The 9mm vs 45 ACP Debate: A Visual Aid...

Some people just refuse to believe that higher energy in handgun rounds is meaningless...

If the bullet has the power and momentum needed to push itself to a penetration depth of 12-18 inches then it is fine. (I would say that 15in is a good ideal target) Any power difference between calibers capable of reaching proper penetration... may be dissipated in the target, but it's not enough to actually matter. (As modern defensive hollowpoints are desktop stop a bullet within the 12-18 inch standard, no mater the energy of the bullet)

No one is arguing that 9mm has less energy than some other calibers... only that evidence from real world use of handguns in defensive situations, has shown that...

1: More energy beyond what is needed to push a given diameter and weight bullet to the depths required, is just wasted energy that has little effect on the target.

2: Higher volume of accurate fire is better than lower volumes of accurate fire.

3: For most people, (if not all to some degree) higher powered rounds (more recoil) are detrimental to fast accurate fire.
 
Last edited:
Missing The Mark

I'm the OP. I have no problem with all the posts which are debating 9mm vs 45. That is to be expected, and interesting reading.

But, this really wasn't supposed to be a 9mm vs 45 debate. My original post was pointing out that BOTH the 9mm 124+P and the 45 185+P seemed, at least in the posted gel test, to perform noticeably better then the 230 grain non+P 45 ammo.

When compared with the 185+P and the 9mm 124+P, I'm just not impressed with the 230 grain JHP.

My question is, why is 230 grain JHP so widely respected? Other than slightly less recoil, and assuming that the 185+P and 124+P exceed the FBI's 12" minimum, why carry the 230 grain JHP?
 
General rule of thumb is that heavier for a given caliber is better for penetration. As momentum and inertia are the key factors for penetration, not energy. Hence, 230gr is generally seen to perform better than 185gr.

(Different diameters and drag profiles of different calibers means direct comparison outside of a single caliber is not feasible, meaning a 45 will have more momentum than a 9mm, but it experiences more drag that the momentum has to work against.)

This rule does not always hold true with individual loads though... so looking at gel tests, and the more examples the better, is needed to know how an individual load will perform.

But for the most part, I see standard pressure loads penetrating deeper than +P loads in tests between equivalent rounds. (124gr HST in standard and +P for example)

If I had to choose, I would want more penetration than more expansion diameter. So long as we are staying within the 18" max recommend. And I personally feel 15" is the best target, with 14-16" being my sweet spot when looking at tests.
 
Actually bullet size (shape and mass) has as great an effect on penetration as anything else. A 150 gn Spitzer bullet going 1000 fps will zip right through you. As will most 147 gn 9mm fmj a if they don't hit substantial bone. 185 gn fmj 45 acp too.
Hollow points change the game. Bigger wound cavity and greater energy dump (if that means anything and by most accounts it doesn't for handgun rounds). But always less penetration.
Lighter hollow points going really fast perform well unless they hit bone. Heavier hollow points going slower perform well too, even if you hit bone. Heavier calibers (like in 45acp) can't fit as many rounds in a gun (unless you live in 10 round limit states like CA) so fewer chances to scores hits but the hits will perhaps be better if they encounter bone. I think it's best to load greater capacity in the heaviest bullet you can get. So 17 rounds of 147 gn hollow points in 9mm.
To your question, the 230 gn bullet was and is good at smashing through everything. So, before the more modern bullet construction techniques leveled the playing field and the 9mm wonder guns were out, it was king. Less so now but still a good choice.
 
the critical factor is more one of speed of aimed fire
Click to expand...
So a full size .22LR with ultra-high capacity (something like 30 I bet) and very low recoil would be the ultimate self defense pistol?
Click to expand...
Of course not!

I was comparing the importance of rapidity of fire with that of capacity.
 
More energy beyond what is needed to push a given diameter and weight bullet to the depths required, is just wasted energy that has little effect on the target.
Click to expand...

Is it wasted or does it have a little effect?
Which is it?
While we're at it, exactly where is this magic number where KE is relevant?
 
What is the magic number in terms of energy (or is it penetration, or bullet weight?) Why not .380 or 9x18 - less energy should mean less recoil in comparable firearms? Why not .32 of some type which would need even less energy to push the bullet far enough (in terms of penetration) if all that matters is penetration and lack of recoil?

