Is the .40 S&W REALLY dying?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I propose, without the means to put it into action, a test. Gather a handful of experts and a handful of handguns that are available in 9MM, .40, and for the heck of it .357 SIG with no markings indicating their caliber.

Each expert fires ONE gun, 9 shots, and then a final shot into ballistic gelatin. They are then allowed to examine the ballistic gelatin minus the projectile.

How accurate do you think each individual is going to be in identifying the caliber he or she fired?

I think you might be able to ID the 9MM vs the .40 vs the .357SIG if you fired them next to each other. But I am curious if you could without the benchmark of firing the other ones at the same time.
 
I would submit that all the statistical evidence as to which is "more powerful", "has more stopping power", "allows the most follow up shots", "has greater capacity", etc... goes completely out the window when the shot is taken BECAUSE...

There are vastly more variables coming from the shooter and the situation than are produced by the differences in caliber.

So any and all conclusions to the debate are moot.
 
I would submit that all the statistical evidence as to which is "more powerful", "has more stopping power", "allows the most follow up shots", "has greater capacity", etc... goes completely out the window when the shot is taken BECAUSE...

There are vastly more variables coming from the shooter and the situation than are produced by the differences in caliber.

So any and all conclusions to the debate are moot.
Click to expand...

Unless you are looking at rounds that have 10,000 plus successful shooting results. Then it is very much relevant as it includes all those variables.
 
What is a "successful shooting result"?

And that seems a little bit like an arbitrary metric, especially since it only includes documented instances.
 
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.
Click to expand...

The issue in the statement here is that you misread, or did not understand my point.

The improvements in construction of bullets for the 9mm came about as a result of the desire to get reliable bullets that met the FBI's criteria following the Miami shoot out. The bullets that met that criteria were initially the 45 acp with a specific 185 gr. load and the 10mm. They did not want to go with the 45 acp because they wanted guns with more capacity. So they went initially with the 10mm then the 40 which could meet their criteria.

This meant improving the the penetration and expansion of the 9mm JHP and to some extent retarding the penetration of the 10mm to the limits set by the FBI. This was working with the factors that you tend to dismiss, the energy of a round, the construction of the bullet, it mass and momentum.

As I said earlier in this discussion, a bullet in any caliber, built to the FBI standards, that hits it's target in the right spot will likely produce the same results when it comes to stopping a threat irregardless of the caliber. This is true. It's also like saying that a hole in one is a hole in one no matter the weight or make club being used. But it's true. It's why in many cases one service round and cartridge will produce similar results if the shots are well place. This is obvious and nothing new.

The problem you are having, and my only issue, so far, is in clouding the issue with your use of "functional" which you used unclearly.

tipoc
 
How is functional, as it relates to the use of defensive handgun ammunition, unclear? The function of a bullet is to cause enough damage to the target to either psychologically or physiologically stop the person it is fired at. What other definition of functional would you propose as being reasonably implied by my statement. We are sinking into an argument of definition here but I’m really curious the exact point that the word functional lacks clarity in the statement
 
· 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
Click to expand...

This is one of those phrases that seem to tell you something but actually don't.

In the article linked to:

https://loadoutroom.com/51037/the-reasons-why-fbi-went-to-back-to-9mm/

They reprint an FBI statement that explains why they went to the improved 9mm. Most of the reasons given were valid and good ones. But the one tossed in above is out of spec and tossed in to make a quota or parts.

That's because there is no way to accurately measure a wound channel in either ballistic gel or human tissue and consistently identify what bullet made it. For example, 38 Spl., 9mm, 9x23 Winchester, 38 Super, 357 Magnum, etc. all have diameters within a few thousandths of each other. With the others being close.

Don't expert gun "experts", or the folks from CSI to look at an inert block of gelatin and tell you what bullet went through it with nothing else to look at but that.

It's also the case that as bullets move through a medium it isn't the bullet itself that "cuts" a hole, it's the pressure wave in front of it that tears tissue as it advances. Human tissue is not like paper targets, bullets don't leave nice clean holes in us on average.

One other thing...

Look at these videos and watch what the blocks of 20% ballistic gelatin do when shot and compare. All blocks are the same size. Even where penetration is identical with good expansion note the disruption of the blocks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z49Lbnt16M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROHMBYlOcdg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqziWTq7X1c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EATsNiio-c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOSlhfCPJWY

You can see more on your own.
 
How is functional, as it relates to the use of defensive handgun ammunition, unclear? The function of a bullet is to cause enough damage to the target to either psychologically or physiologically stop the person it is fired at. What other definition of functional would you propose as being reasonably implied by my statement. We are sinking into an argument of definition here but I’m really curious the exact point that the word functional lacks clarity in the statement
Click to expand...

Thought I explained that pretty clear early on in relation to a particularl worded statement you made. You agreed, in fact, to the point that you allowed that it did take further explanation so that folks clearly understood what you meant and that you were not talking about the ballistics of the rounds or wear and tear on the gun, etc.

tipoc
 
So pages after the discussion and after modification of the original statement your creating an argument of definition that pertains to the original statement but not to the modified one.

To what end?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top