Service ammo performs "about the same". Right...

[Lohman446]

The actual #1 criteria that almost everyone agrees on is not penetration; but shot placement. For most of this discussion it appears that everyone is assuming that shot placement was adequate. Once you've got adequate shot placement, then you worry about enough penetration to lessen the possibility of defelection, expansion, etc.

The reason I feel that is important is because as others have alluded to, shot placement and caliber are linked. To use just the most basic of example:

If we assume all other costs are equal (a 10mm has the same sevice life and parts replacement as a 9mm), then training ammo costs as of today are:

9mm - $165/1000
.40 - $260/1000
.45 - $300/1000
10mm - $340/1000

So for a $1000 training budget, I can shoot 6,060 rounds of 9mm; 3,840 rounds of .40; 3,333 rounds of .45, or 2,940 rounds of 10mm. Assuming I have an effective training program, which of those is likely to get me the adequate shot placement this discussion is assuming?

Taking your numbers as having face validity (I did not check) you have a point that may or may not apply to individual shooters though will apply to institutional shooters (IE the FBI). The primary limit to what training with a firearm I manage: TIME. I'm not getting to 6,000 rounds a year.

This is why one cannot, IMO, take the FBI conclusion to use the 9MM as an argument that the 9MM is the best choice and apply it necessarily to individual shooters. Chances are the FBI took into account a number of factors that may not apply to a particular individual shooter.

There are a lot of strong arguments for 9MM and many (most) people may find it is the best choice for them individually. The FBI has decided, it appears, that it is the best choice for them as an agency. I still do not get holding the FBI to some gold standard though - they have failed to be ahead of the curve in selecting handguns in ammunition (see the infamous FBI shootout) and, when trying to be ahead of the curve, overshot it in regards to what the agents were comfortable with (see 10MM). Given these blunders of the past I do not see why they are held up as some gold standard.

 

[OldMarksman]

Because near as I can tell that's the difference in split times when I shoot major PF vs when I shoot minor and even at that .001 is being generous.

For most everyone else, the difference is more like .015 to .02 seconds.

....you'll keep saying one doesn't matter because it can't be quantified and the other does.

What are you trying to say?

 

[OldMarksman]

This is why one cannot, IMO, take the FBI conclusion to use the 9MM as an argument that the 9MM is the best choice and apply it necessarily to individual shooters.

FBI agents are individual shooters.

The FBI has decided, it appears, that it is the best choice for them as an agency.

Their recommendations are intended for themselves and for their law enforcement partners.

The needs of FBI agents are much closer to those of civilians than to uniformed sworn officers.

I still do not get holding the FBI to some gold standard though - ..... Given these blunders of the past I do not see why they are held up as some gold standard.

"Some gold standard"? No. But you won't find more comprehensive research and analysis.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"While not the only reason for switching to the PM handgun vs the TT, the Soviets actually considered the effectiveness of 9x18mm ammo to be equal or even slightly superior to the older 7.62x25mm load."

Primary source citation, please.

As far as I can tell from all that I've read over the years, the primary drivers for replacing the 7.62 Tokarev as a handgun round in Soviet service wasn't equal effectiveness.

The primary reasons appear to have been that:

The TT series of pistols were time consuming and expensive to make, so the Soviets were greatly in favor of adopting a smaller, lighter, cheaper, and faster to manufacture handgun. The 9x18 fit that handily.

Submachine guns were being withdrawn from service in favor of the new SKS and AK.

The 9x18 round itself was cheaper and faster to manufacture.

It's possible that wounding power could have been a consideration, but I suspect that if it was thought of at all, it was an afterthought, because the Soviets found the 7.62 to be very effective as a submachine gun round, especially given its high velocity and its flatter trajectory.

The Soviets, and the Tsarists before them, had used 7.62 chambered handguns for nearly 60 years before the Makarov was adopted, and in the Soviet military, as it had been under the Tsar, handguns were more badges of rank than fighting weapons.

 

[Lohman446]

I did not make my point regarding individual shooters clearly. If I am paying for one shooter the difference between $1000 in ammo a year vs $1500 in ammo a year may not be enough to matter. If I am making that decision and outfitting tens of thousands of staff it matters greatly.

We seem to be working under a premise that the FBI picked out the best ammunition based solely on performance of said ammunition.

I would challenge the accuracy of that premise.

 

[mavracer]

For most everyone else, the difference is more like .015 to .02 seconds.

You are correct I moved my decimal point too far should have said .01 but that's being generous it's really more like .005 or .006 as I usually have to shoot 5 or 6 shot strings and measure total time because my timer only goes to hundreths.

What are you trying to say?

That you are a hypocrite, you say that there is no advantage to a larger hole because there is no imperical evidence that can be measured, but by the same token there is no imperical evidence that can be measured that 17 rounds is better than 15 in an actual gun fight.

In fact the only real evidence that can be shown is that 15 rounds actually lowers hit probability as when LEO went to Hi cap 9mms in the 80s their rates dropped from 30-35% down to 20-25% and have never recovered.

 

[OldMarksman]

That you are a hypocrite, you say that there is no advantage to a larger hole because there is no imperical evidence that can be measured, but by the same token there is no imperical evidence that can be measured that 17 rounds is better than 15 in an actual gun fight.

I have said noting of the kind.

In fact the only real evidence that can be shown is that 15 rounds actually lowers hit probability as when LEO went to Hi cap 9mms in the 80s their rates dropped from 30-35% down to 20-25% and have never recovered.

Alrighty then.

 

[Mike Irwin]

OK, sniping in a 9mm vs .45 thread. Imagine that.

OK, I'm shutting this down now before it gets out of hand and I have to raise my moderator's hand.

Thanks everyone for keeping it on track and civil for as long as it has been, but these threads have a distinct progression...

The longer they're open, the faster the chance of discord, infighting, and someone getting cited or even banned approaches 100%. After 2 days, the curve goes almost vertical.