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

[ZombieTactics]

Yes, it is confusing.

It's a long thread, things can get lost in the shuffle. Being misunderstood is never fun, lol.

A suggested read http://www.thegunzone.com/buzzwords.html . ...

The GunZone blog stuff is always good reading.

[elSquid]

I'm pretty confused.

This is a 20 year old paper written by a member of the FBIs Firearms Training Unit:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

It is a pretty good overview of the subject.

-- Michael

[socal44]

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

You got that right!

[ZombieTactics]

This is a 20 year old paper written by a member of the FBIs Firearms Training Unit:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

It is a pretty good overview of the subject.

-- Michael

It's a classic. The "Allure of Shooting Analysis" section was an early eye-opener for me.

[Super Spy]

1. Ammo Prices
2. Smallest round that's truly effective for defense....though I'd still want a little more,

[Freq18Hz]

No, I simply laid out what is well known to the respect that the testimony of those who have experienced a violent encounter is almost always very inaccurate.

No, see above.

It's not. There are other, better ways of determining real-world effectiveness of various rounds/calibers. If you have the time to read the rest of what I have written in this thread, you'll be less confused.

I'm a proponent of the notion that - in the 9/40/45 range - there isn't a significant difference. I am of the mind that people should be far more concerned about mindset, tactics & skills than chasing some marginal (and mostly imaginary) superiority of one caliber over another. We'd all be better served by taking a training course or 2 every year and more dry-press and/or range time.

In fact Sir, I've read everything you've posted. I've watched your videos. I've followed your links, and done research of my own. Read every FBI study you've referred to, as well as the debunking articles (which btw provide no alternate info of their own, they just merely show why existing studies are flawed).

No one has missed anything that you've said in the shuffle.

Ego's aside, I'm going to cut to the chase. You've done a lot of talking, and said a lot of things, even some of them contradictory in nature. None of them have any unique information originating from you as evidence to support them.

You say that they are similarly effective. Where's your proof?

You've discounted ballistic gelatin. You cite responses to studies that point out that the study is flawed, and therefore useless.

You've made comments that direct experience can't be translated properly due to the stressful nature of incidents and recalling them (which makes sense).

Basically, I see all your info as a lack thereof, merely pointing to the fact that no accurate, measurable data exists to show any significant difference.

I call horse pucky fud on the ability to verify the validity of virtually everything you've said except two things:

1) stressful incidents are not always re-counted properly
2) training is the most important thing

In regards to everything else, not only does it go against common sense, it also defies everything people knew about bullets before the internet was around.

As far as I can tell, the only thing the evidence you've provided shows, is that in incidents where people weren't stopped by a bullet, caliber didn't matter.

Being that you (to my knowledge) have zero experience in gun fights, or killing human beings in self defense with a firearm, I don't think you are qualified to make any statements on the subject.

With that, I will also withdraw everything I've previously mentioned, being that I have no translatable first hand experience either.

FWIW, I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just saying that in light of everything you've said, you aren't in a position to know how right or wrong you are.

Not attempting to incite any hostilities here, merely calling it as I see it. My comments are made in good faith, and with respect. I appreciate your articulate responses, and I've enjoyed your videos.

-Freq

[Z.1]

I have a 9mm because it was my first gun. Ammo was cheaper than the others, and stopping power was "good enough".

Of course, after shooting for several years, I want one of everything!

[ElvenSoul]

If your bored w/ 9x19 step up to 9x23

[ZombieTactics]

Ego's aside, I'm going to cut to the chase. You've done a lot of talking, and said a lot of things, even some of them contradictory in nature. None of them have any unique information originating from you as evidence to support them.

I'd appreciate the opportunity to address anything you find contradictory. I don't think I've claimed any unique knowledge.

You say that they are similarly effective. Where's your proof?

I base this opinion mostly upon the notion that nobody can show any difference in actual shooting incidents. I don't claim "proof" per se, but only that certain kinds of evidence are more believable than others.

You've discounted ballistic gelatin. You cite responses to studies that point out that the study is flawed, and therefore useless.

Hmmm ... I don't think BG testing is useless, only that it's not the end-all/be-all final word on the subject. I think it provides a reasonably good test for basic tissue penetration, assuming people keep in mind what BG really is and how it works. IMHO, It's pretty lousy as a medium for testing temp/perm cavity, fragmentation or JHP expansion.

You've made comments that direct experience can't be translated properly due to the stressful nature of incidents and recalling them (which makes sense).

I think that most people assume otherwise, which is unfortunate and frustrating. The evidence all but proves that this kind of direct testimony is extremely inaccurate. My comments are not unsupported in this respect, as it's nearly universal knowledge among experts in the field. I can point you to several books if you'd like, and maybe the earlier linked FBI report is a good place to start.

Basically, I see all your info as a lack thereof, merely pointing to the fact that no accurate, measurable data exists to show any significant difference.

Well, if you accept the fact that there is no accurate, measurable data indicating a significant difference ... I wonder what the beef is. I don't think I've pretended otherwise.

I call horse pucky fud on the ability to verify the validity of virtually everything you've said except two things:

1) stressful incidents are not always re-counted properly
2) training is the most important thing

Again if you accept "the fact that no accurate, measurable data exists to show any significant difference" ... what's the argument?

In regards to everything else, not only does it go against common sense, it also defies everything people knew about bullets before the internet was around.

To what common sense argument do you refer which should be taken more seriously than that which can be demonstrated scientifically?

As far as I can tell, the only thing the evidence you've provided shows, is that in incidents where people weren't stopped by a bullet, caliber didn't matter.

There's no actual evidence that caliber matters (in the 9/40/45 range) where people were stopped either.

Being that you (to my knowledge) have zero experience in gun fights, or killing human beings in self defense with a firearm, I don't think you are qualified to make any statements on the subject.

That would put me in the same category as 95% of LEO. I think I've adequately spoken as to why this straw-man is a dead end. I've been shot once, and it really doesn't give me any special perspective on the subject at hand.

With that, I will also withdraw everything I've previously mentioned, being that I have no translatable first hand experience either.

Neither you or I have been to the moon, but I'll bet we both could make a bunch of factual statements regarding it. With a few simple tools and a bit of math, we could prove them for ourselves.

FWIW, I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just saying that in light of everything you've said, you aren't in a position to know how right or wrong you are.

Your suggestion seems to be that unless I have been in a gunfight (maybe several?), I cannot know anything about terminal ballistics, or logically analyze information from various sources. Given that it can be proven that people in gunfights don't even remember what-the-hell happened ... who do you suggest is a qualified expert?

Not attempting to incite any hostilities here, merely calling it as I see it. My comments are made in good faith, and with respect. I appreciate your articulate responses, and I've enjoyed your videos.

I don't get insulted, as it's a waste of time, lol. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.

My position remains that in the 9/40/45 range ... there is no significant difference. I have reasons to believe so, and cannot find any reason to believe otherwise. If some evidence comes along one way or the other, I am happy to either change my opinion or have it reinforced.

[DannyZRC]

The Absence of Evidence is not the Evidence of Absence

just' sayin.

(SFW, but contains Samual L. Jackson bleeped swearing. be warned)

[elSquid]

Hmmm ... I don't think BG testing is useless, only that it's not the end-all/be-all final word on the subject. I think it provides a reasonably good test for basic tissue penetration, assuming people keep in mind what BG really is and how it works. IMHO, It's pretty lousy as a medium for testing temp/perm cavity, fragmentation or JHP expansion.

Calibrated ballistic gel has been the standard test medium for 20+ years. This is what ammunition manufacturers use to develop, test and market modern expanding loads. Without question, this is why we have the current JHP designs we see today, and why their performance is markedly better than what was available in the past.

According to you though, it's a lousy medium for testing. What's a better choice, and why?

-- Michael

[Jack L]

Calibrated ballistic gel has been the standard test medium for 20+ years. This is what ammunition manufacturers use to develop, test and market modern expanding loads. Without question, this is why we have the current JHP designs we see today, and why their performance is markedly better than what was available in the past.

According to you though, it's a lousy medium for testing. What's a better choice, and why?

-- Michael

The only thing that may be better would be to use cadavers. Cadavers are used to test for trauma, why not use them for GSWs too? Makes sense.

[xxINKxx]

Low recoil
The round is big enough to be effective for defence
Cost is reasonable for most
Availibility
Not too huge, so its lighter and you can carry or load more into your guns

[ZombieTactics]

Calibrated ballistic gel has been the standard test medium for 20+ years. This is what ammunition manufacturers use to develop, test and market modern expanding loads.

It's important to note that BG was never intended to test anything besides penetration. (Note FBI penetration tests in BG) It's OK for that purpose, when used under calibrated conditions. Manufacturers use it more for marketing purposes than anything else, and frequently set up their test beds with less than "calibrated" methodologies. It's interesting to note that FBI penetration testing has EIGHT testing events, and that hardly anyone is aware of or discusses events 2 through 8 ... only event #1: bare BG @ 10 feet.

Without question, this is why we have the current JHP designs we see today, and why their performance is markedly better than what was available in the past.

I think it's A reason, but not THE reason. Bare BG doesn't tell you how layers of cotton, silk, denim, leather, etc. affect penetration, fragmentation or expansion, and they've had to figure out ways to test/design for these as well.

According to you though, it's a lousy medium for testing. What's a better choice, and why?

I don't recall if I used the word "lousy", but it might be too strong a term. It tests what it tests. It's OK for penetration. BG - being a common colloid - doesn't account for critical factors like viscoelasticity. This is one reason why recovered rounds don't seem to perform anything at all like they do in BG testing.

There's a material called Sim-Test which claims to be better. The density and viscosity are better than BG, at least from published specs. It also appears to be less sensitive to humidity, temperature and air pressure than BG. I don't know much more about it, so I don't have enough info to even form a decent opinion about it.

There are artificial cadavers which would work as excellent test models ... they're just really expensive and time-consuming to maintain. I suspect this is why they aren't used more.

I don't think it necessary to have a "perfect" test model to get useful results. It's just important to know how your model works and what it can reasonably be said to test ... or not.

I have a background in metrology (NOT meteorology, lol) and as such have a better than average grasp of how to test/measure things ... and how to spot when something isn't tested/measured well. That doesn't make me "THE EXPERT" on any of this, and some of it is likely a bit on the "inside baseball" side of things ... but I have to go with what I know. Don't take anything I say as having more weight than a reasonably well-informed opinion.

[InGrAM]

It's important to note that BG was never intended to test anything besides penetration. It's OK for that purpose, when used under calibrated conditions. Manufacturers use it more for marketing purposes than anything else, and frequently set up their test beds with less than "calibrated" methodologies.

I think it's A reason, but not THE reason. BG doesn't tell you how layers of cotton, silk, denim, leather, etc. affect penetration, fragmentation or expansion, and they've had to figure out ways to test/design for these as well.

I don't recall if I used the word "lousy", but it might be too strong a term. It tests what it tests. It's OK for penetration. BG - being a common colloid - doesn't account for critical factors like viscoelasticity. This is one reason why recovered rounds don't seem to perform anything at all like they do in BG testing.

There's a material called Sim-Test which claims to be better. The density and viscosity are better than BG, at least from published specs. It also appears to be less sensitive to humidity, temperature and air pressure than BG. I don't know much more about it, so I don't have enough info to even form a decent opinion about it.

There are artificial cadavers which would work as excellent test models ... they're just really expensive and time-consuming to maintain. I suspect this is why they aren't used more.

I don't think it necessary to have a "perfect" test model to get useful results. It's just important to know how your model works and what it can reasonably be said to test ... or not.

I have a background in metrology (NOT meteorology, lol) and as such have a better than average grasp of how to test/measure things ... and how to spot when something isn't tested/measured well. That doesn't make me "THE EXPERT" on any of this, and some of it is likely a bit on the "inside baseball" side of things ... but I have to go with what I know. Don't take anything I say as having more weight than a reasonably well-informed opinion.

Ya, its called throwing a shirt over some BG and shooting at it. People do it all the time. Watch the history channel for a day and I am SURE you will see at least one person do this.

I am not saying that .45 or other calibers are better than 9mm I am just saying you are a SCREAMING 9mm fan boy. Have fun trying to convert people that do not want to be converted.