Single stack vs single stack?

[Tronster]

I think the 9mm suffers from the "wasnt invented here" syndrome. regardless, id rather carry an 8 shot p239 than an 8 shot 1911.

[MasonK]

I'm by no means knocking .45 or 1911 platforms, but if the round is as good as the fans say it is, why is .45ACP not the primary service caliber of the overwhelming majority of LE and Federal agencies?

Perhaps that answer lies in the question: Why IS the .40 S&W, and not the 10mm auto the primary service caliber of the overwhelming majority of LE and Federal agencies?

Massad Ayoob discussed this a few years ago on Gun Rights Radio. As I recall, the FBI tests had issues with accurate follow up shots and controllability by agents. As a result, they down-shifted the power and created the .40 Smith cartridge. I'm sure someone with time will google that and set me straight if I'm not getting that correct.

[xd ED]

I'm by no means knocking .45 or 1911 platforms, but if the round is as good as the fans say it is, why is .45ACP not the primary service caliber of the overwhelming majority of LE and Federal agencies?

Perhaps that answer lies in the question: Why IS the .40 S&W, and not the 10mm auto the primary service caliber of the overwhelming majority of LE and Federal agencies?

Massad Ayoob discussed this a few years ago on Gun Rights Radio. As I recall, the FBI tests had issues with accurate follow up shots and controllability by agents. As a result, they down-shifted the power and created the .40 Smith cartridge. I'm sure someone with time will google that and set me straight if I'm not getting that correct.

That is more or less hat I have read. It was thought many smaller, non-shooter type agents would never master the 10mm, and it would take too much training( time + ammo = $) to bring most agents to proficiency. So they got a gun with the power of a hot 9mm, and the capacity of the 45acp. It- the 10mm was too much gun, for too much money.

[rugersol]

id rather carry an 8 shot p239 than an 8 shot 1911.

I've carried both! ... they're not a LOT different ... overall ... but my 1911 (4.25in, ~1.5oz lighter than the P239), I forget I'm wearing it! ... fer whatever reason, the same can't be said, fer the P239!

Frankly, with identical holsters, I doubt most anyone'd notice any difference ... save, the 1911 bein' somewhat slimmer! Oh, and the "Commander" 1911 bein' far easier to control ... at which, more accurate ... should it need be!

YMMV

[jshuberg]

For carry, I'd rather have a single stack 9mm than a .45, although that's mainly personal opinion.

When carrying a .45, follow up shots are slower than with a 9mm, so you have to train to get the accuracy necessary so as not to need as many follow up shots.
When carrying a 9mm, the amount of damage done per shot is less than a .45, so you have to train to get the accuracy necessary to make your shots as effective as possible.
When carrying a single stack magazine, you will run out of ammo and need to reload sooner than with a double stack. Because of the size of the mag well, you will have to train to be able to quickly insert the magazine under stress without fumbling with it.

Anyone see a pattern developing here?

Effectiveness has much more to do with the training level and proficiency of the shooter than with the hardware he carries, provided it's not junk. The people who are the most religious in their opinions about hardware are often times relying on their hardware to make up for a lack of proficiency.

[rugersol]

When carrying a .45, follow up shots are slower than with a 9mm, so you have to train to get the accuracy necessary so as not to need as many follow up shots.

... depends on the length of the slide/bbl ... weight towards the muzzle ... length/size of the grip ... and pf of the ammo! ... also, regular live-fire practice (i.e. "failure drill") can make all the difference!

When carrying a 9mm, the amount of damage done per shot is less than a .45, so you have to train to get the accuracy necessary to make your shots as effective as possible.

... gelatin shots I've seen, seem to suggest there's almost no difference! ... moreover, conversely, I'd suggest, don't strive to be any less accurate, with a larger caliber!

When carrying a single stack magazine, you will run out of ammo and need to reload sooner than with a double stack. Because of the size of the mag well, you will have to train to be able to quickly insert the magazine under stress without fumbling with it.

