9mm Effectiveness in Iraq

reply to post by ShadowXIX


It has been proven with soft body armor you can be shot with a .357 Mag at point blank range and return fire immediatly and accuratly you dont go to mush check the saves by second chance vests.

I am a former U.S. Marine rifleman (0311) and have personally witnessed the effectiveness of the 9mm round while serving over seas in Iraq. The 9mm offers the operator high capacity with superb accuracy. Handguns are side arms... Back up for if your primary weapon goes down. In that (desperate) situation, one wants as many rounds as possible to kill whoever needs killing. Accuracy and capacity are more important than "knock down power" (what ever that is) one shot drops are very uncommon, and I would never turn my back on a target that didn't have a minimum of a double tap regardless of caliber. Even as a primary weapon the 9mm is still an excellent choice because of (once again) accuracy and fast follow up shots. I hear people say that "you can hit a man in the hand with a .45 and he won't be getting up"... I would like to ask how many people they have shot lately? When people are in a fire fight their adrenalin is through the roof and their bodies respond in a variety of ways as bullets strike them. The first man I ever shot took three 5.56 rounds to the back but remained standing till a put another in his head. On the other hand I shot a man in the neck and he dropped right away but lived after my corpsman got to him. Back to the 9mm, for all the civilians talking about "knock down power" the 9mm is also great because you can find it almost anywhere in the world, its cheap, and when your not fighting overseas you can use hollow point ammunition. Also the fact that it is cheap (almost half as much as .45 ammo) you can practice twice as much for half the price. Practice is what pays off when your being shot at. If I were given the choice of any sidearm to carry in every type of environment, either for offensive or defensive combat applications it would be a 9mm hands down.

For combat use I have to agree with you, but for most of us who might run into a very rare gun fight with one person, the bigger the better.

On the subject of rounds designed to cause "unnecessary suffering", why do the Americans use .50 Armor Peircing Incendiary rounds while abstaining from the use of hollow-points? I thought that in calibers below 20mm explosive rounds were banned. Why not forgo the Hague Convention entirely and use whatever it takes to get the job done?

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
On the subject of rounds designed to cause "unnecessary suffering", why do the Americans use .50 Armor Peircing Incendiary rounds while abstaining from the use of hollow-points? I thought that in calibers below 20mm explosive rounds were banned. Why not forgo the Hague Convention entirely and use whatever it takes to get the job done?

API is not an explosive round. The primary role of the API is to allow the firer to observe the fall of shot at ranges beyond tracer burnout, as the round creates a flash when it impacts the target. Secondary effects include the ability to ignite the fuel tanks of petrol engines etc. However this is unreliable.

Hey, I'm the former Marine from four posts back... I appreciate that you are sticking to the topic of the thread unlike many who have posted here. I am interested in why you say that in a one-on-one gunfight "bigger is better". I have to respectfully disagree. I am sure that you did not mean a 50 cal. when you said "bigger is better" and can only assume that you mean a larger (than 9mm) pistol caliber, like a .45, .44 magnum, maybe even a .40 cal?... I have to stick to and defend my rationale from earlier. Most one on one gunfights happen at very close quarters i.e. 21 ft. or usually much less. In such cases one is under tremendous stress and it is training, accuracy and fast follow up shots that will end the fight. A poorly placed shot will not stop an attacker set on taking your life. A poorly placed shot will achieve the same thing, .45 or 9mm, a wounded and ever more pissed off and determined attacker. It is a fact that one can fire faster and more accurately with a 9mm because of the reduced recoil. I am sure there are some of you that will swear that your ‘trusty .45’ works better for you than anything else and you would not trust your life to anything else. I say great, use it. However, I believe that armed with a 9mm one still has the advantages of faster follow-up shots, extreme accuracy, and greater capacity… making it the best caliber for a sidearm. I have already mentioned what I feel about the mythological “stopping power”. At close ranges you either make an accurate shot that will kill your attacker, or you will miss/wound the attacker and (possibly) be killed. 9mm or .45, it won’t make a difference if it’s a flesh wound. I will again add that because the ammo is cheap you will be able to practice more for less. In a close quarters battle when an adversary is rushing you, or is in very close proximity to you, you want to get as many accurate shots on target as quickly as possible. Yes, one can achieve fast shots on target with a .45 or a .44, but it is simply a fact that it can be done faster with a 9mm. You cannot count on only having an encounter with one or more adversaries and the capacity of a 9mm leaves one more prepared for whatever you may come up against. Like I said earlier, if I had to choose any round to carry in a sidearm in any situation, either combat or CCW with all the options out there, it is hands down the 9mm. Semper Fi.

I'm the former Marine from a couple posts back... I appreciate that you are sticking to the topic of the thread unlike many who have posted here. I am interested in why you say that in a one-on-one gunfight "bigger is better". I have to respectfully disagree. I am sure that you did not mean a 50 cal. when you said "bigger is better" and can only assume that you mean a larger (than 9mm) pistol caliber, like a .45, .44 magnum, maybe even a .40 cal?... I have to stick to and defend my rationale from earlier. Most one on one gunfights happen at very close quarters i.e. 21 ft. or usually much less. In such cases one is under tremendous stress and it is training, accuracy and fast follow up shots that will end the fight. A poorly placed shot will not stop an attacker set on taking your life. A poorly placed shot will achieve the same thing, .45 or 9mm, a wounded and ever more pissed off and determined attacker. It is a fact that one can fire faster and more accurately with a 9mm because of the reduced recoil. I am sure there are some of you that will swear that your ‘trusty .45’ works better for you than anything else and you would not trust your life to anything else. I say great, use it. However, I believe that armed with a 9mm one still has the advantages of faster follow-up shots, extreme accuracy (because of flatter trajectory), and greater capacity… making it the best caliber for a sidearm. I have already mentioned what I feel about the mythological “stopping power”. At close ranges you either make an accurate shot that will kill your attacker, or you will miss/wound the attacker and (possibly) be killed. 9mm or .45, it won’t make a difference if it’s a flesh wound. I will again add that because the ammo is cheap you will be able to practice more for less. In a close quarters battle when an adversary is rushing you, or is in very close proximity to you, you want to get as many accurate shots on target as quickly as possible. Yes, one can achieve fast shots on target with a .45 or a .44, but it is simply a fact that it can be done faster with a 9mm. You cannot count on only having an encounter with one or more adversaries and the capacity of a 9mm leaves one more prepared for whatever you may come up against. Like I said earlier, if I had to choose any round to carry in a sidearm in any situation, either combat or CCW with all the options out there, it is hands down the 9mm. Semper Fi.

Aye, I'd have to agree with this fella above. The use of a pistol in a military context is completely different to Joe Bloggs civvy, mainly because the pistol is not the primary weapon. A soldier is not usually alone - he will have a number of mates backing him up with a load of firepower. The pistol will generally be a secondary weapon once the primary (rifle) has failed for whatever reason. The pistol here is used to put fire down while on the move in order to get into a position that allows you to sort out your primary weapon. For this reason the soldier will want a weapon that he can shoot accurately and quickly up to 45m, with lots of rounds on tap to give him time to move to cover. This is my experience from a grand total of one time that I had to draw a pistol in combat, and those of my colleagues.

A civvy will want a weapon that can stop one or two adversaries with as few shots as possible. The same can probably be said of SF shooters, where the pistol is more likely to be used as a primary weapon. A conventiopnal soldier wants lots of pretty effective bullets to deliver a limited amount of short-term fire suppression.

Different tools for different rules.

The 45 is harder to control....remember you have to hit the target to be effective. You might be able to put two rounds of 9 mm into a perp before you hit him with a 45 (which means if he is armed you might be dead). The 10mm is the best pistol round but it will crack some frames. The FBI tried it and decided on the 40 sw which is the best all round (esp taking into acct availability). The 357 sig is souped up 9mm on the scale of a 10mm to 40 s&w...but I have never shot it. The advantage of a pistol is concealability/portability and wieldability in terms of changing your aim. But if you want something for home self defense, get a good shotgun. Nothing compares at close range short of a fully automatic weapon.

Give reasons as to why you think the 10mm is the best. I would say that the 10mm is an effective round but because it is much harder to find (say at a Wal-mart in Ohio) than a 9mm and it is also much more expensive, so unless your wealthy you will shoot less. You say it cracks frames, well that makes it less effective than the 9mm. The 9mm round has been tried and tested in the harshest of conditions. It is widely available and cheap. With a 10mm vs. a 9mm you will loose at least two round in the magazine... two rounds that in a fight for you life may be the difference between life and death. There are more pistols chambered in the 9mm round simply because it has proven itself to be very effective. In my opinion 9mm beats out the 10mm, the .45, and the .40 because it is just as accurate if not more so than most of these because of the flatter trajectory. With comparably sized handguns the capacity of a 9mm will top these. The recoil is less and follow up shots are much easier. Pistols are used at close ranges and accurate hits on target can be achieved more easily with the 9mm. You name it, (Penetration, follow up shots, capacity, availability, affordability) The only thing that these other calibers have on the 9mm is weight. (Something I would rather do without when carrying day in and day out) So unless you can't shoot accurately enough to kill a target (something that is only going to get worse with greater recoil). If this is the case you shouldn't be carrying a gun and a larger caliber is not going to help you... Carrying a 'Manly' caliber does nothing but broadcast that your trying to compensate for being cursed by the puberty fairy and may vary well cost you your life when you only got eight rounds and you need 15-20. Stick with the 9 and because of all of these advantages your chances of survival are greatly increased.

reply to post by PaddyInf


“Different tools for different rules”? When you use a weapon on somebody that is trying to attack and kill you with a knife, gun or ball bat, I say you have just entered into “a combat situation”. Someone is threatening your life and that someone needs killing quickly and effectively. What is the ‘different rules’ part? If anything, the 9mm is even better suited for CCW use because unlike a soldier, a civilian will not be carrying hundreds of rounds and like you said be around other armed professionals; the greater capacity of 9mm pistols will allow for greater protection no matter how many adversaries one might come up against. Who is to say you will only be threatened by one or two? Maybe there will be a gang of eight in which case you had better make eight perfect shots with your .45, good luck Rambo! Who is to say how many shots will be required to put an end to a threat or what that threat will be? You say with as few rounds as possible… I say be prepared for anything and more rounds means greater chances for survival. The dictionary definition (for precisions sake) of Combat (is): Fighting between armed forces. To take Action to reduce, destroy, or prevent something undesirable. Engage in a fight with. *Denoting a fight between two persons or parties. – From the French word Combattre - to come together to fight. Combat can be one on one, or fifty on one. The 9mm is an extremely effective round regardless of whether your sorting out a problem with your primary weapon (at which time your sidearm is your primary), or as a civilian delivering rapid well aimed shots at an attacker(s) rushing you from 10ft away in a CCW or home defense situation. The 9mm gives greater firepower because of greater capacity and the lighter recoil allows faster follow-up shots delivered with greater accuracy. Sticking to the topic of the effectiveness of the 9mm. I don’t see where the effectiveness of the 9mm is compromised whether battling in the sands of Iraq, or outside of a convenience store in any-town USA. More Special Forces carry the 9mm round both in the U.S. and throughout the world than any other caliber. To me that speaks volumes and I’ll continue to reach for the 9mm. The principles of carrying a 9mm remain the same no matter the use. Carrying a larger caliber gives users little tactical edge when one weighs the pros and cons. A larger caliber may create a larger wound channel, but a well-aimed shot is what will stop a threat, not carrying a cannon. A miss is a miss. Going with a larger caliber means a loss of overall capacity, greater recoil, slower follow-up shot time, etc. etc. When clearing a house in an offensive situation you want to go in ready for anything (15-20 rounds not 8-9 rounds). On the other hand, lugging around a larger caliber than necessary (and ignoring the effectiveness of the 9mm) is also a great way of revealing to the world that you are overcompensating for being cursed by the puberty fairy.

I was hoping to get some other people's opinions on this very issue and started a thread on it awhile back. There was no real agreement, as usual when ballistics are discussed. Here's the link.

Link

The Former Marine and Lcplkill are right on in my opinion. The 9mm is a very effective round. When examining ballistics or any of the other attributes of the nine millimeter there is little wonder to me why the nine millimeter is used by elite units around the world. Patty is just wrong. Combat use and carry use are not so different. What makes the the nine effective doesnt change.

reply to post by LcplKill


Good grief - that was a mouthfull, wasn't it? Take a breath and relax a bit. My points were as follows -

1. Most civillian shootings take place at close range, with an average of 2 people involved and 3-5 shots fired at a range of up to 7m. Here I can understand the reasoning behind larger bore and smaller capacity. The goal is for each round to do as much damage as possible with as few shots fired as possible. This is easier to justify in court. If there is a "gang of 8", then you are more in the sh1t than you know. You will either kill one or two with the rest doing a runner, or you will kill one or two and be shot to bits by their mates, because no matter how fast you are you aren't going to get off 8 well placed rounds in 8 different targets before at least one of them gets off a few shots. That's TV stuff.

2. I am a big fan of the 9mm round, and carried it for many years. I still carry it when deployed. 9mm is a killer. However there are more effective pistol rounds available. Your remark about the 9mm being the most common round among special forces is true, but many are switching to the .45ACP. The primary reason for this is that they are more likely to be relying on a pistol than the average infantryman. They therefore want each shot to be as effective as possible. A .45 causes more tissue damage than 9mm in equivalent bullet types. Simple as.

In summary - I love the 9mm. I would choose it in combat because it fires fast, fires accurately and fires lots before running dry. I also love the idea of my bullets doing as much damage as possible. Accurate shot placement is required for ANY pistol round. The .45ACP (for whatever reason) has been shown to require less rounds than 9mm to stop a given target in real life. A PPW needs to be able to stop a small number of targets quickly, because the chances are that it is the only weapon available at that time.

I'm happy carrying a 9mm. Many aren't. A pistol is already an underpowered compromise - lots of people don't want to compromise further on their choice of rounds. 9mm is a compromise between capacity & control vs individual round effectiveness.

Oh - and welcome to ATS!

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
The Former Marine and Lcplkill are right on in my opinion. The 9mm is a very effective round. When examining ballistics or any of the other attributes of the nine millimeter there is little wonder to me why the nine millimeter is used by elite units around the world. Patty is just wrong. Combat use and carry use are not so different. What makes the the nine effective doesnt change.

First, see my above reply to Lcplkill. I agree that the 9mm is a useful round.

Second, if you want to examine ballistics you should compare the energy levels produced by the 9mm/.45ACP. Then compare them both to any commonly used rifle round. You will see that the differences are massive. Pistols are underpowered. That's a simple fact. Pistols rely more on frontal surface area and permanent wound channel size than KE due to their relitively low velocities. Simply put, a larger frontal area is more effective. Hence pistol bullets are wider than rifle rounds, which rely on high velocities to do the damage.

Military users are restricted to ball rounds in pistols. There is no fancy bullet design to allow for expansion to create larger frontal areas. Therefore a larger bullet is required to maximise this.

Civillian users are not restricted to ball ammo and can usually utilise expanding ammunition (JHP, SJHP, EFMJ etc), thereby increasing the frontal area of the round, making smaller rounds almost as effective as larger ones.

So, as you can see, there is a great difference.

[edit on 31-12-2008 by PaddyInf]

reply to post by PaddyInf


Just recently found that there is some fresh blood back in this thread thanks to you and the Marines and I appreciate that. Remember the topic of this thread is the effectiveness of the 9mm. I got to say PaddyInf, sorry but you seem a little outgunned. Compare ballistics all you want but your ignoring the many other clear benefits of the 9mm as laid out in others arguments above. I know that you say you are happy with the 9mm but then your argument seems a little ungrounded. I agree with you that there are more individually impressive and effective pistol rounds, but as a total package (i.e. “capacity, accuracy, availability, quick follow-up shots”) it’s hard to top the overall ‘effectiveness’ of the 9mm. Yes, almost all pistol rounds are insufficient and pistols are generally underpowered. Yes the .45 is slightly larger than the 9mm and thus creates a slightly larger wound channel. Yes, when battling overseas we are restricted to ‘ball’ rounds, we all know this. But like you said, civilians do not have these restrictions and can carry all of the rapidly expanding ammunition currently available, which makes (“smaller rounds almost as effective as larger ones”). To me this just proves that switching to say a .45, still means you loose some serious firepower, for what? A similarly effective round? Why? In Iraq the usage of a 9mm pistol as a sidearm/offensive handgun offers bonuses because of greater capacity, follow-up shots and accuracy when compared to the .45 cal, or competing larger round. You said that “for whatever reason” when using the .45 it has been shown to require fewer rounds. I would say the reason is because with a 9mm you can shoot faster with greater accurately, not because the bullet is not an efficient killer. It just goes to show how many rounds you can quickly put in a target, proof of faster follow-up shots. For these reasons it’s the most effective compromise. I can see that there is a ‘great difference’; the 9mm can be used here in the states as a carry gun with HP ammo while carrying many more rounds and offering faster follow-up shots and comparable results to ‘larger rounds’. The great difference is very clear to me and overall effectiveness goes to the 9mm.

I'm not sure how many have actually used a handgun in combat, because it is certainly not the recommended procedure.

However, I was compelled to on numerous occasions in tight quarters, and I don't give a damn how many rounds a handgun carries, only hits count.

Every single time I nailed someone with a .45, there was no need for a followup shot, as frequently may be necessary with a 9mm, or .40, or 10mm.

There's a reason that the FBI and Special Ops are using the .45. You see, if you carry 15 rounds of 9mm and need to double-tap, then that's seven perps. You nail the SOB the first time with a .45 and you don't need to put two in his chest and one in his punkin.

Seven in my .45, and I don't have to worry about them getting back up. So all that additional ammo is - a wash.

The good part is, it doesn't matter if it's ball ammo for the .45, it will knock that SOB down if you do your part. If you compare the .45 with ball against a .40 with trick ammo, then that's not really much of a comparison. Put that same trick ammo in a .45, and watch the terminal ballistics tear a hole out of someone as big as your fist.

And on the record, the 5.56 absolutely sucks. .308 rules.

reply to post by dooper


Dooper, let me guess your with Delta Force right? Or maybe a CIA assassin? How about a ninja...? I am sure you are full of #. I did two tours with 3/5 India Company in Iraq before being wounded in Fallujah. I have had the great displeasure of having to use my rifle in combat and have witnessed many deaths with a variety of weapons. When people get shot they do not get 'knocked down', unless a spine or head shot, and even then they often remain standing for several seconds. Just ask my brother Lcpl. Greg Rund that was shot seven times, three in the head and four in the body with an AK-47 before he fell and died. Being blown away only happens in the movies you have been watching. So you had a .45 in combat huh? Funny since they are almost non-existent except with a few elite forces... But that's right your a Green Beret right. More like Mickey Mouse. So next time you want to play a bad ass in cyberspace think before you write because for those of us that have had to actually make a sacrifice and do the things you only watch on T.V. we can easily see that you are full of #. Dooper, GO # YOURSELF!

To all others, sorry. I hope we can resume this very interesting thread.

Dooper get off the thread you suck. You are a poser and don't know what your talking about.

Paddy,

I must slightly disagree with you in one respect. You are very familiar with the 9mm pistol. I am not sure if it was to you with whom I was corresponding on this forum some time back who stated that they liked or preferred the Browning Hi-power.
Do they not call this the FN pistol now days??

I dont think the average shooter/civilian is all that familiar with their sidearm to the extent of yourself or others who have depended on arms, teamates, and their dicipliines for thier very survival. For most on here it is a matter of academic debate..for you and a few others on here it is experience ...hard earned..not in classrooms or laboratory conditions.

However..I do agree with you in something you stated on another post. It is the training and experience...comfortability with the tool Whatever tool it is with which one is comfortable/familiar. Train with such and become familiar.

I personally like the .45ACP and sometimes carry one. I have on my hip right now a four inch, vent rib .357 magnum. I just like revolvers most of the time and prefer to carry one ..for simplicity and reliability. I keep speed loaders with me.

Someone made a good point about the inexpensiveness of 9mm ammunition for practice. One cannot boast the same about the costs of the .45ACP. I make inexpensive practice reloads for my .45ACP due to these very costs. Carry ammuntion is factory JHP and hardball mix.
Also correct again about the mix of ammunition types available to the civilian market...verses the military...in almost any caliber.

I practice with my .357 and mostly using inexpensive .38 Specials... and mostly reloads. Carry ammunition is the factory .357 magnum 125 grain JHP.

Agree with the posters who stated that for a soldier in the field the handgun is not thier primary weapon. I like the rifle or shotgun more than a handgun but also understand the practicality of the handgun for civilians and concealability.

THere have been a number of accidental discharges in the Navy with thier Berretta 9mm pistols when changing watchs on the ships. For awhile they were having to stick the pistol into some kind of heavy duty can when loading and unloading before handing the pistol to the oncoming watch at the gangway. I couldn't help myself with laughing to see someone reading the procedure manual and loading/unloading the pistol with the barrel into the heavy duty can. I reckon I am just not accustomed to such...but it gives new meaning to "by the book." But that is what one does when there have been to many accidents.
Hows that for giving one the warm fuzzy feelings of confidence??
Where's that darned procedure..I need to lace up my boots???!!

Thanks to all for thier posts,
Orangetom


[edit on 1-1-2009 by orangetom1999]