What's the real reason 9mm is so popular?

[SIGSHOOTR]

Force of habit-- used it while I was in the military. I shoot it well and it's never let me down.

[Moto4Fun]

While the debate will rage on as to which caliber is best, 9mm is sufficient. Once it has been determined that it is good enough, then cost,recoil, and capcity become the primary reasons that I use 9mm.

But what makes a particular round fun to shoot will vary. I like shooting 9mm because it is accurate, light, and cheap. I like shooting .44 mag because it is loud and has heavy recoil. I like shooting .40 because it is snappy and shoots fireballs and is almost as cheap and at times more available as 9mm.

[Gryff]

So for those who prefer shooting 9mm, what's the main reason why you prefer it?

Pleasant recoil
Cheap (relatively) ammo
Easier to shoot fast (I'm a competitive shooter)
Gun ergonomics are slightly better for me than a .45

9mm is my standard range caliber. .45acp is my home defense caliber, and .40S&W is my CCW choice.

[bussda]

I read an article on a particular manufacturer's new 9mm pistol. And I did not consider the 9mm an effective round. So I bought the pistol. Good pistol. Good manufacturer. But there are better rounds out there. And at the time, my preferred .45ACP pistol was much more expensive.

[inbox485]

This appears to be the universal testimony of EMTs, paramedics, ER surgeons and nurses, coroners, MEs ... people who are in the best position to actually know something.

None of the above could tell you much about the rate of incapacitation. Their experience is limited to saying that the wounds are visually similar long after the fact. Most of us don't really care what happens to an assailant once they are stopped - just that they are stopped as quickly as possible. I still find it unconvincing that the difference seen in BG testing isn't felt on the receiving end just because the settled trauma appears similar.

[Jack L]

None of the above could tell you much about the rate of incapacitation. Their experience is limited to saying that the wounds are visually similar long after the fact. Most of us don't really care what happens to an assailant once they are stopped - just that they are stopped as quickly as possible. I still find it unconvincing that the difference seen in BG testing isn't felt on the receiving end just because the settled trauma appears similar.

Shot placement is #1 in my mind. Whatever caliber you prefer needs to be backed up with accuracy. Interesting how tiny and clean a .22 long rifle entrance wound looks on a dead man, or how gnarly a .45 wound looks on a screaming man's shoulder that's still trying to punch out a LEO with his other arm.

[kazman]

I shoot 9mm in addition to 45 and 357/38. Cost of course. But also sub compacts light and thin like the Kahr PM9 make it attractive. I'm also wondering when I get older (60+) if I'll start to prefer it for more control. Dunno.

[Rob454]

ive had both a 9mm and a 45. both calibers were on the same frame. Ruger P85 and Ruger P90. the gun frames were virtually identical with the exception of the caliber. I even had the same Hogue grips on both guns. i cannot imagine a more fair match up. I've shot both guns side by side and the 9 was a lot more snappy than the 45. As for accuracy they were very very similar from the same shooter ( me) using the same brand of ammo WWB or Remington. I liked the additional capacity of the 9mm over the 45. The ammo was cheaper by about 30% and I could carry more of it if I had to.

Everyone who shot my guns liked the 9mm more simply due to the fact that it did not punish wrists while doing prolonged shooting. Even my wife did not mind shooting the 9mm.
As for getting shot by a 45 or a 9mm personally I wouldn't want to get shot by either one. Unless you do a head shot and blow the aggressors brains all over the wall shooting someone in a non vital area is gonna hurt unless the guy is on some substance that simply makes him super human.
You can cite all sorts of this caliber wound channel Ft pound impact bla bla bla is all just BS. Shot placement makes more of a impact ( no pun intended) than what the caliber is IMO. I know there are fans of both calibers but if the 9mm was such a bad caliber then it would simply go by the way side. No different than the off the beaten path rifle calibers.

[ZombieTactics]

None of the above could tell you much about the rate of incapacitation. Their experience is limited to saying that the wounds are visually similar long after the fact. Most of us don't really care what happens to an assailant once they are stopped - just that they are stopped as quickly as possible.

Well, I understand what you are saying, but I find it hard to see how a wound identical after incapacitation could be caused by a wound which was significantly different before incapacitation. It's a great question for research though.

I still find it unconvincing that the difference seen in BG testing isn't felt on the receiving end just because the settled trauma appears similar.

