A brief history of the 9mm

Status
Not open for further replies.

Loosedhorse

member
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
3,453
Location
eastern Massachusetts
I was asked recently about the 9mm (its various loads and effectiveness), and I thought a review of its history was in order. When I got done, I thought it looked like an OP, so here it is.

As you can seem this is more a "kitchen table", oral tradition-type history. Anyone should feel free to correct, supply dates or reference, or add a different take. My history is more about the legends, and less about the data, but it's a start. Here goes:

It has been said that Georg Luger designed the 9mm Parabellum with an eye to wounding, not killing soldiers. It came out in that era when many Army officers were still on horseback, and if wounded you sat down, called for the medic, and waited for the ambulance. All very gentlemanly, good sportmsmanship-type stuff. Continuing to fight if wounded--bad form.

Of course, if you decided not to stop after being hit with FMJ, things could turn out differently. There are legends of felons taking 33 hits of 9mm FMJ and keeping going until a shotgun finally decided things. And then there is the pass-through (over-penetration) reputation that 9mm hardball developed, continuing right through to its (few) years of use with the NYPD, forcing them finally (last major city in the nation) to switch their police to HPs (after decades of decrying "dum-dum bullets").

The tide turned in the favor of 9mm with the introduction of light, fast HPs, like Lee Jurras's Super-Vels. Eventually, major ammo manufacturers started producing similar loads, like the famous Federal 9BPLE 115 grain +P+ that served the Indiana State Police for decades. Corbon made its name by making such loads available to private citizens.

Things changed again after the 1986 Miami Shoot-Out. Despite the glaringly awful tactics (and not stellar marksmanship) used that day, that disaster got blamed on a single 9mm Silver Tip that after traversing an arm entered the chest to produce the fatal wound that stopped the felon...but we are told it "under-penetrated" and "stopped short" of the heart, and so "caused" the deaths of two agents, and the severe wounding of more.

Ammo companies responded with 147-gr "controlled expansion" HPs that often didn't cycle guns tuned for the lighter loads and often acted like hardball with minimal expansion. Not good.

Finally, we private citizens entered a modern era with the 9mm (although LE in general gave up on it and moved to the .40). Mid-weight HPs (with the exception of the 115gr all-copper Barnes HP) with reliable expansion now rule the roost. The 147-grain HPs also improved, and it is now very unusual that guns won't cycle them.

The current availability of great 9mm SD ammo plus the smaller and smaller guns that now shoot 9mm explain why the 9 continues to be so popular with private citizens, even if many never tire of telling us that "real cartridges start with a .4".
 
Last edited:
It has been said that Georg Luger designed the 9mm Parabellum with an eye to wounding, not killing soldiers.
I have heard this same story about various calibers including rifle but have yet to see any reference. Unless anyone can prove otherwise I think it's false. If it were the goal to wound soldiers instead of kill, artillery shells would be filled with beanbags and lawn mulch. One needs only look at the slaughter a few years after the introduction of the 9x19 to see that military dictum was focused on killing enemy combatants, not wounding them. If otherwise, Hiram Maxim would have designed his MG to chamber 9x19.
 
Remember, the 30 Luger round came before the 9x19. The 30 Luger was upsized to 9mm to make it more effective.

In my opinion, and I cannot site references, is that small caliber, high speed rounds were all the rage around the 1890s to 1900s. These replaced the large caliber, slow black powder cartridges.

Even the US military went from 45 caliber to 38 caliber and back to 45 caliber.
 
Last edited:
You have it, chuck.
When smokeless powder and smallbore (.30-8mm) rifles started coming in, it was a natural to reduce the caliber of the sidearm. The difference in velocity was not immediately appreciated.

The Luger was originally built in 7.65x21 as shortened from 7.65x25 Borchardt to fit a magazine in front of a mainspring in the butt of the gun. That was enough for the Swiss, the Finns, and the Portuguese, maybe a few others. But it took an increase to 9mm to interest the German Navy and eventually the army. (In those days, pre-air forces, the navies of the world were the high tech service. They tended to get new weapons first.)
This was the most powerful round the gun would accomodate and was adopted for its power, not as a "wounder."
 
artillery shells would be filled with beanbags and lawn mulch.
Hiram Maxim would have designed his MG to chamber 9x19.
I respect that opinon, but I would point that, while these quotes are fun rhetorical statements, they're not logical argument.

An artillery shell is designed to do a whole lot of damage. If it kills a few people near its POI, and injures a whole lot more farther away, I think the designer'd be fine with that. A MG is designed to suppress enemy movement at distance (or mow them down at distance if they get surprised in the open), and a 9mm would shorten that distance.

