9mm vs .45ACP

"The .45 is like a rhino and the 9mm is like a chipmunk."



And if that chipmunk ever gets up your pants leg and starts hunting for nuts you'd probably wish you'd been stomped by the rhino.

Sigh.
Click to expand...
That post gets my vote for the hands down funniest post ever on TFL.
 
This is still going?

A lot of assumptions being thrown around. A lot of .45 shooters never get the follow up shot down? Really? Based on what? WAG?

Yes, the initial wound channel probably is bigger despite the bullets expanding the same. Entry wound is going to be larger but the largest wound cavity was about the same for both.

Also, let's be frank. The initial test is interesting evidence but it proves nothing. It is two rounds fired into the same block from guns that have some variables between them. Although it could be argued the variables are minimal, this is not a scientific test.

What I do see is a lot of defensiveness about someone's chosen caliber. Is 9mm just as good as .45 ACP? Maybe in JHP. Maybe. Does this make .45 ACP irrelevant? Well, no, but it does bring into question if all those .45 nuts (myself included) aren't spending an awful lot on ammunition.

You're not going to prove one round is superior to the other. Frankly, even in FMJ the 9mm has some things going for it the .45 ACP doesn't have. Unfortunately, there have been a number of shootings in the past few decades where 9mm was perceived to underperform.

Oops, turns out there are no magic bullets.

I do look to experiements like this as further evidence of what I should be shooting and file it away for when other people ask me for SD advice.

The one conclusion I did draw from the OP's test is not to get overconfident that my .45 ACP handgun is going to be that much more effective then 9mm. At the end of the day, it is still just a handgun and handgun rounds are always minimally effective unless you happen to be carrying a mini-howitzer.
 
Mike Irwin said:
"People. Size size size. Are we forgetting weight? 115,124,147 vs 185 & 230gr? That plays a pretty big factor as well."

Given that the rounds both expand to an almost identical diameter and they both penetrate to almost the same depth, I'd have to say that no, weight is playing virtually no tangible factor at all.

Especially when you consider that as weight goes up, velocity goes down.

It's a tradeoff.
Click to expand...

This is true...touchè Mr. Irwin.
 
Shot placement is most important. As for .45 vs 9mm, if you've ever shot steel plates you can see the difference instantly. I've seen the 9mm and .38 fail to knock the plate down more than once, never saw the .45 bounce off. I'm convince that the .45 is better, it also makes larger holes.
 
"As for .45 vs 9mm, if you've ever shot steel plates you can see the difference instantly."

That is the effect of momentum on either an unpenetratable, or minimally penetrable, target.

Momentum has little to no correlary to wounding potential or effectiveness.
 
Quote.pete2
Member
Shot placement is most important. As for .45 vs 9mm, if you've ever shot steel plates you can see the difference instantly. I've seen the 9mm and .38 fail to knock the plate down more than once, never saw the .45 bounce off. I'm convince that the .45 is better, it also makes larger holes.

That's handy to know. I will try to remember that the next time a steel plate starts shooting at me. PS. Or a bowling pin. :)
 
Last edited:
9mm X 45... ???

I think we will invent a .40...:rolleyes:

Seriously: I think that 9mm, 40, 45 and 357, are almost similar man stopers. Small diferences that cannot elect a champion.

Carry what you prefer, and it´s OK.:o
 
That's handy to know. I will try to remember that the next time a steel plate starts shooting at me. PS. Or a bowling pin.
Click to expand...

Hey man... ricochets are no joke! :p

I must say...9mm has a better chance of getting a tighter group under stress. A good string of bullets in a tighter area.

Recoil and triggers make a world of difference. Way different than shooting nice and comfy at a range.


Hits with a 9mm that's easier to control are better than misses with a .45 that's a little harder to control.

Let's not even get into .40 lol academy memories...I got good with .40 though, don't get me wrong. Anyone can with any round with enough practice.
 
I never let facts get in the way of my love of the .45ACP.

Seriously I know many do not believe that a HP round will fail to expand… but they will

A .45 starts out .45 inches…

Not gonna get any smaller

Snake
 
Momentum has little to no correlary to wounding potential or effectiveness.
Click to expand...
All else being equal, momentum tends to correlate well with penetration.

Of course, when talking about a comparison between 9mm and .45ACP, there are so many differences it's essentially impossible to make any sort of concrete statement about what the difference in momentum means. In this particular case, given the notable similarities in expansion and penetration, it's hard to say it means much of anything at all.
 
"The .45 is like a rhino and the 9mm is like a chipmunk."



And if that chipmunk ever gets up your pants leg and starts hunting for nuts you'd probably wish you'd been stomped by the rhino.

Sigh.
Click to expand...

Come on Mike! I was only kidding. I was making fun of the 45 guys who seem to have brains which are inversely proportional to the size/cal of their pistols. :eek::p

I much prefer the 9mm although I like the 45 better than the 40.
 
Not sure why guys that like and believe in the 45 have mental deficiencies in your eyes. Tests are tests. I think you can find any number of tests that can validate what each group likes about "their" round. I happen to believe more in the 45 side. I think that the ability of the 45 to knock those pins or plates down DOES show a difference in the rounds. I also believe, however, that with the modern ammo, if there is an equally good shot placement, the assailant will most likely be equally dead. I just think the immediate stopping, or deterring, shots would be better from a 45.

In my daily living, the 45 is better for me. This is generally my home protection weapon, with a 10rd mag, and some other loaded mags handy as well. If I was to be in a combat scenario for whatever reason, and I was carrying all of the time, particularly if I could carry whatever ammo I wanted, then I would lean towards the modern day 9. For what it's worth, I think I would carry the Sig P226 Tactical with 20rd mag.

By the way, I think I would prefer this old antiquated design for any first shot home defense situation....


DSCF2298.jpg


DSCF2304.jpg


:D
 
Wish i had a 45 to compare it to, my first gun was 17rd 9mm i feel like thats adequate properly loaded. my second gun was .357 revolver and if that doesnt do it im not sure a 45 will either. I went with the 9 largely for ammo cost and capacity reasons. if a .38 has done it for so long then i think a 9 will too plus so many more bullets, better/faster follow up shots. I dont believe id ever shoot a bad guy just one time and count on that to do the trick provided hes still on his feet. Im sure shot for shot a 45 would do it better but just havent built up enough desire to buy another pistol plus add a caliber to my reloading regime dies, brass, molds and primers and all.
 
" the 45 guys who seem to have brains which are inversely proportional to the size/cal of their pistols."

Oh crap, you've done it now...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top