That would make more sense to me if BG was even a rough physical approximation of any human bodily structures ... it isn't. However you look at it: physical density, tensile strength, shear strength, dynamic viscoelasticity ... BG isn't even close. Actually I take that back ... I remember it is similar in some respects to lymphatic fluid, but that's not an accurate model for testing. 10% BG has the singular advantage of being a consistent testing medium, but doesn't really approximate anything human very well.

There are some truly incredible artificial cadavers which would work great, but they are unbelievably expensive, and I haven't seen any small arms testing on them yet.

[scootle]

i never figured out how people equate more recoil as more fun. if i want recoil, i load up the shotgun... that is as good as an amusement park ride for skinny ol' me.

9mm is cheap, comfortable, and effective... between .22LR and 9mm, one has little excuse to not maintain proficiency, imho... you can just put a lot of lead downrange for your $$$.

[Fishslayer]

i never figured out how people equate more recoil as more fun.

Hard to explain, but touching off a full house .357 or .44 magnum is... just fun!

[elSquid]

That would make more sense to me if BG was even a rough physical approximation of any human bodily structures ... it isn't. However you look at it: physical density, tensile strength, shear strength, dynamic viscoelasticity ... BG isn't even close. Actually I take that back ... I remember it is similar in some respects to lymphatic fluid, but that's not an accurate model for testing. 10% BG has the singular advantage of being a consistent testing medium, but doesn't really approximate anything human very well..

Wasn't ballistic gelatin expressly designed to simulate muscle tissue?

-- Michael

[jdg30]

i never figured out how people equate more recoil as more fun. if i want recoil, i load up the shotgun... that is as good as an amusement park ride for skinny ol' me.

There's just something about a big blast from a gun that's fun. I wouldn't want to continually shoot only hot rounds, but I do think they are fun to shoot, especially if you are accurate with them and see their effects on the target you're shooting (not a paper target).

Lots of good replies and reasons for why you all like 9mm. I should have started a "9mm ARGUMENT DEBATE" thread for the argument posts here.

[inbox485]

Well, I understand what you are saying, but I find it hard to see how a wound identical after incapacitation could be caused by a wound which was significantly different before incapacitation. It's a great question for research though.

I'm not saying the wound would be different, just the impact to the recipient. I couldn't tell you how many black eyes and broken noses I've had, but I can only think of twice that a punch really phased me. If I had kept a photo log, you would never be able to pick out the two that actually had an acute effect. That is how I view things like examiners saying it all looks the same to them.

That would make more sense to me if BG was even a rough physical approximation of any human bodily structures ... it isn't. However you look at it: physical density, tensile strength, shear strength, dynamic viscoelasticity ... BG isn't even close. Actually I take that back ... I remember it is similar in some respects to lymphatic fluid, but that's not an accurate model for testing. 10% BG has the singular advantage of being a consistent testing medium, but doesn't really approximate anything human very well.

There are some truly incredible artificial cadavers which would work great, but they are unbelievably expensive, and I haven't seen any small arms testing on them yet.

It is even and consistent and that is exactly what you need. In test method world that is called sample normalization. You know that the real sample is so widely variable that even apples to oranges comparisons would come out indistinguishable so you simulate the sample with something that behaves "similar" except that it is consistent. The simulated sample need not have any of the variation components of the original. It need only match average results. Then, differences in the simulated sample tests are presumed to correlate to differences in the original samples even though the differences can not be observed objectively in the original samples. You could go all the way to shooting live prisoners, but unless you used very large sample sizes, and took painstaking steps to hit the same spot repeatably (and some how motivate the person to attempt to struggle as long as possible since incapacitation matters and death is an afterthought), the data would still be meaningless. So following that rationale, while it may never be quantified on gun shot recipients, there probably is a difference in terminal effect. Perhaps not a huge one, but the difference in the gel isn't all that huge either.

The other issue is you can obliterate both lungs and the heart and have a failure to stop for as much as 20 seconds. Putting aside the bad guys physical and mental state, the difference you can determine isn't just where you hit them, but how hard.

[inbox485]

Wasn't ballistic gelatin expressly designed to simulate muscle tissue?

-- Michael

No. Average side to side penetration of a porcine model later confirmed to correspond to human gun shot recipients. No single tissue was singled out to match BG and as ZT pointed out, BG doesn't emulate any single tissue well at all.