armoredman
New member
Very nice.
The 9mm is useless!
- Thread starter Super-Dave
- Start date
MP40
[QUOTEA British Royal Marine was shot in the abdomen with 7.62mm NATO during the liberation of the Falklands, he carried on fighting shooting the Argentine dead with his M16. ][/QUOTE]
The above quote means nothing! The average Royal was not that big, they yomped (they marched) so far, so fast the other side (recruits with little training, and no real heart for the fight) were quite surprised, and did not want anything to do with them. He probably cleaned his rifle prior to going to the medic! Now that was a joke!
If you have ever played with those two sub guns. The MP40 and the Sten, both fairly cheap to make, the 9mm MP40 was like a swiss watch! how they accomplished that smooth action with stamped parts is amazing.
The 9mm, displaced the .38 Special, 6 shot, with a more powerful round, and a whole bunch more of them, great move.
The FBI blamed a 9mm WW Silver tip for a tactical error, Agents, brave men one and all, chasing known to be armed with rifles bad guys? with a mish match of personal weapons, only the ex-Cop took a 12 gage along for the ride.
The 9mm pistol rounds of today are among the most effective bullet designs in the world. Millions of dollars have made them that way. The 9mm works.
[QUOTEA British Royal Marine was shot in the abdomen with 7.62mm NATO during the liberation of the Falklands, he carried on fighting shooting the Argentine dead with his M16. ][/QUOTE]
The above quote means nothing! The average Royal was not that big, they yomped (they marched) so far, so fast the other side (recruits with little training, and no real heart for the fight) were quite surprised, and did not want anything to do with them. He probably cleaned his rifle prior to going to the medic! Now that was a joke!
If you have ever played with those two sub guns. The MP40 and the Sten, both fairly cheap to make, the 9mm MP40 was like a swiss watch! how they accomplished that smooth action with stamped parts is amazing.
The 9mm, displaced the .38 Special, 6 shot, with a more powerful round, and a whole bunch more of them, great move.
The FBI blamed a 9mm WW Silver tip for a tactical error, Agents, brave men one and all, chasing known to be armed with rifles bad guys? with a mish match of personal weapons, only the ex-Cop took a 12 gage along for the ride.
The 9mm pistol rounds of today are among the most effective bullet designs in the world. Millions of dollars have made them that way. The 9mm works.
imthegrumpyone
New member
I vote for the 9mm and .40s forever !!!!! carry both ( one at a time ) I grab the .40 first cause of it's small concealment.
Coyote Hitman
Moderator
Sten gun @ 100yards
I'm still a big fan of 9mm. It is fairly cheap to shoot and practice with. Then, I put high-powered frangible rounds in for self defense. I'd agree that if what I was carrying in my Glock was Wolf steel jacketed 9mm, it might not be quite as effective as a .45. But, that's only what I practice with, not what I use for defense.
Like others have said, there is no reason to discredit the 9mm now that you can buy the high velocity ammo that does substantial damage. I like it because it holds more rounds. 20 rounds vs. 8 rounds....I'll take the 20 rounds. What are you going to do if you are confronted with multiple attackers? How often do "gangs" of one break into a house or attack people in the streets?
Like others have said, there is no reason to discredit the 9mm now that you can buy the high velocity ammo that does substantial damage. I like it because it holds more rounds. 20 rounds vs. 8 rounds....I'll take the 20 rounds. What are you going to do if you are confronted with multiple attackers? How often do "gangs" of one break into a house or attack people in the streets?
guntotin_fool
New member
OKay, Some basics.
Getting shot with anything hurts, and will lead to death in about half the cases unless immediate medical attention is given.
9mm as used in WW2 subguns, was and is clearly different from 9mm loaded into a handgun. The extra few hundred feet of velocity added because of the 8-10 inch barrel, and the added power of a hotter load, equalled a better combo of power vs size than most 9mm SAAMI loads today.
Americans learned to fight differently than europeans, and were fairly confident that at the right time, a proper fighting pistol was a good tool to have. European Armies only carried pistols for two reasons, one was a mark of rank, and second, it was the tool to shoot deserters and prisoners.
Americans took that proper fighting pistol to war, and along the way, decided that a weapon that fired the same useful cartridge could be used to break up resistance inside a house or trench quite easily.
