.40 vs .45 is not really a big & slow debate?

[hammerklavier]

I'm not trying to start another useless caliber war here. I'm actually trying to decide between these two calibers.

Usually the debate is framed as the big and slow .45 vs the small and fast 9mm or medium & fast .40.

As part of my research I was pouring over muzzle ballistics and noticed something peculiar, the .45 is only big and slow when it is firing big heavy bullets. It looks as if it also capable of firing medium weight bullets very fast, faster, in fact than the .40.

The two calibers fire very few bullet weights that are the exact same grain weight, at least in the charts at gunsandammomag where I was looking, but here are a few comparisons:

.45 230gr 900f/s 412ft-lb
.40 180gr 1025f/s 420ft-lb

.45 185gr 1140f/s 534ft-lb
.40 155gr 1205f/s 500ft-lb

.45 145gr 1350f/s 587ft-lb
.40 135gr 1325f/s 526ft-lb

What gives? You'll notice when firing comparable sized bullets, the .45 is faster and produces more energy. Which is what I would expect if there is a bigger powder charge (some of these are +P, I think g&a didn't do a great job of noting that).

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

 

[bestseller92]

Both are excellent calibers, with the right ammo.

It's sorta like, which malt is better, chocolate or strawberry.

Personally, I choose the .40 because I can get more rounds in a pistol that fits my hand better.

 

[MICHAEL T]

I carry 45 with the 185 gr +P I like my 1911's and the larger round

 

[Manco]

What gives? You'll notice when firing comparable sized bullets, the .45 is faster and produces more energy. Which is what I would expect if there is a bigger powder charge (some of these are +P, I think g&a didn't do a great job of noting that).

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Well, .45 ACP is a slightly bigger caliber and generally requires a longer barrel to exceed .40 S&W energy levels, I think, although the two are pretty close for most practical purposes. Aside from .40 S&W being a conveniently smaller cartridge, keep in mind that with similar bullet weights and velocity you'd be trading off sectional density (reducing penetration) for diameter with .45 ACP. Choose whichever matches your requirements more closely.

By the way, .40 S&W can also be loaded hotter than what you listed, although against human targets a 180gr JHP bullet with 420 ft-lbs should be plenty lethal for a pistol caliber.

 

[MTS840]

I'm not trying to start another useless caliber war here. I'm actually trying to decide between these two calibers.

Usually the debate is framed as the big and slow .45 vs the small and fast 9mm or medium & fast .40.

As part of my research I was pouring over muzzle ballistics and noticed something peculiar, the .45 is only big and slow when it is firing big heavy bullets. It looks as if it also capable of firing medium weight bullets very fast, faster, in fact than the .40.

Pouring over velocity and energy figures is no way to choose a self defense caliber. These figures are poor indicators of the effectiveness of any load.

It's sort of like measuring how good a race car driver you are by bragging about what your car's speedometer is marked up to.

If you are serious about finding a good caliber for self defense, try to fire as many guns of both calibers as possible and choose the one you are most proficient with.

If this gun will be used for concealed carry, make a realistic assessment of your needs and then factor in the cost of training ammo, your comfort level of carrying this gun all day, every day and other factors like the availabilty of parts and accessories.

With good self defense ammo, both the .40 S&W and the .45 are good choices. The .40 is popular with police agencies in the US, the .45 is legendary with the US military.

With either the .40 or the .45, it's going to come down to your own ability with the particular weapon you buy, not any characteristic of either caliber.

At the end of the day, it's always going to be the Indian, not the arrow.

 

[easyg]

What gives? You'll notice when firing comparable sized bullets, the .45 is faster and produces more energy.

Very seldom does the .45 outperform the .40 in velocity and energy.

I have noticed that in such comparisons the .45 is usually fired from a 5" barrel, while the .40 is usually fired from a shorter barrel.
This makes the comparison biased from the very start.


Another thing to consider is magazine capacity.
In guns of the same size the .40 will typically carry more rounds in the magazine.

 

[Nick5182]

I agree with bestseller. I own both a .40 and .45 and absolutely love both calibers. I also chose a .40 for carry because my Glock 22 holds 15 rounds per mag, and my .45 only holds 10. Also my .45 is all steel and is pushing 3 lbs, and is a pain in the you-know-what when trying to carry it concealed. Many of the people I know that carry .45's use the heavy 230 gr. bullets. As for your chart, using the same powder charge to launch a projectile, the lighter the projectile, the faster it will move, but the flaw in this is I don't know if the same charge is used in every round.

 

[m2steven]

i shoot lots of both, and they both spin my metal target and hit my stationary Evil Roy pretty much the same as far as I can tell. I carry the 40 because of the greater number of rounds available. I think the differences in the real world would be nearly statistically insignificant.

However, if you're shooting FMJ ammo, the 45 would be better as the larger puncture area would allow more energy to be imparted to the target prior to possibly passing through it. If shooting hollow point, i really don't think it would matter. You don't want to over penetrate your target as anything past that is wasted energy.

Buy the gun you like the most in either 40 or 45 and really, in my opinion, use number of rounds as your only criteria for selection if that is important to you.

 

[sqlbullet]

My ".40" pushes it's rounds significantly faster than you ascribe above. 180 grain at 1350 fps +.

Of course, my .40 is a 10mm auto. If you are really interested in heavy fast bullets from an auto, you should check it out.

 

[MarkDozier]

The biggest difference is the way they shoot. A 40 is "jumpy" compared to the 45.
I shoot and carry both. I perfer to carry my 45 in a high ride hip hoslter. But sometimes i toss on my shoulder rig or my IWB for the 40's

 

[Walkalong]

Not interested in a gun in .40 that can be had in .45.

A 75ish% smaller, in all areas, 1911 in .40 would be very interesting.

 

[hillbillydelux]

As part of my research I was pouring over muzzle ballistics and noticed something peculiar, the .45 is only big and slow when it is firing big heavy bullets. It looks as if it also capable of firing medium weight bullets very fast, faster, in fact than the .40.

I think you have answered your own question. When using good defensive ammo the biggest difference between 9mm/40s&w/45ACP is how many you can stuff in the mag. There will never be a clear "winner" between the three because they are too close in performance to argue about. Now on the other hand if using strictly ball ammo the 45 is the winner for obvious reasons.

 

[Mike J]

If you know what platform you are interested in buying I would suggest going to a range & renting that platform in both calibers. See which one handles & shoots the best for you. It doesn't matter how big the projectile is if you can't hit with it.

 

[Manco]

Now on the other hand if using strictly ball ammo the 45 is the winner for obvious reasons.

What are the reasons? While the fact that all of these calibers will grossly overpenetrate human targets using ball does work in the .45 ACP's favor, the differences are still small between the calibers per bullet and all of the other trade-offs, such as ammo capacity, still apply. Depending on one's requirements, the smaller rounds may also be better at penetrating some types of barriers given equal sectional density and greater velocity.

 

[hillbillydelux]

What are the reasons? While the fact that all of these calibers will grossly overpenetrate human targets using ball does work in the .45 ACP's favor, the differences are still small between the calibers per bullet and all of the other trade-offs, such as ammo capacity, still apply. Depending on one's requirements, the smaller rounds may also be better at penetrating some types of barriers given equal sectional density and greater velocity.

Simple. Bigger bullet makes bigger hole and dumps more energy into target. Thats why before expanding bullets our ancestors wouldnt have chosen a .32 caliber rifle to hunt buffalo.

Yes I do agree the 9mm will out penetrate the 45 using ball ammo. However I believe both have the ability to blow through sheet rock, house doors, car doors, glass and people.

