#18indycolts
Moderator
too many people armchair quarterback their way thru these debates. I've personally seen (up close) what a bullet does...and a 9mm is VERY impressive.
9MM Hollowpoints: Not impressive
- Thread starter PointOneSeven
- Start date
Tucker 1371
New member
~ Random quote from Magpul's website
Just a little FYI
This is basically correct. Back in the late 1950s, we were pushing NATO to adopt our rifle round as the NATO standard. A deal was made, and they did. The deal was (basically) NATO would adopt our rifle round, the 7.62x51mm (.308 Win), and we would adopt the NATO pistol round 9x19mm, when we replaced our 1911A1s.
We didn't replace our 1911A1s until the 1980s, but when we did, we kept to the deal and adopted the 9mm as our service round.
This is basically correct. Back in the late 1950s, we were pushing NATO to adopt our rifle round as the NATO standard. A deal was made, and they did. The deal was (basically) NATO would adopt our rifle round, the 7.62x51mm (.308 Win), and we would adopt the NATO pistol round 9x19mm, when we replaced our 1911A1s.
We didn't replace our 1911A1s until the 1980s, but when we did, we kept to the deal and adopted the 9mm as our service round.
The .45/40 command a lot more training than the 9mm. Cost of ammo and recoil, factor into making a person well versed with their pistol. I've seen a few people on the range and in our unit that have come off of the 40/.45 calibers and switch to the 9mm for qualification reasons. Why? They shoot the 9mm faster and more accurately.
It is not to say the .45 is a bad round, I think it's the bees knees, but it does require training. Most owners in my experience are over their head with the .45. Go to any range and watch for yourself. There will be a few owners that have done their part and make it [.45] sing, but more often than not it will not be the case.
Case and point: While at the range today, I encountered some people taking a tactical course. One of them carried a G22, great pistol in my opinion. First shot was normally there, follow up shots were 2-3 ft off target. He readily admitted that he got the G22 after receiving advice from a friend that the 40 platform was the way to go. After a few drills with the same results, one of the instructors let him borrow his personal G17, and the hits were there. Needless to say, I'm sure he will be getting a G17 in the near future.
I don't think any of the cailbers are more advantageous than the others. I do think that the 40 and .45 platform require more training and dry firing/presenting. If I were to carry any .45 it would be a 1911.
Finally, handgun hits no matter what the caliber are notoriously unreliable as compared to rifle hits. The old saying is, 'you use your pistol to fight your way back to your rifle.'
It is not to say the .45 is a bad round, I think it's the bees knees, but it does require training. Most owners in my experience are over their head with the .45. Go to any range and watch for yourself. There will be a few owners that have done their part and make it [.45] sing, but more often than not it will not be the case.
Case and point: While at the range today, I encountered some people taking a tactical course. One of them carried a G22, great pistol in my opinion. First shot was normally there, follow up shots were 2-3 ft off target. He readily admitted that he got the G22 after receiving advice from a friend that the 40 platform was the way to go. After a few drills with the same results, one of the instructors let him borrow his personal G17, and the hits were there. Needless to say, I'm sure he will be getting a G17 in the near future.
I don't think any of the cailbers are more advantageous than the others. I do think that the 40 and .45 platform require more training and dry firing/presenting. If I were to carry any .45 it would be a 1911.
Finally, handgun hits no matter what the caliber are notoriously unreliable as compared to rifle hits. The old saying is, 'you use your pistol to fight your way back to your rifle.'
mustang66maniac
New member
I've been wondering what this magnificent looking rifle was that I took a picture of. I saw it at a gun show in Sterling, VA, it was for sale for some ridiculous price. It is a behemoth! Very cool looking in person.
OK... back on topic now
I might note here that the 9mm Luger is a blown out .30 Luger because the Germans wanted something bigger than .30 caliber when they adopted the Luger. Then later, they even went to some trouble to try to make the round more effective by using different bullet shapes, though it probably wasn't worth the trouble. In any case, they are still using it to this day, just not in Lugers.
The .45 ACP on the other hand was originally introduced with a 200 grain bullet but someone thought it ought to be just a little heavier than that but I guess they couldn't manage to get it up to .45 Colt standards.
I have often heard people mention that the 9mm and the Beretta were adopted to satisify someone overseas and something to do with NATO. But I don't see how they could put any pressure on the US Army to do any such thing, since there was not much leverage to bring to bear. As it was, the US was just about the last to get around to using the 7.62 NATO anyway, though I'm certain the M14 was better than any of the alternatives. But there is more to it than that.
