Hmm.
To McGunner regarding your earlier disagreement with GeorgeDuz and myself:
What you said about 9mm and .45 both being good is pretty much in agreement with what I said.
As for weight and momentum: I specifically said it only helps with large diameter bullets. i.e. - it helps your fat .45 keep penetrating. I also specifically said momentum is NOT helpful with small diameter bullets and I gave the subsonic 9mm as an example. You're right that lots of momentum causes over penetration with smaller calibers. I already said I don't favor high momentum for smaller calibers. However, with big calibers, high momentum pushes the fat bullet in far enough.
The heavier, slower .45s do work. I'm not saying they're better than your .45 load, but I do say they work well enough. Look at the .44 Special. That's really slow, heavy, and fat diameter and still gets it done quite well. I've only heard good things about the .44 Special.
However, I favor lighter and faster JHP bullets so long as it's not taken to riduculous extremes. I like fast JHP 9mm bullets of 110 or 115 grains or for .38 Spl I like the Corbon JHP 110 gr that gives 1250 fps muzzle. Those are my preferred cup of tea.
I also like the .40 cal because it combines both approaches, especially when using 155 gr bullets. However, the 135 gr bullets are possibly better yet. Maybe a 140 gr would be dandy?
So like you, I'm NOT a great fan of very slow, very heavy, high momentum bullets. However, I do acknowledge that they work, if the caliber is big enough (.44 or larger).
To those who like slow, heavy, large caliber bullets, I acknowlege that this combination works well, but I prefer smaller and faster bullets because that also works well and allows the gun to be smaller, lighter, and hold more ammo. However, the smaller, faster, lighter approach should not be taken to extremes because inadequate penetration results.
Regardless of approach, you need a reasonable balance of speed and mass for the caliber and bullet type.
To McGunner: That's why your .45 ACP load is a good one. You've got a good balance of speed-energy for shock and expansion and enough momentum for penetration all in good proportions for that caliber. However, don't kid yourself, even a faster .45 is still slow and heavy compared to other calibers.
To McGunner: I never said slower and heavier (more momentum) was better, I only said that it works, if the caliber is big enough. So with regard to your original argument with GeorgeDuz, you were both correct, in my opinion. There's more than one right way. There's also more than one wrong way.
The whole point of the invention of the .40 caliber S&W was to combine the two schools of thought into one compromise approach to cover all bases and have enough energy and momentum combined with a midsize diameter bullet. The .40 cal works very well, but I still prefer the 9mm because it offers less recoil and more ammo in a smaller gun with adequate stopping potential.
However, despite my preference for 9mm, it is a proven fact that the .40 cal has the most effective one shot stopping record, followed closely by the .45, followed by the 9mm. I can't remember where the .357M fits in. I think .357M is between the .45 and 9mm. In any case, the compromise approach of the .40 seems to rule, followed closely by the slower, heavier, larger diameter approach of the .45. The smaller, faster approach of .357M and 9mm is apparently third best for one shot stops, but I still prefer it because it gives more ammo in a smaller gun with less recoil. These are hard facts. Go look up the one shot stop statistics based on actual shooting if you doubt the accuracy of what I've just said in this paragraph.
Unlike yourself, I never said the 9mm is equal to a .45 ACP for stopping power. It isn't. Both are outclassed by the .40 cal. I only claim the 9mm is adequate with the right ammo and it holds a lot of ammo in a small gun with little recoil.
The only real point I wanted to make is there is more than one right way that works. I think that you and GeorgeDuz were both speaking of different methods that can both work.
To McGunner regarding your earlier disagreement with GeorgeDuz and myself:
What you said about 9mm and .45 both being good is pretty much in agreement with what I said.
As for weight and momentum: I specifically said it only helps with large diameter bullets. i.e. - it helps your fat .45 keep penetrating. I also specifically said momentum is NOT helpful with small diameter bullets and I gave the subsonic 9mm as an example. You're right that lots of momentum causes over penetration with smaller calibers. I already said I don't favor high momentum for smaller calibers. However, with big calibers, high momentum pushes the fat bullet in far enough.
The heavier, slower .45s do work. I'm not saying they're better than your .45 load, but I do say they work well enough. Look at the .44 Special. That's really slow, heavy, and fat diameter and still gets it done quite well. I've only heard good things about the .44 Special.
However, I favor lighter and faster JHP bullets so long as it's not taken to riduculous extremes. I like fast JHP 9mm bullets of 110 or 115 grains or for .38 Spl I like the Corbon JHP 110 gr that gives 1250 fps muzzle. Those are my preferred cup of tea.
I also like the .40 cal because it combines both approaches, especially when using 155 gr bullets. However, the 135 gr bullets are possibly better yet. Maybe a 140 gr would be dandy?
So like you, I'm NOT a great fan of very slow, very heavy, high momentum bullets. However, I do acknowledge that they work, if the caliber is big enough (.44 or larger).
To those who like slow, heavy, large caliber bullets, I acknowlege that this combination works well, but I prefer smaller and faster bullets because that also works well and allows the gun to be smaller, lighter, and hold more ammo. However, the smaller, faster, lighter approach should not be taken to extremes because inadequate penetration results.
Regardless of approach, you need a reasonable balance of speed and mass for the caliber and bullet type.
To McGunner: That's why your .45 ACP load is a good one. You've got a good balance of speed-energy for shock and expansion and enough momentum for penetration all in good proportions for that caliber. However, don't kid yourself, even a faster .45 is still slow and heavy compared to other calibers.
To McGunner: I never said slower and heavier (more momentum) was better, I only said that it works, if the caliber is big enough. So with regard to your original argument with GeorgeDuz, you were both correct, in my opinion. There's more than one right way. There's also more than one wrong way.
The whole point of the invention of the .40 caliber S&W was to combine the two schools of thought into one compromise approach to cover all bases and have enough energy and momentum combined with a midsize diameter bullet. The .40 cal works very well, but I still prefer the 9mm because it offers less recoil and more ammo in a smaller gun with adequate stopping potential.
However, despite my preference for 9mm, it is a proven fact that the .40 cal has the most effective one shot stopping record, followed closely by the .45, followed by the 9mm. I can't remember where the .357M fits in. I think .357M is between the .45 and 9mm. In any case, the compromise approach of the .40 seems to rule, followed closely by the slower, heavier, larger diameter approach of the .45. The smaller, faster approach of .357M and 9mm is apparently third best for one shot stops, but I still prefer it because it gives more ammo in a smaller gun with less recoil. These are hard facts. Go look up the one shot stop statistics based on actual shooting if you doubt the accuracy of what I've just said in this paragraph.
Unlike yourself, I never said the 9mm is equal to a .45 ACP for stopping power. It isn't. Both are outclassed by the .40 cal. I only claim the 9mm is adequate with the right ammo and it holds a lot of ammo in a small gun with little recoil.
The only real point I wanted to make is there is more than one right way that works. I think that you and GeorgeDuz were both speaking of different methods that can both work.
Last edited:
You're getting down in the power with the .380 and that IS one I want adequate penetration for. I really have seen no numbers concerning the Mak's penetration since I've never really looked. But, I suspect it's adequate if load dependent. I'd check out the various loads for the thing, do a little research on that if it was ME choosing between the two. Since the gun, itself, it preferred, though, I wouldn't worry too much about going with the Mak over the .380. Neither caliber is a 9x19 or .45 or whatever service caliber and the Mak does make a little more more energy which is a good thing.
