Vern Humphrey
Member
Apparently it is.
Why doesn't the .45 look more powerful than the 9mm on paper?
- Thread starter SIGfiend
- Start date
- Status
vanfunk
Member
You are correct Vern. What I should have said was that the .45 Colt was not overwhelmingly superior to the .38 Colt when dispatching Moros. I have read a number of accounts of soldiers who certainly preferred the .45 Colt over the timid .38, but I have not encountered the testimony of those who praised it highly. The Moros were some tough SOB's, that is not disputacious. The accounts I am familiar with state that nothing used down there against them was very effective, except the 12 guage at close range.
I would take my 7.5" barreled Colt SAA over my .38 all day any day, for fighting anyone, anywhere (though I'd prefer my 1911 to every other handgun I have).
vanfunk
Oh, I'm so sorry.
Well, allow me to illustrate since there seems to be some lingering confusion.
.45 ACP bullets are generally of caliber 0.451 inch.
9mm bullets are normally of caliber 0.355 inch
That is a difference of 0.096 inches, or just a little bit less than 10 thousandths of an inch. (Somewhat over 9 hundredths of an inch.)
The .45 ACP is the winner by 10 thousandths of an inch!
.45 ACP bullets weigh, generally, up to 230 grains. This is about 0.526 ounce.
9mm bullets weigh up to 147 grains, generally. This amounts to 0.336 ounce.
The difference in weight between the bullets is 0.19 ounces, in favor of the .45ACP.
Quite a large amount of difference, isn't there?
Vern Humphrey
Member
The digit to the right of the decimal point represents tenths. The next digit to the right represents hundredths. "0.096" is a bit more than 9 hundredths (not thousands), or very close to one tenth of an inch.
If you calculate the projected frontal cross-section, the .45 has a frontal cross-section of 0.16" and the 9mm has 0.1" -- which gives the .45 a 60% advantage. If you take the expanded bullets listed in a previous post into account, the .45 will have an even greater advantage -- along with greater penetration.
Let me see; 230 grains/147 grains = 1.56. That's a 56% advantage.
Considering what we're dealing with, yes -- a 50 to 60% advantage is generally considered significant.
I stand corrected.
That should have been 96 thousandths of an inch. Nearly 1/10 of an inch.
I should have known better, in the same way that I should have known better than getting involved in this idiotic argument!
Nevertheless, here I am!
:banghead:
So, anyway:
What I do know, and what I stick by, is what several medical personnel, and one county coroner have told me about the net effect of wounds from handgun bullets--be they 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and--I daresay--the hallowed .357 Magnum. The point that I got is that there is virtually no noticeable difference in the wounds of hollowpoint/expanding-type ammunition. Virtually none. Bullet A may expand to over a quarter-inch in gelatin, yes, but this does not necessarily translate to a quarter-inch hole in living tissue. Why? Because tissue is elastic and stretchable. Very possibly, the hole left in tissue is no larger than the original caliber of the bullet, despite the expansion.
Vern Humphrey
Member
That may be -- but I have had discussions with physicians before that revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened before the corpse or wounded person reached them.
Marvin Fackler, for example, claims most people killed in battle are shot by full automatic weapons. I asked him if he recovered the bullets and compared them forensically -- because that's the only way he could know all the bullet wounds came from the same gun. I also asked him what tests he performed to determine the position of the selector switch -- and pointed out I know personally of several instances of multiple hits from multiple guns on a man in action.
In any case, to argue that the difference between the .45 and 9mm is small, based on measuring and weighing the bullets is a non-starter.
Caliber wars remain an absurd argument. Any defensive caliber with a defensive round (for us civilians) is up to any task you're going to give it. In military FMJ the whining about 'one-shot stops' and 'thirty rounds of 9mm AND HE JUST KEPT COMING" are as old as time itself. There were probably people at Agincourt complaining that their arrows didn't have a large enough head.
The amount of 'energy expended on the target' seems wholly irrelevant (no one's getting knocked backward with the force of a shot) and the difference in size between a .45 and a 9mm FMJ isn't going to be great enough to matter: no matter which one you're using with FMJ, you will require multiple shots on target to incapacitate a determined attacker. There's a reason double-taps and Mozambiques are taught, no?
There is simply no reason for these arguments to exist.
The amount of 'energy expended on the target' seems wholly irrelevant (no one's getting knocked backward with the force of a shot) and the difference in size between a .45 and a 9mm FMJ isn't going to be great enough to matter: no matter which one you're using with FMJ, you will require multiple shots on target to incapacitate a determined attacker. There's a reason double-taps and Mozambiques are taught, no?
There is simply no reason for these arguments to exist.
gotta have something to do on break and I don't smoke.
