Is the 40 S&W dieing?

[QED]

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.

Terminal ballistics testing/applied physics are all that's needed to establish the fact that 9mm is terminally inferior to .40 cal.

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.

No theoretical physics is involved to establish terminal inferiority of 9mm vs. .40 cal; however, if you don't have a functioning pistol in .40 cal, a functioning .22LR mini-revolver would be better as well as a functioning 9mm pistol.

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.

Sure, shoot whatever you are able to; that, of course, has nothing to do with inferior terminal ballistics of 9mm vs. .40 cal. Yes, those who want superior terminal ballistics will choose .40 cal over 9mm -- despite the hype and the fad of "modern 9mm" terminal equivalency with more capable calibers, like .40.

 

[Quanah]

I am not familiar with KaBooms with the M&P family of pistols, but I was in a position to get running updates when Glocks were cracking up.

There is nothing special about the 40 that makes guns 'blow up'. The cartridge was in fact an 'overnight success' and everybody wanted a piece of the action. In my opinion, some guns were trotted out before the manufacturers fully understood the cartridge. The 40 does require good chamber support and I'm a little surprised to hear of of M&P's having that problem. I've measured a few 40 M&P barrels and have found them to have comparatively tight chambers.

 

[zymurgeist]

Terminal ballistics testing/applied physics are all that's needed to establish the fact that 9mm is terminally inferior to .40 cal.

Bigger numbers don't always mean better bullets. Dead is dead regardless of terminal ballistics. Does the .40 S&W make people dead more often than 9mm? Does the .40 S&W injure people significantly more severely? Not based on any study of real world situations. This is the same stupid argument people have been having about "stopping power" for decades. Ain't no such animal. All common handgun calibers are under powered and they all rely on shot placement to kill far more than ballistics.

 

[QED]

Bigger numbers don't always mean better bullets. Dead is dead regardless of terminal ballistics. Does the .40 S&W make people dead more often than 9mm? Does the .40 S&W injure people significantly more severely? Not based on any study of real world situations. This is the same stupid argument people have been having about "stopping power" for decades. Ain't no such animal. All common handgun calibers are under powered and they all rely on shot placement to kill far more than ballistics.

You have managed to contradict yourself in just a few sentences and reveal your ignorance. What is a particularly ignorant and silly argument is the notion that all common handgun calibers are "under powered" so therefore one might as well choose the least powerful. Nonsense. The purpose of a self-defense handgun, BTW, is to incapacitate as soon as possible -- not kill. A battlefield trauma surgeon, Dr. M. Fackler, has stated that a larger handgun bullet is more effective than a smaller bullet, assuming adequate penetration.
That's just about self-evident as well, except perhaps to 9mm fanatics.

 

[V0OBWxZS16]

'Dr. Roberts is only a dentist.' Never heard that one before.

Who do you consider an expert? Who do you trust to properly perform gelatin testing? I am aware that there is an acceptable calibration range for gelatin. How do you go about "accounting for" within-spec gelatin? If you don't believe that gelatin testing tells the whole story then what do you believe tells the rest of the story?


Crushing tissue is a means to an end. Rapid incapacitation of the threat is the desired end. I am not aware of any scientific studies correlating X% increased frontal surface area with Y% decrease in incapacitation time. If that exists and you know of it I would like to learn as well.

For the fun of it I did some quick and dirty math with your cherry-picked loads. "Meat bullets" tend to look like 4LD gelatin testing and you gave bare gelatin results so this will over-state the difference. I assumed that the bullet hits and penetrates to full depth (doesn't exit or get caught by the skin on the exit side.) I came up with a difference of ~19 grams of crushed tissue. Against a 200lb (90kg) assailant that is just 0.02% of his body mass.

30% more than a really small number is still a really small number.

Far more important than the total amount of tissue crushed is what tissue is crushed. Large amounts of the human body can be destroyed by bullets without causing rapid incapacitation.

For this reason I believe that accuracy, rapid follow-up shots, magazine capacity (don't want to run out first), tactics, accuracy, training, practice, training cost, and accuracy are all far more important than the marginal advantage of a larger caliber.

In a .38 revolver it makes perfect sense to use wadcutters instead of round nose because the marginal benefit is free. You are acting as if the marginal benefit of .40 vs. 9mm is free.

 

[Arik]

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."

