Improved 9mm ammunition

JTQ said:

I agree with the above assessment.

The 9mm is less marginal than before, with the understanding that all pistol rounds, especially semi-auto rounds, are really marginal. I think .40 S&W and .45 Auto are better performers, but for less cost, easier to shoot, more rounds, etc., the 9mm gives a lot more in these other areas while not being that far behind the other rounds.

Click to expand...

This. The .40 and .45 have not been left out of advances in bullet technology.

Why does everyone want to assume that if the FBI chooses it, it MUST be the best choice in terms of effectiveness? Is it just a confirmation for a decision they already made? I really don't care what the FBI does because they have considerations that the average person does not. They need standards for ALL agents to conform to. I have only myself. The fact that there are 90lb female FBI agents on the payroll is not a factor in my decision. The fact that there are FBI agents who are not shooters is also not a factor. The cost of millions of rounds of training ammo that has to fit into their massive budget is, again, not a factor. A $5 difference in the cost of a single firearm is not a factor. There is a whole slew of factors determining the FBI's choice that do not apply to the average citizen. I would no sooner let the FBI decide my chosen sidearm than I would let Congress do my financial planing.

jmr40 said:

With comparable ammo 9mm and 45 ACP have always been a dead tie in performance. And within the last 100 years both have improved dramatically and are still a dead tie with comparable loads.

Click to expand...

Anything regarding hardball is irrelevant, both are dismal and neither is applicable. However, I arbitrarily dismiss any rhetoric that suggests these two bullets will yield the same terminal result.

jmr40 said:

Most people consider 357 mag shooting 125 gr bullets as the gold standard. That load is often quoted as having 1500 fps muzzle velocity. Which it will do with 6" or longer barrels. But when fired from 3-4" barrels commonly seen on most revolvers 1200-1300 fps is what you'll see. On average only beating the best 9mm loads by 50 fps or even less.

Click to expand...

More oft-repeated nonsense. I have chronographed 125's at 1530fps from a 4" barrel and 1480fps from a 3" barrel. Hell, I got 1300fps from the 3" with Unique.

herrwalther said:

A cast bullet will NOT expand. A HST will. Heavy clothing can clog the expansion potential of most hollow point rounds. Which is why the IWBA standard for ballistic testing is 4 layers of denim.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ. They can and often do. Especially when they're specifically designed to expand. This one is merely a softer hard cast SWC.

Kleanbore said:

What the defender needs to do is destroy some very critical internal body parts. Penetration is prerequisite, and hitting those parts is essential.

On cannot ensure the hitting of any of those parts by marksmanship. They are small, they are completely hidden, and they they move in six degrees of freedom. The only way to provide any reasonable assurance of hitting any of them, given enough penetration, is with rapidity of multiple shots.

Click to expand...

Thank you, thank you, thank you for making this statement.

While I do feel shot placement is very important, I feel it is important in the notion that hitting an attacker center mass or in the head should be the goal. All too often on THR I here people parrot the phrase that "Shot placement is king!!!!" Well, that's true, but many of those folks act like they could shoot the wings off a fly at 20 feet.

Hitting vital organs and central nervous system bits and pieces is not that simple with a target that is likely moving rapidly. And since none of us have x-ray vision to see exactly where to aim, "shot placement" should mean nothing more than center mass or head shots IMO.

For people to imply that they are able to make carefully placed shots on a moving attacker is unrealistic and only serves to feed their internet ego.

What about home land and the Border patrol there is a lot of government people that handles hand guns. The government bought a large amount of ammo the last 3 years! I can shoot my 40 as fast as my 9mm and hit as good I still like the 40mm the best. I like the new Berry 40mm new defense round. That is jest me

https://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/guns/case-closed-fbi-says-9mm-is-the-best-pistol-round/

what the fbi said.

murf

I think they should go smaller than 9mm. An 8mm cartridge. It'll provide larger capacity, less recoil, be less wearing on the gun, and be just as accurate but easier to shoot for those who don't get to the range very often. And if widely adopted, it could be cheaper too. It'll only have a little less stopping power, and with the advances in hollow point projectile design, it will barely be a noticeable difference.

Then we can see about a 7mm in another decade or so, when projectile design has advanced some more.

I remember when the .40 S&W was referred to as 'Short and Weak'. Now it's 'Snap and Whip'.

Kleanbore said:

We keep hearing people discussing this in terms of what "the FBI" uses, and occasionally someone chimes in that their ranks include accountants, etc. Then there is the old "millions of rounds of training ammo" comment, usually made in reference to cost..

Click to expand...

Hear hear. I care far more about what the officers I work with carry and fire than the FBI. The other day I met an officer carrying a Sig Nightmare 1911 with wood grips. I believe the only reason the FBI gets as much attention as they do when they pick something is because they have the funds and facilities to do the research. Likewise when some really large or well know department makes a decision. Like the LAPD or Secret Service. With the latest advancements in bullets and powders, the performance gaps between the big 3 are the smallest they have ever been. By and large 9mm is cheaper than other rounds. It is a bean counter's dream come true. Departments save money and the rounds work better than they did in 1980.

There is no such thing as stopping power with standard pistol calibers. Pistols rounds just poke holes. The difference in tissue damage is marginal.

Study the lucky gunner tests.

http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#45ACP

The performance of the best rounds of 9mm, 40, 45, and 357 is basically the same. I will take the one that offers the highest capacity and least recoil. More rounds on target faster offers a significant advantage over a tiny fraction of an inch larger wound channel.

What you hit is far more important. A shot to the brain with a 9mm or 45 will do the same thing (end the threat). A shot to the heart with a 9mm or 45 will do the same thing (end the threat, after he bleeds out).

jmr40 said:

I don't know if it were coincidence or part of a conspiracy to make sure 9mm wasn't popular, but USA 9mm factory loads have always been anemic compared to European loads. In this country until recently a 115 gr bullet at 1100 fps was the standard while the rest of the world was getting 124 gr bullets at 1200-1300 fps.

Most people consider 357 mag shooting 125 gr bullets as the gold standard. That load is often quoted as having 1500 fps muzzle velocity. Which it will do with 6" or longer barrels. But when fired from 3-4" barrels commonly seen on most revolvers 1200-1300 fps is what you'll see. On average only beating the best 9mm loads by 50 fps or even less.

Any way you look at it 9mm, 40 S&W, 45 ACP, and 357 mag, are all pretty darn close in performance. But in similar size guns 357 mag and 45 will always hold fewer rounds, cost the most to shoot and have the most recoil. 9mm will always hold the most rounds, recoil the least, and be the cheapest to shoot. The 40 S&W actually offers the best overall performance by a small margin, but the current thinking is that it isn't enough to offset the negatives.

Click to expand...

Your numbers are way off! If we assume a 4" revolver is equal to a 5" auto (due to the length of the cylinder), a 357 is pushing 125gr at about 1450 FPS while a 9mm it's doing about 1280...

Look at the real gun results or compare equal length test barrels (about a 250 fps difference with the same bullet weight and brand in the test barrels):

9mm: http://ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html
357: http://ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html

BTW, to propose all USA ammo brands may have a conspiracy to keep 9mm underpowered to deface it is a weird proposal since it's their best seller...

Overkill870 said:

There is no such thing as stopping power with standard pistol calibers. Pistols rounds just poke holes. The difference in tissue damage is marginal.

Study the lucky gunner tests.

http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#45ACP

The performance of the best rounds of 9mm, 40, 45, and 357 is basically the same.

Click to expand...

I linked those tests and cited data from them:
HST - heavy for caliber
9mm 147 gr. +P 19.2'' / .60
45 acp 230 gr. 14'' / .85 (+29% larger diameter)

Gold Dot - light for caliber
9mm 115 gr. 16.4'' / .55
45 acp 185 gr. 14.1'' / .72 (+24% larger diameter)

I do not consider a smaller projectile only about 3/4 size to be basically the same as the larger one.
I shot these into water filled jugs, diameter is near the same as lucky gunner test .6x vs .8x
9mm on a dime, 45 on a quarter - doesn't look the same to me.

I'm a "lay person"
I'm confident that as the hole increases in size so does the potential of incapacitating quicker.
Most people would agree that a 45 acp at .85 expanded diameter placed center mass likely more effective than a 22lr solid in the same spot.
People argue that 9mm/40/45 "all perform about the same" then proceed to try and get smaller bullets to expand to larger diameters.
If limited to FMJ, most people would want 45 FMJ not 9mm FMJ - cause diameter.
I don't think the benefit of bullet expansion stops at .60 diameter. (expanded 9mm)

It is obvious to me that people read this as, the 9mm is "just as good as anything else" and stop there, after hearing what they 'want' to hear, without following it to its logical conclusion. For if the 9mm is just as good, why not the .380? Why not the .32ACP? Why not a .22LR? The difference either matters or it doesn't. If it does, it matters universally. If it does not, then it does not matter universally. At which point, we should all consider ourselves just as properly armed with a .32ACP as a .50GI. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you accept that the 9mm has an advantage over the .32ACP, then you have to accept that every other incremental change in caliber is meaningful.

It's comical because in the handgun hunting world, where we are actually putting handgun bullets to live flesh, this argument would go nowhere. Because we all know that bigger is more effective. How much more is debatable and with the numerous variables, it will probably never be settled. However, there are folks who argue that the miniscule difference between the .44Mag and .45Colt makes a measurable difference on game. Forget about comparing the .357 to a .45. We have a group of folks about to descent upon south Texas to chase 1200-2000lb bovines. even some folks in the medical profession, who deal with bullet holes every day. Do you think there will be a .357 in the crowd? No and for good reason. In this context a .41 or .44 would be considered "small". Sorry but this nonsense just does not withstand scrutiny and I have to question the validity of any "study" that suggests "they're all the same".

Overkill870 said:

There is no such thing as stopping power with standard pistol calibers. Pistols rounds just poke holes. The difference in tissue damage is marginal.

Study the lucky gunner tests.

http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#45ACP

The performance of the best rounds of 9mm, 40, 45, and 357 is basically the same. I will take the one that offers the highest capacity and least recoil. More rounds on target faster offers a significant advantage over a tiny fraction of an inch larger wound channel.

What you hit is far more important. A shot to the brain with a 9mm or 45 will do the same thing (end the threat). A shot to the heart with a 9mm or 45 will do the same thing (end the threat, after he bleeds out).

Click to expand...

This is nothing more than wishful thinking by people who don't know any better. Or those seeking justification for choosing an extremely popular cartridge that has historically stood in the shadow of another.

I don't know what the link is supposed to prove. Comparing multiple hits between cartridges introduces way too many variables to even be productive. Are we comparing two hits with the .45 to three with the 9mm? Four? What if one is all you get? What if your target does not stand still like the silhouette at the range? This rabbit hole is not even worth going down. This is a veiled argument for capacity, which is already proven bunk. All this boils down to is folks looking for confirmation that their high capacity 9mm is the right choice. I carry a 9mm every day but I do so without the delusions.

Kleanbore said:

I have no idea why a lay person would feel that he or he would have a supportable basis for concluding that the differences in the expanded diameters of handgun bullets would be very meaningful in terms of wounding effectiveness, when most of the published scientific information from people who are cognizant of the mechanics of wounding effectiveness indicates that it is not.

Click to expand...

Then I would seriously question how they reached that conclusion.

While it's always entertaining and diverting to "debate" the merits of a couple hundredths of an inch in potential expanded bullet diameter when it comes to handgun bullets, it usually loses some significance when you start talking about having to teach, train and qual a few hundred (or several thousand) LE shooters to be able to accurately and effectively run a handgun in increasingly demanding conditions and circumstances.

Bullets which miss their intended target are a huge problem. Inaccurately placed shot strings can quickly render a bullet which expands to 1 inch more than a little problematic and less "effective", than a couple bullets which may "only" expand to half an inch, but which actually hit critical tissues, structures and organs.

Same old music and dance steps.

When it comes to a duty/service defensive handgun, carry whatever you're issued, or choose the most "powerful" caliber you're allowed to carry by choice ... and then work hard to learn to consistently run it fast, controllably and effectively.

Not everyone is able to achieve the same "results" when increasing the amount of actual recoil forces acting on the gun, and what's experienced as felt recoil, and some people are always going to be able to shoot better than others, regardless of caliber.

As a LE firearms trainer, one thing I've noticed in recent years is that a growing number of experienced and skilled LE, including firearms instructors, are making the shift from .40/.45 to (or back to) 9mm. The reasons vary from one person to the next, but things like easier controllability, improved accuracy (especially in rapid shot strings) and added magazine capacity are usually somewhere high on their different lists.

When you start to see guys who have previously carried high end 1911's (or Glock's or S&W 3rd gen's or SIG's, etc) for many years, start making the shift to 9's, it becomes more than a coincidence.

It's also more than just being able to rapidly "dump" a magazine into a single target on some static range, too. In training and fast-paced drill scenarios, especially involving movement, being able to recover and transition from one identifiable threat target to another, fractions of a second faster, can start to demonstrate a noticeable benefit.

It's not infrequent to see some shooter pause between shots of slightly heavier recoiling pistols, more often, and also pause between starting to move offline with the threat and toward cover, more often ... than when lighter recoiling 9's are being used.

Some training considerations are more than just having someone "beat the clock" on some timer, meaning "faster splits" on some orchestrated shooting scenario. It's also about the average individual shooter's (student's) confidence when it comes to experiencing a demonstrated ability to more accurately and effectively utilize a pistol chambered in a more controllable caliber, with reduced felt recoil.

