Is the 40 S&W dieing?

[QED]

Dove's shot ran out of steam because of inadequate bullet design and not because of some intrinsic inadequacy of the 9mm cartridge. New standards and testing protocols developed since then have resulted in a wide array of well-designed projectiles in all of the common duty calibers.

Not entirely. That bullet design has been extensively used before and after '86 and was deemed "adequate". A heavier bullet with that same bullet projected area and velocity -- which would obviously necessitate a more capable caliber than 9mm -- would have penetrated more. Sure, if expansion of 9mm JHPs can be tightly controlled - adequate penetration can usually be achieved in soft tissue.

IMHO, 9mm has not become equivalent to the .40 -- the marginal difference in terminal potential among the common duty calibers has always been and always will be negligible.

Agent Dove fired two magazines (twenty rounds) and only landed one hit. That indicates to me that improved and ongoing training, better sights, and a smaller, more controllable, and higher-capacity cartridge are the appropriate answers.

I disagree that terminal difference between 9mm and .40 cal is insignificant; controlled gel tests don't tell the whole story. Nevertheless, even in bare gel, .40 cal disrupts about 30% more tissue than 9mm, for any given penetration. That, in itself is about as significant difference as is using a wadcutter instead of a round nose in any given caliber!

 

[Brian in Oregon]

Recently bought a .40 barrel for my .357 SIG P226. Not that I'm particularly interested in the .40, but because .357 SIG is costly-'spensive to practice with. Since .40 has about the same recoil, it's cheaper to practice with. Also bought a 9mm barrel too, that's even cheaper to shoot, though recoil is lighter.

 

[QED]

because .357 SIG is costly-'spensive to practice with.

Now there is a caliber that will most likely be gone in the near future, and is just about dead now.

 

[Quanah]

My sig line from another forum... guess I need to start using it here.

Retargument
N. 1. An argument characterized by excessive retardation.
2. A augment between two retards.
Internet Discussion Forums are a hotbed of Retargument.

 

[Quanah]

Frankly, yes it is. But not because of any issue of effectiveness. I don't believe that any 'trend' or the rising popularity of any cartridge since the mid-to-late 1980's has had a darn thing to do with ammo performance. None. The consumer firearms community tends to follow what govt. LEO agencies are doing at the moment. And IMHO the FBI is not, repeat NOT, issuing the 9mm right now because it’s actually a better performer than the .40 S&W, .357 Sig or .45 ACP. It is only superior in terms of how the FBI arbitrarily decided to score its performance using a system that I find suspect and very debatable.

Let’s be clear, the current popular 9mm trend isn’t just geared towards any 9mm, but rather specifically the FBI’s deep penetrating, moderate-velocity, slow expanding breed, a particular type they’re in love with for their own convoluted bureaucratic reasons. And now the trickle down has kicked in and thousands of other agencies are taking the FBI's lead and issuing the 9mm, therefore the ammo and pistol makers are following suit and jumping on board because they desperately want to cash in on those contracts. And if the contract says 9mm these manufacturers are going to offer 9mm. It's a profit driven fashion show.

Now, the FBI issued the 9mm before and claimed it was the greatest combat round you could get and they crowed that the 115 gr. Winchester Silvertip was the gold standard. Then their horrible training got two agents killed in Miami in 1986 that same round was the villain of the shootout and made to blame. All of sudden overnight the FBi said the 9mm was inferior and after a multi-million dollar 'Wound Ballistics Seminar' they claimed the 10mm was the round of the future. Until their Agents complained that the Mighty Ten had way too much blast and recoil. So they gutted it and replaced it with a weak 180 gr. round that made it pointless. Then they said, "Uh, scratch that. 10mm guns are too big and noisy, too. What we really, really meant was that a truncated 10mm called the .40 S&W is best round available." Now they’re saying they’ve overcome the laws of physics and the 9mm now can outperform any other caliber while running pretty mild, low recoiling, deep digging rounds. Back to the 9mm, boys.

Please. Anyone taking ammo advice from the FBI isn't paying attention to their history or their political sleight of hand when covering their staggering capriciousness and inconsistency. I believe the most devastating handgun round ever issued was the 125 gr. SJHP .357 Magnum. The only chambering I know that comes close to replicating that without wrecking one's pistol with +P+ pressures is the 125 gr. .357 Sig. Yeah, it's basically a 9mm but it doesn't follow the FBI's methodology and shouldn't be effective. But it is, and very much so. The shooting results I’m aware of that come from a very large southern Highway Patrol agency who've issued that chambering since 1998 show that it’s an outstanding man-stopper. 100% effective? No. But no handgun round is, get a M1 Garand if you want that. But as handgun cartridges go, it’s amongst the best semi-auto chambering I think one can carry, amongst a few others. I'm sure those with access to shooting results from intelligently loaded 40’s and 45’s can also show outstanding results.

