pistol-training.com » Blog Archive » 9mm: Cool again?
It looks like Todd might be looking to ruffle some more feathers.
It looks like Todd might be looking to ruffle some more feathers.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
9mm: Cool again?
- Thread starter cedartop
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Hey, I was just shooting .577 this weekend. Ok, I just made that up.
9mm never wasn't cool. It's just now that all that tacti-cool guys push the 9mm, the sheeple will follow.
I personally shoot .40 as well as 9mmand don't need the extra capacity of 9mm, so I'll take the extra oomph of the heavier bullet.
Caliber debates are really pretty pointless, because the actual impact of a given caliber varies by a HUGE amount depending on which gun it's fired from and which load is being shot.
It's kind of ridiculous to generalize about the 9mm when that might be 80gr or it might be 147gr, and they have VASTLY different recoil and terminal performance characteristics.
I'd take a 147gr 9mm over a 155gr .40 all day long in a full size G17 or G22. But I'd take the 180gr .40 over the 115gr 9mm if that's the caliber comparison.
If I have to pack a tiny gun, the 9mm seems a much better choice in almost any bullet weight.
I don't carry my G20, so the portability advantage of a 9mm is moot to me. Instead, I prefer speed and power, which 10mm has enough of. Plenty shootable in a G20.
9mm never wasn't cool. It's just now that all that tacti-cool guys push the 9mm, the sheeple will follow.
I personally shoot .40 as well as 9mmand don't need the extra capacity of 9mm, so I'll take the extra oomph of the heavier bullet.
Caliber debates are really pretty pointless, because the actual impact of a given caliber varies by a HUGE amount depending on which gun it's fired from and which load is being shot.
It's kind of ridiculous to generalize about the 9mm when that might be 80gr or it might be 147gr, and they have VASTLY different recoil and terminal performance characteristics.
I'd take a 147gr 9mm over a 155gr .40 all day long in a full size G17 or G22. But I'd take the 180gr .40 over the 115gr 9mm if that's the caliber comparison.
If I have to pack a tiny gun, the 9mm seems a much better choice in almost any bullet weight.
I don't carry my G20, so the portability advantage of a 9mm is moot to me. Instead, I prefer speed and power, which 10mm has enough of. Plenty shootable in a G20.
Not sure if it was true that .40 proliferated because of gun buybacks and the 90s assault weapons ban. I will admit that given the choice between 9mm and .40S&W when buying a handgun in 2000, I choose .40. If a person can only have 10 cartridges why not choose the larger of the two? 9mm has enjoyed a resurgence since the the expiration of the ban.
At one time I completely standardized on .40S&W. Recently I have been moving back to 9mm and .45.
At one time I completely standardized on .40S&W. Recently I have been moving back to 9mm and .45.
sloughfoot
Grandmaster
The problem with the 9mm is that it is a puny .356 diameter. I feel underarmed with less than a .357 diameter bullet. Naked against my enemies. It is a horrible feeling.....
netsecurity
Shooter
How many of you have taken two Glocks (or any same type guns), one 9mm, one .40 caliber, and shot ten shots from each on a clean target 15 yards away, then measured the results? I'd be interested to hear your results. Try the same with 5 double taps each. try with two sets of five rapid fire shots each.
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
I would guess the main push for departments to go back to the 9mm is $$$. The bean counters have fewer beans to count these days, and if you can get more bullet per bean that's a persuasive argument.
Terminal ballistics in a nutshell (as related to common duty weapon calibers, both handgun and rifle):
Most shootings: Perform so close to the same that any difference is well within statistical margin of error
Intermediate barriers: Slower/heavier has the edge.
The only time you see much difference is when the round has to punch through glass, metal, wood etc. before it gets to its target. Its why the Conservation officers in Indiana were carrying .45s while the Troopers were still carrying 9mm. Their work environment is full of obstructions, and a heavy round deflects less and penetrates more. Simple physics, FBI studies, ballistic texts, etc are pretty conclusive on that front.
