Caliber war starting right now.

Okay ya all. Let's keep this clean. No eye poking, groin kicking :smt062:numbchuck: or shooting allowed.:smt071 No, "I'm right and you're a moron!" comments.:smt062 :smt097This is to learn and that's why I am posting this. kiss, kiss, hug, hug :heart:

I’ve been thinking hard about what caliber I want for my next CCW. I want a smaller gun than my G23 and have been looking at the Kel-Tec PF-9 but its had so many problem I’ve pretty much eliminated it. Next would be the P-11 (9mm) or P3-AT (.380).

So I did a little research and this is what I found. I used the same round for comparison. Federal JHP Hydra-Shok
----------------------------------------------------------
TKO=Taylor Index
Penetration= Four plastic jugs filled with water.
TKO value = [ Weight (gr) x Terminal Velocity (fps) x caliber (in) ] ÷ 7000 (higher the better)

Firearm: Browning Hi-Power
Barrel Length: 4.75"
Caliber: 9MM Luger
Bullet Diameter: 0.355"
Bullet Weight: 124 grains
Make: Federal JHP Hydra-Shok
Velocity: 1117 FPS
Recovered Bullet Diameter: 0.635"
Recovered Bullet Weight: 120.5 grains
Distance From Muzzle: 20'
Penetration: 15”
TKO: 7.51


Firearm: Beretta 84F
Barrel Length: 3.5"
Caliber: .380 ACP
Bullet Diameter: 0.355"
Bullet Weight: 90 grains
Make: Federal JHP Hydra-Shok
Velocity: 1030 FPS
Recovered Bullet Diameter: 0.572"
Recovered Bullet Weight: 89.8 grains
Distance From Muzzle: 20'
Penetration: 13”
TKO: 5.032

Firearm: Kimber CPD
Barrel Length: 3.0"
Caliber: .45 ACP
Bullet Diameter: 0.451"
Bullet Weight: 165 grains
Make: Federal JHP Hydra-Shok
Velocity: 934 FPS
Recovered Bullet Diameter: 0.717"
Recovered Bullet Weight: 160.0 grains
Distance From Muzzle: 20'
Penetration: 14”
TKO: 6.428

As you can see the 9mm has a better TKO than a .45 which I’m sure I’ll hear about from you .45 hard heads. The .380 is not much under the .45 basically because of velocity. I understand the the barrel length will affect velocity and that shot placement is key. I’ve tried to take (placement) that factor out.

http://www.stevespages.com/page8f.htm

Okay ya all. Chop away. I’m a man. I can take it. Just don’t hurt my feelings because I’m a sensitive 21st century man. :smt089

Take a breath Shipwreck. It'll be okay. We're all adults here and we've been very good about keeping things civil here. That is why I'm here.

I'm trying to figure this out can you define the Taylor Index for me?

Bottom line: I don't want to be shot with any of them.

It seems as though it really DOES come down to shot placement. This ought to be a lesson for all of us.

That TKO figure is interesting... it's essentially momentum times caliber, which is perhaps not the best statistic for ballistic effectiveness, but it's not useless either.

My opinion: go with the 9mm. You get more in the magazine, plus good penetration (especially with +P rounds) which is important. The extra ~0.1" expanded diameter doesn't make a big difference; a 9mm round that expands to 0.65" or so will do plenty of damage, and a .45 ACP which expands to 0.75" or so is only slightly more likely to hit something vital.

Spenser, I agree that shot placement is more important, but to that I would also add luck.

Go with whatever you want. I prefer the .45 myself. If ya hit the same point with a 9mm and .45 both will provide enough penetration but the .45 is still goin to leave a bigger hole. Instead of the light loads listed I prefer the 230gr hollow points. I would definitely take the 9mm over the .380 though.

Personally, I prefer the .45

Shot placement matters, bullet size matters, type of bullet matters...they all matter. But what matters the most is how you and you alone shoot with a certain type of bullet. Try them all out...go to a range that rents and give them all a try. Whatever round you are the most comfortable with and most accurate with, well... that's the one for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spacedoggy

I'm trying to figure this out can you define the Taylor Index for me?

---

Taylor Index- http://www.loadammo.com/Topics/July02.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ya, shot placement is ultimately the key to self protection. If I could find a nice compact, single stack, reliable .45 I’d go for it.

Here’s another interesting read which tells you a lot about the .45 in terms of stopping power.
http://www.chucktaylorasaa.com/stoppingpower.html

I don't follow your math . . . here is what I see . . . the .45 wins!

