Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns 9mm performance improvements

We�ve all seen how greatly the 9mm has benefitted from cartridge development into a very solid defensive cartridge when employed with good quality JHP ammunition. But what I find interesting is how well 9mm is working for the military. Sure we occasionally hear of stopping failures, but there�s not nearly as many as I thought I�d hear, not by a long shot (no pun intended).

Now 9mm NATO is a bit of a different animal than the old 9mm 115 grain hardball loads, but those performance differences are for barrier penetration and do very little to change terminal performance in soft tissue. Either load will drill a 9mm hole right through the upper torso of most anyone. So why the difference in performance? Why is it years ago we heard the 9mm was worthless, and these days most elite military units actually prefer it to the sacred .45 ACP?

I say the difference is the focus on handgun training, where in the past there was very little focus on handgun training. I think our soldiers shoot handguns better than they ever have in history, and therefore enemies who are shot, tend to be shot more center of mass, and thus the cartridge is doing its job.

What say you?

Ammo capacity.

Based on what I've seen, it'd be hard to find military guys who are worse pistol shots than what the Army is currently producing.

The Marines would differ with that assessment, and you would likely have to speak to the leadership of each of the 9 mm equipped elite units to ascertain "why." The answer, in some cases, is that they don't have a choice. I do know a few SOF types with multiple deployments and numerous firefights behind them who are not happy with the 9 mm.

Same here, I have talked to a few that did not talk highly of the 9mm and much preferred the 45. Of course they were Marines.

The ones I talkerd to were Green Berets.

The ones I talked to were Green Berets.

Guess I should not type while juggling cell phone plus office phone...

Aren't we talking FMJ rounds only in the military context?

Does it make a difference to anyone if you compare the 9mm to the .45 when each is loaded with HP's?

Yes we're talking FMJ.

My observations (and just MY observation) is that complaints about the 9mm FMJ are far fewer than I expected. I think it's because the training is better than in the past. Just wondering what others think.

I've slowly gotten rid of all my 9mms except one and that's a CW9 (Yes...I sold my Hi-Power)

Now, all my defensive autos other than the aforementioned CW, are .45acp. I've come to the conclusion, when shooting reactive targets, even .45 ball, is better than any 9mm hollow point for placing mass on target.

Keep in mind, I'm not talking about lethality, I'm talking about mass. We've gotten away from that discussion over the years, relying on data that may or may not reflect reality, based on a diverse set of scenarios and parameters.

My rounds of choice are 230 grains, whether ball or hollow point. And while they lumber toward the target with glacial speed, it's more a case of a rhinoceros hitting your torso, vs a gazelle.

I don't expect my targets to be swept off their feet. I expect them to wish they'd never been born.

So what are you basing your decision off of, if not studies and statistics? Of course the data is based on diverse scenarios, it's hard to get bad guys to pose the same way every time they get shot. If all the data was from the exact same scenarios people would gripe that it wasn't diverse enough.

The rhino / gazelle analogy doesn't hold water, because neither a rhino or gazelle are penetrating my body, expanding and expending energy within me. Basing your decision on a theoretical animal charge is why these discussions are never valuable.

Maybe no one is complaining about the 9mm's "performance" because they generally only actually USE it in an MP5 class weapon, and any handgun use is limited to super close range head shots, where a 22 would work just as well

What do you mean by "reactive targets", Dan? Bullet mass and momentum can make a difference when you're shooting heavy plates or bowling pins, but I would strongly disagree that they make a difference when shooting lighter reactive targets like plate racks or poppers.

As for "lethality", let's be clear: human beings are NOT "reactive targets". They are living, moving, fighting beings whose physiological and psychological and spiritual makeup combines to make something much more complex than the most complex mechanical or reactive range target system.

