Jay Jay specifically referred to 44-calliber bullets in the post I responded to. But to answer your question, the 45 ACP was specifically designed to stop the drugged up Moros in the Philippians who kept on attacking after being shot through with '03 Springfields and Krags. So yes, while still being a “Sophie’s choice,” being shot at close range by the .223 is preferable.
I don’t mind admitting that I have a failing memory; I’m old, it comes with the territory. But I still know far more than you will ever know about guns and ammunition ballistics and impact energy, and unless you get busy and start learning, and I probably will to the day I die.
Well, sort of. It was designed because then-issued .38 handguns were ineffective. But I take your point. I’d rather take my chances with a .223 than a .45 at close range.
Yes, that too. But even the 30 caliber ball ammunition used in the Springfields and Krags would pass right through the Moros if it didn’t hit a major bone and they would keep coming. What was needed to stop those attacks was “knock down” power, which the .45 ACP provides in spades. Unfortunately, (yes I know, that is a bad word to describe the end of a war) that war was over before the1911s could be issued, but their effectiveness over smaller calibers in close combat has been well proven since.