9mm ball vs. 45ACP ball thread at glocktalk

[glockdoc]

Hey folks,

Here is an interesting thread over on glocktalk addressing a recent article by Ed Sanow. Before attacking the author (or me!) check out the thread or the original article in Gun World. Apparently Sanow asserts that 9mm ball flips end over end in gelatin while .45 ACP ball doesn't, so the 9mm dumps more energy. Even if energy doesn't matter, it's the size of the hole (as some believe), a 9mm bullet moving sideways must make a pretty big hole! Hey, don't flame me, I carry hollowpoints I just found the thread very thought provoking.

http://glocktalk.com/docs/gtubb/Forum15/HTML/001680.html

Frank

 

[Dr45ACP]

Sanow doesnt understand why people die after being shot.

I am a surgeon, have operated on many GSW victims.

No handgun, including 357, 9mm, etc, is a "high energy" or "high velocity" round. Energy and Velocity are more important when we are talking about rifle calibers. With respect to high powered rifles, a shock wave of energy does spread out at impact and devitalizes a large area of tissue by disrupting small blood vessels, etc. The effects of this, however, may not be immediately obvious to the eye, though it will help to incapacitate the victim.

Handguns are low energy, low velocity weapons. They do not have this effect. The primary determinants of their lethality is shot placement and the size of the defect they create.

The cross sectional area of a 45 cal bullet is about 50% larger than for a 38 cal bullet, and therefore 50% more blood will be lost over a certain time. Or a 50% larger hole will be made in a criminals brain, heart, lung, etc.

My experience has been that people with large holes shot through them are more likely to die than those who have small holes. Big holes are harder to fix. More tisse is destroyed.

I have never seen anyone with an injury that I would attribute to "energy" from a certain handgun round. All I see are holes that have to be repaired.

Velocity and energy for a handgun round is important because it increases the chances a hollowpoint will expand on impact.

Finally, as far a 9mm bullets tumbling: they certainly do. But so do 22, 25, 38, 40, and 45!

 

[olazul]

But then again one thing remains constant.

It's not the size of the hole that matters, it's what you do with it.

I'll take a .22 through major vasculature/heart/cns versus a .44mag through nonvitals anyday.

My experience has shown that people with any diameter hole through vital bits are much more likely to die than those without. Even then luck plays a major role in the survival.

regards,

Olazul

 

[RON in PA]

Sanow's article compares the amount of energy deposited in 12 inches of ballistic gelatin. The point he wanted to make was that the fmj 9x19 mm deposits more energy than the fmj 45 ACP.

He did the study for the situation where one cannot use expanding ammo(NJ and European countries and the Military).

 

[Dr45ACP]

To some extent, that is true. However, I have seen patients take several 22 hits to the chest -- both lungs -- and still walk into the ER on their own. 22 cal wounds to the heart are so small that the muscle will sometimes seal itself with very little loss of blood. Sounds crazy but it happens.

The effective "vital area" of your target will increase as the potency of your round does, i.e., an abdomen shot with a 45 or 357 could very easily be lethal, but would be much less likely with a 22, 25, etc.

A 22 to the cns would undoubtedly do the trick. Not so with the heart or lungs.

Assuming identical shot placement, a big hole is better than a little one.

 

[J. Fielder]

DR45ACP,

Thanks for your commentary. I find it very interesting and helpful. Just a comment or two:

Any commentary on the lethality of a larger wound in diameter vs. a deeper wound? 9mm rounds (often) and .357 SIG rounds (nearly always) penetrate deeper than .45s. Of course, if both the .45 and the smaller bullet go through a person, this consideration is irrelevant, but if the .45 does not, it may be important. That is, a .45 could have a greater diameter of wound channel and yet be shallow enough to have a lower VOLUME of wound channel, relative to that created by a 9mm / .357 SIG. Such a result might indicate that despite a bigger hole in diameter, the .45's effectiveness is similar to that of the 9mm.

I think it's also important to reiterate that your observations are also consistent with the philosophy that caliber is fairly unimportant, since the additional recoil of .45s generally makes shots with that caliber less accurate than with a 9mm. An important question to answer would be whether the 50% larger wound channel created by a .45 would offset the lessened damage created as a result of a less vital-centered wound.

 

[juliet charley]

While the .45 ACP is not necessarily a good penetrator when it comes to auto bodies/glass or other intermedidate obstacles, it is slightly overpenetrative when it comes to the human body (particularly, in ball). In most cases, when you have an entry wound with a .45 ACP, you will have an exit wound.

The argument about the recoil making the .45 ACP "less accurate" than a smaller calibre (9 mm) is specious for many reasons. The most obvious is recoil will not effect the first shot (which is generally acknowledged to be the most important). Secondly, accuracy is not affected by recoil but rather recovery time--a shooter might be able to get off a second aimed shot quicker with a minor calibre, but the timing difference would negilible in the real world. The real problem is having the discipline and training to get off an AIMED second shot. The third obvious problem with assuming the .45 is "less accurate" than a minor calibre due to recoil is that recoil is a function the pistol (weight, design, etc.). My recovery time with a full size government model (steel frame, five inch barrel) with hydrashocks is faster than it is with a S&W 3913 with hot +Ps (or +P+s). The 9 mm is a ***** cat in full size service pistols with ball, but I shoot the 1911 much better and faster than the Beretta 92 because the Beretta is too big for my hand.

 

[J. Fielder]

I disagree. Though your argument is theoretically appealing, it fails to recognize the practical impact of increasing recoil on many shooters.

Recoil DOES affect the first shot, provided that the shooter is not entirely unaffected by recoil and that the shooter recognizes that the gun he or she is shooting has such recoil. That is to say, perhaps someone who has NEVER SHOT a .45 (or handgun-chambered 45-70 govt., for that matter) will be unaffected by the recoil of the first shot, but the most certainly will be affected by that experience in future shootings. Essentially, you most certainly CAN flinch (i.e., respond to recoil) on the FIRST shot in combat situation, provided you EXPECT that recoil.

Your third point is true, but irrelevant:

You say: "The third obvious problem with assuming the .45 is "less accurate" than a minor calibre due to recoil is that recoil is a function the pistol (weight, design, etc.)."

All things being equal, my point remains. That is, given similar weight, design, etc., a 9mm will recoil less. Of course, you can chamber a .45 in a 15-lb gun and the felt recoil will be less than a 9mm in a 3-lb gun, but so what? All things are no longer equal, so the point is a rather moot one.

 

[juliet charley]

Maybe the difference is I am talking about trained and experienced shooters who know what they are doing. I (and many, many other shooters) know what the .45 feels like when I shoot and do not flinch. I will be the first to admit the .45 is not for everybody, but neither is the 9 mm. If you cannot shoot the .45 without flinching, then YOU do not need to be carrying, but neither do you need to generalize your inability to others.

For some the .32 ACP or even the .22 LR may be perfect. In fact, if you really want the perfect first shot and follow-ups, carry the .32. Actually, I find the .32 appealing for this reason--I can make head shots all day long. I believe the standard dictum is carry the biggest gun YOU can handle--if it is the .32 good, if it is the 9 mm better, if it is the .45 best--bigger holes do work better. Half inch holes in and half inch holes out are better than third inch holes in and third inch holes out. (That is the whole premise behind hollowpoints--they make bigger holes.)

In reference to size and weight, I do not believe your original post made any point about all things being equal, but only that recoil was factor with the .45 and not in the 9. I just pointed out that there are many other variables beside calibre that impact felt recoil and accuracy--again, I point you to my comparsion of the M9 (9 mm) with the M1911 (.45 ACP). I can hold and point the M1911 better (and hence, recover faster) than the M9 even though it is a full size 9 mm and has practically no recoil--in an apples to apples comparison (full size service pistol to full size service pistol), the .45 is easier to shoot accurately (for me, anyway) for variables other than calibre.

The size/design issue can become relevant for non-LEO concealed carry because generally speaking the GM can be concealed easier than most service size 9 mm pistols (the exception being the P35) so when the choice comes to a choice between service size GM (or even Commander size) and a "compact" or "sub-compact" 9 mm (S&W 3913, Sig P239, etc.), the best choice for me is the GM.

 

[Dr45ACP]

45ACP easily penetrates deep enough on human targets, so I dont think penetration with this round is an issue at all.

In full sized pistols, eg 1911, I have never thought 45 ACP recoil was enough to worry about. In fact, I think it recoils less than a lot of small 9mm guns, and less than full size 357 revolvers.

 

[J. Fielder]

DR45ACP: Thanks for your input. It's very interesting to me to have some real-world input on caliber effectiveness.

Juliet:

You said "Maybe the difference is I am talking about trained and experienced shooters who know what they are doing. I (and many, many other shooters) know what the .45 feels like when I shoot and do not flinch."

For those people, I agree with you. However, there is no reason to limit our discussions only to experts (or only to those who can handle lots of recoil). The topic was not expressly so limited, so my discussion wasn't either.

You said "If you cannot shoot the .45 without flinching, then YOU do not need to be carrying, but neither do you need to generalize your inability to others."

I made no such a generalization. Read more carefully.

You said "In reference to size and weight, I do not believe your original post made any point about all things being equal, but only that recoil was factor with the .45 and not in the 9."

Of course my post didn't say "all things being equal" because that proposition is an underlying premise in most all discussions like this one. Generally, we don't need to point it out because we all agree on it tacitly as an assumption. In your case, however, you violated the premise by saing something like "but you can get a .45 in a gun that recoils like some 9mms," so I was forced to point out your illogic.

