User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 4:58:49 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Volume of accurate fire > what caliber that fire is. (against unarmored targets) Now, convincing the religions of 45acp, .40s&w, and 9mm that there's not really any difference in the actual performance of the rounds in practicality, and that it's where you hit them more than what caliber you hit them with....... Never gunna happen. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It occurs to me that many of the posters in this thread are more accustomed to shooting paper or gel than living breathing meat. Volume of accurate fire > what caliber that fire is. (against unarmored targets) Now, convincing the religions of 45acp, .40s&w, and 9mm that there's not really any difference in the actual performance of the rounds in practicality, and that it's where you hit them more than what caliber you hit them with....... Never gunna happen. Actually I was talking about living breathing meat with fur. I agree that there isn't that much difference to get all hung up on with service calibers for defense against humans. I strongly disagree however with the notion that bigger and faster doesn't beat smaller and or slower. Speed matters no matter how well constructed bullets are today. If it didn't, we'd still be hunting with .38 Sp. or .44-40. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 5:01:31 PM EDT
[#2]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 5:01:36 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I need to buy some defensive ammo for my arsenal of 9mm pistols, hence this thread. What is the best defensive 9mm ammo on the market? Hornady Critical Duty |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 5:05:07 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Saw an autopsy the other day. 9mm Hornady critical defense. Was impressed enough I went out and bought a box for my off duty Hi-Power. Impressive stuff. I was of the understanding that the Critical Duty was a lot better than the Critical Defense. Anybody else with more experience care to comment? I only ask because the 135 Gr Critical Duty is what I currently carry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 5:08:28 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The usual ".40 S&W is a high pressure load" herp a derp. Another expert who doesn't know that .40 S&W operates at the same pressure as 9mm and less than that of 9MM +P. These threads attract them like flies to shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
For 2 pistols of weight that is ideal for carry, you need to train with .40 S&W a lot more than 9mm, and it is very difficult to control them with high pressure loads pushing the heavier bullets that are cited for good penetration. .40 S&W should really go away so we can get more 9mm production lines running longer, in my opinion. I think .40 S&W has lost its relevance, especially in this economy and marketplace. If you place any type of weight on the caliber argument in terms of performance on the person(s), you're missing 95% of what is important. The usual ".40 S&W is a high pressure load" herp a derp. Another expert who doesn't know that .40 S&W operates at the same pressure as 9mm and less than that of 9MM +P. These threads attract them like flies to shit. So are you saying that a .40 doesn't have more recoil or muzzle flip than a 9mm in a handgun of the same size? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 5:15:07 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is some of the worst internal ballistics information I've ever seen posted. Sorry, but you are simply uneducated about this subject. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This is perhaps a simplification - but consider this: the energy of a round comes from the amount of gunpowder you put in it. The effectiveness of the round comes from how much energy is in it (and to that point, how well it's invested). The gun powder charges for 9mm, .40 cal, and .45 ACP aren't really that different. Of the 3, 9mm does have the smallest - but not profoundly so, at about 90%. The rest comes down to how that energy is invested. In .45, it's invested in lower velocity heavy momentum. In 9mm it's invested into high velocity. Early 9mm was FMJ, which will just ice-pick right through the target, not really investing the energy into terminal ballistics. So 9mm initially sucked. They've gotten much better at that, and so for about the same initial energy investment, you get basically the same performance now amongst all 3. Or essentially that's how I see it today. The cartridge that takes a little more powder than the others, is going to be a little more effective. Which today, is .45 ACP and .40, which take similar charges, with 9mm being maybe 10% or so lower then those (obviously highly variable, depending). Compare to something like .380, which tends to take about half the powder charge of the other 3. That is some of the worst internal ballistics information I've ever seen posted. Sorry, but you are simply uneducated about this subject. Thanks for saving me a post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 5:15:37 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote History[b]Originally P
.40 s&w is popular in USPSA because it is just above the limit for major power factor with factory ammo. .40 dominates USPSA Limited division, because the rules require .40 or larger bullet diameter to make "major". Open division allows .355 bullets to make major PF, and the .38 Super family and 9x19 rule the roost. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 5:18:54 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So are you saying that a .40 doesn't have more recoil or muzzle flip than a 9mm in a handgun of the same size? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For 2 pistols of weight that is ideal for carry, you need to train with .40 S&W a lot more than 9mm, and it is very difficult to control them with high pressure loads pushing the heavier bullets that are cited for good penetration. .40 S&W should really go away so we can get more 9mm production lines running longer, in my opinion. I think .40 S&W has lost its relevance, especially in this economy and marketplace. If you place any type of weight on the caliber argument in terms of performance on the person(s), you're missing 95% of what is important. The usual ".40 S&W is a high pressure load" herp a derp. Another expert who doesn't know that .40 S&W operates at the same pressure as 9mm and less than that of 9MM +P. These threads attract them like flies to shit. So are you saying that a .40 doesn't have more recoil or muzzle flip than a 9mm in a handgun of the same size? Putting words into other people's mouths; an Internet tradition. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 5:21:12 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Putting words into other people's mouths; an Internet tradition. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For 2 pistols of weight that is ideal for carry, you need to train with .40 S&W a lot more than 9mm, and it is very difficult to control them with high pressure loads pushing the heavier bullets that are cited for good penetration. .40 S&W should really go away so we can get more 9mm production lines running longer, in my opinion. I think .40 S&W has lost its relevance, especially in this economy and marketplace. If you place any type of weight on the caliber argument in terms of performance on the person(s), you're missing 95% of what is important. The usual ".40 S&W is a high pressure load" herp a derp. Another expert who doesn't know that .40 S&W operates at the same pressure as 9mm and less than that of 9MM +P. These threads attract them like flies to shit. So are you saying that a .40 doesn't have more recoil or muzzle flip than a 9mm in a handgun of the same size? Putting words into other people's mouths; an Internet tradition. I asked a question, how is that putting words into your mouth? I never once claimed that you stated anything. 
I knew the post that you originally quoted was getting at recoil, based off him talking about "controlling" the weapon. I don't think he was referring specifically to chamber pressures. So the question still stands. Do you think .40 has more recoil than a 9mm? ETA: I guess I should have known by your original post that I quoted that you were going to be emotional about this instead of basing your arguments off of logic and facts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 5:21:47 PM EDT
[#10]
We need to ask Jerry M. if he would prefer 9mm over 40/45/10mm. I'd genuinely like to hear what he has to say.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 5:28:19 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is some of the worst internal ballistics information I've ever seen posted. Sorry, but you are simply uneducated about this subject. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This is perhaps a simplification - but consider this: the energy of a round comes from the amount of gunpowder you put in it. The effectiveness of the round comes from how much energy is in it (and to that point, how well it's invested). The gun powder charges for 9mm, .40 cal, and .45 ACP aren't really that different. Of the 3, 9mm does have the smallest - but not profoundly so, at about 90%. The rest comes down to how that energy is invested. In .45, it's invested in lower velocity heavy momentum. In 9mm it's invested into high velocity. Early 9mm was FMJ, which will just ice-pick right through the target, not really investing the energy into terminal ballistics. So 9mm initially sucked. They've gotten much better at that, and so for about the same initial energy investment, you get basically the same performance now amongst all 3. Or essentially that's how I see it today. The cartridge that takes a little more powder than the others, is going to be a little more effective. Which today, is .45 ACP and .40, which take similar charges, with 9mm being maybe 10% or so lower then those (obviously highly variable, depending). Compare to something like .380, which tends to take about half the powder charge of the other 3. That is some of the worst internal ballistics information I've ever seen posted. Sorry, but you are simply uneducated about this subject. oh I see his expression of the principles of physics and conservation of energy makes him uneducated. what you think shooting a bunch of milk jugs and posting it in arfcom makes you some type of expert? I find your pompous attitude despicable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 5:28:44 PM EDT
[#12]
isn't much difference in 9,40, or 45. I like 40 because it's always available through every gun panic.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 5:29:16 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is some of the worst internal ballistics information I've ever seen posted. Sorry, but you are simply uneducated about this subject. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This is perhaps a simplification - but consider this: the energy of a round comes from the amount of gunpowder you put in it. The effectiveness of the round comes from how much energy is in it (and to that point, how well it's invested). The gun powder charges for 9mm, .40 cal, and .45 ACP aren't really that different. Of the 3, 9mm does have the smallest - but not profoundly so, at about 90%. The rest comes down to how that energy is invested. In .45, it's invested in lower velocity heavy momentum. In 9mm it's invested into high velocity. Early 9mm was FMJ, which will just ice-pick right through the target, not really investing the energy into terminal ballistics. So 9mm initially sucked. They've gotten much better at that, and so for about the same initial energy investment, you get basically the same performance now amongst all 3. Or essentially that's how I see it today. The cartridge that takes a little more powder than the others, is going to be a little more effective. Which today, is .45 ACP and .40, which take similar charges, with 9mm being maybe 10% or so lower then those (obviously highly variable, depending). Compare to something like .380, which tends to take about half the powder charge of the other 3. That is some of the worst internal ballistics information I've ever seen posted. Sorry, but you are simply uneducated about this subject. Lazyengineer? Makes sense.  You know .45 fmj would cruise right through also right?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 5:30:27 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
isn't much difference in 9,40, or 45. I like 40 because it's always available through every gun panic. This and I carry Hornady Critical Defense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 5:37:12 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The usual ".40 S&W is a high pressure load" herp a derp. Another expert who doesn't know that .40 S&W operates at the same pressure as 9mm and less than that of 9MM +P. These threads attract them like flies to shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
For 2 pistols of weight that is ideal for carry, you need to train with .40 S&W a lot more than 9mm, and it is very difficult to control them with high pressure loads pushing the heavier bullets that are cited for good penetration. .40 S&W should really go away so we can get more 9mm production lines running longer, in my opinion. I think .40 S&W has lost its relevance, especially in this economy and marketplace. If you place any type of weight on the caliber argument in terms of performance on the person(s), you're missing 95% of what is important. The usual ".40 S&W is a high pressure load" herp a derp. Another expert who doesn't know that .40 S&W operates at the same pressure as 9mm and less than that of 9MM +P. These threads attract them like flies to shit. Comprehend much? I took that as him saying that in order to get penetration deeper than that of what 9mm offers by using higher than standard pressure .40 S&W rounds with heavier bullets a .40 S&W shooter has to accept the negative effects of a heavier recoil. Smartasses, "these threads attract them like flies to shit." 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 5:38:15 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
45 ACP is better than both.  And ALL handguns are relatively shit compared to rifles. SOMETHING is better than NOTHING. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 5:44:24 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You obviously are not a handloader, or you would not be saying anything about "rounds that contain more gunpowder". A 9mm can be loaded with less powder and have higher velocity than a .45 with more powder. It depends on the type of powder and its burning rate. And, as I have already posted a couple of times, with the best cartridges in any normal handgun load, there is no real difference in performance. http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=7297 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Eagerly standing by for your list of cartridges that are more effective than rounds that contain more gunpowder. You obviously are not a handloader, or you would not be saying anything about "rounds that contain more gunpowder". A 9mm can be loaded with less powder and have higher velocity than a .45 with more powder. It depends on the type of powder and its burning rate. And, as I have already posted a couple of times, with the best cartridges in any normal handgun load, there is no real difference in performance. http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=7297 Soooo am I the only one who notices that the 9mm has the smallest would diameter in this picture? It's not much smaller, but it is. (Carry is a 9mm, bedside is a .45) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 5:47:18 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lazyengineer? Makes sense. You know .45 fmj would cruise right through also right?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is perhaps a simplification - but consider this: the energy of a round comes from the amount of gunpowder you put in it. The effectiveness of the round comes from how much energy is in it (and to that point, how well it's invested). The gun powder charges for 9mm, .40 cal, and .45 ACP aren't really that different. Of the 3, 9mm does have the smallest - but not profoundly so, at about 90%. The rest comes down to how that energy is invested. In .45, it's invested in lower velocity heavy momentum. In 9mm it's invested into high velocity. Early 9mm was FMJ, which will just ice-pick right through the target, not really investing the energy into terminal ballistics. So 9mm initially sucked. They've gotten much better at that, and so for about the same initial energy investment, you get basically the same performance now amongst all 3. Or essentially that's how I see it today. The cartridge that takes a little more powder than the others, is going to be a little more effective. Which today, is .45 ACP and .40, which take similar charges, with 9mm being maybe 10% or so lower then those (obviously highly variable, depending). Compare to something like .380, which tends to take about half the powder charge of the other 3. That is some of the worst internal ballistics information I've ever seen posted. Sorry, but you are simply uneducated about this subject. Lazyengineer? Makes sense. You know .45 fmj would cruise right through also right?
