was this fact ever decided? Most of the police has now the 9mm's and now the army has had thems for a while, must be more and deadlier than 45 which most must not like further?

Here we go. 😂

If statistics mean anything at all, it would appear the 9mm and .45acp are virtually in a dead heat for lethality. With today's ammunition choices and a little investigation, most reasonable people would have to conclude the .45acp no longer offers much if any advantage over the 9mm.

If one were going to shoot a bear, and had a choice between 9mm ball and .45acp ball, I would opt for the .45.

Just remember that it was men armed with .45's who made it safe for people to have this debate.

The whole arguememt revolves around the availability of PREMIUM ammunition. If your only choice is FMJ, well we might as well be living in 1919 opposed to 2019.

One thing seemingly always ignored by the 9mm fanboys is that the .45 ACP has also benefited from better bullet availability.

Where’s Jimmy? We need him to weigh in here.

I don't think it's strictly a lethality issue, it's also a "Can a woman shoot it?" issue....

Women are far more prevalent in those two organizations now.

He’s gathering his clinical jelly shoot tests as we speak

Capacity is what favors the 9mm. All things being equal, I cannot believe .45 ACP isn’t at least a little more effective, round for round, than the 9mm.

If you can shoot the 9mm better than the 45 ACP, then the 9mm is better. If you shoot them equally, pick the one you like, are most likely to carry, or based on whatever criteria you deem important. I use either on occasion though I most often split the difference and carry a 40 S&W. More important than cartridge is picking a gun you are willing to carry regularly. Cartridge doesn't matter if the gun is left in the safe.

I personally lean toward the larger bore when possible. Though the wound channels may appear similar, based on observations when hunting, larger bore diameters often appear to have a greater impact reaction than smaller bores on game. I suspect the effect on people would be much the same. I know this is totally subjective but it gives me some degree of greater confidence with a larger bore. I am confident with a 9mm and do carry one on occasion but place a little more trust in something larger.

I think Vic in Va has it correct .
The 9mm pistols are easier for smaller hands to shoot .
Soup

Does a 9 automatically expand in a huge way as it hits? Does a 45 shrink? That's my answer. I have at least five 45's and two 9s and don't carry the nines. The 45s are larger and heavier making them a bigger burden to hide and carry. But if I have to shoot one round or 6 to defend myself I want as large as possible. In the winter I sometimes carry a 50 GI in a Block 21 Gen 3 with a tiny bit of customization. That starts a 300 gr HP at a decent velocity. I haven't forgotten though that someone said, "Glock is Austrian for Hi Point".

Sure does seem like Im not the only doofus on here. It would take a Major Doofus to bring this up again this soon. So I am now handing over the robe and crown of king of the Doofuses.

REMEMBER: MOR the more MOR the more better it is.

The increase in 9mm popularity coincides with the rise of "Kaitlyns" and metro-men. IMHO of course.

As someone once said "a 9mm may expand but a 45 won't shrink"

Two things that I think are of considerably more importance in self defense situations than what caliber you are using.

1. The will to fight.

2. The ability to fight.

IMO if you don't have both of those you're pretty much dead in the water and it doesn't matter what gun you are carrying.

You could add in situational awareness. But folks here prefer dick measuring contests so you're wasting your breath.

I traded my Xds in 45, for a Xds in 9mm. What appealed to me was A. Higher capacity magazine B. The ability for quicker follow up shots due to more manageable recoil.

I don't believe the difference is enough to be relevant.

Awareness, training, mindset. That is what will make the difference between success and failure in a defensive use of either choice.

Agreed!
Also, what you are most comfortable shooting? I like the feel of my 1911s, but I like the greater round capacity of my Glock 19. Tough choice, sometimes.

The schit you shoot,is never not better than the schit you don't shoot.

Less IS more.

Hint...……………………...

^ ^ ^ THIS ^ ^ ^

the old time saying is similar, but much shorter -
"The bigger the hole - the faster the boat sinks "

Wow 0.1 inch bigger hole gonna be a huge difference! Wow I guess those IDPA shooters settled on the .45 cause they can shoot it faster and better! I bet a fellow could hit you 2-3 times with a glock 17 whilst your .45 was recovering from 1 shot. In the woods I carry a 45 cause they produce lower dB’s and are more pleasant to have to fire when one inadvertently intrudes on a leg less reptile with fangs.

This fits with the chart that that jimmyp posted on the Ken Hackathorn thread which shows that the 32 acp is more effective than the 9mm or 45 acp. And since recoil is less, we would all shoot a lot more of the 32 acp.

I read about a guy in Illinois on PCP several years ago got in a gunfight with the police. They hit him 51 times with issued 9mm pistols and he was still returning fire. They shot him in the spine with a 12 gauge slug to put him down. Since most people that cause enough trouble to need shootin are usually on drugs, I never wanted a 9 after reading that. I have shot a couple of 9s and they kicked as much as my 45 as best I could tell. Put me in the 45 or 357 Magnum camp.

There isn't a sound 32ACP platform,even made. Hint.

I'll HAPPILY default to a 22LR for Protection and have done just that for decades,with more converts than I could fhuqking begin to count.

EVERYTHING leads with it's head.

Hint.............

Would you choose to be hit with a 9 or a 45?

ironbender,

Can I choose Answer "D"??, i.e., none of the above. - Even with my vest, when I got shot, it wasn't a bit fun.


yours, tex

Both are fine. The 9 wins on capacity, controllability, and size. Simple as that....the LEOs and militaries of the world have spoken.

You must understand that ballistically both rounds suck...hell all handgun rounds suck. Its about shot placement. A 9x19 offers more capacity and more penetration.

At the end of the day its about shot placement, luck, and the grace of God almighty should you get in a fight with either in your hand.

Sorry to hear you got shot...glad you made it ok!

and there it is...Truth...ballistics say that all commonly used self defense pistol round suck..we have talked ourselves into believing there is a difference in the collateral damage near the entrance wound when the only real difference is PENETRATION and if you have enough of it, then you have enough of it; regardless if the hole punched is .3 inches in diameter or .45 inches in diameter, WHERE you punch the hole is more important than the diameter of the hole, but there it is, you have to wonder why the 22LR is the most deadly round in the world...where you punch the hole. HUNTING is not the same game, PENETRATION is KING.

I disagree. In both hunting and defense against a human adversary, you want to maximize destruction. Whatever will do the most damage is the more effective round. I don’t simply want penetration in a hunting scenario.

I agree that we can disagree, I am basing my conclusion on the most commonly relevant studies of self defense cartridges. You contend that a .454 thru the chest is more deadly than a .380 thru the same area. Data shows that there may be a 20% difference, while many could not shoot the .454 as well as the .380...

I do not agree with you at all (your 20% figure) but useing your logic it seems you are willing to give up 20% when your life is on the line.
Yo7 mix multiple points in your rebuttals, never staying on one point at a time.

All y’all are wrong, the 40 is where it’s at.🤣

What data exists where the .454 has been used extensively for defense against a human adversary? The difference between a .380 and .454 would be dramatic. That you might not be able to shoot a .454 well is irrelevant in this discussion. Where did you come up with this 20% figure?

Since we can’t go around and test on humans, I will challenge you to shoot a whitetail deer (they’re no more thick-skinned or heavily constructed than a human being) with a .380 and then one with a .454 and compare notes. Your assertion is absurd.

Sorry for the thread meandering.

take 50 totally random people across gender and age populations, give them a reasonably sized glock 42 ruger lc380, maybe the sig 238 .380 with fmj or those lehigh loads, take the same 50 and hand them a 1911 or a G20 and have them hit a target at 7 yards with both guns with 5 rounds... IF there is any increase in lethality with a .1 inch bigger diameter bullet it will be LOST in their ability to HIT what they are aiming at... as I have said or tried to say more than once PRESENT company excluded. THIS is what the data shows and why the 22 is so lethal.

I’d add this too...”stopping power” is a myth imho. Central nervous system damage stops folks fast...blood loss does not.

Some of the new bullet designs that are about to hit or in some cases are just hitting the market make the handgun caliber debate worthless. You can quote me on that.

Shooter ability, while it should be of paramount importance, really should not be entered into the equation of lethality. My reasoning is this. If we are going to talk calibers, guns or ammo one should stick to whichever one is talking about. If one is going to talk about shooting ability one should talk shooting ability.
What brings on the shooting ability scenario is it is a chance to circumvent the actual discussion of caliber or power.
We all know bullet placement is the most important thing as a miss with a 500 S&W is not as good as a 22RF that hits.
There is NO ARGUMENT on that. The argument (discussion for those that likes to make argument sound better) is caliber and ammo.
Bell killed many, many, many elephant with a 7X57 Mauser. Bullet placement made it lethal.
The bad thing about most that carry is they rarely practice. Around here most places people go to get their permit they are issued 22RF handguns to qualify with. They shoot to 7 yards on a reduced B27 and all they are required to do is hit the target 75 percent. Then the same people will carry a SMALL 380 or 9MM that they rarely if ever practice with. But , because they shot the 22RF well in qualifying they think that is how well they can actually shoot. NOT NOT NOT
I have a neighbor that bought a Ruger 9MM, the smallest they make, qualified with a 22RF and I bet he has never practiced more that one session with the 9MM if that.
22RF,s have given more people more false confidence that any other caliber. But that argument/discussion is going on elsewhere and I stand on what I have said on that argument/discussion and shall not be moved.
But if that is all one can hit with they should carry the pipsqueak and leave the bigger calibers at home unless they practice.
Virginia does not even require shooting to get a permit. Just a class session.
So caliber arguments/discussions should be caliber arguments/discussions and accuracy should be accuracy arguments/discussions.
in all fairness they shouldn't be mixed.

This is a much bigger factor than most will admit.

Mmmmm. What bullet? A 454 with a hardcast is ok in deer and not super duper impressive. A 454 with a barnes running hard produces a wound channel several measures of magnitude larger than any defensive rounds.

OK from another post a STRICTLY caliber argument...don't shoot the messenger (me)

Unusually Low Mortality of Penetrating Wounds of the Chest,” to surmise that each hit only has a 22 percent chance of stopping the target. REGARDLESS OF HANDGUN CALIBER

Regardless of handgun caliber more than likely eliminates big stuff like the .454. In other words there is no data on this caliber. Jimmy, you need to go out and shoot some deer with all of the aforementioned calibers and see for yourself the wide range of damage produced.

This is an interesting YouTube video. Forward to the part where where the .454 Barnes load is shot into the gel. That should show you just how much damage that round is capable of delivering. It equalled the 12 gauge slug. What do the statistics on 12 gauge slugs to the chest tell us? Now, I'm not big on gel testing, but this is palpable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2KhI7aHLqU

Those are very flawed studies, as i have been in the trauma operating room with these exact problems. Not ONE study done involves these types of rounds. That said, they are incredibly flawed because they dont take into account anything post mortem of where the rounds hit. If the bullet hits the aorta, vena cava, heart, or any large pulmonary artery the person or deer is dead! Period, regardless of caliber or bullet. There is more dynamics than this at play but the only shots that should be considered is tissue damage done in the peripheral areas of the lung. When those shots are taken into account only, the difference becomes apparant. A fast 357 with a barnes xbp does significantly more damage than a 45acp or 9mm. The real reason so much consternation occurs bw the 9mm and 45acp is because this a place where velocity vs bore diameter really overlap in effectiveness and it becomes load and bullet dependent. Go to a 10mm with fast barnes or a 357 and the difference becomes very apparent. Shooting deer mimics a human as good as animals can and perhaps only something like goats are a more apt comparison. Shoot a deer with a 460 or 454 with the right bullet thru the periphery of the lung and it has about 5 seconds or so to live. Do it with a 9mm or 45 acp and you will chase it for awhile. Go through any of the aforementioned vital structures and the animal is dead very quickly. Same with people.

