9mm, .357 Sig, .40 or .45 ACP?

[Limnophile]

Even ignoring the fact that real wound channels are not perfectly sized to the projectile, I am trying to figure out the math to get the numbers he mentions.

He gives a frontal area in square inches, to cube that (make it a volume) you need a depth... If we go with a per inch, you multiply the surface area by the length... the 9mm would be .299 cubic inches, and the 45 .356 cubic inch, only about 16% larger.

I'd like a citation to work that has measured wound channel volumes. I'm unaware of any. Wound channel volume has always been approximated from calculations of penetration by bullet CSA to my knowledge. I am unaware of any reliable way to measure wound volume in either tissue or tissue simulant.

I never quantify wound channel volume. Instead, I refer to wound volume per vital tissue traversed, ie, in^3/in = in^2. Thus, the only quantitative values I discuss are CSA in in^2. Two of my key assumptions are (1) each round attains the IWBA minimum penetration criterion (thus, it penetrates adequately to reach and destroy vital tissues), and (2) everything else but bullet CSA is held constant. Thus, if two bullet paths are identical and penetration in both is adequate, the difference in wounding potential per inch of vital tissue traversed is proportional to the CSA of each bullet.

If we take the whole penetration into account, you get about 18% larger, not 56%.

I'm not interested in the whole length of penetration, only that penetration is sufficient to reach vital organs. And, I am not interested in wound volume in non-vital tissue, only in vital organs, and that can be meaningfully compared on a unit penetration basis, which reduces the comparison down to one of relative CSAs.

Unless the fact its very late, and I am tired, has screwed up my thought process on the math. Working on two weeks with no days off, and lots of overtime to boot.

None of that helps.

But yeah... while some caliber diversity is never a bad thing really... you can't go wrong with a good 9mm pistol and quality hollow points. If you are most comfortable with 9mm, get it. If you want something different, then do so, just don't do so under false beliefs of improved capability.

I agree that 9 Luger is the optimal caliber to build one's arsenal around, and that caliber diversity has its benefits (eg, a smaller caliber is better for deep concealment guns, caliber diversity helps a lot during ammo shortages, as one can usually find something on the shelves that one of your guns can shoot). But, no one should be so foolish as to think that bigger diameter bullets don't somehow make holes that aren't bigger. The FBI knows this isn't true, which is why they've never said otherwise.

 

[iMagUdspEllr]

@Limnophile:

All of them are incorrect. I was specific. I also covered why.

Expansion happens early on, correct, but by the time the bullet penetrates ~6" the bullet has slowed down so much that it is no longer crushing/tearing a hole. It is simply moving flesh around it leaving a cavity smaller than its front surface area. Any ballistic test you look at shows this.

e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8XqAMn4Wqo

Please explain how human tissue magically parts...

It isn't magic. Flesh stretches. A smaller area stretches to the size of the projectile and then it gives way. So, only a small area is actually damaged when the projectile is accommodated in the collision. Only when the pressure of the impact is still high enough to surpass the material's elasticity is a hole as large or larger than the projectile created in the flesh. For the rest of the wound channel the flesh stretches around the projectile, which means only a small area needs to actually be a part of the permanent wound cavity.

A sewing needle is at least ten times smaller in diameter than a knitting needle (not super positive as I don't have any to compare). But, it isn't a difference of .095". So you are making an apples to oranges comparison.

The tissue stretches, a lot. But, the actual wound cavity left behind is very small. All ballistic tests show this to be the case. You are free to produce a ballistic test that shows a permanent wound cavity that is the same diameter as the projectile for the entire length of the wound cavity.

The difficulty of differentiation is primarily twofold: (1) the observing is done after the fact, not during the actual wounding event, and the elastic nature of tissue after an injury causes the tissue to fall back and occlude the channel...

So, now you seem to understand how the flesh stretches? Observing what happens to the flesh during the event provides little help. I have already covered that flesh can stretch, substantially, without being damaged. If you observe someone being punched in slow motion you will see their body tissues substantially stretch and deform. In reality, the flesh took far less damage than you would think based upon how wildly the flesh stretched and bounced in slow motion. If you watch a cymbal deform in slow motion you would wonder why it wasn't completely warped after the fact. The reality of it is that these things can stretch and warp, a lot, and not be affected.

You are way off topic and raising irrelevancies.

How the bullet affects the target is the crux of the debate and not off topic at all.

The point of using a handgun for LE or civilian SD purposes is not to kill, but to stop illegal behavior.

One of the fastest ways to stop illegal behavior is to kill the perpetrator. Also , I did say "incapacitate", too. So, I already got that covered. You had no reason to make this statement.

The vast majority of DGUs in both arenas don't involve pulling a trigger, so even an empty pistol will be effective most of the time.

This is a moot point because that logic would make caliber choice irrelevant. Therefore, you shouldn't have bothered to even type this sentence. But, this is just one of the ways I can prove that you are being a troll.

However, the point of choosing a caliber, bullet, and pistol is to stop illegal activity when faced with a determined bad guy. Thus, psychological stops are irrelevant to this discussion about the effect of caliber on wounding potential. It's a nice trick of pseudoscience, however, if you wish to cloud the issue at hand.

Correct, which is why my argument does not hinge upon psychological stops whatsoever. Just because I mentioned it doesn't mean that is what I am banking on. Any reasonable person would not have interpreted what I have said in the way that you have. Again, trolling.

I've said nothing about momentum and sectional density.

I know you didn't. I did. I was stating the merits of more massive bullets in order to give credit to the bullets where it was due. I didn't say you said anything of the sort. I was being fair in all of my posts by pointing out what I think are the ways more massive bullets can help the shooter. But, sure, go off about how I'm putting words in your mouth, even though I'm not.

My point is and has been, all other factors equal, a bigger caliber bullet causes a bigger wound.

Bigger holes cause more damage, all else equal -- period.

More damage does not necessarily mean a better effect on the target. If you shoot someone in the brain with a .50 BMG it will certainly cause a larger wound, but they won't be any less dead if you shot them in the brain with a 9mm. The extra damage is wasted. This is especially true when you are comparing .45 ACP and 9mm because the difference is so small. If you shoot someone in the heart with a .45 or a 9mm the heart stops doing its job and they will be unconscious once the small amount of oxygen in their blood runs out. .45 does more damage, yet the same effect happens. More damage, same effect is my point.

Wow, just wow. Whether the greater recoil of the .45 offsets the larger wounding area of its bullet depends on the degree of accuracy and precision degradation the .45 produces relative to the 9. In the hands of a skilled combat shooter, I suspect the difference in accuracy and precision between the two platforms may be small.

Yes, I agree. Did you read what I wrote?

However, people who are practiced enough to have proper recoil control shouldn't have this issue. But, I don't know what skill-level of shooter we are talking about because you brought up the FBI. I assume the OP is not an FBI agent and the 9mm will serve him better unless he has his recoil control down.

But, I object to anyone abusing the agency's memo by claiming that the .45 Auto, on a per-round basis, has more wounding potential.

I'm not abusing the FBI's memo. I am actually not using it as any kind of reference at all. It seems that you are the one using it as a reference. Also, I'm not sure if you meant to write that in that way or not. Yes, .45 ACP does not have appreciably more wounding potential on a per-round basis. I think we agree. But, I'm not sure if there was a typo or not.

The .45 may have 60% greater wounding potential per inch of vital tissue traversed...

Wounding potential? You mean tissue destruction, correct?
No, it doesn't have 60% greater tissue destruction, as I have covered. It will be a smaller gap than that as demonstrated by the links I have posted.

Finally, now you seem to have a different position than you had earlier. Before it was,

I can think of few things more terrifying than a well aimed Flying Ashtray launched in my direction.

