"With all the advances in modern hollow point technology"

[Disposable Heart]

+1 ModernGunner

.45 is "obsolete" not "ineffective". It's been surpassed by 9mm with the rise of more technologically advanced bullet types.

.45 will still kill as easily as before. It's not that it's become worthless, it just poses more negatives than positives in comparison to "modern" 9mm.

Now, that being said: If I had to carry only "ball" ammo, I would carry the flattest point .45 that I could get to feed reliably. Round nose ball in both calibers has shown to have marginal effect on tissue crush.

 

[lovemachine]

The 9mm does everything that I NEED it to do. But, the biggest reason why I chose to not carry a .45, or even have a .45 as a house gun, is because my wife can't shoot the .45.

So I invested in the 9mm, I figured it wiser to invest in a caliber that everyone in my house can shoot.

 

[iChokePeople]

The 9mm does everything that I NEED it to do. But, the biggest reason why I chose to not carry a .45, or even have a .45 as a house gun, is because my wife can't shoot the .45.

Hmph. I always figured it was because you're a ginger.

 

[armedindy]

i get the "shot placement>caliber" line of thought..thats obvious...but if a fancy new ninemm hollow point round will do a ton of damage to a slab of ballistic gel, wouldnt a .45 of the same or similar hollow point design do just that much more damage, or does the velocity really matter that much, and if so, couldnt you weaken the connections of the pedals on the jacket or somehow make it open up easier for the slower .45 round?

 

[cedartop]

The 9mm does everything that I NEED it to do. But, the biggest reason why I chose to not carry a .45, or even have a .45 as a house gun, is because my wife can't shoot the .45.

So I invested in the 9mm, I figured it wiser to invest in a caliber that everyone in my house can shoot.

Sounds like a plan.

I basically have 3 reason for carrying a 9.

1) The physical size of the platforms. I conceal carry. Though I have been known to carry a 34 or 17, a 19 size gun works much better for me.
2) Capacity. Though not a major consideration I still like the fact that I get more rounds in the 9.
3) I be po. 9mm is cheaper to shoot and I like to shoot. Yes I know I should reload but I simply do not have the time to get involved in another time guzzling pursuit.

Do I think a .45 may have a slight edge in performance? Ya, probably but for me not enough to overcome the other factors involved EMMV.

So as to the OP, I think others have answered that pretty well, but even if the advancements were equal it wouldn't matter to me.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

I've been carrying +P+ hydra shok 9mm. Hopefully that would get the little pellet moving fast enough

 

[WebHobbit]

I just had to pop in here with the proverbial Public Service Announcement:


Lets cut the talk of KILL here.

Remember we are only trying to STOP an attacker. It is TOTALLY irrelevant if the bad guy dies or not. We just want him to STOP...that is immediately cease all hostile activity. If he expires during the course of the altercation that's just a consequence of attacking an innocent person (who happened to be armed!). But his DEATH was not our objective in the slightest.

 

[WebHobbit]

I've been carrying +P+ hydra shok 9mm. Hopefully that would get the little pellet moving fast enough

It certainly will but the Federal HST round (available as +P or standard) is the modern day descendant of the old HydraShok. You should order some of those. Kyle's Gunshop carries them most of the time (in 50 round boxes too).

 

[ModernGunner]

...but if a fancy new nine mm hollow point round will do a ton of damage to a slab of ballistic gel, wouldnt a .45 of the same or similar hollow point design do just that much more damage, or does the velocity really matter that much, and if so, couldnt you weaken the connections of the pedals on the jacket or somehow make it open up easier for the slower .45 round?

No. Please read or re-read my earlier post (#20).

The reason is because the effects don't directly 'scale'. There becomes, for lack of a better term, a 'point of diminishing returns'.

Others here have pretty well covered the ballistics of this. As noted, the level of 'damage' stops at '100%', whether that's bleed-out, death, energy dump, or whatever. ANYTHING over '100%' is irrelevant. Since we know, definitively, that a 1-shot stop is nearly impossible or highly unlikely, it then turns to 'more than one' to stop the attack. Whether that's 2, or 3, or beyond then becomes more of a factor of the specifics of the scenario and the target: i.e. clothing, possible other 'barriers', physical factors, etc.

Even more importantly, it absolutely becomes a factor of putting rounds accurately on 'incapacitating areas' of that target. To that end, it therefore becomes a matter of which caliber / handgun combination the defender is best able to accomplish that. IOW, what combination of handgun and caliber can the defender put 2+ rounds absolutely 'spot on'?

That is 'defender specific', and depends on additional non-caliber / handgun factors such as training, capability, and mental attitude (how 'proficient' one remains under the stress of an actual combat scenario). ALL defenders can improve (as none of us are 100%), but to be honest, some are just 'better' or 'more natural' at it than others. Some are just better 'equipped' to remain 'cool and calm' in such scenarios. THIS is where the individual MUST be honest with them self and work to improve their assets and diminish their liabilities.

Will the debate forever remain? Likely. That's because there is NO 'definitive' answer. As a creature, humans are thin-skinned with no bodily covering. We use clothing, which can vary tremendously. Further, the 'will to fight' or 'will to live' is beyond calculation, and has no relationship to size of the human, weight, age, muscle tone, health, or other such physical factors. The 'will to win' is simply a mental condition that ANY person can utilize, and improve upon.

And to be honest, it's their single greatest asset in a lethal confrontation.

 

[lovemachine]

Sounds like a plan.

I basically have 3 reason for carrying a 9.

1) The physical size of the platforms. I conceal carry. Though I have been known to carry a 34 or 17, a 19 size gun works much better for me.
2) Capacity. Though not a major consideration I still like the fact that I get more rounds in the 9.
3) I be po. 9mm is cheaper to shoot and I like to shoot. Yes I know I should reload but I simply do not have the time to get involved in another time guzzling pursuit.
.

I agree 100%. Those are other reasons why I like the 9mm.

 

[9mmfan]

Like cedartop said, "I be po". I really can't afford to have multiple calibers. I have 9mm and 38/357 covered. I did trade my 40 for a Glock 20sf, but that was for fun.
I usually carry Cor Bon 115 or 125 Gr and Gold Dots. I have faith in those and my Glock 19 shoot them very well.
I just ordered some Underwood 124 Gr +P+ so will try those out as well.

 

[armedindy]

No. Please read or re-read my earlier post (#20).

The reason is because the effects don't directly 'scale'. There becomes, for lack of a better term, a 'point of diminishing returns'.

Others here have pretty well covered the ballistics of this. As noted, the level of 'damage' stops at '100%', whether that's bleed-out, death, energy dump, or whatever. ANYTHING over '100%' is irrelevant. Since we know, definitively, that a 1-shot stop is nearly impossible or highly unlikely, it then turns to 'more than one' to stop the attack. Whether that's 2, or 3, or beyond then becomes more of a factor of the specifics of the scenario and the target: i.e. clothing, possible other 'barriers', physical factors, etc.

Even more importantly, it absolutely becomes a factor of putting rounds accurately on 'incapacitating areas' of that target. To that end, it therefore becomes a matter of which caliber / handgun combination the defender is best able to accomplish that. IOW, what combination of handgun and caliber can the defender put 2+ rounds absolutely 'spot on'?

That is 'defender specific', and depends on additional non-caliber / handgun factors such as training, capability, and mental attitude (how 'proficient' one remains under the stress of an actual combat scenario). ALL defenders can improve (as none of us are 100%), but to be honest, some are just 'better' or 'more natural' at it than others. Some are just better 'equipped' to remain 'cool and calm' in such scenarios. THIS is where the individual MUST be honest with them self and work to improve their assets and diminish their liabilities.

Will the debate forever remain? Likely. That's because there is NO 'definitive' answer. As a creature, humans are thin-skinned with no bodily covering. We use clothing, which can vary tremendously. Further, the 'will to fight' or 'will to live' is beyond calculation, and has no relationship to size of the human, weight, age, muscle tone, health, or other such physical factors. The 'will to win' is simply a mental condition that ANY person can utilize, and improve upon.

And to be honest, it's their single greatest asset in a lethal confrontation.

"no" as in "no you cannot make a 900 fps projectile pedal out as much as a higher velocity smaller projectile"? or "no" as in "i carry a 9 for all the right reasons, and think this thread is stupid"??????

 

[Disposable Heart]

I just had to pop in here with the proverbial Public Service Announcement:


Lets cut the talk of KILL here.

Remember we are only trying to STOP an attacker. It is TOTALLY irrelevant if the bad guy dies or not. We just want him to STOP...that is immediately cease all hostile activity. If he expires during the course of the altercation that's just a consequence of attacking an innocent person (who happened to be armed!). But his DEATH was not our objective in the slightest.

While I heartily support your idealization, truth of the matter is that taking that viewpoint will cause more harm than good. It's detrimental and hypocritical in two ways:
Way the 1st: The most effective areas to hit, penetrate deep enough and cause enough damage to that will "stop" an attacker are life threatening if not lethal if hit. Hit 'em in the bridge (between the eyes, hits the autonomic controls, shuts off heart and breathing, causing immediate if not quick, death) or the engine room (upper thorasic). If you clip or punch a hole in the engine room, they'll leak to the point of failure, failure in this case being death. Let's not kid ourselves. If you hit their heart, there aren't alot of those spare parts around. You've ended their life, possibly for the best. Even a rabid dog is allowed clemency in heaven.

