.22 vs 9mm vs .45

[AR.Hunter.308]

Here's a hypothetical I have cooked up in my brain.

A .22LR is 36 grains, so it takes roughly 3 .22LR to equal 1 9mm 115gr round, and roughly 6 to equal a .45 230gr round.

Given this, I have two questions:

1. Setting aside -- for a moment -- velocity and penetration, which wound channel would prove more lethal: 1x .45, 2x 9mm, or 6x .22LR?

2.  Now including velocity and penetration, in the real world, which of those 3 would prove more lethal?

[rodent.22]

My knowledge is slim but i would think in the first case the mass of the 230 grain hardball would do the greatest damage. In the second the 6 .22's fired together would be equivlent to a 00 shotgun shell, and that ain't good. While not being the full number of 00 projectiles (9), six would be similar in effect. I have weapons in all three calibers and based on shooting experience this is what I'd say.T here's many others on here with more experience who will join in I'm sure. :beer:

[AR.Hunter.308]

In the first one I was debating in my mind which would be more lethal, one very large wound channel, 2 medium wound channels or 6 small wound channels.  Becasuse if you're getting into the size of the .45, as you say, all else being equal, the 1x .45, 2x 9mm and 6x .22s all have the same mass, just spread out over an area. The .45 would do more damage, but to one area.  The 9mm a little less damage, but to two areas.  And the .22 would do even less damage, but to six areas.

I try to think of it in different terms, such as bombs.  If I were to take a house and drop 1 large bomb, or two medium, or 6 xtra small, which would do more damage to the house.  Or a dam: 1 large hole, two medium holes, or 6 xtra small holes.

To me, with all else being equal, the first one is kind of a toss up.

[AR.Hunter.308]

I should have added a third question:

3. Which one would you choose if an attacker were approaching you 1x round of .45, 2x of 9mm or 6x of .22?

[AR.Hunter.308]

I should have added a third question:

3. Which one would you choose if an attacker were approaching you 1x round of .45, 2x of 9mm or 6x of .22?

I think I would take the 2x 9mm.  My logic: the .45 would do the most damage, but only 1 shot, so what if you miss a vital?  The 9mm gives you a back up shot so that you can put both rounds in the same group, or shoot one to the chest and one to the head.  I think the .22 would be my second choice.  With the no recoil you could pump the six rounds out pretty fast into the chest, or some to the chest and some to the head.  The bad thing about the .22 is no matter how fast you shoot it, you'll have to adjust fire, because the attacker will undoubtedly move between the first and last round.

[asmurff]

Well since most people using a handgun in self defense empty the magazine should the question be 10 .22s, 15 9mms or 8 .45s  ;D Sorry had to be the smart alec.

[Microgunner]

The .45 & 9mm only have an advantage in near misses where the larger temporary wound channel would damage nearby vital organs, but a direct hit (heart, brain or major vessel) from any of these three calibers will yield similar results IMO. So the advantage of the larger calibers is a greater chance of a one shot stop and the advantage of the smaller calibers is faster shots on target. Clothing worn can also play a part.

  3. Which one would you choose if an attacker were approaching you 1x round of .45' date=' 2x of 9mm or 6x of .22?  [/quote']

I would choose the 9mm. Everything in life is a compromise and this is the compromise I choose on a daily basis.

[AR.Hunter.308]

Well since most people using a handgun in self defense empty the magazine should the question be 10 .22s, 15 9mms or 8 .45s  ;D Sorry had to be the smart alec.

Right, but that's not an option in the given scenario.  :)

Just my opinion, but it's also not a great idea to empty your entire mag -- most of the bad guys around here don't travel alone, so when one goes down, you better be looking for more.

[rodent.22]

tough questions, a lot of thinking required...LOL :grin:

[bdavison]

Id also go for the 2 x 9mm...but there's a reason why.

Two 9mm rounds if good hollowpoints will produce two massive wound cavities, vs a single wound cavity from (1) 45 round. Also, since the 9mm is a hotter round, it will have better penetration than the .45 against heavy clothing....it is winter after all.

[FS2KSTD]

I gotta go with the .45ACP on this one ... just for sheer trauma and wound cavity. The Speer 230 GDHP's I carry are plenty hot with plenty of penetration, even with multiple layers of clothing. I stagger 2 GD's to 1 FMJ in all my PP/carry mags during the winter months for added penetration through winter clothing ... JIC.  :grin:

[AR.Hunter.308]

I gotta go with the .45ACP on this one ... just for shear trauma and wound cavity. The Speer 230 GDHP's I carry are plenty hot with plenty of penetration, even with multiple layers of clothing. I stagger 2 GD's to 1 FMJ in all my PP/carry mags during the winter months for added penetration through winter clothing ... JIC.  :grin:

In the scenario I described, you won't be able to "stagger," because you only have one round.  If you choose the .45, you only get 1 round.  My intent is to compare 230 gr of .45 to (approx) 230 gr of 9mm and .22LR

[AR.Hunter.308]

Microgunner said it best -- everything in life is a compromise.  Smaller calibers equal more capacity, lower recoil (thus faster follow on shots), smaller firearms, and more maneuverable, but less power and range.  Higher calibers equal more power and range, but higher recoil (slower follow up shots), larger firearms, lower capacity, less maneuverable.

These are the rules, so once you find a firearm that is an exception to these rules, you've found a great firearm.

[FS2KSTD]

In the scenario I described, you won't be able to "stagger," because you only have one round.  If you choose the .45, you only get 1 round.  My intent is to compare 230 gr of .45 to (approx) 230 gr of 9mm and .22LR

I understand your scenario and would still choose the single .45ACP ... you have to be confident in your shooting skills to carry a .45 in the first place, given the quantity limitations of the magazines of most .45's compared to smaller/lesser calibers. I have friends with combat experience that are all about the 9mm just for higher ammo capacities ... "more is better and too much ain't enough" theory. I'll still take my .45's for civi carry duty.

Another alternative would be the FNH FiveseveN pistol. I carry SS192 HP's in mine and they are 28gr each ... that gives me 8rds of hi-velocity hollow points to throw into the mix at 224gr total. I'd say that would be a pretty formidable weapon/ammo combo in this discussion?  ;D

[a|ex]

i train with a .22 so i'm more accurate with it. i train with a .22 because it's cheaper which result to more range time. i have larger calibers which i shoot maybe a box at a time in a month. but weekly training using 500 rounds per week makes proficiency on any caliber more desirable.  i'm pretty sure i can hit 6x headshots within 12 feet during panic with a .22

i wish i could afford to shoot as many rounds at the range with the other calibers.

ideally, i would like to use my 5.7x28 40 grain since it's made to tumble inside the body as well as expand and not over penetrate. but it's still expensive $20 per box of 50.

-a|ex

[AR.Hunter.308]

I understand your scenario and would still choose the single .45ACP ... you have to be confident in your shooting skills to carry a .45 in the first place, given the quantity limitations of the magazines of most .45's compared to smaller/lesser calibers. I have friends with combat experience that are all about the 9mm just for higher ammo capacities ... "more is better and too much ain't enough" theory. I'll still take my .45's for civi carry duty.

Another alternative would be the FNH FiveseveN pistol. I carry SS192 HP's in mine and they are 28gr each ... that gives me 8rds of hi-velocity hollow points to throw into the mix at 224gr total. I'd say that would be a pretty formidable weapon/ammo combo in this discussion?  ;D

The first paragraph I actually feel the opposite about.  I've always found people to choose larger calibers to make up for poor shooting skills or lack of confidence in their shooting ability, especially amongst hunters, but it carries over into all segments of shooting.  People feel that the larger caliber will compensate for a lack of accuracy.  I think there are a lot of reasons people prefer the 9mm for combat use, over the .45.  For a lot of soldiers, the larger capacity of the 9mm isn't to compensate for poor shooting, it's because in the current conflict, any engagement will include multiple targets.  For me, personally, (I know I'll probably be flamed for this) I found the GI issue M9 to be a far more reliable and superior weapon to the GI Issue 1911 (note: I said GI issue, because there are some really high end 1911s on the market.). 

