Use some effective defensive rounds in a 9mm and place the shots well, and you'll be very effective to stop a threat. 9mm pistols are much smaller & lighter than 45 ACPs, so make for a better carry gun. At home, I opt for a 357 Mag revolver and a 12 Ga Mag shotgun with No. 4 and 00 buckshot.
"Experts" choose 9mm over .45 ACP? Really?
- Thread starter Ed_Flecko
- Start date
- Status
I actually stopped carrying my Beretta 9mm. Had too many cops ask to see my permit. Just a hassle. Got myself a little 380 auto that I tuck it in the pants holster. I know it's tiny but all I can say is I wouldn't want to get shot by it. And besides I got shotguns with buckshot in the house so a pistol doesn't even come into play there. As soon as someone hears a shotgun get pumped I doubt they would stick around to see someone use it lol.
Originally Posted By: Ed_Flecko
if the bad guy gets hit at all, I think their fight might be over.
But that's *my* opinion.
Perhaps. If you threw a tennis ball at them, the fight might be over.
if the bad guy gets hit at all, I think their fight might be over.
But that's *my* opinion.
Perhaps. If you threw a tennis ball at them, the fight might be over.
Originally Posted By: ammolab
Your ability to defend yourself does not depend on the caliber of your pistol..
It is the caliber of your marksmanship that will make a difference. I feel confident with a 9mm and today's ammo.
Software before hardware. A well trained person, armed with a spear, is better off than an untrained 90 year old grandma armed with an AR15.
Your ability to defend yourself does not depend on the caliber of your pistol..
It is the caliber of your marksmanship that will make a difference. I feel confident with a 9mm and today's ammo.
Software before hardware. A well trained person, armed with a spear, is better off than an untrained 90 year old grandma armed with an AR15.
Originally Posted By: BalticBob
No amount of semi-auto capacity is useful when it jams, and it will.
Get some training. And more time behind a quality semi-auto pistol. I can tell by your stated opinion, that you are commenting on something which you know little about.
No amount of semi-auto capacity is useful when it jams, and it will.
Get some training. And more time behind a quality semi-auto pistol. I can tell by your stated opinion, that you are commenting on something which you know little about.
dnewton3
Staff member
I attended a industry training session two years ago for some of the (then) new stuff from Speer. They came into our our and put on a training session that was 8 hours long. It was both classroom and range time.
What folks need to understand is that, with today's ability to both engineer and manufacture, ammo is FAR more advanced that even a decade ago. And many of you are relying on data and/or experiences and/or rhetoric that comes from FAR prior to that ...
All the major manufacturers are able to design/build rounds that take the entire package into consideration. It's not just the bullet weight, but design. It's not just the design of the bullet, but the propellant. It's not just the propellant, but the caliber. It's not just the caliber, but the length of barrel. It's not just the barrel length, but the intended target material density and depth. ALL THESE THINGS, when properly tuned and considered, make for very good performance; that being defined as both maximum penetration without exiting the subject matter, and having good expansion.
During the range time I was convinced that any 9mm of proper selection will penetrate and expand to a desired level as much as any .40 or .45. While there is admittedly some physical difference between an open 9mm and open .45, that difference pales in contrast to all the OTHER variables that go into this consideration. We shot a lot of ammo into gelatin. We shot though automobile windshields. We shot through plywood and drywall. We shot through layers of clothing. We shot through glass, through clothing, into gelatin ... You get the point. We spend hours on the range and replicated about every reasonable condition one can expect to find in a typical shooting. And in every scenario, the 9mm did what the .40 and .45 did; they all averaged about the same total distance of penetration, all with good expansion. The products today, when properly selected, will do what you want them to do. There is no benefit to size as the sole priority any longer.
In fact, it's getting so specific that they can tune the propellant to the intended barrel length; so that you get the desired velocity from the weapon necessary to get the desired penetration and expansion. Using the same product (same round) in both your full size Glk 17 and your sub-c Glk 26 is not ideal. While any particular round will function in both, it will not function ideally in both. Yes - it's getting that specific in terms of both the engineering and manufacture that ALL CRITERIA (caliber, weight, propellant, barrel, etc) all matter in the production of the ammo. It has even been discussed that there is reasonable thought for having a "summer" and "winter" rounds, due to the expectation of different clothing in some areas like the mid-west. It is truly getting THAT detailed. Sad thing is, most departments are not going to buy four kinds of ammo for their officers (summer for full-size gun; summer for back-up gun; winter for full-size gun; winter for back-up gun). But the point is that the industry can now provide ammo that is so tuned that these considerations actually can make a subtle difference, if you're inclined to practice and utilize it.
