I invite each of you to check out Dillon's November issue of their 'Blue Press', starting on page 32, which has pages of thoughtful rebuttals to Duane Thomas' articles, "Why the .45 ACP Failed" and "Acky Breaky Hands" in their October issue. The published rebuttals are good, sound arguments that contradict the prevailing opinions today that the 9mm is "just as good as the .45 ACP," something I've believed too since I first was issued a 1911A1 way back in 1967.
I agree with many of the points contained in the pages of long rebuttals; many of which are very thoughtfully expressed. While the 9mm is cheaper to buy, feed, and train with, it's performance is not the same as larger calibers using the same type of modern bullet designs no matter what the advertisers and soothsayers claim. Selling more product is what motivates sellers so they'll say anything to push their product.
That said, it's adequate for many who either don't train enough to accept a bit higher recoil or can't afford to train enough with the higher cost ammo of larger calibers. Yes, the 9mm is a great competition caliber, however, none of the targets in Practical Pistol, 3 Gun, etc., are shooting back so effectiveness isn't a criteria at all.
I understand that most will argue the 9mm is "good enough" and they might be correct for their level of practice and resources. Those of us who've used a larger caliber in combat and still train to stay proficient with it are happy to use it notwithstanding to popular attitudes about the 9mm. As a case in point, most troops in the 'Sand Box' agree that the combination of the Beretta M9 and 9mm ammo didn't prove to be the best choice, just the cheapest one.
As a pistol shooter for over 60 yrs, I own and shoot semi-autos in 40s&w, .45 ACP, and 10mm as well as dabbling in a bit of 45 Super. In SA pistols, I enjoy them in .357 Mag and .45 Colt. The fact is, I don't even own a 9mm firearm and haven't in some 50 years. Why? Not a fan of the caliber and as a handloader, the cost difference for a more effective caliber is tiny. (My son does own a Nazi marked, s/n matching, 1940 Model 42 German Luger but it isn't something he shoots; it's part of his collection of WWII Axis and Allies weapons.)
While you may not agree with much or anything I've said here, I invite you to pickup a free copy of the November Blue Press, turn to page 32, read the rebuttals, and decide for yourself if any or all have merit. Those of you who swear by your 9mms, I applaud you and hope your practice is sufficient so that if the need arises, your "good enough" choice will prove effective enough.
I agree with many of the points contained in the pages of long rebuttals; many of which are very thoughtfully expressed. While the 9mm is cheaper to buy, feed, and train with, it's performance is not the same as larger calibers using the same type of modern bullet designs no matter what the advertisers and soothsayers claim. Selling more product is what motivates sellers so they'll say anything to push their product.
That said, it's adequate for many who either don't train enough to accept a bit higher recoil or can't afford to train enough with the higher cost ammo of larger calibers. Yes, the 9mm is a great competition caliber, however, none of the targets in Practical Pistol, 3 Gun, etc., are shooting back so effectiveness isn't a criteria at all.
I understand that most will argue the 9mm is "good enough" and they might be correct for their level of practice and resources. Those of us who've used a larger caliber in combat and still train to stay proficient with it are happy to use it notwithstanding to popular attitudes about the 9mm. As a case in point, most troops in the 'Sand Box' agree that the combination of the Beretta M9 and 9mm ammo didn't prove to be the best choice, just the cheapest one.
As a pistol shooter for over 60 yrs, I own and shoot semi-autos in 40s&w, .45 ACP, and 10mm as well as dabbling in a bit of 45 Super. In SA pistols, I enjoy them in .357 Mag and .45 Colt. The fact is, I don't even own a 9mm firearm and haven't in some 50 years. Why? Not a fan of the caliber and as a handloader, the cost difference for a more effective caliber is tiny. (My son does own a Nazi marked, s/n matching, 1940 Model 42 German Luger but it isn't something he shoots; it's part of his collection of WWII Axis and Allies weapons.)
While you may not agree with much or anything I've said here, I invite you to pickup a free copy of the November Blue Press, turn to page 32, read the rebuttals, and decide for yourself if any or all have merit. Those of you who swear by your 9mms, I applaud you and hope your practice is sufficient so that if the need arises, your "good enough" choice will prove effective enough.
