Pocket Pistols in 9mm - Good Idea, or Bad?

[Excaliber]

I agree with Skiprr's reasoning on the 9mm as a viable pocket pistol. It fits in an envelope that's easy and convenient to carry, and it's as easy or even easier to shoot than some of its cousins in smaller calibers.

My pocket carry is a PM45. It's a little bigger than the 9's but not much. I select pants with pockets that accommodate it easily without printing (cargo shorts or tactical pants with deep front pockets). It's got some recoil, but less so than the similar gun in .40 S&W.

I wouldn't feel undergunned with a PM9 either - with good hollowpoint ammo, .38/.9mm and larger calibers all have enough size and power to be viable for self defense.

The most powerful round you can shoot well in a package that you'll carry all the time is a simple formula for success.

[Scott in Houston]

insightful thread. I recently bought a 9mm PX4SC, and it is pretty big when compared with some of the other guns mentioned. Its worth mentioning that there is no pain involved in shooting it though. It's actually fun to shoot.

I wonder though just how much energy isn't utilized in these short barrels. Are we losing enough power that the high tech bullets might not expand as designed. I don't believe the ballistics will be the same as from the same ammo shot from a P92 with its 4.9 inch barrel.

The PX4SC for Comparison with TAM's SpreadSheet:
Cal 9mm
Capacity 13 +1 with Spare Mag 13
Barrel 3.0 in
length O/A 6.2 in
Width at controls (The Safety bulges out) 1.4 inch
Weight unloaded w mag 26.1

The research I've done says that the shorter barrels don't take that much off the performance for it to be meaningful. Most modern handgun ammo is made for a very short barrel and there is not much lost between a 5" and a 3" barrel... maybe 50' per second.
Also, consider that we're comparing mouse guns. Is a "mouse" 9mm better than a "mouse" .380? Other than the 'fun to shoot so whether one practices as often," argument, I can't imagine why a .380 would ever be considered a better round?
The 9mm is cheaper and in the equal sized barrel, is always a better performer.

I fall into the camp of "don't carry a mouse gun unless it's an absolute last resort". So take my opinion with that perspective.
I bought and still own a mouse .380, but I'd say I carry it about 5% of the time. Rarely am I in a situation where I couldn't carry a G26 instead of a .380 if I really had to.
When I'm taking a gun from a safe, I almost always visualize being in that restaurant, bank, or store where someone is threatening my life, and I can rarely make myself grab that .380. I'd be kicking myself if that's all I had when I needed to defend myself.

The G26 barrel length is barely more than the mouse gun, but the 11 rounds is almost twice that of most 'mouse' guns which I consider paramount. Also, I know the Glock will perform as expected. The tight tolerances of a small mouse gun scare me a bit. Yes, my little .380 has been flawless for the last 1000 rounds, but if I left the house, and an oracle told me that I'd be in a 'gun fight' that day, would I carry it???

So, in the end, I only carry it when I *absolutely* cannot be made as carrying, and/or it's an extremely low risk environment (i.e. there will be armed security there anyway).

Anyone want to buy a TCP 738??? Just kidding. I won't sell it, but it is the cheapest "safe queen" ever...

[speedsix]

...might make a good gun to stash in the kitchen...or laundry room...we keep those we don't carry often loaded and placed around the home where those who know can get them no matter what room they're in...just an idea...

[Scott in Houston]

...might make a good gun to stash in the kitchen...or laundry room...we keep those we don't carry often loaded and placed around the home where those who know can get them no matter what room they're in...just an idea...

That's a great idea... for those without kids or kids who would visit.

[speedsix]

...I'd tell you where to put 'em where the kids would never look...but the kids might be reading this...it can be done...

[terryg]

...might make a good gun to stash in the kitchen...or laundry room...we keep those we don't carry often loaded and placed around the home where those who know can get them no matter what room they're in...just an idea...

That's a great idea... for those without kids or kids who would visit.

Children have an amazing ability to climb and to find all sorts of once hidden things. The risk is too great to trust in security through obscurity. If there are kids in the home or if children visit, all guns should be secured behind a lock when not under your direct control.

