Glock 19 or 23: 9mm vs 40

Status
Not open for further replies.
Snake, look up the ATK HST tests, they ran it in front of lots of LE agencies, and the HST came out ahead in every test against every competitor, including their own Speer Gold Dot.
 
I bought the Glock 19 9mm about ten years ago because 9mm ammo is about a third less what 40 ammo will run you for practice. Practice makes perfect. If money is no object to you when buying ammo, then go for the Glock 23. The 23 is also a great gun.

I use Speer Gold Dot 124 Grain +P loads in my Glock 19 for self defense. This is the NYPD load. They have good results with it. For practice, I use whatever FMJ round is cheapest at Wal Mart, Bass Pro, or the range. I have never had problems as long as I use factory magazines and your normal quality ammo...ONE bad primer did cause a problem on extremely cheap CCI Blazer 9mm (to avoid that stick to Winchester, Remington, other brass cased stuff). This was not the gun's fault...again tried cheap aftermarket mags...failure to feed...stick to Glock mags. The cool thing about the 19 is you can use the Glock 18 machine pistol 33rd mags.
 
weird, that's the first one of those test sessions I've seen where they didn't break 12 inches, although they were only short by a half inch and a quarter inch, and only through bare gelatin did they penetrate that shallowly.

Both 9mm loads and the .40 load expanded more than they used to, I wonder if the design has changed at all?
 
The .45's all passed 12". And the HST expanded to over an inch! Just sayin'....

But seriously, I wouldn't base my choice solely on one ballistic gelatin test. But do what makes you happy. I think you need a 23, so you can shoot with .40 and carry .357 SIG if you're that worried about penetration.

Wow, and it's usually overpenetration that people are trying to avoid...:D
 
May I suggest a Glock 23 with a AACK .22 unit slide AND Lone Wolf 9mm barrel (it's made for the 23!) Throw in a Glock OEM 32 barrel in .357 Sig and you have FOUR GUNS IN ONE!

And the nice thing is, if there is another ammo shortage, you have for rounds you can look for ammo and get buy on.

For me... well I have the 32, 23, 19, and a AACK unit for my Glock 26.
 
The Marshall and Sanow study found that 9 mm loaded with Cor Bon +P was the most effective on the "one-shot-stop" criterion. That study has been widely attacked but to my mind not totally discredited. Ease of hitting the target must surely influence effectiveness. Could it be that 9 mm combined with the punchy Cor Bon +P round strikes just the right balance between ballistic performance and accurate shooting?

I have opted for 9 mm with the Cor Bon +P for defensive purposes. I'm not sure it's optimum but I doubt anyone knows exactly what is optimum and I think this combination will not be far short.

You implied that 9mm penetrates more and I have heard it said that 9mm over-penetrates but I haven't found anything to confirm this. My impression is that the three major calibers with premium ammo all penetrate about the same.
 
Twenty years old may be new school but it's still a proven caliber many times over.
 
9mm = tried and tested and .40 = new school.
.40 is hardly new school. At the time it was introduced it was supposed to represent a nice compromise between 9mm and .45 but I've never seen anything to prove that to my satisfaction. If anyone has any references that they think are convincing, I would be greatly obliged if you would post them.
 
The Marshall and Sanow study found that 9 mm loaded with Cor Bon +P was the most effective on the "one-shot-stop" criterion. That study has been widely attacked but to my mind not totally discredited.
Closing the Book on Marshall & Sanow's One-shot Stopping Power Fraud


Over the past couple of years we've published several articles presenting evidence that discredits the Marshall & Sanow one-shot stopping power system of rating "bullet effectiveness". Our purpose in beating this dead horse was to present our criticisms from many different angles so that our message could be understood by the widest audience possible. The final chapter is now being written. We're closing the book on Marshall and Sanow by making several reference articles freely available on the Internet, where they'll be available to anyone and everyone who's interested in the details. As we put the Marshall - Sanow fraud to rest, we offer the following final commentary. Immediately following our remarks are links to reference articles that have never before been made available to you on the Internet.



The professional wound ballistics community believes that both Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow have intentionally misrepresented Marshall's "one-shot stop data" as a valid statistical sampling of "actual street results". Valid statistical samplings always report a plus or minus percentage of sampling error, which is based on consideration and evaluation of all factors that affect statistical certainty. This vital statistical process allows researchers to determine how meaningful or meaningless the findings are. Fackler's article, Too Good to be True, discusses, among other things, the significance of determining statistical certainty.



Marshall & Sanow have never performed a statistical certainty analysis of Marshall's one-shot stop data. They present raw "data," which is totally meaningless in context even if it was honestly collected and examined as claimed. Marshall's sampling methodology and the manner in which his data is presented are no more accurate or credible than any other nonscientific (for entertainment only) survey, and this generously assumes that Marshall is being completely honest.



Anyone who still believes the Marshall "findings" to be true should submit one of Marshall's "one-shot stop" books or articles to a professional statistics organization that has absolutely no interest in ballistics or the outcome, like http://www.westat.com. An unbiased organization such this is fully qualified to analyze and critique the validity of Marshall's methodology and "findings".



Marshall, Sanow, Massad Ayoob and other "one-shot stop" advocates either ignorantly or intentionally mischaracterize and attempt to discredit the professional wound ballistics community as lab coat wearing nerds who never step foot outside the confines of a controlled laboratory setting. These uninformed or dishonest gunwriters attempt to portray wound ballistics professionals as incompetent dunces who are unwilling to consider "real world shooting results," lest the "real world laboratory of the street" contradict cherished "laboratory gelatin results" and "laboratory theories." One need only peruse a few issues of the IWBA journal, Wound Ballistics Review, to learn otherwise. Many of the articles are written by law enforcement officers or other professionals who work closely with law enforcement agencies.



Marshall & Sanow are preparing to publish a third book, Street Stoppers II. Until recently, we had planned to obtain a copy and publish a book review. But unless Street Stoppers II contains startling new information, we're moving on.



But before we close the book on Marshall & Sanow –– hopefully for good –– we'd like to express our appreciation to IWBA and the authors below, who've kindly granted us permission to re-print the following articles.



Maarten van Maanen's article, Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow "Data Base": An Evaluation Over Time, was the subject of Calibre Press' Street Survival Newsline (No. 419, dated 11/16/99), a law enforcement newsletter that's distributed to thousands of law enforcement officers worldwide. Calibre Press is a major law enforcement training organization. They produce and present the highly acclaimed Street Survival Seminar as well as publish the award winning books Street Survival, The Tactical Edge and Tactics for Criminal Patrol. The staff of Calibre Press reviewed van Maanen's article and found van Maanen's evidence of fraud and deceit so convincing as to warrant alerting the law enforcement community to his findings. If there's any one organization that has its finger on the pulse of what's going on in the "real world laboratory of the streets," it's the folks at Calibre Press.



(In 1993, Calibre Press permanently removed Marshall & Sanow's first book, Handgun Stopping Power, from their catalog after law enforcement members with the International Wound Ballistics Association presented them with compelling evidence that the book was teeming with falsehoods. Since then, Calibre Press has refused to carry Marshall & Sanow's books.)
.....
 
The .45's all passed 12". And the HST expanded to over an inch! Just sayin'....
I noticed that the .45 test gun was described just as a "Kimber".
I'm guessing it was a 1911 type with a 5" barrel, which would be longer than the Glock 17 and the Glock 22 barrels.

In such testing the .45 appears to perform better than some other calibers but since the barrel lengths are not equal the testing is biased.

Just sayin'....
 
Yeah, there's no perfect way to do it. You could shoot every caliber from a 5" barrel to get a good control group, and then you'd have people complaining that it wasn't realistic because nobody has a 5" 9mm or .40.
 
The professional wound ballistics community believes that both Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow have intentionally misrepresented Marshall's "one-shot stop data" as a valid statistical sampling of "actual street results"......
For a review of the criticisms of Marshall and Sanow, please consult http://arxiv1.library.cornell.edu/vc/physics/papers/0701/0701268v1.pdf which concludes in part:

"In light of the demonstrated ad hominem attacks, exaggerations and fallacies in the criticisms of these experimental findings, one wonders whether the critical authors were depending more on their reputation as experts and the quantity of their fallacies (ad nauseum fallacy) rather than quality arguments, sound reasoning, and repeatable experiments. The critical authors left quite a paper trail in the literature, but reason, the scientific method, and repeatable experiments and analysis have shown the original works to be more sound than the published criticisms."
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top