recoil thats more than needed. (As a side note my father and I were speaking about .500S&W, .480 Ruger. We both agree that really their just cartridges trying to do a rifles job.)
The longer "bang hit" is non-sense. Your trying to tell me people are dodging bullets at 900 feet per sec? Thats some Remo Williams/Destroyer stuff.
Cost is a little more expensive. Bargain shopping is the answer my friend. Especially when it comes to practice ammo. Personally my little Ruger P-90 gobbles up any thing I feed it. Been shooting the Wolf junk for practice. Little dirty but a good value. I clean it after every session anyways, coupled with its seeming reliablity I have no problems.
I cant argue with its heavier and typically has a lower magazine capacity. I dont judge a high capacity magazine as nessisarily a good thing. I think in certain cases it encourages spray and pray tactics. I think a smaller magazine forces one to make placed shots. Because one has to make the rounds count. Now undeniably haveing 17 rounds at the ready is certainly more adventages than 7. But I think you see the point I'm trying to make. I always thought it was funny listening to cops in the early eighties talking about how they moved from the .38 revolvers to 9mm auto loaders, because they needed the greater firepower. Ballistically .38 special and 9mm are almost ballistically identical. They just felt better with a big magazine in the pistol.

(I'd just like to say its been nice arguing/discussing this with someone who knows what their talking about. Even if we dont agree on topics. :-D

)

Forums of the Megaverse®

Favorite Pistol

Favorite Pistol

Favorite pistol? XD-45 Service model.

Re: Favorite Pistol

Re: Favorite Pistol

Re: Favorite Pistol

Re: Favorite Pistol

Re: Favorite Pistol

Re: Favorite Pistol

Re: Favorite Pistol

Re: Favorite Pistol

Re:

Re: Favorite Pistol

Re: Favorite Pistol

Re: Favorite Pistol

Re: Favorite Pistol

Re: Favorite Pistol

Re: Favorite Pistol

Re: Favorite Pistol

Re: Favorite Pistol

Re: Favorite Pistol