BuddyLee said:
The .45 acp was developed to take down a horse at full gallop. The 9mm is junk in my opinion. Go ahead and shoot some pumkins with 9mm, then .45acp...then you will see what the difference is in RL. The HK USP.45 can carry 12 + 1 in the hole. The USP 9mm can carry 15 + 1 in the hole. A difference of three little rounds. I'll take .45 any day. I purchased the better choice USP.40
The 9mm does not have twice the capacity of the .45 unless the .45 does not have side by side magazine. Like the 1911A1.
If you try to fit .45ACP into a gun with the same dimensions of a 9mm, you will have to go single-stack. Otherwise you'll have a brick-thick grip which is a PITA for people with small-medium sized hands. If dimensions weren't a problem, then the 9mm Glock guys would go for the 32+1 extended magazines.
FYI you don't want a pistol round to penetrate through the target,
Wrong. I'll explain why in a second.
when that happens some of the energy is lost. A good round transfers all of the impact force to the target, that is why .40 was developed from the FBI 10mm.(the .40 is a shortend 10mm)
Energy transfer is overhyped. Ideally, you want a round to transfer as much energy as possible. BUT this doesn't necessarily have to require the round to come to a complete stop, and in fact, this can be a bad thing. You can shoot a .22LR into a person's chest. It'll come to a complete stop. Very good energy transfer, although its energy is quite low. But TERRIBLE penetration.
Penetration is actually the most important aspect of a bullet. If you shoot a person a hundred times with a .22LR in the chest and it never penetrates any vital organs, you aren't doing much good at all. That's why hollow points have a requirement to penetrate at least 12 inches minimum. Energy transfer is nice but penetration is MANDATORY. You need to be sure that the bullet you shoot at the guy's chest will penetrate his heart, lungs, and anything else in between. If it stops two inches short of his heart, you failed. I'd rather put a 9mm hole through the guy's heart than a .45 inch hole in his flesh that never reaches his heart.
Rifle bullets punch right through people. They are still a lot more lethal than pistol bullets. Despite the high penetration, there is still high energy transfer. Penetration and energy transfer are not necessarily inversely proportional to each other like you say.
So my point is that 9mm's penetration is a very good thing. If you can shoot through a door and a person and then another person, that's a POSITIVE aspect in a military situation. It's a NEGATIVE aspect in a police situation (because they don't want to hit civilian bystanders or hostages). That's why cops are all concerned with the hollow point energy transfer stuff. They have entirely different objectives. If it comes down to a firefight between cops and drug dealers, with both sides using cars for cover, the FMJ of the drug dealers will have a penetration advantage compared to the HP of the cops.
Finally, energy transfer does not necessarily mean a catostrophic wound. It's the hole in the person's vital organs and arteries that kills him. Medically, the shock wave that the bullet has when it passes through flesh has very little effect on the person. It may stun him. It may hurt like hell. But what kills him is the fact that both his lungs are filling up with blood and he's got several severed arteries.
So ignore the energy transfer myth. It's a nice theory. But if you whack a person in the chest with a baseball bat, you transfer more energy to that person than a .45ACP. You can prove it with simple physics (equal and opposite reactions). The baseball bat hurts like hell, the guy will be coughing blood and maybe has a couple broken ribs. But the.45ACP to the chest kills the guy.
If you think killing is all about energy transfer you are very mistaken.
Oh my cousin has a Glock 17, I fired hundreds of rounds out of it. It is junk, the trigger pull is awfull and the thing just feels like crap in my hands.
Well that's your opinion. I won't argue with it. I will say that there was a famous competition on one of the major gun forums between 5 shooters with 1911's and 5 shooters with Glocks. The test was reliability. Basically, everyone had to fire 1000 rounds through their gun and record how many failures there were (jams, stovepipes, failure to extract, broken parts, etc). Refs made sure nobody was cheating. The Glocks absolutely dominated the 1911's.
Gangster rappers way over-hyped that POS.
Medal of Honor over-hyped the 1911.
Single/double actions are the way to go.
Striker-fired pistols are so much more reliable and mechanically simple. Also, the trigger pull is consistent for each shot instead of a heavy first shot followed by light follow up shots. There's a reason why all of the new pistols from every major manufacturer are striker-fired polymer-framed pistols. They are lighter and more reliable. The 1911 is an antique. Get over it. I like my Mosin-Nagant too but if I had to go to war I'd rather have a modern assault rifle.
I don't like .223. .308 Winchester all the way. I <3 my Springfield M1A.
5.56x45 NATO is good for what it's designed for (close range). It's also better for automatic fire. But 7.62x51 NATO is a good round too. Soldiers will have to get used to semi-auto only though. They'll also have less rounds to waste. But at least they can bring someone down at 500 yards if they need to.
The 9mm was employed so that girls and cityslickers could handle the recoil. The adoption of 9mm and .223 are examples of corruption and some General getting bribed by big buisnesses.
If you really want to prove how big you are in the pants, how about you carry a .50AE Desert Eagle? Or a .44 magnum? Or how about a 12 gauge shotgun derringer? What's the matter? You can't handle the recoil? Girly man?
Do you realize how retarded that argument is? It may convince people overly sensative to their small peckers but it won't convince people with half a brain. Power isn't the only factor to consider when it comes to a pistol. I bet someone could make a two-shot 12 gauge derringer the size of your .45ACP. You'll have tremendous power. But it's not the most effective combat choice. You've got very little capacity and tremendous recoil. A quick follow up shot will be out of the question.
So you see, a modern pistol should balance all of those factors. Power. Recoil and the ability for quick follow-up shots. Capacity.
It's not all about power. But if you are convinced it is, then seriously, get yourself a .50AE Desert Eagle. It won't make your pecker any bigger though.