Improved 9mm ammunition

[stchman]

I've read that female agents had more trouble with .40S&W recoil. I personally think the recoil thing between .40S&W and 9mm is so overblown. I've owned "twins" in 9mm and 40 (FNS-40 and FNS-9, SR40 and SR9) and I could barely tell a difference in recoil. Glock probably have the FBI a REALLY good deal on the pistols.

I love it when people say that .40S&W sucks and reference the Glock 22. Just because the Glock 22 sucks, does not mean the cartridge sucks.

 

[JTQ]

Two interesting tid-biits from Tom Givens: civilian use of force encounters tend to have a lot more in common with those involving FBI Special Agents (and treasury agents) than with hose of son police officers: and (2) the marked differences between the duties of sworn officers and the responsibilities, and those differences greatly influence the nature or armed encounters experienced.

And Tom Givens choice of handgun is?...

 

[Nuclear]

I seriously doubt doctors or MEs are examining the differential in wound tracks when performing their duties. It just isn't their jobs or expertise, despite what TV and movies show. They patch up the patient or determine the cause of death. The statistical studies I've seen indicate that on average the number of handgun rounds needed to stop someone ranges from 1 and some fraction for 357s to below 3 for most every other caliber. But you don't shoot fractional rounds, and some are just barely over 2 and others are just under 3. So caliber DOES make a difference, even in long gun rounds.

Sure you can shoot a smaller caliber faster, but is it fast enough to make up the difference in effectiveness that has to be there, just from the laws of physics? Can you get one more round on target in the few seconds that a gunfight goes on by going to a smaller caliber? And how small do you go to get those additional rounds?

 

[Zerodefect]

My splits with the .40 aren't slow enough to make a difference in anything but competition. It's really close. And the difference between a 15 round mag and a 17, doesn't matter to me at all.

My coroner (well not yet) carries a .45.

 

[BigBore44]

What about home land and the Border patrol there is a lot of government people that handles hand guns. The government bought a large amount of ammo the last 3 years! I can shoot my 40 as fast as my 9mm and hit as good I still like the 40mm the best. I like the new Berry 40mm new defense round. That is jest me

Lol. You can handle a 40mm from a handgun? Damn. That's impressive.

 

[BigBore44]

Pick your poison. I choose 45. It makes bigger holes. It does give you a slight advantage to hit a vital organ or CNS with a marginal shot. Sure, it may only be 1/8-1/4" wider bullet after expansion causing a larger wound channel. But I want every advantage I can get. And how thick is your average person from xyphoid to vertebrae?

Bonded bullets have made a difference in modern handgun terminal ballistics. And the 9mm is perfectly capable of effectively stopping an assailant with one well placed shot. And it might also take 4 to do the job. But I'm sorry, at the end of the day, bigger holes of the same depth, equates to more tissue damage. That can't be refuted.

I don't know who the people are that Kleanbore cited in his posts. I'm guessing they're very knowledgeable. May even be experts. I'm sure they are. But when I chose 230gr PDX-1's for my 45, their name didn't come up in my searches. However, I tested my rounds on live animals (feral hogs). And I got WAY more penetration than 15" even after breaking the shoulder, several ribs, vertebrae, and femur on a decent hog at around 30-35 yards. Unfortunately, they weren't wearing 4 layers of clothing. It was summertime.

 

[Kevinq6]

I'll agree with this:
9mm offers the most capacity in a given platform (Glock 19 vs 23) the least recoil, cheaper to shoot, acceptable terminal performance with good HP.

Not this:
Technology improved 9mm to where it performs on par with 40/45 in same make bullet (HST/HST)
Quarters vs dimes
View attachment 762575

To argue that those would do the same damage, or that the difference would be indistinguishable

Looks the same to me

I remember a quote from Dr. Roberts applying pi * r2 for the area/size of a hole in .45 ACP vs 9mm. Of course some of the 9mm expands pretty well now too ...

