.40 cal on the way out?

[Limnophile]

Limnophile quoted someone who questioned the accuracy of the .40 S&W. I've heard this repeated from time to time, but have never seen it substantiated. Does anyone have any facts on the accuracy of the .40?

The FBI Academy's Training Division issued a memo in May 2014 explaining their return to the 9 Luger. The entire memo is available here: http://looserounds.com/2014/09/21/fbi-9mm-justification-fbi-training-division/.

Here is the memo's conclusion:

While some law enforcement agencies have transitioned to larger calibers from the 9mm Luger in recent years, they do so at the expense of reduced magazine capacity, more felt recoil, and given adequate projectile selection, no discernible increase in terminal performance.

Other law enforcement organizations seem to be making the move back to 9mm Luger taking advantage of the new technologies which are being applied to 9mm Luger projectiles. These organizations are providing their armed personnel the best chance of surviving a deadly force encounter since they can expect faster and more accurate shot strings, higher magazine capacities (similar sized weapons) and all of the terminal performance which can be expected from any law enforcement caliber projectile.

Given the above realities and the fact that numerous ammunition manufacturers now make 9mm Luger service ammunition with outstanding premium line law enforcement projectiles, the move to 9mm Luger can now be viewed as a decided advantage for our armed law enforcement personnel.

 

[skoro]

Nope. It's a good, effective caliber that's popular. It'll be around for a long time.

Me?

I've owned 9mm and 45acp since before there ever was a 40s&w, so I never bothered with it.

 

[Ibmikey]

Skoro, you summed up in two sentences the answer to the OP's original statement that eight pages of rhetoric failed to do. Hopefully this will bring this thread to a conclusion.

 

[skoro]

I like to be concise.

 

[Ibmikey]

Yup, you is

 

[skoro]

Thanks.

 

[tedbeau]

[quote\]
AustinTX wrote:
As all of the latest data shows, this is simply false. We're not in the 1990s anymore. The 9mm has made great strides in effectiveness thanks to advances in bullet technology and is now essentially on par with the other major service calibers in effectiveness. Time to challenge your old ideas with new data.

[endquote]

I understand that the 9mm ammo has increased it's effectiveness in the past 20 years, but you fail to take into account that the 40 caliber ammo is also using the newest latest bullet designs. It's not like the only ammo you can get in .400 diameter is round ball.

Given that your pushing a 165 grain JHP at near the same velocity as a 147 grain JHP the 40 is always going to give you more energy and a larger hole.

Comparing the data in the table at this link
http://gundata.org/blog/post/9mm-vs-40-smith-and-wesson/

we see :

9mm 115 gr jhp VS 40 S&W 165gr % difference

50 ft?
drop .09 inches VS .17 inches 1.8 %
velocity 1112 fps VS 1095 fps .98 %
Energy 316 lb ft VS 413 lb ft 1.3 %

250 ft
drop 77.8 inches VS 78.5 inches .99 %
velocity 851 fps VS 868 fps 1.02 %
energy 185 lb ft VS 259 lb ft 1.4 %

500 ft
drop 455.9 inches VS 444.43 inches .97 %
velocity 678 fps VS 711 fps 1.04 %
energy 117 lb ft VS 174 lb ft 1.48 %

difference in area of round .354 vs .401 1.13 %

Yeah yeah I know who the hell shoots a hand gun 500 ft? or is it yards, table doesn't say. I did find it interesting though that at distance the greater mass allows the 40 to carry more speed and have less drop.

In summation, at 50 feet the 9mm is 80 percent more accurate (by .08 inches, less than an 1/8 inch.)

But the 40 caliber always has at least 30 percent more energy on the target plus you get a 13 percent increase in wound diameter, assuming equivalent expansion, which may not necessarily be the case, but if we consider 900 fps to be the minimum speed required to expand, the 9mm falls just below at 200feet but the 40 stays just above it.

In conclusion yeah a 9mm does the job alright, but the argument about modern ammo increasing the rounds effectiveness ALSO APPLIES TO THE 40, THE 45ACP, and the .380!

 

[Frankly]

I've gone back and forth and up and down on the debate over 9, 40, and 45.

I've finally arrived back at my starting point: 40 is the perfect answer to both 9 and 45. It hits harder than the 9, but with better accuracy than the .45 acp. The .40 S&W combines the best of both worlds -- IMO. I use the 9mm conversion barrel in my M&P 40 for target practice, but I conceal carry with the .40 barrel...

 

[mrdaputer]

Not a chance.... I just picked up a PPQ 40 5" and loving it. Very little muzzle flip. It weighs the same as my 9 mm When ammo was tough to find I always found the 40 S&W

 

[zombietactics]

I would submit that any data regarding handgun cartridges be subject to review regarding it's metrological significance, to the problem being solved or examined.

Raw numbers are almost always meaningless, and in some cases yield innumerate assessments.

Bullets do not "fight" other bullets. The assumption that they somehow do underlies many faulty conclusions.

The difference between performance parameters should not be compared against each other in light of the thing doing the wounding, but rather in relationship to the thing being wounded.

Noting that a .40S&W round is 1mm greater in diameter (and therefore about 11% greater) means almost nothing in relationship to the actual problem: physical incapacitation of a human being.

Even if you extrapolate that to a columnar wound channel, it's the wrong way to look at the problem. (more on this later)

You need to compare the resulting parameters to the dimensions and structures which are being affected.

Nobody bleeds out quickly with wounds through tissue which does not contain major vasculature. Therefore, almost every "bit" of wound which does not cause damage to major vasculature is insignificant. Paths through voids make no contribution to the effect of the wound profile.

The vasculature which provides for major external bleed-out is usually very close to the surface of the skin ... carotid, brachial and femoral arteries, for instance.

The vasculature which provides for major internal bleedout does so into body cavities in very close proximity ... pleural cavity, lungs, abdominal cavity, etc.

Therefore, a long columnar cavity provides no advantage, unless it gets to (and through) something important.

When we compare the actual wound profiles on human beings, with an eye towards what is important, the difference between the major duty calibers (including 10mm and .357sig) ... they are - essentially - "no difference".

 

[Dashunde]

Noting that a .40S&W round is 1mm greater in diameter (and therefore about 11% greater) means almost nothing in relationship to the actual problem

Incorrect. Do the proper math for the area of a circle. (pi*r^2)
That 1mm brings nearly 25% more frontal area, (~78sqmm vs 63sqmm).

When we compare the actual wound profiles on human beings, with an eye towards what is important, the difference between the major duty calibers (including 10mm and .357sig) ... they are - essentially - "no difference".

Your attempting to define what is important in a realm of infinite variables ranging from barriers, jackets, a wallet/phone in the chest pocket, on out to what we simply like or want to own.

There is not one single sane person on the face of this Earth that would prefer to be shot by a proper 10mm instead of a 9mm of same bullet type/brand.

40 fits right in the middle of everything available... its win-win for me.

 

[zombietactics]

Incorrect. Do the proper math for the area of a circle. (pi*r^2)
That 1mm brings nearly 25% more frontal area, (~78sqmm vs 63sqmm).

I don't think you realize it, but you (sort of) just made my point. Your math & geometry are solid, but referencing area, as opposed to diameter ... or even the columnar wound channel does not address the issue properly. You simply made no reference to the nature of the actual problem being solved ... referencing the "thing doing the wounding", rather than it's relationship to "the thing being wounded".

You're attempting to define what is important in a realm of infinite variables ranging from barriers, jackets, a wallet/phone in the chest pocket, on out to what we simply like or want to own.

Not at all, and it's strange that you'd derive that from text which says no such thing. I referred to the wound profile itself ... is there some other factor we should be looking at to determine the actual effect on a human being? If two different bullets produce wounds so identical to each other that they cannot be told apart, what difference do you suggest exists to account for one being more effective than the other?

There is not one single sane person on the face of this Earth that would prefer to be shot by a proper 10mm instead of a 9mm of same bullet type/brand.

Why exactly? Consider a perfect shot to the head ... are you saying the person shot w/ 10mm will fall faster than if shot with 9mm? How much faster? If you claim to know such a thing, based upon what evidence?

Apply the same logic to a perfect shot to the heart, or two well placed rounds anywhere. If a 10mm round bisects the brachial or carotid artery, how does that do anything "more" than a 9mm round bisecting the same structures? More to the point of the thread, why would 10mm be a better choice than .40S&W, if each round achieves sufficient penetration, and similar expansion?

Perhaps you could show the ballistics data from two different duty rounds (same type/brand) from a known manufacturer, and explain how one is going to do something especially better than the other on a human being?

 

[Fjblair]

I never bought a .40 or a 10mm but plenty of friends did. Some of the 40's are still around but very few of the 10's survived with my crew.

 

[Frankly]

Zombie,

I struggled to understand the main ideas of your first post, but I did gather you were saying a bullet producing a wider wound channel has no greater likelihood of hitting a major organ or artery than does a bullet producing a narrower wound channel. Am I paraphrasing you correctly?

 

[mavracer]

the difference between the major duty calibers (including 10mm and .357sig) ... they are - essentially - "no difference".

Bovine fecies. Even if the difference is small it still exists and from top to bottom there is actually quite a bit of difference.

 

[zombietactics]

... I struggled to understand the main ideas of your first post, but I did gather you were saying a bullet producing a wider wound channel has no greater likelihood of hitting a major organ or artery than does a bullet producing a narrower wound channel. Am I paraphrasing you correctly? ...

I don't think I said or implied that anywhere, but nonetheless it's a common line of reasoning, and causes many misconceptions based upon incomplete understanding or unfounded assumptions.

If I read Fackler, Patrick and others correctly, only wounds which directly penetrate, bisect or destroy structures cause significant damage likely to cause rapid incapacitation. If we're talking about peripheral hits which cause a slightly faster bleed-out over long periods of time, that's a different matter altogether, and I am unaware of any competent study regarding that kind of thing.

A corollary to this is the fact that the diameter of a projectile does not directly relate (1:1) to the diameter of the wound. This is because most bodily structures stretch quite a bit. Projectiles which are significantly greater in diameter will yield measurable differences. Projectiles in the 9mm-to-.45ACP range are so close in diameter that no difference regularly occur ... the tissue just stretches more in the path of the slightly larger round, and you end up with (essentially) identical wounds.

Any "greater likelihood" of hitting a major structure would not result in anything besides a "nick" ... not the direct penetration, bisection (sp?) or destruction that the literature says is necessary.

Could that make a difference? I suppose in some very rare "corner-case" kind of way it could, but that's where you get into counting angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin territory. For every such rarity (where some factor of a larger round might make a difference) you can find various performance characteristic of different rounds might make a (equally unlikely) difference in some other case. 9mm and .357sig will generally penetrate many types of soft body armor better than .40S&W, 10mm or .45ACP, for instance. Even though criminal types are wearing armor more frequently, I don't think this makes much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.

 

[zombietactics]

... Bovine fecies. Even if the difference is small it still exists and from top to bottom there is actually quite a bit of difference. ...

I can't find a Medical Examiner, Coroner, Trauma Surgeon or Forensic Pathologist who agrees with this "quite a bit of difference" assertion, as it relates to rapid incapacitation.

Do you know of any? Please direct me to them.

 

[Frankly]

the diameter of a projectile does not directly relate (1:1) to the diameter of the wound

Agreed. Nonetheless, there is a proportionate relationship. A wider diameter bullet does indeed produce a wider path of destruction and is therefore more likely to take out a vital structure, all other things being equal. If a shot from a 9mm Luger just misses a major artery -- literally by a hair -- it stands to reason that a shot from the wider .40 S&W, placed precisely in the same spot, would have taken out that artery, no?

 

[Evan Thomas]

This thread has run its course, methinks. No one is going to say anything new at this point.