It's time for another gun musing. Also, it's time to hack off the .45 fans out there.
I've always had a soft spot for the 9mm parabellum. It is relatively mild to shoot, is very accurate, and hits pretty hard. There are those who say it overpenetrates, but I think the newer loads out there take care of that potential problem. I've found that I can shoot a 9mm pretty accurately, in just about any make and model of pistol. I'm not a fan of the .40, but that will have to wait for another posting.
I think a female shooter would have an easier time with a 9mm, because of the recoil characteristics and grip designs. The grips are smaller, it fits easier in the hand. Plus, the caliber is adequate for defense. I know you .45 fans out there might take issue with this statement, but I don't think any of you will volunteer to stand in front of a 9mm round. At any rate, I would not hesitate to recommend a 9mm for a female shooter.
Since it is a relatively smaller caliber, a 9mm makes for a smaller, lighter weapon. For legal concealed carry citizens or a female shooter, smaller and lighter is good. One can hide it easier. For instance, a baggy jeans-pocket can hold a Smith and Wesson Model 908 or 3913 with a pocket holster, and the thing is about as well-concealed as a pistol can get. These are single-stacked 9mm's (7 rounds with one chambered), with traditional double actions. They have thin profiles for the slide and grip, and easy to operate controls. In other words, it does not look like one is packing a brick around in the pocket.
I tend to like smaller autopistols. I find that I can draw and fire them quickly, and they feel better in my hand. I know traditional wisdom would say that a larger, longer barrel is more accurate. However, since pistol shooting is relatively short- range, I do not think one gives up any accuracy at defensive-shooting distances with a subcompact or compact auto. To that end, the 9mm is perfect.
Perhaps the smaller caliber is a disadvantage, but not by much. The 9mm is still going to hit a bit harder than a traditional .38 special. Plus, you have more rounds to shoot if necessary. I have had the occassion to shoot a predator that was menacing my parent's livestock with a 9mm, and it seemed to do the job just fine. I can't imagine the animal being any deader with a bigger caliber.
There is also the variety issue. Since it is the official NATO round, availability is not a problem. Neither is finding one that fits the shooters' preference. Almost every manufacturer makes a 9mm, usually several models' worth. There is one out there for every shooter. If one prefers the Beretta, there are a few different models out there. If one likes Glocks (and who doesn't?) there is a plethora of models available. Smith and Wesson (as noted) has several models, as does H&K. Even the 1911-style pistol is available in 9mm, just to name a few.
So let's not overly badmouth the 9mm Europill. It's not such a bad round after all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Kyle,
I am in complete agreement. While being a 1911 nutball, I appreciate the advantages of a 9mm. My usual carry gun is a Glock 17.
As far as women go, I think a woman who is unexperienced with a semi-auto would probably be best served by a .357 wheelgun.
Just an opinion.
In an case, an admirable defense of the 9 cartridge. Have a good weekend.
Regards,
Ben
I hate the 9mm give me a good .45 or a nice .357 magnum any day.
It probably stems from my first handgun which happened to be a Ruger P89. This was the first (and Last) 9mm that I have owned, it had the worst trigger I have ever pulled, it also had crummy accuracy. I still to this day don't know why I bought it (besides maybe that I was a student at the time and it was inexpensive) but needless to say it left a bad taste in my mouth for the 9mm.
That being said the 9mm has one thing going for it. 9mm ammo is cheap, really cheap, no cheaper than that, really really cheap. I have been shooting my friends Sig in 9mm lately and have had a bit of fun with it, so I may be looking for a Glock in the near future as the Sig is just not lefty friendly at all.
As for stopping power I think that the Goblin that cheesed off the Prince Georges county cop can attest that it just does not cut the mustard. Said criminal got the first 3 in the front and while fleeing from the cop he got the other 15 in the back and lived to tell about it. (bad cop No Donut)
Kirk
www.limpidity.org/blog
PS. you can comment on comments in your comments it is permitted and encouraged. It will foster more lively debates at your sight and let us commenters know you care...
Kirk,
You can't base your hatred of the 9 mm on a RUGER PISTOL. That's like basing your opinion of computers on a Macintosh.
Or basing your opinion of ISP's on experiences with AOL.
Or basing your opinion on auto racing on NASCAR.
It's wrong.
And Kyle, I think Kirk has been dropping subtle hints about commenting to the two of us. I'm just guessing, but...
Benjamin
Yeah, I think I got the hint there, Benjamin. Thanks for educating me in further blogger etiquette.
In response, I would have to agree, basing your opinion of the 9mm on a Ruger is like basing an overall opinion on cars on a Yugo. I actually shot a P90 in .45 this past weekend, and the word that comes to mind was "clunky." I've shot a P89 as well, and clunky does seem to describe it as well. However, they seem to go "bang" whnever the trigger is pulled, and they don't seem to mind being gunked up. So as far as a value gun, I don't think it's a bad investment.
On to the other 9mm's I've fallen in love with. I've owned and shot an excellent Beretta 92fs. I still treasure my Glock 19 and 26. The first 9 I owned was a Glock 17. I have a couple of Smiths out there which shoot great groups. They're more accurate than I am, that's for sure. They tend to fit my hand well, and I tend to hit what I'm aiming at. However, I DO shoot 1911's pretty darned well.
The compactness of the slimmer gun is great for concealed purposes. I'm not necessarily sold on the large magazine capacity of a 9, some of my favorite guns are single-stacked 9mms'. However, it is kinda fun to burn up a clip of 17 as fast as you can pull the trigger.
As I noted in an earlier post, I don't think the .45 will ever be equalled as the best stopping round out there. The .40 won't ever take its place. The 9mm has some shortfalls, but it is easy to shoot.
Kirk is dead right: the ammo is dirt cheap and readily available. I bought a box for $3.99. It's hard to beat that. Even getting a bit better quality, a thrifty shooter can get away with Federals for about $5.99 a box. More shooting means better shooting.
Since I seem to find 9mm cheaper, I tend to shoot it more. Since I should practice with what I would use, I tend to shoot a lot of 9mm.
I have also heard many horror tales of goblins filled with tiny 9mm's living to fight another day. But I've also heard from a reliable source that a 9mm Glaser caused a one-shot stop on a goblin in Arkansas, shot by a SWAT team member with a Glock.
Shot placement also seems to be a factor with standard ammunition. Massad Ayoob had an article a couple of issues back in AMERICAN HANDGUNNER. He mentioned a New York transit cop who shot a knife-wielding maniac. She broke his hip with the first shot, and that put him out of the fight. The gun was a 9mm Glock.
I tend to load Federal Hydra-Shok or PDF ammo. I hope it would prove adequate.
I think that I feel adequately armed with a 9mm. I'm still holding out for the .500 S&W Magnum Derringer, though......:)
I really don't know what to be more afraid of the .500 Derringer or the .45-70 government model.
I am not sure if would shoot either of those little gems unless it was a last resort. I can't imagine that it would be a pleasant experience either way.
My next pistol which will probably be a Glock in 9mm will have to wait till I get my long range rifle done as that will eat up most of my disposable income for the next 4 months.
Any likes or dislikes on the barrel porting on a Grock...
Kirk
www.limpidity.org/blog
Kirk,
I am sort of against the porting of a glock. I've shot a few that had it, and it does seem to hold down muzzle flip a little bit. But it blows all kinds of nasty things out of the vents when it does. If using as a defensive gun, this will ruin night vision big time.
With a 9mm, I just don't think porting is necessary. But as usual, it all comes down to personal preference.
What's wrong with the derringer in .500? It's a guaranteed one-shot stop. Even if you miss, the target will probably catch on fire from the muzzle blast. They'll be too busy beating out flames to attack any further. Either that, or the recoil will knock you into the next county, safely out of harm's way.
Kyle
I'm with Kyle on this one. Barrel porting seems to be justified in heavy revolvers only. A Glock 17 has a bit of a muzzle flip, but the Clinton era is gone. Buy some 17-rd. magazines and the counterbalance is perfect, i.e. the way the gun was designed. The last couple of shots may be weird, but let's not kid ourselves, a Glock is not a competition handgun. It shoots, doesn't jam, and holds a crapload of bullets.
Insofar as porting, it is expensive and I think has little return. And Kyle is right that you may set an intruder on fire and face an ugly lawsuit from the family of the victim (I don't mean you.)
Benjamin
Post a Comment