I am about 3 years at this writing into the gun business full time, and I will tell you plainly that I am still surprised that the narrative espousing the 9mm pistol cartridge as the alpha and omega has not been torn down, or even scratched at a little bit. I am also surprised that I am poised as the contrarian to this narrative, having defended its utility in years past when it was known by wise pistol men to be only adequate.
I am not being critical of it as I write this either. I have carried it in harm’s way, carry one frequently these days, and train with one often. It has a great deal going for it, but its main strength is a product of compromise. If you don’t know what to carry, strap one on and go with God.
It is the five iron of the gun world, and arguably one can play 18 holes using only the five; but there are situations that he will find that such a moderation tool is lessor equipped than a specialized one. Somehow, the gun shooting world has rejected any questioning of its universal utility and accepted the hyperbole in total.
There are four main points that prop up this narrative. Counterpoints to them are listed immediately proximate.
Capacity:
Strong point, truly. The handle of a pistol is a dang fine place to carry spare rounds. However, it does not by itself justify its selection, except in one case, which I will touch upon in a moment.
9mm shooters are fearful that they will run out of rounds in the middle of a fight, and I am not sure that such thinking is entirely reasonable. My point is that if one remains in the open during the course of the fight, that he will likely not live to fire all 15 rounds in his gun anyway, and if one does fight to cover, which I strongly recommend, then changing magazines is not a big deal at all.
If fighting with a 45 caliber handgun that carries 9 rounds, against a 9mm shooter that carries 16, I have to miss this fellow 9 times in a row before he has any advantage at all, capacity wise. If I cannot shoot that gun well enough to hit him effectively- with any of the first nine rounds with a 45- am I going to be able to do so with a 9mm? Doubtful. If this is a question that a defensive shooter worries about, the product that one should invest in is training, and not capacity.
The one place that it does excel, the place where the universal five iron is appropriate, is if one finds oneself in the middle of a group of threat actors. A riot in progress for example, capacity is very handy- not because it is effective fight stopping tool, but firing the gun communicates to the mob, and as such is an area denial weapon. The noise will modify their behavior- and hopefully direct them elsewhere- which is what you want in the first place. This is where the 9mm becomes a specialized tool, and not one of compromise.
Otherwise, capacity is relative to your surroundings and one’s ability. It is certainly not the holy mother of combat handgun selection.
Easy.
It is easy to shoot, easy to train with, has a negligible recoil impulse, et al. It is not bothersome at all on the range line if one is upright, shooting targets administratively, but such training is an exercise in marksmanship, and not in defensive shooting.
The heavier calibers do recoil more, there is no doubt, and a 40 caliber the same size and weight of a 9 can be uncomfortable on the range during extended sessions. I have no question that my light weight 40s are tiresome to shoot on the range during marksmanship practice.
In the fight, however, there will be adrenaline, and pistol instructors make great hay when they speak to the effects of it during a defensive confrontation. I think it is useful to train with one piece of a lessor caliber during marksmanship training, and carry a piece that functions the same way in a larger caliber for serious work- (think Glock 17 vs Glock 22) because in those circumstances of adrenalized combat, one is not going to notice the recoil impulse nearly at all. This is one place that the bunch that espouses “train as you fight” will nearly swallow their tongue, so allow me to explain further my reasoning.
People that hunt can identify with this likely better than those that do not. When a hunter is working on the range with his 300 mag, trying to get it zeroed or practicing marksmanship, he will really feel the recoil, and it is substantial. Shooting at the deer, from his blind, not at all. Just with a moderate dose of adrenaline, it makes one resistant to felt recoil. There is just something about real life application that does not make it nearly the concern.
One can test this theory by shooting his larger gun during up drills. A few months ago, I fired the FBI qual course of 2019 with a lightweight commander length 45 caliber 1911, I managed to score a 46/50, 92%- one hit stronger than FBI instructor standard, with a pistol that the evaluation was not designed towards. So, the point is- with only a modest dose of adrenaline, the different between up drills and administrative target shooting; recoil impulse is not at all bothersome. It is a fact, that adrenalized defensive shooting is the least administrative of all exercises.
Placement is key.
It certainly is. The 9mm stalwarts place this axiom above all else, citing that bullet performance is comparable, if not identical to the larger offerings, if placement is up to snuff.
Firstly, I do believe that placement is the main issue of the day, but do not believe that a smaller, less potent cartridge has the effect that a larger one does unless the bullet ends up passing into, or through the brain housing group. Larger bullets wound better in center of mass hits, to be plain in my thinking.
So, if one can hit with a 9, and not hit with a 357 Sig, 40, 10, or 45, then keep the 9 and do well with it. But- how can it be that if you can hit with a 9, exercise the proper shooting fundamentals with it- why can’t you hit with a 45? Why is placement something that is thrown in the 45 shooter’s face, if he is exercising proper placement? If I can shoot beyond the FBI instructor standard with a 45, why is this not a good defensive tool for me? Why are those preaching to me about placement, when I can place those rounds where I intend? Placement is key, and a 45 placed where it is supposed to be does better than a 9mm placed in the same spot. One man’s opinion.
It is what the Cops use.
Yes, it certainly is, and If I were a Chief of Police, I would issue my troops 9mms. There is some goodness in defending one’s actions legally if your kit is identical to what the police are using, legally speaking, when you are brought in front of the jury, which this day is a near certainty.
With it, comes one interesting twist, in that the police get in trouble for unreasonable levels of force, and the number of times that the bad guy was hit has taken a position of some legal gravity. I can remember an instant fairly recently, where a policeman was brought into court, and fired because he did indeed empty his weapon. “He shot that young man 17 times!” If we fixate on that, shooting someone 17 times, it becomes hard to defend in court that force was reasonable and proportional. The jury pool will have problems with such a number.
If placement is key, and it is, would we if in the jury believe that many hits was reasonable? Capacity can work against a man, I would think.
If we must be considerate of this, down to the one round; in that, you can shoot the bad guy once and only once, and manage to get a good center of mass hit- are you satisfied that a 9mm is as good as a 357/40/10/45? Would you purposely select your 9, if you could choose any other larger caliber if time for one hit is all you have?
All said, my question is, why does the 9mm narrative have such weight and velocity in the current shooting public? I have offered my analysis, and am hopeful first, that it is food for thought. Secondly, I am hopeful that whatever you choose, that you can do good work with it.
If you cannot, I know a place that can get you up to speed, whatever you are running.