9mm ball vs. 45ACP ball thread at glocktalk
- Thread starter glockdoc
- Start date
- Status
Car penetration may not seem important, but who knows what will be when you need it. Actually, the reason I asked is because it was a situation with a car near my neighborhood that finally gave me the motivation to buy a defensive weapon. Someone out, just looking for trouble, shot and killed the driver of another car. Granted, the BG's window was open, but if I was trying to get away and return fire, I would likely not be taking a shot through that particular window.
Hmm, maybe I've seen too many movies. Not likely I could drive and shot well anyway, so maybe it is a moot point.
[Edited by slojim on 11-27-2000 at 11:12 AM]
Hmm, maybe I've seen too many movies. Not likely I could drive and shot well anyway, so maybe it is a moot point.
[Edited by slojim on 11-27-2000 at 11:12 AM]
I am definitely not an expert on this, so the discussion about penetration being important for law enforcement and not for "civilian" use confuses me. Isn't the police standard for use of deadly force depend on immediate danger to the public? If I were in the wrong place at the wrong time and someone was threatening innocent lives, am I not allowed to act? So what is the difference if I am a LEO or not?
Sorry for the digression. . .
Sorry for the digression. . .
O
olazul
Guest
Of course the advantage of a 50% greater surface area of a .45 vs a 9mm is tough to calculate if you can get multiple shots of the 9mm off more accurately- thereby increasing the odds of a rapid physiologic incapacitation or direct hit to the vital bits.
Add to the mix the importance of training, tactics, and mindset and I think that caliber difference is inconsequential(within reason).
Also, while it may be true a police officer will have more cause to shoot through barriers I can envision shooting through a wall, a hutch, a window, or a whatever in your house that the BG is taking cover behind.
Regards,
Olazul
Add to the mix the importance of training, tactics, and mindset and I think that caliber difference is inconsequential(within reason).
Also, while it may be true a police officer will have more cause to shoot through barriers I can envision shooting through a wall, a hutch, a window, or a whatever in your house that the BG is taking cover behind.
Regards,
Olazul
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
I did some test a long time ago against car windshields...
9s .40s .45s...
The results showed us that .45 was much more reliable against a target behind a windsheild.
9s .40s .45s...
The results showed us that .45 was much more reliable against a target behind a windsheild.
TKL and Juliet Charley, I'm jus' a simple li'l ol' country hound. When you start to talk about squaring pies, my head hurts, so I stick to the basics.
Basically, the slug coming out of a .45 is bigger than a 9mm by the width of two of these: . So, the hole a .45FMJ makes in a critter is going to be the same hole as a 9mm FMJ makes, with one of these: . added to either side.
LawDog
Basically, the slug coming out of a .45 is bigger than a 9mm by the width of two of these: . So, the hole a .45FMJ makes in a critter is going to be the same hole as a 9mm FMJ makes, with one of these: . added to either side.
LawDog
IamNOTaNUT
New member
Dr45 -
You are one of the people with real world experience I was referring to, approvingly, in my earlier post regarding the bashing of people such as Sanow, Marshall, et al.
Having a studied first hand experience gives you a unique insight and perspective. It may give you a different approach to the gentlemen mentioned above, which is valuable though not necessarily conclusive. For you can read from the "experrts" and analyze them based on your own experience, which is an advantage over the average Joe.
I do detect though a bit of resistance on your part, and perhaps I am wrong, to accept the theory that a person may be incapacitated but not dead. While it is true that a determined individual will continue to fight on for a matter of several minutes even though they have sustained a fatal wound, it is also true that many people stop, give up, lay down and die after receiveing a much less serious wound.
The term incapacitation, in my experience, generally means that a person has stopped whatever it was they were doing to get themselves shot in the first place. A standard that is far different than death.
Either way, there is no universal truth or scientific law, at least that I am aware of, that says precisely what a bad guy is going to do when you perforate him, regardless of caliber. But, by studying the effects of GSW's and bullet effectiveness (i.e. incapacitation or death) a person such as Sanow or Marshall is in a much better position to give advice on the subject than the hack whose buddy's second cousin's best friend once told him a myth over a few too many beers in the local pub a dozen years ago.
Mr. Hill -
An arrow through the leg? GSW to the chest? Are you just unlucky or are you not living right?
Weshoot2 -
A most enlightened perspective.
You are one of the people with real world experience I was referring to, approvingly, in my earlier post regarding the bashing of people such as Sanow, Marshall, et al.
