Undergunned with 9mm?

[Boats]

I carried a Taurus TP-22 exclusively for almost 5 years...

What does that tell you?

It tells me that you're a little off your rocker.

I knew someday that the FBI tests would rear their head in this thread. Here you go. The .45 was "rejected" not because of its performance, but because the OAL of the cartridge requires a frame that some agents couldn’t handle. (Just like in the real world). Those that could handle the frame size were apparently also thought capable of handling the new favorite full-house 10mm round rather than a .45ACP which was outperformed. Of course the birth of the .40S&W puts the lie to the 10mm being the wunderround for everyone. (I still want a G20 15+1 when the mag ban sunsets--I'm no Luddite after all).

Here is what the FBI tested various ammunition upon:

1. Bare Gelatin at 10 yards
2. Heavy Clothing at 10 feet.
3. Automotive sheet metal at 10 feet
4. Wall board at 10 feet
5. Plywood at 10 feet. One piece 3/4" AA fir plywood
6. Automotive glass at 10 ft.
7. Light clothing at 20 yds.
8. Automotive glass at 20 yards

All shots fired had to defeat the above obstacles (where present) AND penetrate 12" into a block of ballistic gelatin. The 12" was developed on anatomical averages, and failing to penetrate to that depth was considered a failure.

All portions were tested using 40 rounds of each ammo sample and gun combination.


FBI AMMUNITION TEST PERFORMANCE DATA

CAL MAKER BULLET Wt. GUN BBL VEL. FPE SUCCESS

.45 Fed HS 230 4506 5" 802 328fp 95%
.45 Rem JHP 185 645 5" 903 334fp 95%
.45 Fed HS 230 1911 5" 828 358fp 82%
.45 Fed JHP 185 4506 5" 874 313fp 90%
.45 Fed JHP 185 645 5" 953 373fp 57%
.45 Win S-Tip 185 4506 5" 951 371fp 50%

10mm Norma JHP 170 Delta 5" 1358 696fp 100%
10mm Fed JHP 180 Delta 5" 931 346fp 95%
10mm Win JHP 180 Delta 5" 955 364fp 92%
10mm IMP-3D JHP 180 Delta 5" 991 392fp 92%
10mm Buffalo Prfrg 191 Delta 5" 916 355fp 30%

.357 Fed HS 158 M13 3" 1183 490fp 100%
.357 Win JSP 158 M13 3" 1096 421fp 97%
.357 Win S-Tip 145 M13 3" 1166 437fp 82%

38sp Fed HS 147 M13 3" 874 249fp 92%
38sp Rem LHP 158 M13 3" 871 266fp 67%
38sp Fed LHP 158 M13 3" 834 244fp 70%
38sp Fed HS 129 M13 3" 841 202fp 60%
38sp Win LHP 158 M13 3" 808 229fp 65%
38sp Win S-Tip 125 M13 3" 843 197fp 17%

380 Win S-Tip 85 PPK 3" 954 171fp 20%

9mm Fed HS 147 226 4.25" 914 272fp 82%
9mm Fed HS 124 226 4.25" 1062 310fp 82%
9mm Win JHP 147 226 4.25" 902 265fp 62%
9mm Win S-Tip 115 226 4.25" 1091 303fp 35%

By these measures, the best .45ACP rounds didn’t do as well as the best 10mm round, but just look at how much more ballistic energy was required to get that last 5%! It is also interesting to note the best .38Sp performer outclassing the best 9mm by 10%. It is even interesting to note that the .45ACP 230 gr Hydra-shok had two different performance percentages from two different platforms.

Look, I like the 9mm just fine as an autopistol round. It has a lot of virtues. In "modern" loadings, it would probably represent better in the above tests. However, the 9mms "equivalency" is hotly contested, and not just because a bunch of .45ACP aficionados beat their chests about it. The perception the 9mm is a little lacking in the power department is backed by fact.

 

[agtman]

For those interested in the actual FBI report, .....


... by the Bureau's SA John Hall, you can find it here:

http://www.totse.com/en/bad_ideas/guns_and_weapons/10mmpist.html

The 10mm Auto bested both the 9mm and the .45acp in penetration AND in accuracy. From the last pages of Hall's Report, the careful reader will note:

"As an additional consideration, the 10mm was by far the most accurate round tested, consistently providing one hole 10-shot groups at 25 yards of less than an inch (0.77" average) with both handloaded and factory ammunition built to FBI specifications. By contrast, the 9mm averaged 2.3" and the .45 averaged 2".

"The conclusion was obvious. The best performing round within the parameters of the FBI's test protocol was the 10mm."

