Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

zephyp wrote:Yup...tried and true...I never could figure out why the military went with 9mm other than NATO standards. 9MM is most definitely an inferior cartridge. Same thing applies for deer hunting where you encounter obstacles like brush, leaves, etc --- the slow moving heavy bullet dominates.

They did it for the same reason that the FBI dropped the 10mm, too many smaller framed people and non-firearms familiar people joining up.

Jim

Chasbo00 wrote:You got to be a real 1911 junkie to convert one to .460 Rowland I suspect. It would not be my choice for a bear gun though.

Speaking of bear cartridges, BB claims some impressive numbers for their .460 S&W load -- 360 gr. L.B.T.-L.F.N. (1,900fps/M.E. 2,860 ft. lbs.)

http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l= ... tail&p=126

I understand the thrill of hunting large, dangerous game with a handgun. However, personally I have no intentions to set out with anything less than a rifle. My 45/70 with 420gr@1850fps or 540gr@1500fps or a 12ga with 600gr 3" mag dangerous game slugs is ideal.

IMHO, 460rowland and similar cartridges make good medium game options.

jrswanson1 wrote:

zephyp wrote:Yup...tried and true...I never could figure out why the military went with 9mm other than NATO standards. 9MM is most definitely an inferior cartridge. Same thing applies for deer hunting where you encounter obstacles like brush, leaves, etc --- the slow moving heavy bullet dominates.

They did it for the same reason that the FBI dropped the 10mm, too many smaller framed people and non-firearms familiar people joining up.

Jim

Also training costs. IMHO, the amount of training required to handle something like a 10mm or even a .45ACP is higher than a 9mm regardless of body size. If I give a new recruit, with little to no firearm experience (the average these days), 1000 rounds of ammo to train with, odds are they will be more proficient with the 9mm than with the higher recoiling alternatives. Particularly if they have limited handgun experience they will be far less likely to develop a flinch (or at least less of one).

CoopVA wrote:230 grain Hydra-Shok

A little pricey, but my guns like them... I'll fire a few and then switch to ball at the range, but when in carry mode, it's Hydras...

Hydra-Shok's are one of the few mainstream bullets I don't care for, particularly in the .45. Compared to their peers, HS's seem to have much more trouble with plugging the HP when encountering heavy clothing. Heavy clothing is a problem for all HPs, but HSs tend to fail more often from what I have seen. The new HSTs seem to do much better.

@Jim and Garrett - yes, good reasons but the .45 can be mastered quickly with practice...skimping on training rounds and time for our military IMO is non-starter regardless of caliber...I'm no small frame and still flinch sometimes, especially when Bill is hovering nearby...I know the smack is coming...

I carried 230 gr. Remington Golden Sabers in my full size and 185 gr. in my 3" M1911 for a decade. It's accurate, reliable, relatively low flash, and clean. Gel tests show that it reliably expands to about 0.75".

However, I attended a demo of International Cartridge Corporation's frangible line a few months back. These are not the old over-hyped, under-performing frangibles of days gone by. ICC's hollow-point duty round breaks in to a number of chunks upon target entry, but the base continues through intact. This provides both "expansion" and penetration throughout the entire FBI protocol, including barriers and heavy clothing. I talked to the rep for a long time after the demo and learned more about how the round is designed and manufactured. He even conducted some additional demos for me. You can see some test videos on their website. The bullets themselves are sintered and polished, and look just like solid brass hollow-points. Nothing bad happens when you drop them and they will shoot through a typical car door, windshield, or a bear's skull.

I was so impressed that I now carry the ICC 155 gr. Duty HP round for self-defense. It clocks about 1125 fps out of a 5" M1911 and is lead free. They feed perfectly and have proven very accurate. I get them from Frangible Bullets.

I think too many civilians get caught up in the FBI performance stuff. I don't need to shoot through car windows or cinder blocks if I'm in a defensive shoot. I'm not shooting Tangos in the sand box or stopping bank robbers from getting away with the goods. I'm defending myself and my family from dirt bags outside my home with a handgun. Light, fast bullets let me put more rounds into the bad guys and I'll shoot until they're down. If I'm in the house, I'm using a carbine with 62gr soft points.