I take your "diverse set of scenarios and parameters" statement to mean that you think that the variables in street shootings are so many and so uncontrollable that it is impossible to draw any valid predictions from any sort of study. This is nonsense. The quantity of research on handgun ammunition performance done since the 1986 Miami FBI gunfight is staggering in its volume and scope, and it has resulted in phenomenal performance improvements in not just service caliber ammunition, but all ammunition.

The street shootings data accumulated over the past 25+ years by LE agencies and consortiums in America is pretty clear: there is no appreciable performance difference between 9mm and 45 ACP when using modern JHP ammunition that meets the FBI criteria established in 1987.

Kevin, I should have responded to your OP first, but got sidetracked by Dan's post and felt responding to it was a higher priority.

As you know I have been studying (and training people in the use of) the question of gunshot wounding and incapacitation for many years. I've accumulated quite a few gunfight/shooting stories over that time-frame, and while they might serve illustrative purposes from time to time, individual personal gunfight stories or opinions don't tell us much that we can generalize from.

A couple of examples come to mind. Let's consider two guys, both very very high-speed, low-drag, special ops guys. They've both got multiple years of experience, multiple wars, multiple weapons platforms, with just about any type of ammunition you could ask for. I know both of them passably well. I've done some range shooting with both of them, and have taken extensive training from one of them.

One of these guys has carried nothing but Glock 22's for years and insists that while "you don't need to carry a Glock, you've got to carry a .45, and please not a phuqqing 1911". The other guy carries Glock 19's and has no use for a .45 pistol other than the 1911's he owns and shoots recreationally from time to time. How could two guys with so much experience have such different opinions on the caliber question? Well, I guess it just proves that subjectivity is a really, really powerful factor in human decision-making. Personally, I wouldn't go up against either of these guys with anything more lethal than Nerf guns, not that this has anything to do with it, but you get the idea...

I've spoken at length with a lot of guys who've spent extensive time in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who have used their handguns in combat. Some swear that the 45 ACP 1911 is far superior, others are equally happy with their 9mm M9's. But when I get down to the nitty gritty of how many times they actually used their pistol as their sole weapon in an action, the counts were very, very low. That really takes the "punch" out of most of the first-hand reports of handgun ammunition performance in the Sandbox, I'm sad to report.

The military doesn't take or keep detailed reports on every shooting in a war zone. So you can't rely on military records to tell you if the 45 ACP's used by Marine SOCOM are truly better than the 9mm's used by Rangers.

Domestic law enforcement in the USA, however, does keep meticulous records on every officer-involved shooting. These records are kept highly confidential, however, and there's no way John Q. Public is ever going to see those individual records. In fact, in most LE agencies the number of people who can get their hands on those records can generally be counted on the fingers of one hand.

But there are a few agencies that have worked together to share their OIS information, which is harder than it sounds. Despite the many obstacles they've accumulated some good data, I believe, based on thousands and thousands of shootings. And the overwhelming conclusion from these data is that caliber is irrelevant when it comes to shooting people with service caliber handguns using modern JHP ammunition.

So my response to your OP, in sum, is more or less the same as I've written here and elsewhere many times. I don't think it matters a hoot whether you choose 9mm or 45 ACP. I think good modern JHP ammunition is superior to ball ammo, but if all I had was ball, I wouldn't throw down my gun and stick my hands in the air. I don't think the 9mm cartridge was ever as lousy as its critics have claimed, and I don't think the 45 ACP was ever as wonderful as its accolytes expound.

I find it rather amusing that threads like this quote 'FBI research and street shooting data' both of whch are designed to selll you something. The Bureau has a long and storied history of churning out research papers to support whatever weaponry they have decided to use.

The 9mm, 'modernized' or not, is essentially a 38 +P. If you are happy with that, drive on. Having attended a few gunsmoke picnics, autopsies and having shot a couple dozen deer with handguns- I'll go with something capable of shooting through intervening limbs wrecking major skeletal structures.

Sarge, as I tried to point out in the two posts above, your personal experience is valid and highly pertinent to your decision-making, but it doesn't generalize well.

