Why are so many people switching away from the .40cal pistols?

[phylodog]

Where are you guys seeing info that shows 9mm having similar ballistic characteristics as .40? From what I'm seeing, current 9mm is good, but it still is not performing the same as a .40. For instance, TNOutdoors9 did a comparison of Federal HST in .40, 9mm and 9mm +P. When you compare the areas and penetration of both expanded and projectile size before expansion, the .40 is always bigger. Per his results, a .40 has 27% greater frontal area passing through the target before expansion. A standard 9mm has only 94% the surface area after expansion and a +P has 94% the frontal area. When you calculate the volume of the damage path that a .40 Federal HST has, it comes to about 3.64 cubic inches of damage path. The standard pressure 9mm will pass through 2.95 cubic inches and the +P will pass through 2.72 cubic inches. That means that a .40 Federal HST passes through more than 23% volume than a standard pressure 9mm and 33% more than the +P 9mm round.

Those are not insignificant differences. Mind you, I'm not a .40 zealot. I like shooting the .40 and I like reloading for it, but I carry a 9mm and a .45 more than I carry a .40. I understand the point that on rounds 2 and up, you will probably see more accurate placement of a 9mm round than a .40 round, but I don't think the .40 is outside of combat accurate.

My question is, where is the data that shows a 9mm round produces a near equivelant amount of damage as a .40? Granted, TNOutdoors9 should not be considered the be all, end all of testing but his scientific rigor is not bad.

Again, I'm not arguing the point, just trying to understand if the data is accurate or if we are just hashing internet lore regarding the capabilities of a 9mm pistol round.

Dead is dead, stopped is stopped. If two different handgun rounds are both capable of performing as desired, one can then begin to look at other factors such as reduced recoil and the benefits thereof. Its that simple.

"Knockdown power", "Stopping power" and "One shot stop" statistics are bull**** and folklore. A 9mm direct hit to the heart is worth ten .40 hits that miss the heart by 1/16".

It's easy to get caught up in numbers.

" The standard pressure 9mm will pass through 2.95 cubic inches and the +P will pass through 2.72 cubic inches."

If this is true, why does the +P exist? It provides more recoil and less performance. It exists because some people insist that velocity matters in handgun ammo. If penetration, expansion and weight retention are sufficient, velocity is meaningless.

Carry whatever you want but I urge you to carry the round you are most accurate with which will perform as desired. Just don't forget that hitting small moving targets isn't easy and rarely happens quickly, meaning capacity matters.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

From what I'm seeing, current 9mm is good, but it still is not performing the same as a .40.

In officer involved shootings they are. That's from some folks I'd consider reliable and without agenda. Enough so that they helped changed my mind on the topic, and that was before my own department decided to make the switch.

 

[88E30M50]

Fair enough. I trust both of your opinions and am just trying to understand, not argue. I think the issue in the +P was that the increased velocity caused it to expand more and the greater expansion came at the cost of penetration. In my opinion, the benefit of the 9mm comes from control. While shooting steel at MCFG, I'll shoot a bunch of .40 and am happy with the results, then I'll switch to the same pistol but in 9mm and it almost seems too easy. Boring easy even. That's not a bad thing to be in an SD situation.

Good points on small moving targets. The nice thing about shooting steel is that it stands nice and still for me.

 

[phylodog]

No worries, didn't intend to sound argumentative if it came across that way. I shoot the .40 just fine also but I cannot deny that I'm better with the 9mm.

 

[JamesV]

I've started with a Glock 23c, I like it and that's what I've shot, I like it so much I'm getting a Gen 4 23 but that's for me.

For my girl she shot a Glock 19 and likes it, she also shot my G23 but didn't like it at all, so I'm not forcing her to like the G23 so I'm going to get her the G19.

Just like everything else in this world it comes to preference, lots to choose from and we go with the one most people tell us we should like. Instead of taking the time and going with the one that we really like no matter what people will say about it.

 

[Woobie]

Gander in Greenfield has some trade in G22 gen2 RTF for sale. Granted they look like officer drug them behind his squad car as opposed to using his holster, and Gander Mtn wants more for them than a brand new gen 4 goes for. But it is cool to see some of these pop up. If they have them, then they're probably available at a good price somewhere else.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Fair enough. I trust both of your opinions and am just trying to understand, not argue. I think the issue in the +P was that the increased velocity caused it to expand more and the greater expansion came at the cost of penetration. In my opinion, the benefit of the 9mm comes from control. While shooting steel at MCFG, I'll shoot a bunch of .40 and am happy with the results, then I'll switch to the same pistol but in 9mm and it almost seems too easy. Boring easy even. That's not a bad thing to be in an SD situation.