Don't mistake my comments as implying I have an aversion to larger calibers or heavier recoiling handgun calibers, as I'm a long time enthusiast not only of .45 ACP, but a proponent and user of .44 Magnum and .357 Magnum revolvers. I've demonstrated I can run pepper poppers using my .44 Magnum revolvers faster than most any of our better shooters can run them using 9's, .40's or .45's. However, I can run them even faster with 9's.

Some caliber enthusiasts used to be fond of saying that a 9mm may expand, but a .45 will never shrink. Well, some of those same folks nowadays seem to quickly denigrate a 9mm JHP that expands to "only" .45-.50 as somehow being "unworthy" of serving as a decent service caliber.

Yes, some of the older 9mm JHP's might have demonstrated the potential for sufficiently deep penetration (115gr STHP/JHP) ... or expansion, while resisting plugging (147gr OSM, just to think of one) ... but those two concerns have mostly been resolved with better JHP designs.

It's all a compromise when it comes to handguns. One way or another.

That's why I also worked so hard to be able to make a "double tap", using an issued 870 shotgun, loaded with either buckshot or slugs, from the "low ready" in .5-.75 seconds, getting a pair of solid A-zone hits on a threat target out to 7yds. Of course, that was back when I had the luxury of having access to an ammo inventory, and I worked with some "competitive" instructors who also liked shotguns.

Kleanbore said:

Pincus speaks of a negligible difference between the wounding capacity of the wounding capacity of the 9mm and the ,40 S&W. The report of th FBI training Difcion of the FBI Academy at Quantico, VA puts it this way: "there is no noticeable difference in the wound tracks between premium line law Auto enforcement projectiles from 9mm Luger through the .45 Auto."

​

Click to expand...

Wound tracking in what? Ballistic gelatine, or flesh and bone? And if in flesh and bone one would assume they are measured after the fact, so are these measurements truly a good gauge on a projectile's effectiveness? Do they measure the extend of the trauma in the tissue surrounding the track, for example? Can wound tracks measure the kinetic energy transfer and what effect that has on human physiology?

If a .45 and 9mm become the same projectile once they enter a body, someone broke physics.

This is not to say I think .40 or .45 is better than a 9mm for the purposes of self defense, only superior shot for shot (assuming hits). But if there's no noticeable difference, why are we not going to a smaller caliber? Really.

Training, cost, 2nd shot time are factors to consider but independent of bullet terminal performance.
If someone is happy with 9mm - shoots it best, has "bet your life" confidence in it great; my wife carries a Berettta PX4 with 147 HST.

I'll continue to carry a Glock 22, 35 or 21 because I think bigger bullets have the potential to incapacitate quicker all else equal.
I'm giving up nothing in 2nd shot time compared to a Glock 19 loaded with +P - I've compared the difference was insignificant .04 sec with a Glock 23

I've bow killed a couple dozen deer, I'm gonna try handgun hunting this year at bow distance (18 yards or less).
Despite the popular notion that "all handgun bullets perform about the same" I'm going with option #2
Glock 19: Federal HST 147 gr +P @ 1,044 fps / 356# KE
Glock 20 SF: Handload 155 gr XTP @ 1,366 fps / 642# KE

I assume someone will try to explain how 9mm is fine for defense against an armed 200# sociopath on meth, but not a broadside 180# deer.

I have little interest in what Rob Pincus has to say. Or anyone else who sends you a video THEN asks you to pay for it and harasses you through the mail for months on end when you do not. Let alone those who suggest that the difference between the 9mm and .45 is irrelevant. This has far-reaching implications that people are obviously not considering.

If folks want to choose the 9mm because it's easier to hit with and they want to depend on multiple hits to perform the same task, then be honest about it. There's no shame in that. No need to convince ourselves or anyone else that the advantages of a larger/heavier bullet do not exist. Like I said, I carry a 9mm more often than anything else but I do so while accepting the disadvantages that DO exist. And no, I don't consider the need to have to shoot a perp multiple times to be an advantage. I don't know how someone is able to convince themselves that it is but they obviously have an agenda.

If those advantages did not exist, we'd be happy hunting with .357's and not trying to get manufacturers to give us a larger meplat on existing .44 through .500 bullets like the Barnes Buster, Grizzly Punch and CEB solids. Here we're talking a difference that may be only 0.08" but it makes a difference and we want every advantage we can get.

Kleanbore said:

No one has asserted as much.

Click to expand...

If the assertion is that there is no difference between the wound channels of any 9mm, .40 or .45 bullet, then that is exactly what they're saying.

Kleanbore said:

Are there premium defensive bullets of a smaller caliber that can perform adequately when fired from a handgun? I haven't heard of any.

Click to expand...

If size doesn't matter then we have a whole plethora of options.

Not different at all. It is all linked. This has broad implications that can't be ignored. You can't compartmentalize the self defense aspect. Shooting a 200lb man and a 200lb deer are very, very similar. Terminal effect and the shooter's ability to control the handgun chambered in a given cartridge are mutually exclusive, that is a given. However, terminal effect on game translates directly to terminal effect on humans. If anything, minute differences are more critical in hunting because we can rely on only getting one shot. That is, of course, unless it conflicts with your chosen narrative.

No single incremental increase of anything, be it velocity, diameter or mass, amounts to any great difference. It simply increases your odds of getting the job done quicker. I cannot fathom how one convinces themselves that increasing diameter by a tenth of an inch and mass by 100% equates to no gain. As I said, 9mm fans with an agenda.

CraigC said:

... I cannot fathom how one convinces themselves that increasing diameter by a tenth of an inch and mass by 100% equates to no gain. ...

Click to expand...

Not many experienced folks in the field arbitrarily state that a tenth of an inch in diameter and doubling bullet mass equates to "no gain". Instead, they usually state that when studying both lab and street results, it doesn't seem to result in an appreciable gain when it comes to comparing the common service pistol calibers.

A good friend of mine who served in the military as a surgeon, and who has been a firearms instructor for private citizens and LE for a respectable number of years (going back to the early 80's, predating my start of being a LE instructor in '90), was long a 1911/.45 shooter and user. He's still a doctor, although he no longer practices, but has been teaching emergency field/trauma & NBC tactile response procedures for the feds and DoD/allies, and helping with active shooter training. His training work puts him in direct contact with agencies, and other medical professionals, who have access to cases and incidents involving gunshot wounding. He's more than a little skeptical, and always defaults to scientific method over hyperbole.

It wasn't until recent years, when he'd been listening to other experts in his fields, that he made the shift from his beloved .45's over to using 9mmP. He still likes to shoot his .45's (and he likes high-end 1911's, and has an early Robar-modified G21 and a couple of M&P 45's), but now he carries 9's. He's mostly parked his G19 (a well-used, early production model, and which I refurbed for him a while back), due to size, but he really likes his G43. Light, discrete, accurate, and the capacity is close enough to his 1911's not to bother him when carried in a CCW role.

I never thought I'd see the day when he changed over to 9mmP, but that just goes to show you can never say never.

Our friend 'rcmodel' gave details about recent improvements in bullet composition and construction. Do a search here, on this site.

Those improvements were applied to bullets in general and not limited to the 9mm.

I continue to be a fan of the .40S&W. The recent shift by the FBI was a compromise, accepting "good enough", rather than better performance.

Kleanbore said:

What trauma? Are you alluding to temporary cavity? Refer to Gunshot Wounds, DiMaio, V.J.M., Elsevier Science Publishing Company, New York, NY, 1987, page 42.

Kinetic energy transfer? What effect? That's pretty much a debunked concept, in handguns, and has been for years.

Click to expand...

My assumption is that as a small metal projectile rips through flesh at high velocity, it creates damage to the tissue surrounding the hole that it leaves. If muscle and organ tissue is stretched in the way we see gelatin stretch as a bullet (particularly an expanded hollow point) passes through it, I can not understand how that would not damage the surrounding tissue, such as nerves, muscle, and capillaries. More damage to capillaries means more bleeding, which is not an immediate stopping factor. But a central nervous system can only take so much input before it shuts down (even if only temporarily). More damage to muscle means immediate reduced motor function.

Whilst "hydro-static shock" may not occur with handgun ammunition, as it is defined, I still cannot see any way the tissue adjacent to the permanent cavity can remain unaffected by the bullet passing through as it does. It only seems reasonable that a larger, heavier, faster projectile (or some combination there of) would cause this to a greater extent. So the question then becomes, how much of a practical effect does this have on human physiology? I doubt there is a clear answer anywhere, but simply because there is not one, does not mean it isn't an important factor.

As to your question of smaller premium defense ammo being available, the .40S&W was designed for the FBI, was it not? So if a 9mm compared to a .40 is close enough, why not design an 8mm? More of all the things that make the 9mm better than the .40, with no "noticeable" difference in performance? If it's easier to shoot, can have a higher capacity, uses less materials, and does pretty much the same thing, it'll get popular fast and then it'll get cheap too.