M4C News letter, 9mm -v- .45

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CANNONMAN

member
Joined
Apr 16, 2014
Messages
892
I know this horse will never get up from the beating it takes but... If you got this news "update" from the M4C News Letter, what do you think about the poll? If not, the poll was overwhelmingly in favor of the 9mm. The question was, my words, what carry or range gun caliber and ammo choice would you choose? The question was give to a group of well known pros. Always interesting to hear this groups thoughts.
 
Yes, a testament to the genius of Georg Luger.

I believe people underestimate the true genius of Georg Luger. When he created the Pistole Parabellum and the 9x19mm cartridge, he very nearly hit upon the perfect cartridge firing the perfect caliber projectile.
 
What Matters (More) To You?

Capacity = 9mm
Retail ammo cost = 9mm
Recoil = 9mm
Gun size/weight = 9mm
Retail ammo options = 9mm
"Ballistics" = .45acp
Reloading = .45acp
Favorite to shoot = Subjective (not tallied)

Simplified Comparison Tally
9mm = 5
.45acp = 2


Fair handgun comparison examples:
Duty/HD
Glock 17 or 34, 9mm 17+1
Glock 21 SF/G4 or 41, .45acp 13+1
CCW
Glock 19, 9mm 15+1
Glock 30s, .45acp 10+1


Both calibers are good. And, COMPARING OPTIMAL HP AMMO AND HANDGUNS differences exist. It comes down to how you value those differences and which of the above matters more to you.


Me:
Capacity = 9mm
Retail ammo cost = Does not matter
Recoil = 9mm
Gun size/weight = Tie in guns that work well for me
Retail ammo options = Does not matter
"Ballistics" = .45acp
Reloading = .45acp
Favorite to shoot = .45acp

9mm = 2
.45acp = 3

I prefer 9mm in small a "bug" CCW or in a full size HD/duty gun. In mid-size (compact) guns I prefer .45acp. So, I will more often opt for the mid/compact size .45acp for primaty CCW and keep the full size 9mm for HD. Forced to choose one today it would likely be .45acp.
 
Last edited:
I think the Glock line is a good example, but if you look at the Kahr line it is an even better example because they strive to be the slimmest guns with the smallest footprint. IMO, Glock has just sort of followed other gun manufacturers in this regard. If you look at the Kahr 45 offerings, they're not as small or lightweight as the 9mm offerings. Arne Boberg's guns are another example. Arne sought to make a pocket nine and did, with the XR9-S Shorty (although a little heavy for pocket carry). He tried to make the smallest .45 ACP possible with the XR45-S Shorty and it is longer, higher and heavier than the XR9-S Shorty. The .45 brings with it a minimum weight and size requirement below which a .45 ACP semiauto will not function reliably and those minimums are larger and heavier than the 9mm minimums.

And that's why I like 9mm. Three inch barreled semi-autos that are roughly 5.25" x 4" weighing 14 ounces will run (most) of the 9mm SD loadings reliably and 9mm bullets out of those 3" barrels are still penetrating 14" in 4x denim gel tests and expanding to around .60 caliber. It is still a "major" caliber in a very pocketable pistol.
 
C0untZer0 said:
I think the Glock line is a good example, but if you look at the Kahr line it is an even better example because they strive to be the slimmest guns with the smallest footprint. IMO, Glock has just sort of followed other gun manufacturers in this regard. If you look at the Kahr 45 offerings, they're not as small or lightweight as the 9mm offerings. Arne Boberg's guns are another example. Arne sought to make a pocket nine and did, with the XR9-S Shorty (although a little heavy for pocket carry). He tried to make the smallest .45 ACP possible with the XR45-S Shorty and it is longer, higher and heavier than the XR9-S Shorty. The .45 brings with it a minimum weight and size requirement below which a .45 ACP semiauto will not function reliably and those minimums are larger and heavier than the 9mm minimums.

And that's why I like 9mm. Three inch barreled semi-autos that are roughly 5.25" x 4" weighing 14 ounces will run (most) of the 9mm SD loadings reliably and 9mm bullets out of those 3" barrels are still penetrating 14" in 4x denim gel tests and expanding to around .60 caliber. It is still a "major" caliber in a very pocketable pistol.
Click to expand...
The gold standard for super compact .45 is S&W CS. The Croatian XDs is newer offering. I can't see way to make .45ACP any smaller than those.
 
The caliber wars and so it goes with all the up, down, twist, and turns of the endless 9mm-Luger and 45ACP debate. Realistically unless you are in the professions of law enforcement and or military you are least likely going to be involved in a shooting incident.
 
The key points from that survey, and I read the original from Bill Wilson on another forum, were for all your training, and you had to pay for it yourself.

I don't know all those guys either, but I suspect most of those guys shoot thousands of rounds per week. The ammo cost and the wear and tear on the body add up over the years. Bill Wilson has commented on the wear and tear that shooting .45 Auto for decades has had on his body.

The answer may be different if the question was…

What round would you choose if you could only shoot 100 rounds per month, but were guaranteed to be in a one on one shootout at least once per month.
 
JTQ said:
The key points from that survey, and I read the original from Bill Wilson on another forum, were for all your training, and you had to pay for it yourself.

I don't know all those guys either, but I suspect most of those guys shoot thousands of rounds per week. The ammo cost and the wear and tear on the body add up over the years. Bill Wilson has commented on the wear and tear that shooting .45 Auto for decades has had on his body.

The answer may be different if the question was…

What round would you choose if you could only shoot 100 rounds per month, but were guaranteed to be in a one on one shootout at least once per month.
Click to expand...
^^^ Ding, ding, ding. Exactly.
 
They both suck compared to .308 Winchester.

Between the two, if I only could make one choice, I'd take 9mm for capacities. Between 9mm and .40, if it's a full size gun, .40 S&W. If it's a smaller concealed carry gun, 9mm.
 
Both Calibers are great but I think 9mm with today's JHPs have the advantage here. That said my primary carry gun is a SIG P220 Combat. I find it more fun to shoot .45 then 9mm and I prefer the grip of the P220 over the P226.
 
Both are fine calibers.

AFAIK the 45 was designed a few years before 9mm Parabellum entered the scene.

It was a response to then-current .38 being too weak to stop drugged up Moro warriors in the Philippines, so Browning went a bit overboard since the Army wanted a sledgehammer.

The European armies at that time had tons of experience fighting wars all over the world - probably far more than the US Army did. Especially the trio of Germany, Russia and France. They felt that Luger had adequately addressed their needs, and by 1940 is was more or less a standard round in most of Europe.

Except Russia - they were so impressed by the performance of even smaller (in diameter) but very powerful 7.23 x 25 Mauser round during their long and very bloody civil war, that they designed all of their new pistols and SMGs around it. I believe it may have something to do with it's stellar performance against opponents wearing thick multi-layered winter clothing topped by even thicker coats. AFAIK it performed just dandy for them in WW2, and from what I read still was the preferred round for thousands of contract murders during their turbulent 1990s. It looks like the 9x18mm Makarov round was in fact a step down in power, probably to make it work well in a smaller blowback operated gun ?

So while .45 and .40 are great, it seems the smaller rounds can be just as effective. At least the 9mm.
 
I own guns in .40 and .45 largely just to have them. However it is hard for me to come up with cogent argument for .45 or .40 over 9x19.

Some one early in this thread stated that .45 ACP has superior ballistics. They didn't qualify that by saying what ballistics they are talking about. exterior? Terminal? When it comes to terminal ballistics I'm not convicted that .45 ACP really is superior in any meaningful way. If that is the case then why would one choose it over 9x19. You end up with a gun that is more difficult to shoot well, holds less ammo and is often larger.

I had an HK 45. Great gun, one of the best 45s made IMHO. Compared to my VP9 (or a P30 if you prefer the action type) it just made little sense. I couldn't shoot it as well, it was significantly larger, and held signicantly fewer rounds.

If some one wants a .45 or a .40 (or a 10mm or 357 sig) more power to them. I'm not surprised that 9mm was the overwhelming favorite. Unless you think the others provide an advantage in terminal ballistics they don't make much sense.
 
I remember reading a "Guns Save Life" story where a burglar broke into a house and the home owner had a 10mm. I was thinking "Oh this is going to be good." Well the home owner shot the home invader in the leg. The bullet went clean through and I think it went through their living room couch too.

Then the cops came, the paramedics took the burglar to the hospital - end of story.

It was very anti-climactic :(
 
I seem to remember reading years ago that when the German military hierarchy was considering adopting the 9mm. cartridge they were also interested in it being less than lethal in combat. Supposedly their reasoning was this: kill an enemy soldier=good; wound an enemy soldier and maybe a couple of his buddies try to help him=better because now two more soldiers might be killed or wounded. The numbers go up exponentially with more wounded enemy soldiers.

I don't know how factual or true this might be but if any country made it a science of studying warfare in all it's various aspects, it would have been the Germans prior to the start of WWI.
 
Here is an article concerning the FBI switch back to the 9x19 and the reasons for it. It is worth a read to anyone interested in caliber debates. Its basic conclusion can be summarized as the projectile in question is more important than the caliber in question and that given the proper choice of projectile a 9x19 is as effective in terms of terminal ballistics as a .40 or .45 It address the basics of terminal ballistics and handgun projectile wounding characteristics. It is that understanding that undoes the idea that a .40 or .45 offers any advantage in terminal ballistics worth the disadvantages that come with them. Given adequate penetration the difference between a projectile that has expanded to .78" is one that has expanded to .86" is fairly negligible. Does one really expect a person to really bleed out significantly faster? Is a CNS hit going to be any less effective?

To quote the article:

Given the above realities and the fact that numerous ammunition manufacturers now make 9mm Luger service ammunition with outstanding premium line law enforcement projectiles, the move to 9mm Luger can now be viewed as a decided advantage for our armed law enforcement personnel.
Click to expand...

http://p2t2solutions.com/fbi-finally-decides-on-standard-service-rounds-for-its-use/
 
Last edited:
Girodin said:
Here is an article concerning the FBI switch back to the 9x19 and the reasons for it. It is worth a read to anyone interested in caliber debates. Its basic conclusion can be summarized as the projectile in question is more important than the caliber in question and that given the proper choice of projectile a 9x19 is as effective in terms of terminal ballistics as a .40 or .45 It address the basics of terminal ballistics and handgun projectile wounding characteristics. It is that understanding that undoes the idea that a .40 or .45 offers any advantage in terminal ballistics worth the disadvantages that come with them. Given adequate penetration the difference between a projectile that has expanded to .78" is one that has expanded to .86" is fairly negligible. Does one really expect a person to really bleed out significantly faster? Is a CNS hit going to be any less effective?

To quote the article:



http://p2t2solutions.com/fbi-finally-decides-on-standard-service-rounds-for-its-use/
Click to expand...
This validation will likey propel 9mm far in the eyes of many. It's just how it goes.

The thing to always keep in mind reading these selection and procurement recommendations is:
You can't tell your troops you're giving them less than the very best. Period.

The imputus to this is important to remember:
1) .40sw accelerates gun wear
2) Smaller stature male and many female shooters have more trouble with .40sw recoil in guns used

It all begins there. And, once started down that path there is no way a move to 9mm will be recommended without statements that it's "equal" as a caliber. So, there's some predisposition bias inherently involved.

For civilians the "9mm movement" started as mostly a cost consideration, accelerating greatly after magazine restrictions went away. Then the inevitable "equal caliber" due to "modern advancements" came later to validate it.

9mm offers greater capacity in a effective caliber that is easier to shoot well. That really should be enough.
 
For me, it's a mixed bag. At the range, on a 9mm day, the love both my High Power and my M-9. If I decide it's a .45 ACP day, I enjoy just as much my Remington R1S and my Colt Gov't Model. Then again, my 9X18 Maks are fun at the range too.
As for carry, I go exclusively with 9mm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

coloradokevin
  • Locked
Please hit this poll
2
Replies
34
Views
876
windsor311
W
M
  • Locked
Ammunition Selection
Replies
24
Views
1K
Charlie Martinez
Charlie Martinez
B
  • Locked
  • Poll
Is cost a factor in choosing a defense caliber?
2 3
Replies
63
Views
2K
helz_mcfugly
H
C
  • Locked
Would a .45 made a difference?
Replies
4
Views
594
Kleanbore
K
P
  • Locked
9mm vs. .45 - but different!
2 3 4 5
Replies
101
Views
8K
jojo200517
J
Back
Top