Improved 9mm rounds ?

There is also substantial proof that larger holes are, well larger.
Click to expand...

Is there proof that larger holes are more effective, in handgun velocities, at stopping a human attacker? I would think the .357 crowd might object to that argument

There is also proof that greater momentum and power make a difference
Click to expand...

Only when argued at extremes rather than in the rather narrow spectrum of self defense rounds we often discuss. I think what gets lost here in the discussion is just how similar in terms of kinetic energy combat handgun rounds are on the grand scale of things
 
Forgive me if most of what i say is a repeat of what others have already said, i did not take the time to read all the responses, I will only answer the OP question the best I can:

The Caliber debate has been going on for way to long and will likely never stop. The idea there are new improved rounds that are better than 40 is not necessarily the case. There are new and improved rounds that's for sure... But that improvement is across the board on all handgun calibers, so guys who said years ago that they would never carry anything less than a 45, well now there are plenty of 9mm rounds that are expanding to larger than a 45. But that also applies to 45, 45 is expanding more than ever too. All that to say, choose which shoots best for you and has "enough" rounds for you to be comfortable carrying.

Here is a good reference that I always look at for any defensive rounds:
http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/
 
Only when argued at extremes rather than in the rather narrow spectrum of self defense rounds we often discuss. I think what gets lost here in the discussion is just how similar in terms of kinetic energy combat handgun rounds are on the grand scale of things
Click to expand...

That is not lost at all. It is repeated ad-nauseum these days and is the dominant view. It's also partly true (about the narrow band).

Is there proof that larger holes are more effective, in handgun velocities, at stopping a human attacker? I would think the .357 crowd might object to that argument
Click to expand...

As I said there is not a bit of proof of that. No proof that they don't either. There is no proof that a 9mm round is as useful of stopping a human threat as a 45 Colt round. But they do produce larger holes and thus potentially more disruption of tissue. We also know that a more powerful round, like the 357 Magnum, will produce more damage than a weaker round like the .380 acp in general.

Tipoc I won't argue with you. I have not seen any evidence that the slightly bigger, harder hitting .40 rounds are any more effective at stopping bad guys than comparable 9 mm rounds. That is not doublespeak. If there is empirical evidence of that I would love to see it.
Click to expand...

That evidence does not exist as you know. You also know that there is no evidence that the 9mm is as effective at stopping guys, good or bad, as larger more powerful rounds of service calibers. The evidence you stand on does not exist. That the 9mm is just as effective.

As I said before; if you build bullets to perform to specific parameters of penetration and expansion in gelatin then they will do that in 10% ballistic gelatin. But all things being equal, the larger calibers will produce larger holes.

The "evidence" comes from the physics involved. But is not the evidence that you are looking for.

tipoc
 
Here is a good reference that I always look at for any defensive rounds:
Click to expand...
Unless someone can show otherwise Luckygunner really isn't a good reference as they don't actually calibrate the blocks.
 
The "evidence" comes from the physics involved. But is not the evidence that you are looking for.
Click to expand...

I accept the physical evidence. I accept that bigger, heavier and faster are valid reasons for choosing .40 over 9 mm. I also accept that based on real-world experience those differences are apparently insignificant, especially when speed and accuracy are considered. What I reject is the unsupported evidence that .40 is superior to 9 mm for self-defense against 2 legged assailants.
 
What I reject is the unsupported evidence that .40 is superior to 9 mm for self-defense against 2 legged assailant
Click to expand...

I think one of the reasons this argument gets to continue is that proving 9MM (or .40, or .45, or 10MM) as being superior or inferior would require a fairly large sample size and volunteers are hard to come by (and in violation of the Nuremberg code)
 
Did the guy posting the "improved" 9mm wildcat with clearly uncontrollable recoil blow off his hand yet? I forget what he called it, but that was certainly a step up from the old loads :)
 
I accept the physical evidence. I accept that bigger, heavier and faster are valid reasons for choosing .40 over 9 mm. I also accept that based on real-world experience those differences are apparently insignificant, especially when speed and accuracy are considered. What I reject is the unsupported evidence that .40 is superior to 9 mm for self-defense against 2 legged assailants.
Click to expand...

It's easy for a false dichotomy to be created. We know that some rounds are more powerful than others, not only in terms of energy but also in terms of mass, momentum and, well a slightly larger hole. We know that more power is a useful thing in stopping a dangerous threat. It hits harder. It's also useful in other things for example handgun hunting (depending on the game). Often that power from one round to another is not that great and that there is overlap between calibers. But that difference is there. So whenever it is feasible choose the round with more power.

Now this general truth is not to be confused with another true thing, or juxtaposed to it; not everyone can shoot a say 40 S&W with a 165 gr. bullet as well as they can a 9mm pistol with a 115 gr. bullet. Folks who shoot defensively should choose the most powerful round they can with a bullet suited to the job in a caliber and gun they can shoot fast and accurately. If that means a 9mm then that's a good choice. Because of this the 9mm can be just as good a choice for self defense as the 40 S&W or the 45 acp or the .357 Magnum. Because if you cannot shoot the more powerful round well, fast, and with accuracy then the extra power and potentially greater effect will be lost.

But it's a mistake to confuse the above with the question of is one round more powerful than another.

Take a look at the videos below from Brass Fetcher.

357 Magnum:

http://www.brassfetcher.com/Handguns/357 Magnum/357 Magnum.html

9mm Luger:

http://www.brassfetcher.com/Handguns/9mm Luger/9mm Luger.html

Brassfetcher (which does calibrate it's gelatin and often uses 20% military grade gelatin) also lists penetration against barriers in it's tests and shows the results.

