Is the .40 S&W REALLY dying?

[tipoc]

Its a narrow argument I will give you that but most good arguments are. It is not technically circular as there is no premise in that is supported only by the conclusion and it seems, as stated, is only a conclusion. The word "virtually" disallows the use of single-point data to critically damage the argument to where it is not tenable. In the end I think the statement, modified through earlier argument, is pretty strong.

I have to disagree. Well I will agree that it's not technically a circular argument. You're right there.

It's the "functional" part that makes the statement less useful, that makes it vague and open to interpretation.

Here I think you begin to see the problem...

In the end I think the statement, modified through earlier argument, is pretty strong

You see that you have to modify the statement by supporting arguments so that folks understand your intent. But then you drop that progress.

It probably should have read: " For the vast majority of defensive handgun use, either for police or civilian carriers, the functional difference between 9MM and .40 is virtually zero."

Here also what you mean by "functional difference" invites confusion and is too open to interpretations to have a useful meaning to all reading it. Which is what you want isn't it? Clarity I mean. It's saying: For the vast majority there is virtually no functional difference between the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause". A few million children would beg to differ as they compare a stack of presents to a basket of painted eggs.

I also wonder, given that most shots fired by police in shootings, miss vital organs and may not result in immediate stops (leave aside that most shots miss altogether) if the difference between a more powerful 40 S&W over the 9mm makes no difference at all as the statement of no "functional difference" implies?

It also begs the question is there no virtual functional difference between the 9mm and the 9mm+P or +P+? If not why use +P?

I believe the intent of what you mean to say is that, two bullets, one in 40 S&W and one in 9mm, built to meet the FBI protocols for law enforcement use, with well placed shots, will be virtually identical in their results as far as stopping a threat. Both can stop the threat and there is no serious functional difference between them in that regard. That statement is clear and takes away any thought of the ballistic difference between the two, any thought of the wear and maintenance of the guns, of the 9mm being more controllable in recoil than the 40 S&W, etc.

Now there is a school of thought that argues that a controversial statement that's only accurate in a narrow range helps to generate discussion where you can clear up any misunderstanding. Personally I never liked this approach as it treats people as objects.

tipoc

 

[Lohman446]

I think your trying to obscure the statement. The purpose of a defensive firearm, worst case, is to be used to stop a threat and, again in worst case, means actually having to shoot someone with it.

I don't buy for a moment that the few hundredths of difference in diameter, or the few clicks of a shot timer, are going to matter in the least when comparing similar quality ammunition in accomplishing that goal. Even the most substantial difference that we are likely to quantify, energy, I don't believe is going to make a functional difference for that purpose.

"Successful" shots (hits) that fail to physiologically stop an attacker require the attacker to stop of psychological reasons. I do not believe that the attacker is going to care if he or she was shot with a 9MM or .40.

So. I don't the the physiological effect is going to matter. I acknowledge the argument that it may but this argument, absent controlled conditions or massive samples, is theoretical in nature only and does not disrupt my belief that the physiological difference is going to matter. I don't think the psychological impact is going to be perceptible.

My statement still stands.

I use standard velocity 9MM rounds myself so I think that will stand in for my answer on my perceived difference between 9MM and 9MM +P or +P+. Maybe, with certain applications (ammunition specifically designed for penetration and not expansion) the difference would be meaningful but at that point we are outside of common defensive standards.

 

[SATRP]

The scientific impetus of the .40 S&W was the determination that the .40 caliber was most effective for law enforcement application with 180 grain bullets at a velocity of ~1000 FPS. Hence, the 10MM case was shortened, and the .40 S&W cartridge worked in double-stack mags.

By any metric, the .40 S&W is superior to the 9MM. Whether that superiority translates to superior self-defense efficacy is speculation. There are too many variables involved in every officer-involved shooting to isolate one as causal of outcome.

The 10MM has limited application. It's highest and best use might be in a 1911-A1 for wilderness carry.

