9mm vs .45ACP

Between the Speer 124 grain +P Gold Dots and the Speer 230 grain Short Barrel Gold Dots. Weapons are Glock 19 and a Glock 30.

The .45 came from the right, the 9mm came from the left. No clothing, 5 feet distance. The 9mm penetrated to 12 inches, the .45 penetrated to 12.25 inches.

The 9mm had the largest temporary cavity of 2.25 inches, compared to 1.75 inches with the .45. I dont have my notes on me at the moment, but the retained diameters were both around .68-.70 average.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2jepyme.jpg

http://i49.tinypic.com/13zsi37.jpg

This test was backyard fun. I didnt care to calibrate nor get the velocities becuase these were two similar weapons fired at the same block at almost the same time.

I love fun tests!

But the velocities are important because they lend understanding to why the bullets performed the way they did. It's every bit as important as knowing bullet mass and design. If you were to do some test fires to determine approximate muzzle velocities, this would enable us to calculate how much energy each bullet had in order to duplicate such performances.

But as I said...fun test!

:):)

Cool test. Would you say the 9mm performed slightly better than the 45? It's been my opinion for quite a while that 9mm and 45 are effectively equal.

That's why I am comfortable with either one.

I don't place much reliance on balistic gell tests for measures of knock-down power. However, the rounds look fairly close based on this.

30 years ago, the 9mm was not compreable... apparently, now it is...

I would have got velocities, but it was raining and pretty overcast, but I decided to do the test anyway. But based on real world velocities from actual members on numerous forums, the 9mm Gold Dot is right around 1200 FPS with the .45 being around 850 FPS.

And yes, although this wasnt super scientific, its hard to argue with the results. Again, same sized platform, barrel, distance, gel block, and bullet design.

I would be confident in saying the 9mm outperformed the .45 on this test, but only if you like splitting hairs.

rajb123- The block didnt even weigh 20 pounds, and yet neither caliber moved the block from where it was sitting. There is no knockdown power in any handgun.

It's been my opinion for quite a while that 9mm and 45 are effectively equal.

Not just your opinion. There have been thousands of tests over the last 100+ years comparing the 2. Every imaginable type of test from shooting live animals, dead animals, geletian, one shot stop staistics, human cadiavers, computer simulations, you name it, someone has tested it. I have never seen anything that proves one is any better than the other. The mere fact that after over 100 years of side by side testing no clear winner can be determined is as much proof that they are equal as anything.

Knockdown...Not quite true::D
http://i693.photobucket.com/albums/vv297/lowangz/100_1489.jpg

Very interesting test, I'd have thought the results would have been more distinct.
I've always felt more comfortable with a smaller caliber and higher capacity.

I love fun tests!

But the velocities are important because they lend understanding to why the bullets performed the way they did. It's every bit as important as knowing bullet mass and design. If you were to do some test fires to determine approximate muzzle velocities, this would enable us to calculate how much energy each bullet had in order to duplicate such performances.

But as I said...fun test!

:):)

I agree.

Having the velocities of these rounds would also allow the use of penetration models to determine how far these rounds would go in calibrated gelatin or soft tissue under similar conditions. I know that it is kind of "geeky" :D, but it is really very interesting (at least to me) to see how well the two penetration models that I know of (one by Duncan MacPherson and the other by Charles Schwartz) agree with such "real world" tests.

Thanks for doing this.

That looks fun.

I'm not surprised about the results. I'm a 9mm guy, because the quality of SD rounds available allows me to be. Before I got my concealed handgun license, I spent a lot of time checking out product reviews for defensive rounds. In every test I saw, and in everything I read, Speer Gold Dots were very consistent. Whether it was the 115gr (standard pressure), the 124gr +P short barrel, or the 147gr (standard pressure), penetration and expansion were in line with suggeted parameters.

This is a video showing Speer Gold Dot 9mm 124gr +P being shot through:
4 layers of denim
a hog head (bone penetration)
jugs of water

It is... impressive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CQ7ThU3Epk

For fun, here's one of Remington UMC .357 magnum, going through the same set up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozyjQjuaQ90


Naturally, there are lots of variables that blah, blah, body position, blah, etcetera. Still, seeing that Gold Dot punch through bone, expand so effectively, and retain so much weight, is very reassuring.

Thanks for posting this.