As for your second paragraph, I have an FN5.7 also, and agree with you.  I love it, it's a great pistol.  It's extremely light, however it's a little big for everyday carry (I'm speaking hypothetically of course, because I'm from a state that doesn't allow CC.)  Why do you only have 8 rds, mine carries 20 rds.  Are you in Cali or something?

[FS2KSTD]

The first paragraph I actually feel the opposite about.  I've always found people to choose larger calibers to make up for poor shooting skills or lack of confidence in their shooting ability, especially amongst hunters, but it carries over into all segments of shooting.  People feel that the larger caliber will compensate for a lack of accuracy.  I think there are a lot of reasons people prefer the 9mm for combat use, over the .45.  For a lot of soldiers, the larger capacity of the 9mm isn't to compensate for poor shooting, it's because in the current conflict, any engagement will include multiple targets.  For me, personally, (I know I'll probably be flamed for this) I found the GI issue M9 to be a far more reliable and superior weapon to the GI Issue 1911 (note: I said GI issue, because there are some really high end 1911s on the market.). 

As for your second paragraph, I have an FN5.7 also, and agree with you.  I love it, it's a great pistol.  It's extremely light, however it's a little big for everyday carry (I'm speaking hypothetically of course, because I'm from a state that doesn't allow CC.)  Why do you only have 8 rds, mine carries 20 rds.  Are you in Cali or something?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the first point. I will be happy to put my .45 marksmanship skills up to the test, whatever that test may be.

As to my second point, 28gr x 8 = 224gr. Just following the weight limit rules you initially set? My 5.7 holds 20 or 30rds, depending on which mags I have in it. I do agree it is a little bulky for a CC. I usually carry it in my OGIO Flight vest when on the m/c or on my back pack waist strap when hiking; open carry in that instance. We have big cats and now Canadian Grey wolves up here in the NW ... I'm not taking any chances with either.  :grin:

[bdavison]

The first paragraph I actually feel the opposite about.  I've always found people to choose larger calibers to make up for poor shooting skills or lack of confidence in their shooting ability, especially amongst hunters, but it carries over into all segments of shooting.  People feel that the larger caliber will compensate for a lack of accuracy.  I think there are a lot of reasons people prefer the 9mm for combat use, over the .45.  For a lot of soldiers, the larger capacity of the 9mm isn't to compensate for poor shooting, it's because in the current conflict, any engagement will include multiple targets.  For me, personally, (I know I'll probably be flamed for this) I found the GI issue M9 to be a far more reliable and superior weapon to the GI Issue 1911 (note: I said GI issue, because there are some really high end 1911s on the market.). 

Honestly, as a former military member myself...I hate the Beretta. Its a sorry excuse for a military handgun. In a confrontation, you might as well throw it at them, and save yourself the trouble of lugging that oversized brick around. Its big, heavy, and the grip was made for gorilla's, and you need to be a contortionist to manipulate the safety or any other functions.

Bear in mind that the military cannot use hollowpoints...its hardball only, and it sucks. They are hot rounds, and tend to zip right through a target instead of inflicting the knockdown you need. Its a good thing the Beretta has a high capacity, because it needs it.

These two factors combined makes it a poor military choice.

I know why the military picked it, and it wasnt because it was superior to anything else. Its because of the 1911. Training a egotistical lieutenant on properly handling the 1911 is a nightmare in futility. Women complained about the recoil of the 1911, and then there was ammo capacity, ease of stripping/cleaning, switching everything to a NATO standard pistol round, not to mention replacement cost. The Beretta was a compromise. The military wanted an idiot proof gun, and they got one at the expense of the 1911's punching power..

Now, take the Beretta out of the military limitations, feed it hollowpoint 9mm, and it can be effective. But I still think there are much better alternatives out there.

I like the 9mm hollowpoint round as a self-defense caliber. That's one of the reasons I like the Star 9mm that I have so much. I get the best of both worlds. 1911 reliability and functioning with a 9mm hollowpoint cartridge.

[asmurff]

This has been a very interesting conversation with well resoned statements (except mine) all around and ones to ponder.

