45 vs 9mm interesting test

[Shadow9mm]

So gun sam on youtube does what i consider to be some excellent real world comparison tests. He recently put this video out. https://youtu.be/xNl-8tO3EX8?si=QX6gs05C_JRuh0rq

The results were somewhat surprising to me as were the comments. Of the comments i read the feeling was that 9mm works, but it may take 2-3 rounds to stop a threat, and that the threat would have an over all good chances of surviving the incident. And that with the 45 you would likey only need 1 shot and that the threat would have less chance of surviving. Keep in mind, these are youtube comments and take them with a large grain of salt.

I am a big fan of 9mm. I also love 45. I feel they are both proven effective cartridges. But based on this video it does appear to me that 45 is better. Better penetration, less deflection. How much of a real world difference is hard to say.

Keeping in mind that shot placement is critical.

Im still processing my thoughts on this video but i figured it would be worth sharing with yall. Personally i will probably be carrying a 45 more often, and i am shopping for a slim/compact 45, will most likely get one next year.

Not trying to ruin the caliber wars cease fire, maybe we can try to keep this loosely centered around this video specifically?

[sigarms228]

I will never argue that the 9MM SD round is as good as the .45 SD round stopping power wise (but is it good enough in most cases??), but for me the ability to have a pistol the size and weight of a Shield Plus with 13 rounds for easy/comfortable CCW carry and that also is easy to shoot well tips the scales in the favor of the 9MM Shield Plus for CCW self defense needs.

[Shadow9mm]

The shield plus is an excellent gun and choice. The smallest 45 i have shot is my g30 which is supposedly a "compact" but is almost the same size as a g19 but wider. Im really looking forward to shoot some of the slim/single stack 45s to see how they handle.

Made me think too, he compared full size/duty pistols. I wonder how much velocity, penetration, and follow up shots would be effeted in the micro compact size like the shield or xds

[Koda94]

When he compared the hollowpoint ammo in gel his 9mm shot skimmed the bottom of the platform. I would like to see the same test with an actual accurate shot.

[JohnKSa]

Gotta say that within just a few seconds of listening to him talk, it was pretty clear what the test results were going to show.

Early on he makes the assertion that in warfare it was established that the .45ACP stopped the threat quicker. I would love to see the data/study/information he was quoting there. Seems like if there was some hard data that proved a point like that, the caliber wars would be over.

I like how he spins the expansion failure of the .45ACP into a positive thing. Very creative.

[Paul B.]

All I can say is I've always favored the .45 ACP. My basic carry piece is a Colt Combat Commander. I have carried a 9MM a time or two but I'v also wondered if it was sufficient. My thought are use what you like as it may be your life in the balance.
Paul B.

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Gotta say that within just a few seconds of listening to him talk, it was pretty clear what the test results were going to show.

Early on he makes the assertion that in warfare it was established that the .45ACP stopped the threat quicker. I would love to see the data/study/information he was quoting there. Seems like if there was some hard data that proved a point like that, the caliber wars would be over.

I like how he spins the expansion failure of the .45ACP into a positive thing. Very creative.

I was a bit dissapointed he could not source the same hollow point for both cartridges as well. In my experience the xtp favor penetration over expansion, or rather, their expansion is laclluster. But im not sure those bullets wete good comparisons to eachother.

[totaldla]

I love the 45acp - because of the modern 1911. I've watched far too many shooting videos, 99% used 9mm, and it is very obvious that center mass with 9mm cause people to stop their nefarious ways. And the bulk of the 9mm shootings are with ball ammo.

Yes, the 45acp makes a bigger hole and yes the people shot center mass with a 45acp might give up the ghost a slight bit faster. But it is obvious that the 9mm is used worldwide and works.

In general, IMO there's way too much reliance on handguns.

[Double Naught Spy]

I was a bit dissapointed he could not source the same hollow point for both cartridges as well.

You would think that would matter, as if the bullets are the same and just different sizes, but that often isn't the case between 9mm and .45 acp. They seem to have a fairly different profile (for feeding purposes?).

[Koda94]

Years of debate on this and what now feels like thousands of youtube videos on this proven both rounds equal in stopping power and people still think bigger is better.

[armoredman]

No...stop...don't say that..."yawn"...I feel like I've heard this all before somewhere...

[74A95]

I'm sorry but (with all due respect) this guy is a joke. There are so many things wrong with this and his thinking. His 'conclusions' are just his made up assumptions.

Stopping power effectiveness requires actual shooting data. Greg Ellifritz has compiled data from actual shootings. We should look to this for the effectiveness of calibers. I love the way blows off Ellifritz’s data. He basically says, don’t believe actual shooting data and believe me instead. What a joke.

Ellifritz's data:

http://www.activeresponsetraining.ne...stopping-power

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nycYxb-zNwc

The 45 is not magical. Read this:
https://www.police1.com/officer-shoo...BbLYpnqqHxwMq/

And he makes his conclusions based on one bullet of each caliber? And not even the same brand? You need equivalent bullets for terminal ballistic performance. Here's data for Federal HST.

https://le.vistaoutdoor.com/ammuniti...75%2C574%2C573

[74A95]

Originally Posted by Koda94

When he compared the hollowpoint ammo in gel his 9mm shot skimmed the bottom of the platform. I would like to see the same test with an actual accurate shot.

I didn't see that. There would be a track if the bullet followed that path and I don't see one.

[44 AMP]

Having read and heard this argument for over 50 years, that I have been paying attention to such things, no new study or Utube video is going to change my opinion at this point.

Both can work, both can fail. Isn't everything else just the equivalent of arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin??

I know of a fellow who used both in actual combat to save his life. Both were GI ball rounds. He rated their performance the same, based not on some study or gel test video, but on what he experienced in real life.

Both times, once with a .45 and once with a 9mm, "I shot the guy twice, and he fell down".

Is this typical? Probably not. Is this any guarantee that is what will happen? No.

But since it has happened once, its possible it could happen again.

My personal preference is for the .45. Mostly because I like the .45 and the guns it comes in better. But also because of my life experiences, summarized in my Signature line.

[jmr40]

Shooters have been debating this since 1905. Most people make up their minds then set out to find data that supports their views while ignoring other data.

Part of the problem is that 9mm ammo loaded in the USA has traditionally been quite anemic. The most common load was a 115 gr bullet at about 1100 fps for USA made ammo. The rest of the world was shooting 124 gr bullets at 1200-1250 fps. In this country 9mm earned a reputation as a weak round and it's taken a while to convince many otherwise.

That started changing in the 1980's when we adopted the Beretta and the military started using NATO spec ammo. Civilian ammo makers started upgrading their 9mm loads too.

A 124 gr 9mm bullet at 1250 fps basically equals 125 gr 357 mag performance from common 3" or 4" barrels.

[74A95]

Originally Posted by jmr40

Part of the problem is that 9mm ammo loaded in the USA has traditionally been quite anemic. The most common load was a 115 gr bullet at about 1100 fps for USA made ammo. The rest of the world was shooting 124 gr bullets at 1200-1250 fps. In this country 9mm earned a reputation as a weak round and it's taken a while to convince many otherwise.

That started changing in the 1980's when we adopted the Beretta and the military started using NATO spec ammo. Civilian ammo makers started upgrading their 9mm loads too.

A 124 gr 9mm bullet at 1250 fps basically equals 125 gr 357 mag performance from common 3" or 4" barrels.

Where are you getting your numbers?

Your 9mm numbers are not that consistent with ammunition catalogs from the past.

1925 Winchester, 124 gr., 1039 fps, 4” barrel
1954 Winchester, 115 gr., 1150 fps, 4” barrel
1960 Winchester, 115 gr., 1140 fps, 4” barrel

1938 Remington, 124 gr., 1150 fps, 4” barrel
1951 Remington, 124 gr., 1150 fps, 4” barrel
1969 Remington, 124 gr., 1120 fps, 4” barrel
1976 Remington, 115 gr., 1155 fps, 4” barrel
1976 Remington, 124 gr., 1110 fps, 4” barrel

Current 2023 Remington, 115 gr., 1145 fps, 4” barrel
Current 2023 Remington, 124 gr., 1110-1125 fps, 4” barrel
Current 2023 Winchester, 115 gr., 1190 fps, 4” barrel
Current 2023 Winchester, 124 gr., 1140 fps, 4” barrel

A 357 Magnum 125 grain bullets runs at 1450 fps from a 4" barrel. It runs 1250 from a 2" barrel.

[Sharkbite]

It not all about single shot performance. If that was the case, we would all be carrying 500S&W guns.

Capacity (on tap in the gun AND reloads)
Platform overall size/weight
Recoil control

To only look at the “stopping power” of a single round is short sighted and doesn't look at the totality of the event.

Even if we accept the vids claim that 45 is 10% better then 9mm (a claim i dont see evidence to support), we need to base it on the fact ALL defensive handguns SUCK at stopping attackers physiologically.

So, a crap sandwich that tastes 10% better then a different crap sandwich is still not appealing to me.

[44 AMP]

Part of the problem is that 9mm ammo loaded in the USA has traditionally been quite anemic. The most common load was a 115 gr bullet at about 1100 fps for USA made ammo.

Up until after WWII, (and it varied with the round) US made ammo in metric calibers was generally loaded lighter than the same round loaded in Europe.

Sometimes only a little, sometimes more than a little.

Interesting tidbit, the original 9mm Luger load was a 124gr "truncated cone" bullet at a listed 1050fps (one thousand and fifty) fps from their standard 100mm (approx 4") barrel. This was the load adopted by the German Navy in 1906 and the German Army in 1908. Somewhere between that date and WWI, (1914) the 115gr load was introduced, with a listed MV of 1150fps from their 100mm barrel.

