9 vs 45 and confirmation bias

[BMassBMore]

A few years back I settled on 9mm for my SD/HD needs, after determining that the performance of specific premium JHP ammo was more than adequate, and the advantages in capacity and lower recoil more than made up for any disadvantages in terminal ballistics. So, I bought the weapons I wanted, bought a bunch of ammo, trained, improved, etc. I've been content with my choice, and really had no reason to second guess. I've preached the advantages of faster follow up shots and higher capacity to friends and on various internet forums. Every 9 vs 45 thread I read further solidified my decision. I was a true 9mm fanboy, and the whole world (except for those elderly curmudgeons stuck back in 1911) agreed with me. I thought I was in a good place.

Recently, I had the opportunity to shoot a friend's 45, and even though I was unfamiliar with the specific gun, I shot it better than I shoot my own 9mms. I could handle the recoil just fine, follow up shots weren't noticeably slower, and there was just something really satisfying about throwing half an ounce of lead downrange. A bit of doubt creeped into my mind.

Even though I still believe in the logic and reasoning behind my original choice, I find myself repeatedly watching the various ballistics gel tests of 45 ACP premium ammo (like 230gr Federal HST). Seeing those massively expanded rounds (up to 0.9 or even 1.0 inches diameter in some cases) is extremely impressive.

In any case, this thread isn't really about the various pros and cons of the 2 calibers. That has been discussed ad nauseum and I don't expect we can add much beyond what has already been said thousands of times. This thread is really about trying to come to grips with why we believe what we believe. I think I've been suffering from pretty severe confirmation bias.

Once I made my 9mm choice, every argument I read in favor of 9mm was more logically sound, more well reasoned, more well written, and was probably argued by a very attractive and well endowed woman who is an FBI hostage negotiator and who just happened to be a world champion target shooter. All of the arguments I read in favor of 45 were made by unreasonable, out of touch, grumpy old men with an axe to grind against modern technology, semi-auto pistols, and the metric system.

It was only when I got off the internet, went out into the real world, and used all of my senses to experience something different, and the real world results differed from my preconceived notions, that I started to be more open to another point of view. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I've changed my mind, and I'm not saying one caliber is superior in every way to another. All I'm saying is that we should actively challenge our own beliefs by being open to new experiences, being open to differing points of view, being less smug with our superiority, and being aware of the various biases we all have. If there's an ongoing debate about something, it's probably because both sides of the debate are defensible, and both make sense to some degree. Sometimes maybe there isn't just one right answer.

Thanks for reading, and happy shooting!

 

[RoadDawg]

One should have as many different calibers in the safe as one can afford.

Variety is spice.

Spice sinks canoes...

 

[Uncle Duke]

A few years back I settled on 9mm for my SD/HD needs, after determining that the performance of specific premium JHP ammo was more than adequate, and the advantages in capacity and lower recoil more than made up for any disadvantages in terminal ballistics. So, I bought the weapons I wanted, bought a bunch of ammo, trained, improved, etc. I've been content with my choice, and really had no reason to second guess. I've preached the advantages of faster follow up shots and higher capacity to friends and on various internet forums. Every 9 vs 45 thread I read further solidified my decision. I was a true 9mm fanboy, and the whole world (except for those elderly curmudgeons stuck back in 1911) agreed with me. I thought I was in a good place.

Recently, I had the opportunity to shoot a friend's 45, and even though I was unfamiliar with the specific gun, I shot it better than I shoot my own 9mms. I could handle the recoil just fine, follow up shots weren't noticeably slower, and there was just something really satisfying about throwing half an ounce of lead downrange. A bit of doubt creeped into my mind.

Even though I still believe in the logic and reasoning behind my original choice, I find myself repeatedly watching the various ballistics gel tests of 45 ACP premium ammo (like 230gr Federal HST). Seeing those massively expanded rounds (up to 0.9 or even 1.0 inches diameter in some cases) is extremely impressive.

