9 MM or 40 S&W

[easyg]

Human tissue is elastic so yeah it's gonna snap back

Yes and no.

Some human tissue is rather elastic, some human tissue is somewhat elastic, and some human tissue is not very elastic at all.

Put a bullet through a kidney and will not just snap back like a rubberband.

If a bullet chips a vertebral body that vertebral body will forever remained damaged.

An artery will only stretch so far before it rips and tears open.

The liver can be lacerated by a seatbelt in a car wreck....and a bullet going through it will cause permanent damage.

Humans are not that elastic.

 

[1stmarine]

The liver can be lacerated by a seatbelt in a car wreck....and a bullet going through it will cause permanent damage.

WOW we have now Doctors and surgeons at the High Road! This is so cool!

The biggest concern with the liver trauma is bleeding in short term. If you survive long term damage to the liver is very unlikely. Unless you drink like an animal like me. lol

The liver can regenerate itself. The most amazing thing about the liver is that if a person has two thirds of their liver removed through trauma or surgery, it will grow back to the original size within four weeks. This has great medical advantages and even spiritual significance for some cultures.

If you do not believe this go to the library and get informed.

Cheers,
E.

ps: I am not a doctor but I was trained in trauma to assist a medic in battle when I was in the service so I had to read some books and certify.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Yeah, you are right, but a liver wound will kill you in about 10-15 minutes with out intervention, so bleeding in the short term is HUGE, I meant the above to point to show that the TEMPORARY cavity is just that temporary, and counting on some mythical pressure spike and brain bleeds is much lower on my list that making holes in thing that will kill a guy NOW. If that comes from nerve disruption (I can believe in local, not the whole body theory espoused by some, unless you hit the CNS) or liver lacerations. Close counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.

I'd rather disrupt the the maximum tissue I can, as one of my docs (as in a SF grunt (B), turned SF medic, turned PA) explained it, a rending or tearing wound with jagged edges to a blood vessel greatly decreases its ability to clamp down = more bleeding, and a HP does create a more ragged and torn wound. BTW I was a 91b-63w (they changed it a few times) Medic.

 

[1stmarine]

My point is the entire goals is to stop a threat ASAP.
So what is the point if the other survives or not if you are not there to see it?
A centermass shot through the heart or even a good head shot and most likely I will be gone instantly (with few exceptions).
If you shoot somebody through the liver(belly) they can still kill you. In a fight they do not even know they have been shot until later on. The adrenaline masquerades all that.
Cheers,
E.

 

[Ben86]

A centermass shot through the heart or even a good head shot and most likely I will be gone instantly (with few exceptions).

With a heart shot it may not be instant. Depending on how much oxygen they've got left in their brain and muscles, they may be able to fight for another 10 seconds or so. 10 seconds is plenty time to get shot. That's why shooting until they are down is great advice. Not shooting until I land a good hit, then see what happens like your shooting at game on a hunting trip.

 

[Lazyshooter]

If it is going to be a range gun get a 9mm, its cheaper to shoot and less recoil. 40 would be better suited if you were going to carry it.

 

[Phil W]

You have the 45, a 9mm would complete the deal. One of each......

 

[1stmarine]

Ben86,
That's why I said "with few exceptions". A shot through the heart normally means instant collapse and the natural reaction in defensive shooting should be taking care of other threats (if any) alternatively. One magazine might go down in 3 seconds effectively if you know what you are doing. ...or even w/o knowing what you are doing. Bottom line at this point your muscle memory should be working for you as you cannot think. Lets pray God to spare us from being in situations where we have to shoot someone or get shoot at.
I have been in the line of fire and I will never forget.

I got shot through the heart once and almost instantly, next thing you know I was married with children. lol

Cheers,
E.

 

[LaoTzu]

Physics, guys!

Hey, it is pretty simple... the .40 is significantly heavier and goes pretty much the same speed as the 9mm... what does physics say about that? Easy.

All talk about price of ammo is a totally different subject than the which is better thing... We talking better for defense or better for plinking?

No contest, it is the .40

When looking at the .45, it is a little more interesting, if talking about targets within 20 or 30 feet, again the significantly heavier .45, even coupled with the significantly slower speed is a contender. After very short range, the .45 drops out of the running.

What would you rather throw at a target at 60 feet? using a .45 is almost like artillery, you have to lob it in there... nuts to that, and the effect is lost anyway by then.

And some guy tried to compare a heart shot with a 9mm to a lower torso shot with a .40... are you serious?? A heart shot with a .32 is more effective than a lower torso shot with a .44 for crying out loud!

The 9mm is a great cartridge... cheap and fun to shoot. It is just not nearly as good for defense at any range vs. the .40

Skoal

 

[Wishoot]

LaoTzu

Welcome to The High Road!

 

[Dunedain]

9mm

 

[Shadow 7D]

sorry but in the grand total of everything,
physics wise, it really isn't that much, and MORE POWER =/= more 'stopping power'

just better barrier penetration with similar rounds

 

[george d dennis]

while i have a .45, 40. i just recently brought a 9mm. one of the reasons was
about a year or two ago there was no ammo, primers or powder to be found.
but i have to say every time i went to the store there was 9mm. also a while
back it was hard to get large capacity magazines. some people were charging
alot of money for one. it could of been the clinton years, i dont remember.
i know i just brought some 9 and it wasnt alot of money. your choice.

