Would a 9mm pistol round bounce?

[Chalenge]

Angus a 9mm is no where near as stable as a .22 in flight and it will drop in a much shorter distance. A 9mm can group at 10" at 100 yards and you cannot group it at 200 yards (they dont make enough paper). A .22 at 200 yards can group at 2" so forget that as vindication.

If we go with Krusty on the hand-held 9mm luger... 0 hits possible at all... ever. Its all fantasy Krusty.  

One might have gotten into the spirit a little better. At least I tried to apply a little science to it. 

[Bodhi]

Lotta experts in here on bullets, their stats, and penetration abilities.  I wonder how many have actually shot a 9MM for any amount of time??

[Angus]

That still doesnt meet the definition of AFK angus. A plane outfitted with 9mm isnt going to do enough damage unless the plane NEVER moves or cannot get out of the way at all. Its not about range at all its about destroying the target at firing time... period.

Or killing the pilot. Or punching into the fuel tank. Bear in mind that in a matter of months, the RAF brought down some 1.200+ German aircraft with .303 rounds, as well as damaging a vast number of aircraft as well as killing and wounding a lot of crew. A lot of that was done with inadequate firing power, from overly much range, and with poor ammunition. (A lot of ball stuff from WWI and there was a complete revolution when there was the DeWilde and AP which was coming on with the battle as it went...on)
Don't get me wrong, I'd say the .303 is a lot better than a 9 mill. But hiding behind a sheet of aluminum or canvas while some guys with 9 mill glocks hose at you and spend 1000 bullets would not be my cup of tea. I'd put my money on that if I had the gun and Krusty was behind the "door", the only thing that would save him would be me...not being that bad, but....having compassion. Maybe some leg wounds
BTW, at 100 yds, I was shooting caps of bottles with a .22 mag. 200 would mean more like hitting an upheld hand. So, no Wilhelm Tell at that range. But you will punch a bullet through metal many times as thick as an aircraft skin. And only 1/6th of the speed of the (already tumbling and flattened out distorted) bullet will punch into a human body like a balloon of water.
Me betting on killing a person hiding behind a cessna door with 1000 rounds in ...a Glock...= me wins 

[Chalenge]

I own one. Its a small light-weight handgun (Colt in this case) that lacks much knock down power. Beyond about 75 feet I would list it as useless although if you did manage a hit on soft fleshy humans it would have an affect. A 9mm is a backup gun in my opinion and a .45 is a good primary but I also think you have to be big enough to manage one and Im thinking a lot of people are not.

I also have an MP 5 which I suggest is useless beyond 100 yards but if you can manage a hit on soft fleshy humans it will have an affect. I would still prefer the Garand at anything over 100 yards or some other .30 cal rifle.

[Chalenge]

Ridiculous Angus your not going to have 1000 rounds in a Glock. 

[Strip]

Oh here we go....lets turn this into a self defense debate.

This thread has more crooks than the White House....

[Angus]

Would there be anyone allow me to take pot-shots at their body from one hundred yards with a .22, say alone something bigger like 9 mills.
I never shot 9 mills, but both smaller and bigger. FYI, the 9 mills will have twice the energy of a .22 mag, while the .22 mag has a flatter trajectory.
.22 is what I actually use to kill bulls with. From point blank, but it will do the job. From 100 yards it will still penetrate a fencepost.
Darwin award claims. And I'd have my 1000 bullets in a crate 

[humble]

Reasonable effective range for a 9mm is about 75 ft or so. I can fire about a 5" double tap at that range consistently. This could be lowered with a tuned weapon considerably. The 9mm is an interesting trade off vs a .45 in this area. The 9mm is generally easier to control and site recovery is much quicker...basically why delta force/SAS preferred them for so long. At close ranges (15-21') double taps in the 1" 1 1/2" grouping are much much easier then with a .45. When looking at real "gun fight" data. The initial poor success % for 1st shot conversion combined with the difficulty in actually requiring a site picture under stress create a minuscule hit % even at ranges of 10 ft or less on many occasions. So talking about shooting at the range vs shooting in a combat setting is not possible unless the shooter has actually been in combat. I'd agree with the 10" group for the 9mm at 100 yds. I've actually hit the 300 yd steel target at my home range (1 ft steel square) as many as 4 times in a row (offhand not on a rest) with my browning...but also can miss it with an entire clip. From the sound I'd say its still packing a pretty good wallup at 300 yds....

[Saurdaukar]

even so i do not see where any 9mm "bounced off" of your car ...

Joining late - didnt read entire thread.

A standard load 9mm FMJ does not possess sufficient energy to pass through a typical car windshield.  They deflect off quite easily; in part due to the angle, obviously, but a 0.50 wouldn't have that problem, for comparison.

[Die Hard]

A standard load 9mm FMJ does not possess sufficient energy to pass through a typical car windshield.

 

[Wingnutt]

To simply answer the question.

If you walked up to normal ww2 aircraft (51/109/spit)  and shot it with a 9mm, if it hit nothing but skin, it would go in one side and out the other.  if you hit ribbing or any guts, it would just go in.

either way damage would be minimal unless you got really lucky.

[Angus]

I have a car wreck that's just about to go. Maybe I invite the local police for target practice?, oh, or do it myself

[Ghosth]

Like Angus I've made some 100 yard shots against small targets with a pistol.
Like him they were made with a .22 with 6" barrel.

But, the ballistics for a .22 are actually pretty good compared to your average 9mm out of a short barrel.

Would I want to be the guy at the other end of the ball field? Only if I can stand behind the goal post.

As to the original question, would they bounce, No. Neither would they do any significant damage. Even at 100 yards, they won't have enough energy left to sever control cables, break Hydraulic lines, or rupture fuel tanks.

Its a stupid question really.

After all a .303 rifle round can kill a deer at ranges over 400 yards.
I'm not sure a 9mm pistol could even hit one past 50- 75 yards, much less again, do significant damage.

They are designed for one thing, and one thing only, killing soft skinned targets at close ranges. Namely us, people.

[humble]

I have a friend who spent a number of years as a special investigator for the AZ attorney generals office. He was a 3 tour Vietnam vet with multiple decorations and purple hearts and was later involved in multiple shoot outs as a police officer. So we're dealing with someone who is composed enough that things slow down under pressure. He once pulled up to a search and seizure and no one knew that a suspect was outside the controlled area "in the weeds". Bottom line the guy grabbed Johns car since it was last in line...John unloaded his entire clip into the car as it backed up and not one round did in fact penetrate the windshield...and this was with police loads. Now the car was moving in reverse and the angles were bad...especially since John was shooting from a crouch out of habit. Bottom line is he got written up on some technicalities and the guy got away....This was with a .40 cal if I remember correctly.

[Angus]

I broke a windshield once by driving into a little bird
Anyway, a .22 LONG (not magnum) much weaker than a 9 mm. If I remember right it has half the kinetic energy or less, and less range as well.