.40 S&W or .45 ACP?

.40 S&W or .45 ACP?

  • .40 S&W

    Votes: 39 34.5%

  • .45 ACP

    Votes: 74 65.5%
  • Total voters
    113
Status
Not open for further replies.
That is 27 rounds a day, you sure about that? Yes, you should reload.
Click to expand...

Yes I am sure about that. And maybe I should, but like I said, I have more money than time (at least right now). Hence the whole other part of my statement...
 
I haven't mentioned this in a long time so I'll do it here.
Shooting small animals, let's take 'chucks [Marmota monax ,to be precise].These tests were done before most of the fancy bullets were available.
9mm - HK P7 - 115 standard velocity jhp

When a chuck was hit but did not stop or drop immediately he RAN back to his hole.No chance of a second shot.

.40 Cal - HKP7 M10 - mostly 155 jhp

With the same hit the chuck would WALK back to his hole !

This was a consistant result .Running shots at chucks I don't take .Walking permits a second shot.
My conclusion - the .40 is a better round :p
 
So, you can't handle the .40 Shield with defensive ammo. (Lawman is designed to feel like defensive ammo.)

Why would you recommend a a round or pistol that you can't handle?
Click to expand...

I never said I couldnt handle it, I said I couldnt put together a consistent group with one box of that ammo. That was the first time out with a new pistol and quite some time since the last trip to the range period. The job got done, it just wasnt pretty and I did better with ammo I usually practice with.

With practice, just as anybody else, I will do just fine and I would have practiced more but didnt bring any more of that ammo. I was actually quite pleased with both mine and the pistols performance that day.

I have never had a problem with .40 and was making an observation on the difference in two different target loads is all. The last time I used any of that Lawman was in a larger, all metal pistol and thats probably why I never noticed such a difference.

That being said, I didnt know Speer Lawman was loaded to perform as a defensive round, I didnt actually know WWB was not. I have had it for years and am sure I bought it because it was on sale.

Now I am not going to lie, I have not shot thousands of rounds (a couple few hundred is more like it) of defensive ammo as it is expensive to practice with and few ranges in these parts will let you use it indoors. And I have never fired a Gold Dot. But the defense ammo I have fired I definitely do not remember shooting as hard as that Lawman, or any other 165gr practice ammo for that matter.

The ballistics for the WWB do appear to be a bit lighter, but I have no idea how to determine if the small difference in the numbers should create such a dramatic difference in the way both rounds performed.

I for sure need to go back to the range soon, regardless of the ammo you choose, its how you use it that will make the difference. That was the first time at that particular range and they will let you use defense ammo. I am going back there in the next couple weeks to test some in the shield. Winchester Rangers and Golden Sabers.
 
Last edited:
Ruger480 said:
Wait. What? 600 ft lbs of ME? From a .40? Maybe out of a carbine, using Buffalo Bore or Underwood ammo.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! These are published loads from Hodgdon:

135 gr NOS JHP Longshot 11.5gr 1434fps 616ft-lbs
CFE Pistol 8.9gr 1392fps 580ft-lbs

150 gr NOS JHP Longshot 9.3gr 1320fps 580ft-lbs

And Vihtavuori, but with a 5.5" barrel:

VIHT 3n38 165gr FMJ 9.8gr 1252fps 574ft-lbs

Like I said, what's not to love? :)
 
TunnelRat, you proved my point. I didn't say a 45 was fundamentally better, just that it has better stopping power. When it comes down to the "better" round it all comes down to what the user wants, needs, and can afford.
 
If you're curious about my personal shooting habits, feel free to pm me.
Click to expand...

I normally do a 100 rounds per range visit, sometimes I will push another 100 rounds with a break in between. Much better results for me.
 
If it takes the bad guy down. I'm sure tests have been done out there related to both and I'm sure it is similar to a 5.56 vs 7.62 debate. And I'm sure that it is mostly subjected and yes I wouldn't want to get shot with either. It would also greatly depend on how good of a shot you are haha. Admittedly I would probably need a higher round capacity since I don't get to go to the range as much as I would like to. To me what it would come down to is if it takes the bad guy down quickly. I've talked with a lot of guys there were overseas that didn't like the 9mm because it just didn't have the stopping power they wanted. But I suppose they extra capacity generally would balance the two out. I wasn't trying to be a dick, I hope you didn't take it that way.
 
Here's a question, with all the people being killed by hollow point bullets in law enforcement, where in reputable medical literature have there been instances of "brain damage" caused by "hydrostatic shock"?
Click to expand...
Here's a question back, how does a forensic ME who studies cadavers tell anything about the remote effects to a living brain?

Again there is no defined line,
 
Here's a question back, how does a forensic ME who studies cadavers tell anything about the remote effects to a living brain?

Again there is no defined line,
Click to expand...

That's the best response you can come up with?

There is no compilation of hydrostatic non-sense in the thousands of dead and living bodies in police shootings over the past 40 years. There is nothing that I've ever read regarding proof of immediate incapacitation due to hydrostatic shock. I've read lots about people stopping after getting shot because of psychological consideration, like the fear of dying, but nothing else.

There's never even any questioning of the living victims as to how they felt after getting shot, and no compilation of such information.

Ahh. So what is your definition of "stopping power"?
Click to expand...

Tunnel, forget it. These guys think the world is a video game, where X caliber needs 3 shots to kill and Y caliber needs 5 shots to kill. They have not educated themselves properly on the subject and frankly, it just doesn't matter. There are guys out there that have not read and comprehended the solid information there is about wound ballistics because of long held superstitions and dogma. You can't teach such people and it's not even in our best interests to do so anyway.

But I'll be damned if someone tries to feed me a line of BS.
 
.40 S&W or .45 ACP?

RiponP90 said:
If it takes the bad guy down. I'm sure tests have been done out there related to both and I'm sure it is similar to a 5.56 vs 7.62 debate. And I'm sure that it is mostly subjected and yes I wouldn't want to get shot with either. It would also greatly depend on how good of a shot you are haha. Admittedly I would probably need a higher round capacity since I don't get to go to the range as much as I would like to. To me what it would come down to is if it takes the bad guy down quickly. I've talked with a lot of guys there were overseas that didn't like the 9mm because it just didn't have the stopping power they wanted. But I suppose they extra capacity generally would balance the two out. I wasn't trying to be a dick, I hope you didn't take it that way.
Click to expand...


The difference between 9mm and 45ACP is no where near as dramatic as the difference between 5.56x45 and 7.62 (not sure if you mean x51 or x39). Handguns frankly stink. A lot of the comments about the ineffectiveness of the 9mm are based on folks whose only experience was with 9mm. It wasn't like they shot one guy with 9mm and then one guy with 45ACP and compared. For that few matter few people even used pistols against combatants (we go to war with long guns for a reason).

"Stopping power" is a term that isn't really used anymore due to its very subjective and vague nature. What bullets do when they enter a human body is penetrate, expand, and potentially tumble (change course). Penetration and expansion are factors we can estimate fairly well. Does 45 expand to a diameter larger than 9mm? Yes. Does it penetrate further? Sometimes, but not usually from the ballistics testing I've seen. Neither are capable of inducing such trauma from the temporary or permanent wound cavities to truly disable surrounding tissue and organs.

So the question becomes if the addition of one or two tenths of an inch will really make the difference when it comes to 9mm versus 45ACP. Again, handguns stink. Unless you make a hit to the central nervous system or heart/aorta then the fight goes on (think of it as a switch versus a timer). Now over time pain and blood loss will end a fight and a slightly (very slightly) larger hole will help, but you'd much rather a hit to those switches and either caliber can achieve that. We could argue 9mm gives you more chances to hit that switch with less recoil (perhaps making it easier to get those hits).

What triggered my reaction was the "way better" stopping power comment. When it comes to modern ammunition and the 9mm, 40SW, and 45ACP trio I haven't seen any evidence that shows one is on that much of a higher level than the others. I do my best to avoid exaggeration and I don't think you were doing so deliberately, but in the firearms community opinions turn into gospel and when we look at the facts we may find the story much more open to interpretation.
 
Last edited:
What would we do without caliber wars?

This one is starting to devolve, so I'm going to close it before it gets totally out of hand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top