Considering Switching from .45 Auto to 9mm

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've been watching the crowning of the 9mm as the self-defense, concealed carry cartridge of choice for a number of years now. Since it's easier to shoot and cheaper, the guns are lighter and hold more rounds, it's no wonder everyone is so convinced it's just as good as the 40 or 45. Makes you feel better about your choice.

Since I'm an old fart who spent my LEO career and 30 years since then carrying one kind of 45 ACP or another, I'm just gonna go on doing so. If I'm wrong and they burry me because of it...well, they're gonna bury me before long anyway.

Argue away boys and girls. It's entertaining to read, if a bit silly at times.

Dave
 
I can’t do math. That’s why I went to law school. With that said, I am fairly convinced that.45 acp is better than 9mm, when compared round-for-round. That’s one of the reasons I carried a 1911 in .45 for several years. When I decided to look for something lighter than my 1911, I started looking at all kinds of things. I realized that if I was willing to switch to 9mm:
  • Practice ammo would be about half the cost of .45.
  • I could carry twice as much ammo in a lighter pistol (1911 vs G19). Or
  • I could carry the same amount of ammo in a substantially lighter pistol (1911 vs. Shield).
After I thought about that, the question morphed from “is .45 better than 9mm?,” into “is a fairly uncomfortable 15 rounds of .45 better than 30 rounds of moderately comfortable 9mm, or 25 rounds of very comfortable 9mm?”
 
I think there are advantages to the .40 and .45 over the 9mm, but that's lost to most people. Sure the 9mm will kill, but will it stop the treat as fast as a bigger bullet? Everyone is different, I'm a huge .40 fan yet many seem to hate it. I shot a Gen4 19 beside a Gen4 23 and there wasn't a big difference in recoil, but the .40 pokes bigger holes, as does the .45. I don't doubt for a second the .40 and .45 are better at stopping threats than the 9mm is, but at the same time, I'm not implying the 9mm is bad, it's just not as good. It's all a trade off really, but I'm not willing to give up effectiveness in favor of an ever so slightly faster follow up shot.

I've had a Gen4 21 and to me, it shoots very softly. But I guess that's the rub, are you willing to give up effectiveness for speed? Does higher speed mean more effective? To me, you can shoot all of them fast enough that it's not going to matter in real life, in other words defending yourself successfully isn't going to come down to a few milliseconds difference between shots. If you're a competitive shooter, maybe it matters, but otherwise, give me fast and more effective over slightly faster and less effective.
 
Last edited:
How many rounds of ANY of them, does it take to stop any problem?

And yes, its a trick question. :)


The answer is very simple, but seems lost on many. ;)
 
It's true that ammo technology has improved over the years. I think 9mm in particular has benefited from these advances. In terms of effectiveness versus .45, it's still the classic argument of big and slow versus small and fast. Since 9mm also has advantages with respect to cost, capacity, recoil, and size for concealment; I'd choose it over .45 any day of the week for EDC.

I think .40 S&W offers an excellent balance of velocity, mass, and capacity. However, I find it unpleasantly snappy in smaller guns. That means liking it in larger pistols and that can be tough for EDC.
 
Ruger45LC said:
I think there are advantages to the .40 and .45 over the 9mm, but that's lost to most people. Sure the 9mm will kill, but will it stop the treat as fast as a bigger bullet? Everyone is different, I'm a huge .40 fan yet many seem to hate it. I shot a Gen4 19 beside a Gen4 23 and there wasn't a big difference in recoil, but the .40 pokes bigger holes, as does the .45. I don't doubt for a second the .40 and .45 are better at stopping threats than the 9mm is, but at the same time, I'm not implying the 9mm is bad, it's just not as good. It's all a trade off really, but I'm not willing to give up effectiveness in favor of an ever so slightly faster follow up shot.

I've had a Gen4 21 and to me, it shoots very softly. But I guess that's the rub, are you willing to give up effectiveness for speed? Does higher speed mean more effective? To me, you can shoot all of them fast enough that it's not going to matter in real life, in other words defending yourself successfully isn't going to come down to a few milliseconds difference between shots. If you're a competitive shooter, maybe it matters, but otherwise, give me fast and more effective over slightly faster and less effective.
Click to expand...
The goal isn't to poke holes. The goal is to end a fight. The fastest way to do that is by disabling or destroing the central nervous system or causing massive blood loss. That to me isn't accomplished by making holes that are ~0.10" wider than other options. It's accomplished by hitting the organs or systems of the human body that relate to those functions and doing so with enough mass and velocity to cause the requisite damage. That's shot placement. I already posted a few stories and I can find basically countless others of people surviving multiple shots with handgun calibers. These aren't the hammer of Thor and the differences we're discussing aren't anywhere near what they are for certain rifle cartridges.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Mike Irwin, I feel that post is a little harsh. I find shooting 9mm boring. I also find 9mm chambered guns boring. I own them, I shoot them, I carry them. I just don't feel any joy shooting them. I meant no harm. Just my opinion


I am a little confused about the Jesus and clowns reference.
 
.45 ACP, putting down bad guys since 1905. Good enough for me. I've had several 9 MM's over the years. Never kept one for long.
 
Go with the 9mm. It's an upgrade.

The military was disappointed in the performance of 45 ACP at the end of WW-2 and spent considerable time in 1946 testing 9mm vs 45 side by side. They concluded back then that 9mm was the clear winner and wanted to dump both the 1911 and 45 ACP in favor of a modern high capacity 9mm pistol then.


Budget cuts, and warehouses full of perfectly functional 1911's and 45 ammo meant the project was shelved and forgotten for 40 years until those 1911s were worn out and replaced with the Beretta 9mm in 1985.

Most of what we think we know about the 45 is based on the highly fictional writings of Jeff Cooper after the war. Still today his hyperbole is taken as gospel over facts by many.

Modern advancements have made all ammo much better, not just 9mm. You can go back over 100 years and look at all of the data, test results, and research and see that as long as comparable ammo is used 9mm and 45 ACP have always netted near identical results. But 9mm has, and always will cost less, recoil less, have more ammo capacity in comparable size guns, (or allow smaller guns to be carried), and most people shoot 9mm more accurately.
 
T. O'Heir said:
The difference between 9mm and the .45 out of like pistols(barrel lengths) isn't enough to matter.
"...Arthritis in my wrists and thumb joint..." Using 9mm isn't going to help.
Click to expand...
I think this is a huge YMMV..I tried a 1911(all metal).45 and also G26, G43, Ruger LC9S, S&W 642 and Ruger LCP and have settled on a G19, G17 and G42..all but the 3 Glocks I have now actually 'hurt' my wrist and thumb, particularly the .45..in spite of it being the heaviest of the bunch.

YMMV and all that but my wrist/thumb certainly puts me in the 'recoil sensitive' crowd.
 
Last edited:
Since this always seems to come up, please understand that attacks end for various reasons. Some are more definite than others but here are a few common reasons:

- Disruption of central nervous system
- Reaction to pain
- Reaction to realization of being shot
- Mechanical damage to involved body parts
- Disconnection of nerves to involved body parts
- Failure of circulatory system

Yes, shot placement is king. Yes, you can get better at that with stress training, shooting from different positions, and practicing against moving targets. However, it won't always be possible and we all need to understand that reality. Real-life defensive situations can be chaotic and downright messy. You might be tangled up with an attacker, a group of attackers, or an aggressive animal. You might be lucky to get one into a pelvic girdle, a thigh, or even just a bicep. So while good shot placement towards a definite end is ideal, sometimes it will come down to things like breaking bones or ripping a good hole.

Let's all be humble in not knowing the future and just doing what we can to reasonably prepare for possibilities.
 
Cosmodragoon said:
Since this always seems to come up, please understand that attacks end for various reasons. Some are more definite than others but here are a few common reasons:

- Disruption of central nervous system
- Reaction to pain
- Reaction to realization of being shot
- Mechanical damage to involved body parts
- Disconnection of nerves to involved body parts
- Failure of circulatory system

Yes, shot placement is king. Yes, you can get better at that with stress training, shooting from different positions, and practicing against moving targets. However, it won't always be possible and we all need to understand that reality. Real-life defensive situations can be chaotic and downright messy. You might be tangled up with an attacker, a group of attackers, or an aggressive animal. You might be lucky to get one into a pelvic girdle, a thigh, or even just a bicep. So while good shot placement towards a definite end is ideal, sometimes it will come down to things like breaking bones or ripping a good hole.

Let's all be humble in not knowing the future and just doing what we can to reasonably prepare for possibilities.
Click to expand...

I feel pretty humble. I've done force on force and seen both myself and others miss at distances I would laugh at normally. I'm aware that getting a shot on target at all, much less an ideal shot, is far from a given. That said, my own deficiencies do not change what will forcibly remove a person from a fight. And yes some people will absolutely react from the shock and the pain and stop the fight. And others like Platt in that Miami shootout will keep fighting while blood is filling their lungs. Given that I most likely don't know the mentality of a person I'm fighting in a life or death situation, physiology is really what I have to work with.

I am not convinced that there is a dramatic difference between 9mm and 45ACP when it does just come to inflicting trauma, and that's really the key. As you stated above, all else being equal a 9mm holds more and for most people involves less felt recoil. Does the destructive potential of 45ACP make up for those differences. That's been debated and will be debated forever it seems.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Shot placement is king. You can shoot 9mm twice as often as .45 for the same money. If you shoot twice as often, you’re likely to have better shot placement. If you shoot 100 rounds four times a year, it makes no difference.
 
" .45 ACP, putting down bad guys since 1905. Good enough for me. I've had several 9 MM's over the years. Never kept one for long."

9mm Parabellum. Putting bad guys down since 1902.

Not exactly sure when the first .45 ACP chambered handguns were sold commercially... It might have been around 1907 as the first Model 1905s went to the military for testing and the patent on the 1905's locking modifications wasn't issued until late December of 1905.

As someone else has mentioned, if you're limited to hardball, then .45 may be the more logical choice.

But we're no longer limited to hardball.
 
The military was disappointed in the performance of 45 ACP at the end of WW-2 and spent considerable time in 1946 testing 9mm vs 45 side by side. They concluded back then that 9mm was the clear winner and wanted to dump both the 1911 and 45 ACP in favor of a modern high capacity 9mm pistol then.
Click to expand...

I've heard of this 1946 test a few times, and I've been trying to find the results of it with no luck. Does anyone know if these results are on the interwebs, and if so, where? I don't doubt that it really happened, I'm just curious to see what they had to say in 1946. Might find some interesting food for thought.
 
My understanding is that the military wasn't really disappointed with the performance of the .45, it was that that the 9mm gave better ballistic performance out of submachine guns and was easier for semi-trained troops to shoot out of a handgun.
 
To each his own. I'm perfectly comfortable with .45 ACP, I'm not overly fond of the 9MM. Mike Irwin, my comment about 1905 was meant to be tongue in cheek. The date has no bearing on anything.
 
Mike Irwin said:
My understanding is that the military wasn't really disappointed with the performance of the .45, it was that that the 9mm gave better ballistic performance out of submachine guns and was easier for semi-trained troops to shoot out of a handgun.
Click to expand...
I do know that my Grandfather had nothing good to say about his Thompson he carried in the Pacific. Between weight, recoil and inaccuracy (rate of fire related I guess, he didnt talk about the war often and we didnt press).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top