Is 115 grain 9mm ammo for self-defense becoming obsolete?

This is a discussion on Is 115 grain 9mm ammo for self-defense becoming obsolete? within the Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by hogdaddy "[Deeper is not better, guys.]" That's what all little caliber guys say ; ) H/D I'm out on this....

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 38 of 38
Like Tree21Likes

Thread: Is 115 grain 9mm ammo for self-defense becoming obsolete?

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array smolck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,486
    Quote Originally Posted by hogdaddy View Post
    "[Deeper is not better, guys.]"
    That's what all little caliber guys say ; )
    H/D
    I'm out on this.
    Last edited by smolck; October 28th, 2011 at 07:39 PM. Reason: Edited comment

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Senior Member Array AZ Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun, AZ
    Posts
    1,018
    Quote Originally Posted by smolck View Post
    Thats what all large caliber guys say in response. Sounds like compensating for some other shortcoming to me.....
    That doesn't even make any sense...
    Move. Shoot. Survive. ― The "Unofficial" Suarez International Doctrine

    “The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress and grows brave by reflection.” ― Thomas Paine

  4. #33
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    7,911
    If I am wrong about heavy for caliber bullets, the worst case scenario for me is 2 bleeding holes, and possibly some broken fragmented bones and perforated organ tissue.

    If light and fast bullet guys are wrong, they get a pissed off man with blood in his eyes and a nasty shallow wound as the worst case scenario.

    Place your bets carefully. This is a high stakes game.
    Cuda66 likes this.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  5. #34
    Moderator
    Array bmcgilvray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,418
    Quote Originally Posted by lanky View Post
    Deeper is not better, guys. That is a very bad misconception being spread by the ignorant. For centuries, we had complete penetration, and lack of stopping power. Just look at the miserable stopping percentage record of .38 lrn, .36 cap and ball, 9mm ball, .30 Carbine, etc, in spite of having completely exited the man being shot (with many rds, in many cases). Even the lightest, fastest SD jhps bullets fully penetrate big coons. That is 8" or more of penetration, which is plenty. The "arm first" argument is bs, since nobody aims at the arms. So arm hits are actually misses. Why blame the bullet for what is really just operator failure?

    OOOooo... you kinda waded in pretty deep there, taking on the ignorant like that.

    Centuries of a lack of stopping power? Indeed? Did you ever consider some of the diameters and projectile weights used in the firearms of past centuries? They don't make any 9mm bullets that are remotely capable of enough expansion to fill the bores of many firearms in common use 150 years ago or more. Even with round leaden balls, .45 caliber to .80 caliber projectiles are undeniably weighty when driven at velocities of 700 fps to 1400 fps or so and when they hit home they're already big, large great, huge, and gargantuan in a way that no modern jacketed expanding bullet will ever achieve when fired at similar velocities.

    Yeah, let's just look at those examples given. What exactly is that percentage record for "38 lrn, .36 cap and ball, 9mm ball, .30 Carbine, etc" anyway? Can "miserable" be quantified? Which chart was consulted? Whose data? If deeper is not better than it must follow that shallower is better, right? Expansion is golden, right?

    Arms are frequently held right in in front of assailants' torsos, completely covering the vitals that must be struck for best chance at a stop and the "center mass," deemed so desirable to hit, is frequently presented at odd or difficult angles at the moment a defensive shot is fired. A little extra arm meat and bone just makes for more work for that expanding bullet. Is it up to the task? Sure, 8 inches of penetration is plenty ... for 'coons.

    I'll take heavy bullets for my pistoles, each and every time. I'm under no misconceptions and don't take charts seriously.
    “No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”

    Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893

  6. #35
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    7,911
    Agreed Bryan. And while he's at it tell the Clantons and Mclaurys of the Tombstone shooting that they were really not killed by those heavy 44 caliber slugs. Or tell Wild Bill his 36 Navy Colts couldn't have been so deadly without lighter HPs, or Bill Tillman and Frank Hamer, or Alvin York, or Lee Harvey Oswald and John Lennon that only light weight expanding bullets are the way to go.

    Tell that garbage to Peter Capstock and Elmer Keith or Cooper.
    Majorlk likes this.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  7. #36
    VIP Member Array Cuda66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    minnesota
    Posts
    2,202
    Agreed.

    Seems to me that the warpspeed screamers rely on a phenomena that sometimes is effective, but often is not...where heavyweights go for what's proven to work.

    I like proven, I guess.

    And to those who don't think that arms are an issue...real life is not a silhouette target. Your assailant wil not put their arms to the side and square their chest to present you with the optimal shot. To assume otherwise is naive in the extreme.
    glockman10mm and Majorlk like this.
    There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.--RAH

    ...man fights with his mind; the weapons are incidental.--Jeff Cooper


    There is a reason they try and make small bullets act like big bullets--Glockmann10mm

  8. #37
    Member Array mrwonderful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    71
    I like pie......
    “Our lives come from God. So does our right to defend them”
    There is only one gun law in this country, the 2nd Amendment. All else is bureaucratic nonsense that I choose to comply with or not at my discretion.

  9. #38
    Member Array TommyGun4169's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Killadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    147
    115 gr +P+ are still being used, most however are using 124, 127, and 147 in +P versions. The new 147 gr +P's are very good now. 20 yers ago nobody would go near the 147 subsonic slop, and considered it wimpy. Now that the ammo companies juiced up the velocity on the 147's a lot of people like them. I own all the bullet weights in 9mm and the 124 and 127 are my favorite. I do use the 147 +P in colder weather though. The 115's are the fastest though !

    Outlaw Guns and Only Outlaws Will Have Guns !!

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

115 grain 9mm

,
115 grain 9mm ammo
,
115 grain 9mm bullets
,
115 grain vs 124 grain
,
115 grain vs 124 grain 9mm
,
115 vs 124 grain 9mm
,

9mm 115 grain

,
9mm 115 grain ammo
,
9mm 115 vs 124
,

9mm self defense ammo

,
best 115 grain 9mm ammunition
,
best 9mm self defense ammo
Click on a term to search for related topics.