9mm Hatred.....?

[StormTrooper]

I may be less educated here than others in the ballistics, but why does the 9mm seem to get such a bad rap by so many? I have seen the "bigger is better", but really is 9mm not a widely used and proven effective cal?
I would think a 9mm round well designed and with good expansion should be sufficient as a defense round. What's the deal? Please clue me in.

[Topthis]

There is no deal, it is a matter of preference. If you start another thread asking "which is deadlier 9mm or .45", "which is a better round for protection 9mm or .45" etc., sit back and watch the fireworks, usually by the same people...what it comes down to is preference. By the way, I prefer 9mm....and .45....and .40. I am currently in a secret hideaway working on a gun that will simultaneously fire all 3 calibers at the same time and that will re-load the spent casings as they eject.

[gb_in_ga]

Personally, I don't have any real bias for or against the 9x19. Properly loaded with well designed ammo, it is an effective SD caliber as you point out. I would not feel inadequately armed with a handgun chambered for that round. Unless, of course, we are talking about field carry, where I don't really feel that it is sufficient for defense against dangerous 4 legged varmits, and I don't feel that it is a very good hunting cartridge. But with only a few exceptions, all autoloader cartridges suffer in those departments.

[Doug.38PR]

I don't think it's a bad round. I use a .38 special myself. Bigshots to like to play up the more powerful .45 caliber, 357 and .44 magnums like to do it by belittling the 9mm and .38 special.
Both 9mm and .38 are effective rounds for defense, less power but also less recoil and better control. There are tradeoffs.
If you pointed either of the two at any of these .45 or .357 fans with intent to kill, I promise you they would not be laughing at your 9mm and they would very likely be killed if you shot them.

[StormTrooper]

Ok,

topthis...No not at all, I have read some of those posts and they seem to go nowhere fast. I really was asking because so many seem to have a gripe on the 9mm, where as "and you said preference", I do prefer the action, cost and dare I say reliability of the 9mm and think in a defense situation would be as effective as anyone elses choice by comparison. The right round for the intended use, skill and target zone I think would be what really makes the difference.

I dont really hunt so the four legged animals are not really a consideration, and i hope to never have to fire on an animal with 2 legs.

[BillCA]

Alright class... it's history time.

The 9mm Parabellum or 9mm Luger cartridge, as conceived for combat duty, fired a metal cased projectile (FMJ) weighing between 115 grains and 124 grains. The Germans embraced it during WW-II not only in handguns but in "Machine Pistols", like the MP-40, as well. Today the 9mm is used by the US military, mostly carrying FMJ ammo.

The original "bad" reputation for the 9mm came from WW-II and Korea, where FMJ ammo was used. People hit with a 9mm FMJ would be hurt, but not necessarily put out of action. Plus the high velocity sometimes caused a man behind the target to get wounded after the round passed through. When compared to field observations of men hit with FMJ from a .45 ACP the .45 was much more reliable at stopping someone.

This is no big surprise as the .45 ACP was designed in light of lessons learned during the Philippine Insurrection where Moros could take multiple hits from the Colt Army .38 revolver and keep coming, but officers using the .45 Colt dispatched most opponents with a single shot.

During the early 70's when police started moving from wheelguns to pistols, many used inadequate 9mm JHP or JSP ammo. Some notorious FTS (failure to stop) incidents occurred because the ammo failed to expand or otherwise cause enough injury (i.e. trauma) to stop the aggressor. In fact, someone recently posted about someone absorbing 20 9mm hits and surviving.

Today's modern JHP ammo is a whole world better. More reliable feeding, more reliable expansion and better accuracy. When these rounds work, they work very well. If we compared FMJ ammo in calibers from .38/357 up to .45 we'd see similar results for the 9mm and .38 calibers and, I think, improving results up to the .45.

Big-Bore supporters will point out that the calibers starting with a "4" don't need to expand. While this may be an oversimplification, the larger projectiles do tend to be more effective, even if it's a case of the larger diameter having more chance to hit something important.

Personally, I wouldn't feel "undergunned" if I was CCW with a 9mm loaded with modern JHP ammo -- such as Gold Dots, Golden Sabers, HydraShoks or even Silvertip ammo. But if I were stuck with FMJ, I'd much rather be carrying my .45 auto.

[USP.40]

I would love to have the 9x19 in a smg. One day I will buy one. I don't feel undergunned when carrying my Kel-Tec 9mm

[Avizpls]

Yaaaawwnnnn. Its been a while since I took into one of these threads, so here goes.

My own philosophy is that it is a totally viable round. It has many good attributes. Its small (seriously, this equates to high cap) its relativly powerful, its plentyful.

BUT-In My Opinion, the 40 and the 45 are superior in power, and the 40 only suffers from slightly lower capacity in a similar firearm. For the record, and for my percieved threats, I chose .45ACP (as of recently over 40)

[DAVID NANCARROW]

For my personal use, the 9mm is the floor for acceptable power in a pistol on anything larger than a very small dog.
I prefer the larger calibers, but a lot of what you hear about being able to to this and that is more related to the platform than the caliber.
The point being, no matter what you choose-practice lots and it will be effective in YOUR hands. Get to know what shoots best in your choice.

[VaughnT]

Here's my take:

When I started working here in '99, I was issued a S&W 686-5. This is one fantastic .357 revovler, exhibiting excellent balance, a smooth trigger, and good sights. Overall, I couldn't think of anything more I would want in a wheelgun, except for a tritium front sight.

What I soon found out was that I could fire six rounds of .38spl out of this weapon a whole lot faster than I could the more powerful .357mag. After considerable practice, I was able to execute the draw and punch six holes in the -0 center of an IDPA target in well under five seconds. That's not as fast as Miculek, but it ain't bad, either.

Of course, I switched to my Yost 1* 1991 just as soon as I could. It offered me the greater capacity and faster reloads that I felt was a definite downer for the revolver. My speed didn't get any faster with this platform, but I felt more comfortable with it because of the aforementioned pluses.

Then, as time passed, I got to thinking more and more about what makes a great shooter truly great. Never once did the caliber make the difference.

As I took a training class or two, and read countless books on the subject, I came to the conclusion that training, and the ability to put your rounds where you want them, is what makes a great shooter stand out from the rest. Those people that fixate on the size of the bullet, or one platform over another, are generally the more poorly trained of the pistol owners.

At this time, I have switched to carrying a stock CZ 75B in 9mm. With three spare mags on the duty belt, I have 65 rounds of 124g Gold Dots +P ready to go. Do I need that many rounds? Probably not. They are there simply because that's how many mags it took to get spare mags on both sides of the body where they can be utilized regardless of the position I find myself in when any shooting occurs. Again, it's the training that brings these things to light.

Don't like the 9mm? Fine. Be great with your .40 or .45acp or whatever. When your time comes, be ready to perform.

[Rob P.]

Most don't "feel undergunned" when carrying a 9mm. A lot of other people prefer .45's because of the stopping power. Some feel that 9mm is too light and the .45 overkill.

It's just hokey semantics.

.45 cal is bigger and will put your opponent down with enough hits (one MAY do it, may not). 9mm is faster and will put your opponent down with enough hits and modern ammo. Result, it's a wash in the "stopping power" argument.

Both weapons come in full size and compact size frames. However, the 9mm comes in a compact frame with a double stack magazine. While bulky, it can be concealed and you have a lot of rounds in the event TSHTF. A compact .45 has fewer rounds but is less bulky and easier to hide on your body.

So, it's a tradeoff. Fewer rounds but easier concealment vs. more shots but harder to hide.

Other than that, both are adequate for the task they were designed for.

[Mike Irwin]

There seems to be a lot of the various kinds of animosity towards the 9mm, such as...

It's a FOREIGN round!

If it ain't a .45, it ain't crap!

Why, you couldn't hurt a fly with something that small!

What are you, some kind of pansy? REAL men carry .45s!

And so forth and so on.

[VaughnT]

True, Mike, but look at the source.

If the only negative thing they can think to say about the 9mm is that it's a foreign cartridge, big whoop. I don't care where it comes from as long as it doesn't end up in me!

The only round that I've heard medical-based negatives on was the .40 S&W. David DiFabio mentioned in passing on another forum that there wasn't any noticeable difference in the wounds caused by the 9mm and the forty. Why, he asked, give up the two rounds of capacity to move up to a bullet that is only one milimeter larger and doesn't show a terminal effectiveness significantly different than the 9mm?

That comment, and the fact that 115g 9mm JHP is sooooo cheap, really sold me on this chambering. And, of course, you can't find anything bad in the CZ line.

[Mike Irwin]

The only negative thing I can say about the 9mm is that ammo is now so cheap that I shoot my 9s more than I shoot anything else.

Of course, that means more trips to the range, more range fees, more trips to the store to pick up 9mm ammo...

GOD I HATE THE 9MM!

[Jkwas]

Cheap to shoot. Capable round. My whole family can shoot it, even my kids.

[The British Soldier]

Several years ago I was introduced to a round that was being trialled for counter terrorist use, where clearly there is a big over penetration issue when you are shooting at terrorists amongst hostages in a room combat scenario.
It was called High Safety Ammunition.
Developed by a Forensic Pathologist, this stuff was anything but 'safe' for the recipient. The Pathologist was British and had seen his fair share of gunshot wounds and was asked to turn his brain power to a 9mm round that did not over penetrate and would be ideal for close quarters battle (CQB). He did so and his rather large forehead came out with an idea of using 7 steel flechettes within an thin jacket; which was there solely for feeding purposes. When fired the jacket engraved into the rifling and imparted spin; but when it struck the target it was designed to strip off backwards and allow the flechettes to penetrate.
They did so very effectively and would penetrate tissue for a short distance together before yawing away from each other and causing 7 independent wound tracks. If the target wore body armour the effect was the same, because the darts were hard and would go through 44 layers plus of kevlar.
The wound was massively damaging and the pathologist stated that the shock would be instantly incapacitating, the wound would probably kill them instantly and the haemorraghing would have them dead anyway. There was never any exit wounds and the flechettes penetrated, on average, ten inches into the torso.
If it was a head shot it was worst because those flechettes wound richochet around inside the cranium liquifing the brains - assuming the target has any.
We looked very seriously at it but there were dubious justifications under the Geneva Conventions rules.
Nonetheless - it was a great idea and I believe the company brought it across to the US to exploit more; since it could be converted to any calibre.

[stardate]

Having both the 9 mm and the 45 I like them both. Most 45's carry under 10 rounds and most 9's carry 15 or more. If you get good at shooting either one you should be deadly. I have great fun shooting my Glock with its 30 round magazine. Both have a place in my gun safe, and I would feel well armed with either one.

[gddyup]

9mm, .40, or .45..... Whatever round allows you to pplace shots routinely in the CV Triangle is the round that wins. If you can easily handle putting rounds CVT with a .45, then by all means pony up! I like the ease of handling of my XD9 and get more accurate with it every time I hit the range. For me, the 9mm is all I need at this point in my firearms career.

[StormTrooper]

well I personally like the 9mm. I did not mean to start another war between the 9mm advocates and those who prefer the .40, .45 or even mortar rounds, but more so to hear the "legitimate reasons" for it being not so preffered by others. The 9mm for is cost effective, slight enough recoil that I can place a follow up shot on target well enough and the selection of rounds for different intended uses, well it just makes great sense for me, and it seems many more have the same feeling on this round.

Thanks for all the comments.

[stratus]

Well, my take on it is this: ballistics tests with good quality, modern hollowpoints both indicate the ability of both the 9mm and the .45 to create very nasty cavities in ballistic gelatin. I think everybody who has a significant amount of training experience with both cartridges, or even those who have reviewed the available data, should know what the deal is. What matters is the bullet's actual effectiveness in the field, not some fanciful, arbitary opinion about why anything less than a .45 would be ineffective. Whether or not some people downplay the 9mm for it's diameter, simply does not matter. The only reason I have a slight preference for the .45 ACP is because in those same ballistics tests, it does do more damage with comparable types of ammo, i.e. the aforementioned hollowpoints. Slightly bigger cavities, etc. But it's not about that, it's just subjective preference. I like shooting .45s. If not for this subjective preference, I would make the 9mm my cartridge of choice. Consider some other advantages of the 9x19... it will do the job nicely, AND with more rounds per mag. That means more chances to place a wound that would be instantly fatal to an attacker, or to combat multiple attackers without having to reload. When you're talking about hitting the head or the center of the chest, I don't see why the 9mm wouldn't perform! Anyone who says they won't perform just needs to do the research!

[azredhawk44]

I own guns in both calibers, but my home defense gun is the 9mm precisely because I DON'T want the over penetration of the .45 in the tight neighborhood I live in.

That, and I can empty 15 rounds of 9mm into COM as fast as I can with 8 rounds of .45acp.

[stratus]

Originally Posted by azredhawk44

I own guns in both calibers, but my home defense gun is the 9mm precisely because I DON'T want the over penetration of the .45 in the tight neighborhood I live in.

Actually, the 9mm will penetrate at least as much as the .45 ACP due to the higher velocity. Neither cartridge is commonly considered an overpenetrating one.

[The British Soldier]

It's a commonly known fact that if you 'hit' the opponent; you don't have to worry about how far the rounds will go and whether your neighbours will get upset if a bullet hole appears in their fence.
Why not concentrate your thoughts on putting the rounds into the target than missing - that's positive thinking; rather than the negativity splashed all over this thread.

[stratus]

Originally Posted by The British Soldier

It's a commonly known fact that if you 'hit' the opponent; you don't have to worry about how far the rounds will go and whether your neighbours will get upset if a bullet hole appears in their fence.

Well, unless it's a .223 or somesuch

[stratus]

Originally Posted by The British Soldier

Why not concentrate your thoughts on putting the rounds into the target than missing - that's positive thinking; rather than the negativity splashed all over this thread.

Well said.