RE Knockdown power... in my simple non-scientific backyard test using water jugs, the Speer knocked the first jug up and over the other three and - though it failed to penetrate - knocked the fourth jug down. The PDX just penetrated three jugs without displacing anything. I never bought into the "Knock-down" theory, but my little test got me wondering.

"Knock down power" gets people riled up because people have two different meanings in mind. One possible meaning (the most literal) is that the force of impact of the bullet physically pushes a person off his or her feet to the ground. The second possible meaning is the ability of the round to cause a person to become incapacitated immediately.

The first is hollywood nonsense. Momentum is conserved, and Newton's Third Law still applies at human scales. If the bullet's impact alone has the power to knock down the target, its recoil has the power to knock down the shooter. (Admittedly, just a light shove can topple someone if you catch them at just the right point in their stride and/or they're already off-balance, a bullet with a lot of momentum can do the same... the same is true, of course, for the shooter. But that's a rare instance, and not what people are imagining.) This is the meaning that gets scientifically-minded people into a frenzy, because it's just fictional.

The second meaning is what (intelligent) people actually using the term more often mean. And that, of course, raises all the questions that terminal ballistics always raise, such as differing theories of wounding and incapacitation. It's almost a philosophical argument...

The second meaning is what (intelligent) people actually using the term more often mean. And that, of course, raises all the questions that terminal ballistics always raise, such as differing theories of wounding and incapacitation. It's almost a philosophical argument...

Well put!

**Knockdown Power**..... Sorry, I can't help but laugh when I think of Bugs Bunny cartoons and the Boxing Glove coming out the end of a pistol when he shot at Yosemite Sam....

I'm not a big fan of the term "knock-down power". I'm even less of a fan for the term "stopping-power". They're misleading terms that too many people apply totally unrealistically in their discussions.

But perhaps even less endearing are the people who get into heated debates using these terms to paint false or unrealistic pictures of the effects of any gunshot to a human being or animal.

Maybe Hollywood (and the general gullibility of the ignorant public with respect to weapons and weapon induced trauma) is to blame. Certainly, the marketing strategies used by some as a result maintain these false images.

When you're shooting a human being, or animal on a hunt, you aren't "knocking them down". You're using a high velocity projectile to punch a hole in their body to cause organ damage, musculature damage, and/or skeletal damage. In many cases, bullets pass entirely through the body, so only a fraction of their kinetic energy is actually transferred to the body in the form of kinetic energy and heat.

How the internal organs, and the body as a whole, react to that is far more a function of the physiological reaction to the damage itself, not because the body was "physically knocked down".

Muscles convulse, which may cause the body to drop, or to leap several feet. Organs suddenly cease functioning, like lungs or heart. Central nervous system shuts down due to shock. Bone breakage causes collapse. Bleeding causes weakness. Concussive effects of internal shockwaves cause paralysis or other organ failures.

About the only thing I'm willing to concede actual, physical "knock-down" on on would be a close range shotgun hit on a small critter.


Don't believe me?

Next time you go deer hunting, when you hang the deer carcass up in a tree to field dress it, stand back a distance while it's hanging there on a rope and shoot it again. Tell me how much it actually swings while it's hanging there. Then walk up to it and give it a moderate push with a hand and see what happens.


Don't get me wrong...the ability to drop a target varies importantly based on any number of factors for a given weapon/load. But it's NOT about "knocking it down". Because if it really WERE all about knocking a 200 pound person or animal down when you shoot it, you're 200 pound *ss would also be on the ground every time you pulled the trigger.

And God only knows what would happen to a human body who fired the rifle powerful enough to actually knock a 2,000 pound, four-footed Bison over.

Action and reaction...it's not just a good idea, it's the law.

:):)

I carry a .45, but I expect all premium defensive ammo to ghave similar performance between service calibers. I think the .45 advantage isn't nearly as big as some people seem to think it is, bit it's still an advantage, and I handle and shoot 1911s the best.

Interesting test; I've always wanted to do some gel testing, but cheap out and use water filled gallon jugs.

Interesting test.

I've carried 45s (1911 and M&P 45) and 9mm both, but the one that is usually on me is a Glock 19. I consider it to be a nearly ideal compromise in terms of size, capacity, weight, and shootability.

The Gold Dots shown in your test are also the round I carry.

deleted.

I love my 1911s and the 45acp is a superb round.

But for my purposes, they're way too bulky and heavy for carrying.

I have a lot of confidence in my subcompact 9mm for carry duty.

