Modern hollow point technology and .45s

[condoor]

I am moving into LE and have the good fortune of being able to pick my own sidearm, as well as caliber. The department I'm hoping to land allows for 9mm or .45 (no .40 option).

I have read caliber threads for five plus years now (especially docs threads on this and other forums), and there are a couple things that I am still a little fuzzy on. I have two pistols now: Glock 19 and Glock 26and shoot them both well. I will be buying a new pistol for duty use.

I am trying to decide between a G17 or a M&P .45 (possibly G21SF) as a duty weapon and that largely depends on which caliber I want to go with. (I understand that pistols suck at stopping people, and shot placement is key. )

Anyway - following are my 'questions'/concerns:

- One of the arguments in favor of the 9mm is related to 'modern hollow points' and how with modern hollow points all handguns have similar performance. Doesn't the .45 benefit from modern hollow point technology as well?

- The thing that I just can't seem to get over is the difference in the size of the hole. A .45 makes a 23% larger hole. This means a 23% better chance of hitting a vital organ, and a 23% larger area from which to bleed from. Short of a CNS hit - isn't blood loss key in 'stopping' someone? Isn't this larger hole a big deal?

- Momentum equals velocity multiplyed by mass. The .45 has considerably more momentum than a 9mm. How does this not translate into a better ability to continue through bones and barriers. (I've seen the gelatin tests, and FBI results which have most modern loads running 12-14" of penetration through a variety of medums - I just don't understand why the greater momentum of the .45 isn't more of a factor. )

I carry Speer Gold Dot 124g +P in my 9mms and feel comfortable with this load for what it is, but I can't help but feel like the 230g +P Ranger T .45 is 'bettter' than the former, and I want to carry 'the best', if my life is potentially on the line day in and day out.

All of these thoughts on calibers open up other questions for me in regards to capacity and speed. With the M&P .45 I would have 31 rounds of .45 on my person, vs 52 rounds of 9mm with a G17. How big of a factor is this? Will I eventually be able to shoot a G21 or M&P as fast and as accurately as a 17?

Anyway - I've given this a ton of thought (probably too much), and I'd really appreciate your advice. Other factors I should consider?

FYI - I have large hands, and used to own a G30 and could shoot it well, which I would assume would tranlate to the G21 or M&P, (though not quite as fast as my 19).

Thank you all in advance.
-c

[DocGKR]

Picking a platform you shoot well, based on independent objective measurements of accuracy and speed, is far more important than caliber. Do you shoot a 9 mm G17, 9 mm M&P, .45 ACP G21, or a .45 ACP M&P better?

The G17 is a fine platform--probably the best Glock made and it certainly would work well with your current G26 and G19. FWIW, I personally would NOT willingly carry any of the Glocks other than 9 mm's on duty.

Both 9 mm and .45 ACP are more than adequate for LE use when using good performing ammunition. 9 mm is easier to shoot rapidly and has a higher magazine capacity; .45 ACP has indeed been shown to punch through bones and intermediate barriers better than 9 mm. Both offer advantages and disadvantages.

My preference is for a manual safety on a duty pistol for uniform use and would choose a .40 M&P with ambi safety if ever I went back on patrol, but would not feel at all bad about using either a G17 or .45 ACP M&P.

[ToddG]

- The thing that I just can't seem to get over is the difference in the size of the hole. A .45 makes a 23% larger hole. This means a 23% better chance of hitting a vital organ, and a 23% larger area from which to bleed from. Short of a CNS hit - isn't blood loss key in 'stopping' someone? Isn't this larger hole a big deal?

Not to nitpick, but your math is wrong. A 23% larger hole doesn't mean a 23% better chance of hitting a vital organ. When you look at the tiny size of either a 9mm or .45 projectile compared to the size of a person, or even the size of a typical torso, it's easier to understand. What you've got is about a 0.05-0.10" greater radial reach of the bullet by choosing .45 over 9mm. So while the argument could certainly be made that in some circumstance that tiny fraction of an inch could mean the difference between nicking an artery or not, etc., you need to weigh that against lower capacity, greater recoil, etc.

Picking a platform you shoot well, based on independent objective measurements of accuracy and speed, is far more important than caliber.

When the dude who knows more about terminal ballistics than the rest of us combined keeps saying things like that, I'm pretty sure it's a clue ...

[CarlosDJackal]

Just to emphasize what has already been said by individuals who know a heck of a lot more than I probably ever will; a hit with a 9mm beats a miss with a .45 ACP every time.

I personally prefer to carry the .40 because I do better with it (I used to carry the .45 ACP exclusively). Unless you have to choose one over the other by law or policy, choose the handgun/caliber combination that works the best for you in terms of comfort and accuracy.

[condoor]

Thanks all - I appreciate the responses.

I've been reading a lot of old threads today, and didn't realize that the Glock line had so many issues in calibers other than 9mm.

I think it probably makes the most sense for 'me' to go with a G17. It will go very well with my only other hand guns (the G26 and G19), I shoot glock better than anything else I've tried, and I'm set up to reload 9mm.

As a side note, I can't tell you what a relief it is to have a resource like this forum, where I know I can go to get sound advice from qualified people. Thank you.

[Glock17JHP]

The G17 sounds like the right choice... you are already familiar with the G19 and G26...

Good luck to you in your LE endeavor!!!

[tpd223]

We issue G17s here, I carry a G17 and a G26 daily. Previously we issued the S&W 5906, we've been using 9mms since 1989.

These is nothing wrong with a good 9mm.

[ZDL]

I carry .45 now. I'm going to a g17. Reason: more rounds. I shoot both with negligible difference. Doc and Todd... These guys have more than just a clue when it comes to this stuff.

Doc.- I need to read up on your .40 data as I thought "the community" was shying away from it. Time to come out from under my rock I see. Still, for me and the sake of continuity and familiarity with my firearms, (unless some major data point factors in heavily) I continue to stay 9mm and .45. Off to read and learn.

[DocGKR]

There is nothing wrong with 9 mm and .45 ACP; in fact, they are what I currently use. However, for LE use around vehicles, the .40 180 gr and .45 230 gr have a bit of an advantage over most 9 mm's. The nice thing about .40 is you get good intermediate barrier performance like a .45 ACP and a reasonable magazine capacity like a 9 mm, all in a compact platform. The downside of .40 is the sharper recoil, slightly less inherent accuracy, and the fact that most pistols in .40 have been less than ideal. For me, the M&P is the first .40 platform I really like shooting.

[Ando]

Not to nitpick, but your math is wrong. ...

I'll nitpick the math. The hole is not 23% larger, the diameter of the hole is 26% larger. The AREA of the hole is 60% larger in the .45 then the 9mm for non-expanding rounds. Looking at perfectly performing hollow points, with expanded diameters of .62 and .74 for 9mm and .45 respectively, the advantage narrows to a 40% larger hole for .45 vs. 9mm.

How does this relate to terminal effect and incapacitation?
I don't know, ask Marshall and Sanow I guess....

I just wanted to point out that the difference was a bit more significant then was being portrayed.