Talk:9×19mm Parabellum/Archive 1

Archive 1

Meaning of parabellum

'parabellum' means 'for war' not 'prepare for war'; Si vis Pacem, Para bellum is the literal translation for if you want peace, prepare for war. Just wanted to clear that up; I edited it, but some one changed it back.

--ThegunsofNevada 18:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That's wrong. Para is the singular imperative form of the verb "Paro" = prepare. "Si" = "if", "vis" = 2nd person singular of "volo" = desire, "bellum" = accusative case of "Bellum" = "war". --Eyrian 11:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we could use some information about clip capacities. ~Anonymous

• First, it's magazine, not clip. Second, capacity varies from gun to gun and locality to locality due to laws and regulations. Typically most 9mm hanguns have higer capacities than those that fire larger calibres (for obvious reasons), but this is not really a function of the calibre so much as the design of the individual gun.

Performance

The anecdotal reports about FMJ rounds are sadly not very far from the thruth at all. Until recently the German police had to use them. German gun magazines regulary reported about overpenetration, criminals getting lethal wounds but still being able to fight back or flee(and die)... Contact the leading German gun magazine or ask for information in the forums. http://www.visier.de/service_impressum.html Markus Becker02 21:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Under performance most other articles list data on velocity, bullet weight, and muzzle energy. That seems missing here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.7.251.248 (talk) 06:51, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

List of notable weapons

This needs to be expanded or deleted.What about the Browning Hi-Power, H&K MP5, Uzi, *insert everyone's favourite 9mm firearm here*. Geoff B 15:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The natural question would be... what constitutes "notable". Can't have everyone just adding their favorite 9. Should be firearms that are famous for BEING 9 mm. The Beretta 92 qualifies I think. Certainly the Luger. But there are so many other 9 mm pistols that the list could get quite long. I'd say just delete that section. The 9 mm is sort of ubiquitous anyway. -Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably beating a dead horse here but individual firearms articles will indicate what they're chambered for. --Philip Laurence (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Flat Trajectory?

This article claims that "The 9 mm Luger cartridge combines a flat trajectory with moderate recoil," although it is physically impossible for any object to have a perfectly flat trajectory. This seems to be misinformation, unless it is intended to mean "comparatively flat." Could anyone clarify the meaning of this phrase? The implication that the 9mm round defies gravity is unacceptable. MatthewLiberal 15:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

'Comparatively flat' is an improvement. Geoff B 15:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Flat trajectory is a term commonly used in shooting to describe a bullet of high velocity that travels a nearly flat path. For example, a .223 Remington will have dropped only about 1.5 inches out to 200 yards. A .45 ACP on the other hand will have dropped more than 36 inches (1 yard) at 200 yards (if it got that far at all). As that's a rifle round against a pistol round, it's sort of apples to oranges. But I think you see my point. I don't think a change in the wording is necessary as the term is generally understood as "relative", but prehaps a Flat trajectory article is in order with a wikilink in this article. Maybe I'll write one today. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Facts

Just a reminder that claims like it's the biggest, fastest, most-popular, best-smelling, etc. should be accompanied by a reference where-ever possible. Some feel that "well everyone knows that" is good enough, but WP:VER suggests using a reliable source. Arthurrh 16:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

While I agree in general, the article as it is now lacks information about the wide spread of the 9x19mm. It makes it look like just another auto round, which is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.113.82 (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ballistic performance

The figures in the infobox seem rather low: every other reference I've seen regarding the Parabellum's muzzle energy puts it in the 400s rather than the mid 300s; one could be forgiven for wondering if the article has been the victim of a 45 advocate drive by... Anyway, could someone "in the know" verify these numbers as they look incorrect to me, or at least "worst case".--194.247.53.233 17:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Far from "worst case". According to Norma and Hodgdon these are basically max loads, and the numbers work out to the energy levels you see posted. I can check other references as well this evening if you want me to, but I don't think I'll find anything different. Arthurrh 18:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be interesting; as an example of what I've seen to the contrary, if I grab Ian Hogg's Greenhill series "Ammunition" book it gives a figure of 431 ft/lbs (583 joules) for a 115 gr (7.45 g) projectile with a muzzle velocity of 1,300 fps (396 m/s) using a British mk 2Z, although unfortunately it neglects to say which weapon was used to determine those figures so important factors such as the barrel length are unknown. The reason I've chosen this reference in particular is it's what I have to hand at the moment, but the figures seem broadly similar to what I've seen elsewhere: those shown in the infobox stood out as the did seem unusually low, although I'm afraid I can't reel off a list of further references offhand.--194.247.53.233 18:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked my Hornady, Nosler, and Speer books. These velocities were exactly in line with them as well. I have other sources as well, but I don't see the point. The velocity you list is certainly not in line with normal performance. It's posssible it was a longer barrel, and there are a few powders that can push a 115 grain bullet to 1300 ft/s in a 4" barrel without dangerous pressure based on AccuLoad, but they are the exception rather than the rule. From what I can tell the numbers here are very representative of maximum loads by almost all sources. Pretty good numbers, actually. Arthurrh 21:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess the 1,300 fps result must have been from an ~8" SMG barrel, then. Or alternatively just wrong! Perhaps I'm used to seeing figures from military use which may be more inclined to use weapons other than pistols which may explain the discrepancy. One thing I was wondering was why the figures for different calibres are based on different barrel lengths, though (e.g. the .45 is measured using a 5" barrel); could be that those doing the testing are measuring equivalent lengths in calibres rather than absolute lengths, but it is another thing I was curious about.--194.247.53.233 21:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Length definitely makes a big difference. Even more so with handguns than rifles because of the short barrels involved. Performance measurement without length is pretty meaningless. Having pressure readings is even better, but that's really too much to hope for. Anyway, the differing barrel lengths you see between calibers is often due to using lengths typically expected to be found in arms for that cartridge. Unfortunately this isn't a fixed rule. Comparisons always end up being trickier than they should be. Arthurrh 22:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the medium-powered 9mm Parabellum round powerful enough to penetrate an unarmored person?