I don't place much reliance on balistic gell tests for measures of knock-down power.

+1

I don't either. Because handgun bullets don't knock people down.

And if I utilize a pistol for self-defense, I'm not trying to knock anyone down. I'm trying to perforate vital tissue to incapacitate them.

OK, so ATLDave talked about the two meanings. As for the second meaning, neither the 9mm nor the .45 - even in +P loadings are going to produce hydrostatic shock, so you're left with wound channel volume, for "putting down" power or stopping power or whatever you want to call it.

Generally speaking the .45 creates wound channels with greater volumes (depending on the bullet). If your Speer Gold Dot got out to .68" I'd be surprised. From what I've seen they generally come in between .64 and .66"

Is .06" different in expansion going to make a difference? Probably not.

Your gelatin results are to be expected, as both cartridges were not only made by the same company, for the same purpose, but were designed to do the same thing, to the same protocols as most premium JHPs produced by all the major manufacturers for the common duty cartridges. A .40 Gold Dot from my duty P229 would perform the same. One 9mm Winchester Silvertip, fired by FBI Special Agent Dove, into a certain Mr. Platt, circa 1986, has led to this, as that shot was deemed to have not penetated deeply enough.

I work for a very large PD, one of the largest in the USA, and we collectively shoot quite a few bad guys, over time. Until 1997, we carried a range of duty cartridges, in personally-owned duty pistols. Since 1997, the newer officers' primary duty pistols, while still officer-owned, have all been chambered for the .40 S&W, as have all the newer pistols bought my the pre-1997 veteran officers. While I do not have access to the terminal ballistic data, nor the incident reports, the long-term general knowledge among street officers around here is that shot placement is paramount, and all the duty cartridges perform about the same. When we hit bad guys in the important bits, they go down. When we miss the important bits, they may or may not go down. Of course, some officers, whose shots did not stop bad guys, tend to blame the ammo, when, really, the officers missed the most important bits.

I love my 1911s and the 45acp is a superb round.

But for my purposes, they're way too bulky and heavy for carrying.

I have a lot of confidence in my subcompact 9mm for carry duty.
I agree but that 1911 sure fits easy in the nightstand.

All things being equal, a bigger hole has an advantage.

W-M

"Knock down power" gets people riled up because people have two different meanings in mind. One possible meaning (the most literal) is that the force of impact of the bullet physically pushes a person off his or her feet to the ground. The second possible meaning is the ability of the round to cause a person to become incapacitated immediately.

The first is hollywood nonsense. Momentum is conserved, and Newton's Third Law still applies at human scales. If the bullet's impact alone has the power to knock down the target, its recoil has the power to knock down the shooter. (Admittedly, just a light shove can topple someone if you catch them at just the right point in their stride and/or they're already off-balance, a bullet with a lot of momentum can do the same... the same is true, of course, for the shooter. But that's a rare instance, and not what people are imagining.) This is the meaning that gets scientifically-minded people into a frenzy, because it's just fictional.

The second meaning is what (intelligent) people actually using the term more often mean. And that, of course, raises all the questions that terminal ballistics always raise, such as differing theories of wounding and incapacitation. It's almost a philosophical argument...
I disagree with your term, "philosophical", but agree totally with your position.

The physiological aspects of the vague term "knockdown power" are very real, physical phenomena. Pain, temporary wound cavity, nerve damage, even temporary nerve signal disruption.

The psychological aspects are less relliable, but still real. The sound of the shot, the flash, muzzle blast, sometimes just the knowledge that one has been shot or is merely being shot at is enough to stop someone in their tracks. Not technically "knockdown", but stopping (sometimes).

Just my philosophical take on it.

Lost Sheep

Wow, I'm knocked down by this civil discussion of the never ending debate. I had popcorn ready and was going to reach for a beer ..... what's happened to the usual crowd, must be on vacation.

Wow, I'm knocked down by this civil discussion of the never ending debate. I had popcorn ready and was going to reach for a beer ..... what's happened to the usual crowd, must be on vacation.

Oh YEAH?!? You got a problem with the discussion?! How about I knock you down!?!? :mad:

;)

Personally, I get knocked down, but I get up again. They're never gonna keep me down.

/duck

I agree but that 1911 sure fits easy in the nightstand.

It sure does, 3 steps from the 870 too. :)

These days most of my carry is a pocket .380 loaded with FMJs but for over a year I have really been contemplating a slim single stack 9mm. This thread has me sold on following through with that search.

