|
|
Post by TMan on May 22, 2009 8:36:35 GMT -5
The 9's: Sig P210, STI TargetMaster, S&W 952, Sig X-Five, Pardini, etc..
The 45's: Fusion, Les Baer, Doublestar, Wilson Combat, Kimber, Colt, etc.
Although I enjoy shooting some large bore, fairly heavy recoiling handguns, I would still classify myself as being recoil sensitive. As such, I would expect to be able to shoot 9mm guns better than 45's. Experience is contrary to expectations.
My all-time best ever targets were shot with revolvers. What I've noticed recently though is that I shoot the 45's much better than I do any of the 9's.
I heard someone say once that the 9mm round wasn't as accurate as the 45, but I dismissed that because there was no rationale behind it. Based on my experience, I've found it true, but why? It doesn't make any sense to me. It makes sense if a 22LR round drops down in speed through the sound barrier that it could have an effect, but that isn't the case with a 9mm.
There is little difference in size between a 9mm and 38 Special, a barrel is a barrel.
If I was comparing a single 9mm gun to a single 45ACP, I would just say one gun was better than the other, but since I have a fairly large sampling size, I can't conclude it is the guns, but must be either the round or something psychological with me.
Any ideas or experiences?
|
|
|
|
Post by MLB on May 22, 2009 11:48:20 GMT -5
I'd start looking into "ballistic coefficients". I believe that the value (based on the geometry of the bullet) has an effect on the trajectory, or conformance of the actual to the theoretical trajectory.
So, it may be that certain styles of 9mm are more precise than certain .45's, but on average, the 45 may indeed be a better target round.
That's a rather complicated answer coming from someone who doesn't even own a .45!
|
|
|
|
Post by TMan on Jul 21, 2009 21:45:58 GMT -5
Remember those "ring around the collar" commercials. Having your head up your but dies give you a serious case of ring around the collar. My buddy and I were shooting our Sig P228's today. I was looking at the targets afterwards and something finally dawned on me. There were a couple of areas where there were holes that were just outside the ragged center. Then it dawned on me: if the bullets had been larger as in .45 then the paper wouldn't have been there and it would have been a single ragged hole. Size matters.  |
|
|
|
Post by "DoubleAction" on Jul 21, 2009 23:15:14 GMT -5
I am not too familiar with the 9mm, but I am with .45 acp, the .40 S&W, and the 357 sig in the semi-autos. The best two I have enjoyed shooting, is the .45 acp and the 357 sig.
|
|
|
|
Post by MLB on Jul 22, 2009 13:44:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by TMan on Jul 22, 2009 22:40:54 GMT -5
Before I pass out: so what is the BC between the 9mm and 45ACP? I didn't get that from the links.
|
|
|
|
Post by MLB on Jul 23, 2009 11:35:44 GMT -5
I think you could find a range for each caliber, but it depends on the individual bullet design (hollow point, speer point, flat back, domed back, boat tail, etc.)
Just a quick lookup shows:
9mm Winchester Silvertip Hollowpoint 115 gr at 0.143
45 auto Winchester Silvertip Hollowpoint 185 gr at 0.150
These are in lb/in^2 I assume. Higher is better, so the .45 cuts through the air better in this case. Doesn't appear like a huge difference though. Not sure if it's linearly proportional either.
Reading a bit more into it, while a higher BC will give a higher delivered KE and flatter shooting, I'm not sure if that necessarily corresponds to a tighter group. It might just give a better range and more punch. It seems to me that if it cuts through the air better, it should have a lower variance in POI though.
(How's that for a pile of acronyms!)
|
|
|
|
Post by "DoubleAction" on Jul 25, 2009 1:19:11 GMT -5
TMan; For Defensive and 25 yd. target shooting in handguns, I would go by the results that you get by shooting either, and make you own conclusion. Meanwhile; I would like to hear your opinion while using the standard 230 gr. fmj in the .45 acp verses the 185 gr.+P in the Gold Dot HP.
|
|
|
|
Post by TMan on Jul 25, 2009 7:06:10 GMT -5
DA, I doubt if I'll be answering your question anytime soon. I only have one box of personal protection rounds i.e. those that aren't 230gr FMJ.
I can't believe that the BC of the lighter rounds are going to be anywhere close to that of the FMJ. There is a BIG hole in the front of the bullet, which has to act erratically on the flow of air around the bullet.
Also, if I had the ammo, now would not be a good time to test unless I was using the club's ransome rest.
|
|
|
|
Post by "DoubleAction" on Jul 26, 2009 19:59:27 GMT -5
TMan; I've tried shooting both and I get better accuracy with the 185 gr. Gold Dots from Georgia Arms, but we are talking about 1100 fps with the same recoil as the 230 gr. fmj. Maybe it's because of the lighter HP bullet and the kind powder they used.
|
|
|
|
Post by TMan on Jul 26, 2009 21:03:05 GMT -5
OK, so you are getting the same size holes in the paper. I'm wondering if it is the higher velocity that is making the difference in your accuracy. I don't understand how it would be the powder unless it wasn't buring fully. Having said that, some of the reloaders at the range do talk about better accuracy with certain powders, but I never understood why.
|
|
|
|
Post by "DoubleAction" on Jul 27, 2009 10:35:48 GMT -5
Some handgun powders burn slower than others, like slow burning magnum powders.
|
|
|
|
Post by MLB on Jul 27, 2009 10:55:31 GMT -5
I'd imagine that some powders burn more consistently from load to load than others. That would have a definite effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by TMan on Jul 27, 2009 11:59:51 GMT -5
MLB, you the man!!! I never thought of that, and it makes a lot of sense. The more consistently the powder would burn, the more accurate it would be.
I know that the gases escaping behind the bullet at the muzzle have an effect so I was thinking about the evenness of the burning gases, but I think you proably hit the nail on the head.
|
|
