If modern ammo has narrowed the gap, is the gap not still there?? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : If modern ammo has narrowed the gap, is the gap not still there??


RedsoxFan4Lyfe
08-26-2012, 12:26
I'm a bit confused here.

Everyone after beating on the 9mm for 20+ years NOW says its a great round. Why you ask? Well because modern ammo has gotten so good that now they are "all the same" according to many.

Now let me state up front, I am not anti 9mm. I have owned and carried many 9mm pistols over the years. Mostly the Glock 19 and Beretta 92FS. My all time favorite pistol is the 1911 in .45acp. However I have never felt unprotected with a 9mm at all. They have both been doing the job well for over a century.

That being said, back to my original point here. Many will assert that the .45 or .40 were superior to the 9mm in years past. Bigger is better mentality etc. Now, bullet design is so good they all work pretty much the same.

If the 9mm were not as good in years past, then how can it be as good now? Wouldn't the very same bullet technology that made it better, have made the BIGGER rounds better as well. In a sort of linear progression? If bullet technology stood still for everything but the 9mm I would believe it. How can the bullet technology that made the 9mm "as good" have NOT made the .40 and .45 BETTER still, and hence the gap is still there.

Does this make sense to anyone else?

That being said there is a Glock 19 on my desk as I type this loaded with 124gr. +P Gold Dots. I feel safe. :supergrin:

Now in the draw next to my left leg there is a Colt 1911 loaded with 230gr. Winchester Ranger ammo. Either way I am good to go here.

Whats the general opinion on this subject?

SDGlock23
08-26-2012, 12:46
I shoot them all and like them all, but it's my opinion that they all perform similarly because they're designed to.

janice6
08-26-2012, 12:49
In the limit, the gap is gone and so is the difference. Carry what you like.




ADDED: My preference is to use the caliber that makes the biggest hole.

cowboy1964
08-26-2012, 13:16
OP: Your premise seems to be that "bigger is better", to the exclusion of everything else. By that definition than of the three calibers you list then clearly .45 should be "best".

RedsoxFan4Lyfe
08-26-2012, 13:51
OP: Your premise seems to be that "bigger is better", to the exclusion of everything else. By that definition than of the three calibers you list then clearly .45 should be "best".

Well that was the widely accepted premise for decades. Probably before I was even born in fact. I have seen everybody say "9mm is not good enough" and now everyone says "They are all the same." It just amuses me on some level.

I feel fine with either of the calibers. I guess we have reached the limit of handgun ammunition development after twenty years of design and now there is no gap.

G21MAN
08-26-2012, 15:10
NYPD seems to have excellent results with this round. I EDC it due to its' street credibility. So to me , my G26 is enough. I used to carry a .40 cal glock. Rob Pincus and Larry Vickers carry a 9mm. Good enough for them, good enough for me.:tongueout:

unit1069
08-26-2012, 16:12
Bullet technology has narrowed the gap in relation to what bullets do in the human body.

All things being equal the edge still goes to the larger diameter round by virtue of its being larger, if expansion is given as reliable.

So anyone can set up parameters that present a particular situation and claim that one caliber is superior to another but in real world self-defense situations the technology seeks to stop a violent, potentially deadly confrontation against a human aggressor. Thankfully technology has given gun owners a lot of viable options without the necessity of buying new caliber weapons.

There may be shootings where 0.01" or more of expansion carries the day but I suspect those instances are so rare as to be negligible. Absolute gun/ammo reliability and shot placement are what carry the day in my opinion.

Burncycle
08-26-2012, 16:21
Well sure.

Look at average penetration and expansion in your favorite hollow point in different calibers. A lot of times their website will have figures.

Typically largest expansion is proportional to largest starting diameter. IOW, a good modern hollow point in 45 will have a larger expanded diameter than 40 which will have a larger expanded diameter than 9mm. We're typically talking tenths of an inch though. It will make a slightly larger hole but it won't make a miss a hit except in very rare cases where you happen to be .10" from the vital CNS / organ. IOW, put more stock into your ability to hit the target than split hairs over caliber.

IMO as long as it expands reliably and penetrates deep enough you should be good to go with any of the major calibers. Same old guidance as usual -- find the biggest most powerful caliber you can control and go for it. If that's a 9mm, then that's ok.

I like .45, but I carry a 9mm because I can't afford to feed my .45 and practice as much as I need to.