9mm 124 x 1117 x .355 / 7000 = 7.02

.380 90 x 1030 x .355 / 7000 = 4.70

.45 165 x 934 x .451 / 7000 = 9.93 (42% better than 9mm
and 111% better than .380)

Am I interpreting the numbers wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoln

I don't follow your math . . . here is what I see . . . the .45 wins!

9mm 124 x 1117 x .355 / 7000 = 7.02

.380 90 x 1030 x .355 / 7000 = 4.70

.45 165 x 934 x .451 / 7000 = 9.93 (42% better than 9mm
and 111% better than .380)

Am I interpreting the numbers wrong?

---

You may be right. I was doing a lot of that in my head. It would make sense that the .45 would be a better round. My bad.:mrgreen:

Toni my boy why do you think many of our troops right now are begging for the .45cal? I'll tell you why it's because they are hitting the towel heads two and three times with the 9mm and they keep fighting. They hit them once with the .45cal and they go down. It's a lot easier to make the second shot if needed, if your target isn't running. Pack what you shoot the best. Forget all this mumbo-jumbo stuff.

I don't remember where to find it now there was a report about the use of the 38 and 45 lc during the Spanish American War. It will explain why the U.S. wanted a 45 cal. in an auto loader pistol.
The next point I would like to make is the smaller size is easier to carry but it is more important what you shoot the best. The weapon that you hit with is what is more important for defensive carry.
Now as to cal. in my non-humble opinion you should go with a 45 acp.

Well, I'm a 25 ACP kinda guy :smt082 :smt082

Im waitin' for someone to make a semiauto pistol using the .50 bmg :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Just a couple of quick observations, since I think caliber wars are pretty pointless.

* IIRC, Pondoro Taylor came up with the TKO index as a way of measuring the concussive effects of solid, large-bore rifle bullets on elephants (and perhaps other very large game). I am not sure what relevance it has when discussing shooting crackheads using pocket pistols loaded with HPs.

* The P3AT really fits into a totally different tactical niche than the other guns. It's a true pocket gun (I have mine in my pocket right now), whereas the others are really small belt guns.

* The 3" 1911 is only marginally smaller than a Glock 23, though it is thinner. It is probably not as reliable as the Glock.

* The only really relevant numbers are expansion and penetration, since these will tell you approximately how much damage was done to the target (which is the actual goal). Here we see that the .45 comes out on top, but isn't dramatically better than 9mm. The .380 performs, well, like a pocket pistol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scooter

Im waitin' for someone to make a semiauto pistol using the .50 bmg :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

---

My kingdom for a .500 S&W Derringer! :rock:

That would be the TRUE Noisy Cricket.


Probably have to know a decent hand surgeon after firing....

+1 more for .45

You forgot to list the best choice. .40 S&W

A .380 and hand grenade might get you out of trouble but the .380 won't.

I prefer the velocity/grain weight combo of the .40.:smt071

Here's a comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baldy

Toni my boy why do you think many of our troops right now are begging for the .45cal? I'll tell you why it's because they are hitting the towel heads two and three times with the 9mm and they keep fighting. They hit them once with the .45cal and they go down. It's a lot easier to make the second shot if needed, if your target isn't running. Pack what you shoot the best. Forget all this mumbo-jumbo stuff.

---

This is very true. I know they are only allowed to use ball ammo. Do you think they would have better results with the 9mm if they could use +p's and hollow points? I worked once with an Israeli solder back in the 70's and all they wanted was the 45acp because it would stop with one shot and the 9mm took 2 to 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Well, I'm a 25 ACP kinda guy :smt082 :smt082

---

Shipwreck my wife said size does matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spacedoggy

This is very true. I know they are only allowed to use ball ammo. Do you think they would have better results with the 9mm if they could use +p's and hollow points? I worked once with an Israeli solder back in the 70's and all they wanted was the 45acp because it would stop with one shot and the 9mm took 2 to 3.

---

I know lots of soldiers, including many OIF and OEF vets, and I know very few who are clamoring for .45s. Most of them don't give a damn what caliber a given weapon is, as long as it's reliable. Especially a pistol. The Arizona Guard just had a unit of about 150 guys, some of them very close friends of mine, come back from Iraq (Baghdad and Ramadi areas, so they saw some real action). 95% of them carried pistols on the mission, but not a single soldier actually used a pistol in combat.