Anyways I sort of wonder if some of those hot Underwood or Buffalo Bore 10mm or .357 mag loads would be significantly better. Some of the bullets (Underwood 180gr Gold dot) are driven beyond the performance envelop, or up to the very limit, but I wonder how nasty the wound cavity would be.

 

[NMPOPS]

Interesting discussions. Before I retired I spent the last few years of my career in charge of my departments firearms program. Luckily our department was progressive enough to allow personal sidearms . We issued both Glock 22/ 23 or the 21 (officer's choice) but also allowed personal weapons in 9mm and .45. While the most popular .45 was some form of 1911 or SIG P220, the most popular 9mm was the Glock 19. Many of our women and smaller male officers preferred the G19 as it fit their hands well and was easier to shoot. I could buy 30-40% more 9mm than I could 40 or 45.
The sad fact is (for us gun people) that most cops just aren't really interested in learning to shoot any better than they need to to qualify.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

I was told that the FBI abandoned the 40 S&W because of improved 9mm ammunition. So what's changed? I haven't been keeping up.

Back when the FBI had that shootout down in Miami, one of the big failures was blamed on a first generation Win Silvertip that stopped just short of one of the perps heart. The FBI started its now famous gel testing demanding a foot of penetration and the 10mm Auto got it's fifteen minutes of fame. Bullets have come along way since then but that isn't what really spurred the FBI's choice. Rather, we have enough information now to conclude it doesn't matter. Even using the info CDW4ME provided, the 9mm is still 79.3% of a .45 ACP. We are talking about fractions of an inch here. Trained pathologists that see hundreds of GSWs in the course of their career can't tell the difference between a 9mm and a .45 unless they recover the bullet with the base intact enough to get calipers around it. All .45s and 10mms require a full size grip and most of them are heavier and harder to conceal than most 9mms. Traditional single stack .45s are easier for many to shoot comfortably than the larger double stacks like the G21 and USP45, but drastically limit your capacity too. Finally, 9mm is cheaper than .45, even for the gov. So it makes no sense from a logistical standpoint to compromise the capacity, concealability, shootability, and cost of an agent's sidearm for the less than 17% difference in terminal performance that is the difference between the .40 and the 9mm.

I am with those that say if the FBI was going for performance, it should have stuck with the 10mm Auto. Nothing less provides enough of a performance increase. And even then, 10mm Auto only really comes into its own when the penetration of a heavy for caliber JHP driven through a windshield or the shoulder plate of a 400 pound hog.

 

[Nuclear]

Pathologists can't tell how fast the perp stopped from a recovered bullet.

 

[Kleanbore]

Bullets have come along way... but that isn't what really spurred the FBI's choice.

Do you have an objective, supportable basis for that assertion?

The first really comprehensive study of handgun wounding effectiveness came out in 1987, from the FBI Training Division of the FBI Academy at Quantico. The did not recommend the 9mm at the time.

Since that time, there have been substantial improvements in the terminal ballistic performance of premium grade 9mm ammunition with bonded jackets hollow point point bullets.

Those improvements, combined wit the already well known factors of lower recoil and attendant higher rate of controlled fire and of higher magazine capacity, led to the FBI Training Division's recommendations forgets and their law enforcement partners.

All .45s and 10mms require a full size grip and most of them are heavier and harder to conceal than most 9mms.

That is not an important consideration for the law enforcement partners who empale belt carry.

I am with those that say if the FBI was going for performance, it should have stuck with the 10mm Auto. Nothing less provides enough of a performance increase.

If you limit the definition of "performance" to terminal ballistics and disregard other very important measures of defensive effectiveness, that would be true.

But it wouldn't make any sense to do so.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Do you have an objective, supportable basis for that assertion?

The first really comprehensive study of handgun wounding effectiveness came out in 1987, from the FBI Training Division of the FBI Academy at Quantico. The did not recommend the 9mm at the time.

