Page 3 of 27 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 264

Thread: Doubts about 9mm

  1. #21
    Site Supporter Hambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Behind the Photonic Curtain
    Quote Originally Posted by GlorifiedMailman View Post
    This is frighteningly accurate. I suppose this is my 3rd time to repeat the process and I'm on step 3.
    People are easily bored, and the culture encourages rapid change/replacement. Fuck that kind of thinking. Get whatever 9mm you like and shoot it until you're competent. Then push yourself to be an expert shooter with it.

    A friend of mine changes carry guns every 1-2 years depending on what's the new hotness or his whim. He rarely goes to the range, has never been to training, and can't shoot any of them worth a damn. Don't be that guy.
    "Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA
    15
     

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Rochester Hills, MI
    There are scores of dudes that have been put in the ground with the original loading of 9mm out of the original Luger pistol. It’s only gotten better with age.

    There are a whole plethora of great reasons to like 9mm, but I think my favorite reason to like it is that it’s so freaking cost effective. No other service caliber allows me to get the amount of live fire behind a gun than 9mm. Training, practice, and familiarity behind whatever platform you’re shooting breeds competence. The more competence you have with a given platform, the more effective you’ll be with it. If another caliber magically became cheaper in bulk and gained widespread acceptance, I’d probably move to that caliber so that I can maintain or increase my level of practice.

    Your software is far and away more important in how effective any given weapon is going to be. The hardware is merely a commodity. Some of those commodities are more opulent than others, but it still boils down to being a commodity.
    5
     

  3. #23
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Illinois
    Quote Originally Posted by GlorifiedMailman View Post
    .

    I realize that the 9mm loads of today are scores more effective than 9mm loads of yesteryear, but it seems that only in the past decade has 9mm started to have loads determined to be excellent. Is it really, truly proven to be close enough in incapacitation potential to .40 or .45 to make no difference in regards to ending a posed threat quickly and effectively?
    Look up Tim Gramins. He was involved in a shooting with a bank robber and scored 17 hits on a perp with 230gr gold dots, several of them fatal, but the fight wasn't over until the CNS hit. At the time of his shooting he was a SWAT sniper, trained a ton, and carried a G21. He scored something like 50% of the shots he fired but he went through almost his entire duty loadout.

    Would 9mm have worked better for him then?

    Yeah, probably. The shot was ended by a CNS hit and more bullets is more time in the fight. You'll probably be OK with 9mm for most situations.

    But then there are guys who say they have never seen more than a few shots being fired for dudes running 230gr HST+P so anecdotes can be twisted to suit any preconceived notion.

    I'd stick with the data and trust in your skill over whether you're carrying the latest greatest JHP

    Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk
    4
     

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    There were many failures, an autopsy results indicated that had the 115 STHP penetrated further, the fight might have ended sooner. A .40 or .45 likely would have made a difference..., but then again same could be said about the 124 +P Gold Dot or similar.

    ETA: ignore the smiley, not sure how that got there.
    Oh, I'm well aware of the blame placed on that lone silvertip bullet. But in my view the bullet was the scapegoat. The agents set their handguns on the seat to be "quicker" but lost them during the resulting car crash. But even had they not done that, they would still have been using handguns (mostly revolvers) to engage known violent robbers/murderers who had a shotgun and rifle. The real lesson from that day was to keep your long gun close by and when going after bad people have it in your hands. The only agent to get a long gun into the fight (and he used it to end the fight) had the shotgun in the passenger compartment. The other agents had their long guns in their trunks. I've successfully used the 86 shootout to campaign for electronic rifle racks that allows us to reach our M-4's from the driver's seat.

    The good news is that by blaming that single 9mm bullet, the LE community started to study and test ammunition like never before. And we all benefit today from those efforts. But saying that .40 or .45 would have likely made a difference is pure conjecture. The .40 didn't exist back then and was born out of the ammo developments. And .45 is typically a slower bullet. Bottom line is all handguns suck at stopping a determined, violent predator. If you expect a fight, have a long gun.
    8
     

  5. #25
    Site Supporter Totem Polar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    PacNW
    Quote Originally Posted by GlorifiedMailman View Post
    Why is .45 still better for those in rural or colder climates; is it because of animals, or penetration through thick winter clothing?
    I’m not convinced it’s better, but both of the above is probably part of the thinking.
    ”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
    0
     

  6. #26
    Tactical Nobody Guerrero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Jared Reston
    4
     

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by GlorifiedMailman View Post
    Why is .45 still better for those in rural or colder climates; is it because of animals, or penetration through thick winter clothing?
    Personally I don't believe it is better. That was often the line back in the 90's when hollowpoints were often clogged by winter clothing and failed to expand. The thought then being, if the bullets don't expand you might as well use a bigger bullet. You could drop me off in the frozen tundra of the North Pole and I'd be fine with my 9mm for human threats.
    0
     

  8. #28
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by GlorifiedMailman View Post
    I’ve been pouring over this subject for years now (particularly DocGKR’s work), but keep coming back to the same conundrum at one point or another. It’s obvious that 9mm has taken the world by storm once more in LE, military, and self-defense use. However, looking back over the past several decades, the pendulum seems to swing back and forth between larger/heavier calibers like the .40, .45, and 10mm (for a brief time), and 9mm. There was a time when 9mm was thought to be king, but then it was determined not to be enough and a larger caliber was needed.

    Who’s to say that there won’t be another tragic event of brave LEOs getting killed while using 9mm pistols that fail to end the threat, and precipitate a move back to larger calibers like .40 and .45 (or some new caliber entirely)? That’s not to say that I think such a tragedy would actually be the fault of 9mm; more than likely it would be the fault of something else entirely or the inadequacies of service pistol calibers in general. But that wouldn’t necessarily stop a large exodus from 9mm to a larger caliber, as has happened before.

    As well, to this day it seems like larger calibers such as .40 are preferred by LE for dispatching injured animals, such as deer. If 9mm is less effective at putting down injured deer, how can it be as effective as the larger calibers to take down a 200+ pound determined human attacker?

    This is coming from someone who has been carrying a 9mm Glock 19 for years and shoots in competition, but every once in a while I have my doubts about 9mm having negligible differences in effectiveness compared to .40 or .45.

    I realize that the 9mm loads of today are scores more effective than 9mm loads of yesteryear, but it seems that only in the past decade has 9mm started to have loads determined to be excellent. Is it really, truly proven to be close enough in incapacitation potential to .40 or .45 to make no difference in regards to ending a posed threat quickly and effectively?

    I don’t mean to start a caliber debate or focus on the wrong things, but it’s something that’s been gnawing at me for a while. It’s really the main reason I haven’t sold off my .45’s. Meanwhile I will continue my 9mm shooting schedule as normal, I will not let this compromise my effectiveness.

    Thanks to all who help a OCD soul.
    The real world is a messy place and shooting people is messy. There are no guarantees. The only constants have been that “stopping power” is a myth with hand guns and shot placement is the most significant factor.

    Otherwise I suggest you seek professional help for your OCD rather than re-hash the Handgun caliber debate.
    6
     

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by 0ddl0t View Post
    There is no predicting on what administrators will blame the failures of future events. But the FBI Miami Shootout was not a failure of 9mm. It was a primarily failure of planning/preparation/tactics: The agents, hoping to encounter deadly bank robbers known to use a mini 14 & shotgun, had largely equipped themselves with .38 revolvers. Other agents also had 2 .357s, 3 9mm, & two shotguns. None of the involved agents had smgs, rifles or rifle-rated body armor.
    There were MP-5’s, and maybe M-16’s (can’t remember), with agents on the surveillance detail. For various reasons, mostly due to Murphy’s Law, those agents weren’t able to make it to the scene in time to get in the fight.
    1
     

  10. #30
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by TC215 View Post
    There were MP-5’s, and maybe M-16’s (can’t remember), with agents on the surveillance detail. For various reasons, mostly due to Murphy’s Law, those agents weren’t able to make it to the scene in time to get in the fight.
    Yes sir, both MP5s and M-16s.

    ________________________________


    To be honest, the FBI never fully blamed the event on pistol caliber failures. It was only a contributing factor, the FBI admitted fault where fault is due with regard to tactics and planning. The idea that the FBI only blamed 9mm for that day is a falsehood.

    The idea that the main, perhaps singular cause for the outcome of the shootout was the ineffectiveness of 9mm is something I think that is pedaled by people in the gun community.....in particular gun manufacturers trying to make sales during a country-wide police rearmament bonanza.

    Quote Originally Posted by GlorifiedMailman View Post
    I don’t mean to ... focus on the wrong things,
    but you are.
    Last edited by TGS; 11-19-2019 at 11:24 AM.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
    5
     

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •