Why all the hate on 9mm

Shoot what you can afford to shoot, both physically, and financially. When all else fails, tell people to mind their own business. I've owned a .270 for 25 years. Due to health, and financial issues, with a renewed interest in shooting, I have acquired a .223. This way I can enjoy the sport of shooting, without crippling my shoulder or wallet. Keep shooting your 9mm, and all the best OP:)
 
IMG_9367_zpsbc223e12.jpg



Both in 9...
 
Gunslinger said:
9mm is for pussies!!
Click to expand...

http://www.gunweek.com/2005/feature0910.html

Many disparage the 9mm’s stopping power, and knowing that only military “ball” ammunition was available, I asked if this had been a problem. Spook said that it hadn’t. He knows what some of the gun magazine chest-beaters claim in print, and admits that he hasn’t shot any blocks of ballistic gelatin. He has shot eight men with the nine, though, and all went down with center thorax hits. One or two shots sufficed, if well placed. Spook knows that others have complained about the nine, and wonders where they hit their opponents. He has talked with a couple of tank crewmen who shot Iraqis off their huge armored mounts, and they seemed satisfied, too
Click to expand...

Unless it's a .454 Casull, or something, 'powerful handgun' is an oxymoron. 9x19 is available everywhere, has tonnes of reloading data (I am interesting in getting into reloading, and am amazed at the info I've found), pistols chambering it are common, it costs a lot less than .45ACP, and kaBooms are rare. Fifty lb/ft of energy difference really doesn't justify the problems and costs of .40, .357Sig, etc., especially here in Canada, where carry permits, or even accessable home storage are illegal. The CIT companies now carry .40s in Canada, but that is probably just what the police use as a fad since the 1990s, and they used to carry .38 Specials anyhow. And the .45 vs 9 difference, over .1"--really? At any rate, if you want real 'stopping power' at home, even a .223 Rem., or .410 has more energy than a pistol, and non-restricted legalities (i.e., only one lock). There is too much macho silliness, here.
 
Last edited:
Centre hits with a .22 work pretty well, according to some.

The US Army found out that their .38 revolvers were inadequate 'man stoppers' in the Philippines and quickly issued obsolete .45 revolvers. Granted, the velocity of that .38 ammo was lower than GI ball 9mm, but bore diameter is one place where size matters.
During the 1858 Indian Mutiny, the Brits found out that the popular .36 calibre Colt '51 was dismal in combat. One Officer put a nice group into the chest of a mutinous Sepoy only to be cleaved from crown to chin by the man's Tulwar before he died.
This prompted a rush to buy the heavier Colt Dragoon model and the Brit .44 and .45's. They stuck with the .455 bore right through WWII even though it had been officially replaced by the .38/200.

Always fun to get the debate going. The .45 shooters don't get anywhere as defensive as do the 9mm'ers. Gotta be a reason .... ;>)
 
The VP 70 was discontinued after a relatively short run. The Sig 210 Is a 9mm. Jeff Cooper liked 45"s and was an American gun icon.
 
Germans did pretty well with a 9mm submachine gun mp40 in WW2 in conquering all of Europe, thats enough validation for me folks, the 9 is deadly...
 
Sharps '63 said:
Centre hits with a .22 work pretty well, according to some.

The US Army found out that their .38 revolvers were inadequate 'man stoppers' in the Philippines and quickly issued obsolete .45 revolvers. Granted, the velocity of that .38 ammo was lower than GI ball 9mm, but bore diameter is one place where size matters.
During the 1858 Indian Mutiny, the Brits found out that the popular .36 calibre Colt '51 was dismal in combat. One Officer put a nice group into the chest of a mutinous Sepoy only to be cleaved from crown to chin by the man's Tulwar before he died.
This prompted a rush to buy the heavier Colt Dragoon model and the Brit .44 and .45's. They stuck with the .455 bore right through WWII even though it had been officially replaced by the .38/200.

Always fun to get the debate going. The .45 shooters don't get anywhere as defensive as do the 9mm'ers. Gotta be a reason .... ;>)
Click to expand...