But these agencies are now dropping the .40 S&W, 45 ACP and .357 Sig for the 9mm because it's 'better'? In what way? Higher capacity? So you get more of a less effective thing? Easier to shoot? Than what? Any pistol caliber can be shot fast and accurately with appropriate training; no conventional pistol round shoots like a 12-gauge slug from a break open single barreled shotgun. It’s a handgun round, for crying out loud. And why is that the new trendy 9mm has to be a relatively mild 135 to 147 gr. going only 900-1100 fps? Because of low recoil and deep penetration? Or is it because the combination of a mild 9mm coupled to a polymer striker fired pistol makes qualifying easier and one doesn't have to spend a large deal of time or the budget actually teaching pistol craft and marksmanship? And makes it easier for smaller, non-conventional police applicants to pass (read: short stature, small framed, female, etc). So our firearms equipment needs to be a ‘Safe Place’? Gad…

I don't know if the .40 S&W is dying, but it is fading. As are other main stream police cartridges, but not for any real world reasons that can be defended logically if we’re talking pure round for round performance. Yes, any bullet shot into a human body can kill. But using the FBI's formula of easy shooting, deep penetrating, low recoiling, high capacity rounds, why not issue the .22 Magnum in a 30 round Kel-Tec PMR-30? Using that logic, it’d be the perfect FBI round.

I doubt the .40 S&W will ever totally disappear, it’s hardly a .41 Action Express or 13mm Gyrojet. But as long as the market takes its lead from huge, bloated, unaccountable Federal agencies, we will continue to repeat ridiculous cycles like this….

Truth. The Fad Factor is a huge driving force in LE Agency firearms, ammo and vehicle procurement.

 

[richiecotite]

40 is much less popular, but it's far from dying.

Bullet technology has closed the gap between most calibers. Most people would be best served with a 9mm, but I think 40 has some advantages over 9mm and 45.

If I was shooting through cars, I'd rather use a 40 than a 9mm.

40 caliber is really much more versatile than a lot of people give it credit for. You want a self defense handgun utilizing a modern expanded bullet design? 40 does that. Your an outdoorsman that doesn't have a magnum revolver or wants to carry something with more pills on tap? 40 with 200 gr hard cast flat points moving over 1000 fps will kill anything short of large moose/elk and brown bears. Want to shoot uspsa? 40 will get you in the game.

I think those early 40 guns (that weren't built for the round) turned a lot of people off. I remember the gen 2 g22 police trade in I had when I turned 21 was damn near brutal. I bought an m&p40 brand new and the first time out was amazed at the lack of remembered recoil. Was shooting win q4355, which is a full powered defense load with a bonded 180 gr bullet.

It's the only 40 handgun I have, but it's versatile enough to keep around.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[V0OBWxZS16]

Not entirely. That bullet design has been extensively used before and after '86 and was deemed "adequate". A heavier bullet with that same bullet projected area and velocity -- which would obviously necessitate a more capable caliber than 9mm -- would have penetrated more. Sure, if expansion of 9mm JHPs can be tightly controlled - adequate penetration can usually be achieved in soft tissue.

It was "deemed adequate" under the old and inferior standards. Under the "New standards and testing protocols developed since then" it is no longer considered adequate and deservedly so.

I disagree that terminal difference between 9mm and .40 cal is insignificant; controlled gel tests don't tell the whole story. Nevertheless, even in bare gel, .40 cal disrupts about 30% more tissue than 9mm, for any given penetration. That, in itself is about as significant difference as is using a wadcutter instead of a round nose in any given caliber!

If we stack the 9mm and .40 directly on top of each other the difference is an incredible 0.03" all the way around. That's a tiny additional chance to nick something important. (This is kinda torturing the numbers...) If you're a better shot by even 0.25" with the 9mm that's eight times more useful.