Having a studied first hand experience gives you a unique insight and perspective. It may give you a different approach to the gentlemen mentioned above, which is valuable though not necessarily conclusive. For you can read from the "experrts" and analyze them based on your own experience, which is an advantage over the average Joe.
I do detect though a bit of resistance on your part, and perhaps I am wrong, to accept the theory that a person may be incapacitated but not dead. While it is true that a determined individual will continue to fight on for a matter of several minutes even though they have sustained a fatal wound, it is also true that many people stop, give up, lay down and die after receiveing a much less serious wound.
The term incapacitation, in my experience, generally means that a person has stopped whatever it was they were doing to get themselves shot in the first place. A standard that is far different than death.
Either way, there is no universal truth or scientific law, at least that I am aware of, that says precisely what a bad guy is going to do when you perforate him, regardless of caliber. But, by studying the effects of GSW's and bullet effectiveness (i.e. incapacitation or death) a person such as Sanow or Marshall is in a much better position to give advice on the subject than the hack whose buddy's second cousin's best friend once told him a myth over a few too many beers in the local pub a dozen years ago.
Mr. Hill -
An arrow through the leg? GSW to the chest? Are you just unlucky or are you not living right?
Weshoot2 -
A most enlightened perspective.
jdthaddeus
New member
The Dr has some good info, but makes the same mistake that many do when talking handgun ballistics: we are not talking about killing, we are talking about STOPPING.
What the patient is like in the OR has no relation to what he did before he got there. That is a flaw that (as a fan of Fackler I can say) that Fackler makes. A lot happens before the BG gets to the OR and the morgue. As a scientist, I do not fully respect Sanow's studies, but I do respect him for trying to find out what happens on the street. The street seems to show that energy dump does induce a person to cease their actions faster ("stop"). A STOP is what matters, not a kill. The 9mm has been proven time and again by many studies to STOP as well as the .45. Sanow wanted to demonstrate the stopping ability of the rounds, and found that the .45 is a very poor energy displacer. The 9mm not only makes a bigger hole, but displaces more energy into the tissue, with potential to be more damage. The .45 was never seen to tumble in the test (PLEASE everyone go read the damn thread or the article and don't just hipshot comment on what you read here).
Personally, with my experience in medicine, I sure don't want to have to wait for someone to bleed out for them to stop coming at me. Does everyone here know how long it takes for a person to bleed into incapacitation?
Hollowpoints do NOT work better because they make bigger holes, they work better because they dump energy faster (eg .357 Magmum). At least, that is what Sanow is saying. Just read the article everyone, rather than going off of a few lines you see here. Most of the article is posted in the thread by yours truly.
As a person in the medical field myselfs, having seen numerous GSW of all calibers, as well as doing a lot of studying, I have NOT seen it true that any caliber stops or kills any better than the other. I have seen guys that took a whole magazine of .45 to all parts of his body and felt it was no more than a nuisance. He never lost consciousness. I have shot animals with both and seen no difference in effectivness or damage. Sometimes 9mm fails miserably. Sometimes .45 fails miserably. Somewhere around here there is the account of the guy that took around 27 rounds of .45 and kept coming. Both rounds fail miserably on occasion. Shot placement is what stops, and shot placement is what kills. A little luck helps too.
I am not a Sanow fan, but no one can argue with the effectiveness of the .357 Magnum. That round is based wholly on energy dump, and it is a reknownwed stopper on the street. The energy dump from a high power handgun round is likened to a kick in the guts, (inside your guts where muscle rigidity cannot defend against it), and that is why people stop more often from energy dump. Without energy dump, many people say that they never even felt getting shot (for instance, a slow arrow dumps very little energy whereas a .45 hitting the chest and stopping instantly just dumped ALL of its energy instantly). I want the BG to FEEL it when he gets hit. Most modern 9mm +P loads have the same energy dump as a factory loaded .357 out of a medium length barrel, and my local LEOs as well as the INS and others claim that the 9mm works great in many many real shootings.
And with all of this, the argument goes round and round.
Just read the article with an open mind, it is quite interesting.
The most maddening thing about this thread is that it appears that the far majority have not even read the article, and few with an open mind.
Here is where I come from with all of this: It is tough to distinctly say these days that the .45 is any better than the 9mm, and in some cases the 9mm is said to be better. We have hundreds and thousands of shootings, many detailed studies and experts and few to none of them can prove that a .45 stops any better than a 9mm. On the street, time and time again, they work the same; they both often fail miserably and both succeed the same. Now, if they are so similar in performance that it can be effectively argued that there is no difference, then I want to gun that carries 16 rounds of ammo over the one that carries 7. That is why I carry a 9mm Glock 19 right now, and maybe a .357 Sig in the future. If they all work about the same, then I want the one with the most chances to make good hits on multiple assailents (more ammo). Shot placement...good HITS...are all that matter, so I like the gun that gives me the easiest hits and the most chances.
