Double Naught Spy
New member
That doesn't mean that the same will hold true for everyone with every gun.
So we are back again to the same problem John mentioned that after decades, not everyone can agree...
That doesn't mean that the same will hold true for everyone with every gun.
I'm not sure about just what you think you gain from the "extra power", but if the smaller round has adequate terminal ballistics, the real question is how much the recoil slows your rate of controlled fire, isn't it?....but for me at least the extra power of a 10mm is a much more appealing trade than the slight increase in controllability of an unusually large and heavy 9mm.
How "unpleasant" the recoil may be is not the main issue.I personally don't find the recoil of my 10mm to be prohibitive or unpleasant so that is where I draw my baseline.
There is little to no noticeable difference in the wound tracks between premium line law Auto enforcement projectiles from 9mm Luger through the .45 Auto.
Physics dictates that the 9mm is going to be a more manageable round (lower recoil) than the .40 S&W out of any particular firearm. So, no matter how much you train and how much you practice, everyone should be able to shoot a string of Combat Accurate 9mm rounds faster than they can fire a string of .40.
They determined that before the formal tests were even started and it was determined that it was too much for everyone.The FBI found the 10mm full power Norma type loads to be too powerful for there short statured male agents and female agents. The power was reduced, leading to the "10mm lite" loads which led to the .40 S&W some years later.
I can certainly see how one could improve one's score with the 10mm with practice, but how would that improvement not also carry over to the 9mm and keep the difference more or less the same?
Says every 9mm fan, it's still a 10-20% wider wound track on average.There is little to no noticeable difference in the wound tracks between premium line law Auto enforcement projectiles from 9mm Luger through the .45 Auto.
Maybe I should be looking for a 460 Derringer.
jmhyer said:There is a massive amount of R&D data and experimental evidence to support JHP ammo over FMJ.
jmr40 said:The point of using a weapon for SD is to stop the threat, not necessarily to produce a non-survivable wound. While 90% may survive, the research says that most of the common handgun rounds, with the best HP ammo are all about 85-95% effective at stopping the threat with a solid hit. That is a pretty good track record. A long guns advantage is better accuracy and longer range. At close range I don't think handguns suck at all. A rifle or shotgun is usually preferable, but not always.
I would say it differently. Shots that hit those critical areas are the only way to do it.Well-aimed shots that penetrate far enough to do the job seem to be the only sure way of getting there from here.
All in all, i subscribe to the school of thought that says "put a bunch of holes in 'em as quickly as you can". This multiplies the chance of doing damage to a critical system. It multiplies the amout of blood loss, leading to hydraulic failure quicker and it multiplies the chance of one of my rounds hitting the spine.
The FBI found the 10mm full power Norma type loads to be too powerful for there short statured male agents and female agents. The power was reduced, leading to the "10mm lite" loads which led to the .40 S&W some years later.
Preliminary tests conducted with Norma 170-gr. jacketed-hollow-point (JHP) ammunition showed the 10 mm to be very effective (100%), but everyone agreed that recoil and muzzle blast were excessive.
The agents noted that .45 ACP 185-gr. JHP loads did almost as well, and a decision was made to handload some 10 mm ammunition using the 180-gr. Sierra JHP bullet (there is no 185-gr. 10 mm bullet at this time) to approximate the 950 f.p.s. of the .45 ammunition. The handload performed almost as well as the full-charge 10 mm. “The 10 mm far exceeded our expectations,” Patrick said.
In spite of the fact that all of the normally measured parameters rate the 10mm well above the 9mm, no one has ever been able to conclusively demonstrate that the 10mm provides a measurable improvement in stopping power/incapacitation rate/incapacitation speed over the 9mm.However, just because it cannot be quantified does not mean that there is no difference. Even if we cannot agree on which theory of wound ballistics is correct, the 10mm rates above the 9mm in almost every measurable way (energy, momentum, diameter, wound volume, penetration, etc.).
Your assessment is based on the assumption that the extra power of the 10mm actually provides a practical benefit in terms of stopping power/incapacitation rate/incapacitation speed and yet you have no evidence to demonstrate that this is true.This extra weight dampens the recoil to the point that, for me at least, the milder recoil of the 9mm does not outweigh the extra power of the 10mm. I'm not trying to say that the 10mm is universally superior to the 9mm, just that it's not universally inferior either.
Theoretically if you are strong enough, you can completely overpower the recoil and keep the muzzle on target. If that’s the case (and it isn’t for most mortals) then your range times and accuracy scores should prove it.Because at some point recoil control is no longer the limiting factor, it's just how fast you can line up the sights and press the trigger.
Precisely. Until someone can conclusively demonstrate that there’s something to be gained, why should we be willing to give anything up?It depends on what you're willing to give up doesn't it?
Originally posted by Old Marksman
Quote:
....but for me at least the extra power of a 10mm is a much more appealing trade than the slight increase in controllability of an unusually large and heavy 9mm.
I'm not sure about just what you think you gain from the "extra power", but if the smaller round has adequate terminal ballistics, the real question is how much the recoil slows your rate of controlled fire, isn't it?
Is it really "slight"?
From one of the link previously posted:
Quote:
There is little to no noticeable difference in the wound tracks between premium line law Auto enforcement projectiles from 9mm Luger through the .45 Auto.
