9mm vs. .45 with a twist

[oldcabin]

Jim, you are right.about the 45 in a 1911. I was lucky enough to get a kimber 1911 45 at the rental counter a year ago and got to run 100 rounds down range. It was very well balanced and had very little recoil in my opinion. Great firearm. I am not willing to carry a frame that size. So 45 in a xds is different feel and I wasn't as good with its recoil.

[Hunter Customs]

Read what I posted - the Phillipines may have prompted a caliber switch, but .45 didn't do any better.

RX-79G, I did read what you posted.

However what I read on the Philippine-American war the 45 did do better, much better then the 38's.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com

[RBid]

Originally Posted by RX-79G

RBid,

In my experience, highly trained units do tend to have "views". When it is an elite unit the choice of gear has been proven effective many times, and the members have good reason to adopt the party line.

Are you under the impression that people in 'highly trained units' always prefer or even opt to use only gear selected for them?

[RX-79G]

For the most part, yes. All the grumbling and fantasy weapon planning doesn't go on at that level. SEALs don't have to use 9mms. They do because it works with the doctrine that they actually practice, and they see a lot of combat under that doctrine to see it works.

If it did not they would fairly democratically find something else, like they did with the M9.

Not group think, just acknowledging that the tools and techniques used at work are sound, not theory.

[bricz75]

Any opinions to the original questions posted? They're listed below for reference.



Does two shots by the 9mm fmj equal one shot by .45 fmj? Or is two shots by 9mm better? Or is two 9mm shots less good than one .45 shot?

Assume all other things being equal like shot placement.

[RX-79G]

Yes. SEALs use 9mm and 3 shots. If .45 worked better, they'd use that. I'm convinced.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by bricz75

Does two shots by the 9mm fmj equal one shot by .45 fmj? Or is two shots by 9mm better? Or is two 9mm shots less good than one .45 shot?

The answer is that one shot from a 9mm is almost the same as one shot from a .45. And any differences pale in comparison to any of the many other variables involved in a shooting.

I wish people would worry less about which of these two rounds is better and worry more about shooting their chosen caliber better. It's amazing how often I see gun owners who don't even know how to properly hold a handgun, let alone shoot it effectively.

[GJSchulze]

I wish people would worry less about which of these two rounds is better and worry more about shooting their chosen caliber better

The head of neurosurgery at a local hospital in a metropolitan area of 3/4 million people gives a talk every year at our club. He occasionally shoots with us on Tuesday nights when we shoot defensive courses of fire. he has worked as a trauma surgeon in the middle east, IIRC, and in ERs. He said that shot placement is far more important than caliber. You should shoot what you shoot best and what you train with because that's what you will do under stress. I'd rather shoot a .22 with training than a .45 with none. You have to hit the BG first and you can't freeze or fumble around.

I think the OP is thinking with a set of bad assumptions. No matter how you couch the question about caliber, if you ask that you are assuming that it matters. It matters far less than training and shooting well. No one goes down with one shot unless it hits the central nervous system. It can take a person up to 30 minutes to bleed out depending on their size. A shot to the heart still gives them 30 seconds to shoot back.

[Axelwik]

Common sense tells us a .451" hole will let more blood out than a .355" hole. Two .355" holes equal .710" and should let out even more.

I'm way oversimplifying I know. But if I was limited to FMJ for whatever reason, I'd trust the 45 more. I'm not limited to FMJs though and I carry 9mm+P hollowpoints.

Actually if you do the math, the AREA of a 9mm hole is only 62% that of a 45 caliber hole. So two 9mm holes would only be 124% that of one 45 caliber hole. Not much difference.

A 9mm would be only slightly better (by only 24%) only if you could get two hits into a vital area. A 45 would only require one hit for almost the same area.

It would take 13 rounds of 9mm to equal 8 rounds of 45 (a standard 1911 magazine holds 7+1 in the chamber).

I'd rather carry a 45 even if it holds fewer cartridges.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by Axelwik

Actually if you do the math, the AREA of a 9mm hole is only 62% that of a 45 caliber hole. So two 9mm holes would only be 124% that of one 45 caliber hole. Not much difference.

A 9mm would be only slightly better (by only 24%) only if you could get two hits into a vital area. A 45 would only require one hit for almost the same area.

It would take 13 rounds of 9mm to equal 8 rounds of 45 (a standard 1911 magazine holds 7+1 in the chamber).

I'm sorry, but this is complete nonsense; the area of a bullet's cross section is NOT directly proportional to its effectiveness. And no, ridiculous formulas like "power factor" don't mean much in real life.

Misinformation like this is what gives online gun forums a bad name. New shooters come on forums, see nonsense like this and believe it - at least for a little while. Then when they're finally corrected they end up losing trust in ALL gun information they see online. Which is a shame, because there is normally lots of good information here.

[Axelwik]

Theo, you've completely missed the point of my post.

I was responding to Bunnyboy's post on hole size. Where in my post did you read anything about "power factor?" You're imagining things.

[Theohazard]

The "power factor" wasn't a reference to your post, it was part of someone else's post who also attempted to quantify the effectiveness of a round based on a few numbers.

This is what I was specifically responding to:

Originally Posted by Axelwik

It would take 13 rounds of 9mm to equal 8 rounds of 45 (a standard 1911 magazine holds 7+1 in the chamber).

This quote looks like you're attempting to answer the OP's question. It seems you were saying that because of the differences in cross-sectional area, 13 shots from a 9mm is as effective as 8 shots of a .45, which is ridiculous and is a gross over-simplification.

But when you wrote that quote were you simply using the term "equal" to refer to the area of the bullet's cross section and not its effectiveness?

[manta49]

However what I read on the Philippine-American war the 45 did do better, much better than the 38's.

I read this all the time when discussing .45. Has anyone a link to some reliable information on how more effective the .45 was in the Philippines or is this just another myth with little to back it up. ?

[Axelwik]

Theo, yes I was talking about area. If you did the arithmatic the ratio between 8 and 13 is about 62%. This is the same ratio between 9mm and 45 hole size.

And hole size is one factor when discussing cartridge effectiveness.

[Theohazard]

OK, I apologize, I thought you were using those numbers to say they had a direct correlation with the bullet's effectiveness.

And yes, hole size does matter, but there are many other factors that matter way more. Like GJSchulze said in post #58; shot placement matters WAY more than what round you use.

I say this all the time, but I'll say it again: The differences between 9mm, .40, and .45 are so small that it's really not a measurable factor when it comes to effectiveness in real-world shootings.

[Axelwik]

Another thing that people don't think about is the fact that expanding bullets, if they function properly, do not expand until they enter the body, and again if they function properly, do not exit.

This leaves only one small entrance wound.

Of course there may be much disruption from dissipation of energy and hemorrhaging within the body from an expanding bullet, but there won't be as much blood loss outside the body.

[RX-79G]

Another thing that people don't think about is the fact that expanding bullets, if they function properly, do not expand until they enter the body, and again if they function properly, do not exit.

This leaves only one small entrance wound.

Of course there may be much disruption from dissipation of energy and hemorrhaging within the body from an expanding bullet, but there won't be as much blood loss outside the body.

Do you think bleeding internally is somehow superior to bleeding out of the skin? It isn't like making a hole in skin or even muscle causes nearly the blood loss of internal organs, which JHPs mess up more then any FMJ can.

[militant]

Both rounds will do their job if you do yours. Even with fmj. That being said, I'd rather have more rounds. More rounds, more time in the fight. In a perfect world, you only get attacked by 1 person. In the real world, multiple attackers is more realistic.

[Axelwik]

Do you think bleeding internally is somehow superior to bleeding out of the skin? It isn't like making a hole in skin or even muscle causes nearly the blood loss of internal organs, which JHPs mess up more then any FMJ can.