Good points on small moving targets. The nice thing about shooting steel is that it stands nice and still for me.

No problem. I've become pretty caliber agnostic as far as duty calibers. What ever the department issues and provides, I'll use. If I provide my own, .45, mostly because I have reloaded it for so long my logistics are geared toward it already.

 

[Hohn]

I'll make no apologies for admitting to liking the .40 a little and the 10mm a ton.

But I'm starting to wonder if what we think we know about the translation of internal ballistics to external ballistics to wound ballistics isn't seriously flawed.

Most bowhunting rigs will deliver under 70 lb-ft of energy to whatever the game happens to be. Certainly sufficient to be lethal.

Or consider the effects of a large, sharp blade being pressed one foot into a body with 70lbs of force. I've seen enough ISIS videos to know what can happen with less than 70lbs of force.


Given the remarkable lethality and incapacitation potential of such "low power" arms, it seems to force the conclusion that a bullet crushing human tissue is incredibly inefficient as a wounding mechanism. So inefficient that the amount of energy input is almost moot. Like trying to move a yard of sand by shooting bullets at it, it doesn't matter if it's 9mm, or .22LR or .45 or even .44 mag, it's going to take forever because that is a terribly inefficient way to apply energy to a specific task.

The permanent cavity in gelatin from every service caliber is tiny. Only a direct, deeply penetrating hit to a vital area will make it effective immediately. (statistically, something like 70% of handgun shootings are not fatal, IIRC-- how much worse for "not instantly incapacitating"? 80%? 90%?).


That leads me to believe that accuracy and speed trump muzzle energy, and easily. A .22lr to the nose triangle is lights out, instantly. So maybe less is more? Maybe less recoil is more effective because of speed and accuracy?

The proportions of a projectile and its design details seem to matter much more than the scale or speed of it. There are 200gr loads that will penetrate much further than 230gr loads, and at slower speeds. And vice versa.

Focusing on speed and accuracy is more like recognizing that no caliber will move the sandpile and seeking out a shovel or wheel loader instead.

 

[phylodog]

Nice job of putting it into easily understandable terms Hohn. You could make a .50BMG handgun which will certainly yield one shot stopping capability 99% of the time but it is worthless of no one can hit the intended target. All of the factors which are discussed affect the others. More power = more recoil = reduced proficiency (speed and/or accuracy). Everyone gets to find their own sweet spot.

Those who claim one particular round to be superior to others are ignoring one or more of the factors that should be taken into account. Simply adding "for me" to their statements solves that issue completely.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

But I'm starting to wonder if what we think we know about the translation of internal ballistics to external ballistics to wound ballistics isn't seriously flawed.

Most bowhunting rigs will deliver under 70 lb-ft of energy to whatever the game happens to be. Certainly sufficient to be lethal.

The info is out there for anyone who knows where to look and cares enough to do so. I've addressed the fallacy of relying on muzzle energy so many times I'm not going to rehash it here. It's as useful as deciding who will win a drag race with no information other than peak hp. It's easy to market to, though, and people are impressed by bigger numbers.

No, a .22 in the "nose triangle" is not lights out. It might be. It might not be. I spoke with a fellow a few days ago who caught 3 .22 rounds, two in the arm and one in the face. The one to his face was stopped by a tooth.

Accuracy is a huge component, but so is enough oomph to penetrate bone and not deflect easily. The skull is rounded and tough and deflects bullets more often than most folks expect. Bullet construction can help, there, too. I'd not recommend going down to rimfire, .25, etc. unless physical limitations force you to.

 

[Hohn]

I neglected to mention that I think the "energy deposit" theory is bunk. Energy is the ability to do work. But the human body dissipates energy remarkably well, like that sand pile catches bullets.

But it doesn't matter that work was done (in a physics sense) what matters is WHAT work was done.

BBI makes a great point about sufficient penetration specifically the ability to penetrate bone and not deflect easily. Both of which, imo, point to heavier projectiles. And for accuracy purposes and recoil management, slower velocity.

I think if .40 cal loads were widely available in the 750-850 FPS range with 180gr bullets, you'd make huge gains in shootability and lose almost nothing in terminal effectiveness.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I think if .40 cal loads were widely available in the 750-850 FPS range with 180gr bullets, you'd make huge gains in shootability and lose almost nothing in terminal effectiveness.

If you don't care about a projectile being barrier blind and/or expanding, you can reduce the fps. The issue then becomes punching through barriers (which are sometimes other body parts, like a forearm) and expansion. A pretty good example is the .38 wadcutter. It's a nice cartridge to run in a j-frame because it's low recoil and the wadcutter cuts vs pushes tissue. What you lose is, of course, expansion. Compare that to a bonded .40 like we use for work. They can punch through light cover and still be effective. If there isn't enough energy left to expand, it basically become a semi-wadcutter profile and can continue to penetrate. If it's got sufficient energy to expand, it starts to do so and increases it's surface area so it doesn't over penetrate. If I loaded a wadcutter hot enough to penetrate the same through light cover, it would almost certainly over penetrate if it didn't hit light cover. So, the bonded expandable may be "hotter" than it strictly needs to be for an unobstructed soft tissue hit and you get more recoil because of that. In trade, you get a round that's more barrier blind, deals with bone easier with less risk of over penetration on soft tissue only strikes, etc. There is always a trade off, just like with guns. The trick is to find the attributes that are applicable to your situation and then match the relevant attributes of ammo/gun to that. For most folks, a quality 9mm HP is probably going to be in the sweet spot.

The nerds who design this stuff know what they are doing.

 

[Koven]

I never got into .40. No real reason I guess. I stuck with 9 and .45.

I stick with a .22lr. Having 50 rounds to shoot is amazing.

 

[SSGSAD]

.40 was an answer to a question only the knee-jerk FBI asked. When their horrid Silver Tip bullet, not their caliber (9mm), failed them in Dade County they immediately went out to secure the most powerful conventional handgun caliber of the time -- the 10mm. Back then the full-house Norma loads were stout and FBI agents struggled with mastering it. So, the infamous "FBI load" came into being which was a pud-loaded 10mm. S&W realized with the reduced powder charge they could trim the case back a bit, make the round fit in 9mm sized guns and they could sell it to the FBI.

The FBI bought it... hook, line and sinker.

Qualification scores sucked. PD's around the nation followed the top law enforcement agency's lead and adopted it too... and their qualification scores suffered similarly. The cost of ammo went up, which means the cost of practice went up, and the effective hits went down with the qualification scores.

Decades later (agencies move at a snails pace) the FBI decided they should go back to 9mm as it produced better results at a lower cost. Soon, agencies once again followed their lead.

Now .40's are being dumped on the surplus market and the entire country is going back to 9mm.

I have (1) .40 S&W pistol. I only have it because I've not been able to secure it's 9mm variant (it's an oddball). Once I do, I will have zero .40 pistols.

9mm is by far the best all around fighting caliber for many reasons. 1) lower recoil, 2) lower cost, 3) higher capacity, 4) increased service life over .40 guns, 5) higher hit probability with most officers and civilians, 5) it's every bit as effective in shootings in terms of stopping the threat as .40 and .45.

.40 is a compromise caliber that exceeds at nothing but does "ok" across the spectrum. People are tired of compromises... finally. It took long enough for people to realize what I've been preaching for a couple of decades now. Get a 9mm and forget about the decades old hype of a caliber that no one really needed to begin with.

I agree, with all of this!!!!!

 

[Psode27]

While not a huge fan of a 40, my first pistol is/was a XD 40 and I shot the snot out of it. I can shoot it once a year and shoot it well, it just works for me I guess. That gun tends to be my bedside gun. While I don't anymore see a point in it(40), and have switched to either 9 or 45 as primary carry (with 380 and 38 on the side.... I suck at limiting calibers), I will keep enough 40 to feed that pistol. I haven't bought 40 ammo since probably 2006ish.... I kinda went all in at the time and bought a lot of it. If 40 ammo drops in price due to being "un-cool", maybe i'll buy some more.
While I think a 9 or 45 can do anything a 40 can, it doesnt mean a 40 is any less capable. If I found a deal on a 40 pistol because it wasn't trendy I'd snag it...