Modern 9mm

[AlexM]

With the advances made in the last six years or so of some of the 9mm rounds available I feel that there is a very real re-birth of the debate of what round to carry for a standard side arm. I'd like to focus this thread to the 9mm.

With the new advances in many of the heavier compositions used to create a bullet with more weight to it, as well as including advances in hydro-shock, hollow point, ballistic gel tips, etc... the 9mm has become something that can certainly take a new place in the world of firearms for normal carry.

Many of these same advances can and have also been applied to the .45, .380, and other styles of rounds, but I have become a firm supporter of these new 9mm rounds. A good deal of these new rounds have come very close to having the same amount of kinetic energy transferred to a target as the old .45 rounds. One of the old concerns of the 9mm round was the over-penetration it could sometimes have. These same advances have helped to eliminate that problem.

My goal with this thread is I'd like to see a few pro's and con's to go along with this topic. Are other people out there sharing my opinion of the 9mm in the modern era, and if not then what are the key arguments against this opinion. I'd like to point out that I'm referring quite a few friends, colleges, and interested parties directly to this thread because it has become a normal topic of conversation over the past few weeks.

I might also add that I'm totally aware I'm re-opening a topic that's been around since these rounds were created. I apologize to many of you who have taken part in these arguments before, but I ask that you approach this with open minds and please be more than factual. Go ahead and share opinions and why those opinions are that way, so that third parties reading this thread who are looking to form their own views have some different sources to consider.

 

[legion3]

While the 9mm has come a long way (and it did an OK job for many years as was) many wound experts still generally suggest "bigger is better"

Thus while the 9 might be fine the modern 40 and the 45 damage will, in most cases, given the same set of circumstances, be likely more tramatic to the target quicker.

Does the advent of similar bullet technology, advances in propellent, et al, also apply to bigger rounds? If so then they too have moved beyond their previous wound producing threshold and are still likely better wound producers than the 9mm. The 9mm may have much better bullet technology and stoping power but, so do plenty of other bigger and maybe even smaller calibers.

I am a fan and user of the 9mm, and have great faith in the round and the newer bullet technology but in the end the 9mm still has really two key "pros", ammo capacity and softer recoil. something the round has had for many years already.

 

[AlexM]

the modern 40 and the 45 damage will, in most cases, given the same set of circumstances, be likely more traumatic to the target quicker

Certainly not in dispute.

Let me try to clarify my goal in a different way. Have the advances in the 9mm round now bridged enough of a gap in the initial short comings of the design to now warrant its use over the .45 and .40, which even though they too have made advances in creating wounds, still have the shortcomings of fewer rounds and higher recoil? Is there "enough" stopping force in the newer 9mm rounds while still maintaining the 2 main pro's of the 9mm; higher capacity and easier weapon management to warrant a change for old .45 or .40 carriers?

I know this might be tricky to get exactly at what I'm trying to discuss across so if I need to clarify better please let me know.

I guess the main question put in simple terms is, would you now feel that carrying modern 9mm ammo would be more than sufficient to handle an average possible threat while still gaining the original designed benefits of the round?

 

[Bobson]

For the average person looking for a CCW handgun (eg, we're not talking about LEOs on duty here), I'd say yes, a 9mm is sufficient. I don't have a ballistics chart or anything to back that up, I'm just addressing this specifically:

...would you now feel that carrying modern 9mm ammo would be more than sufficient to handle an average possible threat while still gaining the original designed benefits of the round?

 

[Kachok]

Some of the +P and +P+ loads are scarry fast. They even rival the more mild loadings for the 357 mag. I for one would not hesetate for a second to use a 9mm for self defence. OK techno babel time, I tend to agree with the 45 guys that the messure of stopping power (assuming shot placement) is most accuratly messured by the permanate would canal, the 45 cal can acheive 6.3 cu in with its best performers but with the advent of the bonded HP I have seen a 9mm pull an impressive 5.1 cu in and that was not even a +P load. The 9mm does almost always has more temporary cavity area then the 45 due to it's higher speed, that is an indication of the hydrostatic shock pressure wave. the 9 gets a bad rap in some circles but by every messure of terminal performance we have it is a real contender.

