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

[bussda]

the marshall and sanow studies are a bad, bad joke, and so is the "one shot stop percentage" statistic associated with them.

Possibly. But it just another data point. Results integrated with all other data. It is not an "urban myth". That is my point.

[sk8804]

cheap to shoot and bare minimum for defense in my opinion.

[ZombieTactics]

the marshall and sanow studies are a bad, bad joke, and so is the "one shot stop percentage" statistic associated with them.

The Marshall/Sanow studies suffer from horrible application of statistical data. Anyone with even a general understanding of statistics will sort of laugh out loud at how bad it really is.

To me, that's not really the worst of it. The entire study is based upon the eyewitness reports of police officers involved in the incidents. It's perhaps not widely known, but eyewitness testimony of those under "combat stress" is known to be absolute crap, as unreliable as can possibly be. This has been proven time and time again, but somehow people want to believe that cops have "special training" to overcome this phenomenon ... hogwash.

So ... nonsensical statistical analysis based upon inaccurate reports ... how can you even pretend it means anything? I know people who should know better who swear by the Marshall/Sanow studies all the time though, as though they are gospel.

Go figure.

[bussda]

You say his data set is limited but go on to cite only one example?

Further, is 97% a real one shot stop? Are you sure you want to rely on 97% when you or your family is on the line?

tonelar stated 2-3 shots to a critical area, I rebutted with 1 to a critical area. There are more. I was just being brief.

As for the 97%, there are several additional factors to consider. And I am not taking this at a personal level. I suggest reading Kleck's "Point Blank". Interesting data point from Kleck: Many (maybe most) people shot do not require medical care.
Another data point: A gun writer wants to prove the TEC9 can be used for hunting disputing Feinstein. What does he hunt? Squirrels! 9mm not good for much else.
Another data point: It is said, but not substianiated, that gang bangers in South Central L.A. got hit with 9mm and it was a joke. .45 was pretty serious.
Another data point: Reports from the Phillipines lead to the .45 caliber requirement.

Lots of data. But the end user decides.

[rromeo]

I wasn't shooting 30 years ago. Was .38 Special the cheap round before the wondernine boom?

[bussda]

I wasn't shooting 30 years ago. Was .38 Special the cheap round before the wondernine boom?

IIRC, yes, pretty much. Mostly because most law enforcement agencies carried them. For autos, .45ACP, because military surplus ammo was usually cheap. The military adoption of the Beretta and the FBI Miami shootout are when rethinking what is best really started.

[shooterdude]

the "one shot kill" handgun ethos is an urban myth that most likely carried over from hollywood but could just as easily been influenced by long gun hunting

i'm an eleven year veteran of responding to handgun shootings in san francisco. if a vic has only one or two holes in their torso (regardless of caliber) they are almost guaranteed to survive. the ones that didn't make it had 3 or more holes in the kill zone. my two exceptions are headshots (shotgun blast to the head and a handgun suicide).

i own many calibers. i gotta admit, my bedside pistol is a 220 in .45, but its only 3 feet away from my Benelli M1 Super 90. however on the occasional outing where a long gun is too far away, i'm super confident with my 228 and a couple spare mags of subsonic 147grn bonded hp. i'm fortunate enough that this setup gives me close to 50 rounds of 9mm (but the post caliban shooter can have even more by carrying 4 x 10rnd mags in reserve).

It is "one shot stop". Not based on Hollywood but on a real study. What I remember is 95-97% for a .357 magnum 125gr. And about 62% for .32ACP 60gr. Silvertip and .45ACP 230gr. FMJ. I do not remember the other calibers.

I am trying to minimize your experience, but your data set is limited. I was a juror on a murder retrial. Victim shot three times with an AMT .380. First across lower lip and out right cheek. Second in and out right upper arm, then into chest across lungs and heart lodging under skin on left side torso. Third in and out right calf, reentered right thigh and stopped right side below the armpit. Yes, it is an exception to your experience, but sometimes it only takes one in the critical area.

Wow! You were a juror in 1 case and you became an expert in gunshot wounds from that?

[jdg30]

However, the OP is constantly restating how "everyone knows 40 outperforms 9" yet (by and large) the opposite of that statement is true in regards to posters to this thread.

I'm the OP in this thread and I never stated anything like that. The original question was why people like 9mm so much and I stated that I didn't want this to be a caliber debate. Sorry if other posts here got you sidetracked.

[bussda]

Wow! You were a juror in 1 case and you became an expert in gunshot wounds from that?

No. tonelar made a generalized statement, I disagreed and quoted a specific case. Nothing more.

[DannyZRC]

tonelar stated 2-3 shots to a critical area, I rebutted with 1 to a critical area. There are more. I was just being brief.

As for the 97%, there are several additional factors to consider. And I am not taking this at a personal level. I suggest reading Kleck's "Point Blank". Interesting data point from Kleck: Many (maybe most) people shot do not require medical care.
you can't be serious
Another data point: A gun writer wants to prove the TEC9 can be used for hunting disputing Feinstein. What does he hunt? Squirrels! 9mm not good for much else.
you can't be seriousx2
Another data point: It is said, but not substianiated, that gang bangers in South Central L.A. got hit with 9mm and it was a joke. .45 was pretty serious.
you can't be seriousx3
Another data point: Reports from the Phillipines lead to the .45 caliber requirement.
I agree, we should shoot .455 Webley (.454 bullet of 265 grains weight @ 700fps) instead of .38 Long Colt (.361 bullet of 125 grains weight @ 770fps), no doubt.

Lots of data. But the end user decides.

my replies in bold.

I know I'm being dismissive, but you're contending that many/most gunshot wounds don't require medical care, which just for reasons of infection is an extremely inaccurate assertion. You further contend that 9mm isn't good for hunting much other than squirrel, 9mm is perfectly fine for hunting any thin skinned game of 150-200lbs, like deer (and in relation to game animals people are even thinner of hide). Then you contend that the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of primitive handgun cartridges presents valid basis for comparison of modern ammunitions, which are different in size, mass, velocity and most importantly construction.

feh.

and +1 to ZombieTactics pointing out that eyewitness testimony is totally flipping useless, because sadly it is and even more sadly much of our justice system is predicated on something that is about as useful as Ms. Cleo.

[Packy14]

I shoot both 9mm and .40; I am quicker on followup/double tap with the 9mm, but either one works for me. I don't own a .45 and haven't shot as well the few times I have tried one, but one day I think I'll buy a 1911 just for kicks. These days at the range I prefer mostly .22 shooting up my lil tennis ball on a string, with a bit of 9mm thrown in. In real life, I roll w/ 18 round mags with TAP hornady's, and if I have to shoot to protect myself or a loved one they aint gonna stop flyin till my target is on the ground dyin.

[locosway]

I've been shooting for some time and have guns in many of the popular calibers. One thing I've noticed is that many people on Calguns praise the 9mm as their favorite and all they need. When I cruise the desert looking for spent brass, many times I find 9mm brass more abundantly than other calibers.

I own a Glock 19 and it's a fun gun to shoot, but truthfully I enjoy .45 and .38/.357 a lot more and usually pick those calibers to shoot more often than 9mm. I reload for all of them so price difference isn't really an issue for me to shoot. I just find that I'm more excited when shooting .45, .38 or .357 compared to 9mm.

I shoot the Glock 19 here and there but I tend to get bored shooting it after a while. I'm not trying to bash 9mm at all and I'm not trying to start a caliber debate. I like 9mm, I'm just wondering what the main reason is that so many people say 9mm is their favorite caliber. Is it the price? Accuracy? I find that I'm just as accurate with other calibers yet they seem funner to shoot for me.

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

I shoot on average 200 rounds a week. And if I take a class or do a competition I shoot more. Since a 9mm will stop someone just as easily as a .45, I choose the 9mm for cost and practicality.

