10mm vs 45 ACP which has more stopping power.

[Maple_City_Woodsman]

What constitutes effectiveness?

Metrics

Metrics = documented data.

con·sti·tute
   [kon-sti-toot, -tyoot] Show IPA
verb (used with object), -tut·ed, -tut·ing.
1. to compose; form: mortar constituted of lime and sand.

So ... Effectiveness is equivalent to measurements?

I think I chose the wrong word - I intended to ask you what defines effectiveness.

 

[stinger 327]

So bring on the meaningful comparison data. How about some pics? Like here is what happens when a full power .45 hits home and here is what a 10mily does?

Anyone got anything like that? Real world at that, ballistic gel pics are boring.

Yes yes.

 

[MOHunter1978]

I am a nurse, I have been shooting for over 20 years, and I have done my homework. Getting hit with a bullet is like getting hit by a baseball, only a baseball won't make you bleed out typically. Bullets do nerve damage, tissue damage, and blood loss. If the bullet doesn't disrupt the nervous system or the cardiovascular system the person could still attack you. This isn't theory. I have shot a deer in the heart and watched it die right there on the spot. I have also had my, well, not so good shots, and watched the deer run hundreds of yards. Granted, deer are a lot tougher than humans, but the principle is the same. If a deer can run hundreds of yards after being hammered with a 30-06, why is it so surprising that a 230 lb man could attack you after being hit with a 9mm? This is the reason the FBI doesn't carry 9mm, because two agents were killed by a man they had shot with 9. I carry 40, but would be happy with 45 or 10mm.

 

[ugaarguy]

MO, have you seen any / many GSWs with modern 9mm ammo? I ask because prior to the infamous FBI Miami shootout defensive pistol bullet development was stagnant. After that, the FBI developed their JHP penetration standards. Based upon calibrated ballistic gel testing I've seen many of the modern 9mm JHP loadings produce similar damage to .40 S&W, and .45 ACP. I ask simply because you clearly get to see things most of us don't with your profession. Thank you for enlightening us with some real world observations.

 

[bbuddtec]

The stopping power buck ends at your mind

 

[AZ Hawkeye]

Want stopping power? Just hit whatever you are trying to kill with a semi-trailer.

Now that's what I call stopping power!

Having an argument on which s*****y handgun caliber is best is ridiculous. Hit the BG two or three or four times in the chest and call it a day.

Oh and the ".45 makes bigger holes" argument is silly with modern hollow point designs. A 9mm Barnes TAC-XP bullet will expand larger than a FMJ .45 ACP every single time through nearly any medium it can penetrate. I mean do you really think there is that much difference between ~400 ft-lbs of KE and ~480 ft-lbs of KE? If you really do, I suggest retaking high school physics...

FFS, a 5.56 round with ~1300 ft-lbs of KE that creates a wound cavity three times the size of a .45 round isn't generally enough to drop a human, so do you think a crappy .45 or .40 or 9mm round is somehow going to do it? Do you think any of them are going to do it better than the other?

You can have this debate till the cows come home, but you can't change the laws of physics no matter how cool "hydrostatic shock" sounds...

 

[KenB22]

Because the opinion of an acknowledged expert, Cooper, outweighs your opinion.

Now, of course, if you have proof that there is no such thing as stopping power--which I've already asked you for--that's different. But you don't. So we're left with only your opinion on that.

I'll take Cooper's opinion over yours. Perhaps others will, too.

Thanks. I'll remember to quote this next time there is a BPW discussion and someone tries to trash the findings of Fackler and Roberts

 

[mavracer]

There is no such thing as "stopping power".

If there is no such thing then no threats would have ever been stopped with a gun.:banghead:
Since the dawn of firearms lives have been stopped by firearms.

"stopping power" = "most effective"

I would change that to "better stopping power" = "more effective" for the purpose of the OP.

Now we just have to get to.

I think I chose the wrong word - I intended to ask you what defines effectiveness.

A handguns effectiveness is going to depend on several other factors, however when compairing different rounds it is unnessary do discuss anything other than the ability do do damage. more damage= more effective
now I'll argue all day that we can have no idea which is more important a little bigger hole or a little deeper hole. but a bigger and deeper hole is gonna have a better chance of being effective.
a heavy loaded 10mm will do that.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I'll remember to quote this next time there is a BPW discussion and someone tries to trash the findings of Fackler and Roberts

As well you should. Of course, the responses regarding BPW will not be MY opinon, but that of experts, like Marshall, Sanow, Courtney, and others.

