The Wonder Nine Years

[Petrol & Powder]

I was talking to some Millennial the other day and used the term “Wonder Nine”; he looked at me with his head tilted to one side like a confused dog. This guy was alive during the Reagan administration but likely in diapers for a portion of Reagan’s first term. I explained that the term “Wonder Nine” was coined to describe the plethora of high capacity, double action, semi-auto pistols chambered in 9mm Luger that flooded the market in the 1980’s. If you were aware of the firearms scene in the 1980’s, it was an incredible explosion of firearm’s development. The actual guns were interesting but it was the large scale developmental step that was critical. Sort of like reaching the pinnacle of piston engine aircraft design right before we moved onto jets. It was a cool time to watch what was going on in the handgun world.

Prior to the 1980’s, full size handguns used for serious social work could be broken down into two categories: Double action revolvers and single action/single stack semi-auto pistols.
Obviously, full sized double action pistols existed prior to the 1980’s and were deployed in significant numbers. For example the Illinois State Police started issuing the S&W Model 39 in 1968. However the overall trend in the U.S. at the beginning of the 1980’s was for DA revolvers OR a single stack/single action pistol. That trend was broken in the “Wonder Nine” years and it was broken in a big kind of way.

Most of the development in the Wonder Nine era consisted of expanding existing technology. Double column pistol magazines existed but were generally seen in single action pistols such as the Browning Hi-Power.
Double action pistols such as the Walther P-38 and S&W Model 39 had been available for decades.

It was the combination of those existing technologies that took off during the era.
There was also some innovation in the Wonder Nine era that broke with tradition and helped move everything forward. H&K had developed the first polymer pistol frame with the VP-70 but Glock took that concept and really ran with it. There’s no doubt that Glock was a game changer.

SIG used a stamped and folded steel shell with a separate breach block to form the slide for the P220. That allowed for a lightweight, durable slide that was inexpensive to produce rapidly. That technology was utilized in the P225 (P5) and P226 as well. Speaking of SIG, the de-cocking lever used on SIG Sauer pistols was a departure from the traditional safeties used. Perhaps the biggest contribution by SIG was the method used to lock the barrel to the slide. SIG pioneered the use of a squared off ejection port that acted as the locking lug for the square cross section barrel. Yep, that now ubiquitous method of locking the barrel to the slide with the forward edge of the ejection port was a SIG design! Prior to that, most Browning short recoil designs used one or two rounded cuts inside the slide to mate with corresponding lugs on the barrel just forward of the chamber. The SIG method gave birth to ugly square cross section slides but it’s far less expensive to produce.

Beretta took its existing designs to a new level and added features such as a firing pin block, a slide mounted de-cocking safety and a reversible magazine release in the traditional 1911 location. Those changes helped Beretta win the U.S. Military contract for the first new pistol in 75 years.

S&W saw the writing on the wall and produced the second generation semi-auto pistols followed by the third gen pistols. For a while it looked like S&W was releasing one new gun per week!

The Ruger P-85 was a little late to the game but was a good value when it did arrive.

Taurus made the PT-99 that was almost a copy of the Beretta 92 but with a frame mounted safety and a few other minor differences.

H&K had the exotic P7M13, which was a double stack version of the P7M8 pistol. The New Jersey State Police issued that unique gun for some time.

The CZ-75 was still behind the iron curtain but a few examples made it to the west. There were some copies of the CZ that helped to spread that great design to the free world before the collapse of the Soviet Union. When the time came, the CZ was well received.

By the time the 1990’s arrived there had been a quantum leap forward in the U.S. handgun market. Law enforcement had embraced the semi-auto pistol and the reign of the DA revolver was on the decline. The U.S. military had adopted the Beretta M9. The civilian market consumed every “Wonder Nine” that was offered and the demand only increased.

Not all of the Wonder Nine era pistols survive in production to this day but the era was a quantum leap forward in a market that had remained fairly stagnant for decades.
It may be a little too soon to realize the incredible magnitude of the transitions that took place but those changes were significant. It was an AMAZING time in the history of firearms.

[lefty o]

I was talking to some Millennial the other day and used the term “Wonder Nine”; he looked at me with his head tilted to one side like a confused dog. This guy was alive during the Reagan administration but likely in diapers for a portion of Reagan’s first term. I explained that the term “Wonder Nine” was coined to describe the plethora of high capacity, double action, semi-auto pistols chambered in 9mm Luger that flooded the market in the 1980’s. If you were aware of the firearms scene in the 1980’s, it was an incredible explosion of firearm’s development. The actual guns were interesting but it was the large scale developmental step that was critical. Sort of like reaching the pinnacle of piston engine aircraft design right before we moved onto jets. It was a cool time to watch what was going on in the handgun world.

Prior to the 1980’s, full size handguns used for serious social work could be broken down into two categories: Double action revolvers and single action/single stack semi-auto pistols.
Obviously, full sized double action pistols existed prior to the 1980’s and were deployed in significant numbers. For example the Illinois State Police started issuing the S&W Model 39 in 1968. However the overall trend in the U.S. at the beginning of the 1980’s was for DA revolvers OR a single stack/single action pistol. That trend was broken in the “Wonder Nine” years and it was broken in a big kind of way.
Most of the development in the Wonder Nine era consisted of expanding existing technology. Double column pistol magazines existed but were generally seen in single action pistols such as the Browning Hi-Power.
Double action pistols such as the Walther P-38 and S&W Model 39 had been available for decades.
It was the combination of those existing technologies that took off during the era.
There was also some innovation in the Wonder Nine era that broke with tradition and helped move everything forward. H&K had developed the first polymer pistol frame with the VP-70 but Glock took that concept and really ran with it. There’s no doubt that Glock was a game changer.
SIG used a stamped and folded steel shell with a separate breach block to form the slide for the P220. That allowed for a lightweight, durable slide that was inexpensive to produce rapidly. That technology was utilized in the P228 (P5) and P226 as well. Speaking of SIG, the de-cocking lever used on SIG Sauer pistols was a departure from the traditional safeties used. Perhaps the biggest contribution by SIG was the method used to lock the barrel to the slide. SIG pioneered the use of a squared off ejection port that acted as the locking lug for the square cross section barrel. Yep, that now ubiquitous method of locking the barrel to the slide with the forward edge of the ejection port was a SIG design! Prior to that, most Browning short recoil designs used one or two rounded cuts inside the slide to mate with corresponding lugs on the barrel just forward of the chamber. The SIG method gave birth to ugly square cross section slides but it’s far less expensive to produce.
Beretta took its existing designs to a new level and added features such as a firing pin block, a slide mounted de-cocking safety and a reversible magazine release in the traditional 1911 location. Those changes helped Beretta win the U.S. Military contract for the first new pistol in 75 years.
S&W saw the writing on the wall and produced the second generation semi-auto pistols followed by the third gen pistols. For a while it looked like S&W was releasing one new gun per week!
The Ruger P-85 was a little late to the game but was a good value when it did arrive.
Taurus made the PT-99 that was almost a copy of the Beretta 92 but with a frame mounted safety and a few other minor differences.
H&K had the exotic P7M13, which was a double stack version of the P7M8 pistol. The New Jersey State Police issued that unique gun for some time.
The CZ-75 was still behind the iron curtain but a few examples made it to the west. There were some copies of the CZ that helped to spread that great design to the free world before the collapse of the Soviet Union. When the time came, the CZ was well received.

By the time the 1990’s arrived there had been a quantum leap forward in the U.S. handgun market. Law enforcement had embraced the semi-auto pistol and the reign of the DA revolver was on the decline. The U.S. military had adopted the Beretta M9. The civilian market consumed every “Wonder Nine” that was offered and the demand only increased.

Not all of the Wonder Nine era pistols survive in production to this day but the era was a quantum leap forward in a market that had remained fairly stagnant for decades.
It may be a little too soon to realize the incredible magnitude of the transitions that took place but those changes were significant. It was an AMAZING time in the history of firearms.prior to the 1980's this was the wonder 9, double stack 13rnds, and all metal.199345

[ReloaderFred]

Joe Foster developed the Model 39 for the Air Force, but they didn't adopt it, so it was released to the public. In the early 1970's, he developed the Model 59 for police use, and it was the first double action/single action double stack 9mm to go into common use in law enforcement. In between those two, Joe developed the Model 52 for Bullseye shooters.

I was rangemaster for our department (600 sworn officers) from early 1977 to late 1979, when I promoted to Sergeant. We had purchased about 400 of the Model 59's in about 1974 or '75 to augment our Model 19's, and the Deputies were given their choice. About half the department were issued the 59's if they chose to, and that ratio stayed true during my tenure as rangemaster. The 59's were never as accurate as the 19's, and I made several Deputies switch back to carrying the Model 19, simply because they couldn't shoot a qualifying score with the 59, but could with the 19. We shot to 50 yards in those days, and the 59 was never a 50 yard pistol....

There were also ammunition issues during this time, as there wasn't a plethora of duty 9x19 ammunition available to choose from. We adopted the Winchester 100 gr. SP ammunition early on, because that was the only ammunition that would reliably feed. We then used the Speer 125 gr. RNSP for awhile. When Winchester came out with their Silvertip 9x19 ammunition, I switched the department over to that, which proved to be a good round in the shootings in which it was used, both in 9x19 and .38 Spl. +P.

I worked across the bench from Joe Foster for two days in 1978, when S&W brought him back out of retirement to correct the feeding and extraction issues that had developed with the Model 59's. Any Model 39 or 59 extractor that has a pin mark on the front edge has the extractor that Joe redesigned, along with a stronger extractor spring. The full loop barrel bushing was also one of his improvements, along with the four legged magazine follower. I had to replace 5 parts in each of our 59's, and then fire 5 rounds through each of the three magazines issued with each pistol. I got really good at "finger firing" those pistols and anyone who heard me test firing swore I was shooting a machine gun in short 5 round bursts.

Hope this helps.

Fred

[corbinace]

Thank you for taking the time to type a great history lesson Gentlemen.

[Bigslug]

I dunno. . .perhaps exciting at the time, but rather "meh" in retrospect.

The main thing that this "quantum leap forward" seemed to bring about was a 1911 renaissance of such magnitude in the mid 1990's that the ghost of John Browning would seem to have studied the Wondernines and said "Keep practicin' dudes".

At it's core, the Wondernine movement was about putting a fat magazine on a Walther P38 or attaching a Walther P-38 trigger to a Browning lockup. We've since pretty much concluded that the DA/SA trigger is a lawyer additive that does marksmanship no favors.

And the return of the fighting revolver similarly summons the shade of Ed McGivern, who comes to remind us that capacity is often the crutch of them what can't shoot.

A decade of attempts to fix what wasn't broken perhaps?

[Petrol & Powder]

I dunno. . .perhaps exciting at the time, but rather "meh" in retrospect.

The main thing that this "quantum leap forward" seemed to bring about was a 1911 renaissance of such magnitude in the mid 1990's that the ghost of John Browning would seem to have studied the Wondernines and said "Keep practicin' dudes".

At it's core, the Wondernine movement was about putting a fat magazine on a Walther P38 or attaching a Walther P-38 trigger to a Browning lockup. We've since pretty much concluded that the DA/SA trigger is a lawyer additive that does marksmanship no favors.

And the return of the fighting revolver similarly summons the shade of Ed McGivern, who comes to remind us that capacity is often the crutch of them what can't shoot.

A decade of attempts to fix what wasn't broken perhaps?

One view of the situation and I'll certainly give you that. I wouldn't characterize it as a decade of attempts to fix what wasn't broken but rather a decade that saw a rush of new designs.

But history is history regardless of how one feels about it.

As for the core of the "Wonder Nine" movement being about putting fat magazine in a DA/SA pistol? That was certainly a part of the movement, not sure I would classify it as the core of the movement. Some of the technology wasn't incredibly new; some of it was.
I would submit that the "core" of the movement was the large amount of development that occurred in a short period of time. Civilized people can debate about whether or nor that change was positive, or even needed, but there's no denying it occurred.

Glock was a game changer. Intelligent folks can respectfully debate if it was a good game changer but there's no doubt that the handgun world changed after the introduction of the Glock.
SIG's method of locking the barrel to the slide with a squared off ejection port was a game changer. That design has been copied in dozens of types and has been widely adopted. Is it better than John Browning's dual rounded lugs? I don't know but it's certainly popular and appears to be easier to produce.
There was a lot more to the Wonder Nine movement than fat magazines.

CLEARLY not every shooter embraced the Wonder Nine movement. The good news is: one doesn't have to embrace it. You're free to reject all of it or parts of it. But that lack of universal acceptance doesn't change the fact that the movement occurred. I would submit that the movement advanced handgun design that had become somewhat stagnant.


And for the record, I'm still a diehard DA revolver guy. When I do choose to shoot a pistol, it tends to be a single stack type.

Cheers

[Petrol & Powder]

Joe Foster developed the Model 39 for the Air Force, but they didn't adopt it, so it was released to the public. In the early 1970's, he developed the Model 59 for police use, and it was the first double action/single action double stack 9mm to go into common use in law enforcement. In between those two, Joe developed the Model 52 for Bullseye shooters.