Image from DocGKR:

 

[martybee]

I shoot my S&W40 quite regularly at the LGS&R. Cost for ammo is very reasonable! I shoot: 180gr. FMCRNFP with brass case, (Standard Target Rds.) which can be had for less than $12.50 a box of 50. About the same as 9mm. I don't shoot reloads, Bi-metal, soft lead, or steel cased ammo. Needless to say, my indoor range is very pleased, and welcomes me to come and shoot as often as I want! I police my empties, take them home and when I have sufficient quantities, I sell them to reloaders in my area. This further reduces my costs for shooting. The S&W40 is not my favorite, but I still enjoy shooting it. My 9mm's are my favorites!

 

[KSDeputy]

I have always carried a .45 since my Sheriff's Office transitioned from .357 revolvers to model 645 and later to model 4506 shortly before I retired. I still carry a .45. My Sheriff's Office now issues Glock .40 s&w to all deputies. I think many LE agencies use this caliber, so it isn't dead.

 

[QED]

It was "deemed adequate" under the old and inferior standards. Under the "New standards and testing protocols developed since then" it is no longer considered adequate and deservedly so.

If we stack the 9mm and .40 directly on top of each other the difference is an incredible 0.03" all the way around. That's a tiny additional chance to nick something important. (This is kinda torturing the numbers...) If you're a better shot by even 0.25" with the 9mm that's eight times more useful.

Image from DocGKR:

You don't seem to comprehend that it's the expanded bullet frontal area that matters as far as tissue disruption is concerned; one snapshot that you have shown from "DocGKR" is misleading (what were 9mm and .40 cal penetrations and gel "calibrations"?) as other tests from the same individual, as well as from others, show approximately 30% increased JHP EXPANDED FRONTAL AREA from .40 vs. 9mm, for essentially equal penetration. Theoretically that's correct as well and, as I previously pointed out, it's just like the difference in tissue disruption between a wadcutter and a round nose bullet, for equal penetration. That's not insignificant to me, but I am not a 9mm fanatic.

There was another point, regarding 9mm ST, that you evidently didn't comprehend either. A heavier bullet at same velocity and expanded frontal area (requiring a more capable caliber than 9mm) would have penetrated sufficiently. Sure, as I also pointed out, sufficiently reduce the frontal area of 9mm JHP and it just may penetrate adequately! However, as Dr. M. Fackler pointed out, a bigger handgun bullet, assuming it penetrates adequately, is more effective. That should be simple enough for all but 9mm fanatics to understand.

Incidentally, since you like using "DocGKR" as your source to try to make your point that there is no significant terminal difference between .40 cal and 9mm, here's a couple of bare gel test results from DocGKR:
.40 cal Winchester Ranger Bonded 180 grain, penetration=15.2", recovered diameter=0.64"
9mm Winchester Ranger Bonded 147 grain, penetration=15.5", recovered diameter =0.52".
Now, it's obvious that quoted penetrations are quite similar for these Rangers, yet .40 cal Ranger Bonded frontal area is more than 50% greater than the frontal area of the 9mm version -- hence, according to this DocGKR test, about 50% more soft tissue would be disrupted with .40 cal v. 9mm.

 

[V0OBWxZS16]

All else being equal of course the larger projectile is better. That has never been in dispute. The question is how much better? I do not believe that a 30% greater frontal surface area results in 30% faster incapacitation. If you have any scientific evidence otherwise then I would be very interested in seeing it.

If you don't believe that gelatin testing tells the whole story then what do you believe tells the rest of the story?

The data is from Dr. Roberts so we can safely assume the gelatin was prepared and calibrated correctly and that the projectiles displayed proper penetration. Dr. Roberts is an actual expert btw.

We can cherry pick pairs all day long and get nowhere. For instance Federal HST in 147 and 165 grains both open up to 0.6" in four-layer denim testing (per Dr. Roberts.) I chose that picture just because it was handy and seemed reasonably representative.

Switching between projectiles within a caliber can be done without any changes in weight, recoil, and magazine capacity so that is a poor comparison.

The caliber argument is not purely about terminal effect; it's about a compromise between many factors. How do you balance the extra terminal potential against accuracy, speed, magazine capacity, training cost, firearm size, firearm weight, and all the other trade-offs? I went from a Kimber Ultra .45 to a Shield 9mm for CCW and have no doubt I would be more effective with the 9mm. I have fired a Shield 9 and 40 back-to-back and I would be more effective with the 9 especially strong-hand only, weak-hand only, if wounded, or in an awkward position.

 

[pyro]

I have both and shoot both frequently. I dont understand how an experienced active shooter can't be equally effective with both calibers. Having read about both calibers extensively, I can not be pursueded that the 9mm will perform the same as the 40cal. It may, but i have seen no proof. You cant gun down a thousand people in a lab with a controlled setting and record data. When the day comes that the 40cal is dead, that means I won. I will still be shooting one. See you at the range with my 40.

 

[Kruzen]

Maybe I been reading too many Nelson Demill novels because John Corey stated, the FBI are now a bunch of law grads who couldn't make it as lawyers!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[QED]

All else being equal of course the larger projectile is better. That has never been in dispute. The question is how much better? I do not believe that a 30% greater frontal surface area results in 30% faster incapacitation. If you have any scientific evidence otherwise then I would be very interested in seeing it.

If you don't believe that gelatin testing tells the whole story then what do you believe tells the rest of the story?

The data is from Dr. Roberts so we can safely assume the gelatin was prepared and calibrated correctly and that the projectiles displayed proper penetration. Dr. Roberts is an actual expert btw.

We can cherry pick pairs all day long and get nowhere. For instance Federal HST in 147 and 165 grains both open up to 0.6" in four-layer denim testing (per Dr. Roberts.) I chose that picture just because it was handy and seemed reasonably representative.

Switching between projectiles within a caliber can be done without any changes in weight, recoil, and magazine capacity so that is a poor comparison.

The caliber argument is not purely about terminal effect; it's about a compromise between many factors. How do you balance the extra terminal potential against accuracy, speed, magazine capacity, training cost, firearm size, firearm weight, and all the other trade-offs? I went from a Kimber Ultra .45 to a Shield 9mm for CCW and have no doubt I would be more effective with the 9mm. I have fired a Shield 9 and 40 back-to-back and I would be more effective with the 9 especially strong-hand only, weak-hand only, if wounded, or in an awkward position.

Your whole premise here has been that there is no significant terminal difference between 9mm and .40 cal; this false notion is often expressed by 9mm fanatics who are essentially clueless about terminal ballistics. Obviously you don't deem 30% increase in tissue disruption, less bullet deflection, and better barrier penetrating capability as significant -- thus, for example, for you a wadcutter would be just as terminally effective as a round nose bullet. Suit yourself, your argument is not suited for any further factual discussion, and you, of course, are entitled to your notions and feelings -- just don't confuse your feelings with facts. For self-defense, I'll take .40 cal over 9mm any day, as I would choose a wadcutter over a round nose bullet in my .38 -- regardless of what some "expert" opines (even if he is a dentist).
Incidentally, what is deemed "properly" prepared ordnance gel by your referenced "expert" can have a variation in penetration of 1.5" vs. standard ordnance gel, and there is no way to account for this possible deviation unless calibration information is provided (which often is not). That's one of the reasons why, unlike you, I don't rely on gel tests performed by this "expert."

 

[Quanah]

You obviously don't understand the awesomeness that is The Modern 9mm.

 

[kannonvaggon]

All I know is that most of the busted pistol reports seem to be associated with the .40SW..... not the 9mm and for sure not the .45ACP .
There is something about the .40SW , unsupported chamber design or some such, that in the Shield model seems to have been related to abnormal wear and tear or outright kabooms.
This may or may not be all out of actual proportion, I have no clue.

 

[QED]

You obviously don't understand the awesomeness that is The Modern 9mm.

That's correct; it would take an experienced psychologist or psychiatrist to fully grasp the "magic" that modern 9mm has become.

 

[zymurgeist]

That's correct; it would take an experienced psychologist or psychiatrist to fully grasp the "magic" that modern 40 S&W was believed to be when it was all the rage.

The truth is in field experience, not gel tests or theoretical physics, there hasn't been enough difference in performance to justify the problems of the .40 S&W. It's just too much recoil for many people to shoot as well as a 9mm. There isn't enough justification for the increased cost, weight and loss of capacity either. It's the nature of life that the things that fit the most people are the most popular. There will always be a place for the .40 S&W but the fad is over.

 

[Kruzen]

I don't know if it's the caliber or the gun, but I can shoot much better groups with my M&P Shield 40 than my Glock 26 9mm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Houser52]

All I know is that most of the busted pistol reports seem to be associated with the .40SW..... not the 9mm and for sure not the .45ACP .
There is something about the .40SW , unsupported chamber design or some such, that in the Shield model seems to have been related to abnormal wear and tear or outright kabooms.
This may or may not be all out of actual proportion, I have no clue.

^ This.

Numerous reports of 40 S&W kabooms is the reason I didn't buy a Shield 40 to go with my Shield 9. Bought a Shield 45 instead with no regrets.