How much more quickly and accurately can YOU shoot 9mm...

[JR24]

Cant speak to accuracy, but looking through my saved data (phone app) my average splits with .40 seem to be about .03 slower than my 9mm, and .45/10mm another .03 slower than that.

I was surprised to find out I can shoot my 10mm 1911 with good loads (200 gr xtp @ 1200 or there abouts) at almost the same speed as my 230 gr .45.

So 9mm is faster, either by 0.03 or 0.06 per shot on average. Is that enough to justify carrying a smaller bullet? Who knows, I carry 9mm and am not afraid it wont do the job, so it doesnt matter.

I'd feel fine with a .45 or .40 too.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

When I was a new shooter I found 40 S&W substantially slower to shoot than 9mm or 45acp. A decade later I'm pretty sure I could shoot them all pretty much the same.

I've been shooting 10mm for the last year and a half though so obviously my skill has improved.

Technique and practice can narrow the gap between cartridges and the differences in recoil impulse.

One note, the FBI's choices mean nothing to me whatsoever. There are two many factors involved in those decisions in government circles to assume that ballistics and agent capabilities are the primary reason for cartridge selection.

Budget, politics, availability and other things play a heavy role.

Edit: If I buckled down with a shot timer, I probably will shoot the lighter recoiling cartridges faster, but I don't necessarily think the difference will have a practical difference in my ability to defend myself.

 

[Zendude]

Whatever has less recoil and muzzle flip makes follow up shots faster for me. No surprise there though.
Triggers make a difference. Lighter triggers with a shorter pull length should be faster. Whether it’s a significant difference depends on your skill level.

 

[rpenmanparker]

For various reasons, it can be difficult to get accurate results of this type with self-testing. Fortunately, there's a large reservoir of information available on the internet that provides just this kind of results.

GSSF outdoor match scores are posted online and GSSF has a category called Heavy Metal. Competitors in that category must shoot a pistol chambered in .45ACP, .45GAP or 10mm. There is also a category called Amateur Civilian and most shooters in that category compete with 9mm pistols although it’s legal to compete with any caliber in that category. Both categories use exactly the same course of fire.

Scores combine time and accuracy, so this provides just the kind of data that is of interest.

This means that we can look at shooters who compete in both categories and see how their scores differ. Of course, it’s important to understand that this will UNDER estimate the performance degradation since it’s not a straight comparison between 9mm and .45/10mm. That’s because Amateur Civilian has no caliber restrictions and therefore a shooter could compete with a 9mm, .357SIG, .40S&W, .45GAP, .45ACP or 10mm if he/she wished to. Still, because most shooters compete in Amateur Civilian with 9mm pistols, it should provide some useful data even if it underestimates the factor we’re concerned with.

Awhile back, I pulled up the results from several of the larger matches and compared the scores of all of the shooters who shot an entry in both categories. So if "Frank Smith" shot in both categories, his scores from each category would be compared. If "Ann Jones" shot in only one of the categories, her score would not be included in the comparison.

On average, the scores (time combined with accuracy penalties) from the Heavy Metal category, when compared with scores from the same shooters in Amateur Civilian were about 20% worse.

Also interesting is that shooters in "Master Class" are identified--this allows a comparison of scores from higher level shooters as well, to see if maybe their skill can overcome the additional recoil. Turns out that skill does make a difference. It doesn't eliminate the difference but it does cut the advantage for the smaller calibers to about 10%.

What a surprise, right? Lighter recoil does make a significant difference when time/accuracy comparisons are made. Who would have thought... Well maybe the folks who put caliber and/or power factor restrictions on various pistol competitions to try to level the playing field. And maybe the LE departments who have noted that their officers shoot better with lighter calibers. Maybe competitors like Rob Leatham who states that he shoots better with a 9mm. Ok, maybe it's not really such a big surprise.

Small adjustment to your comments. Folks shoot better with lighter calibers IN THE SAME WEIGHT AND SIZE PISTOLS. It is no secret that many if not most ultra-compact 380s are really tough to shoot fast and accurately. If the gun is light enough, even light loads exhibit unpleasant recoil. And if the gun is small enough, the poor grip of the gun is also a negative factor. So we should take care how we talk about the ease of shooting lighter loads.

 

[rpenmanparker]

I still do not understand why there seems to be some common belief that 380 or 38 or 32 or 22 or 25 or 9mm Mak or any of the other smaller rounds are thought to be hard to shoot quickly or accurately when for many decades they were shot quickly and accurately? For an accurate close in defensive handgun I find my fastest and most accurate ones to be the smaller rounds.

It depends upon the size of the gun. If the gun is small enough 380s will be tough to shoot. Maybe not true for 32s and 22s as they are so weak that just about any pistol will take their recoil. But 380, that’s a different story.

 

[MedWheeler]

jar writes:

I still do not understand why there seems to be some common belief that 380 or 38 or 32 or 22 or 25 or 9mm Mak or any of the other smaller rounds are thought to be hard to shoot quickly or accurately when for many decades they were shot quickly and accurately? For an accurate close in defensive handgun I find my fastest and most accurate ones to be the smaller rounds.

I think it's because, "for so many decades", they were being shot out of bigger, heavier guns. The Beretta 84, for example, is easier for many people to shoot accurately than is the Ruger LCP. My Bersa Thunder, despite being a blowback, is easier for me to shoot well than is my Taurus TCP. The Browning Buckmark or Ruger Standard are easier to shoot accurately than, say, a J22 or Beretta Bobcat. The Makarov Pistol is probably easier than the Radom P64 (I own both, but haven't shot the Pole.)

But, yeah, that Bobcat might be easier than the LCP. I agree with you in that, in similarly-sized guns, the smaller calibers are much easier to shoot well. I just got a Bersa Thunder in .22. My money says it will be the easier shooter over the older one.

 

[jar]

It depends upon the size of the gun. If the gun is small enough 380s will be tough to shoot. Maybe not true for 32s and 22s as they are so weak that just about any pistol will take their recoil. But 380, that’s a different story.

But in that case it's not the .380 that's hard to shoot, it's the gun/round choice. If the gun is small enough 22 will be hard to shoot. If the gun is small enough 7.65mm will be hard to shoot. If the gun is small enough 9mm will be hard to shoot. If the gun is small enough 357 will be hard to shoot.

The issue is not the caliber but rather finding the appropriate size platform for the round in question and the shooter. I have never had an issue with 380 in a Bersa Thunder or Sig 230 or PPK (except for the slice-n-dice) or 9mm Mak in a Makarov or any of the traditional handguns chambered in 380 or 9mmMak.

 

[rpenmanparker]

But in that case it's not the .380 that's hard to shoot, it's the gun/round choice. If the gun is small enough 22 will be hard to shoot. If the gun is small enough 7.65mm will be hard to shoot. If the gun is small enough 9mm will be hard to shoot. If the gun is small enough 357 will be hard to shoot.

The issue is not the caliber but rather finding the appropriate size platform for the round in question and the shooter. I have never had an issue with 380 in a Bersa Thunder or Sig 230 or PPK (except for the slice-n-dice) or 9mm Mak in a Makarov or any of the traditional handguns chambered in 380 or 9mmMak.

Your reply is what is known as not taking yes for an answer. If you go back and look at my post and yours, you should see that we are saying exactly the same thing.

 

[GunnyUSMC]

I find it funny that people are thinking in the term of caliber war. Just who in the hell is fighting with who over this? Just because someone doesn’t agree with someone’s opinion doesn’t make it a war.
On some of these caliber topics it just comes down to a few arguing about what is better. Pretty much some silly old men arguing about something that will change nothing.
You have to remember that most shooters are not highly trained or highly skilled. This also applies to LEO’s and FBI agents. But it has been proven that scores for LEO’s are better with the 9 mm over the 40.
And comparing target shooting can be like apples and oranges. Bullseye, IPSC, Steel Challenge, Combat drills are all different and require a few different skills sets.
Take a Bullseye shooter and put him in his first IPSC match, he will most likely not do so good. Put the IPSC shooter in a Bullseye match, he may not do as good. But put any of them into a real shoot out, you will never know who comes out on top until the day it happens.
So when it comes down to the caliber you carry, that’s a personal choice, due to personal reasons.

The OP has set a standard for a test, which is not bad. Just give this test a try and see how you do. The test will not prove which caliber is the best, but it will show you which works best for you.
I carried a Glock 22 for 16 years. Due to nerve damage in my right shoulder it has gotten harder for me to shoot the 40. I’ve switched over to the 9mm which makes it a little easier to qualify.

 

[jar]

Your reply is what is known as not taking yes for an answer. If you go back and look at my post and yours, you should see that we are saying exactly the same thing.

Correct. Particularly in your post that followed the one I was replying too.

But repetition really never hurts and sometimes rephrasing a topic increases understanding..

 

[Jonesy814]

I know that follow up shots from my snub nosed SP101 are much quicker when shooting 38 specials than they are when shooting 357 magnums

 

[Jeb Stuart]

It depends upon the size of the gun. If the gun is small enough 380s will be tough to shoot. Maybe not true for 32s and 22s as they are so weak that just about any pistol will take their recoil. But 380, that’s a different story.

I have absolutely no problem shooting the Pico or the Kakr and they are small guns. Don't blame it on the size, blame it on training. The guns themselves to include Snubbie"s are inherently accurate. The learning curve may be longer, but once achieved, they are in fact very accurate. Some say they just cannot handle a small gun. I have a size extra large hand and have no problem, simply because I set out to spend the time to adjust to the small size. Maybe some cannot. But so many complain at the initial holding of the gun and never go forward to become familiar with them.
You may not be able to juggle a baseball, especially if you never try and learn. Once learned you can juggle a golf ball. Most of this will be in the mind. If your really do not believe you can't shoot a small size pocket gun, then forget it, you never will. If you look at it, say, I can learn this. Then chances are you will have no problem.
I guess you could say the same thing about a big bore. I once knew a guy that could handle and shoot a 44. mag revolver better than many can a large 38.

 

[JohnKSa]

Folks shoot better with lighter calibers IN THE SAME WEIGHT AND SIZE PISTOLS. ... And if the gun is small enough, the poor grip of the gun is also a negative factor. So we should take care how we talk about the ease of shooting lighter loads.

Correct. The assumption is that the other factors are similar. A smaller/lighter gun, even in the same caliber will tend to recoil more and that will slow shot-to-shot times and/or tend to hinder accuracy when shooting rapidly. In addition smaller guns tend to be harder to shoot due to shorter sight radius and other factors.

GSSF also has a subcompact category where shooting one of the guns they categorize as subcompact is mandated. This category isn't for the 42, 43, those are called pocket pistols--the subcompact category is for the 26, 27, etc. So that allows score comparisons similar to the one I did looking at caliber differences. I pulled scores from a few large matches and the score difference when comparing the same shooters in the subcompact category vs. the category most folks shoot with full-sized 9mm pistols is between 15% and 20%.

 

[rpenmanparker]

Correct. Particularly in your post that followed the one I was replying too.

But repetition really never hurts and sometimes rephrasing a topic increases understanding..

True dat!

 

[FL-NC]

For me, there is a significant increase in time between shots going from a Glock 17 (9mm) to a Glock 22 (40). Less so from a Glock 17 to my Glock 21 SF (45 ACP). This is due to muzzle flip. Did I test it with a pro-timer? No. But I can tell the difference- with a 40 I either need to slow down to recover/re-set or my group size increases.

 

[MidRoad]

Props to the OP for using the same or very similar platforms . In order to produce proper comparisions you need to compare apples to apples. Not Glock vs 1911, or full size steel can compact poly gun. Doing so eliminates variable and helps produce more accurate results when comparing round vs round.

One thing I would like to see him add for sake of comparisons is +p vs +p times. Lots of folks carry +p , so I'd be curious to see the results. I feel like a hot 45 may slow you up alot more than a hot 9mm (maybe not?). But it would be interesting to see the outcome.

 

[WestKentucky]

Gun ergonomics are a bigger factor for me than recoil or gun weight which are the biggest factors at play between calibers in similar platforms. I shoot a beretta 92 slightly faster than a very similar beretta 96. I DO NOT shoot my 38spl any faster than a similar 357. Fact of the matter is that I shoot 9mm beretta style guns faster than anything else including 22lr. When I still had my 22lr conversion I shot it on clock and I was making similar times but making hits more consistently with the 9mm upper on it.

One huge factor being overlooked by the people claiming FBI switched for faster shooting is that gun weight is a factor, but it’s not a decidedly positive or negative factor. For shots at a static target where a person has to aim each shot to the same point of impact then weight holds the gun more still. For quickly changing targets (multiple bad guy scenario) weight slows down the transition. For shooting at moving targets, weight aids in swinging through a target for the shot. Varying recoil levels are essentially moot when looking at multiple scenarios. I personally don’t buy into the theory of a 9 being faster. I’m more in the camp of thinking that FBI might have made a dumb excuse for changing again rather than admitting that adopting the 10mm was a mistake.

 

[thomas15]

Anyone can play the Kazoo.

But to play the Kazoo well takes practice. I doubt that there is any real inherent accuracy or inaccuracy in any of the popular rimless handgun cartridges and/or firearms. The big factor being how much time and effort is put into making the gun/ammo combination work for the shooter.

 

[John Joseph]

It seems to me that the M9 cycles a observably slower than a .45 M1911 using ball ammo. I've not tried shooting NATO 9mm however.

 

[JohnKSa]

It seems to me that the M9 cycles a observably slower than a .45 M1911 using ball ammo.

It may, but not enough slower to make a difference to a mere mortal. The cyclic rate of the M93R, the select-fire version of the M92, is about 1100rpm, a little faster than 18 rounds per second. Unless you're getting splits around 0.05 seconds you're in no danger of having to wait on the slide to finish cycling.

 

[Dibbs]

Don't shoot 40. I hear it's nice.
Between 45 and 9, maybe 1/10th of a second difference, with comparable accuracy.
But focusing solely upon 9 and 45 ignores a lot of new players on the block. Most
notably, 5.7X28, and 10MM. Don't shoot 10MM myself, (yet) but I'd wager I'm faster
and more accurate with 5.7 than with either 9 or 45. Partly caliber, partly pistol.

 

[rpenmanparker]

Anyone can play the Kazoo.

But to play the Kazoo well takes practice. I doubt that there is any real inherent accuracy or inaccuracy in any of the popular rimless handgun cartridges and/or firearms. The big factor being how much time and effort is put into making the gun/ammo combination work for the shooter.

Right. Why would two different things be different?

 

[rpenmanparker]

The best answer to these questions comes from making a comparison of drastically different calibers and interpolating to less different ones. IOW Incsn readily observe the difference between a 22LR pistol and a 9 mm one of similar weight and design. Since I use red dot sights on both, I get a very clear measure of how much the gun moves off target beteeen shots with the same muzzle stabilizing techniques applied in both cases. The same would be true using a laser sight. It would be very easy to see the movement of the muzzle in each case. IME the 22 stays firmly planted on the target and rapid follow ups are very easy. Not quite so much with the 9 mm. I’m no Jerry Miculek after all.

If I were comparing revolvers shooting 22LR and 44 mag, the difference would be even more extreme. But almost all real world comparisons are going to fall in between these extremes. And seldom are the guns so similar. So it is no wonder there is “discussion” about whether there are really any important differences in shooting speed/accuracy between two calibers. I believe there are, just scaled to the amount of difference between the two and modified by how different the two guns are. Bottom line, that is the answer that physics would predict, and who am I to argue with physics?

 

[timothy75]

great thread but no ones gonna admit it. just wait a few months and you'll see other people saying the same thing.

 

[luzyfuerza]

I've gone through the thread so far and liked the posts that included speed versus data in one form or another for different calibers. If I could have attached several likes to JohnKsa's posts about the GSSF data I would have. I'm looking forward to digging into these data sets.

I also went to the range yesterday to try to retest and perhaps verify my initial results. This time, I shot the same test, but the first round I prioritized accuracy with each gun, and a second round prioritized speed. Each run consisted of 6 shots with 16 runs per gun/priority for a total of 384 total rounds.


Here are my results:

With Accuracy as Primary Priority (I made sure that sights had settled on the target before pressing the trigger)

9mm Ave=4.04 seconds (SD=0.32), with seven of 96 shots outside of the 6" target zones
45 ACP Ave=3.98 seconds (SD=0.21), with 13 of 96 shots outside of the 6" target zones


With Speed as Primary Priority (I pressed the trigger as soon as my sights were close to the target zone)

9mm Ave=3.35 seconds (SD=0.23), with 19 of 96 shots outside of the 6" target zones
45 ACP Ave=3.50 seconds (SD-0.27), with 11 of 96 shots outside of the 6" target zones


The results of this second test appear to confirm the conclusions I drew from the first data, namely that, at least for me using my guns and my ammo, there doesn't appear to be a significant difference between my times and accuracy between the two calibers.



A couple of notes: I discovered that my 9mm is shooting about 4" left of POA at seven yards. I'll fix this and repeat. I realized this after shooting the speed test but before shooting the accuracy test.

I have a large supply of Ranger T-series in 45 ACP, but I need to find some duty ammo in 9mm so that I can reshoot the test with duty ammo (does anybody know where I can find a couple of boxes of 124 grain Ranger T-series in 9mm for sale to non-LEOs?).