9mm or 45ACP-- here are some opinions

[TSiWRX]

^ Get a .40 S&W or .357 SIG with available conversion barrel....

Why?

9x19 flew off the shelves just about as fast as .45 ACP did during the last craze. It's probably going to do that again, on the next.

[gaptrick]

^ Get a .40 S&W or .357 SIG with available conversion barrel....

Why?

9x19 flew off the shelves just about as fast as .45 ACP did during the last craze. It's probably going to do that again, on the next.

Probably terrific advice...

[Brian D.]

To follow up on my grumpy, cynical post from Monday: This week Hornady or Federal announced their release of a new, 150 grain 9mm cartridge, with all the typical claims of better performance. No doubt they will ship it slowly at first, and mainly to law enforcement agencies. So it will be hard to find on the general market, and expensive.

I'm not holding my breath in anticipation. As a practical matter this load will doubtless shoot noticeably higher than the 115, 124, and 135 grain offerings. And if my experience as a reloader who occasionally experimented with heavy-weight-for-caliber bullets through the years, rifling twist in some or many 9mm firearms may be too slow for proper stabilization. You could go from shooting groups to throwing patterns, so to speak.

The original 147 grain 9mm and 180 grain .40 S&W loads were famous, or perhaps I should say, notorious for that.

[Mr. Glock]

I can say the 180 40s shoot quite well from 5 or 6 different Glock 23s, FWIW.

I don't carry a 40, but if I did, it would be 180 Speer Gold Dots....just like shooting an easy rolling 45 (vs generally manic lighter 40s) in a smaller gun with "many bullets".

[EChryst]

I can say the 180 40s shoot quite well from 5 or 6 different Glock 23s, FWIW.

I can also say that the 147 gr Federal HST shoot quite well from 2 Glock 19s and a 17.

[curmudgeon3]

I've carried both but, usually gravitate towards the big hole at the muzzle and the "push" recoil of the 230 gr. .45acp slug.
Mostly sentimate I guess.

[NEOH212]

I have believed strongly in bigger is better. I've been shooting and stocking up on .45ACP for years. Only last month have I made the choice to switch to 9mm for casual shooting and self defense.

My personal reasons:

• More ammo per magazine means more chances to connect and more time to suppress a target while moving if it's a really really bad situation.
• Easier follow up shots.
• Target ammo is about 40% less in price compared to .45ACP. This allows for more ammo in the stock pile and more practice at the range.
• It's a little easier to get new shooters to try out than a "big, scary .45."

I still will be keeping my full size 1911 and maybe get a second or third because I really do love the modern 1911 platform.

I'll start by saying I won't detract from your reasoning. What works for you is fine and is certainly a viable choice, especially with the advancements in bullet technology.



However I want to look at this from a different angle:

There may be more ammo in the magazine with the 9 but the 45 makes bigger holes. Bigger holes bleed out faster and blood loss (second to disabling the brain) is what stops the attacker. More capacity can work to ones advantage or it can work to make a sloppy shooter. It seems to me if know you only have a few rounds in the magazine you learn early on to make the most of what you have. If you get the right gun (and learn to shoot it properly) the 45 really doesn't have that much more recoil than a hot 9 and hopefully those that are carrying a 9 are carrying a viable defense load and practicing with the same full power ammo when they hit the range.

Practice makes perfect. Follow up shots are as easy with a 45 as with a 9 if one actually trains with what they are carrying. Practicing with what you carry is important and is very easy to do with a 45. The defensive ammo in 45 is usually the same velocity as the ball ammo. The same is mostly true with the 40. Not so much with most other common defensive cartridges. How many of you 9 guys are buying extra boxes of +P to take to the range? If you do your not saving that extra 40% on ammo now are you? The more likely scenario is you buy what's cheep, which is usually the lightest powder puff ammo you can find, and say, "WOW! I can shoot so much better with this over the 45, 40, ect." DUH! Do you carry that ammo in your gun? If so good luck with that! If your carrying some good +P (and you should be) do you train with that same ammo? (Have you shoot enough of it through your gun to make sure your gun is reliable with it?) Probably not in most cases since few people actually do. (And a few rounds or one magazine full isn't testing it.) What makes more sense? Save money or practice with what you carry?



I say train as you'll fight because if and when you do need your firearm you will always sink to the level of your training.





Are these some thoughts to ponder? I think so and so do many professionals that do this sort of thing for a living.

