[9teenEleven]

If you carried .40 for SD, would you consider the new(ish) 135gr .40 rounds. The published numbers are 1325fps and 526ftlbs. What disadvantages might this have over other .40 rounds?

[Dolph92]

If I was going to use these rounds I would like to see what they do in a heavy clothing gel test. I am sure they would incapacitate anyone smacked center mass.. I bet they wont over penetrate as much as heavier rounds.

[Enachos]

I agree with Dolph92. In comparison to heavier rounds, i would also be that it would penetrate less. I guess there is a trade off with heavier vs lighter bullets.

180 gr.= Deeper Penetration, but somewhat slower expansion in HP's

135 gr.= Less Penetration, but quicker expansion due to faster velocities


Let it be known though... I'm no expert haha

[REAPER4206969]

Those loads are unsatisfactory. 165gr. minimum, 180gr. preferred.

[Zundfolge]

My experience with 135gr Cor-Bon JHPs is that you get a lot more noise, a lot more flash and a little less accuracy.

165gr is still the sweet spot for .40 IMNSHO.

[harmon rabb]

i'm currently carrying them in my glock 27. :o

[19-3Ben]

165gr is still the sweet spot for .40 IMNSHO.

Agreed. Looking at the ballistics charts, penetration tests, and shooting 135, 165, and 180 I came to the same conclusion.

I'd want something heavier than 135 so it has more SD and can really punch through heavy stuff (ie. clothing, bones etc...) but at 165 you still get good energy numbers. At 180gr the energy numbers seem to fall off a bit, but then again, I'd rather carry 180gr if I was going into the woods.

[Dolph92]

Yep Enachos it all depends on how the bullet expands too. If it performs like a FMJ it will penetrate a TON. My guess is this is a very fast expanding almost fragmenting round that was designed for inside close quarter work where over penetration into the neighbors house would be unwanted. While I don't give 100% of my round picking merit to the gel tests I do put some thought on it.

I found the following

"The values for average penetration, wound area, and wound impact index were greater for the 9mm Personal Defense load than the .40 S&W Personal Defense load (also 135-grain JHP Hydra-Shok)"

Handguns and Guns & Ammo reported the following:

Muzzle velocity: 975 feet per second
Muzzle energy: 285 foot pounds
Gelatin depth: 11.0 inches
Recovered diameter: .60 inches
Fuller index: 76 percent

I would maybe consider these in my 239 for bedside defense but I live in suburbia where rolling a 180 Hornady through the neighbors bedroom may be less than ideal.

For everyday out in the street use I will keep 180's in the tube

Here is some more good info.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/40%20S&W.html

[Nick5182]

I carry 180 gr. Winchester Rangers in my Glock 22. I've gotten accustomed to shooting them and am now comfortable and confident shooting them so I wouldn't switch. As for as performance wise, I couldn't give any opinion since I've never used them or seen them in trials before.

[The Tennessean]

I carry 180 gr. Winchester Rangers in my Glock 22. I've gotten accustomed to shooting them and am now comfortable and confident shooting them so I wouldn't switch.

I carry Winchester Ranger SXT 180g in my SW40VE and also have gotten accustomed to them. I have a decent stash of them so I doubt I would switch any time soon. I really like this ammunition, it's very consistent and delivers great results for me.

[Enachos]

Same here. 180 gr. works very well for me. I've used 155 gr. Hornady but found it to not be as accurate as the 180's

[REAPER4206969]

but at 165 you still get good energy numbers.
Muzzle energy means nothing. All that matters is 1)Depth of penetration (12" minimum, 15" preferred.) and 2)Size of permanent wound cavity.

[Mike J]

Thanks for the link Dolph. I have been carrying Winchester Ranger 155 grain JHP's. Now ya'all have got me thinking I might need to move up to the 165's.

[UnTainted]

Speer Gold Dot 155 is what I put in my 40s

Very accurate and at least it's worked on animals. It put a coyote down fast with a shot through the front of his chest at 5 yards, penetrating all the way through coming out the rear quarter. Yes, I know this isn't a human, but coyote bone is closer to human bone than the bones in a gel block! ;)

9mm is still my fav though

[NG VI]

I like 165 or 180 grain HST best, though the 180 Golden Saber, 180 or 165 Ranger-T, those Barnes X-bullet loads, 165 or 180 Gold Dots, XTP (not my choice, I like a little more expansion), those are all great choices for a .40 load.

The 135 grain .40s are kind of a throwback to when bullet designs weren't as well executed and they needed to be both fragile and fast to get the kind of results that people were looking for. Now we have plenty of great designs that don't need to sacrifice sectional density in the name of velocity to expand and perform spectacularly.

See 180 HST tests for a good example of what I mean. Caliber is no longer as important as load choice.

Now, a 135 grain HST in the .357 Sig would be awesome.

[9teenEleven]

Why is the velocity a good thing in a 125gr 357 sig but bad in a 135gr .40 is it about density and diameter?

[Enachos]

....That's a good question! I suppose the diameter could have something to do with it... interesting thing to look into!

[19-3Ben]

Muzzle energy means nothing. All that matters is 1)Depth of penetration (12" minimum, 15" preferred.) and 2)Size of permanent wound cavity.

I seem to remember once hearing some old kook once mention that shot placement plays a minor part in the equation as well.

As for energy meaning nothing... I'm not sure I'd agree with that. I think it's not nearly as important as many people make it out to be. I think you're right that penetration and wound cavity are more important, but I think the energy with which a round hits (assuming the bullet stops in the body so that body has to absorb all the energy) must play some role.

[REAPER4206969]

I seem to remember once hearing some old kook once mention that shot placement plays a minor part in the equation as well.
Shot placement is worthless if the bullet does not reach vitals.
but I think the energy with which a round hits (assuming the bullet stops in the body so that body has to absorb all the energy) must play some role.
Not in handguns.

[NG VI]

speed is still good in a .40, but the 125 .355" bullet is a lot longer compared to its width than the 135 .40" bullet, which has a major negative impact on penetration. It can't help accuracy either.

And I feel that with the 135s, you start getting into diminishing returns on your velocity increases, giving up more weight than is practical for smaller and smaller velocity boosts.


Plus the 165-180 bullets just work better, there hasn't been a whole lot of design improvement in 135 .40 bullets, while 165 and 180s have been steadily improved.

[MikePGS]

If I had a .40 cal I would strongly consider the corbon 135. Massad Ayoob wrote that a med examiner thought someone was shot with some kind of exploding bullet when he first encountered someone hit with one.

[9teenEleven]

That's what I'm looking at, the corbon. But after most of the comments, I am leaning toward 165. I have a 357 Sig barrel, but once you get it up to speed, the recoil is significantly greater than shooting .40.

[Full Metal Jacket]

i have federal HST 165grn jhp's right now, and am going to get the federal 135grn hst's soon too. good stuff.

