I know that FMJ sucks compared to modern hollow points. I know that if forced to use FMJ, .45 would be a better choice, as it’s bigger.
But what is the difference in effectiveness between a 9mm and a .45 in FMJ? Is the .45 superior by a large margin? Is 9mm just too small to effectively destroy tissue in its FMJ form? Other than cost and standardization, is there any reason militaries all over the world use 9mm FMJ?
I’ve always wondered how big a difference .45 fmj made over 9mm fmj, and wonder how 9mm survived so long without hollow point technology, while larger rounds existed. Was it merely chance, made possible through politics?
Sorry if this has been asked and/or answered. The last thing I want is to be an ass-hat that can’t find things with the search function (I just spent an hour reading stuff), but I’ve been wondering this for a while and curiosity got the better of me.
Despite everything you read here and elsewhere, No one can give you a scientifically proven answer to your question. People tend to set up camp in one belief or another and then attack each other when discussing this subject. There is no sense arguing with a true believer. It is similar to arguing about religion.
After studying all of the information I could find on this subject, I have reached my own conclusion and I feel content with it.
All I can tell you is, read everything you can and try to reach your own conclusion. Your question about the reasoning of the militaries of the world would make a good starting point in your search.
Here is one of my previous posts on this subject:
[i]"I think the 9MM FMJ vs the .45 FMJ is a very good baseline for comparison. There are vastly different opinions about the effectiveness of these two bullets. Despite all we have learned in the past 10 years, no one can scientifically prove that one is 10, 20, 30 or whatever percent more effective than the other. We can measure the differences in permanent wound cavities between these two bullets but how does the measured amount of destroyed tissue translate into a scientific measurement of the chances of immediate incapacitation?
Despite all that we have learned, to the average civilian, police officer and soldier, handgun incapacitation perception is based more on anecdote and the faith of the user than on any demonstratable scientific facts. A faith based decision to re equip a police department or a nation’s army, with a handgun firing a slightly fatter bullet, without a measurable gain in effectiveness, is not justified. A loss of magazine capacity and decreased weapon controlability due to increased recoil, could be the only measurable result of such a decision." [/i]
the wound channels of 9emem and 45 ef em jays seem to be indistinguishable. and since you either hit something vital or you dont, a tiny size difference doesn’t make much difference.
when stuck with FMJ, the increased shootability of the 9mm- reduced recoil/muzzle flip, quicker RTZ, and more than doubled ammunition capacity- and the increased reliability of many 9mm autos over 1911s, just blows .45 out of the water, from a mathematic standpoint.
so if i’m a military, stuck with NATO FMJ… the answer is clear to me.
Partially right about “other factors,” as some factors are relevant and material while some are not, but you are completely wrong about “monumentally out of context.” In fact, it was the entire text of Dr. Roberts’ post, and the thread was a similar one pertaining to .40 S&W v. .45 ACP.
[b]Keeping in mind that handguns generally offer poor incapacitation potential, bullets with effective terminal performance are available in all of the most commonly used duty pistol calibers—pick the one that you shoot most accurately, that is most reliable in the type of pistol you choose, and best suits you likely engagement scenarios.
Basically all the standard service calibers work when using good quality ammunition.
Purchase a consistent, robust performing duty/self-defense load in sufficient quantities (at least 1000 rounds) then STOP worrying about the nuances of handgun ammunition terminal performance.[/b]
As much as I like the 45 more then any other caliber, I still think that if I was going to war and I was allowed a Handgun to carry, I would take a 18 round 9mm like a Glock over anything else in any other caliber FMJ or not.;)
Having been in two wars and many reserve duties and I have carried a 9mm Star in one of them and some reserve duty I say it is better to have a handgun as a back up to the rifle then not to have one.
by quoting the doctor “45 makes the bigger hole,” you’re basically implying he recommends .45. very literally speaking, .45 makes a bigger holes. but he also states/confirms that the wound channels between all major calibers in FMJ are indistinguishable. it makes a bigger hole by an inconsequential amount, and that statement was basically just an off-hand remark- so it has pretty much no bearing.
and since shootability between .45 and 9mm can be drastically different, and ammunition capacities are always drastically different, and modern 9mm autos are invariably more reliable and durable on the whole than the 1911, we cannot even come close to ignoring those other variables.
Wouldn’t a FMJ bullet with a flat nose semi wadcutter configuration make a larger permeant would channel? Kind of like dulling the tip of a nail so as not to split a piece of wood. The blunted tip displaces the wood vs. separating it. Just food for thought.
