A new caliber - or not?

Schönberger-Laumann semi-Auto pistol of 1892 was chambered for a 7.8 mm cartridge which was similar to a Bergman cartridge.
Then the 8×22mm Bergmann came along in 1896 or 1897...

And what about the Mars pistol cartrudges of the late 1890s.... All predating the 9mm Luger development.

• 8.5mm Mars
• 9mm Mars
• .45 Mars Short Case
• .45 Mars Long Case

Effete? Well I don't always shoot an effete caliber, but when I do, I prefer 9MM

RPRNY said:

The popularity of the effete 9mm is utterly perplexing.

Click to expand...

The idea that the 9 is ineffective is utterly perplexing.

One of the sillier stories is that the ammo produced in then-Czechoslovakia for their VZ-52 pistol will blow up Russian Tokarev pistols and SMG's.

Click to expand...

That is just one of the many stupid stories about that cartridge revolving around for a long time. BTW, I'm not trying to "teach" you something - you know about that myths way more than I do, but just to prove my point that people like to fall to myths, rather than facts.
Myth No 1 - Bulgarian made 7.62x25 is too hot, made especially for SMGs and it will brake any pistol you shoot it from.
Fact - on the 16 (16 !!!) rounds pink envelope it is clearly stated (well, clearly stated in Bulgarian...) that this round is "for regular pistol and for SMG use"
Myth No 2 - Russian 7.62x25 in 70 round envelope are for SMG use only.
Fact - on the envelope it says: "PISTOL cartridge, cal. 7.62, 70 pcs."
Myth No 3 - corresponding with 1 & 2 - TT33 and CZ VZ 52 are very strong, well build pistols, capable of endless shooting.
Fact - both are crappy, poor build, cheap eastern block military pistols. That is especially true for the Russian TT33 build in the years around WWII - those "fine" examples constantly shoot themselves to death from not more than 2000 rounds. Is the round to blame? No! The pistol is a POS. It is so poorly build, with such idiotic tolerances where there should not be one, that it is just a pure coincidence that it even works...

Something about 9mm Luger - that round is widespread and popular in Europe since almost day one (for military use). It never lost popularity, or became "found" after years of exile. I believe that the wonder-nine guns that started the 9mm Luger craze in the US were European made. The first widespread polymer pistol (Glock 17) was European made. In 9mm Luger. NATO adopted 9x19 as a standard small arms cartridge in the early 60s I believe. So, all of this is to point out that 9mm Luger is also well known in the US since the 80s. But the history goes something like that: Wonder-nines (S&W M39, Beretta 92F) show up and everybody is: "Wow, this is something great! Small, soft shooting, holds many rounds - what's not to like?". Some years later: "Weak, under powered cartridge - we should make a bigger one (.40 S&W)". Some more years later: ".40 S&W is just not good - too hot, too small... We should make .45ACP (& 1911) great again!". And more years later, up to present day: "Those cute polymer guns with that cute new!!! 9mm round are just soo hot. I mean - sooooo hot!".

By the way, at least according to Wikipedia (I know, I know...) 9x19 was introduced by Georg Luger in 1902, thus making it older than the .45 ACP. Just a fun fact...

.38 ACP came out in 1900, and was John Browning's preferred cartridge for his automatic pistol design. Colt pumped up the pressure in 1929 and renamed it .38 Super.

9mm and 45acp existed for over 100 years and why they are still popular is the people.

They still buy them.

With my G29 I can shoot 10mm, 40sw, 357sig and 9x25 Dillon. Who needs 9mm and 45acp?

They've both become classics in their own unique ways. Over a century old and still going strong. I like 'em both although I don't currently own anything in 45 ACP but have two 9mm's. Lots of other good auto pistol rounds out there but I could be happy with just those two. If I ever got tired of them both there's lots of revolver rounds for me to play with.

I suscribe to the Folger theory - The best part of waking up is deciding what caliber to carry. 9 , 45, and 357 all get hip time.

When you look back at history it is amazing that the smokeless powder cartridge designers seemed to have gotten it right the 1st time around. The 6.5X55 came out in 1891, the 9mm in 1902, and the 7X57 in 1893. I challenge anyone to show me where any cartridge designed for non-dangerous game is any better than either the 6.5 or 7mm chamberings. I'd take any game animal in the lower 48 with either cartridge out past 400 yards with either. The 375 H&H came out in 1912 and is still recognized as the best all around dangerous game round. The 9mm has been recognized every where else on the planet except the USA as the best option for personal defense since its invention.

