9mm vs. .45 with a twist
- Thread starter bricz75
- Start date
Hunter Customs
New member
I don't believe there's many people out there defending their life with a Suburban, however there might be a few.
I do have to disagree that power factor does not mean much in real life examples, I believe it does when we are talking bullets.
Again I go back to the Philippine-American ( Philippine Insurrection) war where the 45's were getting the job done and the 38's were not
Going back to my days of bowling pin shooting, to take a pin off the front of a regulation pin table with authority a 210 power factor or higher was best.
My 45's making a little over 210 power factor would pick the pins up and slam the pins off the table, a 9mm would not even take them off the table.
As I said in my other thread, I really don't care what anyone chooses to use, use what you shoot best and practice with it often.
Best Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com
Theohazard
New member
And dayman already showed in post # 28 how using steel targets as a metric is just as misguided as your "power factor" nonsense. If knocking down steel targets is a good measurement of your weapon's effectiveness, then you should be carrying cabbages for self-defense as they're MUCH better at that than a 9mm or a .45.Hunter Customs said:
OK. Again, we need to look at more factors than simply bullet diameter. Weight, bullet shape, bullet composition, and velocity all come into the equation.
All other factors being similar, 0.095" in bullet diameter isn't much of a difference. The problem in the Philippines was that we were using pistols in the first place.
Hunter Customs
New member
This may very well be true, but I know from first hand experience the pistol may be all you have.
If that's the case and I have a choice between 9 and 45, I'll take the 45 every time, it certainly served me well when needed.
Best Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com
Hunter Customs
New member
No thanks on the cabbage for knocking down steel, I like mine with Kabasa and Potatoes.
However I'll be glad to set a popper at 25 yards on my range, I'll let you throw your cabbage, I'll shoot my 45, then we will see first hand which is MUCH better at knocking down steel.
Best Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com
Theohazard
New member
If my cabbages don't work as well as I hope, then I'll just pull out some cantaloupes. They'll knock those steel targets down much better than any .45 round will!
Stevie-Ray
New member
I'm of the mind that there is really no difference when it comes to a good self-defense load. I do, however, believe that size could matter and have always used .45 ACP for my self-dense caliber. How nice that it is also the caliber I shoot best. There are specific times when I use 9mm, though, and do not feel at all undergunned, again with a good self-defense load.
Hunter,
Read what I posted - the Phillipines may have prompted a caliber switch, but .45 didn't do any better.
Everyone needs to remember that we're talking about FMJ. There is no doubt in my mind that .45 JHP is a bit better than 9mm JHP, but FMJ is an entirely different story. Ball is about the ideal shape to go through flesh with the least amount of damage. "Power" doesn't matter when comparing two rounds that poke very clean holes all the way through.
Read what I posted - the Phillipines may have prompted a caliber switch, but .45 didn't do any better.
Everyone needs to remember that we're talking about FMJ. There is no doubt in my mind that .45 JHP is a bit better than 9mm JHP, but FMJ is an entirely different story. Ball is about the ideal shape to go through flesh with the least amount of damage. "Power" doesn't matter when comparing two rounds that poke very clean holes all the way through.
Handle wasn't the right word. I am more comfortable and can get back on target faster, and have better accuracy on those second and third shots with 9mm vs 45. That said I can understand that with practice or with a different firearm or what ever variable I improve on, then I could handle the 45 better. Caliber itself isn't a problem, but I would rather carry what I am comfortable and effective with rather than just carry something bigger just to do it.
Jim, you are right.about the 45 in a 1911. I was lucky enough to get a kimber 1911 45 at the rental counter a year ago and got to run 100 rounds down range. It was very well balanced and had very little recoil in my opinion. Great firearm. I am not willing to carry a frame that size. So 45 in a xds is different feel and I wasn't as good with its recoil.
Hunter Customs
New member
RX-79G, I did read what you posted.
However what I read on the Philippine-American war the 45 did do better, much better then the 38's.
Best Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com
Are you under the impression that people in 'highly trained units' always prefer or even opt to use only gear selected for them?
For the most part, yes. All the grumbling and fantasy weapon planning doesn't go on at that level. SEALs don't have to use 9mms. They do because it works with the doctrine that they actually practice, and they see a lot of combat under that doctrine to see it works.
If it did not they would fairly democratically find something else, like they did with the M9.
Not group think, just acknowledging that the tools and techniques used at work are sound, not theory.
If it did not they would fairly democratically find something else, like they did with the M9.
Not group think, just acknowledging that the tools and techniques used at work are sound, not theory.
Original questions
Any opinions to the original questions posted? They're listed below for reference.
Does two shots by the 9mm fmj equal one shot by .45 fmj? Or is two shots by 9mm better? Or is two 9mm shots less good than one .45 shot?
Assume all other things being equal like shot placement.
Any opinions to the original questions posted? They're listed below for reference.
Does two shots by the 9mm fmj equal one shot by .45 fmj? Or is two shots by 9mm better? Or is two 9mm shots less good than one .45 shot?
Assume all other things being equal like shot placement.
Theohazard
New member
The answer is that one shot from a 9mm is almost the same as one shot from a .45. And any differences pale in comparison to any of the many other variables involved in a shooting.bricz75 said:
I wish people would worry less about which of these two rounds is better and worry more about shooting their chosen caliber better. It's amazing how often I see gun owners who don't even know how to properly hold a handgun, let alone shoot it effectively.
The head of neurosurgery at a local hospital in a metropolitan area of 3/4 million people gives a talk every year at our club. He occasionally shoots with us on Tuesday nights when we shoot defensive courses of fire. he has worked as a trauma surgeon in the middle east, IIRC, and in ERs. He said that shot placement is far more important than caliber. You should shoot what you shoot best and what you train with because that's what you will do under stress. I'd rather shoot a .22 with training than a .45 with none. You have to hit the BG first and you can't freeze or fumble around.
I think the OP is thinking with a set of bad assumptions. No matter how you couch the question about caliber, if you ask that you are assuming that it matters. It matters far less than training and shooting well. No one goes down with one shot unless it hits the central nervous system. It can take a person up to 30 minutes to bleed out depending on their size. A shot to the heart still gives them 30 seconds to shoot back.
Actually if you do the math, the AREA of a 9mm hole is only 62% that of a 45 caliber hole. So two 9mm holes would only be 124% that of one 45 caliber hole. Not much difference.
A 9mm would be only slightly better (by only 24%) only if you could get two hits into a vital area. A 45 would only require one hit for almost the same area.
It would take 13 rounds of 9mm to equal 8 rounds of 45 (a standard 1911 magazine holds 7+1 in the chamber).
I'd rather carry a 45 even if it holds fewer cartridges.
Last edited:
Theohazard
New member
I'm sorry, but this is complete nonsense; the area of a bullet's cross section is NOT directly proportional to its effectiveness. And no, ridiculous formulas like "power factor" don't mean much in real life.Axelwik said:
Misinformation like this is what gives online gun forums a bad name. New shooters come on forums, see nonsense like this and believe it - at least for a little while. Then when they're finally corrected they end up losing trust in ALL gun information they see online. Which is a shame, because there is normally lots of good information here.