There isn't much pistol ammunition used on the battlefield--in pistols, that is, and submachine guns are so old-fashioned. But there's still a lot of lead being shot downrange, even in these peaceful days, and there's a good possibility of having to spread around what you have with your friends. It works both ways, too, and you could even find yourself using ammunition that came from somewhere else. It is handy if you all use the same sort. My son reported that his use (a tank platoon) had been supplied with British manufactured 7.62, though I have no idea how that came to be. In spite of being a tank unit, their demand for pistol ammunition was just about zero. By the way, I think my son said the British loaded a higher proportion of tracers in their belts, in case you're interested.
Now on the subject of shooting the .45 auto, I think some shooters may have approached the activity with too much false information on what it's like to touch off a round, at least in a 1911. It may be inaccurate but it helps to keep your eyes open when you pull the trigger. It does kick a little but hardly more (in my opinion) than some other pistols and has nothing of the blast you get from .357 revolvers. It is really much more comfortable, if that's the word, to shoot than some .380 automatics, again in my opinion. Some armies have gone off to war equipped with .380 automatics, too, though I suspect they may put more faith in their machine guns. Some of those machine guns needed faith, too.
So tell me again, why did we adopt the 9mm anyway?
As a footnote about ammunition standardization, when doing some reading on WWII British armored units, I realized that, in theory, some British armored vehicles might require as many as five different small arms calibers for their weapons, though four was probably the most, but even so! An armored car might have 7.92 and 15mm for the Besa guns, 9mm for their Stens, .380-200 (.38 regular) for their revolvers and perhaps even .303 for a Bren, if they managed to "acquire" one.
The .45 ACP on the other hand was originally introduced with a 200 grain bullet but someone thought it ought to be just a little heavier than that but I guess they couldn't manage to get it up to .45 Colt standards.
I have often heard people mention that the 9mm and the Beretta were adopted to satisify someone overseas and something to do with NATO. But I don't see how they could put any pressure on the US Army to do any such thing, since there was not much leverage to bring to bear. As it was, the US was just about the last to get around to using the 7.62 NATO anyway, though I'm certain the M14 was better than any of the alternatives. But there is more to it than that.
There isn't much pistol ammunition used on the battlefield--in pistols, that is, and submachine guns are so old-fashioned. But there's still a lot of lead being shot downrange, even in these peaceful days, and there's a good possibility of having to spread around what you have with your friends. It works both ways, too, and you could even find yourself using ammunition that came from somewhere else. It is handy if you all use the same sort. My son reported that his use (a tank platoon) had been supplied with British manufactured 7.62, though I have no idea how that came to be. In spite of being a tank unit, their demand for pistol ammunition was just about zero. By the way, I think my son said the British loaded a higher proportion of tracers in their belts, in case you're interested.
Now on the subject of shooting the .45 auto, I think some shooters may have approached the activity with too much false information on what it's like to touch off a round, at least in a 1911. It may be inaccurate but it helps to keep your eyes open when you pull the trigger. It does kick a little but hardly more (in my opinion) than some other pistols and has nothing of the blast you get from .357 revolvers. It is really much more comfortable, if that's the word, to shoot than some .380 automatics, again in my opinion. Some armies have gone off to war equipped with .380 automatics, too, though I suspect they may put more faith in their machine guns. Some of those machine guns needed faith, too.
So tell me again, why did we adopt the 9mm anyway?
As a footnote about ammunition standardization, when doing some reading on WWII British armored units, I realized that, in theory, some British armored vehicles might require as many as five different small arms calibers for their weapons, though four was probably the most, but even so! An armored car might have 7.92 and 15mm for the Besa guns, 9mm for their Stens, .380-200 (.38 regular) for their revolvers and perhaps even .303 for a Bren, if they managed to "acquire" one.
Last edited:
I was a ".45 is the only hand gun round period" guy for a few years. I travel a lot, and may need to walk home some day. You know, a SHTF type of deal. I went back to the 9mm. Both the .45, and the 9mm work on people just fine, or so I hear. But you aint going to get no rabbits with .45acp. I've shot them and squirrels with both rounds, and a ball 9mm goes right through, and leaves plenty of meat. Besides, I get the squirrels more often with the 9mm. Lol. I guess it's down to different tools for different jobs.
And now the argument that (logically) should end this debate once and for all. If your gun holds only one round at a time, then fine, .45 is the best. My guns hold more, and I'm sorry, but 17 rounds of 9mm sure as heck beats 8rounds of .45acp.
Do a little math, ft/lbs delivered times the number of rounds in the gun. 9mm IS the "nukleer" option.
