9mm vs. .45 with a twist
- Thread starter bricz75
- Start date
Theohazard
New member
The "power factor" wasn't a reference to your post, it was part of someone else's post who also attempted to quantify the effectiveness of a round based on a few numbers.
This is what I was specifically responding to:
But when you wrote that quote were you simply using the term "equal" to refer to the area of the bullet's cross section and not its effectiveness?
This is what I was specifically responding to:
This quote looks like you're attempting to answer the OP's question. It seems you were saying that because of the differences in cross-sectional area, 13 shots from a 9mm is as effective as 8 shots of a .45, which is ridiculous and is a gross over-simplification.Axelwik said:
But when you wrote that quote were you simply using the term "equal" to refer to the area of the bullet's cross section and not its effectiveness?
Theohazard
New member
OK, I apologize, I thought you were using those numbers to say they had a direct correlation with the bullet's effectiveness.
And yes, hole size does matter, but there are many other factors that matter way more. Like GJSchulze said in post #58; shot placement matters WAY more than what round you use.
I say this all the time, but I'll say it again: The differences between 9mm, .40, and .45 are so small that it's really not a measurable factor when it comes to effectiveness in real-world shootings.
And yes, hole size does matter, but there are many other factors that matter way more. Like GJSchulze said in post #58; shot placement matters WAY more than what round you use.
I say this all the time, but I'll say it again: The differences between 9mm, .40, and .45 are so small that it's really not a measurable factor when it comes to effectiveness in real-world shootings.
Another thing that people don't think about is the fact that expanding bullets, if they function properly, do not expand until they enter the body, and again if they function properly, do not exit.
This leaves only one small entrance wound.
Of course there may be much disruption from dissipation of energy and hemorrhaging within the body from an expanding bullet, but there won't be as much blood loss outside the body.
This leaves only one small entrance wound.
Of course there may be much disruption from dissipation of energy and hemorrhaging within the body from an expanding bullet, but there won't be as much blood loss outside the body.
I guess I have to spell everything out... Maybe I'm used to discussions with my peers and spouse without the need for superfluous explanations.
Did I ever say that one was worse than the other? I didn't.
I carry expanding ammunition in my 45. All else being equal if it fails to expand it's still more effective than 9mm
Last edited:
Multiple attackers is more likely... In the movies.
http://thinkinggunfighter.blogspot.com/2012/03/self-defense-findings.html
Last edited:
I guess you do have to spell it out. Either you think that two holes is important, or you were making a non sequitur because it isn't something anyone should consider, good or bad. Why did you bring it up? To make us think about something unrelated to gunshot lethality?
Getting attacked is unlikely, period. But getting attacked by a small group is reported on local news nightly around here. Petty criminals often need to be egged on by or perform for their peers. And there are also these things called "gangs" which exist in cities.
I had a draw/no shoot experience dealing with a pair who split up, and while the first tried to engage me with Qs, I saw the man who had tried to move behind me clear a cover garment, exposing a firearm.
I know a person who, along with a coworker, was assaulted by a group of five people. He survived by putting a lucky shot into one of them while being kicked repeatedly on the ground. He had been pocket carrying, and couldn't get his weapon out before being engaged physically. Thankfully, they ran when he hit the first one.
Rare? No question. There is a big difference between rare and no chance, though.
Having said all of this, I will not begrudge anyone for making an educated carry decision. After all, ALL of us draw a line somewhere. We can't drive tanks to work, carry Scar H rifles, or wear body armor to the gym. I'm sure most of us wouldn't want to, even if we could. All we can do is get informed, and decide how much we are willing to prepare. Some won't carry. Others will carry a BUG and multiple spare mags. 'Better' decisions are defined here by the happiness of the decision maker with what he or she chose, when all is said and done.
zombietactics
New member
Uhhhh ... no.
It's important to note a few historical facts before everyone gets twisted up around half-truths and war stories.
The "38" in question was NOT a .38spl, as used in most modern revolvers. It was the ".38 Long Colt". The specific round in question was likely a 150-grain, 9.2mm projectile, traveling at a muzzle-velocity of ~750fps, producing no more than about 200 ft/lbs of force.
