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]

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.

[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]

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

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]

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.

[355sigfan]

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

Webshoot I could not agree more.
Dr 45 what if a car is trying to run you down. Sounds like a justifiable shoot to me.
PAT

[slojim]

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]

[drothen]

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. . .

[Dr45ACP]

Regarding penetration, all i really meant was that it would seem to me personally that I would be less likely to need to shoot someone through a car window or door than without any barrier.

[olazul]

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

[George Hill]

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.

[LawDog]

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

[IamNOTaNUT]

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.

[jdthaddeus]

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]

[Dr45ACP]

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.

[Trevor]

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.

[Dr.Rob]

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

[Oleg Volk]

I'll start.