9mm Sucks B@lls > Give 'em back the .45

[Mister T]

My next questions:

Is this list the correct bullet sizes from smallest to biggest?

9mm
357
38 ACP
40 SW
45 ACP

Is a 40 sw closer in size to a 9mm or 45 ACP?
What does ACP stand for?

Is there a website that lists the relative difference of stopping power of different bullets?
When people quote type of ammunition what is 190gr vs. 220gr mean?

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Mister T
My next questions:

Is this list the correct bullet sizes from smallest to biggest?

9mm
357
38 ACP
40 SW
45 ACP

Is a 40 sw closer in size to a 9mm or 45 ACP?
What does ACP stand for?

Is there a website that lists the relative difference of stopping power of different bullets?
When people quote type of ammunition what is 190gr vs. 220gr mean?

Your list is correct, though I always thought that 9mm was the diameter equivalent of .38 (my quick calculation has it just under the .357 though so I guess I was wrong).

The .40 is closer to the 9mm in size, but just barely (see above). From what I've read, it is closer to the .45 in power. It's also a fairly expensive round which is why it isn't all that popular.

ACP - Automatic Colt Pistol

Someone else probably has a website link -- sorry.

"190 gr" means 190 grains which refers to the weight of the bullet (the slug which leaves the barrel).

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Mister T

Is there a website that lists the relative difference of stopping power of different bullets?
When people quote type of ammunition what is 190gr vs. 220gr mean?

Wound Ballistics - Firearms Tactical Institute

Scroll about halfway down the page and you'll find "Wound Profile Illustrations". That should give you an idea. You'll also see the name "Dr. Martin L. Fackler" mentioned quite often. Dr. Fackler, a retired Army Colonel and surgeon during the Vietnam conflict, is considered by many as the foremost authority on wound ballistics.

Weight Conversions

230 grains = 14.9 grams or about 1/2 ounce

 

[glenn1]

My next questions:

Is this list the correct bullet sizes from smallest to biggest?

9mm
357
38 ACP
40 SW
45 ACP

Is a 40 sw closer in size to a 9mm or 45 ACP?
What does ACP stand for?

Is there a website that lists the relative difference of stopping power of different bullets?
When people quote type of ammunition what is 190gr vs. 220gr mean?

I'll defer to Tominator on this one, but IIRC technically, all the following rounds are of the caliber .355: .357 Magnum, .38 (Special, Super, etc.), 9mm, .357 SIG, and .380 Auto. A revolver of sufficient strength can fire .38 Special, .38 Super, and .357 Magnum interchangably (the rounds are generally thought to follow that way in power as well). The 9mm and .380 are designed for pistols, but their bullets are still by spec of caliber .355.

The .40 S&W is of .400 caliber and is an optimized version of an older catridge called the 10mm (also known commonly as the "Bren 10"). It's almost perfectly half way in between the .355 and .45 calibers. Over the years, many folks have tried to create a cartridge which would straddle the difference and be a good compromise between those two calibers. Other attempts to make such a cartridge have been tried, and the results have been less than spectacular.... the .41 Magnum and 10mm never really caught on, but the .40 S&W has done great, despite having only been around for about 8 years or so.

As for websites with tables of "relative stopping power," depending on who you listen to, such a measure may or may not be of any provable scientific value. Most non-shooters would probably never have guessed, but there exists widespread debate over such basic subjects as what makes for a better weapon or ammunition caliber, and ballistics is as much art as it is science in many cases. Firearms have been around for hundreds of years, yet some of the science around them is still in its infancy.

 

[glenn1]

In German, but some great photos

 

[Scipionix]

burnedout: I read some of the articles you linked to. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that I know little of the Marshall-Sanow study or of its criticisms, but the information you posted has problems of its own. The FBI article, for example, argues that just because a bullet does not have enough momentum to knock a man down that kinetic energy does not matter. It ignores the obvious difference between a baseball bat's energy being dissapated on the surface and a bullet's energy being spread throughout internal organs. It also argues that a bullet only contacts a tiny volume of the body, but then goes on to argue that a bigger bullet can give an edge by increasing that tiny volume. It further claims that penetration is all that really matters, but even assuming that the author is right and kinetic energy is meaningless, shouldn't handgun rounds simply be FMJ, boat-tailed spitzers to achieve maximum penetration? I think it's pretty weak overall. That author also contradicts the Arny doctor you cited whose wound profiles clearly show temporary cavities, which the FBI agent said is meaningless. Obviuosly the colonel didn't think they were meaningless. I simply find it hard to believe that two rounds with similar kinetic energy and penetration such as the .45 and 9mm FMJ can have vastly different effects on a human body.

