The “logic” just doesn’t seem to add up:
Here are some of the arguments and reasoning:
-
recent advances in high quality defensive 9mm ammunition performance warrant the switch, especially considering that 9mm projectile performance has “disproportionately benefited” from those recent advancements in bullet technology compared to other calibers/projectiles…or so the argument goes.
-
there is no discernible difference from a medical standpoint in the wound channels left by the common calibers .45 acp, .40S&W and 9mm
-
shot placement is really the key to stopping power as the common pistol calibers lack the velocity necessary to have the temporary wound cavities contribute in any meaningful way to “stopping power” or mortality so since our average agents shoot 9mm better than .40 a switch is warranted
-
As such, the reasoning goes that if shot placement is, by far, the primary contributing factor to a pistol rounds effectiveness then penetration ie. a rounds ability to reach vital organs, must then be the most important quality in determining “stopping power” after that. Like they say in golf when putting, “never up, never in” ie. if you don’t get it to the hole then accuracy of your put doesn’t count!
-
Higher pressure rounds such as .40SW or .357Sig are producing more wear and tear on guns and have decreased service life/ increased associated cost when compared to 9mm or .45ACP. They are also seeing decreased shooting scores from .40 and .357 versus 9mm and .45ACP
-
9mm offers greater capacity
BUT
Whenever I’m told of the “recent advances in 9mm defensive ammunition” the hollow point and how much a particular 9mm bullet expands in testing is always touted as the “major advancement”. Penetration is not because quality 9mm ball has never really lacked significantly in penetration when compared to quality hollow point 9mm all other things being equal.
But if penetration is the primary “quality” determining a pistol rounds effectiveness on a target assuming accuracy then WHY does expansion rate of defensive hollow points seem so important to 9mm fans if that quality seems to actually play so little a role in effectiveness? All other things being equal doesn’t hollow point ammo tend to penetrate less than ball due to expansion through the target? Also when 9mm fans list off their bullet of choice (ex. Hornady 147g XTP) and then give expansion and penetration testing data I can easily find a quality “9mm target” round that penetrates in testing at LEAST to a similar level but costs much less and is just as accurate in testing. The major difference in performance is always expansion…but now that seems to actually have little real world relevance according to the “back to 9mm” logic
So how can it be that 9mm ball is so universally maligned as an ineffective man stopper when compared to, say, .45 ACP or “new” 9mm hollow point if, in reality, the primary factors involved in “stopping power” are accuracy and penetration? 9mm has always been considered an accurate pistol cartridge assuming the shooter does his/her part and quality 9mm ball seems to penetrate just fine compared to quality 9mm hollow point ammo so…what’s actually going on then? Have 9mm hollow points really “changed the game” and warranted all this talk of a switch back to 9mm from .40 S&W or is it really about something else…cost of ammo and maintenance to departments, trying to raise shooting scores without increasing training, etc? Where lies the truth?
if penetration is the quality most associated with “stopping power” after accuracy then wouldn’t a bullet like .357 Sig actually be a better choice? 125g bonded hollow point at 1475 fps seems to have some serious advantages over 9mm bonded hollow points currently available. In testing good .357 Sig seems to outperform even the best 9mm by a good margin in both accuracy and penetration and that’s penetration in people as well as through “intermediate” barriers. So why not carry a Glock 32 or 31 if those are the two primary factors in terms of effectiveness?
Personally, it seem logical that one should want “everything” possible working in your favor: size, speed, penetration, accuracy, capacity etc…from that idea it seems only logical that you should choose the bullet with the most size,speed, accuracy, capacity, reliability, cost efficiency etc for you. My question is: If you decide 9mm fits that bill then is a modern 9mm hollow point really it or is it WAY over-hyped and one would be served 99.9% as well by good ole 9mm target round OR just by going to something with more penetration like .357 Sig or even 10mm if you can afford it.
With a pistol caliber the energy on target, measured in ft./lbs, is largely irrelevant as a measure of “stopping power” because the velocities and energy developed are simply insufficient to be a deciding factor in terms of incapacitation or death. The general consensus seems to be that “energy” on target reaches the point of becoming a deciding factor at or around rifle velocities or approx 2,000 fps and above is where medical evidence from shootings suggests factors like “energy on target” and “temporary stretch cavity” become relevant components of stopping power.
So basically the argument follows that wound channel diameter and “energy” absorbed by target are largely irrelevant as a measure of “stopping power” when considering pistol calibers. Therefore a few extra mm’s provided by hollow points and a few more ft/lbs energy provided by going “+P” should also be largely irrelevant. Basically the argument seems to go: You are either gonna hit the CNS or some vital organ and penetrate it, causing incapacitation or death OR you are going to miss in which case the “energy on target” and “diameter of wound channel” is not going to be a determining factor in the “stop” or “no stop” of the target. Grazing an organ with the extra mm’s of “edge” a hollow point might provide is, statistically, not likely to be a factor.
So what gets me is this:
9mm fans argue that energy does not really matter when talking pistol calibers because none of the common pistol calibers generate enough energy to enter into the realm of relevance when talking “stopping power”.
9mm fans also argue that wound channel does not really matter because data has shown wound cavity or temporary stretch cavity to have little or no correlation with “stopping power”.
9mm fans argue its all down to accuracy and penetration.
These same 9mm fans will talk for days about some new 80g load from Double Tap that has 433 ft.lbs of energy making .40 S&W and .45 ACP completely unnecessary despite the fact that the 80g load has poor penetration!!!
Next day these SAME 9mm fans will talk for days about this new hollow point Ranger T with .65 expansion making .45 ACP completely unnecessary despite the fact that they justified going back to 9mm in the first place because wound channel was shown to not be a determining factor in “stopping power” and they were really only concerned with penetration, and accuracy BUT they steadfastly maintain that a 9mm FMJ is a very poor manstopper and they really only ever considered going back to 9mm after high quality defensive hollow points became available that had more “stopping power”
Next day these SAME 9mm fans will argue since its all down to accuracy and penetration they are going to enjoy the extra capacity advantage 9mm gives them over .40S&W as they buy the new H&K VP-9 which has two LESS capacity that similarly sized Glock 17 and the SAME capacity as the similarly sized Glock 22 in .40 S&W. Go figure.
Pardon me for being just a little skeptical on the whole thing but I gotta call it like I see it and Im just not convinced by the popular 9mm wisdom these days.
What seems far more convincing is the argument that agencies are switching to 9mm in order to save money on ammo and parts and also to avoid having to increase training to achieve the same level of proficiency with .40s&w or .357 sig.
The question that intrigued me the most looking into this was:
Given that “big data” seem to show rather conclusively that accuracy and penetration are the deciding factors in “stopping power” when considering common handgun calibers what does that say about the real value of the “high quality 9mm hollow point self defense ammo” being touted by so many as the primary reason they carry 9mm now over a much cheaper FMJ all other things being equal. Data seems to show no real relevance in terms of stopping power between a 9mm FMJ and a 9mm hollow point. Basically a shot to the CNS or vital organs is going to hit or not and wound cavity caused by expansion has little to no relevance in terms of “Stopping power” and the off chance that you might nick an organ with a “petal” from expansion is statistically irrelevant.
SO, if that’s the case then it would seem that one could make a strong case for simply carrying quality 9mm FMJ with sufficient velocity to get desired penetration and thus avoid paying on the order of $1 per bullet or more that lots of premium 9mm defense ammo goes for. I mean, people complain all day about cost of 10mm or .357 Sig not being worth performance but then they go and spend vast amounts on 9mm hollow points that actually have little or no benefits over FMJ’s in the two primary factors attributed to hand gun stopping power: Accuracy and penetration.
So in short, are we all wasting tons of money buying, shooting and carrying these premium 9mm self defense rounds when we’d be much better served simply buying lots of cheaper FMJ and putting the cost savings into training and proficiency?
I guess what I’m asking for is simply this: Is there data/evidence out there supporting some other competing reasoning to the notion that “stopping power” in a pistol is primarily a factor of shot placement and penetration. If not then the bulk of evidence would seem to suggest that there is insufficient difference in performance to justify the claim that modern defensive 9mm has a marked advantage in stopping power over the same 9mm bullet but in FMJ. Certainly it makes it harder to justify the price premium!
I understand people going to various 9mm loads for improved penetration, such as 147g for example. The data seems to support that decision. What the data does not seem to support is the value of the hollow point itself as a deciding factor. at least in 9mm.
In fact it would seem that some sort of high quality fmj flat point “woods load” in 9mm with the best possible characteristics of penetration and stability through the target would be the way to go given the data would it not?
Specific example: a double tap 147g flat nose FMJ using a Montana Gold flat nose bullet pushing 1135 fps. Is that not a logical conclusion to make if one accepts the “data” that penetration and accuracy and the deciding factors in “stopping power” and all the rest is basically just window dressing?
There are quality 9mm FMJ’s available with construction that gives similar performance as far as barrier penetration to “bonded” hollow points. In fact there have long been FMJ’s with basically no core-jacket separation issues so people are definitely guilty of “playing up” the value of bonded bullets in this regard. There are even non bonded hollow points, for example, that have passed FBI standards for barrier penetration and weight retention. Without even googling I can name one: Hornady Critical Duty is not bonded (as far as I know) and has passed FBI tests for barrier penetration and weight retention.
Also the argument that 40SW is too harsh on guns and the switch to 9mm is warranted bc of longer service lives is somewhat negated by the fact that many of these same advocates for going back to 9mm are, at the same time, using as one of their rationales the availability of high pressure loads such as +P+ loads that produce at least 10% greater pressures than standard and sometimes as high as 18% over…
example:
common commercially available +P+ loads are creating pressures around 42,000 psi
standard 40SW is 35,000 psi of thereabouts
SO,
Its like a bait an switch or something. You cannot logically argue that you are switching to 9mm bc of lower pressures/bolt thrust making for lower wear and tear on sidearms while at the same time using as justification for the switch the availability of modern +P+ 9mm closing the “performance gap” while at the same time arguing that .45 ACP isn’t so great because expansion doesn’t matter nearly so much as 12-18 inches of penetration which you now see thanks to the FBI report is the primary factor along with shot placement when determining “stopping power” while at the same time arguing that modern hollow point 9mm expands enough that you’re going to 9mm now whereas previously you wouldn’t have touched that stuff because 9mm FMJ just didn’t cut the mustard!!!