. Now, you have a balanced position of,

The .45 may have 60% greater wounding potential per inch of vital tissue traversed, but the 9 has a 100% greater capacity.

So, that makes it tough to have a discussion with you because I can't tell where you're coming from.

 

[iMagUdspEllr]

@Limnophile:

I'd like a citation to work that has measured wound channel volumes.

Why? You made the claim that .45 ACP hollow points destoy 56% more tissue than 9mm hollow points. I proved, using the values you provided, that you are incorrect. I also proved that even the calculations I made are not accurate because they don't take into account the fact that the actual wound cavity is smaller than the front surface area of the projectile for much of the length of the cavity.

I am unaware of any reliable way to measure wound volume in either tissue or tissue simulant.

By actually measuring it. Just because the people who performed the tests didn't measure the wound cavity doesn't mean you can't. Also, that doesn't mean you can assert the claims you have made about tissue destruction when they are demonstrably false by both observation and math.

I never quantify wound channel volume.

Yes, you did. When you multiply an area by a length you get a volume. But, sure continue to be intellectually dishonest.

I'm not interested in the whole length of penetration, only that penetration is sufficient to reach vital organs.

What amount of penetration is sufficient to reach vital organs? You can't specify a value because the bullet may travel through an arm or strike the torso at an angle which will change the required penetration distance to reach vital organs. That is why the FBI made the 12" minimum penetration requirement, because that should be more than enough to reach vitals even at somewhat strange angles. For how much you claim to understand the FBI's reasoning you sure don't know much about this really important point.

And, I am not interested in wound volume in non-vital tissue, only in vital organs...

A hole in a vital organ takes that vital organ out of commission. Like I mentioned earlier. Obliterating the brain is no different than shooting it with a 9mm. They both have the same effect on the target.

But, no one should be so foolish as to think that bigger diameter bullets don't somehow make holes that aren't bigger. The FBI knows this isn't true, which is why they've never said otherwise.

Nobody is making this argument. The point is that the difference in the size of the hole is negligible. Again, we aren't comparing a knitting needle to a sewing needle. The difference is much smaller and, unsurprisingly, the effect on the target is equivalent.

 

[kozak6]

What kind of handgun do you want? That should drive your decision more than caliber.

If you want another caliber just for the sake of having another caliber, go wildly different.

I almost recommended getting a .22, except the ammo situation is still stupid. When it stabilizes, it would be worth getting one, but not yet.

Why not a .357 revolver?

 

[stagpanther]

My compact 9 is the one I shoot for gratuitous brass-spraying fun at the range and use for concealed carry. My 45 XD is the one that stands by for home defense--and has already on 2 occasions given enough pause for thought for intruders to change their minds and leave my property without a shot being fired by anyone. That's how I see the difference between the 2. : )

 

[marine6680]

I think it's time to step back a bit from the caliber war guys. It's turned into a flame war rather than clean debate.

 

[bedbugbilly]

As I fead your post - one of your concerns is "cost"?

What you should be considering is your "needs". Is this a SD handgun you want? A range gun? Just for plinking?

Do you re-load?

One thing to consider is your "desire" for another caliber versus what is available in your area for ammo and the cost of that ammo if you don't re-load. Personally, I can't see buying a new caliber if the cost of the ammo prevents you from shooting it as uh as you'd like - if you don't re-load If 9mm is readily available and cheaper and allows you to shoot as much as you want - then I'd stick with it. If another caliber is availave at a similar price - then that gives you another caliber option. I'm sure any of the calibers you mention would be fine but you have to decide on what "fits" your intended use.

Good luck!

 

[Limnophile]

For the 9mm it was claimed that it would be .299 in^2 * 12.5 in and .358 in^2 * 12.5 in for the .45 ACP.

No such claim was ever made by me in this thread. I mentioned (at least I hope I did) volume of a wound channel per inch of vital organ tissue traversed, which simplifies to a comparison of bullet CSAs. If the bullets being compared attain IWBA minimum penetration criteria, then the comparison has meaning.

