Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 1/24/2006 3:54:27 PM EDT
No Bull, I want to know other than them being cheap to shot what is good about them? I am not worried about over penetration because I will not likely be in a hostage situation. I don't own any but I am considering a cz in 9mm just to own but ( you might think I am a wuss) I try not to buy anything less then .40cal. Still the nine intrigues me, many of you own the g17 and sig 228 and other nines and it puzzles me if you feel like your under powered. I once read a post from a afcomer who works in the er and from what I remember he said " nearly all gun shot victims of 9mm survived except those that were shot in the head, neck or heart".
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 4:15:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2006 4:17:20 PM EDT by tommytrauma]

Originally Posted By 1pistola:
No Bull, I want to know other than them being cheap to shot what is good about them? I am not worried about over penetration because I will not likely be in a hostage situation. I don't own any but I am considering a cz in 9mm just to own but ( you might think I am a wuss) I try not to buy anything less then .40cal. Still the nine intrigues me, many of you own the g17 and sig 228 and other nines and it puzzles me if you feel like your under powered. I once read a post from a afcomer who works in the er and from what I remember he said " nearly all gun shot victims of 9mm survived except those that were shot in the head, neck or heart".



80% of ALL handgun GSW victims survive. I'm a paramedic with 17 years experience, and I can make the same exact observation about the .45, .357, etc. Stopping via handgun GSW is the product of CNS disruption or bleed out. Energy transfer has been prety well debunked. Given that, being able to place multiple hits on target rapidly is more important to me than the extra tenth of an inch offered by a .45 when compared to a 9mm.


I have a number of .45 pistols and a couple of 9mm pistols. I've also been taking a whole slew of handgunning classes over the past couple of years, and am currently taking instructor development courses where we are taught how to watch the student and evaluate their stance, grip, etc. A lot of time was spent on looking at how the recoil impulse is absorbed with different grips and stances. One simple fact that has become clear from all this is that it's easier to place multiple accurate shots on target with a 9mm than with a larger caliber handgun. Interestingly, two other students in these classes who have been avid .45 proponents are currently in the market for 9mm weapons instead.
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 4:23:01 PM EDT
I really appreciate your post. With that said what is the maximum number of times you can justifibly shoot a bg that has broke into your home and in a legal environment would caliber be a factor? Such as, BG was shot 5x with 9mm = justified BG was shot 5x with .357 = unjustified?
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 4:46:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1pistola:
I really appreciate your post. With that said what is the maximum number of times you can justifibly shoot a bg that has broke into your home and in a legal environment would caliber be a factor? Such as, BG was shot 5x with 9mm = justified BG was shot 5x with .357 = unjustified?



If you're justified in shooting in the first place, you're justified in shooting until the person is no longer a threat. There are many, many cases of law enforcement having to shoot an offender repeatedly. that offers quite a bit of ammo (ok, ok, pun kind of intended..) for your lawyer should your need to do the same come into question later.
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 5:14:01 PM EDT
9mm plusses: higher capacity, fast moving, lower recoil, and cheapest rounds

9mm negatives: bullet size

I love 9mm and carry it daily, never had to shoot a badguy and pray I never have to (but should it happen, I will finally know if they really bounce off). However, I am currently looking for a good .45 too
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 5:42:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2006 5:45:34 PM EDT by Bear_B]
I would like to pose another question for the mix...

Lets say you take a BG who was shot with a 9mm and survived...

What % of those BGs would have died if the bullet was a .45 or a .40 instead of a 9mm if the placement was EXACTLY the same?

In other words, you take a shooting that happened with a 9mm, and make all circumstances identical including placement of the shot, would the BG have been MORE likely to die being hit by that .45 sized bullet vs the .38 sized bullet (and since the 9mm and the .38 are the same size lets use that analogy).

If the BG were say 200 lbs, do you really think that 7/100 of an inch in size would have made a drastic difference?

I am not looking to start an argument, I am looking for a specific answer WHY you think it would have made such a big difference. Somehow on a 6 foot 200 lb BG I dont see 7/100 of an inch (or 2/100 in the case of .40 cal vs 9mm) making all that much difference.

Aside from that to answer the question at hand I see seveal advantages to the 9mm.

More capacity
Lower recoil (faster followup shots)

And here is the big one for me... more ammo for the buck. I shoot more than 10K rounds per year and I can do so at a cost of less than 80 bucks a month on an annual basis.

If I spent the same money I would be able to shoot only slightly more than half that in .45 and roughly 2/3 that in .40.

So which is a more effective investment to my safety... an extra 2/100 - 7/100 of an inch in bullet diameter, or an extra 3000-5000 rounds worth of training annually?

Everyone has to choose for themselves, since its MY ass on the line, I am going with the extra trigger time.

If you can afford to shoot as much .45 as you can 9mm then God bless you son, by all means go for the bigger bullet... not everyone has that luxury.

I carry a SIG 226 daily... but I also have an HK USP .45 Compact on lay-away...
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 5:49:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 6:24:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 8:13:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1pistola:
I really appreciate your post. With that said what is the maximum number of times you can justifibly shoot a bg that has broke into your home and in a legal environment would caliber be a factor? Such as, BG was shot 5x with 9mm = justified BG was shot 5x with .357 = unjustified?



I truly don't understand this question, especially in light of the comparison. First off, most jurors wouldn't understand what your talking about comparing a 9mm (metric) to a .357" bullet. I know college educated people who don't know the difference between rifle, shotgun or pistol ammunition. Plus, as we like to say in my business, you're mixing apples and oranges. A 9mm is .355" in diameter (vs the .357" Sig). That's .002" difference in diameter. Who in their right mind would think that .002" in diameter would make any difference? Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the ammo is exactly the same, using standard pressures, but any differences certainly aren't due to size.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 3:37:35 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:23:18 AM EDT
Nearly all the calibers have their place. It's like shoe sizes. Get the one that best fits you. Wound for wound, a .45 will always do more damage than a 9mm. But getting the bullet there is all the battle. Somebody who wears a size 8 can't run in size 13 shoes.

Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:06:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ikor:

Originally Posted By ep_shooter:

Originally Posted By 1pistola:
I really appreciate your post. With that said what is the maximum number of times you can justifibly shoot a bg that has broke into your home and in a legal environment would caliber be a factor? Such as, BG was shot 5x with 9mm = justified BG was shot 5x with .357 = unjustified?



I truly don't understand this question, especially in light of the comparison. First off, most jurors wouldn't understand what your talking about comparing a 9mm (metric) to a .357" bullet. I know college educated people who don't know the difference between rifle, shotgun or pistol ammunition. Plus, as we like to say in my business, you're mixing apples and oranges. A 9mm is .355" in diameter (vs the .357" Sig). That's .002" difference in diameter. Who in their right mind would think that .002" in diameter would make any difference? Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the ammo is exactly the same, using standard pressures, but any differences certainly aren't due to size.



I do understand the question...or at least I'm pretty sure I do. The issue ep_shooter is asking about is not one of factual ballistics. Instead it is all about "theatre" and who can convince a jury of what. A good prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a billy goat if they choose, and that indictment will cost the citizen who pulled the trigger maybe a minimum of $10-20,000 if they are found NOT guilty. Can you see a jury of people who do not know the difference between a rifle and a shotgun taken to a range and given a demonstration of 5rd. of full power .357 MAGNUM rounds from a CCW revolver at close range into something like a block of modeling clay? I can. You think that Suzie Soccermom or Charlie Computergeek might feel that this constituted "overkill"? (Especially when told repeatedly by the prosecutors that it did)

The truth is that perception can matter more than fact in some cases, and even more so if an anti-gun, anti-self-defense judge is presiding over the trial and blocks attempts to give factual information to the jury...and yes, it can and does happen more than some seem to believe. Those who think that the issue of self defense is only about whether or not a shooting was justified at the instant the trigger was pulled really need to get out and sit in on some courtroom trials sometime to begin to understand just how UNimportant "guilt" or "innocence" can actually be to the whole process.

If this worries you, a good rule of thumb is to carry and shoot the same pistol and ammo used by your local police department or Sheriff's Office. It may not be ideal, but it is pretty hard for a prosecutor to say it is a "bad" choice.



Very well said, sir.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:12:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VBC:
Wound for wound, a .45 will always do more damage than a 9mm.



given same bullet design yes. but some .45acp pistols (1911) do not always like to feed jhp while those issues seem not to exist with 9mm pistols.

and as far as carrying what your police department carries--that seems a bit extreme. but being dirty harry might not be the best idea either.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 8:58:27 AM EDT
The differences between 9mm, .40, and .45 are so small it's negligible. In the real world .45 has no more practical power than a 9mm. I don't care what anyone says. A .45 isn't a miracle round that knocks people off there feet in 1 shot, thats Hollywood. Sure it's a bigger bullet, but the hole it makes isn't going to be that much bigger.

Shot placement is all that counts, just keep repeating that in your head. With 9mm being so much cheaper to shoot, having more capacity, having less recoil and being a smaller package it's the only logical choice.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 10:04:56 AM EDT
Should you have to enage someone with your handgun, follow up shots are a certanty. During a hostile encounter, you cannot count on being able to stop the violence with a singular head shot.
Even larger handgun calibers like 10mm, .45ACP and .40 S&W don't change the fact that handguns in general aren't ideal "man-stoppers". Knowing that you will have to make rapid follow up shots, doesn't it make sense to pick a gun which will maximize this effect. 9mm's have higher capcacites and lower weight and even offer lower recoil which amounts to rapidly aimed follow up shots. Knowing that you will have to make followup shots, a 9mm makes the most sense. Modern 9mm JHP's offer comperable terminal ballistics as larger calibers without any of the drawbacks, like weight, reduced capacity and excessive recoil. You can't count on a 1-shot-stop with any