[bds]

I was taught we fight like we train.

What are you shooting at the range to practice with?

If your practice range rounds shoot differently from your factory JHP rounds, your shot placement may be off in actual shooting.

165gr Golden Saber for me. And yes, you can buy the bulk bullets so you can load comparable loads for practice.

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=1601160321

[mordechaianiliewicz]

I thought that the idea behind .40 S&W was to replicate .45 ACP performance (or close) but get a much higher amount of ammo than is conventionally possible. I would much rather have the heavier weighted bullet.

[Dolph92]

Why is the velocity a good thing in a 125gr 357 sig but bad in a 135gr .40 is it about density and diameter?

It has everything to do with physics and bullet construction. Sit the 2 rounds next to each other and you will see a difference right away. The hollow point in the 9mm/357 round is smaller in diameter. The smaller diameter hole in the tip needs more hydraulic pressure to cause the bullet to expand. Its just the physics of hydraulics. How do we get higher pressure? More speed.


Bullet construction is maybe the other reason. Thicker or thinner jackets blah blah I can go on all day :P

[MTS840]

but I think the energy with which a round hits (assuming the bullet stops in the body so that body has to absorb all the energy) must play some role.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs3.htm

Four light, fast .357 Mag bullets failed to stop an obese, determined attacker on one fateful night in November 1992.

http://www.odmp.org/officer/420-trooper-mark-hunter-coates

If you're serious about self-defense, shot placement and penetration is what you want in a defensive handgun.

Never expect instant incapacitation with any service caliber handgun bullet.

[19-3Ben]

MTS- I'm aware of that.
In my mind, the things I worry about most are shot placement, and bullet penetration.
All I was saying that I can't imagine energy being MEANINGLESS.
Significantly less important? Sure.
Meaningless? I dunno.

Either way, I don't count on energy to do the job. (Why i carry 165gr. in .40cal rather than 135, and same reason I carry 158gr .357mag loads).

[UnTainted]

I would recommend the cor-bon dpx in .40 over their 135 fmj - bone does a nasty thing on weaker bullets!

I admit i used to put the 115 +P cor-bon jhp in 9mm in the pipe; just not gonna, no more. :(


You can always mix and match, say for the scenario where BG is HUGE, having 3 or 5 rounds of the lighter .40 135s first in the mag, followed by some 180s or else with deeper penetration; or alternate for double-taps.

[hak]

i train and carry Winchester 180gr bonded JHP's:

http://www.ammoman.com/images4/40WIN-Q4369-9.jpg

in my .40's. I've shot about 900 rounds in the past 60 days, 2 bricks of 500 - 3rd brick just arrived, with no duds or other case issues. I'm going to a longer course in a few weeks, so stocked up on some GA Arms ball to help offset course costs, but these Win 180's have been 100% in my gun and have the specs that would seem to work with regard to penetration and expansion.

[harmon rabb]

If I had a .40 cal I would strongly consider the corbon 135. Massad Ayoob wrote that a med examiner thought someone was shot with some kind of exploding bullet when he first encountered someone hit with one.

link? i'm currently carrying them, but this thread has had me rethinking that.

well, actually let me be more specific. i'm carrying the corbon 135gr rounds in the mag in the gun (and in the tube), and 180gr winchester sxt in my reload mag.

[71Commander]

I carry Speer 155 Gold Dots in mine. Handloads. I'm getting 1279 fps chronoed. They're stout in my PM40.

[MikePGS]

I couldn't remember which book it was in but after searching google i came up with a link from not surprisingly, thr where someone references the same thing.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5724729&postcount=86

the poster goes on to say "
"The Coroner I interviewed said the wound apeared to be made by a much larger weapon and that at first he thought it may have been from a rifle."

From 5th edition of The Gun Digest book of Combat Handgunnery. "
I thought it included a reference that said something like they thought it was an exploding round, but I could have been mistaken.

[easyg]

Muzzle energy means nothing. All that matters is 1)Depth of penetration (12" minimum, 15" preferred.) and 2)Size of permanent wound cavity.
Actually, muzzle energy means alot.
If your chosen round had 0 muzzle energy, the bullet wouldn't even get out of the barrel....probably wouldn't even get out of the brass casing.

I challenge anyone to show us a firearm round that is effective, yet has zero muzzle energy.

To answer the original question:
I prefer fast and light .40 rounds.
155g Speer Gold Dots.

[REAPER4206969]

*facepalm*

[Enachos]

+1 Hak,

I also carry 180 gr. Winchester bonded! But I'll settle for Federal HST's also

[memphisjim]

+1 on the 165 cant remember where i read it but the 165 gr in caliber to weight ratio most closely mimicked the legendary man stopping 357mag round (this was a read on the 10mm however)

[Zerodefect]

I'm sticking with 180 and 230gn bullets. They all work fine hitting goo, but I've heard from a few reputable sources that heavier rounds seem to be better at going straight through bone and into the vital area you were aiming at.

Lighter rounds can sometimes (rarely ever) get deflected off bone and into a less than vital area. Especially if you hit said bone at a bad angle.

Allthough .357 Sig seems to have excellent results. I'd put a .357 sig barrel ( from a Glock 32 ) in my Glock 23 (.40) befroe I'd go to lighter than 180 bullets.

[NMGonzo]

I, for one, don't want to be shot with it.

[MTS840]

Actually, muzzle energy means alot.
If your chosen round had 0 muzzle energy, the bullet wouldn't even get out of the barrel....probably wouldn't even get out of the brass casing.

I challenge anyone to show us a firearm round that is effective, yet has zero muzzle energy.


lol....Seriously?!

You have an incredible grasp of the obvious.

I don't think that anybody, anywhere at any time has ever suggested such a thing.

But thanks for playing!

[easyg]

lol....Seriously?!

You have an incredible grasp of the obvious.

I don't think that anybody, anywhere at any time has ever suggested such a thing.

Can you read?

Perhaps you missed this post....

Muzzle energy means nothing. All that matters is 1)Depth of penetration (12" minimum, 15" preferred.) and 2)Size of permanent wound cavity.

Or perhaps you also believe that muzzle energy means nothing???

[REAPER4206969]

Using muzzle energy as a means of determining terminal effectiveness is worthless. Is that better?

[NG VI]

Well since we are talking about centerfire, service-caliber handguns, not thrown rocks or pointy sticks, so it is safe to assume that they ALL deliver much more than zero muzzle energy.

But none of them deliver enough muzzle energy to wound purely with their energy, is that better?

[easyg]

Using muzzle energy as a means of determining terminal effectiveness is worthless. Is that better?
I disagree.

I don't think that it's just a coincidence that the more effective self-defense calibers almost always have more muzzle energy than the less effective self-defense calibers.

Obviously, one must consider other factors besides muzzle energy when selecting self-defense ammo.
But one cannot totally dismiss muzzle energy as a factor.
The ammo makers themselves certainly don't dismiss it.

