It wasn’t until 2004 that I finally traded in the 77-year-old Argentine Colt for my first “modern” pistol, a Springfield Armory XD in 9mm. The last decade with the “euro-pellet” (as some have called it) has been an informative one, and unless something radically changes in the decades ahead, I suspect I’ll be shooting and carrying 9mm pistols for many years to come, despite the “advantages” of other pistols.
Here’s why.
via Why Mine Is A Nine – Bearing Arms.
It is a great article and I agree with a lot of what he says, specially on this:
Once upon a time, I was sold upon the “bigger is better” theory of handgun bullets. I even—for a very short time—bought the line of gun store commandos and Internet warriors of “one-shot stoppers,” the claimed vast superiority of one caliber over another, etc. But the reality of that argument was and is complete and utter crap.
It always has been. In the real world, where physics, psychology, and biology matter, “handgun stopping power” has always been a myth.
He goes on to explain the one-shot stops and I want to add something else. The “easiest” way to stop somebody (without a direct shot to the brain) is to restrict or eliminate the flow of oxygenated blood to the bran. That is accomplished by stopping the heart (cessation of flow) or making him bleed a lot (reduction of flow) being the last one the most common outcome in a shooting. Obviously the more effective holes, the better and the 9 mm will accomplish that. And remember that any pistol caliber will be inefficient so even in the mythological .45 ACP, you will need several shots to accomplish so having plenty of BB’s will always beat “size.”
Of course that’s great when you live in a free state and can have your 17 round mags. The question may still be open in California where you have a choice of 10 rounds of 9mm vs. 10 rounds of .45 ACP. Though rapid follow up shots may give 9mm the edge there, too.
Interesting thoughts. For me, platform has a lot to do with it. I started very young with the 1911. There is a familiarity, confidence and muscle memory associated with it that I find comforting. For a chanclas gun, I am looking at the Sig 938.
My hunting experience has turned me into a velocity whore. The astonishing results I have seen with .17HMR, .22-250, the WBY family and others seriously make me contemplate whether there would be any value in .45 SMC, .40 Super or 9×25 Dillon vs 9mm, .40, .45. Food for thought.
Hollowpoints killed the caliber wars. Except for a few holdouts, who equate bore size with manliness, bullets like the Speer Gold Dot, Remington Golden Saber, and Hornady XTP have made any advantage of one caliber over another pretty much meaningless.
My Beretta 92 holds 15 round of 9mm, my XD 45 holds 14 rounds of .45. Does one round make a difference? I doubt it. Will my 124 grain +P 9mm be any less effective than my 200 grain +P .45 as a one shot stop? Still doubt it.
I am just tired of the arguments. Its like debating VHS vs. Betamax at this point,
Below is one of the best blogs for ammo tests. He has had so many failure-to-expands when shooting through denim that I have lost all confidence in hollow points.
http://mousegunaddict.blogspot.ca/p/ammo-tests.html
I have an XD-S in .45 and a Kel Tec P-11 in 9mm and I feel equally armed with each.
I agree. I have a S&W 4566 (.45) and a S&W 6904 (9mm), and carry both interchangeably. The manual of arms on both is nearly identical, helping muscle memory, although with my fat fingers and larger hands I will admit to having a more comfortable grip on the .45 . Still feel comfortable carrying either one.