Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns 9mm performance improvements

In any discussion such as this, there are always a few definites...

Physics.

A heavier bullet (more mass and momentum)will always penetrate better than a lighter one. That's why a .45 with a heavier bullet should penetrate clothing, bones, etc. better.

Assuming similar terminal performance, large diameter bullet will always make a larger hole than a smaller one. The 9mm has for sure been the subject of advances in bullet technology in the form of good expanding bullets, and assuming they work as designed, they would be better than any FMJ. But if they don't for whatever reason, you're still shooting a FMJ.

This next assertion always pisses the SOF types off, but if you want to know what works on flesh and bone, you need look no further than the hunting field. W.D.M. Bell proved to all of us that tiny bullets would kill enormous animals, but that in no way makes tiny bullets best. It simply proved to us that if you put any bullet exactly where it belongs, and said bullet performs as it should (doesn't fail)the subject will die. And so it should be with handgun bullets. If in every situation the fellow doing the shooting were able to direct his shots into an assailant's gray matter, well law enforcement and military would all be carrying 32 ACP's with 35 round magazines.

I think too so many people become enamored with the 9mm because primarily of the high-capacity semi's in which they're available, and like so many others before it, it's a military cartridge.

In summary, my opinion is 45 ACP = more margin for error.

35WhelenNut

When slo-mo videos show both 230 grain hollowpoints and 124 grain hollowpoints entering gel, they ultimately travel nearly identical distances before running out of juice.

Some people feel this equates to identical performance on flesh and bone, and couldn't be more wrong.

Like you, I understand that taking bone and clothing out of the equation, gives the 9mm reasonably equal footing in the penetration category, but one thing I note regularly with those tests, is the 9mm projectiles often begin to veer off course once their leaves open up.

My example of the 3 dimensional view of the target, requires a bullet that will have a better chance of traveling in the line intended, to the proper organs for lethality. The 230 grain, at modest velocities, will almost universally beat a smaller, lighter bullet in this category.

The .45 isn't a panacea. But it's a serious contender.
The 9mm isn't bad, but when push comes to shove, its only advantage is capacity. Less recoil should "Never" be considered an advantage.

Dan & Whelen get it. The 45 solid, in LC and ACP iterations, has a 140+ year track record of stopping highly motivated combatants, all over the world.

Substantial bullet weight, bullet diameter and enough velocity for penetration across the torso, guaranteed these cartridges success.

They work as well today as they ever did and this causes much angst among marketeers, bullet designers and those bent upon convincing themselves (and the rest of us) that a smaller, lighter handgun bullet can do the same work because the front end of it becomes a sea anchor. We are supposed to watch slow motion videos of jello blocks swelling on impact and believe it is so.

Obscene amounts of bullet-design money (some of it taxpayer funded) have been thrown at the problem of trying to make a small bullet act like a big one. Improvements have certainly been made; but until gelatin blocks have arms, ribs and spines they will never be fully representative of the organism those bullets are intended to defeat.

The 45's can be improved by the simple addition of a half-caliber meplat to the nose of the bullet; and it gives up nothing in the process.

Ask yourself a simple question. If you were being attacked by a 110 pound attack dog and a 250 pound assailant at the same time, which would you rather have- 17 rounds of 9mm or 11-13 rounds of 45?

16 rounds of 357 Sig

GunGeek: I prefer/use/carry the 40 S&W for my work.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Maybe they're too busy with their rifles.

This type of discussion is always entertaining.
Lets say I am going to get mugged on my way to my parked vehicle.
I have two choices
option 1 a single stack magazine 9mm holding 8 rds
Option 2 a single stack 45 acp holding 8 rds.
If magazine capacity is identical would anyone actually prefer a 9mm to a 45acp?

If your shooting at paper targets buy whatever floats your boat.
Paper targets won't shoot back. Iirc
whelennut

All else being the same, but the .45 ACP and the 9mm aren't the same. You know good and well that there's much more than bullet weight that equates to penetration. Even if we back 100 years to the first 9mm vs. .45 ACP debates, the 9mm has always had better barrier penetration than the .45 ACP; and that still holds true today with modern loads. With a 124 grain +P or a 147 grain 9mm both barrier and tissue penetration will be greater than a 230 grain .45 ACP (this is not to say the .45�s penetration is insufficient). Because the physics are not the same between the two rounds, the penetration nod actually goes to the 9mm. But honestly I don�t think the edge is enough to get excited about.

This one is interesting because what you say makes a whole lot of sense. But when I have spoken to surgeons who have treated bullet wounds, they said they can�t tell the difference in actual tissue damage. Yes on some measurable level the tissue destruction just HAS to be greater with the .45 ACP, but I don�t think it�s enough of a difference that it actually matters on a human being. HUGE changes in numbers from say 50 caliber to 70 caliber are very big changes on paper. But in the real world it�s .2 of an inch. Compare that in relation to the human body, I just don�t see where someone shot with a 9mm would know the difference between someone shot with a .45 ACP. It�s just like a .257 Roberts vs the .30-06 in the field. On paper there�s a big difference, but I�ve yet to see where the .30-06 did a job that the .257 couldn�t have done. My observations, I�ve never seen an animal act any different when squarely shot with most centerfire rifle cartridges no matter what common "deer" round it was (generally .243 - 30-06).

Dr. Martin Fackler a man who has done more work on the subject of bullet wounds than any of us could ever dream of, will tell you that most handgun cartridges produce the same results, and most rifle cartridges produce the same results. Even though when testing meaningful differences can be found in test mediums, when it comes to reviewing actual bullet wounds, he said on the operating table he couldn�t tell the difference between a FMJ or JHP round from a pistol, or a 7.62x39 vs a 5.56. (unless it was an extremity hit for the latter)

My observation of treating gun shot wounds for many years, patients tend to look the same when shot with handgun wounds; regardless of caliber, bullet choice, etc.

In fact, the ONLY observable difference comes quite predictably in where they are hit, and how many times they were hit.

On paper that makes sense, in the real world I�ve yet to see where it matters.

To me here�s what matters.

1 � Have a gun
2 � It must be a reliable gun
3 � It must be of a sufficient power to do the job (and most common defensive cartridges are)
4 � You must be able to shoot it well (competent and safe)
5 � You must be confident in the ability of you and firearm

Whatever gun meets that criteria for you is just fine, whether it be a 9mm or a .44 magnum; if it meets those 5 (at a minimum), then you�re probably good to go

Everything after that is personal preference and splitting hairs IMO.

Where is your proof that the 9mm +P JHP will out penetrate a +P 45 ACP JHP? Have you acctualy tried this or is it pure speculation?

I see the 9mm and 45ACP as being far more similar than different. There are some clear dimensional differences, but effectiveness against humans is about equal with similar type ammo.

Both are over 100 years old, both seem to fill their role well enough to have survived.

I've got defensive handguns in 9mm, 357Mag, 40, 45. No real bias but I tend to lean toward the heavy bullet weights in all of them.

I don't care what anyone carries, but that's a piss poor understanding of physics.

You just crawl out from under a rock?

Apparently you did.