Your statement about "going through intervening limbs" etc begs the question... do you think 9mm bullets won't do that? Because I can show you a very public shooting where a lowly little 115 gr 9mm bullet fired by Agent Jerry Dove in 1986 shot through Michael Platt's upper arm, then entered his chest and severed his right pulmonary artery and vein, which killed Platt.

Since you've brought up your personal experience (and I am in no way denigrating that, more power to you!) let's talk a bit about personal experience, and its relative uselessness: I've attended (and assisted in) dozens of autopsies and and scores of trauma surgeries, and I've been the treating doctor hundreds of gunshot wounds, and I've killed dozens of deer and hundreds of prairie dogs & gophers... I have fired my weapon in the hot zone, and I have been shot. But does that make my opinion any more valid than yours? Of course not! That's only my personal experience, and it doesn't generalize any better than your personal experience.

When I interview guys who've been in lots of shootings, their personal experiences tend to be no more generalizable than yours or mine. For example, one cop I know on a major metro force has killed (not shot, killed) seven men with his handgun(s), last time I talked to him. It might be 8 or 9 by now. The conclusion "Bill" has drawn from his experience is that he will only shoot bad guys in the head. Period. Now, "Bill" has shot more people to death than I have, or presumably you have... but does his personal conclusion hold water for everybody? No, it really doesn't.

This is why we have to take a step back from our personal experience and look at the results of many, many OIS's and look for the trends there.

Those trends tell us that, when using modern JHP ammunition, there's no difference between 9mm, 38 Special +P, 40 S&W, or 45 ACP. There might be a marginal difference when you factor in 357 Mag, 41 Mag, and 44 Mag, but not much. There is substantial evidence to show that mini-calibers like 380 ACP and smaller are really inferior to the major service calibers.

That 9mm bullet you mentioned (a Silvertip) struck Platt's right forearm, entered his right ribcage, and stopped an inch from his heart. Platt survived to fight for four more minutes, eventually killing agents Dove and Benjamin Grogan.

45 hardball would have settled his hash, with the same hit.

Sarge, I was responding your implication that 9mm bullets won't go through an intermediate barrier such as an arm or leg and continue into the body.

The 9mm bullet in question did not strike Platt's forearm. It entered his right upper arm above the elbow and passed transversely and superiorly through the upper arm, severing the brachial artery. It penetrated through the right lung and centerpunched the right pulmonary artery and vein, severing them, which resulted in catastrophic loss of blood into the chest cavity. The wound was non-survivable.

It is impossible to say that a 45 caliber bullet of any type would have done a better job... your assertion that 45 ball would have hit the heart and "settled his hash" is pure speculation, and based on the autopsy findings and what we know about cardiovascular function, very likely wrong.

The wound probes and Xrays shown in photos in French Anderson's book (and his verbal description) show that the bullet was traversing superiorly at a modest angle (10 degrees or so). This means that even if the bullet had gone completely through his chest, its path would not have perforated any significant part of the heart.

Also, you have succumbed to the layman's assumption that a bullet in the heart is always immediately fatal, and this is simply not true, especially with handgun bullets. I am aware of numerous cases where GSW's to the ventricles were not only survivable, but the "victim" (often a felon, so I hesitate to use the term) was able to fight for an extended period of time after taking the GSW to his heart.

The only thing I know is I rather shoot someone with a rifle/shotgun than a handgun!

Handgun is the last resort. I think the 9mm has benefited from modern HP and modern components like new powder ect.

I'm partial to the 40 S&W and have seen failures with it!

Most vets that return home from war, people who have been in shootings, all tend to come to the conclusion they want something bigger and better!

My bad... It was Platt's upper arm that took the Silvertip first. I have a copy Anderson's book but its been awhile since I read it. I tend to absorb the salient points from these things and move on from them.



'Layman's assumption'... nice shot, but a miss.

I made no assertion about any heart shot being 'immediately fatal'- and you know perfectly well that's not what we're talking about here.



