9mm is obsolete.

>>34694273
10mm master race?

>>34694273
>1911 won the war
You're almost done here, old timer. One of the few left of your generation

>>34694293
I'm 23.
>>34694281
10mm, 40 S&W, and even 45 ACP are all newer and better than 9mm.

File: dale.jpg (16KB, 274x276px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 274x276px

>>34694273
Says who?

>>34694301
45 ACP sucks balls if you don't shoot'em hot.

>>34694305
Say I.
>>34694308
Compare 230 grain 45 acp to 142 grain 9mm. They have the same sectional density, but the 45 has 60% more impact area.

File: 1501085174830.png (259KB, 760x720px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 760x720px

>>34694325
What if you want to lay cover fire and then still have enough ammo to get work done without reloading.

>>34694325
and half of the velocity. .45 is like a fucking slingshot

remember, never show up to a gunfight with a semi auto that doesn't have a caliber starting in 4.

http://www.gunthorp.com/Terminal%20Ballistics%20as%20viewed%20in%20a%20morgue.htm

unless your enemy is some kind of boneless slime monster in which case a 9mm should reach it's vitals fine

>>34694368
>147gr 9mm
>half the velocity of 230gr .45

Lol.

>>34694301
.45 ACP is newer than 9mm by three fucking years.

>>34694368
Wrong. 142 grain 9mm is only a little faster than 230 grain 45.
>>34694386
I'm aware of that. I'm making fun of 9mm fans who accuse the 45 ACP of being obsolete. They don't know what they're talking about.

>>34694401
Ah I see. But obsolete doesn't necessarily mean older.

>>34694401
>protip: they make fun of your clown caliber because it doesn't offer enough real world advantage to justify its increased cost/recoil/weight/size and decreased capacity

obsolete=/=older

>>34694421
Older doesn't necessarily mean obsolete, but obsolete does necessarily mean older.

Unless you hit the heart or CNS any handgun caliber that is typically carried is just poking neat little holes. Rifle calibers are where you make real damage to tissue with yawing and fragmenting.

>>34694344
>>34694305
>not making your trip rusty

I thought that 9mm was going to trump .45 until I switched from a G43 to a g42. Tiny guns just don't handle 9mm very well. Now that I've realized that no single caliber can meet all of my needs, why not skip the lukewarm middle ground?

.45 is just old school cool. I have no interest in reloading 9mm while .380 and .45 seem fun to reload. Plus, if I have a .45 with a 5" bbl, I can hunt deer in Ohio. I would use .45 super, which limits the pistols I can use, i.e. Glock 41, 1911 or maybe an HK with aftermarket bbl.

Are there any HK models with a 5" bbl, aftermarket or HK? Do you agree with skipping past 9mm/acquiring one after my .45 needs have been satiated?

File: 1488644458774.jpg (61KB, 600x556px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 600x556px

>>34694273

>>34694222
Utter nonsense

>>34694451
Also I forgot to mention that .45 is just more fun to shoot which would equate to more range time. 9mm Glocks are just so soul crushingly boring. Anyone else feel same?

>>34694427
Those aren't the arguments they make. The argument they make is that 45 is for "old fudds." It's an appeal to novelty fallacy.
>>34694451
>bbl
Why is this an abbreviation for barrel? There's only one B in barrel.

>>34694447
And bigger holes are better than small holes.
>>34694447
>Rifle calibers are where you make real damage to tissue with yawing and fragmenting
Then why do bullet makers try to make bullets retain mass?

>picking calibers based on efficiency and not on availability

You probably don't even know why you own guns, retards.

>>34694479
.45ACP is bigger than 9mm by one goddamned millimeter. That means fuck all. You aren't ever going to miss a vital organ by a millimeter.

>>34694511
More like 2.45 mm. That means it has 60% more impact area. Bigger holes mean more bleeding.

>>34694511
>.50BMG is bigger than 9mm by two goddamned milimeter, that means fuck all

>>34694471
I didn't make it up, just answer the question mr autismo

>>34694480
Most cartridges are very easily obtainable with the invention of the 'in-ter-net' thingy, it's pretty cool.

>>34694535
What question? The one about HK 5 inch barrels? I don't know the answer. If you are looking for hunting performance in a handgun, just get 44 magnum.

>>34694551
>the Internet will be here forever

File: 602.jpg (33KB, 174x125px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 174x125px

>>34694448
I accept your demands and am bringing payment to the dead-drop.

>>34694571
Pretty much.

>>34694613
Good goy.

Another successful troll thread!

>>34694479
>then why do they make bullets retain mass?
Well in general it's because shedding mass reduces penetration. Bullets designed with mass retention in mind are usually meant to penetrate deeply where as fragmenting type rounds(ex vmax) are designed to cause more damage earlier on in their penetration but achieve less overall penetration.

Question is which is better for your application and that depends on your target and your caliber.

Of course fragmenting isn't a very effective way to produce meaningful wound trauma at pistol caliber velocity levels so those designs are largely eschewed.
>>34694511
.45 is .1 bigger than .355(roughly) for an increase of ~28%

With newer expanding designs .45 can achieve around 1" in BG. Even accounting for the fact that expansion is likely to be lower irl(as it typically is) achieving .85-.9" of expansion is quite possible. For comparison most 9mm rounds only expand to about .62" irl.

This is an increase of ~37%

I wonder which one of those holes is going to have a higher maximum flow rate...

>>34694377
>not using magnum revolvers
Fucking scrub

http://www.gunthorp.com/Terminal%20Ballistics%20as%20viewed%20in%20a%20morgue.htm

Thread closed

Real life data trumps ballistics gel

>>34694761
41 magnum?
>>34694738
>.45 is .1 bigger than .355(roughly) for an increase of ~28%
Your math is off. (451.5/355)^2=1.618. Area is proportional to diameter squared.
>>34694738
>I wonder which one of those holes is going to have a higher maximum flow rate...
The bigger, deeper one.

>>34694804
i was looking at diameter, not surface area.

also, flow rate has nothing to do with depth. Length of a pipe doesn't restrict how much water can move through it per second, the internal diameter of the pipe does. Unless what you really mean to say is that IRL a hole with a bigger max flow rate isn't necessarily going to flow at a higher rate if they don't poke through the same things, which is true but not the topic of discussion. Both rounds penetrate adequately but of course a 9mm hole in the aorta will bleed more than a .45 hole in your thigh muscle.

>>34695078
A deeper hole in a body cuts more blood vessels, so it will bleed more.
>>34695078
>a 9mm hole in the aorta will bleed more than a .45 hole in your thigh muscle.
True but irrelevant. 9mm is no more accurate than 45, so it's no more likely to hit major blood vessels.

>>34694273
Both are cool. But 9mm is cheaper, has more capacity, less recoil, and tends to lend itself more to sub guns by virtue of a slightly better ballistic coefficient. It also tends to perform a little better from short barrels.

45 is a great round and has proven itself to be a reliable man stopper. You can't go wrong with either.

Why not have both?

>>34694273
10mm is best carridge

>>34695188
>Why not have both?
Your pistol can only have one chamber size.

>>34695137
Its kinda sorta is starting to sound like youre one of those 9milimeme fags who thinks that a round that penetrates an extra inch of back fat, muscle, and capillaries is going to bleed more than an almost 40% wider hole that cut through everything else the same except those last 1-2".

With a good shot through the upper thoracic cavity there isn't going to be a whole lot to be gained bleeding wise from an extra inch or two of pen since both rounds penetrate adequately.

>>34695214
That's why you have lots of pistols. You do, right, anon?

>>34694273

Your mom is obsolete, every one still uses her.

>>34695222
You can only use one at a time (unless you're duel wielding, which is very rare indeed).

Fact: .700 Nitro Express is superior to 5.56 in every way

>>34694273
true. i just open carry my SBR now

>>34694273
10/10
made me reply

>>34695243
>9mm for urban cc
>.45 Super for outdoors

GEE BILL

File: Roosevelt-Franklin2.png (138KB, 300x319px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 300x319px

I feel like this is a thing that people without many guns, or without a lot of gun knowledge, like to talk about.

People who own guns and know a lot about guns just don't start threads like this.

IDK.

>>34694273
Maybe when 10mm stops blowing up guns.

>>34698664
You still post here?

But it's not.

NATO needs to standardize of the 10mm for pistols and PDW's

>>34694448
anybody remember 99chan's /foil/ board where the default name was Rusty Shackleford instead of Anonymous?

>>34694325
impact area means fuckall when it's less than a percent of the overall body area. Might as well be a point.

File: Move over 10mm God's choice is back.jpg (93KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1000x667px

>>34695197

>>34695137
>True but irrelevant. 9mm is no more accurate than 45, so it's no more likely to hit major blood vessels.
That's what the additional capacity is for. 9mm wins

File: bullet-power-comparison 9mm vs 40 vs 45 vs 10mm.jpg (259KB, 588x650px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 588x650px

>>34694273
>>34694281
10mm is the best bullet for pistols on the market

>>34702769
That's because Glockfags just magdump like NYC cops

>>34694301
.40 cal is the true chosen one

What about .40sw? Eh?

>>34702878
Fuck, why don't we give all cops 10mm guns?

>>34705052
Because they don't like 10mm guns

>>34694529
It's more like 3 and a half but ok

>people still fall for this bait

i will destroy /k

>>34694471
Oil industry standard abbreviation for a specific, standardized size of barrel that happened to be blue, hence "blue barrel" or bbl. It ended up becoming so prevalent all other sizes and colors of barrel were discontinued so they dropped the "blue" prefix as it was no longer needed, but as they pioneered and standardized the abbreviation it hung around unchanged.

>>34694551
Oh really?

Find me .30-40 krag ammo then.

It's hilarious how /k/ jerks off 10mm when, as that webm thread shows, they can't even handle 9mm and .45 ACP.

>>34694301
I understand that you're speaking relatively, and that you are trying to implore the notion that new is better, but the technology behind the 9mm bullet has really improved it from it's initial capabilities (which were still very good for it's time). .40 is just a low-powered 10mm, and .45 is in between those two. The current stance on this sort of thing is that capacity matters, and since one bullet will rarely take a guy down regardless of caliber, it makes sense to just have more available.

