The 9mm vs 45 ACP Debate: A Visual Aid...
- Thread starter Joshua 2415
- Start date
Understood... I see what you're saying. I was debating semantics of the same thing basically, I guess. There are times when light and fast is preferable (barrier penetration), while there are times when momentum wins. It depends on application.
My whole point is pure KE measurement is skewed toward light/fast, and by itself is not good indicator of how well something will necessarily perform. It is, however, a mathematic formula that can give us an idea of how effective a round may be at a glance. In other words... Its an OK measurement for quick comparisons.
My whole point is pure KE measurement is skewed toward light/fast, and by itself is not good indicator of how well something will necessarily perform. It is, however, a mathematic formula that can give us an idea of how effective a round may be at a glance. In other words... Its an OK measurement for quick comparisons.
Mike_Fontenot
New member
"The reason that steel silhouette shooters use heavier solid bullets is that the want every bit of energy to be used to knock over the steel plate."
It's actually momentum, not energy, that knocks over the plates. The so called "power factor" is a measure of momentum, not power or energy. But thumping heavy plates doesn't correlate closely with tissue damage ... a huge, lumbering medicine ball ban knock you down, but it doesn't tear up a lot of flesh.
It's actually momentum, not energy, that knocks over the plates. The so called "power factor" is a measure of momentum, not power or energy. But thumping heavy plates doesn't correlate closely with tissue damage ... a huge, lumbering medicine ball ban knock you down, but it doesn't tear up a lot of flesh.
Mike_Fontenot
New member
I think energy IS the best SINGLE indicator of tissue-damage ability in handguns. But it has its limitations ... best counterexample is the fact that a VERY sharp knife can do a LOT of tissue damage, without much energy needing to be supplied by the user of the knife. Some arrowheads are somewhat the same. It might be possible to exploit this effect with some weird new bullet design ... maybe fold-out cutting blades of length much longer than the bullet radius ... some jacket petals do that to some degree.
.223 in clear gel - look at 1:10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol8tgGtoXus
357 Sig in clear gel - look at 5:16
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iujNWfhUx4A
One makes a difference in tissue but the other makes no difference...right...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol8tgGtoXus
357 Sig in clear gel - look at 5:16
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iujNWfhUx4A
One makes a difference in tissue but the other makes no difference...right...
Sarcasm to explain you thoughts...
Man, you just refuse to accecpt the science and medical experts.
Gel does not show what happens in FLESH. It only shows a comparison between bullets, AND that really only relates to depth of penetration and the recoverd projectile.
The difference is in the SPEED at which the "stretch" happens. ANY bullets that impact below ~2000/2100 fps do not push TISSUE radially away from the wound tract FAST enough to overcome the elasticity of that tissue.
Gel does not have that elasticity and will show radial displacement at MUCH lower impact velocities. Get out and do some research (not just gel videos on utube). The trama surgeons and Military battlefield Docs all say the same thing. Rifles= wounds tracts larger then caliber. Pistols = caliber (or SMALLER
) wound tracts. That is due to the elastic nature of human tissue. So, you can continue to beleive what you want (the Earth is flat) or get out and learn what current medical science and experience is showing us about wound ballistics.
Either way, im out of this one. You can lead a person to knowledge, but you cant make them THINK.
marine6680
New member
So what pistols can shoot these "true" 10mm loads?
If the Delta elite and Glocks can't...
Are there any compact pistols that are in 10mm, ones that shoot the "true" 10mm?
If the Delta elite and Glocks can't...
Are there any compact pistols that are in 10mm, ones that shoot the "true" 10mm?
OldMarksman
Staff
I think we have gone rather far afield. No, momentum does not measure or define energy. And yes, the conversion of kinetic energy to ther forms of energy is important in that it measures work, which is force times distance.
Energy is what we measure when we consider what it takes to cut (remove--grind, mill, or bore into) a solid; to stop or slow a moving object by using friction or regenerative braking; or to heat something.
It we want look at what it takes to impart lift to an object by moving an airfoil, fixed or rotating, through a gas, we are concerned about momentum. That's why lift and drag are higher in colder air--the mass is higher.
If the living body were composed of a true homogenous solid, we could make predictions about penetration, wound channels, etc using energy calculations, just as is done when calculating penetration of armor plate, and be done with it. But it is not. The body contains fluids, and much of the tissue in the body behaves a lot like a fluid. What is important is the conservation of momentum among the projectiles and the particles of the fluid that are put into motion by the projectile.
So which should we consider? Neither, by itself, unless what we are discussing is recoil, or what it takes to move a steel plate, in which case we just look at momentum.
But again, we have gone afield. If we are trying to incapacitate a living organism, we need to destroy or significantly damage certain key internal parts of that organism. To do that we have to hit them.
That's a function of penetration and placement, and to a lesser extent, of diameter.
And placement is not so much a matter of marksmanship per se as it is the result of chance--influenced very heavily by the number of shots.
There's only so much penetration that can be effective in shooting at a human target. Once you have that, the important factor becomes rapidity of controlled fire.
Put another way, terminal ballistics--the performance of a single projectile--is only part of the equation, and if the difference is insignificant and other differences are greater, it is a very small part indeed.
Energy is what we measure when we consider what it takes to cut (remove--grind, mill, or bore into) a solid; to stop or slow a moving object by using friction or regenerative braking; or to heat something.
It we want look at what it takes to impart lift to an object by moving an airfoil, fixed or rotating, through a gas, we are concerned about momentum. That's why lift and drag are higher in colder air--the mass is higher.
If the living body were composed of a true homogenous solid, we could make predictions about penetration, wound channels, etc using energy calculations, just as is done when calculating penetration of armor plate, and be done with it. But it is not. The body contains fluids, and much of the tissue in the body behaves a lot like a fluid. What is important is the conservation of momentum among the projectiles and the particles of the fluid that are put into motion by the projectile.
So which should we consider? Neither, by itself, unless what we are discussing is recoil, or what it takes to move a steel plate, in which case we just look at momentum.
But again, we have gone afield. If we are trying to incapacitate a living organism, we need to destroy or significantly damage certain key internal parts of that organism. To do that we have to hit them.
That's a function of penetration and placement, and to a lesser extent, of diameter.
And placement is not so much a matter of marksmanship per se as it is the result of chance--influenced very heavily by the number of shots.
There's only so much penetration that can be effective in shooting at a human target. Once you have that, the important factor becomes rapidity of controlled fire.
Put another way, terminal ballistics--the performance of a single projectile--is only part of the equation, and if the difference is insignificant and other differences are greater, it is a very small part indeed.
Mike_Fontenot
New member
Here's a few more comments and tidbits about energy versus momentum:
You can easily calculate energy with a hand calculator:
E = 2.22 * M * v * v ft-lbs,
where the asterisk denotes multiplication, M is the bullet mass in grains, and v is in thousands of ft/sec (for example, a velocity of 1250 ft/sec would be entered as 1.25, and 860 ft/sec would be entered as 0.86).
The momentum can be calculated as
P = 4.44 * M * v / 1000 lb-sec,
with M and v as they were defined for the energy equation above.
In the standard momentum units of lb-sec, the above equation usually gives a small, unwieldy number, because the standard units for momentum are larger than is convenient for bullets out of a handgun. Instead of doing the above division by 1000, just leave it off, and you get momentum in the non-standard (but more convenient) units of lb-msec.
The so-called "power factor" used in some competitions is in yet another set of units for momentum. All three choices of units are measuring the same thing, and are proportional to one another.
Total perceived recoil tracks most closely with momentum. However, the same total momentum can feel more or less "snappy", depending upon how quickly the rising momentum (as the bullet progresses down the barrel, increasing velocity as it goes) reaches its full value (when the bullet leaves the muzzle). Lighter bullets spend less time in the barrel (for equal total momentum). Also, a heavier gun tends to lengthen the time before that total momentum has been completely delivered to the shooter, so it tends to make the recoil feel less "snappy", just like a heavier bullet does (again, for equal total momentum).
Tissue destruction most closely tracks energy (assuming all the energy gets left in the bad-guy). That's because tearing tissue (as opposed to cutting it with a very sharp knife) involves pulling apart molecules at the microscopic level, which requires breaking chemical bonds, which requires energy. On the other hand, cutting is making a change to a surface, not to a volume, and it doesn't encounter nearly as many molecules, and so fewer bonds need to be broken by comparison to tearing.
For two rounds that have the same momentum, the heavier bullet will have less energy. For two rounds that have the same energy, the heavier bullet will have more momentum.
You can easily calculate energy with a hand calculator:
E = 2.22 * M * v * v ft-lbs,
where the asterisk denotes multiplication, M is the bullet mass in grains, and v is in thousands of ft/sec (for example, a velocity of 1250 ft/sec would be entered as 1.25, and 860 ft/sec would be entered as 0.86).
The momentum can be calculated as
P = 4.44 * M * v / 1000 lb-sec,
with M and v as they were defined for the energy equation above.
In the standard momentum units of lb-sec, the above equation usually gives a small, unwieldy number, because the standard units for momentum are larger than is convenient for bullets out of a handgun. Instead of doing the above division by 1000, just leave it off, and you get momentum in the non-standard (but more convenient) units of lb-msec.
The so-called "power factor" used in some competitions is in yet another set of units for momentum. All three choices of units are measuring the same thing, and are proportional to one another.
Total perceived recoil tracks most closely with momentum. However, the same total momentum can feel more or less "snappy", depending upon how quickly the rising momentum (as the bullet progresses down the barrel, increasing velocity as it goes) reaches its full value (when the bullet leaves the muzzle). Lighter bullets spend less time in the barrel (for equal total momentum). Also, a heavier gun tends to lengthen the time before that total momentum has been completely delivered to the shooter, so it tends to make the recoil feel less "snappy", just like a heavier bullet does (again, for equal total momentum).
Tissue destruction most closely tracks energy (assuming all the energy gets left in the bad-guy). That's because tearing tissue (as opposed to cutting it with a very sharp knife) involves pulling apart molecules at the microscopic level, which requires breaking chemical bonds, which requires energy. On the other hand, cutting is making a change to a surface, not to a volume, and it doesn't encounter nearly as many molecules, and so fewer bonds need to be broken by comparison to tearing.
For two rounds that have the same momentum, the heavier bullet will have less energy. For two rounds that have the same energy, the heavier bullet will have more momentum.
OldMarksman
Staff
It's more than that.
Do you want a slightly wider wound channel, or do you want to be able to fire more aimed rounds in the same time interval to increase your chances of hitting something vital timely?
Exactly. I am absolutely sure that I am better able to put more rounds on target, in less time with my 9 mm. With the effectiveness of service calibers so similar, more is definitely better.
Of course I occasionally carry an LCP, when we all know that a 380 is completely inadequate for self-defense.
We do not " KNOW" that. You FEEL thats the case.
Bigger engines...more power
Bigger tires...more traction
So bigger bullets shoud have more "power"
There is NO real world data to support the statement that with modern JHP ammo that the .45 is any more effective at stopping threats then ANY of the other defensive pistol calibers.
Im talking real PEOPLE shot with these calibers. Not Gel blocks with crappy science behind the test. REAL world data. There is a ton of shooting data to study, and the winner is?????.....
Well, there is no winner. The data points are so close as to be interchangeable.
Too many variables...not enough of a difference to show up in the results.
Shark bite...
Seriously?
Go to Wikipedia, look up the word power. The look up the KE figures for both rounds, the weights, the diameters, then look up the US army's research that lead them to choose the.45 over the current .38 caliber handgun.
Truly, nobody on this planet is ridiculous enough to throw out a paper for publishing that purports to provide real world data and analysis of detailed shootings. Anyone with a background in science knows that the best you can do is collate information and draw conclusions, so there's no point in demanding that.
What you need to take home from this discussion is that a bullet hole is a place for bleeding and damaging vital tissues. A .45 makes a bigger hole, that's pretty much an indisputable fact, whether carrying expanding or non. The bullets will both put a bleeding hole through tissues, and unless we play games, we can just accept this. Martin fackler, a key expert, M.D., and worldwide authority on wound ballistics has said that as long as the needed depth of penetration is reached, the wider bullet is better.
I don't know why you would believe that the .45 isn't superior to the nine, but one of the world's foremost experts states that the answer is a basic fact. All other things equal,bigger is simply better. The only other consideration is ultimate depth of penetration.
If you want to disbelieve, fine, I've led you to the water. Read the links. Think about facklers statement on diameter. There just isn't room for argument.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Fackler
http://www.thegunzone.com/quantico-wounding.html
Seriously?
Go to Wikipedia, look up the word power. The look up the KE figures for both rounds, the weights, the diameters, then look up the US army's research that lead them to choose the.45 over the current .38 caliber handgun.
Truly, nobody on this planet is ridiculous enough to throw out a paper for publishing that purports to provide real world data and analysis of detailed shootings. Anyone with a background in science knows that the best you can do is collate information and draw conclusions, so there's no point in demanding that.
What you need to take home from this discussion is that a bullet hole is a place for bleeding and damaging vital tissues. A .45 makes a bigger hole, that's pretty much an indisputable fact, whether carrying expanding or non. The bullets will both put a bleeding hole through tissues, and unless we play games, we can just accept this. Martin fackler, a key expert, M.D., and worldwide authority on wound ballistics has said that as long as the needed depth of penetration is reached, the wider bullet is better.
I don't know why you would believe that the .45 isn't superior to the nine, but one of the world's foremost experts states that the answer is a basic fact. All other things equal,bigger is simply better. The only other consideration is ultimate depth of penetration.
If you want to disbelieve, fine, I've led you to the water. Read the links. Think about facklers statement on diameter. There just isn't room for argument.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Fackler
http://www.thegunzone.com/quantico-wounding.html
OldMarksman
Staff
Power is energy divided by time.
KE is not power.
Why do we care?
Completely irrelevant. We are not choosing between the .38 Long Colt and the .45 ACP with solid bullets for use as a cavalry weapon.
What paper?
Yep--the latter, in this context, IF that hole hits vital tissues. Better to have holes--plural.
The difference, if we confine ourselves to modern expanding bullets, is small, and when we look at that difference in terms of a percentage of the volume of the human bdoy, it is insignificant.
It probably is, but the question is how much better.
The reason that most of today's experts say that the .45 is not supperior is that the difference in terminal ballistics, which is slight with today's ammunition, is more than offset by the slower speed of controlled fire.
And therein lies the rub. All other things are never equal.
Not so.
The other extremely important consideration is placement--not "marksmanship", but what is hit. That's a stochastic thing--a matter of chance--that depends very much upon the number of shots fired.
At one time, Rob Pincus carried a .45. Than he learned better, and switched to a .40. And then advances in ammunition technology led him to discard the .40 for the 9. Here's why, in his words:
If for some reason you do not believe that Rob knows what he is talking about, look around. You will find that the vast majority of experts today have come to the same conclusion.
The argument I see for 9MM is circular. That is not to say that 9MM may not be a good choice from a set of bad choices but to argue it is the best choice requires one buy into the following premises and that they apply to the individual:
1) The bare min. "power" (however one chooses to define power) for carry is 9MM
2) Excess recoil is negative and recoil should be kept to min. while allowing for adequate power (see premise 1)
3) More ammo > less ammo - though premise 1 takes precedence.
1) The bare min. "power" (however one chooses to define power) for carry is 9MM
2) Excess recoil is negative and recoil should be kept to min. while allowing for adequate power (see premise 1)
3) More ammo > less ammo - though premise 1 takes precedence.
The best "compromise" is more powerful / bigger bullets with the same capacity as less powerful / smaller bullets.
Either 15 +1 in the pistol of these:
Glock 20 SF
Hornady 175 gr. Critical Duty @ 1,146 fps / 510# KE / PF 201
Or 13 + 1 in the pistol of these:
Glock 21
Federal HST 230 gr. @ 863 fps / 380# KE / PF 198
Smaller package option:
13 + 1 of these:
Glock 32:
Federal HST 125 gr. @ 1,358 fps / 512# KE / PF 170
13 + 1 and 500# KE or 45 caliber no matter which option.
Either 15 +1 in the pistol of these:
Glock 20 SF
Hornady 175 gr. Critical Duty @ 1,146 fps / 510# KE / PF 201
Or 13 + 1 in the pistol of these:
Glock 21
Federal HST 230 gr. @ 863 fps / 380# KE / PF 198
Smaller package option:
13 + 1 of these:
Glock 32:
Federal HST 125 gr. @ 1,358 fps / 512# KE / PF 170
13 + 1 and 500# KE or 45 caliber no matter which option.
OldMarksman
Staff
If we are speaking of defensive handgun shooting, the critical factor is more one of speed of aimed fire, which is largely a function of recoil, than of capacity.
Consider someone running around his truck or your car or the pumps at around five meters per second, and assume that you can draw while moving and fire by the time he is three or four meters away--and that may be very close to best case.
How many shots do you think you will fire?