9mm FMJ or .45 FMJ

[Karl]

Just wondering, which is/would be the "better" caliber for a military issue sidearm(just FMJ bullets considered).

9x19mm or .45 ACP?

With all things considered;

Terminal effects(is there a significant difference between 9mm FMJ and .45 FMJ?),

accuracy,barrier penetration,ease of training,recoil and maybe other factors as well?

[Guest pfcem]

Just wondering, which is/would be the "better" caliber for a military issue sidearm(just FMJ bullets considered).

9x19mm or .45 ACP?

With all things considered;

Terminal effects(is there a significant difference between 9mm FMJ and .45 FMJ?),

accuracy,barrier penetration,ease of training,recoil and maybe other factors as well?

249626[/snapback]

A single .45 FMJ is much more effective than a single 9mm FMJ but you get twice the magazine capacity with a 9mm.

 

So is one .45 FMJ better than two 9mm FMJ?

Some say yes, some say no.

 

There is also the issue that you train troops to fire their weapons a peticular way but in the heat of battle the "correct/trained" way is not always used.

 

Given the choince between a .45 FMJ or a 9mm FMJ, I would choose the .45 FMJ.

[mcantu]

popcorn...check

[Karl]

A single .45 FMJ is much more effective than a single 9mm FMJ but you get twice the magazine capacity with a 9mm.

 

249637[/snapback]

 

Well, there are some high capacity .45's:

Glock 21(13 rounds),Para-Ordnance have a couple of 1911 clones with 14 round mags,Springfield Armory GI.45(1911 clone)with 13 round mag,H&K USP's(12 rounds)and maybe others as well.

 

So the question is maybe not if two 9mm's are better than one .45 but rather something like; is 1,25 to 1,5 9mm's better than one .45

 

I'm thinking since the U.S issued .45's in WWII and the Germans and others(?)had 9mm's there should be stories and anecdotes that can give a hint of their differences in terminal effects.

[Guest pfcem]

Well, there are some high capacity .45's:

Glock 21(13 rounds),Para-Ordnance have a couple of 1911 clones with 14 round mags,Springfield Armory GI.45(1911 clone)with 13 round mag,H&K USP's(12 rounds)and maybe others as well.

 

So the question is maybe not if two 9mm's are better than one .45 but rather something like; is 1,25 to 1,5 9mm's better than one .45

 

I'm thinking since the U.S issued .45's in WWII and the Germans and others(?)had 9mm's there should be stories and anecdotes that can give a hint of their differences in terminal effects.

249653[/snapback]

Any .45 handgun with a capacity of >10 rounds would be too big for general military use. Especially now that they are being issued to generally smaller-handed female troops.

 

I was thinking along the lines of the current 7+1 .45 M1911 vs 15+1 9mm M9. I underestand that some have found the M9 to be too big for some of the smaller-handed troops.

[KingSargent]

Any .45 handgun with a capacity of >10 rounds would be too big for general military use.  Especially now that they are being issued to generally smaller-handed female troops.

 

I was thinking along the lines of the current 7+1 .45 M1911 vs 15+1 9mm M9.  I underestand that some have found the M9 to be too big for some of the smaller-handed troops.

249657[/snapback]

Not so. Paraordnance at least is not much wider- maybe 1/10". I find it more comfortable than the regular .45 1911s. The Glock 21 is bulky, partly because the same frame was used for the 10mm Model 20. The extra length of the 10mm is the killer in grip dimensions. Take out the 1/4" of length tthat is wasted in the M21 and a lot of handling problems dissappear.

 

Now if a tiny soldier is going to have trouble with a standard 1911, hesheit will have trouble with a Paraordnance, but not MORE trouble.

 

FMJ is really not enough description. You can find some fairly effectve SWC FMJs these days. The "GI" .45/9mm would be RNFMC.

 

The M9 is much more bulky than is necessitated by its caliber and role, so saying there are handling problems with it is saying nothing new.

 

Anecdotes concerning effectiveness/non-effectiveness of .45 vs 9mm/.38 used to be a cottage industry. IIRC Evans and Marshall did not find a significant statistical difference in performance when examining thousands of well-reported police shootings. I may be wrong on that, and my library is 2800 miles away, so if anyone wants to get the exact data, feel free.

[Scott Cunningham]

How aboiut throwing the 10mm or .40 in there as well.

 

I'm not a big 9mm fan. I'd rather carry 20 .45 mags, biut have the SOB go down if I shot him.

 

Stopping power trumps a few extra rounds any day. One 45 will usually put a man down. It isn't sich a sure thing with a 9.

[EchoFiveMike]

Given that a handgun is properly an "Oh, shit!" weapon of last resort, and thus "effectiveness per unit time" is the relevant measure of performance; the proper choice is something in the largest caliber you can control. Hence 45ACP. Capacity is not critical, it needs to get you a little time to get your rifle/carbine working again. Ease of use is critical. I'm growing to like the K trigger Sig for this reason. Pull trigger, gun goes bang. No levers, safties, decockers or other shit for some asshat on high to get butt-hurt about.

 

The 1911 is a better weapon for people who know what they are doing, but the world(and especially the US military) is full of amatuers who are not interested in, or allowed to become proficient. Especially not with "evil" guns.

 

Double stack 45's are too large. Argueably, double stack 9mm's with long reach triggers like the M9 are too large. No pistol provides "firepower", so that should immediately be discounted as any sort of criteria for procurment. Everyone should have a rifle or carbine. Even a shortie 10inch M4 series gun is orders of magnitude superior to a pistol, the pistol is simply convienient to carry 24/7/365 for those who are not serious about remaining alive for long in a combat zone. S/F....Ken M

[EchoFiveMike]

Not so. Paraordnance at least is not much wider- maybe 1/10". I find it more comfortable than the regular .45 1911s. The Glock 21 is bulky, partly because the same frame was used for the 10mm Model 20. The extra length of the 10mm is the killer in grip dimensions. Take out the 1/4" of length tthat is wasted in the M21 and a lot of handling problems dissappear. 

 

Now if a tiny soldier is going to have trouble with a standard 1911, hesheit will have trouble with a Paraordnance, but not MORE trouble.

 

FMJ is really not enough description. You can find some fairly effectve SWC FMJs these days. The "GI" .45/9mm would be RNFMC.

 

The M9 is much more bulky than is necessitated by its caliber and role, so saying there are handling problems with it is saying nothing new.

 

Anecdotes concerning effectiveness/non-effectiveness of .45 vs 9mm/.38 used to be a cottage industry. IIRC Evans and Marshall did not find a significant statistical difference in performance when examining thousands of well-reported police shootings. I may be wrong on that, and my library is 2800 miles away, so if anyone wants to get the exact data, feel free.

249670[/snapback]

 

The 45ACP has the same OAL as the 10mm; 1.280", the proper measure of significance is diameter, which determines grip thickness.

 

The Para is significantly fatter than a properly gripped single stack. Thin grip panels are made for the single stack, not so for the Para.

 

Marshal and Sanow and their data base are items of much contention, as they do not allow peer review. Also, their data deals almost exclusively with JHP's, which even I concede, allow 9mm to get off it's knees. S/F....Ken M

[Karl]

How aboiut throwing the 10mm or .40 in there as well.

 

I'm not a big 9mm fan. I'd rather carry 20 .45 mags, biut have the SOB go down if I shot him.

 

Stopping power trumps a few extra rounds any day. One 45 will usually put a man down. It isn't sich a sure thing with a 9.

249672[/snapback]

 

I can see how a well designed .45 ACP JHP round would outperform a well designed 9mm JHP round in terms of terminal effects, but is the difference really that significant with 9mm Ball vs .45 Ball? I mean, don't they both just go straight through the victim and get out on the other side more or less intact? If that is the case the only difference would be that the .45 gives a marginally wider diameter of the permanent wound cavity.

[KingSargent]

I can see how a well designed .45 ACP JHP round would outperform a well designed 9mm JHP round in terms of terminal effects, but is the difference really that significant with 9mm Ball vs .45 Ball? I mean, don't they both just go straight through the victim and get out on the other side more or less intact? If that is the case the only difference would be that the .45 gives a marginally wider diameter of the permanent wound cavity.

249694[/snapback]

You get a larger wound channel with a larger bullet - whether it starts out larger or expands to greater diameter. Most "stopping power" is done by effects on the nervous system so the more nerves affected the better off the shooter is.

 

"Permanent wound cavities" will affect the amount of blood loss, but the stopping power is in the nerve damage.

[Karl]

You get a larger wound channel with a larger bullet - whether it starts out larger or expands to greater diameter. Most "stopping power" is done by effects on the nervous system so the more nerves affected the better off the shooter is.

 

"Permanent wound cavities" will affect the amount of blood loss, but the stopping power is in the nerve damage.

249702[/snapback]

 

I agree, but the question is;

Does the(in my very inexperienced desk-soldier opinion)marginal advantage in bullet diameter of the .45 outweigh it's drawbacks vs 9mm;

Heavier ammo(weight of .45 M1911 Ball cartridge is almost twice that of the 9mm M882 Ball), more recoil making quick follow up shots less accurate(correct me if i'm wrong), wider grip with double-stack magazine(smaller percentile of population/army can be comfortable with it)or significantly smaller magazine capacity in single-stack.

[Guest pfcem]

Not so. Paraordnance at least is not much wider- maybe 1/10". I find it more comfortable than the regular .45 1911s. The Glock 21 is bulky, partly because the same frame was used for the 10mm Model 20. The extra length of the 10mm is the killer in grip dimensions. Take out the 1/4" of length tthat is wasted in the M21 and a lot of handling problems dissappear. 

 

Now if a tiny soldier is going to have trouble with a standard 1911, hesheit will have trouble with a Paraordnance, but not MORE trouble.

249670[/snapback]

I can not rightfully say I have handled every handgun on the markes but every double-stack .45 I have handled have notably "bulkier" handles.

 

 

 

FMJ is really not enough description. You can find some fairly effectve SWC FMJs these days. The "GI" .45/9mm would be RNFMC.

249670[/snapback]

Not sure SWC FMJs are considered "leagle" military rounds.

 

 

 

The M9 is much more bulky than is necessitated by its caliber and role, so saying there are handling problems with it is saying nothing new.

249670[/snapback]

The M9/Baretta is one of the largest high-capacily 9mm handguns around.

There are quite a few out there with handles not much bigger than the M1911.

 

 

 

Anecdotes concerning effectiveness/non-effectiveness of .45 vs 9mm/.38 used to be a cottage industry. IIRC Evans and Marshall did not find a significant statistical difference in performance when examining thousands of well-reported police shootings. I may be wrong on that, and my library is 2800 miles away, so if anyone wants to get the exact data, feel free.

249670[/snapback]

The Evans and Marshall studies were primarily concerning JHP.

I believe some FMJ rounds may have been included.

[Guest pfcem]

How aboiut throwing the 10mm or .40 in there as well.

249672[/snapback]

I would still (given the limitation of FMJs) choose the .45 ACP.

 

My personal defence weapon (since I can use JHP) is a 10mm Auto Glock M20 loaded with 135gr Cor-Bon. Thank god I have never had to use it but am pretty confident that if I ever do (& hit well) the individual hit is not going to get up under his/her own power.

 

 

 

I'm not a big 9mm fan. I'd rather carry 20 .45 mags, biut have the SOB go down if I shot him.

249672[/snapback]

The only things I think the 9mm has going for it is high magazine capacity & the ease in which it can be used to double-tap (which negates the high magazine capacity). Of coarse the double-tap is a learned discipline & requires continued practice to remain proficient. Not every soldier is going to be able to relaibly use the double-tap.

 

 

 

Stopping power trumps a few extra rounds any day. One 45 will usually put a man down. It isn't sich a sure thing with a 9.

249672[/snapback]

Exactly.

 

It is known as knockdown power (not necessarily incapacitation & is related more to the bullet's momentum than KE). It will cause the target to stumple (if not fall). It often results in them dropping their weapon as well.

Edited November 22, 2005 by pfcem

[Christian Lupine]

IMNSHO, one factor that gets swept aside is the end user's confidence in the weapon. In an oh, shit type pistol using enviroment, if the user believes the .45 is going to save his ass, then he is a more effective user. If he has little confidence in say a 9mm he is already at a disadvantage no matter what the objective truth may be.

[Tony Williams]

It is known as knockdown power (not necessarily incapacitation & is related more to the bullet's momentum than KE). It will cause the target to stumple (if not fall).  It often results in them dropping their weapon as well.

249714[/snapback]

 

Err, no. People do not get knocked down by pistol bullets. Remember that Newtonian law about equal and opposite reactions? If the gun were powerful enough to knock over the target, firing it would knock over the shooter as well. It's the shock of the impact on the nervous system that causes people to fall when hit, which is why those whose nervous system is insulated by adrenaline or other drugs have a distressing tendency to stay on their feet and shoot back.

 

Generally speaking, other things (especially bullet placement) being equal etc., the common wisdom is that the .45 ACP ball stands a better chance of disabling somebody quickly from a single shot. However, the 9mm ball is credited with more penetration, which might be important in certain circumstances.

 

The more interesting issue is what happens when more and more of the bad guys get body armour (as is already beginning to happen). No ball rounds, 9mm or .45, are going to make any impression on that, unless you go for head shots (for which the 9mm would be a better choice - flatter trajectory, quicker recovery for a second shot if you miss, bigger ammo load to keep trying).

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[mcantu]

And also, the .45 G21 is almost the same size as the 9mm M9

[Burncycle360]

We clearly need .50 GI!

[Guest pfcem]

Err, no. People do not get knocked down by pistol bullets. Remember that Newtonian law about equal and opposite reactions? If the gun were powerful enough to knock over the target, firing it would knock over the shooter as well. It's the shock of the impact on the nervous system that causes people to fall when hit, which is why those whose nervous system is insulated by adrenaline or other drugs have a distressing tendency to stay on their feet and shoot back.

249765[/snapback]

Thank you for elaborating on that but I did not say they are physically knocked off their feet. They are, however, hit with enough force (momentum) to knock them off balance, cause them to mistep ect (this all depends on when & where they are his of coarse). "Neuro" shock also comes into play & can cause a person to pause, stumble or fall without decapacitating them.

[mcantu]

Thank you for elaborating on that but I did not say they are physically knocked off their feet.  They are, however, hit with enough force (momentum) to knock them off balance, cause them to mistep ect (this all depends on when & where they are his of coarse). "Neuro" shock also comes into play & can cause a person to pause, stumble or fall without decapacitating them.

249780[/snapback]

 

Thats called 'being shot.' Its not the force of the impact from a handgun round that causes someone to fall; its the realization that they've been shot. At least for a nonfatal wound. Have you seen the clips of insurgents getting shot in Iraq? Theyre not knocked off balance when they are shot. They kinda crumble down right where theyre standing--and this is with 5.56 and 7.62 rounds with much more energy than anything out of a handgun

[Guest pfcem]

Thats called 'being shot.'  Its not the force of the impact from a handgun round that causes someone to fall; its the realization that they've been shot.  At least for a nonfatal wound.

249786[/snapback]

Very seldom do people "realize" they have been shot & then colapse from the "shock" of being shot. They more often colapse & then (if they remain conscious) realize they have been shot.

 

 

 

Have you seen the clips of insurgents getting shot in Iraq?  Theyre not knocked off balance when they are shot.  They kinda crumble down right where theyre standing--and this is with 5.56 and 7.62 rounds with much more energy than anything out of a handgun

249786[/snapback]

It is not an "energy" effect, it is a force effect.

 

5.56mm and 7.62mm bullets are comparatively small (diameter) & pointed, so they penetrate much more easily. I am not sure how to decribe what I am getting at other than to think of being hit by a handgun bullet as being more like being punched where being hit by a rifle bullet is more like being stabbed.

 

I am talking about non-decapacitating hits.

[KingSargent]

No pistol provides "firepower", so that should immediately be discounted as any sort of criteria for procurment. 

249680[/snapback]

For military procurement I agree 100%. For police or civilian use where the handgun is usually the only weapon available, 'firepower' - ie, capacity - becomes an important procurement factor.

[EchoFiveMike]

For military procurement I agree 100%. For police or civilian use where the handgun is usually the only weapon available, 'firepower' - ie, capacity - becomes an important procurement factor.

249812[/snapback]

 

But that's not the question being asked

 

Most guys I've had wounded we're not particularly impaired. This includes the guy who took a piece of frag the size of the first digit of my thumb to the face, through the armour glass. The guy shot in the ankle was shooting from the ground for about the next five minutes, and the guy hit in the legs stayed in the turret and kept shooting.

 

Iraqis shot in the center chest with 7.62x51 175gn SMK just drop, those who were shot poorly, kept going. The guy who had his arm nearly blown off with 50cal Mk 211 kept running for another dozen yards or so, then piled up. Their attitude prior to being shot seems to have lots to do with the effects. S/F.....Ken M

[UN-Interested Observer]

Which cartridge do most consider to have more potential for upgrading? Could some form of sabot be used in a .45? How about bullets made of other materials, such as aluminum? The sales lit around Aguila is interesting.

 

It would seem, at first sight, that the .45 has a greater portential to upgrade to a new generation of bullets, than the 9mm.

[KingSargent]

The 45ACP has the same OAL as the 10mm; 1.280", the proper measure of significance is diameter, which determines grip thickness.

Beg pardon? I don't have my references here, but the .45 ACP has a case length of 19mm, and I haven't noticed any really long .45 bullets flooding the market. The 10mm has a case length of 25mm, and bullets of similar shape to the .45 ACP.

 

The Para is significantly fatter than a properly gripped single stack.  Thin grip panels are made for the single stack, not so for the Para.

The factory panels for the P-O are thinner than standard M1911 grips. I had some sort of rubber grips that were just as skinny as the P-O factory grips.

 

Marshal and Sanow and their data base are items of much contention, as they do not allow peer review.  Also, their data deals almost exclusively with JHP's, which even I concede, allow 9mm to get off it's knees.  S/F....Ken M

249687[/snapback]

People can disagree all they want; if they can come up with hard data to refute M&S, fine. OTW they are as relevant to the discussion as the Democratic Underground or PETA.

Mostof M&S data does deal with magicbullets, since the data on FMJ is in. However, they have included FMJ shootings in their research, and that is what is under discussion here.