Best 9mm Ammo for Self defence?

I had a guy come into my hut once who had been shot with a 9mm arrow in the buttock. Does that count? ;)

BTW it was a jealous husband that shot the arrow as he exited the scene through a wiindow! :D
 
Cavs42 said:
"If you didn't intend to kill, then why did you shoot my client's son in the head?"

"um.... because I just wanted him to stop. I didn't mean to kill him."

"What did you think would happen when you shot him in the head?"

I understand the difference between success and failure, thanks. If the guy dies and I live, (a scenario you neglected to mention) that's also a success in my books.
If he lives and poses no more threat to me, regardless if I shot him once or 10 times (hey maybe I needed to reload and hit him 11 times before he dropped his weapon or fell, it makes no difference to me) that's also a success.

I'm just pointing out the fact that if you're shooting someone in the chest or the head, your intention is to cause as much bodily harm to that person as possible. That course of action will quite likely cause the death of whomever you're shooting at. Therefore, you are shooting to KILL.
Click to expand...

Surviving the violence that caused you to shoot is the first problem, the second problem is surviving the legal ramifications of your actions. If the prosecutor can suggest that you had malice towards your attacker you could be in a great deal of trouble. Consider a situation that occurred in New York some years ago. A citizen was legally armed with a .380 auto which had a large capacity magazine. One day he was attacked and quite reasonably he shot his attacker. But the goblin wouldn't quit until he had sustained a dozen or more hits in the torso. The prosecutor determined that the number of gunshots suffered by the goblin was evidence of malice on the part of the citizen. He was subsequently arrested and charged with murder. After a very lengthy and expensive trial that required the testimony of several firearms and ballistics experts, some arguing for the citizen others for the state, he got off by the skin of his teeth.

Consider a video that was posted on Canada Carry shortly after it got up and running. In what appears to be a security video from a motel check in counter, a goblin enters the office and pulls a gun on a female clerk. A male clerk moves over beside the female clerk, draws his pistol and fires on the goblin. The goblin fires, turns and runs, and falls in the space between the inside and outside glass doors. The video even though without sound was shocking to watch, but I was dismayed that a large number of posters, who are all gun enthusiasts, opined that the shooting was not justified. My stand was that the bad guy demonstrated by his actions that human life meant little to him, and as long as the bad guy held onto his firearm he could be fired on even if the rounds hit him in the back. He was trying to escape some said. No, he was moving for tactical advantage, because unless he dropped the gun he continued to be a threat. Now if a number of gun friendly folks came to the conclusion that this shooting was unjustified, what chance do you have with a jury made up of folks with no combat or firearms knowledge?

Our intention cannot be to kill. Once a goblin ceases to be a threat, either because he has dropped his weapon, or because his wounds prevent him from mounting any further aggression, you are no longer legally permitted to proceed with lethal force. Therefore our intent is to stop not to kill. Because he brought violence of us, we are not concerned with his well being. Quite likely two large caliber rounds in the chest are not survivable and will ultimately result in his death, but what we are concerned with is stopping him from killing us. Therefore if the two rounds in the chest have not taken the fight out of him, a CNS shot is our only means of survival.
 
Last edited:
Our first responsibility is to survive. The odds are stacked against us. The bad guy has the advantage of showing up at a time and place of his choosing and pulling a weapon. Even if we have a gun on our belt, there are a few seconds of denial "No, this can't be happening!!"

If we survive the time it takes to recognize the situation and get our gun into play, we then have to decide to pull the trigger on someone. For most of us that would be difficult, unless the other guy has already opened fire. Then, with a blood stream diluted 50-50 with adrenaline, we have to hit our target well enough, hard enough, to make him drop his weapon.

Once we start shooting, it is unlikely that we would fire a shot and wait to see what happens (which is what I do when hunting). It would be "Bam! Bam! Bam! Bam! Bam! Bam! Clatter" (gun/knife hitting floor)

I suppose experienced IPSIC shooters would be more likely to keep their shots in the chest. I would not want to bet that all my shots would even hit. That is not a comment on my shooting ability but a guess of what the adrenaline factor would do to me.

Boomer's comments about needing a CNS shot to stop him instantly makes sense, but I think I would be shooting centre of mass. Would I shift targets before emptying the gun? Maybe.

I have had guns pointed at me more than once. It is a terrible experience. Time slows to a crawl (or the brain races). Your focus is on the gun. If you start to return fire you are probably still focused on his gun.

This thread started with "what bullet is best?" The best bullet is the bullet that stops him, instantly. If he is armed with a gun, a single shot, no matter how wildly aimed and no matter how pip squeak the caliber could kill you or yours. Unless you have an RPG, the best bullet is any bullet between his eyes. Anything else takes time to be effective.

This leads to the conclusion that the best 9mm bullet is the one that you and your pistol can shoot accurately and 100% reliably.

In an earlier post on this thread I told the story of going to investigate a rukus in the house with a gun in hand. It was a 44 mag with 240 gr semi wadcutters over two scoops of powder. Something like that or a 12 gu would be better at stopping (instanlty) someone than a 9mm.
 
IMHO I believe that Federal 147 grain HST is one of the best/is the best hollow point ammunition on the market. The consistency of expansion on the projectile looks absolutely devastating. It would definitely leave a large wound channel/exit wound.
 
Boomer said:
Our intention cannot be to kill. Once a goblin ceases to be a threat, either because he has dropped his weapon, or because his wounds prevent him from mounting any further aggression, you are no longer legally permitted to proceed with lethal force. Therefore our intent is to stop not to kill. Because he brought violence of us, we are not concerned with his well being. Quite likely two large caliber rounds in the chest are not survivable and will ultimately result in his death, but what we are concerned with is stopping him from killing us. Therefore if the two rounds in the chest have not taken the fight out of him, a CNS shot is our only means of survival.
Click to expand...


I think you misunderstood my argument. I am arguing that shooting a person in the head is clearly intended to end the life of that person. I am saying that you simply cannot shoot a person in the head and then state that you had no intention to kill him. To say something of that nature in a court would immediately bring your honesty into consideration.

Regardless of whether a person shoots an attacker who is persisting in the attack once or 15 times, that person is covered by law unless they had another option to prevent the assault (ie escaping).
 
Cavs42 said:
I think you misunderstood my argument. I am arguing that shooting a person in the head is clearly intended to end the life of that person. I am saying that you simply cannot shoot a person in the head and then state that you had no intention to kill him. To say something of that nature in a court would immediately bring your honesty into consideration.

Regardless of whether a person shoots an attacker who is persisting in the attack once or 15 times, that person is covered by law unless they had another option to prevent the assault (ie escaping).
Click to expand...

You seem to be missing the point. We don't shoot people for fun. Our intention is to survive a lethal assault, and the means we have at our disposal is lethal force. By bringing lethal force to bear on the situation, we must accept that there is a possibility that the goblin might die. We are not concerned with his welfare. If we shoot him twice, center of mass, and he does not break off his attack, there would seem to be little choice in the matter but to shoot for the head to stop his attack. Survival is the key to our defense, the choice of how we survive has been taken away from us. We don't care if the bad guy dies, but we want to live, and as long as we survive, if the bad guy survives we don't mind; if he dies we don't care, but our main purpose is not his death. As soon as you draw a firearm, even before you fire, you have brought lethal force into the equation. Should your man give up and drop his weapon, you live, and he gets to live as well, but the choice of life or death is his, not yours and you have not chosen to kill him.
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised no one mentioned the pelvic girdle, I think it would be easier to hit than the neck / head area, and if the assailant is wearing body armor aiming for center of mass will probably not work.
 
Boomer said:
You seem to be missing the point. We don't shoot people for fun. Our intention is to survive a lethal assault, and the means we have at our disposal is lethal force. By bringing lethal force to bear on the situation, we must accept that there is a possibility that the goblin might die. We are not concerned with his welfare. If we shoot him twice, center of mass, and he does not break off his attack, there would seem to be little choice in the matter but to shoot for the head to stop his attack. Survival is the key to our defense, the choice of how we survive has been taken away from us. We don't care if the bad guy dies, but we want to live, and as long as we survive, if the bad guy survives we don't mind; if he dies we don't care, but our main purpose is not his death. As soon as you draw a firearm, even before you fire, you have brought lethal force into the equation. Should your man give up and drop his weapon, you live, and he gets to live as well, but the choice of life or death is his, not yours and you have not chosen to kill him.
Click to expand...

Boomer you definitely have your sh*t wired tight. I couldn't have said it better.

TDC
 
Wholesale Sports has UMC 115gr JHP (#2300882), USA 115gr JHP (#240308), and USA 147gr JHP (#240307) in their current (Hunting 2008) catalog.
 
Starscream said:
Avoid using the 147 gr 9mm.
Click to expand...

Why??!!

For poking holes in paper - almost 100% of non-LEO handgun (and especially 9x19mm) usage in Kanada - it is certainly no better or worse than anything else. Admittedly it came about as a means to deliver headshot-capable accuracy from the MP5 SMG (especially in the SD version), and has been adopted and used by a number of LE agencies and military units in both FMJ and JHP form to quite good effect.

While there were allegedly some difficulties with "stopping power" (whatever that is in a handgun) that was deemed after much analysis to be more a function of bullet construction than any inherent failing of the bullet weight itself.

The way I view it is this - for years cops carried 158 gr LSWC +P in the .38 Special at about 900 fps +/- in both a HP (RCMP) and non-HP (pretty much everybody else) version. So long as you shot someone "correctly" it worked "OK", pretty much like any other handgun cartridge (unless you believe the press about the .45ACP). The 147 gr 9x19 runs at about 950 fps +/- so I pretty my view it as a 10-19 shot .38 Special.

Keeping in mind that the difference in bullet weight between a 124 gr 9mm bullet and one that weighs 147 gr is only 23 gr (thanks Captain Obvious...) or 24/7000n of a pound - hardly a "weighty" difference (pun intended).

I say if you can't shoot 'em good, shoot 'em lots...
 
I meant in the context for self defense, although taking a second look I didn't realize just how outdated my information was.

It wasn't really a problem with stopping power (pretty much all pistol bullets had some issue or other in terms of stopping power during that time) as it was when the 147 gr bullets were first released they were prone to causing the weapon to malfunction. Poor manufacturing standards and bullet design at the time.

If they feed reliably now then I say go for it.

Sorry about the confusion. Shot off my mouth before I actually looked at my facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom