Compare 9mm, 40 S&W and 45 ACP in Self-Defense Shooting?

Since the invention of firearms, military and big game weapons have always been large bore weapons, the smaller stuff just didn't cut it when defending yourselves. Small caliber guns came about for the ease of carrying, not because they were more powerful, they were also easier for frailer people too handle. But as far as shot for shot, I believe that the bigger calibers are more effective.
Click to expand...
As military rifled muskets changed from 15.4 mm 11mm to 8mm or 7mm, and from 69 caliber to 50 caliber to 45 caliber to 30 caliber or .303, one of the benefits was flatter trajectory and consequently, a longer effective range.

That meant that "shot for shot", the smaller bores were more effective.

Of course, lighter ammunition was important.

For big game, there have been differences of opinion, as exemplified by Newton and Weatherby on one side and Keith on the other.

Of course, one would quesion the wisdom of anyone who took a .50-110 on a one-shot antelope hunt.

But none of that is relevant to the subject at hand. In a self defense shooting against a human attacker, "shot for shot" effectiveness merely has to be good enough. The unwanted side effects of having more are not helpful at all and will work to the defender's disadvantage.
 
wwg, using Cape Buffalo to make your case is no more effective than poppers. Yes, if you are hunting dangerous animals in the bush a powerful round is needed. Why? To assure you can achieve enough penetration to immediately incapacitate the animal. As the chart above shows, you don't need a .500 Nitro Express to do that in a human. In fact a 9 mm works just as well as a .45.

You will have to show some evidence the military handguns of old would be more effective than a modern 9 mm with modern high quality ammunition, for stopping humans. Good luck with that.
 
Last edited:
So, according to the chart above, the wound track channels, with the 45 and ,357 Sig are twice the size as either 9mm loads. Also, I never said anything about the big bore muzzleloaders comparing with modern firearms, only that back in the day, when you had one shot, the bigger bores seemed to be more effective than smaller bores. Must be something to this, given one shot bigger seems to be a better choice than smaller. It is easier to put multiple shots with a 9 on target, but what if you only have the one shot. One on One the .45 should be more powerful.
 
wwg if you would take the time to research the expansion of 9mm and .45 self-defense rounds, or anything else on this subject, you will find there is very little difference in the effectiveness of these rounds in stopping humans.

In service caliber handguns I will choose 9 mm. I've done my research. I've studied the evidence and spent many hours and more money than I want to think about training, and practicing with all the service calibers (admittedly much less with .40). All things considered 9 mm wins every time in my hands.

There are many who use .45 for personal defense. It is an excellent round for that purpose. If that is your choice, I'm good with that. It is your use of anecdotal evidence to argue the superiority of .45 over 9mm that is in question. Now to quote one of my favorite philosophers, that's all I have to say about that.
 
I was comparing the expansion of bullets on the chart posted above and just thought that for some reason, the bigger wound the better, I guess I'm wrong. Small is just as good. When I carry a defencive gun, I try to find a compromise size and weight wise for protection from man or beast, so many of us think that bigger calibers have an advantage, if you can use them.
 
well, for my tax money, the FBI has spent a fortune studying this, and i saw earlier today Mr. Vickers had a FB post on the very same topic and reached the very same conclusion the FBI did with all their tax money (some was mine). and ammo manufacturers have also spent a fortune inventing ammo that will pass the various FBI barrier penetration tests (which are based on real world situations) that result in getting a bullet at least 12" thru ballistic gelatin.

and the winner in all of this: 9mm.

it has the same muzzle energy, it's just as effective in the penetration tests, it's easier to shoot and thus you can be more accurate, and you can carry more in a typical pistol than other calibers (giving you more fire power to start with).

i accept the above info and i'm going to run with it.

all y'all can keep arguing stories, i'll stick with the experts (and there are more cited in Vicker's post too).
 
Yep, and after the Miami shootout the FBI spent a ton of tax money researching ammunition and decided that the 10mm was the best thing around. Until they also discovered that some smaller agents couldn't handle the full power 10mm so they down loaded the powder and then S&W cut down the cartridge and the .40 S&W was born. Well except for the hostage rescue teams that kept the .45 acp.

So pardon me if I don't get on board with the FBI's choice of ammunition or firearm. I think I will keep shooting what I shoot best and count on well placed hits over their latest whiz bang research.
 
I've often went by the writings of Elmer Keith, Skeeter Skelton, Massad Ayoob and maybe more importantly Even Marshall and Ed Sanow along with many LEO's that have spent years compiling notes on shootings and in the hunting fields. Maybe with the right bullet the 9 is a efficient fight stopper but if the right bullet is not available at the time?. The 9mm is easier to handle than most of the others and can come in a smaller package for concealability and for those with smaller hands making it easier for a variety of shooters to use. I'm just not believing that shot for shot it is on a even field with the larger calibers when it comes from protection against man or beast. I have nothing against the 9, I do carry one myself from time to time and the wife and daughter feel more comfortable with the recoil of the 9mm. I think my reasoning is fairly sound because of living in a area where personal protection can involve running into a good size animal as well. I hope I'm not coming off as quarrelsome or rude, it's maybe my idea of self defense is different from others.
 
As has been mentioned, a number of factors go into successful self-defense and ballistic performance is only one. But it is a complicated factor. When I was a young man I had a Redhawk .44 Magnum cut down to 3 inches for self-defense. Still have the thing although it's a pain to carry and has low capacity. My reasoning was the same as voiced by others... Traditional SD calibers were all just too anemic. The good ones only slightly less so. Where they would pop water jugs (and FMJ loads merely poked a leak in them) the .44 would vaporize them. Not unlike a rifle. But the bullets of the time were not that dependable and none were really optimized for self-defense. And the blast...

http://s107.photobucket.com/user/hvap90/media/Shooting/Redhawk1.jpg.html?sort=3&o=63

Thinking more practically these days, what we really want is enough penetration but not too much. The ammo study cited earlier gives some idea how good (consistent) SD bullets are these days and the tune-ability of the load to the gun and desired performance, especially if you are willing to carry handloads which is a minor controversy in itself. I think that with some careful study and engineering, any of the calibers under consideration will do their part within reason. A complication that is hard to account for is our attacker. He may be one or more wiry 140 pounder(s) or a 350 pound brute who seemingly feels no pain. The surest approach may be to err a bit towards more penetration rather than less. That is entirely do-able even with the smaller rounds.

Just as did the old elephant hunters who were often badly undergunned yet successful, we must put some thought into anatomy and marksmanship. That is our real ace in the hole.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top