Do you think 9mm is this bad?

[JamesBell]

On another forum, a forensic pathologist from Atlanta voices his very low regard for the 9mm and .380 rounds. There is some great stuff in the thread, but I just wondered what you all would think about it.


http://smith-wessonforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/550103904/m/5471026821/p/1

[Michael Brown]

No.

9mm is not bad at all in the premium defensive loadings.

The problem with the listed thread is the guy doing the autopsy has NO IDEA how effective a bullet is because he only sees dead people and has little idea how they succumbed to their wounds.

The other issue is that he made no mention of bullet type.

If you have to use FMJ ammo, 45 and 44 are the way to go.

Since we have the opportunity to carry quality defensive ammunition, it all comes out in the wash.

Michael Brown

[YukonGlocker]

1. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
2. As MB said, there was no mention of bullet type. In all the defensive calibers 9mm and larger, there is not much difference if you use premium defensive ammo.
3. Every shooting is different. Some guys will take about 10 .45 bullets, and then continue to pose a threat. Some guys will drop dead with a single .22 bullet. Every situation is different.
4. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.:wink2:

[JamesBell]

He does talk about bullet type some later in the thread. He manages to let it be known that he doesn't think Hydrashock is a very good round, and that he loves Gold Dot. But, for the most part, he does ignore any differences in bullets, especially in 9mm and .380. And, of course he only sees the dead victims. He doesn't get the chance to look at a person that is shot eight times with .45 and continues the fight. All that said, I still thought it was an interesting thread, at least what I have read. I'm still only on page 8!

[Michael Brown]

Its interesting, but it really doesn't offer anything. Its kinda like most gun magazines; interesting but no real good information.

I'm going to speculate that he probably hasn't seen enough wounds with ANY type of bullet to make any definitive statements about bullet type effectiveness.

there just aren't enough shootings in any one jurisdiction to offer an educated opinion as to one bullet type's effectiveness over another.

Ballistic gelatin does one thing better than any other testing medium: It lets us have enough of a database to be able to make comparisons and educated guesses.

don't read too much into the statements in that thread.

Michael Brown

[GMThunder]

I only read about 4pgs due to time but I wonder if he's taken into account that most BGs don't use premium ammo as MB stated. Maybe he will address this later... I'll keep reading.

[NikatKimber]

he did get into hydra shock and gold dot. i only read 5 or 6 pgs, but he didn't say much. said that he hadn't seen a whole lot of them. he said he carries gold dot. he did say specifically that he hardly ever sees handloads. you and JP were talking about the temporary cavitation, he mentions that when he is talking about rifle rounds, and said that it doesn't seem to become a serious factor until over 2500 fps. I don't know how true that is.

[J.P.]

The 2000fps is supposedly where tissue begins to tear as it is stretched beyond it's elastic limit.the problem is that humans are made up of tissues of varying densities.
While I do feel honestly that caliber wars refrence handgun rounds are largely splitting hairs,I think there are some loads/calibers that are more optimal than others.
Assuming you get an acceptable level of penetration and reliable expansion,a higher energy cartridge has the advantage,I believe,regardless of what some experts say.Again,this is assuming all things equal.
There is a popular notion that temporary cavitation means nothing in the real world but I reject that notion.It certainly is not something that should be relied upon to stop someone but I believe it has merit.
Going back to the other thread,I think the validity of the temporary cavity is related to an increase in felt pain.
Some may feel it,some may not.
In the ones that do,it could make a difference.

A higher energy round does more visible damage than an equal lower energy round as well.
I have seen this proven firsthand in animals shot with various handgun rounds and in what limited testing I've done,a large amout of which isn't posted anywhere.
I'll try to prove this in the future when I complete a decent street relavent test model.Wetpack and gel are not good models but simply a means to compare rounds against one another as MB stated.

I'm not a firm believer that 'energy dump' should take precedence over evrything else which is what people tend to believe any time you dare utter the word 'energy' ;)
Apples to apples,more energy equals more damage,more reliable expansion,and sometimes more reliable functioning.
I wouldn't run out and select a carry round based soley on the energy numbers but again,if it meets other criteria,go for it.
The problem is that in a lot of bullet designs there is a tradeoff situation where you sacrifice penetration.How much is actually needed is a subject for debate and also depends on the application.
If you have dead-on unimpeded shots against a lightly clothed BG,you obviously wouln't need a large amout of penetration.
In the real world,there are often obstacales such as arms,clothing,and other barriers that must be breeched or shots form oblique angles.
The infamous 1986 Miami shootout is a prime example of this.

To make a blanket statement that the 9mm is bad is wrong,IMO.
Bullet design plays the most important role in caliber selection.
Of all of the curent service calibers,I beleive the .40 to be the optimum caliber for various reasons but I don't feel bad carrying the 9mm.

[JamesBell]

MB and JP, thanks. You both clearly know more than I about the subject, and you've echoed different concerns I had while reading what I have of the thread.

[NikatKimber]

well said JP.

right about the energy dump. too fast, and it will dump the energy in clothing, arms, surface tissue that it encounters first. too slow, and it goes through.

That said, I still think that a bigger slower bullet (all else being equal: energy, bullet design, tissue encountered) will be more likely to cause more damage and expend more of the energy in the target than will the higher velocity bullet. UNLESS the big bullet doesn't make it through the clothing etc...

anyways, moot point, as said, if the load/bullet design is chosen carefully, then either 9mm or 45 should get the job done, if the shooter gets the bullet where it needs to be.