Mas Ayoob Is 45 Auto Obsolete?

[HCM]

If you are interested, this guy goes over the FBI testing protocol.

https://brassfetcher.com/FBI%20Ammun...0Protocol.html

I've always felt the FBI's secret squirrel stuff about their tests was more about status than concerns over security. Although, got to admit the first time through, there was a ginormous amount of time, money, and effort expended, so honestly there is that consideration to boot.

In today's marketing world you find many manufacturers publishing their LE/self-defense ammo's performance on the FBI protocols. IMO, Hornady is the best example of this:

https://www.hornadyle.com/handgun-am...-115-gr-ftx#!/

If you scroll down and click the 'launch comparison tools' and spend enough time copy/pasting you could probably come close to putting together what Hornady sends out each year to LE Agencies.

Here's a screenshot I pieced together of a simple comparison:

Attachment 71803

You can do that with numerous loads, through the protocols listed, and make your own decision.

I don't think it's about security, rather it derives the same reasons the test processes for pistols and other gear are NDA'ed. An agency like the Bureau putting out negative test results can impact the brand / business that produces the product(s) and could discourage vendors from participating in solicitation and testing.

[TGS]

If it wasn't for 19 by god 11s, would anybody still care about 45?

I'm sure there'd be some other niche contrarian affinity group.......like Anglo-philes raving about how the 455 Webley was the last true fighting gun, and all revolvers since then are for pussies.

[Joe in PNG]

I'm sure there'd be some other niche contrarian affinity group.......like Anglo-philes raving about how the 455 Webley was the last true fighting gun, and all revolvers since then are for pussies.

I wonder if the French or Russians argue for the days of the good old 7.62 French Longue/ Nagant/ Tokarev?

[TGS]

I wonder if the French or Russians argue for the days of the good old 7.62 French Longue/ Nagant/ Tokarev?

The Russians are busy binge watching our "Two Mommies" Army commercial while picking their teeth with the bones of dead Chechen separatists they shot with 9x21 Gyurza.

Possible with the French, though. Ian from Forgotten Weapons would be the one to ask.

(no, really, even RT has videos making fun of the Two Mommies Army).

[HCM]

2021 and we're still doing 9mm vs 45 threads.

Not enough options in 7.62 Tokarev

[js475]

More than just momentum and kinetic energy come into play, sectional density/bullet shape/construction also factor heavily in penetration. So does the introduction of intermediate barriers.

Per DocGKR, in general and looking at FMJ, 9mm does better against steel, body armor, and wood than .45. .45 does better against auto glass and dry wall.

This is manufacturer data so take it with a grain of salt, but look at the 124+P GD vs. 230 GD and their respective performance against different barriers.

ETA: Vista has a comparison tool, too, for their LE loading's (GD and HST) with their FBI testing, but it seems to be down at the moment.

True, .45 has lower sectional density. I wonder if a 250 grain at standard velocity might perform better against barriers than a 230 grain+p?

I've looked at the manufacturer data before. Comparing HSTs since that's what I carry in 9mm and .45ACP, I'm not seeing .45 performing any worse than 9mm, which seems to be what the FBI was claiming in their study. That's really the only claim that had me scratching my head a bit. The differences in penetration seem to be within 1" for every material with 9mm beating the .45 on some materials and vice versa with other materials. The .45 seems to consistently have an edge in expansion in most materials ranging from 0-0.3" diameter difference.

We can talk all day about measurements, but I would also like to find data on real world performance. Is there any data on how effective these rounds are in real situations that are not restricted to LE only? I'd also be curious to see how "effectiveness" in real shootings is quantified in these studies. If anyone has a source for something like this, I would love to read it.

[Hambo]

2021 and we're still doing 9mm vs 45 threads.

Like Herpes, they never really go away.

[Bucky]

9mm also has an edge in reliability in my opinion. Its a slightly tapered cartridge (where as the 45acp is strait walled) and of a smaller diameter...both factors that give 9mm a mechanical advantage.

I would tend to disagree. I feel the taper is too little to provide any feed advantage, while just enough to cause stacking issues in some magazines. Of course we’re splitting hairs, and modern pistols mitigate these issues. Also, staggering the rounds reduces the effect of the stagger. This is why I still prefer a slight stagger in my slimline guns (Shield, G43) vs a true single stack (P938, XD-S, Nano).

There’s a reason the more recent mainstream cartridges (.40, 10mm, .38 super, .45 GAP ) are straight walled.

[JAD]

If it wasn't for 19 by god 11s, would anybody still care about 45?

Not a bad thought, but 1911s make the discussion worth having, as they do run better in .45. I think the general consensus is that you’re not giving up much to .45 with 9’s terminal performance, but the 9 camp has gotten so fervid that they’d like us to believe we’re giving up a lot to 9 with .45’s “shootability,” which I think is a little thin because I personally shoot .45 LWCs a little better than I shoot G17s, my other favorite pistol.

For me, .45’s relevance is that it enables me to use my preferred platform — the one I shoot best and carry most — at its peak embodiment. I guess there are some other platforms out there that are better in .45 — I never went down the HK45C rabbit hole but I bet I could.

I also think .45 reloads way better— it’s a sidebar but an important one to me. The components are easier to handle, the brass lasts longer and takes less inspection, and the end product is more accurate and more fun to shoot. I haven’t found a t-shirt that expresses my abiding love for the H&G68 but I am a guy that would wear that shirt.

[WobblyPossum]

True, .45 has lower sectional density. I wonder if a 250 grain at standard velocity might perform better against barriers than a 230 grain+p?

I've looked at the manufacturer data before. Comparing HSTs since that's what I carry in 9mm and .45ACP, I'm not seeing .45 performing any worse than 9mm, which seems to be what the FBI was claiming in their study. That's really the only claim that had me scratching my head a bit. The differences in penetration seem to be within 1" for every material with 9mm beating the .45 on some materials and vice versa with other materials. The .45 seems to consistently have an edge in expansion in most materials ranging from 0-0.3" diameter difference.

We can talk all day about measurements, but I would also like to find data on real world performance. Is there any data on how effective these rounds are in real situations that are not restricted to LE only? I'd also be curious to see how "effectiveness" in real shootings is quantified in these studies. If anyone has a source for something like this, I would love to read it.

I’ve seen the data the FBI provides to other LE agencies and don’t remember seeing anything where they claimed 9mm produced better terminal performance in gel testing than the .40 or .45. It’s been a little while since I read through everything but I recall the data and summaries showing that they all performed roughly the same in testing. The 9mm was chosen because, if all three cartridges performed the same, then the 9mm got you more rounds, less recoil, less wear and tear on the guns themselves, lower cost, etc. I believe that’s what @TC215 meant when he said the 9mm wasn’t only chosen because of terminal performance.

I’ve seen numerous people try to compile ammunition performance data from real world shootings and all the results never appear scientific. The problem with trying to collect data from real world shooting is that the shootings themselves are almost never “repeatable” which is a big problem for any kind of scientific experiment. Different people who were shot have different body types, wear different clothing, and are shot in parts of their body that, while pretty close in location, are absolutely not the same spot. To actually generate valid data you’d have to shoot a bunch of people with similar body types, wearing similar clothing, in the exact same spots on their bodies, using the same type of gun, etc. Also, what kind of effectiveness are we talking about? Whether the round in question penetrated, retained its mass and expanded to a certain size after penetrating the body of the person shot? Or how effective the round was at “stopping” the person? How do you account for pure psychological stops in testing? I’m sure most people who stop after being shot didn’t stop because the bullet shut them down biologically. People just don’t want to get shot so many of them run off when shot anywhere.