I have some of each.
I like them all, but I really like the fact that the .45 suppresses better with it’s inherent subsonic ammo.
There is ss 9mm ammo, but anemic is its middle name.
Ignorance fought. I thought its middle name was “Cholmondely.”
This is something I have never considered. Thanks for the info, Stranger.
.45 is clearly better if you have a hand like a baseball mitt. If not, go with what fits in your hand and what you can carry conveniently. (I compromised with the .40 S&W).
Oh for Og’s sake :smack: The caliber holy wars are so regularly fought on the gun boards, it’s like seeing sharks on Discovery, Hitler on the History channel, and mortgage re-fi commercials on daytime TV.
Turth is, for defensive purposes, both do the job if your shot placement is good, neither will if it isn’t.
9mm is cheaper. Yay! you practice more and have more fun shooting more.
45 makes a bigger bang, and a bigger grin at the range. You go home earlier. Yay! again.
Both make nice, visible holes on paper or cardboard. .45 might drop that slightly sticky steel plate target with a not quite centered shot while the 9mm might require a second shot. 0.5 second difference.
I shoot .45 because for me it’s a big enough bang to be fun, without having to steel my resolve and gird my loins like I feel I must with the .357 and .44; 9mm, like .22, can be a useful tool and an economical means of practicing, but they just don’t get my blood flowing, and if I’m going to go to the trouble and expense of shooting stuff, I might as well enjoy it.
Also, I love the hand-feel of the 1911. Yes, I know there are many 9mm 1911s. My Dad carried a “45” through Sicily and Italy in 1943 for which he traded his Webley to an american officer who distrusted semi automatics. Dad liked it because it used the save rounds as his tommy gun. When I shoot my .45, I feel connected to my Dad, and to all that history.
But this is all just my subjective tastes. Both are just as good. So let’s see if we can all get along, 'k?
25acp:
While it’s true that it’s rather small, it still offers some protection. It won’t make any big holes and blood loss is likely to be negligeable, but a gun can be effective through its psychological effect of fear of being hit, pain and panic about having been shot. It’s not as reliable as physiological incapacitation, true.
Kinetic energy:
I’m not sure I understand this theory of kinetic energy as effectiveness (if this is what is being talked about). When someone gets shot wearing a vest, they absorb all the kinetic energy yet aside from broken ribs and bruising, they’ll be fine.
When wearing a bulletproof best, the bullet comes to a stop within 1 or 2 inches which means it releases its energy more quickly than if it went through a body.
I think the main issue with .25 ACP is not that the round is necessarily crappy, but that the majority of pistols in .25, with few exceptions, are more likely to fall apart or explode in your hand than operate normally. They are also the majority (something like 6 of the top 10) weapons used in crimes supposedly.
Wiki explains it a lot better than I do.
There are of course different levels of “fine” after taking a round in a vest. Not having a wound channel is the big bonus, but a 9mm or a .45 are still going to put you down, hard, and with some pretty extensive injury even in the best case scenario. The vest helps because it’s a shock plate that helps spread that kinetic energy over a larger surface area providing more protection. But you’re still going to be a hurtin cowpoke.
Tried to edit but missed it.
The chart in that Wiki link is really interesting. The .500SW is an absolute monster, 2,600 foot pounds of force at the muzzle? Jesus christ.
I dunno. The 9 shot Beretta Jetfire is a quality semiauto that rarely if ever misfires (I have never had a misfire nor a failure to feed nor a failure to eject) ,and for me it is highly accurate at 30 feet The Beretta Jetfire is not going to “fall apart or explode”.
A bad guy who gets hit with 9 25ACP bullets, esp if he is hit in the heart or the face, is going to be in trouble, even before you put in another magazine and hit him an additional 8 times.
The 25ACP was never intended for 1-shot kills. If you attack somebody carrying a 25 Beretta then you can plan on getting shot 9 times ( not much different than a 20 Guage buckshot).
Volunteers? Only an idiot would volunteer to get shot 9 times by a 25ACP.
Dont get me wrong, I usually carry either a 38 or 257, but If I am carrying a 25 auto I am going to shoot you at least 9 times and then reload and shoot you some more.
.45 for me (ACP and Colt) with the 1911 and single action revolver as the delivery system
I also handload for both cartridges
Thankfully, the only thing I’ve had to defend myself against are paper targets
When comparing a good defensive hollowpoint, this saying sums up my views nicely;
A 9mm may expand, but a .45 will never shrink
Are you sure about that?** Aileen Wuornos **shot, stopped, and killed, (at least) 7 out of 7 men with her little .22 revolver. That is pretty good stopping power for any caliber.
How many people have “YOU”, or anybody else here, shot, stopped, and killed at least 7 men, in 7 attempts, with any different caliber? Who here among us has shot, stopped , and killed at least 8 out of 8 with a 9mm or 45??
Of course, Aileen(not a believer in 1-shot kills) always shot her target multiple times.
I think I said it in the last caliber war: the three most important criteria: shot placement, shot placement and finally, shot placement.
That’s why I said “with few exceptions.” I’ve never heard of Jetfire, but the Beretta Bobcat is another good .25. I was specifically referring to Jennings/Bryco/Raven/etc., who seem to love .25 for some reason.
I shot one once. Absolute monster.
And completely impractical. Unless you intend to hunt big animals with it.
This is nothing compared to the .223 vs. .308 threads. 
Yup, 100% sure about that. I didn’t say that they aren’t capable of killing someone or that they aren’t dangerous, because they certainly are, however a self defense round is one that can quickly incapacitate due to shock or blood loss in event of a hit outside of a vital area and a .22 isn’t designed to do such thing.
Unless you’re defending yourself against birds.
Higher magazine capacity, higher velocity. Plus my favorite gun is a 9mm so that’s it for me.
Still want a classic .45 1911, though.
I was in an interesting discussion where a number of ladies were having this discussion. The need for a smaller weapon they could carry all the time in a purse or on their person was pronounced.
All in all, the .22LR Beretta Tomcat or the .25 Bobcat seemed to be big winners when fitted with a really neat laser aiming aid. (It is so small! Fits in modified grips of all things.)
If I had to buy a gun for the lady in my life, it would be the Tomcat. I say this however having never even fired the fool thing.
It’s pretty clear from the recent fiasco in Arizona that the 9mm does not have sufficient power. Never take a 9mm to do the job of a 45 ACP.