Maybe the 9mm isn't very effective!

Status
Not open for further replies.
What would be fun is if we could invite "Guest Moderators" onto THR.

You haven't seen fun until you've seen Parabellum from Sigforum toy with his prey before nuking the troll from existence!

Sometimes it's soooo inevitable that members sort of wait around and watch like in a Roman Coliseum or something!
 
I think there is a basic problem with trying to analyze the effectiveness of handgun calibers. I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about how handguns work. My hypothesis is that a handgun's main source of effectiveness is its reputation as a weapon capable of inflicting mortal injuries. I further hypothesize that the handgun has two principal incapacitation mechanisms: fear and demoralization. People fear handguns and are demoralized by injuries inflicted by handguns. Without serendipitous shot placement (brainstem, upper spine), handgun cartridges never produce immediate, mechanical incapacitation. In an encounter in which a handgun is used for self-defense, one's opponent is either stopped by fear or demoralization or he will fight until he bleeds to death (which could take hours or might never occur). More severe injuries are probably more likely to produce demoralization, so more caliber is probably better, but none is very good against an opponent who is not afraid of your gun and not demoralized by injury.
 
Let me unload a full magazine from my Glock 19 at his family jewels with Speer Gold Dots 124 gr JHP and then let me read his report!
__________________
Bersa Thunder .380
Glock 19 3rd Gen

The 10 most terrifying words in the English language " I'm with the Government and I am here to help".--Ronald Reagan

Wow. I guess that ends that debate. Sigh
 
I think there is a basic problem with trying to analyze the effectiveness of handgun calibers. I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about how handguns work. My hypothesis is that a handgun's main source of effectiveness is its reputation as a weapon capable of inflicting mortal injuries. I further hypothesize that the handgun has two principal incapacitation mechanisms: fear and demoralization. People fear handguns and are demoralized by injuries inflicted by handguns. Without serendipitous shot placement (brainstem, upper spine), handgun cartridges never produce immediate, mechanical incapacitation. In an encounter in which a handgun is used for self-defense, one's opponent is either stopped by fear or demoralization or he will fight until he bleeds to death (which could take hours or might never occur). More severe injuries are probably more likely to produce demoralization, so more caliber is probably better, but none is very good against an opponent who is not afraid of your gun and not demoralized by injury.

Hi Joe. Actually, I've seen the results of quite a few gun battles. Demoralization isn't really a factor. Really, several times the results were determined by a true "caliber war". I have had a number of mutual combat cases where two gangbangers had a duel (for want of a better term). There were many times when the guy with the 9mm lost and the guy with the .40/.45 won. By the way, I have never had a case where the guy with the 9mm killed the guy with the .40/.45. (I'm not knocking the 9mm, I carry one with 147gr loads b/c I've found that load to be effective and I can shoot it accurately; I'm just reporting the results).
-David
 
I have had a number of mutual combat cases where two gangbangers had a duel (for want of a better term). There were many times when the guy with the 9mm lost and the guy with the .40/.45 won. By the way, I have never had a case where the guy with the 9mm killed the guy with the .40/.45.
Click to expand...

My take on that is that the guys with the .40+ guns must have been better at shot placement. :evil: If both were equal in shooting skills, then it likely came down to which one was faster at it, not who had the bigger caliber.
 
Cookekdjr:

"Demoralization isn't really a factor."


Well, I've been wrong before. But I have difficulty coming up with an explanation for all the data. It certainly sounds like there's a lot of noise obscuring the real data, that is, it's a lot easier to disprove any physiologically-based theory of handgun effectiveness than it is to prove any of them. Looking at the physiology of handgun effectiveness, the data (a whole bunch of anecdotes) seems to point pretty convincingly in every possible, mutually-exclusive direction. This leads me to conclude that handgun effectiveness isn't mainly physiologically-based--that it's mainly psychological. With that hypothesis, all the anecdotes almost start to fit together. A lot of people seem to ignore handgun wounds that totally incapacitate other people. The handgun cartridge (at least in the short term) is like voo-doo--it only works on you if you believe in it, which most of us do; we either run away, surrender, or lie on the ground when we are hit, incapacitated by demoralization. There is also fear, the incapacitation mechanism which I think ends most self-defense encounters involving a handgun. Handguns seem to work pretty well even when no one gets hit. My conclusion (tentative, I'll concede) is that the handgun's effectiveness is largely based on reputation.
 
Balh blah blah, lets just make a round with the power of a 155 howitzer and this argument would be over, the new argument would then be "would you shoot or pistol whip":evil:
 
I've been a cop for six years now in a city of approximately 40,000 people. I've seen dead people shot with 25 acp, 9mm, 40 caliber, 45 acp and a 410 slug. No my city is not in the midst of a murder epidemic. We're pretty much like any other moderate sized town with a gang and Meth problem. Which is the entire country anymore.:rolleyes:

I've also seen people killed with a rubber strap (strangulation),from being kicked in the head and bleeding out and of course with a knife. Several years ago we had a murder in which the victim had his jacket sleeve caught in the driver door. His girlfriend was mad at him and she dragged him several miles at over 55 miles per hour before she stopped. There wasn't much left of him from below the waist when she stopped. I know I've seen the photos. He was very dead.

I believe she was driving a 1972 Impala. Wonder how that rates on the Taylor scale. :neener:

Anyhow my point is many things will kill you very dead and very effectively. In the very near future I'm switiching over to the Glock 19. Of course I'll have a G26 and a Remington 870 shotgun for additional firepower and my radio to call for other cops. Many of whom carry the G21. Nevertheless I don't feel underarmed.Just me I guess.
 
I have no doubt any and all can kill. However, if I going to rely on a cartridge for defending myself and my family, it's going to something above 9mm the vast majority of the time. Yea, I carry my BHP in 9mm sometimes but I feel much better with my .40 S&W, .357 Mag, .44 Mag, 45 ACP or .45 Colt cartridges.

My neighbor, an older man now, had taken a 9mm and 45ACP in the shoulder. He told me of the the time he was hit with the 9mm, he said it felt like a bee sting. Months later when he was hit with the 45ACP he said he almost passed out from shock. He said it was disabling to him even though it wasn't a vital shot. He reaffirmed my thoughts of "defend with all you reasonably can and still shoot well being comfortable". If I ever half to use any of my guns to defend with, I hope it happens the 99% of the time I am carrying something with more guts than my 9mm's or .380.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I have no doubt my 9mm Hydra Shok's would ruin someones day but hey, I'll take the best odds I can reasonably get.

:)
 
To sum up a good friend of mines theory of stopping power: Poke a hole. Poke the biggest hole you can. Poke it all the way through.
 
Rookie Days

Back in my rookie days my partner fired six 158 grain HP's into a 6'3" assailant. All six shots hit inside a three inch group in the sternim at a distance from the back of a bus to the door. Assailant never fell down. It took one more round of 12 gauge buck shot to level him. I won't own or carry anything that doesn't have at least a 4 in the first digit of the caliber.
 
The handgun cartridge (at least in the short term) is like voo-doo--it only works on you if you believe in it

Hi Joe. They may be the case with some folks. But, respectfully, that's not what stops people. The big three (.40/.45/.357) cause spectacular wounds. Sometimes the best 9mm can cause similar wounds. Its not fear or demoralization that stops folks. Its shattered bones and rapid blood loss that cause disabling handgun wounds.
Please keep in mind I am not starting a caliber war. I myself carry a Glock 19 because I shoot it better than anything else. I carry either a subsonic 147gr load that performs almost as well as the .40 call loads or a +p+ 115 or 124 gr load that's pretty close to .357 SIG or personal defense .357 mag loads. If I shot the Glock 23 as well as the 19, though, I'd switch in a heartbeat.
 
In the very near future I'm switiching over to the Glock 19. Of course I'll have a G26 and a Remington 870 shotgun for additional firepower and my radio to call for other cops. Many of whom carry the G21. Nevertheless I don't feel underarmed.Just me I guess.
Checkman,
I suggest (based on experience):

1. Any 147gr personal defense load. I think the Federal loads penetrate windshields the best, but other than that they all perform well.
2. With any lighter slug, use a +p+ load like the 127gr(?) Ranger or the Federal 115gr round at 1300 fps. The Federal is very accurate and had zero recoil in my G19.

The FBI in my area swears by 147gr hydroshocks for shooting through cars and still getting the badguys. The Rangers do not expand at all but are very effective on people. I have seen the results first hand. Deadly.
Good luck and be safe.
 
