Difference between 9mm and 45 ACP "irrelevant"!

[dairycreek]

I was recently perusing an article in a gun mag in which the author is touting a couple of 9mm pistols and the 9mm caliber in general. In the article he makes the following statement, --and with modern ammunition the difference in "stopping power" between the 9mm and .45 is irrelevent. In your collective experience what 9mm ammo might support his statement? Or, is it just another gun mag hype? Do your darndest! Good shooting;)

[El Tejon]

It's just a pistol cartridge.:eek:

[gudel]

9mm... 45acp... makes no different if it hits the head and clutter up the brain.

[garrettwc]

I agree with El Tejon, they are both pistol cartridges, and as such underpowered.

But to answer you question -

Winchester's Ranger (AKA Black Talon) line is pretty good.

Others are the Corbon, Speer Gold Dot, Reminton Golden Saber and the like.

Check out the data at The Ammo Lab (http://www.ammolab.com) for some thorough independent tests.

[R127]

That writer is sorely mistaken, to say the least! Everyone knows that the proton-tipped .45 caliber atomic death torpedos fired from an advanced delivery system costing US $1,000.00 or more, such as a tactical custom 1911 clone with flush fitting 8 round silo, is the only known weapon capable of dammaging/destroying any adult human being with a body mass over 95lbs.

This writer clearly has no street experience. He would do well to follow the lead of the world's elite tactical operators. He might even consider taking a few weekend classes to fine tune his flabby battle skills.

:D

[MacPelto]

I don't know about 'irrelevant', but it seems to me that a good many very knowledgeable individuals have always considered .45 ball to be an adequate cartridge. These same people still consider 9mm underpowered, even though modern 9mm HP rounds penetrate as deep, if not deeper than .45 ball, and expand reliably to diameters greater than .45 ball.

I can't seem to see the logic. I'm not saying that modern .45's aren't better than 9mm, only that modern 9mm HP is at least equal to .45 Ball. Am I missing something?

[HadEmAll]

"That writer is sorely mistaken, to say the least! Everyone knows that the proton-tipped .45 caliber atomic death torpedos fired from an advanced delivery system costing US $1,000.00 or more, such as a tactical custom 1911 clone with flush fitting 8 round silo, is the only known weapon capable of dammaging/destroying any adult human being with a body mass over 95lbs"

:D That was excellent!

[Sean Smith]

I think the difference is irrelevant, but that's because I own a 10mm. :evil:

In your collective experience what 9mm ammo might support his statement?

Winchester Ranger-T 127gr +P+.

[TheMariner]

illrelevant compared to one another.... nah... there are differences between the two; each offers a different ballistics profile.

illrelevant compared to rifle cartridge, such as my .308? Yeah, no duh. Open irons, I could drop a man at 150 yards. But a 50yard shot is a difficult to make with a pistol under stress.

It is a matter of relativity.

[Fed168]

As long as the round is put where it needs to be, kinda makes it a moot point. Both have their (dis)advantages- both rounds work well on folks. Any of the well constructed bullet designs should work- it's up to the shooter to put them in the right place.

[surfinUSA]

I thought 9mm vs. 45 was Mondays repetitive argument?

[tbeb]

9mm ammo like the Federal and Winchester and Remington 115 gr. JHP +P+. This stuff has a velocity of about 1300 feet per second from a 4" barrel.

I simply prefer the .45 ACP myself. Got tired of the age old debate of what caliber is better. .45 was never doubted. I would feel just as well armed with a 9mm loaded with the ammo I've mentioned.

[Gerald McDonald]

If someone were shooting at me it would be irrelevent if it were a 22, I aint hanging around while somebody shoots regardless of what caliber. 22 or 44mag makes me no diff
Gerald

[HKcenterMass]

...but if modern ammo has advanced, to make the 9mm=to the .45, no doubt the .45 has advanced as well, so the 9mm is now = to the .45 of old, but not the modern .45...so the 45 still wins . :neener:

[Angelo]

Honestly, I wouldn't stand in front of either one of them. :D Both are fun to use and both have great platforms from which to use them.

