40 cal vs 9mm: Best for Self Defense?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You do recall correctly, the OP of that story said "..... I still pack a 9mm (and a .45, and a .380...)" Hard to tell if that means he carries different calibers at different times, or now carries 3 guns.

I think you've exposed an interesting mental trap here though:

You say there are cases where .40 and .45 have failed to stop an attacker. Very true. You also say there's no evidence that if this guy had been shooting one of those calibers rather than a 9mm (but presumably still hit the exact same spots), that the effects would have been any different. And that's also true; there's no proof of that.

Many 9mm believers will add those two things together and, and come to the conclusion that the 9mm is just as good as the .40 and .45. And I think that's faulty logic.

I recall one shot in the Miami shootout with a 9mm that stopped something like 1" from the BGs heart. A little more bullet weight (or a little more velocity) would very likely have caused a little more penetration and stopped that guy much faster. Of course then there's the argument that a different bullet might have performed differently going through his arm and clothing, and so may not have reached the same place. But that's just grasping at straws, in my opinion. A little more penetration would have done the job.

The 9mm just is not a .40 or .45.

Right, we can't go with either assumption, and that's the point. Everything and every situation is different.

But even in the Maimi shootout bullet, we still cant know that a .45 would have penetrated that extra distance, or even if the bullet had hit the heart if it would have stopped the fight right there. We can speculate it would have, but that's all we can do.

I think the shootout was more of a case of poor training and tactics over bullet design, but it's easier to change hardware than software, so to speak.

One of the main changes of the new 9mm bullet design is bringing its penetration right on par with the .45 and .40, so the gap is much closer.
 
I wonder how many people who will argue and rant and get all angry over caliber wars have declined to read that?

I've noticed that more and more frequently, people seem to not want to learn the truth, or be educated, or even be civil. They just want to argue and insult.

My take after reading that is that 9mm works most of the time, as does .40 and .45. But that 9mm fails to work much more frequently than .40 or .45.

Also, it would seem that the .357 Sig should be the ultimate self-defense round, due to his opinion that a 125gr bullet going 1200fps seems to be a magic formula. But it isn't because people don't like the cost and the recoil.

Very interesting read and took up about an hour or so of my time.

I don't think I have watched all of them but after watching many of the Paul Harrell meat target videos I came to pretty much the same conclusion. I still own & carry a .40. I also have .45 & a pocket 9 but .40 is what I carry the majority of the time. If .357 Sig were more available & less expensive I would probably change over. Now I'm thinking I should probably get .40 to 9mm & .40 to .357 Sig conversion barrels for my M&P 2.0. It could help if there are ammo availability issues again & I think .357 Sig just might be a better self defense cartridge than either of the others.
 
Also, it would seem that the .357 Sig should be the ultimate self-defense round, due to his opinion that a 125gr bullet going 1200fps seems to be a magic formula. But it isn't because people don't like the cost and the recoil.

If that's the magic formula why bother with the .357 sig, plenty of 124 +P loadings meet or exceed that in 9mm.

Unless the 1 extra grain contains the magic.
 
Right, we can't go with either assumption, and that's the point. Everything and every situation is different.

But even in the Maimi shootout bullet, we still cant know that a .45 would have penetrated that extra distance, or even if the bullet had hit the heart if it would have stopped the fight right there. We can speculate it would have, but that's all we can do.

I think the shootout was more of a case of poor training and tactics over bullet design, but it's easier to change hardware than software, so to speak.

One of the main changes of the new 9mm bullet design is bringing its penetration right on par with the .45 and .40, so the gap is much closer.
You're correct about speculating, however it's pretty universally accepted that had the bullet penatrated the heart that Platt would not have had the 5 minutes to fight on and that the lack of penatration exasperated the many miscues of the agents.
One of the problems I've seen with the whole 9mm to 10mm to 40 back to 9mm is when Patrick wrote HWFE there was a some knee jerk to it, but it set a precedent of the 12" minimum with 18" being preferred this preference seems to have nearly been lost in the process. IMHO if anything (given America's obesity issues) the 18" preference is still preferred.
 
About a year ago or so a guy over on 1911 Forums posted a story of a crazed guy attacking his house, banging on the door and breaking windows - he was really trying to get in. The guy grabs his trusty 9mm and shoots the guy - nothing. Has absolutely no effect. The guy keeps smashing stuff and the guy keeps shooting at him to no avail. El Crazo finally makes his way into the guy's car which is parked outside. Now the homeowner tried to shot through the windshield but it was deflected. Finally the cops got there and arrested the guy who told the cops he was Death. One of his morals of the story was "if you think 9mm is good enough - you don't know what you're talking about". It was pretty powerful coming from him after the story.

I found the story: https://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=689905

Me I've always thought that 9mm was weak, especially after the Miami Shootout. I can't comment on .40 as I've never had or shot one, in fact I've never shot a 9mm handgun either. Just not interested. "Cheaper" and "good enough" aren't reasons (to me) to carry it when there is better out there. All my carry and SD guns are 45 acp as well as 10mm. Maybe 9mm has gotten better, but the crazed dude in that story sure didn't care.