Personally given the choice I would not use FMJ ammo for self defense given the superior selection of hollowpoint bullets today, However If all I had was ball ammo I would choose the 45 over the 9mm or 40 and sacrifice mag capacity.

 

[Gryffydd]

Very seldom does the .45 outperform the .40 in velocity and energy.

I have noticed that in such comparisons the .45 is usually fired from a 5" barrel, while the .40 is usually fired from a shorter barrel.
This makes the comparison biased from the very start.

However, when you DO look at comparisons using the same barrel length, the .45 can push any given bullet weight faster than the .40 S&W. That obviously doesn't include the lighter .40 weights as a 135gr .45 bullet would have the SD of a Necco wafer.

However, the difference is small enough it's not likely to make any real world difference.

 

[hillbillydelux]

when you DO look at comparisons using the same barrel length, the .45 can push any given bullet weight faster than the .40 S&W.

And at far lower operating pressure.

 

[Manco]

Simple. Bigger bullet makes bigger hole and dumps more energy into target.

But you still have to hit something vital, and the difference in diameter between .45 ACP and 9mm bullets is in my opinion not that significant in terms of the probability of doing so, especially with round-nose bullets (the difference with JHP bullets is more significant). They both basically poke a small hole through the target. As for kinetic energy per se, it doesn't mean much with these calibers, or so I'm led to believe by those who have studied and analyzed numerous actual shootings (e.g. FBI study).

Thats why before expanding bullets our ancestors wouldnt have chosen a .32 caliber rifle to hunt buffalo.

However, we're talking about handguns, not rifles, and one particular type of animal that tends to expose its soft underbelly by standing upright.

Personally given the choice I would not use FMJ ammo for self defense given the superior selection of hollowpoint bullets today,

I totally agree here, and additionally believe that JHP generally tends to heighten the differences between the most common handgun calibers in comparison to FMJ. For example, .45 ACP rounds of equivalent technology tend to expand even more than 9mm, to a point where they make what some would consider a substantial, if still small, improvement in the probability of effective wounding over 9mm. And 180gr .40 S&W rounds tend to expand less but penetrate more than either in tests I've seen (despite the virtual parity often touted by manufacturers), which is probably why it is the FBI's primary load (although others are approved).

However If all I had was ball ammo I would choose the 45 over the 9mm or 40 and sacrifice mag capacity.

Here is where I disagree, as I consider all three calibers virtually equivalent in FMJ form since they all grossly overpenetrate human torsos and poke small holes. If anything, .40 S&W has a slight de facto advantage per round because its FMJ bullets tend to be flat-nosed, which crushes more tissue (or so I'm led to believe).

 

[hillbillydelux]

They both basically poke a small hole through the target.

I think we are arguing to the same end. Neither of us would recommend FMJ ammo for self defense.

I own, shoot and carry 9mm, 40S&W and 45ACP. I like all three and am not biased toward any one caliber.

I consider all three calibers virtually equivalent in FMJ form

All I am saying is to maximize effectiveness of any pistol round it must expand. The .45 is already close in diameter to what a 9mm needs to expand to to be considered effective.

However I still believe all three are so close in performance with premium ammo its a toss up between mag capacity and shootability.

 

[cooks 7]

What gun are you trying to choose between calibers for, what will be it's intended purpose? I would think this information would make a difference in what people would recommend, getting something that is correct for the intent is more important than paper-racing two calibers in hypothetical situations.
For carry purposes I like the .40, smaller, managable recoil but lively, not real fun to shoot a bunch from my PM40, but not too bad.
For target, plinking, falling plates, I like .45 in my 1911 or FNP-45, I think the heavier rounds in the magazine tend to help balance out the heavier slides and longer barrels, more pleasant to shoot for longer, but less fun to wear on your hip.
For open carry in the woods I take a .45, but mainly because I don't have a decent open carry holster for my .40 and i have a little more faith in my .45 because i practice with them more often. Like was stated above, if you are thinking about the same gun in either caliber try and test them both out.