In this country we've historically taken what the Europeans have invented and tried to make it better by making it bigger. The 7X57 was enlarged to make the 30-06, then shrank to make the 308, and again necked down to 7-08 and called perfection. When in reality we just reinvented the 7X57. Same with the new hot selling 6.5 Creedmoor, we reinvented the 6.5X55. Granted the new rounds are slightly shorter to fit in popular short action rifles, but are ballistic twins.

While the rest of the world understood that a 124 gr 35 caliber bullet at about 1200 fps was as good as it gets with handgun rounds we kept trying to reinvent it. A 125 gr 357 mag bullet fired from a typical 3-4" barrel will struggle to beat 1200 fps. Yet in this country it is crowned as the most effective round. The same load the rest of the world has been using for over 100 years out of 9mm pistols. One thing that always held back 9mm historically here was the anemic USA made factory loads. While everyone else was loading 124 gr bullets at 1200 fps, USA made loads were usually a 115 gr bullet at 1100 fps.

Despite the legend 45 has never been one bit more effective than European 9mm, just bigger. Forget the rhetoric and hyperbole, simply look at the facts. Going back well over 100 years every single test or study has shown both 45 and 9mm nearly identical in performance when the same ammo is used. FMJ vs FMJ yields near identical performance. JHP vs JHP, in both results in near identical performance. Nothing new here, it is just that American shooters have finally starting looking at facts rather than fiction.

jmr40 said:

Despite the legend 45 has never been one bit more effective than European 9mm, just bigger. Forget the rhetoric and hyperbole, simply look at the facts. Going back well over 100 years every single test or study has shown both 45 and 9mm nearly identical in performance when the same ammo is used. FMJ vs FMJ yields near identical performance. JHP vs JHP, in both results in near identical performance. Nothing new here, it is just that American shooters have finally starting looking at facts rather than fiction.

Click to expand...

Expansion is a factor in my decisions about what load to carry, and around an inch seems pretty good to me. 9mm can't do that. I know expansion isn't guaranteed, and carry 9mm and .357 fairly often, so it's not that big a deal, but it's still a data point I take into account.

Near identical? That proves it's not the same. The 45 will have an edge over the 9mm because of its size and expansion. The 45 will nick the Aorta that the 9mm missed and we have a bleed out.

I know it's cutting it close but to prove a point. That can make a difference in survival.

Argue until blue in the face. 9mm isn't as good as 10mm or 11mm. Bigger holes are better. If shooting big-boy guns is too hard, then sure, the effete little euro-pellet probably suits one better. But bigger holes are better holes.

RPRNY said:

Argue until blue in the face. 9mm isn't as good as 10mm or 11mm. Bigger holes are better. If shooting big-boy guns is too hard, then sure, the effete little euro-pellet probably suits one better. But bigger holes are better holes.

Click to expand...

Conversely my little grily wrists can get more 9mms on target in a shorter time than I can with my whole horse 10mm (or .45 for that matter), so are nore "euro pellet" holes better than fewer "manly" holes?

The world may never know.

Me, I like both, shoot both, carry both, am confident in both.

Too bad, my strong wrists (twisted wrenches all my life) will shoot the 10mm as good as the 9mm. Guess which will do more trauma?

My 200 grainer vs your 115 grainer.

Sig Bill said:

Too bad, my strong wrists (twisted wrenches all my life) will shoot the 10mm as good as the 9mm. Guess which will do more trauma?

My 200 grainer vs your 115 grainer.

Click to expand...

I'd like to see that, and I like 147s

Though 200 grainers at 1200 fps does bring a smile to my face every time.

Bannockburn wrote:
The theory behind this was if you wounded an enemy soldier you possibly exposed several of his fellow soldiers being hit as they attempted to try and help him. More enemy casualties meant fewer enemy soldiers to contend with. Also wounded soldiers would require medical attention, thereby tying up more of the enemy's resources.

Click to expand...

Your understanding of the desire for a cartridge that would produce a casualty; preferably one who died a few days later, is correct. But that is rationale behind the Hague Convention's prohibition on expanding bullets, not the requirement for the 9mm cartridge.

