Improved 9mm rounds ?
- Thread starter chrisintexas
- Start date
I like that this conversation has been a civil one, with few exceptions. My "silly" comment being one of them.
If .25 or .32 could predictably achieve sufficient penetration with a HP it would be carried by many. The .327 magnum is a good example. It hasn't caught on, but it certainly meets all the requirements.
Now before my requirement of a HP is used as an example of a latent desire for bigger, the bullet profile is important in any caliber.
If .25 or .32 could predictably achieve sufficient penetration with a HP it would be carried by many. The .327 magnum is a good example. It hasn't caught on, but it certainly meets all the requirements.
Now before my requirement of a HP is used as an example of a latent desire for bigger, the bullet profile is important in any caliber.
You can make up any reason you want to make the 9mm as the floor the FBI did.
Reality is a whole nuther thing and the reality is bigger more powerful rounds will make bigger and deeper holes, bigger deeper holes will damage more stuff and bigger holes leak more.
I don't care what you make the bucket out of or how big the bucket is the bigger the hole is the more it'll leak and it doesn't matter that you can't tell how big the bullet was by looking at the water.
And all the bucket ME is gonna know is the bucket is empty he has no idea how long it took for the bucket to leak out.
Mavracer if emptying buckets is the goal, I will take the .40 every time.
I understand why bigger and more powerful is so popular. I also understand that when dealing with stopping humans it is counterintuitive to believe 9 mm is as effective as .40. I have not seen any compelling reason to support .40 as superior to 9 mm though. I will continue to use 9 mm.
I understand why bigger and more powerful is so popular. I also understand that when dealing with stopping humans it is counterintuitive to believe 9 mm is as effective as .40. I have not seen any compelling reason to support .40 as superior to 9 mm though. I will continue to use 9 mm.
Just a bit on identifying bullet wounds in a person by the size of the hole or the amount of tissue disrupted.
What follows is from Brian J Heard in his work "Handbook of Firearms and Ballistics" from 2008 second edition pg. 197. Heard is a member of the Forensics Society of the U.K.
There is a good deal more in his work about this, how bullets can be deformed by passing through a barrier and appear to be a larger caliber than they are, the effects of tumbling, how the higher pressures on high velocity rounds using lead bullets (.357 Mag and 44 magnum and above) can deform the base of the bullet and make the expansion larger, etc.
Heard is a forensic pathologist and his book was vetted by his peers. So when he says it's difficult to impossible to identify a bullet or caliber by the holes that they produce in human tissue it's worth a listen. Emergency room surgeons and staff and trauma surgeons aren't trained to identify wounds. That's not their job.
A 9mm bullet will profile differently in a muscular young woman than in an older overweight man. You can't identify it by the damage done.
What Heard does not say is that more powerful rounds don't have more effect. One wound may be more devastating than another but what caused it exactly can't be told. A more powerful round leaves a more devastating wound.
tipoc
What follows is from Brian J Heard in his work "Handbook of Firearms and Ballistics" from 2008 second edition pg. 197. Heard is a member of the Forensics Society of the U.K.
There is a good deal more in his work about this, how bullets can be deformed by passing through a barrier and appear to be a larger caliber than they are, the effects of tumbling, how the higher pressures on high velocity rounds using lead bullets (.357 Mag and 44 magnum and above) can deform the base of the bullet and make the expansion larger, etc.
Heard is a forensic pathologist and his book was vetted by his peers. So when he says it's difficult to impossible to identify a bullet or caliber by the holes that they produce in human tissue it's worth a listen. Emergency room surgeons and staff and trauma surgeons aren't trained to identify wounds. That's not their job.
A 9mm bullet will profile differently in a muscular young woman than in an older overweight man. You can't identify it by the damage done.
What Heard does not say is that more powerful rounds don't have more effect. One wound may be more devastating than another but what caused it exactly can't be told. A more powerful round leaves a more devastating wound.
tipoc
Last edited:
Well we have two different pieces of information. They aren't counterpoised to each other.
A larger more powerful round will make a bigger hole and can increase the ability to stop an attack more likely than a lesser round. Doesn't guarantee it, just slightly increases the probability.
