Just a thought about modern day ammunition

[bripro]

I personally don’t go too nuts regarding calibers but I did just get off YouTube where I was watching some ballistic gel comparisons. A phrase I noticed people often using was how modern day technology has closed the gap between calibers. This obviously comes up a lot when comparing 9 mm to 45 for defensive rounds. I know the caliber war has been beaten to death but doesn’t it seem logical to derive that all the advancements put toward 9 mm have also been applied to 45? Of course that goes for all other calibers too.

[sota]

it does. but the advancements closed the gap in performance, regardless of if they raised the bar for various calibers.
also consider, regardless of caliber you want the same result: to stop the threat.
once you've developed a round that does that (however it's quantified) you've completed the task at hand. it becomes irrelevant what the caliber when you define it like that, and what it does is creates choice for the end user. if you're .45ACP fan, we've got a round for you. 9mm? yep. .38spl or .357? sure. really only the weaksauce .380ACP has a problem, and they're working hard at solving that (might even have it solved, depending.)

[bripro]

^^That totally helps clarify things for me. Like I said I don’t spend too much time debating my calibers. When I was hearing these comments about closing the gap I guess I thought in my mind that 45 and 40 will always put a bigger hole than nine and 380, 44 bigger than 357 etc. I never put it into perspective that they were referring to the gap meaning the rounds ability to stop a threat. Thank you very much for that.

[KCJones]

it does. but the advancements closed the gap in performance, regardless of if they raised the bar for various calibers.
also consider, regardless of caliber you want the same result: to stop the threat.
once you've developed a round that does that (however it's quantified) you've completed the task at hand. it becomes irrelevant what the caliber when you define it like that, and what it does is creates choice for the end user. if you're .45ACP fan, we've got a round for you. 9mm? yep. .38spl or .357? sure. really only the weaksauce .380ACP has a problem, and they're working hard at solving that (might even have it solved, depending.)

The thing is the issues with each caliber aren't the same, therefore advances haven't made the same impact. It comes down to 'destructive force' (or 'stopping power' if you prefer) = Mass x velocity.

So 9mm is a faster round. It delivers its force more via velocity than mass compared to .45. That means overpenetration was an issue. Even if the velocity of 9mm technically made up for less mass than .45 to deliver the 'same' stopping power, if you shot 'through' the target, some of the destructive energy was lost.

So 9mm "improves" by ensuring its maximum potential is delivered to the target vs. overpenetrating. Thus tech (particularly in bullet design for SD ammo) helps deliver more force to the target and not risk overpenetration.

.45 OTOH has less velocity but more mass. "Tech advances" there are challenging. Sure you can add velocity and thus delivered force. But then you must avoid overpenetration. So if you add velocity you must also make sure the bullet design doesn't overpenetrate.

I guess the short answer is in a world where .45 was already delivering most of its full destructive force to the target and 9mm was not, there was more room to 'improve' 9mm.

My opinion: If you optimize velocity and bullet design to deliver maximum force to the target, .45 will always have better stopping power. BUT you can easily (and we maybe have) reach the point that "more shots" available in 9mm balances that out.

e.g. when .45 is optimized and has (I'm making this up) 1,250 'stopping power' while 9mm is optimized and has 750 'stopping power'... It's just math. Do you want 9 shots with 1,250 stopping power or 15 bullets with 750? It basically comes down to your assessment of your needs / skills. Are you confident in hitting your target and prefer to take one down with one shot? Or do you prefer more shots in case you miss even if you need to take 2-3 shots per target to 'stop'.

[JAKIII]

e.g. when .45 is optimized and has (I'm making this up) 1,250 'stopping power' while 9mm is optimized and has 750 'stopping power'... It's just math. Do you want 9 shots with 1,250 stopping power or 15 bullets with 750? It basically comes down to your assessment of your needs / skills. Are you confident in hitting your target and prefer to take one down with one shot? Or do you prefer more shots in case you miss even if you need to take 2-3 shots per target to 'stop'.

I like the cut of your jib.