[easyg]

But none of them deliver enough muzzle energy to wound purely with their energy, is that better?
No one is claiming that the muzzle energy alone causes the wound.
But why would you think that a round entering the body with less muzzle energy would be more effective than a round entering the body with more muzzle energy, all other things being equal (same shot placement, same penetration, same expansion, same wound channel size, etc...)?

[NG VI]

I don't think an equal round with less muzzle energy would be more effective.

But in service-caliber handguns, a bullet that performs better, i.e. penetrates adequately, expands to a wider diameter in the process, and retains enough mass to continue face-first on a straight path through the assailant's body after punching through bone is going to be more effective than a bullet that penetrates the same but doesn't expand as much and doesn't have the momentum to get through bodily obstacles.

New bullet designs mean that higher energy does not always equal higher performance. Take the HST for instance, the 180 grain .40 and 147 grain 9mm are the two best performing bullet weights in that design and calibers, despite not having the highest amount of energy. The 165 .40 is no slouch either, but the 180 expands more. They penetrate about equally, give or take a couple tenths of an inch.

[UnTainted]

"two best performing" ???

how do you define best? What performance? In what medium?


;)

[NG VI]

since we can't go line up convicts and shoot them, I settle for jelly, and also some Oregon police department or other has been using the 147 HST for a few years now, with great success, last I knew every time they had been forced to shoot someone it acquitted itself extremely well.

[NG VI]

And I define it by decent penetration plus most expansion.

All those jugs of water I've shot with it didn't go anywhere after all, and they ceased their attacks immediately.

[MTS840]

Can you read?

Perhaps you missed this post....


Quote:
Muzzle energy means nothing. All that matters is 1)Depth of penetration (12" minimum, 15" preferred.) and 2)Size of permanent wound cavity.

Or perhaps you also believe that muzzle energy means nothing???

Saying "muzzle energy means nothing" is not the same as saying "I challenge anyone to show us a firearm round that is effective, yet has zero muzzle energy."

Zero muzzle energy? Is that what he was really saying?

Maybe the poster was trying to say that kinetic energy itself is not a significant wounding mechanism in common self defense handgun cartridges.

Maybe he was trying to say that in terms of a physiological incapacitation, the two most significant wounding mechanisms are penetration and the size of the permanent crush cavity.

I doubt seriously if he was trying make the case that ZERO muzzle energy could be effective.

Using muzzle energy as a means of determining terminal effectiveness is worthless.

I think that sums it up very well.

This link may help you:

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34714

Also check out the links in my signature.

[Wahoo95]

Yeah I remember that magazine article where Ayoob discussed the effectiveness of the 135gr load and how it'd dropped some guy with a pelvis shot which practically shattered everything. There was time some years ago when the Corbon 135gr .40 load was listed as one of the most effective available with a 96% effectiveness rate based on actual shootings. I bought some back then and still have it. Those were the days of light and fast when 115+P+ 9BPLE also ruled the roost and still sports an impressive stopping % based on "actual" shootings. I carry the heavier stuff now, but I wouldn't fel undergunned carrying the lighter stuff.

[Dolph92]

I would like to see how the lighter loads do in a heavy clothing test versus some of the heavier bullets. It may be a thing of lighter construction = more expansion through heavy clothing than the larger heavier constructed bullets.

[NG VI]

It's still all about bullet design, with things like the HST and current Ranger-T doing the best, weight irrelevant.

[AKElroy]

I thought that the idea behind .40 S&W was to replicate .45 ACP performance (or close) but get a much higher amount of ammo than is conventionally possible.

I agree some .40 loads are close in energy to the best .45 loads, but the actual reason for its development was to have more power in a 9mm sized frame.

I like 165gr loads in mine; seems the best compromise of power, velocity & recoil. DoubleTap Gold Dots.

[easyg]

Take the HST for instance, the 180 grain .40 and 147 grain 9mm are the two best performing bullet weights in that design and calibers, despite not having the highest amount of energy.
Actually, from all that I have ever heard, seen, or read, the 155g is just as effective, if not moreso, than the 180g .40 load.

And the 147g 9mm load does not have such a great reputation as a "man-stopper" at all.
115g 9mm loads seem to be just as effective in real world shootings.

[Caseless]

I thought that the idea behind .40 S&W was to replicate .45 ACP performance (or close) but get a much higher amount of ammo than is conventionally possible. I would much rather have the heavier weighted bullet.
It was designed to emulate the 10mm, not 45ACP. Thus the .40 caliber diameter, not .45.

[bds]

My vote is still for 165gr Golden Saber. This is why - 93.8% One Shot Stop (OSS): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.40_S&W

The .40 S&W was originally loaded at subsonic velocity (around 980fps) with a 180 grain bullet. Since its introduction, various loads have been created, with the majority being either 155, 165 or 180 grain. However, there are some bullets with weights as light as 135 grain and as heavy as 200 grain.

Cor-Bon offer a 135 grain JHP as well as a 140 grain Barnes XPB hollow-point. Double Tap Ammo, based out of Cedar City, Utah loads a 135gr Nosler JHP, a 155gr, 165gr and 180gr Speer Gold Dot hollow-point (marketed as "Bonded Defense"), a 180gr Hornady XTP JHP, and three different 200gr loads included a 200gr Full Metal Jacket (FMJ), a 200gr Hornady XTP JHP and Double Tap's own 200gr WFNGC (Wide Flat Nose Gas check) hard cast lead bullet; the latter specifically designed for hunting and woods carry applications.

The table below shows common performance parameters for several .40S&W loads. Bullet weights from 135 to 180 grains are common. Loads are available with energies from just over 360 ft-lbs to over 550 ft-lbs, and penetration depths from 9.8 inches to 25 inches are available for various applications and risk assessments.
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=116000&d=1266609380
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=115999&d=1266609265
Key: Expansion – expanded bullet diameter (ballistic gelatin). Penetration – penetration depth (ballistic gelatin). BPW – ballistic pressure wave associated with remote wounding effects known as hydrostatic shock. PC – permanent cavity volume (ballistic gelatin, FBI method). TSC – temporary stretch cavity volume (ballistic gelatin). OSS – Marshall and Sanow “one-shot stop” rating. AIT – Average incapacitation time, time from unobstructed hit in the center of the chest until incapacitation for 170 lb male as determined from ballistic pressure wave model.

[bds]

In addition, Remington Golden Saber bulk bullets are available ($22.89/100 - $179/1000) so you can reload duplicate practice rounds to conduct extensive "actual" firearm function test, point of aim practice and even load your own SD rounds. http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=1601160321

Double Tap Gold Dot looks good too and Gold Dot bulk bullets are available ($23.86/100). http://www.midsouthshooterssupply.com/item.asp?sku=000214397

http://www.thefind.com/sports/info-speer-gold-dot-bullets#filter[sortby]=price_asc&page=1

[NG VI]

Dude... Ballistic pressure wave? Really? I can't take the theory that a handgun shot to the chest can induce brain damage seriously.