... if ya had to fire more than 2 - 3rd, yer probly in a purdy bad way, no matter what! ... that said, if that's important to ya, then ya! ... go with a 17rd 9mm! ... fer the 1911, ya've got at least 3 options fer the magwell, off the top of my head! ... I won't bother tryin' to say they're on par with most double-wides ... IMO, ya either practice reloads (preferably, on the clock, and with live-fire), 'er ya don't! ... if ya don't, I'd suggest a double-wide ain't gonna be yer savin' grace!

[Seismic Sam]

If you reall want to defend yourself get a Ma Duece otherwise you are just joking around.

Well, then I guess I'm sort of half joking around with "Baby Duece"

Unfortunately, there is as of yet no reported forensic data of the effect of a human stopping a 300 grain .500" dia Gold Dot at 880 FPS. Alex Zimmerman, however, reports the 50GI is just fine for black bears and wild hogs and boars...

[Kelor]

Personal experience here:

Carried my Glock 30SF for about 1 year ---- Maybe 5% of the time
Now have Kimber Solo CDP -- So far carrying 50% of the time

My conclusion is that the .45 was only "better" than the 9mm for the 18 days or so that I carried it last year, whereas the Kimber will be better than the Glock for the 163 additional days of the year that I carry.

I know many of you are more devoted to carrying at all times, but I'm not. I think there are plenty of people like me that tend to carry more if convenient.

[jshuberg]

With the exceptions of hits to the brain or upper spinal cord, the concept of reliable and reproducible immediate incapacitation of the human target by gunshot wounds to the torso is a myth. The human target is a complex and durable one. A wide variety of psychological, physical, and physiological factors exist, all of them pertinent to the probability of incapacitation. However, except for the location of the wound and the amount of tissue destroyed, none of the factors are within the control of the law enforcement officer.

Physiologically, a determined adversary can be stopped reliably and immediately only by a shot that disrupts the brain or upper spinal cord. Failing a hit to the central nervous system, massive bleeding from holes in the heart or major blood vessels of the torso causing circulatory collapse is the only other way to force incapacitation upon an adversary, and this takes time. For example, there is sufficient oxygen within the brain to support full, voluntary action for 10-15 seconds after the heart has been destroyed. In fact, physiological factors may actually play a relatively minor role in achieving rapid incapacitation. Barring central nervous system hits, there is no physiological reason for an individual to be incapacitated by even a fatal wound, until blood loss is sufficient to drop blood pressure and/or the brain is deprived of oxygen. The effects of pain, which could contribute greatly to incapacitation, are commonly delayed in the aftermath of serious injury such as a gunshot wound. The body engages survival patterns, the well known "fight or flight" syndrome. Pain is irrelevant to survival and is commonly suppressed until some time later. In order to be a factor, pain must first be perceived, and second must cause an emotional response. In many individuals, pain is ignored even when perceived, or the response is anger and increased resistance, not surrender.
...

Given adequate penetration, a larger diameter bullet will have an edge in wounding effectiveness. It will damage a blood vessel the smaller projectile barely misses. The larger permanent cavity may lead
to faster blood loss. Although such an edge clearly exists, its significance cannot be quantified.
...

Physiologically, no caliber or bullet is certain to incapacitate any individual unless the brain is hit. Psychologically, some individuals can be incapacitated by minor or small caliber wounds. Those
individuals who are stimulated by fear, adrenaline, drugs, alcohol, and/or sheer will and survival determination may not be incapacitated even if mortally wounded.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

Using ballistic gelatin to compare the wounding potential of different bullets is most useful when you consider the amount of penetration achieved. Any consideration given to the size of the permanent wound cavity, while interesting, doesn't equate to the effectiveness of the rounds ability to immediately stop the threat. The size of the permanent wound cavity in soft tissue isn't what immediately stops a threat, shot placement in the brain or spinal cord is. A larger diameter bullet, with larger expansion does provide a slight advantage when trying to hit a very small target. A .45 bullet may be "close enough" to nick a vertebrae and damage the spinal column, where a 9mm round might miss entirely. It's a slight advantage, but the larger the projectile, the more likely a close shot will be at stopping the threat.

[Holland&Holland]

If you reall want to defend yourself get a Ma Duece otherwise you are just joking around.

Well, then I guess I'm sort of half joking around with "Baby Duece"

Unfortunately, there is as of yet no reported forensic data of the effect of a human stopping a 300 grain .500" dia Gold Dot at 880 FPS. Alex Zimmerman, however, reports the 50GI is just fine for black bears and wild hogs and boars...

Dang it, back to the drawing board then. I usually carry a black bear as my primary and a wild boar for back up, now I feel under protected.

[Username000]

I'd love to have that 28 gauge Taurus revolver.

I admit I'm a .45 fanboy though, I just like the idea of putting a bigger hole in the target.

[XDM45]

I'd love to have that 28 gauge Taurus revolver.

I admit I'm a .45 fanboy though, I just like the idea of putting a bigger hole in the target.

There's a lot of us out there who like a good .45ACP round. The other week @ BPR, someone there had a 410 revolver, which was fun to shoot as well.

[Ron Burgundy]

If you reall want to defend yourself get a Ma Duece otherwise you are just joking around.

Well, then I guess I'm sort of half joking around with "Baby Duece"

Unfortunately, there is as of yet no reported forensic data of the effect of a human stopping a 300 grain .500" dia Gold Dot at 880 FPS. Alex Zimmerman, however, reports the 50GI is just fine for black bears and wild hogs and boars...

Awesome. Simply awesome.

[AFTERMATH]

So why is there a general attitude amongst gun owners that a single stack .45 1911 with 8 rounds is more than enough to defend against an attacker, but a single stack 9mm holding 8 rounds is hardly adequate? Does anyone really feel under armed with an 8 shot 9mm?

They both hold the same capacity, but the 9mm is generally smaller, lighter, softer shooting, and cheaper to practice with.
(BTW I sometimes carry a Sig P6. I've tried carrying pistols with 15 or 17 round mags but is awfully heavy.)

I feel under armed with anything less than an M-14...

.45 is better all the way, but the thing I've noticed that most pertains to your question is:

There's rarely very much difference in size between a double-stack and single-stack 9mm.
Take the Taurus 709 slim vs. Kel-tec P11 - To me it actually seems as though the 10rd P-11 is smaller than the 709 slim. I think it actually is shorter. Grips a little wider, but hey you get 3 more rounds. (more with the larger mags and/or extensions) And comparably they both fall into the 'pocket 9' category. Part of the 9mm side of the argument has always been larger capacity anyway.
So, why would the 9mm guys really go for a low capacity pistol when they're not gaining much in conceal-ability anyway.
Another one of the pros for 9mm is ease/comfort of shooting - Of which you lose a good amount in the real compact 9's.
It's not the hate of the .45 guys you're seeing as much as the lack of support from the 9mm guys.

So, the answer is not really in the 9mm vs. .45 debate, the answer is in the 9mm vs. 9mm debate.
'Cause any .45 guy is gonna say that any 9mm is inferior - So automatically they're gonna want twice the firepower.
But still, it'll be inferior. So, you're not gonna get any love there no matter what.
Why are the .45 guys ok with their single stacks? Well, because in .45 they're more prevalent and there is a huge difference in size between the two categories. So, .45 guys love the double-stacks for fire power and the single-stacks for comfort.

Now that answers the question of why the single stack .45's have a better following than the single stack 9's.

To answer the question of why 8rds of 9mm is inadequate see 9mm vs. .45 debate.
Though, if you're take take the round count out of the equation - I don't think there's anyway the 9mm could win.
Except for those physically incapable of handling .45 cal.
Or if you're keen on using slanted ballistics - Like 9mm extreme shock vs. .45 fmj...

Keep in mind the odds are that the average person is more than adequately armed with a pocket knife.
Most the time you won't need a gun at all. Most the time when you do, you won't need anything more than .380...
It's those times you do, where more lead comes in handy.

Most people gravitate towards the biggest, most powerful round that they can carry regularly and become proficient in.

[20mm]

The standard sidearm in the US Military is the Beretta M9 which replaced the antiquated 1911. So it's apparent the 9mm is better! nuff said.