However, I think the “3rd or” is, do you want to make the perp suffer, as in “death by a thousand cuts”? If so, then a .380 or even a .22 would be appropriate*.






*joke

[KCJones]

I like the cut of your jib.

However, I think the “3rd or” is, do you want to make the perp suffer, as in “death by a thousand cuts”? If so, then a .380 or even a .22 would be appropriate*.

*joke

True.

If you prefer to get a .22 with ... I dunno let's be crazy... 40 shots per magazine. You can just sit there and pew-pew-pew the perp to death.

My personal preference leans toward maximum damage per shot. But I practice a lot. I can certainly see where folks would prefer maximum trigger-pulls vs. damage per shot.

[sota]

The issue is, there's no simple equation that says "this is X stopping power." Human physiology, in all terms including target construction and shooter's ability, create the largest variables in the equation. There's a lot of people walking around who've been shot multiple times with .45ACP, and there's a lot of people taking permanent dirt naps due to .22LR. We all know that unless you score a critical central nervous system hit, a "one shot stop" is pretty much a myth. Modern defensive ammo design focuses primarily on consistency of performance; POA/POI, wound channel characteristics, barrier-blind characteristics, reaction to contact with bone, etc. Basically giving you the best, most consistent rock to chuck at your target. After that it becomes one of how well the shooter can control their weapon to most consistently chuck that rock. That primarily is where caliber choice comes into play.

I'm not saying there isn't a difference in all the various flavors of defensive ammo out there; quite the contrary every one is geared towards a certain set of characteristics, and some will do better in certain cases than others. I will say that, excluding the fringe elements, your average caliber of handgun, with well designed modern defensive ammo, will all "perform" similarly enough that it comes down to shooter preference and comfort for the decision as to what to deploy/carry.

[Sgt.K]

I like the cut of your jib.

However, I think the “3rd or” is, do you want to make the perp suffer, as in “death by a thousand cuts”? If so, then a .380 or even a .22 would be appropriate*.

*joke

I appreciate the joke as a joke, which I do understand it to be in context. That said - If me shooting someone has become the necessary course of action, I want them to stop whatever they're doing as soon as possible.

One shot is faster than two. Just sayin'...

[KCJones]

The issue is, there's no simple equation that says "this is X stopping power." Human physiology, in all terms including target construction and shooter's ability, create the largest variables in the equation. There's a lot of people walking around who've been shot multiple times with .45ACP, and there's a lot of people taking permanent dirt naps due to .22LR. We all know that unless you score a critical central nervous system hit, a "one shot stop" is pretty much a myth. Modern defensive ammo design focuses primarily on consistency of performance; POA/POI, wound channel characteristics, barrier-blind characteristics, reaction to contact with bone, etc. Basically giving you the best, most consistent rock to chuck at your target. After that it becomes one of how well the shooter can control their weapon to most consistently chuck that rock. That primarily is where caliber choice comes into play.

I'm not saying there isn't a difference in all the various flavors of defensive ammo out there; quite the contrary every one is geared towards a certain set of characteristics, and some will do better in certain cases than others. I will say that, excluding the fringe elements, your average caliber of handgun, with well designed modern defensive ammo, will all "perform" similarly enough that it comes down to shooter preference and comfort for the decision as to what to deploy/carry.

Abso-frikkin-lutely.

You can get off the perfect shot with .22LR and take someone down one shot. You can hit 'em imperfectly a couple times with .45 (or .44 mag or pick your choice of 'big' round) and they keep comin.

Way many variables involved.

My thought is simply I prefer to chuck the biggest rock I got. I may miss, I may only wing 'em... But if so, I'd likely do the same with a smaller rock. I'd sooner have big rocks than small ones myself. YMMV.

[Yoder]

I've always believed that the ammo is nowhere near as important as shot placement. I see so many people wasting time and money researching the latest most deadly ammo and don't spend nearly as much time practicing. High value training under some imposed stress is way more valuable than super awesome ammo. I shoot El cheapo hollow points out of my 9mm for protection. I don't even know the brand, but I practice a lot.