Double Naught Spy
New member
If 9mm is more than enough for defense, then why do people often have to be shot so many times before they are stopped?
No round is more than enough for defense. Handgun rounds in general are poor for defense.
Stopping Power
- Thread starter GunGuy34
- Start date
If 9mm is more than enough for defense, then why do people often have to be shot so many times before they are stopped?
No round is more than enough for defense. Handgun rounds in general are poor for defense.
As a Tank Commander in RVN in 1968, I forced to employ my 45acp 1911 a few times and I can tell you that it worked very effectively. While there, I also observed the results of 9mm platforms and I can tell you I just wasn't impressed with their terminal performance.
Yes, the 9mm+P+ rounds can be effective but you're giving up the 9mm's low recoil and muzzle rise to gain satisfactory ballistic performance. With that load you have a pistol with as much or more muzzle flip and recoil than a 40s&w but without the larger diameter or higher mass advantage.
I own pistols in 40s&w, .357mag, 45acp, and 10mm and they all work well for their intended purpose. I see no need for a marginally effective 9mm in my arsenal.
Yes, the 9mm+P+ rounds can be effective but you're giving up the 9mm's low recoil and muzzle rise to gain satisfactory ballistic performance. With that load you have a pistol with as much or more muzzle flip and recoil than a 40s&w but without the larger diameter or higher mass advantage.
I own pistols in 40s&w, .357mag, 45acp, and 10mm and they all work well for their intended purpose. I see no need for a marginally effective 9mm in my arsenal.
You have a 350 lb man coming at you with a knife, determined to do you bodily harm. Do you want a 9mm, or a .45?
You have a 130 lb pit bull coming at you, acting very agressively. Do you want a 9mm, or a .45?
You have to answer such questions for yourself.
Most EDC's are a compromise of power for easier carry. The logic is that a small gun on your person is far better than a bigger one at home. I certainly subscribe to, and understand that.
That said, don't convince yourself that smaller is better, or even "just as good" as a larger caliber. The .45 ACP was designed to mimic the results of the time proven .45 Colt, only in a semi-auto cartridge. Someone shot in the hip with a heavy .45 bullet is out of commission. I'm not sure I could say the same for a 9mm. Of course, I've never tried it, either.
Theories and opinions are all great to discuss, but think about what you need before deciding on what you're willing to carry. For relatively peaceful areas, I carry a J-frame .38 special. It's not "optimal", but it'll give me a fighting chance in a bad encounter. It's easy to carry, and it's always there, which is what's most important.
But if I'm headed to an area with higher risks (lately the outdoors here is one of them, with illegal crossers and drug smuggling increasing around here in southeast Az), then I carry something bigger...up to and including a rifle at times. Will I need it? Probably not, but I feel more comfortable with something larger when the risks go up.
But I'm also not likely to carry a 48 ounce handgun with me all day, every day, for the rest of my life. That's why I have a J-frame, but the .38 special is in no way as good for defense as a larger cartridge would be.
Most things in life are a compromise.
Daryl
You have a 130 lb pit bull coming at you, acting very agressively. Do you want a 9mm, or a .45?
You have to answer such questions for yourself.
Most EDC's are a compromise of power for easier carry. The logic is that a small gun on your person is far better than a bigger one at home. I certainly subscribe to, and understand that.
That said, don't convince yourself that smaller is better, or even "just as good" as a larger caliber. The .45 ACP was designed to mimic the results of the time proven .45 Colt, only in a semi-auto cartridge. Someone shot in the hip with a heavy .45 bullet is out of commission. I'm not sure I could say the same for a 9mm. Of course, I've never tried it, either.
Theories and opinions are all great to discuss, but think about what you need before deciding on what you're willing to carry. For relatively peaceful areas, I carry a J-frame .38 special. It's not "optimal", but it'll give me a fighting chance in a bad encounter. It's easy to carry, and it's always there, which is what's most important.
But if I'm headed to an area with higher risks (lately the outdoors here is one of them, with illegal crossers and drug smuggling increasing around here in southeast Az), then I carry something bigger...up to and including a rifle at times. Will I need it? Probably not, but I feel more comfortable with something larger when the risks go up.
But I'm also not likely to carry a 48 ounce handgun with me all day, every day, for the rest of my life. That's why I have a J-frame, but the .38 special is in no way as good for defense as a larger cartridge would be.
Most things in life are a compromise.