FWIW "Knockdown" to me indicates the dispensing of a 12ga slug.

I wonder what the 200gr.45acp+p gold dot would look like in comparason?

200gr +P Gold Dots did extremely well in tnoutdoors9's denim + gel test. It's worth checking out on YouTube.

Knock down power / momentum :scrutiny:

I'm not sure that momentum is the best (sole) indicator of handgun performance.

I use this short formula to determine momentum:
projectile weight x projectile velocity = ______ / 225120 = momentum

Here are some handgun examples (food for thought / discussion):

My chronographed averages for 5 shots:
230 gr. Ranger T out of a Glock 30 @ 874 fps / 390# KE / .89 momentum
125 gr. Ranger T out of a Glock 32 @ 1,340 fps / 498# KE / .74 momentum

If we determined handgun effectiveness using momentum, then the 45 acp (in that example) is clearly better (17%); however, according to KE the .357 Sig is "more powerful" (22%).

Rifle example:
From my 16'' Stag 2T .223 using a 60 gr. Nosler Partition handload:
60 gr. @ 2,807 fps / 1,050# KE / .75 momentum

Additional example with observed results :) :

My wife shot an average size 8 pt. buck last december; she used a .50 caliber blackpowder rifle loaded with a saboted 45 cal JHP pistol bullet.
The deer was about 15 yards away when she shot him from a blind. The bullet entered just behind the shoulder went through both lungs, penetrated bone on the offside shoulder and lodged under the hide on the opposite side, perfect placement. I could see the lump under the hide and only had to make a slit to get the bullet which had mushroomed to about .60

I had loaded her rifle with just over 90 gr. of Pyrodex launching that 260 gr. bullet at an estimated (never chronographed it, based on load chart) 1,300 fps.

260 gr. 45 cal bullet @ 1,300 fps / 976# KE / 1.50 momentum :eek:

Even though the buck was hit perfectly by a high momentum projectile he was not knocked off his feet; he kicked up his back legs, and ran for about 40 yards before falling.

I'm not sure that momentum is the best (sole) indicator of handgun performance.It isn't. Nor has anyone said otherwise.

If we determined handgun effectiveness using momentum, then the 45 acp (in that example) is clearly better (17%); however, according to KE the .357 Sig is "more powerful" (22%).According to the FBI, the best indicator of handgun projectile performance is penetration, followed by bullet diameter. See this (http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf). Kinetic energy is one determinant of penetration.

Even though the buck was hit perfectly by a high momentum projectile he was not knocked off his feet;......which explains perfectly why the shooter was not knocked down.

Knock down power / momentum :scrutiny:

I'm not sure that momentum is the best (sole) indicator of handgun performance.

I use this short formula to determine momentum:
projectile weight x projectile velocity = ______ / 225120 = momentum

Here are some handgun examples (food for thought / discussion):

My chronographed averages for 5 shots:
230 gr. Ranger T out of a Glock 30 @ 874 fps / 390# KE / .89 momentum
125 gr. Ranger T out of a Glock 32 @ 1,340 fps / 498# KE / .74 momentum

If we determined handgun effectiveness using momentum, then the 45 acp (in that example) is clearly better (17%); however, according to KE the .357 Sig is "more powerful" (22%).

Rifle example:
From my 16'' Stag 2T .223 using a 60 gr. Nosler Partition handload:
60 gr. @ 2,807 fps / 1,050# KE / .75 momentum

Additional example with observed results :) :

My wife shot an average size 8 pt. buck last december; she used a .50 caliber blackpowder rifle loaded with a saboted 45 cal JHP pistol bullet.
The deer was about 15 yards away when she shot him from a blind. The bullet entered just behind the shoulder went through both lungs, penetrated bone on the offside shoulder and lodged under the hide on the opposite side, perfect placement. I could see the lump under the hide and only had to make a slit to get the bullet which had mushroomed to about .60

I had loaded her rifle with just over 90 gr. of Pyrodex launching that 260 gr. bullet at an estimated (never chronographed it, based on load chart) 1,300 fps.

260 gr. 45 cal bullet @ 1,300 fps / 976# KE / 1.50 momentum :eek:

Even though the buck was hit perfectly by a high momentum projectile he was not knocked off his feet; he kicked up his back legs, and ran for about 40 yards before falling.
Just as it is with kinetic energy, so it is with momentum. The "raw numbers" mean nothing 'til something is hit.

Tissue damage in the right place is what brings about incapacitation/death.

Of course, the deer wasn't knocked down. Even if the deer weighed only 125 pounds, its resultant velocity would be on the order of just a few inches per second, 4.634 inches per second to be exact, assuming that the bullet remains, as it did, within the animal- not enough to knock the deer down by any stretch of the imagination.

Your gelatin results are to be expected, as both cartridges were not only made by the same company, for the same purpose, but were designed to do the same thing, to the same protocols as most premium JHPs produced by all the major manufacturers for the common duty cartridges. A .40 Gold Dot from my duty P229 would perform the same. One 9mm Winchester Silvertip, fired by FBI Special Agent Dove, into a certain Mr. Platt, circa 1986, has led to this, as that shot was deemed to have not penetated deeply enough.

I work for a very large PD, one of the largest in the USA, and we collectively shoot quite a few bad guys, over time. Until 1997, we carried a range of duty cartridges, in personally-owned duty pistols. Since 1997, the newer officers' primary duty pistols, while still officer-owned, have all been chambered for the .40 S&W, as have all the newer pistols bought my the pre-1997 veteran officers. While I do not have access to the terminal ballistic data, nor the incident reports, the long-term general knowledge among street officers around here is that shot placement is paramount, and all the duty cartridges perform about the same. When we hit bad guys in the important bits, they go down. When we miss the important bits, they may or may not go down. Of course, some officers, whose shots did not stop bad guys, tend to blame the ammo, when, really, the officers missed the most important bits.
Yup...+1

Bill

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/MiscDocuments/HandgunBulletchartaspicturerev3.jpg

Here is an interesting chart - note that with the introduction of heavy clothing, it changes how the wound tracts differ from each other. I wonder how different the results would be with clothing or fake bone.

Another thing to note about the OP is we're comparing 9mm +P in a 4" barrel to .45 "short barrel" ammo in a 3 3/4" barrel (rounding slightly on both). This means we actually have a bit more power going into the 9mm than the .45, by comparison.

This is an interesting comparison, but it doesn't exactly highlight the differences between the two, because we have different variables introduced besides simply 9mm and .45.

The thing i love about people talking about knock down power is Newton's 3rd law of motion. If the gun doesn't Knock you down when you shoot it how is it going to knock down your target, maybe take down would be more appropriate. I know this is simplified and you have to consider force over time. Just thought i would add my two cents.

I'm glad your test shots were conducted at 'almost' the same time.

9mm fans rejoice. 9mm = .45acp. One backyard test, of one bullet each, puts this to rest for good indeed.

Which was fired into the block first?

45 shoots lead bullets better, so there.

The .45 came from the right, the 9mm came from the left. No clothing, 5 feet distance. The 9mm penetrated to 12 inches, the .45 penetrated to 12.25 inches.
Neither have adequate penetration. I would use FMJ for SD over the loads in the test.

Neither have adequate penetration. I would use FMJ for SD over the loads in the test.
Not sure how you could say that for sure without calibrating the block.

Using the phrase "Knock down power" is the new way of getting an Internet slap-down.

Back in the day, it was using the term "clip" would you should have used the term "magazine."

Using the phrase "Knock down power" is the new way of getting an Internet slap-down.

Back in the day, it was using the term "clip" would you should have used the term "magazine."

Yep, just like all "buzzwords", such terms are rarely defined, but thrown about like everyone oughtta know what they mean.

"Knock-down power", "stopping power"- without concensus as to what they mean, they are useless terms that produce more confusion than answers.

Not sure how you could say that for sure without calibrating the block.
I think he's just expressing his preference. Even if they results are accurate, it is too little penetration for me, too. I like my ammo to penetrate in the 16 inch (give or take a couple inches) range.

Neither have adequate penetration. I would use FMJ for SD over the loads in the test.

What, exactly, are you planning on defending against?

What, exactly, are you planning on defending against?
It's really hard to say.
It's better to have more than not enough.

You'll still get an Internet slap-down if you use the word clip (unless you're actually referrring to a real clip)

And my favorite slap-down is when I say slide release... I know I'm gonna get a slap-down but I say it anyway :rolleyes:

I actually just ordered a clip for my XDm.
Well, a tuckable belt clip for my holster for my XDm ;)

Jibjab, while you're right - more is better than less - 12" is the FBI minimum requirement. I'd rather have a wide wound tract that is rated as penetrating at least enough than a narrow wound tract that will penetrate more.

