"With all the advances in modern hollow point technology"

[armedindy]

Does hp tech stop at 9mm? if "modern hollow point technology" has made 9mm sooo formidable, wouldnt it (applied to .45) be just that much more formidable? people always use that line to defend or promote 9mm, and i get that it makes a 9 more feasable, but does it not also work for .45?

flame on ingo

 

[cedartop]

Is this in response to the FBI announcing they are looking at going back to 9mm ?

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...c0f178480b6ce1c3922566274ea&tab=core&_cview=0

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[Disposable Heart]

The .45 JHP high tech stuff is available. There is HST and Gold Dot available for .45 ACP. But, it's no more effective than the same bullet technology in 9mm. The differences between the two are minutia at best, angels dancing on the heads of pins. In fact, the increased recoil, higher cost, and lower capacity of .45 autoloaders compared to same bullets in 9mm, the juice isn't worth the squeeze to shooters.

Compare the same minutia to FMJRN versions of .45 and 9mm, I would even go as far to argue that 9mm ball is as effective as .45 ACP ball.

 

[Doug]

After years of reading about effectiveness of handgun bullets, I have come to the conclusion that the "One Shot Stop" statistics, while not perfect, are the most sensible, understandable, criteria we have. Studying these reports leads me to the following:

1. One Shot Stops in the high 80% to low 90% happen when about 400 foot pounds of energy are deposited in the target. Within reason, caliber doesn't matter.
2. Double taps, two quick shots in under one second, are no more effective than one single shot; data showed no more than one percentage point increase in stops with double taps.
3. If the bullet exits the target, you are wasting energy and suffering recoil for no good purpose.
4. Every shooting is different. Regardless of the data, someday, somebody, is going to take a head shot with a 12 gauge slug and keep coming.

 

[Disposable Heart]

After years of reading about effectiveness of handgun bullets, I have come to the conclusion that the "One Shot Stop" statistics, while not perfect, are the most sensible, understandable, criteria we have. Studying these reports leads me to the following:

1. One Shot Stops in the high 80% to low 90% happen when about 400 foot pounds of energy are deposited in the target. Within reason, caliber doesn't matter.
2. Double taps, two quick shots in under one second, are no more effective than one single shot; data showed no more than one percentage point increase in stops with double taps.
3. If the bullet exits the target, you are wasting energy and suffering recoil for no good purpose.
4. Every shooting is different. Regardless of the data, someday, somebody, is going to take a head shot with a 12 gauge slug and keep coming.

One shot stop statistics have been repeatedly disproved and have been replaced with the grim reality that nothing can stop someone with one round. The metrics given by the "one shot stop" methodology are questionable and can instill a false sense of a round's capabilities. What should be a focus on training (actually hitting a target's engine room or bridge) is replaced with hilljackery, such as Taurus Judges, .45 +P ammo with horrible split times, and a culture/mindset of reliance upon a super round, rather than training.

"Double taps" and training for them aren't going to do anything other than teach a shooter to jerk the trigger, providing one potentially good hit, and one marginal. The "Bill Drill" is better: Shooting as rapidly as one can while maintaining a modicum of accuracy. Look at successful shoots. They aren't solved with two rounds, evaulate, then two more (or worse, trying for the infamous Mozambique). They are won with repeated rounds to effective areas.

In regards to the "percentage" of chance of winning a fight: 90% of it is training and mindset. Everything else adds percentage of success, however, they are marginal when compared to REAL training.

 

[Stubz]

Does hp tech stop at 9mm? if "modern hollow point technology" has made 9mm sooo formidable, wouldnt it (applied to .45) be just that much more formidable? people always use that line to defend or promote 9mm, and i get that it makes a 9 more feasable, but does it not also work for .45?

flame on ingo

I'm glad I'm not the only one that this point occurred to. Every time previously it was brought up, the thread was derailed without any real answer to it.

A personal theory I've came up with (unsubstantiated by any numbers or links right now but I'm sure they can be looked up if you're that interested in those) is that all the "advances" in 9mm bullet tech rely upon that old hinge of hollow points - velocity. Small, light bullets zipping along at high velocities impact differently than big, heavy, lumbering projectiles. So what tweaks the high side isn't functioning on the low side. Probably isn't the market (read LE) to develop the .45 side of projectiles like there is the 9mm.

 

[cedartop]

One shot stop statistics have been repeatedly disproved and have been replaced with the grim reality that nothing can stop someone with one round. The metrics given by the "one shot stop" methodology are questionable and can instill a false sense of a round's capabilities. What should be a focus on training (actually hitting a target's engine room or bridge) is replaced with hilljackery, such as Taurus Judges, .45 +P ammo with horrible split times, and a culture/mindset of reliance upon a super round, rather than training.

".
In regards to the "percentage" of chance of winning a fight: 90% of it is training and mindset. Everything else adds percentage of success, however, they are marginal when compared to REAL training.

Excellent post.

 

[Robjps]

When you realize defensive/duty is being loaded to same specs regardless of caliber you will understand. The difference is a 30cal 40cal or 45cal hole in their body. If you don't hit something important you aren't physically stopping them. Mentally stopping them is also caliber irrelevant.

 

[Doug]

Perhaps I wasn't clear.
I do not ascribe to the theory that there is a "super bullet" that will stop attackers with one shot (see point #4).
I meant that I thought the "One Shot Stop" data provided information on the relative effectiveness of various rounds.
I agree mindset and training are more important than weapon used, within reason, but I didn't think that was the subject of this discussion.

 

[ViperJock]

I believe the improvement is seen more with a nine since it was a smaller faster round which was more likely to go through a target without spreading or depositing energy compared to an equivalent .45. The improved technology has been an increased relative improvement in 9mm ballistics compared to the .45 which did also get nastier.

Bottom line though: accuracy counts. I recently read that 80% of Hand gun GSWs are survivable. I didn't check the data but I don't have a reason to disbelieve it.

the biggest difference is probably a chest shot that an older 9 might not have done serious damage, a new 9 would do a lot more. A .45 would have done damage either way. Make sense?

 

[Bigtanker]

Perhaps I wasn't clear.
I do not ascribe to the theory that there is a "super bullet" that will stop attackers with one shot (see point #4).
I meant that I thought the "One Shot Stop" data provided information on the relative effectiveness of various rounds.
I agree mindset and training are more important than weapon used, within reason, but I didn't think that was the subject of this discussion.

I understand what you are saying. The answers is yes. 45 did get better.

One of the main problems 9mm had in the 80's was failure to expand reliability. The 147 gr hp that was used in the 80's hardly ever expanded when going through more than a t shirt. When the did expand, they did the job.

Due to the large hp cavity of the 45, failure to expand was not as prevalent.

Now that we have better designed bullets and powder, the failure to expand rate has gone down dramatically. Especially when shot through barriers.

45 is still better but 9mm will do the job.

This is entirely and educated guess. It is also comparing projectile to projectile from different decades. Not tactics (which I agree is the key to winning a fight)

 

[BogWalker]

Sometimes I wonder how much it really matters. If you hit them in the meaty bits a larger wound channel will cause faster bleed out, but that's still going to take some time. In a SD situation five minutes might as well be five hours. Plenty of time for them to fight back. If you hit them in the vitals I don't think caliber (within reason) is going to make much difference. A punctured aorta is a punctured aorta, a severed spinal cord is a severed spinal cord, and I don't think a few millimeters larger wound channel in the brain will make much difference.

I'd say just about any well respected cartridge with good self defense ammunition should kill just as well. I wouldn't feel outgunned with 9mm, .38, .45, .40, or anything else in that range.

Personally I carry a .45 because it's what I have.

 

[Disposable Heart]

I believe the improvement is seen more with a nine since it was a smaller faster round which was more likely to go through a target without spreading or depositing energy compared to an equivalent .45. The improved technology has been an increased relative improvement in 9mm ballistics compared to the .45 which did also get nastier.

Bottom line though: accuracy counts. I recently read that 80% of Hand gun GSWs are survivable. I didn't check the data but I don't have a reason to disbelieve it.

the biggest difference is probably a chest shot that an older 9 might not have done serious damage, a new 9 would do a lot more. A .45 would have done damage either way. Make sense?

On the first point, "energy dump" is almost irrelevant in handguns due to their low velocity not creating the temporary wound channel necessary to perform "hydrostatic shock". .357 125 grainers going 1400 BARELY perform this task. A handgun's wounding mechanism is expansion, and by expansion, it's cutting tissue, rather than violently expanding the surrounding tissue, as one would find with rifle or shotgun slug wounds.

Second point: Right on! Handguns are poor stoppers, rifles and shotguns are mediocre. To consider them any more so will severely endanger your life in a fight against a determined attacker. Shoot early, often and repeatedly in a fight.

.45 would do damage, but in many cases (particularly with the older, readily expanding rounds) is their poor performance against barriers, combined with the issues of UNDERpenetration. Expansion isn't the end all of a round. Granted, we, as civilian shooters, aren't faced with ALOT of car related barriers like police, however, there are situations where it comes into play (car jackings, robberies, etc...). The plus is we have .45 ammo that will perform well against barriers (bonded ammo, HST, etc...), however, their recoil, low capacity, etc... is a detriment to shooters. Bear in mind, it's not just the size of the hole, it's the AMOUNT of holes.

 

[Hoosier8]

A smaller frontal plate bullet will penetrate better than a larger one.

 

[Hoosier8]

A smaller frontal plate bullet will penetrate better than a larger one. A 22 will often penetrate deeper into bulletproof lexan than a 9mm. A 9mm better than a .45.

 

[sparky32]

I would much rather be shot with a 9mm than a 45acp !!!

All kidding aside, It comes down to what I shoot better
being 45acp and bullet placement. I know there is some
ballistics that may state otherwise but I care not.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I would like to enter a vote for all of the above.

1. If you don't hit something important, desired results are not going to be achieved, I don't give a damn what you hit them with. On the other hand, if you take this position in isolation, why not just take the standard found in Brazilian gun control laws and limit ourselves to .32ACP in autopistols and .38 Special in revolvers if caliber is truly irrelevant?

2. With any given hit, it is simple physics that the more energy is applied to something important being hit, the better your chances of achieving desired results. Caveat, once again, being that if we think our super-round of preference is a magic death ray and fail to hit something important, we are in for a very rude surprise when, to our shock, the attack continues.

3. Multiple hits to important parts of the attacker's body will yield better results toward immediate cessation of hostilities than a single hit.

4. Any solid hit to something truly vital will generate satisfactory results. An attacker's heart or brain won't respond differently to a .354 hole or a .451 hole where no hole whatsoever is the minimum acceptable standard. The caveat here is that the round must penetrate sufficiently and yield sufficient damage. I would not recommend a .25 ACP for the job!

5. Improved bullet technology has proven to be a significant equalizer between calibers with less than perfect hits. The corollary to this which is often overlooked is that the 9mm had an unfair disadvantage in decades past before +P be came commonplace because per original German specs, +P was approximately EQUAL with original German spec. This is why it takes a load like 9mm NATO, which by civilian standards is a +P load although not labelled as such to make a Luger run properly (which the Luger also required a 124gr bullet to generate enough recoil impulse to function reliably).

6. You only have to kill an attacker so dead. Diminishing returns will set in. Earlier today, I was considering the 9/.45 argument and most of the arguments which have been raised here. Funny thing, we never have a parallel .357mag/.44mag argument, although it really does parallel the 9/.45 argument. Sometimes I think the driving force is that we just like to argue. Really, is there that much practical difference between a Ford and a Chevrolet? Both will get the job done while making their respective owners happy enough to buy another one a few years down the line. I see the same thing in guns, both in terms of manufacturer and caliber.

My conclusion is that having a gun in a caliber sufficient to hit and damage vital organs fired from a platform which is comfortable for the user (including not overpowering said user) who has invested enough time in training, formal or informal, to reliably hit his or her target is the correct answer rather than having the gun-owner parallel of the Ford/Chevy argument. An adequate tool in capable hands will generate satisfactory results. Otherwise, we would be split with people training the **** out of themselves with .22lr pistols or the EDC market being dominated by S&W X-frames and Ruger Super Redhawks.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm not a fan of 9mm for a duty sized gun. For short barrels, maybe, but for a 4"-5" barrel, the relatively low gain in velocity isn't enough to offset the reduction in mass. With short barrels and light weight guns, the scales tip more for the 9mm as its strengths (low recoil, capacity) start to shine whereas the difference in velocities starts to narrow.

If everything is perfect, there's little difference. CNS hit, no difference. No or low angle shot into soft tissue, no difference. No or low angle shot into flat bone, little difference. When you start getting into high angle shots on round bone, though, you start to see a difference. Heavier bullets do better because heavier objects are harder to deflect. Higher velocity bullets do better because, again, harder to deflect. The 9mm occupies something of a middle zone (which can be said of any cartridge depending on what you pick to compare, of course, but for the purposes of "normal" carry calibers in this instance.) In the same bullet weights, the .357 drives the bullet faster, making a big difference. The .45 has double the mass, again making a difference. High angle shots on the skull, for example, are more effective with either the .357 or the .45. They are more likely to catch and penetrate, and they impart more bell-ringing to the brain if they don't.

Penetration in the human body is odd, because we are made up of different substances with different densities. A soft tissue strike vs a flat bone strike vs a round bone strike are not the same. Remember that most of your vitals are protected by round bone. Why? Because that's the most effective way to keep things from penetrating your gibbly bits, and that includes from bullets. .45 can deflect on ribs as well, I've seen it. .45 can deflect on the skull, as well, but is still generally effective in the stop because it still imparts a lot of energy into the brain (Mike Tyson's fist doesn't penetrate your skull, but it'll probably be effective in changing your tune when he smashes his fist into your forehead). I can't think of an instance of .357 to the head not working. I can think of several 9mm to the head not stopping the fight. 9mm also has the tendency to fragment and powder on flat bone. It'll wreck that bone, but doesn't have much left for any organs or blood vessels behind it.

This is not to say the 9mm is useless or ineffective. That's far from the point I'm making. Even the "lowly" .380 performs well with "perfect" shots, it'll break a femur at close ranges (not as dramatically as a 9mm, but broken none the less) and has plenty of oomph to get through unobstructed soft tissue. For a self-defense gun where your likely scenario is one assailant directly facing you at close range, chances are you won't see much of a difference. Once you get into longer distances, intermediate barriers (like car doors and safety glass), target bodies at odd angles and in motion, then the 9mm starts to lose some of its luster. For MOST USES, there's little difference. However, if you knew you had a 5% advantage in a gun fight, would you turn it down? 4%? 3%? Of course not. You can write it off as angles on pinheads all you want, but for me I'll take any advantage I can in a life and death struggle, and that includes training, practice, and equipment.

I will also say that in a gun fight, (not a shooting) few people get more than 3 hits regardless of how many rounds they fire. After that, everyone is moving or seeking cover, the furball is more "furry", or one side is down/out. Followup shot speed is important, but not as important as the first hit. Ammo capacity is often highly overvalued. The odds of your 17th shot being the one that matters are much, much smaller than the odds of your first shot being the one that matters. There's nothing wrong with having more capacity, but if you choose capacity over accuracy and speed of the first shot, or effectiveness of caliber, you're preparing for the least likely at the expense of the most likely. Sort of like wearing a radiation detector instead of a life jacket while on a boat. Ideally, you could have it all, but in the real world there's always some trade offs.

I wish I had some real world data about some of the less common calibers. .357 sig, .45 super, .38 super, etc. but neither cops nor criminals tend to use them.

 

[ModernGunner]

Excellent responses from all. To the OP:

Yes, there have been improvements to the .45 ACP, as well. The 'difference' is that the improvements aren't directly 'scalable'. Perhaps this is where the 'confusion' comes in.

Without getting into the 'which is better' debate, the .45 ACP has always been known as a good defensive round for a handgun. But controlability was an issue (generally speaking). The 9mm was more controlable, but not as effective (again, generally speaking).

Modern improvements helped both cartridges (and others), but was a 'bigger help' to the 9mm. The .45 improved, but a smaller amount as it was 'already good'. As noted previously, you can only kill someone 'so dead'. They can only bleed out '100%', and so forth. For this reason, the .45 ACP improved 'a step', the 9mm improved 'exponentially'.

Essentially, those improvements came about as we learned more about bodily effects of gun shot wounds. There is nothing you can carry or shoulder, not even the .50 BMG, that will 'guarantee' a one shot stop, save something that physically blows the body apart (RPG, LAAW, etc.).

The 'advantage' became 'huge' for the 9mm because the improvement was 'exponential' while retaining the controlability advantage its always had over the .45 ACP.

There are other factors, like capacity, that play less of a role. There ARE high-capacity .45 autos (14 - 15 + 1 for the FNP-45, for example). But their limitation is physical size and weight. A high-capacity 9mm can be had in a much smaller package, which is a benefit for those with smaller hands, wanting / needing greater concealability, or wanting / needing a more controlable package.

In summation, the .45 ACP 'always had' the benefit of dumping '100%' of its energy within the target. With modern improvements, the 9mm now has that benefit as well. This (for point of this explanation) means the 'advantage' of the .45 ACP was 'negated', while the 9mm retained the 'advantages' of greater controlability, and a higher capacity in a smaller package.

Hope this helps a bit.