Can you change my mind ??
Ok, so i have read a lot of threads on here talking about how much people like 9mm. I personally hate them. Here is why.
In 2003 my brother was a millitary police officer in baghdad Iraq. He was a staff seargent in charge of a squad based at abuh graib(im sure i misspelled that) prison. After working for a while at the prison on the QRT (quick response team) his squad was switched to a prisoner location team. Some of you may not know but right before the U.S. got to iraq sadam let all the prisoners out of abuh graib. So, now we had to find them. One day while reading a map spread across the front of his hum-v he suddenly heard shots ring out from behind him. He dove for cover and drew his service weapon, a berreta 9mm, and returned fire. After the shooting stoped his team went to the alley where the shots came from. They found an AK- 47 on the ground and a trail of blood. they followed the trail down one alley around a corner and down another alley. All in all they followed for about a half a mile when they found the gunman mortaly wounded but not dead shot 8 times in the body and arms.
So, heres what i dont like. My bro was the only one who was able to return fire. the other guys and girl on the team are good soldiers but it all happened too fast. He hit the perp with 8 SHOTS and the guy was able to walk an half a mile before collapsing. What if he had wanted to stay and reload his gun. It seems to me that the velocity of the 9mm coupled with the small size of the round makes it too much of a through and through round. I know a hollow point can help here, but i just preffer a larger round like a 45. for its knock down power.
By the way my bro was unhurt. not training plus a full auto machine gun like the ak with a large round created a kick situation that disallowed any accuracy. Bro returned home became a cinncinati police officer where he currently holds the cities accademy record for quick draw and fire hit on a target at 5 yds. Ok im bragging on him now but we love him and were glad he is safe.
I think I can speak for everyone here when I say we are all glad your brother is one of the "good statistics" that comes out of Iraq.
As far as changing your mind, it is your money and your choice so really about all anyone can do is make suggestions and hopefully back up their opinion with some sort of rational logic. The bottom line is that if you are going to carry, get the largest caliber you can handle and carry comfortably. Obviously you should also talk to your brother (which I am sure you have already) and see what he thinks. While I am sure there are other decorated vets that may be equally as qualified, I would think that your brother's opinion, if anyone's, should matter most of all.
Well, military-issued sidearm ammo isn't exactly top notch. I'm guessing they are not +p loads. I imagine those rounds flying with an extra few hundred feet/sec could have yielded a more "successful" result. Not to discount your brother's dedication and service, of which I am surely thankful (my Dad's a Vietnam vet), but there's also no mention of the shot placement and whether or not any of the rounds had to penetrate cover or other substantial obstacles. I personally like 45ACP myself but if I have to shoot through a car door I would much rather have 9mm +p. Food for thought.
Originally Posted by Benevolentshooter
As an American please let your brother know he has my anonymous, sincere gratitude for his service.
It seems as thought the 9mm round made the bad guy decide that continuing his fight was a bad idea. His willingness to get away was stronger than his willingness to fight. Not to mention that the rounds were probably fired over distance whereas a typical self defense shooting will be much much closer.
Also, and not to discount your brothers skill, it doesn't seem as though any of the rounds hit anything very critical. If you don't hit something critical be it with a 9mm or with a 45, it will have a similar effect. The bad guy may have only been able to walk a 1/4 mile with a bigger set of holes in him. If a 9mm hits a critical organ (heart/brain/spine), it'll be just as effective as a .45.
I'd also recommend taking the term "knockdown power" and throwing it out. Practical defensive pistols do not have the capacity to "knock" someone down. It's a simple matter of physics. If it'd knock down the target, it'd knock down the shooter. Sure, more force will facilitate better damage to the target, but it won't knock them down.
I think that people should shoot what they shoot best, be it a 9mm or a 45. Also, keep in mind that people who've never been in any sort of seriously stressful situation will probably miss, so having more rounds available, without a reload, might not be a bad thing.
Glad your brother made it home safe.