And now the argument that (logically) should end this debate once and for all. If your gun holds only one round at a time, then fine, .45 is the best. My guns hold more, and I'm sorry, but 17 rounds of 9mm sure as heck beats 8rounds of .45acp.
Do a little math, ft/lbs delivered times the number of rounds in the gun. 9mm IS the "nukleer" option.
N.H. Yankee
New member
Gee, most of the dead guys on the first 48 and other real life cop series are dead by 9, 9mm that is. Many are 1 shot shootings too! I hate to say it, but a perp high on drugs can receive numerous fatal body hits and still stay in the fight long enough to kill you! I have total faith in my 9mm sub-compact summer carry, as much as my 40 cal that I use for winter carry. I also find myself using the 9mm in winter if I am going to a formal affair.
Accuracy kills more than bullet design, yes penetration is required and most well designed 9mm will do the job as well as a 40 or 45 as long as ball ammo isn't in the equation. Yes many PD's have gone to 40 cal, BUT, in my opinion the failures of the past with 9mm was poor bullet design and more so POOR SHOOTER ACCURACY! Spray and pray doesn't get it done with a 9mm, 40, or 45. The only spray and pray that works is an alley cleaner.
Remember, when most PD's went to the 9mm, it was a transition from the wheel gun and many LEO's had a hard time adapting to the different recoil characteristics of a semi. I also know WAY too many cops who don't practice and the only time they fire their gun is qualification. The 9mm got a bad rep from early POOR bullet designs and even more so inadequate shooters.
Accuracy kills more than bullet design, yes penetration is required and most well designed 9mm will do the job as well as a 40 or 45 as long as ball ammo isn't in the equation. Yes many PD's have gone to 40 cal, BUT, in my opinion the failures of the past with 9mm was poor bullet design and more so POOR SHOOTER ACCURACY! Spray and pray doesn't get it done with a 9mm, 40, or 45. The only spray and pray that works is an alley cleaner.
Remember, when most PD's went to the 9mm, it was a transition from the wheel gun and many LEO's had a hard time adapting to the different recoil characteristics of a semi. I also know WAY too many cops who don't practice and the only time they fire their gun is qualification. The 9mm got a bad rep from early POOR bullet designs and even more so inadequate shooters.
G-man 26 said:
You think that's going to end this debate? Your gun holds 17 rounds of 9mm, my XD is loaded with 14 rounds of .45acp. How does the math work out on that?
The day of the high-cap .45 has arrived.. The "wonder nines" no longer have exclusive rights to that market.
mustang66maniac
New member
haha i was just thinking the exact same thing.
Para-Ordnance has had their 14+1 .45acp out for quite some time. They just didn't gain popularity. I don't know if that was due to price, availability, or reliability issues. I'd have to say they were the first, but it seems the introduction of the XD45 and Glock 21 really made them available to the masses.
I'll never understand these caliber wars. Anyone taught how to shoot defensively is taught to shoot until the threat stops. Period. No "one shot stop" rules apply.
If you got hit in the chest with 2 or 3 9mm Win Ranger 127gr +P+ (or any proven 9mm round) or 2-3 45cal 230 gr Hydra Shoks I doubt anyone would know what hit'em!
Personally, I feel confident carrying any of the major calibers and rely on my training to keep me alive, not the caliber chambered in my gun. Pick a good load in the caliber you choose and don't look back.
If you got hit in the chest with 2 or 3 9mm Win Ranger 127gr +P+ (or any proven 9mm round) or 2-3 45cal 230 gr Hydra Shoks I doubt anyone would know what hit'em!
Personally, I feel confident carrying any of the major calibers and rely on my training to keep me alive, not the caliber chambered in my gun. Pick a good load in the caliber you choose and don't look back.
Yeah JohnO, it's increasingly becoming a matter of pure personal preference as the three major handgun calibers draw closer in the area of terminal ballistics. Modern loadings have assured that. And, the best part is, it's likely to only get better as time passes.
I shoot 9mm and .45 ACP. Maybe one day a 40 S&W will enter the fray too. Till then, I'm good with what I've got.
I shoot 9mm and .45 ACP. Maybe one day a 40 S&W will enter the fray too. Till then, I'm good with what I've got.
LanceOregon
Moderator
They hurt more when they go inside you.
Quote:
“Para-Ordnance has had their 14+1 .45acp out for quite some time. They just didn't gain popularity.”
