quote:

Originally posted by EmpireState:
I'll preface this with saying that every handgun I've owned except two (229/40 and a G42) have been 9mm. The 9mm craze as of late and especially after the FBI has chosen it is really something to behold. Curious though.....will this be the new normal and future of firearms? Will the 40/45/357 make an upswing in popularity in the future?

I'm conflicted. After about 15 years of owning guns, I was just about going to get a few .40 Glocks and now this happens. In a way, what they say makes sense about the 9mm and I've always felt comfortable with it. In another way....I can totally see a swing back to something "more powerful" at some point. I'm not the brightest guy in the world but it seems that the 40cal is still a helluva round. Seems to do slightly better than 9mm in every category except capacity and ease to shoot. I'd way rather have a 180gr 40 round to use if shooting into vehicle doors/glas/other barriers. Also would rather have it for use against large/strong threats with heavy clothing. One of the FBI points was that the 9mm is easier to shoot....easier to shoot for who? To what difference? If the FBI had all male agents that were 6'2, 230lbs....would they still be making that point?

I have to disagree with you on the .40S&W 180 grain round. Let me start by saying I have several 9mm's and .40 caliber firearms and I love these guns. But the 180 grain bullet is not the correct round for the .40 S&W caliber. 180 grain has great ballistics with the 10mm round. This is just to heavy for the .40S&W. My agency uses the .40 with 180 gr. ammunition. In almost every shooting we have had. These have performed horribly. Several ballistics tests have been done and it was found that the 165 grain .40S&W was the optimal weaight for this round. It is fast at 1074fps. with 423 ft lbs of energy.

In regards to the 9mm this round has been really upgraded with the new innovations in ammunition and gunpower. You are getting really good performance from the 9mm with 124 grains. This is why the FBI swiched back to the 9mm along with the fact that the .40S&W 180 grain was not a great performing round. just my opinion and observations obviously...

FWIW, I've seen articles describing LE's return to the 9mm, and the rise of 9mm popularity in general, before the FBI report came out.

I don't see the 9mm going anywhere. I also don't see .40S&W and .357Sig going the way of .45GAP, but unless something truly revolutionary in the world of ammo design happens, 9mm will likely stay on top for the foreseeable future, in my opinion.

Don't ask me, I thought the .45 caliber fad would last forever. That's what the US army used when I was in and that's all we have for handguns. 1911's. Why change? Looks like 100 some odd years is all it's gonna get. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45_ACP

Interesting reading about the history of the .45 cartridge: https://www.shootingillustrate...y-of-the-45-caliber/

115 + 115 = 230. Nuff said!!!

J/K, the 9mm is not a fad and will not disappear anytime soon.

Despite the fact that government rarely does anything right, what the military and police use often sets the tone for civilian use. Whether it's because people want to use what they use, whether it's trusting they did their homework to find the best, or because the manufacturers are catering to their demand and that's what they push.

So is the renewed extra popularity of 9mm going to fade? I kinda doubt it until a leap in technolog. With the exception of the novelty of shooting a monster cartridge, most people want the least recoil possible while still maintaining effectiveness.

I'm a fan of .40 myself. I EDC a P229 in .40. I've seen the extra energy the .40 has shooting steel poppers in 3-gun. But every pistol I've bought in the past 10 years has been 9mm (except an anniversary 1911). But that's not because the FBI has used the same document they used to justify the .40 to reinterpret and justify the switch back to 9mm. It's not because 9mm got better while all other calibers stood pat. Its not because the .40 is too snappy. It's really because I was handicapped by the limited capacity of the .40 in 3-gun. And I prefer to carry the same pistol I compete with. That's why I'm waiting with bated breath on the P320 upgrade. The 17 round 9mm Carry size is basically the same size as the P229, is lighter for carry and holds 17 instead of 12.

I digress a bit. There will a "next new thing" that will be a fad, but unless it is clearly superior to 9mm in size (capacity), effectiveness, and recoil, then adopted by .gov so that it is widely available and priced right, 9mm won't be replaced. Look at the somewhat recent 6.5/6.8 fads. The 6.8 almost gained traction but never was adopted by major players. The .300 BLK is fad right now, but without a lot of .mil or LEO use, it'll remain boutique too. So unless the military and law enforcement change from 9mm and 5.56, the commercial market won't either.

9mm fad. Only hand gun round that is a man stopper is one the the head. You guys are funny.

The 9mm will stop being the most popular round just as soon as the phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range becomes readily available along with its pistol counterpart.

For a while, I believed the .357 magnum was a fad that would go away, but looking at the performance of some good 125gr XTP (1510 fps), I pine for a 7-shot L-frame from S&W.

Besides, I thought the consummate "Man Stopper" was a swift kick to the jewels (pretty sure I'd consider taking a bullet somewhere instead)

It never will blow over. Excellent round and getting better, however, as long as we have companies like Underwood taking performance to the next level, I'll continue along with my 357 Sig (357 magnum equivalent) all day long. Ammo has gotten much more in line concerning price in 357 Sig once again as well. Pick up some cheap 40 to occasionally practice with too.

Another side note is the market is flooded with good used .40s. That's exactly where I'd focus if I were in the market at this time. Just a barrel change away in several makes / models to the 357 Sig.

My issue with the 9mm is based on the ammo. If you are talking 115 ball ammo not so much but modern defensive ammo is a different animal.

Based on ballistic testing and one of our forum LEO's expirence I carry .357sig over 9mm. But my other carry gun is .380 so I have no proble with 9mm and don't see it ever going away.

I just bought a P320 carry in 9mm and absolutely love it. It may become my new carry gun. I will get a calex kit to .357sig for it but would have no issue with carrying it in 9mm.

I suspect there will be some event where a 9mm will fail to stop an assault in some spectacular highly publicized event and some ignorant police administrator or union rep will cry out something to the effect that this would not have happened if the cops had 45's!
The failure to stop a bad guy won't mention 120 rounds fired and only 4 hits, or the intervening brick wall that absorbed most of the shots , or the body armor worn etc etc.
Then for about a decade an surge of interest in caliber X will happen. Then the cycle will repeat.
Keep in mind the once hot ticket 40 has about the same energy and bullet profile as the 38/40 Winchester which came out in the 1880's, the 45 auto was designed to duplicate the performance of the black powder 45 S&W load of 1875 and the 9mm has been about the same since 1906. Not much new can't be traced back to a 100+ year old idea.

quote:

Originally posted by tundrav84wd:
... I'll continue along with my 357 Sig (357 magnum equivalent) ...

Wellll... kinda sorta From: 7 Things To Know About .357 Sig – Sort Of…

quote:

It’s like a .357 Magnum, but not really.

You’ll hear descriptions of the caliber like “it offers .357 Magnum capability in an autoloader that’s not a Coonan.” That’s partially true, if you’re talking about a .357 Magnum firing a 125 grain bullet. DoubleTap Ammunition markets 125 grain .357 Sig loads that clock 1,525 feet per second from a 4 ½ inch barrel. That’s about 645 foot-pounds of muzzle energy, and within .357 Magnum territory for a 125 grain projectile. The ‘not really’ part comes into play when you consider 158 grain .357 Magnum loads. DoubleTap also produces a 158 grain .357 Magnum load that achieves 1,540 feet per second from a 6-inch barrel revolver. That’s about 832 foot-pounds.

I shot, and carried (on the rare occasions when I did, then) .357 Mag in a 4" service revolver "back in the day." Still have it. Still have ammo for it. I should shoot it sometime RSN

(I tell ya whut: Spend an afternoon shooting full-load .357 Mag out of a 4" bbl. revolver and then tell me about the recoil and snap of .40 S&W or .357 Sig .)

quote:

Originally posted by tundrav84wd:
Ammo has gotten much more in line concerning price in 357 Sig once again as well.

To be fair: Ammo prices have dropped across the board, but, yeah: I picked up, a couple weeks ago, 500 rnds. of Federal UMC 125 gr. range ammo for 40¢/rnd. Not too shabby.

quote:

Originally posted by tundrav84wd:
Pick up some cheap 40 to occasionally practice with too.

I don't know as "cheap" (in the sense of "inexpensive") and .40 S&W belong in the same sentence Even today.

quote:

Originally posted by tundrav84wd:
Another side note is the market is flooded with good used .40s. That's exactly where I'd focus if I were in the market at this time. Just a barrel change away in several makes / models to the 357 Sig.

Hmmm... Doesn't that (sometimes?) necessitate a front sight change to accommodate the different ballistics?

quote:

Originally posted by SpinZone:
Based on ballistic testing and one of our forum LEO's expirence ...

Can you expand on that? The LEO's experience, I mean.

quote:

Originally posted by SpinZone:
I carry .357sig over 9mm. But my other carry gun is .380 so I have no proble with 9mm and don't see it ever going away.

My three CC pistols are, in order of their acquisition: Sig P239 SAS (1st Gen., .40 S&W), Walther PPQ M2 (9mm) and Ruger LCP (1st Gen., Mod. 2, .380 ACP). So I'm with you there.

I'm evaluating the 357 Sig for my use. I like the idea of the caliber. Always have. But my initial outing with it in a P229S was unsatisfactory (was me, not the gun nor the round) and, as has been my thinking all along, I'm not so sure it isn't more a "Hey, this'd be neat to play with" than something that brings anything to the table for me.

give it another week or two...max...

------------------------------------

Never been much of a 9mm fan. It's always seemed a bit of pea shooter to me. Better than a sling shot I suppose. I like putting a bigger hole in a bad guy with .40 or .45 plus I can buy factor .40 for $10 per box which is the same price as 9mm.

If there were some sort of ban on military calibers...then maybe.

Of course, if that camel got its nose under the tent I think we'd be saying goodbye to a lot more important things soon after.

I tend to be with those that believe it will actually take the next paradigm in weapons, things that don't use bullets, to get rid of the 9mm.

quote:

Originally posted by MHANNA310:

I have to disagree with you on the .40S&W 180 grain round. Let me start by saying I have several 9mm's and .40 caliber firearms and I love these guns. But the 180 grain bullet is not the correct round for the .40 S&W caliber. 180 grain has great ballistics with the 10mm round. This is just to heavy for the .40S&W.

180 gr Federal Tactical Bonded has worked great for us. The bullets recovered from bad guys have expanded like the photos in ad copy, they penetrate well, and have dealt with intermediate barriers as well as any pistol bullet.

To recycle a bit, reference the caliber wars this is something I've posted elsewhere. (For reference, I work Homicide & Robbery in a large city, I have worked literally hundreds of people shot)

*****
I used to be the .45 guy because of the reasons you state. Bigger crush cavity, most gun fights only go a few rounds, more damage. Then I started seeing a lot of people shot, and at a certain point I had to abandon my theory for my experience. Gun fights with 9mm weren't requiring more shots than gun fights with the .45. People with 9mm weren't losing more often or getting hurt more.

Humans aren't physics problems. Most stop because it hurts. Even the eventually lethal shot stops the bad guy because it hurts, it's scary, and he wants to survive. The ones who go until their dead require a CNS hit or to bleed out. AH-HA, you say, that's where crush cavity comes into play. And that's exactly what I thought. And I was wrong. I started reading gunshot wound textbooks myself instead of taking excerpts online. One important fact I'd not considered that the books brought up is how long it takes someone to bleed out. You can lose about 1/5 of your blood before you get shock-y. If you're not already injured, and you're in good health, and if you're really hyped up (so your pulse is racing) even a major artery blow out won't pump out 1/5 of your blood for nearly 5 seconds (adult male). If you're deep in survival mode, your arteries in your limbs are already clamped down to prevent bleed out, so it'll take even longer, so it still has to be a torso/neck hit to get a "5 second" artery. Then your brain still has oxygen left to fight at a reduced capacity for even longer.

How many of us can't empty our gun in, say, 7 seconds? How many self-defense shootings go over 7 seconds? You may be fighting with a dead man, but the fight is still going.

That's why the paper differences don't matter much in the real world when comparing the tiny differences in performance between the duty calibers. What might have been a benefit in one may be a detriment in another, but generally they are a wash because gun fights are short, quick, messy affairs that incorporate physical wounding and psychology, not just a math problem of reducing mass faster.

For me I want:
1) Sufficient penetration to get to the important gibbly bits, without that anything else is useless.
2) A bullet profile and construction that is barrier blind and is resistant to skipping off round bone.
3) Sufficient power to break an adult's femur (the floor of which seems to be the hotter .380 loads) as that tells me it'll punch through any other bone.
4) Recoil that I can deal with while injured and having to use my "wrong" hand, fight with broken fingers, etc. (This can also be a platform issue, I find the .40 much easier to shoot from a P229 than a Glock 22)

That's really it. Expansion, capacity, etc. are just sort of side shows to those main ring attractions. There are offerings in every major duty cartridge that meet those requirements.

Since the 9mm Parabellum has been around since '96 (1896, that is) and generally increasing in popularity over that 129 years, it is hard to call it a fad.

I imagine it will be popular until we all switch to ray guns. It sits in a sweet spot of Newtonian physics for pistols, and I am unaware of any plans to modify classical physics.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Since the 9mm Parabellum has been around since '96 (1896, that is) and generally increasing in popularity over that 129 years, it is hard to call it a fad.

I imagine it will be popular until we all switch to ray guns. It sits in a sweet spot of Newtonian physics for pistols, and I am unaware of any plans to modify classical physics.

Buddychryst summed up my point better than I....

"So is the renewed extra popularity of 9mm going to fade?"



Of course the 9mm has been around a very long time and will continue on. Its this new resurgence in popularity I'm referring to. Seems like when the FBI made their decision, 40 popularity took a sharp nose dive almost overnight and agency after agency began switching to 9mm. Just something I was thinking about and figured it might spark a discussion of trends, a prediction or two, perhaps some thoughtful insight about the caliber and others.

quote:

Originally posted by Lord Vaalic:
.45 GAP is going to come back big-time, and rule the market

That's funny. Sick, but funny. Sorry ass pos boolit.