bullseyebob47
Member
i want to buy a .40 s&w glock but i keep hearing 9mm is just as good and police are going to 9mm. forget gel test. what the more effective in real life.(already have several 9mms)
This is an argument that will never be put to rest. here's a question- if the 9mm is such a poor performer, why is it the most used caliber world-wide? It is also the caliber of choice not only for the US military, but for the most highly trained shooters in the US military. The 40 and 45 have essentially been phased out- even in "those" units. 9mm recoils less than a 40, and is cheaper to buy, which means it is cheaper to practice with, which means, in theory, you can practice more for less $. In real life? No 2 shootings are the same. Pick whichever one YOU shoot best, and practice.
I think the obvious answer here is NATO. The US Military wants to stay in line with NATO ammunition (special forces aside). From my understanding, many NATO countries do not even want to spend the required percentage (I think it's 2%) of GDP on their military. So switching out not only all their firearms chambered in 9mm, but also all their ammunition reserves, is not something they likely want to consider. And that's even when taking into account the vastly reduced effectiveness of FMJ handgun ammunition compared to modern HPs. In such a case, a wider meplat (as seen in larger diameter cartridges) would produce better results. But even if the majority of NATO countries did want to switch to a different caliber, they would have to agree on which one. For countries that do not regular participate in military conflict, to switch seems like a big waste of money. Why upgrade what you don't use anyway?
So 9mm is a Military standard for many countries. Therefore production is high. High volume of production means lower cost of production. Which in turn equals lower prices to consumers, including on the commercial market. Which in turn results in higher demand, and higher production, along with higher levels of ownership. It's pretty obvious that the .380acp uses less brass, less lead, less copper, and less powder than a 9mm. So the .380 should be cheaper. It's not cheaper, because it is produced in far lower volumes. This also means that the price of .380 can be artifically high, because of "scarcity"; whether real, as a result of unintentionally or intention under production; or percieved, where we think it's hard to get therefore we are willing to pay more for it.
So the standardized 9mm NATO cartridge allows for a large footprint of ammunition manufacturing, meaning a lower price (by component weight) than seen with other handgun ammunition. And with advancements in Hollow Point bullet technology and reliability (likely disproportionally focused on the 9mm, due to its pre-existing popularity), coupled with a penetration test consisting on cloth over jelly, we see a return to the 9mm in law enforcement departments. It's cheap because it is produced in bulk; it's low wearing on service weapons because it's less powerful than other service calibers chambered on the same platform (platforms which are either designed for those higher powered calibers, or quietly redesigned for them); it's easier to shoot because it's less powerful; and it's popular enough that many assume it is entirely sufficient. (Which it is, depending on where the bar is set. Everything is relative.)
I would also like to mention that whilst fans of the 9mm make fun of the "bigger is better" mentality. Those same people seem to believe that "more is better", whilst toting the extra magazine capacity the 9mm can achieve over other service calibers. Which strikes me as odd when some of those same people do not carry the very highest capacity magazines they possibly can. Surely, if extra rounds are of such importance, those individuals would gladly make an adjustment to their clothing in order to carry the largest capacity pistol they can find.
The 9mm is popular because it's popular. If NATO switched to a different cartridge, our military would follow suit; or Federal LE departments would follow suit; our State, County and City LE departments would follow suit; and the market would do likewise. If not for NATO, the 9mm would be all but obsolete. At least in my opinion.
The 9mm FMJ is the preferred military round today because it gives the best chance of defeating body armor. Even the Russians have determined the 9mm is the best option so it isn't just NATO. The 45 is the worst performer against armor.
Not accurate. The 40 S&W and 45 ACP are circling the drain DOD-wide, even among SOF units. My understanding is the FBI is transitioning back to 9mm, and many other LE agencies are also following suit. Hence, the glut of police turn-in 40's that are available at bargain prices for those who desire them.The US Military wants to stay in line with NATO ammunition (special forces aside)
Not accurate. The 40 S&W and 45 ACP are circling the drain DOD-wide, even among SOF units. My understanding is the FBI is transitioning back to 9mm, and many other LE agencies are also following suit. Hence, the glut of police turn-in 40's that are available at bargain prices for those who desire them.
Seems to me that you've answered most of your own questions.I think the obvious answer here is NATO. The US Military wants to stay in line with NATO ammunition (special forces aside). From my understanding, many NATO countries do not even want to spend the required percentage (I think it's 2%) of GDP on their military. So switching out not only all their firearms chambered in 9mm, but also all their ammunition reserves, is not something they likely want to consider. And that's even when taking into account the vastly reduced effectiveness of FMJ handgun ammunition compared to modern HPs. In such a case, a wider meplat (as seen in larger diameter cartridges) would produce better results. But even if the majority of NATO countries did want to switch to a different caliber, they would have to agree on which one. For countries that do not regular participate in military conflict, to switch seems like a big waste of money. Why upgrade what you don't use anyway?
So 9mm is a Military standard for many countries. Therefore production is high. High volume of production means lower cost of production. Which in turn equals lower prices to consumers, including on the commercial market. Which in turn results in higher demand, and higher production, along with higher levels of ownership. It's pretty obvious that the .380acp uses less brass, less lead, less copper, and less powder than a 9mm. So the .380 should be cheaper. It's not cheaper, because it is produced in far lower volumes. This also means that the price of .380 can be artifically high, because of "scarcity"; whether real, as a result of unintentionally or intention under production; or percieved, where we think it's hard to get therefore we are willing to pay more for it.
So the standardized 9mm NATO cartridge allows for a large footprint of ammunition manufacturing, meaning a lower price (by component weight) than seen with other handgun ammunition. And with advancements in Hollow Point bullet technology and reliability (likely disproportionally focused on the 9mm, due to its pre-existing popularity), coupled with a penetration test consisting on cloth over jelly, we see a return to the 9mm in law enforcement departments. It's cheap because it is produced in bulk; it's low wearing on service weapons because it's less powerful than other service calibers chambered on the same platform (platforms which are either designed for those higher powered calibers, or quietly redesigned for them); it's easier to shoot because it's less powerful; and it's popular enough that many assume it is entirely sufficient. (Which it is, depending on where the bar is set. Everything is relative.)
I would also like to mention that whilst fans of the 9mm make fun of the "bigger is better" mentality. Those same people seem to believe that "more is better", whilst toting the extra magazine capacity the 9mm can achieve over other service calibers. Which strikes me as odd when some of those same people do not carry the very highest capacity magazines they possibly can. Surely, if extra rounds are of such importance, those individuals would gladly make an adjustment to their clothing in order to carry the largest capacity pistol they can find.
Seems to me that you've answered most of your own questions.
• They already have the weapons chambered in 9mm.
• NATO has a surplus of mags and spare parts.
• The personnel are already trained on that pistol.
• Bulk ammo is less expensive in 9mm than some other calibers (.40 S&W/.357 Sig/.45 ACP etc). This is probably more of a consideration for police departments than for NATO though. Maybe it might carry some weight with the bean counters.
The only three other items that I can think of is that ...
1) Pistols and sub-machine guns don't figure into winning wars much these days.
2) That decent training trumps all of it just so long as the caliber isn't horrible and the weapon actually works.
3) Better bullet tech and focus on one cartridge (9mm) allowed it to close the gap and allowed it to do more. Probably more of an issue for special forces and police depts than for the average soldier currently. I've heard some talk of the US Military wanting a JHP, maybe that will eventually filter down.
• Maybe the individual in question developed a love affair with training and 9mm is the most affordable cartridge out there to do that. Better to be good with the standard cartridge than mediocre with a larger one. The expenses of a class, plus air fair, lodging and 1,200 rds of ammo can cost. Staying at Motel 6, shooting 9, and driving or flying on Southwest offsets this a bit.
• Maybe the individual in question got used to carrying around 13 rds in a BHP for 20+ years and with a Glock 26 using a +2 extension and one in the pipe that means that they're carrying 13 rds around in a much smaller package that's lighter and more concealable. A Glock 26 can also use G19 and G17 mags.
I'm just theorizing of course.
The adoption of 9mm, forsaking such rounds as 45 ACP and 38 Special in the "big mil" did have a component of NATO compliance in the decision. Other components include the desire to replace the 1911 and its cartridge with a pistol that is lighter, newer, and easier for all service members to use. As a side note, ammunition from other countries is often considered inferior to what our service members are issued, and not authorized for use by our people in our weapons. Additionally, there are calibers and specific types of ammunition throughout NATO that aren't "standardized", which exist both in the conventional and Special Operations communities.I'll ignore the FBI part and below, because them doing so is true, and not disputed by me.
But you really mean to tell me that the US Military choice of firearm ammunition caliber has nothing to do with the standards of NATO, and staying in compliance with them?
I guess instead I should have said that I agreed with some of what you wrote and then added my two cents in about a couple items that you missed.I don't disagree with any of that. Except in that I've answered most of my own questions. My post was to explain why 9mm is so popular, as a counter-argument to it being a particularly good cartridge. I don't think I've addressed any of my own questions.
My post was simply to state that 9mm being the NATO standard, is a large part of why our military continues to use it, and therefore why it is so cheap. Those things make it popular, which in turn makes it even cheaper, and so investment in R+D (hollow point bullets in this case) is made in a highly popular product, before being adapted to less popular versions. This all means it is more affordable for LE Departments with tight budgets, and also that it satisfactorily passes some arbitrary testing criteria through denim and gelatin.
None of that however suggests that it is the best performing cartridge. It only explains why it is so popular. Popularity does not equal superiority. None of this is to address the OP, but rather to answer the question, "if the 9mm is such a poor performer, why is it the most used caliber world-wide?"
Short answer: It's cheap, and available.
Where I work, a few years ago, a suspect was shot four or five times, I can't remember the exact details, with a .40 S&W, and survived. Now the comon thought amongst my coworkers is that the .40 is ineffective. While I disagree with that, I am in the minority. Like I said I can't remember the details, but I remember thinking shot placement was why he survived.
i want to buy a .40 s&w glock but i keep hearing 9mm is just as good and police are going to 9mm. forget gel test. what the more effective in real life.(already have several 9mms)
what the more effective in real life