Rate of fire vs. caliber. IE 9mm 6 quick vs. .45 2 Slow

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

orangeninja

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
3,117
I was discussing rate of fire versus caliber. You know, typical gunshop banter. Wouldn't a 9mm that you could put 4 to 6 very quick shots accuratly into a torso be of greater use than a .45 that you could only put 2 in during the same frame of time?

I know.......shot placement.

I know.......caliber wars are taboo.

I know.......what about a .40.

The reason it came up is two fold.

1.) the adoption of the 9mm by the Armed Forces over the .45. Could this be due to a greater ability to establish a superior rate of fire?

2. the shotgun principle, #4 Buck will overload a physical body due to the amount of trauma caused by multiple hits. Same with 00 Buck. However you could almost duplicate this effect with rapid fire to the torso.

3. I know I said two but this I came up with on my own. Head shots are improbable under stress at a moving target. Multiple center mass would be preferable to the 2 and 1 drills wouldn't it?

Just some thoughts.

Now I'll duck and cover. Remember this is not a caliber comparison as it is a rate of fire comparison. Ideally a quick .45 would be nice, however you have a point of diminishing returns. If you can shoot a quick 5 on a .45 accuratly, then don't comment (unless you must). I'm talking to the average human who shoots a 9mm faster.
 
I can't really argue with that.
I go back and forth over the years in my own mind about 9mm vs 10mm (or .45).
In some situations it would work. In others mabey not.
In a home defense situation, I always wonder about an asailant that is behind a couch or door jamb. I want my 10mm for that.
Other scenarios I could see where many quick rounds would be better.
After going from 9's to .45'/10's and back, I just bit the bullet and got a Sig 9mm to keep my 10mm company.
 
The reason we went with the Beretta/9mm was to meet with NATO. Almost any IPSC (with one obvious and notable exception ;) ) shooter will tell you that with practice, it is easier to hit with a 45ACP 1911 than with a 9mm Beretta M9.

Having said that... if I had my choice of being able to put 6 rounds of 9mm into the bad guy than 2 rounds of 45ACP, regardless of the load.

Keep in mind, I'm a long time devotee of the 1911 and a firm believer in 45ACP. But I do currently carry a 9mm.
 
My guess for the switch from .45 to 9mm is that more countries use 9mm. Ammo is far more common for guns chambered in 9x19. The capacity is double that of the old .45 without much, if any, weight increase. Balistics with ball ammo are pretty lousy anyway, so you may as well give up a little there to give yourself more chances to hit and wound your target. Four 9mm are collectively bigger than two .45 caliber holes.
 
To me, your initial premise is flawed. You cannot put six 9mm rounds into a target within the same time that most any other trained marksman could place two 45ACP rounds into the same target area. In fact, I'd be damned surprised if you'd see a rapid-fire ratio any smaller than 6:5 (9mm/45ACP), presuming that we're talking about service pistols.

And remember - it's the one who gets there first who usually wins. ;)
 
I think it was Evan Marshall that compiled data from police shootings. The data showed the percentage of cases where a single torso shot caused immediate cessation of the attack. The .357 mag and .45 acp were in the 90's percent. Various 9mm were 70's-80's percent.

In other words, a single torso shot from a .45 stopped an attack better than 9 times out of 10. I would imagine that 2 shots would be very close to 100%. Two good shots from a 9mm would certainly be in the 90's, I would think.

Data for two shot stops would be interesting.

Just found some numbers:
one shot stop data
 
The Marshall statistics did not take into account any shootings in which there was more than one hit if I remember correctly. In the majority of 9mm shootings there is going to be more than one hit. So the data may be slanted. The .357 Magnum will have a larger sample group since a high powered, very loud revolver with only six shots is much more likely to limit the amount of shots fired.

As far as shooting .45 to 9mm at a 5:6 ratio.....I dunno about that. Maybe a 3:6 if you are shooting at a controlled rate, meaning you are still aiming. At least I cant. I have a hard time shooting controlled strings of 4 shots rapidly while staying within a baseball area. I usually "climb" the rounds or if I am trying to compensate I will zig zag up and down. With 9mm I can pretty much put about 10 rounds all within a softball sized area rather quickly. Recoil and muzzle lift are the obvious factors.
 
