45ACP or 9mm.

[verdun59]

What perplexes me in this never ending discussion, is all the "bigger is better crowd" use .45acp.If they truly believed bigger is better why not move to .50cal ????

 

[Walkalong]

"With a 9mm it's 'bang bang bang bang bang bang', open up the door and he's dead.
With .45acp is 'bang, bang,' open up the door and he's dead.
With a 12ga it's 'BANG,' and then just look through the hole where the door used to be and you'll see where the bad guy used to be."

You mean that's not true?

Seriously though, it is all about mindset and shot placement. Everything else is small potatoes.

I have several full size pistols that I would be comfortable using for protection, and they are not all the same caliber. What they have in common is that they are all guns I shoot well and have confidence in.

 

[TomJ]

TomJ, what I'm about to post is not really directed "at you," but you happen to be the one that brought up a point that has consistently caused me some confusion.

I often see this argument used to support claims that "9mm is just as good as .45." I recognize that 9mm has, through advances in bullet technology, improved quite a bit over the years. What I fail to understand is why folks think that the .45 is the same as it was 40 years ago. Have not both cartridges improved? Have improvements in 9mm dramatically outstripped those that have happened to the .45?

As far as I've been able to tell, all handgun rounds are relatively poor man-stoppers. As a buddy of mine likes to say, "If I knew I was goin' to a gunfight, I'd go somewhere else. If I knew I was goin' and couldn't get out of it, I'd take a rifle . . . and friends . . . with rifles."

Spats,
I believe Kleanbore answered your first question. Attached is a link to a previous thread also addressing this question. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=299317

In regards to your second point, you're friend's logic is spot on, however the original question was 9mm or .45.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

If they truly believed bigger is better why not move to .50cal ????

50 cal semiauto cartridges are far more powerfull than is needed for self defense, you would limit your ammo capacity even more than a .45, and all the guns chambered for 50 cal cartridges are far to large and heavy to carry and conceal effectively.

If not being used to hunt, there is a point of diminishing return on SD guns.

 

[TomJ]

TomJ, what I'm about to post is not really directed "at you," but you happen to be the one that brought up a point that has consistently caused me some confusion.

I often see this argument used to support claims that "9mm is just as good as .45." I recognize that 9mm has, through advances in bullet technology, improved quite a bit over the years. What I fail to understand is why folks think that the .45 is the same as it was 40 years ago. Have not both cartridges improved? Have improvements in 9mm dramatically outstripped those that have happened to the .45?

As far as I've been able to tell, all handgun rounds are relatively poor man-stoppers. As a buddy of mine likes to say, "If I knew I was goin' to a gunfight, I'd go somewhere else. If I knew I was goin' and couldn't get out of it, I'd take a rifle . . . and friends . . . with rifles."

Spats,

The details of what changed in the 9mm was bothering me. Attached is a link to an article from Handguns Magazine explaining those changes.

http://www.handgunsmag.com/ammo/6-reasons-modern-defensive-ammo-better-ever/

 

[jmr40]

Posted by Spats McGee: I often see this argument used to support claims that "9mm is just as good as .45." I recognize that 9mm has, through advances in bullet technology, improved quite a bit over the years. What I fail to understand is why folks think that the .45 is the same as it was 40 years ago. Have not both cartridges improved? Have improvements in 9mm dramatically outstripped those that have happened to the .45?

There has NEVER, at any time been a shred of evidence that 45 is a better performer than 9mm. Look up any test results you like going back 100 years or more. The 2 are a statistical tie as long as comparable bullets are used. FMJ vs FMJ, HP vs HP they are a statistical tie. You may find certain circumstances where one has a slight advantage over the other. But it goes both ways and you don't get to pick the exact scenario when you pull the trigger.

The myth of the 45 is based on the fictional writings of a few influential gun writers and word of mouth from wishful thinking folks.

The 40 is not a compromise round. It is very slightly better than either. I can understand why some may feel the slight edge in performance is not worth the reduced capacity, or added recoil. But it is not, and never has been a compromise.

 

[splattergun]

I own both. I practice double tap with both. Issue settled as far as I'm concerned.

 

[hso]

if you shoot someone with a 9mm, you'll just piss them off, you need to shoot them with a 45".

His worthless uninformed out of date opinion can be shattered by facts, but it would be much more fun to ask him to volunteer to be "pissed off".