 

[Mister T]

thanks for all the responses to my questions everyone.
Last one: How much does ammunition cost of 9mm vs. 40sw vs. 45acp?

 

[Pliablemoose]

Cheaper Than Dirt

Should give you a good idea.

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: glenn1

My next questions:

Is this list the correct bullet sizes from smallest to biggest?

9mm
357
38 ACP
40 SW
45 ACP

Is a 40 sw closer in size to a 9mm or 45 ACP?
What does ACP stand for?

Is there a website that lists the relative difference of stopping power of different bullets?
When people quote type of ammunition what is 190gr vs. 220gr mean?

I'll defer to Tominator on this one, but IIRC technically, all the following rounds are of the caliber .355: .357 Magnum, .38 (Special, Super, etc.), 9mm, .357 SIG, and .380 Auto. A revolver of sufficient strength can fire .38 Special, .38 Super, and .357 Magnum interchangably (the rounds are generally thought to follow that way in power as well). The 9mm and .380 are designed for pistols, but their bullets are still by spec of caliber .355.

The .40 S&W is of .400 caliber and is an optimized version of an older catridge called the 10mm (also known commonly as the "Bren 10"). It's almost perfectly half way in between the .355 and .45 calibers. Over the years, many folks have tried to create a cartridge which would straddle the difference and be a good compromise between those two calibers. Other attempts to make such a cartridge have been tried, and the results have been less than spectacular.... the .41 Magnum and 10mm never really caught on, but the .40 S&W has done great, despite having only been around for about 8 years or so.

As for websites with tables of "relative stopping power," depending on who you listen to, such a measure may or may not be of any provable scientific value. Most non-shooters would probably never have guessed, but there exists widespread debate over such basic subjects as what makes for a better weapon or ammunition caliber, and ballistics is as much art as it is science in many cases. Firearms have been around for hundreds of years, yet some of the science around them is still in its infancy.

What you posted is from a REAL old article....

.357 is the actual billet size of ...
1. 357 magnum. THE number one manstopper of all time but at the expense of muzzle flash and recoil. Shoot it ONE time in the dark and the flash will blind you for hours! The recoil is just too much for the average shooter/cop to use. The 38 Special was a marketing gimmick by Smith and Wesson..long story here but it is .357 caliber. The hybrid .357 Sig is this caliber and approaches the .357 magnum but fails. The 38Super is a shortened .357 and rimless.
Tons of more info, but I'm trying to keep this short!

2.The 9MM and the .380 Kruz[Auto] are of .355 caliber.

3. The 10MM is the MAGNUM of auto[rimless] pistol rounds. It kicks hard! It over penetrates! It is very hard on the guns it is fired in and IS NOT sutable for a personal defense round![I've not seen the Bren Ten correlation in twenty years!] I've shot one, a Bren Ten btw.

The .40 S&W has done great because of marketing and a really flawed FBI article! The 'Great Miami Shootout' as it is known and was a movie of a name I've forgotten, set the stage for the FBI canning the 9. This is a LONG story and I've not got the time to relate the story.
The .40 is a round with no purpose however popular it may be. It does nothing the 9 can and more importantly, nothing the .45 cannot do better!

There are Auto Pistols in the .357 rimmed pistol round and it only gets more complicated. There are revolvers that shoot the 9MM. There are revolvers that shoot the .45ACP. There are automatic pistols that shoot the .357 Magnum revolver round and the list of interchangability would fill volumes! There are revolvers that shoot the 10MM auto pistol round! The list is literally endless...

What we have concluded is that a round at approx 850 FPS about .45 in diameter is the BEST manstopper in existence. Those stats belong to the .45 Automatic Colt Pistol! It has managable recoil. It has ZERO muzzle flash from a 5 inch barrel and although the round is over 100 years old remains THE round used in competition and self defense and increasingly in law enforement. The 9MM has had it's chance at the title and was found sorely lacking.

