Gun power

I read in a Google topic the the M9 9mm Beretta pistol replaced a Colt .45 caliber pistol. The page said that the M9 was more lethal than it's predessecors, but in another topic a forum member told me that a .45 caliber was more powerful than the Browning 9mm High Power. What's up with that?

 

This is one of most hotly debated issues with no crystal clear answers, comparing the two using plain physics the .45 will always come out as more powerful, in reality ther are far more considerations that need to be taken into account. Each caliber has its own distinct advantages and disadvantages. The lethality of a pistol, any caliber, is more dependent on shot placement than its caliber. That being said, the main reason for the 9mm replacing the .45 was simply logistics and the need to standardize within NATO

 

I generally agree with willys, except that in terms of muzzle energy, the standard military loading of the 9mm develops about 20% more than the standard .45 ACP. This gives it superior penetration, but the wound channel (with full-jacket bullets) is narrower, so the .45 is generally reckoned to be more effective.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

The topic is an interesting one, on many gun forums it is a source of never ending debate, personally i prefer the 9mm, not for any real ballistic related reason, more of an economical choice, In reality i would rather not be shot with either round LOL

On a sidenote, not trying to further the debate, I have witnessed 9mm 115 grain FMJ not being able to penetrate a car windshield at roughly 30 feet (9 meters) distance. I realize that there were many variables involved but it sure did surprise the heck out of me at the time

 

If the .45 is more effective, than why was it replaced by something not as effective? Why coouldn't standardization be made with the .45? Is it because the 9mm has more ammo capacity?

 

nobody in Europe used the 45, only the yanks

FNG

 

The differences in effectiveness, both real and percieved, werent substantial enough (hence the debate continues to this day) to overpower the simple logistical benefits of switching, cheaper to maunfacture, ammo availability, troops can carry more rounds, the overwhelming commonality..etc.

If War were to break out in Europe which would you want to be carrying? Not too many ammo manufacturers in Europe making .45 rounds, likely would be hard to come by, or 9mm, which exists in mass quantities in almost every country.

Here is a link that touches on some of the controversy regarding the switch:

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.ph ... le&sid=378

 

I'm under the impression that a deal was made between the USA and the other NATO countries about small arms standardization. The US got it's way in having the 7.62mm NATO and 5.56mm NATO adopted but would have to adopt the 9mm when it became time to get a new handgun.

Also, SOCOM units are still using M-1911 pistols in .45ACP although they are modernized.

 

better to have 14 9mm than 7 .45 in the magazine .the 9mm is also easier to shoot...

 

With all of the controversy over the issue, I would be curious to see numbers on actual effectiveness of handguns in combat, When I was in the service we always joked about that its probably more effective to throw the entire pistol at someone than it is to try and shoot at them in a combat situation. Of course all we had were some very worn out 1911's, all of them more than likely were older than the soldiers that were qualifying with them.


Majorwoody, I agree with you on the 9mm, but have seen arguments that it takes 3 rounds from a 9 to accomplish what 1 .45 will do, I realize that probably is unsubstantiated internet rederick, but in a way it does emphasize the importance of shot placement.

When it came time for me to purchase a handgun, I chose the 9mm, partially for economic reasons, but i also like that litte extra piece of mind in knowing that I have 15 rounds ready to go, although the new Springfield XD in .45 caliber has a 13 round capacity, I shot one of them this weekend, and i was quite surprised, the recoil was not a whole lot more than my 9mm.

Also while i am jabbering away on here, I do alot of work at many area local police and sherriff stations, as well as State Police barracks, and the vast majority of them have stopped using the 9mm, almost all of them have switched to either the .40 S&W or the .45 ACP, and everyone of them i talk to about it all give the same answer, the 9 just doesnt have the knockdown power that the officers are looking for when their lives are in danger. One comment i have heard is that if some crackhead is coming at them with a knife, several rounds from a 9 will not stop them immediatley, wheras one round of .45 will drop them almost instantly. I cannot comment on if this is a real or percieved way of looking at the 9mm, I am not trying to present this as a known factual data, just things i have been told many times by law enforcement officers in casual conversation

 

Yes, on a Colt .45 vs Browning High-power topic, (the Browning High-power's a 9mm pistol), it said that a .45 bullet has more stopping power than a 9mm round. Someone said that stopping power is preferred over ammo. I mean, if some lunatic's coming at ya' with a switchblade or some other melee weapon, what you wanna' do is to stop them at once before they can whack you. On the battlefield, the case is even more so. So, why did the Marines switch to a low-powered 9mm when they could be using a .45 with far more stopping power?
(PS Personally I'd take the Desert Eagle, I mean, .50 caliber shots trump all other handguns with a smaller calier).

 

the .50 cal desert wouldn't be that much better than a .45 when considering stopping power. it only 5 hundredths of an inch bigger which is very little. Also, when a .50cal machin gun is rarely (if ever) used unmounted the recoil of a handgun firing the same size bullet would be difficult to use and potentially dangerous to someone who doesn't know how to use it properly.

 

I have fired a couple of the .50 Desert Eagles. It wouldn't be a great choice for a combat pistol in my opinion as they are heavy and somewhat cumbersome. A standard issue sidearm has to be able to work with folks of differents hand sizes, strength, etc.

The Marines didn't get any choice in what they were issued. They got the same pistol the Army, Navy, and Air Force were given.

The M-1911A1 went out of standard production for the US military in 1945. There were a few purchased since then but not enough to amount to anything. The vast majority were simply rebuilt many times.

Once you think of it, handguns really are not a priority weapon system. Most (maybe 80% to 90%) of the military personnel who carry sidearms never actually take them out of the holster except to clean it every so often.

 

it's true, if you are pulling out your side arm to defend yourself truely the smelly stuff is hitting the fan.

Plus would you want to carry around a beast of an eagle for 10 years without ever using it in self defence.

FNG

 

It's important to remember that the choice of bullet makes a huge difference to effectiveness, especially to a high-velocity round like the 9mm.

For military purposes full-jacket ball rounds have to be used, and here the larger diameter of the .45 provides an advantage (although not a three-to-one advantage; more like 50% better). However, shot placement is more important; a hit in a vital area with a 9mm is better than one outside a vital area with a .45 (or a Desert Eagle, for that matter).

But load the 9mm with a good, modern, hollow-point - as the police can do - and it will achieve a very effective blend of expansion and penetration. A .45 firing expanding bullets will still have an edge, but it's not so noticeable. The .40 (with a good expanding bullet) is probably the best all-round compromise. But still, as with any pistol round, shot placement is the most vital element. There is no such thing as "knock-down power".

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

So, in that case, military guys wielding a 9mm Beretta would have to do target practise way more than guys using a .45. That works.

 

No, you will need the same amount of practice. Poor shooting is poor shooting no matter what caliber you use.

 

Didn't the Thompson use .45 bullets? They were British.

 

Thompsons were Lend-Leased from the US. The Brits needed them and didn't much choice in caliber.

 

if i was a poor dogface infantryman ,i wouldnt carrie a pistole at all ,i would prefer to carrie the extra weight as grenades or extra rifle ammo