The 9mm is useless!

[Art Eatman]

A lot of the attraction for the 9mm Luger cartridge came from the notion that it must be good, given the vast numbers of people who were killed with it. The thing was, from pistols, a high percentage of those kills were shots into the head from a very few feet. That sort of shot takes little in the way of a cartridge; ask RFK.

I read a doctor's article which discussed the effectiveness of sub-machine guns. He concluded that rapid multiple hits have a greater physiological impact than slow-fire hits. That was the explanation for the effectiveness of such things as the Czech Skorpion with its .32ACP round, or similar guns in .380ACP. So, the earlier Schmeissers were quite effective.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

So many confused issues...

Why does everyone complain about the 9mm?

Not everyone does.

I have never read any reports, or heard any complaints from soldiers in WW II.

Really? Just how many German and British ordnance assessment reports have you read?

The mp-40 and the sten seemed to work great. I have never heard anyone say that the mp-40 or sten were useless.

That doesn't mean the 9mm round doesn't have issues. You happened to pick two very good guns to pick as your 9mm representatives, SMGs at that. However, comparison between the a pistol cartridge and a SMG are not one in the same.

If I was in WW II and I had the chance to pick my weapon, I would pick an mp-40 or sten.

You aren't and most soldiers didn't.

Great for up to 100 yards(the official designfor WW II was that it was good for 200 yards)

"official designator WW II" ... what the heck is that? The Axis and Allies didn't agree on such matters and didn't even use the same system of measurement (English v. metric).

Why was the 9 mm a great choice for WW II but useless for us in 2008?

Now you have confused the notion of complaints with usefulness. Just because something is complained about does not mean it is useless.

 

[jsmaye]

Remember, the 9mm was developed in Europe, where the countries are smaller and closer together.

Ok, bad joke.

 

[jsmaye]

I always thought that it would have been nice to see someone develop the 30 carbine round in a semi auto pistol. I have a 30 carbine in a black hawk that does so much better that the 9mm.

The 7.62x25 comes to mind...

 

[cchardwick]

I believe that the 9 mm was carried by most police officers up until a situation developed where a shooter was all drugged up and didn't feel any pain. He was in an office building surrounded by officers and if I remember correctly the officers shot him 20 or more times and couldn't kill him and at the same time he took the lives of many of the officers in this incident. I did a quick Google search on it but I couldn’t' find the specifics. Anyway, after this incident most LEOs decided that 9mm wasn't sufficient so they tried to go to .45, but most officers couldn't handle the round so many settled with 40 - a compromise which is standard issue for many LEOs.

A 9mm will punch holes and make you bleed. A 45 will stop you by inducing shock.

For the longest time I couldn’t' figure out why the military would carry insufficient firepower, i.e. 9mm and .223 instead of something larger like 30-06 and up. I finally figured it out: they can carry lots of ammo because it weighs less and the 'hits' injure instead of kill which makes soldiers care for their wounded instead of fight. This decreases their morale because they hear their comrades in agony from the wounds instead of seeking revenge from a dead comrade. Also the 'bean counters' decided that more ammo = more kills, no matter what the caliber. The only reason they stuck with .223 is because it was the minimum caliber that would still pierce armor.

 

[buzz_knox]

I believe that the 9 mm was carried by most police officers up until a situation developed where a shooter was all drugged up and didn't feel any pain. He was in an office building surrounded by officers and if I remember correctly the officers shot him 20 or more times and couldn't kill him and at the same time he took the lives of many of the officers in this incident.

I believe the switch from the 9mm came after the 1986 Miami shootout and the FBI tests that resulted from that situation. The tests found that a 10mm was the optimum caliber (there is some debate as to whether that was due to the .45 not being an option, Congress having been recently convinced to fund the retirement of the .45 for the military so no one wanted to suggest that might have been the wrong move). The .40 was developed to provide a ballistic equivalent of the required 10mm specs in a smaller weapon.

Many agencies switched to the .40 and a few to the .45, because 1) ballistic concerns, 2) to follow the FBI, 3) to use the existing federal contracts for Glocks and .40s in order to save money and time, or 4) some combination of the above. Many agencies stayed with the 9mm and have been reporting excellent results, either with original ammunition or some of the newer versions. Some agencies have actually gone back to the 9mm from the .40 and .45, although that was due to weapon performance issues rather than caliber.

With modern ammunition (i.e. current generation JHP), the 9mm performs comparably to the others with some advantage to the .40 and .45. Whether that advantage outweighs the 9mm benefits (capacity, ease of use, accuracy, etc) is up to the end user.

Surprisingly enough, without such ammunition, the 9mm still performs fairly well even by comparison to the FMJ .40 and .45. That's largely because much of the vaunted success of the later two calibers (particularly the .45) are often more sea story than true story. So, the issue of the 9mm advantages/disadvantages versus those of the other calibers still applies. It's a decision to be made by the end user based on their needs.

 

[Creature]

A 9mm will punch holes and make you bleed. A 45 will stop you by inducing shock.

You should spend some time in a hospital emergency room with a trauma unit that deals with a lot of gunshot wounds. Unless you are comparing the 9mm FMJ to the 45 JHP, your statement is very misinformed. The idea that the 9mm JHP is inferior to 45ACP in causing physiological trauma is a myth.

so they tried to go to .45, but most officers couldn't handle the round

That is another myth.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Why was the 9 mm a great choice for WW II but useless for us in 2008?

Body armor."


Uhm...

The .45 isn't particularly known for being able to punch through body armor, either.

 

[Mike U.]

There is a recent thread* here that showed the terminal performance of the 9mm, .45ACP and .40 S&W using the same type of ammo. That being Winchester's Ranger "T" series JHP's.
The results of firing into ballistic gel were so close to each other that pointing out the difference between the calibers was correctly considered "splitting hairs".

When it comes to handgun calibers, shot placement will always be THE deciding factor of a given ammo's effectiveness.



* http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=316364

 

[vitesse9]

9mm is a good as the .40 or .45

Don't believe me:



We dug these 115 gr. fmj slugs out of the back of a railroad tie. They came out of a Glock 19. They basically went all the way through.

The 9mm is going to kill an attacker as dead as a .40 or a .45. And no, a .45 isn't going to stop a perp cold any better than a 9mm.

P.S. we shot the same railroad tie with three deer slugs, and it split in half. I'd leave the 9mm, the .40 and the .45 at home and take the shotgun. End of stopping power debate.

 

[darkgael]

9mm

Double Naught wrote: (a great post + 1 on all these points)
Quote:
"Why does everyone complain about the 9mm?
Not everyone does.

Quote:
I have never read any reports, or heard any complaints from soldiers in WW II.
Really? Just how many German and British ordnance assessment reports have you read?

Quote:
The mp-40 and the sten seemed to work great. I have never heard anyone say that the mp-40 or sten were useless.
That doesn't mean the 9mm round doesn't have issues. You happened to pick two very good guns to pick as your 9mm representatives, SMGs at that. However, comparison between the a pistol cartridge and a SMG are not one in the same.

Quote:
If I was in WW II and I had the chance to pick my weapon, I would pick an mp-40 or sten.
You aren't and most soldiers didn't.

Quote:
Great for up to 100 yards(the official designfor WW II was that it was good for 200 yards)
"official designator WW II" ... what the heck is that? The Axis and Allies didn't agree on such matters and didn't even use the same system of measurement (English v. metric).

Quote:
Why was the 9 mm a great choice for WW II but useless for us in 2008?
Now you have confused the notion of complaints with usefulness. Just because something is complained about does not mean it is useless.

Sorry to quote the whole thing (though it bears repeating). There's a lot of confused thinking on the internet - not meaning to hurt any one's feelings - and this post addressed some of it very nicely. My initial reaction to the subject of the OP was that it was so outrageous that the OP must be trolling. Evidently that is not the case, though the statement as written is too extreme to be true.
Pete

PS There was a "wouldn't it be nice" comment about developing the .30 Carbine in a semi-auto. I did not see that anyone addressed that. AMT produced the AutoMag III, a semi-auto pistol chambered for the .30 Carbine round, about 1989.
__________________

 

[44 AMP]

Since the OP was about the MP 40 ans Sten thread moved to NFA forum.

 

[RWBlue01]

Everything has good points and bad points. The 9 is fine for many things.

For handguns, I would want JHPs.
For full auto guns, ball will work.


But if you are trying to shoot someone at 1000 meters, 9 is not fine.
If you are trying to stop a bear, it is not optimal.
IF you are trying to shoot people in body armor, it is not going to work.

 

[David Hineline]

The ability to penetrat soft body armor is a limitation of US law not the cartridge capability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyKMz3tYx-M

 

[Nnobby45]

Why was the 9 mm a great choice for WW II but useless for us in 2008?

Body armor.

Who said it was a great choice? We didn't even use the dang thing--that's undoubtedly why we won the war.

See, we had the .45 1911 and the Thompson. The Krauts only had the little ol' 9mm, see. Did you see the British winning the war with their 9mm jammamatic Stens before we arrived? I didn't think so.

And we adopted it during the Gulf War to please our rearward leaning NATO partners and because we needed Air Bases in Italy, which is why we adopted the Beretta instead of the Sig P226. We don't need no Air Bases in Switzerland. Any questions ?

Sorry about that, just had too much Red Bull.

 

[jughead2]

9 mm

on the comment of 7.62 / 25 round. i have watched my son use a cz-52 out to 100 yds and that round is scary in the hands of someone that can use it.

 

[2transams]

I believe that the 9 mm was carried by most police officers up until a situation developed where a shooter was all drugged up and didn't feel any pain. He was in an office building surrounded by officers and if I remember correctly the officers shot him 20 or more times and couldn't kill him and at the same time he took the lives of many of the officers in this incident. I did a quick Google search on it but I couldn’t' find the specifics. Anyway, after this incident most LEOs decided that 9mm wasn't sufficient so they tried to go to .45, but most officers couldn't handle the round so many settled with 40 - a compromise which is standard issue for many LEOs.

A 9mm will punch holes and make you bleed. A 45 will stop you by inducing shock.

For the longest time I couldn’t' figure out why the military would carry insufficient firepower, i.e. 9mm and .223 instead of something larger like 30-06 and up. I finally figured it out: they can carry lots of ammo because it weighs less and the 'hits' injure instead of kill which makes soldiers care for their wounded instead of fight. This decreases their morale because they hear their comrades in agony from the wounds instead of seeking revenge from a dead comrade. Also the 'bean counters' decided that more ammo = more kills, no matter what the caliber. The only reason they stuck with .223 is because it was the minimum caliber that would still pierce armor.

Posts like that make the internet fun.

 

[Evil Monkey]

The 9mm, 40 cal, and 45 cal, and any other pistol caliber are all useless because weapons like this exist today.

 

[armoredman]

What the heck is that?

 

[Evil Monkey]

Israeli Micro Tavor 2 assault rifle with a suppressor. Very small rifle.