FMJ for Defense: 10mm vs. .45 ACP

Exactly and what happened I Dallas just supports "placement " even more.

The cop that confronted the shooter at touching distance shot him in the chest with a what I expect was a 40 caliber with no effect because the dirtbag had a balistic vest on. Had the cop shoot him in the face he could have ended it there even with a 22lr.

Not that I know this for sure but I hear mafia type assassins use 22 routinely because it's quiet and if done at close range and placed accurately is quite effective.

That said a 45 at close range is even more of a no brainer, and I'm not saying that as a pun if it's a head shot

I also agree that we here on the forum don't really need the reminders of 'shot placement'...but it's repeated often for those few who might wander by on the 'Net who are thinking about arming themselves and want the 'best caliber' they can get. We all know that what is used is down the desirables list after function and penetration...but there are still people who will load up with DRT frangibles and think they're SET...even though they can't hit a silhouette target at 10ft at the range with no pressure, but using that ammo gives them confidence they don't deserve to have which can be dangerous.

So please fellow gun enthusiasts...we're always preaching to the choir so to speak about the shot placement but every now and then someone WILL read that and it might change their way of thinking about this subject. Plus it's a really good way to diffuse the stupid 'which caliber is best' arguments that seem to just keep going and going....

For those of you that think "placement" is not an important thing to bring up....I recall two different news stories.......
1. From around 1990 when I lived in Indianapolis. 2 drunk, midtown brothers fought. One shot the other 17 times with a .22 rifle and both lived and may have kept fighting....

2. Kentucky, maybe 5 years ago......an older man was tired of getting broken into. He sat on a rocker with his .22 rifle. 3 young men? broke in, came up his stairs, he aimed at the door, the door swung open, he fired one shot, upper chest. The one fell back on his friends, friends rushed him to the hospital, one dead, 2 in prison, I assume (on the latter)

Placement is important enough to always bring up and never badger anyone when they do.

If I may, here...

The whole side issue of "shot placement" is deviating from the OP's posted question, which revolved around "FMJ for Defense: 10mm vs. .45 ACP".

In order to make any comparisons, we have to make a few basic assumptions...such as shot placement being identical and such. If you don't, then comparisons between any two rounds becomes meaningless for two reasons: you end up talking apples & oranges, and people can freely change any given characteristic and now go off on how that supports this or that outcome.

THIS is the question:

"...if you are stuck with FMJ, would the .45 ACP (standard 230gr ball) be better because of the obvious wider diameter and heavier weight, or would the 10mm or .40 (180/200gr fmj) win out because of the flat point of its standard ball round?"


Shot placement has no appreciable part in the answer to this.

Chief, you're right. Only problem is that everyone loves a caliber debate so it develops a life of its own

Indeed, it does!

Which is why I posted my last, to help bring us back on track.

My previous post (#24) addressed the OP's question, including the basis behind my reasoning. I would have expected more such posts.

#24 was damn good.

beeenbag said:

If I couldn't have an expanding bullet, I would choose the 45 acp with a lead swc. You'd get the heavy weight bullet with a wider diameter and have the "cutting" effect of the shoulders.

Click to expand...

Hornady used to make a load with their 200gr. FMJ-SWC "Combat Target" (C/T) bullet. I don't know if they still do or not.

Back in the '80s, one pay day in the 4th Tng Bde at Ft. they withdrew all of the .45acp ball, leaving the pay officers with no ammunition. We were offered the choice of carrying M-16A1s, our own ammunition, or our own guns. I carried my own Series 70 Colt and my 200gr. C/T handloads.

10mm vs .45 ACP

You can just change the recoil spring and shoot .45 Super.

10mm Auto: 180gr, 1083 fps, 469 ft-lb (Prvi Partizan)
10mm Auto: 180gr, 1165 fps, 543 ft-lb (Sellier & Bellotl)
10mm Auto, 180gr, 1275 fps, 650 ft-lb (Federal)
vs.
.45 Super: 185gr, 1330 fps, 694 ft-lb (Buffalo Bore)

or step up to the 10mm's big brother:
.40 Super: 200gr, 1300 ftps, 750 ft-lb (Triton factory load)
.40 Super: 135gr, 1800 fps, 971 ft-lb (Triton factory load)

In my younger days, when I lived with a 22 rifle in my hands, I noticed that solids did not have to expand to tear large holes through meaty tissue. I became convinced that 1200 ft/sec was kinda of a sweet spot. Never saw any reason to change my mind. This may help explain 357 magnum's superior performance.

MIL-DOT said:

Well,sure, no kidding (as I already stipulated), but the point is that it's such a blatantly obvious point, one that everybody is fully aware of, that it's pointlessly redundant to have it broadcast with the frequency that it is.

Click to expand...

Especially when in the real world you have limited control over shot placement. People move. They use vehicles, and may use them to try to kill you. They hide behind things. You may have to shoot from retention positions that don't allow use of sights. You may have to shoot FAST. It's probably dark. The target is not a stationary piece of paper.

I don't give a damn what a round does when it hits someone dead on in the heart or brain stem. Of course it messes them up. Uninteresting. I care what it does when it hits them off-center in the torso on a rib after passing through the back of a leather couch and their weak side forearm.

And yes, there is a big difference between calibers.

If you are using a 1911 pattern pistol, they GENERALLY do best in terms of reliability with "rounder" profile bullets, like ball or a "rounder" hollow point. Sure, some of them will eat anything, but I know ALL Glock 21s will do the same. I would stick with 45 though, for these reasons: 1. 10mm can be pretty hard on a pistol 2. 45 can be bought much cheaper 3. 45 can be bought at most gun shops- or even wally world. 4. 10mm isn't an "enjoyable" round for me- just too darn hot.

It seems like 10mm has become more of a "niche gun". More suitable for hunting or animal protection for people like me that just don't do revolvers. Of course, I carry a Glock 21 in the woods.

As to the post saying that there is not enough difference in the diameter of 9mm, 10mm, and 45 auto to make a difference, I would disagree. When shot, one does not bleed from just the diameter of the bullet, but from the wound's cross sectional area. If you calculate the cross sectional area of a 9mm and a 45, you will see there is a pretty good amount of difference.

Rate of blood loss (and therefore incapacitation) is dependent upon cross sectional area of the wound.

All that said, it is most important in situations where shot placement did not result in incapacitation immediately which would basically be a central nervous system hit. Even a shot to the heart will take a little bit to incapacitate, and the bigger the hole, the less time it will take.

Balrog said:

As to the post saying that there is not enough difference in the diameter of 9mm, 10mm, and 45 auto to make a difference, I would disagree. When shot, one does not bleed from just the diameter of the bullet, but from the wound's cross sectional area. If you calculate the cross sectional area of a 9mm and a 45, you will see there is a pretty good amount of difference.

Rate of blood loss (and therefore incapacitation) is dependent upon cross sectional area of the wound.

All that said, it is most important in situations where shot placement did not result in incapacitation immediately which would basically be a central nervous system hit. Even a shot to the heart will take a little bit to incapacitate, and the bigger the hole, the less time it will take.

Click to expand...

I would agree with this for ammunition which is not FMJ, "ball" ammunition. There is more at play here than just bullet diameter, and each of these factors plays an important role in hole size.

IF all the FMJ bullets had the same shape, then their physical hole size would likely not vary significantly due to the elasticity of soft tissue in the absence of bullet design characteristics which would otherwise tear or cut the tissue.

In this instance, what would make a far more major contribution to blood loss would be depth of penetration, which will vary between different calibers. And this only if that depth amounts to an actual difference in the body.

If, for example, all the different bullet calibers pass completely through the body, then there will be insignificant differences.


Is there a difference in hole size and wound trauma between different calibers? Yes. However, it's not just caliber which determines this. It's a combination of cross-sectional area, shape of the bullet, and velocity of the bullet.

Bigger IS better, no doubt...but it may not be nearly as significant as other factors. But as the saying goes...every little bit counts!

Yup.

Placement.

But.

How come nobody talks about straight line penetration in terminal performance anymore?

A .22 short to the brain stem and most people can guess correctly at the end results.
But what happens if, with a light projectile, even given placement is perfect, it deflects in terminal performance and misses its mark?

Seems to me, the current trend in lighter/faster/more ignores sectional density, which if I'm not mistaken, is what .45acp has going for it next to its diameter.

In the current "state of the debate" it seems like physics doesn't matter. All else being equal (energy, placement, etc) the caliber with the greater mass will have greater sectional density and will be more prone to reward good shooting (placement,again) with a better chance that the projectile will give straight line penetration in terminal performance then a lighter projectile.

Am I wrong here?

Anyhow, to answer the OP to the best of my ability I think that 10mm, .40, and .45 would be fine with FMJ solids (yes, a flat meplat gives an edge over round nosed ball) as they all have heavier weight projectiles with the 10mm having the edge because it delivers more energy then the others to boot.
9mm ball OTOH is not in the same league. Its just not. While I don't doubt its lethality, I do doubt its ability to stop. All the stories told about WW1 and WW2 encounters with both handgun calibers and the results don't convince you, I sure can't. And I'm not gonna try. To each their own.

PS-
Don't know any other way of saying this, but I place absolutely no credence in the FBI right now. None. This includes anything they have to say about the caliber they think is best to issue to their employees, which is the genesis of the current 9mm resurgence (coupled with smaller guns chambered for it and modern JHP's which work just as well in .45 too). I like 9mm just fine (wearing one right now) because it runs well in the current crop of small, easily concealable guns and offers a good power/recoil balance in them. But it ain't .45 or 10mm, it ain't even a .40, and you know what, this might ruffle some feathers- but when comparing short barrel guns I hold that a 158gr LSWCHP from a 2" snub has a little bit of an advantage over the bantam weight 9mm para.

9mm works- but bigger IS better.

Of course, this is just my opinion, YMMV.

I tend to be somewhat contrary and run against the herd anyway........

5MinAlone said:

Am I wrong here?

Click to expand...

Personally I think you are 100% correct.

Before I got promoted to management, and was still doing bounty killings full time, if I used 22, I'll use subsonic long rifle and place two in the chest and one in the head just because, even if you place it perfectly, it can end up somewhere totally different if it hits a rib or whatever. You have to do it right if you use 22.

If I were to pick a round for home defense, 45 would be my pick. Relatively shallow penetration but massive effected area. I don't want a tray bullet to hit a loved one or a neighbor if there is wall penetration.

For CCW I'd use 9 for its compact size and high round count, but I would use a reliable JHP round to be sure it was effective in expanding, or at least be as sure as I could be.

Don't get me started on the best sniper round.

Well thanks.

I do know that Mossad used the .22lr. and as well Israeli air marshals did too.

Nothing wrong with .22.

Except in a face-to-face confrontation against armed BGs.

Who would choose .22lr if going into battle?

The instances of .22lr used was due to necessity of concealment for Mossad, or for assassination, not because of caliber effectiveness.

To my understanding this argument boils down to: "does a smaller flat point bullet equal or best a larger round nose projectile.

Truth is, I'm not entirely sure. I do know there's a reason why I load SWC's and truncated cone TMJ's in all my pistols loads except for my hunting loads (240gr XTP 44 mag, but that's a whole nother realm)

What has been your experience with those TCs?
In the early days of US transition to 9mm, the USAF worked with Hornady on a TC to try to get more effect in the smaller caliber. Hornady scaled it up to .45 for sales.
Jeff Cooper liked it but was rather surprised to find it had MORE penetration than RN. Apparently the TC shape was self stabilizing where the RN is a bit of a "tumbler."

I know a friend had occasion to shoot an assailant at close range with .45 hardball. Neither bullet of the double tap exited. The M.E. reported to the gun nuts in the agency that they just "kind of rattled around in the chest cavity" hashing heart and lungs.

Realistically either will get the job done. The .45 is a little larger but the 10MM is traveling quite a bit faster and should penetrate better. There are probably some scenarios where the .45 would be better and some scenarios where the 10 would be better.

10MM has more energy behind it and the recoil is going to be a bit more harsh.

Bullet selection, availability, and price probably favors the .45.

There are many more factors that could be considered, but neither are bad options when it comes down to it.

Jim Watson said:

What has been your experience with those TCs?
In the early days of US transition to 9mm, the USAF worked with Hornady on a TC to try to get more effect in the smaller caliber. Hornady scaled it up to .45 for sales.
Jeff Cooper liked it but was rather surprised to find it had MORE penetration than RN. Apparently the TC shape was self stabilizing where the RN is a bit of a "tumbler."

Click to expand...

I know for a fact that you get more penetration with a TC design than ball, especially if the TC has hard sharp transition from the meplat to the sides (which is rare in auto pistols, but a viable option for big bore rifles and revolvers). Off hand I'd say that profile achieves the same added penetration as between a 10 and 20% increase in sectional density.

It also produces a better wound channel, punching out a "cutout" the diameter of the meplat. In contrast ball stretches the tissue, and it closes behind. You get MUCH better entrance wound bleed with the TC.

caliber with the greater mass will have greater sectional density

Click to expand...

You are halfway there....

Sectional density (SD) is a ratio of weight to diameter. A 147 9mm, 180 .40 and a 230 grain .45 all have the same SD.

From Sierra bullets:

Sectional Density is a number calculated from a fairly simple formula: weight of bullet in grains divided by 7000 (# of grains in a pound), then divided by the squared diameter of the bullet. This answer is the sectional density on any bullet of this weight and diameter, regardless of construction.

Click to expand...

Everything I've ever read about 10mm says even good hollow points over penetrate and go all the way through human targets much of the time. If that's still true I wouldn't even consider carrying a 10mm with FMJ for defense against two legged predators.

The people that say "shot placement is everything" have never been in a gunfight armed with a handgun. If you think you're going to pull off a head shot or CNS hit by any means other than sheer luck against a moving target that's shooting back you are just plain delusional. In the real world you'll be damned lucky if 25% of the rounds fired hit the bad guy at all.

I'll take a big, heavy bullet that causes maximum mechanical damage to whatever it does hit over one that requires impossible shot placement to be effective.