I am sure the Marshall and Sanow data is just as good as any reason you could use to pick your self defense load. Thing that really irks me about it is that the best 9mm round beats out the best 44 Magnum. I know all the theories about "wasted" energy and such but it still doesn't seem right.
 
RJ357 -

The best thing to do with Sanow and Marshall is forget it. The analysis is at best flawed, the data, to be generous, is highly questionable, and the conclusions are meaningless. The purpose Sanow and Marshall were to sell lots magazines of magazine articles--in that they have been successful.
 
"Wouldn't a 9mm that you could put 4 to 6 very quick shots accuratly into a torso be of greater use than a .45 that you could only put 2 in during the same frame of time? "

Well, dispite all the internet chatter on subjects like this, there is no answer. There are just too many variables. These variables have been discussed endlessly.
I shoot a 1911 in .45 ACP. I have shot the very same handgun for 15 years or so. At times I have shot it a lot. I once fired over 1500 serious aimed shots in a five day period as an example. I can shoot it pretty fast, with accuracy. However I can shoot a 9mm faster. In fact, I have shot a plate match with my 1911 and tried it once with a 9mm and the 9mm seemed like a cap gun. So, there is some validity in saying that you can put more rounds on target in a shorter period of time. Whether they are needed or desireable is another matter.
 
Speedy

Six 9mms vs two .45s...

Don't be too sure that that ratio couldn't be closer to 6:5 with just a little practice.:cool: But get it down to a more realistic level of say...6:4
and ask yourself the question again. Then come and see some of our shooters put 2 45s into a target so quick that you're not sure if you heard one shot or two...with full hardball equivalent ammo.

Standin' by...
 
Speedy cont . . .

I can definately shoot 9mm faster than heavier calibers. But I can also put 8 rounds of full-house .44 Mag into COM at 15 yards in less than 5 seconds with my DEagle. I image with some practice .45 ACP wouldn't be that far off from 9mm. But, shooting big guns fast requires practice, upper body strength, and the ability to work past recoil sensativity.

The military is dealing with an unknown quality of person and training costs money. The military is going to look at effectiveness per $ more than the ideal platform. If more people can be trained to hit the target more cheaply then 9mm is the way to go.

More ammo for the same weight and space. Cheaper per shot. Fewer reloads for the same number of shots. More global ammunition availability. Logistics is the major factor in modern military side-arms choices. It's about the Bang for the Buck because handguns better not be what's winning the war ;)
 
At 7 yards on an IDPA target all A-zone hits.
Glock 17 9mm = .21 sec. splits
Sig P220 .45 = .25 sec. splits
That works out to about a 5:4 ratio of 9mm to .45.
 
jeff-10 -
Thing that really irks me about it is that the best 9mm round beats out the best 44 Magnum.
Click to expand...
I wondered about that. Since all torso shots were included, regardless of where they actually were in the torso, it might just be that the .44 shots were not as well placed.

Since these are real world shootings, they take everything into account, including any difficulty in getting good placement with a particular caliber. But that's also one of the problems: it's not just comparing calibers alone.

Still, if the sample numbers are large, and include hits at many torso locations, it would indicate the .45 is less dependent on placement than the 9mm.
 
I can see 5:4 or 5:3.5 with full-size handguns (e.g., Glock 17s and five-inch steel 1911), but take say a Glock 26 and a Kimber Ultra CDP, and I'll bet you see the gap open up considerably--probably to at least a two or more likely three to one ratio.
 
Oh yeah....I forgot about that. We were comparing somthing to the tune of a compact 1911, I think a Kimber to a Glock 19. I didn't even realize that size of the weapon would be a considerable difference.
 
