Interesting notion from another thread, which bears some examination
- Thread starter zombietactics
- Start date
- Status
The assumption of this statement is that ALL energy necessarily goes into "killing po
Energy is very slippery stuff and it transforms into all kinds of different things besides simply penetration and expansion. In the case of projectiles, that would include heat and sound. And that subtracts from the energy remaining to perform its intended functions.
Energy is very slippery stuff and it transforms into all kinds of different things besides simply penetration and expansion. In the case of projectiles, that would include heat and sound. And that subtracts from the energy remaining to perform its intended functions.
All handguns are relatively poor "stoppers" regardless of caliber or bullet used. Shot placement and sufficient penetration are paramount, all else is secondary (we want expansion but we *need* sufficient penetration).
Barring a hit to the CNS, the only way to stop an aggressive and determined BG is shutting down the brain from oxygen deprivation due to bleedout. Even a solid hit to the heart can leave 10+ seconds of oxygen in the brain, plenty of time for the BG to plant daisies in your hair.
Unless a particular bullet can increase the bleedout rate enough *to alter the outcome of the encounter* (ie: immediate collapse that prevents harm to you instead of incapacitation minutes/hours later) then there's no practical advantage between any of the current quality JHP's.
I seriously doubt a BG could tell the difference...
Tomac
Barring a hit to the CNS, the only way to stop an aggressive and determined BG is shutting down the brain from oxygen deprivation due to bleedout. Even a solid hit to the heart can leave 10+ seconds of oxygen in the brain, plenty of time for the BG to plant daisies in your hair.
Unless a particular bullet can increase the bleedout rate enough *to alter the outcome of the encounter* (ie: immediate collapse that prevents harm to you instead of incapacitation minutes/hours later) then there's no practical advantage between any of the current quality JHP's.
I seriously doubt a BG could tell the difference...
Tomac
Walt Sherrill
New member
JohnKSa said:
To expand on JohnKSa's comments, and Tomac's post immediately before this one (which appeared while I was editing my comments)...
When we all get fired up and discuss this topic we can sometimes seem a little like a bunch of Medieval clerics arguing about how many angels can dance on the point of a pin... (I know -- I'm as guilty as the next guy.)
Bigger wound cavities and more internal damage are clearly better than smaller and less -- but the effect of such larger wounds may be more THEORETICAL than practical when you're in a gun fight. The bad guys in the 1986 Miami/FBI shootout sustained a lot of serious wounds, but they killed 2 FBI agents and wounded 5 others before it was over. Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout
The eight FBI agents involved in the shootout were experienced, and equipped with a range of weapons, from .38 specials, to shotguns, a .357 Magnum, and several 9mm handguns S&W semi-autos. As noted in the link above, the bad guys were NOT drugged up -- they just didn't quit. The shots that killed both of the BAD GUYS were brain and spinal shots -- even though they had other serious wounds.
If you want to be alive when it's all over, I would argue that the MOST IMPORTANT THING is enough round penetration to hit the central nervous system (brain and/or spinal chord). Somebody who is bleeding out, even if doing so relatively rapidly, can still kill you.
Last edited:
marine6680
New member
First some general facts... 40sw can have about 25% or more energy
advantage over 9mm in many defensive loads. 40sw projectiles are
heavier than 9mm projectiles
In the 9 vs 40 debate I think the question is twofold.
First:
Does the added energy of 40sw equate to better wound generating
ability and/or penetration, even in regards to less than ideal shots?
E.G. Through barriers and/or bone
Second:
Can the user benefit or otherwise take advantage of any possible
superior attributes of the 40sw round, does there project uses fall in line with those advantages, or maybe those benefits
outweighed by other factors?
So as for the first... I think the answer is a limited yes.
While in testing and in real world use, the wound cavity is so similar
between the primary defensive calibers that it really doesn't matter,
but there are differences elsewhere.
Heavier projectiles tend to penetrate more consistently, while lighter
ones may have a larger spread of penetrating depths if several are
fired into testing medium. This is why 147gr and 124gr 9mm rounds are
popular and get high marks from those that test ammo, while 115 or
other lighter ones are not given good marks... More energy can also mean
more retained energy when fired through barriers. This can mean better
penetration after passing through bone as well, or when shots are
placed at less than ideal angles like from the side.
So the 40sw, being heavier and having more energy is set up to be a
more consistent performer in the wide variety or circumstances it may
be used in.
So what about the second part?
Well... that is more difficult to answer.
It's basically a pro vs con situation, with the added variable of the
individual's abilities and preferences.
Does the added abilities make up for less rounds available?
Is the recoil too much for you or whoever is going to use the firearm?
Plus other points often brought up, like temporary wound cavity, and limited need for barrier penetration by civilians... Plus other arguments.
So yes, you can't simply dismiss the extra energy of the 40sw as
meaningless to the debate. It matters... but how much is really down to
the individual.
And no person should have to justify their personal decision; so long
as they made it by considering all the information they had available
to them.
But one should always reevaluate their decisions as time goes on,
because so does technology and progress. Factors may change to the
point that you would be served by a change, or maybe not depending on
your needs and the like.
So let's not argue with each other or bash each other's choices, only inform and ensure that a person knows the facts, then let them choose.
advantage over 9mm in many defensive loads. 40sw projectiles are
heavier than 9mm projectiles
In the 9 vs 40 debate I think the question is twofold.
First:
Does the added energy of 40sw equate to better wound generating
ability and/or penetration, even in regards to less than ideal shots?
E.G. Through barriers and/or bone
Second:
Can the user benefit or otherwise take advantage of any possible
superior attributes of the 40sw round, does there project uses fall in line with those advantages, or maybe those benefits
outweighed by other factors?
So as for the first... I think the answer is a limited yes.
While in testing and in real world use, the wound cavity is so similar
between the primary defensive calibers that it really doesn't matter,
but there are differences elsewhere.
Heavier projectiles tend to penetrate more consistently, while lighter
ones may have a larger spread of penetrating depths if several are
fired into testing medium. This is why 147gr and 124gr 9mm rounds are
popular and get high marks from those that test ammo, while 115 or
other lighter ones are not given good marks... More energy can also mean
more retained energy when fired through barriers. This can mean better
penetration after passing through bone as well, or when shots are
placed at less than ideal angles like from the side.
So the 40sw, being heavier and having more energy is set up to be a
more consistent performer in the wide variety or circumstances it may
be used in.
So what about the second part?
Well... that is more difficult to answer.
It's basically a pro vs con situation, with the added variable of the
individual's abilities and preferences.
Does the added abilities make up for less rounds available?
Is the recoil too much for you or whoever is going to use the firearm?
Plus other points often brought up, like temporary wound cavity, and limited need for barrier penetration by civilians... Plus other arguments.
So yes, you can't simply dismiss the extra energy of the 40sw as
meaningless to the debate. It matters... but how much is really down to
the individual.
And no person should have to justify their personal decision; so long
as they made it by considering all the information they had available
to them.
But one should always reevaluate their decisions as time goes on,
because so does technology and progress. Factors may change to the
point that you would be served by a change, or maybe not depending on
your needs and the like.
So let's not argue with each other or bash each other's choices, only inform and ensure that a person knows the facts, then let them choose.
zombietactics
New member
I think it needs to be clarified (without trying to bust anyone's chops) that stating that a particular projectile "has more energy" creates some fuzzy misunderstandings.
It takes more energy to launch a (12lbs -16lbs) shot-put ball at ~40fps than most handgun rounds, for instance. A quick calc says somewhere in the area of 600fps is required. It's not so much the case that the ball "has" that energy. It's more so the case that this amount energy is required to do the work of launching the ball at that speed.
It takes more energy to move a 230gr projectile than it does a 124gr or 180gr projectile at a given speed (more on this below). This does not necessarily mean that this energy is going to be applied the same way.
But none of these rounds are actually moving at the same speed. That's why a 230gr round with ~350ftlbs of energy moves so much slower than a 124gr with about the same energy.
This is why we end up with JohnKSa's earlier (and scientifically sound) observation regarding "parity across the class" and further that "You can give a little in one area to get a little in another area, but none of that is going to change the overall result significantly in terms of practical application."
Every factor (mass, size, velocity) has a relationship to the others, and they all need to be in a narrow range of possibilities in order to work in a hand-sized package. You give up mass to gain velocity, or give up velocity to gain mass, and end up with almost identical terminal-ballistic results ... which isn't really a surprise once you understand the physics involved.
It takes more energy to launch a (12lbs -16lbs) shot-put ball at ~40fps than most handgun rounds, for instance. A quick calc says somewhere in the area of 600fps is required. It's not so much the case that the ball "has" that energy. It's more so the case that this amount energy is required to do the work of launching the ball at that speed.
It takes more energy to move a 230gr projectile than it does a 124gr or 180gr projectile at a given speed (more on this below). This does not necessarily mean that this energy is going to be applied the same way.
But none of these rounds are actually moving at the same speed. That's why a 230gr round with ~350ftlbs of energy moves so much slower than a 124gr with about the same energy.
This is why we end up with JohnKSa's earlier (and scientifically sound) observation regarding "parity across the class" and further that "You can give a little in one area to get a little in another area, but none of that is going to change the overall result significantly in terms of practical application."
Every factor (mass, size, velocity) has a relationship to the others, and they all need to be in a narrow range of possibilities in order to work in a hand-sized package. You give up mass to gain velocity, or give up velocity to gain mass, and end up with almost identical terminal-ballistic results ... which isn't really a surprise once you understand the physics involved.
So I'm assuming in the Miami shoot out Platt was hit in the side by a standard pressure HP 9mm? How different could this have turned out if that initial shot had come from a more powerful round, +p+9mm, 357mag,40S&W, 10mm,+p45acp? It stopped 1.3" from his heart. I'm not talking about anything instantaneous, maybe quicker though.
^^^ this^^^ is what led to the "min penetration" standard on defensive ammo today.
The theory is that a round that went deeper would have injured the heart and resulted in a faster stop.
No real way to tell on monday morning, but i think the theory makes sense. Stop the pump and the engine stops sooner.
The issue is not what caliber we choose as ling as we shoot it well and it performs to the min level.
.38 9mm 357sig 357mag 40 10mm 44spl 45acp/colt even the "lowly" 380 with the proper ammo can do the job
A master carpenter doesnt NEED a fancy hammer... He can do great work with the basic tools. Anything more then that is gravy
The theory is that a round that went deeper would have injured the heart and resulted in a faster stop.
No real way to tell on monday morning, but i think the theory makes sense. Stop the pump and the engine stops sooner.
The issue is not what caliber we choose as ling as we shoot it well and it performs to the min level.
.38 9mm 357sig 357mag 40 10mm 44spl 45acp/colt even the "lowly" 380 with the proper ammo can do the job
A master carpenter doesnt NEED a fancy hammer... He can do great work with the basic tools. Anything more then that is gravy
zombietactics
New member
It's hard to say, as (again) you cannot simply change one factor and necessarily get the results you expect.
Take Hornady's Critical Duty line for instance ... they have both a standard 9mm and a 9mm+p version, which use the exact same 135gr projectile. The 9mm+p actually penetrates less than the standard round. It also expands quicker (which is what reduces penetration) and somewhat more reliably.
The .45ACP+p version generates over 100ftlbs more energy (that's what you need to move the 220gr projectile) ... but penetrates even less (in most of the tests) than either of the 9mm rounds.
All of them pass the entire FBI/IWBA test suite, so there really is no sense in which one is markedly better than the other.
If it makes someone feel better to shoot 9mm+p instead of 9mm, or jump to .40S&W or .45ACP+p ... heck, go for it. Just don't confuse yourself that you are necessarily getting better results.
Regarding Platt, ANY modern duty round which meets the FBI/IWBA standards would have penetrated better. It's also interesting to note that the 9mm round in question penetrated a lung and bisected major blood vessels. Later forensic analysis revealed that this "ineffective" wound was actually the thing which likely stopped Platt, as he bleed out into his lungs and plural cavity. (Early reports indicated a head shot as the cause, but that turned out to be a superficial cut which did not even penetrate the skull)
Last edited:
field experience
I found this interesting and I hope you all do too.
Some years ago I shot a moose with a .308 round from about 30 yds. The moose reared like a horse trying to unseat a rider and staggered to a halt within 2-3 seconds and fell over. As an ER physician and coroner you can imagine that I was greatly interested in the bullet path. The .308 was likely traveling about 2500 fps and was likely at about 165 gr when it left the barrel. The bullet broke a rib on entry and exit from the chest cavity and was trapped intact and fully expanded under the skin on the far side of the animal. The lung (elastic tissue) at the entry point had a permanent cavity about the size of my fist and a contused area (bruise) about the size of a basketball surrounding that. I think that likely represented the shock wave damage (temporary) from passage of the rifle velocity round. The bruise and bullet path was tapered gradually from the initial large bruise all the way though the aorta (the really big artery coming out of the heart) and some major vessels at the root of the lungs on into the far side lung. There was a huge amount of blood in the chest cavity, very little exterior bleeding. The diversion of the blood from the heart into the chest due to the interruption of the aorta away from the body and brain probably is what shut this huge animal down so quickly.
The autopsies I have attended to see handgun bullet wounds caused me to come to some sort of “old time conclusions”. One is “Aim small, miss small”. Some statistics I have seen indicate that there is about an 80% chance of surviving a gunshot wound. There is little or no chance of surviving a destructive heart wound. On the other hand the police officer survived a .357 wound which “nicked” the bottom of her heart.
http://www.lapdonline.org/inside_the_lapd/content_basic_view/27327#Stacy Lim
Scroll down to Stacy Lim.
Now since we seem to agree for the most part that handgun rounds are puny compared with the high velocity round from a rifle, my conclusion here is the old “bullet placement” theory. Almost any round from a handgun will cause immediate severe damage if placed into the heart or brain. A liver hit will cause some bleeding that is significant, but takes time. A shot into the belly is not worth much in the short run, unless the round hits the lower spine or one of the major arteries that pass through. I wonder how many of us here could count on a heart shot under the stress of a gunfight, as a civilian. I am not at all sure I could, but I would try to shoot an aggressor any where I thought I could to stop the threat. You must do what is necessary.
I read another point the other day: If you know you are going to be in a gunfight, take a rifle and a friend with a rifle. The handgun is for those unexpected bad surprises.
Penetration is quite unreliable and is based on several factors, bullet weight, velocity, obsatcles (ribs?) even pocket watches or a similar obstacle and is influenced hugely by inertia. The bullet is not operating in a vacuum.
Not long ago, a courageous police officer fought for another ten minutes after being fatally wounded here in the Phoenix area. He was a hero and expressed concern for his fellow officers, all the while dying himself.
So, the decision by the aggressor to stop the fight, as mentioned, is uncertain and in the case of a person on something like PCP he may go right on shooting or fighting even after suffering a fatal wound. If you are involved in a gunfight you must influence the aggressor to stop, the best way you can, as soon as you can.
I found this interesting and I hope you all do too.
Some years ago I shot a moose with a .308 round from about 30 yds. The moose reared like a horse trying to unseat a rider and staggered to a halt within 2-3 seconds and fell over. As an ER physician and coroner you can imagine that I was greatly interested in the bullet path. The .308 was likely traveling about 2500 fps and was likely at about 165 gr when it left the barrel. The bullet broke a rib on entry and exit from the chest cavity and was trapped intact and fully expanded under the skin on the far side of the animal. The lung (elastic tissue) at the entry point had a permanent cavity about the size of my fist and a contused area (bruise) about the size of a basketball surrounding that. I think that likely represented the shock wave damage (temporary) from passage of the rifle velocity round. The bruise and bullet path was tapered gradually from the initial large bruise all the way though the aorta (the really big artery coming out of the heart) and some major vessels at the root of the lungs on into the far side lung. There was a huge amount of blood in the chest cavity, very little exterior bleeding. The diversion of the blood from the heart into the chest due to the interruption of the aorta away from the body and brain probably is what shut this huge animal down so quickly.
The autopsies I have attended to see handgun bullet wounds caused me to come to some sort of “old time conclusions”. One is “Aim small, miss small”. Some statistics I have seen indicate that there is about an 80% chance of surviving a gunshot wound. There is little or no chance of surviving a destructive heart wound. On the other hand the police officer survived a .357 wound which “nicked” the bottom of her heart.
http://www.lapdonline.org/inside_the_lapd/content_basic_view/27327#Stacy Lim
Scroll down to Stacy Lim.
Now since we seem to agree for the most part that handgun rounds are puny compared with the high velocity round from a rifle, my conclusion here is the old “bullet placement” theory. Almost any round from a handgun will cause immediate severe damage if placed into the heart or brain. A liver hit will cause some bleeding that is significant, but takes time. A shot into the belly is not worth much in the short run, unless the round hits the lower spine or one of the major arteries that pass through. I wonder how many of us here could count on a heart shot under the stress of a gunfight, as a civilian. I am not at all sure I could, but I would try to shoot an aggressor any where I thought I could to stop the threat. You must do what is necessary.
I read another point the other day: If you know you are going to be in a gunfight, take a rifle and a friend with a rifle. The handgun is for those unexpected bad surprises.
Penetration is quite unreliable and is based on several factors, bullet weight, velocity, obsatcles (ribs?) even pocket watches or a similar obstacle and is influenced hugely by inertia. The bullet is not operating in a vacuum.
Not long ago, a courageous police officer fought for another ten minutes after being fatally wounded here in the Phoenix area. He was a hero and expressed concern for his fellow officers, all the while dying himself.
So, the decision by the aggressor to stop the fight, as mentioned, is uncertain and in the case of a person on something like PCP he may go right on shooting or fighting even after suffering a fatal wound. If you are involved in a gunfight you must influence the aggressor to stop, the best way you can, as soon as you can.
I carry a 45ACP Colt 1991 Officer Model usually. Sometimes for convenience I carry my Bersa 380ACP. Whichever one I have with me is the one I will use if I get into a firefight. Energy/penetration/expansion is all academic if I am in a fight. I shoot first for center of mass and the next aimed shot is for a vital area, (throat, eyes, groin, etc) not in any particular order but what is the best shot. When the threat stops, I stop shooting and reload.
marine6680
New member
I am writing this on break at work... So it may be a little rushed and disjointed, do forgive.
There are different ways to look at and calculate energy. It all depends on what you are looking to measure.
Momentum, kinetic energy, inertia... Different and related... And important to the overall. (Also technically momentum and inertia are not measures of energy)
Conservation of energy means that energy used to launch a projectile is how much the projectile has. It will loose energy over time due to the act of moving through a medium... The air. If you put energy into a system, then it is there, until acted on by outside sources. To say that the energy used to launch an object does not equal the energy of the object is not very correct. Now in a firearm, some energy is leached by friction of the barrel and the mechanical system of the firearm... So there total energy is the same but some does not go into the projectile.
We are not talking about total system energy when we discuss the energy of a firearm projectile... We are talking about the energy of the projectile as calculable from the velocity and mass of said projectile.
Energy to throw a heavy ball may be more than a pistol projectile, but there are other factors at play. Like frontal surface area vs velocity. A heavy ball will need to be moving very fast to actually penetrate into something. Due to weight and size the energy needed is very large...
But that energy calculation to throw the ball that is more than a bullet... All the other factors come into play. Energy must be applied to do work.
A human is only capable of physically moving so quickly. We may be able to input power to that speed, but final velocity is limited. No person could throw a 9mm bullet fast enough.
How the work and energy is applied is important.
There are different ways to look at and calculate energy. It all depends on what you are looking to measure.
Momentum, kinetic energy, inertia... Different and related... And important to the overall. (Also technically momentum and inertia are not measures of energy)
Conservation of energy means that energy used to launch a projectile is how much the projectile has. It will loose energy over time due to the act of moving through a medium... The air. If you put energy into a system, then it is there, until acted on by outside sources. To say that the energy used to launch an object does not equal the energy of the object is not very correct. Now in a firearm, some energy is leached by friction of the barrel and the mechanical system of the firearm... So there total energy is the same but some does not go into the projectile.
We are not talking about total system energy when we discuss the energy of a firearm projectile... We are talking about the energy of the projectile as calculable from the velocity and mass of said projectile.
Energy to throw a heavy ball may be more than a pistol projectile, but there are other factors at play. Like frontal surface area vs velocity. A heavy ball will need to be moving very fast to actually penetrate into something. Due to weight and size the energy needed is very large...
But that energy calculation to throw the ball that is more than a bullet... All the other factors come into play. Energy must be applied to do work.
A human is only capable of physically moving so quickly. We may be able to input power to that speed, but final velocity is limited. No person could throw a 9mm bullet fast enough.
How the work and energy is applied is important.
zombietactics
New member
^^^ Important distinctions. ^^^
The handgun/rifle velocity damage issue is older than anyone here. It came about in the 1890's, High velocity was defined as over 2000 fps low velocity was defines as less than 1000 fps.
To base ANY conclusions with modern bullets on this principal is intillectually lazy. To say that muzzle energy does not help with incapaciation is just as lazy and dishonest. Just because we do not currenly have the technology to determine this does not give us the right to say it is so any more than those who thought the earth was flat.
Jagged penetrating wounds in people are NOT self sealing, just because someone is not leaking it out does not mean it is not leaking. That is why many gunshots which are not imediadly fatal become so if left untreated.
The IWBA has been defunct now for what, 20 years?
Every tool must be examined, gelatin is a nice test medium but is homogenous, people are not. Bullets that expand well in gelatin rarely do in real life. Anecdotal stories are just as valuable as laboratory testing. According to the IWBA the rounds that we know for a fact worked on the street are no good because they fail to meets the arbitrary FBI protocol.
I am supposed to believe that the 357 magnum 125 JHP and the 9mm 115 grain +P+ are ineffective, R-I-G-H-T.......
Stacy Lim was very lucky. Not all bullets are created equal. Stacy was shot with a winchester bullet, the jacket being thicker did not allow for fragmentation. The Border Patrol Issued Remington 110 grain magnums for a few years. The Remington jacket was thinner and there was more exposed lead, so when these struck they would violently fragment. I saw one guy shot with these. Between the autopsy and the statement of the person involved it was devastating.
Overpenetration is only a problem on the internet. The FBI concluded over 20 years ago that since most shots fired at BG's missed entirely it was foolish to limit the power of the only rounds that may hit.
I would submit that we would be much better off learning to shoot better instead of trying to find the magic bullet.
To base ANY conclusions with modern bullets on this principal is intillectually lazy. To say that muzzle energy does not help with incapaciation is just as lazy and dishonest. Just because we do not currenly have the technology to determine this does not give us the right to say it is so any more than those who thought the earth was flat.
Jagged penetrating wounds in people are NOT self sealing, just because someone is not leaking it out does not mean it is not leaking. That is why many gunshots which are not imediadly fatal become so if left untreated.