 

[RustyShackelford]

.50gi & .50ae.....

Why no .50GI or .50AE for duty or personal defense?
Because it's too big & expensive!

A few years ago, I read a printed gun article in a well known publication where the intrepid writer claimed the Guncrafters Industries 1911 .50GI would be ideal for cops & SWAT/SRT teams.

Guncrafters does offer a after market .50GI kit for Glock 21/20 owners who wish to make huge holes in stuff.
The .50AE has been around since the early 1990s. It's good but not cheap.

 

[tactikel]

My .45 ACP launches 180 gr XTPs at 1100 fps. I shoot it well. It's my get me back to home gun. For CCW I will carry a PF-9, once I get my permit.

 

[gspn]

Well, the FOS guy refused to believe me, so I guess he can be in his ignorant bliss.

In 2007 at the University of Virginia 32 kids were killed by a gunman armed with a .22 cal and 9mm pistol. It is a sad fact, but it quite easily refutes his argument.

One might also consider that the German army killed plenty of folks with 9mm in WWII.

If one were inclined to do a bit more research, and to trust in the judgment of men who go into harms way regularly...one might even look into the calibers used by counter-terror teams around the world. I'd guess that more than a few terrorists have been sent to their graves with 9mm holes in their skulls.

Sometimes you have to just walk away from people who don't want to know the truth.

For what it's worth, I carry a .45, but I wouldn't feel the least bit under-gunned carrying a 9mm.

 

[JeeperCreeper]

If people stopped fighting about 9mm vs .45, we would have no need for guns as there would be no violence in the world.... ok just kidding

What really grinds my gears is when people say "oh, if my (insert cartridge) is not as good as your (insert other cartridge) then stand in front of me while I shoot". If that is the logic, then since your gun is superior my fist, you should be fine letting me right hook you square in the jaw... but I digress

 

[Hanshi]

This "9mm vs .45acp" argument dates back to at least the 1970s. Don't believe me? well I was there. I like the .45acp but for different reasons than most. I load them by the 1000s with lead bullets, mostly 200grn swc. I shoot it for fun and practice but seldom carry a .45acp for s-d. The best round I ever fired in this caliber was the original 185grn Super Vel jhp. That round was fast (I chronographed it) and man would it expand. Penetration? Not so much. The 200grn swc is cheap and accurate and fun to shoot with 4.5grns of Bullseye or 6grn of Unique. I also believe such loads are useful for s-d, too. What do I carry when packing a .45acp? The few rounds of original SV 185grn I've manage to hoard; or standard 230fmj ball.

I like the .38sup best but generally carry either a Walther PPK/S .380acp or a Walther PPK .32acp. I'm also a fan of the .38spl lead HP +P. For me the 9mm remains a fun round fired with 1100fps to 1200fps lead 125grn bullets.

No longer being a cop I don't pack for trouble; if I did it would be my 1911 .38sup at 1300 to 1400 fps.

 

[45_auto]

What this all translates to is the 45ACP and 9mm have roughly the same energy upon impact.

My 2 ton Suburban at 2 MPH (28,000,000 grains at 3 FPS) also has about the same energy upon impact. Do you believe that if you're standing in the street and I bump you at 2 mph it'll have the same effect as getting shot?

 

[Frank Ettin]

I've said this several times before, and this looks like an opportunity to repeat it:

There is data, and there are studies, and we have a good deal of knowledge about wound physiology. But we keep getting into these "ring-around-the-rosie" discussions because, I guess, a lot of people are dissatisfied that there really is no definitive answer.

Perhaps the real conclusion(s) with regard to self defense could be summarized as follows:

1. Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times succeeded at quickly stopping an assailant.
   
   
2. Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times failed at quickly stopping an assailant.
   
   
3. Considering ballistic gelatin performance, data available on real world incidents, an understanding of wound physiology and psychology, certain cartridges with certain bullets are more likely to be more effective more of the time.
   
   
4. For defensive use in a handgun the 9mm Luger, .38 Special +P, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .357 Magnum, and other, similar cartridges when of high quality manufacture, and loaded with expanding bullets appropriately designed for their respective velocities to both expand and penetrate adequately, are reasonably good choices.
   
   
5. And that's probably as good as we can do.

I've posted the following before and might as well post it again here:

Let's consider how shooting someone will actually cause him to stop what he's doing.

• The goal is to stop the assailant.
  
  
• There are four ways in which shooting someone stops him:
  
  
  • psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."
    
    
  • massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function
    
    
  • breaking major skeletal support structures
    
    
  • damaging the central nervous system.
  
  Depending on someone just giving up because he's been shot is iffy. Probably most fights are stopped that way, but some aren't; and there are no guarantees.
  
  Breaking major skeletal structures can quickly impair mobility. But if the assailant has a gun, he can still shoot. And it will take a reasonably powerful round to reliably penetrate and break a large bone, like the pelvis.
  
  Hits to the central nervous system are sure and quick, but the CNS presents a small and uncertain target. And sometimes significant penetration will be needed to reach it.
  
  The most common and sure physiological way in which shooting someone stops him is blood loss -- depriving the brain and muscles of oxygen and nutrients, thus impairing the ability of the brain and muscles to function. Blood loss is facilitated by (1) large holes causing tissue damage; (2) getting the holes in the right places to damage major blood vessels or blood bearing organs; and (3) adequate penetration to get those holes into the blood vessels and organs which are fairly deep in the body. The problem is that blood loss takes time. People have continued to fight effectively when gravely, even mortally, wounded. So things that can speed up blood loss, more holes, bigger holes, better placed holes, etc., help.
  
  So as a rule of thumb --
  
  
  • More holes are better than fewer holes.
    
    
  • Larger holes are better than smaller holes.
    
    
  • Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places.
    
    
  • Holes that are deep enough are better than holes that aren't.
    
    
  • There are no magic bullets.
    
    
  • There are no guarantees.
  
  
• With regard to the issue of psychological stops see
  
  
  • this study by Greg Ellifritz. And take special notice of his data on failure to incapacitate rates:
    
    
    
    ​
    
    
    As Ellifritz notes in his discussion of his "failure to incapacitate" data (emphasis added):

    ...Take a look at two numbers: the percentage of people who did not stop (no matter how many rounds were fired into them) and the one-shot-stop percentage. The lower caliber rounds (.22, .25, .32) had a failure rate that was roughly double that of the higher caliber rounds. The one-shot-stop percentage (where I considered all hits, anywhere on the body) trended generally higher as the round gets more powerful. This tells us a couple of things...
    
    In a certain (fairly high) percentage of shootings, people stop their aggressive actions after being hit with one round regardless of caliber or shot placement. These people are likely NOT physically incapacitated by the bullet. They just don't want to be shot anymore and give up! Call it a psychological stop if you will. Any bullet or caliber combination will likely yield similar results in those cases. And fortunately for us, there are a lot of these "psychological stops" occurring. The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible. In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one. In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this....

    
    
    1. There are two sets of data in the Ellifritz study: incapacitation and failure to incapacitate. They present some contradictions.
       
       
       • Considering the physiology of wounding, the data showing high incapacitation rates for light cartridges seems anomalous.
         
         
       • Furthermore, those same light cartridges which show high rates of incapacitation also show high rates of failures to incapacitate. In addition, heavier cartridges which show incapacitation rates comparable to the lighter cartridges nonetheless show lower failure to incapacitate rates.
         
         
       • And note that the failure to incapacitate rates of the 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and .44 Magnum were comparable to each other.
         
         
       • If the point of the exercise is to help choose cartridges best suited to self defense application, it would be helpful to resolve those contradictions.
         
         
       • A way to try to resolve those contradictions is to better understand the mechanism(s) by which someone who has been shot is caused to stop what he is doing.
       
       
    2. The two data sets and the apparent contradiction between them (and as Ellifritz wrote) thus strongly suggest that there are two mechanisms by which someone who has been shot will be caused to stop what he is doing.
       
       
       • One mechanism is psychological. This was alluded to by both Ellifritz and FBI agent and firearms instructor Urey Patrick. Sometimes the mere fact of being shot will cause someone to stop. When this is the stopping mechanism, the cartridge used really doesn't matter. One stops because his mind tells him to because he's been shot, not because of the amount of damage the wound has done to his body.
         
         
       • The other mechanism is physiological. If the body suffers sufficient damage, the person will be forced to stop what he is doing because he will be physiologically incapable of continuing. Heavier cartridges with large bullets making bigger holes are more likely to cause more damage to the body than lighter cartridges. Therefore, if the stopping mechanism is physiological, lighter cartridges are more likely to fail to incapacitate.
       