The biggest advancement IMO made in hollow point design is not so much getting them to expand bigger, but getting them to expand more reliably and consistently in various conditions.

unit1069
08-26-2012, 16:40
The biggest advancement IMO made in hollow point design is not so much getting them to expand bigger, but getting them to expand more reliably and consistently in various conditions.

Excellent point! I wish I could have said it as succinctly as you have.

dudel
08-26-2012, 16:50
The ammo may have gotten better, but my last visit to the range tells me the shooters are not.

Shooters need to use the caliber they can be accurate with; not the ammo that has the baddest rep. The "best" ammo is the one you can get hits with. I don't use +P because I'm not as accurate with it on strings.

1canvas
08-26-2012, 16:57
if a .380 is a step down from a 9mm whats a .40, and 357sig.?

WinterWizard
08-26-2012, 17:04
According to 9mm fans, the 9x19 is the only caliber that has benefited from modern hollow point designs. They like to ignore that there are .45 JHPs expanding to near an inch.

"9mm is the best, bro! - because that's what I carry and all I own." <<< Ha ha ha!!!

paragon1
08-26-2012, 20:18
At one time it was difficult to get a 9mm to penetrate deeply, and expand reliably. It is not now. Gap closed, or at least narrowed a bunch. The 9mm used to have some real deficiencies. They have been resolved.:wavey:

dakrat
08-26-2012, 20:48
because 9mm JHP is compared to .45 FMJ.

look ma! same size bullet!

English
08-27-2012, 09:54
I know of at least two people who have each shot several people with .45s and several with 9mms who claim that there was no difference in effect. In both cases they were .45 aficionados and used .45s until they were forced to use 9mms. (Israelis did get lots of opportunity to shoot people!) They were reluctant to cary the 9mms but, never the less, found their performance to be as good. Both would have used ball ammunition but the 9mms would have been loaded hotter than the normal 9mm in the USA.

One part of the confusion on this subject is that the unsubstantiated idea that bigger is better is very attractive as an idea and is easy to repeat. The testimony referred to above most probably shows that idea to be false. It is interesting to consider why that is.

When a bullet is passing through flesh it creates a permanent cavity and a tempoary cavity. Both are the consequence of the dynamic pressure gradient at the front of the bullet and are really one process which produces different effects related to distance from the pressure source and its intensity. This pressure gradient has to push the flesh out of the way of the bullet to allow it to pass. The larger its frontal area and the faster the bullet's speed, the higher the pressure and the faster the flesh must be pushed to the side. This gives the individual sectors around the bullet track outward momentum which, for all but slow moving bullets, means that the flesh is thrown beyond the diameter of the bullet. There is no net change in momenum as the flesh is thown outwards because the sectors ballance each other unless the bullet is deflected. In fact the flesh is thrown forwards and outwards and the forwards component is the way that the bullet's momentum is shared with the body.

The body's cells can withstand only a limited pressure gradient since it distorts their shape and stretches their cell walls. On top of this, the imaginary surfaces through the flesh at right angles to the movement are being stretched in both directions. The closer they were to the bullet the greater this effect. The result is that cells close to the bullet nose and track suffer damage which decreases with distance. So those closest are burst and turn to mush. This forms the permanent cavity. Outside that zone the flesh tends to tear under the stretch applied by the expansion of the temporary cavity. Outside that gross damage there is lesser damage to blood vessels and nerves. This process incapacitates a much wider zone than the permanent cavity and is why the comparisson of two loadings by depth of penetration and expanded diameter is highly misleading. The volume of the temporary cavity would give a better comparison but the depth of the wider part of that cavity is also significant.

Because of the FBI's dictum about the desireable penetration depth of bullets, almost all manufacturers design their loadings to give that depth of penetration. This leads to people thinking that they are all equal and this is clearly not so from both experience and theory.

If you do the simple sums, the frontal areas of the two cartridges at their different speeds produce results that are remarkably close and this is why 9mms perform very much the same as .45ACPs in standard NATO and US Army loadings. The 9mm in its NATO loading is already close to its limit but the .45ACP can be pushed further and the bullet weight can be reduced. That puts the .45 ahead, and in some cases, well ahead of the 9mm.

The .40S&W was designed to have the same momentum as the .45ACP but with a lower weight bullet. The consequence is that it has more energy than the 9mm (at much the same speed with lighter bullet) or the .45 with its heavier and slower bullet. The result is that the .40S&W has more effective terminal ballistics than either. The 357SIG is a little better still.

