9mm vs .45ACP
- Thread starter Glock19Fan
- Start date
Both will kill. Both are poor stoppers. The .45 will not blow it's hapless victim through the nearest plate glass window. The 9mm will not leave you defenseless.
To bust open another can-O-worms, we could trot out the Marshall-Sanow data that shows they are about equal with hardball.
To bust open another can-O-worms, we could trot out the Marshall-Sanow data that shows they are about equal with hardball.
I find that it is all about personnel preference. Both will do the job. My wife likes 9mm for her primary and I prefer .45. She does enjoy the .45 and in a situation where capacity is important I would go 9mm. Firearms are tools, a hammer for nails a wrench for nuts. Choose the right tool for the job.
I think if you re-read the quoted section, you'll see what I actually said. It certainly had nothing to do with claiming his model wouldn't allow the entry of differing bullet weights and velocities nor that it wouldn't produce different yields for differing inputs. Obviously it does and I haven't claimed otherwise.
How is a .451" bullet weighing 230grains and traveling at 850fps "outwardly identical" to a bullet with a diameter 22% smaller, that is 46% lighter and going 32% faster?
It's not a misrepresentation at all. Which of those assumptions "carefully characterizes the material strength of the bullet"? It's a stretch to say that they "characterize the material strength of the bullet" at all, let alone that they do so carefully. Basically all the information he gets about the material strength of the bullet is from the deformation measurement, and even that's subject to the assumptions you list.
It IS correct in the context of the sentence you quoted. Here it is again with emphasis added.
"What I didn't understand before reading the book was that he wasn't even using penetration figures from the water testing, he's only using the expanded bullet diameter created by firing into water."
I understand that he's using the mass and impact velocity and my comments elsewhere in this thread make that plain. I correctly listed the parameters he uses twice in post 177 of this thread.
What I was pointing out is that the only input he uses that is actually derived from the water testing is the expanded diameter.
My last post contained nearly 200 words devoted to addressing the use of a correlation coefficient to attempt to validate the model results.
Besides, if you go back to the context of my original comment, it was this: "You have to have some sort of empirical data, provided by water penetration testing in this case, to give you some inkling of how to quantify those things."
That is a true statement. The model requires the expanded bullet diameter and retained bullet weight derived from empirical data that is generated by the water testing.
Frankly, I'm impressed that his results are as good as they are given the limited inputs to the model. I think that if he had included penetration figures from the water testing, instead of just taking the expanded diameter and retained weight from the testing results he could have made the model outputs even better.
JohnKsa: said:
How interesting that you elected to omit the other example regarding JHPs that I provided.
481: said:
They are of "outwardly similar appearance" (both having expanded to 0.65") yet you chose not to address that example. Why? No way to refute it?
Clearly the model can discriminate between bullets of "outwardly similar appearance".JohnKsa: said:
That's not the question that I asked. I made it very clear here-
JohnKsa: said:
481: said:In one breath you say that you can see no claims that he (Schwartz) is making to be false and then you follow it immediately with two options that assert that either his model is not very accurate or that he is being less than truthful about the construction of his model, even though in the book he clearly displays the derivation of the model and has it laid out plainly for all to see on pages 16-20*.
With all due respect, I could not help but notice that you'd managed to completely "side-step" answering these questions in your latest response.
Is it your position that the author is a liar and/or a fool or is it that he is making no false claims?
Why do you keep avoiding the question?
Last edited:
peacefulgary
New member
I don't buy this notion.
Shot placement yes.
You have to put the bullets in the right places to quickly stop a threat.
But I disagree with the penetration aspect....
The old WWII ere 9mm FMJ ammo never had a problem with penetration.
In fact, it often over-penetrated the target, going completely through a man without stopping that man.
Hollow points tend to give less penetration (and stay inside the target), but they also tend to be more effective at quickly stopping aggressive humans.
This is why police agencies across the nation no longer use FMJ rounds in their handguns.
Why is this the case?
Well, that's the million dollar question.
Is it the transfer of energy?
Is it the larger temporary cavity?
Who knows?
aphdmansoc
New member
Let's see. What I got out of that exchange 481 and JohnKsa disagree. 
Okay, got that.
The rest of the folks are wondering whether 9mm or .45 is better for self-defense. Okay, Okay got that!
Answer: with the better ammo its not likely to matter which you use...everything else being equal.
Other variables do matter. These variables are not included in the models discussed.
However, based on personal knowledge we know that controlled rapidity of fire, shot placement, penetration (which is discussed in the models) mind set, tactics, will, and good luck (randomness) will help determine if you survive a violent encounter.
Stay safe, keep your guns lubricated and your other equipment in tip top shape.
Okay, got that.The rest of the folks are wondering whether 9mm or .45 is better for self-defense. Okay, Okay got that!
Answer: with the better ammo its not likely to matter which you use...everything else being equal.
Other variables do matter. These variables are not included in the models discussed.
However, based on personal knowledge we know that controlled rapidity of fire, shot placement, penetration (which is discussed in the models) mind set, tactics, will, and good luck (randomness) will help determine if you survive a violent encounter.
Stay safe, keep your guns lubricated and your other equipment in tip top shape.
The both suffer from the same problem, but I'll address it now.
