Well it was a polite discussion until you dropped that “red flag to a bull” comment about the 500 S&W. Why don’t you erase it and let the thread continue without a caliber war?
M_P
Easy now. It was an exaggeration. An obvious one I thought.
Let’s try this: Yes, there is a reason to carry a .45 caliber over a 9mm. If you handle the recoil and the platform for it effectively. My exaggeration in my previous post was meant to convey the idea that there is no substitute for bore diameter.
The other side to that is some, if not most, cannot afford to shoot and train enough with a .45 to become proficient. Therefore, for a whole slew of people, carrying the latest and greatest 9mm is the right choice for them.
Yes I did catch that, thank you.
Let’s try this: Yes, there is a reason to carry a .45 caliber over a 9mm. If you handle the recoil and the platform for it effectively. My exaggeration in my previous post was meant to convey the idea that there is no substitute for bore diameter.
So a 7.62 is more “effective” than a 5.56 then?
The other side to that is some, if not most, cannot afford to shoot and train enough with a .45 to become proficient. Therefore, for a whole slew of people, carrying the latest and greatest 9mm is the right choice for them.
That has already been covered in detail.
M_P
Welcome.
For potential lethality? Same bullet design? Yeah, I’d say so. Larger hole makes shot placement slightly less of a concern, even if measured in thousanths of an inch.
The battle between these two cartridges usually comes down to a compromise between lethality per round and total number of rounds that can be toted into battle, which is the biggest advantage a smaller, lighter round has. For a defensive weapon, carried on your person day to day, my thought has always been that capacity is a slightly smaller concern versus round for round lethality. I will not be shooting 100’s of times in a defensive shooting situation. One or two reloads is generally all that is needed.
Which is why I was trying to avoid spelling out what I figured others already knew. Hence the use of a short, quick, over the top exaggeration.
OK, we’re ignoring fragmentation and yaw, then? Just chuck the entire terminal ballistics field out the window in favor of the “bigger is better” mantra. I expected more from this forum.
M_P
We are comparing handgun bullets which just poke holes. Bigger holes are better provided that you handle the pistol well in likely combat situations.
Rifle rounds are many times more complex. You want early yaw, with maximum disruption/fragmentation within 4-5" of penetration, and you need enough momentum to carry the bullet through commonly encountered barriers. Larger, heavier rifle calibers definately deal with barriers much better and they can be engineered to have early yaw. So…yes, in “general” larger rifle calibers are also superior with the right bullet technology.
Here’s some loads shot through 3rd-world armor. A chest mounted magazine carrier with AK magazines in it:
Everything else equal, yes bigger is usually better. As has been stated, bullet choices equalize this a great deal. Its almost about preference these days.
Are we still talking about handguns?
Shot placement is still king.
Shrug.
M_P
ETA - yes, handguns. Apologies for the thread drift.
Agreed.
Which brings us back to using the biggest round that you can be effective with.
Lots of people are saying use the biggest round you can be effective with. But, even if you train with a 45 it still kicks more. You may be accurate but follow up shots are still going to be slower aren’t they? I know some people are pretty darn fast with a 45 but wouldn’t they be even faster with a 9mm?
This is all just sematics for me. I want to shoot what I carry and 9mm is so much cheaper that I would use it even if there was a slight disadvantage.
Depends on what loads you are using. 400ft-lbs of muzzle energy seems to be the sweet spot when it comes to recoil, and overall snap. For example, the .40S&W in it’s lighter 155gr and 165gr loadings are 450ft-lbs or more and there is a significant loss of muzzle control in timed courses of fire. However, the 180gr loading at around 400ft-lbs is almost in the same recovery realm as the 9mm.
The .45acp also offers similar control in standard pressure 230gr, but you loose considerable shootability when you go with the 200gr or +P loadings. One advantage to the .45acp is that it has a longer action, and therefore disipates the recoil over a longer distance and makes it a little more controllable. The .45GAP on the other hand has the 9mm/.40S&W action length and the recoil feels heavier than the .40S&W even in 230gr loadings.
This debate has gone on for more years then I can reflect back on. Many misconceptions have become popular mantra, clouding an already cloudy issue.
I have been studying this issue for 30 years and have come to the following conclusion.
We don’t know all there is to why some bullets work better than others. We are close but we don’t have all the answers. I have come to believe the following.
First - the ability to strike vital areas of the aggressor. That means adequate penetration and the ability of the user to hit the target with their weapons choice.
Second - permanent wound Chanel.
Thereafter in no significant order:
Bullet energy transfered to the target.
Temporary wound channel.
I believe the last two do play some factor but how much I can’t hazard to guess.
The border patrol who happens to be involved in more gun fights than the FBI come to the following conclusion:
- Minimum of 12 inches of penetration.
2 .They thought the FBI’s 18 inch maximum penetration was a little excessive. I think I remember them settling on 15 inches. - Permanent & temporary wound cavity.
- They also declared they needed a min bullet energy of I believe 400 foot lbs.
Using the FBI testing procedures and the goals they wanted to achieve they chose the 155 grain 40 s&w as their ideal bullet.
At the time of the FBI’s choice of the 10mm they claim that this bullet wasn’t for everyone but they thought it fit their mission profile.
The Border Patrol feels the 155 grain 40 s&w fits theirs.
In my mission profile I don’t see the need to penetrate obstacles other than clothing so my choice is different.
Another observation I have that some departments switching from 40 S&W to 45 ACP while maintaining the same weapons platform saw an increase in range scores that they could only attribute to the change in caliber and the perceived amount of recoil.
First and foremost choose a caliber and weapon that you can BEST hit with everything else is secondary.
This debate will rage on until we transition to Star Trek Style Phasers. And then the debate will be Phaser vs Klingon Disrupter.
Yeah you are right, but then the CZ guys will want the Romulan version.
M_P
The FBI settled on the 10mm Lite in 1989 as it more effectively met their mission needs. The load launched a 180gr Sierra JHP at an average velocity of 980fps and penetrated up to 12" in all FBI testing protocols. In 1991 the FBI transitioned to the new .40S&W with the official duty load being the Federal Hydroshok 180gr. The FBI has never made any load other than 180gr their standard issue duty load. Some 155gr and 165gr loads were used in special applications, training, and testing.
CBP stopped shooting the 155gr load in 2006 as it was beating their guns to hell. They transitioned to the weaker 135gr load at the end of 2006 and most officers that new anything about firearms were very upset at the transition.
Due to heavy demand by officers, instructors, and trainers, the US Border Patrol offically transitioned to the Federal HST 180gr on 12/16/09. CBP and ICE instructors have also requested that they be able to purchase off the BP contract and transition to the 180gr HST. All of their combined shooting experiences resulted into a change in policy and a switch to the heavier FBI loadings and performance criterias.
EDIT: Frankly, I’m surpised that this transition doesn’t get more coverage. It represents a major shift in the balance of handgun terminal effects philosophies since the FBI conslusions regarding the 1986 Miami shootout. Border Patrol and the INS were one of the few Federal agencies that held onto the stopping power theories of the 1970s and 1980s and actually gave Marshall & Sanow the time of day in the early 1990s. Since that generation of BP officers have mostly retired, the attachments to outdated policies are finally being reanalyzied and reviewed. Despite what people might believe, BP shootings have had very mixed results with the 155gr loadings. The 2007 El Paso shooting might have been the tipping point where a suspect was shot four times near COM through a windshield and he still managed to get out of his car and return fire from the rear of his vehicle for an additional 6 minutes and badly wounded two BP officers. The 155gr loading has been know to perform poorly in FBI protocol testing against windshields. Looks like BP has finally taken the lessons learned by the FBI 20yrs ago to heart…
Thanks for the add’l info. I was aware that the FBI stayed with 180 grain loading when they moved from 10mm to the 40 S&W. I was not aware the Border patrol made their moves. I literally just read about their adoption of the 40 S&W last month. Where can I find literature on their last change in loadings.
I’m not sure where literature can be found. I was at an instructor course at FLETC, Glynco last month where I got the info. The five BP instructors that were there were very happy with the change.
Why were they happier with the 180 over a 135 or the original 155? Was it based on shootability or actual shootings? Everything I have found previously stated that they were phenomily happy with the results of the 155.
From what I gathered they were mostly concerned with getting good penetration through vehicle materials. Windshields, car doors, car seats,…etc. One officer mentioned that they see a lot of SUVs with trashbags full of cloths in the back and in two shootings their lighter loadings didn’t even get through the bags. Other things mentioned were pistol service life(better with 180gr), and controllability(better with 180gr). The 155gr loading has an “okay” sectional density, but the 135gr has a sectional density ratio close to the .380acp 90gr and rapidly decelerates against soft and cushioning materials like heavy clothing, windshields, wood,…etc.
Only one of the five said that he wanted to keep the 155gr loading just in case there was something to the higher energy loading. The rest of them argued that they couldn’t find a logical reason to keep the lighter loading, and they didn’t believe that there was anything relevant to the higher impact energies of the 155gr load other than shooting through sheet metal thicker than typical car doors…which they really never encounter.
Marcus L.
Thanks for the info.
So a 7.62 is more “effective” than a 5.56 then?
I always thought so too…