9mm: Cool again?

[U.S. Patriot]

I can't help feeling this is a big step backward.

I was around during the LEO transition from six-guns to self-loaders. I went from a Model 10 .38 with soft points (we had a cowardly safety director who said criminals would "sue us" if we used hollow points) to a Model 65 loaded with .38 +P+ hollow points (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.

You proved a point though. You are trying to compare the bullet technology of your time, to the bullet technology of now. There is no comparison. No offense to your experience, but you can't always live in the past, as things change.

 

[HoughMade]

10 or 15...heck, maybe even 5 years ago, the simplicity of a "bigger hole" may have meant something. With the proliferation of well designed and well tested defensive bullets, the real world difference is miniscule. There's not much objective evidence (if any) to show a difference between 9mm, .40 and .45 when it comes to defensive shooting with modern, premium ammunition. This, more than anything else, has fueled the resurgence of the 9mm.

In the end, shoot what you want, be satisfied with it, enjoy it, love it.....but please avoid 3 things:
1) FMJ for self-defense in any of the 3
2) staggering rounds in your magazine...seriously?
3) bragging about how your caliber of choice is such a superior "stopper".

...we all know it's the shooter, not the caliber if the ammo is the good stuff, right?

 

[cosermann]

...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 ....

I'm squarely in the "load dependent" school.

I daresay, that if current 9mm defensive loads were available and in use by the FBI in 1986, subsequent history would have been significantly different.

Michael Platt would have probably been taken out of the fight (Miami Shootout) more rapidly, there's no FBI Wound Ballistics Seminar, no new FBI FTU standards, etc. - maybe even no .40 S&W today. Who knows? Kind of interesting to think about.

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

You proved a point though. You are trying to compare the bullet technology of your time, to the bullet technology of now. There is no comparison. No offense to your experience, but you can't always live in the past, as things change.

The same can be said for .380 power nowadays. The technology that goes into a .380 has the power of 9mm of twenty years ago. My wife carries either a .380 (FMJ) in an LC380 or a Nano. Though they are DAO, that was the way she was taught and is most comfortable in just "aim and shoot" without worrying about any safeties. It was a major concern for her to have a loaded chamber, but she is comfortable with it, shoots well with it and most importantly...carries.

 

[Birds Away]

The same can be said for .380 power nowadays. The technology that goes into a .380 has the power of 9mm of twenty years ago. My wife carries either a .380 (FMJ) in an LC380 or a Nano. Though they are DAO, that was the way she was taught and is most comfortable in just "aim and shoot" without worrying about any safeties. It was a major concern for her to have a loaded chamber, but she is comfortable with it, shoots well with it and most importantly...carries.

While I disagree with your first sentence, I agree with the rest.

 

[netsecurity]

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.

If you don't actually measure the results on fresh targets, and repeat multiple times, then you can't really say that there was no difference in accuracy. You would just be making an assumption. Has anyone measured the difference in accuracy?

 

[greyhound47]

9mm is far easier than 40 cal to stay on target. More rounds on target, higher capacity, equals better choice.

 

[Tombs]

I can tell you what it is and why. Arm chair commandos are having to deal with broad independent ballistic testing.

9mm makes the most sense of about any handgun round out there for things on 2 legs. If a one shot stop is a one shot stop, would you rather have far less recoil and greater capacity or a big sounding number?

One thing does apply, ammo availability. No matter what happens, it seems there's always a boat load of 40S&W sitting on the shelf. Shame too, it's the most obnoxious handgun round on the planet.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

You proved a point though. You are trying to compare the bullet technology of your time, to the bullet technology of now. There is no comparison. No offense to your experience, but you can't always live in the past, as things change.

This may well be true...I await developments. I will stay with my big-bores in the mean time. They work admirably with bullet technology from a hundred years ago.

 

[HoughMade]

This may well be true...I await developments. I will stay with my big-bores in the mean time. They work admirably with bullet technology from a hundred years ago.

[video=youtube;fCVHpnixj88]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCVHpnixj88[/video]

 

[VERT]

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.

I have done this on multiple occassions. Used a Glock 23 and Glock 35 with 9mm conversion barrels. Also have shot M&P 9 against the Glock 23. Clean paper plates with little orange dots, both off hand and off the bench. Any difference in accuracy has more to do with the firearm platform, sights and trigger then any inherent accuracy differences in the cartridge.

Yes I have fired controlled pairs as well. 9mm has less felt recoil. But all hits were where they are supposed to be.

I don't own a ransom rest so we are not talking about mechanical accuracy.

I used to knock around 6" steel plates at 40 yards with the Glock 35.

 

[JLL101]

I can't help feeling this is a big step backwards.

With all do respect to your LEO experience (and I am appreciative of your service), this type of antidotal commentary proves nothing. Did any of the rounds pierce vital organs. Were the 38s FMJs? Of the 18 rounds of + p +, how many rounds were fired after the guy had already incurred a mortal wound that would have stopped him shortly? How many LEO were shooting?