I was rangemaster for our department (600 sworn officers) from early 1977 to late 1979, when I promoted to Sergeant. We had purchased about 400 of the Model 59's in about 1974 or '75 to augment our Model 19's, and the Deputies were given their choice. About half the department were issued the 59's if they chose to, and that ratio stayed true during my tenure as rangemaster. The 59's were never as accurate as the 19's, and I made several Deputies switch back to carrying the Model 19, simply because they couldn't shoot a qualifying score with the 59, but could with the 19. We shot to 50 yards in those days, and the 59 was never a 50 yard pistol....

There were also ammunition issues during this time, as there wasn't a plethora of duty 9x19 ammunition available to choose from. We adopted the Winchester 100 gr. SP ammunition early on, because that was the only ammunition that would reliably feed. We then used the Speer 125 gr. RNSP for awhile. When Winchester came out with their Silvertip 9x19 ammunition, I switched the department over to that, which proved to be a good round in the shootings in which it was used, both in 9x19 and .38 Spl. +P.

I worked across the bench from Joe Foster for two days in 1978, when S&W brought him back out of retirement to correct the feeding and extraction issues that had developed with the Model 59's. Any Model 39 or 59 extractor that has a pin mark on the front edge has the extractor that Joe redesigned, along with a stronger extractor spring. The full loop barrel bushing was also one of his improvements, along with the four legged magazine follower. I had to replace 5 parts in each of our 59's, and then fire 5 rounds through each of the three magazines issued with each pistol. I got really good at "finger firing" those pistols and anyone who heard me test firing swore I was shooting a machine gun in short 5 round bursts.

Hope this helps.

Fred

That WAS helpful, thank you.

And I'll add a bit to the ammunition comments:
You're correct, when it came to the 9mm Luger cartridge, there wasn't a lot to choose from in those days. IF your local general store/hardware store carried pistol ammunition you were usually relegated to 115 gr FMJ and 9mm ammunition in general wasn't that common.
Hollowpoint 9mm ammo was pretty much a gun store only purchase outside of government procurement. The Federal 9BPLE round could sometimes be found for sale in commercial establishments. That was and still is, an excellent cartridge.
Occasionally the Winchester Silvertip would be on a shelf. All of the ammunition companies offered 9mm HP loads in those days but a lot of gun stores had a limited selection of 9mm cartridges.
I do remember seeing (and sometimes buying) large quantities of military surplus 9mm ammo. A lot of that was in those plain brown boxes marked "9mm BALL NATO". Some of that was U.S. made and some wasn't. The foreign stuff sometimes had corrosive primers.

The ammunition situation improved greatly by the late 1980's and early 1990's.

[sawinredneck]

I still think the H&K USP should have beat out the Berreta for the military, quick change trigger/fire groups in every imaginable configuration!
Then the Jericho convertible 9mm .41AE, one frame, two slides, two different rounds. Almost bought one of them NIB but the .41 ammo was scarce, even then!
Then the "one shot stop" reports and the FBI ballistics tests came out around the same time, I garnered a lot of information reading up on those and lost a lot of faith in the 9mm and the search/love affair with 10mm began for me. Just as fast as it got popular it got side swiped by the .40 short and weak. I remember S&W came out with the ammo so fast the only gun available to shoot it was the S&W 610 10mm revolver.
It was a crazy time for sure!

[tazman]

During that period I was watching events and trying to learn how to properly shoot my revolvers. The wonder nines weren't on my radar since I was interested in target accuracy, not combat use.
The money I had, needed to go for house payments and raising my 2 daughters so revolvers I could easily reload for were my choices.
I found the double stack nines that I got to handle were very bulky and didn't feel comfortable at all since I was used to revolvers. Combine that with 9mm ammunition that was nearly unavailable at my location, and I had a situation that was not very favorable to experimenting with new pistols.
I own four 9mm handguns now. My choices may say something about what I think about types of handguns. I own one Beretta 92fs, one S&W 929 revolver, two 1911 pistols in 9mm.
The Beretta gets fired every couple of months to maintain function and familiarity. It mostly sits next to my reloading table with a couple of loaded magazine with it.
The other three get to the range quite often as they are all three quite accurate.
Accuracy is still the name of the game for me.
The development process during those years was interesting to observe. It seemed great strides were being taken to make really great pistols available. So many of those pistols were only available for a short time. Not so many have survived to prove the quality of their design.
I don't know if that was due to the design or the quality of materials and workmanship. If you look back at what is still available and functioning well after all the years, you can see which designs have passed the test of time.
Wonder nines had and still have, their place in the scheme of things. The rapid development of the many design elements brought a lot of options to the public. It is always good to reflect on how that happened and what is left from that time.
I am looking forward to the future and whatever new developments will emerge. The development process is ongoing. New materials, new ammunition, new manufacturing methods, all have their effect on the design and quality of the available pistols. Maybe the designers will come up with something we would never have believed possible a couple of decades ago.

[Petrol & Powder]

I remember the Jericho and the .41AE round ! It used a rebated rim that allowed it to interchange with a breach face cut for a 9mm. Not sure that was the best idea and apparently consumers agreed ! The 40 S&W killed the 41AE very quickly.

As for the H&K USP pistol, it came too late to be included in the Army's pistol tests in 1984 and again in 1988. The USP development started in 1989 and it didn't enter production until 1993. H&K did enter a pistol in the trials, but it was the P7M13 not the USP.
And other than the Mk23 "SOCOM" pistol by H&K which was adopted in 1996 for use by some special operators, I don't think the military wants a pistol that has a fire group that can be reconfigured. They can barely train people to use 1 fire control system on the Beretta :shock:

[Char-Gar]

A very good recounting of that time and it's effect on firearms development. I should also like to add this was at the start of the cocaine era and the average cop was told he/she was under gunned to met the challenge. There was a "perceived" notion that a revolver with 12 on the belt or a SA autopistol were not enough to even the odds.

Today, we look at the situation and with LEO there are more shots fired due to mag capacity, but no more hitting that there was before the wonder nine time.

[scattershot]

An interesting time, to be sure. I remember Smith & Wesson was on a "flavor of the month" program at that time, and it was hard to keep up with developments.

[Pistolero49]

This is a great post with great comments by all. It took me back to my younger years. I am primarily a DA/SA man but in 1990 I bought "My first wonder nine". It was a Beretta 92FS and I still own it. It looks pretty much like new even though I've fired thousands of rounds through it. My second is a Glock 19 Gen 4 that I bought about five years ago. I enjoy them both.

[Petrol & Powder]

A very good recounting of that time and it's effect on firearms development. I should also like to add this was at the start of the cocaine era and the average cop was told he/she was under gunned to met the challenge. There was a "perceived" notion that a revolver with 12 on the belt or a SA autopistol were not enough to even the odds.

Today, we look at the situation and with LEO there are more shots fired due to mag capacity, but no more hitting that there was before the wonder nine time.

Good point. While all police officers carry guns not all police officers are "gun people". The gun savvy officers were more than content with their DA revolvers and single stack autos but they were grossly outnumbered by the officers that perceived themselves to be at a "firepower" disadvantage. It's a classic case of emotion overruling logic. There wasn't a real need but enough people "felt" there was a need to drive the trend.
There's no doubt that the U.S. saw a huge increase in violent crime in the 1980's and early 1990's. I'm not sure if the proliferation of the Wonder Nines made the average cop desire that new high capacity pistol or if the police demand for high capacity pistols created a market for those guns that drove development. In reality, it was probably a little of both. It was also likely to be a bit symbiotic and self fulfilling. Cops wanted high capacity pistols, manufactures wanted to sell pistols, cops perceived a need because there were so many high capacity pistols on the market, and around and around we go.

The LE trend from revolvers to pistols is rather difficult to completely define in terms of time frame. However it's fairly safe to say that it generally started in the 1980's and was about finished in the early 1990's. There are plenty of aberrations such as the Illinois State Police and the department that ReloaderFred wrote about that purchased 400 S&W model 59's in the mid 1970's.

And it wasn't just police. The military wanted a new pistol that was compatible with the 9mm ammunition used by our European NATO allies. Civilians saw the new high capacity, DA/SA pistols and liked them. Increased violence associated with drug trafficking certainly played a role but there was demand on many fronts.

[tazman]

I remember a police officer in the small town I lived in for 43 years(population 2500 approx) liked the idea of high capacity magazines. He didn't trust the 9mm however. He carried a Para Ordinance double stack 45 acp.
I asked him about his choice once and he said he didn't want to be under gunned when he ran into a problem. During the entire time I lived in that town, I don't know of any police officer firing his weapon on duty.
Personally, I think he was a little paranoid but I guess you never know what you will run into. Since I moved away the town has developed a reputation as a good place to buy drugs. There have been several drug busts for both dealing and manufacturing there.
Maybe he was right.

[pjames32]

Good history lesson! In the early 70's I lived in Illinois and shot "Bullseye". We all had our favorite 1911. Some of our new members came in with the S&W 39. No one, even our best shooters, could shoot the same target with a 39 as they could with their 1911.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Great discourse on the "Wonder Nine(s)" and comments that followed. Having lived through that era, from the S&W 39 through Glock, and looking at current production pistols I think it's safe to say that it isn't really over. The ideas of light weight, high capacity, double action live on and have just been refined a bit.

To me it is just as interesting to examine the course the 9mm Luger/Parabellum round has followed, from FMJ to HP urged forward by hyper velocity loadings. The original idea was, I believe, to have more rounds available, but in actual use the early issue ammunition proved relatively ineffective and led to the .40 S&W Auto, so widely adopted by law enforcement agencies as a direct replacement for the 9mm, and the plethora of newly designed and modified pistols that brought about. Interestingly, today many agencies are leaving the .40 and returning to the 9mm, as advances in bullet design and loads have increased its effectiveness to where once again a few more rounds can be designed into the pistol's capacity. I was always a .45 ACP man, but in the last few years have changed to a 9mm and have a lot of faith in it based up the analysis of actual street shootings using modern defensive loads.

The one negative comment I can summon is that when the high capacity 9mm pistols first became general issue, it seemed to evolve with use that you'd better hit the bad guy several times to stop him. Even though the early 9mm ammo was replaced with more effective rounds the "pray and spray" mind set seems to still exist along with its collateral damage and general ineffectiveness. This usually wasn't a problem with a well placed .357 round and the knowledge that after that one you only had five more remaining, rather than 15.

[Char-Gar]

I remember a police officer in the small town I lived in for 43 years(population 2500 approx) liked the idea of high capacity magazines. He didn't trust the 9mm however. He carried a Para Ordinance double stack 45 acp.
I asked him about his choice once and he said he didn't want to be under gunned when he ran into a problem. During the entire time I lived in that town, I don't know of any police officer firing his weapon on duty.
Personally, I think he was a little paranoid but I guess you never know what you will run into. Since I moved away the town has developed a reputation as a good place to buy drugs. There have been several drug busts for both dealing and manufacturing there.
Maybe he was right.

I doubt he was paranoid in the true sense of the world. I can understanding wanting to stack the desk in your favor, as much as you can, even though the danger is very very remote. There is a good Colt 45 auto about one foot from my gun hand as I key this in. The likelihood of me needed it, is far more remote than the improbably danger faced by that officer.

[tazman]

I doubt he was paranoid in the true sense of the world. I can understanding wanting to stack the desk in your favor, as much as you can, even though the danger is very very remote. There is a good Colt 45 auto about one foot from my gun hand as I key this in. The likelihood of me needed it, is far more remote than the improbably danger faced by that officer.

I understand and meant no disrespect. Everyone has their own comfort zone.
I have a S&W model 60 loaded within easy reach as I type this as well. I am undoubtedly just as "paranoid" as he was since I still live in a small town without any serious violence in a long time.

[Petrol & Powder]

I don't think the guns themselves are as important as the development that occurred in a short period of time.

It wasn't all good but it was far from bad.

It was an interesting time.

[Texas by God]

I remember Jeff Cooper called them "Crunchentickers". He wasn't much of a fan. I fired most of them and my favorite is still the Beretta 92. I should get one someday. I had a Ruger P89 with a lanyard that went around my neck or shoulder and with two 30 rd mags I could lay down some accurate fire. Fun guns and a high cap 9mm is handy to have around.
Best, Thomas.

[Petrol & Powder]

Cooper had a soft spot for the CZ-75, probably because it could be "cocked & locked" like a 1911.


I've owned several Wonder Nines and still have my Beretta 92F, wish I still had my 92SB........

[MT Gianni]

I had an early fascination with a friends S&W 669 a small 9mm auto w 3 1/2" bbl IIRC. It wouldn't beat out a high power in usefulness but it was fun. I broke down with the Clintons 10 rd mag ban and bought a P89. I believe the trigger pull was more than the guns massive weight. Happiest day with it was when I sold it. I have a CZ and a Blackhawk in the 9mm dept now and am OK with them both.

[sawinredneck]

I remember the Jericho and the .41AE round ! It used a rebated rim that allowed it to interchange with a breach face cut for a 9mm. Not sure that was the best idea and apparently consumers agreed ! The 40 S&W killed the 41AE very quickly.

As for the H&K USP pistol, it came too late to be included in the Army's pistol tests in 1984 and again in 1988. The USP development started in 1989 and it didn't enter production until 1993. H&K did enter a pistol in the trials, but it was the P7M13 not the USP.
And other than the Mk23 "SOCOM" pistol by H&K which was adopted in 1996 for use by some special operators, I don't think the military wants a pistol that has a fire group that can be reconfigured. They can barely train people to use 1 fire control system on the Beretta :shock:
You are correct about the trials with the H&K USP, I had the timeline wrong, I was thinking of when they thought about issuing USP's to spec ops because you could use the safety to lock the slide on subsonic rounds with a suppressor and manually cycle for the next round. I don't think that ever came to be, but I sure understand the concept!
And yes, you are very correct on the training aspect! I still remember the guy that swore to me he could hit a quarter at 35yds with the Berretta, I didn't have the money to buy one just to prove him wrong unfortunately.

[sawinredneck]

Great discourse on the "Wonder Nine(s)" and comments that followed. Having lived through that era, from the S&W 39 through Glock, and looking at current production pistols I think it's safe to say that it isn't really over. The ideas of light weight, high capacity, double action live on and have just been refined a bit.

To me it is just as interesting to examine the course the 9mm Luger/Parabellum round has followed, from FMJ to HP urged forward by hyper velocity loadings. The original idea was, I believe, to have more rounds available, but in actual use the early issue ammunition proved relatively ineffective and led to the .40 S&W Auto, so widely adopted by law enforcement agencies as a direct replacement for the 9mm, and the plethora of newly designed and modified pistols that brought about. Interestingly, today many agencies are leaving the .40 and returning to the 9mm, as advances in bullet design and loads have increased its effectiveness to where once again a few more rounds can be designed into the pistol's capacity. I was always a .45 ACP man, but in the last few years have changed to a 9mm and have a lot of faith in it based up the analysis of actual street shootings using modern defensive loads.

The one negative comment I can summon is that when the high capacity 9mm pistols first became general issue, it seemed to evolve with use that you'd better hit the bad guy several times to stop him. Even though the early 9mm ammo was replaced with more effective rounds the "pray and spray" mind set seems to still exist along with its collateral damage and general ineffectiveness. This usually wasn't a problem with a well placed .357 round and the knowledge that after that one you only had five more remaining, rather than 15.

The 9mm shortcomings weren't the reason they developed the .40, the Fedral "9BP" rounds were rather effective at the time honestly, it was the idea of the 145grn loads that failed.
The .40 came from the FBI's adaptation of the 10mm, there were many officers that complained of the harsh recoil and large grip. The FBI hit up ammo manufacturers to come up with a "reduced load" so they could get everyone to qualify with it. Thus nuturing the round! S&W said "Hey, less powder, lets just make it the same OAL as the 9mm with the larger diameter then we can put it in existing frames we have!" Thus the .40 S&W was born.
Now I call horse pucky on this! A buddy of mine and his 135lb wife were at a sporting goods store, I forget the name, and she was looking at a 10mm in the case and wanted to handle it. The two young male clerks chuckled "Lady, you don't want that gun, you won't be able to handle the recoil! That thing kicks like a mule!" I doubt either had ever shot one. My buddy pipes up, "Well that's funny, I've got a friend with a Delta Elite and she can out shoot him with his own gun!"
Now, as much as it pains me, it was me and my Delta Elite he was referring to, and yes, she can out shoot me with that gun!

[Rainier]

Great thread with some fantastic history! Thank you! For me I guess I missed the “Wonder Nine” years. As a young and dumb 17 year old I joined the U.S. Army and had the wonderful folks at Ft. Bragg teach me how to shoot a 1911 so after that I wasn’t sure why you needed another gun - who knew? After I left the service I purchased a 1911 and later bought a model 13 S&W (sadly, I let the Smith get away from me). I figured if you were going to carry a .35 caliber hand gun it might as well be something that was going to get the job done.

Then sometime during the early 90’s a couple of folks I shot with showed up with these plastic 9mm things. I rapidly discovered that a Glock trigger was a “mush-bang” kinda deal so when the opportunity to buy a Glock 19 presented itself I bought it just to learn Glock trigger. I never really considered it a gun to carry - I mean it was just a .35 caliber moving at the speed of pond water and oh yeah, I had a 1911. Well, after burning lots of ammo I sorted out Glock trigger and then made, to me at least, the game changing discovery - Federal 9mm+p+ ammo. So now I had a .35 caliber that was traveling along at the low end of .357 magnum velocities - I said to myself, “self, we can work with this” and for the first time I considered the 9mm a viable option as a selfdefense gun. Now fair warning, I don’t think you’d want to run a steady diet of +p+ through your Glock but it does shoot them and shoot them well.

With all that said, whether you love em, hate em or just don’t care, one thing can be said about a Glock, “mush-bang” trigger and all, it simply goes bang - every time. So maybe I didn’t really miss the “Wonder Nine” years... I was just a bit late to the party.

[9.3X62AL]

I was a deputy sheriff/SWAT member & rangemaster right at the time my shop converted to self-loaders in 1987. The growth process under way with autopistols was fast & ferocious, and on balance the shooters' and officers' worlds were made a bit better and safer with these technological innovations. That's not to say that there weren't fits & starts & glitches along the way. The upgrades I see between 1977 when I entered the LE game and now 40 years on......MUCH better autopistol ammunition, assisted by pistols that can reliably feed that improved hollow-point ammunition. There are still no Magic Bullets, despite ammomakers' ad copy claims--but ammo is considerably better. The 40 S&W caliber is itself something of an innovation, though lately it seems to have lost its luster in some quarters--a thing I truly do not understand. If a deputy can't shoot or refuses to improve his/her marksmanship, a new assignment or career field is in order for THAT INDIVIDUAL. Don't hamstring the guys and gals that CAN shoot REAL GUNS like the 357 Magnum, 357 SIG, 40 S&W, 10mm, and 45 ACP with that sissy-la-la FBI-pimped 147 grain 9mm sub-sonic/sub-effective/sub-lethal paper puncher/suppressor-friendly crowd-pleaser round. A good 9mm round? Our M9 NATO service load, just swap out the FMJ bullet for a nice 125 grain JHP @ 1250 FPS from the Beretta 92-series' 4.9" barrel. I'll carry a 9mm filled with THAT round--and do.

Yeah, I'm opinionated. I trained shooters at work for 22 years. I investigated shootings and homicides for most of my 28 years in the craft--to include gunshot deaths to 2 of our deputies. I was a GSW victim on duty in 1981. I don't pretend to be omniscient, but I know BS when I see and hear it--and 90% of the ad copy and gunrag gunwriter scribbling for our componentry in this hobby field is outhouse outwash. There are no Magic Bullets, and more badly-placed bullets or outright misses (magic or not) are not an improvement. What still needs to improve is citizen and officer marksmanship--that hasn't changed since we started arming ourselves. Cast A LOT--shoot A LOT--GET BETTER. Stay alive. A "Mozambique" with 3 x 32 ACP FMJs is far better than scalp skims or clean misses with a 45.

[nicholst55]

Lots of good info here. I readily recall this era, and the flood of 'wondernines' that entered the market. I would like to comment on the military retiring the M1911 pistol, though. The military retired the 1911 for two primary reasons - 1) many of the guns on hand were simply worn out. There had been no new guns purchased since WWII, 2) There was a senator (whose name escapes me) who was bound and determined to force the military to adopt the 9mm cartridge for whatever reason(s). He introduced language into defense appropriations to forbid the use of any money to purchase .45 ACP ammo repeatedly. IIRC, he also forbade the purchase of additional repair parts (for the last years of usage of the 1911, both repair parts and ammo were coming from Israel) . So, faced with worn-out guns and no new ammo or repair parts, the military bit the proverbial bullet and solicited a 9mm pistol. The result was the Beretta M9 and the Sig M11.

[Hickory]

Yea, I remember those years, 9mm guns were coming out as fast as popcorn from a pot with no lid on it.
I tried to keep up on development just for the sake of knowledge, but, not being a fan of the 9mm I soon gave it up.
Never cared much for spray & pray type of shooting, always seemed like a learned bad habit.

[lefty o]

Yea, I remember those years, 9mm guns were coming out as fast as popcorn from a pot with no lid on it.
I tried to keep up on development just for the sake of knowledge, but, not being a fan of the 9mm I soon gave it up.
Never cared much for spray & pray type of shooting, always seemed like a learned bad habit.

just because you have more than 6 rnds in your gun, doesnt mean you have to spray and pray. heck just because your car will do 100, doesnt mean you have to drive it there.

[Petrol & Powder]

Lot's of good comments.


I'm sure 9mm HP ammo would have followed a similar course of development without the Wonder Nines but I'm not sure it would have occurred as rapidly. The 115-125 grain +P+ HP rounds are not .357 mag equals, but they get pretty close. Even in the +P territory some of the cartridges perform very well. I completely agree with Al on the 147gr subsonic load, it was a total failure. That round was created for use in suppressors and that's where it should have stayed.

Someone mentioned the improved feeding of hollowpoint cartridges and that's a good point. As time went on the ammo makers tweaked bullet profiles so that the cartridge would feed in most guns. On the other side of the equation, gun makers learned how to make pistols that would feed most hollowpoints. It's almost taken for granted now but in the early 80's there were a lot of growing pains when it came to pistols functioning with a variety of HPs. Interestingly, skilled shooters/gunsmiths with 1911 and Hi-Power pistols knew how to make those guns function flawlessly with hollowpoints before the 1980's but it took the rest of the world a little time to catch up.

I've always found it intriguing that there's a common assumption that high capacity automatically equals poor marksmanship. There are plenty of examples that reinforce that perception: Hollywood shows every actor with a pistol shooting hundreds of rounds and never connecting, We've all seen people (including ourselves) empty a magazine rapidly just for fun. There are reports of shootings in which police and criminals expend many rounds in a confrontation. The assumption that high magazine capacity encourages poor marksmanship goes back over a century. The ordinance department insisted on a magazine cutoff on the 1903 Springfield out of fears the soldiers would waste ammunition. (you know - spray and pray with that new high capacity rifle)

There is this strange assumption that when you build a pistol with a high capacity magazine; the gun or the operator suddenly become inaccurate simply by virtue of that double column magazine.

[tazman]

just because you have more than 6 rnds in your gun, doesnt mean you have to spray and pray. heck just because your car will do 100, doesnt mean you have to drive it there.

Very true.
The only problem is, many aren't taught that fact. They are taught to keep shooting until the threat is stopped(no longer moving) or they run out of ammo. Lots of bullets as quickly as possible and some of them are bound to hit something(including innocent bystanders).
The people who don't practice enough to be competent with their weapon of choice or requirement are at fault here. Departments who have lax qualifying standards are also at fault. Some people seem to think the gun will aim itself.
Current 9mm ammunition, properly placed, is very effective. Improperly placed bullets of any caliber or power are fairly useless unless the noise scares the bad guys off.
If I ever get shot by a police officer, I want it to be because he intended to kill me rather than by accident.

[Petrol & Powder]

Very true.
The only problem is, many aren't taught that fact. They are taught to keep shooting until the threat is stopped(no longer moving) or they run out of ammo. Lots of bullets as quickly as possible and some of them are bound to hit something(including innocent bystanders).
The people who don't practice enough to be competent with their weapon of choice or requirement are at fault here. Departments who have lax qualifying standards are also at fault. Some people seem to think the gun will aim itself.
Current 9mm ammunition, properly placed, is very effective. Improperly placed bullets of any caliber or power are fairly useless unless the noise scares the bad guys off.
If I ever get shot by a police officer, I want it to be because he intended to kill me rather than by accident.

Shooting until the threat is stopped isn't a bad practice nor does it mean that those shots will miss their target. Shooting a lot doesn't absolutely mean shooting poorly.

[Bigslug]

I still think the H&K USP should have beat out the Berreta for the military, quick change trigger/fire groups in every imaginable configuration!


That trick would require a time machine, as the military adopted the M9 in 1986, and the USP hit the market in 1994.

The modular trigger system backfired on HK somewhat; the idea was that the pistol could be configured to satisfy whatever a particular agency wanted. The reality was that the modular system cost so much (or possibly the HK Kool Aid cache raised the cost so much) that no government agency seeking the low bidder would touch it. Those agencies would simply pick a gun with the fire control system they wanted. If you see a cop packing a USP, odds are he paid for it himself. Then there's the fact that while they were the first to put a flashlight attachment point on a pistol, they were/are steadfastly muleheaded in refusing to change to the Picatinny system the entire industry adapted.

[tazman]

Shooting until the threat is stopped isn't a bad practice nor does it mean that those shots will miss their target. Shooting a lot doesn't absolutely mean shooting poorly.

I didn't say that it did. I said it occurs a lot when people don't train or aren't trained properly.
I watched a police/security video where several officers had a suspect cornered in a parking lot. He was doped up and had a knife. He lunged at the officers and they fired. All very justified and proper.
They fired over 35 rounds between them at a range of about 20-25 feet. Only 6-7 rounds hit the suspect. You could see the bullets bouncing all over the parking lot and hitting the cars. Many coming nowhere near the perp.
It was one of the worst demonstrations of poor fire control I have ever seen or heard of.
I don't mind stopping a threat. What I mind is shooting lots of apparently poorly aimed shots that don't hit the intended target.
Many are good shots. Many don't practice enough. I would think that someone who may have to depend on his firearm for his safety and the safety of his partner or family, would try his best to be competent and not depend on magazine capacity.
I have shot on ranges where people are practicing with guns they carry for service or protection. Many are excellent shots. Some are not and need more practice.

[Bigslug]

Glock was a game changer. Intelligent folks can respectfully debate if it was a good game changer but there's no doubt that the handgun world changed after the introduction of the Glock. . .

SIG's method of locking the barrel to the slide with a squared off ejection port was a game changer. That design has been copied in dozens of types and has been widely adopted. Is it better than John Browning's dual rounded lugs? I don't know but it's certainly popular and appears to be easier to produce.


I would submit that the Glock is the Darwinian champion of the Wondernine period. I regard it as the ONLY semi auto that can make an argument for having improved on the 1911 concept in terms of simplicity and serviceability. Everything else (before the Glock or since) with the possible exception of the HK P7 proceeded from the question of "but what if we give it to an idiot?", and the result was lots of extra contraptions and parts that made the gun harder to shoot well or service in the futile search for a gun a moron can't shoot himself with (morons are notoriously industrious in their ability to out-stupid smart engineers)

The Sig lockup (and other transitional designs it built on) is certainly significant. In eliminating the 1911's barrel bushing, link, and extra locking points, one gets to the same initial point of having a functional pistol while making the gun cheaper. Whether or not it made the gun better is an argument for the accountants. When you loosen up a 1911, you can install new bushings and links. When you loosen up a Wondernine, you usually buy new guns.

Bringing up that time machine again, I'd really like to go back and see just how "worn out" those 1911's were. I'd wager that twenty bucks of parts would have gotten them to where they'd be chugging along quite happily to this day, and the "need" for M9's was purely political. Hopefully the CMP starts selling them soon and we can find out.

[Petrol & Powder]

That trick would require a time machine, as the military adopted the M9 in 1986, and the USP hit the market in 1994.

The modular trigger system backfired on HK somewhat; the idea was that the pistol could be configured to satisfy whatever a particular agency wanted. The reality was that the modular system cost so much (or possibly the HK Kool Aid cache raised the cost so much) that no government agency seeking the low bidder would touch it. Those agencies would simply pick a gun with the fire control system they wanted. If you see a cop packing a USP, odds are he paid for it himself. Then there's the fact that while they were the first to put a flashlight attachment point on a pistol, they were/are steadfastly muleheaded in refusing to change to the Picatinny system the entire industry adapted.

I'm a H&K trained USP armorer and I'll be the first to tell you that the USP fire control system is:
1. An incredible example of excellent German engineering.
AND
2. Incredibly unnecessary :|

The system is rather complex and probably a tad over-engineered (I did mention it was German, right ?)

There is some advantage to the system in the fact that a pistol can be converted from a right hand to a left hand configuration very quickly and with little expense. I agree that the ability to go from one mode of operation to another probably isn't as important.
The USP sear spring was weak and prone to breakage. The original firing pins had a design flaw and would break; H&K made an improved firing pin to address that problem.

The proprietary rail for the flashlight was annoying as well.

[ReloaderFred]

While this is a shooting forum, and the emphasis is on that aspect as it pertains to Law Enforcement, the truth of the matter is most Law Enforcement Officers never fire their handguns on the job, except in mandatory qualifications, if their department has them. Some small departments, working on very limited budgets, and just enough personnel to cover an 8 hour shift 7 times a week, don't have the money or resources to require regular firearm training. It's a shame, but a fact of life. If the citizenry won't provide the funds, then the department can't really be blamed, especially on what some of them pay. I've talked to small town officers who survived on food stamps, and only stayed "on the job" because they believed in what they were doing.

I've been to far more Law Enforcement funerals due to traffic accidents than firearms deaths. When I was a Patrol Sergeant, I much more desired Deputy Sheriffs who could multi-task while driving, and could write good reports, while having a good relationship with the community. This became even more of a desire as I worked my way up through the ranks to upper management over the years. That's not to say that marksmanship isn't important, because it is. But so is safe driving.

My stint teaching in our Pursuit Driving School probably save my life at least three times when I blew tires at over 100 mph on three different occasions. I worked in an 8,026 square mile county (Al worked in a 20,000+ square mile county adjacent to mine), so there were many times when a hot call might be 20 or 30 miles distant, and lives were at stake. When someone is depending on you to help them, or possibly save their life, and you're many miles from their location, high speed is all you've got. When I started in 1971, we had cars that could bury a 140 MPH speedometer, but on nylon tires that were only rated for sustained speeds at 80 mph. With that combination, "things" are bound to happen, and do at the most inopportune time. I once drove Code 3 for over 60 miles (110-120 mph+) to back a Deputy in another county who was being shot at by a suspect with a rifle. (It's amazing how fast the gas gauge goes down at those speeds) (That was the Trona Deputy, Al)

Another correction is the 9mm/.41 AE combination. All that is required to convert from one caliber to the other is a barrel and magazine. I have a Witness 9mm/.41 AE combo pistol in my collection. I've since sold all my .41 AE ammunition and brass, so it only gets shot with the 9x19 barrel installed.

Hope this helps.

Fred

[Petrol & Powder]

I didn't say that it did. I said it occurs a lot when people don't train or aren't trained properly.
I watched a police/security video where several officers had a suspect cornered in a parking lot. He was doped up and had a knife. He lunged at the officers and they fired. All very justified and proper.
They fired over 35 rounds between them at a range of about 20-25 feet. Only 6-7 rounds hit the suspect. You could see the bullets bouncing all over the parking lot and hitting the cars. Many coming nowhere near the perp.
It was one of the worst demonstrations of poor fire control I have ever seen or heard of.
I don't mind stopping a threat. What I mind is shooting lots of apparently poorly aimed shots that don't hit the intended target.
Many are good shots. Many don't practice enough. I would think that someone who may have to depend on his firearm for his safety and the safety of his partner or family, would try his best to be competent and not depend on magazine capacity.
I have shot on ranges where people are practicing with guns they carry for service or protection. Many are excellent shots. Some are not and need more practice.

Fair enough!

And since we're telling anecdotal stories; I know of an event in which a mentally ill subject with a garden implement attacked a female police officer. Another officer shot that deranged subject 4 times, ending the attack. When asked why he fired 4 rounds, he replied, "because he hit the ground before I could get the 5th round off"!
That was no time to fire a single round and pause while you evaluate the effectiveness of that shot. That was an appropriate rapid expenditure of lead. Now, unlike your example where there were a lot of errant shots, he put all 4 rounds in the bad guy. Had he been armed with a 6 shot revolver I suspect the outcome would have been the same.

[Rainier]

Really good stuff in this thread…


There are still no Magic Bullets, despite ammomakers' ad copy claims--but ammo is considerably better.

That’s a fact! I couldn’t agree more - there are no magic bullets and ammo today does appear to be considerably better then it once was. As the saying goes you can’t miss fast enough to survive a gun fight. Just to make sure I wasn’t misunderstood, at the time (1990s), what was going through my mind was the fact that the 125gr lead HP semi-wadcutter from the .357 mag was a proven winner. Now, I had read Herbert McBride’s great book (A Rifleman Went to War) and remember him stating that the only one hit stop he ever saw with a 9mm was when a fellow soldier clubbed an enemy soldier to death with a Luger. So, I had it in my mind that what made the .35 caliber effective was velocity. When I discovered the +p+ ammo and because it was in the low end of .357 magnum velocity that’s when I considered a 9mm as a possible selfdefense round. Not saying it was the most brilliant thought process, it was just what I was thinking.


A "Mozambique" with 3 x 32 ACP FMJs is far better than scalp skims or clean misses with a 45.

^^^What 9x3 said! ^^^


The military retired the 1911 for two primary reasons - 1) many of the guns on hand were simply worn out. There had been no new guns purchased since WWII, 2) There was a senator (whose name escapes me) who was bound and determined to force the military to adopt the 9mm cartridge for whatever reason(s). He introduced language into defense appropriations to forbid the use of any money to purchase .45 ACP ammo repeatedly. IIRC, he also forbade the purchase of additional repair parts (for the last years of usage of the 1911, both repair parts and ammo were coming from Israel) . So, faced with worn-out guns and no new ammo or repair parts, the military bit the proverbial bullet and solicited a 9mm pistol.


During my time at Ft. Bragg I was the unit armorer and had a rack of 1911’s and 1) they were not worn out and functioned great and 2) I never had a challenge getting spare parts (though sometimes getting parts for the M60’s could be a challenge but thats another story) or ammo. Now, maybe the 82nd Airborne Division had priority or something over other units, I can’t speak to what it was like for other outfits but our 1911’s were, in fact, most serviceable.

During my time on the Sheriff’s department I was amazed that they would take a young man or woman right out of college, require them to only shoot a yearly “qualifier” and send them out to “Protect & Serve”. 90% of the law enforcement officers I came in contact with had no range time under their belt and desperately needed it. I recall a Deputy who didn’t have the hand strength to top off the magazine of the 4506s we were issued let alone shoot the thing. (I really disliked those guns - I thought they were best served as boat anchors). Now the other 10% took gunslinging seriously and would most certainly teach you some lessons. I often get criticized for saying that the most dangerous group of people with guns are cops - I sure hope that’s changed but sadly, budgets seem to take priority.


Another officer shot that deranged subject 4 times, ending the attack. When asked why he fired 4 rounds, he replied, "because he hit the ground before I could get the 5th round off"!

And lastly, in my mind at least, the three F’s of shooting in a defensive situation appear to still be as important today as they ever were regardless of the number of rounds necessary.

[Char-Gar]

I have an old memory of a study done by NYPD a couple of decades back. They looked over the records of every police shooting since Teddy Roosevelt was Commissioner. The perps were shot with everything from a 22 Short to a 458 Win. Mag.

The bottom line of the study was where you hit them was far more important than what you hit them with. If the "caliber wars" are not over, it is time they should be. Stay calm and shoot straight!

[fivefang]

all remarks were interesting ,strange that nothing was mentioned about our standard 9x19 ammo in the early days were unable to "cycle" a Luger in a reliable manner, unless a casing was marked Magnum, no other pistol Ctg. saw 35-k pressure, we have since learned a lot regarding the 9m.m.Luger Ctg., Fivefang

[tazman]

Another anecdote. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/06/austin-cop-sure-shot-stopped-crazed-gunman.html

If I have an issue I can't handle myself, that is the officer I want to show up.

I have never owned a high capacity 9mm other than my Berretta. From the reputation they have, Glocks are probably the easiest to shoot of the bunch. That doesn't mean I am going to switch from the 1911 or the 38 special. I like the ones I am used to.

[Petrol & Powder]

I would submit that the Glock is the Darwinian champion of the Wondernine period. I regard it as the ONLY semi auto that can make an argument for having improved on the 1911 concept in terms of simplicity and serviceability. Everything else (before the Glock or since) with the possible exception of the HK P7 proceeded from the question of "but what if we give it to an idiot?", and the result was lots of extra contraptions and parts that made the gun harder to shoot well or service in the futile search for a gun a moron can't shoot himself with (morons are notoriously industrious in their ability to out-stupid smart engineers)

The Sig lockup (and other transitional designs it built on) is certainly significant. In eliminating the 1911's barrel bushing, link, and extra locking points, one gets to the same initial point of having a functional pistol while making the gun cheaper. Whether or not it made the gun better is an argument for the accountants. When you loosen up a 1911, you can install new bushings and links. When you loosen up a Wondernine, you usually buy new guns.

Bringing up that time machine again, I'd really like to go back and see just how "worn out" those 1911's were. I'd wager that twenty bucks of parts would have gotten them to where they'd be chugging along quite happily to this day, and the "need" for M9's was purely political. Hopefully the CMP starts selling them soon and we can find out.

First and foremost, I couldn't agree more that "morons are notoriously industrious in their ability to out-stupid smart engineers". :drinks:
Well said !

As for the question concerning how worn out were the military's 1911's ? We may never have an accurate accounting. It's safe to say that we were either going to buy more 1911's and spare parts, therefore extending that platform into the foreseeable future OR take that opportunity to adopt a new pistol chambered in 9mm and align ourselves with the rest of NATO. Obviously we all know what did happen and the debate concerning whether or not that was the right decision has yet to cool down.

I agree with Char-Gar, caliber wars are really not that important.

[Geezer in NH]

The WONDER NINES were brought on by the magazine gun shills of the industry. Period. Lots got sucked in on it. I had 2 S&W 9's and went back to my M37 S&W as a plainclothes.

