pistols of ww2

That's hard to say, isn't it? Without knowing the specifics of a situation no one can say that the .45 would have made a difference. A bullet strike w/ either the 9x19 or the .45 ACP which doesn't strike an organ, break a bone or cause a rapid loss of blood may not stop an opponent. Marshall & Sanow have looked at data for over 20 years & concluded that both calibers are capable of one shot stops… if the shooter does his part.

 

Old Schoolr wrote:

No it isn't hard to say, any pistol including a .22LR can put a man down with one shot based upon the circumstances, if you make a perfect shot or if you're extremely lucky. But, that isn't the norm and combat isn't where you need to have to make a perfect shot to kill your enemy. The 1911 .45 has served ably in every war from it's inception and I cannot recall ever having heard or read where someone complained about it's lack of stopping power. That is not the case with the 9mm. I still have many friends in the marine Corps and Special Operations communities that have multiple deployments under their belts during the current GWOT. Virtually all have spoken of the poor performance of the 9mm. I could go on and on but don't think I could state the case any better than Clint/brndirt1 did in this thread so I'll copy his post here:

I do need to make one correction for accuracy. David Hackworth was a highly decorated U.S. Army Colonel and veteran of Korea and Vietnam, not a Marine.

Here is additional quotation from the link Clint provided that is germaine to the topic:

Let's begin with the M-9, the 9 mm Beretta pistol – which our combat troops say is the first item that should be tossed into the junk pile!

"They're constantly breaking," reports a warrior from Afghanistan. "To make matters worse, the 9 mm round is like firing paint balls. I had to pump four rounds into an al-Qaida who was coming at me before he dropped. We're dealing with fanatical crazies out here who won't quit until they die for Allah."

The Beretta can only be used bone-dry. Even then, it jams repeatedly if sand or grit gets into moving parts. Its ball round has proven to be worse than the .38 Colt pistol slug used by the U.S. Army in the Philippines until it was retired almost a century ago in favor of the .45 ACP M-1911 pistol – fielded to stop the Moros, who ironically were also Islamic fanatics.

Now Special Forces and Light Infantry soldiers in Afghanistan want to bring back the century-old .45, and some elite Marine units already have. A Special Forces sergeant says, "The large-caliber, slow-moving .45 bullet puts the bad guys on the ground. Lighter stuff like the Beretta's 9 mm will, too – eventually – but on the battlefield you almost always have to double tap, and in close combat a gunfighter hasn't the time or the ammo to lose firing two rounds."

Rangers, Marines and most Special Ops troops are some of the other elite warriors in the U.S. military who carry personal firearms in combat while the brass look the other way. Quite a few choose to pack two purchased handguns. But the only Rangers who use the Beretta – even as backup – are those who can't afford to buy their own firearms, and they and the rest of these elite fighters unanimously agree that they "can't trust this fragile, unreliable sidearm."

Almost all the Rangers engaged in hand-to-hand combat during Op Anaconda packed their own personal sidearms. "When I ran out of ammo with my rifle, I pulled my pistol," a Ranger sergeant says. "It saved my life. I hit a number of enemy 30-40 yards away who went down immediately from my .45 rounds. With a Beretta, I wouldn't have made it because of the far-too-light 9 mm bullet, play in the action and its limited range."

In another fight, a Ranger fired several torso shots with a .45 pistol before his foe fell. "When we looked at the corpses, we found their mouths full of khat," he says. "It was like these guys were pumped up on PCP. With the Beretta, I'd have had to fire all 15 rounds and then thrown the pistol at this wild-eyed dude."

 

"30 - 40 yards"... that's a Hell of a shot. Forty yards; I'd be pressed to make that w/ my 6" barrelled .357 Mag off of bags. I've shot w/ people who could make that shot w/ a .45ACP but they were using comp guns, not an "as issued" pistol. I'll give the writer that the 9x19 wouldn't have the energy at that range that a .45 would but making the shot (if all things were equal) would probably be easier w/ a 9mm due to flatter trajectory. When you start shooting at beyond normal pistol range the 230 gr. .45 ball starts dropping at a greater rate than the 9x19, .357 or .38 Super making it more difficult to score hits.
The Ranger mentions "play in the action" of the M9. I've spoken to a number of US military vets from WWII, Korea, Viet Nam & Cold War service. Any & all who had an opportunity to use the M1911/1911A1 mention that the pistols were generally rattle traps. They felt the .45 kicked like a mule. The only one I know who was confident in his ability to hit an opponent at anything more than point blank range was a really avid shooter prior to his time in the service. The rest had no confidence in the pistol. The few who transitioned to the M9 remarked that they felt it was more accurate & easier to master. Elmer Keith could hit targets at 100 yards w/ a .45 ACP but few people can shoot that well.
I'm a big fan of any John Browning designed firearm & especially the M1911 & the .45 ACP. But the .45 isn’t the Bayer aspirin of pistol calibers & the 9mm has probably dropped more “bad guys” than most any other caliber.

 

When in the Marine Corps my TO&E weapon as a machinegunner was the M1911 .45 ACP. I qualified with it, regularly for many years. I always qualified expert by would realistically say that I was slightly above average compared with my peers (I'm much better with the rifle). At 25 yards you could cover my grouping with the bottom of a beer can. I routinely fired and continue to fire my personal .45 at 50yds using a silhouette target, I very seldom place a round out of the black. I do not consider 30-40 yards at a man sized target a particularly difficult shot. We transitioned to the Beretta right before I got out of the Marines. It is an accurate pistol but no more so than the .45, my qualification scores were similar. I never considered the pistol as anything but a last ditch weapon and the stopping power of the .45 was appreciated.
When I went into the U.S. Army it was into a Special Operations MOS and we spent a lot more time working with pistols, I still prefer the 1911 as did most of my peers.

Virtually anyone can become quite proficient with a weapon if they receive training in the principles of marksmanship. Weapons Training Instructors will tell you it's often easier to teach someone that's never shot before because there are less bad habits to unlearn.

 

Here's a salute for a fine post in defense of the good old 1911.

Used to work in some regional hosptial emergency rooms. Great big, bad looking guys would walk in and say "I've been shot" or "I think I've been shot." And low and behold they had been shot, often more than once with a 9mm. I never, ever saw anyone walk in who had been shot with a .45 ACP. They all came in on gurneys, and were usually hurt pretty bad, especially if the round hit a bone. (Same goes for .357 mags and the other bad boy cartridges.)

The moral to this story? The .45 ACP is a much better round for putting some SOB down for the count than the 9mm.

Duckbill

 

Thank you for the salute and the interesting post on your observations in the emergency room.