I wouldn't use THIS particular test as a reason to throw out all industry standards and protocols. All premium defensive loads in service calibers are likely to penetrate at least 12".

And yes, every time you call a magazine a clip, God kills a kitten. Please, think of the kittens. :)

I wouldn't use THIS particular test as a reason to throw out all industry standards and protocols. All premium defensive loads in service calibers are likely to penetrate at least 12".

And yes, every time you call a magazine a clip, God kills a kitten. Please, think of the kittens. :)


I think I'll start referring to them as ammo-sticks. Except for the double-stacks...those I'll call zig-zags.

That ought to cause a stir.

If this goes viral and ends up in the common lexicon for shooters, you read it here first. Which means you'll know who to curse...

:D:D

Ammo sticks 'n zig-zags are the new peanut butter and jelly!

12" is the FBI minimum requirement.
I thought that # was 16 :confused: next time I talk to my retired FBI relative I will ask him. Perhaps even the FBI now believes Less is More :confused:

I thought that # was 16 :confused: next time I talk to my retired FBI relative I will ask him. Perhaps even the FBI now believes Less is More :confused:


Here's a link about that which I found in another posting on THR. It's titled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness" from the FBI Academy Firearms Training Unit:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

On page 11, it says:

It is essential to bear in mind that the single most critical factor remains penetration. While penetration up to 18 inches is preferable, a handgun MUST reliably penetrate 12 inches of soft body tissue at a minimum, regardless of whether it expands or not. If the bullet does not reliably penetrate to these depths, it is not an effective bullet for law enforcement use.

It's very a very revealing read. Take a gander at it.

:):)

It's very a very revealing read. Take a gander at it.

I agree.
Thank you Sir.

Here is another interesting read,
http://www.gunblast.com/RKCampbell_StoppingPower.htm

Ah, another "Which do you prefer: Blondes, brunettes, or redheads?" Thread?

What about motor oils? Which is better? :)

Edmo

Even if they results are accurate, it is too little penetration for me, too. I like my ammo to penetrate in the 16 inch (give or take a couple inches) range.
Without calabrating the block you have no idea weather it's the consistancy of whipped cream or cement. The fact that they only penatrated 12" means nada.

All the information I have seen shows premium self defense ammo performing VERY similarly. When it comes to ball ammo the .45 wins hands down. I don't know of anyone who carries lead ball ammo for self defense or concealed carry.

When it comes down to it... Which would you rather be shot with? I personally would avoid all of them, including .22 caliber.

If 9mm and 45 are equal, then where does that leave 40SW?

A 135 gr 40SW could be heavier, larger, and faster than the 124 gr +P load. It could have higher momentum and KE. And it would have just a smidge lower sectional density. Seems like with the right bullet construction, it would HAVE to beat the 9mm in penetration and/or expansion. A 150 gr bullet could be superior on paper in every way except possibly velocity, which would be very close to a tie. I've wondered why no 140 gr 10mm bullets. those would closely match 124 gr 9mm bullets in sectional density* and should then be equal or "better" than a 124 gr 9mm loading on paper in every conceivable way.

Makes you wonder why the heavier 40SW loads are more popular.

*Hmm, should probably whip out the calculator. That's just a guess, really.

Edit: turns out a 155 gr .400 bullet has the same sectional density as a 124 gr .355 bullet. I guess that theory is dead in the water.

I don't know of anyone who carries lead ball ammo for self defense or concealed carry.
I did for a bit. Magtech makes it in most calibers.
Shot it all up though.

Link isn't working

It was an interesting article about specifically engineered self defense ammunition in 9mm .40 and .45

I wish I had more info to post right now

Here's a fun site with lots of dead jello :)
http://www.brassfetcher.com/

Interesting... I'd like to see a test of 9mm 124 +P vs the 9mm 147 (both form the latest Ranger bonded line) out of a shortbarrel one of these days...

Food for thought:
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-hlnZ4cTL0Qo/UAj5Vwc6DQI/AAAAAAAAF60/70FLP9ekYMs/s800/surface_area%2520%2528Medium%2529.jpg

Interesting... I'd like to see a test of 9mm 124 +P vs the 9mm 147 (both form the latest Ranger bonded line) out of a shortbarrel one of these days...

