Why Nine?

[Robert*PPS]

I'm a niner! All my friends carry .40s. That's cool. I outshot all but one on the CHL qualifier, and the one that beat me did so by only 1 point and was shooting full-size 1911 9mm vs my compact PPS.

[jmra]

I'm a niner! All my friends carry .40s. That's cool. I outshot all but one on the CHL qualifier, and the one that beat me did so by only 1 point and was shooting full-size 1911 9mm vs my compact PPS.

A persons score on the CHL qualifier has nothing to do with the size of the lead they are sending down range. It has everything to do with form and practice.

[LTUME1978]

This is an interesting article. I am not sure that I agree with everything that the author had to say though. In the questions/answers that follow, he makes the statement that the 45 is a slower cycling pistol than a 9mm. I am not sure how he arrived at that conclusion. I shoot IDPA and practice with a shot timer. I shot my M&P 45 for a couple of years then switched to my M&P 9 when I started working as a SO. In practice, I never saw a difference in my splits between the two calibers. Both ran about 0.2 seconds at 7 yards with good accuracy. Also never saw any difference is time when shooting from retention at 2-3 yards (splits even faster). While one may cycle a very small fraction of a second faster, if you can't accurately take advantage of that time, it means nothing to me. I have noticed that I shot my 45 more accurately and faster in matches than I have ever shot the 9mm and will go back to it once the Nationals and the Crosstimbers regional match are behind us this fall. The only stage I ever won at PSC was with my 45 (and I was shooting SSP with it at the time). I have not even come close to winning a stage with my 9mm. While my full size 9 will hold more ammo than my full size 45, my 45 is still my preferred choice for carry. That may be because I have more confidence that I can shoot that pistol better.

I still struggle somewhat with a single round of 9 being just as effective as a 45. In reality, there may be no actual difference in performance but, in theory, it does not add up if both bullets remain in the body (this is the engineer in me talking now). I have read a number articles on shootings but, thankfully, have no actual experience with that activity. I will continue to read about the experiences of others and let my opinions on what to carry continue to develop with that information.

Thank you to all for sharing your thoughts on this article as well.

[SpringerFan]

Preachin to the choir, brother. While I still love the .45acp, my carry and nightstand guns have been 9s for years. Occasionally I carry a .380 when deep concealment is required, but the xdsc9 is my edc whenever possible. Sold all my 40s, fell out of love with that caliber. All the handguns on my wish list are either 9 or 45. (with a few .22s thrown in there for my son)

[w squared]

It is all about shot placement, placement, placement, which comes down to regular, focused, practice.

Yep. Placement and penetration - repeat as required. Everything else is fluff.

Big holes are somewhat better than small holes...they let more air in, and more fluids out. The thing is that a small hole in the right place is LOTS better than a big hole in the wrong place. If you are able to put small holes in the right place more quickly and reliably than you are able to put big holes in the right place, then do what you have to do in order to put those holes where they need to be.

Big hole, small hole, where it's placed - none of it matters if it won't penetrate enough to reach the spot where to hole does more than just fluid out. If penetration were not an issue, everyone would be carrying .22LR pistols with 30 round magazines.

[MechAg94]

Looking at the 5 arguments

1. I think this one is wishful thinking in part. I want my first few or several hits to do the job. I am no expert but I really doubt I am going to get a chance at more than a few hits. I can't help thinking that if you are firing so fast that you shoot 17 or 14 rounds into the target, you are probably not shooting as accurately as you could.

2. I can see the logic in this. 40 is often very snappy and harder to shoot quickly. However, I think that has more to do with the pistol and the shooter. Not all pistols recoil the same way and some shooters handle it better than others. The XDm 40 I have shot actually tends to recoil straight back into the web of your hand. Still heavy, but more manageable than others I have shot.

3. Capacity is the big argument. No doubt that for any size range, you will generally have more 9mm than larger calibers. It is a trade off, but you have to ask how many rounds you are likely to need. Carry extra mags.

4. Not sure what to say here. Maybe that department needs to choose better 40 ammo. Choosing good ammo is key no matter what you carry.

5. Well, bigger is still bigger wether it is only 1mm or more. Back to the accuracy comments, any hole is better than no hole (for shooting). Make your shots count, don't use capacity as a crutch for bad accuracy.

Not disagreeing so much as questioning some of it. Lately, have been switching carry guns between an XDs 45 and an XDm 9mm. 6 rounds versus 20.

[bdickens]

I still struggle somewhat with a single round of 9 being just as effective as a 45. In reality, there may be no actual difference in performance but, in theory, it does not add up if both bullets remain in the body (this is the engineer in me talking now). I have read a number articles on shootings but, thankfully, have no actual experience with that activity. I will continue to read about the experiences of others and let my opinions on what to carry continue to develop with that information.

Thank you to all for sharing your thoughts on this article as well.

You're forgetting that there is more to it than just bullet size and weight. There is also velocity. A smaller bullet traveling at a higher velocity can have the same kinetic energy as a larger bullet traveling at a slower velocity.

[OldCannon]

I still struggle somewhat with a single round of 9 being just as effective as a 45. In reality, there may be no actual difference in performance but, in theory, it does not add up if both bullets remain in the body (this is the engineer in me talking now). I have read a number articles on shootings but, thankfully, have no actual experience with that activity. I will continue to read about the experiences of others and let my opinions on what to carry continue to develop with that information.

Thank you to all for sharing your thoughts on this article as well.

You're forgetting that there is more to it than just bullet size and weight. There is also velocity. A smaller bullet traveling at a higher velocity can have the same kinetic energy as a larger bullet traveling at a slower velocity.

True, which is also why a 5.56mm cartridge does so much damage in spite of being an itty-bitty bullet.

[Robert*PPS]

I'm a niner! All my friends carry .40s. That's cool. I outshot all but one on the CHL qualifier, and the one that beat me did so by only 1 point and was shooting full-size 1911 9mm vs my compact PPS.

A persons score on the CHL qualifier has nothing to do with the size of the lead they are sending down range. It has everything to do with form and practice.

Yes I agree, and that's actually my point. I was attempting to point out the fact that shot placement is more important than bullet size.

[Excaliber]

I still struggle somewhat with a single round of 9 being just as effective as a 45. In reality, there may be no actual difference in performance but, in theory, it does not add up if both bullets remain in the body (this is the engineer in me talking now). I have read a number articles on shootings but, thankfully, have no actual experience with that activity. I will continue to read about the experiences of others and let my opinions on what to carry continue to develop with that information.

Thank you to all for sharing your thoughts on this article as well.

You're forgetting that there is more to it than just bullet size and weight. There is also velocity. A smaller bullet traveling at a higher velocity can have the same kinetic energy as a larger bullet traveling at a slower velocity.

True, which is also why a 5.56mm cartridge does so much damage in spite of being an itty-bitty bullet.

There's a bit more at play here.

The FBI tests revealed that kinetic energy did not correlate to terminal effectiveness, but deep penetration and bigger holes, whether from initial caliber or projectile expansion, do. Expansion of recently manufactured premium hollowpoints is much more likely than with earlier types and today's 9mm rounds are far better than the ones originally tested by the FBI, but expansion during actual use is still a long ways from being a sure thing.

Velocity becomess a major factor when supersonic speeds are involved. Once that threshold is passed the temporary cavity that appears at impact actually damages organs. That's why rifle rounds, even in small calibers like 5.56, are so devastating. Most pistol ammunition is not supersonic, and the FBI tests also revealed that the temporary cavity they create does not contribute significantly to terminal effectiveness.

[bdickens]

Looking at the 5 arguments

1. I think this one is wishful thinking in part. I want my first few or several hits to do the job. I am no expert but I really doubt I am going to get a chance at more than a few hits. I can't help thinking that if you are firing so fast that you shoot 17 or 14 rounds into the target, you are probably not shooting as accurately as you could.
....

5. Well, bigger is still bigger wether it is only 1mm or more. Back to the accuracy comments, any hole is better than no hole (for shooting). Make your shots count, don't use capacity as a crutch for bad accuracy.

Not disagreeing so much as questioning some of it. Lately, have been switching carry guns between an XDs 45 and an XDm 9mm. 6 rounds versus 20.

Don't make the mistake of confusing bullseye accuracy with combat accuracy.

Let's not tiptoe around what our purposes are in this particular context. This is about shooting people who are trying to kill or maim us, not about getting perfect scores on bullseyes.

Rob Pincus defines combat accuracy as "any shot that significantly diminishes the target’s ability to continue to present a lethal threat."

The commonly accepted wisdom is that "a hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .45." That's all well and good, but let's turn that on it's head for a moment. By the above definition, if you shoot at an attacker with a .22 and it nicks him in the arm - or even misses completely - but he turns tail and flees, that one shot would be defined as "combat accurate." Conversely, if you put eight .45 ACP rounds through a single hole in his heart, but he ends up hurting or even killing you before he finally dies himself, none of those shots would be "combat accurate."

We don't want to be "as accurate as we can be" so much as "accurate enough." In reality, multiple rounds spaced over a wider area are going to do more damage, and therefore be more likely to stop the threat, than multiple rounds through the same hole. This sounds counterintuitive, but it turns out that sloppier shooting can actually be better, in a way.

The case can therefore be made that if your shot groups are tight, you are not shooting as fast as you should.

This brings us to the concept of "the balance between speed and precision." In a nutshell, distance to the target, size of the target and your own ability determine that. A farther or smaller target (say, a head shot to a psychopath hiding behind a hostage) requires you to be more precise, which means slowing down. A closer target (say, someone on top of you cracking your head against the concrete) requires you to be faster.

[MechAg94]

bdickens, I agree with your "combat accurate" thoughts. However, if you are good enough to put 8 consecutive rounds through the heart of a live, moving target, you really need to reevaluate your target selection.

For most of us, any hit is a good hit. I guess my main problem with that #1 argument was that you very unlikely to be able to just stand there an unload your gun on the target. First, the target will likely move, and 2nd, you really should be moving.

[LAYGO]

That article and this video have made me consider calibers as well. Doctor giving presentation on pistol vs rifle wounds (which I know have made it's rounds here):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tku8YI68-JA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also, I read an article from Ayoob on 9 being effective as well.

I'm thinking about getting a M&P9c for another option in carrying. (I'm an M&P whore, I can't help it. MADE IN THE USA!)

[fickman]

I think you should all switch to 9mm. . . that way there's plenty of .40 on the shelves for me during the next panic!