Dr. Roberts is currently on staff at Stanford University Medical Center; this is a large teaching hospital and Level I Trauma center were he performs hospital dentistry and surgery. After
completing his residency at Navy Hospital Oakland in 1989 while on active military duty, he studied at the Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory at the Letterman Army Institute of Research and became one of the first members of the International Wound Ballistic Association. Since then, he
has been tasked with performing military, law enforcement, and privately funded independent wound ballistic testing and analysis. He remains a Navy Reserve officer and has recently served
on the Joint Service Wound Ballistic IPT, as well as being a consultant to the Joint FBI-USMC munitions testing program and the TSWG MURG program. He is frequently asked to provide wound ballistic technical assistance to numerous U.S. and allied SOF units and organizations. In addition, he is a technical advisor to the Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners, as well as to a variety of Federal, State, and municipal law enforcement agencies. He has been a sworn Reserve Police Officer in the San Francisco Bay Area, where he now he serves in an LE training role.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[QED]

'Dr. Roberts is only a dentist.' Never heard that one before.

That's YOUR statement; I merely stated a fact that he is a dentist. However, it certainly is quite likely that the average dentist is not as much into terminal ballistics as "DocGKR." You obviously are not into facts and prefer straw man arguments.

Who do you consider an expert? Who do you trust to properly perform gelatin testing? I am aware that there is an acceptable calibration range for gelatin. How do you go about "accounting for" within-spec gelatin? If you don't believe that gelatin testing tells the whole story then what do you believe tells the rest of the story?

This forum, or any other, is not well suited to educate, from the ground up, someone like you in the study of terminal ballistics. It's obvious that you haven't a clue in terminal ballistics testing or evaluation of results. If you wish to try to educate yourself to the best of your ability, try, for example, reading D. MacPherson's "Bullet Penetration..." book. I would consider him an expert in terminal ballistics; but he was a rocket scientist by training and not a dentist. Dr. M. Fackler, a battlefield surgeon, was another expert in terminal ballistics, particularly wounding; but he was not a dentist by training either.

Crushing tissue is a means to an end. Rapid incapacitation of the threat is the desired end. I am not aware of any scientific studies correlating X% increased frontal surface area with Y% decrease in incapacitation time. If that exists and you know of it I would like to learn as well.

Yeah, I'm quite aware that you are not aware of many basics in terminal ballistics -- read the book I mentioned, as a start.

For the fun of it I did some quick and dirty math with your cherry-picked loads. "Meat bullets" tend to look like 4LD gelatin testing and you gave bare gelatin results so this will over-state the difference. I assumed that the bullet hits and penetrates to full depth (doesn't exit or get caught by the skin on the exit side.) I came up with a difference of ~19 grams of crushed tissue. Against a 200lb (90kg) assailant that is just 0.02% of his body mass.

30% more than a really small number is still a really small number.

You are overwhelming me with your ignorance; read the book and try to understand at least some of it. 19 grams of crushed body tissue is hardly insignificant; let me know how well and "in the mood" you feel next time someone crushes 19 grams of your tissue. The bare gel test results I posted involved same type of bullets, Winchester Ranger Bonded, in heavy for caliber versions - in 9mm and .40 cal, which, according to "DocGKR" tests showed that .40 cal versions destroyed more than 50% of tissue (while penetrating essentially the same), not 20% as you presented (also from "DocGKR"), purportedly to show how "little" difference there is in terminal effectiveness between .40 cal and 9mm. Bare ordnance gel, of course, is the best simulant for soft tissue, hence, obviously, penetration and expansion in such gel is quite similar to expansion and penetration in soft tissue. As was pointed out to you, the terminal difference in soft tissue between .40 cal and 9mm is just like the terminal difference between a wadcutter and a round nose -- one doesn't have to be a terminal ballistics expert to appreciate that! Again, ALL your misconceptions can be cleared up by reading and understanding that book. Good luck!

Far more important than the total amount of tissue crushed is what tissue is crushed. Large amounts of the human body can be destroyed by bullets without causing rapid incapacitation.

Sure, what gets crushed is important in achieving rapid physiological incapacitation. But unless you are an executioner who can place precise shots in a few, very critical, relatively small areas in the body, incapacitation becomes more likely the more tissue gets destroyed. Even any dentist would know that.

