User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/16/2012 12:56:16 AM EDT
[#1]
Well since .45acp ammo is heavy and subsonic it's range is limited to 100 yards I would say. While in 9mm most the ammo is supersonic and lighter which lends itself to shooting longer, I would say 200 yards. These pistol calibers are meant for closer ranges though. If I was shooting farther than 50 yards I would much prefer to have a rifle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2012 3:34:15 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: Well since .45acp ammo is heavy and subsonic it's range is limited to 100 yards I would say. While in 9mm most the ammo is supersonic and lighter which lends itself to shooting longer, I would say 200 yards. These pistol calibers are meant for closer ranges though. If I was shooting farther than 50 yards I would much prefer to have a rifle. 100 yards? This gentleman would possibly disagree with that statement  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2012 5:09:36 AM EDT
[#3]
Effective, to me, would mean have enough energy to incapacitate. Both are minute of man at 50 yards, and at 50 yards, the .45 loses only 30 ft-lb of energy and the 9mm loses 69 ft-lbs of energy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2012 5:14:30 AM EDT
[#4]
didnt Vickers make hits out to 300 with a .45 or a 9mm? pistol.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2012 8:13:13 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
didnt Vickers make hits out to 300 with a .45 or a 9mm? pistol. It was a 10mm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2012 8:23:44 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Effective, to me, would mean have enough energy to incapacitate. Both are minute of man at 50 yards, and at 50 yards, the .45 loses only 30 ft-lb of energy and the 9mm loses 69 ft-lbs of energy. IIRC the USA used white pine boards to get a max range. I think 100 yards was it for 45 acp. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2012 10:01:39 AM EDT
[#7]
How do you want to define max. effective range?
A .45 (230gr HP @ 900fps) has a max point blank range (MPBR) on a 5" dia. vital zone target of 113 yards. At 100 yards it has 335 FPE. A 9mm (125gr HP @ 1200fps) has a max point blank range on a 5" dia. vital zone target of 139 yards. At 100 yards it has 269 FPE. A 9mm NATO load (115 FMJ @ 1300fps) bumps the MPBR zero out to 148 yards on a 5" dia. vital zone target. At 100 yards it has 283 FPE. They drop off very quickly after their MPBR zero. The .45 is -35.7" @200 yards, the 9mm is -29.6" @ 200 yards and the 9mm NATO is -23.6" @ 200 yards. Since the MPBR is so close and the energies are relatively similar I'd rate them as equivalent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2012 10:42:42 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
How do you want to define max. effective range? A .45 (230gr HP @ 900fps) has a max point blank range (MPBR) on a 5" dia. vital zone target of 113 yards. At 100 yards it has 335 FPE. A 9mm (125gr HP @ 1200fps) has a max point blank range on a 5" dia. vital zone target of 139 yards. At 100 yards it has 269 FPE. A 9mm NATO load (115 FMJ @ 1300fps) bumps the MPBR zero out to 148 yards on a 5" dia. vital zone target. At 100 yards it has 283 FPE. They drop off very quickly after their MPBR zero. The .45 is -35.7" @200 yards, the 9mm is -29.6" @ 200 yards and the 9mm NATO is -23.6" @ 200 yards. Since the MPBR is so close and the energies are relatively similar I'd rate them as equivalent. This. Not enough of a difference in either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2012 10:47:50 AM EDT
[#9]
Doing walkback drills in classes and in training, I have noticed a trend on "max range." With 9mm and .40, a decent shooter can get consistent hits on a steel popper at 120+ yards, standing unsupported. .45 ACP and GAP seem to run out of gas around 90-100 yards. After that, hits get pretty sporadic. Could a great shooter do better? Probably. Does a walkback drill have anything to do with fighting effective range? Probably not. Within 50 yards it doesn't really seem to matter what the caliber is.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2012 12:33:27 PM EDT
[#10]
Effective for what?
They're both non-magnum handgun rounds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2012 7:40:31 PM EDT
[#11]
I guess I'm just wondering at what range the rounds will not be effective at bringing down a person. I'd just like to know out to what range I should train to where the bullet will still be effective to kill.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2012 8:19:16 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
I guess I'm just wondering at what range the rounds will not be effective at bringing down a person. I'd just like to know out to what range I should train to where the bullet will still be effective to kill. Start training at about 7 yards. move out from there. By the time you are good enough for a 100 yard pistol shot you will also have found you will never need to make a 100 yard defensive pistol shot. In all seriousness, know where your gun hits out to 50 and stop there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2012 9:09:02 PM EDT
[#13]
Thank you....thats what I was looking for. Guess I could have worded my question better. I'm pretty decent out to about 25 yards with my Sig p220....thats the longest shot at the range I've been going to. I've been watching videos lately and I think I'm going to take a class or have my SEAL buddy give me some lessons when he gets back.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2012 9:48:19 AM EDT
[#14]
Nothing wrong with asking "just to know" but the reality of it is, the max effective range is virtually meaningless in real life. I cant possibly imagine a situation- even in the middle of a war- where youd engage someone at 100 yard or even 50 yards. Anything beyond 25 yards and its time for a rifle.
If its for a self defense situation, good luck convincing a jury that you had to engage someone 50 or 100 yards out- not to mention the liability of missing that person entirley and hitting someone or something unintended. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2012 12:13:07 PM EDT
[#15]
Given the limitations of both cartridges and the intended uses for which they were designed, I believe that for practical purposes, the effective ranges of both of them are basically the same.
That being said: there was a member here who posted pictures of himself popping steel drums out to extremely long ranges with a .45ACP 1911 and hitting them more often than not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2012 12:35:51 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: I guess I'm just wondering at what range the rounds will not be effective at bringing down a person. A long, long way. Take 147 grain 9mm out of a 4.5" barrel: It has a BC of about .164. With a MV of 1000fps, at 240 yards, it will still be going over 800 fps. That is plenty mv to fully penetrate a human body. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2012 1:13:45 PM EDT
[#17]
Effective range has to be no more than 50 yards for both. After 50 yards you have to be very lucky or be an expert shooter....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2012 5:01:16 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Effective range has to be no more than 50 yards for both. After 50 yards you have to be very lucky or be an expert shooter.... Bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2012 5:32:45 PM EDT
[#19]
I can and have regularly hit 7"x11" targets at 50 yards using my 1911 in .45 acp. I have never shot at a man sized paper target at 50 yards with my 1911 however I would be willing that I could about 90% or better at 50 yards. Probably closer to 100%.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2012 5:37:17 PM EDT
[#20]
A skilled marksman can use either platform, as it matters, to an effective range of about 100 yards. Hitting stationary targets at distance on a square range is not , as it matters. 100 yards is probably about 25 yards too optimistic.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2012 8:14:15 PM EDT
[#21]
I normally shoot at 75- 85 yds
The sites on these 1911 are set for 100 yds (notice the rear sites, the little guy has the front site filed way down) 
. 100 yds 
. 75 - 85 is much easier than 100 
. 
. 
. broke most of the clay birds on the right of the berm 
. . |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2012 8:21:59 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Quoted: Effective range has to be no more than 50 yards for both. After 50 yards you have to be very lucky or be an expert shooter.... Bullshit. Have you been to a public range? At least half of shooters would be lucky to hit the target at 25 yards.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2012 9:23:50 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Effective range has to be no more than 50 yards for both. After 50 yards you have to be very lucky or be an expert shooter.... Bullshit. Have you been to a public range? At least half of shooters would be lucky to hit the target at 25 yards. Am I'm certainly not an expert shooter, but more than once now, I've won lunch at the public range by shooting a bowling pin at a hundred yards. Once, an Arfcommer who went shooting with me had set up some pins at about 125, and some assholes starting plinking away with their rifles at our pins. He assumed a one-handed target shooting stance and bang-flopped a pin with one round from his Super Blackhawk. The assholes looked a moment, then packed up and left.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2012 11:07:31 PM EDT