So you're asserting that a second, perforating (exit) wound to the chest wall would have no effect on the Platt's ability to press the fight for four minutes?

If the incoming shot had impacted his spinal column with enough remaining momentum to disrupt it- still no difference?

And is a 115 grain 9mm Silvertip or 230 grain 45 FMJ more likely to go 'completely through the chest' and accomplish either?

As I said earlier, I don't care what you or anybody else carries. Just don't tell me a 9mm JHP will do the same damage when intervening limbs are hit.

All I can say is I wouldn't hunt hogs with FMJ 9mm or 45.

But I would with flat nosed FMJ .40s&w and 10mm.

Sarge, please forgive my assumption as to your backstory vis a vis "layman" status. I drew an inference based on your statement that the bullet stopped short of the heart, a statement I've heard from some others (all laymen) who DO make the assumption that if that bullet had somehow reached the heart the fight would have stopped there.



Sorry, I made no such assertion. But I will make two points based on my experience with handgun bullet GSW's. First, handgun bullets, including 45 ACP bullets, are very unlikely to perforate the chest anteroposteriorly, and I've never seen one perforate completely travelling transversely.

Would an exit wound on the left side of Platt's chest have caused him to stop fighting more quickly? It's pure speculation on anyone's part. But my guess is that it would not have. Platt fought on despite wounds that would have caused most men to lie down and die, out of pure meanness, demon possession, or some other motivating force. A second pneumothorax due to an exit wound might have stopped him a bit sooner, yes, but looking at the timeline of his actions in this fight, Hanlon and Dove would almost certainly still have died even if he'd only fought half as long as he did.



Again, I did not mention anything about a spinal hit. Dove's bullet's trajectory was well anterior to the spine, and as such would not have hit it or damaged it.

But there is no question that bullets passing anteroposteriorly in the middle of the chest do often cause spinal injuries and sometimes spinal cord injuries as well. I have a couple of cases in my files, one a 9mm bullet, the other a 40 S&W bullet, that caused significant spinal cord injury and instantaneous paralysis.



As I wrote above, neither is likely to completely transect the chest. If that was my goal for some reason, I'd select a high-velocity 9mm 147 gr FMJ bullet, which has a higher SD than a 45 caliber 230 gr FMJ bullet, and is the proven "uber-penetrating" bullet in gelatin tests (45+ inches of penetration vs 25+ inches, to the best of my recollection).



And I don't care what you carry.

But I will tell you exactly that. We're talking about modern bonded handgun bullets, which expand reliably and hold together very reliably. Because of this and the significantly higher velocity of the 9mm, it could actually do more damage than the 45.

I've written this and been quoted on before, and the vast preponderance of wound ballistics research bears this out: among service caliber handgun bullets, the anatomic and physiologic damage caused by a bullet is far more a function of its path and what structures it passes through than the caliber or construction of the bullet itself.

This assertion does not extend to bullets/cartridges outside of the standard service caliber class. OIf you were to take that same 230 gr 45 ACP bullet and drive it out of a 460 Rowland handgun at 1300 fps (equivalent to a hot 9mm 115 gr load), it will vastly outperform any 9mm bullet/round in existence. But within the defined parameters of modern service/defense rounds, these generalizations do most certainly apply.

We will agree to disagree then. Thank you for the civil discussion.

Miami was over 20 years ago, ammunition has come a long way since then. I don't see how the Miami shooting is relevant from a terminal ballistic standpoint anymore. I don't know of any LE agencies who carry 1980's vintage Silvertips.

I am with doc rocket on this one, i don't see a lot of difference in any of the major handgun calibers.
But, and this is coming from someone who has liked the .45acp for a long time, there are atvantages to 9mm.
was fooling with a glock 17 yesterday. And a box of ranger T 135 grain ammo. That ammo is rated to 1250fps and about 15inches of penetrations, through denim, glass, and steel.
in that glock with a two round factory extension on the mag, and one in the chamber that is 20rounds.
And it isn't so heavy that it pulls your pants down.
9mm is just faster on recovery between shots, and easier for a lot of people to control.
And that black talon ammo which is what it is with a politically correct bullet is a proven performer.
I sure would not want to get it by any of it.
that stuff is getting close to .38super.

Speaking of Super I love the 45 Super with either a 230 grain XTP or a 255 grain hard cast. Velocity in my pistol is 1130 for the JHP and 1075 for the 255. They hit stuff pretty hard IME.

What would be wrong with a 45ACP+P flat point fmj on hogs when compared to the 40/10mm?

I get a better visual indication of a hit with a 45 VS a 9mm on game and to me that is an advantage of a larger diameter projectile with significantly more mass. I use nothing but +P in 45 ACP. I really like the 45 Super and feel that the 9mm takes a back seat for sure in comparison.

What's the big deal about killin a pig????

�.

I agree with you. 45's going Super speeds would be getting a lot closer to ideal, because you have both mass and energy displacement. I don't worship at the alter of 45acp, and never have. The three standard limitations that stick painfully out when discussing hot 45's are rapid controlled fire with such a powerful recoiling handgun, capacity limitation, and the weight of the rig+ammo. I agree though that the one-shot stats on fast expanding 45's are ideal.

I can precisely shoot a 9mm one-handed with a broken finger. I could not do that with a 45 boomer. I also practice to shoot more than once, regardless of my target, so 1-shot stats aren't very relevant.

My last point: all this discussion of turning humans into bullet fodder is sad to me. The term 'felon' has little meaning in the 21st Century. Statistically, given that the average American is subject to roughly 1,000,000 laws in the 'Land of the Free', nearly all of Americans are committing felonies regularly.

Bluedreaux

"So what are you basing your decision off of, if not studies and statistics?"

Killing things with both. Not people, thank God, but a ton of feral dogs and several car hit deer as a police officer. I'm convinced - with normal self defense handguns, as opposed to specialty handguns that shoot rifle calibers or ultra speed-demon rounds, that mass and penetration is superior to speed and alleged tissue disruption. I don't have to convince you as that's not my place. I simply report my experience.

"Of course the data is based on diverse scenarios, it's hard to get bad guys to pose the same way every time they get shot."

Which is precisely the reason the data is suspect. The vaunted .40 caliber of the 80s has been responsible for significant failures to accomplish that which it was intended to. So has the 9mm and the .45! When the central nervous system is disrupted, it doesn't matter what the caliber or velocity. The problem is precisely that which you state, you can't get the bad guy to pose for you, so you have to be able to draw a direct line from the exterior of the torso, to the target area inside the 3 dimensional being. Those intrepid souls who used to hunt elephants with inferior calibers like the 7mm, understood this. The bullet had to travel in a direct line to the intended spot in the 3 dimensional head. Penetration is superior to tissue disruption with inferior weapons, and most handgun calibers are technically inferior when compared to rifles.

"The rhino / gazelle analogy doesn't hold water, because neither a rhino or gazelle are penetrating my body, expanding and expending energy within me. Basing your decision on a theoretical animal charge is why these discussions are never valuable."

Do you understand the one inch punch? As for expanding, if tissue disruption was your only aim, then expansion is desirable. If reaching the important organs and components of the central nervous system are the key, then expansion is moot.

Why not use a caliber that is both "pre-expanded" and can reach those components?

Maybe nothing has changed with the cartridges themselves, just peoples' impressions of them. They know now that the 9mm isn't an impotent pipsqueak and the .45 isn't the "Hammer of Thor".

Doc: "Bullet mass and momentum can make a difference when you're shooting heavy plates or bowling pins, but I would strongly disagree that they make a difference when shooting lighter reactive targets like plate racks or poppers."

I don't know what poppers you shoot at, but the pepper-poppers I used to shoot wouldn't go down with marginal hits close to the pivot point using the 9mm, but would almost universally go down with the .45 and 230 grain ball. Still, the term "heavy" is telling. If it makes a difference on a "heavy" target, it should provide evidence that there is an element of superiority over a broad spectrum of potential uses.

"As for "lethality", let's be clear: human beings are NOT "reactive targets". They are living, moving, fighting beings whose physiological and psychological and spiritual makeup combines to make something much more complex than the most complex mechanical or reactive range target system."

Can't disagree with that. Wouldn't try to, but as you well know and as I tried to explain to Bluedreaux, albeit clumsily, humans are 3 dimensional targets. You see one dimension, but the target should be considered 3 dimensional. One has to imagine the intended target inside the external surface. We train to shoot center mass on flat targets always facing us perpendicularly, and this is a disservice to our trainees. Depending on what degree of attitude the target is facing us, will present different challenges, not all of which are center mass. Penetration becomes key, over expansion and the theoretical discussion of hydro-dynamics on internal organs.

"I take your "diverse set of scenarios and parameters" statement to mean that you think that the variables in street shootings are so many and so uncontrollable that it is impossible to draw any valid predictions from any sort of study. This is nonsense. The quantity of research on handgun ammunition performance done since the 1986 Miami FBI gunfight is staggering in its volume and scope, and it has resulted in phenomenal performance improvements in not just service caliber ammunition, but all ammunition."

Doc, please use the tern "nonsense" carefully. IF you have been keeping up with the times, you will discover the FBI has almost reversed itself in recent months. It does make one wonder. One of the main things the FBI did discover - and this pertains to all shootouts, regardless the caliber of the weapon being used, is that marginal performance "tactically", cannot be made up for with superior performance "ballistically." But that given all scenarios, we carry one gun. Better it be the one that can deliver mass, deeply into a 3 dimensional being.

"The street shootings data accumulated over the past 25+ years by LE agencies and consortiums in America is pretty clear: there is no appreciable performance difference between 9mm and 45 ACP when using modern JHP ammunition that meets the FBI criteria established in 1987."

Absolutely! And this is largely because there is little difference in the targets, vs the differences in the weaponry. The constant, in all these studies are the intended targets, and the unpredictability of their physical position and attitude at the moment of combat. The 9mm and .40 offer only one advantage over their larger sister, and that is capacity. For some, that is comforting and I'd never try to dissuade them. But the performance of the .45 was the "benchmark" all the other entries were trying to live up to in their quest.

Best to you.

Dan

All I can say is 9mm ball of any kind sucks in combat where it is required (military)

Now the newer critical defense/duty stuff (and more) which civilians can carry bring it to a whole new level.

Is there something in the Geneva Convention that does not allow flat pointed ball FMJ ammo? Seems performance would on live subjects would be much better and still technically be FMJ. Maybe reliability issues or is it against the GC?

The Geneva Convention has nothing to do with munitions, absolutely nothing.
The Hague accord covers munitions, the U.S. is not a signer of The Hague Accord.

The thing is if a civilian picks a cartridge he doesn't feel influenced by how many females will be able to qualify
when they work for a politically correct government agency.

When John Browning designed the 45 caliber pistol for the US government he did so with a 200 gr bullet which would be less recoil and higher velocity than the 230 gr projectile which the government insisted on.
whelennut

my Brother in Law is a retired FEEB. Worked many years in firearms instruction, and worked with the team that brought first the 10MM, and then the .40 S&W into the FBI.
He told me yesterday, that there is serious talk in the FBI to return to the 9MM as the primary duty weapon. And soon.

I was Security forces in the USAF for 21 years. Under normal overseas conditions we are limited to FMJ projectiles. No HP's or plastic tips etc. (Some special forces and certain missions will deviate). The point shape makes no diff but gotta be FMJ overseas. They suck in stopping power. Ask anyone who has been to the sandbox. Now in the US we carried 115 JHP federals.

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.