They did not (in the Philippine Insurrection) switch to a pistol firing the modern .45ACP round. They switched back to ".45 Long Colt" fired from a six-shot, single-action revolver.
The switch back to .45 Long Colt did not produce better results. It was not a problem of ballistics, but rather one of poor shot placement and very determined adversaries, using a primitive form of body armor.
Nonetheless, military officials (not knowing what we know today about terminal ballistics) were convinced that a "bigger bullet" was the solution to the problem. This was also reinforced by the fact that the best-known 9mm pistols of the time were notoriously unreliable, and the 9mm rounds commonly available at the time were pathetic, compared to what is available today.
This is what led to the development of the modern .45ACP round as well as the 1911 pistol design.
It's interesting to note that the .45ACP round is smaller in diameter than .45LC, travels at a slower velocity, and produces less energy. If the .45LC did not "solve the problem", the .45ACP would not have done so either.
Last edited:
jarrodsquito
Inactive
9mm vs .45 FMJ
I actually have an article coming out soon on personal defense network discussing this. The term stopping power refers back to the late 1800's and early 1900's when smokeless powder came around. The more powerful powder lead to having to use jacketed bullets and lead to a decrease in effectiveness. The military wanted a larger caliber to stop rounds from simply going through a target and thus the .45 ACP was born.
Over 100 years later we have great advances in technology and using a larger caliber round to gain effectiveness is no longer needed. Carrying a
9mm with quality defensive ammunition is much more effective than a larger round.
BTW the difference in power from 9mm FMJ to 45 FMJ in blazer brass is less than 10%. Many people stay with FMJ in .45 ACP because the carry 1911 style pistols which have failure to feed issues because of the 2 piece feed ramp. They refuse to switch guns and believe in mythical powers of the .45 ACP that are actually severely outperformed by 9mm quality defensive ammunition (and even much less powerful rounds for that matter)
http://triggertimeohio.com
I actually have an article coming out soon on personal defense network discussing this. The term stopping power refers back to the late 1800's and early 1900's when smokeless powder came around. The more powerful powder lead to having to use jacketed bullets and lead to a decrease in effectiveness. The military wanted a larger caliber to stop rounds from simply going through a target and thus the .45 ACP was born.
Over 100 years later we have great advances in technology and using a larger caliber round to gain effectiveness is no longer needed. Carrying a
9mm with quality defensive ammunition is much more effective than a larger round.
BTW the difference in power from 9mm FMJ to 45 FMJ in blazer brass is less than 10%. Many people stay with FMJ in .45 ACP because the carry 1911 style pistols which have failure to feed issues because of the 2 piece feed ramp. They refuse to switch guns and believe in mythical powers of the .45 ACP that are actually severely outperformed by 9mm quality defensive ammunition (and even much less powerful rounds for that matter)
http://triggertimeohio.com
Thank you, Tomac.
To all thread participants: Take a break. Go run some drills for speed + accuracy at the same time. When you're done, revisit the subjects of concealed carry firearm and ammunition selection.
A lot of firearms and calibers are very different when you pull the trigger 3-5 times per second than they are when you pull the trigger 1 time every 3-5 seconds.
To all thread participants: Take a break. Go run some drills for speed + accuracy at the same time. When you're done, revisit the subjects of concealed carry firearm and ammunition selection.
A lot of firearms and calibers are very different when you pull the trigger 3-5 times per second than they are when you pull the trigger 1 time every 3-5 seconds.
zombietactics
New member
Likely not ... .38 Long Colt simply did not have enough force and/or velocity. The .45 Long Colt round was faster, but not fast enough for something of that diameter (12.5mm, if I recall)
In both cases a lead-round-nose projectile was used, which would have been a poor penetrator.
Not all of the Moro wore armor, course. This is only one factor. The fanatical determination of the Moros was legendary, for instance.
The .45 Long Colt probably went around 900-100fps, generating something like 450-475 ft/lbs.