JR24
Member
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.