40 vs 45

[GLOOB]

It was a premise in my calculation that the two bullets had the same penetration depth. That was the starting point for my calculation not the conclusion.

Well, it was my impression that you started with the premise that the bullets were the same diameter and energy at impact. Then you calculated that they would penetrate to the same depth. Not taking into account the greater vibration, sound, and shock wave that would result from the impact of the faster lighter projectile. Why would I have gotten that idea? Oh, I dunno:

I think you are referring my post #139 with its attached calculation. In my (highly idealized) calculation, two bullets of the same cross-sectional area and same impact energy were found to penetrate to the same depth.

... my bold and italics.

 

[farmallmta]

.45 is painfully slow

Yes, but slow plus lower energy for the larger mass means the .45 is less likely to blow out the other side of the dummy you're shooting at, causing collateral damage to those behind. Plus you still get the big ball peen hammer effect on your perp.

Pretty useful characteristics, when you think about it along those lines.

 

[christcorp]

For the "Jell-O" shooter, it's definitely possible for the 40 to come up with some better numbers. But people aren't Jell-O. The 45acp has been, is, and will always be a better caliber against people than the 40sw. Yes, the slower and heavier bullet is what makes it better. Now, if you don't have confidence in your abilities to hit your target, and you need 13, 15, or more rounds, then the 40sw is a better caliber. But if you know how to hit your target, the 45acp is better. And no, you're not the police. You're not being offensive and breaking down doors on a crack house doing a drug bust. You're not going into a gang environment trying to take down members. You are defending yourself against a threat against you. No, the 45acp wins every time. Matter of fact, the ONLY reason I have ever heard of police forces ever going away from the 45acp, was because of their need for a larger capacity gun for their "Offensive" in nature and unique requirements compared to someone using a gun simply for defensive purposes. But even some of them are moving or thinking of moving back to the 45acp.

 

[Rshooter]

.357 and .45 for me. If I can't do it in six or ten I do not need to be there.

 

[Hangingrock]

I was in a situation that made a lasting impression with me (nineteen at the time).

An adversary was hit center mass with a 45ACP went down, got back up center mass hits with a M1 carbine went down came back up and center mass hits with an M14 finished it. Our adversary during this up and down confrontation managed to toss a grenade and hose us with a PPS43. (Gunnery Sgt Korea veteran told me that’s what it was.)

What does this little story have to do with the comparison of the 40-S&W and 45-ACP you ask? There are no guarantees. Use either one but be prepared for the unexpected should plan “A” not work you’d better have plan “B”

 

[outerlimit]

Absolutely, there's no guarantees. Anyone who's seen a deer shot through the heart with a .270 and then run 200 yards before collapsing knows this.

But if there's a choice between 9mm, .40S&W and .45acp I'll choose .45acp everytime. What caliber do I carry most often? 9mm, because I'm perfectly comfortable with it, but I know .45acp is better.

Would I be comfortable carrying a .380 mouse gun? Not at all. Maybe a Manurhin PP with hot Fiocchi, but that's pushing the limits of my comfort level.

 

[jackpinesavages]

I have 3 of em.

 

[REAPER4206969]

The 45acp has been, is, and will always be a better caliber against people than the 40sw.

Cool story, man.