I'm well aware that for self defense purposes, a good modern jacketed hollowpoint load is the overwhelming preference for dealing with a threat, for reasons which I already know and understand, so I need no explanation there. However, I've been wondering about it, and I'm curious to know exactly how effective (or ineffective) 9mm ball ammo really is, and has been historically, at incapacitating human targets based on existing scientific and/or anecdotal information. So far, I haven't been able to find anything conclusive about this after searching online; only a general acceptance of the demonstrable fact that jhp rounds are superior to fmjs for self defense, especially where overpenetration is a concern.
But to what extent the 9mm fmj round is lacking by comparison seems to me like something that could still be open to debate, and therein lies my curiosity.
Consider the reputation and widespread use of the cartridge. It has been putting people in the ground for over a century, in crime, self-defense, and in warfare, and has pretty much only been available as ball ammo for the majority of that time. Isn't there something to be said about the widespread adoption and apparent effectiveness of 9mm Luger, even only in fmj form?
People talk about the lackluster performance of 9mm fmj in real world defensive shootings, which is not something that I would necessarily argue with, but what about the use and effectiveness of the cartridge during combat in the world wars? Wasn't fmj the only flavor that it came in back then? What about all those pistols and submachine guns that were mass produced by the thousands or millions during the wars and were apparently used to great effect in combat with ball ammo? What about all those MP-40s that German NCOs carried and fought with as
primary arms? What about all those Sten guns that were supposedly used so effectively by Allied troops and underground resistance fighters? Am I missing something here?
Since this question might be more focused on bullet configuration than caliber, I might also mention the even smaller caliber PPSH-41, which the Russians used in urban fighting with such great success that I've read they even had entire infantry divisions armed with them. Weren't those 7.62x25 rounds their weapons fired all fmj?
So, what are your thoughts and opinions on this? Is 9mm ball really
that terrible as a manstopping round, even with proper shot placement? Or is it simply a matter of the bullet giving less than ideal, but still generally good enough performance to get the job done?[/Q
Lethal and quickly incapacitating are two different concepts.
22lr, 32, 380/9mm FMJ are all lethal, but the goal of self defense is stop (incapacitate) the threat ASAP.
.355 diameter hole has less stop the threat ASAP potential than a .6x hole (expanded 9mm HP)
Well stated. Incapacitating the attacker(s) as quickly as possible - irregardless of causing "expiration" is the objective. Efficiency is using the fewest rounds, in the shortest time frame, to quickly incapacitate the attacker(s). Several factors play into the innumerable scenarios. Size and fitness of the attacker, what are they wearing? Protective gear or thick winter clothing? Big beefy person or small frame, even "average" size? Are they hyper aggressive or on drugs? So many factors come into play. Finally, there is something called "Shot placement" which all of the folks reading/replying here are probably very familiar with. Depending on where the bullet strikes your attacker - THAT, combined with some of the factors I listed above will decide "efficiency, effectiveness and lethality". By the way, trying to compare Sub-guns firing 9mm ball rounds in a combat scenario - to a civilian firing a Glock handgun - that is the proverbial Apples versus Oranges. Rate of fire, barrel length etc. cannot be compared and used as a determining factor.