[Wysiwyg101]

I like the idea of having a small pocket 9mm in a semi-auto format. I purchased my first handgun, a Ruger SR9C, a few weeks ago for several reasons one of which was that the 9mm ammo was cheaper than the .40 and the .45ACP. The fact that my possible BuG would be able to use the same ammo is definitely a plus. For those in the caliber wars, the 9mm may not be enough "firepower...must have firepower...uggh", I still say if you put two or three rounds center mass of your BG they are going down for the long count and it doesn't matter what caliber it is.

My .02 worth.

Rick

[seeker_two]

I like the concept....the more 9mm pistol variants out there, the better....IMHO, the only "downside" to the new pistols is that, esp. in slide measurements, the single-stacks (LC9, PF9, etc.) are about as large & heavy as the double stacks (SR9c, XDsc, etc.)....

[TX0303]

I don't have direct experience, but have heard from more than one source that a .380 blowback has more muzzle flip than a locked breech 9mm. Maybe someone can comment.
I have a Kahr CM9 and find it quite controllable and easy to shoot. I have shot it for over 100 rounds per session without discomfort. I will say that with +P ammo, it has more muzzle flip than I like for a quick follow up shot, so I carry standard load SD rounds in it.
I think pocket 9s are an excellent idea. They are small, and easily consealable. Anything the .380 can do, the 9x19 can do a little better. If the guns are relatively the same size, and the 9x19 is easier to control, why recommend a .380 as a primary carry?
I use my CM9 as both a pocket gun, and IWB when I have to tuck and want deep concealment.

[YellowTJ]

My experience this summer was related to this topic. I needed a smaller gun than my G19. Online I researched several 380s and finally thought I'd just love the Ruger LCP. I went to the range for a couple hours and tried several different types of small 9mm and 380s. I found that I actually didn't like the Ruger at all. My issue was that it was just too darn small to get a good grip and I had some issues getting it back on target quickly or really even hitting a solid enough group that I was pleased with. I did find happiness with the Sig P238 which ended up being the right size, weight, and caliber for me. I'm sure if they had a 9mm in the same size gun I'd have tied that too however I feel the gun is in perfect balance in the 380 so the 9mm might just the that little extra too much snap like the LCP was to me.

For me it's the total package which makes the gun good for someone. The size, weight, and caliber vs hand size, carry method, stopping power, and recoil all are weighed and hopefully a good carry gun which is used comfortably and often at the range is found.

[RHenriksen]

You know, this could be the definitive answer for all the 'what pistol should I buy?' threads.

My experience this summer was related to this topic. I needed a smaller gun than my G19. Online I researched several 380s and finally thought I'd just love the Ruger LCP. I went to the range for a couple hours and tried several different types of small 9mm and 380s. I found that I actually didn't like the Ruger at all. My issue was that it was just too darn small to get a good grip and I had some issues getting it back on target quickly or really even hitting a solid enough group that I was pleased with. I did find happiness with the Sig P238 which ended up being the right size, weight, and caliber for me. I'm sure if they had a 9mm in the same size gun I'd have tied that too however I feel the gun is in perfect balance in the 380 so the 9mm might just the that little extra too much snap like the LCP was to me.

For me it's the total package which makes the gun good for someone. The size, weight, and caliber vs hand size, carry method, stopping power, and recoil all are weighed and hopefully a good carry gun which is used comfortably and often at the range is found.

[The Annoyed Man]

You know, this could be the definitive answer for all the 'what pistol should I buy?' threads.

My experience this summer was related to this topic. I needed a smaller gun than my G19. Online I researched several 380s and finally thought I'd just love the Ruger LCP. I went to the range for a couple hours and tried several different types of small 9mm and 380s. I found that I actually didn't like the Ruger at all. My issue was that it was just too darn small to get a good grip and I had some issues getting it back on target quickly or really even hitting a solid enough group that I was pleased with. I did find happiness with the Sig P238 which ended up being the right size, weight, and caliber for me. I'm sure if they had a 9mm in the same size gun I'd have tied that too however I feel the gun is in perfect balance in the 380 so the 9mm might just the that little extra too much snap like the LCP was to me.

For me it's the total package which makes the gun good for someone. The size, weight, and caliber vs hand size, carry method, stopping power, and recoil all are weighed and hopefully a good carry gun which is used comfortably and often at the range is found.

Maybe so. I also think that there is one factor which above all others will determine whether someone chooses to "caliber down" to a .380 over choosing a pocket 9mm, and that is whether or not they were a "gun person" with a fair amount of firearms experience going into this, or were they first time gun buyers who bought a gun because they saw the need for a CHL.

I was a gun person for many many years before I ever got a CHL. Long before I bought my PM9, I had been carrying and shooting mostly .45s, including a lightweight 3" 1911. Recoil sensitivity is not necessarily an issue for me. I love shooting my Model 29 .44 Magnum, for instance, and yet, there are calibers that are harder for me to get back on target with after the first shot. For me, .45 is easy. So is 9mm. But .40 S&W turns out not to be my favorite, and neither is .380 ACP. I still own one .380, a Colt Government model. It is an all steel gun, and quite a bit heavier than my old Kel-Tech was, but even this Colt is not much fun to shoot—lots of "sturm und drang" for not very much power....or "plenty of fuss, but not much muss." It's not that it is intimidating to me, it is that the bark is out of proportion to the bite. In the very lightweight pistols that are typically chambered in this caliber, it makes for a less than optimum shooting experience. My PM9 packs significantly more power than my Colt, is smaller in every dimension but perhaps the width of the slide (by an insignificant amount), is considerably lighter in weight, and is easier to shoot. Why wouldn't I choose such a gun over a pocket .380?

Coming from the other side of the spectrum are people who maybe owned a gun, but weren't really enthusiastic gun owners; or who perhaps never owned a gun at all and bought their first one because they decided to procure a CHL, for understandable reasons. Perhaps they aren't as much interested in all the gun culture stuff as they are in just having a gun they can conveniently carry, in a caliber that doesn't make them feel overwhelmed.

Of course, there are lots of people whose life experience and motivations fall in between those two extremes; and I'm not suggesting that one description necessarily has more legitimacy than the other version. But that said, those with the greater experience have more options available to them because of the familiarity that their experience brings. More options is usually better, right? And also, isn't the "gun wisdom" of those with greater experience worth listening to, and maybe trying to adopt it into one's own life? That right there is one of the primary reasons for the existence of this forum.

That's all I wanted to say. Everyone has to draw their own conclusions.

[terryg]

Maybe so. I also think that there is one factor which above all others will determine whether someone chooses to "caliber down" to a .380 over choosing a pocket 9mm, and that is whether or not they were a "gun person" with a fair amount of firearms experience going into this, or were they first time gun buyers who bought a gun because they saw the need for a CHL.

I was a gun person for many many years before I ever got a CHL. Long before I bought my PM9, I had been carrying and shooting mostly .45s, including a lightweight 3" 1911. Recoil sensitivity is not necessarily an issue for me. I love shooting my Model 29 .44 Magnum, for instance, and yet, there are calibers that are harder for me to get back on target with after the first shot. For me, .45 is easy. So is 9mm. But .40 S&W turns out not to be my favorite, and neither is .380 ACP. I still own one .380, a Colt Government model. It is an all steel gun, and quite a bit heavier than my old Kel-Tech was, but even this Colt is not much fun to shoot—lots of "sturm und drang" for not very much power....or "plenty of fuss, but not much muss." It's not that it is intimidating to me, it is that the bark is out of proportion to the bite. In the very lightweight pistols that are typically chambered in this caliber, it makes for a less than optimum shooting experience. My PM9 packs significantly more power than my Colt, is smaller in every dimension but perhaps the width of the slide (by an insignificant amount), is considerably lighter in weight, and is easier to shoot. Why wouldn't I choose such a gun over a pocket .380?

Coming from the other side of the spectrum are people who maybe owned a gun, but weren't really enthusiastic gun owners; or who perhaps never owned a gun at all and bought their first one because they decided to procure a CHL, for understandable reasons. Perhaps they aren't as much interested in all the gun culture stuff as they are in just having a gun they can conveniently carry, in a caliber that doesn't make them feel overwhelmed.

Of course, there are lots of people whose life experience and motivations fall in between those two extremes; and I'm not suggesting that one description necessarily has more legitimacy than the other version. But that said, those with the greater experience have more options available to them because of the familiarity that their experience brings. More options is usually better, right? And also, isn't the "gun wisdom" of those with greater experience worth listening to, and maybe trying to adopt it into one's own life? That right there is one of the primary reasons for the existence of this forum.

That's all I wanted to say. Everyone has to draw their own conclusions.

Good synopses. Like any attempt to classify human behavior, there will be 'holes' and variances. But I can clearly see myself at various stages of this journey in both extremes you presented.

[Excaliber]

Maybe so. I also think that there is one factor which above all others will determine whether someone chooses to "caliber down" to a .380 over choosing a pocket 9mm, and that is whether or not they were a "gun person" with a fair amount of firearms experience going into this, or were they first time gun buyers who bought a gun because they saw the need for a CHL.

I was a gun person for many many years before I ever got a CHL. Long before I bought my PM9, I had been carrying and shooting mostly .45s, including a lightweight 3" 1911. Recoil sensitivity is not necessarily an issue for me. I love shooting my Model 29 .44 Magnum, for instance, and yet, there are calibers that are harder for me to get back on target with after the first shot. For me, .45 is easy. So is 9mm. But .40 S&W turns out not to be my favorite, and neither is .380 ACP. I still own one .380, a Colt Government model. It is an all steel gun, and quite a bit heavier than my old Kel-Tech was, but even this Colt is not much fun to shoot—lots of "sturm und drang" for not very much power....or "plenty of fuss, but not much muss." It's not that it is intimidating to me, it is that the bark is out of proportion to the bite. In the very lightweight pistols that are typically chambered in this caliber, it makes for a less than optimum shooting experience. My PM9 packs significantly more power than my Colt, is smaller in every dimension but perhaps the width of the slide (by an insignificant amount), is considerably lighter in weight, and is easier to shoot. Why wouldn't I choose such a gun over a pocket .380?

Coming from the other side of the spectrum are people who maybe owned a gun, but weren't really enthusiastic gun owners; or who perhaps never owned a gun at all and bought their first one because they decided to procure a CHL, for understandable reasons. Perhaps they aren't as much interested in all the gun culture stuff as they are in just having a gun they can conveniently carry, in a caliber that doesn't make them feel overwhelmed.

Of course, there are lots of people whose life experience and motivations fall in between those two extremes; and I'm not suggesting that one description necessarily has more legitimacy than the other version. But that said, those with the greater experience have more options available to them because of the familiarity that their experience brings. More options is usually better, right? And also, isn't the "gun wisdom" of those with greater experience worth listening to, and maybe trying to adopt it into one's own life? That right there is one of the primary reasons for the existence of this forum.

That's all I wanted to say. Everyone has to draw their own conclusions.

Good synopses. Like any attempt to classify human behavior, there will be 'holes' and variances. But I can clearly see myself at various stages of this journey in both extremes you presented.

Gun manufacturers' new focus on highly concealable "pocket pistols" in 9mm are rapidly eroding the reasoning behind compromising effectiveness in favor of diminutive size by the choice of a .380 or smaller caliber to defend one's life and loved ones.

The Beretta Nano, Sig P290, Kimber Solo, Ruger SR9, Kahr PM9 and CW9, and others in the same vein are an emerging new category of mouse guns that roar. A serious defensive pistol in a truly subcompact package is now readily available in more configurations than ever before.

IMHO, these remove the last vestiges of validity from trying to explain why it's a good idea to walk around with a pocketful of wishful thinking instead of a useful defensive weapon.

[Jumping Frog]

The Beretta Nano, Sig P290, Kimber Solo, Ruger SR9, Kahr PM9 and CW9, and others in the same vein are an emerging new category of mouse guns that roar. A serious defensive pistol in a truly subcompact package is now readily available in more configurations than ever before.

IMHO, these remove the last vestiges of validity from trying to explain why it's a good idea to walk around with a pocketful of wishful thinking instead of a useful defensive weapon.

I've never purchased a .380 because I didn't want to fall prey to the human trap of rationalizing to myself that I could afford to not carry my EDC for "just this once" because I was letting laziness or complacency compromise my vigilance. Don't get me wrong, I've shot friend's LCP's and stood in stores to dry fire Sig P238's and other models. I've been tempted, but I didn't want to leave myself a path to rationalization

However, a pocket 9 is far more attractive to me and harder to argue that it is rationalizing.