Now, if I feel that I need more stopping power, i.e. in the woods, etc... I just carry my Glock 20 in 10mm.

I honestly don't see why people like shooting a .45 over a 9mm at paper. Does the .45 kill the paper better? Just tonight there was a guy next to me raving about his .45, but he was all over the place. I could put 17 rounds of my 9mm into a nice 3-4" circle, and he couldn't even keep it on the paper. I bet if he dropped down to a 9mm or a .22 he'd learn a lot more and then he could work back up to a larger caliber.

[bussda]

I know I'm being dismissive, but you're contending that many/most gunshot wounds don't require medical care, which just for reasons of infection is an extremely inaccurate assertion. You further contend that 9mm isn't good for hunting much other than squirrel, 9mm is perfectly fine for hunting any thin skinned game of 150-200lbs, like deer (and in relation to game animals people are even thinner of hide). Then you contend that the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of primitive handgun cartridges presents valid basis for comparison of modern ammunitions, which are different in size, mass, velocity and most importantly construction.

I merely presented information for the consideration of the reader with qualifications. Yes, I am serious. I not trying to yank your chain.

Being brutally honest, in my opinion, the 9mm was a cartridge developed to promote sales of the Luger pistol witout extensive retooling from .30 Luger. A compromise cartridge, like .40S&W.

Another data point: A combat record was set for the most number enemy combatants killed with a pistol using a Browning HP in 9mm. I do not recall the specifics, but this was prior to the mid 90's.
Another data point: For maximum effectivity, modern ammunition requires bullet expansion. This may not reliably occur for several reasons, e.g. clothing layers, barrel length, etc.
Another data point: I own 9mm.

Again, lots of data, the end user decides.

[locosway]

I merely presented information for the consideration of the reader with qualifications. Yes, I am serious. I not trying to yank your chain.

Being brutally honest, in my opinion, the 9mm was a cartridge developed to promote sales of the Luger pistol witout extensive retooling from .30 Luger. A compromise cartridge, like .40S&W.

Another data point: A combat record was set for the most number enemy combatants killed with a pistol using a Browning HP in 9mm. I do not recall the specifics, but this was prior to the mid 90's.
Another data point: For maximum effectivity, modern ammunition requires bullet expansion. This may not reliably occur for several reasons, e.g. clothing layers, barrel length, etc.
Another data point: I own 9mm.

Again, lots of data, the end user decides.

I can guarantee I can stop a threat just as fast if not faster with my 9mm than anyone else on this board can with a .45. The round does NOT matter, it's all about shot placement. Why you think 1.5mm difference is going to change the outcome of a fight is beyond me. The only thing that would help determine a fight is training. Everything else goes right out the window..

In fact, you give a woman who doesn't know how to shoot a .22LR handgun, and a .45, and she'll stop the attacker with the .22, but likely not the .45.

I'm not saying the .45 is bad, because it's not. It's a great round, but it's not the end all of handgun rounds. The 9mm, .40, .45, .357sig, 10mm are all great rounds and will stop a human all the same with proper shot placement.

[inbox485]

I'm pretty numb to recoil, so unless it is side by side, I couldn't even tell you what caliber I shot if you blind folded me and put a gun in my hand. To me it comes down to a few factors:

- capacity - in CA you get 10 or less. unless size is a constraint, might as well be 10 of the good ones.
- potency - differences between the big three might be effectively slim in their final trauma seen at autopsy, but I find it an unconvincing argument that an increase in dropped momentum isn't felt on the receiving end.
- price - 9mm is cheaper than the sizes bigger and most of the sizes smaller. I think the only handgun round cheaper is .22 LR.
- size - for slim or pocket sized pistols, 9mm makes a whole lot of sense
- storage - a small ammo can holds about 600 rounds of .45 ACP, or about 1000 rounds of .40 S&W. I've never tried filling one with 9mm, but I'd guess it would be around 1200, and the weight between the three wouldn't be too far off.