Shotguns were most effective on the Moros. And I seriously doubt that .1" really matters, especially with the expanded diameter of .35, .40, and .45 HPs about the same (give or take .75"), and energy in the 350-450lb/ft range. Remember that a .35ish (rifle) bullet can drop, say, an elk, which is more than triple the weight of a human, and does not have the issues a person does with collapse of blood pressure (a four-legged animal's heart is at the same level as its brain, so can lose a great deal of blood before dropping). Handguns are not issued as primary weapons for infantry because all are poor performers compared to rifles. For home defense, in Canada, a double barrel 12 gauge is still the most practical, in terms of power and legality, and Murphy's Law, though I'd dread the overpenetration issues in a suburban home.

The .45ers (mostly 1911 fans) think John Moses Browning was The Prophet...even though he designed the Hi-Power.
 
For sporting purposes there is no benefit to a larger round unless a certain class specifies it. I bought a .45acp as my first pistol because the .45acp is bad ass and I wanted one since I was a kid. It was also more expensive and harder to get ammo for,,,,,,,,, but hey!!,, you only live once.
 
Don't confuse the 9mm'ers with facts and history. Even the P-08 (Luger) was made in .45 ACP for US Army trials.

lejarretnoir said:
He only built it around the .45 because of US military trials.
It originally was designed in .38 Auto for the 1900 Model that progressed into the .45 for the 1911.
Click to expand...
 
Sharps '63 said:
Don't confuse the 9mm'ers with facts and history. Even the P-08 (Luger) was made in .45 ACP for US Army trials.
Click to expand...
Yea, IMO if it wasn't for those US Trials, there'd be no .45 ACP.
Don't get me wrong, I've always like the .45 back in the 70's in it's heyday, but the 9mm makes more sense now that it has the NATO stamp of approval. Tons of brass, not so with the .45 ACP anymore.
It's mostly used in the US Bullseye Matches 3 Gun. I still shoot it for nostalgia more than anything because it's my only big bore pistol.
More facts and history. ;)
 
Dr.K said:
For sporting purposes there is no benefit to a larger round unless a certain class specifies it. I bought a .45acp as my first pistol because the .45acp is bad ass and I wanted one since I was a kid. It was also more expensive and harder to get ammo for,,,,,,,,, but hey!!,, you only live once.
Click to expand...

If one casts bullets from wheelweights and whatnot, reloaded .45 ammo is cost-competitive, plus the low pressures mean longer brass life. But if I was ordering firearms for a police force, or cash in transit company, I wouldn't pick it. And a shotgun is more sensible (legally, and ballistically) for home defense in Canada.

Jimmym said:
I even love to shoot pellet guns! The way I see it is enjoy what you enjoy, I enjoy them all.
Click to expand...

A cannot understand .22LR conversion kits (e.g., Kadet), when Airsoft or BB guns accomplish the same thing, for training purposes. And you can shoot BBs in your basement. BTW, does anyone make a BB CZ 75BD?
 
I just bought my first 9mm for target shooting, maybe even some 3-gun. I would not use the 9mm for self-defence in my home anymore than I would use my .45, shotguns are more practical and effective. Interesting conversation in Canada, especially because a large basis for the argument Pro 9mm elsewhere revolves around magazine capacity, which to us civilians here has zero relevance. I will 2nd the point though that if I'm limited to 10 rounds, I'd rather have 10 rounds of .40 or 45 acp over 9mm in any situation but target, but where does that leave me realistically in this country? Yes, modern bullet designs have narrowed the gap between 9mm and the larger calibers from a lethality point of view, but it's silly to think that this gap did not and still does not exist to some extent. Again, there's gotta be a reason nobody has hate threads towards .40 or 45. Some arguments suggest that you can get more hits on target in less time with the 9mm, but a large majority of that comes down to training. I suppose I am a little torn.

If you can't change someone's mind about hunting with smaller than generally accepted calibers, what makes you think you'll change their mind about even smaller differences in lethality between handgun cartridges?
 
In the automotive/hotrod world, it's disdain for the small block chevy. SBC's are like the 9mm; cheap, good output for the money, user friendly...a good everyman's motor/gun.
Just too common; lots of people ( myself included ) want something unique. While 9mm's do pretty much anything the racier calibres do; cheaper and with less tweaking required...they sure are not anything to brag about.
No expert by any means, but if I was an LEO I'd want a Glock in 9mm as a sidearm. Light, proven platform in an easy to use ( and potent) calibre.
But for showing off to buddies at the range...naw. A tricked out 1911 in 38 super or 45 ACP is the show-off gun.
Just my opinion; don't spill your coffees sending off an angry retort.
Stay safe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom