BF2S Forums Springfield XD pistol

parker wrote:

to each his own, but the .45ACP is a proven more effective round than the 9mm.

Proven?  By whom?  And what exactly is 'effective' that was proven?  I've seen the same FBI and the other popular caliber debate cited links too and there's hardly an agreement on what is "proven more effective" between them.

Perm cavities are about a tenth of an inch difference, penetration for both using JHPs is equal at around 12-15 inches which the FBI says is needed to do the work needed, both have very customized rounds in each caliber (ranger sxts, hydrashoks, etc), both are accused of filling with clothes and not expanding equally or sometimes at all.  One is fast and light, one is slow and heavy.

What is a difference that I see, is that the 9mm with its obvious recoil advantage, let's you do what the FBI reports say is most important...LAND VITAL SHOTS QUICKLY.  Of course this is remedied by some time at the range and perhaps some high stress training. 

So anyway, your 1911 bias has been served in the form of my attempt to equalize your caliber debate claims! lol    And with that, i'll admit my 9mm bias!

SEREMAKER wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

parker wrote:

to each his own, but the .45ACP is a proven more effective round than the 9mm.

Proven?  By whom?  And what exactly is 'effective' that was proven?  I've seen the same FBI and the other popular caliber debate cited links too and there's hardly an agreement on what is "proven more effective" between them.

Perm cavities are about a tenth of an inch difference, penetration for both using JHPs is equal at around 12-15 inches which the FBI says is needed to do the work needed, both have very customized rounds in each caliber (ranger sxts, hydrashoks, etc), both are accused of filling with clothes and not expanding equally or sometimes at all.  One is fast and light, one is slow and heavy.

What is a difference that I see, is that the 9mm with its obvious recoil advantage, let's you do what the FBI reports say is most important...LAND VITAL SHOTS QUICKLY.  Of course this is remedied by some time at the range and perhaps some high stress training. 

So anyway, your 1911 bias has been served in the form of my attempt to equalize your caliber debate claims! lol    And with that, i'll admit my 9mm bias!

I'm bi-caliber ........ luv 9mm and luv .45 and I luv .40 and .22

I've got my glock 17, 29 my Walther P99C .. S&W 1911 and Auto Ordance 1911 .. glock 23 and Walther P22 


_{I think I left a few out but the brain is slowing up on me right now}

Wouldn't that be quad-caliber?

RAIMIUS wrote:

Parker wrote:

to each his own, but the .45ACP is a proven more effective round than the 9mm.
and believe it or not, the 9mm penetrates more than the .45.
1300fps and a light round make for over penetration, in almost ANY situation. a 9mm round has a high chance of leaving the target, and thus reducing the amount of hydrostatic shock. a .45 travels at roughly 800 fps....much slower than the 9mm, and it weighs less. which gives it more of a chance to stay in the target, and all energy will be absorbed.

but, as ive stated numerous times....i am a 1911 WHORE, so of course i will advocate the carrying of .45ACP rounds

Wha...huh??  Parker what kind of 45ACP ammo are you using that would be lighter than 9mm?  Most .45 I've seen is in the neighborhood of 230gr.

Yeah, 9mm can overpenetrate.  I've heard some LE agencies chose the .357Sig because of its superior penetration.  I read somewhere about cops having a shootout with a guy in a truck.  The .45ACP did not penetrate the door with enough energy to inflict damage, but the .357Sig did so rather well (...well, not from the viewpoint of the perp...)

ah, i might have typed wrong or something....of course i know that a .45 weighs more than a 9mm.....i dont know if i typed it wrong, or if you read it wrong....cleared up though lol
from everything i have read, the .357 Sig is comparable in ballistics to the .45 ACP.
if it didnt penetrate the door, they are using the wrong ammo. i mean, the IQ rounds i carry in my 1911 are designed specifically to stay solid if they hit a hard target, and break up on impact with a soft target. they were designed specifically for the instance you mentioned above.
now, that doesnt mean that i have shot people through doors with em, but thats what i have learned.

IRONCHEF wrote:

parker wrote:

to each his own, but the .45ACP is a proven more effective round than the 9mm.

Proven?  By whom?  And what exactly is 'effective' that was proven?  I've seen the same FBI and the other popular caliber debate cited links too and there's hardly an agreement on what is "proven more effective" between them.

Perm cavities are about a tenth of an inch difference, penetration for both using JHPs is equal at around 12-15 inches which the FBI says is needed to do the work needed, both have very customized rounds in each caliber (ranger sxts, hydrashoks, etc), both are accused of filling with clothes and not expanding equally or sometimes at all.  One is fast and light, one is slow and heavy.

What is a difference that I see, is that the 9mm with its obvious recoil advantage, let's you do what the FBI reports say is most important...LAND VITAL SHOTS QUICKLY.  Of course this is remedied by some time at the range and perhaps some high stress training. 

So anyway, your 1911 bias has been served in the form of my attempt to equalize your caliber debate claims! lol    And with that, i'll admit my 9mm bias!

well, the 9mm isnt proven more effective....if it were, the MP-10 would have been a complete redundancy.

i dont know who proved it....any number of people since 1911. bigger holes are bigger holes, no matter how you look at it.
dont get me wrong, there are advantages....i could carry 15 9mm rounds, where i carry 7 .45 rounds now.
they are more controllable, lighter weight etc.

to each his own....i love my .45ACP and you love your 9mm.
either way, someone is gonna drop if they are looking down the business end.


so in closing, i would just like to state:
UP YOURS!
1911 4 LIFE!
j/k

Parker wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Parker wrote:

to each his own, but the .45ACP is a proven more effective round than the 9mm.
and believe it or not, the 9mm penetrates more than the .45.
1300fps and a light round make for over penetration, in almost ANY situation. a 9mm round has a high chance of leaving the target, and thus reducing the amount of hydrostatic shock. a .45 travels at roughly 800 fps....much slower than the 9mm, and it weighs less. which gives it more of a chance to stay in the target, and all energy will be absorbed.

but, as ive stated numerous times....i am a 1911 WHORE, so of course i will advocate the carrying of .45ACP rounds

Wha...huh??  Parker what kind of 45ACP ammo are you using that would be lighter than 9mm?  Most .45 I've seen is in the neighborhood of 230gr.

