The 9mm myth? - Page 3 - Pistolsmith

Go Back   Pistolsmith > Ammunition Forum > Ammunition

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-15-2005, 06:43 AM   #21
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 503
I will certainly back you up on that (as probably will anyone here). I would even go further, recognizing that the subject being shot is the variable that we have no control over so these are general "expectations" not hard and fast rules:

1. If you hit him in the spine or brain he is almost surely going down (there are even exceptions to this but they are a minute minority - had a student that had to shoot a guy twice in the forehead with a 5.56 - of course there is no guarantee that first shot hit the brain).

2. If you hit him in the heart (but not the spine also) with a .45 you cannot count him to go down instantly unless he is inclined to (for some mental reason). If he is not so inclined, I would expect from 3-10 seconds, I would not be shocked if it took more!

3. If you hit him in the lungs with a .45 or two (anybody worth shooting once is worth shooting a LOT!) you cannot count on him going down instantly unless he is inclined to. Again there are no hard and fast rules because the physical and mental state of the subject are more important than ballistics, I would expect he would be active from 5 to 10 seconds or more. I would not be shocked if he stays active for 5 to 10 Minutes (had another student shot through the lungs with a .38...he did not weaken for several minutes...more than enough to kill the guy that shot him, call EMS and sit down and wait).

4. If you hit him outside the CNS, Heart or Lungs....then back up and start over!!!! Only a lucky hit to some important structure will save you (.45s do fairly well on arm and leg bone...much better than even some rifles).

So yes, placement is critical. The subject himself has a great deal of impact on the outcome (which is why this topic is not so clear cut).

Big bores do not guarantee success even when shot reasonably well...neither do rifles but they do better on the whole. Though to be honest, I have failed to stop more critters with a .223 with well placed rounds than I have with a .45 pistol...or rather, they have run further (I consider that a failure). That might be an anomoly - nobody including Karamojo Bell shoot enough critters or people to erase all doubt, they just have a little better grasp. By coincidence I have seen more after action reports about failures with 5.56 than with the .45 with ball but that might simply be because of the fact that there are so many more cases - both seem to work pretty well as a norm.... I have not seen one official AAR which states the 9mm is adequate for military use.

Matter of fact, the only thing a larger caliber does for you is to raise the odds of stopping - or decrease the time to incapacitation - given an equally well placed hit (other than to the CNS which seems to work with most calibers). It very well might mean that it will take less seems to.

But, there are no guarantees!

Remove Ads
Old 10-16-2005, 05:02 AM   #22
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Virginia
Posts: 964
By coincidence I have seen more after action reports about failures with 5.56 than with the .45 with ball but that might simply be because of the fact that there are so many more cases - both seem to work pretty well as a norm.... I have not seen one official AAR which states the 9mm is adequate for military use.
.45 ball ammo works well, I think, because of diameter, heavy bullet and modest velocity. It carries just enough energy to penetrate bone and soft tissue, but not so much that it will merely zip through the target and continue on its merry way. The 9mm ball round is small in diameter, light in weight and moves along rather quickly. The profile of the bullet also tends to be more "pointy" than the .45 ball round. I think these things combine to make the 9 a deep penetrator and will probably do a better job of defeating light body armor, but the small diameter and low bullet weight just don't have the energy or size to do major damage.

The 9mm really benefits most from well designed hollowpoint ammo. Hollowpoint ammo is banned from military use. The USAF went so far as to develop a truncated cone FMJ bullet for the 9mm, but it never went into use in the military.
Old 11-25-2005, 11:24 AM   #23
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 257
I stopped two pit bulls w 9 minimeter FMJ from a M9.

Of course, I had a good angle on 'em from the top of my truck...

Bigger is better, but ya do the best ya can w what ya got.

I'm a welterweight now. I have been a heavyweight. I don't worry about it.

BTW, hollow point ammo is not banned from military use. We are (and have been) using hollow point ammo for some time now in 9mm, 5.56, and 7.62. Several JAG decisions in the 90s cleared the way. It can be used against some people all the time, and all people some of the time. Military lawyers can be as sharp as any civilian lawyer... :wink:
Old 12-01-2005, 01:02 PM   #24
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 503
Originally Posted by MichaelOrick
I stopped two pit bulls w 9 minimeter FMJ from a M9.

