Handgun cartridge power comparison graph - Page 1

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Handgun cartridge power comparison graph (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 1/31/2013 4:31:00 PM EDT

I thought you guys might find this an interesting topic to discuss. I've long searched for someone who compiled all of the known cartridge data to seen really how all of the popular SAAMI cartridges compare to one another. Well, I decided to do it myself. These are the hottest loads within maximum pressure limits (no +P) I could find which were verifiable. This chart is organized based on energy delivery as I feel it's the best metric for comparison. Let me know what you think.

(right click>view image to see full size)

If you're interested in seeing wildcats included, I have them added into a separate graph:
http://cj.supraspeed.com/Pics/Weapons/PistolPowerComparisonWildcats.jpg

Posted: 1/31/2013 4:41:16 PM EDT

[#1]

Wow, 9mm and .45 are next to each other. .40 S&W much further ahead. Interesting.

My new favorite, 10mm, holds a respectable place just behind the calibers usually found in revolvers. Wonder what would happen if the data considered magazine capacity; cumulative energy, ie., 15+1 in G20 or 6 in a revolver?

Edit: I did it the math roughly. .500 is 18,000ft-lbs in 6 shots. G20 is 12,000ft-lbs in 16 rounds

2 out of 3 - felt recoil?!

Posted: 1/31/2013 4:42:21 PM EDT

[#2]

Looks like 45ACP is only slightly better than 9mm in your chart. You don't specify which projectile, but ball ammo in a 9, sorry ,sucks balls. In 45ACP, not so much. You asked.

Posted: 1/31/2013 4:47:06 PM EDT

[#3]

The type of projectile is irrelevant in energy comparison, which is what this chart is. It's about power not penetration or damage.

Posted: 1/31/2013 4:49:53 PM EDT

[#4]

This is very cool. Good job and thank you!

Posted: 1/31/2013 4:51:25 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Wow, 9mm and .45 are next to each other. .40 S&W much further ahead. Interesting.

My new favorite, 10mm, holds a respectable place just behind the calibers usually found in revolvers. Wonder what would happen if the data considered magazine capacity; cumulative energy, ie., 15+1 in G20 or 6 in a revolver?

Edit: I did it the math roughly. .500 is 18,000ft-lbs in 6 shots. G20 is 12,000ft-lbs in 16 rounds

2 out of 3 - felt recoil?!

500 mag cylinders are 5 shots, so it's actually less than that. And it's going to take a while to fire 5 shots on target at a distance than 10mm for sure, I'm sure you could empty a mag on a target while you're aiming 5 500 mag shots.

Here's my delta 10mm shooting 1 mag of 200gr @ 1200fps, and 2 mags of 135gr @ 1600fps (which is the load in this chart, coincidentally)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIzPwLZW0Ig

Here's my 500 mag shooting a 440gr @ 1600fps cylinder empty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-Cf-SDz6bQ

So, there you go! Your theory in action!

Posted: 1/31/2013 5:01:54 PM EDT

[#6]

What I find really interesting is just about all of us have been involved in a 9mm vs. .45, 40, 38super, etc. All of the popular carry cartridges. When you look at this graph of all of the major cartridges, all of the primary ones we argue about are literally identical from an energy standpoint.

Posted: 1/31/2013 5:03:12 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
The type of projectile is irrelevant in energy comparison, which is what this chart is. It's about power not penetration or damage.

Hope you didn't spend too much time on it.

Posted: 1/31/2013 5:07:02 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The type of projectile is irrelevant in energy comparison, which is what this chart is. It's about power not penetration or damage.

Hope you didn't spend too much time on it.

I'm sorry you got butt hurt not understanding why penetration is irrelevant in an energy comparison.

Posted: 1/31/2013 5:10:46 PM EDT

[#9]

No feelings were hurt, you asked. Carry on. It is a cool chart.

Posted: 1/31/2013 5:12:43 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
No feelings were hurt, you asked. Carry on.

No sweat, comparing penetration and types of projectiles would be far too complicated to chart over this many cartridges. When I get some time I might do some ballistic testing myself and chart the information that you're more interested in. However, the amount of cartridges will have to be reduced substantially.

It's just a chart for people to enjoy based on muzzle energy. If anyone has a hotter load that's within SAAMI max pressure I will update the chart.

Posted: 1/31/2013 5:18:16 PM EDT

[#11]

Cool chart. Thanks for the visuals.

Capacity > Energy.

Posted: 1/31/2013 5:28:31 PM EDT

[#12]

For sure.

I just noticed my .22LR data is wrong, I did find it odd that .25 ACP was above .22LR. I wish all .22LR was subsonic, hah. I will have to correct that.

Posted: 1/31/2013 5:48:40 PM EDT

[#13]

why did you use 115gr 9mm and 185gr in 45acp? why not use 230gr 45 or heavier 9mm?

Posted: 1/31/2013 5:55:42 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
why did you use 115gr 9mm and 185gr in 45acp? why not use 230gr 45 or heavier 9mm?

Maximum energy is not always achieved at the heaviest weight projectile. A .45 delivers peak energy with a 185gr. 9mm achieves max at 115gr. Energy delivery is a curve, and every cartridge has a maximum efficiency.

Posted: 1/31/2013 5:58:09 PM EDT

[#15]

Same 185gr bullet weight and 45 GAP shoots 100fps faster than 45 ACP?

Posted: 1/31/2013 5:59:36 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Same 185gr bullet weight and 45 GAP shoots 100fps faster than 45 ACP?

Yes, its a higher pressure cartridge. 45ACP is an extremely low pressure cartridge. Look at .45 super on the wildcat graph. That's a .45ACP with a stronger case operating at a higher pressure. The case is dimensionally the same. 460 Rowland is essentially a higher pressure version of .45 super, and so on.

Posted: 1/31/2013 6:04:39 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
why did you use 115gr 9mm and 185gr in 45acp? why not use 230gr 45 or heavier 9mm?

Maximum energy is not always achieved at the heaviest weight projectile. A .45 delivers peak energy with a 185gr. 9mm achieves max at 115gr. Energy delivery is a curve, and every cartridge has a maximum efficiency.

So you are not talking about energy on impact but energy on when the bullet exits the barrel?

Posted: 1/31/2013 6:09:08 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
why did you use 115gr 9mm and 185gr in 45acp? why not use 230gr 45 or heavier 9mm?

Maximum energy is not always achieved at the heaviest weight projectile. A .45 delivers peak energy with a 185gr. 9mm achieves max at 115gr. Energy delivery is a curve, and every cartridge has a maximum efficiency.

So you are not talking about energy on impact but energy on when the bullet exits the barrel?

It's essentially the same since all are measured the same. It's simply to compare cartridges based on their peak pressures. If we were comparing energy delivered you would have to factor in penetration, humidity, altitude, bullet type, etc. No easy comparison could be realistically made there. For instance a 10mm may deliver more energy than a 500 mag since the 500 would blow right through someone, even though 500 mag is considerably more powerful.

So for comparison reasons the chart shows the absolute ideal energy delivery possible with each cartridge. Depending on the target you may get less, but never more.

Posted: 1/31/2013 6:17:50 PM EDT

[#19]

Momentum is as important (or more) as energy. Since kinetic energy is a velocity squared function the numbers will always appear to favor higher velocity. Momentum is a function of velocity times mass, so the heavier projectile will preserve momentum as velocity falls with distance. Also this chart doesnt look at sectional density or cross sectional area. These are why the 45 (and 10mm) has an advantage.

Also, your 9mm might expand, but my 45 sure won't ever shrink.

Posted: 1/31/2013 6:18:20 PM EDT

[#20]

Chris65 had a good question. To avoid confusion I should probably post up the maximum SAAMI specs for each cartridge.

Posted: 1/31/2013 6:21:26 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Momentum is as important (or more) as energy. Since kinetic energy is a velocity squared function the numbers will always appear to favor higher velocity. Momentum is a function of velocity times mass, so the heavier projectile will preserve momentum as velocity falls with distance. Also this chart doesnt look at sectional density or cross sectional area. These are why the 45 (and 10mm) has an advantage.

Also, your 9mm might expand, but my 45 sure won't ever shrink.

That's completely correct. SD gets into projectile type and complicates the data considerably to the point I couldn't compile such a large amount of data, so it is left out. I have included power factor which better demonstrates momentum to a degree, you can see this with 45LC. Without getting too complex the chart serves to explain and demonstrate comparisons between cartridges which I find pretty interesting.

Posted: 1/31/2013 9:04:48 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
The type of projectile is irrelevant in energy comparison, which is what this chart is. It's about power not penetration or damage.

No, it's an energy chart, not a power chart.

Posted: 2/1/2013 1:20:28 AM EDT

[#23]

Very interesting! I'd like to see the same chart, but with heavy-for-caliber bullet weights used.

Posted: 2/1/2013 5:02:40 AM EDT

[#24]

interesting seems to show 5.7 to be substantially better than 22mag. but bullet design has more to do with effectiveness than these factors for instance a 125 gr 357mag scalloped HP will expand faster and larger than a 125 gr 357sig HP because to work in the auto the 357 sig cannot have a lead front it must be semi jacketed.

The 45 LC load they are showing is anemic

Posted: 2/1/2013 7:10:51 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

The 45 LC load they are showing is anemic

Gotta read the italics on the chart, within factory pressure specifications which I guess means SAAMI pressure. Which make allot of the comparisions kinda moot, 45Colt loaded for a blackhawk will hang pretty near the 44mag, 45GAP has no advantage over commonly availible 45ACP+P loads, if you compare the cartridges loaded to their maximum capability things would be different. Still sort of neat to look at, just not neccesarily applicable, depending on firearm, and whether +P, +P+ or handloads are availible/used.

Posted: 2/1/2013 8:14:46 AM EDT

[#26]

Lots of people are not reloaders and dont realize exactly how low presure .38spl and .45 ACP are. Back in 1900 when these were invented the high pressure pistol cartridges didn't really get used, the brass wasn't up to the task. .45 ACP is about 18000 PSI while 9mm is about 35000 PSI the powder charge of a 9mm 124 grains is 5.3 universal, .45 ACP for 230 grains 5.6 grains universal. almost the exact same amount of powder but significantly less pressure generated(larger case size).

Posted: 2/1/2013 9:33:00 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
You don't specify which projectile, but ball ammo in a 9, sorry ,sucks balls. In 45ACP, not so much. You asked.

Got a source for your claims?

Posted: 2/1/2013 9:41:25 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The type of projectile is irrelevant in energy comparison, which is what this chart is. It's about power not penetration or damage.

Hope you didn't spend too much time on it.

I'm sorry you got butt hurt not understanding why penetration is irrelevant in an energy comparison.

Yeah, things can look very different when selecting one criteria and dismissing the rest. The light and fast camp (e.g. 9mm) will love this chart because it focus just on energy. Energy greatly favors velocity. Lighter and smaller objects have more velocity in service caliber handguns.

Compare penetration and it looks different. Compare surface area and it looks different. Compare recoil and it looks different. Consider barriers to penetration and it looks different. Consider the big picture and it looks different. Consider this one thing and this chart is a colorful and valuable contribution to the discussion comparing the numbers presented.

My thought: There is a reason linebackers in the NFL are not built like cornerbacks; it's more about momentum (not velocity) when defeating the barriers needed to penetrate the offensive line. With a wide open path to the QB the cornerback will be fine. Personally, I'll take the linebacker.

Regardless, it's a pretty chart indeed. Come to think of it I need to go pick some cherries now myself.

Posted: 2/1/2013 9:54:19 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The type of projectile is irrelevant in energy comparison, which is what this chart is. It's about power not penetration or damage.

Hope you didn't spend too much time on it.

I'm sorry you got butt hurt not understanding why penetration is irrelevant in an energy comparison.

Yeah, things can look different when selecting one criteria and dismissing all the rest. Some will love this chart because it focus just on energy because energy greater favors velocity. Lighter and smaller objects have more velocity in service caliber handguns. Compare penetration and it looks different. Compare surface are and it looks different. Compare recoil and it looks different. Consider the big picture and it looks different. Come to think of it I need to go pick some cherries now myself.

Dude...you're reading way too much into this.

He didn't include those things because the chart is not about them. It's not about what cartridge is "best for X" or "best for Y". Don't worry, whatever your "precious" is, he's not insulting it.

Posted: 2/1/2013 9:59:41 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The type of projectile is irrelevant in energy comparison, which is what this chart is. It's about power not penetration or damage.

Hope you didn't spend too much time on it.

I'm sorry you got butt hurt not understanding why penetration is irrelevant in an energy comparison.

Yeah, things can look different when selecting one criteria and dismissing all the rest. Some will love this chart because it focus just on energy because energy greater favors velocity. Lighter and smaller objects have more velocity in service caliber handguns. Compare penetration and it looks different. Compare surface are and it looks different. Compare recoil and it looks different. Consider the big picture and it looks different. Come to think of it I need to go pick some cherries now myself.

Dude...you're reading way too much into this.

He didn't include those things because the chart is not about them. It's not about what cartridge is "best for X" or "best for Y". Don't worry, whatever your "precious" is, he's not insulting it.

The chart is useless if it provides nothing meaningful then. I think I'll create a chart based on slowest possible velocity by caliber and we can discuss that, too.

Posted: 2/1/2013 10:08:58 AM EDT

[#31]

LOL.

That would be pretty cool though. I have a reliable 9mm load that does just over 700 fps that I'm kind of proud of.

Posted: 2/1/2013 10:09:43 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The type of projectile is irrelevant in energy comparison, which is what this chart is. It's about power not penetration or damage.

Hope you didn't spend too much time on it.

I'm sorry you got butt hurt not understanding why penetration is irrelevant in an energy comparison.

Yeah, things can look very different when selecting one criteria and dismissing the rest. The light and fast camp (e.g. 9mm) will love this chart because it focus just on energy. Energy greatly favors velocity. Lighter and smaller objects have more velocity in service caliber handguns.

Compare penetration and it looks different. Compare surface area and it looks different. Compare recoil and it looks different. Consider barriers to penetration and it looks different. Consider the big picture and it looks different. Consider this one thing and this chart is a colorful and valuable contribution to the discussion comparing the numbers presented.

My thought: There is a reason linebackers in the NFL are not built like cornerbacks; it's more about momentum (not velocity) when defeating the barriers needed to penetrate the offensive line. With a wide open path to the QB the cornerback will be fine. Personally, I'll take the linebacker.

Regardless, it's a pretty chart indeed. Come to think of it I need to go pick some cherries now myself.

http://intrencik.com/357sig.htm
Momentum is an even worse indicator for anything but deflection.

Posted: 2/1/2013 10:26:53 AM EDT

[#33]

Projectile weight is relevant. As a handloader I can tell you chart doesn't reflect various component choices. It reflects a choice of cartridge in each caliber and that's it.

Posted: 2/1/2013 4:48:20 PM EDT

[#34]

It's just about maximum energy, the weight of the projectile is at the mercy of the efficiency of the cartridge. If I used 9mm+p to make the 9mm guys happy, then everything else would be +p and render the comparison pointless. .45LC is 14,000 psi. Blackhawk loads are good in 1 pistol (and vaquero) and it isn't an accurate reflection of the maximum muzzle energy. Sounds great to dismiss it based on not being an over pressure round, but the it would render the comparison pointless. SAAMI specs are the best way to insure all calibers are most accurately represented. I could add in +p variants of the most popular calibers as a separate chart to see what benefits they have.

Posted: 2/1/2013 4:52:25 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Projectile weight is relevant. As a handloader I can tell you chart doesn't reflect various component choices. It reflects a choice of cartridge in each caliber and that's it.

Please explain how a 185gr HP and a 230gr ball projectile differ in muzzle energy. 230gr has less muzzle energy because it is less efficient from a muzzle energy perspective, which is why I didn't list it. The chart is simply about maximum energy delivery. How much energy can a .45ACP (for instance) deliver in the best possible circumstance without exceeding it's maximum pressure? I've done my best to find the highest energy deliver from verifiable pressure tested data.

Maximum muzzle energy is a set figure since psi is fixed. The point is maximum energy delivery within a set pressure. Peak energy is a curve, not a wave. It has only one peak. Which means the projectile weight is determined by the maximum muzzle energy, not the other way around. As a hand loader this should be easy to understand, I hope that makes sense.

Posted: 2/1/2013 5:03:58 PM EDT

[#36]

I might need some help explaining the difference between projectile weight and profile..... Someone want to help out with this.

Quoted:

Quoted:
Projectile weight is relevant. As a handloader I can tell you chart doesn't reflect various component choices. It reflects a choice of cartridge in each caliber and that's it.

Please explain how a 185gr HP and a 185gr ball projectile differ in muzzle energy.

It's irrelevant. Maximum muzzle energy is a set figure since psi is fixed. I hope that makes sense.

Posted: 2/1/2013 5:10:59 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
I might need some help explaining the difference between projectile weight and profile..... Someone want to help out with this.

Quoted:

Quoted:
Projectile weight is relevant. As a handloader I can tell you chart doesn't reflect various component choices. It reflects a choice of cartridge in each caliber and that's it.

Please explain how a 185gr HP and a 185gr ball projectile differ in muzzle energy.

It's irrelevant. Maximum muzzle energy is a set figure since psi is fixed. I hope that makes sense.

My apologies, I meant that to be 230gr ball. Since this chart is about maximum muzzle energy, the weight is irrelevant. Maximum energy only occurs at one weight, not at two.

Posted: 2/1/2013 5:24:43 PM EDT

[#38]

Assuming chart represents maximum values. This, like another thread is structured inside a box and doesn't represent all projectile and velocity options. I carry a 185 handloaded Barnes but I can load same or better performance in heavier weights.

Posted: 2/1/2013 5:28:55 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Assuming chart represents maximum values. This, like another thread is structured inside a box and doesn't represent all projectile and velocity options. I carry a 185 handloaded Barnes but I can load same or better performance in heavier weights.

It does represent all velocities and projectile weights within maximum factory pressure specifications. I hope you understand, if I left SAAMI pressure specs, then all of the data would become less relevant, because there is no control. I completely understand your point and perspective, and I agree with your premise, however that's not what this chart is about. In order to quantify the data you're talking about, it would be extremely difficult. Once you leave maximum pressure specifications, where do you draw the line?

I enjoy all the advice and ideas, I enjoy doing this so if there is a different type of chart or data you'd like to see represented I'm all for it. I just have to find a way to accurately display it. This chart is the best way I could find to display the data.

Posted: 2/1/2013 5:35:07 PM EDT

[#40]

What is the source of your data?

I'm not saying it's unpossible, but I've never heard of a 357sig going 1550 out of a standard length barrel. That's about 250fps too fast...

Posted: 2/1/2013 5:37:03 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
What is the source of your data?

I'm not saying it's unpossible, but I've never heard of a 357sig going 1550 out of a standard length barrel. That's about 250fps too fast...

I thought that was ape shit also.

115 gr (7 g) Doubletap Bonded defense JHP 1,550 ft/s (470 m/s) 614 ft·lbf (832 J)
Test barrel: 4"

It's listed and tested within SAAMI specs.

The data varies, not all manufacturers delve into every caliber. The data comes from the maximum energy delivered for the caliber that I could find within pressure specs. All of the loads are from well known large commercial distributors. Some are blended powders, but as long as it's within max pressure it's game.

Posted: 2/1/2013 6:04:46 PM EDT

[#42]

I think most know that terminal performance and arbitrary assignments of words like 'power' are not particularly correlated. You can argue which round and which loading will yield the greatest energy but it's academic. It won't change the requirements for a round design that fully expands and has adequate penetration.

Posted: 2/1/2013 6:09:22 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
I think most know that terminal performance and arbitrary assignments of words like 'power' are not particularly correlated. You can argue which round and which loading will yield the greatest energy but it's academic. It won't change the requirements for a round design that fully expands and has adequate penetration.

That's precisely right. There is beauty in simplicity. There are so many variables when it comes to energy delivery on target I personally do not believe the data could ever be reliably compared. Within a given cartridge it's easy, people do it all the time, but when you're talking about 20 different cartridges, it's almost impossible. If you have a realistic way to do it, I'm all ears. I can test cartridges on just about every metric including pressure (CUP). I'm unable to do PSI, and probably will never be able to afford that equipment.

Posted: 2/1/2013 6:10:58 PM EDT

[#44]

I'd like to see how 7.62x25 ranks.

Posted: 2/1/2013 6:15:08 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
I'd like to see how 7.62x25 ranks.

I have had a few people mention 7.62x25. The reason I didn't add it is because it's an awkward caliber for a few reasons. Russian surplus can go as high as 2,000fps, but that ammo (to my knowledge) is designed for a PPSh-41, and not a Tokarev pistol. I have seen some loads as high as 1700fps, but finding SAAMI specs for 7.62x25 seems hit and miss. Was it ever tested under European spec? If I can find some solid data I will add it, sure.