Just my 2¢

Angelo

[KPersimmon]

Like I've said previously, I personally don't like the 9mm since I experienced a very scary ricochet some years ago (using 115-grain ball-type ammo.) I could be wrong, by my conclusion was (and remains) that the bullet is too fast and too light. Whatever the reason, I don't care for bullets that come back at me!

[triggertime]

He should have said that the difference in "stopping power" between the 9mm and .45 is relative not irrelevant.

[ACP]

There's a link to a thread here under strategy and tactics outlining a gunfight at a California range.

To paraphrase the author, the stickup man was armed with a (rented) Colt 9mm AR-15. He was hoping if he was shot by the Remington ball ammo the perp was loaded with, the bullet would pass clean through and he could get off a couple of rounds from his .45 ACP Glock.

The author later shot the perp twice -- once in the chest, above the nipple (guy lost about half his lung) and in the wrist. Bullet travelled up the foreram and exited near the elbow.

I am paraphrasing here -- the author was using a 230-gr. JHP. The bullets didn't expand from his short barrelled Glock. The perp still had to be shocked back to life twice in the ambulance on the way to the trauma center. He survived thanks to immediate medical attention. The author later switched to a 185-gr. +P for his short-barreled .45.

What I gleaned from his tale is a) he didn't expect to die immediately from 9mm ball (albeit not by a shot to the head) and b) his well-regarded .45 ACP round didn't perform as expcted from his short barrel.

But, bullet performance being an "iffy" thing, if you can't count on a .355 caliber round expanding, and you can't count on a .45 caliber round expanding, wouldn't you rather use a .45 caliber round for self-defense?

You know the phrase -- "a 9mm might expand, but a .45 will never shrink."

YMMV.

FYI, I carry a S&W 642 and a Colt Combat Commander.

[buzz_knox]

If you get a modern expanding round with adequate weight, energy, and penetration, then the differences in bore size are less important than the ability to put multiple rounds on target rapidly.

All things being equal, bigger is better, but if you shoot a 9mm better and more accurately than a .45, that's the better caliber for you. I've seen too many people claim that the a larger caliber is better, but are slowed down by recovery time between shots for the bigger round to truly be effective.

[Bainx]

!"tnavelerri" PCA 54 dna mm9 neewteb ecnereffiD

Whadda ya know, when you play is backwards it states "I buried Paul".

[KPersimmon]

<<<One note. My medical source did indicate that calibers .38 and below did often fail to penetrate the skull. Something to think about when someone suggests trying for a head shot with your Detective Special.>>>

Good points! Same conclusion that I had reached some time back about the .38 Spl.

Case in point: I recently took a 911 call from a lady who had attempted a suicide with a .38 Special. She had shot herself point blank in the forehead, and the bullet simply zipped around underneath the the scalp for a short distance, making a fairly nasty laceration. From what the medics and I gathered, the lady didn't even suffer so much as a concussion.

So the .38 Special is another cartridge that I personally wouldn't entirely trust for self-defense, but I do think it's a wonderful shooter.

[ACP]

I agree with the need to put multiple rounds on target quickly. I also agree with shot placement. I also agree that you should have a gun on you, any caliber, and that's better than bare hands.

But seeing as how we're all advanced theorists here, I'll state my preferences. I shoot my 1911-style Colt .45 ACP faster and more accurately than the Glock 19 and Browning Hi Power I have owned. Re: shot placement, if the target stands still full frontal 7 yards away and isn't shooting back at the moment, I'll be happy to try for the "X" ring. If the target is moving, partially concealed, firing back, some distance away, and the light isn't quite right, I'll be happy with whatever blood I can draw, cover I can find, distance I can create, and exit I can find.

If it comes down to carrying a Kahr K9 all the time in a pocket instead of a .45 ACP Government Model just sometimes on the hip, by all means go 9mm. But for me, who is willing to wear the necessary covering garment, I will carry a .45 ACP or a .357 Magnum.

But as to the original thread topic... Oh, heck. Whatever floats your boat.

[Smoke]

To the .38 argument. I know a former cop who witnessed a man with a .380 ball lodged firmly in his forehead. The guy was up and walking around. (I'm sure he had quite a headache though:) )

To the 9mm vs. 10mm vs. .40 vs. .45

Enough already.

