.40 vs .45 power....

[NG VI]

By the way, you can do math till you give yourself an aneurysm, but the service pistol calibers are all in the exact same class. None of them have a meaningful amount of energy or momentum over the others, none of them have enough energy to do anything more interesting than punch a hole smaller than the bullet in a person, none of them are wide enough or narrow enough to make the hole they punch significantly more destructive to a person, and none of them have so much more or less momentum than the others that they behave differently.

It's like comparing the horsepower of a Honda Fit and a Toyota Yaris.

It's a total waste of time.

 

[coalman]

None of the service pistol bullets do anything but poke basically equal sized holes in people.

... if you compare like designs, all three of the major calibers deliver results that are ultimately identical.

None of them do anything more or less than poke a hole through 12-14 inches of tissue while expanding to .65-85". The wound isn't going to be that wide, that's just the projectile itself.

For those that choose to dismiss the differences, at least dismiss them in surface area (not diameter) and percentages (not numerical value) since this is the accurate/correct relative comparison.

 

[M7]

By the way, you can do math till you give yourself an aneurysm...

That's funny...

I've been messing with the MacPherson and Schwartz bullet penetration models (the latter being much easier to work with than the former) over the last month or so, but my head has yet to explode.

Maybe I ain't tryin' hard enough...

 

[M7]

For those that choose to dismiss the differences, at least dismiss them in surface area (not diameter) and percentages (not numerical value) since this is the accurate/correct relative comparison.

You do those charts yourself, coalman?

 

[ActionJax]

Yup.....Accurate and quick follow-ups. This is what matters.

 

[coalman]

You do those charts yourself, coalman?

Yes. Folks talk a lot about "the numbers" but many consistently make the common mistake of comparing diameter (e.g. 0.451" - 0.355" = "only" 0.096") and very small numerical values (e.g. 0.400" - 0.355" = 0.045") when minimalizing differences. So, I created the chart to illustrate the correct/accurate comparison of surface area and percentages. The differences via the correct method of comparison, on paper, are more profound. And, pictures are worth 1000 words as is said. This is of course all just the acedemics of "the numbers", but at least it's the right acedemics of them.

 

[M7]

Yes. Folks talk a lot about "the numbers" but many consistently make the common mistake of comparing diameter (e.g. 0.451" - 0.355" = "only" 0.096") and very small numerical values (e.g. 0.400" - 0.355" = 0.045") when minimalizing differences. So, I created the chart to illustrate the correct/accurate comparison of surface area and percentages. The differences via the correct method of comparison, on paper, are more profound. And, pictures are worth 1000 words as is said. This is of course all just the acedemics of "the numbers", but at least it's the right acedemics of them.

The chart is an interesting approach. At first, it appears a little daunting, but once you take the time (maybe 30 seconds) to look at it, it's not that bad.

Copied to my "files" for future reference. Thanks.

 

[coalman]

The chart is an interesting approach. At first, it appears a little daunting, but once you take the time (maybe 30 seconds) to look at it, it's not that bad.

Copied to my "files" for future reference. Thanks.

You are welcome.

Illustrative 9mm vs. .45acp comparison:
Expansion assumption: 9mm = .65" and .45acp = .75"
Penetration assumption: 9mm = 12" and .45acp = 13"
So, with 9mm, best aggregate case IMO, you get an object that starts 38% smaller, that ends 25% smaller and penetrates 8% less. What's that worth to you? This is the question and those are the numbers.

You can see, in this example, that 9mm does "close the gap" (starting vs. ending size) and this is the truth behing the oft misrepreseted "leveled playing field" comment. And, I believe this illustrative example to be a best aggregate case bias to 9mm in the numbers used for comparison. Again, what's what worth to you?

But, that's all just this illustrative example and IMO best case for 9mm. If the 9mm expands to .60" and the .45acp to .80", or 12" vs. 14" penetration, it changes quite a bit. And, comparing the optimal/top loads in each the differences, on paper in gello tests, only get larger in aggregate performance. It's a sliding scale as well.

And, capacity comes into play of course. For 9mm, you can have 15-30% more of those smaller objects to hurl at the target if the opportunity allows and/or requires. Lots of moving parts in the consideration.

Disclosure: I use 9mm and .45acp.

 

[hentown]

Well, excuse me. Let me rephrase that for you Hentown. Energy, or raw power, does not directly equate to firearm cartridge effectiveness.

Thanks for the edification. So, as a I suspected, empirical measure and terms like "power" are irrelevant to this discusson. I somehow thought that the OP's question, about which this thread is so dedicated, had to do with .40 vs. .45acp "power". Guess my memory's failing me??

 

[Buckeyeguy525]

Here is a pretty interesting thread of 9mm vs 45 with ballistics profile and range tests...

