9mm gets no respect...why?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The original 9mm hardball round got a lot of complaints from soldiers who used it in combat when it first came out. Among other things they claimed that heavy clothing, particularly that made from animal hides, could stop it or render it incapable of causing more than a flesh wound.
Today's 9mm is a very different round from the one they had then, and while I prefer something a little stronger, I am comfortable using a 9 in defense situations. I consider it the minimum though.
 
The original 9mm hardball round got a lot of complaints from soldiers who used it in combat when it first came out. Among other things they claimed that heavy clothing, particularly that made from animal hides, could stop it or render it incapable of causing more than a flesh wound.
Today's 9mm is a very different round from the one they had then, and while I prefer something a little stronger, I am comfortable using a 9 in defense situations. I consider it the minimum though.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you heard or read the information you've given but it's unbelievably incorrect. The original 9mm was first chambered in the 1902 Luger (Parabellum) pistol. When adopted as the standard German military sidearm in 1908, the bullet design was a truncated cone with a flat nose and remained that way until 1916 when complaints from The British and French claiming it was designed to cause inhuman wounds caused the Germans to design the now common round nose ball cartridge. The design of the Luger (P-08) action is such that a HOT load is required for proper function. The idea that heavy clothing or even animal hides would stop the bullet or reduce it's effect to a "flesh wound" is clearly not the case. If anything, the 9mm ball bullet over penetrates. (A good load for the Luger pistol is 6.0 grains of Unique and a 124 or 125 grain bullet.)

For years the Europeans loaded the 9mm much hotter than manufacturers in the US did. Many Lugers wouldn't function properly with US ammo because the loads were too light. (Some late WW1 German 9mm that was substandard quality found it's way into the US in the 1920's and gave the German ammo a bad name for awhile. It's possible it used poor powder or was improperly stored but it wasn't normal.)

Fred Datig's book shows the German firm of DWM loading a 124 grain bullet to a velocity of 1250 FPS for the 1902 Luger. Does that seem inferior to today's 9mm ammo?

Today the Luger is a collector's gun and not nearly as common as they once were. Newer pistols aren't as sensitive to cartridges as the Luger and if I were a betting man I'd bet that until you get into +P loads, today's 9mm offerings aren't as hot as the original German military cartridges of 1908.
 
Last edited:
doubs43: I admit It's been awhile since I studied on the early 9mm round, but if memory serves, the WWI German soldiers were complaining about Russians, especially Cossacks, who wore very heavy clothing and often covered that with a sheepskin coat. I don't know a lot about the early 9mm, but I am pretty sure I remember reading that several years ago in a history of WWI. Have you heard/read anything about that?
 
9 mm

If you think 9mm is too light a round , just look at some of the exanded 147 gr. Federal HST pictures floating around the internet. Modern designs in 9mm JHPs have made it into a different round than it was just a few years ago !
 
I know that in general the 9mm parabellum cartridge is controversial as a viable self defense calibre. Many on this forum and elsewhere prefer the 45 ACP and will perhaps settle for the 40 S&W. In fact, many times I feel like the 9mm is considered a barely adequate

Help me understand one thing though - the 357 magnum is near the top of everyone's list as a potent manstopper. And the 9x19 is almost exactly the same calibre (.356), and with proper loading (e.g. +p or +p+) should be comparable in velocity to the 357 mag. Assuming that the projectile designs are comparable, it seems that 9mm should be a good load for self defense.

Comments?
Click to expand...

Living here in California, I'm not allowed to legally own a normal capacity magazine (I refuse to call them high capacity). As such, If I'm going to be limited to 10 rounds or less, I'm going for an 8 round .357 loaded to the hilt for maximum asswhoopage per round.

If I were allowed to legally carry a 20rd 9mm, I'd carry that in a heartbeat.

Well, they didn't call it "parabellum" for nothing . . . (any Latin students here?)
Click to expand...

for war
 
I know that in general the 9mm parabellum cartridge is controversial as a viable self defense calibre. Many on this forum and elsewhere prefer the 45 ACP and will perhaps settle for the 40 S&W. In fact, many times I feel like the 9mm is considered a barely adequate
Click to expand...

I own 9mm's & shoot them often. I stock up on 9mm ammo because it is cheap, and is probably the best choice for a military cartrige when simply taking an opponent off the field of battle is the objective, and carrying large amounts of lightweight ammo is important. (Same argument for the .223; I want it on the battlefield--but if I am to use a rifle in the house for defense, I'll take an AK) I am not a fan of the 9mm for defense. Something about the moderate speed, shape, weight & caliber make for a round that badly overpenetrates & yet fails to transfer energy efficiently. I prefer the .40 for personal defense--great energy transfer, does not OP as badly as the 9, and is not capacity limited like the .45. I own guns in all three calibers, I carry the .45 some, the .40 nearly always. The 9? Never.
 
doubs43: I admit It's been awhile since I studied on the early 9mm round, but if memory serves, the WWI German soldiers were complaining about Russians, especially Cossacks, who wore very heavy clothing and often covered that with a sheepskin coat. I don't know a lot about the early 9mm, but I am pretty sure I remember reading that several years ago in a history of WWI. Have you heard/read anything about that?
Click to expand...

Not accurate. The 9 penetrates far more than the .40 or .45. In fact, having "executed" wild hogs in a pen, (a brutal, emotionally scaring event if not for the evil these vermin represent) I can report that the .45 was the LEAST effective on this heavy-skinned animal. I had MULTIPLE head shots bounce off with 230 gr. ball ammo; the 9mm dropped them like a rock. As an aside, when you do bounce rounds off the head of a 200lb pig, they REALLY want out of that pen.
 
All I can say is I wouldn't want anyone shooting at me with a .22 much less a 9mm. :) Any volunteers?
 
I figured it out. it was the 7.65x22 parabellum round that was underpowered and replaced by the 9x19 luger.
 
After watching all the photos and results of the ballistics carnage at the ever so entertaining www.boxotruth.com I've come to the conclusion that a pistol is just a pistol and a rifle is a rifle.

If you care to go through all their "tests" you'll come to the same conclusion that the difference between a 9mm and a .45 is negligible at best. Now if you're talking about a rifle or a breech shotty, then we're talking apples and oranges.

So I think a 9mm JHP that I can double tap with is at least as effective as a .45
 
Both the 9mm and .45 got their initial reputation (along with the .45 LC, .38 short/long/special, the rest of their ilk) when no one made reliable expanding hollow points. Yes when all you're doing is poking holes, bigger is always better. I would argue that if the .40 S&W had been introduced in the early portion of the 20th century with only FMJ available for loadings it would have a mediocre reputation.

The .45 ACP has been regarded as the best SD cartridge for a long time for the simple reason "no one makes a .46." If someone had made a .46 that was remotely shootable, I can guarantee you that .45 would be lumped in the middle with all the other cartridges rather then the top. As so many people have stated before with modern bullet design there's not much of a difference between all the major caliber rounds out there. Shoot what you shoot the best, I carry a G34 (9mm Glock) at work as an LEO and don't feel undergunned at all. I also carry a USP .45 and don't feel like I'm better armed then when I carry my Glock. Hits and where they are located matter far more then .02-.07 of an of bullet diameter.

-Jenrick
 
It must be remembered that the military isn't allowed to use expanding bullets and thus depends upon "ball" bullets to do the job at hand. Before adopting the .45ACP as standard, the US Army performed extensive tests on cattle and human cadavers. Where a magazine full of 9mm cartridges failed to effectively put down a cow, two or three shots from a .45ACP would. Human cadavers were suspended from a rope and shot with both cartridges. The amount of rearward movement was carefully recorded. In ALL cases, the .45ACP was considerably more effective than the 9mm.

Civilians are not restricted to hardball cartridges. The 9mm becomes much better when an expanding bullet is used..... but so does the .45ACP! When shooting through clothing, the bullet's hollowpoint is often filled with material and effectively becomes a hardball. Then we're back to square one with the .45ACP the clear winner.

For 2009, Hornady has released new cartridges that have a patented hollowpoint bullet that eliminates the plugged cavity and gives full expansion after passing through clothing. Link: http://www.hornady.com/story.php?s=786

The debate over 9mm vs .45ACP has been going on for more than half a century and will continue. My personal choice for home defense is the .45 but I often carry a 9x18mm Makarov or CZ-82 pistol when I go out unless I know I'm going to a really bad area. Then it's the .45.

The bottom line is quite simple: Ya pays yer money and takes yer chances.
 
I thought the .38 was the ugly step child on THR...since I have 3 of them of various sizes, and only 1 9MM I feel like the runt of the litter. I've been looking for a Magnum Force Dirty Harry gun but haven't been able to find one I could afford.
 
opinions ?

:what:Like you said 1Texicanolian ? everybody has an opinion

Goll-ley! I sure hope not - doesn't really sound like it's in the best interest of the shooter - HUH?

but golly josh jee whiz , if I get in a situation of having to shoot an attacker that has a gun pulled on me , Im not so much in a hurry to kill
the guy as much as just dropping him , dis-arming him for my own safety and let him get a ride in an ambulance , so he can live and go to prison - Im about self defense first , if I wanted more than my assailant to suffer than die I would blow his brains out or shoot for the heart - my post was in response about the stopping power of a 9mm . I have had hand guns in higher caliber myself before (45 and 357) but other than having something bigger is usually in my OPINION and that of a few others I have talked to is mostly for show or bragging rights - I carry and use just what I need for low cost and convenience as well as stopping power... convenience being another part of why I prefer the 9mm ?
Now that we're both cooking with propane and propane accessories I can sleep better at night knowing that I have explained myself to you . HUH?:scrutiny:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Curious to note how conspicuous in it's absence is the 10mm when discussing the various attributes of the .380, 9mm, .38spl, .40S&W and .45AP. Best to let sleeping dogs lie, I suppose.
 
Here is the thing. When comparing a 9mm to other cartridges, it is one of the smaller ones. Pistol wise I believe it is the second smallest round next to a .22...
What does that tell me as a student of science? Well, for one, it makes a smaller whole then others. This means smaller chance of getting a vital part of the bad guy that may stop him otherwise.
Hollow points are great yea, And they are supposed to get up to 150% of the bullet diameter. Now lets take a 9mm. .356 bullet diameter. Expanded by the full 150% it would be .534.
A .45 ACP starts with .451 and goes out to .6765.
Second, 9mm's don't have a 230 grain. More mass means more damage once the bullet gets in there. More mass to break off into the body. More mass also means slower velocity. Reducing the chance of the bullet to pass straight through the body. Thus giving it a better chance to stop internally, and dumping all of its force into the body.
The advantage of a 9mm is the capacity of a magazine. from 15-20 rounds gives you more shots than a .45 with 9 shots. Whats doing more damage? It all depends. you have twice as many shots to hit vital areas with the 9mm. But you have larger diameters with the .45
Idk, a .45 is just scarier mentally imo. a 9mm is not as intimidating. not saying its not scary, I mean any gun pointed at you is scary, but not AS intimidating as a larger bullet
 
I have a couple of 9's and I don't feel underpowered at all. If I shoot someone with my JHP, I'm pretty sure they're gonna feel it. But if they don't, I've got 18 more rounds that I can use. Nothing like 19 holes of expanded hollow points to ruin a BG's day.
 
9mm gets no respect...why?
Click to expand...
It gets plenty of respect. Just not in the U.S.

In the U.S. the gun community has been brainwashed by decades of propaganda, mostly from gunwriters, asserting that any caliber that doesn't start with a '4' is ineffective.
Pistol wise I believe it is the second smallest round next to a .22...
Click to expand...
There are a number of pistol calibers smaller than the 9mm but larger than the .22. The .25ACP and the .32ACP are a couple of the most common.
Idk, a .45 is just scarier mentally imo.
Click to expand...
Spoken like a true "student of science"...
Before adopting the .45ACP as standard, the US Army performed extensive tests on cattle and human cadavers. Where a magazine full of 9mm cartridges failed to effectively put down a cow, two or three shots from a .45ACP would.
Click to expand...
The tests did not involve the .45ACP for the simple reason that it didn't exist in 1904 when the tests were performed. Second, the tests were not "extensive" in any sense of the word, they lasted a couple of days and involved shooting only about a dozen animals.

Finally, the live animal testing didn't provide any results nearly as definitive as your post implies. The live animal testing was very loosely controlled involving a variety of animals (in terms of size) and variable shot placement, variable numbers of shots, etc. which resulted in outcomes that couldn't be correlated to ammunition performance in any useful manner.

In the first day of live animal testing, the .30 Luger outperformed all the other tested ammunition by a large margin, killing the animal with a single shot through the lungs in only 30 seconds. None of the other rounds in the first day of testing killed the animal in under 2 minutes from the first shot in spite of the fact that all the other rounds tested involved shooting the animal at least twice. The second day of live testing (in which they completely changed the testing methodology due to the fact that the testers were not happy with the first day's results) yielded equally variable results and they ended up shooting hanging cadavers and selecting the bullets that made the cadavers swing the most. In other words they selected primarily for maximum momentum. The kicker is that they didn't even measure the swing distance, but rather scored the sway subjectively. As in: "Oh, that looks like a 100." or "That's only an 87.", etc.

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/history/background.htm#test
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Styx
9mm vs 357mag
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
136
Views
6K
jstert
jstert
A
  • Locked
Penetration: 9mm vs .45ACP
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
rbernie
rbernie
N
  • Locked
9 mm Self Defense round, whats your favorite ?
2 3
Replies
66
Views
4K
RustyShackelford
R
L
  • Locked
My Personal Handgun Caliber Dogma
2 3 4 5
Replies
115
Views
5K
Autodidactic
Autodidactic
CZF
  • Locked
The Fallacy Of the .45?
2 3
Replies
55
Views
4K
MrAcheson
M
Back
Top