The 9mm is useless!

[Super-Dave]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Body armor.

[2transams]

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]

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]

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.

[marvin-miller]

Why does everyone complain about the 9mm?

'cause it's a metric bullet :barf:

[NWCP]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Remember, the 9mm was developed in Europe, where the countries are smaller and closer together.

Ok, bad joke.

[jsmaye]

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]

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.