Your in luck! The link jibjab posted in post #64 has lots of videos of various pistol/rifle rounds being tested in ballistics gel!

http://www.brassfetcher.com/

Go to the link, click "Handguns", then choose "9mm Luger".

:):)

Food for thought:

I think that is too much food. :confused:
How about a smaller summarized portion.

I've got this much so far: ;)

Diameter: 45 > 40 > 9mm
Weight: heavier HP bullets in a caliber tend to penetrate more than equivalent lighter HP bullets
Surface area: I'm going to assume that more is better. It appears to start at .55 caliber? Expanded diameter?

Personally I don't buy gelatin tests, calculations, or anything for a long time now other than what I see. That said I saw a guy shot in the stomach 4 times with .380 fmj. He survived and is still a menace in the community. I saw one shot in the head with a 45 fmj. Impressive damage and impressive exit with brains all over the ground. With a head shot like that which penetrates I feel a smaller caliber would have done the job also though. I saw a rottweiler head shot with a Winchester Ranger +P+ 9mm and the round split the scalp but didn't penetrate. I could go on and on about people and animals I've seen shot with various calibers. Suffice to say I don't find either to have magical stopping power but prefer larger bullets as they seem to get the job done alot more reliably alot faster. A 9mm at a high velocity will get the job done but the problem is that most people can shoot a 45 at a lower velocity more accurately given the same size and weight delivery vehicles. The 9mm +P or +P+ recoil in the light guns most people carry is just too much for average folks to handle imo. That is why I feel more are better at one extreme or the other, a low velocity .38 wadcutter (impressive wounds) or a full power .45acp.

Both. I carry both depending on clothing. I think both the 9mm and 45ACP have their place where each can shine.

I think he's just expressing his preference. Even if they results are accurate, it is too little penetration for me, too. I like my ammo to penetrate in the 16 inch (give or take a couple inches) range.

Without calabrating the block you have no idea weather it's the consistancy of whipped cream or cement. The fact that they only penatrated 12" means nada.

I was not concerned about the block or its calibration.

I expressed my preference for ammunition that penetrates in the 16 inch (give or take a couple inches) range. It's not open to debate.

Your 9 may expand but the 45 will never shrink.
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g180/zoom6zoom/gun%20stuff/guns008.jpg

I expressed my preference for ammunition that penetrates in the 16 inch (give or take a couple inches) range. It's not open to debate.
That's fine but 16" through what? IMHO 16" in whipped cream isn't good 16" into wet cement is probably plenty. 12" into 20% gel at 20 degrees would probably be well over 16" into 10% gel at 45 degrees. That's why the FBI protocols have standards for calibrating blocks, Judging these two rounds as having insufficient penatration because they only went 12" into this block is silly.

I expressed my preference for ammunition that penetrates in the 16 inch (give or take a couple inches) range. It's not open to debate.

If I ever closed my opinions to debate, then I would never learn anything.

That's fine but 16" through what? IMHO 16" in whipped cream isn't good 16" into wet cement is probably plenty. 12" into 20% gel at 20 degrees would probably be well over 16" into 10% gel at 45 degrees. That's why the FBI protocols have standards for calibrating blocks, Judging these two rounds as having insufficient penatration because they only went 12" into this block is silly.

You seem to have missed my point. I never said that the test was a valid test, I just expressed my preference. If you have a problem with the preferences that I have expressed, you'll have to deal with it. I am not your therapist.


If I ever closed my opinions to debate, then I would never learn anything.

Well, my preferences are my preferences.

I can have preferences and still be capable of learning. Despite your claim to the contrary, you probably can, too.

I would never presume to tell anyone what to think or what they must do and would expect that that courtesy would be extended to me.

If neither of you can do that, then there is little hope for meaningful discussion.

jibjab:

http://www.gunblast.com/RKCampbell_StoppingPower.htm

Excellent link. Liked the end observations.

"I once took not the traditional icepick but thank God a nutpicker in the leg. It didn’t go in very far but instantly floored me. The shock to my system completely locked up my knee and thigh muscles. Yet, I did not even require stitches. "

So if a nut picker can do that, it is certainly possible for a .22lr to do that,
and is it more likely to occur if the object was .45 Caliber?

"Author’s perspective

The 9mm isn’t ok. Tell the fellow who took four 9mm soft point bullets and still managed to inflict a nasty wound that remains with me to this day, and gives my face ‘character’.