Why do I make comparisons this way? Because damaging non-vital tissues cannot usually produce a physiological stop, and the wise man chooses his round so as to be likely to produce a physiological stop. The length of traverse of vital tissue cannot be predicted easily or reliably, so it makes sense, as noted by a physician member herein who's name escapes me, to compare on a unit penetration length.

9mm Gold Dot wound channel volume would be = 3.7375 in^3
.45 ACP Gold Dot wound channel volume would be = 4.475 in^3

(4.475in^3)/(3.7375in^3)=1.1973

So, the .45 ACP would make a hole with 20% more volume. Except that hollow points don't expand instantaneously, they only become fully expanded near the end of their wound channel, and the wound channel itself will have a smaller diameter than that of the projectile due to the elasticity of flesh. So it would be even less of a difference.

Why are you using a penetration of 12.5 inches? Penetration in soft tissue simulant does not equal penetration in a human body. In most cases I would assume a bullet that penetrates 12.5 inches on average in ballistic gel will penetrate less in a human body, which contains hard tissues in addition to soft tissues. The IWBA minimum penetration criteria are set such that a bullet that can meet that criterion has a very high probability of penetrating a human body enough to reach vital tissues, regardless of the shot angle or size of the bad guy.

By introducing a common but arbitrary 12.5 inches penetration into the comparison, you end up with the correct effectiveness ratio, but in a way that demonstrates your confused thinking on the topic and that insures others will be confused and will rightfully object to your arbitrary assumptions.

If we look at the claims made about the FMJ versions we get:

9mm FMJ wound channel volume would be = 0.099 in^2 * ??
It is definitely a pass-through at this point so extra penetration is lost. But, it certainly won't be less penetration so let's just say 12.5", again.
0.099 in^2 * 12.5 in = 1.2375 in^3

.45 ACP FMJ wound channel volume would be =
.160 in ^2 * 12.5 in = 2 in^3

(2in^3)/(1.2375in^3)=1.6161

So, the .45 ACP FMJ would make a hole with 62% more volume. Except, again, the wound channel is always smaller than the diameter of the projectile because of the elasticity of flesh.

Again, I made no claims whatsoever about FMJ penetration, although in heavy-for-caliber bullet weights I would expect all service caliber FMJs to meet IWBA criteria.

Again, your muddled thought process achieves the correct wounding effectiveness ratio, but in a way that rightfully invites objections. The meaningful comparison for the .45 Auto/9 Luger wounding potential, on a per-inch-of-vital-tissue-traversed basis is, for fully expanded, heavy-for-caliber Speer GDHPs:

(0.359 in^3/in)/(0.299 in^3/in) = (0.359 in^2)/(0.299 in^2) = 1.20.

For heavy-for-caliber FMJs:

(0.160 in^3/in)/(0.099 in^3/in) = (0.160 in^2)/(0.099 in^2) = 1.62.

Thus, on a per-bullet basis, the .45 Auto has 62% greater wounding potential than the 9 Luger when unexpanded, and 20% more when fully expanded. All one needs to make this comparison is to know that the rounds being compared meet IWBA minimum penetration criteria, and the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the two bullets being compared.

Please see this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G-txVKnVjY. It shows how the permanent wound cavity is very small even though the gel was temporarily stretched much larger than the projectile itself. Human flesh is even more resistant to stretching than ballistic gel.

Please realize that the point you are making is that the permanent cavity is much smaller than the temporary cavity. Because at handgun velocities the temporary cavity plays little to no role in wounding, I ignored it, and I have no idea why you bring it up, unless it's to obfuscate the discussion.