Daryl
revolverrandy
New member
Anything less than this and it is not enough stopping power
Charles Ellis
New member
In the late 1800's the Army decided to change from the 45 Colt to a 38 cal handgun.It worked fine until they had to be used.Not enough stopping power.They changed back to a 45. In the 1960's the Army decided that it was better to wound an enemy than to kill him outright.They also abandoned real marksmanship training for a policy of more bullets downrange is better.The result was the M16 and the 5.56 cartridge.Now they are once again finding that smaller doesn't work very well and are trying to rearm with a larger caliber.It doesn't seem that we retain the lessons of history very well.Daryl,I have a friend that is a LEO in Houston,who carried a 9 MM,and he had to shoot a pitbull at point blank.He literally drew and fired from the hip.The range was less than 2 feet and even though he hit the dog in the forehead the bullet did not penetrate the dog's skull.In MHO bigger is better.I have heard that real stopping power begins with a 12 ga slug.We will always be limited in what we can carry in a reasonable sized handgun,but the closer we can get to that standard the better off we will be.
aarondhgraham
New member
All other factors being equal,,,
Someone here has a signature line that goes something like:
All other factors being equal, a bigger bullet is generally better.
It's the all other factors being equal part that is important.
Now don't get me wrong,,,
I love to debate this as much as the next guy,,,
But there really isn't a definitive answer to this particular topic.
All other factors are rarely ever equal,,,
So we are never going to come to a consensus,,,
All we can ever do is share what our thoughts are and explain our logic,,,
Hopefully we are doing this as information sharing and not as an attempt to be the final answer.
I prefer medium big bullets at high velocity,,,
.357 Magnum is my personal choice.
In this as in everything else,,,
Your mileage may vary.
.
Someone here has a signature line that goes something like:
All other factors being equal, a bigger bullet is generally better.
It's the all other factors being equal part that is important.
Now don't get me wrong,,,
I love to debate this as much as the next guy,,,
But there really isn't a definitive answer to this particular topic.
All other factors are rarely ever equal,,,
So we are never going to come to a consensus,,,
All we can ever do is share what our thoughts are and explain our logic,,,
Hopefully we are doing this as information sharing and not as an attempt to be the final answer.
I prefer medium big bullets at high velocity,,,
.357 Magnum is my personal choice.
In this as in everything else,,,
Your mileage may vary.
.
I like bigger bullets 45 acp, 45 GAP in "full size" (for me) pistols like the Glock 30 / 38.
I've always leaned toward 40 rounds in "compact" pistols like the Glock 27, or "subcompact" pistols like the Kahr PM40.
Here lately, I'm wondering if 9mm might be better in "compact" pistols, Glock 26 instead of 27.
Why?
Speed of follow up shots and control if shooting one handed.
I plan on doing a head to head test with my Glock 26 & 27, like I said I've always leaned toward the 40.
I did do a head to head with the subcompact PM9 and PM40, PM9 won.
The 40 is just to punishing for me in a pistol as small as the subcompact Kahr.
I know Glock calls the 19/23 a "compact" and the 26/27 a "subcompact", that's why I put my definitions above in quotes.
I've always leaned toward 40 rounds in "compact" pistols like the Glock 27, or "subcompact" pistols like the Kahr PM40.
Here lately, I'm wondering if 9mm might be better in "compact" pistols, Glock 26 instead of 27.
Why?
Speed of follow up shots and control if shooting one handed.
I plan on doing a head to head test with my Glock 26 & 27, like I said I've always leaned toward the 40.
I did do a head to head with the subcompact PM9 and PM40, PM9 won.
The 40 is just to punishing for me in a pistol as small as the subcompact Kahr.
I know Glock calls the 19/23 a "compact" and the 26/27 a "subcompact", that's why I put my definitions above in quotes.
Trust me, I believe you. That's one reason I asked those questions.
Twice this year I've faced down an agressive pit bull fitting my earlier description. Each time I was in my own yard in what I see as a relatively safe environment, so I was carrying a J-frame. You may have no idea how bad I wished I had a .45 Colt at those two moments. Staring at a 130 lb dog that's as tall as my waist, with his head 3' from the muzzle of my handgun (.38 special with 135 gr Gold Dots), I had a lot of wishful thinking going on.
The owner was warned the first time, and cited for a roaming dog violation the 2nd time. I let him off on the agressive dog part (a serious criminal offense), but left him with the understanding that the next time the dog entered my property, I'd kill it with no questions asked. He did take it to heart, and chained his dog inside of his yard for the rest of his time living there. He moved away about a month ago, and good riddance.
I wore a SA in .45 Colt for a while, just for that purpose. It was loaded with 300 gr soft points pushed to around 1250 fps. I doubt it would bounce off of much in the way of a dog.
I actually enjoy wearing that handgun, although it may be a bit much for grocery shopping.
Daryl
Deaf Smith
New member
GunGuy,
If you want TRUE stopping power, you will need a 12 guage. Simple as that.
Pistols are now powerful. Yes the .45 is a bit better than the 9mm, and the .40 is inbetween.
David Spauling, a LEO/gun writer, wrote about having seen many videos of shootouts. He said the .45 does seem to get a more definate reaction from the BGs when shot, but the difference between it and the 9mm is not great.
Service grade cartridges like 9mm and .45 will do if you have good shot placement. Neither will do if you have poor shot placement. The .45 'might' stop a few more with one hit than the 9mm, but not huge precentage.
Like I said, if you want real stopping power, a 12 guage shottie.
Deaf
If you want TRUE stopping power, you will need a 12 guage. Simple as that.
Pistols are now powerful. Yes the .45 is a bit better than the 9mm, and the .40 is inbetween.
David Spauling, a LEO/gun writer, wrote about having seen many videos of shootouts. He said the .45 does seem to get a more definate reaction from the BGs when shot, but the difference between it and the 9mm is not great.
Service grade cartridges like 9mm and .45 will do if you have good shot placement. Neither will do if you have poor shot placement. The .45 'might' stop a few more with one hit than the 9mm, but not huge precentage.
Like I said, if you want real stopping power, a 12 guage shottie.
Deaf
Usually I just read these anti-9 mil threads since it does not help to remind people that the 9 does a great job of stopping people. However, once in a while I read a message and have to say BS. Possibly it is because I’m old enough to have learned the phrase double-tap back in the 70s during training. I believe, but cannot say for sure, but double-tap might be a British or Scottish phrase.
As for anyone worth shooting….I heard that years before too but it was “anything worth shooting…” so the change to anyone could be attributed to the Marines.
There was a story floating around a while back about a woman who was shot in the head with a .44 Magnum. She lived, because the bullet didn't penetrate her skull, and ended up circling her head between her skin and skull. This just goes to show, just because you use a gun that most would call overkill for self defense, doesn't mean you are gonna kill the person you shoot at.
Stopping power is a term that gets thrown around a lot, but it's never really had a solid meaning. A lot of people seem to think that it means a one shot stop, like in the movies where a person simply drops dead from being shot once, though that almost never happens). Some who aren't as educated when it comes to firearms think it means knocking someone off of their feet with a handgun, though that also never happens.
I prefer to see it in this way: if someone is coming at me with the attention of doing me or someone with me harm, what's it gonna take to get them to stop what they are doing? A great deal of attackers will stop the moment they see a handgun. The vast majority will stop the moment that they are shot, regardless of caliber of the round they are hit with. Still some will have the resolve to keep on attacking if they've been shot. I think you will find that in these special cases, caliber isn't as important as shot placement. There a plenty of stories of crazed or drugged up people surviving multiple hits from a variety of calibers. The most important aspect of these cases is shot placement, you have to hit the vitals regardless of what you have. Just ensure that you are carrying a caliber that's powerful enough to reach a person's vitals.
I prefer a nice .45 ACP for defense. The round has gained a good reputation for effectiveness over it's 100+ year history (most of which was using FMJ). It's recoil is controllable, and it won't completely deafen me if fired in-doors.
Stopping power is a term that gets thrown around a lot, but it's never really had a solid meaning. A lot of people seem to think that it means a one shot stop, like in the movies where a person simply drops dead from being shot once, though that almost never happens). Some who aren't as educated when it comes to firearms think it means knocking someone off of their feet with a handgun, though that also never happens.
I prefer to see it in this way: if someone is coming at me with the attention of doing me or someone with me harm, what's it gonna take to get them to stop what they are doing? A great deal of attackers will stop the moment they see a handgun. The vast majority will stop the moment that they are shot, regardless of caliber of the round they are hit with. Still some will have the resolve to keep on attacking if they've been shot. I think you will find that in these special cases, caliber isn't as important as shot placement. There a plenty of stories of crazed or drugged up people surviving multiple hits from a variety of calibers. The most important aspect of these cases is shot placement, you have to hit the vitals regardless of what you have. Just ensure that you are carrying a caliber that's powerful enough to reach a person's vitals.
I prefer a nice .45 ACP for defense. The round has gained a good reputation for effectiveness over it's 100+ year history (most of which was using FMJ). It's recoil is controllable, and it won't completely deafen me if fired in-doors.
Last edited:
It's a matter of context.
Is there a demonstrable and significant practical difference in the terminal performance of handgun rounds?
The answer depends on the context.
If you look at the entire spectrum of handgun rounds then there is a significant practical difference in the terminal performance.
If you compare handgun rounds within a general performance category (e.g. pocket pistols, rimfires, service pistol, etc.) then it's much harder to make a definitive statement. Comparing within a general performance category is what we're interested in. No one is in doubt that a .44Mag outperforms a .22LR, but there is a lot of debate when comparing one service pistol round to another.
If there were a definitive answer to that debate then caliber wars would only last as long as it took for someone to find the authoritative quote from the accepted source and use it to prove their point. But there isn't any such quote because it's very difficult to determine the practical difference in terminal performance between service pistol rounds. Experts can't even agree unanimously on what easily measured parameters are most important.
One FBI ammunition expert made an offhand remark in an often-quoted paper he authored stating that the difference in terminal performance as a result of caliber selection (in the context of service pistol calibers) might make a difference in the outcome of a gunfight 1% of the time. Granted, he didn't intend that to be an accurate assessment of the situation but he definitely intended to make the point that it would take examining "thousands or more" shootings to be able to definitively make any reasonable attempt to quantify the benefit.
So what should you do? As long as you pick a gun/ammo caliber commonly thought of as suitable for self-defense that will reliably penetrate to the FBI recommended depth with expanding ammunition and practice/train with it, you won't have gone wrong.
Some might say that's not an answer at all--you still have a choice to make and no way to make it. Well, sometimes when a definitive answer isn't readily available to one question it is beneficial to look at other aspects of the problem and ask other questions. For example, in this case, although it may be difficult to demonstrate a practically significant benefit to picking one caliber over another in terms of terminal performance, it's easy to demonstrate practically significant benefits to picking one caliber over another in other respects. As we all know, caliber selection can significantly affect things like concealability, capacity, shootability, practice expense, etc.
My earlier question, "So why aren't we all carrying .22s if "shot placement is the key?" was meant in a facetious manner. IMO, selecting a caliber with the intent of depending upon shot placement is the wrong way to go. I will continue to practice and build confidence that I can hit what I shoot at, but I don't intend to depend so much on the ability to place my shots well that I use that as a factor in making my caliber choice.
There is no argument this is a personal choice. There are many factors to consider: recoil, concealability, etc. But I think a better question to ask is, "Which caliber would I want in a concealed handgun if I had only one shot with which to defend myself?" To me, that makes the choice easier.
There is no argument this is a personal choice. There are many factors to consider: recoil, concealability, etc. But I think a better question to ask is, "Which caliber would I want in a concealed handgun if I had only one shot with which to defend myself?" To me, that makes the choice easier.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
This is where people misunderstand the idea behind "shot placement." The area of the head that actually contains the central nervous system is maybe half the area of the head in a human being and less than that in a dog. The head is also pretty well armored in both mammals - as somebody noted in another thread, Baron Von Richtofen caught a .303 in the skull from 300yds and it glanced off without penetrating. Depending on the angle, it would be quite possible for the same thing to happen with most lower powered handgun rounds
In order to truly understand shot placement, you need to understand:
1. While we may use surface descriptions (the head, the face, the chest, upper torso) to describe targets, those aren't the real targets. The real targets are the vital organs and central nervous system underneath - and a lot of times what appears to be a good hit on the surface is missing the real target underneath.
2. Because our real targets are wrapped in muscle, tissue and bone, we need a round that will penetrate that sufficiently to reach them. A .22LR or .25 that does this reliably will kill you just as dead as a .44 magnum. The problem is that the .25 is a lot less likely to do it reliably - especially if there are obstructing limbs, intervening barriers, etc. This is why the FBI uses a baseline of 12-18" in ballistics gel for recommended handgun penetration.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Strange; because I've been a gun guy for awhile and read the report on the 1986 Miami shootout and am not aware of any extensive documentation of the shortcomings of the 9mm as a caliber.
The only thing I can recall from the 1986 report was that the 115gr Silvertip used would have ended the fight earlier; but it lacked sufficient penetration. However, since many 9mm rounds do show better penetration than a 1986-era 115gr Silvertip, I'm assuming that isn't the shortcoming you are referring to.