Given the same brand and / or similar size pistol.
I’m talking about handling and speed. Precision and time. Duty and concealed carry guns. Shooters with formal, competent training and a decent amount of range time for practice.
What say you? Got any evidence?
Absolutely. I used to carry a compact 1911 in .45. Sold it and switched to the same gun in 9mm. Much better follow ups. FBI is right on this issue. I wish I’d run both with a shot timer, but I could tell right off the bat. My .45s are now range guns.
In general it’s true.
At least when speed is taken into account.
Off the clock sights and trigger will will reign over choice of caliber as far as accuracy is concerned.
On the clock, triggers and sights being near equal, the combination of gun weight/caliber/recoil/flip takes over.
Sure, A real high bore axis, crappy alignment design, compact polymer firing +P+ 9mm May lose out to an all steel 2011 or CZ 45 or something,
Or you could argue minor hit factor .40 lites with a skosh of real fast powder trump 9mm,
But then again you could also argue a guy shooting 9mm that gets hit by lightning while being attacked by a honey badger shoots worse than a guy with a 45.
I shot my M&P 2.0 .45 full-size better than my old, familiar Glock 19 from probably the 2nd time out with it. No, it’s not night and day of course. But it is noticeably easier to get a precise hit (Ex. 3x5 card at 25 yds) with the M&P and if not easier, no harder to get the same groups at the same speed (Bill drill, etc) as the G19.
But I realize this isn’t apples to apples. I’ve never liked the G19 grip or angle and this is comparing a full-size gun to a compact. The S&W has a better trigger, better grip (shape, texture), and bigger sights. So, despite the heavier bullets, I shoot it better.
So now I’m considering getting a full-size M&P 2.0 in 9mm, a Compact M&P 2.0 9mm (4 inch), or Custom Beretta M9A1. (Not sure which, many choices) But I’d like to feel confident I’m going to shoot one of those even better than that full-size M&P 2.0 .45 before spending the dough.
(I’m not going to vote in the poll, btw)
I want to add I misunderstood what “public” pole results meant. I thought it meant a person could view the poll results without logging in.
I didn’t know it would put the name of the poster under the choice.
I’d change that if I could. Perhaps a moderator could make that happen?
Taken to the extreme you’d shoot better with a full sized M&P 2.0 in .22lr if they made one. I know the 147gr 9mm is the current ballistic darling and I remember back when 9mm “sub sonic” was all the rage in the 90’s (?). That which was old is new again.
It takes work to shoot bigger calibers better, but who goes to the gym to lift the smallest dumbell?
Same exact gun maybe, depends on the loads before and after along with the actual firearm used (i.e. Backup gun strong maybe, desert eagle maybe no difference).
This is absolutely true. My dream carry gun would be a .25 acp in a full size gun. 25 (?) bullets and no recoil.
But reality intrudes: .25 lacks penetration and is therefore too small for defense use.
My Springfield XDM 10mm is not all that much larger than my EDC Smith M&P 9. I could carry it under a suit coat or winyer jacket. 16 rounds of honest-to-God full house 10mm vs. 18 rounds of 9. Ah, but I can shoot the 9 much faster in a pinch.
Compromises.
.25 DU rounds will solve that penetration issue you’re having but leave a hell of a mess behind.
I think most of the time yes, but have heard people mention .45 ACP was easier for them to shoot than 9/40 because the recoil impulse was slower/less snappy and they had some kind of wrist or firearm nagging injury. Not sure if they ever tried that on a timer though.
So maybe the second question needs to be rephrased, as from what I understood, this question is based mostly on recoil management. Given the same pistol in different calibers, most shooters who obey the laws of physics should be able to shoot the lower recoil caliber faster with the same accuracy. What would prevent that from happening?
The second question should be: It’s false - someone who shoots .40 or .45 will not be able to shoot better using 9mm in the same pistol.
We all know people who shoot their .40 or .45 better than other people who shoot 9mm, but will all of them not be able to improve their split times with 9mm in the same pistol? What about .22 LR?
One of my pet peeves is folk saying ‘9mm has no recoil’, which is of course incorrect. Anything that fires a projectile has recoil. But, when I ask them ‘so, if a 9mm pistol has no recoil, why are you able to fire a .22 LR conversion of the same pistol faster?’ then they backpedal and say 'well, a .22LR has no recoil, a 9mm has a bit’. But that bit makes a difference.
So, for those who voted ‘It’s false’, I’m really curious to hear an explanation why the same shooter cannot fire the same pistol faster with the same accuracy in 9mm (or .22LR) than when chambered in .40 or .45, given the ammo and barrels have the same accuracy.
The other thing I have noticed is for a given power factor, the heavier, slower bullet,
Even though math is exactly the same, has a better feel.
Say you are shooting a Glock 23 with a 9mm barrel.
A 115 grain 9mm moving 1150 FPS
You put the 40 barrel back in and shoot your 165 grains at about 770 FPS.
Many are going to prefer the identical recoil of the 40.
Some are going to find it sluggish.
I shoot my 1911 better than any full sized 9MM I’ve ever had my hands on. I have not however had a 9MM 1911 style. I’m talking about full sized VP9, Sig, Glock, Makarov style… that may not be considered full size. I also had a .40 compact H&K and after a lot of get used to the trigger I was able to shoot it well. It really didn’t transfer over though.
I guess if the pistols were of equal style, quality of operation and function… then I guess it would transfer over but to be guaranteed a “better” … I’m not so sure. I guess the better shooter you are to begin with has a lot to do with it. Better you are the more true the statement is.
Bold== It’s not that they cannot in your specific scenario. They likely might. But… now add another specific… Take their hearing protection off… I would have to think the guy with the .45 is going to be the happier camper in the long run.
I do agree with your perfect world recoil theory though. Then again, what about the shooter that has been well trained to control recoil equally for each caliber? After that it’s like he said above the actual recoil impulse may be favored one over another. It’s kinda unfair to the poll though to specify exactness because that’s not how we ever find pistols in our hands. We almost always have a somewhat different to decidedly different pistol when the caliber switches. Even though they may be considered equal quality and size, etc… Similar tool for the job. In theory you are probably right and the more specific you make it the more right you will be but in reasonable real world use I don’t think your results can be guaranteed across all shooters.
This is spot on. Generally folks will shoot the 9mm (out of a comparable/the same pistol better) but there are variables.
I prefer to shoot 9mm 147gr over 115 or 124gr, the recoil ‘feels’ right to me, obviously others feel differently.
I think an easy way to test the theory is get any .40 Glock and shot it then get a 9mm conversion barrel and shoot it. Before I started buying a lot of guns, I did exactly this with a Glock 22. My feel is that I shot it better.
During our firearms program we sometimes switched shooters from .45 to 9mm because of grip size (and after clearing it with their agency) invariably those officers shot better, but obviously there were several factors at work - the smaller frame size, the ‘smaller bullet, less recoil’ mindset in addition to the physics.
I have to say, as a rule of thumb most folks, all other things being equal, will shoot the 9mm better than .40 or .45.
Pistol caliber discussions are like religious debate…
Or midget fights. Or Fat Lesbians arguing over who is the man today.
Not very interesting, someone gets in their feelings and it doesn’t ultimately matter
I think it’s going pretty good and I’m enjoying it.
Purely subjective, but that’s been my perception every time I hit the range. Maybe 9mm gives better split times, but I find I’m better and more accurate with .45, specifically from a 1911. Different people have different biomechanics and wrists that hinge at different angles, but this is the combination that seems to fit me personally best.
Somebody bring a 5" 1911 in 9mm to the range, and I’ll furnish the .45 counterpart for apples to apples, and we can put it to the test. 
Getting an objective answer to that requires a timer. Most people don’t own timers. A lot of shooters can’t shoot fast no matter what caliber; having something that returns back on target faster doesn’t matter if they over aim on every shot. There are too many contextual differences that may affect individual opinions.
I am yet to see a strong shooter who can run 40 or 45 gun faster than the same gun in 9. Chat with competitive shooters who switch between major and minor pf.
When I was out shooting the other day with some folks, one of the guys had a Wilson EDC-X9 and a Professional 45 model. When I ran it compared to his Wilson Professional, 1 round then a pair, till dry, I was able to keep my groups slightly smaller with the EDC-X9. While it wasn’t much, and probably would make much difference in a real world situation, it was visually noticeable.
Shot to shot, the difference between 45 and 9mm is negligible. When the pace starts picking up, the difference usually becomes more obvious. There are a lot of guys that shoot 45’s and 40’s extremely well, professional shooters, etc.
While it may be almost impossible to tell if their was an improvement in their shooting with a 9mm, the difference would likely have to be measured milliseconds, or thousandths of an inch, but would probably show an improvement.
While recoil management is independent per shooter, the laws of physics and less recoil with a smaller caliber and load are irrefutable.
TXPO