PDA

View Full Version : The 9mm is useless!


Super-Dave
November 2, 2008, 05:54 PM
Why does everyone complain about the 9mm?

I have never read any reports, or heard any complaints from soldiers in WW II.

The mp-40 and the sten seemed to work great. I have never heard anyone say that the mp-40 or sten were useless.

If I was in WW II and I had the chance to pick my weapon, I would pick an mp-40 or sten.

Great for up to 100 yards(the official designfor WW II was that it was good for 200 yards)

Why was the 9 mm a great choice for WW II but useless for us in 2008?

rickdavis81
November 2, 2008, 06:01 PM
Drum brakes all the way around were also fine in WWII but I'd rather have 4 wheel disc now if I have the choice. I have and enjoy a few 9mm's and there isn't anything wrong with them. But there are also better rounds out there now.

j.chappell
November 2, 2008, 06:02 PM
Well I believe the main reason is due to the fact that the 40, 10, and 45 are simply that much better. Heck I'd rather have a 357 sixgun than any 9mm semi auto, and I'm a Glock fan!

There have been many circumstances where a 9mm has failed to stop a perpetrator from doing more damage to others or himself.

If you can use better why not? When others lives and mine are the concern I'd rather err on the + side, how about you?

J.

globemaster3
November 2, 2008, 06:03 PM
Barrel length? When fired out of a pistol, I think its just not getting the umph that the longer barreled SMGs you mention can generate. Another to add to your list is the Suomi SMG from Finland. Just read an article on Simo Hayah and that 9mm SMG was his go-to aside from his sniper rifle.

Just my thoughts on the topic. In the crew community in the AF, we all just laugh when arming with our M-9s. Some at the weapon, some at our lack of proficiency with it...:)

TPAW
November 2, 2008, 06:25 PM
There have been many circumstances where a 9mm has failed to stop a perpetrator from doing more damage to others or himself.

That can be said of any caliber. Shot placement is paramount.

If you can use better why not? When others lives and mine are the concern I'd rather err on the + side, how about you?

The 9mm enables you to have a faster recovery rate allowing the shooter to shoot more rapidly with better target acquisition. Larger calibers tend to have higher recoil subsequently not allowing the average shooter to follow up with successive shots.

Just my opinion.

Super-Dave
November 2, 2008, 06:28 PM
I have fired both the mp 40 and thompson .45 in full auto. There is no doubt that the mp-40 had more accuracy and control. I would pick the mp-40 9mm any day over the .45 thompson.

Socrates
November 2, 2008, 06:29 PM
hmmmm.
9mm is a great submachine gun round. Allows excellent rate of fire, hits hard, and is longer range then a 45ACP.
Plus you are comparing ball ammo, not hollowpoints.....

115 grain FMJ tumble, and, are usually loaded faster in a sub then in a regular gun.

Example: for me, .308 is a fantastic round out of a semi-auto rifle. In a M14, it becomes a nightmare, and eats me alive, regardless of what I do.

9mm out of a rifle or submachinegun gives .357 type ballistics.

j.chappell
November 2, 2008, 06:31 PM
I agree but I was under the impression that the OP was speaking of those who either carry as part of the job or are experienced shooters.

Your average Joe should be using a 38 revolver in that case. I have seen way too many average citizens that are not capable of shooting a 9 well, let alone anything else. That is one of the main reasons I have always suggested a 20 gauge shotgun for home defense.

J.

Nnobby45
November 2, 2008, 06:37 PM
If I was in WW II and I had the chance to pick my weapon, I would pick an mp-40 or sten.


In a military environment where you aren't normally alone, and fighting is done at a distance, and your weapon is full auto, then I might agree with you. Stopping an enemy immediately isn't the concern that it would be in your hallway, or in a parking garage, where failure to do so could get you shot. For CQB, house to house, the multiple hits provided by full auto are a big equalizer even with ball ammo.

You could probably choose a better weapon than the Sten, where reliability is concerned.

Today the 9mm has the benefit of better ammo which enables it to close much (but not all) of the gap between .40 or .45. for citizen SD purposes.

I have never read any reports, or heard any complaints from soldiers in WW II.


I've heard no complaints, either. Nor have I heard one single word of praise for the 9mm whether from WWII combat veterans (understandable, since our guys weren't armed with such weapons), nor more modern conflicts.

Have heard of positive results using the MP5--but not with hardball. The MP5 does have a limited roll in the U.S. Military and has been successful in the limited roll it plays.

zinj
November 2, 2008, 06:45 PM
Why was the 9 mm a great choice for WW II but useless for us in 2008?

Body armor.

2transams
November 2, 2008, 07:43 PM
People were smaller back then. ;)

Seriously,I had a chance to buy an HK94 for a good price,but if I'm shooting what is essentially a full-sized weapon I want to launch more than a 9mm.

10-96
November 2, 2008, 10:00 PM
They had funny ways of making do with what they had. They took the .38S&W and turned it into the .38-200 which turned out to be a sufficient revolver-range stopper. Then, just to keep things really interesting, the Brits put the .303 into aircraft MG's and had tolerably good results with bringing down Messerschidts (sp) and Zeros and such. Also, look at all the European Police and Military folks who made do with the .32ACP and it's variants- a million or so dead folks found it to be more than they could deal with.

B.N.Real
November 2, 2008, 11:04 PM
I think I'd rather have a 1911 or a Thompson sub machine gun or a M1 Garand.

Then I could collect all the 9mm's I wanted off the field of battle.:D

marvin-miller
November 2, 2008, 11:36 PM
Why does everyone complain about the 9mm?

'cause it's a metric bullet :barf:

NWCP
November 2, 2008, 11:59 PM
Most intruders aren't wearing body armor so that argument is not really relevant. For being such a poor round a great majority of the world is still using the lowly 9mm and with some success. Placement is critical with any round you use. A poor shot using a .45ACP is not going to have any greater chance of stopping a threat than a poor shot using a 9mm. With today's ammunition 9mms work just fine as do .45ACP and .40S&W. We could argue the point until we're blue in face and still end up nowhere. We're going to like what we like regardless. I have three military style semi auto long guns, an HK91 in .308, an HK USC in .45ACP and a CZ vz58 in 7.62x39. I wouldn't mind owning a MP5 in the lowly 9mm. :)

New_Pollution1086
November 3, 2008, 01:30 AM
i dont believe believe there is anything wrong with the 9mm round. I think it has a negative association with gangsters and bad guys in general. i would love to have a camp 9 or other semi-auto 9mm.

T

Bartholomew Roberts
November 3, 2008, 07:47 AM
You know, I had a chance to talk with two real life gunfighters. One was a cop and one was military. Both men had been in multiple gunfights where they used pistols. The military guy was 100% convinced that 9mm was the way to go and had very good sound reasons for it. The cop was 100% convinced that .45 was the way to go and had very sound reasons for it. Both men were instructors at the same range.

What I took away from it is that if you take the time to get the software in order, either piece of hardware will do just fine as long as you are aware of its limitations.

ohen cepel
November 3, 2008, 08:25 AM
I think the 9mm is a fine cartridge with the right ammo in it. I also like the cheaper ammo, which means I can afford to shoot more and be better with a certain platform.

Also, I see it was a real advantage that if well trained the 2nd shot is much faster than a .45 if you need another rd in the target.

I think it gets bad mouthed a lot since it's not new and the limits the military has on ball ammo.

CajunBass
November 3, 2008, 08:43 AM
People who get shot, tend to stay shot. For the most part it really doesn't matter what they get shot with. You can find examples of people who have survived most everything known to man. You can find examples of people who literally died of fright.

If you got confidence in it, you'll carry it. If you get ordered to carry it, you'll carry it. Whatever you got right now, when you really need it, is better than whatever you left at home, right now. Use it.

sc928porsche
November 3, 2008, 08:59 AM
I always thought that it would have been nice to see someone develop the 30 carbine round in a semi auto pistol. I have a 30 carbine in a black hawk that does so much better that the 9mm.

Art Eatman
November 3, 2008, 09:14 AM
A lot of the attraction for the 9mm Luger cartridge came from the notion that it must be good, given the vast numbers of people who were killed with it. The thing was, from pistols, a high percentage of those kills were shots into the head from a very few feet. That sort of shot takes little in the way of a cartridge; ask RFK.

I read a doctor's article which discussed the effectiveness of sub-machine guns. He concluded that rapid multiple hits have a greater physiological impact than slow-fire hits. That was the explanation for the effectiveness of such things as the Czech Skorpion with its .32ACP round, or similar guns in .380ACP. So, the earlier Schmeissers were quite effective.

Double Naught Spy
November 3, 2008, 09:19 AM
Why does everyone complain about the 9mm?
Not everyone does.

I have never read any reports, or heard any complaints from soldiers in WW II.
Really? Just how many German and British ordnance assessment reports have you read?

The mp-40 and the sten seemed to work great. I have never heard anyone say that the mp-40 or sten were useless.
That doesn't mean the 9mm round doesn't have issues. You happened to pick two very good guns to pick as your 9mm representatives, SMGs at that. However, comparison between the a pistol cartridge and a SMG are not one in the same.

If I was in WW II and I had the chance to pick my weapon, I would pick an mp-40 or sten.
You aren't and most soldiers didn't.

Great for up to 100 yards(the official designfor WW II was that it was good for 200 yards)

"official designator WW II" ... what the heck is that? The Axis and Allies didn't agree on such matters and didn't even use the same system of measurement (English v. metric).

Why was the 9 mm a great choice for WW II but useless for us in 2008?
Now you have confused the notion of complaints with usefulness. Just because something is complained about does not mean it is useless.

jsmaye
November 3, 2008, 09:20 AM
Remember, the 9mm was developed in Europe, where the countries are smaller and closer together.

Ok, bad joke.

jsmaye
November 3, 2008, 09:33 AM
I always thought that it would have been nice to see someone develop the 30 carbine round in a semi auto pistol. I have a 30 carbine in a black hawk that does so much better that the 9mm.

The 7.62x25 comes to mind...

cchardwick
November 3, 2008, 09:53 AM
I believe that the 9 mm was carried by most police officers up until a situation developed where a shooter was all drugged up and didn't feel any pain. He was in an office building surrounded by officers and if I remember correctly the officers shot him 20 or more times and couldn't kill him and at the same time he took the lives of many of the officers in this incident. I did a quick Google search on it but I couldn’t' find the specifics. Anyway, after this incident most LEOs decided that 9mm wasn't sufficient so they tried to go to .45, but most officers couldn't handle the round so many settled with 40 - a compromise which is standard issue for many LEOs.

A 9mm will punch holes and make you bleed. A 45 will stop you by inducing shock.

For the longest time I couldn’t' figure out why the military would carry insufficient firepower, i.e. 9mm and .223 instead of something larger like 30-06 and up. I finally figured it out: they can carry lots of ammo because it weighs less and the 'hits' injure instead of kill which makes soldiers care for their wounded instead of fight. This decreases their morale because they hear their comrades in agony from the wounds instead of seeking revenge from a dead comrade. Also the 'bean counters' decided that more ammo = more kills, no matter what the caliber. The only reason they stuck with .223 is because it was the minimum caliber that would still pierce armor.

buzz_knox
November 3, 2008, 10:22 AM
I believe that the 9 mm was carried by most police officers up until a situation developed where a shooter was all drugged up and didn't feel any pain. He was in an office building surrounded by officers and if I remember correctly the officers shot him 20 or more times and couldn't kill him and at the same time he took the lives of many of the officers in this incident.

I believe the switch from the 9mm came after the 1986 Miami shootout and the FBI tests that resulted from that situation. The tests found that a 10mm was the optimum caliber (there is some debate as to whether that was due to the .45 not being an option, Congress having been recently convinced to fund the retirement of the .45 for the military so no one wanted to suggest that might have been the wrong move). The .40 was developed to provide a ballistic equivalent of the required 10mm specs in a smaller weapon.

Many agencies switched to the .40 and a few to the .45, because 1) ballistic concerns, 2) to follow the FBI, 3) to use the existing federal contracts for Glocks and .40s in order to save money and time, or 4) some combination of the above. Many agencies stayed with the 9mm and have been reporting excellent results, either with original ammunition or some of the newer versions. Some agencies have actually gone back to the 9mm from the .40 and .45, although that was due to weapon performance issues rather than caliber.

With modern ammunition (i.e. current generation JHP), the 9mm performs comparably to the others with some advantage to the .40 and .45. Whether that advantage outweighs the 9mm benefits (capacity, ease of use, accuracy, etc) is up to the end user.

Surprisingly enough, without such ammunition, the 9mm still performs fairly well even by comparison to the FMJ .40 and .45. That's largely because much of the vaunted success of the later two calibers (particularly the .45) are often more sea story than true story. So, the issue of the 9mm advantages/disadvantages versus those of the other calibers still applies. It's a decision to be made by the end user based on their needs.

Creature
November 3, 2008, 10:52 AM
A 9mm will punch holes and make you bleed. A 45 will stop you by inducing shock.

You should spend some time in a hospital emergency room with a trauma unit that deals with a lot of gunshot wounds. Unless you are comparing the 9mm FMJ to the 45 JHP, your statement is very misinformed. The idea that the 9mm JHP is inferior to 45ACP in causing physiological trauma is a myth.

so they tried to go to .45, but most officers couldn't handle the round
That is another myth.