What Sanow says on 9mm FMJ vs .45 FMJ is summed up that: 9mm tumbled EVERY TIME, and .45 NEVER tumbled due to bullet shape. Therefore the 9mm actually made a BIGGER hole! The 9mm also goes faster and therefore even when it does NOT tumble, it displaces energy faster into the target. 9mm dumped way more energy AND made a bigger hole. How can you argue with more energy dump and a bigger hole? Most people assume that, upon hollowpoint failure, a .45 is a better bet. Sanow's article shows that that is not necessarily true, and perhaps totally false.
[Edited by jdthaddeus on 11-27-2000 at 03:35 PM]
What the patient is like in the OR has no relation to what he did before he got there. That is a flaw that (as a fan of Fackler I can say) that Fackler makes. A lot happens before the BG gets to the OR and the morgue. As a scientist, I do not fully respect Sanow's studies, but I do respect him for trying to find out what happens on the street. The street seems to show that energy dump does induce a person to cease their actions faster ("stop"). A STOP is what matters, not a kill. The 9mm has been proven time and again by many studies to STOP as well as the .45. Sanow wanted to demonstrate the stopping ability of the rounds, and found that the .45 is a very poor energy displacer. The 9mm not only makes a bigger hole, but displaces more energy into the tissue, with potential to be more damage. The .45 was never seen to tumble in the test (PLEASE everyone go read the damn thread or the article and don't just hipshot comment on what you read here).
Personally, with my experience in medicine, I sure don't want to have to wait for someone to bleed out for them to stop coming at me. Does everyone here know how long it takes for a person to bleed into incapacitation?
Hollowpoints do NOT work better because they make bigger holes, they work better because they dump energy faster (eg .357 Magmum). At least, that is what Sanow is saying. Just read the article everyone, rather than going off of a few lines you see here. Most of the article is posted in the thread by yours truly.
As a person in the medical field myselfs, having seen numerous GSW of all calibers, as well as doing a lot of studying, I have NOT seen it true that any caliber stops or kills any better than the other. I have seen guys that took a whole magazine of .45 to all parts of his body and felt it was no more than a nuisance. He never lost consciousness. I have shot animals with both and seen no difference in effectivness or damage. Sometimes 9mm fails miserably. Sometimes .45 fails miserably. Somewhere around here there is the account of the guy that took around 27 rounds of .45 and kept coming. Both rounds fail miserably on occasion. Shot placement is what stops, and shot placement is what kills. A little luck helps too.
I am not a Sanow fan, but no one can argue with the effectiveness of the .357 Magnum. That round is based wholly on energy dump, and it is a reknownwed stopper on the street. The energy dump from a high power handgun round is likened to a kick in the guts, (inside your guts where muscle rigidity cannot defend against it), and that is why people stop more often from energy dump. Without energy dump, many people say that they never even felt getting shot (for instance, a slow arrow dumps very little energy whereas a .45 hitting the chest and stopping instantly just dumped ALL of its energy instantly). I want the BG to FEEL it when he gets hit. Most modern 9mm +P loads have the same energy dump as a factory loaded .357 out of a medium length barrel, and my local LEOs as well as the INS and others claim that the 9mm works great in many many real shootings.
And with all of this, the argument goes round and round.
Just read the article with an open mind, it is quite interesting.
The most maddening thing about this thread is that it appears that the far majority have not even read the article, and few with an open mind.
Here is where I come from with all of this: It is tough to distinctly say these days that the .45 is any better than the 9mm, and in some cases the 9mm is said to be better. We have hundreds and thousands of shootings, many detailed studies and experts and few to none of them can prove that a .45 stops any better than a 9mm. On the street, time and time again, they work the same; they both often fail miserably and both succeed the same. Now, if they are so similar in performance that it can be effectively argued that there is no difference, then I want to gun that carries 16 rounds of ammo over the one that carries 7. That is why I carry a 9mm Glock 19 right now, and maybe a .357 Sig in the future. If they all work about the same, then I want the one with the most chances to make good hits on multiple assailents (more ammo). Shot placement...good HITS...are all that matter, so I like the gun that gives me the easiest hits and the most chances.
