45 vs 9mm interesting test

[603Country]

Ok, you guys have it your way. Personally, I’d pick up the 45 (not the 9mm) in the hope that there is a positive to the bigger caliber if my life was on the line.

As for the 45 not being ‘proven’ over the 9mm, has anyone proven the 9 is as good or better? We went to the 9 because of NATO. Is the 9 better than the 380? Everyone seems to think so. Why? Is it velocity? If so, why did the Germans drop the 30 Luger for the 9mm?

We could go on forever about this.

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by 603Country

Ok, you guys have it your way. Personally, I’d pick up the 45 (not the 9mm) in the hope that there is a positive to the bigger caliber if my life was on the line.

As for the 45 not being ‘proven’ over the 9mm, has anyone proven the 9 is as good or better? We went to the 9 because of NATO. Is the 9 better than the 380? Everyone seems to think so. Why? Is it velocity? If so, why did the Germans drop the 30 Luger for the 9mm?

We could go on forever about this.

Except nobody's claiming the 9mm is better. The claim is that they are equal, and or make no practical difference and yes multiple studies have proven this.

The "bigger hole" argument comes down to a .098" difference in hole size. Thats probably about the only argument that can be made, but the trade of is less ammo capacity.

[Sharkbite]

^^^ EXACTLY^^^
If there was no other difference than the hole in the barrel, you might have a good argument.
Unfortunately, there are other differences
Less capacity
More recoil (=slower follow up shots)
Bigger guns (harder to conceal)
More weight (gun and ammo)

We get to pick (mostly) what we carry. If you think the small, some would say insignificant, gain in individual round performance is worth the trade off in shoot-ability and capacity…. go for it.

I carry a gun for a living and have all my life, both in the U.S. and around the world. My choice, if given one, is 9mm

[JohnKSa]

As for the 45 not being ‘proven’ over the 9mm, has anyone proven the 9 is as good or better?

That's the wrong question. The question is: "Has anyone proven there's a difference in practical, real-world performance between any of the service pistol calibers?"

The answer is: "No."

In over a century of trying, no one can detect a practical difference in what happens in real world shootings that can be attributed to terminal performance differences due to caliber. If the difference is that hard to detect, how could it possibly be worth worrying about?

[Pumpkin]

And the 30 Lugar is back, well sort of. The 30 Super Carry.

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by Pumpkin

And the 30 Lugar is back, well sort of. The 30 Super Carry.

I still haven't seen any new caliber make any practical difference in this perceived "stopping power". Ive gone thru this same conversaion debate with the 40S&W, there are still people out there that feel thats superior to 9mm and some even feel superior to the 45acp as well. I cant think of any common self defense cartridge made for common usual semi auto pistols that makes any stopping power difference between 9mm up to 10mm for human self defense?

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by Sharkbite

^^^ EXACTLY^^^
If there was no other difference than the hole in the barrel, you might have a good argument.
Unfortunately, there are other differences
Less capacity
More recoil (=slower follow up shots)
Bigger guns (harder to conceal)
More weight (gun and ammo)

We get to pick (mostly) what we carry. If you think the small, some would say insignificant, gain in individual round performance is worth the trade off in shoot-ability and capacity…. go for it.

I carry a gun for a living and have all my life, both in the U.S. and around the world. My choice, if given one, is 9mm

let me address your arguments from my perspective.

I can see your points but my perspective is different. From what I have seen from numerous shooting videos and in training, your first shot is generally your best shot, and the first person to get a hit is probably going to win the gunfight.

coming from that perspective, the reduced capacity, recoil, and slower follow up shots become significantly less of an issue. Shoot look at an airweight 38spl or 357 snubbie only hold 5 rounds, have much worse double action triggers, and are pretty snappy with defensive loads. a g36 with 6+1, a XDS45 with 5+1, or a shield 2.0 with a 6+1 capacity all hold more round and are a lot easier and faster to reload than the revolvers and have much better triggers.