Is the medium-powered 9mm Parabellum round(FMJ) powerful enough to penetrate an unarmored person in the abdomen at point blank range? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.251.175.21 (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not enough information to give an answer...it depends on dozens of factors, from range, to the particular load being fired, the type of bullet fired, where the person is hit, how big the person is, how thick are the clothes they're wearing, etc..nf utvol (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

9mm in its nominal FMJ military load is certainly more than capable of penetrating all the way through a person. Whether or not it actually does so in a particular case depends on all the aforementioned variables, but the capability is certainly there. SquareWave (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't designed to inflict irritating welts.... Koalorka (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's powerful enough to kill another person behind the target. A few years ago there was a small controversy in Germany after several incidents of fatal over-penetration by police officers. --217.233.241.79 (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In short, yes. Regardless of whether or not the victim is 100 pounds of 700 pounds, some penetration will occur and over-penetration can/will occur in smaller targets, such as a 100 pound person. The 9x19mm cartridge has been standard issue to many law enforcement and military forces the World over. If it weren't lethal against unarmored persons, they would have designed something more powerful.SkizitJNM (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Stopping Power"

(refer to the "Performance" portion of the article)

The term "stopping power" is too ambiguous and open to interpretation, I believe. Stopping power can be affected by anything such as poor shot placement, which has little to nothing to do with the round's energy delivery. A .50AE round to the foot is unlikely to kill a grown man, but a .22LR shot to the face will most likely be fatal. Alternate to the term "stoping power" is the much more suitable "wound potential". Wound potential is specifically linked to a bullet's diameter and velocity which characterize its over all ballistics. I've swapped out the term "stopping power" for this much more suitable phrase.SkizitJNM (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The term 'stopping power' has little or nothing to do with the potential leathiality or relative ballistic potential. It is a reference to the respective capability of a round to generally cause an immediate halt to the target's ability to flee/struggle/continue any sort of coordinated motor function when they are shot somewhere that would not cause this effect almost no matter the characteristics of the round (So not the head, and less so the foot/legs) and therefore predominantly the torso and abdominal areas, whether or not the round stopping them causes a fatal wound. In fact, the Colt 1911 .45 ACP Pistol was specifically designed to address scenarios when it was considered advantageous to completely halt sprinting infantry without necessarily killing them. The resulting weapon and caliber had the effect of knocking such targets down with only a shot or two, even with wounds that were decidedly not life-threatening. In comparison, the 9mm Parabellum is well known for its high penetration characteristics, which has the opposite effect from the non-penetrating .45 ACP, in that the small holes that punch straight through an individual in some fatal wounds lacks the transfer and diffusion throughout the target area, passing through instead, preventing the physical collapse and state of shock known as 'stopping power'. Alexander (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Typical .45 advocate nonsense. The .45 ACP was designed to imitate the .45 Colt cartridge and there is no such thing as "knocking down instead of killing" a person with a pistol round. It's physically impossible. --84.163.242.64 (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The ludicrous term should be removed from any serious gun article. Koalorka (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

.40 S&W vers 9mm rounds

What would be the better round .40 S&W or the 9mm? Woody216.223.173.45 (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. Koalorka (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Bullet weight

The article states that after World War II the standard bullet weight was changed to 124 grains. I believe this to be false, on the basis that 124 grain (8 gram) bullet weights were in use well before the end of the war. In fact they may have been in use since the very inception of the cartridge. In the absence of a compelling source for the claim, I suggest it be removed. SquareWave (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Reason behind the developement of 9mm

Is'nt it common knowledge that the 9mm was developed to create wounds and not kill in war?? That wounding one soldier would cause three casualties because two others had to remove him from the battlefield?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.97.192 (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish. Koalorka (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"common knowledge" = pure bullshit in 99% percent of cases. --84.163.208.100 (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

example loads

Is Federal cartridge the standard source for ammunition data? I noticed their 9mm loadings are pretty soft compared to European manufacturers. I'd like to change to S&B data. --84.163.198.194 (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Since no one disagreed I changed the data to what I find to be more representative. S&B is a big manufacturer with mediocre loadings. I included the three most widespread bullet weights in standard FMJ configuration to give an idea of usual performance and one exceptional premium load to show the maximum capabilities of the cartdige. --84.163.246.150 (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

For fairness it should be noted that not every US ammunition manufacturer loads their (9x19mm) handgun ammunition "soft". At http://www.doubletapammo.com/ you can find an example of an American company that offers "hotter" / "premium" commercial 9mm+P loads.--Francis Flinch (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

reorganizing Modern variants out of History

I'm reorganizing the article to put the modern variants under improvements. These sections should be considered for new articles. Also will see to improve NPOV in Performance Section by finding WP:RS to justify claimes. Current content gets changed often in a biased way -- a problem of no cites! Might take a few days to complete these edits, if you see a few from me. Spectre9 (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Article Renaming

The page needs renaming. It's officially 9mmPara; only in U.S. is "9mm Luger" common. Trekphiler 06:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur... As per the general consensus from the team at Wikiproject: Military History, the name really should be 9mm Parabellum, or maybe 9x19 Parabellum, with a redirect from 9mm Luger, 9mm NATO, and 9x19 as necessary. --Commander Zulu 08:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. 9 mm Luger is a pretty archaic and inaccurate description. Geoff B 23:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought the the "Luger" bit was weird, but it didn't bother me enough to bring it up. Now that it has been though, I'd vote for 9 mm Parabellum. Sounds more correct to me. -Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this current scheme is very awkward, I've never seen or heard of it in my contact with firearms. I will rename it to 9x19mm Parabellum. Koalorka (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the term "9x19mm Parabellum" is incorrect and combines two names. 9x19mm is the technically correct metric designation, but 9mm Luger, 9mm NATO, and 9mm Parabellum are also correct names. I corrected the text and infobox, but the article title should also be corrected. I suggest "9x19mm Cartridge" and leave it at that as long as the other names redirect to the page. The other names are covered in the body.--Ana Nim (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please try to be a little more worldly. Just because you are unfamiliar with this format, which in fact, is the original German name later proliferated through NATO and the cartridge's popularity, does not mean it's incorrect. Most every reference source I use lists the cartridge in a variety of ways, using either a combination of 9 mm, 9x19mm or Parabellum, most likely out of convenience. The full and logical name is of course 9x19mm Parabellum, but the article does list alternate naming conventions and common use names for the cartridge so no information is omitted. Koalorka (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with being "worldly"--whatever that non-sequitur means. Cartridge names can be either historically or technically accurate. It is historically inaccurate to call the cartridge "9x19mm Parabellum" and I challenge you to cite to an authoritative source showing that the name is historically accurate. I also see nothing in the WP:MILHIST naming conventions (as you wrote on my talk page) that establishes that "9x19mm Parabellum" is the correct name. Please be more specific, if you can. It seems that you have unilaterally adopted this name and are refusing to cite any authority for it. If there is any valid authority, please cite to it.--Ana Nim (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not forget the non-breaking space space between '9' and 'mm' (9 mm), as required by ISO and the Wikipedia Manual of Style. 193.202.109.254 (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good observation. When referring to the diameter alone, the space should be provided, i.e. 7.62 mm, 9 mm etc. Koalorka (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

For decades 9mm Parabellum was marketed as "9mm Luger" by the major manufacturers in the US. Only recently (1980s onward) was a switch been made to "9mm Parabellum" the original German name. The designation "9x19mm NATO" is catching on. Naaman Brown (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What would happen if an armored person was hit by 9mm round?

