Is the 40 done?

[shurshot]

How did old Wild Bill Hickock rack up such a deadly reputation, without having access to all the aforementioned evidence based data and ballistics charts, using those primitive and meager (at least compared to modern weapons) 80 grain .36 roundballs and blackpowder??

Oh that's right... shot placement.

 

[tipoc]

Ultimately, this all boils down to: "No one has been able to demonstrate a practically significant benefit to using the .40S&W in real-world shootings."

The key is that it hasn't been for lack of trying. People have been trying to demonstrate the benefits of one caliber over other calibers for decades. They've looked at thousands of shootings and still the answer is the same. There are other variables that affect the outcome so much more strongly that there's no way to differentiate between the common service pistol calibers when trying to determine how terminal effect changes the outcome of real-world shootings.

The key is that there is no way to prove that. You see there is no way to prove a thing that can't be proven except by indirect means. It's not provable by direct methods because each shooting incident is different and unique. It's also hard to pull together a couple of thousand folks to volunteer to get shot.

There is no "proof" that the 9mm round is more effective at stopping people than the 30 Luger (7.65x21). While the 30 Luger penetrated more 1" pine boards that the 9mm the German Army wanted a larger caliber as they believed it would provide more "stopping power". So without "proof" that it was more effective as a stopper, the 9mm was born in the early 1900s.

There also is no proof that 9mm+P or 9mm+P+ is more effective than a 9mm at standard velocity. Yet the U.S. military uses 9mm at +P+ pressures and energy levels.

In other words... "No one has been able to demonstrate a practically significant benefit to using the..." 9mm +P..." in real-world shootings."

It is not a matter of belief that a round with more energy to expend in penetration and expansion is the one most likely to penetrate deeper and expand more. It's a matter of demonstrable fact.

Some argue against the use of 9mm+P or +P+ because there is a lack of proof that it is anymore effective "in real world shootings" than standard velocity 9mm.

Conversely many argue that the 9mm+P can be more effective because it is more powerful but deny the same for the 40 S&W or 45 acp.

In my opinion the 9mm is a good choice for many police agencies and the military. But that should not dictate what individuals move to.

 

[TunnelRat]

In my opinion the 9mm is a good choice for many police agencies and the military. But that should not dictate what individuals move to.

In my opinion a person could look at the reasons why law enforcement and the military are going that route and decide those reasons apply to him or her as well. In short I think it could dictate what individuals move to, and individuals could decide otherwise too.



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Cosmodragoon]

The key is that there is no way to prove that. You see there is no way to prove a thing that can't be proven except by indirect means. It's not provable by direct methods because each shooting incident is different and unique. It's also hard to pull together a couple of thousand folks to volunteer to get shot...

This is an important point I tried to make earlier. Supposing that personal tech continues to the point where, maybe decades from now, mobile devices include excellent full-body, real-time, deeply detailed medical monitoring at all times for a large enough segment of the population. Then, maybe we could have real data precise enough to measure some of these differences. For now, that's science fiction.

Since we can't have that now, and our current data channels can't provide the kind of information JohnKSa or others might want to see to concretely measure the benefits of one caliber versus the other; we do need to rely on inference even when we don't have concrete real-world checks for the inference. Some of our choices here in the carry debate also involve things like psychological comfort and betting on probability for what future events could be possible but can't be concretely known.

John mentioned the costs for increasing power and on that side of the scale, where the picture is much clearer. The difference in capacity is concrete. Of course, the value of that difference reaches back into the fuzzy world of probability and what is good enough for us as individuals. The difference in recoil and shooting scores is also concrete, but again how it matters to us individually and on particular firearms starts to get fuzzy again.

At the end of the day, my bets are based on things I can't know for sure and I'm okay with that. We have a lot of tools to use in making those choices but none of those tools is perfect or comprehensive. I'm glad we're all lucky enough to discuss them here in detail, and that's another tool.

 

[JohnKSa]

The key is that there is no way to prove that.

Saying that there's no way to prove it is admitting that there's no significant practical difference.

If there were a significant practical difference there WOULD be a way to prove it.

There also is no proof that 9mm+P or 9mm+P+ is more effective than a 9mm at standard velocity. Yet the U.S. military uses 9mm at +P+ pressures and energy levels.

But there IS a way to prove that non-expanding/non-deforming ammunition penetrates deeper when driven at higher velocity. If the only concern is more penetration at longer distances then it makes perfect sense that the military would want more velocity.

But that should not dictate what individuals move to.

Of course not. How could anyone even do that? If people want to follow the lead of LE, that's their prerogative. Just as it is their prerogative not to follow it. No one should be dictating anything to anyone--and as far as I can tell, no one is.