As far a "bigger, heavier, harder to conceal" that depends on what your comparing them to. while they are bigger than your micro compacts like the p365, shield+, hellcat, 43, they are also smaller and in some cases skinnier than a G19 which was a gold standard carry gun for a LONG time. Kind of an in-between size like the 43x, p365xl, and a few others.

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by Pumpkin

And the 30 Lugar is back, well sort of. The 30 Super Carry.

pretty sure 30 Super Carry was dead on arrival.

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by Shadow9mm

From what I have seen from numerous shooting videos and in training, your first shot is generally your best shot, and the first person to get a hit is probably going to win the gunfight.

coming from that perspective, the reduced capacity, recoil, and slower follow up shots become significantly less of an issue.

Disagree, it the first shot that ends a fight is due to marksmanship, where caliber doesn't matter. Under stress this is really difficult and there are plenty of evidence of people taking multiple hits with the 45acp and staying in the fight. Post 48 in this very thread cited a few examples. Its true that most bad guys are not expecting a fight so they often flee at the first shot but thats a different reason than the subject. If you calmer under stress and make a cns on the first shot its more likely to end the fight right there, but that is not a metric of caliber its a metric of marksmanship.

[Pumpkin]

What striker fired pistol has a lighter “single action” than a double action Airweights single action?

And, different day, different time but…… there was a time when the 9mm Lugar was not so popular.

The 30 SC does everything better than the 9mm that the 9mm does better than it’s bigger competition.

More capacity, less recoil.

Incidentally, I don’t have one but these caliber discussions usually end up in the same place.
No measurable difference between calibers in stopping power while lower recoil and greater capacity seem to mater more.

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by Koda94

Disagree, it the first shot that ends a fight is due to marksmanship, where caliber doesn't matter. Under stress this is really difficult and there are plenty of evidence of people taking multiple hits with the 45acp and staying in the fight. Post 48 in this very thread cited a few examples. Its true that most bad guys are not expecting a fight so they often flee at the first shot but thats a different reason than the subject. If you calmer under stress and make a cns on the first shot its more likely to end the fight right there, but that is not a metric of caliber its a metric of marksmanship.

You cannot discount caliber, that is the basis if this debate.

let me put it this way, center mass shot in the vitals to stop a threat, only a 10% chance of a CNS hit, but you only get 1 shot, do you pick 9mm or 45?

Because after that first shot, your threat is moving, you are moving, you are both looking for cover/concealment and one or both of you are trying to get away, and your chances of missing entirely, or not hitting vitals goes up drastically, and you have a better chance of winning the powerball than making a deliberate CNS shot.

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by Pumpkin

What striker fired pistol has a lighter “single action” than a double action Airweights single action?

And, different day, different time but…… there was a time when the 9mm Lugar was not so popular.

The 30 SC does everything better than the 9mm that the 9mm does better than it’s bigger competition.

More capacity, less recoil.

Incidentally, I don’t have one but these caliber discussions usually end up in the same place.
No measurable difference between calibers in stopping power while lower recoil and greater capacity seem to mater more.

I meant double action, i corrected it, my apologies. People wanted to talk recoil and follow up shots and cocking the hammer will slow things down too much, so I was thinking double action only.

You forgot the cons part of that list, less energy, less momentum, smaller wound cavity, costs more than 9mm, and way smaller selection of target and defensive loads.

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by Shadow9mm

You cannot discount caliber, that is the basis if this debate.

let me put it this way, center mass shot in the vitals to stop a threat, only a 10% chance of a CNS hit, but you only get 1 shot, do you pick 9mm or 45?

So you just said the caliber doesnt matter on the odds of making a cns shot. If you miss the cns but hit anywhere else in the vitals, how is the 45 better?

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by Koda94

So you just said the caliber doesnt matter on the odds of making a cns shot. If you miss the cns but hit anywhere else in the vitals, how is the 45 better?

Greater volume of tissue damage. Most modern hollow points are designed specifically for their caliber to meet FBI standards of min and max penetration. as such they generally dump all their energy into the target and do not exit. So the bullet with the most energy can damage the most tissue. And the 45 has about 10% more energy than the 9mm if comparing say federal HST and 230g vs 124g.

more damage to hear and or lungs means faster blood loss resulting in faster incapacitation. It also means disruption of the lungs ability to absorb oxygen to put into the blood by both damage to the issue as well as blocking of air due to blood filling the lungs.

counting on a CNS shot is like counting on your team to make a half court shot at the buzzer, or a batter to hit a home run in the final inning to not lose, sure it can be done, but i wouldn't bet my life on it.

now talking FMJ or rifle rounds that are probably going to pass through and expend a fair portion of their energy in the dirt on the other side of the target, thats an entirely different discussion.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Shadow9mm

more damage to hear and or lungs means faster blood loss resulting in faster incapacitation. It also means disruption of the lungs ability to absorb oxygen to put into the blood by both damage to the issue as well as blocking of air due to blood filling the lungs.

counting on a CNS shot is like counting on your team to make a half court shot at the buzzer, or a batter to hit a home run in the final inning to not lose, sure it can be done, but i wouldn't bet my life on it.

I would argue counting on blood loss to stop a fight can be as big as or a bigger roll of the dice than a CNS shot.

We had a thread not too long ago about it, but I would read up on the 1986 FBI shootout. Platt, one of the suspects, was essentially a walking dead man from his first wound relatively early in the fight. His chest cavity was pierced, his lung collapsed during the fight, and on autopsy he had 1.3 liters of blood in his chest cavity. He went on to kill 2 agents and wound 4 others. He was shot a total of 12 times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

I also linked the following story above, but it illustrates a similar point. For background, the officer in question was a master firearms instructor and sniper on his department’s tactical intervention unit. The officer was attacked after trying to stop a bank robber on the highway. Officer Gramins hit his attacker a total of 14 times, including the heart, right lung, left lung, liver, diaphragm, and right kidney. All of this was with a Glock 21 (45 ACP) and any number of those wounds were fatal with time. But the suspect continued to shoot at Gramins. The fight didn’t stop until the officer fired a trio of rounds into the suspect’s head, with one hitting the suspect’s brain. The shootout lasted 56 seconds. The assailant fired 21 rounds from 2 handguns. Gramins fired 33 rounds. He had 4 rounds remaining at the end of the fight.

https://www.police1.com/officer-shoo...BbLYpnqqHxwMq/

There is a reason the timers vs. switches distinction is taught in the defensive use of firearms. There are a number of timers on the human body, some longer than others. In that time the assailant is still capable of inflicting harm upon you and others. Now there are attackers who will comply from pain and I’m not saying blood loss cannot incapacitate an individual, as it can and will. There could be a problem, however, in the time needed for that incapacitation by blood loss.

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by Shadow9mm

Greater volume of tissue damage. Most modern hollow points are designed specifically for their caliber to meet FBI standards of min and max penetration. as such they generally dump all their energy into the target and do not exit. So the bullet with the most energy can damage the most tissue. And the 45 has about 10% more energy than the 9mm if comparing say federal HST and 230g vs 124g.

more damage to hear and or lungs means faster blood loss resulting in faster incapacitation. It also means disruption of the lungs ability to absorb oxygen to put into the blood by both damage to the issue as well as blocking of air due to blood filling the lungs.

counting on a CNS shot is like counting on your team to make a half court shot at the buzzer, or a batter to hit a home run in the final inning to not lose, sure it can be done, but i wouldn't bet my life on it.

now talking FMJ or rifle rounds that are probably going to pass through and expend a fair portion of their energy in the dirt on the other side of the target, thats an entirely different discussion.