There are no tests that can prove one is better than the other. To many variables. Ballistic jello is nice but throw a bone or two in there every once in a while and re-evaluate.

Effectiveness of any round will be determined by:

Shot placement
Penetration
Velocity
Type of round (FMJ, JHP, etc)
Clothing worn
Path of the bullet
Density of flesh
Contact with bones, cartiledge, etc.
etc. ad nauseum


When you encounter a lethal force situation, pull your weapon (whatever it may be) and shoot until the threat stops (however many rounds it takes) with whatever it is loaded up with.

[ElAlumno]

Some people seem to love the 45 tot he point that even IF it could be proven that there was a better caliber they wold never agree/see it.

I have seem all too many shootings in the last 20 years. What I have learned is that generally speaking pick a good caliber (9mm, 38 Super, 357 mag or sig, 10mm, 40S&W, 41 or 44 mag, 45, etc) with a good load and bullet combitnation that you can control and handle and shoot accurately. Then expect it to fail.

BTW, I have seen what a .22lr does as it zigs and zags through a body and seen how some major calibers just poke clean little holes in a body.

You like the 9mm? Good, pick a nice gun that is reliable, load it with a good JHP and practice, practice, practice.

[Bobarino]

i don't think the difference is at all irrelevent. at the local range, 9mm costs $7.99/box and .45ACP costs $10.99/box for practice ammo. that could be an $18 difference in a typical trip to the range for me. thats a pretty big difference. i don't really shoot either though, so it doesn't matter.

Bobby

[Shooter973]

Even with the best of the 9mm's I still prefer the 45acp. I can't think of a reason or a time that I would pick a 9mm as a defense handgun over a 45. Even with ball you are throwing a bigger bullet mass that is already bigger than the 9mm if it does expand. I just can't think of a reason to puprosly choose a 9mm over a 45 in any self defens situation, on purpose. Now if all you have with you is the 9mm then use it and I hope for the best for you. :scrutiny: If you need more than the rounds already in a 45acp, 7-8 shots then you really need something more than a handgun. :eek:

[Erik]

Last week I witnessed a demonstration comparing various calibers and their effectiveness at defeating common forms of cover available. (Various car doors, various office and household doors, cynder block walls, brick walls, concrete, etc.)

Common LEO loads for .45acp, .40s&w, and 9mm were tested. (Unfortunately, the .357sig wasn't represented.)

It became clear that you wanted a rifle, sub-gun, or shotgun in those situations, by the way.

But assuming for the moment that the pistol is your only option:

In instances were pistol-fired bullets could penetrate, the .45acp provided the greatest penetration, and often times the only penetration of the three. At no time did it fail to penetrate were the others succeeded.

Scientific? No, it was not.

Conclusive? No, due to the above. It sure left a lot of people staring at the 9s and 40s in their holsters, though.

---

Oh, and untill the chance that a round fired will fail to expand falls to statistically irrelevant numbers the bigger bores will always win. After all, a wonder nine which fails to expand is still a heck of a lot smaller than a slow, boring .45acp which fails to do the same thing.

[Pendragon]

.45 aint expensive if you roll your own.

[Gerald McDonald]

If you visit www.firearmstactical.com and do a little research it appears to matter less what you shoot than where you shoot.
Gerald

[surfinUSA]

I wouldn't sell the lowly 38 short especially the +P. All the gunshot wounds to the head I've ever seen but one, penetrated the skull. This includes the 22, 25, 38, 9, 40, and 45.

The only one that I know of that failed to penetrate the skull was in 1983. One of our detectives came upon a car theft in progess. The subject shot at the detective with a 45 and missed. The detective shot the subject in the arm, leg, and head using a BHP loaded with ball (he was told by some expert that this was the only round the gun would reliably feed, and in 1983 this may even have been true).

The Head shot failed to penetrate the skull. The 9mm hit above the left eye traveled below the skin and came to a rest at the back of the head. The subject survived and was prosecuted.

