Although I will read to inform myself, I don't automatically adapt any law enforcement criteria on face value. I, and I alone, make my choices for self defense and the 40 S&W is part of MY choice. Don't be such a follower but look at your criteria and objectives and select what is right for YOU. If that is 9MM then go for it.
"40 is a dead caliber"
- Thread starter Elkins45
- Start date
- Status
harrygunner
Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,045
When the FBI set up tests for ammo to replace the 9mm, they had written criteria for success and ammo was fired to assess their meeting of those written goals.
The reports Urey Patrick's 1989 "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness" and Patrick's "10mm Notes" had the 10mm first, the .45ACP, a close second. The 10mm was selected because they concluded the .45ACP has peaked in configuration options while the 10mm had more potential for performance growth. We all know that the 40S&W is the 10mm that's "good enough" to meet those criteria.
Regardless of what was chosen, the point is, they had a fairly methodical approach to selecting ammo.
Compared to that past, much more thorough effort, their recent "report" selecting 9mm was "Meh, whatever".
Their moving away from the .40S&W did not impress me in the least.
The reports Urey Patrick's 1989 "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness" and Patrick's "10mm Notes" had the 10mm first, the .45ACP, a close second. The 10mm was selected because they concluded the .45ACP has peaked in configuration options while the 10mm had more potential for performance growth. We all know that the 40S&W is the 10mm that's "good enough" to meet those criteria.
Regardless of what was chosen, the point is, they had a fairly methodical approach to selecting ammo.
Compared to that past, much more thorough effort, their recent "report" selecting 9mm was "Meh, whatever".
Their moving away from the .40S&W did not impress me in the least.
Alec
Member
I've often heard about "technology advancements" in bullets and powder that have improved a certain cartridge beyond its original design specifications. Surely whatever these advancements are (and I've yet to hear a technical explanation) would apply to any cartridge, except, perhaps, those for which no commercial loading or brass exists. Yes?
M1GarandDeerHunter
Member
Hardly. Millions of pistols say not.
Well, yes and no. For all of .40 or 10mm's power, actually converting that momentum into a significantly larger wound is not simply a design problem. .40 is a stubby cartridge, and the ideal bullet design to make a .40" diameter projectile really open up may require a longer bullet than what fits in a .40 case (for instance).
The other problem is just a threshold thing - virtually no handgun cartridge can produce rifle level hydrostatic shock, so it just comes down to how much hole it makes. And it appears that with good bullets, the kind of cartridges that can be chambered in a combat type pistol produce similar enough wounds because they really are much more similar than different. .40 might be viewed as an inefficient cartridge - like an inefficient engine, it does the same work despite using more gas.
I think the FBI, who pretty much created .40 ballistics, didn't apply the amount of science they did to wound ballistics to the ergonomic problem of heavy recoil-impulse ammunition. They were coming off 10mm, so everything probably seemed like an improvement, but they selected a platform that wasn't designed around .40 and ended up with an agent/firearm combo that was less effective than it should have been. If they had gone with something like LEM USPs they would probably have put the move back to 9mm off for another decade.
NWcityguy2
Member
Do you have a James Yeager video to go with that? 40's don't wear out faster than 9mm guns, even in competitive shooting circles, let alone Law Enforcement.
Last edited:
That's one of the primary reasons the FBI is getting rid of theirs. If 9mm Glocks last for hundreds of thousands of rounds, do you really think they'd be complaining if they were getting 100,000 rounds out of their G22s?
.40 has the higher recoil impulse than even .45. Many 9mm designed platforms don't hold up to that.
I think the whole 40 beating guns to death thing is overblown and old news. I will say that a gun not designed around the .40, like the Glocks and 92 series, might be battered more, but I think most polymer guns designed around potential LE and Military use use 40 pressures and kinetics as a base model knowing that 9mm variations will more than stand up to what is thrown at them.
I know the FNS line of pistols was designed with .40 in mind and I believe that even the little Beretta Nano was built to 40 spec before being released only in 9mm.
I know the FNS line of pistols was designed with .40 in mind and I believe that even the little Beretta Nano was built to 40 spec before being released only in 9mm.
NWcityguy2
Member
Instead of speaking in generalities, which parts are you alleging wear out faster?
What you are saying has already failed the test of time, because it is common for competitive shooters to shoot a gun several thousand rounds a year, for several years, with almost non-existent maintenance costs. This is, and has been, happening at the local level for years. 9mm, 40, 45, 9mm major, 38 super. There are no modern semi-auto handguns out there that have maintenance costs that add a drop to the bucket compared to the cost of shooting them.
What you are saying has already failed the test of time, because it is common for competitive shooters to shoot a gun several thousand rounds a year, for several years, with almost non-existent maintenance costs. This is, and has been, happening at the local level for years. 9mm, 40, 45, 9mm major, 38 super. There are no modern semi-auto handguns out there that have maintenance costs that add a drop to the bucket compared to the cost of shooting them.
What?
The idea that a projectile with 23% greater frontal area and a similar increase in mass and momentum (180 to 147 or 155 to 124) and a 15-20% edge in kinetic energy has ZERO additional wounding/incapacitation power strikes me as ... improbable.