And no wonder, there. More than a few people, can’t control a gun with that large of a grip. I can, and choose not to. The transfer of energy, in ft/lbs, on a miss is 0. For me, if I want a gun with that large of a grip, why not the 10mm. If I were to hand the large cap .45 to my wife, well, I may as well hand her a Desert Eagle. Some people do fine with it, and some can’t use the thing.
Quote:
“You think that's going to end this debate? Your gun holds 17 rounds of 9mm, my XD is loaded with 14 rounds of .45acp. How does the math work out on that? ”
Well sport, I know, and I live in a communist (10 rounds max) country. There is even better math for your argument. What you say is true, but I believe, and should have said, size matters. Most plastic guns can get up to 30 round magazines. How do you carry that in the summer time? How does your mega 14+1 wonder cannon carry? I guarantee you, you fit the same number of .45 rounds in a gun, and the gun will be larger. If size matters not, why not carry a rifle. You take a pistol in .45acp, that is the same size as a 9mm, and that is the math I would like to see. You will loose rounds, but will it make the difference mathematically? I traded my pocket cannon for the 9mm (G-26). The 9mm on my person is more powerful than the .45 I left in the glove box when it’s 115deg in the shade. One could say “10 rounds of 9mm versus 0 rounds of .45acp”. Of course, this argument means nothing in Minnesota, or Alaska. It also means nothing if you open carry. Now if you want to go take a rabbit, for a little stew or something, your .45 is as worthless as a spring loaded, BB gun. But then so is my 9mm with anything more powerful than ball, target loads. That, I will stand by.
We can agree on one thing, there will never be an end to this debate. There may be for you in your mind, or me in mine, but never a consensus. We all use what we use because of our own reasons. Different tools for different jobs? I think so. Now, (not so tongue in cheek) this is the argument that should end it. I said “should” not will.
“As you increase bullet size and mass from 9 mm/357 Sig, to .40 S&W, to .45 ACP, more tissue is crushed, resulting in a larger permanent cavity. In addition, the larger bullets often offer better performance through intermediate barriers. For some, the incremental advantages of the larger calibers are offset by weapon platform characteristics. As is quite obvious from the photo above, none of the common service pistol calibers generate temporary cavities of sufficient magnitude to cause significant tissue damage.”
Thank you Nate45.
“Para-Ordnance has had their 14+1 .45acp out for quite some time. They just didn't gain popularity.”
And no wonder, there. More than a few people, can’t control a gun with that large of a grip. I can, and choose not to. The transfer of energy, in ft/lbs, on a miss is 0. For me, if I want a gun with that large of a grip, why not the 10mm. If I were to hand the large cap .45 to my wife, well, I may as well hand her a Desert Eagle. Some people do fine with it, and some can’t use the thing.
Quote:
“You think that's going to end this debate? Your gun holds 17 rounds of 9mm, my XD is loaded with 14 rounds of .45acp. How does the math work out on that? ”
Well sport, I know, and I live in a communist (10 rounds max) country. There is even better math for your argument. What you say is true, but I believe, and should have said, size matters. Most plastic guns can get up to 30 round magazines. How do you carry that in the summer time? How does your mega 14+1 wonder cannon carry? I guarantee you, you fit the same number of .45 rounds in a gun, and the gun will be larger. If size matters not, why not carry a rifle. You take a pistol in .45acp, that is the same size as a 9mm, and that is the math I would like to see. You will loose rounds, but will it make the difference mathematically? I traded my pocket cannon for the 9mm (G-26). The 9mm on my person is more powerful than the .45 I left in the glove box when it’s 115deg in the shade. One could say “10 rounds of 9mm versus 0 rounds of .45acp”. Of course, this argument means nothing in Minnesota, or Alaska. It also means nothing if you open carry. Now if you want to go take a rabbit, for a little stew or something, your .45 is as worthless as a spring loaded, BB gun. But then so is my 9mm with anything more powerful than ball, target loads. That, I will stand by.
We can agree on one thing, there will never be an end to this debate. There may be for you in your mind, or me in mine, but never a consensus. We all use what we use because of our own reasons. Different tools for different jobs? I think so. Now, (not so tongue in cheek) this is the argument that should end it. I said “should” not will.
“As you increase bullet size and mass from 9 mm/357 Sig, to .40 S&W, to .45 ACP, more tissue is crushed, resulting in a larger permanent cavity. In addition, the larger bullets often offer better performance through intermediate barriers. For some, the incremental advantages of the larger calibers are offset by weapon platform characteristics. As is quite obvious from the photo above, none of the common service pistol calibers generate temporary cavities of sufficient magnitude to cause significant tissue damage.”
Thank you Nate45.