View Full Version : THe most used pistol cal. in the world . Are you fine with it?
Being up in my 50,s I grew up with the 9mm will not stop a felon. But today and in the last decade I,m fine with the 9mm and trust my life on it . Sure the 45acp is a American icon cult,but the 9mm is fine for defence and war. Been working for over 100 years. Todays high tech 9mm handguns and ammo are very effective. More so than in the early 1900,s. The 9mm will make anybodys life safe. Rule no.-1 have a gun and having a 9mm and knowing how to shoot it well will serve and protect you and your loved ones in our great American homeland. amen!
thejackbull45 10-07-2006, 20:01 Originally posted by fowler
Being up in my 50,s I grew up with the 9mm will not stop a felon. But today and in the last decade I,m fine with the 9mm and trust my life on it . Sure the 45acp is a American icon cult,but the 9mm is fine for defence and war. Been working for over 100 years. Todays high tech 9mm handguns and ammo are very effective. More so than in the early 1900,s. The 9mm will make anybodys life safe. Rule no.-1 have a gun and having a 9mm and knowing how to shoot it well will serve and protect you and your loved ones in our great American homeland. amen!
I still believe that the 45 holds the advantage in that it has momentum which MAY be needed when the SHTF.
I still have not had this question answered: Why does NATO use the 9mm? Cost, stopping power, less lethal, what? I would be surprised if Europe wanted a one shot stopper type of bullet.
CATATOMIC 10-07-2006, 20:16 9mm ammo has come a long way in the past 10 years. I feel safe with it.
I own two pistols, both being Glock 19s. I am totally fine with the 9mm.
Home and Burbs, Nine is fine.
Bushes and weeds gets a 10, Amen!
Old steel needs a 45 to stay alive!:)
Yes I am fine with a nine!
The reason you fire bullets into an other human being, is simple, that person (or persons) has shown to you a threat that you consider so great to you and yours, that the only solution you have to that threat is a deadly force option.
Looking at the organs, blood transfer, and spinal areas of the human body that supports life, and with that life, the ability to harm you, you need to have a projectile that can A/ reach and damage/destroy those parts and B/ can be fired from a platform that allows multiple round delivery, and an accurate delivery.
The above to my way of thinking is the 9mm pistol, 127/147g bullets at around 1000 FPS, night sights help that delivery.
Suburban 10-08-2006, 17:26 I'm starting to feel more confident in my marksmanship. I've shot up a lot of 3x5 cards, and knocked over a lot of bowling pins and plates. If you make good hits, the little bit of difference between 9, 40, and 45 probably doesn't make much difference.
The really hot 10mm and 45 loads are impressive, but the HST +P in my G21 makes for a LOT of muzzle flip, and anybody worth shooting is worth shooting twice.
I have always thought 9mm is generally better for carry guns, and now I'm starting to think that maybe it's still better all around. Currently thinking of mothballing the 21, and picking up another 17 for HD/IDPA/winter carry.
Originally posted by thejackbull45
I still believe that the 45 holds the advantage in that it has momentum which MAY be needed when the SHTF.
I still have not had this question answered: Why does NATO use the 9mm? Cost, stopping power, less lethal, what? I would be surprised if Europe wanted a one shot stopper type of bullet.
By design in accordance with the treaties of the Geneva and Hague Conventions on the "Laws of Land Warfare" NATO bullets must be FMJ or as the military calls them "ball". The reasoning is that bullets are not allowed that could cause "undue and excessive suffering" so FMJ fits the bill; 9MM hole in 9MM hole out.
It is also a tactical truism that “wounding” an enemy combatant is more desirable than killing him. You see it “costs” more to tend to the wounded than the dead. One wounded soldier on the battlefield usually requires two medics to pull him off the battlefield (and a chance at wounding two more enemy personnel). Then he takes up the medics’ time and resources, the doctors’ time and resources to include medevac helicopters, ambulances, etc… So no! The military is not interested in “one-shot-stops” in the least bit.
The USA had to be hounded for decades by other NATO nations to switch to the 9MM. It is also very tactically sound to have all forces weapons take the same ammo, so we reluctantly adopted the 9MM. However; in light of recent developments in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc… The US Military is seriously considering a better handgun cartridge than the 9MM NATO Ball. Since the .45 ACP Ball also has a long reputation, which is better by far than the 9MM NATO load, they are considering going back to it. Seems even though wounding is the goal, a 9MM NATO does very poorly at stopping a combatant at handgun ranges.
Long Story Short. Your average CCW’er with his 9MM +p+ hollowpoints is much better armed than any soldier with a 9MM NATO irregardless of weapon choice. Do Not! I Repeat, Do Not! Make decisions on what to carry based on what ANY military uses. They are bound by treaties that you are not; and are not “alone” on the battlefield like you most likely will be.
This brings up another issue. Those stupid film clips that lefties on the media keep showing of Iraqi insurgents being shot multiple times with 5.56. The fricken bullet is designed to only wound, a terrorist with his finger on the button of an IED must be stopped, and now!!! Hence the required multiple shots, which the press keeps branding as somehow “uncivilized”. As in, “hey they shot him once and he fell down, why are they still shooting him, those American animals”? DUH!!! Because he has an IED or a grenade in his hand and putting him on the ground is not making him stop doing what he is doing.
It is also a tactical truism that “wounding” an enemy combatant is more desirable than killing him. You see it “costs” more to tend to the wounded than the dead. One wounded soldier on the battlefield usually requires two medics to pull him off the battlefield (and a chance at wounding two more enemy personnel). Then he takes up the medics’ time and resources, the doctors’ time and resources to include medevac helicopters, ambulances, etc… So no! The military is not interested in “one-shot-stops” in the least bit.
Good theory, but if to consistantly wound and not kill was the ideal goal, we should equip the military with the best wounder of all....birdshot. Wounding may be more desirable in theory, but with a cartridge of adequate power, wounding is accomplished with proper bullet placement in a non vital area and that is not usually possible in combat.
No military caliber is designed to wound or kill. They are designed to destroy the enemy capability to successfully carry out their mission. If the round kills or wounds the enemy and destroys his capability then it has done its job. The military calibers in the 300 to 400 ft lb range, that can fully penetrate a human from any angle, will kill equally well if they damage the same vital structures in the body. This is not to be confused with stopping an opponents' aggressive actions. If he has enough oxygen in his brain, he may continue his actions for a short time just as a deer hit with a high power rifle may run fifty or a hundred yards with its' heart destroyed.
Some call it stopping power or knockdown power. No one seems to be able to measure this ability or to see the mystic force that shuts a person down.
I can't either but I like to think of it in terms of "fainting power" because that is what we want our attacker to do whether he is wounded or killed. We want him to faint immediately after being shot. A baseball bat to the head should have alot of fainting power if applied with enough strength by its' owner, but is alot less certain if it is used to stike another part of the human body.
The same is true with military pistol bullets. I do not believe that any of them will consistantly make an attacker faint when hit. If you want consistancy then get a TASER. At least we know the mechanism involved when using this weapon. It disrupts the electrical system in the body to render someone helpless. There is no mystery involved.
As many have said before, bullet placement is the most important factor in incapacitation. The 9mm gives me more cartridges in a given space than the larger calibers and less recoil which helps with bullet placement. It is my choice in auto loaders and the .38 Special is my choice in revolvers every time.
Originally posted by 200 RNL
If he has enough oxygen in his brain, he may continue his actions for a short time just as a deer hit with a high power rifle may run fifty or a hundred yards with its' heart destroyed......
.....As many have said before, bullet placement is the most important factor in incapacitation. The 9mm gives me more cartridges in a given space than the larger calibers and less recoil which helps with bullet placement. It is my choice in auto loaders and the .38 Special is my choice in revolvers every time.
:agree:
Recent information from the FBI that I have come across seems to indicate that 70% of people will fall down after being shot by whatever caliber. But this seems to take into account several factors including the mental conditioning of the person shot.
Take into account a nice young person, raised up right and used to watching a lot of TV. That person gets shot and they'll go down. Conditioned that way, I guess. Now you take a BG who was raised on the street, has been severely beaten in the past, maybe even stabbed or shot before. He or she gets shot...and stays on their feet AND continues the fight. That's with any handgun caliber! They fall into that 30% that won't go down easy.
Couple that with the stat that 83% of all handgun wounds are survivable...and you end up with a real need to be able to put multiple rounds on an attacker accurately into center mass.
Of course many folks can do that with a .45/.40/.357. I know because I can too. With a lot of training and practice one can get proficient with just about any weapon.
I used to pride myself in carrying the best dang revolver available...back in the day...and I could put multiple hits on center mass with 110gr. JHP's from my S&W 686 all day long. Ditto for my M1911 and Commander. I can do it now with my issued HKUSP.40CLEM.
However, after many years of trial and error and after careful study (which never stops) I've returned to the 9mm. Of all the calibers I've loaded and all of the guns I've toted the one I can shoot best and achieve the extremely important SHOT PLACEMENT with...is the 9mm.
But not just shot placement folks!!! Also there are the other considerations. There is the comfort factor. A light weight package that adds comfort to comforting. I know I will carry it because it does not cause me discomfort, strange bulges, constant sags, etc. etc.
This is another very important reason why I recently dug out my old venerable S&W M36. Another weapon which can be carried 24/7/365, very unobtrusive yet effective.
Both of these rounds have been re-worked and have found a new resurgence among the knowing pistolero crowd. Personally, I could care less what the military or the uniformed police are carrying. They have needs which most of the CCW crowd does not. Even then, if I were to go back on patrol and had to carry a GLOCK 17, I would feel very well armed and not disadvanged at all.
But I am not on patrol and work plain clothes. Fly a desk most of the time, and in a few years will join the ranks of the retired. I need to be able to conceal my handgun at all times, I want my handgun to work flawlessly, be accurate and easy to use. More importantly, I want to be able to put multiple hits on CM in rapid fire.
Taking all of that into account...and of course IMHO...I am fine, with the nine.
HR :usaf:
B Coyote 10-17-2006, 16:43 I'm fine with the 9mm.
bc
Dandapani 10-17-2006, 17:29 Originally posted by fowler
Being up in my 50,s I grew up with the 9mm will not stop a felon. But today and in the last decade I,m fine with the 9mm and trust my life on it
I'm 51 and am exactly where you are! I had a S/W 59 in the 80's and sold it cause I had nightmares that it would not do the job when it needed to be done. Fast forward 25 years, I started CCW with 40, then found that I could find a 9mm to put in my pocket that would actually work for SD and now I'm all 9mm.
