how about this

L

legacy38

New member
I posted this over on the Glock Talk board this morning after reading the lates 9mm/.40/.45 thread. I thought that I'd bring it over here as well.

_______


I just read the latest 9mm vs .40 S&W vs .45 ACP thread. I have paid a little more attention to them lately because I'm
trying to decide between a 9mm and a .45 ACP for my next purchase.

I want to submit something that may or may not make much of a difference.

Has anybody else noticed that we hardly ever hear people debating .357 magnum vs. .44 magnum? The difference in
calibers is almost the same as the auto rounds that we always discuss. With the .357 mag, you get a smaller bullet traveling
at a higher rate of speed than the bigger .44 mag bullet. Yet, I hardly ever hear people slamming the .357 mag in favor of the
.44 mag.

Now I realize that it isn't a fair comparison between the .357 mag and the 9mm, but could the same principles still apply?

Is the size of the bullet more important than the energy that it delivers?
 
Terminal ballistics is the answer combined with What you can handle. Hits with a 32 apc are deadlier than misses with a 44 mag. I was a 45 auto guys for years. As I shot a lot of 40 cal in bullet/ammunition tests i found that with federal H/S 45 and 40 I got the same wound channel. 13-14 inches deep and .70 to .75 inches in dia. had to turn the bullets over to tell which was which. A 45 which doesn't expand is better than a 40 that doesn't ..9mm than doesnt. A lot if it is probability. I generally carry a 40 cause they can be smaller than my 45. The bottom line is I'm the one that is DEADLY, regardless of the weapon with which im armed. Oh yes, as an LE officer I carried a 4" 44M mod 29 smith a lot cause I could shoot it with speed and accuracy. (I practiced a lot in those days).

------------------
Vinny
 
You won't see much debate between the .357 magnum and .44 magnum from revolver shooters as we pretty much have our priorities in order.

Generally, the .357 magnum is considered the better defense and all around chambering. There is sufficient power to take out a BG with one shot, low enough recoil to recover quickly for a second shot if you are in need of improving your marksmanship and minimal penetration into neighboring housing if you miss or penetrate your target.

The .44 magnum is generally considered a hunting load.

So why the conversation of 9 mm vs .40 vs .45 ACP? Well, how many people use any of them for hunting? Or any non-combat purpose?
 
I have to concur with olegunftr. Mostly when we talk the 9mms and .40s and .45s we're talking about "thin skinned medium weigh game" - and at close range.

That's been (being) agrgued out (to a "agree to disagree") with the .357mag/.44mag folks. But you don't see that debate in this forum.
 
Guy: I fire 2000+ rounds a year of .45 ACP for non-combat purposes. So do thousands of other bullseye competitors.

I'd consider using it for hunting small game if I had the opportunity.
 
The 9mm and the .45 approach the stopping power problem from two different viewpoints.
So I don't think it is a proper comparison...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top