Supposing that personal tech continues to the point where, maybe decades from now, mobile devices include excellent full-body, real-time, deeply detailed medical monitoring at all times for a large enough segment of the population. Then, maybe we could have real data precise enough to measure some of these differences. For now, that's science fiction.

Since we can't have that now, and our current data channels can't provide the kind of information JohnKSa or others might want to see to concretely measure the benefits of one caliber versus the other; we do need to rely on inference even when we don't have concrete real-world checks for the inference. Some of our choices here in the carry debate also involve things like psychological comfort and betting on probability for what future events could be possible but can't be concretely known.

It's important to not miss the forest for the trees. If it's essentially impossible to show a difference in the real world, that's equivalent to saying that there isn't a practically significant difference in the real world.

What some are saying is that the difference is so difficult to detect, we can't do it. But then at the same time they're trying to say that the difference is large enough to be practically significant.

There's no way both things can be true.

If it's impossible to show the difference in the real world, then the difference in the real world can't be big enough to be practically significant because if it were practically significant it wouldn't be impossible to show the difference.

 

[Cosmodragoon]

... What some are saying is that the difference is so difficult to detect, we can't do it. But then at the same time they're trying to say that the difference is large enough to be practically significant.

There's no way both things can be true.

If it's impossible to show the difference in the real world, then the difference in the real world can't be big enough to be practically significant because if it were practically significant it wouldn't be impossible to show the difference.

It's not that there is no difference. As I said previously, there may be no difference in hits to central mass or distinctly vital areas. Where I think there may be a difference is in hits to other areas which could, under some circumstances, be the only option for a person in trouble.

For instance, you become entangled with an attacker, get forced into a compromised position, become partially disabled by your own injuries, or whatever other factors that may prevent the kinds of good, clean shots to central mass (etc.) that many of us imagine for defensive scenarios. These are cases in which vital stops or full automatic incapacitation might not be possible. These are cases in which success means the attacker is instead caused to either stop or become hindered such that your opportunity is enhanced by damage which is not immediately vital.

Examples of these sorts of hits could include appendages, meaty areas, the gut, the pelvis, the shoulder, etc. The stoppage or hindrance could be a response to pain or realization of being shot, where caliber is unlikely to matter. However, it could also be due to mechanical disruption, such as in damage to bones, connective tissue, nerves, etc. The point is that those circumstances, which are obviously difficult to sift out of the data, may be a better fit to inferences we can draw based on damage differences in various media that we can compare.

So there are three things to consider. First, such circumstances are a limited but nonetheless real subset of possible defensive encounters. Second, shooting in such circumstances may be done at very close distance or during an entangled struggle where issues like the impact of recoil on accuracy become negligible. Third, a particular round or caliber's ability to damage muscle or bone is both more relevant under such circumstances and much easier for us to meaningfully compare and consider.

 

[JohnKSa]

Where I think there may be a difference is in hits to other areas which could, under some circumstances, be the only option for a person in trouble.

If there were such a difference and if it were practically significant, how could it be undetectable?

I just don't see any other way to call it. In spite of people trying to find such a difference diligently for decades, no one has. Maybe that difference is there, maybe it's not, but if it's so small that we can't detect it, how could it possibly be practically significant?

Look at it this way. I'm selling you a car. I tell you that even though the Kelly Blue Book values the car at $500, I want $600 for it because there's a difference in this car that distinguishes it from all the other cars that are just like it and that difference makes it worth more.

You tell me that if that's true, I should be able to show you the difference. I tell you that no one has been able to demonstrate that the difference exists.

You respond that if no one can demonstrate that the difference exists, why should you pay more than $500?

I tell you that the difference is definitely there, it's just essentially impossible to detect by any known means. I tell you that I can explain how this difference might be beneficial under certain circumstances. You again respond that even if it is there, and even if it is beneficial, if the effect is so small that no one can show it, then it's not worth paying extra for.

How can I counter that argument and get you to pay the extra $100 that I want without being able to demonstrate the difference that I claim exists and that I claim makes the car worth more than KBB says it is?

 

[44 AMP]

How can I counter that argument and get you to pay the extra $100 that I want without being able to demonstrate the difference

You tell them the difference is "magic". It can't be seen, or felt, or measured, because its only there, momentarily, during a life or death situation. Surely that's worth a little something extra, right? Have a little faith, brother!

Some of the statements in the last couple pages got me thinking, specifically, about the differences between things, and how we treat them. We have observed results, we have empirical data, we have calculated energy & reoil, we have wound channels, we have lots and lots of factors.

