Improved 9mm ammunition

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...

The number crunchers at IWBA have determined that penetration is the most important feature of bullet performance. Because a person getting shot will more than likely use an arm or shoulder to shield their vital organs from a direct hit, penetration of 12-18" in plain ballistics gelatin is considered "ideal."

Kleanbore said:

I suggest reading Rob Pincus article a little more carefully.

Click to expand...

I like Rob. Have knocked a few beers back with him. He and I get along but I will never attend one of his training classes. Because my favorite handgun is a 40. I don't even own a 9mm full size (I do have a pocket 9mm) at this point, as all the ones I have owned were not as accurate or as fast, for me, as I am with my 40. So he and I agree to disagree. And we didn't talk firearms much.

The difference in terminal performance is marginal between standard service calibers. This is well established fact.

Trauma surgeons can't tell the difference in wound tracks.

The only way to stop a determined attacker is to hit the central nervous system. Bleeding out takes time, even if you hit the heart it leaves enough time for the attacker to shoot you or stick a knife in you. Whether you use a 9mm or 10mm this fact remains. Might as well have more rounds on deck giving you more chances to hit something that will end it.

Hydrostatic shock doesn't come unto play until you get up to rifle calibers.

I'm not a ballistics expert but if I were in law enforcement I would carry the 45 ACP if at all possible. Other calibers are good but the 45 has been a proven man stopper for over 100 years.

From the simple perspective of somebody who has has carried concealed hand guns for about ten years now, roles have changed. It used to be the .45 and .40 guys were argumentative and worried about the 9mm people. They would role eyes and explain to us that we really weren't safe.

Now, it's 9mm people who let us bigger caliber people know we are wasting our time and that there is no difference at all between the 3 calibers. The 9mm people that I am taking about, are more aggresive, and become even more aggresive as I mention that I shoot my sig better than my Glock. My sig is a .40 caliber.

So about 5 or 10 years ago we all realized our 9mms were about as valuable as an AOL search engine. They just won't kill people, then we all were supposed to update our software with tiny .40s. Now, it's time to go out and buy 9mm's, cause our .40s started kicking too hard.

My theory, which I'm only presenting as random observation, would conclude the gun companies need to grow their business.

Even though I Saud above if I were in law enforcement I would want to carry a gun chambered in 45 ACP I'm not in law enforcement. All those who are ridiculed about carrying a 9mm, I feel your pain. I'm even worse than you, I carry a .38 Special J frame.

I had the non-joy of being a gun owner during the 1994-2004 asinine AWB, "high capacity" magazines were grandfathered.
If her had won the election, no doubt there would be a push for more restriction nationwide like CA, MA, NY.
In situations where capacity is limited to 10 rounds, I predict larger calibers increase in popularity.
Differences in caliber performance HST/HST/HST (dismissed by 9mm advocates) seem to matter more when capacity is near equal.

I appreciated the considerations within the FBI report by Urey Patrick that ultimately led to the creation of the .40S&W.

Wound characteristics was among several other considerations. And penetration was evaluated under a number of situations.

When I taught physics, I told students not to hope I don't ask about a particular subject on exams. Told them to be prepared for anything.

Some will dismiss some of the criteria in that report, arguing non-LEO won't encounter those situations. However, the one time I thought I was going to have to fire my weapon was one of those situations.

I take my own advice. I carried and trained with a .40S&W Sig P229 for a decade and now carry and train with a 10mm 1911 for the last decade.

"A cast bullet will NOT expand."

Huh? Of course it will if it is cast of soft enough lead. That said, but IMHO, the person who relies on expanding bullets instead of bullet placement is in a fool's paradise.

Jim

Kleanbore said:

I'm not sure how many people year sill want to put in the minute so it will take to read it, or how many have the capacity and/or basis knowledge to comprehend it, but the link below takes us to a rather detailed article on the subject at hand,

The author is a trauma surgeon from Arizona.


http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2016/01/9mm-vs-40-caliber.aspx

That's ludicrous. The issue was that earlier 9mm defensive bullets did not consistently perform as well as the .40

The scientific consensus seems to be that in terms of terminal ballistics, the differences are not meaningful with today's premium ammunition, But terminal ballistics is only one factor

Just when did the recoil of .40 S&W pistols increase?