What Sanow says on 9mm FMJ vs .45 FMJ is summed up that: 9mm tumbled EVERY TIME, and .45 NEVER tumbled due to bullet shape. Therefore the 9mm actually made a BIGGER hole! The 9mm also goes faster and therefore even when it does NOT tumble, it displaces energy faster into the target. 9mm dumped way more energy AND made a bigger hole. How can you argue with more energy dump and a bigger hole? Most people assume that, upon hollowpoint failure, a .45 is a better bet. Sanow's article shows that that is not necessarily true, and perhaps totally false.
[Edited by jdthaddeus on 11-27-2000 at 03:35 PM]
Ok, here are a few things I would like to respectfully add:
First, I agree that if shot placement is excellent that caliber isnt so important. From my experience shooting, though, I know my shot placement isnt always perfect, and I cant imagine it would be better under the stress of an attack. So for badly placed shots, I would prefer to poke a big hole in something. Maybe this makes me sound like a bad shot, but I know from experience that if I can mess something up, I will undoubtedly do it at the worst time (Murphy was a surgeon, you know). Will a big round save me from bad shot placement? No, but no way a big hole is gonna hurt.
Second, to Mr. IamNotaNut: I totally believe someone can be "incapacitated" without being dead. However, I contend that "incapacitation" and "stopping power" are relative terms and difficult to define well. For example, lets say "person A" gets shot in the foot with a 22. It would be unlikely that he is going to drop dead instantly. However, this wound may hurt enough that he falls down, screams in pain, and stops being a threat. This would meet the defintion of incapacitation. Now let us say "Person B" gets shot right between the eyes with a 44 magnum, and it blows the top of his head off (sorry for the graphic example). We would say also that he is incapacitated, right? So in either case the person is incapacitated. Does a 22 and 44 mag have same stopping power? No, though in this example, both person A and B were incapacitated.
Next, on the subject of "energy dump". Certainly, you can convince me that energy transfer is very important in terms of high powered rifle injuries (with projectiles travelling 2000-3000+ feet per second. But for handgun calibers, I am not sure there is enough of a difference in velocity to make a difference. Even the fastest standard handgun round including 357 mag, is still a relatively low energy missile.
Now certainly, I like high velocity ammo. However, my reason for it is not because it dumps more energy. Higher velocity causes JHP to expand better, and create a larger hole. Despite what Sanow claims, from what I have seen, hollowpoints work by making bigger holes.
I have never seen someone with an injury soley from "energy" from a handgun round. Perhaps people with street experience have seen people stunned or something when hit with high velocity ammo, but I dont know what they are talking about exactly. But I guess it could happen, and cant argue the point because I havent been there first hand.
Finally, I dont know what to make of studies done in ballistic gelatin. This material has a uniform density. Human bodies are do not. Once a bullet enters a person, there is no way to predict whether a bullet will tumble, go straight, veer, etc. This goes for any caliber, 9mm, 45, doesnt matter. I would be willing to bet a minority of bullets just go totally straight through without tumbling or changing course significantly.
I freely admit my opinions are based on my experience AFTER someone has been shot. But they make a lot of sense to me.
First, I agree that if shot placement is excellent that caliber isnt so important. From my experience shooting, though, I know my shot placement isnt always perfect, and I cant imagine it would be better under the stress of an attack. So for badly placed shots, I would prefer to poke a big hole in something. Maybe this makes me sound like a bad shot, but I know from experience that if I can mess something up, I will undoubtedly do it at the worst time (Murphy was a surgeon, you know). Will a big round save me from bad shot placement? No, but no way a big hole is gonna hurt.
Second, to Mr. IamNotaNut: I totally believe someone can be "incapacitated" without being dead. However, I contend that "incapacitation" and "stopping power" are relative terms and difficult to define well. For example, lets say "person A" gets shot in the foot with a 22. It would be unlikely that he is going to drop dead instantly. However, this wound may hurt enough that he falls down, screams in pain, and stops being a threat. This would meet the defintion of incapacitation. Now let us say "Person B" gets shot right between the eyes with a 44 magnum, and it blows the top of his head off (sorry for the graphic example). We would say also that he is incapacitated, right? So in either case the person is incapacitated. Does a 22 and 44 mag have same stopping power? No, though in this example, both person A and B were incapacitated.
Next, on the subject of "energy dump". Certainly, you can convince me that energy transfer is very important in terms of high powered rifle injuries (with projectiles travelling 2000-3000+ feet per second. But for handgun calibers, I am not sure there is enough of a difference in velocity to make a difference. Even the fastest standard handgun round including 357 mag, is still a relatively low energy missile.
Now certainly, I like high velocity ammo. However, my reason for it is not because it dumps more energy. Higher velocity causes JHP to expand better, and create a larger hole. Despite what Sanow claims, from what I have seen, hollowpoints work by making bigger holes.
I have never seen someone with an injury soley from "energy" from a handgun round. Perhaps people with street experience have seen people stunned or something when hit with high velocity ammo, but I dont know what they are talking about exactly. But I guess it could happen, and cant argue the point because I havent been there first hand.
Finally, I dont know what to make of studies done in ballistic gelatin. This material has a uniform density. Human bodies are do not. Once a bullet enters a person, there is no way to predict whether a bullet will tumble, go straight, veer, etc. This goes for any caliber, 9mm, 45, doesnt matter. I would be willing to bet a minority of bullets just go totally straight through without tumbling or changing course significantly.
I freely admit my opinions are based on my experience AFTER someone has been shot. But they make a lot of sense to me.
Here is the reference that Juliet mentioned above:
Ed Sanow, "A Complete Guide to Handgun Stopping Power," GUN WORLD, Oct. 99, vol. 40, #10, pp. 46-51.
In it, Sanow asserts that load selection is more important than shot placement; see page 50, at the bottom. He says, "Energy is the key to stopping power." His reasoning is that velocity and hollowpoint design are what make for more "one-shot stops."
You can take this stuff as you will, and, I am sure you will.
Also, in this article, Sanow dismisses lethality as the objective of handgun stopping power. My guess is that this position is legally prudent given the state of litigation now, but I do not want anyone I have stopped coming back later to bother me again. That reason is why I still practice the Mozambique drill, regardless of what caliber or bullet type I deploy.
Ed Sanow, "A Complete Guide to Handgun Stopping Power," GUN WORLD, Oct. 99, vol. 40, #10, pp. 46-51.
In it, Sanow asserts that load selection is more important than shot placement; see page 50, at the bottom. He says, "Energy is the key to stopping power." His reasoning is that velocity and hollowpoint design are what make for more "one-shot stops."
You can take this stuff as you will, and, I am sure you will.
Also, in this article, Sanow dismisses lethality as the objective of handgun stopping power. My guess is that this position is legally prudent given the state of litigation now, but I do not want anyone I have stopped coming back later to bother me again. That reason is why I still practice the Mozambique drill, regardless of what caliber or bullet type I deploy.
ok I wasn't gonna say it but...
practice makes ALL this stuff academic.
You shoot a lot, you compete a lot, you hunt a lot this "flinching before you shoot felt recoil" nonsense becomes somewhat moot. Training pays off.. otherwise WHY BOTHER doing it at all?
MY 9mm hipower kicks harder than my full sized GM 45, I shoot the hi power more often because I can shoot it more accurately. I handle my full sized GM faster than my hi-power and like its feel a little better. Doesn't mean its better or worse.. means I need to pracvtice more. Some of the BEST shooters in IDPA are our 1911 shooters. They shoot fast and accurate and we all shoot full power loads.
As for shoot through.. I read (based on the diallo shooting) that NYC cops OFTEN shoot through their bad guys (with ball and hp ammo) and hit civilians, cars, furry house pets and government property.
No one should use fmj ammo for defense unless you have to (forced to).
I'd trust the better shooter to come out on top of a confrontation than the bigger cailber. Big holes are better. 16 rounds doesn't mean a thing if you can't hit the ass of an elephant at 5 feet.
see ya,
Rob
practice makes ALL this stuff academic.
You shoot a lot, you compete a lot, you hunt a lot this "flinching before you shoot felt recoil" nonsense becomes somewhat moot. Training pays off.. otherwise WHY BOTHER doing it at all?
MY 9mm hipower kicks harder than my full sized GM 45, I shoot the hi power more often because I can shoot it more accurately. I handle my full sized GM faster than my hi-power and like its feel a little better. Doesn't mean its better or worse.. means I need to pracvtice more. Some of the BEST shooters in IDPA are our 1911 shooters. They shoot fast and accurate and we all shoot full power loads.
As for shoot through.. I read (based on the diallo shooting) that NYC cops OFTEN shoot through their bad guys (with ball and hp ammo) and hit civilians, cars, furry house pets and government property.
No one should use fmj ammo for defense unless you have to (forced to).
I'd trust the better shooter to come out on top of a confrontation than the bigger cailber. Big holes are better. 16 rounds doesn't mean a thing if you can't hit the ass of an elephant at 5 feet.
see ya,
Rob
- Status