Why use a .45?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll bet on that .100" - I'm a machinist, and can appreciate how much that is. I know a little about weight too, so I can also appreciate the difference between 115, and 230 grains- IIRC it's about double. Bigger is better, and too big is just right :D I'd tote my .480 Ruger if I thought I could find a left handed carry rig for it :evil:

I have no beef with a 9mm, I just would rather carry a 45. I'm actually getting ready to look for a Glock 17 just because I don't have one.....I don't think I'll ever carry it because I don't intend to buy anything other than cheap ball ammo to plink with.
 
I myself just have no idea how or why these debates get started and why people think think they need to change others opinions. Carry what you want I don't give a sh** what it is. Just practice with it as often as you can and stay safe.

Rinspeed
 
I myself just have no idea how or why these debates get started and why people think think they need to change others opinions. Carry what you want I don't give a sh** what it is. Just practice with it as often as you can and stay safe.

Rinspeed
I will keep your thoughts in mind. :D

I've never owned any kind of handgun, so some of these debates are helping me 'form my opinion'.
 
Cookekdjr,

I appreciate you sharing your experience. Hits to the "hip/butt/thigh area" is really somewhat ambiguous. A 9mm thru and thru of the buttocks and a .45 to the femoral artery are both hits to the "hip/butt/thigh area" but two different things altogether.

All things being equal, caliber is going to make a difference, but not to the extent some would have you believe. In my expereince, its all about putting a hole in something important. Again, in my experience all the 9mm is giving up to the .45 is about .10"

I would be interested if you have information to the contrary

Hey Blackhawk,
Re: hits to hip/butt/thigh area, if there was a "lucky" shot to an artery, I'd mention it. Here's the thing: 9mm doesn't seem to shatter bone as reliably as .357; it seems to "chip and ricochet" instead (although, occasionally it shatters a femur quite nicely).
Yes, bullet placement is key. But its more important for 9mm. I notice alot of cases where folks are shot w/9mm's, and live...even when they are shot in the torso.
But I have alot of murder cases where the shot seemed innoculous, but it tore the person to pieces inside. Those shots are typically a .357.
The cases where the person takes multiple hits to vital areas and lives are ALWAYS 9mm and smaller.
I've actually had shootout cases where one bad guy has a .45, the other bad guy has a 9mm....the 9mm NEVER wins.
Now understand, although I have alot of experience in this area, this is all anecdotal and not a scientific study.
But from what I've seen, if you are carrying 9mm, placement is very important. If you are carrying .45, .40, or .357, its not nearly as important. The damage these rounds cause lead to such rapid blood loss that folks die, even if the shot doesn't hit something "vital". It turns out blood is alot more vital than we thought ... :)
Anyway, YMMV, but that's what I have seen.
Have a nice evening,
David
P.S. having this discussion has made me reflect alot on my firearms cases...I think my next purchase will be a Glock in .357 SIG, or a Taurus 7 shot .357 revolver...
 
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."

---Jonathan Swift
 
Lets Duel

:evil: Hypothetical situation! Two men 7 yards apart. One man has a.45 the other a 9mm. 230grfmj vs 115fmj. Both men are shooting center mass shots. Which mans shoes would you prefer to be in.
 
Last edited:
Never seen 119 grain ball ammo is that a new load? Seriously it would not matter as much as who was the better marksman.
Pat
 
Who was the "Gun Guru" who once said carry and shoot as much gun as you can handle!


In the late 80's a freind who happened to be an San Antonio TX leo told me that they were trading in their S&W model 65 because to many of the officers couldn't quality with the issued 357 mag ammo.

He said they were going with 9mm auto because it was easier for the majority of female officers and most inexperienced male officers to qualify with them.

The first large bore handgun I ever shot for qualification was a pretty worn GI .45 at Ft. McClellan in 1982.
Hmm.....1rst time with the .45, first qual firing....1rst expert rating!!
I ain't no real big guy either.

FWIW...the females qualified with the .38 S&W M&P.
 
Like has been said before, carry what you're comfortable with. Your odds of getting into a gunfight are miniscule anyway, so if you stick to 9mm minimum and .45 maximum (9mm, 40S&W, .357Sig, .45GAP, .45ACP) you have literally more than 100 quality concealable firearms to choose from and if you can hit what you aim at, then youre as good to go as you ought to be. So practice, practice, practice!

Sure you can go smaller (.380 Bersa Thunder or Walther PPK) or larger (.50AE Desert Eagle) but why? Unless you absolutely NEED a pocket gun or you're hunting the Incredible Hulk, there are better options out there (notably some of the sub-comapct 9mm's out there and a .50 Cal rifle for the Hulk).

Make sure you research and choose your carry ammuniton carefully in any caliber. I use Speer Gold Dots in .40, Ranger's in 9mm and I am currently still evaluating my .45 carry load. Ammolab.com has had a ton of good info on specific rounds so make sure you don't fall into the rut of thinking that Federal or Speer or Joesammocompany has the best rounds in EVERY caliber. Reasearch it first.

Interesting aside. I found a good deal on a .357Sig Glock Fullsize (31?) and passed the info on to a friend. He only shoot's 9mm right now because he is what I call a "capacity freak". He likes them 14round mags in his Steyr M9. We got to the range aqnd I saw a HUGE grin on his face as he was loading the mags of his new Glock. He had 3-15 round mags! "Damn", I thought looking down at my USP Compact .45 carrying only 8, "That's nuts man!". He looked at me and smiled and said, "I know hehe".

But before I got too amazed by this wonder-gun of magnificent capacity, I remembered why I carry a .45 now, based on what I have seen and learned over the years, I have more faith in that round than any other I can reasonably carry. The operative word is "faith", because that's all it is. Gunfights do not occur in a vaccuum, there are hundreds of variables that can either make your pea-shooter 9mm the one-hit endgame or your .45 hand cannon an irritating lead sore, or vice versa. Load, shoot and be merry. But .45 is still better, ask anyone! :neener:
 
In the late 80's a freind who happened to be an San Antonio TX leo told me that they were trading in their S&W model 65 because to many of the officers couldn't quality with the issued 357 mag ammo.

I would be suspect of someones abilities if they couldn't qualify with a 4" barreled .357. That just blows my mind. :what:
 
Don't use a .45, it's inadequate.
Carry a rifle with you at all times.
Or at least 2 glock 20s, preferably full auto.
See how silly the whole thing is when put into perspective?
 
Don't use a .45, it's inadequate.
Compared to? A Rifle? Well of course it is. :D

Carry a rifle with you at all times.
Not possible or feasible. Whereas, carrying a 9mm or a .45 handgun are both pretty much equally feasible in the same situations given similar sizes.

Or at least 2 glock 20s, preferably full auto.
I wonder what that would be like? Are they controllable? Anyone handled one? Still a little bulky, but would make New York Reloads quite interesting.

See how silly the whole thing is when put into perspective?
I see siliness in the anger and outright contempt this argument sometimes brings out, but I aslo see the value of such discussions.

But for those arguing for the 9mm because they expand to a similar diameter as a .45, why not .380? Or something smaller if you could get it in a high-cap firearm of similar quality? What does a .380 HP expand to? Close to a 9mm, right? Does that mean that .380 is as good as a 9mm in terminal ballistics, and therefor, according to your arguments, as good as a .45? Or is 9mm the bottom shelf in carry-able/concealable, defensive semi-auto handgun rounds? If 9mm is at the bottom, is .45 at the top?

Food for thought I supose.
 
Because God decided BIG rocks would hurt and do more damage than little rocks. That idea worked so good he decided bullets should work same way.
 
But for those arguing for the 9mm because they expand to a similar diameter as a .45, why not .380? Or something smaller if you could get it in a high-cap firearm of similar quality? What does a .380 HP expand to? Close to a 9mm, right? Does that mean that .380 is as good as a 9mm in terminal ballistics, and therefor, according to your arguments, as good as a .45? Or is 9mm the bottom shelf in carry-able/concealable, defensive semi-auto handgun rounds? If 9mm is at the bottom, is .45 at the top?
END QUOTE

Sorry but your mistaken. 380 JHP's don't expand reliabily and the ones that do can't penetrate 12 inches. None are anywhere near the 9mm or 45 acp in performance. The 380 has less than half the muzzle energey and about 1/3 the momentium of a 9mm load. The 9mm compares faviorably with the 45 acp. The 380 can't touch either.
Pat
 
First off I feel fine with a 9mm with good load selection. In fact to make thing's easy I have with a few exceptions gone to 9mm's and .45's. I think the biggest pluses for the .45 are pretty obvious. First even if the bullet doesn't expand you've still got a pretty big hole. Unlike the high pressure rounds the .45 gives a "roll" in recoil compared to a "snap" from the others. And for a big round because of the rolling recoil it can get back on target fairly fast. And it happens to be a very accurate round.
 
Sorry but your mistaken. 380 JHP's don't expand reliabily and the ones that do can't penetrate 12 inches. None are anywhere near the 9mm or 45 acp in performance. The 380 has less than half the muzzle energey and about 1/3 the momentium of a 9mm load. The 9mm compares faviorably with the 45 acp. The 380 can't touch either.
Pat


Well, I was asking a question, not forming an opinion, but that neither here nor there. So then, 9mm is the bottom shelf (smallest viable defense round) and .45ACP is at the top (as far as size is concerned). There are still differences between the two, even if some data is similar. So you take a few trade-offs depending on choice. But Regardless, I have not seen any data at all that shows that a 9mm round can be the equal or better of one of the top .45ACP rounds tested. There is a difference between "similar" and "equal" or "better". It all comes down to what is important to the purchaser/user.

Capacity: Though it is arguable that you will never need 14+ rounds in one magazine. Most gunfights consume less than 5 rounds as far as I understand it. So unless we're all carrying handguns to repel a terrorist attack or something, capacity is kinda arguable. Of course, under stress, do we all really think we could make our 7-9 rounds of .45 actualy count? One on attacker, surely, on 2 or 3? Not much room for error there. So perhaps, given different shooters, capacity is a huge comfort.

Performance: Though the results on performance between rounds has been shown to be "similar", simialr is not "equal", which means one round came out on top. That's pretty much the .45ACP. I am less concerned about making my 9 rounds of .45 count than I am about whether or not one of those rounds will expand and do its job or not. Rounds don't always expand, I am confident that even under duress I can hit reasonably well enough not to need 9 rounds of .45 on one target. Since, as one THR member so eloquently put it, .45's don't shrink, it would seem that even under worst/worst case scenarios (neither round expands), the .45 has an edge.

But most of us will NEVER be in a gunfight. Statistically, this conversation is irrellevant. But is doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss this topic and others like it from time to time. I don't feel undergunned when carrying my Walther P99 in 9mm, but I prefer to have my .45 on me (and in fact I have not carried my Walther once since I got the USP .45, before that, I carried the Walther for over 2 years). Call it personal preference.


::EDIT::
Removed the quote from ammolab.com, forgot they frown upon such things.

:)
 
Last edited:
Though the results on performance between rounds has been shown to be "similar", simialr is not "equal", which means one round came out on top. That's pretty much the .45ACP.

It is? Is that your opinion or is there some information somewhere to actually back that up? I'm asking 'cause I've seen all of the published studies and I don't see anywhere that ".45 ACP" trumps everything else. A lot of factors go into it and simple bullet diameter is just ONE variable.
 
It is? Is that your opinion or is there some information somewhere to actually back that up? I'm asking 'cause I've seen all of the published studies and I don't see anywhere that ".45 ACP" trumps everything else. A lot of factors go into it and simple bullet diameter is just ONE variable.

You catch me at a loss at the moment. I'm at work, can't do a full search right now and ammolab.com's test results seem to be password protected. I could be remembering things incorrectly, but the majority of the gel tests I have seen indicate that.45ACP edges out 9mm on almost all overall acounts (the sum of wound cavity, temp cavity, penetration, expansion etc...).
 
So which is it? Is it that the .45 edges out (i.e. has a slight advantage over) all others, or is the advantage so great that concerns over capacity, etc. are effectively irrelevant in the fact of the superiority? You've argued both.
 
Quote:
EMT's rule of thumb: The guys shot by 9mm's usually live. The guys shot by .40's and .45's usually die.

That's not the rule of thumb I've heard...

Hi, Harold.
What is the rule of thumb you heard? And who did you hear it from?
I heard mine from the EMT's I see at homicide crime scenes. I'd be interested to hear another point of view from other experienced folks.
Thanks,

David
 
Rule of thumb from the EMT/paramedics/ER nurses/ER doctors that I've spoken with who have very much experience say that most people shot by handguns, regardless of caliber, tend to live. Those shot by rifles and shotguns have a marked tendency over and above those shot by handguns to die. The key factor with the handgun-inflicted wounds is simply stopping bleeding since there's normally not an awful lot of other damage (unless the heart, brain or spine is hit). Stop the bleeding, save the life.

Never shot a human being but I've shot lots of different animals with handguns and it always seems to be shot placement, not caliber, that "does the deed".

