Is the 40 done?

[tipoc]

What Nanuk says is clear and correct.

This discussion has not been about caliber. It's about power, bullet design and whether they make a difference.

Three years ago the FBI began the transition from the 40 S&W to the 9mm. That change is not complete it seems as they still order some 40 S&W ammo. Overall it was a wise move and overdue. Overdue because it's been at least a decade that 9mm ammo that meets the FBI's protocol for defensive use has been available. For duty use it seems that the FBI uses heavier +P jhp bullets which can be seen in the articles below...

https://www.bluesheepdog.com/2018/05/31/f-b-i-selects-winchester-9mm-ammunition/

https://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/the-story-behind-the-fbi-new-duty-load/325989

Why would they go with a more powerful load of the 9mm and a heavier bullet? Because they are more likely to meet their criteria for bullet performance.

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.

I don't see any evidence that the FBI did a serious review of the effects of bullet performance with different loads of bullets or of different calibers with thousands of shootings. I don't see that they tried to prove what is useless even if it could be proven. What they are saying is that well placed shots with any service caliber round will have better results than poorly placed shots.

Their selection of bullets for duty use also tells us another part of the story. That is what parameters of performance they have found useful for them based on their experience and expectations. They lean towards the more powerful and heavier loads of the 9mm with bullets that meet their performance criteria.

The U.S. Army reached the same conclusions a long time ago. When they recently adopted the Sig to replace the M9 they also added newer performence requirements on the 9mm ammo they use. They use not only ball ammo but jhp ammo as well.

The M1152 employs a 115-gr. full-metal-jacket, flat-nose (FMJ-FN) bullet. The M1153’s 147-gr. jacketed-hollow-point bullet bears a familial resemblance to the company’s law enforcement Ranger T-Series, but it was “designed to maximize performance based on the government specification set out in the RFP,” Glen Weeks, director of government contracts & specialty products for Winchester Ammunition, told me during an interview. The powder used is not a special propellant. Weeks said it is a “propellant we have experience with and use in other products.” The pressures for the M1152 and M1153 are 39,700 p.s.i.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2019/4/23/m1152-m1153-the-army-s-new-9-mm-luger-loads/

So the Army's "Special Purpose" jhp ammo is a 147 gr. bullet at +P+ pressures.

In our tests in 1985, XM882 propelled a 124-gr. round-nose FMJ out of the 5" barrel of an M9 at an average of 1273 f.p.s., delivering 446 ft.-lbs. of energy at 15 ft. Using an Oehler Model 43 and firing the new ammunition out of a 4.7"-barreled P320-M17, M1152 with the 115-gr. bullet was at 1326 f.p.s. and 449 ft.-lbs. of energy, while the M1153 clocked 962 f.p.s. with 302 ft.-lbs., both at 15 ft.

These are all powerful loads of the 9mm. All good choices in 9mm.

Greg Ellifitz makes useful points in his essay. That 2 rounds in the back of the head with a 25 are as potent as two in the back of the head from a 45, with the added benefit of there being less mess to clean up. That shot placement matters.

But experience also tells us that more energy, bullet weight and bullet design make a profound difference in the likelihood of increasing terminal performance. This is why more powerful calibers than the 9mm, like the 40 and 45 or the 10, won't disappear. But this is also only one factor in selection of a carry or defense handgun. But where possible...more power, good bullet in a gun fitted to the job that a person can shoot well.

tipoc

 

[RETG]

My forty is going nowhere but in and out of my holster. And I believe it will be around long after I am ashes.

 

[TunnelRat]

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.

