I have been sitting idley by and reading this post off and on. I will ahve to say that EnochGale is so correct. Who really cares about the technical bull of bullet construction and terminal performance. The real emphasis should be placed on shooter skill and shot placement. A .22 short will kill someone if the shot placement is correct. A.45 ACP will not kill anyone 13 rounds later if you are hitting the trees and the houses behind your aggressor. I prefer 9mm and 40 S&W over the .45 ACP simply because I can shoot them good. I don't care what weapon my attacker has...I am confident in my weapon and my abilities as long as I have my Beretta 92 loaded with 16 rounds of +P 124 gr Gold Dots coming out of that 5" barrel at 1300 fps (handloads). Will it take all 16 rounds? Hope not. But my shots will hit the vital organs. Way to go EnochGale!
9mm & .45ACP : why doesn't size matter?
- Thread starter FUD
- Start date
- Status
Personally, I think a lot of the data and studies are merely there as interest pieces. I think it's more important to use what you can shoot most comfortably and accurately with and make the hits. As someone mentioned, I doubt that anti-9mm fans would want to get hit by one.
One thing that needs to remembered is that the body is not like ballistic gelatin. There are too many individual variations that cannot be accounted for experimentally. At best, the gelatin can put you in the ball park of things but that's it.
What if the person shot is big, small, fat, skinny, has no shirt or has a ton of clothing on? Just because a certain round penetrates 12 inches of gelatin after going through 3 inches of clothing doesn't directly mean the same will happen with a live target as there are too many variables, confounding variables, that occur in reality as opposed to a test lab.
The problem with the Marshall/Sanow data and stopping power is that the comparisons of shootings aren't equal. They rate round A as a 98% stopper and give it the illusion that it's better than round B which is only a 96% stopper. The percentages are from "one-shot" stops out of a certain number of shootings.
However, how can round A have a 98% stop rate if it had x amount of one-shot stops out of 200 shootings and round B had only a 96% one stop rate because it only had x amount of one-shot stops out of 180 shootings. You can't compare A and B together because they don't have the same sample size.
As an example, what if round A stopped 190 out of 200; it has a stop rate of 95%. If round B only stopped 1 out of 2, it has a rate of 50%. But, in order to make a direct comparison between A and B, you'd have to see what round B does with 199 more shootings. Round B could theoretically have stops for the remaining 199 shootings and thus would have a 99% stop rate.
So, although it's interesting, a lot of the data and conclusions seem to be flawed to me. Plus, what about angle of bullet at time of entrance and other variables?
In regards to the example of getting stabbed with a knife and getting hit with a baseball bat. Like shot placement, depends on where you get hit. A good shank in the right place will drop the person and they probably physiologically aren't going to be able to fight anymore.
A stab to the back of the arm, providing it hasn't sliced major arteries, probably isn't going to kill but can make the person stop fighting. A baseball bat to the head and it's probably over. To the stomach, if it misses the ribs, will probably allow the person to continue depending on their will.
So, that adds variables of whether one is put down physiologically or merely giving up for lack of wanting to continue.
One thing that needs to remembered is that the body is not like ballistic gelatin. There are too many individual variations that cannot be accounted for experimentally. At best, the gelatin can put you in the ball park of things but that's it.
What if the person shot is big, small, fat, skinny, has no shirt or has a ton of clothing on? Just because a certain round penetrates 12 inches of gelatin after going through 3 inches of clothing doesn't directly mean the same will happen with a live target as there are too many variables, confounding variables, that occur in reality as opposed to a test lab.
The problem with the Marshall/Sanow data and stopping power is that the comparisons of shootings aren't equal. They rate round A as a 98% stopper and give it the illusion that it's better than round B which is only a 96% stopper. The percentages are from "one-shot" stops out of a certain number of shootings.
However, how can round A have a 98% stop rate if it had x amount of one-shot stops out of 200 shootings and round B had only a 96% one stop rate because it only had x amount of one-shot stops out of 180 shootings. You can't compare A and B together because they don't have the same sample size.
As an example, what if round A stopped 190 out of 200; it has a stop rate of 95%. If round B only stopped 1 out of 2, it has a rate of 50%. But, in order to make a direct comparison between A and B, you'd have to see what round B does with 199 more shootings. Round B could theoretically have stops for the remaining 199 shootings and thus would have a 99% stop rate.
So, although it's interesting, a lot of the data and conclusions seem to be flawed to me. Plus, what about angle of bullet at time of entrance and other variables?
In regards to the example of getting stabbed with a knife and getting hit with a baseball bat. Like shot placement, depends on where you get hit. A good shank in the right place will drop the person and they probably physiologically aren't going to be able to fight anymore.