"greater volume of tissue damage"
the only difference between a 9mm and 45acp is .098", over the area of a human torso thats not even a measurable difference. None of the 100s of studies and ballistic tests confirm the 45 causes more damage. There might be one round that does better than a particular 9mm, but the opposite is also true.
As TunnelRat provided evidence above, there is no guarantee a single one round is going to stop the fight. What the evidence does show is that ammo capacity trumps .098" and there is a significant amount of capacity difference.

So lets mix up the hypothetical here. If you had a choice between only 1 round of 45acp to stop a bad guy, or two rounds of 9mm to stop the same bad guy. Which option would you pick?

And I will add, the tissue damage of 2 9mms is way more than .098" hole size difference.

[Koda94]

Just thought I would share this video. 9mm vs 45 on ballistic dummy using several brands of each caliber is pretty conclusive.

I queued it up to the hollowpoint testing virtually identical performance (same for the rest of the bullet types), but its worth watching the full test. Some usual garand thumb humor makes it entertaining.

TLDW: they compared FMJ, HPs, +P HPs, and some specialty Buffalo Bore ammo of each and they all did the same damage.

https://youtu.be/mZ4OmUfI4z4?si=ofaweX3LtG0dzWeL&t=466

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by Koda94

Just thought I would share this video. 9mm vs 45 on ballistic dummy using several brands of each caliber is pretty conclusive.

I queued it up to the hollowpoint testing virtually identical performance (same for the rest of the bullet types), but its worth watching the full test. Some usual garand thumb humor makes it entertaining.

TLDW: they compared FMJ, HPs, +P HPs, and some specialty Buffalo Bore ammo of each and they all did the same damage.

https://youtu.be/mZ4OmUfI4z4?si=ofaweX3LtG0dzWeL&t=466

185g golden sabre vs 124g gold dot? not exactly what I would call apples to apples comparison.

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by Shadow9mm

185g golden sabre vs 124g gold dot? not exactly what I would call apples to apples comparison.

yet they performed the same.

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by Koda94

yet they performed the same.

Meh, 45 did a bit more damage from what I saw . To quote the video "larger hole", "not as much expansion" "not as good of a round" It also pushed the spine out in addition to breaking it.

when they transitioned to the norma MHP they noted large entry wounds with the 45.

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by Shadow9mm

Meh, 45 did a bit more damage from what I saw .

Its no slouch. I like the cartridge its easy on the recoil to me in a 1911. When I bought one years ago I thought they had more stopping power. I don't believe that anymore though still think its a more versatile cartridge for hardcast bullet selection when hiking in bear country. I wont trade it or stop using it but thats because I'm already invested in it. My 9mm is much cheaper to shoot and holds more rounds so it gets used more now.

The caliber debate is a timeless classic and lives on. But the evidence is out there...

Cheers.

[Pumpkin]

Amazing that two of the oldest pistol cartridges are still so popular in the world of handguns.

Says something about their original design and also about the superiority of the 1911 and the genius of John Browning.

Kinda like Muhammad Ali and Marvin Hagler never aging and just getting better as time goes on.

[Webleymkv]

It seems to me that we'll never have a definitive answer to the "caliber wars" until we have a definitive answer to exactly how and why bullets incapacitate people, and we don't have that. We can find instances of both calibers working remarkably well and also failing spectacularly in the real world and we can also point to instances of specific loadings which perform well in laboratory tests failing abysmally in the real world and loadings which perform marginally in laboratory tests working quite well in real life. I personally think that a combination of laboratory testing and anecdotal real-world performance is the most logical and ethical way of determining what works and what doesn't, but the tribalism of the "jell-o junkies" vs. the "Marshall/Sanow acolytes" largely prevents this. I would, however, point out a couple of historical examples that I think are misunderstood or taken out of context.

It seems inevitable that anytime such a discussion comes up, someone will mention the "failure" of .38 Caliber revolvers during the Philippine Insurrection. While it is true that the .38's did give less that satisfactory performance, there are a few things that must be borne in mind when considering this. First and foremost, the revolvers used were Colt Model 1892 New Army and New Navy models in .38 Long Colt. That cartridge is significantly less powerful than either .38 Special or 9mm so judging the more modern cartridges against .38 LC's failures over a century ago isn't really fair. Also, while much is made of the dissatisfaction with the .38 LC's performance against Moro Tribesmen who were often under the influence of opium, it is often forgotten that revolvers in .45 Long Colt and even .30-40 Krag rifles were subject to similar reports of ineffectiveness. Point of fact, the only weapons which seemed to be particularly effective against the Moros were 12 gauge shotguns loaded with buckshot. Finally, I really don't think it's fair to judge the effectiveness of modern JHP loadings by the failures of LRN and FMJ bullets over a century ago.

The other oft-quoted bit of historical information is the Thompson-LaGarde tests of 1904. Quite simply, the Thompson-LaGarde tests were a farce insofar as the scientific method is concerned and would be laughed out of the room if conducted today. They also produced contradicting results and, honestly, I really don't understand how Thompson and LaGarde came to the conclusions they did (or any conclusion at all for that matter) based on the data they collected.

Also, with a more modern example, I often the the Ellifritz study quoted. While I applaud Ellifritz for his efforts, the methods by which he compiled his data and the limitations he faced in collecting it make it, IMHO, impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions from it as there are simply too many variables which are unaccounted for. First and foremost, he makes no distinction in what type of ammunition was used (he references this by stating that a large number of the 9mm shootings were with FMJ). Even Ellifritz himself seems to think that JHP ammunition is, by and large, more effective than FMJ or other non-expanding bullets, so lumping them together would seem to artificially depress the stopping power percentages of the various calibers he lists. Secondly, he makes no distinction as to the type of firearm or barrel length that was used. I think it's pretty obvious to most people that the performance of certain calibers can be affected greatly by the barrel length it's shot from. For example, there are a lot of .38 Special hollowpoint loadings that perform quite well from a 4" or longer barrel but abysmally from a snub. The most egregious example of this is his .22 data as it makes no distinction between a .22 handgun and a .22 Rifle, but it only makes sense that a .22 bullet shot from a 16" or longer rifle barrel will perform very differently than one shot from a NAA mini revolver. Finally, in a few instances he lumps multiple calibers into a single set of data which ignores the fact that the bullet types, weights, and velocities can vary drastically between calibers even if they do have roughly the same bullet diameter. For example, .357 Magnum and .357 Sig are lumped together even though JSP bullets and bullets weighing 158-180 gr are not commonly available in .357 Sig, .32 Auto and .32 S&W Long are lumped together even though LRN and HBWC bullets are commonly available in .32 S&W Long but virtually non-existant in .32 Auto, and most egregiously .22 Short, .22 Long, and .22 Long Rifle are lumped together thus grouping the performance of .22 Short gallery loads in with .22 Long Rifle high-velocity loadings. Given all of this, I really don't see how any meaningful conclusions can be drawn from Ellifritz's study.

As to the 9mm vs .45 debate, my own personal opinion is this: if comparable bullets are used, then by every measurable metric the .45 should be more effective but its impossible to ascertain how much more effective it is. With comparable bullets, a .45 can expand to a larger diameter, penetrate deeper, or both. Also, the .45 has the potential, depending on your choice of ammunition, to deliver higher muzzle energy than 9mm. The highest energy loadings that I'm aware of for both calibers are Underwood's 9mm +P+ 115 gr JHP at 1400 fps for 500 ft.lbs. and Underwood's .45 ACP +P 185 gr XTP at 1200 fps for 592 ft. lbs. If you prefer not to use "boutique" ammunition and stay with more "mainstream" offerings, Winchester Ranger 9mm +P+ 127 gr T-Series at 1250 fps gives us 441 ft.lbs. while Remington's .45 ACP +P 185 gr Golden Saber at 1140 fps gives us 534 ft. lbs.