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum.../91063-9mm-fine-ballistics-data-included.html

 

[Buckeyeguy525]

The only reason I have owned 40's is because most 45's don't fit in my hand that well

 

[NG VI]

What's the average frontal surface area of a human male torso?

At what point is a projectile wide enough to defeat living tissue's elasticity and leave gaping wounds?

 

[M7]

You are welcome.

Illustrative 9mm vs. .45acp comparison:
Expansion assumption: 9mm = .65" and .45acp = .75"
Penetration assumption: 9mm = 12" and .45acp = 13"
So, with 9mm, best aggregate case IMO, you get an object that starts 38% smaller, that ends 25% smaller and penetrates 8% less. What's that worth to you? This is the question and those are the numbers.

You can see, in this example, that 9mm does "close the gap" (starting vs. ending size) and this is the truth behing the oft misrepreseted "leveled playing field" comment. And, I believe this illustrative example to be a best aggregate case bias to 9mm in the numbers used for comparison. Again, what's what worth to you?

But, that's all just this illustrative example and IMO best case for 9mm. If the 9mm expands to .60" and the .45acp to .80", or 12" vs. 14" penetration, it changes quite a bit. And, comparing the optimal/top loads in each the differences, on paper in gello tests, only get larger in aggregate performance. It's a sliding scale as well.

And, capacity comes into play of course. For 9mm, you can have 15-30% more of those smaller objects to hurl at the target if the opportunity allows and/or requires. Lots of moving parts in the consideration.

Disclosure: I use 9mm and .45acp.

coalman-

Lots of moving parts- I'll say!

I notice that you are making assumptions for the expansion and penetration depth of bullets in your tables- which is just fine so long as they are "educated guesses".

Have you considered using either the Schwartz or MacPherson bullet penetration models to predict your bullet's terminal penetration?

With both models, expansion can be determined in water tests- or you can play 'what if' and use an expected value like 1.50 or 2.00 times the JHP's original diameter- you are already doing that anyway by presenting all of the possibilities in your tables. It might be to your advantage to know if a particular JHP, if it expands to a certain diameter, will pass through a body or remain within it rather than assuming that they all pass through- or come to a stop.

Obviously, there is no need to test FMJs and the like in H2O since they will not expand when subject to those conditions and will usually "keep on truckin' " after they hit the average size body.

You could then put together tables that graphically display the relationships you are exploring plus others like "permanent cavity mass and volume vs. expanded diameter" and "expanded diameter vs. penetration depth".

 

[Loyalist Dave]

This is one of those lab arguments that crop up from time to time. There are so many "flavors" of .45 ACP and .40 S&W, and several different barrel lengths on handguns that launch them, that unless the individual checks his or her actual handgun with ammunition and a chronometer, in my personal opinion, there is no real way to understand if one or another type of ammunition will do well on terminal ballistics from that handgun.

Think about it, does identical .45 ACP ammunition do the same job on impact when it's launched from an "officer's model" 1911A1 vs. a Government 1911A1 with an aftermarket 6" barrel? Does the .40 S&W from a Glock 23 act the same on impact as when it's launched from a Glock 22? At what range, if any, is there a significant difference, and is that a distance that might influence the majority of SD encounters?

You can show all the testing data that you want, and get a general idea of what one round might do vs. the others, but until you test your gun it's an "on paper" argument. The best ammo on impact ever devised wouldn't be the best if your personal handgun for some reason didn't shoot it very accurate.

LD

 

[M7]

This is one of those lab arguments that crop up from time to time. There are so many "flavors" of .45 ACP and .40 S&W, and several different barrel lengths on handguns that launch them, that unless the individual checks his or her actual handgun with ammunition and a chronometer, in my personal opinion, there is no real way to understand if one or another type of ammunition will do well on terminal ballistics from that handgun.

Think about it, does identical .45 ACP ammunition do the same job on impact when it's launched from an "officer's model" 1911A1 vs. a Government 1911A1 with an aftermarket 6" barrel? Does the .40 S&W from a Glock 23 act the same on impact as when it's launched from a Glock 22? At what range, if any, is there a significant difference, and is that a distance that might influence the majority of SD encounters?

You can show all the testing data that you want, and get a general idea of what one round might do vs. the others, but until you test your gun it's an "on paper" argument. The best ammo on impact ever devised wouldn't be the best if your personal handgun for some reason didn't shoot it very accurate.

LD

Then I'd imagine that you are probably a big believer in doing your own testing, yes?

I've never heard of the term "lab arguments". Can you clarify? Sounds like a couple of guys in white lab coats slugging it out.

 

[coalman]

I notice that you are making assumptions for the expansion and penetration depth of bullets in your tables- which is just fine so long as they are "educated guesses".

No broad assumptions made. Any illustrative example requires numbers to be selected. Selecting different numbers get diffferent results. Many cherry-pick. I believe my illustrative selection was fair, and even a somewhat bias (best/better aggregate) case to 9mm.

