DeusComedis
Inactive
As a lot of people know, the FBI has gone back to 9mm as its preferred round, and a good number of PDs have followed suit. Also, the Army opened its MHS competition to 9mm, when it had previous been excluded. This has gotten me to think, is the debate over?
Along with their announcement, the FBI released their reasoning and test data.
They seemed to conclude that there wasn't really a great difference in terminal ballistics between the cartridges. Not the SAME, but similar enough that other factors were more important. I.E. shootability, capacity, and weight. They also stated that (A) there is no magic one-shot manstopper (e.g. guys have taken multiple .45s and kept going), usually expect to use multiple shots per target (B) in a gunfight most shots are misses.
In these, 9mm seems to trump all: easiest to shoot, and thus be accurate with; greatest mag capacity to account for all those misses; lowest weight.
Yet alot of people claim that the 9mm was "underpowered" in Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and some units have gone back to .45s . I have wondered if they are overlooking that facts that ALL handgun caliber suck, as previously mention, and that the military only uses FMJ - sure, when you're just punching a clean whole in a bad guy (instead of causing a mini explosion in his chest), a bigger whole punch is better. My suspicions seemed to be confirmed by the fact that the Army admitting of the 9mm back into the competition (they originally stated wanting something "more powerful" than the M9) closely coincided with the announcement that they were considering standard use of hollow points.
So aside from specific situations ( the Secret Service using .357 SIG because they need to be able to penetrate any barrier/garment quickly and reliably on the first shot, and don't have to worry about capacity or weight, etc) does the 9 really offer the best combination of factors(and availability), or can the case be made for other rounds - for the average person?
Along with their announcement, the FBI released their reasoning and test data.
They seemed to conclude that there wasn't really a great difference in terminal ballistics between the cartridges. Not the SAME, but similar enough that other factors were more important. I.E. shootability, capacity, and weight. They also stated that (A) there is no magic one-shot manstopper (e.g. guys have taken multiple .45s and kept going), usually expect to use multiple shots per target (B) in a gunfight most shots are misses.
In these, 9mm seems to trump all: easiest to shoot, and thus be accurate with; greatest mag capacity to account for all those misses; lowest weight.
Yet alot of people claim that the 9mm was "underpowered" in Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and some units have gone back to .45s . I have wondered if they are overlooking that facts that ALL handgun caliber suck, as previously mention, and that the military only uses FMJ - sure, when you're just punching a clean whole in a bad guy (instead of causing a mini explosion in his chest), a bigger whole punch is better. My suspicions seemed to be confirmed by the fact that the Army admitting of the 9mm back into the competition (they originally stated wanting something "more powerful" than the M9) closely coincided with the announcement that they were considering standard use of hollow points.
So aside from specific situations ( the Secret Service using .357 SIG because they need to be able to penetrate any barrier/garment quickly and reliably on the first shot, and don't have to worry about capacity or weight, etc) does the 9 really offer the best combination of factors(and availability), or can the case be made for other rounds - for the average person?