18 years of the War on Terror and the Gulf War before that. There are certainly a number of veterans out there, and locally to me a noticeable percentage of law enforcement are veterans.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallm...-4-million-deployments-since-911-infographic/

I don't know that military service ever guaranteed familiarity with handguns in particular, but if the point is just military service then it would seem like it should be able to be met to at least a certain level. Granted not the same as say Vietnam.
http://www.uswardogs.org/vietnam-statistics/



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Nanuk]

18 years of the War on Terror and the Gulf War before that. There are certainly a number of veterans out there, and locally to me a noticeable percentage of law enforcement are veterans.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmc...1-infographic/

I don't know that military service ever guaranteed familiarity with handguns in particular, but if the point is just military service then it would seem like it should be able to be met to at least a certain level. Granted not the same as say Vietnam.
http://www.uswardogs.org/vietnam-statistics/

That does not say what those vets did after their service. I base my statement on what LE trainers have said about recruits. I did not limit it to handguns.

 

[TunnelRat]

That does not say what those vets did after their service. I base my statement on what LE trainers have said about recruits. I did not limit it to handguns.

Very true with regards to what they did afterwards. But unless the argument is veterans of the military today are much less inclined to join the police than veterans of the past (which for all I know might actually be true), my point was simply there are quite a few veterans from a wartime period out there. I know a few of them personally that joined law enforcement afterwards.

Admittedly my state isn't a big one and I haven't done anything close to an exhaustive poll. I do, however, ask the officers in the courses I take (~24 at last count) what their backgrounds were and the majority of them, by a good margin, are veterans. They come from departments scattered throughout the northeast. Now a big caveat to that is these are officers seeking additional weapons training and are usually in response units of their departments, S.W.A.T. or whatnot. It may well be that those roles are still typically filled by veterans with prior weapons experience (which would make sense).

In the end my point was I think there are still both officers with military experience and weapons experience joining and serving in law enforcement, and in my experience quite a few. I'd also argue what I've said earlier in the thread, that even experienced shooters can still notice improvements in their scores by switching calibers. It doesn't just have to be a novice phenomenon (and in fact many, maybe most, former military and law enforcement trainers have been using 9mm since will before the FBI switched).

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[JohnKSa]

I don't see any evidence that the FBI did a serious review of the effects of bullet performance with different loads of bullets or of different calibers with thousands of shootings.

Either they looked and couldn't find it, or they didn't think it was even important enough to look for. Neither of those suggests that there's any practically significant real-world difference.

However you slice and dice it, there's no evidence that suggests it makes a practically significant real-world difference.

Why would they go with a more powerful load of the 9mm and a heavier bullet? Because they are more likely to meet their criteria for bullet performance.

Their criteria is almost exclusively based on penetration. That's evident from their statements, and also from looking at the tests and the standards. If you want maximum penetration in a given bullet design then it makes sense to go with heavier bullets/more momentum.

What they're saying is that as long as the round penetrates as deep as they spec, they don't think that caliber makes a difference. So they pick ammo that penetrates to their spec and call it good whether it's 9mm or .40S&W.

But experience also tells us that more energy, bullet weight and bullet design make a profound difference in the likelihood of increasing terminal performance.

That's just it. There isn't any evidence that is true within the service pistol calibers when comparing premium self-defense ammunition.

If there is, then let's see it. Everyone wants to see it--it's the holy grail of handgun stopping power that has been sought for as long as there have been handguns. The problem is that no one can show that there's a practically significant difference in the real world.

Look at it this way. If there is evidence, there's no need to talk about ballistic gelatin, energy, momentum, +P+, military ammo, etc., etc. Just pull out the evidence and it's all over with. No need for debate, no need for handwaving and complicated arguments. The evidence would put an end to all of that.

Except that there is none.

• Wanting there to be evidence doesn't create it.
• Handwaving doesn't create it.
• Talking about recruit training levels and deficiencies doesn't create it.
• Discussing energy and momentum doesn't create it.
• Talking about ballistic gelatin and military penetration requirements doesn't create it.

So that leaves us with a very simple question--as long as we can look at the problem from a purely objective perspective, leaving our preconceived notions and personal beliefs and opinions aside.

Given that nobody, in spite of considerable effort expended over many, many years, has been able to find a practically significant difference in real-world, fight-stopping performance amongst the service pistol calibers, how much are we willing to give up in terms of concrete, undebatable, easily quantifiable advantages to enjoy the benefit of this difference that is so small that it has been impossible to even prove it exists?

If it's a significant advantage then it will make an observable difference in real-world outcomes and that observable difference is evidence.

If there is evidence it is because the difference is observable in real-world outcomes and that means that there is a significant advantage.

If there is no evidence of an advantage, it means that no one has been able to observe a difference in real-world outcomes.

If there is no observable difference in real-world outcomes, then there is no evidence that it provides an advantage.

But wait, what if it's there but it's just so small nobody has been able to see it, even after looking for it diligently for many, many years? It doesn't matter. If it's that hard to detect an observable difference in real-world outcomes, it can't possibly be a worthwhile advantage.

Let's say I have a coin that isn't quite fair. On average, if I flip it 10,000 times, it will come up heads, 5,010 times. So my plan is to use it to win a bunch of money by gambling with it and always calling heads. And no one will be able to catch me because the difference in outcome is so small it won't show up enough to be proof of guilt. Of course, the flaw is that if the difference is so small that my cheating is undetectable, how is it going to make me any money? Coming out 10 ahead, on average, out of every 10,000 coin flips isn't going to bring home the bacon.

In other words, it's entirely possible that there is some tiny advantage. But if it's so hard to detect that no one can do it, then it's obviously not a practically significant advantage. Winning 10 more times than you should, on average, out of 10,000 gun fights isn't practically significant. Now consider that in order to get that advantage, you have to give up things that would give you a practically significant advantage in EVERY gunfight you participate in.

 

[Cosmodragoon]

... So that leaves us with a very simple question--as long as we can look at the problem from a purely objective perspective, leaving our preconceived notions and personal beliefs and opinions aside. ...

The problem is that we can't. As I hoped to illustrate previously, there are limitations to the science and statistics here. I love science and I love using it as an informative tool but we will always be dealing with probability and personal comfort levels in discussions like these.

... Now consider that in order to get that advantage, you have to give up things that would give you a practically significant advantage in EVERY gunfight you participate in.

Be wary of 100% in a statistical or probabilistic arguments. You have to look at all types of "gun fight" or more accurately, any possible type of defensive scenario in which your firearm becomes an asset. I think I was successful in previously illustrating that there are scenarios in which you could gain a "tiny advantage", that there are scenarios in which you aren't giving up a practically significant advantage, and that there are scenarios in which both could be true.

 

[tipoc]

That's just it. There isn't any evidence that is true within the service pistol calibers when comparing premium self-defense ammunition.

If there is, then let's see it. Everyone wants to see it--it's the holy grail of handgun stopping power that has been sought for as long as there have been handguns. The problem is that no one can show that there's a practically significant difference in the real world.

There is no holy grail. We don't need one. Neither Lancelot, Percival, Marshal and Sanow or we will find it. So to put the lynch pin of an argument on the demand to produce it is, in my opinion, weak tea. (Wait didn't Indiana Jones find it? Didn't it melt all the folks around it? I'll pass on trying to find it.)

Folks have discussed this for a long time. Back in 1942 W.E. Fairbairn and E. A. Sykes published a small book "Shooting to Live". It's a useful book still. In their chapter on "Stopping Power" they explain that of the service calibers .32, 38 and 45 they could discern no reliable difference in "stopping power" or the ability to end a fight. This included the various revolver and pistol rounds in 32 caliber and the 9mm and 38 and 45 caliber pistol and revolver rounds. They concluded that shot placement works best and some times even that is not a guarantee. The actions of human beings, different body types, physical toughness and mental attitudes, where the bullets struck etc. make it impossible to say definitively that one caliber or bullet type was a game changer. Each shooting is it's own event.