But I suspect then it will again result in calls of "He's not a real expert. My expert is the real expert."



Hey, I prefer proof. When there is no proof, I'll take expert opinion, and then informed opinon on the subject. Ad hominem (against other posters, or against the credentials of acknowledged experts) is none of those, so I discount it from consideration.

 

[481]

If there is no such thing then no threats would have ever been stopped with a gun.:banghead:
Since the dawn of firearms lives have been stopped by firearms.

Negatron, cosmo.

Tissue damage done to vital organs and the CNS by the passage of projectiles through those tissues has been ending threats "since the dawn of firearms".

"Stopping power" is a mystical concept used by those who are ignorant of the mechanisms involved in the production of incapacitation to explain how incapacitation occurs.

There is no such thing as "stopping power".

 

[481]

Explain to us how you are qualified to disqualify Cooper as an expert? We know Cooper's credentials...

What are yours? We'll take proof of either your expertise in stopping power's supposed non-existence; or your expertise in Cooper's background and lack of qualifications.

His opinion does not constitute fact. That's how. If you are incapable of making the distinction then further explanation would be wasted upon you.

And then we'll get back to asking you for proof (a third time) of your central thesis: that stopping power doesn't exist.

Happy to do so.

You have-

-no working or standardized definition of "stopping power"

-no tangible quantification of the alleged effect in any meaningful units of measure

-no data that isolates the effect of the alleged mechanism as being separate from that of other proven effects like the mass of damaged tissue within the permanent wound cavity, penetration depth of the projectile or wound locality

(hint: KE, momentum, nor one shot stop percentages interpreted against an arbitrary set of standards does not constitute "stopping power")

Until you can satify these criteria, there is nothing to disprove because there is nothing that actually exists to be disproven.

"Stopping power" is a mystical concept employed by the ignorant to describe an effect that they cannot otherwise explain.

There is no such thing as "stopping power".

 

[Loosedhorse]

"Stopping power" is a mystical concept

So you say, with no basis.

used by those who are ignorant

But with lots of ad hominem.

There is no such thing as "stopping power".

And lots of repetition.

-no working or standardized definition of "stopping power"

This refutes your argument that it doesn't exist. You now have not just one definition of "stopping power" of which to prove non-existence, but all possible definitons, as well! I invite you to start small: make a first defintion of "stoppong power," prove that non-existent, and then we can go on.

-no tangible quantification the alleged effect in any meaningful units of measure

Unproven, and likely untrue.

-no data that isolates the effect of the alleged mechanism as being separate from that of other proven effects

Unproven, and likely untrue.

Hmmm. You're not doing so well. Perhaps I might offer a reminder that trying to use other unproven claims as "proof" of your previous unproven claim is not proof; it is a logical fallicy called "begging the question."

Until you can satify these criteria, there is nothing to disprove

Unproven statement, again.

You have made the claim that stopping power doesn't exist. Not that it might not exist, or probably doesn't exist. Prove your claim.

Or just admit that it's simply your opinion.

 

[481]

But with lots of ad hominem.

If you take everything so personally, it will be difficult to see the value in anyone's arguments. The adjective "ignorant" was used in the sense of "lacking the knowledge or technical know how", not as an insult.

Your persistent emoting fails to constitute an argument that will support your claim that "stopping power" exists.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Just as your unsupported opinon is no proof that stopping power doesn't exist. Good--we agree then?

Assuming someone lacks technical knowledge is an attack on the person, not a counter-argument. Insult is not essential to ad hominem, just that the comment is directed "to the person," not the issue.

I had assumed you knew that, and that it was obvious.

 

[481]

You now have not just one definition of "stopping power" of which to prove non-existence, but all possible definitons, as well! I invite you to start small: make a first defintion of "stoppong power," prove that non-existent, and then we can go on.

Such a display of non sequitur makes it clear that further explanation would be wasted upon you.

Thank you for making apparent why any continued debate with you would be a pointless exercise.

 

[ATLDave]

"Stopping power" is a mystical concept employed by the ignorant to describe an effect that they cannot otherwise explain.

There is no such thing as "stopping power".

481, I don't know why you're being so insistent on this point. As many have explained, nobody in this thread is contended that "stopping power" is one mystical thing. It is, instead, being used as a term to refer to the many things that lead to effectiveness of a cartridge in a SD/combat situation. Saying that there is no such thing as "stopping power" is like saying there is no such thing as "most effective," simply because "most effective" is not a single, measurable criteria.

If there are factors that you think are the most meaningful evidence of what leads to effectiveness/stopping power, please share those. Based on your comments in another thread, IIRC, you will favor the higher-velocity 10mm based on its increased potential of TWC/BPW/shock injury/incapacitation. That would be an eminently reasonable point to make (even if some disbelieve it), and would be quite relevant to the question of which cartridge has more "stopping power," as that term is used in this thread. If you just don't want to play that game, that's also cool, but I don't see why this thread would be of interest to you.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Such a display of non sequitur makes it clear that further explanation would be wasted upon you.

It is not non sequitur, and you have provided no explanation whatever.

I do however understand why you should want to retire from this "debate."

 

[481]

. Based on your comments in another thread, IIRC, you will favor the higher-velocity 10mm based on its increased potential of TWC/BPW/shock injury/incapacitation.

I never made such a statement. Let's not try to attribute to me thoughts that you think that I might have had or someday may have based upon misattributed material, OK?

Thanks.

 

[481]

It is not non sequitur, and you have provided no explanation whatever.

Asking someone to prove something so that they can then disprove it is the suggestion of the insensible. Utter garbage.

I do however understand why you should want to retire from this "debate."

Oh, are you tired of you, too?

 

[mavracer]

Tissue damage done to vital organs and the CNS by the passage of projectiles through those tissues has been ending threats

LOL your still saying the projectile does the damage that causes the stop.

no tangible quantification of the alleged effect in any meaningful units of measure

wound channel volume

 

[481]

LOL your still saying the projectile does the damage that causes the stop.

LOL. You thought the firearm does that. It doesn't, the projectile does. LOL

wound channel volume

That ignores the issue of where the wound channel volume is located.

Through the COM, it might be a good start. Through the periphery of a body (an extremity), not so much.

FAIL.

 

[stinger 327]

I am a nurse, I have been shooting for over 20 years, and I have done my homework. Getting hit with a bullet is like getting hit by a baseball, only a baseball won't make you bleed out typically. Bullets do nerve damage, tissue damage, and blood loss. If the bullet doesn't disrupt the nervous system or the cardiovascular system the person could still attack you. This isn't theory. I have shot a deer in the heart and watched it die right there on the spot. I have also had my, well, not so good shots, and watched the deer run hundreds of yards. Granted, deer are a lot tougher than humans, but the principle is the same. If a deer can run hundreds of yards after being hammered with a 30-06, why is it so surprising that a 230 lb man could attack you after being hit with a 9mm? This is the reason the FBI doesn't carry 9mm, because two agents were killed by a man they had shot with 9. I carry 40, but would be happy with 45 or 10mm.

Isn't it true then that the Germans created the 9mm to wound and not kill because in war by wounding the enemy you tie them up more when they have to tend or get their wounded men out of there-this is what I heard.
Also many police departments did issue the 9mm but now have switched primarily over to the .40 SW for some reason.
I still like the .45 ACP as it is more pleasant to shoot and regardless if it expands or not it just makes bigger holes. I don't know if it is me or the gun/caliber but I am more accurate with the .45 ACP over the other calibers. Perhaps .45 ACP is a more accurate round?

 

[ATLDave]

I never made such a statement. Let's not try to attribute to me thoughts that you think that I might have had or someday may have based upon misattributed material, OK?

I evidently mis-remembered. The possibility of that is precisely why I included the "IIRC" disclaimer. If I did not recall correctly, all you have to do is say so. Second, perhaps the impulse to attribute some relevant view to you was the result of vacuum abhorence. Have you even stated what you contend makes a round more effective? Or do you perhaps take the view that there are some minimum and maximum thresholds between which different calibers make no difference? Oh, well, I get the feeling you're just not interested in having that discussion.

 

[mavracer]

You thought the firearm does that. It doesn't, the projectile does.

So you just have a projectile in your pocket and it jumps out and stops the threat all by itself.

That ignores the issue of where the wound channel volume is located.

The OP didn't ask about accuracy or which one was easier to get good hits with. he asked about stopping power. stopping power= effectiveness= terminal performance of the projectile.
Given any single location a bullet with a smaller and shorter wound channel will never out perform one with a larger and deeper wound channel.

 

[MrWesson]

At some point its kind of silly to argue these things but to answer the post 10mm.

That being said I wouldn't carry the extra weight unless I was in bear territory or knew I would have to get into a firefight. In the latter case I would run or would have a rifle.

What do you guys do that you have to or can EDC a 10mm?