67 posts, now 68 on one cartridge that is .097 bigger than the other. Neither the .45acp or the 9MM is a death ray. Misses with either are misses. Neither cartridge is going to disappear anytime soon. Both have been around a long time, the 9MM being the older of the two, and both have worked rather well in combat, as much of a role as a pistol plays in any event. So what does it matter?

If you think you are better armed with a .45acp good on you, the guy who feels the same way about his 9MM is no less armed, just armed with a handgun of another caliber.

Humans only die from gun shot wounds by either bleeding to death or disruption of the nervous system. Both cartridges are as capable as the other. Just depends on what they hit during their passage through the target. If you are a believer in stats then carry a knife. Knife attacks I am told are more lethal than gun attacks statistically.

Take Care

Bob
 
Deadmeat2 smells of troll.
Click to expand...
I must say that I was EXTREMELY surprised to see a person claiming to be a medical professional stating that temporary cavity would do damage to veins and arteries.

Blood vessels are impressively elastic. It is universally accepted that temporary cavity has little or no effect on elastic tissue.
 
If caliber and muzzle energy meant nothing, the DOW would not set minimums. They would just tell you to shoot straight. Here in CO, the minimum for handguns is 550 ft/lbs at 50 yards. Since deer and antelope are similarly sized and of similar construction to humans, this gives a fairly good guideline. Of course, the smallest rounds that will achieve this are .357 and 10mm fired from 5-6" guns with max loads, so this is not very practical from a CCW standpoint. Additionally, many folks cannot shoot such guns/loads effectively. But the logic remains, and for this reason one should definitely be carrying the most effective caliber they can handle. If a 9mm is it, then go for it. But with the number of micro-sized guns on the market these days, there are plenty of options in more potent chamberings. .45's exist today that are smaller than most .380's were ten years ago. There are a couple of 10mm's that are small enough to carry quite comfortably. .357's that weigh only 12 ounces are a handful, but certainly offer dynamite in a small package.

So, once again, it really comes down to the same wisdom that has been circulating for a long time. Carry the largest caliber you can handle. My wife hates wheelguns and cannot handle the recoil of a compact .40 or .45 one-hhanded (she limp-wrists and gets jams),so she carries a 9mm. I have no problem with the recoil of any production handgun, so the Witness 10mm compact goes with me. Whatever works.
 
So he says he sees more 9mm's and .380's than anything else on the AUTOPSY TABLE, and states they are not effective?
Click to expand...
In self-defense the goal is to STOP the attack. By whatever means.
Death of the attacker is just a side benefit.


For example, let's say

1) You are attacked by a tweaker high on Meth
2) You shoot your attacker twice with a (insert your CCW caliber here)
3) Your shots do not immediately stop the attacker
4) He shoots you three times in the lower body with a cheap 22 loaded with hollow points
5) You fall down from shock
6) He falls down from blood loss
7) He dies several hours later on the operating table.
8) You lose half of your stomach and part of your intestines.

Do you consider this a good outcome?
After all the bad guy died and you survived.

That's why stopping power is very different from killing power.
A hunter relies on killing power.
A victim depends on stopping power.
 
There doesn't appear to be a whole lot of science available in the matter of handgun cartridges stopping attackers. There are just lots of anecdotes. The only thing I've been able to come up with that makes the anecdotes fit together is that wounds inflicted by handgun cartridges rarely or never mechanically incapacitate anybody in less time than it takes to empty a magazine, reload, empty another magazine, whip out a Bowie knife, cross the room, inflict dozens of stab wounds, jump out the window, and run down the block. Consequently, I conclude that the mechanical effects of wounds inflicted by handgun cartridges do not often prevent dangerous attackers from causing as much damage as they want to cause before they bleed to death. And yet, there are lots of anecdotes and estimates about handguns stopping and preventing attacks. How to reconcile this? Not sure. But dangerous attackers are acting on some impulse or other. Murder is, I suspect, rarely a carefully reasoned act. I think that rational calculations about personal benefit rarely motivate the violent criminal. Criminal violence is symptomatic of some psychological pathology, some irrational, pathological impulse. From a psychological point of view, people are covered with buttons and they do things to some extent based on how their buttons are pushed. When some violent criminal gets into a state where he feels like harming you is going to make him king of the world and you whip out a handgun and put a JHP through his isles of langerhans, he might not be mechanically incapacitated, but you would have pushed some of his buttons which might alter his mood. The injury, the percieved increased difficulty of carrying out his attack, and the danger of additional injury may demoralize him.

If, on the other hand, your attacker is in a state where he can't be demoralized, then you're going to need a shot to the top third of his head and maybe more than one. Anything that penetrates the skull and gives good penetration will work about as well and anything else through the forehead.

That's my theory. Might not be right, but it's hard to disprove. Just like everybody else's theory.

The idea that anything that starts with a 4 is a great stopper, but anything smaller isn't might be true, but think about what that would imply. There would have to be a very significant nonlinearity in the response of attackers to the caliber of projectiles inflicting injuries. .22 through .355 won't do a lot; attackers eat those bullets like candy. Then a rather small increment in bullet diameter from .355 to .4 corresponds to a large change in the response of an attacker. Now he doesn't just bleed a bit more--he can't even pull the trigger again! How to explain such a nonlinearity in the relation between projectile diameter and effectiveness? Such a nonlinearity might exist, but it would need to be investigated and documented before I could beleve in it.
 
Then a rather small increment in bullet diameter from .355 to .4 corresponds to a large change in the response of an attacker. Now he doesn't just bleed a bit more--he can't even pull the trigger again! How to explain such a nonlinearity in the relation between projectile diameter and effectiveness? Such a nonlinearity might exist, but it would need to be investigated and documented before I could beleve in it.

Its not the difference in bullet diameter that does it. Its the ability of a given projectile to inflict damage to human bone and flesh. Typically, at handgun velocities, bullet weight is a huge factor in a round's ability to shatter bone and cause tissue damage. That's why the "4" calibers do better. Their bullets are heavier. The bad guys go down because, when the bullet strikes their bones, the bones shatter to pieces instead of glancing/ricocheting (like it normally does with smaller calibers). It helps that the diameter is larger, but that is a much smaller benefit. Shattered bones means more corresponding tissue damage (both from deeper penetration, because the bullet passes through the bone and keeps on going, and from the "bone shrapnel").
The .357 acheives its level of destruction via a much higher level of velocity than typcial 9mm loads, and/or with heavier bullet weights. (EX 158gr bullet at 1250-1400 fps, or 125gr bullet at 1450 fps). Note that the 158gr .357 bullet velocities are very similar to the .40 cal 155gr loads, and that their level of performance on the street is near identical.
Look, I've seen more people walk away from 9mm wounds than I can count. Hundreds. I have never had a case, in 10 years, of anyone walking away from a .40, .45, or .357. They were all disabled or died. This is over a ten year period of dealing with gunshot wounds almost every day. (Remember though, 9mm performance varies widely based on load; it can mimic .380 or .357 SIG).
As for the smaller rounds like the .22/.25/.380...They have only killed someone in my cases where the victim suffered one unlucky shot (like under the armpit and into the heart, or one shot in the head) or they were shot over 20 times (Yes, I do mean 20; I had a case where a man shot his brother over 20 times with a .22 revolver. I lost count of the times he reloaded. It was a six shot NEF).
 
The 9mm "might" expand, but the 45 sure as hell ain't going to shrink.
Click to expand...

I am surprised that this thread went 3 pages before someone dug out this tired, old saying. It adds so much to the discussion.

I've gone round and round on this topic. Just when I am convinced of one position, a credible source causes me to re-think it. I guess I will continue to be very picky about the load in whatever I am carrying.
 
cookekdjr...

Any street results from the cor bon 40SW 135gr load? As I recall, it screams out at about 1350 fps.

Biker
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
The truth about handgun knockdown power
2 3
Replies
57
Views
5K
BHP FAN
B
L
  • Locked
Gun-related--because it entails the very existence of this forum
Replies
10
Views
868
dolanp
D
Y
  • Locked
Tactical Response Fighting Pistol AAR
Replies
10
Views
617
larry_minn
L
Double Naught Spy
  • Locked
Gun-Free Zone Pseudo Myths
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
5K
Al Thompson
A
I
  • Locked
Zed and Glock are my friends! – CZ85B and Glock 17 are CZimply the best!
Replies
5
Views
885
Impureclient
I
Back
Top