9mm ball vs. 45ACP ball thread at glocktalk

[TKL]

I agree that if the wound is fatal or not, is of no consiquence to me in a firefight. All I am interested in doing is incapacitating the bad guy as quickly as possible.
I am not an expert, but in my mind shot placement is much more important than size when talking 45 vs 9mm. We had a case here in the city I live where a policeman reached into a car to stop a kid with a stolen car from running over people in a parking lot. The kid took off & the policeman got caught and was dragged to his death. He shot the driver fatally, but the driver was able to speed off, go back to his apartment, get picked up by an ambulance, and died about two hours after being shot, in the hospital. A fatal wound, but of no help to the officer, who was draged about half a mile to his death.
Incapacitation asap should be your only goal IMHO.
TKL

 

[olazul]

Dr45-

I suspect we have much more in common than we have differences in this issue. The point I was trying to make is that I too have seen people live after multiple shots to the chest with .22's- but also, 9mm, .32, .40, and .45's. I cannot vouch to relative frequency, but I have seen all of the above.

I am not convinced that diameter in a major handgun round has much to do with lethality, given the round penetrates major vasculature or the CNS.

It is my belief that luck plays a major role in rapid physiologic incapacitation. It is luck whether or not the heart goes into VFIB/TACH from the initial impact, whether an air embolism causes a stroke or instant MI by occluding the coronary arteries, or the severing of a common carotid artery cutting off blood to one side of the brain, or a dissection of an artery occluding the vital bits, or even a hit to the spinal cord.

Now people eventually will die of exsaguination, pericardial tamponade, and tension pneumothorax to name a few- but this takes a little time and cannot be counted on for rapid incapacitation.

If you agree that luck plays a role in the above then:

1)You can increase your luck by practice.

2)What a .45 will get you is an increased probability of hitting a vital organ due to the increase in diameter.

3)What a 9mm MAY get you is more rapid, better aimed follow up shots increasing the odds of a physiologic "stopper".

My contention is this- shoot whatever "major" caliber that you shoot the best(most accurate initial shot AND most accurate follow up shots) because while the first round may be the most important, odds are it won't cause immediate physiological incapacitation and multiple follow up shots will be needed.

I also agree that all things equal bigger holes are better, but with one caveat- that multiple holes are fired equally accurately and just as rapidly.

As to "energy dump" being important I wholey concur with your assessment. Kinetic energy has only been shown to increase the temporary cavity and with a handgun round this usually causes no additional damage. Momentum has been shown to influence penetration depth. A good hollow point will have a high potential of increasing permanent cavity diameter.

What counts physiologically is grams of permanent tissue destruction through an organ that has the potential to cause an immediate physiologic stop, with of course, some luck.

Regards,

Olazul

 

[Dr45ACP]

I cant recall exactly how Sanow defines "stopping power" and "incapacitation". I hope someone will clarify that.

As I recall from reading some of his work, though, i think he considers incapacitation to mean the subject is down and no longer a threat in a certain amount of time.

Incapacitation is relative. A 22 hit to the pinky toe may incapacitate some people from the pain and mental shock of having been shot, and I suppose this person would also have been incapacitated if that pinky toe hit had been from a 45. This should not be misinterpreted to mean that a 22 and 45 have the same potency, even though in this example they do.

I agree that killing power is not necessary to end a gun fight. However, if a criminal is killed, he certainly is stopped. Death is not relative. If I make the decision to shoot at a person in self defense, my intent would be to cause his death, not just incapacitate him. If I want to incapacitate him, I would use mace, or maybe a baseball bat.

Incidentally, I dont think 45 ACP is necessarily better than 357 mag, 357 sig, or a hot +P 9mm assuming the latter bullets work appropriately and expand as they should.

 

[juliet charley]

Shock (from being hit by any handgun round) cannot be depended on to stop a fight (though in some, even many cases, it may). The effectiveness of "shock" as a stopper is more dependent on the physical and psychological state (both of which may be altered chemically) than with any major handgun round. There are only two sure ways to stop a fight: a CNS hit or exsaguination (actually, loss of blood pressure). I have seen too many people take absolutely too much punishment and keep going to ever rely on "shock" alone to save my life or the lives of my loved ones (and I believe it is generally accepted once a human body has absorbed a couple hits and kept going it relatively shock proof--literally running on autopilot, and the only way to stop is to bleed it out or a CNS hit.

Big holes are better than small holes; more holes are better than fewer holes; lots of big holes are better than lots of small holes.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

[quoteIs Sanow's contention that energy deposit in ballistic gel an indicator of efficacy in FMJ bullets?[/quote]

That may very well be Sanow's opinion. I don't know of any valid study to support it.