Their criteria (the FBI and the Army) is almost exclusively based on penetration. That's evident from their statements, and also from looking at the tests and the standards. If you want maximum penetration in a given bullet design then it makes sense to go with heavier bullets/more momentum.

Neither the Army nor the FBI want maximum penetration with their jhp duty rounds. Both want bullets with limited penetration and expansion after passing through obstacles for use in urban areas and have said so. That is explained clearly in the articles that I posted links to earlier. More mass aids penetration and expansion retards the same, so they look for a balance. They both also increased the power of their 9mm bullets with more ft. pds. of energy.

My argument is a simple one. The difference between the 380 acp and the 9mm is power. Increased bullet weight and energy with a good bullet make a difference in increasing the possibility of better terminal performance. This is true up to the point that the increase in power, recoil and muzzle flash erodes gun handling and accurate shot placement. Then it becomes a detriment.

tipoc

 

[tipoc]

Given that nobody, in spite of considerable effort expended over many, many years, has been able to find a practically significant difference in real-world, fight-stopping performance amongst the service pistol calibers, how much are we willing to give up in terms of concrete, undebatable, easily quantifiable advantages to enjoy the benefit of this difference that is so small that it has been impossible to even prove it exists?

The problem here isn't the bullets, or energy or caliber. Those are all fixed, quantifiable, physical elements. The "problem" is the most important great variable, people. Can't control for that.

The cornerstone of your argument is a flawed stone too weak to bear the weight placed on it.

tipoc

 

[Skans]

Somehow, 6 pages of comments tells me that the 40S&W is not "done".

 

[TunnelRat]

Somehow, 6 pages of comments tells me that the 40S&W is not "done".

Well talking about it sure isn't.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Ruger45LC]

There are definitely people who work in LEO that will tell you first hand that the .40 does a better job than the 9mm does. That doesn't mean the 9mm doesn't work, heck they're all lethal, it's just that the .40 works better. People want scientific proof but there are simply too many variables in any given situation to ever have any, but I will say this, the .40 moves around and knocks over steel plates much better than 9mm, even better than 125gr 357 Magnum, and every bit as well as the .45 does. Does that make it a better fight stopper? I think so, but some will disagree, but a person isn't lacking when packing the .40.

 

[TunnelRat]

I think so, but some will disagree, but a person isn't lacking when packing the .40.

You're a poet. But, did you know it?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Fishbed77]

There are definitely people who work in LEO that will tell you first hand that the .40 does a better job than the 9mm does.

And there are plenty of people that work as LEOs that will tell you first hand that 9x19mm does an as good or better job than .40SW.

Anecdotal evidence is a weak foundation to base any argument on.

 

[zeke]

So long as there is all that free brass lying on the ground, it ain't done.

 

[JohnKSa]

The problem is that we can't. As I hoped to illustrate previously, there are limitations to the science and statistics here.

The limitations of science and statistics aren't the issue. The issue is preconceptions and unshakable opinions.

Be wary of 100% in a statistical or probabilistic arguments. You have to look at all types of "gun fight" or more accurately, any possible type of defensive scenario in which your firearm becomes an asset.

Being able to shoot faster and more accurately is a benefit in "EVERY gunfight". I didn't say it was an advantage in "any possible type of defensive scenario in which your firearm becomes an asset", I specifically said it was an advantage in "EVERY gunfight".

The actions of human beings, different body types, physical toughness and mental attitudes, where the bullets struck etc. make it impossible to say definitively that one caliber or bullet type was a game changer.

Makes a lot of sense. So they figured it out many years before the FBI. And yet, all this time later, in spite of the fact that no one has been able to contradict them with evidence, people still don't believe them.

The difference between the 380 acp and the 9mm is power.

The .380ACP doesn't make it into the "common service pistol caliber class, so not much of what I've been saying applies to it.

The reason that the 9mm makes the cut and the .380ACP doesn't is PURELY penetration. If penetration is the goal then adding velocity and weight (increasing momentum) can achieve it. That's not what we're talking about here in spite of the fact that you keep trying to bring it up.

