View Full Version : 9mm vs. .45 ***9mm is the best
John Bennett
02-27-2003, 10:41
During the past several months I have been doing a LOT of research and study on the 9v45 issue.
Here are my conclusions:
Timely human incapacitation results from hitting the brain, spine, or heart. There is no such thing as "knock-down-power" or "hydrostatic shock" resulting from transfer of kinetic energy.
Sometimes people say "I want the extra 'whomp' of a larger bullet". They are ignorant of the fact no such difference exists.
If 'whomp' refers to foot pounds of energy dumped into a target, various popular self-defense calibers are about the same.
If "whomp" had anything to do with incapacitation, people would be incapacitated when shot in their body armor. Not once has this resulted in a police officer being unable to continue to fight.
These officers took 100% of the kinetic "whomp" of the round (sometimes several). Yes it hurt. Yes it bruised. Yes it was unpleasant.
Did it substantially diminish their ability to contiue the fight? No.
Fast human incapacitation results from hitting the brain, spine, or heart. If one of those areas is hit, the difference between hitting it with a 9,40,45, etc. is so inconsequential as to be irrelevant so long as the penetration is there.
Simply put, carrying more ammo allows you to shoot more people (multiple attackers) more times.
15 rounds of 9mm at your disposal is better than 10 rounds of 11mm because it SUBSTANTIALLY increases your odds of success!
Shooting an attacker more times results in an INCREDIBLE increase in the likelihood of incapacitating them, thousands of times more increase than a millimeter or two difference in the wound channel affects the odds of success.
Thus, the 9mm cartrige is the best self-defense sidearm choice.
Jeff Burger
02-27-2003, 12:53
QUOTE
"Simply put, carrying more ammo allows you to shoot more people (multiple attackers) more times."
And isnt that what its all about.
lol
Jeff
Ron Rompen
02-27-2003, 17:14
Sorry John, but I completely disagree with you, particularly in your statement
' There is no such thing as "knock-down-power" or "hydrostatic shock" resulting from transfer of kinetic energy.'
Transfer of energy is a fact of physics, not just a theoretical statement. If I want a 'knockdown round' then I want the biggest baddest round that I can possibly carry (.44 Magnum springs to mind right away:-))
Have LEO's taken the full kinetic whomp and survived to fight on? Absolutely....but (as far as I know, and I stand to be corrected) nobody has been shot at close (less than 10') with a .44 Magnum in the vest.
Your statement
'...carrying more ammo allows you to shoot more people (multiple attackers) more times'
is a little dubious at best. Learning how to shoot accurately under all conditions allows you to shoot more people more times. I don't care if you have a 500 round clip in your weapon; if you don't have proper control and method, you won't shoot jack-sh*t
Webmaster
02-27-2003, 22:26
Jeff Cooper... famous pistolero, once said "A hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .44 magnum". That being said, the best round for self-defense is the one you can most effectively employ.
I am still a .45 fan and will stick with my Sig P220, thank you. ;)
John Bennett
02-27-2003, 22:45
Disagreement is good. I posted this to test its logic by subjecting it to the free marketplace of ideas.
Regarding "knockdown power". There is no such thing. If a bullet could knock people down, it would knock you down when you shot it.
Bullets wound by lacerating tissue, not by kinetic energy transfer.
More cutting is caused by either good bullet fragmentation, a tumbling bullet (ala .223), or by using a larger diameter projectile.
That's my point. The wound channel (cutting) caused by .44 is not significantly greater than a 9mm when compared to the effect of hitting brain, spine, or heart.
Yes, putting three .44 inch wound channels into an attacker is slightly better than putting in three 9mm channels. That's a given.
But look at the big picture. Putting four 9mm wound channels is so much better than three of either 9mm or .44", logic dictates that one should strive for that.
"..carrying more ammo allows you to shoot more people (multiple attackers) more times" is not dubious at all. It's a simple fact. I'm not talking about "spray and pray" here. I'm talking about accurate, controlled fire with any weapon.
One could even argue that the reduced recoil and significanly less expensive practice ammo for 9mm would make controlled, accurate fire even more likely with that calibre.
John Bennett
02-27-2003, 22:51
> "And isnt that what its all about."
Absolutely my friend.
I'm a firm believer in "sharing the love". :)
I know our local law officers upgraded from a .357 to a .40 due to the additional stopping power. Whether it's due to kinetic "whomp" or a wider wound channel, I don't know. I can see your point about having more bullets though.
But if nothing else, the hand cannon Desert Eagle .50 will certainly scare the crap outta them :D And if the looks don't, the sound should.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm
Jeff Burger
03-26-2003, 06:48
Welcome it2x1 (My buddy Dave)
Per forum rules you must include your real full name.
dont feel bad...it happens so much I recently decided to just make it my signature for awhile.
Jeff
Good artical and seems to support (to some extent) both points of view expressed here...
One line at the very end of the conclusions section caught my attention
"Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet."
RA Miller
03-28-2003, 10:05
John-
I'm a .45 partisan, so take this for what it's worth:
In decent light, when someone points a .45 at your head, you can see the bullet sitting at the end of the barrel and it looks like a frickin' train.
Rory
Bad Karma
03-14-2004, 14:22
Now that I have something to judge from, I would pick .45 over 9mm any day. The 9mm has more rounds...because you'll need them.
Peace
lonewolf12563
03-14-2004, 14:42
Hi guys, from experience, it is not really the round you choose. Instead learn the ballistics of the round. Does it mushroom. Simply put, that is what stops the adversary. FMJ 9mm tend not to mushroom when hitting the human body. There are more failure to stop with this round because of this. You can get around this by using wad cutters or Special frag rounds. Also it is not so much what type of round is best but what kind of gun you can handle under pressure at close range. Most of all gun fights are under 25 ft. So wether it is 45, 9mm or 38 special all will work if you select the gun that fits YOU and hit your target. Hitting your target under pressure is more valuable than what round you choose. Ed www.lonewolfjujutsu.com
Luebbers
03-15-2004, 16:15
I'm probably in over my head here because I know nothing about guns, but it looks like y'all do, so maybe you could answer some stuff for me. I was under the impression that the whole reason the .45 became the standard sidarm was because of the increased stopping power over the .38(?) when fighting adversaries hopped up on amphetamines who didn't pay much attention to penetration. Is this true or is this just a myth? Or, if it is true, then was the assumption erroneous?
