Whats your favorite caliber between...9mm...40..and 45 ?? - Page 3

EricM · July 22, 2001, 02:57 AM

Quote:

What are they going to do when they face a determined attacker and put 5 rounds of .45 into him and he keeps coming?

Shoot him 4 more times (USP45C)

.

Ed2000 · July 22, 2001, 11:19 AM

Its true the .45 has a 40% failure rate, but that's lower than other calibers when using non premium bullets. Those people shot with 5 rounds of .45 FMJ with no effect, would in all probability, have been unphased by 5 rounds of .355 Sig or any other round, with or without the latest and greatest expanding cartridge.

My arguement is simply that .45 FMJ isn't bad, its just not the "best". The same can't be said of 9mm or similar rounds with FMJ.

355sigfan · July 22, 2001, 12:04 PM

Ed2000

40 fmj has a 70% street record better than the 45. Why use fmj when there are so many good jhp's available. The 45 is a wonderfull round but feed it a good bullet. I prefer the 357 sig. I just got hired with a different department and I will be turning in my department issued 45 and carring my own GLock 31 in 357. I will be extreemly happy to make the change.
PAT

Ed2000 · July 22, 2001, 04:17 PM

Hey,

I must question the .40 FMJ being better than the .45 FMJ. There is no rational reason for such a finding except maybe a problem with the sample from which the finding is drawn. I say this simply because the rounds travel at similar speeds, don't expand, and the .40 is of course smaller. I don't want to start and arguement, but I just don't believe that claim.

Anyway, the answer to your question is simply - MONEY.

In the past, I normally carried .45 JHPs. Unfortunately, I traded guns and calibers and have just gone back to the .45. I have FMJ that I know works (in many respects). I can't afford to function test my gun with JHPs right now. Until I can, I'll feel OK with FMJ at half the price.

bad_dad_brad · July 22, 2001, 07:29 PM

The 9X19 followed by the .45. Why? Because the 9mm and .45 are the only cartridges mentioned in the survey that have had pistols specifically designed for them. The .40 has been retrofit into pistols for the 9mm (and the .357SIG also).

The 9mm penetrates better than the .45. I can carry more rounds of the 9mm over the .45, and I personally can shoot the .9mm a heck of a lot more effectively than a .45. But still if I shoot a .45 in a gun designed for a .45, I can be assured of reliability.

Modern 9mm cartridges are very very effective and with low recoil combined with effectiveness, I hit what I am aiming at. I like the 9mm.

355sigfan · July 22, 2001, 08:46 PM

The 9X19 followed by the .45. Why? Because the 9mm and .45 are the only cartridges mentioned in the survey that have had pistols specifically designed for them. The .40 has been retrofit into pistols for the 9mm (and the .357SIG also).

Thats crap. The usp was designed as a 40 then downgraded to a weak 9mm later. The sig 229 was built as a 40. The glocks have had the necessary changes to handle the 357 sig and 40. Your limiting yourself based on what a gun happened to be chambered in first. The people that design the guns know a bit more than you and are more educated I am sure they know what their doing. Thats like saying you should not buy a car with a v 8 if it was first offered as a straight 6. Give me a break.
PAT

bronco61 · July 23, 2001, 08:00 PM

The .45 was designed for one thing - Knock down power. Our men needed to knock down the Moros during the war in the Phillippines. This was needed because smaller calibers weren't doing this and our men were being killed AFTER shooting the enemy. The round was such a success that it has been used since. I believe our military switched to the 9mm to be more standard with NATO. Although, our special forces, who are more concerned with getting the job done than with other issues, have stuck with the .45

I shouldn't let myself get sucked into the argument that the 9mm has the same knock down power as the .45, but I just couldn't help myself.

So, there's stories about men being shot 4-5 times with a .45 and still able to shoot back. So what? People have been struck by lightning and lived. This is EXTREMELY RARE.

I'll stick with the design of John Moses Browning thank you.

22Shooter · July 23, 2001, 11:02 PM

Last time I checked, 9 and 45 both have 63% OSS in FMJ, and 40 has around 70% in FMJ. I don't think the military lost much, if anything, switching to 9 FMJ from 45 FMJ. And they gained more rounds and NATO compatability.

I seem to recall the best JHPs are somewhere in the high 80's to low 90's for 9 and low to mid 90's for 40 and 45. Do I care? No. I count myself among those who don't worry about the small differences in OSS between the major calibers.

My vote went to 9. It's cheap (and I like to shoot all I can!), I personally enjoy shooting 9 more than 40 or 45 (did I mention I like to shoot?), I shoot 9 better than 40 or 45, and I believe it has more than adequate defensive performance. For every 100 one shot gunfights I get into in my lifetime, well shucks, I might just lose 5.567323432 of them. Maybe I should give myself some extra credit for shot placement with all that extra practice-make that 5.0 of them ;-)

Aahzz · July 24, 2001, 08:35 AM

For me, it's gotta be the 9. Perceived recoil has nothing to do with it - I can handle all 3, just fine. The difference is cost - I can afford to practice more with the 9 than I can with either of the others. Cost is also the reason I carry Silvertips - I can't afford enough hydra-shocks for a steady diet during practice...I can afford silvertips. I'd much rather have a gun/cartridge combo that I've put enough rounds through that I know I'm competent, and that the gun can handle. As for stopping power, I put faith in any of these 3 choices.

chrismc1 · July 24, 2001, 11:36 AM

If you do your part, the bullet will do its part. I've fired the 9mm and the .45ACP. I simply cannot hit anything with a .45, and I'm a fairly decent shot and I can shoot accurately with a .44 Magnum, not that I'd want to all the time. Can't speak on the .40, never fired it.

For me the calibers that I can shoot accurately are

9x18mm Makarov
.38 Special,
9mm Parabellum
.357 Magnum
.44 Magnum

Your mileage may vary.

vyper005 · July 26, 2001, 12:22 PM

the 40 didnt get more votes...

Rainbow Six · July 26, 2001, 01:31 PM

Short of disrupting the CNS/Brain, or a freak psychological "stop" you can forget about reliable "stopping power" with any basic self defense handgun caliber.

If you want to win, study shot placement, then learn shot placement, then practice shot placement. After you're done with these three steps, practice shot placement some more and carry whichever caliber you shoot best when measured to the standard of (yep, you guessed it) SHOT PLACEMENT .

Did I mention that shot placement is more important than caliber choice?

R6

Aahzz · July 26, 2001, 02:39 PM

But gee, Rainbow Six, how do you feel about Shot Placement?

Patrick Murphy · July 26, 2001, 06:38 PM

Under 4" - 357 Sig. 4" or greater - .45 ACP.

View Poll Results: Go ahead...Pick your favorite caliber...
9mm	61	32.62%
40	31	16.58%
45	95	50.80%
Voters: 187. You may not vote on this poll

July 24, 2001, 11:36 AM	#60
chrismc1 Member Join Date: June 18, 2001 Posts: 82	effective caliber If you do your part, the bullet will do its part. I've fired the 9mm and the .45ACP. I simply cannot hit anything with a .45, and I'm a fairly decent shot and I can shoot accurately with a .44 Magnum, not that I'd want to all the time. Can't speak on the .40, never fired it. For me the calibers that I can shoot accurately are 9x18mm Makarov .38 Special, 9mm Parabellum .357 Magnum .44 Magnum Your mileage may vary.

July 26, 2001, 12:22 PM	#61
vyper005 Senior Member Join Date: September 9, 2000 Location: Delaware Posts: 350	I'm really surprised... the 40 didnt get more votes...

July 26, 2001, 01:31 PM	#62
Rainbow Six Senior Member Join Date: March 20, 2000 Location: West Georgia, USA Posts: 1,314	Short of disrupting the CNS/Brain, or a freak psychological "stop" you can forget about reliable "stopping power" with any basic self defense handgun caliber. If you want to win, study shot placement, then learn shot placement, then practice shot placement. After you're done with these three steps, practice shot placement some more and carry whichever caliber you shoot best when measured to the standard of (yep, you guessed it) SHOT PLACEMENT . Did I mention that shot placement is more important than caliber choice? R6 __________________ Si vis pacem, para bellum... "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper

July 26, 2001, 06:38 PM	#64
Patrick Murphy Member Join Date: June 14, 2001 Posts: 96	Under 4" - 357 Sig. 4" or greater - .45 ACP. __________________ Murph

July 22, 2001, 11:19 AM	#52
Ed2000 Senior Member Join Date: April 27, 2000 Posts: 174	Its true the .45 has a 40% failure rate, but that's lower than other calibers when using non premium bullets. Those people shot with 5 rounds of .45 FMJ with no effect, would in all probability, have been unphased by 5 rounds of .355 Sig or any other round, with or without the latest and greatest expanding cartridge. My arguement is simply that .45 FMJ isn't bad, its just not the "best". The same can't be said of 9mm or similar rounds with FMJ.

July 22, 2001, 12:04 PM	#53
355sigfan Junior member Join Date: February 10, 2000 Posts: 1,388	Ed2000 40 fmj has a 70% street record better than the 45. Why use fmj when there are so many good jhp's available. The 45 is a wonderfull round but feed it a good bullet. I prefer the 357 sig. I just got hired with a different department and I will be turning in my department issued 45 and carring my own GLock 31 in 357. I will be extreemly happy to make the change. PAT

July 22, 2001, 04:17 PM	#54
Ed2000 Senior Member Join Date: April 27, 2000 Posts: 174	Hey, I must question the .40 FMJ being better than the .45 FMJ. There is no rational reason for such a finding except maybe a problem with the sample from which the finding is drawn. I say this simply because the rounds travel at similar speeds, don't expand, and the .40 is of course smaller. I don't want to start and arguement, but I just don't believe that claim. Anyway, the answer to your question is simply - MONEY. In the past, I normally carried .45 JHPs. Unfortunately, I traded guns and calibers and have just gone back to the .45. I have FMJ that I know works (in many respects). I can't afford to function test my gun with JHPs right now. Until I can, I'll feel OK with FMJ at half the price.

July 22, 2001, 07:29 PM	#55
bad_dad_brad Senior Member Join Date: April 8, 2000 Posts: 866	The 9X19 followed by the .45. Why? Because the 9mm and .45 are the only cartridges mentioned in the survey that have had pistols specifically designed for them. The .40 has been retrofit into pistols for the 9mm (and the .357SIG also). The 9mm penetrates better than the .45. I can carry more rounds of the 9mm over the .45, and I personally can shoot the .9mm a heck of a lot more effectively than a .45. But still if I shoot a .45 in a gun designed for a .45, I can be assured of reliability. Modern 9mm cartridges are very very effective and with low recoil combined with effectiveness, I hit what I am aiming at. I like the 9mm.

July 22, 2001, 08:46 PM	#56
355sigfan Junior member Join Date: February 10, 2000 Posts: 1,388	The 9X19 followed by the .45. Why? Because the 9mm and .45 are the only cartridges mentioned in the survey that have had pistols specifically designed for them. The .40 has been retrofit into pistols for the 9mm (and the .357SIG also). Thats crap. The usp was designed as a 40 then downgraded to a weak 9mm later. The sig 229 was built as a 40. The glocks have had the necessary changes to handle the 357 sig and 40. Your limiting yourself based on what a gun happened to be chambered in first. The people that design the guns know a bit more than you and are more educated I am sure they know what their doing. Thats like saying you should not buy a car with a v 8 if it was first offered as a straight 6. Give me a break. PAT

July 23, 2001, 08:00 PM	#57
bronco61 Senior Member Join Date: April 9, 1999 Location: Alaska Posts: 518	The .45 was designed for one thing - Knock down power. Our men needed to knock down the Moros during the war in the Phillippines. This was needed because smaller calibers weren't doing this and our men were being killed AFTER shooting the enemy. The round was such a success that it has been used since. I believe our military switched to the 9mm to be more standard with NATO. Although, our special forces, who are more concerned with getting the job done than with other issues, have stuck with the .45 I shouldn't let myself get sucked into the argument that the 9mm has the same knock down power as the .45, but I just couldn't help myself. So, there's stories about men being shot 4-5 times with a .45 and still able to shoot back. So what? People have been struck by lightning and lived. This is EXTREMELY RARE. I'll stick with the design of John Moses Browning thank you.

July 23, 2001, 11:02 PM	#58
22Shooter Member Join Date: March 10, 2001 Posts: 59	Last time I checked, 9 and 45 both have 63% OSS in FMJ, and 40 has around 70% in FMJ. I don't think the military lost much, if anything, switching to 9 FMJ from 45 FMJ. And they gained more rounds and NATO compatability. I seem to recall the best JHPs are somewhere in the high 80's to low 90's for 9 and low to mid 90's for 40 and 45. Do I care? No. I count myself among those who don't worry about the small differences in OSS between the major calibers. My vote went to 9. It's cheap (and I like to shoot all I can!), I personally enjoy shooting 9 more than 40 or 45 (did I mention I like to shoot?), I shoot 9 better than 40 or 45, and I believe it has more than adequate defensive performance. For every 100 one shot gunfights I get into in my lifetime, well shucks, I might just lose 5.567323432 of them. Maybe I should give myself some extra credit for shot placement with all that extra practice-make that 5.0 of them ;-)

July 24, 2001, 08:35 AM	#59
Aahzz Senior Member Join Date: March 18, 1999 Location: CT Posts: 211	For me, it's gotta be the 9. Perceived recoil has nothing to do with it - I can handle all 3, just fine. The difference is cost - I can afford to practice more with the 9 than I can with either of the others. Cost is also the reason I carry Silvertips - I can't afford enough hydra-shocks for a steady diet during practice...I can afford silvertips. I'd much rather have a gun/cartridge combo that I've put enough rounds through that I know I'm competent, and that the gun can handle. As for stopping power, I put faith in any of these 3 choices.

July 26, 2001, 02:39 PM	#63
Aahzz Senior Member Join Date: March 18, 1999 Location: CT Posts: 211	But gee, Rainbow Six, how do you feel about Shot Placement?