[#24]
Lets look at this issue from a completely different perspective, shall we? At what distance are YOU willing to stand and let me take torso shots at you, the idea being at what distance would YOU be sure of not sustaining a fatal injury. When I lived in Florida, I shot on a private range outside of Gainesville. We regularly shot a 12 by 12 inch gong from 100 to 150 yds, often going 8-10 rings in a row. Gun was a Springfield, military grade, with Millet aftermarket sights, internal polish, full length rod, minor trigger cleanup. With a little practice it became a routine feat. Never shot a nine millimeter at any thing beyond 25 yds, as mine are subcompact carry guns, so I can't speak to their effective accuracy at distance. Suffice it to say, I'm sure there are people as competent with their nines at distance, as I am with my .45.YOUR effective range is the distance at which YOU can hit a center mass target of 10-12 inches across. I'll let the ballisticians out there tell you at what range the bullet no longer carries sufficient energy to kill you. jmtcw, 44.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/18/2012 3:37:11 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Lets look at this issue from a completely different perspective, shall we? At what distance are YOU willing to stand and let me take torso shots at you, the idea being at what distance would YOU be sure of not sustaining a fatal injury. When I lived in Florida, I shot on a private range outside of Gainesville. We regularly shot a 12 by 12 inch gong from 100 to 150 yds, often going 8-10 rings in a row. Gun was a Springfield, military grade, with Millet aftermarket sights, internal polish, full length rod, minor trigger cleanup. With a little practice it became a routine feat. Never shot a nine millimeter at any thing beyond 25 yds, as mine are subcompact carry guns, so I can't speak to their effective accuracy at distance. Suffice it to say, I'm sure there are people as competent with their nines at distance, as I am with my .45.YOUR effective range is the distance at which YOU can hit a center mass target of 10-12 inches across. I'll let the ballisticians out there tell you at what range the bullet no longer carries sufficient energy to kill you. jmtcw, 44. I hate this argument. It's so stupid. I wouldn't let you throw a river rock at me, and those wouldn't be fatal either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/18/2012 4:51:10 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
How do you want to define max. effective range? A .45 (230gr HP @ 900fps) has a max point blank range (MPBR) on a 5" dia. vital zone target of 113 yards. At 100 yards it has 335 FPE. A 9mm (125gr HP @ 1200fps) has a max point blank range on a 5" dia. vital zone target of 139 yards. At 100 yards it has 269 FPE. A 9mm NATO load (115 FMJ @ 1300fps) bumps the MPBR zero out to 148 yards on a 5" dia. vital zone target. At 100 yards it has 283 FPE. They drop off very quickly after their MPBR zero. The .45 is -35.7" @200 yards, the 9mm is -29.6" @ 200 yards and the 9mm NATO is -23.6" @ 200 yards. Since the MPBR is so close and the energies are relatively similar I'd rate them as equivalent. Thank you. I got into a trajectory argument once between two ignorant .40 lovers and I about long range handgun trajectory. They claimed .45's couldn't make it to 200 yards but a .40 would without much drop. My argument was that both the .40 and .45 sucks at that distance but both could make it with very similar drop rates. I eventually had to pull up trajectory tables to show there isn't much difference. Of course my main argument was that you should go their vehicle and get a rifle if you are trying to shoot a bad guy at 200 yards. Their counter argument was that the .40 was such a good round that they wouldn't need a rifle. I gave up after that logic because there was no hope of winning that argument for the shear stupidity of it all. Not surprisingly, they are two of the worst shooters that I know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/18/2012 6:32:00 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
How do you want to define max. effective range? A .45 (230gr HP @ 900fps) has a max point blank range (MPBR) on a 5" dia. vital zone target of 113 yards. At 100 yards it has 335 FPE. A 9mm (125gr HP @ 1200fps) has a max point blank range on a 5" dia. vital zone target of 139 yards. At 100 yards it has 269 FPE. A 9mm NATO load (115 FMJ @ 1300fps) bumps the MPBR zero out to 148 yards on a 5" dia. vital zone target. At 100 yards it has 283 FPE. They drop off very quickly after their MPBR zero. The .45 is -35.7" @200 yards, the 9mm is -29.6" @ 200 yards and the 9mm NATO is -23.6" @ 200 yards. Since the MPBR is so close and the energies are relatively similar I'd rate them as equivalent. Thank you. I got into a trajectory argument once between two ignorant .40 lovers and I about long range handgun trajectory. They claimed .45's couldn't make it to 200 yards but a .40 would without much drop. My argument was that both the .40 and .45 sucks at that distance but both could make it with very similar drop rates. I eventually had to pull up trajectory tables to show there isn't much difference. Of course my main argument was that you should go their vehicle and get a rifle if you are trying to shoot a bad guy at 200 yards. Their counter argument was that the .40 was such a good round that they wouldn't need a rifle. I gave up after that logic because there was no hope of winning that argument for the shear stupidity of it all. Not surprisingly, they are two of the worst shooters that I know. Since you brought up the .40 S&W I used a 165gr HP @1150 fps that gives a MPBR on a 5" dia. target of 136 yards and a 200 yard drop of 31.4". Right between the 9mm and the .45. Certianly nothing magical. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/18/2012 1:38:57 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lets look at this issue from a completely different perspective, shall we? At what distance are YOU willing to stand and let me take torso shots at you, the idea being at what distance would YOU be sure of not sustaining a fatal injury. When I lived in Florida, I shot on a private range outside of Gainesville. We regularly shot a 12 by 12 inch gong from 100 to 150 yds, often going 8-10 rings in a row. Gun was a Springfield, military grade, with Millet aftermarket sights, internal polish, full length rod, minor trigger cleanup. With a little practice it became a routine feat. Never shot a nine millimeter at any thing beyond 25 yds, as mine are subcompact carry guns, so I can't speak to their effective accuracy at distance. Suffice it to say, I'm sure there are people as competent with their nines at distance, as I am with my .45.YOUR effective range is the distance at which YOU can hit a center mass target of 10-12 inches across. I'll let the ballisticians out there tell you at what range the bullet no longer carries sufficient energy to kill you. jmtcw, 44. I hate this argument. It's so stupid. I wouldn't let you throw a river rock at me, and those wouldn't be fatal either. Sinnerman, you missed the main point of my comments. Only a moron would stand in front of a loaded gun under any circumstances, at any distance! The more important point, perhaps not stressed enough, was that imho it doesn't matter what the cartridge is doing velocity wise if you can't hit anything with it. Read, comprehend, and then reply. Or not. 44. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/18/2012 3:21:29 PM EDT
[#29]
Yeah yeah we can hit bowling pins, 12x12 steel etc at 100 yards Now go run a mile and then have the steel move erratically and shoot back at you. How many hits can you score?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2012 7:15:40 PM EDT
[#30]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the term "effective range" seems to be used most of the time with what the average person is able to effectively hit and kill the target in a gun battle. While the gentleman in that video may very well be capable of shooting to 230 yards with a .45 acp in range conditions, such things are very improbable in a gun battle. I've never read any evidence that indicates that that 230 yard kills with pistols are regular occurrences. And I'm not aware of any police or military organization that trains to shoot at that distance.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2012 3:33:58 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the term "effective range" seems to be used most of the time with what the average person is able to effectively hit and kill the target in a gun battle. While the gentleman in that video may very well be capable of shooting to 230 yards with a .45 acp in range conditions, such things are very improbable in a gun battle. I've never read any evidence that indicates that that 230 yard kills with pistols are regular occurrences. And I'm not aware of any police or military organization that trains to shoot at that distance. Well, are we discussing the effective range of hadguns in general, or the shooters, or the scenario involved? 
Using some of you guys logic, we are down to about the 5 yard line. 
Of course, we should all know that realistic range is not the same as possible range. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2012 5:00:18 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Quoted: Lets look at this issue from a completely different perspective, shall we? At what distance are YOU willing to stand and let me take torso shots at you, the idea being at what distance would YOU be sure of not sustaining a fatal injury. When I lived in Florida, I shot on a private range outside of Gainesville. We regularly shot a 12 by 12 inch gong from 100 to 150 yds, often going 8-10 rings in a row. Gun was a Springfield, military grade, with Millet aftermarket sights, internal polish, full length rod, minor trigger cleanup. With a little practice it became a routine feat. Never shot a nine millimeter at any thing beyond 25 yds, as mine are subcompact carry guns, so I can't speak to their effective accuracy at distance. Suffice it to say, I'm sure there are people as competent with their nines at distance, as I am with my .45.YOUR effective range is the distance at which YOU can hit a center mass target of 10-12 inches across. I'll let the ballisticians out there tell you at what range the bullet no longer carries sufficient energy to kill you. jmtcw, 44. I hate this argument. It's so stupid. I wouldn't let you throw a river rock at me, and those wouldn't be fatal either. This, and I wouldn't judge effectiveness by if it will knock a pin down at 100 yds. Effective range should be the range at which you can efficiently draw, hit, and make accurate followup shots with an expectation the rounds will have enough energy to allow proper expansion. We are talking defensive handgun shooting. 50 yds max. If you happen to be walking through the parking lot of B of A when two Armenian meth freaks decide to lay waste to W. Hollywood, then maybe you might have to volley, but outside of that possibility, 50 yds. If your options are a handgun and you feel you need a round that is effective at 75+ yds I would recommend 10mm, or a revolver in .357 mag or larger. I don't have any info on how .357 Sig performs beyond 25 yds, many LE agencies in TX are using it, and it has performed well, most of the incidents I'm familiar with are within 25 yds (traffic stops, domestic distrubances at private residences, etc)... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2012 7:09:47 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: This, and I wouldn't judge effectiveness by if it will knock a pin down at 100 yds. Effective range should be the range at which you can efficiently draw, hit, and make accurate followup shots with an expectation the rounds will have enough energy to allow proper expansion. We are talking defensive handgun shooting. 50 yds max. If you happen to be walking through the parking lot of B of A when two Armenian meth freaks decide to lay waste to W. Hollywood, then maybe you might have to volley, but outside of that possibility, 50 yds. If your options are a handgun and you feel you need a round that is effective at 75+ yds I would recommend 10mm, or a revolver in .357 mag or larger. I don't have any info on how .357 Sig performs beyond 25 yds, many LE agencies in TX are using it, and it has performed well, most of the incidents I'm familiar with are within 25 yds (traffic stops, domestic distrubances at private residences, etc)... So if I put a 9mm hole through someone's chest because the bullet doesn't expand, my shot is going to be ineffective? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2012 8:44:16 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Quoted: This, and I wouldn't judge effectiveness by if it will knock a pin down at 100 yds. Effective range should be the range at which you can efficiently draw, hit, and make accurate followup shots with an expectation the rounds will have enough energy to allow proper expansion. We are talking defensive handgun shooting. 50 yds max. If you happen to be walking through the parking lot of B of A when two Armenian meth freaks decide to lay waste to W. Hollywood, then maybe you might have to volley, but outside of that possibility, 50 yds. If your options are a handgun and you feel you need a round that is effective at 75+ yds I would recommend 10mm, or a revolver in .357 mag or larger. I don't have any info on how .357 Sig performs beyond 25 yds, many LE agencies in TX are using it, and it has performed well, most of the incidents I'm familiar with are within 25 yds (traffic stops, domestic distrubances at private residences, etc)... So if I put a 9mm hole through someone's chest because the bullet doesn't expand, my shot is going to be ineffective? We were talking about maximum ranges. Velocity decreases pretty significantly as you get out past 50 yards and modern handgun ammunition doesn't expand well at the lower velocities. So you get decreased expansion, and due to the lower velocity decreased penetration, so yes. Your 9mm round at 100 yds is less effective than it is at 25 yds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2012 9:27:31 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: We were talking about maximum ranges. Velocity decreases pretty significantly as you get out past 50 yards With a BC of .164, a 147 grain 9mm bullet with a MV of 1050 fps (which is what WWB does out of a 4.5" barrel) will lose 60 fps at 60 yards. So, no, velocity does not decrease significantly. and modern handgun ammunition doesn't expand well at the lower velocities. Cite? So you get decreased expansion, and due to the lower velocity decreased penetration, so yes. Your 9mm round at 100 yds is less effective than it is at 25 yds. Uh huh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2012 9:56:09 AM EDT
[#36]
Here is another way to look at it.
The effective range is what you think you can hit in the situation at hand. I live near that IHOP shoot up. There is BBQ place approx. 100yds from IHOP parking lot where the shooting began. The owner is a CCW and decided not to engage a guy with an AK because he didn't think he had a guaranteed hit. He feared he would draw AK fire on himself and staff. He said if he had been closer, he would have taken a shot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2012 10:12:36 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Quoted: We were talking about maximum ranges. Velocity decreases pretty significantly as you get out past 50 yards With a BC of .164, a 147 grain 9mm bullet with a MV of 1050 fps (which is what WWB does out of a 4.5" barrel) will lose 60 fps at 60 yards. So, no, velocity does not decrease significantly. and modern handgun ammunition doesn't expand well at the lower velocities. Cite? So you get decreased expansion, and due to the lower velocity decreased penetration, so yes. Your 9mm round at 100 yds is less effective than it is at 25 yds. Uh huh. You think any choice of 9mm expanding ammo is going to expand as well at 100 yds as it does at 25? if you believe that then we need to carry this over to GD for semantic pissing contest. As YOU said, at 60 yds, which is "out past 50 yds" (as I stated) it loses 60 fps which is a decrease in velocity. Now post the velocity decreases over the next 40 yds. No cite needed, take a physics course. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2012 10:20:39 AM EDT
[#38]
Single hits of any handgun ammo at optimal ranges, have proven to be less than ideal for stopping a threat. Now step off to 100 yards and hit some one with a handgun round that has greatly decreased velocity and fails to perform as designed. Your chances of taking someone out of the fight fast enough to matter are very slim. Your chances of scoring hits that matter are also greatly diminished. That is why handguns are to get you away from a situation and not to end one. You may very well end the situation with a handgun, but it will always be the worst tool for the job. It is also the most likely tool a civilian will have in a social situation. You simply can not train enough with a handgun in my opinion. I can certainly use more training.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2012 10:29:06 AM EDT
[#39]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2012 10:45:47 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: You think any choice of 9mm expanding ammo is going to expand as well at 100 yds as it does at 25? if you believe that then we need to carry this over to GD for semantic pissing contest. Oh, so you don't have any reason to back up your claim. Just checking. Pissing contest over. As YOU said, at 60 yds, which is "out past 50 yds" (as I stated) it loses 60 fps which is a decrease in velocity. You said velocity decreases "pretty significantly". I know this is untrue since I had already run the numbers in my first post in this thread. At 100 yards it is still going 900fps. This is plenty to expand because that is still within the muzzle velocity range of modern 147 grain ammunition. Now post the velocity decreases over the next 40 yds. Ok.  Incidentally, 147 grain .355 has a very similar sectional density to 230 grain .45. So at 200 yards, a bullet with a very similar density .45 has a velocity very similar to .45 muzzle velocity.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2012 10:59:05 AM EDT
[#41]
I would be confident in shooting Winchester Ranger 9mm 147 grain ammunition at 200 yards and expecting it to expand, since velocity loss would be less than 200 fps from a 4.5" barrel. 147 grain also loses less velocity in flight because of a better BC and lower starting velocity.
When we redesigned the Ranger T Series of ammunition we widened the velocity window under which the round would expand to allow for the slower velocities that shorter than standard barrels produce. What this means is that if you own a standard or sub compact pistol the round should have adequate expansion. In 9mm I would recommend the 147 grain bullet as it loses a lower velocity percentage than the faster lighter bullet in shorter than normal barrels. This is because the bullet has more dwell time in the bore and has a greater opportunity to burn the powder before the bullet exits the bore. Powder that is burned outside the bore does nothing for velocity. The lighter faster bullets generally have more powder to burn and since the lighter faster bullets have less time in the bore they are not efficient burners of powder in the shorter barrels. We increased the velocity window under which the round would expand by increasing the size of the hollowpoint, tweaking the jacket thickness and the depth of the cuts on the inside of the jacket petal segments. Sincerely, Paul Nowak Senior Technical Specialist Winchester Law Enforcement Ammunition http://www.m4carbine.net/archive/index.php/t-23210.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2012 11:21:18 AM EDT
[#42]
Your Avatar makes that so much funnier.
Quoted:
I would be confident in shooting Winchester Ranger 9mm 147 grain ammunition at 200 yards and expecting it to expand, since velocity loss would be less than 200 fps from a 4.5" barrel. 147 grain also loses less velocity in flight because of a better BC and lower starting velocity. When we redesigned the Ranger T Series of ammunition we widened the velocity window under which the round would expand to allow for the slower velocities that shorter than standard barrels produce. What this means is that if you own a standard or sub compact pistol the round should have adequate expansion. In 9mm I would recommend the 147 grain bullet as it loses a lower velocity percentage than the faster lighter bullet in shorter than normal barrels. This is because the bullet has more dwell time in the bore and has a greater opportunity to burn the powder before the bullet exits the bore. Powder that is burned outside the bore does nothing for velocity. The lighter faster bullets generally have more powder to burn and since the lighter faster bullets have less time in the bore they are not efficient burners of powder in the shorter barrels.
We increased the velocity window under which the round would expand by increasing the size of the hollowpoint, tweaking the jacket thickness and the depth of the cuts on the inside of the jacket petal segments. Sincerely, Paul Nowak Senior Technical Specialist Winchester Law Enforcement Ammunition http://www.m4carbine.net/archive/index.php/t-23210.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2012 11:25:07 AM EDT
[#43]
.45 is more fun to shoot at 500 yards with.
It's like lobbing mortars
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2012 11:51:57 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
.45 is more fun to shoot at 500 yards with. It's like lobbing mortars 4 seconds of flight time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2012 6:09:49 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
.45 is more fun to shoot at 500 yards with. It's like lobbing mortars 4 seconds of flight time. You must be shooting some pretty slow .45 ACP. Mine makes it there in 1.6 seconds.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2012 9:01:34 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
I guess I'm just wondering at what range the rounds will not be effective at bringing down a person. I'd just like to know out to what range I should train to where the bullet will still be effective to kill. 50-75 feet. Yes, they can do the job further out. But in reality, they are not sticking to the program that well beyond 100ft (33yds). Inside the 100ft mark, I feel they both are effective, and allow for good accuracy to work with; you really need to hit the CNS to drop a person only a few yards away. It's amazing that even great HP ammo will do tremendous tissue damage, yet not stop a person cold, at surprisingly close range. Now, if I am asked to try and shoot beyond 100ft? I will go with the 9mm, as my particular carry unit offers a lot of ammo, and it is a very good shooting gun, handles multiple shots quickly well. To be fair, I only own a 1911. I might feel differently if I owned a high capacity 45. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2012 9:06:56 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I guess I'm just wondering at what range the rounds will not be effective at bringing down a person. A long, long way. Take 147 grain 9mm out of a 4.5" barrel: It has a BC of about .164. With a MV of 1000fps, at 240 yards, it will still be going over 800 fps. That is plenty mv to fully penetrate a human body. It's not the speed, but the energy stored in the projectile. Thus, most deer/ big game hunting bullets must carry 1,000Ft. Lb. of energy at 100 yards. (This is why some states will not allow a 223 for big game) Now, consider the .223 is nearly 1,000ft. lb @ 100 yards. We are talking a best case scenario of a pistol bullet holding 330-350 ft lb at that distance. Having USED 124gr and 147 gr 9mm before, I can definitively say that at close range, they penetrate well. At further ranges, they only make ugly holes in a person, without a lot of penetration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2012 1:31:51 AM EDT
[#48]
Are we still debating this?
Why? Seriously, why? A person who takes a handgun over a long gun to any gunfight has made a very poor choice. A person that tries to use a handgun over a long gun at 100+ yards in a gunfight is a moron. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2012 4:26:16 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I guess I'm just wondering at what range the rounds will not be effective at bringing down a person. A long, long way. Take 147 grain 9mm out of a 4.5" barrel: It has a BC of about .164. With a MV of 1000fps, at 240 yards, it will still be going over 800 fps. That is plenty mv to fully penetrate a human body. It's not the speed, but the energy stored in the projectile. Thus, most deer/ big game hunting bullets must carry 1,000Ft. Lb. of energy at 100 yards. (This is why some states will not allow a 223 for big game) Now, consider the .223 is nearly 1,000ft. lb @ 100 yards. We are talking a best case scenario of a pistol bullet holding 330-350 ft lb at that distance. Having USED 124gr and 147 gr 9mm before, I can definitively say that at close range, they penetrate well. At further ranges, they only make ugly holes in a person, without a lot of penetration. Perhaps you should explain. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2012 5:03:03 AM EDT
[#50]
The answer is approximately 50m.
/thread |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