In any case, this thread isn't really about the various pros and cons of the 2 calibers. That has been discussed ad nauseum and I don't expect we can add much beyond what has already been said thousands of times. This thread is really about trying to come to grips with why we believe what we believe. I think I've been suffering from pretty severe confirmation bias.

Once I made my 9mm choice, every argument I read in favor of 9mm was more logically sound, more well reasoned, more well written, and was probably argued by a very attractive and well endowed woman who is an FBI hostage negotiator and who just happened to be a world champion target shooter. All of the arguments I read in favor of 45 were made by unreasonable, out of touch, grumpy old men with an axe to grind against modern technology, semi-auto pistols, and the metric system.

It was only when I got off the internet, went out into the real world, and used all of my senses to experience something different, and the real world results differed from my preconceived notions, that I started to be more open to another point of view. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I've changed my mind, and I'm not saying one caliber is superior in every way to another. All I'm saying is that we should actively challenge our own beliefs by being open to new experiences, being open to differing points of view, being less smug with our superiority, and being aware of the various biases we all have. If there's an ongoing debate about something, it's probably because both sides of the debate are defensible, and both make sense to some degree. Sometimes maybe there isn't just one right answer.

Thanks for reading, and happy shooting!

Very well written OP.

There's only one absolute in this long standing discussion. If one can't put either round on target, the rest isn't going to matter.

 

[Neutron]

Was your friends 45 a 1911 style? If so, maybe you should try a 9mm 1911. Best of both worlds!

 

[Rack&Roll]

Opinion forums are no fun without opinions...

As a .45 guy I can tell you I have come around to the 9-love. And it's not just me. I saw a poll of 20 top gun writers and 17 of them thought the modern 9mm hollow-point ballistics make the 9 the champ.

I still don't own a 9mm handgun, but I expect I will in the future.

 

[CrazySanMan]

I carry a 45 but use a 9mm AR for home defense. 30 9mm should be sufficient to take out a handful of bad guys without over-penetrating the walls of my house and shooting up my neighbor's dogs and car. While carrying my rounds are limited and I need to make every shot count. That's why I choose 45.

What I don't understand is the argument that advances in bullet design and performance have made the 9mm so much more effective that it is now good for defense. What does that mean? Isn't that saying that a 9mm today is equal to a 45 from 20 years ago? Do people actually think that the advances in 9mm bullets weren't applied to 45's or 40's or 38's? Those advances that increased the lethality of a 9mm also increased the lethality of a 45 acp and keep the 45 superior. You just can't argue that a smaller hole will be more lethal. It comes down to shot placement, and with a 45 your area of lethal shot placement on a bad guy is bigger than it is with a 9mm.

I don't really get the capacity argument either. My main carry gun is a 45 caliber XDs. It hold 5 rounds. The 9mm version holds 7 rounds. I will trust 5 center of mass shots with a 45 to drop 5 bad guys. I don't trust 7 9mm center of mass shots to drop 5 bad guys. Maybe that's a preconceived notion on my part that is incorrect, but I have much more faith in the 45 bullet than I do a 9. Plus reloads are easy enough when practiced that the capacity argument is almost moot.

I think the argument that the FBI went back to 9mm proves it is more effective is invalid also. Cost is a HUGE factor in any government entity and it is cheaper to outfit the average FBI agent with 9mm training and carry rounds than with 40 S&W training and carry rounds.

9mm is good, 45 is gooder. That is my opinion on the matter.

 

[baltoed]

I think your post not only well written but after presenting your own personal bias were able to come to a lesson of unbiased conclusion. I applaud your logical conclusion you arrived at and the path that you chose to get there.

 

[MikeTF]

Shot placement: buy what you shoot most accurately.

Maybe a switch to 45 makes sense, or maybe it's the difference in the type of pistol, specifically the bore axis of the pistol and the grip. The SIGs and the H&Ks tend to have the 1911 bore axis. The glocks (and others) are more patterned after a luger style bore axis. I would spend more time discovering which type of pistol you shoot best and then sort out which caliber. For longer distance shots the 9mm beats the 45 ballistically.

If you're defending your home, you don't want to use a pistol if you can use a long gun (they are more accurate and they have better ballistics). Pick a shotgun or a rifle. I pick a rifle for many reasons: accuracy and follow up shots under all conditions (low/no light). I want to hit the target quickly.

If you're picking a pistol for CCW purposes, remember that CCW is a PITA at first. Pick a pistol that you will carry at all times and keep a rifle or shotgun as nearby as possible (in your car or other legal place). I always concealed carry, and sometimes only 22lr is concealable. The priorities are: carrying, concealment, and then accuracy when it comes to CCW.

My wife can shoot her Glock and Ruger LCP better than she can shoot my SIG P228 or 938. I can't shoot her Glock or Ruger LCP as well as I can shoot my SIGs. I have other friends that shoot Berettas or S&Ws better. Maybe a revolver is what works for some? Find what works for you! If a hi-point was my best shooting gun, I'd buy one.

(I'm not an expert, your mileage may vary)

 

[stu929]

Well said, and I agree and wrestle with this with people I know as I have both and appreciate both calibers with one caveat....

As I have continued to add calibers my reloading needs for space/powder and bullet choices have exceeded my space/money allotments. I have recently begun to try to decide if I could pair down some of my caliber choices for simplicity or storage and loading needs. When you can have calibers that share common powders or bullets IE bullseye/unique and varget/335/4895 you can greatly simply your buying patterns and limit the amount of diversity in powder and pills needed.

I love having the variety but the diversity in calibers does complicate logistics a little if space is at a premium.

Either way well said! Not poo pooing your thread I swear I did what you say but now I'm at another crossroads

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

[montoya32]

I don't know why, but I'll add my $.02 worth. With current ammo, the main benefit comes from the capacity and popularity of 9mm ammo. Easier and cheaper to find and used by more people/departments than 45.

Follow up shot is only really critical for Jerry Miculek and competition. I don't know who can tell the difference in .05 seconds difference in follow up shots. As someone else said about, a shot to the vitals is a shot to the vitals. Both rounds will penetrate 8"-10" easily. A 9 will go farther, but if you hit a vital organ or the nervous system, it doesn't matter.

Now, back to capacity. 16 or 24 rds of 45 is likely enough in any confrontation. Yes, a 9 might give you 45-51 rds, but we can then argue that we should all walk around in war belts. I will always argue that a pistol's main purpose is to get you out of a situation, not hunker down and defend the Alamo.

I'll also add, sometimes the reliability of a firearm determines the choice. So a 9mm Glock, M&P or whatever might be the better choice than a 45 1911............

 

[bitterkenny]

Good thoughts, but perhaps we're getting wrapped up in tangental arguments and missing the bigger picture. Yes, it's very likely that some handgun calibers are better then others in terms of performance (however you want to define it.) But the real deal is that all handguns (regardless of calibers) are size/weight compromises to something that is more effective. This is why current convention advocates getting as many rounds on target as quickly as possible to maximize damage in that super-short threat window. So the conclusion is to use whatever you shoot best in terms in accuracy and follow-up shots. Factor in costs, availability, etc., and for most people it's 9mm, in whatever platform of choice, these days.

 

[jcutonilli]

I carry a 45 but use a 9mm AR for home defense. 30 9mm should be sufficient to take out a handful of bad guys without over-penetrating the walls of my house and shooting up my neighbor's dogs and car. While carrying my rounds are limited and I need to make every shot count. That's why I choose 45.

What I don't understand is the argument that advances in bullet design and performance have made the 9mm so much more effective that it is now good for defense. What does that mean? Isn't that saying that a 9mm today is equal to a 45 from 20 years ago? Do people actually think that the advances in 9mm bullets weren't applied to 45's or 40's or 38's? Those advances that increased the lethality of a 9mm also increased the lethality of a 45 acp and keep the 45 superior. You just can't argue that a smaller hole will be more lethal. It comes down to shot placement, and with a 45 your area of lethal shot placement on a bad guy is bigger than it is with a 9mm.

I don't really get the capacity argument either. My main carry gun is a 45 caliber XDs. It hold 5 rounds. The 9mm version holds 7 rounds. I will trust 5 center of mass shots with a 45 to drop 5 bad guys. I don't trust 7 9mm center of mass shots to drop 5 bad guys. Maybe that's a preconceived notion on my part that is incorrect, but I have much more faith in the 45 bullet than I do a 9. Plus reloads are easy enough when practiced that the capacity argument is almost moot.

I think the argument that the FBI went back to 9mm proves it is more effective is invalid also. Cost is a HUGE factor in any government entity and it is cheaper to outfit the average FBI agent with 9mm training and carry rounds than with 40 S&W training and carry rounds.

9mm is good, 45 is gooder. That is my opinion on the matter.

I think the whole point of the OP was to reexamine your own personal biases and base your opinion on facts.

For example the videos that I have seen regarding caliber penetration tests through drywall suggest that 9mm will penetrate more walls than 223.

I believe the advances in bullet design allow reliable expansion of 9mm to exceed an unexpanded 45. This also applies to other calibers, but once you are dead you can't get any deader.

You may want to reexamine your beliefs in the 45. According to this article https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power One stop shots occur less than half the time. The performance of the 9mm is not much different than the 45 in real world situations.

 

[python]

I like 9mm, but nothing beats slow, fat and heavy for SD.

 

[alucard0822]

Used to be a 45 fan, then a 9mm/capacity fan, but after years worth of conversations with knowledgeable folk seems there isn't a difference. Most service calibers pretty much end up evenly matched, or at least close enough that pretty much any other variable will make more of a difference than caliber. I subscribe to the belief that momentum/"power factor" more so than velocity/energy is the best measurement. It directly determines the power that a round has available to expand and penetrate to disrupt the most tissue possible while penetrating a sufficient 12-18" in gel tests. Being the primary mechanism is through crushing tissue directly, and not stretching or fragmentation as it would be at velocities over 2K FPS in "rifle territory". Some emerging tech like the non-expanding Lehigh Xtreme defender bullet may change that, but are yet unproved.

In most defensive loads, 9mm will run about 150FP, 40 around 180PF and 45 around 200PF. In a compact single stack capacities including a chambered round typically run 6 in 45, 7 in 40, 8 in 9, basically all hypothetical single stacks end up about 1200PF in a mag. Suprisingly enough all 3 penetrate about the same with modern expanding designs, and even net about the same volume of disrupted tissue per mag. Full size double stacks will be about double the stats of their compact single stack counterparts, but same basic premise. A moderately skilled shooter would end up around the same time to empty a mag accurately in a target with each caliber, although a less skilled shooter that is slow to recover from recoil may favor a lighter caliber, and a skilled shooter may recover from larger calibers quicker. Each mag's worth of ammo even costs close to the same. Once you get into a specialty need where significantly more power or a much smaller pistol than those 3 service calibers offer, then things change, but for most defensive handgun work in an appropriate service caliber it doesn't matter.

 

[Melnic]

Good thoughts, but perhaps we're getting wrapped up in tangental arguments and missing the bigger picture. Yes, it's very likely that some handgun calibers are better then others in terms of performance (however you want to define it.) But the real deal is that all handguns (regardless of calibers) are size/weight compromises to something that is more effective. This is why current convention advocates getting as many rounds on target as quickly as possible to maximize damage in that super-short threat window. So the conclusion is to use whatever you shoot best in terms in accuracy and follow-up shots. Factor in costs, availability, etc., and for most people it's 9mm, in whatever platform of choice, these days.

This what you post makes sense to me.
I friend asked today "Maybe I should switch to a 45 for home defense"?
I replied "the best gun is the one you have and the one you practice with".

I don't know why people get so hung up about caliber. Just like there is more to being a Soldier, Police officer or hunter than shooting, there is more to home defense than ballistic tests. It seems to me that there are WAY more factors in home defense than ballistics such as (no particular order)
where is your gun compared to where you are when a threat arises?
How quickly can you have it at the ready
Have you practiced?
Is it reliable?
Can you quickly hit center of mass after deciding to shoot?
(plus many more I'm sure)

I only have one 45 which is a WWII relic. If I put a box of 50 through it, A) I'm more fatigued than when I shoot my 9mm so I'm less likely to train as much with it B) I probably should not be shooting it that much anyway. (off topic)

Sure seems that the more important thing in SD is how quickly you get off your first shot compared to your opponent plus accuracy. More importantly, how quickly you hit him vs. he hit you. Both of you can shoot but how soon he stops shooting back is equally important. You both may die. or he/she may injure/kill a loved one.

 

[Magnumite]

I was very particular at one time about the firearm, specific calibers, loadings and so on.
Not so much now. Experience, observation, reasearch and experimentation have taught me much. I have tried on several occasions to shoot different guns and calibers to find what really works.

Its no secret I like 1911's and the 45 ACP cartridge. Perhaps a little moreso, I like revolvers and magnum cartridges. Guess that makes me a big bore guy? On several occasions I tried to woo the 9mm, 40 S&W and 45 ACP in aluminum hammer fired and plastic striker fired hi-cap wonders. What follows is what I have learned.

I like metal in my hands. The semi auto I shoot best is the 1911 in a high hold configuration shooting the 45 ACP. I can shoot 9mm in the 1911 well. I shoot the 45 ACP in a 1911 better, more consistently and many times faster. Well known is shooting the 9 allows considerable savings in ammo (the last gun/ammo panic we had convinced me it was worth shooting more of it). I do shoot the Ruger P-85 and 89's well. I played with a P-90 Ruger for awhile as well as a couple 59 Smith and Wesson guns also. Add to that PT 92 Taurus and a couple other high caps. So the trials are adequate to form a what do I really like base.

I thought it was me closing the door and not having a modern polymer striker pistol. So I tried them out several times. The plastic striker guns leave something to be desired, for me, anyway. After several attempts to adopt the polymers, they leave something to be desired in design and some aspects of performance. They are reliable as can be, light on the hip and some point and track in rapid fire very well. Accuracy...close big targets they are adequate. The ability to change grip parameters is a plus.

Relative to momentum, the 45 is great while the 9 doesn't make out of bed in comparison. I lean toward momentum (or power factor as alucard does) with good reason. As alucard indicated the 3 major modern loadings are designed to very similar performance standards. So that means caliber requirements won't be so 'absolute'.

For defensive use, I'll take a 1911 in 45, 9, or 40 in that order. I look at the firearm first in its application (home defense, ccw, BUG) being primary with the specific caliber secondary. I don't feel under armed with any of them in any good modern loading.

For a pocket rocket I use a half poly frame revolver in a nonmagnum caliber. I feel adequately armed with it as well. As the OP indicated, forming absolutes at an early stage could deny one of what really works best for that individual.

 

[Mark75H]

The trauma guy at Shock Trauma said 2 of anything, even .22 beats one of whatever you think is best.

If you choose .45 ... make it an extended mag; otherwise, use the biggest std mag your gun comes with.

 

[dad4]

I own several 9mm, .22, .45 1911A1. I enjoy shooting all of them. I personally get bored shooting the same thing all the time. I realize I will only achieve moderate proficiency since I shoot different weapons each time. My wife and I shoot at 50ft distances regardless of the calber. We put pretty consistent groupings on target usually. Keeps things fun.

 

[HordesOfKailas]

May I interject and offer up the...10mm?

 

[THier]

I own 2 pistol calibers, 45ACP and 9MM. I have more 1911s than I can count on one hand, a Glock 21 (45acp) and a "few" 9MM.

My latest addition was a S&W Performance center 9MM shield, if the .45 was avail from the Performance center, I would have bought that instead. I just like the idea of a sledge hammer vs a ball peen hammer.

I pray I never will have to use a firearm to protect myself or those I care about, so hopefully the caliber choice won't matter.