"Best" FMJ SD Caliber

[Manco]

To take the comparison a step further, and entrance hole with a larger cm2 footprint will cause more cm3 of tissue damage, thus GREATLY increasing the likelihood that the bullet will hit something that makes the bad guy stop.

Assuming equal penetration for the sake of simplicity (easy because they'll both probably penetrate all the way through and out), .45 ACP will create a wound channel approximately 62% larger in volume. However, while this number may look impressive, what matters is not how they compare to each other directly, but how they compare in terms of scale relative to the human body and its vital internal structures, a topic that was discussed in the following thread starting at post #70:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=494273&page=3#post6152890

In the end, they're both small projectiles, and despite how impressive some numerical comparisons may seem at first glance, I don't think that there is a major difference in their potential effectiveness per round. There is definitely some difference, which I've more often argued in this forum when people shout "shot placement!" too loudly, but merely comparing their sectional areas or even their diameters directly far overstates the difference, in my opinion.

I carry 230 gr HSTs, but if for some reason I were carrying hard ball and I had to draw to save my life, I wouldn't feel for one second that I was at a disadvantage because I was carrying FMJ ammo. I wouldn't change a thing about how, where, how fast, or how many times I shoot.

In terms of wounding potential, relatively speaking (and assuming adequate penetration), JHP holds a far greater advantage over FMJ than .45 ACP does over 9mm, going by either of the two numerical methods described above (also discussed in the thread I linked). You may not feel as though you are at a disadvantage with FMJ ammo, but I think that you actually would be. Is the mystique of .45 caliber that powerful? There is nothing magical about that number, and it's way smaller than a 9mm that expands to 0.60" (and some can expand even more).

The differences between handgun bullets are subtle, until you measure from one end of the spectrum (9mm fmj) to the other (230 gr HSTs.)

Then they become subtle again once you compare them to the human body.

Handguns are inferior survival tools, and you need to give yourself every advantage you can. Carry the biggest, meanest bullet you can handle. Hit the bad guy as many times as you can with it, on your way back to your shotgun. When you are fighting for your life, the only force is OVERWHELMING force.

You get more rounds with smaller calibers, which can be an advantage.

 

[dom1104]

Huh thats an interesting thought.

Not so much the difference between the rounds, but the percentage difference between the rounds compared to the width of the human torso LOL.

I am not good at math but maybe thats why 9mm vs 45 seems so huge on paper, but so limited in real life.

2mm is 100% bigger than 1mm, but not a huge difference when its poked thru your body.

interesting.

 

[Ben86]

You get more rounds with smaller calibers, which can be an advantage.

I think this line of thought is a little dangerous. Is it really an advantage if you have to shoot them more?

Oh crap, its starting. Caliber War! *runs in opposite direction*

 

[Manco]

You get more rounds with smaller calibers, which can be an advantage.

I think this line of thought is a little dangerous. Is it really an advantage if you have to shoot them more?

I didn't mean to imply that you necessarily had to shoot them more, just that you could if for some reason you had to, as well as the others they probably brought with them. It also lets you miss a few more times before having to reload. We all have to decide for ourselves which set of tradeoffs work best for us individually. Caliber doesn't make much of a difference if we're talking about service calibers, but it does make some difference, which I've tried to characterize as best I could from my own perspective (some argue that it makes no difference while others say that the difference is huge, and I think that they're both wrong).

Oh crap, its starting. Caliber War! *runs in opposite direction*

I could have sworn that the caliber war started with the very first post in this thread.

 

[Manco]

Huh thats an interesting thought.

Not so much the difference between the rounds, but the percentage difference between the rounds compared to the width of the human torso LOL.

I am not good at math but maybe thats why 9mm vs 45 seems so huge on paper, but so limited in real life.

2mm is 100% bigger than 1mm, but not a huge difference when its poked thru your body.

interesting.

It's nothing new, though. When hunting animals of various sizes, it is prudent to "bring enough gun" to get the job done reliably, and humans are animals of a certain size range. .22 LR can kill almost any animal under the right circumstances, but most would agree that large animals require more powerful calibers. Humans complicate the matter because gunfighting is different from hunting. On the one hand, because of how we stand up on two legs, we're relatively vulnerable to gunfire from calibers that would normally be too small, but on the other hand, hit probability becomes a major issue, which is compensated for very little by the difference between .355" and .452" in bullet caliber in comparison to our size (we're basically sheep- or deer-sized "game" that can fight back with guns, too).

Given the proper shot placement, a 9mm FMJ round is more than enough to kill a human with, so what would a .45 ACP FMJ do, kill them slightly deader? Maybe a direct hit to the heart with a .45 would shave a few seconds off somebody's lifespan...maybe...but the main problem is hitting something vital in the first place, and the difference that .452" makes over .355" is nothing to write home about. Things only begin to get interesting in this regard when expanding bullets are involved, which then actually makes caliber and load selection more important because penetration can become an issue, as it is with hunting.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Have to say probably .50 GI.

 

[mdao]

.380 ACP, truncated cone bullet construction. ~ 20" of penetration in gelatin which should be sufficient. If the bullets ain't expanding, I want to be able to put as many of them down range as quickly and accurately as possible.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

If I could only carry FMJ, I'd carry an M1911 in .45 ACP.

As it is, I can carry hollowpoints and any gun I wish, so I choose an M1911 in .45 ACP.

 

[winchester '97]

If i had to use hardball ammo i would go with the .45 round. Nobody in either world war complained about the .45 being an ineffective round.

 

[gearhead]

*shrugs* Probably the same caliber that's the best when firing JHP, unless the round overpenetrates. If I knew I could never use JHP again I'd probably gravitate toward .40S&W for semi-auto and .45 LC for revolver use. Both of those rounds seem to transfer a lot of energy to the target.

 

[Deaf Smith]

I'd pack a Glock 36, .45 ACP if FMJ was my only option. Failing that, my Glock 27, .40 S&W, with flat point FMJ.

Deaf

 

[MCgunner]

Nah, I changed my mind....

 

[cwl1862]

I'd say anything that begins with a 4 or a 5 Besides the Only round with combat proven stopping power is the 45 ACP.

 

[MCgunner]

I'd say anything that begins with a 4 or a 5 Besides the Only round with combat proven stopping power is the 45 ACP.

Nope, pea shooters all. Gotta start with a 6. I don't think the .45ACP has ever taken an elephant, though it did blow up a tank in "Saving Private Ryan". I reckon the 9x19 is combat proven, too, considering most of the "free" world's armies use it.

 

[mljdeckard]

Manco, you did read the part where I carry 230 gr HSTs, right? You should take every advantage you can get, no matter how subtle.

Handguns are fundamentally inadequate no matter what kind of ammo you are using. Assuming I agree with the details of your post, how does this change how I should fight using FMJ v JHP in any way? In REAL WORLD difference, three good hits with EITHER would likely do the job as well as it's going to get done. None of this changes that you should use the biggest, nastiest round you can handle. If you ARE able to hand it, that means you can get hits with it. If you can't get hits with it, then you obviously need to use something smaller. (And train to be able to use something bigger.)

I don't think you got the intent of my post at all.

 

[LibertySympathizer]

Nah, I changed my mind....

Is that a small rifle, or a really really long barreled handgun, lol.

 

[APIT50]

45 ACP if u non-expanding aka "ball" ammo, punching the largest wound channel will be the most effective
High velocity smaller caliber tends to punch holes while doing little damage to the target unless you can hit bone

 

[Manco]

Manco, you did read the part where I carry 230 gr HSTs, right? You should take every advantage you can get, no matter how subtle.

Handguns are fundamentally inadequate no matter what kind of ammo you are using. Assuming I agree with the details of your post, how does this change how I should fight using FMJ v JHP in any way? In REAL WORLD difference, three good hits with EITHER would likely do the job as well as it's going to get done. None of this changes that you should use the biggest, nastiest round you can handle. If you ARE able to hand it, that means you can get hits with it. If you can't get hits with it, then you obviously need to use something smaller. (And train to be able to use something bigger.)

I don't think you got the intent of my post at all.

In the spirit of the subject of the thread, I felt I had to point out that using FMJ would put you at a disadvantage, albeit small, in comparison to using JHP (obviously that's why you sensibly choose to use JHP in real life), and compare it in terms of scale to the difference between .45 ACP and 9mm in FMJ form. My point was that if you didn't feel that you were at a disadvantage in using .45 FMJ, then you would lose even less going to 9mm FMJ. Taken solely in terms of the "stopping power" of each individual round, I guess it doesn't matter--even if we disagree on the scale of the differences, .45 ACP definitely wins out. That said, the broader notion of selecting a preferred caliber for use with FMJ rounds brings up important issues such as capacity. In my opinion, it's not necessarily better for everybody to use the biggest caliber they can handle well because the per-round effectiveness of the calibers in question is so similar.

 

[MCgunner]

The most important issue for a carry gun regardless of caliber or bullet, to me, is the ability to pocket carry it. I will IWB occasionally, but most of the time, my gun rides in my right, front pocket. That pretty much eliminates .45ACP for me. I have a 9x19 subcompact, a .38, a .380, a 9x18 that are all pocket guns. I'll even carry a NAA mini if I HAVE to due to dress, don't happen often, but I have the option. Caliber is a secondary consideration for me to being armed. If my only option were a 1911 size gun, I wouldn't be armed very often. Might as well drop the permit, in fact.

 

[mljdeckard]

I carry a full-size 1911 everywhere I am legally allowed to, including 100+ degree summers. Adjust your lifestyle and wardrobe to fit the gun, not the other way around.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Amen. I used to carry an M1911 under an untucked T-shirt. Now that I've perfected my tuckable design, I can tuck that T-shirt in.

Last week I was at a meeting, and as we were leaving, one of my friends pulled me aside and stepped into the mens room. He said, "I know you're carrying, but where is it?" He was really amazed that I could carry an M1911 under a T-shirt and even someone who knew I was carrying couldn't spot it.

 

[gearhead]

The most important issue for a carry gun regardless of caliber or bullet, to me, is the ability to pocket carry it. I will IWB occasionally, but most of the time, my gun rides in my right, front pocket. That pretty much eliminates .45ACP for me. I have a 9x19 subcompact, a .38, a .380, a 9x18 that are all pocket guns. I'll even carry a NAA mini if I HAVE to due to dress, don't happen often, but I have the option. Caliber is a secondary consideration for me to being armed. If my only option were a 1911 size gun, I wouldn't be armed very often. Might as well drop the permit, in fact.

Here in South Carolina the rules as to where I can and where I can't carry are such that pocket carry is almost a necessity also. I have a P64, a Bulgarian Makarov, and a Taurus 24/7 Pro Compact .45ACP that each have pocket holsters, but I almost never pocket carry the Taurus because it's so thick that it prints pretty badly. If I go someplace where I feel comfortable carrying the Taurus in the SuperTuck then that's what I do, but I'm also more comfortable with being able to smoothly and quickly draw one of the little Iron Curtain pistols in an emergency rather than fumbling with un-tucking while drawing from the SuperTuck. Therefore, I am almost always pocket carrying.