For this reason I believe that accuracy, rapid follow-up shots, magazine capacity (don't want to run out first), tactics, accuracy, training, practice, training cost, and accuracy are all far more important than the marginal advantage of a larger caliber.

That's irrelevant to terminal superiority of .40 cal vs. 9mm. Not surprisingly, you excel at inane straw man arguments.

In a .38 revolver it makes perfect sense to use wadcutters instead of round nose because the marginal benefit is free. You are acting as if the marginal benefit of .40 vs. 9mm is free.

Wrong again. Nothing in ballistics or in physics is "free." It takes more energy to push a wadcutter to any given penetration than it does to push a round nose bullet. It's amazing and amusing how many absurd straw man arguments you can come up with in your attempt to argue that 9mm is terminally equivalent to .40 cal. Hint: it's not, except perhaps in "your" universe!

 

[QED]

Dr. Roberts is currently on staff at Stanford University Medical Center; this is a large teaching hospital and Level I Trauma center were he performs hospital dentistry and surgery. After
completing his residency at Navy Hospital Oakland in 1989 while on active military duty, he studied at the Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory at the Letterman Army Institute of Research and became one of the first members of the International Wound Ballistic Association. Since then, he
has been tasked with performing military, law enforcement, and privately funded independent wound ballistic testing and analysis. He remains a Navy Reserve officer and has recently served
on the Joint Service Wound Ballistic IPT, as well as being a consultant to the Joint FBI-USMC munitions testing program and the TSWG MURG program. He is frequently asked to provide wound ballistic technical assistance to numerous U.S. and allied SOF units and organizations. In addition, he is a technical advisor to the Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners, as well as to a variety of Federal, State, and municipal law enforcement agencies. He has been a sworn Reserve Police Officer in the San Francisco Bay Area, where he now he serves in an LE training role.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

I'm aware of and have seen before what you posted; however, the fact remains that his training was in dentistry. I am also aware of the stuff that he has posted on the Internet.....

 

[muzzleblast]

'Dr. Roberts is only a dentist.' Never heard that one before.

Who do you consider an expert?

Sir Issac Newton was only an English mathematician who postulated that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Might it be that the .40's snappier and less controllable recoil compared to a 9mm is somewhat of a indication of the difference in the impact delivered on the... receiving end?

I am not aware of any scientific studies correlating X% increased frontal surface area with Y% decrease in incapacitation time. If that exists and you know of it I would like to learn as well.

For the fun of it I did some quick and dirty math... ...I came up with a difference of ~19 grams of crushed tissue. Against a 200lb (90kg) assailant that is just 0.02% of his body mass.

30% more than a really small number is still a really small number.

Are there any documented scientific studies quantifying the performance of "low recoil" ~450 grain, 75 caliber, 12 gauge slugs at ~1200 FPS MV versus incapacitation time? Just wondering? Because doubling the diameter of the crush cavity and the mass of "tissue crushed" to 0.04% is still a really small number compared to body mass...

Crushing tissue is a means to an end...
Large amounts of the human body can be destroyed by bullets without causing rapid incapacitation...

For this reason I believe that accuracy, rapid follow-up shots, magazine capacity (don't want to run out first), tactics, accuracy, training, practice, training cost, and accuracy are all far more important than the marginal advantage of a larger caliber.

There is some merit to the argument that one should consider the largest caliber, heaviest weight, fastest traveling bullet that he/she can effectively and repeatedly deliver to center mass.

And...By the way, it is OK, if that happens to be a 9mm.

P.S. I can put more rounds on target, faster with my Glock 19 than with my Remington 870.

 

[QED]

There is some merit to the argument that one should consider the largest caliber, heaviest weight, fastest traveling bullet that he/she can effectively and repeatedly deliver to center mass.

Obviously. Those 9mm fanatics that don't think that bullet size matters should stop wasting their money on JHPs and instead use FMJs in the smallest possible caliber -- they will then have more rounds in any given size magazine and less recoil, which will, of course, facilitate placing more shots, more accurately, on whatever target.

 

[Acadianlion]

An interesting thread. I decided to do some shooting again about a year and a half ago. I owned two S&W revolvers in .38, one of which had only eleven rounds through it, or something like that. The other was a 67-1 that I bought used in the late 1970's and had never fired. It was that one that I chose to take to the range and for the first time in more than forty years found that I really liked to handle a gun and try to shoot well. From that experience I began to read about hand guns and found that the knowledge I lacked was more enormous than I had imagined it could be. In the course of study, I found I wanted to buy a semi-automatic pistol and had a fantasy with a PPK or some such, in .380. AND I found it simply out of my budget, although the one I rented at the range was a sweet shooting little gun.