Since that time, there have been substantial improvements in the terminal ballistic performance of premium grade 9mm ammunition with bonded jackets hollow point point bullets.

Those improvements, combined wit the already well known factors of lower recoil and attendant higher rate of controlled fire and of higher magazine capacity, led to the FBI Training Division's recommendations forgets and their law enforcement partners.

That is not an important consideration for the law enforcement partners who empale belt carry.

If you limit the definition of "performance" to terminal ballistics and disregard other very important measures of defensive effectiveness, that would be true.

But it wouldn't make any sense to do so.

http://soldiersystems.net/2014/09/25/fbi-9mm-justification-fbi-training-division/

I should have said that wasn't the only reason they switched. Bullet technology has improved drastically and with it the performance of our defensive handguns. But I think even more important is that we have standardized testing now. Thirty years ago most of what we had was anecdotal evidence. This was largely, as the memo notes, "rooted in myth and folklore." As the FBI's gel testing became an industry standard we started seeing how much difference there was, or actually was not, between the 9mm and other popular service calibers. The note explains in greater detail, but concludes that there "is no discernible increase in terminal performance" between a properly loaded 9mm and a larger caliber service round.
Numerous officers carry concealed, including but not limited to the undercover offers. Discretion is often the better part of valor, which is why, the FBI issues full size and compact models (22/23 in .40 S&W and 17/19 in 9mm). But even beyond concealability, weight absolutely matters when considering gear that you're going to have to lug around all day.

 

[CraigC]

I'll agree with this:
9mm offers the most capacity in a given platform (Glock 19 vs 23) the least recoil, cheaper to shoot, acceptable terminal performance with good HP.

Not this:
Technology improved 9mm to where it performs on par with 40/45 in same make bullet (HST/HST)
Quarters vs dimes
View attachment 762575

To argue that those would do the same damage, or that the difference would be indistinguishable

Again, I have to seriously question ANY study that concludes those two bullets will create wounds that are indistinguishable. Laughable indeed.

We also have to take into account that these folks understand just a little more than lay people do about what it takes to effect a very rapid physical stop, both in terms of wound track and in terms of what parts of the body must be damaged.

But do they really? Is your average ER doctor/trauma surgeon really interested enough n the terminal ballistic aspect of it to discern the difference? Or do all bullet holes just look the same to someone whose primary function is to save the victim's life? I don't take this information gleaned from your average trauma surgeon at face value. It's interesting because I just spent a week hunting rather large bovines with two experienced doctors, both of whom are VERY interested in terminal ballistics (it's the whole point of the trip) and neither was using a .357.

 

[CraigC]

If you limit the definition of "performance" to terminal ballistics and disregard other very important measures of defensive effectiveness, that would be true.

But it wouldn't make any sense to do so.

IMHO, performance = terminal ballistics. All other factors are mutually exclusive. Sorry but this is an attempt to take the discussion into another direction. I think everyone here can agree that 9mm's are typically smaller, easier to carry, easier to conceal, easier to shoot and cheaper to feed. All of which are factors in our decision making process but it has nothing to do with wound tracts.

 

[JTQ]

It's interesting because I just spent a week hunting rather large bovines with two experienced doctors, both of whom are VERY interested in terminal ballistics (it's the whole point of the trip) and neither was using a .357.

Man, don't those doctors ever study ballistic gel?

 

[CraigC]

I guess they don't make their choices according to the whims of a government entity either.

 

[Kleanbore]

Again, I have to seriously question ANY study that concludes those two bullets will create wounds that are indistinguishable. Laughable indeed.

Certainly very counterintuitive indeed. but that's how some people have put it.

I have neither the data nor the experience to counter their conclusions objectively.

Is your average ER doctor/trauma surgeon really interested enough in the terminal ballistic aspect of it to discern the difference? Or do all bullet holes just look the same ...?

That is really what we mean by "terminal ballistics, isn't it? Real world penetration, which includes the breaking of bones, and wound channels?