What would happen if an armored person was hit by a 9mm round with popular loads at 10 meters? Would it cause light injuries such as bruises? I heard the wounding capability of 9mm rounds against armored targets is very limited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.239.96.202 (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

this is a discussion page for the article, not the subject. --Lepeu1999 (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Here's a direct quotation, from a peer-reviewed secondary source "Nationwide, it is estimated that more homicides were committed with 9 mm pistols in 1992 alone than in the entire decade of the 1980s." I'm inviting comments and sources that invalidate these claims prior to adding this information to the article. Spectre9 (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Another one -- challenge if you must: (the online article contains a typo, can someone go to the library and check the original for me please?) "[9mm] semiautomatic pistols, which have become the favorite weapon of drug runners and neighborhood gangs" Spectre9 (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Direct Quote (emphasis added): The South Florida manufacturer of the 9mm TEC-9, the most popular of all assault guns among drug gangs, advertised his product as "weapons that are as tough as your toughest customers." Spectre9 (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Examples of 9mm weapons are given after this quote: "Police nationwide are upping their firepower with semiautomatic weapons."

Even 50's No. 1 pop hit ``In Da Club finds him boasting, ``Been hit wit' a few shells but I don't walk wit' a limp and ``When I roll 20 deep, it's 20 nines [9mm pistols] in the club." Spectre9 (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, search for these news items and you'll find hundreds of stories, but few gun models alongside 9mm caliber references. I'm not suggesting these items are notable for this article, merely to illustrate how notorious the 9mm is within rap culture. Thse quotes don't make the non-rap quotes any less powerful... "Eminem pleaded guilty last week to a felony involving an unloaded 9mm semiautomatic weapon that he brandished at a man outside a bar" Spectre9 (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Marlinga said Eminem hit John Guerra over the head with a 9mm Smith & Wesson gun after he saw Guerra kissing his wife, Kimberly Mathers, 27. The gun was not loaded, he said." Spectre9 (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

And a 9mm was the bullet that killed Bill Davidson, a Texas DPS trooper whose wife sued Tupac blaming the violent influence of his music for the murder. For those that GOOGLE, try a search for "9mm 2pacalypse" and look for mainstream news coverage... <http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/NewsBank/0ED7B213A6B4FC2D/0FC00B934DD580D0></ref> Spectre9 (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Direct Quote>> As he drew his truck to a stop, Howard says the tape deck was blasting a track by Shakur called "Crooked Ass Nigga." These are some of the lyrics he recalls hearing as he loaded his 9mm pistol: I got a tech-9 now his smokin' ass is mine. Spectre9 (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:GUNS#Pop culture sums up why most of this irrelevant. A few sources are also not reliable sources. These things are a part of your perception which all of us have argued with you that it is skewed. Sorry, you have not built consensus to make the changes you are trying to get. Looks like synthesis to me. I've been firing 9mm weapons for about 30 years and know a lot of shooters who have been firing them as well...I don't know a single one that was influenced by the whole rap culture/gang crap thing. Further, you don't seem to understand that WP editors can dismiss sources based on their cumulative evaluations. We don't have to prove anything to you...the onus is on you to convince us. We do happen to have a consensus currently despite your attempt to brush it off.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you shoot 9mm for 30 years but you must have slept through the 1980s and 1990s. I'm quite familiar with POPCULTURE and that's why I've insured that the sources I choose were not 'fringe' but rather quality sources chosen from a plethora of available sources. I've still got nobody explaining why Newsweek <http://www.newsweek.com/id/35253> is okay for the "60% of cops use the 9mm" but not good for sourcing that 9mm are popular with gangs, criminals and rappers. The story referenced here is, after all, a story ON the popularity of the 9mm. And I went further and found other sources to back up Newsweek. I'm providing references to "reliable" source and the onus is on those challenging the validity of a particular source or a group of sources as to why it/they is unreliable. Please give a shot at research because if even walk into the library and look back at publications in 1987-1995 its impossible to miss the coverage. Spectre9 (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I repeat - NOTABILITY. The round is the most popular handgun cartridge in the world. Of COURSE it's going to register high in popularity with criminals - just like it does with all civilian users. It gives undue weight to one population of civilian users. Criminal usage is covered under civilian usage of the cartridge.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps what we need is to discuss each claim separately.

• The most popular bullet in crime in America is the 9mm.
• The most popular bullet with gangs are 9mm.
• The high capacities offered by weapons shooting 9mm are frequently credited on "large capacity magazine."
• The most famous "assault weapon" used in crime was the TEC-9, chambered 9mm bullets
• The song "9mm goes bang" released in 1987 on the album Criminal Minded is recognized as one of the first if not the earliest first-person "gangsta rap" song.
• The 9mm bullet, called the "nine" in rap music, killed people in the most infamous mass murders in the world (columbine, virginia tech, luby's cafeteria). Each of these murders led to fierce debate on gun politics.
• The 9mm bullet gained worldwide notoriety in the 1980's and 1990's through rap music, mass murders and the "drive by shootings" Spectre9 (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

OK

• We've already established the most popular caliber bullet in America is the 9mm. It follows logically that it would be the most popular with criminals. Explicitly stating that fact gives it undue weight
• See above
• 'High capacity' magazines hold more then 10 rounds. You can get that in .22lr, .25, .380, 9mm, .40S&W, .357 SIG, 10mm, .45ACP to name pistol calibers off the top of my head. That doesn't even begin to cover rifle calibers. High capacity is FAR from limited to 9mm
• Belongs in an article about the TEC9
• Relevance
• relevance
• relevance
• are you claiming that all drive by shootings were done with 9mm?

--Lepeu1999 (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Enough of this. Spectre, you seem to view the history of this round through the very shallow and distorted prism of American popular culture. Your POV pushing stops now. Don't waste your time, urban music and petty street criminals had no effect on the 9x19mm or its perception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koalorka (talk • contribs)

Archive talk page request

Could someone with time and knowledge archive off some of the older discussion topics that are not needed to be kept around for article quality? We have some circa-2006 talk that is settled, and some other topics that could probably be removed to make the talk page shorter. I don't know how to tackle this and don't feel confortable learning how at least on this page. Thanks. Spectre9 (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. Now, we wait for Miszabot to archive...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Spectre9 (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Notoriety Section

Granted I've been away from this article for a bit, but what is the purpose of this section and what does it add to the overall article? The 9mm is a popular cartridge - right, that's established elsewhere. The section keeps referring to 'the pistol'. What pistol? This is an article about a cartridge. There are about 100 types of pistol chambered in 9mm. The 9mm was 'ONE' of the cartridges used in the Columbine killngs? Again, so what? Gang culute popularized the 9mm in the 80's? Really? It had nothing to do with the advent of several new pistols in that caliber with hi-capacity magazines and user-friendly actions - aka the 'Wonder 9's'? WP:Notability. The citations here all go to 1 puff piece in a 'news magazine' and are hardly scholarly from a sociological standpoint. I'm proposing this section be SERIOUSLY re-written or better yet deleted alltogether.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, I wasn't even aware that section had been added. In my opinion it actually degrades the article instead of adding anything to it. Almost everything in that section is true of many cartridges, and I don't think any of it is notable in this article. I think the article would be better off by just deleting it per WP:GUNS#Pop culture. Also, the editor who added this section deleted the entire variants section of FN Five-seven which was filled with factual information that is present in every WP firearms article because "Wikipedia is not a product manual", and then came and added this stuff. It kind of makes you question whether these edits were made in good faith. — DanMP5 15:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