The IWBA has been defunct now for what, 20 years?
Every tool must be examined, gelatin is a nice test medium but is homogenous, people are not. Bullets that expand well in gelatin rarely do in real life. Anecdotal stories are just as valuable as laboratory testing. According to the IWBA the rounds that we know for a fact worked on the street are no good because they fail to meets the arbitrary FBI protocol.
I am supposed to believe that the 357 magnum 125 JHP and the 9mm 115 grain +P+ are ineffective, R-I-G-H-T.......
Stacy Lim was very lucky. Not all bullets are created equal. Stacy was shot with a winchester bullet, the jacket being thicker did not allow for fragmentation. The Border Patrol Issued Remington 110 grain magnums for a few years. The Remington jacket was thinner and there was more exposed lead, so when these struck they would violently fragment. I saw one guy shot with these. Between the autopsy and the statement of the person involved it was devastating.
Overpenetration is only a problem on the internet. The FBI concluded over 20 years ago that since most shots fired at BG's missed entirely it was foolish to limit the power of the only rounds that may hit.
I would submit that we would be much better off learning to shoot better instead of trying to find the magic bullet.
leadcounsel
Moderator
As much as I detest these arguments, it's undeniable that a bullet with MORE power to punch trough someone is otherwise the same or less lethal than one which cannot.
Also, note, that shots aren't always front to back. They are sometimes at an upward or downward angle, or side to side, maybe even through an object like an arm, requiring deeper penetration.
And for the shots that are front to back, let's assume bullet ABC can penetrate to the point of the spine, and no further and a bullet XYZ can penetrate to the spine, through the spine, and exit. Which is more lethal and has greater stopping power? Clearly in this fictitious example the bullet XYZ is more lethal and has greater inherent stopping power.
Exactly. Shot placement is key, but the bullet needs the energy to do damage too.
Also, note, that shots aren't always front to back. They are sometimes at an upward or downward angle, or side to side, maybe even through an object like an arm, requiring deeper penetration.
And for the shots that are front to back, let's assume bullet ABC can penetrate to the point of the spine, and no further and a bullet XYZ can penetrate to the spine, through the spine, and exit. Which is more lethal and has greater stopping power? Clearly in this fictitious example the bullet XYZ is more lethal and has greater inherent stopping power.
Exactly. Shot placement is key, but the bullet needs the energy to do damage too.
marine6680
New member
40 is a good round, and it has its advantages over 9mm. It also has some disadvantages.
Weather not not the benefits outweigh the costs, well, thats not so cut and dry. It is why we continue to have these discussions on the internet, and at ranges, and clubs... and everywhere else we may gather.
I would argue, even in the light of recent advancements in bullet design, that 40 is still better than the 9 in the same areas it has always been.
The disadvantages are also the same as well.
The 9mm has also advanced during these years.
Recent advances and the tendency to 124 and 147gr designs, have allowed the 9mm to obtain performance close to or better than the standard 40sw was designed to meet.
9mm now has more energy and reliable/repeatable penetration ability than it did 25 years ago.
40sw has also benefited as I said.
40sw is still superior in the areas it was, 9mm is superior in the same areas it was... but now 9mm can meet the performance standards better than before. This limits the need of 40sw, but does not negate it completely. You still have to weigh the pros vs the cons and make a choice.
I am not arguing that 40sw is a magic round that can stop any BG in their tracks... I am arguing that 40sw can be a more consistent performer in less than ideal situations of shot placement... Meaning odd angles, and through barriers, like glass, sheet metal and bone.
Accurate shots are still important, and 40sw will not make up for a poor hit that is not into vital areas.
My personal choice now is 9mm... but I have a 40sw, and quality HP ammo for it...
Weather not not the benefits outweigh the costs, well, thats not so cut and dry. It is why we continue to have these discussions on the internet, and at ranges, and clubs... and everywhere else we may gather.
