Quote:
|
No intelligent person uses fmj for self defense
|
My understanding is that some states/municipalities don't allow JHP's. I'm thinking NJ, but if I'm wrong I apologize.
And it does make for a better, or at least more standardized, comparison. JHP comparisons are probably going to be effected more by the individual bullet than the caliber. While FMJ is pretty much the same no matter who makes it, there's a big difference between say, Federal HST's and Hornady CD's. Or even within the same brand, WWB JHP's to, say, Ranger T's. Or, even if you go with exactly the same thing, a particular bullet design can be more effective in one caliber than another.
There are so many variables with JHP's that the data can be used to show pretty much whatever you want.
But pretty much any way you play it out, I think 2 rounds of 9mm is going to be more effective than 1 round of 45. However, I'm not sure that that's a fair question.
I assume we can all agree that, for everyone, the 9mm is quicker for follow ups than the .45.
No matter how good you are 9's have less recoil, and thus take less time to bring back to bare. If you're not faster with a 9mm you're either inept, or - more likely - faking it to prove a point.
However, I don't think it's twice as fast. Or at least not for people that practice regularly.
A more accurate question would probably be "are 3 rounds of 9mm more effective than 2 rounds of .45?" or for people who train a lot (like most of those arguing here) "are 4-5 rounds of 9mm more effective than 3-4 rounds of .45?".
And, when you consider that most of us train to shoot 2 (or maybe 3) times regardless of what we're shooting, the question really becomes "is 2 shots of 9mm in 1s more effective than 2 shots of .45 in 1.5s?". Don't focus on the actual numbers, I was going for a qualitative comparison rather than quantitative.
I don't know as it changes the answer, and I - as a rule - do prefer 9mm.
However, it strikes me as illogical that we 9mm fans regularly point out that the increased performance from the .45 is marginal, but don't seem to want to admit that the increase in follow up speed with the 9mm is equally marginal.
That's if we're making an apples to apples comparison. My understanding is that the 1911 - probably the most popular .45 - is mechanically slower to return to battery than a lot of modern designs.
So, for say Beretta 92 vs 1911 it might be a considerable difference. But, I'd think comparing say a G21 to a G17 (or Sig 226 vs 220, etc.) you'd find that - in trained hands - the difference in speed, while still present, wouldn't be nearly as significant.
In a SD scenario - and I'm admittedly not an expert in this - it seems like the limiting factor you're going to have on your time is more likely to be the time it takes you to react and draw rather than the fraction of a second a well trained shooter is going to loose between shots.
If there are multiple attackers, or you're very close to your target, time would be much more of an issue, and - like I said - I do generally prefer 9mm, in part because it is a bit faster (though IMHO the increased capacity, and price of practice ammo are bigger draws to 9mm).
So, to summarize; when it comes down to it, the .45 just isn't all that much more "powerful", or all that much "slower" than the 9.
I wouldn't want to get shot by either. Though, I wouldn't really even
want to get shot with a rubber band, so that doesn't say a lot.
And that's the end of my Novella on the subject.
PS: If someone wants to give me a G34 and a G41 (assuming we're right about what it is) for my birthday this spring, I would be more than happy to run all sorts of objective tests to settle the question once and for all. More than happy.