Say what you want, this was nothing but a freak incident. You don't have to be a cop, coroner or ER doctor. Just pick up the local paper of any major metropolitan city and you will read about bullets of all calibers large and small easily penetrating the skull and sending somebody to the big dirt nap.

[KPersimmon]

<<<I am paraphrasing here -- the author was using a 230-gr. JHP. The bullets didn't expand from his short barrelled Glock. The perp still had to be shocked back to life twice in the ambulance on the way to the trauma center. He survived thanks to immediate medical attention. The author later switched to a 185-gr. +P for his short-barreled .45.>>>

I was just reading in Understanding Firearms Ballistics (pp. 361-362) by Robert A. Rinker about the US Justice Department's summary report on the RII (Relative Incapacitation Index) which was published in late 1983.
Anyway, the findings were that hollowpoint bullets generally expand at velocities in excess of 705 fps. So since it appears that the average 230-grain .45 ACP bullet normally has a muzzle velocity chronographing at barely over 800 fps, even from a 5" barrel, then this lack of expansion is easy to understand. It must be due to the lower bullet velocity from the shorter barrel, which explains why a speedier 185-grain bullet is preferable in such guns.

Whether it's true or not, it makes sense to me--and I'm a .45 fan.

[Dobe]

"Oh, and untill the chance that a round fired will fail to expand falls to statistically irrelevant numbers the bigger bores will always win. After all, a wonder nine which fails to expand is still a heck of a lot smaller than a slow, boring .45acp which fails to do the same thing."

This is also my position. I believe that with modern projectiles, a 9mm can be made to perform at .45 levels. That is if it expands. I believe that most of these bullets will expand under test conditions. But these are still handguns at handgun velocities, and not every shot will be a "test condition" shot. A big bullet will perform well, if it does expand, but if not, it is still a big bullet.

I have hunted for years, and have shot game with high velocity rifles as many of you have. I have had bullets perform poorly with cartridges launching projectiles at 2900 fps +. What makes us think that a bullet at 1200 fps will always perform as designed?

[Bobarino]

let say you have a typical 5'10" male that is two feet wide at the shoulders. so his height and width are 1778 mm and 609.6 mm repectively. with regards to hardball, or a non-expanding round do you REALLY think that the 1mm difference between 9 and .40 or .40 and .45, or even the whole TWO mm between 9mm and .45 makes a difference. come on now, its a difference of .1124859393 %. relative to height or .3280839895% relative to width.

comparing total frontal area, of the aforementioned person who has 1,083,868.8 mm/sq of frontal area, the difference between the two is 38.75045445mm/sq or .0035951979% of frontal area as compared to the person.

now comparing wieght, the difference between a 147 grain 9mm and 230 grain .45ACP is 83 grains. a 170 pound person weighs 1,190,000 grains. the difference between 9mm and .45ACP is .0069747899% of the persons body wieight. even if you consider the extreme spread of a 115gr 9mm to the 230 grain .45 which is 115 grains, its still only .0096638655% difference between the two compared to said person. energy transfer is all but irrelevant when considering ball which will both most likely go through and through without transfering much energy at all.

there are fans of the .45 and fans of the 9mm, and kudo's to both sides for shooting what you like. the difference between the two rounds is not as big as either side would like to think it is. especially considering that both are STILL handgun cartridges which are STILL underpowered when it comes to stopping people. shoot whatever blows your skirt up and please realize that the difference really is all but irrelevant. especially with the modern defensive loads we have today. ok i said my piece, flame on.....

Bobby

[Dobe]

Bobarino,
I appreciate the math, but I suggest that you calculate the surface area difference and not just the diameter. There lies the difference. I also suggest that momentum be taking into affect, which sides to the larger :

Now for Political correctness:
Carry what you wish. I would not feel unarmed with either. The original post asked for oppinions. This was mine.

[Bobarino]

i DID use the surface area differnece using the standard pi x r sqaured dude. the numbers are correct. with the execption of assuming that our bad guy has a two foot wide head. i was too lazy to figure head size, find the area, and add it to the body area after subtracting the "block head" from the equation. point is made though. i compared width to width, height to height, and surface area to surface area, and weight to weight. read it again.


your "momentum" was addressed using the correct term of energy tansfer, specifically, kinetic energy (maybe i should have spiecified) which i said was nearly a moot point between the two whilst using ball ammo because of ball ammo's less than efficient transfer of said energy into said target. all we're addressing for the sake of this argument is the size of the hole.

if you want to talk KE then:
115gr 9mm @ 1200fps = 367.8 ft/lbs
230gr .45 @ 850 fps = 369.08 ft/lbs

+p124gr 9mm @ 1275 = 447.71
+p185gr .45 @ 1050 = 453.01

which all translates into:

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH 9mm BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH .45ACP BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH 9mm BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH .45ACP BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH 9mm BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH .45ACP.

see where i'm going with this?

Bobby

[Dobe]

Just for the sake of discussion.

Let’s look at the following conditions. Assuming that neither the 9mm nor the .45 expand while traveling inside your assailant, why are they not equal? Well, I will speak as a hunter and relate to other hunters on this list, for two reasons. First and foremost, it is more tasteful. Secondly, one would have to have dispatched and examined many people, in order to have the same type of experience.

With that in mind, let’s consider the two basic ways that one would incapacitate an animal the size of a human with a handgun. There are two ways to kill/stop/incapacitate quickly with a handgun (let’s not get into skeletal shots). One is a central nervous system shot, and the other is through blood loss. Surely either 9mm or the .45 will perform well in the former. But blood loss would not be the same. The difference in the surface area between the two is approximately 30% in favor of the .45. Assuming that neither expanded, and the wound canal stretched upon impact and partially returned proportionally, the blood loss would be greater from the .45 wound. Therefore, it is not just the amount of tissue damage that matters. It is also how fast the blood evacuates that causes shock and incapacitation. A hole approximately 30% larger makes a difference. Since wound canals will close and open depending on the position of the body and its movement, the larger wound will be less likely to close.

What is one of the first things that a medic or EMT will do to stabilize a hemorrhaging patient? He/she attempts to stop the bleeding, not remove the object which caused the damage, but to stop further loss of blood. Since body shots are easier to obtain than central nervous system shots, this seems to give the larger caliber the edge. If this were not the case, then a .22 mag. FMJ would perhaps be the standard cartridge for personal defense. If this were not the case there would be no expanding bullets. Expanding bullets are not just for destroying tissue at the terminal point. Expanding bullets also enlarge the wound canal, which allows blood to drain faster.

[Dobe]

Let’s try another explanation, but this time in 3D. I think a three dimensional look at this will help. You wish to break this down to math. I understand, and I appreciate this. Calculate the volume of a 9mm wound canal versus a .45 wound canal. I haven’t access to a calculator, but from paper and pen, it appears that the .45 wound canal will hold 60 % more blood (all other things equal) in a given amount of time. If the wound canal can hold more, it can drain faster. Holding more means a combination of air and fluids, since air is required for drainage when pressure is low.

This is based upon the volume of a cylinder with a height of 6”. This is only math, and is no way to prove definitively which is better than the other. But, you wished to use math, so here it is. The wound canal that evacuates quicker is the one that kills its host.

By the way, I suggested kindly that you look at surface area, because you did not catch the percentage difference, and kinetic energy is not momentum. Momentum is the ability of an object to continue movement when resistance is applied.

[ACP]

FYI, here's the link:

http://calguns.net/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=...81&r=4736025181

D'oh! Can't get there from there.

Here's the thread link, from General Discussion.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20848

[jimbo]

The .45 is somewhat superior because...

ALL assumptions about 9mm effectiveness is based on reliable expansion. There are so many ways in which 9mm will fail to expand after shooting an assailant. No matter what happens, .45 hardball will yield anywhere from the same sized hole to double the sized hole of 9mm, depending on how much the 9mm hollowpoint expands, if any.

[KPersimmon]

Excuse me if I seem morbid, but here are my ultimate thoughts on the debate of cartridge effectiveness:

Though I agree that the bigger-caliber-is-better theory seems to make sense superficially, I can see some big problems with trying to evaluate the effectiveness of a cartridge based on its surface area and the theoretical volume of a wound cylinder. The main problem I see is that such a method would hopelessly slant wounding effectivess in favor of larger caliber bullets, regardless of whether they can efficiently disrupt tissue and how deeply they penetrate.
What I've learned is that soft tissue is elastic, somewhat water-like, and pliable. So an interior wound isn't actually going to look like a bored-out cylinder but probably more like a jagged gash or tear. (Think of a long and nasty cut, only inside the body.) Of course, a wound is going to have width, based to some degree on the diameter of the bullet, but of equal weight and importance should be its depth or penetration.
I think that trying to measure a cartridge's wounding effectiveness has become a little like "measuring the immeasurable." This, I daresay, is mostly because the issue has become hopelessly clouded. But I think what's caused the confusion is an overabundance of analysis and (mis)information, rather than a lack of it.
I personally think the actual measurement is kinda simple, but I only share it with interested parties.

[Dobe]

.This is the forum for discussion and theory. A question is asked, and people answer. No one is claiming absolute knowledge.

Therefore, unless we were to perform field test, we must assume that while each bullet will not perform equally, it will perform proportionally. In other words, the wound canal is 6”, and each formed a perfect cylindrical cavity. In reality, I understand that each would have its own unique characteristics, but for analysis all variables must be equal with the exception of those being tested. With that in mind, assume wound canal shape the same. The only way to easily do this is to assume a perfect cylinder. If not, then assume any convoluted shape that you wish for one, as long as you do the same for the other. The results are the same.

You mentioned other factors that come into play when evaluating wounds, such as penetration. I agree, but ask that you look at both equally for the sake of discussion. This is why I chose a 6" cavity. Both cartridges are capable of penetrating completely through a body. Beyond that, what does it matter?

[KPersimmon]

(Continued.)

Okay, I'll go ahead and name what I think might be a more accurate way to measure wound effectiveness:
Think in terms of wound area instead of wound volume. Wound area, in square units, is the one measurement which would give equal weight to both diameter and depth.
And, like everyone else here, I'm just stating an opinion too. It's not worth any more or any less what than any other has to say.

[Dobe]

Wound area is certainly a viable way to measure effectiveness of a handgun projectile. And I am sure that you will agree that both of us are simply giving opinions as to the reasons we carry what we do.

With that said, I concur, but I personally believe that there is a culmination of things that attribute to what we call a decent self defense round. When we consider penetration for example, we can agree that both rounds are capable of penetrating through a torso. So for the most part, they are as equal as need be for the job required.

If we consider wound area, then however small, the larger bullet will always win out. But the ability to open a wound canal is important also. Have you ever seen a wound from a .22 lr? I have had the misfortune to see several. Most but not all will actualy close on the outside. Bleeding continues on the inside of course, and the patients would surely die if not treated (in many cases), but imagine the lose of blood if the wound remained open. Now imagine a pathway that drains freely.

The attempt is to starve the brain, right?

I would not feel unprotected with a 9mm. The above reasons are simply why I have chosen a .45 ACP.

[KPersimmon]

<<<It's not worth any more or any less what than any other has to say.>>>


should read:

<<<It's not worth any more or any less than what any other has to say. >>>

See? Why should anyone pay attention to me? I obviously don't even read my own posts!

:D

Anyway, I prefer the .45 ACP also, but not because I feel the 9mm is ineffective by any means.

[10-Ring]

Practice, practice, practice...location, location, location. Quality ammo through quality firearm that the shooter has become comfortble using will usually do the trick.

[krept]

can someone please post the forumla to calculate surface area? I was under the impression that it involved calculus and that pi x R^2 was the diameter only (the area of a circle, not the surface area of whatever that shape would be... a rotated hyperbola? - me, first thought

would surface area make that much of a difference? it might, as the energy is transmitter over a wider area... eh?:scrutiny:

[Dobe]

http://www.mathreference.com/ca-surf,intro.html

Know the arc for 3D objects. Unfortunately, I don't know the formula either, but I do agree with KPirsimmon that this should be a very viable way to predict outcome (and yes I know, not the only ones).

If the percentages increase as much as the flat surface area, and the area of the wound canal, then this would lead us to believe that indeed bigger is better.