The proper priorities of choosing a handgun is these:
1) can you handle the weapon and ammo to a degree that allows confident shot placement under stress?
2) is the ammo able to perform to the desired effect (deep penetration without exit; high expansion ratio) in the expected target material?
I have the control-ability and money to shoot whatever I want; I've got just about every common caliber in a handgun you can imagine. After attending that range demo day, I'm convinced that I no longer needed to carry a 10mm, and that our on-duty ammo (9mm) was sufficient to do what I want it to do.
Now, admittedly there are times when a larger bullet may make sense; typically when we leave the topic of human interaction and introduce larger mammals. And if you have to "compromise", because your risk of encountering a bear or a human is 50/50 while remote camping, then I guess you need to choose whatever makes you feel the most confident. But that simply goes right back to items #1 and #2 above.
Point being this .... There was a time when only size mattered. And then that was usurped by the thought that velocity was paramount; many believed that if fast was good, then faster was better and fastest was best. But that's not the case any longer because size and velocity are only a few of several parameters that go into the entire equation. This topic (that of round selection based on size) is not unlike a lot of topics today. Technology has brought ever better products into the market, due to the ability to design and make the product with ever tighter control. But that ability also comes with a cost. As you engineer ever closer to the edge of the envelope, you lose some amount of "general" performance, trading it for "specific" performance. Whereas we can now select a near-perfect choice for some situations, that same choice will be not the best for others. It used to be that choosing a large round simply made sense because the other parameters were essentially ignored. But the "need" for better performance now dictates ever close proximity to the edge of the performance envelope.
A well-selected 9mm, for the weapon and person, is every bit as effective as any .40 or .45 today. It's a "tuned" package, and when you get it right, it does what it's supposed to do. And if you get it wrong, well it's not going to make you happy when it matters most.
Ironically, the things that are so well controlled today (in round selection) pale to the things that are NOT in our control ... What is the target wearing, how does it present in terms of position that affects total frontal area and tissue depth, what intermediate barriers may exist, etc? It's just as conceivable that any round (9, 40, 45) could either over or under penetrate, causing expansion to suffer. But the last time I checked, we cannot freeze the split-second scenario, walk to the correct position, remove obstacles and clear the background of unintended targets, all while the suspect stands still and awaits our shot(s) ... The things we can now control in terms of making a highly successful round still are usurped by the things we cannot control, and any one parameter you think is "best" is only going to disappoint you as soon as the potential situation changes. And it always does.
If you believe that you're best option is a larger hole, then that's fine for you.
For me, the "best" option is a round I can put on target with great accuracy under stress, while providing a desired effect of expansion and penetration, overcoming any potential intermediate obstacles, while not striking the person behind the person I'm shooting at. The ammo industry is now able to get me ever closer to that desired state. As long as I do my part in proper selection.
What folks need to understand is that, with today's ability to both engineer and manufacture, ammo is FAR more advanced that even a decade ago. And many of you are relying on data and/or experiences and/or rhetoric that comes from FAR prior to that ...
All the major manufacturers are able to design/build rounds that take the entire package into consideration. It's not just the bullet weight, but design. It's not just the design of the bullet, but the propellant. It's not just the propellant, but the caliber. It's not just the caliber, but the length of barrel. It's not just the barrel length, but the intended target material density and depth. ALL THESE THINGS, when properly tuned and considered, make for very good performance; that being defined as both maximum penetration without exiting the subject matter, and having good expansion.
During the range time I was convinced that any 9mm of proper selection will penetrate and expand to a desired level as much as any .40 or .45. While there is admittedly some physical difference between an open 9mm and open .45, that difference pales in contrast to all the OTHER variables that go into this consideration. We shot a lot of ammo into gelatin. We shot though automobile windshields. We shot through plywood and drywall. We shot through layers of clothing. We shot through glass, through clothing, into gelatin ... You get the point. We spend hours on the range and replicated about every reasonable condition one can expect to find in a typical shooting. And in every scenario, the 9mm did what the .40 and .45 did; they all averaged about the same total distance of penetration, all with good expansion. The products today, when properly selected, will do what you want them to do. There is no benefit to size as the sole priority any longer.
In fact, it's getting so specific that they can tune the propellant to the intended barrel length; so that you get the desired velocity from the weapon necessary to get the desired penetration and expansion. Using the same product (same round) in both your full size Glk 17 and your sub-c Glk 26 is not ideal. While any particular round will function in both, it will not function ideally in both. Yes - it's getting that specific in terms of both the engineering and manufacture that ALL CRITERIA (caliber, weight, propellant, barrel, etc) all matter in the production of the ammo. It has even been discussed that there is reasonable thought for having a "summer" and "winter" rounds, due to the expectation of different clothing in some areas like the mid-west. It is truly getting THAT detailed. Sad thing is, most departments are not going to buy four kinds of ammo for their officers (summer for full-size gun; summer for back-up gun; winter for full-size gun; winter for back-up gun). But the point is that the industry can now provide ammo that is so tuned that these considerations actually can make a subtle difference, if you're inclined to practice and utilize it.
The proper priorities of choosing a handgun is these:
1) can you handle the weapon and ammo to a degree that allows confident shot placement under stress?
2) is the ammo able to perform to the desired effect (deep penetration without exit; high expansion ratio) in the expected target material?
I have the control-ability and money to shoot whatever I want; I've got just about every common caliber in a handgun you can imagine. After attending that range demo day, I'm convinced that I no longer needed to carry a 10mm, and that our on-duty ammo (9mm) was sufficient to do what I want it to do.
Now, admittedly there are times when a larger bullet may make sense; typically when we leave the topic of human interaction and introduce larger mammals. And if you have to "compromise", because your risk of encountering a bear or a human is 50/50 while remote camping, then I guess you need to choose whatever makes you feel the most confident. But that simply goes right back to items #1 and #2 above.
Point being this .... There was a time when only size mattered. And then that was usurped by the thought that velocity was paramount; many believed that if fast was good, then faster was better and fastest was best. But that's not the case any longer because size and velocity are only a few of several parameters that go into the entire equation. This topic (that of round selection based on size) is not unlike a lot of topics today. Technology has brought ever better products into the market, due to the ability to design and make the product with ever tighter control. But that ability also comes with a cost. As you engineer ever closer to the edge of the envelope, you lose some amount of "general" performance, trading it for "specific" performance. Whereas we can now select a near-perfect choice for some situations, that same choice will be not the best for others. It used to be that choosing a large round simply made sense because the other parameters were essentially ignored. But the "need" for better performance now dictates ever close proximity to the edge of the performance envelope.
A well-selected 9mm, for the weapon and person, is every bit as effective as any .40 or .45 today. It's a "tuned" package, and when you get it right, it does what it's supposed to do. And if you get it wrong, well it's not going to make you happy when it matters most.
Ironically, the things that are so well controlled today (in round selection) pale to the things that are NOT in our control ... What is the target wearing, how does it present in terms of position that affects total frontal area and tissue depth, what intermediate barriers may exist, etc? It's just as conceivable that any round (9, 40, 45) could either over or under penetrate, causing expansion to suffer. But the last time I checked, we cannot freeze the split-second scenario, walk to the correct position, remove obstacles and clear the background of unintended targets, all while the suspect stands still and awaits our shot(s) ... The things we can now control in terms of making a highly successful round still are usurped by the things we cannot control, and any one parameter you think is "best" is only going to disappoint you as soon as the potential situation changes. And it always does.
If you believe that you're best option is a larger hole, then that's fine for you.
For me, the "best" option is a round I can put on target with great accuracy under stress, while providing a desired effect of expansion and penetration, overcoming any potential intermediate obstacles, while not striking the person behind the person I'm shooting at. The ammo industry is now able to get me ever closer to that desired state. As long as I do my part in proper selection.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Fastcompany
I actually stopped carrying my Beretta 9mm. Had too many cops ask to see my permit. Just a hassle. Got myself a little 380 auto that I tuck it in the pants holster. I know it's tiny but all I can say is I wouldn't want to get shot by it. And besides I got shotguns with buckshot in the house so a pistol doesn't even come into play there. As soon as someone hears a shotgun get pumped I doubt they would stick around to see someone use it lol.
Ummm..how did they know you were carrying?
I actually stopped carrying my Beretta 9mm. Had too many cops ask to see my permit. Just a hassle. Got myself a little 380 auto that I tuck it in the pants holster. I know it's tiny but all I can say is I wouldn't want to get shot by it. And besides I got shotguns with buckshot in the house so a pistol doesn't even come into play there. As soon as someone hears a shotgun get pumped I doubt they would stick around to see someone use it lol.
Ummm..how did they know you were carrying?
Originally Posted By: CourierDriver
Now that does not make sense, if you were to shoot a 2x4 at 4 ft away , using a 9mm or 45, it would go thru no problem,,,your chest or head would not stop those rounds..imho. I could be wrong...
There are VERY VERY few rounds that have "one shot stop & kill" from a pistol.
.44 mag & that genre would be considered about the only ones.... but they are NOT practical at night or indoors.
2x4's aren't human beings. One .45 in the left should of an armed, right-handed assailant means he's still in the fight.
Keep shooting, but use your ammo to get away to safety or to a better weapon.
Now that does not make sense, if you were to shoot a 2x4 at 4 ft away , using a 9mm or 45, it would go thru no problem,,,your chest or head would not stop those rounds..imho. I could be wrong...
There are VERY VERY few rounds that have "one shot stop & kill" from a pistol.
.44 mag & that genre would be considered about the only ones.... but they are NOT practical at night or indoors.
2x4's aren't human beings. One .45 in the left should of an armed, right-handed assailant means he's still in the fight.
Keep shooting, but use your ammo to get away to safety or to a better weapon.
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Originally Posted By: BalticBob
No amount of semi-auto capacity is useful when it jams, and it will.
Get some training. And more time behind a quality semi-auto pistol. I can tell by your stated opinion, that you are commenting on something which you know little about.
Agreed.
I own several semi-auto pistols that have been 100% jam-free the entire time I have owned them.
Originally Posted By: BalticBob
No amount of semi-auto capacity is useful when it jams, and it will.
Get some training. And more time behind a quality semi-auto pistol. I can tell by your stated opinion, that you are commenting on something which you know little about.
Agreed.
I own several semi-auto pistols that have been 100% jam-free the entire time I have owned them.
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Fastcompany
I actually stopped carrying my Beretta 9mm. Had too many cops ask to see my permit. Just a hassle. Got myself a little 380 auto that I tuck it in the pants holster. I know it's tiny but all I can say is I wouldn't want to get shot by it. And besides I got shotguns with buckshot in the house so a pistol doesn't even come into play there. As soon as someone hears a shotgun get pumped I doubt they would stick around to see someone use it lol.
Ummm..how did they know you were carrying?
Probably was carrying a Beretta M9.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_M9
Originally Posted By: Fastcompany
I actually stopped carrying my Beretta 9mm. Had too many cops ask to see my permit. Just a hassle. Got myself a little 380 auto that I tuck it in the pants holster. I know it's tiny but all I can say is I wouldn't want to get shot by it. And besides I got shotguns with buckshot in the house so a pistol doesn't even come into play there. As soon as someone hears a shotgun get pumped I doubt they would stick around to see someone use it lol.
Ummm..how did they know you were carrying?
Probably was carrying a Beretta M9.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_M9
Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
Probably was carrying a Beretta M9.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_M9
Hate to jack the thread (but I will)
The M9 was scheduled to be replaced under a United States Army program, the Future Handgun System (FHS), which was merged with the SOF Combat Pistol program to create the Joint Combat Pistol (JCP). The JCP was renamed Combat Pistol (CP), and the number of pistols to be bought was drastically cut back. The U.S. Army and Air Force are seeking to replace their M9s through the Modular Handgun System program.
I wonder how the bureaucracy is doing in trying to select a new pistol...lol
Probably was carrying a Beretta M9.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_M9
Hate to jack the thread (but I will)
The M9 was scheduled to be replaced under a United States Army program, the Future Handgun System (FHS), which was merged with the SOF Combat Pistol program to create the Joint Combat Pistol (JCP). The JCP was renamed Combat Pistol (CP), and the number of pistols to be bought was drastically cut back. The U.S. Army and Air Force are seeking to replace their M9s through the Modular Handgun System program.
