Put the beast to bed (.45 vs .357 .... bonus .45 vs .40)
- Thread starter toppermost
- Start date
Biff Tannen
New member
Now that i really look....
I took another look at the profile photo of the sheet metal...
I gotta say, while the 357 went right through, it appears as if the .45 put one hellof a bend in the thing! Can you post another pic of the profile so we can see the dents???
Thanks!!!!
I took another look at the profile photo of the sheet metal...
I gotta say, while the 357 went right through, it appears as if the .45 put one hellof a bend in the thing! Can you post another pic of the profile so we can see the dents???
Thanks!!!!
Me too, and it doesn't look like the 357 jhp did a very good job of doing what they are designed to do either. The 357 fmj and jhp hole look about identical.
Kinda makes ya wonder if the .40 cal JHP would have expanded or acted like a FMJ as well.
Note to self:
when shoot 357's into 1/16" steel plate, use FMJ and save the more expensive JHP's for SD.
briandg said:
Brian, Ted Nugent's gun in that episode was a Taurus PT99, 9mm, not a Desert Eagle .44 magnum
http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Miami_Vice_-_Season_2#Taurus_PT99
There was a .44 Automag shown earlier in that episode, but it was the gun of one of Nugent's previous victims, not the one Nugent was using. So, Crockett only deflected a 9mm with the steel plate, not a .44 magnum.
Brian, Ted Nugent's gun in that episode was a Taurus PT99, 9mm, not a Desert Eagle .44 magnum
http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Miami_Vice_-_Season_2#Taurus_PT99
There was a .44 Automag shown earlier in that episode, but it was the gun of one of Nugent's previous victims, not the one Nugent was using. So, Crockett only deflected a 9mm with the steel plate, not a .44 magnum.
Thanks for that link! I remember the show well and actually kind of miss it (I thought the Pilot episode was really a pretty good cop movie as well).
Looks like the character "Switek" Michael Talbott went on to become a NRA Lifer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BYBsWbsrac
-Cheers
Last edited:
Okay, lets get our definitions straight. "Firepower" does not refer to the number of rounds available. That's "capacity". I don't know where the idea that "firepower" equals capacity came from, but it certainly seems inaccurate to me. After all, half of the word "firepower" is "power".
Firepower is a military concept. Here is the definition from Wikipedia:
By this definition, I'd say a 12 gauge shotgun is more firepower than a 9mm handgun, despite the fact that the 9mm most likely has a larger number of rounds.
Shadi Khalil
New member
So you shot up an old piece of sheet metal and we are all supposed to re-evaluate what our carry choices? I'm sure you had a lot of fun but you didn't really achieve anything other than which round is best for steel plates. The fact that the .357 DID penetrate the steel and the .45 DID NOT should lead you to some different conclusions. That's if thus test had any viable value, which it really doesn't.
Nakanokalronin
New member
It's from watching too many Nutnfancy videos since he uses the word "firepower" to describe capacity in every video he does. I watch some of his vids to see a close up of guns I'm interested in, but his views and terms are off the wall most of the time. It's like using the word "tactical" to mean a gun or product that you will actually use correctly.
As far as the 45acp round, that piece of steel dosn't tell us anything. The 45acp is a great self defense cartridge with over 100 years of tests and real world use to back it up. If nothing else, it shows that over penetration is not as much of an issue as some believe when it comes to the 45acp. Makes me feel all the more confidant in choosing 1911s and the 45acp cartridge for carry.
Last edited:
I have been using big blocks of oak firewood for a backstop for my pistol shooting.So far none of the rounds have went through. The only thing that has penetrated so far is a fmj 308. So I say all pistol rounds are useless and I will start carrying my 308 BAR. Gonna be hard to conceal , guess I will have to wear a trench coat all the time.
seeker_two
New member
If the bystander was innocent, he wouldn't be following the bad guy, would he?.....
I will remember this when attacked by a piece of steel. This proves nothing. If you want a scientific study of handgun caliber performance you need to use what you will be shooting, tissue or similar (ballistic gelatin). The wound channel is a lot different than holes in steel.
I think the only general 'consensus' here is that there are no empirical/absolutes in ballistic tests so why take them so seriously...? I think if I were to become super paranoid regarding that ever ellusive search for the right caliber or load I would either go back to a revolver (which I do not want to do, no offense) or just carry FMJ exclusively. Boxotruth is a great/fun site but by no means scientific yet I highly recommend it both for its information as well as entertainment (which given today's society is essential
). An example concerning the aforementioned is my just completed CCW/SD/HD research relative to the 'best' round available both for myself and family's defense. I decided upon Hornady's NEW line of Critical Duty as the thought of this round in 9mm 135gr meeting all FBI tests truly both impresses and intrigues me enough (according to my research) that I will now stake human life itself upon it (the problem I always had with their Critical Defense line was the reduced grain weight). That being said, do I know for CERTAIN that its head and shoulders above their Critical Defense line/product? Not really but I think so... By the way, the reason I am committed to this particular product is becuase I have had a few hiccups using HP's in my CCW and I refuse to take the risk with any ammo that may or may not feed reliably in a life or death situation (honestly though if I weren't so lazy I could do a 'fluff and buff' on the feed ramp to solve this but I just have never taken the time to do so). If I did I would have no problem using some of the HP's choices available which according to my research as 'equally' as effective as the Hornady offerings.