There are measurable differences between everything. Sometimes, this is significant. Sometimes, its not. And, what we believe is significant, which might be something else again.

I hear, all the time, about how A is better than B, or C, because of this or that factor, and I would ask, how much better? and Does it matter?

I hear "officer's scores and qual times improved when they switched to....."
I never hear HOW MUCH, they improved, or if that improvement is actually significant. Again, there is a difference between something measurable and something significant. If that dept's average scores went up, by 2 points and their time went down by .2 seconds, that's a difference. It's an improvement, right? but is it enough to be significant on the street?

People talk about how they do better with 9mm because it has less recoil. Admittedly I don't have much trigger time shooting the .40, but I have shot the round some. I've shot a lot of 9mm and .45ACP and, TO ME, there isn't any noticeable difference between the amount of recoil, in guns of the same size and weight.

There is a difference, it can be calculated, but I can't FEEL it. Maybe you can, but I can't. Therefore, TO ME, there is no significant difference. So, if find that arguments over what is superior, for other people, based on a factor that isn't significant to ME fall rather flat.

None of the factors involved in stopping and attacker, that we spend so much time discussing, is the deciding factor 100% of the time, based on observed results.

 

[TunnelRat]

Just because a person can't "feel" a difference doesn't mean it isn't there, or that it isn't significant. There's also the failure of human memory and our own individual biases. It's one reason why the FBI and others try to develop protocols by which to measure performance, because a number of people standing around shooting firearms and then trying to "feel" what is better isn't necessarily the best option. Now we can argue about whether those measured differences will translate to something meaningful in the end, same as we can for gauging caliber effectiveness by shooting meat targets. At some level you work off of the information available and make your choices.

The reality is the FBI and most of law enforcement has already made their choices and it likely won't change in the very short term. For all we know we'll be back in 10 years debating how terrible the 9mm was (though I don't think so). Individuals can make choices too, and then we can have the regular caliber debate thread where each side throws its information against the other and both end up convinced of what they thought in the first place.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Cosmodragoon]

JohnKSa, let's bring it back for a second. I took you to mean that you need to see a published statistical difference. I said that under a specific set of circumstances which could realistically occur, there can both be added benefit from a particular feature and negligible cost increase. So let's break that down.

First, the circumstances I described can and do happen on occasion. (Is that under dispute?) Second, the feature in question is increased ability to damage materials in general, which I don't think is disputed. The problem is in statistically connecting that ability to damage specific materials (which can't be tested in a controlled environment due to ethical restrictions) to the big picture when those particular circumstances do occur. It's just not statistically isolable right now based on our data pool and methodology. That doesn't mean the reasoning is bad or the premise is false. It's just difficult to show with the tools available.

Third, the increased cost is real but only under other sets of circumstances. It isn't so much a matter of paying up front when you buy the car in your example. It's a matter of paying, say, for less fuel efficiency under common driving conditions but not all driving conditions. For instance, you may pay those costs in competition at the range or in defensive scenarios at X number of yards and beyond. The circumstances in this case are entangled or compromised defensive scenarios at less than X yards, a.k.a. "get off of me" distances.

So there is a situation in which you could gain benefit from some feature of the car and not care about the extra cost. Maybe it's an ergonomics issue that matters for long car rides on hot summer days. It might not feature into the Car Facts report or mechanical data tables. That doesn't mean it isn't real. How you want to weigh it in your decision-making is up to you.

Let's put it another way. We do have some real differences that are not under dispute. We lack the statistical tools to prove that they matter for the intended purpose. However, we also lack the statistical tools to prove that they don't. Saying that they definitely don't and that there is no real difference overall is actually the bigger and therefore heavier claim.

Personally, I tailor my carry choice to my particular circumstances, the weather, what I'm doing, what I'm wearing, etc. My non-woodland "EDC rotation" includes a small gun in .327 Federal, a medium or "compact" gun in 9mm, and a large or "full-sized" gun in .40 S&W. I practice with all three. They all feel right for me.

 

[Rob228]

My dad and I get into this occasionally. His only carry pistol is a .40. I carry 9 (previously carried .45 and/or .38).

My argument is that I can put more rounds on target faster with a 9 than with anything else that I might carry. His is that 1 of .40 will "do the trick".

IF I had the budget I could likely train to the same level with a .40 that I am currently at with a 9mm, but I've got a feeling that is just throwing my money away. I am by no means saying the .40 is dead, but I know my training and my abilities and work accordingly.

 

[JohnKSa]

Just because a person can't "feel" a difference doesn't mean it isn't there, or that it isn't significant.

This isn't just about people trying to "feel" a difference. Researchers have been looking at this problem in detail for decades trying to measure it with all the techniques available.

The goal is to prove that one caliber in the common service pistol caliber group is superior to another--if no one can do that, how can the difference be practically significant?

Second, the feature in question is increased ability to damage materials in general, which I don't think is disputed.

The feature in question is the ability to stop an attacker faster than another caliber in the service pistol class.

The reason people focus on the small differences in the ability to damage materials is because those are the only differences that can be identified. When it comes to actually making a difference in real world shootings, no one can prove there's a difference.

We do have some real differences that are not under dispute.

The key is that those differences have not been shown to have practically significant effects on the outcomes of real-world shootings.

A person who is satisfied with the idea that one caliber makes measurably larger holes in ballistics gelatin might think the extra "$100" is a good deal.

But a person focused on how the terminal performance of a caliber makes a measureable difference in real-world shootings, is going to have a hard time justifying the extra cost, because no one has been able to demonstrate a practically significant difference.

By the way, the differences in wound channel sizes are generally much smaller than people think they are, and, when thought of as a percentage of the entire target, are extremely small.

9 or 10 years ago, I was playing around with some of the FBI's wound channel data and found that when one looked at wound channel volume as a percentage of the average U.S. male, all the common service pistol calibers (9mm, .357SIG, .40S&W, .45ACP, 10mm, .357Mag) rounded to the same number--0.1%.

It shouldn't be surprising, then, that the small variations on that 0.1% due to terminal performance differences in the calibers don't make a big enough difference in the outcome of shootings to be measurable.

We lack the statistical tools to prove that they matter for the intended purpose. However, we also lack the statistical tools to prove that they don't.

That's not correct. We have the tools and we know how to use them. The problem is that when we apply them, they don't show us a practically significant difference that correlates to terminal performance.

It's not a matter of not having the right ruler, or not knowing how to read it. It's a matter of when you read the numbers off the ruler, the differences between them are so small than you can't do anything with them.

 

[manta49]

My argument is that I can put more rounds on target faster with a 9 than with anything else that I might carry. His is that 1 of .40 will "do the trick".

I would go with your thinking, people have being hit numerous times all the calibres we are discussing and kept on fighting.

 

[MTT TL]

9 or 10 years ago, I was playing around with some of the FBI's wound channel data and found that when one looked at wound channel volume as a percentage of the average U.S. male, all the common service pistol calibers (9mm, .357SIG, .40S&W, .45ACP, 10mm, .357Mag) rounded to the same number--0.1%.

This isn't a very useful statistic. a 3.5 gram bullet is only .00001% the weight of a 200 pound deer but can easily kill it. Increasing the bullet size to 11 grams may not make it more effective, may even make it even less effective as size doesn't really matter.

 

[JohnKSa]

I agree that comparing the weight of the bullet to the weight of the animal is a useless statistic.

But comparing the weight of the damaged/destroyed tissue to the overall weight of the target is a very valuable tool to help visualize the scale of the damage in perspective.

People want to compare bullet size and bullet weights to each other--but those are all small numbers being compared so the differences appear relatively large. When you start talking about the amount of tissue that the bullets will damage/destroy and how that relates to the total amount of tissue in the target, then you start to get a feel for what the real damage is.

If a person said, for example, that one bullet is twice the weight of another, that implies that there's a big difference in the damage they will do. But when one realizes that both of the bullets damage the target by destroying about a thousandth (1/1000th or 0.1%) of the total mass of the target, it becomes obvious that it's not really about the amount of tissue destroyed, it's ALL about what type of tissue (whether it's something critical like the brain or heart or whether it's something non-essential like subcutaneous fat or part of a large muscle) that's being destroyed.

 

[44 AMP]

How many .40S&Ws can dance on the head of a pin??

Don't know, but apparently they're still dancing...

 

[Cosmodragoon]

Does data exist for the effect of various 9mm vs .40 S&W against various average bones?

 

[tipoc]

The goal is to prove that one caliber in the common service pistol caliber group is superior to another--if no one can do that, how can the difference be practically significant?

When a person asks the wrong question they will usually get the wrong answer. That's the case in the straw man question above.

... We have the tools and we know how to use them. The problem is that when we apply them, they don't show us a practically significant difference that correlates to terminal performance.

It's not a matter of not having the right ruler, or not knowing how to read it. It's a matter of when you read the numbers off the ruler, the differences between them are so small than you can't do anything with them.

When a shooter chooses to use a 9mm 115 gr jhp bullet at 1135 fps, a standard velocity load and later chooses a +P load of 1250 fps with an appropriate jhp bullet what are they hoping to accomplish?