All of this comes down to the kinetic energy of the bullet because the bullet can do only as much work as its KE allows. By juggling with the bullet design and weight you can change the shape of the temporary cavity from short and wide to narrow and long but you can't get something for nothing. What modern HP bullets achieve is to make the cavity shorter and wider, and that is seen by results which almost everyone agrees to be more effective. The .45 needs to be wider to compensate for its lower speed.

To answer the simple part of your question, roughly speaking, the effectiveness of most bullets has gone up with improvements in bullet design and so those which were genuinely better than others will remain better. Unfortunately for the great debate, the .45 and the 9mm were close to equal.

Constrained by what can be put into a handgun which is convenient to its purpose, most handgun bullets are a compromise: in a fight you would like more power but while carrying you would like less weight and bulk. The Glock range is generally light for its loadings and the .40S&W is complained of by many for its snappiness. Given another 4oz or so in the Steyr that problem disapears for most. Grip design makes some difference to this, but a lot is a matter of the recoil speed of the frame of the gun. Before someone points out the significance of strength and training, I agree their significance, but at any one time they are constant for the individual.

If you go beyond the big 4 to the 10mm and the 9x23mm you get a substantial jump in terminal performance with the bullet speed of the 9x23mm getting on for some 40% higher than the same weight bullet in the ordinary 9x19mm we all know and love. That difference is not wasted - it does lots more tissue damage.

English

Chuck54
08-27-2012, 10:22
English


May I ask what is your daily carry choice?

glock20c10mm
08-27-2012, 17:26
Well sure.

...larger expanded diameter... We're typically talking tenths of an inch though.

Additional diameter of .9" over .7" = 129%

Additional surface area of a .9" diameter circle over a .7" diameter circle = 165%

It's more about surface area than diameter. Diameter is only one dimentional, giving only limited information to what's actually being compared when it comes to expanded bullet diameters. Surface area, being two dimentional, accounts for the whole expanded bullet surface area.

Can anyone confirm my math? Just want to make sure I'm showing the correct percentages. Thanks in advance!

PlasticGuy
08-27-2012, 20:03
The "gap" assumes that only one thing matters: the terminal affect of a single hit.

Once you take into account recoil, capacity, and concealability, they all start looking about the same. They are all just trade offs.

tcruse
08-27-2012, 20:17
Well, look at the Winchester Ranger line comparisions. The 9's do rather well in comparision to 40, 357 and 45. The 9's expand to the the same size (better in some cases). They are designed to perform the same.

http://www.winchester.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/flash-SWFs/law_bullit.swf

9mm +p+
08-27-2012, 21:21
I can see the OP's point, I've been guilty of saying the very same thing. I have and use both 9's and 45's. I feel equally well protected with both, WITH the proper loads. The 9mm has always been a load specific stopper, meaning that there are fewer really good on the street stoppers. The 45 has a bigger group to choose from. For my $ 45 bullets are Ranger T's or HST's, for 9mm it's +p/+p+ only for me and 124/127gr. I currently carry Underwoods 124+p+ but did carry Ranger T 127's, my 45's are loaded with +p 230 HST's. Both loads will ruin your day I guarantee it, IF I deliver they where they belong.

pokersamurai
08-27-2012, 21:34
I think when you look at the ballistics tests (I know, not the same thing as real people, but as close as we can get) The 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP, with modern bullets, all perform very similar. It just comes down to personal preference and what you shoot better


Gold Dot:
9mm - http://www.shootingillustrated.com/index.php/1514/9-mm-p-speer-124-grain-gold-dot-hp/
.40 - http://www.shootingillustrated.com/index.php/1521/40-sw-speer-155-grain-gold-dot/
.45 (not loaded by Speer, but uses the Gold Dot bullet) - http://www.shootingillustrated.com/index.php/25219/45-acp-asym-precision-230-grain-bonded-tactical-jhp/

Golden Saber:
9mm - http://www.shootingillustrated.com/index.php/11480/9-mm-p-remington-124-grain-golden-saber/
.40 - http://www.shootingillustrated.com/index.php/23960/40-sw-remington-165-grain-bonded-golden-saber/
.45 - http://www.shootingillustrated.com/index.php/24534/45-acp-remington-230-grain-bonded-golden-saber/

M&P Shooter
08-27-2012, 22:04
http://i852.photobucket.com/albums/ab89/Glock40guy/10mm-3.jpg

unit1069
08-27-2012, 22:49
http://i852.photobucket.com/albums/ab89/Glock40guy/10mm-3.jpg

The 147-grain .355" bullet is ideal for .357sig, not 9mm as this graphic depiction demonstrates.

