9mm vs .45: Ballistic gelatine tests vs real life

[Vodoun da Vinci]

I just wanted to add that ballistic gelatine is a test medium - it is used to test penetration and expansion characteristics as a standardized medium so that when we compare one bullet to another we are comparing "apples and apples" into the same medium.

I have done a lot of ballistic testing of my hand loads in various calibers and have used gelatine and have paid others to test my ammunition.

Gelatine does not represent human tissue and the test results derived are test results derived by shooting into calibrated ballistic gelatine. We can subjectively infer some degree of lethality or effect on a human by looking at these tests but penetration and expansion relatively in gelatine does not transfer directly to testing on humans.

Simplified, X amount of penetration/expansion in the test media does not guarantee (even remotely in some cases) equal performance on an animal like a human. It gives us common ground and an apples to apples comparison but shooting gelatine is not the same as proving effectiveness as a "stopping" round. X amount of penetration in gelatine does not mean X amount of penetration against flesh and bone.

VooDoo

 

[Skribs]

The problem is that 100% accurate experiments on the subject are illegal. So we will never know.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Because in the real world it might need to go through multiple materials, each far less homogeneous than ballistic gelatin, and still be capable of doing terminal damage to the target.

If the need to emphasize weight were so important we would be see gangbangers defeating police body armor with pitched baseballs. A balance of sectional density, bullet construction, and velocity are far more important than emphasis on bullet weight for defeating armored and unarmored opponents. Of course if a person's THR handle is 45_auto, it is understandable they may be a bit bias, inflexible, and old-cranky in accepting that caliber and weight are far less important for SD pistols than what was once thought.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Surely you aren't hoping that a bullet -9mm, or .45ACP, or otherwise- will actually knock a bad guy to the ground through sheer force of impact? The likelihood of such an event is zero.

I'm pretty sure he meant it as a bang= fired gun and flop= hit to head, heart, nervous system. As in one shot stop. the perp doesn't keep coming.

Not that the impact would actually knock over the perp.

X amount of penetration in gelatine does not mean X amount of penetration against flesh and bone.

Well put Voodoo. Youtube does not equal reality. there are things in the human body called bones. Lots of gel test promoters forget that.

The problem is that 100% accurate experiments on the subject are illegal. So we will never know.

I seem to remember reading that when developing the 45 acp cartridge, John Browning used slaughtered pigs as a test medium. Different ammo, different gun, and different powders, but interesting if it's true.

I don't know for sure if it is.

 

[Nom de Forum]

......Why doesn't some manufacturer apply the same magic modern technology that makes modern 9mm hollowpoints so good to .45 hollowpoints?

You must have missed the memo, it's been done. Still not much difference in effectiveness between the best loadings of each caliber.

 

[Nom de Forum]

.....According to Jeff Cooper's writings, you don't need hollowpoints in a .45 .Just my .02,LeonCarr

Yeah, "The Chairman" said many things back in the dark ages. He once said a 9mm FMJ was only 63% as effective as a .45ACP FMJ, and that the formula BW x MV x BSA was an accurate method of determining the RSP of pistol bullets. He was a very knowledgeable and accomplished man who was not immune to being very wrong in his opinions. These are but two examples of that wrongness.

 

[45_auto]

You must have missed the memo, it's been done. Still not much difference in effectiveness between the best loadings of each caliber.

Interesting thoughts. Wonder why all those other calibers still sell so well? Do you have a copy of the memo? Any references? Or just unsupported babble as usual?

 

[Skribs]

Why doesn't some manufacturer apply the same magic modern technology that makes modern 9mm hollowpoints so good to .45 hollowpoints?

From my understanding, a lot of the technology that went into perfecting the 9mm went more into making it reliably hit the window people want in terms of expansion and penetration. I don't think .45s needed as much help in that department because it's easier to build something larger.

Interesting thoughts. Wonder why all those other calibers still sell so well? Do you have a copy of the memo? Any references? Or just unsupported babble as usual?

Because for some people, every little bit helps. If you can only get off X number of shots before you get stabbed/bludgeoned/shot/etc., where X is the magazine cap of the larger caliber, then the larger caliber is better. Otherwise, the smaller one is better.

When the larger one is better, it's not much better. Plus, smaller ones are usually cheaper and are way better past X rounds, so there's advantages there. Most people who go for larger calibers either believe (erroneously, IMO) that the smaller caliber is insufficient, or believe they won't need more than X rounds.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Interesting thoughts.

I knew you would think so.

Wonder why all those other calibers still sell so well?

For the same reason Ford decades ago stopped selling only cars painted black.

Do you have a copy of the memo?

You really need to abandon only using that literal thinking we identified in another thread as hindering your cognition. Embrace the concept of sarcasm and abstract thinking, it will improve your perception.

Any references?

Could you be more specific about what you would like me to provide a reference to support. An example would be: if you don't understand the concept of sectional density, velocity, etc. that is can be provided. If you are interested in knowing what Jeff Cooper had to say about things, try Cooper on Handguns (source of my comments in this thread) and his various other books and commentaries, they are readily available in print and online.

Or just unsupported babble as usual?

Unsupportable babble as usual?! I have a history on THR of supporting my babble when reasonably and specifically requested, so I think this is an unfair assertion, Chum (friend). You have told me in another thread you think I am a Chump (stupid person), but I am clearly not, so I doubt your sincerity in pursuing a productive and reasonably polite dialog about the topics in this thread. Make me believe we are Chums, and I might be willing to help you out with your projectile terminal ballistic homework.

 

[Nordeste]

.45 ACP is, intrinsically, a low pressure round. 9 Luger is, intrinsically, a high pressure round. One is heavier, the other one is faster. The fact is, they deliver very similar amounts of energy when they hit the target. And that energy is what you need to break bones, damage vital organs, etc. In one word, to cause incapacitation.

I don't feel the recoil of the .45 ACP that much heavier than that one of the 9 mm. The 9 mm feels snappier, whilst the .45 feels more like a push. Follow ups are quite similar, for me. I do not like the .40, though.

In real life, I carry a 9 mm. I personally love how the .45 feels and shoots, but if I have to bet my life, give me the extra mag capacity, just in case.

 

[mike28w]

We are comparing "underpowered" vs "underpowered"....wimpy vs wimpy....

I work in an operating room.... I honestly can't tell any difference between these two calibers. Seems to be more a matter of shot placement and attitude ( either natural or drug induced) of the person who has been shot.

Choose whichever caliber that you'll practice with more frequently... JMO,mike

 

[Cee Zee]

From my understanding, a lot of the technology that went into perfecting the 9mm went more into making it reliably hit the window people want in terms of expansion and penetration. I don't think .45s needed as much help in that department because it's easier to build something larger.

I have a hard time accepting that the technology used to make a 9mm better is not also used to make a .45 better. Companies are highly competitive and they wouldn't surrender gains in .45 performance because they "don't need as much help" as some have implied.

I also see some math here that is meant to imply that the 9mm imparts equal amounts of energy to a target but the math they use proves that theory wrong.

I'm not saying a 9mm isn't effective. They are. They do some things better than a .45 while a .45 does other things better. I think we should be able to agree on that. The faster 9mm with a smaller projectile is more likely to penetrate things like steel. Heavier bullets can deliver more energy to the target. The physics of these things are easily explained by common items we all recognize. A hammer makes a big dent in a board while a nail goes through it. That's essentially the difference between a 9mm and a .45 only they are closer together in their characteristics. A .45 can deliver all it's energy to a target where a 9mm might go through that same target. A 9mm might penetrate things that need to be penetrated in order to deliver a blow.

Deciding which is best in every situation just isn't possible IMO. They both have their good and bad points. I finally decided on the middle ground of the .40. The high capacity is there. The speed is there. And the heavier bullets are there. It seems to be a compromise caliber but again we have no way of actually proving it is always more effective. I don't think it is. I just think it shares some characteristics of both the .45 and the 9mm. But the bottom line is any time you shoot a human with a handgun it's going to hurt them badly. If we really wanted the most effective bullet we would all be using at least a .44 magnum or bigger. Clearly they can be made to be more effective. The problem of course is recoil and the ability to fire more than one round without aiming again. Most people can't do that with a .44 magnum or larger caliber gun.

But the bottom line is I'm not going to volunteer as a target to test any of these calibers.

 

[45_auto]

Could you be more specific about what you would like me to provide a reference to support.

I was specifically referring to your statement below:

Still not much difference in effectiveness between the best loadings of each caliber.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Don't get too caught up in this debate. It doesn't matter. Or rather, it may matter, but there's no way to predict when it will matter. Maybe the bigger bullet and enormous expanded hollow point from a .45 ACP would have saved you in one particular shooting, or maybe having double the ammo capacity from the 9mm would have saved you in another.

Gel testing isn't real life, and real life anecdotes aren't data. And even if the sum of the anecdotal information was data, it would have no predictive value.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I was specifically referring to your statement below:

Originally Posted by nom de forum, post #30
Still not much difference in effectiveness between the best loadings of each caliber.

You really have not convinced me yet that you believe me to be your chum (friend) and not, as you wrote elsewhere, a chump. I let you know that was a condition for receiving help from me. After all why would I want to help you with your pistol bullet terminal ballistics homework if you don't treat me as a chum (friend) and why would you pay any attention to any information given you by someone you consider a chump (stupid person)? That would be a waste of your time and mine. Maybe you should contact mike28w from post #36? He seems to know something about pistol bullet terminal ballistics that you don’t. Perhaps Mike will be more inclined to help you since I don’t think you have told him he is stupid. Don’t stop with Mike as there are many people and sources available that will corroborate what Mike posted and I have similarly mentioned. As of now, at my convenience, I will be more than happy to identify anything you post as being in error, if not why. I think that is more than charitable of me to do for someone that has so little regard for me. At least you will be aware that you are in error even if you don’t know why. See, I am still being a somewhat helpful chum to you. I’m really a nice guy.

 

[Skribs]

Cee Zee, what I'm saying is that previously, it was harder to make 9mm bullets reliable than it was to make .45 bullets reliable (in terms of reliable expansion and consistent penetration). Take a Sharpie and try to write in size 10 font. Then write in size 20 font. Which is easier? Now take a fine-tip pen and try the same again. The size 20 font won't look that much different (just one bold and one fine), but the size 10 font will look significantly better. That's what I'm saying about the 9mm vs. .45 in terms of how technology has improved. It's like our tools have gone from the sharpie to the fine-tip, which means we can make the smaller one a lot better, but it's hard to improve any further on the larger one.

Still not much difference in effectiveness between the best loadings of each caliber.

It depends on how you interpret the data, honestly. This is just a quick comparison of two same-brand cartridges (Remington Golden Sabre) on the most infallible source ever (wikipedia):
9mm: 0.62" expansion, 14.5" penetration.
.45 ACP: 0.75" expansion, 14.3" penetration.

You're looking at 320 ft-lbs vs. 544 ft-lbs with those loads, but as you can see the biggest difference is about 0.12" expansion (which is only slightly bigger than the unexpanded difference of just under 0.1"). Granted, this is just one example on a website with a worse reputation for accuracy than AKs (not that AKs are inaccurate, just that's their reputation), but it highlights the fact that in ballistic medium there isn't much of a difference.

Now, some people will say that the extra diameter equals a lot more surface area (actually over 46% surface area) which means you're destroying a lot more tissue. With a similar penetration depth, that's a much bigger PWC. However, in the grand scheme of the Human body, an extra cubic inch or two isn't going to make the difference - hitting something vital is. There is a very narrow margin where you will hit something vital with a .45 that you will not hit with a 9mm.

I do believe the .45 offers a slight advantage, and like I said in my post above, if you're going to use 7 rounds or less, the 1911 is better than the Beretta 92, and if you're going to use 13 rounds or less, the Glock 21 is better than the Glock 17. However, if you're going to use more rounds (for whatever reason), or if you're lower on cash for practicing funds, then the 9mm becomes more attractive.

 

[45_auto]

As of now, at my convenience, I will be more than happy to identify anything you post as being in error, if not why.

Thank you, please do.



Is there some reason that you believe that mike28w is more credible than Skribs?

 

[DaisyCutter]

The beauty is that everyone gets to decide what they need/want for themself, if they choose to do so...

I have no desire to recruit or convince anyone. I cited some of the reasons for my choice already. My needs/want are unique and likely different from another shooters.

If I had the ability to summon down 90 mph fastballs, like lightning bolts, into my target, I'd be content to have that in lieu of my 40 or 45.

 

[Nom de Forum]

......If I had the ability to summon down 90 mph fastballs, like lightning bolts, into my target, I'd be content to have that in lieu of my 40 or 45.

Me too! When you can see the instrument of your destruction inescapably moving toward you it is far more terrifying and dissuasive than unseen agents of death. This has been commented upon in history by those observing the reaction of men under fire from arrows versus bullets. Can you imagine the terror of being subjected to an unending barrage of pitches from major league pitchers at the rate you can fire your .40 or .45?

 

[Skribs]

Is there some reason that you believe that mike28w is more credible than Skribs?