The shooter looks at the increase in ft pds of energy from 329 to 400 or so to better aid the bullet in both penetration and expansion. There is no guarantee that the bullet will expand properly so the expectation is that increasing the energy available to the bullet will aid in this and thus create more damage in the bullets path. More so, we hope, if we increase the bullets velocity to 1350 fps and 460 ft. pds of energy.

If we alter the bullets weight from 115 grs. to 124 or 147 grs. we also effect different aspects of the bullets performance. We increase the bullets momentum. A 124 gr. bullet at 1200 fps can have 396 ft pds of energy. This effects the recoil of the bullet and we hope the penetration as well. It may also enhance the ability to break bone, more so with a 147 gr. bullet.

These options can also effect the shooters choice of gun and the purpose of the load. In a sub compact gun (the Ruger LCP or the Shield) the lighter bullet may be more controllable and make for more accurate shot placement. While other loads and bullets and bullet type may be more useful in compact or full size service guns.

But...

the differences between them are so small than you can't do anything with them.

Some argue that the differences in terminal performance are so small in service caliber handguns that there is no reason to look for more or less power in a service caliber. If that is the case then the difference between a standard velocity round and a +P in 9mm is also immeasurable.

But if there is a difference in the performance of a 147 gr. hard cast lead bullet as protection against mountain lion and a 115 gr. jhp then there is a difference in a more powerful bullet and heavier bullet and proper bullet design and selection and a legitimate expectation of increase terminal performance. Even with the same caliber.

tipoc

 

[JohnKSa]

When a person asks the wrong question they will usually get the wrong answer. That's the case in the straw man question above.

If you're satisfied that the velocity/energy/momentum/mass/diameter differences in the service pistol calibers are enough of a difference for you and you don't care that no one has been able to demonstrate that those variances in terminal performance make a practical difference on the street, then obviously you're asking, and answering a different question than the FBI.

Is one of you asking the wrong question? Well, obviously they can't both be right, but just as obviously opinions vary. Personally, I think the FBI finally had to admit that they couldn't justify the .40S&W and had to make a change. I wasn't really surprised at the change because I had come to the same conclusion they did more than a decade earlier. I had much less invested so it didn't take me as long to come around, but the evidence (or lack of any evidence of a benefit on the street, rather) was what did it for me, and, I suspect, what finally did it for them.

When a shooter chooses to use a 9mm 115 gr jhp bullet at 1135 fps, a standard velocity load and later chooses a +P load of 1250 fps with an appropriate jhp bullet what are they hoping to accomplish?

Probably the same thing that a person who chooses to use a 10mm over a .40S&W or a .357Sig over a 9mm. And with the same result.

Some argue that the differences in terminal performance are so small in service caliber handguns that there is no reason to look for more or less power in a service caliber. If that is the case then the difference between a standard velocity round and a +P in 9mm is also immeasurable.

If you're talking about comparing premium, expanding, self-defense ammo and how it affects the outcome of real-world shootings, I agree 100%.

If your only goal is maximum penetration with non-expanding ammunition (like the military), then things are a little different. Likewise, if you're going to compare non-expanding ammo to expanding ammo (for hunting applications such as in your mountain lion example), it gets a little more complicated.

But not the overall topic--that's not complicated at all.

It's this simple.

Step 1. Review all the evidence that shows that the .40S&W stops fights faster and with fewer shots than the 9mm. There have been thousands of shootings with both calibers over the past few decades, that's more than enough to show any difference unless it's so small that it's meaningless.

The FBI couldn't find the evidence. The LE organizations that are changing away from .40S&W couldn't find the evidence. Nobody else has come out with such evidence or is claiming that they have such evidence or is providing real world data that shows these organizations are mistaken or uninformed.

Step 2. Decide what a difference that can't be shown to be meaningful in the real world is worth in the real world.

 

[Nanuk]

It is really very simple. For decades service pistol ammo has been developed to perform to the same standard. 9mm, 40 S&W and 45 ACP do just that.

The main reasons LE agencies are moving away from the 40 are economics and hit probability. face it, most new cops have never even help a gun before they went to the academy. Gone are the days when most cops were veterans.

It is easier to train new shooters with 9mm and 38 special level guns than anything else. 9mm ammo is cheaper than 40 or 45. More shooting for less money.

Having been involved in the Military/LE for 40 years and having been a student of ballistics for longer than that you tend to notice trends. As far as LE shootings I have not seen any evidence that the new wonder bullets are any better than the old tech bullets of the 1980's unless you are worried about the jacket falling off at some point.

Shot placement is still king, nothing can make up for poor hits.