DonGlock26 10-17-2006, 23:20 I like all the service calibers because the ammo companies are desiging the bullets to all penetrate deeply and expand to FBI test standards. Now that said, the calibers have their own advantages. Most diameter and heaviest bullet? .45acp. Most diameter with hi capacity? .40. Best vehicle penetration? .357 Sig. Most rounds in a weapon and fastest, accurate follow-up shots? 9mm.
For CCW, my favorite weapons are my G-26 and my 442 S&W snubby. I WILL carry them and not leave them at home or in a glovebox.
I've tried them all, and those are my choices. HD and uniformed carry allows me more lattitude. I carry an issued .45 P220R at work and at home, my P229 .357Sig or Beretta Vertec 9mm get the nod.
MOHAA Player 10-20-2006, 16:38 SHOT PLACEMENT is the only thing that works.Pick a service caliber 9mm thru 10mm in a quaility weapon and pratice.More time at the range and less time arguing calibers save lives.
MOHAA
Heavy "J" 10-21-2006, 07:44 I carry a Glock 17 every day, all the time, and if it's not on me at the time it is with in arms reach (setting in my easy chair or while I'm in bed)it is always loaded with 124gr. Gold Dots in standard PSI.... I can safely say, I'm fine with 9mm.
BrokenArrow 10-25-2006, 18:02 From US Army tests.
Max distance of penetration on old steel GI helmet:
230/45 FMJ, M1911A1, 35 yds
115/9 FMJ, BHP, 130 yds
Spin that any way ya want. ;)
MOHAA Player 10-25-2006, 19:45 Originally posted by BrokenArrow
From US Army tests.
Max distance of penetration on old steel GI helmet:
230/45 FMJ, M1911A1, 35 yds
115/9 FMJ, BHP, 130 yds
Spin that any way ya want. ;) I don't intend on shooting bad guys from 35 yards in Army helmets.This is a old comparision and a bad one of the 9mm/45acp debate.
Originally posted by MOHAA Player
With todays moderen ammo in jhp's the big advantage would go to the 45acp.The 45acp jhp will penatrate deeper after expansion then a 9mm jhp do to it's wieght(momentum) causing a larger wound cavity(Bigger hole)
THIS.....debate will never end. But the question was, are we fine with the nine? And most of us here, are.
Originally posted by BrokenArrow
From US Army tests.
Max distance of penetration on old steel GI helmet:
230/45 FMJ, M1911A1, 35 yds
115/9 FMJ, BHP, 130 yds
Spin that any way ya want. ;)
I'd agree that for penetrating cover, 9mm definitely is better than .45acp. Smaller diameter bullet traveling at a higher velocity, this obviously has the edge for penetration.
I've often wondered though is this isn't why it has such a poor reputation for "stopping-power". To me zipping a small bullet through someone relatively quickly just doesn't seem like it would get someone's attention as much as a bigger bullet slowly grinding through them.
I would think this is why hollow-points are known for their "stopping-power". They don't just zip right through, they open up inside of the body like a little metal parachute and slowly grind to a halt inside of living tissue. No scientific data to support this theory but I still feel this is will do a better job of getting someone's attention when they get shot, than a bullet that zips right through.
This would also explain why the bigger slower .45 FMJ has a better reputation for "stopping-power" than 9mm FMJ.
thejackbull45 11-07-2006, 09:33 Originally posted by Ebb27
I'd agree that for penetrating cover, 9mm definitely is better than .45acp. Smaller diameter bullet traveling at a higher velocity, this obviously has the edge for penetration.
I've often wondered though is this isn't why it has such a poor reputation for "stopping-power". To me zipping a small bullet through someone relatively quickly just doesn't seem like it would get someone's attention as much as a bigger bullet slowly grinding through them.
I would think this is why hollow-points are known for their "stopping-power". They don't just zip right through, they open up inside of the body like a little metal parachute and slowly grind to a halt inside of living tissue. No scientific data to support this theory but I still feel this is will do a better job of getting someone's attention when they get shot, than a bullet that zips right through.
This would also explain why the bigger slower .45 FMJ has a better reputation for "stopping-power" than 9mm FMJ.
I am leaning towards the theory that the smaller bullet gets moved around more in the body. The larger mass has more mo.
Originally posted by thejackbull45
I am leaning towards the theory that the smaller bullet gets moved around more in the body. The larger mass has more mo.
Yes I'll agree with that. The lighter bullet is going to be more prone to deflection. I don't really like that idea though, I've always prefered heavy or at least mid-range bullet weights regardless of caliber.
The heavier the bullet the more likely it is to stay on course and plow through to through the target. The smaller and lighter the bullet and the higher the velocity the easier it is to knock it off course. Personally I prefer a big healthy bullet that stays on course and isn't as prone to violent course changes or fragmentaion.
Originally posted by Ebb27
I'd agree that for penetrating cover, 9mm definitely is better than .45acp. Smaller diameter bullet traveling at a higher velocity, this obviously has the edge for penetration.
I've often wondered though is this isn't why it has such a poor reputation for "stopping-power". To me zipping a small bullet through someone relatively quickly just doesn't seem like it would get someone's attention as much as a bigger bullet slowly grinding through them.
I would think this is why hollow-points are known for their "stopping-power". They don't just zip right through, they open up inside of the body like a little metal parachute and slowly grind to a halt inside of living tissue. No scientific data to support this theory but I still feel this is will do a better job of getting someone's attention when they get shot, than a bullet that zips right through.
This would also explain why the bigger slower .45 FMJ has a better reputation for "stopping-power" than 9mm FMJ.
Pistols put holes in people. Nothing more. Has nothing to do with speed or energy causing more damage and incapacitation. Hollow points work better because they expand to a larger diameter. For example 9mm .35 dia bullet that expands to .69 is more likely to knick somthing vital with proper shot placement. A .45 bullet that expands to .76 has an insignificant greater chance to knick somthing vital over the 9mm. At this point messing with the numbers is is a waste of time. Self gratification for the .45 fans because their expanded bullet is .07 inches wider in diameter.
No question what you really need is a hit to the central nervous system to make someone drop. This includes the spinal cord or brain. A shot anywhere else is a gamble depending on how doped up or determined your attacker is. A person shot in the heart that is doped up or on their own natural adrenalin has 12-15 seconds on average to continue with their attack. With pistol rounds, shot placement is the most importand factor. There is no time to allow someone to bleed out with the larger hole is better theory. Shot placement is key. Someone shooting 9mm ball with proper shot placement will be much better off than someone shooting .45 HP with poor shot placement.
Also the average person's torso here in the US is 8-10 inches thick. Even less thick in other countries. The 12 inch FBI standard was to allow the shooter to place a peripheial shot into the arm and penetrate all the way to the heart in a police shootout. For CCW purposes you will always be close and will more than likely be shooting into the chest and not sideways through the thick part of the arm.
If a fan of the .45 feels more comfortable carrying a .45 then by all means do so. Scientifically nothing proves that the .45 has any significant performance over the 9mm. I would prefer follow up shot speed and mag capacity any day with a bullet insignificantly lesser to the .45. Also cheaper ammo = more practice = better speed and shot placement.
Nine is more than fine, it's the most efficient and ideal for self defense.
My 9mm Gold Dots will do just fine, should the need unfortunately arise.
thejackbull45 11-10-2006, 12:25 Originally posted by Xenogy
Pistols put holes in people. Nothing more. Has nothing to do with
If a fan of the .45 feels more comfortable carrying a .45 then by all means do so. Scientifically nothing proves that the .45 has any significant performance over the 9mm. I would prefer follow up shot speed and mag capacity any day with a bullet insignificantly lesser to the .45. Also cheaper ammo = more practice = better speed and shot placement.
Nine is more than fine, it's the most efficient and ideal for self defense.
Why do you guys always bring the cost into the equation?
Originally posted by thejackbull45
Why do you guys always bring the cost into the equation?
Do you have unlimited funds?
Cost matters because shot placement is far, far more important than anything else. How do you get good shot placement? Practice, practice, practice and training, training, training.
What can most of us afford to practice and train with more? The 9mm...and yet it still performs very well when you use use a proper defensive JHP.
thejackbull45 11-10-2006, 15:10 Originally posted by Warp
Do you have unlimited funds?
Cost matters because shot placement is far, far more important than anything else. How do you get good shot placement? Practice, practice, practice and training, training, training.
What can most of us afford to practice and train with more? The 9mm...and yet it still performs very well when you use use a proper defensive JHP.
So you admit the 45 or 10 is better, you just cant afford to shoot them.
Steve in Az 11-10-2006, 19:54 The caliber war is a farce. Anyone who will fall to a .45, .40, or anything else, will fall to a 9mm. Plain & simple. Accuracy and tactics are far more important than caliber selection.
9mm, .40, .45, I've owned them all, and feel just as confident with any of them---as I do all of them. Are any of them my first choice? Hell no, I'm grabbing the 12 gauge pump, or my AR-15.
Originally posted by Xenogy
Pistols put holes in people. Nothing more. Has nothing to do with speed or energy causing more damage and incapacitation. Hollow points work better because they expand to a larger diameter. For example 9mm .35 dia bullet that expands to .69 is more likely to knick somthing vital with proper shot placement. A .45 bullet that expands to .76 has an insignificant greater chance to knick somthing vital over the 9mm. At this point messing with the numbers is is a waste of time. Self gratification for the .45 fans because their expanded bullet is .07 inches wider in diameter.
You say HPs work better because they expand to a larger diameter, then say that "a .45 bullet that expands to .76 has a significantly greater chance to knick something vital over the 9mm".
Then you say "messing with the numbers is a waste of time".
Which is it???
Is a larger diameter better or not???
Make up your mind because you're contradicting yourself.
No question what you really need is a hit to the central nervous system to make someone drop. This includes the spinal cord or brain. A shot anywhere else is a gamble depending on how doped up or determined your attacker is. A person shot in the heart that is doped up or on their own natural adrenalin has 12-15 seconds on average to continue with their attack. With pistol rounds, shot placement is the most importand factor. There is no time to allow someone to bleed out with the larger hole is better theory. Shot placement is key. Someone shooting 9mm ball with proper shot placement will be much better off than someone shooting .45 HP with poor shot placement.
Okay I don't think anyone was advocating missing the target, but as you pointed out a larger diameter bullet has a better chance of striking a vital organ. Someone shooting a .45 HP with proper shot-placement is better off than someone who misses with 9mm ball. I think we all realize that making good shots is necessary with any caliber or bullet type.
You're also using the worst case scenario of dope crazed zombies who can only be stopped by killing them dead. Nearly 80% of the victims of handgun shootings are NOT killed but rather survive their wounds, yet they were stopped. You're completely ignoring the psychological factors that happen in the vast majority of handgun shooting and concentrating on the small percentage of lethal shooting incidents.