 

[DAKODAKID]

In a defense situation I want the biggest handgun I can control.

(forget about the steroid Linebaughs and even the Dirty Harry .44 Magnums they are not even practical for
self defense--or for my 3 kids sleeping!!)

I'll take the JMB .45 acp any day.....

 

[olazul]

And there lies a huge difference in "stopping power"- psychological vs physiological. That is why I always refer to physiological. It's a bonus if the BG just gives up but this cannot be relied on.

In the article Sanow states as his premise that energy=velocity(since its squared I suppose)=stopping power.

He also refers to an INS article that states "stopping power" is dececided in the first 12 inches of gelatin so anything more is just wasted or dangerous to civilians.

His conclusion is that whatever round nose bullet has the greatest change in velocity in the first 12 inches of gelatin has then imparted the most energy and therefore will have the greatest stopping power. Since the 9mm has a higher velocity and tumbles once in gelatin(slowing it down quicker) that this is a very good choice and possibly better than the .45 since its recoil is better managed.

He then compares these results with those "proven" street statistics for OSS.

First- the premise. Perhaps the higher energy projectile feels different to the victim and increases the liklihood of them psychologically stopping. There is however no relation to the permanent wound channel and therefore wounding potential of a handgun round. The premise is unsound when applied to phsyiologic incapacitation.

For the same reasons the change in velocity in the first 12 inches doesn't matter. As Dr45 pointed out it is the size and depth of the hole. The variables here are diameterof the hole(bullet diameter) and depth of the hole is consistent with the momentum(mass x velocity). Energy doesn't matter.

Regards,

Olazul

 

[Dr45ACP]

Energy matters only to the extent that a high energy round is more likely to expand or fragment and thus create an effectively larger caliber wound.

Also, people are not made out of ballistic gelatin. Gel has a consistent uniform make up and density throughout. I dont think analyzing the size of wound channels in gel, temporary or permanent, has much relevance in the real world. Gel may be the best test medium out there but I wouldnt put too much faith in any conclusions about stopping power based on studies in gel.

 

[WESHOOT2]

Don't use ball ammo in your defense gun. Problem solved.

 

[IamNOTaNUT]

Why is it that guys like Sanow / Marshall / Ayoob / etc who have spent a great deal of time studying the effectiveness of different calibers or actual street shooting results are ridiculed so often?

And why is it that the vast majority of these insults and ridicule come from people whose only exposure to the subject comes from ammunition ads, urban legends, or myths?

Hey, if these guys are wrong, fine. I would just like someone to point to some empirical data of their own that can show me why AND convince me that their data is better than what the other guys have. Otherwise I take such criticism with a grain of salt.

I know that gelatin testing has flaws, and trying to mathamatically calculate the "effectiveness" of a round has flaws, and even a survey of actual shootings has flaws, BUT taken together, they seem to be quite significant.

The problem is that death and incapacitation are individualistic propositions. It may be possible to produce accurate generalizations, but not truths. And I have never seen the authors mentioned above proclaim that their data points to a universal truth, only probabilities.

Arm yourself with the biggest and best gun you can realistically handle, load it with the best defensive ammo you can find, and train well to stack the deck in your favor. Then hope you draw the winning hand when you are forced to show your cards.

 

[Dr45ACP]

I base what I have said prior to this on my experience examining and treating people who have been shot. This would include people who were killed (immediately and later) as well as people who survived. How many people would this be? I lost count long ago.

These same people may or may not have been instantly incapacitated in the field, I suppose.

On the subject of immediate incapacitation, there are very few injuries someone could sustain with a firearm that would physically incapacitate them immediately.

These would include direct injuries to brainstem, and upper spinal injuries. I suppose a direct hit to a major bone, eg pelvis, femur, etc., might cause your target to fall and be relatively incapacitated. For these areas, I suppose caliber may not make much difference.

However direct injuries to the heart, lungs, and major blood vessels are not necessarily going to immediately incapacitate your target. They will have to lose blood, etc, until incapacitation occurs. For these injuries I believe bigger holes are better because blood will be lost faster.

Finally, I doubt a study could be done that would definitively disprove what Sanow has suggested. I do not think a consistent definition could be given to "incapacitation", short of death. Incapacitation would be relative as I have pointed out previously, depending on how the subject psychologically reacts to being shot.

 

[George Hill]

I have not operated on anyone... but I have performed first aid on a few... 9mms, .45ACP, .223, 7.62 Russian and Nato.
I have even taken a hit - center of my sturnum... Thank You Kevlar. From my first hand experiance I can tell you big bullets make big holes.

Now, Doc - lets see if I got this straight...
A bullet doesnt cut its way through an object - it smashes its way... Its a crusing wound. In this manner, it has more in common with a hammer than a knife dispite talk of penetration.
So, the question about caliber comes down to this:
Do you want to hit your enemy with a Sledge Hammer or a Ball-Peen Hammer? I know thats an exageration... but hopefully it made a point. One makes a hole little thicker than a pencil... Then other makes a whole closer to a 1/2 inch in diameter.
More fluid can flow through a bigger pipe... so there is a greater volumetric potential regarding blood loss with the .45. Also there is a greater amount of destroyed tissue. The amount 50% was already thrown out... 50% greater diameter... that means 50% more destroyed tissue.

It seems those with 9MMs that are searching for the MAGIC BULLET have it... its called the .45!

 

[LawDog]

According to my handy-dandy slide rule .451 inches is 11.4mm.

So, the .45 ACP is a whole 2.4 millimetres bigger than the 9mm -- bearing in mind that printed periods (dots, to you cyber-enabled) are about a millimetre wide.

If anyone can find me a survivor who has been shot with both the 9mm and the 11.4mm who can raise his paw and swear to me about the difference between the impacts, I would surely appreciate it.

LawDog

 

[TKL]

Lawdog,
Not to be contrary, because I agree with you, but the difference is 38 sq mm as you are talking area according to my calculations. (pi x r squared). This does not take into account expansion as we are talking ball ammo which makes the whole thing kind of irrelivant as I know no one who uses this for self defense. As I said I agree with you but just want to be fair and accurate. You can ask for a recount but only one!
TKL

 

[George Hill]

Hmmm... Now - I am not sure as to the diameter... but when I was much younger... Not even a full blown Boy Scout... Webelo or something like... I was at a camp. I was walking with a friend past the archery range. When all the sudden I tripped over a stick. I found to my shock that it wasnt a stick - but an arrow... the arrow had penetrated through and through my leg. I didnt feel it at first... But man, it hurt a few moments later! Arrows are kinda skinny... More 9mm than the fat .45...

Now - when I was hit with the .45 to the chest... I felt it right away... and it knocked me down. Much more abrupt I would say. Hurt a heck of a lot more too.

 

[juliet charley]

LawDog
TKL

To run the math a little further, the area covered by an unexpand .45 ACP (102 mm sq) slug is 59% greater than the area covered by a 9 mm slug (64 mm sq). When you are talking about hitting something small (physiololgical incapacitation factors), 59% increase is significant--it could easily mean hitting a major organ or a blood vessel. If you are talking about blood flow with your life on the line a 59% increase is significant.

For those who count on reduced recovery time with the 9 mm, three hits with a nine is still slightly less than two hits with a .45 (192 mm sq versus 204 mm sq).

 

[slojim]

I'm not getting into this argument, but I did notice these two inconsistent statements.

.45 did much better on barriers like car windshields, sheet metal and so on. (apparently based on shooting up your neighbors car) Oleg Volk

While the .45 ACP is not necessarily a good penetrator when it comes to auto bodies/glass or other intermedidate obstacles (not sure what this is based on, but I'm sure you have a reason) juliet charley

Is there much of a difference?

 

[glockjeeper]

.45 and cars

The .45 is notorious for not doing good on car bodies, windshields I'm not sure about. Back in the late '20s and '30s, cops that carried 1911A1s preferred the .38 Super chambered ones when it came to going up against cars. It was also good against the bullet proof vests of the era. Of course, the .38 Super was loaded alot hotter then compared to todays factory loadings.

 

[DAKODAKID]

.45 Win. Silvertip or 230 gr fmj for defense in an HK USP...
(BTW Wife's favorite is the MK23 and she can shoot
it scarry accurate whilst she being very petite!!)
Get ready to hate this Conservative Democrat..
I voted for Gore (no one will ever take my guns), and I think
they should have counted ALL the votes B4 giving Florida to
Bush (even though he would have probably won anyway)
Ready for the flames--
(sorry to digress but I couldn't help myself)

 

[Dr45ACP]

For civilian purposes, it doesnt seem to me to be so important if a bullet penetrates a car window or metal barrier. I doubt that scenario comes up much in civilian self defense shootings. I would probably have a hard time explaining to a jury why someone inside a car with the window rolled up was enough of a threat for me to shoot.

For police, penetration through barriers would be more important.

And Mr. Hill, I think you get my point. Assuming your bullet doesnt hit something that will instantly incapacitate (whatever that means) your opponent, then caliber is very important: a 50% larger cross-sectional area (and wound volume) causes 50% more blood loss and tissue destruction.