http://www.hornady.com/store/Critical-DUTY-New
-Cheers
). An example concerning the aforementioned is my just completed CCW/SD/HD research relative to the 'best' round available both for myself and family's defense. I decided upon Hornady's NEW line of Critical Duty as the thought of this round in 9mm 135gr meeting all FBI tests truly both impresses and intrigues me enough (according to my research) that I will now stake human life itself upon it (the problem I always had with their Critical Defense line was the reduced grain weight). That being said, do I know for CERTAIN that its head and shoulders above their Critical Defense line/product? Not really but I think so... By the way, the reason I am committed to this particular product is becuase I have had a few hiccups using HP's in my CCW and I refuse to take the risk with any ammo that may or may not feed reliably in a life or death situation (honestly though if I weren't so lazy I could do a 'fluff and buff' on the feed ramp to solve this but I just have never taken the time to do so). If I did I would have no problem using some of the HP's choices available which according to my research as 'equally' as effective as the Hornady offerings.http://www.hornady.com/store/Critical-DUTY-New
-Cheers
Last edited:
The truth is, we can talk about this till we are all blue in the face. Getting shot will put the truth to test... Maybe not, maybe so... Look at the people who have died from 22's/25's/32's etc... Then people getting shot 5 times in the chest with 357 and living..
I don't think caliber has anything to do with it, it depends on the person, their body strenght etc... Shooting someone who is 130lbs with a 9mm could stop them, shooting someone who is 250lbs with a 9mm could kill them. You don't know, its about placement shots and more rounds. This is why I say carry more ammo.
I don't take ballistic tests seriously, because if you read the ammo warning, can cause death" meaning all guns are capable of killing an attacker.
If you want a one shot stopper, buy a 500 S&W or some other high caliber revolver.
Just my 2 cents.
9mm,
As much as I wish I could argue/disagree with you I just (unfortunately) cannot. I would love to think that there is at least a semblance of science that can be relied upon to prove that my load is better than your's but in the thirty or so years I have been shooting (many of those witness to my father's PD ballistic tests on the QT) I have yet to conclude that one can be entirely sure of any handgun round (at least that of which qualifies for CCW and not .460S&W and the like). I will say that the ballistic tests 'appear' to prove to a high degree of certitude that expansion consistently occurs during the runs I have seen of which I find fascinating if for no other reason than that they are very entertaining to watch or read the results of.
And all of this brings me back to the fact (many theories abound but still a fact) that the little mouse guns have proven to be quite capable of maiming or killing their intended target which further complicates or confuses the 'caliber' matter--So instead of losing one's sanity I say do your research relative to your particular situation and go with it (kind of like marriage, once you've made your decision just go with it...).
-Cheers
As much as I wish I could argue/disagree with you I just (unfortunately) cannot. I would love to think that there is at least a semblance of science that can be relied upon to prove that my load is better than your's but in the thirty or so years I have been shooting (many of those witness to my father's PD ballistic tests on the QT) I have yet to conclude that one can be entirely sure of any handgun round (at least that of which qualifies for CCW and not .460S&W and the like). I will say that the ballistic tests 'appear' to prove to a high degree of certitude that expansion consistently occurs during the runs I have seen of which I find fascinating if for no other reason than that they are very entertaining to watch or read the results of.
And all of this brings me back to the fact (many theories abound but still a fact) that the little mouse guns have proven to be quite capable of maiming or killing their intended target which further complicates or confuses the 'caliber' matter--So instead of losing one's sanity I say do your research relative to your particular situation and go with it (kind of like marriage, once you've made your decision just go with it...
).-Cheers
I think your test is about as "valid" as judging expansion by firing a bullet into water. Meaningless. At least as far as SD carry is concerned.
There are many thousands of documented shootings with the non steel penetrating .45ACP, which in the HST version, expands to as much as 90 caliber and penetrates 12 to 14 inches.
.45 HB will penetrate, on the average, 2 adult humans. 9mm HB, about 2 1/2.
Momentum required for penetration on two legged predators (or four for that matter) isn't the same as required for steel.
True, the .45ACP was never at it's best against metal barriers. Not a concern for me, though it obviously is for some.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
Last edited:
The problem isn't so much is "the truth" as in what people will believe.
In "the old days" shooting into water cans, waterlogged phone books or Duxseal or clay compounds was the rage. In many cases the results showed nicely mushroomed bullets and the clays held their expanded shape, showing grisly looking cavities. The problem, of course, is that the real world performance was far different. Far less impressive.
Today we use a ballistic gelatin format. Not because it's perfect, but because it's repeatable. Testing bullet "A" can easily be compared to bullet "B" without some snarky comment that the muscle tissue or bone density from the second animal was inferior to that of the first test animal.
Go look through this thread and others. There is always someone who says he doesn't believe/trust/follow the performance of bullets in "Jell-O". Often they'll say that such testing omits bones and varying density organs. But when a small caliber light bullet performs well against a large animal, these same folks post objections that "the bullet must have passed between the ribs" or "Just because you were lucky once..." ad nauseum.
Using animal (or even human) subjects adds huge complexity because now we have to control for body fat, bone density, variations in distance between the skin and organs, physical conditioning (muscle tone/density), etc. This makes any such testing prone to errors and non-repeatable.
The only serious advantages of ballistic gelatin are that it gives a fair simulation of human soft tissue, it is useful for repeatable tests, easily available and disposable and relatively easy to use.
Is it perfect? Of course not.
Ballistic Gel cannot tell us how a bullet will affect someone hell bent on killing you. Or whether it will generate sufficient pain to pierce the foggy veil of adrenaline, drugs or intense rage. It cannot tell us that the bullet's passage will cause a big enough change in blood pressure to result in incapacitating the target rapidly. We can only infer these things from examining the performance in the gelatin.
If you want highly effective round with a high likelihood of a one-shot stop, use a rifle with a rifle cartridge or a shotgun. Otherwise, select your gun and cartridge with the idea that shot placement and penetration to the vitals are the critical factors, then go with it.