DanMP5 if you read the talk on Five seven you'll see I deleted information that didn't belong on the pistol page, as it concerned the cartridge. You should really think before accusing me of non-good-faith edits. WP:COI I've disclosed, and I work to WP:NPOV. If you have a problem with my fiveseven edits (different article than 5.7x28) then you should address it there, too, or at least discuss it on my talk rather than getting personal. FWIW the 9 in my name has nothing to do with 9mm. It's spectre #9 ala James bond. your turn, MP5. Seriously, the 9mm appeared on the front covet of Criminal Minded in 1987 along with the song "9mm goes bang" and this album was one of if not the first "gangsta rap" albums. To not recognize the role the "nine" plays in rap music is blind! I guess I'll have to start pull out all the academics and books on the subject. (oh yeah, for WP:COI I listen to rap, too, and was a teenager in the 80's). When rappers say 40 they mean beer. When they say nine they mean guns. 45? Colt 45... Spectre9 (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said anything about the 5.7x28mm article, or your removal of information about the cartridge from the Five-seven pistol article. I said you removed the entire variants section of the Five-seven pistol article, and even gave a link to the edit. Please re-read what I said more carefully. — DanMP5 03:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Good enough for me! I'm 'being bold' and deleting it. --Lepeu1999 (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Expect the section to return as the TEC-9 became quite notorious after it's use in Columbine. You'll also find 9mm pistols are famously reported as the pistols of rappers not just in songs... Notorius B.I.G. and Eminem for starters both picked up felony charges from 9mm handguns. The list is quite long, actually, and if one "puff piece generalization" is not suitable then I shall fine better citations. Frankly it's impossible to ignore the prominent role "the nine" has had in lyrics in re hip-hop/rap scene... There's enough quality sources to produce an entire article about it which may be what I do (with a small blurb and main artile link). Spectre9 (talk) 04:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And expect me to delete it again if it does. This is an article about the cartridge, NOT the Tec9 or Rap Music. The 9mm round may or may not have an influence on Rap, but Rap doesn't have influence on a cartridge that's 100 years old.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with removing this utter tripe. Koalorka (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Seconding what Lepeu1999 said. This cartridge is so much more well known for so many other reasons as to make its rap "fame" (if you can call it that) insignificant. And this article is about the cartridge, not the firearms chambered for it, as you seem to be saying they are actually what is "notorious". Also, if you made an entire article about this, it would be AFD'd pretty quickly for being entirely un-notable. — DanMP5 03:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Lepeu & others that this needs to stay out of the article.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 08:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well you'll have your chance to voice opinion as I'll make proposed additions and put up a Noticeboard request for third party disinterested opinions. Considering i found over 35 sources attributing the publicity of the "nine" in gang slang and rap leading to such events as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban the epinominous nature of "nine" to mean 9x19 bullets is hard to miss of you dig back past into the late 80's early nineties. If we want NPOV then all references to the use of 9mm by police and military should be removed as well. It was a 9mm bullet and cartridge that famously killed a DPS worker and led to the "rap defense" and lawsuit against Tupac. Balance suggests that mentioning the Tec-9 and Uzi is as valid as mentioning MP5. I'll let others non watching the article chime in on Noticeboarf, read the citations and add their votes alongside those originating here. When college professors state "nine" is slang for a 9mm handgun then I think it's pretty notorious. It's the caliber... But in meantime I'll remove the police and popularity of 9mm weapons I also added to bring article back into balance. Spectre9 (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You've got 5 editors disagreeing with your position. I would argue that's editorial consensus. Now you're guilty of POV pushing.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I still haven't seen any sources that the 9mm pistols are not popular with rappers, are not more popular with criminals than police, and were not responsible for the assault weapons ba. I've provided WP:RS that make these claims. You can have all the editors in the world agree with you but I still expect you to do research and support your statements. While you accuse me of POV pushing you completely miss the fact that I'm presenting verifiable claims and all "five editors" have done is agree with a POV, not provide WP:RS to contridict what I consider to be well sourced claims. It's a lot of work to do research, and I expect you to put in the effort as well. Spectre9 (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't verifiability, the issue is notability. The round's popularity with rappers isn't WP:notable.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It is notable because of its role in the development of gansta rap, the interralationship between high-profile court cases and music referencing the 9mm. Straight out of the same WP:policies you are referencing. But rap isn't the important part -- its the fact that cops are a smaller user base of 9mm than criminals. Spectre9 (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

edit war

I'd like to avoid edit warring, but must admit I'm upset and tempted to undo the revert of User:Lepeu1999. Since DanMP5 questioned validity of Newsweek as source it makes sense to remove all information sourced to it. Furthermore, to remain neutral removing who uses it, gangs or law enforcement should be done on equal standing. Finally, as original contributor, researcher and sourced of much of what I removed (subsequently reverted by Lepeu1999) I have perogotive in decking to remove my contributions circa 11 June 2009. When I originally added BOTH the gangs/rap and military/LE contributions I added BOTH to be balanced. Editors should not be retaining only one side of the story, particularly when I worked hard to take a balanced approach. One editor already changed my original section title from "fame" to "noteriety". Since my claims were well sourced and verifiable, including proper inline attribution of opinions I believe the actions taken against these edits of mine should be reconsidered. I hope everyone cooks down and considers including both viewpoints or no viewpoints on te types of groups within whom the 9mm is popular. Particularly when such viewpoints are well researched. Heck, in the nineties people called 9mm pistols "assault rifles" and TEC-9 was renamed TEC-DC9 not TEC-10 and it's hard not to see the central role "9mm" plays in gun politics, good and bad. Spectre9 (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Spectre, one of the issues I have with your edits is you keep mixing information on the round with information on various guns that USE that round. The article is about the round, not the guns that use it. Further, the information you added on military and police usage of the round are both on topic, relevant and notable in that they're easily the largest user of the round world wide. The stuff on rap culture is NOT notable from the standpoint of the article. NPOV has absolutly nothing to do with it. With respect to your edits being your own property, I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. Anything you post to wikipedia becomes common property. You don't own your own edits. As to gun politics, the 9mm round has no more bearing on that debate then any other caliber or round.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Spectr9, I've revised your edits to make mention of the round's popularity with criminals, gang and rap culture. Honestly, that's all that warrants - a mention. Your plethora of material unbalances the article. The fact that criminals use the 9mm round is trivial at best and my inclusion of it's mention is an attempt at being inclusive of your input.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being concilitory. Your opinion and the opinions of other editors is important to me. I hope you noticed in my recent edits I incorporated the feedback on cartridge vs guns inmet wording. After all guns don't kill people, bullets do. An unfortunately its true that 9mm bullets kill most often in the US according to numerous sources. It's also well covered that mass murders involving 9mm led to focus on large capacity magazines, a hallmark of the 9mm advantages and a quality I also added with WP:RS. I do wish to work together with you and other editors toward a balanced article. What i hope you understand, though, is my contributions are the direct result of incorporating additional citations from WP:RS. When I saw the REFiMPROVE tag I started researching at my library. And what I found clearly showed that 9mm was central to much of the gun politics of the 1990's. WP:UNDUE says that coverage of a subject should match it's coverage in mainstream media. By that measure, we could argue with each other forever about what has more coverage. Just remember that I haven't been making unsourced edits, and if you continue to challenge my contributions I ask that you locate and cite WP:RS that contridict the properly cited and sourced claims and opinions I added. Remember, Wikipedia isn't about "truth" it's about VERIFIABILITY. I'm not picking frigr subjects or claims

here. Heck, when I mentioned this argument to my girlfriend (who's black) she said "any black person could tell you nine means 9mm" and she doesn't even like rap, yet this same girl didn't even know that my pistols, that she shoots, were 9mm. While a personal example, it indicates the pervasive noteriety of "the nine" --clearly, if a front page article in Newsweek is a "puff piece" we've got some nutrality issues so I'm going to remove the REFIMPROVE since I think we've added enough citations to cover the original deficiency, and add NPOV to encourage other editors, particularly non-gun editors to step in. Spectre9 (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The sources you added are admittedly speculating..and from what? A reporter's point of view. No research, no data (either qualitative or quantitative) and no experts. Just selling a story....

Your logic about "the importance" of the 9mm looks flawed. You seem to be concluding that there was a lot of conscience thought amongst criminals in general (and even more so amongst rappers) about their weapon selections rather than simply recognizing that the 9mm is generally popular and happened to be more of what was available at the pawn shop and for the cheapest of prices in a sizable caliber or perhaps what they stole somewhere. These aren't exactly weapons-savvy folks your talking about...(I just love the holding of a weapon sideways, Hollywood style..cracks me up every time). So, who cares what rap culture thinks about 9mm? Convince us why that should matter. I'm not sure if this still holds true but it used to be that the .22LR is the most used round in crimes in the U.S.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried. Spectre9, you obviously have a political agenda. WP is much more then just about verifiability. The fact that criminals use 9mm guns isn't notable with respect to an article on the 9mm round. Maybe it's notable in articles on criminals, rap culture, gun politics, gangs, whatever. I don't know, I'm not editing artcles on those topics and haven't researched them. Further, criminal usage would come under the auspices of civilian use of the round - which IS covered in the article - it says the round's very popular. It is. There is NO reason to say 'criminals use it too' unless you're pushing a political agenda. the only non-NPOV edits to this article are yours. Finally, your GF's opinion is OR.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Further: There is nothing intrinsic to the round itself that led to the Gun Politics issues of the 90's. The 9mm round was never subject to restriction in the US under any of the various gun laws passed.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I take offense to these personal attacks and ask that you stop them. As I have said repeatedly, here and on my own talk page, I strive for NPOV and have been criticizing edits, and ask that others do the same. Its a wikipedia guideline, or policy or something like that right? As far as 'agenda' goes, as I said before, I don't have an agenda. I simply feel that if we discuss the popularity of 9mm guns we should cover all users -- and in 1980's and 1990's the 9mm arguably had as its most famous users criminals. Either we avoid discussing the guns entirely, or we cover the subject with equal balance -- and frankly the media made not just the US but the WORLD aware of the 9mm. This isn't important enough for me to obsess with, but the high-capacity magazines in 9mm guns, the role gang warfare and drive by shootings, and the "assault weapon" moniker is tied up with 9mm weapons. I'm perfectly comfortable not mentioning users of 'guns' but if we do we should cover it appropriately. And frankly during my research I found far more mentions of criminals using 9mm than I did the military or law enforcement, in mainstream newspapers and magazines. Heck, I provided a quote that the 9mm's popularity with criminals dwarfed that of law enforcement... but I guess some people don't bother checking my research before discounting it. Do the links not work for you. I'd appreciate further discussion to focus on the edits I make once again, and specifically, discuss the inappropriateness of the citations and sources before removing the contributions through a challenge. My only agenda is, if anything, improve quality and NPOV through well-sourced contributions and will respect any contribution with similar goals Spectre9 (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There are no attacks here and you don't level mandates such as "Either we avoid discussing the guns entirely, or we cover the subject with equal balance". Not up to you is it? I'm still waiting on you to make a convincing argument which you have yet to do...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Telling you why I disagree with your edit isn't a personal attack. Suggesting you have an agenda isn't a personal attack. I AM accusing you of POV pushing as you continue to push your POV in the face of strong editorial consensus. Finally the 'assault weapon moniker' ISN'T tied up with 9mm weapons. The biggest boogieman out there tied to the so-called 'assault weapon' term is the AK47 clone - which is 7.62 followed closely by the AR15 family which is 5.56.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Prove that the AK47 is the boogieman. I provided you a source saying the TEC-9 was the most popular gun used in crime, and if you read my sources they blame it and the Uzi for the 'assault weapon' craze. AK47 is mentioned, as is AR-15, but I want to see a source that the AK-47 was more popular than either of those 9mm. Heck, one of my source claims $40 million in sales for TOY UZIs in one year in the 1980s. I don't see strong editorial consensus with merely a couple or a few editors. If we had 10-30 opinions we might have consensus. I marked it NPOV because we need outsiders to step in, read the sources, and give us their opinions. Once again, I've yet to see any sources from any of the people taking issue with me to Verify their claims. Spectre9 (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to. My point is that Assault Weapon goes WELL beyond anything in 9mm. Prove my point? Read the wiki article on the term assault weapon.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't proven your point. You cannot cite another article (see WP:CIRCULAR) and consider that proof. Find a reliable source that contradicts the multiple articles, particularly the articles describing the origin of assault weapons craze as the Uzi seen on TV during Reagan assasination attempt. If what you say is true then you should be able to locate sources to support this opinion of yours. Otherwise, your just ignoring what I keep saying -- I am providing sources, and you are welcome to challenge me with other sources. Have you even READ WP:RS? "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Spectre9 (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Spectre9 - I appreciate your efforts at conciliation with yor recent edits. I'm sorry, but I had to take exception to the Newsweek quote. The quote, as presented, suggests the only users of the 9mm round are police or criminals which is far from the case. The 9mm is also used by thousands of law-abiding, legitimate gun owners. The emphasis your edits place on criminal usage creates a POV situation by discounting legitimate civilian usage of the round. --Lepeu1999 (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

So, no edits/changes on the issue since 8/25. Are we OK with consensus and can we remove the POV dispute tag?--Lepeu1999 (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've BOLDly removed the tag. I think the issue is settled, at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.dstan.mod.uk/data/05/101/01000100.pdf
  • In Glock pistol on 2011-03-22 07:48:29, 404 Not Found
  • In 9×19mm Parabellum on 2011-06-19 22:02:18, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.cip-bp.org/index.php?id=tdcc-telechargement
  • In .223 Remington on 2011-05-20 21:28:33, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 10mm Auto on 2011-05-23 02:08:47, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In .223 Remington on 2011-05-31 04:44:11, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In .325 WSM on 2011-05-31 12:36:32, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 10mm Auto on 2011-06-01 01:40:56, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 5.45x39mm on 2011-06-19 14:22:29, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 6.5x68mm on 2011-06-19 20:34:20, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 8x57mm IS on 2011-06-19 21:41:24, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have an iso of this CD-ROM? I would be eternally grateful for a copy of it for making cartridge diagrams. Morgan Phoenix (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Move

I moved 9×19mm Parabellum to 9×19 mm Parabellum.

I quote from WP:MOSNUM#Unit_symbols:

• Values and unit symbols are separated by a non-breaking space. The {{nowrap}} template or the   character can be used for this purpose. For example, use 10 m or 29 kg, not 10m or 29kg.

Letuño (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Such a move should have been discussed first. MOS doesn't work to correct an industry-wide standard and is wrong in this case. Reliable sources use the convention 9x19mm. We need more input from other editors but I believe the moves need to be reversed.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

OPPOSE and Put it back, it looks like a bag of ass. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. I also went ahead and moved the article back to its original title. According to cartridge naming conventions, the correct title is 9×19mm, not 9×19 mm. This issue has been discussed in detail by the related projects; that is why all cartridge articles on Wikipedia use the non-spaced format. ROG5728 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Numbers SNAFU

I think one of the "MOS enforcers" has screwed up a lot of the numbers in this article. Is the russian overpressure information correct? 147 gr at 1509 fps? 125 gr at 1969 fps? Those seem awfully high to me, especially since it's claimed they are only running 41,000 psi Gigs (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look at it, but if there is a source listing those valuses it can probably be explained. Years ago when I worked for an ammo company, a vest manufacturer requested some loads with particular bullets for penetration tests. At the time I was using W231 and sending over what I determined were pretty hot loads out of a pistol with his bullets. He kept coming back with totally different values and wanted them higher. The hottest I could safely go was using a Vhitavourri powder that I clocked at 1400+ fps with a 125 grain bullet out of a 4-5" barrel. He claimed he was graphing over 1800 fps with the same load. It turned out he was shooting and chronographing them with a 16" HK-94 and not a 5" pistol. Perhaps its whatever source data was used to obtain those ballistics?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, hmm, that might be. Even for a carbine length barrel, they still seem high though. Thanks for checking them. Gigs (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I found a good source (albeit not too scientific, and maybe not a good source in the Wikipedia sense) for chrono numbers for lots of calibers out of various length barrels here Interestingly it looks like with most common pistol powders, you actually start to lose velocity over 13-14 inches. Gigs (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Linky no worky, for me anyway. What type of powders did they lose velocity? fast burners like W231?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Try googling "ballisticsbytheinch" maybe, interesting site regardless of the current topic, worth a read. They didn't do it by powder, but instead did it using popular commercially loaded self-defense type loads, which generally do use relatively fast burning powders. Gigs (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, i'll check it out.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The bullet weights in the tables are 5.2 g (80.2 gr)and 4.1 g (63.3 gr). The cartridge weights (bullet + case + propellant + primer) are 9.5 g (147 gr)and 8.1 g (125 gr). So the complete cartridges weigh about the same as commercial 9 mm bullets. Also consider that military users can use propellants that are not commercially available, but that does not cater for internal ballistic magic. According to the source the overpressure rounds can be used in a limited number of guns, implying that these guns are mechanically designed for Pmax levels exceeding the normal C.I.P. and SAAMI ammunition standards.--Francis Flinch (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That's very interesting. I did not notice the bullets being used were so light. That makes everything more reasonable. Gigs (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Not the right photo

I'm new to this and really don't know how to edit anything, but the first photo on this article isn't a 9x19, it appears to be a .380, looks a couple mm short to me. Hope somebody fixes it. Bluethumb181 (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Moe Epsilon#9mm Parabellum

There is an ongoing discussion at my talk page from another editor, User:8000Shooter, who says there may be inaccuracies in the article and provided a reference for what he was talking about. I am not totally familiar with the subject matter, so could someone review his comments and then update the article accordingly? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 11:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

DoubleTap claims

DoubleTap claims 40" penetration with their special trail defense bullets. That's clearly bullshit; their velocity and mass claims don't support 40" even under ideal conditions. Also, see http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-620708.html where it's agreed that DoubleTap is the biggest sack of liars ever and none of their claims should be taken seriously. 108.226.41.31 (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

US-centric view

The "popularity" section is extremely US-centric. It should be noted that the 9x19mm cartridge is by far the most used military handgun caliber and I would be surprised if it weren't the same with law enforcement. --84.163.199.234 (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That had been in there someplace but in the orgy edit-warring it got lost. I agree the section is US-centric and needs to be expanded. Please feel free to do so.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Here in the US, there's a push to use larger calibre sidearms for LEO use; most, if not all, departments in the area use .40 S&W for their service pistols — usually in the form of the Glock 22. I have seen some .357 Magnum revolvers, ostensibly loaded with .38 Special +P+, but I think this may be personal preference on the part of the officer. Morgan Phoenix (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that people are beginning to see that the caliber wars are completely pointless, there are a lot of LE departments moving back to 9mm, as it gives them more tickets to the party. The Federal_Air_Marshal_Service and the United_States_Secret_Service are notable hold-outs, but as more people become aware that the differences between major defensive calibers are very narrow, this will not last forever. From what I understand, the Secret Service seems to be gravitating toward the 5.7x28mm cartridge in the FN Five-Seven sidearm. Morgan Phoenix (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Buffalo Bore Source

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_list&c=26 Msjayhawk (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Caption for the "9×19mm Parabellum" picture should be revised for clarity

The photo at the beginning, labelled "9×19mm Parabellum," is probably confusing to anyone not already familiar with the subject. The picture doesn't say which cartridge is which and, since 9 mm is larger than 7.62 mm and the cartridge on the left is obviously the biggest, it seems as if the cartridge on the left must be the 9 mm one. Rather than the current caption, "Comparison of 7.62 mm NATO, 5.56 mm NATO and 9×19mm Parabellum," a better caption is that given for the identical picture at the beginning of the article "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_EPVAT_testing": "Left to right: 7.62 mm NATO, 5.56 mm NATO and 9 mm NATO ammunition." Wikifan2744 (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

In the future Wikifan, feel free to change anything that makes an article smoother. If it doesn't change the facts/content your good. But always make sure to check and cite for major content edits. Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 18 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

---

9×19mm Parabellum → 9×19mm Luger – "Luger" is now in more widespread use than "Parabellum", and is therefore the WP:COMMONNAME. Both the C.I.P. ([1]) and SAAMI ([2]) use "Luger". While it appears that "Parabellum" used to be more widespread, "Luger" is eclipsing it. The previous discussion on the topic here seemed to indicate that "Luger" was the American convention and "Parabellum" the preferred international name, but the C.I.P. is the international equivalent of SAAMI.

Google Books since 2000: "9mm Luger" has 15 pages; "9mm Parabellum" also has 15 pages.