The other Brass Fetcher video link you provided also did nothing to support your contention that a bullet wound channel has a smaller CSA than the bullet CSA, nor have you offered a quantification of your mysterious wound channel CSA reduction parameter. Irrelevant videos do nothing to advance your position. I assume such information exists if your hypothesis is true to a meaningful degree. If so, I will welcome reading it. My guess is no such credible information exists, or the FBI would have cited it instead of using an irrelevant fact about what physicians do or do not discern.

There really isn't much of a difference here. But, I can understand why someone concerned about their bullets deflecting off of windshields and other obstacles would want to use a bullet with more mass.

Generally, heavy for caliber is a wise choice, but Speer provides penetration and expansion data so each of their offerings can be assessed on the basis of empiricism.

 

[shaunpain]

We could split hairs here all day, but I can tell from your question that you really just want a simple answer, and the answer really is simple: Decide what caliber you'd like to try next that you intend on investing lots of time with. I have several 9mms and .45s. Love them both. However, I typically only shoot and reload .45. All of them are 1911s. You can buy them in various flavors fit for range or carry, so us 1911 lovers can have our cake and eat it, too.

Deciding what platform you'd like to try next is an exciting endeavor, but very daunting. There's no simple answer there. I suggest you try them all out and find out what you like. I, like others, say you try the 1911 on for size. Not because it's better, but because it's awesome. Good luck!

 

[iMagUdspEllr]

@Limnophile:

Why are you using a penetration of 12.5 inches?

Because you introduced it.

Take the Speer 9 Luger 147-gr GDHP vs the Speer .45 Auto 230-gr GDHP (aka, the Flying Ashtray). Both meet the IWBA's minimum penetration criteria, 12.5 inches in bare gel, and 13.0 inches in IWBA heavily clothed gel.

Expanded, the Flying Ashtray destroys 56% more tissue volume per inch of penetration. Unexpanded, the Flying Ashtray destroys 62% more tissue.

I suppose I misunderstood you. Based upon your most recent post, I suppose what you meant to say in these two quotes is that the .45 ACP round you chose would destroy a 56% larger area of tissue than the 9mm round you chose. However, that isn't true either, because (.358in^2)/(.299in^2)=1.197. 20%, not 56%. And, again, that area is only destroyed for a fraction of the length of the wound channel because of the reasons I have stated multiple times. But, I don't mind repeating them if you want me to because of how much I typed. I am not good at being pithy.

If the bullets being compared attain IWBA minimum penetration criteria, then the comparison has meaning.

Thus, on a per-bullet basis, the .45 Auto has 62% greater wounding potential than the 9 Luger when unexpanded, and 20% more when fully expanded. All one needs to make this comparison is to know that the rounds being compared meet IWBA minimum penetration criteria, and the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the two bullets being compared.

The maximum CSA achieved by a hollow point bullet does not correlate to "wounding potential", or the chance to wound. I'm not sure how you define "wounding potential", so that might be the source of my confusion. The maximum CSA of a hollow point bullet only describes the area of tissue perpendicular to the wound channel that is destroyed after the hollow point has achieved maximum expansion but before the impact pressure of the bullet has dropped too low to crush the tissue in front of it equal to its CSA. Before and after that point in time the actual diameter of the wound channel is smaller, even sub-caliber. The 20% and 62% estimations are only accurate while the pressure generated by the bullet is high enough to crush the tissue in front of the bullet equal to the diameter of the bullet. Shortly after impact the bullet is pushing the tissue around it rather than shoving a caliber-sized plug of tissue straight forward.

Please realize that the point you are making is that the permanent cavity is much smaller than the temporary cavity. Because at handgun velocities the temporary cavity plays little to no role in wounding, I ignored it, and I have no idea why you bring it up, unless it's to obfuscate the discussion.

The other Brass Fetcher video link you provided also did nothing to support your contention that a bullet wound channel has a smaller CSA than the bullet CSA, nor have you offered a quantification of your mysterious wound channel CSA reduction parameter.