Your initial claim was that they were, "outwardly identical", not "outwardly similar". But even if the statement is modified to "outwardly similar", they still don't fill the bill. They don't have an "outwardly similar appearance" since they are different weights and have different impact velocities.
Having one single parameter that matches out of all the various model input parameters does not make them "outwardly similar", and it certainly doesn't make them "outwardly identical".
I'm not avoiding it--I've addressed it at length. I'm just not answering it exactly the way you want me to, and that's primarily because you're posing it in such a way that there's no answer that fits your narrowly defined criteria.
You're posing the question as if it's a multiple choice where I am allowed to only choose one answer when reality is more complicated than that.
Let's go back to what I said and I'll explain it more fully: "Either his model isn't very accurate, or he's using a lot more than just a few easily measured parameters to make it work." The truth is that it's not quite as simple as an "either/or", it's a little of both.
Let's start with: "...his model isn't very accurate...". In the simplest case, he does a calculation with a non-expanding 9mm bullet and predicts a penetration of a little over 27" I poked around on the web and found gel penetration figures for a non-expanding 9mm bullet with an identical weight but with a higher impact velocity. Except that in spite of the higher impact velocity the bullet penetrated only the same distance as the model output even though we know it should have penetrated more deeply due to the higher velocity/momentum. The reason (or one reason) is that the real-world bullet tumbled which increased its drag over the entire travel in the test medium and that reduced the real-world penetration figure. Because the model doesn't actually take penetration figures from the water testing, effects like bullet tumbling in the medium isn't accounted for AT ALL and that's going to hurt the accuracy of the model's output. That said, the model output is pretty decent considering the limited inputs.
Ok, moving on to the second half of the claim: "...he's using a lot more than just a few easily measured parameters to make it work...". In fact, two of the parameters, retained weight and expanded diameter can't be measured at all without performing water penetration testing. In other words, they aren't easily measured parameters of the original bullet, the bullet must first be subjected to firing into a test medium (water) before those parameters can be obtained. However, they're certainly more easily obtained than would be true if they had to be generated with gel testing.
Tactical Jackalope
New member
Hallelujah. It's over? Alright guys, shake on it.
Seriously. That was informative. I'm still in love with both 9mm and .45ACP btw.
SIG 1911 XO / SA 1911 custom / Colt Gold Cup / SIG P226 e2 / Browning High-power / Beretta PX4 Storm / G34 / G19 / G21 / G22 / G30 / S&W M-19 / Hk USP 40 / Rem 870 / Rock R. AR-15
sent from my Android
Seriously. That was informative. I'm still in love with both 9mm and .45ACP btw.
SIG 1911 XO / SA 1911 custom / Colt Gold Cup / SIG P226 e2 / Browning High-power / Beretta PX4 Storm / G34 / G19 / G21 / G22 / G30 / S&W M-19 / Hk USP 40 / Rem 870 / Rock R. AR-15
sent from my Android
Actually if im not mistaken. The 1911 was originally chambered in .38 super while in its prototype stage. I cant remember why JMB went to the .45acp. Im personally a fan of the 45 over the nine but anything is better than rocks. I would personally like a .38 super to try out seems like a pretty good round on paper.
Close but not exactly correct. There was a series of pistols somewhat smaller than the 1911 model and the previous .45 auto models. They were chambered in a cartridge called the .38 ACP (automatic Colt pistol). It even continued in production well after the .45 autos were in production until finally replaced by the .38 Super, which was otherwise practically identical Colt Government Model.
The story is, the original .38 ACP was more powerful than later production of the same cartridge, a tale I've also heard about the .38 S&W Special, which dates from almost the same year. Supposedly the cartridge was loaded weaker because of some inherent design limitations of the original pistol. Could be!
An unusual situation also exists with regard to the .38 ACP and the .38 Super, which is currently always rated as a +P load. The two cartidges have identical dimensions and the traditional load was a 130-grain bullet. I think the .38 Super will always be loaded in a nickel plated case and of course the base markings will be different.
Both cartridges and their respective pistols were promoted as self-defense cartridges for big game hunters.
The story is, the original .38 ACP was more powerful than later production of the same cartridge, a tale I've also heard about the .38 S&W Special, which dates from almost the same year. Supposedly the cartridge was loaded weaker because of some inherent design limitations of the original pistol. Could be!
An unusual situation also exists with regard to the .38 ACP and the .38 Super, which is currently always rated as a +P load. The two cartidges have identical dimensions and the traditional load was a 130-grain bullet. I think the .38 Super will always be loaded in a nickel plated case and of course the base markings will be different.
Both cartridges and their respective pistols were promoted as self-defense cartridges for big game hunters.
seeker_two
New member
If they're such good cartridges, why didn't JMB or Luger invent them?....
Tactical Jackalope
New member
I don't agree with Nanuk. They're all good calibers, but come on man. You can do better than that.
SIG 1911 XO / SA 1911 custom / Colt Gold Cup / SIG P226 e2 / Browning High-power / Walther PPQ / Beretta PX4 Storm / G34 / G19 / G21 / G22 / Kahr CW9 / S&W M-19 / Hk USP 40 / Rem 870 / Rock R. AR-15
sent from my Android