...I just spent a week hunting rather large bovines with two experienced doctors, both of whom are VERY interested in terminal ballistics (it's the whole point of the trip) and neither was using a .357.

When one is trying to effect a physical stop on homo sapiens, there is only do much in the way of "power" that can rally be put to effective use, unless one has to shoot through something like plate glass.

The reliable taking of large game, on the other hand, requires more penetration, and a larger blood trail is extremely helpful, too. I would not use a firearm optimized for suburban concealed or open carry to hunt wapiti or bison.

IMHO, performance = terminal ballistics.

From an effectiveness standpoint, there is more to "performance" than terminal ballistics. One has to consider two main factors: terminal ballistics, and the likelihood of hitting critical body parts timely. As a matter of statistical chance, doing the latter against a fast moving target at close range is primarily a function of the number of shots that can be fired with combat accuracy in a very short time interval, and that number is affected by recoil.

 

[CDW4ME]

Is your average ER doctor/trauma surgeon really interested enough n the terminal ballistic aspect of it to discern the difference? Or do all bullet holes just look the same to someone whose primary function is to save the victim's life? I don't take this information gleaned from your average trauma surgeon at face value. It's interesting because I just spent a week hunting rather large bovines with two experienced doctors, both of whom are VERY interested in terminal ballistics (it's the whole point of the trip) and neither was using a .357.

I've thought about the "doctors can't tell the difference" between the calibers in wounding, my thoughts as to why this might be:

They are not looking for it, as you said they are focused on saving the person not wondering whether the wound was made by 9mm or 45.
Most cops are not "into" guns, doctors probably even less, differences in wound damage is probably not a point of personal interest.
Doc #1: This guy got shot trying to rob a conceal carry lady, just look at the wound...
Doc #2: I've got $10 that says when we recover the bullet its a 9mm HP
Doc #1: You're on cause this is going to be 45 HP and I know it.

I do not envision this conversation being a part of Medical school:
Instructor to class: we have two cadavers, the first was shot with 9mm HP, the 2nd was shot with 45 HP note the difference in wounding.

IMO it would be impossible not to see a difference in the wound made by a 9mm FMJ versus an expanded 45 HST, if you were looking for it.

The difference in incapacitation time even if measured in seconds is completely missing from "can't tell the difference" in wounding.
Difference like whether an attacker was momentarily involuntarily stopped from aggressive action, whether incapacitation took 9 seconds or two minutes.

I've bowkilled a couple dozen deer; I am interested in wounding damage from different broadheads.
Whenever I shoot a deer its time for me to be jr scientist / jr detective and see the result, including reaction at shot, blood trail, and wound.
One generalization (exceptions exist) is larger diameter heads generally leave more blood on the ground, given a double lung pass through.
In same style head, fixed 4 blade with steep angles, I can discern the difference in entry hole between a 1'' diameter versus a 1 1/4'' diameter head.
Walking up on the deer in the field, one might think "that's a nasty hole" with either head. (Like doctors looking at a single gunshot patient)
However, comparing pictures of entry holes later the difference in increasing entry wound by 25% is easily visible.
I won't post these pics as the thread is about pistol bullets nor do I want to post pics deemed not suitable for THR.

I doubt that doctors take pics of handgun wounds to compare later, might be against policy and likely deemed suspicious if not.
Nurse: Why you taking pics of that guy instead of saving him?
Doc: Well ___ PD shot him and I know they carry 45 HST - we will have it for reference later.
Nurse: What???
Doc: Yea, ___ County Sheriffs carry 9mm Gold Dot when we get one from them, we'll have photos of the difference in wounding to compare.
Think Doc is going to stay employed very long?
Interest in firearms and wounding might not go over very well in most hospitals / ER.

 

[Kleanbore]

IMO it would be impossible not to see a difference in the wound made by a 9mm FMJ versus an expanded 45 HST, if you were looking for it.
....
I doubt that doctors take pics of handgun wounds to compare later, might be against policy and likely deemed suspicious if not.
Nurse: Why you taking pics of that guy instead of saving him?...