A stab to the back of the arm, providing it hasn't sliced major arteries, probably isn't going to kill but can make the person stop fighting. A baseball bat to the head and it's probably over. To the stomach, if it misses the ribs, will probably allow the person to continue depending on their will.
So, that adds variables of whether one is put down physiologically or merely giving up for lack of wanting to continue.
travis0127
New member
The handgun, in this case, is a completely DEFENSIVE weapon. You use it when your saying "Oh $^&! he's trying to kill me". The differences in handgun ballistics from one cartridge to the next are really inconsequential (sp?) when considered in this situation. Far more important is shot placement (especially UNDER STRESS!!!).
The "One shot stop" arguments are assuming a REALLY competent shooter UNDER STRESS which can probably be applied to less than 1% of those posessing a handgun.
Shoot what your comfortable with... AND TRAIN IN AS HIGH STRESS SITUATIONS AS POSSIBLE!!
The "One shot stop" arguments are assuming a REALLY competent shooter UNDER STRESS which can probably be applied to less than 1% of those posessing a handgun.
Shoot what your comfortable with... AND TRAIN IN AS HIGH STRESS SITUATIONS AS POSSIBLE!!
I have often thought about it this way:
If you were going to be stabbed by a knife and one was had a blade height of 14/16 of an inch and the other had a blade height of 15/16 of an inch....do you really think the very slightly broader blade is going to be that much deadlier?
In proportion to what we are talking about, and the elasticity of flesh, and the size of a human, do we really think that an increase of less than one tenth of an inch is going to make any difference?
I have my doubts.
Medical examiners say that the wounds look the same, and that can be attributed to the elasticity of flesh. A hole is a hole (that bleeds) when dealing with flesh. A tenth of an inch is not a difference when elasticity is considered. This is not my hypothesizing, but rather this is real evidence shown from medical examiners who study thousands of wounds: they look the same, there is no discernable difference. The .45 does not make a larger hole (at least not larger enough to notice in flesh, even by a professional).
Real street data shows this as well. Look at the effectiveness of the 9mm versus the .45 in street data. There ain't much difference.
The above is my way of trying to explain why the difference in the size of the hole a 9mm makes and a .45 makes is insignificant, and that has been proven many times over.
The morgue monsters and the jello junkies (researchers that look at real street shootings, as well as medical professionals that examine the wounds of real people) both agree that they work about the same in the end.
I shoot and love my Glock 19 and Glock 30 the same. Both are quick and accurate on target. I can shoot slightly better with my 9mm, but I am just about as good with the .45 and yet I still choose not to carry .45 because I am not convinced it is much more effective per bullet.
I feel just as safe, if not more safe with the Glock 19 for the sheer fact that per-bullet it is about the same, and instead of 10 chances, I get 15.
I would agree that in the best cases for both, 9mm and .45 are equal. Sometimes the 9mm is slightly better because it expands when a .45 does not. And, I agree that in the worst cases (neither expands), the .45 is slightly superior. But, is it superior enough to really matter? Especially when you are carrying significantly less rounds for a very very small increase in per-bullet effeciveness (if any at all)?
More emphasis does need to be placed on shooting ability though. Many professionals choose to carry the 9mm. They have weighed the factors like we have here, and they prefer the 9mm. It is not cut and dry that the .45 is better or that the .45 is the choice of professionals. Each has it's benefit.
The most important thing is getting your bullets on target, fast.
[This message has been edited by Red Bull (edited August 03, 2000).]
If you were going to be stabbed by a knife and one was had a blade height of 14/16 of an inch and the other had a blade height of 15/16 of an inch....do you really think the very slightly broader blade is going to be that much deadlier?
In proportion to what we are talking about, and the elasticity of flesh, and the size of a human, do we really think that an increase of less than one tenth of an inch is going to make any difference?
I have my doubts.
Medical examiners say that the wounds look the same, and that can be attributed to the elasticity of flesh. A hole is a hole (that bleeds) when dealing with flesh. A tenth of an inch is not a difference when elasticity is considered. This is not my hypothesizing, but rather this is real evidence shown from medical examiners who study thousands of wounds: they look the same, there is no discernable difference. The .45 does not make a larger hole (at least not larger enough to notice in flesh, even by a professional).
Real street data shows this as well. Look at the effectiveness of the 9mm versus the .45 in street data. There ain't much difference.
The above is my way of trying to explain why the difference in the size of the hole a 9mm makes and a .45 makes is insignificant, and that has been proven many times over.
The morgue monsters and the jello junkies (researchers that look at real street shootings, as well as medical professionals that examine the wounds of real people) both agree that they work about the same in the end.
