caliber facts and figures

[taters]

Which is better, 45ACP or 9mm?
Nicholas Cage could not have said it better in "The Lord of War" when he said 'That's the secret to survival : never go to war.' Likewise, I suspect that my answer to your question will inadvertantly step on the toes of some visitors to brassfetcher.com.

I am not and have never been a soldier or a police officer, but I am an engineer, so perhaps I can offer my perspective of handgun performance from a slightly different angle.

Bullet designers cannot know the circumstances of a defensive shooting involving their ammunition before that shooting happens. As such, the goal is usually to identify some reasonable standard to which to design the product to meet and go from there. Today, this standard is the FBI standard for bullet performance in ballistic gelatin. For example, if you were designing a car and not a bullet, it might be reasonable to make it fuel efficient enough to meet EPA requirements for a vehicle of its size - this way you can say that it meets EPA efficiency requirements in your advertising and it will give the consumer better performance in usage.

Some people argue the validity of the FBI standard 'because it doesn't have bones and the various other tissues that can be found in the body'. Which is true and also is why a uniform testing medium like gelatin is such a fine innovation - bones and tissues in different parts of the body will have different toughnesses and no two bullet angles during any defensive shooting will be close enough for any realistic correlation with a non-uniform medium, such as ballistic gelatin with bones cast into, or set in front of, the block.

Just the same, assuming the pistol bullet penetrates the FBI minimum depth of 12", the name of the game is increasing the diameter of the hole made by the bullet. Given the constraints of non-uniformity of the intended target that was given above, the only way to design defensive pistol bullets is to make the assumption that the bullet will strike only soft tissue - if it hits something more solid like bone, then most bets are off. Furthering this assumption, the larger the expanded diameter of the bullet, the greater the odds that something vital inside the attackers body will be damaged and/or the larger hole will (in theory) speed up the rate of blood loss. Think of the difficulty of breathing through a straw versus breathing through your mouth, for instance. The larger the diameter of the hole through which an incompressible fluid passes (air, water, blood), the faster it flows, all else being equal.

Hopefully, my bias towards the larger caliber handguns is not becoming too apparent yet. If not, than this next section should make it very obvious. I would like to talk about the frontal surface areas of the common calibers (assuming an FMJ profile, although the calculations hold, assuming that hollowpoints of different calibers but equal ratios of final expanded diameter are considered).

The diameter of a .32ACP bullet is 0.311", while the 9x19mm Luger is 0.355" and the .45ACP is 0.451". Some math-challenged gun writers have suggested that the .45ACP is 'only' 1.27 times the size of the 9mm Luger bullet. They are referring to the diameters of unexpanded bullets and this is neglecting the discussion of the importance of bullet frontal area - any part of a bullet is theoretically just as capable of inflicting damage as any other part of the bullet - but the engineers cannot know beforehand which part of the bullet face will be passing close to a vital organ at the future defensive shooting that I mentioned above. This is where the bullets frontal area becomes important - the larger the area of the hole (which can have units in square inches) the greater the chance of something important getting hit. Let's look at the areas of the above few calibers and their likelihood of hitting something vital, where a small diameter bullet would have just barely missed.

The .32ACP has a frontal radius of 0.311/2 = 0.156". The area of a disc (or bullet face) is given by 3.14159 * radius *radius. In this case, the frontal area is 0.156" * 0.156" * 3.14159 = 0.077 square inches.

The 9mm Luger is 0.355" in diameter and 0.178" in radius. The area of the 9mm is 0.100 square inches - 30 percent larger in area than the .32ACP.

And the .45ACP is 0.451" in diameter and 0.226" in radius. The area of the .45 is 0.161 square inches - 61 percent larger surface area compared to 9mm and 109 percent larger than the .32ACP.

I would err on the side of the largest diameter, hardest kicking handgun that I could shoot safely and effectively as my choice for self-defense.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






|Welcome| |Gel Testing| |.17HMR| |.22LR| |.22 Magnum| |.25ACP| |7.62x25mm| |.32ACP| |32H&R Mag| |.32NAA| |.380ACP|

[3rdgen40]

:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:

[trob]

you need to get out more :wow:

[griggrt]

I agree.. nice write up.

[THEPOPE]

Common sense tells most of us that the larger the bullet, the greater the damage to a struck object....the mass of the bullet plus speed of said projectile adds to the equation, again, common sense...

All things being equal, but they ain't equal, as the O.P. has so expertly pointed out, no two scenes are gonna be the same, bones, sinew, tissues of differring thicknesses (more fat, less fat) and angles of the hit...all things considered, the bigger the bullet, the more possible the damage incurred.

Good explanation, though, as good an argument as has ever been shown here of late...

LET THE CALIBER WARS CONTINUE ! ! ....

As for me, I am out :cool:

[mrosamilia]

Wonderfully put and very informative

[douglasd]

It all looks good on paper, but the reality is that there's very little difference in the effectiveness (not ballistics) of the 9mm, .40, and .45 in the real world.

[douglasd]

Common sense tells most of us that the larger the bullet, the greater the damage to a struck object....the mass of the bullet plus speed of said projectile adds to the equation, again, common sense...


This is not necessarily true...there are other factors to be considered. The shape of the bullet, the size of the hole in the hollow point, the hardness of the bullet, the ease of expansion, the diameter after expansion, type of jacket, whether bonded or not, or all copper, etc.

However, I've learned that the caliber issue is not one that can be argued with facts or logic, since most people will not change their minds no matter what is said or what facts are presented.

[THEPOPE]

This is not necessarily true...there are other factors to be considered. The shape of the bullet, the size of the hole in the hollow point, the hardness of the bullet, the ease of expansion, the diameter after expansion, type of jacket, whether bonded or not, or all copper, etc.

However, I've learned that the caliber issue is not one that can be argued with facts or logic, since most people will not change their minds no matter what is said or what facts are presented.


Agreed, I wasn't trying to list ALL of the possible differring criteria for the caliber (s) mentioned, just that there is an incredible array of factors involved in shooting damage....all said and done, I guess it still comes down to something we have heard and argued about before....accurate placement of the projectile...

"...it's the Indian, not the arrow.....most of the time..."

:wavey:....YessIyamOut :cool:

[ljnowell]

It all looks good on paper, but the reality is that there's very little difference in the effectiveness (not ballistics) of the 9mm, .40, and .45 in the real world.
I think many people would disagree with you. Lots of people with combat experience would disagree also.

[griggrt]

Lots of people with combat experience hate the 9mm FMJ round.. Different subject for a different day.

[sigcalcatrant]

PLEASE...STOP!!! :brickwall: :brickwall: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: THIS IS GETTIN' OLD!!! There is absolutely no new information, or even a fresh viewpoint here. Whenever someone gets the urge to write something like this they should use the search function on 'caliber war.

[Bubbala]

PLEASE...STOP!!! :brickwall: :brickwall: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: THIS IS GETTIN' OLD!!! There is absolutely no new information, or even a fresh viewpoint here. Whenever someone gets the urge to write something like this they should use the search function on 'caliber war.


Look up at the top left corner of your monitor. See that little arrow pointing to the left? Click on it.

[sigcalcatrant]

Look up at the top left corner of your monitor. See that little arrow pointing to the left? Click on it.See that bulbous mass that sits atop my legs as I bend over? ...plant them lips as I express my Constitutionally protected opinion. Also, here's a computer tip: instead of clicking on the back arrow, click on the blue 'Glock Talk > The Armory> Caliber Corner '. That way you return to a refreshed up to date screen instead of just the previous screen. :thumbsup:

[Bubbala]

See that bulbous mass that sits atop my shoulders as I bend over? :thumbsup:

Fixed it for you. :kiss:

[sigcalcatrant]

Fixed it for you. :kiss:You can't fix perfection.

[von Schulenberg]

The biggest flaw I always see with the "frontal area" argument is that it assumes all the bullets in question are cylindrical in shape with a full wadcutter profile, which in reality they are most emphatically not. It's a mathematical fallacy. Take into account the tapered profile of the average fully metal jacketed, non-expanding, round nose bullet, and the frontal area comparison seems far less dramatic. When you also take into account that the permanent wound cavity of a ball projectile is actually SMALLER due to its round-nosed and tapered profile (source: Dr. Vincent DiMaio), debating silly millimeters seems rather jejune.

So yes, the .45 ACP is "bigger" than the 9mm Parabellum, but not dramatically so. Having conceded that, I'm still sticking by my G19 and Hi-Power both chambered in the "lowly" 9mm cartridge. :tongueout:

I hope this puts the final nail in the coffin of this thread.

[Shawn Dodson]

taters writes:Today, this standard is the FBI standard for bullet performance in ballistic gelatin. The FBI heavy clothing standard is not as rigorous a test for bullet expansion as the IWBA four layer heavy denim test. Many bullet manufacturers have adopted the IWBA test over the FBI test. See: http://www.firearmstactical.com/iwba.htmGiven the constraints of non-uniformity of the intended target that was given above, the only way to design defensive pistol bullets is to make the assumption that the bullet will strike only soft tissue - if it hits something more solid like bone, then most bets are off. JHP bullets are designed to expand in soft tissues. They aren't designed to expand in bone, hence there's little information of value to include bone in tests, as you observed.

The vital tissues we're trying to damage are all soft tissues. With bone all we can hope for is the bullet to burst through to reach and damage vitals.

I live in FL. I carry 9mm because I need compact handguns (Glock 19, Kahr PM9) to conceal in hot/warm weather clothing. The differences in caliber and expanded bullet diameter are too small, IMO, to be concerned about. Yup, the bigger one might nick a major vessel and crush a larger diameter hole, but other requirements may have greater priority. For example, 9mm that expands 1.8 times unexpanded diameter equals .64". .45 that expands 1.8 times equals .81". The difference? .17" or the diameter of a BB. Difference in expanded radius? ~.09"

[boonyrat]

yep,45 is bigger than a 9mm...or 40 s&w...i personally wouldnt want to be shot with a 22 or any other firearm for that matter! it blows my freekin mind that this is upon us again! in the end ..."ITS WHERE YOU HIT THEM....NOT WHAT YOU HIT THEM WITH!!!":whistling:
I GUESS WE NEED TO START PACKING THE 500 S&W MAGNUM! hey...its bigger than a 45!:rofl:im kinda new here and there is alot of good information here but ive noticed alot of ignorance also.:crying:

[boonyrat]

:deadhorse:forgot the horse!!!:tongueout:

[20mmauto]

Which is better, 45ACP or 9mm?
Nicholas Cage could not have said it better in "The Lord of War" when he said 'That's the secret to survival : never go to war.' Likewise, I suspect that my answer to your question will inadvertantly step on the toes of some visitors to brassfetcher.com.

I am not and have never been a soldier or a police officer, but I am an engineer, so perhaps I can offer my perspective of handgun performance from a slightly different angle.

Bullet designers cannot know the circumstances of a defensive shooting involving their ammunition before that shooting happens. As such, the goal is usually to identify some reasonable standard to which to design the product to meet and go from there. Today, this standard is the FBI standard for bullet performance in ballistic gelatin. For example, if you were designing a car and not a bullet, it might be reasonable to make it fuel efficient enough to meet EPA requirements for a vehicle of its size - this way you can say that it meets EPA efficiency requirements in your advertising and it will give the consumer better performance in usage.

Some people argue the validity of the FBI standard 'because it doesn't have bones and the various other tissues that can be found in the body'. Which is true and also is why a uniform testing medium like gelatin is such a fine innovation - bones and tissues in different parts of the body will have different toughnesses and no two bullet angles during any defensive shooting will be close enough for any realistic correlation with a non-uniform medium, such as ballistic gelatin with bones cast into, or set in front of, the block.

Just the same, assuming the pistol bullet penetrates the FBI minimum depth of 12", the name of the game is increasing the diameter of the hole made by the bullet. Given the constraints of non-uniformity of the intended target that was given above, the only way to design defensive pistol bullets is to make the assumption that the bullet will strike only soft tissue - if it hits something more solid like bone, then most bets are off. Furthering this assumption, the larger the expanded diameter of the bullet, the greater the odds that something vital inside the attackers body will be damaged and/or the larger hole will (in theory) speed up the rate of blood loss. Think of the difficulty of breathing through a straw versus breathing through your mouth, for instance. The larger the diameter of the hole through which an incompressible fluid passes (air, water, blood), the faster it flows, all else being equal.

Hopefully, my bias towards the larger caliber handguns is not becoming too apparent yet. If not, than this next section should make it very obvious. I would like to talk about the frontal surface areas of the common calibers (assuming an FMJ profile, although the calculations hold, assuming that hollowpoints of different calibers but equal ratios of final expanded diameter are considered).

The diameter of a .32ACP bullet is 0.311", while the 9x19mm Luger is 0.355" and the .45ACP is 0.451". Some math-challenged gun writers have suggested that the .45ACP is 'only' 1.27 times the size of the 9mm Luger bullet. They are referring to the diameters of unexpanded bullets and this is neglecting the discussion of the importance of bullet frontal area - any part of a bullet is theoretically just as capable of inflicting damage as any other part of the bullet - but the engineers cannot know beforehand which part of the bullet face will be passing close to a vital organ at the future defensive shooting that I mentioned above. This is where the bullets frontal area becomes important - the larger the area of the hole (which can have units in square inches) the greater the chance of something important getting hit. Let's look at the areas of the above few calibers and their likelihood of hitting something vital, where a small diameter bullet would have just barely missed.

The .32ACP has a frontal radius of 0.311/2 = 0.156". The area of a disc (or bullet face) is given by 3.14159 * radius *radius. In this case, the frontal area is 0.156" * 0.156" * 3.14159 = 0.077 square inches.

The 9mm Luger is 0.355" in diameter and 0.178" in radius. The area of the 9mm is 0.100 square inches - 30 percent larger in area than the .32ACP.

And the .45ACP is 0.451" in diameter and 0.226" in radius. The area of the .45 is 0.161 square inches - 61 percent larger surface area compared to 9mm and 109 percent larger than the .32ACP.

I would err on the side of the largest diameter, hardest kicking handgun that I could shoot safely and effectively as my choice for self-defense.


so with your g17 (9mm) and your 33 round mags, put two more in BG, case closed :)

[ithaca_deerslayer]

assuming the pistol bullet penetrates the FBI minimum depth of 12", the name of the game is increasing the diameter of the hole made by the bullet.

...

Hopefully, my bias towards the larger caliber handguns is not becoming too apparent yet.

It was apparent as soon as you made the above statement.

The game needs to include other factors such as ability to hit what you are aiming at. The game may also want to think about other depth standards in addition to the 12". And then there is a the famous question of how many such holes can you create in time to stop the threat (or threats).

[Glock17JHP]

The one with the biggest BPW is the best... aim for COM... forget everything else... case closed...

[Rugby]

I think many people would disagree with you. Lots of people with combat experience would disagree also.

I agree whole-heartedly with douglasd and glad he posted what he did; it saved me a bunch of typing. I have combat experience.

I would also listed to Shawn Dodson.

I'll give an "A" for effort, but the OP's post was quite rudimentary and left wide open to opinion and speculation.

I would suggest reading Deputy Dave's post, "The definitive information on handgunning" over this post.

Deputy Dave's Post (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=883883)

[Rugby]

The one with the biggest BPW is the best... aim for COM... forget everything else... case closed...

Would you like a couple more logs for the fire?

:poke:

[RyanNREMTP]

I could care less what a person carries just as long as they do carry and train with it.

[cole]

Dear OP: Science does not get you very far on GT where opinion trumps all. Good thoughts shared. Thanks.

The science behind performance is about good-better-best. The science does not define what's best for every shooter, but what performs best given identical shot placement. Skill is priceless, but skill does not trump the science once the good shot is made.

One very common error is that many folks confuse diameter with surface area. A small difference is diameter is a HUGE difference in surface area. Anyone that thinks, relative to the scale of discussion, that the difference in surface area of .355, .40 and .451 is small simply doesn't understand the concept. But, again, science won't get you far on GT because caliber talk is not objective, but highly subjective.

I've often thought along the exact same lines as the OP in quantifying differences. The value of the difference is subjective, but the measurable value of the difference is not. My effort below, see link in my signature.

The table attempts to illustrate the comparison data in percentages. It presents average/typical results for a load. Velocity, expansion and penetration will vary. However, the relationship and correlations of the data can be expected to remain relatively consistent.

The main idea was to translate numeric differences to percentages. The numeric values of load data are often so small to begin with it's far more difficult to appreciate differences when looking only at the small numeric differences that can be measurably large on the relatively small scale of the load comparison data.

Folks also confuse diameter with surface area when considering expansion. This is a fundamental error that also makes differences appear small when they are not. Percentages establish a comparable scale of difference for outcomes.

Reading the table
Example #1: The 230gr .45acp has 7.1% more momentum than the 180gr .40sw
Example #2: The 115gr 9mm has 12.5% more energy than the .45acp
Example #3: The 180gr .40sw has 18.3% more mass than the 147gr 9mm
Example #4: The initial surface area of the .45acp is 37.8% greater than 9mm
Example #5: The expanded surface area of the .40sw is 8.8% greater than 9mm.
Example #6: Penetrating 13” is 8.3% more penetration than 12”.

The "Seconds" table relates to recovery from recoil for follow-up shots.

Actual Data Example: Load Test Data (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=868400)
Test-to-Test Comparison Data, Overall Outcomes, All Shot Scenarios

Summary, Sorted by Penetration, at least 4 tests (w/out FBI and BC*)
Caliber Weight Penetration Expand, Ave.
.40sw 180 13.44 0.67
.45acp 230 13.35 0.76
9mm 147 12.78 0.64
9mm 124 12.40 0.65
9mm 127 12.28 0.62

Interpretation:
1) The 230gr .45acp has 22.3% greater expansion (surface area) with 99.3% the penetration of the 180gr .40sw
2) The 180gr .40sw has 8.8% greater expansion (surface area) with 5.2% greater penetration than the 147gr 9mm
3) The 230gr .45acp has 29.1% greater expansion (surface area) with 4.5% greater penetration than the 147gr 9mm

Math:
Momentum = Mass x Velocity
Energy = Mass x Velocity Squared (e=mc2)
Area of a Circle = Radius x Radius x 3.14 (r*r*Pi)
Radius = Diameter / 2 (d/2)

Reference the table as you like. Skill is priceless, but skill does not trump the science once the good shot is made. The data reflects comparable performance given identical shot placement.

The Energy table can be seem as a relative comparison of predicted/expected recoil as energy forward relates somewhat to energy back.

Please feel free to check the math.

Side note: One thing to remember about small differences in percentages (i.e. the concept of statistics) is that they all can seem small until you are that difference.

I’ll update the table as I have more to add.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=152603&stc=1&d=1214461078

Illustration, Initial Diameter
http://glocktalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=151199&d=1212564049

[cole]

The biggest flaw I always see with the "frontal area" argument is that it assumes all the bullets in question are cylindrical in shape with a full wadcutter profile, which in reality they are most emphatically not. It's a mathematical fallacy. Take into account the tapered profile of the average fully metal jacketed, non-expanding, round nose bullet, and the frontal area comparison seems far less dramatic. When you also take into account that the permanent wound cavity of a ball projectile is actually SMALLER due to its round-nosed and tapered profile (source: Dr. Vincent DiMaio), debating silly millimeters seems rather jejune.

So yes, the .45 ACP is "bigger" than the 9mm Parabellum, but not dramatically so. Having conceded that, I'm still sticking by my G19 and Hi-Power both chambered in the "lowly" 9mm cartridge. :tongueout:

I hope this puts the final nail in the coffin of this thread.

This is simply not correct. The discussion is often about HP ammo, but the concepts apply to ball, though less so as it often has a smooth profile. You seem to make a case based on ball ammo, but I'm not sure if that's what you carry.

With HP ammo, if all expand similarly in relative shape, which they will, a circle is an accurate representation of the final shape. Any distortions will be share as a whole with the rest regardless of caliber.

The wound cavity is elastic and the final cavity will not reflect what was torn/damaged along the way. A large object simple contacts more tissue regardless of the rebound shape the wound path takes after it passes. The more surface area the more tissue contacted. Pretty simple concept.

The .451 .45acp is in fact FAR larger than the .355 9mm. You have to think surface area. So, the .45acp has 37.8% more intial surface area than the 9mm, or stated differently, the 9mm would require 61% more surface area to equal the .45acp. The formula for area of a circle is r*r*3.14. Radius (r) is diameter divided by 2. It's not basic math, but pretty close.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=151199&d=1212564049

[cole]

PLEASE...STOP!!! :brickwall: :deadhorse: THIS IS GETTIN' OLD!!! There is absolutely no new information, or even a fresh viewpoint here. Whenever someone gets the urge to write something like this they should use the search function on 'caliber war.

Not true. Among other things, MANY folks still don't comprehend the HUGE difference between diameter and surface area. As a result, they dimiss the 37.8% greater surface area of the .45acp because they think a .096" difference in diameter (.451-.355) is no big deal. Or, put another way, the 9mm would need 61% more surface area to equal the .45acp. For the .40sw and 9mm the surface area difference is 21%. Case in point:
The biggest flaw I always see with the "frontal area" argument is that it assumes all the bullets in question are cylindrical in shape with a full wadcutter profile, which in reality they are most emphatically not. It's a mathematical fallacy. Take into account the tapered profile of the average fully metal jacketed, non-expanding, round nose bullet, and the frontal area comparison seems far less dramatic. When you also take into account that the permanent wound cavity of a ball projectile is actually SMALLER due to its round-nosed and tapered profile (source: Dr. Vincent DiMaio), debating silly millimeters seems rather jejune.

So yes, the .45 ACP is "bigger" than the 9mm Parabellum, but not dramatically so. Having conceded that, I'm still sticking by my G19 and Hi-Power both chambered in the "lowly" 9mm cartridge.

I hope this puts the final nail in the coffin of this thread.

My reply in post immediately above.

[griggrt]

+1, good posts Cole

[von Schulenberg]

Cole,

I used ball ammo as an example because the OP's model involved non-expanding bullets. I mean no disrespect, but jacketed hollow point ammo is, as they say, "neither here nor there" in the context of the OP's original arguments.

I respect your opinions and encourage debate, but I'm afraid I must disagree with you. Also, I stand by my statement that the "frontal area" argument is fallacious because it compares bullets which have a full wadcutter, cylindrical profile with a flat meplat, and this simply is not the case in real life. Virtually all non-expanding bullets have a round nosed, tapered profile. Truncated cone shapes with flat meplats do exist, but the semi-wadcutter profile has a much smaller flattened surface area than the theoretical bullets used in the model, and I sincerely doubt the differences in surface area would be all that profound.

Even with a perfectly cylindrical bullet, and assuming a perforation which is 100% of the projectile's diameter (impossible due to the elasticity of tissue and other variables), the permanent wound cavity would be no larger in diameter than the overall diameter of the projectile, and the difference between the maximum potential wound diameters of the 9mm Parabellum and the .45 ACP is ~21%.

As far as "wound volume" goes, diameter is not as important as the penetration depth of the projectile, which is influenced by sectional density and bullet integrity. In theory, a smaller diameter bullet has the potential to create a larger wound volume if it is capable of penetrating deeper than the larger diameter bullet. The differences would not be profound, but it is theoretically possible. Any higher, and the data would be moot as it would be extremely likely that this theoretical projectile exited the torso entirely.

In actuality, all this academia is rather speculatory in the light of real-world experience. This is why I put little stock in "gospel" pronouncements of the "superiority" or "inferiority" of a particular caliber. I always welcome an opposing point of view so that others may reach their own conclusions, but this is about the absolute furthest I'm willing to go on discussing this topic, and it is very unlikely I'll contribute anything else to this thread. Thank you for your time. I'm sure everyone else is screaming: "MAKE IT STOP! MAKE IT STOP!" :supergrin:

[RedsoxFan4Lyfe]

It all looks good on paper, but the reality is that there's very little difference in the effectiveness (not ballistics) of the 9mm, .40, and .45 in the real world.

I dont believe that. NO offense to YOU. What I mean to say here is that MAYBE now, these days with bullet technology being so good there is little difference. BUT for 30-40 years there were differences and many people who have been there and "seen the elephant" as Cooper put it, prefer bigger and heavier bullets.

I believe .45auto and .357 and .44 magnum to be worlds ahead of 9mm and .38spl in most uses. Now with top of the line bullets today maybe that gap has well closed, but can it ALL be stories and conjecture about the .45 just plain working on 2 legged targets? I know all handguns are underpowered save for the hot magnums, and .45 is not a death ray. If Im using a handgun I want the biggest hole I can get in my target in case I dont drop them fast, they will bleed fast.

I carry and use a 1911 in .45acp 90% of the time, the rest of the time I use a S&W 60 in .357 magnum. There are failures with all calibers, it just seems WAY less with the .357 and .45 as compared to others. The .357 was the "king" in LEO work for how many years? Most people shot with it went down like they were pole axed from all I have heard. Same with .45 a double tap to the torso usually stops the bad guy.

I am aware of the Coates incident and I know there are people who took 4 or 5 rounds of .45 and didnt stop their actions. BUT thats about the only failures I have heard with those calibers. It seems .357 and .45 are not very load dependent to work.

Again this is not slight at ALL to YOU. Please dont take it that way. Im just voicing my feelings on it all. I know modern bullets have well leveled the playing field but I was every advantage I can get should I ever need it. I hope I dont!

[unit1069]

I carry and use a 1911 in .45acp 90% of the time, the rest of the time I use a S&W 60 in .357 magnum. There are failures with all calibers, it just seems WAY less with the .357 and .45 as compared to others. The .357 was the "king" in LEO work for how many years? Most people shot with it went down like they were pole axed from all I have heard. Same with .45 a double tap to the torso usually stops the bad guy.

I think there's validity on both sides of the argument. "Back in the day" there was an obvious difference in caliber effectiveness; but over time technology has narrowed the effectiveness gap of cartridges and platforms. All things being equal the larger caliber still retains the edge, in my opinion. However, the study of ballistics and physiology (like the BPW theory) has focused on impact velocity and other factors that may contribute to a caliber's incapacitation ability, as your reference to "king" .357 Magnum proves. There is a long, long way to go before we comprehensively understand the incapacitation mechanisms at work, both with calibers/ballistics and the effects on living organisms.