The 9mm has been in existence since 1902. It is actually an older cartridge than the .45. In that time, so many variations and designs have been tried that it is hard to imagine anything new that could be attempted
Originally posted by Old Marksman
From another:
Quote:
Physics dictates that the 9mm is going to be a more manageable round (lower recoil) than the .40 S&W out of any particular firearm. So, no matter how much you train and how much you practice, everyone should be able to shoot a string of Combat Accurate 9mm rounds faster than they can fire a string of .40.
Originally posted by JohnKSa
Quote:
However, just because it cannot be quantified does not mean that there is no difference. Even if we cannot agree on which theory of wound ballistics is correct, the 10mm rates above the 9mm in almost every measurable way (energy, momentum, diameter, wound volume, penetration, etc.).
In spite of the fact that all of the normally measured parameters rate the 10mm well above the 9mm, no one has ever been able to conclusively demonstrate that the 10mm provides a measurable improvement in stopping power/incapacitation rate/incapacitation speed over the 9mm.
In light of that, which makes more sense? Does it make more sense to point out that if there is a difference no one has been able to demonstrate it and therefore it would be prudent to be skeptical about the practical value of such a difference, if it exists? Or is it wiser to claim that there’s obviously a practical difference even though no one can prove it?
Originally posted by JohnKSa
Quote:
This extra weight dampens the recoil to the point that, for me at least, the milder recoil of the 9mm does not outweigh the extra power of the 10mm. I'm not trying to say that the 10mm is universally superior to the 9mm, just that it's not universally inferior either.
Your assessment is based on the assumption that the extra power of the 10mm actually provides a practical benefit in terms of stopping power/incapacitation rate/incapacitation speed and yet you have no evidence to demonstrate that this is true.
Originally posted by JohnKSa
Quote:
It depends on what you're willing to give up doesn't it?
Precisely. Until someone can conclusively demonstrate that there’s something to be gained, why should we be willing to give anything up?
Maybe. I can't find too many of the former, but then, I'm not looking.One can find any number of cases where just about any caliber from .22 Short up to .44 Magnum incapacitated someone immediately and numerous cases where the same cartridges failed to incapacitate someone quite spectacularly.
If all the methods for measuring cartridge effectiveness (energy, diameter, momentum, etc.) are meaningless next to shot placement and penetration, then why is a 9mm "adequate" while everything bigger/more powerful is "overkill"? Afterall, with the right bullet selection, nearly every common handgun cartridge from .22 LR up can be made to penetrate adequately, ...?
"Trying to justify", or explaining the basis for a decision?There are two issues with that. First, it is supposedly from the FBI who is apparently trying to justify their choice to switch back to the 9mm.
"Make up their minds"? Really?Now I won't go into all the possible reasons that the FBI has made such an about-face in its opinion of the 9mm cartridge because it's conjecture and off-topic. Suffice to say, however, the fact that they don't seem to be able to make up their minds disinclines me to take their opinion as gospel.
Don't you think there's a reason for that?Also, they specified "premium line law Auto enforcement projectiles". ... None of these premium law enforcement lines of ammo include 10mm...
I don't need to explain it. Others already have.However, you've still failed to explain why, if 9mm is better than .40 S&W due to it being "more manageable," an even smaller, lighter recoiling caliber wouldn't be better still.
So why draw the line at 9mm? Why is it the baseline? There are certainly calibers which can be demonstrated to be easier to shoot quickly and accurately than 9mm. If no one can conclusively demonstrate that one caliber is a measurable improvement in in stopping power/incapacitation rate/incapacitation speed over any other, then would it not make the most sense to choose whichever caliber is the easiest to shoot quickly and accurately? If this is the case, then there are several other common calibers which should be considered superior to 9mm due to their reduced recoil.
So what evidence is there that the extra power of a 9mm provides a practical benefit over a 9x18 Makarov, .380 Auto, .32 Auto, .25 Auto, or .22 Long Rifle? The reduced recoil of any of those cartridges would, in a comparable gun, make them demonstrably easier to shoot quickly and accurately than a 9mm.
You could get a gun in a smaller caliber that has significantly less recoil and is thus easier to shoot like a Ruger Mk. III or Browning Buckmark.
originally posted by OldMarksman
but then, I'm not looking
You keep repeating this statement as if it were fact when it's very easy to demonstrate the larger calibers larger wound track.There you go again. Doesn't the statement "There is little to no noticeable difference in the wound tracks between premium line law Auto enforcement projectiles from 9mm Luger through the .45 Auto
I should think that an expanded .45 would cause a larger permanent wound cavity than an expanded .356 projectile.You keep repeating this statement ["There is little to no noticeable difference in the wound tracks between premium line law Auto enforcement projectiles from 9mm Luger through the .45 Auto "] as if it were fact when it's very easy to demonstrate the larger calibers larger wound track.
I have no reason to question those comments.
JohnKSa said:In light of that, which makes more sense? Does it make more sense to point out that if there is a difference no one has been able to demonstrate it and therefore it would be prudent to be skeptical about the practical value of such a difference, if it exists? Or is it wiser to claim that there’s obviously a practical difference even though no one can prove it?