A little off the subject but still in line because it deals with ballistics and ignorance:

So many people out there want to bad-mouth the M16/M4/AR15 and the .223/5.56 but I had the opportunity to see the wound channel caused by a single .223 round in a human cadaver once. To those of you who want to argue about the round not causing enough damage, you really don't know what you're talking about. To see what that one little high-velocity piece of metal did was enough to ensure that I would never, ever speak of a .223 as not being "enough" (not that I did before, but that's beside the point).

(btw, David, that comment about ignorance a couple of paragraphs up is NOT aimed at you but rather ill-informed speculation in general...NOT that you are ill-informed, either, but I guess I just mean that I'm not trying to flame you...)
 
I'd actually be curious to see statistics, though. No bias based on anything...simply the caliber (and bullet configuration), number of times shot, where they were shot and whether they lived or died (and, in the latter case, how long it took them to die). People argue about one-shot stops and such and statistical irregularities, but I'd like to see a couple of thousand shootings with the above information so that I could draw my own conclusions without having to view it through the perspective of someone else.
 
So which is it? Is it that the .45 edges out (i.e. has a slight advantage over) all others, or is the advantage so great that concerns over capacity, etc. are effectively irrelevant in the fact of the superiority? You've argued both.

These discussions often take a defensive tone, which I am seeing now (not necessarily from anyone in particular). Let me be clear if I have not already:

Caliber selection is a wholly personal choice. My concerns are not likely yours, yours are not likely mine. I worry about 4 things when choosing a handgun and caliber for carry. Capacity, Caliber, Concealbility and Platform/Reliability (ordered from lowest concern to highest). Working backwards I research the most reliable manufacturers and models in my price range. I define a key list of features I must have (i.e. manual safety or decocker etc...) as well as some I would like to have (standard accessory rail, bobbed hammer or grip) and discard the rest. Then I pick out those which size would allow me to conceal the firearm well given most circumstances. Using those criteria I narrow it down to the 4-5 models I would consider, then I look at caliber. With most firearms, they are avialable in at least 2 of the big 4 (9mm, .40, .357sig, .45). I then make comparisons based on capacity (i.e, if it is available in a .45, does it have mag capacity of at least 8 rounds. If it is a 9mm, are hi-caps readly available and inexpensive etc...). I then decide which of the platforms I would like to try and I either find someone who has one to test out, rent one at a range or, price permitting, simply buy it and test it out. Once I find the largest caliber handgun that has the minimum acceptable number of rounds for a specific caliber in the mag that feels nice, conceals easily and I can fire well, I then have my trial carry piece. I then test it for function with a few different ammo brands and types. Then it becomes my full-time peice. I put a lot fo thoght into it, and a lot of my decisions are subjective to my own input and thus biased. I couldn't choose a handgun for someone else to carry or pick a caliber for them, but I can often add some data to their search and some advice in certain areas.

What I was saying about the "slight" advantage is this:
On paper it may only be .10inches of expansion, .5 inches of penetration or a "slightly" larger wound channel, but you're betting your life on that + or - .10 inches of expansion, .5 inches of penetration or "slightly" larger wound channel. Nascar racecars are very similar with "slight" differences, yet we always have a winner, not likely to tie there. The win may only be by a thousandth of a second, but it's a win. When my life is on the line, I want that .10 inches or .5 inches or "slight" edge. Some may feel comfortable without it, gaining increased attempts to incapacitate. And that's cool. As I said earlier in this thread, under stress, often your groups will balloon into monstrous balls of inaccuracy. If that is a concern for the user, then they would be best served and likely more comfortable with the increased capacity that something other than a .45 can give you (other than the rare exceptions). Or if recoil is a concern, a smaller round might be in order as well. I would not laugh at anyone or have words over someone choosing 9mm as a carry or defense round. I have in the past, firends of mine do, people I respect do as well. I choose otherwise, my personal concern is not my group size under duress or controlling the recoil of a larger round, I have confidence in my own ability to perform under such situations. I also don't plan on repelling a terrorist invasion with my handgun so capacity, for me is moot. And since capacity, in my case, is rendered moot, I want that slight advantage on paper that the .45 gives when I can have it. Because that slight advantage, even if others fail to admit to or see it, does translate into an advantage on the street going bullet for bullet. The .45ACP is far from a magic bullet, but it suits my needs exactly, which is why I carry one. YMMV.
 
I sometimes carry my only 9mm handgun. It's a Kahr PM9. It is my compromise gun between my 1911 and my P3AT.
It is my opinion that the small light weight PM9 is the perfect mate for the 9mm luger.


Why do I nearly always choose the .45acp over the 9mm as a primary carry.

Pretty somple really....the .45 just gives me more warm fuzzies than the 9mm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top