I'm not talking about the temporary cavity. I'm asking you to look at the permanent cavity left behind in the video (i.e. when the gel contracts back to its dimensions at rest). The permanent cavity is sub-caliber. Look at the still image I have attached to this post. The permanent wound cavity is sub-caliber.

Note for others reading this thread: Part of the temporary stretch cavity remains in gel testing because gel isn't as elastic as flesh. This is why you see a large cloud many times the diameter of the bullet. In reality the permanent wound cavity is much smaller and is sub-caliber before the bullet comes to rest due to the lack of pressure generated by the bullet in the last half to third of the wound cavity. Only a small portion of the wound cavity is as large or slightly larger than the expanded hollow point. That point is when expansion is almost finished and impact pressure is highest. After that point the permanent wound channel drastically shrinks in diameter due to the lack of pressure.

My guess is no such credible information exists, or the FBI would have cited it instead of using an irrelevant fact about what physicians do or do not discern.

Please refrain from snide remarks. You can pull up pictures of ballistic gelatin that prove my point all over the internet all day. Please, just look at ballistic gel tests. Bullets do not cut plugs the exact diameter of their maximum CSA.

 

[Yankee Traveler]

.45 because.....well because all the best caliber start with a 4 and end with a 5.

Then 9mm because it is cheap.

Then .40 because it can be easily converted to .357 sig.

 

[cougar gt-e]

Most people shoot more accurately with less recoil. I see it at the range in competition all the time.

Especially with small and light guns. Sure, experienced shooters don't falter... much, when shooting higher recoiling calibers. But most get slower times with less accuracy. Thus, the best caliber is the one that has "adequate" terminal performance that can be shot quickly and accurately.

My kid destroys me with a .22 when I shoot .40, but the tables turn when he shoots 9mm. So, imho, caliber calculations etc mean little if the shooter misses. 2 hits with a wimpy caliber trumps 2 misses with a big caliber. Just my opinion.

 

[lee n. field]

This thread has been doomed from the beginning.

 

[Slimjim9]

Yeah, way too broad. If you can't pick a caliber from existing resources, you're pretty much hopeless.

 

[armedleo]

The purpose of the handgun is key. And I don't know anything about cavitation and mathematical formulas and terminal velocity and such. I think it matters little in the practical application of self-defense. That's really what this thread seems to be turning on.

The law enforcement decision (now supported by developments in improved ammo and the FBI's study) to use 9mm is manifold. 1) It is a relatively inexpensive round when compared to its larger cousins; 2) because the round is inexpensive you can train more and at an economical rate - more training and practice the better; 3) you should be training and practicing with the round you intend to be using in service; 4) lower recoil gets sight acquisition back quicker; 5) lower recoil means more accuracy; 5) female police officers can handle the round as well as their male counterparts; 6) there appears to be no appreciable differences between the wound paths and penetration among the 9mm and its larger cousins; 7) law enforcement (mostly) and military must have uniformity in weaponry and ammo for obvious reasons; and 8) if you really consider the ratio of hits on target as against misses (80%?) the decision tilts in favor of more capacity which tends to bring you to the 9mm.

Shot placement regardless of caliber is central to "stopping" a bad guy. I've seen a nicely place .25 stop a man dead before he hit the ground.

 

[Tactical Jackalope]

The 9mm and .45ACP are my two favorite semi-auto pistol cartridges.

Get the .45 next. Something about a good .45ACP makes my heart sing. Those gorgeous majestic bastards.

I carry both 9mm's and .45's. Shoot them both regularly.


The .40 S&W can seriously go to hell. It's a brainless meat head.

The .357SIG is a bit of a meat head, but still classy.

 

[Jayhawkhuntclub]

There are a few of us here that own real magnums. Your wining about cost just shows that you are not serious. My .44 Auto Mag is just as inexpensive as a 10 mm. but then I have been making my own brass for more then 25 years and 1000 pieces made is probably enough pieces of brass for the rest of my life.

Wow! Just wow! You're fun.