It's attitude night tonight or something. FMJ is not germane to this discussion. Eagerly awaiting your list of modern defense loads showing calibers that have smaller powder charges outperforming calibers with larger powder charges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 5:48:28 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Soooo am I the only one who notices that the 9mm has the smallest would diameter in this picture? It's not much smaller, but it is. (Carry is a 9mm, bedside is a .45) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Eagerly standing by for your list of cartridges that are more effective than rounds that contain more gunpowder. You obviously are not a handloader, or you would not be saying anything about "rounds that contain more gunpowder". A 9mm can be loaded with less powder and have higher velocity than a .45 with more powder. It depends on the type of powder and its burning rate. And, as I have already posted a couple of times, with the best cartridges in any normal handgun load, there is no real difference in performance. http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=7297 Soooo am I the only one who notices that the 9mm has the smallest would diameter in this picture? It's not much smaller, but it is. (Carry is a 9mm, bedside is a .45) Nope, pretty obvious actually. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 5:49:57 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Soooo am I the only one who notices that the 9mm has the smallest would diameter in this picture? It's not much smaller, but it is. (Carry is a 9mm, bedside is a .45) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Eagerly standing by for your list of cartridges that are more effective than rounds that contain more gunpowder. You obviously are not a handloader, or you would not be saying anything about "rounds that contain more gunpowder". A 9mm can be loaded with less powder and have higher velocity than a .45 with more powder. It depends on the type of powder and its burning rate. And, as I have already posted a couple of times, with the best cartridges in any normal handgun load, there is no real difference in performance. http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=7297 Soooo am I the only one who notices that the 9mm has the smallest would diameter in this picture? It's not much smaller, but it is. (Carry is a 9mm, bedside is a .45) that's is true, but as already has been said, a non lethal hit with a 9 would still be a non lethal hit with a 40 or 45. There is only a very small difference in performance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 5:53:47 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We need to ask Jerry M. if he would prefer 9mm over 40/45/10mm. I'd genuinely like to hear what he has to say. Go for it he's a member here. How many people has he shot? ETA I think he prefers a .44 mag whoo hoo, that was fun! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 5:54:03 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Zavasta PPZ in 7.62x25mm I want to believe! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't really care if I have FMJ's, .45 ACP, .40 S&W, 9mm, .380 ACP, or a .22 LR integrally suppressed MK II. I'm going to Bill Drill your vitals as accurately and quickly as I can, and you will go down. If I were to have one pistol cartridge, it would be 7.62x25, but there are no modern hi cap polymer framed guns chambered in it. I would love a 7.62x25 M&P. Zavasta PPZ in 7.62x25mm I want to believe! 
From Wikipedia: There are unconfirmed rumors that the PPZ will be available in 7.62×25mm Tokarev caliber. It is estimated that the magazine capacity in .45 ACP caliber will be 14 rounds, 15 rounds in .40 S&W caliber, 17 or 18 rounds in 9x19 mm (based on capacity increases prototyped in Zastava CZ 07 / M-07 prototype), while in 7.62x25mm the capacity is estimated to be 20 rounds. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 5:57:11 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks for saving me a post. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is perhaps a simplification - but consider this: the energy of a round comes from the amount of gunpowder you put in it. The effectiveness of the round comes from how much energy is in it (and to that point, how well it's invested). The gun powder charges for 9mm, .40 cal, and .45 ACP aren't really that different. Of the 3, 9mm does have the smallest - but not profoundly so, at about 90%. The rest comes down to how that energy is invested. In .45, it's invested in lower velocity heavy momentum. In 9mm it's invested into high velocity. Early 9mm was FMJ, which will just ice-pick right through the target, not really investing the energy into terminal ballistics. So 9mm initially sucked. They've gotten much better at that, and so for about the same initial energy investment, you get basically the same performance now amongst all 3. Or essentially that's how I see it today. The cartridge that takes a little more powder than the others, is going to be a little more effective. Which today, is .45 ACP and .40, which take similar charges, with 9mm being maybe 10% or so lower then those (obviously highly variable, depending). Compare to something like .380, which tends to take about half the powder charge of the other 3. That is some of the worst internal ballistics information I've ever seen posted. Sorry, but you are simply uneducated about this subject. Thanks for saving me a post. No one else seems able to deliver. Perhaps you can be the one to stand up and show us all how foolish it is to consider laws of physics, and show that list of modern defense loads showing calibers that have smaller powder charges outperforming calibers with larger powder charges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 5:59:09 PM EDT
[#24]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 6:01:05 PM EDT
[#25]
I don't care if he has shot people or not. We cant all be 10th Group operators like you who dispatch the enemy often... He's a very knowledgeable shooter, and I am interested in his opinion.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Go for it he's a member here. How many people has he shot? ETA I think he prefers a .44 mag whoo hoo, that was fun! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We need to ask Jerry M. if he would prefer 9mm over 40/45/10mm. I'd genuinely like to hear what he has to say. Go for it he's a member here. How many people has he shot? ETA I think he prefers a .44 mag whoo hoo, that was fun! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 6:04:07 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is perhaps a simplification - but consider this: the energy of a round comes from the amount of gunpowder you put in it. The effectiveness of the round comes from how much energy is in it (and to that point, how well it's invested). The gun powder charges for 9mm, .40 cal, and .45 ACP aren't really that different. Of the 3, 9mm does have the smallest - but not profoundly so, at about 90%. The rest comes down to how that energy is invested. In .45, it's invested in lower velocity heavy momentum. In 9mm it's invested into high velocity. Early 9mm was FMJ, which will just ice-pick right through the target, not really investing the energy into terminal ballistics. So 9mm initially sucked. They've gotten much better at that, and so for about the same initial energy investment, you get basically the same performance now amongst all 3. Or essentially that's how I see it today. The cartridge that takes a little more powder than the others, is going to be a little more effective. Which today, is .45 ACP and .40, which take similar charges, with 9mm being maybe 10% or so lower then those (obviously highly variable, depending). Compare to something like .380, which tends to take about half the powder charge of the other 3. No. The effectiveness comes from how much tissue it destroys and what tisue it destroys. Neither velocity or muzzle energy matter. only penetration and to a lessor extent expansion matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 6:04:41 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
that's is true, but as already has been said, a non lethal hit with a 9 would still be a non lethal hit with a 40 or 45. There is only a very small difference in performance. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Eagerly standing by for your list of cartridges that are more effective than rounds that contain more gunpowder. You obviously are not a handloader, or you would not be saying anything about "rounds that contain more gunpowder". A 9mm can be loaded with less powder and have higher velocity than a .45 with more powder. It depends on the type of powder and its burning rate. And, as I have already posted a couple of times, with the best cartridges in any normal handgun load, there is no real difference in performance. http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=7297 Soooo am I the only one who notices that the 9mm has the smallest would diameter in this picture? It's not much smaller, but it is. (Carry is a 9mm, bedside is a .45) that's is true, but as already has been said, a non lethal hit with a 9 would still be a non lethal hit with a 40 or 45. There is only a very small difference in performance. This. If the projectile(in any of those calibers) hits nothing vital, then you will need to try again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 6:04:52 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't have access to the study right now, but I remember seeing an analysis of self defense shootings grouped by caliber. The conclusion was that all pistol rounds suck at stopping people, and there was no significant difference in effectiveness between all common handgun calibers. the last GSW continuing ed I sat in on, pretty much showed that you have between a 27-33% ( 30%) chance on being killed by a handgun wound, no matter how many GSW's or caliber is used. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 6:09:03 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Never understood the hate for the .40 . It always seemed to be a potent and effective caliber to me (yes, I have used it on live targets). Is it because some pistols don't have a good track record with it? If so, which is at fault, the caliber or the gun? I know it has a sharper pressure curve than some other rounds but I always saw that as an advantage because it doesn't lose much performance in pistols with really short barrels. I wouldn't call it "hate" as much as "indifference". |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 6:14:35 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We need to ask Jerry M. if he would prefer 9mm over 40/45/10mm. I'd genuinely like to hear what he has to say. He'll say
9mm for Production 40 for Limited 45 for Single Stack My monies on a Major cal rd for HD |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 6:15:26 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So... cartridges with less gunpowder (of similar type) are more effective than cartridges that take more? (assuming an optimized bullet for that cartridge is used) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is perhaps a simplification - but consider this: the energy of a round comes from the amount of gunpowder you put in it. The effectiveness of the round comes from how much energy is in it (and to that point, how well it's invested). The gun powder charges for 9mm, .40 cal, and .45 ACP aren't really that different. Of the 3, 9mm does have the smallest - but not profoundly so, at about 90%. The rest comes down to how that energy is invested. In .45, it's invested in lower velocity heavy momentum. In 9mm it's invested into high velocity. Early 9mm was FMJ, which will just ice-pick right through the target, not really investing the energy into terminal ballistics. So 9mm initially sucked. They've gotten much better at that, and so for about the same initial energy investment, you get basically the same performance now amongst all 3. Or essentially