For Those Who Consider 9mm Inadequate For Self-Defense, Why?

As a practical matter, there are no practical pistol calibers that are guaranteed one shot kills. Just about any pistol caliber is a one shot kill if it hits in the right spot.

Two or three shots center of mass with just about any pistol caliber has a good chance of stopping an attacker. Not a guarantee mind you, but a pretty good chance. Probably 2 or 3 9 mm rounds COM is going to do a better job than one 45 acp COM.

I am also pretty sure a miss with any caliber won't stop anything.

.38 Special said:

If you wouldn't use it for stopping dangerous animals in the 200 pound range - leopards, for example - then why would you think it magic for dangerous people?

Click to expand...

I think the operative theory there is that people are a little slower then leopards, so you might get a chance to shoot them more than once.

LOOK,

About 24 years ago, my agency was one of the early adopters of the .40 S&W. However, we were not being issued the 180 grain ammo because our previous round, the .357 magnum had worked well for us and we wanted a 12 shot, semi-auto .357. So my agency worked with the ammo makers and came up with the 155 grain jhp at about 1,200 fps. It worked great. No complaints from the field when it was used.
Downside! Oh year. W used the BERETTA 96D Brigadier and wore out all of those guns in 10 years. The round just beat them out of order. So after we switched to H&K, we went to the 135 grain jhp at almost 1,200 fps. Good and it was easier to shoot. Eventually, FEDERAL came out with the HST 180 grain jhp and we went with that. It worked great until we went back to the 9m.m. Why, qualification scores. We are using the light recoiling 147 grain ammo because we have had to many problems with people qualifying.

I use a 9m.m. when I am off duty and can choose my own gun. I also use a .40 S&W when I feel like it. Either is fine with the right ammo. I only use the FEDERAL HST in my mid size or full size guns. Recoil is milder in the 9m.m. and I can carry more ammo. So the 124 grain HST is my choice over anything else and I still have some +P and +P+ that I was issued before my agency went to the .40., as well as the +P version of the GOLD DOT and HST. It means more noise and recoil, so I am happy with the standard pressure ammo. The .40 will work just as well with the 180 grain HST that I have. I also have a .357 SIG, that is noisier than the .40, but not all that hard to shoot.

In the end, I would worry less about caliber than making sure I can hit my intended target and make sure I have the best ammo possible. To me that is HST, but GOLD DOT, GOLDEN SABRE, CRITICAL DEFENSE and PDX ammo will all work if you do your part.

Jim

barnetmill said:

In the working world of the police and military the 9x19 is what is favored.
but there are still people that argue about it. the 380, 9x19, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP would not be allowed by the state game commissions if the public hunted animals of the same physic as humans. More powerful calibers would be mandated for clean, humane kills. These pistols are all compromises of weight, portability, concealment vs the power and number of cartridges carried the magazine.
Plus there is always the excaliber notion of some magic pistol, or bullet, or some combination thereof.

Click to expand...

That looks like a caliber discussion to me.

9mm vs 45 is now a "debate" but not for most people.

tark said:

Ask Gabby Gifford that question. She was shot just above her left eye with a 9 mm Glock. The bullet penetrated both hemispheres of her brain.

She is walking around today. Her Husband is the Senator from Arizona, Mark Kelly.

Click to expand...

The bullet didn't go through the midline of the brain in this case, which apparently contributed greatly to her survival. While bullets to the head are sometimes survivable, they nearly always stop the fight (like a good lead hook punch top the jaw- also non-lethal, usually). FWIW, I have twice witnessed enemy fighters taking 9mm to the head, and in both cases it was instantly fatal- once after the fighter had taken 2x 5.56 to the lower torso and was still capable of returning fire.

How many additional ways can the OP word this same question?

And how does this beat-to-a-pulp subject continue for pages?

Anyone learn anything new? Anyone change their minds?

All the comments here are explaining why the 9mm IS adequate for self defense, not why some people think it is inadequate, per the original poster's request... well, I'm not going to be of any help either, as I just recently sold off my last CCW in 45ACP in exchange for one in... you guessed it, 9mm!

I figure wheather it's a .355 size hole or .452 size hole, is irrelevant... so long as it has the energy to punch deep enough, they will both stop the fight with proper shot placement. With that in mind, why not have even more shots at your disposal?

Handguns just drill holes anyway, and a few extra mm isn't going to present a big difference in how someone responds. If you're counting on that extra mm to cause faster incapacitation from slowly bleeding out, then you should probably try improving your shot placement.

Its a trade off between concealability, recoil manageability, and capacity, with consideration of malfunction for auto vs revolver. Best compromise in my mind is to carry a revolver and an auto and figure out which is primary vs BUG. Apparently we are suppposed to carry a flashlight, pepper spray, knife or two, and tactical pen, as well as cell phone to make sure we beat any perp to the 911. I have lived 65 years without carrying and never needing a gun. For all that time I could have carried a pea shooter. What the next X years brings I have no idea. A 32 probably will get me out of most situations that i may find my self in, but not the drug crazed killer or the mass murderer or a gang. I am more likely to die in a car accident, so I should be driving a full sized Hummer for max protection but I currently drive a Fusion. So the bottom line seems to be, carry whatever you want to carry and plan to shoot and run.

I used to think 9mm was inadequate, now I do not. I carry Federal 147 gr HST +P

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/

No rule says you can't shoot more then once.
The one shot numbers are based on hits.
What can you shoot and hit best with?

This thread is still going on? Seriously, why even bother? It's not as though this topic hasn't been rendered moot anyway, even though this troll's been fed, he hasn't been back. Notable that folks who come here, do these drive-by posts, always seem to have the invisible profile, so we can't even see who they claim to be on the internet.

Besides, the FBI has spoken. The 9mm has been validated by the most vaunted, intrepid ballistics researchers in all of the world!

