Is the 40 done?
- Thread starter Creek Henry
- Start date
Well you're not the person I was quoting but sure it counts for you.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
That would make sense if there were absolutely no other variables affected by the choice. But taking a 0.1% advantage that costs you 10% in terms of accuracy and speed combined would be a truly terrible tradeoff.
To be more accurate, you provided some rationale why the difference might be undetectable.
That's neither equivalent to showing that it IS practically significant, nor does it explain how something undetectable can be practically significant. I would also say it's not really relevant.
WHY you can't detect it (or why it's hard to detect) doesn't affect the core issue.
If the difference is practically significant then it should make a detectable difference in real-world gunfights. That's a painfully simple concept--it's essentially a tautology. If it makes a detectable difference then it makes a detectable difference.
The converse is also true and also similarly simple. If it is undetectable in real-world gunfights (regardless of why it's undetectable) then it can't be a practically significant difference since practical significance is, by definition, making a difference in real-world gunfights. Again, a tautology: If it doesn't make a difference then it doesn't make a difference.
Cosmodragoon
New member
JohnKSa, this has been a long conversation. That's true for my last couple posts. I'm talking about earlier when I discussed the possibility of non-vital hits to bone, muscle, connective tissue etc. where differences in destructive capabilities might come into play. This also overlaps with entangled fights where getting a shot into someone's arm, shoulder, thigh, pelvic girdle, etc. might be your only hope. That was part of the non-isolable data.
TunnelRat, this is part of the same reason that people tend to carry small CCW guns instead of full-sized service pistols. There are limits to what people can comfortably carry around all day, every day. Guns in 10mm or any of the .45-caliber cartridges tend to be larger.
A major claim for .40 S&W was that it could be had on the same frame as 9mm. I think that's fine when people are talking about full-sized service guns. When we drop down to small CCW guns, notice how many more people start complaining about snappy recoil. I imagine that would be much more pronounced with "compact" 10mm, .45 super, etc.
Even when we drop needs like concealment, there are practical limits to what a lot of people will choose to carry. For instance, let's consider woods carry in cases where the handgun isn't being used as a primary hunting tool. Then let's think about steel revolvers, where both power and weight can really get up there. I could tote around an XVR but I don't. I tend to cap out on an N-frame or Redhawk with six inches of barrel. Even then, I'd be more likely to choose an L-frame, GP-100, or a polymer semi-auto in 10mm.
I just don’t see any difference for me shooting my Gen3 G17 with the +P or +P+ ammo I use and my recently acquired Gen4 G22. Same-same for me.
I happen to like that 180gn HST .40 at 1000fps.
I’ve been shooting 9mm in various platforms since before there was a .40, or even 10mm. I like 9mm just fine.
I happen to like that 180gn HST .40 at 1000fps.
I’ve been shooting 9mm in various platforms since before there was a .40, or even 10mm. I like 9mm just fine.
As you say, it is a long conversation. I confess that I am not re-reading the entire thread each time I respond to someone to ensure that my responses cover all of the posts that person has made so far in the thread.
Here is the response I made to your initial comment about circumstances where it "might make a difference".
"If there were such a difference and if it were practically significant, how could it be undetectable?"
Cosmodragoon
New member
... and the answer to that question is the data problems I discussed. For instance, can anyone accurately isolate defensive shootings involving shots to areas which were non-vital but still still stopped the attack, and reference by those which involved entangled fights or point-blank shootings?
Yeah I know, it was said tongue in cheek. I started out carrying a Model 19. I have no desire to go back there. My point was we all make trade offs, whether we admit it to ourselves or not.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
These things are only "problems" if one refuses to accept the fact that there is no evidence that terminal effect differences in the service pistol performance class results in a detectable effect on real-world gunfights and continues to operate under the unshakeable assumption that there is a detectable effect.
"Data problems" is just a creative way to indicate that there's a conflict between opinion and reality.
This is all needlessly complicating something that's very simple. There are two cases. One simple, one even simpler.
If it makes a detectable difference then there is a detectable advantage, perhaps one that is practically significant, and we can talk about that advantage and how valuable it is or isn't. If anyone has any evidence that terminal performance differences within the service pistol class make a detectable difference in real-world gunfights, let's look at it and discuss it. If there isn't, as we all know is the case, then that gets us to the other even simpler case.
If the difference isn't detectable then it can't possibly provide a detectable advantage, it clearly makes no practically significant difference, and there's no need to contemplate all the reasons why it isn't detectable (nor is there any point in dong so), nor any need to wonder why it might be hard to detect. It becomes moot to try to separate shootings into classes where it might make a difference that still isn't detectable or ones where it obviously doesn't make a difference.
So, in conclusion... .40 S&W really isn't going anywhere, because it's just as good as 9mm Luger in terms of ballistics, but is a larger diameter bullet which also expands to larger diameter, and arguably punches through solid objects better, thus leaving it with no crippling disadvantages?
Honestly, I'm not exactly sure where this argument is going, but so far it really hasn't provided any reason why the .40 S&W would fade away into obscurity, unless the point of the argument is to illustrate the flawed logic that a cartridge which performs equally as well as a time-proven, world-renowned service cartridge has no redeeming qualities.
Bottom line, even if the .40 S&W has no tangible benefit over the 9mm Luger, that hardly indicates that .40 S&W will be disappearing anytime soon, especially in a market in which many cartridges aren't any better than onthers, with some newer cartridges actively seeking to do nothing more than equal the performance of other time-proven cartridges.
Honestly, I'm not exactly sure where this argument is going, but so far it really hasn't provided any reason why the .40 S&W would fade away into obscurity, unless the point of the argument is to illustrate the flawed logic that a cartridge which performs equally as well as a time-proven, world-renowned service cartridge has no redeeming qualities.
Bottom line, even if the .40 S&W has no tangible benefit over the 9mm Luger, that hardly indicates that .40 S&W will be disappearing anytime soon, especially in a market in which many cartridges aren't any better than onthers, with some newer cartridges actively seeking to do nothing more than equal the performance of other time-proven cartridges.
You know, sometimes the attributes of any particular caliber might offer a "sweet spot" that's desirable for a particular user/owner.
I remember attending some training where the instructor worked somewhere in the Northeast (USA). When the subject of duty caliber usage came up, he at one point he mentioned that his agency had recently changed from .45ACP to .40 S&W.
He said that review of OIS incidents in their area had eventually revealed that when suspects were wearing layers of heavy winter clothing the .40 JHP had been observed to demonstrate better "performance" in stopping the threats than the .45ACP JHP. They "liked" the results with the .40 better than with that of their former choice of .45. I think he mentioned the .40 seemed less likely to plug the nose cavity after defeating so many layers of heavy clothing, in actual shootings, too.
We didn't get into the specifics of the brand or bullet weight, as it wasn't something that seemed surprising to the cops in the training, and most of us were constrained to carry issued guns/ammo on-duty, anyway. Just one of those interesting bits of shared trivia you can find in most training that involves cops from all over.
I remember attending some training where the instructor worked somewhere in the Northeast (USA). When the subject of duty caliber usage came up, he at one point he mentioned that his agency had recently changed from .45ACP to .40 S&W.
He said that review of OIS incidents in their area had eventually revealed that when suspects were wearing layers of heavy winter clothing the .40 JHP had been observed to demonstrate better "performance" in stopping the threats than the .45ACP JHP. They "liked" the results with the .40 better than with that of their former choice of .45. I think he mentioned the .40 seemed less likely to plug the nose cavity after defeating so many layers of heavy clothing, in actual shootings, too.
We didn't get into the specifics of the brand or bullet weight, as it wasn't something that seemed surprising to the cops in the training, and most of us were constrained to carry issued guns/ammo on-duty, anyway. Just one of those interesting bits of shared trivia you can find in most training that involves cops from all over.
Seems pretty simple when you consider that very small differences that can sometimes be detected in a carefully controlled lab testing scenario aren't being reported as something that's "detectable" in actual OIS incidents outside the lab.
Yes, back in '89 it was proposed that even a small possible "advantage" of a 1% difference might be useful, sometime, somewhere, in some incident, and if it was, then it was worth it. Just in case.
However, I'd rather work on improving, increasing and maintaining shooter skills and the ability to function under duress, myself, as those qualities are usually reported to matter more often in street conditions outside the lab.
Folks, a "miss" of several inches may easily make moot a 1% larger expanded diameter. If you can't put it where it matters most, does it matter in the right way?
Being able to avoid freezing at the wrong moment, or getting stuck too long in the Observe part of the OODA Loop, or going "blank" and being unable to draw upon skills because they aren't sufficiently ingrained and properly practiced, etc, etc. All these things, and more, may likely be more critical to being able to do the right thing, at the right moment, in the right way ... than obsessing and worrying over perceived caliber nuances which might not ever be consistently detectable outside of a lab.
Remember, the same guy who said back in '89 that a theoretically potential 1% advantage may be a good thing also said that it's counter productive to ignore either lab or street results, but to carefully consider info obtained from both in order to try and make informed choices.
So ... a difference may be detectable in the lab, but not in the street. What's the boggle?
PatientWolf
New member
In the two sentence OP, I must have missed the part that asked which cartridge is better. I only saw where it asked if the .40 was going away, and to that I would say the answer is no. I don’t see anyone throwing away .40 pistols.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
It is a fundamental rule of the internet that all single-caliber questions inevitably devolve into caliber wars discussions. (Usually within five posts.)PatientWolf said:
If the question is about the supposed decline of a cartridge, seems to make sense to discuss it in the context of other cartridges because no cartridge exists in a vacuum.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk