View Full Version : Something I was thinking about yesterday
millerlite
01-24-10, 16:34
You know, with all of the different choices and advancements in 9mm, are there really any pros to carring a 45. I am NOT trying to start another caliber war, just something I was thinking about. I mean with a 9mm you get more capacity and less recoil. A 45 you get less capacity and more recoil. Some 9mm perform just as well as 45 so... Is there really any pro to carring a 9mm over a 45. Curious to hear others thoughts.
Business_Casual
01-24-10, 16:42
A .45 ACP will penetrate laminated automobile glass with less deflection and will tend to penetrate automobile body work with less fragmentation. I am the guy in the white shirt firing a 9mm into the car on the Buick of Truth section of the Box o' Truth website so I am not just repeating Internet lore.
If you read the terminal ballistics forum, you will see testing and real world experience tends to indicate that any well-engineered 9/40/45 bullet will provide adequate penetration on the human torso and that the key factor in rapid incapacitation is shot placement. There are any number of threads showing this with expert commentary from DocGKR and other SMEs.
M_P
millerlite
01-24-10, 16:46
well, thats kinda what i mean. With shot placement being the key factor, caliber really does not make a difference between 9 and 45 correct?
misanthropist
01-24-10, 17:22
The only thing I can think of to add is really mentioned in post 2: what if you had to do something other than just shot a person?
What if you had to shoot THROUGH something to get to that person? Like, for example, a car windshield?
That's about the only thing I can think of. I am sure that as a general rule the 9mm has no difficulty achieving sufficient penetration to do the damage required...I would only wonder if in extremis it would do the job?
I shoot 10mm as mentioned in another thread...I do it partly because I just like the overkill aspect of the round but there is also a part of me that says, "what if you need more than normal penetration, or normal penetration after first punching through a car door?"
There can't be a clear line dividing rifle and pistol cartridges and lethality...I think there must be a scale of increasing probability of lethal effect as the velocity and/or mass of the projectile increase. If you could drive a 115 grain 9mm at 2500 fps, I GUESS it would have increased terminal performance.
That is a guess. But otherwise, is there a point to rifles other than sight radius and flatter trajectories? I assume rifles have superior terminal performance (under adverse conditions, such as through a bunch of cordura and magazines and auto glass, say, in particular) but I admit it's an assumption...I am a construction worker and I have shot approximately 0 people in the line of duty, but I suspect that rifles produce more reliable results.
So the closer you make a pistol round to a rifle round, I would GUESS, the more reliable I would think your weapon's performance would be. That's not an argument for .45 or for 9mm, just a general guess about terminal performance.
But I am just spitballing here. I don't know at what point you would start to see a noticeable effect on the performance of a round. I would like to know what the curve looks like if plotted out, but I don't know that I ever will.
It might be a hockey stick curve, and there would effectively be no difference between 9x18 Makarov and 10mm Auto.
Or it might be a fairly straight increase and you could gain a discernible benefit by switching calibers. I do not believe this is likely, though, or we'd all know it by now.
That is my only contribution ever to a 9mm vs. 45acp thread...
John_Wayne777
01-24-10, 19:13
well, thats kinda what i mean. With shot placement being the key factor, caliber really does not make a difference between 9 and 45 correct?
There are differences in the performance yielded by various calibers...but the differences are not earth shattering by any stretch. As our internet superstar M_P mentioned, performance through common real world barriers like vehicles, drywall, plywood, etc varies by caliber. Generally speaking the bigger bullets tend to work better than the smaller ones in those situations...which is one of the reasons why the .40 remains so popular in LE. Given that something like 80-90% of police gunfights involve vehicles (IIRC) then performance through vehicles is rather important.
Still, for most people in most applications that a handgun is suitable for, the benefits can be described as marginal at best.
There are still a number of departments out there issuing 9mm sidearms with good JHP ammo and they aren't having any trouble stopping bad guys. Right now caliber selection matters less than it ever has in the history of firearms. Therefore the savvy self defense-minded individual will focus on buying a reliable platform, loading it with ammo that performs well, and then dedicates himself to training, training, and more training. Dollar for dollar training will have VASTLY more impact on the outcome of the gunfight than caliber x vs. caliber y.
I personally carry a doublestack 9mm 99% of the time with a J frame in .38 as a BUG. I spend not even a nanosecond worrying that my M&P loaded with 124 grain +P Speer Gold Dot ammo isn't up to the task. There are, after all, police departments in this country who regularly shoot bad people with that ammo out of a similar weapon and it seems to work pretty good for them. I own .45's but I do not carry them anymore, generally. The tradeoff in capacity and extra training expense isn't outweighed by the slightly better terminal ballistics, in my mind. By using 9mm I am able to shoot more and attend more training, which ultimately will be of significantly more benefit to my ultimate goal should I find myself on a 2 way range than the bigger bullet.
RogerinTPA
01-24-10, 20:31
well, thats kinda what i mean. With shot placement being the key factor, caliber really does not make a difference between 9 and 45 correct?
Some would argue that point no doubt. Shot placement is still the most important factor. With "bonded" pistol ammo becoming available on the market, it should solve the early fragmentation issues when shooting through common barriers.
...I am the guy in the white shirt firing a 9mm into the car on the Buick of Truth section of the Box o' Truth website...
M_P
Thank you for referencing http://www.theboxotruth.com/index.htm
The caliber review was very interesting. Particularly to me, the ballistic performance of calibers through laminated glass. Moreover, there is great content in the rest of the site itself. Much of it of 'old hat' to the gurus here, as many particiapte in the actual writing/testing of the material it seems. To us lay-persons, however, good information indeed.
Regards
I still think there's a benefit to carrying the larger caliber in cold climate areas where the bad guys may be wearing heavy, layered clothing. I use a G-21 for HD where size isn't an issue (duty gun also), but carry 9mm and .40 cal the rest of the time.
There are benefits to increasing projectile size and weight. Obviously, larger projectiles produce larger holes, and thus have a greater chance of hitting something important while a smaller projectile might miss the aorta and and mean that the badguy will fight on for a long time. Other advantages as have been pointed out is that larger and heavier projectiles stay together better when punching through a sliding glass door, a windshield, or through a car door. They are also more useful in situations were you are bouncing rounds off the pavement to hit someone's legs from behind a car, or skipping rounds down a brick wall to hit a guy peaking around the corner. Larger and heavier projectiles retain more momentum after deflection and are more damaging after the deflection than smaller calibers.
Lastly, larger projectiles crush internal bone structure better. Don't forget about the tests Dr. Lane presented at the FBI 1993 Wound Ballistics Seminar. Dr. Lane is an orthopedic surgeon, he and Ted Hollabaugh performed testing where swine femurs were inserted into 8.5" blocks of 10% gel and then were shot with 9 mm 115 gr JHP and 147 gr JHP loads, as well as .45 ACP 230 gr JHP projectiles. The high speed video of the experiment shots demonstrated that the .45 ACP shots created significantly more damage to the bone and were the only ones to penetrate all the way through the bone and gel block, while all the 9 mm loads were stopped by the bone and failed to penetrate through the bone. Dr. Lane also presented a variety of handgun wounds to human limbs that he had treated. The proceedings of the conference have been published by the FBI. Similar tests have been done by the FBI in recent years to show that the .40 180gr JHP has a similar effect on bone as the .45acp in Dr. Lane's tests.
The real question is, which do you shoot better? If the added expense of shooting .45acp means that you don't train as much as you would with 9mm......then you need to go back to 9mm. .40 is "almost" as cheap as shooting 9mm now days, and is often a good compromise cartridge. I would say that good proficiency with a handgun requires about 200-400rds a month. That's about 2000-5000rds a year. A lot of us that have shooting as our job go through 2-5 times that amount. That gets expensive. Personally, I use .40 most of the time.....and 9mm as my secondary caliber.
varoadking
01-26-10, 19:32
Is there really any pro to carring a 9mm over a 45.
None that I can think of, but then, what do I know...
.45ACP gives me a warm and fuzzy...that's good enough...
I'm an old fart who's seen this debate rage for over 38 years that I have carried a firearm of some sort....been to war, yadda-yadda:o
I read and study everything I can, including forensic reports, "yucky stuff":rolleyes:......