caliber....the possiblity exists, however shot placement will be complicated by counter fire and stress and cannot be relied upon. I feel much more confident being able to shoot 3-5 BH 124grn +P Gold Dots into center mass with my Beretta M9 than my ability to do the same with a 1911 in .45. And don't tell me that larger calibers require less capacity because singular rounds are more effective....that just isn't true. Thats not to say you can't win a gun fight with a G20 or 1911, you can, provided you can handle the recoil. Knowing you are likely to make multiple shots to stop an offender, why not maximize speed/accuracy of the shots and maximize the number of bullets you can carry without increasing weight substantially?
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 10:08:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2006 10:38:10 AM EDT by thedr13]
After reading all these posts. This thread shoud be TACKED to the opening of the Handgun forum.
This answers this question once and for all. If everyone reads what was written here, the question will never need to be asked again!
Thanks to all of the knowledgable people who replied.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 10:42:34 AM EDT
The argument that says 9mm is the same as .45 can be said about .380 being the same as 9mm. And .32 being the same as .380.

That's why 10mm is the best.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 12:41:10 PM EDT
9mm: everything is good about em--cheap, hi-cap avaiable (within a good, managable size), easy to find, lots of variety

h/w, imo its not the BEST (overall, for me) for people, but it WILL work

sure, shot placement and # of rnds on the target as fast as possible is the goal

but, i choose to carry the largest, most comforatable-shooting cartrige, and proven "man-stopper" that will work in my firearms

and the .45acp fits my bill--i can shoot it just as well and as fast as a 9mm w/out having the recoil snap of the .40sw or the 10mm (which i did carry) or magnum

furthermore, not all bullets expand reliably (100%)--like going through thick clothing and such, so if any of the bullets that leave my bbl hits the target, i want it to be as big as reasonably possible--
"a 9mm might expand, but a .45acp will NEVER shrink"

my 1911 might not carry as many rounds as my G17 and i would not feel undergunned with either one--i just choose the 1911 as i like shooting it more

as for capacity (low vs. high), carry more mags
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 2:27:17 PM EDT
for me its not size its weight, if 9mm came in a 230gn bullet it would be the perfect round.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 4:25:09 PM EDT
Because it's the caliber that I shoot best, after trying several calibers.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 4:34:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SSN_Doc:
Because it's the caliber that I shoot best, after trying several calibers.


This is the correct answer
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 6:11:21 PM EDT
Yes it is all about shot placement. If you can hit the vitials, which will stop them, then that is your pistol.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:08:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ar-steve:

Originally Posted By SSN_Doc:
Because it's the caliber that I shoot best, after trying several calibers.


This is the correct answer



+1 Most any round will kill you if it impacts in the right spot.
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 5:03:03 AM EDT
.........#1 shot placement.....#2 bullet weight + energy + expansion / penetration characteristics...#3 caliber..not important.......#4 practice practice....(double tap-a good habit to develope).....
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 8:29:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/28/2006 8:32:38 PM EDT by Bear_B]
After shooting my SIG226 for the first time in a practical shooting match today I have so say that my 9mm did show some advantages over some of the guys shooting the snappier .40s and the .45s today... my time was faster than guys at my same skill/experience level shooting bigger calibers, and in many cases by more than just a "smidge".

I think this was partially due to easy followup shots, and partially due to the greater capacity of my SIG over some of the other platforms/models (less reloads).

And it may be partially due to the fact that the SIG fits ME so well... its a very natural pointer to me, and I shoot it far better than any other handgun I have ever owned including the couple of 1911s I have had in my lifetime.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I have found that personally for ME the extra practice I can afford with a 9mm makes a MUCH greater difference than the size difference between the two rounds.

In a defensive shooting, you either hit vitals, or you dont... I dont think the heart or brain or spine or (insert vital organ here) is going to care much if it's a 9mm that just shut it down or a .40, or a .357 or a .45.

IMHO a defensive caliber must be able to penetrate deep enough to hit vitals, it must be reliable, and it must be something you can shoot quickly and accurately... outside of that the rest is just academic. Most of the defensive calibers on the market today are capable of doing this.

SO which one fits the bill better? The answer is, there is no answer. Which one that fits the bill better is going to be the one that fits YOU best.

Anyone who is looking for the best defensive caliber for themselves I think would be well served by trying each of the major defenive calibers in as many platforms as they have access to, even if they do drop a few bucks at the local rental range, I think its time and money well spent.

Trust me, its cheaper to rent a number of guns than it is to buy, and ultimately sell a gun at a loss that "may" fit you well, only to find out later it doesnt fit you as well as X gun.

For me, the gun that fits my hand best, and points best, and handles best, in MY hands is the SIG226 in 9mm. What fits YOU best is not necessarily what fits ME best and vice versa.

I own a number of handguns in a number of calibers that serve different purposes that vary from hunting to recreational shooting, but I have no doubts in my mind that the SIG P226 in 9mm is my personal choice for self defense and CCW carry.

Top Top