that's how I see it today. The cartridge that takes a little more powder than the others, is going to be a little more effective. Which today, is .45 ACP and .40, which take similar charges, with 9mm being maybe 10% or so lower then those (obviously highly variable, depending). Compare to something like .380, which tends to take about half the powder charge of the other 3. That is some of the worst internal ballistics information I've ever seen posted. Sorry, but you are simply uneducated about this subject. So... cartridges with less gunpowder (of similar type) are more effective than cartridges that take more? (assuming an optimized bullet for that cartridge is used) Tell me you're note really an engineer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 6:19:08 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tell me you're note really an engineer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is perhaps a simplification - but consider this: the energy of a round comes from the amount of gunpowder you put in it. The effectiveness of the round comes from how much energy is in it (and to that point, how well it's invested). The gun powder charges for 9mm, .40 cal, and .45 ACP aren't really that different. Of the 3, 9mm does have the smallest - but not profoundly so, at about 90%. The rest comes down to how that energy is invested. In .45, it's invested in lower velocity heavy momentum. In 9mm it's invested into high velocity. Early 9mm was FMJ, which will just ice-pick right through the target, not really investing the energy into terminal ballistics. So 9mm initially sucked. They've gotten much better at that, and so for about the same initial energy investment, you get basically the same performance now amongst all 3. Or essentially that's how I see it today. The cartridge that takes a little more powder than the others, is going to be a little more effective. Which today, is .45 ACP and .40, which take similar charges, with 9mm being maybe 10% or so lower then those (obviously highly variable, depending). Compare to something like .380, which tends to take about half the powder charge of the other 3. That is some of the worst internal ballistics information I've ever seen posted. Sorry, but you are simply uneducated about this subject. So... cartridges with less gunpowder (of similar type) are more effective than cartridges that take more? (assuming an optimized bullet for that cartridge is used) Tell me you're note really an engineer. Indeed. One of things we engineer types know is that more fuel usually means more energy. And more energy does more. And other crazy talk you just wouldn't believe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 6:23:00 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The best Speer Gold Dots would be next Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Federal HST 147gr The best Speer Gold Dots would be next 147 HST is made of unobtainium. Can you score some? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 6:32:51 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. The effectiveness comes from how much tissue it destroys and what tisue it destroys. Neither velocity or muzzle energy matter. only penetration and to a lessor extent expansion matter. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This is perhaps a simplification - but consider this: the energy of a round comes from the amount of gunpowder you put in it. The effectiveness of the round comes from how much energy is in it (and to that point, how well it's invested). The gun powder charges for 9mm, .40 cal, and .45 ACP aren't really that different. Of the 3, 9mm does have the smallest - but not profoundly so, at about 90%. The rest comes down to how that energy is invested. In .45, it's invested in lower velocity heavy momentum. In 9mm it's invested into high velocity. Early 9mm was FMJ, which will just ice-pick right through the target, not really investing the energy into terminal ballistics. So 9mm initially sucked. They've gotten much better at that, and so for about the same initial energy investment, you get basically the same performance now amongst all 3. Or essentially that's how I see it today. The cartridge that takes a little more powder than the others, is going to be a little more effective. Which today, is .45 ACP and .40, which take similar charges, with 9mm being maybe 10% or so lower then those (obviously highly variable, depending). Compare to something like .380, which tends to take about half the powder charge of the other 3. No. The effectiveness comes from how much tissue it destroys and what tisue it destroys. Neither velocity or muzzle energy matter. only penetration and to a lessor extent expansion matter. Correct. And now that bullet design has progressed that defensive loads for all the major common calibers (9mm, .40, and .45) expand and dump their energy inside and just a little beyond the magic 12" zone, the only real difference is energy. And the rounds that burned the most fuel (energy) will be the most effective. For the most part, all 3 consume similar powder charges (fuel), and so they perform pretty similar (To some, this obvious statement of the obvious is the most uneducated thing in the world to say). And lo - the graphic shows pretty obviously that the rounds that burn a bit more fuel within that spectrum (.357 sig and .45) give a bit bigger wound cavities. Why is this so hard? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 6:39:32 PM EDT
[#35]
For those that say Hornady Critical Defense in a 9mm, what weight bullet do you use?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 6:41:20 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
I hear this all the time. Which loads specifically are "just as good or better?" Well, Winchester Ranger obviously. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 6:43:16 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
oh I see his expression of the principles of physics and conservation of energy makes him uneducated. what you think shooting a bunch of milk jugs and posting it in arfcom makes you some type of expert? I find your pompous attitude despicable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is perhaps a simplification - but consider this: the energy of a round comes from the amount of gunpowder you put in it. The effectiveness of the round comes from how much energy is in it (and to that point, how well it's invested). The gun powder charges for 9mm, .40 cal, and .45 ACP aren't really that different. Of the 3, 9mm does have the smallest - but not profoundly so, at about 90%. The rest comes down to how that energy is invested. In .45, it's invested in lower velocity heavy momentum. In 9mm it's invested into high velocity. Early 9mm was FMJ, which will just ice-pick right through the target, not really investing the energy into terminal ballistics. So 9mm initially sucked. They've gotten much better at that, and so for about the same initial energy investment, you get basically the same performance now amongst all 3. Or essentially that's how I see it today. The cartridge that takes a little more powder than the others, is going to be a little more effective. Which today, is .45 ACP and .40, which take similar charges, with 9mm being maybe 10% or so lower then those (obviously highly variable, depending). Compare to something like .380, which tends to take about half the powder charge of the other 3. That is some of the worst internal ballistics information I've ever seen posted. Sorry, but you are simply uneducated about this subject. oh I see his expression of the principles of physics and conservation of energy makes him uneducated. what you think shooting a bunch of milk jugs and posting it in arfcom makes you some type of expert? I find your pompous attitude despicable. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 6:46:38 PM EDT
[#38]
Caliber doesn't matter as long as you hold your 'gon' like 'dis:
...and then come up with your own 'modification' of that... 
Caliber just doesn't matter. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 6:47:11 PM EDT
[#39]
9mm vs 40cal vs 45cal vs... ??
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 6:47:20 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Federal HST 147gr You can't find this stuff in stock anywhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 6:48:03 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Gold Dot, Ranger, HST. All in +P would be my guess. http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm Yup. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 6:55:42 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Caliber doesn't matter as long as you hold your 'gon' like 'dis: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_dJGB-D-Rslk/TKcjhZvf1kI/AAAAAAAAAEY/Cs0pUDGKmkE/s1600/grip.jpg http://gunnuts.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/att92879.jpg ...and then come up with your own 'modification' of that...
Caliber just doesn't matter.
I see a missing thumb in the future of that revolver shooter. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 6:56:01 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You can't find this stuff in stock anywhere. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Federal HST 147gr You can't find this stuff in stock anywhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 6:56:44 PM EDT
[#44]
Please, please, please don't let anyone shoot a revolver like that, especially that revolver. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 7:01:47 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: http://gunnuts.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/att92879.jpg Please, please, please don't let anyone shoot a revolver like that, especially that revolver. http://i55.servimg.com/u/f55/17/16/16/92/thumb510.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 7:05:31 PM EDT
[#46]
Really anything for Personal defense will do, I consider 38 special enough but not my first choice, more about shot placement than bullet. Good hollow points help, 9mm will get it done especially +P+ rounds.
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 7:06:44 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You can't find this stuff in stock anywhere. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Federal HST 147gr You can't find this stuff in stock anywhere. I got 500 rounds of it last month. But you have to really look around for it and be ready to jump at a moment's notice. And even if you do, you may not be able to get very much of it. What I really want to get now is Winchester Ranger RA9T. THAT stuff is really hard to find. I think Winchester is going heavy with RA9B production instead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 7:12:52 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I got 500 rounds of it last month. But you have to really look around for it and be ready to jump at a moment's notice. And even if you do, you may not be able to get very much of it. What I really want to get now is Winchester Ranger RA9T. THAT stuff is really hard to find. I think Winchester is going heavy with RA9B production instead. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Federal HST 147gr You can't find this stuff in stock anywhere. I got 500 rounds of it last month. But you have to really look around for it and be ready to jump at a moment's notice. And even if you do, you may not be able to get very much of it. What I really want to get now is Winchester Ranger RA9T. THAT stuff is really hard to find. I think Winchester is going heavy with RA9B production instead. Awesome I will IM you my address.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 7:19:23 PM EDT
[#49]
Here's the study I referenced earlier.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 7:23:57 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
RA9T
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I hear this all the time. Which loads specifically are "just as good or better?"
WINNER!!!!!!! |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