Jim

jrswanson1 wrote:I think too many civilians get caught up in the FBI performance stuff. I don't need to shoot through car windows or cinder blocks if I'm in a defensive shoot. I'm not shooting Tangos in the sand box or stopping bank robbers from getting away with the goods. I'm defending myself and my family from dirt bags outside my home with a handgun. Light, fast bullets let me put more rounds into the bad guys and I'll shoot until they're down. If I'm in the house, I'm using a carbine with 62gr soft points.

Jim

I was right there with you till you said that light, fast bullets let you put more rounds into the bad guys...unless you are speaking of a different caliber than the one in question.

I welcome any of you to stand downrange and take 5 rounds of 9mm. We'll give you a month to get better, then take 5 rounds of 5.56 NATO. Both of these are considered to be calibers incapable of stopping a man. We'll give you a month to get better, then 5 rounds of .45 ACP. Please report.

Mindflayer wrote:I welcome any of you to stand downrange and take 5 rounds of 9mm. We'll give you a month to get better, then take 5 rounds of 5.56 NATO. Both of these are considered to be calibers incapable of stopping a man. We'll give you a month to get better, then 5 rounds of .45 ACP. Please report.

Why would you want to waste 4 rounds of .45? LOL J/K.

A .45 APC even kills tanks!

Chasbo00 wrote:A .45 APC even kills tanks!

That's what I'm talking about!

Mindflayer wrote:I welcome any of you to stand downrange and take 5 rounds of 9mm. We'll give you a month to get better, then take 5 rounds of 5.56 NATO. Both of these are considered to be calibers incapable of stopping a man. We'll give you a month to get better, then 5 rounds of .45 ACP. Please report.

This is asinine and illogical. Purposefully getting shot with anything, even a .22LR, is a bad idea and potentially deadly. That doesn't mean .22LR is a good SD caliber.

Personally, I think 9mm and 5.56mm are both good defensive rounds with the proper ammo. With proper ammo all of the common defense calibers perform very similar. Where they differ is barrier capabilities and failure modes. Specifically:

1. Bonded bullets trade some expansion for barrier penetration. Barriers can be interior walls/studs, car doors/windshields, light equipment (think mags, LBE, potentially heavy clothing, etc.), etc. Most people consider this a good trade off, but there are lots of LEA who use Ranger Ts which are not bonded, so it obviously isn't a consensus agreement.

2. Larger bullets tend to have less severe HP clogging failure modes. I.e. a cloged .45 is still .45 while a clogged 9mm is "only" .355. Personally, I think bullet shape of a clogged HP is more important than 1/10th of an inch. I.e. truncated cone designs and other flat/non-rounded profiles tend to crush tissue regardless of expansion. The tradeoff is that larger/slower bullets like .45 tend to be more prone to clogging. A proper risk analysis (probability of occurring vs. impact) would equate the risk to more or less equal IMHO.

IMHO, military 5.56mm (M855) is very effective when it works, but if it doesn't fragment early due to fleet yaw issues then its failure mode is very bad. The issue is that the failure mode is very bad and the probability of occurring is relatively high when shot out of M4s. Tactical LE and hunting 5.56 rounds solved this a long time ago.

WRW wrote:

jrswanson1 wrote:I think too many civilians get caught up in the FBI performance stuff. I don't need to shoot through car windows or cinder blocks if I'm in a defensive shoot. I'm not shooting Tangos in the sand box or stopping bank robbers from getting away with the goods. I'm defending myself and my family from dirt bags outside my home with a handgun. Light, fast bullets let me put more rounds into the bad guys and I'll shoot until they're down. If I'm in the house, I'm using a carbine with 62gr soft points.

Jim

I was right there with you till you said that light, fast bullets let you put more rounds into the bad guys...unless you are speaking of a different caliber than the one in question.

For the luddites still running 45 ACP, I'm talking 185gr JHPs. I've used those out of a compact Colt 1991 and was able to recover from recoil faster than running 230s out of it. I personally prefer 165gr bullets at over 1200 fps out of my Kimber 10mm , but that's just me.

Jim

jrswanson1 wrote:I think too many civilians get caught up in the FBI performance stuff. I don't need to shoot through car windows or cinder blocks if I'm in a defensive shoot. I'm not shooting Tangos in the sand box or stopping bank robbers from getting away with the goods. I'm defending myself and my family from dirt bags outside my home with a handgun. Light, fast bullets let me put more rounds into the bad guys and I'll shoot until they're down. If I'm in the house, I'm using a carbine with 62gr soft points.