A new Chief came in and we got issued the NEW gun shill caliber and gun the S&W 4073 in 40 Smith. 3 times the weight of my 37 5 shot with a small 6 round strip. Now we carried the 11 shot and 2 more magazines. WHY? He as a gun nut with all the magazines glorifying the 40.

The PD in our city would have liked the 40's we had. They had to keep the Sigs they had in 9mm.
I would have preferred to keep my 37 it shot great and I felt well protected with it. I now have 2 CC guns a S&W 642 and a Glock 26.

Had I been issued the Glock 26 back then I would have been happy.

[9.3X62AL]

The bottom line of the study was where you hit them was far more important than what you hit them with. If the "caliber wars" are not over, it is time they should be. Stay calm and shoot straight!

Complete agreement, Charles. But if you are going to arm your people with a given platform & caliber, go to the trouble of selecting the best possible ammunition to carry in that choice. The 9mm Sub-Sonic is about a polar opposite of "best possible".

[nicholst55]

I don't want to start a measuring contest about how worn out the Army's 1911s were. I handled and repaired hundreds of them during that time frame in several different geographical locations, as that was my job. Some were in remarkably good shape; some were so worn that it was difficult to make them function correctly. I'm talking worn slides and frames, so no, $20 worth of repair parts wouldn't have set them right.

[Petrol & Powder]

I don't wish to get into the "should we have replaced the 1911" discussion.

There is a strong argument that the U.S. needed to join the rest of NATO and select a 9mm pistol. Perhaps the claim that large numbers of 1911 pistols were worn out was presented as an excuse to make that switch. Perhaps a large number of 1911's were in fact worn out and the Army wanted a new pistol. It doesn't matter now.
There was a lot of resistance to that change but its done now. We did replace it, that's history.

I think the U.S. military's adoption of the Beretta M9 was a factor in the Wonder Nine era but not the sole factor.

[tazman]

The fact that the military adopted the Beretta was a big factor in my choice of the 92fs for myself. If the military uses it, you know there are going to be parts around for a long time even if the pistol itself isn't all that great. The military has stuck with the M9 for over 30 years and that says something.
In the current market there are many good to great choices for a high capacity 9mm. Also the 9mm adapts itself to very small concealed carry better than many other cartridges.
I am not going to say it is the best for concealed carry. Everyone has their own ideas about that. It is a good option though.

[JRD]

Joe Foster developed the Model 39 for the Air Force, but ....

I worked across the bench from Joe Foster for two days in 1978, when S&W brought him back out of retirement to correct the feeding and extraction issues that had developed with the Model 59's.
Fred

Great post Fred. That's some firsthand experience.
Any chance though that you could have misremembered the name and actually are thinking of Joe Norman, the S&W engineer, generally credited with Models 39, 59, & 52 design?

Jason

[Rainier]

nicholst55
I don't want to start a measuring contest about how worn out the Army's 1911s were.

Oh my! That was not my intent - I apologize if thats how my post "sounded". I was just pointing out that in the early 1980s, in our unit at least, the 1911's were still up and going. Thats where my experience begins and ends - I can't address other Army units or the other branches of the military during that time.

[ShooterAZ]

In the early 80's I was a subscriber to Guns & Ammo and Shooting Times magazines. I remember a stretch in which it seemed like all they want to write about was all the new wonder nines coming into the market. I got so tired of those boring articles that I canceled both subscriptions. At that time I had no interest in them, and that remains the same today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Char-Gar]

Complete agreement, Charles. But if you are going to arm your people with a given platform & caliber, go to the trouble of selecting the best possible ammunition to carry in that choice. The 9mm Sub-Sonic is about a polar opposite of "best possible".

Amen and amen! I have a few 9mms and trust them, but with very good ammo. I also like the 45 ACP and 38 Special, but always use the best ammo regardless of the caliber. I like stacking the odds in my favor.

[Char-Gar]

I don't want to start a measuring contest about how worn out the Army's 1911s were. I handled and repaired hundreds of them during that time frame in several different geographical locations, as that was my job. Some were in remarkably good shape; some were so worn that it was difficult to make them function correctly. I'm talking worn slides and frames, so no, $20 worth of repair parts wouldn't have set them right.

I am wondering how the original GI slides vs. the post WWII replacement "hard slides" compared. Any experience there.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

After reading through this expanding thread again I had a few more comments, based on the comments of others. No one is exactly wrong here, but there do seem to me some shades of opinion including my own. Firstly, there are and have been many "spray and pray" incidents. I don't have the time or inclination to look them all up and list them for you, but the one that immediately comes to mind is where some black guys came under fire by several LEOs (was it in NY?), one some sort of notorious celebrity, and there was something like 50+ shots fired by at least 3 different officers with I believe 3 hits. Very publicized incident at the time, and I think a couple of bystanders got hit. Not that uncommon an incident. You can say that it all goes to quantity and quality of training, but like one fellow pointed out the vast majority of LEOs never fire their gun at a person in an actual survival situation during their entire careers. Even the best trained can be overcome by stress and adrenalin and the survival instinct takes over, shots become rapid and wild. Say it isn't so, and you don't read or watch the news. You don't, and won't know until it actually happens to you. Remember, almost every LEO has gone through some sort of an academy and received training and practice with firearms, listened to all of the lectures on when you can and can't shoot and the history of past incidents. After leaving the academy their continuing training may vary from excellent to none at all. Maybe an officer under duress might continue to be an excellent shot, and maybe not. Depends on the individual, and to say that having a high capacity magazine is a preferable thing may or may not be true, depending on the man holding it.

As for the early 9mm ammo, I think that it is agreed and a mater of verifiable history that it proved ineffective. Certainly exchanging a hollow point bullet for a FMJ is a significant improvement, but as I mentioned earlier even the design of the hollow point has improved immensely from those early days. Hydra-Shok, Black Talon, Starfire, and other extreme terminal performance designs have completely changed the game. While basically true that where you are hit is more important that what you are hit with, and that's only basically, as a .25 ACP in non-fatal area will be less effective than one by a .45 ACP where a hit to the upper arm might shatter the bone vs. a small oozing hole, these modern HPs tend to roam around after entering the body. Some even break into segments and veer off course. It is no longer your granddaddy's 9mm.

I have nothing at all against high capacity mags in the hands of the well trained. As for the well performing, you never know until it hits the fan.
A life saver? Certainly can be. A detriment? Certainly can be. Satisfactory solution? There is none that readily comes to mind.

[sawinredneck]

In the early 80's I was a subscriber to Guns & Ammo and Shooting Times magazines. I remember a stretch in which it seemed like all they want to write about was all the new wonder nines coming into the market. I got so tired of those boring articles that I canceled both subscriptions. At that time I had no interest in them, and that remains the same today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
On the flip side, it wasn't long after that every cover, of every gun magazine had a picture of the latest and greatest 1911! I quit buying them at that time.
As for the "spray and pray" this is some good reading, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

[Scorpion8]

The Wondernine period was a central portion of my firearms education and growing up. To this day I still own and shoot one of the best "Wondernine's" that didn't make it thru the Army's 1911-replacement "buy NATO" trials, the Star M30-series. I've had several 30PK's, and still use a 31M. This pistol is as rock solid as any CZ or HiPower, and only has a single screw in it's entire construction, grips included. Truly a great design, and why it didn't pass onward during the trials is a mystery to me (of course the original 30 had issues (so I've heard) and then Star folded in the great financial collapse of the 90's). During the hay-day, Star made wonderful firearms.

[sawinredneck]

The Wondernine period was a central portion of my firearms education and growing up. To this day I still own and shoot one of the best "Wondernine's" that didn't make it thru the Army's 1911-replacement "buy NATO" trials, the Star M30-series. I've had several 30PK's, and still use a 31M. This pistol is as rock solid as any CZ or HiPower, and only has a single screw in it's entire construction, grips included. Truly a great design, and why it didn't pass onward during the trials is a mystery to me (of course the original 30 had issues (so I've heard) and then Star folded in the great financial collapse of the 90's). During the hay-day, Star made wonderful firearms.
Boy you aren't kidding! A buddy had an original Firestar in 9mm, it was as heavy as a tank, but nearly as indescructable and shot great!

[Outpost75]

The only "9mm" I own is a cylinder to fit my 4-5/8" Ruger New Model Blackhawk Convertible.

The .357 cylinder stays in the gun, but I wanted "something" which could digest windfall 9mm ammo in case a pallet load fell off the tailgate of the alien spaceship! I fooled with 9mms in the 1980s and satisfied my curiosity and finally cured myself of the 9mm autopistol affliction...

I do find it interesting that after developing the .40 S&W that the FBI and several other agencies have returned to the 9mm.

A good friend of mine whom I have known for many years, who is a firearms instructor at FLETC tells me that the current generation of 9mm service loads is effective, and while the .40 is a good round, buying both duty and practice ammo in the quantities that the Feds do, you get more "bang for the buck" with 9mm, reduced weight and cube of ammo, more rounds on a pallet, cost per million rounds MUCH less on a contract basis.

He predicts that while the true believers who preach that a handgun must be of a caliber which starts with a "4", the agencies who are slaves to their budgets and bean counters will trade in their .40s in droves, or replace them with nines when they start wearing out. He predicts there will be bargains in "police turn in" .40 S&W handguns soon, and from my observations, that is already beginning to happen.

But do I need a .40 S&W? Only as a spare cylinder to fit a Ruger convertible single-action, with another cylinder in .38-40 maybe...

Yeah, to use windfall ammo in case a pallet falls off the alien spaceship...

[tazman]

Yeah, to use windfall ammo in case a pallet falls off the alien spaceship...

That's as good a reason as any to buy a gun. I didn't try the 9mm guns in the early years. I actually waited until about 5 years ago and I think it is a good thing I did.
I got into it at the time when all the best things were pretty much stabilized and there were lots of excellent weapons out there. I really like the 9mm pistols I have now and I trust the new ammunition to do what needs to be done.

[nicholst55]

I am wondering how the original GI slides vs. the post WWII replacement "hard slides" compared. Any experience there.

As you probably know, the WWII slides were only spot-hardened. With extensive firing, they would crack right where they weren't hardened. You could also just about watch these slides 'peen' as you fired the gun. The post-war slides were much better, but still a bit soft for use on a match pistol, for instance. The USGI National Match slides were quite hard, and I can't recall ever seeing a cracked one.

[ReloaderFred]

Great post Fred. That's some firsthand experience.
Any chance though that you could have misremembered the name and actually are thinking of Joe Norman, the S&W engineer, generally credited with Models 39, 59, & 52 design?

Jason

It's possible, since it was 39 years ago, but I'm pretty sure his name was Foster. Henry Perez, of Cheshire & Perez, brought him and helped a little the first day. Cheshire & Perez was the S&W distributor for Calif. at the time, when there was only one distributor per state under Bangor Punta management. I just wish I had pumped him for more information at the time, but we were pretty busy converting Model 59's. I ended up doing the conversion on about 500 of them before I was done. After I finished with the department guns, then I started on the privately purchased ones. I'll tell you that firing 3 magazines of 5 rounds each, through each gun takes the fun out of shooting after awhile.......

Hope this helps.

Fred

[Bigslug]

I think the U.S. military's adoption of the Beretta M9 was a factor in the Wonder Nine era but not the sole factor.

One mustn't discount Mel Gibson and John Woo.:mrgreen:

[Petrol & Powder]

One mustn't discount Mel Gibson and John Woo.:mrgreen:

I know there is some jest in that but there is some reality as well.

[Petrol & Powder]

This has been a great thread and I want to thank everyone for contributing.

The Wonder Nine era didn't last long in terms of the history of firearms but it was interesting. I think the actual guns were not as important as the development taking place in that short time span. As for the 9mm Luger cartridge, it has its shortcomings, all cartridges do, but I admire it for what it accomplishes rather than disparage it for what it fails to accomplish. It has been with us since 1902 and there's no denying its worldwide acceptance. It seems to be back in favor here in the U.S.

If members have additional comments on the Wonder Nine era, please share them. I'm interested in hearing what others have to contribute.

[tazman]

The thing I find most intriguing about the 9mm is it's ability to generate good velocity from short barrels. The large variety of short barreled 9mm pistols designed for concealed carry make great use of this feature of the cartridge.
Ballistics by the inch shows 115 and 124 grain bullets getting over 1000fps from a 3 inch barrel. This is outstanding performance. The speed is up there enough to get expansion from well designed hollow points.
Combine that with well made pistols, and you have a great self defense system.
This all became available during the developments of the "wonder nine" era.
Great ammunition and great guns. What more could you ask for.