I wouldn't feel underarmed with a 9mm, I just never found a platform I really liked in my formative shooting years and haven't felt the need to move away from my .45s or .357s since.
Terminal ballistics in a nutshell (as related to common duty weapon calibers, both handgun and rifle):
Most shootings: Perform so close to the same that any difference is well within statistical margin of error
Intermediate barriers: Slower/heavier has the edge.
The only time you see much difference is when the round has to punch through glass, metal, wood etc. before it gets to its target. Its why the Conservation officers in Indiana were carrying .45s while the Troopers were still carrying 9mm. Their work environment is full of obstructions, and a heavy round deflects less and penetrates more. Simple physics, FBI studies, ballistic texts, etc are pretty conclusive on that front.
I wouldn't feel underarmed with a 9mm, I just never found a platform I really liked in my formative shooting years and haven't felt the need to move away from my .45s or .357s since.
Interesting commentary in the comments section:
"I currently run the firearms program for a large law enforcement agency in Northern California. Our officers currently have a choice between 9mm or 40 S&W in our duty weapons. Most officers selct the 40. We are switching to all 9mm (and a new pistol platform) in the next few months.My reasons for making the change is not so much cost, while that is a nice addition, it is the ballistic qualities of our current duty 9mm ammuniton. We have found through real world shootings, that the ballistic quality of 9mm ammunition is equal to, or in some cases, better than our 40 ammunition (especially through auto glass). Another reason for switching, is we don’t armorer 9mm pistols as much as 40′s. The round is simply easier on guns.
I have also attended many autopies from our OIS’s and studied the ballistic qualities of the ammunition. 9mm retains its weight very well and has excellent expansion. The shot groups on 9mm shooters is better than 40 shooters. The 9mm shooters have better overall hit placement. I know that the shooter has a lot to do with it. I always tell my shooters, if you are not giving up anything with ballistics, why not carry a gun thats easier to shoot?"
"I currently run the firearms program for a large law enforcement agency in Northern California. Our officers currently have a choice between 9mm or 40 S&W in our duty weapons. Most officers selct the 40. We are switching to all 9mm (and a new pistol platform) in the next few months.My reasons for making the change is not so much cost, while that is a nice addition, it is the ballistic qualities of our current duty 9mm ammuniton. We have found through real world shootings, that the ballistic quality of 9mm ammunition is equal to, or in some cases, better than our 40 ammunition (especially through auto glass). Another reason for switching, is we don’t armorer 9mm pistols as much as 40′s. The round is simply easier on guns.
I have also attended many autopies from our OIS’s and studied the ballistic qualities of the ammunition. 9mm retains its weight very well and has excellent expansion. The shot groups on 9mm shooters is better than 40 shooters. The 9mm shooters have better overall hit placement. I know that the shooter has a lot to do with it. I always tell my shooters, if you are not giving up anything with ballistics, why not carry a gun thats easier to shoot?"
I have on many occasion. In fact I have a 9mm conversion barrel for my Glock 23 and had one for a Glock 35. 9mm has less recoil and the round shoots flatter so hits at distance are easier. Follow up shots/split times are not as different as you think. In fact I found the G35 to be faster then my 1911. Now keep in mind that I have carpal tunnel and my hands always hurt. The .40 does hit steel plates and bowling pins with more authority. Truthfully I can not claim any accuracy differences. Any accuracy differences would be affected by sights and trigger more then cartridge.
9mm less felt recoil.
9mm shoots flatter.
Follow up shots not as much as you are led to believe.
Accuracy no diffrrence.
.40 easy to find right now.
.40 hits harder, it is more powerful.
Capacity similar
Just buy a Glock or M&P in 40, then get a 9mm barrel for the range.
Shoot what you shoot best. Stopping power is irrelevant if you don't put the biscuit in the basket.
Fordtough25
Grandmaster
I've never been a fan of .40 myself, nothing wrong with it but I started with a .45 and then snapped up some popular pieces in 9mm for the $$$ of ammo. I enjoy shooting the 9mm pistols mostly, but still love getting the 1911 out and banging some steel!
