Geister wrote:I've never seen any benefit of using a 9mm when one can go for a .45. More ammo with the 9mm? Sure, but the .45 is more powerful anyway.
I believe the only strong argument for the 9mm is the fact that 9mm pistols can be built smaller.
9mm= less expensive to practice
9mm= much more concealable
9mm= more ammo capacity per size
9mm= less felt recoil (especially important for smaller people or people with medical issues where recoil can be dramatic.)
It entirely depends on the user and requirements.
That said, .45 for me. But I would not feel undergunned with a modern 9mm over a .45.
*CHL Instructor*
"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan
Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
Geister wrote:I've never seen any benefit of using a 9mm when one can go for a .45. More ammo with the 9mm? Sure, but the .45 is more powerful anyway.
I believe the only strong argument for the 9mm is the fact that 9mm pistols can be built smaller.
TXI listed some pretty decent advantages, but the Ammo cost + the larger Mag sizes have the result of being cheaper and more fun to shoot. If its fun to shoot we tend to shoot more. My next gun will likely be a .4x or 10mm, but it will be very tough for one of those guns to ever earn my trust and confidence over my 9mm, simply because I can't afford to shoot them as much.
I have in a few short months developed confidence that not only will I hit what I point my 9mm at, but that my gun will actually go bang and reload the next chamber. I have this confidence only because I've been able to push a couple thousand rounds through that 4 inch tube. I have been able to do this, because it is fun and affordable even with the skyrocketing price in ammo.
I reload so I can shoot .45 at the cost of shooting 9mm. I can see how others would appreciate the lower cost of 9mm box ammo, though.
The higher capacity of the 9mm doesn't do much for me since it's a weaker round than the .45.
That said, I can see how people with a smaller statue can appreciate the 9mm. I'm also sure that one can buy a 9mm pistol for cheaper. But I personally would rather have a .45.
But if I ever need a cheaper gun that's smaller to carry, I'd go for a 9mm.
Geister wrote:The higher capacity of the 9mm doesn't do much for me since it's a weaker round than the .45.
I think your kinda missing the point. The higher capacity is an advantage because you have more chances to get a hit with 17rds of 9mm as opposed to 10rds of .45. In a bad situation(where your gun is needed), having more rounds than your possibly armed opponent is always a good thing. Since your chances of a hit greatly decrease under stress, its nice to have those few extra rounds just in case. The difference in the power of the loads is obvious. Nobody is disputing that. Its just that with higher mag capacities, your odds of a hit increase.
All that said, a well placed shot with either will still do the trick.
"People should not be afraid of their Governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people." - V
Geister wrote:
I think your kinda missing the point. The higher capacity is an advantage because you have more chances to get a hit with 17rds of 9mm as opposed to 10rds of .45. In a bad situation(where your gun is needed), having more rounds than your possibly armed opponent is always a good thing.
I don't agree with the spray and pray mentality. If someone can't hit a threat with one or two shots, he doesn't need to be carrying a gun, much less a high capacity gun.
Its just that with higher mag capacities, your odds of a hit increase.
Your odds will increase with practice, not by having a larger magazine.
I do not believe anyone is talking about a "spray and pray" stategy. They are just relating that they feel it is better to have more rather than less in terms of capacity during a confrontation.
The statistics I've heard for police involved shooting would tend to show that the likelyhood of a miss if pretty high. I found some data from NYPD and have an exerpt below. http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf
1994-2000
Hit ratio by distance (yards)
0-2 38%
3-7 17%
8-15 9%
16-25 4%
Unk. 2%
I certainly agree that practice will improve your hit ratio on the paper target. But stress and circumstances can and will seriously detract from your shooting performance from what the stats show.
I say carry what you want, it is your choice. What is right for one may not be right for another. People have varied reasons for their selection. There is not ONE answer. I'm still learning and gathering info, but for now my choice is 13+1 of .40. So I guess that put me in the middle.
Personally, I don't worry about the difference, I carry ( and pratice with) both 9mm and 45acp! IMHO, as long as you can hit your target, a bleeding hole is a bleeding hole, doesn't really mater if its 1/16th ( 0.0625) of an inch (which is the difference between the two) bigger or smaller. It's what you will carry and shoot well with that really matters.
An expanded +p 9mm hollow point bullet will approximate .45 ACP ball and have about the same penetration. Expansion is an if. Recently bullet technology makes expansion less iffy. It's a trade off, with a little loss of ballistic impact for a smaller weapon, but close. The military is confined to ball nine mm, so it's experience doesn't compute in a civilian analysis. The average shooter going to put more nine mm hollow points into a target in the same amount of time and then some because of the extra magzine capacity. At least some of those are going to expand. Trust me. The perp will think he's been shot by a .45 ACP even though you know different. NYPD undercover cops killed Sean Bell with two or three 9mm hollow point rounds to the head. One detective got off about 31 rounds by firing two magazines. A passenger in Bell's car was hit eleven times and survived. If it had been .45 hollow points, would the passenger have died on account of the increase in caliber? That's a real fine line. It's more about where the bullet goes than what it does. That's my take on this issue as just another message board expert, of which there are no end of. Happy New Year.
TxFire wrote:I do not believe anyone is talking about a "spray and pray" stategy. They are just relating that they feel it is better to have more rather than less in terms of capacity during a confrontation.
I'm sorry if it seems like I'm putting heads here on purpose. That's really not my intention. I understand your mentality on having more rounds for a confrontation perfectly, especially in an urban setting. But I just don't feel comfortable with the effectiveness of the 9mm to justify the extra number of rounds versus a .45.
I really like the .40 but I haven't found a platform for it yet that I like. I picked the .45 because I really like the design of the 1911.
XDgal wrote:Personally, I don't worry about the difference, I carry ( and pratice with) both 9mm and 45acp! IMHO, as long as you can hit your target, a bleeding hole is a bleeding hole, doesn't really mater if its 1/16th ( 0.0625) of an inch (which is the difference between the two) bigger or smaller. It's what you will carry and shoot well with that really matters.
Yeah, but if I shoot an attacker, I want him to stop in his tracks, not just bleed.
I would put forward that if anyone is depending on either a 9mm or 45 ACP to bring down a bad guy in one or two rounds, that’s risky. I don’t believe either one is that reliable, regardless of what’s in the chamber…
Unless you take out the central nervous system, you still have a potentially dangerous adversary on your hands. Even once the heart is taken out, he/she can still operate long enough to put several rounds in you, or finish the charge with their knife.
Now let me state, I like 45’s. Over time, I’ve carried a 45 more then any other caliber and I tend to be biased towards it. But I’m not so confident in it that I would categorically state it’s “better�.
In my mind, by its very nature, a pistol represents a trade off. As I stated in an earlier post, I rather have a rifle and relegate the pistol to backup. Some people draw the line at 38, some pick 9mil, others go 40, and a lot of folks opt for 45. But there are harder hitting pistol rounds then all of those, so why stop at 45? It just comes down to where the individual draws the line between size, recoil, and perceived situations.
I often carry a Kimber Ultra. What about a situation where I’m coming in from the field, and see a BG attacking my wife with a knife. Let’s assume I’m ~100 yards away. The 3 inch barrel would be a bad choice in this case due to the short sight radius. A five inch full sized 1911 would be much better.
Let’s say again I come back but this time my wife is about to be attacked by 3 bad guys, and I’m standing within 10 ft of her. I would feel more confident with a high capacity 9 mil then I would with 8 out of my Kimber. I don’t relish the thought of having to take time to reload, and I’m not confident that 8 rounds of 45 would reliably stop 3 guys, but 16 rounds in my G19 sounds better to me.
The 9mm does have a tendency to over-penetrate with ball, while the 45 is not as susceptible to that flaw. Slow and heavy has it's advantages...
The work done by Marshall and Sanow cast doubt on the superiority of the 45, and many have jumped on the bandwagon since and toted the laurels of the 9mm. But it should be stated both have been in service since around the start of the 1900’s and have excellent field records in both the military and police realms. To me they’ve both earned the right to reside in our holsters.
I bet the first heated debate on 9mm vs. 45 cal started 10 seconds after John Browning announced the cartridge in 1905, and certainly after the introduction of the 1911 and it’s adoption by the US military, and has been going on ever since. I really doubt we’re going to resolve the issue here on this forum. It’s kind of like arguing over which truck is better, Chevy, Ford, or Dodge. In the proper hands, both cartridges can get he job done...or fail. As Clint always says, you can do everything right, and still be dead, and that includes carrying the "right" caliber (whatever that is in the individuals mind).
XDgal wrote:Personally, I don't worry about the difference, I carry ( and pratice with) both 9mm and 45acp! IMHO, as long as you can hit your target, a bleeding hole is a bleeding hole, doesn't really mater if its 1/16th ( 0.0625) of an inch (which is the difference between the two) bigger or smaller. It's what you will carry and shoot well with that really matters.
Yeah, but if I shoot an attacker, I want him to stop in his tracks, not just bleed.
As I have written, we had a police officer shot center mass with six.45 rounds. He was able to move to cover, draw and put his attacker down with is .38 revolver.
A .45 is not a magic man stopper.
*CHL Instructor*
"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan
Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
