Is 9mm enough to shoot through a car door or window/windshield?

A lot of people are saying 9mm should be fine, but it sounds like the .40, 10mm, .357 Sig/Mag are better for shooting through a car door or glass.

What it's making me think is a carry gun has to play a lot of roles because of different threats. If there were no car, just a psycho with a knife or a bat, .380 or 9mm will do just fine. If it's an ISIS wannabe loser in a van, it don't feel confidant 9mm is the best option.

I had written it off years ago, but .357 Sig is starting to sound like a good all around option now.
 
A lot of people are saying 9mm should be fine...
Click to expand...
That sort of misses the point. It's not so much that this is about what "a lot of people" say. The FBI, who came up with the testing protocol says that 9mm satisfies their requirements. Their requirements clearly include shooting people inside automobiles. That's why the testing protocol include shooting through sheet metal and auto glass.
What it's making me think is a carry gun has to play a lot of roles because of different threats.
Click to expand...
You mean, like a duty issue side arm? Makes sense.
...it don't feel confidant 9mm is the best option.
Click to expand...
Carry what makes you confident--just remember that every decision comes with tradeoffs. Make sure that what you're trading away isn't more important than what you gain.
 
There are links earlier in this thread to the FBI's protocol testing of the 9mm as well as other rounds. This includes shooting through auto glass. The 9mm with the right bullet passes those tests.

tipoc
 
I took a class on such. It was not difficult to shoot through windshields, side windows or doors with quality modern 9mm. For example, the Hornady Critical Duty rounds and similar.

The only funny thing we saw that was a 12 gauge slug didn't make it through the door as it hit some side beam and was deflected down. A rare anomaly.

You'd be better off training to do such than thinking a 40 or 45 is a wonder bullet compared to a modern 9mm. AAR on such:

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?13511-AAR-Vehicle-Combatives-Spaulding&highlight=spaulding
 
Nope, not at all.

And what most people don't know, unless they are TRUE operators, is that being shot with a 9mm actually HEALS you...

:D
 
I often wondered about calibers for car windows myself but I've always suspected a .45 or stronger would do the job. That link provided made for good reading. It never occurred to me that car could be used a weapon in that situation.

Laura
 
Depending on unique circumstances, which cannot be known in advance, 10mm, .45auto, .40S&W, and 9mm may each be up to the job at hand.

Easier circumstances and the lesser caliber may get the job done.

Other circumstances (very heavily built adversary, full of drugs, very heavy clothing, oblique angle rather than simple straight on positioning, outstretched arm bones between you and the adversary torso, etc) and the heavier caliber may be needed to prevail, where the light caliber may not. Remember that you can't know the circumstances in advance, so plan accordingly.

In spite of what some may have been led to believe,
10mm ≠ .45auto ≠ .40S&W ≠ 9mm. They each have unique benefits, advantages, and disadvantages. They are not all more or less "equal".

And, ballistic gelatin is a seriously imperfect predictor of what a bullet will do in any individual assailant/situation. What may appear to be almost comparable in ballistic gel may very well be significantly different in the real-world situation.

Choose what you believe in depending on your particular circumstances, but make that choice with great care. All is not as it may seem on the surface.

My defense pistol choice is .40S&W 180 gr HST. Fairly heavy, fairly fast, proven performance, high capacity, easy to shoot quickly and well. General purpose defense loads don't get much better than that.
 
Last edited:
And, ballistic gelatin is a seriously imperfect predictor of what a bullet will do in any individual assailant/situation.
Click to expand...
This is why every serious LE and military organization in the U.S. uses it as a predictor of what a bullet will do, on average, against a human target... :D

I'm not saying it's perfect, and of course any real-world scenario has the potential to be a long way from average, but it's so good that no one has invented anything better since Fackler formalized its use decades ago.
In spite of what some may have been led to believe,
10mm ≠ .45auto ≠ .40S&W ≠ 9mm.
Click to expand...
That's very true, and shooting them at the range will generally show up some of the more important differences while others can be noted by simply comparing the specifications of similar size/weight firearms in the various calibers.

That said, when it comes to terminal effect, no one has been able to demonstrate a practically significant difference between members of the "duty pistol caliber class". That's precisely why the debate continues. As soon as someone can definitively show a practically significant difference the debate will be over and every caliber discussion will end as soon as someone cites the definitive proof.
 
I'm not saying it's perfect, and of course any real-world scenario has the potential to be a long way from average, but it's so good that no one has invented anything better since Fackler formalized its use decades ago.
Click to expand...

Ballistic gel is great in that it serves as a consistent, standardized media for the purpose of comparing how different rounds perform in a standardized test media. As such, it is helpful and I suppose the best we have at this time, short of shooting human test subjects.

It cannot predict what may happen in the real world when a bullet may have to penetrate a wrist, then an arm bone, then a breastbone, various layers of heavy clothing, before entering a heavily-built, prison-trained, 280 lb. drugged assailant where it will then encounter muscle, tendons, various organs, etc. Bullets can do a lot of crazy things when hitting various types of people in various situations.

And it has been noted by Fackler, Gary Roberts, and other ballistics professionals that heavier bullet weights can and do bust through bone with less likelihood to deflect, than lighter weight bullets tend to.

Various rounds of different calibers and different bullet weights DO perform differently!

Simply because various rounds perform similarly in the consistency of ballistic gel does not mean that they will perform similarly to each other in the very different media of a human assailant.

For these reasons, I prefer heavier bullets with larger calibers over lighter bullets of smaller calibers. We each make our own decisions on this based on our experiences and our unique situations.
 
Last edited:
In spite of what some may have been led to believe,
10mm ≠ .45auto ≠ .40S&W ≠ 9mm.
Click to expand...
That's very true, and shooting them at the range will generally show up some of the more important differences while others can be noted by simply comparing the specifications of similar size/weight firearms in the various calibers.

That said, when it comes to terminal effect, no one has been able to demonstrate a practically significant difference between members of the "duty pistol caliber class". That's precisely why the debate continues. As soon as someone can definitively show a practically significant difference the debate will be over and every caliber discussion will end as soon as someone cites the definitive proof.
Click to expand...
So is it sensible to say that when it comes to the "duty size pistol calibers" that the best choice for an individual is to go with the largest bullet that one can shoot acceptably well compared to the smallest bullet, which they are likely to shoot best of all?
 
Ballistic gelatin is a relatively cheap, easily reproducible medium that simulates the density of human soft tissue. As such, it provides a reasonable approximation of the depth to which a particular projectile would penetrate and the degree to which it would expand if said projectile penetrated only soft tissue with no bone or tissue planes of differential density.

Lacking elastic and connective tissue (collagen and elastin fibers) ballistic gelatin lacks any elasticity and has little structural integrity so it really doesn't predict what a projectile "would do" if it struck animal soft tissue. The secondary wound cavities seen in ballistic gelatin that sometimes are the focus of great attention and debate, are of no significance when it comes to predicting wounding potential in human soft tissue, except for estimating depth of penetration and possibly degree of expansion, at least insofar as handgun calibers are concerned.

I think it stands to reason that if everything else is equal, a projectile of larger diameter creating a crush channel of greater volume for any given depth of penetration will have somewhat greater wounding potential than a smaller one. A larger projectile might damage a critical structure that the smaller projectile barely misses. Multiple wound channels of larger volume will result in greater intravascular volume loss than an equal number of channels of smaller volume.

But consider what variables would have to be equal to demonstrate an effective difference. Shot placement, depth of penetration, number of hits would all have to be identical. Not only that but the physical size, physiological, and psychological state of the target person would need to be precisely identical. Since the difference in expanded projectile diameter between the smallest and largest common handgun self-defense calibers is still relatively small, and there is no possible way to control all of the confounding variables other than expanded projectile diameter, I think it is reasonable to assume that a "statistically significant" difference in the wounding potential, lethality, and potential for immediate incapacitation between the common calibers will never be demonstrated in real life.

But the absence of proof of a difference is not quite the same as proof of no difference.
 
I haven't read the whole thread but do have personal experience shooting through a windshield.

My buddy had a late 70s early 80s Chevy truck that was scrap. It was a large truck and I don't remember the C series number but it had been converted to pull mobile homes. So a pretty big gas rig. I asked if I could shoot through the windshield to see if my bullets would make it though. Sure he said, go ahead.

So I shot 8 rounds through the windshield and the bullets buried up in the head rest and and drivers seat. They made it through just fine.

And the gun was an Iver Johnnson TP-22 loaded with Remington yellow jackets. A small pocket pistol.
 
So is it sensible to say that when it comes to the "duty size pistol calibers" that the best choice for an individual is to go with the largest bullet that one can shoot acceptably well compared to the smallest bullet, which they are likely to shoot best of all?
Click to expand...

Nope.

It's best when speaking of defensive handgunning to select the most powerful caliber that you shoot well (not acceptably well, what ever that means). In a gun that you shoot well, meaning fast and accurately with the bullet and load that works best for you and the gun. Chose the gun and load based on the task and situation you are likely to confront or anticipate. This means that if you are carrying a deep concealment piece it should follow the above criteria for a small gun. choose the most powerful round that you can shoot well from that gun. If that means .380 take that. In a full size or compact gun if you shoot 9mm better than .40 S&W than take the 9mm. If you can carry it in the situation.

Bullet placement counts for more than caliber or power. But lean towards the most powerful you can handle, in a gun to fit the job. If you can't handle it, leave it till you can.

I'm not that good with the .40 S&W Shield. But in 9mm that's a good piece for me for concealment in a coat pocket or elsewhere. There are pieces the same size as the Shield in .380 (Bersa Thunder, Walther PPK, etc.) but I can shoot the more powerful 9mm just as well from the Shield. So I take the more powerful round, in a gun I shoot well with that round for occasions where the Shield makes sense.

tipoc
 
So is it sensible to say that when it comes to the "duty size pistol calibers" that the best choice for an individual is to go with the largest bullet that one can shoot acceptably well compared to the smallest bullet, which they are likely to shoot best of all?
Click to expand...
It's sensible to do the following:

1. Select a "performance class" (range of calibers) that is applicable to your requirements. For example, pocket pistol calibers, duty pistol calibers, or perhaps something like: All centerfire pistols which penetrate between 12" and 18" in ballistics gel with expanding ammunition." or maybe "All duty pistol calibers which can pass the FBI testing protocol."

2. List ALL the variables affected by caliber choice within the "performance class" that you're working with. Capacity, shootability, concealability, etc. whatever will obviously have real-world effects. I suppose that "confidence" is a reasonable variable to include in the list as well as other intangible factors that may be especially important to you.

3. Weigh the variables against each other and choose the best set of tradeoffs for you.
But the absence of proof of a difference is not quite the same as proof of no difference.
Click to expand...
That's correct. However, a simple lack of evidence is not the same thing as a lack of evidence that persists after a concerted, prolonged and properly focused effort to find that evidence.

At some point, after decades of well-funded organizations and gifted people trying very hard to come up with proof and failing, it begins to makes more sense to work from the starting assumption that there's no proof than that there is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top