How about the fact that mike28w worked in an OR and Skribs is an armchair commando?

In all reality, I've stated that the terminal ballistics are not that much different. They are different, but I'd expect in Mike's experience, bullet design played a bigger role than caliber (ignoring shot placement). My internet research is usually conducted comparing apples to apples (i.e. same bullet design, similar weight-for-caliber, but different cartridges) where other variables are eliminated as best as possible. I think that in the vast majority of cases, the two are similar enough that it doesn't matter. But there *can* be a case made for either the 9mm or the .45. In all honesty, I think the case for the 9mm is bigger (okay, the casing is technically smaller, but I weigh the pros for the 9mm more heavily than those for the .45), and my usually carry guns are a .380 and a 9. But it's not a stretch for me to play devil's advocate and see the case for the .45.

 

[Schwing]

While I do enjoy threads like this because they keep me thinking, I have never really understood the idea that one is just so superior to the other that you are a fool for using whatever YOU feel like the other is.

I have always seen these two calibers as comparing apples to oranges. One is a smaller projectile traveling faster, the other is a larger projectile traveling slower. Although there can be some expansion with the right ammunition, there is virtually no cavitation with either. Shots to major organs will kill with either and, if no major organs are hit, both calibers are usually survivable.

I carry both. I shoot both. I feel comfortable trusting my life to both. There is a comfort to having 10 230 grain bullets in my .45 and there is a comfort to having 15 115 grain bullets in my 9mm.

I would add that, at this very moment, I have a .38 with 5 rounds and feel pretty comfortable with that as well.

 

[Skribs]

I have always seen these two calibers as comparing apples to oranges. One is a smaller projectile traveling faster, the other is a larger projectile traveling slower. Although there can be some expansion with the right ammunition, there is virtually no cavitation with either. Shots to major organs will kill with either and, if no major organs are hit, both calibers are usually survivable.

You just said why it's apples to apples. This isn't "light and fast" vs. "slow and heavy." It's "slow and heavy" vs. "slower and heavier." 5.7x28mm vs. .45 ACP is into the light-and-fast vs. slow-and-heavy.

I think part of the reason people get so hot and bothered is because if there's isn't the best, then not only have they made a bad decision - but it also means they've been carrying inferior technology and don't want to face it. That's just a guess on my part. I can say that if you are into min/maxing (it's my favorite part of video games), every little bit makes a difference. As the saying goes, "if you're not first, you're last." That might be stupid in racing, but it makes sense from the perspective of a min/maxer.

 

[MICHAEL T]

I would like to know What brand of ammo and if ball or HP that officer used on the BG .

If 6 of those wounds were fatal and he still had signs of life after head shot . I wonder if wasn't ball.

 

[Cee Zee]

Cee Zee, what I'm saying is that previously, it was harder to make 9mm bullets reliable than it was to make .45 bullets reliable

I wasn't aiming my comments at anything in particular you said. It's just that some people would have us believe that the great advances of the 9mm didn't happen with the .45 also. Whatever characteristics they had before the advances in bullet design are still pretty much on the same lines. Yes 9mm has gotten closer to what a .45 will do IMO. That's not to say it isn't just as good. I just don't think it was just as good 40 years ago.

I've carried both 9mm and .45 and .40 and .44 magnum at times along with .380 and .25 too. I prefer to shoot a .40 at this point. It seems to have the things I want in a caliber. But again I don't want to be shot by anything including a .25 or a .22 short or even a BB gun.

 

[45_auto]

How about the fact that mike28w worked in an OR and Skribs is an armchair commando?

Exactly why I made that statement. It was to point out to nom de forum that his "references" are no more than unsubstantiated statements by unverified internet posters who happen to agree with his views.

Kind of like basing what you believe a person’s views on handgun caliber wars are based on their screen name:

Of course if a person's THR handle is 45_auto, it is understandable they may be a bit bias, inflexible, and old-cranky in accepting that caliber and weight are far less important for SD pistols than what was once thought.

I’ve regularly posted my thoughts on the handgun caliber wars, first one I found using using the search function was this one, post #31:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=655227&page=2&highlight=handgun+wimpy

Just as a sidenote, if anyone except nom de forum cares, the THR handle I use is the one Hershel Davis (google him if you don’t know who he is) stuck me with almost 20 years ago in the infancy of the internet. I’ve used it ever since and see no reason to change.

It’s the internet – feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong!