.45 ACP vs 9mm Debate Rages On

One of the oldest debates among gun enthusiasts is which caliber of handgun is best for self-defense.  The two top (or most contentious) calibers are 9mm parabellum and .45 ACP.  20 years ago, this debate was moot, as the .45 was simply superior in capability, while the 9mm had an advantage in magazine capacity.  Today, with advancements in modern ammunition, the gap in capabilities between these two calibers has narrowed greatly.  I've been asked a few times which caliber I prefer, and I answer enthusiastically with .45 ACP.  Remember that there's a difference between personal preference and ballistic capability.  Let's talk about both.

One of the best (and most exhaustive) tests available on this topic was conducted by the folks at Lucky Gunner.  You can view the article and results at this link.  You'll note that there are several good ammo choices in both calibers, as well as in .40 and .380.  You'll also note that the .45 simply makes a bigger wound, 20 percent bigger in most examples.  Before you complain about the shortcomings of ballistic gelatin, go read the article.  They included layers of heavy clothing in front of the gel, more closely simulating a real-world shooting scenario.

Another interesting article can be found at Ballistic Magazine (click here), where 14 "experts" give their opinion.  Note that some of the experts are simply competitive shooters, and don't have any real world experience with defensive shooting or training.  All of the assembled experts prefer the 9mm cartridge over the .45.  What is telling about their opinion is the reasons given.  Without exception, the top drivers of their opinion are cost and magazine capacity, not terminal ballistics.

There are even a few articles out there written by folks in the medical profession, and many of them indicate that larger caliber handguns cause more devastation in human tissue.  The ways to stop a human threat are to either cause rapid loss of blood, or incapacitate the central nervous system. In other words, you need to cause large wounds to vital organs and blood vessels, or score a hit to the brain or spine.  Rapid blood loss cannot be counted on to instantly incapacitate, but will a larger wound work faster?  Some of the doctors interviewed state that the end result is the same, so caliber is (in their opinion) not as relevant to the discussion.  Since they were not present at the shootings, how can they calculate how quickly the human was incapacitated?    

Others claim that because the FBI chose the 9mm round for all of their issued handguns, it must be the best for self defense.  I would argue that the FBI has a much different mission than a civilian defending themselves from an armed assailant.  The FBI must be prepared to possibly face multiple suspects in a lengthy gun battle; in circumstances like that, magazine capacity is an important factor.  Cost is also a driving factor, along with recoil and speed.  The 9mm cartridge produces less felt recoil than the .45, enabling most shooters to fire a follow-up shot more quickly.

 So, the 9mm is almost as lethal as the .45, but it has a distinct advantage in cost (ammo is cheaper in 9mm), felt recoil, and magazine capacity.  With all of that, why do I still prefer the .45?  The number one reason is that I love the 1911 platform.  I can shoot better with my 1911, chambered in .45 ACP, than with many other handguns, in any caliber.  This includes simulated defensive shooting drills.  Yes, there are 1911s available in 9mm, but the magazine capacity is still less than in other designs, so I'm not sold on the idea of making the switch.  I would save some money on ammo and have ten rounds in the magazine, instead of 7 or 8.   

In the end, the best answer to the debate over these two calibers is that you should shoot what you're most comfortable and capable with.  Shoot both calibers in a variety of guns, and pick what you like best in comfort, shootability, concealability, etc.