Jim

I'm happy to hear that your palm reading business is thriving. Personally, I don't have the ability to see the future, including when, where, and by what means an attack on me or my familty will come. Don't need to shoot through windshields? This lady probably wishes she could have.

The case histories are replete with examples of bad guys full of light, fast bullets who continued to function long enough to do more harm and beyond. I somehow doubt they'll just stand calmly while you feverishly pull your trigger, but then I still can't see the future. Hope it works out for ya.

jrswanson1 wrote:

WRW wrote:

jrswanson1 wrote:I think too many civilians get caught up in the FBI performance stuff. I don't need to shoot through car windows or cinder blocks if I'm in a defensive shoot. I'm not shooting Tangos in the sand box or stopping bank robbers from getting away with the goods. I'm defending myself and my family from dirt bags outside my home with a handgun. Light, fast bullets let me put more rounds into the bad guys and I'll shoot until they're down. If I'm in the house, I'm using a carbine with 62gr soft points.

Jim

I was right there with you till you said that light, fast bullets let you put more rounds into the bad guys...unless you are speaking of a different caliber than the one in question.

For the luddites still running 45 ACP, I'm talking 185gr JHPs. I've used those out of a compact Colt 1991 and was able to recover from recoil faster than running 230s out of it. I personally prefer 165gr bullets at over 1200 fps out of my Kimber 10mm , but that's just me.

Jim

So, at the risk of sounding pedantic, it is the same number of rounds at a faster rate for the same caliber.

And most attacks stop dead with a good head shot to the center of the head no matter what the caliber.
Bill

And most attacks stop dead with a good head shot to the center of the head no matter what the caliber.
Bill

TBob wrote:

jrswanson1 wrote:I think too many civilians get caught up in the FBI performance stuff. I don't need to shoot through car windows or cinder blocks if I'm in a defensive shoot. I'm not shooting Tangos in the sand box or stopping bank robbers from getting away with the goods. I'm defending myself and my family from dirt bags outside my home with a handgun. Light, fast bullets let me put more rounds into the bad guys and I'll shoot until they're down. If I'm in the house, I'm using a carbine with 62gr soft points.

Jim

I'm happy to hear that your palm reading business is thriving. Personally, I don't have the ability to see the future, including when, where, and by what means an attack on me or my familty will come. Don't need to shoot through windshields? This lady probably wishes she could have.

The case histories are replete with examples of bad guys full of light, fast bullets who continued to function long enough to do more harm and beyond. I somehow doubt they'll just stand calmly while you feverishly pull your trigger, but then I still can't see the future. Hope it works out for ya.

Two to the chest, one to the head. It's pretty simple.

And I really wonder about how to justify a windshield shoot to the responding officer. If I can make a shot on someone through a windshield, that means I'm standing in front of the car. I try not to stand in front of cars that are running at me, but maybe I have just too much common sense And if the car is stopped, I'm not justified in shooting the driver. Life isn't a Hollywood movie.

Jim

jrswanson1 wrote:

TBob wrote:

jrswanson1 wrote:I think too many civilians get caught up in the FBI performance stuff. I don't need to shoot through car windows or cinder blocks if I'm in a defensive shoot. I'm not shooting Tangos in the sand box or stopping bank robbers from getting away with the goods. I'm defending myself and my family from dirt bags outside my home with a handgun. Light, fast bullets let me put more rounds into the bad guys and I'll shoot until they're down. If I'm in the house, I'm using a carbine with 62gr soft points.

Jim

I'm happy to hear that your palm reading business is thriving. Personally, I don't have the ability to see the future, including when, where, and by what means an attack on me or my familty will come. Don't need to shoot through windshields? This lady probably wishes she could have.

The case histories are replete with examples of bad guys full of light, fast bullets who continued to function long enough to do more harm and beyond. I somehow doubt they'll just stand calmly while you feverishly pull your trigger, but then I still can't see the future. Hope it works out for ya.

Two to the chest, one to the head. It's pretty simple.

And I really wonder about how to justify a windshield shoot to the responding officer. If I can make a shot on someone through a windshield, that means I'm standing in front of the car. I try not to stand in front of cars that are running at me, but maybe I have just too much common sense And if the car is stopped, I'm not justified in shooting the driver. Life isn't a Hollywood movie.

Jim

Your choice of reference frames is the problem. It is far more likely that a private citizen must shoot out of their car rather than into one. E.g. the previously linked story.