The Baretta as used by our armed forces is a piece of junk. Even upon it's adoption there were concerns about that open slide let alone the puny nine but once again politics won over. Mistakes cost money and lives.

My cash would go to arming our military with a Glock 21. Inexpensive, 33 parts, reliable in extremes of temp and impervious to debris AND more importantly in .45 ACP!

My Glock 21 is flawless and I have shot nearly every pistol in existence or a variant thereof includeing SIGs which are VERY overrated and cost twice as much.

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: Tominator What we have concluded is that a round at approx 850 FPS about .45 in diameter is the BEST manstopper in existence.

We have? Who's we?

Those stats belong to the .45 Automatic Colt Pistol! It has managable recoil. It has ZERO muzzle flash from a 5 inch barrel and although the round is over 100 years old remains THE round used in competition and self defense and increasingly in law enforement.

I don't think it's that manageble when fired from a 29 oz. gun, at least not to the average man.

The 9MM has had it's chance at the title and was found sorely lacking.

It was? By whom? Do the Germans agree with you?

 

[Tominator]

The Greman's Police do not rely on the auto pistol as US law enforcement does. They arm themselves with real guns. The pistol is only their secondary weapon as they use machine guns. They have a NEED for ammo compatibility.

The FBI came to the conclusion that a large diameter projectile penetrating approximately 12 inches of flesh and bone is the most effective round. They compromised with the .40 because the wimpy ladies and miniorties would need to be trained more and this opened them up to POLITICAL LIABILITIES!

Look at the recent FBI ads. They have one hell of a time hiring QUALIFIED MINIORTIES and need to DEGRADE the qualifications to SATISFY POLITICIANS.

SORRY ABOUT MY CAP BUTTON STICKING......

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: Tominator
The Greman's Police do not rely on the auto pistol as US law enforcement does. They arm themselves with real guns. The pistol is only their secondary weapon as they use machine guns. They have a NEED for ammo compatibility.

The FBI came to the conclusion that a large diameter projectile penetrating approximately 12 inches of flesh and bone is the most effective round. They compromised with the .40 because the wimpy ladies and miniorties would need to be trained more and this opened them up to POLITICAL LIABILITIES!

Look at the recent FBI ads. They have one hell of a time hiring QUALIFIED MINIORTIES and need to DEGRADE the qualifications to SATISFY POLITICIANS.

SORRY ABOUT MY CAP BUTTON STICKING......

I thought the FBI used the 10mm.

 

[RGN]

The .45 is managable. I've got a stock 1911 and its a blast to shoot. I've fires .40 from my dads USP that kicks harder.

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: RGN
The .45 is managable. I've got a stock 1911 and its a blast to shoot. I've fires .40 from my dads USP that kicks harder.

I know it's manageable from a 1911. Torm was speaking of the 26 oz. Glock 21. I found the Glock 17 harder to control than the 1911.

EDIT: Colt's current 1911 model weights 38 oz.

 

[Tominator]

thought the FBI used the 10mm

They used a very wimpy 10MM for a few months and then came up with the .40. That and only that is what made the .40 a commercial success.

...That was over 10 years ago....

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The .45 ACP is plenty manageable by any adult shooter, including women and "miniorities" (who, regardless of their qualifications, presumably at least know how to spell the word "minority"). Hell, plenty of juniors shoot 1911s competitively.

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito
The .45 ACP is plenty manageable by any adult shooter, including women and "miniorities" (who, regardless of their qualifications, presumably at least know how to spell the word "minority"). Hell, plenty of juniors shoot 1911s competitively.

You then ignore the reasons law enforcement went to the 9 in the first place.
The 45 takes more training. Training equals money....so I can't spell...shoot me!

