Is the 40 done?
- Thread starter Creek Henry
- Start date
More cowbell babies! Always helps!
John don't get it cuz he don't rock!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVsQLlk-T0s
John don't get it cuz he don't rock!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVsQLlk-T0s
Done and been done, then was well-roasted, and finally thrown under the bus a long time ago.
Or at least since that handgun cartridge guru, Wiley Clapp, writing a piece in G&A magazine, declared the 9-minimeter with modern ammunition to be the .40's equal in stopping power on the street - but without the .40's drawbacks in terms of recoil and, more importantly, accuracy.
Cosmodragoon
New member
I feel like I've said it a thousand times but I don't think there is much difference between calibers on a heart, brain, aorta, spine, etc. I think any difference is going to be in arms, legs, shoulders, pelvic girdles, etc. I think those shots might be more likely in situations where trade-offs in accuracy or shot time become less important, like entangled fights.
So for those of us interested in backyard "science", what is the best but easily available approximation for those body parts?
So for those of us interested in backyard "science", what is the best but easily available approximation for those body parts?
The whole point of calibrated ballistics gel is to provide a basis for comparison. Shooting bones, meat shanks, pig carcasses (Deadliest Warrior reference for people that remember that show) leaves a lot of variables in terms of the bullet path traveled, angle that certain deflection sources were hit, etc. The gel removes those variables.
Is the argument that somehow a pistol cartridge will show little to no difference against another cartridge in ballistics gel, but somehow against a bone that has been shot in precisely the same spot by the two cartridges will in fact show a notable difference? How do we get exactly the same bone, or meat, or gourd-like piece of produce?
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
@Cosmodragoon
Maybe something similar to Paul Harrell's Meat Target, only with animal legs or at least bones of similar size/density to a human's, wrapped with some kind of meat or placed inside of a block of ballistics gel.
I've seen a few of such tests performed by various YouTubers here and there with some compelling evidence to support that the .40 S&W has more of a dramatic effect on bones compared to the 9mm Luger.
Maybe something similar to Paul Harrell's Meat Target, only with animal legs or at least bones of similar size/density to a human's, wrapped with some kind of meat or placed inside of a block of ballistics gel.
I've seen a few of such tests performed by various YouTubers here and there with some compelling evidence to support that the .40 S&W has more of a dramatic effect on bones compared to the 9mm Luger.
Cosmodragoon
New member
Ballistics gel is so good because it acts as a standard test media. It allows for an even playing field and helps to show certain features of the physics very well. What we learn from gel can help shed light on real-life bad guys, animals, etc.
Of course, the obvious issue with gel is that it doesn't have all the structures that bodies do. Meat targets attempt to better approximate living creatures. Some people complain that they aren't "standard" but that's the point. They are approximations, like any model, and the thing being modeled in this case tends to vary a lot anyway.
If anyone has ideas, I'm curious about finding good approximations for those kinds of shots. As Forte S+W mentioned, .40 S&W might have a more dramatic effect on bone. That's exactly the sort of thing I'm thinking about for these marginal shots in messy encounters. (It's the place between stopping an attack from pain or realization of being shot, and stopping because life or consciousness have been lost. For instance, imagine a bad guy or wild animal that can no longer harm or pursue you due to mechanical or physiological hindrance.)
Of course, the obvious issue with gel is that it doesn't have all the structures that bodies do. Meat targets attempt to better approximate living creatures. Some people complain that they aren't "standard" but that's the point. They are approximations, like any model, and the thing being modeled in this case tends to vary a lot anyway.
If anyone has ideas, I'm curious about finding good approximations for those kinds of shots. As Forte S+W mentioned, .40 S&W might have a more dramatic effect on bone. That's exactly the sort of thing I'm thinking about for these marginal shots in messy encounters. (It's the place between stopping an attack from pain or realization of being shot, and stopping because life or consciousness have been lost. For instance, imagine a bad guy or wild animal that can no longer harm or pursue you due to mechanical or physiological hindrance.)
Based on what I've seen, heavier bullets always have a more dramatic effect on bones than heavier bullets do, and I'm certain that any hunter can attest to that.
In fact, a terrific way to learn what bullets do in actual flesh and blood creatures is to visit hunting/outdoorsman forum. Of course, like anything else you'll still get a few tall tales about how 30-06 essentially behaving like .50BMG or how someone bagged a buck that weighed 1000 pounds, but generally speaking, you get a lot more facts based on practical, firsthand experience as opposed to just hearsay.
