Is Big Bullet Technology Dead?
- Thread starter Zorro
- Start date
- Status
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The major ammo manufacturers are applying the same advances in bullet technology and design to .44 and .45 caliber bullets as they are to 9mm and .40 caliber bullets. I don't perceive any distinction between calibers that would even hint that "big bullet" technology is dead, or that there even exists something that might be classified as "big bullet technology."
shootniron
New member
That is not because of bullet technology has made the 9mm outperform the .45acp. That is because bullet technology has finally made the 9mm a more acceptable performer and because the 9mm is the rage for concealed carry...easier than the .45acp. I don't even consider worldwide popularity as the rest of the world has always had a penchant for small handgun cartridges.
I will put the terminal performance of the .45acp and especially the .44 special upside any handgun cartridges with the exception of the really high performance bigbore hunting cartridges.
I like the 9mm fine, own a bunch of them...but it WILL NOT outperform a bigbore cartridge. And, if you think it will...just take it to the hunting woods and you will quickly learn differently. That ain't a gel test...that is real world flesh and bones. It is not human flesh and bone...but it is a lot closer than ballistic gelatin is.
Last edited:
TruthTellers
New member
The FBI says that within their scope of how they use the 9mm, namely it costs less, good JHP penetrates to their depth specs of 12 inches in ballistic gel, and their agents can shoot it better than .40 or .45.
By no means is the 9mm the most effective handgun cartridge. It will never beat the .357 Magnum or even the 10mm or .357 Sig.
More bad guys are wearing body armor. I’m training my folks to work on Pelvis shots.
I carry a .45. I, personally, feel a .45 will do more damage to big bone structures. That’s just my opinion. My “gut” feeling.
I own 9mm’s and 357 Sigs that I carry off duty. Any decent caliber will do what needs to be done most of the time.
I carry a .45. I, personally, feel a .45 will do more damage to big bone structures. That’s just my opinion. My “gut” feeling.
I own 9mm’s and 357 Sigs that I carry off duty. Any decent caliber will do what needs to be done most of the time.
To some extent, this is the story of firearms. As firearm technology improves, the need to use big, heavy bullets has been reduced.
Looking back to the days of hunting with blackpowder rifles in Africa, it wasn't terribly uncommon for people to be using rifles with ball projectiles that were a significant fraction of a pound in weight. Dr. Samuel Baker used a 2 Bore rifle he referred to as "Baby". A 2 bore rifle shoots a lead ball that weighs 3,500 grains. That's 8 ounces--half a pound. Talk about momentum! Dr. Baker reported that it was not uncommon to get a nosebleed after firing "Baby" due to the tremendous recoil.
Advances in smokeless powder, and then later in bullet technology have improved the situation to where it is not necessary to shoot a half pound projectile with a diameter of 1.33 inches in order to get the desired terminal effect, even on very large African game.
Does that mean that those new rounds are more effective than Baby's half pound lead balls? Probably not, but they are more than adequate and have lots of other advantages.
We're still seeing a progression of technology, albeit much slower than it was in the days of the transition from blackpowder and lead bullets to smokeless powder and jacketed bullets. But technology marches on.
The key to understanding this is to understand that their performance criteria creates a pass/fail threshold.
They aren't testing all the available calibers out there to assign them ranks and picking them based on the rank, they are testing the various calibers to see if they pass the performance tests. Any caliber that passes the test is then considered for selection based on the other parameters which are affected by caliber selection. Things like firearm size, agent shooting performance, capacity, training costs, firearm costs, etc.
Looking back to the days of hunting with blackpowder rifles in Africa, it wasn't terribly uncommon for people to be using rifles with ball projectiles that were a significant fraction of a pound in weight. Dr. Samuel Baker used a 2 Bore rifle he referred to as "Baby". A 2 bore rifle shoots a lead ball that weighs 3,500 grains. That's 8 ounces--half a pound. Talk about momentum! Dr. Baker reported that it was not uncommon to get a nosebleed after firing "Baby" due to the tremendous recoil.
Advances in smokeless powder, and then later in bullet technology have improved the situation to where it is not necessary to shoot a half pound projectile with a diameter of 1.33 inches in order to get the desired terminal effect, even on very large African game.
Does that mean that those new rounds are more effective than Baby's half pound lead balls? Probably not, but they are more than adequate and have lots of other advantages.
We're still seeing a progression of technology, albeit much slower than it was in the days of the transition from blackpowder and lead bullets to smokeless powder and jacketed bullets. But technology marches on.
To be fair, that's not what they say. What they say is that, with ammunition currently available, 9mm meets their performance criteria.
The key to understanding this is to understand that their performance criteria creates a pass/fail threshold.
They aren't testing all the available calibers out there to assign them ranks and picking them based on the rank, they are testing the various calibers to see if they pass the performance tests. Any caliber that passes the test is then considered for selection based on the other parameters which are affected by caliber selection. Things like firearm size, agent shooting performance, capacity, training costs, firearm costs, etc.
I didn't say it was. I was responding to a comment on the longevity of handgun cartridges. That longevity has more to it than ballistic performance.
Again, when you're talking about longevity not considering the rest of the world would be rather short sighted.
People seem to forget what ballistic gelatin actually is meant to do. There are cavities in the human body that aren't protected by bone and there are cavities that are. Ballistic gelatin offers far more resistance than basic flesh and but less than bone. It's a medium that attempts to average the resistance that a bullet will encounter when shot into a body as there is no guarantee that a bullet will hit bone or not. Because it's a consistent medium it also allows comparisons between different cartridges that can't really be done with say carcasses because of the deviations that can result from slight changes in bullet placement. Frankly if one cartridge is dramatically more powerful than another you will see the difference in the ballistic gel.
Does 45 ACP have more ballistic performance than 9mm? Sure. Is that difference very dramatic? In my opinion no.
Last edited:
I read a review of a new 9mm round, and the author actually said, "Even if it expands to only .45", it's as effective as .45 hardball."
Uhhhh, there's always a chance that the 9mm won't expand at all, while the .45 is never going to shrink.
Other than marksmanship, the most important factor is penetration, and I'll take my chances with a 230gr slug over anything that weighs half as much.
If a bureaucrat decided what round I have to carry, then I'd be stuck with whatever is issued, but I get to make the call, and I have carried 15+1 9mms, and 6+1 .45s, feeling well-armed with either.
Uhhhh, there's always a chance that the 9mm won't expand at all, while the .45 is never going to shrink.
Other than marksmanship, the most important factor is penetration, and I'll take my chances with a 230gr slug over anything that weighs half as much.
If a bureaucrat decided what round I have to carry, then I'd be stuck with whatever is issued, but I get to make the call, and I have carried 15+1 9mms, and 6+1 .45s, feeling well-armed with either.
They said that in 1985, too. After 1986, they STOPPED staying that for a number of years. Now, they are saying it, again.
Note that the 9mm, which failed in the Miami shootout met every spec the FBI had at the time, including gel test penetration.
And, it still got the blame for "failing".
As far as I'm concerned, the FBI's recommendation(s) mean nothing to me, and should be looked at carefully by any and everyone outside the FBI, to see how well they apply to what you are doing, not just blindly adopted on faith because the FBI is "infallible". They aren't.
OzeanJaeger
New member
I think the people who cite military or federal government procurement procedures as the reasons for holding opinions, about this or that, have never been in the military or worked for the federal government.
There are whole books written about how stupid and often corrupt it is. One would think that knowing the history it would be completely different today. It isn't.
Like economics, more often than not the result is given to the authors before they start, and the whole "study" is noting more than a justification to get to the predetermined result.
Everyone who has served has probably has heard the phrase, "Your equipment was chosen for you based on the lowest bid." We'd actually probably be in better shape if that was the only criterion, and not who plays golf, who offers the best junkets, or is a second cousin of The Senator.
There are whole books written about how stupid and often corrupt it is. One would think that knowing the history it would be completely different today. It isn't.
Like economics, more often than not the result is given to the authors before they start, and the whole "study" is noting more than a justification to get to the predetermined result.
Everyone who has served has probably has heard the phrase, "Your equipment was chosen for you based on the lowest bid." We'd actually probably be in better shape if that was the only criterion, and not who plays golf, who offers the best junkets, or is a second cousin of The Senator.
Zorro,
Do you just make up stuff to support your opinion?
Give me just one credible source that proves the the FBI Firearms Unit at Quantico has proclaimed that the 9MM is more effective than the .45 ACP. Just one.
You'll destroy your credibility when you post opinion as fact.
Do you just make up stuff to support your opinion?
Give me just one credible source that proves the the FBI Firearms Unit at Quantico has proclaimed that the 9MM is more effective than the .45 ACP. Just one.
You'll destroy your credibility when you post opinion as fact.
Not for me. I do carry 9mm in the summer months but the rest of the year it is .45 ACP (1911, Glock 30).
When at the range I will shoot some .45 first and then switch to 9mm. Those bullets look positively tiny after loading magazines with .45 ACP.
There are occasions (very cold) I may strap on my 4.2" Ruger Redhawk in .45 Colt with my own reloads consisting large meplat 255 grain wadcutters. This cartridge is loaded with 10.0 grains of Unique. I forget the velocity but it knocks steel plates down right now.
Tactical Jackalope
New member
Okay. I'll play Devil's advocate here along with TunnelRat...
9mm > all else for self defense for the most part.
Why is this? Capacity and recoil in conjunction with equal to sometimes even better bullet ballistics against the 45 or 40S&W? And you have a clear winner.
That's usually why 9mm is in much higher praises these days. Yes, the same bullet technology applies to the other bigger calibers, but the light and fast moving 9mm still penetrates deeper that the others with a comparable or equal load.
That's another short coming of some of the bigger service bores. I'm leaving revolver loads out, cause those are a beast on a whole other level.
So, go back a few decades where JHPs were sub-par and FMJs were in a majority of guns. 15+1 in an M9 or P229 versus a 7 or 8 +1 in a 1911? I think I would have also considered the 1911 back then. Bigger bullets, no shallow landings in human flesh because the JHPs were crappy anyways. Sure!
I'm not sorry, but today. 9mm wins hands down for a myriad of reasons. Take a class and check out some autopsies and ER reports of a non-gun guy doctor. The results are astonishingly in favor of the 9mm.
9mm > all else for self defense for the most part.
Why is this? Capacity and recoil in conjunction with equal to sometimes even better bullet ballistics against the 45 or 40S&W? And you have a clear winner.
That's usually why 9mm is in much higher praises these days. Yes, the same bullet technology applies to the other bigger calibers, but the light and fast moving 9mm still penetrates deeper that the others with a comparable or equal load.
That's another short coming of some of the bigger service bores. I'm leaving revolver loads out, cause those are a beast on a whole other level.
So, go back a few decades where JHPs were sub-par and FMJs were in a majority of guns. 15+1 in an M9 or P229 versus a 7 or 8 +1 in a 1911? I think I would have also considered the 1911 back then. Bigger bullets, no shallow landings in human flesh because the JHPs were crappy anyways. Sure!
I'm not sorry, but today. 9mm wins hands down for a myriad of reasons. Take a class and check out some autopsies and ER reports of a non-gun guy doctor. The results are astonishingly in favor of the 9mm.
- Status