This is what I am getting at. The argument that holds that 9MM is the minimum needed in terms of X (energy, penetration, bullet weight?) and that anything beyond that min. is insubstantial then argues that recoil is negative necessarily concludes that 9MM is the best choice.

I object to the argument that anything beyond 9MM is insubstantial in difference. I also object to the argument that the differences in recoil are so substantial (for most people) to merit as much consideration as they are given in this argument.
 
But, this really wasn't supposed to be a 9mm vs 45 debate. My original post was pointing out that BOTH the 9mm 124+P and the 45 185+P seemed, at least in the posted gel test, to perform noticeably better then the 230 grain non+P 45 ammo.
Click to expand...

Again a single data point where velocity of the 230gr 45 was extremely low even from a shorter barrel standard pressure 45 should be above 800.

I would be curious to shoot more of those across a chrono.
 
What is the magic number in terms of energy (or is it penetration, or bullet weight?) Why not .380 or 9x18 - less energy should mean less recoil in comparable firearms? Why not .32 of some type which would need even less energy to push the bullet far enough (in terms of penetration) if all that matters is penetration and lack of recoil?
Click to expand...
No one has said that those are the only things that matter--just that they are the most important.

For decades, the .32 ACP and metric equivalent were widely used as police and service rounds. They were replaced with the .380. And now the 9MM is the European standard.

I think most people would like to have more than a .380 when they need to break bone or destroy a critical part of the body aft shooting through an arm.

I object to the argument that anything beyond 9MM is insubstantial in difference.
Click to expand...
Okay, go ahead and object, but those who develop and test ammunition seem to have concluded otherwise.

I also object to the argument that the differences in recoil are so substantial (for most people) to merit as much consideration as they are given in this argument.
Click to expand...
Simple Newtonian physics!

Take a .45 and a 9MM of the same weight and configuration, and fire each as rapidly as you can into a nearby target the size of the upper chest of a human target.

Time the shots. See how many shots you can get into the target with each in intervals of 0.67 seconds, 0.75 seconds, and 1.00 seconds. To understand the importance of rapidity of fire, realize that in those intervals, an attacker would likely move ten feet, just under twelve feet, and fifteen feet.

Run the experiment several times.

If the import of the results is less than clear to you, get some anatomy charts and analyze what the difference in the number of hits would mean in terms of the likelihood of hitting something critical within the target. Do that in three dimensions several times. What you will have is some comparative probability distributions.

If you are then not convinced, sign up for a class with one of the well known high performance defensive pistol shooting instructors. Take your .45 and a 9MM and try each.

See how you do, and discuss the speed difference with your instructor.
 
Some people just refuse to believe the prevailing research and real life statistical evidence...

9mm is considered the minimum, because most smaller calibers can not reliably reach target penetration depths using modern hollow point ammunition. Back in the days of ball ammo for everything, lower calibers penetrate plenty.

The following that sprung up around 357mag... I dont think was down to its power so much, as typical bullets for the caliber was soft point, and combined with good velocity, meant good penetration and good tissue damage compared to hard cast, FMJ, or slower soft points that came up short. That's my hypothesis anyway.

As far as handgun effectiveness, using modern loads... that's well established in research and stats.
 
Last edited:
If ALL of the energy of a bullet is expended in the bad-guy, then that energy HAS to end up somewhere in the bad-guy's body. Only two possibilities that I can see: heating up his body and/or damaging his body. I don't think very much goes into heat.
 
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
Click to expand...

I've shot plenty using a shot timer.
"My" drill is double taps at 6-7 yards, both 1st and 2nd shot must hit a 6'' circle on larger silhouette to count for average.
Again, both shots have to hit a 6'' circle at 6-7 yards.

If absolute speed of 2nd shot was my primary criteria, I would carry a Glock 19C.
The 19C has delivered .19 averages in "my" test using +P ammo.
Most other pistols will average .23 - .33 with carry ammo.
Examples:
-Ed Brown Special Forces 45 acp / .23
-Glock 32 (357 Sig) / .25
-Glock 33 (357 Sig) / .33
The 10mm loads I use have averaged a .33 split (or better) while meeting my accuracy stipulation.

For those that think KE doesn't matter at handgun velocities / no effect from temporary cavity from handgun wounds, look at the internal pics here of doe shot with 135 gr. 10mm (post #49)
http://www.glocktalk.com/threads/official-10mmauto-deer-hunt-story-thread.1373461/page-3

Damage exceeds the diameter of the bullet.
 
Last edited:
Mike, when you punch a foam pad all of the energy of your punch goes into the foam pad. Did you damage the foam at all? Same principle. Sure there can be some minor ancillary damage to surrounding flesh (bruising, stretching) but flesh is very elastic and at handgun velocities it's cutting flesh and broken bones that matters in terms of incapacitation.
 
Last edited:
If ALL of the energy of a bullet is expended in the bad-guy, then that energy HAS to end up somewhere in the bad-guy's body. Only two possibilities that I can see: heating up his body and/or damaging his body. I don't think very much goes into heat.
Click to expand...
Two other effects: (1) deforming the bullet and (2) creating that much discussed temporary cavity.
 
In regards to the "speed on target is incredibly important" argument:

How many shots do I need to place on target in how much time for this to work?

Like is it three seconds, five seconds, eight seconds? Two seconds?

Is it like 3 shots? 5? 8? 15? 42?

Even if we accept that one can shoot the 9MM a few tenths of a second faster does it matter? Or is this one of those issues were demonstrable differences, no matter how minor, are important? If these differences are important are other demonstrable differences (bullet weight, expanded diameter, energy) not?

I just find the argument tiring as one side is convinced it is right seeming to disregard anything that weakens the argument and grasp onto anything that strengthens it. FBI standard load was rejected until the FBI went to 9MM (or is going) and now its embraced seeming as gospel. The card stacking is laughable.

:) For the record I'm currently carrying a 9MM. Of course I only have 7 rounds so I'm not desperate to see how fast I could put them on target.
 
I've shot plenty using a shot timer.
"My" drill is double taps at 6-7 yards, both 1st and 2nd shot must hit a 6'' circle on larger silhouette to count for average.
Again, both shots have to hit a 6'' circle at 6-7 yards.

If absolute speed of 2nd shot was my primary criteria, I would carry a Glock 19C.
The 19C has delivered .19 averages in "my" test using +P ammo.
Most other pistols will average .23 - .33 with carry ammo.
Examples:
-Ed Brown Special Forces 45 acp / .23
-Glock 32 (357 Sig) / .25
-Glock 33 (357 Sig) / .33
The 10mm loads I use have averaged a .33 split (or better) while meeting my accuracy stipulation.
Click to expand...
And that six inch circle is a stationary target.

And using your times, with your Glock 19, your assailant might be hit 5 times somewhere while he moves for an interval of one second. With the Ed Brown .45, four shots. That one shot difference could make all the difference.

And of course if you only have four tenths of a second (while he moves about six feet), you just might just might hit him one more time with the 9MM.

That is Rob Pincus' whole point.

Wound channel diameter would probably make some difference, but it depends entirely upon what is hit. Remember that two shots in one lung that do not hit anything critical will not help you very much at all.
 
Even if we accept that one can shoot the 9MM a few tenths of a second faster does it matter?
Click to expand...
Yes, and you can prove that via simulation.

It may make absolutely no difference in any one encounter, or in any of several. But it might make all the difference in others.

I just find the argument tiring as one side is convinced it is right seeming to disregard anything that weakens the argument and grasp onto anything that strengthens it.
Click to expand...
Consider that just about all of the experts these days are on "one side".

For the record I'm currently carrying a 9MM. Of course I only have 7 rounds so I'm not desperate to see how fast I could put them on target.
Click to expand...
I have eight.

And I have learned via training that being able to put what I can on target quickly is extremely important.

I doubt that it will ever be all eight.
 
I have 13 plus a 17 round reload. I believe in being thorough.* :rolleyes:




*Plus we CC'd originally for a stalker who was literally always on prescription painkillers.
 
"when you punch a foam pad all of the energy of your punch goes into the foam pad. Did you damage the foam at all?"

No. There, the energy goes into heat, and also into some kinetic energy of motion (the jerk backwards of the pad). That's why we don't use ammo the diameter of a fist, or a medicine ball.

There IS some kinetic energy transferred to the bad-guy, but somewhat less (and certainly not more) than the kinetic energy transferred to the shooter. That's not very much energy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top