Is the 40 done?
- Thread starter Creek Henry
- Start date
Well sorry but it does. You have argued that neither energy or bullet weight or diameter make any difference in bullet performance.
But why doesn't the .380 make it into the service caliber pistol class? In fact it has been a service caliber pistol in a number of countries (and sometimes here).
Once you deny that there is any significant difference in the terminal effect or potential terminal effect between a bullet with more energy and one with less energy than what are you left with to deny the 380acp from being a service class pistol round?
With a pistol in 380 there is even less recoil than a 9mm and thus the gun will be faster to handle and even easier to place some good shots quickly.
If, as some here argue, there is no real potential benefit from using a 9mm+P+ over a standard velocity 9mm than why not substitute the 380 for the 9mm?
Well the fact is that energy, bullet design, bullet weight and diameter do make a difference as I and others have been explaining.
tipoc
If power, energy, momentum don't matter then what are you left with to make a decision on?
Is there proof that the 380 is not useful in "real world gunfights?"
tipoc
tipoc, the 380 literally doesn't make it in to "Service Pistol Class" for IDPA and other shooting organizations as they require a 9mm or larger. I know of no law enforcement agency in the US that issues their patrol officers (or allows their patrol officers to carry) a .380 pistol as their service firearm. Saying that they used to could include just about any kind of cartridge.
However I think he made it clear...
The one thing the FBI does test is penetration. The 380 falls short there.
lee n. field
New member
That's obvious. It's also circular and dodges the question.
The reason the .380 is not a service caliber round is that it lacks the power of the 9mm and other service calibers. Power matters. John denies this and fudges it some.
The FBI tests for both penetration and expansion, not simply expansion. Their protocols call for that. This involves better bullet construction with a jhp, adequate ft pds of energy to enable the bullet to do it's work of penetration and expansion and sometimes a heavier bullet to aid in momentum.
The general consensus is that 9mm meets the minimum standards that meet both the FBIs protocols and the Army's requirements. In both cases they have increased the power of the 9mm by moving to +P and +P+ energy levels. The Army has done this both for the 115 g. ball ammo that they use and for the 147 gr. jhp that they use. The Army wants penetration with the ball ammo so they increased the energy available to the bullet but kept it at 115 gr.s
So the difference between the 380 and the 9mm is power. It's that power that enables the 9mm Parabellum to make the cut and the 9mm Kurtz from falling well, short.
Similarly when the FBI and the Army want a more effective stopper (and to meet their requirements of penetration and expansion after barrier penetration) they have enhanced the power of the 9mm over it's standard velocities and levels.
In 1990 the FBI, with it's then new protocols and methods of testing, could not find a 9mm bullet to consistently meet their standards. So they went first with the 10 and then the 40 S&W. Those rounds did meet the standards. (So did 185 gr jhp bullets from a 45 acp but the FBI wanted more bullets in the gun so the 45 was out). A decade or so later the 9mm bullets, due to improvements in bullet design, could pass the protocol and so the 9mm was back in the running.
Based on long experience the Army and law enforcement know that increasing the power of a handgun bullet and better bullet design increases the potential of a stop. Power matters. For the military and law enforcement this is a settled matter. John insists that it is not settled.
tipoc
I doubt you have forgotten this from the last time we had this discussion, but I'll answer again anyway.
It doesn't because it can't expand significantly and still pass the FBI penetration tests. That's a threshold that's required to make it into the service pistol caliber class that the .380ACP can't pass.
No, I haven't argued that at all.
I have argued that within the service pistol caliber class, the differences in terminal ballistics can't be shown to have a practically significant effect on real world shootings. If you believe this is not correct, please present the evidence that contradicts this statement. You and I both know that it doesn't exist.
Terminal ballistics differences CAN certainly be shown to have a practically significant effect on real world shootings if they are big enough--it's just that the evidence says that within the service pistol caliber class it doesn't.
If you want to make your decision from amongst the service pistol calibers based on that, then do it. But don't pretend that your decision is based on something that makes a practical difference in real-world shootings because there's no evidence to support such an assertion.
Nope, but it is penetration limited when used with expanding ammunition which is a significant handicap given that a minimum amount of penetration is required to reliably disable humans. That doesn't mean it's not useful, just that it can't do what the service pistol calibers can in one very important respect, and the limitations of the cartridge and the guns it is chambered in don't allow increasing any of the terminal ballistic parameters sufficiently to overcome that limitation.
The reason that the .380ACP is not a service caliber round is that it is penetration limited when used with expanding ammunition. Period. (NOTE--REFER BACK TO THE PRECEDING SENTENCE AS MANY TIMES AS NECESSARY.)
See the sentence above.
1. Even when the FBI was making their change away from 9mm, their expert essentially admitted that it wasn't possible to find differences in real-world shootings due to terminal ballistics differences in the service pistol calibers. Why do you think that the FBI was so willing to go back to the 9mm as soon as they were satisfied it would reliably meet their penetration threshold with expanding ammunition?
2. What I insist on is evidence.
I have solid evidence of what picking a .40S&W over a 9mm will cost in terms of speed and accuracy, capacity, training costs, weapons wear, etc.
I want to know that it BUYS me.
I don't want to know about penetration, momentum and energy and wound channel volume because we all know that all the service pistol calibers provide enough of all of those things to get the job done.
What I want to know is: How much faster a bigger caliber in the class will stop fights and how many fewer shots it will take to get the job done? If anyone could show any difference at all, then I could take that difference and weigh it against the benefits of NOT switching to see which option makes the most sense.
But I can't do that. And neither can anyone else because in all of the study that's been done, all of the analysis, all of the statistics collected and calculated and plotted, in all of the thousands of shootings examined, no one has been able to show that there's a practically significant difference. It's not that they say they can show a difference that's small, they can't conclusively show any difference at all.
So why would I trade away obvious real world benefits for something that nobody can even prove exists? Why would anyone?
Before you ask me the same question about the .380ACP two or three more times, why not answer the two questions above, or prove that the paragraph above them is untrue?
silvermane_1
New member
To "lighten up" this thread i will quasi-quote Bluto from Animal House: "the 40 S&W isn't done until we decide it's done". 
Cosmodragoon
New member
Just in case anyone hasn't seen this, it's one of the better presentations on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTTDgZZZFa0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTTDgZZZFa0
The amount of confirmation bias in the comments of that video is truly impressive.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Cosmodragoon
New member
How could you guess?
Catchabullet
New member
Aren’t a lot of competition shooters using 40 to make power factor?
.40 S&W is about as "done" as Revolvers are.
It's not dead, merely no longer as popular as it once may have been. It's just that .40 S&W has always had a very vocal group of haters who have been loudly proclaiming its imminent death ever since the FBI dropped it in favor of 9mm Luger.
The .40 S&W has a clearly defined niche as a cartridge which offers more power than standard pressure 9mm Luger loads, comes chambered in pistols of similar size to that of 9mm, and holds more rounds in the magazine than .45 ACP.
Personally, I feel that .40 S&W makes the most sense in full-size, double-stack pistols in which the difference in magazine capacity is negligible at best, (you lost 2-3 rounds in the magazine) the .40 S&W's recoil is more manageable due to size/weight of the pistol, and unless you plan on packing 9mm +P+ loads, still offers more energy.
In smaller, more compact pistols, .380 ACP, 9mm Luger, and even the larger .45 ACP just make more sense. So when most folks prefer to carry compact pistols, .40 S&W suffers from a sales perspective since it doesn't offer enough of a benefit over other cartridges.
It's not dead, merely no longer as popular as it once may have been. It's just that .40 S&W has always had a very vocal group of haters who have been loudly proclaiming its imminent death ever since the FBI dropped it in favor of 9mm Luger.
The .40 S&W has a clearly defined niche as a cartridge which offers more power than standard pressure 9mm Luger loads, comes chambered in pistols of similar size to that of 9mm, and holds more rounds in the magazine than .45 ACP.
Personally, I feel that .40 S&W makes the most sense in full-size, double-stack pistols in which the difference in magazine capacity is negligible at best, (you lost 2-3 rounds in the magazine) the .40 S&W's recoil is more manageable due to size/weight of the pistol, and unless you plan on packing 9mm +P+ loads, still offers more energy.
In smaller, more compact pistols, .380 ACP, 9mm Luger, and even the larger .45 ACP just make more sense. So when most folks prefer to carry compact pistols, .40 S&W suffers from a sales perspective since it doesn't offer enough of a benefit over other cartridges.
I've said before that you ask the wrong question and this is a good example of that. When you set the question within the narrow limits of caliber you make a significant error. Service pistols are service pistols because they combine a number of similar characteristics, as we know. Especially when we limit them to service pistols in semi-auto pistols used today in the U.S. (9mm, 357 Sig, 40 S&W, and 45 acp). All these caliber overlap in power in a number of their loads and have only small differences in diameter that may or may not, the diameter that is, make a difference.
The real issue is with the way the question here is posed. You employ caliber, rather than power.
If we ask does better bullet construction and more energy aid in terminal performance? Then the answer is "yes" and that "yes" has been proven over and over again. I've showed that in this thread.
You also ask a question that has no real world meaning because there is no real world way of proving it, or even showing it, one way or another. It's a mystical question.
Decades ago it had some meaning. This was before advent of better bullets that were likely to expand and improvements in powders. Super Vel bullets that were JHP and worked well from a 357 mag. Before that bullet size, weight and caliber were legitimate arguing points. But they have been less so in the last 29 or so years. But that never trumped shot placement. I quoted Fairbairn and Sykes on this earlier.
AgedWarrior
New member
Long after this thread has been forgotten about, the .40 will still be a viable cartridge.