You're concentrating your efforts entirely on killing someone with perfect shot placement[an incredibly difficult task]and totally ignoring what actually happens in the majority of pistol shootings, that most end due to psychological reasons not death.
Also the average person's torso here in the US is 8-10 inches thick. Even less thick in other countries. The 12 inch FBI standard was to allow the shooter to place a peripheial shot into the arm and penetrate all the way to the heart in a police shootout. For CCW purposes you will always be close and will more than likely be shooting into the chest and not sideways through the thick part of the arm.
And your point is????
If a fan of the .45 feels more comfortable carrying a .45 then by all means do so. Scientifically nothing proves that the .45 has any significant performance over the 9mm. I would prefer follow up shot speed and mag capacity any day with a bullet insignificantly lesser to the .45. Also cheaper ammo = more practice = better speed and shot placement.
Nine is more than fine, it's the most efficient and ideal for self defense.
What do you consider "scientific" proof.
Here are the FBI's results from a few years back showing that .45acp as well as .40S&W were superior to 9mm at creating wound volume. In other words "scientific" proof that .45acp has "significant performance over the 9mm" at creating a more severe wound.
http://apollo.demigod.org/~zak/firearms/fbi-pistol.php?sort=grade1
Now what "scientific" proof do you have that .45acp doesn't offer any significant performance over 9mm????
Oh and don't even bother to try and use penetration results as some sort of proof since all the ammo-makers make their rounds to conform to the FBI's standards for penetration regardless of caliber.
Originally posted by Steve in Az
9mm, .40, .45, I've owned them all, and feel just as confident with any of them---as I do all of them. Are any of them my first choice? Hell no, I'm grabbing the 12 gauge pump, or my AR-15.
:agree: :2gun: Now that is wise advise!
Originally posted by Ebb27
You say HPs work better because they expand to a larger diameter, then say that "a .45 bullet that expands to .76 has a significantly greater chance to knick something vital over the 9mm".
Then you say "messing with the numbers is a waste of time".
Which is it???
Is a larger diameter better or not???
Make up your mind because you're contradicting yourself.
How am I contradicting myself? If you read my post properly I said insignificant, not significant. You're changing my wording. :upeyes:
Okay I don't think anyone was advocating missing the target, but as you pointed out a larger diameter bullet has a better chance of striking a vital organ. Someone shooting a .45 HP with proper shot-placement is better off than someone who misses with 9mm ball. I think we all realize that making good shots is necessary with any caliber or bullet type.
Here we go again. I agree that a bullet with a significantly larger diameter has a better chance of striking a vital organ with proper shot placement. A bullet that expanded to .69 in dia is better than a .35 dia bullet. Why? Because it's twice the size of the original bullet. That is somewhat significant. When comparing a 9mm expanded to .69 and a .45 expanded to .76 that is an insignificant advantage. Why? Because it's only a .07" difference! For the expanded .45 to make a difference over the expanded 9mm you will have to rely on the expanded .45 being .07" closer to that organ. Pull out a dial caliper, or a ruler if you don't have one and run these numbers. I think it will become obvious to you, or you will go back to saying you will take every 1/100th of an inch you can get. :upeyes:
You're also using the worst case scenario of dope crazed zombies who can only be stopped by killing them dead. Nearly 80% of the victims of handgun shootings are NOT killed but rather survive their wounds, yet they were stopped. You're completely ignoring the psychological factors that happen in the vast majority of handgun shooting and concentrating on the small percentage of lethal shooting incidents.
You're concentrating your efforts entirely on killing someone with perfect shot placement[an incredibly difficult task]and totally ignoring what actually happens in the majority of pistol shootings, that most end due to psychological reasons not death.
And your point is????
No I'm not discounting pshycological effect. Is the attacker really gonna say oh ***** I got shot with a .45 over oh ***** I got shot with a 9mm as if they would know the difference? They're both going to hurt like hell. Also are you really going to bet your life on that 80% pshycological factor? A 20% chance that they're still going to kill you? This kind of thinking is what will get you killed. Go back and read the FBI handbook under "The Human Target". In fact they discouraged counting on pshycological factor in which pshycological factor could enrage someone even more. Below is from the FBI handbook...
"In many individuals, pain is ignored even when perceived, or the response is anger and increased resistance, not surrender" and also "Psychological factors are the primary cause of incapacitation failures."
Notice they also use the word MANY individuals and not few individuals?
What do you consider "scientific" proof.
Here are the FBI's results from a few years back showing that .45acp as well as .40S&W were superior to 9mm at creating wound volume. In other words "scientific" proof that .45acp has "significant performance over the 9mm" at creating a more severe wound.
http://apollo.demigod.org/~zak/firearms/fbi-pistol.php?sort=grade1
Now what "scientific" proof do you have that .45acp doesn't offer any significant performance over 9mm????
Oh and don't even bother to try and use penetration results as some sort of proof since all the ammo-makers make their rounds to conform to the FBI's standards for penetration regardless of caliber.
Penetration is important in which most HPs regardless of caliber meet the FBI standard or come close. Please explain to me why .07" in dia is a significant advantage? I looked over the link you gave me. Small numbers that are insignificant. A pistol round is a pistol round. Yes the .40 and .45 are superior but insignificantly superior. Where in that article did they say that .45 performance is significantly greater? I will trade .07" greater expansion anyday for more ammo and quicker followup shots.
bad shot 2 11-12-2006, 13:51 45 acp is better but i have my g26 loaded up with ranger 127 +p+ and it will do the job.
my g30 is loaded up with speer gold dot 200 +P and it will do better.
with more bulk to carry around.
as they say in boating theres a ocean for every boat
Originally posted by Xenogy
How am I contradicting myself? If you read my post properly I said insignificant, not significant. You're changing my wording.
Sorry about that I didn't realize you were using an oxymoron. "Insignificant greater" you must admit that's a bit confusing.
Here we go again. I agree that a bullet with a significantly larger diameter has a better chance of striking a vital organ with proper shot placement. A bullet that expanded to .69 in dia is better than a .35 dia bullet. Why? Because it's twice the size of the original bullet. That is somewhat significant. When comparing a 9mm expanded to .69 and a .45 expanded to .76 that is an insignificant advantage. Why? Because it's only a .07" difference! For the expanded .45 to make a difference over the expanded 9mm you will have to rely on the expanded .45 being .07" closer to that organ. Pull out a dial caliper, or a ruler if you don't have one and run these numbers. I think it will become obvious to you, or you will go back to saying you will take every 1/100th of an inch you can get.
Once again you're concentrating on one aspect. As you say the .45 expands more, now you consider this "insignificant" yet it is an advantage. What you're ignoring is that .45 not only expands more than the 9mm but the bullet is nearly twice as heavy giving it better monmentum and is also a "significantly" larger object that is passing through living tissue, and getting back to my original point, this larger heavier object is moving through this living tissue at a slower speed.
Now you can dismiss this "insignificant" but considering how ineffective pistols are anyway, I'll take any advantage I can get.
No I'm not discounting pshycological effect. Is the attacker really gonna say oh ***** I got shot with a .45 over oh ***** I got shot with a 9mm as if they would know the difference? They're both going to hurt like hell. Also are you really going to bet your life on that 80% pshycological factor? A 20% chance that they're still going to kill you? This kind of thinking is what will get you killed. Go back and read the FBI handbook under "The Human Target". In fact they discouraged counting on pshycological factor in which pshycological factor could enrage someone even more. Below is from the FBI handbook...
"In many individuals, pain is ignored even when perceived, or the response is anger and increased resistance, not surrender" and also "Psychological factors are the primary cause of incapacitation failures."
Notice they also use the word MANY individuals and not few individuals?
Are they going to feel the difference? For decades it's always been recognized that a .45 is a better "stopper" than a 9mm. If the BGs can't feel the difference in various rounds or there is no difference in the effects of different calibers, why is the .357magnum considered a better "stopper" than a .38special? If there is absolutely no difference in the effects of the various calibers where did these reputations as better "stoppers" come from? Could it be that those actually doing the shootings have noticed the differences over the years?
Taking adavantage of the increased psychological effects doesn't mean I'm increasing my chances of getting killed. The .45 has just as good of penetration as a 9mm. By using a good .45 HP I'll get a better psychological reaction in those 80% and still have good penetration for those other 20%.
How is this kind of thinking going to get me killed???
It's not an either or situation they both have sufficient penetration to be lethal, but the smaller faster 9mm will not have the same psychological reactions since it does not create as severe of a wound.
Since you're using the FBI as your example I'm sure you've read their report on Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness. Then you should also be aware of their conclusions.
"Given desirable and reliable pentration the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of the hole made by the bullet. Any bullet that will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that penetrate the edge is always with the bigger bullet"
Penetration is important in which most HPs regardless of caliber meet the FBI standard or come close. Please explain to me why .07" in dia is a significant advantage? I looked over the link you gave me. Small numbers that are insignificant. A pistol round is a pistol round. Yes the .40 and .45 are superior but insignificantly superior. Where in that article did they say that .45 performance is significantly greater? I will trade .07" greater expansion anyday for more ammo and quicker followup shots.
You asked for "scientific" proof that .45 was a better performer. Why doesn't it surprise me a bit that when I present you with this proof you consider it "insignificant"? The results clearly show increased wound volume with the .45acp but since this isn't in agreement with your "opinion" that 9mm is the absolute ultimate self-defense caliber it's "insignificant".
And of course a few fractions of a second faster follow-up shots and two or three extra rounds are highly significant factors! :upeyes:
Where is your "scientific" proof that these are "significant" factors that outweigh the advantages of a larger diameter and increased bullet weight? I provided you proof of the .45s better performance at creating wound volume, whether you consider it "insignificant" or not. Where is your "scientific" proof of 9mm's better performance "insignificant" or otherwise?
PsychoDad 11-13-2006, 15:43 I carry a 9mm for duty and for home protection and feel totally fine with it. I'm not planning on or trained in shooting only once. i'm pumping rounds CM/H untill the bg is on the ground and his weapon is out of his hand. My duty weapon only holds 8 rounds and i hate that. Getting a 45 means still only 8 rounds. My personal G17 has 17(or 32) and i like those odds much better.
PsychoDad
Well, 8 rounds beats 5 or 6, and you should train to reload from lock back, and reload smooth.
Not really under gunned with a 1 second snick! And 8 more. And if you work under cover, your duty 8 rounder conceals better.
Originally posted by PsychoDad
My personal G17 has 17(or 32) and i like those odds much better.
+1
border bandit32 11-19-2006, 19:45 Originally posted by Warp
My 9mm Gold Dots will do just fine, should the need unfortunately arise.
I agree with a G26 as a weapon
fredglock 11-19-2006, 20:20 To mangle a phrase from the computer world, "If you can't do it with a 9 you can't do it with a .45, either."
Sometimes everything works, and sometimes everything doesn't work. The only controllable factor is you.
fred
MOHAA Player 11-25-2006, 07:03 Originally posted by Hugo R
THIS.....debate will never end. But the question was, are we fine with the nine? And most of us here, are. I am fine with the 9mm but with all factors added I give the slight edge to the 45acp/10mm.Now with that said I own a Sig P220 and a G20 but because of capacity/fast follow up shots I carry my G17 everyday loaded with 147gr Win Ranger T-Series jhp's.
MOHAA
MOHAA Player 11-25-2006, 07:11 WOW this is still going on:shocked: Once again service caliber 9mm thru 10mm in a quailtity weapon and train.Multiable COM/Head hits from a weapon that can produce a wound over 12" and expand over a half inch will stop a threat.There is no magic bullet.
MOHAA
BrokenArrow 11-25-2006, 14:51 Through denim into gel:
125/38 +P GS13.5/.58
125/357 Mag 15.25/.68
124/9 +P GS 15/.66
125/357 SIG 14.5/.68
165/40 13.25/.74
180/40 GS 14.75/.74
185/45 GS 16.25/.78
That said, I'm fine w the nine. And even the .38 from a snub. ;)
Originally posted by Ebb27
I'd agree that for penetrating cover, 9mm definitely is better than .45acp. Smaller diameter bullet traveling at a higher velocity, this obviously has the edge for penetration.
I've often wondered though is this isn't why it has such a poor reputation for "stopping-power". To me zipping a small bullet through someone relatively quickly just doesn't seem like it would get someone's attention as much as a bigger bullet slowly grinding through them.
I would think this is why hollow-points are known for their "stopping-power". They don't just zip right through, they open up inside of the body like a little metal parachute and slowly grind to a halt inside of living tissue. No scientific data to support this theory but I still feel this is will do a better job of getting someone's attention when they get shot, than a bullet that zips right through.
This would also explain why the bigger slower .45 FMJ has a better reputation for "stopping-power" than 9mm FMJ. i MYSELF FEEL THE SAME WAY,i THINK YOUR RIGHT. IMO.
Ok I carry a 45acp(tac-four)13+1 rounds.I can shoot it good real good.That said I like the 9mm also.Some times I carry my cz-75 compact(14+1 rounds,9mm)I feel fine with that to.But if more rounds is better then the 5.7 with 20rounds should be better?Small and fast will tumble around a lot.What do you all think of this??And is this not what the 5.56 is all about??I my self would take the 308 over the 5.56 any day of the week.It's better IMO.
Dalton Wayne 11-25-2006, 17:51 I would have no problem with a 9mm I May get a G-26 someday but for now I will stay with my G-30 with 185 gr GS +P
MOHAA Player 11-25-2006, 22:03 Shot placement is key in any service caliber 9mm thru 10mm they all penatrate over the FBI recommended 12" minimum and expand close to 3/4" so just put them where they need to go and shoot until the BG is out of the fight.There is no magic bullet.Murphy's Law is real.
MOHAA
PsychoDad 11-28-2006, 06:46 Originally posted by Scouse
PsychoDad
Well, 8 rounds beats 5 or 6, and you should train to reload from lock back, and reload smooth.
Not really under gunned with a 1 second snick! And 8 more. And if you work under cover, your duty 8 rounder conceals better.
I reload as soon as i get to cover, no matter how much i've shot. If no cover available i (try) to shoot 8 and then reload while there is still is one in the chamber (8+1). Reloading when totally out of ammo is dangerous. We are taught to avoid that as much as possible.
And my duty gun only slightly conceals better then my Glock and worse then a G19.
Thnx for the input do.
M1Garand 12-02-2006, 14:39 Let's be civilized in discussion.
Deputydave 12-02-2006, 18:49 Are you fine with it?
Quite. ;)
warrjsmith 12-09-2006, 08:07 Originally posted by MOHAA Player
Shot placement is key in any service caliber 9mm thru 10mm they all penatrate over the FBI recommended 12" minimum and expand close to 3/4" so just put them where they need to go and shoot until the BG is out of the fight.There is no magic bullet.Murphy's Law is real.
MOHAA
What he said:thumbsup: Its all that matters. Yes I am fine with it.You can have whatever you want I'll take my 9mm and shot placement anyday.
jarrettclark 12-16-2006, 13:09 blah blah blah.
Does anyone here think that they are going to convince the other person of anything??
This debate has been going on for decades. No one is ever going to get anywhere.
The question was are you fine with 9, not lets fight about whos is bigger. If this debate has not been solved in a century, do you really think that you can solve it here on the internet?
And this is all about a handgun round too. So what are you really saying here? Your Datsun is faster than my Toyota Tercell??? I'm gonna use my Toyota to get to the Porsche.
Yes im fine with 9.
Warhorse 12-16-2006, 13:32 For more years than I care to admit, it wasn't s#*!, if it wasn't .45ACP . I have now "mellowed" and find the nine is fine.
For that matter so is .40S&W, and .38spl, and in my book, shot placement is everything.
vanilla_gorilla 12-18-2006, 03:30 I carry .45s, .40s, and nines all the time. I have absolutely nothing against carrying a 9mm. I simply prefer a 1911 and the .45 that it was made for as my normal carry weapon. I will this out of the safe and tote it in a heartbeat too, though.
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b53/vanilla_gorilla911/gunpix011.jpg
akapennypincher 12-23-2006, 19:50 Originally posted by fowler
Being up in my 50,s I grew up with the 9mm will not stop a felon. But today and in the last decade I,m fine with the 9mm and trust my life on it . Sure the 45acp is a American icon cult,but the 9mm is fine for defence and war. Been working for over 100 years. Todays high tech 9mm handguns and ammo are very effective. More so than in the early 1900,s. The 9mm will make anybodys life safe. Rule no.-1 have a gun and having a 9mm and knowing how to shoot it well will serve and protect you and your loved ones in our great American homeland. amen!
Ask anyone who CHOPS DOWN the 9mm Round One Question. Would you be willing to stand in from of my 9mm, and let me fire a round at your CHEST
Originally posted by MOHAA Player
WOW this is still going on:shocked: There is no magic bullet.
MOHAA
Exactly! And yes, this is still going on.:supergrin:
Originally posted by BrokenArrow
Through denim into gel:
125/38 +P GS13.5/.58
125/357 Mag 15.25/.68
124/9 +P GS 15/.66
125/357 SIG 14.5/.68
165/40 13.25/.74
180/40 GS 14.75/.74
185/45 GS 16.25/.78
That said, I'm fine w the nine. And even the .38 from a snub. ;)
We (my agency) recently started using the Speer GDHP in 135gr. for the .38 Special, supposedly built for the snubbies. I don't know if it's going to make that much difference to the BG that gets center punched...but I will tell you that 15 rounds into our course, the little gun is HOT and there is quite a lot of recoil. Actually, I like it. Reminds me of the old hot 9mm Federal 124gr. +P+ Hydrashok we used to issue.
Originally posted by akapennypincher
Ask anyone who CHOPS DOWN the 9mm Round One Question. Would you be willing to stand in from of my 9mm, and let me fire a round at your CHEST
Let me ask you one.
You're going to be shot with a pistol, I'll give a choice of being shot with either a 9mm or a .45.
Which caliber would you prefer to be shot with?
sundance43.5 12-25-2006, 04:40 Originally posted by Ebb27
Let me ask you one.
You're going to be shot with a pistol, I'll give a choice of being shot with either a 9mm or a .45.
Which caliber would you prefer to be shot with?
Not this question again. This is the most absurd argument in favor of one caliber over another. I'm not going to volunteer to get shot by a bb gun, but that doesn't mean a bb is a good defense round.
:thumbsup:
Guys, thanks for the debate. I'm a newbie and trying to figure this all out. Still don't know what to think, but your debate was very valuable. It may be old stuff to you guys, but it's new to some of us! Sometimes it's worth rehashing an old argument just to re-think it.
Cheers.
Please let this ridiculous thread die a slow agonizing death.
9MM pipsqueak most used by militaries -
Yep so they can get people who are deathly afraid of ANY amount of recoil to shoot the silly thing. Since by Treaty the militaries MUST use FMJ ammo they need a hi capacity mag just to drop one enemy soldier. Some European Armies used to issue .380 pistols to, for the same reasons; funny how nobody rants about the .380.
Used by PD’s worldwide -
See above comment about RECOIL. Also the most ABONDANDONED caliber by PD’s Worldwide due to ACTUAL PERFORMANCE on human adversaries.
Cheaper to Practice With -
Of course; but then the 22LR is even cheaper, how come nobody rants about carrying it?
With Modern JHP’s in the +P+ loadings it is much better -
Sure it is. Check the ballistics of the hotter +P+’s………….I’ll wait………… WOW!!! Seems mighty close to the venerable .357 Magnum. Except the Majority SELDOM ACTUALLY PRACTICE with +P+ carry loadings; leaving them at the mercy of any BG after their first shot (Ow, that hurt my hand, time-out……..time-out….No fair!) Of course Militaries don’t have this problem, 9MM NATO is wimpier than White Box. (Don’t even think about it, I’ve shot more 9MM NATO than most folks will in their lifetime.)
For the essence of brevity I’ll get to the TWO (and only TWO) logical arguments for the little pellet popper -
As long as 9MM is generally used by militaries Worldwide should we experience an Armageddon like SHTF, a la, “Mad Max” it would be prudent to carry it because ammo is readily available from any BG. This is very true; so is the fact that any BG I drop like sack of excrement is going to be carrying a 9MM of some kind to shoot HIS 9MM ammo, so I’ll just grab it (for a BUG) and then toss it as soon as I bag someone carrying a 9MM subgun. Because in a subgun is where the 9MM’s nearly non-existent recoil really shines allowing multiple hits in one trigger pull and being very handy for suppressive fire in urban terrain. (Yes I qualified Expert at the German Army Infantry School with all weapons when their issue subgun was the Uzi. Judging by the ease of shooting their HK rifles and HK Machineguns an HK MP5 has got to be the sweetest little bullet spitter since the Thompson. Hence it being #1 on my list should I ever get enough money to buy a subgun.)
MrMurphy 12-25-2006, 16:31 Myth 1. Military rounds are not designed to wound. The German Army thought the 7.65mm Luger didn't have enough stopping power so Luger designed the 9mm by blowing out the bottleneck and making a bigger round. Obviously military weapons are intended to wound, that's why we use artillery, grenades, napalm, claymores.....
Military rounds are designed to make the other &()*! die for his country not you. The "wounding" argument is basically if you hit a guy and he manages to crawl off... yes, he's still draining resources from his side. But if someone's rushing your position, dropping them in their tracks is "good". We are taught to shoot till the threat stops, not till he goes "Owie" and yells for a medic as he runs away.
Myth 2. Actual bullet size relates to stops. I've seen people shot with everything from .32 to .357 and .45, and in the end shot placement is the key. As a civilian I carried a .45 because I could and because it does provide a bigger heavier round that's easy to shoot, and I've seen enough people drop to where I, by preference, do carry a .45. I would be just as happy with a 9mm, but, I had a choice, and carried what i wanted. In my current duties I carry an M9 with 15 rounds and a spare. It's not my personal choice, but the gun works, the rounds will certainly stop someone if you do your bit. I've known several people who put someone down with a single 9mm, and a couple more who unloaded multiple (in one case, an entire Uzi magazine) into someone before the bad guy dropped.
Capacity has as much to do with the fight as bullet size. Carry as much ammo as you can.
USARet, the MP5 is possibly the smoothest-shooting 9mm SMG out there. You can burn off dozens of rounds and it barely moves. I love the Uzi, put enough mags through one to do some serious business with one, but for close quarters, the MP5 rules. In a military role I'd still take the Uzi though I think.
I myself carry the 45acp,that said I have sometimes carry a 9mm.I feel alright with both.My carry is the para,tac-four,LDA so I have 13+1rounds of 45acp.My 9mm carry is a cz-75,compact,14+1 of 9mm.Now if I only had 7-8 of 45acp(like most 1911's)then I would take the cz.I never shot the 40s&w or the 10mm so I can't say anything about them,but for me it's the 9mm or the 45acp.Now for my wife I think the 9mm is better.(less recoil)But I still think the nine is fine,I just like the 45acp better I have big hands so the ddl stack is no problem for me anyway.It's like one day at the range I was shooting my wife's 380 and the guy next to me said to his son that it was a womans round.He had a 45acp 3'barral and we were shooting at 25-30 feet.He could not hit it at all but my WOMANS ROUND had one BIG hole at the bulls eye.So the big man with 45 would be DEAD and my bg would be dead.I did say to his son that its all about SHOT PLACEMENT not CALIBAR.
Suburban 12-26-2006, 01:04 Originally posted by USAret
Please let this ridiculous thread die a slow agonizing death.
9MM pipsqueak most used by militaries -
Yep so they can get people who are deathly afraid of ANY amount of recoil to shoot the silly thing. Since by Treaty the militaries MUST use FMJ ammo they need a hi capacity mag just to drop one enemy soldier. Some European Armies used to issue .380 pistols to, for the same reasons; funny how nobody rants about the .380.
This is mostly true, but it doesn't make 9mm Luger a bad defense round. Thanks to less muzzle flip, I can make more hits faster with 9mm than I can with a 45. Surely this was part of the equation.
Things get more tricky when you are talking about FMJ and the military. I would go with a 45 if I were stuck with FMJ, but I would not foist it on everyone in the military from the mess cooks to the Navy SEALS.
Used by PD’s worldwide -
See above comment about RECOIL. Also the most ABONDANDONED caliber by PD’s Worldwide due to ACTUAL PERFORMANCE on human adversaries.
I wonder how long it will take for the PDs to realize that switching back to 9mm would decrease the number of rounds that go stray in shootings, and that .40 S&W is only a moderately better stopper than 9mm +P, if that.
I will admit that Federal HST in .45 ACP +P is an impressive round, but shooting it back to back with Gold Dot 9mm +P, the difference in split times is obvious. Muzzle flip with the HST round is pretty crazy.
Cheaper to Practice With -
Of course; but then the 22LR is even cheaper, how come nobody rants about carrying it?
Again, true, but doesn't mean 9mm is a bad defense round.
With Modern JHP’s in the +P+ loadings it is much better -
Sure it is. Check the ballistics of the hotter +P+’s………….I’ll wait………… WOW!!! Seems mighty close to the venerable .357 Magnum. Except the Majority SELDOM ACTUALLY PRACTICE with +P+ carry loadings; leaving them at the mercy of any BG after their first shot (Ow, that hurt my hand, time-out……..time-out….No fair!) Of course Militaries don’t have this problem, 9MM NATO is wimpier than White Box. (Don’t even think about it, I’ve shot more 9MM NATO than most folks will in their lifetime.)
I do load my practice ammo with the same weight bullets to a pressure that gives about the same recoil. Do YOU?
For the essence of brevity I’ll get to the TWO (and only TWO) logical arguments for the little pellet popper -
As long as 9MM is generally used by militaries Worldwide should we experience an Armageddon like SHTF, a la, “Mad Max” it would be prudent to carry it because ammo is readily available from any BG. This is very true; so is the fact that any BG I drop like sack of excrement is going to be carrying a 9MM of some kind to shoot HIS 9MM ammo, so I’ll just grab it (for a BUG) and then toss it as soon as I bag someone carrying a 9MM subgun. Because in a subgun is where the 9MM’s nearly non-existent recoil really shines allowing multiple hits in one trigger pull and being very handy for suppressive fire in urban terrain. (Yes I qualified Expert at the German Army Infantry School with all weapons when their issue subgun was the Uzi. Judging by the ease of shooting their HK rifles and HK Machineguns an HK MP5 has got to be the sweetest little bullet spitter since the Thompson. Hence it being #1 on my list should I ever get enough money to buy a subgun.)
So less recoil/muzzle flip is good in a subgun, but not good in a smaller, lighter pistol?
:)
I don't go trolling the "fabulous forty" or "45 or nothing" forums, what are you doing here. :p
Originally posted by Suburban
:)
I don't go trolling the "fabulous forty" or "45 or nothing" forums, what are you doing here. :p
Well I wasn’t trolling, just keep getting these emails about this particular thread. So yesterday I thought I’d put in another 2 phennings. (I'll turn off the "reply e-mail" function this time so you 9'ers can have the last word.)
I don’t use the .40 anymore, But I still believe it is better than the 9MM. I prefer the near identical ballistics to the old .357 Mag of the newer .357 Sig. The recoil is marginal compared to the .40 especially in a “C” model. I’ve never owned a Glock in 9MM but my split times between an issue M-9 and my G22 or my G31C are within a tenth of each other (my opinion is that the rube-Goldberg of parts under the barrel in the Beretta raises the barrel a bit high in relation to the hand/wrist/arm causing more muzzle flip than a regular 9MM. Just my observation, every time I’ve shot a 9MM Glock the recoil felt non-existent when compared to the M-9. But those were rather short sessions on a borrowed gun).
My practice ammo is only different from my carry loads in that the bullet is FMJ (still of the same weight) and therefore cheaper than JHP’s. If I could afford it I’d shoot “carry” loads all the time, JHP’s are a might easier on my steel plate targets. However every time I go to the local range I see 9MM shooters by the bushel shooting Blazers, white box, etc.. and none with +P+ level ammo. If you reload your own you likely practice about 10 times more than the average Joe CCW’er. I don’t reload yet but I do spend a good bit of my budget on ammo, hence the 4” steel plates to make for more productive practice, more fun, and a lot less walking back and forth.
As to the assertion that it’s ok in a subgun but not a pistol. I was assuming that one had a choice of weapons but not of ammo. I’d prefer my MP5 in .357 Sig but that is going to be really hard to get since the 86 Volkmer-Mclure act. If I run across an ex-LEO model in .40 I might be able to make the switch but the BATF might take a big chunk of money and loads of paperwork and wait time for a caliber switch.
Anyway, yes I said the 9MM is a usable cartridge in a subgun because of several reasons: a subgun has a longer barrel and therefore can use up all the powder in any loading; a subgun has a much longer sight radius and a buttstock to boot so shot placement is (which is really the holy grail of stopping an opponent) easier; and a subgun in an urban eyeball-to-eyeball engagement can outdo a pistol hands down, for the above mentioned reasons you can likely get off the first shot, even if you are in “panic mode” you can put your opponent down quicker (quicker than he can put you down) by aiming at his right thigh region and squeezing off a 3-5 round burst which if you do your part should put one in his thigh and the next 3 about center of mass with the 4th or 5th about shoulder level. If you are really good and have more time you could put a three-round burst all on the torso. Yes, 3 to 4 rounds has a better effect than one. (This is quite easy with a stocked Uzi, a little more difficult with a .45 Grease-Gun). Anyway my point was that if one MUST use a 9MM one would be better off with a subgun. Since we’re talking about self-defense and concealed carry I made that comparison given that if one could afford a subgun and all the aggravation of ownership of such a weapon carrying it concealed might consist of a few hours and then a likely surrender to a pistol. It was a bit of a rhetorical comment. Much the same way that Army personnel that used to carry the grease-gun jumped on the chance to carry the M-9. Then wanted to trade back when deployed to some real action.
(A grease-gun weighs in excess of 7 pounds unloaded, and more than an M-16 when loaded).
As I’ve said before if one is carrying a nine in +P JHP or a +P+ JHP of good quality one is far better armed than a soldier stuck with an M-9 and NATO Ball. But beating NATO Ball isn’t really much of an accomplishment or a significant improvement in stopping power considering that there are better choices.
9mm Luger 12-27-2006, 21:48 9mm VS 45ACP = :deadhorse:
And yes I am fine with a nine. :)
CarbineKid 01-02-2007, 00:05 I owned a .45 a .40 and a 9mm. I read ever caliber debate with great interest. I was reading everything every keyboard commando wrote. I was convinced that the 45 was the only choice for self defense.
Then I took my first armed response course. The instructor stressed the fact that any handgun cartridge was weak and you would be firing multiple shots to stop a threat. In short shoot to stop.
Now with that said he gave us an exercise to do. We were to fire as many shots as possible into a target, and we were to do it as fast as we could. I admit it, my grouping were horrid with the 45 and just as bad with the 40. However the 9mm was pretty good. In fact I was please with it(and sold the 45 and 40). I decided that the 40 and 45 may be better for some, but the 9mm works for me because its the one I can shoot best!!!. 15 rounds into center mass in a few seconds should be good enough to stop whatever comes my way.
As I said on another forum, 9mm is better than a stick. I prefer a caliber with the numbers 357 in it. Be it a .357 sig semi or .357 magnum revolver. Both much better for intermediate barrier penetration such as clothing, arms or whatever else that might impede me from getting out alive. 9mm is great for paper punching, cheap and available just about everywhere.
Dennis
Canucksvt 01-05-2007, 12:31 My G19 (2nd Gen) is the 1st firearm I ever purchased way back in 1992. Today I still have this pistol, and have fired thousands upon thousands of rounds through her with zero malfunctions. I have fired just about every conceivable configuration/bullet type in the 9x19 cartridge through this pistol with no problems whatsoever. I have the option of carrying many different firearms in different calibers (9mm,.40S&W,.45ACP,.357Mag) but I keep coming back to the G19. I carry this pistol almost everyday, and am amazed at how well the finish has held up even though it has been presented from the holster thousands of times, and been sweated on by me more times than I can count. This pistol has been thorough several schools of professional training, which have required 1500+ rounds or more per weekend with little to no attention in regards to maintenance during that time.
I have no problems with the 9mm round. I use Speer Gold Dot 124gr +P as my exclusive carry round.
The modifications I have made to my G19 are as follows:
1) Trijicon sights
2) Smooth trigger
3) 3.5lb factory connector
4) 8lb trigger spring
5) Extended slide release
6) Grip tape
I only wish GLOCK would make a G19 sized frame with a G17 sized upper...to me that would be the ultimate 9mm. :)
Buffering 01-05-2007, 12:53 10-15 years ago the discussion would've been different however, modern metallurgy and bullets shifted the emphasis.
Placement was always the primary concern, along with an appropriate caliber with a sufficient bullet configuration and velocity but nowadays, the field has changed.
I don't see much meaningful difference between the commonly accepted self defense calibers which is a good thing because it gets the focus back on placement through appropriate tactics and training.
Whatever you're capable with is what you should be using. I don't feel inadequate with my G19 and I'm just as confident using my .40 229 or .45 Commander.
While these topics are fun, what we should be thankful for is the ability to now focus on practice, practice and more practice.
GroovedG19 01-05-2007, 13:16 The majority of my firearms are in 9x19mm caliber.To me the Nine is fine and are my front line of self defense.
Originally posted by MrMurphy
.....the MP5 is possibly the smoothest-shooting 9mm SMG out there. You can burn off dozens of rounds and it barely moves. I love the Uzi, put enough mags through one to do some serious business with one, but for close quarters, the MP5 rules. In a military role I'd still take the Uzi though I think.
Absolutely! I'm lucky to have had the opportunity to burn hundreds of rounds of of each of those models. While I agree that the MP5 is very smooth, I love the ZERO recoil...or actually, straight back recoil of the UZI which nestles the gun right into your shoulder. Also, that gun is as tuff as a battle axe! One is well armed with either.
Originally posted by Hugo R
Absolutely! I'm lucky to have had the opportunity to burn hundreds of rounds of of each of those models. While I agree that the MP5 is very smooth, I love the ZERO recoil...or actually, straight back recoil of the UZI which nestles the gun right into your shoulder. Also, that gun is as tuff as a battle axe! One is well armed with either.
I agree the UZI is a smoothie, the way it "recoils" (if you can call it that) when used with the shoulder stock gives you uncanny control; you can literally "write you name" on the target.
However the firing systems of the MP5 and UZI really are completely different. The UZI is a "TRUE" machinegun since it fires from an open bolt; i.e. every time the bolt goes forward the thing fires, let off of the trigger and the bolt locks back. Although it "has" a safety (and even a grip safety) carrying a subgun with the bolt locked back means that an impact could cause the bolt to go forward and "bang" UD. While the MP5 is technically a short carbine that fires pistol ammo. Since the MP5 fires from a "closed bolt" like most rifles, handguns, etc.. The safeties are of the standard "block the firing pin" and "block the sear" types; making it as safe as any “short rifle – long pistol” when carried with a round in the chamber. Which is a big part of what has made the MP5 “the” subgun to have.
With an UZI you typically “carry” it with the bolt forward on an empty chamber and then pull the charging handle to the rear to get it ready for action. With the MP5 you can “carry” just like a pistol or longarm with a round chambered then flick off the manual safety and you are ready to rock. The last time I fired one was at a German Infantry School in the mid 80’s (Yes it was the Bundeswher issue subgun at the time) and the “drill” on the range involved starting out with a “cleared” UZI with the bolt forward. On command you inserted the mag from he “low ready”, pulled the charging handle to the rear and waited for the “engage” command; at which time you brought the thing up with finger outside the trigger guard and watched for targets to pop up.
So if you really want to get anal and technical. The UZI is a submachinegun (a full auto capable gun that fires “sub”, as in pistol, ammunition; from an open bolt) While the MP5 is really a sub-caliber short carbine that can fire full-auto. Sort of a; stocked “assault pistol” (it fires from a closed bolt regardless of “mode” selected, and it fires pistol caliber ammunition; since firing is not done from an open bolt it does not meet the technical classification of “machinegun”).
In a “Mad Max” Apocalypse type environment where you are more likely to encounter “hostiles” than “friendlies” I’d grab an UZI or two. In today’s world an untended discharge is quite undesirable and having to “charge” the thing to make it ready just adds more to the “manual of arms” and unnecessarily lengthens reaction time. If my budget allowed it right now I’d take an MP5; in fact, one of the more recent models with: single shot, full-auto, and 3 round burst modes on the selector switch. But with an unlimited budget my “carry” gun might sometimes be a G18 which I’d convert to .357 Sig if a 3rd gen model could be had. (Conversion to other than 9MM of a 1st Gen or 2nd Gen is probably unwise).
USARet,
Good post.
When I was in the Brit Army (We had bolt action rifles!! Long time ago) the Sub Gun was the Sten in 9mm, very cheap, worked ok, but not in the MP5 or UZI league.
Good thing about the Sten, magazine was on the right side, you could lie real low!! And somtimes you had to do just that.
I have a buddy coming to stay with his Wife for a couple of days, they are issued G18s. He is, not the Wife!
9 is fine.
I like my Cor Bon 115 grain +P rounds at 1350 fps/466 ft-lb energy.
I can stuff 16 of them into my SIG SP 2022 and I can hit things more often than I can with .40 or .45 in a piece with a light plastic chassis.
Miao, Cat
THe 9mm is fine for Selfdefence and war. It was designed for war and has been in war for 100years. More have died from the 9mm than anyother handgun rd. Dead is dead and hit what you aim at. The newer ammo is more effective than the mill-ball -type. I can have any handgun that I want and my choice is the G17 with 18- ww Ranger 127+P+ STX 9mm or Corbon DPX.
Originally posted by fowler
More have died from the 9mm than anyother handgun rd.
But what has killled more, .22lr or 9mm?
I keep hearing it is .22lr. Doens't mean I'd carry it though! Dead is not dead. The goal is not death. The goal is an immediate stop. If they die two days after being shot, and until then their actions were not stopped, the round failed.
Just saying.
Lawrence Keeney 01-11-2007, 11:57 I'm fine with it because its a good balance between magazine capacity, size and stopping power.
Ive seen a lot of crime scene death photos due to being a newspaper reporter, and I have a pretty good idea what works...
PS...the 357 sig isnt worth the extra money..Ive seen the results of two street shootings with it, and a +p+ 9mm would have done just as well.
:thumbsup:
Originally posted by Warp
But what has killled more, .22lr or 9mm?
I keep hearing it is .22lr. Doens't mean I'd carry it though! Dead is not dead. The goal is not death. The goal is an immediate stop. If they die two days after being shot, and until then their actions were not stopped, the round failed.
Just saying.
Very good point. STOPPING!!! the BG is the goal, not killing; although statistically a round that has a higher percentage of One Shot Stops is also statistically more likely to cause greater injury. That super +P+ deathray certified giga-blaster that you are carrying is going to do you no good if the BG then slaps you silly, takes it from you and puts a couple into your grey-matter; or worse lays in a hospital bed for weeks watching shark lawyer commercials on daytime TV. Then weaves a tale of a neglected/abused childhood with the obligatory ghetto neighborhood upbringing and the story that he only wanted money to buy formula for his illegitimate child (While the jury is prevented from hearing about his 6” thick criminal record, the fact that he was out on bail for a violent assault/armed-robbery, AND is currently out on probation from his last “stint” in the Graybar hotel. Even if he loses in criminal court and goes to jail, that doesn’t stop he or his family from taking you to civil court and removing your: Business, home, bank accounts, children’s future, children’s college savings, retirement checks, and the shirt off of your back.
As anyone with a modicum of Self-defense knowledge and legal gamesmanship that is more than likely going to go along with it knows; you say, "I shot him/her, to STOP her/him from _______________." IF you say anything at all. Regardless of whether the BG is dead/dying or not. Something in the form of, "Yeah I shot him with my 9 because it is the most killer round in the world." will probably come back to haunt you in a really bad way; no matter how "cool" it may sound.
As Carlos Mencia stated recently on his show, "The only guys that should look cool when they shoot, are porn stars".
Oh and BTW militaries are bound by treaties (commonly referred to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and/or, The Laws of Land Warfare) to use FMJ ammo (called in military jargon “Ball”) ammo in ALL anti-personnel firearms. Also FYI, military ammo is PURPOSELY designed to cause the smallest wound possible and not kill. (The logic on this aspect escapes the non-military mind, even though it is simple math. A DEAD soldier means “we will pick him up after the area is secure” while a wounded one usually takes one or two soldiers and/or Medics to remove him from the immediate battlefield; which presents the chance of causing 2 more casualties; which also ties up doctors, helicopters, surgeons, medical supplies, etc…, etc…, etc….) Militaries are also subject to large “committees” that approve arms/ammo purchases made up of politicians that are more concerned if the “approved” weapon/ammo will bring jobs to their constituents than how effective it is (In fact from personal experience I can say without reservation that political considerations come first and if the thing even works at all; is dead last on their list of priorities.) They also have to consider differing hand and body sizes, cost of manufacture, lefty and righty friendliness, and the time required to produce a “shooter” from a non-gun person. YOU don’t have to deal with none of this silliness. YOU can pick a round that is the BEST for STOPPING BG’s, then pick a weapon that fits your hand/body/budget/eyesight/lifestyle/job/etc… that is reliable and can fire that round accurately FOR YOU.
Or more simply. If the NINE is such a bad*** round then how come every police agency in this country doesn’t use 9 MM FMJ NATO loadings? IF you are using military ammunition and weapon choices to pick your self-defense weapon/ammo combination, you are going to be VERY DISSAPOINTED if you ever have to use it for real.
snow4brains 01-13-2007, 20:16 I'm fine with the 9. And confident my weapon and ammo are up to the task of putting down a BG. I figure I'm the weak link right now, since I don't know how I'd respond if the SHTF. So, as soon as my CCP is in hand I'll be looking at some serious training. I know range time is important ( I shoot a couple hundred rounds a week ) but think more training is needed.
IN the auto its my first choice and in pistols the Glock is 1st. G17,second G19. Ammo ww 127+P+ CCW and WW hite box FMJ for target,for spare ammo stockpile ww 115PP Hp and UMC 100rd 115 hp. What more could you ask for? I am fine with nine! So is most of the world.
Also FYI, military ammo is PURPOSELY designed to cause the smallest wound possible and not kill.
I have heard that statement numerous times myself. I would like to see the manual where that is written.
Think about it. The Russians' 5.45 bullet is designed with an airspace in the tip that causes it to yaw inside a body. Our 5.56 yaws and fragments. British Mark VII ball has an aluminum filled tip in order to quickly cause the bullet to yaw. All of these features were designed into these bullets to increase tissue damage and in turn, hopefully, increase effectiveness. More tissue damage will not decrease the probability of death.
Yes, wounding will cause an opponent to use more resources caring for injured soldiers. But, most militaries in the world will not design a bullet to hurt just a little bit less. Some exceptions are Switzerland, which did not want its 5.56 bullets to fragment in order to be more humane. Great Britain withdrew its Dum Dum bullets from service around the turn of the last century due to political pressure.
In 1907 Great Britain adopted MKVII bullet which increased wounding without the political problems.
Seems kind of funny that we used oo-buck in riot guns in all wars and police actions. How about steel darts to. But as far as the nine ges its fine!
Originally posted by 200 RNL
I have heard that statement numerous times myself. I would like to see the manual where that is written.
Think about it. The Russians' 5.45 bullet is designed with an airspace in the tip that causes it to yaw inside a body. Our 5.56 yaws and fragments. British Mark VII ball has an aluminum filled tip in order to quickly cause the bullet to yaw. All of these features were designed into these bullets to increase tissue damage and in turn, hopefully, increase effectiveness. More tissue damage will not decrease the probability of death.
Yes, wounding will cause an opponent to use more resources caring for injured soldiers. But, most militaries in the world will not design a bullet to hurt just a little bit less. Some exceptions are Switzerland, which did not want its 5.56 bullets to fragment in order to be more humane. Great Britain withdrew its Dum Dum bullets from service around the turn of the last century due to political pressure.
In 1907 Great Britain adopted MKVII bullet which increased wounding without the political problems.
Agreed...... When the USA first fielded the M16 and its 5.56 ammo it was thought to be in violation of the Conventions because as a ultra-high velocity .22 caliber projectile it tended to tumble on impact. But since it was FMJ they (NATO, ETC...) let it go since it complied with the "spirit" of the Laws of Land Warfare. Naturally everybody and their dog has since imitated it because of this "loophole". Should another Geneva, Hague type convention ever be held again it just might be "compromised" out of existence. Which may be the one of the main reason why such an agreement between varying nations like the before mentioned conventions have not been held in recent years. (The other main debate subject being land-mines.)
Should another Geneva, Hague type convention ever be held again it just might be "compromised" out of existence.
That could one day become true. The Russian 5.45 bullet, with its early yaw in tissue, has a reputation for being effective without fragmenting. I don't know why we just don't design a similar bullet suitable for our 5.56 round.
I know that there are some in the military that want a larger caliber handgun. No one has convinced me that FMJ pistol bullets, in the 250 to 400 ft lb energy range, with slightly larger diameters than 9mm, are noticably more effective against humans.
Designing 9mm,.40 and .45 full metal jacket bullets that have a consistant early yaw in tissue would not be a bad idea too.
I am fully satisfied with the 9mm.
I am totally fine with the 9.
In the unlikely event that I will actually have to use one of my pistols against a BG, I know the 9 will do its job if I do mine.
I have done some informal unscientific tests at my private range that have proven to me that the 9 is fine. Ever shot anything but paper with a 9? It does some major damage and penetrates well.
One of the things that makes me laugh is when I hear people say that the 9 underpenetrates while others say it overpenetrates.
It gets under my skin when people get so passionate about a particular caliber or brand of pistol. Geeez Louise
9mm (http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/9mm.htm)
.40 S&W (http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/40s&w.htm)
.45 ACP (http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/45acp.htm)
Good reading (http://www.firearmstactical.com/tactical.htm)
Originally posted by Heavy "J"
I carry a Glock 17 every day, all the time, and if it's not on me at the time it is with in arms reach (setting in my easy chair or while I'm in bed)it is always loaded with 124gr. Gold Dots in standard PSI.... I can safely say, I'm fine with 9mm.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: I just bought a G17 today. I have never carried anything but the 9mm. People who bash it are full of nonsense. The 9mm is just fine by me.
In 20 short years the G17 has moved up with the great ones and classics like the HP,1911,luger,colt single action. It has a cult following and rightly earned in combat and on the range it performs and keeps performing. Enjoy that G17 its one of the best!!
MOHAA Player 01-31-2007, 19:46 9mm thru 10mm work well with proper shot placement.Sure other calibers like 45acp/10mm have a edge with larger bullets,but with shot placement and there best loads service calibers all penetrate the F.B.I. minimum 12" and more.It's more about training/skill with service calibers then it is the bullet size.If you want a weapon with a very high one shot stop rate,buy a 12 gauge and 00 buck.My G23 stays home half of the week while my Taurus PT99 9mm goes with me,and yes I feal fine with my 15+1 9mm loaded with 147gr Win Ranger SXT.
MOHAA
I'm fine with the 9mm's power, especially with today's bullet design.
MrMurphy 02-12-2007, 09:22 To be specific, .45 ACP is 11.43mm (The Norwegians adopted it in 1914, that's their caliber designation for it).
Norway the G17 today. Yes and the 1911 pattern 45 made for Norway is a rare collectable today. Even the Germans in WW2 used captured ones.
The 120MM smoothbore firing a: Fin stabilized, Discarding Sabot, Depleted Uranium Round has plenty of penetration and even a little leeway for less than perfect shot placement. Using the HE Round takes shot placement into the “oh somewhere around COM” realm. And that thing is a single-shot. Problem is it comes stock on the latest M1 Tank and nobody makes a IWB holster for it yet.
Oh and the M1 originally came with a 105MM main gun; seems everybody has been getting on the "bigger is better" bandwagon the last couple decades.
I'm totally comfortable using a 9mm for the purposes of self defense. Proper ammo selection and shot placement are more important than packing the largest caliber on the block. It's also cheaper to practice with...
#1 Glocker 05-03-2007, 12:36 I carry the Glock 17 everyday..... some of my friends make fun of me due to it's a 9mm. Well let me tell you what I have been doing. I have been practicing at the range, what I have been doing is two shot groups, you know... Bang, bang. My friends all carry .45's, I have a .45acp but I really like the performance of the 9mm. I use the 124 gr. Gold Dot. I figure if I shot Two shots groups at a 124gr. at a pop thats 248gr. into the wound area, thats better that a single .45 at 230gr. .............RIGHT???? Todays 9mm ammo is alot better than yesterdays 9mm ammo. I don't feel under gunned at all. Is anyone else feel this way??
Originally posted by #1 Glocker
I carry the Glock 17 everyday..... some of my friends make fun of me due to it's a 9mm. Well let me tell you what I have been doing. I have been practicing at the range, what I have been doing is two shot groups, you know... Bang, bang. My friends all carry .45's, I have a .45acp but I really like the performance of the 9mm. I use the 124 gr. Gold Dot. I figure if I shot Two shots groups at a 124gr. at a pop thats 248gr. into the wound area, thats better that a single .45 at 230gr. .............RIGHT???? Todays 9mm ammo is alot better than yesterdays 9mm ammo. I don't feel under gunned at all. Is anyone else feel this way??
Did you read the replies before posting?
Yes, many many people feel that "nine is fine". The difference in effectiveness between the major calibers given proper ammo selection is 3-5% max. Factor in ammo costs (more practice, less money), controlability, capacty, gun size, etc and the 9mm looks mighty nice.
Canucksvt 05-04-2007, 08:58 Originally posted by #1 Glocker
I carry the Glock 17 everyday..... some of my friends make fun of me due to it's a 9mm. Well let me tell you what I have been doing. I have been practicing at the range, what I have been doing is two shot groups, you know... Bang, bang. My friends all carry .45's, I have a .45acp but I really like the performance of the 9mm. I use the 124 gr. Gold Dot. I figure if I shot Two shots groups at a 124gr. at a pop thats 248gr. into the wound area, thats better that a single .45 at 230gr. .............RIGHT???? Todays 9mm ammo is alot better than yesterdays 9mm ammo. I don't feel under gunned at all. Is anyone else feel this way??
#1 Glocker, I have seen first hand what a 124gr Speer Gold Dot did to a 245lb athletic male at a range of 13 yards. It was not pretty. One shot drop is an understatement. To quote the officer I know who used this round "He dropped like a sack of potatos" and this was from one round fired.
I carry a G19 loaded exclusively with Speer Gold Dot 124gr rounds as my carry round and I have 100% confidence that it will do the job if I do mine.
I can tell you also from personal experience that I have also seen what 124gr ball ammo will do to a person. I was witness to this in Somalia. 2 shots to the torso from a Beretta 92F, produced an immediate stop and based on the first shot, I would be willing to bet one would have stopped the person in question. The Somali man in his 30's, jacked up on khat died in a few minutes before the medic could save him.
In regards to your internet commando, wanna-be friends with small *****es...tell them to pound salt and find a new set of friends. My guess is they would be less than willing to walk out 25 paces and let you shoot them in the chest with a .22lr let alone a 9mm. Take confidence that you are carrying one of the world's best 9mm platforms and stocking it with what I believe to be one of the world's best 9mm loads.
I fear the man that can utilize 100% of a 9mm more than someone who cannot utilize 100% of a .45.
The projectile/bullet is every thing, size/weight/velocity, add infiniteum, add norseum?
But the bullet design is now as close to optimum as we can hope for at this time, regardless of caliber, in pistols.
So what we are left with, that we can change, is training and effort by the carry person, holsters, recoil control, easier with the 9mm, than the .40 or .45, sights, a reasonable knowledge of the human anatomy, and the biggest one of all, the major factor, the rage to win.
If that is not there, falling back on the training is as good as it gets.
My 5ft 6” 140lb Dad had a saying, not originally his, but he used it, “It is not the size of the dog in the fight, it is the size of the fight in the dog”
Glock19, 16 rounds of 127g WWW Ranger (LE only?) and a back up/malfunction magazine in G17 version, with 17 more rounds of the same. By the way the new TRU-GLOW sights are incredible!