There was a substantial cause for Jeff Cooper, whom many consider the father of the 10MM, to return from whence he came: the 1911-A1 .45 ACP. For bipedal self-defense, the .45 ACP is the superior cartridge. An infrequent fact is chamber pressure. The 10MM produces at least twice the chamber pressure of the .45 ACP. That increased chamber pressure does not improve the 10MM's tactical performance. It does increase stress on handguns.

 

[Lohman446]

It's highest and best use might be in a 1911-A1 for wilderness carry

I own a Delta Elite because "everyone" should own a 1911. It is not, IMO, the best use of a 10MM for carry purpose - maybe for a gaming gun but I don't know. The G20 and G29 outshine it for use a carry gun to deal with threats.

 

[SATRP]

Hi Lohman446,

I agree with much of what you've written. For civilians who won't have to penetrate barriers, I cannot disagree that it would be next to futile to attempt to quantify distinction between 9MM & .40 S&W efficacy.

I do agree that without CNS interruption, regardless of cartridge, one could find himself in a most perilous predicament in which a hostile threat is putting rounds on him. A bad guy could fire a whole lot of rounds before his blood pressure drops to zero.

My take is one knows what's best for him. If a 9MM gives a person more comfort and confidence, that's the way he ought to go.

 

[SATRP]

Hi again Lohman,

Assuming a bipedal threat, would you rather have 16 rounds of .40 S&W in your handgun or 9 rounds of 10MM? Please keep in mind that diminishing returns with .40 caliber begin at ~1000 FPS with 180 grain bullets.

There is a huge tactical disadvantage to reloading.

 

[SATRP]

The genius of the 1911-A1 is simplicity of design. If has fewer parts and fewer moving parts than a double-action revolver. I have no first-hand knowledge of striker fired handguns; therefore, I will abstain from offering an opinion of their design.

 

[Lohman446]

If I am carrying 10MM its because I have reason to believe the threat encountered will not be bipedal. The G29 and G19 (9MM I know) are VERY close to being the same size. If I was assured any threat encountered would be bipedal in nature I would opt for the G19 (or whatever the .40 version of it is and not care between the two) over the 10MM. The only reason I would opt for the 10MM is if I was forced into using it as a "one gun" solution with no alternatives or I felt the threat would not be bipedal. I would also opt for a non-expanding ammunition at that case driven to as high velocity as I could with the equipment I had (Underwood Extreme Penetrator is my current choice).

In more direct answer to the question I would take the .40 against bipedal threats over the 10MM. I don't think the 10MM is going to offer an advantage when a target is hit and the capacity advantage of the .40 is substantial. Even given the option of the G20 (and its 15 shot capacity IIRC) I would still select the .40 or 9MM for bipedal threats.

 

[manta49]

Its a American thing, most other countries were and are happy with 9 MM.

 

[agtman]

Assuming a bipedal threat, would you rather have 16 rounds of .40 S&W in your handgun or 9 rounds of 10MM?

Huh?

Have you Ninjas never heard of the 15+1 Glock 20, or the 10+1 Glock 29?

Please keep in mind that diminishing returns with .40 caliber begin at ~1000 FPS with 180 grain bullets.

With the 180gn loads in real 10mm ammo, the minimum threshold is about 1300fps, on up to 1400fps for max loads.

In .40S&W, that level of energy would be called a KABOOM!

There is a huge tactical disadvantage to reloading.

If you plan on missing a lot, then yes. Hence the reason and motivation for training not to miss.

 

[Cosmodragoon]

FLJim wrote:

Agree on both counts. For me, personally, that had been the .40 S&W. Lately I have more often carried 9mm. But I'm idly considering reversing course, back toward .40 S&W.

I think I need to rent something the size & weight of my PPS M2 in .40 S&W and see how it works for me.

I end up carrying 9mm more than I do .40 S&W. It's just because the size of gun I can comfortably carry tends to push the balance in that direction. I really only enjoy shooting .40 S&W in full-sized handguns with decent recoil mitigation. That's easy to do in the winter but the rest of my year is either 9mm or .327 Federal.

I've tried .40 S&W in the original PPS and the P99, which is relatively light for "full size". Both are fantastic guns in 9mm. Both were relatively unpleasant in .40 S&W.

 

[cslinger]

9mm vs .40......
PC vs MAC
NVIDIA vs Radeon
Mustang Vs Camero

A whole lot of hardware argument and no talk of software application.

I like both......I would be in utter terror if a Navy SEAL/Army Delta operator etc. wanted me dead and had a .22CB and a kids garden trowel.

Calibers (rifle, pistol etc. ) all have pros and cons that fall into the statistical noise. I hope nobody ever has to face a old guy with nothing to lose who has only shot a .22 revolver his whole life.

Again I say.......I think I may have bought the LAST BOX of .40 yesterday.

 

[cslinger]

9mm vs .40......
PC vs MAC
NVIDIA vs Radeon
Mustang Vs Camero

A whole lot of hardware argument and no talk of software application.

I like both......I would be in utter terror if a Navy SEAL/Army Delta operator etc. wanted me dead and had a .22CB and a kids garden trowel.

Calibers (rifle, pistol etc. ) all have pros and cons that fall into the statistical noise. I hope nobody ever has to face a old guy with nothing to lose who has only shot a .22 revolver his whole life.

Again I say.......I think I may have bought the LAST BOX of .40 yesterday.

 

[tipoc]

I think your trying to obscure the statement. The purpose of a defensive firearm, worst case, is to be used to stop a threat and, again in worst case, means actually having to shoot someone with it.

I don't buy for a moment that the few hundredths of difference in diameter, or the few clicks of a shot timer, are going to matter in the least when comparing similar quality ammunition in accomplishing that goal. Even the most substantial difference that we are likely to quantify, energy, I don't believe is going to make a functional difference for that purpose.

You're kinda stuck on the functional difference part where you dislike explaining what function exactly is fulfilled. You keep skirting around it. You "stand by my statement" which you already said requires alot of additional explanation to explain to others. I don't think you've actually explained exactly what you mean by "functional". I you agreed with my attempt to understand it, I didn't see that.

The origins of the 40 S&W go back to the development of the FBI standards for testing and the establishment of their protocols for testing. The standards that we now have are built on the premise that a few inches of penetration, a few thousands of diameters and increased disruption of tissue actually count and make a difference in a defensive encounter. (Actually everyone believed that until recently. That's why the 9mm became the handgun caliber of the German Army and not the 30 Luger).

It goes back to the alleged failure of the 9mm in the Miami shoot out. The efforts to develop a more effective defensive handgun bullet led to the adoption of the 40 S&W by law enforcement. It also led to the development of improvements in handgun ammo that led to the improvement of the 9mm so that it could reliably meet the standards of the FBI. If a few inches of penetration and increased disruption of tissue, heavier bullet, etc. don't count, then why improve on the 9mm in the first place?

But they do count and we acknowledge this all the time.

Small handguns for concealed carry these days are the same size or smaller and lighter than the the Walther PPK in .32 or .380. Unlike the Walther they are available in 9mm and sell alot. Particularly in 9mm. Why do we choose them in 9mm? Because it is the most powerful caliber that many people can shoot well in a small pocket pistol. They also make these in 40 S&W and 45 acp, some of them anyway. But most folks prefer the 9 as they shoot it better. Also because the 9 works.

I carry and use 9mm guns for a variety of things especially where weight and capacity are an advantage. For other tasks I carry other things. But where and whenever possible I do knowingly what others do regularly. I carry the most powerful round for self defense that I can shoot well, in a size and design that fits the job.

tipoc

 

[Lohman446]

You have erroneously added “a few inches of penetration” to my argument. I never made that portion of the statement. Penetration, in a defensive handgun to be used against aggressive human attackers, matters to point X - the ability to exit most human bodies on a center of mass hit in a variety of circumstances (a quick google search says the “toughest” of the FBI tests is after penetrating auto glass). After that point excess penetration is, well excess, and may become problematic in it may cause injury to bystanders at worst or represent lost energy. At some point penetration becomes irrelevant but until that time an inch or two of penetration does matter.

The run to “scientific testing determined” argument based on testing done in the initial switch to 10MM, birth, and rise of the .40 ignores that both technology and science are fluid and evolving. It ignores advances that result in statements as presented by this article. https://loadoutroom.com/51037/the-reasons-why-fbi-went-to-back-to-9mm/

· There is little to no noticeable difference in the wound tracks between premium line law Auto enforcement projectiles from 9mm Luger through the .45 Auto

 

[dpadams6]

I suddenly heard this over the last month or so which I found a little upsetting because I only own one 9mm and several 40s. Apparently police and secret service or whatever are all just moving to 9. Then I thought about it, 45 isn’t dead, 10mm isn’t dead, 357 sig isn’t dead (it’s less popular but making a comeback), etc.

What is everyone’s thoughts on this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where did you hear that the secret service is moving away from 357sig? They've stated that it is the best performing handgun round that they have ever tested.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[dpadams6]

Everyone, and I do mean nearly everyone, says the 9mm has improved so much it is as good as the 40 & 45. I never hear why all this "new bullet technology" didn't improve the 40 S&W or the 45 ACP at the same time. Funny how that works to justify shooting a lighter recoiling and cheaper round.

Dave

Exactly!!!! While nThe 9mm is a good round, it will never be as effective as the 40s&w. PERIOD


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[dpadams6]

The 40 isn't, and never will be, dead....

Its heyday is over, that happens to them all, but it gained enough widespread acceptance during its heyday that the 40 will be around for a looooong time to come.

I don't really care for it and wouldn't miss it if it were gone, but that is irrelevant.

The wonder 9 is back in style, and rightfully so... With the latest in bullet and powder technology, and high pressure loads, the 9 is nipping on the heels of the 357 mag, for defense against human predators, in guns with barrels of 4 inches and less with bullets less than 135 grains.

What was old, is new again... Just like revolvers for CCW making a comeback in recent years....a 9mm auto rim round would send it out of the park (not the failed 9mm Federal).

9mm close to 357mag? Seriously?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[5whiskey]

Where did you hear that the secret service is moving away from 357sig? They've stated that it is the best performing handgun round that they have ever tested.

He didn’t, because they aren’t. I’m not a huge fan of 357 sig, but numerous large state and federal agencies swear by it, are committed to it, and aren’t backing off. While I believe it isn’t any kind of panacea for a defensive round, as others have said size and power matter. It may not matter as much as bubba tries to imply as he describes how his 45 will knock a man clean out of his shoes, but it does matter. To that end we wind up discussing follow up shots and capacity as caliber factors. This won’t be popular, but follow up shots in this discussion is a red herring argument. What is more deadly, 12 hits with 9mm or 10 with 40 assuming equal placement? That “faster” follow up shot will get you 2 extra hits with a lesser round in the same time, but is 12 really that much better than 10? When the 10 is from a more powerful round? Spoiler alert... no one can scientifically prove one over the other, but most will agree that there won’t be a significant difference. Btw, the 12 of 9 versus 10 of 40 arent numbers from thin air those are actual strings with similar times using a shot timer.

So then we can discuss capacity. Much less an issue between 40 and 9 than between 45 and 9 imo. And, of course, most of my references compare service sized weapons to service sized weapons. 9mm makes MUCH more sense in carry sized weapons.

 

[gojones]

I honestly don't know if the the 9mm, 40 S&W or 357 sig is better or worst. Fact is either will do the job if placement and quantity are sufficient. Our small town simply moved away from the 40 S&W because of the recession, drop in revenue and resulting budget cuts. Sig came into town and freely swapped out our Glocks in 40 S&W for the new Sig 320's in 9mm. Given the savings in practice ammo, it was gladly received. Many officers bought the Glocks and are now their personal firearms. By the way, you would not want to get into a gun fight with these guys. Their reflexes and shot placement is excellent. I have my Sig in 40 S&W and love it. I shoot their Sig in 9mm and love it.