And sure, tell me that 115+115 = 230, but 7 rounds of 230gr .45 versus 17 rounds of 115g 9mm is a whole different argument.

[spoiler]also you're gay[/spoiler]

>>34694273
That's a funny way to spell fuddy-five

>>34705126
It predates the oil industry by several centuries and early oil barrels were not blue. Most still aren't.
>>34694471
The abreviation for a bale of goods when shipping was bl, a barrel was bbl.

File: image.jpg (152KB, 1246x690px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1246x690px

Will 9mm's even be around in 2077?

>>34694273
>one of the most popular handgun cartridges in the world is obsolete
>a cartridge still in use by military and law enforcement is obsolete
>this thread again
>75 replies already
Fuck you guys

>>34702737
Even more expensive,less common worse capacity and with worse sectional density . The real perks of .45Super/SMC are a slightly better variety of guns which still require care to avoid blowing up.

I love it for what it is, but don't kid yourself

>>34698664
Not an argument.
>>34700981
10 mm doesn't blow up guns.
>>34701379
Bigger holes make more bleeding. There's a reason no one uses 22 magnum.
>>34702769
If you need more than 7 rounds, you're missing a lot.
>>34702968
A good round that everyone bitches about for no reason.
>>34705071
>>34705052
The FBI tried that. Too much kvetching about recoil.
>>34705136
https://www.midwayusa.com/30-40-krag/br?cid=9363
>>34705264
>technology behind the 9mm bullet has really improved it from it's initial capabilities
The technology for EVERY cartridge has improved. Can modern 9mm beat 100 year old 45 ACP? Maybe, but it can't beat modern 45 ACP.
>>34705801
The fact that it's popular doesn't mean it isn't obsolete. I just goes to show you how resistant to change the military is when it comes to cartridges.
>>34706483
>worse sectional density
Wrong.

>>34694799
Tldr?

>>34705795
Only on the west coast for some reason.

>>34706772
>wrong

.40 / 10mm caliber (.400")

155 grain, SD .138
165 grain, SD .147
180 grain, SD .161
200 grain, SD .179

.45 caliber (.451-.452")

185 grain, SD .130
200 grain, SD .140
225 grain, SD .158
230 grain, SD .162
250 grain, SD .175
260 grain, SD .183
300 grain, SD .210

>>34694401

Why do you keep saying 142gr? I've literally never even seen that bullet weight.

>>34694799
Cool read, thanks.
>But the old fudds really need to let go of their .45 fantasies

>>34707249
You just proved me right. 45 has as good or better sectional density compared to 40, with two very common weights being nearly identical in sectional density.

>>34708260
So you don't know how sectional density works then? The higher the number, the better the sectional density. Literally any time a smaller diameter projectile has the same weight as a larger diameter projectile , the smaller one has better sectional density

>>34710294
>Literally any time a smaller diameter projectile has the same weight as a larger diameter projectile , the smaller one has better sectional density
Yes, I know, but 45 has more weight. The heaviest 45 bullet you're likely to find is 230 grains. The heaviest 40 bullet you're likely to find is 180. They have the same sectional density. If more is needed, the heavier 45 bullets will provide it.

>>34710853
You were directly comparing it to 10mm, not .40S&W. The most common loads for 10mm are 180 and 200 with 220 offered. As designed .45super and .450smc are ballistic twins of 10mm with a worse sectional density across the whole range.

>>34694273
Jokes on you, OP. Every caliber is obsolete.

>>34706772
>ammo unavailable

>>34713540
Handheld energy weapons when?

File: Walther-PPK-2246002-ls[1].jpg (435KB, 1200x888px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 1200x888px

I think they should bring back .32 ACP.

>>34713843
Then why'd you post a 380?

>s&w ppk

Fucking disgusting

bullets are obsolete, i prefer bowling ball howitzers.

File: 1464554548617.jpg (9KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 300x168px

>>34714206
>not knowing ppk was chambered in .32 first, and is still available in that chambering

>>34705264
>.40 is just a low-powered 10mm, and .45 is in between those two.
there is the possibility that you're only pretending to be this stupid

>>34705795
after like weeks of playing new vegas and doing side quests i never got this far in the main questline

>>34713460
>The most common weight for 10mm has the same sectional density as the most common weight for 45, with heavier weights in both calibers providing more if necessary
Yeah, that's my point.

>>34713460
Sectional density is not the end all be all for reliable penetration. Quit living in a perfectly ideal physics simulation and look up the actual reports when bullets have hit human tissue with various lays of clothing.

>>34714330
>complains about someone complaining about posting a .380 while talking about .32 ACP
>thinks you can buy new production .32 Walther PP series pistols.

wew lad.

Of course the 9mm is obsolete. It was surpassed by the .25 ACP just three short years after its introduction.

>>34715144
Were talking specifically about two cartridges of similar weight traveling at the same speed, running damn close to the king of one shot stop service calibers