Given the disparity in both impact Energy and expanded bullet area, ~ 3:4 for both, that gives the .40 S&W a (1.33)^2 advantage, round it to 1.77.
That's over Three 9mm hits(3.54) for every Two(2) .40 S&W hits.
And since that extra hit-and-a-half includes the probability of a miss, call it 1:3, it leaves a pretty solid Two(2) extra rounds fired, on top of the Two initial hits, to equal Two hits from a .40 S&W.
So, one would need a 9mm magazine with Twice(2x) the capacity of the .40 S&W, not simply the Two or so additional rounds in a std. capacity service pistol.
Unfortunately no one has been able to correlate the result of this "calculation" to an advantage in real-world gunfights. If this make you feel good about your choice, that's great, but it's not going to satisfy anyone looking for real evidence.
easier for secretaries to shoot 9mm round.
Again, FBI secretaries are not required to qualify with firearms. You know this is a false claim because you've been corrected before.
Fact: The FBI requested, and accepted, the .40 S&W as a replacement for the failure you are embracing known as the 9mm Luger... for Twenty-Five years.
Not a fact.
The FBI did not request the .40S&W. S&W developed it independently and the FBI didn't adopt it until it had been on the market for 7 years.
The FBI did not use the .40S&W for 25 years, you're off by about 6 years. You know this is a false claim because you've been corrected before.
Does it bother you at all that so much of what you have based your opinions on is actually incorrect? It should. If you care about the topic, why not put some effort into learning the facts?
That was their sales pitch, for the HR department and Training Budget accountants fraud, "advances in bullet construction," to excuse an inferior, now barely adequate, round.
Once there were a number of 9mm loadings on the market that passed the FBI ammunition testing protocol, it was pretty hard for them to say it wasn't sufficient for their needs. By definition, it was.
5 years from now the 30 Super Carry or something very similar but with a fancier name will be dethroning the 9mm, just wait.
It could happen, but it's not so very likely. The 9mm was introduced in 1901 and has not only survived for over 120 years, but has also maintained a huge market share of the centerfire handgun market and even grown in popularity over the past years. That's a lot of time for some other cartridge to dethrone it and yet, here it still is, and stronger than ever.
Not that this really has anything to do with popularity. A cartridge's suitability for self-defense is not really related to its popularity or .22LR would be the best self-defense cartridge out there.
Here's the bottom line. No one has been able to demonstrate that any members of the service pistol caliber class provide a significant advantage over the other members of the performance class in real-world gunfights. That's why this debate continues.
As yourself: If there's a significant difference between the .40S&W and the 9mm, why isn't it showing up on the streets? How could it provide a practical advantage but without that advantage being detectable by the many people and organizations who study such things and are trying to pick a winner?
Forget about the FBI if you don't trust them. They're not the only entity trying to evaluate handgun self-defense calibers. It's of interest to many people and many organizations. And many people and organizations are studying the topic. But still nobody can point to a clear winner.
Are we supposed to believe that the reason they can't pick a clear winner based on real-world gunfights is because there's a big difference in performance? That makes no sense at all.
The only logical conclusion is that if there is a difference, it can't be a significant one--because if it was significant we'd be able to detect it, the evidence would be out there for everyone to see and the debate would be over.