I shoot and love my Glock 19 and Glock 30 the same. Both are quick and accurate on target. I can shoot slightly better with my 9mm, but I am just about as good with the .45 and yet I still choose not to carry .45 because I am not convinced it is much more effective per bullet.
I feel just as safe, if not more safe with the Glock 19 for the sheer fact that per-bullet it is about the same, and instead of 10 chances, I get 15.
I would agree that in the best cases for both, 9mm and .45 are equal. Sometimes the 9mm is slightly better because it expands when a .45 does not. And, I agree that in the worst cases (neither expands), the .45 is slightly superior. But, is it superior enough to really matter? Especially when you are carrying significantly less rounds for a very very small increase in per-bullet effeciveness (if any at all)?
More emphasis does need to be placed on shooting ability though. Many professionals choose to carry the 9mm. They have weighed the factors like we have here, and they prefer the 9mm. It is not cut and dry that the .45 is better or that the .45 is the choice of professionals. Each has it's benefit.
The most important thing is getting your bullets on target, fast.
[This message has been edited by Red Bull (edited August 03, 2000).]
Will Beararms
New member
Fud,Baron von Fud,the Fud Man,Fud-a-lud-a-ding-dong,Fudarewski,Fu Man Fud, the Fudmeister:
Once again you have spawned a hot topic. Additionally, you have initiated an argument that cannot be resolved. While the 9mm is effective, I prefer the .45ACP over ALL semi-auto pistol offerings.
Why? Even in Ball form, the .45ACP has enough expansion. Keep in mind that all those high flying stats on the 9 milli factor in best world, lab room scenarios. That is not good enough for this home boy.
I have had friends who don't even own guns comment on the massive hole at the end of a .45ACP barrel.
------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
Once again you have spawned a hot topic. Additionally, you have initiated an argument that cannot be resolved. While the 9mm is effective, I prefer the .45ACP over ALL semi-auto pistol offerings.
Why? Even in Ball form, the .45ACP has enough expansion. Keep in mind that all those high flying stats on the 9 milli factor in best world, lab room scenarios. That is not good enough for this home boy.
I have had friends who don't even own guns comment on the massive hole at the end of a .45ACP barrel.
------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
Size matters, folks.
At least it does half of the time.
That's the figure often quoted relative to the number of hollow points that fail to expand at all.
The head of my police academy was a former coroner. He made available years of coroner file photographs. There was a whole file full of hundreds of photos of recovered bullets. Waaaay to many, he said in his experience about 40%, showed no signs of expansion at all.
So, in that light, bigger is better.
At least it does half of the time.
That's the figure often quoted relative to the number of hollow points that fail to expand at all.
The head of my police academy was a former coroner. He made available years of coroner file photographs. There was a whole file full of hundreds of photos of recovered bullets. Waaaay to many, he said in his experience about 40%, showed no signs of expansion at all.
So, in that light, bigger is better.
Uuuhh Hube,
I think I'm missing one thing. You said the gasses cause the twist in the bullet. What does the rifleing do then? Also, if the bullet hydroplanes then why do my rounds have rifle scoring around the circumferance after being shot. I admit that gases slip past the bullet but if your bullets are just hydroplaning with gases spinning it you must have one loose fitting bullet to barrel ratio.
I'm assuming that since no one else jumped on this that I missed something.
------------------
"It is easier to get out of jail then it is a morgue"
Live long and defend yourself!
John 3:16
NRA lifer
GOA
GSSF
KABA
I think I'm missing one thing. You said the gasses cause the twist in the bullet. What does the rifleing do then? Also, if the bullet hydroplanes then why do my rounds have rifle scoring around the circumferance after being shot. I admit that gases slip past the bullet but if your bullets are just hydroplaning with gases spinning it you must have one loose fitting bullet to barrel ratio.
I'm assuming that since no one else jumped on this that I missed something.
------------------
"It is easier to get out of jail then it is a morgue"
Live long and defend yourself!
John 3:16
NRA lifer
GOA
GSSF
KABA
patrickt66
New member
You know, I was once shot through the foot with a .177" bb from a Red Rider. Hurt like hell! I would not want to be shot with ANYTHING bigger and moving a lot faster, especially if it was center of mass. Practice with WHATEVER gun you can fire effectively and pray you never have to find out first-hand if one is better than the other. By the way, my usual carry gun is a 2" .38, just 5 shots.
------------------
Think!
------------------
Think!
P
PreserveFreedom
Guest
In my opinion, the proper expansion of the Federal Hydroshok was able to transfer more energy to the target and put the higher velocity to use.
VictorLouis
New member
Fud: The chart lists 'total wound volume' espressed in square inches. It is premised that the cone of disruption, seen near the entry hole in the gel block, is truly damaged. Fackler contends that the tissue is elastic enough to rebound from anything other than actual impact by the bullet. He feels that the "bow wave" of energy, that the earlier poster described, is simply not present with any HG bullet at HG velocities. However, as the numbers indicate, the higher velocity 9mm round seems to disrupt it to a larger extent.
Now, if you agree that only tissue which is touched by the bullet is affected, than the .45 still has the edge. Without rehashing the math, the 185gr .45 in the chart crushes just shy of 25% more of the gelatin than the listed 9mm load. This is why Fackler would assert it as the superior choice, vs. this particular 9mm load. As one poster obeserved, 9.8 cubic inches of tissue(approx.) destroyed by the .45 is nearly meaningless compared with the total volume of tissue of the body. I'm glad that the intangible psychological effect of "being shot" takes its toll on far more BGs than it otherwise should.
I normally CCW a 9mm or .38 because of size and weight consraints. Both mine, and the gun's.
Many avowed .45 advocates will also admit this, if cornered. Now, if they TRULY felt that the .45 was the only way, then they wouldn't "lapse" into carrying an inferior choice.
[This message has been edited by VictorLouis (edited August 03, 2000).]
Now, if you agree that only tissue which is touched by the bullet is affected, than the .45 still has the edge. Without rehashing the math, the 185gr .45 in the chart crushes just shy of 25% more of the gelatin than the listed 9mm load. This is why Fackler would assert it as the superior choice, vs. this particular 9mm load. As one poster obeserved, 9.8 cubic inches of tissue(approx.) destroyed by the .45 is nearly meaningless compared with the total volume of tissue of the body. I'm glad that the intangible psychological effect of "being shot" takes its toll on far more BGs than it otherwise should.
I normally CCW a 9mm or .38 because of size and weight consraints. Both mine, and the gun's.
Many avowed .45 advocates will also admit this, if cornered. Now, if they TRULY felt that the .45 was the only way, then they wouldn't "lapse" into carrying an inferior choice. [This message has been edited by VictorLouis (edited August 03, 2000).]
Then there are people who like .45 for lower report+flash to power ration...and reason that the new 9s are limited to 10 rounds anyway...nothing to do with effectiveness, mostly with how they feel about it.
PS:9x19 has a big advantage over .45 - price of ammo and lower recoil, meaning more practice possible for the same money and fatigue. I'd carry a .45 if I could, 9 just about as happily and even .380 before I'd feel undergunned. Provided the gun was accurate, 7.62x25 would be acceptable. So I take no sides inthis mess
PS:9x19 has a big advantage over .45 - price of ammo and lower recoil, meaning more practice possible for the same money and fatigue. I'd carry a .45 if I could, 9 just about as happily and even .380 before I'd feel undergunned. Provided the gun was accurate, 7.62x25 would be acceptable. So I take no sides inthis mess
ojibweindian
New member
I am not at a disadvantage carrying a 9mm, or, for that matter, a .380. Well, okay, maybe a little bit with a .380, but it makes one heckuva "always" gun.
I believe that, more than anything else, a good defense load must be able to reach vital internal structures. To me, expansion of a given projectile is nice, but not mandatory. It is of secondary consideration, after penetration, and with an appropriately designed projectile, both the 9mm and .380 will penetrate adequately.
Additionally, I gravitate towards weapaons with large capacities because I don't see a significant difference in the capabilities of the 9mm and 45ACP. I'm not a "spray and pray" shooter, I just don't like slamming home a fresh magazine after every 7 to 10 rounds. Just lazy, I guess!
------------------
For God so loved the world that he gave his onlly begoten Son...
I believe that, more than anything else, a good defense load must be able to reach vital internal structures. To me, expansion of a given projectile is nice, but not mandatory. It is of secondary consideration, after penetration, and with an appropriately designed projectile, both the 9mm and .380 will penetrate adequately.
Additionally, I gravitate towards weapaons with large capacities because I don't see a significant difference in the capabilities of the 9mm and 45ACP. I'm not a "spray and pray" shooter, I just don't like slamming home a fresh magazine after every 7 to 10 rounds. Just lazy, I guess!
------------------
For God so loved the world that he gave his onlly begoten Son...
Will Beararms
New member
If Big Brother ever outlaws HP which has already happened the the the people's republic of new jersey for all practical purposes, all bets are off and the .45ACP wins hands down.
If something like this happens, you will see a massive flight to the .45ACP by the law-abiding public.
Vote for someone other than Bush/Cheney in November and you will probably see it happen in a 18 months.
If something like this happens, you will see a massive flight to the .45ACP by the law-abiding public.
Vote for someone other than Bush/Cheney in November and you will probably see it happen in a 18 months.
- Status