The Neverending Caliber Debate

[Teqila]

Which round would you prefer for a military or defensive role, 9mm Parabellum or .45 ACP? It seems 9mm is often underrated and .45 is overrated. I think .45 would be better.

[Reno]

My pop owns a 45 that he got from his dad who bought it shortly after the korean war. That things a piece of precision craftsmanship. If you ever fired one of those guns you know what type of damage those shells can do. That gun has only one real purpose, and that is to kill. It does it well.

[Afterburner]

Hard to say really as I don't have any first hand experience but just going by what I've heard I would say .45. The 9mm can fit more rounds into a pistol but a .45 has more knock down power. Really I would imagine it is all about circumstances. When you've got a guy with a bomb straped to him running at you the .45 might put him down faster, but if you need to kill a large number of people then the 9mm would be better.

Since this thread is a debate about caliber would you mind if I extended the debate to 5.56 vs 7.62 mm as well?

[WiseBobo]

.45 ACP is going to knock a guy down pretty well as opposed to 9mm, however there is going to be a huge loss in the penetration of armor with the .45, given it's diameter. I'd say a 10mm would be best.

[Strelok16]

i heard 10mm overpenetrates, plus its expensive and not that many guns fire it. other than that though it seems like a very good cartridge.

id go with .45 ACP. i think 9mm or smaller is only good when you need a smaller gun or when your in an "its better than nothing" situation.

as for 5.56x45 vs 7.62x51, it really depends on what your using it for. 7.62 is better when your trying to hit and kill something in as few shots as possibe and at longer ranges for sure. but 5.56 is good for getting a lot of rounds downrage fast for supressing fire. id go with a short barreled 7.62mm rifle such as a Springfield Armory SOCOM 16 or FAL or G3 carbine.

[Roaming East]

10mm is about as powerful as standard auto ammo will come before whatever gun your packing needs significant weight/size enlargement to handle whatever larger you put in it. It is a world class mankiller and carries the benefit of excellent capacity. The problem is the pistol/cartridge is TOO powerful for some (read: female) shooters. hence the development of the .40 (incidentally, my preferred cartridge). The .40 is nothing more than a 10mm Auto with a little less oomph behind it.

The question between capacity and catridge size isnt that much of an issue anymore as it was in the 80's thanks to light weight double stack polymer based weapons. USP45's carry 12 in the stak and 1 in the pipe as do Glock .45s. For all intents and purposes the 9mm was selected as that is what the rest of Europe and therefore NATO was already using.

All pistol rounds show pissant armor penetration with the exception of the 7.62 Tokarev which eats through Kevlar like its paper. Not a very lethal round due to its shape and lack of mass though. So basing your pistol ammunition on the need to penetrate armor is going to end in failure regardless. Only dedicated AP style cartridges will stand a chance (like the 5.7FN and German 4.6mm) but they also show the Tokarevs lack of terminal ballistics. Why penetrate armor if when you do, the target is barely hurt?

The 5.56 v 7.62 debate. Id rather we drop the 5'er altogether and replace it in something in the 6.5-6.8 range. Higher range, better accuracy, increased penetration and increased lethality. Keep the 7.62 in GPMG's and DMR sniper rifles.

[WiseBobo]

Originally Posted by Roaming East

The 5.56 v 7.62 debate. Id rather we drop the 5'er altogether and replace it in something in the 6.5-6.8 range. Higher range, better accuracy, increased penetration and increased lethality. Keep the 7.62 in GPMG's and DMR sniper rifles.

I wonder how much improvement could be made by switching the AR-15 platform to 6.5 or 6.8. It seems from what I've read to be a pretty impressive round. Not that I care much for AR-15s, but it'd be interesting.

[Anlushac11]

When the US Army wanted a new automatic sidearm John Browning designed the ACP, automatic Colt Pistol for 9mm.

The US Army felt 9mm was too weak and officers carrying .45cal sidearms told of its excellent ability to stop drugged up charging warriors.

Reluctantly John Browning redesigned the weapon to .45 cal and the rest was history.

Later I think it was from Law Enforcement, it was felt that the .45ACP was over powered while 9mm was not powerful enough.

10MM was supposed to be the power of the .45ACP and the lethal but not over penetration of 9mm.

For home defence Im happy with 9mm and 12ga. but if I was in Iraq or Afghanistan clearing houses I want a .45 ACP. if I shoot someone in a combat situation I dont want them getting back up.

[Roaming East]

The improvements to the AR15 class would be immediate. 6.8 SPC has a flatter trajectory than even the 7.62mm out to range so not only does it hit harder than a 5.56er (by roughly 40% out the muzzle) but maintains that energy better at long range and is an inherently more accurate projectile. Only slight modifications would be needed to utilize the 6.8 (new upper and new barrel) and most of these accessories are already available on the civvie market.

10mm would be an awesome cartridge for military use if the US could get over its new found fascination with light weight plastic guns. 10mm will beat the hell out of them and the weapon itself would be to light to make the recoil anything but a tedious experiance at best. I sold my Glock 20 for that very reason. a Fullsize metal framed auto chamber for 12-15 rounds of 10mm would be about as cake a pistol as id ever see in the US military. something along the lines of a double stack .45 style or hell even a beefed up Sig or HK platform the 226 and USP class have more than shown their worth in terms of durability shooting hot ammo.

[Teqila]

Let's keep this on topic, 9mm or .45.

[Crazy Wolf]

Originally Posted by Teqila

Let's keep this on topic, 9mm or .45.

Why? There are other options available, and we might as well have a discussion that is interesting, and not just a repeat of
"OMG MP5 is teh cool! 9mm FTW!"

"STFU n00b! I use teh USP in COunterstrike, the .45 ACP is soo much better!"

[Delta Force]

The .45 is best. Why else would spec ops still depend on ancient M1911s when going in close quarters? 9mm doesn't cut it. Go with the true American classic, the .45!

It has superior stopping power and doesn't overpenetrate. Great enough for civillan and police use. For military use it depends. 9mm is good if you are going up against someone with body armor (Read: Never for America) but .45 is good if you are in close quarters or anything like that (As in Iraq).

According to my dad (Works in military) they are actually sending over some of the older weapons to the guys in Iraq to give them more stopping power, and because they work better. Every photo you see of our boys in Iraq has at least one troop with an AK-47. I think the AKs even outnumber the M-16s over there.

Bigger is better. .45 for pistol and .30 for rifle (Although the British had a sweet setup with their .303). I like the old school rounds with lots of power.

Although I have only shot .22s, so I am just going off of assumptions, data from the internet, and war movies.

[Teqila]

Originally Posted by Crazy Wolf

Why? There are other options available, and we might as well have a discussion that is interesting, and not just a repeat of
"OMG MP5 is teh cool! 9mm FTW!"

"STFU n00b! I use teh USP in COunterstrike, the .45 ACP is soo much better!"

I'll include .40 S&W. Keep it to handgun rounds.

[VOP2288]

For military purposes I would def go with the more high powered and more lethal caliber - the .45. Like someone said before - if I'm in a warzone I want something that'll keep the bastard down for good.

Although, for home defense that's a whole 'nother ball park. 9mm and the other small, less lethal rounds would be better. I dont understand why people have such weapons as a Bushmaster XM-15 (which is basically a civilian buyable M-16) to protect themselves!? There have been quite a few cases where someone in the process of protecting their families with high powered weapons has actually injured or killed family members via the high caliber bullet penetrating a trespasser and passing through them, into the wall behind them, and striking someone else. Same goes for law enforcement...unless really needed they wont use high powered weapons in confined, possibly civilian inhabited areas due to bullet penetration.

Every photo you see of our boys in Iraq has at least one troop with an AK-47. I think the AKs even outnumber the M-16s over there.

Keep in mind that besides America, Britian, and the western European nations most of the armies of the world depend on AKs or something either developed off it or a newer model of that rifle. It's the most popular, most produced modern weapon of all time.

[Teqila]

There is nothing wrong with the common man owning an evil looking rifle. I wouldn't call an AR-15 high powered, it is less powerful than the bolt action rifles used by miltaries a century ago or most of the hunting rifles today. 9mm isn't a less lethal round, it's been killing people for a long time. That statement reminds of when Israeli police once used .22's for riot control until the number of accidental deaths added up.