Because shot placement and speed count in a defensive encounter the shooter should choose a round they can shoot well in a gun they can shoot well, matched to the task and use that. It's more effective to shoot a 9mm than a 40 or 45 if you shoot the 9mm better.
Same reasons some pick the 9 over the 40. A bigger hole isn't always the goal. Sometimes it's more rounds or because you shoot it better in the guns you shoot well. Or just because you like it.
None of that changes that more power is in general better and a bigger hole is about always better.
tipoc
I had hoped that we could finally end this argument by convincing all y'all .40 folks that the 9 mm was the best option, all things considered! I am afraid we have failed to make our case. Fortunately I see no real downside in carrying .40 if you shoot it well, or a 10 mm, or a .45 , or a .38/357, or a .327, or even a 380! I pray that none of us ever have to learn firsthand how any of these calibers work in self-defense.
`Bama_Mike
New member
What about arguing for total bullet mass instead of hole size? Isn't there a lot to be said about a heavier mass entering a target versus smaller mass?
MandolinMan
New member
I think part of the problem in these caliber debate threads is attempting to have several different conversations at once. For example
1. There is a conversation to be had over the performance difference between 9mm and 40 S&W. By performance, I'm mean KE, expansion and penetration. This is rather objective and the .40 is the clear 'winner' in this catagory. ( I say this as a 9mm fan, mind you).
2. A separate discussion can be had over whether on not the performance differences between 9mm and .40 have any practical differences in real life shootings. Real world evidence seems to suggest that it makes no measurable difference, so no clear winner can be determined here.
3. A third conversation about 9mm vs. .40 S&W concerns personal preferences that provide some sort of distinct advantage. By this am referring to things like perceived recoil, weight, cost of ammo, etc.
I think tipoc nailed this point in post #87.
Just some thoughts.
1. There is a conversation to be had over the performance difference between 9mm and 40 S&W. By performance, I'm mean KE, expansion and penetration. This is rather objective and the .40 is the clear 'winner' in this catagory. ( I say this as a 9mm fan, mind you).
2. A separate discussion can be had over whether on not the performance differences between 9mm and .40 have any practical differences in real life shootings. Real world evidence seems to suggest that it makes no measurable difference, so no clear winner can be determined here.
3. A third conversation about 9mm vs. .40 S&W concerns personal preferences that provide some sort of distinct advantage. By this am referring to things like perceived recoil, weight, cost of ammo, etc.
I think tipoc nailed this point in post #87.
Just some thoughts.
A few more blows to the dead horse.
Or at least,questions.If we take three Orcs(bad guys) and put a target dot on each one,from the same angle,hit one with a 9mm,one with a 40,one with a 45.
Each gets one front rib hit,some lung,pulmonary artery,and rear rib,scapula,exit.
I'll agree the more major calibers may feel like being hit with a bigger hammer.
Therefore,our Orc MAY spend 5 seconds going OOOOWW,I got shot with a 9mm,and MAY spend 10 seconds going OOOWWWW I got shot by a 40 or 45.
Blood loss MAY make him drop 4 seconds sooner from the major caliber than from the 9mm.
Might the few seconds advantage from the major caliber matter? Sure.
Are they both going down from a blown pulmonary artery? Yes.
Now,lets assume a liver hit. I'm thinking a liver is a little different.Can't say for sure,but massive "temporary cavitation" in a liver might make messy liver soup. I'd think it would be disabling and pretty lethal.
MAYBE some of the lower vel/harder bullets,likea 230 gr 45,would do more of a pass through.Maybe a higher vel,light bullet loose HP would wreak more havoc. Could be some 40's would excel.Or 357 Sig.
Thighs? Butt cheeks? Lower abdomen?
Each portion of anatomy will present a different situation.
First job,punching a hole through.First round,they are ALL THE SAME for accuracy/shot placement.
First round impact on target? Generally,some (maybe not great) advantage to "bigger/faster is better .
Subsequent shots? Recoil/controllability,rapid follow up? Probably 9mm advantage.Three shots 9mm to two 40/45. .Advantage? Determined by organs hit. Speculation useless.
Magazine capacity.Makes zero difference to the Orc being shot until the magazine is empty.Then its important.
There are 7 shot 9mm's and 14 shot 45's. Single vs multiple Orcs.Mag capacity muddies up the water.
Pick the one you likeand believe in.Know the strengths and limitations.Pick one you will carry.Become proficient.Hope you never need it.Be prepared if you do.
In the big picture,IMO,I really don't care if its my 44 Mag Super Blackhawk,my Single Six 32 H+R,my 9mm S+W,or my 1911,or my 9x18 PA 63.
I don't care,and I doubt it will make much difference.
Just let me fill my hand.
Or at least,questions.If we take three Orcs(bad guys) and put a target dot on each one,from the same angle,hit one with a 9mm,one with a 40,one with a 45.
Each gets one front rib hit,some lung,pulmonary artery,and rear rib,scapula,exit.
I'll agree the more major calibers may feel like being hit with a bigger hammer.
Therefore,our Orc MAY spend 5 seconds going OOOOWW,I got shot with a 9mm,and MAY spend 10 seconds going OOOWWWW I got shot by a 40 or 45.
Blood loss MAY make him drop 4 seconds sooner from the major caliber than from the 9mm.
Might the few seconds advantage from the major caliber matter? Sure.
Are they both going down from a blown pulmonary artery? Yes.
Now,lets assume a liver hit. I'm thinking a liver is a little different.Can't say for sure,but massive "temporary cavitation" in a liver might make messy liver soup. I'd think it would be disabling and pretty lethal.
MAYBE some of the lower vel/harder bullets,likea 230 gr 45,would do more of a pass through.Maybe a higher vel,light bullet loose HP would wreak more havoc. Could be some 40's would excel.Or 357 Sig.
Thighs? Butt cheeks? Lower abdomen?
Each portion of anatomy will present a different situation.
First job,punching a hole through.First round,they are ALL THE SAME for accuracy/shot placement.
First round impact on target? Generally,some (maybe not great) advantage to "bigger/faster is better .
Subsequent shots? Recoil/controllability,rapid follow up? Probably 9mm advantage.Three shots 9mm to two 40/45. .Advantage? Determined by organs hit. Speculation useless.
Magazine capacity.Makes zero difference to the Orc being shot until the magazine is empty.Then its important.
There are 7 shot 9mm's and 14 shot 45's. Single vs multiple Orcs.Mag capacity muddies up the water.
Pick the one you likeand believe in.Know the strengths and limitations.Pick one you will carry.Become proficient.Hope you never need it.Be prepared if you do.
In the big picture,IMO,I really don't care if its my 44 Mag Super Blackhawk,my Single Six 32 H+R,my 9mm S+W,or my 1911,or my 9x18 PA 63.
I don't care,and I doubt it will make much difference.
Just let me fill my hand.
One of the sure fire ways to get a physiological stop is to get blood pressure to 0
Even at that there are good arguments for the 9mm in the bucket world, if you can hit the bucket twice with a 9mm and can't hit the bucket twice with a 40 cause has too much recoil for you to control.
The real world evidence says you can't measure the difference, you can't measure the hole left behind in soft tissue.
I would agree with this part, but I would put the emphasis on "suggest" and "measurable".
I believe there absolutely IS a difference, in fact many, many differences, which while observable, are not quantifiable.
And that is because every shooting is different. Different people are shot. Different bullet strikes and paths, and different individual reactions make them different.
Even ANIMALS are individually different. One drops DRT, another runs a quarter mile from an "identical" hit. And animals don't have the psychological factors humans do.
chrisintexas
New member
What is the difference between federal tactical hst and federal hst personal defense?
carguychris
New member
Several of the "Tactical" and "Personal Defense" loads appear to have identical ballistics but different packaging (e.g. catalog numbers P9HST1 and P9HST1S). In these cases, I suspect that the only difference is that the "Tactical" loads come in 50rd cardboard boxes for LE sale, while the "Personal Defense" loads come in 20rd plastic boxes for civilian sale. It's a common ploy in the ammo industry to sell civilian SD ammo in smaller boxes but with a higher per-unit cost (and profit!) than the LE equivalent.chrisintexas said:
However, I can't be certain that they're 100% equivalent, so the value of my answer may be roughly equal to what you paid for it.
(I assume you realize that several of the "Tactical" loads do not have a direct "Personal Defense" equivalent, and vice versa. In these cases, there are obvious differences.)