The .38 isn’t enough. I once shot a fellow in the lower leg who debated with me whether he had been hit at all until the blood ran from his shoe - then he commenced whimpering and crying.

I once took not the traditional icepick but thank God a nutpicker in the leg. It didn’t go in very far but instantly floored me. The shock to my system completely locked up my knee and thigh muscles. Yet, I did not even require stitches.

I once fired a single .45 caliber hardball round on the move, quickly, and the effect on the target, struck in the ribs, was immediate. All motion ceased - and he fully recovered within a few weeks.

On another occasion I suffered a failure to stop with a much vaunted .45 ACP 200 grain JHP very much in the vogue in the early 1980s, the darling of gunwriters. It penetrated two inches and expanded to a full one inch. Nice but ineffective. The second round produced compliance.

I observed the effect of the .357 Magnum 125 grain JHP once over the top of my own sights. The effect was gruesome. A solid hit that produced a severe blood flow AND dramatic effect from the rear, including lung tissue thrown perhaps three feet.

R.K. Campbell"



Stopping Power:

http://www.beartoothbullets.com/rescources/calculators/php/thornily.htm

Plug your favorite load in and see how it does.


Yes stopping power exists in handguns. It just is likely that it doesn't in your handgun:
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f99/Socrates28/Model%2083%20FA%20475/DSC_0060FA83Barrelshotbulletsverycl.jpg

Campbell likes the effect of the .357, the light load of any of the above rounds which is on the far right.

Looking at the rounds it doesn't seem like there is THAT much difference in bullet or cartridge size. Yet the effect of that heavy .45 Colt, .45 Super, .475 Linebaugh or .500 Maximum creates a HUGE difference, not justified by
the linear number differences.
The real value of ft-lbs of energy is it gives us a somewhat geometric way to compare what is very hard to quantify.

I also don't think the initial hit, and reaction has much to do with bullet expansion. The nervous system shock Campbell experiences from the nutpicker is similar to the initial action the target feels when he's hit with
a larger caliber bullet. In other words that knock down power comes from the bodies initial reaction to the initial impact, PRIOR to bullet expansion.

This would explain why a poorly placed shot from a .450 Nitro Express would
create enough of an impression for a 2000 pound bison to drop in it's tracks, and then get right back up.

When you say "this is my preference and its not open to debate", it makes it sound like if anyone brings up information that might show why you should look at changing your prefence, you're not going to listen.

Prosser, you posted as I was typing:

Gunblast.com, the same site that did a review on shotguns and mentioned that the 3 types of "self defense ammunition" for shotguns are birdshot, buckshot, and slugs? I don't trust that site as far as I can throw a 155mm artillery shell.

For a .45 JHP to only penetrate 2 inches, something else had to have happened.

I also plugged in the standard calibers from Winchester PDX1 into the beartooth you linked in another thread, and it seemed to me that based on the approximate meplat of the PDX rounds and the velocity reported on their site, that the size of the entrance wound grew pretty much as you would expect from 9mm to .40 to .45. In all three cases, that entrance wound would be smaller than the expanded 9mm.

I don't buy into the idea that the .45 is somehow supernaturally powerful, because I have yet to see any proof of this so-called geometric increase based on a wider meplat. I believe it will create a marginally wider wound tract, and that there is a very narrow margin where the .45 will stop a target that a 9mm won't.

When you say "this is my preference and its not open to debate", it makes it sound like if anyone brings up information that might show why you should look at changing your prefence, you're not going to listen.

Your inference, not mine.

If you wish to attribute incorrectly such qualities to me, that is your problem- not mine. I've already stated quite clearly that I can have a preference and still learn, but I have come to suspect that repeating it here might be an exercise in futility.

If you have a problem with the fact that I can have a preference and still learn, you'll have to find some way to deal with it.

I am not your therapist.

I don't have a problem that you have a preference. It was the "its not up for debate," that I had issue with. If it's not up for debate, why even mention it?

I don't see how you not being a therapist has anything to do with this conversation.

I don't have a problem that you have a preference. It was the "its not up for debate," that I had issue with. If it's not up for debate, why even mention it?

I don't see how you not being a therapist has anything to do with this conversation.

Why the need to badger me about my preferences not being subject to debate?

It's awfully rude of you and certainly not very "High Road".

Looks like this one is circling the drain.