I had finally settled on a PPQ in 9mm for my first handgun, when out of the blue I decided to try an HK45C. Turns out I shoot it just as well. Consequently, I'm now trying to decide which caliber I want to go with. To that end, I want to make sure I'm understanding the ballistic properties of both. I'm hoping beyond hope that this will not turn into a "caliber war" thread, as I've read about a hundred of those over the past week.
Rather, I'm hoping for confirmation that what I believe I understand about these two calibers is actually how they function. If I'm wrong, I'd rather know now than before I pull the trigger on one or the other.
Expansion:
This one seems pretty straightforward. The .45 holds the edge regardless of what sort of round/load we're talking about. "Heavy" +P 9mm loads seem to do almost as well, but not quite. Talking about JHP, of course.
Trajectory:
From what I understand, 9mm shoots in a much more flat trajectory, meaning it's more accurate at extreme ranges, while .45 drops more quickly in comparison. Correct? This is, bizarrely, one of the traits I'm more concerned with, despite knowing it has little practical application; I am never going to be in a gunfight at 50+ yards with a pistol. Still, it bothers me about the .45 for some reason.
Energy:
This may be the statistic I understand the least; my understanding of it is kinetic energy applied by the impact of the round, which, I presume, would play some role in the amount of trauma done by the shot. .45 seems to retain its energy much better over distance than 9mm, which if my understanding of trajectory is correct, suggests that though the .45 is going to be less accurate at long ranges due to bullet drop, it's still going to hit harder if it hits. 9mm seems to bleed energy quickly.
Penetration:
This one's interesting. Penetration in ballistic gel is better with the .45, though again, "heavy" +P 9mm loads do almost identically. However, when we're talking about penetration of "protection" of some sort - heavy clothing, or of course ballistic vests - 9mm seems to be the clear winner. Yet, just to throw another wrench in the works, .45 seems to do better against actual barriers - car doors, walls, etc. Have I got all that right? If so, no idea how that could all be true.
Price:
.45's a lot more expensive. 9mm equals more practice, unless you're on an unlimited ammo budget, which I'm not.
Suppression:
A minor concern, but if I ever want to throw a can on the gun, it might become important. .45s are inherently subsonic, to my understanding, while you need to find certain subsonic loads for the 9mm. The .45's going to be louder regardless of being "easier" to suppress.
Am I missing any characteristics I should be considering? I don't know that understanding all of this for sure is going to help me any, but like I said, I want to make sure I do. Then I'll just have to decide how likely it is I'll ever be facing armored zombies advancing on me from the opposite endzone of a football field and decide accordingly.
Rather, I'm hoping for confirmation that what I believe I understand about these two calibers is actually how they function. If I'm wrong, I'd rather know now than before I pull the trigger on one or the other.
Expansion:
This one seems pretty straightforward. The .45 holds the edge regardless of what sort of round/load we're talking about. "Heavy" +P 9mm loads seem to do almost as well, but not quite. Talking about JHP, of course.
Trajectory:
From what I understand, 9mm shoots in a much more flat trajectory, meaning it's more accurate at extreme ranges, while .45 drops more quickly in comparison. Correct? This is, bizarrely, one of the traits I'm more concerned with, despite knowing it has little practical application; I am never going to be in a gunfight at 50+ yards with a pistol. Still, it bothers me about the .45 for some reason.
Energy:
This may be the statistic I understand the least; my understanding of it is kinetic energy applied by the impact of the round, which, I presume, would play some role in the amount of trauma done by the shot. .45 seems to retain its energy much better over distance than 9mm, which if my understanding of trajectory is correct, suggests that though the .45 is going to be less accurate at long ranges due to bullet drop, it's still going to hit harder if it hits. 9mm seems to bleed energy quickly.
Penetration:
This one's interesting. Penetration in ballistic gel is better with the .45, though again, "heavy" +P 9mm loads do almost identically. However, when we're talking about penetration of "protection" of some sort - heavy clothing, or of course ballistic vests - 9mm seems to be the clear winner. Yet, just to throw another wrench in the works, .45 seems to do better against actual barriers - car doors, walls, etc. Have I got all that right? If so, no idea how that could all be true.
Price:
.45's a lot more expensive. 9mm equals more practice, unless you're on an unlimited ammo budget, which I'm not.
Suppression:
A minor concern, but if I ever want to throw a can on the gun, it might become important. .45s are inherently subsonic, to my understanding, while you need to find certain subsonic loads for the 9mm. The .45's going to be louder regardless of being "easier" to suppress.
Am I missing any characteristics I should be considering? I don't know that understanding all of this for sure is going to help me any, but like I said, I want to make sure I do. Then I'll just have to decide how likely it is I'll ever be facing armored zombies advancing on me from the opposite endzone of a football field and decide accordingly.