Mike Irwin
November 3, 2008, 11:54 AM
"Why was the 9 mm a great choice for WW II but useless for us in 2008?

Body armor."


Uhm...

The .45 isn't particularly known for being able to punch through body armor, either.

Mike U.
November 3, 2008, 01:10 PM
There is a recent thread* here that showed the terminal performance of the 9mm, .45ACP and .40 S&W using the same type of ammo. That being Winchester's Ranger "T" series JHP's.
The results of firing into ballistic gel were so close to each other that pointing out the difference between the calibers was correctly considered "splitting hairs".

When it comes to handgun calibers, shot placement will always be THE deciding factor of a given ammo's effectiveness.



* http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=316364

vitesse9
November 3, 2008, 09:30 PM
Don't believe me:

37848

We dug these 115 gr. fmj slugs out of the back of a railroad tie. They came out of a Glock 19. They basically went all the way through.

The 9mm is going to kill an attacker as dead as a .40 or a .45. And no, a .45 isn't going to stop a perp cold any better than a 9mm.

P.S. we shot the same railroad tie with three deer slugs, and it split in half. I'd leave the 9mm, the .40 and the .45 at home and take the shotgun. End of stopping power debate.

darkgael
November 3, 2008, 09:49 PM
Double Naught wrote: (a great post + 1 on all these points)
Quote:
"Why does everyone complain about the 9mm?
Not everyone does.

Quote:
I have never read any reports, or heard any complaints from soldiers in WW II.
Really? Just how many German and British ordnance assessment reports have you read?

Quote:
The mp-40 and the sten seemed to work great. I have never heard anyone say that the mp-40 or sten were useless.
That doesn't mean the 9mm round doesn't have issues. You happened to pick two very good guns to pick as your 9mm representatives, SMGs at that. However, comparison between the a pistol cartridge and a SMG are not one in the same.

Quote:
If I was in WW II and I had the chance to pick my weapon, I would pick an mp-40 or sten.
You aren't and most soldiers didn't.

Quote:
Great for up to 100 yards(the official designfor WW II was that it was good for 200 yards)
"official designator WW II" ... what the heck is that? The Axis and Allies didn't agree on such matters and didn't even use the same system of measurement (English v. metric).

Quote:
Why was the 9 mm a great choice for WW II but useless for us in 2008?
Now you have confused the notion of complaints with usefulness. Just because something is complained about does not mean it is useless.

Sorry to quote the whole thing (though it bears repeating). There's a lot of confused thinking on the internet - not meaning to hurt any one's feelings - and this post addressed some of it very nicely. My initial reaction to the subject of the OP was that it was so outrageous that the OP must be trolling. Evidently that is not the case, though the statement as written is too extreme to be true.
Pete

PS There was a "wouldn't it be nice" comment about developing the .30 Carbine in a semi-auto. I did not see that anyone addressed that. AMT produced the AutoMag III, a semi-auto pistol chambered for the .30 Carbine round, about 1989.
__________________

44 AMP
November 3, 2008, 10:51 PM
Since the OP was about the MP 40 ans Sten thread moved to NFA forum.

RWBlue01
November 5, 2008, 12:07 AM
Everything has good points and bad points. The 9 is fine for many things.

For handguns, I would want JHPs.
For full auto guns, ball will work.


But if you are trying to shoot someone at 1000 meters, 9 is not fine.
If you are trying to stop a bear, it is not optimal.
IF you are trying to shoot people in body armor, it is not going to work.

David Hineline
November 5, 2008, 12:14 AM
The ability to penetrat soft body armor is a limitation of US law not the cartridge capability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyKMz3tYx-M

Nnobby45
November 5, 2008, 03:25 AM
Why was the 9 mm a great choice for WW II but useless for us in 2008?

Body armor.

Who said it was a great choice? We didn't even use the dang thing--that's undoubtedly why we won the war.

See, we had the .45 1911 and the Thompson. The Krauts only had the little ol' 9mm, see. Did you see the British winning the war with their 9mm jammamatic Stens before we arrived? I didn't think so.

And we adopted it during the Gulf War to please our rearward leaning NATO partners and because we needed Air Bases in Italy, which is why we adopted the Beretta instead of the Sig P226. We don't need no Air Bases in Switzerland. Any questions:D ?

Sorry about that, just had too much Red Bull.:cool:

jughead2
November 8, 2008, 03:48 AM
on the comment of 7.62 / 25 round. i have watched my son use a cz-52 out to 100 yds and that round is scary in the hands of someone that can use it.:eek:

2transams
November 8, 2008, 04:57 PM
I believe that the 9 mm was carried by most police officers up until a situation developed where a shooter was all drugged up and didn't feel any pain. He was in an office building surrounded by officers and if I remember correctly the officers shot him 20 or more times and couldn't kill him and at the same time he took the lives of many of the officers in this incident. I did a quick Google search on it but I couldn’t' find the specifics. Anyway, after this incident most LEOs decided that 9mm wasn't sufficient so they tried to go to .45, but most officers couldn't handle the round so many settled with 40 - a compromise which is standard issue for many LEOs.

A 9mm will punch holes and make you bleed. A 45 will stop you by inducing shock.

For the longest time I couldn’t' figure out why the military would carry insufficient firepower, i.e. 9mm and .223 instead of something larger like 30-06 and up. I finally figured it out: they can carry lots of ammo because it weighs less and the 'hits' injure instead of kill which makes soldiers care for their wounded instead of fight. This decreases their morale because they hear their comrades in agony from the wounds instead of seeking revenge from a dead comrade. Also the 'bean counters' decided that more ammo = more kills, no matter what the caliber. The only reason they stuck with .223 is because it was the minimum caliber that would still pierce armor.Posts like that make the internet fun.:cool:

Evil Monkey
November 10, 2008, 11:26 PM
The 9mm, 40 cal, and 45 cal, and any other pistol caliber are all useless because weapons like this exist today.

http://www.gun-world.net/isreal/imi/tavor/new-mtar.jpg

armoredman
November 11, 2008, 01:02 AM
What the heck is that?

Evil Monkey
November 11, 2008, 02:12 AM
Israeli Micro Tavor 2 assault rifle with a suppressor. Very small rifle.

armoredman
November 11, 2008, 05:19 AM
Very nice.

Brit
November 11, 2008, 06:33 AM
The above quote means nothing! The average Royal was not that big, they yomped (they marched) so far, so fast the other side (recruits with little training, and no real heart for the fight) were quite surprised, and did not want anything to do with them. He probably cleaned his rifle prior to going to the medic! Now that was a joke!

If you have ever played with those two sub guns. The MP40 and the Sten, both fairly cheap to make, the 9mm MP40 was like a swiss watch! how they accomplished that smooth action with stamped parts is amazing.

The 9mm, displaced the .38 Special, 6 shot, with a more powerful round, and a whole bunch more of them, great move.

The FBI blamed a 9mm WW Silver tip for a tactical error, Agents, brave men one and all, chasing known to be armed with rifles bad guys? with a mish match of personal weapons, only the ex-Cop took a 12 gage along for the ride.

The 9mm pistol rounds of today are among the most effective bullet designs in the world. Millions of dollars have made them that way. The 9mm works.

imthegrumpyone
November 21, 2008, 05:40 AM
I vote for the 9mm and .40s forever !!!!! carry both ( one at a time ) I grab the .40 first cause of it's small concealment.

alizeefan
November 21, 2008, 07:56 AM
My personal opinion is that the whole question is irrelevant. I don't know who originally said it but one of my favourite quotes is " amatuers talk calibre and gear, professionals talk tactics ".

Coyote Hitman
November 21, 2008, 11:43 AM
Sten gun @ 100yards

Skans
November 21, 2008, 12:23 PM
I'm still a big fan of 9mm. It is fairly cheap to shoot and practice with. Then, I put high-powered frangible rounds in for self defense. I'd agree that if what I was carrying in my Glock was Wolf steel jacketed 9mm, it might not be quite as effective as a .45. But, that's only what I practice with, not what I use for defense.

Like others have said, there is no reason to discredit the 9mm now that you can buy the high velocity ammo that does substantial damage. I like it because it holds more rounds. 20 rounds vs. 8 rounds....I'll take the 20 rounds. What are you going to do if you are confronted with multiple attackers? How often do "gangs" of one break into a house or attack people in the streets?

guntotin_fool
November 21, 2008, 12:45 PM
OKay, Some basics.


Getting shot with anything hurts, and will lead to death in about half the cases unless immediate medical attention is given.

9mm as used in WW2 subguns, was and is clearly different from 9mm loaded into a handgun. The extra few hundred feet of velocity added because of the 8-10 inch barrel, and the added power of a hotter load, equalled a better combo of power vs size than most 9mm SAAMI loads today.

Americans learned to fight differently than europeans, and were fairly confident that at the right time, a proper fighting pistol was a good tool to have. European Armies only carried pistols for two reasons, one was a mark of rank, and second, it was the tool to shoot deserters and prisoners.

Americans took that proper fighting pistol to war, and along the way, decided that a weapon that fired the same useful cartridge could be used to break up resistance inside a house or trench quite easily.

Heinz Guderain was not looking at trench warfare when he decided that the new war in europe would not be allowed to resort to the trenches. He was the innovator of the lightning war, or Blitzkrieg, where speed and shock were to be the tools of overcoming the other armies of europe. He wanted supply lines to be simple, with only a very few forms of ammuntion to be shipped. For the most part, he wanted only 9mm and 8mm ammo produced for the troops (obviously here, we are skipping 20mm and up tank, AA and arty stuff) He also decided that equipping large number of troops with a weapon that was made from stampings, that cost something like 21 dollars to produce, and afforded a squad with (almost) the same firepower of a GPMG, was superior to a weapon that took skilled machinists, heavy tooling, and was slow to fire and reload, at least in the warfare that he was envisioning.

For much of europe in the period from sept 1939 thru about 1944, the real image of a boogeyman was a german Para holding a MP40. Soldiers falling from the sky, blazing away with machine guns gave most of europe the runs.


Now the americans show up late for the party, but operating under the guidelines that we will win this war using our rules, and that is saving our troops as best we can, and making decisions based on saving the most lives we can of our side, while costing the enemy the most casualties as possible.

We taught our soldiers to be marksmen, we demanded that we have rifles capable of putting the bullet where it was meant to go, and we brought weapons that ended fights when we hit you with it.



Now moving forward to today, Even with fancy ammo, in much of the country, during much of the year getting ammo to expand and do its job is difficult when the people are bundled up in heavy clothing.

So one reverts to the old proven technology, 9mm and 38 sized bullets tend not to deliver that important "fights over" message to drugged up people the way a .45 does. IF the bullet does expand, 60% expansion on a nine is somewhere around .56 cal. so compared to an unexpanded .45, one can see that even with ball, you don't loose much to an expanded 9, and if the 45 only expands 30%, you're out to .58 cal.

Some see this as reason enough to choose a 9.

I hear some argue that they can carry 19 rounds or so of 9 mm, and thus in a gun fight, they can simply poke enough holes in the target to get lucky and hit something vital.

I hear Civil trial lawyers having wet dreams over that kind of attitude. as 19 rounds leaving your gun each and every one have a lawyers business card attached to them saying "Sue me for wrongful death and injury" as the misses carry on down the street and hit that kid doing homework in the livingroom two blocks away.

I want very few shots, all accurately placed, all stopping within the body of the felon who has threatened to kill me. I want no flyers or strays rumbling down the street killing or maiming innocents.





Now, if this argument is simply about subguns, then today our FBI has the best option, which is the MP-10, but for some reason. They forget to teach the Second Amendment at the FBI school in Quantico, because if they did, the FBI would do everything in its power to get that weapon out to law abiding Citizens as the near perfect home defense and civil defense weapon.

TacticalDefense1911
November 21, 2008, 01:03 PM
There have been many circumstances where a 9mm has failed to stop a perpetrator from doing more damage to others or himself.


The same can be said about the .40, 10mm and 45 ACP :D

The difficulty with the 9mm is that ammo selection is far more important than it is with a 40 or 45. There just dont seem to be too many "bad" 40 & 45 loads while there are numerous bad 9mm loads for self defense. With the right load selection a 9mm is a fine self defense caliber.

razorburn
November 23, 2008, 05:59 AM
If anything, I believe the 1911 is useless. Despite anything you can espouse about the stopping power of .45 or its magical feel, the thing is that its a low capacity, finicky, unreliable weapon. If gunnies were able to pick arms for the modern army, we'd still be using the 1911 and m14 and our troops would be as underwhelming as any 3rd world countries.

heyduke
November 23, 2008, 07:02 AM
The 9mm, 40 cal, and 45 cal, and any other pistol caliber are all useless because weapons like this exist today.



Please tell me your joking.

johnwilliamson062
November 23, 2008, 10:04 AM
If I hit an intruder with 2 or 3 decently placed 9mm HP rounds and he doesn't go down until paramedics arrive, I am switching into zombie apocalypse mode and grabbing my SKS.

White Rice
November 23, 2008, 01:46 PM
9mm works well in the military because it is usually used to shoot other military.

.45 works better in SD because you are shooting civilian aggressors.

Now, you can all think whatever you want about this as far as ammo capacity to be carried etc, but you'd be wrong.


Consider this. I was in the Marines. My priority 1A was killing the people on the other side. Priority 1B was not getting killed. These two priorities could flip-flop all the time.

In battle, I am scared. I am not angry. I have nothing in particular against the other guy on the other side than I want him not to shoot me. If I get shot, I would immediately shift into preservation mode, not destructive mode. I'd try to stay alive and would either not be shooting or shooting defensively until I could be evacuated unless the wound was very minor.

Almost any wound from any cartridge would stop me from being an aggressor unless it was a graze or non-bleeding flesh wound, if those even exist.

9mm and less are more than adequate for this.

Now lets take the self defense situation. Ruling out walking in on a home break-in, its likely that the attacker is not only very close to me and within range to kill me with their bare hands, the person is probably angry. Anger will make a person continue to attack when a soldier will seek cover and treatment.

In these cases, a 9mm may be adequate. But overcoming angry aggression is more difficult than taking our a longer range military target. The SD aggressor also realizes that if he can take you out, the battle is over and he wins whatever goal he had in mind. Enemy combatants understand that if they are wounded, they aren't going to be able to single handedly take out another sides military unit, even as small as a rifle squad before they become incapacitated from blood loss or shock.

These are two different situations and people should understand this.

teeroux
November 23, 2008, 02:21 PM
Shot placement will always trump caliber.

No matter what you have to choose from.

rgillis
November 23, 2008, 03:04 PM
Sten gun @ 100yards
Coyote,
Are you doubting the validity of the 100 yard sten? If so, I'm with you brother!

BillCA
November 23, 2008, 03:37 PM
Both Guntotin_Fool and White_Rice made points similar to what I'm going to make, albeit in a different way.

Why does everyone complain about the 9mm?

I have never read any reports, or heard any complaints from soldiers in WW II.

The mp-40 and the sten seemed to work great. I have never heard anyone say that the mp-40 or sten were useless.

If I was in WW II and I had the chance to pick my weapon, I would pick an mp-40 or sten.

Great for up to 100 yards(the official designfor WW II was that it was good for 200 yards)

Why was the 9 mm a great choice for WW II but useless for us in 2008?

You're comparing apples & oranges here.

The WW-II 9mm cartridge was a hotter round than most of today's commercially produced ammo. On top of that, SMG ammo was typically marked with a black or purple tip in Germany because it was even hotter than the pistol ammo in order to run the SMGs reliably.

So, in the first instance, we're comparing today's commercial ammo to hotter WW-II military ammo.

In the second place, as White_Rice pointed out, in a military situation, if a soldier is wounded he is generally out of the fight for some period of time. That time may only be as long as it takes him to dress the wound or it may be painful/debilitating enough that he ceases to be a viable threat.

This is quite different from the civilian situation where you are in close contact with your assailant due to a robbery, assault, rape or homicide attempt. In the civilian case, failure to quickly neutralize your assailant can result in serious or fatal injury to you. Using a WW-II 9mm FMJ might or might not stop said CQB assailant. Using a 124g 9mm +P Speer Gold Dot that expands gives you much better odds.

One also has to remember that in warfare, if your 9mm SMG brings down an enemy soldier with one hit, it was almost SOP to "rake" him again with a short burst, possibly inflicting multiple hits.

In today's world where we use commercial JHP ammo that expands much more reliably than ever before, the differences between the calibers has narrowed considerably. With JHP ammo, the 9mm becomes a viable self-defense round for CQB. I still prefer a larger diameter bullet, but I don't feel undergunned with the 9mm either.

Evil Monkey
November 23, 2008, 04:01 PM
Please tell me your joking.

They're useless, get over yourself.

TacticalDefense1911
November 24, 2008, 07:58 AM
If gunnies were able to pick arms for the modern army, we'd still be using the 1911 and m14 and our troops would be as underwhelming as any 3rd world countries.

The M14 is one of the finest military weapons of all time...I hardly doubt our troops would be "as underwhelming as any 3rd world country" while armed with one :rolleyes:

Sparks2112
November 24, 2008, 10:18 AM
The M14 is one of the finest military weapons of all time...I hardly doubt our troops would be "as underwhelming as any 3rd world country" while armed with one.

I had read recently that we were trying to buy back (M-14's) the ones we sold to friendly countries when we switched to the AR platform back in the 60's and 70's. I'll try and find the article if I can.

White Rice
November 24, 2008, 10:25 AM
Why? Its not like they can't be made cheaper if we needed a few. Its more likely that we would do a "buy back" in order to sell them other stuff to replace it at a profit.

It makes a nice parade rifle, but I wouldn't want to carry it around all day anymore.

If I was going to carry that much weight in rifle and ammo, I'd rather carry a SAW.

Sparks2112
November 24, 2008, 10:36 AM
It makes a nice parade rifle, but I wouldn't want to carry it around all day anymore.

If I was going to carry that much weight in rifle and ammo, I'd rather carry a SAW.

It's not like they're keeping them stock from the 60's. I hear they're performing quite well in the designated marksman role.

I'd prefer the M240 myself.

buzz_knox
November 24, 2008, 10:43 AM
The 9mm, 40 cal, and 45 cal, and any other pistol caliber are all useless because weapons like this exist today.


I'm sure the Tavor is nifty keen, but the primary role of a pistol in the military is as a secondary weapon for combatants, as a primary weapon for certain specialists, and as effectively a badge of rank for certain officers. The Tavor will fail at the first (you are carrying an assault rifle as backup to another assault rifle?), likely be overkill for the second (assault rifles don't work that well for MPs and criminal investigators in the ordinary course of their duties), as well as the third (few officers would even consider the weight).

Evil Monkey, do you carry a suppressed SBR or a pistol when going about your daily routine? Perhaps a suppressed AUG SMG variant in a shoulder holster?

Musketeer
November 24, 2008, 11:33 AM
I have never read any reports, or heard any complaints from soldiers in WW II.
Because generally those who fielded 9mm arms did not field 45 and vice versa. It is not like there was a whole lot of sharing going on. Likewise your average soldier in WWII was far less informed on ballistics and performance of various rounds on soft tissue than the average person concerned with such matters on this board.

In addition it was all ball and ball in 9mm frankly sucks as a reliable stopper. 45 isn't great but 45 will never get smaller!:)

Lastly, killing was not really the objective. The goal was to take the enemy out of action, hence the whole thing against expanding ammo. Ball goes in and out. It does damage and certainly may kill BUT wounding one man takes two out as one has to care for him.

Evil Monkey
November 25, 2008, 01:30 AM
but the primary role of a pistol in the military is as a secondary weapon for combatants, as a primary weapon for certain specialists,

That's fine, but we're talking about shoulder fired weapons.

Evil Monkey, do you carry a suppressed SBR or a pistol when going about your daily routine? Perhaps a suppressed AUG SMG variant in a shoulder holster?

No, but I've noticed for a long time now that forces across the world are giving up SMG's for compact rifles.

I gave the Micro Tavor with the suppressor pic as an example of what is replacing the pistol caliber SMG as the primary weapon. These bullpup compact rifles share a similar length, even with a suppressor, with most SMG's yet fire a more potent rifle round such as the 5.56mm.

If SWAT teams do well giving up MP5's for M4's, then compact bullpups are certainly desirable.

Striker071
November 27, 2008, 04:11 AM
Evil Monkey .... where did you get that quote.... British Soldiers were carrying the Enfield L1A1 in the Faulklands Conflict

Evil Monkey
November 27, 2008, 06:55 PM
I got the quote from way back before the fall of the modern firearms forums many years ago.

I believe it was either a forum member from Chile or another that was British that had said what was in my signature. It was stated in a thread that was discussing 5.56 vs 7.62.

Those threads are the grand fathers of all "vs" arguments. :D

robertbank
November 27, 2008, 07:52 PM
"A British Royal Marine was shot in the abdomen with 7.62mm NATO during the liberation of the Falklands, he carried on fighting shooting the Argentine dead with his M16. "

Nice signature line but the brits were using the FN FAL in .308. The Argentinians ahs the select fire version while the Brits had the semi-auto only version.

The Enfield L1A1 was adopted after the war.

Take Care

Bob

sgunn911
November 29, 2008, 03:59 PM
I have fired both the mp 40 and thompson .45 in full auto. There is no doubt that the mp-40 had more accuracy and control. I would pick the mp-40 9mm any day over the .45 thompson.

This kind of goes back to the previous post by RickDavis81 that says
Drum brakes all the way around were also fine in WWII but I'd rather have 4 wheel disc now if I have the choice. I have and enjoy a few 9mm's and there isn't anything wrong with them. But there are also better rounds out there now.

A Thompson .45 is a totally different beast than today's models. The Thompson is known for kicking like a mule and was designed for stopping power and a lot of it.

I have been shooting an HK UMP .45 full auto for several years now that also has 9mm parts to switch calibers as needed/wanted. I have shot several thousand rounds of each through the UMP and the difference is noticeable but not overwhelming. Controlling the UMP with .45 rounds is no problem at all, and I can keep a full magazine (25 rounds) on a 10" x 10" target at 25 yards. Possible to repeat that feat further maybe, but I have never tried it. There just isn't a significant advantage of a 9mm over a .45 when talking about controlability and follow up shots in todays more advanced subguns being operated by an experienced shooter. The biggest difference I see is that the .45 requires a bit more concentration and my shoulder may be a bit more sore after 500 rounds of .45 than 9mm.

I was able to shoot a Thompson almost a decade ago, and yeah, that's a totally different argument.

Re4mer
November 30, 2008, 07:48 PM
Forgive my ignorance, but has there ever been a study done that showed a time when a 9mm actually failed in combat and another caliber would have succeed?

Swampghost
November 30, 2008, 08:19 PM
Would you like to enter MY house and face a barrage of 9mm.?

It's my favorite round because it's the easiest to control for the size and weight of the pistol plus I get a lot of rounds prior to reloading.

I have bigger and badder plus smaller down to .22 but when nuts comes to bolts in a close encounter I'll take 13 well placed rounds.

crebralfix
November 30, 2008, 08:42 PM
I have the solution:

2-6 shots to the body, working up toward the head.

3 shots to the head if the body shots didn't work.

Create multiple wound channels and reset the goblin's OODA loop with each hit.

9mm 115 grain FMJ, 45 ACP 230 JHP, 44 Mag...their terminal ballistics all stink because they are shot from a HANDGUN!

Don't buy into the "one shot stop" hype...that's for selling YOU ammo. Focus on what matters, which is skill in shooting, tactics, knifing, hand to hand, threat assessment, awareness, and probably 10 other things I'm forgetting.

BillCA
December 2, 2008, 02:20 PM
Forgive my ignorance, but has there ever been a study done that showed a time when a 9mm actually failed in combat and another caliber would have succeed?
And just how would one go about such a study? :confused:

Would you like to enter MY house and face a barrage of 9mm.?

It's my favorite round because it's the easiest to control for the size and weight of the pistol plus I get a lot of rounds prior to reloading.

I have bigger and badder plus smaller down to .22 but when nuts comes to bolts in a close encounter I'll take 13 well placed rounds.
Do you want to face the liability and/or criminal charges for a "barrage" of gunfire? Prosecutors could look at 13 rounds vs. one intruder as panic fire or a wanton disregard for your neighbors.

But if you're talking a barrage, easy to control round and about a dozen well placed rounds, would you like to come in to my house and face 12 well-placed rounds of .32 S&W Long?
http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff111/BillCA/Hobby/jf/32/M31pair.jpg

I have the solution:
2-6 shots to the body, working up toward the head.

3 shots to the head if the body shots didn't work.

Create multiple wound channels and reset the goblin's OODA loop with each hit.

9mm 115 grain FMJ, 45 ACP 230 JHP, 44 Mag...their terminal ballistics all stink because they are shot from a HANDGUN!

I'm counting on controlled pairs from this light-recoiling set-up.
Six rounds of .45ACP to COM should get some serious attention.
http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff111/BillCA/Hobby/nf/M25/M25Front_1755.jpg

Like you, if that first six aren't doing the job, I'm changing tactics.
I'll use this one to fight my way to the 12-gauge.
http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff111/BillCA/Hobby/nf/M58/M58L_1093M.jpg

akr
December 2, 2008, 02:33 PM
The 9 is a great round. Most can put more 9's on the target than anything else.

Tatsumi67
December 2, 2008, 03:54 PM
As a well known forum member, 9x19 put it "Make mine lean,mean and 9x19!"

9mm is just like every other cartridge ever: It still puts a piece of metal down range extremely fast. Its small, its fast and its very controllable. I think that if everyone who ever back talked on 9mm actually held the cartridge and how "mean" it really looks then they would'nt say anything.

MaxHeadSpace
December 9, 2008, 09:36 PM
I have two Uzi Mod. 45 -- carbine and micro pistol. They have an option for 45 ACP, but the 9mm provides more capacity, less carry weight for multiple mags.

They're not intended as "rifles" . . . They're intended as carbines, pistols with shoulder stocks, light arms, easy to carry. In 9mm mode they're virtually without recoil and don't "climb" much. Easy to shoot full-auto with one hand.

mijaboot
December 11, 2008, 09:24 AM
Everything has its limitations, a 20mm will not stop a battleship.
For antipersonel use a 9mm with 147 gr HP and a stiff load is more than sufficient. Shot placement is paramount with any caliber. Remember the Miami shootout years past. The 10mm/40SW was then developed. Shot placement, body armor and a whole host of thing come into play, it doesnt matter what the caliber is. Several rounds to the upper torso or head will slow or generally end the situation.


