FMJ for Defense: 10mm vs. .45 ACP

[AR-Tenner]

Hi everyone,

I have been a fan of this forum and first cut my teeth on firearms knowledge here back when I was 18 (2006). I have just in the last few weeks come up with a question to which I cannot find a useful and informed answer. That question is; if you are stuck with FMJ, would the .45 ACP (standard 230gr ball) be better because of the obvious wider diameter and heavier weight, or would the 10mm or .40 (180/200gr fmj) win out because of the flat point of its standard ball round?

I had always taken it for granted that the .45 was the king of FMJ pistol effectiveness, and while I carry with 230gr gold dot and have it stacked deep, one big reason I got into the .45 was that even the FMJ practice anmo was a pretty decent manstopper.

I have been reading recently, however, about the relative efficacy of flat point solids for hunting in big bore rifle cartridges, and how that bullet shape had the effect of crushing and cutting tissue, giving good wound tracks. I am wondering whether anyone has experience with these two rounds side by side, and particularly if someone had tested them on gel and compared the wound track diameters.

There is also a flat point 230gr FMJ for the .45 from Nosler, but it is quite expensive, while 10mm flat point fmjs are cheap and plentiful.

Thanks in advance

 

[beeenbag]

If I couldn't have an expanding bullet, I would choose the 45 acp with a lead swc. You'd get the heavy weight bullet with a wider diameter and have the "cutting" effect of the shoulders.

 

[azrocks]

In the real world an expanding design has a really good chance of not expanding anyway.

I'd go w/ the .45.

 

[JTQ]

I think the difference is too small to be concerned about.

You can get truncated cone .45ACP ammo, if that's the bullet you prefer.

 

[jmr40]

Ahh, the myth of the bigger 45 bullet. In reality a .45" hole is a small hole, a .40" or even a .35" isn't enough smaller to make any difference. The myth continues to be spread, but in real testing going back at least 100 years a 9mm FMJ and a 45 FMJ have always been a statistical tie in performance. It has always been a tie when both were tested with similar HP bullets, and both did much better. Too many people would rather believe the fictional writings of Jeff Cooper than look at the actual test data.

I know of no 10mm vs 45 head to head testing with FMJ, but wouldn't think there would be a significant statistical difference against human threats. I do know that the flat point hardcast bullets in any caliber penetrate deeper and that it could make a difference with larger animal protection. I also know that all things being equal 45 penetrates the least of the 3, especially if barriers are encountered. I'd take the penetration of the 10mm. Getting a bullet deep enough to hit vitals is the key especially on larger animals.

 

[sothoth]

in real testing going back at least 100 years a 9mm FMJ and a 45 FMJ have always been a statistical tie in performance.

If you place the shots well, it doesn't make a difference if it was 9 or 45. It's mainly personal preference dictated by your experience and world view and what you are most comfortable shooting accurately. The rest is (imho) placing too much emphasis on minor differences.

I hate to use such examples but there are lots of dead people who were killed by 9mm and they might have a bone to pick with you for suggesting it was insufficient.

 

[sothoth]

I'd go with 45 for home defense because I shoot it well and wall penetration is minimal (compared to 10), but if you shoot someone with either, they're going down. Well, assuming you shoot for center of mass and place it well.

 

[JohnBiltz]

Aside from some 3d world countries and New Jersey where exactly is it harder to get good JHP than 10mm?

The other thing I question would be what would the point be in having 10mm instead of .40. With no expansion both are going to simply punch a 10mm hole in something and exit out the other side taking all that extra energy with it. I don't see the point in dealing with that energy while shooting just to see it all exit away. In anything except a hunting or outdoor situation I don't see the point.

 

[Predator55]

For a hunting situation the 10 mm is the way to go. For self defense, either one will work as long as proper bullet placement occurs. I know of a guy who had to shoot someone who jumped over the counter at his gu. Shop, he shot him twice with his 45 and it didn't so the job, he has moved up to a 10. If your looking for a gun to do both I would suggest a 44

 

[CDW4ME]

Fortunately most of us are not stuck with FMJ.
Regardless, I would go with whichever I shot "best" Glock 29/30 or 20/21 ect...

 

[huntsman]

I have been reading recently, however, about the relative efficacy of flat point solids for hunting in big bore rifle cartridges, and how that bullet shape had the effect of crushing and cutting tissue, giving good wound tracks.

I'm no rifle guy but I believe it's the velocity that makes those bullets work, at handgun velocity I don't think you can get the same effect or at least below 1200fps.