I guess I have to spell everything out... Maybe I'm used to discussions with my peers and spouse without the need for superfluous explanations.

Did I ever say that one was worse than the other? I didn't.

I carry expanding ammunition in my 45. All else being equal if it fails to expand it's still more effective than 9mm

[Axelwik]

Both rounds will do their job if you do yours. Even with fmj. That being said, I'd rather have more rounds. More rounds, more time in the fight. In a perfect world, you only get attacked by 1 person. In the real world, multiple attackers is more realistic.

Multiple attackers is more likely... In the movies.

http://thinkinggunfighter.blogspot.c...-findings.html

[militant]

Are you willing to risk your life on that assumption? I'd rather have extra ammo and not need it than need it and not have it.

[RX-79G]

I guess I have to spell everything out... Maybe I'm used to discussions with my peers and spouse without the need for superfluous explanations.

Did I ever say that one was worse than the other? I didn't.

I guess you do have to spell it out. Either you think that two holes is important, or you were making a non sequitur because it isn't something anyone should consider, good or bad. Why did you bring it up? To make us think about something unrelated to gunshot lethality?

Multiple attackers is more likely... In the movies.

Getting attacked is unlikely, period. But getting attacked by a small group is reported on local news nightly around here. Petty criminals often need to be egged on by or perform for their peers. And there are also these things called "gangs" which exist in cities.

[CDW4ME]

40 S&W offered a capacity/ caliber compromise over 20 years ago.

40 + 40 > 45

[RBid]

Originally Posted by Axelwik

Multiple attackers is more likely... In the movies.

http://thinkinggunfighter.blogspot.c...-findings.html

I had a draw/no shoot experience dealing with a pair who split up, and while the first tried to engage me with Qs, I saw the man who had tried to move behind me clear a cover garment, exposing a firearm.

I know a person who, along with a coworker, was assaulted by a group of five people. He survived by putting a lucky shot into one of them while being kicked repeatedly on the ground. He had been pocket carrying, and couldn't get his weapon out before being engaged physically. Thankfully, they ran when he hit the first one.

Rare? No question. There is a big difference between rare and no chance, though.

Having said all of this, I will not begrudge anyone for making an educated carry decision. After all, ALL of us draw a line somewhere. We can't drive tanks to work, carry Scar H rifles, or wear body armor to the gym. I'm sure most of us wouldn't want to, even if we could. All we can do is get informed, and decide how much we are willing to prepare. Some won't carry. Others will carry a BUG and multiple spare mags. 'Better' decisions are defined here by the happiness of the decision maker with what he or she chose, when all is said and done.

[zombietactics]

Again I go back to the Philippine-American ( Philippine Insurrection) war where the 45's were getting the job done and the 38's were not

Uhhhh ... no.

It's important to note a few historical facts before everyone gets twisted up around half-truths and war stories.

The "38" in question was NOT a .38spl, as used in most modern revolvers. It was the ".38 Long Colt". The specific round in question was likely a 150-grain, 9.2mm projectile, traveling at a muzzle-velocity of ~750fps, producing no more than about 200 ft/lbs of force.

They did not (in the Philippine Insurrection) switch to a pistol firing the modern .45ACP round. They switched back to ".45 Long Colt" fired from a six-shot, single-action revolver.

The switch back to .45 Long Colt did not produce better results. It was not a problem of ballistics, but rather one of poor shot placement and very determined adversaries, using a primitive form of body armor.

Nonetheless, military officials (not knowing what we know today about terminal ballistics) were convinced that a "bigger bullet" was the solution to the problem. This was also reinforced by the fact that the best-known 9mm pistols of the time were notoriously unreliable, and the 9mm rounds commonly available at the time were pathetic, compared to what is available today.

This is what led to the development of the modern .45ACP round as well as the 1911 pistol design.

It's interesting to note that the .45ACP round is smaller in diameter than .45LC, travels at a slower velocity, and produces less energy. If the .45LC did not "solve the problem", the .45ACP would not have done so either.