[RedsoxFan4Lyfe]

I think there's validity on both sides of the argument. "Back in the day" there was an obvious difference in caliber effectiveness; but over time technology has narrowed the effectiveness gap of cartridges and platforms. All things being equal the larger caliber still retains the edge, in my opinion. However, the study of ballistics and physiology (like the BPW theory) has focused on impact velocity and other factors that may contribute to a caliber's incapacitation ability, as your reference to "king" .357 Magnum proves. There is a long, long way to go before we comprehensively understand the incapacitation mechanisms at work, both with calibers/ballistics and the effects on living organisms.

I agree. I guess the ONE thing everyone can agree on is that if someone is truly determined, like Micheal Platt for example, then they are not going to stop their actions until they HAVE to, IE: Bleed out, or get their brains popped.

[cole]

Cole,

I used ball ammo as an example because the OP's model involved non-expanding bullets. I mean no disrespect, but jacketed hollow point ammo is, as they say, "neither here nor there" in the context of the OP's original arguments.

Not exactly. This was the OP statement:
I would like to talk about the frontal surface areas of the common calibers (assuming an FMJ profile, although the calculations hold, assuming that hollowpoints of different calibers but equal ratios of final expanded diameter are considered).


What I read OP saying is, relative to comparing surface area, the concepts hold true for initial diamter (FMJ) and expanded diamter (HP) because both shapes are roughly round.


I respect your opinions and encourage debate, but I'm afraid I must disagree with you. Also, I stand by my statement that the "frontal area" argument is fallacious because it compares bullets which have a full wadcutter, cylindrical profile with a flat meplat, and this simply is not the case in real life. Virtually all non-expanding bullets have a round nosed, tapered profile. Truncated cone shapes with flat meplats do exist, but the semi-wadcutter profile has a much smaller flattened surface area than the theoretical bullets used in the model, and I sincerely doubt the differences in surface area would be all that profound.

If you are making an argument based on FMJ, which very few in the USA other than military uses, then point noted. In "real life", most people on GT use HP. Why waste time talking about FMJ then incorrectly generalize the arguement to HP? With surface area it is "frontal area" in this context and the arguement is very relevant. I've not seem a properly expanded HP that looks anything like an rounded FMJ. And, if I did, I'd certainly never use it.


Even with a perfectly cylindrical bullet, and assuming a perforation which is 100% of the projectile's diameter (impossible due to the elasticity of tissue and other variables), the permanent wound cavity would be no larger in diameter than the overall diameter of the projectile, and the difference between the maximum potential wound diameters of the 9mm Parabellum and the .45 ACP is ~21%.

That is not correct. Surface area of a circle is r*r*3.14. Where are you getting 21%? Are you errantly using diameter (.355/.451 = 78.7%)? You seem bright, so I can't imagine that be the case, but it certainly seems so. Many make that exact same error. Also, a wound cavity can rebound to a smaller diameter, but that does not reflect the tissue displaced and the damage (tearing, cutting, etc.) that tissue may receive from that displacement. The .45acp with 37.8% greater intial surface area will simply contact/displace FAR more tissue than a 9mm. Put another way, the 9mm would require 60% more surface area to equal the .45acp. Even fully expanded performing optimally, the 9mm "closes this gap" to just 29%. That's not a small difference in my book. I have no qualms with the 9mm. I use it. But, I think folks need to be aware of true differences and select accordingly.


As far as "wound volume" goes, diameter is not as important as the penetration depth of the projectile, which is influenced by sectional density and bullet integrity. In theory, a smaller diameter bullet has the potential to create a larger wound volume if it is capable of penetrating deeper than the larger diameter bullet. The differences would not be profound, but it is theoretically possible. Any higher, and the data would be moot as it would be extremely likely that this theoretical projectile exited the torso entirely.

The .45acp has greater expansion AND greater penetration. The smaller 9mm simply does NOT penetrate deeper and does NOT expand greater. Are you just making that up to be contrary? See above for data link:
1) The 230gr .45acp has 22.3% greater expansion (surface area) with 99.3% the penetration of the 180gr .40sw
2) The 180gr .40sw has 8.8% greater expansion (surface area) with 5.2% greater penetration than the 147gr 9mm
3) The 230gr .45acp has 29.1% greater expansion (surface area) with 4.5% greater penetration than the 147gr 9mm


In actuality, all this academia is rather speculatory in the light of real-world experience. This is why I put little stock in "gospel" pronouncements of the "superiority" or "inferiority" of a particular caliber. I always welcome an opposing point of view so that others may reach their own conclusions, but this is about the absolute furthest I'm willing to go on discussing this topic, and it is very unlikely I'll contribute anything else to this thread. Thank you for your time. I'm sure everyone else is screaming: "MAKE IT STOP! MAKE IT STOP!" :supergrin:

I'm not screaming "make you stop" I'm just waiting for what you are saying to be backed by data and to make sense.

[raxar]

wait, I'm confused, are you suggesting that my .32 s&w pushing a 77 grain round nose lead bullet at 450fps isn't the ideal manstopper?

[glock20c10mm]

I know modern bullets have well leveled the playing field....
How did they do that? Are 9mm projectiles the only ones that were improved? Didn't they all get better?

[Glock17JHP]

Would you like a couple more logs for the fire?

:poke:

Yes... and gasoline, if you have any... :rofl:

[Glock17JHP]

How did they do that? Are 9mm projectiles the only ones that were improved? Didn't they all get better?

Good point...
YES, they all got better... but especially 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP.
Why? Because the LE market (and the civilian market that follows their lead) has focused more on those 3 handgun calibers...

[von Schulenberg]

Edited for spelling and to Add: The "profound difference" between the measured areas of 9mm Para and .45 ACP is actually ~38.5%. NOT the "60%" some people are claiming.

To all,

I would first like to apologize for making the error of comparing the measurement of diameter to area. They are two completely seperate things.

Cole,

In the sake of fairness, I performed an area calculation using diameter/2 squared times Pi, and discovered the area of a 9mm parabellum bullet at its point of largest diameter is ~61.5% of the area of a .45 ACP bullet at its point of largest diameter, a difference of ~38.5%. The actual difference between the two is just slightly over 6 hundredths of an inch. Now, in light of these findings, why do I still find this insignifigant?

This calculation can only be reached by taking the diameter of each bullet at its widest point, which is the heel. Not the nose of the bullet. The term "frontal area" in this context is inaccurate and fallacious because in order for it to be true, the diameter of the bullet would need to be the same at the nose as it is at the heel, and that implies a cylindrical, full wadcutter shaped projectile. Most bullets in these calibers have a rounded or slightly blunt ogive and they taper from heel to nose. They are not perfectly flat and cylindrical like a full wadcutter. If anything, please admit that this calculation is for the area at the base of the bullet. Not its "frontal area."

Why do I keep using FMJ ammo in my examples? The OP's calculations were for the unexpanded diameter of various projectiles. In order to accurately represent this, I had to use a non-expanding bullet. When expanding ammunition is taken into account, it introduces a whole new set of variables and opens an entirely new subject.

"There is a 38.5% difference between the areas of the 9mm Parabellum and .45 ACP measured at their points of largest diameter" may sound impressive on paper, but 6 hundredths of an inch difference is hardly as dramatic and profound as it has been made to look in these posts. To put this into perspective, that's less than the "frontal area" of a .32 ACP projectile.

Finally, the calculation can hardly be considered signifigant because it assumes the bullet (non-expanding or failed to expand) will always crush a sectional area which is 100% of the area measured at its widest point, the base. No bullet, regardless of whether it is of the expanding or non-expanding variety, will do this due to the elastic nature of tissue.

Moving on to expanding ammunition, I fail to see how any meaningful conclusions can be drawn from the aggregated data of 5-shot averages fired into homogenous test media under controlled conditions. The reasons for this are myriad:

The testing conditions are not consistently duplicated in a controlled enviornment "on the street." Blocks of ballistic gelatin do not move, take cover, or shoot back. (And before it even gets brought up, no. I am not a Marshall/Sanow disciple.)

The human torso is not a homogenous mass of ballistic gelatin. It contains bone, cartilage, muscle, and blood vessels.

Actual practise has shown that even the most well-designed bullet can fail its intended purpose.

The only purpose of gelatin testing is to ensure a high probability that the terminal performance of a particular projectile will be as the designer intended under most circumstances. It is not an absolute guarantee of success. There are too many variables in the real world to allow for that.

The "human factor" (i.e. adrenaline, drugs, will to live, etc.) could render even the most "scientific" of conclusions moot, and this has been proven time and time again with credible stories of people who continued to fight despite fatal wounds.

As I've said before, my studies on "stopping power," terminal effectiveness, and the actual physics of wounding by a projectile has left me with more questions than answers. As Mssrs. Sykes and Fairbairn once said, my findings have been so inconclusive that "anything approaching dogmatism would be most unwise." After seeing how math and statistics can be misused to "prove" someone's conceits, I view any "gospel" pronouncements with a jaundiced eye.

So yes, I concede that the .45 ACP is 6 hundredths of an inch larger than the 9mm Parabellum measured at their widest points. What does it actually prove? That the .45 is, well, bigger. What do aggregated test results from ATK prove? That Federal HST ammunition will likely perform in a consistent manner under controlled conditions in homogenous test media.

When all is said and done, I don't see myself rushing to get rid of my Glock 19 or stop using Winchester RA9T ammunition. It may not penetrate as deeply as a .45 JHP or expand as much as one, but I've read more positive experiences with this particular round than negative ones, and I believe that's in keeping with "find a caliber/loading that works."

This has been an interesting discussion to say the least, but I remain unconvinced that the "mighty .45" is "vastly" superior to Georg Luger's creation of over 100 years ago.

[glock20c10mm]

Good point...
Why? Because the LE market (and the civilian market that follows their lead) has focused more on those 3 handgun calibers...
I agree. The main point I'm making is that it's almost always only mentioned from the 9mm's perspective. Why? Because more often than not others are using that "line" to justify using the 9mm as a SD round as opposed to other cartridges sporting a larger caliber bullet. You don't see 45 guys romping around here saying; :woohoo:, the 45 is now on a level playing field thanks to all these new great bullet designs! No, it's simply a way to justify using the 9mm to those making the statements.

Was the 9mm actually worthless before these new almost magical bullet designs came along that all of a sudden made the 9mm a great BG incapacitator? The simple answer would be; NO. Look at all our military guys who go overseas and come back saying there's no reason to use anything different than 9mm FMJ!!! The way most people bring it up, that with the newest bullet designs, all of the sudden the 9mm is on par with with 40S&W and 45auto? Wouldn't it be the same difference it's always been? I would think so.

For the record, this post is not meant to bash the 9mm and it isn't. It's meant to bring to light that all rounds improved with our current production crop of designer bullets, not just the 9mm.

So the 40 & 45 were always great BG incapacitators with the old bullet designs, but the 9mm sucked? NO. They all had some to be desired compared to what's offered currently, except for those of the camp that FMJ is just as good as any JHP. They ALL got better.

[Boris Bush]

Edited for spelling and to Add: The "profound difference" between the measured areas of 9mm Para and .45 ACP is actually ~38.5%. NOT the "60%" some people are claiming.

To all,

I would first like to apologize for making the error of comparing the measurement of diameter to area. They are two completely seperate things.

Cole,

In the sake of fairness, I performed an area calculation using diameter/2 squared times Pi, and discovered the area of a 9mm parabellum bullet at its point of largest diameter is ~61.5% of the area of a .45 ACP bullet at its point of largest diameter, a difference of ~38.5%. The actual difference between the two is just slightly over 6 hundredths of an inch. Now, in light of these findings, why do I still find this insignifigant?

This calculation can only be reached by taking the diameter of each bullet at its widest point, which is the heel. Not the nose of the bullet. The term "frontal area" in this context is inaccurate and fallacious because in order for it to be true, the diameter of the bullet would need to be the same at the nose as it is at the heel, and that implies a cylindrical, full wadcutter shaped projectile. Most bullets in these calibers have a rounded or slightly blunt ogive and they taper from heel to nose. They are not perfectly flat and cylindrical like a full wadcutter. If anything, please admit that this calculation is for the area at the base of the bullet. Not its "frontal area."

Why do I keep using FMJ ammo in my examples? The OP's calculations were for the unexpanded diameter of various projectiles. In order to accurately represent this, I had to use a non-expanding bullet. When expanding ammunition is taken into account, it introduces a whole new set of variables and opens an entirely new subject.

"There is a 38.5% difference between the areas of the 9mm Parabellum and .45 ACP measured at their points of largest diameter" may sound impressive on paper, but 6 hundredths of an inch difference is hardly as dramatic and profound as it has been made to look in these posts. To put this into perspective, that's less than the "frontal area" of a .32 ACP projectile.

Finally, the calculation can hardly be considered signifigant because it assumes the bullet (non-expanding or failed to expand) will always crush a sectional area which is 100% of the area measured at its widest point, the base. No bullet, regardless of whether it is of the expanding or non-expanding variety, will do this due to the elastic nature of tissue.

Moving on to expanding ammunition, I fail to see how any meaningful conclusions can be drawn from the aggregated data of 5-shot averages fired into homogenous test media under controlled conditions. The reasons for this are myriad:

The testing conditions are not consistently duplicated in a controlled enviornment "on the street." Blocks of ballistic gelatin do not move, take cover, or shoot back. (And before it even gets brought up, no. I am not a Marshall/Sanow disciple.)

The human torso is not a homogenous mass of ballistic gelatin. It contains bone, cartilage, muscle, and blood vessels.

Actual practise has shown that even the most well-designed bullet can fail its intended purpose.

The only purpose of gelatin testing is to ensure a high probability that the terminal performance of a particular projectile will be as the designer intended under most circumstances. It is not an absolute guarantee of success. There are too many variables in the real world to allow for that.

The "human factor" (i.e. adrenaline, drugs, will to live, etc.) could render even the most "scientific" of conclusions moot, and this has been proven time and time again with credible stories of people who continued to fight despite fatal wounds.

As I've said before, my studies on "stopping power," terminal effectiveness, and the actual physics of wounding by a projectile has left me with more questions than answers. As Mssrs. Sykes and Fairbairn once said, my findings have been so inconclusive that "anything approaching dogmatism would be most unwise." After seeing how math and statistics can be misused to "prove" someone's conceits, I view any "gospel" pronouncements with a jaundiced eye.

So yes, I concede that the .45 ACP is 6 hundredths of an inch larger than the 9mm Parabellum measured at their widest points. What does it actually prove? That the .45 is, well, bigger. What do aggregated test results from ATK prove? That Federal HST ammunition will likely perform in a consistent manner under controlled conditions in homogenous test media.

When all is said and done, I don't see myself rushing to get rid of my Glock 19 or stop using Winchester RA9T ammunition. It may not penetrate as deeply as a .45 JHP or expand as much as one, but I've read more positive experiences with this particular round than negative ones, and I believe that's in keeping with "find a caliber/loading that works."

This has been an interesting discussion to say the least, but I remain unconvinced that the "mighty .45" is "vastly" superior to Georg Luger's creation of over 100 years ago.


Wow, that IS intelligent. About the most true thing you can say about the calibers when it comes to pistols is that they all perform the same. Being lucky enough to have had the chance to kill stacks of animals on a couple family farms with the big three and just about any kind of bullet you can think of, they all performed almost the same (by almost I mean the 40 S&W performed the worst). You can shoot all the gello you want but no two bullets from the same box will ever penetrate the same distance when fired into an animal. Thats not a speculation, a mathimatical equation or something I read in a link on the interweb.

If you want to know the secret to killing with a pistol I can give you a pretty good pointer. Hit bone. When bone is hit the pistol round no matter what the caliber is or how out dated the HP or Newfangled the HP is, or even if you use ball ammo, if a bone is hit, the resulting wound is much worse than a wound where no bone is hit.

[Glock17JHP]

I agree. The main point I'm making is that it's almost always only mentioned from the 9mm's perspective. Why? Because more often than not others are using that "line" to justify using the 9mm as a SD round as opposed to other cartridges sporting a larger caliber bullet. You don't see 45 guys romping around here saying; :woohoo:, the 45 is now on a level playing field thanks to all these new great bullet designs! No, it's simply a way to justify using the 9mm to those making the statements.

Was the 9mm actually worthless before these new almost magical bullet designs came along that all of a sudden made the 9mm a great BG incapacitator? The simple answer would be; NO. Look at all our military guys who go overseas and come back saying there's no reason to use anything different than 9mm FMJ!!! The way most people bring it up, that with the newest bullet designs, all of the sudden the 9mm is on par with with 40S&W and 45auto? Wouldn't it be the same difference it's always been? I would think so.

For the record, this post is not meant to bash the 9mm and it isn't. It's meant to bring to light that all rounds improved with our current production crop of designer bullets, not just the 9mm.

So the 40 & 45 were always great BG incapacitators with the old bullet designs, but the 9mm sucked? NO. They all had some to be desired compared to what's offered currently, except for those of the camp that FMJ is just as good as any JHP. They ALL got better.

I agree, Craig!!! :dunno:

[cole]

I agree. The main point I'm making is that it's almost always only mentioned from the 9mm's perspective. Why? Because more often than not others are using that "line" to justify using the 9mm as a SD round as opposed to other cartridges sporting a larger caliber bullet. You don't see 45 guys romping around here saying; :woohoo:, the 45 is now on a level playing field thanks to all these new great bullet designs! No, it's simply a way to justify using the 9mm to those making the statements.

Was the 9mm actually worthless before these new almost magical bullet designs came along that all of a sudden made the 9mm a great BG incapacitator? The simple answer would be; NO. Look at all our military guys who go overseas and come back saying there's no reason to use anything different than 9mm FMJ!!! The way most people bring it up, that with the newest bullet designs, all of the sudden the 9mm is on par with with 40S&W and 45auto? Wouldn't it be the same difference it's always been? I would think so.