NRA member 40+ years

ottosear
March 15, 2009, 09:20 AM
I too thought the 9 was a pipsqueek. Until I got a STEn... The penetration was better than I thought it would be. And then a suppressor. And I discovered 158 Sampsons. Neato ! Then the cost. And I converted my AR to it. Now I can shoot the AR in an indoor range at 10 below zero. The 9 has many options for loads. I am a FAN ! :rolleyes:

Firepower!
March 15, 2009, 11:19 AM
I think I'd rather have a 1911 or a Thompson sub machine gun or a M1 Garand.

So you are saying that you rather have guns listed in combat:

For example: 1911 over a high cap 9mm, thompson over MP5K, and M1 Garand over lets say HK G36 or Galil 7.62?

dahermit
March 15, 2009, 07:26 PM
I have never read any reports, or heard any complaints from soldiers in WW II.

The mp-40 and the sten seemed to work great. I have never heard anyone say that the mp-40 or sten were useless. There have been many complaints about the sten in WWII. Not the cartridge necessarily, but there were many complaints that the sten was prone to frequent jams. I remember one report from a Brit at Deipe who said that he finally abandoned his sten for a High Power (same caliber) because the sten kept jamming.

Re4mer
March 15, 2009, 11:00 PM
People who get shot, tend to stay shot. For the most part it really doesn't matter what they get shot with. You can find examples of people who have survived most everything known to man. You can find examples of people who literally died of fright.

Ditto.

Another thing I was thinking about is whether it is fair compare between a 9mm in WW2 and 9mm of today. The newer JHP rounds of today seem to have far greater capabilities than what older rounds had. Also the guns used to shoot the rounds were different. This may not vindicate the 9mm but it should be noted when comparing the state of things today in 2009 vs 1945.

Willie Lowman
March 17, 2009, 10:49 AM
And as these things always do, this thread has become an argument of personal preference.

There are more people dead in the cold cold ground because of 9x19 than any other pistol round. That doesn't mean it is the best, it means it sees the widest use. It sees wide use because it works.

I have found that when teaching handguns to a new shooter, 9mm or .38special is about as big a round as most people can shoot accurately. I know someone is growling about 'I taught my 6 year old daughter to shoot on a .45 ACP... grumble grumble' I said most people. A lot of folks don't like a lot of recoil and muzzle blast. 9mm is good for 'em.

It is a great round out of a SMG but SMGs are on their way out because of little rifles like the M4 and the Krinkov. But that is one for a another thread.

paladin-34
March 19, 2009, 08:52 PM
i always figured in ww1 and ww2 people knew how to shoot, so one shot was one kill regardless of caliber. today the theory seams to be caliber makes up for lack of accuracy with caliber.

they all told me that a 9mm was to small for deer (one shot one deer). same hunting party a shotgunner (12gage) took 15 rnds to bring his deer down. apply your caliber rule there.

its not the size, but where you put it.

Joe

akr
March 19, 2009, 09:09 PM
its not the size, but where you put it.
That is something that most people will agree with, but given the same target area, bigger is obviously better.

jamiejaf
March 19, 2009, 10:37 PM
I had a love affair with big masculine ammo such as .45, .44. .454...and after draining my cash reserves on the big stuff i realized those paper targets would die just as easy if i was shooting a .22. i found 9mm half the price as .45, therefore, i picked up a g17 and use it more often than my g21. 9mm is a great cartridge and will do wonders when passing through a cranium.:) This is a useless thread mind you.

paladin-34
March 20, 2009, 09:26 PM
my next goal is to get two dear with one shot. all i have to do is get them to stand in line.

try that with a bigger caliber.


Joe

JohnKSa
March 21, 2009, 01:33 AM
I have found that when teaching handguns to a new shooter, 9mm or .38special is about as big a round as most people can shoot accurately. I know someone is growling about 'I taught my 6 year old daughter to shoot on a .45 ACP... grumble grumble' I said most people. A lot of folks don't like a lot of recoil and muzzle blast. 9mm is good for 'em.Here's an interesting quote that meshes very well with yours.

From the July/August American Handgunner

From the .35s to the .40s – They Still Call ‘Em .38s!
By Mike Venturino

...Most people in the know about such things consider the .38 Special is the minimum revolver cartridge that should be used for home/self defense. And I know for certain it is about the largest cartridge non-enthusiast people can be taught to shoot with any degree of proficiency.
That is something that most people will agree with, but given the same target area, bigger is obviously better.Overly simplistic. If we ignore reality and pretend that nothing else matters except for the particular aspect of a situation we wish to isolate we can easily prove anything we want.

The fact that no one has come up with a "final answer", a hard and fast rule for caliber selection in over a century of trying, is an extremely good hint that there's no easy answer. It's pretty convincing evidence that defining the REAL WORLD performance differences between handgun calibers in the service pistol/self-defense class is very difficult. If you think about it awhile it will click that it's not difficult because the differences in performance are so overwhelming. ;)

akr
March 21, 2009, 02:34 AM
The more I think about it, I have decided that .22LR and 9mm are the two best cartridges for a multitude of reasons.....all in all. They are even good for big game if you shoot'em through the eyes. :D :p

vsgonzo
March 21, 2009, 02:49 AM
Could it be that Americans and/or the male testosterone in most of us prefere the "Bigger is Better" approach..

Personally I'm all for the 9mm. I like the beretta 92 and I currently have an Xdm 9 (along with an xdm .40 lol). With that being said I also prefer the .223 remington eventhough most say its not sufficient. I figure both those rounds are doing it for the military (Been there done that, seen the other team's members go down fast) then why not for the civiliian use?

One last note though. I prefer ball over HP. I want the depth and not the knock down force. When I fire its normally double to triple taps lol.

Dingoboyx
March 21, 2009, 03:20 AM
Guns are tools. In your shed you have different size screwdrivers, hammers, spanners. I dont think 9mm is useless by any means. It is only a small part of the firearms "toolbox" It is a small but potent bullet so you have small(ish) magazines and can carry extra rounds quite efficiently. Sure you could have a 45, or 50 cal, you could even build a pistol to fire 7.62..... but if you wanted to carry 500 extra rounds with you (in close combat) you would need a wheelbarrow. So I believe the cheap, small (but pretty potent) 9mm allowing you to have +20 round mags that you can change in the blink of an eye is great for where it is designed for (close combat etc) How big would a SA pistol or revolver have to be to have +20 round mags with 7.62 ammo? Would be hard to lift and people moan about the recoil of a healthy 45, what would the recoil be if it were shooting 7.62? That would be useless (in close combat) While you were trying to turn around and point it at the BG, he could pop you with a.22

9mm is a great comprimise, adequate, basically a utility caliber, the guns that fire it can cycle fast, so if it takes 5 rounds to stop the BG so what, bullet placement is the question too. If 9mm doesnt suit you, go bigger, thats your perogitive, but if you were a cop or a guard havint to carry all day every day, you would appreciate the light weight compact size, but still with a fair bit of punch, instead of some huge beast of a weapon pulling your pants down all day :D
Dont knock it, each to their own...

Muzza

akr
March 21, 2009, 05:26 AM
That's a good post, Dingo. I agree. :)

Hambone
April 20, 2009, 10:33 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bWagHqUZNw

MP40 with subgun high velocity. German WW2 spec 9mm was hotter than today's wimpy SAAMI spec. Plenty of heat on target with a 2-3 shot burst that is controllable and can be put on a standard NRA silouette all day out to 50 yds with practice. Much preferrable over a clunky heavy Thompson which has a great double stack mag. I prefer an M3 to a Thompson.

JohnKSa
April 20, 2009, 11:54 PM
The more I think about it, I have decided that .22LR and 9mm are the two best cartridges for a multitude of reasons.....all in all. They are even good for big game if you shoot'em through the eyes.Just as isolating a specific parameter and pretending it's the only one that matters often provides a less than useful result, so it is pointless to take an argument to an extreme and then try to extend that extreme circumstance back to the original discussion which did not relate to the extreme.

In other words, if one is arguing whether 40W or 30W oil is superior for a particular application, it's not useful for the guy arguing for the 40W oil to say something like: "Well, if 30W is good then 5W has to be better. In fact, what we really want is oil that's thinner than water!" The fact that really thin oil would be wrong for the application is no evidence at all that 30W oil, (which is only slightly thinner than 40W oil) would be a bad choice for the application being discussed.

Similarly, in a discussion about relatively small changes in ballistics, it's not useful to try create arguments applying to extremely small/weak cartridges (such as .22LR) since they are not applicable to the discussion at hand. Nor is it useful to try to create arguments relating to shooting really large game since, again, that's not applicable to the discussion at hand.

akr
April 28, 2009, 08:09 AM
I really enjoy your posts, John. They are very enlightening. ;)

LordofWar
April 28, 2009, 05:36 PM
I take it as a matter of utility.

If I'm in an urban environment/city I carry my HK Mark23 or HK USP CT .45 because all I need in that kind of an environment is sheer stopping power where I would want to neutralize the threat dead in it’s tracks. I don’t want a BG to keep coming or retaliate when I’m with my family.

While on the road I prefer keeping my Glock 19 with high cap magazines because in an alien environment I would feel comfortable with as much ammo that can come in handy which is where the 9mm excels. It’s a caliber that is readily available in our part of the world everywhere. Moreover, on a highway I want as much firepower to keep me cover till help arrives.

ritepath
May 1, 2009, 09:44 PM
that's it I'm ditching all 3 of my 9's...

bamafan4life
May 1, 2009, 11:45 PM
idc what u say i can hold down a army with a ruger 10/22 with high capacity mags i dont know about yall but if sum1 trys shooting me with anything im going to duck. many people say the .25acp is usless and will just tick off a attacker i sure wouldnt want a .25 calaber slug in my skull. even if i didnt kill you 65 pounds of energy in ur head is ganna cause massive swelling and ur vision to turn red and mucus will fill ur throat and nose like crazy and u might be fighting back sum but when u take anouther ur threw. same thing aplies to all calibers really.

Tucker 1371
May 2, 2009, 09:00 PM
Cause this is America dangit :mad:!!! We love our .45 and hate that the 1911 got replaced by some foreign mousegun!!:mad:

.... :D

I think with decent hollowpoint rounds a 9mm is just fine. If a Sig or MP5 in 9mm is good enough for the Navy SEALs it's good enough for me.

akr
May 3, 2009, 09:18 AM
long live the .22lr and the 9mm.

Woodrowmag
May 3, 2009, 12:54 PM
Now lets take the self defense situation. Ruling out walking in on a home break-in, its likely that the attacker is not only very close to me and within range to kill me with their bare hands, the person is probably angry. Anger will make a person continue to attack when a soldier will seek cover and treatment. In these cases, a 9mm may be adequate. But overcoming angry aggression is more difficult than taking our a longer range military target.

I'm not sure you can say that all SD situations include an "angry" attacker. I'm sure a lot of attacks occur just over money ie: wallets, purses etc, where anger is not the motivating factor.

That being said, I think a lot of people give way, way, waaay too much credit to anger itself. Just because someone is being aggressive and is foaming at the mouth, doesn't make them invincible to a bullet to the chest, no matter the caliber.

Most "angry" people will cease to be angry and start being afraid the instant they see a handgun pointed at them. Most "attackers", in the most general sense of the word, don't expect their victims to fight back with anything, if at all. The attackers that get past the initial shock of seeing the weapon will probably not get much further than the first shot fired, even if it doesn't hit them. If someone takes 1 bullet, center mass, and keeps coming, they might be a zombie. :D

30-30remchester
May 3, 2009, 08:52 PM
The one thing for sure in these forums is you get proffesional guessing and conjecture. I wonder how many people who answered here have actually been shot, seen someone shot, or shot someone with a 9mm. Like any other caliber I would ASSUME it depends on bullet placement and type of bullet. When you check ballistics the 9mm is superior to the 38 special, and lagging @ 150 fps behind the highly touted 357 magnun. There are those that think if you hit someone anywhere with a 40 or 45 that person will collapse in a pool of goo. PLEASE. I study terminal ballistics and have talked or know 11 people who have been shot and survived. One shot with a 45acp, through the kneecap, and he walked back to his car not knowing he had been shot. Two people I know shot with a 44 magnun, both sewed up and back to work. Another shot betwen the eyes with a 5.56 while in Vietnam, his buddies had to tell him to get to the hospital. All these instances were quoted to make the point that EVERY caliber has had failures. As one old patholigist said once " hit em between the shirt pockets and the fight is over ". So use what you can shoot well and use premium bullets. I have trained many women and beginers and can state that I would rather be shot at with a 45acp by one of these people than by a 22 lr. They can easily shoot and hit with a 22.

paladin-34
May 3, 2009, 09:10 PM
Having been in one of those “self defense situations” I decided the most important thing was a gun that is ready when it is needed (no remembering to take the safety off). I will not carry a cocked and locked weapon for obvious reasons (rules out 1911 and glocks). It has to be a cartridge with the most versatility, able to shoot through obstacles if needed (rules out 45acp, and 40s&w). It has to be reliable to a fault. I shoot sig in 9mm FMJ.

Joe