Secondly, I thought they developed the parabellum round to give the 9mm more stopper power without sacrificing small size, therefore clip capacity. Again, I totally don't know what I'm talking about here; I'm just looking for information.
lonewolf12563
03-15-2004, 17:07
Yes all those rounds were developed for PD because they were using 38s. The type of rounds they were using had alot of failure to stop not because of the caliper per se, but because the rounds did not deform and provide the nessesary wound on a consitant basis. So they tried others including the hot FBI 10mm round. But if I used 38 special wad cutters I would be able to stop you. All the rounds work. Some better than others. My advice is do not get caught up in the hype, find a gun you can handle, practice none aimed close quarter fire and hope you never have to use it. Ed
I just wanted to start off saying that everyone has good points about this subject. My point of view is going to touch up on a different view of the 9mm vs. .45 discussion. I used to work in D.C before moving here to florida. One of the biggest reasons why most of the law enforcement departments in D.C, and northern virginia have switched from 9mm to .40, or .45 is because of law suites, and effectivness. In D.C especially law suites started accumilating because during shoot outs the 9mm rounds from the police officers were actually going through the subject and in to an innocent person. The reason for this is that ballistics show that the 9mm has an average stopping distance of 21 inches, after first contact with a human body. Now the problem is that not alot of ppl are over 21 inches thick. So therefore this was causing the round to exit the body in certain cases. So a few years ago to reduce this problem they switched to .40, or .45 rounds which as you know makes a bigger hole and stops shorter than the 9mm. The .40 round has a average stopping distance of 16 inches, which is a little bit better than 21. On another note, to John Bennett. I see your point about the extra rounds with the 9mm, but in the area's that I have lived, 15 round clips are not something you can buy along with a gun in a gun shop. 15 round mags, if you can get them are refered to as pre-banned items, which means you can only buy them if they are already in existance, like from a gun show, or from a person. They do not make 15 round clips anymore, atleast as far as I know, and I'm only relating this to Glock, because those are the ones I'm most familiar with. So I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that where I'm from, there is no longer a huge abundence of 15 round clips for the 9mm. But any way I've talked enough, "namaste"
I have a bit of experience to offer on the subject, though perhaps not nearly the authority of others...I used to work in a gun shop for several years and was quite up on industry news at the time, although that has been about 15 years.
Simple physics tells us that Force = mass x acceleration. How fast you push a 240 grain .45cal and how fast you push a 130 grain .355cal (9mm) projectile plays a part.
What type of bullet it is plays a large factor in the "stopping power" as well. A hollow point bullet will provide much more hydrostatic shock and ancillary damage as it is more likely to fragment than say a ball or wadcutter type of round.
Most important of all of this is where the placement of the shot is on the target. A head shot with pretty much any size round takes the fun outta life pretty quickly. The ability to hit your target is paramount above all else. As in martial arts, the more you train and practice with your weapon of choice, the more efficient and deadly you become. And like my martial training, though I practice and train for preparedness, I hope that I never have to use my weapon in a life/death situation.
I have read that statistics on .45cal ball ammo resulted in a one shot kill percentages in the order of 90+ % when the shot was received in the torso/chest area. I am unaware of similar studies with other rounds, But again, getting shot with ANYTHING would have to suck.
I had always heard that the 9mm weapon was primarily adapted for battlefield use as it had a higher likelihood of producing a seriously incapacitating wound situation, and that tied up more battlefield resources and logistics in dealing with wounded soldiers. Dead ones do not require much effort.
A lot of times it also comes down to personal preferences. Sort of Chevy vs. Ford, PC vs. Mac sort of thing.
My personal carry weapon was a S&W Air-weight Bodyguard. Extremely light weight for prolonged carry, concealed hammer would not snag on clothing during draw, and the dead stupid simple operation of a revolver. .38cal +P hollow point ammo would I believe more than sufficient to stop even some one of my large stature.
...Also in P.S. Hydrostatic shock is very much in issue in rounds. Comparison of different size and type of rounds in blocks of ballistic gelatin help demonstrate this concept. The principle of body armor is to help defuse the "whomp" if you will of the impact. Takes the force of pinpoint impact and spreads it out over larger area, and more importantly prevents penetration to vital organs.
Cliff Hargrave
03-15-2004, 20:18
Well......I have carried over the last 19 years
Colt Python .357 mag
S&W 681 .357 mag
S&W 19 .357 mag
S&W 5906 9mm
Glock 17 9mm
Colt Commander .45
Sig P229 .40
Glock 23 .40
I never shot anyone but I never was really concerned about being under gunned. I do believe the bigger the bullet and the faster the bullet, the bigger the hole in the bad guy. The bigger the hole, the better chance of stopping them. However, you have to have a compromise in size, recoil, ease of use, and ease of carry. I have small hands so that makes a big difference in what gun I can shoot well. I also believe in carrying the same gun on and off duty. I never liked the little pip-squeak off duty guns. So based on my own needs the Glock 23 and the Sig P229 work well. The .40 is a good compromise with a bigger bullet in the same size guns as a 9mm.
Of course if I had a choice I would only pull my Glock when I ran out of slugs in my Rem 870. :)
Of course if I had a choice I would only pull my Glock when I ran out of slugs in my Rem 870. :)
Amen. I can't begin to tell you the number of people that I had coming in to by a handgun for personal home defense that left with a Mossberg 500 or Remington 12 guage with a 20" barrel. Simply no better weapon for personal protection in the home IMHO.
Of course, concealed carry is a whole different matter :wink2:
mantisman
03-16-2004, 03:06
Over her police and security gaurds are required by law to load hollow point rounds.Our police issue glock17s or 19s i think they are 9mm.The hollow points as you are no doubt aware drop their targets and go no further.I have fired 9mm micro uzis and 45 cal revolvers.The 45 kicked like a mule.Personally id go for a 10mm handgun.Nice compromise.
lonewolf12563
03-16-2004, 13:40
One other thing to think about when selecting a hand gun, is the size of the flash it makes at night. That was a problem with the 10mm round. First shot was great but I could not see any thing after that. Same goes for 357 and most of your larger rounds.Think of when you are going to have to defend yourself, at night. Ed
kodanjaclay
03-22-2004, 15:20
Ed,
It was my understanding that the issues with the 10mm resulting more from jamming. That is why RPD dropped the 10 and went to the 40.
lonewolf12563
03-22-2004, 17:57
I was not told about the jamming issues. I think that could of been corrected. I am going by only what I was told. Agencies get to try many different weapons. The 10mm was deemed too large. Ed
Dennis Monk
03-26-2004, 06:28
9mm. That's like a bullet, only smaller. Right?
Cliff Hargrave
03-26-2004, 13:09
9mm. That's like a bullet, only smaller. Right?
It's like a .380 magnum :)
Cliff Hargrave
03-26-2004, 13:12
Over her police and security gaurds are required by law to load hollow point rounds.Our police issue glock17s or 19s i think they are 9mm.The hollow points as you are no doubt aware drop their targets and go no further.I have fired 9mm micro uzis and 45 cal revolvers.The 45 kicked like a mule.Personally id go for a 10mm handgun.Nice compromise.
The Glock 17 and 19 are both 9mm
and
Not all hollow points drop their targets......
Sometimes hollowpoints do go further.......
The 10mm kicks pretty bad too...............
sean_stonehart
03-26-2004, 14:02
Most LEO's in Ga are using .40 S&W or 9mm .
The Glock 10mm has developed a following here for wild boar hunting since it can take the rigors of lowland wetland hunting & packs a wallop!
I've owned 9MM (Glock, Taurus, EAA), .40 S&W (2 Glock 22's & 1 P229 (with a .357 Sig barrel change out)) & .45 ACP (Colt 1991A1 & Sig P220)... The .40 S&W was a Sig P229 & was probably the best compromise for the 9MM/.45ACP debate, but preferences won out & I'm down to a Sig P220... Gotta love +P .45ACP ... :D
Anybody ever try that .400 CorBon yet?
Ive played with the "big three" bottleneck rounds out there, the .400 corbon, the 357sig, and the .32naa.
Perceived recoil on ALL was more than the base case size (.45 on the .400 for example) and muzzle flash was increased. However, they were still easy to place on target and were more reliable in the feeding dept (in my experience, YMMV)
While theres no increase in rounds available with the smaller bullet due to case size, I think the ballistic and feeding benefits may outweight that handicap.
RAZOR_3D
03-30-2004, 17:05
I have seen the full mag from a military issue barreta 9mm unloaded in to the upper torso of a junked up humad and that person keep running. On the flip I have seen a similerly junked up person droped with only one shot from a .45 1911 to the upper torso and actually knocked back with the force of the impact. So to disagree with a previous post the .45 does have more knockdown power. Yeah the 9mm carries more rounds but on the flip the 9mm also takes more rounds to down a target so in effect the .45 at one round per drop is a more effective and ammo saving round.
Razor, per frum rules, you need to post with you real full name, you can easily do that by adding it to your signature.
Thanks.
John Bennett
03-31-2004, 10:09
> only one shot from a .45 1911 to the upper torso and actually knocked back with the force of the impact.
I've seen that on television too. Oddly, whenever I shoot a .45 it doesn't slam me up against walls or throw me through windows. ...and that's with me absorbing 100% of the bullet's kinetic energy. Hmmmmm.
> .45 does have more knockdown power.
There is no such thing as "knockdown power". People who believe such silliness have been watching too many Dirty Harry movies. See my post above explaining why.
If you watch the video of hinkleys attempted assaination of Pres. Regan, you will see a very large Secret Service Agent get shot with a pistol while he was charging and get knocked down like he was clothes lined. Pretty impressive. Of course he was shot with a .22LR pistol!!! He had seen enough, heard enough, been conditioned enough, to beleive thats what happens when you get shot.
Now, conversely, its not even legal to go hunting for deer with a 22 in many places. Most hunters go with at LEAST 223, if not a 308 or higher... maybe a 375H&H or so... and when they shoot a deer not a SINGLE one goes flying backwards and flops around. Most have to be tracked, sometimes for miles... even shot in the heart a deer can run 300 yards. It takes either ALOT of luck, or ALOT of skill to bring down a deer with instant incapacitation.
Whats the moral to this story?
Deer dont watch TV. :laugh:
15 rounds of 9mm at your disposal is better than 10 rounds of 11mm because it SUBSTANTIALLY increases your odds of success!
John,
If one is not LEO, they are limited to 10 rounds regardless (unless buying pre brady gun)
So you might as well have the heaviest largest bullet one can managably shoot.
Actually all you need is a pre-ban MAG. The gun itself can be 2 days out of the factory. Pick up an issue of Shotgun News... more preban mags than you can wave a stick at!
And hopefully in Sept, the stupid assault weapons ban will go away and it wont matter.
Yes, putting three .44 inch wound channels into an attacker is slightly better than putting in three 9mm channels. That's a given.
Actually in Hornadays literature for the XTP HP bullet, they boast how it can expand UP TO 1.5x the diameter and have high retained mass.
1.5x 9mm is .53 inches
The .45 already starts out at .452, and expands to .68 inches. (theoretically)
Or a 65% greater wound channel based on area.
I'm old school - and prefer bigger slower moving bullets.
Ed,
It was my understanding that the issues with the 10mm resulting more from jamming. That is why RPD dropped the 10 and went to the 40.
I believe that development of the 40 S&W came just after the FBI chose the large frame S&W pistol and 10mm bullet.
The FBI chose a 10mm bullet that was "de powered" to make shooting more manageable. However, they were still choosing a large frame semi-automatic handgun to shoot it in.
S&W believed they could use the same weight bullets, in a shorter case, get similar performance to the 10mm lite the FBI was using, and be able to package it into a handgun built around a 9mm size, rather than the full size frame.
Whether this is completely true I wonder, but one can certainly say the 40 S&W is a successful new round introduction.
Disagreement is good. I posted this to test its logic by subjecting it to the free marketplace of ideas.
Regarding "knockdown power". There is no such thing. If a bullet could knock people down, it would knock you down when you shot it.
Bullets wound by lacerating tissue, not by kinetic energy transfer.
and also later on
...and that's with me absorbing 100% of the bullet's kinetic energy. Hmmmmm.
John,
I agree that bullets wound by damaging living tissue but after some thought, I think I have to disagree with your ideas of energy and force, and in a lengthy explanation here is why.
(1) the assumption the the force at the shooters side is the same as the force on the being shot side. F=MA Force equals Mass x Acceleration. The force is a component of acceleration. Nascar Fans all over the world learned that the force required to accelerate a car from 0 to 180 in say 10 seconds is no where near the force required to take the same car from 180 to 0 in less than one second (or else Dale Earnhardt would still be alive)
Acceleration is a function of the time squared. If it took 10 seconds to go from 0 to 180, and 1 second to go from 180 to 0, the acceleration, and thus the force for constant mass, would be 100 times greater.
Imagine Clint Eastwood in the movie Fistful of Dollars, wearing the metal shield that stopped the bullets. These bullets say decelerate from 1100fps to 0 fps over maybe a 1 inch distance. Versus the 6 to 20 inch difference to accelerate the bullet to that velocity, less time to slow down means a higher acceleration number, and thus a higher force.
(2) Can the force be the same on the bullet, yet yield different forces on the person being shot?
If I take my .45 colt and shoot it in my 5.5 inch revolver, I will get a particular velocity out of the muzzle. If I shoot the exact same bullet out of my 24" Marlin Rifle, I will get a velocity that is several hundred FPS faster.
If this same bullet hits Clint Eastwood wearing the metal shield from the example above, he should feel a difference, between the same bullets with velocity being the only difference.
Thus the same force on the bullet can yield different forces on the person being shot.
(3) Thus my third point is that we need to treat this example as Three different problems.
3A - problem one is the force of the expanding gases on the projectile, which has a corresponding force on the gun being fired. Once the bullet leaves the barrel, the forces acting on the bullet are gone (except of course for wind resistance and gravity)
3B - you have the force of the bullet as it de-accelerates into the person being shot, which is now a completely different problem.
3C - you have the force of the firearm as it decelerates against your shoulder (for a rifle) in in your grip (for a handgun)
Imagine the loaded gun were on a table, and it fired. The bullet would go one way, and the gun would go the other way (equal and opposite reactions).
The acceleration on the bullet will be much higher as the mass is much smaller. If we use F=MA - my 5.5 inch revolver weighs about 41 ounces, and I believe there are 700 grains in an ounce so it is about 128x heavier than the bullet it shoots. Which means the firearms acceleration into me for recoil is about 128x slower than the bullet is.
This means the velocity the gun hits me(or you) with in recoil is much lower than the velocity of the bullet. Kinetic Energy is a function of Velocity Squared. Where the KE of the bullet will be higher even though it has a lower mass. If we alternate 128 for Mass and 1 for Acceleration, then reverse it, we can get a factor, for a 1 second calculation, of about a 20000x difference in Kinetic energy. Thus, when you say you are absorbing the KE of the bullet when you shoot, I disagree.
Perhaps I can fire 2 or 3 rounds per second. assuming 1/2 the time is spent in recoil, and the other half in realigning the sight picture, I am spending maybe .25 to .15 seconds in recoil.
This is in contrast to a bullet going from 1100 fps to 0 in a couple inches, which only takes .00015 seconds. Which is like a 1000 times difference, and as we learned in the Dale Earnhardt example, time is squared in acceleration, which is then used in calculating force).
So, in recoil, I am stopping a heavier object (which would increase the force on the shooter) which is moving dramatically slower (dramatically decreasing the force on the shooter), over a longer period of time (dramatically decreasing the force on the shooter)
Now, I have not been shot. But I did see a news story once where a reporter wore a vest and was shot with a .22 - it did set him back a step, he fell to a knee and they had to beep out his comments. It hurt more than he thought it would. I don't know, and maybe someone can expand on this, but it seems logical to me that although the bullet proof vest can save your life, I would not be surprised if people who have gotten shot in one have broken or cracked a rib or two.
Anyways, perhaps some physicists would jump in and point out the errors in my logic.
kodanjaclay
04-03-2004, 22:03
Jeff,
My brother in law is a senior at UWF. He has a double major of Chemistry and Physics, with a 4.0 average. I showed him your post. He responded to it with his comments. I will repost the response here:
John,
I agree that bullets wound by damaging living tissue but after some thought, I think I have to disagree with your ideas of energy and force, and in a lengthy explanation here is why.
(1) the assumption the the force at the shooters side is the same as the force on the being shot side. F=MA Force equals Mass x Acceleration. The force is a component of acceleration. Nascar Fans all over the world learned that the force required to accelerate a car from 0 to 180 in say 10 seconds is no where near the force required to take the same car from 180 to 0 in less than one second (or else Dale Earnhardt would still be alive)
----
The force required to shoot the bullet should not equal the force required to stop it. It would depend on how quickly the bullet stopped. Though I don't believe it is impossible for the forces to be the same.
-----
Acceleration is a function of the time squared. If it took 10 seconds to go from 0 to 180, and 1 second to go from 180 to 0, the acceleration, and thus the force for constant mass, would be 100 times greater.
----
This would only be true if you were talking about taking 10 seconds to go from 0x to 180x where x is a measure of distance. If you're talking about velocities, which I believe you are, acceleration would only depend on time in the manner v=at. or (v2-v1)=a(t2-t1). Acceleration is the ratio of the change in the velocity to the change in time. Therefore, the force would be 10 times greater in your example.
-----
Imagine Clint Eastwood in the movie Fistful of Dollars, wearing the metal shield that stopped the bullets. These bullets say decelerate from 1100fps to 0 fps over maybe a 1 inch distance. Versus the 6 to 20 inch difference to accelerate the bullet to that velocity, less time to slow down means a higher acceleration number, and thus a higher force.
-----
True
-----
(2) Can the force be the same on the bullet, yet yield different forces on the person being shot?
If I take my .45 colt and shoot it in my 5.5 inch revolver, I will get a particular velocity out of the muzzle. If I shoot the exact same bullet out of my 24" Marlin Rifle, I will get a velocity that is several hundred FPS faster.
-----
This difference in velocity is caused by different forces being applied. Imagine one guy pushing a bowling ball along a smooth track and the letting go. Now, imagine 3 guys pushing the same bowling ball. The 3 guys will be pushing the ball with a greater force, so you would expect the bowling ball to travel faster.
------
If this same bullet hits Clint Eastwood wearing the metal shield from the example above, he should feel a difference, between the same bullets with velocity being the only difference.
------
Correct, at the point where Clint Eastwood is hit, there only difference between the bullets is their respective velocities.
------
Thus the same force on the bullet can yield different forces on the person being shot.
-----
The same force was not applied to both bullets. If it had been, they would have traveled at the same velocity and yielded the same force.
-----
(3) Thus my third point is that we need to treat this example as Three different problems.
3A - problem one is the force of the expanding gases on the projectile, which has a corresponding force on the gun being fired. Once the bullet leaves the barrel, the forces acting on the bullet are gone (except of course for wind resistance and gravity)
3B - you have the force of the bullet as it de-accelerates into the person being shot, which is now a completely different problem.
3C - you have the force of the firearm as it decelerates against your shoulder (for a rifle) in in your grip (for a handgun)
Imagine the loaded gun were on a table, and it fired. The bullet would go one way, and the gun would go the other way (equal and opposite reactions).
-----
True.
-----
The acceleration on the bullet will be much higher as the mass is much smaller. If we use F=MA - my 5.5 inch revolver weighs about 41 ounces, and I believe there are 700 grains in an ounce so it is about 128x heavier than the bullet it shoots. Which means the firearms acceleration into me for recoil is about 128x slower than the bullet is.
-----
Again, correct.
-----
This means the velocity the gun hits me(or you) with in recoil is much lower than the velocity of the bullet. Kinetic Energy is a function of Velocity Squared. Where the KE of the bullet will be higher even though it has a lower mass. If we alternate 128 for Mass and 1 for Acceleration, then reverse it, we can get a factor, for a 1 second calculation, of about a 20000x difference in Kinetic energy. Thus, when you say you are absorbing the KE of the bullet when you shoot, I disagree.
------
A few things here, kinetic energy is a function of velocity squared, true, but you must also account for the mass. KE = 1/2 mv^2 The velocity for a 1 second calculation would be equivalent to the acceleration. Therefore, for the bullet, the mass is 1, but the velocity is 128. For the gun, the mass is 128, and the velocity is 1. Thefore, combining the two statements, the kinetic energy of the bullet should be 128x greater. As for absorbing the KE of the bullet, this is obviously not the case because what your are absorbing is much smaller. In this case, you are actually absorbing the momentum (denoted by P) of the bullet. P = mv This is actually what you absorb when you shoot.
------
Perhaps I can fire 2 or 3 rounds per second. assuming 1/2 the time is spent in recoil, and the other half in realigning the sight picture, I am spending maybe .25 to .15 seconds in recoil.
This is in contrast to a bullet going from 1100 fps to 0 in a couple inches, which only takes .00015 seconds. Which is like a 1000 times difference, and as we learned in the Dale Earnhardt example, time is squared in acceleration, which is then used in calculating force).
-----
I'm not sure where the .00015 seconds comes from.
-----
So, in recoil, I am stopping a heavier object (which would increase the force on the shooter) which is moving dramatically slower (dramatically decreasing the force on the shooter), over a longer period of time (dramatically decreasing the force on the shooter)
-----
I wouldn't argue against that.
-----
Now, I have not been shot. But I did see a news story once where a reporter wore a vest and was shot with a .22 - it did set him back a step, he fell to a knee and they had to beep out his comments. It hurt more than he thought it would. I don't know, and maybe someone can expand on this, but it seems logical to me that although the bullet proof vest can save your life, I would not be surprised if people who have gotten shot in one have broken or cracked a rib or two.
Anyways, perhaps some physicists would jump in and point out the errors in my logic.
-----
A relative asked me to take a look at this. I tried to explain what I believe to be true about the problem presented. I My name is David and feel free to email me at imdagenius00@cs.com if you have questions
-----
Oooops, my bad. Thank you for the correction. I knew I should have checked my old notes (and to think I got an A in physics). I mixed up two equations. Velocity is a function of acceleration and time (not time squared) - Distance is a function of Time squared.
V=Vo+AT
Velocity = Original Velocity plus Acceleration x Time (I was erronously using .5At squared)
D=VoT+.5ATT
Distance = Original Velocity x time plus .5 x Acceleration x time squared.
Anyways I believe the theory still holds, in recoil you are decelerating a larger mass, with lower initial velocity over a longer period of time, and the force would be less.
This difference in velocity is caused by different forces being applied. Imagine one guy pushing a bowling ball along a smooth track and the letting go. Now, imagine 3 guys pushing the same bowling ball. The 3 guys will be pushing the ball with a greater force, so you would expect the bowling ball to travel faster.
------
I do stick to my guns on this issue (no pun intended) - the same cartridge in a longer barreled gun does not have more force applied to it. It has the same force (exact same amount of gun powder) applied over a longer period of time (because it has a longer barrel) and that is why the velocity is higher.
J.J.Smith
04-16-2004, 15:25
I havn't read the whole thread, but heres my two cents.
John is correct about the "knockback" seen in movies being false, see Newton's third law:
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."
Which means, even a shotgun blast to the chest will not knock you back like it does in the movies, everytime you fire a shotgun you are thrown with equal force as your opponent (you would actually most likely receive more force/kinetic energy than your opponent because some of the spread is likely to miss, or penetrate.)
And just to throw in my 2 cents about the gun debate, I think accuracy (your's, not the gun's) and carry capicity are the two more important factors in self defense for guns.
BigDozer66
05-02-2004, 20:58
I havn't read the whole thread, but heres my two cents.
John is correct about the "knockback" seen in movies being false, see Newton's third law:
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."
Which means, even a shotgun blast to the chest will not knock you back like it does in the movies, everytime you fire a shotgun you are thrown with equal force as your opponent (you would actually most likely receive more force/kinetic energy than your opponent because some of the spread is likely to miss, or penetrate.)
Unless you are shooting a gas/recoil operated auto loading gun which absorbs some of the recoil. Pumps, double or single barrel shotguns and revolvers do not absorb any energy but your shoulder and wrist do.
And just to throw in my 2 cents about the gun debate, I think accuracy (your's, not the gun's) and carry capacity are the two more important factors in self defense for guns.
The majority or people today go by the theory of "Spray and Pray" when it comes to handgun or even rifle selection. Spray (more bullets) and Pray (it hits the bad guy's) instead of accuracy! :D
I carry a Kimber Pro CDP .45 acp with one in the barrel and 8 rounds in a Wilson mag. Along with the other 2-8 round Wilson mags it equals 25 rounds of 230 grain Hornady XTP's. I in no way feel 'undergunned' because of the lack of 15-17 round (normal capacity) 9mm magazines! :t2:
A 12 ga. shotgun is a much better choice for self defense but it is to hard to conceal! ;)
If you haven't seen anyone actually 'knocked down' with a 12 ga. shotgun blast then you haven't been watching the right "COPS" videos.
I believe a Remington 870 SuperMag with 3-1/2" 00 Buck would be capable of putting smaller guys on their butts who were shooting it! :eek:
BigDozer66
SteyrAUG
05-03-2004, 22:34
9mm vs. .45 is a WWII argument. With ball ammo and single stack (or 10 round only) mags .45 is the winner of course.
However given special purpose ammo (hydra shocks, golden sabers and rangers) the old knock down argument just doesn't factor any more. Anyone who takes a jacketed hollow point 9mm is going to go down.
I generaly prefer 9mm for commonality of ammo with my carbine (usually a MP5 or Colt 9mm AR15) so having a 9mm handgun just makes sense. For conceal carry I usually prefer a 9mm for larger magazine capacity. My USP, 92FS and P226 are all 15+1 and with 3 spare mags I have 61 rounds. If I can't yank my butt out of a jam with 61 rounds, well I don't think I was getting out anyway.
Now this is not to discount the .45 altogether. If I was carrying a HK UMP (wish I had one) I would probably have a USP45 on my side. Also suppressed weapons are preferred in .45 since the round is subsonic. You can suppress 9mm of course but there are some drawbacks to suppressing a supersonic round. With dedicated integral suppressors (like on the MP5SD) standard 9mm is lowed in velocity by barrel ports but this reduces it's effectiveness to that of a hot .380 in terminal ballistics. If you send standard 9mm (115 gr) down a add on suppressor you will get a ballistic crack when the round goes supersonic. My prefference is to carry specific (147 gr) subsonic 9mm rounds, you just can't use them in a integrally suppressed weapon.
