9mm vs. .45 with a twist

The area of a hole from .452 inch bullet would be pi*.226^2= .16037864 square inches
The area of a hole from two .356 inch bullets would be 2*(pi*.178^2)= .19897552 square inches
Click to expand...
All that math goes out the window when we consider a target as complex as the human body. Just some of the other factors to consider would be shot placement, clothing, angle, trajectory, bullet composition, and bullet size. Then work out the equation while Torgo's running at me with a gram of cocaine in his system, a piece of rebar in his hand, and murder in his eyes. Yeah.

So, unless someone has something novel to contribute, this is yet another "9mm vs. .45" thread.
 
"The first shot (hit) delivers all the shock the body will feel. Additional shots may help break bone or sever major arteries.

I've seen deer absorb four or five hits and continue to run until bled out. Also saw a hog take nine hits from a .357 Magnum that failed to penetrate the fat layer."


Breaking bone and severing arteries on subsequent shots won't deliver shock?

The .357 that didn't penetrate the hog probably fired a 110gr or 125gr bullet.


"In over 100 years of debate no one has ever proven this. No clear winner has ever been clearly established. That is enough evidence to convince me it is clearly a tie. Given similar bullet construction and shot placement there is no evidence either is better regardless of how many shots are fired."



Haven't a lot of people in the military claimed a difference between 1 9mm fmj vs. 1 .45 fmj?

This site isn't letting me quote and change the color of text.
 
Generally most people will tell you the bigger the bullet the better and it is hard to disagree for the most part bigger bullets make bigger holes but as stated above there are so many variables you cant say one over the other for any certain situation.pick the one you shoot the best and be reliable honestly reliablity and accuracy beat everything else..i feel comfortable with either my 9 or my 1911 because both are reliable and i can shoot both well i dont involve caliber in my decision between these because as already said balistics with modern ammo are almost identical in 9 and .45
 
9mm FMJ RN yaws as it penetrates whereas .45 FMJ RN does not. As a result 9mm FMJ produces more damage to soft tissues.

Knocking down steel targets is not a measure of rapid incapacitation caused by wound trauma.
 
As far as which would be worse to be hit with:
I'm not sure, but my gut tells me I'd rather be shot once than twice.

As far as which would be worse to be shot at with:
If I were running a serpentine away from someone, I'd definitely prefer they take one shot to two.

As far as knocking down steel plates goes:
I bet throwing a cabbage at them would have been even more effective than the .45. And yet, I'd far rather have cabbages thrown at me than be shot at.
 
When I think of "stopping power" I think of kinetic energy. That's just my perception. Heavy bullets moving moderately will equal more KE than lighter bullets moving a touch faster. (speaking handgun stuff - example 9mm moving a 124gr bullet 1200 fps vs a 45acp moving a 230gr bullet 900 fps)
 
dayman said:
As far as knocking down steel plates goes:
I bet throwing a cabbage at them would have been even more effective than the .45. And yet, I'd far rather have cabbages thrown at me than be shot at.
Click to expand...
Ha! Great point! A cabbage (or even better; a cantaloupe!) will knock those steel plates down FAR better than a .45, but nobody is arguing that any thrown fruit or vegetable is better at stopping a threat than a .45. And yet people use a bullet's ability to knock down steel as an indicator as to how it will work on the human body. But on the human body 9mm and .45 are virtually identical when it comes to actual real-life effectiveness.
 
People spend WAY too much time parsing out differences between those rounds. But the answer is that there's no such thing as "stopping power" or "knockdown power";
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the above is true, however I know of no one that would wish to be shot with either 45 or the 9.

I recall reading about the Philippine-American war and our troops were using 38 pistols that were failing miserably to stop the enemy.
They called back into service the SAA 45 Colts and they were stopping the enemy.
I believe this is what led to the development of the 1911 in 45 ACP caliber.

Now as for stopping power or knock down power even if they don't exist, there is a thing called power factor, which is what I go by

Power factor of a 115 gr 9mm FMJ bullet moving 1180fps is 135.7, power factor of a 230 gr 45 FMJ bullet moving 850 fps is 195.5, I'll take the 195.5 any day.

That does not mean I'll not carry a 9 or other smaller caliber on occasion, however I do carry a 45 the largest percentage of the time.

I always tell those that ask me, carry what you shoot best and practice with it often.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com
 
Historically, the modern .45 came to be after 9mm diameter bullets failed to stop certain motivated adversaries in Asia. The other half of the story is that the .45 didn't do any better.

The SEALs that I had worked with all seemed to think that firing multiple shots was the way to go, and were happy with their Sig 9mms for making that relatively easy and having lots of rounds to do that with. Other elite units had a different view.

I think all FMJ is relatively bad. Three .25s to the chest is probably better than one .45 ball round.
 
My 5000 pound Suburban moving at 1/16 of an inch per second (.005 FPS, or .004 MPH) has the same power factor as your 45.

Doesn't mean much.
 
Hunter Customs said:
Now as for stopping power or knock down power even if they don't exist, there is a thing called power factor, which is what I go by

Power factor of a 115 gr 9mm FMJ bullet moving 1180fps is 135.7, power factor of a 230 gr 45 FMJ bullet moving 850 fps is 195.5, I'll take the 195.5 any day.
Click to expand...
"Power factor" is just applying a simplistic equation to something that's not so simple in real life. As 45_auto showed with his Suburban example, your "power factor" doesn't really mean all that much when actually applied to real-life examples.

When I was a kid I was obsessed with the many different attempts to measure the "power factor" difference between 9mm and .45 ACP. At first I followed Elmer Keith's equation, then I switched to Chuck Taylor's simpler one. And by now I've learned that the experts have basically given up trying to measure the difference: With good modern hollow points the difference is barely discernible, if at all.
 
For years, I had the mindset that you want the bullet to achieve enough velocity to reliably expand - even if that meant going to a lighter bullet.

That was then. This is now.

After reading a lot of stuff on TFL from people who are clearly knowledgable, I have adjusted my mindset. To stop a BG, you need to make a hole first (or two - entry/exit). Expansion is secondary.

My HD gun is a .357 Magnum. I switched from 125g HP's to 158's.

But above all, shot placement is king. A well-placed wadcutter will wreck a BG's day.
 
At this point we need to determine what caliber of cabbage and how many...
Seriously I have learned it is what you are comfortable with, what your skill level is and what your body is able to do. Some of us can't handle a 45, or maybe we will some day as our skill improves. Our maybe the 9mm is the best for me now because I am accurate and consistent, and later I will be proficient in another caliber. I have learned alot reading and online. I have learned alot actually shooting. I know there is alot left to learn.:rolleyes:
 
RX-79G said:
Historically, the modern .45 came to be after 9mm diameter bullets failed to stop certain motivated adversaries in Asia. The other half of the story is that the .45 didn't do any better.

The SEALs that I had worked with all seemed to think that firing multiple shots was the way to go, and were happy with their Sig 9mms for making that relatively easy and having lots of rounds to do that with. Other elite units had a different view.

I think all FMJ is relatively bad. Three .25s to the chest is probably better than one .45 ball round.
Click to expand...

Units don't have views, though I get that you're referring to people who procure for units. The views of individuals who get to decide what to carry are evident in their personal gear. Some friends of mine have carried a Sig 220, an M9 (by choice, over a Sig 226 and 1911), and a G22.
 
Tom,
.38 Colt is a 9mm diameter bullet. 9.2, to be precise.

RBid,

In my experience, highly trained units do tend to have "views". When it is an elite unit the choice of gear has been proven effective many times, and the members have good reason to adopt the party line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top