 

[easyg]

What would you rather throw at a target at 60 feet? using a .45 is almost like artillery, you have to lob it in there... nuts to that, and the effect is lost anyway by then.

What?!?!

Do you seriously believe that the .45ACP is not effective at a mere 60 feet???

 

[Hedgemeister]

Wow, 45 is not good at 60 feet. I am going to throw away all of my 1911s and my XD45. They are now worthless. II wish the salesman had told me they were only good out to about 20 feet. I can't believe I can shoot 2" groups at 25 yards with my 1911. I must be really smart to be able to calculate all of that bullet drop.

 

[Ben86]

After very short range, the .45 drops out of the running.

Ah, the fabled .45 "rainbow arc." Sure it may drop more than 9mm and .40 but it is a marginal amount.

using a .45 is almost like artillery, you have to lob it in there... nuts to that, and the effect is lost anyway by then.

Have you ever shot a .45 at anything farther than 50 yards away? It does about the same thing 9mm and .40 do.

It is just not nearly as good for defense at any range vs. the .40 (9mm)

I don't understand why you would make that statement. Sure 9mm; not nearly as good as 12ga 00 buck, or 9mm; not nearly as good as .308 winchester. But, 9mm; not nearly as good as .40? It's like saying which midget is the tallest.

 

[easyg]

Drop and energy comparisons at 100 yards....


Speer Gold Dot 124g 9mm+P at 100 yards = -8.0"
273 ft. lbs. of energy.

Speer Gold Dot 200g .45ACP+P at 100 yards = -10.2"
384 ft. lbs. of energy.


The .45 only drops 2.2" lower than the 9mm, but it delivers 100+ more ft. lbs. of energy.
And this is at 300 feet, not just 60 feet.



BTW...

Speer Gold Dot 165g .40S&W at 100 yards = -8.9"
342 ft. lbs. of energy.

Speer Gold Dot 125g .357Sig at 100 yards = -6.2"
316 ft. lbs. of energy.



Easy.

 

[GLOOB]

I don't get the whole argument that:

more energy
more mass
more velocity
greater expansion+penetration capability
=/= to more stopping power, because some self-proclaimed expert is citing statistics based on invalid data.

If you're talking about one specific scenario, then perhaps the 9mm is exactly just enough. To use an analogy, 30-30 might be exactly as good as a 30-06 for hunting the average deer within 150 yards with a good broadside shot. But come across a large deer at an unfavorable angle, and you might have to track your deer a little farther.

People are not all the same size, weight, shape. They don't all wear the same clothing. Barriers may come into effect. Angle of shot and limbs may come into play. 9mm might be exactly as good for most situations you will come across, but that doesn't mean it has equal stopping power.

You might have gotten the job done just fine with a 30-30, all these years. But there are other people who choose a 30-06, and they are getting the same job done just as well. Plus they are able to take a few shots that you can't, skill level and ethical integrity being equal. Plus, just because you expect a deer doesn't mean you won't come across a bear.

So does 30-30 have equal deer-stopping power as 30-06? Most of the time, it does, but not always.

 

[Saragosa]

Bigger/heavier/faster vs. smaller/lighter/slower. If that's all there is to it I'll take a bowling ball over a baseball any time. But when it comes down to the argument between a .40 and a 9MM I'll take the 9MM for a variety of reasons. Affordability, availability, handleability, etc. There isn't enough difference between the two ballistically to make up for other factors in favor of the 9MM.

 

[GLOOB]

Sure, if you could throw a bowling ball faster than a baseball, you'll still take the baseball?

 

[Dunedain]

Saragosa: I agree on the calibers. There's nothing wrong with the .40 S&W, but there's just not enough difference between it and the 9mm to bother with, I'd rather just stick with the higher capacity 9mm loaded with some serious ammo. If I want more power, I'm not messing around, I'd go straight to the big .45 acp.

 

[Ben86]

maybe a tad cheaper to shoot.but still be effective

Then look no further than 9x19.

 

[DawgFvr]

5-5-5 Test created by a much smarter gun guru than me:



Fire five rounds of each caliber of choice:

Fire five rounds in five seconds at a target five yards away.

If you can place five rounds within five inches of POA...you have found your perfect carry caliber.

If you cannot hit a target accuractely in good follow up shots with a 10mm...or a 44 magnum, guess what? You should use a smaller caliber. Bigger is not always better...eh?

Me? I like the 9mm +P. I am accurate with it...I have fast follow-up shots, it feeds well in my weapon of choice and I am able to carry larger amounts of the ammo of choice. Bottom line: I can place far more accurate shots on target quicker than the .40 or .45ACP.

 

[wow6599]

In a 1911, it must be a .45 ACP.
In a BHP, it must be a 9mm.
Pick whatever you want when it comes to plastic pistols.......in polymer, I have had 9mm, 357 Sig, 40 S&W & 10mm........only the 9s survive.
Why? Well, I've never had to shoot anyone and doubt I ever will. I can place shots, and follow-up shots, where I want at 25 yards or less with a 9mm. Follow-shots (for me) aren't as easy with a .40.
OK, flame suit on - why does everybody act like somebody shoots somebody all the time. I'll bet 99.999% of the folks here on THR have never shot anyone, or will ever have to. I pray that's the case.
What ever happened to just enjoying different guns and calibers for sport, without bringing all the "mall ninja" crap in to it?

Rant off........

 

[kalashnikov74]

kalashnikov74

It all comes down to what you shoot better, for me I shoot both well. So of course the .40 is my choice.