In the course of things I decided to buy a 9mm and the gun of choice was a Stoeger Cougar. But when I came to the point of plunking down the money, the only one I could get right then was in .40.

What I found at the range was that the .40 Cougar felt lighter in terms of shooting actions than the Model 67. I have NOT put enough rounds through the .40 to say with confidence, but the first 100 rounds went to target easily as accurately as my near-new .38, and I have decided the 67-1 can be sold to finance something else, probably a plastic gun of some sort.

And I think based on my limited experience with the Cougar, and all the rest that I have learned about "self-defense" rounds, the next gun will come in .40 also.

 

[palmettostate1]

Obviously. Those 9mm fanatics that don't think that bullet size matters should stop wasting their money on JHPs and instead use FMJs in the smallest possible caliber -- they will then have more rounds in any given size magazine and less recoil, which will, of course, facilitate placing more shots, more accurately, on whatever target.

You are very passionate about this subject. The kind of passion that could only come from someone with personal experience. I take it you have actually had to shoot people with both the 9mm and .40 S&W.

Which did you find to be better at the "one stop shot"? Were you afraid when you pulled out your 9mm that you would not be able to stop your attacker? Can I assume the person you shot with the .40 died more quickly?

 

[QED]

You are very passionate about this subject. The kind of passion that could only come from someone with personal experience. I take it you have actually had to shoot people with both the 9mm and .40 S&W.

Fortunately I have never faced a threat whereby I was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, so there has been no need to shoot anyone. There seems to be far more "passion" on this subject from 9mm fanatics -- who have nothing but their passion to justify their baseless notions that defy the laws of physics as well as common sense.

Which did you find to be better at the "one stop shot"?

That's a question that's perhaps best suited for the likes of Mr. E. Marshall or some other "experts" who have "compiled" such "studies."

Were you afraid when you pulled out your 9mm that you would not be able to stop your attacker? Can I assume the person you shot with the .40 died more quickly?

I don't have, and never had, a need for anything in 9mm; .40 cal is terminally more effective and not a whole lot more difficult to shoot reasonably well with a full-size pistol. As Dr. Fackler made quite easy for almost anyone to understand, a bigger handgun bullet is more effective than a smaller bullet, assuming adequate penetration. Obviously, in self-defense situations more effective is better.

 

[mrchuck]

Let's end this discussion right now.
We LEO's mandatorily carried this caliber because of your respective Agencies policy.
Also in all categories the 40sw was a more "potent" caliber.
Some still believe it was a "political" action. It was not.
The ONLY thing left to dispute is,,,"can you handle and shoot effectively this more powerful cartridge?
That is the only viable question.
So,,,,,CAN YOU ?
Some Departments actually give you a choice. Some do not.
The answer is this,,,,you better follow your Department's decision,or find another type of employment.
Yes, Police Departments have this authority to do this.
I know exactly why the .40 caliber pistol cartridge was developed.
Probably all here know this, so I will not comment.
I believe a large capacity .40 caliber pistol gives the Law Officer the best
tool in this discussion of caliber. This is due to experience in being there.

I also personally carry a concealed pistol wherever I go.
But it is a 9mm Kel Tec P-11 having 12 rounds of Cor-Bon.
Why you ask?
The answer is that my Kel Tec P-40 kicks TOO MUCH!
There will be times where accuracy means much more than caliber.
I rest my case.

 

[Kruzen]

Will this debate ever end? Probably not. In reality, most none LEO's and even some LEO's if confronted with a " kill or be Killed" situation, the last thing they would be thinking is he has the right caliber. From what I have scene is who has the most ammo wins but not in all cases. I know from experience from being in the Fire Service, when the sirens are blaring and the adrenaline is pumping, it may come down to who has the best Control and mind set. Perhaps the trusty 12 ga shotgun is the weapon of choice or Client Eastwood with his nerve of steel. Train with your weapon of choice and train often, which most likely none of us do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[s&wchad]

Let's end this discussion right now....

Excellent idea!

We're done here...