Is 9mm adequate

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mike,

will create such an interstitiated vortexinidial suction that all of his bones, muscles, and organs will simply be dragged out the exit wound, leaving an empty skin bag lying on the ground?

You forgot to add the "spin him around" part:D
 
In similar sized and weighted guns, I personally prefer the 9x19mm. Potentially greater magazine capacity...and definitely faster follow up shots with the 9mm than compared with a 45ACP. A modern 9mm JHP is virually as effective as 45ACP JHP.

45_vs_10.jpg

hst45v9mm.jpg
 
I carry a light saber, guns are so uncivilized lol But seriously, i wouldn't have an issue carrying a 9mm. Especially in a small concealed carry gun its a very good blend of power and being controllable.
 
Everyone always says "a hit with a 9mm is better than a miss with a .45" or something similiar implying that somehow a .45 is prone to missing.

Yes, shot placement is king, but when it comes down to it id rather have a well placed shot with the larger caliber. If i miss an elk with my .308 then no kidding its ineffective. But if i rip a shot through both lungs, id rather have a .308 than a .223.
 
"Yes, shot placement is king, but when it comes down to it id rather have a well placed shot with the larger caliber. If i miss an elk with my .308 then no kidding its ineffective. But if i rip a shot through both lungs, id rather have a .308 than a .223. "

I agree fully. That is my point. Given a choice I'll go large bore when it is practical. Under certain conditions the "Nine" may be a more practical choice.
 
Carry what your situation allows you to carry. I live in a hot and humid climate, so my CCW needs to be small and concealable, so I carry a .380 ACP pistol. I don't care what others thing, it is the tool that fits me the best in my environment. Practice is the key. I feel like I have better odds (I practice regularly) than someone carrying a .45 ACP they hardly ever practice with.
 
Most any round that you can shoot well enough is better than one that you either don't carry or can not shoot well. A 9mm has worked for a lot of years. In the 1800s most of the black powder cap and ball loads were only about 1/2 the powder of the 9mm and they seamed to get the job done too. It is the shooter more than the gun that counts.
 
but when it comes down to it id rather have a well placed shot with the larger caliber.
Wouldn't we all.

I think the point being missed here is, the difference between the major players is really minimal, and if thats the case, why choose one that may be harder to make those well placed shots with, especially under stress and imperfect conditions?

Regardless the caliber, you shoot them to the ground, and that takes what it takes. You dont stop until the threat(s) is/are down or your gun stops running. Hits arent always going to be perfect, or well placed, and many may very well be "well missed", and you may need capacity over caliber to pull things off. If they really are in the same basic ball park, Ill take more rounds over "slightly" bigger, any day.

Carry what your situation allows you to carry. I live in a hot and humid climate, so my CCW needs to be small and concealable,
I live, work, and play, in a similar environment, and Ive carried full sized handguns on a daily basis my whole life, and more often than not, a BUG and a double reload as well. You dont "have" to follow the current trend to downsize to "accessorize". Except for some extreme exceptions (a life guard in a Speedo, would be a good example), you dont "have" to carry a small gun. If thats your choice, thats fine, theres just no need for excuses though.

It is the shooter more than the gun that counts.
Absolutely!
 
I don't want to start a caliber arguement but

Historically speaking,

"The 45 acp was invented for those who couldn't shoot a handgun accurately. The thought being at the time, make a round so big, that the shot placement will be a little less important. Of course the 9mm crowd, who is more intelligent, got a good laugh out if it and went on to enjoy MORE ROUNDS with LESS RECOIL for a QUICKER FOLLOW UP SHOT. The end."

~ Wikipedia

Most colleges don't allow Wikipedia as a reference for work because of inaccuracies and overall made up details. I've read a lot of .45 ACP history, but never the above line. I'll have to research it. I always like to learn something new.
 
Another way to look at it, 9mm: the choice of gang-bangers, WWI and WWII Germany and the USA from 1985 to present (millions taken down when you add it all together). These people knew from experience what they wanted, and still chose the 9mm. MILLIONS of people who are now on the other side can speak for 9mm effectiveness. End of discussion.

Also, if the 45 was so great, the Germans would have invented it!
__________________
Winchester 73, the TFL user that won the west

As I recall, the .45acp was on the winning side in both WWI and WWII.

Additionally, the US only went to the 9mm to appease NATO, allowing for a uniform handgun cartridge. The fact that 9mm is inherently cheaper also helped it out. This isn't just due to economies of scale, but .45 requires almost double the materials (commodities).

As to whether the 9mm is effective, I say yes. With good bullets like the Gold Dot 124+P, it is very effective. That said, I'd rather have a .45acp in a pinch. Hitting the vitals is not a given during stressful encounters. If I'm going to miss the vitals, I'd rather hit someone with a 230 grain .45acp +P hollowpoint than something half it's size.
 
Can we stop bashing 9mm now?

Neither praise nor condemnation is warranted as a result of that single shooting.

It's long since, after thousands of shootings, been established that ammunition choice is more important than caliber where LE calibers are concerned. With some ammo, the 9mm performs well. With other types of ammo, it does not. Just like any other caliber.

I'm talking about lots of data taken from many shootings. Not individual incidents where bullet placement would have been effective regardless of caliber.

Just my thoughts on the matter.:cool:
 
I've never seen any proof that any common handgun round is significantly better than any other handgun round, regardless of the type of ammo used. The 9mm is as good, or bad as anything else.
 
Everyone always says "a hit with a 9mm is better than a miss with a .45" or something similiar implying that somehow a .45 is prone to missing.

Don't think it means that at all. It means that a HIT with a lesser caliber is worth more than a MISS with a larger one. It could also be contended that a HIT with a larger caliber is worth more than a HIT with a lesser one.

It could also be contended that a properly expanded 9mm bullet is a much larger diameter (and therefore a bigger bullet) than a non expanding .45.

Nobody gets shot with just a 9mm.

They get shot with non expanding hardball, generic HP's that work so so, or they get shot with some of the better ammo now available. Like CorBon DPX, Speer Gold Dot, or HST.

I'd assert that the better bullet technology in 9mm equals or trumps the "average" bullet technology in .45. And that the best of the .45 trumps anything in 9mm.

And I'd assert that the best 9mm ammo isn't far enough behind the best of the .45 to fret over.

For those can't resist the cheapest "budget" genric HP ammo, and who like to start threads about it, they can go ahead and fret at their choice of inferior SD ammo that may someday have to save your life.

They won't, of course. They'll convince themselves that it's all about shot placement and the bullet they use isn't that important. :cool:
 
Last edited:
If I'm being attacked by ballistic gel, then 9mm is as effective as .45acp is. When heavy bone and muscle are involved, I like the weight and subsequent momentum of the .45acp. The .45acp is more effective at breaking/passing through bones than lighter calibers.

Again, the 9mm is effective. So is .38 Special for that matter. I own both calibers and plan to cc both. That said, if I need to make one shot count, give me the .45acp.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top