[bds]

Ballistic pressure wave? Really? I can't take the theory that a handgun shot to the chest can induce brain damage seriously.

NG VI, I didn't make those charts or conduct the tests.

The point I am making is that it does not matter how good a bullet design is if you cannot hit your target. Your ability to hit your target with any bullet will be greatly enhanced with sufficient training/practice utilizing actual trigger time.

If you carry 135gr JHP but practice with 155/180gr reloads at the range, your actual field shooting experience MAY be different. We fight like we train.

Since many bullet casters/manufacturers sell 155/165gr 40S&W bullets, duplicating your factory JHP performance/OAL measurement (especially using the same Golden Saber/Gold Dot) is possible to allow you to conduct very close to factory training/practice and your actual field shooting experience will be similar.

Besides, depending on the shooting situation, you may only get one shot hit to the target, and that one shot may have to count.


FWIW, here's a 135gr JHP comparison test of interest: http://mattburkett.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=68&Itemid=241&Itemid=98
TEST #9 -- Media Testing This may be one of the more important tests. But there are a lot of factors thrown into this test and some subjective judgement as well. None of the cartridges were designed to break-up so retained weight and expansion will be evaluated. The tests include ballistic gelatin covered with denim as is industry standard, waste animal tissue, a slurry of fluid and solids in which penetration can be measured.

I am finished with the media tests, 160 rounds total were fired into media! The rounds were fired into drywall, plywood, elk tissues, covered and uncovered gelatin, a glycerin/newsprint slurry (a doctor suggested this one to me) and water. The Pro-Load and Gray area were fairly similar in performance with good penetration (over 12 inches every time in all media) and weight retention (over 95%). The Federal also did well in weight retention, but a little less penetration, under 12 inches a few times. Next was Triton, but quantifying this load was hard. Do I give the penetration of the deepest piece or take a weighted average of all the pieces? I went for both, largest pieces were about 13 inches deep, but only 20-50% weight. The weighted average gives about 10 inches. The Cor-Bon was similar, but weight retention was even less.

Consistency also has to go to Pro-Load followed by Federal and Gray Area neck and neck. Cor-Bon again is last. The stretch cavities were not consistent and the bullet paths were varied with the Cor-Bon. As far as barrier defeat, I was a bit surprised. The slower Federal kept the others at bay through most of the tests. While Pro-Load and Gray area were good at defeating barriers, the Federal defeated them and then performed better in media. Cor-Bon was terrible at defeating bone, glass, and wood but did well with drywall.

Defeat of 4 layers of denim and then media goes to Federal with about 11 inches consistently, but just by a shred (no pun intended) over Pro-Load (ave of 15") and Gray Area (ave. of 16"). Triton did okay with 10 to 19" but inconsistent and Cor-Bon was poor with only 5 inches of penetration on a few slugs and a few over 15". In short, Federal, Pro-Load and Gray Area did very well in the media tests. Even well considering that they were light bullet weights. I could not find enough differentiation between Gray Area and Pro-Load to give one 1st place over the other.

Cor-Bon: 5th Federal: 3rd Gray Area: 1st Pro-Load: 1st Triton: 4th


TEST #10 -- Function & Reliability As the test involved the firing approximately 120 rounds of each type of ammunition, function and reliability was evaluated throughout the tests. All of the rounds, in addition to being fired for other tests, were fired rapid fire from a fully charged G27. They were also fired with hi-caps for the first few rounds of a full magazine and the last few rounds of a full magazine. Any malfunction attributed to the cartridge is noted and this test is judged as Pass/Fail. A fail gets 5th place points in the final standings and a pass gets first place points. No function failures or stoppages at all means the cartridge passes.

Cor-Bon: FAIL Federal: PASS Gray Area: PASS Pro-Load: PASS Triton: PASS

The Cor-Bon ammunition failed to lock the slide back about 70% of the time after firing the last round, from several magazines. None of the other rounds had this problem. When I switched to the Wolff guide rod and 20# spring, the problem was cured. Granted, the tenth round from a G27 is unlikely to be needed, but I want a defense gun to function as intended 100% of the time. This failure was new to me and my guess is that there is some dynamic related to the high slide velocity created by the Cor-Bon round. But, it appears to be cureable.


SUMMARY This has been a very enlightening process. Besides enjoying firing off around 700 rounds of premium ammunition, it has helped me to further define what is important in a self defense loading. Below I offer a final ranking of the five loads tested. But feel free to go back and look at the individual tests and decide if one test sways you strongly towards or away from a particular brand or load. Also, consistency, through-out the tests, was considered to be important. As such, the first place load is the load which I believe is the most worthy to trust with my life in a defensive loading. Also, the first place load was consistent throughout with no major drawbacks. In the final ranking, each individual test is worth 10 points. As there are ten tests, the total possible is 100. Each first place gets 10 points, second 8 points, third 6 points, fourth 4 points, and fifth 2 points.

Cor-Bon: 5th SCORE: 38% Federal: 2nd SCORE: 80% Gray Area: 3rd SCORE: 70% Pro-Load: 1st SCORE: 90% Triton: 4th SCORE: 56%

[REAPER4206969]

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=116000&d=1266609380
Oh no you did'int! You're really going to get it now...

[bds]

Oh no you did'int! You're really going to get it now...

Please don't shoot the messenger ... :D I didn't make the charts or conduct the tests ... I just posted to share with fellow THR readers/posters ...

[RedLion]

just a few questions about that chart....
1) who made it, are they reliable sources for information and data?
2) what exactly is incapacitation time... how do they measure it, how do they get an average? how do they check/correct for error?
3) what is the ballistic pressure wave? Where are they measuring the ballistic pressure wave? How are they measuring it?
4) how did they decide at what points brain injury happens? What is brain injury? What does probable brain injury mean exactly..100%, 40%, 10% of the brain affected?
5) why are there no other bullets known for effectiveness on here for comparison, like the .45 or .357 magnum?

A chart like that is kinda hard to take at face value when an elementary school student could easily cook something up like that in about 10 minutes.



Also wouldn't a lighter .40 be more useful with a short barrel like in a glock 27 or something similar to increase the muzzle velocity to a point where it can reliably expand, but doesn't fragment like out of a longer barrel? just a thought.

[bds]

Duplicate

[NG VI]

A chart based on a silly premise should absolutely be called out instead of taken at face value, straight-faced value anyway.

No matter how many people you shoot in the chest, none of them will develop brain damage from it. Emotional trauma, sure, not the same as a head injury that can incapacitate a belligerent adult human.

[Redneck with a 40]

I'm also a fan of the 165's in 40 S&W, I've got gold dot's in mine.:)

[bds]

A chart based on a silly premise should absolutely be called out instead of taken at face value, straight-faced value anyway.
Have a seat - Here you go:


1) who made it, are they reliable sources for information and data?

Here are the references used for the quote and the charts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.40_S&W#cite_note-21

19 - a b Marshall and Sanow, Street Stoppers, Paladin (1996) pp. 115-131.
20 - Nosler Reloading guide Number Four (1996) pp. 529-534.
21 - "SAAMI Pressure specifications". http://www.handloads.com/misc/saami.htm. Retrieved 2007-09-25.
22 - AIT computed with hypothetical model from Courtney A, Courtney M: Links between traumatic brain injury and ballistic pressure waves originating in the thoracic cavity and extremities. Brain Injury 21(7): 657–662, 2007.
23 - Stopping Power, E. Marshall and E. Sanow, Paladin (2001), pp. 49-58.
24 - http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/index.php?cPath=21_26
25 - Nosler Reloading guide Number Four (1996) pp. 529-534.
26 - a b c d Marshall and Sanow, Street Stoppers, Appendix A, Paladin 1996.
27 - a b From model in Courtney A, Courtney M: Links between traumatic brain injury and ballistic pressure waves originating in the thoracic cavity and extremities. Brain Injury 21(7): 657–662, 2007.
28 - Marshall and Sanow, Street Stoppers, Appendix A, Paladin 1996; also Marshall and Sanow, Stopping Power, Paladin 2001.
29 - Estimated from model in Courtney and Courtney http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701266.pdf


"Relative incapacitation contributions of pressure wave and wound channel in the Marshall and Sanow data set" - http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701266.pdf

Michael Courtney, PhD
Ballistics Testing Group, P.O. Box 24, West Point, NY 10996
Michael_Courtney@alum.mit.edu

Amy Courtney, PhD
Department of Physics, United States Military Academy, West Point, NY 10996
Amy_Courtney@post.harvard.edu

The Marshall and Sanow data set is the largest and most comprehensive data set available quantifying handgun bullet effectiveness in humans. This article presents an empirical model for relative incapacitation probability in humans hit in the thoracic cavity by handgun bullets. The model is constructed by employing the hypothesis that the wound channel and ballistic pressure wave effects each have an associated independent probability of incapacitation.


2) what exactly is incapacitation time... how do they measure it, how do they get an average? how do they check/correct for error?
AIT – Average incapacitation time, time from unobstructed hit in the center of the chest until incapacitation for 170 lb male as determined from ballistic pressure wave model.

Page 1-2 from the above pdf:
"The view that the crushed tissue volume (the permanent cavity) [FAC96a] is the only reliable contributor to incapacitation (for handgun bullet placements which do not hit the central nervous system or supporting bone structure) relies on the unproven premise that easily detectable wounding1 is necessary for an effect to contribute to incapacitation. Even though it has been shown that most handgun bullets do not produce a temporary stretch cavity (the volume of tissue temporarily pushed out of the way by a passing bullet) large enough to stretch most vital tissue beyond the elastic limit, it remains an unproven premise that exceeding the elastic limit is necessary for correlating increased incapacitation with parameters determined from ballistic gelatin. Because it has been shown that projectiles can cause remote neurological damage that requires microscopic examination or sensitive biochemical tests to detect [SHS90a, SHS90b, WWZ04], handgun bullet effectiveness should be studied without depending on the premise that the only contributors to incapacitation result in wounding that is easily observable to the trauma surgeon or medical examiner. One way to do this is to separate the issue of incapacitation from wounding by directly considering incapacitation and attempting to 1 By this we mean wounding that would typically be detected by a trauma surgeon or medical examiner. 2 correlate observed metrics of incapacitation with potential causal agents. This was the approach of Marshall and Sanow in compiling their data [MAS92, MAS96, MAS01].

In contrast, work considering wounding or wound trauma as a valid incapacitation metric depends strongly on the unproven presupposition that only easily detectable wounding contributes to rapid incapacitation. For handgun loads that produce relatively large pressure waves, there is no published data showing that observed measures of rapid incapacitation are correlated only with the volume of crushed tissue or observed wounding. The conclusion that incapacitation is only caused by volume of crushed tissue or observed wounding is not founded upon repeatable experiments or carefully compiled data, but relies on expert opinion2 [FAC87a, FAC96a, PAT89, MAC94] and exaggerated efforts to discredit data suggesting other causal agents [FAC91a, COC06a and references therein]."


3) what is the ballistic pressure wave? Where are they measuring the ballistic pressure wave? How are they measuring it?

Page 2 from the above pdf:
"One step in the formation of the pressure wave hypothesis is the fact that most wound ballistics experts agree that a strongly energy-dependent factor such as the temporary stretch cavity plays a vital role in incapacitation via rifle bullets [FAC99a]. Frank Chamberlin observed pressure wave effects prior to World War II, and should probably be considered the father of the pressure wave hypothesis [CHA66]. It is not obvious that this energy dependence disappears as the energy-dependent parameter is lowered from rifle levels to handgun levels. The most powerful service caliber handgun loads only have 20-30% less impact energy than the .223 Remington.3 In addition, since pressure wave magnitude depends on the local rate of energy transfer, some service caliber handgun loads have peak pressure wave magnitudes that are larger than some of the more deeply penetrating rifle loads.

A second step in the formation of the pressure wave hypothesis is our repeated observations from sport hunting that one only needs a handgun bullet which expands to 0.6” or 0.7” diameter to incapacitate a deer as quickly (with 2 We agree with these authors on many points, especially their correlations of bullet parameters and gelatin measurements with observed wounding. Our scientific disagreement with their work is whether easily observed wounding alone is well correlated with rapid incapacitation. To the extent that they don't claim that it is, we are not saying that they are wrong as much as their work is incomplete. (Their claim is that wounding is well correlated with reliable eventual incapacitation. Our concern is rapid incapacitation.) We disagree only with an untested hypothesis for which they offer no data. 3 The most energetic 10mm loads provide over 750 ft-lbs of energy. In an M4, the SS109 round provides 1026 ft-lbs at 50 yards and only 686 ft-lbs at 200 yards. Consequently, studying how incapacitation depends on pressure wave magnitude (related to energy) is also relevant for understanding decreasing .223 effectiveness as range is increased or barrel length is shortened. a shot to the center of the chest) as an archery broadhead of 1-3/8” to 1-1/2” cutting diameter. If the only important parameter was the amount of major blood vessels severed to create blood loss, then it stands to reason that a bullet would have to expand to a diameter comparable to that of the broadhead to have a comparable effect. Yet with full broadside penetration near the center of the chest, hunting handgun bullets that reliably expand to only 0.6” or 0.7” in the typical deer hunting cartridges will reliably incapacitate deer at least as quickly (on average) as a hunting broadhead of 1-3/8” to 1-1/2” cutting diameter. If handgun bullets produce an effect in deer that provides more rapid incapacitation than bleeding effects alone, then it stands to reason that this effect may be present in similarly-sized mammals such as
humans.

