Quote:
Originally Posted by ImportConvert
I really think 9mm is where it's at. The bad rap that it got came from:
a)poor marksmanship (lots of thugs just pointing and clicking, not many people die that way)
b)sub-standard ammunition in the 80's
c)a lot of people who want to cite .38 revolver performance on a far away island using ball ammunition compared to .45 LC revolver performance also using ball ammunition.
d)appeals to many different logical fallacies too numerous to name.
Using modern JHP ammunition, the 9mm will get the job done, and you can't put a price on more chances to hit your target when actual hit percentages in gunfights are so low.
|
The terminal ballistics of 9mm just don't hold up to .40 S&W, but IMHO those are mostly laboratory findings. I agree with you that many, many people blame the round when tactics and shot placement are the real culprits. The superiority of .40 gets a little thin in real-world shootings these days, but the basis of .40 S&W of course was the 1986 Miami FBI shootout. The FBI's basis for switching to the 10mm round (then later the .40 S&W when they saw the negatives of the 10mm blast and recoil) was the medical examiner's report. His rather exhaustive analysis made mention of the very remarkable accuracy of the FBI agents, especially under fire, but that the 9mm rounds just weren't having the incapacitating effect that they would have expected from the shot placement. The thing that makes me a little skeptical is that the first gunman took a shot to the chest right off the bat which collapsed his lung and hit his pulmonary artery. That wasn't a survivable wound, but most of the injuries and deaths he inflicted occurred after that wound. I doubt that a .40 cal would have made him die any faster.