9 vs 45 FMJ

[YVK]

Just read something elsewhere, and decided to ask. Apparently, the conventional wisdom is that if one is limited to FMJ, then bigger caliber is better. Is it true? The common knowledge is that modern JHP loads in various calibers aren't appreciably different in their effects on unobstructed targets, despite theoretical benefits of larger cavities with bigger calibers. What's then out there that perpetuates the advice of going with 45 if limited to ball ammo? Is it that 9 ball is below some arbitrary threshold, or over-penetrates too much, or just shown to be bad from the field reports? Or is that advice baseless?

[DocGKR]

9 mm M882 FMJ does NOT have a stellar reputation for effective terminal performance. If stuck using only true FMJ and unable to use something like EFMJ, I'd definitely prefer .45 ACP.

[YVK]

Thank you, that answers it.

[BWT]

Keep in mind, the capacity, it's the NATO cartridge (read *CHEAP*! and plenitful), shot placement and recoil management debates may also be a factor in why you see the prevalence of 9mm.

Ballistic performance, unfortunately, probably isn't the ultimate deciding factor always.

That being said, if I had to shoot at something once, with one bullet and I had a .45 FMJ and a 9mm FMJ, I would take .45 FMJ, simply put, it's a larger bullet, penetrates very well and makes a larger hole.

[37th Mass]

It would be pretty interesting to see some objective testing on the two military FMJ loads. It stands to reason that a 230 gr .45 would outperform a 124 gr. 9 mm, but I wonder by how much?

[YVK]

It would be pretty interesting to see some objective testing on the two military FMJ loads. It stands to reason that a 230 gr .45 would outperform a 124 gr. 9 mm, but I wonder by how much?

Doubt that we'll see this. The results in gel would be predictable as far as the cavity sizes are concerned, and are the theoretical backing to why the answer to "one shot" question is almost always a bigger caliber. The fact that we treat modern JHPs as practically equivalent on unobstructed targets doesn't come as much from the objective gel tests as from "outcomes studies" of OIS, collected and analyzed by FBI and ballistic experts. To me such outcomes data is what's most relevant. My take on DocGKR's reply is that there is sufficient data from .mil results that 9 mm ball is below the threshold of acceptable terminal performance, if such verbiage can be used. Once the caliber/load is below a certain absolute threshold, I doubt there is much interest in finding out by how much it actually sucks comparing to other caliber. That's my take on this.

[JHC]

I'd still roll with a hicap 9mm loaded with NATO.

[JConn]

I don't think it's just fmj. Bigger bullet seems to equal better wound characteristics whether or not it's fmj jhp swc any other acronym you can think of. We as shooters have to make a decision that weighs terminal performance and shoot ability. If all I could shoot was ball, or if magazine capacity was limited I would shoot 45. All jhp do is make 9mm actually a viable choice.

[Al T.]

IME, all FMJ sucks for killing things. I've killed one deer and one turkey with a 1911 loaded with .45 FMJ and the wound channels were very disappointing. I had access to some good hog hunting land and validated that 9mm JHPs (124 Gold Dots) work quite well on hog heads and one doe's rib cage.

Like JHC, I'd take an M9 over a 1911 and an M&P .45 over both if I had to carry ball ammo.

I still have a box of Hornady .45 ACP Jacketed Truncated Cone in the ammo locker. This was developed in (IIRC) the mid '80's in an effort to introduce a better projectile for the .45 ACP. A flat meplat is more effective than the round nose of most FMJ ammo.

[Chuck Haggard]

It depends.

Forced to use actual hardball, CONUS urban CCW carry scenario I'd go with a .45, in a .mil setting I'd go with the 9mm. If I was a city cop working a lot of calls for service, .45,,,,, a trooper doing lots of car stops out in BFE, back to 9mm.

Having seen a bad guy stay very, very dangerous for a shocking period of time after taking a Winchester 230gr ball round, launched from a S&W 645, through the sternum>aorta>miss the spine and exit leaving a 7/8" wound, a hit that didn't even make him flinch, I lost my "they all fall to hardball" thoughts a long time ago.


When I had to take a trip to NJ awhile back, before they changed HR218 ref the ammo issue, I felt well armed with a Glock 19 loaded with 124gr +P EFMJ and a back up mag of NATO ball in case I had to get through cover.

[Chuck Haggard]

On the same subject, sort of;

I always wondered how hard it would be to make a 9mm with a pointy front end (perhaps with a lightweight portion to the core up front like steel or aluminum) and a very sharp flat base. Design the bullet for early yaw in the manner many other bullets, such as Yugo 7.62X39, perform. Then you would get a bullet that feeds well, penetrates well, yaws early and when going backwards acts like a wadcutter.

[Suvorov]

9 mm M882 FMJ does NOT have a stellar reputation for effective terminal performance. If stuck using only true FMJ and unable to use something like EFMJ, I'd definitely prefer .45 ACP.

Any testing or opinions on if a truncated design such as some of the 147gr FMJ 9mm bullets would create a bigger permanent wound channel if forced to carry ball? As I understand it, the 9mm round nose ball design tends to cut through tissue like a boat hull.

[1slow]

tpd223,

Look up the Arcane and THV 9mm bullets.

[Chuck Haggard]

tpd223,

Look up the Arcane and THV 9mm bullets.


I'm very framiliar with those bullets, not exactly what I am talking about.

[Tamara]

This is one of the few conundrums (conundra?) that could make me a .40 fan again.

[jstyer]

Conundri I believe...

[JHC]

This is one of the few conundrums (conundra?) that could make me a .40 fan again.

Apparently works for some SOCOM heavy hitters. LAV posted on M4C that he didn't agree with it then and doesn't now. IIRC he didn't so much care whether it was 9 or .45 but NOT .40. I could be mistaken however.

[Default.mp3]

Apparently works for some SOCOM heavy hitters. LAV posted on M4C that he didn't agree with it then and doesn't now. IIRC he didn't so much care whether it was 9 or .45 but NOT .40. I could be mistaken however.

During my classes with LAV, he made it abundantly clear that he saw the .40 S&W as being a very poor compromise between 9mm and .45 ACP (people always like to ask him caliber questions, I guess). Of course, clearly some guys in CAG thought differently, and as Doc. posted in a thread on LF before:


There was once a very experienced individual who posted here at LF, a veritable tactical rock star, who had the distinction of having carried a 9mm, .40, and .45 ACP into combat during various phases of his career. He was a huge fan of the inherent shootability of John Browing's .45 ACP creation, but acknowledged that the plastic commie G19 was easier to carry in the field and quite reliable. Eventually he began to use the .40 and found it worked very well--lots of bullets that hit hard. He wrote:

Some people want to make up for their training short falls with a gun that recoils less. OK, but at least call a spade a fucking spade. Ask yourself which bullet you would rather get shot with. You can show up with ANY 9mm platform you want, and I will bring .40 and if you are not master class bad ass, I will burn you down on a shot timer with full power duty ammo. Recoil management is a nice skill to learn. Other wise I would have just taken up eye socket shooting with a .22 magnum. .40 costs an ass load, but if the ammo fairy allows you to train, then .40 should not hold you back on your split times or shot placement...Ballistic tests on 9mm vs .40? Sorry I just can't buy it. That .40 is smoking hot.

From my readings of PF, M4C, and LF, .40 S&W consistently gets seen as a compromise between 9mm and .45 ACP. The question then, is whether this compromise takes the best of both worlds or the worst of both; seems like there's a lot of disagreement on that, with SMEs on both sides.

[YVK]

I am not sure what not to like about .40 S&W. The gel data is good, it's been shown to be a proven performer in OIS, it offers intermediate barrier performance advantage over 9 mm, it has a very minimal capacity penalty, and now there are readily available pistols that are purpose-designed for it. As somebody said it, it throws a bigger and heavier bullet than 9, with the same velocity as 9.

I shoot and carry 9 mm and .45 ACP, the latter, for a good part, for the purpose of keeping up with recoil control skills. If I could shoot and control .40S&W as well as I do with .45ACP, I'd relegate 45 to the sentimental "this is what my 1911s are chambered in" role.

[Chuck Haggard]

.40 FMJ loads tend to penetrate towards the massive end of the scale in gel tests.

They also tend to not work any better than the 9 or .45, certainly didn't work real well for Detroit PD in the many OISs they had with issued FMJ duty ammo.

Just sayin.

[Tamara]

Apparently works for some SOCOM heavy hitters. LAV posted on M4C that he didn't agree with it then and doesn't now. IIRC he didn't so much care whether it was 9 or .45 but NOT .40. I could be mistaken however.

Oh, not that I think it has some massive ballistic advantage over either, but just the fact that the default FMJ load is a TMJ with something approaching a flattish meplat, plus it has more BBs in the tank than an equivalently-sized .45.

[JHC]

Oh, not that I think it has some massive ballistic advantage over either, but just the fact that the default FMJ load is a TMJ with something approaching a flattish meplat, plus it has more BBs in the tank than an equivalently-sized .45.

+1 and the excessive penetration tpd223 referred to has got to come in handy in their work.

[DocGKR]

"I always wondered how hard it would be to make a 9mm with a pointy front end (perhaps with a lightweight portion to the core up front like steel or aluminum) and a very sharp flat base. Design the bullet for early yaw in the manner many other bullets, such as Yugo 7.62X39, perform. Then you would get a bullet that feeds well, penetrates well, yaws early and when going backwards acts like a wadcutter. "

This would be similar in design ideation to the British .303 MkVII or the original 5.45x39 mm M74 FMJ. The problem with doing it in 9 mm is how short the bullet is.

Flat point TMJ semi-wadcutter style pistol bullets do not demonstrate substantially better terminal performance than standard profile FMJ's.

Old time historically effective .38-40 offered very similar capability as .40 S&W--both seem to work as well as any other handgun caliber in actually shooting incidents. If I have to purchase my own ammo, then 9 mm makes the most sense. When not getting as much practice as ideal, many shooters seem better able to maintain acceptable shooting standards for a longer period of time when using 9 mm than other service calibers. Modern robust expanding 9 mm loads are approaching terminal performance capabilities of the .40. 9 mm pistols tend to last longer than .40's.

Ultimately ALL the service calibers work acceptably well when fed quality JHP loads and I would happily carry any of them if given free ammo to practice with.

[Chuck Haggard]

Oh, not that I think it has some massive ballistic advantage over either, but just the fact that the default FMJ load is a TMJ with something approaching a flattish meplat, plus it has more BBs in the tank than an equivalently-sized .45.

Those guys don't always have to use FMJ. Just sayin.

[Chuck Haggard]

This would be similar in design ideation to the British .303 MkVII or the original 5.45x39 mm M74 FMJ. The problem with doing it in 9 mm is how short the bullet is.


Exactly, but... I couldn't help but think after the bullet does a 180 that passing through the target as basically a wadcutter is a more efficient wounding mechanism that a RN FMJ, that and sideways 9mm bullet > point forward 9mm RN bullet, as far as soft tissue wounding effect.

[Tamara]

Those guys don't always have to use FMJ. Just sayin.

Wasn't necessarily talking about those guys, just going with "if you had to use FMJ" as a premise. :)

[Chuck Haggard]

Wasn't necessarily talking about those guys, just going with "if you had to use FMJ" as a premise. :)
Gotcha.

[Nephrology]

Yeah, if I absolutely *had* to use an FMJ and *had* to pick one caliber in this wholly artificial hypothetical - I'd take a .40. Still probably wouldn't lose much sleep if I had a 9mm instead.