 

[RecoilRob]

If defending yourself from people type animals, either would work fine if you have full power 45 ball. Have seem some that only comes out in the mid 700's which might not work as intended whereas few people have complained about the 230 ball at 850.

If defending from large hairy/toothy type animals the 10mm would get the nod from me as the 200 FMJ penetrates deeply and should drive farther into the target than the 45 ball will. This is assuming, of course, that you can deliver both calibers with equal precision being as WHERE it hits is much more important than WHAT hit it.

From a Colt Delta the full-house 200 FMJ 10mm is a pretty stout proposition and MUCH more difficult to shoot well than your garden variety 45 ball from equivalent pistol...at least it is to me. But I've loved the 10mm since 1987 when I got my first one and then had to wait about 6 months to get ammo for it. That sucked BAD!!

 

[roscoe]

10mm comes in heavy hardcast (I believe up to 230 grain), which will do a far better job at crushing/penetrating than anything ever manufactured in .45ACP. That said, I think 10mm is overkill for personal defense, and is MUCH louder, should you ever have to touch one off indoors in self-defense. I save mine for woods use.

 

[AlfonsDeWolf]

There are pics of truncated cone and swc bullets that tumble vs wc and slightly rounded bullets that don't. Tumbling is your friend.

 

[Panzerschwein]

To claim that FMJ 9mm and .45 ACP perform the same is just ridiculous.

Ask the boys in the sandbox which one they would rather have.

 

[kokapelli]

Placement, Placement, Placement always trumps caliber.

 

[MIL-DOT]

I get really sick of being lectured on "shot placement". Obviously, a quick,clean double-tap in the brain or heart is ideal, and ends the problem, but in the real world, the overwhelming majority of American gun toters don't have the time or the money to devote to classes, non-stop training, and sending 10,000 rounds a year down range.
Also, in the extremely unlikely event that we're ever forced to use our pistols, it's likely to be a very quick, unpredictable, high-stress, encounter, where most folks will be lucky to hit the target at all, much less get groups of center-mass and head shots.
It's real easy to say "shot placement", but a lot more difficult and less realistic for the average citizen to expect or rely on it, in the middle of a brief,stressful,surprise encounter.

 

[huntsman]

10mm comes in heavy hardcast (I believe up to 230 grain), which will do a far better job at crushing/penetrating than anything ever manufactured in .45ACP. That said, I think 10mm is overkill for personal defense, and is MUCH louder, should you ever have to touch one off indoors in self-defense. I save mine for woods use.

These would be close No?

45 ACP +P OUTDOORSMAN
255 gr. Hard Cast FN (925 fps/M.E. 484 ft. lbs.)

45 ACP +P OUTDOORSMAN 255 gr. Hard Cast FN (925 fps/M.E. 484 ft. lbs.)

 

[kokapelli]

I get really sick of being lectured on "shot placement". Obviously, a quick,clean double-tap in the brain or heart is ideal, and ends the problem, but in the real world, the overwhelming majority of American gun toters don't have the time or the money to devote to classes, non-stop training, and sending 10,000 rounds a year down range.
Also, in the extremely unlikely event that we're ever forced to use our pistols, it's likely to be a very quick, unpredictable, high-stress, encounter, where most folks will be lucky to hit the target at all, much less get groups of center-mass and head shots.
It's real easy to say "shot placement", but a lot more difficult and less realistic for the average citizen to expect or rely on it, in the middle of a brief,stressful,surprise encounter.

You may be tired of hearing it, but at the end of the day it is still "shot placement" that counts above everything else.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Aside from some 3d world countries and New Jersey where exactly is it harder to get good JHP than 10mm?

That was my first thought. Unless deep penetration is the goal, such as critter defense, FMJ (or hard cast, etc) is a rather poor choice for any cartridge that can achieve sufficient penetration with expanding bullets.

I'm no rifle guy but I believe it's the velocity that makes those bullets work, at handgun velocity I don't think you can get the same effect or at least below 1200fps.

You start to see rifle type wounding characteristics, with the huge temporary cavity and a permanent cavity significantly larger than bullet diameter, around 2,000 FPS.

 

[MIL-DOT]

..... but at the end of the day it is still "shot placement" that counts above everything else.

Well,sure, no kidding (as I already stipulated), but the point is that it's such a blatantly obvious point, one that everybody is fully aware of, that it's pointlessly redundant to have it broadcast with the frequency that it is.
Plus,in reality, the overwhelming majority of gun toters are just regular folks, that aren't trained on the razor's edge, and will be lucky to have the presence of mind and reflexes to assess the situation, and get off a shot or two that hit anyplace on the badguy. Lectures on shot placement from strangers on the internet, or retroactive armchair quarterbacking after the fact, don't alter or improve this reality.
Obviously, a major organ or CNS hit is most ideal, but in the extreme stress of an instantly-materializing life-or-death situation, the tiniest fraction of gun toters are going to have the presence of mind or skillset for "shot placement" to ever get factored in, regardless of how much difference it may make, so endlessly harping on it is, at the end of the day, pretty much useless.

 

[Robert101]

I agree shot placement reminders are too over the top. In a stressful situation drawing and hitting your target center mass is the realistic goal. Take a look at various large police department shooting statistics and you will find that 40% hit ratios are not that uncommon. Where is shot placement with the guys that do this for a living. I'm not bagging on policeman but emphasizing that under stress most of us will loose that paper target accuracy we so train for.
I would say if limited to only FMJ my first choice would be a lighter 155 grain 10MM traveling at over 1,300 fps. Get the speed up and hope for more shock and penetration from that pistol round. Of course, you could always find out why your gun will not feed some sort of Gold Dot or Winchester PDX1 round and fix it. Which is what I would do.

 

[sothoth]

A friend of a friend told me when he was in the military he was in a gun fight 1:1 and both guys emptied their magazines (him with a beretta) and neither party was hit at pretty close range (7-10 yards). He ultimately survived by reloading fastest and got as close as possible to the other guy and took him down at close range with a chest shot.

I think the overused point about shot placement is important due to inaccuracy in stressful situations. I also think the point that it matters a lot what you're shooting is moot unless you hit the actual target.

Both statements are overused because they're inquired about endlessly on here but not because they're not valid.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Hears the real deal:

Living tissue is EXTREMELY resilient. It has an incredible ability to stretch, and then snap back to its original, or near original, shape. Poke a simple hole in tissue, even, and when you withdraw the poking object, you can see the hole in the tissue close most of the way back up because of this incredible elasticity.

What prevents tissue from doing this is physical trauma which actually cuts or tears the tissue.

When you shoot a round nosed bullet into tissue, there is minimal tissue tearing/cutting. The bullet literally pokes a hole in the tissue and enlarges it juuuuuuust enough to allow the bullet to penetrate. When the bullet passes through, the hole closes up behind it...and with minimal damage. Think of a round nosed bullet as an oversized needle. A bit simplistic, to be sure, but a fair analogy.

Even higher velocity handgun bullets, which cause more tissue deformation by the shockwave propagating through the tissue, causes very little more tissue damage...the hole close right back up because the tissue stretches and does not tear.


NOW...change the shape of the bullet and you have another story.

Give a bullet a flat nose and now the bullet doesn't act to push its way though tissue as efficiently as before, like an oversized needle...now the flat top acts to actually CUT or TEAR a hole in the tissue as the bullet passes through.

The hole, even when the tissue elasticity makes the tissue spring back, now has a physical hole actually cut through the tissue. So it's a bigger hole. Take a look at paper targets show with round nosed bullets and compare those holes with ones made by wadcutters. Big difference.


Change the shape of the bullet again and allow it to expand upon impact with soft tissue...and the physical trauma is increased even further through additional cutting and tearing. The tissue is less able to elastically spring back, because the tissue has been cut and carved up.


The bottom line is that the answer to your question is one of relativism. And the comparison between different bullet designs, as well as different calibers, masses, and velocities, is not an easy one.

In the immortal words of Frank Ettin:

“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.”

 

[Terminatorret]

Kokapelli has it right.
Placement, placement, placement.
All else pales in comparison.
One .22 LR placed in the CNS triangle trumps multiple .45/10mm hits in the arms, shoulders, legs, hips...I spent the last 15 years working as an RN in a level-2 trauma ER.
Actually, I lie. 100% firearm reliability is the Ace, for me. Yes, I prefer a gun that ALWAYS works...clean/dirty, fmj/jhp, cheap/expensive ammo, oily/dry (i.e., revolver). Placement is the King. Of course, as you all have heard, penetration is Queen. Caliber? It's further down the list somewhere unless we're talking artillery size munitions. Yeah, I don't want to take a 105mm anywhere on this old body.
I've seen way too many .22 and .25 and .380 deaths due to proper shot placement, and an equally high number of large caliber survivors who just didn't get "plugged" in the right place...that includes 12-guage.
If you have a 100% reliable firearm...PLACEMENT.