Google Scholar since 2000: "9mm Luger" gets 199 results; "9mm Parabellum" gets 182. Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Pinging two editors involved in the previous discussion who seem to still be active: Trekphiler, Naaman Brown. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Just because it's common doesn't make it correct. Do you mean to move Medal of Honor to Congressional Medal of Honor because it's the more common name? Frankly, I oppose Volkswagen Beetle rather than Volkswagen Type 1, too. Let's not go there. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Both of the major ammunition standards bodies use "Luger" over "Parabellum". So do most major firearm and ammunition manufacturers. Isn't that enough to make it correct? Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I call bullshit

The sentence explaining the origin of the word parabellum needs a cited source. The word could also come from the word parabola, which is a shape that matches the shape of the bullet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.109.136.75 (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Provide a source, please.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

'para-bellum' - for war.

it's Latin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in popularity section concerning FBI return to 9mm.

The article currently reads

In 2014, the FBI released a report detailing the potential combat effectiveness of the 9mm cartridge when compared to other calibers such as the .45 ACP and the .40 S&W cartridge that was specifically developed for use by the FBI. The report indicated that the new powders and more advanced bullet designs used in current 9mm defensive loads allowed for the caliber to deliver comparable performance to other calibers, like the .45 ACP, and .40 S&W. In addition to this, the lower recoil, less wear, and higher capacity were all reasons that the report cited for the recent surge in orders of the ammunition from various police agencies. With a wider selection of officers being able to shoot handguns chambered in 9×19mm, many departments choose this caliber so they can standardize around a single firearm and loading, making logistics and supply easier. Due to all of these factors, law enforcement orders of 9mm ammo from all major ammunition manufacturers have spiked significantly.[19]

This is partially correct. The move by the FBI back to 9 x 19mm Luger for a well considered variety of reasons after careful examination of the factors that caused a major reduction in accuracy in shooting by Officers in the FBI and Police Agencies around the nation. Here are SOME of the salient points:

• LEO’s miss between 70 – 80 percent of the shots fired during a shooting incident
• Contemporary projectiles (since 2007) have dramatically increased the terminal effectiveness of many premium line law enforcement projectiles (emphasis on the 9mm Luger offerings)
• 9mm Luger now offers select projectiles which are, under identical testing conditions, I outperforming most of the premium line .40 S&W and .45 Auto projectiles tested by the FBI
• 9mm Luger offers higher magazine capacities, less recoil, lower cost (both in ammunition and wear on the weapons) and higher functional reliability rates (in FBI weapons)
• The majority of FBI shooters are both FASTER in shot strings fired and more ACCURATE with shooting a 9mm Luger vs shooting a .40 S&W (similar sized weapons)
• There is little to no noticeable difference in the wound tracks between premium line law Auto enforcement projectiles from 9mm Luger through the .45 Auto
• Given the above realities and the fact that numerous ammunition manufacturers now make 9mm Luger service ammunition with outstanding premium line law enforcement projectiles, the move to 9mm Luger can now be viewed as a decided advantage for our armed law enforcement personnel.

There is, of course, more to the situation than this suggests. The FBI pushed by some "gun enthusiast types" had adopted the 10mm S&W. From the beginning there were many problems. Although the justification for dropping 10mm was the high rate of parts failure that was only part of the problem. The result... fast forward to the FBI adopting the cartridge which was supposed to be a "perfected" or at least a more reliable form of the 10mm. Jeff Cooper, a very LARGE man, had been a prime proponent of the 10mm (this will become significant later).

The FBI then switched to .40 S&W which was supposed to cure many of the design failures of the 10mm. The .40 S&W was in improvement but guns kept breaking things like roll pins, etc. all over the USA. The makers who chambered .40 S&W in their handguns had taken models that has been engineered for 9 x 19mm Luger and simply rebarrelled them (with new magazines too). The result was a less reliable handgun than 9mm had been.

But that's really only PART of the real issue. When Police agencies switched from 9mm to 40 the ability of officers to qualify on the gun range declined dramatically. The figures given at that time (which I have not found on the internet in the last two hours of looking so I can post a ref, are that 40 was 40% less accurate than 9mm.

This becomes even MORE significant when you consider these factors:

• Unlike Jeff Cooper, the average officer and soldier is not as large. The Police and the Military have to support people from very large to fairly small. (see the XM17 requirements)
• Smaller shooters have more difficulty shooting heavier recoiling guns
• Smaller shooters have more difficulty with larger framed guns
• The US Army is now composed of 10% Female soldiers, a percentage that may well rise. The Police have been seeing this transition also.

Ergo, the XM17 specifications. Here is something that some in the Firearms industry are aware of and it is not a secret. After WWII there were tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of 9mm handguns coming into the USA in the hands of soldiers as "war souvenirs." Some of them were produced using substandard slave labor and substandard materials at the very end of the war. Some of the handguns exploded. Some firearms ammunition makers became very afraid of being sued when a handgun exploded regardless of the reason (such as a faulty gun) and knowing how biased the legal system is in this nation with regards to awarding insane amount of money to unworthy causes, the makers took steps to try to ensure that none of the 9mm handguns would explode using their ammunition.

The result was that 9mm which had been loaded with the normal 115 grain bullet at 1550 fps (614 foot pounds) in Germany was now loaded (today) at 1145 fps. (example from Midway for Remington 9mm) This produce a pitiful amount of muzzle energy, only 345 foot pounds (the same as .45 ACP had been prior to it's getting a recent boost. .45 ACP was originally loaded to 765 fps and 299 foot pounds. The same type of .45 ACP on Midway from Remington lists 835 fps and 356 foot pounds.

In RECENT years more powerful 9mm has appeared. One that I use is the Cor-Bon 115 grain 465 ft. lbs. and I also use Magsafe 65 gr at 1950 fps, 549 ft. lbs. My standard plinking 9mm is Sellier & Bellot 115 gr. 1280 ft. lbs. This is a very popular police round. I had at one time OLDER loading manuals which gave the proper powder and charge to obtain 1550 fps with earlier 9mm. The Germans did not care if they wore out the barrels, and they made extremly strong actions that could easily handle the pressure. Today in the USA a "normally" powerful 9mm is listed as being 9mm Plus P. But in Germany around the time of WWI it would be what could now be called Plus P+

As stated by the FBI, with what they now call Premium quality (which to me is merely 9mm loaded the way it should have been) it's performance is BETTER than .40 or .45 are.

Down to the REAL point. The reason FBI went back to 9mm is that agents and officers everywhere lost 40% shooting accuracy with .40 S&W. The other factors mention, high rates of wear and parts breakage were a factor in causing higher operating costs which Police Departments have major trouble adjusting to. But it's the loss of the ability to hit the bad guy when you need to that was the problem.

An adjunct to not being able to shoot well which added to this decision was the speed of follow on shot target acquisition. The .40 S&W had a higher recoil level even at the same muzzle energy because of the heavier bullet. (I load 140gr in mine). The use of the standard 180 grain bullets seems to have been phased out somewhat as shooters are using loads with less recoil to enhance accuracy and comfort. Digitallymade (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

cartridge table

Several of the numbers for velocity and energy on the cartridge table are incorrect. The Federal +P+ is no longer listed by Federal or shown available at several suppliers. I believe they have simply dropped the +p+ designation.

Glaser Safety Slugs are not listed: 80 gr 1500 fps 399 ft lbs. Magsafe is not listed 64 gr 1950 fps 549 ft lbs

There is no substantiation for the source of the number for that table.Digitallymade (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

If the table results are based on information copied from Street Stoppers: The Latest Handgun Stopping since the information for bullet velocities are incorrect it's likely the rest of the lines are incorrect as well.

Here is a quote from that book:

9mm Magsafe Stealth +P WT 64 Vel 1950 Penetration Depth 10.0 Stretch Cavity 54.6 Muzzle Energy 541 Best Fit 90

On EACH PAGE is a heading saying Copyrighted Material.

Digitallymade (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Repaired all broken links

Repaired all broken links. Digitallymade (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 22 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. That just means that this article will keep its very stable title for now. It also means that if an editor wants to try again to garner a consensus to rename this page, this decision is made without prejudice, and the editor is welcome to do so. Happy Holidays to all! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  02:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

---

9×19mm Parabellum → 9 mm Luger – I'd like to revisit this discussion. Because the last discussion here was poorly closed. The only oppose !vote was clearly out of line with WP:COMMONNAME, a core naming policy, and ignored the evidence at hand. Both SAAMI and CIP use "Luger" in the official standards, so the claim that the current title is more technically correct is itself incorrect. More importantly, if an arguement consists of "I know it's less common, but it's technically correct", then the arguement is plainly invalid by policy.

Most importantly, none of the reliable sources use this title, meaning it is made up, and therefore as far away from "technically correct" as possible. The CIP standard lists "9 mm Parabellum" and "9 x 19 mm" as synonyms, but not the combination used here (the SAAMI standard doesn't even have any synonyms, just "9mm Luger").

So no matter how we slice it, it must be moved. Whether or not to use the space in "9 mm" is minor (it doesn't hurt to keep proper SI form), but ultimately, both standards bodies and the vast majority of manufacturers use "Luger", not "Parabellum". Being that Wikipedia is meant to follow sources, so should we. oknazevad (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. for third, and last time. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose "Luger" is the name of a pistol. "9mm Luger" is used as a name for ammunition but I don't think it's more common than 9x19mm. Pistol models that shoot the cartridge such as the Glock 17 mark barrels with 9x19 and advertise it as 9x19mm but that is a distinction without a difference. Certainly "9mm Luger" should redirect here or disambiguate from the Luger pistol but 9x19mm is common as well as accurate and doesn't create ambiguity with the Luger pistol so that is the best way to handle it. --DHeyward (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • That doesn't address that the standards bodies use "Luger", nor that the current title combines two separate synonyms into a WP:SYNTH title. oknazevad (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    • There are plenty of hits for "9x19mm Parabellum" as well as all other variants that any title is fine. This avoids the confusion of whether this is the pistol or the round. --DHeyward (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Considerimg the "Parabellum" comes from the pistol as well, the current name doesn't really differentiate the two no matter which version we use. So why not use the technically correct, standardized name? oknazevad (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
        • All variations are technically correct. Common use of parabellum isn't confused with Luger pistol and it is used almost exclusively to refer to ammunition. "Luger" does not share that single use. --DHeyward (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
          • But not all variations are, as the current tile is not attested to by the sources in the article. And the "Luger = gun, Parabellum = cartridge" idea isn't borne out either. And this is hardly the only case where a cartridge name includes the name of the designer or manufacturer after the caliber. No one confuses them, so why should the round designed by Georg Luger being called "9mm Luger" cause any more confusion? oknazevad (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've dropped a note about this RM at WT:GUNS to hopefully draw some more opinions. Jenks24 (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - on the grounds of Common Name which can take precedent over "standards". From what I've seen over the years "9mm Parabellum" is a common name and "9mm Luger" isn't. So leave it at current or move to 9mm Parbellum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GraemeLeggett (talk • contribs) 10:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You don't think the name printed on the side of every box of the ammo is not common? "9 mm Parabellum" is not a bad name, though. The current one is a mashup, and needs to change either way. oknazevad (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

UK government contract asks for "Manufacture & Supply of NATO Rounds 9 mm x 19mm Parabellum" [3] Museum (IWM) uses name in collection "9 mm Parabellum cartridge & death threat letter" [4]. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disputes that they're valid synonyms (through the exact combination of "9×19mm Parabellum" seems unused or at the least very rare), I'm just arguing that "9 mm Luger" is significantly more common. oknazevad (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - For the same exact reason as was stated here already, 9×19mm Parabellum is the commonly used and referred to name. YborCityJohn (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I still haven't seen a single source that uses this exact title. oknazevad (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support - the article's own sources seem to primarily say "9mm Luger",[5][6][7] and nobody has provided any evidence that the current name is remotely a common name.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Those seem a narrow selection of sources. A manufacturer, the standards for civilian cartridges, and rebranded About.com. What about some sources that refer to the usage of the cartridge in small arms.? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

When you say "small arms", I presume you mean military use? I don't know if that is a meaningful distinction here, being that the cartridge is identical for all uses, civilian, law enforcement, and military. oknazevad (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Seems to be much more common on Google News ([8] vs. [9]) and Google Books ([10] vs. [11]).--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Most telling is that all the Google Books results are Wikipedia mirrors, essentially proving that the current title is made up, and does not in any way reflect actual sources. oknazevad (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Perhaps your results and mine vary, and Google is like that. My second hit in Google books doesn't seem to be a mirror at all, it's Burma's armed forces: power without glory by Andrew Selth, EastBridge 2002 and digitised 2010, ISBN 1891936190, 9781891936197, page 144. Andrewa (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that came up this time for me as well (oddly, it didn't yesterday my time when I last looked). That said, it actually formatted it as "9/19 mm Parabellum", still not this title. All the other results on the first page are Wikipedia article collections. Continuing in to the second and third pages, the books that have previews (most of which are military and civilian arms references) don't appear to use the actual title of this article. In fact, "9 mm Luger" seems the most common. oknazevad (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment Search Google Books for "9mm Luger" and "9mm Parabellum". The term "9mm Parabellum" seems to be in common use. I think "9mm Parabellum" or "9mm Luger" is preferable to using "9x19mm" in the title per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Callinus (talk) 10:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 9×19mm Parabellum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014041459/http://leverguns.com/articles/saami_pressures.htm to http://www.leverguns.com/articles/saami_pressures.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.marines.mil/unit/31stmeu/Pages/Marinesconducturbanwarfaretraining.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  03:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 9×19mm Parabellum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080406092513/http://www.dstan.mod.uk/data/05/101/01000100.pdf to http://www.dstan.mod.uk/data/05/101/01000100.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  03:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Parabellum09v2.stl

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)