Me, I'll keep carrying what has become my go-to gun, a XD-45 that holds 13+1 rounds of .45 Felon Repellant. With an extra mag it's plenty of ammo for me. I've been shooting .45 since the 80's and I'll stick with it.

9mm isn't "good enough" for me. It IS gooder than nothing which is just right there beside "good for nothing".
 
Nope not missed, just not really that valuable. Humans aren't jello and vary widely in composition I would have never assumed that bullets act in tissue exactly like they do in gel. But I also think it's extremely naive to ignore ballistic gel tests as they are an excellent way of comparing performance in a controlled way.
I'll also add that my opinion is based on many years of experience and significant study of writings on the subject not just from "the morgue". Fackler, Marshal, Jordan, Cooper, Patrick and Courtney just to name a few. I also hunted a good portion of my life with two very good veterinarians and when you do that field dressing often becomes an autopsy. I've seen game with a chest cavity turned to cherry jello by a high powered rifle run 200 yards on their last breath so I have no delusion that a COM hit with any handgun is gonna guarantee a stop. But I'm also keenly aware that there's the distinct possibility that just the sight of my gun may cause the BG to poop and stop his aggression. I feel it's best to prepare for and expect either reaction and anything in between.

Fair enough. Probably most don't have your experience and have studied from enough varied sources to have your comprehension on this topic. Many just watch a quick video and become experts. I still contend that one can glean useful information from the morgue narrative, as well as from many other sources.
 
Which ever one you can effectively and repeatedly put on target. In real world shootings the difference is minuscule.
Agree 100% with the first sentence, second not so much the difference in the real world is either going to non existent or catastrophic. Odds of it being catastrophic are minuscule, but I'm less worried about the odds than I am the stakes.
 
I know recent conventional wisdom says theres no practical difference between 9, 40 & 45. That being said, i disagree. Larger diameter is always better. Heavier projectile is always better. Capacity is over rated, unless youre john wick. Subsonic cartridges are not as loud if thats a concern. So yeah, i think 40 is better than 9mm. I also think that 45acp is more effective than 40 s&w. The old caliber debate. But i will leave with this, will anyone dispute the advantage of 10mm over 40 s&w? How about 460 s&w mag over 45 acp? I wouldnt think so. Weight and velocity are king here. No one would claim the 9mm is even close to a 45 colt loaded to original specifications - the 45 acp attempts to replicate this. If its between 9 & 40, go with the larger and heavier choice.
As far as the guys claiming less "wear" on the firearm, i put up a thread last month asking if anyone on here had ever worn out a handgun- the general answer was no. Some broke from abuse but none really wore out- it would cost tens of thousands of rounds/dollars to do so, its a nonissue.
 
I honestly don't know how some of you people say what you say with any authority whatsoever.

1544885730161.jpg

"Capacity is overrated unless you are John Wick"? Uh what? o_O

"9mm is weak and ineffective and if you disagree you don't know what you are talking about"? LOL WHAT? :D

"Well if only we could have had one more inch of penetration in this one specific shootout therefore 9mm is altogether insufficient." Again: WAT? o_O

How easily could it be to find where ANY preferred caliber in some other specific scenario/shooting came up just a bit short in some way compared to another? Would that be evidence enough to dismiss .40slow&weak or .45aarp or _____? Well of course not to dismiss the caliber YOU chose but absolutely it is definitive evidence that the one you didn't is garbage!

When looking at the most commonly used SD cartridges 9mm is comparable in penetration testing. True but we'll ignore that. Why would that even matter?

9mm has less wear and tear. Also true but let's ignore that too. Everyone knows it's dumb to think about that!

9mm is generally cheaper. This can lead to more practice and coupled with its better time on target can ultimately lead to superior shot placement...and shot placement is king. Also true again...but since I didn't choose 9mm we'll dismiss that too. What are you poor?! SD is worth spending more on duh! You must not really care about real self defense if you even look at price-points! Besides a preference for the less snappy nature of the 9x19 compared with the .40 just shows what a weak woman wrist you have and that you are not committed to training!

".40 is better because it is bigger in diameter!" So why stop at .40? Surely you .40 fans realize that .45 is superior? Right? RIGHT? ANYTHING larger is better right? Oh so it ISN'T just down to size huh? Yeah I know. "I carry a .45 because they don't make a .46!" or "I carry a .45 because I only need to shoot...ONCE!" But why stop at regular 'ole .45? Why not super? But forget that: Surely .460 Rowland is superior right? But why did you stop at .460? Surely then you should carry .50ae? But then since capacity is for people who watch too many movies and a .500 Smith would be more powerful why did you stop at .50ae? Anything more than 5 rounds is for silly television operators! And on and on until we are all carrying hand cannons with only a single cartridge. What are you a FNG get with it!

ysar.jpeg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top