I think the whole idea of huge masses of soldiers and marines screaming for .45s is a myth propagated by traditionalist gun enthusiasts who have never forgiven the military for ditching the .30 for the 5.56mm and .45 for 9mm. There might be some special ops types who demand .45s, but spec ops missions are often totally different from the regular (if unglamorous) infantry/MP/SECFOR missions that comprise the vast majority of modern wartime activity.

Is a .45 better than a 9mm, when both are loaded with ball? Sure, no question about it. But the .45 also kicks harder and holds half the number of cartridges, which are big considerations, particularly in today's military environment.

It's sort of like the whole gun magazine/internet brouhaha about the 6.8mm. I talked to maybe two soldiers who even knew about it, but it was all over the shooting industry. Where is the 6.8mm now?

The vast majority of todays military havent had much, if any, experience with anything but the 5.56 and 9mm thus no real concern by them for anything better,stronger. I only KNOW this much.....When I was in the USAF Air Police there wasnt a day go by that when we were being issued our weapons at the beginning of our shifts that someone didnt say they wished they were being issued a .45 instead of the CS S&W .38's we were issued. Having seen what a .38 cal is capable of "I" would GLADLY trade 17 rounds of 9mm for 7-8 .45's instead.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scooter

The vast majority of todays military havent had much, if any, experience with anything but the 5.56 and 9mm

---

That's only partially accurate. Just about every soldier has experience with the M240B machinegun, which is 7.62x51mm. Also, everyone is very familiar with more powerful weapons like the M2 .50, etc.

Quote:

---

....When I was in the USAF Air Police there wasnt a day go by that when we were being issued our weapons at the beginning of our shifts that someone didnt say they wished they were being issued a .45 instead of the CS S&W .38's we were issued. Having seen what a .38 cal is capable of "I" would GLADLY trade 17 rounds of 9mm for 7-8 .45's instead.:rolleyes:

---

Thanks for your service! Police work is generally a very different environment than the battlefield, though. The battlefield is more chaotic, thus making the shooter more likely to miss (and maybe even miss a lot). As well, on the battlefield, the shooter will have an M4, M249, or a crew-served weapon, thus making the pistol rather irrelevant. Also on the battlefield, one is more likely to encounter an armored opponent, indicating a need for more rounds with more penetration.

Other than as a backup when clearing houses (in the event the M4/M249 goes down), and some spec ops missions, there's really little use for the pistol in battle. Thus, it barely matters what caliber it carries. What does matter is that it is relatively easy to use by most soldiers (including females) and works reliably.

Of course, soldiers are always convinced that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. They fall victim to all sorts of myths about the AK being vastly better than the M4, even if they've never shot an AK. They hear that spec ops is experimenting with 6.8mm, so that must be far better than 5.56mm. And they read in a magazine that the .45 is a death ray compared to 9mm, so it must be better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Barham at Galco

That's only partially accurate. Just about every soldier has experience with the M240B machinegun, which is 7.62x51mm. Also, everyone is very familiar with more powerful weapons like the M2 .50, etc.



Thanks for your service! Police work is generally a very different environment than the battlefield, though. The battlefield is more chaotic, thus making the shooter more likely to miss (and maybe even miss a lot). As well, on the battlefield, the shooter will have an M4, M249, or a crew-served weapon, thus making the pistol rather irrelevant. Also on the battlefield, one is more likely to encounter an armored opponent, indicating a need for more rounds with more penetration.

Other than as a backup when clearing houses (in the event the M4/M249 goes down), and some spec ops missions, there's really little use for the pistol in battle. Thus, it barely matters what caliber it carries. What does matter is that it is relatively easy to use by most soldiers (including females) and works reliably.

Of course, soldiers are always convinced that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. They fall victim to all sorts of myths about the AK being vastly better than the M4, even if they've never shot an AK. They hear that spec ops is experimenting with 6.8mm, so that must be far better than 5.56mm. And they read in a magazine that the .45 is a death ray compared to 9mm, so it must be better.

---

Just curious? How many combat tours have you served? Have you ever been shot at at all?
Feel free to continue your lecture on what the battlefield is like to those you know little or nothing about.:numbchuck:

Titusville where I live is a military town and we have had a lot of folks from around here who have served over there. The men coming home that I have talked to said they would much perfer the 1911 .45 over the 9mm. The trouble is ammo is scarce for the .45. There is very few men with the .45 except for a few shiney wheels officers. That may be the reason for never using the side arm. You only want to have to shoot that sucker once. I have heard more than one say the 9mm is useless over there.