My parallel rhetorical (not logical) counter-argument would be that if Luger had intended the 9mm to kill, not wound, he would have made it a rifle round, or an artillery round. But baring a statement frorm either Luger or some procurement officer writing RFP specs for a new military pistol, we don't know for sure.
adopted for its power
Its power to do what? Get through heavy wool uniforms? Hit enemy at "navy" distances?

Or just to play one-upsmanship with the army ;). "For its power" is not a purpose; though it would make the round more effective or efficient for any given purpose.
 
Last edited:
The idea that any weapon firing a projectile that will easily go through two humans is designed to wound is just daffy.

In any armed conflict there are usally many more wounded than killed outright, the doctrine that a wounded combatant ties up more resources only applies to a certain point and only in conflicts with large well equipped military forces.

The 9mm was in many ways the first with the most or at least adequate power and small enough to fit in a pistol with a magazine in the grip. It is 110 years old and the most popular centerfire cartridge in the world, NATO standard and probably used in more pistol/subgun designs than any other cartridge.

Development continues in both the ammunition and the weapons.
 
just daffy
Again, while I respect the opinion, the label "just daffy" hardly diminishes the support for the idea. If the point of a round is to wound, the idea that it can wound two people with one shot: how efficient!

Perhaps we can reacquaint ourselves with the (real, actual) dum-dum bullet controversy around the same time. According to wiki:
Soon after the introduction of smokeless powder to firearms, full metal jacket bullets were introduced to prevent lead fouling in the bore caused by the higher pressures and velocities when used with soft lead bullets. However, it was soon noticed that such small caliber rounds were less effective at wounding or killing an enemy than the older large caliber soft lead bullets. Within the British Indian Army, the Dum Dum arsenal produced its now infamous solution...

In 1898, the German government lodged a protest against the use of the Mark IV bullet, claiming the wounds produced by the Mark IV were excessive and inhumane, thus violating the laws of war.
So, the Germans at least were looking for a kinder, gentle bullet: one that might lead to holes in legs instead of amputated legs.

During the Hague Convention of 1899 (which ended up outlawing the use of expanding small-arms bullets in war) American delegate Captain Wm. Crozier made this (failed) attempt to defend their use:
The civilized soldier when shot recognizes that he is wounded and knows that the sooner he is attended to the sooner he will recover. He lies down on his stretcher and is taken off the field to his ambulance, where he is dressed or bandaged. Your fanatical barbarian, similarly wounded, continues to rush on...
So, yes, there seems to have been the belief that soldiers (well, at least officers, and the pistol was an officer's weapon) are to be politely wounded, not killed.

A gentleman's war. ;):D
 
Last edited:
I have posted this before, but:

(Source: British translation of WW1 era Luger manual, comparing 30 Luger vs 9mm para) Luger 9mm Parabellum Automatic Pistol manual, Deutshe Waffen und Munitionsfabriken, Berlin.

"This energy may vary to a considerable extent, but its minimum should be sufficient to disable the enemy, that is, to render further fighting impossible on the part of the opposing soldier who is in full service uniform, protected by all sorts of equipment such as belts, cartridge pouch, buckles, metal buttons, fur coat, breast plate & perhaps under the additional cover of planks or brush-wood, or behind a closed door."

"The smaller caliber has more penetrating effect, the larger the more spreading or stopping power."


The gist of what this early manual says is that 30 Luger OR 9mm will get the job done and are designed to penetrate a soldier in full field gear (belts, buckles, buttons, breast plate) while behind a barn door. That sounds like a lot of inches of ballistics gel to me. Old lead bullets didn't penetrate like FMJ's, not at handgun speeds.

"to render further fighting impossible on the part of the opposing soldier" sounds a lot like 'kill or incapacitate'.

Since Parabellum means 'for war' I firmly disagree that it was designed 'to wound.'
 
A gentleman's war: It introduced poison gas, bombing of cities against civillian populations, submarines, and the mowing down of 10,000 troops or more in a single day with belt fed weapons.

I think we can safely say that Chivalry died in WWI, if that fantasy even existed prior.
 
but its minimum should be sufficient to disable the enemy, that is, to render further fighting impossible on the part of the opposing soldier
I greatly appreciate the reference. Still I'm not sure that it can only be interpreted as you interpret it.

You seem almost to suggest that DWM, in discussing a weapon of war, was too embarrassed to use the word "kill" forthrightly, and so mealy-mouthed it? Perhaps afraid of liability suits if they came right out and said "kill"?

No: I think that if they had meant kill, they would have said kill (töten). You think that
"to render further fighting impossible on the part of the opposing soldier" sounds a lot like 'kill or incapacitate'.
And that's fine. Personally, I think "kill" sounds a lot like "kill", and other things don't.

I think at most, we can go back to the military idea of a casualty, a "fallen" whether wounded or killed. I can certainly accept that the adopters of the 9mm were indifferent to whether the 9 killed or wounded its target, so long as it produced a casualty; and that the designer developed it to produce one even if it had to get through a lot of the soldier's kit to do it.

But I don't conclude that killing was the "real" (but unstated) goal of the 9's designer or first adopters.

Interesting: my brief history mentions things like "light fast" bullets and the Miami Shoot-Out; yet so far, this is the only point of controversy.
 
Last edited:
No I suggest the British translation was a tad squeamish. It also suggests the point of the FMJ was to penetrate all the aforementioned items, and a soldier, and STOP him.

Granted I am not convinced the 30 Luger could do 'all that', the point is this 'controversy' is more than 100 years old. Hollowpoints make a 9mm better than it was.. but as FMJ, it was designed to shoot someone wearing 19th century brass and leather.
 
A gentleman's war: It introduced...
"It"? I take it you are referring to WWI. Capt. Crozier's comments were well before that in 1899, and the 9mm began production in 1902.

But I accept the standard irony in the idea that war can be waged according to rules, whether via international accords or social convention.
It also suggests the point of the FMJ was to penetrate all the aforementioned items, and a soldier, and STOP him.
Agree completely. And any soldier worth his salt would have shaken off a minor "fencing scratch."

But the convention of the (pre-WWI) day may well have been that any penetrating wound would be expected to get the soldier immediately to stop fighting and seek treatment, as Crozier suggests--the wound need not be fatal, but yes, had to get through any barriers the soldier was wearing.
 
Loosedhorse:....My history is more about the legends, and less about the data,
I suppose by data you mean references or citations to actual historical research?


Loosedhorse .... It came out in that era when many Army officers were still on horseback, and if wounded you sat down, called for the medic, and waited for the ambulance. All very gentlemanly, good sportmsmanship-type stuff. Continuing to fight if wounded--bad form.
Huh?:scrutiny:

Please tell me more. I only took fifteen+ hours of military history in grad school and I never heard, read or was aware that officers got "recess" during battle.
 
I suppose by data you mean references or citations to actual historical research?
Such as?

When someone asks me for a brief sketch, that's what I give. If you are about to plug your recently published "The COMPLETE, FULLY REFERENCED History of the 9mm BASED ON ACTUAL HISTORICAL RESEARCH AND STUFF," well...

By all means, do. But as can be noted by the title of this thread, that's not what I claim to have produced; so I completely accept your criticism that that's not what it is.
I never heard, read or was aware that officers got "recess" during battle.
Just as I never heard or read me claiming they did. Nice hyperbole (everyone seems into rhetoric today; I note also your appeal to authority).

But I did hear, even as late as WWI of things like the Christmas Truce: very gentlemanly IMHO, and clearly from a different era than ours...

And yes, in fact: kinda like a recess.
 
Designed to wound rather than kill.

Sometimes I wonder where ideas like this come from. A wounded man can convalesce and come back to kill you another day. You want him dead. Period.

And fragmenting artillery rounds are primarily anti-personnel munitions that can be used to blow things up...not vice-versa. Its other effect is psychological. Remember the droves of Iraqis surrendering to camera crews after a few days in the bunkers with the 500 pounders falling during Gulf 1? Artillery has the same effect.

The notion of a "Gentleman's War" probably went south shortly after the American Revolution, though the WW1 pilots adhered to a modicum of chivalry.
 
I was asked recently about the 9mm (its various loads and effectiveness), and I thought a review of its history was in order. When I got done, I thought it looked like an OP, so here it is.

As you can seem this is more a "kitchen table", oral tradition-type history. Anyone should feel free to correct, supply dates or reference, or add a different take. My history is more about the legends, and less about the data, but it's a start. Here goes:

It has been said that Georg Luger designed the 9mm Parabellum with an eye to wounding, not killing soldiers. It came out in that era when many Army officers were still on horseback, and if wounded you sat down, called for the medic, and waited for the ambulance. All very gentlemanly, good sportmsmanship-type stuff. Continuing to fight if wounded--bad form.

Of course, if you decided not to stop after being hit with FMJ, things could turn out differently. There are legends of felons taking 33 hits of 9mm FMJ and keeping going until a shotgun finally decided things. And then there is the pass-through (over-penetration) reputation that 9mm hardball developed, continuing right through to its (few) years of use with the NYPD, forcing them finally (last major city in the nation) to switch their police to HPs (after decades of decrying "dum-dum bullets").

The tide turned in the favor of 9mm with the introduction of light, fast HPs, like Lee Jurras's Super-Vels. Eventually, major ammo manufacturers started producing similar loads, like the famous Federal 9BPLE 115 grain +P+ that served the Indiana State Police for decades. Corbon made its name by making such loads available to private citizens.

Things changed again after the 1986 Miami Shoot-Out. Despite the glaringly awful tactics (and not stellar marksmanship) used that day, that disaster got blamed on a single 9mm Silver Tip that after traversing an arm entered the chest to produce the fatal wound that stopped the felon...but we are told it "under-penetrated" and "stopped short" of the heart, and so "caused" the deaths of two agents, and the severe wounding of more.

Ammo companies responded with 147-gr "controlled expansion" HPs that often didn't cycle guns tuned for the lighter loads and often acted like hardball with minimal expansion. Not good.

Finally, we private citizens entered a modern era with the 9mm (although LE in general gave up on it and moved to the .40). Mid-weight HPs (with the exception of the 115gr all-copper Barnes HP) with reliable expansion now rule the roost. The 147-grain HPs also improved, and it is now very unusual that guns won't cycle them.

The current availability of great 9mm SD ammo plus the smaller and smaller guns that now shoot 9mm explain why the 9 continues to be so popular with private citizens, even if many never tire of telling us that "real cartridges start with a .4".

This is not true. The main weapon of a soldier was a bolt action magazine rifle, in German case the Mauser, and they were exceptionally powerful weapons that were designed to kill, not to wound. Same with the Parabellum. I believe the slimmer bullet profiles of both the 7.65mm rifle and the Para rounds (relative to the older, larger caliber designs) were due to increased range and overall better ballistics / flatter trajectory that these rounds provided. The Germans still remembered relatively high casualties they suffered during Franco-Prussian war due to the French rifles outranging the German ones.

And yes, the high pressure small caliber rounds were all the rage in the 1890s-1900s Europe. The Russians adopted their 7.62mm Nagant revolver, the French had 8mm 1892 Army Revolver, the Austrians their Steyr pistol in 7.63mm, etc.

Also, don't forget that a gunshot wound in 1909 would be much more likely to be fatal vs the same wound today, due to the difference in the available level of medical care.

They shot to kill, pure and simple.
 
I often wonder how stories like this get started. I think people must simply make them up -- like those stories that have been floating around for years that F**K stands for "fornication under consent of the king" (as if kings had time to bother about what unmarried people were doing in bed), or S**T stands for "ship high in transit" because cargo ships supposedly stacked dried manure fertilizer high, lest water get to it (as if manure was ever a valuable commodity people shipped around). Somewhere along the line, these total fabrications had to have been deliberately invented, and one wonders why someone thought it would be fun to spread false trivia.

I think this story is somewhat similar. The closest I have ever heard to this being official, was a statement by firearms historian Ian Hogg that on a coldly statistical basis it might be preferable to wound an enemy soldier, rather than kill him, given that he would generally get the assistance of a buddy or two to help him off the front line, and tie up medical services in the rear. But he wasn't speaking for any official source, and I am not aware of any official source that expresses this view. The problem with it, obviously, is that a wounded soldier can often still shoot back. Therefore most battlefield weapons are indeed designed for lethality.
 
Sometimes I wonder where ideas like this come from.
Probably from reality.

There is, for example, the WWII German S-Mine ("Bouncing Betty"), which had a reputation for maiming rather than killing (whether it was designed with that in mind, who can tell). Contemporary documentation suggested that it was lethal within 60 ft, but caused injury out to 450 ft away. Because the genitalia were particularly at risk, I am told that the knowledge that one was in or near a German minefield had quite a psychological effect.

There is the (now well recognized) terrorist bombing technique of following up an initial maiming bomb (causing injuries and an influx of rescuers) with a secondary bomb of higher lethality, to target the rescuers.

There is the idea that a wounded soldier will take one or two more soldiers out of action as he is cared for or transported; whereas a clearly dead soldier does not command that effort.

There is simple economics: it is just plain easier to wound someone than kill them, as the smaller "lethal radius" and larger "woudning radius" of many munitions demonstrate, as does the small A-Zone on an IPSC target.
You want him dead. Period.
I undertand this is a generic "you", but no, I don't want anyone dead.
Also, don't forget that a gunshot wound in 1909 would be much more likely to be fatal vs the same wound today
Actually, this statement supports the "wounding" theory.