 

[Jed Carter]

With a handgun, it is a compromise between size and power, even more so in a subcompact pistol. It is very likely that it will take more than one round to neutralize a threat with any common handgun round. Out of a subcompact pistol I would prefer a 124 grain 9mm over a 165 grain or 230 grain .45, muzzle velocity is just not high enough for me. Modern 9mm ammunition is fine for defense from a 3.8"+ barreled pistol IMO. What I carry, a .357SIG P239 (rarely), a CZ PCR 9mm (used to be my EDC weapon), SIG RCS 1911 .45acp (my EDC pistol), and as a last resort a SIG P238 .380. If the SIG RCS was available in a 9mm I would use it over the .45, more capacity and faster more accurate (for me) follow up shots with 9mm.

 

[dogmush]

Carry the largest caliber that you can shoot accurately and quickly and fits in a platform that confomrs to your carry specifics.


/thread

 

[PabloJ]

I do not like these advances the .380 ammo seems to cost same as .45acp. I do not care for catchy BS names on ammo boxes and smaller packs to make me thinks ammo is still affordable.

 

[Tomac]

I agree w/dogmush. Shot placement and sufficient penetration are paramount, all else is secondary.
With that being said, all handguns are relatively poor "stoppers" regardless of caliber or bullet used.
Barring a hit to the CNS, the only way to stop a determined & aggressive BG is shutting down the brain due to blood loss. To that end, yes, "bigger is better" hoping for faster bleedout but in a given scenario assuming identical hits w/sufficient penetration we can't determine if different calibers/bullets will cause a *significant* difference in the bleedout rate to incapacitation.
IMHO the .380 is marginal at best as sufficient penetration is only possible w/FMJ (even the excellent CorBon DPX expands well but at the cost of sufficient penetration).
I prefer the 9mm myself over the larger calibers. More shots, controllable recoil, sufficient penetration and decent expansion w/modern loads (I like the Winchester 147gr Bonded PDX1) plus more affordable practice ammo (more practice = better shot placement).
JMHO...
Tomac

 

[MikeNice]

Does the advent of similar bullet technology, advances in propellent, et al, also apply to bigger rounds? If so then they too have moved beyond their previous wound producing threshold and are still likely better wound producers than the 9mm. The 9mm may have much better bullet technology and stoping power but, so do plenty of other bigger and maybe even smaller calibers.

It really depends on which bullet you are using. Check out Winchester's published data for the Ranger T. In certain scenarios the 147gr 9mm performs nearly the exact same as a .40S&W and gives up minute amounts of diameter. In some cases it penetrates better than the .45acp, but the .45acp does expand to significantly larger diameters.

When it comes to penetration against clothed humans the 9mm gives up almost nothing to the .40S&W in some cases. With other bullets the difference is more pronounced. The truth is that all three major defensive calibers are designed to meet FBI standards, usually. That means the performance usually falls within a specific window with little variation.

I do agree that the 9mms biggest advantages are capacity and speed for follow ups. I can get four 9mm shots in the time it takes me to get 3 .45acp shots off. That means I am getting a higher total wound volume if everything works to spec. Which for me is more comforting.

Most scientist agree that unless you destroy the heart, brain, or upper spinal cord, it becomes a crap shoot. The BG stopping is an eventuality, not a physically immediate reaction. Anything that doesn't destroy one of the mentioned areas, and stops the BG immeadiately, is causing a psychological stop. So, I want higher total wound volume and capacity. I don't want to rely on a psychological stop.

Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness - FBI

The FBI says, the edge is always to the bigger bullet if penetration is equal. Penetration over 12" is a must. A bullet that will not penetrate through blood bearing organs from adverse angles is unacceptable. Once you achieve acceptable penetration then the only way to increase the effectiveness is to increase diameter. In their words the edge always goes to the larger bullet. However, they also say the edge might only show up in 10 out of 1,000 shootings.

There is a lot of good information in the paper. I understand that their recomendation gives the nod to the bigger rounds such as .40S&W and .45acp. However, given the totality of the information and the similarity of performance I will choose 9mm. To me .03 or .05 inches of expanded diameter isn't worth the sacrifice of speed.

Going to a .45acp makes sense because of the significant increase in diameter. However, the loss of speed and capacity offset the gain, for me. Then again it depends on the particular bullet and which barriers are in the way. Because with some bullet designs a .45acp doesn't have an advantage in penetration. So, you may actually be giving up total wound volume.

There are so many variables that it is mind boggling. This post seems to be rambling at this point. I started off trying to defend 9mm. All I really ended up saying is, everything is a compromise. Look at the trade offs and go with what is comfortable. The 147gr 9mm will hold it's own with the .40S&W and .45ACP in my opinion.

Winchester LE Ammo Performance Data

I know there are spelling and gramar errors in this post. I am just dog tired from work.

 

[Ranger30-06]

MikeNice Ya beat me to it! Modern 9mm ammunition is fully capable of most two-legged defense needs, but +P is usually essential to making the FBI minimums.

Will .40 or .45 be better? In short answer, yes. This is largely subject to everyone's personal opinion; some people want huge holes (.45 ACP), some people want a lot of hits (9mm), some people compromise and get big holes and a decent amount of rounds (.40 S&W), and the last group of people want a revolver with a caliber large enough to remove limbs (.41 Mag and up).

I believe that most of the 9mm's bad rep came from the 80's/90's, when all that was availible were crappy hollow points, non +P ammo, and FMJ rounds. The FBI Miami shootout and the North Hollywood shootouts both proved these points, hence the reason the .40 S&W was picked up so quickly the second it came out. If they would make a +P or +P+ Black talon load, I think the 9mm would make an extreme jump up in the market.

In short, if your using a 9mm, get some +P ammo that has a proven hollow point and you should be fine!

One final interjection though: I thoroughly do not believe in the hype of the .380's. It is a very small, very old cartridge meant to be that way. I do however believe that a gun is better than no gun so if you have a .380, by all means carry it.

 

[MikeNice]

MikeNice Ya beat me to it! Modern 9mm ammunition is fully capable of most two-legged defense needs, but +P is usually essential to making the FBI minimums.

Unless you go with the 147gr. Which has been proven reliable since the Gold Dot, Golden Saber, SXT days of the late 1990s. The extra weight increases density and aids in penetration. As an added bonus you get decreased deflection and yaw through barriers.

Personally I load up with Winchester Ranger Bonded 147gr. They look good on paper, they matched the manufacturers data in my informal test, and my CZ likes them.

If they would make a +P or +P+ Black talon load, I think the 9mm would make an extreme jump up in the market.

The T series is the modern "Black Talon." It comes in 124gr+P and 127gr+P+. The +P+ is actually pushing the bullet too hard in my opinion. According to Winchester's data it under performed compared to the 124gr+P. Looking at their provided data the 147gr is actually the better performer across the board.

A lot of people stay away from the 147gr because hps in that weight use to suck. Plus, guys like Ayoob kept bashing them for years even after the designs changed. Now that Ayoob and other "experts" say the bullet is okay the damage is done. Some people will never change their mind and try a 147gr 9mm.

 

[Skribs]

I don't think people didn't trust the 9mm to do its job, but that they trusted the .45 to do it better. That is still the case.

When you have 13 rounds of .45, the capacity argument starts to falter. I agree, I'll take 19 over 13. But if 6 is more than sufficient in most cases, 13 should definitely be.

So then you look at larger size vs. less recoil, and that's up to personal opinion (and how much the extra recoil affects you, personally).

 

[Ranger30-06]

I don't think people didn't trust the 9mm to do its job, but that they trusted the .45 to do it better. That is still the case.

When you have 13 rounds of .45, the capacity argument starts to falter. I agree, I'll take 19 over 13. But if 6 is more than sufficient in most cases, 13 should definitely be.

So then you look at larger size vs. less recoil, and that's up to personal opinion (and how much the extra recoil affects you, personally).

This is actually kinda funny. When I was out buying my first handgun (A .45) I asked the clerk if there were any higher capacity magazines available. His exact words were: "Buddy, if you need more than 8 rounds of .45 ACP, you should be the one running!"

I'm 6', 225lbs, and regularly lift weights. Recoil on everything up to .44 Magnum is ehh. When I get to a state that allows carry, I'm going to carry a .44 Magnum because I know I can handle it. Obviously I am the exception, and I wouldn't recommend a .44 or even a .45 to everyone. It's all about what works for YOU! Not the FBI, not the guy down the street, but what YOU can handle sufficiently. The 9mm is a capable cartridge, and I'm sure hundreds, if not thousands of shootings could prove it.

 

[AlexM]

Some great feedback everyone thank you so much. So let me pose one more question along this same line now.

Assuming you have a novice, say of average to small size, looking to purchase a self-defense carry weapon (not necessarily just home defense, but actual constant wear) would you start gearing them towards 9mm, .40, or .45?

I have become a stronger advocate of bringing more people to the 9mm side for a few factors.

(1) ammo to practice with is much more affordable than other calibers
(2) As we've already pointed out, there are some really good options for carry ammo that will be more then sufficient to deal with the average "two legged" threat
(3) 9mm platforms (for the most part) are reliable, but should a malfunction happen it is easier under stress to be able to correct the malfunction using gross motor skills which may be all you have at the time. For example some of the .22 platforms have a tendency to jam, and if they do require a little more finesse to correct (this is excluding revolvers of course)
(4) The usual benefits of 9mm rounds, penetration, rate of fire, force of recoil, and capacity of the magazine.

P.S. For the record I vary my carry from a Glock 19 (9mm) or a 1911 (.45) simply depending on which platform conceals better with the clothing I'm wearing. Yes I do carry .45 and am just as comfortable with it. I also have a Glock 26 (9mm) that I will sometimes carry on my Ankle. My wife carry's a Walther PPK (.380). So I would like to point out that in the simplest terms, should the need arise to use a firearm the bullet that hits is the one that counts. So regardless of choice you should always train and continue to train with any options you choose. I can say with confidence that I do not think anyone will dispute the fact that training and ability beats out technical aspects the vast majority of the time within this subject.

My goal is to get some of the better factors and opinions out there. So, again thank you for those of you who are providing your insights. I've already received two messages from individuals thanking me for referring them to this thread. Please keep it coming.

 

[MikeNice]

This is actually kinda funny. When I was out buying my first handgun (A .45) I asked the clerk if there were any higher capacity magazines available. His exact words were: "Buddy, if you need more than 8 rounds of .45 ACP, you should be the one running!"

I hate advice like that. Look at the Officer Soulis incident. It took 22 shots with .40S&W to stop the attacker. 17 of those shots hit the attacker in the chest and abdomen.

Then there was an officer in Florida that was shot 7 times with .45acp. The first shot hit dead center between his mouth and chin. It broke his chin, flattened all of his front teeth, and blew out two thirds of his jaw on the left side. He was wounded 3 or 4 more times. Plus he took three to his vest. He still kept fighting and scored multiple hits against the perp. It wasn't untill he shot the perp three times in the head that the fight stopped.

I remember the officer saying that he knew he was getting hits on the perp. He could tell because the guy would flinch each time. He kept coming though and continued trying to kill th officer. I bet the officer was real glad he hadn't followed advice to limit his capacity.

One of my favorite lines came from the blog Sarge's Roll Call. Remember when the teacher told you to bring enough for everybody? The same applys to gunfights.

Okay that rant was off topic for the thread. One of my largest pet peeves is hearing people advise others to limit their capacity because they'll never need it. Nobody knows if you'll have a gun fight. If you do have one, nobody will know what is required until it is over.

If somebody can carry comfortably and competenly run a 13 round .45 then they should, if they want to. (Clerks need to stop playing psychic.) Personally, I find double stack .45s to be oversized and cumbersome. So, that takes them out of contention. For me the developement of .45 pistols could have stopped with the single stack. That is all I can carry.

Alex

Assuming you have a novice, say of average to small size, looking to purchase a self-defense carry weapon (not necessarily just home defense, but actual constant wear) would you start gearing them towards 9mm, .40, or .45?

I usually recomend the 9mm.

1.The ammo is cheaper - The only way to get better is to practice. That means lots of rounds.

2. The guns are usually cheaper - It takes less material to make a quality 9mm. So, the guns are usually cheaper to purchase. A lot of people that think they want to carry everyday end up not doing it. So, if they save a little money the lesson doesn't hurt as much. Plus, it means that people that truly want, or need, to carry can get started sooner with less saving.

3. There is less recoil - This is important because you don't want to scare them away with a big boom and kick. It also helps reduce the chances they will develop a flinch. (Also good reasons to avoid advising novices to buy sub and micro compact guns.)

 

[1SOW]

JMO: I generally agree with the OP and Mr. Nice, especially his conclusion.

For the average citizen, the 9mm works well in more ways than just ballistics.

Fear and the inability to defend yourself and loved ones will be reduced with a 9mm as well as a 40 cal. For the vast majority of average people this is the benefit of having access to any weapon.

The ability to afford AND enjoy or at least actively practice is critical to the whole discussion. This will help reduce fear and grow confidence.

 

[AlexM]

Thanks again to you all, I've had some great responses from the interested parties. Sometimes you can say things until you're blue in the face but until it is heard from an outside source it might not be taken into true consideration.

MikeNice and Ranger30-06 a special thank you from me to you. You hit on the head what I've tried to explain, but I guess it wasn't the same coming from me. Great feedback all.