A third step in the formation of the pressure wave hypothesis is the idea that blood pressure drop due to internal bleeding takes about 5 seconds to have its effect in a best case scenario. Newgard describes this idea well [NEW92].

These theoretical ideas are confirmed by many observations of deer almost always taking 5-10 seconds to fall with any broadside archery shot hit through the center of the chest. In contrast, we have observed numerous deer drop in under 5 seconds when hit by handgun bullets creating pressure waves at the larger end of the spectrum [COC06d]. Likewise, events of apparently involuntary incapacitation in under 5 seconds are repeatedly reported in humans for handgun shots which fail to hit the CNS or supporting bone structure.

The Strasbourg tests employed a pressure sensor inserted into the carotid artery of live unanaesthetized goats [STR93]. These tests directly suggest that an internal pressure wave created by the interaction of the bullet and tissue can contribute to rapid incapacitation and can incapacitate more quickly than the crush cavity/blood loss mechanism alone: In a substantial number of cases, the subject was incapacitated almost instantly. Each time this occurred, 3 between two and five pressure spike tracings of high amplitude and short duration were found which immediately preceded and matched corresponding, diffused, or flattened lines (EEG tracings). Normally, the time lag between the first pressure spike and the beginning of slowed or flattened lines was between 30 and 40 milliseconds (although there were several cases where this delay lasted as long as 80 milliseconds)…The taller pressure spike tracings always preceded the slowed or flat line tracing…The initial spikes had to be of a certain height in order for the animal to collapse immediately."


4) how did they decide at what points brain injury happens? What is brain injury? What does probable brain injury mean exactly..100%, 40%, 10% of the brain affected?

Pages 3-4 from above pdf:
"Suneson et al. [SHS90a, SHS90b] report that peripheral high-energy missile hits cause pressure changes and damage to the nervous system. This experimental study on pigs used high-speed pressure transducers implanted in the thigh, abdomen, neck, carotid artery, and brain [SHS90a p 282]: A small transducer . . . mounted in the end of a polyethylene catheter . . . was implanted into the cerebral tissue in the left frontoparietal region about 10 mm from the midline and 5 mm beneath the brain surface through a drill hole (6-mm diameter). The sensor implanted in the brain measured pressure levels as high as 46 PSI and 50 PSI for pigs shot in the thigh as described. (See Figure 2C and 2D [SHS90a p284].) The average peak positive pressure to the brain over the different test shots with that set-up was 34.7 PSI +/- 9.7 PSI. The error range does not represent uncertainty in individual measurements, but rather uncertainty in determination of the mean because of significant shot-to-shot variations in the pressure magnitude reaching the brain. (For a given local pressure magnitude, the distant pressure magnitude will show variation.) 4 Apneic periods were observed during the first few seconds after the shot, and both blood-brain and blood-nerve barrier damage were found. They concluded that “distant effects, likely to be caused by the oscillating highfrequency pressure waves, appear in the central nervous system after a high-energy missile extremity impact.” Martin Fackler published a reply to Suneson et al., asserting that “Shock Wave” is a myth [FAC91a]:

In ascribing “local, regional, and distant injuries” to the sonic pressure wave, Suneson et al. have overlooked the effect of transmitted tissue movement from temporary cavitation. Since two distinct mechanisms are acting in the Suneson et. al experiment, one cannot arbitrarily assign any effects observed to only one of them. These and other criticisms of Suneson et al. are exaggerated [COC06a]. In fact, the results of Suneson et al. also find substantial agreement with later experiments in dogs conducted by an independent research group using a similar methodology [WWZ04]: The most prominent ultrastructural changes observed at 8 hours after impact were myelin deformation, axoplasmic shrinkage, microtubular diminution, and reactive changes of large neurons in the high-speed trauma group. These findings correspond well to the results of Suneson et al., and confirmed that distant effect exists in the central nervous system after a high-energy missile impact to an extremity. A high-frequency oscillating pressure wave with large amplitude and short duration was found in the brain after the extremity impact of a high-energy missile . . . There are a number of additional papers in the peerreviewed journals studying the damage to the central nervous system caused by pressure wave effects [TLM05 and references therein]. Since their focus is on long-term effects, this research does not reach definitive conclusions regarding whether these pressure wave effects contribute to rapid incapacitation of humans. However, there is a growing body of evidence that pressure waves near 30 PSI can cause CNS damage that would usually be undetected by a trauma surgeon or medical examiner, but can be quantified with advanced neurological techniques. There is also well-established evidence that pressure waves near 30 PSI applied to the brain can cause immediate incapacitation of laboratory animals. In a study applying a pressure wave directly to the brain via the lateral fluid percussion technique, Toth et al. [THG97] report both instantaneous incapacitation and cellular damage: The delivery of the pressure pulse was associated with brief (<120-200 sec), transient traumatic unconsciousness (as assessed by the duration of suppression of the righting reflex). One reasonably wonders what relevance these live animal experiments using the lateral fluid percussion technique to induce a pressure wave injury in laboratory animals have for understanding neurological pressure wave effects in humans. A 15-year review and evaluation of this question concluded [TLM05]:

We conclude that the lateral fluid percussion brain injury model is an appropriate tool to study the cellular and mechanistic aspects of human traumatic brain injury… Consequently, there is significant support for the hypothesis of a pressure wave contribution to incapacitation and injury not only in anecdotal observations and incapacitation studies in goats, but also in well-established results of neurological experiments. In addition, Chamberlin observed damage remote from the wound channel he ascribed to the hydraulic reaction of body fluids [CHA66]. Tikka et al. showed that ballistic pressure waves originating in the thigh reach the abdomen. Wounding and delayed recovery of peripheral nerves have been reported [LDL45, PGM46]. Pressure waves cause compound action potentials in peripheral nerves [WES82], and ballistic pressure waves have been shown capable of breaking bones [MYR88].

In summary, there are published results showing that a pressure wave can cause rapid neurological incapacitation and/or injury in goats [STR93], dogs [WWZ04], swine [SHS90a], several species of laboratory rats [THG97, TLM05], and even in whales [KNO03]. In many of these cases, detecting wounding requires advanced techniques such as electron microscopy, cellular analysis, EEG monitoring, and sophisticated chemical analysis. A study in humans also demonstrates the potential for pressure wave injury [OBW94]."


5) why are there no other bullets known for effectiveness on here for comparison, like the .45 or .357 magnum?
Not sure, the chart only shows data for 9mm and 40S&W.


Author of 135gr JHP comparison test: http://www.handgunsmag.com/tactics_training/HG_mattburkett_200901/index.html
Matt Burkett By James Tarr
In his career as a professional shooter, Matt Burkett has won more than 150 state, national and world titles, including an IDPA National Championship and five MGM Iron Man 3-Gun Championships, produced a highly regarded DVD series teaching practical shooting and currently hosts his own weekly internet radio show.

