.45 FMJ vs 9mm FMJ

[Gene K]

Its commonly accepted that .45 FMJ is more effective than 9mm FMJ. I was trying to come up with something to support this view.
The only thing Ive come up with so far are the numbers from Marshall and Sanow's Book. (I know some people distrust this source).

.45 ACP 230 Grain FMJ (4"+ Barrels)
575 Shootings
358 Stops
62.3% One Shot Stops (Solid Torso Hits)

9mm Luger 115 Grain FMJ (4"+ Barrels)
315 Shootings
221 Stops
70.2% One Shot Stops (Solid Torso Hits)

If its accurate, its interesting.

 

[Reggie Dunlop]

I'd say it is pretty much useless.
You would need to shoot the same number of targets(people in this case) with each weapon. In this case the .45 was fired 260 times more than the 9MM. This alone is enough to invalidate any test.
You would also need to shoot the exact same people to have a valid test. Maybe the .45 was used on bigass muscley guys and the 9MM was use to shoot 98 pound weaklings.
And you would need to shoot from the same distance with both guns.
Way too many variables for me to call the data valid.
I will take a .45 over a 9 or .40 every time.
I would not like to be shot by any of them.

 

[ken158]

The mass of the 230gr 45 cal bullet vs the mass of the 115gr 9mm bullet converted to energy tells the impact story but where the impact occurs is something to consider. The formula is: Energy (kinetic) = 1/2 times the mass times the velocity squared.

 

[bmcgilvray]

Since it's all just measly tenths of an inch anyway, how about including the .25 ACP FMJ too? Its only approximately a tenth of an inch smaller than the 9mm which is approximately a tenth of an inch smaller than the .45.

I've seen all the arguments justifying the 9mm. With FMJ, I'll take the .45 ACP.

 

[SMSgt]

I like to throw the biggest rock I can. I prefer the .45. Just me ... maybe.

 

[captainjohnsofd]

This is a matter of physics. The bigger the hole the more bleeding occurs. The heavier the projectile the more damage it does. The slower it goes the less likely it will penetrate all the way through the object. Okay- which one do you want to use to defend yourself?

 

[310Pilot]

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I used both in combat. I carry a .45 ACP when I carry a semi-auto (and I have several 1911s in that caliber). I have a couple of 9mm's as well, a S&W 39-2 and a P-08 Swiss Pattern Luger, that are "fun" guns. My preference is based on personal experience - the .45 works, the 9mm, well..... YMMV

 

[Gene K]

I'd say it is pretty much useless.
You would need to shoot the same number of targets(people in this case) with each weapon. In this case the .45 was fired 260 times more than the 9MM. This alone is enough to invalidate any test.
You would also need to shoot the exact same people to have a valid test. Maybe the .45 was used on bigass muscley guys and the 9MM was use to shoot 98 pound weaklings.
And you would need to shoot from the same distance with both guns.
Way too many variables for me to call the data valid.
I will take a .45 over a 9 or .40 every time.
I would not like to be shot by any of them.

Actually the 45ACP FMJ was broken down into three different brands (All with similar bullet profile and velocity). I totaled them all for a larger data set. They all were 62% individually as well.

To tell the truth thats one thing that bothers me about that book. If those 3 different brands (making 3 different study groups) all came up with the same percentage that points to well chosen parameters. However that is far more consistent than I would have expected.

Im not arguing for one over the other. Im just asking, how do we know .45 FMJ is better then 9mm FMJ? Ive heard that as truism but never seen any evidence offered.

Bigger is better.
Faster is better.

But is their proof bigger and slower is better?

My gut says .45 as well but then my gut has been wrong before.

 

[amd6547]

My Father fought in europe in WWII, and was well familiar with the 45acp, having used it in the thompson smg and the m3 grease gun, as well as the 1911. He was also famililiar with the 9mm, having been on the recieving end of german weapons. He had great respect for both calibers. So do I.

 

[OKFC05]

If its accurate, its interesting.

Hi, I'm the pest that teaches statistics. The problem with the data is not that it is necssarily wrong, it is that it does not have enough data under controlled conditions to meet the rigorous tests for statistical significance. That's the valid criticism of Marshall and Sanow's book.
In other words, it may be right, but you can't prove it with those data. There are tests you can do with the original data that will indicate the uncertainty of the numbers.

Ever watch the news when they give poll results on candidates? They are supposed to give the plus and minus estimate errors, but most announcers ignore it. I've watched many discuss numbers that are only 2 points difference when the fine print says plus or minus 4, meaning they are within the error of estimate. Statistics make it easier to lie convincingly to someone who does not understand the limitations of statistics.

It is silly to give digits after the decimal point when the uncertainty is probably plus or minus 5 to 10 percentage points.
If the estimates you listed are (say) plus or minus 5, having one 62 and the other 70 means the difference is within the error, and they in fact may be the same.

 

[ralph7]

i would have thought the lesson was learned back w/the moro conflict.

.38 was replaced w/the .45 for superior stopping power.

9mm is essentially .38 diameter, same deal.

as long as tissue disruption is similar, and it is, velocity doesn't matter as much as diameter.

IMHO

 

[Old cop]

The problem with all of this is that no two shootings are alike and there is no way of establishing one shot stops empirically. As a LEO I was involved in more than one shooting to defend myself, always with a thirty-eight. All I know is that I'm still here and those that tried to do me in are not. Get the best weapon you can handle (minimum = .38/ 9mm), train often and hope for the best. The rest is pure speculation.

 

[APS]

I think it would be nigh impossible to come up with any concrete findings. The only way to do it and come up with real figures is to invent a time machine and get a bunch of folks to agree to be shot. Then shoot them, measure the results, go back in time, shoot them with the other caliber and measure the results.
B/c everyone's different and they will react differently.
And even then, if the .45ACP isn't at the top of the list, there will be a bunch of complaining about the test.

 

[Gene K]

i would have thought the lesson was learned back w/the moro conflict.

.38 was replaced w/the .45 for superior stopping power.

9mm is essentially .38 diameter, same deal.

as long as tissue disruption is similar, and it is, velocity doesn't matter as much as diameter.

Thats not a very good example. The .38 S&W out of a service pistol was similar in power to a modern .38 Special 158 LRN out of a 1.875 J-Frame. The 9mm is likely about half way between the .38 S&W and .357 Magnum in power.

 

[Texas Star]

The 9mm will penetrate better, and if you are shooting North Koreans with padded uniforms, that will matter. It did, from 1950-53.

Probably, the impact of the .45 is greater. The Thompson-LaGarde tests established that it was a better stopper than 9mm hardball, as then loaded.

If the bullet hits bone, I think the 9mm will fare better than if it doesn't.

But David W. Arnold, who had access to many 9mm shootings in then-Rhodesia, told me in person that the 9mm usually worked. He had little problem with carrying an issue P-38, although he was a Colt .45 man at heart.

My son shot nine men in Iraq with 9mm's, all using GI hardball. They all dropped, although he couldn't always linger to tell if all died. One scrabbled around for about a minute before dying. He had been shot in about the solar plexus, across a room, maybe 10-15 feet range. He dropped his rifle and was unable to offer battle. Seemed convulsive and in great pain. Probably hadn't read that the 9mm is ineffective...

If I was shooting Moros or Rhodesian Bantu commie terrorists with no body armor, I would prefer .45. On heavily padded Chinese or N. Koreans, I'd probably prefer 9mm. But I'd prefer a head shot on either, if practical.

In civilian life, I can use HP ammo and not worry too much which caliber I have. But I stress that placement is the real key to stopping well.

That said, I was very uneasy with the anemic .38 FMJ ammo that I carried in the USAF. Our outfit once used unit funds to buy FMJ Hi-Speed (.38-44) ammo, and I felt happier with that, although I never had to shoot anyone. But I came close once, and worried that my ammo was junk. A vicious badger also worried me, especially after seeing another man shoot it with a .45. It took a long time to die, although shot from above between the shoulders. If we hadn't managed to get a large wooden sign between us and the badger and keep it in a corner of the dining hall, that badger would have ripped us up pretty badly. It made quite an impression on me.

T-Star
P.S. Gene, the .38 round that failed so miserably in the Phillipines was the .38 Long Colt, not the 38 S&W. But I doubt that there was a lot of practical difference. The .38 Special is a little warmer. And modern .38 Special HP ammo is a lot better.

 

[Gene K]

I think it would be nigh impossible to come up with any concrete findings. The only way to do it and come up with real figures is to invent a time machine and get a bunch of folks to agree to be shot. Then shoot them, measure the results, go back in time, shoot them with the other caliber and measure the results.
B/c everyone's different and they will react differently.
And even then, if the .45ACP isn't at the top of the list, there will be a bunch of complaining about the test.

Just seemed their should be a military study on something of this type. Guess not.

 

[jag312]

LaGarde and Thompson settled this with their studies over 100 years ago. The .45ACP is superior to the 9mm Parabellum.

 

[Gene K]

The Thompson - Lagarde Tests were less than satisfactory. They proved using handguns for large Bovines was a very bad idea. The only one shot kill was with a .30 Mauser.

Sorry, your right. I think I had just been reading about the .45 S&W / .45 Schofield / .45 Colt (Aka .45 Colt Short and Long) issue and had a brain fade.

Im not saying one is better or worse (45 vs 9mm). Im saying... Where is our evidence?

 

[Goffman]

Hi, I'm the pest that teaches statistics. The problem with the data is not that it is necssarily wrong, it is that it does not have enough data under controlled conditions to meet the rigorous tests for statistical significance. That's the valid criticism of Marshall and Sanow's book.
In other words, it may be right, but you can't prove it with those data. There are tests you can do with the original data that will indicate the uncertainty of the numbers.

Ever watch the news when they give poll results on candidates? They are supposed to give the plus and minus estimate errors, but most announcers ignore it. I've watched many discuss numbers that are only 2 points difference when the fine print says plus or minus 4, meaning they are within the error of estimate. Statistics make it easier to lie convincingly to someone who does not understand the limitations of statistics.

It is silly to give digits after the decimal point when the uncertainty is probably plus or minus 5 to 10 percentage points.
If the estimates you listed are (say) plus or minus 5, having one 62 and the other 70 means the difference is within the error, and they in fact may be the same.

As someone who works with statistics every day, I can tell you that the figures reported by the OP in this thread do demonstrate a statistically significant difference (z = 2.41, p<0.0080). In addition, the first person to respond to the OP is mistaken in his suggestion that one would need the same number of shootings for each round or the same individual to be shot with each round. However, what one *would* need is random assignment of individuals to one of the two conditions: shot with the 9mm FMJ or shot with the .45 ACP FMJ. By random assignment, I mean that individuals were assigned to one or the other of the two conditions by a truly random process, such as a flip of a coin, and not by circumstances, or by personal choice, or by convenience, or by geographic location, or whatever. Because this condition does not hold true, one cannot say with confidence that the 9mm FMJ causes one-shot incapacitation more often than does the .45 FMJ. In other words, the difference between the figures reported by the OP is large enough to meet the standards of statistical significance, but the "test conditions" are not sufficiently rigorous to allow a statistically-sound causal assertion.

 

[akviper]

The location of the wound is more critical than the caliber obviously. There are so many variables involved because of the many different loads for each. My Glock 19 fires the Federal 124 grain +P+ to an average of 1342 fps. My Model 65 fires the Federal 125 grain 357 at an average of 1357 fps.

The 125 grain 357 is thought to be one of the best "stoppers" and the above mentioned 9mm is virtually identical. I have seen the results of the Federal 9mm round in two fatal shootings. It worked very quickly and put the bad guys out and down. With decent loads I would not feel under gunned with either caliber.