I would argue, even in the light of recent advancements in bullet design, that 40 is still better than the 9 in the same areas it has always been.
The disadvantages are also the same as well.
The 9mm has also advanced during these years.
Recent advances and the tendency to 124 and 147gr designs, have allowed the 9mm to obtain performance close to or better than the standard 40sw was designed to meet.
9mm now has more energy and reliable/repeatable penetration ability than it did 25 years ago.
40sw has also benefited as I said.
40sw is still superior in the areas it was, 9mm is superior in the same areas it was... but now 9mm can meet the performance standards better than before. This limits the need of 40sw, but does not negate it completely. You still have to weigh the pros vs the cons and make a choice.
I am not arguing that 40sw is a magic round that can stop any BG in their tracks... I am arguing that 40sw can be a more consistent performer in less than ideal situations of shot placement... Meaning odd angles, and through barriers, like glass, sheet metal and bone.
Accurate shots are still important, and 40sw will not make up for a poor hit that is not into vital areas.
My personal choice now is 9mm... but I have a 40sw, and quality HP ammo for it...
Last edited:
I always liked the gelatin test that shows all the usual defensive calibers, and their penetration and wound channels, and when they shoot the block with a .44 Mag, it blows the block off the table!
Having various .44s its a very comforting thing to know, in case I am ever attacked by a block of ballistic gel.
There is no way to make a bullet that only go "so far, and no farther".
Overpenetration, and the "waste" of energy (no matter what you use as a measure) are much more internet worries than real life concerns for most of us.
If you are a police dept. budget beancounter, over penetration is something you consider, as a dead cop costs a standard amount, but a wounded or dead bystander costs much more.
Any bullet, from the lowly .22 on up, that gets to the right place, works. Expansion is nice, but not a requirement for the bullet to do its job. Placement is. Too much expansion (or at the wrong point in its travel) actually decreases the odds of success.
There are numerous examples of a bullet that would have reached the vitals in one situation, failing to do so in another, because it didn't have enough penetration, when the added obstacle (barrier/car door/human arm, etc.) had to be penetrated first.
Build a bullet that is going to get in where it needs to, no matter what, and that bullet is going to go all the way through, often.
And a bullet that doesn't isn't very dependable, to me.
The reason that all the popular common defensive calibers are in about the same power/energy range is simply because, with existing technology, that's the maximum level the majority of people can manage, and its normally enough to get the job done.
Sure, there are a lot of us who can manage more, but the guns, and cartridges are made for the masses. If the general bulk of the user population can't manage more powerful rounds, they won't be popular, and won't sell.
Having various .44s its a very comforting thing to know, in case I am ever attacked by a block of ballistic gel.
There is no way to make a bullet that only go "so far, and no farther".
Overpenetration, and the "waste" of energy (no matter what you use as a measure) are much more internet worries than real life concerns for most of us.
If you are a police dept. budget beancounter, over penetration is something you consider, as a dead cop costs a standard amount, but a wounded or dead bystander costs much more.
Any bullet, from the lowly .22 on up, that gets to the right place, works. Expansion is nice, but not a requirement for the bullet to do its job. Placement is. Too much expansion (or at the wrong point in its travel) actually decreases the odds of success.
There are numerous examples of a bullet that would have reached the vitals in one situation, failing to do so in another, because it didn't have enough penetration, when the added obstacle (barrier/car door/human arm, etc.) had to be penetrated first.
Build a bullet that is going to get in where it needs to, no matter what, and that bullet is going to go all the way through, often.
And a bullet that doesn't isn't very dependable, to me.
The reason that all the popular common defensive calibers are in about the same power/energy range is simply because, with existing technology, that's the maximum level the majority of people can manage, and its normally enough to get the job done.
Sure, there are a lot of us who can manage more, but the guns, and cartridges are made for the masses. If the general bulk of the user population can't manage more powerful rounds, they won't be popular, and won't sell.
- Status