Is the 9mm enough gun?

[Ichiban]

The 9mm with good JHPs is perfectly adequate for most PD situations. Most of the reputation for being an inadequate round in base on the use of standard ball ammo. If you look at most of the gang-bangers that are carrying around bullet scars, they are from 9mm ball. Not a lot of people walking around showing off scars from .45acp. I prefer to carry something larger most of the time but will still carry 9mm from time to time.

[Will Beararms]

".45: Because they don't make a .46 yet."

[microman]

lol

Well I do love the .45 much more so than the .40 but, then there
are trade offs in everything and you don't get too many rounds with
a 1911.

[vyse.04]

The original poster is asking if the 9mm is enough, not what everyone prefers to carry. Anyone who thinks getting shot with a 9mm wouldn't hurt is insane, and PLENTY of people have been killed with that same caliber so I think it's good enough. Yes you will always read the stories from someone, who knew someone, who knew a cop, who shot a bad guy 32 times with their duty 9mm and they wouldn't go down...

I think a 9mm is a solid round for self defense. Sure there are more powerful rounds that you can carry, but I don't really think you would gimp yourself with a 9mm. It's been mentioned too many times already, but shot placement > caliber.

[LockedBreech]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

So, that makes .357 Magnum ineffective?

Almost certainly you knew I did not mean that, but if I need to spell it out, of the three most common service calibers, being 9x19, .40, and .45, I am comfortable with the latter two. .357 SIG and Magnum are obviously competent rounds.

[pilpens]

A retired police officer I know told me stories of bad guys getting shot with 9mm FMJs multiple times and not stop immediately. He was first issued a 38, then a 9 but he replaced it with a .45. His backup was a J frame 38.
He has been retired for many years and do not CC anymore but he wants a .380 primarily because of the pistol size. His .45 is mostly his sons pistol, now. Neither one of them CC.
When I bought my 1911 .45, it was with his advise.
I primarily CC a Walther P99 in 9. Sometimes, I think of switching to a HK USPc in .45 but I am in no hurry.

In short, I think with good ammo design (not FMJ), 9 is probably plenty.

[Will Beararms]

Yes a 9mm is enough.

[hogwiley]

I'm a little confused when people say shot placement is the key. In a real situation you point and shoot, you might have time to look down the sights and aim center mass at best, and maybe you wont, but the idea that you are going to turn into some delta force operator who can achieve headshots or put a bullet in some precise location on a moving target in the middle of a fight seems silly to me. Exact shot placement is going to end up largely being chance, what angle the attacker was in when you fired and other variables. This is why I prefer having a larger caliber round, to maximize damage and pain inflicted on the attacker per shot.

Now one thing the 9mm does excel in is putting lots of rounds downrange quickly, and obviously the more bullets hitting your target, the more likely one of them is going to be placed where it "stops" him.

[microtech]

i think the nine is perfectly fine. I think for most situations a nine millimeter will suffice. I think the chances of having a life threatening altercation on any given day is so low in the first place, but i think the chances are even lower that you would have a life threatening altercation where a nine would be inadequate. For me, my main purpose is for going to the range and having fun and the nine is very affordable for that. And in the event that i may have to defend myself someday, i think the nine will work fine. i think i would be feel adequately protected with a .380 at minimum.
I think though if you live a life style where you are likely to have to defend yourself on a regular basis a more powerful round would be called for such as .40, or .45 etc.

[balance]

I only own/carry 9mm pistols now, and when people talk down on the 9mm, I just don't get it.

If someone got shot in one shoulder with a 9mm, and the other shoulder with a .40, do you think they could tell the difference? If someone got shot in one thigh with a 9mm, and the other thigh with a .45, do you think they could tell the difference? If someone got shot in the head with a 9mm, .40, or .45, do you honestly think the end result would be any different.