[bds]

"Relative incapacitation contributions of pressure wave"
If handgun bullets produce an effect in deer that provides more rapid incapacitation than bleeding effects alone [from archery broadhead of 1-3/8” to 1-1/2” cutting diameter], then it stands to reason that this effect may be present in similarly-sized mammals such as humans.

... These theoretical ideas are confirmed by many observations of deer almost always taking 5-10 seconds to fall with any broadside archery shot hit through the center of the chest. In contrast, we have observed numerous deer drop in under 5 seconds when hit by handgun bullets creating pressure waves at the larger end of the spectrum. Likewise, events of apparently involuntary incapacitation in under 5 seconds are repeatedly reported in humans for handgun shots which fail to hit the CNS or supporting bone structure.

... The Strasbourg tests employed a pressure sensor inserted into the carotid artery of live unanaesthetized goats. These tests directly suggest that an internal pressure wave created by the interaction of the bullet and tissue can contribute to rapid incapacitation and can incapacitate more quickly than the crush cavity/blood loss mechanism alone. In a substantial number of cases, the subject was incapacitated almost instantly. Each time this occurred, between two and five pressure spike tracings of high amplitude and short duration were found which immediately preceded and matched corresponding, diffused, or flattened lines (EEG tracings).

... there is significant support for the hypothesis of a pressure wave contribution to incapacitation and injury not only in anecdotal observations and incapacitation studies in goats, but also in well-established results of neurological experiments. In addition, Chamberlin observed damage remote from the wound channel he ascribed to the hydraulic reaction of body fluids. Tikka et al. showed that ballistic pressure waves originating in the thigh reach the abdomen. Wounding and delayed recovery of peripheral nerves have been reported. Pressure waves cause compound action potentials in peripheral nerves, and ballistic pressure waves have been shown capable of breaking bones

[REAPER4206969]

*facepalm*

[bds]

Oh no you did'int! You're really going to get it now... *facepalm*


You did warn me ... I had no choice, I got called out. :D

[NG VI]

The most powerful service caliber handgun loads only have 20-30% less impact energy than the .223 Remington.

Not true at all, unless you are counting .44 magnum as a 'service caliber'.

ballistic pressure waves have been shown capable of breaking bones [MYR88].


Not in handguns they haven't.

The most energetic 10mm loads provide over 750 ft-lbs of energy. In an M4, the SS109 round provides 1026 ft-lbs at 50 yards and only 686 ft-lbs at 200 yards.


So a mediocre at best .223 out of the worst-case scenario platform for it delivers roughly the same energy at 200 yards that the most hot-rodded, best-case scenario, energy at the cost of all else 10mm load can possibly do at the muzzle?

Doesn't exactly strike me as proof of the superiority or equivalence of the service caliber handgun.

[bds]

NG VI, the original post was:
If you carried .40 for SD, would you consider the new(ish) 135gr .40 rounds. The published numbers are 1325fps and 526ftlbs. What disadvantages might this have over other .40 rounds?

I was posting comparison data what 135gr disadvantages are in respect to other 40S&W rounds (155gr/165gr/180gr).

Like I posted before, I did not make the chart nor run the tests. If you have questions regarding their (MIT and Harvard grads) paper, you might email them:

Michael Courtney, PhD
Ballistics Testing Group, P.O. Box 24, West Point, NY 10996
Michael_Courtney@alum.mit.edu

Amy Courtney, PhD
Department of Physics, United States Military Academy, West Point, NY 10996
Amy_Courtney@post.harvard.edu

[NG VI]

Gotcha, however, stating even in a quote that the best service-caliber handgun loads have anywhere near 20-30% less than run-of-the-mill .223/5.56 muzzle energy is just ridiculous.

You should post it with a disclaimer that it isn't true and you know it, otherwise you'll come out looking like you believe in voodoo magic that makes a service pistol nearly equal to a .223 carbine.

They are not, even the best of them and the worst .223 is not even close to a thirty percent difference. I would take any M4gery over any service handgun, any day of the week.

I think your presentation needs some polishing, the way it is now it just looks like you actually think a 10mm has a chance in hell of being as effective as a .223 rifle.

[OldCavSoldier]

When I practice at the range and carry my .40cal Sig P239, it has 180 grain Win JHPs in the spout, in the mag and in the second mag. I don't carry it very often, preferring something else, but, those 180s sure do a "damn damn" on what I hit!

[bds]

stating even in a quote that the best service-caliber handgun loads have anywhere near 20-30% less than run-of-the-mill .223/5.56 muzzle energy is just ridiculous.

You should post it with a disclaimer that it isn't true and you know it, otherwise you'll come out looking like you believe in voodoo magic that makes a service pistol nearly equal to a .223 carbine.

They are not, even the best of them and the worst .223 is not even close to a thirty percent difference. I would take any M4gery over any service handgun, any day of the week.

I think your presentation needs some polishing, the way it is now it just looks like you actually think a 10mm has a chance in hell of being as effective as a .223 rifle.

As you already quoted, in the paper they state "impact energy" not "muzzle energy" and in the footnote, they compare 10mm muzzle energy (750 ft-lbs) with M4 SS109 round's terminal energy of 1026 ft-lbs at 50 yards (686 ft-lbs at 200 yards) to get the 20-30% less figure. They used already well published energy/ballistics data for their paper and they are referenced on pages 13-14. Here are their credentials and I deem them well qualified to discuss ballistics energy data.

About the Authors:
Amy Courtney currently serves on the faculty of the United States Military Academy at West Point. She earned a MS in Biomedical Engineering from Harvard University and a PhD in Medical Engineering and Medical Physics from a joint Harvard/MIT program. She has taught Anatomy and Physiology as well as Physics. She has served as a research scientist at the Cleveland Clinic and Western Carolina University, as well as on the Biomedical Engineering faculty of The Ohio State University.

Michael Courtney earned a PhD in experimental Physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has served as the Director of the Forensic Science Program at Western Carolina University and also been a Physics Professor, teaching Physics, Statistics, and Forensic Science. Michael and his wife, Amy, founded the Ballistics Testing Group in 2001 to study incapacitation ballistics and the reconstruction of shooting events. www.ballisticstestinggroup.org

Now, can we get back to the original post of how 135gr round compares to other 40S&W rounds?

[easyg]

ballistic pressure waves have been shown capable of breaking bones [MYR88].


Not in handguns they haven't.
Actually the pressure of a handgun round can break bones.
I've seen it first hand.

About nine years ago I X-rayed a woman who committed suicide by shooting herself in the head with a .38 revolver.
The bullet entered the right side of the skull and traveled through the brain toward the left side but failed to exit the skull.
Not only was the skull fractured at the entry site but it was also shattered at the top and base of the skull.
The right orbit was blown out as well even though it too was not in the path of the bullet at all.
When I moved the patient's head it felt like a sack of broken glass.
The skull was so shattered that it was difficult to determine which side was the face (the head was bagged by the police to preserve evidence).
So even though the bullet traveled from the right temple toward the left temple, it totally shattered the skull in all directions.

