9mm vs. .45 sidearms

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's true jkomp316 but the role of my CCW is not to scare people, it's to eliminate threats quickly and permanantly. By you're standards it seems I'd be better off with a plastic Uzi and a megaphone. That's not to say that the .45 isn't effective its just that its purpose isn't to scare.
 
That's true jkomp316 but the role of my CCW is not to scare people, it's to eliminate threats quickly and permanantly. By you're standards it seems I'd be better off with a plastic Uzi and a megaphone. That's not to say that the .45 isn't effective its just that its purpose isn't to scare.

That may be true, however, if your gun DOES happen to scare him - that's much better than actually killing him.

I know that if I was a desparate criminal about to attack someone, I'd probably be more hesitant if he pulled out a Dirty Harry gun compared to a little pink .32. Sure, of course some people could be on PCP or just plain insane and intent on killing me no matter what - but a little extra indimidation factor in a pistol has to be considered desirable.
 
a good friend of mine works in the security field, he told me the best situation deterant is a full framed auto, a laser dot, and lungs of steel.
 
Well, for me it's all about the .45 ACP. I have 3 of those compared to one 9mm. I intend to increase my 9 count, eventually as it's a good cartridge and in fact one of my primary carries is a 9. But, .45 ACP will always be my favorite cartridge.

The fact that the business end of .45s have a rather large hole is just another of the many plusses in my opinion.
 
if I have to pull my ccw on a bg it will be to shot them not to scare them.as for 9mm vs 45 just do some research on one shot stops.hint 357mag & 45acp are best.:neener:
 
I must agree with agtman. The 10mm would be an ideal sidearm for the military. Capacity, range, power and barrier penetration. 200 gr FMJ's for the battlefield and 180 gr HP's for MP's. The G20 would be awsome in that role. If I were a LEO, I'd feel undergunned with anything but a G20 for a sidearm.
 
The most useful round is the one that you can consistantly put where you want it, be it 9mm or 45. I own both and like both, but,,,,,,,,,,,my CCW is 45!
 
FWIW, I've read here and elsewhere that JMB did indeed proclaim the Hi-Power as the superior design (or was it his favorite?)

Of course you have and twice in this thread alone. BUT, can you find a verifiable quote that is attributed to JMB that says so?

He was dead before the gun was awarded a patent and the gun in the patent has little in relation to what we know today as the HP or GP35.
 
can you find a verifiable quote that is attributed to JMB that says so?

I cannot. Really, I was just making the observation. For what it's worth, I wouldn't want to get hit by either a 9mm or a .45, but my personal choice is the .45. For the best of both worlds (or, in this case, cartridges), though, the 10mm can't be beat.
 
Both are good, both kill, both stop a threat.

The age-old question, .45 or 9 mm? Which has greater stopping power?

The 9 mm caliber is not anemic, weak, and negligible as some .45 zealots make it sound. 9 mm equals .354 inches in the English system. This means the 9 mm caliber is one-tenth (.10 inches) smaller than the .45 round. To put things into perspective a BB is .177 inches in diameter. So the difference between the two rounds is less than the size of BB. Do you really think that a projectile traveling several hundred feet faster than the .45 round and only one-tenth of an inch smaller is something negligible?

So OK, the .45 round makes a hole one-tenth of an inch bigger than the 9 mm. Is it reasonable or even logical to dismiss the 9 mm round as weak and insignificant? If that is your position, then might as well discount the .45 round as weak and insignificant too since the difference in diameter between the two rounds is so small that if one is weak, the other must be too.

Many of the arguments against the 9 mm round say the bullet tends to go through a body and therefore does not deposit all of it energy inside the target. This argument is greatly flawed. Again, think logically before you answer this question: Do you rather have 1 hole .45 inch in diameter traversing half your body width, or two holes .354 inches (9 mm) in diameter from a bullet that traversed your entire body and exited at the other end? If either bullet hits a vital organ like the heart, liver, or mayor artery the threat stops. This would apply to even a small caliber like the .22. If the bullet did not hit vital organs or arteries, then the blood loss from two holes, the entry and exit wounds, and a longer wound cavity from the 9 mm round is greater than from 1 hole with a slightly wider wound cavity but shorter path of the .45 round.

These are my two cents into this debate. I am not a ballistics expert. Hell, the only gun I own is a .22 for plinking. But not all the bravado talk for the .45 round passes the smell test. In my opinion, the 9 mm round is one-tenth of an inch smaller than the .45 round but it travels faster. Therefore, by the transitive property of equality it cannot be significantly different from the .45 round. Will the 9 mm round stop the much feared 250-pound drug crazed crack addict that will brake into your house in the middle of the night? Maybe not, but do not count on the .45 doing the job either. Besides, all crack addicts that I have seen are poor, anorexic devils weighing 110 lbs. Do not worry about the stopping power rhetoric surrounding these two calibers. Focus on shot placement, and double tap if possible. Both calibers are good, both kill, both stop a threat.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top