quote:

Originally posted by maxwayne:
If I remember the autopsy results, the Silver Tip severed his aorta. It was a non-survivable wound.

I’m pretty certain it didn’t sever his aorta. The bullet path was directly in line with the heart, but stopped a couple or so inches short. With someone who was as dedicated as he was, a heart shot would not have been an instant stopper either, IMO. The wound was deemed “nonsurvivable,” but exactly who made that determination and why I don’t know.

Based on my admitted limited knowledge, including having investigated a death due to a handgun shot directly through the heart and the pathologist’s explanation of the mechanism of that death’s cause, I believe severing the aorta could actually have resulted in incapacitation more quickly than perforating the heart.

The forensic explanation of why the wound was nonsurvivable may have been due to the damage to the killer’s lung. I’ve often wondered, though, if the other/real reason for the claim was to make it seem as though the agents had managed at least one good shot that failed because of the bullet’s characteristic, not due any lack of tactical or marksmanship skills by the team.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
I think .45 ACP will decline even further to a niche cartridge. Nostalgia is great and so are 1911's but I see fewer and fewer non-1911 options now.

Went to two different gun shows last weekend and there were about the same number of handguns chambered in .380 as there were in .45 ACP. The vast majority of what I saw were 9mms. I only remember seeing one or two .40 S&Ws and not a single .357 Sig.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by maxwayne:
If I remember the autopsy results, the Silver Tip severed his aorta. It was a non-survivable wound.

I’m pretty certain it didn’t sever his aorta. The bullet path was directly in line with the heart, but stopped a couple or so inches short. With someone who was as dedicated as he was, a heart shot would not have been an instant stopper either, IMO. The wound was deemed “nonsurvivable,” but exactly who made that determination and why I don’t know.

Based on my admitted limited knowledge, including having investigated a death due to a handgun shot directly through the heart and the pathologist’s explanation of the mechanism of that death’s cause, I believe severing the aorta could actually have resulted in incapacitation more quickly than perforating the heart.

The forensic explanation of why the wound was nonsurvivable may have been due to the damage to the killer’s lung. I’ve often wondered, though, if the other/real reason for the claim was to make it seem as though the agents had managed at least one good shot that failed because of the bullet’s characteristic, not due any lack of tactical or marksmanship skills by the team.

I believe this is correct.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I’ve often wondered, though, if the other/real reason for the claim was to make it seem as though the agents had managed at least one good shot that failed because of the bullet’s characteristic, not due any lack of tactical or marksmanship skills by the team.

To your point, taking pistols to a rifle fight is and will always be a loser.

But, the FBI hails the supervisors as heroes, and blames the equipment.

While the interest in 9mm will continue, I predict .45 and 10mm will continue to find more fans. Along with that, interest in revolvers will also rise.

I have gravitated back to .45 in recent years.

The G30s is a perfect carry piece.

quote:

Originally posted by JMag:
While the interest in 9mm will continue, I predict .45 and 10mm will continue to find more fans. Along with that, interest in revolvers will also rise.

Unless there is some type of drastic gun control passed, that simply is not going to happen. .45 and revolvers are much more likely to die with the boomers.

As much as I love my .45 ACP and .38 Special, it’s become a 9mm and 5.56 world. That’s what’s available and what’s affordable and that’s where I’ve been personally focusing. I don’t see that changing unless there’s a legal or technological change to drive something else to the forefront.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Unless there is some type of drastic gun control passed, that simply is not going to happen. .45 and revolvers are much more likely to die with the boomers.

The 1911s are going to live on, and according to Bill Wilson, the majority of the single stack 1911 orders they get are in .45 with the majority of the 9mm buyers going to their double stack pattern. I'm also interested in seeing what the 2011 market will do with .45 now that Kimber is making .45 2011s.

However, I don't think we're getting anything affordable that will run with G21s, USP .45s, or the FN 545.

9mm continues to be popular, but I think there will still be others. The .380 seems to be sticking around still. 10mm is enjoying a resurgence, especially here in Alaska. Nothing matches the mild to wild versatility of the .357 magnum.