[sawinredneck]

The gun development in and of itself was crazy, but then to look at the amount of new cartridges developed during the time was impressive as well. We've touched a little on it, but not even opened the can yet!
The 10mm, 40S&W, .41 Jericho, .41AE and hopefully others will remember the ones I'm forgetting! There was a period where I'd go to a gun show and see a gun chambered for a new cartridge and I'd have to wait a month for the new magazines to come out to even know what the heck it was! Most were a copy of anothe revolver round designed for an autoloader. 10mm was supposed to be high end .357mag/low end .41mag. .41AE was supposed to be a full on .41mag. Not really sure what the .41 Jericho was supposed to replicate? Then the .40 we've already covered. But it seems like either ammo was coming out with no guns to shoot it in or guns chambered in ammo that wasn't even produced! I mentioned the 9mm/.41 Jericho convertible, I want to say it came with two boxes of each type of ammo. I can't honestly recall ever seeing another box of .41 Jericho ammo again!
So while the guns, as impressive as they were, the ammo development was even more so! We went from the Fedral 9BP, a decent round, to hydrashoks, starfires, black talons, the glasser safety slugs, I even read of some hollow ring rounds that were deemed too lethal for even military use! It was amazing the development that was made in a very short time frame as well as the means, and ways to test them. They went from using pork to balistics gel to be able to study the wound cavity and see how different clothes affected terminal balistics then develop even better ammo from that research.
It was a great time to be a gun nut, I just wish I'd had more money back then!

[woodbutcher]

:) Very interesting thread.Thanks for posting.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo

[corbinace]

\ We've touched a little on it, but not even opened the can yet!
The 10mm, 40S&W, .41 Jericho, .41AE and hopefully others will remember the ones I'm forgetting!

Maybe the 9x21, 9x23, .356 TSW, 9mmAE, 9x25 Dillon or the 357SIG. A few that I remember, I am sure there were more.

[sawinredneck]

Maybe the 9x21, 9x23, .356 TSW, 9mmAE, 9x25 Dillon or the 357SIG. A few that I remember, I am sure there were more.

I also happened on the 9mmAE.

[nicholst55]

Don't forget the .400 Cor-Bon. That one died pretty quickly.

[Petrol & Powder]

I recall the .41AE cartridge but I don't remember a 41 Jericho cartridge. I do recall the Jericho pistol.

[Bigslug]

The ammo side of the discussion - especially on a handloading forum - is worth expanding on.

Perhaps the most sensationalist and lasting impact of the Wondernine era arose from the dabbling in lightweight, high velocity, rapid expansion 9mm hollowpoints that failed to reliably stop threats due to lack of adequate penetration.

It's a fairly interesting thing to look at in retrospect because a great many people and agencies blamed the cartridge rather than the bullet, which is doubly interesting because the essentially same diameter .38 revolvers with heavier slugs weren't having that particular problem. Rather than immediately solving the problem with a different bullet or just sticking with the older .45's and .38/.357's, many millions of dollars and gallons of ink were expended on developing different rounds that we ultimately really did not need. The 10mm was simply too much of a good thing for the average shooter of any era, and certainly for the carry-gun technology of the late 1980's. By the time the .40 came along, the 9mm bullet problems had been fixed, but the cash-strapped gun industry managed to ride the 9mm's "non-stopper" stigma past the point that it was relevant in order to convince civilian and LE consumers alike that it needed not new ammo, but new pistols that had serious wear & tear teething problems and continue to bring issues to parties of recoil-sensitive shooters. There's a reason I call it the ".40 Swindle and Whitewash". The .357 Sig and other "hyper nines" lost most of their relevance when bullets started to be engineered to perform to the FBI's penetration requirements within specific velocity bands. They work on the street, but not significantly better than the cheaper to feed, easier to shoot, easier on the gun 9mms with the right slug.

All of this because someone thought marketing light, fast bullets that pancake on impact without seriously testing them first was a good idea. What would we call this? Hysterical innovation? We ultimately got some pretty good ammo out of the deal, but the path was anything but a straight one.

Even funnier - which will be appreciated here - was that Keith wrote of some of his readers using the hollowpointed version of his 358429 (about 160 grains to about 900-950 fps) in the 9mm in Sixguns, which was published in 1955. This duplicated the much vaunted .38 158 grain "FBI Load" OVER THREE DECADES before any of this went down - - possibly even before the "FBI load" was an accepted thing.

[Char-Gar]

As you probably know, the WWII slides were only spot-hardened. With extensive firing, they would crack right where they weren't hardened. You could also just about watch these slides 'peen' as you fired the gun. The post-war slides were much better, but still a bit soft for use on a match pistol, for instance. The USGI National Match slides were quite hard, and I can't recall ever seeing a cracked one.

It is my understanding that prior and during WWII, Colt could not hardened the entire slide without warping it. They hardened the front of the slide, the slide stop and put a hardened bushing in the breech face. This bushing was put in before final milling of the breech so it really isn't visible. The barrel lug recesses in the slides really took a beating as they here not hardened.

Toward the end of WWII, Remington-Rand and Ithaca came up with a way to harden the entire slide, but was never used in production. At the end of the war production of the 1911A1 ended and Colt continued to use left over parts for commercial production until 1947 or so. At that time, the began to harden the slides.

Around 1951, the Govt. let a contact for replacement slides to Colt and an Israeli firm. These were full hardened and bore the drawing number 7790314 on the left side of the slide. These slides were used for National Match pistols as well.

This is of interest to me as recently I acquired a primo Colt "hard slide" with all the internals. It is the same slide that Colt used on their commercial handguns of that time, but without the polish and blue. These slides still have some machine markings and are parkerized.

I mated this slide with a 1995 production Colt lower. It was amazing that parts made this far apart just assembled without fitting. I also used an early 2000 Colt barrel. It makes for a tight fitting accurate handgun. Of course I had to remove the Series 80 levers from the frame and install a spacer.

Anyway, I expect this pistol to last my lifetime and was curious is anyone who rebuilt these pistols in the military had and information about these replacement slides and how they worked out.

Many folks don't realize how limited in life the various USGI slides are. With a batch more due out through the OCDM shortly, it behooves a modern generation to understand these pistols, and their limitations.

[JRD]

It's possible, since it was 39 years ago, but I'm pretty sure his name was Foster. Henry Perez, of Cheshire & Perez, brought him and helped a little the first day. Cheshire & Perez was the S&W distributor for Calif. at the time, when there was only one distributor per state under Bangor Punta management. I just wish I had pumped him for more information at the time, but we were pretty busy converting Model 59's. I ended up doing the conversion on about 500 of them before I was done. After I finished with the department guns, then I started on the privately purchased ones. I'll tell you that firing 3 magazines of 5 rounds each, through each gun takes the fun out of shooting after awhile.......

Hope this helps.

Fred

Fred,
It's entirely possible that there was a Joe Foster as well as a Joe Norman. Joe Norman got his name on the patents and in the history books as credited with the the first generation S&W pistol designs, but there was likely a big staff of engineers and technicians in Springfield.

You are right about having to shoot a large number of shots for work. I've been in that position a few times myself. Shooting goes from fun to drudgery at that point.

Jason

[Outpost75]

I have an old memory of a study done by NYPD a couple of decades back. They looked over the records of every police shooting since Teddy Roosevelt was Commissioner. The perps were shot with everything from a 22 Short to a 458 Win. Mag.

The bottom line of the study was where you hit them was far more important than what you hit them with. If the "caliber wars" are not over, it is time they should be. Stay calm and shoot straight!


SOP9 links:

http://www.pointshooting.com/1asop9.htm

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/nypd_annual_firearms_discharge_report_2013.pdf

https://firearmusernetwork.com/2012/11/28/nypd-and-lapd-shooting-effectiveness/

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf

[Petrol & Powder]

Some of the 115-125 gr 9mm jacketed hollowpoints, particularly the Winchester +P+ controlled expansion loads and the Federal 9BPLE loads performed extremely well. It took a little time to get details worked out concerning jacket thickness, shape & size of the hollow point cavity and velocity. After that development and learning curve, those rounds worked very well. Unfortunately, a lot of users (and non-user haters) just lumped all 9mm loads together and said - this doesn't work. There was no interest in getting the facts right and EVERY perceived failure of a 9mm to stop a threat was attributed to ALL 9mm loads.

Those that say the 45 ACP and .357 mag already worked and implied there was no need to develop the 9mm are correct but that wasn't a useful argument. They seemed to view the 9mm as a threat to the existing cartridges as opposed to the fact that the 9mm could be (and is) an addition to those cartridges. There are a lot tools in the toolbox.

The FBI didn't help the situation when they created test criteria that almost guaranteed the 9mm wouldn't pass.

Cartridge and caliber wars are pointless. I'm all about stacking the deck in my favor but honestly; there are other factors just as important, maybe more so, that the cartridge.

[Petrol & Powder]

Outpost, that's very useful information and thank you for providing those links. I've read most of those reports before and I'd like to comment on the "bunch shooting" phenomenon.


The fact that when multiple officers engage in a shooting they tend to fire a higher number of rounds per officer is often attributed to emotion and the "contagious" effect of the shooting. I believe there's another powerful factor involved that is often overlooked. A lone officer will shoot until he feels the threat is eliminated. An officer that is shooting in defense of another officer (or perceives he is shooting in defense of another officer) will not risk failure to stop the threat. He will shoot more in defense of his fellow officer than even in defense of himself. The possibility of dying or being wounded is strong motivation to use deadly force but the possibility of allowing your brother or sister officer to be harmed by your lack of effort is unbearable. No one wants to see their comrades killed because they held back a little.

Shootings involving multiple officers does tend to increase the average numbers of shots fired per officer. There may be a lot more to that anomaly than the introduction of semi-auto pistols.

[tazman]

Outpost, that's very useful information and thank you for providing those links. I've read most of those reports before and I'd like to comment on the "bunch shooting" phenomenon.


The fact that when multiple officers engage in a shooting they tend to fire a higher number of rounds per officer is often attributed to emotion and the "contagious" effect of the shooting. I believe there's another powerful factor involved that is often overlooked. A lone officer will shoot until he feels the threat is eliminated. An officer that is shooting in defense of another officer (or perceives he is shooting in defense of another officer) will not risk failure to stop the threat. He will shoot more in defense of his fellow officer than even in defense of himself. The possibility of dying or being wounded is strong motivation to use deadly force but the possibility of allowing your brother or sister officer to be harmed by your lack of effort is unbearable. No one wants to see their comrades killed because they held back a little.

Shootings involving multiple officers does tend to increase the average numbers of shots fired per officer. There may be a lot more to that anomaly than the introduction of semi-auto pistols.

Interesting. I had never heard that put quite that way. It would explain some things.

[Larry Gibson]

And during the "Wonder nine" years let us not forget, for those who remember, S&Ws contribution with their "gun of the month club".......

Larry Gibson

[Art in Colorado]

I was always a Single Action or Double Action revolver guy. Mostly D/A Smith & Wesson. This was in the 80's and 90's. Now due to the age of my hands it hurts to grip the revolvers. Got into Sigs and now own a P-226, P228 Nine's , A West German 220 and a 220 Scorpion. Down to only one revolver a S&W 686-3. Hardly shoot the 357 any more but will never get rid of my last revolver.

[Petrol & Powder]

I was always a Single Action or Double Action revolver guy. Mostly D/A Smith & Wesson. This was in the 80's and 90's. Now due to the age of my hands it hurts to grip the revolvers. Got into Sigs and now own a P-226, P228 Nine's , A West German 220 and a 220 Scorpion. Down to only one revolver a S&W 686-3. Hardly shoot the 357 any more but will never get rid of my last revolver.
I've owned and shot them all but in the end I think I'm a DA revolver guy.

BTW, I had a P228 and considered it to be one of the best compact 9mm pistols out there. I sold it during my divorce and later replaced it with a P225 (P6) which is basically the same gun with a single stack mag. The Glock 19 and SIG P228 are in the same class and are excellent balances between size, weight, capacity and power. Not a bad combination.

[9.3X62AL]

P&P et al--

I tend to have a "default setting" in my carry pistols.......somewhere between the P-228/Glock 19/23 and the Colt Commander/Browning HP/CZ-75 bracket. Any smaller, they don't fit my hand very well. Any larger (1911A1/Beretta 92/96) they start being a PITA to conceal.

I love wheelguns, too. For carry, a 3"-4" barrel is about ideal. I can make J-frame S&W/D-frame Colt/SP-101 work with larger grips, but the K-frame S&W or I-frame & J-frame Colt are better for me. GP-100 or N-frame S&W are nice for open carry, but just a mite too much for CCW. I don't mean this as a recommendation for others, just as a review of what has and hasn't worked out over 40+ years of CCW and open carry in a variety of venues.

Roller or slider--carry as powerful a cartridge as you can manage with accuracy. For some reason, revolver skills are a lot less "perishable" than are autopistol manipulation skill sets. Take that critter out and run it--that IS why we refill our empties, RIGHT? :-)

[Rainier]

9.3X62AL
For some reason, revolver skills are a lot less "perishable" than are autopistol manipulation skill sets.

Not trying to be a jerk here - I'm just not sure I agree with that statement. I've drawn, fired and reloaded so many rounds out of a 1911 that to this day I still take the "safety" off my Glock. Yes, its true, there is no thumb safety on my Glock, yet when I draw, my thumb slides up to snap it down and my wife gets a chuckle out of the whole deal.
What I'm least comfortable with is double action revolver trigger - doing my best to sort it out but not a skill I'd admit to owning... yet. And... reloading a revolver? I feel inadequate and pond water slow, even practicing with speed loaders/strips etc... I recall being on the firing line next to an "old" sergeant who was shooting the archaic model 19 (sarcasm alert) - using a dump pouch he could reload and be back on target almost as fast as I could mag change.
So the question might be; Are the less "perishable" skills the ones you learn in your youth rather then skills related to the bullet/boolit launcher of your choice?

