Suppressors Why 9mm?

[GM2]

Re: Why 9mm?

ok Im drunk and didnt feel like reading everything, but here is my 2 cents on the issue. I have seen what a 9mm does, not impressed. I have seen what a 45 does. I like it. With ball ammo its hard to beat a .45 ACP round.

 

[Mo_Zam_Beek]

Re: Why 9mm?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300WSM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so I guess all that data he collected is just bs! lol

You can twist it however you want but any hand gun isn't 100% 1 shot stop. And 9 357sig 40 and 45 are all so close in what they do.

More bullets! More speed/control! Give me a 9 or a heavy 40sw hi cap. </div></div>
'
300 - not for nuthin, but data from M&S ain't current thinking. Might wanna start with a fella that goes by DocGKR on the net and follow him around on his data points and then use that as a jump off for what interests you.

Also - not to argue with your choices but you are naming two calibers that are at near opposite ends of the recoil impulse spectrum for common carry guns. 9mm is pretty has mild recoil characteristics but 40 S&W has a very short and sharp impulse. Most shooters actually find a .45 ACP with 230s and its big push impulse more controlable than a 40 S&W on the same platform. Again, not disagreeing with your choices,just noting that.

For the record my EDC is a 1911 in .45 ACP, backups are the Glock 9mm series (all), BHPs and J frames. Over the years I have shot and carried 40's and full house 10mms too, but in the end I don't see the point.


Good luck

 

[Victory]

Re: Why 9mm?

Pepper, if your pistol whipping, you have messed up big time. One might want to rethink their setup and ability to defend oneself with said setup if it gets to that.

If the ability to pistol whip is a deciding factor, hipoints should be high on the list.

 

[sub2.908cm/100m]

Re: Why 9mm?

To answer the original question…

We jammed the 7.62x51 down our NATO allies’ throats in the ‘50s and had just, almost 30 years later, convinced them to adopt the 5.56x45 as a secondary standard rifle round so I guess we finally had to put up or shut up about STANAG and adopt the NATO standard version of the 9mmP in the mid‘80s. Besides, the newest regular issue 1911A1s in inventory were 40 years old, and we had too many .38 Special revolvers about too. We actually needed to standardize…

That’s why we have M9s, M9A1s, M11s, Mk24s, SIG 229 .40s, SOCOM .45s various Glocks and USPs running around for “T&E”…and, oh yea, a whole bunch of those old and useless 1911 pattern .45s too. Thank God we standardized!

Since this thread has already gone all over the place anyway, let me add…

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pepperbelly</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Keep in mind that John Browning also invented the 9mm Hi-Power.</div></div>

WADR, Not really...

FNs Chief Engineer and Designer Dieudonne Joseph Saive began the design work (especially the overall design parameters, caliber selection, and most importantly, the primary feature setting the Grand Puissance apart, the staggered column single feed magazine) for a 1922 French Army RFP for a high capacity, service caliber pistol that would ultimately become the GR/GP/P35/BHP/L9 we all know and love today.

JMB's (Note: appropriate genuflection at mere mention of his name) contribution to the pistol (he didn't arrive in Belgium until 1923 for that particular European trip) was a modification of his 1911 locking mechanism (US Patent applied for 1923/granted 1927-3 months after his 1926 death). He also designed a blowback version for the project too, BTW. The underlug cam design later had to be re-designed by Saive in order for the pistol to work without breaking the cam. The pistol evolved through numerous and very extensive redesign efforts by Saive (both before and after the death of JMB in 1926, RIP), including the major change to an external hammer design as well as the addition of a thumb safety and many other features, before finally going into series production at FN in late 1934, and being adopted by Belgium in 1935, hence P35.

Funny, but the French, who's RFP started the whole thing in 1922, were being typically French throughout the series of trials drawn out over years and actually ordered 1000 P35 pistols for further trials in 1940...Yea, 1940...Just a little bit too late considering what the German's had in store for them in June 1940...

JMB (again, Note: appropriate genuflection) was an absolute god of firearms design, there are so many remarkable pistol, rifle, shotgun and automatic weapon designs of his in use today as to be mind boggling, but give credit where credit is due, and credit for the FN P35 belongs to that Belgian Dieud with the funny name...who, BTW, as FNs Chief Engineer and Designer is also rightly credited with designing the FAL. FN simply took advantage of the FN/Browning partnership and used the Browning name for marketing purposes because JMB designs were the gold standard...And who would buy a Saive High Power anyway?

The most popular service pistol and most popular battle rifle designs of the “Free World”, wow Dieud, or is it Dude?

 

[Cartman]

Re: Why 9mm?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300WSM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so I guess all that data he collected is just bs! lol
</div></div>

Yes, that is exactly right. Glad you've got that now. Most people wouldn't take the time to understand statistics -- hence the saying there's lies, damn, lies, and then there's statistics. Nope, most people would keep clinging to what they want to hear without researching the other side to understand years of criticism by professionals in the ballistics field -- and statistics. Good for you.

And I still didn't see anything posted about shot placement -- "they were all torso shots" or something like that doesn't tell me much. If, for example, 100% of one were shots to the heart, I'm predicting some pretty impressive results, if 20% of shots by another were to the intestines, I'm betting the results won't be impressive. Understand? Without that info you aren't learning much about a round's inherent "stopping power", only that guys who hit the vitals are going to put a bad guy down quicker than those who don't. Assuming a standard distribution among all is making too great of an assumption, especially given sample size.

 

[300WSM]

Re: Why 9mm?

uhh can you explain the data being bs to me like I'm a 6yr old? please i'm just dying to hear this.

 

[ArcticLight]

Re: Why 9mm?

Is this the great 45 v 9mm argument then?

I have both and believe in shot placement - but as someone put it - you can make a 9mm hole bigger but you can never make a 45 hole smaller.

But 9mm has it's place - just not with ball ammo, IMHO...I carry 147 gr Fed Hydrashocks...and in the 45 230 gr Fed Hydrashocks...


Now curious - the CZ-75 - sure looks like a browning Hi-power - anyone know if the designs are related? Both are fine weapons.

 

[Downzero]

Re: Why 9mm?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ArcticLight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
But 9mm has it's place - just not with ball ammo, IMHO...I carry 147 gr Fed Hydrashocks...and in the 45 230 gr Fed Hydrashocks...
</div></div>

Hydrashocks are a very old bullet design. If we're going to debate calibers, we might be better off shifting the discussion to bullets instead...since they're the only part of any round that actually hits the target.

You'd be better off upgrading to a much better, newer design bullet than switching calibers. Federal even has one if you don't want to switch brands.

 

[Cartman]

Re: Why 9mm?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300WSM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">uhh can you explain the data being bs to me like I'm a 6yr old? please i'm just dying to hear this. </div></div>

LOL! Sure, here goes: Son, the numbers just don't add up.

Here's more in depth and some simple math that even some 6 year olds can grasp:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm

And some more (I highly recommend you read this):
http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm

And more:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs24.htm#Too Good To Be True

And more:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/streetstoppers.htm

And more:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume4/number2/article421.htm

If you don't want to do the work and become educated and understand this stuff I'm not going to do it for you.

If, on the other hand, you read this stuff, and maybe more, and believe you can outsmart these guys in the fields of statistical analysis and scientific study, I would love to hear how you refute them. Good luck.

 

[300WSM]

Re: Why 9mm?

so EP marshall is a fraud?

 

[Victory]

Re: Why 9mm?

I wouldn't call the guys who thought the world was flat frauds. Better information and technology has changed the landscape to round.

Who knows, maybe it actually is square, and we just don't have the technology or data to prove it at this time.

 

[matt33]

Re: Why 9mm?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ArcticLight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
But 9mm has it's place - just not with ball ammo, IMHO...I carry 147 gr Fed Hydrashocks...and in the 45 230 gr Fed Hydrashocks...
</div></div>

Hydrashocks are a very old bullet design. If we're going to debate calibers, we might be better off shifting the discussion to bullets instead...since they're the only part of any round that actually hits the target.

You'd be better off upgrading to a much better, newer design bullet than switching calibers. Federal even has one if you don't want to switch brands. </div></div>
+1. To be fair, there are lots of 1985 POV's floating around this thread. In 9mm, I carry 124 gr +P Speer Gold Dots on a daily basis. Energy wise, they are on par or even exceed many 45 ACP loads (though muzzle energy alone has little to do with incapacitating a bad guy). In 147 grain 9mm bullets, the Federal HST is king.

 

[Mo_Zam_Beek]

Re: Why 9mm?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so EP marshall is a fraud? </div></div>


That giant suckin sound of time being lost.....

Folks that are serious study ballistics and debriefs b/c they themselves are serious about the defensive use of firearms and training.

M&S provided data that at the time was a step forward. By the standards of today some of that information has proven to be dubious.

If one chooses to cling to M&S's findings that is fine and I doubt you'll find many that will want to waste a lot of time trying to dissuade them. By the same token that person may also find that every once in a while they have some folks that know a little more and that person either suddenly need to go do something else or want to talk about baseball.

The better bet is for everyone to do their own homework and draw their own conclusions based on current reputable source data.

Dogma for dogma's sake never moves the chains down the field.

Good luck

 

[Cartman]

Re: Why 9mm?

I think Victory and Mo Zam Beek put it pretty well. I don't think it ever happens that someone gets it right and absolutely perfect the first time out. There is more current intel out there and more rigorous statistical and scientific standards applied to the questions.

Getting back to the OP's question... I seem to remember many above probably got it right: height of cold war, relationship with NATO very important, etc.

Also, I believe I remember someone pointing out that the military can't use HP bullets, which seemed to get forgotten as the thread degenerated. And certainly the 9 has worked for many groups and individuals. But is it the best for all mission parameters? Have any "elite" units or specialized groups in military and law enforcement switched to a .45, or are at least given an option? Going through all that would be, as others have pointed out, a TIME SUCK, so just read up.

You pay yer moneys and takes yer chances. I live in Kali so high-cap is not a consideration for me. I like a platform that let's me put what I've got where I need to and be the most effective when it gets there, as easily as possible. Lord knows I won't want something that makes that job harder if that moment ever comes. And I rather not worry about whether a leather jacket or ??? will keep a high-tech HP bullet from expanding. YMMV and I have no doubt that there are many platforms and chamberings that will satisfy others' individual needs.

 

[pepperbelly]

Re: Why 9mm?

Cartman those links are some very interesting reading. Thank you for them. I usually have doubts about anything someone says is an absolute.

Victory I didn't think the pistol whipping choice through completely. I think I would actually prefer a desert eagle for close-in whup-ass.

Jim

 

[matchking]

Re: Why 9mm?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: GM2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> With ball ammo its hard to beat a .45 ACP round. </div></div>Well said gentleman. If ball ammo is to be used, the 9mm lacks tremendously. There are many folks out there that have used issue 9mm ammo that would tend to agree with these statements.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ArcticLight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But 9mm has it's place - just not with ball ammo, </div></div>

 

[Turk]

Re: Why 9mm?

Who uses ball ammo other than the Military?

 

[matchking]

Re: Why 9mm?

No one.

 

[Turk]

Re: Why 9mm?

So why does the ball ammo arguement constantly raise it's head? Seems like for nonmilitary it has no validity?

 

[matchking]

Re: Why 9mm?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: joe90</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So I was wondering why the military has been using 9mm sidearms? </div></div>

 

[Falar]

Re: Why 9mm?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: matchking</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: joe90</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So I was wondering why the military has been using 9mm sidearms? </div></div> </div></div>

Getting back on subject is a good idea. Standardizing to the standard NATO pistol caliber had to have been far and away the #1 reason.

 

[ArcticLight]

Re: Why 9mm?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: joe90</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So I was wondering why the military has been using 9mm sidearms? Is there something that the 9mm has over other bigger calibers?

Thanks

Joe </div></div>

For the exact same reason, whatever it is, that they went to 223

 

[TacticalSasquach]

Re: Why 9mm?

I got an idea,

to put the 9mm vs .45 argument to rest carry a desert eagle in .50GI and hit your target.

and it is mighty handy to pistol whip bad guys too.

 

[Mo_Zam_Beek]

Re: Why 9mm?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who uses ball ammo other than the Military? </div></div>

I would feel 100% confident in standard pressure 230 grn ball ammo if that is all I had, that said I usually have a couple hundred standard pressure 230 Gold Dots around.


Good luck

 

[Downzero]

Re: Why 9mm?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ArcticLight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: joe90</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So I was wondering why the military has been using 9mm sidearms? Is there something that the 9mm has over other bigger calibers?

Thanks

Joe </div></div>

For the exact same reason, whatever it is, that they went to 223

</div></div>

Military doesn't use .223. .223 didn't even exist when they switched to 5.56x45

 

[Fallen]

Re: Why 9mm?

To me there's no better side arm than say the Glock30sf.

45acp / 10rounds or 11 if chambered / Subcompact

...what more could you ask for in a side arm?

 

[sub2.908cm/100m]

Re: Why 9mm?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ArcticLight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: joe90</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So I was wondering why the military has been using 9mm sidearms? Is there something that the 9mm has over other bigger calibers?

Thanks

Joe </div></div>

For the exact same reason, whatever it is, that they went to 223

</div></div>
Since this thread has already gone all over the map anyway…

The original question “why the military has been using 9mm sidearms?” assumes, by the discussion that follows, the US Military. IMHO, it boils down to the political and yes, practical “need” to conform to NATO STANAG 4090. I only mention this again so I can add the following:

There are underlying reasons, or if you prefer, excuses for adopting 9mmNATO Ball over the previously issued .45acp Ball. They include, in no particular order, but are not limited to: Nominally equal “lethality” on the battlefield (not the capability to stop mind you, just produce wounds sufficiently incapacitating to take the enemy out of the fight...eventually. Military planner’s view of things has always been at odds with the view of the GI actually implementing the policy

); lighter per round weight and as originally intended, lighter pistol weight, with all that entails for the individual GI (only in so far as that then allows them to weigh you down with something else…that probably weighs more…and you probably don’t need

), the military logistics train and even strategic materials considerations; increased penetration through the light military equipment (LBE) and helmets of the time, as well as what we now know as primitive (fragmentation only) armor; reduced recoil impulse permitting greater accuracy/hit probability; as I mentioned previously, a convoluted and aging inventory; and; well…yadayadayada…

The reason the US Military “went to 223”; IMHO, actually happened the other way around from the 9mmNATO adoption. The underlying reasons for the 9mmNATO adoption were the primary reasons for USG adoption of the .223/5.56mm.

Since the early ‘50s, factions within the US Military (contrary to the dictates of the established Bureau of Ordnance) wanted the nominally equal “lethality”; lighter per round weight and as originally intended, lighter rifle weight; reduced recoil impulse permitting greater accuracy/hit probability (sound familiar?) at shorter perceived combat distances as well as, OMG, automatic fire capability (cause that sure wasn’t happening with the 7.62NATO in a rifle

); “modernization” for the sake of modernization…yadayadaya. These issues/ideas/reasons and many more were at the heart of the “Small Caliber/High Velocity Concept” which involved aspects of the Hall Study and Hitchman Report of 1952, as well as other projects such as SALVO which ultimately resulted in our beloved/hated .223/5.56mm.

Here’s why IMHO, it actually happened the other way around; Unlike our 1985 adoption of the 9mmNATO (M882) to conform to the existing NATO STANAG 4090, we’re the ones who pushed NATO to adopt the 5.56mm (approved originally as “Secondary Standard” in 1980) because we had already adopted the .223/5.56mm ourselves for all the SC/HVC reasons, and many more, including, unfortunately, internal US Military as well as civilian politics. And our major NATO allies had been, since the ‘70s, seriously toying with all kinds of alternatives (4.85, 4.7, etc.) to the Standard 7.62NATO, the same 7.62NATO, as the US 7.62x51 T65E3, we had previously forced on them in 1954…and then, without so much as a by your leave, we abandoned ourselves in the ‘60s for the .223/5.56mm.

FWIW, that's my take on it anyway

 

[sub2.908cm/100m]

Re: Why 9mm?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ArcticLight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: joe90</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So I was wondering why the military has been using 9mm sidearms? Is there something that the 9mm has over other bigger calibers?

Thanks

Joe </div></div>

For the exact same reason, whatever it is, that they went to 223

</div></div>

Military doesn't use .223. .223 didn't even exist when they switched to 5.56x45 </div></div>
Sure, the US Military now utilizes the “5.56x45” in the form of M855 (and other Ms) and previously the the US Military utilized the M193 (and still other Ms), but previous to that, the US Military utilized the .223 Remington in the M16 series predecessor, the military AR-15.

The US Military took delivery of thousands of AR-15s in .223 Remington before the 5.56mm was adopted on September 27, 1963. And that 1963 adoption was only on paper, it still took years of development, and lives lost to finally get the original Cartridge, 5.56mm Ball M193 right.

ArchLight is right, well at least about the “went to 223” part

.

The chronology: The .223 Remington (1959 actual production) existed before the 5.56mm (1963 adopted on paper).

The .223 Remington is the parent cartridge of the US “Cartridge, 5.56mm Ball M193”.

The .223 Remington not only evolved from, but was the same as, the .222 Special (1957) which itself evolved from the commercial .222 Remington (1950).

Granted, the .223 Remington, as a completely developed commercial cartridge wasn’t released to the civilian market until 1964, but by that time boatloads of rounds, designated by Remington themselves (as well as the USG) as the “.223 Remington” had been sent downrange through US Military AR-15s, receiver marked "Property of US Govt. Cal .223".

Not just opinion, published documentation is readily available, even in bits and pieces on the errornet.

 

[marduk185]

Re: Why 9mm?

why did we switch from m14 to m16?

 

[sub2.908cm/100m]

Re: Why 9mm?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: marduk185</div><div class="ubbcode-body">why did we switch from m14 to m16? </div></div>
See the lure in the water, just don't feel like biting.

If we'd adopted the original FAL in 7.92x33 or .280 for that matter instead of the M14 in 7.62x51 in the '50s, would we have felt the need to adopt the M16 in 5.56x45 in the '60s?

 

[LSUbeatUby40]

Re: Why 9mm?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LongShot94</div><div class="ubbcode-body">with a .9 you can have 20 rounds in a mag, with .45 you can have 8 or 9. </div></div>

A full sized USP holds 12 + 1..

 

[Cartman]

Re: Why 9mm?

Ball ammo kept coming up because the OP was asking about military ammo -- ball only -- as others have noted.

 

[mp45acp]

Re: Why 9mm?

NATO not really that important, but...

CHEAP very important, millions of round purchased per year.

EFFECTIVE ENOUGH, no one shoots once, then waits for results.

there ya go.

 

[pepperbelly]

Re: Why 9mm?

I think I understand now. The extra ammo capacity in a 9mm is to compensate for the lack of stopping power.
You have to shoot them twice with a 9mm, but only once with a .45acp.
Hell, I was told once that if a .45acp hits in an arm the target is down!

:>)

I kid,

Jim

 

[matchking]

Re: Why 9mm?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pepperbelly</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> You have to shoot them twice with a 9mm, but only once with a .45acp. </div></div>
While that may be true, some textbook info will tell you that a target hit twice (in short time) has a 400% higher lethality rate than one with a single hit. So while the .45 is far superior IMHO, still send two if eliminating threats.

 

[pepperbelly]

Re: Why 9mm?

Matchking I was taught "2 to the body and 1 to the head always leaves the target dead".
When I carried a 1911 on duty I did also carry 4 extra mags. The city I was a cop in had a biker gang and meth labs everywhere. There was usually only 3 of us on duty, and there were times it got real lonely.
It's just a personal thing with me. I don't like light, small diameter fast bullets. I like big heavy fast bullets but will settle for big and heavy. Someday I will probably build a .45 Super- just because.
I also love the way a 1911 feels in my hand. The double stack mag pistols feel like I am wrapping my hand around a pipe.
I like .45acp and some like 9mm. That's why they make both. The .40S&W is good too.
Now, I can't figure out why they made the .45GAP. If .45acp is too much for you get a .40 or a 9mm.
This debate will never die as long as both calibers are still around, although while I hear now and then that the FBI HRT is going with a 1911 .45acp, and LAPD Swat is too, and some SF units too, I don't hear many saying no, give me a 9mm instead. I know some units do use them, but I wonder if it's because they feel the round is superior or because it carries more ammo. I know some local cops who carry a 9mm for that reason.

Lets put this behind us and debate something worthwhile- Coke or Pepsi?

Jim

 

[sub2.908cm/100m]

Re: Why 9mm?

PEPSI

 

[nock]

Re: Why 9mm?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: joe90</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So I was wondering why the military has been using 9mm sidearms? Is there something that the 9mm has over other bigger calibers?

Thanks

Joe </div></div>

Mostly because of NATO. Also the 9mm is very controlable over the 45. That is why I pick the 45 over the 9mm everytime but at work I must use the 9mm, fucking rules.

 

[Spazz.]

Re: Why 9mm?

 

[joe90]

Re: Why 9mm?

Thanks for all the replys guys. I've been following it along and realize its really all preference just like everything else. I'm just really stuck between a DW 1911, Sig 220, Sig 226, and the HK 45... It's such a hard decision but I think I'm going to go with the 1911 for my first semi auto pistol and maybe a Sig for the next one. Thanks for all the info guys.

joe

 

[deadly0311]

Re: Why 9mm?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: matt33</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gilgamesh</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Cavitation effects are at rifle velocities. Pistol calibers probably rely on wound channel size (bleeding) and momentum (mass x velocity). I remember seeing some FBI data about 6 years ago in a class. The numbers listed on your link seem high. I recall being impressed at how low first shot effectiveness was in general with any caliber. I remember 223 at 99% and 308 at 98%. 9mm was in the upper 70s to upper 80s --higher end with +P loads. 124 gr 9mm was particularly poor. 45acp was in the mid 80s to mid90s--higher end with +P loads. 357 caliber was lower, I can't remember the numbers, but I can remember the instructor speculating that it might be related to overpenetration in a human. Also frangible +p 9mm did well if barrier/penetration issue were not involved. This is all from memory mind you.

I use 45 acp.
</div></div>



So why not 9mm? I guess because it lacks mass, therefore may be deflected more and produces a smaller wound channel. But really the following picture (from the motivational picture thread) sums it up nicely:

</div></div>
Don't forget that 9mm is also for Navy SEALS and we all know what a bunch of pansies they are... </div></div>


Lets not forget that the seals dont use 9mm they use 45s and 40s. The only 9mm that they have is their mp5s and those rarely get used

 

[drooopy]

Re: Why 9mm?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LongShot94</div><div class="ubbcode-body">with a .9 you can have 20 rounds in a mag, with .45 you can have 8 or 9. </div></div>

So those 13 rounds in my XD really dont fit? Just saying.

NATO is the big reason for the 9. Plus price and availability.

 

[marduk185]

Re: Why 9mm?

i dont know droopy but im still trying to figure out how to get even one 308 round into my bipod, cuz thers a thred on here that recommends bipod loading.

 

[dmg308]

Re: Why 9mm?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: deadly0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: matt33</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gilgamesh</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Cavitation effects are at rifle velocities. Pistol calibers probably rely on wound channel size (bleeding) and momentum (mass x velocity). I remember seeing some FBI data about 6 years ago in a class. The numbers listed on your link seem high. I recall being impressed at how low first shot effectiveness was in general with any caliber. I remember 223 at 99% and 308 at 98%. 9mm was in the upper 70s to upper 80s --higher end with +P loads. 124 gr 9mm was particularly poor. 45acp was in the mid 80s to mid90s--higher end with +P loads. 357 caliber was lower, I can't remember the numbers, but I can remember the instructor speculating that it might be related to overpenetration in a human. Also frangible +p 9mm did well if barrier/penetration issue were not involved. This is all from memory mind you.

I use 45 acp.
</div></div>



So why not 9mm? I guess because it lacks mass, therefore may be deflected more and produces a smaller wound channel. But really the following picture (from the motivational picture thread) sums it up nicely:

</div></div>
Don't forget that 9mm is also for Navy SEALS and we all know what a bunch of pansies they are... </div></div>


Lets not forget that the seals dont use 9mm they use 45s and 40s. The only 9mm that they have is their mp5s and those rarely get used </div></div>

Realy??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_P226

http://www.sigsauer.com/Products/ShowCatalogProductDetails.aspx?categoryid=7&productid=191

http://www.navyseals.com/m11

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Why 9mm?

I used to have the choice of a 1911 with 7 rounds in the mag and a 92FS with 17 rounds in the mag. While I agree the .45ACP has an advantage (it's just plain silly to have to shoot someone more than once...), I figure one can service a lot more customers with 17 rounds than 7, especially with good shot placement.

Greg

 

[medicjim]

Re: Why 9mm?

If someone was really curious or wanted to make sure they were correct

....they might volunteer half the time they spend on the net for a year....say in an inner city hospital. First hand observation beats the crap out of just about any other source I've heard cited on this discussion.

I've opted for a G19, 9mmP probably is less lethal than 40 or 45 ACP, but not by much...hitting, and hitting well is far, far more important. I can afford to practice more with the 9

 

[Megacab]

Re: Why 9mm?

 

[JohnInNH]

Re: Why 9mm?

I love my DW 1911 Patriot. In SS. It shoots much more accurately than my Sig p-226 I have yet to shoot a 9mm that is as accurate as my 45.

My DW is the 2nd firearm I wish I had purchased 2 of. My FNSPR gen 1, and the DW both shoot as well as guns 2x the $. They are top quality.

DW did me good an paid to have the pistol picked up and sent back to me FREE to have the front sight changed because I prefer a tight 6:00 hold. I hated having my rear sight up so far. So I have a short front sight now thanks to them.

They did to all for free AND sent me a free magazine and laser inscribed my serial number on the base of the mags for me WOW.

IT shoots and shoots. and is still VERY ACCURATE 50% smaller groups than most 9mm pistols. I would NOT attempt a head shot with the 9mm pistols I have shot .. but I am confident I could easily with my DW.

I carry both.. I do not have a silencer for a 45 yet. So I carry the 9 to the range and shoot it with the can, so I find I do carry the 9 mm more ... but my choice is my DW 1911.

 

[slapshot.308]

Re: Why 9mm?

Shut up, SHUT UP , <span style="font-weight: bold"> SHUT UP ALREADY!!! </span>

 

[Downzero]

Re: Why 9mm?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dmg308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Realy??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_P226

http://www.sigsauer.com/Products/ShowCatalogProductDetails.aspx?categoryid=7&productid=191

http://www.navyseals.com/m11 </div></div>

So which do the SEALs carry? The P228 (now discontinued) or the P226 Navy?

Methinks the P226 Navy is nothing but marketing hype. I have never seen even a shred of evidence that our military has even one P226 Navy in service.