Shoot-ability, highest capacity and price of ammo.
Almost all modern guns are available in the caliber.
Little difference in effects between the calibers with modern ammo.
Not much to not like about all that.

Interesting thoughts all. Thanks.

Part of me does think we might see a bit of a bigger bore resurgence simply because the folks “raised on 9mm” might want to stretch their legs so to speak and try some different things and rounds such as .45 can be immensely fun to shoot.

As we millions of baby boomers are approaching 80, the reduced recoil of the 9 is preferable to the .45. I still shoot both, but the 9 is preferable.

quote:

Originally posted by maxwayne:
As we millions of baby boomers are approaching 80, the reduced recoil of the 9 is preferable to the .45. I still shoot both, but the 9 is preferable.

I'm not halfway to 80 yet (getting close!), but I agree with this. My son and I spent a day on the range last week with 4 full-size handguns...2 1911s in .45, and a P09 and P226 in 9mm. While I love the 1911 and don't really consider myself to be recoil sensitive, it was undeniable how much easier the 9mms were to shoot, with less muzzle flip and faster follow-up shots. Add to that the price difference and capacity advantages of 9mm, and the .45 makes less and less sense as a general EDC option.

Nothing currently on the market will come close to replacing 9x19. The not insignificant developments and improvements in projectile performance and effectiveness, coupled with the cartridge's huge economies of scale has seen to that. The 1911 and its offspring will still have its place in the marketplace; while not sold in huge numbers compared to usual plastic fantastics, our number one demographic for traditional 1911s are twentysomethings and by a margin that's not even close when compared to other age groups. From what our shop has seen the 2011 has indeed reignited interest in the "ancient" JMB design, whether it be double or single-stack. And affordable options like those Tisas has been offering has certainly helped push interest in "ol' fo-five".

There will also be those like me who continue to like and shoot .40. Despite my ever-aging joints there's something wickedly satisfying about taming the power of that snappish round. It's also a far better training round (IMHO) than any 9mm can be for those who jump headlong into the 10mm space, which continues to thrive in this neck of the woods. I don't see .40 falling as far down that it turns into a niche caliber like .357SIG, but there's no doubt that it doesn't sell nearly like it used to, in no small way due as much to the lack of support from the gun makers offering new or even any product at all as it's facing with challenges from the improvements in 9mm.

I am one of those boomers who is turning 80 and I love the 45ACP and shoot it regularly. The 9mm is a foreigner's cartridge! Although I do own several.

You are correct and I remembered wrong. Here is the autopsy: https://www.autopsyfiles.org/r...20michael_report.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by maxwayne:
If I remember the autopsy results, the Silver Tip severed his aorta. It was a non-survivable wound.

I’m pretty certain it didn’t sever his aorta. The bullet path was directly in line with the heart, but stopped a couple or so inches short. With someone who was as dedicated as he was, a heart shot would not have been an instant stopper either, IMO. The wound was deemed “nonsurvivable,” but exactly who made that determination and why I don’t know.

Based on my admitted limited knowledge, including having investigated a death due to a handgun shot directly through the heart and the pathologist’s explanation of the mechanism of that death’s cause, I believe severing the aorta could actually have resulted in incapacitation more quickly than perforating the heart.

The forensic explanation of why the wound was nonsurvivable may have been due to the damage to the killer’s lung. I’ve often wondered, though, if the other/real reason for the claim was to make it seem as though the agents had managed at least one good shot that failed because of the bullet’s characteristic, not due any lack of tactical or marksmanship skills by the team.

All it would take for .357SIG to make a comeback is an endorsement from Taylor Swift and 6 internet influencers.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by JMag:
While the interest in 9mm will continue, I predict .45 and 10mm will continue to find more fans. Along with that, interest in revolvers will also rise.

Unless there is some type of drastic gun control passed, that simply is not going to happen. .45 and revolvers are much more likely to die with the boomers.

This might just be the only thing we disagree on.
I don't think the .45 is going anywhere.



The FBI has always been setting the standards when it comes to "caliber". They, for all of their other glaring faults, really do have some good research when it comes to ballistics. Especially Terminal Ballistics. Hence their 10mm and .40 Cal handguns for a long time. Look at the old school ballistics tests: The .40, .45, and 10mm always had better results.

Then round technology caught up. About 10 years or so ago, the 9mm started to catch up with bonded rounds, different thickness of copper jackets, different designs... Now, penetration between the 9mm, 40cal, 45cal, 357Sig, 10mm are all close, the Permanent Cavity made is around the same as well. One of these days, there's going to be a "New and Exciting" caliber that's going to come out, or someone is going to re-vamp the .40 (or whatever caliber). All to make the "Great Caliber Debate" just that much more interesting. By the way, whatever happened to the .25cal? the .32cal??? You could probably have a 30 round magazine in .25caliber the same size as a 17 round 9mm Glock mag. But the .25 cal just sucks.

As far as "practical", the .40, the .357 Sig, the .45, the 10mm are all "practical"- depending on the intended purpose. For Example, I like my 9mm for concealed carry here in Chicago. If I'm in Montana, Alaska, I might just expand my arsenal and include a 10mm, because Yogi Bear takes a little more to drop vs Huggy Bear. I'm not going to argue, but the 9mm is kind of the "best of both worlds" when it comes to stopping power, penetration, permanent cavity, and magazine capacity. However, the Wheel-Guns aren't going to disappear, outside of from more duty holsters.

Some thoughts about defensive firearm ballistic effectiveness.

I have been interested in the question of wound ballistics and handgun “stopping power” since I became aware that there could be differences among various cartridges, and that’s been a long time. But although it hasn’t been nearly that long, I also came to the conclusion some years ago that in the vast majority of defensive situations the wound ballistics characteristics of the cartridge used don’t matter at all. As is demonstrated by many Internet videos, just being shot at will deter a large percentage of attackers in non-law enforcement incidents, and even blanks would accomplish that.

Therefore when someone says that the 9mm performs as well as more powerful cartridges, that’s true: it goes “bang” and when used properly it pokes holes, and that’s all that’s required in all but a tiny fraction of defensive shootings. It’s obviously true that based on objective ballistic facts that more powerful cartridges are, well …, more powerful, but it’s become an article of faith that more handgun power and the effects that more power produce simply don’t matter.

Because of how most non-LE defensive shootings turn out, I’m inclined myself to accept that power doesn’t matter, but what is odd is how it changes when discussing other defensive weapons, specifically shotguns and centerfire rifles. Those firearms also go bang and poke holes when used properly, but some of the same people who don’t believe differences in handgun power matter do believe that power and other characteristics do matter when using a long gun.

We frequently see that in discussions about such weapons. What man in his right mind would believe that 12 gauge birdshot* could possibly be relied upon for self-defense purposes? It simply doesn’t have the wounding effects of good old 00 or at least #4 buckshot.

As for rifles, many men are still convinced that the 223 Remington/5.56mm NATO cartridges are marginal at best for the purpose and it would be better to have the 308 Winchester available to be sure of the proper outcome. In other words, my preferred 223 load that delivers nearly 1100 foot-pounds of energy is borderline acceptable, but who could ask for anything more than 360 ft-lb from a 9mm pistol?

All this leads me to ask about the very rare situations in which the aggressor is someone like the military vet who killed two FBI agents in the 1986 incident and who doesn’t run away or at least give up when hit by a couple of 9mm bullets: How do we know that modern 9mm loads would have been “just as good” as more powerful rounds? I often see that claim, and I can only think, “How does he know that?” What empirical information is available these days to support that claim, especially as use of other cartridges becomes rarer? What’s the basis for comparison? If it’s based on the theoretical idea that bullets these days perform better than those in 1986, why wouldn’t those advancements benefit other handgun cartridges as well?

But all this is just rhetorical musings. We all have our preferences and “good enough” is just that: good enough. For the vast majority of us who aren’t ever going to be involved in military or even law enforcement combat, just having a gun will be sufficient, and if it goes “bang” if necessary, all the better.

* I am familiar with birdshot’s ballistics.