JimConway
Instructor
From Scottie Reitz's monthly offerings:
Considering Calibers
By: Scott Reitz, ITTS Lead Instructor
The question arises concerning the 9mm versus the .40 caliber versus the 10 mm versus the .45 caliber. At this point I suppose arguments can be made for all calibers. First and foremost, you need to work with a caliber with which you are willing and can afford, to practice with. Inspector Harry Callahan (Clint Eastwood of S.F.P.D.) used a
.44 magnum but I am willing to guess that practice was somewhat infrequent and the full house loads, (unless you're Clint) were somewhat unworkable for rapid follow up shots. If you're Clint you can pull this off and if not...you can't!
The LAPD had many dozens of documented failures of the 9mm to stop the threat. I am personally aware of these and have worked OIS cases involving this caliber. The .40 caliber has recently been adopted by the department so from my perspective the jury is still out. It has a sharp recoil and is only 2 tenths of a caliber larger than the 9mm which for all intent and purpose is .38 caliber. The .45 is precisely that - .45 caliber. If it should expand beyond .45 then so much the better. For a period of time every member of Metro, SWAT and S.I.S.
carried .45's. This should tell you something as for a collective group they were involved in more O.I.S.'s than any other entity on the department.
The argument arises that the 9mm or the .40 caliber round itself had been improved to upgrade its performance. Yes...and guess what?
They also improved the .45 caliber bullet as well. What they did for the other calibers they also did for the .45. These manufactures are not going to improve just one round. They are going to improve them all. Consider this as well.
Another point to consider is that even a 12 gauge shotgun round with full house loads may not instantly cease a threat. Since the pistol round delivers a portion of the shotgun rounds effective stopping capacity this is a point worth considering.
There is of course, the argument of magazine capacity and the amount of rounds which an individual can carry. I came up against this argument when presenting a case for a voluntary adoption of the .45 for field grade, LAPD Officers. The command staff pointed out the 'limited' number of rounds of the .45 versus the 9mm. My argument?
If I have twenty loaded magazines yet I can't hit with the first 15 rounds...what's the point? From the shootings I've investigated and worked on, the more rounds downrange oftentimes equates into more misses. Fewer rounds downrange seem to equate into more hits. This is worth noting.
For myself I prefer the .45. I have used it (read the book) and it seemed to work. If and when I can no longer control it, I will opt for a different caliber. This is a highly personal choice and so I stand by it. What another individual feels comfortable with is their personal choice and I would stand by that as well.
The caveat to all of this is that the human body reacts in a different manner to a similar infliction of gunshot wounds. What seemed effective in one case may not be in another. I have observed this, first hand in many of the cases on which I have worked. The terminal effectiveness of gunshot wounds is an inexact science at best. There are many mitigating factors which would take an entire book to cover that correspondingly determine the effectiveness of gunshot wounds.
The goal is to deal an effective stopping force with the least amount of rounds possible. Theory is one thing and reality is quite another.
Whatever caliber you choose you should practice with. If you do not practice - then all of the foregoing is a moot point. The gun magazines and internet will continue to argue on and on over the question of caliber. It sells magazines and continues these information threads. Most of it is marketing. A lot of it is uninformed drivel. A point worth considering: if you can't hit in the first place then caliber choice is purely academic. A hit with a BB gun is more effective than a miss with a five inch shell.
Considering Calibers
By: Scott Reitz, ITTS Lead Instructor
The question arises concerning the 9mm versus the .40 caliber versus the 10 mm versus the .45 caliber. At this point I suppose arguments can be made for all calibers. First and foremost, you need to work with a caliber with which you are willing and can afford, to practice with. Inspector Harry Callahan (Clint Eastwood of S.F.P.D.) used a
.44 magnum but I am willing to guess that practice was somewhat infrequent and the full house loads, (unless you're Clint) were somewhat unworkable for rapid follow up shots. If you're Clint you can pull this off and if not...you can't!
The LAPD had many dozens of documented failures of the 9mm to stop the threat. I am personally aware of these and have worked OIS cases involving this caliber. The .40 caliber has recently been adopted by the department so from my perspective the jury is still out. It has a sharp recoil and is only 2 tenths of a caliber larger than the 9mm which for all intent and purpose is .38 caliber. The .45 is precisely that - .45 caliber. If it should expand beyond .45 then so much the better. For a period of time every member of Metro, SWAT and S.I.S.
carried .45's. This should tell you something as for a collective group they were involved in more O.I.S.'s than any other entity on the department.
The argument arises that the 9mm or the .40 caliber round itself had been improved to upgrade its performance. Yes...and guess what?
They also improved the .45 caliber bullet as well. What they did for the other calibers they also did for the .45. These manufactures are not going to improve just one round. They are going to improve them all. Consider this as well.
Another point to consider is that even a 12 gauge shotgun round with full house loads may not instantly cease a threat. Since the pistol round delivers a portion of the shotgun rounds effective stopping capacity this is a point worth considering.
There is of course, the argument of magazine capacity and the amount of rounds which an individual can carry. I came up against this argument when presenting a case for a voluntary adoption of the .45 for field grade, LAPD Officers. The command staff pointed out the 'limited' number of rounds of the .45 versus the 9mm. My argument?
If I have twenty loaded magazines yet I can't hit with the first 15 rounds...what's the point? From the shootings I've investigated and worked on, the more rounds downrange oftentimes equates into more misses. Fewer rounds downrange seem to equate into more hits. This is worth noting.
For myself I prefer the .45. I have used it (read the book) and it seemed to work. If and when I can no longer control it, I will opt for a different caliber. This is a highly personal choice and so I stand by it. What another individual feels comfortable with is their personal choice and I would stand by that as well.
The caveat to all of this is that the human body reacts in a different manner to a similar infliction of gunshot wounds. What seemed effective in one case may not be in another. I have observed this, first hand in many of the cases on which I have worked. The terminal effectiveness of gunshot wounds is an inexact science at best. There are many mitigating factors which would take an entire book to cover that correspondingly determine the effectiveness of gunshot wounds.
The goal is to deal an effective stopping force with the least amount of rounds possible. Theory is one thing and reality is quite another.
Whatever caliber you choose you should practice with. If you do not practice - then all of the foregoing is a moot point. The gun magazines and internet will continue to argue on and on over the question of caliber. It sells magazines and continues these information threads. Most of it is marketing. A lot of it is uninformed drivel. A point worth considering: if you can't hit in the first place then caliber choice is purely academic. A hit with a BB gun is more effective than a miss with a five inch shell.