Of course, I had a good angle on 'em from the top of my truck...

Good tactics is alway appropriate... sniping pit bulls from the top of the truck shows exccedinly good judgement.

There is always the story (not sure if it is true but it should be) that when Old John Selman was arraigned for the killing of John Wesley Hardin there was some question as to whether he was shot from the front or the back.

It is reported that the judge ruled: "If he was shot from the front it was a outstanding example of good marksmanship. If he was shot from the back it was an outstanding example of good judgement."

Old 03-17-2006, 05:30 PM   #25
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 291
When recently asked about a JHP load in 9-minimeter, a cop-friend who carries a .45 replied:

"9mm loads vary. They're presumed gay until proven straight." :lol:

In other words, choose wisely. 8)
Old 06-15-2006, 06:35 PM   #26
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 48
thats funny. :lol:

I carry 9mm primarily. Most of the really good loads seem, well, really good. I wouldn't carry ball ammo. Recently I fired some 124gr +p+ hydrashoks at some water jugs and the results were dynamic. Penetration was a little limited but I can live with that. I'm not a big believer that you HAVE to have 12 inches or you might as well just be cussing at them. I think most civilians are well served by the 9mm. I think the military believed the 9 would give them an advantage as a round that was more likely to penetrate body armor. I don't think they foresaw that our primary targets would instead be coked up tuscan raiders in bathrobes. A switch back to the 45 might be nice. The only bummer is that I doubt all of those beautiful Berettas will make it back to us in the form of cheap surplus. They will probably get the old bandsaw treatment. :cry:
Old 07-05-2006, 07:42 PM   #27
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 48
what may be even more efficient for the troops and the taxpayers is perhaps a switch in ammo. A flat pointed bullet or something like the EFMJ. I would think we could come up with something that would cost us a few billion dollars less than another change in weapons. I carried the M9 in the Marine Corps and I never felt bad about the weapon, I just wish I could have had better ammo.
Old 07-06-2006, 05:20 AM   #28
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 503
Oddly enough the second time the military seriously looked into the 9mm (around 1977 or 78 - the first time being around 1949-50) the guy leading the charge was an Air Force gent by the name of Jack Robbins (his son was a heck of a shot at age 13).

A major part of Jacks push was a truncated cone bullet which Hornady loaded up for him. But alas, it was lost somewhere in the process.

Also ironically, one of the loads tested in the 1904 trials was a truncated cone 9mm IIRC (been a long time since I reviewed that one) - no I wasn't there ops:

It would have been interesting I think, however I shot a good bit of stuff with a 9mm JSP loaded to 1350 fps and with .357 magnum SWCs at a measured 1450 fps. Neither one of those was all that impressive on critters that weighed over 10 lbs (whereas expanding bullets worked pretty well on them).

That said, I am not at all sure the JSP in the 9mm was even flattening out a little bit (It would expand in mud but not in flesh or water). Drilling a 1/8" hole in the end changed its behavior dramatically.

Old 07-07-2006, 11:12 AM   #29
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 9
Hey, Jim. I was wondering, since you hadn't mentioned .50AE rounds in your first post (which is as far as I bothered to read in this thread), just how much more effective would it be in "stopping" someone? Let's say, for example, I'm in a shootout with someone and I happen to have a .50 cal Desert Eagle. How many shots do you think it would take to stop the oponent?
Old 07-07-2006, 01:02 PM   #30
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Posts: 135
I'm not Jim, but I guarantee it depends on where you hit the guy.

  Pistolsmith > Ammunition Forum > Ammunition

Search tags for this page

9mm adequate for defense

9mm adequate self defense

9mm effectiveness in combat

9mm failures on the street
9mm inadequate
9mm myth

9mm myths

is 9mm adequate
will 9mm stop a dog
Click on a term to search for related topics.

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
sigs rust myth darinberry SIG Pistols 5 03-12-2005 06:28 PM
Checkering-a myth in safe handling the combat pistol? calthrop Pistolsmiths 48 06-24-2001 10:02 PM

Top Gun Sites Top Sites List

Powered by vBulletin 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 1999-2012 Pistolsmith. All rights reserved.