Poll: Why is the 9mm such a popular caliber?

Why is the 9mm such a popular caliber?


  • Total voters
    228
If you like 1911's but want 10mm a Colt Delta Elite is a good choice, just watch out for cracked frames.
 
Yes. That being the case though, I don't buy the "modern bullet design" BS as justification or carrying a lesser caliber than can otherwise reasonably be carried.

Penetration, recovered diameter, permanent wound cavity. When you know what those terms are, suddenly, you notice that there isn't a huge difference between the "big 3." (there is a big difference in intermediate barrier penetration, but that's a whole subject by itself. ) 10mm does "interesting" things to some balgel
test rigs, but the numbers it puts up in terms of the above aren't that much different, although one can definitely argue it has way more energy than the big 3 do.

Carry whatever you want, by all means, but when I carried a .45, or even a 10mm, I refused to delude myself into believing it was that much better than a 9mm for the intended purpose. I carried the guns in those
calibers simply because I shot them well.

The 10mm thing is interesting, I'd never looked into it much as it seems to not be very common. Whoever suggested a glock though, ewww [wink]

If you want a 10mm in a modern platform it is the only choice, really. Glock is the only company who hasn't abandoned the caliber. I think they even made 29SF and 20SF models in the recent past.

If you're one of those "wah wah wah gotta have steel or its not real" guys, then get a Dan Wesson 10mm.... beautiful guns... but you will pay for them. Availability is tough, too.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
Another Glock hater thread? [rollseyes]. Leave all the guns that are extremely reliable, bulletproof, and proven for me then, I'll take them all.


Sent from my carbon covered iPhone
 
Another Glock hater thread? [rollseyes]

It's more of a running joke around here (eg, Glock = grenade, etc) than actual hate, and even if someone does dislike the platform, who cares? [rofl]

If you want a laugh bring up google and look up "your gun sucks".

Life is too short to get hung up on fanboiism. Somewhere, somebody hates your gun brand(s) and there's not much you can do to convince them otherwise.

-Mike
 
Penetration, recovered diameter, permanent wound cavity. When you know what those terms are, suddenly, you notice that there isn't a huge difference between the "big 3." (there is a big difference in intermediate barrier penetration, but that's a whole subject by itself. ) 10mm does "interesting" things to some balgel
test rigs, but the numbers it puts up in terms of the above aren't that much different, although one can definitely argue it has way more energy than the big 3 do.

Carry whatever you want, by all means, but when I carried a .45, or even a 10mm, I refused to delude myself into believing it was that much better than a 9mm for the intended purpose. I carried the guns in those
calibers simply because I shot them well.



If you want a 10mm in a modern platform it is the only choice, really. Glock is the only company who hasn't abandoned the caliber. I think they even made 29SF and 20SF models in the recent past.

If you're one of those "wah wah wah gotta have steel or its not real" guys, then get a Dan Wesson 10mm.... beautiful guns... but you will pay for them. Availability is tough, too.

-Mike

If better, modern, ammo can enhance the performance of a 9mm it can enhance the performance of a 45 too. So I'm still not sold. Either way, I'm not saying I believe the difference is huge but it does exist. I just don't see saving a couple cents a round as reason enough to go with the best option available. If you are going through the cost effort to carry anyway, why start compromising then?

Ugh, I don't think I can do a Glock.. they're just so awful to shoot. I like my aluminum framed 1911 but it doesn't sound like aluminum and 10mm mix very well. This is going to require all the research.


Another Glock hater thread? [rollseyes]. Leave all the guns that are extremely reliable, bulletproof, and proven for me then, I'll take them all.

I don't hate them for what they are, I can't deny their value per dollar especially given their dual utility as a hand grenade. I just personally hate shooting them for a number of reasons.
 
Last edited:
Another Glock hater thread? [rollseyes]. Leave all the guns that are extremely reliable, bulletproof, and proven for me then, I'll take them all.

Bulletproof?

glock21kb1sh.jpg
 
If better, modern, ammo can enhance the performance of a 9mm it can enhance the performance of a 45 too.

The "problem" was that 9mm used to have shitty JHP bullet designs that clogged or underpenetrated, or offered minimal expansion. .45s at worse always were .45 and always penetrated far enough.

Modern bullet design has benefited all calibers, but it's benefited 9mm more than most. The boost that .45
got, in relative terms, wasn't nearly as large. It just made a lot of the carry loads somewhat less shitty in terms of them being more likely to expand and not overpenetrate.

So I'm still not sold. Either way, I'm not saying I believe the difference is huge but it does exist. I just don't see saving a couple cents a round as reason enough to go with the best option available. If you are going through the cost effort to carry anyway, why start compromising then?

I don't fault your logic, if it could be proven there was a real difference. I just think that the difference is mostly a wash, given the terms I mentioned above. Yes, massive energy into the equation does some "fun" things, but you're never getting that out of a handgun round carryable in an autoloader. Even 10mm, while
a noticeable increase in energy, is not bringing you to rifle territory.


Ugh, I don't think I can do a Glock.. they're just so awful to shoot.

That's what I said when I fired the first one. I got over it.

I don't hate them for what they are, I can't deny their value per dollar especially given their dual utility as a hand grenade. I just personally hate shooting them for a number of reasons.

If the gun doesn't fit your hand, or doesn't point right, then that's one thing. Even then, a grip reshaping can probably help. The rest can really be overcome.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
If better, modern, ammo can enhance the performance of a 9mm it can enhance the performance of a 45 too. So I'm still not sold. Either way, I'm not saying I believe the difference is huge but it does exist. I just don't see saving a couple cents a round as reason enough to go with the best option available. If you are going through the cost effort to carry anyway, why start compromising then?

There are significant differences in the base design of the 9mm and .45 Colt that affect their ability to fully utilize modern design techniques.

The .45 was designed around big, heavy and slow with feed mechanisms that favor a blunt, round nose bullet. The 9mm was desgined around small, light and fast, its feed mechanisms favoring a more elongaged, pointed bullet. Both of those limit the modern bullet designs that they can utilize.

Designers do their best to produce a bullet that's the most effective possible, given the legacy design constraints, and the results are virtually indistinguishable for man-sized target self-defense. You get to a point where it's a trade off between weight and speed, but the power is virtually the same, so both rounds can do just as much with it, it's just a matter of how they do it.
 
Well, another thread has just put the debate to rest, and the consensus is that the best defensive load is in fact birdshot.
 
Well, another thread has just put the debate to rest, and the consensus is that the best defensive load is in fact birdshot.

Can you kill bovine combatants with it? That's the true test.
 
The poll needs to be updated to allow more than one answer. *For me* it was multiple factors. Cost of practice ammo is lower than .40 or .45, while its availability is higher. Size of my CCW of choice was a factor. Relative effectiveness of the round weighted against accuracy, recoil, etc. also played major factors.
 
The .40 is an idiotic gun for a new shooter. Even in full sized plastic framed guns, the sharp recoil is intimidating to them. I've been instructing since 04 and at one point used a G22 for my class. I don't use it anymore. Don't get me wrong. .40 reloads can be made to make major with less recoil than a .38 super or 9mm, but the factory stuff is very sharp and flippy.

I also think it has a lot to do with gun makers pushing mini sized guns in .40.
This video is me shooting my new gun, a Kahr P9 for the first time. I'm running very slow because in a previous run I was short stroking the trigger. So this time I was very deliberate. Again, I'm no Jerry Miculek.
But notice in the beginning how flat the gun stays.

[video=youtube_share;oVn9UmWxzmE]http://youtu.be/oVn9UmWxzmE[/video]

That same gun, in .40 is much more difficult to control. Notice how he has to regrip between shots.
[video=youtube_share;OoHHaurJij8]http://youtu.be/OoHHaurJij8[/video]

While I agree with you in principle regarding the "snappy" nature of many guns in 40, these videos are not helping your case. You clearly have a good, solid grip & stance; the guy shooting the 40 has crappy technique so it's not surprising he has to constantly re-grip.
 
The .40 is an idiotic gun for a new shooter. Even in full sized plastic framed guns, the sharp recoil is intimidating to them. I've been instructing since 04 and at one point used a G22 for my class. I don't use it anymore. Don't get me wrong. .40 reloads can be made to make major with less recoil than a .38 super or 9mm, but the factory stuff is very sharp and flippy.

That same gun, in .40 is much more difficult to control. Notice how he has to regrip between shots.
[video=youtube_share;OoHHaurJij8]http://youtu.be/OoHHaurJij8[/video]

I see what you mean, and I agree. My first pistol this summer was a M&P .40c. I bought it purely because I wanted something that would knock someone down, and I have no doubt one of those rounds at center mass would do just that to the average sized male.

That may be another reason why I was underwhelmed when I bought my first 9mm just last week. After the .40, the 9 is like really easy and controllable.

That being said, I think you're use of the Kahr as an example of a small .40 may be unfair. That pistol has the smallest grip I've ever seen on a subcompact. The PPS or the Shield has a lot more area to put mass around in order to control a .40 recoil.
 
