40 vs 45

Status
Not open for further replies.
The caliber question is confounded by the large number of different bullet designs and cartridge loadings available. As far as I can make out, 9mm, .,40, and .45 are all about the same in self-defense effectiveness. I have a hunch that the increased shootability of the 9mm makes it the best choice.

This. 60 years ago when everyone was using FMJ, I can see why a bigger bullet diameter would be the better choice. But this is 2010. Modern JHP rounds have basically evened out the terminal ballistics of the three calibers. When you really boil it down, all three main calibers, .45 .40 and 9mm, when using modern bullet designs, have pretty much the same effect on human tissue. So how do we decide what to use? Well it seems to be the round that offers the greatest capacity and the lowest recoil would be preferable.
 
Yawn......When the military switches to .40 I will be impressed, I think.
The U.S. coast guard has switched to .40, and there are reports of CAG ("DELTA") using Glock 22's. Not that it matters...
 
40 you are looking at 1200fps@ 500Ftlbs

45 you are looking at 950fps@ 375Ftlbs

Its just me! and I dont meen to insult anybody! but I personally think the 45 is painfully slow and underpowered

My .45 carry ammo is usually Corbon DPX 185gr +P that travels at 1075 fps with 475ft/lbs.
 
.40 vs the .45

You can't go wrong either way.


I prefer the .40 because I can shoot it from a 9mm size pistol.
Most .45 pistols that I have fired are just too fat in the grip or they lacking in magazine capacity.
 
Modern JHP rounds have basically evened out the terminal ballistics of the three calibers

BS

If the JHP has improved the 9mm greatly (it has), then the same bullet design has improved the .45 by just as much.

Bullet technology may have made the modern 9mm JHP preferable to the FMJ .45 Ball round for many applications (problems have been noted if your attacker is wearing heavy clothing and turn the JHP into a FMJ for all intents and purposes). It has also elevated the 9mm above the threshold for a good defensive "stopper."

However, a 230 grain .45 JHP is still going to have more of an effect on human tissue than a 115 grain 9mm JHP.

The reality is that every handgun round -- every firearm cartridge, actually -- is a compromise between size, weight, recoil, practical accuracy, and effectiveness. If effectiveness were the only variable to consider, we'd all be carrying .45-70 BFRs.
 
- .45 will blow your arm clean off but is so slow you can dodge the bullet. and 8 rounds will never be enough if the appocylipse happens on your morning drive to work.

- 9mm will just zip right through someone and kill 5 innocent bystanders on the way. but the person you actually shot at will only get mad and take your gun and beat you with it because it is such an innefective round. And all that ammo you can stuff in a mag is only good for pray and spray.

- .40 is a worthless compromise that will never rival the massive and all powerfull 10mm. But since its the only handgun I own then it must be 100% more effective than 9mm or .45

I think this will sum up the rest of the thread:neener:
 
Why are you assuming that an apocalypse is a bad thing? That completely distorts the discussion.
 
As others have said, all modern SD handgun calibers perform the same, with negligibile differences, if you want to understand why this is, read through this...

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm

Here's a very short snip...

The important question to be asked, of course, is: What makes a good self-defense load?

The answer to that question is that ammo should meet the FBI's requirement of:
1) at least 12" of penetration in properly prepared ballistic gelatin/soft tissue, and
2) expand to the largest diameter possible in order to cause the largest possible wound.

While some people question the 12" penetration limit, it is not subject to discussion in this article. The FBI is deemed to be more knowledgeable than most, and it is backed up my Dr. Martin Fackler and others who have spent their life discussing the subject. Duncan McPherson, in his book "Bullet Penetration: Modeling the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma" actually argues that 15" is not an unrealistic requirement a bullet should obtain. He does point out, however, that 11.5" of penetration shouldn't completely disqualify a bullet from being acceptable either. While 12" should be a minimum requirement, 18" is the approximate maximum desired penetration depth. Beyond that, and the bullet is likely to exit the intended target and retain enough energy to cause others harm if a person should be in the line of fire. Obviously you should never take the shot if you're not sure of what's beyond your target and rely on your ammunition to do your job of being prudent.

I will briefly point out that the 12" penetration requirement stems from the fact that not all shots are frontal-torso shots. Many times the bullet must penetrate significantly more tissue, such as when the person being shot has his arms extended in front of him, if the shot is at an oblique angle, etc. You choose ammunition based on a worst-case scenario, not the best.
 
easyg, review the material I posted. The quantifiable differences between 9, 40, and 45 are minimal to the point of being obsolete when deciding on caliber. There are many other factors, that actually have a discernable effect in a shootout, mostly related to depth of penetration. Once again, take a second to peruse the material at your leisure.
 
When looking at the differences between the three rounds many people like to quote examples from Iraq, Vietnam, WWII etc. These examples don't really matter because the military only uses FMJs
 
Higher capacity/smaller/lighter pistol size/less recoil/lower cost/higher availability. All while providing almost equal terminal ballistics.

The problem is that almost none of the above are true. I shoot a 13+1 shot .45, and it's very comfortable and easy to shoot rapidly. It fits in the same holster as the 9mm version of the gun. This isn't 1988, and you're not looking at 15+1 for a relatively light 9mm vs. 7+1 for a heavy .45.

WRT lower cost, I don't know a serious auto pistol sport shooter who doesn't load his own, or a defensive pistol application where I give a crap whether a round costs me $.25 or $.50.

My life vs. a dollar. Hmmmm... YMMV of course.

Availability? In Iraq, sure. I'm not in Iraq.

And if you think that 17 rounds vs. 14 makes a bigger difference than a more effective round, you either need target practice, or to quit the Rambo fantasies.

Almost equal terminal performance? Again, only if you believe that real-world shooting results are meaningless. Personally, think that real-world shooting results are, well, the whole point of having a gun for defense or hunting, but I certainly see people at the range who seem not to think that making noise is more important than hitting anything...:p

You will lose that debate.

Only in front of a panel of complete idiots.

Read your statement again. Try reading it aloud to yourself and listening.:D
 
Last edited:
The reason real life shooting results may not be meaning full is that there are usually too many unknowns to know for sure. This is why testing in ballistics gelatin has its place. Now that does not mean that repeated real life results are less meaningful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top