Issues in Caliber, Gabe Suarez (must read)

[redneckpastor]

I quote Gabe Suarez here in an article that i found extremely helpful in all that jazz about more knock down and this and that.

Gabe Suarez
One Source Tactical
Suarez International USA
Christian Warrior Ministries


Magazine Capacity

I suppose this will be yet another highly controversial issue, but
what the heck. Controversy makes for interesting discussion, no? The
issue is to look at whether high magazine capacity gives you a
tactical advantage, or if we are better served by carrying an equally
sized weapon with a smaller capacity of bigger bullets. Before I
answer my own question, let me put forth some facts as seen both in
force on force training and on the street.

Point One - Pistol bullets, regardless of caliber are all, what one
colleague calls, "iffy". None can be guaranteed to drop an adversary
in his tracks reliably. The notion of a one shot stop is an urban
myth dreamed up by those with a vested interest in such things. I
have seen 45s work and fail, and I have seen 9mm both work and fail.
For the record, the only one shot drop (excluding head shots) I have
ever seen with a pistol was fired by a good friend as we entered a
crack house during a SWAT raid. He shot the bad guy squarely in the
heart with 9mm +P+ out of a SIG P-226. He only fired once because the
bad guy fell before my friend could reset his trigger for the next
shot!

If we look at the most prevalent calibers we see that there is very
little difference between them. A 9mm (also .38/.357) is only one
little millimeter smaller than the 10mm (aka .40 S&W), and that is
only one little millimeter less than the vaunted 11mm (aka .45 ACP).
And before we get into the high speed light bullet versus the heavy
slow bullet argument, lets remember that you can only drive a pistol
bullet so fast without drastically affecting its integrity. Moreover,
since penetration is affected by weight, sacrificing weight for speed
will not yield good results. Finally, you can only make a bullet so
light or so heavy. There are limits to what you can shoot out of a
pistol.

I have seen every one of these calibers fail at one time or another.
There are those who disdain the 9mm as unsuitable for anything larger
than squirrels. With modern ammunition, this is simply not true.
There is also a myth and a cult grown up around the .45 ACP in this
country. Sadly, it is not the deadly hammer of god its proponents
suggest. This is not new. Read Fairbairn's Shoot To Live. He
writes of two separate times when the .45 failed to work any better
than anything else. Although one millimeter may give you a slight
edge in a less than optimum body hit, under most circumstances, there
will be very little difference between the effectiveness of the
various calibers when modern anti-personnel ammo is used. Trauma
injury doctors and reputable terminal ballistics experts tend to agree
with this statement.

Point Two - Private Citizen CCW Operators do not go looking for
trouble. If they are called to fight it is either because they have
inadvertently crossed paths with bad guys while they are doing bad
guy stuff (walking in on a robbery in progress as an example), or
because they have been specifically targeted and stalked (such as a
carjack, or home invasion event). They will have to use extreme
violence to fight off the surprise attackers. When we translate the
conversion of fright and startle into a firearm application we wee
that definition is high volume of fire. You will shoot a lot, and
until the threat is no longer there.

While these events share slightly different dynamics, the common
thread often seen is that of multiple adversaries. The lone criminal
or terrorist is an urban myth. If your fight only involves one,
consider yourself lucky. More often than not you will be outnumbered.

Another point is the time frames in which these events take place.
Think three seconds. After this, either you will be dead, or your
adversaries will be dead. Urban gunfights do not go for hours.
Unexpected, short duration, high intensity, extreme violence, multiple
adversaries. That is the back drop.

Point Three - Our staff has collectively been in a large number of
gunfights ranging from police, citizen, and military events. We draw
on those experiences to set up mock gunfights in dynamic, unscripted
force on force training drills. Although the surprise factor is
missing (you generally don t know you will be in a gunfight until it
is upon you), the dynamics of its evolution do not change much. Here
are some other observations from watching hundreds of those drills.

1). Defenders will fire their weapons until the threat disappears.
That means that until the role player falls down (simulating effective
hits delivered), or runs away (removing the target), the good guy will
keep firing. The concept of school solutions, controlled pairs, or
otherwise artificially limiting the number of shots (as one does in a
firing string on the range) does not hold up even in guys who've been
extensively trained to do it.

2). When a training gun stops firing (due to running out of pellets),
the shooter is still in the fight and still trying to shoot his enemy
as well as trying to not be hit by him. We see them continue to try
to work the trigger for one or two times before there is a realization
that there has been a stoppage (malfunction or empty gun). This is
followed by a visual examination of the gun, and only then is remedial
action taken.

This can take upwards f a second and a half before anything is even
attempted to fix the gun, and then the additional time needed to
reload. Thus the idea that one can read the gun s feel and
immediately realize a need to speed load simply does not hold up.
Running out of ammo is usually a fight ender if there has been a
failure to stop, or there are multiple adversaries at hand.

3). Participants in these reactive mock gunfights are debriefed
immediately to get a clear picture of what happened before any
rationalization takes place. Besides a shoot them to the ground
firing process, most shooters do not remember seeing the crystal clear
sight pictures they learned on the shooting range.

We see a great deal of point shooting, and gun index shooting. I have
yet to see anyone strike a classic shooting posture and press off a
carefully sighted pair in these room distance drills.

The point to remember is that in a fight such as what are likely for
the private citizen, one can easily develop Bullet Deficit Disorder ,
and that this can have deleterious effects on the outcome of that
fight.

The idea that a pair or trio of quality rounds carefully delivered
onto a high scoring target zone will stop the action fails both the
terminal ballistics test as well as the applications test.

A truth of gunfighting - Having more ammo immediately on board lessens
the likelihood of ever needing to reload. Not needing to reload
translates into more time delivering lead and less time manipulating
the weapon. More trigger time increases likelihood of hitting, which
increases survivability.

So the question is this. Given that there is a limit to the size
pistol one can carry, do I want that pistol to hold more rounds? My
answer is a strong YES!

Consider the similarly sized Glock 36 in .45 ACP, and the Glock 23 in
.40 S&W. The latter holds nearly twice the ammo of the former in an
almost identical package. The Glock 19 is an even more drastic
comparison with 15 shots available. Of course there are also high
capacity 45 pistols for those so inclined and for those who can wield
them. I would argue that if your choice is a 45, a gun holding 13
would be better than a gun holding 6. And if your hand is too small
for the 13 shooter, rather than decrease capacity, I d decrease
caliber.

I have a colleague is South America who has been in High Risk Police
Service for close to three decades. He has been in over three dozen
verified gunfight . His weapon was originally a Browning Hi-Power
and later a Glock 17.

I was very interested in hearing more so I asked him about the load he
used. He said he had always used military ball full metal jacket.
Astounded I asked him why he chose that. That is all we can get
here. Hollow points are illegal .

I shook my head and told him that there was a belief in the USA that
9mm was an anemic caliber, especially in the load he d chosen. He
shrugged and said that his adversaries must not have gotten the word.
He said he fired a burst at the chest and if they didn't fall fast
enough, he fired a burst at the face. He never needed to reload and
had enough on board so if he missed a shot or two he could catch up
in the fight. And before we hear the careful shooter versus the
spraying prayer, this man is one of the best shots I have seen and
competes on an international level. Even so, he knows the chaos in a
gunfight can play havoc with even the most gifted marksman. Perhaps
we need to take a lesson from him.

I still carry a Glock 17 with 17 rounds of Corbon DPX ammo in 9mm.

Gabe Suarez

One Source Tactical
Suarez International USA
Christian Warrior Ministries

 

[cigarman454]

EXELENT READ

EXELENT READ THANKS

 

[LPMan59]

hmmm...perhaps its time to make my pt99 my primary HD weapon since it has 17+1 instead of my 1911

 

[No Time to Shoot]

Thank you for posting this! I have some thoughts on this but I want to see where the threads goes first.

 

[kingnereli]

I think this has been posted before. Gabe Suarez is in the high capacity camp. Nothing wrong with that. While it is important that we don't make any "hammer of God" assessments it is equally important that we not pretend all handgun bullets are the same. This is Suarez's mistake. The "iffiness" of handgun calibers is the very reason to take even a seemingly insignificant advantage to insure we have the most effective one.

On a side note, the "anemic" 9mm claim is often misunderstood. It is not that 9mm can't get the job done it is that some other calibers do it better. High capacity sounds great on paper, but it isn't necessarily as huge an advantage is it seems. This is verifiable in force on force. Often, (can't speak in absolutes) if there are enough attackers as to necessitate the extra ammo there isn't time and opportunity to use them.

I had this discussion with a friend once. He, somewhat jokingly, asked what I would do if I was attacked by five bad guys. (assuming the need for two shots each with only an 8+1 1911) I said I would do the same thing that he would do. He asked what that was and I told him that I would DIE. I wouldn't much care for my chances even with something belt fed.

We have had the terminal ballistics debate on INGO several times and it usually just goes in circles. It isn't an exact science. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence to sift through that has value but isn't definitive. There is the difficulty of comparing wound channels that don't take identical paths. What is more is that the way the an individual interprets these things is usually dependent on a personal list of priorities. Although, one thing that is certain is that it is hard to argue with a bigger bullet.

 

[Greatestsin]

Awesome post! good rational arguement

 

[ATM]

Posted here:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/tactics_and_training/20235-more_ammo_is_better.html

 

[Jay]

There's something to be said for both camps. That being said, 17 rounds not accurately placed will not affect the adversary nearly as much as two well placed rounds...... regardless of caliber. (just my un-professional opinion) That's my point of view, and I'm stickin to it. I'm much more proficient with my big slow rounds than anything else, and that's what I'll stay with.

 

[LCSOSgt11]

The crux of the matter may be controlling ourselves "at the moment of truth." If one loses control of his/her senses, it would not make a difference what one has in their hands, it will be useless.

Emotional control is key, making the decision not to be a victim is also paramount. Once those issues are decided, most all else falls into place.

I know, I know, it's easier said than done. Nothing in life is easy. Concentration on the marksmanship problem if performed correctly, excludes everything else.

We are adults and should act as same.

 

[Jay]

The crux of the matter may be controlling ourselves "at the moment of truth." If one loses control of his/her senses, it would not make a difference what one has in their hands, it will be useless.

Emotional control is key, making the decision not to be a victim is also paramount. Once those issues are decided, most all else falls into place.

I know, I know, it's easier said than done. Nothing in life is easy. Concentration on the marksmanship problem if performed correctly, excludes everything else.

We are adults and should act as same.

I like that... good post.... repped

 

[kingnereli]

The crux of the matter may be controlling ourselves "at the moment of truth." If one loses control of his/her senses, it would not make a difference what one has in their hands, it will be useless.

Emotional control is key, making the decision not to be a victim is also paramount. Once those issues are decided, most all else falls into place.

I know, I know, it's easier said than done. Nothing in life is easy. Concentration on the marksmanship problem if performed correctly, excludes everything else.

We are adults and should act as same.

*disclaimer*
The following is intended only as a joke and not to ruffle feathers.

I much prefer to control myself "at the moment of truth" with a BIGGER BULLET.

Seriously, though good post. There are many more pressing matters then caliber choice.

 

[redneckpastor]

Great points by all, i was wanting some good discussion, thanks for the info and credited post!!!

 

[sporter]

Gabe knows his stuff.

Capacity and shot placement is where it's at.

 

[rich8483]

whats considered enough then? 10+1? 12+1? 30+1? belt fed hand guns? where do you draw the realistic line?

i was looking at a new gun that compact to carry, .45 so i liked it and 10+1. i figured if i needed more than that, id be dead anyhow.

 

[Jay]

whats considered enough then? 10+1? 12+1? 30+1? belt fed hand guns? where do you draw the realistic line?

I've said before.... "without shot placement, it doesn't matter how many rounds you shoot."

 

[Paco Bedejo]

whats considered enough then? 10+1? 12+1? 30+1? belt fed hand guns? where do you draw the realistic line?

i was looking at a new gun that compact to carry, .45 so i liked it and 10+1. i figured if i needed more than that, id be dead anyhow.

Enough would be however much you're willing to carry. Not what you think you might pack-mule around, but what you WILL pack-mule around. It may take 0 shots, it may take 1 lucky shot to the grape, it may take 2 to the chest, it may take 40. You simply don't know how many rounds you might need until you're shooting back at a live target or targets who you know in your heart mean to do you harm. Personally, I chose to go middle of the road; 16+1 .40 s&w. I pray that I never need a single one of them.

 

[TopDog]

This is an excellent post. I have always been a proponent of the four B's (Big Bores Bust Better) but never to the point that it over rode common sense. You use the caliber you can shoot most accurately has always been my mantra. But this article brings up a very significant point. In the situations where a good guy is going to find himself in he is going to keep pulling the trigger until the threat stops.

These two statements really gave pause to stop and think: "The point to remember is that in a fight such as what are likely for the private citizen, one can easily develop Bullet Deficit Disorder, and that this can have deleterious effects on the outcome of that fight."

and

"A truth of gunfighting - Having more ammo immediately on board lessens
the likelihood of ever needing to reload. Not needing to reload
translates into more time delivering lead and less time manipulating
the weapon. More trigger time increases likelihood of hitting, which
increases survivability."

When someone totally unfamiliar with guns gets interested in personal defense this is the article you should point them to.

 

[Indy317]

He, somewhat jokingly, asked what I would do if I was attacked by five bad guys. (assuming the need for two shots each with only an 8+1 1911) I said I would do the same thing that he would do. He asked what that was and I told him that I would DIE. I wouldn't much care for my chances even with something belt fed.

