Improving the .40 S&W

Sooooooo....slow and big is better than fast and small........I wish there was more data in these, I can follow the reasoning and the math but would like to see more data.....not the "I can't tell you becasue it's secret"........you might want to cross post to the reloading forum.
 
While I think the .40 is a decent enough round, I'm highly suspect of any argument that relies so heavily on the obviously unscientific Thompson-LaGrade tests and Taylor Knockout Value.
 
Do you remember the Relative Incapacitation Index of the '70s? It was an attempt to use a computer program to predict stopping power. Very scientific. 9mm hardball and .38 Special roundnose were at the top of the RPI. :rolleyes:
 
slow and big is better than fast and small........I wish there was more data in these, I can follow the reasoning and the math but would like to see more data.
Click to expand...
There is more to it then just Mass X Velocity. The biggest factor you forgot is sectional density. Dangerous game hunters swear by sectional density. All tests performed on tough skinned predators prove that bullets with a higher sectional density are more lethal. Sectional density increases as weight increases. A 250 grain .40 bullet has a much higher s.d. than a 125 gr. .40 bullet
 
The scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

So the Thompson-LaGarde tests were scientific, in the truest sense.

They conducted tests, observed the results and were testing a hypothesis. The experiment consisted of shooting various handgun bullets into human cadavers, live horses and cattle. They recorded the effects and dissected the bodies to see the internal effects.
 
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/40.html

The .40 S&W will never as effective as a .45ACP, especially if the user is restricted to FMJ ammunition. The .45 will always be first choice if deliberately going into a combat situation. I see the .40 as a supplementary weapon rather than a replacement. It may be a more convenient weapon to carry in plain-clothes applications or in a medium threat application. It may also be more suited to individuals with small hands who cannot handle the broader grip of a double stack .45.
Click to expand...


While there are good points in the article, I would like to see more published data on the subject from recent tests from the FBI as well as other agencies. These tests do not show the clear superiority of the .45 as he presents it.

Is every .45 ACP load superior to every .40 S&W load? That's not what credible ballistic tests have shown.

After all, he's not exactly objective in his conclusions. The whole point of the article is to prove the superiority of the .45 ACP. His math is only used to reinforce his opinion, not to arrive at an objective conclusion.

The full powered loading of the 10mm was never tested by the FBI. A downloaded form was developed specifically for testing and it showed to be superior to the best 9mm and .45 ACP loads of the day. In a sense, it was a .40 S&W which beat these older rounds.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi_10mm_notes.pdf

This was probably since the FBI wanted a round that could penetrate hard barriers better than the .45.

These tests, as well as a 1995 Canadian RCMP test showed that the with the right loads, the .38 Spl, 9mm and .40 S&W could all pass ballistic tests and could be effective for self defense or service use.

http://www.css.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/cprc/tr/tr-1995-01.pdf

While the .45 was not tested in the Canadian study, the point is that there are other calibers which passed the FBI ballistic tests. The test protocol is shown here.

http://greent.com/40Page/general/fbitest.htm

There's nothing wrong with the .45, and there are a lot of good guys alive today because it worked when they needed it to. But the same could be said for the .38 Spl, .357 Mag, 10mm, .40 S&W, 9mm, etc. And all these same rounds have failed as well. The SC State Trooper Mark Coats shooting comes to mind.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs3.htm

If the article in question was objective, it would lead one to the same conclusion as other scientific studies have: There are no magic bullets or calibers.

While a larger, heavier bullet may have an edge in some instances, other factors may outweigh its use. Bullet placement and bullet design are far more important than caliber, and as long as any bullet has enough momentum to penetrate clothing and common barriers and then traverse the body from any angle and disrupt CNS functions, who can say that one caliber is clearly superior to another? If a 9mm load can do this, it works. If a .45 loading can't do this, then that 9mm loading is superior.

The best loadings of the most popular service calibers can do this, even with lighter, faster bullets.

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887

And although it's true psychological reaction to being shot cannot be predicted from one subject to the next, I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand, either.

Some people have been incapacitated from non-lethal wounds, even from relatively low powered handguns. I'm not sure how or why this happens, but if kinetic energy from a service caliber handgun can cause this in some people, I think it needs to be explored further. Maybe it has nothing to do with exterior ballistics, but I am not discounting the idea either.

After all, the .38 Spl and .357 Mag have the same bullet diameter and with the same weight bullets, most people would choose the Magnum, whether there's any truth behind this theory or not.

However, until this theory can be explored further, by most accounts the .45 is a very good self defense round, as are the best loadings in other service calibers.

If you're interested, a good modern source of information is Duncan MacPherson's book "Bullet Penetration."

http://www.firearmstactical.com/bulletpenetration.htm
 
Last edited:
birdie-talk

In 40 S&W, the 135g JHP choices have performed exceedingly well.
On BGs....

Anecdotal reports suggest impact effects much like the 125g SIG/ Magnum effects.

What was the question?
 
There is no need to "fix" the 40 S&W. The Border Patrol uses a 155 JHP at 1250 fps and it works just fine if the operator does his part. I know the 45 crowd likes to call it short and weak, HA, lets see 357 magnum energy levels and I have 13 of them before I need a reload.:D

Prior to switching to the 40 S&W in 1996 the Border Patrol did exhaustive studies to find the best cartridge for an auto loader. The 40-155 was chosen because it is more effective and / or a better all choice than the 9mm, 357 sig, 45 ACP, and 10 mm.

We are involved in more shootings than every other federal law enforcement agency put together. That puts a different perspective on the selection criteria. We wanted an auto but we did not want to give up the stopping power that we enjoyed with the 357 magnum. Our qual course used to have a 50 yard stage, we work in remote areas and long range (for law enforcement) shoot outs are not uncommon.
 
The scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

So the Thompson-LaGarde tests were scientific, in the truest sense.

They conducted tests, observed the results and were testing a hypothesis. The experiment consisted of shooting various handgun bullets into human cadavers, live horses and cattle. They recorded the effects and dissected the bodies to see the internal effects.
Click to expand...

In order to be scientific, there also needs to be at least some measure of control and objectivity. The animals shot with larger caliber bullets were generally given more time to die before being clubbed to death, thusly giving them less chance to produce a failure, for example, the .38 ACP Steer was given only 1:35 from the time it was shot to the time it was clubbed while the .476 Eley, 250grn .45 Long Colt, and .455 Manstopper were given 8:15, 3:55, and 4:15 respectively. Also the .38 ACP Steer was shot only 3 times while the .476 Eley, 250grn .45 Long Colt, and .455 Manstopper were shot 7, 5, an 4 times respectively. Finally, Thompson and LaGuarde seem to ignore that the .30 Luger was the single best performer in their first Steer test requiring only one shot and 30 seconds to kill the steer.

The second days testing consisted of shooting the animals as rapidly as possible until it either died or ten shots were fired. The problem here is that the fact that both caliber and gun type could effect shot placement was not taken into account nor was the rapidity of fire except when the gun either jammed or had to be reloaded. With these crucial factors ignored and the lack of consistency between the test procedures of different calibers, these tests don't really tell us much.

The final tests including hanging a cadaver and shooting it in order to observe how much it swung. Besides the dubious value of such an exercise, the amount of "swing" was not measured by any objective means but rather by purely subjective number values assigned by the experimenters.

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/history/background.htm#test
 
There are two ISO 9000 rated laboratories which conduct ammunition testing for law enforcement in the United States; one run by DOJ/FBI, one by DHS/ICE.

Both recommend and have secured Departmental contracts for .40S&W 180 grain JHP loads at approximately 1000 fps. The DHS/ICE lab had previously recommended and secured .40S&W 155 JHP at approximately 1200 fps.

As for improving the need to improve the load, look for the competition among the major manufacturers to yield good things to the shooting community in the .40S&W 180 grain JHP category. They want those contracts, and we all benefit from the R&D expended to secure them.
 
Last edited:
have some of that

I have tested BP-issued 155g from my 4.5" Witness, av = 1195fps.

The effectiveness is found in its results.
 
Webleymkv,

Thanks for the information and cogent illustrations of the test's shortcomings.

I have searched for the results of the Thompson-LaGarde tests. I thought I had found a comprehensive synopsis of the results. I had not. Your link has much more information that I had never seen before.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top