Friday, October 19, 2007

The long exhausted 9mm vs. .45 debate


After much thought and discussion with my two best friends, it just seems to me that the military should just use .45 cal automatic pistols again. Their using the Beretta M9 9mm, and sure it has a capacity of 16 rounds, but it's Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) and it doesn't have the stopping power as a result. They should go back to .45, because though it's a big honkin' caliber, its relatively easy to shoot, especially in the tried and true M1911.

As for here in the states, the good ol Pacific Northwest, and targetshooting in the woods and at ranges, 9mm works great. Its cheap and reliable, and if I'm concerned with stopping power in a rare and mostly unlikely defensive situation (getting mugged, robbed, assaulted, ect.), heavier weighted hollow point (HP) add a lot more stopping power and more factory cartridge choices. To each is their own. I have a 9mm Glock, and I have shot a .45 Glock, and I am tempted to own one. But to sit there and say .45 is better, isn't totally right. Yes it has more stopping power, but each has their own characteristics, and we shouldn't all be too terribly worried about the rare defensive situation. If your only sticking to the .45 because of the stopping power in defensive incidents, then I feel your missing out on part of the fun, because I think the Germans back over 100 years ago have engineered the single greatest all around pistol cartridge in the world, and yes the .45 is good company and competition.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

You argue that the military should go back to a .45 round in a M1911, but what about issues of recoil and velocity? A 9mm round may not have quite the same stopping power as a .45 but it does have a much lower recoil for rapid fire. Also, a 9mm cartridge has a lower velocity which means the bullet is less likely to pass through the assailant and into a bystander which is very possible in the guerrilla style warfare going on in Iraq. In tight situations, you want to be able to fire off several rounds with little recoil, a tight grouping and not have to worry about the small child standing behind him. I think the 9mm might be a good fit for the Military, especially in their current fighting conditions. Also, cheaper rounds can only help us try to keep military spending down.

N.B. said...

Well, I wouldn't say argue, but I would say that it would be good to go back to .45 on the basis that it has more stopping power. However, you forfiet the 16 round capacity of the Beretta M9. The recoil of .45 ACP isn't all that stout. I have to make a correction, .45's velocity is on average 850 feet per second. 9mm is about 1100. For a handgun cartridge, 9mm is quite fast. And both ball ammo 9mm and .45 have the same potential to go through an assailant and into whatever is beyond. I've never been in the military, but from what I have gathered, the highest percentage of handgun use goes to distances of less than 10 yards, because if you have the opportunity and the distance is generally more than that, your main combat rifle is going to do the job. Don't get me wrong, the 9mm works more than admirably, but if we keep being choke-chained by these "Humane" combat rules, you might as well have the option to get all the bludgeoning power a handgun bullet can give.