Everytime I hear these three calibers being mentioned, most people will at least agree that the difference between the three is either small, or non-existent with modern bullets, so that means that if you believe the 9mm is weak, then you chose to "upgrade" to a similarly weak .40 or .45. And if I'm going to be in a hectic situation where adrenaline takes over and shot placement goes ot the window, then why would I choose a platform with less capacity, similar performance, and more recoil?

I feel just fine with a full size 9mm on me.

[JCP281]

If I could pick, I would choose to get shot with the 9mm in the thigh, not the .45! .45 leaves quite a hole.. lol

[blueovelwookie]

i trust the 9mm. it is what protects my wife!
i carry a 10mm, but that is me.

[t45]

I do not feel the least bit handicapped with a 9mm.

[.357SIG]

I'm a little confused when people say shot placement is the key. In a real situation you point and shoot, you might have time to look down the sights and aim center mass at best, and maybe you wont, but the idea that you are going to turn into some delta force operator who can achieve headshots or put a bullet in some precise location on a moving target in the middle of a fight seems silly to me. Exact shot placement is going to end up largely being chance, what angle the attacker was in when you fired and other variables. This is why I prefer having a larger caliber round, to maximize damage and pain inflicted on the attacker per shot.

Now one thing the 9mm does excel in is putting lots of rounds downrange quickly, and obviously the more bullets hitting your target, the more likely one of them is going to be placed where it "stops" him.

Shot placement, whether accidental or not, is the key, if your attacker is to be stopped by the effect of the bullet. There are only a few places in the body that will produce instant or near instant stops, with any caliber, and they are damn hard to hit. Other strikes are "iffy" at best, regardless of caliber. You're mostly correct in saying chance will determine where the round hits. In that case, would you not want more rounds to give more opportunity?

As was said above, the difference in wounding between larger and smaller rounds is minimal, if not totally irrelevant. Having your larger caliber round strike the same area as a smaller one does the same thing, essentially (without going to extremes on the cartridge spectrum, of course). If you ever get the chance to see gunshot wounds from different rounds, you will see this. Most of the time, a surgeon doesn't even know the difference between wound tracts, let alone anyone else who claims to be able to differentiate them.

The basic thing is that you need to hit something important to end the fight.

[mdell2]

It is perfectly fine. I carry a 9mm because of the capacity. 45 is my favorite and I love my 1911 however, the reason I carry is god forbid I will have to use it. That being said, I want to have the most rounds that I can. Not very many people or bad guys carry extra mags. I do and my glock 26 has 12+1 and an extra 12 round mag (+ 2 pinky extensions). 25 rounds as opposed to 6 to 10 rounds normally carried by most 40 and 45 cal. guns. I want to have the advantage. Also, if you have to shoot, the person your shooting at has no idea nor does he care what caliber your shooting at him. Realistically, if he/she gets hit, they are not going to know or care what caliber it is. Their survival depends on their will to live and if the will is strong then the caliber does not matter and they will survive the initial wound. Now I will say the bigger the hole the better but I look at it from a tactical stand point and in a realistic way.

[SadistAssassin]

I don't shoot 9mm anymore but I'll have to agree it is surely enough gun

[HKGuns]

Yes.

[jcsturgeon]

I've never shot anyone, so how would I know about a 9mm's stopping power?

All I know is I have 15 rounds in my Beretta and I wouldn't want to be on the other end of it when it goes off.

[ethan95]

Shot placement is more important, and yes its enough gun if you use it right.

[ttheel]

With the right ammo 9mm is plenty of gun. Alot of the old negative press about 9mm and stopping power came from a time before some of the excellent loads today were available. Many of the best +P loads rival .40 cal performance.

[JC57]

Here's a comparison tool that Winchester has out for different rounds that they manufacture: http://www.winchester.com/SiteCollec...law_bullit.swf

When looking at the 9mm +P Ranger T ammo, it looks like it performs nearly identically to .40 S&W Ranger T.

Based on the penetration and expansion numbers there, I'd say it's "enough".

Though the 45 +P Ranger T beats them all, at least in that comparison tool.

[everragenepa]

A .22 is enough ...shot placement shot placement shot placement. My belief is what ever you are comfortable with. If you cant hit anything with a 380/9mm/.40/.45 what good is it as a carry to you. Carry what you are good with.

[Jim243]

Is the nine fine?

The short answer is NO it is not today. You have to go back in history to understand the reason and what has progressed upto today.

When this question came up in the 1920's or earlier the choices were the 38 special, 9mm Luger and the 45 ACP. Each had their pluses and minuses. Most of the popular guns of that time were the 32 ACP, .380 Kurtz, the 38 Special and 9mm Luger. While the 45 LC was around at that time it was basicaly used in the single action revolvers of the day. The first truly modern double action revolvers (not counting the British) was the 38 Special. Because of workmanship the semi autos of those days were far from being reliable and often had sovepipes and jams. That is why the police of those days used 38 special revolvers with Colt and Smith & Wesson being the choice.

Yes, I know that that is about the time that John Browning came out with his 45 ACP 1911s, but they were expensive (hand fitted) and heavy to carry. Due to miss information most think the FBI used the 1911 but up until the 1980s the standard issue for the FBI was the 38 Special. In the 1950's S&W developed the 357 Mag and it slowly became the weapon of choice for police departments over the years, but it too is a heavy weapon and harder to control recoil. During this time span the major 9mm weapon was the Luger, but if you ever own a Luger, you would not use it to defend your life, they are unreliable and jam quite often as well as only having 7 or 8 rounds of ammo. So out comes the Browning High Power and it is an istant hit in Europe, Yes that's were they were made. 13 rounds of 9mm in a light weight pistol that was reliable to carry and shoot. I don't believe that Colt ever made any except a few 1911's in 9mm and S&W did not jump on the band wagon of 9mm's until the 1980's. So if you wanted a 9mm you had to buy one made oversea's or just get a 1911. Me I went with the Browning High Power, an excelent and reliable gun made by FN. (more expensive in those days). But I had a S&W model 19 - 3 1/2 inch 357 mag that I used all the time.

Well here we are today, and the question comes up all the time. The answer is the heavier the bullet the better (bigger bullets make bigger holes). So your best defence would be the 50 Action Express in a handgun caliber, but no one wants to carry a gun that heavy and big. So it is a comprimise, do I want 18 to 20 rounds in 9mm (lightweight bullet) or 6 to 7 rounds in a 357 mag revolver (more punch) or 14 rounds or 40 S&W in a gun not much larger than a 9mm or 8 to 15 rounds of 45 ACP in a bigger heavier gun like a 1911 or XDm or FNP-45.

So what will your comprimise be? Mine was 14 rounds of 135 grain Nosler 40 S&W that gives me 9mm speed and a almost a 45 ACP punch.

Good Luck on your choice.
Jim

[HorseSoldier]

Likewise, what do all gang bangers clamor for here? It is not the 9mm.

So I'm supposed to take cues on what works and doesn't work from inner city gangstas who have zero firearms training and whose preferred method of engagement is to turn a pistol sideways and dump a magazine in the general direction of bad guys?

[p99guy]

"In the 1950's S&W developed the 357 Mag and it slowly became the weapon of choice for police departments over the years, but it too is a heavy weapon and harder to control recoil. During this time span the major 9mm weapon was the Luger, but if you ever own a Luger, you would not use it to defend your life, they are unreliable and jam quite often as well as only having 7 or 8 rounds of ammo. So out comes the Browning High Power and it is an istant hit in Europe, "-Jim243

the .357 came out around 1935....the Browning Hi power is also called the M1935 for a reason( to commemerate when the germans attacked pearl harbor obviosly ) and was used until the phaser came out in the 1960's

Damn I love alternate history lol.

yes 9mm with good ammo is a decent service handgun.