The sad thing is the same argument in caliber wars exist within the calibers themselves 9mm vs 45,9mm vs 9mm +p and 185 vs 230 45.there is give and take everywhere. IMHO 124+p 9mm perform better than 147 wwwb,but I have one 9mm that I carry 147 wwwb because it makes tiny groups POA=POI with them and thats more important to me.I carry several different guns/calibers I try to pick good loads but I lean toward function and accuracy.
the best gun is the one you have with you when you need it.but I assure you it won't matter what handgun you have when you need it you'll wish it was a m-60
and glock,sig,1911 9mm,40,45 when the SHTF you are all welcome to be beside me.
bluetopper
Member
One characteristic I've not seen mentioned is accuracy.
Maybe in real world self defense circumstances it makes no difference, but which caliber do bullseye shooters prefer??? And why???
I think the .45 is just inherently more accurate. Your thoughts?
Maybe in real world self defense circumstances it makes no difference, but which caliber do bullseye shooters prefer??? And why???
I think the .45 is just inherently more accurate. Your thoughts?
GotGlock
Member
I don't believe he is soft on terrorism, just smart. I have the same views as to why we were attacked on 9/11, we are too busy meddling in the affairs of foreign nations in which we have no business being in. If we did not constantly support Israel and try to force democracy on other nations that don't want it, the world wouldn't hate us. I agree with what Ron Paul says, and i will put my heat and soul into someone that believes in the constitution instead of some neocon scum that runs as a republican but forgets what being a republican really is.
bluetopper
Member
I base my opinion solely on my experience in shooting them both. I am not a weapons systems engineer and cannot tell you just why, physically, one caliber is inherently more accurate than another. I have my ideas.
But "I" can shoot a 45 more accurate than a 9mm.
Why do competitive bullseye shooters prefer the 45?
But "I" can shoot a 45 more accurate than a 9mm.
Why do competitive bullseye shooters prefer the 45?
VanEasten
Member
I doubt there's a fundamental accuracy difference between these calibers.
I bet some of the high end competition Sigs in 9mm would hold their own against similarly priced semi-custom 1911s in .45.
I bet some of the high end competition Sigs in 9mm would hold their own against similarly priced semi-custom 1911s in .45.
Whirlwind06
Member
Hah!
When I began working on a farm the owner and his son kept a pneumatic multi-pump Daisy BB rifle in their shed for pest control. I could never shoot it well so the grackles and bunnies had little to fear. More than a few rabbits got away after hitting them with a poorly placed shot and after 2 years I decided the old BB gun simply didn't have the velocity needed to take down a big one and I decided to buy a more powerful pellet gun. More power would make sure they never got away, right?
Not long after I gave up using the BB gun I watched my friend shoot a rabbit straight through the eye. That rabbit jumped 3 feet straight into the air and came down dead as a door nail. That ended the caliber wars for me. I still wonder if a well placed BB to the eyeball would do more against most assailants than a .45 to the chest!
Last edited:
Vern Humphrey
Member
No need to wonder -- it wouldn't. And you might get a .45 in the chest while trying for the BB in the eye shot.
Johannes_Paulsen
Member
"Moros" is Spanish for "Moors".
(Or, as George Costanza liked to call them, "Moops".)
(Or, as George Costanza liked to call them, "Moops".)
R127
Member
Because cowboys and WWII vets used .45's and the gunwriters say so. Probably also because many people do not understand the only thing that is going to kill a badguy is accurately delivering rounds to vital targets that penetrate deep to dammage said targets.
There have been some weird suggestions in this thread regarding energy, velocity and bullet mass. These only really matter in regards to penetration. Even weirder were the suggestions that frontal surface area would have some great meaning. You can't bleed through empty space, frontal surface area on the scale we're talking about here just doesn't matter much. Circumference would matter more, though, since that would be the actual edges of the wound that could bleed. If you're worried about that then the circumference of a .45 is 1.416 inches and a 9mm is 1.11 inches, 27% sounds like a lot doesn't it? Until you realize we're really talking about 3/10ths of an inch and you'll probably want to get something to read while you wait for that badguy to bleed out. The weirdest of all was GotGlock's trick photo which seemingly displays a .45 as being twice the size of a 9mm.
Shot placement, then penetration, then expansion. If there isn't a big difference then there isn't going to be a big difference.
rantingredneck
Member
I'm still waiting for the two lines to form so I can begin my test.
gc70
Member
If it's muzzle velocity and muzzle energy you want, scrap both the .45 and 9mm and buy a surplus Czech CZ52.
7.62x25 Tokarev
85 gr. FMJ, 1647 FPS, 514 FT-LB
9mm Luger
115 gr. FMJ, 1190 FPS, 362 FT-LB
45 Automatic
230 gr. FMJ, 835 FPS, 356 FT-LB
Nevertheless, I'll keep my 1911.
7.62x25 Tokarev
85 gr. FMJ, 1647 FPS, 514 FT-LB
9mm Luger
115 gr. FMJ, 1190 FPS, 362 FT-LB
45 Automatic
230 gr. FMJ, 835 FPS, 356 FT-LB
Nevertheless, I'll keep my 1911.
geo57
Member
An African country.
rantingredneck
Member
- Status