I'd like to see this same comparison graph with a 147-grain .357sig Gold Dot included. I think that and a similar weight HST or Golden Saber would really be the bomb if designed properly to halt beyond 14" penetration.

cowboywannabe
08-27-2012, 23:29
the only gap was when you compared the 10mm to others.....so without the 10mm there was no real gap so they created a GAP.

NEOH212
08-28-2012, 01:12
http://i852.photobucket.com/albums/ab89/Glock40guy/10mm-3.jpg

Interesting that the 165 .40 tested is on the low side for velocity.

The 124 grain 9mm seemed a little low too.

How old is this chart?

NEOH212
08-28-2012, 01:13
I'll stick with .40 and above. :wavey:

Sgt.K
08-28-2012, 11:22
I think the improved ammo performance closed the shoot-ability gap. Meaning that the larger calibers were, to some, more difficult to shoot because of the recoil and the larger size of the weapon. Now you have sort of the best of both worlds and then some. Large capacity, lower recoil even with +p's and proven street performance et al NYPD and other PD shootings. My thoughts anyway.

Schrag4
08-28-2012, 23:04
Oh, what the heck, I'll play. For those that say they trust their lives to both 9mm and 45, do you mean that you think their performance is similar enough that getting hit with one is like getting hit with the other? Or do you mean that hitting the BG with 8 rounds from your 1911 does the same damage as hitting him with 15 from your glock 19? :rofl:

DISCLAIMER: My opinion doesn't count. I can only afford to shoot 9mm and 40 S&W. I'm ashamed to say I've never fired a 45 ACP in my life :frown: Some day I will, and maybe I'll convert right there on the spot.

BUT, my opinion today is that the marginal difference in terminal ballistics in no way comes close to competing with the advantages that higher capacity and lighter recoil that 9mm provide (more accurate, faster followup shots, and more of them). Just my 0.02

1canvas
08-29-2012, 06:39
I always see these gel tests and one thing is never concidered, bone. there is about a 50% chance that in a defense situation your bullet will hit directly or graze some sort of bone. I would like to see a gel test that had some kind of wooden dowels or something embedded in it to simulate bone. I bet that would widen the gap between calibers performance.

1canvas
08-29-2012, 06:42
I think the improved ammo performance closed the shoot-ability gap. Meaning that the larger calibers were, to some, more difficult to shoot because of the recoil and the larger size of the weapon. Now you have sort of the best of both worlds and then some. Large capacity, lower recoil even with +p's and proven street performance et al NYPD and other PD shootings. My thoughts anyway.

I'm not sure about the NYPD reference. aren't those the guys that put a minimum of 20 - 60 rounds in someone if they have to shoot?

Gokyo
08-29-2012, 18:47
Just get a 10mm and know that you have a bullet that is going really fast. Is pretty heavy and pokes a big hole.

then you no longer have to worry about the difference between 9mm, 45 or 10mm special (40S&W). 10mm is just better then all of them.

vanilla_gorilla
08-29-2012, 19:48
I'm willing to accept from Dr. Gary Roberts that under ordinary conditions, there is little enough difference between the lot of them. Therefore, I'm willing to use the round that provides me with the most accuracy and capability to place as many rounds as I can in the shortest amount of time.

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm

There's at least guy who has BTDT and he's willing to use the 9mm over the others: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_5_13/127082_Glock_21_Saves_Officers_Life__17_hits_with__45.html

RMTactical
08-30-2012, 00:06
Shot placement is real power. I'm as prone as the next guy to talk about which caliber is better based on ballistics, but the bottom line is, these calibers tend to be as effective as the person pulling the trigger. Plan accordingly and spend your time training. One of the reasons 9mm is so great, cheaper to shoot and that means more training, and that should result is better accuracy when under pressure.

I own/carry 9mm's, .40's, .45's.

English
09-01-2012, 10:36
English


May I ask what is your daily carry choice?

I live in England and so do not carry, much as I would choose to do so. I have more handguns abroad than I can find time to shoot in one or two 10 day visits per year and make the occasional trip o the USA where I take courses or visit a shooting friend and shoot with him.

That understood, if I were to carry, my choices would be G20, G32, G33, Kel Tec PF-9 or Rohrbaugh, or Kel Tec P3AT in descending order of size and increasing concealability. I have all but the Rohbaugh and the G32. I have a number of holsters which get even less use than the guns. I don't yet have an appendix holster but intend to get one. Which one I caried would be a matter of clothing and circumstances.

From my own experience with a shot timer I believe the extra time between shots compared to equivalent weight 9mm pistols is more than compensated for by the extra effect of the G20 and G33 but that is not an easy thing to get evidence for.

English

PghJim
09-01-2012, 11:04
English - That is the most descriptive narrative on bullet effectiveness that I have read. If you do not mind, I am going to copy it to give it to people when I try to explain the mechanism.

Darkangel1846
09-01-2012, 11:11
I'm a bit confused here.

Everyone after beating on the 9mm for 20+ years NOW says its a great round. Why you ask? Well because modern ammo has gotten so good that now they are "all the same" according to many.

Now let me state up front, I am not anti 9mm. I have owned and carried many 9mm pistols over the years. Mostly the Glock 19 and Beretta 92FS. My all time favorite pistol is the 1911 in .45acp. However I have never felt unprotected with a 9mm at all. They have both been doing the job well for over a century.

That being said, back to my original point here. Many will assert that the .45 or .40 were superior to the 9mm in years past. Bigger is better mentality etc. Now, bullet design is so good they all work pretty much the same.

If the 9mm were not as good in years past, then how can it be as good now? Wouldn't the very same bullet technology that made it better, have made the BIGGER rounds better as well. In a sort of linear progression? If bullet technology stood still for everything but the 9mm I would believe it. How can the bullet technology that made the 9mm "as good" have NOT made the .40 and .45 BETTER still, and hence the gap is still there.

Does this make sense to anyone else?

That being said there is a Glock 19 on my desk as I type this loaded with 124gr. +P Gold Dots. I feel safe. :supergrin:

Now in the draw next to my left leg there is a Colt 1911 loaded with 230gr. Winchester Ranger ammo. Either way I am good to go here.

Whats the general opinion on this subject?

9mm has never been bad, it works just as well as the other big names as long as you do your part and put it where it needs to go.:wavey:

English
09-01-2012, 16:28
English - That is the most descriptive narrative on bullet effectiveness that I have read. If you do not mind, I am going to copy it to give it to people when I try to explain the mechanism.

Wow! I am honoured. I would be happy for you to use it.

I have just taken out a couple of typos and a mysteriously duplicated paragraph.

English

JuneyBooney
09-02-2012, 13:08
Ball ammo will be similar in most, if not all rounds. I alos don't think that ammo has changed that much that the "difference" is gone.

The nine mm will not shoot through windshields in most cars. The .40 will. The .45 is slow. The ten mm is great but will get you into legal trouble because cops don't carry it.

When I first started shooting many moons ago I had started carrying a Smith model 39. I used one of these for carry for years and it did well. The ammo was 124 grain and hollow point.

Different ammo has come around over the years for all rounds and exploding ammo was outlawed etc.

I find the .380 to be better than nothing but not as good as the 9mm. The all round best caliber is the .357 and I don't think that will ever change. It has the best combination of velocity and energy.

If shooting ball ammo they are all indeed about the same unless using the FN 5.7 etc.

I use the .40 now daily and I find it enjoyable to shoot as well as a splendid defensive round. The nine mm is enjoyable to shoot and is also very effective.

From life experiences a soft tissue injury will burn like hell and a bone hit will hurt like double hell and getting shot by any gun is not pleasant. :whistling: Here is a good one though...don't drop a tennis ball on your "cojones" because that will really be "hell".:rofl:

fastbolt
09-02-2012, 14:47
I think the idea of there being some sort of "gap" is a false premise.

It's a handgun, chambered in one of the commonly encountered service calibers.

Talk of kinetic energy, temporary cavitation, momentum, etc, etc are interesting to debate in civil discussions ... as are minute shades of difference in bullet expansion/deformation (meaning interpretation of their effect in different target mediums, and talking about tenths or hundredths of an inch difference in diameters, calculated across different spots of frontal diameters of a recovered bullet) ... but in the real world all the calibers have been working about the same.

Yes, we can still discuss the perceived and observed attributes of the lighter/faster v. heavier/slower performance characteristics ... ;) ... but they're both still working out in the real world. Pick one ...

The physical wounding characteristics of handgun bullets, being fired at handgun velocities, can sometimes depend on factors such as distance; angle of presentation/entry; any intermediate barrier materials being defeated (including intervening limbs); and the specific tissues, structures & organs being damaged, just to list some of them.

The psychological factors that might have an influence on the potential for rapid incapacitation? Good luck with that ...

We can all try to maximize our hoped-for effectiveness with whatever caliber/ammunition type we're given, or allowed to choose, by investing more time in training & practice.

Of course, there's training, and then there's training ... so suit yourself. Try not to slip down the path of developing a false sense of confidence, though.

Real world experiences (of self, trainers and other "practitioners") may sometimes point us toward things that are contrary to what we'd like to think is factual or realistic. :whistling: Be prepared & willing to notice the difference, if possible, and how it might apply to your perceived circumstances and anticipated situations.

After 30 years of carrying a badge and more than 20 years of being a firearms instructor, the whole "caliber/ammunition/ballistic performance" issue has come to occupy a much lower spot on my own "list" of critical priorities. Training, practice drills, tactics, weapon maintenance and continued focus on maintaining an optimal mindset are much more important to me.

I'm about to go out for a ride on my motorcycle over and through the Coastal hills. Most times I slip one of my 5-shot snubs into a reinforced leather pocket of my riding jacket or vest and consider it "enough". Sometimes I belt on a larger handgun and consider it "enough".

The other day when I went for a ride I decided to wear one of my .40's on my belt (4040PD) and carry one of my snubs in a jacket pocket.

Today I think I'll belt on one of my G26's ... and maybe slip a J-frame in a jacket pocket. I think the G26 that's clean & loaded is filled with Rem 124gr BJHP non-bonded, instead of the W-W 127gr +P+ RA9TP I often carry ... but I don't think it's necessary to reload it to change ammo, so I'll take it "as is". **

My .45's will remain in the safe today.

The important factor that's consistent through all these caliber/ammo choices and circumstances is ... me, and my training, skillset, mindset & experience.

The handguns are just ... handguns.

Pick whatever makes you feel good about your choice. Hopefully it's for a reason, or reasons, that have been established to have practicality & meaning in the real world.

If it's to satisfy the yearning for joining some group or other (fast/slow, hydrostatic shock, BPW, specific caliber aficionados, etc), or for the "talisman effect" ... well, that's your right, too.

When I'm wearing my instructor hat and one of our guys or gals asks me some leading question obviously intended to promote (or provoke ;) ) a caliber/ammo debate, I've increasingly come to stop them, before they build up too much of a head of steam, and asked them how well they can shoot any handgun under demanding conditions. Some stop and think. Some equivocate and want to get back to proselytizing their perceived "better choice".

Life is often about choices ... and the consequences that can ensue. It's the same for all of us.

Suit yourselves.

** Edited to say that nope, when I pulled the G26 from the safe and checked it, I noticed it was loaded with 27gr +P+. Ditto the single spare mag that was loaded & stored in a drawer. I guess I pay even less attention to what's loaded in any particular gun than I thought ... :rofl:

Yes, I may occasionally carry a spare mag (or speedstrip or speedloader) loaded with a different load than what's in a particular gun, but I use a number of different loads and shoot all of them when doing training, quals or practice, anyway.

barth
09-02-2012, 15:10
I'm a bit confused here.

Everyone after beating on the 9mm for 20+ years NOW says its a great round. Why you ask? Well because modern ammo has gotten so good that now they are "all the same" according to many.

Now let me state up front, I am not anti 9mm. I have owned and carried many 9mm pistols over the years. Mostly the Glock 19 and Beretta 92FS. My all time favorite pistol is the 1911 in .45acp. However I have never felt unprotected with a 9mm at all. They have both been doing the job well for over a century.

That being said, back to my original point here. Many will assert that the .45 or .40 were superior to the 9mm in years past. Bigger is better mentality etc. Now, bullet design is so good they all work pretty much the same.

