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

[ZombieTactics]

I merely presented information for the consideration of the reader with qualifications. ...
Again, lots of data, ...

I genuinely mean no disrespect, but nothing you've posted in this regard constitutes "data". Seriously ... it doesn't ... to a degree which should be embarrassing, except you can't necessarily be faulted for not knowing what you don't know.

Look up the word "factoid".

[bussda]

I genuinely mean no disrespect, but nothing you've posted in this regard constitutes "data". Seriously ... it doesn't ... to a degree which should be embarrassing, except you can't necessarily be faulted for not knowing what you don't know.

Look up the word "factoid".

Respectfully, you are making an "ad hominem" attack. Data means different things to different people. If you disagree with something, ok. But just because it seems incredible does not mean it is not true. Just hard to believe and/or understand. Too many times someone told me something incredible, that I later found to be true. Like using a handgun to make quarter sized groups at 500 meters.

[ZombieTactics]

Respectfully, you are making an "ad hominem" attack. Data means different things to different people. If you disagree with something, ok. But just because it seems incredible does not mean it is not true. Just hard to believe and/or understand. Too many times someone told me something incredible, that I later found to be true. Like using a handgun to make quarter sized groups at 500 meters.

Respectfully ... you should learn the meaning of words before you use them. An "ad hominem" attack would be if I insulted you personally, perhaps by just saying you are stupid or calling you names (which I haven't) ... something like that.

When you begin a statement with "It is said, but not substantiated ...", you aren't doing anything but repeating a story. That's not a "data point", it's a story you heard. You don't seem to understand the difference between "factoids" and "data" or "evidence". Isolated anecdotes carry about as much weight as fish stories.

I didn't say anything about anything being "incredible", so it's clear to me that you really aren't even engaging the argument.

[M. D. Van Norman]

[Freq18Hz]

I'm interested to know how many people in this thread have extensive gunfighting experience, and have killed enough people in self defense to have direct first hand experience?

As far as I can tell, only 1-2 people that have commented so far in this thread has direct experience with gunshot wounds.

I'm going to stay out of the discussion, since I don't know anything besides things I have read or heard. Common sense says to me that the .45 ACP is a much larger bullet, and therefore does a lot more damage, one of the reasons I imagine it was coveted by german officers as a weapon capture.

Then again, the luger was prized by our troops, so who knows. Apologies if my comments contributed to getting this thread off track, I had no idea there was an ongoing and tired debate spanning across the entire internet and law enforcement communities about this issue.

-Freq

[ZombieTactics]

I'm interested to know how many people in this thread have extensive gunfighting experience, and have killed enough people in self defense to have direct first hand experience? ...

Questions like this are often asked in the context of "the Great Caliber Debate" based upon assumptions that - unfortunately - don't have anything to do with reality.

The first incorrect assumption is usually that police & military regularly engage in handgun battles, and as such are experts on the subject. The fact is that very few police ever even have cause to draw their weapon, much less engage in some kind of combat on a regular basis. Handguns are a secondary weapon for the military, and see relatively little use compared to rifles. Very, very few people have what could reasonably called "extensive gunfighting experience" with hand guns.

The second incorrect assumption is the idea that first-hand reports are even close to accurate accounts ... they aren't, not by a long shot. This is a byproduct of the psychological and physiological effects of adrenaline and combat stress. Cops and soldiers don't (and really can't) remember anything accurately from violent encounters. They can't remember number of shots fired, the order of events, whether or not they reloaded ... sometimes not even the time of day. It's exceedingly common for police to report something like "I shot him 12 times in the chest" only to have the ER surgeon recover only a single round from the perp's leg. This phenomenon has been repeatedly verified in cases where videotape footage can be compared against written reports.

This correlates closely to the third incorrect assumption: the "proximity error" of thinking that the last shot fired is the "the one that worked". In fact, it's often the case that the effective wound is caused by one of the very first hits, and it just takes time for enough bleeding to happen to drop blood pressure. So, reports of "my partner hit him 9 times with 9mm and he didn't drop until I hit him with my .45" don't really mean anything.

[mif_slim]

I dont own a 9mm but if I can have hi-cap guns I would. Mostly because of mag round count and cheaper price. Other then that its not as exciting to me as 40sw+ calibers, not that a 40sw will blow a hole bigger then a 9mm, but just because I like two digit calibers because it sounds tacticool!

Questions like this are often asked in the context of "the Great Caliber Debate" based upon assumptions that - unfortunately - don't have anything to do with reality.

The first incorrect assumption is usually that police & military regularly engage in handgun battles, and as such are experts on the subject. The fact is that very few police ever even have cause to draw their weapon, much less engage in some kind of combat on a regular basis. Handguns are a secondary weapon for the military, and see relatively little use compared to rifles. Very, very few people have what could reasonably called "extensive gunfighting experience" with hand guns.

The second incorrect assumption is the idea that first-hand reports are even close to accurate accounts ... they aren't, not by a long shot. This is a byproduct of the psychological and physiological effects of adrenaline and combat stress. Cops and soldiers don't (and really can't) remember anything accurately from violent encounters. They can't remember number of shots fired, the order of events, whether or not they reloaded ... sometimes not even the time of day. It's exceedingly common for police to report something like "I shot him 12 times in the chest" only to have the ER surgeon recover only a single round from the perp's leg. This phenomenon has been repeatedly verified in cases where videotape footage can be compared against written reports.

This correlates closely to the third incorrect assumption: the "proximity error" of thinking that the last shot fired is the "the one that worked". In fact, it's often the case that the effective wound is caused by one of the very first hits, and it just takes time for enough bleeding to happen to drop blood pressure. So, reports of "my partner hit him 9 times with 9mm and he didn't drop until I hit him with my .45" don't really mean anything.

That is true. For example this video, the guy was shot long before he expired:

[inbox485]

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.

Neither of these statements make a whole lot of sense. .45 carries a lot more momentum which gives it better trajectory integrity through barriers, and leaves much larger temporary cavities. While I can't quantify it for those with data fetishes, it also seems like .45 has much more consistent expansion and less sensitivity to plugging.

The paper argument (pun intended) is just that. You should shoot at paper what you would shoot at a live target. If some bone head next to you can't shoot strait, he lacks fundamental trigger and sight control. It won't matter if he has a .22 or a .500 S&W.

[ZombieTactics]

.45 carries a lot more momentum which gives it better trajectory integrity through barriers, and leaves much larger temporary cavities. While I can't quantify it for those with data fetishes, it also seems like .45 has much more consistent expansion and less sensitivity to plugging. ...

"Trajectory integrity"? ... that's a new one on me, and I've been studying this for a couple of decades. Can you point me to someplace where this phenomenon is fleshed out?

It should be pointed out that both 9mm and .45ACP show poor penetration through barriers and "incidental armor". I can stick to the facts while still admitting that 9mm is my round of choice.

.45ACP shows marginally better temporary cavities and significantly better permanent cavities in ballistic gel. Coroners and MEs can't tell the difference in actual bodies. I know which "test medium" I think reflects reality better, lol.

[Farva]

Price and capacity.

[evidens83]

Low recoil
Cheap
Cheap
and cheap

[hcbr]

cheap, low recoil and capacity, otherwise its one caliber i enjoy shooting! love my G17

[inbox485]

"Trajectory integrity"? ... that's a new one on me, and I've been studying this for a couple of decades. Can you point me to someplace where this phenomenon is fleshed out?

It should be pointed out that both 9mm and .45ACP show poor penetration through barriers and "incidental armor". I can stick to the facts while still admitting that 9mm is my round of choice.

.45ACP shows marginally better temporary cavities and significantly better permanent cavities in ballistic gel. Coroners and MEs can't tell the difference in actual bodies. I know which "test medium" I think reflects reality better, lol.