 

[Boats]

However, the careful reader would also note from the Hall report:

As a point of reference, the standard issue .38 Special, 158 grain lead hollowpoint round was fired through the battery of tests. Although the .38 was not a "test" round, and therefore not fired under the same strict test controls, the penetration performance was similar to that of the 9mm, producing acceptable penetration 67.5% of the time.

AND

Averaging the volumetric results over all eight test events, the 10mm and .45 displaced similar volumes of tissue within the desirable penetration range of 18"--4.11 and 4.22 cubic inches respectively-well beyond that displaced by the 9mm and .38-which respectively measured 2.82 and 2.16 cubic inches.

So really, with the exception of barrier pentration in some media, the 10mm doesn't produce awe-inspiring advantages over the .45ACP. (I still want one though!) I do find it interesting that the "offensive" units of the FBI use the .45ACP when the same platform, i.e. the 1911, can chamber either round and give a slight capacity advantage to the 10mm in the process.

I'm gone.

 

[Mike Irwin]

And, once again, please note that Mr. Hall was writing about ammunition/bullets that can only be classified as FIRST GENERATION, with none of the advantages of the later research and development that was done AFTER the results of the FBI's testing were published.

Also note that the data posted by Boats is the data from FBI's initial testing, again, what Hall was writing about, and which used the FIRST GENERATION bullets -- bullets that had been designed more on what appeared to look good and what the designers THOUGHT might work, rather than any large body of investigative research.

It's no coincidence that within a few years of the conclusion of the FBI's first round of testing, which Hall is discussing, Winchester, Remington, Federal, and others had all adopted the FBI protocols, including gelatin testing, and had begun massive R&D programs to design bullets that would expand reliably at handgun velocities, and which would penetrate deeply while expanding.

Winchester's Black Talon, Remington's Golden Sabre, a slightly redesigned Federal HydraShok, Speer's Gold Dot, PMC's Starfire, all were deveoped based on FBI's test criteria, gelatin testing, and lots of computer time, both for design and simulation.

The efforts are proving worth the time and expense. Winchesters first generation 147-gr. 9mm, which FBI tested, and which a number of police forces adopted, proved to be an extremely disappointing performer in actual use.

Winchester's (and other makers') second generation 9mm 147-gr. slugs, however, have proven to be excellent performers, both in testing and in actual use.

We're both a generation and light years away from the performance levels shown by the ammo in FBI's testing, and time has been VERY good to just about every caliber now availble, to the point where once again I state that the obvious differences that used to exist between the rounds is, anymore, a matter of barstool bickering and conjecture.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"The .45 was "rejected" not because of its performance, but because the OAL of the cartridge requires a frame that some agents couldn’t handle."

Think about that statement for a moment and you'll see that it doesn't make a lot of sense, Boats...

Because the 10mm, which FBI did adopt, has a LONGER overall length than the .45 ACP.

However, the grip frames of the 10mm S&Ws that FBI did adopt were dimensionally identical to the grip frames of S&W's .45 ACP handguns.

That fact puts your claim into a little hot water...

 

[Sean Smith]

So really, with the exception of barrier pentration in some media, the 10mm doesn't produce awe-inspiring advantages over the .45ACP.

... if you use weaker 10mm loads and/or obsolete bullet designs, that is.

 

[Boats]

Not so. I will quote myself with the sentence you didn't include:

Those that could handle the frame size were apparently also thought capable of handling the new favorite full-house 10mm round rather than a .45ACP which was outperformed.

They weren't going to have two calibers in the same size frames. One loading of 10mm beat all of the .45ACP offerings. They didn't then turn and issue both. The large frame gun, for a time, became the full power 10mm. That is of course not the case today.

That water didn't feel too hot. Looking at the .45ACP performance data, it was certainly no slouch. The 9mm, as shown, was really found wanting. You have been lumping the .45ACP and the 9mm together as rejected equally. It looks like one was rejected more out of hand than the other from the data.

You keep going on about CAD generation bullets. No empirical testing has been done that I have seen which would cast any doubt on the conclusions of the FBI tests. The improvements, such as they are, amount to conjecture until tested one against the other.

 

[Boats]

... if you use weaker 10mm loads and/or obsolete bullet designs, that is.

Since the 10mm fans I know are about 30/70 factory/reloaders, some of those folks are consistently shooting hot .40S&Ws and the rest shoot whatever it is that they cook up.

Lest we forget a .45ACP round can be hotted up.

I am not in this thread to mix it up with 10mm fans. I am a fan of the round, but the platform choices are still rather limited. That is what primarily holds me back from getting one, not that I don't believe in the round.

The 9mm is a whole 'nuther ball game.

 

[agtman]

Boats:

Just so we're clear, I like the .45acp and used to carry a Sig 220. It's a venerable warhorse of a cartridge, one that I'd carry again if the 10mm Auto weren't available to me.

But the choice of the 10mm over the .45 was a fairly easy one for the Bureau. Whether the 10mm's advantages were "awe-inspiring" is irrelevant.

The fact is the 10mm offered three primary advantages over the .45, two of which were stated in Hall's Report.

First, it penetrated to the desired depth more consistently and more reliably than the .45. As Hall states:

"10mm - 39 shots out of 40 (97.5%); .45 - 37 shots out of 40 (92.5%); 9mm - 27 shots out of 40 (67.5%)."

Believe it or not, when encountering intermediate barriers in LE work (e.g., auto glass, various metals, and wood of differing densities), you want all the probabilites on your side if bullets suddenly get exchanged.

The 10mm's second advantage, as noted, was it's accuracy over the 9mm and .45acp. I mean, who'd want one of the less accurate calibers? ("Here, Agent Mulder. We're issuing you this pistol in the least accurate caliber we have, 9mm. Doesn't really matter, though, since you can't shoot for sh*t anyway." ).

The 10mm's third advantage is simple: it offered an increase in magazine capacity over the .45acp by 1 or 2 cartridges. With the S&W 10XX-series pistols, which use single-stack mags, there is a 9+1 capacity, as against 8+1 in the 45XX-series. (The Bureau actually had Smith make a "+2" floor plate for the mags its agents were issued with their 1076s). The 10mm Glock 20's preban mags hold 15+1, as against the .45 G21's prebans which hold 13+1.

Another point to remember is the one Sean made. The 10mm has a far greater energy (fpe) range than the .45, which leads to a greater versatility of application than the .45, even over 45 +P loadings. The careful reader of Hall's Report will note that the particular 10mm load used that bested the 9mm & 45 was a purposely down-loaded 10mm/180gn HP (@ 950fps). Not only are hotter 10mm loads available today, but they come loaded with much better HP bullets (e.g., Gold Dots) than Hall's people had access to. These bullets penetrate sufficiently and mushroom reliably - and do so at high velocities that the .45 simply can't duplicate.

As far as your reference to Hall's quote about the .38 Special, I assume you were just out to "tweak" the 9mm fans a bit, since it really doesn't speak to the 10mm issues above. But that's okay, the 9mm mavins need to be tweaked once in a while. It's good for 'em.

By the way, as far as the FBI's HRT unit being issued custom-built 1911s in .45acp, the fact is that the unit did consider chambering them in 10mm Auto, but Bill Wilson balked at it. He claimed the 10mm has "feeding problems" in 1911-pattern pistols and would only submit samples in .45acp . Pretty lame claim.

Funny how pistolsmiths Dane Burns, Richard Heinie, Ed Brown and only about a hundred others, including my 'smith Vic Tibbets, have absolutely NO PROBLEM building feed-reliable 1911s chambered in 10mm Auto.

In fact, here's what the HRT unit ought to be carrying (or something similar):

Ciao ....

P.S. In the pic above, that CMC mag holds 9rds of 10mm (+ 1 for the chamber). Cartridges shown are 10rds of GA 10mm/180gn GDHPs (@ 1150 fps).

 

[LeonCarr]

I shoot a 9mm ( I own a .40, but I like the 9mm better), and everybody tells me I need to shoot a .45. If the 9mm is so puny, why is it that I can find nobody to volunteer to let me shoot them with a 9mm?

I shoot a .223, and everybody tells me I need to shoot a .308. If the .223 is so puny, why is it that I can find nobody to volunteer to let me shoot them with a .223?

Any of the above calibers will work, with proper shot placement.

Never go to a fight with just a handgun.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[Boats]

agtman--

Just so we're clear.

The 10mm advocacy has hijacked the thread, not that I mind. The 9mm is the topic here.

Again, I have more of a beef with the lack of available 10mm platforms than I do with the round.

Bill Wilson didn't even win the HRT contract so who cares if he can build a reliable 10mm or not?

The real problem is one of market dynamics. Until next fall, we mere mortals can only get a full-cap G20 by selling body parts to finance both the pistol and 5 full-cap mags. All of the 1911s available for the 10mm are in one of three categories: Used. Limited run. Custom.

If someone would make a quality factory 1911 available without a Schwarz safety system and price inflated through limited availability I would buy one for Christmas and buy the reloading gear and leather for it now.

That might one day happen, but it has been a long hard slog to popularity for the ne plus ultra has it not? Until I can approximate the 1911 in platform variety and somewhat similar reloading cost, the ubercartridge can wait and I will merely make due with an ancient round that does 90+% of what the 10mm can allegedly do.

BTW, no one could say with a straight face that the .45ACP is not capable of .75" groupings. One could say Hall's test results were a statistical fluke in favor of the 10mm given the representative sample.

 

[Silver Bullet]

Geez, you guys are getting me interested in 10mm.

WonderNine, you stated

.357Sig is nice, but they make ALOT of noise. I won't be looking at any until after the AWB sunsets.

Why wait for the end of AWB ? I've been thinking about getting a P239. Are you waiting for the return of hi-cap mags ?

 

[Sean Smith]

Sure the topic got hijacked, but it was a dumb topic.

Everybody chill, we're talking about calibers, not yo momma.

And if us 10mm cultists have piqued any interest, you can just click on the link in my sig for some comparative factory ballistics... and guess which one comes out on top!

 

[Lancel]

amprecon's start was prophetic:

It seems each pistol caliber has a huge following of it's own. Some dedicated to one caliber or another and defends it to the end.

Larry

 

[Mike Irwin]

"They weren't going to have two calibers in the same size frames."

Beg pardon?

When FBI was testing these rounds, there were two firearms available that chambered 10mm -- the Colt Delta Elite, a rechambered 1911 (with l grip dimensions identical to the .45) and a rechambered S&W 4506 (with grip dimensions identical to the .45).

When FBI chose the 10mm over the other calibers, it chose the S&W, which was based on the 4506. No changes in the grip dimensions were made.

It's the GRIP dimensions that the testers were talking about when talking about being able to handle the gun from an ergonomic standpoint.

Even if FBI had adopted chopped versions of the 10 or .45, the grip dimensions would have been identical.

"You keep going on about CAD generation bullets. No empirical testing has been done that I have seen which would cast any doubt on the conclusions of the FBI tests."

Then you really need to read the reports in the firearms magazines from the early to mid 1990s, in which testing of the new generation rounds was done and compared to the results from FBIs 1980s testing.

Charlie Petty, Wiley Clapp and others wrote articles for a variety of magazines at the time, relying on both their own testing as well as on the results of testing done by Remington, Winchester, Federal, etc., all of which was done in accordance to FBI-established protocols.

Then there's also the work done over the past decade by Martin Fackler, who incidentally helped design the FBI protocols.

All have reached the same conclusion, that the newest generation of bullets perform much better and much more reliably than those available for FBI testing in the 1980s.

 

[Boats]

Cool Mike,

I bow to your superior knowledge base.

In case you missed this ongoing thread in General Discussion concerning THR trading cards, I think this thread is about to this point:

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Amprecon-
I would like to attempt to put aside much of the subjective debate that has gone on and answer your original question,"Would I be undergunned with a 9mm?" My answer is a resounding "No," and I will explain why.

Had the question been "Long gun or handgun which would you choose?" almost everyone that responded that they would have chosen a long gun of some type. (12-guage, AR-15, AK, etc.) The reason for this is simple, it is recognized that in comparison to long guns, handguns are relatively ineffectual "man-stoppers." In fact, if one takes the time to do a little research, we find that long guns often are not the panacea everyone believes they are. This is important because it is important to make an informed decision and the first essential piece of information to have is no firearm can be relied upon to stop/neutralize/kill/insert the verb you are comfortable with here 100% of the time. The second piece of essential information to have is that as a class handguns are inferior to longuns. This statement, when combined with our first essential piece of information, begins to put things in perspective.

Now that it has been established that we cannot expect great things from any round, let alone a handgun round, we nonetheless need to begin examining handgun rounds as concealed carry is the objective. I have read many of the studies cited in other posts and some that were not. While they were helpful, I came to my own conclusions based not on what the FBI or some other agency recommended, but on that data collected in the studies combined with my rudimentary understanding of physics. Please bear with me as I explain.

Energy is the ability to do work. By way of oversimplification, the work we are concerned with the bullet doing, is causing damage to the body. The more energy a bullet has, the more damage it is capable of doing. Why are long guns better? Simply put, more energy.

Some will attempt to draw a parallel between the .45 vs. 9mm debate and the 9mm vs. .380/.32/.25/.22. Energy is where there arguement falls apart. The 9mm, 45 and most other recommended defensive calibers are equivelent in the amount of energy they generate. The .380 and below class are not. How much energy is enough? I think this is at the heart of the stopping power issue and to be honest I do not know. Based on what I have read, rounds generating about 350 ft/lbs. or more seem to have a good track record and I have personally drawn the line at 400 ft./lbs.

But energy is just one part of the equation. Having the mere capability to do the damage does not mean that the damage will be done. The second component we are interested in is the ability to expend this energy within the target. Energy possessed but not expended in the target is wasted and in a defensive shooting situation manifests itself as a perforation results in a hazard to other persons behind the target. This is a deficiency particularly prone to long guns. The surface area of the projectile has a lot to do with the round ability to deposit its energy into the target. It is here that the caliber debate holds some relevance. Obviously a larger bullet has more surface area. Likewise, this is the reason we usually opt for some sort of expanding ammunition (hollowpoints). Clearly, a non-expanding .45 round is more capable of depositing its energy than a non-expanding 9mm. No arguement. But once expanding ammunition enters the equation, caliber ceases to be a focal point. Some will point out that the hollowpoint may not expand and this is a valid concern. That is why it is important to select 1) a bullet we believe will expand under a variety of conditions (many of the aforementioned studies are helpful in determining this) and 2) a caliber we are comfortable carrying with the knowledge that the bullet may not expand. With regard to item #1, almost every manufacturer produces bullets that meet this criteria. Item #2 is really what much of the debate is about, if people would put their ego/personal preference aside and think about it. The bottom line is item #2 is a personal choice, enough said.

Our third consideration is combining the other two criteria into a package that is managable. A 29 oz. 44 magnum loaded with premium hollowpoints meets both of the aforementioned criteria, but is a handful and is difficult to shoot well. What we are looking for is a pistol, chambering a round meeting the established criteria, that is light enough for carry but affords us enough size and weight to help control the recoil. There are a number of firearms that meet this criteria, but in response to your original question, I will focus on the 9mm.

Few will argue that the recoil of a 9mm, when compared to the other amjor defensie calibers, is fairly light. In fact, it is probably the lightest. Some will point out that proper technique will allow you to control any of the heavier recoiling rounds. This is a true statement, but the application of proper technique is always going to allow you to control a lighter recoiling pistol better than a heavier recoiling one. As you already know, many compact, easy to carry pistols are chambered in 9mm.

This rather lengthy explanation is why I believ the 9mm is an excellent choice for concealed carry. I hope it is helpful for you. By the way, I carry a 9mm SIG with 124-grain +P Gold Dots.

 

[1911Tuner]

Fannin' the Flames

Howdy amprecon,

I decided to let the fires die down before puttin' in my nickel's worth.

Though I'm a die-hard .45 loyalist, and no fan of the 9mm parabellum,
modern bullet designs and upped velocities have enabled the round
to move into the big leagues. While it's true that if you compare apples
to apples as with 9mm ball vs .45 ball, the .45 is going to be the clear
winner by means of bullet diameter and mass. Compare the .45 ball to
Federal's 115-grain +p+ LEO loading, and the advantage shifts to the
smaller round.

In any event, multiple, well-placed shots will greatly increase the
chances that you or your lady will come out on top. Even a shot or
two in a non-vital area will most often shut down an attacker, because
nobody wants to get shot by ANYthing...all the way down to a .22 short.
In those rare instances that a determined attacker absorbs multiple
hits and keeps coming, it's likely that he would have done the same
no matter what caliber that he got hit with.

Get her...or yourself...a suitable sidearm in the most powerful caliber
that you can shoot well with. Shoot the pistol often, and under realistic
conditions so that she will keep her head, watch her front sight,
and shoot for center of mass. Don't trust anything to stop an attack
with one shot...or even two or three, and all will be well in most cases.

Tunefucious say: One is only outgunned if one misses."

Take care, and watch your six!
Tuner

 

[Silver Bullet]

Get ... a suitable sidearm in the most powerful caliber
that you can shoot well with.

That sums it up very succinctly.

I take "suitable" to take in various aspects such as reliability, capacity, and size.

 

[1911Tuner]

re: Suitable

SilverBullet said:

I take "suitable" to take in various aspects such as reliability, capacity, and size...

Exactly so. Comfort and ergonomics also play a role, especially so
for a woman. If the pistol hurts her hand or is too large in the grip
for her to feel comfotable with, she is not going to look forward to
practicing with it. Likewise if the muzzle blast is disquieting for her.

I know a tiny little gal who carries a 9-shot Taurus .22 revolver.
She has worked with it until she can literally knock a fly off a
bull's ear. She can eat the X ring out of a B-27 at 20 paces
in about 3 seconds with her "Cute Little Gun"...I don't know about
anybody else, but I for SURE don't want to make her nervous as
to my intentions. Undergunned? Nah...

Cheers!
Tuner