What Handgun Calibers Do Most Cops Prefer, Most Effective, 9mm vs .40SW vs .45ACP

[JonMystic]

I am a gun owner and I have engaged in various debates on gun forums about caliber preferences for their conceal carry weapons. As for me, I have talked with people in different fields, law enforcement, security and your typical know-it-all gun gurus and have not been able to come to a consensus of which caliber is the best.

From my own research, I have leaned to the .45ACP as my caliber of choice. This is my preference for conceal carry, as I feel the heavier weight bullet travelling at a slower speed creates greater shock on impact and produces what some people consider, more stopping power. I understand with modern bullet technology, that both a 9mm and .45ACP can expand to the same size, but I feel the expansion of the bullet is just a piece of the picture of what makes a round to be an effective "man-stopper". As for expansion, I also hear the 9mm also have problem of over-penetration at times, which also can hinder their expansion capabilities compared with a .45.

My goal for a self-defense weapon is not to kill the threat, but rather to disable it. I know that someone was boasting at Portland Police Department about how more people have been killed with 9mms than .45s, after the switch was made. To me, that is partially a myopic view of the entire situation and many other co-factors could have contributed to these statistics. One factor that crossed my mind, was that perhaps more 9mm rounds were needed to stop the threat and therefore there was a higher mortality rate, due to bleeding or penetration of multiple areas of the body, compared to the perpetrator being hit with fewer rounds of .45. Also, violent crimes and fatal responses to those crimes perhaps has increased over the years, and the caliber choice was irrelevant to changes in crime rates over that period of time.

I feel very confident with my .45. The round I use in my carry weapon, is 230gr Gold-Dot Hollow-Point. Also, I carry a S&W M&P 45, which has proven to work well during my training. I am not a fan of safeties, external hammers, DA/SA and such, which is a personal preference.

One thing I know is that officers in the field are more likely to need to use their firearm in self-defense than your average "Joe" citizen. So, I would like to hear responses from police officers here about their feelings of the effectiveness of the various calibers they have used or carry.

I know there are always other factors that are irrelevant to caliber, such as shot placement, the threat's body size and the presence of intoxification. Leaving those factors aside, that is, assuming shot placement and the officer's skill with the firearm was the same, what caliber has been the most effective in stopping threats the fastest?

[Curt581]

My goal for a self-defense weapon is not to kill the threat, but rather to disable it.

You goal in responding to a threat of deadly force is to stop the threat. Not to kill anyone, not to disable anyone, simply stop the threat. That distinction is important. If you were to testify on a witness stand that your goal was to "disable" your attacker, you'll be asked why you didn't shoot for the leg or hand, instead of center mass. Believe me, a lawyer's forte is to split hairs, use semantics and distinctions to convince a jury that you acted inappropriately. An Internet gun message board is the last place you want to look for real information. They're loaded with too many yahoos with too many opinions that don't mean squat. I've seen those same or similar debates on lots of sites. It's just mental masturbation.

I know that someone was boasting at Portland Police Department about how more people have been killed with 9mms than .45s, after the switch was made. To me, that is partially a myopic view of the entire situation and many other co-factors could have contributed to these statistics. One factor that crossed my mind, was that perhaps more 9mm rounds were needed to stop the threat and therefore there was a higher mortality rate, due to bleeding or penetration of multiple areas of the body, compared to the perpetrator being hit with fewer rounds of .45. Also, violent crimes and fatal responses to those crimes perhaps has increased over the years, and the caliber choice was irrelevant to changes in crime rates over that period of time.

You're overthinking this. When you factor in all the little differences between one fight and another (all those things you deem 'irrelevant'), and caliber differences are so small as to be nearly inconsequential in a "for real" gun fight. Much, much more important is shot placement. I'd rather be missed by a shot from a .44 Magnum than hit by a shot from a .22LR.

Bottom line, you shoot to stop the threat, and you keep shooting until the threat stops. If that takes two hits from a 9mm, or eight hits from a .45, that's what you do.

I feel very confident with my .45. The round I use in my carry weapon, is 230gr Gold-Dot Hollow-Point. Also, I carry a S&W M&P 45, which has proven to work well during my training. I am not a fan of safeties, external hammers, DA/SA and such, which is a personal preference.

Then carry that. Carry what's comfortable to wear and to shoot. Carry what you feel confident with. Practice with it until you can hit what you aim at. Every single shot. Then go jog around the block, and come back and practice until you can hit what you aim at when your pulse is racing, your hands are shaking, you're breathing like a steam locomotive, and you're sweating like a pig. Because that's what's going to happen when you find yourself in an actual fight.

If you're ever confronted with a deadly threat... first, YOU MOVE. You draw while continuing to move and you fire while moving. You keep moving and firing until the threat is gone.

what caliber has been the most effective in stopping threats the fastest?

12ga. Shotgun. Most swear by 00 buck, but I like big fat 1oz. lead slugs.

[Creeker]

...12ga. Shotgun. Most swear by 00 buck, but I like big fat 1oz. lead slugs.

I am a fan of #1 Buck. Still large enough to get the job done, but more pellets to (hopefully) make up for the adrenalin and angst of a poor aimpoint.

[retdetsgt]

I'm hardly "trigger happy", but if someone threatens me to the point that I have to shoot them and a lawsuit comes about, I want it done by the estate of the person I shot, not them personally.

That's why I like any caliber with a "4" somewhere in it. Especially after attending a few dozen autopsies.

My old agency now requires 9 mm, but we used to have a choice of that or .45. They issue Glocks and unfortunately a couple of the model 21's went kaboom on the range so they stopped allowing them.

[Safety Steve]

I am a fan of #1 Buck. Still large enough to get the job done, but more pellets to (hopefully) make up for the adrenalin and angst of a poor aimpoint.

I'm with you on this one Creeker. But I prefer the shotgun in semi-automatic!

Be Safe.

I carry a 9 mm off duty. Only because it conceals easier than the .45 on me.

[Citicop]

I prefer the largest handgun caliber with which the shooter can routinely hit their target center mass.

Shot placement means far more than round size, velocity, or penetration.

You are much more likely to stop a threat with a center mass hit from a .380 (or even a .22) than you are with a miss from a .45, .40, or 9mm.

-Citicop.

[Cat_Doc]

The trend around here is agenices going to the .40 cal.

I was issued a .40, but elected to carry my personal .45 ACP.

Like others have mentioned, it is shot placement that counts.

[GoDirectly2Jail]

This is a caliber war thread - plain and simple, and all it's going to do is stir people up. People have individual preferences, and nobody's post is going to make folks change their mind. The OP would've done just as well asking the members what brand of religion they prefer...

[Citicop]

This is a caliber war thread - plain and simple, and all it's going to do is stir people up. People have individual preferences, and nobody's post is going to make folks change their mind. The OP would've done just as well asking the members what brand of religion they prefer...

To those who follow the "Way of the .45" it is a religion.

-Citicop.

[Legoate]

I carry the exact round that is issued to me for duty use off duty. I won't say what round or caliber it is, but I think it is easier for me to justify carrying my duty round than anything else.

My department issues it, I carry it. Enough said about that.

[JonMystic]

Thanks Curt581 for helping me on the legal terminology. I remember learning exactly what you said in my firearm trainings course I did at OFA. However, since its been a while, it slipped my mind and I know how very important your statement will be, when it is reviewed by the court. Also, I am aware that ratty prosecutors may try to incriminate you for any reason.

Back to the subject at hand, I understand that shotguns, rifles and such would be better than a handgun. However, my question was what "handgun" caliber you prefer or feel is most effective at "stopping" a threat. Also, I am aware shot placement is key and you're better off dodging a .44Mag then being hit by even a BB gun. This quesiton is more hypothetical than anything. What I am asking, all factors being equal, what caliber do officers feel is the most effective threat stopper? The reason I ask is I have heard many instances where criminals still have time to fireback when being hit with 9mm, whereas they are stopped quicker with a .45.

Personally, I would love to switch to 9mm, because its way cheaper to shoot. However, I still feel that I am safer with the .45, in the worst case scenario. To me, its worth the extra cost of training, but if others can convince me I am wrong about the benefits of .45 over 9mm, I might make the switch to 9mm again.

I didn't mean to start a caliber war, I just want to hear what each individual themself feels most confident with in a defense situation. As I said earlier, I believe officers in the field are a great source of information on this subject, compared to the average citizen.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

Software is more important than hardware.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

What I am asking, all factors being equal, what caliber do officers feel is the most effective threat stopper?

You don't really understand the question you're asking. Either that, or what's in your head isn't making it to the keyboard. "All factors being equal" means the bullets all are capable of making it to midbrain or severing the spinal column. If you're skilled enough to put the bullets where they need to be, then that are "capable." We've seen plenty of dead people with a variety of calibers. One doesn't make the person any "deader" than the others.

[retdetsgt]

To those who follow the "Way of the .45" it is a religion.

-Citicop.

I'm actually more accurate with a larger caliber pistol than I am usually with a smaller one. A .22 LR will definitely kill you, but it may take a whole lot longer. In fact, not a lot of people survive .22 rounds, but it's a long, slow painful death. I may not want to wait around for that. In fact, I had a robbery victim who was shot in the chest with a 9mm and was still walking around when I got there. He damn near died the next day in ICU, but at the time he was still mobile and talking to us.

I had a "suicide by cop" when we were transitioning firearms. One cop had .38 Spl., 125 half jacketed hollowpoints, one had a 9 mm and the third had a .45. It didn't take a ballistics expert to tell the .45 holes from the other two. That gave me the religion.

When we were all carrying .38 specials, there were several incidents where the suspect was shot numerous times and he kept coming (or shooting). Never saw that with a .45.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

My 230 grain Federal HST's will mushroom to over 3/4" during their penetration. That is a big-*** hole. However, if I were to scream like a beotch everytime I pulled the trigger and missed the turd I'm aiming for, but I can hit it with a 9mm, guess which one'd win?