This is what I was thinking :-)

I like that! LOL

Only if it's a 10mm.

Or that.

It actually proved to be a splendid blend of the best attributes of the better service cartridges. It worked pretty damn well on animals up to 300 pounds regardless of their leg count.

Of course you don't get something for nothing. The 40 has just enough recoil to discourage people who aren't serious about mastering a substantial handgun.

I find the recoil of .40 in a Model 22 disconcerting, but not uncomfortable. Too often, I have to reacquire a correct grip between rounds (momentary separation between support hand and gripping hand). This isn’t the case at all for .45 ACP, however, even in a smaller gun, e.g. a Model 30. I can shoot the 30 with full power loads just as well as a Model 17. It’s the snappiness of the .40 that causes (unless I concentrate on preventing it) the breaking loose of my grip between rounds. Do you consider the Model 30 to be a substantial handgun?

Yes I do TRH. My intention was to describe the .40 service pistol a substantial handgun; not to insinuate it was the only one.

I've owned and shot several G30s and G22s and I probably shoot the 22 a tad better.

Quak,

I did get hit with a single round to the vest (back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth), which left me only with an ugly/painful bruise. = JUST LUCKY.

yours, tex

To All,

When I was stationed OCONUS (LONG AGO), I could carry ANY firearm that I chose to "haul around" & my CHOICE was a PAIR of "old-school" BHPs that had been taken from the body of a narcotrafficante who "had no further need of them". = 2 BHP gave me 26 nine mm JHP, without stopping to reload.
(I also "issued myself" a Model 37 "Featherweight" 12-gauge pump-gun & loaded it with 7 buckshot loads, when we were stationed with the OAS.)

In a SELF-DEFENSE situation, where you may get KILLED, pick the firearm that you shoot BEST. = A "near miss" will NOT save you from becoming "a grave man" but a GOOD HIT to the K5 area with any suitable caliber bullet will, in at least 90% of cases, STOP the fight.
(Btw, "simulated combat games" are NOT relevant to your attempt to WIN a gunfight & save your life. = See NO SECOND PLACE WINNER by Bill Jordan for the "real story".)

just my opinions, tex

I shoot 45’s and 9mm regularly at plates . The picture I’m including is of me shooting a 66 with 38 specials. I’ve never shoot any ballistic gel. If you notice in the picture the rack is made with heavy angle. The plates are very heavy. The strap laying on the ground resets the plates. When you knock over a plate with a 45 the whole rack shakes. The 38 and 9mm do not have near the effect. A 22 lr will barely knock over a plate. With the 45 sometimes you knock a plate over just from the effect of hitting another plate. Hasbeen

d

If diameter, weight and momentum isn't a 'major' factor, is it any wonder why we don't have, 25, 32, and 35 BMG's? how about 6, 7, 8, and 9mm cannons, after all, they should be as effective as the 50 BMG, 20 and 30mm Gatling guns.

You Drooling CLUELESS Fhuqks are a hoot! Congratulations?!?

The only thing you gals "shoot",is your mouths and Imaginations.

Hint............

NO!

What about in capacity? Recoil?

Cost and noise,amongst a myriad of other attributes.

Hint..............

'...All things being equal, I cannot believe .45 ACP isn’t at least a little more effective, round for round, than the 9mm...' TRH

You answered it! I agreed! And, then you want to argue???????

Agreed on that point, of course. Not arguing, but there are some advantages for 9mm. Then its a balancing act.

I am thinking a 110 grain 30 herret from a 10 inch pistol barrel would not fit the 9-40-45acp profile. Still not convinced a 45 cal slug at 1600 fps thru the lungs would do anything more than shoot through some more people or stuff behind the intended target.

Good to know if I ever have to defend myself from steel plates. Has no bearing at all on stopping human threats.

The 9mm is by a wide margin a better military round. They are trying to defeat light barriers and light body armor, fast 9mm bullets to so far, far better than 45. For everyone else 9mm, 40, 45 and 357 mag are a statistical tie round for round with similar ammo; and always have been if you look at all the relevant studies and tests. Certain people have rigged tests in order to make their favorite round appear better. And some gun writers years ago were guilty of largely fictional writings with statistics made up as they typed.

The military in 1945, despite the fictional writings after the war, was disappointed in the performance of both the 1911 and the 45 ACP. They conducted meaningful tests and determined in 1946 that a 13+ round 9mm pistol was the better option. But warehouses full of 1911's, no war, and budget cuts meant the project was shelved for 40 years.

A 45 caliber hole is still a small hole, a 35 caliber hole is only slightly smaller, and the size of the hole is not a factor. Penetration is the key and all of those rounds give plenty with proper bullet choice. I don't think 9mm is better, but it isn't a handicap either. It does cost 1/2 as much for range ammo, holds more rounds, and recoils less which is why it is the current round of choice.

I have handguns in 380, 9mm, 10mm, 45, 357 and 44 mag. I don't have as much faith in the 380, but the gun is small enough to be taken places the others can't I sometimes carry a 45, and the Glock 10mm's are my trail hiking guns. The magnum revolvers are bigger than necessary for normal carry, but if I were inclined to handgun hunt would be the ones I'd carry. They all would work, and I trust them all.

i agree with what you say, which is the reason i picked up a m17. and a case of the equivilent of the army 1115grain load/bullet.
having said that i have a number of 41magnums including a 3inch 657. with a 265grain bullet at over 1000fps i think it would be quite a stopper. Just heavy to carry. One of the real overlooked guns is a smith model 58. a model ten on steroids. just love them

I like both and will carry either. However, round for round I prefer the 45 ACP over the 9mm.

What truly baffles me is when guys spout that (due to bullet manufacturing advances) the 9mm has caught up to the 45 ACP. What a totally dumb statement! Whatever "advances" there is can/is equally applied to the 45 ACP and 40 S&W for that matter. Advances are NOT solely unique to the 9mm.

Yes, you can carry more rounds of 9mm per the average gun and it has less recoil. However, in most cases you get more reliable expansion with the 45 ACP.

Bottom line....carry and shoot what you can accurately hit with the best.

Bullet placement trumps ALL!

Why would the .45 ACP give more reliable expansion than the higher velocity 9mm?

You beat me to it. I was about to type the same question.

I guess I should phrase it as, typically, it expands to a larger diameter. Several 45 ACP bullets expand to larger diameters than 9mm. Many of these can be seen in various gel test like Lucygunner and several others.

Well I'm thinking it is up to the individual and the particular pistol. Use the one your most accurate with under stress. For myself I will take a 1911A1 in 45ACP, I'll live with less rounds literately.

Got it. True.

Most rational statement I have read on this thread. Always the bigger the better argument.

What ever you can shoot and carry is the best SD weapon you can carry if that's a 22LR than carry it, that cannon at home does not do you any good. I own a 45 colt (250gr JHP at 11-1200 fps), a 45 XD (13 rounds 230gr.) and a 9mm Makarov (95 gr JHP 900 fps), which one do I carry, the Mak because it does not leave me trying to hold up my pants so I don't look like I'm from the 'hood. I shot a watermelon at 10 yds end on with that 95 gr. JHP and it literally blew up. I do not believe that any perp will pursue further mayhem with a couple of those slugs in him.


I remember an old Gahan Wilson cartoon where an elderly man was standing at a street corner holding a smoking BIG double rifle, a dead elephant on the street and his equally elderly wife saying: I'll never complain about you carrying that gun ever again.

If you can't shoot 'em good, you better shoot 'em a lot.

Good is first AND BIG in a bad spot.