[AR.Hunter.308]

Honestly, as a former military member myself...I hate the Beretta. Its a sorry excuse for a military handgun. In a confrontation, you might as well throw it at them, and save yourself the trouble of lugging that oversized brick around. Its big, heavy, and the grip was made for gorilla's, and you need to be a contortionist to manipulate the safety or any other functions.

Bear in mind that the military cannot use hollowpoints...its hardball only, and it sucks. They are hot rounds, and tend to zip right through a target instead of inflicting the knockdown you need. Its a good thing the Beretta has a high capacity, because it needs it.

These two factors combined makes it a poor military choice.

I know why the military picked it, and it wasnt because it was superior to anything else. Its because of the 1911. Training a egotistical lieutenant on properly handling the 1911 is a nightmare in futility. Women complained about the recoil of the 1911, and then there was ammo capacity, ease of stripping/cleaning, switching everything to a NATO standard pistol round, not to mention replacement cost. The Beretta was a compromise. The military wanted an idiot proof gun, and they got one at the expense of the 1911's punching power..

Now, take the Beretta out of the military limitations, feed it hollowpoint 9mm, and it can be effective. But I still think there are much better alternatives out there.

I like the 9mm hollowpoint round as a self-defense caliber. That's one of the reasons I like the Star 9mm that I have so much. I get the best of both worlds. 1911 reliability and functioning with a 9mm hollowpoint cartridge.

I absolutely love the Beretta.  I know a lot don't but I do. In fact it is my favorite handgun of all time. To me it's far more reliable and better made than the  GI issue 1911.  And I don't think the .45 ball ammo is the holy grail of knock down power that many make it up to be.  I carried it for over 10 years while I was in and don't recall one single issue with any of the Berettas I was issued.  Having said that, I agree with you that it is too big and bulky for anything but military or police duty.  I would maybe consider it for open carry.  I have med/large hands, so grip size or working the safety was never an issue.  Plus, my hands are of a size that it's pretty easy to reach up with my left thumb and flip the safety, as well (I'm right handed).  (Funny thing also, I don't know if it was intended to do this, but my issued holster, a Bianchi, whenever I drew my M9, the safety would flick off because of the holster.  If that's not intentional, I think they should make it so.) 

As we've discussed before, everything is a compromise, as was the M9 for the military.  You said there are better alternatives out there than the Beretta, but you have to remember, when the M9 was adopted, it was state of the art for high cap pistols.  Polymer pistols hadn't really taken off yet.  Nowadays, since polymer pistols don't have metal frames, you can double stack a lot more rounds into a skinnier grip.  So things have changed since then.  So it's easy to say there are better things out there now, but not necessarily when it was adopted.  And I also think you have to take a look at the big picture -- you said the M9 is a poor choice for military service, then you later had a whole paragraph of the faults of the 1911 -- those are huge issues, and have to be taken into account.  From your own words, it looks to me like a 1911 is a poor choice for general military service.

Also, I have to point out, the GI issue 1911 was NEVER as reliable as you and others make it out to be.  Troops have always loved it, but there were reliability issues in combat dating back to WWI, and in ever war it's been in since.  Don't get me wrong, it's the most influential handgun ever made, and I consider it the greatest handgun ever made.  But a lot of the confusion stems from the fact that it was the most reliable semi-auto of it's time.  But that doesn't make it reliable by today's standards.  If I had to guess, I think the term "stove-piping" was probably coined by a 1911 user.  Also, the springs weakened easy, and after some military use, there was also a lot of play between the slide and lower assembly which killed any attempt at accuracy.  And once again, I'm going to point out, before I get flamed, I'm talking General Issue military 1911s, not all the custom guns you see on the market now.

I own a lot of handguns, and I have an HK USP .45 next to my bed (which I would use to fight my way to my real guns -- my rifles -- in the safe).  When my state joins the rest of the country and passes concealed carry, I would probably cary my LCP .380 during the summer, and my USP compact .45 in the winter.  But if the SHTF (country collapses, Red Dawn, or Zombie apocalypse) and I could only choose 1 handgun, I would reach for the Beretta 92FS every time.

[AR.Hunter.308]

This has been a very interesting conversation with well resoned statements (except mine) all around and ones to ponder.

This has been a great conversation so far, which is what I had hoped for.