But personally all of this is much ado about nothing. I've seen enough people laid out by .380s and .32s to worry about ballistic performance. Simply if someone gets nailed by a 9mm or .45 they will know about it. They will go down, they probably won't get up.
maxpress
05-28-2004, 22:24
ok first the 10mm was dropped from the fbi because of overpenatration (killing the person standing behind the one you actually meant to kill) and the shear size of the platform required to fire it. a glock 10mm is kinda like holding a 2by4.
recoil from a weapon of wimpy pistol caliber (compared to rifle/shotgun) wont knock a person over as much as the target because the gasses used to cycle the action is mostly bled off and recoil is spread over a large area.
get your partner to stand on a 2ft. by 2ft. board on your chest and you probably can take it. then go have her put on a stilleto heel and stand on just the heel on your bare chest. thats the difference between recoil and bullet deceleration.
as far as knock down power have george foreman hit you in the chest and then the closest five year old thats handy and tell me if you feel a difference.
masad ayoob has a wonderfull book out called stopping power that he created by taking all the police reports he could get on street gunfights and finding out which calibers stopped the fights the quickest. 357 and 45 came out on top (for handguns).
during our war with philipino tribes we used a .38(which is basicallythe same diameter and power of the 9mm)long colt after giving up our .45 colt pistols which served so well and had a reputation for stoping agressors. the armys complaint was it was taking 5 or more shots to stop a tribesman instead of one from a 45 previous to the switchover.
in 1911 the 45 auto came back and there are many stories along with it of soldiers stopping 7 or more enemys with one shot each.
alot of the theory of a one shot stop is this. if someone hits you many times in a fist fight and dont knock you down youll will probably keep fighting. if someone knocks you flat on your arse you re more prone by instinct to rethink the fight.
im not trying to take anything away from the 9mm. i can hit the 10 on a b-27 3 times in .75 seconds with a 9mm. it takes 1.25 to do the same with my 45. its all in prefferenceof do you want a gun that hits like george foreman or fast stings like sugar ray.
im comfortable with either but i like the .45 cause i trust it against 4 leged critters more. and i like the fire and forget on to the next target theory better to.
when i was in the army the general issue was the m9 in 9mm for a pistol. i was on an entry team and had a 45 issued so that kinda tells ya something.
QuaiJohnCain
07-12-2004, 11:36
Timely human incapacitation results from hitting the brain, spine, or heart. There is no such thing as "knock-down-power" or "hydrostatic shock" resulting from transfer of kinetic energy.
Talk to a physics buff, you're wrong. I will use laymans language with a photo example, and come full circle with the sci lingo.
If "whomp" had anything to do with incapacitation, people would be incapacitated when shot in their body armor. Not once has this resulted in a police officer being unable to continue to fight.
Not once, huh? Have you actually witnessed one of these tests? I have. You can DEFINITELY get knocked the hell out. I've seen one where a participant's heart stopped. Do you think you can fight when you're heart ain't pumpin'?
Fast human incapacitation results from hitting the brain, spine, or heart. If one of those areas is hit, the difference between hitting it with a 9,40,45, etc. is so inconsequential as to be irrelevant so long as the penetration is there.
"Bullets wound by lacerating tissue, not by kinetic energy transfer."
That's my point. The wound channel (cutting) caused by .44 is not significantly greater than a 9mm when compared to the effect of hitting brain, spine, or heart.
Um, ok.... Look at my avatar pic. That's me shooting a rather thick rinded watermelon (1 1/2in. thick) with a .454 Casull. Here's a link to a full size version:
http://www.geocities.com/quaijohncain/tol.jpg
As you can see, the damn thing EXPLODED. A 9mm will NOT do that. This has nothing to do with the propeties of the "meat" of the melon, or it getting lacerated" by the bullet. Try this yourself (it's fun) A 9mm will NOT explode a watermelon like that. A .454 will, because it delivers so much more *gulp*, kinetic force. The watermelon explodes because the shell cannot withstand the *hydrostatic shock* caused by the kinetic force that the moving bullet (and the force it's carrying) introduced to the melon.
Dennis Monk
07-12-2004, 13:01
Irony is such a cool thing. I just walked in the door from a late morning session at the gun club with my Springfield Armory .45 and checked my e-mail. What do I find? I find that this old thread has been given new life. Not jumping on the .45 bandwagon here, but as an owner of several of them, and having owned 9mm's as well, I believe much more in the stopping power of a .45 round. Accuracy difference is minimal at best, for me anyway. Yes the standard 9mm round is hundreds of feet per second faster than the larger calibers, and yes this does affect power factor (IPSC,IDPA lingo) but the heavier grain bullets moving slower often have a higher power factor. I am not a physics major so I can't explain it all. I just know that from years of practical shooting experience I would rather have a round that moves slower but causes more impact damage, than a faster one with less. The buzz about 9mm vs. .45 acp is really moot anyway. If you really want to compare and contrast calibers that have ballistic properties that you can argue about, consider the .38 super. It has been around for a long time. Thousands of Open Class IPSC/USPSA shooters (muzzle compensators/red dot sights etc.) can't be wrong.
QuaiJohnCain
07-12-2004, 13:52
Damn geocities.... here's the pic
Not that I have anything to add to this thread, but I shot a .454 about a month ago... expensive as hell to shoot, but twice as fun!
ok first the 10mm was dropped from the fbi because of overpenatration (killing the person standing behind the one you actually meant to kill) and the shear size of the platform required to fire it. a glock 10mm is kinda like holding a 2by4.
Full power 10mm rounds never made it into the regular issue of the FBI. When testing the 9mm, 10mm and 45, they found with the 10mm muzzle flip and flash to be excessive. They detuned the cartridge to 950fps with the 180 grain bullet. Penetration tests came out best with this de-powered 10mm, and this is what was chosen. Original S&W full size pistols made only for the FBI came with reduced power recoil springs.
It is my understanding that a large percentage of officer shots miss their target (80% I once saw) - overpenetration at those percentages isn't the overriding issue.
It was then that someone had the bright idea of packaging the depowered 180 grain bullet at 950fps into a shorter case that would work on medium frame semi-automatic pistols, and the 40 S&W was born.
FYI, I believe new FBI agents must still qualify in pistol, carbine and shotgun. The carbine is a 10mm, so the FBI does still use a 10mm.
Malificus
07-12-2004, 21:10
From John Bennett
Timely human incapacitation results from hitting the brain, spine, or heart. There is no such thing as "knock-down-power" or "hydrostatic shock" resulting from transfer of kinetic energy.
You know a .22 will kill a man, but it will not stop him (not for a while at least). It's like a a small car hitting you a 5mph, or a Mack truck hitting you at 60mph. I have a Desert Eagle .44remmag that only holds 8+1. I'd rather have this than a Beretta 9mm any day!!! Besides I like larger Calibers. I have let 6'2" 240 lbs. marines shoot my gun, after one shot they said **** that! I have let an 8 year old girl shoot it, and she loved it! The point I'm trying to make is it your frame of mind, and that any firearm that sort of have a zen to :bow: you, is the firearm for you.
Ron Rompen
07-15-2004, 19:25
I do not pretend to be an expert in bullet physics and wound physiology, but I would ask one question of those who say that 'size doesn't matter'.
After looking at the .50 cal BMG (at Cabela's in Dundee Michigan...go and see it, it's worth the drive) and comparing it to EVERYTHING else there, I seriously question the statement that size doesnt matter.
The kinetic energy transfer of a bullet (simplified) is defined by the following equation:
E[Kinetic]=1/2mass x velocity squared
First approximation of analysis is that the speed of the round has the highest effect on impact energy.
Second approximation of analysis is that the the mass of the bullet has a (singnificantly) lesser effect on impact energy.
Secondary effects (density, rate of transfer, etc) are not considered.
Cliff Hargrave
07-15-2004, 19:48
This topic has been beat to death in every gun magazine ever printed and every firearm message board out there.
The variables involved in shootings are so great that they can never be scientifically labeled. Find something you can carry, shoot well, shoot fast, and practice, practice, practice.........
I'll stick to my Wilson Combat KZ-45 (in .45 cal. of course)for every day use. I don't even own a 9mm.
But I agree with Cliff. Find something you can shoot well and fast and nothing replaces constant practice.
Ron Rompen
07-18-2004, 11:28
Thats a very good point, Cliff. Doesn't matter what you carry, if you can't use it properly, or if you can't hit your target, then wound tracks, impact velocity, and all the rest of it, doesn't matter at all.
John Bennett
07-18-2004, 21:21
It's still better to have 15 rounds in your magazine than 9.
More firepower is GOOD. Punching more holes resulting in more blood loss and the dramatically higher probability of hitting a vital is GOOD.
That's why you'll never see me toting a .45.
I believe in carrying the most firepower you can in a single, convenient package.
However, if a person's psychological need for big bullets, big 4x4 trucks, and tall heels on their boots overrides common sense, I say go be happy.
However, if a person's psychological need for big bullets, big 4x4 trucks, and tall heels on their boots overrides common sense, I say go be happy
Wont Texas deport you for saying stuff like that? :laugh:
Original posted by Jonn Bennett
More firepower is GOOD. Punching more holes resulting in more blood loss and the dramatically higher probability of hitting a vital is GOOD.
Ahh..but that's why I carry an M4 with 4 30 round mags. Yeap I can even take it home.
For all of you wondering about being "knocked back" .
The following video is a classic
http://www.serveroptions.com/humor/abdula01.mpg
There are a bunch of funny videos on
http://www.accuratereloading.com/videos.html
QuaiJohnCain
07-20-2004, 11:51
It's still better to have 15 rounds in your magazine than 9.
More firepower is GOOD. Punching more holes resulting in more blood loss and the dramatically higher probability of hitting a vital is GOOD.
One .44mag round from cor-bon takes less time to fire than it does to fire five 9mm, and will do more damage than all the 5 9s combined. Even if you don't hit the spine on a vital organ, the .44 is going to knock that person out unless they're on PCP (save the arms and legs, of course).
Two, if you're busy pumping 9s into your first badguy, the second one can shoot you.
There's just too many cases where 9mm BOUNCED OFF of the target. Smart criminals wear vests. 9mm don't do jack to vests. A .44 won't go through the vest, but the shock can stop a heart.
However, if a person's psychological need for big bullets, big 4x4 trucks, and tall heels on their boots overrides common sense, I say go be happy.
Ah, the freudian prod. Having a "need" to do that puts you in the same venue. Counterproductive pride is more dangerous than is an understanding of basic physics.
John Bennett
07-20-2004, 13:36
> There's just too many cases where 9mm BOUNCED OFF of the target.
LOL! Oh Yes! Waaaaaaay too many! :laugh:
QuaiJohnCain
07-20-2004, 14:30
> There's just too many cases where 9mm BOUNCED OFF of the target.
LOL! Oh Yes! Waaaaaaay too many! :laugh:
Hmmm... A very publicized example should still be pretty fresh in memory- The North Hollywood Bank Robbery. There's friggin VIDEO of 9s bouncing right off of the robbers. LOL right back at you, again. I don't know about Lufkin, but here in So. Cal. Most, if not all of the Cops ditched thier 9s after seeing the North Hollywood Robbery footage in favor of .45s and .40s&w.
Quite often I get to talk to some of San Diego's SWAT guys, who are arguably the best in the world. They tell me 9mm is only good when loaded in an MP5, and that using a 9mm pistol for entry or defense in this day and age is suicidal. And even the MP5s are leaving in favor of the FN P-90 (scary friggin gun!)
John Bennett
07-20-2004, 22:48
Yeah, 9mm just "bouces off" body armour, but .45's just punch right through it. :rolleyes:
Shooting an attacker more times results in an INCREDIBLE increase in the likelihood of incapacitating them, thousands of times more increase than a millimeter or two difference in the wound channel affects the odds of success.
I honestly do not understand how anyone has difficulty comprehending that simple fact.
If big, manly bullets are so darn effective, why don't people just carry a single shot BMG .50 handgun? Why aren't our soldiers issued Weatherby .460's?
Wow! Talk about "knock-down power". No bouncing off there! Problem solved! Put away the gelatin. Call the magazines. Send a memo to the Special Forces command. Problem solved.
I'll give you a hint. It's because being able to shoot more people more times is WAY better than being able to shoot less people less times with a slightly larger bullet.
I'm now going over to the chat forum and make a post about evolution, Lee Harvey Oswald, abortion, groundfighting, and the war in Iraq. :)
Dennis Monk
07-21-2004, 04:48
OK we all have some differing opinions of which is better.
Some believe that smaller, but more is better.
Others, myself included, believe that a larger caliber will do more damage and therefore need fewer rounds to incapacitate.
One thing we seem to be forgetting here in this thread is that fact that we are gun lovers, through and through. Second amendment advocates to the bone. If I could find a 15 round .454 Casul, I would be in hog heaven. My single action .22 suits me just as fine as my AK-47 and my AR-15. Why? Because it is a fine firearm, it suits it's purpose and it is mine. We all love our guns, heck I love all guns. :D
DragonMind
07-21-2004, 07:46
I'm now going over to the chat forum and make a post about evolution, Lee Harvey Oswald, abortion, groundfighting, and the war in Iraq. :)
What, nothing about the Neo-nazi, gay, baby whales that sleep with their sisters?!?
Cliff Hargrave
07-21-2004, 08:08
What, nothing about the Neo-nazi, gay, baby whales that sleep with their sisters?!?