Regardless, the chart simply shows the relative comparison based off those assumptions. The main point in any "on paper" comparison being that surface area and percentages are the correct method of comparison. That's the main thing I hoped to communicate with the chart.

I've found in my keyboard commando reading of gello tests that .60-.70 and 12-13" for 9mm and .70-.85 and 13-14" for .45acp to be pretty consistent aggregate numbers in the gello tests. There are highs and lows, but the keyword is aggregate.

Clearly, compare the .70 13" 9mm (best) to the .70 13" .45acp (worst) and all appears the same. That's what many 9mm fans choose to do IMO. On the flipside, the .45acp camp will profess the .60 12" 9mm and the .85" 13" .45acp. Bias shows.

Have you considered using either the Schwartz or MacPherson bullet penetration models to predict your bullet's terminal penetration?

Not really. I consider this all a sliding scale. Any model has assumptions (e.g. a multiplier) and those assumptions will apply in similar fashion to all modern examples. And, surface area and volume are exponential values (small change = big difference) when making comparisons.

Regardless, modern advancements in design have benefited all service calibers, though I think 9mm the most because it had the most ground to make up to begin with. IMO, 9mm did "close the gap" but there is still, at minimum, the 38/25/8 difference I noted above.

 

[Skribs]

At what point is a projectile wide enough to defeat living tissue's elasticity and leave gaping wounds?

I've understood it to be more a function of velocity than diameter. There's the crush trauma - that's what the diameter affects, and the cavitation trauma - which is based on whether the cavitation is wide enough to break elasticity, and it's velocity that determines the cavitation.

Coalman, I'd like to point out, if the lower number is -25%, the bigger number is actually only +20%. 5/4 vs. 4/5...Benelli makes the same mistake in their ComforTech recoil charts.

Regardless of whether you look at diameter or surface area, percentages or measurements - the question remains: what does a 20% wider (expanded) bullet actually give you in terms of performance? It's not like a video game where we can say the 9mm does 30 damage and the .45 does 36 damage, so you can take down your target in 3 hits instead of 4. You're not stopping the target by taking out a certain volume of tissue - you stop the target by disrupting vital organs.

This is why a lot of people look at the measurements instead of percentages. With a 0.75" expanded diameter, you have 0.1" extra over 0.65" to nick that artery or get a better hit on that vital organ. Which means the only times the .45 will offer a more "solid hit" than a 9 is when the 9 was not enough, but was within 0.05" on that side (since the 0.1" covers both sides), of being enough.

The other side, the surface area side, deals more with rapid blood loss than with vital tissue disruption. Rapid blood loss isn't going to quickly stop an attack, especially with a handgun, it is more of a secondary effect.

To me, it really boils down to the fact that I would have to "miss" by 0.05" in order to make the difference between 9 and .45, in your example, for the .45 to be wanted. So that begs the question - what are my chances of missing but being within that limit?

ETA:

On penetration, if you need 13 inches to reach the heart (because of angle, arm in the way, etc.) and you only penetrate 12", that doesn't mean you did 92% of the work. You did very little, since you didn't do much to the heart.

Percentages are nice, but only if they're meaningful. In this case, unless you're talking about the volume of the wound tract as it relates to blood loss, I don't think the penetration or surface area percentages tell us much. With a handgun, it's more about what you hit, which is more about "enough" penetration and proper placement.

 

[coalman]

Coalman, I'd like to point out, if the lower number is -25%, the bigger number is actually only +20%. 5/4 vs. 4/5...Benelli makes the same mistake in their ComforTech recoil charts.

Correct. It's all about whether you compare the larger to the smaller or the smaller to the larger. Whether you say something is "smaller" than something else or something is "larger" than something else. Regardless, there may be a better way to say it than I stated above as I have not really thought about all this in years since making the chart. Thanks.

This is why a lot of people look at the measurements instead of percentages. With a 0.75" expanded diameter, you have 0.1" extra over 0.65" to nick that artery or get a better hit on that vital organ. Which means the only times the .45 will offer a more "solid hit" than a 9 is when the 9 was not enough, but was within 0.05" on that side (since the 0.1" covers both sides), of being enough.

I do not agree with this. I consider surface area contacted given identical placement. Opinions vary.

 

[Skribs]

The difference is whether you're looking at what you hit vs. how big of a hole you make. If you're looking at what you hit, then you take the radius from the POI - you hit anything within that radius as deep as the bullet penetrates. You don't hit 25% more organs by having 25% more surface area.

The other, which you're looking at, is how big of a hole. This shows in tissue damage as well as creating a pipeline for blood loss. In this case, you do make a 35% bigger hole by penetrating 8% more with 25% more surface area.

(At this point I'm just thinking out-text), it is possible you get a semi-decent hit on the heart with a 9mm, that would get a lot more surface area if you had a .45. If you only get a small sliver, which would be say 0.05" of the bullet nicking the heart, then the .45 would get a much bigger arc by having 0.15" hit...

 

[mljdeckard]

I think it illustrates the importance of getting as many good hits as you can, regardless of what cartridge you use. I cringe a little at phrases like; "Shot placement is king", because in a real-life gunfight, all hits are good. But the more hits you get, the more you multiply the amount of tissue displaced. I certainly agree that a bigger bullet, particularly something like an HST, might be somewhat more effective, but when you multiply hits, I think the difference becomes insignificant very quickly.

 

[918v]

But, that's all just this illustrative example and IMO best case for 9mm. If the 9mm expands to .60" and the .45acp to .80", or 12" vs. 14" penetration, it changes quite a bit. And, comparing the optimal/top loads in each the differences, on paper in gello tests, only get larger in aggregate performance. It's a sliding scale as well.

The best 9mm, a 147 HST, penetrates 12" and has been shown to expand to as much as .81" in ballistic gel. If you compare that to a mediocre 230gr 45, or even a pretty good 45 like a RA45, the 9mm is actually better per your surface area argument.

The 147gr 9 has alot more sectional density than s 230gr 45, so what it lacks in momentum it makes up in sectional density. The two rounds have similar expansion and penetration, similar velocity, and similar wounding capability.

 

[M7]

The best 9mm, a 147 HST, penetrates 12" and has been shown to expand to as much as .81" in ballistic gel. If you compare that to a mediocre 230gr 45, or even a pretty good 45 like a RA45, the 9mm is actually better per your surface area argument.

The 147gr 9 has alot more sectional density than s 230gr 45, so what it lacks in momentum it makes up in sectional density. The two rounds have similar expansion and penetration, similar velocity, and similar wounding capability.

Nice point.

Your perspective is one of the reasons that I prefer the use of mathematical penetration models (the MacPherson and Schwartz bullet penetration models being the best of the breed so far as I am concerned) for considering what bullets do in soft tissue simulants like calibrated gelatin.

If you think about it, they (mathematical models) contain within their construction all of the answers to all of the possible variables (impact velocity, retained weight, expanded diameter, sectional density, and any other factor that I didn't include) that determine what bullets do in such mediums. All that remains for us then, is to "punch in" the desired numbers and gather the results.

If these models are really good; that is- their results agree strongly with gelatin test data- we can almost throw out the gel molds.

Almost.

 

[coalman]

The best 9mm, a 147 HST, penetrates 12" and has been shown to expand to as much as .81" in ballistic gel. If you compare that to a mediocre 230gr 45, or even a pretty good 45 like a RA45, the 9mm is actually better per your surface area argument.

Exactly. The best 9mm does trump the worst .45acp on paper. In the spirit of a "best case" 9mm HST noted above, in the much-loved gello tests, the 230gr 45acp HST can penetrate greater than 13" with expansion to more than 1". Cherry-picking happens on both sides. This is why I prefer aggregate data and this is my general rule of thumb gello test observation outcome comparing optimal/top loads:
- 30/10: .45acp HP vs. 9mm HP = 30% more surface area and 10% more penetration
- 15/5: .45acp HP vs. .40sw HP = 15% more surface area and 5% more penetration

When you take volume (e.g. a cylinder) into account the differences increase greater still:
9mm: .65" @ 12" = 4.0ci
.45acp: .75" @ 13" = 5.8ci (~150% of .65")
---
9mm: .70" @ 13" = 5ci
.45acp: .85" @ 14" = 7.9ci (~160% of .70")
---
9mm HST: .80" @ 12" = 6ci
.45acp HST: 1" @ 13" = 10.2ci (~170% of .80")

O' the joys of all the numbers...

It's all about whether you compare the larger to the smaller or the smaller to the larger. Whether you say something is "smaller" than something else or something is "larger" than something else.

Decided to update the chart. As was noted, the % depends on if your reference is the smaller or larger value/number. This chart accounts for either. Feel free to check the numbers.

 

[357autoloader]

Lmfao

 

[saturno_v]

Not even my 10mm with most commonly found defensive loads (which happen to be loaded to .40S&W levels) are equal to the .45ACP unless specialized loads from Cor-Bon, DoubleTap,......which may surpass .45ACP

This should win the prize for one the most ridiculous statements of the month on THR.......a full power 10mm "may surpass" the 45 ACP??? It "may surpass" like 70% more energy you mean?? We need to talk to your dope dealer, definitely he gives you some bad stuff....

What's next?? A 44 Magnum is "barely above" a 45 ACP?? I heard it all.....

FYI Pretty much all standard 40 S&W loadings exceed in energy any standard pressure 45 ACP...fact.