About .45 SMG or 9mm SMG?
|April 15th, 2006||#2|
| || |
Since SMGs are for close quarters, the .45 would be my choice for one hit, one kill. The HK UMP45 is hard to beat.
“War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.”
—John Stuart Mill
|April 15th, 2006||#6|
| || |
Its a toss up:
The .45 has a greater stopping power yet has a very slow ROF and a smaller mag due to the weight of the bullet.
The 9mm on the other hand has slightly less stopping power yet it has a higher ROF, it weighs less, and its accuracy is outstanding.
But if I had to chose I would go with the FNP90, even though its not on the list, considering its a 5.7mm.
there is an awesome video of the P90 at work.
|April 16th, 2006||#8|
| || |
It's entirely situational. If you're arming a military or even just a task for within the military, thinking about the single operator versus a single target won't work. It's the same arguement I use to deffend 5.56mm. Using a smaller caliber allows for greater carrying capacity. When going into combat, what if the extra couple of mags a soldier can carry makes the ultimate difference?
Planing for the larger scale, thinking strategically, implies that one plans for most situations rather than trying to cover every single one. Most targets aren't going to shrug off a burst of 9mm in the chest. There are, of course, anecdotal tales of bad guys soaking up smaller caliber rounds and ultimately killing the shooter, but what is the actual percentage of confrontations where this occurs? Is it really large enough to justify working around the shortcomings of the .45 caliber round compared to the 9mm round?
The other side of the coin involves thinking very specifically. Strip away all the details. Think only of gunman, target, and one shot. In that very specific circumstance, .45 is arguably more desireable.