The 9mm is an insufficient cartridge. Pope John Paul II took 6 (SIX!) 9mm rounds and survived.

He would not have survived 2 .45 rounds.

 

That is a rather popular and rather contested statement. I would say the present availble defensive loadings in 9mm are more than adequate in take down power. Shot placement matters so much more than cartridge size.

Here is a great exerpt from a website I will reference below


The 9mm/.45 debate is one that will continue as it has for decades. Given equal reliability and a competent user, either will serve well.



During my years as a police officer, I'm personally aware of cases in which both 9mm and .45 worked very well and others in which neither had particularly stunning success.



I do think that the 9mm is more ammunition-dependent for "effectiveness" than the forty-five, but also believe that there are plenty of good to great factory loads available for it. Personally, I'd feel quite secure with a Hi Power loaded with Federal 115-grain JHP, Remington 115-grain JHP +P, or Winchester "Ranger T" 127-grain +P+. The latter is probably the best overall expanding 9mm load available for self-protection. The other two frequently fail to expand after passing through 4 layers of denim before striking 10% ballistic gelatin blocks. So what? This is designated as "worst case scenario" testing by the folks doing such things and it is a good thing when a round does well in bare gelatin and the same after passing through the denim, but assuming that it does not expand, does that mean that it's totally ineffective? I think not. While I do not agree that 9mm and .45 ball are equivalent, I do believe that there's not as much difference as might have once been believed. I'll bet they're within 8 or 10% of each other, not the 50% spread as opined in the past. I do think the forty-five comes out on top with FMJ. I'll bet a hard ball round through the heart or aorta with either caliber will have a pretty telling effect on your opponent.



What it boils down to in my view is to pick a "decent" caliber and gun and learn to shoot it. You and the handgun actually make the weapon and if you cannot handle the handgun effectively, its caliber is moot. For many of us, the Hi Power is the weapon we handle best at speed. We've practiced with it and find that we can score quick, accurate hits from a pistol we're comfortable carrying cocked and locked and are willing to devote the time and practice to make sure that our competence matches the gun's capability.



It is true that there have been well-publicized failures with the 9mm. Now that .45 ACP is being more used in the police community, I'll bet we see more with that caliber as well. Neither of these handguns has enough "power" to put a determined adversary down for physical reasons. The admittedly few men I've seen shot did not instantly drop like a lead weight; there can be a few seconds delay and during that time an excited shooter can put quite a few more rounds into the target. Were they necessary? In some cases, yes, but in others, the suspect probably would have gone on down without them, but the end result is usually, "Man, I told you 9mm was no good. It took five hits to put that bad guy down."

Let the situation be reversed where a good shooter put 5 rounds of forty-five into a felon and the result is likely, "Whew. It took five rounds of forty-five to knock that guy down. Just think if I'd been using a 9mm?" With good ammunition and equivalent hits, I'll bet the difference between the two scenarios is nil.


http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Defensi...0Hi%20Power.htm

I think the best advice is that the best defensive handgun/cartridge is the one that you carry. There isn't one perp on this earth that wants to be shot with anything including .22lr

 

ccarnel, I know I've read that before, but I can't remember where I saw it posted. Regardless, it's definately 100% accurate. It is all too easy to be dismissive of calibers you don't own, or are smaller size wise. Great example, 10mm v. .45cal. Someone who didn't know any better would assume that the bullet size would be the end all (although the 10mm cartridge was dulled down to the popular .40cal, most people don't seem to make the connection), not taking into account FPS, bullet construction, follow up time, etc. And of course, there is always the magazine capacity issue...

I'd take a mag full of (true) +P 9mm over a mag of standard .45 ammo in most cases, but I like both so I guess it really depends on mood. I don't see the point in being on one side of the bullet grain/velocity fence or the other. Both have their own advantages and drawbacks, and I wouldn't want to be shot with either...


dandaman, STI Eagle 5.0 is a nice plinker, definately let us know how you like it. I'm always laughing inside when I see the polymer frame 1911s though... Any Glock fan can tell you why...

 

i dont have any guns.

but every 3 to 5 months i have to qualify on the M16 and the M9. (job)

 

I've got a couple 1911's. Only gun I've ever owned. I currently just have a springfeild .45. I doubt I'll ever have to use it defensively, knock on wood, but when you ride/drive the vehicles I do in rougher areas, you are kidding yourself if you think nothing will ever happen. I go to the shooting range with a friend once a month and kill a box or two to keep my accuracy up. Guns are often a very good investment as well. Few things can you spend 500-1000 dollars on and 5 years later get 90% of that $ back.