More to the point: We've gotten off on the wrong foot. I felt insulted by your original post, listing the several foolish, obvious reasons my reasoning was specious. I have been obnoxious (proportionately so, I hope) in response. I'd love to shelve this bickering, since we both share our fondness for this sport and forum. You are welcome to take a final stab at me, too, since I've gotten in an extra one with this post. Seems only fair. Take care, Juliet.

J. Fielder

 

[mavrick]

I'll add one other point, I've been involved in an incident where I used a legally carried handgun to defend myself. And the arguement about wheather or not recoil or anticipated recoil effects your first shot is actually kinda silly. When your shooting to save your life, for real, the recoil of the pistol is one of the last things you'll notice. Same with "anticipated" recoil. What you will notice is the threat.. you center on the threat and forget everything, you won't hear things, you won't remember how many shots you fired, you won't see anything except the threat, and you'll loose all the fine motor skills, such as a slight flinch in anticipation of recoil. In some cases, you can loose as much as 50% of your normal ability when you face a real threat to your life, and your body shoots you into fight or flight mode. Even more than that if you don't train or shoot on a regular basis. The real key here is proper training and practice. As far as I'm concerned, training and practice is much much more inmportant than what caliber your shooting. And obviously the more you train, the less of a factor recoil will be. But more importantly, proper training and practice will give you a "course of action". Just like in the military, when you come under threat, and loose the ability think critically, you'll revert to doing what your used to doing, or what you've been trained to do. I was very lucky in that I faced an open, unmasked assault by a man with a knife. But I can tell you that afterwards, thinking about how differently things could have gone.. I've gone over alot of things, from what kind of carry holsters I use to how I practice and train. So I guess what I'm sayin' is I don't see much sense in debating the small stuff. Shot placement is the key to stopping a threat with a handgun, and having a gun, any gun, is better than not having one, so if you like 9mm, shoot a 9, if you like .45's, shoot .45's. But practice, practice, practice..and get the best quality instruction you can. I apologize for the long rant.. and I freely admit that all this is just my opinion.. so for what it's worth....there it is.. good shooting people, mavrick

[Edited by mavrick on 11-25-2000 at 12:22 PM]

 

[Will Beararms]

9mm ball more effective than a .45ACP? Ludicrous! This notion really doesn't even deserve my time. Talk to anyone who has used both in combat and I will bet the .45ACP will get the nod 9/10 times.

 

[RON in PA]

You all have gotten off the original intent of the topic.
Is Sanow's contention that energy deposit in ballistic gel an indicator of efficacy in FMJ bullets?

I don't know and I suspect nobody does for sure, but if correct it buries the Thompson-Legrand tests of the early 1900's and the reasoning that lead to the 45ACP.

 

[MountainGun44]

I don't believe that the difference in recoil between 9mm and .45 ACP has ever been a real issue. My experience is that 9mm rounds provide a sharper "crack" type of recoil because of their higher velocity as opposed to the smoother "push" of a .45 ACP.

 

[Quantum Singularity]

Recoil (my perception):
In full sized .45s, I find recoil to be minimal. In fact, I think full sized .45s are EASIER to shoot than compact 9mms. The compact 9mms have a very snappy recoil in my hands (and a modest amount of muzzle flip). I find it much easier to control the full size .45s push than the snap of compact 9mms...

As far as 9mm ball vs .45 ball ammo, I'll take the .45 anyday over 9mm.

 

[LawDog]

I'll take either one over harsh language and fingernails.

LawDog

 

[355sigfan]

Dr 45
Sanow doesnt understand why people die after being shot.

This is a non issue killing power is not important stopping power is. Sanow and Marshall understand that better than any doctor.
PAT

 

[Oleg Volk]

Tried G17(9mm) vs. G21(.45) the other day.

I am equally good (bad?) with both, can get on target faster with G17 and get 17 rounds instead of 13. Testing on pumpkins (now there's a scientific approach!) made 9mm and .45 seem similar enough. However, .45 did much better on barriers like car windshields, sheet metal and so on.

My own conclusions are to go with what's comfortable to use. For me that means a Garand over a theoretically superior FAL and a 9mm over a .45. That preference may change if I ever get a real .45 (1911).

OTOH, the argument against doing headshots with a target .22 or a .32 is that under combat conditions accuracy would degrade due to the movement of the target and due to return fire.

Either way, I would rather not belittle people with differing opinions...they may be wrong, but they are armed and might get lucky

 

[juliet charley]

Staying entirely away from the calibre debate, we need to realize the source of the original contention--Ed Sanow. The same man who said in the same magazine (Gun World) several months back that shot placement is not important (actually, he may have said overrated). No reputable editor should even considering publishing such an inaccurate and irresponsible author! (Are you listening Mr. Libourel?)

Back to calibre issues (at least as pertains to .45 ACP and 9 mm), the assertion that the .45 is less accurate than the 9 mm is (1) dependent on the individual pulling the trigger and not a function of the round itself, and (2) not germaine to this thread.