Kleanbore said:

What on earth does that mean?

Click to expand...

I am Italian so it is possible that I was unable to express correctly in English what I had in my mind. In any case, it seems to me that the data I have published are clear enough, even if they represent a brutal statistical simplification of Evan Marshall's studies. However, it seems that the users who liked my comment understood what I meant.

If I had to throw a rock at someone to stop their evil doing, I would use the biggest rock I could reliably throw.
Same for other projectiles.

Mike L. said:

If I had to throw a rock at someone to stop their evil doing, I would use the biggest rock I could reliably throw.

Click to expand...

Nope. Same as shooting, one is more effective throwing the smaller rock that one can throw faster and place more accurately... Besides, it's easier to duck a big, slow rock...

They deleted in the Old Testament, the debate between 9mm rocks vs 45 ACP rocks for slings in combatting Goliath. Maybe it's in the Talmud?

GEM said:

They deleted in the Old Testament, the debate between 9mm rocks vs 45 ACP rocks for slings in combatting Goliath. Maybe it's in the Talmud?

Click to expand...

Based on the ballistics of slings and the fact that he dropped the giant in one shot, I suspect David had a 40 mm rock, so that suggests what we need to carry if we want one shot stops.

aaaaa said:

Its a trade off between concealability, recoil manageability, and capacity, with consideration of malfunction for auto vs revolver. Best compromise in my mind is to carry a revolver and an auto and figure out which is primary vs BUG. Apparently we are suppposed to carry a flashlight, pepper spray, knife or two, and tactical pen, as well as cell phone to make sure we beat any perp to the 911. I have lived 65 years without carrying and never needing a gun. For all that time I could have carried a pea shooter. What the next X years brings I have no idea. A 32 probably will get me out of most situations that i may find my self in, but not the drug crazed killer or the mass murderer or a gang. I am more likely to die in a car accident, so I should be driving a full sized Hummer for max protection but I currently drive a Fusion. So the bottom line seems to be, carry whatever you want to carry and plan to shoot and run.

Click to expand...

You could get a carry permit, but have not, right? You can only legally carry on your own property. That is perspective.

KY did not have legal concealed carry in 1992 when I got hired as a cop, a job I kept till 1994 (One of my favorite parts was being able to conceal carry).
In 1996 KY got legal concealed carry and my & my wife's permit applications were summitted ASAP - being able to carry was important to us.
I was trim at the time, 180# (those days are gone) and 6'1 but had no trouble concealing the relatively new Glock 26 AIWB.

I'm rounding a bit, but I've had legal concealed carry for about 30 years and never once "needed" it.
After 30 years of never "needing" a handgun, I still carry everywhere legal; if I'm dressed I'm armed. (Carry everywhere legal and avoid where I can't)
I'm now 203# and 6'1 so I'm not as small as I used to be, neither is my gun; Glock 17 or 22 everywhere.
At 55 I am and have been a carry enthusiast, ~30 years with carrying yet never needing a gun.

CDW4ME said:

You could get a carry permit, but have not, right? You can only legally carry on your own property. That is perspective.

Click to expand...

Right, I have no carry permit. I have been carrying on my property all the time but have to be cautious to not walk off my property while armed unless I want to go open carry, which is an option in Michigan.

Because Jeff Cooper said so.

gunlaw said:

Because Jeff Cooper said so.

Click to expand...

Then we have to carry a 45 because we want to be like “The High Priest of The .45". Cooper's wisdom on 380 ACP:

"If one simply had to have a minimum pistol for purposes of concealment, a .380 with this load might do. I wouldn’t stake my own life on it, but then I don’t ride on bald tires either, while many do.” (Come to think of it, my van front tires are close to bald and I just bought a 32!)

So what should I get a 45 ACP or a 45 Long Colt? I already know I want the long Colt because I really get excited about revolvers. But I think the ACP has more punch in the 45, no?

I am now in the camp of "A 9mm might expand but a 45 ACP will never shrink" after the ammunition shortage made the 9mm ammunition that I would trust my life to vanish from the shelves.

While amazing 9mm ammunition may beat crappy 45 ACP, crappy 45 ACP will always beat crappy 9mm.

Supply lines folks -- it's all about supply lines.

-Stan

9 mm seems like an intelligent compromise for concealed carry. All things considered it seems to be the best caliber in terms of bullet expansion and stopping power that is still readily concealable. 9 mm is what is practical in the city for concealed carry. Open carry is just too problematic. I don't want to be a criminal's first target.

45 caliber seems obsolete. Every test that I've seen of JHP 45 ammo has shown poor bullet expansion going though clothing. It needs more gunpowder to move it fast enough to ensure proper expansion. I don't consider non-expanding bullets to be the responsible choice for self defense usage. Also, 9mm penetrates better. Now if you want to make a 45 caliber with a longer cartridge with more gunpowder and a gun to handle it, I'd be fine with that. I'm not sure how many people could handle it.

Providing that you can handle it, in terms of performance, 10 mm seems like the better option for open carry. Good expansion and it packs a whallop.

For those with weak or arthritic hands, 30 super carry with a lighter bullet seems to be the way to go. You need the lighter bullet to achieve sufficient velocity for proper expansion. But it is NOT going to compete head to head against 9 mm. A 30 super carry pistol could be made even smaller for concealed carry.

I see 30 super carry and 9 mm as the most reasonable for concealed carry, and 10 mm for open carry in urban America.

gunlaw said:

Because Jeff Cooper said so.

Click to expand...

Clint Smith doesn't like 9MMs very much. When Les was making Thunder Ranch guns, it was in the contract agreement that only 45s would be produced. I once asked Clint smith why this was. He gave me a reproachful look and said: "Why slap someone when you can punch him in the face?"