Regarding Caliber Wars...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm fond of saying "they're handguns, not magic death rays." Basically, so long as we're .38 Special/9mm and bigger, I'm happy (mostly). There are exceptions, as I'm not real trusting 125gr +P .38 Special loads or the target wadcutters some people are comfortable with. Once you're into the FBI load or heavier I have confidence they will do what needs to be done. (For reference I think the ultimate .357 Magnum load would be a 140-145gr Gold Dot or similar at about 1300-fps, as I understand Winchester no longer manufacturers the 145gr Silvertip. And my 9mms are stoked with 127gr +P+ Rangers. I don't own anything in a .40+ caliber anymore.)

But I understand the only sure fire way to make somebody stop what they are doing is to use a Scottish Claymore and I'm a bit short and small to conceal one of those. So a pistol will have to do. :p
 
While I know the real world performance stats between 9mm and .45 acp and feel that both can be shown to perform equally from a statistical perspective, I also understand that at such low velocities, handgun ammo depends on permanent cavity tissue damage to achieve the desired results biologically-speaking (physical stoppage and not psychological stoppage, though real world resutls certainly include psychological stops). So I would prefer the ~38% larger hole of the .45 acp round over the 9mm round because I believe it is more apt to produce biological stops more often than 9mm (everything else being equal).

I am not suggesting that in the real world that 9mm is inferior or that carrying it is makes a person undergunned. I have never seen stats to show that the extra permanent cavity damage is more apt to produce a biological stop in the real world, apparently because no such data set exists. Logic would indicate this to be the case, however. In the real world, however, the vast majority of handgun shooting stops are psychological, not biological, and it doesn't really matter if the person is incapacitated or just gives up so long as they stop their aggression.

NOTE: I carry both. I just prefer .45 acp.
 
Now that muggers wear thousand dollar body armor to rob you of $20 and a fake Rolex, I'm thinking of carrying an AR pistol with armor piercing ammo. That's definitely our biggest worry.

Sarcasm aside, I feel no less safe with a 642 with 5, a 239 with 8, or a G19 with 15.
 
So I would prefer the ~38% larger hole of the .45 acp round over the 9mm round because I believe it is more apt to produce biological stops more often than 9mm (everything else being equal).
Click to expand...

I agree with all but the "I believe" part. A larger hole will produce more stops "everything else being equal". It's the "everything else being equal" part that's (rightly so) up for debate (e.g. proficiency, POI, # hits, # targets, imagination, etc.) and anyone that thinks otherwise is drunk on the 9mm kool-aid.

Using top modern HP ammo they are simply not equal shot vs. shot, not even close really IMO, depending on what "close" or "close enough" means to you. On the "all handguns suck" scale, I'll take the one that sucks the least when I can.

As you noted, .45acp must shrink by 38% to equal 9mm, or 9mm must grow by 62% to equal .45acp. I carry and like both, and likewise prefer .45acp, but those are indeed the numbers. I made a graph:
comparisons-updated.png
 
For those who disagree with shot placement, Why is the .22LR a favorite for delivering the coup-de-grace on game animals?

I've put down Holstein cows with a Colt .22 revolver. At point blank it is very clean.

The 22 works very well on woodchucks if you control were the hit is. Gut shoot them and they run off.
 
Coalman:

I agree with the size of the hole, in paper and other non elastic surfaces. Human skin is remarkably pliable. It is difficult to determine caliber from an entry wound. As a matter of fact, based on my experience, a .25 auto entry wound looks pretty much like a .45 entry wound. Its just, well, a nasty looking puncture wound if shot from any distance. Theres still stuff going on inside, but, the size of the hole is pretty trivial.
 
I agree with all but the "I believe" part. A larger hole will produce more stops "everything else being equal".
Click to expand...

The only problem is, there is no data to prove this one way or the other, hence the "I believe." Your "IMO" is nothing more than my "I believe."

For those who disagree with shot placement, Why is the .22LR a favorite for delivering the coup-de-grace on game animals?
Click to expand...

Because it is inexpensive compared to other ammo.

Once again, shot placement is nothing without trajectory and penetration.
 
I was not advocating the taking of large animals with a .22 in other than the perfect environment. I was merely demonstrating that shot placement is King. Velocity and energy combined with that determines the lethality of the shot.
 
Placement is king....if the bad guy has the common courtesy to stand still for you..in real life, you are doing well to get most of them in the 8 ring.

I'm pretty much with Double naught here. I carry 230 gr HSTs, but I have set my wife up with 115 gr 9mm. I think the real world difference is negligible, and even if it is significant, if she can get 3-4 hits with the 9mm in the same time it takes her to get 1-2 hits with the .45, that's pretty much a wash fforeffectiveness anyway. In addition to the fact she will be more proficient with a gun she actually enjoys shooting.
 
I don't pay much attention to caliber in that I have no problem with having a .380 ACP or .38 Special on me instead of the usual .45 ACP. However, I do agree with one earlier poster in that I don't shoot any of the smaller calibers more accurately or noticeably faster than the .45 ACP. All other things being equal, and for me they are, I'll side with the bigger hole. If I was having problems with followup shots then it would be a different story, but at this point in my life I'm just as fast with the PM45 or 1911 as I am with the PPKs and the Detective Special.
 
Probably not so much as you think it is. A .45 is SOMEWHAT more effective under NORMAL circumstances. When you use terminology like; "superior in every way", it brings to mind people who think that a .45 will pick someone up and knock them over. It won't.

All service pistol rounds suck. The reason we spend so much money and research on building the perfect hollow-point is because there isn't one. The most likely reaction when someone is hit with a handgun is that they will RUN away. We teach multiple hits because you want to make sure they stop what they are doing, regardless of what round you carry. If you know how to shoot and run the gun correctly, you can do the job just fine with ANY service pistol, you don't need to carry a .45.
 
Stop this craziness! If YOU could choose to be shot in the shoulder by a .17 or an anti-tank howitzer round, what would you choose? I know it's a silly hypothetical, but it makes the point. How about a .22 or a .50 cal round? BIGGER IS BETTER ALL THE TIME! Bigger wounds, more loss of blood, bigger shock to the system! Any caliber is just fine for the precision head or heart shot. But no one, and I mean NO ONE, is so good as to be able to make such shots all the time, especially such shots against multiple men under stress. This is the EXACT reason our military moved away from .38's to .45's in the earlier part of the last century, and it's the exact reason why some of our military outfits are now choosing the .45 over the 9mm.

Wanna know why my go-to pistol is a .45? Because they don't make a .65!!
 
I was once a .45 fanboy.

I set them aside and now carry either a 9mm or 40 sw daily for work, and a J-frame .38 when I'm off.

Guns are carried a LOT more than they get fired. A balance can be found. A hit with a 9mm is better than a miss with anything. You are right that there is no .65, but there is a .50 GI. Why not go to it if bigger really is better?
 
I read all posts on this thread, and I'm still not sure about where to ask this question, but anyway, here it is.

I have a 9mm Beretta Nano with a 3" barrel.

I also have a S&W .38 special Model 36-1 J-frame. It also has a 3" barrel.

Using standard ammo - 115gr 9mm and 130gr 38 special - which would have the greater stopping power?
 
I won't do your research, but I'll tell you what I do;

Subcompact XD 9mm some days at work (other days a XDM40 compact), and my M-36 with +P Gold Dots for Short Barrel off-duty.
 
Not for the reasons you THINK it's better. The difference is subtle, not overwhelming. And if the lower recoil of a 9 lets you get another hit in the same amount of time, the difference is negated entirely.

I do a lot of work with 19th Group. They carry M-9s with NATO ammo.
 
The only problem is, there is no data to prove this one way or the other, hence the "I believe." Your "IMO" is nothing more than my "I believe."
Click to expand...

Really? Big/Dangerous game hunters have proven larger and heavier is more effective time and again. They use larger and heavier projectiles (rifle vs. rifle) when smaller, lighter and faster ones are available. They pick what keeps them from getting killed best. The concepts are identical here service caliber vs. service caliber and I just never get why some do not apply the same "real" and "proven" outcomes to dangerous human targets. Or, even just basic reasoning. With an identical path/tract (which falls under "everything else being equal"), do we really need "data" to support a (larger) 13" long .451" cylindrical contact hole is more effective than a (smaller) 13" .355" cylindrical contact hole? Or, when comparing a 1.5x-1.6x expanded hole of the same depth for each? (elastic closure rebut noted below.)

So it's real clear, I like and use 9mm. I think 9mm is a great caliber, and the most ideal caliber for most shooters. I think it's capacity, recoil control, cost to practice, and gun size helps offset it's inferior shot vs. shot performance vs. .45acp. But, that does not delude me into thinking modern 9mm HP (the caliber) is "better" than modern .45acp HP (the caliber) just because I (the shooter) may be better with 9mm.

I agree with the size of the hole, in paper and other non elastic surfaces. Human skin is remarkably pliable. It is difficult to determine caliber from an entry wound. As a matter of fact, based on my experience, a .25 auto entry wound looks pretty much like a .45 entry wound. Its just, well, a nasty looking puncture wound if shot from any distance. Theres still stuff going on inside, but, the size of the hole is pretty trivial.
Click to expand...

I always find the above argument an oddly illogical and contradictory argument in this context. In handguns, most all agree it's only what's contacted directly that counts. But, then I repeatedly read/hear the above "elastic closure" argument, often by 9mm fans, saying, well, actually, directly contacting more stuff is not actually better because the hole closes anyway. Makes absolutely no sense to me. Contacting more of the right stuff is better than contacting less of the right stuff. Seriously, if I showed you a 6" long .355" diameter pick and a 6" long .451" diameter pick, and you had to choose, would you really choose the larger pick to be jabbed with because, hey, you can't tell the difference anyway once you pull it out? Again, the elastic closure argument makes no sense to me.

Almost every one chooses or switches to 9mm because 1) it costs less to shoot, 2) it's easier to shoot well, 3) it's higher capacity or 4) the guns are smaller/lighter. But, then many, and in growing herd mentality number it seems, as they choose or make the switch I imagine, contrive 5) "9mm is also just as effective as .45acp" to support support and validate 1-4 so they can feel at peace with going 9mm. In reality, reasons 1-4 are enough in themselves, and modern 9mm HP adequately effective enough, to make 9mm a better choice for most shooters. So, in closing, 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. I'll conclude my comments in this thread with that.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious how many different conversations are going on here...

What's your purpose for carrying? Are you military or a private contractor on the front line and apt to get into a firefight? Are you LE who is required to engage a threat? Are you a businessman carrying due to a tangible threat? A permit holder who wants to protect himself and his loved ones? A homeowner exercising his right to proect his domain? What weapon you choose is an individual choice based on the above and a LOT of other factors.

I was LE in a major city for 27 years, with 16 of those years exclusively investigating homicides and officer involved shootings. I saw THOUSANDS of shooting victims in my career (we had 300+ homicides a year at the worst of times). Not too many stay aggressive after they've been shot by ANYTHING. I can think of a couple of officers who were shot and stayed in the fray, but the bad guys usually split (if they could).

I'm not disagreeing with your discussions on shot placement or caliber or how many rounds you get on target being important factors, but we each have different requirements. If you are Military or LE and HAVE to engage and pursue, then you need enough firepower and skill to achive that. If you're a permit holder protecting yourself from a potentially hazardous environment, you may not need a howitzer on your hip.

What I am comfortable carrying today (retired) is not what I would have been confortable with while working. At this point in my life I just want to abate the threat, and don't HAVE to chase the perp through the projects in the middle of the night. The mere presence of a firearm will abate most of what we (civilians) might encounter in our lifetimes.

There are a lot of very nice firearms available to you today in a variety of calibers. You may be confident enough in your abilities to carry a .32 Seecamp, or feel that you need a .44 Automag. A lot will depend on your environment and the perceived threats. Buy what you are comfortable and CONFIDENT carrying, then practise, practise, practise, and hope you never have the need.
 
Fwiw, same arguments discussed by me and my buddies in early 90s. No firm conclusions reached then either n
 
40S&W cause that's what I have, it works, I can load it to do what I want, double stack so I don't need another clip, cause if the wife doesn't like it she can go for her parring knife.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
How would mag capacity restrictions change your SD handgun selection?
2 3
Replies
73
Views
4K
TomJ
TomJ
TarDevil
  • Locked
Does caliber choice change?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
3K
otasan56
O
G
  • Locked
Shot Placement!!! Blah, Blah, Blah
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Missouri Mule
M
C
  • Locked
Do choose your defensive guns based on caliber or platform?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
Chuck Jennings
C
R
  • Locked
Internet Calibre Posts
Replies
18
Views
398
RyanM
R
Back
Top