I am amazed by how many lay persons somehow believe themselves qualified to make qualified comments on why those who have arrived at the current forensic medical consensus on wounding effectiveness could not have done so competently.

 

[JTQ]

I am amazed by how many lay persons somehow believe themselves qualified to make qualified comments on why those who have arrived at the current forensic medical consensus on wounding effectiveness could not have done so competently.

Just for clarity, are you one of "those who have arrived at the current forensic medical consensus on wounding effectiveness" or somebody who has read information compiled by such people?

 

[CraigC]

The reliable taking of large game, on the other hand, requires more penetration, and a larger blood trail is extremely helpful, too. I would not use a firearm optimized for suburban concealed or open carry to hunt wapiti or bison.

It either matters or it doesn't. If the difference between a 9mm and a .45 makes no difference on humans, then the difference between a .357 and a .45 makes no difference on critters. As I already said, it either applies universally or it does not apply at all.

From an effectiveness standpoint, there is more to "performance" than terminal ballistics. One has to consider two main factors: terminal ballistics, and the likelihood of hitting critical body parts timely. As a matter of statistical chance, doing the latter against a fast moving target at close range is primarily a function of the number of shots that can be fired with combat accuracy in a very short time interval, and that number is affected by recoil.

We have to decide if we're talking about terminal ballistics or everything else. As most of us have already agreed, it is hard to argue that the 9mm has no advantages.

I am amazed by how many lay persons somehow believe themselves qualified to make qualified comments on why those who have arrived at the current forensic medical consensus on wounding effectiveness could not have done so competently.

So those who participate in such studies are the only ones qualified to comment on the subject and all others are arbitrarily dismissed as the blathering of "lay persons"? I guess I just wasted a whole bunch of time and money digging through carcasses and gut piles since my opinion is never going to carry any weight.

 

[CDW4ME]

I am amazed by how many lay persons somehow believe themselves qualified to make qualified comments on why those who have arrived at the current forensic medical consensus on wounding effectiveness could not have done so competently.

Maybe they would (should) make their evidence (photos) available for others to view; show the "no difference" wound pics with recovered bullets.

I do not need a medical degree to look at two holes and say, "that one is bigger"
I could show pics to another lay person and they would also say, "that one is bigger"
The difference in the entry holes is 25% - going from 1'' to 1 1/4'' diameter, same as going from 9mm HST to 45 HST.

Let me guess, even if it is agreed that one hole is bigger - then another "expert" will say that it (larger hole) makes no difference.
If one disagrees with the "experts" their position is dismissed as invalid, cause they (lay person) aint an expert.

 

[revchuck]

One point that is being overlooked is that self-defense ammo and hunting ammo have different objectives. While hunting ammo is designed to kill the game animal, self-defense ammo is designed to stop the bad guy from doing bad stuff ASAP. If the bad guy is shot and stops doing whatever bad stuff he was doing and lives and goes through the criminal justice system, the ammo has done its job. If he dies, so be it, but that's not the objective.

 

[Kleanbore]

Maybe they would (should) make their evidence (photos) available for others to view; show the "no difference" wound pics with recovered bullets.

Plenty are available. There is even a pic of a survivor of a barrage of .40 bullets in this thread.

I do not need a medical degree to look at two holes and say, "that one is bigger"

Have you in fact looked at many bullet wounds in humans?
That's about the size of it.

I hate to put it quite this way, but your credibility and expertise in the field of hand-gun wounding mechanics remans unrecognized.

 

[Kleanbore]

If the difference between a 9mm and a .45 makes no difference on humans, then the difference between a .357 and a .45 makes no difference on critters.

Do you have a supportable, objective basis for that assertion?

Come now! The difference in penetration on large animals between a .45 ACP and a heavy .357 Magnum load fired from a long-barrelled revolver has been well known for decades.