Heinz Guderain was not looking at trench warfare when he decided that the new war in europe would not be allowed to resort to the trenches. He was the innovator of the lightning war, or Blitzkrieg, where speed and shock were to be the tools of overcoming the other armies of europe. He wanted supply lines to be simple, with only a very few forms of ammuntion to be shipped. For the most part, he wanted only 9mm and 8mm ammo produced for the troops (obviously here, we are skipping 20mm and up tank, AA and arty stuff) He also decided that equipping large number of troops with a weapon that was made from stampings, that cost something like 21 dollars to produce, and afforded a squad with (almost) the same firepower of a GPMG, was superior to a weapon that took skilled machinists, heavy tooling, and was slow to fire and reload, at least in the warfare that he was envisioning.
For much of europe in the period from sept 1939 thru about 1944, the real image of a boogeyman was a german Para holding a MP40. Soldiers falling from the sky, blazing away with machine guns gave most of europe the runs.
Now the americans show up late for the party, but operating under the guidelines that we will win this war using our rules, and that is saving our troops as best we can, and making decisions based on saving the most lives we can of our side, while costing the enemy the most casualties as possible.
We taught our soldiers to be marksmen, we demanded that we have rifles capable of putting the bullet where it was meant to go, and we brought weapons that ended fights when we hit you with it.
Now moving forward to today, Even with fancy ammo, in much of the country, during much of the year getting ammo to expand and do its job is difficult when the people are bundled up in heavy clothing.
So one reverts to the old proven technology, 9mm and 38 sized bullets tend not to deliver that important "fights over" message to drugged up people the way a .45 does. IF the bullet does expand, 60% expansion on a nine is somewhere around .56 cal. so compared to an unexpanded .45, one can see that even with ball, you don't loose much to an expanded 9, and if the 45 only expands 30%, you're out to .58 cal.
Some see this as reason enough to choose a 9.
I hear some argue that they can carry 19 rounds or so of 9 mm, and thus in a gun fight, they can simply poke enough holes in the target to get lucky and hit something vital.
I hear Civil trial lawyers having wet dreams over that kind of attitude. as 19 rounds leaving your gun each and every one have a lawyers business card attached to them saying "Sue me for wrongful death and injury" as the misses carry on down the street and hit that kid doing homework in the livingroom two blocks away.
I want very few shots, all accurately placed, all stopping within the body of the felon who has threatened to kill me. I want no flyers or strays rumbling down the street killing or maiming innocents.
Now, if this argument is simply about subguns, then today our FBI has the best option, which is the MP-10, but for some reason. They forget to teach the Second Amendment at the FBI school in Quantico, because if they did, the FBI would do everything in its power to get that weapon out to law abiding Citizens as the near perfect home defense and civil defense weapon.
Getting shot with anything hurts, and will lead to death in about half the cases unless immediate medical attention is given.
9mm as used in WW2 subguns, was and is clearly different from 9mm loaded into a handgun. The extra few hundred feet of velocity added because of the 8-10 inch barrel, and the added power of a hotter load, equalled a better combo of power vs size than most 9mm SAAMI loads today.
Americans learned to fight differently than europeans, and were fairly confident that at the right time, a proper fighting pistol was a good tool to have. European Armies only carried pistols for two reasons, one was a mark of rank, and second, it was the tool to shoot deserters and prisoners.
Americans took that proper fighting pistol to war, and along the way, decided that a weapon that fired the same useful cartridge could be used to break up resistance inside a house or trench quite easily.
Heinz Guderain was not looking at trench warfare when he decided that the new war in europe would not be allowed to resort to the trenches. He was the innovator of the lightning war, or Blitzkrieg, where speed and shock were to be the tools of overcoming the other armies of europe. He wanted supply lines to be simple, with only a very few forms of ammuntion to be shipped. For the most part, he wanted only 9mm and 8mm ammo produced for the troops (obviously here, we are skipping 20mm and up tank, AA and arty stuff) He also decided that equipping large number of troops with a weapon that was made from stampings, that cost something like 21 dollars to produce, and afforded a squad with (almost) the same firepower of a GPMG, was superior to a weapon that took skilled machinists, heavy tooling, and was slow to fire and reload, at least in the warfare that he was envisioning.
For much of europe in the period from sept 1939 thru about 1944, the real image of a boogeyman was a german Para holding a MP40. Soldiers falling from the sky, blazing away with machine guns gave most of europe the runs.
Now the americans show up late for the party, but operating under the guidelines that we will win this war using our rules, and that is saving our troops as best we can, and making decisions based on saving the most lives we can of our side, while costing the enemy the most casualties as possible.
We taught our soldiers to be marksmen, we demanded that we have rifles capable of putting the bullet where it was meant to go, and we brought weapons that ended fights when we hit you with it.
Now moving forward to today, Even with fancy ammo, in much of the country, during much of the year getting ammo to expand and do its job is difficult when the people are bundled up in heavy clothing.
So one reverts to the old proven technology, 9mm and 38 sized bullets tend not to deliver that important "fights over" message to drugged up people the way a .45 does. IF the bullet does expand, 60% expansion on a nine is somewhere around .56 cal. so compared to an unexpanded .45, one can see that even with ball, you don't loose much to an expanded 9, and if the 45 only expands 30%, you're out to .58 cal.
Some see this as reason enough to choose a 9.
I hear some argue that they can carry 19 rounds or so of 9 mm, and thus in a gun fight, they can simply poke enough holes in the target to get lucky and hit something vital.
I hear Civil trial lawyers having wet dreams over that kind of attitude. as 19 rounds leaving your gun each and every one have a lawyers business card attached to them saying "Sue me for wrongful death and injury" as the misses carry on down the street and hit that kid doing homework in the livingroom two blocks away.
I want very few shots, all accurately placed, all stopping within the body of the felon who has threatened to kill me. I want no flyers or strays rumbling down the street killing or maiming innocents.
Now, if this argument is simply about subguns, then today our FBI has the best option, which is the MP-10, but for some reason. They forget to teach the Second Amendment at the FBI school in Quantico, because if they did, the FBI would do everything in its power to get that weapon out to law abiding Citizens as the near perfect home defense and civil defense weapon.
TacticalDefense1911
New member
The same can be said about the .40, 10mm and 45 ACP
The difficulty with the 9mm is that ammo selection is far more important than it is with a 40 or 45. There just dont seem to be too many "bad" 40 & 45 loads while there are numerous bad 9mm loads for self defense. With the right load selection a 9mm is a fine self defense caliber.
If anything, I believe the 1911 is useless. Despite anything you can espouse about the stopping power of .45 or its magical feel, the thing is that its a low capacity, finicky, unreliable weapon. If gunnies were able to pick arms for the modern army, we'd still be using the 1911 and m14 and our troops would be as underwhelming as any 3rd world countries.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
If I hit an intruder with 2 or 3 decently placed 9mm HP rounds and he doesn't go down until paramedics arrive, I am switching into zombie apocalypse mode and grabbing my SKS.
White Rice
New member
9mm works well in the military because it is usually used to shoot other military.
.45 works better in SD because you are shooting civilian aggressors.
Now, you can all think whatever you want about this as far as ammo capacity to be carried etc, but you'd be wrong.
Consider this. I was in the Marines. My priority 1A was killing the people on the other side. Priority 1B was not getting killed. These two priorities could flip-flop all the time.
In battle, I am scared. I am not angry. I have nothing in particular against the other guy on the other side than I want him not to shoot me. If I get shot, I would immediately shift into preservation mode, not destructive mode. I'd try to stay alive and would either not be shooting or shooting defensively until I could be evacuated unless the wound was very minor.
Almost any wound from any cartridge would stop me from being an aggressor unless it was a graze or non-bleeding flesh wound, if those even exist.
9mm and less are more than adequate for this.
Now lets take the self defense situation. Ruling out walking in on a home break-in, its likely that the attacker is not only very close to me and within range to kill me with their bare hands, the person is probably angry. Anger will make a person continue to attack when a soldier will seek cover and treatment.
In these cases, a 9mm may be adequate. But overcoming angry aggression is more difficult than taking our a longer range military target. The SD aggressor also realizes that if he can take you out, the battle is over and he wins whatever goal he had in mind. Enemy combatants understand that if they are wounded, they aren't going to be able to single handedly take out another sides military unit, even as small as a rifle squad before they become incapacitated from blood loss or shock.
These are two different situations and people should understand this.
.45 works better in SD because you are shooting civilian aggressors.
Now, you can all think whatever you want about this as far as ammo capacity to be carried etc, but you'd be wrong.
Consider this. I was in the Marines. My priority 1A was killing the people on the other side. Priority 1B was not getting killed. These two priorities could flip-flop all the time.
In battle, I am scared. I am not angry. I have nothing in particular against the other guy on the other side than I want him not to shoot me. If I get shot, I would immediately shift into preservation mode, not destructive mode. I'd try to stay alive and would either not be shooting or shooting defensively until I could be evacuated unless the wound was very minor.
Almost any wound from any cartridge would stop me from being an aggressor unless it was a graze or non-bleeding flesh wound, if those even exist.
9mm and less are more than adequate for this.