[Petrol & Powder]

Rainier - I don't think you're being a jerk at all. Those are valid observations.

Muscle memory, for the lack of a better term, is a powerful thing. As for skills being perishable and at what point in your life you learn those skills; I think it has more to do with when you try to unlearn them.
Some things just get burnt into your brain. You can overwrite that programming but you cannot erase it!

For you, it appears the primary programming was for a single action trigger and a thumb safety. Nothing wrong with that.

For all of my adult life and then some, I've operated a huge variety of vehicles. Occasionally I will reach for a column shifter when it's on the floor or vice versa but generally I can instantly adapt seamlessly from one type to another without issue. There was one exception; at one point I owned a 64 Dodge sedan with a manual 3 speed and a 68 Plymouth with an automatic and power brakes. In the 60's, American cars with automatics and power brakes would always have a giant brake pedal. When I came to a stop in that 68 my left foot would instinctively look for the clutch pedal that wasn't there. My left foot would catch the corner of that giant brake pedal and shove it to the floor. That usually resulted in my head bouncing off the windshield and a near rear end collision from the car behind me. It was embarrassing to say the least. Muscle memory at work ! :)

[9.3X62AL]

Rainier--

No argument with your assertions. I was a range trainer for 23 years at a department that authorizes a wide range of rollers & sliders for its troops. Maybe a better way of expressing what I meant was that 'The mechanics involved in firing--reloading--and returning rollers to action are less complex (but slower) and better-retained than are the refill/return to action sequences of the autopistol, which are faster by far but require periodic refreshment to retain that time advantage'. That factoid has been borne out to my own satisfaction and is agreed upon by most of the trainers I have worked with. When the kids don't practice the moves monthly, their dexterity and fluidity disappears. It is obvious at quals day who does and who does not shoot and practice between quals sessions.

[rintinglen]

To my way of thinking, the major benefit to come out of the Wonder Nine years was magazines that work. Contrary to the good Colonel, it was not just fuddy-duddy, antiquated thinking that kept the revolver in front line service for so long. It was a bonafide fact that Semi-autos could and did jam at a significantly higher rate than revolvers would malfunction. Much of this was due to poor magazines, but when the wonder nines came along, Magazines got better. I don't know if it was the economic lure of customer demand, or if better manufacturing processes became cheaper and available, but these days, good mags can be taken for granted.

That was not always the case. My first Combat Commander came with two mags, one worked and one didn't. A gun Smith of my acquaintance reformed the feed lips and number two got better. But those were factory Colt Magazines--after market were worse.
Some of us can remember going to the bins of magazines at a gun show and buying a half dozen in the hopes of getting two or three that worked. But starting about the time that the S&W 59 hit town, things began to get better. By the late 80's magazine quality was an order of magnitude better. Mag related malfunctions had become rare.

Since then, things have only continued to be good, Yeah there are a couple of manufacturers out there who still make substandard stuff--Pro Mag, any one?-- but in the main, when you get a magazine today, it will function.

[Char-Gar]

Ranier....No, you are not being a jerk at all. I suspect that age has something to do with the difference.

Once upon a time in America, With very few exceptions almost nobody carried an autopistol for police and defense work. Auto pistols were rumored to be jam prone and the ammo was all FNJ round nose that was not famous for "stopping power". Yes, I realize allot of this way myth, but it was the common thinking.

Every local, state and federal police holster held a revolver in 38 Special or some highway cops had 357 Magnums. I was well into my middle years before this began to change.

I don't know how old or young you have to be to have missed the revolver age, but some of us here are still there. I for one trust revolvers more, can shoot them better and can reload them faster than any autopistol around. I reluctantly have entered the autopistol age to some degree, but it stops with the 1911 pistol.

[Rainier]

P&P and 9.3 - Thank you! I find I don't always contribute - mostly out of fear that someone may get their knickers twisted about me sharing what I have experienced requiring lots of keyboard time I don't really want to spend. I find it can be difficult to get tone and inflection into written words.

P&P - I almost blew coffee all over my keyboard reliving a similar memory going from a standard to an automatic - I think the salesman at the dealership thought I was nuts :)

9.3 - My hat is off to you! I would have been jailed for assault or worse if I spent 23 months let alone 23 years as a range trainer. I've worked with people 1 on 1 in a non-official setting but they came to me for help - pretty safe bet I wouldn't have the patience required to do the job you did. AND... no doubt in my mind that a bit of ongoing practice/training to maintain your skills is a requirement.

[Rainier]

Char-Gar
Ranier....No, you are not being a jerk at all.

Thank you too! You may very well be correct about timing/age. I grew up hunting with a single shot .22 rifle and a 12ga shotgun (I'm lucky enough to still have both!) with almost no exposure to handguns. When I joined the Army I was taught how to shoot a 1911 and fell in love with pistol shooting. I could generally hit the broadside of a barn (if I stood in it) with a double action revolver but the single action semi-auto was where it was at for me for years. And yes, there was a small group of us that thought (maybe still do) the sun rose and set on John Browning's beloved 1911 while some of the older shooters laughed at us for not using the 38/357. What amused me was the big conflict with the revolver guys between the Colt's and the S&W's - all the while, at the time, I'm thinking I'd had it all sorted out. Its fun to look back with 20/20 vision and realize what little I really knew.

[9.3X62AL]

My shooting experiences began with hunting. I was licensed at age 10, and 90% of the work was done with shotguns, and the balance was taken up by rifles--both rimfire and centerfire. I noticed that the more expensive premium-grade shotshells worked a whole lot better than the cheep "dove & quail" loads that showed up like clockwork every August in sport shops just prior to the Sep. 1 dove opener. Where I grew up, that was and still is a popular event. The harder/better shot--the better hulls--the better wad columns--and the increased velocity and pattern density of 1-1/4 oz shotloads going 1300+ FPS instantly upped my percentages afield and on the trap & skeet fields. I began reloading at age 15, and it was shotshells. 30-06 for my Dad's Model 70 came about a year later with a Lee Loader.

Handguns weren't even on the radar until I was about 20. Another Lee Loader for 38 Special helped keep my first revolver fed (S&W Model 28 x 6"), albeit slowly. Within a year, I was on board with the Sheriff's Department, and on my way to Indio. The Model 28 was lost to a Divorce Fire Sale, and replaced with a Colt Trooper Mk III x 4". I have no idea how many rounds went through that beast, at least 25K--and half of those were full-tilt Magnums. I was a reloading maniac by this time (40 years ago), and little has changed.

I am equally comfortable with round guns or square guns. I retired and no longer hunt armed predators, but I still enjoy shooting and crafting ammo. Once the autopistols came on stream at my shop in 1987, I no longer carried a roller as a primary arm, and they have evolved into sportguns & hunters for me. My focus is on projecting power when i choose a carry caliber, and 10mm has returned as my primary sideiron (well, holsterplastic) since its use was re-approved about a year ago. Long story. When afield in the back-country, either the Glock 20 or the S&W Mountain Gun in 44 Magnum gets the call these days.

[Char-Gar]

Thank you too! You may very well be correct about timing/age. I grew up hunting with a single shot .22 rifle and a 12ga shotgun (I'm lucky enough to still have both!) with almost no exposure to handguns. When I joined the Army I was taught how to shoot a 1911 and fell in love with pistol shooting. I could generally hit the broadside of a barn (if I stood in it) with a double action revolver but the single action semi-auto was where it was at for me for years. And yes, there was a small group of us that thought (maybe still do) the sun rose and set on John Browning's beloved 1911 while some of the older shooters laughed at us for not using the 38/357. What amused me was the big conflict with the revolver guys between the Colt's and the S&W's - all the while, at the time, I'm thinking I'd had it all sorted out. Its fun to look back with 20/20 vision and realize what little I really knew.

Most of the Colt vs. Smith & Wesson conflict came or at least started with the Bulleye Match pistol shooters. One leg of the match was "centerfire" and most competitors used a 38 Special target revolver and argued back for forth about which was better. There were enough differences between the two to fuel the fire. The cylinders rotated in opposite directions as did the rifling twist. Of course there were other differences, most notably the style of rifling. The feel of the action and trigger were also notably different.

The salient fact was that some folks posted better scores with one rather than the other. I always did my best with a Colt Officers Model Match. That said, for anything other than paper punching I preferred the Smith and Wesson and still do. There was a "Service Pistol" leg, which of course was the Colt 45 Auto. I shot that pistol long enough to get quite good with it and one has never been far from my hand in the last 50 years. Of course there is always the companion S&W revolver, which I carry when I leave the house.

[Kilosierra]

Some of the 115-125 gr 9mm jacketed hollowpoints, particularly the Winchester +P+ controlled expansion loads and the Federal 9BPLE loads performed extremely well. It took a little time to get details worked out concerning jacket thickness, shape & size of the hollow point cavity and velocity. After that development and learning curve, those rounds worked very well. Unfortunately, a lot of users (and non-user haters) just lumped all 9mm loads together and said - this doesn't work. There was no interest in getting the facts right and EVERY perceived failure of a 9mm to stop a threat was attributed to ALL 9mm loads.

Those that say the 45 ACP and .357 mag already worked and implied there was no need to develop the 9mm are correct but that wasn't a useful argument. They seemed to view the 9mm as a threat to the existing cartridges as opposed to the fact that the 9mm could be (and is) an addition to those cartridges. There are a lot tools in the toolbox.

The FBI didn't help the situation when they created test criteria that almost guaranteed the 9mm wouldn't pass.

Cartridge and caliber wars are pointless. I'm all about stacking the deck in my favor but honestly; there are other factors just as important, maybe more so, that the cartridge.

It also didn't help that the modern liability driven phase of law enforcement started at about the same time and one of the reason they went to hollow points was so the bullet were less likely to "over penetrate" and injure bystanders. So they ended up with shallow penetrating, rapidly expanding hollow points like the 115gr. Winchester Silvertip that did exactly what it was designed to do when it did work.

Unfortunately one of them functioned perfectly and stopped one inch short of the suspects heart and allowed two FBI agents to get killed and three more to be severely wounded in Miami. Never mind the fact that if the bullet had been a 9mm ball round or even a JHP developed just a few years later the suspect would have most likely been DRT a lot earlier in the fight and most likely before any of the FBI agents were killed or injured.

My philosophy is nothing handheld and not large enough caliber to cause significant dismemberment is a reliable stopper.

[ReloaderFred]

To my way of thinking, the major benefit to come out of the Wonder Nine years was magazines that work. Contrary to the good Colonel, it was not just fuddy-duddy, antiquated thinking that kept the revolver in front line service for so long. It was a bonafide fact that Semi-autos could and did jam at a significantly higher rate than revolvers would malfunction. Much of this was due to poor magazines, but when the wonder nines came along, Magazines got better. I don't know if it was the economic lure of customer demand, or if better manufacturing processes became cheaper and available, but these days, good mags can be taken for granted.

That was not always the case. My first Combat Commander came with two mags, one worked and one didn't. A gun Smith of my acquaintance reformed the feed lips and number two got better. But those were factory Colt Magazines--after market were worse.
Some of us can remember going to the bins of magazines at a gun show and buying a half dozen in the hopes of getting two or three that worked. But starting about the time that the S&W 59 hit town, things began to get better. By the late 80's magazine quality was an order of magnitude better. Mag related malfunctions had become rare.

Since then, things have only continued to be good, Yeah there are a couple of manufacturers out there who still make substandard stuff--Pro Mag, any one?-- but in the main, when you get a magazine today, it will function.

One of the main changes in the Model 59 upgrades was the addition of followers with 4 legs to prevent the follower from tipping inside the magazine body. The original design had the magazine spring attaching to a protrusion on the underside of the follower. This was a big improvement over the old design, and most double stack magazine followers today are of the same basic 4-legged design.

Hope this helps.

Fred

[Petrol & Powder]

Drifting a bit to the tragic Miami shootout of 1986; that event came late in the development of the Wonder Nines but certainly had an influence.

The FBI blamed the ammunition on the failure to stop the attack early in the event. They then went in search of better ammunition. Of course that better ammunition couldn't be something that existed because then the question would be, "If it already exists, why weren't you using it?"
So there were a bunch of tests with criteria that just about guaranteed the winner wouldn't be a common preexisting cartridge. What we ended up with was the 10mm lite, which we all know was the progenitor of the 40 S&W.

There has been endless debate concerning that one 9mm round, fired early in the event, that failed to stop Platt (one of the two criminals in the shootout). That round went through Platt's upper arm and entered his chest, stopping just short of his heart. Obviously a little more penetration would have been desirable but playing "would have, should have, could have" is a pointless exercise.

I'm not convinced that round "failed" in the true sense of the word. Handguns in general are poor tools to stop human attackers but handguns are often the only tool available.

