Will anything ever supplant the 9mm cartridge?

Jahred.F said:
..To what extent could your observation and conclusion be obscured by patrons picking up their more valued brass? I see a surprising amount of .45ACP brass at my local range, comparable to 9mm. I am rather certain that .45ACP shooters are more inclined to pick up their brass over those shooting 9mm.
Click to expand...

Not very many brass police at the POCO range, fortunately for me. I respectfully ask 45 shooters if they reload, and more often than not, they don't and they graciously give me their brass. Still, 45 shooters are few and far between.
 
Heck it's just getting started, there are many places in the world still stuck on 38. No plus. They will likely upgrade to 9 in the next ten years once the wheel guns finish rusting.
 
9mm self defense loads are no joke, they make some hot +P loads that now rival .40 and .45 ACP in "stopping power".
And they make cheap plinking rounds. The 9mm has it all; speed, penetration, availability, load choices...
 
evolture said:
What do you think? Will 9mm stay the most common choice until the end of cartridge ammunition? Or will something replace it as number one?
Click to expand...

Whatever NATO chooses as theyr next pistol ammo if they decide to change it will logically become the go-to calibre for everyone else. Only rich governement agencies and public funded organisation can afford to equip theyr members with better balistic co-efficient ammunition.
 
Probably not. 9mm will be around for a long time.

Although I did some speculation once upon a time for a little short "What if I were doing Ghost Recon: Future Soldier," that I wrote up in a gun nerd inspired moment:

Ammunition; As conflicts continued to prove time and time again the limitations of the 5.56 ammunition, the major nations of NATO sat down to look at the issue. Realizing that changing caliber was still an impracticality at the time, the US and other nations took an unusually logical step, and revised the Hague convention. Ratified by the UN in 2028, the restrictions on expending ammunition for military use was lifted after nearly two centuries, finally allowing soldiers the same advances in modern bullet manufacturing that hunters have enjoy commercially for decades. Introduced into circulation in 2033, the M1992 ammunition was a licensed copy of the Nosler Partition 60gr soft point bullet. The new round was almost universally praised as having far more lethality against unarmored targets then its M885 predecessor, as the bullet was very reliable in expanding into the equivalent of a 30 caliber bullet. Demand for this new ammunition by field commanders has US manufacturing capability working over time as they struggle to keep up, while allied NATO countries are quickly tooling to begin their own production of the M1992.
Click to expand...

I doubt the 9mm will ever go anywhere; but I wouldn't rule the possibility of NATO taking a hard look at revising some of those old asinine rules about expanding ammo.
 
Starscream said:
.... but I wouldn't rule the possibility of NATO taking a hard look at revising some of those old asinine rules about expanding ammo.
Click to expand...

Those 'asinine rules' aren't NATO's to change. They're part of the Hague Conventions (which pre-date NATO).

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp
 
easyrider604 said:
Still, asinine rules they are. Quick clean kills are best and more humane. Holds true for hunting animals, why not war?
Click to expand...

I seem to remember reading that it is better in battle to wound than to kill. Wounding a soldier takes 3 out of the immediate conflict. The wounded soldier and 2 to carry him. This plus the wounded soldier is a drain on resources and manpower as he needs to be looked after.
 
Clotho said:
easyrider604 said:
Still, asinine rules they are. Quick clean kills are best and more humane. Holds true for hunting animals, why not war?
Click to expand...

I seem to remember reading that it is better in battle to wound than to kill. Wounding a soldier takes 3 out of the immediate conflict. The wounded soldier and 2 to carry him. This plus the wounded soldier is a drain on resources and manpower as he needs to be looked after.
Click to expand...

A little off topic, but...

The better to wound than quickly kill in battle argument doesn't make sense in terms of why they signed the Hague convention. This is not to say it isn't better to wound than kill, just that argument for having the Hague convention doesn't make sense. If it's shown to be better to use non-expanding bullets to wound rather than quickly kill, armies would just adopt that round. There wouldn't be a need to sign a convention to have permission to use non-expanding rounds. To the contrary, the convention limits them to using non-expanding rounds when combating other signatories.
 
I don't understand the Hague Convention limit on the use of only jacketed hardball (no hollow points) on handguns and rifles, when they allow artillery shells that blow people to bits...which by the way kills them instantly. Is it because it takes more soldiers to find a thousand body pieces than one wounded soldier? IMO, all's fair in love and war.

Anyway, I think war is stupid really. I don't understand why countries have to invade other countries.
 
BCP said:
A little off topic, but...

The better to wound than quickly kill in battle argument doesn't make sense in terms of why they signed the Hague convention. This is not to say it isn't better to wound than kill, just that argument for having the Hague convention doesn't make sense. If it's shown to be better to use non-expanding bullets to wound rather than quickly kill, armies would just adopt that round. There wouldn't be a need to sign a convention to have permission to use non-expanding rounds. To the contrary, the convention limits them to using non-expanding rounds when combating other signatories.
Click to expand...

You make the assumption that our enemy care about their wounded or have the capacity to render aid. Neither of these postulations are true in the current conflict and any Taliban wounded undoubtedly pray that they will be picked up by coalition forces rather than their own.
 
easyrider604 said:
I don't understand the Hague Convention limit on the use of only jacketed hardball (no hollow points) on handguns and rifles, when they allow artillery shells that blow people to bits...which by the way kills them instantly. Is it because it takes more soldiers to find a thousand body pieces than one wounded soldier? IMO, all's fair in love and war.

Anyway, I think war is stupid really. I don't understand why countries have to invade other countries.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... It appears that there is much that you don't understand...
 
Clotho said:
I seem to remember reading that it is better in battle to wound than to kill. Wounding a soldier takes 3 out of the immediate conflict. The wounded soldier and 2 to carry him. This plus the wounded soldier is a drain on resources and manpower as he needs to be looked after.
Click to expand...
Unless you completely incapacitate the soldier, he can still shoot back. It makes no sense to aim for wounds, because, like the saying goes, there are varying degrees of wounded, but only one degree of dead.
 
BCP said:
A little off topic, but...

The better to wound than quickly kill in battle argument doesn't make sense in terms of why they signed the Hague convention. This is not to say it isn't better to wound than kill, just that argument for having the Hague convention doesn't make sense. If it's shown to be better to use non-expanding bullets to wound rather than quickly kill, armies would just adopt that round. There wouldn't be a need to sign a convention to have permission to use non-expanding rounds. To the contrary, the convention limits them to using non-expanding rounds when combating other signatories.
Click to expand...

A very good point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom