Caliber Blabber

[Guest louderthebetter]

Like other people I own numerous pistols and revolvers in calibers large and small.

Most of my fun shooting is done with a 22 cal. semi.auto because the principal is the

same no matter what semi auto I shoot be it a 22 or 45acp.Its all about look thru rear sight and place front sight on blured target and press trigger (I never pull it) to the rear.I also shoot a 22 cal.because I'm a cheapskate but that being said after I burn a box or two of the 22s I get serious with with my Para-Ordnance P-10 45 which

is almost always with me.I shoot 230 gr.hardball and nothing but.I know what works for me and I've never gotten a warm fuzzy feeling like some do with all the latest high tech stuff on the market today.Trying to keep up with all the ammo hype is like trying to nail jello to a tree.Hardball is low tech but,it always feeds (knock on wood) and I can afford to shoot all I want w/breaking the bank.How much you shoot means more to me than what ammo you shoot.

I know I'm new here but,thats my .02 worth.

[Guest HexHead]

I would love to have a .45 1911, but again, you give us a lot in weight and size when you start carrying something like that. Probably that 638 is about the most perfect carry gun I've got. B

Not necessarily, Here's my Colt Ne Agent .45 with my Smith 442. Okay, it's 9 oz heavier, but a good holster takes care of that....

Yeah, it's under there...

[Guest icehead]

Not necessarily, Here's my Colt Ne Agent .45 with my Smith 442. Okay, it's 9 oz heavier, but a good holster takes care of that....

Yeah, it's under there...

Well after that pic it sort of brings it into focus. I can't afford that Agent and I can shoot that 442 or my 638 all day at about the half the cost of owning a .45. I will get a 1911 at some point though...it just seems un_American not to own one during your lifetime...LOL!!!

[Jasongar8]

The first handgun I bought was a .380, and I sold it about 3 months ago because I became convinced that it is inadequate as a SD round. It can kill, but it is not a reliable man-stopper. Your attacker can still do you grievous bodily injury before he bleeds out. No caliber is 100% effective, but service calibers have been proven to be more effective at stopping the threat than non-service calibers.

If he/she is still trying to do bodily harm why dont you shoot his ass again? I agree .380 isnt the best defensive round but if one dosent do it 2, 3, or 4 rounds might work.

-Jason G

[Guest Muttling]

You can spew all you want about caliber, but I spent most of 2004 in Iraq and everyone who could lay any form of claim to being a part of a special op's unit was asking for an M1911A1 instead of a M9. And every squad leader wanted a couple of M14's.

When the brown stuff hits the rotating blades, htting power outranks number of rounds.

I like light weight weapons that are easy to conceal, but when it comes time to shoot.......I want biggest and the fastest hunk of lead that I can find going down range.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Muttling

[Guest Ghostrider]

I realize I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but; there is/was a reason the Army went from 38 to 45 ACP. It was valid then, it's valid today. I consider it a black day when they went to 9 mm. I can't think of many GIs (that have actually used them in combat) that love those 9mm for anything other then being light when empty.

I don't want a high velocity round that will pass through a BG, especially with meth, crack, crank, coke, ice and the good lord knows what running through their veins. I want a round that will impart as much energy as possible into the target, hopefully enough to knock it down, or tear it's arm off if you hit it in the pinky finger.

It's all personal opinion, I can't think of any argument that holds water other than using what you use best and delivering rounds on target.

Speaking of which, you may only get off one round before the BG is on you, especially if chemically enhanced, in which case, it would seem most important that that 1 round take the BGs mind off of you and give him something else to think about.

Just my 2 cents.

[Guest bkelm18]

Wow, lots of good ol' fashion caliber misinformation in this here thread. You guys can keep your super killing machine .45s. I'll stick to my butterfly wounding 9mm.

[Guest m&pc9]

If I had someone shooting at me everyday I would want a .45. But since chances are I wont use my gun in self defense in my life time a 9mm or 38 or .40 will be big enough. And I can afford to practice a lot more carrying a 9mm at $8.97 a box, instead of $25 a box for .45. So shot placement will be better.

[willis68]

Wow, lots of good ol' fashion caliber misinformation in this here thread. You guys can keep your super killing machine .45s. I'll stick to my butterfly wounding 9mm.

To each their own

[Jasongar8]

To everyone that was ever killed with a 9mm, "I command you to raise up! you're not dead! You were shot with a useless cartridge".

-Jason G

[Guest 3pugguy]

You can spew all you want about caliber, but I spent most of 2004 in Iraq and everyone who could lay any form of claim to being a part of a special op's unit was asking for an M1911A1 instead of a M9. And every squad leader wanted a couple of M14's.

When the brown stuff hits the rotating blades, htting power outranks number of rounds.

I like light weight weapons that are easy to conceal, but when it comes time to shoot.......I want biggest and the fastest hunk of lead that I can find going down range.

First, glad you are back safe from Iraq and thank you for your service. Will you have to rotate back or go to another garden spot? Seems the deployments are long and often now for you guys.