Well, the companies did develop, and start producing, premium grade 9mm ammunition that would meet FBI performance standards.

For each firm, it is safe to assume that that was a business decision.

A good one, it seams--sales of the .40 have dropped precipitously. The major institutional customers see little reason to put up with the accelerated wear and tear on their pistols, the difficulty in shooting rapid controlled strings of fire, and the magazine capacity constraint when they have a viable alternative.

Click to expand...

I don't honestly believe a .40 caliber produces more recoil now than it did 5 years ago. I was being scarcastic. I feel, as little as I pay attention to it, that the modern trend to bash .40s and 45s is childish and annoying. The worst part of it is that it's presented as some brand new inside info. My Glock 17 is a authentic weapon. I purchased it after I bought my .40's. I don't question it's validity. I'm fine with my nine.

I can tell you that .40 caliber recoil doesn't bother me. It was my first handgun purchase. I got use to it. It represents most of my best shooting memories. I can shoot it faster and more comfortably than I can shoot my Glock.

I am honest about recoil. A friend of mine has a ruger revolver with a 3.75 inch barrel. He likes buffalo bore ammo. It's a 44 magnum. I hate shooting it. It messes with the rest of my cherished shooting sessions. I won't shoot it anymore. Maybe I'm not man enough. But I am honest about recoil.

My closest shooting friend is a cop. His collection is dedicated to shooting. His handguns are comprised only of sig 9mm's.The gun he mentioned to me he shoots the best is is work Gun. It is a Sig p229 .40 caliber. Neither one of speculated why. I think it's likely the gun, The difference in recoil between the 2 calibers is not a big deal to him or me.

My childhood friend is a trauma doctor here in St. Louis Missouri. He works in a Emergency room and has treated hundred of gun shoot wounds. He carries a model 36 smith and Wesson. When I asked him about he smiled and said he wasn't worried about it. I carry a 442.

You have not introduced any new information for me to consider or altered my views. When you called my observations "ludicrous" you contributed to my original expressed viewpoint. This 9mm conviction is no longer new or fresh. I'm still tired of it being presented to me as a new form of fracking.

Most .40 calibers have more knockdown muzzle energy than most 9mm's.

I am honestly embarrassed to partake in this discussion with you. I have nothing else to say about it.

Is there a general consensus on minimum effective bullet diameter for handgun cartridges? When I read that penetration is much more important than bullet diameter, it would seem that high velocity (deeper penetrating) 32 caliber handgun cartridges (i.e. 32 H&R, 327 Fed) should be almost as effective as the larger handgun cartridges.

Kleanbore said:

Almost four years ago, Bill Wilson plowed well-known instructors, trainers, and shooters. Those who preferred the 9 included David Bahde, Paul Buffoni, Ken Hackathorn, Dave Harrington,Rob Haught, Paul Howe, Ernest Langdon , Paul Markel. BJ Norris, Frank Proctor, Bill Rogers, Mike Seeklander, and Larry Vickers. Wilson himself prefers the 9, as does Rob Pincus.

So, the switch to the 9 mm among trainers and institutional users is not a really a newt development.

Click to expand...

Edit to add: Here's the poll...

Assuming you had to buy your own pistol and ammunition (type of your choice) for combined self-defense and self-defense range training use, which caliber would you choose, 9x19mm Parabellum, .357 Sig, .38 super, .40 S&W, 10mm or .45 ACP ?

Click to expand...

Two key points to that poll. 1) All of those folks shoot round counts measured in the thousands per week. 2) One of the poll criteria was you had to pay for your own ammunition.

In addition, while most are former LE or Military, I think all of them are primarily trainers or competition shooters now.

My poll would have been...

If you're only allowed to shoot 100 rounds per month, but it is guaranteed, at least once per month, you'll find yourself in a one on one shootout, what handgun round would you choose.

It's possible the answer would have been different.

Kleanbore said:

Obviously a stretch. If there were such a guarantee, the choice of handgun round would never show up on the list of mitigation options.

Click to expand...

Sure it is, but here is where we would get to their opinion on the effectiveness of the round, and eliminate other factors in the choice (which are all valid to some degree), such as ammo cost, wear and tear on the gun/shooter, capacity for certain competition events, the concern that you might be involved in a shootout with 10 or more assailants, etc.

I don't believe the 9mm, regardless of ammo advances, is as effective as .40 S&W, or .45 ACP, or .357 mag, or .41 mag, or .44 mag, etc. The 9mm advantage is that it is not ineffective, and it has the other attributes that appeal to people that need them. Competitors and LE/Mil that shoot thousand/millions of rounds have cost concerns. Competitors have concerns at how fast they can shoot multiple targets, how much wear they'll put on their gun, and on themselves, etc.

Kleanbore said:

A good one, it seams--sales of the .40 have dropped precipitously. The major institutional customers see little reason to put up with the accelerated wear and tear on their pistols, the difficulty in shooting rapid controlled strings of fire, and the magazine capacity constraint when they have a viable alternative.

Click to expand...

Most certainly, sales of the .40S&W have declined significantly. I see this as a signal to the ammunition manufacturers to yet again 'split the difference' between the 9mm and the ''larger calibers'' to increase revenue much as was done with the .40S&W. Something with a diameter of .375'' this time around would do quite nicely. /jocularity

Kleanbore said:

If there is a difference, and there may be, just how significant do you think it is, and on what do you base your assessment?

Click to expand...

Based on comments from knowledgeable people, who are proponents of 9mm, and with good reason, who subsequently recommend something else, such as .45ACP or .40S&W when the rules are changed, such as capacity limits, etc. If the rounds were equal, they wouldn't choose something else.

So many people overlook how important the logistics points are to these arguments and simply hear the 9mm is the equal to "you name the round", because XYZ agency has switched to 9mm guns and ammo. The 9mm logistics advantage is quite large. The ammo is cheaper, the guns are smaller, they are easier to shoot, the wear and tear is less on the guns and the shooter. This all plays into the the decision to choose 9mm over .357 SIG, .40S&W, .45ACP. It all makes sense. However, it is not an argument for the effectiveness of the round itself. The 9mm gives you OK performance (probably a little less than the competition), but is advantageous in nearly every other category.

However, if you just have to stop somebody, or something, right now, the logistical advantage of the 9mm may be of lesser concern to you than terminal performance.

Only you can determine which features you value. No decision, at least for the concealed carrier, is the wrong one, just the one you'll have to live with.

Kleanbore said:

Obviously a stretch. If there were such a guarantee, the choice of handgun round would never show up on the list of mitigation options.

Click to expand...

But that's an argument for the over penetration threads.

No county, municipality or law enforcement agency is going to try to make shooting a .40 S&W a Bona-fide Occupational Qualification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualifications

The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 means agencies are going to have to hire all sorts of different people.

If I were in law enforcement - regardless of what caliber I'd want to carry, I'd want my partner to be able to carry a caliber that they can shoot accurately and quickly.

Kleanbore said:

It is certainly counterintuitive for a lay person unschooled in forensic pathology to accept that a smaller bullet may be as effective in practice against humans as a larger bullet, even if the difference in expanded diameter is minor. The bigger hole, the bigger bang on the steel plate, the greater impact on the bowling pin, and even the boom and blast and push in the hand all combine with what we had been told for years to convince us otherwise, however lacking in objectivity that may be.

However, the experts who have put the most effort into the scientific study into the subject seem to have reached a general consensus on that aspect of the subject.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that is what they've said. It is just what people have read into the moves by LE and MIL and these studies. What they've said is 9mm is good enough, but the logistic features are a bigger advantage to them than the terminal advantage.

If I have to stop a human right now, my ability to put a number of sufficiently penetrating rounds of reasonable diameter into the target very quickly should be of highest concern to me.

Of course, I did not realize that when I bought my .45.

Click to expand...

You have chosen a round based on your performance rather than the performance of the round. As I said above, there is nothing wrong with that, but we shouldn't confuse the two.

I'll agree with this:
9mm offers the most capacity in a given platform (Glock 19 vs 23) the least recoil, cheaper to shoot, acceptable terminal performance with good HP.

Not this:
Technology improved 9mm to where it performs on par with 40/45 in same make bullet (HST/HST)
Quarters vs dimes


To argue that those would do the same damage, or that the difference would be indistinguishable