If the 9mm were not as good in years past, then how can it be as good now? Wouldn't the very same bullet technology that made it better, have made the BIGGER rounds better as well. In a sort of linear progression? If bullet technology stood still for everything but the 9mm I would believe it. How can the bullet technology that made the 9mm "as good" have NOT made the .40 and .45 BETTER still, and hence the gap is still there.

Does this make sense to anyone else?

That being said there is a Glock 19 on my desk as I type this loaded with 124gr. +P Gold Dots. I feel safe. :supergrin:

Now in the draw next to my left leg there is a Colt 1911 loaded with 230gr. Winchester Ranger ammo. Either way I am good to go here.

Whats the general opinion on this subject?

Ammo has improved.
In it's best loading's all service calibers will work well.
IMHO - most any standard 230 gr JHP 45, or 125 gr JHP 357 Sig, is very good.
When going with 40 I feel good with most any 155/165 gr JHP.
But in 9mm I really want best of the best loads -
124/127 gr +P/+P+; Speer GDHP, Federal HST or Winchester Ranger T-Series.

In short, as the power level falls I get more choosy about what ammo I carry.
Hopefully we will never see ammo shortages.
But If we do....

packinaglock
09-02-2012, 16:21
IMO I think the 9mm is just engineered now a days to penetrate almost as well as a .40 or a .45. That is what I think was lacking in the early days coupled with expansion. I don't think the .40 and the .45 had to improve as much. Yes expansion has improved for all three, but the quest to bring the 9mm load into the acceptable penetration window was the key.

P.S. don't listen to this idiot he's drinking tonight. :supergrin:

unit1069
09-02-2012, 23:46
If one can quickly assess the deadly threat and bring his/her weapon to sight picture and unload asap on the center of mass (upper chest area) that is about as well as can be done in a self-defense situation, regardless of caliber used.

JEEPX
09-03-2012, 10:07
I have not witnessed the magical powers of the. 45acp. I am not being a smart arse when I say that.

They kill each other left and right in Central America with .38 Supers.

The 9mm does as well as any other handgun caliber. More umph, requires a rifle.
I have used and seen the 9mm used in Argentina and Belize.
I also have seen a. 45acp used.
In real life, against real humans there is no difference.

Edit to add.
The encounters were protection details. Ammunition used was JHP for both calibers.

fredj338
09-03-2012, 10:56
If better JHP make the 9mm a viable SD choice, then better bigger JHP can't really have a downside. If the object is to make bigger holes, then the only way to get there is bigger bullets. You either start out w/ them or get a JHP to expand like them. As fastbolt notes, your training & mind set trump ammo & gun choice, but if you have the ability & mind set, why not choose something that gives even a marginal edge.
Yes they are only handguns, so any edge is desirable. In some states, 10rd max. My XD45c is the same size as my a G19, same 10+1, I can shoot the G19 slightly faster but get better hits w/ the XD. So same 10rds, I can miss a little faster w/ the G19 or hit w/ the XD45, easy choice for me. I actually shoot a ltwt 1911Comm faster & better than either, so 10+1 vs 8+1. Still an easy choice. I'll give up 2rds for better/faster hits.

JEEPX
09-03-2012, 11:19
If better JHP make the 9mm a viable SD choice, then better bigger JHP can't really have a downside. If the object is to make bigger holes, then the only way to get there is bigger bullets. You either start out w/ them or get a JHP to expand like them. As fastbolt notes, your training & mind set trump ammo & gun choice, but if you have the ability & mind set, why not choose something that gives even a marginal edge.
Yes they are only handguns, so any edge is desirable. In some states, 10rd max. My XD45c is the same size as my a G19, same 10+1, I can shoot the G19 slightly faster but get better hits w/ the XD. So same 10rds, I can miss a little faster w/ the G19 or hit w/ the XD45, easy choice for me. I actually shoot a ltwt 1911Comm faster & better than either, so 10+1 vs 8+1. Still an easy choice. I'll give up 2rds for better/faster hits.


Fred,

As always a well thought out post.

I really appreciate your help when I needed answers about the snub nose Model 19.

I will say this. I do miss my P220. That pistol truly felt like an extension of me. When the company said it would only authorize 9mm. I sold it. At the time it made sense, now not so much.

I am trying to switch employers to work domestic. They let the employees carry the caliber of their choice on details. You provide the ammunition. If this happens, I will go to the P220.

I understand where you are coming from. You are comfortable with the. 45acp and the pistols you have selected.