Posted: 2/1/2013 7:15:18 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Assuming chart represents maximum values. This, like another thread is structured inside a box and doesn't represent all projectile and velocity options. I carry a 185 handloaded Barnes but I can load same or better performance in heavier weights.

It does represent all velocities and projectile weights within maximum factory pressure specifications. I hope you understand, if I left SAAMI pressure specs, then all of the data would become less relevant, because there is no control. I completely understand your point and perspective, and I agree with your premise, however that's not what this chart is about. In order to quantify the data you're talking about, it would be extremely difficult. Once you leave maximum pressure specifications, where do you draw the line?

I enjoy all the advice and ideas, I enjoy doing this so if there is a different type of chart or data you'd like to see represented I'm all for it. I just have to find a way to accurately display it. This chart is the best way I could find to display the data.

I'm back to the box again. Reference is the box you've worked your chart within, with regard to .45acp. Values represented are lower than SAAMI maximum pressures. Now, I want to stop right here for a second and say Thank You. I know first hand the effort put into a thread like yours and how easy it is for takers to take from givers at this and other sites. After a while you become all used up, sight dues become due and you do like me and say, fuck it. Why pay for abuse when I can get it for free !!

Back to your chart. I would if I were you, explained how you arrived at maximum values. Truth be told, probably from manufactuer websites. Some calibers are loaded closer to max than others. 45acp happens to be a caliber that's often, underloaded.

Consider this. A 230 grain Hornady FMJ FP traveling at 908 fps with a cup pressure of 17,200 pounds. Maximum pressure is 21,000 cup. I can do this all day long in every caliber. I can also fill the gap in this equation and report a 230 grain projectile moving in excess of 920 fps and still under 21,000 cup making a higher power factor than recorded on your chart.

Bottom line, my point is your chart is at the mercy of factory loadings and don't reflect each calibers potential.

Posted: 2/1/2013 7:32:09 PM EDT

[#47]

I dont think the standards are being held across the board.

If you are going to do a fast and light loading for 9mm then do it for 44 mag as well.

Big difference in how a 180 grn flies in 44 mag and the 320 grn selection is to stout for all but the stronger revolvers

155grn isnt exactly an overly popular 40 sw load nor is 115 grn for 9mm.

Stick to more middle of the road or do extremes. A light load chart and a heavy load chart.

Posted: 2/1/2013 10:55:28 PM EDT

[#48]

I'd like to see brands for the ammo. I'm look at Speer Gold Dot info and here is what I'm seeing:

9mm 115 gr:
Muzzle: 1,210 FPS 374 ft lbs
25 yds: 1,133 FPS 328 ft lbs

40 155 gr:
Muzzle: 1,200 FPS 496 ft lbs
25 yds: 1,124 435 ft lbs

45 acp 185 gr:
Muzzle: 1,050 FPS 453 ft lbs
25 yds: 998 FPS 409 ft lbs

45 GAP 185 gr:
Muzzle: 1,090 FPS 488 ft lbs
25 yds: 1,030 FPS 436 ft lbs

So at the muzzle, 40>45 GAP>45 acp>9mm
At 25 yards, 45 GAP>40>45 acp>9mm

With that being said, my preferred round is 45 acp 230 gr.

Let's not forget that all handguns suck compared to long guns.

Posted: 2/2/2013 4:53:26 AM EDT

[#49]

It's an interesting comparison. I tend to favor loads in the heavier weights myself, but it's a cool reference nonetheless.

Posted: 2/3/2013 11:35:05 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

http://intrencik.com/357sig.htm
Momentum is an even worse indicator for anything but deflection.

The .357sig performs better against steel/metal, as does smaller surface area. Combine smaller surface area and higher velocity even better. Steel is fairly non-elastic and non-brittle (if quality). As velocity increases solid metal begin to act more and more like a fluid. However, in service caliber handguns momentum (energy retention) is the better indicator against commonly encountered civilian barriers (e.g. bone), as well as deeper penetration in soft tissue. Dangerous game calibers use a heavy bullet for good reason. For LE though, metal car doors are indeed a more realistic consideration.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Handgun cartridge power comparison graph (Page 1 of 2)

Handguns » Handgun Discussions

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us