View Full Version : The "back to 9mm" trend...I see a few holes in the logic
aceventura1
12-14-14, 12:59
The "logic" just doesn't seem to add up:
Here are some of the arguments and reasoning:
1. recent advances in high quality defensive 9mm ammunition performance warrant the switch, especially considering that 9mm projectile performance has "disproportionately benefited" from those recent advancements in bullet technology compared to other calibers/projectiles.......or so the argument goes.
2. there is no discernible difference from a medical standpoint in the wound channels left by the common calibers .45 acp, .40S&W and 9mm
3. shot placement is really the key to stopping power as the common pistol calibers lack the velocity necessary to have the temporary wound cavities contribute in any meaningful way to "stopping power" or mortality so since our average agents shoot 9mm better than .40 a switch is warranted
4. As such, the reasoning goes that if shot placement is, by far, the primary contributing factor to a pistol rounds effectiveness then penetration ie. a rounds ability to reach vital organs, must then be the most important quality in determining "stopping power" after that. Like they say in golf when putting, "never up, never in" ie. if you don't get it to the hole then accuracy of your put doesn't count!
5. Higher pressure rounds such as .40SW or .357Sig are producing more wear and tear on guns and have decreased service life/ increased associated cost when compared to 9mm or .45ACP. They are also seeing decreased shooting scores from .40 and .357 versus 9mm and .45ACP
6. 9mm offers greater capacity
BUT
Whenever I'm told of the "recent advances in 9mm defensive ammunition" the hollow point and how much a particular 9mm bullet expands in testing is always touted as the "major advancement". Penetration is not because quality 9mm ball has never really lacked significantly in penetration when compared to quality hollow point 9mm all other things being equal.
But if penetration is the primary "quality" determining a pistol rounds effectiveness on a target assuming accuracy then WHY does expansion rate of defensive hollow points seem so important to 9mm fans if that quality seems to actually play so little a role in effectiveness? All other things being equal doesn't hollow point ammo tend to penetrate less than ball due to expansion through the target? Also when 9mm fans list off their bullet of choice (ex. Hornady 147g XTP) and then give expansion and penetration testing data I can easily find a quality "9mm target" round that penetrates in testing at LEAST to a similar level but costs much less and is just as accurate in testing. The major difference in performance is always expansion........but now that seems to actually have little real world relevance according to the "back to 9mm" logic
So how can it be that 9mm ball is so universally maligned as an ineffective man stopper when compared to, say, .45 ACP or "new" 9mm hollow point if, in reality, the primary factors involved in "stopping power" are accuracy and penetration? 9mm has always been considered an accurate pistol cartridge assuming the shooter does his/her part and quality 9mm ball seems to penetrate just fine compared to quality 9mm hollow point ammo so...........what's actually going on then? Have 9mm hollow points really "changed the game" and warranted all this talk of a switch back to 9mm from .40 S&W or is it really about something else.......cost of ammo and maintenance to departments, trying to raise shooting scores without increasing training, etc? Where lies the truth?
if penetration is the quality most associated with "stopping power" after accuracy then wouldn't a bullet like .357 Sig actually be a better choice? 125g bonded hollow point at 1475 fps seems to have some serious advantages over 9mm bonded hollow points currently available. In testing good .357 Sig seems to outperform even the best 9mm by a good margin in both accuracy and penetration and that's penetration in people as well as through "intermediate" barriers. So why not carry a Glock 32 or 31 if those are the two primary factors in terms of effectiveness?
Personally, it seem logical that one should want "everything" possible working in your favor: size, speed, penetration, accuracy, capacity etc........from that idea it seems only logical that you should choose the bullet with the most size,speed, accuracy, capacity, reliability, cost efficiency etc for you. My question is: If you decide 9mm fits that bill then is a modern 9mm hollow point really it or is it WAY over-hyped and one would be served 99.9% as well by good ole 9mm target round OR just by going to something with more penetration like .357 Sig or even 10mm if you can afford it.
With a pistol caliber the energy on target, measured in ft./lbs, is largely irrelevant as a measure of "stopping power" because the velocities and energy developed are simply insufficient to be a deciding factor in terms of incapacitation or death. The general consensus seems to be that "energy" on target reaches the point of becoming a deciding factor at or around rifle velocities or approx 2,000 fps and above is where medical evidence from shootings suggests factors like "energy on target" and "temporary stretch cavity" become relevant components of stopping power.
So basically the argument follows that wound channel diameter and "energy" absorbed by target are largely irrelevant as a measure of "stopping power" when considering pistol calibers. Therefore a few extra mm's provided by hollow points and a few more ft/lbs energy provided by going "+P" should also be largely irrelevant. Basically the argument seems to go: You are either gonna hit the CNS or some vital organ and penetrate it, causing incapacitation or death OR you are going to miss in which case the "energy on target" and "diameter of wound channel" is not going to be a determining factor in the "stop" or "no stop" of the target. Grazing an organ with the extra mm's of "edge" a hollow point might provide is, statistically, not likely to be a factor.
So what gets me is this:
9mm fans argue that energy does not really matter when talking pistol calibers because none of the common pistol calibers generate enough energy to enter into the realm of relevance when talking "stopping power".
9mm fans also argue that wound channel does not really matter because data has shown wound cavity or temporary stretch cavity to have little or no correlation with "stopping power".
9mm fans argue its all down to accuracy and penetration.
These same 9mm fans will talk for days about some new 80g load from Double Tap that has 433 ft.lbs of energy making .40 S&W and .45 ACP completely unnecessary despite the fact that the 80g load has poor penetration!!!
Next day these SAME 9mm fans will talk for days about this new hollow point Ranger T with .65 expansion making .45 ACP completely unnecessary despite the fact that they justified going back to 9mm in the first place because wound channel was shown to not be a determining factor in "stopping power" and they were really only concerned with penetration, and accuracy BUT they steadfastly maintain that a 9mm FMJ is a very poor manstopper and they really only ever considered going back to 9mm after high quality defensive hollow points became available that had more "stopping power"
Next day these SAME 9mm fans will argue since its all down to accuracy and penetration they are going to enjoy the extra capacity advantage 9mm gives them over .40S&W as they buy the new H&K VP-9 which has two LESS capacity that similarly sized Glock 17 and the SAME capacity as the similarly sized Glock 22 in .40 S&W. Go figure.
Pardon me for being just a little skeptical on the whole thing but I gotta call it like I see it and Im just not convinced by the popular 9mm wisdom these days.
What seems far more convincing is the argument that agencies are switching to 9mm in order to save money on ammo and parts and also to avoid having to increase training to achieve the same level of proficiency with .40s&w or .357 sig.
The question that intrigued me the most looking into this was:
Given that "big data" seem to show rather conclusively that accuracy and penetration are the deciding factors in "stopping power" when considering common handgun calibers what does that say about the real value of the "high quality 9mm hollow point self defense ammo" being touted by so many as the primary reason they carry 9mm now over a much cheaper FMJ all other things being equal. Data seems to show no real relevance in terms of stopping power between a 9mm FMJ and a 9mm hollow point. Basically a shot to the CNS or vital organs is going to hit or not and wound cavity caused by expansion has little to no relevance in terms of "Stopping power" and the off chance that you might nick an organ with a "petal" from expansion is statistically irrelevant.
SO, if that's the case then it would seem that one could make a strong case for simply carrying quality 9mm FMJ with sufficient velocity to get desired penetration and thus avoid paying on the order of $1 per bullet or more that lots of premium 9mm defense ammo goes for. I mean, people complain all day about cost of 10mm or .357 Sig not being worth performance but then they go and spend vast amounts on 9mm hollow points that actually have little or no benefits over FMJ's in the two primary factors attributed to hand gun stopping power: Accuracy and penetration.
So in short, are we all wasting tons of money buying, shooting and carrying these premium 9mm self defense rounds when we'd be much better served simply buying lots of cheaper FMJ and putting the cost savings into training and proficiency?
I guess what I'm asking for is simply this: Is there data/evidence out there supporting some other competing reasoning to the notion that "stopping power" in a pistol is primarily a factor of shot placement and penetration. If not then the bulk of evidence would seem to suggest that there is insufficient difference in performance to justify the claim that modern defensive 9mm has a marked advantage in stopping power over the same 9mm bullet but in FMJ. Certainly it makes it harder to justify the price premium!
I understand people going to various 9mm loads for improved penetration, such as 147g for example. The data seems to support that decision. What the data does not seem to support is the value of the hollow point itself as a deciding factor. at least in 9mm.
In fact it would seem that some sort of high quality fmj flat point "woods load" in 9mm with the best possible characteristics of penetration and stability through the target would be the way to go given the data would it not?
Specific example: a double tap 147g flat nose FMJ using a Montana Gold flat nose bullet pushing 1135 fps. Is that not a logical conclusion to make if one accepts the "data" that penetration and accuracy and the deciding factors in "stopping power" and all the rest is basically just window dressing?
There are quality 9mm FMJ's available with construction that gives similar performance as far as barrier penetration to "bonded" hollow points. In fact there have long been FMJ's with basically no core-jacket separation issues so people are definitely guilty of "playing up" the value of bonded bullets in this regard. There are even non bonded hollow points, for example, that have passed FBI standards for barrier penetration and weight retention. Without even googling I can name one: Hornady Critical Duty is not bonded (as far as I know) and has passed FBI tests for barrier penetration and weight retention.
Also the argument that 40SW is too harsh on guns and the switch to 9mm is warranted bc of longer service lives is somewhat negated by the fact that many of these same advocates for going back to 9mm are, at the same time, using as one of their rationales the availability of high pressure loads such as +P+ loads that produce at least 10% greater pressures than standard and sometimes as high as 18% over...........
example:
common commercially available +P+ loads are creating pressures around 42,000 psi
standard 40SW is 35,000 psi of thereabouts
SO,
Its like a bait an switch or something. You cannot logically argue that you are switching to 9mm bc of lower pressures/bolt thrust making for lower wear and tear on sidearms while at the same time using as justification for the switch the availability of modern +P+ 9mm closing the "performance gap" while at the same time arguing that .45 ACP isn't so great because expansion doesn't matter nearly so much as 12-18 inches of penetration which you now see thanks to the FBI report is the primary factor along with shot placement when determining "stopping power" while at the same time arguing that modern hollow point 9mm expands enough that you're going to 9mm now whereas previously you wouldn't have touched that stuff because 9mm FMJ just didn't cut the mustard!!!!!
LightningFast
12-14-14, 13:12
Are you... are you having an online discussion with yourself?
I'm confused.
The problem is that there is no quantifiable way to measure "stopping power" so in truth there is no such thing. Penetration, kinetic energy, and temporary and permanent wound cavities are though. And the 9mm is comparable to the 40 and 45 in those aspects. So a more accurate platform that delivers more rounds on target is preferable.
I heard a saying once: Handguns poke holes, and rifles destroy shit.
aceventura1
12-14-14, 13:16
Are you... are you having an online discussion with yourself?
I'm confused.
No lol I was just breaking up a few points I had made elsewhere and trying not to exceed post length limits
sevenhelmet
12-14-14, 14:05
May I suggest sitting back for a little bit and letting someone else post in your thread? I think you're having trouble distilling your thoughts into a clear, concise argument.
FWIW, I heard a saying once that the gun you shoot the best is the best gun for you. If people are shooting 9mm well, and it gives them a little more ammo, then using 9mm makes sense to me. I also tend to see far too much made of caliber, especially when comparing 9mm, .40, and .45.
Failure2Stop
12-14-14, 14:09
Because all pistols suck for dropping dudes.
Pick what gives you enough opportunity and efficiency based on your ability.
zombiescometh
12-14-14, 14:18
It doesn't really matter what round is "better" it comes down to what your comfortable with, what you shoot best, and in your mind which one will help you survive.
Don't forget about all the people that carry .22 LR because they can put 10 rounds in a small target faster and easier then I could shoot 3 rounds in the same size target.
Some of my favorite videos on the subject with a little humor.
The People who carry 9mm
http://youtu.be/zHkqOWzDAZI
The People who carry .40 S&W
http://youtu.be/QuiePszwaho
The People who carry .45 ACP
http://youtu.be/po4nZTO3ES4
Based on what i read of your overly long post, you dont fully understand the facts.
40 is not a high pressure round
357 sig often penetrates less than 9mm.
Ball sucks even with penetration because it creates a pin hole due to tissue stretch.
You want a round that penetrates 12-18" in gel, expands, has low recoil and good capacity. And u want it to perform like that through as many different barriers. 9mm didnt, now it does. You then want the round you can shoot the best. Most/all peopke shoot 9mm better than other rounds that have the previous requirements.
You have to be accurate and be able to quickly put down a threat, its a balance.
On a side note. If you discuss one thing at a time, and condense It, maybe people will read what you write. Your post was way too long for asking a quedtion, imo.
crazymoose
12-14-14, 14:38
Also the argument that 40SW is too harsh on guns and the switch to 9mm is warranted bc of longer service lives is somewhat negated by the fact that many of these same advocates for going back to 9mm are, at the same time, using as one of their rationales the availability of high pressure loads such as +P+ loads that produce at least 10% greater pressures than standard and sometimes as high as 18% over...........
example:
common commercially available +P+ loads are creating pressures around 42,000 psi
standard 40SW is 35,000 psi of thereabouts
SO,
Its like a bait an switch or something. You cannot logically argue that you are switching to 9mm bc of lower pressures/bolt thrust making for lower wear and tear on sidearms while at the same time using as justification for the switch the availability of modern +P+ 9mm closing the "performance gap" while at the same time arguing that .45 ACP isn't so great because expansion doesn't matter nearly so much as 12-18 inches of penetration which you now see thanks to the FBI report is the primary factor along with shot placement when determining "stopping power" while at the same time arguing that modern hollow point 9mm expands enough that you're going to 9mm now whereas previously you wouldn't have touched that stuff because 9mm FMJ just didn't cut the mustard!!!!!
Pressure shouldn't be a huge factor in the decision making, but if you want to look at internal ballistics and pressure, there's more to it than just the peak number. How quickly the pressure develops is something that has to be considered if you're looking at how hard a cartridge is on the gun and shooter.
I would say after trying to sift through the post(you could have condensed), that shot placement, not caliber is the answer. I have read all this before and to complete this post, "what F2S said".
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
MountainRaven
12-14-14, 14:42
I feel like this sort of thing shouldn't happen on this forum of all places.
But, then, it appears that DocGKR's omnibus posts about defensive handgun and caliber selection have been unpinned and I'm having a bugger of a time trying to find them.
When you do let me know. Need to save a lot of that so I can get it on demand
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pick a quality firearm, with quality ammunition. Choose what works best for you, what you like best, and rock on. That is all that matters.
Close the thread.
Only thing I can add it train with what you choose and be proficient with it.
I recently went to 9mm. Sold my compact 1911 in .45 and bought the same gun in 9mm.
I don't care about the latest advances in wonderbullets. In fact I carry old-school loads: std. pressure Federal 9BP 115 grain JHP, or the L9mm1 from Remington, which is essentially the same load.
And I'm not even worried about capacity that much.
What I do care about is shootability. .40 and .45 just cause more muzzle flip in the same size and weight gun, and reduce my capacity to get back on target quickly and accurately. The #1 criterion in a defensive shooting is, Can you get a string of shots into the vital zone quickly? Everything else is peripheral to the issue.
That's why I'm carrying standard pressure rather than +p or +p+ right now (although I do have a stash of Federal 9BPLE I may experiment with). Standard velocity is easier to follow up on.
I love my full size all steel .45s. They're my recreation guns. Load a 230 grain bullet to about 800 and it's fun, fun fun.
But on the street if I'm trying to save my life, make mine a Nine.
Bottom line: all handguns are crappy people stoppers as F2S stated. All major pistol calibers (9, 40, 357, 45) do the same thing (wrt terminal ballistics) when used on two legged predators. If they all perform the same, then why would you not choose the one that's easier to shoot well (regardless of skill level), and has the most pills per magazine to stay in the fight longer?
The issues regarding reduced cost, ease of qualifying, and reduced wear on the guns is real but is really a concern for an agency - not individual gun owners.
We always hear shooters brag that, "I can handle 40 just fine and I don't notice the extra recoil" or words to that effect. I would submit that from behind the gun it is more difficult to notice. But having served as an RO during matches where I'm beside shooters... I can tell you it's very noticeable when you have shooters using proper technique and the same weapons (G19 vs G23 as an example).
What I don't like about the 45 and 40 are internet trolls insisting that the 9mm is junk (next up glock is the only firearm made worth betting your life on, all others are junk). I'll carry anything, it doesn't bother me to carry any of my 9s,45s,38, or 380. Hell for that matter I'll open carry my SR22 when fishing.
I've invested in the 9mm with 5 9's and 3 molds for casting 9's along with the dies. I can cast almost twice the number of 9 as 45's, so 1 pound of lead goes almost twice as far.
Eurodriver
12-14-14, 15:32
I prefer the Toyota Corolla caliber, because my biggest fear is running out of ammo.
Every self defense scenario is a shootout and if you go into it with 30 or less, you're wrong.
MountainRaven
12-14-14, 15:38
Since I can't find DocGKR's posts on the matter here on m4c, and I don't want to share a link to another forum, here's the short version:
Modern 9mm bullet designs offer superior intermediate barrier penetration compared to the older bullet designs while maintaining sufficient penetration to reach vitals but without over-penetrating - something that FMJs often do, even in puny little cartridges like 380 Auto.
Over-penetration - and preventing it - is why part of why expansion is important. It also means a larger wound channel, which means a higher rate of exsanguination and therefore a faster stop on an attacker, in the event that one fails to strike the attacker's CNS. Further, studies have shown that the fewer bullet wounds one sustains, the greater the likelihood of one surviving is. In order to achieve the same effect with FMJs, one must get more rounds on target. Which means: More time for the attacker to "come at you bro", which means you're more likely to be injured or mortally wounded, but it also means that the bad guy is more likely to survive. Since our objective is to get the attacker to stop (in such situations where killing them is morally irrelevant), and not to kill them, that is a Good Thing.
Further, the projectiles fired from 45 Auto, 40 S&W, 357 SiG, and 9mm all expand to roughly the same diameter. Meaning the wound channels are going to be very, very similar.
All together that means that the advantages held by 45, 40, and 357 are minute and statistically insignificant.
Therefore, 9mm.
Man, you need to put a summary at the top of something. I made it about 1/3rd of the way through and couldn't do anymore. The reason departments are going to 9mm is because it penetrates enough, it is easy to shoot, largest capacity, lowest cost, etc. Heavier bonded bullets are an incredible improvement over older hollow points and ball ammo. Both of which had terrible performance through barriers. Bonding keeps the copper and lead together and the bullet doesn't lose mass when running into stuff like auto glass. That is one of the reasons ball isn't nearly as effective.
The first flaw in your logic is your over-emphasis of penetration. While penetration is critical and absolutely needed, over-penetration is worthless (like altitude above an airplane or runway behind it). Any caliber .380 and up in FMJ will zip right through a human torso. So, since the energy is there to drive a through and through wound, the emphasis switches to how big a hole can we make while keeping in the 12"-18" penetration window?
The second flaw in your reasoning is caring so much about caliber wars and fans in the first place. The major handgun calibers all have advantages and tradeoffs. From a pure terminal ballistics standpoint, .40, .45, .357 SIG and 10mm have an advantage over 9mm, no question. The bigger hole they make in organs will lead to higher volume of blood loss in a shorter time resulting in faster incapacitation (but how much?)
The 9mm has benefitted the most from bullet advances narrowing the gap so that 15+1 of low recoiling, ~13" penetrating, .60 caliber expanding...pretty much equals out with 8-12+1 rds of snappier recoiling, ~13" penetrating .72 caliber expanding. Or put another way, in the vital zone 3x .60" 9mm wound tracts is certainly equal or better than 2x .72" wound tracts in the same time frame.
A gun you shoot fast and accurate (in whatever major caliber) trumps raw caliber if you don't shoot the larger caliber well. If you run a .45 ACP like a champ (not hard to do) it is better than a 9mm only considering terminal ballistics. A shot through the heart with either will still leave them able to fight for 7-15+ seconds though.
Anyone who shoots a .40 or .45 as fast and accurately as they could a 9mm ought to stick with the bigger caliber barring some other consideration.
The first flaw in your logic is your over-emphasis of penetration. While penetration is critical and absolutely needed, over-penetration is worthless (like altitude above an airplane or runway behind it). Any caliber .380 and up in FMJ will zip right through a human torso. So, since the energy is there to drive a through and through wound, the emphasis switches to how big a hole can we make while keeping in the 12"-18" penetration window?
The second flaw in your reasoning is caring so much about caliber wars and fans in the first place. The major handgun calibers all have advantages and tradeoffs. From a pure terminal ballistics standpoint, .40, .45, .357 SIG and 10mm have an advantage over 9mm, no question. The bigger hole they make in organs will lead to higher volume of blood loss in a shorter time resulting in faster incapacitation (but how much?)
The 9mm has benefitted the most from bullet advances narrowing the gap so that 15+1 of low recoiling, ~13" penetrating, .60 caliber expanding...pretty much equals out with 8-12+1 rds of snappier recoiling, ~13" penetrating .72 caliber expanding. Or put another way, in the vital zone 3x .60" 9mm wound tracts is certainly equal or better than 2x .72" wound tracts in the same time frame.
A gun you shoot fast and accurate (in whatever major caliber) trumps raw caliber if you don't shoot the larger caliber well. If you run a .45 ACP like a champ (not hard to do) it is better than a 9mm only considering terminal ballistics. A shot through the heart with either will still leave them able to fight for 7-15+ seconds though.
Anyone who shoots a .40 or .45 as fast and accurately as they could a 9mm ought to stick with the bigger caliber barring some other consideration.
With that being said though, even if they can shoot it just as good, they can still have more rounds with 9mm, and cheaper practice ect.
MountainRaven
12-14-14, 16:43
With that being said though, even if they can shoot it just as good, they can still have more rounds with 9mm, and cheaper practice ect.
If they can, I'd want to know how they managed to suspend the laws of physics.
;)
If they can, I'd want to know how they managed to suspend the laws of physics.
;)
People who are good can shoot 9,40,45 about tje same... 2handed. Where i find the 9 shines is 1 handed and in weird positions where you cant have good form.
Ya'll missed the whole point of different calibers.
RELIABILITY is the most important aspect of handgun caliber selection.
Choose the pistol that fits your needs best, then buy it in the caliber it performs best with.
I've killed a lot of hogs, a horse, and a few old cows with 9mm, 40, and 45 and I'm here to repeat: They all suck equally. Make sure the gun works first and foremost.
I agree with shot placement being the number one factor in marksmanship and stopping a threat effectively, but I can not see #2 as being a viably believable argument. The whole reason the military switched from 38 cal to 45 was because the 38 was seen as ineffective during combat, even against unarmored combatants.
If you want to switch from 40 to 9mm then I can see good reason(that's what I have recently done), but I think 45 to 9mm is a stretch to make an arguement for other than fiscal reasons
Just my $0.02
I agree with shot placement being the number one factor in marksmanship and stopping a threat effectively, but I can not see #2 as being a viably believable argument. The whole reason the military switched from 38 cal to 45 was because the 38 was seen as ineffective during combat, even against unarmored combatants.
If you want to switch from 40 to 9mm then I can see good reason(that's what I have recently done), but I think 45 to 9mm is a stretch to make an arguement for other than fiscal reasons
Just my $0.02
Reference the Phillipine insurrection - the 45 wasn't the big problem solver people like to pretend it was. It wasn't like the soldiers suddenly had Thor's hammer. Using handguns, especially with FMJ ammo against a determined foe with or without the aid of narcotics is going to be troublesome.
With regard to the 45 to 9 comparison, the new 9mm is impressive enough that guys I work with who are on SWAT teams are choosing to buy/carry G19's when they are issued Springer custom 1911's. These are no kidding gun guys - not run of the mill LEO's. The new G2 Gold Dot outperforms the 40 and 45 in the tests run at Quantico. But even if 45 still held the advantage, you're talking about a handgun that either is much larger in grip circumference (G21 as an example) and still holds only 13+1. Or, a 45 that has a better grip size but holds 7 or 8+1. The 9mm is much more useable for the majority of shooters when it comes to frame size.
If i am unlucky enough to encounter a group of 3 or more individuals with low hanging jeans with bad intentions directed my way, i would rather have more rds in my gun and my reload. Not to mention i achieve faster and more accurate follow up shots with 9mm. I mean its a no brainer.
You are right, it wasn't the problem solver , but it was more effective. That said, shot placement is still key. Can't kill a guy with shot to the arm....
I myself recently converted from 40 to 9 as 45 is too expensive and 40 compared to 9 is pretty much a dead heat and wih cost difference 9 makes more sense for me. I'm not saying the new 9mm isn't impressive, it is, all I am saying is I think 45 down to 9 is a huge jump and its too soon to say if its definitively better. All handgun calibers are inherently theoretically under powered, but I just think the differences between 45 and 9 are too great to call it over just yet.
If i am unlucky enough to encounter a group of 3 or more individuals with low hanging jeans with bad intentions directed my way, i would rather have more rds in my gun and my reload. Not to mention i achieve faster and more accurate follow up shots with 9mm. I mean its a no brainer.
I'd want Omega Man with me if I were in a chocolate shop* and ISIS sympathizers tried to get excited.
_________________
*Not in Australia, of course. They have strict gun control so hostages are a dime a dozen. in TX, though . . . .
You are right, it wasn't the problem solver , but it was more effective. That said, shot placement is still key. Can't kill a guy with shot to the arm....
How do we KNOW that 230 grain .45 was "more effective" on Filipino Moros than the .38 was? This is probably nothing but an anecdote that's over a century old. I'd bet it wasn't one bit more effective. I'd further bet that the .30-40 Krag rifles the US troops were equipped with had some spectacular fail-to-stop-Moro events as well.
Based on your novel I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you care far too much about this topic. I really doubt anyone here will read all of that post, I sure didn't.
I own and shoot a variety of rounds from .32 ACP - .44 Magnum with a 460 on the way.
They all work well enough for most folks.
My skimming of the OP was essentially someone upset that they're heavily invested in .40S&W with no appreciable performance gain.
http://www.gunlistings.org/uploads/l2_ammo_9mm_federal_hst_147gr._5_boxes_of_50rds_54933.jpg
1. Shot placement
2. Shot placement
3. Refer to previous rules.
22LR or 50AE doesn't matter if you cannot constantly put rounds where you want them to go, your not going to stop the threat, period.
FWIW I carry a 9mm on and off duty.
I don't believe this subject would cared it was only a 9.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff295/Texaspoff/IMG_1725_zps8d7e50d0.jpg
TXPO
Phillygunguy
12-14-14, 20:47
Are we Really having a 9 vs 40 vs 45 debate on m4c ?
Does the op assume that any fmj pistol bullet passing through a vital organ will automatically incapacitate a human target? Current theory based on medical findings asserts that destruction of blood vessels throughout a wound cavity incapacitates because the target bleeds out quickly. It follows that expanding bullets with enough penetration to produce a wound cavity through a human torso have a much higher probability than a fmj with equal or more penetration.
When I left my house last night, I grabbed a 9mm loaded with 147 gr fmj's although I have a large amount of the latest fodder. Why? I was too lazy to switch back from range ammo to the good stuff. I know better.