Glad for his shot placement.
Are they even carrying JHP ammo over there for service side-arms, or were those 8 hits with FMJ's? Just curious.
I thought they were only allowed FMJ's per Geneva Convention or something like that. (You military / LE guys.. My apologies, I'm reeeeeeally showing my massive ignorance here)
But the reason I ask is in 9mm, I'd certainly hate to have to stop 8 rounds of 124g +P HST's, Cor-Bon's, Hornady's, Gold-Dot etc etc etc etc in a modern hollow point ever. Even plain old Wal-mart special Winchester white box 147g JHP's.
A little information for perspective. Military issue ammo is "ball" ammo (required by all entities that signed the Geneva Conventions Accord). It performs VERY differently REGARDLESS of caliber than most SD/HD loads where a quality modern JHP is used.
Not knowing MANY of the specifics of the encounter/engagement described I will not comment on specifics. However, to condemn an entire caliber because of (2nd or 3rd hand) anecdotal evidence isn't quite a fair assertion by ANY means. Whether I or anyone can change your mind is far from the realm of possibilities when one is clouded by emotional influences rather than imperical data/facts.
+1..As do I...
Originally Posted by literaltrance
Well to start with no need to change your mind. But in the 9mm defence it worked, to millitary standards. Its ball ammo, "through and through round" yep your right. But where do you think the 40 came from.
Soldiers are only allowed to use ball ammo. I always thought that was pretty odd being you say"I'm going to shoot you but I'm going to make the wound as small as I can while still trying to kill you.
That being said I can understand why soldiers would not want to use a 9mm in a combat situation. Some situations are not going to allow you to pick your shot like you might be able to in a civilian situation. A 9mm with a good HP will get it done pretty well but even so I'm not one that carries a 9mm often. I use them more for target weapons. I prefer to carry a 40 or 45. I use a 45 about 80% of the time. But it's more a personal preference being I shoot these rounds a little better in situations that I don't have as much time to place my shots. I will practice with all three on many occasions and just don't do as well with a 9mm. In range conditions I shoot a 9mm better so that's where I leave them most the time.
It all comes down to what someone feels comfortable with. A 50AE is useless if you can't use it well. Pistols are a compromise to begin with. You give up longer range stopping power and accuracy for ease of use in tighter quarter shooting situations. If we could we all would have some rifle and never let a BG get the 21 feet or closer that most handgun situations occur in.
So shoot that bad cat bigger round if you want to. But be good at it or you might as well have a 22 loaded with blanks or a flag that says BANG!
The 9mm did its job for your brother. It stopped the aggressor from aggressing in a situation where, for some reason, more powerful weapons could not be brough to bear. Handgun rounds are not designed as primary, military weapons. They are for back-up and special uses. At close range, the 9mm, and other small calibers will stop aggressors, and kill them quickly. But only at close range.
FMJ rounds used by the military forces do not possess the same effectiveness that jacketed hollow point rounds do. Expanded rounds have much more frontal diameter than FMJ rounds; in any caliber.
If you read of actual, old-west gunfights, they invariably were fought primarity with rifles; handguns being ancillary. Some few, in saloons and in some stree fights between drunken belligerants, were done with handguns; at close range. Then, small caliber rounds often killed combatants quite effectively.
For Police and civilian use, the 9mm is a powerful and effective round. People who would find .40 S&W or .45 ACP rounds difficult to handle, can shoot the
If you knew someone who was in Korea or Viet Nam and they saw combat, they would be able to tell you the same kind of things happened with the .45.
My father was in both of those wars, and he had a number of stories to tell of how good *and* bad .45 can be. He and another soldier put 12-13 rounds of a combination of .30 carbine and .45acp into a North Korean before he finally dropped. Pretty anemic rounds one could say.
Had your bother put eight good HP's into his target, the outcome might well have been different. If he had put just one of his FMJ's into a vital zone, the outcome would have been different as well. If someone isn't putting rounds on target (for whatever reason, including the stress of combat where it's very difficult to almost impossible), an optimum outcome is not possible, no matter the caliber.
