Which has the best stopping power, .40 or .45?

My brother tells me that people are moving away from .40 caliber because it lacks the stopping power of a good .45 hollow point. I have found websites that say it doesn't matter if you use a 9mm, a .40, or a .45 (I find this difficult to believe).

Opinions?

Bartleby

Stopping power is irrelevant if you miss your intendend target. I don't concern myself over stopping power much anymore. I focus my time on what gun/caliber shoots best for me and on follow up shots.

Which for me happens to be the Kimber Pro-carry .45ACP. I have chosen that it not be my primary carry gun however.

The SIG P239 in 9mm comes in at a close second and I carry it often.

I first carried a 642 but switched to a 640 loaded with .38spl+p cartridges. I don't mind carrying the extra weight and the extra heft helps my shot.

I don't own a .40SW simply for the fact that I don't need to add another caliber to my collection when I have adequate calibers for SD.

What am I trying to say?

The "stopping power" of the .45ACP vs. .40SW vs. 9mm has been overdebated.

Remember many a man has fallen to the .38spl.

I've been very happy with my sig P229 sig357. Used a 9mm most of carrer until a friend let me borrow his sig. However johnalbert hit it on the head:"Stopping power is irrelevant if you miss your intendend target. I don't concern myself over stopping power much anymore. I focus my time on what gun/caliber shoots best for me and on follow up shots."

Guns were more prevalent many years ago. I think people that grew up with guns were/are better shots. Now that guns aren't as big of a part of the culture, you have people that (maybe) haven't shot any guns before police academy. So they want a bigger/faster/stronger bullet so they only HAVE to hit the perp once (because out of 15 shots they may only hit them once).

I'd like to shoot with a cop sometime. See how well they do.

I think the best is the largest caliber that you are comfortable carrying. I'd say a 45 has more stopping power. Simple physics - more inertia. Personally, I want a gun that can shoot the biggest round I'm comfortable carrying around all day. If that's a 380, well then that's fine. It's a moot point if you leave your gun at home because you don't want to lug it around.

I'm going to try my hand at a compact 45 here. I've got a 38 and just sent the holster back because I *think* the gun might have been too small for the mode of carry I was trying to use.

... but all things being equal, I'll go with Fackler: great big bullets seem to, in real life, tend to be more effective than smaller ones, even when the smaller ones are moving faster enough to carry significantly more energy.

I vote 10mm, but then again I'm something of a Philistine. More power than full-house .357 Magnum, but can be downloaded loaded to 40S&W levels if so desired.

It's kind of a handful, though, and the gun selection new isn't what it should be.

I agree on this w/the proviso that hitting what you aim at IS THE KEY to stopping someone. Missing w/a .44 mag is useless, hitting in the right spot w/a .22 lr can end the problem quickly.


tony

I'd be more concerned with the design of the bullet than a few thousands of an inch difference in diameter. But as long as you pick a quality bullet design the target won't know the difference.

And yes, it's all placement. I'd rather deliver a good solid hit with ball than a marginal hit with the latest death-ray magic bullet.

However I will say that I carry +P's primarily in my 9mm for the extra energy.

Steelheart

My vote is for a 12ga with 00 buck.
Perhaps the best man-stopping combo in the world.

This, of course, is a bit impractical to lug around everywhere. So I stick with anything .38/9mm or larger. Most of the time a .38 snubby suits me just fine. However, when I venture into Joel's city I pack a .40 and keep the .38 in my pocket too.

No offense Joel! Having to do late night contract work at the Greyhound terminal on Hawthorne does tend to make a guy nervous.

Nothing beats shot placement. After that a big fat bullet is best. The military found that out years ago and now I understand that quite a few special units in the military are being re-issued .45's instead of 9mm for the same reason.

That may be true within the narrow range of velocities available from carry handguns.

In a broader sense, it's *really obviously* not true -- unless you think a .45 at 900fps is more likely to kill you than a .223 at a couple of thousand fps? And it bugs me that it's most often stated in the general, obviously not true, form.

Well, that's why I weasled with the "in real life."

That said, sure: all other things being equal, I think that while both a .45 and 900fps and a .223 moving a lot faster are likely to kill you, there's at least some reason to believe that -- depending on where they hit -- the .45 will end up doing more damage to you, while the .223 may drill right through you, and some of Fackler's writing and research on the subject seems to support that thought.

Seems mildly disingenuous, since there's probably some special case in which a frisbee can hit you in a way that does more damage than a .375 H&H magnum. I don't know what that situation is, but, I also can't think of too many places a 5.56 round can hit me and do less damage than a .45 round other than some 'special' situation.

Ford vs. Chevy! And this poll is fruitless!

Shoot what you can put rounds on the target with! It makes no sense to shoot something you are not personally comfortable with. Buy Ammo / Use Up / Repeat!