Anyway, we had this extensive battery of tests involving gelatin and various barriers such as automotive glass, 20ga steel sheet metal, clothing, wallboard, etc. I will say that the FBI did a good job of making the tests repeatable and scientifically defensible. I think their methodology was sound but their results were preordained. The winning handgun cartridge wasn't going to be a common existing cartridge.

The NRA covered this very well and the article can be found here: https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2015/4/16/throwback-thursday-the-fbi-ammo-tests/



We eventually got the 40 S&W out of all of this and now we're going full circle and seeing a resurgence of the 9mm. In the end, handguns in general suck at stopping a human attacker.

[ReloaderFred]

Our department adopted the Winchester Silver Tip ammunition for both 9x19 and .38 Special as issued duty rounds early on, and I was the instigator of that adoption about 1979, before I left the range. Every Silver Tip recovered at autopsy performed as advertised. In one incident, a civilian used a .380 acp loaded with Silver Tips to stop a burglar who attacked him with 3 rounds to the chest. My really good friend was the Chief Deputy Coroner for our county and he said all three of those .380's expanded perfectly when they were removed at the autopsy.

In our officer involved shootings, the Silver Tip was reliable and worked. When we were forced to be issued Glock 22's, in lieu of our previous 9x19 and .38 Special firearms (plus privately owned sidearms like my beloved Model 57), we were issued Winchester Black Talon ammunition for the .40's. It's also an excellent round, as is it's replacement Ranger ammunition (Black Talon without the black coating). All officer involved shootings with that round ended up with the perpetrator on the Coroner's autopsy table.

In the Florida FBI incident, that first Silver Tip round penetrated an upper arm before entering the chest of the suspect, so it's hard to say it didn't perform properly. The target in real world shootings is going through all kinds of gyrations, so predicting what the bullet will hit is deemed rather difficult, at best....

Hope this helps.

Fred

[9.3X62AL]

Lots of good summations & info above in this thread, from folks whose experiences I believe in and rely upon.

[sawinredneck]

To add with the FBI testing, they had minimal penetration wants AFTER going through a barrier. Be it a car door, a windshield, a standard home sheet rock wall, etc., they wanted 16" penetration after penetrating said barriers, but not over 24" if memory serves? (Please correct if I'm wrong, it's been a while!)
So there was a barrier then a min/max limit on all rounds. I've never seen the testing done with the 40 S&W.
I also do not recall them ever stating they wanted a .40 cal round, or deemed that necessary for the requirements. As I recall it (again, been a while) they tested every commercial load available at that time, .32acp to 44mag, to find the round that would penetrate the barrier and meet the min/max in gel. The 10mm met their wants, then the .40 was created to fill a need for untrained agents.

[Kevin Rohrer]

I did not read anything beyond the title and the OP's first paragraph. I hope everyone is aware that the term "Wonder" is meant facetiously.

[Petrol & Powder]

I don't know how other people interpret the phrase but I wasn't using it facetiously. The term "Wonder-Nine" was coined in the 1980's (not sure when or by whom) to describe the pistols chambered in 9mm with large capacity magazines and some type of DA action that flooded the market. Now, I'm sure some folks that have a low opinion of the 9mm cartridge see the word "Wonder" as a facetious, tongue in cheek, jab at the 9mm Luger.

The 9mm has always been derided by some, particularly by those in the 45ACP camp. The situation really heated up when the U.S. military decided that the replacement for the 1911 was going to be some pistol chambered in 9mm and that pistol wouldn't be a SA 1911 platform.
No doubt some people use the term "Wonder Nine" with a sarcastic tone but I wasn't defending or denigrating the "Wonder Nines".
I just wanted to open a discussion.

[sawinredneck]

I've no idea where the aforementioned comment came from, it was a regular comment on numerous gun mag covers, a term thrown around regularly, then, and now! I can go on, but I'll share links instead,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonder_Nine
https://www.google.com/amp/www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/04/15/top-5-metal-wondernines/amp/
http://www.notpurfect.com/main/wonder.html
Then in slow motion with lots of purdy pictures!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_WozTyusri0

[JBinMN]

I have enjoyed the discussion/discourse. I hope it continues.

BTW, I did not own one(semi -auto 9mm), but stuck to revolvers up until about 5-6 years +/- ago.

It was the exchange between folks that payed more attention to this "genre"/era./etc./whatever... that has had me subscribed to the topic.

Information & knowledge is "King"...
I do not care about the adjective(s) that might be applied.
History is good, lest it is forgotten. Please keep sharing the History..
;)

[sawinredneck]

It really was an awesome time, S&W's "gun of the month club", who can crank out the latest and greatest terminal ballistics, what cartridge will be out this week at the gun show? It was incredibly hard to even keep up! As I've even shown, so much happened, so quickly, a lot of its been forgotten!
I forget who coined the term "wonder nines", but at the time, they really were just that! Wonderful mechanical marvels that exceeded everything prior to them! As the video I linked to suggests, the Browning High Power was really the only thing to compare with them, but so many were used to revolvers and "cocked and locked" single action semiautos were considered "Stone Age" and archaic for that time. DA/SA, DAO or stricker fired or go home was the mantra at the time.
With polymers, new trigger actions out, all at once, I doubt I'll ever see that much gun development again in my lifetime.

[tazman]

It really was an awesome time, S&W's "gun of the month club", who can crank out the latest and greatest terminal ballistics, what cartridge will be out this week at the gun show? It was incredibly hard to even keep up! As I've even shown, so much happened, so quickly, a lot of its been forgotten!
I forget who coined the term "wonder nines", but at the time, they really were just that! Wonderful mechanical marvels that exceeded everything prior to them! As the video I linked to suggests, the Browning High Power was really the only thing to compare with them, but so many were used to revolvers and "cocked and locked" single action semiautos were considered "Stone Age" and archaic for that time. DA/SA, DAO or stricker fired or go home was the mantra at the time.
With polymers, new trigger actions out, all at once, I doubt I'll ever see that much gun development again in my lifetime.

I have to agree with that last part. It seems as if the development process has slowed. Not a lot of really new designs. Just small refinements of current designs in possibly new combinations of current technology. Unless there is a big shift in propellant and cartridge design in the near future, I doubt I will ever see such development again.

[35remington]

I remember when the Glock came out. With its appearance and the "dtzzt" sound it made when it was dry fired, coupled with a plainly visible spring, my dad said "reminds me of the BB gun I had when I was a kid."

I guess we got over it. Only real downside is they melt easier and are worse as blunt trauma tools. Each brand has its Koolaid drinkers, some more than others.

Make no mistake about it, 25-30 years from now pistols and how we shoot them will change, and the savants of that future time will poke fun at how we do things now. New generations always try to feel dismissive and disparaging of the past.

We tend to forget we got along just fine before things changed. And things always change.

[tazman]

I was just considering how much difference a cartridge made to shooting. Before that time it was all loose black powder and either balls or boolits. Front feeders or breech loaders, it was still a measure of black and a ball/minie ball.
Brass cartridges opened up a whole new world. Then came smokeless powders. Then came different actions for using the cartridge, but all based on the cartridge.
I wonder what the next major step will be to revolutionize things? Caseless ammunition where the case is part of the powder charge? Some different type of propellant altogether? Perhaps a completely different type of projectile? Perhaps a small hypersonic dart of some sort? Or simply an energy burst of some sort? Who knows?
The field is wide open. Maybe the new designs start appearing next week.

[9.3X62AL]

In spite of Glock's acceptance and popularity and the transition away from hammer-driven firing pins and toward striker-fired systems, there are still several makers of the Colt/Browning/1911-series pistols doing a land-office business selling the items. People like the 1911, and even those have come some distance in terms of utility and reliability since my first example in the late 1970s. It was a Colt Series 70 Government Model, and as long as you used 230 grain RN bullets (cast or jacketed) lacking a cavity and fed them through Colt magazines, it was dead-nuts reliable. And in 1979, that was the state of the art. Today, any autopistol trying to sell itself in absence of perfected ability to feed hollow-point ammo ought to just stay home. It IS a very different world from what it was 40 years ago as a handgunner.

If the 9mm has or had a problem, it was not a European problem--it was a North American issue. USA ammomakers have always under-loaded the 9mm Luger rounds out of a concern that Euro-intensity loadings would find their way into wheezy old milsurps chambered to weaker nominal 9mm military surplus pistols like the Steyrs, Glisentis, and other similar arms. Our NATO 9mm load is right healthy--a 123-125 grain bullet running in the 1250 FPS ballpark from the M-9's 4.9" barrel. Swap out a decent soft point or hollow point bullet, and you have a decisive service arm for felon disincentivizing. My P-226 is now filled with such loads (Speer Gold Dot 124s) should the need arise to cart it around. These give 1220-1235 FPS from its 4.4" barrel.

[sawinredneck]

Without quoting the above posts, I'll try to respond to them in a round about way.
It took me a while to warm up to Glocks, a long while! I got the idea, but it wasn't until I'd heard some stress tests, from people I trusted, that I was sold. I was told of dropping them from buildings and helicopters, being driven over by cars and trucks, it went on, until I finally heard of one failing that convinced me. Yes, I had to hear of one failing to be sold!
A little old lady bought one and of all places, kept it in her oven. She preheated the oven to back an apple pie and forgot to get her gun out. It still fired, but you had to manually rack the slide because the frame was so warped, that was believable enough to sell me.
Tieing what was to what will be next, that's difficult. How many years did it take to go to cased ammunition? Besides Kieth's work, there wasn't a lot of huge leaps for many years, and even then it was slow. In the "wonder nine years", the gun rags couldn't even keep up! Seriously, what came out in a magazine was already an obsolete gun/cartridge the next month. When I said we'd go to the gun show to see what was out, I wasn't kidding! I also wasn't kidding about having to wait for the next months gun rag to even know what we were looking at, there was so much rapid advancement no one could possibly even have tried! I tried for a while, but just the amount of guns was overwhelming never mind the ammo!
I tried to love the S&W autos of the time, but they all felt and handled like a brick or 2x4 to me! I had a 9mm, 3" barrel, 13rds, I forget the model now, it got stolen. I kid you not, I spent the next year examining people's foreheads looking for the tell tell front sight indention from firing that hunk of carp! Never found the culprit.
Caseless ammo, read magazines in the library from the '60's talking about it, supposedly the army tested it in the late '80's early '90's but hat functionality and ignition problems with all designs. Honestly with battery and super capacitor technology becoming what it is, I think we will see mag/LEV guns before caseless ever becomes reality.

[sawinredneck]

I'll also add, I've come full circle myself, my two carry guns are a 1911 in 10mm and a Ruger LCR DAO in .357mag.

[Petrol & Powder]

Just rambling here, firearms development does seem to come in batches. A new technology such as percussion cap, metallic cartridge, smokeless powder comes along and a rush of development follows to take advantage of it. The same trait occurs in other areas such as ships, cars, electronics, etc.
The Wonder Nine era was different. There wasn't any one new technology that spurred that rush of development. All of the technology existed. We had double column magazines, DA/SA actions, alloy frames and even polymer frames (the H&K VP70 proceeded the Glock). What occurred was an incredible rush of development that utilized existing technology. It was an interesting time in which we saw this massive outpouring of options in what had been a stagnant handgun market. It was a different type of leap forward than the previous leaps in firearms development. There was some resistance to the changes, there is always resistance to change. Some of the change wasn't great but not all of it was bad. The Wonder Nine era helped us break out of a rut.

One of the interesting points to that rush of development was that it was concentrated around a specific cartridge, the 9mm Luger. There were a lot of factors driving that: The physical size of the 9mm cartridge lent itself to the high capacity trend. The 9mm Luger was widely accepted in the rest of the world and was the NATO pistol cartridge. The 9mm could be capable of excellent performance if loaded to its full potential.

Al brings up a very good point concerning the 9mm Luger. In its European form, the 9mm Luger was commonly loaded to its full potential. The U.S. caught up in that regard, at least with hollowpoint loads, but we came a little late to that game.
Our NATO 9mm load (124ish grain running at 1200fps+) is right were it needs to be in that league.
The Winchester 115 gr +P+ controlled expansion HP isn't in 357 mag territory buts it's getting close !

[sawinredneck]

Very well put P&P.

[tazman]

Those years also came at a time when international trade and political situations were peaking(think NATO, China, and USSR). Foreign countries were co-operating as never before. Compatibility was seen as very necessary.
Foreign designs were studied and incorporated into existing US technology. People were using manufacturing techniques and materials that hadn't been applied to firearms before.
Lots of events had an effect on how and why certain things were produced. Military/police contracts and testing had a lot to do with design parameters.
I wonder what we would have seen developed if John Browning had lived during that period?

[sawinredneck]

Well, without the advancements that he'd already made, we wouldn't have had the ideas to build on. Kind of a catch 22.

[Petrol & Powder]

John Browning was undoubtedly a genius and his designs were the basis for much that followed.

But every new technology builds on top of old technology.

Interestingly, some of the Wonder Nines departed from traditional Browning designs: Beretta used the Walther locking block design to lock the barrel to the slide. H&K was all over the place with the roller locked P9S and the gas retarded action used in the P7. Even the traditional Browning tilting barrel design was simplified by SIG.