With the videos notice not just the penetration but also the effect of the bullet on the blocks of gel. Some rounds, bullets and loads, even where they penetrate and expand to the FBIs standards of 12-18" hit harder than others and the action of the blocks show that.

Always choose the most powerful round you can shoot well in a gun suited to the job. Bigger holes and more power are good things but only useful in defensive shooting if you can shoot it well. Jeff Cooper used to say that a .357 Magnum that you can shoot well and fast is much better bear defense than a 44 Mag that you can't shoot well, accurately and fast. He was right. He also know one was more powerful than another.

tipoc
 
Tipoc you make your case well. There is no question that .40 is more powerful than 9 mm. There is also no question that more power, as Tim the Tool Man used to say, is often better. Tim usually found that this is not a universal truth though. The false dichotomy here is that since .40 is more powerful it is better than 9 mm for self-defense against 2 legged predators.

Wiggling gell and Cooper notwithstanding, all the data I have seen and read tells me that 9 mm is an effective round, with virtually no difference in performance than any other service caliber in stopping bad guys. I shoot it better; faster and more accurately than .40. I can carry an extra round or two in the same size gun. For me it is an easy choice.

That is not to say .40 is not a great choice. I just find the notion that if you are not big and strong enough to carry a .40 then a 9 mm will do a little silly.
 
^^^ Agreed^^^

While i admit the numbers on paper show more "power" being generated by the 40, the actual results on the street does not show that power advantage to make any difference at all.

Trauma surgeons from major city hospitals have weighed in and cannot point to any additional damage done by the more "powerful" round.

I think all the major defensive calibers are so close as to not make a difference in real shootings.

Shot placement and penetration are the 2 main factors in stopping an attacking person. Given adequate placement and penetration, any of them will do as well as any other. Without proper placement or penetration...none of them will do the job.
 
That is not to say .40 is not a great choice. I just find the notion that if you are not big and strong enough to carry a .40 then a 9 mm will do a little silly.
Click to expand...

I find it silly as well but so far you're the only one who has said that. Which may be ironic.

Wiggling gell and Cooper notwithstanding, all the data I have seen and read tells me that 9 mm is an effective round, with virtually no difference in performance than any other service caliber in stopping bad guys.
Click to expand...

You may have mis-read, or misunderstood the reference I made to Cooper, because you seem to agree with it.

But there is no such evidence that it has "virtually no difference... than any other service caliber" in stopping guys good or bad. Given the range of service calibers that's a large claim to make. The evidence that exists is that it penetrates in 10% ballistic gel and expands to similar depths as other service calibers in bullets that have been built to meet the FBI standards. That's the only source for the claim.

Trauma surgeons from major city hospitals have weighed in and cannot point to any additional damage done by the more "powerful" round.
Click to expand...

Trauma surgeons have, in general, no idea what caliber folks were shot with when they come into the hospitals. They normally don't ask and don't care and no body informs them of it either. They are not trained to identify the effects of one round, one caliber or load from another. It is near impossible to tell.

I shoot it better (9mm); faster and more accurately than .40. I can carry an extra round or two in the same size gun. For me it is an easy choice.
Click to expand...

As I said this is the correct approach. It's in this case that the 9mm is as effective as other rounds for self defense.

But it does not make the round more powerful than 45acp, 357 Magnum or 10mm. If a person can handle one or more of these calibers and loads effectively in self defense, they will have an edge on the 9mm provided other things are equal (shooters capability, proper bullet for the job, etc.)

I think fellas can find themselves in odd situations by arguing against the effectiveness of more powerful calibers and loads and even bullet selection. Why use the 9mm+P for self defense if all of these calibers and loads are so similar? To provide a bit more power is the answer.

tipoc
 
Trauma surgeons have, in general, no idea what caliber folks were shot with when they come into the hospitals. They normally don't ask and don't care and no body informs them of it either. They are not trained to identify the effects of one round, one caliber or load from another. It is near impossible to tell.
Click to expand...

And that is exactly the point. If it's impossible to tell, from tissue damage, one caliber from the other, then one is no more effective than the other.
 
Why use the 9mm+P for self defense if all of these calibers and loads are so similar? To provide a bit more power is the answer.
Click to expand...

I agree that is the reason for +P. Some feel, as you do, that more is better. I do not. I use a 124 gr XTP at about 1100 fps, a standard pressure round. It expands and penetrates just fine without extraneous noise, flash, or recoil.
 
If it's impossible to tell, from tissue damage, one caliber from the other, then one is no more effective than the other.
Click to expand...

It's impossible for them to tell a FMJ 380 or 32 ACP from a 9mm JHP, they simply can't determine bullet diameter from the wound channel in soft tissue.
So why not just carry a 32?
 
It's impossible for them to tell a FMJ 380 or 32 ACP from a 9mm JHP, they simply can't determine bullet diameter from the wound channel in soft tissue.
So why not just carry a 32?
Click to expand...

It is my understanding that the probability of hitting bone is high enough that it should be a concern. There is a min. critical mass (or energy I suppose) one is going to need to penetrate bone. My guess would be that shattering the femur would be at least as effective at stopping an aggressor as a center of mass hit though I would not advocate changing tactics
 
You think you can determine caliber from a shattered femur?
Click to expand...

No. I would guess there is a minimum mass or energy (or combination) that it would take. I have no clue that that would be or what calibers would do it or not.
 
I would guess there is a minimum mass or energy (or combination) that it would take. I have no clue that that would be or what calibers would do it or not.
Click to expand...

You think that number is going to be the same for a 25 year 250# old athletic male as a 50 year old 135# crack addict?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top