Stopping Power of .45 Compared to 9mm

[chieftain]

We're talking splitting differences down to 1 more in 40 than not, according to street studies.

What street studies are/is that?

I'm not saying that everyone can....some folks need to stick to the weaker calibers (age, disabilities, weak hands and arms, etc....).

Like 45? I disagree. I think the 45 is as good as the 9mm. Even though it has less energy and much poorer penetration than the 9mm.

The 45 is not as inherently as reliable as the tapered shell of the 9mm, but in the best pistols almost as reliable.

I carry either a 1911 or a BHP. I don't feel the least underguned with either weapon.

MORE ROUNDS IS ALWAYS BETTER THEN LESS, ALWAYS all rationalizations aside. doesn't mean less is bad. More rounds puts you in the situation of possibly having more than you need, that is okay, not having enough rounds in a fight is often fatal.

This is America. You get to choose for yourself. I have survived a bunch of firefights. I don't doubt your combat experience trumps mine all to hell.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[DougDubya]

Ayoob's studies, Farnham's studies, and dare I mention Evan Marshall, as flawed as his statistical analysis may be to external auditors?

Never mind that Fackler's gelatin dessert studies corroborate that the best of the 9mm's (the 127 grain fast steppers) disrupt Jay EE El El Oh as turbulently as the best .45 ACP and .357 Magnum stoppers.

MadOgre had a lovely photo of the ink filled damage trails left by the top fight-stoppers on his weapons page once upon a time. I lost said pic in a hard drive crash.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Its precisely debates like these that cause the internet to be considered an unreliable source for research.

The only thing that's happening here is the same sort of debates that go on in gun shops, shooting ranges, and VFW's.


Any handgun suitable for carry purposes is marginally effective, at best. Handguns are anemic and underpowered, but they are highly portable, which is their strength. Unless shot in the head, roughly 80% of victims shot with a handgun will survive their wounds.


Arguing that the marginally greater .45 ACP round's muzzle energy makes significantly it more effective than a 9mm is a silly distortion. If I am going under the knife for surgery, and am offered a choice between Tylenol and extra-strength Tylenol with Codiene as my anesthetic, no matter of research and magical thinking is going to convince me that Tylenol IV is up to the job.

That's what we're arging over here.


Norinco982lover, the answer your question is, you're asking the wrong question. Which do you shoot better? Which can you control? Which are you more accurate with? How much are you able to afford to spend buying the ammo to become proficient with that choice? Choose the right gun platform first, then decide which round you shoot better.

Its not about the hardward, its the software.

 

[easyg]

Like 45? I disagree. I think the 45 is as good as the 9mm. Even though it has less energy and much poorer penetration than the 9mm.

No. I was referring to the 9mm and other "weaker" calibers (.38, .380, .25, .22, etc...).

We're talking splitting differences down to 1 more in 40 than not, according to street studies.

If the differences are so small, then why did police agencies across the nation trade in their 9mm pistols in favor of pistols that launch a more powerful caliber?

Here's the answer:
Because cops aren't as stupid as some folks think!
The 9mm does not have a very good street reputation for quickly stopping aggressors.....and deservedly so.

 

[bdjansen]

Unless shot in the head, roughly 80% of victims shot with a handgun will survive their wounds.

BullfrogKen, can I ask what your source is on this? I'm not doubting it, just curious.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Source? I'd have to go through about 10 years of notes to see where the source was mentioned. We've discussed the statistic so much during Study Group and with other trainers without sourcing it over the years I can't recall what study it came from now.

If forced to guess, I vaguely recall it came from a medical community study for some .gov research. By who and for whom, I can't say unless I go searching. But when I see daily news coverage about shootings, those stories confirm the statistics. Advances in medical treatment have gone a long way towards increasing survivability, but then again, the pace of bullet technology has also resulted in more effective handgun rounds.

I'll post some statitics of the Virginia Tech shooting.