I would also say that 9mm is a perfectly adequate defensive cartridge if at least one of the following criteria are met: a 4" or longer barrel, a modern, premium bullet, a high-velocity +P or +P+ loading. I wouldn't be too nervous about carrying "dated" bullet designs in a 9mm if I had a full-sized gun nor would I feel bad about carrying a "micro 9" if I could get premium ammo and/or +P or +P+ ammo. If, however, I had a short-barreled gun and all I could get was "dated" bullets, I'd feel a lot better with a .45.

[Skans]

Originally Posted by 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?

The question really is "do you carry anticipating multiple threats, or just one?" No one will argue that 45acp is generally a more effective round for stopping one attacker. But, if confronted with 2, 3 or 4 threats, and you want a chance of getting away alive, then more rounds are better.

There is no perfect round. Only acceptable ones, and choices to be made by the individual who is carrying the gun.

[JohnKSa]

No one will argue that 45acp is generally a more effective round for stopping one attacker.

Let's see the evidence from real-world shootings that shows that. From what I can see, the difference due to caliber in real world shootings doesn't show up.

I mean, Ellifritz looked at a large number of shootings, and his data shows that the .380ACP and the .45ACP are almost identical in performance with the .380ACP tying in one category, besting the .45ACP in three categories and being bested by the .45ACP in two categories.

.380 ACP
# of people shot – 85
# of hits – 150
% of hits that were fatal – 29%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation – 1.76
% of people who were not incapacitated – 16%
One-shot-stop % – 44%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) – 76%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) – 62%

.45 ACP
# of people shot – 209
# of hits – 436
% of hits that were fatal – 29%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation – 2.08
% of people who were not incapacitated – 14%
One-shot-stop % – 39%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) – 85%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) – 51%

This is actual data from real-world shootings. How can someone look at that and come away with the idea that the .45ACP definitely provides an advantage on the street compared to other service pistol calibers? I mean, this is a case where no one even argues that .380ACP is just as good as the .45ACP and yet even in such a lopsided comparison it's obvious that other factors are so much more important that the relatively small differences due to terminal performance just don't even show up. They're down in the noise and the other factors dominate.

I'm not claiming that the .380ACP is better than the .45ACP, I'm just using this as an example to show that the terminal performance differences are so small that they seem to vanish in the real world when you start looking at the outcomes of actual shootings.

Going back decades, Urey Patrick, handgun wounding specialist for the FBI alluded to this.

"Because of the extreme number of variables within the human target, and within shooting situations in general, even a hundred shootings is statistically insignificant. If anything can happen, then anything will happen, and it is just as likely to occur in your ten shootings as in ten shootings spread over a thousand incidents. Large sample populations are absolutely necessary. "

"The round which destroys 0.07% of the target will incapacitate more often than the one which destroys 0.04%. However, only very large numbers of shooting incidents will prove it. The difference may be only 10 out of a thousand, but that difference is an edge, and that edge should be on the officer’s side because one of those ten may be the subject trying to kill him. "

He understands the problem and the answer is staring him in the face, but he was so entrenched in the idea that terminal performance MUST make a difference that he couldn't get to the right conclusion.

Think about what he's really saying. Why are large sample populations absolutely necessary? Why is even a hundred shootings statistically insignificant? Why might the difference only be 10 out of a thousand?

Is it because the terminal performance differences are large? Of course not! That would be an absolutely nonsensical. A difference that only shows up when you look at thousands of shootings has to be very small indeed. He just couldn't bring himself to believe how very small it actually was.

35 years later, with thousands more shootings to look at, we're still looking for that small difference unsuccessfully. But people are still making the same mistake Urey Patrick made. They're still unable to believe that what the real world shooting data is telling them is true--that we still haven't collected enough shooting data to prove anything other than that the other factors are so much more important in the outcome that the terminal performance differences are essentially moot.