WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
Very true. Stopping the threat before they do any/more harm is the goal.
Anyone else begrudgingly packing a 9mm
- Thread starter brutus51
- Start date
- Status
Very true. Stopping the threat before they do any/more harm is the goal.
sparkyv
Member
I feel exactly the same except that I'd prefer a P365 in 40S&W. I begrudgingly carry it in 9mm.
punybellum
punybellum
Really not a big fan of the 9mm, much prefer the 38 Super and 1911's in general but in the extreme heat of summer I find the Sig P365 perfect for front pocket concealed carry.
Just curious about what others think about packin the punybellum?
Pudge
Member
no one can say with any certainty whether "an individual who survived a 9mm would or wouldn't have survived if the bullet had had a larger diameter or created a deeper wound, or had been less effected by the jacket/bone/lighter it encountered".
That is my point, and it's the same point regarding reducing the splits in a lighter recoiling round, you'd be hard pressed to prove a 9mm would have saved a .45 shooter who wasn't successful in employing lethal force in a self-defense situation, or that the 9mm wouldn't have been successful in its employment in a self-defense situation where .45 shooter was successful.
Your point on survival/lethality is well-taken. It isn't a trivial thing to be clear that your goal in defending yourself is not to kill someone.
That is my point, and it's the same point regarding reducing the splits in a lighter recoiling round, you'd be hard pressed to prove a 9mm would have saved a .45 shooter who wasn't successful in employing lethal force in a self-defense situation, or that the 9mm wouldn't have been successful in its employment in a self-defense situation where .45 shooter was successful.
Your point on survival/lethality is well-taken. It isn't a trivial thing to be clear that your goal in defending yourself is not to kill someone.
So what? ou are looking for certainty.
Don't.
We can objectively predict that a greater number of hits (requiring a higher rate of controlled fire) will provide a higher likelihood of a timely stop; the obvious advantage goes to the 9.
The experts do not expect the 9 to be less effective than the .45.
danez71
Member
Yes, that's that FBI training doc report from 1989 that on page 15, under the Conclusion heading, the very last few sentences.
http://gundata.org/images/fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf
I tend to prefer 9mm
Pudge
Member
I don't disagree with you.
JR24
Member
Interesting, OP bemoans losing a few hundred FPS on a .357 caliber projectile and the suggestion is a similar size projectile, slower, in a shorter barrel and less capacity.
Guessing the OP won't like that option
(Eventhough it's a perfectly viable carry gun, IMO no question )
NO!
Had one.
Difficult trigger pull, stinging recoil, terrible sights, low capacity, large for what it is.....
mcb
Member
My primary CCW is a S&W 442 moonclips. Same gun but in black and cut for moonclips much better, black makes it faster.
The grip is as comfortable as it is ugly.
Are circling back to 5 is enough again. OMG. The issue was whether one was blinded by diameter and not cognizant of expert opinion that there are not significan difference between modern 9, 40 AND 45s.
So we don't need to go back to the average gun fight, etc.
I can really shoot a 642 pretty well. Trained and competed with it. It is a single opponent gun. Reloading is much slower than a semi despite speedloaders and moon clips. I carry it if dress and circumstances dictate.. It can work well for that economically motivated, close up bad guy - if you have practiced with it. That's it
If we continue in this vein, then the OP discussion has burned out, so don't go there or a close.
So we don't need to go back to the average gun fight, etc.
I can really shoot a 642 pretty well. Trained and competed with it. It is a single opponent gun. Reloading is much slower than a semi despite speedloaders and moon clips. I carry it if dress and circumstances dictate.. It can work well for that economically motivated, close up bad guy - if you have practiced with it. That's it
If we continue in this vein, then the OP discussion has burned out, so don't go there or a close.
bdickens
Member
The "bigger bullet, bigger hole" guys don't seem to realize that while in comparison to one another, devoid of context, the .45 looks considerably larger than 9mm, the difference between them compared to the size of a human body is inconsequential.
Pudge
Member
Do you care whether hollowpoints expand, or is a wadcutter sufficient? I mean in comparison to the human body...
Zerodefect
member
Which would you rather be shot with?
Unless there's a wood deck between me and the shooter, I'd rather have 9's flying at me than 45's. No cover? No body armor? I sure as heck ain't going to pick a 45 to be hit with.
Each caliber has it's niche, and reason to exist. 45 has it's advantages, and faults. It's wrong to assume that 9mm is equal to everything. It isn't. I'll carry a 9mm sometimes. Maybe even an anemic .38 revolver. But I'd rather carry my 40. Sometimes I do choose capacity, like a 23 round Glock 34.
Unless there's a wood deck between me and the shooter, I'd rather have 9's flying at me than 45's. No cover? No body armor? I sure as heck ain't going to pick a 45 to be hit with.
Each caliber has it's niche, and reason to exist. 45 has it's advantages, and faults. It's wrong to assume that 9mm is equal to everything. It isn't. I'll carry a 9mm sometimes. Maybe even an anemic .38 revolver. But I'd rather carry my 40. Sometimes I do choose capacity, like a 23 round Glock 34.
Racinfan83
Member
I've trained with current and former Spec Ops guys. I carried .40's before that - went to 9mm after. Why? Because those guys have "been there done that" and they all carry 9mm with defense rounds. I won't go into all their reasons - but if our elite "shooters" in Spec Ops units use it - then that's good enough for me...
CapnMac
Member
Try DM Bullard: https://bullardleather.com/
I talked with a former LEO about caliber effectiveness. He swears the 9mm Gold Dot will penetrate deeper and get to vital organs more reliably than a 40 or 45. He says he's seen it many times where a big handgun bullet just can't penetrate deep enough since they are all limited to a ME of near 400.
His words inspired me to do some gel testing with plastic inserts to simulate skin and membranes. I would not be surprised if a 45 Federal HST bullet would enter and exit a large forearm, and not be able to enter a lung. I would almost bet money that that huge .875 diameter bullet would be stuck in the near side ribs after having to completely go through a big chunk of meat with living skin on it. I also would bet money a 9mm 124gr+p Gold Dot would go through said forearm and lung and end up stuck in the far side ribs.
His words inspired me to do some gel testing with plastic inserts to simulate skin and membranes. I would not be surprised if a 45 Federal HST bullet would enter and exit a large forearm, and not be able to enter a lung. I would almost bet money that that huge .875 diameter bullet would be stuck in the near side ribs after having to completely go through a big chunk of meat with living skin on it. I also would bet money a 9mm 124gr+p Gold Dot would go through said forearm and lung and end up stuck in the far side ribs.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
@brutus51 I'm curious...why do do you describe the 9mm as "punybellum"?
The plain fact of the matter is that all handguns are underpowered when compared to long guns. It's the compromise made for portability and concealability.
I've seen various discussions in this thread about this and that performance capabilities, and not all of them were necessarily factual.
Like many of us here, I own and have shot a number of different calibers, as well as various types of ammunition within each caliber, and had fun doing so. There are so many different characteristics among them that it's not feasible to directly compare relative performance between calibers simply because there are too many variables to consider. There's caliber, mass, velocity, bullet composition, and bullet design, to name a few obvious ones. And then there's terminal ballistics which not only depend on all this information for the bullet, but the information related to the target as well. Clothing, size, fat layers, muscle density, bone thickness/density, angle of penetration, organs hit, etc.
Comparing bullet performance, in my opinion, is best done within the same caliber for that reason: At least the cross sectional area is the same. And even then, holding as many other factors common as well will be most helpful in determining the effect on terminal ballistics when changing one particular characteristic.
My preferred EDC is a Colt 1991A1 in .45 ACP. But I'll readily admit that my Beretta 92FS in 9mm will punch holes through things that my .45 ACP will not. There's a trade-off to be had for anything we choose to carry. Whatever each of us chooses to carry must be done so with that little bit of wisdom taken into consideration.
One of my favorite quotes about the issue of caliber on this site comes from Frank Ettin:
So as a rule of thumb --
The plain fact of the matter is that all handguns are underpowered when compared to long guns. It's the compromise made for portability and concealability.
I've seen various discussions in this thread about this and that performance capabilities, and not all of them were necessarily factual.
Like many of us here, I own and have shot a number of different calibers, as well as various types of ammunition within each caliber, and had fun doing so. There are so many different characteristics among them that it's not feasible to directly compare relative performance between calibers simply because there are too many variables to consider. There's caliber, mass, velocity, bullet composition, and bullet design, to name a few obvious ones. And then there's terminal ballistics which not only depend on all this information for the bullet, but the information related to the target as well. Clothing, size, fat layers, muscle density, bone thickness/density, angle of penetration, organs hit, etc.
Comparing bullet performance, in my opinion, is best done within the same caliber for that reason: At least the cross sectional area is the same. And even then, holding as many other factors common as well will be most helpful in determining the effect on terminal ballistics when changing one particular characteristic.
My preferred EDC is a Colt 1991A1 in .45 ACP. But I'll readily admit that my Beretta 92FS in 9mm will punch holes through things that my .45 ACP will not. There's a trade-off to be had for anything we choose to carry. Whatever each of us chooses to carry must be done so with that little bit of wisdom taken into consideration.
One of my favorite quotes about the issue of caliber on this site comes from Frank Ettin:
So as a rule of thumb --
- More holes are better than fewer holes.
- Larger holes are better than smaller holes.
- Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places.
- Holes that are deep enough are better than holes that aren't.
- There are no magic bullets.
- There are no guarantees.
Mr. Mosin
Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2019
- Messages
- 2,109
Are you quite finished ?
ThomasT
Member
md7
Member
I carry a 9mm and have no qualms about it.
In case of failure to incapacitate in the event of justifiable self defense I’ll send another round, and another, and another, and….. well I could repeat that 30 more times but I think the point is understood.
Overkill is underrated. Shot placement with an effective caliber that you shoot well is desirable. More bullets is more better.
For the record…. I genuinely hope I never have to use it in a shooting. But that’s my personal opinion on the whole subject.
In case of failure to incapacitate in the event of justifiable self defense I’ll send another round, and another, and another, and….. well I could repeat that 30 more times but I think the point is understood.
Overkill is underrated. Shot placement with an effective caliber that you shoot well is desirable. More bullets is more better.
For the record…. I genuinely hope I never have to use it in a shooting. But that’s my personal opinion on the whole subject.
OP
OP
brutus51
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,367
RetiredUSNChief yours was the most unbiased and least opinionated reply I've read, thank you.
In answer to your question my pop had one handgun, a 1911 he brought back from WW2, my uncle who also served in the European theatre also had one handgun a confiscated P-38. My pop gave his gun the punybellum moniker.
My first centerfire handgun was a BHP and I thought it was the bees knees until I shot a friends Gold Cup, traded the HP the same day, which I truly regret. I've owned just about every variant of the 9mm there is. My current CZ85 Combat is by far and away the most accurate I've ever owned but I also have a CZ PCR, a Kahr P9, a Sig P365 and a Sig P365 XL.
My 45+ years of shooting has taught me that all firearms are tools each one serving a purpose, wouldn't take a .22 out for elephant or a 454 Casull for mice.
In my old age I've pretty much settled on 4:
1. 45acp for home defense as it won't blind me or blowout my eardrums, otherwise I'd choose a .357 magnum.
2. .45 Colt for time spent in the woods.
3. 38 Super for urban concealed carry.
4. 22LR for varmints and just plain old fun.
The 9mm takes top honors over the .380 ACP and 38 Special when it's just to damn hot for anything else.
Hope your picken up what I'm layin down.
Great stuff, always.
Good idea.
- Status
Similar threads
