The first flaw in your logic is your over-emphasis of penetration. While penetration is critical and absolutely needed, over-penetration is worthless (like altitude above an airplane or runway behind it). Any caliber .380 and up in FMJ will zip right through a human torso. So, since the energy is there to drive a through and through wound, the emphasis switches to how big a hole can we make while keeping in the 12"-18" penetration window?
The second flaw in your reasoning is caring so much about caliber wars and fans in the first place. The major handgun calibers all have advantages and tradeoffs. From a pure terminal ballistics standpoint, .40, .45, .357 SIG and 10mm have an advantage over 9mm, no question. The bigger hole they make in organs will lead to higher volume of blood loss in a shorter time resulting in faster incapacitation (but how much?)
The 9mm has benefitted the most from bullet advances narrowing the gap so that 15+1 of low recoiling, ~13" penetrating, .60 caliber expanding…pretty much equals out with 8-12+1 rds of snappier recoiling, ~13" penetrating .72 caliber expanding. Or put another way, in the vital zone 3x .60" 9mm wound tracts is certainly equal or better than 2x .72" wound tracts in the same time frame.
A gun you shoot fast and accurate (in whatever major caliber) trumps raw caliber if you don’t shoot the larger caliber well. If you run a .45 ACP like a champ (not hard to do) it is better than a 9mm only considering terminal ballistics. A shot through the heart with either will still leave them able to fight for 7-15+ seconds though.
Anyone who shoots a .40 or .45 as fast and accurately as they could a 9mm ought to stick with the bigger caliber barring some other consideration.
People who are good can shoot 9,40,45 about tje same… 2handed. Where i find the 9 shines is 1 handed and in weird positions where you cant have good form.
Ya’ll missed the whole point of different calibers.
RELIABILITY is the most important aspect of handgun caliber selection.
Choose the pistol that fits your needs best, then buy it in the caliber it performs best with.
I’ve killed a lot of hogs, a horse, and a few old cows with 9mm, 40, and 45 and I’m here to repeat: They all suck equally. Make sure the gun works first and foremost.
I agree with shot placement being the number one factor in marksmanship and stopping a threat effectively, but I can not see #2 as being a viably believable argument. The whole reason the military switched from 38 cal to 45 was because the 38 was seen as ineffective during combat, even against unarmored combatants.
If you want to switch from 40 to 9mm then I can see good reason(that’s what I have recently done), but I think 45 to 9mm is a stretch to make an arguement for other than fiscal reasons
Reference the Phillipine insurrection - the 45 wasn’t the big problem solver people like to pretend it was. It wasn’t like the soldiers suddenly had Thor’s hammer. Using handguns, especially with FMJ ammo against a determined foe with or without the aid of narcotics is going to be troublesome.
With regard to the 45 to 9 comparison, the new 9mm is impressive enough that guys I work with who are on SWAT teams are choosing to buy/carry G19’s when they are issued Springer custom 1911’s. These are no kidding gun guys - not run of the mill LEO’s. The new G2 Gold Dot outperforms the 40 and 45 in the tests run at Quantico. But even if 45 still held the advantage, you’re talking about a handgun that either is much larger in grip circumference (G21 as an example) and still holds only 13+1. Or, a 45 that has a better grip size but holds 7 or 8+1. The 9mm is much more useable for the majority of shooters when it comes to frame size.
If i am unlucky enough to encounter a group of 3 or more individuals with low hanging jeans with bad intentions directed my way, i would rather have more rds in my gun and my reload. Not to mention i achieve faster and more accurate follow up shots with 9mm. I mean its a no brainer.
You are right, it wasn’t the problem solver , but it was more effective. That said, shot placement is still key. Can’t kill a guy with shot to the arm…
I myself recently converted from 40 to 9 as 45 is too expensive and 40 compared to 9 is pretty much a dead heat and wih cost difference 9 makes more sense for me. I’m not saying the new 9mm isn’t impressive, it is, all I am saying is I think 45 down to 9 is a huge jump and its too soon to say if its definitively better. All handgun calibers are inherently theoretically under powered, but I just think the differences between 45 and 9 are too great to call it over just yet.
How do we KNOW that 230 grain .45 was “more effective” on Filipino Moros than the .38 was? This is probably nothing but an anecdote that’s over a century old. I’d bet it wasn’t one bit more effective. I’d further bet that the .30-40 Krag rifles the US troops were equipped with had some spectacular fail-to-stop-Moro events as well.
Based on your novel I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest you care far too much about this topic. I really doubt anyone here will read all of that post, I sure didn’t.
I own and shoot a variety of rounds from .32 ACP - .44 Magnum with a 460 on the way.
Does the op assume that any fmj pistol bullet passing through a vital organ will automatically incapacitate a human target? Current theory based on medical findings asserts that destruction of blood vessels throughout a wound cavity incapacitates because the target bleeds out quickly. It follows that expanding bullets with enough penetration to produce a wound cavity through a human torso have a much higher probability than a fmj with equal or more penetration.
When I left my house last night, I grabbed a 9mm loaded with 147 gr fmj’s although I have a large amount of the latest fodder. Why? I was too lazy to switch back from range ammo to the good stuff. I know better.
Without sounding like a total ass, people should obsess less about caliber and more about training. Being able to put rounds on vital areas of the threat is far more important than what caliber one uses. His at you’re aiming for and you’ll be OK with a 9 or 900. Miss and no matter what you’re shooting you’re SOL.
So true. That’s why I feel properly armed for big-city personal defense, being armed with a 9mm holding old-school Federal 9BP or Remington L9mm1. Standard pressure stuff for fast followup shots, cheap enough to test thoroughly in my carry guns, and to do some practice with.
The whole caliber debate reflects a common bias in Western, and particularly American, culture: quick technological “fixes” for complex human problems. We think we can buy effectiveness in a box of the latest ammo, when what we really need is to sharpen our skills.
Caliber and ammo choice is something we have total control over. I think that’s a major reason why is easy to focus on.
Uni-Vibe is also dead-on with his post above, “The whole caliber debate reflects a common bias in Western, and particularly American, culture: quick technological “fixes” for complex human problems. We think we can buy effectiveness in a box of the latest ammo, when what we really need is to sharpen our skills.”
For defense I like 9x19 and .357 auto in pistols.
.45 acp is very fun to shoot but not worth the weight, expense, and loss of capacity in regards to defensive use.
10mm is a great cartridge too but the guns are just too big.
.40 auto isn’t bad I just don’t prefer it. I like it best fired from a 10mm pistol.
In revolvers I like .357 magnum for defense and enjoy shooting .38 special.
For pocket auto’s I like .32 acp loaded to the hotter Euro specs.
I’m sick of hearing the myth of the Philippine Moros and how the 38-caliber wasn’t stopping them.
A 45 was adopted because the cavalry was the premier arm of the US Army and they wanted something that could kill horses… and carry on through to kill the man on the other side.