All I know is I'd rather face anyone on this forum with their favorire 9-40-45-10;)......Than James Butler Hickok with a 36 caliber Navy Colt :eek:........nuff said.
Just a tongue in cheek view, of caliber war follies, a 36 cal navy Colt is pretty anemic compared to any modern caliber/loading....makes you wonder how anybody stopped/killed anybody with such anemic firearms, doesn't it?!
Just a tongue in cheek view, of caliber war follies, a 36 cal navy Colt is pretty anemic compared to any modern caliber/loading....makes you wonder how anybody stopped/killed anybody with such anemic firearms, doesn't it?!
A lucky heart shot at 75yrds, and point blank head shots in saloons is hardly a measure of caliber effectiveness. A .380acp hardball will be equally as effective with such shots, but the .380 has had an very poor service history with law enforcement unless such precision shots are made. Wild Bill chose the .36 cal navy revolver because at the time anything larger was incredibly heavy, bulky, and awkward in comparison.
As handgun technology advanced in the late 19th century, gun fighters like Doc Holliday used .41 and .44 caliber, Johnny Ringo used a .45, and Wyatt Earp was known to use .44 and .45s.
Combat teaches us many things. Most of the time, there are only brief windows in which to put lead on a target before you lose line of sight, or your need to get your ass down before another opponent gets a bead on you. You don't get to pick what part of the enemy you get to shoot......you take what you can get. Head, heart, and COM shots are often luxuries that are not representative of typical combat unless you are in consistent positions of advantage. Larger calibers give you a measurable advantage when shot placement is less that ideal. The realization that it is damn hard to hit a tactically mined enemy is a common realization for any experienced combat vet.
MarshallDodge
01-26-10, 22:28
Shot placement. :cool:
There are *minor* differences in performance between 38/9/40/10/45 in the best modern JHP offerings from the big ammo makers.
As to the rest of your post, you answered your own questions it sounds like you are asking for reinforcement of the conclusion that you've already reached, that being that 9mm works just fine on people, you get more rounds in the gun to start with, is easier to shoot (and cheaper, too).
I've spent a lot of time comparing how well I shoot my 1911s v. my G19s. I can shoot the 1911s very slightly better, but there are major differences in capacity, ease of maintenance, weight, corrosion resistance, cost, etc.
If I was forced to pick 1 gun for the rest of my life, it would be the G19.
Business_Casual
01-27-10, 06:59
Larger calibers give you a measurable advantage when shot placement is less that ideal.
Marcus, can you elaborate on that? I'm having a hard time seeing how 2.4 millimeters (9 vs. 45) could have a measurable advantage in soft tissue. How is the even smaller difference (9 vs. 40) an advantage as well?
M_P
Marcus, can you elaborate on that? I'm having a hard time seeing how 2.4 millimeters (9 vs. 45) could have a measurable advantage in soft tissue. How is the even smaller difference (9 vs. 40) an advantage as well?
M_P
Average American male torso front to back is approximately 9". Average expansion of quality hollow point designs:
-9mm: .62"
-.40: .68"
-.45: .74"
Area of a circle = pi * r^2
Volume of a cylinder = pi * r^2 *h
Total "calculated" wound volume:
-9mm = 2.7 cubic inches
-.40 = 3.3 cubic inches
-.45 = 3.9 cubic inches
How much more damage is that?
-The .40S&W damages 18.3% more tissue than the 9mm.
-The .45acp damages 15.5% more tissue than the .40S&W.
-The .45acp damages 30.8% more tissue than the 9mm.
That's best case scenario. In reality hollow points do not open up as reliably in the field and petals can be pushed back too far to hug the bullet trunk. The thicker, more robust petals of larger calibers tend to resist this better. If you only had one clean shot at your opponents abdomen or thy before they recoil and get behind cover(or shoot back at you)......the larger caliber will more likely hit a vital artery, break the spin(or femur), and just plain put your opponent out of the fight or in a significant position of disadvantage so that you can take them down when the time is right.
Then of course if you take into the account the internal bone damage studies done by the Canadians in 1994, and then the FBI study by Dr. Lane in 1993, there is the added benefit of much more damage to bone structures the larger you go in caliber size.
That is what I meant by "measurable" advantages. Temporary stretch cavity and and wake are also greater with larger diameter projectiles which may, or may not have incapacitating effects. The physiological effect is something that cannot be accurately determined on the operating table or in the autopsy room.
If you can shoot larger calibers well in a timed course of fire with likely scenarios, I just see no reason why it would not be logical to use the larger caliber. I choose to mostly shoot .40 because it is more economical than .45acp, and I was not happy with the platform characterics of the available .45acp pistols I am allowed to use on duty.
Everybody has their own opinion.
Business_Casual
01-27-10, 10:06
I guess I was looking at it from the wrong angle, I was thinking of a less than ideal target - say a shoulder or elbow - versus a bad angle on the torso. So now I see what you mean.
M_P
Marcus, can you elaborate on that? I'm having a hard time seeing how 2.4 millimeters (9 vs. 45) could have a measurable advantage in soft tissue. How is the even smaller difference (9 vs. 40) an advantage as well?
M_P
I see a lot of OR trauma, and when the patient comes in we are briefed by EMS (when possible) about what they were shot with. I have come to the conclusion that bigger bullets are definitely 'better', although 9mm still gets similar results the majority of the time.
I have seen a number of cases where someone made it to the operating room and lived because of a very small difference in projectile diameter- usually when a major vascular structure is grazed but not punctured. It doesn't happen 'all the time', but it does happen. When you consider that a bullet may pass through a dozen or so inches of tissue, the bigger bullet has a lot of opportunity to reach out and hit something important that might otherwise have been missed. Granted, this advantage is small when compared with the importance of shot placement.
When a bullet hits an angular structure, deflection can occur. I have seen many cases where a small bullet hit a bone and changed course through the tissue. Sometimes these changes of course are fairly dramatic. Bullets have tracked around skulls and ribs, deflected into the abdomen after apparently being on course to track through the thorax, etc. Larger bullets with more inertia are significantly more resistant to deflection. 9mm has no trouble punching through skulls or ribs head on, though.
I have also seen many cases where 9mm bullets are stopped dead in their tracks by a femur, pelvis, or vertebrae. This is absolutely not a myth. Do all 9mm bullets that hit large bones stop? Of course not. The result is a dynamic function of what part of the bone gets hit at what angle by what kind of bullet. The bottom line, though, is that this is a lot more of a risk with the smaller calibers and *could* potentially make a life or death difference in a gunfight.
Another advantage is the added surface area opened up in the case of a less than ideal hit. The BG would bleed faster, and have a more difficult time clotting off the wound.
Finally, there are some hypothetical psychological considerations. A lot of gunfights end because the guy who gets hit chooses (or has been conditioned) to stop fighting. The larger calibers recoil more for the shooter, but hit the BG harder too. Some BG's might *hypothetically* respond differently to getting hit by a 230 grain bullet than a 124 grain bullet.
That said, I would be saying my prayers if I had to go up against one of the highly skilled 9mm shooters here no matter what caliber I had. The people that I see are a biased sampling of those who didn't go straight to the morgue, and the preponderance of evidence is that 9mm gets the job done well with modern defensive ammo. As others have stated repeatedly, we need to balance all factors when choosing a caliber. For many, the blend of cost, size, capacity, and (personally) faster follow-up shots with the 9mm will outweigh the aforementioned advantages of larger calibers. Others who don't mind a larger/heavier gun, feel that they shoot big bores equally well, and are willing to take on the added expense might go for a .45.
The right answer is that there is no interpersonally applicable right answer.
... at least that's my $.02.
geminidglocker
01-27-10, 19:14
Yesterday, while I was walking my Dog, my neighbors Cows got loose and began running at us. I Drew My Glock 26, just in case, but realized that it would be of little use against 800lb. Cattle. We moved to the side of the road and they stormed on by. I was thinking to myself, "I wish I had a 1911, .45 right now."
You should carry the largest caliber you can. If one can shoot a 500 S&W quickly and accurately, that is what you should carry. :)
And there is virtually no way this will not turn into a war. Just sayin...
Business_Casual
01-28-10, 08:31
Well it was a polite discussion until you dropped that "red flag to a bull" comment about the 500 S&W. Why don't you erase it and let the thread continue without a caliber war?
M_P
Well it was a polite discussion until you dropped that "red flag to a bull" comment about the 500 S&W. Why don't you erase it and let the thread continue without a caliber war?
M_P
Easy now. It was an exaggeration. An obvious one I thought.
Let's try this: Yes, there is a reason to carry a .45 caliber over a 9mm. If you handle the recoil and the platform for it effectively. My exaggeration in my previous post was meant to convey the idea that there is no substitute for bore diameter.
The other side to that is some, if not most, cannot afford to shoot and train enough with a .45 to become proficient. Therefore, for a whole slew of people, carrying the latest and greatest 9mm is the right choice for them.
Business_Casual
01-28-10, 09:20
Easy now. It was an exaggeration. An obvious one I thought.
Yes I did catch that, thank you.
Let's try this: Yes, there is a reason to carry a .45 caliber over a 9mm. If you handle the recoil and the platform for it effectively. My exaggeration in my previous post was meant to convey the idea that there is no substitute for bore diameter.
So a 7.62 is more "effective" than a 5.56 then?
The other side to that is some, if not most, cannot afford to shoot and train enough with a .45 to become proficient. Therefore, for a whole slew of people, carrying the latest and greatest 9mm is the right choice for them.
That has already been covered in detail.
M_P
Yes I did catch that, thank you.
Welcome.
So a 7.62 is more "effective" than a 5.56 then? For potential lethality? Same bullet design? Yeah, I'd say so. Larger hole makes shot placement slightly less of a concern, even if measured in thousanths of an inch.
The battle between these two cartridges usually comes down to a compromise between lethality per round and total number of rounds that can be toted into battle, which is the biggest advantage a smaller, lighter round has. For a defensive weapon, carried on your person day to day, my thought has always been that capacity is a slightly smaller concern versus round for round lethality. I will not be shooting 100's of times in a defensive shooting situation. One or two reloads is generally all that is needed.
That has already been covered in detail.
M_P
Which is why I was trying to avoid spelling out what I figured others already knew. Hence the use of a short, quick, over the top exaggeration.
Business_Casual
01-28-10, 09:47
OK, we're ignoring fragmentation and yaw, then? Just chuck the entire terminal ballistics field out the window in favor of the "bigger is better" mantra. I expected more from this forum.
M_P
OK, we're ignoring fragmentation and yaw, then? Just chuck the entire terminal ballistics field out the window in favor of the "bigger is better" mantra. I expected more from this forum.
M_P
We are comparing handgun bullets which just poke holes. Bigger holes are better provided that you handle the pistol well in likely combat situations.
Rifle rounds are many times more complex. You want early yaw, with maximum disruption/fragmentation within 4-5" of penetration, and you need enough momentum to carry the bullet through commonly encountered barriers. Larger, heavier rifle calibers definately deal with barriers much better and they can be engineered to have early yaw. So......yes, in "general" larger rifle calibers are also superior with the right bullet technology.
http://i480.photobucket.com/albums/rr169/sgalbra76/556_68_762_comparison-1.jpg
Here's some loads shot through 3rd-world armor. A chest mounted magazine carrier with AK magazines in it:
http://i480.photobucket.com/albums/rr169/sgalbra76/556_68AKmag.jpg
OK, we're ignoring fragmentation and yaw, then? Just chuck the entire terminal ballistics field out the window in favor of the "bigger is better" mantra. I expected more from this forum.
M_P
Everything else equal, yes bigger is usually better. As has been stated, bullet choices equalize this a great deal. Its almost about preference these days.
Are we still talking about handguns?
Business_Casual
01-28-10, 10:10
Shot placement is still king.
Shrug.
M_P
ETA - yes, handguns. Apologies for the thread drift.
Shot placement is still king.
Agreed.
Which brings us back to using the biggest round that you can be effective with.
Lots of people are saying use the biggest round you can be effective with. But, even if you train with a 45 it still kicks more. You may be accurate but follow up shots are still going to be slower aren't they? I know some people are pretty darn fast with a 45 but wouldn't they be even faster with a 9mm?
This is all just sematics for me. I want to shoot what I carry and 9mm is so much cheaper that I would use it even if there was a slight disadvantage.
Lots of people are saying use the biggest round you can be effective with. But, even if you train with a 45 it still kicks more. You may be accurate but follow up shots are still going to be slower aren't they? I know some people are pretty darn fast with a 45 but wouldn't they be even faster with a 9mm?
This is all just sematics for me. I want to shoot what I carry and 9mm is so much cheaper that I would use it even if there was a slight disadvantage.
Depends on what loads you are using. 400ft-lbs of muzzle energy seems to be the sweet spot when it comes to recoil, and overall snap. For example, the .40S&W in it's lighter 155gr and 165gr loadings are 450ft-lbs or more and there is a significant loss of muzzle control in timed courses of fire. However, the 180gr loading at around 400ft-lbs is almost in the same recovery realm as the 9mm.
The .45acp also offers similar control in standard pressure 230gr, but you loose considerable shootability when you go with the 200gr or +P loadings. One advantage to the .45acp is that it has a longer action, and therefore disipates the recoil over a longer distance and makes it a little more controllable. The .45GAP on the other hand has the 9mm/.40S&W action length and the recoil feels heavier than the .40S&W even in 230gr loadings.
This debate has gone on for more years then I can reflect back on. Many misconceptions have become popular mantra, clouding an already cloudy issue.
I have been studying this issue for 30 years and have come to the following conclusion.
We don't know all there is to why some bullets work better than others. We are close but we don't have all the answers. I have come to believe the following.
First - the ability to strike vital areas of the aggressor. That means adequate penetration and the ability of the user to hit the target with their weapons choice.
Second - permanent wound Chanel.
Thereafter in no significant order:
Bullet energy transfered to the target.
Temporary wound channel.
I believe the last two do play some factor but how much I can't hazard to guess.
The border patrol who happens to be involved in more gun fights than the FBI come to the following conclusion:
1. Minimum of 12 inches of penetration.
2 .They thought the FBI's 18 inch maximum penetration was a little excessive. I think I remember them settling on 15 inches.
3. Permanent & temporary wound cavity.
4. They also declared they needed a min bullet energy of I believe 400 foot lbs.
Using the FBI testing procedures and the goals they wanted to achieve they chose the 155 grain 40 s&w as their ideal bullet.
At the time of the FBI's choice of the 10mm they claim that this bullet wasn't for everyone but they thought it fit their mission profile.
The Border Patrol feels the 155 grain 40 s&w fits theirs.
In my mission profile I don't see the need to penetrate obstacles other than clothing so my choice is different.
Another observation I have that some departments switching from 40 S&W to 45 ACP while maintaining the same weapons platform saw an increase in range scores that they could only attribute to the change in caliber and the perceived amount of recoil.
First and foremost choose a caliber and weapon that you can BEST hit with everything else is secondary.
This debate will rage on until we transition to Star Trek Style Phasers. And then the debate will be Phaser vs Klingon Disrupter.
Business_Casual
01-28-10, 12:40
Yeah you are right, but then the CZ guys will want the Romulan version.
M_P
The border patrol who happens to be involved in more gun fights than the FBI come to the following conclusion:
1. Minimum of 12 inches of penetration.
2 .They thought the FBI's 18 inch maximum penetration was a little excessive. I think I remember them settling on 15 inches.
3. Permanent & temporary wound cavity.
4. They also declared they needed a min bullet energy of I believe 400 foot lbs.
Using the FBI testing procedures and the goals they wanted to achieve they chose the 155 grain 40 s&w as their ideal bullet.
At the time of the FBI's choice of the 10mm they claim that this bullet wasn't for everyone but they thought it fit their mission profile.
The Border Patrol feels the 155 grain 40 s&w fits theirs.
The FBI settled on the 10mm Lite in 1989 as it more effectively met their mission needs. The load launched a 180gr Sierra JHP at an average velocity of 980fps and penetrated up to 12" in all FBI testing protocols. In 1991 the FBI transitioned to the new .40S&W with the official duty load being the Federal Hydroshok 180gr. The FBI has never made any load other than 180gr their standard issue duty load. Some 155gr and 165gr loads were used in special applications, training, and testing.
CBP stopped shooting the 155gr load in 2006 as it was beating their guns to hell. They transitioned to the weaker 135gr load at the end of 2006 and most officers that new anything about firearms were very upset at the transition.
Due to heavy demand by officers, instructors, and trainers, the US Border Patrol offically transitioned to the Federal HST 180gr on 12/16/09. CBP and ICE instructors have also requested that they be able to purchase off the BP contract and transition to the 180gr HST. All of their combined shooting experiences resulted into a change in policy and a switch to the heavier FBI loadings and performance criterias.
EDIT: Frankly, I'm surpised that this transition doesn't get more coverage. It represents a major shift in the balance of handgun terminal effects philosophies since the FBI conslusions regarding the 1986 Miami shootout. Border Patrol and the INS were one of the few Federal agencies that held onto the stopping power theories of the 1970s and 1980s and actually gave Marshall & Sanow the time of day in the early 1990s. Since that generation of BP officers have mostly retired, the attachments to outdated policies are finally being reanalyzied and reviewed. Despite what people might believe, BP shootings have had very mixed results with the 155gr loadings. The 2007 El Paso shooting might have been the tipping point where a suspect was shot four times near COM through a windshield and he still managed to get out of his car and return fire from the rear of his vehicle for an additional 6 minutes and badly wounded two BP officers. The 155gr loading has been know to perform poorly in FBI protocol testing against windshields. Looks like BP has finally taken the lessons learned by the FBI 20yrs ago to heart........
The FBI settled on the 10mm Lite in 1989 as it more effectively met their mission needs. The load launched a 180gr Sierra JHP at an average velocity of 980fps and penetrated up to 12" in all FBI testing protocols. In 1991 the FBI transitioned to the new .40S&W with the official duty load being the Federal Hydroshok 180gr. The FBI has never made any load other than 180gr their standard issue duty load. Some 155gr and 165gr loads were used in special applications, training, and testing.
CBP stopped shooting the 155gr load in 2006 as it was beating their guns to hell. They transitioned to the weaker 135gr load at the end of 2006 and most officers that new anything about firearms were very upset at the transition.
Due to heavy demand by officers, instructors, and trainers, the US Border Patrol officially transitioned to the Federal HST 180gr on 12/16/09. CBP and ICE instructors have also requested that they be able to purchase off the BP contract and transition to the 180gr HST. All of their combined shooting experiences resulted into a change in policy and a switch to the heavier FBI loadings and performance criteria.
Thanks for the add'l info. I was aware that the FBI stayed with 180 grain loading when they moved from 10mm to the 40 S&W. I was not aware the Border patrol made their moves. I literally just read about their adoption of the 40 S&W last month. Where can I find literature on their last change in loadings.
Thanks for the add'l info. I was aware that the FBI stayed with 180 grain loading when they moved from 10mm to the 40 S&W. I was not aware the Border patrol made their moves. I literally just read about their adoption of the 40 S&W last month. Where can I find literature on their last change in loadings.
I'm not sure where literature can be found. I was at an instructor course at FLETC, Glynco last month where I got the info. The five BP instructors that were there were very happy with the change.
I'm not sure where literature can be found. I was at an instructor course at FLETC, Glynco last month where I got the info. The five BP instructors that were there were very happy with the change.
Why were they happier with the 180 over a 135 or the original 155? Was it based on shootability or actual shootings? Everything I have found previously stated that they were phenomily happy with the results of the 155.
Why were they happier with the 180 over a 135 or the original 155? Was it based on shootability or actual shootings? Everything I have found previously stated that they were phenomily happy with the results of the 155.
From what I gathered they were mostly concerned with getting good penetration through vehicle materials. Windshields, car doors, car seats,....etc. One officer mentioned that they see a lot of SUVs with trashbags full of cloths in the back and in two shootings their lighter loadings didn't even get through the bags. Other things mentioned were pistol service life(better with 180gr), and controllability(better with 180gr). The 155gr loading has an "okay" sectional density, but the 135gr has a sectional density ratio close to the .380acp 90gr and rapidly decelerates against soft and cushioning materials like heavy clothing, windshields, wood,....etc.
Only one of the five said that he wanted to keep the 155gr loading just in case there was something to the higher energy loading. The rest of them argued that they couldn't find a logical reason to keep the lighter loading, and they didn't believe that there was anything relevant to the higher impact energies of the 155gr load other than shooting through sheet metal thicker than typical car doors.......which they really never encounter.
Marcus L.
Thanks for the info.
varoadking
01-28-10, 21:03
So a 7.62 is more "effective" than a 5.56 then?
I always thought so too...
my theory is that 2 9mm holes beats the crap out of one 45 hole.
follow up shots are definitely faster with a 9. granted it's a a fraction of a second, but it might make the difference.
also, as many have said before, it's much cheaper to practice with 9.
though now that i'm a reasonably competant pistol shooter, i'd kind of like a 45 or a 10mm. that said 9mm comes in a lot of very reliable concealable packages that are easy to shoot. I think for most urban carry i'd still opt for my G19 or G26.
millerlite
01-28-10, 22:58
a lot of people are saying that 9mm is cheaper than the 45. What if a box of 9mm and a box of 45 where the same price? would you still shoot and carry 9mm?
I reload .45 so the cost of a box of .45 and 9mm is "the same" not including my time spent reloading (and me value adding all those components together is more worthwhile than me sitting around reading for entertainment). I've seriously been thinking about going the other way and switching to 9mm, and not because of cost. Sure I've spent thousands and thousands of rounds getting to learn to recoil manage the big ass .45 Auto and my split times in close going as fast as I can to get good hits is about .15s, .25s at 7yards, and about .4s at 15 (I'm really taking my time to get a sight picture), but I can't help feel that those speeds would have come earlier using a softer shooting caliber, and having the ability to rip more rounds out before I have to dump a mag and reload is appealing as well.
I'm actually going to be shooting an M&P9 this weekend and see how it compares to my M&P45. I won't ditch mine as it's proving itself to be quite reliable, but it'll be curious to see just how different the 9mm in the same package will be.
Outlander Systems
01-29-10, 10:12
I purchased my first handgun during the ban.
At that time, there was no reason NOT to go with .45. I bought a Kimber Stainless and a USPT .45.
That pretty much set the precedent for my personal choices. I don't delve outside of .45, 5.56, 12ga, and .308. It makes my own personal supply-chain less of a hassle.
I'm actually going to be shooting an M&P9 this weekend and see how it compares to my M&P45. I won't ditch mine as it's proving itself to be quite reliable, but it'll be curious to see just how different the 9mm in the same package will be.
I would be curious to hear your impressions if you don't mind.
The M&P9 is noticeably smaller than the M&P45 by feel and this is with both guns using the large back strap. It caught me a little off guard as it makes the 9 seem slim in comparison. The sights were different from stock which threw me and probably did not help it in the comparison.
The guns handle exactly the same way dry and doing presentations I felt hampered more by the front sight not having bright red tape over it than anything else. That said the pistol is amazingly soft shooting. It hardly seemed to recoil at all, it returned to target nigh instantaneously without feeling like I was doing any work to drive it back. The trigger was stock instead of the Apex sear so that messed timing a little bit, I didn't feel that having a non-textured back strap was an issue as the thing has practically no muzzle flip to speak of, and while I wasn't able in 50 rounds (I know, I know, I brought too little 9mm to shoot) to out pace myself using the piece I've put over 3k rounds through in about a month I was able to place as many shots with as much accuracy as I can using my own personalized firearm, though, and in short order. The slide auto-forwarded on reloads as well so I was actually glad to see that was the same as I've been growing used to it occurring. I can easily see if the trigger and sights were set up the same way the ability to deliver more accurate hits in the same time frame as an M&P45 and I do not feel that switching calibers in the same platform was what caused any sort of lack of performance on my part. Them being set up differently, though, took more getting used to than I allowed myself.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.