I at one time owned a FNP in 9mm and .40. I shot both of them accurately. When it came to doing double taps, or follow up shots, the 9mm was much easier to get back on target quickly. A couple of guys that I shoot with chose .40 for their carry caliber. They both recently picked up pistols chambered in 9mm. They both have been talking about how the 9mm is easier to control, less felt reacoil, etc. The .40 does hit with more energy, but that does not always win the fight. Honestly, I see no advantages the .40 has over the 9mm. Not with todays bullet technology. If I were going to get another handgun in a larger caliber, it would be a .45. Just because the .45 is even easier to control than the .40., in terms of felt recoil.
Liberty Sanders
Master
I can't help feeling this is a big step backwards.
I was around during the LEO transition from six-guns to self-loaders. I went from a Model 10 .38 with softpoints (we had a cowardly safety director who said criminals would "sue us" if we used hollowpoints) to a Model 65 loaded with .38 +P+ hollowpoints (new safety director) to a Model 6906 loaded with the 147 grain subsonic. Since my retirement my PD has gone from the Smith DAO to that Smith that looks like a Glock (M&P?)
During my tenure the .38's and 9's had one thing in common...they were damned near worthless in a fight. I recall a robbery suspect early in my career who took six rounds from one of our Model 10's point-blank and then walked to the ambulance. A later incident had a psychotic individual who absorbed eighteen rounds of +P+ plus before he even fell and stayed there.
Lowest common denominator is a lousy way to select ammo. If a recruit can't handle a .40 or a .45, perhaps agencies should consider replacing them with recruits who CAN.
I readily concede that I'm an old dog, but I think Thompson and LaGarde still got it right, which is why I pack a brace of N-frame six-shooters, a .45 and a .44.
I was around during the LEO transition from six-guns to self-loaders. I went from a Model 10 .38 with softpoints (we had a cowardly safety director who said criminals would "sue us" if we used hollowpoints) to a Model 65 loaded with .38 +P+ hollowpoints (new safety director) to a Model 6906 loaded with the 147 grain subsonic. Since my retirement my PD has gone from the Smith DAO to that Smith that looks like a Glock (M&P?)
During my tenure the .38's and 9's had one thing in common...they were damned near worthless in a fight. I recall a robbery suspect early in my career who took six rounds from one of our Model 10's point-blank and then walked to the ambulance. A later incident had a psychotic individual who absorbed eighteen rounds of +P+ plus before he even fell and stayed there.
Lowest common denominator is a lousy way to select ammo. If a recruit can't handle a .40 or a .45, perhaps agencies should consider replacing them with recruits who CAN.
I readily concede that I'm an old dog, but I think Thompson and LaGarde still got it right, which is why I pack a brace of N-frame six-shooters, a .45 and a .44.
Last edited:
SmokinSigs357
Expert
Thanks for sharing that...very interesting point of view from someone with hands on experience!
I also carry a .45, but am a big proponent of 9mm. From what I gather, today's 9mm is nowhere near the stuff of yesteryear...YMMV
I just don't think that is right. Look, I don't care what caliber people shoot. Why? Because there just isn't a worthwhile difference between the main ones we use. No consistent evidence has pointed to the .40 or .45 being any better of a fight stopper than the 9mm. Anecdotal, yea tons of that. The department I used to work for had nines when I was there. They worked flawlessly in all of the OIS's they were used in. The dept. later switched to .40's. Why? Because Sig gave them a great deal on 229's to keep them from going to M&P's. They gained nothing because they had no problems before, but many of the qual scores dropped. An improvement?
I agree! Very interesting post. When I started shooting handguns, it was 9mm vs .45. The .40 and 10mm were not around yet, or in their infancy, and not yet contenders. I always chose the .357 or .44 mag over either. But about 9 years ago I bought a Hi-Power in 9mm and really liked it. In the last 9 months I have added 3 more 9s. So it's good to hear positive stuff about a choice I have made.