My answer to the question? 9mm is fine, and has been since 1960.
DAVE RICHARDS 05-07-2007, 02:36 That whole thing about the 5.56 or 9mm being designed to wound someone because "it takes two men to tend to a wounded man..." is pure bull&^%$! After W.W. II it was found that under most combat situations the range most shoulder fired weapons were used effectvely was around 300 meters. Usually less than 100 meters. Full sized battle rifles were overpowered for this type of combat. Thus the Assualt Rifle firing moderate sized rounds were born.
It was decided in the U.S. that a SCHV (small caliber high velocity) round was the best way to go and the M-16/5.56 combo was born. The requirement of the SCHV round was that it be MORE LETHAL than the M-1 Carbine round out to 300 meters. Lethal means to kill, not wound. Isn't it about time this crock of you know what myth disappeared? The 9mm was developed because the earlier 7.63 round used in the Luger was not felt to be lethal enough. A wounded opponent is still dangerous. That is why our guys are being taught to "double tap" the bad guy to the chest wth their m-16/M-4's. It increases the lethal effect. Not wounding.
Because of the radical, drugged up, suicide bombers in the Middle East even the double or triple tap is not being taught anymore to the iraqi police carrying 9mm G19's. Shoot them to the ground is the current philosophy. The Iraqi's were double and triple tapping the bombers who were still managing to press the detonators on their bombs. Light them up over and over until they hit the ground they have much less of a chance of getting to push the detonator. This is all to be certain of getting a kill not a wound. Wounding bad guys gets our folks killed!
mrwiggins 05-07-2007, 04:03 i love the 45 acp, heck i love guns in general, but i just can't get over the fact you can pack 20 rounds in a glock 17 with a standard magazine and a plus 3 extension. i'm looking to pick one up soon.
I carried a S&W 659, steel frame, (can anyone guess how old I am). My back was relived when I started carring a G17. During my time in uniform I saw several BG's shot with a 9mm. The good hits....chest and head, bad guy died. Not so good hits legs, arms ect... bad guy lived, and law suite followed. One hit I witnessed, the 9mm went from the left side of the bg's head exiting out the right side taking out a sliver dollar size peice of skull and alot of gray matter.I belive it was a 115gr. hydroshock. Soooooo, shot placement, shot placement, shot placement.
My 2 cents!
GroovedG19 05-07-2007, 19:56 Originally posted by oktaha
I carried a S&W 659, steel frame, (can anyone guess how old I am).
Mid 40's.
Mid 40s?
You think?
A couple of years ago that would have been Law Suit City, "My poor client (DRH) was no threat, he was looking at the sun set"
Today... "as I pressed the trigger with a sight picure of a snarling face at 10 feet, just after he came at me with the machete, I had no visual due to recoil"
Nine is fine and I don't feel undergunned at all carrying a 9mm.
But I have to admit, my carry pistol is a G30. :supergrin:
UnTainted 07-20-2007, 01:46 .22lr takes the cake; cry bout it all.
:hearts:
kmrcstintn 07-28-2007, 13:38 For a while, I gave up on 9mm...and all autoloaders in general; as a sportsman in a state that allows hunting with "manually operated firearms" (aka: no semiautomatics), I went the way of practicality and narrowed down to revolvers since they can be used for hunting, woods carry (again, in a state where the game commission officers are in a "no semiautomatics" mindset, having a revolver while hiking made more sense) and personal defense in one platform; things in my life are changing a bit...
my father, who is in his 70's and not as fast or quick as he used to be, will be sharing an apartment with me (my stepmom died and he doesn't want to be alone, so I agreed to live with him; he decided that my professional stability at my current employer was more important that keeping the house, so I move into a larger apartment and he moves in when the house sale is complete); back on track...since he may not be mobile enough to evacuate in case of an intrusion, we may have to stay put and higher volumes of ammunition on hand will prove to be handy...this brings back a high capacity 9mm autoloader into the corral (in this case, it is a Beretta 92 that I sold in late 2005 after a job loss and car accident...the store bought it high and had it priced high, so it didn't sell..I go it back with a nice discount)
looking forward to getting reaquainted with an ole friend...later
MrMurphy 08-03-2007, 00:05 Actually Dave.......they figured out in WORLD WAR ONE (1918ish) that most firefights happen under 300m and smaller/more was needed.
Fedorov (Russian) around 1925 designed a selective fire, straightline stock rifle with a 25 round mag in 6.5mm Arisaka (the smallest round available to him). It was reasonably effective but costly to make.
It took till the early 1940s for cartridge design and weapons design to meet up and produce the StG43/44/45 (which, even then, was a compromise, the designers thought the perfect round was 7mm, the German Army made them go 7.92 to use current barrel-making machinery).
With stamped-metal weapons being produced and plastics being used, weight was "acceptable" and price was reasonable. The M16 was simply a newer idea of the same trend. The FAL was supposed to be a light carbine in 7.92X33 as well till we told NATO 7.62X51 or else.
AZ_Quailhunter 08-07-2007, 14:38 Nine has always been fine with me and is still one of my favorites.
UnTainted 08-08-2007, 17:22 Personally, I think placement is king, .22lr is fine, but bigger than .22 is better if possible.
I'm a fan of the 9, love the Hi-Power and the 228.
did some math, this is interesting, but I think still splitting hairs:
9 mm
circular area as seen from the top (diameter of the column the fmj would make):
63.70448 mm/squared
.40/10 mm
circular area: 78.6475 mm/sq
.45 acp
circular area: 102.7489 mm/sq
the .40/10mm is 23% larger than the 9mm. This equates to 23% more direct tissue damage (ignoring penetration and expansion, obviously).
the .45acp is 61% larger than the 9mm, equating 61% more tissue damage than a 9mm would (same as above paren)
the .45acp is 31% larger than the .40/10mm.
I plan on owning them all, I think each serves purposes in specific.
sgalbra76 08-10-2007, 21:23 For me, the 9x19mm still is my top caliber after going through over a dozen other service sized calibers. When I factor in all the benefits the 9mm platform and caliber offers, they greatly outweight any gain made by other service calibers. I have yet to see a true improvement on the 9mm to warrant a transition, but I do believe it can be improved upon. I'm thinking a shortened .40S&W case using a more elongated and aerodynamic 10mm bullet might be the answer. The .40S&W's profile makes it a very poor penetrator.
Originally posted by Xenogy
Pistols put holes in people. Nothing more. Has nothing to do with speed or energy causing more damage and incapacitation. Hollow points work better because they expand to a larger diameter. For example 9mm .35 dia bullet that expands to .69 is more likely to knick somthing vital with proper shot placement. A .45 bullet that expands to .76 has an insignificant greater chance to knick somthing vital over the 9mm. At this point messing with the numbers is is a waste of time. Self gratification for the .45 fans because their expanded bullet is .07 inches wider in diameter.
No question what you really need is a hit to the central nervous system to make someone drop. This includes the spinal cord or brain. A shot anywhere else is a gamble depending on how doped up or determined your attacker is. A person shot in the heart that is doped up or on their own natural adrenalin has 12-15 seconds on average to continue with their attack. With pistol rounds, shot placement is the most importand factor. There is no time to allow someone to bleed out with the larger hole is better theory. Shot placement is key. Someone shooting 9mm ball with proper shot placement will be much better off than someone shooting .45 HP with poor shot placement.
Also the average person's torso here in the US is 8-10 inches thick. Even less thick in other countries. The 12 inch FBI standard was to allow the shooter to place a peripheial shot into the arm and penetrate all the way to the heart in a police shootout. For CCW purposes you will always be close and will more than likely be shooting into the chest and not sideways through the thick part of the arm.
If a fan of the .45 feels more comfortable carrying a .45 then by all means do so. Scientifically nothing proves that the .45 has any significant performance over the 9mm. I would prefer follow up shot speed and mag capacity any day with a bullet insignificantly lesser to the .45. Also cheaper ammo = more practice = better speed and shot placement.
Nine is more than fine, it's the most efficient and ideal for self defense. This might shed a visual perspective:
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2/Davis1950/Weapons/Ammo/HandgunExpandedJHP.jpg
Originally posted by warrjsmith
What he said:thumbsup: Its all that matters. Yes I am fine with it.You can have whatever you want I'll take my 9mm and shot placement anyday. Me two. I don't bother getting involved in these silly caliber wars. I use this stuff.
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2/Davis1950/Weapons/Ammo/speer.50300gr.jpg
Suburban 08-20-2007, 00:38 Originally posted by Cobra64
This might shed a visual perspective:
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2/Davis1950/Weapons/Ammo/HandgunExpandedJHP.jpg
Size ain't everything. The .45ACP+P HST load opens up to about an inch in diameter, but that round produces a lot more muzzle flip in my G21 than a 124 gr Gold Dot +P from my G17.
You can have a large bullet, or a smaller bullet that's easier to control, but almost never both at once. There's no magic bullet (or cartridge), and there's no such thing as free energy.
Oh, and:
http://www.bjacked.net/LuvToHunt/forums/phpBB2/modules/gallery/albums/album01/Beat_Dead_Horse.jpg
HiVelSword 08-21-2007, 21:35 When I was young and stupid, I looked down my nose at the 9mm. My revolvers were either .44 mag or .44 special. My autos were .45 ACP or 10mm.
To be honest? I still prefer .44 cal revolvers. My current carry gun is a 3" S&W 629 with 240 grain Starfires in it. My favorite overall auto cartridge is the 10mm.
But I've probably carried more 9mm's and .357 SIG's than anything else. This all happened when I fired my first Browning HP back in 1997. Since then I've carried a Taurus PT 92, A BHP in 9mm, a Springfield Armory 1911 in 9mm, a SIG 226 and a Walther 1st gen P-99.
I believe that the .45 ACP is superior to the nine with its best loads. But I'm obviously not a ".45ACP is KING" type of guy as I believe the full power 10mm to be superior to the .45 ACP. But there are many things that help close the gap in overall effectiveness.
The 9mm is easy to shoot, cheap to practice with and has a superior edge in capacity over every other defensive cartridge out there. The way I see it, it's better to have the extra rounds and not need them than to need the extra rounds and not have to reload to get them. Of course the same can be said about carrying spare mags! :supergrin:
Anyway, I love the 9mm. Sure, the .38 Super, 10mm, .45 ACP, .357 SIG all have a power edge over the nine but if you place the rounds where they need to go, the 9 will get the job done.
Notice how I didn't mention the .40 S&W? Well, there's a reason for that. But I won't get into it. Hopefully they make an anti .40 S&W forum someday but until then... ;)
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
|  Sponsored Links:
|