I read an article that I understood to state the US military was going back to the .45? Hear anything about that? I like the 9MM for me (but have a 1911 on my must get list, as one OP noted - I'd be un_American not to get one at some point).

[Guest grimel]

I realize I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but; there is/was a reason the Army went from 38 to 45 ACP. It was valid then, it's valid today.

Speaking of which, you may only get off one round before the BG is on you, especially if chemically enhanced, in which case, it would seem most important that that 1 round take the BGs mind off of you and give him something else to think about.

Just my 2 cents.

Okay, just what was that reason?

Call me silly, but, I want the 1 round to be one that I can place with the most precision the quickest.

[Guest grimel]

grimel,dude,you have to change your sig line

Ammo is not cheap anymore!

Compared to a funeral, it's cheap. I'd say the off duty officer at the SLC Trolly Mall would have thought a spare mag was cheap at $10,000 when he hit slide lock.

[Smith]

You can spew all you want about caliber, but I spent most of 2004 in Iraq and everyone who could lay any form of claim to being a part of a special op's unit was asking for an M1911A1 instead of a M9. And every squad leader wanted a couple of M14's.

When the brown stuff hits the rotating blades, htting power outranks number of rounds.

I like light weight weapons that are easy to conceal, but when it comes time to shoot.......I want biggest and the fastest hunk of lead that I can find going down range.

I realize I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but; there is/was a reason the Army went from 38 to 45 ACP. It was valid then, it's valid today. I consider it a black day when they went to 9 mm. I can't think of many GIs (that have actually used them in combat) that love those 9mm for anything other then being light when empty.

I don't want a high velocity round that will pass through a BG, especially with meth, crack, crank, coke, ice and the good lord knows what running through their veins. I want a round that will impart as much energy as possible into the target, hopefully enough to knock it down, or tear it's arm off if you hit it in the pinky finger.

It's all personal opinion, I can't think of any argument that holds water other than using what you use best and delivering rounds on target.

Speaking of which, you may only get off one round before the BG is on you, especially if chemically enhanced, in which case, it would seem most important that that 1 round take the BGs mind off of you and give him something else to think about.

Just my 2 cents.

Old argument - ball ammo doesn't expand. Military intends to wound not kill. Reason they disallow HP's.

Most LE went with .40 because .45 doesn't cut it in the barrier and penetration arenas, which are key indicators of stat performance. A lot of State Troopers use .357 SIG (think 9mm +p+) because again a .45 doesn't cut it. Not saying a .45 is a bad round it just has limitations like every other caliber.

What I roll my eyes about is the constant touting of the .45 as some super natural man stopper of a round by some, when in truth it falls far short in a lot of areas where other calibers excel. All stats verify this. 9mm, .40, .357 SIG, .45 are all equally adequate as SD rounds. Some are better in certain areas than others and that is why we have choice.

[timcalhoun]

Old argument - ball ammo doesn't expand. Military intends to wound not kill. Reason they disallow HP's.

Most LE went with .40 because .45 doesn't cut it in the barrier and penetration arenas, which are key indicators of stat performance. A lot of State Troopers use .357 SIG (think 9mm +p+) because again a .45 doesn't cut it. Not saying a .45 is a bad round it just has limitations like every other caliber.

What I roll my eyes about is the constant touting of the .45 as some super natural man stopper of a round by some, when in truth it falls far short in a lot of areas where other calibers excel. All stats verify this. 9mm, .40, .357 SIG, .45 are all equally adequate as SD rounds. Some are better in certain areas than others and that is why we have choice.

http://le.atk.com/pdf/PierceCountyWorkshop.pdf

FBI Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness - FirearmsTactical.com

[Smith]

http://le.atk.com/pdf/PierceCountyWorkshop.pdf

FBI Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness - FirearmsTactical.com

That's my point. Did you read them in their context or yours?

[timcalhoun]

That's my point. Did you read them in their context or yours?

That's funny.

The first link proves that the 45 penetrates every bit as far or farther than any faster moving 9 or 40 and the bullet expands to the same percentage..... only bigger in actual measurement.

The second link is from the FBI study and let me quote from the conclusion:

"Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet.

[Guest Risky Ruger]

I have to agree about stopping power, but I choose 9mm for cheap target shooting.

[Guest HexHead]

I read an article that I understood to state the US military was going back to the .45? Hear anything about that?

Doubtful since the Army cancelled the next round of qualifying testing and in the past few months placed another order with Beretta for another 450,000 M9s.

[leroy]

That's funny.

The first link proves that the 45 penetrates every bit as far or farther than any faster moving 9 or 40 and the bullet expands to the same percentage..... only bigger in actual measurement.

The second link is from the FBI study and let me quote from the conclusion:

"Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet.

This is exactly why there aint many buffaloes around anymore. Most all of them were shot with a big caliber Sharps. Bullet placement with any size bullet is important --- that is accuracy -- accuracy and ability to shoot is a good thing.

Good bullet placement with a large caliber is almost always fatal. Soldiers who are in dangerous battle zones have to finish their opponents quickly with one shot. That is why they are asking for 1911's and M14's.

Great info.

Keep up the good work.

Kind regards,

LEROY

[Guest Muttling]

Old argument - ball ammo doesn't expand. Military intends to wound not kill. Reason they disallow HP's.

As I understand it (and I could be wrong), hollow points are considered trauma rounds and are specifically outlawed by Geneva Conventions.

In addition, you have to be ready for enemy behind cover and wearing armor so you want high penetration rounds (e.g. FMJ). One of the big issues I have with a 5.56 is that it has trouble penetrating walls where the 7.62 doesn't. The 5.56 is really good for people who need to carry a lot of rounds, but the 7.62 is a LOT more effective despite being FMJ (it's a matter of kinetic energy).

You are QUITE correct in that we would rather wound than kill when fighting a conventional enemy. One enemy in a truck can haul several bodies home, but it takes two enemy to care for every wounded soldier we give them. This matra doesn't work so well with guerillas/ terrorists who don't have a true rear area/ supply chain to bog down with wounded.

Most LE went with .40 because .45 doesn't cut it in the barrier and penetration arenas, which are key indicators of stat performance. A lot of State Troopers use .357 SIG (think 9mm +p+) because again a .45 doesn't cut it. Not saying a .45 is a bad round it just has limitations like every other caliber.

What I roll my eyes about is the constant touting of the .45 as some super natural man stopper of a round by some, when in truth it falls far short in a lot of areas where other calibers excel. All stats verify this. 9mm, .40, .357 SIG, .45 are all equally adequate as SD rounds. Some are better in certain areas than others and that is why we have choice.

I agree with your dicussion on .40 versus .45 and somewhat agree with the .357 sig. I like each of these cartridges and actually prefer the .40 over the .45.

However, the military has gone to a standard 9mm and I'm not at all impressed with that round. It doesn't move any faster than a .45 and carries a lot less mass. The round we have gone to has similar penetration and a lot less kinetic energy. The only benefits are less recoil, an abiliy to carry more ammo, and an ammo that is interchangeable with our NATO allies. I don't see any of these benefits being of use for a side arm.

In answer to another poster's question, I have not heard anything suggesting that we will be changing our standard issue side arm from the M9 and I don't see it happening. (We've got more important weapons systems that we need to focus our resources on.) Special Operations units have always been allowed to choose the 45's and that includes all of their support personnel as well as the operators themselves. These are the only people we currently have carrying the M1911's.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Muttling

[threeshot]

If he/she is still trying to do bodily harm why dont you shoot his ass again? I agree .380 isnt the best defensive round but if one dosent do it 2, 3, or 4 rounds might work.

-Jason G

Unless there are more than one perpetrator.

[Guest grimel]

However, the military has gone to a standard 9mm and I'm not at all impressed with that round. It doesn't move any faster than a .45 and carries a lot less mass. The round we have gone to has similar penetration and a lot less kinetic energy. The only benefits are less recoil, an abiliy to carry more ammo, and an ammo that is interchangeable with our NATO allies. I don't see any of these benefits being of use for a side arm.

When did we stop carrying NATO 9mm? If we are still using NATO standard 9mm when did NATO stop using 115/124gr at 1200fps 9mm and drop to some bullet at 850fps? BTW, 9mm NATO has more k.e. than 45 ACP (400+ fpe vs 320fpe). Oh, as for penetration, given the same bullet design (RN FMJ) the NATO 9mm has a higher sectional density, thus, will penetrate better. This is simple physics.

[timcalhoun]

When did we stop carrying NATO 9mm? If we are still using NATO standard 9mm when did NATO stop using 115/124gr at 1200fps 9mm and drop to some bullet at 850fps? BTW, 9mm NATO has more k.e. than 45 ACP (400+ fpe vs 320fpe). Oh, as for penetration, given the same bullet design (RN FMJ) the NATO 9mm has a higher sectional density, thus, will penetrate better. This is simple physics.

I'm confused, I thought kinetic energy was weight times velocity?

124 x 1200 = 148,800

230 x 900 = 207,000

[timcalhoun]

When did we stop carrying NATO 9mm? If we are still using NATO standard 9mm when did NATO stop using 115/124gr at 1200fps 9mm and drop to some bullet at 850fps? BTW, 9mm NATO has more k.e. than 45 ACP (400+ fpe vs 320fpe). Oh, as for penetration, given the same bullet design (RN FMJ) the NATO 9mm has a higher sectional density, thus, will penetrate better. This is simple physics.

Oh I see now you were confusing foot pounds of energy with kinetic energy. But even in foot pounds you are wrong.

230g at 900 fps = 413.6 FPE

124g at 1200 fps = 396.42 FPE

Here is a cool link to use to calculate about everything.

ENERGY CALCULATOR