Re: [DL] Re: Wound Ballistics

[Ross Coburn <coburn@videotron.ca>]

Daniel, something to consider in all of this is that the U.S. military 
switching to 9mm was not actually a popular move, and was as much (or 
more) a politically–motivated/lobbyist–driven move as anything else.

It was not done solely based on any qualities either cartridge may have, 
or lack. In fact, some of the arguments were quite specious. (If a 
soldier is worried about having 15+1 rounds in his backup weapon, 
something is drastically wrong.)

Furthermore, most of the special branches of the military (or civilian) 
forces, like the SEALS, FBI Hostage Rescue, etc., all still use .45, and 
as you yourself pointed out, many law–enforcement types do as well (or 
the .40/10mm, which is an attempt to combine better stopping power with 
higher–capacity magazines), and these are the people that shoot (or hope 
not to) for a living!

Finally, as you also pointed out, there are a LOT more handguns in the 
U.S. than anywhere else (I'd wonder if there are more in the U.S. than 
the rest of the world combined), and many, many, many of these are .45s, 
often purchased by people with the intent of using them to defend their 
homes or families.

In a free–market environment, without government (or anyone else) 
mandating the use of any cartridge in particular, the .45 is thriving. 
This is probably not a coincidence. Also, I'd point out that while 
you're admitting to no practical knowledge, many or most of the people 
making these purchases have just that, and are by definition better able 
to decide what they want/need.

Having actually fired both 9mm (Browning HP, Beretta 92) and .45 (Colt), 
I know bloody well which one *I* would want if I *had* to shoot someone 
(which thankfully I have never had to do, and would love to keep it that 
way, a circumstance made infinitely more likely given that I live in 
Canada and don't own a firearm).