What happened to 40 caliber?

WrongHanded said:

I know exactly what you mean, and I couldn't agree more. This thread will be closed soon. We've all seen the progression before many times.

Click to expand...

PM sent

mcb said:

You guys just need to go out and shoot more stuff with more different guns. I love a good theoretical or empirical argument but at some point you need to go shoot ****.

Click to expand...

WAIT!! ....before they go off to shoot i need to know if ANY of these .40s could make a larger wound channel than the all-knowing FBI's favorite 9mm round...

mcb said:

You guys just need to go out and shoot more stuff with more different guns. I love a good theoretical or empirical argument but at some point you need to go shoot ****.

Click to expand...

Great advice. But as I haven't been in a good position to take game since I took an interest in doing so, I'll just have to rely on the results of others for now.

mcb said:

You guys just need to go out and shoot more stuff with more different guns. I love a good theoretical or empirical argument but at some point you need to go shoot ****.

Click to expand...

That's the problem I have with the other side of this argument. My dad graduated veterinary school the year I was born 1965 and my brother graduated my junior year. I grew up and worked in a veterinary clinic have taken and developed X-Rays back before digital, witnesses many surgeries even had to scrub in once so I could hand dad instruments because my brother had to bag the dog when dad opens the chest cavity. So I have a pretty good understanding of anatomy.
Also these two were my hunting buddies for my entire adult life so not only have I seen how they react to the bullet wound and visual inspection of them, often field dressing turns into a quasi autopsy.
So often the arguments here look at these things independently.
The ME has no idea how the dead guy reacted to being shot.
And the officer has no idea medically why the guy fell down.

WrongHanded said:

You misunderstood the import of the Ellifritz data, and believed that the small calibers "outperformed" the large

I didn't misunderstand it. I just ignored it. Like you have repeatedly ignored information I have presented. But do I believe smaller calibers outperform larger ones? At the same velocity, with the same or similar bullet design, I believe the opposite is true. You're the one pushing the narrative that smaller calibers are just as good.

Click to expand...

Out of curiosity why would you ignore this study if you're looking for accurate information? It's based on actual shootings, not tests using gel blocks or animals which can not factor in things such as psychological stops, determined attackers, the mentally ill, people on drugs, etc. As I said before my only bias is towards accurate information which will allow me to make the choice which will give me the greatest odds of protecting myself or my family. I would think that would be everyone's goal. If I come across information which shows me there's a better option for me than what I currently carry I'd make that change today.

TomJ said:

Out of curiosity why would you ignore this study if you're looking for accurate information? It's based on actual shootings, not tests using gel blocks or animals which can not factor in things such as psychological stops, determined attackers, the mentally ill, people on drugs, etc. As I said before my only bias is towards accurate information which will allow me to make the choice which will give me the greatest odds of protecting myself or my family. I would think that would be everyone's goal. If I come across information which shows me there's a better option for me than what I currently carry I'd make that change today.

Click to expand...

Actually, I just said that I ignored it. The truth is, I just don't recognize the name from all the information I've been looking over in the past few days. I probably looked at it. I certainly looked at it if it were presented (because I do that). However I did not want to scroll back through everything to see what he was referring to. Kleanbore has been busy misquoting and misrepresenting what I've been saying (typical tactic), and I'm pretty sick of it to be honest. I'm simply not inclined to go back through all my previous post to find evidence of what I actually said in order to disprove his misrepresentation of my comments.

So basically Tom, I just got lazy with my reply there.

WrongHanded said:

Actually, I just said that I ignored it. The truth is, I just don't recognize the name from all the information I've been looking over in the past few days. I probably looked at it. I certainly looked at it if it were presented (because I do that). However I did not want to scroll back through everything to see what he was referring to. Kleanbore has been busy misquoting and misrepresenting what I've been saying (typical tactic), and I'm pretty sick of it to be honest. I'm simply not inclined to go back through all my previous post to find evidence of what I actually said in order to disprove his misrepresentation of my comments.

So basically Tom, I just got lazy with my reply there.

Click to expand...

Got it. My take away from the study is that using the common defensive rounds, on average it takes 2 to 3 rounds to stop an attacker. That's an average and I understand the problem with using averages as situations differ. I'm limited to pocket carry as carrying IWB or OWB aggravates my back so a 9mm is the best option for me. What this study and information from other knowledgeable people in the industry did was make me comfortable with that option. I get that others prefer larger calibers and don't have my limitation, so if that's the right choice for them then that's what they should carry.

TomJ said:

Got it. My take away from the study is that using the common defensive rounds, on average it takes 2 to 3 rounds to stop an attacker. That's an average and I understand the problem with using averages as situations differ. I'm limited to pocket carry as carrying IWB or OWB aggravates my back so a 9mm is the best option for me. What this study and information from other knowledgeable people in the industry did was make me comfortable with that option. I get that others prefer larger calibers and don't have my limitation, so if that's the right choice for them then that's what they should carry.

Click to expand...

I understand exactly what you're saying, and see how you would come to that conclusion.

My main point here is that velocity* is a critical component of a bullet's ability to create wounding outside the diameter of the rush channel. Many but not all "common defensive rounds" do not have a whole lot of velocity to begin with. Then they lose some due to bullet expansion and have even less to create the type of wounding I'm describing. .357 Sig, .357 Magnum, some .40S&W, and 10mm, all seem to have ample velocity available if the right load is selected. And whilst some have less, they also are typically using heavier bullets that can better conserve the velocity they do have.

*I have previously mentioned energy rather than velocity. Particularly when talking of Fackler's examination of handgun wounds, where the cartridges presented had less than 350ftlbs of energy, and also velocity under 1000fps pre-expansion. When suggesting cartridges of 500ftlbs would have different results, my meaning was not to simply increase weight to attain the additional energy, but rather primarily velocity, (potentially combined with weight). I used energy in that instance, as a benchmark more than as a critical metric.

WrongHanded said:

I understand exactly what you're saying, and see how you would come to that conclusion.

My main point here is that velocity* is a critical component of a bullet's ability to create wounding outside the diameter of the rush channel. Many but not all "common defensive rounds" do not have a whole lot of velocity to begin with. Then they lose some due to bullet expansion and have even less to create the type of wounding I'm describing. .357 Sig, .357 Magnum, some .40S&W, and 10mm, all seem to have ample velocity available if the right load is selected. And whilst some have less, they also are typically using heavier bullets that can better conserve the velocity they do have.

*I have previously mentioned energy rather than velocity. Particularly when talking of Fackler's examination of handgun wounds, where the cartridges presented had less than 350ftlbs of energy, and also velocity under 1000fps pre-expansion. When suggesting cartridges of 500ftlbs would have different results, my meaning was not to simply increase weight to attain the additional energy, but rather primarily velocity, (potentially combined with weight). I used energy in that instance, as a benchmark more than as a critical metric.

Click to expand...

I'm not qualified to have an opinion on that, so in the interest of not embarrassing myself by commenting on something I know nothing about I'll let other, more knowledgable people continue to have that discussion.

WrongHanded said:

I understand exactly what you're saying, and see how you would come to that conclusion.

My main point here is that velocity* is a critical component of a bullet's ability to create wounding outside the diameter of the rush channel. Many but not all "common defensive rounds" do not have a whole lot of velocity to begin with. Then they lose some due to bullet expansion and have even less to create the type of wounding I'm describing. .357 Sig, .357 Magnum, some .40S&W, and 10mm, all seem to have ample velocity available if the right load is selected. And whilst some have less, they also are typically using heavier bullets that can better conserve the velocity they do have.

*I have previously mentioned energy rather than velocity. Particularly when talking of Fackler's examination of handgun wounds, where the cartridges presented had less than 350ftlbs of energy, and also velocity under 1000fps pre-expansion. When suggesting cartridges of 500ftlbs would have different results, my meaning was not to simply increase weight to attain the additional energy, but rather primarily velocity, (potentially combined with weight). I used energy in that instance, as a benchmark more than as a critical metric.

Click to expand...

I grew up with my nose in gun rags like Guns and Ammo and American Rifleman and books Skeeter, Keith, Jordan, Cooper and even some O'Connor. I was reading reloading manuals when my friends were reading comic books.
I was already deeply involved in gun culture when The Miami shootout happened.
Before that the Relative Incapacitation Index (RII) and Evan Marshall's one shot stop was popular.
These theories big temporary cavities work great, The 1986 shooting showed the problem with these theories that if they don't go deep enough to damage the right stuff they can fail miserable. IMHO HWFE was too much of a knee jerk reaction going 180 from the temporary cavity is most important to it's irrelevant and doesn't even really exist.
Both wounding mechanisms exist and adequate penetration should always be the first consideration, if recoil is manageable bigger holes work better.

I think arguing about what incremental difference two bullets of close but not identical calibers will do….unless y’all carry single shot handguns, is silly.

Chances are you’ll be able to fire more than one shot. If not, where you hit with your one round still matters way more than what caliber it was, assuming it was a common self defense cartridge. And even if you do get more shots off and connect…they need to be good shots!

Long live the .40 S&W! I like the round!

Back to the original question, I’ll add this. Lots of tacti-cool clowns on the Interwebs love to pontificate on how bad the 40 “short and weak” is while spouting the glories and awesome power of their bad 10MM. The guy on Military Arms Channel is a big .40 hater. I get folks saying they prefer the 9MM or .45, but no need to hate on the round.

I think the popularity of the 10MM may be sucking some of the life out of the .40 as well as the stupid remarks disparaging it from internet talking heads. Of course, the FBI 9MM conversion was the big catalyst, all else like LEO units is just ‘piling on’. All IMO!

.40 S&W is a good round…it works…it has more recoil than 9MM and why I don’t carry it much anymore.

I was stupid for not ordering a dozen LEO trade in Glock 22’s back before the China virus. I could have sold half and paid for the others while making enough to buy all my reloading gear!


All IMHO and YMMV.

Buzznrose said:

Back to the original question, I’ll add this. Lots of tacti-cool clowns on the Interwebs love to pontificate on how bad the 40 “short and weak” is while spouting the glories and awesome power of their bad 10MM. The guy on Military Arms Channel is a big .40 hater. I get folks saying they prefer the 9MM or .45, but no need to hate on the round.

I think the popularity of the 10MM may be sucking some of the life out of the .40 as well as the stupid remarks disparaging it from internet talking heads. Of course, the FBI 9MM conversion was the big catalyst, all else like LEO units is just ‘piling on’. All IMO!

.40 S&W is a good round…it works…it has more recoil than 9MM and why I don’t carry it much anymore.

I was stupid for not ordering a dozen LEO trade in Glock 22’s back before the China virus. I could have sold half and paid for the others while making enough to buy all my reloading gear!


All IMHO and YMMV.

Click to expand...

Its all kind of silly to me actually. Sometimes people shoot 40S&W through a small, light pistol and then decide they hate the recoil or snap. Out of a full size pistol with some weight and its not a big deal. I dont even notice any harshness. My Ruger P series 40s handle it just fine. As does my CZ40B. Even the Sigmas are comfortable for me and those are pretty small and light for a 40S&W.

Most of the 40 Short and week talking crowd are running watered down 10mm out of there pistols so its just placebo or ego. I like the 10mm as well but I dont see the point if you are not running full power loads with it. Its kind of like running soft 357sig loads to 9mm levels just to say you shoot or carry 357sig.

For a subcompact I like 9mm or 380acp though.

Buzznrose said:

Lots of tacti-cool clowns on the Interwebs love to pontificate on how bad the 40 “short and weak” is...

Click to expand...

Try HKPRO!!!

The Glockodile said:

Try HKPRO!!!

Click to expand...

Don’t know what that is? An energy drink?

WrongHanded said:

I'm going to make this clear. I've seen the evidence disproving Fackler's concept. I've explained how others (you included) can easily attain the same or similar evidence simply by asking handgun hunters for it. I do not care what you personally continue to believe.

If I provided this evidence to you, you would not thank me. You would not admit that you were wrong and that Fackler was wrong. You would either disappear, only to reappear at some point in the future spouting the same things. Or you would create strawman arguments or use logical fallacies to try and question the evidence.

Click to expand...

I was expecting to interpret the mechanisms behind the wounding effects (i.e., why the bullet caused the damage it did) for everybody following this thread. Only you can provide the evidence to support your own dispute. When you refuse then that's on you. You discredit and damage your own credibility.

When something's different, which you claim about handgun hunting, then there's a reason for it. For example, Evan Marshall, author of the One-Shot Stopping Power studies, would show photos of handgun bullets recovered from bodies that didn't look like expanded handgun bullets recovered from gelatin, and exclaim, "See... bullets recovered from bodies don't look like bullets recovered from gelatin!" Many of these handgun bullets would look smashed, gouged, misshapen, etc., like they passed through an intervening obstacle prior to hitting the body or they hit a solid bone somewhere along the wound track through soft tissues. By not providing all the information about the circumstances of the bullet's path, Marshall was being dishonest. Knowing what the bullet encountered from the time it exits the muzzle until it comes to a stop is important information. As Fackler proved, when something's different then one must look deeper to identify the exact circumstances involved.

Fackler once stated, "The field is the ultimate laboratory."

WrongHanded said:

Examples would be claiming that deer don't have arms, or that the tissues of every living big game animal wee somehow different from human tissues. Or you would argue that there was some magical threshold on velocity or energy that you cannot quantify, and then suggested we'd all have to carry .44 magnums to see these results in defensive shooting.

Click to expand...

Human arms have a pesky way of getting in the way a bullet's path to the torso. Arms are commonly hit during shootings. Personally, I've been shot many times in the arms with Simunitions-FX marking projectiles and airsoft pellets during force-on-force training. Human arms add several inches to the bullet penetration path. When a bullet has to penetrate several inches of arm then that penetration potential is subtracted from the amount that's left for the bullet to penetrate the torso to reach and damage vitals after it exits the arm.

Also, a "high-energy" expanding JHP handgun bullet that allegedly has magical and mysterious powers to cause instant incapacitation of violent felons loses this magical and mysterious power when it hits and expands in an arm blocking its path to the torso because the maximum temporary cavity is produced in the arm instead the torso.

Deer don't have arms that get in the way of handgun bullets like human arms commonly do.

WrongHanded said:

Zealots don't change. The evidence is easily attainable, you just refuse it.

Click to expand...

If you have a dispute, and a claim that something's wrong, then its up to you to show us why. More so when you demand the same of others.

I'm not here to change your mind. It's closed.

I'm only participating in this thread because you've given me the opportunity to introduce those who are following it, and who are interested in learning more about wound ballistics, to the many sources of valid and verified information that has led to the modern defensive handgun ammunition that's available today.

Shawn Dodson said:

I was expecting to interpret the mechanisms behind the wounding effects (i.e., why the bullet caused the damage it did) for everybody following this thread. Only you can provide the evidence to support your own dispute. When you refuse then that's on you. You discredit and damage your own credibility.

When something's different, which you claim about handgun hunting, then there's a reason for it. For example, Evan Marshall, author of the One-Shot Stopping Power studies, would show photos of handgun bullets recovered from bodies that didn't look like expanded handgun bullets recovered from gelatin, and exclaim, "See... bullets recovered from bodies don't look like bullets recovered from gelatin!" Many of these handgun bullets would look smashed, gouged, misshapen, etc., like they passed through an intervening obstacle prior to hitting the body or they hit a solid bone somewhere along the wound track through soft tissues. By not providing all the information about the circumstances of the bullet's path, Marshall was being dishonest. Knowing what the bullet encountered from the time it exits the muzzle until it comes to a stop is important information. As Fackler proved, when something's different then one must look deeper to identify the exact circumstances involved.

Fackler once stated, "The field is the ultimate laboratory."



Human arms have a pesky way of getting in the way a bullet's path to the torso. Arms are commonly hit during shootings. Personally, I've been shot many times in the arms with Simunitions-FX marking projectiles and airsoft pellets during force-on-force training. Human arms add several inches to the bullet penetration path. When a bullet has to penetrate several inches of arm then that penetration potential is subtracted from the amount that's left for the bullet to penetrate the torso to reach and damage vitals after it exits the arm.

Also, a "high-energy" expanding JHP handgun bullet that allegedly has magical and mysterious powers to cause instant incapacitation of violent felons loses this magical and mysterious power when it hits and expands in an arm blocking its path to the torso because the maximum temporary cavity is produce in the arm instead the torso.

Deer don't have arms that get in the way of handgun bullets like human arms commonly do.


If you have a dispute, and a claim that something's wrong, then its up to you to show us why.

I'm not here to change your mind. It's closed.

I'm only participating in this thread because you've given me the opportunity to introduce those who are following it, and who are interested in learning more about wound ballistics, to the many sources of valid and verified information that has led to the modern defensive handgun ammunition that's available today.

Click to expand...

Look at example number 2 on page 4.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...MQFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1LWkrR3KCXnNX_ZjZ6Ip3v

starling said:

Its all kind of silly to me actually. Sometimes people shoot 40S&W through a small, light pistol and then decide they hate the recoil or snap. Out of a full size pistol with some weight and its not a big deal. I dont even notice any harshness. My Ruger P series 40s handle it just fine. As does my CZ40B. Even the Sigmas are comfortable for me and those are pretty small and light for a 40S&W.

Click to expand...

Another variable people often overlook.
Many of the various duty size guns like the P89 vs P91 and my FNS 40 vs a FNS 9mm have deeper scallops on the 9 version so the slide on the 40 is slightly heavier and the recoil is pretty tame.
Also there's a double whammy with a pocket rocket 40s like my Walther PPS the high velocity loads that produce 500+ ft lbs from a duty gun, lose enough velocity to drop well below 500 ft lbs.

Shawn Dodson said:

For example, Evan Marshall, author of the One-Shot Stopping Power studies, would show photos of handgun bullets recovered from bodies that didn't look like expanded handgun bullets recovered from gelatin, and exclaim, "See... bullets recovered from bodies don't look like bullets recovered from gelatin!" Many of these handgun bullets would look smashed, gouged, misshapen, etc., like they passed through an intervening obstacle prior to hitting the body or they hit a solid bone somewhere along the wound track through soft tissues. By not providing all the information about the circumstances of the bullet's path, Marshall was being dishonest.

Click to expand...

What???
That's literally the point he was making that body's have bones that deform bullets unlike gel.

Correct Mavracer. You know your stuff. Slide weights...

P91DC ... 14oz... factory recoil spring 20lbs
P89DC.... 13.4oz ... factory recoil spring 11lbs

I do some conversions on platforms I like and slide weight is always a factor. Im always trying to kind the heaviest slides possible for 357sig when I can get the barrels (none out there for the P91 that I have ever seen). My Sigma 357sig conversions have heavy slides.

P series pistols can take a massive pounding due to their frame strength. Very thick and strong Aluminum in critical areas. Still good to have that weight up top to slow down the slide speed. Only other way to do it really is to port or comp it. Heavy slides are a very good thing in my experience.

Hey @Shawn Dodson if you don't want to read too much, just scroll down and look at the pictures.

https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/.357+Magnum.html

Alternatively, you could do some reading and learn something new.

Shawn Dodson said:

Deer don't have arms that get in the way of handgun bullets like human arms commonly do.

Click to expand...

LOL

Shawn Dodson said:

I'm not here to change your mind. It's closed.

Click to expand...

Pot meet kettle
Hunters quite frequently hit the humerus (upper arm bone for a human) bone of the front leg, they also have a good chance of the scapula (shoulder blade) getting in the path when hunting from an elevated position.
Hunters do have the ability to mitigate this if they're very choosy about their shots most just choose something bigger than a 9mm.
Seems like and extra dumb argument to choose a 9mm because you might hit an arm and waste the good part of the temporary cavity instead of shooting a more powerful round that carries a larger wound deeper.

Kleanbore said:

I cannot see any way to reasonably disagree with that. given that "manageable" is a an objectively measurable thing,

Click to expand...

Really how much is manageable?
And we need to do it how you want us to objectively measure bullet performance.
You have no idea the person's size, age, condition or ability.