In fact, the 9mm cartridge fired a larger, heavier bullet than the 7.65mm Parabellum cartridge from which it derived at approximately the same velocity. A bigger, heavier bullet shot at the same speed is not recipe for DECREASED lethality.

Out of my G29 it's 1143 fps with 580 fpe. The 9x25 Dillon on the other hand, is a 9mm that does 1700 fps with a whopping 796 fpe.

I tried shooting it with one hand while holding a camera.

I've always had 9mm pistols, as the financial embarrassment of my younger days demanded the most cost-effective solution to essentially any problem. And I don't really have reason to second-guess that choice from a functional standpoint. A hot 9mm from a 4" gun is so close to .357mag ballistics from a snubby it's hard to laud the .357 as the manstopper and reject 9mm for effectiveness reasons at the same time.

These days I can afford more or less what I desire, and have thought long and hard about adding a 1911 in .45 to my collection. But I also reload, and buying twice the lead for each round isn't something I relish. I'm thinking .38 super might be just as fun, while being nearly as cheap to reload as 9mm.

On thing that's hard to dispute - although the 9mm Luger and .45ACP are contemporaries, nearly all successful handgun cartridges introduced since follow the design philosophy of the 9mm much more closely than the .45's. .45ACP no doubt works, but it's not a very efficient solution (unless your problem is poor steel).

Before I had my 10mm I was (and still is) a fan of 40sw. Their mistake was putting it on a 9mm frame and heavy recoil was the result. That turned people off the 40sw. Get the gun that's made for the 40sw or the gun for heavier caliber like my G29 and put a 40sw barrel in it.

Heck, my G29 has the 21# RSA for the power of the 9x25 Dillon (and hot 10mm) and it made the 40sw feel like a 22. Loaded it with Underwood 40sw 155 XTP (that I carry) with a 1300 fps and 582 fpe.

jmr40 said:

The 9mm has been recognized every where else on the planet except the USA as the best option for personal defense since its invention.

Click to expand...

That statement is stretching the historic account a bit. When 9mm was introduced, it was a powerful military round that was thought as a massive overkill for personal defense. This is why things like Mauser 1910 in 7.65 existed and were as popular as they were. It took 2 world wars and decades of firearm development to harness the power of 9mm in personal defense format such as Walther PPS.

Of course the 9mm seems more modern, but it has to be viewed in context. Throughout the 19th Century the trend was to smaller projectiles fired at ever increasing velocities. The 9mm fits nicely within this trend even though it was larger than its immediate predecessor. The 45, on the other hand at 11.4 mm looked like a throwback to the black powder days.

And then add in the fact the 9mm became linked in the American consciousness with the P.08 pistol which had very sleek lines compared with the utterly conventional appearance of the M1911 and the psychology as to which was more "modern" was forever set.

RPRNY said:

Argue until blue in the face. 9mm isn't as good as 10mm or 11mm. Bigger holes are better. If shooting big-boy guns is too hard, then sure, the effete little euro-pellet probably suits one better. But bigger holes are better holes.

Click to expand...

I almost don't even want to respond to such a clearly trollish post, but if you look at the stats of gun deaths you'll see just how "effete" 9mm is. As much as I love larger calibers I'd never make such a ridiculous claim.

Quite true but the 9mm caused more death because more were shot with 9mm. You can't deny that it's a very popular caliber.

Anyway... To attempt to go back to the op's point, these upstart "wonder nines" perplex me. What in the world is a "wonder nine"? I had thought it was about capacity, but then someone mentioned the '80s. Have we all forgotten that the genius of JM Browning figured out how to produce an actually popular double stack IN THE '20s!?

High capacity in a handgun is not new. The Browning Hi Power has been around for almost 85 years (in 9mm using the 1935 date for completion). The high capacity 9mm as a popular concealable (there, I just got rid of the broomhandle Mauser, which was also double stack) handgun has been around near the proverbial "forever" mark. Oh, and let's not forget that JMB also designed a prototype Hi Power with 16 rounds, that was striker fired.

Why are "wonder nines" popular today? Because they are cheap, and provide pretty much everything that people want. You can talk about big holes and little holes, but what it comes down to are the $$$ to be made.

As a disclaimer, I carry a striker fired ........ .45. There. I said it. But I also sometimes carry a wonder nine. I feel absolutely confident that with either I can outgun anyone I come across who is foolish enough to try to make a lifestyle of threatening or harming people (but that is because of practice, as well as certain theological views that I hold).