I wonder how the bureaucracy is doing in trying to select a new pistol...lol
Last edited:
Posted many times before: now deceased client shot with a 9mm in the thigh at close range, did not take him out of the fight, did not bother to go to the hospital until hours later, and then only because he could not get the wound to stop bleeding.
Shot with a .45 hollow point in the forearm at close range put him on the ground right then and there, had to be paddled three times on the way to hospital, permanently mangled his forearm, bullet ripped around in his chest after mangling his arm but missed vital blood vessels, pieces of the bullet festered out over a long period of time from his shoulder all the way to his scrotum.
That said, I typically carry a .32 because I don't have a pocket .45, and plan to run away like a screaming Nancy Boy if given half the chance.
Shot with a .45 hollow point in the forearm at close range put him on the ground right then and there, had to be paddled three times on the way to hospital, permanently mangled his forearm, bullet ripped around in his chest after mangling his arm but missed vital blood vessels, pieces of the bullet festered out over a long period of time from his shoulder all the way to his scrotum.
That said, I typically carry a .32 because I don't have a pocket .45, and plan to run away like a screaming Nancy Boy if given half the chance.
Originally Posted By: Win
and plan to run away like a screaming Nancy Boy if given half the chance.
As any of us should
and plan to run away like a screaming Nancy Boy if given half the chance.
As any of us should
I believe it was his choice. APD isn't a good place to be employed now, what with the justice department looking into deadly shootings. Barely enough officers to cover second and third shift calls.
I hope I never need to test the stopping power of my handgun. But I have the caliber I do, based on the real-life experiences of my Police Officer friend. He did carry a Sig 9mm, and was involved in an ultimately fatal shooting. Despite well-placed shots, the actor DID NOT stop in a timely manner. After that experience, he switched to .45ACP.
I called my "expert" to ask him what he thought and he said to not listen to the experts
Here he is and he's so good that he only carries one bullet.
Here he is and he's so good that he only carries one bullet.
Originally Posted By: Win
Posted many times before: now deceased client shot with a 9mm in the thigh at close range, did not take him out of the fight, did not bother to go to the hospital until hours later, and then only because he could not get the wound to stop bleeding.
Shot with a .45 hollow point in the forearm at close range put him on the ground right then and there, had to be paddled three times on the way to hospital, permanently mangled his forearm, bullet ripped around in his chest after mangling his arm but missed vital blood vessels, pieces of the bullet festered out over a long period of time from his shoulder all the way to his scrotum.
That said, I typically carry a .32 because I don't have a pocket .45, and plan to run away like a screaming Nancy Boy if given half the chance.
For years more people were shot and killed with a .22 than any other caliber. That's almost as relevant as the two examples you gave.
Posted many times before: now deceased client shot with a 9mm in the thigh at close range, did not take him out of the fight, did not bother to go to the hospital until hours later, and then only because he could not get the wound to stop bleeding.
Shot with a .45 hollow point in the forearm at close range put him on the ground right then and there, had to be paddled three times on the way to hospital, permanently mangled his forearm, bullet ripped around in his chest after mangling his arm but missed vital blood vessels, pieces of the bullet festered out over a long period of time from his shoulder all the way to his scrotum.
That said, I typically carry a .32 because I don't have a pocket .45, and plan to run away like a screaming Nancy Boy if given half the chance.
For years more people were shot and killed with a .22 than any other caliber. That's almost as relevant as the two examples you gave.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,807
Originally Posted By: 02SE
I hope I never need to test the stopping power of my handgun. But I have the caliber I do, based on the real-life experiences of my Police Officer friend. He did carry a Sig 9mm, and was involved in an ultimately fatal shooting. Despite well-placed shots, the actor DID NOT stop in a timely manner. After that experience, he switched to .45ACP.
When was this and what was the ammunition used?
I hope I never need to test the stopping power of my handgun. But I have the caliber I do, based on the real-life experiences of my Police Officer friend. He did carry a Sig 9mm, and was involved in an ultimately fatal shooting. Despite well-placed shots, the actor DID NOT stop in a timely manner. After that experience, he switched to .45ACP.
When was this and what was the ammunition used?
To help frame the discussion; we need to put things in contextual relationship. The system whose performance we're discussing consists of shooter, firearm and ammunition.
Each element of that system has an effect on system performance. And changing one element (ammo, or gun, or shooter) affects both overall system performance and the performance of other elements. E.G. Some shooters cannot handle recoil as well as others, changing ammo changes firearm capacity, the requirement for concealed carry constrains firearm size, etc.
So, in isolation, a given ammunition type (say, the 10mm) may be superior to another (say, 9mm) in terms of performance, but the impacts (sorry, couldn't resist) on the performance of the other elements of the shooter/weapon/ammo system must be taken into account and the overall performance evaluated.
Everyone is dancing around that central fact: ammo, weapon, and shooter are inter-related.
So, in the context of system performance, I have no doubt that the 9mm does as well as any other cartridge choice across a large group of shooters. The shooters themselves are a HUGE variable in system performance and the 9mm has advantages over other rounds in shooter performance impacts.
That said, we are also discussing one threat: humans. That is the final variable and the ammo may need to be selected on the basis of performance against the anticipated threat.
There are other threats, and I don't choose to carry 9mm every time. I balance the overall system performance in a way that suits my purpose and anticipated environment. For example: carrying a 9mm as defense against bears will not result in favorable system performance. If barriers, or other unusual circumstances, are anticipated, then the ammo itself will need to be modified, with concomitant effects on shooter and weapon, but those effects are balanced against the whole system performance against that anticipated threat.
Each element of that system has an effect on system performance. And changing one element (ammo, or gun, or shooter) affects both overall system performance and the performance of other elements. E.G. Some shooters cannot handle recoil as well as others, changing ammo changes firearm capacity, the requirement for concealed carry constrains firearm size, etc.
So, in isolation, a given ammunition type (say, the 10mm) may be superior to another (say, 9mm) in terms of performance, but the impacts (sorry, couldn't resist) on the performance of the other elements of the shooter/weapon/ammo system must be taken into account and the overall performance evaluated.
Everyone is dancing around that central fact: ammo, weapon, and shooter are inter-related.
So, in the context of system performance, I have no doubt that the 9mm does as well as any other cartridge choice across a large group of shooters. The shooters themselves are a HUGE variable in system performance and the 9mm has advantages over other rounds in shooter performance impacts.
That said, we are also discussing one threat: humans. That is the final variable and the ammo may need to be selected on the basis of performance against the anticipated threat.
There are other threats, and I don't choose to carry 9mm every time. I balance the overall system performance in a way that suits my purpose and anticipated environment. For example: carrying a 9mm as defense against bears will not result in favorable system performance. If barriers, or other unusual circumstances, are anticipated, then the ammo itself will need to be modified, with concomitant effects on shooter and weapon, but those effects are balanced against the whole system performance against that anticipated threat.
Originally Posted By: cb_13
For years more people were shot and killed with a .22 than any other caliber. That's almost as relevant as the two examples you gave.
The issue isn't about the final outcome after being shot , but in reference to how a self defender or LEO uses a firearm it's main purpose is to stop a deadly threat which occurs through blood loss or CNS hits.
A deadly attacker wielding a knife or even blunt object may die within minutes or even longer after getting hit by something like a 22 LR but the amount of time a human can stay in a fight after being mortally wounded is sometimes shocking.
Even staying up one minute would be enough time for a knife attacker to fillet you.
I'm guessing most people didn't read the article I linked earlier back in the thread about how an attacker ambushed the LEO and died after taking 22 hits of the 40 S&W but also inflicted damage on the officer before dying.
For years more people were shot and killed with a .22 than any other caliber. That's almost as relevant as the two examples you gave.
The issue isn't about the final outcome after being shot , but in reference to how a self defender or LEO uses a firearm it's main purpose is to stop a deadly threat which occurs through blood loss or CNS hits.
A deadly attacker wielding a knife or even blunt object may die within minutes or even longer after getting hit by something like a 22 LR but the amount of time a human can stay in a fight after being mortally wounded is sometimes shocking.
Even staying up one minute would be enough time for a knife attacker to fillet you.
I'm guessing most people didn't read the article I linked earlier back in the thread about how an attacker ambushed the LEO and died after taking 22 hits of the 40 S&W but also inflicted damage on the officer before dying.
- Status
Similar threads