Now I'm not saying that a bullet in the chest is going to damage a person's brain (excluding a possible embolism from the intermittent disruption of blood-flow to the brain), but I don't believe that the pressure from a handgun round is something to be totally dismissed.
If a boxer can damage a kidney just from a well landed punch to the kidney area (with no penetration or expansion at all) I can believe that the pressure from a bullet passing just a hair's width by the kidney would have some kind of effect, however mild.

Don't get me wrong....I'm a firm believer in shot placement, penetration, expansion, and permanent wound channel.
But I'm certain that energy does factor in as well.

[REAPER4206969]

So even though the bullet traveled from the right temple toward the left temple, it totally shattered the skull in all directions.
Was it a contact shot?

[easyg]

No one actually witnessed the lady pulling the trigger, but on the radiograph you can clearly see the path of the bullet....

It traveled from the right temple to to the left side of the skull and did not exit the left side of the skull.

[Zundfolge]

Ok, lets drag this one back into the realm of reality.

First off, there is not a SIGNIFICANT difference in "Stopping Power" between the various weights of .40S&W (just like there's not really a SIGNIFICANT difference between most common handgun calibers).

There is no "magic bullet weight" that is going to turn .40S&W into full house 10mm.

So you really have two options:


If you shot A LOT; buy JHPs that are the same weight as whatever FMJ's you're buying in bulk.
If you shoot A LITTLE; buy a couple boxes of each weight, go to the range and stick with the weight you find you shoot best with (some guns will like one weight over another).


I thought that the idea behind .40 S&W was to replicate .45 ACP performance (or close) but get a much higher amount of ammo than is conventionally possible. I would much rather have the heavier weighted bullet.
No, the idea of the .40S&W was to replicate the 10mm "FBI Load" in a smaller case so they could use a 9mm sized frame so it would be better for shooters with smaller hands (that and the size of the 10mm case was a waste for the weaker FBI load). Increased magazine capacity was a non issue since the same length mag is going to hold the same number of rounds of either 10mm or .40 since they're both the same diameter.

The point of 10mm was to deliver "magnum power" in a service auto. The problem with 10mm is it required bigger heavier guns that recoiled much heavier than many smaller, weaker (read: female) FBI agents could handle ... so they loaded the 10mm weaker so that the recoil would be less of a problem ... Smith & Wesson saw the opportunity to make a new caliber based on the weaker 10mm FBI load so they shortened the case and the .40S&W was born.


One after thought ... if you have a first generation .40 Glock stay away from the 180gr because it was the combination of the 180gr (with very full cases so the slightest bullet setback from loading and unloading the gun would cause severe spikes in case pressure) mixed with the first gen .40 Glock barrels having unsupported chambers causing the infamous Glock kBs!

[davezander]

supposedly the 135 grain has documented more one shot kills than the heavier bullets in the 40SW.

[NG VI]

So, you are comparing the impact energy at fifty yards of an M4 with M855/SS109 to a hotrodded, possibly inflated 10mm at the muzzle? that seems awfully optimistic to me, not to mention that the almighty ten has a little more recoil than many shooters are comfortable with, which is a big part of the reason it hasn't been a major commercial success.

And the M4 still has about 300 foot pounds more energy even with that unfair comparison, I mean, generally someone you have to shoot at fifty yards isn't going to allow you to walk up and deliver a shot at five paces with your pistol. The M4 is also getting that energy almost purely with velocity, since it's got such a light bullet, hell even at 200 yards it has nearly as much energy as that hopeful 10mm load at the muzzle.

I still think that in order to get speeds that can cause any significant wounding out of a handgun, you either need to reduce projectile weight well into the arena of diminishing returns, pump the recoil level up with something like the 9x25 Dillon and little bullets, or both.

[The Tennessean]

supposedly the 135 grain has documented more one shot kills than the heavier bullets in the 40SW.

Are there numbers to backup this claim?

[NG VI]

The 135s are also the most erratically performing weight class in .40.

[Zundfolge]

supposedly the 135 grain has documented more one shot kills than the heavier bullets in the 40SW.
Considering the fact that its the least used weight, I highly doubt that.

[freakshow10mm]

The problem with 10mm is it required bigger heavier guns that recoiled much heavier than many smaller, weaker (read: female) FBI agents could handle ... so they loaded the 10mm weaker so that the recoil would be less of a problem ...
Completely false. The FBI load of the 10mm Automatic cartridge was a 180gr JHP at 980fps. This is what was tested during the infamous 1986 trials and the load that marginally beat the .45 ACP in all tests. The FBI never ever tested or issues full power original Norma spec 10mm Automatic ammunition. Ever. The only load they ever used was the standard 180gr JHP at 980fps. The "heavy recoil" statement is an internet myth that simply won't die.

The forthcoming of the .40 S&W was politics and money. The FBI was training their agents to prep the trigger. This wore the firing system faster and the FBI told S&W their guns needed to be changed. S&W told the FBI to train their agents properly. The FBI got pissed and canceled the contract of the S&W guns. During this time S&W and Winchester began developing a shorter 10mm caliber cartridge that duplicated the FBI ballistics of the 10mm Automatic but in a smaller frame gun. They named it the .40 S&W. S&W knew it was a win for them as far as cartridge selection goes based on previous business with the FBI. If the FBI wasn't going to buy S&W guns, then they were going to use a cartridge with the S&W name on it and they knew the FBI couldn't refuse it because it met the ballistic requirements, price point, and no other 10mm guns were offered in the new contract bid as S&W was the only major player that could meet the demands and they held out from the gun contract. Winchester paid S&W royalties for the first few years on the .40 S&W ammo sold to to the FBI by Winchester. S&W got the last laugh at the FBI in that circus. Winchester jacked the price up on the ammo for the FBI enough to give S&W the same profit they would if they had filled the gun contract for the 10mm. Winchester got their standard cut, the "over-profit" went to S&W as a favor.

That is the real and true history of the 10mm/.40 FBI/S&W relationship as told by an FBI agent who was there and personally handloaded the test ammo for the 10mm Automatic himself because Norma couldn't get ammo in time for the test. One of the stipulations was recoil could be no more than standard .45 ACP GI ball ammunition. The 10mm 180gr JHP at 980fps does not exceed that. Another reason why the "heavy recoil" statement of the 10mm/FBI history is false. If the 10mm recoiled more than the .45 ACP in a 1911, it would be immediately disqualified from the trials.

[freakshow10mm]

BTW, a light JHP in teh .40 is OK if you want extremely limited penetration, like sub 12 inches. I used to load the .40 135gr Nosler JHP in my ammunition catalog to 1430fps and sold a lot of it. Like I said, if you like limited penetration it's the way to go.