Smaller, lighter bullets moving at higher velocities tend to zip right through bone, whereas larger, heavier bullets tend to smash through bones, causing more damage to it.
Paul Harrell's videos in particular help to illustrate this, albeit on a smaller scale via his "meat target" testing medium. However, there are other videos I've seen who performed similar testing with more intact animal parts, and the difference is more appreciable in larger bones. Even a heavyweight 147gr 9mm bullet can shatter ribs, it's larger bones from larger animals which really illustrate just how much of a difference between a 147gr 9mm and a 180gr .40 S&W.
When it comes to larger bones, 9mm tends to pierce the bone, leaving a clean hole with some smaller fractures around it, but otherwise leaving it intact. .40 S&W is more likely to break the bone completely. And the effect only gets more dramatic from there, with otherwise low velocity, but heavyweight bullets like .44 Special, .45 ACP, and .45 Long Colt inflicting a surprising amount of trauma.
But then again, it's less surprising if you are aware of the .45LC's history as a cartridge used by the US Cavalry against horse and man alike to great effect, and considering that the .45 ACP was basically designed to serve as a semiautomatic counterpart to the army's .45 Scofield load, not to mention that the .40 S&W has similar performance to .45 ACP.
In fact, a terrific way to learn what bullets do in actual flesh and blood creatures is to visit hunting/outdoorsman forum. Of course, like anything else you'll still get a few tall tales about how 30-06 essentially behaving like .50BMG or how someone bagged a buck that weighed 1000 pounds, but generally speaking, you get a lot more facts based on practical, firsthand experience as opposed to just hearsay.
Smaller, lighter bullets moving at higher velocities tend to zip right through bone, whereas larger, heavier bullets tend to smash through bones, causing more damage to it.
Paul Harrell's videos in particular help to illustrate this, albeit on a smaller scale via his "meat target" testing medium. However, there are other videos I've seen who performed similar testing with more intact animal parts, and the difference is more appreciable in larger bones. Even a heavyweight 147gr 9mm bullet can shatter ribs, it's larger bones from larger animals which really illustrate just how much of a difference between a 147gr 9mm and a 180gr .40 S&W.
When it comes to larger bones, 9mm tends to pierce the bone, leaving a clean hole with some smaller fractures around it, but otherwise leaving it intact. .40 S&W is more likely to break the bone completely. And the effect only gets more dramatic from there, with otherwise low velocity, but heavyweight bullets like .44 Special, .45 ACP, and .45 Long Colt inflicting a surprising amount of trauma.
But then again, it's less surprising if you are aware of the .45LC's history as a cartridge used by the US Cavalry against horse and man alike to great effect, and considering that the .45 ACP was basically designed to serve as a semiautomatic counterpart to the army's .45 Scofield load, not to mention that the .40 S&W has similar performance to .45 ACP.
Paul Harrell is confirmation bias in YouTube form. Practically every comment is people thanking him for confirming what they already believed. Now maybe some other YouTubers are the same way but for say ballistics gel. I accept that. But I can't look at Paul Harrell as impartial, and while no one is truly impartial my impression from watching his videos is that he's very far from.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Paul Harrell is completely impartial, nor am I saying that his testing methods are by any means perfect.
I myself have actually disagreed with his opinions and have even contested his findings on the occasion in which he practically tailor-made tests and scenarios to "proove" that his opinion was correct. For example, his testing of the Taurus Judge was ridiculously biased and pretty much every single way that he tested it seemed to be intended to exploit its weaknesses, and his comparisons between the Judge vs a Security Six .357 Magnum and then a 12 Gauge Shotgun were absurd. I mean, really... If you dislike it and believe that there are better options, then that's fine, and frankly you're right, but at least give it a fair shot, don't just shoot at targets well outside of its range, then pit it against firearms chambered in more powerful cartridges and pretend that it means something when it fails to succeed.
All I'm saying is that his meat targets help to illustrate that heavier bullets do indeed have more traumatic effects on bone. Obviously there are far better tests and illustrations out there, but for the sake of easy accessibility I threw his name out there because he's the only guy I know of who tests pistol cartridges against things with bones in it. Sure, there are others like Langley Firearms Academy, but he has a habit of using the same target to test multiple cartridges, which obviously presents a problem as the structural integrity of the bones is compromised when first shot by .380 ACP or 9mm Luger, thus the effects are artificially enhanced when he moves up to .40 S&W then .45 ACP.