BTW - your .45 doesn't have "knock-down" power. People go down because they are in pain or they loose consciousness, just like what happens when they are hit with any other cailber. Anyone who thinks a low-powered pistol round like a .45acp will knock a person off his feet has seen too many movies. I've seen .45's bounce off bones and exit the body, doing little damage along the way. I've also been present at autopsies of people killed by a single .22lr lead solid-point bullet. Neither of these instances is indicative of what these two calibers are generally capable of.
I would agree with the above in that your brother's pistol did what it was intended to do. It is after all a pistol round - nothing more and nothing less.
I see where you're coming from, but I think the application is different. A military engagement where both parties expect the other to be armed doesn't correlate very well to a civilian self-defense scenario. A 9mm which may work well for concealment and very close range shooting might not do the job in a more demanding military environment where concealment is not an issue, and ammo is provided by the government. A .45 is more generally more difficult to conceal and more expensive to shoot regularly for CCW, and for many, a 9mm which is easier to have on you and train with regularly with is going to be far better than a .45.
Like several others said, I think the ammo also makes a big difference. I doubt the guy would have made it half a mile with 8 JHP rounds in him.
Other than the points already made, you probably have to take how people typically dress in the middle east. Usually multiple layers of cloth, both keeps the heat out during the hot times and heat in during the cold times. Those layers may have slowed the projectile down quite a bit. Just speculation, though. I'm perfectly fine with my 9mm although I do recognize it's not a "perfect" round.
"they found the gunman mortaly wounded" Sounds like the round worked to me.
There's no such thing.
Originally Posted by 48dodge
Hence my quotes around perfect.
Can I change your mind? I doubt it but I am going to try a different approach. We can agree that all things being equal a bigger bullet is going to be a better stopper than a smaller bullet. However, in the real world all things are not equal and everything is a trade off. For example a 9mm may not make as big of a hole but it has less recoil and can generally fired faster than a 45 acp.
For concealed carry purposes a 9mm can generally be placed in a smaller weapon and can carry more rounds than a 45acp. Further, 9mm bullets are considerably less expensive that 45 rounds. This means that is it much less expensive to practice with a 9mm than a 45 acp. As shot placement is the most important factor in stopping an attacker, practice is a very important consideration. I teach new shooters and I have found that a 9mm is much easier to learn to shoot well than a 45 ACP.
I believe that 9mm are better and penetrating through barriers than a 45 acp. I remember seeing some test where handgun round were fired a GI surplus helmet. The 9mm round went right through it. The 45 made a big dent in the helmet but did not penetrate. Similarly, 9mm will tear through most car door much better than 45 will.
So which is better, I don't know the caliber war has being going on for decades with no clear winner. As for me, my most commonly carried CCW is the 38 revolver
This is a great point. If I may take it another step...you may want to ask your brother if he honestly thinks he could have accurately landed anywhere near eight shots if he'd been carrying a 45. There is definitely a tradeoff in this regard.
Originally Posted by jeb21
Certainly NOT with the issue M1911's that were replaced by the M9's. Being the unit BMI and Armorer I can say with resolve that ANYTHING would've faired better than to get into an engagement with those. They needed to be replaced and long before they actually were. Would a .45 performed any better under the circumstances?.........again, without knowing MANY more details about the engagement, I will NOT comment on specifics. I was NOT there and anything I might say may not account for ALL the variables objectively.
It boils down to this. Do you want to be convinced? It doesn't appear that you are open minded enough to accept anything other than what you have already convinced yourself of as being your point of view. Since you haven't been back to this thread in 30 hours, I will end my participation.
Originally Posted by Growler67
BTW, the 9mm proved to be sufficient in this case by stopping the attack.
"Mortally wounded but not dead", I love that line.
» Springfield Armory
» HGF Sponsors