Concerning the 9mm vs 44 Magnum issue, even relating it to Mr Marshall, assuming similar yet undecisive placement, I'd imagine the better 9mm loads (124 Gr Gold Dots, Ranger Ts etc...) would have better stopping abilities than an average to good 44 Magnum would. Most folks that have talked with veterans should know that inumerous wounds from rifles were survived... The bigger/more powerful rounds tend to go straight through.

Honestly, to use the whole 'I wouldn't wanna stand downrange from...' thing, I would rather be shot with a 44 Magnum with, say, a Remington SWCJHP than a 127 Gr +P+ Ranger.
 
Even with 9mm splits at .25 and .45acp at .33 seconds you are still in the 4:3 ratio range.
To get at the ratios you are talking about you'd have to have 9mm splits in the .20sec. range, and .45acp splits in the .50sec. range. hence a 5:2 ratio.
That is one very slow .45acp shooter and one fast 9mm shooter.
 
A day in Court

Wildehond said:

The one problem I can see as far as civilian defence goes is explaining four hits on an attacker in court.
_______________________

Well, I wasn't even gonna go there, but since you did...:cool:

We can argue that a clean shoot is a clean shoot, but you can be sure that the question will come up, and it won't be in your favor. To wit:

"Can you try to explain to the good people of the jury exactly WHY you
felt like you had to shoot him THAT many times??? Admit it. You WANTED to kill him!"

Consider this while bearing in mind that what the average juror knows about guns and gunfights comes from watching movies...scenes that
depict people being vaulted over cars after being hit once with a pistol
round...and gaping, bloody bullet wounds after being shot with a "Nine".

Whether or not it holds true to life isn't the issue...THEY believe that this is really how it happens, and the question won't be why you felt that you had to shoot him, but why you felt that you had to shoot him 5 or 6 times. Much easier to make a case for defense with one or two than with a magfull. Bet on it.

Do you really believe that your lawyer can convince a Soccer Mom that the ineffectiveness of a pistol round would require multiple hits in order to shut him down? Ever try to argue a point with somebody who already has their mind made up before you start? She's watched the movies! She KNOWS
what a gun can do!

Think about it...

Cheers!

Tuner
 
I don't know how things go in court but it would be easy to explain: whether they would listen is another mattter.

The guy attacked me with deadly force. I fired on him and continued to fire on him until he stopped his attack. I didn't count the number of rounds I fired, I was only interested in their effect: whether or not he stopped his attack. If he had been valted over a car, he wouldn't have been there to get shot five times. In fact, since he didn't fall down and kept attacking me, I wasn't even sure I was hitting him, so I continued to fight for my life.
 
alduro, if you can't shoot a .45 acp very quickly, then your choice has to be to go to a smaller caliber such as a 9 mm. So, if your shooting ratio is 6 9mm to 2 .45 acp, there is no question, you gotta go with 9 mm. Don't confuse your capabilities with what can actually be done by others. I shoot with some folks that may be able to shoot a 9 mm out of the same platform a little faster than a .45 acp out of the same platform, but they shoot .45 acp out of their perferred platforms better than many 9 mm folks do out of their platforms. For example, I can shoot my .45 acp 1911 a goodly bit faster with accuracy than some folks I know with 9 mm Sigs.

As noted, out of the same platform, a ratio of 6:5 may exist and since the 6 are 9 mm and the 5 are .45 acp, I would take the 5 over the six, any day.
 
This is all just talk and theory.

Grab a 9mm and a .45. Get a timer. Go to the range and shoot.

It isn't even close to 2/6, more like 4/5. And that is single action vs. single action.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Rating recoil subjectively 9MM, .40, .45
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
LouisianaMan
L
H
  • Locked
.40 vs .45 is not really a big & slow debate?
Replies
19
Views
2K
cooks 7
C
G
  • Locked
1911 parts for .45 vs. 9mm - interchangeable?
Replies
6
Views
7K
Vern Humphrey
V
A
  • Locked
A 9mm and a .45 or 2 .45's? Your Opinion Please
2
Replies
26
Views
922
1911user
1
G
  • Locked
9mm vs .45
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Checkman
C
Back
Top