Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns How much better is XYZ round than 9mm

There many who feel this round or that round is better for defense than 9mm (or insert whatever round you wand as a benchmark). So if your favorite is better than 9mm, as a %, how much better do you rate your personal favorite and why? Assuming a use of CCW or LE.

Example:
I rate my .45 ACP at 5% better than the 9mm because of its edge if there's no expansion. But the 9mm's magazine capacity offsets that advantage.

Still, I carry my .45 ACP for the gun more than the cartridge.

Define �better�.

My .380 (Walther PPK/s), .40 (S&W M&P Shield) and .45 (Kimber Compact) are all limited to 7 rounds while my 9mm (Browning BDM) can carry 15. My wife�s .38 SPL (Ruger LCR) and .327 Fed (Ruger SP101) carry 5 and 6 rounds respectively.

All get Barnes TAC-XPD ammo.

The .380 and 9mm both have DA/SA triggers, allowing restrike capability. The .45 and .40 don�t offer this. The revolvers don�t offer restrike capability but do rotate a new round into firing position, which could be a life saver.

The .380, .40 and .38 SPL are smaller and easier to conceal, a plus.

The .380, 9mm .45 and .327 Fed all have external hammers. In general I prefer this.

The .45 has a straight-pull trigger instead of one that rotates. It is the easiest to shoot accurately.

The .45 is, statistically, better at one-shot stops than the .380, .38 SPL, and 9mm. Not sure about the .40 and .327 Fed..

The .40 and .45 have a �down to fire� safety, which is more natural for me. Both the .380 and 9mm are �up� to fire�.

The revolvers don�t have external safeties. This is good. And bad.

The .45 tends to stay in the safe and the .40 is new and won�t be put into service until I get a suitable holster, which is on order. It will replace the .380, which will then tend to keep the .45 company in the safe. The 9mm, .38 SPL and .327 Fed get used daily by my wife and I, either for carry or for home defense or both.

Which is �best�? Depends.

That's the only part of your answer that had anything to do with the question.

And I'd question the "statistically" part; what statistics? And are they even credible?

I like the 45 Super because it leave large wound channel and penetrates very well with 230 grain XTPs. The down side is only a 9 round capacity with a 10 round spare magazine loaded with 255 grain flat point hard cast if needed.

I'll bite.

The .45 is better, because I can actually see the holes in my target when I'm practicing.

The .45 is better because my five thumbs have an easier time picking up the rounds and putting them in the mag.

Can't think of anything else.

While 9mm has the magazine capacity advantage, for a civilian carrying on the street, I really wonder how much of an "advantage" that is. I feel quite content and confident with my 8 rounds (I don't top off) and spare 8.

I am a .45 fan right now because I can carry one gun and a variety of ammunition that meet just about every need I could have with a handgun. I can carry 10 rounds of Gold Dots on pavement in a concealable package that weighs only 34 ounces loaded, or with a more concealable 9 round magazine for 33 ounces loaded. I can carry 13 round magazines in the gun (37.5 ounces with 13+1) or as spares if I want and get almost as much capacity as a Glock 19. I can switch to Buffalo Bore hard cast +P and get .45 Long Colt performance in the woods with just a magazine change. If ammo is scarce and I have to use bottom of the barrel ammo, I would rather have a .45 than a 9mm with bottom of the barrel ammo. I also like the .45 because the climate here is such that people can be found wearing multiple layers of clothing for most of the year, and I�ll take a plugged up .45 hollowpoint over a plugged up 9mm hollowpoint any day.

I could pick a number of firearms with specific loads that that will fit specific purposes. No single platform fits so well across my spectrum of uses as my current one.

There is no way I could put a percentage on the difference, though. If I had to carry a 9mm and I got to pick the ammo (and could actually find it), I could get by.

Same reason I carry my 9mm, the gun fits my needs which is the most important point and I have no qualms with the cartridge. At home the gun is a big, heavy hi-cap .45 because it fits the needs there.

Actually, at home the .45 is a backup. The 12 gauge pump shotgun fits those needs better than any handgun round.

Most of us will never need a gun at all, so you're probably correct on that point. The nine still wins on shootability and the rounds required to obtain proficiency. Striker-fired plastic nines are cheaper, tend to have grips nearly as small as a 1911's, and have a simpler manual-of-arms.

Having said that, a S&W Sc/Ti commander is one gun I wish I owned, but that isn't what I'd reccomend to most.

I think that many think that XYZ round is better than the 9mm round because of some of the bullet choices, or lack thereof, that were available 20-25 years ago.

That has all changed with some of the advancements in bullet design that makes any of those "perceived" advantages less, negligible, or even non existent for certain shooters.

From a SD mode I don't feel undergunned when I carry a 9mm with some of these great new bullets nor feel the need to carry my 44Mag to compensate for the 9mm round nowdays.

An unusual question--which may result in an "unusual answer".

Back in grade school, high school, and college--all of us were the victims of "percentages". You got a 98%, someone else got a 76%, etc. It really had nothing to do with accurately determining an individual's intelligence--but it served as some type of "yardstick", something that could be compared--one against another.

In the realm of ballistics, i believe very strongly in high velocity--and thus my screen name. In the realm of the typical self defense cartridges, velocity disparity is really somewhat minimal--a near yawn, (yes there are some "exceptions" such as with hard cast and non expanding pills--the higher the velocity, the better the penetration in heavier barriers, etc, etc.).

I don't place a great deal of emphasis on handgun velocities when looking strictly at self defense cartridges/rigs--as mentioned there is not a great deal of disparity, and it must be remembered that velocity is a constantly diminishing variable.

The only constants are "weight and diameter".

Like % scores on tests in school that serve as some type of a "yardstick", so too some means to measure various handgun cartridges must be used. Though never ideal--and ultimately in a sense an "abstraction"--i like the idea of "measuring" via the "Taylor KO Formula" for a KO value.



Velocity X Weight X Diameter divided by 7000 = KO value.



Some general comparisons below, based on approximate velocities with commonly used pill weights:

.22 Long Rifle: 1.5 KO value;

.32 ACP: 2.75 KO value;

.380 Auto: 4.7 KO value;

9 MM: 7.0 KO value;

.40 S&W: 10.0 KO value;

.45 ACP: 13.3 KO value;

.44 Magnum: 18.0 KO value;

They are only "numbers", "abstractions", but if we can accept them in this light the results are made manifest, and individual handgunners must decide for themselves.

In the realm of self defense handguns, Weight and Diameter are the constants--and in this realm of ordinary self defense cartridges, these two in combination readily deliver the mail.

Just a pilgrim's thoughts....

...yes, but when you hit someone with the first round there is no need for a second or a reload...

Bob

Sorry, but the KO really is absurd. It arguably doesn't even work for it's intended purpose, but it's intended purpose by Taylor was only to judge the effectiveness of solid rifle bullets on elephant skulls: http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/myths.html#tko

I just calculated the KO for a standard softball thrown at 50 mph. It is 384.98. This would make a 50 mph softball 55 times more effective than the 7 KO value of a 9mm. Probably not credible. It gives way to much emphasis on diameter. Because Taylor came up with it, so many people, including gun writers, have latched on to it. But it doesn't even do what Taylor wanted, and Taylor never intended it to have anything to do with hollow-point handgun bullets in self-defense on human targets.

Find what works for you; meaning something you can hit with and afford to practice shooting to become profecient with.

Cheyenne: Does that ammo require a stiffer spring and buffer?

I hate math. That's why, if I were offered a round trip ticket to any time travel destination, I'd go back and find that Greek guy Pythagorus and kill him slowly.

I don't care if Taylor came up with a formula or not, but I know when someone is going after dangerous game, they aren't normally packing a .308!

I know that after years of shooting steel and bowling pins, my revolvers and semi-autos all started in calibers with a .4 at the front. When shooting steel and bowling pins, it didn't matter if the nose had a hole in it, or was solid. The results were the same. When and if the hollow point fails - and they do fail, then the other metrics come into play. Mass!

This has been discussed so many times. A bullet needs to penetrate beyond the skeletal protection system to reach vital organs. Most bullets in the .38 to .45 range can do this. The difference is, the degree to which they are deflected from their intended path upon striking a hard object.

ALL bullets will deflect. Those with greater mass, will deflect less than those with lesser mass.

Too much is made of magazine capacity! Unless one is entering Falluja with the Marines, we tend to make our daily load out bit too enthusiastic. Something a deceitful prosecutor - or civil suit attorney could have a field day with in front of a gun unfriendly jury. Just like the deer hunter who enters the woods on opening day with 30 cartridges, instead of the 5 or so the old timers carried in their pockets.

If one were to tally the average number of rounds expended in defensive situations in the last 20 years since CCW started slowly crossing the nation, one - I firmly believe - would find that on average, the number of rounds expended by the defendant would be less than 5, and the number expended by the average police officer to be greater than 5.

Why? Because the average civilian shooter, is a better, more capable, and more confident shot, than the average police officer. Why? Cos they do it because they like to shoot and do it recreationally, and not because they have to fulfill a quarterly requirement on their off duty time.

So, I only carry single stack semi-autos anymore. Whether they be 9mm (one CW9), or .45 (three 1911s or variants and one XD-S). I like guns that start with .4 more than ones that start with .3...with the exception of guns that start with .2 for fun and practice.

No. It certainly was not required with the dual recoil springs on my Glock 30 for the rounds I shot, which was less than a 20 round box. (They actually helped loosen the springs up a little and aided performance generally.) Buffalo Bore's website says:



Others have written on the Handgun Forum that they shoot the 255 +P hard cast without spring changes, and maybe they will jump in here and post their experiences.

Since I carry a 9mm, I'll answer the question in reverse. My 9mm mags hold 15-17 rounds, in comparison a typical .45 holds 7-8. Ignoring any adjustment for shootability, a .45 would have to be 100% more effective round for round than a 9mm for me to be able to carry the same amount of potential damage (my criterion, YMMV) in my gun and an equivalent number of magazines. It's not 100% more effective round for round, so I perceive no advantage in switching.

You mean the dual springs in Gen 4s? thanks.