While I agree with you in principle regarding the "snappy" nature of many guns in 40, these videos are not helping your case. You clearly have a good, solid grip & stance; the guy shooting the 40 has crappy technique so it's not surprising he has to constantly re-grip.

This. That is an awful grip. I thought I have seen all the wrong ways to grip a handgun too.
 
When I look at the numbers that matter, expansion and penetration, 9mm makes sense on many levels. I don't stress about it, being that I have carried 9mm, 45, 38, and 357 at various times. Since I can double my capacity with the 9mm and have the same effectiveness it becomes a no brainer.
 
If better, modern, ammo can enhance the performance of a 9mm it can enhance the performance of a 45 too. So I'm still not sold.

How killy do you need it to be? For years 45 guys argued that FMJ has the consistent “one shot man stopping power” WTFTM. So if you were comfortable with 0.45 by 12in hole, shouldn’t you be more comfortable with 0.65 by 12in hole? No goes the cry, what if it does not open? Well, it’s still a 0.4 hole and is way better than “what if you miss scenario”. FYI, my choice is 147gr HST. Every test I did and every test I saw others do – it opened. Well if you are getting 0.6-0.7 and I can get 0.8-0.9 I’d still be more killy goes the new battle cry. Not really reply the experts (I am NOT referring to myself). Its like exhaust system. If you had a restrictive OE exhaust, doubling it might add 5-15hp. But if you further increase the size or even remove it all together, your additional hp gain likely to be extremely small or nonexistent, while your ears pay the price.

Look the whole 9 vs 45 is similar to 5.56 vs 308. At 100 yards they will kill equally fast. At 500m 308 has the edge, but not at 100. I frequently hear people saying that they got 308 because it’s super duper killy while they are struggling to punch paper @ 100y from a bench. They flinch so hard in anticipation of recoil that despite their rifle being semi permanently bolted to the table – they manage to nearly miss the berm, never mind the target. But of course they must have it because 5.56 is not killy enough. And when zombies attack their AR10 will rule the day.

I have nothing against 308 or 30-06, I own both. I equally have nothing against 45. But the question is are you giving up anything of critical value by going with small round and the answer from the experts so far seems to be consistent NO. Are you gaining something by going with smaller round and the answer for most people is YES. If you can consistently with equal speed using only one hand (both weak and strong) hit the target using 45, while at the same time you have no problems carrying extra mags, concealing larger frame and heavier weapon, than you probably have nothing to gain by going with 9mm. I on the other hand do have plenty to gain so my choice was easy – lose little and gain a lot. Whatever you are comfortable with is what you should carry, just do not expect it to be extra killy. It is not. As long as you know that, you won’t be disappointed if God forbid the chips are down.
 
There is no such thing as a "perfect cartridge".

The 9mm Luger has been around for 100 years, and has been used in a hell of a lot of handguns, carbines, and SMGs.
If it's available, it's useful. This makes it popular. what is your specific beef with the 9?

Guns Magazine said:
That Un-Earthly din you hear, sounding like a thousand radios turned to full volume, is the yakety-yak from
shooters arguing over the most controversial pistol cartridge since the invention of gunpowder- The 9mm Parabellum
caliber.

Our Army wanted it once, and equally true, they didn't want it. They tested it, rejected it, then
ran the tests all over again. While we played with it in good clean fun for half a century, most other
nations snatched it for their military use. At least 80 different weapons and 24 different types
of ammunition were made in this world's most popular caliber. In the 9n1n1 caliber can be found
low-pressure loadings hardly stronger than a belch, on up to high speeds and energies which crowd
the laurels of the .357 Magnum, hottest of the hotshots.

Meanwhile, we toddle along with a pistol in an essentially outmoded caliber, the .45. There is no question that the
.45 Colt Automatic is a fine pistol, but many ballistic and design factors enter into the requirements for a modern
handgun. Our affection for the old .45 has retarded American pistol development for half a century.

The 9 mm would have replaced our .45 ACP long ago for both pistols and sub-machine guns, except for one
little detail. You don't have to be a mental giant to figure out why. It's money, the green stuff people work for and
sometimes lie for and die for. And so it seems rather disturbing that in a popular vote by
NATO powers, the 9mm would win by about 14 to 1. Such popularitv must be deserved. The 9 mm is more A .
efficient, with longer accurate range, lighter weight and greater penetration. Less noise and recoil gives better
shootability, and it's tops for machine weapons. Ammunition is available around the world. The nistol is lig"h ter
weigh t and easier to carry, by. the always overburdened soldier. The average service man finds it far easier to
shoot than our big .45 ACP.

Hey, Now - Don't shoot the messenger ! [smile]
 
Back
Top Bottom