[NEOH212]

I still find if amusing that the 9mm crowd is still comparing the 9 to the 45. If your so convinced the 9 is so great why debate it at all anymore? In the arena of non exotic/non magnum cartridges the 45 ACP still does what it does very well and is still the one to beat. (Sorry Charlie, the 9 hasn't beat it yet.) Why? Because the same technology that made the modern 9mm into the 45 of 20 years ago made the modern 45 into something that's still ballistically superior to the 9mm in every way when we compare the best loads against the best loads. 45 ACP +P opened a whole new can or worms that even 9mm +P can't touch.



Another thing I find amusing is where the 9mm people will take the hottest 9mm ammo and compare it to the weakest load in 45 and call them equals.

[bluemon]

I knew going into this that the 9mm would be "underpowered" compared to the 45. However, I made my choice based on two things. Gun selection and ammo priced and I'm happy I did. Managed to get a gun that I enjoy and lots of ammo to practice with it. If I had started with the 45 I wouldn't have been able to get nearly as much practice time with live ammo.

Most of my practice is with dry fire snapcaps. I even dry fry at the range. My groupings are many times better than they use to be. Sure over time I could have brought just as many 45 boxes of ammo as I have 9's and at some point I'd get to where I am now with it. To me, the size of the hole takes a backseat to the amount of training time. If the cost of the ammo means fewer amount of time spent training that in my mind would not equate to better defense.

One of the arguments I hate hearing is about is aiming. As if using a 9 allows anyone to be sloppy. Such thoughts are insane. If anything for me, using a smaller caliber than say a 45 forces me to focus even more on shot placement.

Lastly, I don't understand these debates. The 9mm vs the 45. But if what I'm reading here is true. If the 45 of old was enough to stop and the new 9mm is almost as good if not as good as the 45 of old then wouldn't the 9mm in this case be good enough? I mean, even if the newer 45 is better. Is good enough still not considered good enough? No need to answer that. I really don't care if the 9 is considered equal to the 45. I wonder why we do not have more threads comparing the 9mm to the 38 or the 40. Or even the 10mm to the 45. It seems to me that he 9mm popularity is what is sparking all of these debates.

[TSiWRX]

There may be more ammo in the magazine with the 9 but the 45 makes bigger holes. Bigger holes bleed out faster and blood loss (second to disabling the brain) is what stops the attacker. More capacity can work to ones advantage or it can work to make a sloppy shooter. It seems to me if know you only have a few rounds in the magazine you learn early on to make the most of what you have.

I don't think anyone starts out a gunfight by trying to shoot more poorly:

http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol ... -2008.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And a bigger hole is great - I'll take a bigger hole in the threat, any day all the way to Sunday.....

....but in the real world, there are compromises.

If you get the right gun (and learn to shoot it properly) the 45 really doesn't have that much more recoil than a hot 9 and hopefully those that are carrying a 9 are carrying a viable defense load and practicing with the same full power ammo when they hit the range.

Practice makes perfect. Follow up shots are as easy with a 45 as with a 9 if one actually trains with what they are carrying.

What's your split times - holding to an objective, scored, shooting standard - between .45 ACP and the 9x19, when the handgun platform is held as a constant (i.e. same make/model, different chambering). Alternatively, holding time as a constant, what does your scores show?

What I've highlighted are your subjective opinions.

Any objective data?

"Almost the same" is definitely not 'the same," in a quantified sense.

If you get the right gun (and learn to shoot it properly) the 45 really doesn't have that much more recoil than a hot 9 and hopefully those that are carrying a 9 are carrying a viable defense load and practicing with the same full power ammo when they hit the range.

How many of you 9 guys are buying extra boxes of +P to take to the range? If you do your not saving that extra 40% on ammo now are you? The more likely scenario is you buy what's cheep, which is usually the lightest powder puff ammo you can find, and say, "WOW! I can shoot so much better with this over the 45, 40, ect." DUH! Do you carry that ammo in your gun? If so good luck with that! If your carrying some good +P (and you should be) do you train with that same ammo? (Have you shoot enough of it through your gun to make sure your gun is reliable with it?) Probably not in most cases since few people actually do. (And a few rounds or one magazine full isn't testing it.) What makes more sense? Save money or practice with what you carry?

I say train as you'll fight because if and when you do need your firearm you will always sink to the level of your training.

The last handgun I vetted for defensive use was a new-to-me Gen3 G32. In less than an hour, I sent 150 or so rounds of 125 gr. Speer GDHPs downrange in my effort to prove both it and the magazines I had as being suitable for defensive use. I know that the little Kahr PM9 that I also purchased from a fellow Forum member here saw at least 150 rounds, each, of Federal HST and Speer GDHPs of the 147 gr. flavor as I tried to get it dirty enough to start misbehaving.

I don't really want to think about how much I've spent vetting my two main defensive pistols with various premium defensive cartridges.

So here's the kicker - what's the cost differential if one were also using their defensive .45 ACP for practice? I find it hard to insist on absolute "reality" for one set of practice sessions, while suggesting that because the bullet velocities are similar between range-fodder .45 ACP and its defensive counterpart, that I can assume everything from objective external ballistics to subjective recoil/blast perception to be the same. If we're really going to push "train as you fight" to that extent, I'd say that I'd want to practice with my defensive cartridge, regardless of caliber.

If that's the case, then does the cost differential not hold?

Are these some thoughts to ponder? I think so and so do many professionals that do this sort of thing for a living.

Ah, but isn't that the precise goal of CCIman's OP? That there's more than one school of thought?

Last time I read that article, I distinctly remember some who are on the side of the 9x19, while others like the .45 ACP.

[Brian D.]

What's your split times - holding to an objective, scored, shooting standard - between .45 ACP and the 9x19, when the handgun platform is held as a constant (i.e. same make/model, different chambering). Alternatively, holding time as a constant, what does your scores show?

What I've highlighted are your subjective opinions.

Any objective data?

"Almost the same" is definitely not 'the same," in a quantified sense.

NEOH212, I also would like to know if you are using a shot timer in your training/practice. Without one, comparing results become based too much on guesswork. Set up two or three 'bad guy' targets and run the quick and dirty drills using the 9mm and .45acp handguns being tested. So much the better if some of the drills can be while moving, and/or strong hand only, etc.

How are the hits? How are the times?

For the record, I own carry guns in both those calibers, and understand the strengths and weaknesses of each. This kind of testing has made me slowly divest myself of .40 S&W guns though, except the Browning Hi Power. Why did I keep that one? Because side by side with the same model in 9mm, the .40 version is just as fast, and my hits don't spread out. They made the BHP in .40 heavier than the 9mm for just that reason, and of course durability.

Can't say my results when comparing polymer framed guns in 9 vs. .40 were anywhere near that close. And that's matching up say a Glock model 17 (9mm) against a model 22 (.40), both service sized. Same thing happened when I put the full sized M&P's in 9mm and .40 up against each other.

On the bright side, my stash of .40 ammo is going to hold me a long time since I got rid of most of my blasters in that chambering.

[glocksmith]

I still find if amusing that the 9mm crowd is still comparing the 9 to the 45.

I think the focus of the thread might've been lost over time. IIRC, it was originally about 9mm vs. .45 in the context of concealed carry. Size of handgun, weight of handgun and ammo, recoil and its effect on follow up shots and so on. This is what the discussion should be, if CC is involved. If we're just talking stopping power, wheelgunners could have the same debate on say, .38 Spl vs. .44mag...the .44mag wins every time...but introduce comfortable and practical concealed carry, and the .38 suddenly has an edge.

[catfish86]

I am a 40sw man. I initially bought a Ruger LCP in 380 for its ability to be carried in a pocket in dress slacks without being obvious. A little time in realizing it was a true desperation round, I began to consider upgrading in power. After a bunch of research into 45/9mm data, I read stories on the Miami shootout which ultimately led to the 40. When I compared the ballistics of comparable barrels (you would be surprised the number of folks who compare 9 data from a 5 in barrel with a 4 inch 45), I realized that the 40 was designed to be the perfect compromise between the two contenders. I like the added power to nearly that of a 45 and the increased rounds to nearly that of a 9mm. In fact, the 40 actually penetrates slightly better than the 45 because it is narrower (I believe). I initially bought a Springfield XDM due to the magazine capacity. Carry comfort soon became a known problem and I got a Smith & Wesson M&P 40 shield. I use it as a pocket gun (in a holster of course) and find it the perfect fit.

[BuckJM53]

Pretty Much Sums It Up For Me

[GWC]

It makes no difference which caliber one chooses, as long as one practices enough to confidently hit the threat somewhere vital, repeatedly.

I have carried and shot a lot of different calibers, 9mm, .45, .38, .357sig and mag,.380, .32 and even .22LR when that was all I had.

I mostly carry 9mm, and I have all the confidence I need in it.

I think it is instructive that the FBI, who came up with the minimum 18" penetration standard (after passing through a barrier) has decided to return to 9mm for all agents.

One thing no one has mentioned is reloading. I can usually reload 2 or 3x9mm for the price of 1x.45 ACP.

So pick something you like and shoot well, and carry away.