Yes, if the goal is to incrase penetration, then increasing momentum (especially with tough or non-expanding bullets) is the way to achieve it. I've said this a number of times on the thread, and I'm pretty sure you knew it was true before I said it.

But the real question is whether or not the .40S&W stops fights any faster, or with fewer rounds than the 9mm does. And the bottom line is that no one has any evidence that it does. That's in spite of the fact finding such evidence has been the goal of many people for decades. And in spite of the fact that there have been thousands of shootings to look at.

There is no holy grail. We don't need one. Neither Lancelot, Percival, Marshal and Sanow or we will find it. So to put the lynch pin of an argument on the demand to produce it is, in my opinion, weak tea.

If you want to make a decision in spite of not having any evidence to support it, then you don't need evidence.

If you want to make a decision based on evidence, then you need evidence.

There is no evidence that the .40S&W's terminal ballistics "advantage" makes any difference in real-world shootings compared to the 9mm. So, if you want to make a decision based on how terminal ballistics affects gunfight outcomes, between the 9mm and the .40S&W, you won't be making it based on evidence. You'll be making it based on preconceptions or personal opinion.

More to the point, the fact that there is no evidence can only be true if the real-world difference is so small as to be undetectable. Which is identical to saying that it is not practically significant.

BUT, in spite of that, we still see people advocating the idea that it makes sense to give up practically significant advantages in return for an "advantage" that no one can even demonstrate exists.

The cornerstone of your argument is a flawed stone too weak to bear the weight placed on it.

It's a stone strong enough to demolish all arguments raised against it--all except one, that is. It can be reduced to dust if someone presents any evidence that the terminal ballistics "advantage" of the .40S&W over the 9mm can be shown to make a practically significant difference in the outcome of real-world gunfights.

The problem here isn't the bullets, or energy or caliber. Those are all fixed, quantifiable, physical elements. The "problem" is the most important great variable, people. Can't control for that.

Whatever you believe the problem is, it still boils down to one incontrovertible fact.

There is no evidence that the .40S&W stops fights any faster or with fewer rounds than the 9mm. You can say the lack of evidence is due to the variation of "people", you can say it's due to other variables that dominate and "swamp out" any differences in terminal ballistics, but none of that changes the underlying truth that there's no evidence of a practically significant advantage to using the .40S&W over the 9mm.

 

[CUBAN REDNECK]

I like the .40 due to it's versatility with 10MM and .357 SIG. Conversion barrels for .357 SIG aren't too expensive and you can use the same magazines. I don't think that the .40 is a dead cartridge.

 

[manta49]

There are definitely people who work in LEO that will tell you first hand that the .40 does a better job than the 9mm does.

How do they know .40 does a better job than the 9mm. ?

 

[Cosmodragoon]

I like the .40 due to it's versatility with 10MM and .357 SIG. Conversion barrels for .357 SIG aren't too expensive and you can use the same magazines. I don't think that the .40 is a dead cartridge.

This used to be the case for .357 Sig but that caliber actually has been fading in popularity. Conversion barrels have gotten much harder to find and for fewer models.

That's a sad thing because I really liked .357 Sig. I still see people chasing 9mm +p and +p+ to reach for what .357 Sig did normally. Much like .327 Federal, the problem came from comparisons to .357 magnum. While .357 Sig could easily replicate the average 125-grain hollow-points I buy in bulk at Walmart, it can't otherwise match the versatility of .357 magnum. The issue was that it was never supposed to. It was specifically intended to replicate popular 125-grain loads at twice the capacity (or more) in a semi-auto.

 

[lee n. field]

And there are plenty of people that work as LEOs that will tell you first hand that 9x19mm does an as good or better job than .40SW.

Anecdotal evidence is a weak foundation to base any argument on.[/QUOTE]

I'll remember that, next go-round of Springfield XD bashing.