As previously stated, the best source to verify the effects of bullets against bones are hunters, as obviously they have first-hand experience on the subject. The only trouble with them is that they can only provide so much data when obviously nobody hunts with 9mm nor .40 S&W, ergo their uses are most often limited to putting down wounded animals.
Personally, I was most impressed by the reports of the effectiveness of .40 S&W and .45 ACP, as detailed in a series of posts made by an alleged medical examiner who worked for law enforcement in Atlanta Georgia. His posts have been compiled here for anyone who might be interested, and if nothing else, they are interesting to read.
I myself have actually disagreed with his opinions and have even contested his findings on the occasion in which he practically tailor-made tests and scenarios to "proove" that his opinion was correct. For example, his testing of the Taurus Judge was ridiculously biased and pretty much every single way that he tested it seemed to be intended to exploit its weaknesses, and his comparisons between the Judge vs a Security Six .357 Magnum and then a 12 Gauge Shotgun were absurd. I mean, really... If you dislike it and believe that there are better options, then that's fine, and frankly you're right, but at least give it a fair shot, don't just shoot at targets well outside of its range, then pit it against firearms chambered in more powerful cartridges and pretend that it means something when it fails to succeed.
All I'm saying is that his meat targets help to illustrate that heavier bullets do indeed have more traumatic effects on bone. Obviously there are far better tests and illustrations out there, but for the sake of easy accessibility I threw his name out there because he's the only guy I know of who tests pistol cartridges against things with bones in it. Sure, there are others like Langley Firearms Academy, but he has a habit of using the same target to test multiple cartridges, which obviously presents a problem as the structural integrity of the bones is compromised when first shot by .380 ACP or 9mm Luger, thus the effects are artificially enhanced when he moves up to .40 S&W then .45 ACP.
As previously stated, the best source to verify the effects of bullets against bones are hunters, as obviously they have first-hand experience on the subject. The only trouble with them is that they can only provide so much data when obviously nobody hunts with 9mm nor .40 S&W, ergo their uses are most often limited to putting down wounded animals.
Personally, I was most impressed by the reports of the effectiveness of .40 S&W and .45 ACP, as detailed in a series of posts made by an alleged medical examiner who worked for law enforcement in Atlanta Georgia. His posts have been compiled here for anyone who might be interested, and if nothing else, they are interesting to read.
1. He isn't a medical examiner. He finally admits that he is an anthropologist.
2. He admits that he mainly gets "skeletal remains and the ones that are so decomposed that the ME can't do much with them". I'd like to know what kind of wound channel analysis/terminal effect studies he's doing on skeletal remains and badly decomposed bodies.
3. His numbers don't make sense. He talks about seeing huge numbers of bodies dead by gunshot--something like quarter of all the gunshot wounds in the U.S. if you actually start running the numbers on his claims.
4. He finally admits that his assessment of what calibers work best is based on "PENETRATION. Pure and simple". Which he could have said up front and saved everyone a lot of trouble. You don't have to work in a morgue to come up with a "complicated analysis" like that. Also makes one wonder how you determine penetration on skeletal and badly decomposed remains.
5. He also admits that it's often the case that the caliber used in a shooting can't be determined. I imagine that's especially true with skeletal remains. But it does raise the question of how you compare calibers if you often can't tell which calibers are even being used.
6. And, of course, there's the kicker. How is he assessing caliber failures by looking at dead people? What's the criteria for a caliber failure in a person dead by gunshot?
The bottom line is that his analysis boils down to his personal opinion based on a very simplistic assessment which he tries to bolster with claims about what he does for a living--claims that don't add up.
If you really want a fairly thorough fact check on the guy and his claims, here's a good thread to read.
By the way, at one point, a person familiar with the area that the fellow claimed to work, and the people who worked in it, mentioned trying to contact him but being ignored.
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/maybe-the-9mm-isnt-very-effective.207527/
People who agree with the guy are happy to accept what he says at face value without digging further. Digging further reveals that the guy is trying to sell his personal opinion (and not even an especially insightful one at that) by making it sound like he has special insight which, it appears, based on his own admission, and on contradictions in his claims, he does not have.
What's the point? You've already made it clear that you don't trust the man nor do you agree with his observations.
Honestly, it's a huge compilation of posts and I'm not going to review all of it just so that you can turn around and argue against whichever of his comments that I may cite/quote.
You're clearly adamant about your own opinion anyway, and it really doesn't concern me what you choose to carry nor how you feel about what I choose to carry, so let's just leave it at that.