Without sounding like a total ass, people should obsess less about caliber and more about training. Being able to put rounds on vital areas of the threat is far more important than what caliber one uses. His at you're aiming for and you'll be OK with a 9 or 900. Miss and no matter what you're shooting you're SOL.
Without sounding like a total ass, people should obsess less about caliber and more about training. Being able to put rounds on vital areas of the threat is far more important than what caliber one uses. His at you're aiming for and you'll be OK with a 9 or 900. Miss and no matter what you're shooting you're SOL.
So true. That's why I feel properly armed for big-city personal defense, being armed with a 9mm holding old-school Federal 9BP or Remington L9mm1. Standard pressure stuff for fast followup shots, cheap enough to test thoroughly in my carry guns, and to do some practice with.
The whole caliber debate reflects a common bias in Western, and particularly American, culture: quick technological "fixes" for complex human problems. We think we can buy effectiveness in a box of the latest ammo, when what we really need is to sharpen our skills.
Caliber and ammo choice is something we have total control over. I think that's a major reason why is easy to focus on.
Uni-Vibe is also dead-on with his post above, "The whole caliber debate reflects a common bias in Western, and particularly American, culture: quick technological "fixes" for complex human problems. We think we can buy effectiveness in a box of the latest ammo, when what we really need is to sharpen our skills."
For defense I like 9x19 and .357 auto in pistols.
.45 acp is very fun to shoot but not worth the weight, expense, and loss of capacity in regards to defensive use.
10mm is a great cartridge too but the guns are just too big.
.40 auto isn't bad I just don't prefer it. I like it best fired from a 10mm pistol.
In revolvers I like .357 magnum for defense and enjoy shooting .38 special.
For pocket auto's I like .32 acp loaded to the hotter Euro specs.
MountainRaven
12-14-14, 23:43
I agree with shot placement being the number one factor in marksmanship and stopping a threat effectively, but I can not see #2 as being a viably believable argument. The whole reason the military switched from 38 cal to 45 was because the 38 was seen as ineffective during combat, even against unarmored combatants.
If you want to switch from 40 to 9mm then I can see good reason(that's what I have recently done), but I think 45 to 9mm is a stretch to make an arguement for other than fiscal reasons
Just my $0.02
I'm sick of hearing the myth of the Philippine Moros and how the 38-caliber wasn't stopping them.
A 45 was adopted because the cavalry was the premier arm of the US Army and they wanted something that could kill horses... and carry on through to kill the man on the other side.
I'm sick of hearing the myth of the Philippine Moros and how the 38-caliber wasn't stopping them.
A 45 was adopted because the cavalry was the premier arm of the US Army and they wanted something that could kill horses... and carry on through to kill the man on the other side.
Is it a myth? It's written in history based off of the first hand accounts of troops in the field. This is starting to be almost like a 5.56 vs 7.62 (NATO) debate. Everyone liked the 7.62 because it could punch through the jungle and still have the power behind it to kill a guy and the guy behind him. People like 5.56 because you can carry more.
I don't want to get into a pissing debate so I will leave it at this, 9mm will do the job with proper shot placement as will 45 and 22lr. I said it in the beginning and I will say it again: shot placement is the key. What I was questioning is the statement of there is no medical difference in wound channel created by different calibers. I call bull on that. I am no doctor but I bet after seeing a few you can tell the difference between a 22lr hole and a 45 or a 9 or a 50ae. Any of these rounds are effective with good shot placement, but the larger ones are going to create a bigger cavity and destroy more vessels in the process so the chance of bleed out is greatly increased.
Is it a myth? It's written in history based off of the first hand accounts of troops in the field. This is starting to be almost like a 5.56 vs 7.62 (NATO) debate. Everyone liked the 7.62 because it could punch through the jungle and still have the power behind it to kill a guy and the guy behind him. People like 5.56 because you can carry more.
I don't want to get into a pissing debate so I will leave it at this, 9mm will do the job with proper shot placement as will 45 and 22lr. I said it in the beginning and I will say it again: shot placement is the key. What I was questioning is the statement of there is no medical difference in wound channel created by different calibers. I call bull on that. I am no doctor but I bet after seeing a few you can tell the difference between a 22lr hole and a 45 or a 9 or a 50ae. Any of these rounds are effective with good shot placement, but the larger ones are going to create a bigger cavity and destroy more vessels in the process so the chance of bleed out is greatly increased.
No difference between 9, 40, 45. Obviously 22 is different. How much more bloodloss will .1" diameter really make? The docs say not much.
The problem with 1st hand accounts is its an uncontrolled experiment, with unknown variables, and is as subjective as the narrator wants. Ive never heard a war story in person that i believed, its like hunting stories, they always puff them up.
Quickness to second site picture is key. Lots of factors will contribute to what works best for you. Weight of the firearm has a huge impact on felt recoil. Compare a 1911 to a polymer..
What I was questioning is the statement of there is no medical difference in wound channel created by different calibers. I call bull on that. I am no doctor but I bet after seeing a few you can tell the difference between a 22lr hole and a 45 or a 9 or a 50ae. Any of these rounds are effective with good shot placement, but the larger ones are going to create a bigger cavity and destroy more vessels in the process so the chance of bleed out is greatly increased.
Go ask an ER doc yourself. The fact is they cannot tell the difference.
brickboy240
12-15-14, 10:24
On the whole "we adopted a 45 because the 38 would not stop the Moros" issue...this was also probably a huge factor in why we got a 45 caliber sidearm over a 9mm:
Cavalry!
Think about it. Cavalry...at the time of the transition to service auto pistols, was the equivalent of today's SEALs or Green Berets. What cavalry wanted...they got. they wanted shorter rifles with saddle rings....they got carbine length trapdoors and Krags...didn't they?
Well, cavalry officers also knew that a 45 caliber bullet stopped a horse better than a 38 caliber bullet. When you stopped the horse - you stopped the charge. The fact that the bullet worked better on people was just a bonus. Other features on the M1911 (like the lanyard ring and placement of the safety) also seem to have been geared towards mounted soldiers.
I believe that cavalry officers were asked by the powers that be, what they wanted in a new sidearm. The cavalry soldiers were comfortable with the 45 Colt round and wanted something similar if they were to go to an auto pistol.
It could be argued that the M1911 was the last of the "horse pistols" behind the outgoing 45 Single Action Army Colt revolvers.
So yeah...I tend to believe (even if I cannot totally prove it) that cavalry weighed huge in why we got a 45 caliber pistol and into the M1911's design.
As far as the trend towards 9mm....I think the advancement in 9mm ammo, along with better data on what the various handgun rounds do in a fight factors in to the switch.
Economics also has a factor (it is cheaper to shoot) and the fact that many smaller stature officers cannot handle the larger grip sizes of some 45s and the snappiness of many 40s also is key.
-brickboy240
I think this vid can shed some light on the topic. IMHO, JHP pistol ammo has come a long way since the 1986 Miami FBI shootout and the shallow energy dump/penetration Winchester Silvertip 9mm JHP being used at the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2dA36NYLqns
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=bba2ac0f178480b6ce1c3922566274ea&tab=core&_cview=0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBGfKtuo2AM
Because all pistols suck for dropping dudes.
Pick what gives you enough opportunity and efficiency based on your ability.
This. Talking about velocity, penetration, expansion, blah blah is all a waste of time when talking about HG calibers. What matters is SHOT PLACEMENT, the ability to make ACCURATE follow up shots and having enough bullets to either stop the threat or make them change their mind. That's it!
I will also add that your ability to achieve the above goals is directly tied to your ability to afford ammo. For most folks, this means 9mm as it is cheaper than other defensive ammo.
C4
MountainRaven
12-15-14, 12:20
On the whole "we adopted a 45 because the 38 would not stop the Moros" issue...this was also probably a huge factor in why we got a 45 caliber sidearm over a 9mm:
Cavalry!
Think about it. Cavalry...at the time of the transition to service auto pistols, was the equivalent of today's SEALs or Green Berets. What cavalry wanted...they got. they wanted shorter rifles with saddle rings....they got carbine length trapdoors and Krags...didn't they?
Well, cavalry officers also knew that a 45 caliber bullet stopped a horse better than a 38 caliber bullet. When you stopped the horse - you stopped the charge. The fact that the bullet worked better on people was just a bonus. Other features on the M1911 (like the lanyard ring and placement of the safety) also seem to have been geared towards mounted soldiers.
I believe that cavalry officers were asked by the powers that be, what they wanted in a new sidearm. The cavalry soldiers were comfortable with the 45 Colt round and wanted something similar if they were to go to an auto pistol.
It could be argued that the M1911 was the last of the "horse pistols" behind the outgoing 45 Single Action Army Colt revolvers.
So yeah...I tend to believe (even if I cannot totally prove it) that cavalry weighed huge in why we got a 45 caliber pistol and into the M1911's design.
As far as the trend towards 9mm....I think the advancement in 9mm ammo, along with better data on what the various handgun rounds do in a fight factors in to the switch.
Economics also has a factor (it is cheaper to shoot) and the fact that many smaller stature officers cannot handle the larger grip sizes of some 45s and the snappiness of many 40s also is key.
-brickboy240
The timing on testing and adoption of the 1911 is wrong for it to be a response to experience in the Philippines - it would be like US SOCOM developing and adopting the FN SCAR "in response" to Afghanistan... now that combat operations have ended and not nearly a decade ago during the height of those operations.
The test subjects for the cartridge's terminal ballistics were too large for humans - cows instead of goats.
Every other Western power was moving toward even more anemic 38-caliber cartridges. The British in particular had a longer history of fighting drug-addled aborigines and were still fighting them when they adopted the Webley in 38. And were still fighting them for nearly half a century afterwards. History records more complaints from the British transition to the 303 than to the 38/200.
The timing on testing and adoption of the 1911 is wrong for it to be a response to experience in the Philippines - it would be like US SOCOM developing and adopting the FN SCAR "in response" to Afghanistan... now that combat operations have ended and not nearly a decade ago during the height of those operations.
The test subjects for the cartridge's terminal ballistics were too large for humans - cows instead of goats.
Every other Western power was moving toward even more anemic 38-caliber cartridges. The British in particular had a longer history of fighting drug-addled aborigines and were still fighting them when they adopted the Webley in 38. And were still fighting them for nearly half a century afterwards. History records more complaints from the British transition to the 303 than to the 38/200.
I'm pretty sure it was 45ACP that was adopted, but in revolver format.
This. Talking about velocity, penetration, expansion, blah blah is all a waste of time when talking about HG calibers. What matters is SHOT PLACEMENT, the ability to make ACCURATE follow up shots and having enough bullets to either stop the threat or make them change their mind. That's it!
I will also add that your ability to achieve the above goals is directly tied to your ability to afford ammo. For most folks, this means 9mm as it is cheaper than other defensive ammo.
C4
<----- this! :agree:
It's all about the knock down power, Mama! :sarcastic:
I've seen people shot, with all 3 popular police calibers (9mm, 40S&W and 45ACP), and it's all about shot placement , and even that doesn't always work. One guy in particular took a .45 to the side of the head at close range (under 25-30 feet) and it bounced off. Ruined his ballcap-put 2 holes in it, so he left it and the dented ball round behind. He ran another 1/4-1/2 mile before he let up and allowed the paramedics to treat him for a head lac and contusion.
Last week I had a guy shot (slightly built, Asian male) during an incident with a .45ACP hollowpoint, out of a Blackhawk convertible revolver (we think). The round struck him above the left kidney and lodged in the front right of his abdomen. He ran a block and a half, banging on doors to get in and hide, and when he found an open door, he got in and sat down, waiting for EMTs. He then started to give the responding units a ton of crap and a false name.
My father was a Marine in Korea during the trench warfare of 52-53. When he was issued a Glock 19 in 1990 at work, he loved it and told me he wished he had one in Korea-he hated his "ancient WW1 .45". He's a DAV, ghetto cop, been there done that type of guy, so when he speaks about weapons, I listen. He's a shot placement type of guy.
BoringGuy45
12-15-14, 14:12
The problem with real world use of guns is that no two gunfights are the same. It's inevitable that in any situation where the gear didn't work exactly as advertised, or the situation didn't pan out how you envisioned or trained for, that the "If I only had done this..." thoughts are going to creep in. Too many variables. Hardcore 9mm advocates have it in their head that there is no rational reason for why anyone should carry anything other than a 9mm handgun. They'll guarantee that there's no variable that will in any way make a .40 or .45 better suited than a 9mm to any conceivable situation. Yes, I have heard this, almost in these words. Then there's the "Don't leave the house with any caliber that doesn't start with a '4'" crowd. There's many in that crowd who are convinced that a .40 or .45 packs enough punch that there's no NEED to carry more than 8 to 10 rounds, and they can drop a man with 1 to 2 shots.
The truth is, how do we know? Let's say there's a guy who was killed because even the repeated center mass hits from his 9mm didn't stop the bad guy...can we be certain that he'd be alive today if he had used a bigger bullet? Did any of his rounds miss a major organ, artery, or his spine by 0.05" and would have stopped the bad guy had they just be just a little bit bigger? Or how about a guy who was killed because his 1911 ran out of ammo and he was killed while reloading...can we be certain that he would be alive still if he had a larger magazine? Are we certain he would have hit his target with a larger magazine and less recoil? Are we certain those rounds would have hit a major organ or CNS, or would they miss by .05"?
Trends in the gun world tend to swing back and forth. For 20 something years, it was all about getting a bigger bullet with more punch. Now new studies show that it doesn't matter. Maybe in another 20 years, after the mass exodus from the "4" guns back to 9mm there will be a bunch of new technological advances to convince people to go the .40s and .45s. For now, I think just go with what you're going to shoot well. Yeah, maybe the 9mm is the best overall option; I'm going to get one after years with only .45s, but I'm going to hang onto my .45s. I think I'd feel fine with either one in a gunfight.
Shot placement is key, but a few shots in Miami were good shots and failed due to ammo choice, and good people died because of it. Pick a round from "the list", any caliber, and forget ammo, just train. For ccw, non great rounds will most likely work fine, but especially when carrying around vehicles and other barriers, good ammo can have huge consequences.
Of all my range going friends, the only shooters of the group are 9mm and 45 reloaders. I can't get any of the .40 guys out.
I'm getting 9mm wolf for .20 a round. What's the better solution, train and carry with 9mm service pistols or have a blinged out 1911 that you never shoot and take the 22lr out 3 times a summer?
No brainer for me.
BuzzinSATX
12-15-14, 14:30
This. Talking about velocity, penetration, expansion, blah blah is all a waste of time when talking about HG calibers. What matters is SHOT PLACEMENT, the ability to make ACCURATE follow up shots and having enough bullets to either stop the threat or make them change their mind. That's it!
I will also add that your ability to achieve the above goals is directly tied to your ability to afford ammo. For most folks, this means 9mm as it is cheaper than other defensive ammo.
C4
Absolutely agree! Shot placement and ammo capacities aside, the cost issue is huge.
I realize cost ultimately should not matter in a life-death issue, but the reality is training ammo costs money which might otherwise be spent on rent/mortgage, fuel, food, etc. 9MM is easily the best deal going, and makes best sense to me.
Take Care,
Buzz
The wife unit is a classic example of this “conversation”. She shoots a 23, very well, and goes to crap on my 19s or 17… Not because of caliber, but because of confidence (or lack thereof). The 23 was her “first” pistol (she picked it, not me…) and she “knows” it like the back of her hand and oozes confidence with it. I’ll gladly pay the increased cost of ammo for her as she slowly tinkers with the 9mm… I agree with F2S (and the likes)-shot placement is the key, not caliber and with her it is “weirdly” opposite of what most would think…
Undoubtedly, smaller bore handgun ammunition has greatly improved over ammunition produced 20yrs ago when the FBI encouraged all LE agencies to transition to the .40S&W. In fact, proportionally, the 9mm has advanced to the point that it rivals the combat capabilities of the .40 or .45. Remember, penetration is key, followed by cutting/crushing efficiency, followed by projectile diameter. Thus, the FBI has returned to the 9mm, as are many large state agencies and Highway Patrol units.
20yrs of .40S&W LEO use has demonstrated for the masses that the small increase in caliber size and energy levels of the .40 showed no noticeable difference in rapid incapacitation that the 9mm or .38spl did. A good example is the Peter Soulis OIS where Soulis had to saturate the perp's torso with .40 165gr Ranger Talons before the fight went in his favor. Michael Brown needed a head shot from Officer Wilson's P229 .40 to end the fight. Wanna talk .45acp?........Officer Keith Borders and Tim Gramins both put over a half dozen high quality 230r JHPs into the torsos of their perps and had to keep fighting on until they got a head shot.
Prior to the original FBI transition to .40, there was VERY little reliable shooting data to confirm if a larger caliber uses by LEOs would make any noticeable difference in terminal effects. Now days, with so many LEOs using a wide array of caliber sizes, there is no measurable advantage in using the larger caliber.
Shooting on a static gun range with no time constraints and one target is a worthless measure of a defensive caliber. In an apples-to-apples comparison between like platforms, the 9mm is significantly easier to shoot faster and more accurately than the .40 and .45. With time constraints, and moving between multi-threats the speed and accuracy scores are always in favor of the 9mm. The scores aren't even close.
Symmetry's post should be the end of this thread.
BuzzinSATX
12-15-14, 22:13
This is a great read on a real life shoot out in IL for folks who think that the .45 is a guaranteed threat stopper...
http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/6199620-Why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/
I have an aunt in Alaska who worked the ER for years. One of her favorite stories to tell when the 45 comes up is was when after a shooting the ambulance brought in a large guy who had 12(!) 45 slugs in his chest and stomach and was conscious and survived.
But on the other hand a local cop was killed with a single .22lr to the armpit a decade or so ago.
It's all about shot placement.
This is a great read on a real life shoot out in IL for folks who think that the .45 is a guaranteed threat stopper...
http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/6199620-Why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/
12 .45 cal and wasn't blow in half? Heresy...
Pray for forgiveness... lol
12 .45 cal and wasn't blow in half? Heresy...
Pray for forgiveness... lol
Haha his soul was! She said he was a very large man so 12-18 inches of penetration may have not been enough to hit vitals ;)
The problem is that there is no quantifiable way to measure "stopping power" so in truth there is no such thing. Penetration, kinetic energy, and temporary and permanent wound cavities are though. And the 9mm is comparable to the 40 and 45 in those aspects. So a more accurate platform that delivers more rounds on target is preferable.
.
I used to subscribe to the dogma of caliber. Then ATK performed a battery of test in a multitude of calibers for handgun and rifle and it became very clear that it was all BS. As long as you are using a modern bullet design typically a bonded JHP or one that mimics a bonded JHP, they all perform almost identically. There are differences. However they are trivial differences. This is all as it applies to the FBI standard, which is a subjective also as to how it applies to justification of the means.
Can you make an argument to justify larger caliber. Yes but it is subjective and only quantifiable by opinion. The same is true of smaller calibers. In the end as is stated handguns are shit man stoppers. Around 85% of people shot by handguns live. A lot of human error and wide variety of uncontrolled factors influence that unreliable percentage as compared to controlled ideal factors. But it still doesn't change the end result.
True there are exceptional stories to be told on both sides of the issue. Some stories true or have partial truths. Some not so true. But do not use the exceptional to prove the rule.
In the end use whatever BS makes that makes you feel comfortable in choosing. So long as you realize more likely then not it more likely then not is just BS.
.45 ACP. Because they don't make a .46.............. ;)
BoringGuy45
12-15-14, 23:30
While I do buy a lot of what the "back to 9mm" crowd says, and I plan on purchasing a 9mm pistol as soon as funds allow, a lot of examples of why it's pointless to carry a .40 or .45 are actually not good arguements. We get these stories where a bunch of cops unloaded 50 rounds of .45 directly into the suspect's vital organs and the suspect doesn't even flinch. How does this advocate for switching to a 9mm?? If a .45 didn't drop them, why would a smaller round do better? If this is the argument that's being used, it doesn't prove that we need to go to a smaller round, it means we need to be looking for a larger, more powerful round than any offered right now! There are also stories of rifle rounds being stopped by a Zippo lighter in a soldier's pocket, or rounds that somehow bounced off a person's skull even though they were fired at point blank range. My point being that these are anomalies and, while taking entire magazines of larger caliber ammo to drop someone does happen and more often than it should, most gunfights end a lot quicker and with a lot less rounds fired. While we can sling these stories of guys surviving barrages of .45, just as many stories of guys being dropped with a single round of 45 to the chest could also be used to counter. The point that anyone who advocates switching larger calibers for 9mm needs to stick to is the fact that, while .45 and .40 do have a SLIGHT edge in energy and power, that for all intents and purposes, it's likely to make little difference in most cases.
The argument has to do with, while it didn't immediately stop the threat, you can lay on the gas and and put more hits on target hopefully having a positive impact with each hit. Meaning it adversely affects the adversary. But again is not quantifiable because incidents can't be pigeon holed, because even if all circumstances were the same for every incident, more likely then not the outcomes would be different. Some individuals, when properly motivated, chemically enhanced or just plain pissed off can continue to be a threat for 15-30 seconds even if you took their heart out through their spine. While other run off or die when involving more miniscule variables.
As a contrast take a 12-guage shotgun slug for instance. .72 caliber, roughly 420 grain bullet. The only time I've dropped a Whitetail instantly is when I've missed what I was aiming at and accidentally hit the spine. Living organisms survival mechanisms continue to function for a small window even when it is impossible to save them
Of course there are many examples of one hit stops. I wasn't using the example to discredit the 45, I just think its funny how so many think it'll blow you in half and throw you across a football field when there are many examples of people being hit multiple times by the 45 and still keep going.
I just hate caliber wars, to me their pointless except when you are trying to hit major vs minor. ;)
Someone asked for a summary of aceventura's posting. What I get from it, and agree with:
When it comes to Magic Bullets, the Emperor Has No Clothes.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Of course there are many examples of one hit stops. I wasn't using the example to discredit the 45, I just think its funny how so many think it'll blow you in half and throw you across a football field .
;)
That's why I carry it. The movie Last Man Standing clearly illustrates the power of the .45. :D Despite it being BS I still give the younger guys in our area shit for carrying 9's on duty beings they don't know any better. LOL.
Honestly, in my opinion, caliber selection in handguns is way over thought. To be honest it is also extremely tiresome to most to see come up again, and again, and again, all over the web.
When I first stared getting into handgun shooting I did the same thing. I thought only the .45 was up to the task of social work, and I felt that anything else was risking your ass by carrying it. After *years* of researching & shooting, I carry a 9, and sometimes a 45.
If I were to give a new shooter the basics on this topic, these would be my thoughts.
Quality, modern ammunition in either 9x19, 40, or 45 all work great.
Pick a quality firearm, with quality ammunition. Choose what works best for you, what you like best, and rock on. That is all that matters.
Is that why you sold me this ol' raggedy ass .45, LOL:D Well said sir.
All pistol calibers (9,40,45) suck in a gunfight....period. Use the one you can score the best hits the fastest....for the large majority of people that will be a 9mm. People get all caught up in this "stopping power, wound channel debate" and defend their caliber choice because thats what they bought and dont want to admit they are wrong.
While I do buy a lot of what the "back to 9mm" crowd says, and I plan on purchasing a 9mm pistol as soon as funds allow, a lot of examples of why it's pointless to carry a .40 or .45 are actually not good arguements. We get these stories where a bunch of cops unloaded 50 rounds of .45 directly into the suspect's vital organs and the suspect doesn't even flinch. How does this advocate for switching to a 9mm?? If a .45 didn't drop them, why would a smaller round do better? If this is the argument that's being used, it doesn't prove that we need to go to a smaller round, it means we need to be looking for a larger, more powerful round than any offered right now! There are also stories of rifle rounds being stopped by a Zippo lighter in a soldier's pocket, or rounds that somehow bounced off a person's skull even though they were fired at point blank range. My point being that these are anomalies and, while taking entire magazines of larger caliber ammo to drop someone does happen and more often than it should, most gunfights end a lot quicker and with a lot less rounds fired. While we can sling these stories of guys surviving barrages of .45, just as many stories of guys being dropped with a single round of 45 to the chest could also be used to counter. The point that anyone who advocates switching larger calibers for 9mm needs to stick to is the fact that, while .45 and .40 do have a SLIGHT edge in energy and power, that for all intents and purposes, it's likely to make little difference in most cases.
For many years large caliber or high velocity caliber advocates continued to cite that real shooting data was needed to demonstrate that either using .45 or .357mag/sig was superior to other service calibers. Gel tests just didn't cut it, and in the past poor ammo designs and lack of information sharing prevented many from getting a better picture. Okay.....well the information age is here now where cops, and even civilians can see police OIS reports and there really isn't anything impressive here to show that one caliber is more effective than another. For years Texas DPS used .357sig, with no improvement in the success of their OISs versus other Texas agencies using 9mm. Recently Texas DPS began the process of going back to 9mm......and this is a wealthy state without concern for training costs.
If it takes a dozen torso hits with .45acp to bring down a perp, you ask why would a 9mm be better? This example showcases the sage reasoning that shot placement far outweighs caliber size. I recently dealt with a civilian shooting where a man fired 13rds of .40S&W 180gr GDs into his wife. 10 of those were torso hits. She lived, and was able to testify against him in court. Again, the key here is that his shot placement was poor, and nothing important was damaged. Another case I dealt with 6 years ago, involved a civilian CCW self defense shooting with a .380acp. He fired 2 shots with FMJ into the chest of his attacker. One struck the heart and one punctured the left lung. He dropped quickly and died on scene. If anything, real world shootings have demonstrated that the best caliber is one that meets minimal penetration standards, has an efficient crushing/cutting wound mechanism, has a reasonable projectile diameter, and is easy for the shooter to shoot well. 9mm anyone?
You will be hard pressed to find an honest exception to the rule, but on a dynamic shooting range the 9mm always scores faster and more accurately than .357sig, .40, or .45. Often shooters will put lead downrange on a single, static target with no time constraints and claim that they can shoot the larger calibers as well as the smaller. When you start using dynamic targets or multiple targets, and starting moving around yourself the larger calibers can't even come close to the speed and accuracy of the 9mm.
I'm certainly not an expert, but it seems that anecdotal evidence shows 1) head shots are generally more effective at ending a fight quickly and 2) multiple torso hits of any caliber are not guaranteed to stop the fight. From my own experience shooting multiple calibers, I cannot argue that follow up shots are easier with a 9 mm than a .40 or .45. However, the anecdotal evidence also seems to show that most people, including LEO (what did the FBI study say, LEOs miss 70% of the shots?) are not able, under the stress of a shooting situation, to hit the vital organs consistently. People aim center of mass because it's bigger than a head, but it doesn't ensure you can hit the vital organs even if you have better control for follow up shots. If you and the target are in a dynamic situation it seems that the ability to get even a first well aimed shot off is questionable, let alone follow up shots.
;) LOL, you got me!
Recently, I was at my preferred FFL doing a transfer, and had a new employee there tell me that the 9 is a BS caliber. In his exact words, "if a threat came though that door right now I want a .45, I can shoot him in the shoulder and take his damn arm off". One of those times where you just pick up your things and leave instead of arguing.
In all honesty though Sabre, I am looking for another HK45!
LOL. I don't argue anymore. Usually don't even contribute to threads as it is like arguing politics and pointless. I've grown to actually enjoy people that are Dogmatic when it comes to caliber. The stories and slogans are quite comical. I read the book of .45's recently on 1911's and it was quite a good read. Some exceptional stories inside. I can see why someone who is new to the game could become quite polarized after reading such literature. That's where the .45 wins is in the cool catch phrase category and exceptional stories. But that is all they are is exceptions to the rule. But it just so happens the platforms that I cherish the most just happen to be chambered in in the mystical man stopping round. LOL.
You are looking for another HK45 huh? Well thanks to you brother I now have 4 with a fifth on the way thanks to this damn rebate.... I didn't think I'd like that Lipseys as much as I do but in person it is a very nice looking firearm. It's one of my favorites. On a side note you should be in sales. You have the best customer service I've ever received anywhere. Hope all is well and Merry Christmas to you and your family.
Ever hear were the term double tap came from? When the SAS went from .45 to 9mm they found they had to shot twice instead of once. Every few years you have a group of 18 year old's discover guns then come on the internet and declare 9mm stops like a .45 because they read it somewhere. Guess what, it don't and I have seen it with my own eyes. Now having said that are there reasons to carry a 9mm, hell yes but don't tell me it stops like a .45 with all things being equal. And of course they always say, with this modern 9mm., what compared to 50 year old .45? You do know there is modern day .45, right Oh well in 5 years we will be having this conversation again but the 9mm experts will have more experience and will be making the case for .45. and the wheel goes round and round and ...
Ever hear were the term double tap came from? When the SAS went from .45 to 9mm they found they had to shot twice instead of once. Every few years you have a group of 18 year old's discover guns then come on the internet and declare 9mm stops like a .45 because they read it somewhere. Guess what, it don't and I have seen it with my own eyes. Now having said that are there reasons to carry a 9mm, hell yes but don't tell me it stops like a .45 with all things being equal. And of course they always say, with this modern 9mm., what compared to 50 year old .45? You do know there is modern day .45, right Oh well in 5 years we will be having this conversation again but the 9mm experts will have more experience and will be making the case for .45. and the wheel goes round and round and ...
Wrong. The double tap was a British training term for a police training academy in Shanghi, China just before World War 2. You know what pistol they started the training on?......The Webley .455 revolver, and later the Webley. 38 S&W. Jeff Cooper picked up the technique again for the modern era with his 1911 .45acp pistol in a training drill known as the El Presidente.
But if penetration is the primary "quality" determining a pistol rounds effectiveness on a target assuming accuracy then WHY does expansion rate of defensive hollow points seem so important to 9mm fans if that quality seems to actually play so little a role in effectiveness? All other things being equal doesn't hollow point ammo tend to penetrate less than ball due to expansion through the target? Also when 9mm fans list off their bullet of choice (ex. Hornady 147g XTP) and then give expansion and penetration testing data I can easily find a quality "9mm target" round that penetrates in testing at LEAST to a similar level but costs much less and is just as accurate in testing. The major difference in performance is always expansion........but now that seems to actually have little real world relevance according to the "back to 9mm" logic
there is a RANGE of penetration that is "ideal." ball rounds penetrate further than hollowpoint expanding rounds. you can see this in effect when you watch videos of hollowpoints that fail to expand. they tend to overreach the upper boundary of "acceptable" penetration. the ideal bullet travels just far enough to not exit the threat. it has to do this while going through intermediate barriers and also through clothing. i think the most highly regarded rounds are the ones that manage to do this at the most consistent rate.
if expansion is touted it will be because expansion is the principle mechanism by which the round slows down inside of target. reliable expansion means it slows down in target every time, whether there was glass, metal or denim in the way first. it is not principally about temporary cavity or permanent cavity, although those are subjectively very sensational.
So how can it be that 9mm ball is so universally maligned as an ineffective man stopper when compared to, say, .45 ACP or "new" 9mm hollow point if, in reality, the primary factors involved in "stopping power" are accuracy and penetration? 9mm has always been considered an accurate pistol cartridge assuming the shooter does his/her part and quality 9mm ball seems to penetrate just fine compared to quality 9mm hollow point ammo so...........what's actually going on then? Have 9mm hollow points really "changed the game" and warranted all this talk of a switch back to 9mm from .40 S&W or is it really about something else.......cost of ammo and maintenance to departments, trying to raise shooting scores without increasing training, etc? Where lies the truth?
if penetration is the quality most associated with "stopping power" after accuracy then wouldn't a bullet like .357 Sig actually be a better choice? 125g bonded hollow point at 1475 fps seems to have some serious advantages over 9mm bonded hollow points currently available. In testing good .357 Sig seems to outperform even the best 9mm by a good margin in both accuracy and penetration and that's penetration in people as well as through "intermediate" barriers. So why not carry a Glock 32 or 31 if those are the two primary factors in terms of effectiveness?
the prevailing knowledge at the moment seems to be that all pistol cartridges suck, they all suck equally. get the one that gives you the most chances of hitting something major and get the one that lets you do so in the quickest and most efficient manner possible.
there is an obsession with the phrase stopping power, perhaps it would be more instructive to change the key phrase to stopping probability density. for every given shot there is a probability of stopping the threat. this density is more highly weighted when shots are placed well in the center line of the threat. this probability is increased when more shots are made. i know i'm not making a perfect example, but you get where i'm going with this. there is probably room somewhere in this equation for caliber to play a role, but i believe the weightedness of the caliber variable in this algorithm would require huge calibers to contribute as significantly as shot placement. a .50bmg shot to the shoulder would probably end the fight. a .22 between the eyeballs would probably end the fight. it is also the case that both those scenarios might not end the fight. it's a probability density. just like those orbitals in chemistry.
So basically the argument follows that wound channel diameter and "energy" absorbed by target are largely irrelevant as a measure of "stopping power" when considering pistol calibers. Therefore a few extra mm's provided by hollow points and a few more ft/lbs energy provided by going "+P" should also be largely irrelevant. Basically the argument seems to go: You are either gonna hit the CNS or some vital organ and penetrate it, causing incapacitation or death OR you are going to miss in which case the "energy on target" and "diameter of wound channel" is not going to be a determining factor in the "stop" or "no stop" of the target. Grazing an organ with the extra mm's of "edge" a hollow point might provide is, statistically, not likely to be a factor.
channel diameter or what is known as permanent cavity isn't irrelevant. it is relevant, it just isn't as relevant as shot placement. penetration depth is very relevant because it determines whether or not you can reach the the areas which create high probability of threat stoppage.
Given that "big data" seem to show rather conclusively that accuracy and penetration are the deciding factors in "stopping power" when considering common handgun calibers what does that say about the real value of the "high quality 9mm hollow point self defense ammo" being touted by so many as the primary reason they carry 9mm now over a much cheaper FMJ all other things being equal. Data seems to show no real relevance in terms of stopping power between a 9mm FMJ and a 9mm hollow point. Basically a shot to the CNS or vital organs is going to hit or not and wound cavity caused by expansion has little to no relevance in terms of "Stopping power" and the off chance that you might nick an organ with a "petal" from expansion is statistically irrelevant.
this conclusion is incorrect. some of the advances in handgun calibers include mass retention through barriers. a ball round is not as effective at stopping the threat if it breaks apart during barrier penetration.
the aforementioned expansion reliability after barrier penetration is critical to avoiding overpenetration. overpenetration means some energy from the bullet was not used to cause damage to the threat. this is wasted energy. if the bullet performed perfectly and it still overpenetrated, then the energy amount that propelled the exact amount of overpenetration could have been taken out of the charge in the round in order to make it more manageable and faster to shoot, thereby increasing the probability density of stopping the threat with faster followup shots.
SO, if that's the case then it would seem that one could make a strong case for simply carrying quality 9mm FMJ with sufficient velocity to get desired penetration and thus avoid paying on the order of $1 per bullet or more that lots of premium 9mm defense ammo goes for. I mean, people complain all day about cost of 10mm or .357 Sig not being worth performance but then they go and spend vast amounts on 9mm hollow points that actually have little or no benefits over FMJ's in the two primary factors attributed to hand gun stopping power: Accuracy and penetration.
no. with expansion you can deposit more energy, i.e. use more energy to do damage to the threat. a ball round can simply zip through, if you lowered the charge in such a ball around until it didn't overpenetrate you would end up with very little energy deposited, or in other words, not the maximum energy deposited possible for the given caliber in question. the idea is to strike the balance between maximum energy deposited yet not overpowering the projectile such that energy is wasted in over penetration.
none of this was a bait and switch. none of this was logical fallacy. you just didn't understand what the boundary conditions of the problem.
Trying to remember what study it was(and I can't), the only one shot fight stopper I know I have heard conclusive science on is...
3" projectile. Hey, a little cumbersome but it's a true one shot stop. Someone test this and let me know. Or better yet call me when tests are commencing, I'll bring beer and popcorn...
Deck gun?
Perhaps a lot of us are ignoring the most important factors? Most, if not all, of the multi-hit failure to stop scenarios involve hatred or dedication to duty. The shot individual either has extreme hatred for the shooter or a strong sense of duty to prevail over the shooter. Otherwise he would fall down or run away. If you are not a cop or a soldier, you usually shouldn't have to worry about either of the above. If the shootee is high on meth, or some other hyperactivity drug, then only sufficient penetration and placement to the CNS will do with any practical handgun caliber. Just carry what you will carry all the time and can shoot well. What you will carry all the time is important, as no one can predict the future. If you carry only when expecting trouble, don't go there!
I always assume whomever I am facing will fight until their body shuts down. So; whether I have a pistol, rifle, knife, or my hands, my goal is to injure them via the best method available until they can no longer function as a threat. If they decide to quit, or run, great, I'll stop then. Otherwise, I'll keep going until the threat is over. It doesn't make sense to me to train for anything less.
You want a round that penetrates 12-18" in gel...
Actually, it's the FBI that wants 12 - 18 inches of penetration. It's not what's best for killing, but what the FBI specifies to reduce the chance of the bullet passing through the intended target and hitting an innocent bystander. They also want the bullet to be as effective as possible within that penetration range. When it come to killing, there's no such thing as over penetration. Nothing kills an animal much faster than blowing it's innards out the other side. (I've never shot a human being or seen one shot, but I've done a fair bit of hunting and seen what bullets have done to game. I'm commenting based on what I've seen first hand and conversations I've had with other hunters about bullet performance.)
Bullet placement is key, but so is bullet construction. A slow moving round nosed non-expanding bullet is the worst kind to use when it comes to killing. Tissue damage is minimal even with a through and through. That round nose just pushes it's way through without creating much damage. That doesn't mean it won't kill- it most certainly will but even with a well placed shot, it's a poor persuader to get a critter to give up the ghost. For a pistol bullet to kill effectively, it must have a large meplat- that is, a large flat spot- to cut and tear and damage flesh as it makes it's way through the body. That's why the best hunting bullets for pistols used on tough game are large caliber bullets with a large flat meplat designed to penetrate deeply.
Hollow points allow pistol bullets to open up and create a meplat that's larger than the original bullet diameter and allows the bullet to cause even more tissue destruction along the wound track. But limiting penetration to 12 - 18 inches limits terminal performance. It's also why their is little difference in terminal performance between the 9mm, 45 ACP and the other calibers in between.
The performance of the 38 compared to the 45 against the Morros really was anemic. The 38 used a round nosed bullet at roughly 800 fps and is well known as a poor performer. The bullet used in the 45 caliber Single Action Army had a small flat meplat (but better than the round nose of the 38), was larger in diameter and had a little more velocity. It's no wonder the 45 worked better.
The old saying goes, "It doesn't matter how hard you hit them, it's where you hit them hard". But in order to hit them hard, you've got to use the right bullet. I'm not saying you can't kill somebody with a round nosed, full metal jacketed bullet, but a bullet that expands is gonna work better. Bullet placement is key but without adequate terminal performance, bullet placement don't mean a thing.
As far a the caliber argument goes, I'm a huge fan of the 45 and it does a slight edge over the smaller calibers in it's terminal performaqnce. But note that edge it has is a slight one
my two cents worth and going from experience:
In my 14 years of ER practice, and my recent transition to Forensic Medicine, I have seen numerous cases of people needing multiple hits from 45s before going down for the count. And also the reverse of single shots from 38 and 9mm. Bullet tracts for 9 and 45 is not much different. I have also seen professional hits where 22lr were the bullet used.
So in my opinion, it still boils down to shot placement, being able to get the most hits on target. For that, I prefer a 9mm (even when I grew up with a 45).
my two cents worth and going from experience:
In my 14 years of ER practice, and my recent transition to Forensic Medicine, I have seen numerous cases of people needing multiple hits from 45s before going down for the count. And also the reverse of single shots from 38 and 9mm. Bullet tracts for 9 and 45 is not much different. I have also seen professional hits where 22lr were the bullet used.
So in my opinion, it still boils down to shot placement, being able to get the most hits on target. For that, I prefer a 9mm (even when I grew up with a 45).
Yes, placement is still key. But if the bullet doesn't do any damage, nothing happens. That's why a high velocity rifle bullet is a surer killer than a pistol bullet and a 9mm/40/45 pistol bullet is a surer killer than a 22 LR
All handguns are relatively poor "stoppers" regardless of caliber or bullet used. Shot placement and sufficient penetration are paramount, all else is secondary. Barring a hit to the CNS, the only way to stop an aggressive and determined BG is shutting down the brain from oxygen deprivation due to bleedout. However, even a solid hit to the heart can leave 10+ seconds of oxygen in the brain, plenty of time for the BG to plant daisies in your hair.
I expect all handguns to underperform, some underperform worse than others. With that being said, I carry 9mm to maximize my chances of hitting the CNS or maximizing bleedout.
Tomac
MountainRaven
12-17-14, 09:33
Actually, it's the FBI that wants 12 - 18 inches of penetration. It's not what's best for killing, but what the FBI specifies to reduce the chance of the bullet passing through the intended target and hitting an innocent bystander. They also want the bullet to be as effective as possible within that penetration range. When it come to killing, there's no such thing as over penetration. Nothing kills an animal much faster than blowing it's innards out the other side. (I've never shot a human being or seen one shot, but I've done a fair bit of hunting and seen what bullets have done to game. I'm commenting based on what I've seen first hand and conversations I've had with other hunters about bullet performance.)
Bullet placement is key, but so is bullet construction. A slow moving round nosed non-expanding bullet is the worst kind to use when it comes to killing. Tissue damage is minimal even with a through and through. That round nose just pushes it's way through without creating much damage. That doesn't mean it won't kill- it most certainly will but even with a well placed shot, it's a poor persuader to get a critter to give up the ghost. For a pistol bullet to kill effectively, it must have a large meplat- that is, a large flat spot- to cut and tear and damage flesh as it makes it's way through the body. That's why the best hunting bullets for pistols used on tough game are large caliber bullets with a large flat meplat designed to penetrate deeply.
Hollow points allow pistol bullets to open up and create a meplat that's larger than the original bullet diameter and allows the bullet to cause even more tissue destruction along the wound track. But limiting penetration to 12 - 18 inches limits terminal performance. It's also why their is little difference in terminal performance between the 9mm, 45 ACP and the other calibers in between.
The performance of the 38 compared to the 45 against the Morros really was anemic. The 38 used a round nosed bullet at roughly 800 fps and is well known as a poor performer. The bullet used in the 45 caliber Single Action Army had a small flat meplat (but better than the round nose of the 38), was larger in diameter and had a little more velocity. It's no wonder the 45 worked better.
The old saying goes, "It doesn't matter how hard you hit them, it's where you hit them hard". But in order to hit them hard, you've got to use the right bullet. I'm not saying you can't kill somebody with a round nosed, full metal jacketed bullet, but a bullet that expands is gonna work better. Bullet placement is key but without adequate terminal performance, bullet placement don't mean a thing.
As far a the caliber argument goes, I'm a huge fan of the 45 and it does a slight edge over the smaller calibers in it's terminal performaqnce. But note that edge it has is a slight one
The cleanest kills I've seen have involved relatively little tissue damage.
And your maligned roundnose is (or is very close) to the bullet shape of choice for dangerous game hunters, Alaskan guides, and African PHs.
Adequate terminal performance, IME, boils down to penetration. Yes, guys fill their tags with poor penetrating bullets... But these guys go home with gamey meat, after tracking the animal for a mile, dumping a box of shells, and achieving only marginal hits.
gtmtnbiker98
12-17-14, 09:42
The cleanest kills I've seen have involved relatively little tissue damage.
And your maligned roundnose is (or is very close) to the bullet shape of choice for dangerous game hunters, Alaskan guides, and African PHs.
Bot those "maligned roundnose" bullets are going >2400 FPS as compared to the paultry ~1100 FPS of your average 9mm FMJ.
BoringGuy45
12-17-14, 12:57
Shot placement is of utmost importance, but I don't believe that the caliber debate is stupid. Thinking that your choice of caliber is the only choice and there's no logical reason for another is stupid. But debate, comparison, and contrast sow the seeds of innovation. Yes, it's a known fact that all of the major handgun calibers are generally not very good at immediate incapacitation, but I think rather than accepting it, it's good that we're talking about it. But if we stick with the attitude of "For God's sake, pick a f***ing caliber and shut the f**k up," well, we would never have seen the advancement in 9mm terminal performance, and we'll never get the point where maybe we'll see handgun rounds that ARE reliable fight stoppers.
gtmtnbiker98
12-17-14, 13:36
Oh, how I loathe caliber debates. Folks, if all pistol calibers were the same in terms of performance, then why are there so many different calibers available?
Oh, how I loathe caliber debates. Folks, if all pistol calibers were the same in terms of performance, then why are there so many different calibers available?
There are FAR more rifle calibers available out there, and many of those are designed to work within similar ranges, against similar game sizes, in similar rifle platforms. Most individual opinions will vary based on their own beliefs/biases. Thus they want something that is different than what may be a mainstream accepted piece of equipment, thinking that they will gain some sort of advantage(delusional or not). Nothing wrong with disagreeing with a large pool experience, just as there is nothing wrong with agreeing with the large pool of experience. 999 out of 1000 people will never shoot anyone to demonstrate that their theory is correct or incorrect.
Oh, how I loathe caliber debates. Folks, if all pistol calibers were the same in terms of performance, then why are there so many different calibers available?
I think everyone does. Why there are different calibers is because either a Military or Agency wanted a certain caliber that they thought was suitable for combat. As time passes and knowledge/technology changes the debate on what is the best will constantly change as well. For instance, back in the day, 45 ball was a much better choice than 9mm ball. Can we now say that a 45 hollow point is far superior to a 9mm hollow point?
C4
Oh, how I loathe caliber debates. Folks, if all pistol calibers were the same in terms of performance, then why are there so many different calibers available?
So we can train with 9mm and carry a MANSTOPPER ROUND! :sarcastic:
gtmtnbiker98
12-17-14, 14:41
So we can train with 9mm and carry a MANSTOPPER ROUND! :sarcastic:No doubt.
turnburglar
12-17-14, 16:48
I carry a 9 for these key points
-more chances to get a good hit
-I shoot it more accurately
- shooting 2-3 thousand rounds a year, 9 is much more affordable than 45 (the other caliber I own)
The cleanest kills I've seen have involved relatively little tissue damage
I am not talking about clean kills. I am talking about fast kills
And your maligned roundnose is (or is very close) to the bullet shape of choice for dangerous game hunters, Alaskan guides, and African PHs
When they use solids, they use bullets with a wide, flat meplat, such as a Kieth bullet or a Garret Sledge Hammer. Non-expanding round nosed bullets are poor killers, especially at low velocities. They just kind push tissue aside. Long heavy bullets with wide meplats penetrate deep and crush, cut and tear
Adequate terminal performance, IME, boils down to penetration. Yes, guys fill their tags with poor penetrating bullets... But these guys go home with gamey meat, after tracking the animal for a mile, dumping a box of shells, and achieving only marginal hits.
I am a firm believer in deep penetration and exit wounds with enough power left over to go through the next animal. As I said, there is no such thing as over penetration when it comes to killing things DRT and nothing kills faster or more consistently than blowing the internal organs out the exit wound. It's not clean, it's not pretty, but it is sure
I am a firm believer in deep penetration and exit wounds with enough power left over to go through the next animal. As I said, there is no such thing as over penetration when it comes to killing things DRT and nothing kills faster or more consistently than blowing the internal organs out the exit wound. It's not clean, it's not pretty, but it is sure
I don't necessarily agree with this.
if you had a .223 round go through and through the heart and lungs of an elk because it was made of bonded tungsten-unobtainium, would the animal drop right there in its tracks? or would you end up on one of those long tracking ventures?
if a .338 lapua goes through the lungs and heart of an elk, i think we can all estimate that there isn't very much traveling the elk will do.
the round needs to deposit energy on target, do damage with the energy that it has been imbued with by the charge in the casing. you can create projectiles that do minimal damage and are ideal at passing through, but that's not what is desired. not all overpenetration is good. having more than enough energy to both do damage and pass through in a hunting scenario might be great. a little extra margin for insurance. however, that perspective is not shared when talking about handgun calibers.
handguns are difficult to manage. they're not mounted like rifles. if you can make a cartridge penetrate just enough and have an efficient charge in the casing, then the overall round becomes much more manageable.
blowing out the critical organs of an elk on the first shot might be a great option for hunting, but the same cannot be said about a handgun used for self defense. handgun defense distances and temporal constraints are much tighter than hunting distances and hunting time constraints. concealment is also a huge component in handgun form factor and this is almost a nonissue in a hunting rifle.
I don't necessarily agree with this.
if you had a .223 round go through and through the heart and lungs of an elk because it was made of bonded tungsten-unobtainium, would the animal drop right there in its tracks? or would you end up on one of those long tracking ventures?
Did you miss the part about a large meplat being needed to tear, cut and shred tissue?
blowing out the critical organs of an elk on the first shot might be a great option for hunting, but the same cannot be said about a handgun used for self defense. handgun defense distances and temporal constraints are much tighter than hunting distances and hunting time constraints. concealment is also a huge component in handgun form factor and this is almost a nonissue in a hunting rifle.
When I was talking about blowing the innards out, I was talking about killing, not hunting for meat, not self defense, not duty use. Just killing, consistently and fast- nothing more
MountainRaven
12-17-14, 22:18
I am not talking about clean kills. I am talking about fast kills
I'm sorry, I don't follow.
In my book, a clean kill is a swift kill. One shot, animal drops, is dead by the time you get to it (100-400 yards away).
I am a firm believer in deep penetration and exit wounds with enough power left over to go through the next animal. As I said, there is no such thing as over penetration when it comes to killing things DRT and nothing kills faster or more consistently than blowing the internal organs out the exit wound. It's not clean, it's not pretty, but it is sure
I'm a firm believer in having enough energy to not recover the bullet or recovering it from the animal's hide on the far side.
There is no need for anything more than that. You're not gaining anything, all that extra energy that your shoulder absorbed just went through the air and into the dirt. Nothing wrong with it, but I see no reason to have any more energy than is necessary. And I pray you never find yourself in a situation where your one, clean, fast kill results in a second animal that you didn't see suffering a poor hit and dying a slow death - immoral and in most cases illegal.
ETA: Cutting and tearing is not something sought in dangerous game ammo. The rounds are designed to get penetration, to reach structural bones (in critters like bears) or brain stem and spinal column (in critters like elephant and buffalo).
I'm sorry, I don't follow.
In my book, a clean kill is a swift kill. One shot, animal drops, is dead by the time you get to it (100-400 yards away).
I'm a firm believer in having enough energy to not recover the bullet or recovering it from the animal's hide on the far side.
There is no need for anything more than that. You're not gaining anything, all that extra energy that your shoulder absorbed just went through the air and into the dirt. Nothing wrong with it, but I see no reason to have any more energy than is necessary. And I pray you never find yourself in a situation where your one, clean, fast kill results in a second animal that you didn't see suffering a poor hit and dying a slow death - immoral and in most cases illegal.
ETA: Cutting and tearing is not something sought in dangerous game ammo. The rounds are designed to get penetration, to reach structural bones (in critters like bears) or brain stem and spinal column (in critters like elephant and buffalo).
I think it's ok to have a little insurance margin. like the extra explosives in an explosive breach. it's the "when you have to be sure" factor.
however that insurance margin comes at a price. nothing is free. the price is that a followup shot would not be as fast as a more "efficient" round that had less insurance margin. that means less margin for error in the initial shot. in a scenario where you have time to make well placed first shot, that's acceptable risk management. in a handgun defense scenario, it may not be.
MountainRaven
12-17-14, 22:33
I think it's ok to have a little insurance margin. like the extra explosives in an explosive breach. it's the "when you have to be sure" factor.
however that insurance margin comes at a price. nothing is free. the price is that a followup shot would not be as fast as a more "efficient" round that had less insurance margin. that means less margin for error in the initial shot. in a scenario where you have time to make well placed first shot, that's acceptable risk management. in a handgun defense scenario, it may not be.
Again, I want just a little bit too much, rather than a little bit too little. Not - as others seem to desire - waaay too much. In other words, I want closer to 18 inches of penetration than 12. But anything over 18 is not desirable to me. Wasted energy, as you say.
As for the dangerous game situations: It must be remembered that such shots are rarely taken without backup or without prior foreknowledge of precisely when to set up the shot and where to place it. Meaning you're likely going to see the lion/elephant/buffalo coming, you're going to know where you need to put the bullet, where you put your sights on the target to ensure the type of hit you need, and you're not going to be the only one shooting at the critter in question.
Again, I want just a little bit too much, rather than a little bit too little. Not - as others seem to desire - waaay too much. In other words, I want closer to 18 inches of penetration than 12. But anything over 18 is not desirable to me. Wasted energy, as you say.
As for the dangerous game situations: It must be remembered that such shots are rarely taken without backup or without prior foreknowledge of precisely when to set up the shot and where to place it. Meaning you're likely going to see the lion/elephant/buffalo coming, you're going to know where you need to put the bullet, where you put your sights on the target to ensure the type of hit you need, and you're not going to be the only one shooting at the critter in question.
I agree. the form factor has to match the mission at hand, like everything we talk about here.
risk analysis has to be performed. selections made based on best potential outcomes.
sig chaser
12-18-14, 00:19
I think you are over thinking this. It's pretty simple what shuts a person down is a hit to a vital area, it doesn't really matter what caliber that comes from its all about shot placement. Now what makes for good shot placement? Training and the ability to control your firearm. With that in mind I like the 9mm because it is cheaper so I can train more and the size of the gun and recoil impulse allows me to reaquire my sights quickly for follow up shots. Additionally the 9mm does better against barriers then the 40 or 45 though the 357sig beats it I can't afford that round so it's out for me. Now all that being said I carry a 9mm of duty but I'm issued a 40 and I don't lack confidence in either. From an agency perspective though 9mm would make me sense because it would be cheaper and easier to teach non gun people to shoot a softer recoiling gun.
PatrioticDisorder
12-18-14, 06:51
I think you are over thinking this. It's pretty simple what shuts a person down is a hit to a vital area, it doesn't really matter what caliber that comes from its all about shot placement. Now what makes for good shot placement? Training and the ability to control your firearm. With that in mind I like the 9mm because it is cheaper so I can train more and the size of the gun and recoil impulse allows me to reaquire my sights quickly for follow up shots. Additionally the 9mm does better against barriers then the 40 or 45 though the 357sig beats it I can't afford that round so it's out for me. Now all that being said I carry a 9mm of duty but I'm issued a 40 and I don't lack confidence in either. From an agency perspective though 9mm would make me sense because it would be cheaper and easier to teach non gun people to shoot a softer recoiling gun.
9mm, .40 & .45 do about equal through barriers, generally the heavy for caliber rounds do best.
It doesn't really matter what round is "better" it comes down to what your comfortable with, what you shoot best, and in your mind which one will help you survive.
Don't forget about all the people that carry .22 LR because they can put 10 rounds in a small target faster and easier then I could shoot 3 rounds in the same size target.
Some of my favorite videos on the subject with a little humor.
The People who carry 9mm
http://youtu.be/zHkqOWzDAZI
The People who carry .40 S&W
http://youtu.be/QuiePszwaho
The People who carry .45 ACP
http://youtu.be/po4nZTO3ES4
that's so funny. I am such a stereotypical 9mm guy. I don't carry the extra +1 in my pocket though
Fifteen pages of More Caliber War! Stimulating for sure but pistol caliber is more or less irrelevant. Rule #1 in a gun fight, bring a gun. Rule #2 your handgun should be used to fight your way to a rifle. Wisdom from Mr. Cooper!
sig chaser
12-18-14, 09:31
9mm, .40 & .45 do about equal through barriers, generally the heavy for caliber rounds do best.
Actually no. I would have agreed with you jag it not been for a bullets on vehicles class I took. In it we shoot from the inside of a vehicle out, the outside in, measured deflection and took more of how rounds did against the various parts of the vehicle. There was quite a sampling of calibers there 9mm, 40, 45 and at the time I ran a 357sig. What we found surprised me but 357sig and 9mm both experienced far less deflection then 40 and 45. The real eye opener though was when they took one of us with each caliber and have is gold dot hollow points and had is fire into the skin of the drivers door with 3rd from about 5-7 yards. 45 had two rounds stop in the center console and one failed to make it through the door at all (it likely hit a cross member) 40 didn't fair much better stopping again in the center console, 9mm had one round stopped by the passenger side door with the other two completely penetraiting the car and 357sig faired the best with all round going straight trough. When it comes to barrier penetration speed does beget then weight. The instructors were able to confirm that the results we got were common for the class. It was a surprising eye opener.
PatrioticDisorder
12-18-14, 09:50
Actually no. I would have agreed with you jag it not been for a bullets on vehicles class I took. In it we shoot from the inside of a vehicle out, the outside in, measured deflection and took more of how rounds did against the various parts of the vehicle. There was quite a sampling of calibers there 9mm, 40, 45 and at the time I ran a 357sig. What we found surprised me but 357sig and 9mm both experienced far less deflection then 40 and 45. The real eye opener though was when they took one of us with each caliber and have is gold dot hollow points and had is fire into the skin of the drivers door with 3rd from about 5-7 yards. 45 had two rounds stop in the center console and one failed to make it through the door at all (it likely hit a cross member) 40 didn't fair much better stopping again in the center console, 9mm had one round stopped by the passenger side door with the other two completely penetraiting the car and 357sig faired the best with all round going straight trough. When it comes to barrier penetration speed does beget then weight. The instructors were able to confirm that the results we got were common for the class. It was a surprising eye opener.
Momentum is a very important component as well, it's why a 240lbs linebacker running s 4.7 will knock someone on their ass with more authority than a 190lbs running back running a 4.3. When we discuss barriers we want a round that will perform well through ALL intermediate barriers not just steel. You want a round that will meet FBI penetration guidelines while expanding well and going through those barriers, we universally agree on this. Your hot 9mm and Sig rounds penetrate steel well, too well when you look at the ballistic gel testing but don't do as well against windshields.
I stand by what I said, 9mm, .40 & .45 in heavy for caliber weights (147, 180 & 230gr) in modern JHP offerings (mainly HST & Gold Dots) perform adequately and not much difference in performance. .357sig has less than ideal performance when tested through various barriers.
sig chaser
12-18-14, 10:26
I guess you missed the part where I said we shot through a windshield and that the 9mm and 357sig suffered less deflection then the 40 and 45. Though none of them had trouble getting through it. It was simply a matter of how far off from point of aim you would be.
Have you ever conducted testing yourself or are you relying on what you have read?
Another caliber debate.....it will never end.
My biggest reason for carrying 9MM is capacity. After having watched enough videos of actual defensive shootings, I know the rounds fly fast & furious, and general areas get bullet-hosed. I prefer to 18 rounds ready to go.
I guess you missed the part where I said we shot through a windshield and that the 9mm and 357sig suffered less deflection then the 40 and 45. Though none of them had trouble getting through it. It was simply a matter of how far off from point of aim you would be.
Have you ever conducted testing yourself or are you relying on what you have read?
I take new officers out to shoot up a few cars about once a year. Our local tow service gets a lot of our business, so they are nice enough to drop one off and take it away after we are done. As you stated, the 9mm, .357sig, and .357mag(.38spl lacks too much velocity) have less deflection against all angled glass panes on a vehicle. As the caliber goes up in size, so increases the deflection angle. The .45s really get thrown off target when the shooter is off set on the vehicle.....particularly if the windshield is on a sports car which has a more acute angle. The only other places you can shoot through the vehicle is the doors, the A/B/C pillars, and the roof(unlikely).....which most of the time a .45 230gr+P will not penetrate through one door panel. Yes, those door panels are swiss cheese in terms of material densities, but after shooting up doors on over a dozen vehicles over the years, you take notice when you can only get a .45 round through a door about 10% of the time. 9mm and .40 are very similar in door penetration ability, while the 9mm tends to do better against the A/B/C pillars. The .357sig and .357mag tend to do better than all other service calibers in terms of penetrating through all vehicle materials.
I just put 147gr Rangers in my gun and live my life man. Try it, it works.
I'm sorry, I don't follow.
In my book, a clean kill is a swift kill. One shot, animal drops, is dead by the time you get to it (100-400 yards away)
A clean kill is one that drops the animal humanely with minimal damage to the meat. Blowing up a prairiedog is quick and humane, but it's not clean
I pray you never find yourself in a situation where your one, clean, fast kill results in a second animal that you didn't see suffering a poor hit and dying a slow death - immoral and in most cases illegal
Rule 4: Know what's beyond your target. You don't shoot an animal when another is standing behind it. I was also engaging in hyperbole, not advocating shooting two animals with one shot.
ETA: Cutting and tearing is not something sought in dangerous game ammo. The rounds are designed to get penetration, to reach structural bones (in critters like bears) or brain stem and spinal column (in critters like elephant and buffalo)
With all due respect, you do not understand the subject. The best solid bullets are long, heavy, have a wide meplat (a large, flat nose) and are designed to penetrate deep and straight, cut tissue and arteries, smash through organs and break through bones. They are made to not deform. mushroom, fragment, destabilize or deviate from their path. They leave behind a wound channel that is long, narrow and very destructive and give complete penetration. Round nosed bullets cannot match the tissue destruction of a bullet with a wide meplat.
Years ago, there was an article written about a fellow who took a Marlin lever action in 45-70 to Africa using Garrett Hammerheads. He shot a buffalo, one of the toughest game animals there is. The bullet passed through the first buffalo, killed it, struck a second buffalo behind it that the neither he or his PH saw and killed it too. The bullet completely penetrated the second buffalo as well and was never recovered.
Garrett Hammerheads are not round nose bullets
http://www.garrettcartridges.com/garrettnew/images/4570sprng.jpg
I would not use a Garret bullet on buffalo. I wouldn't use a solid either, unless I had to.
What do you know? Since I last looked into it, bullet technology has improved enough to have changed the thinking on bullet selection for Cape Buffalo. Now, it is suggested the first bullet used should be a modern, well constructed soft point and the following shots to be solids. A few years ago, solids were the bullet of choice because the performance of soft points weren't reliable enough. But note that they recommend soft points only on the first shot where the buffalo is usually standing and is shot from the broadside. Follow up shots and the back up shots from the PH are all solids so that there will be enough penetration to reach the vitals from any angle
Failure2Stop
12-19-14, 07:50
I take new officers out to shoot up a few cars about once a year. Our local tow service gets a lot of our business, so they are nice enough to drop one off and take it away after we are done. As you stated, the 9mm, .357sig, and .357mag(.38spl lacks too much velocity) have less deflection again all angled glass panes on a vehicle. As the caliber goes up in size, so increases the deflection angle. The .45s really get thrown off target when the shooter is off set on the vehicle.....particularly if the windshield is on a sports car which an acute angle. The only other places you can shoot through the vehicle is the doors, the A/B/C pillars, and the roof(unlikely).....which most of the time a .45 230gr+P will not penetrate through one door panel. Yes, those door panels are swiss cheese in terms of material densities, but after shooting up doors on over a dozen vehicles on the years, you take notice when you can only get a .45 round through a door about 10% of the time. 9mm and .40 are very similar in door penetration ability, while the 9mm tends to do better against the A/B/C pillars. The .357sig and .357mag tend to do better than all other service calibers in terms of penetrating through all vehicle materials.
Interesting.
Some of that is counter to other expressed experience, but is in-line with mine.
The vast majority of my car shooting is with 9mm and .40 of various types. Thanks for the info about the .357 and .45.
Interesting.
Some of that is counter to other expressed experience, but is in-line with mine.
The vast majority of my car shooting is with 9mm and .40 of various types. Thanks for the info about the .357 and .45.
The car shoots that we have done over the years have been a very enlightening experience. We stuck with top of the line duty ammo, and used full sized service Sigs(and 4" .357mag). I used to carry .45acp for many years as my duty caliber before transitioning to .40S&W for a number of years following. However, with the wide variety of experiences I have been part of I am very much inclined to stick with .36 caliber projectiles(9mm/.357/.38). Most intriguing was the penetration ability of the .357mag out of 4 and 5 inch service revolvers. It was the only caliber capable of punching through steel rims, punching through both doors of a vehicle reliably to hit a taret on the opposite side of the vehicle, and punching through a rear door reliably at an angle such that you can hit a taret in the front seat.
The car shoots that we have done over the years have been a very enlightening experience. We stuck with top of the line duty ammo, and used full sized service Sigs(and 4" .357mag). I used to carry .45acp for many years as my duty caliber before transitioning to .40S&W for a number of years following. However, with the wide variety of experiences I have been part of I am very much inclined to stick with .36 caliber projectiles(9mm/.357/.38). Most intriguing was the penetration ability of the .357mag out of 4 and 5 inch service revolvers. It was the only caliber capable of punching through steel rims, punching through both doors of a vehicle reliably to hit a taret on the opposite side of the vehicle, and punching through a rear door reliably at an angle such that you can hit a taret in the front seat.
I have seen the same thing with .357 SIG going through cars. Good load I think. I did however see lots of malfunctions in .Gov issued SIG's at a class.
C4
I take new officers out to shoot up a few cars about once a year. Our local tow service gets a lot of our business, so they are nice enough to drop one off and take it away after we are done. As you stated, the 9mm, .357sig, and .357mag(.38spl lacks too much velocity) have less deflection against all angled glass panes on a vehicle. As the caliber goes up in size, so increases the deflection angle. The .45s really get thrown off target when the shooter is off set on the vehicle.....particularly if the windshield is on a sports car which has a more acute angle. The only other places you can shoot through the vehicle is the doors, the A/B/C pillars, and the roof(unlikely).....which most of the time a .45 230gr+P will not penetrate through one door panel. Yes, those door panels are swiss cheese in terms of material densities, but after shooting up doors on over a dozen vehicles over the years, you take notice when you can only get a .45 round through a door about 10% of the time. 9mm and .40 are very similar in door penetration ability, while the 9mm tends to do better against the A/B/C pillars. The .357sig and .357mag tend to do better than all other service calibers in terms of penetrating through all vehicle materials.
Interesting. In your experience, how much does using a hollowpoint effect overall deflection and penetration through said area of a car?
Interesting. In your experience, how much does using a hollowpoint effect overall deflection and penetration through said area of a car?
We tried round nosed 9mm and .45acp, and both seemed to have more deflection on laminated glass than their JHP counterparts. The FMJ bullets also seemed to come apart more against the glass than JHPs. I didn't really notice much of a penetration difference on the body(non glass) of the vehicles(at least none we could measure) between FMJ and JHP. It was more dependent on the the velocity of the bullet, bullet weight, and caliber size. Velocity is definitely a factor. We saw penetration differences just when comparing a full sized P226 9mm to a P228 9mm.
We tried round nosed 9mm and .45acp, and both seemed to have more deflection on laminated glass than their JHP counterparts. The FMJ bullets also seemed to come apart more against the glass than JHPs. I didn't really notice much of a penetration difference on the body(non glass) of the vehicles(at least none we could measure) between FMJ and JHP. It was more dependent on the the velocity of the bullet, bullet weight, and caliber size. Velocity is definitely a factor. We saw penetration differences just when comparing a full sized P226 9mm to a P228 9mm.
Your information is well appreciated. It's interesting to read 1st hand accounts of shooting through different materials with different rounds and cartridges. A lot of the time, what actually happens is not what was expected. FMJ and JHP penetrating car bodies in a similar fashion would not be what I expected.
A friend of mine was rehabbing an old building in Detroit that had some rather thick "bullet-proof" glass in it. I got ahold of some and took it to the range with my G22 and AR15. That material caught the .40 rounds, but 5.56MM went through it like butter. I would have expected the 5.56MM, being so light, to not penetrate like it did.
Anyone else notice that the OP dropped this little stink nugget and never came back?...for 13 PAGES!!!
