More rounds vs. more power (e.g. 9mm vs. .45)

**KCJones** · January 2nd, 2018, 04:53 PM

Thanks for all the responses so far. Looking forward to more. Couple things to clarify that have come up:

1) I understand cabbages aren't analog for human. Just an apples-to-apples in the situation.

2) Answered this separately, but it was just 'range' ammo in all cases, no carry ammo involved.

3) I'm certainly not saying 9mm is BAD or trying to denigrate it. I still have & regularly use several 9mm firearms. The .45 is my default now, but there are still times I'll grab the 9mm (especially in winter with coats and such helping concealment).

4) In terms of concealment, my .45 (M&P Shield) is actually smaller/better concealable than my primary 9mm (H&K VP9). I certainly recognize there are plenty of 9mm guns even smaller than my .45. But I'm hard-pressed to think of a 9mm double-stack (thus with notably more 'shots' capacity) that's smaller. My wife carries a shield 9mm and has one more bullet than I do in a similar-size gun. The whole thing started because my VP9 is not great for CC in summer with light clothing, and in looking at smaller guns that could conceal under "just a T-shirt" for example, I found the capacity difference between .45 and 9mm in single-stack (i.e. slim, concealable) guns was only a round or two. Perhaps that's the comparison I should have used...

5) As someone who's been shot with a .22 (admittedly, only through the hand), I'm just not buying that one. I have full and complete unfettered use of my left hand (and play guitar). I'm guessing not so much had I taken a 9mm or .45 through the palm...

6) I'll take a .22, 9mm, .45 or purt' much anything over nothing.

7) Someone said something like "ammo size only matters if you hit them"... True. But for myself, I take that more as a reason to practice a lot with a gun I can EDC than to need more shots at the expense of a bigger gun I can't CC well.

8) Yes, OC = whole different ball game. For my part, for a lot of reasons, I don't/can't OC on a daily basis.

**KCJones** · January 2nd, 2018, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by unclejumbo

You never "shoot to kill" and you never, ever shoot someone that is no longer a threat. There's a pharmacist out in Oklahoma that could tell you all about that. You'll have to visit him in the penitentiary sometime during his lifetime incarceration.

Hell of a lot better being sued than life in prison.

That's a pretty egregious case. The pharmacist involved, Jerome Jay Ersland, was protecting not only himself, but 2 other workers in the pharmacy when two armed teenagers came in to rob it. He shot the guy in question in the head and put him down. Then chased off the other robber, then came back in the store with an empty gun, got another gun and 45 seconds later (an eternity is such situations) shot him a few more times while immobile on the floor from 18"-24" range. His credibility was further hampered by the fact he faked a gunshot wound to bolster his case and falsely claimed to be a combat veteran. It was all caught on video and the 'downed' robber was clearly not trying to get up or be a threat again.

Nevertheless, Ersland is not the one who created the situation. HE didn't come into a pharmacy to threaten the lives of workers and rob the joint. Let's not forget that despite acting badly under extreme duress and stress and fear, the situation wasn't his creation.

I think the life-sentence was over harsh. Although I don't think he should have got off scot-free given his actions, the jury could have found him guilty of manslaughter and a lesser sentence. I'd have found that more relevant personally.

The real villains in the situation are the two older men who induced the two teens involved to do the robbery in the first place. FWIW, they also got life sentences, and THAT I do find appropriate.

Bottom line, I don't disagree with your basic premise: You shoot to end the threat to your life, not to 'kill'. If death is involved, it should be a by-product. But there's a bit of difference between someone who falls back on their training and does a double-tap to the center of mass and a head-shot, thus "shoots to kill," in an imminent-threat situation, and someone who comes back a minute later and pumps a few more rounds into a perp laying on the ground.

**ArmyVet** · January 2nd, 2018, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Aggies Coach

As long as the assailant is a hot chick.....

Haters gonna hate...... I get my fair share of the ladies. And probably your share too......

Attachment 103987

**jakebrake** · January 2nd, 2018, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by DucatiRon

If you shot them with a 10mm you would have forgot they were a cabbage.

Sorry. Just had too.

yup....cole slaw is much better

**Bang** · January 2nd, 2018, 05:37 PM

Some people need to read what is written, not inject their own read into it. I never said anything about shooting to wound.

**Jkinpa1** · January 2nd, 2018, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by Bang

Some people need to read what is written, not inject their own read into it. I never said anything about shooting to wound.

LOL, best of luck with that one on this inter-web thingy.

**Nopetrol** · January 2nd, 2018, 06:12 PM

It was once presented to me this way, and pretty much made up my mind for me:

Destin Mounts, former active duty Marine, civilian law enforcement, trainer, and co-owner of VATA, down in Louisiana. He runs 9mm, and you would think as a former Marine, he would be a 45 guy all day long, right? When someone asked him directly, why he doesn't run a 45 he presented this question back;

'You arrive home after being away for the day. There is a strange car in your driveway, and your front door looks to be damaged or kicked in. You know your wife, and two children were supposed to be in that house when you got home. There's a table in the front yard, on the table are two guns. 1 is it standard capacity 1911, with one extra magazine, the other gun is a Glock 17 with one extra magazine. Which one are you picking up? Are you going in with 1 + 7 & 7, or are you going in with 1 + 17 & 17?'.

Me personally, once I really processed this, I took the 9mm. I want as many chances for damaging, threat ending shot placement as I can get. Caliber choice is a personal choice, but this was the lesson that solved things for me.

**wanneroo** · January 2nd, 2018, 06:58 PM

The stats are out there, but .22LR is responsible for something like 1/5 of all homicides by gun. The other smaller calibers account for a lot too, 32 ACP for instance.

One interesting book I was reading recently was a collection of stories about Jim Cirillo, a NYPD stakeout squad member in the 1960's/early 1970's. He was involved in so many shootouts it was hard to keep track, but he had some interesting stories as they tried a variety of calibers and ammunition and he reloaded his own ammunition. It seemed his experience mirrors that of others who have shot it out with people, there is no real consistency to find at all. One guy might drop and die from one gut shot with a weak 38 spl, another will take 22 rounds of 45 ACP and 38 Spl to put them down. Or another will take full load of buckshot and be walking around. Last year or before on this forum I posted an interview with Bob Stasch of the Chicago PD who was involved in 14 shootouts. Similar deal.

**abner13** · January 2nd, 2018, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by Aggies Coach

.45 are sexier. I carry .45.....

colt45web.jpg

Couldn't resist!

**KCJones** · January 2nd, 2018, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by Nopetrol

It was once presented to me this way, and pretty much made up my mind for me:

Destin Mounts, former active duty Marine, civilian law enforcement, trainer, and co-owner of VATA, down in Louisiana. He runs 9mm, and you would think as a former Marine, he would be a 45 guy all day long, right? When someone asked him directly, why he doesn't run a 45 he presented this question back;

'You arrive home after being away for the day. There is a strange car in your driveway, and your front door looks to be damaged or kicked in. You know your wife, and two children were supposed to be in that house when you got home. There's a table in the front yard, on the table are two guns. 1 is it standard capacity 1911, with one extra magazine, the other gun is a Glock 17 with one extra magazine. Which one are you picking up? Are you going in with 1 + 7 & 7, or are you going in with 1 + 17 & 17?'.

Me personally, once I really processed this, I took the 9mm. I want as many chances for damaging, threat ending shot placement as I can get. Caliber choice is a personal choice, but this was the lesson that solved things for me.

I'd probably make that same choice in that scenario, and it's why my 9mm is the one in my nightstand as my primary 'home defense' pistol.

But what about carrying? Try this scenario (aka my situation):

Your job requires that IF you carry, it's fully concealed. Such concealment must be effective without notable 'printing'. Your uniform is pants and a black knit golf shirt, which you -can- wear untucked. If your gun 'prints' then you can't bring it at risk of losing your job/livelihood.

Given our 9mm vs. .45 scenario, 'on the table' is a compact .45 with 8 rounds + a second mag with 7 more, or a compact 9mm with 9 rounds + a 2nd mag with 8 more, or not carry at all...

So 1+7 & 7 .45 or 1+8 & 8 9mm? 15 vs. 17: A difference of two rounds.