       
    3. And in looking at any population of persons who were shot and therefore stopped what they were doing, we could expect that some stopped for psychological reasons. We could also expect others would not be stopped psychologically and would not stop until they were forced to because their bodies became physiologically incapable of continuing.
       
       
    4. From that perspective, the failure to incapacitate data is probably more important. That essentially tells us that when Plan A (a psychological stop) fails, we must rely on Plan B (a physiological stop) to save our bacon; and a heavier cartridge would have a lower [Plan B] failure rate.
  
  
• Also see the FBI paper entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness", by Urey W. Patrick. Agent Patrick, for example, notes on page 8:

  ...Psychological factors are probably the most important relative to achieving rapid incapacitation from a gunshot wound to the torso. Awareness of the injury..., fear of injury, fear of death, blood or pain; intimidation by the weapon or the act of being shot; or the simple desire to quit can all lead to rapid incapacitation even from minor wounds. However, psychological factors are also the primary cause of incapacitation failures.
  
  The individual may be unaware of the wound and thus have no stimuli to force a reaction. Strong will, survival instinct, or sheer emotion such as rage or hate can keep a grievously wounded individual fighting....

• And for some more insight into wound physiology and "stopping power":
  
  
  • Dr. V. J. M. DiMaio (DiMaio, V. J. M., M. D., Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier Science Publishing Company, 1987, pg. 42, as quoted in In Defense of Self and Others..., Patrick, Urey W. and Hall, John C., Carolina Academic Press, 2010, pg. 83):

    In the case of low velocity missles, e. g., pistol bullets, the bullet produces a direct path of destruction with very little lateral extension within the surrounding tissue. Only a small temporary cavity is produced. To cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly. The amount of kinetic energy lost in the tissue by a pistol bullet is insufficient to cause the remote injuries produced by a high-velocity rifle bullet.

    
    
  • And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 83-84, emphasis in original):

    The tissue disruption caused by a handgun bullet is limited to two mechanisms. The first or crush mechanism is the hole that the bullet makes passing through the tissue. The second or stretch mechanism is the temporary wound cavity formed by the tissue being driven outward in a radial direction away from the path of the bullet. Of the two, the crush mechanism is the only handgun wounding mechanism that damages tissue. To cause significant injuries to a structure within the body using a handgun, the bullet must penetrate the structure.

    
    
  • And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 95-96, emphasis in original):

    Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much-discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable....The critical element in wounding effectiveness is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large blood-bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding....Given durable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of the hole made by the bullet....

  
  
• And sometimes even a .357 Magnum doesn't work all that well. LAPD Officer Stacy Lim who was shot in the chest with a .357 Magnum and still ran down her attacker, returned fire, killed him, survived, and ultimately was able to return to duty. She was off duty and heading home after a softball game and a brief stop at the station to check her work assignment. According to the article I linked to:

  ... The bullet ravaged her upper body when it nicked the lower portion of her heart, damaged her liver, destroyed her spleen, and exited through the center of her back, still with enough energy to penetrate her vehicle door, where it was later found....

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Hanshi: This "9mm vs .45acp" argument dates back to at least the 1970s. Don't believe me? well I was there.

The Army insisted on a .45 and refused to consider a 9MM more than a century ago.

But the 9 of that day was not what it is today. And what the Army needed was a cavalry weapon that would drop horses.

In 1949, the Government issued a requirement for a 9MM pistol to replace the Model of 1911. The results included the development of the S&W Model 39 and the Colt Commander, but the decision was made to retain the 1911 because they had so many in inventory.

Patrick Sweeney has opined that, had the .38 Super been available at the time, the Army might have accepted it instead of adopting the .45 ACP back in 1910.

 

[MotorCraft]

Grandpa carries a 45, he said from past experience…a shot from his Thompson always did the trick.

 

[jrdolall]

In the local (Columbus GA) news today they reported that a young man was shot in the chest and, along with a friend, ran a block to a fast food restaurant to call for help. He is in the hospital in stable condition.
No mention of the caliber of weapon or any other details. It could have been a Daisy BB gun for all we know but, based on the location of the shooting, it probably wasn't. A couple of weeks ago a kid was killed with a 357 sig. One shot to the face and DOA.

 

[texasgun]

when it counts (equally good shot placement) .... the .45 ACP round still tears a BIGGER hole and a WIDER wound channel than 9mm. that's a fact.

Yes - extremely good 9mm SD rounds in +P are more than sufficient to stop the threat ... but the .45 development didn't stop in 1911 either and there are plenty of excellent SD rounds in .45. Hot and fast 180gr rounds in +P or heavy 255gr rounds...

.45 for home-defense and 9mm for concealed carry is my choice

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by texasgun: ...the .45 ACP round still tears a BIGGER hole and a WIDER wound channel than 9mm. that's a fact.

Yep. And as Agent Patrick wrote in the report cited by Frank Ettin,

"Given adequate penetration, a larger diameter bullet will have an edge in wounding effectiveness. Although such an edge clearly exists, its significance cannot be quantified."​

As Frank often says, however, "Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places." And since the defender has no way of ensuring that any one of his shots will strike anything vital, (again quoting Frank) "More holes are better than fewer holes."

So do you want to land one or two hits with a .45, or three or four with a 9MM?

Time is the limiting factor, and recoil, the reason for the difference.

 

[sherman123]

But...but..you don't need a lotta bullets it's a .45! Haha just kidding.

 

[readyeddy]

I like the 45. To me it's a handsome cartridge, easy to hand load, fun to shoot, and it's easy to see the hole in the paper target.

The 9 is about the same, but then I need to squint to see them holes.

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

In my way of looking at it and in apparently the way the FBI and several other credible sources evaluate handgun capability the majority of "The Game" is about penetration and placement. Insufficient penetration and it does not matter where you place the bullet, it may not get to a critical component. As well, all of the penetration in the world does no good if the bullet does not hit that critical component because it was not placed accurately.

There are few spots on the Human body that you can punch a hole in and get the body to shut down quickly and concisely and all of those spots/target are small and deep. To get any degree of handgun efficiency we need to place an adequately penetrating projectile (in excess of 12" in calibrated ballistic gelatin) on one of these small points.

Placement and penetration are The Game - all other criteria such as wound channel, bullet diameter (caliber), expansion, etc are much less critical and have a small supplementary effect. I have been told all other factors aside from penetration and placement are insignificant save shot follow up which gives multiple opportunities to place a bullet where it will get a shut down/stop assuming adequate penetration.

This makes the .45 vs 9mm thing pretty much moot and tells me that any caliber that can be accurately placed to a critical component and has enough penetration to get there could potentially do the trick...the faster and more accurately a follow up can be delivered (multiple shots) would be the third critical factor and all others are a far distant DMS factor.

My take on this.

VooDoo

 

[Hanshi]

This "9mm vs .45acp" argument dates back to at least the 1970s. Don't believe me? well I was there. I like the .45acp but for different reasons than most. I load them by the 1000s with lead bullets, mostly 200grn swc. I shoot it for fun and practice but seldom carry a .45acp for s-d. The best round I ever fired in this caliber was the original 185grn Super Vel jhp. That round was fast (I chronographed it) and man would it expand. Penetration? Not so much. The 200grn swc is cheap and accurate and fun to shoot with 4.5grns of Bullseye or 6grn of Unique. I also believe such loads are useful for s-d, too. What do I carry when packing a .45acp? The few rounds of original SV 185grn I've manage to hoard; or standard 230fmj ball.

I like the .38sup best but generally carry either a Walther PPK/S .380acp or a Walther PPK .32acp. I'm also a fan of the .38spl lead HP +P. For me the 9mm remains a fun round fired with 1100fps to 1200fps lead 125grn bullets.

No longer being a cop I don't pack for trouble; if I did it would be my 1911 .38sup at 1300 to 1400 fps.

 

[DeepSouth]

I admit to being a 45 fan boy.
I admit to believing the 45 to be a "better" defensive caliaber
I admit to flat out disliking the the 9mm
I admit......my bias.


So with that I have a HONEST question.
What difference do the velocity differences really make?
And for what is worth, I've wondered this in other caliaber comparisons.

Oh 1 more
I admit that I belive bullet mass/weight has as much (and maybe more) "importance" in a defense situation than velocity, but I also don't know why relatively minor velocity differences matter soooooo.