Maybe the 9mm isn't very effective!

[MCgunner]

but if the size of the bullet doesn't matter, why not use a .22?

Because, the .22LR packs a whoppin' 75 ft lbs, unless of course, you're talkin' the thousand +ft lbs a .223 is makin' out of an M16. That's a pretty fair man stopper. No worse apples and oranges than .45 vs .22LR in my mind. Just shows energy DOES matter. The .45ACP makes up to about 550 ft lbs in some loads. That's pretty hot. That's hotter than I can get out of any 9mm. That does not mean the 9 is ineffective and it sure is chambered in easy to carry pistols. The .45 demands IWB.

The .38 special has killed an aweful lot of people and it isn't near the level of the 9 or the .45. With modern loads, it's an even more effective cartridge today than it has been in the past. The old 158 grain lead round nose was pretty pathetic. the FBI load has a good track record.

 

[Biker]

Ah, but the argument is about bullet *diameter*, yes? I believe that I said "All things being equal"...

Biker

 

[Deer Hunter]

All things being equal, a .1 diameter difference wont harm much. And if you are counting on that .1 inch to save your ass, then you need more target practice.

But all things are not equal. There are too many variable to say which is better in each given situation. I assume the .45 would be more adequate than a 9mm, but don't count it out. As already mentioned, the .38 special has a great record.

 

[BluesBear]

You have to bring some Pi to the party.

When you compare 9mm to .45 you not really talking about .10"
That's linear thinking.
You're comparing circumfrence ot area of a circle.
Unless you're shooting some sort of wierd square bullets.

 

[xiphur]

i guess nobody even bothered to read the link i posted. puts a lot of arguments to rest.

 

[JohnKSa]

if the size of the bullet doesn't matter, why not use a .22?

It's always possible to choose an extreme case to make a credible sounding but not so useful point.

Sort of like saying if a .22 is so impotent then why do we bother to exercise gun safety when handling rimfires?

Or "proving" the effectiveness of a caliber by challenging someone to stand in front of it.

Ok, that level of persistence deserves an answer.

There are no experts claiming that a .22 rimfire is as effective as a 9mm. However, there is definitely evidence to suggest that WITHIN THE SERVICE PISTOL CALIBER CLASS similarities in performance are more marked than the performance differences. (Yes, regardless of bullet diameter.)

So while it's not GENERALLY correct to argue that bullet diameter doesn't matter, it is possible to support the argument that bullet diameter (or any other specific ballistic parameter one chooses) is largely irrelevant WITHIN THE SERVICE PISTOL CALIBER CLASS.

xiphur,

There are credible challenges to much of the information on the website you posted. It is certainly an overstatement to say that ANYTHING currently available on this topic puts much of anything "to rest." That is precisely the reason that these discussions drag on interminably. If there were really anything that was truly conclusive, it would put a quick end to all such debates.

 

[BluesBear]

xiphur, do not despair.


There will always be those who continue to debate simply because they passionately want their beliefs to be correct. At some time in our life we are all quilty of this.



And then there are those who just plain refuse to be educated by facts.

 

[Jamie C.]

And then there are those who just plain refuse to be educated by facts.

True.... but it'd also be really helpful if people had all of the facts, rather than just some of 'em, and a whole lot of opinion and speculation (often passed off as fact ).

I mean, there's minor little details like how much energy is enough, and at what point is more than that just wasted? Anybody got a quick formula for how much energy per square inch/millimeter/whatever human tissue can absorb before it gives way and allows the projectile to just keep on going? This'll have to be some kind of average, of course, since none of us are really the same.... Might take more to break your hide than mine... might take less.

Then again, if someone could figure out how to make a perfect synthetic replica of a human body, then make it in varying sizes... But no, that won't work either, since it removes the mental aspect of what happens when a person is shot....

So... it looks like the debate will continue.... at least until somebody invents the phaser.

Ah well... it gives me something to read, on those nights when I can't sleep, and there's nothing worth watching on the TV....



J.C.

 

[MCgunner]

When you compare 9.. to .45 you not really talking about .10"
That's linear thinking.
You're comparing circumfrence ot area of a circle.
Unless you're shooting some sort of wierd square bullets.

I'll state this again, the idea that the bigger diameter bullet will help you hit a vital where the 9mm would have missed amounts to 1/2 of .1" or .05 inches from center of the bullet (radius). This has nothing to do with surface area. If you were .025" from hitting the heart with a 9mm, the .45 would nick the heart muscle, so what?

Biker, in your example of the .22 and the .45, you say all things are equal, but diameter? I say you're wrong, the standard pressure .45 is packin' 360 ft lbs to the .22's 75 or so. Velocity and mass are much less, therefore energy is less and you're comparing an apple to an orange between the .22 and the .45. With the 9mm, mass is less, but velocity is higher. Since energy is proportional to the square of velocity, even though the mass is less, the 9mm still packs around 360 ft lbs in a non-+P load.

Carry your big bullet gun. It will work. I just don't see why you (or anyone else) are so anxious to deride the 9mm. You think it won't hurt you? The statistics suggest otherwise. We all have our reasons, delusional or not, for carrying what we do. Mine is 11 rounds of +P at 400+ ft lbs that rides in a 14 ounce gun in my pocket that is 100% functional and that will shoot to point of aim and shoot into 3.5" at 25 yards. That makes me feel warm and fuzzy on the bad side of town. I ain't knockin' the .45 here, I just know better than to think it's much better than the 9x19 for killin' Homo sapiens.

 

[bama6]

I could go either way on the 9mm. I have to 9x18 makarovs for home and auto defense. But I only use hollow points for that reason. When I am at the range I use standard balls. But I also keep (my big brother) a Ruger Super Blackhawk single action revolver. (just in case)


just rember guns dont kill,people do.

 

[pcf]

Did you know

I have received this from a reliable internet source, who is putting his life in danger to get the word out.......

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was actually killed with a prototype Sig p226 Navy SEEL pistol chambered in 45acp.

The explosions you see at the "safe house" were actually caused by two .45 ball rounds fired from an "operators" prototype Sig. The BATF was fearful that criminals would start buying these pistols, so as a courtesy the Military said the destruction was caused by PGMs.

That's why everyone should carry a 45acp.

From another reliable source, I heard that NYPD switched to 9mm from 38spcl, because the 38 revolvers were too deadly and presented too much danger to criminals.

(I can't back any of this up with factual information)

 

[Biker]

MCgunner...

I'm not downing the nine, I own two of 'em. I carry a 45LC most of the time though. My point of contention is, put very simply (I'm a simple guy), the bigger the hole, all thing being equal, the better.
For someone to argue differently would be to say that the size of the hole doesn't matter.

Biker

 

[JohnKSa]

My point of contention is, put very simply (I'm a simple guy), the bigger the hole, all thing being equal, the better.

All things are not equal, and that's the point. What you give up in diameter you get back in other ways. That's why the service pistol class calibers are all pretty similar in performance. And that's beside the fact that the practical differences in this class of pistol are really pretty insignificant.

You can't oversimplifyand get a useful result unless you take your argument to the extreme. Any attempt to reduce stopping power to a simple measurement of one or two parameters (i.e. diameter, velocity, momentum, energy, expansion, penetration, etc.) is doomed to failure. If it were that simple, this debate would have ended before it even had a chance to get going good. Maybe a century ago or more.

 

[BluesBear]

MCgunner, I don't know why you quoted me and then rebutted someone else?

Perhaps you have confused me with someone else?


I haven't said that 9mm wasn't good enough.
I haven't said that .45 is better.

In the comment you quoted I was merely pointing out the folly of those whose standard comment is "Well, it's only .10" different."
Which, by the way, I don't recall you saying.
Which means that comment was not directed to you.


Since we're discussing a three dimensional object you have to look at it as such. You can not do a proper comparison with a one dimensional comment.

People are quick to quote energy as foot-pounds to illustrate how one bullet compares to another. But that's incorrect since energy is simply a calculation of weight and velocity. And when you double the velocity you quadruple the energy. But do you quadruple the wounding ability?

You can have two bullets with the same paper energy that will react very differently when rapidly inserted into living tissue.

The ability to create a wound relies on more factors than simple foot pounds.
You HAVE to take into account the size and the shape of the projectile.

It's a whole lot more complicated than just speed.
It's a whole lot more complicated than just size.
It's a whole lot more complicated than just shape.
It's a whole lot more complicated than just weight.

You have to consider ALL of the factors together.
Anything less is just mathematical masterbation.

 

[JohnKSa]

You have to consider ALL of the factors together.

Including a good many that you did not list--several of which are very poorly understood even by the experts and/or virtually impossible to quantify in any useful manner.

 

[Checkman]

I'm authorized to carry a Glock 19, Glock 26 and a S&W Model 49 'Bodyguard' (38 spc). I also have a Remington 870 police model in my car. I feel like I'm well armed.

The G19 rides in my duty holster and the G26 rides in a holster velcroed to my vest. I also carry an additional 15 round magazine attached to my vest. I'll probably never need all that firepower, but it sure is comforting to know that it's there.

If nothing else I have a duty-load of 72 115 grain Federal Hydra shok rounds on my person and ten rounds of 00 buck and slug for my shotgun. My S&W is usually stashed in my car. Lots of metal.

They might not be the biggest bullets but I have alot of them.Sometimes you have to make do with what you've got - or what you're authorized to carry.


Guess that will have to do me.

 

[MCgunner]

MCgunner, I don't know why you quoted me and then rebutted someone else?

Here's the part of my post that rebutted your post.....

I'll state this again, the idea that the bigger diameter bullet will help you hit a vital where the 9mm would have missed amounts to 1/2 of .1" or .05 inches from center of the bullet (radius). This has nothing to do with surface area. If you were .025" from hitting the heart with a 9mm, the .45 would nick the heart muscle, so what?

 

[Biker]

Isn't nicking the aorta better than not nicking it? It's strange that I would even have to ask that question.
Given a choice between nicking the aorta with a 45 or missing it with a 9mm, what choice would you make?

Biker

 

[DoctorWho]

McGunner

McGunner posted:

"You neglect the needs of proper concealment to meet the letter of the law and the needs of the armed citizen."

I understand the needs part, but what does concealment and the letter of tha Law mean ?
I have CCW in WA State, and the law only stipulates concealed, it does not say it can't bulge.


"A subcompact 9 happens to be the smallest, lightest service caliber pistol available."

I have a pocket sized Bersa Mini Firestorm in .45 acp as a CCW.
It is as small as most 9mm's.

"The .357 mag in a 2" is little more powerful than the 410 ft lbs I get from a P11 using +P. It fits in a large pocket and weighs 14 ounces unloaded, which means I will have it with me when the SHTF. My 35 ounce K frame sized .357 mag and my P90 will be at home in the safe in all likelihood."

I will always CCW what I have.
If that is a 9mm, fine, but I prefer a .45 acp.

 

[MCgunner]

Isn't nicking the aorta better than not nicking it? It's strange that I would even have to ask that question.
Given a choice between nicking the aorta with a 45 or missing it with a 9mm, what choice would you make?

We're talkin' 5/100 inch here. That's my point. What's that, about the width of a thumb nail, maybe a little more? Depends on your thumb nails I reckon.

I understand the needs part, but what does concealment and the letter of tha Law mean ?
I have CCW in WA State, and the law only stipulates concealed, it does not say it can't bulge.

Texas law states that it can't be noticable by "the casual bystander". I just don't want that "casual bystander" to be a cop looking at the bulge in my waste at 4 o'clock. I'd like to keep my license.

I have a pocket sized Bersa Mini Firestorm in .45 acp as a CCW.
It is as small as most 9mm's.

And how much does it weigh? I know it only takes one .45 to blow a man in half, but I can carry up to 13 rounds flush fit in the 9, though I only have 10 round mags for it. All that in a pocket with 14 ounce unloaded weight. That's just hard to beat in a pocket gun.

I will always CCW what I have.
If that is a 9mm, fine, but I prefer a .45 acp.

Whatever floats your boat. I never stated that the .45 doesn't work. I do prefer subcompact 9s, but that's me. I don't buy that it'll bounce off flesh, either. My needs in concealment require tiny, light weight guns. I have a .45, but I hardly ever carry it and never in summer, though I shoot it quite well. It's an excellent gun, very accurate and 100% reliable with everything I've tried in it.

I don't know a whole lot about it, but I'd look into the Patriot .45 if I was a big bore nut. It looks quite compact, though probably a bit large for pocket carry. Hard to find one, though. I hear they have a rather low production rate.

 

[Biker]

MCgunner...

It's aaalll about edges. I'll take 'em where I can get 'em.
Now, you didn't answer my question - is it better to nick the aorta or not?

Biker

 

[longeyes]

We're talkin' 5/100 inch here. That's my point. What's that, about the width of a thumb nail, maybe a little more? Depends on your thumb nails I reckon.

What, though, is the difference in the size of the wound channel or temporary cavity, both calibers using hollow-points?

 

[kbheiner7]

I think someone posted this somewhere in this thread, but the .45 is about 24% larger in frontal area than the 9mm.

 

[MCgunner]

I don't believe my edge is measured in hundredths of an inch, but it might be measured in tenths of seconds... You nick that aorta with one shot while I put 2 9mms in the heart. The end results will be the same, I reckon.

And, how come everyone lauds the .357 magnum if energy has no place in this equation. it is, but two thousandths bigger than the 9, ya know. It should be totally ineffective, too, if the 9mm is ineffective, right???? I've never quite understood that of the big bore crowd. They say the 9 is no better than a .22, but the .357 is acceptable? Don't make sense to me, not if you don't believe energy isn't part of the terminal ballistics equation, if you believe the ONLY thing that matters is how big the bullet is, you should shun the .357 magnum as totally inadequate just like this thread shuns the 9mm.

 

[MidnightRambler]

Did anyone notice another poster in that thread who claimed to know the pathologist, yet the pathologist never responded when that person inquired?

Also, after the pathologist said he was going on to other subjects on the S&W board, he has disappeared. No more postings.

He has knowledge, but I'm going to take what he claims about working in the morgue with a grain of salt.