Trajectory integrity: sorry, couldn't think of a better term off hand, but a good example would be the trajectory effect of hitting glass. Best data source off hand would be box of truth, Buick windshield testing, though I've seen others with the same results. I've also seen testing on angled drywall where .45 could penetrate at smaller angles and with less deflection than 9mm. I don't have that source handy.

Test medium: to me that is the black eye is a black eye argument. One could leave you dizzy and the other could make you blink and look the same to a doctor the day after. The inconsistencies of body tissue might make it impossible to point to a wound and declare a caliber, but the gel would indicate that one packs at least a marginally greater punch.

[bussda]

Respectfully ... you should learn the meaning of words before you use them. An "ad hominem" attack would be if I insulted you personally, perhaps by just saying you are stupid or calling you names (which I haven't) ... something like that.

When you begin a statement with "It is said, but not substantiated ...", you aren't doing anything but repeating a story. That's not a "data point", it's a story you heard. You don't seem to understand the difference between "factoids" and "data" or "evidence". Isolated anecdotes carry about as much weight as fish stories.

I didn't say anything about anything being "incredible", so it's clear to me that you really aren't even engaging the argument.

Respectfully, when you nicely say one is unlearned or ignorant. (" ... Seriously ... it doesn't ... to a degree which should be embarrassing, except you can't necessarily be faulted for not knowing what you don't know. "), it is attacking the person making the statement, and not the statement. No insult may be intended or implied. Only disregarding the information based on the presenter, definition of an ad hominem attack.

As for anecdotal information, similar stories came out of WWII. But sometimes the fish stories are true. It is just a point to consider. Nothing more.

Sometimes hard to believe information lies outside normally accepted wisdom. So much is lost in history, because it is not on the internet. Just lessons to be relearned. I am presenting points to consider, stating "Seriously" is not addressing the point, just stating lack of credibility of the statement, and thus, the credibility of the person making the statement.

[ZombieTactics]

Respectfully, when you nicely say one is unlearned or ignorant. (" ... Seriously ... it doesn't ... to a degree which should be embarrassing, except you can't necessarily be faulted for not knowing what you don't know. "), it is attacking the person making the statement, and not the statement. No insult may be intended or implied. Only disregarding the information based on the presenter, definition of an ad hominem attack.

If stating plainly and even kindly that you are simply wrong, and don't understand what you are talking about constitutes an "ad hominem" argument ... then nobody would ever be able to challenge anyone on anything. Stated simply, you're stretching the meaning of the term to a ridiculous degree. I spoke to the nature of your statements, and not simply to whether or not you are ignorant. Your statements fail on their own, regardless of whether you are ignorant.

As for anecdotal information, similar stories came out of WWII.

Similar anecdotes. An anecdote becomes no less so owing to it's period of history. Absent context or verification ... meaningless.

But sometimes the fish stories are true. It is just a point to consider. Nothing more.

They are more often false ... which makes them hardly a "point" at all. There isn't even anything there to "consider".

Sometimes hard to believe information lies outside normally accepted wisdom. So much is lost in history, because it is not on the internet. Just lessons to be relearned. I am presenting points to consider, stating "Seriously" is not addressing the point, just stating lack of credibility of the statement, and thus, the credibility of the person making the statement.

Frankly, you continue to demonstrate that you do not understand the nature of the discussion or what constitutes a rational argument. Your statements are not credible by the very nature of the fact that they are entirely anecdotal and lacking context or substance. It amounts to no more "data" than repeating that some people used to think the moon was made of green cheese, and that (as some still believe) influenza was caused by cold temperatures. If you don't understand that or feel insulted by that simple application of common sense, it makes it no less so. The insult is inferred on your part, not implied on mine. You'll forgive me for ignoring that which is demonstrably nonsense, and refusing to pretend otherwise for the sake of your ego. It's probably better if you stop digging.