Honestly, it's a huge compilation of posts and I'm not going to review all of it just so that you can turn around and argue against whichever of his comments that I may cite/quote.
You're clearly adamant about your own opinion anyway, and it really doesn't concern me what you choose to carry nor how you feel about what I choose to carry, so let's just leave it at that.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
If any participant in this discussion wants to engage in a one-on-one debate about the validity of some web site or Youtube channel ... take it to PM. The topic of this discussion is whether or not the .40 S&W is on its way into obsolescence. Please stay on topic.
dontcatchmany
New member
I have 4 40s. Three of them have 357 Sig and 9mm barrels with that caliber's magazines to boot. The fourth 40 only has a 9mm barrel and mags.
I like 357 Sig. Very accurate and just plain good to shoot. A tad costly but enjoyable and to shoot. I trust it.
Lately I have been trying to like 9mm, but just can not find the love in my soul. Today I put 150 rounds of 9mm through one sub compact 40. Just can not shoot it accurately. It also has different POA and throws my accuracy with 40 or 357 Sig out of whack.
40 in all four guns is my preferred choice. But, I have one 40 that is usually loaded with 357 Sig.
All that being said, I tend to carry 45 ACP. But 40 is also a very good round for me.....and my 45s and 40s, except for one, carry as much ammo as most 9mm pistols.
I will stick with the 40!
I like 357 Sig. Very accurate and just plain good to shoot. A tad costly but enjoyable and to shoot. I trust it.
Lately I have been trying to like 9mm, but just can not find the love in my soul. Today I put 150 rounds of 9mm through one sub compact 40. Just can not shoot it accurately. It also has different POA and throws my accuracy with 40 or 357 Sig out of whack.
40 in all four guns is my preferred choice. But, I have one 40 that is usually loaded with 357 Sig.
All that being said, I tend to carry 45 ACP. But 40 is also a very good round for me.....and my 45s and 40s, except for one, carry as much ammo as most 9mm pistols.
I will stick with the 40!
I'm a big .40 fan who doesn't understand why people are so quickly trying to imply the .40 might be done for considering it still sees widespread use. Based on that aspect alone one could imply the 357 SIG and 10mm are completely dead by comparison. I've never found .40 accuracy to be lacking, but I do often see people who can't shoot worth a damn.
I won't call any bullet magical but it has been my experience that the .40 and .45 hit steel targets harder and move them around easier than 9mm and even 357, quite a bit more than 9mm. I don't claim this has any effect on lethality, however it could be indicative that they would do better against bone and ultimately stop aggression quicker.
The reason I prefer .40 is because I get a bigger, more powerful round from a 9mm sized gun, and I'll accept a small bump in recoil to have that. The 9mm crowd gets me, they claim that it's way softer shooting yet the vast majority load up +P and +P+ ammo which adds recoil and it's my opinion that in a real life encounter, a minor difference in recoil isn't going to be perceived at all, so give me the bigger bullet.
I won't call any bullet magical but it has been my experience that the .40 and .45 hit steel targets harder and move them around easier than 9mm and even 357, quite a bit more than 9mm. I don't claim this has any effect on lethality, however it could be indicative that they would do better against bone and ultimately stop aggression quicker.
The reason I prefer .40 is because I get a bigger, more powerful round from a 9mm sized gun, and I'll accept a small bump in recoil to have that. The 9mm crowd gets me, they claim that it's way softer shooting yet the vast majority load up +P and +P+ ammo which adds recoil and it's my opinion that in a real life encounter, a minor difference in recoil isn't going to be perceived at all, so give me the bigger bullet.
I tend to be a bit contrarian. Back when it seemed like everyone and their uncle was rushing to the .40 S&W, I never felt any need to replace my 9mm. Now that it's less popular than it was, I'm giving the cartridge a hard look.
The .40 will never be as popular as it once was, unless the FBI (and hence, most police departments) decide to switch back for some reason. Alternatively, if the anti-gunners ever get passed a national magazine size limit, it'd probably bump up the .40 sales -- if you can only have 10 rounds, might as well use bigger boolits.
It's too good of a cartridge to completely go away.
The .40 will never be as popular as it once was, unless the FBI (and hence, most police departments) decide to switch back for some reason. Alternatively, if the anti-gunners ever get passed a national magazine size limit, it'd probably bump up the .40 sales -- if you can only have 10 rounds, might as well use bigger boolits.
It's too good of a cartridge to completely go away.
