And yet you can't come up with anything semi-concrete that would even meet my "lower scientific standard" ... let alone your PRJ!
Your argument in favor of 45 is based on nothing but "bigger must be better"... Where is your higher standard science? All talk but no show?
Burden of proof is upon yourself, since this is your endeavor of proving 9mm is equal to everything and that bullet design doesn't matter. Namely, I don't care what you carry. However, you seem to care deeply what others carry. You're just having a hissy fit because I'm doing to you what you do to others and you have no answer.
Thus completing the circle!!!!
None of the research and data I've seen (and linked) shows any significant difference in performance between 9mm and 45ACP.
You claim there is difference - but it's just in your mind, therefore infallible!
I keep claiming that I don't see the difference - you keep claiming that there is a difference; but somehow it's my scientific burden to prove that no difference exists, aka celestial teapot!
Show me any proof that in field that 45ACP outperforms 9mm!
I will even admit that there might a simple "absence of evidence" case - but till something else shows up - I will stick to simple math that more ammo = more likely to "win".
No accounting for speed? (9mm velocity > 45 ACP Velocity)
I'm not all that excited about carrying LESS rounds and it simply weighing MORE.
I think I was told earlier in the thread that velocity alone doesn't matter, but momentum does. Since momentum = mass x velocity ... 9mm 115gr @ 1140fps (131100) < .45 185gr @ 900fps (166500) ... using Hornady Critical Defense as an example. For whatever it's worth.
So, you are carrying 14+1 in your 227
I can carry 21+1 in my 92A1 which seems to be comparable size.
So, I'll have 43 rounds of (131100) and you'll have 29 rounds of (166500)
I'll be carrying 5.64M "Units of Momentum" and you'll have 4.83M "Units of Momentum"
5.64M > 4.83M
You can't avoid the inherent advantage of being able to carry MORE rounds of FASTER projectiles in the same package.
Since I don't believe that a slower, heavier .45 is SIGNIFICANTLY "better" than the faster, lighter 9mm then I believe in the advantage of what is concrete: MORE CHANCES TO HIT TARGET WITH MORE BULLETS.
If capacity didn't matter to you .45 defenders, you'd all be carrying .45 derringers.
Let me also say, I don't think either side is "right" if the bullet is placed in vitals, I believe either has the same chance of incapacitation. I just like the idea of smaller CC weapon (relatively) and more rounds - I carry either a Rohrbaugh R9 (7 rounds) in a package that literally fits in my back pocket. That isn't an option with a .45
If you like carrying a huge gun daily (that 227 looks huge) than more power to you, if I carried something that big it would be my 92A1 so I had 22 rounds on board (although my casual carry is a G19).
Anyway, I'm not defending 9mm > .45
I'm defending why I carry 9mm > 45
Similar threads