Now lets take the self defense situation. Ruling out walking in on a home break-in, its likely that the attacker is not only very close to me and within range to kill me with their bare hands, the person is probably angry. Anger will make a person continue to attack when a soldier will seek cover and treatment.
In these cases, a 9mm may be adequate. But overcoming angry aggression is more difficult than taking our a longer range military target. The SD aggressor also realizes that if he can take you out, the battle is over and he wins whatever goal he had in mind. Enemy combatants understand that if they are wounded, they aren't going to be able to single handedly take out another sides military unit, even as small as a rifle squad before they become incapacitated from blood loss or shock.
These are two different situations and people should understand this.
Both Guntotin_Fool and White_Rice made points similar to what I'm going to make, albeit in a different way.
You're comparing apples & oranges here.
The WW-II 9mm cartridge was a hotter round than most of today's commercially produced ammo. On top of that, SMG ammo was typically marked with a black or purple tip in Germany because it was even hotter than the pistol ammo in order to run the SMGs reliably.
So, in the first instance, we're comparing today's commercial ammo to hotter WW-II military ammo.
In the second place, as White_Rice pointed out, in a military situation, if a soldier is wounded he is generally out of the fight for some period of time. That time may only be as long as it takes him to dress the wound or it may be painful/debilitating enough that he ceases to be a viable threat.
This is quite different from the civilian situation where you are in close contact with your assailant due to a robbery, assault, rape or homicide attempt. In the civilian case, failure to quickly neutralize your assailant can result in serious or fatal injury to you. Using a WW-II 9mm FMJ might or might not stop said CQB assailant. Using a 124g 9mm +P Speer Gold Dot that expands gives you much better odds.
One also has to remember that in warfare, if your 9mm SMG brings down an enemy soldier with one hit, it was almost SOP to "rake" him again with a short burst, possibly inflicting multiple hits.
In today's world where we use commercial JHP ammo that expands much more reliably than ever before, the differences between the calibers has narrowed considerably. With JHP ammo, the 9mm becomes a viable self-defense round for CQB. I still prefer a larger diameter bullet, but I don't feel undergunned with the 9mm either.
You're comparing apples & oranges here.
The WW-II 9mm cartridge was a hotter round than most of today's commercially produced ammo. On top of that, SMG ammo was typically marked with a black or purple tip in Germany because it was even hotter than the pistol ammo in order to run the SMGs reliably.
So, in the first instance, we're comparing today's commercial ammo to hotter WW-II military ammo.
In the second place, as White_Rice pointed out, in a military situation, if a soldier is wounded he is generally out of the fight for some period of time. That time may only be as long as it takes him to dress the wound or it may be painful/debilitating enough that he ceases to be a viable threat.
This is quite different from the civilian situation where you are in close contact with your assailant due to a robbery, assault, rape or homicide attempt. In the civilian case, failure to quickly neutralize your assailant can result in serious or fatal injury to you. Using a WW-II 9mm FMJ might or might not stop said CQB assailant. Using a 124g 9mm +P Speer Gold Dot that expands gives you much better odds.
One also has to remember that in warfare, if your 9mm SMG brings down an enemy soldier with one hit, it was almost SOP to "rake" him again with a short burst, possibly inflicting multiple hits.
In today's world where we use commercial JHP ammo that expands much more reliably than ever before, the differences between the calibers has narrowed considerably. With JHP ammo, the 9mm becomes a viable self-defense round for CQB. I still prefer a larger diameter bullet, but I don't feel undergunned with the 9mm either.
Evil Monkey
New member
They're useless, get over yourself.
TacticalDefense1911
New member
The M14 is one of the finest military weapons of all time...I hardly doubt our troops would be "as underwhelming as any 3rd world country" while armed with one
Sparks2112
New member
I had read recently that we were trying to buy back (M-14's) the ones we sold to friendly countries when we switched to the AR platform back in the 60's and 70's. I'll try and find the article if I can.
White Rice
New member
Why? Its not like they can't be made cheaper if we needed a few. Its more likely that we would do a "buy back" in order to sell them other stuff to replace it at a profit.
It makes a nice parade rifle, but I wouldn't want to carry it around all day anymore.
If I was going to carry that much weight in rifle and ammo, I'd rather carry a SAW.
It makes a nice parade rifle, but I wouldn't want to carry it around all day anymore.
If I was going to carry that much weight in rifle and ammo, I'd rather carry a SAW.
Sparks2112
New member
It's not like they're keeping them stock from the 60's. I hear they're performing quite well in the designated marksman role.
I'd prefer the M240 myself.