Anyone else notice that the OP dropped this little stink nugget and never came back?...for 13 PAGES!!!
Probably Michael Courtney.
Failure2Stop
12-19-14, 16:30
Anyone else notice that the OP dropped this little stink nugget and never came back?...for 13 PAGES!!!
I keep meaning to bring that up.
Maybe the thread should just be culled, since the OP does not seem to have any interest in actually discussing the topic.
I keep meaning to bring that up.
Maybe the thread should just be culled, since the OP does not seem to have any interest in actually discussing the topic.
We've had references to the Miami FBI shootout, Cavalry soldiers in the Philippines, "my dad/grandpa in WWII/Korea..." anecdotes, ER doctors, and all the usual suspects in EVERY caliber war...ever. The only thing missing is something about Beretta buying off the feds for their 9mm M9 contract win, cracked locking blocks and all.
Why do people still buy into this crap and why do people still feed off it and get all personally wrapped up in it?
So to recap the shooting through car info, .357 Sig and .357 magnum perform the best, .40 and 9mm are similar, and .45 sucks. I guess for LEO those rounds have a distinct advantage, but for most defensive shootings civilians probably won't be shooting through cars. Also seems that those rounds are higher recoil and negate the faster follow up shot advantage of the 9mm. That means, using the transitive or associative (or one of those mathematical relationships) property, that 9mm wins because you get more rounds, faster follow ups, and good penetration through barriers. But I'm not giving up my HK .40s.
We've had references to the Miami FBI shootout, Cavalry soldiers in the Philippines, "my dad/grandpa in WWII/Korea..." anecdotes, ER doctors, and all the usual suspects in EVERY caliber war...ever. The only thing missing is something about Beretta buying off the feds for their 9mm M9 contract win, cracked locking blocks and all.
Why do people still buy into this crap and why do people still feed off it and get all personally wrapped up in it?
Don't forget that the US Air Marshalls and Secret Service needed to have a cartridge that worked well if cabin pressure was lost at 30k feet.......thus, why they use .357sig. :rolleyes:
platoonDaddy
12-19-14, 17:22
Back to the car: I attended one of Pat Goodale Advance Handgun classes, shooting Buffalo Bore 124gr +P+ through a windshield and door.
He had a large white target on the other-side of the door and windshield, big as dog-poop my round split in two. So much for those rounds, how sad.
arcticlightfighter
12-19-14, 18:16
I really like the 9mm 147 gr HST but am perfectly confident carrying the Federal 180 gr HST...slight edge on barrier penetration.
For general EDC, I stick with the 9mm
I just put 147gr Rangers in my gun and live my life man. Try it, it works.
I like your style! Worried much about global warming? :cool:
[QUOTE=platoonDaddy;2047040]Back to the car: I attended one of Pat Goodale Advance Handgun classes, shooting Buffalo Bore 124gr +P+ through a windshield and door.
He had a large white target on the other-side of the door and windshield, big as dog-poop my round split in two. So much for those rounds, how sad.[/QUOTE
what bullet?
platoonDaddy
12-20-14, 06:34
what bullet?
9mm Jacketed Hollow Point (1,300 fps/M.E. 461 ft. lbs.) https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=119
EDIT: quote wasn't working correctly
9mm Jacketed Hollow Point (1,300 fps/M.E. 461 ft. lbs.) https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=119
EDIT: quote wasn't working correctly
$28 for twenty rounds? That's $1.40 per bang. Bullets expand a leave a gaping exit wound in your wallet.
Similar load is Federal's 9BPLE. Old-School law enforcement load. $20 / 50 at Ammunition Depot.
JohnVassilakos
12-23-14, 22:31
Undoubtedly, smaller bore handgun ammunition has greatly improved over ammunition produced 20yrs ago when the FBI encouraged all LE agencies to transition to the .40S&W. In fact, proportionally, the 9mm has advanced to the point that it rivals the combat capabilities of the .40 or .45. Remember, penetration is key, followed by cutting/crushing efficiency, followed by projectile diameter. Thus, the FBI has returned to the 9mm, as are many large state agencies and Highway Patrol units.
20yrs of .40S&W LEO use has demonstrated for the masses that the small increase in caliber size and energy levels of the .40 showed no noticeable difference in rapid incapacitation that the 9mm or .38spl did. A good example is the Peter Soulis OIS where Soulis had to saturate the perp's torso with .40 165gr Ranger Talons before the fight went in his favor. Michael Brown needed a head shot from Officer Wilson's P229 .40 to end the fight. Wanna talk .45acp?........Officer Keith Borders and Tim Gramins both put over a half dozen high quality 230r JHPs into the torsos of their perps and had to keep fighting on until they got a head shot.
Prior to the original FBI transition to .40, there was VERY little reliable shooting data to confirm if a larger caliber uses by LEOs would make any noticeable difference in terminal effects. Now days, with so many LEOs using a wide array of caliber sizes, there is no measurable advantage in using the larger caliber.
Shooting on a static gun range with no time constraints and one target is a worthless measure of a defensive caliber. In an apples-to-apples comparison between like platforms, the 9mm is significantly easier to shoot faster and more accurately than the .40 and .45. With time constraints, and moving between multi-threats the speed and accuracy scores are always in favor of the 9mm. The scores aren't even close.
For many years large caliber or high velocity caliber advocates continued to cite that real shooting data was needed to demonstrate that either using .45 or .357mag/sig was superior to other service calibers. Gel tests just didn't cut it, and in the past poor ammo designs and lack of information sharing prevented many from getting a better picture. Okay.....well the information age is here now where cops, and even civilians can see police OIS reports and there really isn't anything impressive here to show that one caliber is more effective than another. For years Texas DPS used .357sig, with no improvement in the success of their OISs versus other Texas agencies using 9mm. Recently Texas DPS began the process of going back to 9mm......and this is a wealthy state without concern for training costs.
If it takes a dozen torso hits with .45acp to bring down a perp, you ask why would a 9mm be better? This example showcases the sage reasoning that shot placement far outweighs caliber size. I recently dealt with a civilian shooting where a man fired 13rds of .40S&W 180gr GDs into his wife. 10 of those were torso hits. She lived, and was able to testify against him in court. Again, the key here is that his shot placement was poor, and nothing important was damaged. Another case I dealt with 6 years ago, involved a civilian CCW self defense shooting with a .380acp. He fired 2 shots with FMJ into the chest of his attacker. One struck the heart and one punctured the left lung. He dropped quickly and died on scene. If anything, real world shootings have demonstrated that the best caliber is one that meets minimal penetration standards, has an efficient crushing/cutting wound mechanism, has a reasonable projectile diameter, and is easy for the shooter to shoot well. 9mm anyone?
You will be hard pressed to find an honest exception to the rule, but on a dynamic shooting range the 9mm always scores faster and more accurately than .357sig, .40, or .45. Often shooters will put lead downrange on a single, static target with no time constraints and claim that they can shoot the larger calibers as well as the smaller. When you start using dynamic targets or multiple targets, and starting moving around yourself the larger calibers can't even come close to the speed and accuracy of the 9mm.
What Symmetry has said above bears repeating! I would like to add a little and try to illustrate this for those who are still holding on to the "bigger is better" mindset...
3 Quick FACTS:
1. All gunfights last a finite period of time.
2. Each round you fire has it's own distinct probability to be the round that incapacitates your target and ceases their behavior.
3. The terminal ballistic performance between a quality HP projectile in 9mm, .40, or .45 is negligible. None of the three can show a demonstrable advantage in this arena over the other two.
Thus the more "chances" you get in the same period of time increase your chances of winning the gunfight. 9mm has a clear advantage over .40 and .45 in this regard. All things equal - platform, shooter, volume and quality of training, practice, accuracy, etc. - the 9mm can be run faster than the other two. It's simple physics.
There will be those that say "I am so good I only have to fire a few rounds from my .40 (or .45) and they're all gonna hit center mass so I don't care about the increased speed (and thus more rounds in the same time period) that I could have with 9mm".
To those people I say - "What kind of black ops ninja you must be to have such ice water in your veins that - in what is likely THE SINGLE MOST STRESSFUL event of your entire life - you are capable of performing in the same manner that you do on a static range plinking at stationary targets that don't shoot back"
Anyone who's done any simunitions training or actually been in a real shooting will tell you - when the bullets are flying both ways things change drastically (obviously much more so outside of a training environment). Thus assuming that because you've fired tens of thousands of rounds in practice it will automatically translate to a perfect performance where you 10 ring the BG 3 times in a real shooting is inaccurate. No two shootings are identical and they are generally very dynamic.
Yes, training is CRITICAL but pretending that you only need to fire "x" times to put the threat down because you BELIEVE that your caliber is superior is just plain foolish.
There's no such thing as "more deadly force" - if you're justified in using deadly force then why not get as many "chances" in as possible in that window of time. I'm not in the gunfight to eek out a victory...I want to win decisively and as quickly as possible. Smaller split times between shots matters. Magazine capacity matters. Again - 9mm provides an advantage in both.
Here's an example - In simulator training I will continue to fire until the threat is clearly no longer a threat. I was recently chastised by an instructor for this when we reviewed my shots after a particular scenario. He felt that because my first round hit the suspect in the head (which was my intended target because he was bladed sideways and his head was basically as good as CM in that case) and successfully incapacitated him...yet I fired 7 additional rounds in the string of fire as the BG was falling to the ground - I was "using too much ammo". Now, in slow motion with plenty of time to view the suspect's movement I could see that the first round was the show stopper - BUT - in the moment, at full speed, I wasn't able to see my hit and/or perceive that he was lifeless and falling to the ground. I believed in that moment that he could still be a threat as he was still moving and may be dropping down into a kneeling position to return fire - so I continued to fire and registered additional hits. Were they excessive force? No, because in the amount of time that the entire scenario unfolded the human mind cannot process the entire ordeal efficiently and completely. Was it "too much ammo" fired? I responded that I still had an additional 30 rounds on my person if I needed them with 8 remaining in the pistol (a Glock 22 was used in the simulation because that is what we are issued). My hope is that - God forbid - if I ever find myself in a real gunfight I will perform in a similar manner, winning swiftly and decisively. Ammo is cheap...dispense as needed to insure that you go home and the BG goes to the dirt.
There's no shortage of good men and women in the ground that fired one or two rounds only to discover that their adversary was not incapacitated - in the worst way possible. Don't let their deaths be in vain.
JM.02
SeriousStudent
12-23-14, 23:25
Good input, John. Thank you for posting that.
I absolutely agree with Symmetry and John above. For twenty years we worried about one-shot-stop cartridges and bullets. I carried a .45 with Hydra-Shoks or Golden Sabers.
There is no one-shot stop.
A lot of folks, including the FBI, of all organizations, are now coming around to the idea that what will save your life is a rapid accurate string of shots.
I sold my .45 and bought the same gun in 9mm.
$28 for twenty rounds? That's $1.40 per bang. Bullets expand a leave a gaping exit wound in your wallet.
Similar load is Federal's 9BPLE. Old-School law enforcement load. $20 / 50 at Ammunition Depot.
Hst can be had for $27/50 and is much more reliable performance wise. I got contract overrun winchester bonded 40 for $20/50. There's no need to spend that much for ammo, or carry sub-par ammo. Just my $.02.
Hst can be had for $27/50 and is much more reliable performance wise. I got contract overrun winchester bonded 40 for $20/50. There's no need to spend that much for ammo, or carry sub-par ammo. Just my $.02.
Be careful buying discounted Winchester if it's the bonded Ranger. There was a recall for bad primers. Forget the lot numbers but it affected 9/40/45 at least - maybe other calibers too.
For years Texas DPS used .357sig, with no improvement in the success of their OISs versus other Texas agencies using 9mm. Recently Texas DPS began the process of going back to 9mm......and this is a wealthy state without concern for training costs.
TXDPS has actually gone through 3 different Speer loadings in .357sig. The original load that merely used the 9mm 124gr GDHP, but there were "issues". Then they went to the 125gr load that used a purpose built .357sig bullet (product code 53918). Now they are using the reduced expansion, increased penetration 125gr GDHP (product code 54234). The last load gives the penetration of a 147gr 9mm Speer GDHP, but with less expansion, more blast and flash. Go figure. Before my housefire I had three empty boxes, one of each version, given to me by a Trooper friend.
Dallas PD, which authorizes .357sig but issues 9mm (RA9T), has been through many different rounds for their .357sigs. The forst was the Federal 150gr JHP (I cant remember if this was a Hi-Shok or Hydra-Shok bullet). Later they switched to the 125gr Speer GDHP (product code 53918). Then they went the the 125 Winchester Ranger Talon (RA357SIGT). Now they are allowing the .357sig carrying officer to choose between the Winchester and Speer offering.
Before TXDPS formally adopted .357sig, and they were still carrying P220s in .45acp, a Speer rep offered to sell them the then new 230gr Speer GDHP. TXDPS declined, they wanted that .357sig load because it caused unsecured blocks of gelatin to fall off the table when struck (if you look hard enough, you can find this video). TXDPS ended up adopting that 230gr Speer GDHP round anyways for those in TXDPS that still could carry .45acp.
Be careful buying discounted Winchester if it's the bonded Ranger. There was a recall for bad primers. Forget the lot numbers but it affected 9/40/45 at least - maybe other calibers too.
Yup, there was a thread a while ago, no, or small flash hole iirc. Mine are okay- thanks for the heads up tho, definitely good info to get out there that I forgot.
BoringGuy45
12-24-14, 22:16
Your Post
It's for all these reasons that I'm switching my carry gun for a M&P45 to a Glock 19. I've shot them both, I like them both, but, 1) I want a new gun, 2) I have trouble arguing with the higher capacity, lower recoil, lower cost of ammo, and smaller size of the 19 for a carry gun. I've got one on layaway that I'm eagerly paying off :D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.