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Scipionix
burnedout: I read some of the articles you linked to. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that I know little of the Marshall-Sanow study or of its criticisms, but the information you posted has problems of its own. The FBI article, for example, argues that just because a bullet does not have enough momentum to knock a man down that kinetic energy does not matter. It ignores the obvious difference between a baseball bat's energy being dissapated on the surface and a bullet's energy being spread throughout internal organs. It also argues that a bullet only contacts a tiny volume of the body, but then goes on to argue that a bigger bullet can give an edge by increasing that tiny volume. It further claims that penetration is all that really matters, but even assuming that the author is right and kinetic energy is meaningless, shouldn't handgun rounds simply be FMJ, boat-tailed spitzers to achieve maximum penetration? I think it's pretty weak overall. That author also contradicts the Arny doctor you cited whose wound profiles clearly show temporary cavities, which the FBI agent said is meaningless. Obviuosly the colonel didn't think they were meaningless. I simply find it hard to believe that two rounds with similar kinetic energy and penetration such as the .45 and 9mm FMJ can have vastly different effects on a human body.

Actually, I was primarily criticizing the data from the Marshall-Sanow study. In reality, the most effective "one-stop shot" is a round to an attackers brain. Even then, there have been exceptions; for example, the kid at Columbine who survived with a 9mm round in his head.

While I've not personally been shot (and hopefully never will be), I've witnessed soldiers who have. Some were killed, some incapacitated, some were walking wounded. My primary point revolves around the notion that one can neither accurately classify nor quantify a true "one-stop shot" using the methods Marshall and Sanow employ. Far too many variables exist.

Finally, yes, I must admit that I lean toward the old .45 even though I own both calibers of pistols. My reasoning, aside from sentiment, is this: (1) The Thompson-Legard study of 1905. These trials involved testing of the .45 against the .38 on live cattle and cadavers. We all know which round prevailed. If such trials were conducted today, we'd probably never hear the end of it from animal rights activists. (2) SGT York. OK, Hollywood glamorized the gentleman. Even so, according to records and eyewitness accounts, he indeed killed 7 enemy troops in rapid succession with an M1911. One can argue that he performed such action more out of necessity as his M1903 wouldn't have allowed such a volume of fire coupled with the fact that he was a phenominal marksman. How might he have fared with a 9mm? Who knows? This is a pseudo-question we will never be able to answer. (3) The mass and size of the round itself even though this directly contradicts my convictions regarding the 5.56 vs 7.62x39 debate. For a close range encounter, I'm convinced a bigger "baseball", so to speak, is more effective.

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: burnedout
Actually, I was primarily criticizing the data from the Marshall-Sanow study. In reality, the most effective "one-stop shot" is a round to an attackers brain. Even then, there have been exceptions; for example, the kid at Columbine who survived with a 9mm round in his head.

While I've not personally been shot (and hopefully never will be), I've witnessed soldiers who have. Some were killed, some incapacitated, some were walking wounded. My primary point revolves around the notion that one can neither accurately classify nor quantify a true "one-stop shot" using the methods Marshall and Sanow employ. Far too many variables exist.

Finally, yes, I must admit that I lean toward the old .45 even though I own both calibers of pistols. My reasoning, aside from sentiment, is this: (1) The Thompson-Legard study of 1905. These trials involved testing of the .45 against the .38 on live cattle and cadavers. We all know which round prevailed. If such trials were conducted today, we'd probably never hear the end of it from animal rights activists. (2) SGT York. OK, Hollywood glamorized the gentleman. Even so, according to records and eyewitness accounts, he indeed killed 7 enemy troops in rapid succession with an M1911. One can argue that he performed such action more out of necessity as his M1903 wouldn't have allowed such a volume of fire coupled with the fact that he was a phenominal marksman. How might he have fared with a 9mm? Who knows? This is a pseudo-question we will never be able to answer. (3) The mass and size of the round itself even though this directly contradicts my convictions regarding the 5.56 vs 7.62x39 debate. For a close range encounter, I'm convinced a bigger "baseball", so to speak, is more effective.

I'm sure the Marshall-Sanow criticisms are well-founded. However, the Thompson-Legard study is considered by some to be complete BS.

"It is instructive to read the actual results of the Thompson-LaGard cattle shooting experiments, which I have done. I urge my readers to do the same. It would be hard to imagine a less appropriate or more poorly controlled study. Despite the significance ascribed to it to this day by the ignorant and willfully blind, it proved absolutely nothing about the lethality or stopping power (on humans) of the handgun cartridges and loads tested. And it is even less relevant (if possible) to modern handgun ammunition, since no expanding bullets were tested.

All that the Thompson-LaGard experiment really proved is that none of the handgun loads tested were effective at killing cattle. Almost all of the bovines those early experimenters shot had to be put down with a sledge hammer! The conclusion that the .45 caliber pistol was superior was forgone from the outset due to the bias of the testers, and it became their official conclusion despite a startling lack of data to support it. (Interestingly, the only steer put down quickly with one shot was killed by a round from the high velocity .30 caliber Mauser pistol!)" source.

Your second reason just seems to prove that Sergeant York was a great shot. The third is, of course, the big question. I'm not out to "prove" that the 9mm round is superior to the .45, but I do believe that most of the reasons given for the inherent superiority of the .45 are BS. There is, of course, no way to settle the argument for good that does not involve unconscionable experiements. I do believe that the 1911 Colt is an accurate, reliable, and effective weapon. I just do not believe that it is so magically superior to 9mm pistols to overcome all of its weaknesses, particularly its magazine capacity. In any case, I'd take a 9mm Hydra-Shok over a .45 ball FMJ any day.

 

[Tominator]

I just do not believe that it is so magically superior to 9mm pistols to overcome some of its weaknesses, particularly its magazine capacity. In any case, I'd take a 9mm Hydra-Shok over a .45 ball FMJ any day.

No majic has been claimed. I'd take ANY 9MM hollowpoint over a .45FMJ!

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Tominator

I just do not believe that it is so magically superior to 9mm pistols to overcome some of its weaknesses, particularly its magazine capacity. In any case, I'd take a 9mm Hydra-Shok over a .45 ball FMJ any day.

No majic has been claimed. I'd take ANY 9MM hollowpoint over a .45FMJ!

I'm not sure I would. Even jacketed .45 ammo can offer enviable penetration and wound channelling. I mostly shoot 9mm myself due to cost, but relying on JHP expansion to compensate for the smaller 9mm bullet is not a safe bet. JHP expansion is never a given, and any number of factors (especially heavy clothing) can prevent expansion. A decent JHP 9mm round (I use Speet Gold Dots) is a reasonable choice for self-defense, but don't sell FMJ .45 short just because it has a round nose.

 

[absolutiza]

haha.. Hacky...

 

[308nato]

Another article regarding the age old debate. It also questions the science behind the M&S theory.

From the text.....Will this end the 9MM vs. .45 debate? No. (but it should, damn it!) The speed guys continue to talk about Hydro Static Shock. I don?t have a formula that factors in Hydro Static Shock... as we don?t have a way to accurately measure that. The 9MM vs .45 debate is one of the eternal issues for the gun culture to talk about. Personally, I favor making as big of a hole in my target as I can.

The last sentence sums it up for me. No doctorate required.

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: 308nato
Another article regarding the age old debate. It also questions the science behind the M&S theory.

From the text.....Will this end the 9MM vs. .45 debate? No. (but it should, damn it!) The speed guys continue to talk about Hydro Static Shock. I don?t have a formula that factors in Hydro Static Shock... as we don?t have a way to accurately measure that. The 9MM vs .45 debate is one of the eternal issues for the gun culture to talk about. Personally, I favor making as big of a hole in my target as I can.

The last sentence sums it up for me. No doctorate required.

Personally, I think that the best man-stopping handgun round is a buckshot load from a sawed-off 12-guage. But who am I to make such judgments?

 

[308nato]

Originally posted by: Scipionix

Originally posted by: 308nato
Another article regarding the age old debate. It also questions the science behind the M&S theory.

From the text.....Will this end the 9MM vs. .45 debate? No. (but it should, damn it!) The speed guys continue to talk about Hydro Static Shock. I don?t have a formula that factors in Hydro Static Shock... as we don?t have a way to accurately measure that. The 9MM vs .45 debate is one of the eternal issues for the gun culture to talk about. Personally, I favor making as big of a hole in my target as I can.

The last sentence sums it up for me. No doctorate required.

Personally, I think that the best man-stopping handgun round is a buckshot load from a sawed-off 12-guage. But who am I to make such judgments?

The best Buick stopping load as well. My wife loves it when I slip a 00mag 3" in with her rabbit loads.