The reason (I think you'll agree) that a gunshot wound is less likely to be fatal today is because the available care is more effective. A 1900 soldier dying in hospital a day or four days after being transported from the field by ambulance, evac'd away from the front to a hospital has consumed far more resources than a soldier who was killed immediately on the field.

And for those who are with 1911Tuner, that sequence still results in the same thing: a dead soldier, just as he desired. But a more expensive dead soldier.

In that way, an arm that kills a soldier outright can be less valuable (that is, less consuming of enemy resources and morale) than an arm that "ends up killing" the soldier many days later.

So there is nothing in the "it is better to wound" theory that is at all inconsistent with an arm causing a wound serious enough to cause eventual death (as long as it is delayed a few hours or days).
I often wonder how stories like this get started
Well, again, one way is that they may be true, so that's how they got started.

If anyone here has definitive proof (I'll take for example a signed note from Georg Luger that says, "This cartridge is designed to kill, not wound" ;)) of their theory that the 9mm was not designed with wounding in mind, I'm interested. Otherwise, rhetorical statements such as the two "I wonder"s above do not advance the case.
stop or I will wound you!
You usually say stop or I'll kill you? Okay.
 
Last edited:
Well, if a 9mm was designed to wound, you can surely call it a failure for hundreds of thousands. If a rifle was designed to kill, you might also call that a failure for hundreds of thousands.

The fact is, all military weapons are designed to punch a hole clear through a human or several, whether that kills or wounds is largely left to chance, but it is very clear that none of these weapons can be counted on to kill or wound in any given situation.

Exactly what is the point you are trying to make Loosedpony?:D

Yes it takes resources to care for the wounded, and it takes far more in terms of resources to replace the dead. Like many things, it sounds good on paper, but the reality of attrition was a far greater threat than care for the wounded.

Maxim was told he could make a fortune by selling Europeans something they could kill each other with, and all modern developments have grown more lethal by the year. No military is going to waste time or money on the chance of injury or a small PK. When the chips are down, they look for the cheapest and quickest means possible to lay waste to the enemy, there really is no time to think about nicities like just hurting them a little.

Chemical, Bio, Nuclear-none may take you right away, but the idea is to get as many as possible and overwhelm any medical services available. Nobody really cares if that kills you or just makes you completely ineffective-the result is the same.
 
Last edited:
Well, again, one way is that they may be true, so that's how they got started.
Or someone makes them up, as I said.

If anyone here has definitive proof (I'll take for example a signed note from Georg Luger that says, "This cartridge is designed to kill, not wound" ) of their theory that the 9mm was not designed with wounding in mind, I'm interested. Otherwise, rhetorical statements such as the two "I wonder"s above do not advance the case.
Actually, you've got it backwards. Rational inquiry doesn't work that way. You don't make an assertion and challenge others to disprove it; you make an assertion and you provide the evidence that supports it. You're the one who asserted -- without a shred of supporting evidence, BTW -- the 9mm was designed to wound rather than to kill. The truth is, as cfullgraf said, the 9mm is a daughter cartridge of the 7.65×21mm Parabellum. It was developed by simply removing the bottleneck from the case of the parent cartridge, to allow the largest caliber bullet that would fit in the case. The overall dimensions of the cartridge were constrained by the need to fit it into a pre-existing pistol. They simply came up with the largest cartridge that would still fit in the magazine and magazine well of the Luger pistol. There is no evidence whatever of a deliberate intent to create a wounding, rather than a lethal round. If they had wanted to come up with such a thing, why develop the 9mm at all? The 7.62 Luger cartridge was less powerful, and thus even more likely to wound rather than to kill.
 
Well, if a 9mm was designed to wound, you can surely call it a failure for hundreds of thousands
Only if 9mm ball has killed more people instantly than it has killed hours or days later PLUS those it has wounded who survived.
Or someone makes them up, as I said.
Sure: where's your support that it was made up?
Rational inquiry doesn't work that way.
Actually it does. You have also made an assertion (actually two: that someone made up the idea that the 9 was made to wound; and that it was actually made to kill), so you have just as much burden to prove your theories, as I have to prove mine. We do not have to "assume" you are right--that wouldn't be rational. So I don't assume that.

Welcome to the even playing field. Untill either of us proves our assertions, all assertions remain unproven--and so mine is just as valid (and invalid) as yours.
If they had wanted to come up with such a thing, why develop the 9mm at all?
Asked and answered.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top