For the record, this post is not meant to bash the 9mm and it isn't. It's meant to bring to light that all rounds improved with our current production crop of designer bullets, not just the 9mm.

So the 40 & 45 were always great BG incapacitators with the old bullet designs, but the 9mm sucked? NO. They all had some to be desired compared to what's offered currently, except for those of the camp that FMJ is just as good as any JHP. They ALL got better.


+1. The 9mm is a great load, but it is what it is, which is not much different than it's ever been as compared the others. Each improvement for one is an improvement for all. It's a sliding scale where all advance/improve together comparably. I don't see that 9mm has "closed any gap", they all got better. And, by better I mean improved (i.e. wider AND more reliable) expansion at a slower velocity window. The physics of momentum have not changed and never will: Load Data Summary Report (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=868400).

[Boris Bush]

cole

That link you just gave should be a sticky. Good baseline info there...

[Glock17JHP]

+1. The 9mm is a great load, but it is what it is, which is not much different than it's ever been as compared the others. Each improvement for one is an improvement for all. It's a sliding scale where all advance/improve together comparably. I don't see that 9mm has "closed any gap", they all got better. And, by better I mean improved (i.e. wider AND more reliable) expansion at a slower velocity window. The physics of momentum have not changed and never will: Load Data Summary Report (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=868400).

cole,

The FBI data in your link is over 10 years old...
The ATK and Winchester data 'is what it is'...

Also, even though you state in the quote above that "The 9mm is a great load, but it is what it is, which is not much different than it's ever been as compared the others." ...you need to re-read what you posted in the link (cut and pasted here for your ease of viewing), specifically #'s 3, 4 and 5 (in red)...

9mm has benefited more from modern bullet technology than the 40 and 45...
In fact, the 40 has advanced more than the 45, due to more of a LE focus...

Your statements don't match, cole... :dunno:

Conclusions based on aggregate test data:
1) The 180gr .40sw exhibits the deepest overall penetration given typical expansion
2) The 230gr .45acp exhibits the largest overall ending diameter
3) The 9mm exhibits the greatest difference in starting/final diameter
4) There is little difference in the starting/final diameter ratio of .45acp and .40sw.
5) There is a difference in the starting/final diameter ratio of 9mm when compared to both the .40sw and .45acp
6) When the 9mm expands to .40sw diameter (>.67") it penetrates 1"-2" less
7) When the .40sw underexpands to 9mm diameter (<.64") it penetrates approximately 1.5"-2+" more than the optimal 9mm
8) When the .45acp underexpands to the .40sw diameter (<.67") it penetrates approximately 1.5"-2+" more than the optimal .40sw
9) If the 9mm exands to the average diameter of the .40sw is does NOT penetrate >12".
10) Even the best 9mm result does NOT expand to the average .45acp diameter.
11) The optimal/best 9mm outcome (with penetration AND expansion) is at best comparable to the average .40sw outcome
12) The 230gr .45acp delivers optimal expansion AND penetration, exhibiting the most consistent overall penetration that is >12" WITH optimal expansion

[fortyofforty]

taters writes: The FBI heavy clothing standard is not as rigorous a test for bullet expansion as the IWBA four layer heavy denim test. Many bullet manufacturers have adopted the IWBA test over the FBI test. See: http://www.firearmstactical.com/iwba.htm

I am not convinced that shooting through four layers of denim is a more "valid" or "realistic" test of bullet performance. I looked around my wardrobe, and although I do not have any clothing from the 1970s, I cannot find any items with four layers of denim. Granted it's a different test, and it might even be argued that it is more "rigorous," in some ways, but I am not sure it matters all that much.

Also, measuring the final, resting diameter of the recovered projectile does not tell the whole story of how the projectile behaved up to reaching its final location. A bullet that expands quickly and still penetrates deeply will disrupt more tissue than a bullet that expands more but only in the final portion of its travel to the same depth, for example. Just my two cents.

[MOHAA Player]

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h27/Mohaaplayer/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

[cole]

cole,

The FBI data in your link is over 10 years old...
The ATK and Winchester data 'is what it is'...

Also, even though you state in the quote above that "The 9mm is a great load, but it is what it is, which is not much different than it's ever been as compared the others." ...you need to re-read what you posted in the link (cut and pasted here for your ease of viewing), specifically #'s 3, 4 and 5 (in red)...

9mm has benefited more from modern bullet technology than the 40 and 45...
In fact, the 40 has advanced more than the 45, due to more of a LE focus...

Your statements don't match, cole... :dunno:

Conclusions based on aggregate test data:
1) The 180gr .40sw exhibits the deepest overall penetration given typical expansion
2) The 230gr .45acp exhibits the largest overall ending diameter
3) The 9mm exhibits the greatest difference in starting/final diameter
4) There is little difference in the starting/final diameter ratio of .45acp and .40sw.
5) There is a difference in the starting/final diameter ratio of 9mm when compared to both the .40sw and .45acp
6) When the 9mm expands to .40sw diameter (>.67") it penetrates 1"-2" less
7) When the .40sw underexpands to 9mm diameter (<.64") it penetrates approximately 1.5"-2+" more than the optimal 9mm
8) When the .45acp underexpands to the .40sw diameter (<.67") it penetrates approximately 1.5"-2+" more than the optimal .40sw
9) If the 9mm exands to the average diameter of the .40sw is does NOT penetrate >12".
10) Even the best 9mm result does NOT expand to the average .45acp diameter.
11) The optimal/best 9mm outcome (with penetration AND expansion) is at best comparable to the average .40sw outcome
12) The 230gr .45acp delivers optimal expansion AND penetration, exhibiting the most consistent overall penetration that is >12" WITH optimal expansion


I did read my post... because... well... I wrote it. The key part is the end: ".... compared to the others". There are 9mm loads that with FBI data once hovered about .50-.6, that now go to .6-.65 reliably. The .40sw loads at .6-.65 that now go to .65-.7+ reliably. And, .45acp loads once at .65-.75 that can expand reliably to .75+. The expansion scale has simply shifted up for all. Again, the last part is key, "... compared to the others".

One difference I read in the FBI data and today, in addition to the scale simply sliding up for all comparably, is that there are MORE 9mm winners (in terms of reliable expansion) today than in FBI data. With FBI data many 9mm were clear losers... poor performers in expansion. With FBI data there were a number of 9mm loads exceeding .6" expansion, just not reliably (i.e. very inconsistent), and not too many overall.

Funny thing is those poor expanding 9mm FBI-tested loads had better penetration than today's better expanding 9mm loads. Phyics don't change: Increase surface area (i.e. greater expansion), but keep weight and velocity the same, and you'll get less penetration. With 9mm, I find pick wide expansion or deep penetration, you can't have both and that's a pretty simple concept.

But, today, most loads regardless of caliber expand reliably, but when they optimally perform regardless of now or then the differences are comparable past and present. Take the absolute top performers and the relationships are pretty similar. Improvements in bullet design favor mostly RELIABLE expansion.

And, as always, the 9mm must pretty much over-perform (difference between initial and final diameter, as well as penetration) to even compete with the .40sw and .45acp. Further, the 9mm tends to exhibit the most inconsistent performance in reaching minimal penetration with optimal expansion.

I've said it before: The best 9mm compares to the average .40sw and the slightly below average .45acp. When 9mm performs optimally, great. Cool beans. It simply tends to not perform optimally compared with .40sw and .45acp. In my link above, here are some results using ONLY HST and Winchester Data
9mm = 9 failed to reach 12" penetration (consistent across weights)
9mm = 8 reached >12" penetration (consistent across weights)
9mm = 53% failure rate to penetrate >12" (consistent across weights)

.40sw = 2 failed to reach 12" penetration
.40sw = 11 reached >12" penetration
.40sw = 15% failure rate to penetrate >12"

.45acp = 1 failed to reach 12" penetration
.45acp = 13 reached >12" penetration
.45acp = 7% failure rate to penetrate >12"

Clear differences is performance consistently. Some hope for the best, others expect average. I favor averages and consistency.

The 9mm argument is not one to be made based off effectiveness compared to the others. Clearly, the 9mm is good enough, but not better. On the small scale of handgun performace numbers, there is a difference in the data. And, they're not "the same". The playing field is not "level". It does not mean the 9mm sucks, because it does not and it's an effective round. In fact, I still think the 9mm is the better choice for many shooters, especially new shooters or those that train less, because it tends to be the easiest to shoot/control in non-+p and non-+p+ loads. It's that when you compare it to something more effective that's different. The 9mm arguement is recoil, capacity, cheap ammo meaning more practice and faster follow-up shots. Shot for shot, given identical shot placement with the optimal performer in each both the .40sw and .45acp expand more and penetrate more (i.e. more tissue contact) on average based off data:
2) The 180gr .40sw has 8.8% greater expansion (surface area) with 5.2% greater penetration than the 147gr 9mm
3) The 230gr .45acp has 29.1% greater expansion (surface area) with 4.5% greater penetration than the 147gr 9mm
I don't think it's unreasonble to say the 9mm, at best, is maybe 85%-90% of the .40sw and 70%-75% of the .45acp. Have fun attacking that number.

Choice all depends on where you hang your hat. It's all blah, blah, blah on GT as we're all keyboard quarterbacking here to varyng degrees. But, it often beats watching TV (which I don't do). So, I think I'll check out of this post feeling I've blabbered on too much already. In the end, you do the best with what you have and it will always be that way. Take care all.

[adhocglock]

Why does most of the discussion revolve around frontal area of the bullet? It seems to me that the diameter of the wound channel is dictated by the diameter of the bullet.

Is there a technical reason to use area or is area used because it exaggerates the difference in diameter?

Regards,

[Boris Bush]

cole

It's that when you compare it to something more effective that's different.

Gello is not a good way to know what penetrates and what does not. It is good to test construction and consistancy of a round but that is about it.

I never make long winded posts and keep it fairly simple. I have used 9mm 40 and 45 (as well as others but the big three are my focus right now) to kill critters on a couple family farms. From mice to deer 200+ pounds 9mm, 40 and 45 all killed exactly the same, for the most part. Rounds that lacked penetration were the worst killers in any caliber. Most of my killing has been done with the 9mm. When I figured out it was cheaper, held more in the gun and 2 extra mags, and was half the price to shoot, 9mm was a no brainer if it killed just as well.

Of the 9mm rounds I used I used the old Winchester 147 subsonic load and still use the WWB 147 JHP (same thing) the most. When I did not get an exit wound I got mostly full penetration with the round just under the skin(on the other side). When I could measure penetration it was 10-17". Every round I shot into animals (that was alot) expanded. Final expanded diameter of any caliber was inane to the kill. Shot placement and penetration is what killed from what I experienced. If I wanted to amplify the bullets destruction I shot for bone, bone is always a force multiplier when it comes to pistol rounds and assured a quick clean kill for me. FWIW I killed the largest deer I ever killed with 9mm NATO ball. My brother took a picture of the exit wound this ball load made. This is not the only deer I killed with ball (speculators give it up right now. In MI where these animals were killed doing so was legal with the calibers and projectile types I used) in any caliber.

This is not an exit wound you would expect from ball ammo, but if I shot shoulders or the spine the resulting wound after the bone was just like if a JHP had hit the bone and created a much larger wound.

The only loads I carry in my 9mm are loads I have killed deer with, that is why I never carry HSTs, never killed with them and I like to keep it that way until I use them on less than lethal live targets to see what they do in flesh. Just my preference. This comparison is more effective as I see it and it makes it different to me.

Click the link only if you want to see a bloody exit wound made by Winchester M882 ball that hit bone......

http://media4.dropshots.com/photos/104896/20010222/b_151606.jpg

[glock20c10mm]

http://media4.dropshots.com/photos/104896/20010222/b_151606.jpg
Was that to finish it off after a body shot was already made, or with the handgun rounds do you always take neck shots? If the only shot made on that deer was the neck shot, how far did it go after being shot, and how long did it take for the deer to drop to the ground?

[glock20c10mm]

I am not convinced that shooting through four layers of denim is a more "valid" or "realistic" test of bullet performance. I looked around my wardrobe, and although I do not have any clothing from the 1970s, I cannot find any items with four layers of denim. Granted it's a different test, and it might even be argued that it is more "rigorous," in some ways, but I am not sure it matters all that much.

Also, measuring the final, resting diameter of the recovered projectile does not tell the whole story of how the projectile behaved up to reaching its final location. A bullet that expands quickly and still penetrates deeply will disrupt more tissue than a bullet that expands more but only in the final portion of its travel to the same depth, for example. Just my two cents.
:agree:100%

[Boris Bush]

Was that to finish it off after a body shot was already made, or with the handgun rounds do you always take neck shots? If the only shot made on that deer was the neck shot, how far did it go after being shot, and how long did it take for the deer to drop to the ground?

Only shot, It went about two feet straight down, give or take a few inches, It fell instanly.

DRT.

[glock20c10mm]

Only shot, It went about two feet straight down, give or take a few inches, It fell instanly.

DRT.
:thumbsup:Yea, with the neck shot only, I figured it would have. Getting off on another tangent - All these strict Facklerites have been preaching to me for, well for almost forever, how standard combat handgun round bullets don't do any damage outside the direct bullet path, ESPECIALLY with FMJ!:shakehead: LIARS!:moonie: They've never fooled me though, wish I had pics to prove it. Jerks!:fist:

[Glock17JHP]

One difference I read in the FBI data and today, in addition to the scale simply sliding up for all comparably, is that there are MORE 9mm winners (in terms of reliable expansion) today than in FBI data. With FBI data many 9mm were clear losers... poor performers in expansion. With FBI data there were a number of 9mm loads exceeding .6" expansion, just not reliably (i.e. very inconsistent), and not too many overall.

Funny thing is those poor expanding 9mm FBI-tested loads had better penetration than today's better expanding 9mm loads. Phyics don't change: Increase surface area (i.e. greater expansion), but keep weight and velocity the same, and you'll get less penetration. With 9mm, I find pick wide expansion or deep penetration, you can't have both and that's a pretty simple concept.

But, today, most loads regardless of caliber expand reliably, but when they optimally perform regardless of now or then the differences are comparable past and present. Take the absolute top performers and the relationships are pretty similar. Improvements in bullet design favor mostly RELIABLE expansion.

And, as always, the 9mm must pretty much over-perform (difference between initial and final diameter, as well as penetration) to even compete with the .40sw and .45acp. Further, the 9mm tends to exhibit the most inconsistent performance in reaching minimal penetration with optimal expansion.

I've said it before: The best 9mm compares to the average .40sw and the slightly below average .45acp. When 9mm performs optimally, great. Cool beans. It simply tends to not perform optimally compared with .40sw and .45acp. In my link above, here are some results using ONLY HST and Winchester Data
9mm = 9 failed to reach 12" penetration (consistent across weights)
9mm = 8 reached >12" penetration (consistent across weights)
9mm = 53% failure rate to penetrate >12" (consistent across weights)

.40sw = 2 failed to reach 12" penetration
.40sw = 11 reached >12" penetration
.40sw = 15% failure rate to penetrate >12"

.45acp = 1 failed to reach 12" penetration
.45acp = 13 reached >12" penetration
.45acp = 7% failure rate to penetrate >12"

Clear differences is performance consistently. Some hope for the best, others expect average. I favor averages and consistency.

The 9mm argument is not one to be made based off effectiveness compared to the others. Clearly, the 9mm is good enough, but not better. On the small scale of handgun performace numbers, there is a difference in the data. And, they're not "the same". The playing field is not "level". It does not mean the 9mm sucks, because it does not and it's an effective round. In fact, I still think the 9mm is the better choice for many shooters, especially new shooters or those that train less, because it tends to be the easiest to shoot/control in non-+p and non-+p+ loads. It's that when you compare it to something more effective that's different. The 9mm arguement is recoil, capacity, cheap ammo meaning more practice and faster follow-up shots. Shot for shot, given identical shot placement with the optimal performer in each both the .40sw and .45acp expand more and penetrate more (i.e. more tissue contact) on average based off data:
2) The 180gr .40sw has 8.8% greater expansion (surface area) with 5.2% greater penetration than the 147gr 9mm
3) The 230gr .45acp has 29.1% greater expansion (surface area) with 4.5% greater penetration than the 147gr 9mm
I don't think it's unreasonble to say the 9mm, at best, is maybe 85%-90% of the .40sw and 70%-75% of the .45acp. Have fun attacking that number.

Choice all depends on where you hang your hat. It's all blah, blah, blah on GT as we're all keyboard quarterbacking here to varyng degrees. But, it often beats watching TV (which I don't do). So, I think I'll check out of this post feeling I've blabbered on too much already. In the end, you do the best with what you have and it will always be that way. Take care all.

This reply is to your 1st paragraph above... you basically are in agreement with me, I think. The FBI data is 10+ years old, and shows many 9mm loads to be losers (you claim)... the newer stuff shows more 9mm loads as winners. That is through bullet technology. I agree.

2nd paragraph: I do not agree you don't get good penetration and expansion with 9mm... some loads, yes... other loads... no... Winchester Ranger 9mm 147 grain JHP (RA9T) does both well. Conversely, Winchester Ranger .45 ACP 230 grain JHP (RA45T) expands well, but penetrates LESS than RA9T... and some of the Federal HST loads do not penetrate as well as I would like, but expansion is wonderful!!! You simply cannot make blanket statements on the calibers and have it always true.

3rd paragraph: Again, a blanket statement. Some modern JHP's do not expand well, or consistently. That is where testing comes into play. I advise folks to test for themselves, don't always rely on other's data.

I disagree with your 4th paragraph... another blanket statement. Some loads are good, consistent performers, others are not... in all 3 calibers.

That's all this time around...

Your thoughts are OK in general, but not specifically.

[glock20c10mm]

This reply is to your 1st paragraph above... you basically are in agreement with me, I think. The FBI data is 10+ years old, and shows many 9mm loads to be losers (you claim)... the newer stuff shows more 9mm loads as winners. That is through bullet technology. I agree.

2nd paragraph: I do not agree you don't get good penetration and expansion with 9mm... some loads, yes... other loads... no... Winchester Ranger 9mm 147 grain JHP (RA9T) does both well. Conversely, Winchester Ranger .45 ACP 230 grain JHP (RA45T) expands well, but penetrates LESS than RA9T... and some of the Federal HST loads do not penetrate as well as I would like, but expansion is wonderful!!! You simply cannot make blanket statements on the calibers and have it always true.

3rd paragraph: Again, a blanket statement. Some modern JHP's do not expand well, or consistently. That is where testing comes into play. I advise folks to test for themselves, don't always rely on other's data.

I disagree with your 4th paragraph... another blanket statement. Some loads are good, consistent performers, others are not... in all 3 calibers.

That's all this time around...

Your thoughts are OK in general, but not specifically.
:agree:100%
Hey Cole, Ron is right on the money! You can't make blanket statements where the data would equally compare XTPs with HSTs. It makes no sense. Everybody has varying opinions on what they "expect" their choosen SD round(s) to do. The guy who chooses max penetration as his ideal criminal stopper could go with XTPs and be quite well off. The guy who favors max expansion with "good" penetration can go with the HSTs.

Then there are guys who want a happy middle ground which leaves a whole lot of other bullet designs out in the open. Some guys even want their bullets to fragment a bit as long as their personal penetration requirements are still met. Please Cole, explain the intelligence of choosing a SD round by grouping them all together. Let me help you out, there isn't any. We have a selection of way too many completely differently constructed bullets, not to mention how you can fanagle things by various bullet weights.

Does anyone think I'm off base here besides Cole? If someone does, I'ld love to hear your reasoning, because I can't see any way taking an average of all we have before us would help us any more intelligently decide on an SD round.:shakehead:

[von Schulenberg]

Cole,

I would like to make it known that while I may have sounded a bit curt in my responses, I have no disrespect for you. I know you're not trying make arguments against the 9mm Parabellum, but in my opinion, all your "data" is going to accomplish is give the "Big Bore" crowd a reason to beat their chests and proclaim that anyone who chooses a "lesser" caliber is "underarmed." Aside from that, no hard feelings. :cheers:


glock20c10mm,

I give Cole credit for taking the time to compile all those statistics and making Excel charts with the data, and his conclusions are valid in the limited scope of the ballistic testing that was performed. If anything, it does show how various manufacturers engineer their ammunition to fill a desired role.

While his efforts are admirable, we cannot glean any sort of empirical conclusion from them. We cannot know for certain whether a .45 or a .40 caliber projectile will penetrate "x" amount of inches or expand to a given diameter. What if the bullet struck its target at an oblique angle through a laminated windshield? What if the target had a high BMI? Even if a "perfect shot" resulted and the bullet performed exactly as it did in a controlled enviornment, would it make any difference if the aggressor had drugs or adrenaline in his system? Gelatin testing cannot account for these factors. At the very best, it can attempt to approximate how a particular bullet will behave when it strikes a "soft" target. This is why I don't place much faith or finality in compiled statistics presented as "science."

There are anecdotes of the "superior" (according to the "data") .45 ACP and .40 S&W failing to perform the task despite inflicting unsurvivable wounds. There are stories of "lowly" 9mm Para ball working just fine against aggressors. Real life experience seems to defy any attempts at crystallizing the theory of "bullet effectiveness" through lab testing and statistics. Can anyone explain why? Or is this simply because we cannot use math to oversimplify things and make absolute statements when there are just too many variables involved?

[taters]

"because no matter how you try and rationalize it 9mm is still for women and pansies" quote by mad ogre of madogre.com great site check it out taters

[glock20c10mm]

Even if a "perfect shot" resulted and the bullet performed exactly as it did in a controlled enviornment, would it make any difference if the aggressor had drugs or adrenaline in his system?
First, in general, to most of your statements, I agree, even in terms of giving credit to Cole for compiling the data, but not to what Cole believes we should be gleening from the data.

As to the section of your post I quoted you on above, it might. With a high enough peak ballistic pressure wave it has been hypothesized by Dr. Courtney, along with quite a vast amount of true scientific testing/literature, that the alcohol/drug/adrelalin ridden BG may still succumb to the effects(possibly mild to moderate tramatic brain injury along with other possibilities) even while under the influence of any of the three.

BUT, there's a relatively low chance of it happening with the common LE/SD rounds in: 9mm Luger, 40S&W, and 45auto. Those three rounds, in their more common LE/SD loads will generally only produce a PBPW ranging from 350psi - 700psi. Even 357SIG "only" gets the PBPW in the range of 600psi - 800psi for the more common LE/SD loads(with a Double Tap 357SIG 115gr Gold Dot load you can be up around 950psi).

The closest that Dr. Courtney has been able to narrow down so far is that with the following levels of PBPW we may be able to expect the following chances of it incapcitating a BG in less than 5 seconds(in other words, before blood loss is capable of showing incapacitating effects) -
500psi = 15%
700psi = 50%
1000psi=75%
1300psi=90%
The accuracy of the above predictions is basically expected to be ~10%, as noted by Dr. Courtney.

With 10mm auto, we can get PBPW ranging from 650psi - 1300+psi.

[Boris Bush]

"because no matter how you try and rationalize it 9mm is still for women and pansies" quote by mad ogre of madogre.com great site check it out taters


Carefull there taters, pansies is a no no word here. Just to help you out a little, you were talking about the flower. Right? :supergrin:

That sight is the darn funniest thing I ever seen!!!!!! I have seen thousands of 5.56 fired from M4s in COMBAT in sandy areas of the world and have yet to see one fail. I have seen more AKs double feed than any of our M4s. That guy is full of poo.........

[griggrt]

Duty weapon is not the place to skimp, especially with regards to caliber size. A 9mm might expand, but a .45 never shrinks

This is a quote from another thread that I read recently...
Thought I would share it.

[Rugby]

Cole,

I'm going to pile-on with some of the comments recently posted. I appreciate the work involved, and as a student of ballistics, I enjoyed reading your posts and applaud your efforts. I have refrained from commenting previously because I feel that I'm just stating the obvious, but since we seemed to have reached a point in this thread...

Your conclusions are nothing more than big-bore propaganda. Sure, the .45 is going to (on average) create a larger wound profile and penetrate deeper - possibly killing the target faster. This larger wound tract in no way guarantees this, nor does it guarantee rapid incapacitation - a much more important aspect of a SD shooting than killing. You have also failed to address (among other things) psychology, bullet profile and construction, and theories.

Anyone who focuses on just one aspect of terminal ballistics is doomed to failure. It's just not that easy.

[Glock17JHP]

"because no matter how you try and rationalize it 9mm is still for women and pansies" quote by mad ogre of madogre.com great site check it out taters

I've shot .44 Magnum, .45 ACP and .357 Magnum... shot quite well with all 3...
Shot all 3 of them 'rapid-fire'... good hits on targets while moving, did 'point-shooting', too... hit potential around 75-80% while under stressed conditions!!! I am not 'recoil shy'...

However... :whistling:
I shoot 'better' with the 9mm... almost 100% hit potential in the 'vital zone' when 'point shooting', etc... under stress... and higher magazine capacity to boot... and no... I don't 'spray an pray' with my 9mm!!!

I'm not a woman or a pansie... I just like my shots to count!!!
If you don't think the same way, that's fine... we are in a relatively free country last time I checked... :dunno:

[von Schulenberg]

Indeed, the 9mm Parabellum is used by such "pansies" as the SAS, GSG-9, GEK Cobra, and Sayeret Matkal. If they were real "manly men" like U.S. Spec Ops, they'd be using the .45 ACP. :rofl:

"...but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other" :moonie:

Sorry, it's all in good fun. :supergrin:

[Glock17JHP]

Indeed, the 9mm Parabellum is used by such "pansies" as the SAS, GSG-9, GEK Cobra, and Sayeret Matkal. If they were real "manly men" like U.S. Spec Ops, they'd be using the .45 ACP. :rofl:

"...but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other" :moonie:

Sorry, it's all in good fun. :supergrin:

Good, because when I saw the :moonie: I got a little nervous!!! :crying:

[J.P.]

The one with the biggest BPW is the best... aim for COM... forget everything else... case closed...

I think it would be better to select the one with the biggest BPW out of a particular group of rounds that all meet your desired criteria for penetration,reliability, etc.

[von Schulenberg]

Good, because when I saw the :moonie: I got a little nervous!!! :crying:

No worries. I just think that when someone insults or ridicules our choice of caliber, we should turn the other cheek. :supergrin:

I'm feeling unusually glib tonight...

[MOHAA Player]

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h27/Mohaaplayer/9mm-357sig-40sw-10mm-45acp-45gap.jpg