|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 21, 2013, 04:12 PM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 5, 2013
Location: st louis
Posts: 235
|
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.
|
November 21, 2013, 05:11 PM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 26, 2005
Location: Osborn, Missouri
Posts: 2,697
|
Quote:
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 |
|
November 21, 2013, 11:46 PM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 10, 2012
Posts: 1,059
|
9mm vs. .45 with a twist
Are you under the impression that people in 'highly trained units' always prefer or even opt to use only gear selected for them?
|
November 22, 2013, 01:45 AM | #54 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
|
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. |
November 23, 2013, 01:10 AM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2012
Posts: 297
|
Original questions
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. |
November 23, 2013, 01:24 AM | #56 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
|
Yes. SEALs use 9mm and 3 shots. If .45 worked better, they'd use that. I'm convinced.
|
November 23, 2013, 02:58 AM | #57 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume." |
|
November 23, 2013, 03:46 PM | #58 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 3, 2013
Location: Western New York
Posts: 454
|
Quote:
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. |
|
November 24, 2013, 10:27 AM | #59 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 12, 2012
Location: Land of Enchantment
Posts: 436
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by Axelwik; November 24, 2013 at 10:40 AM. |
|
November 24, 2013, 11:21 AM | #60 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume." |
|
November 24, 2013, 12:25 PM | #61 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 12, 2012
Location: Land of Enchantment
Posts: 436
|
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. |
November 24, 2013, 12:41 PM | #62 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
|
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: Quote:
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?
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume." |
|
November 24, 2013, 12:43 PM | #63 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
|
|
November 24, 2013, 01:02 PM | #64 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 12, 2012
Location: Land of Enchantment
Posts: 436
|
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. |
November 24, 2013, 01:10 PM | #65 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
|
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.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume." |
November 24, 2013, 01:17 PM | #66 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 12, 2012
Location: Land of Enchantment
Posts: 436
|
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. |
November 24, 2013, 01:54 PM | #67 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
|
Quote:
|
|
November 24, 2013, 02:03 PM | #68 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 519
|
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.
__________________
A hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .44 |
November 24, 2013, 02:37 PM | #69 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 12, 2012
Location: Land of Enchantment
Posts: 436
|
Quote:
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 Last edited by Axelwik; November 24, 2013 at 02:44 PM. |
|
November 24, 2013, 02:50 PM | #70 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 12, 2012
Location: Land of Enchantment
Posts: 436
|
Quote:
http://thinkinggunfighter.blogspot.c...-findings.html Last edited by Axelwik; November 24, 2013 at 03:01 PM. |
|
November 24, 2013, 03:24 PM | #71 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 519
|
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.
__________________
A hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .44 |
November 24, 2013, 03:30 PM | #72 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
November 24, 2013, 03:50 PM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Posts: 1,321
|
Its really not 9 vs 45 anymore
40 S&W offered a capacity/ caliber compromise over 20 years ago.
40 + 40 > 45
__________________
Strive to carry the handgun you would want anywhere, everywhere; forget that good area bullcrap. "Wouldn't want to / Nobody volunteer to" get shot by _____ is not indicative of quickly incapacitating. |
November 24, 2013, 04:52 PM | #74 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 10, 2012
Posts: 1,059
|
9mm vs. .45 with a twist
Quote:
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. |
|
November 24, 2013, 05:27 PM | #75 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 7, 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 447
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by zombietactics; November 24, 2013 at 08:11 PM. |
|
|
|