A more modest claim might be that, for most users, the extra recoil, weight, and capacity loss is not worth the marginal terminal performance benefits. That seems reasonable to me, and possibly right. The idea that there's NO difference in terminal performance of .40 and 9mm seems like a vast overstatement.
A more modest claim might be that, for most users, the extra recoil, weight, and capacity loss is not worth the marginal terminal performance benefits. That seems reasonable to me, and possibly right. The idea that there's NO difference in terminal performance of .40 and 9mm seems like a vast overstatement.
The 9mm projectile has a longer ogive to expand from. .40 may be able to expand more than it does if the petal divisions went further down the side of the bullet, but they are interrupted early by the cannelure. If the .40 case was shorter the cannelure would be lower and the ogive longer.
Regardless of the specific reasons, current .40 loads don't appear to wound that much more than 9mm loads.
Wreck-n-Crew
Member
No, most 10mm guys pick their brass up and if they don't, they don't shoot it often! right?
Expensive ammo limits many people's practice? 10mm gun sales up, brass sightings down...hmmm...lolAll kidding aside 9mm is much cheaper than 40,45,.357sig, 10mm etc. For people that don't reload and not made of money I would appear that they often find the 9mm to be adequate for defense, recoil friendly, better capacity, cheaper to shoot, more popular, and more available. I would say for those reasons or any combination thereof give them more reason to choose a 9mm over another popular/semi popular caliber.
Most popular semiauto pistol caliber Carbine? 9mm. I with they had more in 10mm! I would love a 10mm Carbine. Not for any real reason. Just would be cool to have something else to shoot my 10mm ammo in! Okay I admit..i drifted a little...sorry.
NWcityguy2
Member
That's weird, because when I searched google for the same picture, I see someone else claiming it is a Glock 17 frame.
I mean, I already know better. One picture of a damaged gun, without context, doesn't prove a thing with a brand as established as Glock. Something went wrong with this individual gun, 9mm no less, but that is far from showing that any model of glock has problems with frame battering.
I mean, I already know better. One picture of a damaged gun, without context, doesn't prove a thing with a brand as established as Glock. Something went wrong with this individual gun, 9mm no less, but that is far from showing that any model of glock has problems with frame battering.
Attachments
Let me get this straight. Your position is that .40 caliber projectiles cannot be engineered to expand to a greater total diameter and frontal area than 9mm projectiles. Is that what you're saying?
No.
I'm saying that they currently aren't being engineered to expand enough to matter, and that the difficulty of a short ogive may be one reason for that.
If you believe the FBI is lying to taxpayers, just say so.
You asked for an example, I provided one. I'm sure anything I could find along these lines would be met with the same denials, so I'm not going to waste my time. I already went through this 14 years ago when I demonstrated that kabooms were related to Glocks firing out of battery. You can't convince the faithful of anything that would go against that faith.
NWcityguy2
Member
You didn't provide me with an example, you misused a photo that didn't show what you hoped to portray. And now you are trying to change the subject to the FBI's credibility, Glock kabooms, and faith. No one is asking you about what you went through 14 years ago.
And this is the real crux of it. The 9mm-is-supreme crowd have picked an amount they think is "enough," which just happens to be what modern 9mm will do... and say any more is either irrelevant, or isn't more enough to matter. That's the source of my incredulity. If total wound volume is the key metric, then greater frontal area is better. It may not be a LOT better, and, for some/many users, it may not be enough to offset other considerations. I've already said that's a perfectly reasonable position. But that's NOT the same thing as saying that they are EXACTLY the same, round-for-round, in terms of terminal effect. That's just not credible.
I really have nothing to prove, especially to you. That photo was attached to information about .40 Glock wear I found. If you have information to prove it is a 9mm frame, please post that. If you have information that it is from a failure, post that information.
You asked a question and I attempted to answer it. In return you've been rude and utterly in character with the kind of people I constantly run into when something so emotional as a caliber is on the line.
It isn't a "crowd". The scientists that do the ballistic tests don't have an emotional connection to calibers, unlike the people posting in this thread. They simply report the relative differences in wound volume, and they just aren't significant enough.
You are correct that wound volume is the key metric, just mistaken in thinking that frontal area tells the whole story.
Gtscotty
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 3,635
http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#results
It's pretty clear that expanded .40's will generally have a larger expanded diameter than 9mm of similar construction. Given the larger expanded frontal area, there will be a larger cylinder of crushed tissue. As ATLDave stated, what the decision maker does with that information at that point will be somewhat subjective, a balancing of tradeoffs. The tradeoffs that the FBI elected to make aren't necessarily the same that any other group or individual should elect to make. The FBI's moves are a data point, but don't necessarily close the case on the subject.
It's pretty clear that expanded .40's will generally have a larger expanded diameter than 9mm of similar construction. Given the larger expanded frontal area, there will be a larger cylinder of crushed tissue. As ATLDave stated, what the decision maker does with that information at that point will be somewhat subjective, a balancing of tradeoffs. The tradeoffs that the FBI elected to make aren't necessarily the same that any other group or individual should elect to make. The FBI's moves are a data point, but don't necessarily close the case on the subject.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