An attack by five, who already have their guns drawn on you, then yea...you are likely going to die. But look at the multiple attacker attacks that have made the news recently. Most actually only involve fists, and in a few cases, someone one picking up a stick or 2x4. Now, maybe these attackers have guns and don't use them, or maybe they fear mandatory five to ten year sentences they are seeing relatives gets (in some areas of country) so they attack in packs instead of only two people with guns. Reguardless, pack attacks, especially by roaming gangs of teens, seems to be coming more common. There was the one in Michigan, the one recently in Chicago, one on a bus, etc..

One time I took my sister and her friend out to Denny's. It wasn't that late, but there were a group of older teens 15-18 say, maybe six of them. They had the 'all eyes on me' style going: Colorful hair, colorful clothing, etc...basically dressed like clowns. They were a mix of punk, goth, Emo, industrial (though Emo wasn't around back then). Anyways, to my 16 year old sister and her friend, think Abercrombie types, these kids were funny. Well, they were looking at them, making a comment and laughing. (Note: The kids couldn't hear the comment, not only that, it may have actually been something positive or intuitive...not negative).

When I came back from the restroom, we ate, and those kids paid. So two of them come over and want to fight me because my sister and her friend were laughing. I didn't want to make matters any worse, plus it would have been six against one, which is likely why those two fools had the balls to try to pick a fight in the first place. Anyways, I told them that I apologized, no disrespect, and they just said "OK," but they didn't want to leave it alone, as you will hear later. The kids left to their vehicle(s) and two older guys in the both behind me got up. They said that I did the right thing, given the circumstances. They also said that if you dress like that, expect to be looked out. They said that they would have totally understood if I would have went outside, and that they would have been right behind me. They then show me their retired IPD badges, and I tell them I was an LEO as well and show them mine. They then laughed, knowing all of us are armed.

Well, I carried a .40S&W with 15 rounds, plus an extra mag...so I wasn't too worried about them. Those kids did wait in their car, and I think the retired IPD guys asked if I wanted them around. I said No, as if those kids did anything, I had plenty of power to defend myself and my sister and her friend. They agreed those kids likely didn't have a clue I had a gun or as an LEO, as even though I was 20, I looked 18, maybe even 16. We left and they of course followed us. I saw their plate and the car was from Indy. So I decided that if they were going to follow me out to Hancock Co. we were going to take the scenic route, one where I knew the roads and could easily get them lost. Thing is, they must have feared the darkness of the boondocks because they pulled a U-Turn at the county line.

This was years ago, but it shows that unarmed multiple attackers, or at least attackers who don't have their weapons at the ready, are out there. As such, I advocate folks try to carry a weapon that offers some capacity of rounds. Really, even a five or six shot revolver isn't that bad. The main issue: Will a group of multiple attackers flee? And by this, I mean totally take off, not go to a position of cover to pull their own gun and get back in the fight? Will some attackers try to pull their own non-gun weapons (knives being #1) thinking that due to the shear numbers of them, they can bring a knife to a gun fight? I don't think 8+1 is bad at all, but I wouldn't carry without an extra mag on me for sure. I like the ability to have 13+1, or even more, at the ready. While I wouldn't mind a snub nose revolver to carry, it would be a back-up weapon. Snub nose revolvers are great for defense. I don't have an issue with the five to six round capacity, but it is the reloading I find a negative.

 

[kingnereli]

An attack by five, who already have their guns drawn on you, then yea...you are likely going to die. But look at the multiple attacker attacks that have made the news recently. Most actually only involve fists, and in a few cases, someone one picking up a stick or 2x4. Now, maybe these attackers have guns and don't use them, or maybe they fear mandatory five to ten year sentences they are seeing relatives gets (in some areas of country) so they attack in packs instead of only two people with guns. Reguardless, pack attacks, especially by roaming gangs of teens, seems to be coming more common. There was the one in Michigan, the one recently in Chicago, one on a bus, etc..

One time I took my sister and her friend out to Denny's. It wasn't that late, but there were a group of older teens 15-18 say, maybe six of them. They had the 'all eyes on me' style going: Colorful hair, colorful clothing, etc...basically dressed like clowns. They were a mix of punk, goth, Emo, industrial (though Emo wasn't around back then). Anyways, to my 16 year old sister and her friend, think Abercrombie types, these kids were funny. Well, they were looking at them, making a comment and laughing. (Note: The kids couldn't hear the comment, not only that, it may have actually been something positive or intuitive...not negative).