How badly do you need to know the source?

 

[jad0110]

I'll post some statitics of the Virginia Tech shooting.

Speaking of the VT shooting, if anything would have ended forever the 9mm vs 45 debate, I figured that was it. Guess I was wrong. 9mm, sadly, proved to be pretty darned effective that day. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the specific 9mm ammo Cho used was Speer's 124 grain GoldDot +P. Can anyone confirm?

MadOgre had a lovely photo of the ink filled damage trails left by the top fight-stoppers on his weapons page once upon a time. I lost said pic in a hard drive crash.

You mean this one?





As I said in an early post, they are just pieces of metal of slightly different sizes hurled at varying speeds. Where you put that chunk of lead has more to do with a successful outcome (or not) than the metal itself.

 

[DougDubya]

Jad - you speak the truth!

Thank you for posting that.

All pass the 12 inch dessert penetration requirements of law enforcement, and while the 124 grain isn't as brutal looking as the others (I'd thought it was a bit better), that wound channel, put in the right organ, will do the job well enough.

As always - in 9mm vs. .45, it's which do you shoot better.

And for me, the answer is, .44 Special in a underlugged 4" .44 Magnum, followed closely by a tie between 9mm and .45 (Beretta and Springfield 1911 respectively).

 

[cowssurf]

easyg,

You said: "some folks need to stick to the weaker calibers (age, disabilities, weak hands and arms, etc....)"

I don't even know where to begin. What a silly thing to say. What a patronizing, condescending line to write. I'll bet nearly all the guys who state here that they prefer carrying a nine can handle a .45. Come on. It's not like you're shooting a shotgun with one hand. It's just a .45.

 

[meef]

::thump thump thump::

::damn dead horse is just a glutton for punishment::

 

[BullfrogKen]

I posted some of the results of my study into the Virginia Tech shooting to a new thread in S&T.

easyg, considering the realm of possibilites that policing agencies consider when switching from one caliber to another, if you want to believe you know the univeral answer, you're welcome to believe it.


Don't forget that the temporary cavity produced in that picture a few posts about is only permanent in gellatin. Tissue in the human body is elastic, and at handgun velocities it does not permanently displace. It will absorb that peripheral impact and bruise, but generally remain intact.

Not until velocities approach 1500 fps do temporary cavities begin to become permanent in the body. Above those velocities the human body does not have the elasticity to absorb the impact without sustaining permanent damage.

 

[easyg]

cowssurf:
easyg,

You said: "some folks need to stick to the weaker calibers (age, disabilities, weak hands and arms, etc....)"

I don't even know where to begin. What a silly thing to say. What a patronizing, condescending line to write. I'll bet nearly all the guys who state here that they prefer carrying a nine can handle a .45. Come on. It's not like you're shooting a shotgun with one hand. It's just a .45.

I'm not being silly or patronizing or condescending....

Judging from the responses to various "caliber debate" threads on various forums, it's clear that there are lots of folks who truely believe that they can't make quick follow-up shots with a .45 (or even a .40), or that they can't accurately rapid-fire with a .45 (or .40), or that they can't accurately put lead on target with a .45 (or .40), etc.....

So I ask you, what other conclusion can one draw other than the notion that the .45 is just too powerful for some folks?
Now I agree with you that "it's just a .45"....I don't see what the big deal is either....but we must remember that there ARE some shooters here who ARE weaker or disabled or otherwise compromised.

And have you noticed this: whenever there is a thread like "I have terrible arthritis and I need a pistol for personal protection...", or "my wife has tiny tiny hands and only weighs 100 lbs; what gun for self defense...", very few folks recommend a .45 (or even a .40).
They typically recommend a .380 or a .38 special, or a 9mm.
This is because we all recognize that the .45 is more powerful and that some folks have a harder time accurately shooting it.

 

[buzz_knox]

easyG, are you the same easyG as on TFL ?

 

[easyg]

easyg, considering the realm of possibilites that policing agencies consider when switching from one caliber to another, if you want to believe you know the univeral answer, you're welcome to believe it.

No, I don't know the "universal answer"....but I know some cops, and I have some law enforcement in the family.
And none of the cops I have ever talked with want to go back to the 9mm for their full-sized service pistol.
The guys (and gals) I talk with all prefer the .45 or the .40 over the 9mm everytime.
And they all have a story or two about how the 9mm failed them or a friend.
Ancedotal evidence to be sure, but with that much smoke, there's bound to be a fire.

Like I said before, the 9mm is fine for a pocket-pistol or back-up handgun....but not for a full-sized service pistol.

 

[easyg]

easyG, are you the same easyG as on TFL ?

Yep.

 

[Halo]

The fact that this never ending debate has become increasingly esoteric only underscores, in my opinion, just how similar the major handgun rounds are in their terminal performance. Just about all the quality hollow point designs show surprisingly similar penetration and expansion results among the various calibers. With this lack of gross empirical differences, people instead delve into technical minutiae and anecdotes in an effort to prove the superiority of one over another. It is at once both frustrating and amusing.

 

[easyg]

Just about all the quality hollow point designs show surprisingly similar penetration and expansion results among the various calibers.

But if the expansion is similiar, and if the penetration is similar, why not go with the heavier bullet delivering more ft. lbs. of energy?

Not to mention the fact that you cannot rely upon expansion as it's never guaranteed.
As the old saying goes....a 9mm might expand, but a .45 will never shrink.

 

[cowssurf]

But if the expansion is similiar, and if the penetration is similar, why not go with the heavier bullet delivering more ft. lbs. of energy? --easyg

Why not carry a .357 instead if your goal is delivering energy foot-pounds?

Maybe because you have less bullets. If the penetration and expansion is similar, then it's a no-brainer. Take the gun that weighs less and carries more bullets.

 

[DougDubya]

Not to mention the fact that you cannot rely upon expansion as it's never guaranteed. As the old saying goes....a 9mm might expand, but a .45 will never shrink.

Obviously, this statement shows ignorance of the scientifically proven fact that .45 ball never cuts a .45 inch hole due to its streamlined nature and the elastic properties of human flesh.

 

[Ltlabner]

...Awareness and aleartness are more important than combat tactics because they can keep you out of combat to begin with. Tactics are more important than markemsmanship, because they can often keep you out of danger without having to fire a shot. Skill with your safety equipment, including your weapons, is more important than what type of weapon you have.

Massad Ayoob - "The Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery 6th edition" page 253.

I don't think Mas would suggest a .22 over a .45 but I do think it's interesting that weapons choice is the last thing listed in priority.

Seems pretty reasonable coming from an carear police office, champion target shooter, author and expert witness. I think I'll stick to his suggestion rather than get wrapped up in pointless debate.

 

[goon]

For the most part, the quick follow up shot argument is a non issue IMO.
Take a Browning HP and a full size 1911 and shoot them both.
The 1911 isn't going to rip your wrist off compared to that "wimpy" 9mm.
Actually, right now I can't even remember which is less controllable. I can tell you that eventhough I haven't owned a 1911 in about 4 years, I can still pick up my friend's S&W 1911 and shoot it pretty well.
Compared to my Kahr P-9 or a freakin' Kel-Tec P3AT, a full size 1911 is an absolute joy to shoot.

The gel tests that were posted are great for illustrating the point I generally try to make. All of the more popular rounds do more than less the same thing.
They will all penetrate far enough and they'd all make a mess out of whatever organ they hit.
I'd bet that two or three of any of them would certainly result in an adversary being unable to continue fighting.
That's good enough for me.
And if those three rounds do fail to stop, would you rather have 4 rounds left in your magazine or 14?