Over the last few years, literally every article, essay, or book I have read concludes that there is nominal differences in stopping power between the 9mm, .40 cal acp, and the .45 cal acp. According to an article I read last fall in the American Rifleman (or Guns and Ammo), EVERY major manufacturer of 9mm ammo has had at least one round pass the FBI ammo barrier, penetration,expansion and weight retention protocol.

CAN. [/U].

I think to exclude an otherwise promising excellent candidate because of sensitivity to .40 and .45acp ammo, would do a great dis-service to our law enforcement agencies. We need the best available for these critical positions.

 

[Hohn]

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?

It's funny how people say there not any real difference between the common calibers, so therefore 9mm is best. Huh? If they are the same, then they are the same-- meaning 9mm is NOT better. Or maybe it is. Or maybe .357 SIG is. Or maybe 10mm is. Who the heck knows or could ever "prove" it?


Here's my only contribution to this mess-- everyone has a recoil "threshold of accuracy.' This is the point where going down to the next smaller/weaker caliber gains you little to nothing in shot placement and speed of follow up.

Work your way up in caliber and/or DOWN in gun size until you see a big drop in accuracy-- then go one step back.

You'll then be carrying the combination of gun and caliber that gives you the optimal-- best power to-size ratio and still get hits on target.

 

[Hoosierman]

When did 9mm become UNcool?

 

[2 151 INF]

If I did carry outside of my home, I'd feel just fine carrying a 9mm. I think having a gun in any caliber would ward off threats. Now in a gun fight would you want more power? I suppose you would!

 

[roadrunner681]

It's funny how people say there not any real difference between the common calibers, so therefore 9mm is best. Huh? If they are the same, then they are the same-- meaning 9mm is NOT better. Or maybe it is. Or maybe .357 SIG is. Or maybe 10mm is. Who the heck knows or could ever "prove" it?


Here's my only contribution to this mess-- everyone has a recoil "threshold of accuracy.' This is the point where going down to the next smaller/weaker caliber gains you little to nothing in shot placement and speed of follow up.

Work your way up in caliber and/or DOWN in gun size until you see a big drop in accuracy-- then go one step back.

You'll then be carrying the combination of gun and caliber that gives you the optimal-- best power to-size ratio and still get hits on target.

well it can very difficult to define best or better. if any body thinks theirs no difference between 10mm or 357 mag, there crazy, now does the extra power make a difference? i have no idea, but i sure think it would certainly improve your odds against barriers.

 

[Chip]

I have to agree with Todd green on all of his points. Our department transitioned back to the 9 mm last year after 14 years of the 45 acp. It wasn't a decision based on one shot stops, accuracy, or control of recoil. It was fiscal and in the end there were no concrete negatives against the move.

A year later, qualifications scores are up and more guys are carrying their Glock 17's off duty more than they ever carried their Glock 21's. Pluses all around for everyone in our community I think.

 

[WebSnyper]

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.

I can tell you this, and I just started back down the 9mm road, but still have .40s in the same platform. I shoot the 9mm's better. Smaller gun in .40 is just more difficult for me to shoot, to get back on target and to not anticipate the recoil. I don't think/know or care if one is inherently more accurate than the other, but the extra snap/flash/recoil of the .40 translates into me not shooting it as well.

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 recoil, 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.

This is my experience as well.

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.

This is where I started as well. It was 9mm vs 45 for auto pistols, and for revolvers the .357 was king of the "1 shot stop". I had all of the above, but opted for the most part to carry 45 (Glock 21, later 30) and occasionally a Ruger SP101 in .357. Then for a few years, I got away from shooting, and when I came back there were all kinds of interesting developments, including better holsters, the .40 went from being called short and weak to becoming the round of choice it seemed. I decided to jump back in and picked a Glock 27 in 40, then a couple of Glock 23s. Coming from .45 I was hesitant to step down to a 9mm, but knew I wanted a smaller pistol, and coming from an older perception of ammo technology, etc I picked the .40.

All that said, I'm now starting to transition back to the 9mm. I find it easier to shoot, quicker back on target, etc. I'm not saying you can't practice enough to overcome the increased recoil, flash, etc of the .40. However, given that I now know that ammunition technology is where it is, I'm choosing to go with the softer shooting round, which is easier for me to shoot.

... I think having a gun in any caliber would ward off threats. ...

I'd be careful with that line of thinking. If you get into a situation where that gun needs to clear a holster, you'd better be prepared to use it.

 

[ironSY395]

Im really considering a 9mm now but would like to hear some favorites of new and older styles .

 

[roadrunner681]

Im really considering a 9mm now but would like to hear some favorites of new and older styles .

for me the browning hi powers or a older smith and wesson made of steel.