One of the shortcomings of an internet post is that the reader cannot tell the tone of the poster so I want everyone to know that this post is with respect towards all parties involved.
Several months ago I stopped subscribing to all gun magazines. I wasn't mad, just tired of the endless advertisements, and the same articles written a different way and by a different person. (Like "How many different gadgets can you stick on a AR15")I would still purchase a SWAT magazine off of the shelf if there were any articles of interest to me and so I bought the July 05 issue a couple of weeks ago. I always enjoy Louis Awerbuck's articles and have read and appreciated some of Jeff Gonzales' articles but have not read much of Scott Reitz's work. I respect and admire Mr. Reitz's experience and credentials and so I was a little disappointed when I read another .45 acp vs. 9mm article. I understand that Mr. Reitz is relating from his personal experience but to put forth statements that the .45 acp is the cartridge to carry if you are serious about protecting your hide is, to me, not right. I don't have 28 years of experience but I do have 16 years of military and law enforcement experience and I just couldn't let this one pass since I carry a 9mm daily and am quite "serious" about going home after a days work.
Most of the article, in my opinion, is right on but there are a couple of statements made by Mr. Reitz that I don't agree with. (Not because I have evidence to the contrary but because I don't know of any evidence that exists) One statement is "The .45 works consistently and has a proven track record throughout history to back it." I think that statement begs the question: What record? Since Marshall and Sanow's data has been discredited, I don't know of any other study that actually uses real street data to determine what works and what doesn't. I know "conventional wisdom" says that the .45 acp is better but does that really hold true? I believe that to Mr. Reitz, who was the one who went home after his three shootings with the cartridge, the .45 acp probably means everything. But, does three shootings where the .45 acp worked well prove that the .45 acp always works? I don't think so. And, would the 9mm have worked if that happened to be the cartridge used in those instances? Mr. Reitz goes on to say, "The 9mm has stopped fights to be sure, but not with the success record of the .45" Again I ask to see the two records compared or at least a quote of the source of this information. I think you also have to ask the question: what does the writer mean by "work". As in, "..it (the .45) does in fact work - especially when center hits are realized." Are we talking stopping the fight and if so, does the 9mm not work when center hits are realized? I think you should also ask the question: if a .45 stops a fight in 2 shots and a 9mm stops it in three shots, is the .45 considered effective and the 9mm ineffective? And if the fight is stopped without regard to the number of shots fired isn't the point moot anyway? I know I'm shooting the threat until it is gone, no matter what caliber of handgun I may be carrying at the time.
Jeff Gonzales referred to the "psychological stop" in his article in the same issue of SWAT. I believe that the psychological aspect of any gunfight is at best unpredictable and that it is the factor that largely led to the discreditation of Marshall and Sanow's work. That said, I think that as long, as the psychological aspect is a consideration, that one can never determine what is really effective and what is not due to the fact that in some, most, or all of the fights you study the threat may have ceased just from the stark realization that he/she has just been shot. In that case a .22 will probably work just as well as a 9, .40 or .45.
I thank God that I have never had to drop the hammer on another person. I have had many scumbags at the end of my pistol who were a half a pound away from eternity but I have never been forced to gain compliance by gunfire. I can only depend on what others who have been there, done that, have to say about it and I have read about and talked personally with several individuals who have and I listen to what they have to say. In trying to think of a person who has been in more gunfights than anyone else that I am aware of, I thought of Col Charlie Askins who after numerous gunfights on the Mexico border said this in his book "Pistols and Revolvers": "The 9mm is my favorite loading for defensive use..There are 10 million infantrymen who fire the round either in pistol or submachinegun. It has been the death of more of the enemy than all of the other handgun loadings put together." Col. Askins goes on to say, "There is a tendency to disparage the the 9mm as a full bore, man size defensive caliber. This campaign to discredit this fine cartridge is hardly borne out by history. Designed in 1902, the 9mm has seen more action, been in at the kill on ore occasions, and is today carried by more armies that all of the other military calibers put together." It is interesting to note that Askins describes many of his fights as involving the .45 acp but a good many of his victories were achieved using the .38 Special. Go figure. I also like what Ken Hackathorn in his "Tactical Advantage" article said a couple of years ago, "As a matter of fact, there is quite a bit of evidence around showing a superior 9mm round will often perform as well as, or better than, many popular .45 acp cartridges. Imagine that."
Now again, it's not that I don't respect Scott Reitz's advice, but just in this one point, I think the debate over .45 vs. 9mm is wasted time and energy. Having carried the .45 acp, the .40, and the 9mm on may different occasions, I personally feel that there isn't a nickels worth of difference between them. Thanks,