I have never been in a firefight so this is speculation, but I'd think that if I were attacked and had fight back it would probably just about put me in something close to a panic. I'd be trying to steady my sights while fighting an adrenaline rush and trying to run/hide behind whatever I could find to stop incoming rounds.
I'd bet that would drastically decrease my ability to accurately place shots. This is one factor that leads me toward higher capacity guns and the 9mm is the choice I'm comfortable with.

The "the .45 won't shrink" argument does seem to have some truth. Anything that would swage a .452 bullet down to .355 would stop it.
At the same time, does it matter?
Two holes in your chest cavity are two holes in your chest cavity. They'll probably destroy all kinds of vital stuff and seriously decrease your attacker's ability to keep attacking you.
The argument between a .45 bullet vs. a 9mm bullet is like saying getting stabbed with a stiletto isn't as fatal as getting stabbed with a Kabar.
Either way, you're just as hurt.

I got nothing against a .45, but I really doubt that it's any better (or worse) than any other adequate cartridge.

 

[Defensory]

Posted by wickedsprint
Trivia, didn't the .38 Super get born because of the 45ACPs lack of power in certain situations?

Your conjecture is incorrect.

The .38 Super got born because of the .38 Special's lack of power in MANY situations.

The .45 ACP has better stopping power than the Super or the Special.

 

[Geronimo45]

The .38 Super proved superior to .45 ACP against the metal-framed cars of the period, IIRC. Also did nicely against the bulletproof vests of the time. Not sure if it was created for that purpose, but it apparently did the job.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_3_47/ai_70650308

 

[Defensory]

Posted by BullfrogKen
Any handgun suitable for carry purposes is marginally effective, at best. Handguns are anemic and underpowered, but they are highly portable, which is their strength. Unless shot in the head, roughly 80% of victims shot with a handgun will survive their wounds. Arguing that the marginally greater .45 ACP round's muzzle energy makes significantly it more effective than a 9mm is a silly distortion.

I believe several of your own statements can be legitimately classified as distortions.

There are a number of .45's and .357's suitable for carry purposes, and both are far from "marginally effective". Both are rated approximately 90% in one-shot stopping power, according to years of case studies done by military, law enforcement and civilian firearms specialists, ballistic experts etc.

.45's and .357's aren't "anemic and underpowered" in any way, shape or form. I was at the range a couple weeks ago, sitting on a bench about 12 feet behind three guys who were shooting .357's. Every time one of them shot, I could feel the shock wave all the way back where I was sitting.

Also, your statement that "roughly 80% of victims shot with a handgun will survive their wounds", doesn't prove that all or most handguns are "anemic and underpowered". Many people who get shot are only hit in the arm or leg, or only winged, so it's not surprising that they'll survive.

If one wants to find out how effective certain handgun rounds are, they need to pay special attention to the cases involving one-shot stops accomplished with solid upper torso hits.

Interview people who have taken solid upper torso hits from a .357 or a .45 and were fortunate enough to live, and I'm betting you won't find many if any who'll tell you they're "anemic and underpowered", and I bet their surgeons won't either.

 

[Defensory]

Posted by Geronimo45
The .38 Super proved superior to .45 ACP against the metal-framed cars of the period, IIRC. Also did nicely against the bulletproof vests of the time. Not sure if it was created for that purpose, but it apparently did the job.

Better penetration doesn't equate into better stopping power in many cases. A certain round can have better penetration than another, but have inferior stopping power.

The .45 ACP has superior stopping power to the .38 Super, regardless of your above post.

Not surprisingly, there's hardly a law enforcement agency or miltary organization on earth that uses the .38 Super, whereas the venerable .45 ACP continues to be widely used after about a century. The Super is also uncommon in the civilian shooting world.

The .38 Super simply never caught on anywhere, and rounds like the superior .357 Sig have made it even more irrelevant. There aren't that many factory loads available for the Super, and a number of the loads offered aren't very impressive.

Handloading for it also isn't a good idea. Just ask any experienced IPSC shooter to explain to you what "Super Face" is.