9mm or 45cal

[BlueTrain]

I would say it is unwise to do anything else. However, I would hardly suggest anyone go around telling people that they intend to kill someone. That will only make people afraid of you but not necessarily make any potential assailant refrain from doing you harm. My father said that the person who is afraid of you is the person who will kill you.

But if you have a Christian philosophy, all of this is a moot question. Not because you wouldn't defend yourself but because you do not have anything worth stealing. In any event, most notions of self-defense involve a degree of paranoia, which is a form of vanity. Mind you, I am saying this as an old man. Others will have their own point of view.

 

[Willybob]

Well said. "But if you have a Christian philosophy...." I believe God decides who dies and who lives, not I. I am trained to shoot for the fastest incapacitation. Whether I can accomplish this depends on many varying factors based on the situation dealt. The constitution of the shootie plays a huge role in the outcome. There are endless stories of those who took a big round in the head or multiple rounds and survived and those who died after taking a .22 to an extremity. My dad took a .22 to the heart and live another 40 years with only one lung because he was a tuff character. I shoot center mass to stop and leave the end outcome to the providence of the All Mighty.

 

[jkingrph]

I have an elderly aunt that has a 22 bullet embedded in her brain, as was shown on an x ray some 30-40 years ago. Back in the early 1930's when she was an infant, some sisters had her outside on a porch when I was told she started crying and a spot started bleeding a little, then she stopped crying and apparently all was well until many years later when in her 40's she had some unexplained headaches, hence the x rays of her head and the discovery. It was thought a hunter or some kid plinking at a distance from their country house fired the shot which traveled a long way and struck with enough energy to penetrate, and luckily hit a spot that did no real harm.

 

[BlueTrain]

My father, an infantry veteran in WWII (captured in Italy, too), told me that a .45 bullet would knock you down if it hit a finger. I had no reason to doubt him at the time, although it seemed to me like one would be very unfortunate to be hit in the finger--or is it the other way around? He also showed me how to disable both an automatic (push back the slide) and a revolver (grasp the cylinder so it can't turn). But he was probably faster than me. Anyway, to read what some people say about the .45 ACP, one would think it were a less-than-lethal round. In the same way, when I mention that based on what I've seen, a Harley-Davidson is an old person's bike and every bike owner I've told that to agreed.

I still like a .38 Super over any other pistol round (and a .357 in revolvers). I suspect (true confessions) that I like the Colt Government Model but just like being a little different. But I will allow that a .45 isn't a bad round.

 

[IXL]

Growing up in the 70's, we held as true that being hit in the finger with a .45 ACP would knock you down, being hit in the finger with a .30-06 (M-1 battle rifle from WWII) would take your arm off at the shoulder, and that a .357 Magnum, fired into a car's front fender, would crack the engine block every time.

As an aside, while going through the academy, we were instructed concerning the clamping-the-cylinder-will-disable-the-revolver idea. It was proven time and again that it only worked if the person possessing the revolver was a complete sissy. Everyone else could, through violent movement, manage to begin loosing rounds in the direction of the adversary: definitely a last-ditch manoeuver.

 

[Stearmen]

The only way to disable a pistol, is to get the web between your thumb and index finger between the hammer and firing pin. Difficult, and not recommended, but not impossible. Before you say bunk, September 5, 1975, Lynette 'Squeaky' Fromme, pointed a Colt 1911 .45 at President Gerald Ford and pulled the trigger! Agent Larry Buendorf got the web of his hand in between the hammer and firing pin, then the other agents arrested her. It was later said the the pistol had a full magazine, but not a round in the chamber, either way, a braver man than I!

 

[Stearmen]

I just remember an old saying, "when the chips are down, any caliber is better then non at all!"

 

[BlueTrain]

I've never been shot at but I imagine that if I were, I wouldn't be thinking much about what caliber it might be.

 

[Curmudgeon]

Whatever you are comfortable with and can control. One hit with a 9mm is more effective than 5 misses with a .45. I used to impress on students, "you can't miss fast enough to win."

 

[BlueTrain]

Oh, I thought you only had to come close with a .45.

On a more serious note, however, it is interesting that more than one army in WWII used .380 pistols and they had all had way more combat experience than both of us put together.

 

[IXL]

Oh, I thought you only had to come close with a .45.

On a more serious note, however, it is interesting that more than one army in WWII used .380 pistols and they had all had way more combat experience than both of us put together.

Yes, yes they did. And some armies in WWII sent their cavalries, still on horseback and possessing lances (Poland), up against other countries' cavalries which consisted of the tank corps (Germany) with predictable results. The U.S. army issued some generals 1911 models chambered in .380, but it is my understanding that anyone who might be expected to actually fire against an adversary was issued a larger caliber handgun.

 

[Stearmen]

Yes, yes they did. And some armies in WWII sent their cavalries, still on horseback and possessing lances (Poland), up against other countries' cavalries which consisted of the tank corps (Germany) with predictable results.

Actually, that's an old wives tail. The cavalry charged German infantry, which were forced to retreat until some armored cars with machine guns showed up. Their charge allowed the Polish 1st Rifle battalion and Czersk Operational Group to withdraw safely. So sorry, no heroic charge against hordes of invading Panzer's!

 

[BlueTrain]

I once actually met a gentleman (about 30 some years ago) who served in the Polish army as a cavalryman in 1939. He had also ridden in the 1936 Olympics. It was at a Christmas party at the home of another gentleman who took part in the last mounted operation of the British Army in Palestine. He was with the Cheshire Yeomanry. When it was converted to a signals unit, he transferred to the Scots Greys. I later learned he had been born in Germany. He also rode in the Olympics (post-war) for Canada. Also present was a former colonel of the Blues, having served in the 2nd Household Cavalry Regiment in WWII.

One runs into some interesting people around here now and then.

 

[IXL]

Actually, that's an old wives tail. The cavalry charged German infantry, which were forced to retreat until some armored cars with machine guns showed up. Their charge allowed the Polish 1st Rifle battalion and Czersk Operational Group to withdraw safely. So sorry, no heroic charge against hordes of invading Panzer's!

Well, I'll be darned. I've read about those actions many times over the years, as well as heard the stories. To find out I'm wrong about this actually makes me feel quite a bit better about mankind in general. I've always hated to think about the waste of good troops on a futile charge of this magnatude, bravery aside.
Thank you for pointing this out to me. Another reason this is my favorite loungs to hang out in and get a drink......I learn things.

 

[BlueTrain]

There were futile charges in both world wars, not to mention the Civil War. The worst was probably in WWI, especially by the Germans and the French. They mowed one another down with machine guns and artillery.

 

[IXL]

There were futile charges in both world wars, not to mention the Civil War. The worst was probably in WWI, especially by the Germans and the French. They mowed one another down with machine guns and artillery.

Oh yes, I'm aware of this. I've also read that in WWI, troops were offloaded from train transports just as fast as the cars could be emptied and hustled right up to the front trenches, at times with a life expectancy of mere minutes upon arrival.

 

[BlueTrain]

That would be a slight exaggeration.

 

[IXL]

Not according to several accounts and histories I've read, which would be in keeping with the battle strategy of "human wave" assaults known to have been employed by both sides against entrenched opponents. I never intended to imply that the whole war was fought in such a manner.

 

[BlueTrain]

The theory from the French standpoint was that the assault was the spirit of battle or something like that. The German viewpoint was that no one could stand up to a determined full-frontal assault. Only the British thought otherwise. Their army was smaller and they couldn't afford to waste their manpower. They nevertheless sometimes made very expensive attacks during the war, manpower-wise. The German thinking carried over into WWII and very high casualty rates were considered acceptable when appropriate if the objectives were achieved. But I suppose if the casualties were low but the objective not achieved, then those casualties might be considered unacceptably high. The French in WWII fought well enough but their generalship was lacking and ultimately they did not wish to be bled dry again.

The population of Germany was about 50% greater than that of France both just before WWI and WWII. Both countries maintained relatively huge armies at the time.

 

[EngProf]

The theory from the French standpoint was that the assault was the spirit of battle or something like that. The German viewpoint was that no one could stand up to a determined full-frontal assault. Only the British thought otherwise. Their army was smaller and they couldn't afford to waste their manpower. They nevertheless sometimes made very expensive attacks during the war, manpower-wise. The German thinking carried over into WWII and very high casualty rates were considered acceptable when appropriate if the objectives were achieved. But I suppose if the casualties were low but the objective not achieved, then those casualties might be considered unacceptably high. The French in WWII fought well enough but their generalship was lacking and ultimately they did not wish to be bled dry again.

The population of Germany was about 50% greater than that of France both just before WWI and WWII. Both countries maintained relatively huge armies at the time.

Concerning the British and frontal assaults, don't forget the first day of the Somme Offensive - July 1, 1916. ~58,000 British casualties in one day, ~20,000 killed.