Let the Caliber wars begin!!

I'll weigh in my own two cents. 20 years ago, I warned people away from the smaller calibers, including 9mm. But that was before the last 20 years of bullet design. Today, picking a premium jacketed hollowpoint from very nearly any manufacturer will yield similar results from almost all the "defensive caliber" guns.

Asked the same questions today, I often encourage people to go with 9mm. I might consider it myself, except I'm heavily invested in .45acp with pistols, reloading equipment and enough brass to start my own foundry.

Uh, it's not really, anymore ... not since law enforcement and the military realized the advances in ammunition technology indeed make 9mm a worthy caliber. Maybe the only place people still talk about this is on the internet?

As the military changed to the 9mm in the 80s, and still use the same FMJ bullet, the reason for change was and is, logistics and reduced recoil.
LE is changing to the nine for the same reasons. This "Technology" that makes the 9mm bullet so great, also applies to the other standard service cartridges. If one can accept that logic, it's no stretch to conclude the larger heavier bullets of the .40/.45 could be even more effective.
My primary carry guns are chambered in 9mm and .40. I do on rare occasions carry a
380. I'm much more comfortable with the 9/40, but now and then circumstances dictate a smaller gun. As most carry guns available in 9mm are also available in .40 in the same size package, I carry .40 most of the time in a Glock 27. The 26 gets in my holster from time to time as well.
str1

We're mostly American here. .45 is in our DNA. That being said, I own, and carry a few different calibers, and feel well armed with all of them. 9x19, .45 ACP, 9x18, and .380 ACP.

With modern bullets, the terminal effectiveness of the "service calibers" is so close that a coroner cannot typically tell whether it was a .38, 9mm, .40 or .45 that made the hole if he doesn't recover a slug.

Moving into full house 10mm and .357 magnum takes it up a notch, allowing much deeper penetration with proper bullet selection. The 10mm and .357 magnum, when loaded to full power, offer a substantial increase over 9mm/.40/.45 ACP; if you want to use the energy yardstick, those rounds hover in the 350-450 ft lbs range in a 5" tube, while 10mm and .357 can exceed 800 ft lbs. The hottest of .40 S&W and .45 ACP +P get into the 500s, still leaving them trailing well behind 10mm and .357. Whether or not that benefit is useful depends on what it being shot, though. For a normal sized human threat, it won't make much difference, as quality .38+P, 9mm, .40 and .45 loads all achieve adequate penetration and expansion under most circumstances.

95% of the time, I carry a Diamondback DB9 micro 9mm, and feel adequately armed. When I have the family in tow to more urban or crowded areas, I frequently carry my Glock 20 with +2 mag extensions. The logic being that if something were to go down, I have to get 3 little kids to safety, which is going to mean more time and more exposure than if it's just me, possibly needing to put suppressive fire on a threat, so more rounds in a platform capable of greater accuracy makes sense. And if I'm gonna carry a full size gun, it might as well be in the most effective practical chambering.

Shoot the biggest round you can shoot effectively.

Click to expand...

This was a sentiment with a lot of popularity around the internet and real-life shooting communities when I joined this board. Based on this thread it looks like it's still a popular notion here, but that's changed elsewhere on the internet and in real life where the FBI's swap to 9mm has resulted in a growing number of LE agencies following.

Popularity, as we all know, doesn't equate to being correct. And sensitivity around the question is just an overlay of emotion as others have said, so let me try to make some points absent of ego.

Point 1: The common service calibers, given modern premium SD loads, tend to have negligible differences in performance as best we can measure with gel testing. If you buy this, the quoted sentiment above might start to unravel a bit.

Point 2: Given the same shooter and Newtonian physics, 9mm can be fired as accurately, faster, than .45ACP. Grant that there may be a learning curve if one has spent their entirely life with the latter, but it should be short and overcome with an afternoon at the range for most.

Point 3: Given a similar platform, a 9mm will have greater capacity.

Point 4: Greater capacity means (1) the ability to stay in the fight longer; (2) more chances for a stop; (3) delivered more quickly; and (4) as accurately as the .45, given practice/overcoming the short learning curve mentioned above.

Near as I can tell, these are conclusions indicated by the preponderance of evidence, and go beyond opinions.

That said, it can be easy for any of us to confuse opinions with facts, and a couple standout ideas around the topic warrant a closer look.

I prefer the .45 ACP's "push" of a recoil more than the "snap" of a 9mm. Preference for one over the other does not actually change the physics involved; 9mm recoils less, and if one is "effective" (however we define that) with a .45, they have the potentia to be moreso with a 9mm.

I like the feel and trigger of a 1911. I do too. Wouldn't give up my 1911s for anything. Also, realizing that I can get double the capacity with less weight in something roughly the same size, many rational shooters would say that justifies an effort to give other platforms an honest go, and to recognize the difference between "I can't shoot anything else as well as a 1911," and "I won't actually try to shoot anything else as well as a 1911." There's nothing wrong with favoring a 1911, but again to favor a platform is not the same thing as to have it be objectively superior.

Quote:
This "Technology" that makes the 9mm bullet so great, also applies to the other standard service cartridges. If one can accept that logic, it's no stretch to conclude the larger heavier bullets of the .40/.45 could be even more effective.

Flawed logic, for only one reason. Bullets have been designed for velocity parameters. The bullet loaded in your .45 is not the same bullet loaded in your 9mm. They are bullets designed to yield the same results. This was the failing of the 9mm years ago. Bullets that worked very well at lower velocity did not work for the 9.

Flawed logic, for only one reason. Bullets have been designed for velocity parameters. The bullet loaded in your .45 is not the same bullet loaded in your 9mm. They are bullets designed to yield the same results. This was the failing of the 9mm years ago. Bullets that worked very well at lower velocity did not work for the 9.

Ok, let's say that's true. Then the .40 which operates in the same velocity range as the 9mm, but with larger diameter, heavier projectiles would be more effective. Same bullet technology of course.
str1

Warp said:

This isn't particularly effective at making the decision, either.

Training/practice is the best way to be effective, and most people I know are limited by the cost of ammunition, so that needs to be factor.

And even then, how do you quantify and measure "effectively"? If you can shoot a smaller cartridge slightly faster, is it more effective?

Lots of variables, no concrete way to rank and compare those variables without getting subjective and opening up to different opinions.

Click to expand...

You are overthinking it. If cost is an issue, learn to reload and avoid using cost as an excuse as to why you either cannot shoot the caliber you desire or cannot shoot as much as you'd like. It's not expensive to get into reloading for pistol...and the cost difference between loading 45acp and 9mm is negligible, if any.

When it comes to factory premium defense rounds (HST for example) again there is little or no cost difference. These are what you should be using for EDC...and the beauty of reloading is that you can load rounds that closely match the recoil/muzzle flash/feeding characteristics of your EDC rounds.

Effectiveness is hardly subjective (assuming that you are of the school that there is little terminal difference between 9mm and 45). Pick any benchmark that meets your needs. One example...shoot an El Presidente with the firearm of your choice in both 45 and 9mm...and it will become obvious real fast which one you are most naturally effective with. Compare your speed and accuracy. Rinse and repeat with as many firearms and calibers that you wish...it's kinda what makes shooting FUN and not just a job.

This whole debate over which round has better "stopping power" has always been pointless to me. If you don't hit what you are shooting at, alleged stopping power is a moot point. Start with the round you can consistently shoot with accuracy at a reasonable speed until you are proficient with it. Then, if you decide that round doesn't have enough stopping power for you based on whatever criteria you want to use, train up.

Overthinking things will get you killed...KISS baby. Someone with a little .22lr pocket gun who can consistently and rapidly make head shots is more apt to survive a gun fight than someone with a 44mag who can't hit the side of a barn. Physics dictates that, all other things being equal, the bigger round will probably do more initial damage...hence, the biggest round you can shoot effectively is the simplest starting point.

psyopspec wrote,
Point 1: The common service calibers, given modern premium SD loads, tend to have negligible differences in performance as best we can measure with gel testing. If you buy this, the quoted sentiment above might start to unravel a bit.

Point 2: Given the same shooter and Newtonian physics, 9mm can be fired as accurately, faster, than .45ACP. Grant that there may be a learning curve if one has spent their entirely life with the latter, but it should be short and overcome with an afternoon at the range for most.

Point 3: Given a similar platform, a 9mm will have greater capacity.

Point 4: Greater capacity means (1) the ability to stay in the fight longer; (2) more chances for a stop; (3) delivered more quickly; and (4) as accurately as the .45, given practice/overcoming the short learning curve mentioned above.

Click to expand...

These are all excellent points.

I'd add two more points.

Point 5 - These agencies must pay for all this ammo, and 9mm costs less.

Point 6 - Some of the experts pushing 9mm, shoot thousands of rounds per week. The cumulative effect of heavy recoiling rounds on their bodies has taken it's toll.

Good news for all, "The free lunch has been found". The 9mm is just as good as the .40S&W, .45 Auto, etc., has greater capacity, has less recoil, and costs less.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. You have to decide what your compromise will be.

You guys save some of your input for the new "caliber wars" or ".45 vs 9mm" thread sure to come tomorrow.

I shoot both. I like both. I carry 9mm.

Several reasons:
* 9mm technology has caught up to .45
* I can carry more 9mm
* I can practice with my carry gun more for less money
* I can carry a smaller gun in 9mm.

Now I'm nostalgic for .45 acp and enjoy shooting it. I just won't be carrying it any time soon.

.45 is my weekend truck. It just works, but it's not pretty not efficient. But there's a certain love of it. 9mm is my daily driver, small, cheap, efficient and gets used 95% of the time.

If you shot me with a 9mm, a 40, and a 45 I can promise you that I would not know which was which.

I shoot them all but my favorite carry gun came in 9mm. so...

I choose 45 ACP because I like it. I like the heavier bullet at 230 grains. I find it easy to reload on my Lee Turret Press.

I also choose 9x19mm because I like it. It gets me into smaller framed guns when I need them. I also like Glocks chambered in 9x19mm. The Glock 19 has replaced the Browning Hi-Power MK III in my "arsenal".

I'd like to get into 10mm when I want a heavy, fast bullet. I'll do it one day

I start with how a gun fits before considering caliber. My criteria is that I must be able to shoot with one hand and have rapid & accurate follow up shots. Otherwise, I will not have the confidence I need in a stressful situation. For my hand size and strength, a light snub or single stack in 380 or 9mm is about the heaviest I can operate. However, I haven't tried the newer single stack 45s yet...might be about the same recoil as an XDS 9. Hmmm...

ZWCoffindaffer said:

My XDs blew my mind the first time I took it to the range. I was a little tense expecting the subcompact .45 to wrock my wrist. I was wrong, its a pleasure to shoot. No worse than any subcompact 9mm or 40 Ive shot.

Click to expand...

Wow...now I might have to buy another gun. So as far as this thread is concerned, I would prefer a 45 to a 9.

chipcom said:

You are overthinking it. If cost is an issue, learn to reload and avoid using cost as an excuse as to why you either cannot shoot the caliber you desire or cannot shoot as much as you'd like. It's not expensive to get into reloading for pistol...and the cost difference between loading 45acp and 9mm is negligible, if any.

When it comes to factory premium defense rounds (HST for example) again there is little or no cost difference. These are what you should be using for EDC...and the beauty of reloading is that you can load rounds that closely match the recoil/muzzle flash/feeding characteristics of your EDC rounds.

Effectiveness is hardly subjective (assuming that you are of the school that there is little terminal difference between 9mm and 45). Pick any benchmark that meets your needs. One example...shoot an El Presidente with the firearm of your choice in both 45 and 9mm...and it will become obvious real fast which one you are most naturally effective with. Compare your speed and accuracy. Rinse and repeat with as many firearms and calibers that you wish...it's kinda what makes shooting FUN and not just a job.

This whole debate over which round has better "stopping power" has always been pointless to me. If you don't hit what you are shooting at, alleged stopping power is a moot point. Start with the round you can consistently shoot with accuracy at a reasonable speed until you are proficient with it. Then, if you decide that round doesn't have enough stopping power for you based on whatever criteria you want to use, train up.

Overthinking things will get you killed...KISS baby. Someone with a little .22lr pocket gun who can consistently and rapidly make head shots is more apt to survive a gun fight than someone with a 44mag who can't hit the side of a barn. Physics dictates that, all other things being equal, the bigger round will probably do more initial damage...hence, the biggest round you can shoot effectively is the simplest starting point.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's possible to overthink, and I certainly don't think "overhinking things will get you killed", when we're talking about deciding what firearm to purchase, or what ammo to carry. It's not like this "overthinking" is happening during a defensive firearm use, c'mon now.

Not everybody has the time to reload their ammo, and as you ought to know, as a person recommending reloading, virtually every reloader will tell you they do not spend less money. They may shoot more, but they don't spend any less. Time is an extremely valuable commodity.

Some guys just think bigger is always better. fortuh fahve. The argument is always that 45 pokes a bigger hole but 45 is so slow it causes no hydrostatic shock. 357mag is smaller than 45 but does a lot more damage. 9mm is also a lot cheaper, you can get a box of 50 for around $9. For self defense you should only use factory loads so why does the argument of reloads always get brought up? Reloading 45 is not cheaper than reloading 9mm.

45 does its damage purely by its massive size and weight. I actually like 45 but the 45 guys make me almost despise the cartridge. 9mm is just as effective, more compact, easier to carry, cheaper, faster follow up shots, holds more rounds, slimmer profile... ect.

javjacob said:

Some guys just think bigger is always better. fortuh fahve. The argument is always that 45 pokes a bigger hole but 45 is so slow it causes no hydrostatic shock. 357mag is smaller than 45 but does a lot more damage. 9mm is also a lot cheaper, you can get a box of 50 for around $9. For self defense you should only use factory loads so why does the argument of reloads always get brought up? Reloading 45 is not cheaper than reloading 9mm.

45 does its damage purely by its massive size and weight. I actually like 45 but the 45 guys make me almost despise the cartridge. 9mm is just as effective, more compact, easier to carry, cheaper, faster follow up shots, holds more rounds, slimmer profile... ect.

Click to expand...

Reloading is generally relevant because the vast majority of the rounds fired, and the majority of the money spent on ammunition, tends to be for range/practice/training. That 'reloads for carry' is a hot topic sometimes but I agree, personally, I will only carry factory ammo

The 9mm requires special technology in order to be an effective round... in and of itself, it is debateably "subpar".

.45ACP on the other hand, is effective all by itself without the need for technologically advanced projectiles and components. It stands on it's own.

Click to expand...

And you forgot, the technology that has made the 9mm so much better apparently hasn't affected the 45.

But to answer the OP's question, it's a debate because people care waaaay to much what other people think/do.

I carry a .45 because I like .45's. If you like something else then carry it. At the end of the day it's extremely unlikely for caliber selection to really matter, even in the also unlikely event of a defensive shooting.

the technology that has made the 9mm so much better apparently hasn't affected the 45

Click to expand...

Yes to a certain extent... especially in the .45+P rounds. But as others have pointed out, bullets operate within parameters. Case volume is a constraint but one of the biggest constraints is the restriction of not creating a round that will create more pressure or recoil than a gun chambered for it can handle - even very old guns. My main point is that the "special technology" that is allegedly needed by the 9mm to make it more than "sub par", evidently can't be applied to all cartridges, otherwise the .32 ACP would benefit from it, (as well as other cartridges), but seemingly for the purpose of terminal ballistics the .32 ACP FMJ bullets perform better than .32 JHPs.

Luger_carbine said:

Yes to a certain extent... especially in the .45+P rounds. But as others have pointed out, bullets operate within parameters. Case volume is a constraint but one of the biggest constraints is the restriction of not creating a round that will create more pressure or recoil than a gun chambered for it can handle - even very old guns. My main point is that the "special technology" that is allegedly needed by the 9mm to make it more than "sub par", evidently can't be applied to all cartridges, otherwise the .32 ACP would benefit from it, (as well as other cartridges), but seemingly for the purpose of terminal ballistics the .32 ACP FMJ bullets perform better than .32 JHPs.

Click to expand...

Because shot placement is king and penetration is queen. .32 auto JHP don't penetrate enough to reliably stop an attacker. You have to a certain point before a cartridge is capable of adequate penetration while also expanding in diameter. Most people will say this minimum occurs at .38 spl +P, with the lowest semi auto being 9x19. Not that .380 auto is bad, but it's really starting to get borderline in a lot of people's educated opinions.

I am a little confused about penetration numbers. If a round can penetrate, say, 12 inches of gel after going through several layers of denim, why is that considered marginal penetration performance? Does the ballistic gel not replicate human tissue very well? Or is there a gel penetration length that would correspond to the bullet not being deflected or stopped by a human bone? Probably a complex issue, but the numbers are confusing.

Zendude said:

I am a little confused about penetration numbers. If a round can penetrate, say, 12 inches of gel after going through several layers of denim, why is that considered marginal penetration performance? Does the ballistic gel not replicate human tissue very well? Or is there a gel penetration length that would correspond to the bullet not being deflected or stopped by a human bone? Probably a complex issue, but the numbers are confusing.

Click to expand...

1) Skin is tougher to penetrate than the bare gel. Last I could tell, it was nearly 4" of gel penetration to get through skin

2) There are some big people out there

3) You may not get a straight up, square, unobstructed torso/chest shot. You may be on the ground with an upward angle through the torso. The person may have an arm between you and their vitals. Or two arms.

I think both 9mm Para and 45 ACP are perfectly good self-defense rounds. 40 cal S&W is too but I do not shoot it as well as 9mm or 45 auto so it is not as good for me.

Hydrostatic shock does not occur in handgun wounds. They do not have sufficient muzzle velocity and that includes 357 SIG. I entirely agree that the difference in effectiveness between the popular autoloader calibers is very marginal, but it is not zero.

I have seen handgun wounds up close and personal in both the Emergency Department and the operating room. The tissue damage that handgun calibers cause is limited to the physical channel that the projectile traverses. There is no significant damage caused by the "temporary wound channel". So it is true that a slightly bigger projectile diameter is slightly more likely to injure a critical structure, given equal penetration. I suspect the bigger caliber would make a difference maybe one time in a hundred or less, however.

Others might be different but I seem to shoot .45 ACP as well or better than 9mm Para, at least out of a full-size gun. Now some might argue that if I trained a lot I would eventually become faster with 9mm than I am with .45 ACP and that might be true. But I have rather limited time to devote to shooting and limited finances to devote to ammo. I don't reload and do not plan to start. I think the cost difference in training ammo between .45 ACP and 9mm is a factor worth considering, but with the amount of shooting I do, the cost factor is not that great.

My personal choice for a home-defense or truck gun pistol is .45 ACP although I would also be perfectly happy with my 9mm Beretta 92FS loaded with an 18 or 20 rd Mec-Gar magazine.

For a more compact carry weapon my choice is 9mm Para for the greater ammo capacity.