SO, a 115gr at 1100fps is pretty close to what the Germans used in both world wars, being only 50fps slower and that amount of speed difference can be simply the difference between the individual guns being measured.

Since then, the 9mm has been pushed "hotter" and interestingly enough, the .357 has been loaded lighter than it originally was.

A 124 gr 9mm bullet at 1250 fps basically equals 125 gr 357 mag performance from common 3" or 4" barrels.

The hottest load I've been able to find for the 9mm 124 is a Speer +P that hits 1200fps. Loads for the 125gr .357 run in the 1400fps range from a 4" revolver, and in the mid or high 1300s from a 3". Personally, if there's 100-200fps difference, I don't think they are "basically equal".

[74A95]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

. . . interestingly enough, the .357 has been loaded lighter than it originally was.

No evidence supports this. The evidence* shows it is actually a little hotter than the original loading. The original load was a 158 gr. lead bullet at 1510 fps from a 8 3/4" barrel. This was upgraded to a 158 gr. jacketed bullet at 1550 fps from a 8 3/8" barrel around 1963. The ammo has not changed since then, though now it is reported from a 4" barrel which produces 1235 fps.

* .357 Magnum ballistics over time. Shooting Times, May 2023, Vol. 64 (4), 36-40.

[JohnKSa]

...interestingly enough, the .357 has been loaded lighter than it originally was.

A commonly repeated myth.

Any time I've seen test results using actual vintage ammo shot and compared to modern ammo in the same guns, it shows that both are loaded pretty much the same.

As nearly as I can tell, the idea that modern ammo is watered down comes from a combination of things:

1. Confusion about the changeover from CUP to PSI pressure measurements.

2. The fact that SAAMI gradually convinced ammo manufacturers (starting in 1977) to change their velocity measurements for revolver ammunition from being measured in long unvented test barrels to vented test barrels with lengths that corresponded better to the barrel lengths people were actually buying and using.

3. The fact that chronographs became very common and that made it more difficult for ammunition manufacturers to get creative with their velocity specifications.

More information about #2.
This is an interesting catalog from 1977. On page 37, Remington discusses their changeover to using 4" vented test barrels for their revolver data and you can see that in some cases, they publish both data sets for comparison. In some cases, you can see that velocities apparently dropped by 200-300fps or more simply because they were measured more realistically.

Unfortunately the link no longer works. I pasted in a couple of screen captures from a copy of the catalog I downloaded years ago.

http://cartridgecollectors.org/conte...%20Catalog.pdf

[Pumpkin]

John,
I have a similar catalog in an old Gun Digest. Almost like they were giving you some velocities for a short TC or rare for the time semiauto.

Might I add to your list:
Velocities for specific rounds have been “muddied” Today because of some loads marketed as “lighter recoil” or Personal Defense or other reduced power loads.

The above are usually loaded quite a bit milder than the traditional loads and should not be used in a comparison of other cartridges. Some also have lighter than norm bullet weights.

[reddog81]

[QUOTE=74A95;6985656]. His 'conclusions' are just his made up assumptions.
Anything that supports his conclusions are due to differences between the rounds. Anything that he didnt like was explained away because of the different guns or different ammo or pulling a shot or some other excuse. LOL.

[JonnyP]

Hello all! Haven't posted in years because of life stuff, but I'm back, and this post caught my eye.

My thoughts:

An article from years ago based on police shootings indicated the best overall round for defense/single shot knock down power is the .357 Mag. Second to that, and practically the same, is the .40 S&W.

For years I carried the 9mm, mainly because of the number of rounds I could carry comfortably and the smaller size of the corresponding handgun (again, based on comfort to carry). But after the Ft Hood shooting when that perp took 4 rounds of a 9mm (once the security police were able to respond) and lived to stand trial, I decided the 9mm may not be the best bet. So, I switched to .40 S&W for my carry gun. Even police departments made the switch. Now I hear there have been improvements to the 9mm, and in fact, police departments are making the return to 9mm.

Bottom line: this debate will last forever, so use what you are comfortable and proficient in using.

[44 AMP]

A 124 gr 9mm bullet at 1250 fps basically equals 125 gr 357 mag performance from common 3" or 4" barrels.

The 1977 catalog page shows the 125gr doing 1450fps from the 4" vented barrel. That's more than a bit faster than a 9mm 124 at 1250fps (assuming you can actually get 1250 from a 4" barrel...

[Pumpkin]

My old Speer Number 10 manual shows a 125 gr sp over 8.8 grs Blue Dot reaching 1,233 fps out of a 4” S&W 39.

Same book has a 357 mag with 125 gr hp and 15.8 grs of Blue Dot reaching 1,536 fps from a 6” Security Six. Pretty good gain in my book.