When I came back from the restroom, we ate, and those kids paid. So two of them come over and want to fight me because my sister and her friend were laughing. I didn't want to make matters any worse, plus it would have been six against one, which is likely why those two fools had the balls to try to pick a fight in the first place. Anyways, I told them that I apologized, no disrespect, and they just said "OK," but they didn't want to leave it alone, as you will hear later. The kids left to their vehicle(s) and two older guys in the both behind me got up. They said that I did the right thing, given the circumstances. They also said that if you dress like that, expect to be looked out. They said that they would have totally understood if I would have went outside, and that they would have been right behind me. They then show me their retired IPD badges, and I tell them I was an LEO as well and show them mine. They then laughed, knowing all of us are armed.

Well, I carried a .40S&W with 15 rounds, plus an extra mag...so I wasn't too worried about them. Those kids did wait in their car, and I think the retired IPD guys asked if I wanted them around. I said No, as if those kids did anything, I had plenty of power to defend myself and my sister and her friend. They agreed those kids likely didn't have a clue I had a gun or as an LEO, as even though I was 20, I looked 18, maybe even 16. We left and they of course followed us. I saw their plate and the car was from Indy. So I decided that if they were going to follow me out to Hancock Co. we were going to take the scenic route, one where I knew the roads and could easily get them lost. Thing is, they must have feared the darkness of the boondocks because they pulled a U-Turn at the county line.

This was years ago, but it shows that unarmed multiple attackers, or at least attackers who don't have their weapons at the ready, are out there. As such, I advocate folks try to carry a weapon that offers some capacity of rounds. Really, even a five or six shot revolver isn't that bad. The main issue: Will a group of multiple attackers flee? And by this, I mean totally take off, not go to a position of cover to pull their own gun and get back in the fight? Will some attackers try to pull their own non-gun weapons (knives being #1) thinking that due to the shear numbers of them, they can bring a knife to a gun fight? I don't think 8+1 is bad at all, but I wouldn't carry without an extra mag on me for sure. I like the ability to have 13+1, or even more, at the ready. While I wouldn't mind a snub nose revolver to carry, it would be a back-up weapon. Snub nose revolvers are great for defense. I don't have an issue with the five to six round capacity, but it is the reloading I find a negative.

I enjoyed reading your story and I can't really disagree with anything you said. I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting more capacity. I just question the strength of the argument that 17 rounds with reloads is going to get you out of a situation that 9 rounds and reloads can not. In fact, I'm being somewhat hypocritical with the capacity issue. I still carry a 1911, but my two spare magazines are Wilson 10 rounders. Also, In winter months when I'm wearing a heavy coat the mag in the gun is a 10 rounder as well. So I go for capacity as well even with my 1911. There are just a few things further up the list of importance for me.

 

[Indy317]

I just question the strength of the argument that 17 rounds with reloads is going to get you out of a situation that 9 rounds and reloads can not. So I go for capacity as well even with my 1911. There are just a few things further up the list of importance for me.

I think having lots of bullets is important, mostly because no one know what an attacker(s) will do. It goes back to questions of will they totally flee the area? How many will flee? Will some pull their own guns? Etc. etc. My guess is that if you look at common gun battles, not that many round are needed before it is over. Either someone is shot and/or dead, the attacker takes off, or the good guy is able to flee the area to safety. As such, to me, capacity is just about being as prepared as possible.

I don't care about 9mm, .45. or .40S&W. To me, there is no proof at all that any of them put down people any better than the other. It is all about shot placement, the person being shot, etc.. When I see a police video of an officer fighting with someone on the side of the road, and that guy takes a .45 to the gut and keeps fighting....it goes to show you that even a gun might not be the end all. The gun is just a tool, and there are many of them. If a person is willing to carry multiple magazines, that really isn't that big of issue, unless the attackers don't flee, then it might be an issue. Obviously we all can't, don't want to carry around 9mm Glocks with 33round magazines, even though they are available. I personally love the idea of a snub nose revolver in .357 for self-defense, especially one with an enclosed hammer, or spur-less hammer (so it doesn't get caught on clothing/coming out of a pocket/purse). The problem I have with those is that there seems to be a trend toward groups attacks. The guy doing the main robberies at the 10th St. ATMs is said to have an accomplice. Another strong arm robbery attempt I know about had the guy flee to a vehicle and get in, obviously an accomplice if you ask me.

The fact we are seeing these multiple attacker attacks makes me want to maximize my preparedness. If it wasn't for me being issued a weapon from work, one that I have tons of practice with (which helps if something goes wrong...ie: Innocent by standard hurt, etc.), I would likely be carrying an HK USP as my primary gun. However, the idea of being able to carry 19+1 of 9mm in an XDm is really something that would make me take a look. With my DeSantis holster, I am easily able to carry a full size gun with a spare mag. That would give one 39 rounds of 9mm, available if need be.