Way the 2nd: Mindset. Let's picture a (hardly) ideal "good" shoot: The attacker is performing or will perform an act that is highly illegal and life threatening to yourself. You shoot, you "stop" the threat. Deployment of lethal force in this case, whatever it may be, was "in the right". Let's look at this term: lethal force (or deadly force). If I have to use such force to "stop" a threat, I don't want to just stop them, I don't want to kill them, I want them DESTROYED. This is coming from someone with two muggings under the belt. It's them, or you. You are tricking yourself by thinking that way. And for some, potentially tricking themselves into shooting incorrectly (shooting for gut, legs, or other non-vitals that have mediocre fight "stopping" detriments).

No one wants to call it killing. No one wants to kill. That's the ins and outs. Call it what you will: Rambo, gunstore commando, bravado, but the fact remains. You are shooting to "stop" but the only REAL way to stop a threat is to hit he/she in areas that are life critical.

 

[WebHobbit]

I think you miss my point.

I would never advocate shooting at anything other than CENTER MASS. The rest is Hollywood BS as you know. But the fact remains I as a defensive shooter am NOT trying to KILL the bad guy. I'm trying to STOP him. Nothing more. And YES the best area for that (center mass) is the most life threatening. I won't discuss head shots as they are much harder to make than an upper torso shot. But many many people get shot in the torso and live to tell about it. Frankly I don't care if the bad guy ultimately dies or not....as long as he lays on the ground bleeding and NOT trying to kill me then I'm good with that! I'll call the cops and they can send an ambulance and what happens happens. But I still maintain the point of a self defense shooting is NOT to KILL your opponent. If it was we all would probably just use .22s as they are VERY LETHAL....but of course they lack sufficient stopping power.

 

[Hohn]

In my view, the right way to approach this is to start with the projectile first.

In general, autoloading handguns are compromises when it comes to projectiles. The limited overall length available to a handgun that loads through the grip restricts the maximum sectional density.

At 0.179, the 200gr bullet for .40/10mm has a considerable sectional density advantage over the heaviest loads for other auto loading calibers. A 147 grain bullet in 9mm has a sectional density of 0.167, while a 230gr .45 load comes in at an even- lower 0.162.


When propelled at slowish speeds in the 950fps range, such a load will have lower recoil than a .45, superior sectional density and sectional momentum, and better capacity.

It also loses almost all of the "snap" in recoil associated with a .40.


The increase in recoil for 200gr @ 900-950fps is small, while the increase in penetration wounding potential is not.

For my money, the 200gr .40/10mm, loaded to the recoil/ speed range desired, is the pinnacle of auto loader terminal performance.

Examples:

AMMO TEST: 10mm Underwood 200 gr Hornady XTP JHP - YouTube

Double Tap 40 S&W 200gr Ballistic Gel Test - YouTube

Gel test: 10mm Double Tap 200 gr Nosler - YouTube



Your opinion will vary.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

All typical handgun calibers have sufficient sectional density to penetrate through and through a human body, assuming no intermediate barriers (be it something between you and them or hitting their forearm before going into their torso). That's why we use hollowpoints, to increase the surface area, which reduces sectional density, which stops over penetration and uses more of the bullet's energy in tissue destruction. Sectional density issues come into play when the bullet starts to fragment to early, like with very fast and/or light bullets. Especially non-bonded ammo. I've mentioned it before, but I had a guy shot through a truck's back glass with both a 9mm and a .40 (yes, two people shooting at him, he wasn't popular that day). The 9mm all fragmented after hitting the glass and car interior, turning into tiny little shotgun pellets that peppered him but didn't do much damage. The .40 had enough oomph and retained mass to break vertebrae and paralyze him. THAT'S the difference between rounds, if they'd both shot him with nothing between them, the 9mm and .40 would both have been almost certainly have been fatal as they both hit in the back of the head and neck. However the 9mm couldn't hold together enough mass and the sectional density of the fragments sucked. The .40 didn't have that issue. If you're going to run light and/or fast bullets, use bonded.

I don't disagree with the 10mm statement. I don't have enough data to say one way or the other. Like I said earlier, I wish the thugs would be a bit more open in their ammunition choices so I'd have a better data set on things that aren't .22, .25, 9, 40, and 45 with the occasional 38/357, rifle, and shotgun round thrown in. As a hypothesis, though, I'd say such a round would work well. Its slow enough and bulky enough to hold together well, retaining bulk.

 

[clbrock18]

Give me the 45 any day over a 9.