Don't be so hard on yourself, we all need a little comic relief.  Just think of yourself as the JarJar Binks of this thread.  haha.

[bdavison]

You said there are better alternatives out there than the Beretta, but you have to remember, when the M9 was adopted, it was state of the art for high cap pistols.  Polymer pistols hadn't really taken off yet.

True, but one of the military contract competitors was the Sig Sauer P226.....which was not chosen, and in my opinion is FAR superior to the Beretta in almost every way.

The Air Force conducted the first testing, and chose the Beretta. I have a feeing that the biggest influence in them picking the Beretta was to get Italy to allow us to put cruise missiles over there. It was more of a "you scratch my back, Ill scratch yours" thing then actually choosing the best firearm for the task.

The competitors with the Air Force testing were:

Beretta 92S-1, Colt SSP, Smith & Wesson 459, FN DA, FN FA, FN High Power, Star M28, Heckler & Koch P9S and H&K VP70

The US Army contested the results, and then conducted their own testing while adding a few offerings they wanted in the lineup. All of them except the Sig failed the test against the 1911, not only the first time, but the second time as well. They lowered the standards of the test, and ended up taking the Beretta over the Sig because Beretta's bid was lower.

[FS2KSTD]

True, but one of the military contract competitors was the Sig Sauer P226.....which was not chosen, and in my opinion is FAR superior to the Beretta in almost every way.

The Air Force conducted the first testing, and chose the Beretta. I have a feeing that the biggest influence in them picking the Beretta was to get Italy to allow us to put cruise missiles over there. It was more of a "you scratch my back, Ill scratch yours" thing then actually choosing the best firearm for the task.

The competitors with the Air Force testing were:

Beretta 92S-1, Colt SSP, Smith & Wesson 459, FN DA, FN FA, FN High Power, Star M28, Heckler & Koch P9S and H&K VP70

The US Army contested the results, and then conducted their own testing while adding a few offerings they wanted in the lineup. All of them except the Sig failed the test against the 1911, not only the first time, but the second time as well. They lowered the standards of the test, and ended up taking the Beretta over the Sig because Beretta's bid was lower.

bdavison beat me to it ... I followed these tests closely during that period, due to the fact that I was getting ready to buy a 9mm SA pistol(which ended up being ... drumroll ... a 92FS). That pistol gave me no troubles, as long as I bathed it in olive oil on a regular basis.  ;D Seriously, if I had to do it all over again, I would've bought a P226 ... it truly is a far superior designed pistol IMO.

But I digress, I am a huge proponent of .45ACP for carry but that's not to say that my carry involves a 1911 pistol. I own many .45's but only one 1911. My SIG, H&K or M&P see carry duty way more than the Kimber. The LCP sees CC duty when you just can't conceal except for a pocket holster ... for the record, I don't feel comfortable with the little .380 but it's better than nothing.

[imschur]

I typically avoid these posts cuz most will never agree.

The best caliber is the one in the weapon your most proficient with under stress. Everybody and every situation is different.

Im old fashioned. 12 gauge at home. .45 on my hip when dress allows it. .38special +P 5 shot revolver for everything else.  I have carried my Beretta 92 often but I always go back to my Para P12. It's smaller than the Beretta and gives me 12 round of .45acp

In typical documented personal self defense situations are their ever more than a few shots fired?I would be curious to know the statistics.

[AR.Hunter.308]

I typically avoid these posts cuz most will never agree.

The best caliber is the one in the weapon your most proficient with under stress. Everybody and every situation is different.

Im old fashioned. 12 gauge at home. .45 on my hip when dress allows it. .38special +P 5 shot revolver for everything else.  I have carried my Beretta 92 often but I always go back to my Para P12. It's smaller than the Beretta and gives me 12 round of .45acp

In typical documented personal self defense situations are their ever more than a few shots fired?I would be curious to know the statistics.

You're absolutely right, and to sum up what you said: Shot placement is the most important thing.  That's really what you mean by "proficient." 

This has been a good conversation so far, no heated exchange of word, so a little debate is good.  Though the shift to discussing the merits of the 92FS has steered us off course a bit.