I think we can start enough debates with kata, chi, pressure points, sokes, and BJJ. No need to branch out off topic :)
I got a question based on this thread. Now, I’m not looking to start a debate here. Just want to do a little research here from a historical standpoint.
I was told by a firearms instructor, a few years back, that the Germans invented the 9mm based on the fact that if a soldier was shot with a 45 that 1 soldier was out of the equation, but if shot with a 9mm that's 3 soldiers out of the equation. ( the wounded soldier and two to carry him out).
Interesting , but I haven’t been able to find any proof of this.
I tend to believe it was just an evolution in ammunition, and also the fact that it easier and less bulky to carry more 9’s then 45’s.
Have any of you heard this before?
Thanks
Cliff Hargrave
07-21-2004, 11:38
I was told by a firearms instructor, a few years back, that the Germans invented the 9mm based on the fact that if a soldier was shot with a 45 that 1 soldier was out of the equation, but if shot with a 9mm that's 3 soldiers out of the equation. ( the wounded soldier and two to carry him out).
People have said the same thing about 5.56mm vrs 7.62mm, that the smaller round is more likely to wound than kill thus causing more soldiers to have to carry the wounded guy. I think it's just a myth like belt ranks coming from your belt getting dirty. During combat you just yank the guy out of the way and let a medic take care of him. You don't move them until there is a lull in the shooting.
Interesting note, the tactical vests used in the military and on SWAT teams have a handle sewn on the upper back so you can just grab it and drag the guy to safety.
Damm
You're right. I was in the militaty too. I forgot about that.
Interesting note on your note, we have those vest and when we first practiced man down drills the handles tended to break or shift the vest to the point where it was almost chocking the victim now we train picking up the victim with at least two people, of course covered by balistic shields and lots of rounds.
Thanks, I didn't expect such a fast response.
... the 9mm based on the fact that if a soldier was shot with a 45 that 1 soldier was out of the equation, but if shot with a 9mm that's 3 soldiers out of the equation.
While I've heard the same about the 5.56, I've not heard it said about the 9mm.
Logically, at the effective range of handguns, this really doesn't make a lot of sense. At shorter ranges, I'd imagine most people would finish the fight before continuing on with moving people.
Also, the 9mm and .45acp are not intended by our military to be main battle cartridges. Kind of more of a backup on the battlefield, MP use...
The 9mm Parabellum (9x19 or whatever name you wish to give it) was developed to use a larger, heavier bullet. Original development in Europe of the round used a .30 caliber bullet in a bottlenecked case that was 23mm long. I believe you can still find used mauser "broomhandles" (the gun that Han Solo's was based off of) in the smaller caliber. Luger developed the 9x19 due to stopping power concerns.
However, if a .30 caliber bullet is too small, why is it the most popular diameter bullet for deer and elk hunting? I have a 7mm rifle, which is smaller yet in diameter. As was mentioned earlier, there are too too many variables to simply say one way or the other. The science of ballistics is quite interesting and can not be put in a one size fits all can.
Marshall and Sanow compile data of actual shootings, and which bullet was used. I believe the number 1 percentage stopper was a The 357 Magnum, 125 grain Silver Tip Hollow Points.
For those that don't know, a 357 magnum shoots a bullet that is .357 in diameter. The 9mm is .355 in diameter. I actually have a revolver that shoots both, with two cylinders, one for 38 special/357 magnum, the other for 9mm.
Thus a bullet 9mm in diameter has the #1 spot for one shot stops. (of course it is moving a bit faster than the average 9x19)
The single most important thing is shot placement, period. Bullet performance in goats, ordinance gelatin, and in Marshall and Sanow for 9mm and 45 are all quite varying percentage wise. You will find specific 9mm's that perform better than 45's, you will find specific 45's that perform better than 9mm.
The biggest differences are shot placement, and the actual bullet used.
If you shoot regularly, and are a hand loader, and hunt a lot, one will start to learn what is effective and what is not. A lot of deer (in handgun rounds) have been taken with .357dia bullets, a lot by .429 and .452 dia bullets.
IMHO - Speer Gold Dots, Winchester STHP or Hornaday XTP should be the bullet of choice in your self defense gun. Whether 9mm, .40 or .45 makes less difference. (I think Corbon uses the Speer's, you can buy Winchester preloaded and Hornaday preloaded ammo for self defense)
Cliff Hargrave
07-22-2004, 10:21
a little note on specific rounds:
A few years ago, in my part of the woods, a reserve Deputy shot himself in the leg at the range trying to holster his pistol with his finger on the trigger. It was a 9mm Black Talon. His leg had to be amputated just above the knee. It completely splintered the bones and the arteries were shredded to the point they could not be saved. He almost died right there. Probably the close range and the direction of the wound track had alot to do with the extent of the damage, but is was an impressive wound anyway.
I don't think they sell Black Talons any longer because of some anti-gun hype but you can still get it. It called Ranger STX now but the civiliian version doesn't have the little points. The LEO version is called the "T" series and still has the "fangs."
John Bennett
07-22-2004, 16:10
I keep my 9mm loaded with Federal Hydra-Shok Premium 147gr. jacketed hollowpoints.
Before: http://www.streichers.com/Perm_Images/Product_Shots/FC-P40HS2G.jpg
After: http://www.streichers.com/Perm_Images/Product_Shots/FC-Premium%20hydra-shok.jpg
I think it's a pretty hot load. They definately have more kick than the UMC's at Wal-Mart.
DragonMind
07-23-2004, 07:59
I think we can start enough debates with kata, chi, pressure points, sokes, and BJJ. No need to branch out off topic :)
This isn't Jerry Springer?!? :eek:
Billybob
07-26-2004, 13:43
Really
Give me the full low down. Buying my first semi auto pistol, I will need some practice, do I want to go with the 9 mm for speed and cost of ammo, or the 40 for penetration etc
Aslo, what are your all thoughts on CZ arms? Specifically the CZ 75
B
kodanjaclay
07-26-2004, 17:19
As per forum rules, please post with your real first and last name.
Thank you.
Ron Rompen
07-28-2004, 19:52
John Bennet: YUM! That is what I want to see downrange!
CA (use your real name please in your next post): As several have pointed out, size isn't as important as hitting the target (over and over and over, center of mass, over and over and over).
I suggest something that you can add a conversion kit to .22 LR (just for fun, get used to the feel of the gun in your fist) and a handloader kit (either 9mm or .40, it gets REAL expensive) because .22LR does NOT feel the same as the real thing.
Practice over and over what you want to do with this. I used to work as a bonded courier, with a 9mm ASP in hideout CD deck. I practiced EVERY DAY hitting that button, drawing and targeting a man-size target at <2 meters. Not the same as the real thing, but the best I could manage.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.