Yeah, 9mm can overpenetrate.  I've heard some LE agencies chose the .357Sig because of its superior penetration.  I read somewhere about cops having a shootout with a guy in a truck.  The .45ACP did not penetrate the door with enough energy to inflict damage, but the .357Sig did so rather well (...well, not from the viewpoint of the perp...)

ah, i might have typed wrong or something....of course i know that a .45 weighs more than a 9mm.....i dont know if i typed it wrong, or if you read it wrong....cleared up though lol
from everything i have read, the .357 Sig is comparable in ballistics to the .45 ACP.
if it didnt penetrate the door, they are using the wrong ammo. i mean, the IQ rounds i carry in my 1911 are designed specifically to stay solid if they hit a hard target, and break up on impact with a soft target. they were designed specifically for the instance you mentioned above.
now, that doesnt mean that i have shot people through doors with em, but thats what i have learned.

IRONCHEF wrote:

parker wrote:

to each his own, but the .45ACP is a proven more effective round than the 9mm.

Proven?  By whom?  And what exactly is 'effective' that was proven?  I've seen the same FBI and the other popular caliber debate cited links too and there's hardly an agreement on what is "proven more effective" between them.

Perm cavities are about a tenth of an inch difference, penetration for both using JHPs is equal at around 12-15 inches which the FBI says is needed to do the work needed, both have very customized rounds in each caliber (ranger sxts, hydrashoks, etc), both are accused of filling with clothes and not expanding equally or sometimes at all.  One is fast and light, one is slow and heavy.

What is a difference that I see, is that the 9mm with its obvious recoil advantage, let's you do what the FBI reports say is most important...LAND VITAL SHOTS QUICKLY.  Of course this is remedied by some time at the range and perhaps some high stress training. 

So anyway, your 1911 bias has been served in the form of my attempt to equalize your caliber debate claims! lol    And with that, i'll admit my 9mm bias!

well, the 9mm isnt proven more effective....if it were, the MP-10 would have been a complete redundancy.

i dont know who proved it....any number of people since 1911. bigger holes are bigger holes, no matter how you look at it.
dont get me wrong, there are advantages....i could carry 15 9mm rounds, where i carry 7 .45 rounds now.
they are more controllable, lighter weight etc.

to each his own....i love my .45ACP and you love your 9mm.
either way, someone is gonna drop if they are looking down the business end.


so in closing, i would just like to state:
UP YOURS!
1911 4 LIFE!
j/k

The MP-10 doesn't exist as such, it's a popular mistake introduced by mr. Clancy and I presume you mean the MP-5/10. The 10mm auto with it's full load is superior to the 9mm, .40 S(hort)&W(eak) AND .45 ACP; which kind of rejects the "bigger is better" idea straightaway. The .45 may create bigger holes, but the ammount of energy transferred is also determined by the velocity of the bullet. The .45's bigger hole make assure a wider blood drain, but the 10mm creates a deeper one and a bigger hydrostaticshock, so the overall stopping power is still greater. Another of the 9mm's  advantages over the .45 is it's flat trajectory compared to the .45 relatively wobbly one; the 10mm combines the best of both.

I do agree with you however in that I'd personally pick a .45 over a 9mm and for sure over a .40 S&W any day. The increased accuracy of the 9mm may actually be quite negliable at pistol ranges (distance) and a .45 single stack is still smaller than a 9mm double (which better fits my not so bear-like hands). Besides if I'm gonna be in a situation where I need over seven .45's, I'll be wanting something bigger than a pistol anyway.



To my knowledge, the .357 SIG was intended as a automatic unrimmed variant to the .357 Magnum, but failes to get anywhere near it. I'm rather sceptical about bottlenecked pistol cartridges of conventional style (compared to low-impuls-scaled-down-rifle-cartridge-AP-designed style cartridges like the 5.7x28mm) in any case; it's an they're overcomplicaion and the casings take up too much space compared to your bullet. In summary, I would label the .357 SIG a fail cartridge pretty much like the .40 S&W.

What kind?  I can't really tell from the pic.

Steel wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

What kind?  I can't really tell from the pic.

my pics sux I know, Springfield Armory Officers model 1911 found a nice article here
its my first Sprinfield, so far I am impressed
http://www.madogre.com/images/45truth.jpg

9x19mm is a pansy caliber indeed; if you just want something small go straight to the 9x17mm or something along that line. There's absolutely no point in chambering a modern day full sized military or police grade pistol in 9mm Para.

However, I do not see how this pansy caliber should be associated with women. I'd recommend the .45 over the 9mm Para, regardless of gender:





Yes, I might indeed have taken Steel's argument way too seriously, but bear in mind I had to find an excuse for posting this rather awesome pic.

Spider1980 wrote:

They all make holes that hurt so lets stop talking about it. It's all about where you hit when you make your shot, not fps.

your a party pooper.

Anyone know why Opera will re-size pics but IE6 does not?


I always have to open in Opera to see pics when peeps dont re-size

sorry for quality I re-sized in bmp accidentally